[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 84 (Thursday, April 30, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24146-24172]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08319]
[[Page 24145]]
Vol. 85
Thursday,
No. 84
April 30, 2020
Part III
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 431
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Small
Electric Motors; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 84 / Thursday, April 30, 2020 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 24146]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2019-BT-STD-0008]
RIN 1904-AD29
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Small Electric Motors
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notification of proposed determination and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended,
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including small
electric motors. EPCA also requires the Secretary of Energy to
periodically determine whether more-stringent, amended standards would
be technologically feasible and cost effective, and would result in
significant conservation of energy. In this document, DOE has
tentatively determined that more stringent small electric motors
standards would not be cost effective, and, thus, is not proposing to
amend its energy conservation standards for this equipment. DOE
requests comment on this proposed determination and associated analyses
and results.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
notification of proposed determination before, but no later than June
29, 2020. See section VII, ``Public Participation,'' for details.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2019-BT-
STD-0008, by any of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
(2) Email: [email protected]. Include the
docket number EERE-2019-BT-STD-0008 in the subject line of the message.
(3) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
(4) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC, 20024. Telephone: (202)
586-6636. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimilies (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the
rulemaking process, see section VII of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the http://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: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0008. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section VII for information on how to submit
comments through http://www.regulations.gov.
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. Email: [email protected].
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to review the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
II. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemakings for Small Electric Motors
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
E. Cost Effectiveness
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Scope of Coverage
2. Equipment Classes
3. Technology Options for Efficiency Improvement
B. Screening Analysis
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Summary of Significant Data Sources
2. Representative Equipment Classes
3. Engineering Analysis Methodology
4. Cost
5. Scaling Relationships
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
1. Consumer Sample
2. Motor Input Power
3. Annual Operating Hours
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. Motor Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
G. Other Comments Received
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Energy Savings
B. Cost Effectiveness
C. Proposed Determination
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866
B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
M. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
VII. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
[[Page 24147]]
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
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), which includes
small electric motors, the subject of this notification of proposed
determination (``NOPD'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018,
Public Law 115-270 (October 23, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is issuing this NOPD pursuant to EPCA's requirement that not
later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or
amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notification of
determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended,
or a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') including new proposed
energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
For this proposed determination, DOE analyzed the small electric
motors currently subject to the standards found at title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 431. See 10 CFR 431.446. Of these
motors, DOE first analyzed the technological feasibility of more
efficient small electric motors. For currently available small electric
motors with efficiencies exceeding the levels of the current energy
conservation standards, DOE preliminarily determined that more
stringent standards would be technologically feasible. For these small
electric motors, DOE evaluated whether more stringent standards would
also be cost effective by conducting preliminary life-cycle cost
(``LCC'') and payback period (``PBP'') analyses.
Based on these analyses, as summarized in section V of this
document, DOE has preliminarily determined that more stringent energy
conservation standards would not be cost effective. Therefore, DOE has
tentatively determined that the current standards for small electric
motors do not need to be amended.
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed determination, as well as some of the relevant
historical background related to the establishment of standards for
small electric motors.
A. Authority and Background
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
C of EPCA includes the small electric motors that are the subject of
this proposed determination. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G)) As discussed in
the following paragraphs, EPCA directed DOE to establish test
procedures and prescribe energy conservation standards for small
electric motors. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b))
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of the Act specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures
(42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6316).
EPCA directed DOE to establish a test procedure for those small
electric motors for which DOE determined that energy conservation
standards would (1) be technologically feasible and economically
justified and (2) result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C.
6317(b)(1)) 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)). The DOE test procedures for small electric motors
appear at 10 CFR part 431, subpart X.
EPCA further directed DOE to prescribe energy conservation
standards for those small electric motors for which test procedures
were established. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(2)) Additionally, EPCA prescribed
that any such standards shall not apply to any small electric motor
which is a component of a covered product under 42 U.S.C. 6292(a) or
covered equipment under 42 U.S.C. 6311 of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3))
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (See
42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)).
EPCA requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of
any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE evaluate the
energy conservation standards for each type of covered equipment,
including those at issue here, and publish either a notification of
determination that the standards do not need to be amended, or a NOPR
that includes new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to
a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)). EPCA further provides that, not later than 3 years after
the issuance of a final determination not to amend standards, DOE must
make a new determination not to amend the standards or issue a NOPR
including new proposed energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) DOE must make the analysis on which a
determination is based publicly available and provide an opportunity
for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2))
In making a determination that the standards do not need to be
amended, DOE must evaluate under the criteria of 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)
whether amended standards (1) will result in significant conservation
of energy, (2) are technologically feasible, and (3) are cost effective
as described under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a);
42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295 (n)(2)) Under 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an evaluation of cost effectiveness requires DOE
to consider 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 products which are likely to result from the
imposition of the standard.
DOE is publishing this document in accordance with its authority
under EPCA, and in satisfaction of its statutory requirement under
EPCA.
1. Current Standards
The current energy conservation standards for small electric motors
are located in title 10 CFR 431.446, and are presented in Table II-1
and Table II-2.
[[Page 24148]]
Table II-1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Polyphase Small Electric Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average full load efficiency
-----------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent Open motors (number of poles)
-----------------------------------------------
6 4 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.25/0.18....................................................... 67.5 69.5 65.6
0.33/0.25....................................................... 71.4 73.4 69.5
0.5/0.37........................................................ 75.3 78.2 73.4
0.75/0.55....................................................... 81.7 81.1 76.8
1/0.75.......................................................... 82.5 83.5 77.0
1.5/1.1......................................................... 83.8 86.5 84.0
2/1.5........................................................... N/A 86.5 85.5
3/2.2........................................................... N/A 86.9 85.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II-2--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Capacitor-Start Induction-Run and Capacitor-Start
Capacitor-Run Small Electric Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average full load efficiency
-----------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent Open motors (number of poles)
-----------------------------------------------
6 4 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.25/0.18....................................................... 62.2 68.5 66.6
0.33/0.25....................................................... 66.6 72.4 70.5
0.5/0.37........................................................ 76.2 76.2 72.4
0.75/0.55....................................................... 80.2 81.8 76.2
1/0.75.......................................................... 81.1 82.6 80.4
1.5/1.1......................................................... N/A 83.8 81.5
2/1.5........................................................... N/A 84.5 82.9
3/2.2........................................................... N/A N/A 84.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. History of Standards Rulemakings for Small Electric Motors
In 2006, DOE determined that energy conservation standards for
certain single-phase, capacitor-start, induction-run, small electric
motors are technologically feasible and economically justified, and
would result in significant energy savings. 71 FR 38799 (July 10,
2006). Later, in 2010, DOE issued a final rule (the ``March 2010 Final
Rule'') establishing energy conservation standards for small electric
motors manufactured starting on March 9, 2015.\3\ 75 FR 10874 (March 9,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In a technical correction, DOE revised the compliance date
for energy conservation standards to March 9, 2015, for each small
electric motor manufactured (alone or as a component of another
piece of non-covered equipment), or March 9, 2017, in the case of a
small electric motor which requires listing or certification by a
nationally recognized safety testing laboratory. 75 FR 17036 (April
5, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2019, DOE published a request for information (``April
2019 ECS RFI'') to solicit input and data from interested parties to
aid in the development of the technical analyses for the determination
of whether new and/or amended standards for small electric motors are
warranted. 84 FR 14027 (April 9, 2019). The comment period was re-
opened in response to a request from an interested party, see NEMA, No.
4 at p. 1, until June 7, 2019. See 84 FR 25203 (May 31, 2019).
DOE received a number of comments from interested parties in
response to the April 2019 ECS RFI.\4\ The commenters that provided
relevant comments are listed in Table II-3.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The comments received in response to the April 2019 ECS RFI
are included in the docket for this action and can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0008.
\5\ DOE received a comment unrelated to small electric motors
(i.e., Sims, No. 2), which was not addressed.
Table II-3--April 2019 ECS RFI Written Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this
Commenter/organization(s) NOPD Organization type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Motors and Mechanical Inc... ABB............... Manufacturer.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and AHRI and AHAM..... Trade
Refrigeration Institute Associations.
(``AHRI'') and Association of
Home Appliance Manufacturers
(``AHAM'').
Appliance Standards Awareness ASAP, et al....... Advocacy Groups
Project (``ASAP''), Alliance to and State
Save Energy, American Council Governmental
for an Energy-Efficient Agency.
Economy, the California Energy
Commission, the Natural
Resources Defense Council, and
Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance.
Belanger, Zach.................. Belanger.......... Individual.
California Investor-Owned CA IOUs........... Utilities.
Utilities (``CA IOUs'')--
Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, San Diego Gas and
Electric, and Southern
California Edison.
Kasimos, Anastasia.............. Kasimos........... Individual.
Lennox International Inc........ Lennox............ Manufacturer.
Lenze Americas.................. Lenze Americas.... Manufacturer.
[[Page 24149]]
National Electrical NEMA.............. Trade Association.
Manufacturers Association
(``NEMA'').
The Institute for Policy NYU............... Non-Governmental
Integrity at New York Organization.
University (``NYU'') School of
Law.
Palubin, Erin................... Palubin........... Individual.
Sierra Club & Earthjustice...... Sierra Club & Advocacy Groups.
Earthjustice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE also received a number of comments related to certification,
compliance and enforcement issues, but these comments fell outside the
scope of this rulemaking and are not addressed in this document. The
remaining relevant comments and DOE's responses are provided in the
appropriate sections of this document.
III. General Discussion
A. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes
This document covers equipment meeting the definition of ``small
electric motor,'' as codified in 10 CFR 431.442. ``Small electric
motor'' means a ``NEMA general purpose alternating current single-speed
induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number series in accordance
with NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987, including IEC metric
equivalent motors.'' 10 CFR 431.442.\6\ The scope of coverage for these
motors is discussed in further detail in section IV.A.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The term ``IEC'' refers to the International
Electrotechnical Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.) The equipment classes for this proposed
determination are discussed further in section IV.A.2.
B. Test Procedure
As noted, EPCA directed DOE to establish a test procedure for those
small electric motors for which DOE determined that energy conservation
standards would (1) be technologically feasible and economically
justified and (2) result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C.
6317(b)(1)) In a final rule published on July 7, 2009, DOE adopted test
procedures for small electric motors. 74 FR 32059.
Subsequently, DOE updated the test procedures for small electric
motors on May 4, 2012 (the ``May 2012 test procedure final rule''). 77
FR 26608. The existing test procedures for small electric motors
incorporate certain industry standards from the Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers (``IEEE'') and Canadian Standards Association
(``CSA''), as listed in Table III-1.
Table III-1--Industry Standards Currently Incorporated by Reference for
Small Electric Motors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment description Industry test procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-phase small electric motors........... IEEE 114-2010.
CSA C747-09.
Polyphase small electric motors less than or IEEE 112-2004 Test Method
equal to 1 horsepower. A.
CSA C747-09.
Polyphase small electric motors greater than IEEE 112-2004 Test Method
1 horsepower. B.
CSA C390-10.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2017, DOE solicited the public for information pertaining to the
test procedures for small electric motors and electric motors. 82 FR
35468 (July 31, 2017) (the ``July 2017 test procedure RFI''). In the
July 2017 test procedure RFI, DOE sought public comments, data, and
information on all aspects of, and any issues or problems with, the
existing DOE test procedure for small electric motors, including on any
needed updates or revisions. DOE also discussed electric motor
categories (as defined at 10 CFR 431.12) that may be considered in a
future DOE test procedure. 82 FR 35470-35474.
In April 2019, DOE proposed amending its test procedure for small
electric motors. 84 FR 17004 (April 23, 2019). In that NOPR, DOE
proposed harmonizing its procedure with industry practice by
incorporating a new industry standard that manufacturers would be
permitted to use in addition to the three industry standards currently
incorporated by reference as options for use when testing small
electric motor efficiency. 84 FR 17013-17014. In addition, DOE proposed
to adopt industry provisions related to the test conditions to ensure
the comparability of test results for small electric motors. 84 FR
17014-17018. DOE is currently evaluating the comments received on these
proposals.
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
In evaluating potential amendments to energy conservation
standards, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information
gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that
could improve the efficiency of the product or equipment at issue. 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
[[Page 24150]]
commercially available equipment or in working prototypes to be
technologically feasible. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A,
section 4(a)(4)(i).
After DOE has determined that particular 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 equipment utility or availability; and (3) adverse impacts
on health or safety. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A,
section 4(a)(4)(ii)-(iv).
Additionally, it is DOE policy not to include in its analysis any
proprietary technology that is a unique pathway to achieving a certain
efficiency level. Section IV.B of this proposed determination discusses
the results of the screening analysis for small electric motors,
particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and
those that are the basis for the proposed determination. In this NOPD,
based on its review of the market and comments received in response to
the April 2019 ECS RFI, DOE has tentatively determined that no
significant technical advancements in induction motor technology have
been made since publication of the March 2010 Final Rule.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When DOE evaluates the potential for new or amended standards, DOE
must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum
reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such
equipment. Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the
maximum technologically feasible (``max tech'') improvements in energy
efficiency for small electric motors. DOE defines a max-tech efficiency
level to represent the theoretical maximum possible efficiency if all
available design options are incorporated in a model. In applying these
design options, DOE would only include those that are compatible with
each other such that when combined, they would represent the
theoretical maximum possible efficiency. In many cases, the max-tech
efficiency level is not commercially available because it is not
economically feasible. The max-tech levels that DOE has determined are
described in section IV.C of this proposed determination.
D. Energy Savings
In determining whether to amend the current energy conservation
standards for small electric motors, DOE must assess whether amended
standards will result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A). See also 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2).) For
each considered efficiency level, DOE estimated the lifetime energy
savings for small electric motors purchased in the expected compliance
year for potential standards. See section IV.E for more details for the
energy use analysis.
The term ``significant'' is not defined in EPCA. DOE notes that the
meaning of this term is currently under consideration. See 84 FR 3910,
3922 (Feb. 13, 2019). DOE is also considering whether to apply a two-
pronged threshold approach for determining whether significant energy
savings is present in a given standards rulemaking scenario. See id. at
84 FR 3921-3925. In the present case, when applying the criteria of 42
U.S.C. 6295(n)(2) to determine whether to amend the current standards,
DOE analyzed the available data and has tentatively determined that
amended standards would not be cost-effective as required under EPCA.
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. (n)(2)(C))
See also sections IV.F and V.B (discussing in greater detail DOE's
analysis of the available data in reaching this tentative
determination). Based on available data, DOE's analysis indicates that
the LCC of a small electric motor would increase with more stringent
standards and the payback period to recoup the relevant costs from
investing in more stringent standards would, in most cases, likely
exceed the expected lifetimes of the different classes of small
electric motors DOE examined in its analysis--pointing to the inability
of potential standards to satisfy the cost-effectiveness requirement
under EPCA. Consequently, because DOE's analysis indicates that the
three mandatory prerequisites that need to be satisfied to permit DOE
to move forward with a determination to amend its current standards
cannot be met, DOE did not separately determine whether the potential
energy savings would be significant for purposes of the statutory test
that applies. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2) (requiring that amended
standards must result in significant conservation energy, be
technologically feasible, and be cost-effective as provided in 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), DOE must consider
whether ``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 products which are likely to
result from the imposition of the standard.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Cost Effectiveness
EPCA requires DOE to consider the cost effectiveness of amended
standards in the context of the savings in operating costs throughout
the estimated average life of the covered equipment class compared to
any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or
maintenance expenses of, the covered equipment that are likely to
result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A))
In considering cost effectiveness, DOE conducted LCC and PBP
analyses. The LCC is the sum of the initial price of equipment
(including its installation) and the operating expense (including
energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the
lifetime of the equipment. The LCC analysis requires a variety of
inputs, such as equipment prices, equipment energy consumption, energy
prices, maintenance and repair costs, equipment lifetime, and discount
rates appropriate for consumers. 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.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of more-efficient equipment 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 analyses, DOE assumes that consumers would
purchase the covered equipment in the first year of compliance with any
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 amended standards. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis
is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this proposed
determination.
DOE's LCC and PBP analyses indicate that the LCC would increase
with more stringent standards and that the payback period to recoup the
relevant costs from investing in more stringent standards would, in
most cases, likely exceed the expected lifetimes of the different
classes of small electric motors DOE examined in its analysis.\8\
Therefore,
[[Page 24151]]
DOE has tentatively determined that amended standards would not be
cost-effective as required under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(C)) See also sections IV.F and
V.B (discussing in greater detail DOE's analysis of the available data
in reaching this tentative determination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For polyphase small electric motors, the PBP exceeded the
lifetime of the unit at all ELs considered. For CSCR small electric
motors, the PBP at EL 1 and EL 2 was comparable to and/or lower than
the lifetime of the unit (PBP of 6.7; 7.0; 5.9; and 6.4 years
compared to an average lifetime of 6.6 years). For all equipment
classes and at all ELs considered, the LCC increased with more
stringent standards. (See results in section V.B and chapter 8 of
the NOPD TSD for more details)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
This section addresses the analyses DOE performed for this proposed
determination regarding small electric motors. Separate subsections
address each component of DOE's analyses and responses to related
comments.
Lennox commented that DOE should carefully consider and exercise
caution to ensure that more stringent standards for small electric
motors provide significant energy savings and are economically
justified. (Lennox, No. 14 at p. 2) An individual commenter stated that
small electric motors energy conservation standards should be
considered a priority. (Kasimos, No. 9 at p. 1)
As discussed previously, EPCA requires that, not later than 6 years
after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a
standard, DOE evaluate the energy conservation standards for each type
of covered equipment, including those at issue here, and publish either
a notification of determination that the standards do not need to be
amended, or a NOPR that includes new proposed energy conservation
standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)). In making a determination that the
standards do not need to be amended, DOE must evaluate whether amended
standards (1) will result in significant conservation of energy, (2)
are technologically feasible, and (3) are cost effective as described
under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) The following discussion presents
DOE's evaluation and tentative determination as required under EPCA.
A. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE has conducted a preliminary market and technology assessment in
support of a proposed determination for small electric motors. The goal
of the market assessment is to develop a qualitative and quantitative
characterization of the small electric motors industry. This assessment
characterizes the market structure based on publicly available
information as well as data supplied by manufacturers and other
interested parties. The goal of the technology assessment is to develop
a list of technology options that manufacturers can use to improve the
efficiency of small electric motors.
For this proposed determination, DOE evaluated the small electric
motors currently subject to standards at 10 CFR 431.446. The following
section reviews the scope of coverage and the equipment classes used in
the development of the current energy conservation standards for small
electric motors and this proposed determination.
1. Scope of Coverage
By statute, a ``small electric motor'' is ``a NEMA general purpose
alternating-current single-speed induction motor, built in a two-digit
frame number series in accordance with NEMA Standards Publication MG 1-
1987.'' (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G)) DOE later clarified by regulation that
this definition also includes IEC metric equivalent motors.'' See 10
CFR 431.442. Equipment meeting this definition are within DOE's scope
of coverage but not all may be subject to DOE's current standards.
DOE's standards regulate the energy efficiency of those small
electric motors that fall within three topologies (i.e., arrangements
of component parts): Capacitor-start induction-run (``CSIR''),
capacitor-start capacitor-run (``CSCR''), and polyphase motors. See 10
CFR 431.446. EPCA prescribes that standards for small electric motors
do not apply to any small electric motor which is a component of a
covered product or covered equipment under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3))
DOE's current energy conservation standards only apply to small
electric motors manufactured alone or as a component of another piece
of non-covered equipment. 10 CFR 431.446(a).
Subpart X of 10 CFR part 431 includes energy conservation standards
and test procedures for the small electric motors listed in Table IV-1.
DOE is not proposing any changes to the scope of small electric motors
subject to energy conservation standards (i.e., ``scope of
applicability'').
Table IV-1--Small Electric Motors Currently Subject to Energy
Conservation Standards
[Manufactured alone or as a component of another piece of non-covered
equipment]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor output
Motor topology Pole configuration power
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-phase
CSIR..................... 2,4,6 0.25-3 hp
(0.18-2.2 kW) *
CSCR..................... 2,4,6 0.25-3 hp
(0.18-2.2 kW)
Polyphase.................... 2,4,6 0.25-3 hp
(0.18-2.2 kW)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain motor categories are not currently subject to standards. These
include:
Polyphase, 6-pole, 2 and 3 hp motors;
CSCR and CSIR, 6-pole, 1.5, 2, and 3 hp motors;
CSCR and CSIR, 4-pole, 3 hp motors.
* The values in parentheses are the equivalent metric ratings.
In response to the April 2019 ECS RFI, DOE received a number of
comments relevant to the scope of applicability of energy conservation
standards for small electric motors. Lennox, AHRI and AHAM supported
maintaining the existing standards scope for small electric motors.
(Lennox, No. 14 at p. 1; AHRI and AHAM, No. 12 at p. 2) AHRI and AHAM
also specifically opposed testing and regulating special and definite
purpose motors. They argued that regulating special and definite
purpose motors could: (1) Increase the cost of the motor
[[Page 24152]]
and of the finished product without necessarily improving its
performance and (2) significantly increase burden on original equipment
manufacturers (``OEMs'') if all manufacturers of products using special
and definite purpose motors were required to certify compliance with
standards for component parts. (AHRI and AHAM, No. 12 at p. 2-3) Lenze
Americas added that the scope of applicability for small electric motor
standards should not include non-continuous duty motors and motors that
are combined with high-efficiency gears. (Lenze Americas, No. 4 at p.
1)
As previously stated in section III.A, this document pertains only
to equipment meeting the definition of small electric motor, as
codified in 10 CFR 431.442, which includes general purpose motors, but
does not include special purpose and definite purpose motors because
they do not meet the definition of general purpose motors.\9\ In
addition, DOE notes that motors with non-continuous duty rating and
integral gears are not included in the category of NEMA general purpose
single-speed induction motor \10\ and are therefore not subject to the
energy conservation standards prescribed at 10 CFR 431.446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(C) (defining a definite purpose motor
as a motor ``designed in standard ratings with standard operating
characteristics or standard mechanical construction for use under
service conditions other than usual or for use on a particular type
of application and which cannot be used in most general purpose
application'') and 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(D) (defining a special purpose
motor as ``a motor, other than a general purpose motor or definite
purpose motor, which has special operating characteristics or
special mechanical construction, or both, designed for a particular
application'').
\10\ In response to questions from NEMA and various motor
manufacturers, DOE issued a guidance document that identifies some
key design elements that manufacturers should consider when
determining whether a given individual motor meets the small
electric motor definition and is subject to the energy conservation
standards promulgated for small electric motors. See https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047-0082.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Club & Earthjustice commented that DOE did not explain why
it is not considering standards for motors other than currently
regulated small electric motors, despite considering test procedures
for motors that the market considers ``small'' in the July 2017 test
procedure RFI. (Sierra Club & Earthjustice, No. 13 at p. 1) In
addition, ASAP, et al. suggested that DOE carefully consider broadening
the scope to address a wide range of motors that the market considers
``small''. (ASAP, et al., No. 16 at p. 2) In its filing, the CA IOUs
argued that DOE should consider establishing standards for additional
categories of motors considered small by customers and the industry,
including special- and definite-purpose motors, permanent split
capacitor motors, and split phase induction motors. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at
pp. 2-3)
In the July 2017 test procedure RFI, DOE indicated that it may
consider setting test procedures for electric motors that are
considered ``small'' by customers and the electric motors industry, but
that are not currently subject to the small electric motor test
procedure. 82 FR 35470. DOE specified that the motors under
consideration in that test procedure RFI may have similarities to
motors that are currently regulated as small electric motors (such as
horsepower) and may be used in similar applications, but that despite
these similarities, DOE is still determining whether these motors would
be regulated as small electric motor or as electric motors under DOE
regulations. Id. As such, this proposed determination is based on the
current scope of the small electric motor definition and not on any
hypothetical expanded scope that DOE may consider in the future.
As previously noted, the term ``small electric motor'' has a
specific meaning under EPCA. See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G) and 10 CFR
431.442. Special purpose and definite purpose motors are not general
purpose motors and therefore are not covered under the statutory or
regulatory definition of ``small electric motor'' and are not ``small
electric motors'' under DOE's statutory or regulatory framework.
Further, single-speed induction motors, as delineated and described
in MG1-1987, fall into five categories: Split-phase, shaded-pole,
capacitor-start (both CSIR and CSCR), permanent-split capacitor
(``PSC''), and polyphase. Of these five motor categories, DOE
determined in the March 2010 Final Rule that only CSIR, CSCR, and
polyphase motors were able to meet the relevant performance
requirements in NEMA MG1 and fell within the general purpose
alternating current motor category, as shown by the listings found in
manufacturers' catalogs. 75 FR 10882. As stated previously, DOE is not
proposing any changes to the scope of small electric motors subject to
energy conservation standards. Therefore, for this determination, DOE
only considered the currently regulated small electric motors subject
to energy conservation standards.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Moreover, even if the facts supported the expansion of the
current scope for small electric motors, DOE notes that it would
first need to consider the potential test methods to apply when
measuring the efficiency of a motor that is not in the scope of the
current DOE test procedure. Nothing DOE has reviewed--or that
commenters have submitted--have suggested that compatibility exists
between motors that fall outside of the already prescribed small
electric motor scope set by Congress and the definition of small
electric motor. Comments related to the scope of applicability of
the DOE test procedure for small electric motors were discussed as
part of DOE's test procedure NOPR. 84 FR 17004, 17009 (April 23,
2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA, AHRI and AHAM, and Lennox commented that DOE should apply a
finished-product or system level approach to energy efficiency
regulations. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 18; AHRI and AHAM, No. 12 at pp. 2-3;
Lennox, No. 14 at p. 2). NEMA, AHRI, and AHAM commented that there are
greater energy savings opportunities when regulating at the finished-
product level compared to component level efficiency improvements of
small electric motors. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 3; AHRI and AHAM, No. 12 at
p. 3) While acknowledging that such considerations are outside the
scope of a small electric motors rulemaking, NEMA commented that DOE
should focus on system level efficiency for equipment where advanced
technology motors can be applied. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 18) ABB suggested
that regulating systems such as power pumps, compressors, and conveyors
would provide greater energy savings than requiring incremental
increases in small electric motor efficiency. (ABB, No. 15 at p. 1)
Lennox stated that regulating components in covered products and
covered equipment undermines innovation in developing more efficient
finished-product systems, inhibits OEM flexibility to design better
products at lower prices, and adds significant burden. (Lennox, No. 15
at p. 2)
EPCA prescribes that energy conservation standards for small
electric motors do not apply to any small electric motor that is a
component of a covered product or covered equipment under EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)) Small electric motors can also be incorporated in
non-covered products and equipment, and in these scenarios, DOE would
be unable to regulate--without first satisfying the statutory
requirements for setting regulatory coverage over these non-covered
products and equipment--the final product/equipment into which these
motors would fit.
The CA IOUs commented that DOE should consider motors with
integrated controls to capture energy savings from part-load operation.
They noted that the IEC 61800-9 Power Driven Systems Standard describes
how to classify and test motors with controls and motors that are
considered variable-speed systems. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 4) DOE
[[Page 24153]]
notes that the statutory definition of small electric motors (42 U.S.C.
6311(13)(G)), which is reflected in the regulatory definition at 10 CFR
431.442, is limited to motors that are single-speed. Consequently,
motors with integrated controls or variable-speed configurations are
beyond the statutory (and regulatory) definition of small electric
motors.
2. 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.) For the analysis in this proposed determination, DOE
considered the 62 equipment classes that it already regulates based on
motor category, horsepower rating, and number of poles. This section
reviews the motor characteristics used to delineate equipment classes
for small electric motors under the current energy conservation
standards and this proposed determination.
The first characteristic used to establish equipment classes is
phase count. Polyphase and single-phase equipment classes are used to
differentiate motors based on the fundamental differences in how the
two types of motors operate. 10 CFR 431.446(a). For a rotor to move,
the stator (i.e., the stationary part of the motor) must produce a
rotating magnetic field. To operate on single-phase alternating current
(``AC'') power, the single-phase motor uses an auxiliary winding (or
start winding) with current and voltage out of phase with the original
(main) winding to produce a net rotating magnetic field. To operate on
three-phase power, the polyphase motor uses windings arranged such that
when supplied by three-phase alternating current, a rotating magnetic
field is produced. In short, three-phase power in a polyphase motor
naturally produces rotation, whereas a single-phase motor requires the
auxiliary winding to ``engineer'' the conditions for rotation. Due to
these differences, polyphase motors are inherently more efficient but
require use of a three-phase power source. Based on the differences in
efficiency and consumer utility, DOE separated equipment classes based
on phase count in the March 2010 Final Rule. 75 FR 10886. This proposed
determination maintains this approach.
In addition to differentiating equipment classes by phase count,
equipment classes are differentiated by the topology of single-phase
motors. 10 CFR 431.446(a). DOE identified two topologies of single-
phase motors meeting the statutory definition of small electric motors:
CSIR and CSCR. CSIR and CSCR motors both utilize a capacitor (``start-
capacitor'') and two windings (``start-winding'' and ``run-winding'').
The difference between the two motors occurs when reaching operating
speed; while CSIR motors run on the run-winding alone with no
capacitor, CSCR motors run using an additional ``run-capacitor'' and
both windings. While this additional capacitor can boost CSCR motor
efficiency to levels higher than those exhibited by CSIR motor designs,
it usually constitutes dimensional changes due to the need to mount the
run-capacitor externally on the motor housing. This additional spatial
requirement could potentially limit the use of CSCR motors in space-
constrained applications, and would cause motor topology to directly
impact consumer utility. Given that motor topology can affect motor
performance and consumer utility, DOE differentiated single-phase
equipment classes by topology in the March 2010 Final Rule. 75 FR
10886. DOE maintains this approach in this proposed determination.
The current energy conservation standards also differentiate
classes based on the number of poles in a motor. 10 CFR 431.446(a). The
number of poles in an induction motor determines the synchronous speed
(i.e., revolutions per minute). There is an inverse relationship
between the number of poles and speed: As a motor design increases from
two to eight poles, the synchronous speed drops from 3,600 to 900
revolutions per minute. The desired synchronous speed varies by end use
application, making the number of poles in a motor a factor directly
impacting consumer utility. By examining the efficiency ratings for 1-
200 horsepower polyphase electric motors (10 CFR 431.25),\12\ motors
meeting the NEMA Premium Motor standard, and manufacturer catalogs, DOE
observed that full-load efficiency percentages tend to decrease with
the number of poles. Therefore, DOE determined that the number of poles
has a direct impact on the motor's performance and consumer utility,
and consequently, the number of poles is a further means of
differentiating among equipment classes. 75 FR 10886. DOE maintains
this approach in this proposed determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ While there is no overlap between the scope of
applicability for electric motor standards at 10 CFR 431.25 and
small electric motors standards at 10 CFR 431.446, the pole-
efficiency relationships observed in the electric motor standards
from 1 to 3 horsepower can be considered when determining
appropriate pole-efficiency relationships for small electric motors
in this horsepower range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, DOE employs motor horsepower as an equipment class setting
factor under the current energy conservation standards. 10 CFR
431.446(a). Average 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 by evaluating manufacturers' catalog data, the
efficiency ratings of the established small electric motor energy
conservation standards (10 CFR 431.446), and the efficiency
requirements of the NEMA Premium Motor program. 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. Horsepower is a critical
performance attribute of a small electric motor, and since horsepower
has a direct relationship with average full load efficiency and
consumer utility, DOE used this element as a criterion for
distinguishing among equipment classes in the March 2010 Final Rule. 75
FR 10886. DOE maintains this approach in this proposed determination.
DOE did not identify any other performance-related features
affecting consumer utility or efficiency applying to the motors falling
within the scope of this proposed determination. Table IV-2 summarizes
the structure of the equipment classes identified for this proposed
determination and as designated by the current standards at 10 CFR
431.446.
[[Page 24154]]
Table IV-2--Summary of Small Electric Motor Equipment Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor topology Pole configuration Motor output power hp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-phase
CSIR...................................................... 2,4,6 0.25-3
CSCR...................................................... 2,4,6 0.25-3
Polyphase..................................................... 2,4,6 0.25-3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE received a number of comments on the April 2019 ECS RFI
regarding equipment classes. The CA IOUs, Sierra Club & Earthjustice,
and ASAP, et al. supported merging the CSIR and CSCR equipment classes
and noted that the market share estimates reported in the April 2019
ECS RFI \13\ indicated that CSIR motors no longer appear available in
the market. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 3; Sierra Club & Earthjustice, No.
13 at p. 1; ASAP, et al., No. 16 at p. 4) The Sierra Club &
Earthjustice commented that the market indicates that the initial
concern regarding differences in consumer utility for space-constrained
applications with respect to CSIR and CSCR small electric motors was
not well-founded. (Sierra Club & Earthjustice, No. 13 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Note: The CA IOU comments referenced the ``2017 RFI'' but
points to tables and discussion that are in the 2019 SEM ECS RFI.
DOE is assuming that the intent was to refer to the April 2019 ECS
RFI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA commented that while the CSIR class is no longer a significant
equipment class as a result of the March 2010 Final Rule standards,
there is no reason to make changes to the CSIR and CSCR equipment
classes. NEMA commented that in order for CSIR motors to meet current
efficiency standards, significant design changes were made that
resulted in an increase in size and a subsequent reduction in utility
compared to CSCR motors. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 4) NEMA stated that the
vast majority of CSIR shipments have shifted to CSCR designs or to
special and definite purpose motors except for the lowest horsepower
ratings. It asserted that sales of small electric motors have decreased
as a result of the standards and that it would expect to see a similar
impact from amended standards (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 16) NEMA also
commented that there are no new design options for small electric
motors that would add consumer utility and, consequently, no need to
consider any new equipment classes. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 5)
As discussed previously, DOE has found that single-phase motor
topology (CSIR vs. CSCR) can impact motor performance and consumer
utility. Currently, DOE does not have conclusive evidence indicating
that CSIR small electric motors are no longer available in the market
and the statements offered by NEMA suggest the opposite is the case. In
the absence of compelling evidence suggesting otherwise, DOE is
maintaining both classes because of the differences in utility that
these different classes of small electric motors offer--i.e.
dimensional differences. Accordingly, DOE is not proposing to modify
the equipment classes from those that currently apply under 10 CFR
431.446(a). These equipment classes are summarized in Table IV-2.
The CA IOUs commented that the American Standard for Motors and
Generators ANSI/NEMA MG1 (``NEMA MG-1'') does not differentiate between
CSIR and CSCR motors, as they are considered by the motor industry to
be equivalent motor types. The CA IOUs also commented that DOE should
consider defining these terms. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 3) ASAP, et al.
commented that it would be helpful to provide regulatory definitions
for the three topologies covered by the current regulations. (ASAP, et
al., No. 16 at p. 4) NEMA commented that the current definitions for
the three topologies of small electric motors are sufficient. (NEMA,
No. 11 at p. 3) \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ While NEMA did not specify to which definitions it was
referring, DOE understands NEMA's comment to be referring to the
definitions in industry standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA MG-1, the industry consensus standard referenced in the
statutory and regulatory definition of ``small electric motor,''
differentiates between the CSIR and CSCR motor topologies.
Specifically, the definitions listed in section 1.20.3 of NEMA MG-1
2016 identifies CSIR and CSCR as two of the three distinct types of
capacitor motors (``capacitor-start, induction-run'' defined in section
1.20.3.3.1 of NEMA MG-1 2016; ``permanent-split'' \15\ defined in
section 1.20.3.3.2 of NEMA MG-1 2016; and ``capacitor-start, capacitor-
run'' defined in section 1.20.3.3.3 of NEMA MG-1 2016). Given the
definitions in the industry consensus standard, the terms ``capacitor-
start, induction-run,'' ``permanent-split capacitor,'' or ``capacitor-
start, capacitor-run'' are well understood and therefore DOE is not
proposing to provide explicit definitions of these motor topologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Permanent-split capacitor motors do not meet the
performance requirements for general purpose motors in NEMA MG 1 and
fall outside the scope of the current standards and test procedures
for small electric motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Technology Options for Efficiency Improvement
The purpose of the technology assessment is to develop a
preliminary list of technology options that could improve the
efficiency of small electric motors. For the motors covered in this
determination, energy efficiency losses are grouped into four main
categories: I\2\R losses,\16\ core losses, friction and windage losses,
and stray load losses. The technology options considered in this
section are categorized by these four categories of losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ I\2\R losses refer to conductor losses. In AC circuits,
these losses are computed as the square of the current (``I'')
multiplied by the conductor resistance (``R'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The small electric motors evaluated in this proposed determination
are all AC induction motors. 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.
Table IV-3 summarizes the technology options discussed in this
document. Details of each technology option can be found in chapter 3
of the technical support document (``TSD'') prepared as part of DOE's
evaluation, which is available in the docket at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0008.
[[Page 24155]]
Table IV-3--Summary of Technology Options for Improving Efficiency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of loss to reduce Technology option applied
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I\2\R Losses................. Use a copper die-cast rotor cage.
Reduce skew on conductor cage.
Increase cross-sectional area of rotor
conductor bars.
Increase end ring size.
Changing gauges of copper wire in stator.
Manipulate stator slot size.
Decrease radial air gap.
Change run-capacitor rating.
Core Losses.................. Improve grades of electrical steel.
Use thinner steel laminations.
Anneal steel laminations.
Add stack height (i.e., add electrical
steel laminations).
Use high-efficiency lamination materials.
Use plastic bonded iron powder.
Friction and Windage Losses.. Use better bearings and lubricant.
Install a more efficient cooling system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CA IOUs asserted (without providing any supporting data or
information) that DOE should consider the efficiency gains from
enhanced motor technologies considered in the March 2010 Final Rule
because the availability and affordability of these technologies has
increased since publication of the that final rule. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at
p. 3) In addition, ASAP, et al. commented that DOE should evaluate and
consider all of the technology options that DOE previously analyzed.
(ASAP, et al., No. 16 at p. 3) NEMA commented that no technical
advancements have been made in small electric motor technology since
the last rulemaking. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 3)
For this evaluation, DOE considered each of the technology options
analyzed in the previous rulemaking and examined any changes to the
cost or availability of these design options since the publication of
the March 2010 Final Rule. In addition, DOE also researched whether
there were any new technologies that could improve the efficiency of
small electric motors. DOE tentatively determined that no significant
technical advancements in induction motor technology have been made
since publication of the March 2010 Final Rule. Details of the
technology options DOE considered for this evaluation can be found in
Chapter 3 of the NOPD TSD.
NEMA commented that many of the motor design options that DOE
listed in Table II-5 of the April 2019 ECS RFI are interdependent with
one or more design options. In other words, the deployment of one
design option sometimes favors the co-dependent application of another
design option, but there are cases where deploying certain combinations
of design options can negatively impact energy consumption. (NEMA, No.
11 at p. 5) NEMA also commented that many of the design options listed
are already optimized in practice, and there may not be further room to
pursue efficiency gains with these design options. Id. at 6. NEMA
asserted that some of the design options listed could negatively impact
utility (e.g., through loss of starting torque, increased risk of motor
failure, increase in motor size, etc.) or add to manufacturer
production costs. (NEMA, No. 11 at pp. 11-12) ABB commented that
substituting a copper rotor in a motor may require a complete redesign,
and could also require significant investment for development, tooling,
and manufacturing. (ABB, No. 15 at pp. 1-2) In addition, ABB commented
that components in motors cannot be arbitrarily substituted without
consequences to the performance and life of motors. Id. at 2.
DOE acknowledges that the technology options listed in Table II-5
cannot be considered individually as they are frequently interdependent
(i.e., methods of reducing electrical losses in motors are not
completely independent of one another). This means that some technology
options that decrease one type of loss may cause an increase in a
different type of loss in the motor. Thus, maximizing the efficiency
gains in a motor design overall requires balancing out the loss
mechanisms. In this evaluation, as in the previous rulemaking, DOE has
considered the interactive effects, practical limitations, and costs of
applying each technology option before making a determination whether
to screen-in the technology options as design options for the
engineering analysis. Details of the screened-in design options
considered for each motor design can be found in Chapter 4 and 5 of the
NOPD TSD.
B. Screening Analysis
DOE uses the following four screening criteria to determine which
technology options are suitable \17\ for further consideration of new
or amended energy conservation standards:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ DOE refers to the technology options that pass the
screening criteria as ``design options.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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 to 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.
See 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 4(a)(4) and 5(b)
In sum, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of
[[Page 24156]]
technologies, fails to meet one or more of the above four criteria, it
will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering
analysis. Additionally, DOE notes that the four screening criteria do
not directly address the propriety status of technology options. DOE
only considers potential efficiency levels achieved through the use of
proprietary designs in the engineering analysis if they are not part of
a unique pathway to achieve that efficiency level (i.e., if there are
other non-proprietary technologies capable of achieving the same
efficiency level). The reasons for eliminating any technology are
discussed below.
Table IV-3 provides a summary of all the technology options DOE
considered for improving small electric motor efficiency. For a
description of how each of these technology options improves small
electric motor efficiency, see NOPD TSD chapter 3. For the proposed
determination, DOE screened out three of these technology options:
Reducing the air gap below .0125 inches, amorphous metal laminations,
and plastic bonded iron powder (``PBIP'').
Reducing the air gap between the rotor and stator can improve motor
efficiency. For small electric motors, the air gap is commonly set at
15 thousandths of an inch. Although reducing this air gap can improve
efficiency, there is some point at which the air gap is too tight and
becomes impracticable to manufacture. In the March 2010 Final Rule DOE
screened out air gaps below 12.5 thousandths of an inch because it
would exceed the threshold for practicability to manufacture. 75 FR
10887. In response to the April 2019 ECS RFI, NEMA commented that DOE
should continue to screen out decreasing the radial air gap below 12.5
thousandths of an inch. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 7)
A reduction in air gaps is technologically feasible and DOE is
unaware of any adverse impacts on health or safety associated with
reducing the radial air gap below 12.5 thousandths of an inch. However,
this technology option fails the screening criterion of being
practicable to manufacture, install, and service. Such a tight air gap
may cause problems in manufacturing and service, with the rotor
potentially coming into contact with the stator. This technology option
also fails the screening criterion of avoiding adverse impacts on
consumer utility and reliability, because the motor may experience
higher failure rates in service when the manufactured air gaps are less
than 12.5 thousandths of an inch.
Using amorphous metals in the rotor laminations is another
potential technology option to improve the efficiency of small electric
motors. Amorphous metal is extremely thin, has high electrical
resistivity, and has little or no magnetic domain definition. Because
of amorphous steel's high resistance, it exhibits a reduction in
hysteresis and eddy current losses, which in turn reduces overall
losses in small electric motors. However, amorphous steel is a very
brittle material which makes it difficult to punch into motor
laminations.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 1 S.R. Ning, J. Gao, and Y.G. Wang. Review on Applications
of Low Loss Amorphous Metals in Motors. 2010. ShanDong University.
Weihai, China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering the four screening criteria for this technology option,
DOE screened out amorphous metal laminations as a means of improving
efficiency. Although amorphous metals have the potential to improve
efficiency, DOE does not consider this technology option
technologically feasible, because it has not been incorporated into a
working prototype of a small electric motor. Furthermore, DOE is
uncertain whether amorphous metals are practicable to manufacture,
install, and service, because a prototype amorphous metal-based small
electric motor has not been made and little information is available on
the feasibility of adapting this technology for manufacturing small
electric motors to reach any conclusions regarding the practicability
of using this option. DOE is not aware of any adverse impacts on
consumer utility, reliability, health, or safety associated with
amorphous metal laminations.
Using PBIP to manufacture small electric motors could cut
production costs while increasing production output. Although other
researchers may be working on this technology option, DOE notes that a
research team at Lund University in Sweden published a paper in 2007
about using PBIP in manufacturing. This technology option is based on
an iron powder alloy that is suspended in plastic, and is used in
certain motor applications such as fans, pumps, and household
appliances.\19\ The compound is then shaped into motor components using
a centrifugal mold, reducing the number of manufacturing steps.
Researchers claim that this technology option could cut losses by as
much as 50 percent. The Lund University study, which is the most recent
research paper to address the use of PBIP in the production context,
indicated that its study team already produced inductors, transformers,
and induction heating coils using PBIP, but had not yet produced a
small electric motor. In addition, it appears that PBIP technology is
aimed at torus, claw-pole, and transversal flux motors, none of which
fit the regulatory definition of small electric motors at 10 CFR
431.442. DOE has not found evidence of any significant research or
technical advancement in PBIP methodologies that could be applied to
small electric motors since publication of the March 2010 Final Rule.
In response to the April 2019 ECS RFI, NEMA commented that DOE should
continue to screen out this technology option for the same reasons that
DOE had previously cited in its TSD to the March 2010 Final Rule.
(NEMA, No. 11 at p. 7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Horrdin, H., and E. Olsson. Technology Shifts in Power
Electronics and Electric Motors for Hybrid Electric Vehicles: A
Study of Silicon Carbide and Iron Powder Materials. 2007. Chalmers
University of Technology. G[ouml]teborg, Sweden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering the four screening criteria for this technology option,
DOE screened out PBIP as a means of improving efficiency. Although PBIP
has the potential to improve efficiency while reducing manufacturing
costs, DOE does not consider this technology option technologically
feasible because it has not been incorporated into a working prototype
of a small electric motor. Also, DOE is uncertain whether the material
has the structural integrity to form into the necessary shape of a
small electric motor steel frame. Specifically, properties of PBIP can
differ depending on the processing. If the metal particles are too
closely compacted and begin to touch, the material will gain electrical
conductivity, counteracting one of its most important features of
preventing electric current from developing, which is critical because
this essentially eliminates losses in the core due to eddy currents. If
the metal particles are not compacted closely enough, its structural
integrity could be compromised because the resulting material will be
very porous.
Furthermore, DOE is uncertain whether PBIP is practicable to
manufacture, install, and service, because a prototype PBIP small
electric motor has not yet been made and little information is
available on the feasibility of adapting this option for manufacturing
small electric motors. However, DOE is not aware at this time of any
adverse impacts on product utility, product availability, health, or
safety that may arise from the use of PBIP in small electric motors.
DOE has determined that the remaining technology options listed in
Table IV-2 are technologically feasible. The evaluated technologies all
have been used (or are being used) in
[[Page 24157]]
commercially available products or working prototypes. These
technologies all incorporate materials and components that are
commercially available in today's supply markets for the small electric
motors that are the subject of this document. Therefore, DOE has
screened in these technology options as design options in the
engineering analysis.
C. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis estimates the increase in manufacturer
selling price (``MSP'') associated with improvements to the average
full load efficiency of small electric motors. This section presents
DOE's assumptions and methodology for the engineering analysis. The
output from the engineering analysis is a price-efficiency relationship
for each equipment class that describes how MSP changes as efficiency
increases. The engineering analysis is used as an input to the LCC and
PBP analyses.
DOE typically structures the engineering analysis using one of
three approaches: (1) Design option, (2) efficiency level, or (3)
reverse engineering (or cost assessment). The design option approach
involves adding the estimated cost and associated efficiency of various
efficiency-improving design changes to the baseline product to model
different levels of efficiency. The efficiency level approach uses
estimates of costs and efficiencies of products available on the market
at distinct efficiency levels to develop the cost-efficiency
relationship. The reverse engineering approach involves testing
products for efficiency and determining cost from a detailed bill of
materials (``BOM'') derived from reverse engineering representative
products. The efficiency ranges from that of the least-efficient small
electric motor sold today (i.e., the baseline) to the maximum
technologically feasible efficiency level.
For analysis purposes, this proposed determination reflects DOE's
adoption of a design option approach based on motor modeling conducted
in support of the March 2010 Final Rule. In this design option
approach, DOE considers efficiency levels corresponding to motor
designs that meet or exceed the efficiency requirements of the current
energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.446. DOE has tentatively
determined that there are no additional technology options that pass
the screening criteria that would enable the consideration of any
additional efficiency levels representing higher efficiency levels than
the maximum technologically feasible level analyzed in the March 2010
Final Rule.
1. Summary of Significant Data Sources
DOE utilized two principal data sources for the engineering
analysis: (1) A database of small electric motor manufacturer suggested
retail price (``MSRP'') and performance data based on the current
market, and (2) motor modeling data, test data, and performance
specifications from the March 2010 Final Rule. DOE determined that
relying on the data from the March 2010 Final Rule was reasonable
because a review of the catalog data and responses to the April 2019
ECS RFI suggested that there were no significant technological
advancements in the motor industry that could lead to more efficient or
lower cost motor designs relative to the motors modeled for the March
2010 Final Rule. Accordingly, in this determination, DOE has elected to
evaluate the motor designs that were modeled for the March 2010 Final
Rule analysis. To confirm this approach, DOE is again requesting
comments regarding this issue.
DOE collected MSRP and performance data from product literature and
catalogs distributed by four major motor manufacturers: ABB (which
includes the manufacturer formerly known as Baldor Electric Company),
Nidec Motor Corporation (which includes the US Motors brand), Regal-
Beloit Corporation (which includes the Marathon and Leeson brands), and
WEG Electric Motors Corporation.\20\ Based on market information from
the Low-Voltage Motors World Market Report,\21\ DOE estimates that the
four major motor manufacturers noted above comprise the majority of the
U.S. small electric motor market and are consistent with the motor
brands considered in the March 2010 Final Rule. (Throughout this
document this data will be referred to as the ``manufacturer catalog
data.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ ABB (Baldor-Reliance): Online Manufacturer Catalog,
accessed January 3, 2019. Available at https://www.baldor.com/catalog#category=2; Nidec: Online Manufacturer Catalog, accessed
December 26, 2018. Available at ecatalog.motorboss.com/Catalog/Motors/ALL; Regal (Marathon and Leeson): Online Manufacturer
Catalog, accessed December 27, 2018. Available at https://www.regalbeloit.com/Products/Faceted-Search?category=Motors&brand=Leeson,Marathon%20Motors; WEG: Online
Manufacturer Catalog, accessed December 24, 2018. Available at
http://catalog.wegelectric.com/
\21\ Based on the Low-Voltage Motors, World Market Report (IHS
Markit Report September 2017, Edition 2017-2018) Table 5.15: Market
Share Estimates for Low-voltage Motors: Americas; Suppliers `share
of the Market in 2015 and 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Representative Equipment Classes
Due to the large number of equipment classes, DOE did not directly
analyze all 62 equipment classes of small electric motors considered
under this proposed determination. Instead, DOE selected representative
classes based on two factors: (1) The quantity of motor models
available within an equipment class and (2) the ability to scale to
other equipment classes.
DOE notes that the minimum energy conservation standards adopted in
the March 2010 Final Rule correspond to the efficiency level that
represented the maximum technologically feasible efficiency for CSIR
motors. As discussed previously, DOE was unable to identify any
additional design options that passed the screening criteria that would
indicate that a motor design meeting a higher efficiency level is
technologically feasible and commercially viable (see NOPD TSD chapter
3). In addition, DOE was unable to identify any CSIR motors in the
manufacturer catalog data that exhibited efficiency levels exceeding
the current energy conservation standards for CSIR motors. From this
information, DOE tentatively concluded that more stringent energy
conservation standards for CSIR motors do not appear to be
technologically feasible. Consequently, DOE did not include a
representative CSIR equipment class as part of the engineering
analysis.
The minimum energy conservation standards adopted in the March 2010
Final Rule corresponded to efficiency levels below the maximum
technologically feasible levels for the CSCR and polyphase topologies,
and therefore DOE elected to analyze one representative equipment class
for each of these motor topologies. Equipment classes in the both the
polyphase and CSCR topologies were directly analyzed due to the
fundamental differences in their starting and running electrical
characteristics. These differences in operation have a direct impact on
performance and indicate that polyphase motors are typically more
efficient than single-phase motors. In addition, the efficiency
relationships across horsepower and pole configuration are different
between single-phase and polyphase motors.
DOE did not vary the pole configuration of the representative
classes it analyzed because analyzing the same pole configuration
provided the strongest relationship upon which to base its scaling. See
section IV.C.5 for details on DOE's scaling methodology. Keeping as
many design characteristics constant as possible enabled DOE to more
accurately identify how design
[[Page 24158]]
changes affect efficiency across horsepower ratings. For each motor
topology, DOE directly analyzed the most common pole-configuration. For
both motor topologies analyzed, 4-pole motors constitute the largest
fraction of motor models on the market.
When DOE selected its representative equipment classes, DOE chose
the horsepower ratings that constitute a high volume of motor models
and approximate the middle of the range of covered horsepower ratings
so that DOE could develop a reasonable scaling methodology. DOE notes
that the representative equipment classes for polyphase and CSCR motors
that were selected for the engineering analysis align with the
representative classes that were directly analyzed in the March 2010
Final Rule. 75 FR 10874, 10888. These representative classes are
outlined in Table IV-4.
Table IV-4--Representative Equipment Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor topology Pole configuration Motor output power hp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polyphase..................................................... 4 1.00
Single-phase CSCR............................................. 4 0.75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on the selection of representative equipment
classes for CSCR and polyphase motors and the tentative determination
that more stringent energy conservation standards for CSIR motors are
not technologically feasible.
See section VII.B for a complete list of issues on which DOE seeks
comments.
3. Engineering Analysis Methodology
DOE relied on a design option approach to generate incremental MSPs
and establish efficiency levels, in which the relative costs of
achieving increases in efficiency are determined based on the cost of
various efficiency-improving design changes to the baseline motor. For
each representative equipment class, DOE identified a specific motor as
a fundamental design against which it would apply changes to improve
the motor's efficiency. Each increase in efficiency over the baseline
level that DOE analyzed was assigned an efficiency level (``EL'')
number.
Consistent with its usual analytical approach, DOE considered the
current minimum energy conservation standards to establish the baseline
efficiency levels for each representative equipment class. In response
to the April 2019 ECS RFI, the CA IOUs supported using the current
standards as the baseline efficiency level. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 4)
In addition, NEMA commented that the current energy conservation
standards reasonably approximate the baseline for covered equipment.
(NEMA, No. 11 at p. 7)
As discussed previously, DOE selected representative equipment
classes that align with the classes analyzed in the March 2010 Final
Rule. DOE identified specific motor designs from the March 2010 Final
Rule engineering analysis that exhibit full-load efficiency ratings
that are representative of the minimum energy conservation standards
for small electric motors. DOE chose these motor designs as the
baseline designs against which design options to improve motor
efficiency would be implemented as part of DOE's analysis.
For the March 2010 Final Rule engineering analysis, DOE purchased
and tested motors with the lowest catalog efficiency rating available
in the market for each representative equipment class. DOE's technical
expert tore down each motor to obtain dimensions, a BOM, and other
pertinent design information. DOE worked with a subcontractor to
reproduce these motor designs using modeling software and then applied
design options to a modeled motor that would increase that motor's
efficiency to develop a series of motor designs spanning a range of
efficiency levels. For the current evaluation, DOE continued to base
its analysis on the modeled motor designs. In light of its catalog
review and the responses received to the April 2019 ECS RFI indicating
that there were no significant technological advancements in the motor
industry that could lead to more efficient or lower cost motor designs
relative to the motors modeled for the March 2010 Final Rule.\22\
Further information on the development of modeled motor designs from
the March 2010 Final Rule is available in section 5.3 of the NOPD TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ DOE also notes that ASAP, et al. recommended that DOE
conduct an analysis similar to the modeling analysis completed for
the March 2010 Final Rule. (ASAP, et al., No. 16 at p. 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA commented that DOE did not adequately consider comments
regarding OEM design impacts from the larger motor dimensions that
would result from re-designing motors to be compliant with the energy
conservation standards adopted in the March 2010 Final Rule. (NEMA, No.
11 at p. 7) NEMA added that DOE should seek input from OEMs on the
impact of increased motor size that would be needed to increase motor
efficiency. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 17) AHRI and AHAM commented that more
efficient motors within a particular topology are likely to be larger
and heavier, which could decrease consumer utility. AHRI and AHAM
stated that replacement motors must be able to fit inside the finished
product for which they are destined, and this factor must be considered
when evaluating more stringent standards. (AHRI and AHAM, No. 12 at p.
3)
In developing the modeled motor designs and associated costs, DOE
considered both space-constrained and non-space-constrained scenarios.
DOE prepared designs of increased efficiency covering both scenarios
for each representative equipment class. The design levels prepared for
the space-constrained scenario included baseline and intermediate
levels, a level for a design using a copper rotor, and a max-tech level
with a design using a copper rotor and exotic core steel. The high-
efficiency space-constrained designs incorporate copper rotors and
exotic core steel in order to meet comparable levels of efficiency to
the high-efficiency non-space-constrained designs while meeting the
parameters for minimally increased stack length. The design levels
created for the non-space-constrained scenario corresponded to the same
efficiency levels created for the space-constrained scenario. Further
information on the development of modeled motor designs is available in
section 5.3 of the March 2010 Final Rule TSD. In addition to developing
different MSPs for space-constrained and non-space-constrained
scenarios, DOE developed a modified OEM markup in support of the March
2010 Final Rule to account for the costs faced by OEMs needing to
redesign their products to incorporate small electric motors of
different sizes.\23\ In this current evaluation, DOE continues to
analyze increased efficiency in both space-
[[Page 24159]]
constrained and non-space-constrained scenarios for each of the
representative equipment classes, in line with the March 2010 Final
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ For more details see chapter 7 of the 2010 small electric
motors final rule TSD, at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007-0036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA also commented that more stringent energy conservation
standards would result in the design of motors with lower slip \24\ and
in turn, higher full-load speeds. NEMA stated that, as such, more
stringent energy conservation standards would force manufacturers of
end-use products to redesign their products to account for the higher
motor speeds. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 13) This factor, it asserted, would
have the impact of increasing the speed and therefore the output power
delivered to the motor's application and offset some of the improvement
in motor efficiency. NEMA also commented that small businesses,
including motor manufacturers and OEMs, would be required to spend more
for motors that provide little additional energy savings from more
stringent energy conservation standards for the small electric motors
at issue. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 18) The designs analyzed in the
engineering analysis did not show a significant (less than 2 percent)
and consistent (some more efficient designs had slightly lower speeds)
increase in speed with increasing efficiency across all ELs (See NOPD
TSD Chapter 5). However, as discussed previously, DOE has tentatively
determined that more stringent energy conservation standards would not
be cost effective and therefore is not proposing to amend the current
energy conservation standards for this equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Motor slip is the difference between the speed of the rotor
(operating speed) and the speed of the rotating magnetic field of
the stator (synchronous speed). When net rotor resistance of a motor
design is reduced, efficiency of the motor increases but slip
decreases, resulting in higher operating speeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in section IV.A.3, DOE considered each of the design
options analyzed in the previous rulemaking and also researched whether
there were any new technologies that could improve the efficiency of
small electric motors. Accordingly, DOE determined that there were no
significant technological advancements since the March 2010 Final Rule.
In addition, comments received suggested the same. (NEMA, No. 11 at p.
3) Given that DOE was unable to identify any additional design options
for improving efficiency that passed the screening criteria and were
not already considered in the March 2010 Final Rule engineering
analysis, DOE analyzed the same motor designs that were developed for
the March 2010 Final Rule except for CSIR motors (which, as indicated
earlier, did not appear to have any technologically-feasible options
available to improve their efficiency). For each representative
equipment class, DOE established an efficiency level for each motor
design that exhibited improved efficiency over the baseline design. As
discussed previously, DOE considered the current minimum energy
conservation standards as the baseline efficiency levels for each
representative equipment class. These efficiency levels are summarized
in Table IV-5.
Table IV-5--Summary of Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency
Representative equipment class EL (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-phase CSCR, 4-pole, 0.75-hp...... 0 81.8
1 82.8
2 84.0
3 84.6
4 86.7
5 87.9
Polyphase, 4-pole, 1-hp................. 0 83.5
1 85.2
2 86.3
3 87.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the April 2019 ECS RFI, ASAP, et al. commented that
DOE should thoroughly investigate more stringent efficiency levels than
those currently available in the market (ASAP, et al., No. 16 at p. 3)
ASAP, et al. noted that DOE had found 15 percent of CSCR motor models
attained efficiencies exceeding the levels adopted in the March 2010
Final Rule and stated that the prior availability of these higher
levels demonstrates technological feasibility. In addition, ASAP, et
al. suggested that DOE review manufacturer literature and other data
sources to determine if products exceeding minimum standards are
available in the market for any regulated equipment class. (ASAP, et
al., No. 16 at pp. 3-4) As noted previously, DOE is evaluating
efficiency levels up to the maximum technologically feasible levels for
each motor topology, including efficiency levels that represent motors
that are not yet commercially available (e.g., a small electric motor
design that is technologically feasible but not available on the market
because of cost considerations). As part of this evaluation, DOE
reviewed manufacturer literature to determine the availability of small
electric motors across all equipment classes considered in this
document by efficiency level. This literature includes efficiency
values derived from manufacturer testing using the mandatory DOE test
procedure. DOE's review of this information indicated that for CSCR
motors, the most recent manufacturer catalog data only included a
single model with an efficiency above the baseline level (i.e. the
current standard required of these motors). (See also section IV.F.8).
ASAP, et al. recommended that DOE conduct an analysis similar to
the modeling analysis completed for the March 2010 Final Rule and added
that while levels of maximum technological feasibility may not be
commercially available today, energy conservation standards policy
could provide the basis for making cost-effective improvements to
motors that could not be otherwise achieved by market forces. (ASAP, et
al., No. 16 at p. 4) Lenze Americas commented that DOE should consider
setting standard levels at an International Efficiency (``IE'')2 \25\
equivalent for motors below 1 hp and an
[[Page 24160]]
IE3 equivalent for motors greater than or equal to 1 hp. (Lenze
Americas, No. 3 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The IE designations are efficiency levels defined by IEC
standard 60034-30-1 for 50 and 60 Hz single or three-phase line
motors (regardless of the technology). Motors meeting the IE1
efficiency level are designated ``standard efficiency,'' IE2
qualifying motors are designated ``high-efficiency,'' IE3 qualifying
motors are designated ``premium efficiency,'' and IE4 qualifying
motors are designated ``super premium efficiency.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is adopting the motor modeling approach used in support of the
March 2010 Final Rule to analyze and establish efficiency levels and
incremental motor MSPs. DOE did not identify any additional design
options in the market for improving efficiency that were not already
considered in the March 2010 Final Rule. In addition, while DOE is not
specifically evaluating the IE levels in this analysis, the range of
motor efficiency levels analyzed in this evaluation is inclusive of
efficiencies specified in the IE2 and IE3 efficiency levels.
The CA IOUs commented that DOE should conduct independent testing
to verify the efficiency performance of the motor designs considered in
each representative equipment class. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 3) ASAP, et
al. suggested that DOE investigate whether motors rated at the standard
level are more efficient than stated because DOE regulations permit
manufacturers to rate their products conservatively. (ASAP, et al., No.
16 at pp. 3-4) DOE notes that the performance of the motor designs
considered in this analysis were verified by conducting motor
efficiency testing during the previous rulemaking. Details of this
validation testing can be found in appendix 5A of the March 2010 Final
Rule TSD.
DOE seeks comment on the methodologies employed in the engineering
analysis, specifically regarding the adoption of the motor designs and
associated efficiency levels considered in the March 2010 Final Rule
analysis as the basis for this proposed determination.
See section VII.B for a complete list of issues on which DOE seeks
comments.
4. Cost
For representative equipment classes, each efficiency level is
based on a motor design with a distinct set of performance
characteristics, production costs, and non-production costs. Full
production cost is a combination of direct labor, direct materials, and
overhead. Non-production costs include the cost of selling (market
research, advertising, sales representatives, logistics), general and
administrative costs, research and development, interest payments and
profit factor.
A standard BOM was constructed for each motor design that includes
direct material costs and labor time estimates along with costs. The
BOM is then multiplied by a markup for overhead to obtain an MPC that
is further marked up to reflect non-production costs to create an MSP.
DOE notes that the costs established for direct material costs and
labor time were initially determined in terms of $2009 for the March
2010 Final Rule. For this evaluation, DOE updated these material and
labor costs to be representative of the market in 2018. DOE adjusted
historical material prices to $2018 using the historical Bureau of
Labor Statistics Producer Price Indices (``PPI'') \26\ for each
commodity's industry. In addition, DOE updated labor costs and markups
based on the most recent and complete version (i.e. 2012) of the
Economic Census of Industry by the U.S. Census Bureau.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ www.bls.gov/ppi/.
\27\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of Industry Series
Reports for Industry, U.S. Department of Commerce, 2012
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the April 2019 ECS RFI, NEMA commented that tariffs
on steel and aluminum have caused cost increases for current motor
designs which could exacerbate the cost impacts of more stringent
standards. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 13) DOE notes that changes in the cost
of steel and aluminum components since 2010 have been accounted for in
this proposed determination and are considered when evaluating more
stringent energy conservation standards.
DOE seeks input on whether and how the costs estimated for motor
designs considered in the March 2010 Final Rule have changed since the
time of that analysis. DOE also requests information on the investments
(including related costs) necessary to incorporate specific design
options, including, but not limited to, costs related to new or
modified tooling (if any), materials, engineering and development
efforts to implement each design option, and manufacturing/production
impacts.
See section VII.B for a complete list of issues on which DOE seeks
comments.
5. Scaling Relationships
In analyzing the equipment classes, DOE developed a systematic
approach to scaling efficiency across horsepower ratings and pole
configurations, while retaining reasonable levels of accuracy, in a
manner similar to the March 2010 Final Rule. DOE's current energy
conservation standards for small electric motors found at 10 CFR
431.446 list minimum required efficiencies over a range of horsepower
and pole configurations, providing a basis for scaling efficiency
across horsepower and pole configurations for polyphase and single-
phase motors. The efficiency relationships in the established standards
are based on a combination of NEMA recommended efficiency standards,
NEMA premium designations, catalog data, and test data for individual
manufacturer motor product lines. DOE has elected to apply the same
scaling methodologies used to support the March 2010 Final Rule to the
engineering analysis for this proposed determination. 75 FR 10894-
10895. This approach has been presented previously to stakeholders and
has been updated based on stakeholder input. In DOE's view, this
approach has the added advantage of reducing the analytical complexity
associated with conducting a detailed engineering analysis of the cost-
efficiency relationship on all 62 equipment classes. Id.
For this NOPD, while the engineering analysis focuses on two
representative units, the energy use and life-cycle cost analyses (see
sections IV.E and IV.F) consider two additional representative units to
separately analyze consumers of integral (i.e., with horsepower greater
than or equal to 1 hp) single-phase CSCR small electric motors and
fractional (i.e., with horsepower less than 1 hp) polyphase small
electric motors. To scale to the equipment classes that were not
directly analyzed, DOE followed several steps. First, DOE evaluated the
efficiency relationships presented in the recommended standards
provided by NEMA for the March 2010 Final Rule. DOE then compiled
efficiency data for as many manufacturers and equipment classes as
possible and filtered the data to ensure an accurate representation of
the small electric motors that are covered by the statute. Next, DOE
modeled all the efficiency data in terms of motor losses and used a
best-fit curve to project values to fill in any potential gaps in data.
Finally, DOE scaled the results of the engineering analysis based on
the relationships found from the combined NEMA data and catalog data.
DOE seeks input on implementing a similar scaling methodology as
that used for the March 2010 Final Rule in this NOPD.
See section VII.B for a complete list of issues on which DOE seeks
comments.
D. Markups Analysis
The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g., retailer
markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution
chain to convert the MSP estimates derived in the engineering analysis
to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC and PBP analysis. At
each step in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of
the equipment to cover business costs and profit margin. For small
electric motors, the main
[[Page 24161]]
parties in the distribution chain are manufacturers, distributors,
contractors or installers, OEMs of equipment incorporating small
electric motors, and consumers.
DOE relied on estimates provided by NEMA during the March 2010
Final Rule to establish the proportion of shipments through each
distribution channel.\28\ In response to the April 2019 ECS RFI, DOE
did not receive any data to support alternative distribution channels
for small electric motors. DOE used data from the U.S. Census Bureau
\29\ and the Sales Tax Clearinghouse \30\ to develop distribution
channel markups and sales tax estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ For more details see chapter 7 of the 2010 small electric
motors final rule TSD, at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007-0036.
\29\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 Annual Survey of Manufacturers;
2012 Economic Census Annual Wholesale Trade Survey.
\30\ Sales Tax Clearinghouse, Inc. State sales tax rates along
with combined average city and county rates, 2017. Available at:
http://thestc.com/STrates.stm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE also 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 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.\31\ DOE relied on economic data from the U.S. Census
Bureau to estimate average baseline and incremental markups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 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 imposing more stringent standards
would lead to a sustainable increase in profitability in the long
run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, in the space-constrained scenario, DOE developed a
modified OEM markup to account for the costs faced by those OEMs of
equipment incorporating small electric motors needing to redesign their
products in order to incorporate small electric motors of different,
including larger, sizes. Nationally, businesses spend about 2.7 percent
of U.S. gross domestic product on research and development
(``R&D'').\32\ DOE estimates that R&D by equipment OEMs, including the
design of new products, approximately represents at most 2.7 percent of
company revenue. Similar to what was done in the March 2010 Final Rule,
DOE accounted for the additional costs to redesign products and
incorporate differently-shaped motors by adding 2 percent to the OEM
markups.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ National Science Board. January 2018. Science and
Engineering Indicators 2018. Figure 4-3, Ratio of U.S. R&D to gross
domestic product, by roles of federal, business, and other
nonfederal funding for R&D: 1953-2015. Arlington, VA: National
Science Foundation (NSB-2018-1) Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/assets/1038/research-and-development-u-s-trends-and-international-comparisons.pdf.
\33\ For more details see chapter 7 of the 2010 small electric
motors final rule TSD, at https//www.regulations.gov/
document?D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007-0036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV-6 summarizes the overall baseline and incremental markups
for each distribution channel considered for small electric motors.
Table IV-6--Small Electric Motors Distribution Channel Markups
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution channel (from manufacturer) Direct to OEMs (65%) Via wholesalers to OEMs (30%) Via wholesalers to end-users
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (5%)
-------------------------------
Main Party Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor Wholesaler........................................ .............. .............. 1.35 1.19 1.35 1.19
Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)*.................. 1.47/1.50 1.23/1.25 1.47/1.50 1.23/1.25 .............. ..............
Equipment Wholesaler.................................... 1.41 1.19 1.41 1.19 .............. ..............
Retailer................................................ .............. .............. .............. .............. 1.53 1.27
Contractor.............................................. 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sales Tax............................................... 1.0721
1.0721
1.0721
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall................................................. 2.45/2.50 1.72/1.76 3.31/3.37 2.06/2.10 2.44 1.78
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Non-space-constrained scenario/space-constrained scenario.
DOE seeks comment on the methodology and data used for estimating
end-user prices for small electric motors.
See section VII.B for a complete list of issues on which DOE seeks
comments. Chapter 6 of the TSD provides details on the DOE's markup
analysis for small electric motors.
E. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual
energy consumption of small electric motors at different efficiency
levels and to assess the energy savings potential of increased
efficiency. The analysis estimates the range of energy use of small
electric 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 energy savings
and the savings in consumer operating costs that could result from
adoption of amended or new standards.
The analysis focuses on the two representative units identified in
the engineering analysis (see section IV.C) for which engineering
analysis results were obtained at levels at and above the baseline. Two
additional representative units were included to separately analyze
consumers of integral (i.e., with horsepower greater than or equal to 1
hp) single-phase CSCR small electric motors and fractional (i.e., with
horsepower less than 1 hp) polyphase small electric motors (see Table
IV-7).\34\ For each representative unit, DOE determined the annual
energy consumption value by multiplying the motor input power by the
annual operating hours for a representative sample of motor consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Similar to the approach used in the engineering analysis
when selecting representative units, DOE reviewed model counts from
the manufacturer online catalog data to identify these additional
units. DOE reviewed counts of CSCR, 4-poles small electric motors
and polyphase, 4-poles, small electric motors models. For CSCR
motors, the 1 horsepower value had the most counts and DOE selected
a unit at 1 horsepower. For polyphase motors, the 0.33, 0.5, and
0.75 horsepower values had the most counts (and similar counts) and
DOE selected a unit at 0.5 horsepower (i.e. the mid-range of these
horsepower values).
[[Page 24162]]
Table IV-7--Representative Units Analyzed in the Energy Use and Life-Cycle Cost Analyses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rated
Representative unit Equipment class group Pole configuration horsepower
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... Single-phase, CSCR........ 4-pole.................... 0.75
2....................................... Polyphase................. 4-pole.................... 1
3....................................... Single-phase, CSCR........ 4-pole.................... 1
4....................................... Polyphase................. 4-pole.................... 0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comments on how whether additions or changes should be
made to the energy use analysis as well as any data supporting
alternate inputs to characterize the variability in annual energy
consumption for small electric motors.
See section VII.B for a complete list of issues on which DOE seeks
comments. Chapter 7 of the TSD provides details on the DOE's energy use
analysis for small electric motors.
1. Consumer Sample
For each representative unit, DOE created consumer samples for
three individual sectors: Residential, commercial, and industrial. DOE
used the samples to determine small electric motor annual energy
consumption as well as for conducting the LCC and PBP analyses. Each
consumer in the sample was assigned a sector and an application. DOE
used data from the March 2010 Final Rule to establish distributions of
small electric motors by sector. Five main motor applications were
selected as representative applications (compressors, fans, pumps,
material handling, and others). In order to characterize the
distributions of small electric motors across applications in the
industrial sector, DOE used data from hundreds of field assessments
aggregated in two databases: (1) A database of motor nameplate and
field data compiled by the Washington State University (``WSU'')
Extension Energy Program, Applied Proactive Technologies, and New York
State Energy Research and Development Authority, and; (2) a database of
motor nameplate and field data compiled by the Industrial Assessment
Center at Oregon University (``field assessment data'').\35\ For the
commercial and residential sectors, DOE used data from a previous DOE
publication to estimate distribution of small electric motors by
application.\36\ DOE also assumed that 20 percent of consumers had
space-constraints and 80 percent were non-space-constrained based on
data from the March 2010 Final Rule. In response to the April 2019 ECS
RFI, DOE did not receive any data to support alternative distributions
of small electric motors by sectors and applications or by space-
constrained/non-space-constrained applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Strategic Energy Group (January 2008), Northwest Industrial
Motor Database Summary. Regional Technical Forum. Available at
http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/subcommittees/osumotor/Default.htm.
\36\ W. Goetzler, T. Sutherland, C. Reis. ``Energy Savings
Potential and Opportunities for High-Efficiency Electric Motors in
Residential and Commercial Equipment'' U.S. Department of Energy,
December 4, 2013. Available at https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/02/f8/Motor%20Energy%20Savings%20Potential%20Report%202013-12-4.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on the approach used for estimating distribution
of consumers of small electric motors across applications and sectors,
as well as any data supporting the use of alternate distributions.
See section VII.B for a complete list of issues on which DOE seeks
comments. See chapter 7 of the TSD for more details on the resulting
distribution of consumers by sector and applications.
2. Motor Input Power
DOE calculated the motor input power as the sum of the motor rated
horsepower multiplied by the motor operating load (i.e., the motor
output power) and of the losses at the operating load (i.e., part-load
losses). DOE determined the part-load losses using outputs from the
engineering analysis (full-load efficiency at each efficiency level)
and published part-load efficiency information from manufacturer
catalogs to model motor part-load losses as a function of the motor's
operating load. NEMA commented that there was a range of operating
motor loads for small electric motors and that there was no typical
operating load by application. NEMA did not provide data to
characterize operating load. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 15) DOE estimated the
operating load using operating load data specific to motors in the
0.25-3 hp range, which was based on additional field assessments data
collected since the publication of the March 2010 Final Rule.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ This horsepower range was selected as it corresponds to the
motor horsepower of small electric motors that are currently subject
to standards (see section IV.A.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on the methodology used for estimating the
distribution of motor load for each application and sector, as well as
any data supporting alternate distributions.
See section VII.B for a complete list of issues on which DOE seeks
comments. See chapter 7 of the TSD for the resulting distribution of
load for each application.
3. Annual Operating Hours
NEMA commented that there was a range of operating hours for small
electric motors and noted that for this equipment, operating hours are
generally lower compared to electric motors and stated that most small
electric motors do not run continuously. NEMA did not provide data to
characterize operating hours. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 15) For the
industrial sector, DOE used data specific to motors in the 0.25-3 hp
range from the field assessment data to establish distributions of
annual operating hours by application. For the commercial and
residential sectors, DOE used operating hours data from the March 2010
Final Rule.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ For more details see chapter 6 of the 2010 small electric
motors final rule TSD, at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007-0036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on the methodology used to estimate annual
operating hours, as well as any data supporting alternate distribution
of operating hours by application and sector.
See section VII.B for a complete list of issues on which DOE seeks
comments. See chapter 7 of the TSD for more details on the
distributions of annual operating hours by application and sector.
Table IV-8 shows the estimated average annual energy use at each
efficiency level analyzed.
[[Page 24163]]
Table IV-8--Average Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kilowatt-hours per year
Rep. unit Description -----------------------------------------------------------------
EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................... Single-phase, CSCR, 1,651.6 1,626.2 1,596.7 1,582.0 1,534.4 1,507.5
4-pole, 0.75 hp.
2....................... Polyphase, 4-pole, 1 2,091.2 2,046.1 2,019.3 1,982.4 ......... .........
hp.
3....................... Single-phase, CSCR, 2,176.6 2,144.1 2,107.9 2,089.3 2,029.0 1,994.2
4-pole, 1 hp.
4....................... Polyphase, 4-pole, 1,164.9 1,129.8 1,108.3 1,079.4 ......... .........
0.5 hp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
small electric motors. The effect of new or amended energy conservation
standards on individual consumers usually involves a reduction in
operating cost and an increase in purchase price. DOE used the
following two metrics to measure consumer impacts:
The LCC is the total consumer expense of equipment over
the life of that equipment, consisting of total installed cost (MSP,
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 equipment.
The simple PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years)
it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of more-efficient equipment through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the simple 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 small electric motors in the
absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. In contrast,
the simple PBP for a given efficiency level is measured relative to the
baseline equipment. The analysis focuses on the four representative
units identified in Table IV-7.
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 developed a sample based on
distributions of consumers across sectors and applications, as well as
across efficiency levels. For each sample consumer, DOE determined the
unit energy consumption and 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 small electric motors.
Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost
of the equipment--which includes MSPs, retailer 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, equipment 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 consumer samples. The
model calculated the LCC and PBP for equipment at each efficiency level
for 10,000 consumers per representative unit 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.
DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all consumers as if each were to
purchase a new motor in the expected year of compliance with amended
standards. For purposes of its analysis, DOE estimated that any amended
standards would apply to small electric motors manufactured 5 years
after the date on which the amended standard is published. DOE
estimated publication of a final rule in the first half of 2023.
Therefore, for purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2028 as the first
full year of compliance.
Table IV-9 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow
provide further discussion.
Table IV-9--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.
Installation Costs........................... Assumed no change with
efficiency level other
than shipping costs.
Annual Energy Use............................ Motor input power
multiplied by annual
operating hours per
year.
Variability: Based on
plant surveys and
previous DOE study.
[[Page 24164]]
Energy Prices................................ Electricity: Used average
and marginal prices
(Coughlin and Beraki).
Energy Price Trends.......................... Based on AEO 2019 price
projections.
Repair and Maintenance Costs................. Assumed no change with
efficiency level.
Equipment Lifetime........................... Estimated using
information from 2010
standards final rule and
from DOE's Advanced
Manufacturing Office.
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
small electric motors.
Primary data source was
Damodaran Online.
Compliance Date.............................. 2028
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided
in the sections following the table.
1. Equipment Cost
To calculate consumer equipment costs, DOE multiplied the MSPs
developed in the engineering analysis by the distribution channel
markups described in section IV.D (along with sales taxes). DOE used
different markups for baseline motors and higher-efficiency motors,
because DOE applies an incremental markup to the increase in MSP
associated with higher-efficiency equipment. Further, in this proposed
determination, DOE assumed the prices of small electric motors would
remain constant over time (no decrease in price).
2. Installation Cost
Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous
materials and parts needed to install the equipment. In response to the
April 2019 ECS RFI, DOE did not receive any information on small
electric motors consumer installation costs. Based on information from
the March 2010 Final Rule and installation cost data from RS Means
Electrical Cost Data 2019,\39\ DOE estimated that installation costs do
not increase with equipment efficiency except in terms of shipping
costs depending on the weight of the more efficient motor.\40\ To
arrive at total installed costs, DOE included shipping costs as part of
the installation costs. These were based on weight data from the
engineering analysis, which accounted for updated manufacturer catalog
data collected by DOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ RS Means. Electrical Cost Data, 42\h\ Annual Edition, 2019.
Rockland, MA. p. 315.
\40\ For more details see chapter 8 of the 2010 small electric
motors final rule TSD, at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007-0036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on the methodology used to estimate installation
costs as well as any data supporting alternate installation cost
estimates.
See section VII.B for a complete list of issues on which DOE seeks
comments. See chapter 8 of the TSD for more information on the
installation costs for small electric motors.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
For each sampled consumer, DOE determined the energy consumption
for small electric motors in each standards case analyzed using the
approach described in section IV.E of this proposed determination.
4. Energy Prices
For electricity prices, DOE used national annual marginal and
average prices from Coughlin and Beraki (2019).\41\ To estimate energy
prices in future years, DOE multiplied the energy prices by a
projection of annual change in average price consistent with the
projections in the AEO 2019, which has an end year of 2050. To estimate
price trends after 2050, DOE used the average annual rate of change in
prices from 2030 to 2050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. Residential Electricity
Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods. 2018.
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United
States). Report No. LBNL-2001169. (Last accessed May 21, 2019.)
https://ees.lbl.gov/publications/residential-electricity-prices-review. See also Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. Non-residential
Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods.
2019. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United
States). Report No. LBNL-2001203. (Last accessed May 21, 2019.)
https://ees.lbl.gov/publications/non-residential-electricity-prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing small
electric motor components that have failed; maintenance costs are
associated with maintaining the operation of the equipment. Small
electric motors are usually not repaired. Most small motors are mass
produced and are not constructed or designed to be repaired because the
manufacturing process uses spot welding welds and rivets to fasten or
secure the frame and assembled components, not nuts and bolts--meaning
that the small electric motor cannot be readily disassembled and
reassembled. During the rulemaking for the March 2010 Final Rule, DOE
found no evidence that repair or maintenance costs, if any, would
increase with higher motor energy efficiency.\42\ DOE reviewed more
recent motor repair cost data for small electric motors and found no
evidence that maintenance and repair costs increase with efficiency for
small electric motors in scope.\43\ NEMA commented that for small
electric motor designs that simply added more active material to the
rotors and/or stators, repair practices are unlikely to change. NEMA
noted that CSCR motors have higher repair costs compared to CSIR motors
due to the inclusion of a second capacitor. NEMA did not provide any
[[Page 24165]]
additional information to characterize repair costs. (NEMA, No. 11 at
p. 15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ For more details see chapter 8 of the 2010 small electric
motors final rule TSD, at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007-0036.
\43\ Vaughen's (2013), Vaughen's Motor & Pump Repair Price
Guide, 2013 Edition. Available at www.vaughens.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on information DOE reviewed, small electric motors are
generally not repaired and NEMA's comments suggest that repair
practices are unlikely to change within each equipment class group
(i.e., polyphase, CSCR, and CSIR). Accordingly, DOE assumed that more
efficient small electric motors would not have greater repair or
maintenance costs and therefore did not account for these costs in the
LCC calculation.
DOE seeks comment on the assumptions for estimating repair and
maintenance costs as well as any data supporting alternate repair and
maintenance cost estimates.
See section VII.B for a complete list of issues on which DOE seeks
comments. See chapter 8 of the TSD for more information on the repair
and maintenance costs for small electric motors.
6. Motor Lifetime
To characterize lifetimes in a manner that would reflect the fact
that this factor is dependent on its application, DOE used two Weibull
distributions.\44\ One characterizes the motor lifetime in total
operating hours (i.e., mechanical lifetime), while the other
characterizes the lifetime in years of use in the application (e.g., a
pump). DOE used mechanical lifetime data from the 2010 small electric
motors final rule analysis and from DOE's Advanced Manufacturing Office
\45\ and estimated an average mechanical lifetime of 30,000 hours for
CSCR motors and of 40,000 hours for polyphase motors. The Weibull
parameters from the March 2010 Final Rule were used to derive these
lifetime distributions.\46\ In the course of the life-cycle analysis,
DOE's current analysis further combines these two distributions with
OEM application lifetimes to estimate the distribution of small
electric motor lifetimes. DOE determined the mechanical lifetime of
each motor in years by dividing its mechanical lifetime in hours by its
annual hours of operation. DOE then compared this mechanical lifetime
(in years) with the sampled application lifetime (also in years), and
assumed that the motor would be retired at the younger of these two
ages. In the March 2010 Final Rule, this approach resulted in projected
average lifetimes of 7 years for single-phase CSCR motors and 9 years
for polyphase motors. In the April 2019 ECS RFI, DOE presented the
average lifetimes from the March 2010 Final Rule (i.e. 7 years for
single-phase CSCR motors and 9 years for polyphase motors). NEMA
commented that 8 years was a reasonable starting point to estimate
lifetime for small electric motors. NEMA did not provide lifetime
estimates by equipment class and noted that the actual lifetime is
heavily dependent on the application. (NEMA, No. 11 at p. 15). Because
of updates made to the annual operating hours (see section IV.E.3), the
updated analysis for this NOPD yielded average lifetimes of 6.6 years
for single-phase CSCR motors and 8.5 years for polyphase motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ The Weibull distribution is one of the most commonly used
distributions in reliability. It is commonly used to model time to
fail, time to repair and material strength.
\45\ U.S. Department of Energy. Advanced Manufacturing Office.
Motors Systems Tip Sheet #3. Energy Tips: Motor Systems. Extending
the Operating Life of Your Motor. 2012. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/04/f15/extend_motor_operlife_motor_systemts3.pdf.
\46\ For more details see chapter 8 of the 2010 small electric
motors final rule TSD, at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007-0036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on the methodology it used for estimating small
electric motor lifetimes, as well as any data supporting alternate
values for these lifetimes.
See section VII.B for a complete list of issues on which DOE seeks
comments. See chapter 8 of the TSD for more information on the lifetime
of small electric motors.
7. Discount Rates
In calculating LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate to
commercial, industrial, and residential consumers to estimate the
present value of future operating costs. DOE estimated a distribution
of discount rates for small electric motors based on the cost of
capital of publicly traded firms in the sectors that purchase small
electric motors.
As part of its analysis, DOE also applies weighted average discount
rates calculated from consumer debt and asset data, rather than
marginal or implicit discount rates.\47\ DOE notes that the LCC does
not analyze the equipment purchase decision, so the implicit discount
rate is not relevant in this model. The LCC 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, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 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 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 \48\
(``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Survey of
Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, and
2016. Available at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scfindex.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For commercial and industrial consumers, DOE used the cost of
capital 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 the cost of capital is the
weighted-average cost to the firm of equity and debt financing. This
corporate finance approach is referred to as the weighted-average cost
of capital. DOE used currently available economic data in developing
discount rates. See chapter 8 of the TSD for details on the development
of end-user discount rates.
8. 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 in the ``no-new-
standards'' case (i.e., the case without amended or new energy
conservation standards) in the compliance year. In its analysis for the
March 2010 Final Rule,
[[Page 24166]]
DOE developed no-new standards case efficiency distributions based on
the distributions of currently available models for which small
electric motor efficiency is included in catalog listings. In
preparation for the NOPD, DOE collected updated catalog data and
analyzed the distribution of small electric motors in the manufacturer
catalog data for CSCR and polyphase small electric motors.\49\ In
response to the April 2019 RFI, DOE did not receive any input on
projected efficiency trends. DOE projected that these efficiency
distributions would remain constant throughout 2028. See chapter 8 of
the TSD for the estimated efficiency distributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ DOE relied on 140 models of CSCR small electric motors and
229 models of polyphase small electric motors identified in the
manufacturer catalog data. More details on the distributions of
currently available models for which motor catalog list efficiency
is available in Chapter 8 of the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Payback Period Analysis
The PBP 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. PBPs are expressed in
years. PBPs 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 simple 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 simple PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC
analysis, except that discount rates are not needed.
G. Other Comments Received
In response to the April 2019 ECS RFI, DOE also received comments
on aspects of the standards for small electric motors that do not
relate to the methodologies or discussions presented in other sections
of this document. This section addresses these stakeholder comments.
The Institute for Policy Integrity commented on monetizing the
benefits of emissions reductions in analyzing the national impact and
selecting the maximum economically justified efficiency level.
(Institute for Policy Integrity, No. 5 at p. 1) DOE also received a
comment from an individual questioning how DOE would ensure that GHG
(i.e. greenhouse gas) emissions would not increase as a result of
amended standards. (Zach Belanger, No. 7 at p. 1)
As discussed previously, under the periodic review of energy
conservation standards required by EPCA, DOE is directed to consider
whether amended standards would result in significant conservation of
energy; are technologically feasible; and would be cost effective. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 6295 (n)(2)) In
evaluating the cost-effectiveness of amended standards, EPCA requires
DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared
to any increase in price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses of
the covered equipment that are likely to result from the imposition of
the standard. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(C) and 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(II)) DOE has tentatively determined that the potential
standards would not be cost-effective as defined in EPCA. See section
V.B., infra. DOE has not conducted an emissions analysis as would
generally be performed were DOE to propose amended energy conservation
standards.
The CA IOUs suggested that DOE adopt a common metric between small
electric motors and electric motors. The CA IOUs commented that
different metrics create confusion and represent an additional burden
for the motor industry. The CA IOUs recommended consideration of a
single metric for both small electric motors and electric motors or
development of a new metric in consultation with industry. (CA IOUs,
No. 10 at p. 4)
The energy conservation standards for small electric motors at 10
CFR 431.446 are expressed in terms of average full-load efficiency,
while the standards for electric motors at 10 CFR 431.25 are expressed
in terms of nominal full-load efficiency. The nominal efficiency values
for electric motors are based on a sequence of discretized standard
values in NEMA Standard MG 1-2016 Table 12-10, and are familiar to
motor users. Under this approach, the full-load efficiency is
identified on the electric motor nameplate by a nominal efficiency
level selected from Table 12-10 that shall not be greater than the
average efficiency of a large population of motors of the same design.
However, NEMA has not adopted a comparable set of standardized values
for small electric motors. Because no standardized nominal values are
published for small electric motors, DOE is unable to consider at this
time their appropriateness as a small electric motor performance
metric. Absent standardized nominal values for small electric motors,
DOE is unable to ascertain whether existing energy conservation
standards would require the same level of stringency if based on
nominal values. Therefore, DOE is not proposing to amend the metric for
small electric motor energy conservation standards in this document.
Finally, DOE received a comment from an individual requesting
information on the RFI data collection process, specifically in
reference to the privacy of manufacturers and consumers. (Palubin, No.
2 at p. 1) As provided in the April 2019 ECS RFI, DOE accepted written
comments from the public on any subject within the scope of the small
electric motors energy conservation standards. The confidentiality of
comments submitted is addressed in section VII of this document,
including requests to have comments treated as confidential under 10
CFR 1004.11.
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses
with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for small
electric motors examined by DOE.
A. Energy Savings
For each standards case considered, DOE estimated the per unit
lifetime energy savings for small electric motors purchased in the
expected compliance year of any potential standards. DOE did not
separately evaluate the significance of the potential energy
conservation under the considered amended standard because it has
tentatively determined that the potential standards would not be cost-
effective as defined in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2))
B. Cost Effectiveness
In general, higher-efficiency equipment affects consumers in two
ways: (1) Purchase price increases and (2) annual operating cost
decreases. 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 and water use, energy and water
prices, energy and water price trends, repair costs, and maintenance
costs). The LCC calculation also uses equipment lifetime and a discount
rate.
Table V-1 through Table V-7 show the LCC and PBP results for the
ELs considered for each equipment class. Results for each
representative unit are presented by two tables: In the first of each
pair of tables, the simple payback is measured relative to the baseline
equipment. In the second table, the impacts are measured relative to
the
[[Page 24167]]
efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case in the expected
compliance year for the potential standards considered. Because some
consumers purchase equipment with higher efficiency in the no-new-
standards case, the average savings are greater than the difference
between the average LCC of the baseline equipment and the average LCC
at each EL. The savings refer only to consumers who are affected by a
standard at a given EL. Those who already purchase a small electric
motor with efficiency at or above a given EL are not affected.
Consumers for whom the LCC-increases at a given EL experience a net
cost.
Table V-1--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for Representative Unit 1: Single-Phase, CSCR, 4-Pole, 0.75 hp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs 2018$
---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback Average
Efficiency Level Total First year's Lifetime years lifetime years
installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 465.8 156.2 600.6 1,066.3 .............. 6.6
1....................................................... 481.8 153.8 591.4 1,073.2 6.7 6.6
2....................................................... 502.1 151.1 580.7 1,082.8 7.0 6.6
3....................................................... 544.4 149.7 575.4 1,119.8 12.0 6.6
4....................................................... 571.9 145.2 558.1 1,130.0 9.6 6.6
5....................................................... 1,403.1 142.7 548.3 1,951.4 69.2 6.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured
relative to the baseline equipment.
Table V-2--LCC Savings Relative to the No-New Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for Representative Unit 1:
Single-Phase, CSCR, 4-Pole, 0.75 hp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Percent of customers that Average savings *
Efficiency level experience -----------------------------
------------------------------
Net cost (percent) 2018$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................... 78.3 -6.8
2................................................... 81.8 -16.3
3................................................... 90.7 -53.3
4................................................... 89.8 -63.0
5................................................... 100.0 -884.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
Table V-3--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for Representative Unit 2: Polyphase, 4-Pole, 1 hp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs 2018$
---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback Average
Efficiency level Total First year's Lifetime years lifetime years
installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 450.4 192.8 923.1 1,373.5 .............. 8.5
1....................................................... 519.7 188.7 903.2 1,423.0 16.7 8.5
2....................................................... 579.3 186.2 891.4 1,470.7 19.5 8.5
3....................................................... 1,386.3 182.8 875.2 2,261.4 93.6 8.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured
relative to the baseline equipment.
Table V-4--LCC Savings Relative to the No-New Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for Representative Unit 2:
Polyphase, 4-pole, 1 hp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Percent of customers that Average Savings *
Efficiency level experience -----------------------------
------------------------------
Net cost (percent) 2018$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................... 85.8 -49.4
2................................................... 98.7 -95.3
3................................................... 99.2 -885.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
[[Page 24168]]
Table V-5--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for Representative Unit 3: Single-Phase, CSCR, 4-Pole, 1 hp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs 2018$
----------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level Total First year's Lifetime Simple Average
installed operating operating LCC payback years lifetime years
cost cost cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 529.6 206.3 784.1 1,313.8 .............. 6.6
1....................................................... 547.9 203.3 772.5 1,320.3 5.9 6.6
2....................................................... 570.9 199.9 759.5 1,330.4 6.4 6.6
3....................................................... 619.1 198.1 752.8 1,371.9 10.9 6.6
4....................................................... 650.3 192.4 731.1 1,381.5 8.7 6.6
5....................................................... 1,594.9 189.1 718.6 2,313.5 61.9 6.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured
relative to the baseline equipment.
Table V-6--LCC Savings Relative to the No-New Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for Representative Unit 3:
Single-Phase, CSCR, 4-Pole, 1 hp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Percent of customers that Average savings *
Efficiency level experience -----------------------------
------------------------------
Net cost (percent) 2018$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................... 74.5 -6.5
2................................................... 78.8 -16.6
3................................................... 87.7 -58.0
4................................................... 86.8 -66.9
5................................................... 100.0 -998.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
Table V-7--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for Representative Unit 4: Polyphase, 4-Pole, 0.5 hp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs 2018$
---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback Average
Efficiency level Total First year's Lifetime years lifetime years
installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 374.2 107.3 510.8 885.0 .............. 8.4
1....................................................... 431.7 104.1 495.5 927.2 17.9 8.4
2....................................................... 481.3 102.1 486.0 967.3 20.6 8.4
3....................................................... 1,150.6 99.4 473.4 1,624.0 99.0 8.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured
relative to the baseline equipment.
Table V-8--LCC Savings Relative to the No-New Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for Representative Unit 4:
Polyphase, 4-Pole, 0.5 hp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Percent of customers that Average savings *
Efficiency level experience -----------------------------
------------------------------
Net cost (percent) 2018$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................... 88.2 -42.1
2................................................... 99.8 -80.5
3................................................... 100.0 -737.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
C. Proposed Determination
For this proposed determination, DOE considered the amount of
energy savings conservation, technological feasibility, and cost
effectiveness of potential amended standards for small electric motors
at each considered EL. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and
42 U.S.C. 6295 (n)(2)) As presented in the prior section, DOE projects
that the average customer purchasing a representative small electric
motor would experience an increase in LCC at each evaluated standards
case as compared to the no
[[Page 24169]]
new standards case. The simple PBP for the average of a representative
small electric motor customer at each EL is projected to be generally
longer than the mean lifetime of the equipment. Based on the above
considerations, DOE has tentatively determined that more stringent
amended energy conservation standards for small electric motors cannot
satisfy the relevant statutory requirements because such standards
would not be cost effective as required and described under EPCA. (See
42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2) and (o)(2)(B)(II))
DOE seeks comment on its analysis indicating that increasing the
stringency of the energy conservation standards for small electric
motors are not cost effective.
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866
This proposed determination has been determined to be not
significant for purposes of Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866,
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). As a
result, the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') did not review
this proposed determination.
B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
On January 30, 2017, the President issued E.O. 13771, ``Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.'' E.O. 13771 stated the
policy of the executive branch is to be prudent and financially
responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private
sources. E.O. 13771 stated it is essential to manage the costs
associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures
required to comply with Federal regulations.
Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued E.O.
13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.'' See 82 FR 12285
(March 1, 2017). E.O. 13777 required the head of each agency to
designate an agency official as its Regulatory Reform Officer
(``RRO''). Each RRO oversees the implementation of regulatory reform
initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies effectively carry out
regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable law. Further, E.O. 13777
requires the establishment of a regulatory task force at each agency.
The regulatory task force is required to make recommendations to the
agency head regarding the repeal, replacement, or modification of
existing regulations, consistent with applicable law. At a minimum,
each regulatory reform task force must attempt to identify regulations
that:
(1) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
(2) Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
(3) Impose costs that exceed benefits;
(4) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
(5) Are inconsistent with the requirements of the Information
Quality Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to that Act, particularly
those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information,
or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently
transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or
(6) Derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential
directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially
modified.
DOE initially concludes that this proposed determination is
consistent with the directives set forth in these executive orders. As
discussed in this document, DOE is proposing not to amend the current
energy conservation standards for small electric motors and this
proposal is estimated to have no cost impact. Therefore, if finalized
as proposed, this determination is expected to be an E.O. 13771 other
action.
C. 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'')
and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') 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 Executive Order 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 (http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
DOE reviewed this proposed determination pursuant to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies discussed above. DOE
has tentatively concluded that, based on the data and available
information it has been able to review, amended energy conservation
standards for small electric motors would not be cost-effective.
Therefore, DOE is not proposing to amend the current energy
conservation standards for small electric motors. On the basis of the
foregoing, DOE certifies that this proposed determination, if adopted,
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an IRFA for this
proposed determination. DOE will transmit this certification and
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
Manufacturers of small electric motors must certify to DOE that
their products comply with any applicable energy conservation
standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their
equipment according to the DOE test procedures, including any
amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established
regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for
all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including small
electric motors. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011); 80 FR 5099 (Jan. 30,
2015). The collection-of-information requirement for the certification
and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). This requirement has been approved
by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for
the certification is estimated to average 30 hours per response,
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
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.
The proposed determination, which tentatively finds that amended
energy conservation standards for small electric motors would not be
cost effective, impose no new information or record keeping
requirements. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.)
[[Page 24170]]
E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE is analyzing this proposed action in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA'') and DOE's NEPA
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include
a categorical exclusion for actions which are interpretations or
rulings with respect to existing regulations. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart
D, appendix A4. DOE anticipates that this action qualifies for
categorical exclusion A4 because it is an interpretation or ruling in
regards to an existing regulation and 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 action.
F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 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. As this proposed
determination does not amend the standards for small electric motors,
there is no impact on the policymaking discretion of the States.
Therefore, no action is required by Executive Order 13132.
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 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 Executive Order 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 determination meets
the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
H. 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, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a 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 to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a ``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
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf. This
proposed determination does not contain a Federal intergovernmental
mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures of $100 million or
more in any one year by the private sector. As a result, the analytical
requirements of UMRA do not apply.
I. 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 determination 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.
J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR
8859 (March 18, 1988), DOE has determined that this proposed
determination would not result in any takings that might require
compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
K. 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). DOE has reviewed this proposed determination
under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is
consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 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 the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') at OMB, a
Statement of Energy Effects for any 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
[[Page 24171]]
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 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.
Because this proposed determination would not amend the current
standards for small electric motors, it is not a significant energy
action, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at
OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
M. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
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 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress
peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process
and analyses and has prepared a Peer Review Report pertaining to the
energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses. 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. The ``Energy Conservation Standards
Rulemaking Peer Review Report'' dated February 2007 has been
disseminated and is available at: http://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/peer-review.
VII. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed determination no later than the date provided in the DATES
section at the beginning of this proposed determination. 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 http://www.regulations.gov. The http://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.
Do not submit to http://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 http://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 http://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 http://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to http://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. If you submit via postal mail
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies.
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, WordPerfect, 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, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier 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. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if
feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
[[Page 24172]]
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).
B. 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 the selection of representative equipment
classes for CSCR and polyphase motors and the tentative determination
that more stringent energy conservation standards for CSIR motors are
not technologically feasible.
2. DOE seeks comment on the methodologies employed in the
engineering analysis, specifically regarding the adoption of the motor
designs and associated efficiency levels considered in the March 2010
Final Rule analysis as the basis for this proposed determination.
3. DOE seeks input on whether and how the costs estimated for motor
designs considered in the March 2010 Final Rule have changed since the
time of that analysis. DOE also requests information on the investments
(including related costs) necessary to incorporate specific design
options, including, but not limited to, costs related to new or
modified tooling (if any), materials, engineering and development
efforts to implement each design option, and manufacturing/production
impacts.
4. DOE seeks input on implementing a similar scaling methodology as
that used for the March 2010 Final Rule in this NOPD.
5. DOE seeks comment on the methodology and data used for
estimating end-user prices for small electric motors.
6. DOE seeks comments on how whether additions or changes should be
made to the energy use analysis as well as any data supporting
alternate inputs to characterize the variability in annual energy
consumption for small electric motors.
7. DOE seeks comment on the approach used for estimating
distribution of consumers of small electric motors across applications
and sectors, as well as any data supporting the use of alternate
distributions.
8. DOE seeks comment on the methodology used for estimating the
distribution of motor load for each application and sector, as well as
any data supporting alternate distributions.
9. DOE seeks comment on the methodology used to estimate annual
operating hours, as well as any data supporting alternate distribution
of operating hours by application and sector.
10. DOE seeks comment on the methodology used to estimate
installation costs as well as any data supporting alternate
installation cost estimates.
11. DOE seeks comment on the assumptions for estimating repair and
maintenance costs as well as any data supporting alternate repair and
maintenance cost estimates.
12. DOE seeks comment on the methodology it used for estimating
small electric motor lifetimes, as well as any data supporting
alternate values for these lifetimes.
13. DOE seeks comment on its analysis indicating that increasing
the stringency of the energy conservation standards for small electric
motors are not cost effective.
14. Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to
the conduct of this rulemaking that may not specifically be identified
in this document.
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed
determination.
Signed in Washington, DC, on April 6, 2020.
Daniel R Simmons,
Assistant Secretary for Energy, Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020-08319 Filed 4-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P