[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 24 (Monday, February 6, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7629-7651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02199]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 24 / Monday, February 6, 2023 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 7629]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2022-BT-STD-0014]
RIN 1904-AF39
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, as amended (``EPCA''),
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including small
electric motors. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy
(``DOE'') to periodically determine whether more-stringent, amended
standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified,
and would result in significant energy savings. In this notification of
proposed determination (``NOPD''), DOE has initially determined that
amended energy conservation standards for small electric motors 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 the associated analyses and results.
DATES:
Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on March 15, 2023, from 1:00 p.m.
to 4:00 p.m. See section V, ``Public Participation,'' for webinar
registration information, participant instructions, and information
about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
Comments: Written comments and information are requested and will
be accepted on or before April 7, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, under by docket
number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0014. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified
by docket number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0014, by any of the following
methods:
Email: [email protected]. Include the docket
number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0014 in the subject line of the message.
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.
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) 287-1445.
If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section IV of this document.
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices,
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed
in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in
the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt
from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0014. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section VII, ``Public Participation,'' for further information on how
to submit comments through 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. Matthew Ring, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-2555. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 286-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemakings for Small Electric Motors
III. General Discussion
A. Equipment Classes and Scope of Coverage
B. Test Procedure
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
E. Cost Effectiveness
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Scope of Coverage
2. Technology Options
3. Screening Analysis
4. Equipment Classes
B. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
2. Cost Analysis
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
C. Markups Analysis
D. Energy Use Analysis
E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Equipment Costs
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Electricity Prices
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
6. Equipment Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
[[Page 7630]]
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
B. National Impact Analysis
1. Significance of Energy Savings
2. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
C. Proposed Determination
1. Technological Feasibility
2. Cost Effectiveness
3. Significant Conservation of Energy
4. Summary
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C \2\ of EPCA \3\ established the
Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, (42
U.S.C. 6311-6317). These products includes small electric motors
(``SEMs''), the subject of this final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was re-designated Part A-1.
\3\ 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 the EPCA requirement that not
later than 3 years after issuance of a determination that standards do
not need to be amended, 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).
For this proposed determination, DOE analyzed small electric motors
subject to standards specified in 10 CFR 431.446. DOE first analyzed
the technological feasibility of more energy efficient SEMs with lower
energy use. For those SEMs for which DOE determined higher standards to
be technologically feasible, 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 the results of the analyses, summarized in section V of
this document, DOE has tentatively determined that more stringent
energy conservation standards would not be cost effective. Therefore,
DOE has tentatively determined that the current standards for SEMs 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
historical background relevant to the establishment of standards for
SEMs.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
C of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), added by Public Law 95-
619, Title IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This equipment
includes SEMs, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G))
EPCA directed DOE to prescribe initial test procedures and standards
for this equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b))
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314; 6317), labeling provisions (42
U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313; 6317), and
the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296).
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) EPCA directed
DOE to establish a test procedure for those SEMs 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)). Similarly,
DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment
complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for small electric
motors appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'')
part 431, subpart X.
EPCA further directed DOE to prescribe energy conservation
standards for those SEMs 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 SEM 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 conservation
requirements generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning
energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant
waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations,
in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under
EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6297))
DOE must periodically review its already established energy
conservation standards for covered equipment no later than 6 years from
the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard for
covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) This 6-year
look-back provision requires that DOE publish either a determination
that standards do not need to be amended or a NOPR, including new
proposed standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
[[Page 7631]]
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 publish either a notification of determination that standards for
the product do not need to be amended, or a 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)(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))
A determination that amended standards are not needed must be based
on consideration of whether amended standards will result in
significant conservation of energy, are technologically feasible, and
are cost effective as described in 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)) If
the Secretary prescribes any new or amended energy conservation
standard for any type (or class) of covered equipment, such standards
shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A)) Among the factors DOE considers in evaluating whether a
proposed standard level is economically justified includes whether the
proposed standard at that level is cost-effective, as defined under 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). 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
equipment in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price,
initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered equipment that
are likely to result from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(n)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE is publishing this
NOPD in satisfaction of the 3-year review requirement in EPCA following
a determination that standards need not be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a);
42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B))
B. Background
1. Current Standards
The current energy conservation standards for SEMs are located in
title 10 CFR 431.446, and are presented in Table II-1 and Table II-2.
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
On March 9, 2010, DOE established the current energy conservation
standards for small electric motors. 75 FR 10874 (``March 2010 Final
Rule''). On January 19, 2021, DOE published a notice of final
determination for small electric motors. 86 FR 4885 (``January 2021
Final Determination'') that these standards need not be amended. In the
January 2021 Final Determination, while DOE determined that more
stringent standards would be technologically feasible, DOE also
determined that more stringent energy conservation standards would not
be cost effective. 86 FR 4885, 4906. Therefore, DOE determined that the
current standards for SEMs did not need to be amended. Id.
In support of the present review of the SEM energy conservation
standards, DOE published a request for information, which identified
various issues on which DOE sought comment to inform its determination
of whether the standards need to be amended. 87 FR 23471; April 20,
2022 (``April 2022 RFI''). On May 11, 2022, DOE published
[[Page 7632]]
a notice which extended the comment period for the April 2022 RFI to no
later than June 20, 2022. 87 FR 28782.
DOE received comments in response to the April 2022 RFI from the
interested parties listed in Table II-3.
Table II-3--April 2022 RFI Written Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment number
Commenter(s) Reference in this NOPD in the docket Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and AHRI and AHAM................... 11 Trade Association.
Refrigeration Institute
(``AHRI'') and Association of
Home Appliance Manufacturers
(``AHAM'').
National Electrical NEMA............................ 8 Trade Association.
Manufacturers Association.
California Investor-Owned CA IOUs......................... 9 Utilities.
Utilities (``CA IOUs'')--
Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, San Diego Gas and
Electric, and Southern
California Edison.
QM Power....................... QM Power........................ 10 Manufacturer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket. (Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-
0014, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The references
are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number,
page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Deviation From Appendix A
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430 subpart C,
appendix A (``appendix A''), applicable to covered equipment under 10
CFR 431.4, DOE notes that it is deviating from the provision in
appendix A regarding the comment period for a NOPR. Section 6(f)(2) of
appendix A specifies that the length of the public comment period for a
NOPR will not be less than 75 days. For this proposed determination,
DOE has opted to instead provide a 60-day comment period. As stated
previously, DOE requested comment in the April 2022 RFI on the
technical and economic analyses that would be used to determine whether
a more stringent standard would result in significant conservation of
energy and is technologically feasible and economically justified. DOE
has determined that a 60-day comment period, in conjunction with the
prior April 2022 RFI, provides sufficient time for interested parties
to review the proposed rule and develop comments.
III. General Discussion
DOE developed this proposed determination after considering
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent
a variety of interests. This notice also addresses issues raised by
these commenters.
A. Equipment Classes and Scope of Coverage
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered equipment into product classes by the type of energy
used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify
differing standards. In making a determination whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such
factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors
DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
The equipment classes for this proposed determination are discussed in
further detail in section IV.A.4 of this document. This proposed
determination covers equipment defined as 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.\5\ The
scope of coverage is discussed in further detail in section IV.A.1 of
this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The term ``IEC'' refers to the International
Electrotechnical Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Test Procedure
As noted previously, EPCA directed DOE to establish a test
procedure for those SEMs 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)) EPCA also sets forth generally applicable
criteria and procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)) Manufacturers of covered equipment must
use these test procedures to certify to DOE that their product complies
with energy conservation standards and to quantify the efficiency of
their product. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s); and 42 U.S.C.
6314(d)) DOE's current energy conservation standards for SEMs are
expressed in terms of average full load efficiency. (See 10 CFR
431.446)
DOE adopted test procedures for SEMs in July of 2009 (74 FR 32059)
and subsequently amended them in May of 2012. 77 FR 26608. Most
recently, on January 4, 2021, DOE published a final rule amending test
procedures for SEMs. 86 FR 4. In that final rule, DOE further
harmonized its test procedures with industry practice by updating a
currently incorporated testing standard to reference that standard's
latest version, incorporating a new industry testing standard that
manufacturers would be permitted to use in addition to those industry
standards currently incorporated by reference, and harmonizing certain
test conditions with current industry standards to improve the
comparability of test results for SEMs.
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 products or equipment that are the
subject of the determination. As the first step in such an analysis,
DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in
consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested
parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving
efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies
incorporated in commercially available products or in working
prototypes to be technologically feasible. 10 CFR 431.4; sections
6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430 subpart C
(``Process Rule'').
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option
in light of the following additional
[[Page 7633]]
screening criteria: (1) practicability to manufacture, install, and
service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; (3)
adverse impacts on health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway proprietary
technologies. 10 CFR 431.4; sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of
the Process Rule. Section IV.A.3 of this document discusses the results
of the screening analysis for SEMs, particularly the designs DOE
considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the
standards considered in this proposed determination.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
As when DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or
class of covered equipment, in this analysis it must determine the
maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy
use that is technologically feasible for such a product. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering
analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (``max-
tech'') improvements in energy efficiency for SEMs, using the design
parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or
in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this
analysis are described in section IV.B of this proposed determination.
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
As explained in section III.D.2 of this document, DOE did not
separately evaluate the national energy savings of the considered
amended standards because it has tentatively determined that the
potential standards would not be cost-effective as defined in EPCA.\6\
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The March 2010 Final Rule estimated the national energy
savings achieved by the current energy conservation standards to be
2.20 quads of primary energy savings (i.e., 0.29 quad at TSL 4b for
polyphase SEMs and 1.91 quad at TSL 7 for single phase SEMs). The
March 2010 Final Rule also estimated that the TSL resulting in the
maximum national energy savings would provide a total of 2.70 quads
of primary energy savings (i.e., 0.37 quad at TSL 7 for polyphase
SEMs and 2.33 quad at TSL 8 for single phase SEMs). 75 FR 10874,
10916 (March 9, 2010). The March 2010 Final Rule also estimated that
the TSL directly above the current energy conservation standards
would be 2.67 quads of primary energy savings (i.e., 0.34 quad at
TSL 5 for polyphase SEMs and 2.33 quad at TSL 8 for single phase
SEMs). Although DOE did not separately evaluate the potential energy
savings under the considered amended standards, this previous
analysis, which also relied on the technology options described in
section IV.A.2 of this document, indicates an lower limit of
approximatively 0.47 quads of primary energy (2.67-2.20 = 0.47) and
an upper limit of approximatively 0.5 quad of primary energy savings
(2.70-2.20 = 0.50)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Significance of Savings
In determining whether amended standards are needed, DOE must
consider whether such standards will result in significant conservation
of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C.
6295(n)(2)(A)) The significance of energy savings offered by a new or
amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without
knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.
For example, some covered products and equipment have most of their
energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The
impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more
pronounced than products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly,
DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case
basis.
As discussed in section V.C.2 of this document, DOE has determined
that amended standards would not satisfy the cost-effectiveness
criterion as required by EPCA when determining whether to amend its
standards for a given covered product or equipment. (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 section
IV.E of this document (discussing in greater detail DOE's analysis of
the available data in reaching this determination). Consequently, DOE
did not separately determine whether the potential energy savings would
be significant for the purpose of 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2).
E. Cost Effectiveness
Under EPCA's six-year-lookback review provision for existing energy
conservation standards at 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1), cost-effectiveness of
potential amended standards is a relevant consideration both where DOE
proposes to adopt such standards, as well as where it does not. In
considering cost-effectiveness when making a determination of whether
existing energy conservation standards do not need to be amended, DOE
considers the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the covered product compared to any increase in the
price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of,
the covered product that are likely to result from a standard. (42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A)(referencing 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2))) Additionally,
any new or amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the
Secretary for any type (or class) of covered product shall be designed
to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency which the
Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically
justified. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2(A) Cost-effectiveness is one of the
factors that DOE must ultimately consider under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)
to support a finding of economic justification, if it is determined
that amended standards are appropriate under the applicable statutory
criteria. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)))
As discussed in section V.C.2 of this document, DOE has determined
that amended standards would not satisfy the cost-effectiveness
criterion as required by EPCA when determining whether to amend its
standards for a given covered product or equipment. (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 section
IV.E of this document (discussing in greater detail DOE's analysis of
the available data in reaching this determination).
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
proposed determination with regard to SEMs. Separate subsections
address each component of DOE's analyses. DOE used several analytical
tools to estimate the impact of potential energy conservation
standards. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC
savings and PBP of potential energy conservation standards. The NIA
uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and
calculates NES and net present value of total consumer costs and
savings expected to result from potential energy conservation
standards. These spreadsheet tools are available on the website:
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0014.
In response to the April 2022 RFI, DOE received several comments to
maintain the current standards. NEMA encouraged DOE to reach the same
conclusion as the previous rulemaking (i.e., the January 2021 Final
Determination) and propose a determination again. NEMA stated that in
their observation, there have been no significant technology or market
changes for these products since the January 2021 determination that
might cause a change in conclusions. (NEMA, No. 8 at p. 2) CA IOUs
commented that there is limited opportunity for additional energy
efficiency in the current scope of SEMs. (CA IOUs, No. 9 at p. 1) AHRI
and AHAM commented that they see no reason to move forward with a full-
blown rulemaking as the
[[Page 7634]]
market and technologies have not changed substantially, and recommended
DOE issue a determination not to amend standards. (AHRI and AHAM, No.
11 at p. 6) In this notice, DOE is proposing a determination not to
amend the current standards because of the following when compared to
the January 2021 Final Determination: (1) the SEM efficiencies
available on the market remain unchanged, (2) there have been no
significant technology updates; (3) incremental costs are not expected
to change significantly; and (4) the life-cycle cost analysis inputs of
the 2021 Final Determination remain applicable. As such, in this NOPD,
DOE has tentatively determined that the analysis and conclusions from
the January 2021 Final Determination continue to apply, and therefore
more stringent SEM standards would not be cost-effective (i.e.,
negative LCC results at all analyzed efficiency levels). Further
details on this tentative conclusion is provided in the following
sections.
Separately, AHAM & AHRI commented that EPCA's timeline for
reviewing determination rulemakings is not realistic, in that it does
not allow enough time for the market to shift in order for DOE to
assess whether more stringent standards might be justified. (AHRI and
AHAM, No. 11 at p. 6-7) EPCA requires that DOE must periodically review
its already established energy conservation standards. Specifically,
EPCA requires that, not later than 3 years after the issuance of a
final determination not to amend standards, DOE must publish either a
notification of determination that standards for the product do not
need to be amended, or a 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)(3)(B)) As DOE is bound by EPCA's
requirements, DOE is publishing this NOPD in satisfaction of the 3-year
review requirement in EPCA.
A. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products
concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used
in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology
assessment for this proposed determination include (1) a determination
of the scope and equipment classes, (2) manufacturers and industry
structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information,
(5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or design options
that could improve the energy efficiency of SEMs. The key findings of
DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections.
1. Scope of Coverage
In this analysis, DOE relied on the definition of SEMs in 10 CFR
431.442, which defines SEMs as 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. Any equipment meeting the
definition of SEMs is included in DOE's scope of coverage, though all
products within the scope of coverage may not be subject to standards.
DOE regulates the energy efficiency of those SEMs 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 SEMs do not apply to any SEM 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
SEMs manufactured alone or as a component of another piece of non-
covered equipment. 10 CFR 431.446(a).
DOE received several comments regarding scope. QM Power noted that
while the narrow scope of the current SEM definition does not allow for
much efficiency improvement, it also does not align with current
practices in industry in that efficiency of larger equipment can be
improved by using higher efficiency motors (including the addition of
variable speed). QM Power recommended that the definition of SEMs or
small non-small-electric-motors electric motors (``SNEMs'') \7\ would
better suit more efficient applications, including permanent magnet
alternating current (``PMAC''), permanent magnet synchronous motors
(``PMSM''), electronically commutated motor (``ECM''), and other
similar technologies. (QM Power, No. 10 at pp. 2-3, 6) Separately, CA
IOUs agreed with DOE in including SNEMs within scope of the electric
motors rulemaking. (CA IOUs, No. 9 at pp. 1-2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In the separate electric motors energy conservation
standards rulemaking, DOE analyzed SNEMs, i.e., additional small-
size electric motors which do not meet the definition of SEMs. See
Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHRI and AHAM urged DOE to maintain the current scope of the energy
conservation standards and test procedures for SEMs. In particular,
they noted that they would oppose inclusion in scope special/definite
purpose motors because these motors are already part of finished
products that are currently regulated. They also noted that applying
standards to these motors adds costs and reduces choices and does
little if anything to further energy savings goals. (AHRI and AHAM, No.
11 at pp. 1-3) In addition, AHRI and AHAM recommended that DOE should
take a finished-product approach to energy efficiency regulations. They
urged DOE to maintain the statutory exemption provided for SEMs which
are a component of a covered product (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)) Further,
they noted that more efficient motors would likely be larger and
heavier, and therefore there would be space constraints that would
prevent OEMs from using larger motors if standards are updated. (AHRI
and AHAM, No. 11 at pp. 3-5) Finally, AHAM & AHRI commented that should
DOE decide to include definite and special purpose motors under the
scope of SEMs or electric motors, they do not agree that a different
policy should apply to SEMs that are imported inside a covered product
versus a small electric motor imported on its own but destined for or
used in covered products or equipment manufactured domestically, as it
would place a disincentive on domestic manufacturing. (AHRI and AHAM,
No. 11 at p. 5)
As previously stated in section III.A of this document, the scope
of this proposed determination pertains only to equipment meeting the
definition of small electric motor, as codified in 10 CFR 431.442,
which includes general purpose single speed induction motors. 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.
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), 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
[[Page 7635]]
NEMA MG1-1987 and fell within the general purpose alternating current
motor category, as indicated by the listings found in manufacturers'
catalogs. 75 FR 10874, 10882-10883. Therefore, for this proposed
determination, DOE only considered the currently regulated SEMs subject
to energy conservation standards.
Further, EPCA provides that standards shall not apply to any SEM
which is a component of a covered product covered equipment under
section. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)) DOE has evaluated the scope of the SEM
standards in this proposed determination in accordance with the
direction prescribed in EPCA. With respect to the comments regarding or
implicating electric motors outside the scope of the SEMs definition,
such discussion is outside the scope of this proposed determination.
More information on the scope of the energy conservation standards for
electric motors covered under 10 CFR part 431, subpart B is provided in
a separate rulemaking, under the docket number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007.
2. Technology Options
In the April 2022 RFI, DOE requested comment on any changes to the
technology options since the January 2021 Final Determination that
could affect whether DOE could propose a ``no-new-standards''
determination. DOE also sought comment on whether there were any
updated or new technology options that DOE should consider in its
analysis. 87 FR 23471, 23473.
QM Power commented that high-efficiency technologies are readily
available in today's market, including brushless direct current
(``BLDC''), PMAC, PMSM, ECMs, and are growing quickly as viable
alternatives to more-mature technologies. QM Power provided examples of
studies where upgrading a shaded-pole motor with a Q-Sync motor
provided 79 percent savings in power consumption, and upgrading an ECM
design with a Q-Sync motor provided 45 percent savings in power
consumption. (QM Power, No. 10 at p. 5) QM Power also noted that their
Q-Sync motors exceed current DOE standards for SEMs by 15-27 percent,
but this technology doesn't fall under any current DOE definition.
Accordingly, they recommended including PMAC, PMSM and similar
technologies under the current definition of SEM (or SNEMs); or create
another category which allows participation of highly energy efficient
motors. (QM Power, No. 10 at p. 2)
NEMA stated that in their observation, there have been no
significant technology or market changes for these products since the
previous determination. (NEMA, No. 8 at p. 2) CA IOUs commented that
they are unaware of any market changes that warrant tighter energy
conservation standards. (CA IOUs, No. 9 at p. 1)
As discussed previously, the scope of this proposed determination
pertains only to equipment meeting the definition of small electric
motor, as codified in 10 CFR 431.442, which includes general purpose
single speed induction motors. See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G) and 10 CFR
431.442. Therefore, the scope of this determination does not include
any non-induction electric motors, such as those suggested by QM Power.
Otherwise, for this evaluation, DOE considered each of the
technology options analyzed in the January 2021 Final Determination and
examined any changes to the availability of these design options since
the publication of the January 2021 Final Determination. In addition,
DOE also researched whether there were any new technologies that could
improve the efficiency of SEMs.
To perform this analysis, DOE created a database of currently
available SEMs to assess whether the market has changed since the
January 2021 Final Determination (i.e., ``2022 SEM Database''). The
2022 SEM Database was created from manufacturer catalog data, and
included key information including motor efficiency. DOE collected
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.\8\ Based on market information from the Low-Voltage Motors
World Market Report,\9\ DOE estimates that the four major motor
manufacturers noted above comprise the majority of the U.S. SEM market
and are consistent with the motor brands considered in the January 2021
Final Determination and March 2010 Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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
https://catalog.wegelectric.com/.
\9\ Based on the Low-Voltage Motors, World Market Report (OMDIA
Report November 2020) Table 1: Market Share Estimates for Low-
voltage Motors: Americas; Suppliers' share of the Market:2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on a review of the 2022 SEM Database, DOE found that the
efficiencies of SEMs on the market have stayed largely the same since
the January 2021 Final Determination. Therefore, DOE has tentatively
determined that because SEM efficiencies haven't changed, no
significant technical advancements in induction motor technology
pertaining to potential higher SEM efficiency have been made since
publication of the January 2021 Final Determination. Further, no
comments suggested additional technology options that were not
previously considered in the January 2021 Final Determination.
Accordingly, DOE maintains the same technology options for review in
this determination as from the January 2021 Final Determination.
In summary, for this analysis, DOE considers the technology options
shown in Table IV-1. Detailed descriptions of these technology options
can be found in chapter 3 of the January 2021 Final Determination TSD.
Table IV-1--January 2021 Final Determination Small Electric Motors
Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 7636]]
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on its tentative conclusion that there have
been no significant technical advancements since the last rulemaking,
and that the technology options developed for the January 2021 Final
Determination are still applicable.
3. Screening Analysis
DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy
conservation standards rulemaking:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial products or in commercially viable, existing
prototypes will not be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology 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. If a technology is determined to
have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to
subgroups of consumers, or 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) Safety of technologies. If it is determined that a technology
would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not
be considered further.
(5) Unique-pathway proprietary technologies. If a technology has
proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a
given efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to the
potential for monopolistic concerns.
10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections
6(b)(3) and 7(b).
In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination
of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria,
it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering
analysis.
DOE did not receive any comments on the screening analysis.
Further, as discussed in section IV.A.2, DOE has tentatively determined
that no significant technical advancements in induction motor
technology have been made since the January 2021 Final Determination.
Finally, a review of the 2022 SEM Database did not identify any new
technology options that should be screened in.
Accordingly, DOE is maintaining the screening analysis from the
January 2021 Final Determination, which screened out three of the
technology options presented in Table IV.1: reducing the air gap below
0.0125 inches, amorphous metal laminations, and plastic bonded iron
powder (``PBIP''). 86 FR 4885, 4894. DOE finds that all of the
remaining technology options meet the other screening criteria (i.e.,
practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do not result in
adverse impacts on consumer utility, product availability, health, or
safety). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the January 2021
Final Determination TSD.
4. Equipment Classes
In general, when evaluating and establishing energy conservation
standards, DOE divides the covered product into classes by (1) the type
of energy used, (2) the capacity of the product, or (3) any other
performance-related feature that affects energy efficiency and
justifies different standard levels, considering factors such as
consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) For the
analysis in the January 2021 Final Determination, DOE considered the 62
equipment classes that it already regulates based on motor category,
horsepower rating, and number of poles. 86 FR 4885, 4892-4893.
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). Second, 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'').
Third, 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). 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). Id.
For this analysis, 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.
Further, DOE did not receive any comments suggesting updating the
equipment classes considered in the January 2021 Final Determination.
Accordingly, DOE has maintained the same equipment classes from the
January 2021 Final Determination, presented in Table IV.2.
[[Page 7637]]
Table IV-2--January 2021 Final Determination 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Engineering Analysis
The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between the efficiency and cost of SEMs. There are two
elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of
efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ``efficiency analysis'') and
the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the
``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency
equipment, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations
not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each equipment class, DOE
estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the
product/equipment at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output
of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency ``curves'' that
are used in downstream analyses (i.e., the LCC and PBP analyses and the
NIA).
1. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach),
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on
the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that
already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended
using the design option approach to interpolate to define ``gap fill''
levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency
levels) and/or to extrapolate to the ``max-tech'' level (particularly
in cases where the ``max tech'' level exceeds the maximum efficiency
level currently available on the market).
In the January 2021 Final Determination, DOE relied on the design-
option approach, consistent with the March 2010 Final Rule. In the
design option approach, DOE considered efficiency levels corresponding
to motor designs that met or exceeded the efficiency requirements of
the current energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.446. 86 FR
4885, 4895-4898. In the April 2022 RFI, DOE requested comments on
whether the methodologies employed in the January 2021 Final
Determination 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 the final
determination, still apply. 87 FR 23471, 23473. In response, NEMA
stated that in their observation, the methodologies employed by DOE in
the previous determination engineering analysis still apply. (NEMA, No.
8 at p. 3) DOE did not receive any other comments.
As discussed in section IV.2. of this document, the 2022 SEM
Database determined no significant technical advancements in induction
motor technology that could lead to more efficient designs relative to
the analysis considered in the January 2021 Final Determination (which
relied on the motors modeled for the March 2010 Final Rule). Further,
DOE tentatively determined that the available range of efficiency
values of SEMs on the market in the 2022 SEM Database have stayed
largely the same since the January 2021 Final Determination.
Accordingly, DOE is tentatively considering the methodologies employed
in the January 2021 Final Determination engineering analysis for this
determination.
Therefore, consistent with the January 2021 Final Determination,
for the engineering analysis, DOE considered one representative
equipment class for each of the CSCR and polyphase motor topologies. 86
FR 4885, 4895-4896. Equipment classes in both the polyphase and CSCR
topologies were directly analyzed due to the fundamental differences in
their starting and running electrical characteristics. Similar to the
conclusions from the January 2021 Final Determination, DOE did not
consider a CSIR motor representative unit. 86 FR 4885, 4895. This is
because the minimum energy conservation standards adopted in the March
2010 Final Rule (and which are established in 10 CFR 431.446(a))
represented the maximum technologically feasible efficiency for CSIR
motors, and 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. Id.
Accordingly, the proposed representative equipment classes are
outlined in Table IV-3.
Table IV-3--January 2021 Final Determination Representative Equipment Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor output power
Representative unit No. Motor topology Pole configuration (hp)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... Polyphase................. 4 1.00
2....................................... Single-phase CSCR......... 4 0.75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7638]]
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 January 2021 Final Determination
engineering analysis, DOE analyzed the same motor designs that were
developed for the January 2021 Final Determination. 86 FR 4885, 4896.
For each representative equipment class, DOE established an efficiency
level for each motor design that exhibited improved efficiency over the
baseline design. DOE considered the current minimum energy conservation
standards as the baseline efficiency levels for each representative
equipment class. Id.
For higher efficiency levels, DOE considered both space-constrained
and non-space-constrained scenarios, consistent with the January 2021
Final Determination.\10\ 86 FR 4885, 4896-4897. 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.
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The stack length for the polyphase representative unit
increased from 4.4 in for the current baseline level up to 6.0 in
(36% increase) for the non-space constrained design and stayed
constant at 3.6 in (0% increase) for the space constrained designs.
The stack length for the CSCR representative unit increased from 4.6
in for the current baseline level up to 6.0 in (30% increase) for
the non-space constrained design and increased from 3.45 in for the
current baseline level up to 3.6 in (4% increase) for the space
constrained designs. (See Chapter 5 of the January 2021 Final
Determination for further details).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Cost Analysis
The cost analysis portion of the Engineering Analysis is conducted
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost
approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated
product and the availability and timeliness of purchasing the equipment
on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically
dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to
develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.
Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a
product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available
from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example)
to develop the bill of materials (``BOM'') for the product.
Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as
fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which
parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise
impractical (e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price
surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online
retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and
other commercial channels.
In the January 2021 Final Determination, DOE relied on a standard
BOM that was constructed for the March 2010 Final rule for each motor
design that includes direct material costs and labor time estimates
along with costs, which was the basis for determining the manufacturer
production costs (``MPC''). For the January 2021 Final Determination,
DOE updated the material and labor costs to be representative of the
market in 2019 using the historical Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer
Price Indices (``PPI'') \11\ for each commodity's industry. 86 FR 4885,
4897-4989. 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.\12\ Finally, to account for
manufacturers' non-production costs and profit margin, DOE applied a
multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC. The resulting
manufacturer selling price (``MSP'') is the price at which the
manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. DOE developed an average
manufacturer markup by examining the annual Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'') 10-K reports filed by publicly-traded
manufacturers primarily engaged in appliance manufacturing and whose
combined product range includes SEMs. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ www.bls.gov/ppi/.
\12\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of Industry Series
Reports for Industry, U.S. Department of Commerce, 2012; NAICS code
3353121 ``Fractional Horsepower Motors'' Production workers hours
and wages. Although some summary statistics of the 2017 Economic
Census for Manufacturing is currently available, the detailed
statistics for the U.S. is estimated to be released in the time
frame of November 2020-September 2021. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/economic-census/about/release-schedules.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the April 2022 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether and how the
costs estimated for motor designs considered in the January 2021 Final
Determination have changed since the time of that analysis. DOE also
requested 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. 87 FR 23471, 23473. In
response, NEMA commented that across the board, including for labor,
tooling, materials, semi-conductors, shipping, engineering,
development, certification, costs have increased over the last 12
months and especially over the last 6 months. They noted that costs may
be as much as 50 percent higher than 2020-2021, and are expected to
remain at elevated levels for the next 2-3 years. Further, they noted
that lead times for materials have also dramatically lengthened, with
certain equipment being unavailable. (NEMA, No. 8 at p. 3) QM Power
commented that the move towards higher efficiency alternatives has a
cost of entry. Generally, they noted that higher efficiency motors are
more expensive than their lower-efficiency counterpart but through
adoption, increased volumes as well as incentives, cost can be driven
down. (QM Power, No. 10 at p. 5)
DOE notes that a significant portion of the costs associated with
SEMs is attributed to the fluctuating metal prices of several motor
components. These include steel laminations, copper wiring, and rotor
die-casting aluminum or copper. To account for the variable prices of
components that are dependent on fluctuating metal prices, in the
January 2021 Final Determination, DOE used an inflation adjusted five-
year average price point for these components. (See Chapter 5 of the
2021 Final Determination TSD). For this NOPD, DOE performed an initial
evaluation of the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics PPI and determined
that the five-year average price point for these components would
increase, in turn increasing the MSPs that were determined in the
January 2021 Final Determination. However, DOE notes that the MSP
increase would apply to all efficiency levels and therefore incremental
costs are not expected to change significantly from the January 2021
Final Determination. Finally, any
[[Page 7639]]
increase in costs would further substantiate the determination that
amended standards would not satisfy the cost-effectiveness criterion as
required by EPCA because while costs might increase, the efficiencies
would stay the same. Consequently, DOE did not further evaluate the
January 2021 Final Determination cost analysis, and maintained the cost
evaluation from the January 2021 Final Determination for this NOPD.
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
As discussed in the previous sections, DOE determined there were no
significant technical advancements in induction motor technology that
could lead to more efficient or lower cost motor designs relative to
the analysis considered in the January 2021 Final Determination. DOE
has initially determined that the MSPs that were determined in the
January 2021 Final Determination would likely increase as a result of
costs increases of components of SEMs. However, as described
previously, the MSP increase would apply to all efficiency levels and
therefore incremental costs are not expected to change significantly
from the January 2021 Final Determination. Any increase in costs would
further substantiate the determination that amended standards would not
be cost-effective because while costs might increase, the efficiencies
would stay the same. Therefore, for this NOPD, DOE has tentatively
concluded that the analysis from the January 2021 Final Determination
continues to apply.
Accordingly, the engineering analysis results are four MSP-versus-
full-load efficiency curves that represent two relationships (space-
constrained and non-space-constrained scenarios) for the representative
equipment classes for polyphase and CSCR motors. Table IV-4 and Table
IV-5 present the results from the January 2021 Final Determination.
Further discussion is provided in Chapter 5 of the January 2021 Final
Determination TSD.
Table IV-4--January 2021 Final Determination Efficiency and MSP Data for Polyphase Motor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency (%) MSP (2019$) (design 1/
Efficiency level (design 1/design 2) * design 2) *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................................................... 83.5/83.5 159.35/159.23
EL 1.......................................................... 85.3/85.2 258.97/180.16
EL 2.......................................................... 86.2/86.3 266.99/216.77
EL 3 (Max-tech)............................................... 87.7/87.8 1,845.90/360.87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Design 1 denotes the space constrained design, and design 2 denotes the non-space constrained design.
Table IV-5--January 2021 Final Determination Efficiency and MSP Data for CSCR Motor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency (%) (design MSP (2019$) (design 1/
Efficiency level 1/design 2) * design 2) *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................................................... 81.7/81.8 176.31/169.38
EL 1.......................................................... 82.8/82.8 181.19/178.23
EL 2.......................................................... 84.1/84.0 190.24/189.11
EL 3.......................................................... 84.8/84.6 272.98/196.46
EL 4.......................................................... 86.8/86.7 281.69/213.66
EL 5 (Max-tech)............................................... 88.1/87.9 1,859.53/372.17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Design 1 denotes the space constrained design, and design 2 denotes the non-space constrained design.
While the engineering analysis focused on two representative units,
the energy use and life-cycle cost analyses (see sections IV.D and IV.E
of this document) considered 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. In the January 2021 Final Determination, DOE
extrapolated the results from the units studied in the engineering
analysis for the two supplementary representative units (Representative
Unit #3, Single-phase CSCR, 4-pole, 1hp; Representative Unit #4,
Polyphase, 4-pole, 0.5hp). Further discussion on the scaling
methodology and cost-efficiency results for the two supplementary
representative units are provided in Chapter 5 of the January 2021
Final Determination TSD.
DOE requests comments on its tentative conclusion that the results
of the engineering analysis from the January 2021 Final Determination
continue to appropriately apply because: (1) there are no significant
technical advancements in induction motor technology that could lead to
more efficient or lower cost motor designs since that time, and (2)
increases in costs and MSPs only further substantiate that higher
efficiencies continue to be cost-ineffective.
C. Markups Analysis
The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g., retailer
markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution
chain and sales taxes to convert the MSP estimates derived in the
engineering analysis to SEM consumer costs, which are then used in the
LCC and PBP analysis and in the manufacturer impact analysis. At each
step in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the
product to cover business costs and profit margin. DOE develops
baseline and incremental markups for each actor in the distribution
chain. Baseline markups are applied to the price of products 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.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Because the projected price of standards-compliant products
is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the
same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would
result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an outcome is
possible, DOE maintains that in markets that are reasonably
competitive it is unlikely that standards would lead to a
sustainable increase in profitability in the long run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7640]]
In the April 2022 RFI, DOE requested information on the existence
of any distribution channels other than the channels that were
identified in the January 2021 Final Determination. DOE also requested
data on the fraction of sales that go through these channels and any
other identified channels. DOE further noted that in the January 2021
Final Determination, DOE identified three distribution channels for
small electric motors and estimated their respective shares of sales
volume: (1) from manufacturers to original equipment manufacturers
(``OEMs''), who incorporate motors in larger pieces of equipment, to
OEM equipment distributors, to contractors, and then to end-users (65
percent of shipments); (2) from manufacturers to wholesale
distributors, to OEMs, to OEM equipment distributors, to contractors,
and then to end-users (30 percent of shipments); and (3) from
manufacturers to distributors or retailers, to contractors and then to
end-users (5 percent of shipments). 87 FR 23471, 23473
DOE reviewed the data sources used to develop distribution channels
and sales tax. DOE has tentatively concluded that the markups for each
step in the distribution channel, and sales taxes are comparable to the
estimates developed for the January 2021 Final Determination.
In response to the April 2022 RFI, NEMA commented that internet
sales may be increasing, but that they did not have insight into this.
NEMA further commented that 90 percent of units are sold to equipment
manufacturers (i.e., OEMs), the remaining 10 percent is sold through
distribution which is sold to smaller OEMs building equipment. They
noted that very few units are sold as a replacement for failed units.
(NEMA, No. 8 at p. 4) NEMA further stated that OEMs demand that motor
suppliers support numerous system efficiency levels in order for them
to meet DOE requirements. They noted that SEM distribution continue to
evolve as more finished equipment with embedded motors are produced
offshore, and that offshore manufacturers often manufacture the motors
that are embedded and sent to the U.S. market. They noted that the
internet provides direct access to retail and commercial customers for
these offshore products, and estimated that offshore SEMs could be in
excess of 50 percent of the units imported, depending on how one sets
the scope of products impacted. (NEMA, No. 8 at p. 3)
As noted previously, in the January 2021 Final Determination, DOE
estimated that few units would be sold as replacement via channel 3
(i.e., 5 percent). In addition, DOE assumed that 65 percent of motors
are sold directly to OEMs (i.e., via channel 1) while 30 percent are
sold to OEMs through distribution (i.e., via channel 2). DOE notes that
these channels also include internet sales and imported SEMs. The
estimate provided by NEMA would instead result in the following
estimates of fraction of shipments: 90 percent of shipments via channel
1; 10 percent of shipments via channel 2; and 0 percent of shipments
via channel 3. DOE notes that the baseline and incremental markups
associated with Channel 1 are lower than the baseline and incremental
markups associated with channel 2, which includes additional
distributor markups. Therefore, this change results in a slightly lower
shipments-weighted average baseline and incremental markup for small
electric motors (6 and 4 percent less respectively), which could in
turn decrease the calculated consumer cost of a small electric motor at
each EL. However, because this decrease is relatively small and impacts
all ELs, DOE has tentatively concluded that such update would still
result in comparable incremental changes in consumer costs with
increasing ELs and comparable LCC savings results. In addition, due to
the separate increase in MSPs across all ELs since the publication of
the January 2021 Final Determination (see section IV.B.2 of this
document), which in turn increases the resulting consumer costs across
all ELs, DOE has tentatively concluded that such updates would result
in comparable consumer costs and LCC savings results.
DOE requests comments on its tentative conclusion that the revised
market shares by distribution channel and revised markups and sales
taxes would still result in SEM consumer costs and LCC savings that are
comparable to the estimates developed for the January 2021 Final
Determination.
D. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual
energy consumption of small electric motors at different efficiencies
in representative U.S. applications, and to assess the energy savings
potential of increased small electric motor efficiency. The energy use
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.
In the April 2022 RFI, DOE requested information on whether the
results of the January 2021 Final Determination energy use were still
relevant. Specifically, DOE requested inputs on whether the inputs to
the energy use calculation used in the January 2021 Final Determination
were still relevant. DOE further requested data and information related
to various inputs to the energy use calculation: (1) the distribution
of shipments across applications and sectors by equipment class or by
motor topology and horsepower; (2) typical operating hours by
application and sector; (3) typical motor load by application and
sector; and (4) typical load profiles (i.e., percentage of annual
operating hours spent at specified load points) by application and
sector. 87 FR 23471, 23473
In response to the April 2022 RFI, NEMA stated that the hours of
use and distribution data from the previous iteration of the rulemaking
remain sufficient for the purposes of making a determination on this
review of standards. (NEMA, No. 8 at p. 2)
Table IV-6 presents the average energy consumption, from section
7.3 of the January 2021 Final Determination TSD, for each SEM
representative unit and efficiency level.\14\ DOE has tentatively
concluded that the average energy consumption for these small electric
motors are equal to the estimates developed for the January 2021 Final
Determination, as the technology options at each efficiency level, and
usage inputs, have not changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The analysis focuses on two representative units identified
in the engineering analysis. In addition, for each equipment class
group, the January 2021 Final determination also analyzed an
additional representative unit to include consumers of integral
single-phase CSCR small electric motors and fractional polyphase
small electric motor. See Section 7.1 of the January 2021 Final
Determination TSD.
[[Page 7641]]
Table IV-6--January 2021 Final Determination Average Energy Use by Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kilowatt-hours per year
Rep. unit Description -----------------------------------------------------------------
EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................... Single-phase (CSCR), 4 1,653.6 1,628.2 1,598.5 1,583.8 1,536.0 1,509.0
pole, 0.75 hp.
2.................... Polyphase, 4 pole, 1 hp 2,092.8 2,047.7 2,020.8 1,983.8 ......... .........
3.................... Single-phase (CSCR), 4 2,191.9 2,159.1 2,122.7 2,103.9 2,043.2 2,008.0
pole, 1 hp.
4.................... Polyphase, 4 pole, 0.5 1,152.6 1,117.9 1,096.7 1,068.1 ......... .........
hp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comments on its tentative conclusion that the average
energy use results for small electric motors are the same as the
estimates developed for the January 2021 Final Determination.
E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
DOE conducts 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 cost. DOE uses the following
two metrics to measure consumer impacts:
The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or
product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed
cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales
tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy
use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE
discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them
over the lifetime of the product.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it
takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
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 PBP for a given efficiency level is measured relative to the
baseline product.
For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE
calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of
consumers. For each sample consumer, DOE determines the energy
consumption for the small electric motor and the appropriate
electricity 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 product--which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, retailer and
distributor markups, and sales taxes--and installation costs. Inputs to
the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy
consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and
maintenance costs, product lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE creates
distributions of values for small electric motor 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 small electric motor user
samples. 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, product efficiency is chosen based on its probability. If the
chosen product 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 products,
DOE avoids overstating the potential benefits from increasing product
efficiency. For the January 2021 Final Determination, DOE calculated
the LCC and PBP for all consumers of small electric motors as if each
were to purchase a new product in the expected year of required
compliance with new or amended standards.
The subsections that follow provide discussion of each input to the
LCC analysis used in the January 2021 Final Determination and whether
and how each input may have changed since the publication of the
January 2021 Final Determination.
1. Equipment Costs
To calculate consumer SEM costs, DOE multiplies the MPCs developed
in the engineering analysis by the markups described previously (along
with sales taxes). DOE uses different markups for baseline products and
higher-efficiency products, because DOE applies an incremental markup
to the increase in MSP associated with higher-efficiency products. As
noted previously, while DOE has determined that MPCs and MSPs are
likely higher due to cost increases of SEMs components, DOE has
tentatively concluded that the incremental consumer costs between
efficiencies have remained comparable to those in the January 2021
Final Determination. Moreover, the noted cost increases further
substantiate a determination that amended standards would not be cost-
effective. Therefore, in this proposed determination, DOE relied on the
same consumer costs as estimated in the January 2021 Final
Determination.
2. Installation Cost
Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous
materials and parts needed to install the product. In the January 2021
Determination, DOE found no evidence that installation costs would be
impacted with increased efficiency levels and did not account for these
costs in the LCC savings calculation (See section 8.2.1.5 of the
January 2021 Final Determination TSD).
NEMA noted that more efficient SEMs tend to have higher inrush
current on startup, and this could overload preexisting branch circuits
in retrofit applications. They stated that this would apply both to 3-
phase and single-phase designs, and in cord-and-plug SEM designs, the
higher inrush currents
[[Page 7642]]
could exceed electrical safety requirements. As such, they commented
that elevations of efficiency could necessitate rewiring of homes, and
therefore, the LCC analysis should account for the costs to improve/
replace branch circuit wiring if DOE chooses to pursue a more thorough
reinvestigation of the LCC for this rulemaking. (NEMA, No. 8 at p. 4)
As noted previously in section IV.A.2 of this document, DOE is
maintaining the same technology options for review in this
determination as from the January 2021 Final Determination. As noted by
NEMA, an increase in inrush current could necessitate rewiring of homes
and result in increased installation costs. However, in the January
2021 Final Determination, the engineering analysis provided the inrush
current (also known as ``locked rotor current'') at each of the
efficiency levels analyzed (See Table 5.5.2, Table 5.5.4 of the January
2021 Final Determination TSD). The data shows that the locked rotor
current either decreased at higher ELs or did not increase
significantly (i.e., the locked rotor current remained below the
maximum limit corresponding to NEMA MG1 design requirements as noted in
Table 5.5.2, Table 5.5.4 of the January 2021 Final Determination TSD).
As such, as the efficiency increases, the inrush current would not
exceed the NEMA MG1 design maximum limits and would not result in any
increase in installation costs. Therefore, as the same technology
options are being considered in this determination, DOE tentatively
concludes that the installation costs would not be impacted with
increased efficiency levels and has tentatively determined that the
conclusions of the January 2021 Final Determination regarding
installation costs are still valid. Accordingly, DOE did not account
for these costs in the LCC savings calculation in this determination.
DOE seeks comment on its tentative conclusion that there are no
changes in installation costs by efficiency level.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
As previously noted in section IV.D of this document, DOE has
tentatively concluded that the average energy consumption for these
small electric motors remains the same as the estimates developed for
the January 2021 Final Determination. Therefore, DOE used those
estimates in the analysis for this proposed determination.
4. Electricity Prices
In the January 2021 Final Determination, DOE derived electricity
prices in 2019 using data from EEI Typical Bills and Average Rates
reports. Based upon comprehensive, industry-wide surveys, this semi-
annual report presents typical monthly electric bills and average
kilowatt-hour costs to the customer as charged by investor-owned
utilities. For the residential sector, DOE calculated electricity
prices using the methodology described in Coughlin and Beraki
(2018).\15\ For the industrial and commercial sectors, DOE calculated
electricity prices using the methodology described in Coughlin and
Beraki (2019).\16\ DOE's methodology allows electricity prices to vary
by sector, region and season. In DOE's analyses, variability in
electricity prices is chosen to be consistent with the way the consumer
economic and energy use characteristics are defined in the LCC
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2018. Residential Electricity
Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods. Lawrence
Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-2001169.
ees.lbl.gov/publications/residential-electricity-prices-review.
\16\ Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2019. Non-residential
Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods.
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-
2001203. ees.lbl.gov/publications/non-residential-electricity-prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the January 2021 Final Determination, to estimate electricity
prices in future years, DOE multiplied the 2019 energy prices by the
projection of annual average price changes for each of the nine census
divisions from the Reference case in AEO2020, which has an end year of
2050.\17\ To arrive at prices in the compliance year (which was assumed
to be 2028 in the January 2021 Final Determination), DOE multiplied the
2019 electricity prices by the projection of annual national-average
residential, industrial, and commercial electricity prices provided by
AEO 2020. To estimate the trend after 2028, DOE used the average rate
of change during 2028-2050. See section 8.2.2.2 of the of the January
2021 Final Determination TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information
Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2020 with Projections to 2050.
Washington, DC. Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the impact of electricity prices in this determination,
DOE compared average electricity prices in the January 2021 Final
Determination for 2028 (the starting year in the analysis) to a likely
starting year if DOE performed a revised analysis in a new
rulemaking.\18\ To assess the impact of updated energy price estimates,
DOE used 2021 EEI Typical Bills and Average Rates reports and AEO 2022
energy price trends.\19\ DOE has found that weighted-average
electricity prices across all sectors are slightly lower in 2029
($0.085/kW in $2019) compared to 2028 weighted-average electricity
prices used in the January 2021 Final Determination ($0.092/kW in
2018$). This is partly offset by a higher electricity price growth rate
in AEO 2021 (-0.26%) compared to what was used in the January 2021
Final Determination (-0.30%) based on AEO 2019. Therefore, DOE has
tentatively determined that the energy prices have not changed
significantly from that estimated in the January 2021 Final
Determination.\20\ For this reason, DOE used the estimates from the
January 2021 Final Determination in the analysis for this proposed
determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 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 2024.
Therefore, for purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2029 as the year
of compliance.
\19\ U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information
Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2022 with Projections to 2050,
available at https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/ (last accessed
October 14, 2022).
\20\ In addition, any decrease in electricity costs would
further substantiate the determination that amended standards would
not satisfy the cost-effectiveness criterion as required by EPCA
because it would reduce the calculated operating costs savings and
therefore the LCC savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing equipment
components that have failed in an appliance; maintenance costs are
associated with maintaining the operation of the equipment. Typically,
small incremental increases in product efficiency produce no, or only
minor, changes in repair and maintenance costs compared to baseline
efficiency products.
In the January 2021 Final Determination, DOE estimated that for all
the equipment classes of small electric motors, there is no change in
maintenance with efficiency level, and therefore DOE did not include
those costs in the LCC savings calculation. In addition, DOE assumed
that 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. (See section 8.2.2.3 of the January 2021 Final Determination
TSD). DOE has tentatively determined that these
[[Page 7643]]
conclusions are still valid as the technology options have not changed
across ELs. Therefore, DOE did not include those costs in the LCC
savings calculation.
DOE seeks comment on its tentative conclusion that there is no
changes in maintenance costs by efficiency level and that small
electric motors are usually not repaired.
6. Equipment Lifetime
In the April 2022 RFI, DOE requested information on whether the
lifetime inputs used in the January 2021 Final Determination were still
valid. Additionally, DOE requested data and input on the appropriate
equipment lifetimes for small electric motors both in years and in
lifetime mechanical hours that DOE should apply in its analysis. 87 FR
23471, 23473
In the January 2021 Final Determination, DOE used two Weibull
distributions. 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
estimated motor mechanical lifetimes of 40,000 hours for polyphase
motors and 30,000 hours for single phase motors. DOE estimated average
application lifetimes to 7.8-9.7 years. (See section 8.2.2.4 of the
January 2021 Final Determination TSD)
In response to the April 2022 RFI, NEMA commented that in their
assessment, the lifetime inputs used in the previous analysis are still
valid. (NEMA, No. 8 at p. 4)
As small electric motors have not significantly changed since the
January 2021 Final Determination, DOE has tentatively determined that
the equipment lifetime has remained largely the same and used the
lifetime inputs form the January 2021 Final Determination in this
analysis.
DOE seeks comment on its tentative conclusion that lifetimes have
remained the same as estimated in the January 2021 Final Determination.
7. Discount Rates
In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate
to residential, commercial, and industrial consumers to estimate the
present value of future operating cost savings. DOE estimated a
distribution of discount rates for small electric motors based on the
opportunity cost of consumer funds.
DOE applies weighted average discount rates calculated from
consumer debt and asset data, rather than marginal or implicit discount
rates.\21\ The LCC analysis estimates net present value over the
lifetime of the product, so the appropriate discount rate will reflect
the general opportunity cost of household funds, taking this time scale
into account. Given the long time horizon modeled in the LCC analysis,
the application of a marginal interest rate associated with an initial
source of funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the method of purchase,
consumers are expected to continue to rebalance their debt and asset
holdings over the LCC analysis period, based on the restrictions
consumers face in their debt payment requirements and the relative size
of the interest rates available on debts and assets. DOE estimates the
aggregate impact of this rebalancing using the historical distribution
of debts and assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The implicit discount rate is inferred from a consumer
purchase decision between two otherwise identical goods with
different first cost and operating cost. It is the interest rate
that equates the increment of first cost to the difference in net
present value of lifetime operating cost, incorporating the
influence of several factors: transaction costs; risk premiums and
response to uncertainty; time preferences; interest rates at which a
consumer is able to borrow or lend. The implicit discount rate is
not appropriate for the LCC analysis because it reflects a range of
factors that influence consumer purchase decisions, rather than the
opportunity cost of the funds that are used in purchases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE
identified all relevant household debt or asset classes in order to
approximate a consumer's opportunity cost of funds related to appliance
energy cost savings. It estimated the average percentage shares of the
various types of debt and equity by household income group using data
from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances \22\
(``SCF'') for 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019.
Using the SCF and other sources, DOE developed a distribution of rates
for each type of debt and asset by income group to represent the rates
that may apply in the year in which amended standards would take
effect. DOE assigned each sample household a specific discount rate
drawn from one of the distribution across all income groups. The
average rate across all types of household debt and equity and income
groups in 2022, weighted by the shares of each type, is 4.3 percent,
which the same as the average residential discount rate used in the
January 2021 Final Determination (See section 8.2.2 of the January 2021
Final Determination TSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Survey of Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010,
2013, 2016, and 2019. (Last accessed June 15, 2022).
www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scfindex.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To establish commercial and industrial discount rates, DOE
estimated the weighted-average cost of capital using data from
Damodaran Online.\23\ The weighted-average cost of capital is commonly
used to estimate the present value of cash flows to be derived from a
typical company project or investment. Most companies use both debt and
equity capital to fund investments, so their cost of capital is the
weighted average of the cost to the firm of equity and debt financing.
DOE estimated the cost of equity using the capital asset pricing model,
which assumes that the cost of equity for a particular company is
proportional to the systematic risk faced by that company. The average
commercial and industrial discount rates in 2022 are 6.8 percent and
7.2 percent, respectively. These values compare to the average
commercial and industrial discount rates in the January 2021 Final
Determination which were estimated to 6.4 percent and 6.9 percent,
respectively (See section 8.2.2 of the January 2021 Final Determination
TSD). Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that discount rates
have not changed significantly from those in the January 2021 Final
Determination and these minor changes would have no significant impact
on the LCC results. DOE therefore used the discount rates from the
January 2021 Final Determination in the analysis for this proposed
determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Damodaran, A. Data Page: Historical Returns on Stocks,
Bonds and Bills-United States. 2021. (Last accessed April 26, 2022.)
pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on its tentative conclusion that discount rates
have not changed significantly since in the January 2021 Final
Determination.
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be
affected by a potential amended energy conservation standard at a
particular efficiency level, DOE's LCC analysis considers the projected
distribution (market shares) of equipment efficiencies under the no-
new-standards case (i.e., the case without amended or new energy
conservation standards).
In its analysis for the January 2021 Final Determination, DOE
developed no-new standards case efficiency distributions based on the
distributions of then currently available models for which SEM
efficiency is included in catalog listings. DOE relied on 2018
[[Page 7644]]
catalog data and analyzed the distribution of SEMs in the manufacturer
catalog data for CSCR and polyphase SEMs.\24\ DOE projected that these
efficiency distributions would remain constant throughout the
compliance year. See Table IV-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 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 Section 8.2 of the January 2021 Final Determination
TSD.
Table IV-7--January 2021 Final Determination No-New-Standards Case Market Share for Small Electric Motors
Representative Units by Efficiency Level in the Compliance Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. unit Equipment class group EL 0 (%) EL 1 (%) EL 2 (%) EL 3 (%) EL 4 (%) EL 5 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................... Single-phase, CSCR, 4 98.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
poles, 0.75 hp.
2.................... Polyphase, 4 poles, 1 95.5 3.75 0.0 0.75 ......... .........
hp.
3.................... Single-phase, CSCR, 4 98.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
poles, 1 hp.
4.................... Polyphase 4 poles, 0.5 94.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 ......... .........
hp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the April 2022 RFI, DOE requested comments on whether the no-new
standards case efficiency distributions used in the January 2021 Final
Determination still reflected the current mix of equipment efficiency
in the market. DOE also requested data and input on the appropriate
efficiency distribution in the no-new standards case for SEMs by
equipment class group and horsepower range. DOE requested data that
would support changes in efficiency distributions over time in the no-
new standards case. 87 FR 23471, 23473
In response to the April 2022 RFI, NEMA commented that the energy
efficiency distributions of the previous rule's no-new-standards case
appear to remain accurate based on NEMA's available information. (NEMA,
No. 8 at p. 2)
As previously noted, DOE collected 2022 catalog data and observed
that small electric motors have not significantly changed since the
January 2021 Final Determination, DOE has tentatively determined that
the efficiency distributions have not changed significantly since the
January 2021 Final Determination. Therefore, in this proposed
determination, DOE used the same no-new standard case efficiency
distributions as in the January 2021 Final Determination.
DOE seeks comment on its tentative conclusion to rely on the same
no-new standard case efficiency distributions as in the January 2021
Final Determination.
9. Payback Period Analysis
The payback period is the amount of time it takes the consumer to
recover the additional installed cost of more-efficient equipment,
compared to baseline equipment, through energy cost savings. Payback
periods are expressed in years. Payback periods that exceed the life of
the equipment mean that the increased total installed cost is not
recovered in reduced operating expenses.
The inputs to the PBP calculation for each efficiency level are the
change in total installed cost of the equipment and the change in the
first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline. The
PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, except that
discount rates are not needed.
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses
with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for SEMs.
It addresses the ELs examined by DOE and the projected impacts of each
of these levels. Additional details regarding DOE's analyses are
contained in the NOPD TSD supporting this document.
A. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
DOE analyzed the cost effectiveness (i.e., the savings in operating
costs throughout the estimated average life of SEMs compared to any
increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance
expenses of, the SEM which are likely to result from the imposition of
a standard at an EL by considering the LCC and PBP at each EL. DOE also
examined the impacts of potential standards on selected consumer
subgroups. These analyses are discussed in the following sections.
In general, higher-efficiency products can affect consumers in two
ways: (1) purchase price increases and (2) annual operating costs
decrease. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total
installed costs (i.e., product price plus installation costs), and
operating costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy prices, energy price
trends, repair costs, and maintenance costs). The LCC calculation also
uses product lifetime and a discount rate.
The total installed cost is determined by combining the
installation cost with the equipment price. As discussed in section
IV.E.1 and IV.E.2 of this document, DOE has tentatively determined that
the equipment price has not changed significantly since the January
2021 Final Determination. DOE has also tentatively concluded that the
conclusions of the January 2021 Final Determination regarding
installation costs are still valid and that installation costs would
not be impacted with increased efficiency levels. Therefore, the total
installed costs are estimated to have remained approximately the same,
as compared to January 2021 Final Determination. Accordingly, DOE
relied on the 2021 Final Determination analysis for these costs.
The annual operating cost is determined by the energy consumption
of SEMs, the electricity prices, and any repair and maintenance costs
that would be required. DOE has tentatively determined that the energy
consumption (see section IV.D of this document), electricity prices
(see section IV.E.4 of this document), and repair and maintenance costs
associated with each efficiency level have not changed significantly
from that in January 2021 Final Determination (see section IV.E.5 of
this document). Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that the
annual operating cost of SEMs has not changed significantly from that
estimated in the January 2021 Final Determination. Accordingly, DOE
relied on the 2021 Final Determination analysis for these costs.
Further, as discussed in section IV.E.6 and section IV.E.7 of this
document, DOE has tentatively concluded that lifetimes of SEM have not
changed and discount rates have not changed significantly from that
estimated in the January 2021 Final Determination. Therefore, in this
proposed
[[Page 7645]]
determination, DOE relied on the lifetime operating costs as estimated
in the January 2021 Final Determination.
Because DOE is relying on the total installed costs and lifetime
operating costs as estimated in the January 2021 Final Determination,
DOE has tentatively determined that the LCC savings for each efficiency
level of SEMs remain the same as the estimates in January 2021 Final
Determination.
In addition, as previously stated, DOE has estimated that the total
installed costs and operating costs have not changed significantly and
DOE is relying on the values estimated in the January 2021 Final
Determination. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that the PBP
for each efficiency level of SEM is the same as the PBP results from
the January 2021 Final Determination.
Table V-1 through Table V-4 present the average LCC and PBP results
for the ELs considered from section 8.4 of the January 2021 Final
Determination TSD, for each representative unit, which DOE has
tentatively concluded remain valid.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ As noted previously, the analysis focuses on two
representative units identified in the engineering analysis. In
addition, for each equipment class group, the January 2021 Final
determination also analyzed an additional representative unit to
include consumers of integral single-phase CSCR small electric
motors and fractional polyphase small electric motor. See Section
7.1 of the January 2021 Final Determination TSD.
Table V-1--January 2021 Final Determination Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for Representative
Unit 1
[Single-phase, CSCR, 4 pole, 0.75 hp]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC savings * Simple payback period
Efficiency Level (2019$) (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1.......................................................... -6.4 6.8
EL 2.......................................................... -16.2 7.3
EL 3.......................................................... -51.4 12.0
EL 4.......................................................... -59.9 9.6
EL 5.......................................................... -855.0 67.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
Table V-2--January 2021 Final Determination Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for Representative
Unit 2
[Polyphase, 4 pole, 1 hp]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simple payback period
Efficiency level LCC savings (2019$) (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1.......................................................... -48.1 16.9
EL 2.......................................................... -92.3 19.5
EL 3.......................................................... -878.7 94.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V-3--January 2021 Final Determination Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for Representative
Unit 3
[Single-phase, CSCR, 4 pole, 1 hp]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC savings * Simple payback period
Efficiency level (2019$) (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1.......................................................... -6.0 6.0
EL 2.......................................................... -16.2 6.6
EL 3.......................................................... -54.3 10.7
EL 4.......................................................... -61.8 8.6
EL 5.......................................................... -942.1 59.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
Table V-4--January 2021 Final Determination Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for Representative
Unit 4
[Polyphase, 4 pole, 0.5 hp]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simple payback period
Efficiency level LCC savings (2019$) (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1.......................................................... -40.5 18.0
EL 2.......................................................... -77.9 20.8
EL 3.......................................................... -721.4 99.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7646]]
B. National Impact Analysis
As discussed in section V.C.2 of this document, DOE has determined
that amended standards would not satisfy the cost-effectiveness
criterion as required by EPCA when determining whether to amend its
standards for a given covered product or equipment. (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 section
IV.E of this document (discussing in greater detail DOE's analysis of
the available data in reaching this determination). Consequently, DOE
did not conduct a national impact analysis and did not further consider
the net present value of the total costs and benefits experienced by
consumers.
1. Significance of Energy Savings
As explained in section III.D.2 of this document, DOE did not
separately evaluate the national energy savings of the under the
considered amended standards because it has tentatively determined that
the potential standards would not be cost-effective as defined in
EPCA.\26\ (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C.
6295(n)(2))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The March 2010 Final Rule estimated the national energy
savings achieved by the current energy conservation standards to be
2.20 quads of primary energy savings (i.e., 0.29 quad at TSL 4b for
polyphase SEMs and 1.91 quad at TSL 7 for single phase SEMs). The
March 2010 Final Rule also estimated that the TSL resulting in the
maximum national energy savings would provide a total of 2.70 quads
of primary energy savings (i.e., 0.37 quad at TSL 7 for polyphase
SEMs and 2.33 quad at TSL 8 for single phase SEMs). 75 FR 10874,
10916 (March 9, 2010). The March 2010 Final Rule also estimated that
the TSL directly above the current energy conservation standards
would be 2.67 quads of primary energy savings (i.e., 0.34 quad at
TSL 5 for polyphase SEMs and 2.33 quad at TSL 8 for single phase
SEMs). Although DOE did not separately evaluate the potential energy
savings under the considered amended standards, this previous
analysis which also relied on the technology options described in
section IV.A.2 of this document, indicates an lower limit of
approximatively 0.47 quads of primary energy (2.67-2.20 = 0.47) and
an upper limit of approximatively 0.5 quad of primary energy savings
(2.70-2.20 = 0.50)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
As previously noted, DOE did not conduct a national impact analysis
and did not further consider the net present value of the total costs
and benefits experienced by consumers.
C. Proposed Determination
As required by EPCA, this NOPD analyzes whether amended standards
for SEMs would result in significant conservation of energy, be
technologically feasible, and be cost effective. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) The criteria considered
under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and the additional analysis are discussed
below. Because an analysis of potential cost effectiveness and energy
savings first require an evaluation of the relevant technology, DOE
first discusses the technological feasibility of amended standards. DOE
then addresses the cost effectiveness and energy savings associated
with potential amended standards.
1. Technological Feasibility
EPCA mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy conservation
standards for SEMs would be technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(B)) DOE has
tentatively determined that there are technology options that would
improve the efficiency of SEMs. These technology options are being used
in commercially available SEMs and therefore are technologically
feasible. (See section IV.A.2 for further information.) Hence, DOE has
tentatively determined that amended energy conservation standards for
SEMs are technologically feasible.
2. Cost Effectiveness
EPCA requires DOE to consider whether energy conservation standards
for SEMs would be cost effective through an evaluation of the savings
in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered
equipment compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial
charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered equipment which is
likely to result from the imposition of an amended standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(C), and 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducted an LCC analysis in the January 2021
Final Determination to estimate the net costs/benefits to users from
increased efficiency in the considered equipment. (See results in Table
V-1 through Table V-4 of this document) As described previously, DOE
has determined that the results of the LCC analysis in the January 2021
Final Determination are still valid.
For CSCR SEMS, DOE first considered the most efficient level, EL 5
for (max tech), which would result in negative LCC savings. On the
basis of negative LCC savings results DOE found in the January 2021
Final Determination, DOE has tentatively determined that EL 5 for CSCR
SEMs is not cost effective.
DOE then considered the next most efficient level, EL 4, which
would result in negative LCC savings. On the basis of negative LCC
savings results DOE found in the January 2021 Final Determination, DOE
has tentatively determined that EL 4 is not cost effective.
DOE then considered the next most efficient level, EL 3, which
would result in negative LCC savings. On the basis of negative LCC
savings results DOE found in the January 2021 Final Determination, DOE
has tentatively determined that EL 3 is not cost effective.
DOE then considered the next most efficient level, EL 2 which would
result in negative LCC savings results DOE found in the January 2021
Final Determination. On the basis of negative LCC savings, DOE has
tentatively determined that EL 2 is not cost effective.
DOE then considered the next most efficient level, EL 1, which
would result in negative LCC savings. On the basis of negative LCC
savings results DOE found in the January 2021 Final Determination, DOE
has tentatively determined that EL 1 is not cost effective.
For polyphase SEMs, DOE first considered the most efficient level,
EL 3 for (max tech), which would result in negative LCC savings. On the
basis of negative LCC savings results DOE found in the January 2021
Final Determination, DOE has tentatively determined that EL 3 for
polyphase SEMs is not cost effective.
DOE then considered the next most efficient level, EL 2, which
would result in negative LCC savings. On the basis of negative LCC
savings results DOE found in the January 2021 Final Determination, DOE
has tentatively determined that EL 2 is not cost effective.
DOE then considered the next most efficient level, EL 1, which
would result in negative LCC savings. On the basis of negative LCC
savings results DOE found in the January 2021 Final Determination, DOE
has tentatively determined that EL 1 is not cost effective.
On the basis of negative LCC savings results DOE found in the
January 2021 Final Determination, which DOE has concluded are still
valid, DOE has determined that amended standards would not satisfy the
cost-effectiveness criterion as required by EPCA when determining
whether to amend its standards for SEMs. (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 section IV.E of
this document (discussing in greater detail DOE's analysis of the
available data in reaching this determination). Consequently, DOE did
not conduct a national impact analysis and did not
[[Page 7647]]
further consider the net present value of the total costs and benefits
experienced by consumers.
3. Significant Conservation of Energy
EPCA also mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy
conservation standards for SEMs would result in significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and
42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) As provided in the prior section, DOE has
tentatively determined that amended standards at the evaluated ELs
would not be cost effective. 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)).\27\ See also section V.B.1 of this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Summary
In this proposed determination, based on the consideration of cost
effectiveness and the initial determination that amended standards
would not be cost effective, DOE has tentatively determined that energy
conservation standards for SEMs do not need to be amended. DOE will
consider all comments received on this proposed determination in
issuing any final determination.
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order (``E.O.'')1 2866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires
agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a
regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify
its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to
quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on
society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into
account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs
of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has emphasized that such techniques
may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might
result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, this proposed regulatory action
is consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this proposed regulatory action does not constitute a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under
E.O. 12866.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's website (www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
DOE reviewed this proposed determination under the provisions of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures
published on February 19, 2003. Because DOE is proposing not to amend
standards for SEMs, if adopted, the determination would not amend any
energy conservation standards. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE
certifies that the proposed determination, if adopted, would have no
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).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed determination, which proposes to determine that
amended energy conservation standards for SEMs are unneeded under the
applicable statutory criteria, would impose no new informational or
recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required
under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE is analyzing this proposed action in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (``NEPA'') and DOE's NEPA
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include
a categorical exclusion for 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.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to
[[Page 7648]]
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this
proposed determination and has tentatively determined that it would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as
to energy conservation for the equipment that are the subject of this
proposed rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such
preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA.
(See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further
action is required by E.O. 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to
adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a),
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation:
(1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3)
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined
that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed determination meets
the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation
under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at
www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
DOE examined this proposed determination according to UMRA and its
statement of policy and determined that the 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 State,
local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This proposed 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.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15,
1988), DOE has determined that this proposed determination would not
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review
most disseminations of information to the public under information
quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452
(Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446
(Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE
published updated guidelines which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this NOPD under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded
that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') at OMB, a Statement of
Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final
rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, or any successor Executive order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed
[[Page 7649]]
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.
This proposed determination, which does not propose to amend energy
conservation standards for SEMs, is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has
it been designated as such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly,
DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
L. 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.'' Id. at 70 FR 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses
that are typically used and has prepared Peer Review report pertaining
to the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses.\28\
Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented
evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and independent
reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/scientific/business
merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the productivity and
management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. Because available
data, models, and technological understanding have changed since 2007,
DOE has engaged with the National Academy of Sciences to review DOE's
analytical methodologies to ascertain whether modifications are needed
to improve the Department's analyses. DOE is in the process of
evaluating the resulting report.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review
Report.'' 2007. Available at energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last
accessed 10/10/2022).
\29\ The report is available at www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-methods-for-setting-building-and-equipment-performance-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
The time and date of the webinar are listed in the DATES section at
the beginning of this document. Webinar registration information,
participant instructions, and information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's website:
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=3. Participants are responsible for ensuring
their systems are compatible with the webinar software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this
NOPD, or who is representative of a group or class of persons that has
an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to make an oral
presentation at the webinar. Such persons may submit requests to speak
to [email protected]. Persons who wish to speak
should include with their request a computer file in WordPerfect,
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that briefly describes
the nature of their interest in this proposed determination and the
topics they wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a daytime
telephone number where they can be reached.
Persons requesting to speak should briefly describe the nature of
their interest in this proposed determination and provide a telephone
number for contact. DOE requests persons selected to make an oral
presentation to submit an advance copy of their statements at least two
weeks before the webinar. At its discretion, DOE may permit persons who
cannot supply an advance copy of their statement to participate, if
those persons have made advance alternative arrangements with the
Building Technologies Office. As necessary, requests to give an oral
presentation should ask for such alternative arrangements.
C. Conduct of the Webinar
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar/public
meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion.
The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing,
but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the
proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to
schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures
governing the conduct of the webinar/public meeting. There shall not be
discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market share,
or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After
the webinar/public meeting and until the end of the comment period,
interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings and
any aspect of the proposed determination.
The webinar/public meeting will be conducted in an informal,
conference style. DOE will present a general overview of the topics
addressed in this document, allow time for prepared general statements
by participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their
views on issues affecting this proposed determination. Each participant
will be allowed to make a general statement (within time limits
determined by DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will
permit, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly on any
general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit
participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should
be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants
concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of
participants concerning other matters relevant to this proposed
determination. The official conducting the webinar/public meeting will
accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time
permits. The presiding official will announce any further procedural
rules or modification of the above procedures that may be needed for
the proper conduct of the public meeting.
A transcript of the webinar/public meeting will be included in the
docket, which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the
beginning of this NOPD. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the
transcript from the transcribing reporter.
[[Page 7650]]
D. 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 rule. Interested parties may
submit comments, data, and other information using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If
you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly
viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly
viewable as long as it does not include any comments. Include contact
information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other
information to DOE. 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 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 two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential''
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make
its own determination about the confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
1. DOE requests comment on its tentative conclusion that there have
been no significant technical advancements since the last rulemaking,
and that the technology options developed for the January 2021 Final
Determination are still applicable.
2. DOE requests comments on its tentative conclusion that the
results of the engineering analysis from the January 2021 Final
Determination continue to appropriately apply because: (1) there are no
significant technical advancements in induction motor technology that
could lead to more efficient or lower cost motor designs since that
time, and (2) increases in costs and MSPs only further substantiate
that higher efficiencies continue to be cost-ineffective.
3. DOE requests comments on its tentative conclusion that the
revised market shares by distribution channel and revised markups and
sales taxes would still result in SEM consumer costs and LCC savings
that are comparable to the estimates developed for the January 2021
Final Determination.
4. DOE requests comments on its tentative conclusion that the
average energy use results for small electric motors are the same as
the estimates developed for the January 2021 Final Determination.
5. DOE seeks comment on its tentative conclusion that there are no
changes in installation costs by efficiency level.
6. DOE seeks comment on its tentative conclusion that there is no
changes in maintenance costs by efficiency level and that small
electric motors are usually not repaired.
7. DOE seeks comment on its tentative conclusion that lifetimes
have remained the same as estimated in the January 2021 Final
Determination.
8. DOE seeks comment on its tentative conclusion that discount
rates have not changed significantly since in the January 2021 Final
Determination.
9. DOE seeks comment on its tentative conclusion to rely on the
same no-new standard case efficiency distributions as in the January
2021 Final Determination.
[[Page 7651]]
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this
notification of proposed determination and request for comment.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on January 30,
2023, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. That document with the original
signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes
only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on January 30, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2023-02199 Filed 2-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P