Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial and Industrial Electric Motors, 30933-31014 [2014-11201]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Vol. 79
Thursday,
No. 103
May 29, 2014
Part II
Department of Energy
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
10 CFR Part 431
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Commercial and Industrial Electric Motors; Final Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30934
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027]
RIN 1904–AC28
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for
Commercial and Industrial Electric
Motors
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as
amended, prescribes energy
conservation standards for various
consumer products and certain
commercial and industrial equipment,
including commercial and industrial
electric motors. EPCA also requires the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to
determine whether more-stringent,
amended standards would be
technologically feasible and
economically justified, and would save
a significant amount of energy. In this
final rule, DOE establishes energy
conservation standards for a number of
different groups of electric motors that
DOE has not previously regulated. For
those groups of electric motors currently
regulated, today’s rulemaking would
maintain the current energy
conservation standards for some electric
motor types and amend the energy
conservation standards for other electric
motor types. DOE has determined that
the new and amended energy
conservation standards for this
equipment would result in significant
conservation of energy, and are
technologically feasible and
economically justified.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is
July 28, 2014. Compliance with the
standards established for commercial
and industrial electric motors in today’s
final rule is required starting on June 1,
2016.
The incorporation by reference of a
certain publication listed in this rule
was approved by the Federal Register
on May 4, 2012.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes
Federal Register notices, public meeting
attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for
review at regulations.gov. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the regulations.gov index. However,
some documents listed in the index,
such as those containing information
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
that is exempt from public disclosure,
may not be publicly available.
A link to the docket Web page can be
found at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!
docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD0027. This Web page will contain a link
to the docket for this rule on the
regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov
Web page will contain simple
instructions on how to access all
documents, including public comments,
in the docket.
For further information on how to
review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda
Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–8654. Email:
medium_electric_motors@ee.doe.gov.
Ami Grace-Tardy, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–5709. Email:
Ami.Grace-Tardy@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits and Costs
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for
Electric Motors
3. Process for Setting Energy Conservation
Standards
III. General Discussion
A. Compliance Date
B. Test Procedure
1. Vertical Electric Motors
C. Current Equipment Classes and Scope of
Coverage
D. Updated Equipment Classes and Scope
of Coverage
E. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible
Levels
F. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
G. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and
Consumers
b. Life-Cycle Costs
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of
Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related
Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Current Scope of Electric Motors Energy
Conservation Standards
2. Expanded Scope of Electric Motor
Energy Conservation Standards
a. Summary
b. Definitions, Terminology, and
Regulatory Language
c. Horsepower Rating
d. High-Horsepower Six- and Eight-Pole
Motors
e. Frame Size
f. IEC Motors
g. Frequency
h. Random Winding
i. Duty Cycle
j. Gear Motors
k. Partial Electric Motors
l. Certification Considerations Related to
Expanded Scope
m. Electric Motors With Separately
Powered Blowers
3. Advanced Electric Motors
4. Equipment Class Groups and Equipment
Classes
a. U-Frame Motors
b. Electric Motor Design Letter
c. Fire Pump Electric Motors
d. Brake Electric Motors
e. Horsepower Rating
f. Pole Configuration
g. Enclosure Type
h. Other Motor Characteristics
5. Technology Assessment
a. Increase the Cross-Sectional Area of
Copper in the Stator Slots
b. Decrease the Length of Coil Extensions
c. Die-Cast Copper Rotor Cage
d. Increase Cross-Sectional Area of Rotor
Conductor Bars
e. Increase Cross-Sectional Area of End
Rings
f. Electrical Steel With Lower Losses
g. Thinner Steel Laminations
h. Increase Stack Length
i. Optimize Bearing and Lubrication
j. Improve Cooling System
k. Reduce Skew on Conductor Cage
l. Improve Rotor Bar Insulation
m. Technology Options Not Considered
B. Screening Analysis
1. Technology Options Not Screened Out
of the Analysis
a. Die-Cast Copper Rotors
b. Increase the Cross-Sectional Area of
Copper in the Stator Slots
c. Power Factor
2. Technology Options Screened Out of the
Analysis
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Engineering Analysis Methodology
2. Representative Units
a. Electric Motor Design Type
b. Horsepower Rating
c. Pole-Configuration
d. Enclosure Type
3. Efficiency Levels Analyzed
4. Testing and Teardowns
5. Software Modeling
6. Cost Model
a. Copper Pricing
b. Labor Rate and Non-Production Markup
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
c. Catalog Prices
d. Product Development Cost
7. Engineering Analysis Results
8. Scaling Methodology
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
1. Equipment Costs
2. Installation Costs
3. Maintenance Costs
4. Repair Costs
5. Unit Energy Consumption
6. Electricity Prices and Electricity Price
Trends
7. Lifetime
8. Discount Rate
9. Base Case Market Efficiency
Distributions
10. Compliance Date
11. Payback Period Inputs
12. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback
Period
13. Comments on Other Issues
G. Shipments Analysis
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
3. Electric Motor Weights
4. Equipment Price Forecast
5. Net Present Value of Customer Benefit
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Manufacturer Production Costs
2. Shipment Projections
3. Markup Scenarios
4. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
5. Other Comments from Interested Parties
a. Manufacturer Markups used in the MIA
versus the NIA
b. Potential Trade Barriers
6. Manufacturer Interviews
K. Emissions Analysis
L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other
Emissions Impacts
1. Social Cost of Carbon
a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon
Values
c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions
2. Valuation of Other Emissions
Reductions
M. Utility Impact Analysis
N. Employment Impact Analysis
O. Other Comments Received
V. Analytical Results
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy
Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual
Customers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results
b. Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Sub-Group of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value of Customer Costs and
Benefits
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
4. Impact on Utility or Performance
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
7. Summary of National Economic Impacts
8. Other Factors
C. Conclusions
1. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard
Levels Considered for Electric Motors
2. Summary of Benefits and Costs
(Annualized) of Today’s Standards
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866
and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
1. Description and Estimated Number of
Small Entities Regulated
a. Manufacturer Participation
b. Electric Motor Industry Structure and
Nature of Competition
c. Comparison Between Large and Small
Entities
2. Description and Estimate of Compliance
Requirements
3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With
Other Rules and Regulations
4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review
M. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
30935
Title III of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C.
6291, et seq.; ‘‘EPCA’’), Public Law 94–
163, sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency.
Part C of title III, which for editorial
reasons was re-designated as Part A–1
upon incorporation into the U.S. Code
(42 U.S.C. 6311–6317), establishes the
‘‘Energy Conservation Program for
Certain Industrial Equipment,’’
including certain electric motors.1
(Within this preamble, DOE will use the
terms ‘‘electric motors’’ and ‘‘motors’’
interchangeably as today’s rulemaking
only pertains to electric motors.)
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended
energy conservation standard must be
designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that
DOE determines is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a))
Furthermore, the new or amended
standards must result in significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(a))
In accordance with these and other
statutory provisions discussed in this
final rule, DOE is adopting new and
amended energy conservation standards
for electric motors by applying the
standards currently in place to a wider
scope of electric motors that DOE does
not currently regulate. In setting these
standards, DOE is addressing a number
of different groups of electric motors
that have, to date, not been required to
satisfy the energy conservation
standards currently set out in 10 CFR
part 431. In addition, today’s rule,
would require all currently regulated
motors, with the exception of fire pump
electric motors, to satisfy the efficiency
levels (ELs) prescribed in Table 12–12 of
National Electrical Manufacturers
Association (NEMA) Standards
Publication MG 1–2011, ‘‘Motors and
Generators;’’ fire pump motors would
continue to meet the current standards
that apply. All other electric motors
covered in today’s rulemaking would
also need to meet the efficiency levels
found in MG 1–2011, Table 12–12. As
a practical matter, most currently
regulated motors would continue to be
required to meet the same standards that
they are already required to meet, but
certain motors, such as those that satisfy
the general purpose electric motors
(subtype II) (i.e. ‘‘subtype II’’) or that are
NEMA Design B (or equivalent IEC
Design N) motors with a power rating of
more than 200 horsepower, but not
greater than 500 horsepower, would
now be required to meet the more
stringent levels prescribed by MG 1–
2011, Tables 12–12. These adopted
efficiency levels (depicted here as trial
standard levels or ‘‘TSLs’’) and the
motor types to which they apply are
shown in Table I.1.
1 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the American
Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act
(AEMTCA), Pub. L. 112–210 (December 18, 2012).
I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its
Benefits
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30936
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE I.1—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS
[Compliance starting June 1, 2016]
Equipment
class group
Electric motor
design type
Horsepower
rating
Pole
configuration
1 ..................
NEMA Design A & B* ..................
1–500
2, 4, 6, 8
2 ..................
NEMA Design C* .........................
1–200
4, 6, 8
3 ..................
Fire Pump* ...................................
1–500
2, 4, 6, 8
Enclosure
Adopted TSL**
Open ............................................
Enclosed ......................................
Open ............................................
Enclosed ......................................
Open ............................................
Enclosed ......................................
2
2
2
2
2
2
*Indicates International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) equivalent electric motors are included. Also, due to the elimination of an equipment class for brake motors, previously reported brake motor results are now reported in Equipment Class Group 1 (ECG 1).
**Tables I.2 through I.4 detail the various standard levels that compose TSL 2. Table I.2 applies to NEMA Design A & B, Table I.3 applies to
NEMA Design C and Table I.4 applies to fire pump electric motors.
In determining where a particular
motor with a certain horsepower (hp) or
kilowatt (kW) rating would fall within
the requirements, today’s final rule
establishes the same approach provided
in current regulations to determine
which rating would apply for
compliance purposes. Namely:
3. A kilowatt rating shall be directly
converted from kilowatts to horsepower
using the formula 1 kilowatt = (1/0.746)
horsepower. The conversion should be
calculated to three significant decimal
places, and the resulting horsepower
shall be rounded in accordance with the
rules listed in (1) and (2).
1. A horsepower at or above the
midpoint between the two consecutive
horsepowers shall be rounded up to the
higher of the two horsepowers;
2. A horsepower below the midpoint
between the two consecutive
horsepowers shall be rounded down to
the lower of the two horsepowers; and
TABLE I.2—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR NEMA DESIGN A AND NEMA DESIGN B MOTORS (EXCLUDING
FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS)
[Compliance starting June 1, 2016]
Nominal full-load efficiency
(percent)
Motor horsepower/standard
kilowatt
equivalent
2 Pole
Enclosed
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
1/.75 .................
1.5/1.1 ..............
2/1.5 .................
3/2.2 .................
5/3.7 .................
7.5/5.5 ..............
10/7.5 ...............
15/11 ................
20/15 ................
25/18.5 .............
30/22 ................
40/30 ................
50/37 ................
60/45 ................
75/55 ................
100/75 ..............
125/90 ..............
150/110 ............
200/150 ............
250/186 ............
300/224 ............
350/261 ............
400/298 ............
450/336 ............
500/373 ............
VerDate Mar<15>2010
4 Pole
Open
77.0
84.0
85.5
86.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
19:20 May 28, 2014
77.0
84.0
85.5
85.5
86.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.1
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.8
96.2
96.2
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Enclosed
6 Pole
Open
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.8
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.7
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
96.2
96.2
Sfmt 4700
8 Pole
Enclosed
Open
Enclosed
Open
82.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
93.0
93.0
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
......................
......................
......................
82.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.8
95.8
95.8
......................
......................
......................
75.5
78.5
84.0
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.7
91.7
92.4
92.4
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
95.0
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
75.5
77.0
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
94.1
94.1
94.1
94.1
94.1
95.0
......................
......................
......................
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
......................
30937
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE I.3—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR NEMA DESIGN C MOTORS
[Compliance starting June 1, 2016]
Nominal full-load efficiency
(percent)
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent
4 Pole
Enclosed
1/.75 .....................................................................
1.5/1.1 ..................................................................
2/1.5 .....................................................................
3/2.2 .....................................................................
5/3.7 .....................................................................
7.5/5.5 ..................................................................
10/7.5 ...................................................................
15/11 ....................................................................
20/15 ....................................................................
25/18.5 .................................................................
30/22 ....................................................................
40/30 ....................................................................
50/37 ....................................................................
60/45 ....................................................................
75/55 ....................................................................
100/75 ..................................................................
125/90 ..................................................................
150/110 ................................................................
200/150 ................................................................
6 Pole
Open
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.8
96.2
Enclosed
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.7
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.8
95.8
8 Pole
Open
82.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
93.0
93.0
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.8
95.8
Enclosed
82.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
Open
75.5
78.5
84.0
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.7
91.7
92.4
92.4
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
75.5
77.0
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
94.1
94.1
94.1
94.1
94.1
TABLE I.4—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS
[Compliance starting June 1, 2016]
Nominal full-load efficiency
(percent)
Motor horsepower/standard
kilowatt
equivalent
2 Pole
Enclosed
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
1/.75 .................
1.5/1.1 ..............
2/1.5 .................
3/2.2 .................
5/3.7 .................
7.5/5.5 ..............
10/7.5 ...............
15/11 ................
20/15 ................
25/18.5 .............
30/22 ................
40/30 ................
50/37 ................
60/45 ................
75/55 ................
100/75 ..............
125/90 ..............
150/110 ............
200/150 ............
250/186 ............
300/224 ............
350/261 ............
400/298 ............
450/336 ............
500/373 ............
75.5
82.5
84.0
85.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
4 Pole
Open
......................
82.5
84.0
84.0
85.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.8
95.8
Enclosed
6 Pole
Open
82.5
84.0
84.0
87.5
87.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
92.4
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.8
82.5
84.0
84.0
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.8
95.8
8 Pole
Enclosed
Open
Enclosed
Open
80.0
85.5
86.5
87.5
87.5
89.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.7
91.7
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.1
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
......................
......................
......................
80.0
84.0
85.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.4
95.4
95.4
......................
......................
......................
74.0
77.0
82.5
84.0
85.5
85.5
88.5
88.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.5
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
74.0
75.5
85.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.6
93.6
93.6
93.6
93.6
94.5
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
Note: Energy conservation standards for fire pump electric motors have not changed and remain at the current efficiency levels.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30938
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
Table I.5 presents DOE’s evaluation of
the economic impacts of today’s
standards on consumers of electric
motors, as measured by the weighted
average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and
the median payback period. The average
LCC savings are positive for all
equipment classes for which consumers
are impacted by the standards.
TABLE I.5—IMPACTS OF TODAY’S
STANDARDS ON CONSUMERS OF
ELECTRIC MOTORS
Equipment class
group
Weighted
average
LCC
savings*
(2013$)
Weighted
median
payback
period*
(years)
through the end of the analysis period
(2014 to 2045). Using a real discount
rate of 9.1 percent, DOE estimates that
the industry net present value (INPV)
for manufacturers of electric motors is
$3,478 million in 2013$. Under today’s
standards, DOE expects that
manufacturers may lose up to 10.0
percent of their INPV, which is
approximately $348 million.
Additionally, based on DOE’s
interviews with the manufacturers of
electric motors, DOE does not expect
any plant closings or significant loss of
employment based on the energy
conservation standards chosen in
today’s rule.
C. National Benefits and Costs 2
DOE’s analyses indicate that today’s
standards would save a significant
1 .............................. 160 .......... 2.9
amount of energy. Estimated lifetime
2 .............................. 53 ............ 4.5
savings for electric motors purchased
3 .............................. N/A** ....... N/A**
over the 30-year period that begins in
* The results for each equipment class
group (ECG) are a shipment weighted aver- the year of compliance with new and
age of results for the representative units in amended standards (2016–2045) would
the group. ECG 1: Representative units 1, 2, amount to 7.0 quads (full-fuel-cycle
3, 9, and 10; ECG 2: Representative units 4 energy).3 The annualized energy savings
and 5; ECG 3: Representative units 6, 7, and
8. The weighted average lifetime in each (0.23 quad) is equivalent to one percent
equipment class is 15 years and ranges from of total U.S. industrial primary energy
8 to 29 years, depending on the motor horse- consumption in 2013.4
power and application.
The estimated cumulative net present
** For the ECG 3 motor, the standard level
value (NPV) of total consumer costs and
is the same as the baseline; thus, no cussavings attributed to today’s standards
tomers are affected.
for electric motors ranges from $11.3
B. Impact on Manufacturers
billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to
The industry net present value (INPV) $28.8 billion (at a 3-percent discount
is the sum of the discounted cash flows
rate). This NPV expresses the estimated
to the industry from the base year
total value of future operating-cost
savings minus the estimated increased
equipment costs for equipment
purchased in 2016–2045.5
In addition, today’s standards would
have significant environmental benefits
across the entire analysis period.
Estimated energy savings would result
in cumulative greenhouse gas emission
reductions of approximately 395 million
metric tons (Mt) 6 of carbon dioxide
(CO2), 1,883 thousand tons of methane,
673 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide
(SO2), 498 thousand tons of nitrogen
oxides (NOX) and 0.8 tons of mercury
(Hg).7 The cumulative reduction in CO2
emissions through 2030 amounts to 96
Mt.
The value of the CO2 reductions is
calculated using a range of values per
metric ton of CO2 (otherwise known as
the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC)
developed by a recent Federal
interagency process.8 The derivation of
the SCC values is discussed in section
IV.L. Using discount rates appropriate
for each set of SCC values, DOE
estimates that the present monetary
value of the CO2 emissions reductions is
between $2.7 billion and $38.3 billion.
DOE also estimates that the present
monetary value of the NOX emissions
reductions is $0.3 billion at a 7-percent
discount rate, and $0.7 billion at a 3percent discount rate.9
Table I.6 summarizes the national
economic costs and benefits expected to
result from today’s standards for electric
motors.
TABLE I.6—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF ELECTRIC MOTORS ENERGY CONSERVATION
STANDARDS, PRESENT VALUE FOR MOTORS SHIPPED IN 2016–2045 IN BILLION 2013$ *
Present
value
billion
2013$
Category
Discount
rate
%
Benefits
Consumer Operating Cost Savings .............................................................................................................
18.2
41.4
2.7
12.4
19.7
38.3
0.3
0.7
30.9
54.4
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.0/t case) **
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($40.5/t case) **
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($62.4/t case) **
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($119/t case) **
NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,684/ton) ** ....................................................................................
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Total Benefits † .....................................................................................................................................
2 All monetary values in this section are
expressed in 2013 dollars and are discounted to
2014.
3 The agency also conducted the site energy
analysis as well (see TSD chapter 10). One quad
(quadrillion Btu) is the equivalent of 293 billion
kilowatt hours (kWh) or 172.3 million barrels of oil.
4 Based on U.S. Department of Energy, Energy
Information Administration, Annual Energy
Outlook (AEO) 2013 data.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
5 The analytic timeframe includes motors shipped
each year from 2016 to 2045.
6 A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons.
Results for NOX and Hg are presented in short tons.
7 DOE calculates emissions reductions relative to
the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2013 Reference
case, which generally represents current legislation
and environmental regulations for which
implementing regulations were available as of
December 31, 2012.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
7
3
5
3
2.5
3
7
3
7
3
8 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon
for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive
Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on Social
Cost of Carbon, United States Government. May
2013; revised November 2013. https://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/
inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-forregulator-impact-analysis.pdf.
9 DOE is currently investigating valuation of
avoided Hg and SO2 emissions.
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
30939
TABLE I.6—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF ELECTRIC MOTORS ENERGY CONSERVATION
STANDARDS, PRESENT VALUE FOR MOTORS SHIPPED IN 2016–2045 IN BILLION 2013$ *—Continued
Present
value
billion
2013$
Category
Discount
rate
%
Costs
Consumer Incremental Installed Costs .......................................................................................................
6.9
12.5
7
3
24.0
41.9
7
3
Net Benefits
Including CO2 and NOX Reduction Monetized Value .................................................................................
* This table presents the costs and benefits associated with electric motors shipped in 2016–2045. These results include benefits to customers
which accrue after 2045 from the equipment purchased in 2016–2045. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred
by manufacturers due to the amended standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for this final rule.
** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The
first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporates an escalation factor. The value for NOX is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis.
† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to SCC value of $40.5/t in 2015.
The benefits and costs of today’s
standards for electric motors, sold in
2016–2045, can also be expressed in
terms of annualized values. The
annualized monetary values are the sum
of: (1) The annualized national
economic value of the benefits from
operation of the commercial and
industrial equipment that meet the
standards (consisting primarily of
operating cost savings from using less
energy, minus increases in equipment
purchase and installation costs, which
is another way of representing consumer
NPV); and (2) the annualized monetary
value of the benefits of emission
reductions, including CO2 emission
reductions.10
Although combining the value of
operating savings and CO2 emissions
reductions provides a useful
perspective, two issues should be
considered. First, the national operating
cost savings are domestic U.S. consumer
monetary savings that occur as a result
of market transactions, while the value
of CO2 reductions is based on a global
value. Second, the assessments of
operating cost savings and CO2 savings
are performed with different methods
that use different time frames for
analysis. The national operating cost
savings is measured over the lifetime of
electric motors shipped in years 2016–
2045. The SCC values, on the other
hand, reflect the present value of some
future climate-related impacts resulting
from the emission of one ton of carbon
dioxide in each year. These impacts
continue well beyond 2100.
Estimates of annualized benefits and
costs of today’s standards are shown in
Table I.8. The results under the primary
estimate are as follows. Using a 7percent discount rate for benefits and
costs other than CO2 reduction (for
which DOE used a 3-percent discount
rate along with the average SCC series
that uses a 3-percent discount rate) the
cost of the standards in today’s rule is
$517 million per year in increased
equipment costs (incremental installed
costs), while the estimated benefits are
$1,367 million per year in reduced
equipment operating costs, $614 million
in CO2 emission reductions, and $23.3
million in reduced NOX emissions. In
this case, the net benefits would amount
to $1,488 million per year. Using a 3percent discount rate for all benefits and
costs and the average SCC series, the
estimated cost of the standards in
today’s rule is $621 million per year in
increased equipment costs, while the
estimated benefits are $2,048 million
per year in reduced operating costs,
$614 million in CO2 emission
reductions, and $32.9 million in
reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the
net benefit would amount to
approximately $2,074 million per year.
TABLE I.8—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS
[Million 2013$/year]
Discount rate
Primary estimate *
Low net benefits
estimate *
High net benefits
estimate *
Benefits
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Consumer Operating Cost Savings .........................................
7%
3%
5%
3%
2.5%
3%
7%
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.0/t case) * ...................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($40.5/t case) * ...................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($62.4/t case) * ...................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($119/t case) * ....................
NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,684/ton) ** ................
10 DOE used a two-step calculation process to
convert the time-series of costs and benefits into
annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present
value in 2014, the year used for discounting the
NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the
time-series of costs and benefits using discount
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
1,367
2,048
166
614
920
1,899
23.3
rates of three and seven percent for all costs and
benefits except for the value of CO2 reductions. For
the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as
shown in Table I.3. From the present value, DOE
then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30year period (2016 through 2045) that yields the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1,134
1,684
143
531
795
1,641
20.1
1,664
2,521
192
712
1,066
2,200
26.8
same present value. The fixed annual payment is
the annualized value. Although DOE calculated
annualized values, this does not imply that the
time-series of cost and benefits from which the
annualized values were determined is a steady
stream of payments.
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30940
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE I.8—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS—
Continued
[Million 2013$/year]
Discount rate
Total Benefits † ........................................................................
3%
7% plus CO2
range
7%
3% plus CO2
range
3%
Primary estimate *
Low net benefits
estimate *
High net benefits
estimate *
32.9
1,556 to 3,289
28.4
1,297 to 2,795
38.0
1,882 to 3,890
2,005
2,247 to 3,980
1,685
1,855 to 3,353
2,402
2,750 to 4,758
2,696
2,243
3,270
517
621
582
697
503
616
1,039 to 2,772
716 to 2,213
1,380 to 3,388
1,488
1,626 to 3,359
1,103
1,158 to 2,656
1,900
2,134 to 4,143
2,074
1,546
2,654
Costs
Incremental Installed Costs .....................................................
7%
3%
Net Benefits
Total † ......................................................................................
7% plus CO2
range
7%
3% plus CO2
range
3%
* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with electric motors shipped in 2016–2045. These results include benefits to
consumers which accrue after 2045 from the equipment purchased in years 2016–2045. Costs incurred by manufacturers, some of which may
be incurred in preparation for the rule, are not directly included, but are indirectly included as part of incremental equipment costs. The Primary,
Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates are in view of projections of energy prices from the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2013 Reference
case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium constant projected equipment
price in the Primary Estimate, a declining rate for projected equipment price trends in the Low Benefits Estimate, and an increasing rate for projected equipment price trends in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.F.1.
** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The
first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an escalation factor. The value for NOX is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis.
† Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount
rate. In the rows labeled ‘‘7% plus CO2 range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2 range,’’ the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled
discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
D. Conclusion
DOE has concluded that the standards
in today’s final rule represent the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified, and
would result in significant conservation
of energy. DOE further notes that
equipment achieving these standard
levels is already commercially available
for most equipment classes covered by
today’s final rule. Based on the analyses
described above, DOE has concluded
that the benefits of the standards to the
Nation (energy savings, positive NPV of
consumer benefits, consumer LCC
savings, and emission reductions)
would outweigh the burdens (loss of
INPV for manufacturers and LCC
increases for some consumers).
DOE also considered more-stringent
energy efficiency levels as trial standard
levels. However, DOE has concluded
that the potential burdens of the morestringent energy efficiency levels would
outweigh the projected benefits.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
II. Introduction
The following section briefly
discusses the statutory authority
underlying today’s final rule, as well as
some of the relevant historical
background related to the establishment
of standards for electric motors.
A. Authority
Title III of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C.
6291, et seq.; ‘‘EPCA’’), Public Law 94–
163, sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency.
Part C of title III, which for editorial
reasons was re-designated as Part A–1
upon incorporation into the U.S. Code
(42 U.S.C. 6311–6317, as codified),
establishes the ‘‘Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment,’’ including certain electric
motors.11 The Energy Policy Act of 1992
(EPACT 1992) (Pub. L. 102–486)
amended EPCA by establishing energy
11 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the American
Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act
(AEMTCA), Public Law 112–210 (December 18,
2012).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
conservation standards and test
procedures for certain commercial and
industrial electric motors (in context,
‘‘motors’’) manufactured (alone or as a
component of another piece of
equipment) after October 24, 1997. In
December 2007, Congress enacted the
Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 (EISA 2007) (Pub. L. 110–140).
Section 313(b)(1) of EISA 2007 updated
the energy conservation standards for
those electric motors already covered by
EPCA and established energy
conservation standards for a larger
scope of motors not previously covered
by standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2))
Pursuant to EPCA, DOE’s energy
conservation program for covered
equipment consists essentially of four
parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) the
establishment of Federal energy
conservation standards; and (4)
certification and enforcement
procedures. For those electric motors for
which Congress established standards,
or for which DOE amends or establishes
standards, the required test procedure is
found at 10 CFR part 431, subpart B.
The test procedure is subject to review
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
and revision by the Secretary in
accordance with certain criteria and
conditions. (See 42 U.S.C. 6314(a))
As required by section 343(a)(5)(A) of
EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A), DOE’s
electric motors test procedures are those
procedures specified in two documents:
National Electrical Manufacturers
Association (NEMA) Standards
Publication MG 1 and Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers
(IEEE) Standard 112 (Test Method B) for
motor efficiency.12
Manufacturers of covered equipment
must use these methods, as described in
appendix B to subpart B of 10 CFR part
431as the basis for certifying to DOE
that their equipment complies with the
applicable energy conservation
standards adopted under EPCA and
when making representations to the
public regarding the energy use or
efficiency of such equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6314(d)) Similarly, DOE must use these
test procedures to determine whether
the equipment complies with standards
adopted pursuant to EPCA.
DOE must follow specific statutory
criteria for prescribing new and
amended standards for covered
equipment. In the case of electric
motors, the criteria set out in relevant
subsections of 42 U.S.C. 6295 apply to
the setting of energy conservation
standards for motors via 42 U.S.C.
6316(a). As indicated above, new and
amended standards must be designed to
achieve the maximum improvement in
energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a))
Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any
standard that would not result in
significant conservation of energy. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3) and 6316(a))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a
standard: (1) For certain commercial
and industrial equipment, including
electric motors, if no test procedure has
been established for the equipment, or
(2) if DOE determines by rule that the
new and amended standard is not
technologically feasible or economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)–(B)
and 6316(a)) In deciding whether a new
and amended standard is economically
justified, DOE must determine whether
the benefits of the standard exceed its
burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and
6316(a)) DOE must make this
determination after receiving comments
on the proposed standard, and by
considering, to the greatest extent
practicable, the following seven factors:
12 DOE also added Canadian Standards
Association (CSA) CAN/CSA C390–93, ‘‘Energy
Efficiency Test Methods for Three-Phase Induction
Motors’’ as an equivalent and acceptable test
method, which aligns with industry practices.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
1. The economic impact of the
standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the equipment subject to
the standard;
2. The 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 imposition
of the standard;
3. The total projected amount of
energy, or as applicable, water, savings
likely to result directly from the
imposition of the standard;
4. Any lessening of the utility or the
performance of the covered equipment
likely to result from the imposition of
the standard;
5. The impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing
by the Attorney General, that is likely to
result from the imposition of the
standard;
6. The need for national energy and
water conservation; and
7. Other factors the Secretary of
Energy (Secretary) considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII) and
6316(a))
EPCA, as codified, also contains what
is known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’
provision, which prevents the Secretary
from prescribing any new or amended
standard that either increases the
maximum allowable energy use or
decreases the minimum required energy
efficiency of a covered product or piece
of equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) and
6316(a)) Also, the Secretary may not
prescribe an amended or new standard
if interested persons have established by
a preponderance of the evidence that
the standard is likely to result in the
unavailability in the United States of
any covered product- or equipment-type
(or class) of performance characteristics
(including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are
substantially the same as those generally
available in the United States. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(4) and 6316(a))
Further, EPCA, as codified,
establishes a rebuttable presumption
that a standard is economically justified
if the Secretary finds that the additional
cost to the consumer of purchasing
equipment complying with an energy
conservation standard level will be less
than three times the value of the energy
savings during the first year that the
consumer will receive as a result of the
standard, as calculated under the
applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(a))
Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1), as
applied to covered equipment via 42
U.S.C. 6316(a), specifies requirements
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
30941
when promulgating a standard for a type
or class of covered equipment that has
two or more subcategories. DOE must
specify a different standard level than
that which applies generally to such
type or class of equipment for any group
of covered equipment that have the
same function or intended use if DOE
determines that equipment within such
group: (A) Consumes a different kind of
energy from that consumed by other
covered equipment within such type (or
class); or (B) has a capacity or other
performance-related feature which other
equipment within such type (or class)
does not have and such feature justifies
a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(1) and 6316(a)) In determining
whether a performance-related feature
justifies a different standard for a group
of equipment, DOE must consider such
factors as the utility to the consumer of
such a feature and other factors DOE
deems appropriate. Id. Any rule
prescribing such a standard must
include an explanation of the basis on
which such higher or lower level was
established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2) and
6316(a))
Federal energy conservation
requirements generally supersede State
laws or regulations concerning energy
conservation testing, labeling, and
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)–(c) and
6316(a)) DOE may, however, grant
waivers of Federal preemption for
particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and
other provisions set forth under 42
U.S.C. 6297(d)).
B. Background
1. Current Standards
An electric motor is a device that
converts electrical power into rotational
mechanical power. The outside
structure of the motor is called the
frame, which houses a rotor (the
spinning part of the motor) and the
stator (the stationary part that creates a
magnetic field to drive the rotor).
Although many different technologies
exist, DOE’s rulemaking is concerned
with squirrel-cage induction motors,
which represent the majority of electric
motor energy use. In squirrel-cage
induction motors, the stator drives the
rotor by inducing an electric current in
the squirrel-cage, which then reacts
with the rotating magnetic field to
propel the rotor in the same way a
person can repel one handheld magnet
with another. The squirrel-cage used in
the rotor of induction motors consists of
longitudinal conductive bars (rotor bars)
connected at both ends by rings (end
rings) forming a cage-like shape. Among
other design parameters, motors can
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30942
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
vary in horsepower, number of ‘‘poles’’
(which determines how quickly the
motor rotates), and torque
characteristics. Most motors have
‘‘open’’ frames that allow cooling
airflow through the motor body, though
some have enclosed frames that offer
added protection from foreign
substances and bodies. DOE regulates
various motor types from between 1 and
500 horsepower, with 2, 4, 6, and 8
poles, and with both open and enclosed
frames.
EPACT 1992 amended EPCA by
establishing energy conservation
standards and test procedures for
certain commercial and industrial
electric motors manufactured either
alone or as a component of another
piece of equipment on or after October
24, 1997. Section 313 of EISA 2007
amended EPCA by: (1) Striking the
definition of ‘‘electric motor’’ provided
under EPACT 1992, (2) setting forth
definitions for ‘‘general purpose electric
motor (subtype I)’’ and ‘‘general purpose
electric motor (subtype II),’’ and (3)
prescribing energy conservation
standards for ‘‘general purpose electric
motors (subtype I),’’ ‘‘general purpose
electric motors (subtype II),’’ ‘‘fire pump
electric motors,’’ and ‘‘NEMA Design B
general purpose electric motors’’ with a
power rating of more than 200
horsepower but not greater than 500
horsepower. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13) and
6313(b)) The current standards for these
motors (available at 10 CFR 431.25(a)–
(e)), which are reproduced in the
regulatory text at the end of this
rulemaking, are divided into four tables
that prescribe specific efficiency levels
for each of those groups of motors.
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for
Electric Motors
On October 5, 1999, DOE published in
the Federal Register, a final rule to
codify the EPACT 1992 electric motor
requirements. See 64 FR 54114. After
EISA 2007’s enactment, DOE updated,
among other things, the corresponding
electric motor regulations at 10 CFR part
431 by incorporating the new
definitions and energy conservation
standards that the law established. See
74 FR 12058 (March 23, 2009). DOE
subsequently updated its test
procedures for electric motors and small
electric motors, see 73 FR 78220
(December 22, 2008), and later finalized
key provisions related to small electric
motor testing. See 74 FR 32059 (July 7,
2009). Further updates to the test
procedures for electric motors and small
electric motors followed when DOE
issued a rule that primarily focused on
updating various definitions and
incorporations by reference related to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
the current test procedure. See 77 FR
26608 (May 4, 2012). That rule defined
the term ‘‘electric motor’’ to account for
EISA 2007’s removal of the previous
statutory definition of ‘‘electric motor’’.
DOE also clarified definitions related to
those motors that EISA 2007 laid out as
part of EPCA’s statutory framework,
including motor types that DOE had not
previously regulated. See generally, id.
at 26613–26619. DOE also published a
new test procedure on December 13,
2013, that further refined various
electric motor definitions and added
certain definitions and test procedure
preparatory steps to address a wider
variety of electric motor types than are
currently regulated, including those
electric motors that are largely
considered to be special-or definitepurpose motors. 78 FR 75961.
DOE received numerous comments
from interested parties who provided
significant input to DOE in response to
DOE’s framework document and
preliminary analysis for this
rulemaking. See 75 FR 59657
(September 28, 2010) (framework
document notice of availability) and 77
FR 43015 (July 23, 2012) (preliminary
analysis notice of availability). All such
comments were addressed in the
December 6, 2013, notice of proposed
rulemaking (standards NOPR). 78 FR
73589 During the framework document
comment period, several interested
parties urged DOE to consider including
additional motor types currently
without energy conservation standards
in DOE’s analyses and establishing
standards for such motor types. In the
commenters’ view, this approach would
more effectively increase energy savings
than setting more stringent standards for
currently regulated electric motors. In
response, DOE published a Request for
Information (RFI) seeking public
comments from interested parties
regarding establishment of energy
conservation standards for several types
of definite and special purpose motors
for which EISA 2007 did not provide
energy conservation standards. 76 FR
17577 (March 30, 2011) DOE received
comments responding to the RFI
advocating that DOE regulate many of
the electric motors discussed in the RFI,
as well as many additional motor types.
Then, on August 15, 2012, a group of
interested parties (the ‘‘Motor
Coalition’’ 13) submitted the ‘‘Joint
13 The
members of the Motor Coalition include:
National Electrical Manufacturers Association,
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Alliance to
Save Energy, Earthjustice, Natural Resources
Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships,
and Northwest Power and Conservation Council.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Petition to Adopt Joint Stakeholder
Proposal As it Relates to the Rulemaking
on Energy Conservation Standards for
Electric Motors’’ (the ‘‘Petition’’) to DOE
asking the agency to adopt a consensus
stakeholder proposal that would amend
the energy conservation standards for
electric motors.14 The Motor Coalition’s
proposal advocated expanding the scope
of coverage to a broader range of motors
than what DOE currently regulates and
it recommended that energy
conservation standards for all covered
electric motors be set at levels that are
largely equivalent to what DOE adopts
in today’s notice (i.e., efficiency levels
in NEMA MG 1–2011 Tables 12–12).15
(Motor Coalition, No. 35 at pp. 1–3)
Several interested parties submitted
comments supporting the Petition,
including: U.S. Senators Lisa
Murkowski and Jeff Bingaman, BBF and
Associates, the Air Movement and
Control Association International, Inc.,
the Hydraulic Institute, the Arkansas
Economic Development and
Commission—Energy Office, and the
Power Transmission Distributors
Association.
3. Process for Setting Energy
Conservation Standards
Section 325(o) of EPCA (as applied to
covered equipment via 42 U.S.C.
6316(a)), provides criteria for
prescribing new or amended standards
which are designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency and for which the Secretary of
Energy determines are technologically
feasible and economically justified.
Consequently, DOE must consider, to
the greatest extent practicable, the seven
factors listed at 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII) (as applied to
commercial equipment via 6316(a)).
Other statutory requirements are set
forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)–(2)(A),
(2)(B)(ii)–(iii), and (3)–(4). These criteria
apply to the setting of standards for
electric motors through 42 U.S.C.
6316(a).
The Motor Coalition expressed
concern that much of the relevant
information regarding electric motors
spans various rulemaking documents. It
requested that DOE consolidate all
documents related to electric motors at
one place, which can serve as a quick
and easy reference for any consumer or
14 The Petition is available at: https://
www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE2010-BT-STD-0027-0035.
15 DOE’s final rule differs from the Motor
Coalition’s proposal in that DOE’s rule covers all
types of brake electric motors and does not set
separate, lower standards for U-frame motors and
does not cover open, special- and definite-purpose
56-frame motors.
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
manufacturer in the U.S or outside the
U.S. (Motor Coalition, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No.
87 at p. 20–21) Baldor expressed similar
concerns and suggested that DOE clearly
state in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) whatever information
manufacturers need to comply with
standards. (Baldor, No. 100 at p. 2)
NEMA commented that the notice needs
to be clearer and unambiguous so that
it is easier for anyone (such as offshore
suppliers) to follow it. It added that the
final rule should include all required
information. (NEMA, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No.
87 at p. 46–47)
First, DOE notes that its regulatory
requirements are incorporated into the
CFR. The regulations laid out in the CFR
comprise the official set of requirements
that a regulated entity must follow.
While any member of the public
(including manufacturers) may seek
guidance from DOE, the requirements
laid out in the CFR provide the
regulatory framework that
manufacturers must follow and apply
when determining which (if any)
requirements a given motor must meet.
DOE may issue related guidance
documents, if needed, which are
available on its Web site at https://
www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/
default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1. Finally, it
is worth noting that the division of
regulations in 10 CFR 431.25(a)–(f) (for
currently regulated electric motors) and
10 CFR 431.25(g)–(l) (for newly
regulated electric motors) was
developed as a mechanism to
demonstrate the upcoming change in
standards without creating confusion
30943
about existing standards. At some point
in the future after the new standards
being adopted in this final rule have
been in effect for some time, DOE
anticipates removing the standards
currently at 10 CFR 431.25(a)–(f), as
DOE has done in the past.
III. General Discussion
DOE developed today’s rule after
considering input, including verbal and
written comments, data, and
information from interested parties that
represent a variety of interests. All
commenters, along with their
corresponding abbreviations and
affiliations, are listed in Table III.1
below. The issues raised by these
commenters are addressed in the
discussions that follow.
TABLE III.1—SUMMARY OF COMMENTERS
Abbreviation
Air Movement and Control Association International, Inc. .....
Alliance to Save Energy ..........................................................
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy ...............
American Forest & Paper Association ....................................
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers .....................
Appliance Standards Awareness Project ................................
Baldor Electric Co. ..................................................................
BBF & Associates ...................................................................
California Energy Commission ................................................
California Investor Owned Utilities ..........................................
Cato Institute ...........................................................................
China WTO/TBT National Notification & Enquiry Center .......
Copper Development Association ...........................................
Earthjustice ..............................................................................
Edison Electric Institute ...........................................................
Electric Apparatus Service Association ..................................
European Committee of Manufacturers of Electrical Machines and Power Electronics.
Flolo Corporation .....................................................................
Greg Gerritsen ........................................................................
Industrial Energy Consumers of America ...............................
Motor Coalition* .......................................................................
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Company or organization
Affiliation
AMCAI ...................
ASE .......................
ACEEE ..................
AF&PA ..................
AFPM ....................
ASAP ....................
Baldor ....................
BBF .......................
CEC ......................
CA IOUs ................
Cato ......................
China WTO/TBT ...
CDA ......................
Earthjustice ...........
EEI ........................
EASA ....................
CEMEP .................
Trade Association.
Energy Efficiency Advocates.
Energy Efficiency Advocates.
Trade Association.
Trade Association.
Energy Efficiency Advocates.
Manufacturers.
Representative for Trade Association.
State Government Agency.
Utilities.
Public Interest Group.
Chinese Government Agency.
Trade Association.
Energy Efficiency Advocates.
Association of U.S. investor-owned electric companies.
Trade Association.
Trade Association.
Flolo ......................
Gerritsen ...............
IECA ......................
MC ........................
National Electrical Manufacturers Association ........................
Natural Resources Defense Council .......................................
Nidec Corporation ...................................................................
NORD Gear Corporation .........................................................
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance .....................................
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships ..............................
Northwest Power & Conservation Council ..............................
Oakland University ..................................................................
PlasticMetal .............................................................................
Regal Beloit .............................................................................
Scott Mohs ..............................................................................
SEW-Eurodrive, Inc. ................................................................
Siemens ..................................................................................
Southern California Edison .....................................................
UL LLC ....................................................................................
University of Michigan .............................................................
WEG Electric Corporation .......................................................
NEMA ....................
NRDC ....................
Nidec .....................
NORD Gear ..........
NEEA ....................
NEEP ....................
NPCC ....................
OU .........................
PlasticMetal ...........
Regal Beloit ..........
Scott ......................
SEWE ...................
Siemens ................
SCE .......................
UL .........................
UMI .......................
WEG .....................
Electromechanical Repairer.
Individual.
Trade Association.
Energy Efficiency Advocates, Trade Associations, Manufacturers, Utilities.
Trade Association.
Energy Efficiency Advocates.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Energy Efficiency Advocates.
Energy Efficiency Advocates.
Utilities.
Academic Institution.
Non-motor Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Individual.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Utility.
Testing Laboratory.
Academic Institution.
Manufacturer.
* The members of the Motor Coalition include: National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy (ACEEE), Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC), Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP), and Northwest Power and
Conservation Council (NPCC).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30944
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
A. Compliance Date
During the NOPR public meeting and
in written comments, many interested
parties, including the Motor Coalition,
requested that DOE provide at least two
years for compliance from the date of
publication of the final rule. (Motor
Coalition, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp.
21–22; NEMA, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at
p. 29; CA IOUs, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87
at p. 31; ASAP, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at
p. 32; CEMEP, No. 89 at p. 2; Joint
Advocates, 16 No. 97 at p. 3; NEMA, No.
93 at p. 7; CA IOUs, No. 99 at p. 2;
Nidec, No. 98 at pp. 2–3; SCE, No. 101
at p. 2)
DOE received other comments on the
proposed compliance date for the newly
covered equipment requesting that DOE
provide more than two years after
publication of the final rule for newly
covered motors to comply with today’s
standards because such motors may
require testing and/or modification of
original equipment manufacturer (OEM)
equipment within which these motors
are used. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 7; NEMA,
Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at p. 30–31) Regal
Beloit commented that manufacturers of
these newly covered motors should be
given 48 months for compliance,
whereas EEI argued for a three-year lead
time for such motors. (Regal Beloit, Pub.
Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 34–35; EEI, Pub.
Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 24–25, 33) EEI
also noted that many manufacturers
should be fine with a two-year
compliance lead time for alreadycovered equipment since they
anticipated the change in regulatory
requirements coming after EISA 2007.
(EEI, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 24–25,
33) DOE notes that NEMA, as part of the
Motor Coalition, had commented earlier
in the Petition that a two-year
compliance lead time would be
sufficient for all motors covered by
today’s rule and this stance was
reiterated by the Motor Coalition
representative at the NOPR public
meeting and NEMA in their NOPR
comments. (Motor Coalition, Pub. Mtg.
Tr., No. 87 at pp. 21–22; Motor
Coalition, No. 35 at p. 9; NEMA, No. 93
at p. 7)
Regarding the compliance date that
would apply to the requirements of
today’s rule, the energy conservation
standards established under EISA 2007
went into effect after the three-year
period beginning on the date of
enactment of EISA 2007. Under 42
U.S.C. § 6313(b)(4)(B), EPCA directs the
Secretary of Energy to publish a final
16 For the purposes of this document, ‘‘Joint
Advocates’’ is a term used to describe NPCC, NEEA,
ACEEE, ASAP, Earthjustice, ASE, NRDC, and NEEP,
who commented jointly.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
rule amending such standards and to
apply the rule to electric motors
manufactured five years after the
effective date EISA 2007. DOE is relying
on the Congressionally established twoyear spread between the effective date of
the latest amendments to electric motor
energy conservation standards and the
date by which DOE must amend such
standards to arrive at the two-year leadtime for manufacturers to comply with
today’s rule after its date of issuance.
See 42 U.S.C. 6313(b).
B. Test Procedure
On June 26, 2013, DOE published a
notice that proposed to incorporate
definitions for certain motor types not
currently subject to energy conservation
standards (78 FR 38456). The notice also
proposed to clarify several definitions
for motor types currently regulated by
energy conservation standards and add
some necessary steps to facilitate the
testing of certain motor types that DOE
does not currently require to meet
standards. During the preliminary
analysis stage, DOE received comments
concerning definitions and test
procedure set-up steps suggested for
testing motors under an expanded scope
approach. DOE addressed the comments
as part of the test procedure NOPR. See
78 FR 38456.
On December 13, 2013, DOE
published a test procedure final rule
(2013 test procedure) that incorporated
comments from the test procedure
NOPR and added and clarified both
definitions and testing instructions for a
variety of electric motors that DOE was
considering for regulation under this
standards rulemaking. 78 FR 75961. The
test procedure changes published in the
2013 final test procedure allow DOE to
require testing and compliance to meet
the energy conservation standards
established today.
Commenting on DOE’s recent round
of electric motor rulemakings, Baldor
raised concerns that developing the
standards rulemaking and test
procedures rulemaking in parallel has
caused inconsistencies that need to be
resolved. For example, the 2013 test
procedure used the term ‘‘brake electric
motor’’ to refer jointly to what the
standards NOPR published earlier had
called ‘‘integral’’ and ‘‘non-integral’’
brake electric motors. Baldor suggested
that definitions for NEMA Design A and
B motors in the 2013 test procedure
should refer to nine characteristics for
covered equipment that are laid out in
the NOPR. (Baldor, No. 100 at p. 7)
Inconsistencies, if any, are resolved in
today’s rule. DOE developed the nine
criteria in 10 CFR 431.25(g) below to
characterize all of the newly covered
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and currently covered motor types.
Therefore, adding these characteristics
to the definitions for motor types is
unnecessary. Moreover, as described
earlier, the regulatory structure
proposed by DOE and adopted in this
rule preserves the existing standards
and structure for currently regulated
motors while providing a new section
for new standards for motors being
regulated for the first time and amended
standards for currently regulated
motors.
CEC recommended that DOE should
add definitions of continuous duty and
duty type S1 (IEC) in 10 CFR 431.12. It
also recommended that DOE revise the
current definitions of NEMA Design A,
B, and C motors to update the reference
from NEMA MG 1–2009 to the revised
document ANSI/NEMA MG 1–2011.
(CEC, No. 96 at p. 3)
DOE understands that ‘‘continuous’’
and ‘‘S1’’ are terms well understood by
the motor industry, and DOE has
therefore not established definitions for
these terms. DOE clarifies in this rule
that these terms are used to designate a
motor that can operate indefinitely in
rated conditions and reaches thermal
equilibrium. This stands in contrast to
motors that may be rated for
intermittent operation or with specific
loading, braking, or starting restrictions.
With respect to the MG 1 publication
version, DOE notes that the terms
mentioned by CEC are identical in both
versions of MG 1. DOE, therefore, finds
there is no reason to amend the
reference.
1. Vertical Electric Motors
NEMA and Nidec both suggested
several modifications in the test
procedure for vertical electric motors
and expressed concern that, without
these changes, it will be difficult for
manufacturers to test vertical electric
motors correctly for compliance
purposes. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 29;
Nidec, No. 98 at p. 9–10)
DOE recognizes the desire for
clarification in the 2013 test procedure
for vertical electric motors, but notes
that the rule has now gone into effect
and the changes suggested by
commenters are beyond the scope of
today’s energy conservation standard.
Based on stakeholder concerns,
however, DOE will evaluate whether
further clarification on the testing of
vertical electric motors is necessary.
C. Current Equipment Classes and
Scope of Coverage
When evaluating and establishing
energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered equipment into
equipment classes by the type of energy
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
used or by capacity or other
performance-related features that would
justify a different standard. In making a
determination whether a performancerelated feature justifies a different
standard, DOE must consider factors
such as the utility to the consumer of
the feature and other factors DOE
determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q) and 6316(a))
Existing energy conservation
standards cover electric motors that fall
into four categories based on design
features of the motor. These four
categories are: General purpose electric
motors (subtype I), general purpose
electric motors (subtype II), fire pump
electric motors, and NEMA Design B
motors (with a horsepower rating from
201 through 500). Definitions for each of
these terms can be found at 10 CFR
431.12.
D. Updated Equipment Classes and
Scope of Coverage
DOE has the authority to set energy
conservation standards for a wider range
of electric motors than those classified
as general purpose electric motors (e.g.,
definite or special purpose motors).
EPACT 1992 first provided DOE with
the statutory authority to regulate
‘‘electric motors,’’ which were defined
as including certain ‘‘general purpose’’
motors. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) (1992))
In addition to defining this term,
Congress prescribed specific energy
conservation standards for electric
motors (i.e., general purpose electric
motors (subtype I). EPACT 1992 also
defined the terms ‘‘definite purpose
motors’’ and ‘‘special purpose motor’’.
(42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(C) and (D) (1992))
EPACT 1992 explicitly excluded
definite purpose and special purpose
motors from the prescribed standards.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1) (1992)) However,
EISA 2007 struck the narrow EPACT
1992 definition of ‘‘electric motor’’. (42
U.S.C. 6311(13)) With the removal of
this definition, the term ‘‘electric
motor’’ became broader in scope. As a
result of these changes, both definite
and special purpose motors fell under
the broad heading of ‘‘electric motors’’
that previously only applied to ‘‘general
purpose’’ motors. While EISA 2007
prescribed standards for general
purpose motors, it did not apply those
standards to definite or special purpose
motors. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b) (2012))
Consistent with EISA 2007’s
reworking of the ‘‘electric motor’’
definition, the 2012 test procedure
broadly defined the term ‘‘electric
motor’’. 77 FR 26608 (codified at 10 CFR
431.12). In view of the changes
introduced by EISA 2007 and the
absence of energy conservation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
standards for special purpose and
definite purpose motors, it is DOE’s
view that both of these motors are
categories of ‘‘electric motors’’ covered
under EPCA, as currently amended.
Accordingly, DOE added the term
‘‘electric’’ to the definitions of ‘‘special
purpose motor’’ and ‘‘definite purpose
motor’’ in the 2013 test procedure. See
78 FR 75994. Today’s rule amends and
establishes standards for a variety of
electric motors, including certain
definite purpose and special purpose
motors. DOE is setting energy
conservation standards for any electric
motor exhibiting all of the following
nine characteristics:
(1) Is a single-speed, induction motor,
(2) Is rated for continuous duty (MG
1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC),
(3) Contains a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or
cage (IEC) rotor,
(4) Operates on polyphase alternating
current 60-hertz sinusoidal line power,
(5) Is rated 600 volts or less,
(6) Has a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole
configuration,
(7) Is built in a three-digit or four-digit
NEMA frame size (or IEC metric
equivalent), including those designs
between two consecutive NEMA frame
sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an
enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC
metric equivalent),
(8) Produces at least 1 horsepower
(0.746 kW) but not greater than 500
horsepower (373 kW), and
(9) Meets all of the performance
requirements of a NEMA Design A, B, or
C motor or of an IEC Design N or H
motor.
However, the updated standards
specifically do not apply to the
following equipment:
• Air-over electric motors;
• Component sets of an electric
motor;
• Liquid-cooled electric motors;
• Submersible electric motors; and
• Inverter-only electric motors.
To facilitate the potential application
of energy conservation standards to
special and definite purpose motors,
DOE defined certain motors and
provided certain preparatory test
procedure steps in the 2013 test
procedure. See 78 FR 75961. DOE chose
not to establish standards for the
component sets of an electric motor,
liquid-cooled, submersible, and
inverter-only electric motors listed
above because of the current absence of
a reliable and repeatable method to test
them for efficiency. If a test procedure
becomes available, DOE may consider
setting standards for these motors at that
time. For air-over electric motors,
during the course of the test procedure
rulemaking, DOE learned about a
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
30945
possible test procedure for such motors
but DOE does not currently have enough
information to support the
establishment of a test method. 78 FR
75975.
Finally, as discussed in the NOPR,
although DOE believes that EPCA, as
amended through EISA 2007, provides
sufficient statutory authority to regulate
a wider variety of electric motors
(including those commonly referred to
as special purpose or definite purpose
motors) than those already regulated as
‘‘electric motors,’’ DOE notes that
section 10 of the American Energy
Manufacturing Technical Corrections
Act (‘‘AEMTCA’’), Public Law 112–210
(December 18, 2012), amended DOE’s
authority to regulate commercial and
industrial equipment by including
‘‘other motors,’’ in addition to ‘‘electric
motors’’. (42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)(xiii).)
Therefore, even if special and definite
purpose motors were not ‘‘electric
motors,’’ special and definite purpose
motors would be considered as ‘‘other
motors’’ that EPCA already treats as
covered industrial equipment.17
17 EPCA specifies the types of industrial
equipment that can be classified as covered in
addition to the equipment enumerated in 42 U.S.C.
6311(1). This equipment includes ‘‘other motors’’
(to be codified at 42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)). Industrial
equipment must also, without regard to whether
such equipment is in fact distributed in commerce
for industrial or commercial use, be of a type that:
(1) In operation consumes, or is designed to
consume, energy in operation; (2) to any significant
extent, is distributed in commerce for industrial or
commercial use; and (3) is not a covered product
as defined in 42 U.S.C. 6291(a)(2) of EPCA, other
than a component of a covered product with respect
to which there is in effect a determination under 42
U.S.C. 6312(c). (42 U.S.C. 6311 (2)(A).) Data from
the 2002 United States Industrial Electric Motor
Systems Market Opportunities Assessment
estimated total energy use from industrial motor
systems to be 747 billion kWh. Based on the
expansion of industrial activity, it is likely that
current annual electric motor energy use is higher
than this figure. Electric motors are distributed in
commerce for both the industrial and commercial
sectors. According to data provided by the Motor
Coalition, the number of electric motors
manufactured in, or imported into, the United
States is over five million electric motors annually,
including special and definite purpose motors.
Finally, special and definite purpose motors are not
currently regulated under Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, part 430 (10 CFR Part 430).
To classify equipment as covered commercial or
industrial equipment, the Secretary must also
determine that classifying the equipment as covered
equipment is necessary for the purposes of Part A–
1 of EPCA. The purpose of Part A–1 is to improve
the efficiency of electric motors, pumps and certain
other industrial equipment to conserve the energy
resources of the nation. (42 U.S.C. 6312(a)–(b)) In
today’s rule, DOE has determined that the
regulation of special and definite purpose motors is
necessary to carry out the purposes of part A–1 of
EPCA because regulating these motors will promote
the conservation of energy supplies. Efficiency
standards that may result from coverage would help
to capture some portion of the potential for
improving the efficiency of special and definite
purpose motors.
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30946
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
In response to the NOPR, the Motor
Coalition recognized that DOE’s
proposed broadening of the scope of
motors that would be covered at TSL 2
efficiency levels is consistent with the
Petition. (Motor Coalition, Pub. Mtg. Tr.,
No. 87 at pp. 18–19) NEMA agreed with
DOE’s proposed expansion of scope of
coverage, noting that it is largely
consistent with the Petition. (NEMA,
No. 93 at p. 3) Nidec commented that
DOE’s proposal presents a sufficiently
broad scope of coverage and that no
further adjustment is needed. (Nidec,
No. 98 at p. 5) The CA IOUs supported
DOE in adopting TSL 2 for most
equipment class groups. (CA IOUs, No.
99 at pp. 1–2) The Joint Advocates
supported the proposed standards,
noting that the standards will save 7
quads of energy over thirty years of
equipment sales and will significantly
contribute to the President’s Climate
Action Plan goal for new standards. It
urged DOE to complete the final rule by
May 2014 as previously committed to
the Attorneys General of several states.
(Joint Advocates, No. 97 at p. 2) The
European Committee of Manufacturers
of Electrical Machines and Power
Electronics (CEMEP) expressed support
for increasing certain motor efficiency
standards to TSL 2, or NEMA Table 12–
12. CEMEP noted that DOE is
appropriately considering impacts on
and perspectives of OEMs and end
users, as well as global harmonization
issues. (CEMEP, No. 89 at p. 2) Gerritsen
supported the proposed standards,
noting that is the standards are essential
to curb carbon dioxide emissions.
(Gerritsen, No. 81 at p. 1) Southern
California Edison commented that they
support DOE in adopting TSL 2, i.e.,
NEMA Premium®18 levels, noting that
these will lead to ‘‘the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and
economically justified’’ as well as
significant energy savings. In view of
significant energy savings and general
stakeholder support, SCE requested that
DOE publish final rule soon. (SCE, No.
101 at pp. 1–2)
The Copper Development Association
(CDA) supported DOE’s current
rulemaking and the inclusion of
additional motor categories and
requiring motors that operate at 201 hp
through 500 hp to meet premium
standards. CDA suggested that DOE
investigate covering motors over 500 hp
18 DOE notes that ‘‘NEMA Premium’’ is a
registered trademark of NEMA. NEMA has removed
the term ‘‘NEMA’’ from the title of MG 1–2011,
Table 12–12. Unless indicated otherwise, in the
remainder of this document, any reference to
‘‘premium’’ standards should be considered a
reference to MG 1–2011, Table 12–12.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
and currently uncovered motors 1 hp
through 500 hp for future rulemaking.
CDA noted that motors over 500 hp
consume 27 percent of all U.S. energy
consumed by motors in operation.
Noting that some manufacturers even
currently offer motors significantly
above premium efficiency levels, CDA
suggested that DOE investigate the
development of a new even higher
energy efficiency category—‘‘super
premium’’ above the current premium
efficiencies. (CDA, No. 90 at pp. 1–2)
DOE may consider expanding the
scope of its regulations to large motors,
which carry different technologies and
usage patterns, in future updates to the
rule. At that time, DOE would consider
any efficiency levels beyond premium
efficiency in place and evaluate them
for standards.
E. Technological Feasibility
1. General
EPCA requires that any new or
amended energy conservation standard
that DOE prescribes shall be designed to
achieve the maximum improvement in
energy efficiency that DOE determines
is technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a)). In each
standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a
screening analysis based on information
gathered on all current technology
options and prototype designs that
could improve the efficiency of the
products or equipment that are the
subject of the rulemaking. As the first
step in such an analysis, DOE develops
a list of technology options for
consideration in consultation with
manufacturers, design engineers, and
other interested parties. DOE then
determines which of those means for
improving efficiency are technologically
feasible.
After DOE has determined that
particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further
evaluates each technology option in
view of the following additional
screening criteria: (1) Practicability to
manufacture, install, or service; (2)
adverse impacts on equipment utility or
availability; and (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety. Section IV.B of this rule
discusses the results of the screening
analysis for electric motors, particularly
the designs DOE considered, those it
screened out, and those that are the
basis for the trial standard levels (TSLs)
in this rulemaking. For further details
on the screening analysis for this
rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the final
TSD.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible
Levels
When DOE adopts a new or amended
standard for a type or class of covered
equipment, it must determine the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency or maximum reduction in
energy use that is technologically
feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(1)) This requirement also
applies to DOE proposals to amend the
standards for electric motors. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a)) Accordingly, in its engineering
analysis, DOE determined the maximum
technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’)
improvements in energy efficiency for
electric motors, using the design
parameters for the most efficient motors
available on the market or in working
prototypes. (See chapter 5 of the final
TSD.) The max-tech levels that DOE
determined for this rulemaking are
described in section IV.C.3 of this final
rule.
In response to the NOPR, CEC
claimed that DOE has not provided the
technological feasibility and economic
justification as required by statute for
updating the existing energy
consumption standards for general
purpose electric motors (subtype I or II)
that are not NEMA Design A, B, or C,
or IEC Design N or H, and for polyphase
motors rated between 1 and 250 hp (2
poles) and motors between 1 and 350 hp
(8 poles). It further stated that DOE did
not provide market and technology
analysis for motors greater than 500 hp,
motors with more than 8 poles and
shaded pole motors. (CEC, No. 96 at pp.
1, 3)
DOE acknowledges that the motors in
the scope of today’s rulemaking are not
the only possible motors for which
standards may produce economically
justified energy savings. As detailed
above, DOE’s electric motor regulations
came about due to statutory
requirements that initially included a
narrow scope of electric motors that
DOE could regulate, but that has become
increasingly broad with the changes
brought about by EISA 2007 and
AEMTCA. As that universe of electric
motors that DOE is authorized to
regulate expands, DOE considers other
motor types that it may regulate under
the statute and considers what types of
electric motors use large amounts of
energy, are produced in large volume,
and have opportunities for efficiency
gains. DOE may consider future
regulation of some of the motor types
which CEC mentions and welcomes
data that illustrates savings potential of
currently unregulated technologies.
The University of Michigan and
Oakland University (UMI & OU)
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
suggested that before finalizing the
current rulemaking, DOE should
conduct a study to update National
Electrical Code Table 430.250, which is
used to design circuits of motors
covered by current regulation. UMI &
OU suggested that before finalizing the
current rulemaking, a study should be
conducted to determine the optional
method of establishing the nameplate
ratings of combination HVAC
equipment rated according to running
load amperes. (UMI & OU, No. 92 at pp.
1–2)
DOE understands that NEC Table
430.250, mentioned by UMI & OU, helps
engineers specify wiring in building by
providing current as a function of motor
power, voltage, and power factor. DOE
understands that more efficient motors
may cause application engineers to
differently design building circuits
which contain electric motors. If such
changes brought by a technology have
adverse impacts to safety or equipment
utility, DOE may opt to remove that
technology from consideration in its
screening analysis. Presently, DOE has
not learned of any such expected
impacts resulting from the standard
levels selected in today’s rule.
Moreover, the National Electrical Code
is developed by the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) and DOE
has no authority to change this code.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
F. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
Section 325(o) of EPCA also provides
that any new or amended energy
conservation standard that DOE
prescribes shall be designed to achieve
the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE determines is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A)–(B) and 6316(a)) In
addition, in determining whether such
standard is technologically feasible and
economically justified, DOE may not
prescribe standards for certain types or
classes of electric motors if such
standards would not result in significant
energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)
and 6316(a)) For each TSL, DOE
projected energy savings from the
motors that would be covered under this
rulemaking and that would be
purchased in the 30-year period that
begins in the year of compliance with
the new and amended standards (2016–
2045). The savings are measured over
the entire lifetime of equipment
purchased in the 30-year period.19 DOE
19 In the past DOE, presented energy savings
results for only the 30-year period that begins in the
year of compliance. In the calculation of economic
impacts, however, DOE considered operating cost
savings measured over the entire lifetime of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
30947
quantified the energy savings
attributable to each TSL as the
difference in energy consumption
between each standards case and the
base case. The base case represents a
projection of energy consumption in the
absence of new or amended mandatory
efficiency standards, and considers
market forces and policies that affect
demand for more efficient equipment.
DOE used its national impact analysis
(NIA) spreadsheet model to estimate
energy savings from new and amended
standards for electric motors subject to
this rulemaking. The NIA spreadsheet
model (described in section IV.H of this
rule) calculates energy savings in site
energy, which is the energy directly
consumed by motors at the locations
where they are used. For electricity,
DOE reports national energy savings in
terms of the savings in the energy that
is used to generate and transmit the site
electricity, which is referred to as
primary energy. To convert electricity in
kWh to primary energy units, on-site
electricity consumption is multiplied by
the site-to-power plant energy use factor
(see TSD chapter 10). The site-to-power
plant energy use factor is defined as the
ratio of the marginal change in total
primary energy consumption by the
electric power sector (in quadrillion
Btu’s) divided by the change in total
electricity generation due to a standard.
DOE derives site-to-power plant energy
use factors from the model used to
prepare the Energy Information
Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy
Outlook (AEO).
DOE also estimates full-fuel-cycle
energy savings. 76 FR 51282 (August 18,
2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701
(August 17, 2012). The full-fuel-cycle
(FFC) metric includes the energy
consumed in extracting, processing, and
transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal,
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus
presents a more complete picture of the
impacts of energy efficiency standards.
DOE’s evaluation of FFC savings is
driven in part by the National Academy
of Science’s (NAS) report on FFC
measurement approaches for DOE’s
Appliance Standards Program.20 The
NAS report discusses that FFC was
primarily intended for energy efficiency
standards rulemakings where multiple
fuels may be used by a particular
product or piece of equipment. In the
case of this rulemaking pertaining to
electric motors, only a single fuel—
electricity—is consumed by the
equipment. DOE’s approach is based on
the calculation of an FFC multiplier for
each of the energy types used by
covered equipment. Although, the
addition of FFC energy savings in the
rulemakings is consistent with the
recommendations, the methodology for
estimating FFC does not project how
fuel markets would respond to this
particular standard rulemaking. The
FFC methodology simply estimates how
much additional energy, and in turn
how many tons of emissions, may be
displaced if the estimated fuel were not
consumed by the equipment covered in
this rulemaking. It is also important to
note that inclusion of FFC savings does
not affect DOE’s choice of standards.
equipment purchased in the 30-year period. DOE
has chosen to modify its presentation of national
energy savings to be consistent with the approach
used for its national economic analysis.
20 ‘‘Review of Site (Point-of-Use) and Full-FuelCycle Measurement Approaches to DOE/EERE
Building Appliance Energy-Efficiency Standards,’’
(Academy report) was completed in May 2009 and
included five recommendations. A copy of the
study can be downloaded at: https://www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record_id=12670.
In determining the impacts of a
standard on manufacturers, DOE first
uses an annual cash-flow approach to
determine the quantitative impacts. This
step includes both a short-term
assessment—based on the cost and
capital requirements during the period
between when a regulation is issued and
when entities must comply with the
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2. Significance of Savings
As noted above, 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B) (as applied to equipment
via 6316(a)) prevents DOE from
adopting a standard for a covered
product unless such standard would
result in ‘‘significant’’ energy savings.
Although the term ‘‘significant’’ is not
explicitly defined in EPCA, the U.S.
Court of Appeals, in Natural Resources
Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d
1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated
that Congress intended ‘‘significant’’
energy savings in this context to be
savings that were not ‘‘genuinely
trivial’’. DOE believes that the energy
savings for all of the TSLs considered in
this rulemaking (presented in section
V.A) are nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE
considers them ‘‘significant’’ within the
meaning of section 325 of EPCA.
G. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
EPCA provides seven factors to be
evaluated in determining whether a
potential energy conservation standard
is economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i) (as applied to
equipment via 6316(a))) The following
sections discuss how DOE has
addressed each of those seven factors in
this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers
and Consumers
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30948
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
regulation—and a long-term assessment
over a 30-year period.21 The industrywide impacts analyzed include industry
net present value (INPV), which values
the industry on the basis of expected
future cash flows; cash flows by year;
changes in revenue and income; and
other measures of impact, as
appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and
reports the impacts on different types of
manufacturers, including impacts on
small manufacturers. Third, DOE
considers the impact of standards on
domestic manufacturer employment and
manufacturing capacity, as well as the
potential for standards to result in plant
closures and loss of capital investment.
Finally, DOE takes into account
cumulative impacts of various DOE
regulations and other regulatory
requirements on manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures
of economic impact include the changes
in life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback
period (PBP) associated with new or
amended standards. These measures are
discussed further in the following
section. For consumers in the aggregate,
DOE also calculates the national net
present value of the economic impacts
applicable to a particular rulemaking.
DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of
potential standards on identifiable
subgroups of consumers that may be
affected disproportionately by a national
standard.
b. Life-Cycle Costs
EPCA requires DOE to consider the
savings in operating costs throughout
the estimated average life of the covered
equipment compared to any increase in
the price of the covered equipment that
are likely to result from the imposition
of the standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II) and 6316(a)) DOE
conducts this comparison in its LCC and
PBP analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase
price of a piece of equipment (including
its installation) and the operating
expense (including energy,
maintenance, and repair expenditures)
discounted over the lifetime of the
equipment. To account for uncertainty
and variability in specific inputs, such
as equipment lifetime and discount rate,
DOE uses a distribution of values, with
probabilities attached to each value. For
its analysis, DOE assumes that
consumers will purchase the covered
equipment in the first year of
compliance with amended standards.
The LCC savings for the considered
efficiency levels are calculated relative
21 DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that
considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year
period.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
to a base case that reflects projected
market trends in the absence of
amended standards.
DOE identifies the percentage of
consumers estimated to receive LCC
savings or experience an LCC increase,
in addition to the average LCC savings
associated with a particular standard
level.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of
energy is a separate statutory
requirement for imposing an energy
conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic
justification of a standard, to consider
the total projected energy savings that
are expected to result directly from the
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)
and 6316(a)) As discussed in section
IV.H, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet to
project national site energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of
Products
In establishing classes of equipment,
and in evaluating design options and
the impact of potential standard levels,
DOE evaluates standards that would not
lessen the utility or performance of the
considered equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and 6316(a)) As
noted earlier, the substance of this
provision applies to the equipment at
issue in today’s rule as well. DOE has
determined that the standards in today’s
notice will not reduce the utility or
performance of the equipment under
consideration in this rulemaking.
Currently, many motors are already
commonly being sold at the selected
levels (i.e., ‘‘premium efficiency’’
designation). In addition, the selected
standards closely track the
recommendations of NEMA, a trade
association that represents electric
motor manufacturers. DOE assumes that
NEMA would not recommend efficiency
levels that would harm electric motor
performance or utility.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of
Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the
impact of any lessening of competition
that is likely to result from the
imposition of a standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and 6316(a)) It also
directs the Attorney General of the
United States to determine the impact,
if any, of any lessening of competition
likely to result from a standard and to
transmit such determination to the
Secretary of Energy within 60 days of
the publication of a proposed rule,
together with an analysis of the nature
and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) To assist
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the Attorney General in making a
determination for electric motor
standards, DOE provided the
Department of Justice (DOJ) with copies
of the NOPR and the TSD for review.
DOE received no adverse comments
from DOJ regarding the proposal.
f. Need for National Energy
Conservation
The energy savings from today’s
standards are likely to provide
improvements to the security and
reliability of the nation’s energy system.
Reductions in the demand for electricity
also may result in reduced costs for
maintaining the reliability of the
nation’s electricity system. DOE
conducts a utility impact analysis to
estimate how standards may affect the
nation’s needed power generation
capacity.
Today’s standards also are likely to
result in environmental benefits in the
form of reduced emissions of air
pollutants and greenhouse gases
associated with energy production. DOE
reports the emissions impacts from
today’s standards, and from each TSL it
considered, in section V.B.4 of this rule.
DOE also reports estimates of the
economic value of emissions reductions
resulting from the considered TSLs.
g. Other Factors
EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy,
in determining whether a standard is
economically justified, to consider any
other factors that the Secretary deems to
be relevant. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII) and 6316(a)) In
developing this final rule, DOE has also
considered the submission of the
Petition, which DOE believes sets forth
a statement by interested persons that
are representative of relevant points of
view (including representatives of
manufacturers of covered equipment,
and efficiency advocates) and contains
recommendations with respect to an
energy conservation standard. DOE has
encouraged the submission of consensus
agreements as a way to bring diverse
interested parties together, to develop
an independent and probative analysis
useful in DOE standard setting, and to
expedite the rulemaking process. DOE
also believes that standard levels
recommended in the Petition may
increase the likelihood for regulatory
compliance, while decreasing the risk of
litigation.
2. Rebuttable Presumption
As set forth in 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a
rebuttable presumption that an energy
conservation standard is economically
justified if the additional cost to the
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30949
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
consumer of a product or piece of
equipment that meets the standard is
less than three times the value of the
first year’s energy savings resulting from
the standard, as calculated under the
applicable DOE test procedure. DOE’s
LCC and PBP analyses generate values
used to calculate the effect potential
amended energy conservation standards
would have on the payback period for
consumers. These analyses include, but
are not limited to, the 3-year payback
period contemplated under the
rebuttable-presumption test. In addition,
DOE routinely conducts an economic
analysis that considers the full range of
impacts to consumers, manufacturers,
the nation, and the environment, as
required under 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this
analysis serve as the basis for DOE’s
evaluation of the economic justification
for a potential standard level (thereby
supporting or rebutting the results of
any preliminary determination of
economic justification). The rebuttable
presumption payback calculation is
discussed in section IV.F.12 of this final
rule.
IV. Methodology and Discussion of
Related Comments
DOE used four spreadsheet tools to
estimate the impact of today’s
standards. The first spreadsheet
calculates LCCs and PBPs of potential
new energy conservation standards. The
second provides shipments forecasts
and the third calculate national energy
savings and net present value impacts of
potential new energy conservation
standards. The fourth tool helps assess
manufacturer impacts, largely through
use of the Government Regulatory
Impact Model (GRIM).
Additionally, DOE estimated the
impacts of energy conservation
standards for electric motors on utilities
and the environment. DOE used a
version of EIA’s National Energy
Modeling System (NEMS) for the utility
and environmental analyses. The NEMS
model simulates the energy sector of the
U.S. economy. EIA uses NEMS to
prepare its Annual Energy Outlook
(AEO), a widely known energy forecast
for the United States. The version of
NEMS used for standards analysis is
called NEMS–BT 22 and is based on the
AEO version with minor
modifications.23
A. Market and Technology Assessment
For the market and technology
assessment, DOE develops information
that provides an overall picture of the
market for the equipment concerned,
including the purpose of the equipment,
the industry structure, and market
characteristics. This activity includes
both quantitative and qualitative
assessments, based primarily on
publicly available information. The
subjects addressed in the market and
technology assessment for this
rulemaking include scope of coverage,
equipment classes, types of equipment
sold and offered for sale, and technology
options that could improve the energy
efficiency of the equipment under
examination. Chapter 3 of the TSD
contains additional discussion of the
market and technology assessment.
1. Current Scope of Electric Motors
Energy Conservation Standards
EISA 2007 amended EPCA to
prescribe energy conservation standards
for four categories of electric motors:
General purpose electric motors
(subtype I) (hereinafter, ‘‘subtype I’’),
general purpose electric motors (subtype
II) (hereinafter, ‘‘subtype II’’), fire pump
electric motors, and NEMA Design B,
general purpose electric motors that also
meet the subtype I or subtype II
definitions and are rated above 200
horsepower through 500 horsepower.
DOE’s 2012 test procedure added clarity
to the definitions for each of these motor
categories, which are now codified at 10
CFR 431.12. 77 FR 26608.
DOE understands that an IEC frame
motor could be treated as either a
subtype I or subtype II motor depending
on its other characteristics. Having an
IEC frame alone does not dictate
whether a motor is a general purpose
subtype I or subtype II motor; rather,
other characteristics provided in the
definitions of general purpose electric
motor (subtype I or subtype II) at 10 CFR
431.12 determine whether an IEC motor
should be considered subtype I or II. All
of these elements flow directly from the
statutory changes enacted by EISA 2007.
Currently, electric motors are required
to meet energy conservation standards
as follows:
TABLE IV.1—CURRENT ELECTRIC MOTOR ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS 24
Energy conservation
standard level
Horsepower range
General Purpose Electric Motors (Subtype I) ................................................
General Purpose Electric Motors (Subtype II) ...............................................
NEMA Design B and IEC Design N Motors ...................................................
Fire Pump Electric Motors ..............................................................................
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Electric motor category
1 to 200 (inclusive) ............................
1 to 200 (inclusive) ............................
201 to 500 (inclusive) ........................
1 to 500 (inclusive) ............................
MG
MG
MG
MG
1–2011
1–2011
1–2011
1–2011
Table
Table
Table
Table
12–12.
12–11.
12–11.
12–11.
In response to the NOPR, NEMA
commented that the proposed standards
do not resolve the confusion regarding
IEC electric motors. NEMA explained
that it is not clear whether an electric
motor in an IEC frame size that meets
the other criteria of a general purpose
electric motor (subtype I) would be
classified as equivalent to a T-frame,
hence subtype I, or U-frame, hence
subtype II. Therefore, NEMA suggested
that IEC frame sizes be considered
equivalent to NEMA T-frames. NEMA
suggested that the pertinent portion of
the definition of ‘‘general purpose
electric motor (subtype II)’’ in 10 CFR
431.12 should be revised from ‘‘(i) A UFrame motor’’ to read ‘‘(i) Is built in
accordance with NEMA U-frame
dimensions as described in NEMA MG
1–1967 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.15), including a frame size that is
between two consecutive NEMA frame
sizes.’’ (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 3–5, 32)
Changes to the applicability of the
electric motor standards currently in
effect are outside the scope of this
rulemaking. Additionally, DOE notes
that NEMA’s proposed changes to the
definition of ‘‘general purpose electric
motor (subtype II)’’ reflect that it may
have been looking at an older version of
the definition rather than the current
22 BT stands for DOE’s Building Technologies
Program.
23 The EIA allows the use of the name ‘‘NEMS’’
to describe only an AEO version of the model
without any modification to code or data. Because
the present analysis entails some minor code
modifications and runs the model under various
policy scenarios that deviate from AEO
assumptions, the name ‘‘NEMS–BT’’ refers to the
model as used here. For more information on
NEMS, refer to The National Energy Modeling
System: An Overview, DOE/EIA–0581 (98)
(February 1998), available at: https://
tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/forecasting/
058198.pdf.
24 For the purposes of determining compliance,
DOE assesses a motors horsepower rating according
to the provisions of 10 CFR 431.25(e).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30950
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
definition found at 10 CFR 431.12. DOE
notes that the current definition of
‘‘general purpose electric motor
(subtype II)’’ already includes the
language being suggested by NEMA.
2. Expanded Scope of Electric Motor
Energy Conservation Standards
a. Summary
As referenced above, on August 15,
2012, the Motor Coalition petitioned
DOE to adopt the Coalition’s consensus
agreement, which, in part, formed the
basis for today’s rule. The Motor
Coalition petitioned DOE to simplify
coverage to address a broad array of
electric motors with a few clearly
identified exceptions. The Motor
Coalition advocated this approach to
simplify manufacturer compliance and
to help facilitate DOE’s enforcement
efforts. The Petition highlighted
potential energy savings that would
result from expanding the scope of
covered electric motors. (Motor
Coalition, No. 35 at pp. 1–30)
DOE is now requiring electric motor
types beyond those currently covered to
meet energy conservation standards.
DOE’s proposed expansion is similar to
the approach recommended by the
Motor Coalition in its Petition (Motor
Coalition, No. 35 at pp. 1–3). DOE
establishes energy conservation
standards for electric motors that exhibit
all of the characteristics listed in Table
IV.2, with a limited number of
exceptions, listed in Table IV.4.
TABLE IV.2—CHARACTERISTICS OF
MOTORS REGULATED UNDER EXPANDED SCOPE OF COVERAGE
Motor characteristic
Is a single-speed, induction motor,
Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation
or for duty type S1 (IEC),
Contains a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or cage
(IEC) rotor,
Operates on polyphase alternating current
60-hertz sinusoidal power,
Is rated for 600 volts or less,
TABLE IV.2—CHARACTERISTICS OF
MOTORS REGULATED UNDER EXPANDED SCOPE OF COVERAGE—
Continued
Motor characteristic
Is built with a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration,
Is built in a three-digit or four-digit NEMA
frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), including those designs between two consecutive NEMA frame sizes (or IEC metric
equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA
frame size (or IEC metric equivalent),
Produces at least 1 horsepower (0.746 kW)
but not greater than 500 horsepower (373
kW) and
Meets all of the performance requirements of
a NEMA Design A, B, or C motor or of an
IEC Design N or H electric motor.
Table IV.3 lists the formerly
unregulated electric motor types that
will be covered by today’s rule. Further
details and definitions for the specific
motor types can be found in DOE’s 2013
test procedure. 78 FR 75961.
TABLE IV.3—CURRENTLY UNREGULATED MOTOR TYPES THAT ARE COVERED BY THIS RULE
Electric Motor Type
NEMA Design A from 201 to 500 horsepower
Electric motors with moisture resistant windings
Electric motors with sealed windings
Partial electric motors
Totally enclosed non-ventilated (TENV) electric motors
Immersible electric motors
Brake electric motors
Electric motors with separately powered blowers
However, the new standards
specifically do not apply to the
following equipment:
TABLE IV.4—EQUIPMENT SPECIFICALLY
EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE
Electric Motor Type
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Air-over electric motors.
Component sets of an electric motor.
Liquid-cooled electric motors.
Submersible electric motors.
Inverter-only electric motors.
Additionally, DOE is clarifying the
design, construction, and performance
characteristics of covered electric
motors. Specifically, DOE is clarifying
that only motors rated from 1 to 500
horsepower (inclusive), or their IEC
equivalents, would be covered by the
standards established in today’s
rulemaking. Finally, with regard to IECframe motors, DOE’s standards would
not regulate IEC motors on the singular
basis of frame size, but would regulate
such motors if they meet all the criteria
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
Electric motors with non-standard endshields or flanges.
Electric motors with non-standard bases.
Electric motors with special shafts.
Vertical hollow-shaft electric motors.
Electric motors with sleeve bearings.
Electric motors with thrust bearings.
Electric motors with encapsulated windings.
of Table IV.2. In other words, an IECframe motor that meets these nine
criteria and does not fit within one of
the five exceptions would have to meet
today’s final standards.
In response to the NOPR, DOE
received several comments on its scope
criteria. CEMEP supported the nine
characteristics to define electric motors,
noting that using those criteria to define
covered motors will lead to huge energy
savings by covering millions of units.
CEMEP believed that the nine
characteristics definition can be applied
by customs and other enforcement
officers to improve overall enforcement
activities. (CEMEP, No. 89 at p. 2).
Nidec commented that DOE should
bring more clarity to characteristic #8
(i.e., 1–500 hp as proposed as (g)(8)) by
including kilowatt values corresponding
to the given horsepower values (e.g., 500
horsepower (343 kilowatts), 1
horsepower (0.75 kilowatt). (Nidec, No.
98 at pp. 2, 7–8) DOE believes this is a
helpful suggestion that comports with
the inclusion of IEC motors in today’s
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
rulemaking and is incorporating the
suggestion into today’s rule.
NEMA sought clarification regarding
whether solid shaft medium and high
thrust motors are included in the scope
of coverage. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 27)
During the NOPR public meeting, CEC
and EEI requested clarification on
whether pool pump motors are covered
under new standards or by the Small
Electric Motors regulations. (CEC, Pub.
Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at p. 55) The CA IOUs
commented during the public meeting
that most pump motors are single-phase
and, sometimes, variable-speed, both of
which would disqualify motors from
coverage. (CA IOUs, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No.
87 at pp. 55–56). Nidec added its belief
that the small motor rule does not cover
variable speed motors. (Nidec, Pub. Mtg.
Tr., No. 87 at p.56).
Any motor that meets the nine criteria
as given in paragraph (g) and which is
not explicitly exempted by criteria given
in paragraph (m) is covered under the
current rulemaking. Both single-phase
and variable speed motors are not
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
covered in today’s rule, and so any
motor with those qualities would not be
subject to today’s standards.
b. Definitions, Terminology, and
Regulatory Language
In response to the NOPR, DOE
received a number of comments
requesting clarification on its choice of
terminology.
‘‘Motor’’ and ‘‘Electric Motor’’
Baldor commented that the use of the
terms ‘‘motor’’ and ‘‘electric motor’’
interchangeably in the NOPR is very
confusing. DOE understands that the
terms ‘‘motor’’ and ‘‘electric motor’’ may
refer to a variety of machines outside of
its regulatory context. In the NOPR,
DOE used the terms to mean the same
thing. 78 FR 73589. In addition, because
there are no NEMA Design B motors, for
example, that are not electrically driven,
in DOE’s view, the potential for
ambiguity is minimal.
The Department chose to not include
the term ‘‘electric’’ in the NEMAdesignated motor types to be consistent
with NEMA’s definitions. In the
regulatory context, however, DOE does
not consider there to be any difference
between the two terms and notes that all
motors currently regulated under 10
CFR part 431, subpart B, are electric
motors as stated in the title to 10 CFR
part 431, subpart B and the purpose and
scope section at 10 CFR 431.11.
Moreover, NEMA itself uses the term
‘‘motor’’ in MG 1 to refer to electric
motors.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Specificity of Definitions
Baldor stated that the definitions for
‘‘NEMA Design A motor’’ and ‘‘NEMA
Design B motor’’ in 2013 test procedure
does not make reference to nine
characteristics listed in paragraph (g)
and, thus, implies that it includes multispeed motors, motors rated for voltages
greater than 600 volts, motors rated for
only 50 Hz, and motors constructed
with more than 8 poles. According to
Baldor, this conflicts with DOE’s
proposed scope of coverage in Table 4
and Table 5 of the NOPR. It noted that
paragraph (i) and Table 6 for NEMA
Design C motor are similarly confusing.
(Baldor, No. 100 at pp. 2–4)
DOE agrees with Baldor that
minimizing ambiguity in regulatory text
is critical. In this case, however, DOE
does not see the potential for confusion.
DOE believes that today’s regulatory text
is of sufficient clarity that stakeholders
will understand that the new standards
apply only to those motors that meet the
nine criteria in the new 10 CFR
431.25(g).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
NEMA Design A, B or C motors are
not defined to include these nine
characteristics, which DOE is using to
narrow the scope of covered electric
motors. The definition of NEMA Design
A may include multi-speed motors,
motors rated for voltages greater than
600 volts, motors rated for only 50 Hz,
and motors constructed with more than
8 poles. However, only NEMA Design A
motors meeting all nine characteristics
in § 431.25(g) are covered under today’s
rule. DOE’s regulatory structure
maintains the current standards at 10
CFR 431.25(a)–(f) while adding broader
coverage in new paragraphs (g) through
(l). The structure that DOE chose
preserves the current regulatory text and
allows DOE to use the same definitions
for all motors covered under 10 CFR
431.25.
‘‘NEMA Design A Motor’’ Correction
NEMA commented that the definition
for NEMA Design A motor needs to be
corrected by replacing the phrase ‘‘has
a locked rotor current not to exceed’’ the
values shown in NEMA MG 1–2009, as
proposed in the NOPR with ‘‘has a
locked rotor current higher than’’ the
values shown in NEMA MG 1–2009.
(NEMA, No. 93 at p. 29) The Joint
Advocates requested that DOE consider
NEMA’s comments on definitions to
bring clarity to the covered motors.
(Joint Advocates, No. 97 at p. 3)
DOE agrees with NEMA that the
Department inadvertently used the
incorrect phrase when discussing the
locked rotor current in the definition of
a ‘‘NEMA Design A motor’’. As
evidenced in the preamble of the 2013
test procedure (78 FR 75968) and the
preamble and regulatory text of the
proposed test procedure (78 FR 38462,
38481), DOE intended to include locked
rotor current that exceeds the maximum
locked rotor current established for a
NEMA Design B motor in the ‘‘NEMA
Design A motor’’ definition. In today’s
rule, DOE is modifying the regulatory
text accordingly.
‘‘NEMA Design C Motor’’ Correction
NEMA suggested DOE revise
paragraph (i) and the title of Table 6 of
the proposed 10 CFR 431.25 by
replacing ‘‘NEMA Design C electric
motor’’ with ‘‘NEMA Design C motor’’
for consistency with DOE’s regulatory
definitions.
As described above, DOE agrees, and
has made the corresponding change in
the regulatory text for consistency with
the definitions adopted in the 2013 test
procedure. DOE notes that it has further
corrected the reference to ‘‘NEMA
Design A and B motors’’ in the title of
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
30951
Table 5 to be consistent with the DOE
regulatory definitions.
‘‘Inverter-Only Electric Motor’’
Definition
Baldor and NEMA raised concerns
that DOE has defined ‘‘inverter-only
electric motor’’ and not ‘‘definitepurpose, inverter-fed electric motors’’
which is the term that the NOPR
referenced. Baldor noted that the term
‘‘definite-purpose, inverter-fed electric
motors’’ is preferred and recognized by
the motor industry as given in Part 31
of the NEMA MG 1 standard. (Baldor,
No. 100 at p. 6; NEMA at pp. 2–3)
Although DOE has previously used
the term ‘‘definite-purpose, inverter-fed
electric motor,’’ DOE instead adopted
the term ‘‘inverter-only electric motor’’
in its 2013 test procedure because
’’definite-purpose’’’ is a term that has
meaning in the context of many other
motor types which DOE does not wish
to be confused with those requiring
inverters. DOE also wishes to define
these motors in terms of their actual
capabilities instead of design intent. See
78 FR 75989.
c. Horsepower Rating
DOE’s proposed standards include
only motors rated from 1–500
horsepower, inclusive. In its comments,
NEMA agreed with DOE’s decision not
to cover fractional hp motors, noting
that these motors do not fall within the
scope of rating for which NEMA Design
A, B and C performance standards are
defined. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 15)
Consequently, DOE is continuing not to
regulate fractional horsepower,
enclosed, 56-frame motors in today’s
notice.
d. High-Horsepower Six- and Eight-Pole
Motors
NEMA noted that Table 2 does not
contain the higher horsepower ratings
for large motors in 6 and 8 poles that are
added in Table 7 and it suggested that
DOE conform Table 7 to Table 2.
(NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 23–26) Baldor
made a similar comment. (Baldor, No.
100 at p. 4)
In keeping with the Motor Coalition’s
Petition and with MG 1–2009, DOE had
proposed standards for motors with
certain high horsepower and pole
ratings (8-pole above 250 hp and 6-pole
above 350 hp) that NEMA commented
do not exist under MG 1’s medium
motors designations. For example, it is
impossible to produce a NEMA Design
A 6-pole motor of 400 hp because the
criteria required to qualify a medium
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30952
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
motor as Design A 25 do not extend to
such a high horsepower motor. NEMA
notes that the table in the 2011 version
of MG 1 has corrected the mistake of
MG 1–2009 and moved these higher
horsepower motors to the large motor
Table 20–20 of MG 1. In its written
comments in response to the NOPR,
NEMA asked DOE not to adopt
standards for motors of this pole and
horsepower configuration because
NEMA Design A and B types are not
defined for and are not applicable to
large motors. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 23–
26) Accordingly, DOE has removed
several efficiency levels that were
proposed in table 5. As the eliminated
ratings are nonexistent—it is not
possible to build motors meeting such
specifications—motors shipments
analyses used in today’s rule are
unaffected.
e. Frame Size
In response to the NOPR, DOE
received a number of comments related
to frame size.
Scope Characteristic #7
NEMA requested that DOE amend the
nine characteristics of regulated motor
to include four-digit frame sizes because
500 hp and 6- and 8-pole motors only
come in frame sizes larger than threedigit frame sizes. (NEMA, Pub. Mtg. Tr.,
No. 87 at pp. 42–43; NEMA, No. 93 at
p 26)
NEMA also noted that IEC does not
put design specifications on the motor,
especially for larger-sized motors.
Therefore, it requested that DOE use
language that will include all such
motors (through 500 hp) equivalent to
covered NEMA motors. (NEMA, Pub.
Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 42–44; NEMA,
No. 93 at p. 26)
Nidec added that the higher
horsepower ratings as shown in table 4
of the NOPR are above current threedigit frame size. (Nidec, Pub. Mtg. Tr.,
No. 87 at p. 45) Secondly, Nidec
commented that while the proposed
standard helps clarify the IEC motor
coverage, removing characteristic #7
from the nine characteristics in
paragraph (g) of 10 CFR 431.25 would
remove any confusion about motor size.
It commented that DOE may add electric
motors covered by the regulations for
small electric motors to the list of
exempted motors in paragraph (m) of
the proposed 10 CFR 431.25.
DOE agrees with the above
commenters that it was DOE’s intent to
ensure that four-digit frame size motors
and IEC equivalents of covered motors
are covered by these new standards and
has adopted revised language in
paragraph (g)(7) of § 431.25 to reflect
that fact. The updated language covers
three-digit frame sizes, four-digit frame
sizes, IEC equivalents, and equivalents
between NEMA frame sizes.
NEMA 56-Frame Motors Coverage
NEMA 56-frame motors at 1 hp or
greater have been the subject of
considerable discussion, due to the fact
that they may be covered as a small
electric motor under subpart X of 10
CFR part 431, or as an electric motor
under subpart B of 10 CFR part 431
depending on whether they are generalpurpose, definite or special purpose, or
have an open or enclosed frame.
Currently, 56-frame motors are covered
as small electric motors if the motor is
an open, general-purpose motor that
meets the ‘‘small electric motor’’
definition at 10 CFR 431.442. The NOPR
proposed to extend coverage to 56-frame
enclosed motors rated at 1 hp or greater.
78 FR 73589. For 56-frame open, special
and definite purpose motors, the NOPR
stated that DOE was considering
establishing standards for these motor
types as well, but requested additional
information on those motor types. 78 FR
73606, 73679. Today’s rule covers
enclosed 56-frame motors rated at 1 hp
or greater but does not establish
standards for 56-frame open, definite or
special purpose motors. DOE notes that,
because today’s rule covers all enclosed
56-frame motors, both general purpose
and special and definite purpose
enclosed 56-frame motors are covered
under today’s rule.
In response to the NOPR, NEMA
provided detailed comments about how
DOE should rephrase characteristic #7
and add a sixth exemption to 10 CFR
431.25 if DOE chose to include 56-frame
open, definite or special purpose
motors. This would also eliminate any
confusion regarding covering all IEC
frame sizes and all frame sizes between
two consecutive NEMA or IEC frame
sizes. It also commented that it is
ambiguous as to whether a 56-frame,
open general purpose motor has
different efficiency levels and
nameplate markings as compared to the
56-frame open, special and definite
purpose motors. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp.
14–15; NEMA, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at
p. 61) NEMA noted that the current
rulemaking cannot be compared with
the small motors rule in terms of
efficiency requirements and ELs,
because the small motor rule
requirements are based on average
efficiency while electric motor rule are
based on nominal full-load efficiency.
(NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 28–29)
DOE agrees that coverage of 56-frame,
open, special- and definite-purpose
motors would require coordination with
DOE’s small electric motor
requirements. In the NOPR, DOE
requested additional data on this subset
of 56-frame motors to allow DOE to fully
assess these motor types. No commenter
provided DOE such data. As a result of
these complications and the need for
more data, DOE does not cover them in
today’s rule, but may consider covering
such motors in a future rulemaking. As
explained in the ‘‘Scope Characteristic
#7’’ section of this section, IVA.2.e, DOE
has modified Characteristic #7
accordingly. Table IV.5 provides a
summary of respective coverage of 56frame electric motors.
TABLE IV.5—56-FRAME REGULATION, 1 HORSEPOWER AND GREATER
Open
Enclosed
Covered as a ‘‘small electric motor’’ up to 3 hp.26
Special/Definite Purpose .................
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
General Purpose .............................
Not currently covered; not covered by this rule ....................................
f. IEC Motors
NEMA noted that: (1) There is no oneto-one correspondence between NEMA
25 As described in both MG 1–2009 and 10 CFR
431.12.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
frame sizes and IEC metric equivalents;
(2) the phrase ‘‘NEMA frame’’ refers to
specific NEMA T-frame sizes; and (3)
26 See
PO 00000
Not currently covered; covered by
this rule.
Not currently covered; covered by
this rule.
IEC 100 frames are currently exempt but
should be covered. Based on the above,
NEMA commented that DOE has
10 CFR 431.442.
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
removed nearly all IEC motors from any
requirement to meet efficiency
standards. In order to effectively include
standards for IEC motors, it suggested
DOE to change the titles of table 5 and
6 and the contents of paragraphs (h) and
(i) within 10 CFR 431.25 to reflect that
they included the IEC equivalents.
(NEMA, No. 93 at p 4) DOE agrees that
it was the intent to cover these motors
and has amended the regulatory
language to make this clear.
In response to the NOPR, NEMA
commented that it believed DOE may be
of the opinion that because, in DOE’s
proposed rule, reference is no longer
being made to T-frames and all covered
frame sizes would have three digits, that
DOE no longer needs the text ‘‘including
a frame size that is between two
consecutive NEMA frame sizes or their
IEC metric equivalents’’ when
describing coverage. NEMA noted,
however, that manufacturers may
mistakenly equate ‘‘NEMA frame’’ with
‘‘T-frame,’’ and mistakenly conclude
that certain IEC motors (e.g., IEC 100
frame) were uncovered. To remedy this
ambiguity, NEMA suggested that DOE
modify scope Characteristic #7. (NEMA,
No. 93 at p. 26)
DOE appreciates the need to clarify
coverage of NEMA versus IEC motors
and their equivalents and, consistent
with its stated intentions in the NOPR
to cover IEC-equivalents of all covered
motors, has modified characteristic #7
to make coverage of IEC equivalents
more explicit. See 78 FR 73589.
g. Frequency
NEMA noted that characteristic #4 in
paragraph (g) is described as ‘‘operate
on polyphase alternating current 60hertz line power’’. NEMA acknowledged
that DOE has explained that this is
intended to cover electric motors rated
at 60 Hz and 50/60 Hz; however, as
written, the provision could be read as
requiring coverage of 50 Hz motors that
are operated on 60 Hz. It is not clear
from the proposed standards whether an
efficiency standard would apply to a
motor’s operation at the frequency or
frequencies marked on the nameplate of
the electric motor or to operation just at
60 Hz. NEMA suggested that DOE add
‘‘at 60 Hz’’ to all efficiency table titles
to make clear that the covered motors
were required to meet the efficiency
standard while operating at 60 Hz.
(NEMA, No. 93 at p. 5)
DOE agrees that the suggestion brings
clarity to the regulations and reflects
DOE’s intent in the NOPR. Therefore,
corresponding changes were made in
the regulatory text. Although the
efficiency values apply at 60 Hz only,
DOE points out that the ability to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
operate at other frequencies (e.g., 50 Hz)
in addition to 60 Hz does not, itself,
exclude a motor from coverage.
h. Random Winding
Noting that DOE has established the
efficiency levels based on NEMA MG 1
Table 12–12, Nidec raised concern that
Table 12–12 is intended only for
random wound motors and, therefore,
DOE, should amend characteristic #5 to
include only electric motors that
contain a random wound stator
winding. (Nidec, No. 98 at pp. 2, 7–8)
DOE is not aware of any particular
winding technique that would make it
significantly more difficult for a motor
to meet standards and has received no
comment suggesting as much. DOE’s
understanding is that random winding
is mostly done automatically to reduce
assembly cost, and that more strategic
winding (e.g., on a form) is generally
done for increased insulation
performance at higher voltages. Hand
winding is considered in DOE’s analysis
and generally exhibits performance
superior to random winding and would
more easily reach higher efficiencies. As
a result, DOE perceives no reason to
further constrain scope and does not
alter scope with respect to the winding
method in today’s rule.
i. Duty Cycle
DOE’s proposed standards applied
only to motors rated for continuous
duty, which means that a motor may
operate indefinitely without pausing for
heat to dissipate.
CEC suggested that DOE revise the
criterion in proposed section
431.25(g)(2) such that motors not rated
for continuous duty are also subject to
standards. It suggested that both motors
rated or not rated for continuous duty
can meet the nominal full-load
efficiency standards. (CEC, No. 96 at p.
3)
Although DOE did not receive data on
the relative usages of continuous vs.
intermittent duty motors, it understands
that continuous duty motors account for
the majority of the energy consumption
of motors investigated within this
rulemaking. Due to their inherent
limitations, intermittent duty motors are
more likely to be used in applications
with a lower fraction of the time spent
switched on. As a result, these motors
use less energy than continuous duty
motors. Although DOE has thus far
focused its efforts on continuous duty
motors, it remains possible that other
motor types may achieve cost-effective
energy savings through standards, and
DOE may consider exploring their
future inclusion. DOE notes that the
scope of the MG 1 sections to which the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
30953
standards listed in Tables 12–10, 12–11,
and 12–12 apply is continuous duty
motors. DOE also notes that today’s rule
represents an evolution of existing
standards for General Purpose Electric
Motors (Subtypes I and II), which are
defined in 10 CFR part 431, subpart B
to have continuous ratings.
j. Gear Motors
Presently, DOE does not define ‘‘gear
motor’’ or ‘‘gearmotor,’’ but understands
that these are motors that have gears
attached to the motor body, usually for
the purpose of trading speed for torque.
Depending on the exact configuration,
the motor may meet the definition of
‘‘partial electric motor’’ as defined in 10
CFR 431.12. In the NOPR, DOE stated
that it believed that certain gearmotors
could be tested as partial electric motors
by first removing the gearbox, so that
manufacturers could certify the partial
electric motor and be freed from
certifying every conceivable motor/
gearbox combination. 78 FR 73647. In
the 2013 test procedure, DOE
specifically addressed integral gear
motors and how to test such motors if
they meet DOE’s definition of ‘‘partial
electric motor’’. See 78 FR 75979,
75994.
Baldor raised concern that the scope
of coverage of integral gear motors (or
other integral motors under the
groupings of ‘‘partial electric motors’’) is
not clear. Moreover, DOE did not define
or propose test procedures for ‘‘integral
gearmotors’’ in the 2013 test procedure.
(Baldor, No. 100 at p. 5–6) In response,
DOE reiterates that it does not, at this
time, treat gear motors as a distinct
category of equipment. Gear motors
would be subject to standards if they
meet the definition of ‘‘partial electric
motor’’ or of another type of equipment
subject to standards. In those cases, gear
motors would be required to certify
using whichever test instructions were
applicable to that type of motor. DOE
notes that manufacturers may apply for
a test procedure waiver if their
equipment cannot be tested under the
methods found in 10 CFR part 431,
subpart B.
NORD Gear Corp. recommended that
integral gear motors be excluded from
the coverage as they do not meet the
statutory definition of ‘‘electric motor’’.
It commented that if gearmotors are
subject to rulemaking, it would require
the NORD gear motors to be heavier due
to the increased copper, steel and
aluminum content. It will also require
an increase in frame size for some
motors and, thus, will prevent the
combination of some gearmotors that are
currently in use, leading to a product
gap in the market for significant amount
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30954
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Finally, DOE notes that it has updated
the definition of ‘‘partial electric motor’’
found in 10 CFR 431.12 to correct a
typographical error: Repetition of the
word ‘‘an’’ before ‘‘electric motor’’.
k. Partial Electric Motors
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
of time and creating undue economic
burden on gearmotor end users. Further,
if gear motors are redesigned to meet the
standard, millions of combinations of
motors and gearboxes will have to be
tested and this would place an undue
economic burden on gearbox
manufacturers. (NORD Gear, No. 91 at p.
2)
DOE understands that an investment
of time and capital may be required by
the imposition of any standard, and has
attempted to discuss, quantify and
consider those investments in its
Manufacturer Impact Analysis in
section IV.J. DOE believes that there
should be sufficient time for
manufacturers to make changes in
designs (if needed) to comply with
standards and make the integral gear
motors available in the market. With
respect to the question of statutory
authority, DOE believes that EPCA, as
amended through EISA 2007, provides
sufficient statutory authority for the
regulation of a wide variety of electric
motors as described in detail in section
II.A.
m. Electric Motors With Separately
Powered Blowers
In response to the NOPR, NEMA
raised concern that it is not clear
whether the proposed standards in
Tables 5 through 8 apply to partial
electric motors. To clarify, NEMA
recommended that DOE either revise
paragraph (g) in 10 CFR 431.15 or add
a tenth characteristic to include ‘‘partial
electric motors’’. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp.
26–27) Baldor raised concerns that the
content of Table IV of the NOPR implies
that DOE intends to cover partial
electric motors, however, these motors
are neither mentioned in the NOPR nor
are efficiency standard levels proposed
for them. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 26–27)
Under the new regulatory scheme in
today’s final rule, DOE considers partial
electric motors to be electric motors
subject to the new requirements listed
in 10 CFR 431.25(h)–(l) if they meet the
nine criteria specified in paragraph (g)
of the new § 431.25. DOE’s 2013 test
procedure provides instructions for
testing these motor types to ensure their
nominal full-load efficiency can be
assessed. 78 FR 75961. To make the
inclusion of these motor types
abundantly clear, DOE has taken
NEMA’s suggestion of modifying the
regulatory text in 10 CFR 431.25(g) to
expressly state that partial electric
motors are included.
Additionally, DOE now refers in the
to ‘‘special-purpose’’ and ‘‘definitepurpose’’ ‘‘electric motors’’. The word
‘‘electric’’ was added in the 2013 test
procedure. 78 FR 75961.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
l. Certification Considerations Related to
Expanded Scope
Baldor sought clarification on which
manufacturer should be responsible to
file compliance certification report with
DOE. Baldor asked whether it should be
the manufacturer of the partial electric
motor or if instead the manufacturer of
the electric motor or assembly of which
the partial electric motor is a component
must certify it. (Baldor, No. 100 at pp.
5–7)
DOE noted in the 2011 certification,
compliance and enforcement rule that it
intends to undertake a rulemaking to
moving and harmonize, where possible,
the certification, compliance, and
enforcement provisions for electric
motors into Part 429. 76 FR 12422,
12447. DOE will address the party
responsible for certifying in that
rulemaking.
In its comments, NEMA provides an
‘‘Appendix B’’ in which it outlines the
‘‘industry interpretation’’ of which
motor types are covered by the rule.
DOE notes that NEMA lists electric
motors with separately powered blowers
under the ‘‘not a covered product’’
category. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 37)
In the 2013 test procedure, DOE
established a method of testing for this
type of motor and stated that at least
some non-immersible motors that are
furnished with separately-powered
blowers would meet the same nine
criteria that DOE was, at that time,
considering applying with respect to its
standards rulemaking. 78 FR 75986.
Moreover, DOE did not propose to
exempt these types of motors from
standards in the standards NOPR. 78 FR
73681. DOE maintains its position that
electric motors with separately powered
blowers that meet the requirements in
the new 10 CFR 431.25(g) are covered in
today’s rule.
3. Advanced Electric Motors
In its final rule analysis, DOE
addressed various ‘‘advanced electric
motor’’, which included those listed in
Table IV.6. While DOE recognizes that
such motors could offer improved
efficiency, regulating them would
represent a significant shift for DOE,
which has primarily focused on the
efficiency of polyphase, single-speed
induction motors.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
TABLE IV.6—ADVANCED ELECTRIC
MOTORS
Motor Description
Inverter drives.
Permanent magnet motors.
Electrically commutated motors.
Switched-reluctance motors.
At this time, DOE has chosen not to
regulate advanced motors and knows of
no established definitions or test
procedures that could be applied to
them. Because DOE agrees that
significant energy savings may be
possible for some advanced motors,
DOE plans to keep abreast of changes to
these technologies and their use within
industry, and may consider regulating
them in the future.
4. Equipment Class Groups and
Equipment Classes
When DOE prescribes or amends an
energy conservation standard for a type
(or class) of covered equipment, it
considers: (1) The type of energy used;
(2) the capacity of the equipment; or (3)
any other performance-related feature
that justifies different standard levels,
such as features affecting consumer
utility. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q) and 6316(a))
Due to the large number of
characteristics involved in electric
motor design, DOE has developed both
‘‘equipment class groups’’ and
‘‘equipment classes’’. An equipment
class represents a unique combination
of motor characteristics for which DOE
is establishing a specific energy
conservation standard. There are 482
potential equipment classes that consist
of all permutations of electric motor
design types (i.e., NEMA Design A & B,
NEMA Design C (and IEC equivalents),
and fire pump electric motor), standard
horsepower ratings (i.e., standard
ratings from 1 to 500 horsepower), pole
configurations (i.e., 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole),
and enclosure types (i.e., open or
enclosed). An equipment class group is
a collection of equipment classes that
share a common motor design type. The
NEMA Standards Publication MG 1–
2011, ‘‘Motors and Generators,’’ defines
a series of standard electric motor
designs (i.e., Designs A, B and C) that
are differentiated by variations in
performance requirements. DOE chose
to use these design types to establish
equipment class groups because design
types affect an electric motor’s utility
and efficiency.
In the NOPR, DOE had divided
electric motors into four groups based
on three main characteristics: NEMA (or
IEC) design letter, whether the motor
met the definition of ‘‘fire pump electric
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
motor,’’ and whether the motor had a
brake. Within each of these groups, DOE
utilized combinations of other pertinent
motor characteristics to enumerate
individual equipment classes. To
illustrate the differences between the
two terms, consider the following
example. A NEMA Design B, 50
horsepower, two-pole enclosed electric
motor and a NEMA Design B, 100
horsepower, six-pole open electric
motor would be in the same equipment
class group (ECG 1), but each would
represent a unique equipment class that
will ultimately have its own efficiency
standard.27
At the NOPR stage, brake electric
motors were separated out because DOE
was concerned that the presence of a
brake (which provides utility in the
form of hastened stopping of the motor)
might cause additional losses, thereby
reducing the motors’ ability to meet
standards cost-effectively. In its 2013
test procedure, however, DOE
established a method of testing brake
motors that allowed exclusion of losses
attributable to the brake, thereby
allowing brake electric motors to be
tested without regard to the brake. 78 FR
75995.
30955
For today’s final rule, then, DOE
divided electric motors into three
groups based on two main
characteristics: NEMA (or IEC) design
letter and whether the motor met the
definition of a fire pump electric motor.
DOE’s three resulting equipment class
groups are: NEMA Design A and B and
IEC Design N motors (ECG 1), NEMA
Design C and IEC Design H motors (ECG
2), and fire pump electric motors (ECG
3). Table IV.7 outlines the relationships
between equipment class groups and the
characteristics used to define equipment
classes.
TABLE IV.7—ELECTRIC MOTOR EQUIPMENT CLASS GROUPS FOR THE FINAL RULE ANALYSIS
Equipment
class group
Electric motor design
1 ...................
NEMA Design A & B* ......................................
1–500
2, 4, 6, 8
2 ...................
NEMA Design C* .............................................
1–200
4, 6, 8
3 ...................
Fire Pump* .......................................................
1–500
2, 4, 6, 8
Horsepower
Poles
Enclosure
Open.
Enclosed.
Open.
Enclosed.
Open.
Enclosed.
* Including IEC equivalents.
EISA 2007 prescribed energy
conservation standards for electric
motors built with a U-frame, whereas
previously, only electric motors built
with a T-frame were covered.28
(Compare 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)(1992)
with 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(B)(2011)) In
general, for the same combination of
horsepower rating and pole
configuration, an electric motor built in
a U-frame is built with a larger ‘‘D’’
dimension than an electric motor built
in a T-frame. The ‘‘D’’ dimension is a
measurement of the distance from the
centerline of the shaft to the bottom of
the mounting feet. Consequently, Uframe motors should be able to reach
efficiencies as high, or higher, than Tframe motors with similar ratings (i.e.,
horsepower, pole-configuration, and
enclosure) because the larger frame size
allows for more active materials, such as
copper wiring and electrical steel,
which help reduce I2R (i.e., losses
arising from the resistivity of the
current-carrying material) and core
losses (i.e., losses that result from
magnetic field stability changes).29
Furthermore, U-frame motors do not
have any unique utility relative to
comparable T-frame motors. In general,
a T-frame design could replace an
equivalent U-frame design with minor
modification of the mounting
configuration for the driven equipment.
By comparison, a U-frame design that is
equivalent to a T-frame design could
require substantial modification to the
mounting configuration for the same
piece of driven equipment because of its
larger size. DOE’s research indicated
that manufacturers sell conversion
brackets for installing T-frame motors
into applications where a U-frame motor
had previously been used.30 In the
NOPR, DOE proposed standards for both
T-frame and U-frame motors.
In response to the NOPR, NEMA and
the Joint Advocates recommended that
DOE keep the standards for U-frame
motors at current EPACT 1992 (NEMA
MG 1–2011,Table 12–11) levels. These
commenters argued that U-frame motors
are a legacy design used only in the
automotive manufacturing industry and
that their market share is small and
declining; according to these
commenters, re-designing of U-frame
motors would entail huge costs. NEMA
commented that new U-frame motors
are not being designed currently, and
the old designs primarily cater to the
replacement market. According to
NEMA, there are no suppliers of Uframe general purpose motors (subtype
II) at premium efficiency levels, and its
review showed that only one
manufacturer of U-frame general
purpose electric motors (subtype II)
would be impacted by the proposed
change in efficiency standards. NEMA
also stated that the cost of U-frame
motors is generally significantly higher
than T-frame motors of the same rating,
as indicative of the larger size of the Uframe motor and the costs associated
with maintaining of production
equipment for old designs. Therefore, it
would be highly unlikely that
27 At its core, the equipment class concept, which
is being applied only as a structural tool for
purposes of this rulemaking, is equivalent to a
‘‘basic model’’. See 10 CFR 431.12. The
fundamental difference between these concepts is
that a ‘‘basic model’’ pertains to an individual
manufacturer’s equipment class. Each equipment
class for a given manufacturer would comprise a
basic model for that manufacturer.
28 The terms ‘‘U-frame’’ and ‘‘T-frame’’ refer to
lines of frame size dimensions, with a T-frame
motor having a smaller frame size for the same
horsepower rating as a comparable U-frame motor.
In general, ‘‘T’’ frame became the preferred motor
design around 1964 because it provided more
horsepower output in a smaller package.
Under EPACT 1992, the only covered electric
motors were T-frame electric motors. See 42 U.S.C.
6311(13)(A)(1992). These motors were redefined to
be ‘‘general purpose electric motor (subtype I)’’
under EISA 2007, which, at the time, DOE defined
as a motor that can be used in most general purpose
applications and that meets standard operating
characteristics and mechanical construction for use
under usual or unusual service conditions in
accordance with specific provisions of NEMA MG
1–1993. That version of MG 1 only included
specifications for T-frame motors because the last
version of MG 1 to contain U-frame dimensions was
published in 1967. See 77 FR 266.8.
29 Several manufacturers provide premium
efficient U-frame motors. See, for example, https://
www.usmotors.com/Our-Products/∼/media/
USMotors/Documents/Literature/Datasheets/PDS/
PDS_PREMIUM_EFFICIENT.ashx.
30 See, for example, https://www.overlyhautz.com/
adaptomounts1.html.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
a. U-Frame Motors
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30956
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
consumers would increase purchases of
U-frame motors of lower efficiency as
substitutes for T-frame motors. NEMA
claimed that DOE did not evaluate the
cost burden on manufacturers from redesigning old U-frame motors, and if it
did, the results would not support the
increase in efficiency standards
proposed in the NOPR. The Joint
Advocates commented that leaving Uframe motor standards unchanged
would enable manufacturers to direct
scarce product design resources to
product types with larger market shares.
(NEMA, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 69–
70; NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 27–28; Joint
Advocates, No. 97 at p. 2)
By contrast, Nidec supported DOE’s
proposal to raise efficiency standards of
U-frame motors to EL2 (i.e., Table 12–
12) levels, noting that it is
technologically feasible to increase the
efficiency level of these motors. (Nidec,
No. 98 at p. 5)
DOE understands NEMA’s concerns
regarding the diminishing market size of
U-frame motors. However, DOE has
determined that a complete phase-out of
U-frame motors would not be the result
of an efficiency standard that is
technologically infeasible for U-frame
motors, but because U-frame motors
offer no unique utility relative to Tframe motors. Furthermore, DOE has
concluded that the updated standards
are unlikely to result in the
unavailability of U-frame motors. Based
on catalog data from several large
electric motor manufacturers, DOE has
observed manufacturer offerings of
premium efficiency U-frame motors on
the market today.31 DOE sees no
technical reason why U-frame
manufacturers would not be able to
comply with standards corresponding to
TSL 2. DOE notes that it requested, but
did not receive, data suggesting that Uframe motors would be eliminated from
the market under the standard levels
adopted in today’s final rule. See 78 FR
73610.
Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4), as applied
to commercial and industrial equipment
via 42 U.S.C. 6316(a), DOE cannot
prescribe a standard that would result in
the ‘‘unavailability in the United States
in any covered equipment type (or class)
of performance characteristics
(including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are
substantially the same as those generally
available in the United States at the time
of the Secretary’s finding’’. However,
DOE notes that this statutory provision
does not require the continued
protection of particular classes or types
31 See, for example: https://www.marathonelectric.
com/motors/docs/manuals/SB547.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
of equipment—in this case, electric
motors—if the same utility continues to
be available to consumers.
Consequently, based on available
information, DOE continues to believe
that U-frame motors fail to merit a
separate equipment class with lower
standards and has not created one for
them in this final rule.
b. Electric Motor Design Letter
The first criterion that DOE
considered when disaggregating
equipment class groups was based on
the NEMA (and IEC) design letter. The
NEMA Standards Publication MG 1–
2011, ‘‘Motors and Generators,’’ defines
a series of standard electric motor
designs that are differentiated by
variations in performance requirements.
These designs are designated by letter—
Designs A, B, and C. (See NEMA MG 1–
2011, paragraph 1.19.1). These designs
are categorized by performance
requirements for full-voltage starting
and developing locked-rotor torque,
breakdown torque, and locked-rotor
current, all of which affect an electric
motor’s utility and efficiency. DOE is
regulating the efficiency of motors of
each of these design types.
The primary difference between a
NEMA Design A and NEMA Design B
motor is that they have different lockedrotor current requirements. NEMA
Design B motors must not exceed the
applicable locked-rotor current level
specified in NEMA MG 1–2011,
paragraph 12.35.1. NEMA Design A
motors, on the other hand, do not have
a maximum locked-rotor current limit.
In most applications, NEMA Design B
motors are generally preferred because
locked-rotor current is constrained to
established industry standards, making
it easier to select suitable motor-starting
devices. However, certain applications
have special load torque or inertia
requirements, which result in a design
with high locked-rotor current (NEMA
Design A). When selecting starting
devices for NEMA Design A motors,
extra care must be taken in properly
sizing electrical protective devices to
avoid nuisance tripping during motor
startup. The distinction between NEMA
Design A and NEMA Design B motors is
important to applications that are
sensitive to high locked-rotor current;
however, both NEMA Design A and
Design B motors have identical
performance requirements in all other
metrics, which indicates that they offer
similar levels and types of utility. Given
these similarities, DOE is grouping these
motors together into a single equipment
class group for the purposes of this
rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
In contrast, DOE believes that the
different torque requirements for NEMA
Design C motors represent a change in
utility that can affect efficiency
performance. NEMA Design C motors
are characterized by high starting
torques. Applications that are hard to
start, such as heavily loaded conveyors
and rock crushers, require this higher
starting torque. The difference in torque
requirements will restrict which
applications can use which NEMA
Design types. As a result, NEMA Design
C motors cannot always be replaced
with NEMA Design A or B motors, or
vice versa. Therefore, as in the
preliminary analysis and NOPR, DOE
has analyzed NEMA Design C motors in
an equipment class group separate from
NEMA Design A and B motors.
In chapter two, ‘‘Analytical
Framework,’’ of the technical support
document, DOE noted numerous
instances where manufacturers were
marketing electric motors rated greater
than 200 horsepower as NEMA Design
C motors. (see Chapter 2 of TSD) 32 DOE
understands that NEMA MG 1–2011
specifies Design C performance
requirements for motors rated 1–200 hp
in four-, six-, and eight-pole
configurations—a motor rated above 200
hp or using a two-pole configuration
would not meet the Design C
specifications. DOE understands that
without established performance
standards that form the basis for a twopole NEMA Design C motor or a NEMA
Design C motor with a horsepower
rating above 200, motors labeled as such
would not meet the regulatory
definition for ‘‘NEMA Design C motor’’
as provided in the 2013 test procedure.
78 FR 75994. DOE considers motors at
these ratings to be improperly labeled if
they are name-plated as NEMA Design
C. Mislabeled NEMA Design C motors,
however, are still subject to energy
conservation standards if they meet the
definitions and performance standards
for a regulated motor—e.g., NEMA
Design A or B. And since these motors
either need to meet the same efficiency
levels or would be required by
customers to meet specific performance
criteria expected of a given design letter
(i.e., Design A, B, or C), DOE does not
foresee at this time any incentive that
would encourage a manufacturer to
identify a Design A or B motor as a
Design C motor for standards
circumvention purposes. DOE
understands, however, that NEMA
Design C motors as a whole constitute
32 For instructions on how to access the TSD, visit
the rulemaking page at: https://
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_
standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/42.
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
an extremely small percentage of motor
shipments—less than two percent of
shipments—covered by this rulemaking,
which would appear to create an
unlikely risk that mislabeling motors as
NEMA Design C will be used as an
avenue to circumvent standards. In
addition, DOE received no comments
suggesting this would be likely.
Nevertheless, DOE will monitor the
potential presence of such motors and
may reconsider standards for them
provided such practice becomes
prevalent.
c. Fire Pump Electric Motors
In addition to considering the NEMA
design type when establishing
equipment class groups, DOE
considered whether an electric motor is
a fire pump electric motor. EISA 2007
prescribed energy conservation
standards for fire pump electric motors
(42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(B)) and,
subsequently, DOE adopted a definition
for the term ‘‘fire pump electric motor,’’
which incorporated portions of National
Fire Protection Association Standard
(NFPA) 20, ‘‘Standard for the
Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire
Protection’’ (2010). (See 77 FR 26608
(codified at 10 CFR 431.12)) Pursuant to
NFPA 20, a fire pump electric motor
must comply with NEMA Design B
performance standards and must
continue to operate in spite of any risk
of damage stemming from overheating
or continuous operation. The additional
requirements for a fire pump electric
motor are intended to further the
purpose of public safety and constitute
a change in utility that DOE believes
could also affect its performance and
efficiency. Therefore, DOE established a
separate equipment class group for such
motors in the preliminary analysis to
account for the special utility offered by
these motors and maintained that
practice through the NOPR and today’s
final rule.
Regarding the ‘‘fire pump electric
motor’’ definition, as detailed in the
2012 test procedure (77 FR 26608), DOE
intends its ‘‘fire pump electric motor’’
definition to cover both NEMA Design
B motors and IEC-equivalents that meet
the requirements of section 9.5 of NFPA
20. See 77 FR 26617–26618. As stated
in the 2012 test procedure, DOE believes
that IEC-equivalent motors should be
included within the scope of the
definition of ‘‘fire pump electric motor,’’
although NFPA 20 does not explicitly
recognize the use of IEC motors with fire
pumps. Id. DOE realizes that section 9.5
of NFPA 20 specifically requires that
fire pump motors shall be marked as
complying with NEMA Design B. The
fire pump electric motor definition that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
DOE created focuses on ensuring that
compliance with the energy efficiency
requirements are applied in a consistent
manner. DOE believes that there are IEC
motors that can be used in fire pump
applications that meet both NEMA
Design B and IEC Design N criteria, as
well as NEMA MG 1 service factors.
DOE’s definition encompasses both
NEMA Design B motors and IECequivalents. To the extent that there is
any ambiguity as to how DOE would
apply this definition, in DOE’s view,
any Design B or IEC-equivalent motor
that otherwise satisfies the relevant
NFPA requirements would meet the fire
pump electric motor definition in 10
CFR 431.12. See the standards NOPR for
a historical discussion of comments
related to fire pump electric motors. 78
FR 73623.
NEMA suggested that DOE should
change the title of Table 7 and the
content of paragraph (j) to specifically
refer to NEMA Design B fire pump
electric motors. NEMA commented that
although DOE has stated that the
standards for fire pump electric motors
are based on NEMA Design B types, that
fact it is not clear in the definition of
‘‘fire pump electric motor’’ in 10 CFR
431.12. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 5) Baldor
also raised concern that the scope of
coverage of fire pump electric motors is
not clear from only referring to the
definition proposed in 10 CFR 431.12.,
nothing that it had to go through several
documents to determine that fire pump
electric motors that meet nine criteria
and are limited to NEMA Design B and
IEC equivalents are covered. (Baldor,
No. 100 at p. 4)
Pursuant to NFPA 20, a fire pump
electric motor must comply with NEMA
Design B performance standards and
must continue to run in spite of any risk
of damage stemming from overheating
or continuous operation. Therefore,
DOE considers it unnecessary to add
further restrictions in its regulatory text.
DOE also wishes to avoid the
implication that IEC equivalents would
not be covered. Regarding having to
review the nine criteria in the new 10
CFR 431.25(g) to know if a fire pump
motor is covered, as DOE explained
above, the regulatory scheme used in
the new regulations was chosen to
maintain the existing regulations for
currently regulated electric motors
while providing the criteria that all
motors must meet if they are regulated
motors under the new standards.
NEMA commented that it is aware of
few entities that have listed IEC motors
for application with fire pumps in the
U.S. It also commented that there is
confusion regarding the coverage of the
efficiency standards for fire pump
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
30957
electric motors. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 14)
By contrast, Nidec provided a link to
data on companies that have a UL
certification for IEC motors for fire
pump applications. (Nidec, No. 98 at p.
5)
Regarding IEC fire pump motors, DOE
views Nidec’s comment and the fact that
IEC motors can be built to very similar
specifications as Design B motors (even
though they may not be labeled as such)
as sufficient cause to maintain the
requirement that IEC designs comply
with fire pump motor standards as well.
Specifically regarding standards for
fire pump electric motors, NEMA and
Baldor both raised concerns that the
proposed standards for fire pump
electric motors in Table 7 were not
consistent with the current standards for
fire pump electric motors in Table 2, as
suggested in the Petition and as DOE
intended to propose (see 78 FR 73592).
(NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 23, 26; Baldor,
No. 100 at p. 4)
Finally, the NOPR had mistakenly
listed a standard for 1 hp, 2 pole, open
fire pump electric motors even though
no standard for this configuration is
currently in effect, as evidenced by the
absence of a standard for this rating in
DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 431.25(b).
This standard has been removed from
the final rule.
d. Brake Electric Motors
In its final rule analyses, DOE
considered whether brake electric
motors (both integral brake electric
motors and non-integral brake electric
motors). In the 2013 test procedure,
DOE adopted a definition for brake
electric motors. 78 FR 75993 In the
NOPR, the two types of brake electric
motor were contained in one equipment
class group as separate from the
equipment class groups established for
NEMA Design A and B motors, NEMA
Design C motors, and fire pump electric
motors.
DOE understands that brake electric
motors contain multiple features that
can affect both utility and efficiency. In
most applications, electric motors are
not required to stop immediately.
Instead, electric motors typically slow
down and gradually stop after power is
removed from the motor due to a
buildup of friction and windage from
the internal components of the motor.
However, some applications 33 require
electric motors to stop quickly. Motors
used in such applications may employ
a brake component that, when engaged,
abruptly slows or stops shaft rotation.
33 For example, some conveyor and other
material-handling applications require motors to
stop quickly.
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30958
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
The brake component attaches to one
end of the motor and surrounds a
section of the motor’s shaft. During
normal operation of the motor, the brake
is disengaged from the motor’s shaft—it
neither touches nor interferes with the
motor’s operation. However, under
normal operating conditions, the brake
is drawing power from the electric
motor’s power source and may also be
contributing to windage losses, because
the brake is an additional rotating
component on the motor’s shaft. When
power is removed from the electric
motor (and therefore the brake
component), the brake component deenergizes and engages the motor shaft,
quickly slowing or stopping rotation of
the rotor and shaft components. Because
of these utility related features that
affect efficiency, DOE had proposed to
establish a separate equipment class
group for electric motors with a brake.
During the NOPR public meeting,
NEMA argued that DOE has captured
most standard stock available and
agreed with DOE’s decision to limit
standards for brake motors to 1–30 hp
and 4-, 6- and 8-pole configurations. It
commented that larger brake motors are
generally design D or intermittent-duty
motors for cranes and hoists, which are
currently out of the scope of coverage.
(NEMA, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 70–
71) In its written comments, NEMA
noted that brakes can be treated as an
accessory because in DOE’s test
procedure for brake motors, brake
electrical losses are not included in the
efficiency calculation. Therefore, it
suggested that brake motors should not
be put in separate equipment class but
should be included in tables 5 and 6.
(NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 7–8)
The Joint Advocates stated that they
support inclusion of integral brake
motors in the scope of coverage.
However, they commented that
establishing a separate class and table of
standards for brake motors is
unnecessary, because DOE has proposed
setting standards for brake motors
identical to other motors. Moreover, it
requested that DOE include brake
motors above 30 hp since there are some
motors sold above 30 hp, and capping
the brake motors coverage at 30 hp may
create confusion about scope of
coverage. (Joint Advocates, No. 97 at p.
2)
The Appliance Standards Awareness
Project (ASAP) commented that if brake
motors have the same standards as other
motors, they would not require a
separate equipment class group and
would not only be regulated at the
limited horsepower range proposed.
(ASAP, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at p. 74)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
Regarding the brake motor standards
proposed, Baldor raised concern that the
title of table 8 does not fully identify the
type of integral brake electric motors
and non-integral brake electric motors to
which the proposed standards apply.
Baldor raised concern that DOE has not
defined integral and non-integral brake
motors in 10 CFR 431.12, even though
it makes reference to these motors in the
NOPR. Baldor raised concern that the
term ‘‘dedicated mechanism for speed
reduction’’ used in the definition of
brake electric motors is ambiguous,
stating that it is not clear what DOE
intends to cover other than a ‘‘brake’’.
(Baldor, No. 100 at p. 5)
WEG raised concern that even though
a slight friction or windage adder needs
to be considered due to brake, there is
no need to create a separate equipment
class group for brake motors because
separate efficiency levels are not set for
these motors. WEG commented that
larger brake motors exist in the market,
but most of them are special motors,
which are out of scope of coverage.
However, if any larger brake motor falls
under the scope of coverage, the
proposed standards (only up to 30 hp)
may create a loophole. It commented
that if it is a standard motor with a
brake, the manufacturers would like to
use same standard electrical design and
not create special one to account for just
a few losses. Therefore, it requested that
DOE consider exclusion of the brake
losses in the criteria. (WEG, Pub. Mtg.
Tr., No. 87 at pp. 72–73, 75)
In response, DOE notes that as per the
updated test procedures for brake
motors, only power used to drive the
motor is included in the efficiency
calculation, and the power supplied to
prevent the brake from engaging is not
considered. Through that lens, the
efficiency determination for brake
motors is similar to that for any motor.
Therefore, DOE has removed the
separate equipment class group for
brake motors in the final rule. DOE
understands that most brake motors sold
in the market would fall into ECG 1, but
notes that a brake motor could be
constructed such that it fell into other
equipment classes, or none at all. For
the purposes of analytical results,
however, DOE is still reporting brake
motors separately as equipment class
subgroup 1b. Results of the former ECG
1 (NEMA Design A and Design B) are
now reported as equipment class
subgroup 1a. DOE notes that in the final
rule, it is not segregating brake motors
into ‘‘integral brake motors’’ and ‘‘nonintegral brake motors’’ because it is not
necessary for testing. Under this same
logic, larger brake motors (i.e., above 30
hp) are now also subject to coverage if
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
rated from 1–500 hp, just as would any
other motor type in ECG 1.
With respect to Baldor’s concern on
terminology, DOE’s definition makes
reference to a ‘‘dedicated mechanism for
speed reduction’’ to clarify what is
meant by a ‘‘brake’’. The definition aims
to maintain the general sense of the term
to avoid any loophole that may arise
with an unnecessarily narrow
definition.
The Chinese WTO/TBT National
Notification & Enquiry Center
acknowledged the energy conservation
efforts of United States and requested
more clarification about the efficiency
values for brake motors given in Table
I.5 of NOPR, particularly for 8-pole
brake motors, 4-pole open brake motors
and 6-pole closed brake motors. (China
WTO/TBT NNEC, No. 104 at p. 3)
DOE notes that the confusion around
Table I.5 in the NOPR is due to the
formatting issues. For the final rule,
DOE has deleted what was previously
Table I.5 because brake motors are no
longer in a separate equipment class
group. Depending on the specific
characteristics and configuration of a
brake motor, it may fall under any ECG
category and be subject to the
corresponding efficiency standards.
e. Horsepower Rating
In its preliminary analysis, DOE
considered three criteria when
differentiating equipment classes. The
first criterion was horsepower, a critical
performance attribute of an electric
motor that is directly related to the
capacity of an electric motor to perform
useful work and that generally scales
with efficiency. For example, a 50horsepower electric motor would
generally be considered more efficient
than a 10-horsepower electric motor. In
view of the direct correlation between
horsepower and efficiency, DOE
preliminarily used horsepower rating as
a criterion for distinguishing equipment
classes in the framework document. In
today’s rule, DOE continues to use
horsepower as an equipment classsetting criterion.
f. Pole Configuration
The number of poles in an induction
motor determines the synchronous
speed (i.e., revolutions per minute) of
that motor. There is an inverse
relationship between the number of
poles and a motor’s speed. As the
number of poles increases from two to
four to six to eight, the synchronous
speed drops from 3,600 to 1,800 to 1,200
to 900 revolutions per minute,
respectively. In addition, manufacturer
comments and independent analysis
performed on behalf of DOE indicate
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
that the number of poles has a direct
impact on the electric motor’s
performance and achievable efficiency
because some pole configurations utilize
the space inside of an electric motor
enclosure more efficiently than other
pole configurations. For example, eight
pole motors have twice as many poles
as four-pole motors and,
correspondingly, less space for
efficiency improvements. Two-pole
motors have more internal space, but
carry a greater magnetic field spacing
which yields inherently less-efficient
operation. DOE used the number of
poles as a means of differentiating
equipment classes in the preliminary
analysis. In today’s rule, DOE continues
to use pole-configuration as an
equipment class-setting criterion.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
g. Enclosure Type
EISA 2007 prescribes separate energy
conservation standards for open and
enclosed electric motors. (42 U.S.C.
6313(b)(2)) Electric motors
manufactured with open construction
allow a free interchange of air between
the electric motor’s interior and exterior.
Electric motors with enclosed
construction have no direct air
interchange between the motor’s interior
and exterior (but are not necessarily airtight) and may be equipped with an
internal fan for cooling. Whether an
electric motor is open or enclosed
affects its utility; open motors are
generally not used in harsh operating
environments, whereas totally enclosed
electric motors often are. The enclosure
type also affects an electric motor’s
ability to dissipate heat, which directly
affects efficiency. For these reasons,
DOE used an electric motor’s enclosure
type (open or enclosed) as an equipment
class setting criterion in the preliminary
analysis. DOE received no related
comments during the NOPR. In today’s
rule, DOE is continuing to use separate
equipment class groups for open and
enclosed electric motors but is declining
to further break out separate equipment
classes for different types of open or
enclosed enclosures because DOE does
not have data supporting such
separation.
h. Other Motor Characteristics
In its analysis, DOE addressed various
other motor characteristics, but did not
use them to disaggregate equipment
classes. In the final TSD, DOE provided
its rationale for not disaggregating
equipment classes for vertical electric
motors, electric motors with thrust or
sleeve bearings, close-coupled pump
motors, or by rated voltage or mounting
feet. DOE believes that none of these
electric motor characteristics provide
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
any special utility that would impact
efficiency and justify separate
equipment classes.
5. Technology Assessment
The technology assessment provides
information about existing technology
options and designs used to construct
more energy-efficient electric motors.
Electric motors have four main types of
losses that can be reduced to improve
efficiency: Losses due to the resistance
of conductive materials (stator and rotor
I2R losses), core losses, friction and
windage losses, and stray load losses.
These losses are interrelated such that
measures taken to reduce one type of
loss can result in an increase in another
type of losses. In consultation with
interested parties, DOE identified
several technology options that could be
used to reduce such losses and improve
motor efficiency. These technology
options are presented in Table IV.8. (See
chapter 3 of the TSD for details.)
TABLE IV.8—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
TO INCREASE ELECTRIC MOTOR EFFICIENCY
Type of loss to
reduce
Stator I2R
Losses.
Rotor I2R
Losses.
Core Losses ...
Friction and
Windage
Losses.
Stray-Load
Losses.
Technology option
Increase cross-sectional
area of copper in stator
slots.
Decrease the length of coil
extensions.
Use a die-cast copper rotor
cage.
Increase cross-sectional
area of rotor conductor
bars.
Increase cross-sectional
area of end rings.
Use electrical steel laminations with lower losses
(watts/lb).
Use thinner steel laminations
Increase stack length (i.e.,
add electrical steel laminations).
Optimize bearing and lubrication selection.
Improve cooling system design.
Reduce skew on rotor cage.
Improve rotor bar insulation.
DOE made several changes to the
technology options considered and how
they are analyzed between the NOPR
TSD and the final rule TSD. First, DOE
notes the listed option of ‘‘improved
rotor insulation’’ refers to increasing the
resistance between the rotor squirrelcage and the rotor laminations.
Manufacturers use different methods to
insulate rotor cages, such as applying an
insulating coating on the rotor slot prior
to die-casting or heating and
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
30959
quenching 34 the rotor to separate rotor
bars from rotor laminations after diecasting. DOE has updated the discussion
in the TSD chapter 3 to clarify that there
are multiple ways to implement this
technology option.
Second, DOE notes that increasing the
cross-sectional area of copper in the
stator is synonymous with reducing the
stator resistance, and has updated the
discussion in TSD chapter 3 for clarity.
Third, DOE notes that increasing rotor
slot size is a technique that reduces
rotor resistivity. DOE also considered
other techniques to reduce rotor
resistivity such as increasing the volume
of the rotor end rings and using die-cast
copper rotors. For the sake of clarity,
DOE has replaced the technology option
‘‘reduce rotor resistance’’ in the TSD
discussion with the specific techniques
that DOE considered in its analysis:
Increasing the cross-sectional area of the
rotor conductor bars, increasing the
cross-sectional area of the end rings, and
using a die-cast copper rotor cage.
Fourth, with regard to increasing the
flux density in the air gap, DOE
consulted with its subject matter expert
(SME) 35 and acknowledges that this
approach is not necessarily an
independently adjustable design
parameter used to increase motor
efficiency and has removed it from its
discussion in chapters 3 and 4 of the
TSD. DOE notes that it understands that
the technology options that it discusses
do have limits, both practical limits in
terms of manufacturing and design
limits in terms of their effectiveness.
DOE also understands that a
manufacturer must balance any options
to improve efficiency against the
possible impacts on the performance
attributes of its motor designs.
Other technology options considered
are described in detail below.
a. Increase the Cross-Sectional Area of
Copper in the Stator Slots
A manufacturer may increase the total
cross-section of copper in the stator
slots by either increasing slot fill or by
increasing the number of stator slots.
Increasing Slot Fill
Increasing the slot fill by either
adding windings or changing the gauge
of wire used in the stator winding can
also increase motor efficiency. Motor
design engineers can achieve this by
manipulating the wire gauges to allow
for a greater total cross-sectional area of
wire to be incorporated into the stator
slots. This could mean either an
34 Quenching is rapid cooling, generally by
immersion in a fluid instead of allowing the rotor
temperature to equalize to ambient temperature.
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30960
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
increase or decrease in wire gauge,
depending on the dimensions of the
stator slots and insulation thicknesses.
As with the benefits associated with
larger cross-sectional area of rotor
conductor bars, using more total crosssectional area in the stator windings
decreases the winding resistance and
associated losses. However, this change
could affect the slot fill factor of the
stator. The stator slot openings must be
able to fit the wires so that automated
machinery or manual labor can pull (or
push) the wire into the stator slots. In
the preliminary analysis, DOE increased
the cross-sectional area of copper in the
stator slots of the representative units by
employing a combination of additional
windings, thinner gauges of copper
wire, and larger slots.
As described in the NOPR, DOE
calculated the slot fill by measuring the
total area of the stator slot and then
subtracting the cross-sectional area for
the slot insulation. This method gave
DOE a net area of the slot available to
house copper winding. DOE then
identified the slot with the most
windings and found the cross-sectional
area of the insulated copper wires to get
the total copper cross sectional area per
slot. DOE then divided the total copper
cross-sectional area by the total slot area
to derive the slot fill. 78 FR 73620–
73621. DOE’s estimated slot fills for its
teardowns and software models are all
provided in chapter 5 of the TSD.36
DOE notes that the software designs
exhibiting these changes in slot fill were
used when switching from aluminum to
a copper rotor design. Therefore,
changing slot geometries impacted the
design’s slot fill and the slot fill changes
resulted from different motor designs.
Consequently, a 3-percent increase in
slot fill does not imply that this change
was made to increase the efficiency of
another design, but could have been
made to change other performance
criteria of the motor, such as lockedrotor current.
DOE notes that motor design
engineers can adjust slot fill by
changing the gauge of wire used in
fractions of half a gauge. DOE clarified
that all the modeled motors utilized
standard AWG wire sizes, either wholeor half-gauge sizes (i.e., 18 or 181⁄2).
DOE clarifies that the statement of
‘‘fractions of a half gauge’’ referred to
sizes in between a whole gauge (i.e.
181⁄2 of a gauge is a fraction of 18 gauge
wire). DOE did not end up using
fractions consisting of a half gauge of
wire sizes to conduct its modeling, but
36 See TSD at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/
ruleid/42.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
did indicate that this was a design
option used by the motor industry.
DOE is aware of the extra time
involved with hand winding and has
attempted to incorporate this time into
efficiency levels that it believes would
require hand winding. DOE added
additional labor hours accounted for
hand winding in its engineering
analysis. DOE reiterates that should the
increase in infrastructure, manpower, or
motor cost increase beyond a reasonable
means, then ELs utilizing this
technology will be screened out during
the downstream analysis.
DOE captured the impact of jobs
shifting out of the country if hand
winding became more widespread
during the manufacturer impact analysis
(MIA) portion of DOE’s analysis. Please
see section IV.J for a discussion of the
manufacturer impact analysis.
Increase the Number of Stator Slots
Increasing the number of stator slots
associated with a given motor design
can, in some cases, improve motor
efficiency. Similar to increasing the
amount of copper wire in a particular
slot, increasing the number of slots may
in some cases permit the manufacturer
to incorporate more copper into the
stator slots. This option would decrease
the losses in the windings, but can also
affect motor performance. Torque, speed
and current can vary depending on the
combination of stator and rotor slots
used.
With respect to stator slot numbers,
DOE understands that a motor
manufacturer would not add stator slots
without any appreciation of the impacts
on the motor’s performance. DOE also
understands that there is an optimum
combination of stator and rotor slots for
any particular frame size and
horsepower combination. DOE
consulted with its SME and understands
that optimum stator and rotor slot
combinations have been determined by
manufacturers and are already currently
in use on existing production lines. DOE
does not anticipate further efficiency
gains from optimizing the combination
of stator and rotor slots at the efficiency
levels being considered for this
rulemaking. Consequently, DOE
removed this technology option from
chapter 4 of the TSD in the NOPR.
b. Decrease the Length of Coil
Extensions
One method of reducing resistance
losses in the stator is by decreasing the
length of the coil extensions at the end
turns. Reducing the length of copper
wire outside the stator slots not only
reduces the resistive losses, but also
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
reduces the material cost of the electric
motor because less copper is being used.
DOE understands that there may be
limited efficiency gains, if any, for most
electric motors using this technology
option. DOE also understands that
electric motors have been produced for
many decades and that many
manufacturers have improved their
production techniques to the point
where certain design parameters may
already be fully optimized. However,
DOE maintains that this is a design
parameter that affects efficiency and
should be considered when designing
an electric motor. DOE did not receive
any additional comments regarding this
technology option in response to the
NOPR and continues to consider it for
the final rule analysis.
c. Die-Cast Copper Rotor Cage
Copper offers lower resistivity than
aluminum, as well as a potentially more
compact design, both of which can
contribute to higher efficiency.
Manufacturers commonly use copper
today to build high performance motors.
Although a rotor of arbitrary size may be
fabricated by hand, the economics of
scale manufacturing demand die-casting
of those wishing to produce at
significant volumes. As a result, DOE
considered die-cast copper only as a
technology option. Die-cast copper
rotors have been the subject of frequent
comment and are more thoroughly
discussed in the screening analysis
section IV.B.1.a.
d. Increase Cross-Sectional Area of
Rotor Conductor Bars
Increasing the cross-sectional area of
the rotor bars, by changing the crosssectional geometry of the rotor, can
improve motor efficiency. Increasing the
cross-sectional area of the rotor bars
reduces the resistance and thus lowers
the I2R losses. However, changing the
shape of the rotor bars may affect the
size of the end rings and can also
change the torque characteristics of the
motor.
DOE recognizes that increasing the
cross-sectional area of a conductor rotor
bar may yield limited efficiency gains
for most electric motors. However, DOE
maintains that this is a design parameter
that affects efficiency and must be
considered when designing an electric
motor. Additionally, when creating its
software models, DOE considered rotor
slot design, including cross sectional
areas, such that any software model
produced was designed to meet the
appropriate NEMA performance
requirements for torque and locked rotor
current. DOE did not receive any
additional comments regarding this
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
technology option in response to the
NOPR and continues to consider it for
the final rule analysis.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
e. Increase Cross-Sectional Area of End
Rings
End rings are the components of a
squirrel-cage rotor that create electrical
connections between the rotor bars.
Increasing the cross-sectional area of the
end rings reduces the resistance and,
thus, lowers the I2R losses in the end
rings. A reduction in I2R losses will
occur only when any proportional
increase in current as a result of an
increase in the size of the end ring is
less than the square of the proportional
reduction in the end ring resistance.
When developing its software models,
DOE relied on the expertise of its SME.
Generally, increases to end ring area
were limited to 10–20 percent, which
are unlikely to have significant negative
impacts on the mechanical aspects of
the rotor. Furthermore, DOE ensured
that the appropriate NEMA performance
requirements for torque and lockedrotor current were maintained with its
software modeled motors. DOE did not
receive any additional comments
regarding this technology option in
response to the NOPR and continues to
consider it for the final rule analysis.
f. Electrical Steel With Lower Losses
Losses generated in the electrical steel
in the core of an induction motor can be
significant and are classified as either
hysteresis or eddy current losses.
Hysteresis losses are caused by magnetic
domains resisting reorientation to the
alternating magnetic field. Eddy
currents are physical currents that are
induced in the steel laminations by the
magnetic flux produced by the current
in the windings. Both of these losses
generate heat in the electrical steel.
In studying the techniques used to
reduce steel losses, DOE considered two
types of materials: Conventional silicon
steels, and ‘‘exotic’’ steels, which
contain a relatively high percentage of
boron or cobalt. Conventional steels are
commonly used in electric motors
manufactured today. There are three
types of steel that DOE considers
‘‘conventional:’’ Cold-rolled magnetic
laminations, fully processed nonoriented electrical steel, and semiprocessed non-oriented electrical steel.
One way to reduce core losses is to
incorporate a higher grade of core steel
into the electric motor design (e.g.,
switching from an M56 to an M19
grade). In general, higher grades of
electrical steel exhibit lower core losses.
Lower core losses can be achieved by
adding silicon and other elements to the
steel, thereby increasing its electrical
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
resistivity. Lower core losses can also be
achieved by subjecting the steel to
special heat treatments during
processing.
The exotic steels are not generally
manufactured for use specifically in the
electric motors covered in this
rulemaking. These steels include
vanadium permendur and other alloyed
steels containing a high percentage of
boron or cobalt. These steels offer a
lower loss level than the best electrical
steels, but are more expensive per
pound. In addition, these steels can
present manufacturing challenges
because they come in nonstandard
thicknesses that are difficult to
manufacture.
In the NOPR, DOE noted that its
computer software did not model
general classes of electrical steel, but
instead modeled vendor-specific
electrical steel. DOE’s software utilized
core loss vs. flux density curves
supplied by an electrical steel vendor as
one component of the core loss
calculated by the program. A second
component was also added to account
for high frequency losses. DOE noted
that relative performance derived from
Epstein testing might not be indicative
of relative performance in actual motor
prototypes. DOE did not solely rely on
relative steel grade when selecting
electrical steels for its designs. To
illustrate this point, DOE noted that
almost all of its software modeled
designs utilized M36 grade steel, even
though it was not the highest grade of
electrical steel considered in the
analysis. When higher grade M15 steel
was evaluated in DOE’s software
modeled designs, the resulting
efficiencies were actually lower than the
efficiencies when using M36 grade steel
for several reasons. The Epstein test
results for various grades of steel
provided in chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD
were purely informational and intended
to give an indication of the relative
performance of a sample of electrical
steels considered. That information was
removed from chapter 3 of the NOPR
TSD to avoid any further confusion. See
78 FR 73614.
DOE did not receive any additional
comments regarding this technology
option in response to the NOPR and
continues to consider it for the final rule
analysis.
g. Thinner Steel Laminations
As addressed earlier, there are two
types of core losses that develop in the
electrical steel of induction motors—
hysteresis losses and losses due to eddy
current. Electric motors can use thinner
laminations of core steel to reduce eddy
currents. The magnitude of the eddy
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
30961
currents induced by the magnetic field
become smaller in thinner laminations,
making the motor more energy efficient.
In the technology analysis, DOE only
considered conventional steels with
standard gauges available in the market.
DOE did not receive any comments
regarding this technology option in
response to the NOPR and continues to
consider it for the final rule analysis.
h. Increase Stack Length
Adding electrical steel to the rotor
and stator to lengthen the motor
(axially) can also reduce the core losses
in an electric motor. Lengthening the
motor by increasing stack length
reduces the magnetic flux density,
which reduces core losses. However,
increasing the stack length affects other
performance attributes of the motor,
such as starting torque. Issues can arise
when installing a more efficient motor
with additional stack length because the
motor becomes longer and may not fit
into applications with dimensional
constraints. DOE did not receive any
comments regarding this technology
option in response to the NOPR and
continues to consider it in the final rule
analysis.
i. Optimize Bearing and Lubrication
DOE notes that bearings and
lubrication can be optimized for cost,
performance, maintenance, and other
attributes depending on the design
requirements. However, DOE is of the
understanding that choice of bearing
and lubricant is generally driven by
considerations unrelated to efficiency
for common motors, and so does not
vary it as a design parameter in the
engineering analysis. DOE received no
comments regarding this technology in
response to the NOPR and does not
include performance gains due to
advanced bearings or lubricants in the
engineering analysis in today’s final
rule.
j. Improve Cooling System
Optimizing a motor’s cooling system
that circulates air through the motor is
another technology option to improve
the efficiency of electric motors.
Improving the cooling system reduces
air resistance and associated frictional
losses and decreases the operating
temperature (and associated electrical
resistance) by cooling the motor during
operation. This can be accomplished by
changing the fan or adding baffles to the
current fan to help redirect airflow
through the motor.
DOE notes that an improved cooling
system may be more or less efficient,
itself, as long losses within the motor atlarge decline. When the design of an
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30962
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
electric motor is changed, losses
associated with the cooling system may
increase in order to provide a decrease
in losses associated with some other
part of the design. DOE did not receive
any comments regarding this technology
option in response to the NOPR and
continues to consider it for the final rule
analysis.
k. Reduce Skew on Conductor Cage
In the rotor, the conductor bars are
not straight from one end to the other,
but skewed or twisted slightly around
the axis of the rotor. Decreasing the
degree of skew can improve a motor’s
efficiency. The conductor bars are
skewed to help eliminate harmonics
that add cusps, losses, and noise to the
motor’s speed-torque characteristics.
Reducing the degree of skew can help
reduce the rotor resistance and
reactance, which helps improve
efficiency. However, overly reducing the
skew also may have adverse effects on
starting, noise, and the speed-torque
characteristics.
DOE notes that all software designs
used in the technology analysis had
skewed rotor designs and, in general,
the skews used were approximately 100
percent of a stator or rotor slot pitch,
whichever had the smaller number of
slots. Additionally, DOE intended for
the option of reducing the skew on the
conductor cage to be an option
associated with reducing stray load
losses and has made the appropriate
adjustments to its text and tables. (See
TSD Chapter 4)
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
l. Improve Rotor Bar Insulation
In motors, rotor bars are usually
insulated to contain current within the
rotor. Because no insulation is ideal,
some current will always leak and
induce undesired stray losses in other
parts of the motor. By improving rotor
insulation, this effect may be reduced.
Insulation, however, competes for space
within the motor with conductor and
electrical steel. Therefore,
manufacturers look to balance
insulation with preservation of volume.
DOE received no comments in response
to the NOPR and does not change
insulation assumptions for the final
rule.
m. Technology Options Not Considered
Variable-speed drives (VSDs) are
solid-state electronic devices able to
vary the voltage, current, and frequency
of a motor’s input signal in order to vary
(often continuously) vary torque and
speed. DOE acknowledges that the
ability to modulate motor output may
produce energy savings in certain
applications, if properly controlled.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
DOE does not consider this technology
in today’s rule because the scope of
coverage only pertains to single-speed
motors. DOE notes that many motors
within the scope of the rulemaking may
be capable of operation with a VSD.
Inverter-only motors, which are not able
to operate on 60 Hz sinusoidal current,
are not subject to today’s standards as
today’s rule only applies to motors
capable of operation at 60 Hz.
In response to the NOPR, PlasticMetal
commented that DOE should consider
the use of syncrospeed VFD technology
in reducing the energy consumed by
motors, especially for motors used in
injection molding machines.
PlasticMetal noted that VFD technology
can also be used for agricultural pump
and hydraulic pump motors.
(PlasticMetal, No. 80 at p. 1)
Although DOE’s proposed standards
were limited to single-speed motors,
DOE recognizes that VFDs may offer
further energy savings in injection
molding (among other applications).
DOE may consider exploring this
technology further in a future
rulemaking, but at present retains
coverage of only single-speed motors.
B. Screening Analysis
After DOE identified the technologies
that might improve the energy efficiency
of electric motors, DOE conducted a
screening analysis. The purpose of the
screening analysis is to determine
which options to consider further and
which to screen out. DOE consulted
with industry, technical experts, and
other interested parties in developing a
list of design options. DOE then applied
the following set of screening criteria,
under sections 4(a)(4) and 5(b) of
appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part
430, ‘‘Procedures, Interpretations and
Policies for Consideration of New or
Revised Energy Conservation Standards
for Consumer Products,’’ to determine
which design options are unsuitable for
further consideration in the rulemaking:
• Technological Feasibility: DOE will
consider only those technologies
incorporated in commercial equipment
or in working prototypes to be
technologically feasible.
• Practicability to Manufacture,
Install, and Service: If mass production
of a technology in commercial
equipment and reliable installation and
servicing of the technology could be
achieved on the scale necessary to serve
the relevant market at the time of the
effective date of the standard, then DOE
will consider that technology
practicable to manufacture, install, and
service.
• Adverse Impacts on Equipment
Utility or Equipment Availability: DOE
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
will not further consider a technology if
DOE determines it will have a
significant adverse impact on the utility
of the equipment to significant
subgroups of customers. DOE will also
not further consider a technology that
will result in the unavailability of any
covered equipment type with
performance characteristics (including
reliability), features, sizes, capacities,
and volumes that are substantially the
same as equipment generally available
in the United States at the time.
• Adverse Impacts on Health or
Safety: DOE will not further consider a
technology if DOE determines that the
technology will have significant adverse
impacts on health or safety.
Table IV.9 presents a general
summary of potential methods that a
manufacturer may use to reduce losses
in electric motors. The approaches
presented in this table refer either to
specific technologies (e.g., aluminum
versus copper die-cast rotor cages,
different grades of electrical steel) or
physical changes to the motor
geometries (e.g., cross-sectional area of
rotor conductor bars, additional stack
height). For additional details on the
screening analysis, please refer to
chapter 4 of the final rule TSD.
TABLE IV.9—SUMMARY LIST OF OPTIONS FROM TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Type of loss to
reduce
Stator I2R
Losses.
Rotor I2R
Losses.
Core Losses ...
Friction and
Windage
Losses.
Stray-Load
Losses.
Technology option
Increase cross-sectional
area of copper in stator
slots.
Decrease the length of coil
extensions.
Use a die-cast copper rotor
cage.
Increase cross-sectional
area of rotor conductor
bars.
Increase cross-sectional
area of end rings.
Use electrical steel laminations with lower losses
(watts/lb).
Use thinner steel laminations.
Increase stack length (i.e.,
add electrical steel laminations).
Optimize bearing and lubrication selection.
Improve cooling system design.
Reduce skew on rotor cage.
Improve rotor bar insulation.
1. Technology Options Not Screened
Out of the Analysis
The technology options in this section
are options that passed the screening
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
criteria of the analysis. DOE considers
the technology options in this section to
be viable means of improving the
efficiency of electric motors.
In the NOPR, DOE stated that the
notice provides detailed information
about each technology option
considered. With the exception of diecast copper rotors, which many
manufacturers stated they would
usually never consider when increasing
efficiency for the reasons detailed
below, DOE understands that each
technology option that it has not
screened out is a design option that a
manufacturer would consider for each
motor designed and built. DOE
recognized that manufacturers design
their motors to balance a number of
competing and interrelated factors,
including performance, reliability, and
energy efficiency. Because the options
DOE had identified can be modified to
improve efficiency while maintaining
performance, it was DOE’s view that at
least some significant level of energy
efficiency improvement is possible with
each technology option not screened out
by DOE. See 78 FR 73616.
Furthermore, DOE noted that it did
not explicitly use each of the technology
options that passed the screening
criteria in the engineering analysis. As
discussed in section IV.C of the NOPR,
DOE’s engineering analysis was a
mixture of two approaches that DOE
routinely uses in its engineering
analysis methodology: The reverseengineering approach (in which DOE
has no control over the design
parameters) and the efficiency-level
approach (in which DOE tried to
achieve a certain level of efficiency,
rather than applying specific design
options). This hybrid of methods did
not allow for DOE to fully control which
design parameters were ultimately used
for each representative unit in the
analysis. Without the ability to apply
specific design options, DOE could not
include every option that was not
screened out of the analysis. See 78 FR
73616.
In addition, in the NOPR, DOE noted
that its analysis neither assumes nor
requires manufacturers to use identical
technology for all motor types,
horsepower ratings, or equipment
classes. In other words, DOE’s standards
are technology-neutral and permit
manufacturers design flexibility. See id.
DOE did not receive any comments
regarding the technology screening
process in response to the NOPR and
maintains this same approach in the
final rule.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
a. Die-Cast Copper Rotors
Aluminum is the most common
material used today to create die-cast
rotor bars for electric motors. Some
manufacturers that focus on producing
high-efficiency designs have started to
offer electric motors with die-cast rotor
bars made of copper. Copper can offer
better performance than aluminum
because it has better electrical
conductivity (i.e., a lower electrical
resistance). However, because copper
also has a higher melting point than
aluminum, the casting process becomes
more difficult and is likely to increase
both production time and cost.
DOE acknowledges that using copper
in rotors may require different design
approaches and considerations. In its
own modeling and testing of copper
rotor motors, DOE ensured that
performance parameters stayed within
MG 1–2011 limits (i.e., met NEMA
Design B criteria).
DOE did not screen out copper as a
die-cast rotor conductor material in the
NOPR because it believed that it passed
the four screening criteria. Because
several manufacturers currently die-cast
copper rotors, DOE concluded that this
material is both technologically feasible
and practicable to manufacture, install,
and service. Additionally,
manufacturers are already producing
such equipment, with no known
increase in accidents or other health/
safety problems. Finally, DOE’s own
engineering analysis supports what it
sees in the market for copper rotors—
that copper rotor motors may require
some design tradeoffs but that, in
general, it is possible to use copper and
remain within NEMA Design A, B, or C
specifications. In addition, DOE notes
that its analysis neither assumes nor
requires manufacturers to use identical
technology for all motor types,
horsepower ratings, or equipment
classes. Moreover, DOE does not believe
that the TSL chosen for today’s standard
would require most manufacturers to
use copper rotor motors.
DOE received considerable feedback
concerning copper rotor technology
both in response to the preliminary
analysis and the NOPR. DOE addressed
comments made on this topic at the
preliminary analysis stage in the NOPR
(see 78 FR 73616–73620). Here DOE
responds to comments made on this
topic in response to the NOPR and
organizes its responses by the four
screening criteria. Although it is welldocumented that die-cast copper rotors
are available in the market to at least 30
hp, they are not widely marketed at the
higher horsepower ratings. It is not clear
precisely why copper rotor motors are
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
30963
not marketed at horsepowers greater
than 30. It is possible that because it is
impracticable to die-cast copper at those
rotor sizes or there is simply a lack of
demand at higher horsepowers to justify
investment in production capacity.
As part of its analysis, DOE intends to
ensure that utility, which includes
frame size considerations, is
maintained. Increased shipping costs
are also taken into account in the
national impact analysis (NIA) and the
life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis portions of
DOE’s analytical procedures.
Technological Feasibility
In the NOPR, DOE cited a number of
high horsepower designs with copper
rotors as evidence of technological
feasibility, as well as observing that
distribution transformers, another large
industrial product that uses conductors
around electrical steel, commonly
improve efficiency by replacing
aluminum with copper. 78 FR 73618.
In response to the statements that
DOE made in the NOPR (see 78 FR
73618), NEMA pointed out that
transformers and induction motors are
not comparable because the
performance tradeoff between efficiency
and inrush current is different in both
cases. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 10) Nidec
commented that the examples of Tesla,
REMY, and Oshkosh traction motors
cited by DOE as evidence of the
feasibility of copper die-cast rotors
involved motors that operated at higher
speeds and lower torques.
Consequently, in its view, these
comparisons were not an accurate
representation of those motors that
would be covered under DOE’s
proposal. (Nidec, No. 98 at pp. 3–4)
NEMA agreed with Nidec, and made the
point that it is physical rotor size, and
not horsepower, that sets limits on
copper die-casting. (NEMA, No. 93 at p.
9) NEMA also noted that, from a
manufacturer perspective, the issue of
importance is not the feasibility of
designing a suitable copper rotor, but
rather the issue of whether copper rotors
can be die-cast and mass-produced.
(NEMA, No. 93 at p. 9)
DOE recognizes that assessing the
technological feasibility of highhorsepower copper die-cast rotors is
made more complex by the fact that
DOE believes that manufacturers do not
offer them commercially. DOE
acknowledges that the listed motor
examples are of higher speed that those
under consideration in this rule, and
that horsepower must be discussed in
the context of speed. DOE agrees with
NEMA that the challenges with
designing with copper rotor motors lie
less in the feasibility of designing
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30964
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
copper rotor motors, and more in the
die-casting of large copper rotors. As a
result, DOE views the debate as residing
chiefly in the domain of
manufacturability, considered in the
next section. Commenters have not
demonstrated that it would be
technologically infeasible to develop
and incorporate copper die-cast rotors
in lower-speed motors. Therefore, DOE
does not screen out die-cast copper on
the basis of technological feasibility.
Practicability to Manufacture, Install,
and Service
In the NOPR, DOE stated that it was
not able to conclude copper rotors were
impracticable to manufacture because
DOE identified parties already
manufacturing copper rotor motors.
DOE was able to purchase and tear
down a copper rotor motor, which
performed at DOE’s max-tech level at its
horsepower (5 hp) and met NEMA
Design B requirements. 78 FR 73617.
In response to the NOPR, NEMA
maintained its position that copper diecast rotors should be screened out of the
analysis for the current rulemaking.
NEMA and Nidec argued that designs
modeled by DOE for ECG 1 at EL 4 and
ECG 2 at EL 2 used copper rotor
technology and, thus, implied that
copper rotor technology is a
requirement to meet max-tech efficiency
levels. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 8; Nidec,
No. 98 at p. 3) Referring to the U.S.
Department of the Army studies on diecast copper rotor motors that NEMA
discussed in its preliminary analysis
comments, NEMA raised concern that it
is difficult to successfully die cast a
copper rotors of the required size in
mass production. NEMA commented
that it is not aware of manufacturing, in
the United States or outside, capable of
mass production of copper die-cast
rotors ‘‘on the scale necessary to serve
the relevant market at the time of the
effective date of the standard,’’ as
proposed in the NOPR. NEMA stated
that the challenge to design a motor
when the material of the rotor is
changed is not limited to meeting only
a required value of efficiency and the
limits on torques and current that DOE
specifies in the definitions in 10 CFR
431.12. Noting that particular TSL levels
were developed based on the EL levels,
NEMA commented that if the copper
die-cast rotor technology were screened
out, then EL 4 would not be included
in the creation of any TSL level, and
TSL 3 would represent the maximum
technology designs. (NEMA, No. 93 at
pp. 8–12)
Baldor commented that the Motor
Coalition has submitted earlier that they
do not have the capacity to produce
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
copper rotors at a volume of 5 million
units per year. It raised concerns that it
is challenging to manufacture a better
design in actual production. (Baldor,
Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 118–119)
In contrast, CDA disagreed with the
manufacturers’ claims that die-cast
copper rotor motors are not
commercially available. CDA
commented that die-cast copper rotor
motors—60 Hz ‘‘Ultra’’ motors
manufactured by Siemens—have been
commercially available at certain
horsepower ratings in North America
since February 2006. Siemens has
copper rotor die-casting capabilities in
Denver, Ohio, and Mexico. Multiple
countries in Europe and Asia also have
copper rotor die casters. Siemens
produces 50 Hz motors in Germany, and
SEW-Eurodrive produces 50 Hz and 60
Hz motors for worldwide shipment.
Therefore, CDA stated that die-cast
copper rotors are commercially
available, and DOE should continue to
include them in their evaluations. (CDA,
No. 90 at p. 2)
Following publication of the NOPR,
DOE was able to speak with a
manufacturer of die-casting equipment
who confirmed their ability to die-cast
copper rotors in excess of 500 lbs in a
single ‘‘shot’’. DOE has not been able to
obtain written verification of this
capability. If true, however, the question
is whether such rotor size is sufficient
to reach the limits of the horsepower
scope of today’s rule.
Although DOE did not directly model
a copper rotor that large, DOE did
purchase and tear down a 30 hp motor
of specification within the scope of this
rulemaking with a die-cast copper rotor
and found the weight to be 29 lbs, or
roughly 1 lb/hp. DOE understands that
the active mass of a motor grows
sublinearly with power, and by
extension, that a 500 hp motor of similar
design could be built with a copper
rotor of less than 500 lbs.
Although these figures are estimates,
DOE believes there is evidence to
suggest that copper die-cast rotor would
be practicable to manufacture, install, or
service and, consequently, this
technology should not be screened out
on that basis. DOE understands that fullscale deployment of copper would
likely require considerable capital
investment and that such investment
could increase the production cost of
large copper rotor motors considerably.
DOE believes that its current
engineering analysis reflects this
likelihood. DOE acknowledges that if it
were adopting a max-tech standard, the
chance that any manufacturer would
use copper die-cast rotors would be
much greater than the chance that any
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
manufacturer would choose to use this
technology under the efficiency level
chosen in today’s rule.
Adverse Impacts on Equipment Utility
or Equipment Availability
For the NOPR, DOE acknowledged
that the industry would need to make
substantial investments in production
capital to ensure the availability of
motors at current production levels.
DOE noted that, in some cases,
redesigning equipment lines to use
copper would entail substantial cost.
DOE’s engineering analysis reflects its
estimates of these costs and discusses
them in detail in section IV.C. Although
using copper in place of aluminum can
require design changes in order to keep
parameters such as locked-rotor current
within rated limits, DOE was able to
model copper rotor motors adhering to
the specifications of NEMA Design B,37
including the reduced (relative to
Design A) locked-rotor current.
In response, to the NOPR, NEMA
reiterated many of its concerns about
production capability worldwide and
that utility may be impacted with
respect to torque/speed characteristics if
copper becomes a de facto standard.
(NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 11–13)
Based on DOE’s own shipments
analysis (see final TSD, Chapter 9) and
estimates of worldwide annual copper
production,38 DOE estimates that .01–
.02 percent of worldwide copper supply
would be required for electric motor
manufacturers to use copper rotors for
every single motor within DOE’s scope
of coverage. DOE acknowledges the
need to vary design parameters in order
to maintain equipment utility through a
transition to copper rotors, but does not
believe commenters have demonstrated
that it is infeasible, particularly when
DOE has been able to procure and test
equipment meeting Design B
specification. At the present, DOE does
not believe there is sufficient evidence
to screen copper die-cast rotors from the
analysis on the basis of adverse impacts
to equipment utility or availability.
Adverse Impacts on Health or Safety
In the NOPR, DOE did not screen out
copper die-casting on the basis of
adverse impacts to health or safety. DOE
is aware of the higher melting point of
copper (1084 degrees Celsius versus 660
degrees Celsius for aluminum) and the
potential impacts this may have on the
37 The parameters DOE believed to present the
largest risk of rendering a motor noncompliant with
NEMA MG 1–2011standards were those related to
NEMA design letter, which were adhered to in
DOE’s modeling efforts.
38 See https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/
commodity/copper/mcs-2012-coppe.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
health or safety of plant workers.
However, DOE does not believe at this
time that this potential impact is
sufficiently adverse to screen out copper
as a die-cast material for rotor
conductors. The process for die-casting
copper rotors involves risks similar to
those of die-casting aluminum. DOE
believes that manufacturers who diecast metal at 660 Celsius or 1085 Celsius
(the respective temperatures required
for aluminum and copper) would need
to observe strict protocols to operate
safely. DOE understands that many
plants already work with molten
aluminum die-casting processes and
believes that similar processes could be
adopted for copper. DOE has not
received any supporting data about the
increased risks associated with copper
die-casting, and could not locate any
studies suggesting that the die-casting of
copper inherently represents
incrementally more risks to worker
safety and health. DOE notes that
several OSHA standards relate to the
safety of ‘‘Nonferrous Die-Castings,
Except Aluminum,’’ of which die-cast
copper is part. DOE did not receive
comment on this topic specifically in
response to the NOPR and maintains
this approach for the final rule.
b. Increase the Cross-Sectional Area of
Copper in the Stator Slots
DOE describes its approach for
‘‘Increase the Cross-Sectional Area of
Copper in the Stator Slots’’ in section
IV.A.5.a. Considering the four screening
criteria for this technology option, DOE
did not screen out the possibility of
changing gauges of copper wire in the
stator as a means of improving
efficiency. Motor design engineers
adjust this option by using different
wire gauges when manufacturing an
electric motor to achieve desired
performance and efficiency targets.
Because this design technique is in
commercial use today, DOE considers
this technology option both
technologically feasible and practicable
to manufacture, install, and service.
DOE is not aware of any adverse
impacts on consumer utility, reliability,
health, or safety associated with
changing the wire gauges in the stator to
obtain increased efficiency. Should the
technology option prove to not be
economical on a scale necessary to
supply the entire industry, then this
technology option would be likely not
be selected for in the analysis, either in
the LCC or MIA.
In response to the NOPR, NEMA
commented that hand winding is not a
viable technology to gain an increase in
slot fill of less than 5% and thus
suggested that hand winding should be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
screened out. NEMA stated that hand
winding poses adverse impacts on
manufacturing relative to mass
production and may shift production of
stators to cheaper labor locations
outside of the United States. Hand
winding also has adverse impacts on
health and safety of personnel and on
product utility and availability. Noting
that none of the representative units are
hand wound, it commented that the
engineering analysis should not be
based on stator slot fill levels which
require hand winding (NEMA, No. 93 at
pp. 12–13)
DOE acknowledges that the industry
is moving towards increased
automation. However, hand winding is
currently practiced by manufacturers,
making it a viable option for DOE to
consider as part of its engineering
analysis. Furthermore, DOE is not aware
of any data or studies suggesting handwinding leads to negative health
consequences and notes that hand
winding is currently practiced by
industry. In response to the NOPR, DOE
did not receive any comment on its cost
estimates for hand-wound motors nor
on studies suggesting any health
impacts. DOE acknowledges that, were
hand-winding to become widespread,
manufacturers would need to hire more
workers to perform hand-winding to
maintain person-winding-hour
equivalence and has accounted for the
added costs of hand-winding in its
engineering analysis.
c. Power Factor
Although not considered as a
technology option per se, several
commenters commented on power
factor in response to DOE’s NOPR.
Power factor is the ratio of real power
to apparent power, or the fraction of
power sent to a device divided by its
actual power consumption. Power factor
equals one for purely resistive loads, but
falls for circuits with loads that are
capacitive or (in the usual case of
electric motors) inductive. Generally,
low power factor is viewed as
undesirable; it may force the use of
larger conductors and hardware within
a building. Furthermore, many
industrial customers are charged more
for electrical power by their utility as
their net power factor falls. Because
power factor has value to owners of
electric motors, any standard that causes
power factor to rise significantly could
be said to negatively affected consumer
utility. Several parties commented on
power factor in response to DOE’s
NOPR.
The CA IOUs noted that energy saved
in the motor can show up as energy lost
in the building and utility distribution
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
30965
systems. (CA IOUs, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87
at p. 115)
Baldor commented that it is
challenging to get a higher efficiency
motor along with good power factor and
low inrush current. When a motor is
redesigned for efficiency, power factor
goes down when efficiency goes up and
inrush current can rise and change
motor design from Design B to Design A.
(Baldor, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp.
118–119)
EEI expressed concern that larger
industrial facilities (having heavy motor
populations) may incur higher
economic costs if higher efficiency
requirements lead to lower power factor.
This is because larger customers are
metered for kVA and they are penalized
if the facility power factor goes below a
certain level. (EEI, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87
at pp. 120–121)
DOE acknowledges that power factor
is one parameter of many that requires
supervision in redesigning motors for
greater efficiency. Electric motors, by
their very nature, are highly inductive
loads with correspondingly low power
factors. Facilities with large numbers of
motors often choose to add capacitance
in parallel with their inductive loads in
order to correct power factor, and often
be charged lower rates for electricity.
Several motor manufacturers advocate
power factor correction and advertise
equipment to do it.39
Furthermore, DOE notes that MG 1–
2009 characterizes the relationship
between motor efficiency and power
factor in paragraph 14.44.1. This
relationship is nonlinear, but it can be
used to show that 40 even when going
from 74% motor efficiency 41 to the
corresponding premium efficiency
requirement of 82.5%, power factor falls
by only 11% Higher horsepower motors
would be predicted (by paragraph
14.44.1) to experience smaller declines
in power factor. Finally, Premium
efficiency motors are in widespread use
today, suggesting to DOE that the
associated power factor considerations
are not insurmountable. As a result,
DOE does not view power factor as a
significant obstacle in adopted of
today’s standards.
2. Technology Options Screened Out of
the Analysis
DOE developed an initial list of
design options from the technologies
identified in the technology assessment.
39 For example, https://www.baldor.com/support/
Literature/Load.ashx/FM1307?LitNumber=FM1307.
40 Taking the derivative suggests that power factor
may scale inversely with efficiency raised to the ¥2
power.
41 The current requirement for 1 horsepower, 8pole, subtype II electric motors.
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30966
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
DOE reviewed the list to determine if
the design options are practicable to
manufacture, install, and service; would
adversely affect equipment utility or
equipment availability; or would have
adverse impacts on health and safety. In
the engineering analysis, DOE did not
consider any of those options that failed
to satisfy one or more of the screening
criterion. The design options screened
out are summarized in Table IV.10.
TABLE IV.10—DESIGN OPTIONS SCREENED OUT OF THE ANALYSIS
Design option excluded
Eliminating screening criterion
Plastic Bonded Iron Powder (PBIP) ......................................................................................................................
Amorphous Steels .................................................................................................................................................
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
At the preliminary analysis stage,
NEMA, Baldor, and NPCC agreed with
DOE that plastic bonded iron powder
has not been proven to be a
technologically feasible method of
construction of stator and rotor cores in
induction motors, and that amorphous
metal laminations are not a type of
material that lends itself to use in
electric motors in the foreseeable future.
(NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 63–64; Baldor,
Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 60 at p. 108;
Advocates, No. 56 at p. 3)
As DOE did in the NOPR, DOE is
continuing to screen out both of these
technology options from further
consideration in the engineering
analysis in the final rule. See 78 FR
73622. Additionally, DOE understands
the concerns expressed by NEMA
regarding technological feasibility, but
DOE maintains that if a working
prototype exists, which implies that the
motor has performance characteristics
consistent with other motors using a
different technology, then that
technology would be deemed
technologically feasible. However, that
fact would not necessarily mean that a
technology option would pass all three
of the remaining screening criteria.
Chapter 4 of the TSD discusses each
of these screened out design options in
more detail, as well as the design
options that DOE considered in the
electric motor engineering analysis.
DOE did not receive additional
comments on the technology options
screened out in response to the NOPR.
technologically feasible energy
efficiency level.
When DOE adopts a new or amended
standard for a type or class of covered
equipment, it must determine the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency or maximum reduction in
energy use that is technologically
feasible for such equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(1) and 6316(a)) Accordingly, in
the engineering analysis, DOE
determined the maximum
technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’)
improvements in energy efficiency for
electric motors, using the design
parameters for the most efficient
equipment available on the market or in
working prototypes. (See chapter 5 of
the TSD) The max-tech levels that DOE
determined for this rulemaking are
described in IV.3 of this rule.
In general, DOE used three
methodologies to generate the
manufacturing costs needed for the
engineering analysis. These methods
are:
(1) The design-option approach—
reporting the incremental costs of
adding design options to a baseline
model;
(2) the efficiency-level approach—
reporting relative costs of achieving
improvements in energy efficiency; and
(3) the reverse engineering or cost
assessment approach—involving a
‘‘bottoms up’’ manufacturing cost
assessment based on a detailed bill of
materials derived from electric motor
teardowns.
C. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis develops
cost-efficiency relationships for the
equipment that are the subject of a
rulemaking by estimating manufacturer
costs of achieving increased efficiency
levels. DOE uses manufacturing costs to
determine retail prices for use in the
LCC analysis and MIA. In general, the
engineering analysis estimates the
efficiency improvement potential of
individual design options or
combinations of design options that
pass the four criteria in the screening
analysis. The engineering analysis also
determines the maximum
1. Engineering Analysis Methodology
DOE’s analysis for the electric motor
rulemaking is based on a combination of
the efficiency-level approach and the
reverse engineering approach. Primarily,
DOE elected to derive its production
costs by tearing down electric motors
and recording detailed information
regarding individual components and
designs. DOE used the costs derived
from the engineering teardowns and the
corresponding nameplate nominal
efficiency of the torn down motors to
report the relative costs of achieving
improvements in energy efficiency. DOE
derived material prices from current,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Technological Feasibility.
Technological Feasibility.
publicly available data, as well as input
from SMEs and manufacturers. For most
representative units analyzed, DOE was
not able to test and teardown a max-tech
unit, because such units are generally
cost-prohibitive and are not readily
available. Therefore, DOE supplemented
the results of its test and teardown
analysis with software modeling.
When developing its engineering
analysis for electric motors, DOE
divided covered equipment into
equipment class groups. As discussed
above, there are three electric motor
equipment class groups: ECG 1: NEMA
Design A and B motors, ECG 2: NEMA
Design C motors, and ECG 3: Fire pump
electric motors. The motors within these
ECGs are further divided into
equipment classes based on poleconfiguration, enclosure type, and
horsepower rating. For DOE’s
rulemaking, there are 482 equipment
classes.
2. Representative Units
Due to the high number of equipment
classes for electric motors, DOE selected
and analyzed only a few representative
units from each ECG and based its
overall analysis for all equipment
classes within that ECG on those
representative units. Results are scaled
to equipment classes not directly
analyzed.42 During the final rule
analysis, DOE selected three units to
represent ECG 1 and two units to
represent ECG 2. DOE based the analysis
of ECG 3 on the representative units for
ECG 1 because of the low shipment
volume and run time of fire pump
electric motors. When selecting
representative units for each ECG, DOE
considered NEMA design type,
horsepower rating, pole-configuration,
and enclosure.
a. Electric Motor Design Type
For ECG 1, which includes all NEMA
Design A and B motors, DOE only
selected NEMA Design B motors as
representative units to analyze in the
engineering analysis. DOE chose NEMA
Design B motors because NEMA Design
42 See
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
Chapter 5 of the TSD for details.
29MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
B motors have slightly more stringent
performance requirements, namely their
locked-rotor current has a maximum
allowable level for a given rating.
Consequently, NEMA Design B motors
are slightly more restricted in terms of
their maximum efficiency levels.
Therefore, by analyzing a NEMA Design
B motor, DOE could ensure
technological feasibility for all designs
covered in ECG 1. Additionally, NEMA
Design B units have much higher
shipment volumes than NEMA Design A
motors because most motor driven
equipment is designed (and UL listed)
to run with NEMA Design B motors.
As mentioned for ECG 2, DOE
selected two representative units to
analyze. Because NEMA Design C is the
only NEMA design type covered by this
ECG, DOE only selected NEMA Design
C motors as its representative units.
For ECG 3, which consists of fire
pump electric motors, DOE based its
engineering analysis on the NEMA
Design B units analyzed for ECG 1. As
noted above, in order to be in
compliance with section 9.5 of National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
‘‘Standard for the Installation of
Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection’’
Standard 20–2010, which is a
requirement for a motor to meet DOE’s
current definition of a ‘‘fire pump
electric motor,’’ the motor must comply
with NEMA Design B requirements.43
Although DOE understands that fire
pump electric motors have additional
performance requirements, DOE
believed that analysis of the ECG 1
motors would serve as a sufficient
approximation for the cost-efficiency
relationship for fire pump electric
motors. The design differences between
a NEMA Design B motor (or IECequivalent) and fire pump electric motor
are small and unlikely to greatly affect
incremental cost behavior.
Regarding DOE’s ‘‘fire pump electric
motor’’ definition, as detailed in the
electric motors 2012 test procedure,44
DOE intends its ‘‘fire pump electric
motor’’ definition to cover both NEMA
Design B motors and IEC-equivalents
that meet the requirements of section
9.5 of NFPA 20. See 77 FR 26617–18. As
stated in the 2012 test procedure, DOE
agrees that IEC-equivalent motors
should be included within the scope of
43 With the exception of having a thermal shutoff
switch, which could prevent a fire pump motor
from performing its duty in hot conditions, NFPA
20 also excludes several motor types not considered
in this rulemaking from the NEMA Design B
requirement. They are direct current, high-voltage
(over 600 V), large-horsepower (over 500 hp),
single-phase, universal-type, and wound-rotor
motors.
44 77 FR 26608.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
the definition of ‘‘fire pump electric
motor,’’ although NFPA 20 does not
explicitly recognize the use of IEC
motors with fire pumps. 77 FR 26617.
DOE realizes that section 9.5 of NFPA
20 specifically requires that fire pump
motors shall be marked as complying
with NEMA Design B. The ‘‘fire pump
electric motor’’ definition that DOE
created focuses on ensuring that
compliance with the energy efficiency
requirements are applied in a consistent
manner. DOE believes that there are IEC
motors that can be used in fire pump
applications that meet both NEMA
Design B and IEC Design N criteria, as
well as NEMA MG 1 service factors.
DOE’s definition encompasses both
NEMA Design B motors and IECequivalents. To the extent that there is
any ambiguity as to how DOE would
apply this definition, in DOE’s view,
any Design B or IEC-equivalent motor
that otherwise satisfies the relevant
NFPA requirements would meet the
‘‘fire pump electric motor’’ definition in
10 CFR 431.12. See the standards NOPR
for a historical discussion of comments
related to fire pump electric motors. 78
FR 73623.
ECG 4 proposed in the NOPR
consisted of brake electric motors and
was also based on ECG 1, because DOE
is only aware of brake motors being
built to NEMA Design B specifications.
Furthermore, DOE understands that
there is no fundamental difference in
design between brake and non-brake
electric motors, other than the presence
of the brake. Therefore, the same design
options could be used on both sets of
electric motors, and both motor types
are likely to exhibit similar cost versus
efficiency relationships. In today’s final
rule, brake motors no longer constitute
a separate equipment class group and,
therefore, brake motors fall into
equipment classes based on their other
characteristics (e.g., pole count, design
type).
b. Horsepower Rating
Horsepower rating is an important
equipment class setting criterion. When
DOE selected its preliminary analysis
representative units, DOE chose those
horsepower ratings that constitute a
high volume of shipments in the market
and provide a wide range upon which
DOE could reasonably base a scaling
methodology. For NEMA Design B
motors, for example, DOE chose 5-,
30-, and 75-horsepower-rated electric
motors to analyze as representative
units. DOE selected the 5-horsepower
rating because these motors have the
highest shipment volume of all motors.
DOE selected the 30-horsepower rating
as an intermediary between the small
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
30967
and large frame number series electric
motors. Finally, DOE selected a 75horsepower unit because there is
minimal variation in efficiency for
motors with horsepower ratings above
75-horsepower. Based on this fact, DOE
determined it was unnecessary to
analyze a higher horsepower motor.
Additionally, as horsepower levels
increase, shipments typically decrease.
Therefore, DOE believed there would be
minimal gains to its analysis had it
examined a higher horsepower
representative unit.
DOE selected the 5-horsepower motor
for multiple reasons. The 5-horsepower
unit had the highest percentage of
shipments for all covered electric
motors, which ensured that there would
be multiple efficiency levels from
multiple manufacturers available for
comparison during the teardown
analysis. In addition, because DOE later
employed scaling to establish efficiency
levels for all equipment classes, it
attempted to find a frame series and Ddimension 45 that could serve as a strong
basis from which to scale to a relatively
small set of unanalyzed frame series.
The standard NEMA MG 1–2011 frame
series for the 5-horsepower enclosed
motor was a midpoint between the
standard frame series for 1 horsepower
and 10-horsepower motors, which was
the group of ratings covered by the 5horsepower representative unit. A larger
representative unit would have meant a
larger range of frame series on which to
apply the scaling methodology.
As to DOE’s selection of the 75horsepower representative unit as a
maximum, DOE understands that the
75-horsepower motor is not built in the
largest NEMA MG 1–2011 frame series
covered, but maintains that its selection
is appropriate for this analysis. As
stated previously, efficiency changes
slowly when approaching the highest
horsepower ratings, and choosing a
higher horsepower rating would not
have provided any appreciable
improvement over the data DOE already
developed for its analysis. DOE has
found minimal variation in efficiency
for motors above 75-horsepower.
Because the change in efficiency
diminishes with increasing horsepower,
one may achieve a similar level of
analytical accuracy with fewer data
points at higher horsepower. Stated
inversely, one needs more data points to
accurately characterize a curve where it
has a greater rate of change, such as
45 ‘‘D’’ dimension is the length from the centerline
of the shaft to the mounting feet of the motor, and
impacts how large the motor’s laminations can be,
impacting the achievable efficiency of the motor.
‘‘D’’ dimensions are designated in NEMA MG 1–
2011 Section 4.2.1, Table 4–2.
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30968
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
lower horsepower. Finally, DOE notes
that its scaling methodology mirrors the
scaling methodology used in NEMA’s
MG 1–2011 tables of efficiencies,
including the rate of change in
efficiency with horsepower.
DOE also notes that part 13 46 of
NEMA MG 1–2011 does not standardize
frame series for NEMA Design B motors
at the highest horsepower levels covered
in today’s rule. Therefore, motors with
the highest capacity have variability in
their frame series. This added flexibility
would give manufacturers more options
to improve the efficiency of their largest
motors covered by this rulemaking.
Although altering the frame size of a
motor may be costly, DOE believes that
its selection of a 75-hp representative
unit for higher horsepower motors is
appropriate for scaling higher
horsepower efficiency levels and the
efficiency levels examined are
technologically feasible for the largest
capacity motors.
For NEMA Design C motors, DOE
again selected the 5-horsepower rating
because of its prevalence. In addition,
DOE selected a 50-horsepower rating as
an incrementally higher representative
unit. DOE only selected two horsepower
ratings for these electric motors because
of their low shipment volumes. For
more information on how DOE selected
these horsepower ratings see chapter 5
of the TSD.
In its preliminary analysis comments
NEMA questioned DOE’s selection of
the 50-horsepower representative unit
for the NEMA Design C equipment class
group because the NEMA T-frame size
for such a rating is three NEMA T-frame
number series below the largest frame
number series and the fact that the 2011
shipment data that DOE used to select
its representative units was not broken
down by NEMA design type. (NEMA,
No. 54 at p. 66)
As stated in the NOPR and as DOE
maintains in this final rule, as with ECG
1, DOE selected representative units that
fell in the middle of the range of ratings
covered in this rulemaking and not
necessarily the largest frame size
covered in the rulemaking. Furthermore,
as discussed earlier, NEMA Design C
motors are produced in a smaller range
of horsepower ratings than NEMA
Design B motors (1 to 200 rather than 1
to 500). With this smaller horsepower
range, a correspondingly smaller range
of representative units is needed.
Therefore, DOE selected a slightly lower
rating as its maximum for ECG 2. See 78
FR 73625. As for the shipments data
46 This part provides standardized frame sizing by
horsepower and speed for integral horsepower AC
induction motors.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
used to select the 5-hp representative
unit, DOE did not separate the data by
design type within an ECG because the
same standard applies to motors of any
design type (e.g., ‘‘Design A’’) within an
ECG, and has revised the text for the
final TSD to clarify that fact. See id.
However, DOE still maintains that the
prevalence of 5-hp units make it an
appropriate selection as a representative
unit. DOE did not receive further
comments on representative units in
response to the NOPR and has
maintained its approach for the final
rule.
c. Pole-Configuration
Pole-configuration is another
important equipment class setting
criterion that DOE had to consider when
selecting its representative units. For the
preliminary analysis, DOE selected 4pole motors for all of its representative
units. DOE chose 4-pole motors because
they represent the highest shipment
volume of motors compared to other
pole configurations. DOE chose not to
alternate between pole configurations
for its representative units because it
wanted to keep as many design
characteristics constant as possible.
Doing so allowed DOE to more
accurately identify how design changes
affect efficiency across horsepower
ratings. Additionally, DOE believed that
the horsepower rating-versus-efficiency
relationship is the most important
(rather than pole-configuration and
enclosure type-versus-efficiency)
because there are significantly more
horsepower ratings to consider.
In the preliminary analysis, NEMA
and Baldor commented that scaling
across pole configurations will lead to
inaccurate results. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp.
26, 66–67; Baldor, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 60
at pp. 130, 131)
As mentioned earlier, DOE assessed
energy conservation standards for 482
equipment classes. As described in the
NOPR 47 and as DOE retains in today’s
rule, analyzing each of the classes
individually is not feasible, which
requires DOE to select representative
units on which to base its analysis. DOE
understands that different poleconfigurations have different design
constraints. Originally, DOE selected
only 4-pole motors to analyze because
they were the most common, allowing
DOE to most accurately characterize
motor behavior at the pole configuration
consuming the majority of motor energy.
Additionally, by holding poleconfiguration constant across its
representative units, DOE would be able
to develop a baseline from which to
scale. By maintaining this baseline and
holding all other variables constant,
DOE is able to modify the horsepower
of the various representative units and
isolate which efficiency effects are due
to size.
Also as described in the NOPR 48 and
as DOE retains in today’s rule, as
discussed in section IV.C.8, DOE has
used the simpler of two scaling
approaches presented in the preliminary
analysis because both methods had
similar results. This simpler approach
does not require DOE to develop a
relationship for 4-pole motors from
which to scale. Furthermore, DOE notes
that the scaling approach it selected
mirrors the scaling laid out in NEMA’s
MG 1–2011 tables, in which at least a
subset of the motors industry has
already presented a possible
relationship between efficiency and
pole count. DOE has continued to
analyze 4-pole electric motors because
they are the most common and DOE
believes that all of the efficiency levels
it has developed are technologically
feasible.
d. Enclosure Type
The final equipment class setting
criterion that DOE considered when
selecting its representative units was
enclosure type. For the preliminary
analysis, DOE elected to analyze electric
motors with enclosed designs rather
than open designs for all of its
representative units. DOE selected
enclosed motors because, as with poleconfigurations, these motors have higher
shipments than open motors. Again,
DOE did not alternate between the two
design possibilities for its representative
units because it sought to keep design
characteristics as constant as possible in
an attempt to more accurately identify
the reasons for efficiency improvements.
At the preliminary analysis stage,
NEMA and Baldor commented that
DOE’s analysis did not consider the
significance of enclosure type as it
relates to efficiency as there is generally
a lower efficiency level designated for
open-frame motors. (NEMA, No. 54 at p.
68; Baldor, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 60 at p.
131)
For the preliminary analysis, DOE
analyzed only electric motors with
totally enclosed, fan-cooled (TEFC)
designs rather than open designs for all
of its representative units. DOE selected
TEFC motors because, as with pole
configurations, DOE wanted as many
design characteristics to remain
constant as possible. The Department
used the same approach for the NOPR 49
48 See
47 See
PO 00000
78 FR 73625.
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
49 See
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
78 FR 73625.
78 FR 73625.
29MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
and today’s final rule. DOE believed
then and still believes that such an
approach allows it to more accurately
pinpoint the factors that affect
efficiency. While DOE only analyzed
one enclosure type, it notes that its
scaling follows NEMA’s efficiency
tables (Table 12–11 and Table 12–12),
which already map how efficiency
changes with enclosure type. Finally,
TEFC electric motors represented more
than three times the shipment volume of
open motors. DOE chose ELs that
correspond to the tables of standards
published in NEMA’s MG 1–2011 and to
efficiency bands derived from those
tables, preserving the relationship
between NEMA’s standards for open
and enclosed motors.
DOE did not receive additional
comments on enclosure type as an
equipment class setting criterion in
response to the NOPR.
3. Efficiency Levels Analyzed
After selecting its representative units
for each electric motor equipment class
group, DOE examined the impacts on
the cost of improving the efficiency of
each of the representative units to
evaluate the impact and assess the
viability of potential energy
conservation standards. As described in
the technology assessment and
screening analysis, there are numerous
design options available for improving
efficiency and each incremental
improvement increases the electric
motor efficiency along a continuum.
The engineering analysis develops cost
estimates for several efficiency levels 50
along that continuum.
ELs are often based on: (1) Efficiencies
available in the market; (2) voluntary
specifications or mandatory standards
that cause manufacturers to develop
equipment at particular efficiency
levels; and (3) the max-tech level.
Currently, there are two energy
conservation standard levels that apply
to various types of electric motors. In
ECG 1, some motors currently must
meet efficiency standards that
correspond to NEMA MG 1–2011 Table
12–11 (i.e., EPACT 1992 levels 51),
others must meet efficiency standards
that correspond to NEMA MG 1–2011
Table 12–12 (i.e., premium efficiency
levels), and some are not currently
required to meet any energy
conservation standard levels. DOE
cannot establish energy conservation
standards that are less efficient than
current standards (i.e., the ‘‘antibacksliding’’ provision at 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(1) as applied via 42 U.S.C.
6316(a)). ECG 1 includes both currently
regulated and unregulated electric
motors. For the baseline, DOE selected
the lowest efficiency level available for
unregulated motors for all motors in this
group rather than applying the current
standard requirements to an ECG that
includes unregulated motors. However,
in estimating the base case efficiency
distribution, DOE accounted for the fact
30969
that the regulated motors are already at
least at the current standard
requirements. For ECG 1, DOE
established an EL that corresponded to
each of these levels, with EL 0 as the
baseline (i.e., the lowest efficiency level
available for unregulated motors), EL 1
as equivalent to EPACT 1992 levels, and
EL 2 as equivalent to premium
efficiency levels for ECG 1 motors.
Additionally, DOE analyzed two ELs
above EL 2. One of these levels was the
max-tech level, denoted as EL 4 and one
was an incremental level that
approximated a best-in-market
efficiency level (EL 3). For all
equipment classes within ECG 1, EL 3
was a one ‘‘band’’ increase in NEMA
nominal efficiency relative to premium
efficiency and EL 4 was a two ‘‘band’’
increase.52 For ECG 3 and 4, DOE used
the same ELs with one exception for
ECG 3. Because fire pump electric
motors are required to meet EPACT
1992 efficiency levels and those are the
only motors in that equipment class
group, EPACT 1992 levels were used as
the baseline efficiency level, which
means that fire pump electric motors
have one fewer EL than ECG 1 for
purposes of DOE’s analysis. Following
the preliminary analysis, DOE adjusted
one max-tech Design B representative
unit level (5 hp) after receiving
additional data in order to base that
level on a physical unit in place of
modeling. Table IV.11 and Table IV.12
show the ELs for ECGs 1 and 3.
TABLE IV.11—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR EQUIPMENT CLASS GROUP 1**
EL 0
(baseline)
(percent)
Representative unit
5 hp (ECG 1) .......................................................................
30 hp (ECG 1) .....................................................................
75 hp (ECG 1) .....................................................................
EL 1
(EPACT 1992)
(percent)
82.5
89.5
93.0
EL 2
(premium
efficiency)
(percent)
87.5
92.4
94.1
89.5
93.6
95.4
EL 3
(best-inmarket*)
(percent)
90.2
94.1
95.8
EL 4
(max-tech)
(percent)
91.0
94.5
96.2
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
* Best-in-market represents the best or near best efficiency level at which current manufacturers are producing electric motors. Although these
efficiencies represent the best-in-market values found for the representative units, but when efficiency was scaled to the remaining equipment
classes, the scaled efficiency was sometimes above and sometimes below the best-in-market value for a particular rating.
** ECG 1 includes both currently regulated and unregulated electric motors. For the baseline, DOE selected the lowest efficiency level available
for unregulated motors for all motors in this group rather than applying the current standard requirements to an ECG that includes unregulated
motors. However, in estimating the base case efficiency distribution, DOE accounted for the fact that the regulated motors are already at least at
the current standard requirements.
50 For the purposes of the final rule, the term
‘‘efficiency level’’ (EL) is equivalent to that of
Candidate Standard Level (CSL) in the preliminary
analysis.
51 EPACT 1992 only established efficiency
standards for motors up to and including 200 hp.
Eventually, NEMA MG 1–2011 added a table, 20–
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
A, which functioned as an extension of Table 12–
11. So, although EPACT 1992 is a slight misnomer,
DOE is using it to refer to those ELs that were based
on Table 12–11.
52 Because motor efficiency varies from unit to
unit, even within a specific model, NEMA has
established a list of standardized efficiency values
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
that manufacturers use when labeling their motors.
Each incremental step, or ‘‘band,’’ constitutes a 10
percent change in motor losses. NEMA MG 1–2011
Table 12–10 contains the list of NEMA nominal
efficiencies.
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30970
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE IV.12—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR EQUIPMENT CLASS GROUP 3
5 hp ..................................................................................................................
30 hp ................................................................................................................
75 hp ................................................................................................................
For ECG 2, DOE took a similar
approach in developing its ELs as it did
for ECG 1, but with two primary
differences. First, when DOE examined
catalog data, it found that no NEMA
Design C motors had efficiencies below
EPACT 1992 levels, which is the current
standard for all covered NEMA Design
C motors. For DOE’s representative
units, it also found no catalog listings
above the required EPACT 1992 levels.
Additionally, when DOE’s SME
modeled NEMA Design C motors, the
model would only generate designs at
premium efficiency levels and one
incremental level above that while
EL 1
(premium
efficiency)
(percent)
EL 0
(EPACT 1992)
(percent)
Representative unit
87.5
92.4
94.1
89.5
93.6
95.4
EL 2
(best-inmarket *)
(percent)
90.2
94.1
95.8
EL 3
(max-tech)
(percent)
91.0
94.5
96.2
and 12–12. For the 5 hp representative
unit, DOE also removed one preliminary
analysis CSL, which was intended to
represent the ‘‘best in market’’ level in
the preliminary analysis. After further
market research, DOE found that few
Design C motors are offered above the
baseline, and those that were mainly
met the premium efficiency level,
without going higher in efficiency. It
determined that for the final rule
analysis, the previously designated
‘‘max in market’’ level was not
applicable. The ELs analyzed for ECG2
are shown in Table IV.13.
maintaining proper performance
standards. Therefore, ECG 2 only
contains three ELs: EPACT 1992 (EL 0),
premium efficiency (EL 1), and a maxtech level (EL 2).
These ELs differed slightly from the
CSLs presented in the preliminary
analysis for ECG2. In the preliminary
analysis, a CSL for the 50 hp unit
existed between two industry standard
levels in order to provide greater
resolution in selection of a standard
(NEMA MG 1 Table 12–11 and Table
12–12). For the final rule analysis, this
level was removed so that the ELs
analyzed would align with Tables 12–11
TABLE IV.13—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR EQUIPMENT CLASS GROUP 2
EL 0
(EPACT 1992)
(percent)
Representative unit
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
5 hp ..............................................................................................................................................
50 hp ............................................................................................................................................
DOE has found many instances of
electric motors being sold and marketed
one or two NEMA bands of efficiency
above premium efficiency, which
suggests that manufacturers have
extended technological performance
where they perceived market demand
for higher efficiencies. In other words,
DOE has seen no evidence suggesting
that the absence of equipment on the
market at any given EL implies that
such equipment could not be
developed, were there sufficient
demand. DOE contends that all of the
ELs analyzed in its engineering analysis
are viable because equipment is
currently commercially available at
such levels 53 and, to the extent
possible, has been included in DOE’s
analysis.
In response to the NOPR, NEMA and
Baldor both raised concern that it is not
clear what horsepower rated motors in
6 and 8 poles are covered because
53 DOE understands that this is not true for every
equipment classes covered by this rulemaking, but
has not seen evidence to suggest that the absence
of equipment in any particular classes is not due
to lack of market demand instead of technological
limitations.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
NEMA Design A and B are not defined
under MG 1 for large motors. This is
because motors of higher horsepower
rating in 6 and 8 poles are covered by
the standards for large motors in Part 20
of NEMA MG 1. However, DOE defined
NEMA Design A and Design B types in
10 CFR 431.12 with respect to the
standards in Part 12 of NEMA MG 1 and
not with respect to Part 20. NEMA noted
that DOE took Table 5 values for large
motors from an incorrect table (i.e.,
Table 12–12) that was submitted to DOE
previously in the Petition. NEMA
commented that in order to align Table
12–12 with the scope of Part 12, it has
removed the ratings for large motors
from Table 12–12 and has included
them in premium efficiency standards
in Part 20 for large motors. NEMA and
Baldor suggested that DOE either
remove standards for higher horsepower
rating 6 and 8 poles motors from Table
5 of the proposed rule to properly
represent only ratings for which Design
A and B standards apply. NEMA also
suggested that DOE could modify 10
CFR 431.12 to define large motors
covered by the standards and 10 CFR
431.25 to include efficiency standards
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
87.5
93.0
EL 1
(premium
efficiency)
(percent)
89.5
94.5
EL 2
(max-tech)
(percent)
91.0
95.0
for these new covered large motors.
(NEMA, No. 93 at p. 22; NEMA, Pub.
Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 48–50, Baldor,
No. 100 at p. 4)
DOE agrees with NEMA and Baldor
that large motors given in NEMA MG 1
Part 20 (i.e. 6-pole motors with
horsepower ratings greater than 400 hp
and 8-pole motors with horsepower
ratings greater than 300 hp) are not
defined for NEMA Design A and B.
Therefore, DOE has modified the
efficiency tables as suggested. See
Section IV.A.2.c for further detail. DOE
notes that the standards adopted today,
as well as those proposed in the NOPR,
as well as those suggested by the Motor
Coalition, still contain efficiency values
for 300 and 350 hp 6 pole motors which
are the same as their corresponding 250
hp values and which are not found on
MG 1–2011’s Table 12–12.
In response to the NOPR, CEC sought
clarification on the efficiency levels
selected by DOE for Design C motors.
CEC commented that it expected DOE to
choose a baseline above the current
market minimum. Second, CEC asked
for clarification regarding the selected
ECG 2 representative unit picked to
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
represent the efficiency levels and noted
that the baseline level was below the
EPACT 1992 level for the 50 horsepower
motor. Third, CEC asked clarification
regarding the EL numbering for ECG 2
in Table IV.11 of the NOPR. (CEC, No.
96 at p. 3)
Both ECG 1 and ECG 2 contain
currently regulated and unregulated
electric motors. For the baseline, DOE
selected the lowest efficiency level
available for unregulated motors for all
motors in this group rather than
applying the current standard
requirements to an ECG that includes
unregulated motors. However, in
estimating the base case efficiency
distribution, DOE accounted for the fact
that the regulated motors are already at
least at the current standard
requirements. See Chapter 10 of the TSD
for details.
With respect to the EL numbering in
Table IV.10 of the NOPR, DOE notes
that the table’s values should have
begun at EL 0 (instead of EL 1) and
reached EL 2 (instead of EL 3). DOE
always labels its baseline ‘‘EL 0’’ in this
rulemaking, and the error was limited to
mislabeling of the table in question
rather than a more fundamental mistake
in the analysis. In other words, there are
no representative units for which the
analysis should be at EL 1, as had been
indicated in the NOPR’s Table V.10.
This mislabeling was confined to the
table in question and has been fixed for
the final rule.
4. Testing and Teardowns
Whenever possible, DOE attempted to
base its engineering analysis on actual
electric motors being produced and sold
in the market today. First, DOE
identified electric motors in
manufacturer catalogs that represented a
range of efficiencies corresponding to
the ELs discussed in the previous
sections. Next, DOE had the electric
motors shipped to a certified testing
laboratory where each was tested in
accordance with IEEE Standard 112
(Test Method B) to verify its nameplaterated efficiency. After testing, DOE
derived production and material costs
by having a professional motor
laboratory 54 disassemble and inventory
the purchased electric motors. For ECG
1, DOE obtained tear-down results for
all of the 5-horsepower ELs and all of
the 30- and 75-horsepower ELs except
54 The Center for Electromechanics at the
University of Texas at Austin, a 140,000 sq. ft. lab
with 40 years of operating experience, performed
the teardowns, which were overseen by Dr. Angelo
Gattozzi, an electric motor expert with previous
industry experience. DOE also used Advanced
Energy Corporation of North Carolina to perform
some of the teardowns.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
the max-tech levels. For ECG 2, DOE
obtained tear-down results only for the
baseline EL, which corresponds to
EPACT 1992 efficiency levels.
These tear-downs provided DOE with
the necessary data to construct a bill of
materials (BOM), which, along with a
standardized cost model and markup
structure, DOE could use to estimate a
manufacturer selling price (MSP). DOE
paired the MSP derived from the teardown with the corresponding nameplate
nominal efficiency to report the relative
costs of achieving improvements in
energy efficiency. DOE’s estimates of
material prices came from a
combination of current, publicly
available data, manufacturer feedback,
and conversations with its SME. DOE
supplemented the findings from its tests
and tear-downs through: (1) a review of
data collected from manufacturers about
prices, efficiencies, and other features of
various models of electric motors, and
(2) interviews with manufacturers about
the techniques and associated costs
used to improve efficiency.
As discussed earlier, DOE’s
engineering analysis documents the
design changes and associated costs
when improving electric motor
efficiency from the baseline level up to
a max-tech level. This includes
considering improved electrical steel for
the stator and rotor, interchanging
aluminum and copper rotor bar
material, increasing stack length, and
any other applicable design options
remaining after the screening analysis.
As each of these design options are
added, the manufacturer’s cost increases
and the electric motor’s efficiency
improves.
At the preliminary analysis stage,
DOE received multiple comments
regarding its test and tear-down
analysis. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 27, 74–
75) In its NOPR response, DOE stated
that it accurately captured such changes
because electric motor was torn down,
components such as electrical steel and
copper wiring were weighed. 78 FR
73629.
DOE noted in the NOPR and re-assert
today that an increased sample size
would improve the value of efficiency
used in its analysis, but only if DOE
were using an average full-load
efficiency value, as it did for the small
electric motors rulemaking engineering
analysis, which did not have the benefit
of NEMA-developed nominal efficiency
values. See 78 FR 73629. For the
analysis in the NOPR and the final rule,
DOE did not use the tested efficiency
value and believes that to do so would
be erroneous precisely because it only
tested and tore down one unit for a
given representative unit and EL. Rather
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
30971
than using an average efficiency of a
sample of multiple units that is likely to
change with each additional motor
tested, DOE elected to use the
nameplate NEMA nominal efficiency
given. DOE understands that this value,
short of testing data, is the most
accurate value to use to describe a
statistically valid population of motors
of a given design; that is, in part, why
manufacturers use NEMA nominal
efficiencies on their motors’ nameplates.
Also, DOE believes that the bill of
materials generated is more is likely to
be representative of the motor’s nominal
efficiency value rather efficiency than
as-tested. DOE believes that the variance
from unit-to-unit, in terms of materials,
is likely to be insignificant because
manufacturers have an incentive to
produce equipment with consistent
performance (i.e., characteristics other
than efficiency). Changes in the tested
efficiency are likely to occur because of
variations in production that motor
manufacturers have less control over
(e.g., the quality of the electrical steel).
DOE does not believe that the amount
of material (in particular, electrical
steel, copper wiring, and die-cast
material) from unit-to-unit for a given
design is likely to change significantly,
if at all, because manufacturers have
much greater control of those
production variables. Therefore,
additional tests and tear-downs are
unlikely to change the MSP estimated
for a given motor design and DOE
believes that its sample size of one is
appropriate.
In the preliminary engineering
analysis, DOE replaced a tear-down
result with a software model for CSL 2
of its 30-horsepower representative unit
because it believed that it had
inadvertently tested and torn down a
motor with an efficiency equivalent to
CSL 3. DOE noted that it removed the
tear-down because there was conflicting
efficiency information on the Web site,
in the catalog, and on the physical
nameplate. Subsequently, NEMA and
Baldor commented that the 30horsepower, CSL 2 motor should not
have been replaced with a softwaremodeled motor, stating that the test
result was statistically viable. (NEMA,
No. 54 at pp. 76–79; Baldor, Pub. Mtg.
Tr., No. 60 at pp. 150–155) NEMA and
Baldor also asserted that DOE had
placed emphasis on the use of
purchased motors in its analysis only
when the tested value of efficiency was
less than or not significantly greater
than the marked value of NEMA
efficiency. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 80;
Baldor, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 60 at pp. 156,
157)
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30972
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
DOE understands that the test result
may have been viable for either of the
efficiency ratings that the manufacturer
had assigned. Given the uncertainty,
however, DOE elected to replace the
motor. For its updated NOPR
engineering analysis, DOE has tested
and torn down a new 30-horsepower
motor to describe CSL 2. As stated
previously, DOE always prefers to base
its analysis using motors purchased in
the market when possible.
After DOE’s tear-down lab determined
that the torn-down motors were
machine-wound, a precise measurement
of the slot fill was not taken. Although
the actual measurement of slot fill has
no bearing on the estimates of the MSP,
because the actual copper weights were
measured and not calculated, DOE did
ask its lab to provide actual
measurements of slot fill on any
subsequent tear-downs and has
included the data in chapter 5 of the
TSD.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
5. Software Modeling
DOE worked with technical experts to
develop certain ELs, in particular, the
max-tech efficiency levels for each
representative unit analyzed. To this
end, DOE retained an electric motors
(SME 55 with significant experience in
terms of both design and related
software, who prepared a set of electric
motor designs with increasing
efficiency. The software program used
for this analysis is a proprietary
software program called VICA.56 The
SME also checked his designs against
tear-down data and calibrated the
software using the relevant test results.
As new designs were created, DOE’s
SME ensured that the critical
performance characteristics that define a
NEMA design letter (e.g., locked-rotor
torque, breakdown torque, pull-up
torque, and locked-rotor currents) were
maintained. For a given representative
unit, DOE ensured that the modeled
electric motors met the same set of
torque and locked-rotor current
requirements as the purchased electric
motors. This was done to ensure that the
utility of the baseline unit was
maintained as efficiency improved, and
that the unit in question did not meet
the criteria of a different equipment
class. Additionally, DOE limited its
modeled stack length increases based on
teardown data and maximum ‘‘C’’
dimensions found in manufacturer’s
catalogs, also to ensure the utility of the
55 Dr. Howard Jordan, Ph.D., an electric motor
design expert with over 40 years of industry
experience, served as DOE’s subject matter expert.
56 VICA stands for ‘‘Veinott Interactive Computer
Aid’’.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
baseline units was maintained 57 DOE
has provided comparisons of software
estimates and tested efficiencies in
Appendix 5C of the TSD.
During the preliminary analysis, DOE
approached motor laboratories in an
attempt to build physical prototypes of
its software models. DOE was unable to
identify a laboratory that could
prototype its software-modeled motors
in a manner that would exactly replicate
the designs produced (i.e., they could
not die-cast copper). Consequently, DOE
did not build a prototype of its software
models. However, DOE was able to
procure a 5-horsepower NEMA Design B
die-cast copper rotor motor with an
efficiency two NEMA bands above the
premium efficiency level. Therefore,
DOE elected to use this design to
represent the max-tech EL for the 5horsepower representative unit in
equipment class group 1, rather than the
software-modeled design used in the
preliminary analysis. DOE’s SME used
information gained from testing and
tearing down this motor to help
corroborate the software modeling.
Since that time, DOE has conducted
further calibration of its software
program using data obtained from motor
teardowns, has provided comparisons of
software estimates, and tested
efficiencies for both aluminum and
copper rotor motors in Appendix 5C of
the TSD. DOE eliminated designs from
its preliminary analysis because of
concerns regarding the feasibility of
certain efficiency levels. Regarding
performance parameters beyond
efficiency,58 DOE understands that
these characteristics must be maintained
when improving an electric motor’s
efficiency. However, the performance
parameters DOE believed to present the
largest risk of rendering a motor
noncompliant with NEMA MG 1–2011
standards were those related to NEMA
design letter, and these were adhered to
in DOE’s modeling efforts. Based on
comparisons of motor teardowns and
software estimates, DOE has no reason
at this time to believe that its modeled
designs would violate the additional
performance parameters.
DOE’s SME, who has been designing
electric motors for several decades, is
well qualified to understand the design
tradeoffs that must be considered.
Although the SME’s primary task was to
design a more-efficient motor using
various technologies, it was of critical
57 The ‘‘C’’ dimension of an electric motor is the
length of the electric motor from the end of the shaft
to the end of the opposite side’s fan cover guard.
Essentially, the ‘‘C’’ dimension is the overall length
of an electric motor including its shaft extension.
58 For example, locked-rotor current or lockedrotor torque.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
importance that the designs be feasible.
Even though DOE was unable to
prototype its modeled designs, DOE has
conducted comparisons of software
estimates and tested efficiencies for both
aluminum and copper rotor motors and
has concluded that these actions
corroborate the modeled designs. Based
on this work and its total analysis,
which included input from its SME,
DOE has concluded that it has
developed a sufficiently robust set of
technically feasible efficiency levels for
its engineering analysis.
In the final rule TSD, DOE also shows
that any increase in stack length would
fit into the existing frame designation
for that particular motor rating. (DOE
noted that the frame designation does
not limit frame length, but rather frame
diameter.) DOE understands that
manufacturers have fixed-length frames
that they use when manufacturing
motors. In addition to generating perunit costs associated with redesigning
motors with new frames at all ELs above
the premium efficiency levels (see
section IV.C.6), DOE sought to maintain
motor length by limiting how much it
would modify stack dimensions to
improve efficiency. First, the software
models created by DOE used lamination
diameters observed during teardowns,
which ensured that the softwaremodeled designs would fit into existing
frame designations. However, for some
designs, DOE increased the number of
laminations (i.e., length of the stack of
laminations, or stack length) beyond the
stack lengths observed during the motor
teardowns in order to achieve the
desired efficiency gains.
DOE limited the amount by which it
would increase the stack length of its
software-modeled electric motors in
order to preserve the motor’s utility. The
maximum stack lengths used in the
software-modeled ELs were determined
by first analyzing the stack lengths and
‘‘C’’ dimensions of torn-down electric
motors. Then, DOE analyzed the ‘‘C’’
dimensions of various electric motors in
the marketplace conforming to the same
design constraints as the representative
units (same horsepower rating, NEMA
frame size, enclosure type, and pole
configuration). For each representative
unit, DOE found the largest ‘‘C’’
dimension currently available on the
marketplace and estimated a maximum
stack length based on the stack length to
‘‘C’’ dimension ratios of motors it tore
down. The resulting equipment served
as the basis for the maximum stack
length value that DOE used in its
software-modeled designs, although
DOE notes that it did not always model
a motor with that maximum stack
length. In most instances, the SME was
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
able to achieve the desired improvement
in efficiency with a stack length shorter
than DOE’s estimated maximum. Table
IV.14 presents the estimated maximum
stack length,59 the maximum stack
length found during tear-downs, and the
maximum stack length modeled for a
given representative unit. DOE notes
30973
that the 5-horsepower Design B
representative unit is not shown
because modeling was not performed, as
described earlier.
TABLE IV.14—MAXIMUM STACK LENGTH DATA
Representative unit
Estimated maximum stack length
Maximum stack length of a torn down
motor
30 Horsepower Design B ........................
75 Horsepower Design B ........................
5 Horsepower Design C ..........................
50 Horsepower Design C ........................
8.87 in .....................................................
13.06 in ...................................................
5.80 in .....................................................
9.55 in .....................................................
8.02 in. (EL 2) .........................................
11.33 in. (EL 3) .......................................
4.75 in. (EL 0) .........................................
8.67 in. (EL 0) .........................................
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
During the NOPR public meeting,
several parties commented with respect
to modeling. Noting that all the
components of loss are first calculated
and summed together to obtain
efficiency, Nidec sought clarification as
to how friction and windage component
losses (mechanical loss), I2R losses and
stray losses were obtained. Nidec also
sought clarification on how the area of
conductors was calculated to obtain slot
fill. (Nidec, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp.
103–108) Regal Beloit commented that
the VICA program used by DOE’s SME
to model efficiency may be over ten
years old. (Regal Beloit, Pub. Mtg. Tr.,
No. 87 at p. 110)
DOE responded that the friction and
windage losses were input items into
the VICA program and were obtained as
average values from data on various
frame sizes. I2R losses and stray losses
were also input items into VICA. Stray
losses were obtained as a percentage of
the full-load value. DOE performed
correlations of the estimated value and
the values obtained from the testing of
motors. DOE found that the estimated
value was very close to the average of
tested values. DOE also noted that the
square method was used to calculate the
area of the conductor. The number of
conductors in the slot was multiplied by
the square of the conductor diameter.
6. Cost Model
When developing manufacturer
selling prices (MSPs) for the motor
designs obtained from DOE’s tear-downs
and software models, DOE used
modeling to generate a more accurate
approximation of the costs necessary to
improve electric motor efficiency. DOE
derived the manufacturer’s selling price
for each design in the engineering
analysis by considering the full range of
production and non-production costs.
The full production cost is a
combination of direct labor, direct
materials, and overhead. The overhead
contributing to full production cost
includes indirect labor, indirect
material, maintenance, depreciation,
taxes, and insurance related to company
assets. Non-production cost includes the
cost of selling, general and
administrative items (market research,
advertising, sales representatives,
logistics), research and development
(R&D), interest payments, warranty and
risk provisions, shipping, and profit
factor. Because profit factor is included
in the non-production cost, the sum of
production and non-production costs is
an estimate of the MSP. DOE utilized
various markups to arrive at the total
cost for each component of the electric
motor, which are detailed in chapter 5
of the final rule TSD. The following
subsections discuss specific features of
the DOE’s cost model.
a. Copper Pricing
DOE conducted the engineering
analysis using material prices based on
manufacturer feedback, industry
experts, and publicly available data. In
the preliminary analysis, most material
prices were based on 2011 prices, with
the exception of cast copper and copper
wire pricing, which were based on a
five-year (2007–2011) average price.
Noting the comments of interested
parties during the preliminary analysis
phase, DOE slightly modified its
approach in the NOPR. First, DOE
added updated data for 2012 pricing.
Second, rather than a five-year average,
DOE changed to a three-year average
price for copper materials. DOE made
this modification based on feedback
received during manufacturer
interviews. By reducing to a three-year
average, DOE eliminated data from 2008
and 2009, which manufacturers
believed were unrepresentative data
points due to the recession. Data from
those two years had the effect of
depressing the five-year average
calculated.
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
7.00 in.
12.00 in.
5.32 in.
9.55 in.
In response to the NOPR, NEMA
raised concern about the potential for
copper price volatility. (NEMA, No. 93
at p. 12)
DOE acknowledges that price
volatility can affect the economic results
of a standards rulemaking, either in the
positive or negative direction depending
on the relative movement of raw
materials and energy. To diminish the
effect of volatility on the engineering
analysis results, DOE used a 3-year
average for copper, from 2010–2012.
DOE’s understanding is that
manufacturers may choose to use
financial instruments in cases where
raw material volatility is exceptionally
high in order to guarantee margins.
Although DOE has not published a
formal materials price sensitivity in this
rulemaking, it observes that for the
highest ELs examined across all
representative units, copper cost
amount to roughly 3 percent of the
installed price. At these levels, copper
would have to more than quadruple in
price in order to increase installed price
by 10 percent. At the levels being
adopted in today’s rule, however, DOE’s
engineering analysis does not suggest
significantly increased demand for
copper and, therefore, does not suggest
significantly increased exposure to
volatility in copper price. DOE
discusses material pricing in greater
detail in Appendix 5A of the final rule
TSD.
b. Labor Rate and Non-Production
Markup
In the preliminary analysis, DOE
looked at the percentage of electric
motors imported into the U.S. and the
percentage of electric motors built
domestically and calculated the ratio of
foreign and domestic labor rates on
these percentages. During the
preliminary analysis public meeting,
Nidec commented that the labor rate
DOE used in its analysis seems high if
59 Based on manufacturer product offerings. See
Chapter 5 of the TSD for details.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Maximum
stack length
modeled
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30974
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
that number is weighted towards
offshore labor. Nidec agreed with DOE’s
smaller markup on the lowerhorsepower motors, but commented that
the overall markups seem to be high.
(Nidec, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 60 at p. 184)
WEG commented that DOE was
adequately addressing the cost structure
variations among the different motor
manufacturers. Additionally, WEG
stated that basing a labor rate on both
foreign and domestic labor rates
increases accuracy of the analysis, but
that it could encourage production
moving outside the United States.
(WEG, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 60 at pp. 184–
186)
In the NOPR, and again in today’s
final rule, DOE elected to keep the same
labor rates and markups as were used in
the preliminary analysis. DOE is basing
this decision on additional feedback
received during interviews with
manufacturers (which suggested that
DOE’s labor rates and markups are
appropriate) and the absence of any
alternative labor rate or markups to
apply. DOE does not expect that use of
the most accurate labor rates possible in
its analyses will contribute to
outsourcing of jobs in the electric
motors industry.
Finally, DOE is aware of potential cost
increases caused by increased slot fill,60
including the transition to hand-wound
stators in motors requiring higher slot
fills. In the preliminary analysis, DOE
assigned a higher labor hour to any teardown motor which it determined to be
hand-wound. DOE found that none of
the tear-down motors were handwound, and, therefore, no hand-winding
labor-hour amounts were assigned. This
has been clarified in the final rule
analysis. Additionally, DOE has
assumed that all of its max-tech
software models require hand-winding,
which is reflected in its increased labor
time assumptions for those motors. For
additional details, please see chapter 5
of the final rule TSD.
DOE understands that lower-volume
equipment will often realize higher perunit costs, and has concluded that this
reality is common to most or all
manufacturing processes in general.
Because DOE’s analysis focuses on the
differential impacts on cost due to
energy conservation standards, and
because DOE has no evidence to suggest
a significant market shift to lower
production volume equipment in a poststandards scenario, DOE expects that
the relative mix of high-volume and
low-volume production would be
60 A measure of how efficiently conductor is
packed into the stator slots, which affects
efficiency.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
preserved. Indeed, because DOE is
expanding the scope of coverage and
bringing many previously excluded
motor types to premium efficiency
levels, DOE sees the possibility that
standardization may increase and that
average production volume may, in fact,
rise.61
c. Catalog Prices
At the preliminary analysis stage,
NEMA requested that DOE publish the
purchase price for its torn-down motors,
so that they could be compared to the
MSPs DOE derived from its motor teardowns. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 27; Baldor,
Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 60 at pp. 181, 182) As
stated in the NOPR 62 and reaffirmed
today, DOE elects not to include the
purchase price for its torn-down motors.
DOE believes that such information is
not relevant and could lead to erroneous
conclusions. Some of the purchased
motors were more expensive to
purchase based on certain features that
do not affect efficiency, which could
skew the price curves incorrectly and
indicate incorrect trends. For these
reasons, in the engineering analysis,
DOE develops its own cost model so
that a consistent cost structure can be
applied to similar equipment. The
details of this model are available in
Appendix 5A of the final rule TSD.
Because DOE purchased electric motors
that were built by different
manufacturers and sold by different
distributors, who all have different costs
structures, DOE does not believe that
such a comparison as NEMA suggests
would provide a meaningful evaluation.
d. Product Development Cost
DOE’s preliminary analysis cost
model included an incremental markup
used to account for higher production
costs associated with manufacturing
copper die-cast rotors. Although DOE
used this incremental markup in the
preliminary analysis, after conducting
manufacturer interviews, it determined
that additional cost adders were
warranted for the examined ELs that
exceeded the premium efficiency level.
For the NOPR and final rule, DOE
developed a per-unit adder 63 for the
manufacturer production costs (MPCs)
intended to capture one-time increased
equipment development and capital
conversion costs that would likely result
61 Labor costs may rise starkly at max-tech levels,
where hand-winding is employed in order to
maximize slot fill. DOE’s engineering analysis
reflects this fact.
62 See 78 FR 73633.
63 The ‘‘per-unit adder’’ discussed in this section
refers to a fixed adder for each motor that varies
based on horsepower and NEMA design letter. Each
representative unit has their own unique ‘‘per-unit
adder’’ that is fixed for the analysis.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
if an energy conservation standard with
an efficiency level above premium
efficiency levels were established.
DOE’s per-unit adder reflects the
additional cost passed along to the
consumer by manufacturers attempting
to recover the costs incurred from
having to redevelop their equipment
lines as a result of higher energy
conservation standards. The conversion
costs incurred by manufacturers include
capital investment (e.g., new tooling and
machinery), equipment development
(e.g., reengineering each motor design
offered), plus testing and compliance
certification costs.
The conversion cost adder was only
applied to ELs above premium
efficiency based on manufacturer
feedback. Most manufacturers now offer
premium efficiency motors for a
significant portion of their equipment
lines as a result of EISA 2007, which
required manufacturers to meet this
level. Many manufacturers also offer
certain ratings with efficiency levels
higher than premium efficiency.
However, DOE is not aware of any
manufacturer with a complete line of
motors above premium efficiency.
Consequently, DOE believes that energy
conservation standards above premium
efficiency would result in
manufacturers incurring significant
conversion costs to bring offerings of
electric motors up to the higher
standard.
DOE developed the various
conversion costs from data collected
during manufacturer interviews that
were conducted for the Manufacturer
Impact Analysis (MIA). For more
information on the MIA, see chapter 12
of the final rule TSD. DOE used the
manufacturer-supplied data to estimate
industry-wide capital conversion costs
and equipment conversion costs for
each EL above premium efficiency. DOE
then assumed that manufacturers would
mark up their motors to recover the total
conversion costs over a seven-year
period. By dividing industry-wide
conversion costs by seven years of
expected industry-wide revenue, DOE
obtained a percentage estimate of how
much each motor would be marked up
by manufacturers. The conversion costs
as a percentage of seven-year revenue
that DOE derived for each NEMA band
above premium efficiency are shown
below. Details on these calculations are
shown in Chapter 5 of the final rule
TSD.
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30975
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
The percentage markup was then
TABLE IV.15—PRODUCT CONVERSION
COSTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF 7- applied to the full production cost
(direct material + direct labor +
YEAR REVENUE
NEMA Bands above
premium efficiency
Conversion costs
as a percentage
of 7-year revenue
1 ......................................
2 ......................................
4.1%
6.5%
overhead) at the premium efficiency
levels to derive the per-unit adder for
levels above premium efficiency (see
Table IV.16). DOE received no
comments in response to the NOPR and
maintained its approach for the final
rule.
TABLE IV.16—PRODUCT CONVERSION COSTS FOR EFFICIENCY LEVELS ABOVE PREMIUM EFFICIENCY
Per-unit adder
for 1 band above
premium efficiency (2013$)
Representative unit
5 hp, Design B .................................................................................................................................................
30 hp, Design B ...............................................................................................................................................
75 hp, Design B ...............................................................................................................................................
5 hp, Design C .................................................................................................................................................
50 hp, Design C ...............................................................................................................................................
7. Engineering Analysis Results
The results of the engineering analysis
are reported as cost-versus-efficiency
data in the form of MSP (in dollars)
versus nominal full-load efficiency (in
percentage). These data form the basis
for subsequent analyses in today’s
notice. Table IV.17 through Table IV.21
Per-unit adder
for 2 bands
above premium
efficiency
(2013$)
$11.06
32.89
66.18
10.68
60.59
$17.36
51.61
103.86
16.75
95.08
show the results of DOE’s updated
engineering analysis.
Results for Equipment Class Group 1
(NEMA Design A and B Motors)
TABLE IV.17—MANUFACTURER SELLING PRICE AND EFFICIENCY FOR 5-HORSEPOWER REPRESENTATIVE UNIT
Efficiency
(%)
Efficiency level
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
0
1
2
3
4
(Baseline) ................................................................................................................................................
(EPACT 1992) .........................................................................................................................................
(Premium Efficiency) ...............................................................................................................................
(Best-in-Market) ......................................................................................................................................
(Max-Tech) ..............................................................................................................................................
Manufacturer
selling price
(2013$)
82.5
87.5
89.5
90.2
91.0
333
344
371
406
677
TABLE IV.18—MANUFACTURER SELLING PRICE AND EFFICIENCY FOR 30-HORSEPOWER REPRESENTATIVE UNIT
Efficiency
(%)
Efficiency level
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
0
1
2
3
4
(Baseline) ................................................................................................................................................
(EPACT 1992) .........................................................................................................................................
(Premium Efficiency) ...............................................................................................................................
(Best-in-Market) ......................................................................................................................................
(Max-Tech) ..............................................................................................................................................
Manufacturer
selling price
(2013$)
89.5
92.4
93.6
94.1
94.5
856
1,096
1,168
1,308
2,077
TABLE IV.19—MANUFACTURER SELLING PRICE AND EFFICIENCY FOR 75-HORSEPOWER REPRESENTATIVE UNIT
Efficiency
(%)
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Efficiency level
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
0
1
2
3
4
(Baseline) ................................................................................................................................................
(EPACT 1992) .........................................................................................................................................
(Premium Efficiency) ...............................................................................................................................
(Best-in-Market) ......................................................................................................................................
(Max-Tech) ..............................................................................................................................................
93.0
94.1
95.4
95.8
96.2
Results for Equipment Class Group 2
(NEMA Design C Motors)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
Manufacturer
selling price
(2013$)
1,910
2,068
2,351
2,804
3,656
30976
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE IV.20—MANUFACTURER SELLING PRICE AND EFFICIENCY FOR 5-HORSEPOWER REPRESENTATIVE UNIT
Efficiency
(%)
Efficiency level
EL 0 (Baseline/EPACT 1992) ..........................................................................................................................
EL 1 (Premium Efficiency) ...............................................................................................................................
EL 2 (Max-Tech) ..............................................................................................................................................
Manufacturer
selling price
(2013$)
87.5
89.5
91.0
334
358
627
TABLE IV.21—MANUFACTURER SELLING PRICE AND EFFICIENCY FOR 50-HORSEPOWER REPRESENTATIVE UNIT
Efficiency
(%)
Efficiency level
EL 0 (Baseline/EPACT 1992) ..........................................................................................................................
EL 1 (Premium Efficiency) ...............................................................................................................................
EL 2 (Max-Tech) ..............................................................................................................................................
Manufacturer
selling price
(2013$)
93.0
94.5
95.0
1,552
2,152
2,612
Results for Equipment Class Group 3
(Fire Pump Electric Motors)
TABLE IV.22—MANUFACTURER SELLING PRICE AND EFFICIENCY FOR 5-HORSEPOWER REPRESENTATIVE UNIT
Efficiency
(%)
Efficiency level
EL
EL
EL
EL
0
1
2
3
(Baseline/EPACT 1992) ..........................................................................................................................
(Premium Efficiency) ...............................................................................................................................
(Best-in-Market) ......................................................................................................................................
(Max-Tech) ..............................................................................................................................................
Manufacturer
selling price
(2013$)
87.5
89.5
90.2
91.0
344
371
406
677
TABLE IV.23—MANUFACTURER SELLING PRICE AND EFFICIENCY FOR 30-HORSEPOWER REPRESENTATIVE UNIT
Efficiency
(%)
Efficiency level
EL
EL
EL
EL
0
1
2
3
(Baseline/EPACT 1992) ..........................................................................................................................
(Premium Efficiency) ...............................................................................................................................
(Best-in-Market) ......................................................................................................................................
(Max-Tech) ..............................................................................................................................................
Manufacturer
selling price
(2013$)
92.4
93.6
94.1
94.5
1,096
1,168
1,308
2,077
TABLE IV.24—MANUFACTURER SELLING PRICE AND EFFICIENCY FOR 75-HORSEPOWER REPRESENTATIVE UNIT
Efficiency
(%)
Efficiency level
EL
EL
EL
EL
0
1
2
3
(Baseline/EPACT 1992) ..........................................................................................................................
(Premium Efficiency) ...............................................................................................................................
(Best-in-Market) ......................................................................................................................................
(Max-Tech) ..............................................................................................................................................
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
8. Scaling Methodology
Once DOE has identified costefficiency relationships for its
representative units, it must
appropriately scale the efficiencies
analyzed for its representative units to
those equipment classes not directly
analyzed. DOE recognizes that scaling
motor efficiencies is a complicated
proposition that has the potential to
result in efficiency standards that are
not evenly stringent across all
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
equipment classes. However, between
DOE’s three ECGs, there are 482
equipment classes, reflecting the various
combinations of horsepower rating, pole
configuration, and enclosure. Within
these combinations, there are a large
number of standardized frame number
series. Given the sizable number of
frame number series and equipment
classes, DOE cannot feasibly analyze all
of these variants directly, hence, the
need for scaling. Thus, scaling across
horsepower ratings, pole configurations,
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
94.1
95.4
95.8
96.2
Manufacturer
selling price
(2013$)
2,068
2,351
2,804
3,656
enclosures, and frame number series is
a necessity.
For the preliminary analysis, DOE
considered two methods to scaling, one
that develops a set of power law
equations based on the relationships
found in the EPACT 1992 and Premium
tables of efficiency in MG 1, and one
based on the incremental improvement
in motor losses. As discussed in the
preliminary analysis, DOE did not find
a large discrepancy between the results
of the two approaches and, therefore,
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
used the simpler, incremental
improvement in motor losses approach
in its final rule analysis.
As discussed in section IV.C.3, some
of the ELs analyzed by DOE were based
on existing efficiency standards (i.e.,
EPACT 1992 and premium efficiency).
Additionally, the baseline EL is based
on the lowest efficiency levels found for
each horsepower rating, pole
configuration, and enclosure type
observed in motor catalog data.
Therefore, DOE only required the use of
scaling when developing the two ELs
above premium efficiency (only one EL
above premium efficiency for ECG 2).
For the higher ELs in ECG 1, DOE’s
scaling approach relies on NEMA MG
1–2011 Table 12–10 of nominal
efficiencies and the relative
improvement in motor losses of the
representative units. As has been
discussed, each incremental
improvement in NEMA nominal
efficiency (or NEMA band) corresponds
to roughly a 10-percent reduction in
motor losses. After ELs 3 and 4 were
developed for each representative unit,
DOE applied the same reduction in
motor losses (or the same number of
NEMA band improvements) to various
segments of the market based on its
representative units. DOE assigned a
segment of the electric motors market,
based on horsepower ratings, to each
representative unit analyzed. DOE’s
assignments of these segments of the
markets were in part based on the
standardized NEMA frame number
series that NEMA MG 1–2011 assigns to
horsepower and pole combinations. In
the end, EL 3 corresponded to a one
band improvement relative to premium
efficiency level, and EL 4 corresponded
to a two-band improvement relative to
premium efficiency level.
DOE maintains that scaling is a tool
necessary to analyze the potential
effects of energy conservation standards
above premium efficiency levels. As
stated earlier, DOE is evaluating energy
conservation standards for 482
equipment classes. DOE acknowledges
that analyzing every one of these classes
individually is not feasible, which
requires DOE to choose representative
units on which to base its analysis.
Consequently, DOE has concluded that
scaling is necessary and suitable for
establishing appropriate efficiency
levels for new or amended energy
conservation standards for electric
motors.
However, DOE notes that its analysis
neither assumes nor requires
manufacturers to use identical
technology for all motor types and
horsepower ratings. In other words,
although DOE may choose a certain set
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
of technologies to estimate cost behavior
at varying efficiencies, DOE’s standards
are technology-neutral and permit
manufacturers design flexibility. DOE
clarifies that the national impacts
analysis is one of the primary ways in
which DOE analyses those potential
efficiency levels and determines if they
would be economically justified. As
DOE has stated, it is also important that
the levels be technically feasible. In
order to maintain technical feasibility,
DOE has maintained the scaling
approach that it developed for the
preliminary analysis, which
accomplishes that objective while
maintaining the use of NEMA nominal
efficiencies. For each incremental EL
above the premium efficiency level,
DOE has incremented possible
efficiency levels by just one band of
efficiency. Through the use of this
conservative approach to scaling, DOE
believes that it has helped ensure the
technological feasibility of each of its
ELs to the greatest extent practicable.
DOE received no comments in response
to the NOPR on this issue and has
maintained its approach for the final
rule.
D. Markups Analysis
The markups analysis develops
appropriate markups in the distribution
chain to convert the estimates of
manufacturer selling price derived in
the engineering analysis to customer
prices (the term ‘‘customer’’ refers to
purchasers of the equipment being
regulated). For the NOPR, DOE
determined the distribution channels for
electric motors, the percentage of
shipments sold through either of these
channels, and the markups associated
with the main parties in the distribution
chain (distributors and contractors).
Several stakeholders, including
NEMA and NEEA, commented that the
OEM distribution channel
(manufacturer to OEM to end-user),
which represents the distribution
channel for 50 percent of shipments, is
further divided into shipments going
directly to the user (25 percent) and
shipments going through a distributor
and then to the customer (25 percent).
(WEG, NEMA, NEEA, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No.
87 at p. 131) For the final rule, DOE
modified its distribution channels in
accordance with the channels and
shares described by the commenters.
DOE developed average distributor
and contractor markups by examining
the contractor cost estimates provided
by RS Means Electrical Cost Data
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
30977
2013.64 DOE calculates baseline and
overall incremental markups based on
the equipment markups at each step in
the distribution chain. The incremental
markup relates the change in the
manufacturer sales price of higherefficiency models (the incremental cost
increase) to the change in the customer
price. Chapter 6 of the final rule TSD
addresses estimating markups.
E. Energy Use Analysis
The energy use analysis provides
estimates of the annual energy
consumption of commercial and
industrial electric motors at the
considered efficiency levels. DOE uses
these values in the LCC and PBP
analyses and in the NIA. DOE
developed energy consumption
estimates for all equipment analyzed in
the engineering analysis.
The annual energy consumption of an
electric motor that has a given nominal
full-load efficiency depends on the
electric motor’s sector (industry,
agriculture, or commercial) and
application (compressor, fans, pumps,
material handling, fire pumps, and
others), which in turn determine the
electric motor’s annual operating hours
and load.
To calculate the annual kilowatthours (kWh) consumed at each
efficiency level in each equipment class,
DOE used the nominal efficiencies at
various loads from the engineering
analysis, along with estimates of
operating hours and electric motor load
for electric motors in various sectors
and applications.
In the preliminary analysis, DOE used
statistical information on annual electric
motor operating hours and load derived
from a database of more than 15,000
individual motor field assessments
obtained through the Washington State
University and the New York State
Energy Research and Development
Authority 65 to determine the variation
in field energy use in the industrial
sector. For the agricultural and the
commercial sectors, DOE relied on data
found in the literature.
As part of its NOPR analysis, for the
industrial sector, DOE re-examined its
initial usage profiles and recalculated
motor distribution across applications,
operating hours, and load information
based on additional motor field data
64 RS Means (2013), Electrical Cost Data, 36th
Annual Edition (Available at: https://
www.rsmeans.com).
65 Database of motor nameplate and field
measurement data compiled by the Washington
State University Extension Energy Program (WSU)
and Applied Proactive Technologies (APT) under
contract with the New York State Energy Research
and Development Authority (NYSERDA). 2011.
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30978
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
compiled by the Industrial Assessment
Center at the University of Oregon,66
which includes over 20,000 individual
motor records. For the agricultural
sector, DOE revised its average annual
operating hours assumptions based on
additional data found in the literature.
No changes were made to the
commercial sector average annual
operating hours.
In response to the NOPR, DOE did not
receive any comments regarding the
energy use analysis and retained the
same approach for the final rule.
Chapter 7 of the final rule TSD describes
the energy use analysis in further detail.
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
For each representative unit analyzed
in the engineering analysis, DOE
conducts LCC and PBP analyses to
evaluate the economic impacts on
individual customers of potential energy
conservation standards for electric
motors. The LCC is the total customer
expense over the life of the motor,
consisting of equipment and installation
costs plus operating costs over the
lifetime of the equipment (expenses for
energy use, maintenance and repair).
DOE discounts future operating costs to
the time of purchase using customer
discount rates. The PBP is the estimated
amount of time (in years) it takes
customers to recover the increased total
installed cost (including equipment and
installation costs) of a more efficient
type of equipment through lower
operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP
by dividing the change in total installed
cost (normally higher) due to a standard
by the change in annual operating cost
(normally lower) which results from the
standard.
For any given efficiency level, DOE
measures the PBP and the change in
LCC relative to an estimate of the basecase efficiency levels. The base-case
estimate reflects the market in the
absence of new or amended energy
conservation standards, including the
market for equipment that exceeds the
current energy conservation standards.
For each representative unit, DOE
calculated the LCC and PBP for a
distribution of individual electric
motors across a range of operating
conditions. DOE used Monte Carlo
simulations to model the distributions
of inputs. The Monte Carlo process
statistically captures input variability
and distribution without testing all
possible input combinations. Therefore,
66 Strategic Energy Group (January, 2008),
Northwest Industrial Motor Database Summary.
From Regional Technical Forum. Retrieved March
5, 2013 from https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/
subcommittees/osumotor/Default.htm.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
while some atypical situations may not
be captured in the analysis, DOE
believes the analysis captures an
adequate range of situations in which
electric motors operate.
The following sections contain brief
discussions of comments on the inputs
and key assumptions of DOE’s LCC and
PBP analysis and explain how DOE took
these comments into consideration.
1. Equipment Costs
In the LCC and PBP analysis, the
equipment costs faced by electric motor
purchasers are derived from the MSPs
estimated in the engineering analysis
and the overall markups estimated in
the markups analysis.
To forecast a price trend for the NOPR
analysis, DOE derived an inflationadjusted index of the producer price
index (PPI) for integral horsepower
motors and generators manufacturing
from 1969 to 2011. These data show a
long-term decline in the PPI from 1985
to 2003, and a steep increase in the PPI
since then. DOE also examined a
forecast based on the ‘‘chained price
index—industrial equipment’’ that was
forecasted for AEO2013 out to 2040.
This index is the most disaggregated
category that includes electric motors.
These data show a short-term increase
in the PPI from 2011 to 2015, and then
a steep decrease. DOE believes that
there is considerable uncertainty as to
whether the recent increasing trend has
peaked, and would be followed by a
return to the previous long-term
declining trend, or whether the recent
trend represents the beginning of a longterm rising trend due to global demand
for electric motors and rising
commodity costs for key motor
components. Given the uncertainty,
DOE chose to use constant prices for
both its LCC and PBP analysis and the
NIA. For the NIA, DOE also analyzed
the sensitivity of results to alternative
electric motor price forecasts.
DOE did not receive comments on the
trend it used for electric motor prices,
and it retained the approach used in the
NOPR analysis for the final rule.
2. Installation Costs
In the NOPR analysis, the engineering
analysis showed that for some
representative units, increased
efficiency led to increased stack length.
However, the electric motor frame
remained in the same NEMA frame size
requirements as the baseline electric
motor, and the motor’s ‘‘C’’ dimension
remained fairly constant across
efficiency levels. In addition, electric
motor installation cost data from RS
Means Electrical Cost Data 2013 showed
a variation in installation costs by
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
horsepower (for three-phase electric
motors), but not by efficiency.
Therefore, in the NOPR analysis, DOE
assumed there is no variation in
installation costs between a baseline
efficiency electric motor and a higher
efficiency electric motor.
DOE did not receive comments on the
installation costs it used for electric
motors, and it retained the approach
used in the NOPR analysis for the final
rule.
3. Maintenance Costs
In the NOPR analysis, DOE did not
find data indicating a variation in
maintenance costs between a baseline
efficiency and higher efficiency electric
motor. According to data from
Vaughen’s Price Publishing Company,67
which publishes an industry reference
guide on motor repair pricing, the price
of replacing bearings, which is the most
common maintenance practice, is the
same at all efficiency levels. Therefore,
DOE did not consider maintenance costs
for electric motors. DOE did not receive
comments on this issue and retained the
approach used for the NOPR analysis for
the final rule.
4. Repair Costs
In the NOPR analysis, DOE accounted
for the differences in repair costs of a
higher efficiency motor compared to a
baseline efficiency motor and defined a
repair as including a rewind and
reconditioning. Based on data from
Vaughen’s, DOE derived a model to
estimate repair costs by horsepower,
enclosure and pole, for each EL.
The Electrical Apparatus Service
Association (EASA), which represents
the electric motor repair service sector,
noted that DOE should clarify the
definition of repair as including
rewinding and reconditioning. (EASA,
No. 86 at p. 1) DOE agrees with this
suggestion and defines a motor repair as
repair including rewinding and
reconditioning.
5. Unit Energy Consumption
The analysis used in the final rule
uses the same approach for determining
unit energy consumptions (UECs) as the
NOPR analysis. The UEC was
determined for each application and
sector based on estimated load points
and annual operating hours.
6. Electricity Prices and Electricity Price
Trends
In the NOPR analysis, DOE derived
sector-specific weighted average
electricity prices for four different U.S.
67 Vaughen’s (2011, 2013), Vaughen’s Motor &
Pump Repair Price Guide, 2011, 2013 Edition.
https://www.vaughens.com/.
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Bureau of the Census (Census) regions
(Northeast, Midwest, South, and West)
using data from the Energy Information
Administration (EIA Form 861). For
each utility in a region, DOE used the
average industrial or commercial price,
and then weighted the price by the
number of customers in each sector for
each utility.
For each representative motor, DOE
assigned electricity prices using a Monte
Carlo approach that incorporated
weightings based on the estimated share
of electric motors in each region. The
regional shares were derived based on
indicators specific to each sector (e.g.,
commercial floor space from the
Commercial Building Energy
Consumption Survey for the commercial
sector 68) and assumed to remain
constant over time. To estimate future
trends in energy prices, DOE used
projections from the EIA’s Annual
Energy Outlook 2013 (AEO 2013). DOE
did not receive any comments regarding
the electricity prices and today’s
rulemaking retains the same approach
for determining electricity prices.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7. Lifetime
In the NOPR analysis, DOE estimated
the mechanical lifetime of electric
motors in hours (i.e., the total number
of hours an electric motor operates
throughout its lifetime), depending on
its horsepower size and sector of
application. DOE then developed
Weibull distributions of mechanical
lifetimes. The lifetime in years for a
sampled electric motor was then
calculated by dividing the sampled
mechanical lifetime by the sampled
annual operating hours of the electric
motor. DOE did not receive any
comments regarding lifetimes and
retained the same approach and lifetime
assumptions for the final rule.
8. Discount Rate
DOE did not receive any comments
regarding discount rates and retained
the same approach as used in the NOPR
for the final rule. The discount rate is
the rate at which future expenditures
are discounted to estimate their present
value. The cost of capital commonly is
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 the cost
of capital is the weighted-average cost to
the firm of equity and debt financing.
DOE uses the capital asset pricing
model (CAPM) to calculate the equity
68 U.S. Department of Energy Information
Administration (2003), Commercial Buildings
Energy Consumption Survey, https://www.eia.gov/
consumption/commercial/data/2003/pdf/a4.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
capital component, and financial data
sources to calculate the cost of debt
financing.
For today’s rulemaking, DOE
estimated a statistical distribution of
industrial and commercial customer
discount rates by calculating the average
cost of capital for the different types of
electric motor owners (e.g., chemical
industry, food processing, and paper
industry). For the agricultural sector,
DOE assumed similar discount rates as
in industry. More details regarding
DOE’s estimates of motor customer
discount rates are provided in chapter 8
of the TSD.
9. Base Case Market Efficiency
Distributions
For the LCC analysis, DOE analyzed
the considered motor efficiency levels
relative to a base case (i.e., the case
without new or amended energy
efficiency standards). This requires an
estimate of the distribution of
equipment efficiencies in the base case
(i.e., what consumers would have
purchased in the compliance year in the
absence of new standards). DOE refers
to this distribution of equipment energy
efficiencies as the base case efficiency
distribution.
Data on motor sales by efficiency are
not available. In the preliminary
analysis, DOE used the number of
models meeting the requirements of
each efficiency level from six major
manufacturers and one distributor’s
catalog data to develop the base-case
efficiency distributions. The
distribution is estimated separately for
each equipment class group and
horsepower range and was assumed
constant and equal to 2012 throughout
the analysis period.
For the NOPR, DOE retained the same
approach to estimate the base case
efficiency distribution in 2012, but it
updated the base case efficiency
distributions to account for the NOPR
engineering analysis (revised ELs) and
for the update in the scope of electric
motors considered in the analysis.
Beyond 2012, DOE assumed the
efficiency distributions for equipment
class group 1 and 4 vary over time based
on historical data 69 for the market
penetration of Premium motors within
the market for integral alternating
current induction motors. For
equipment class groups 2 and 3, which
represent a very minor share of the
market (less than 0.2 percent), DOE
believes the overall trend in efficiency
improvement for the total integral AC
69 Robert Boteler, USA Motor Update 2009,
Energy Efficient Motor Driven Systems Conference
(EEMODS) 2009.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
30979
induction motors may not be
representative, so DOE kept the base
case efficiency distributions in the
compliance year equal to 2012 levels.
DOE did not receive additional
comments and retained the same
approach for the final rule.
10. Compliance Date
DOE calculated customer impacts as if
each new electric motor purchase
occurs in the year that manufacturers
must comply with the standard. As
discussed in section III.A, any amended
standard for electric motors shall apply
to electric motors manufactured on or
after June 1, 2016. DOE has chosen to
retain the same compliance date for
both the amended and new energy
conservation standards to simplify the
requirements and to avoid any potential
confusion for manufacturers.
11. Payback Period Inputs
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. DOE did not receive any
comments regarding the PBP
calculation.
The inputs to the PBP calculation are
the total installed cost of the equipment
to the customer for each efficiency level
and the average annual operating
expenditures for each efficiency level.
The PBP calculation uses the same
inputs as the LCC analysis, except that
discount rates are not needed as it only
takes into account the totaled installed
costs and the first year of operating
expenses.
12. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback
Period
EPCA establishes a rebuttable
presumption that a standard is
economically justified if the Secretary
finds that the additional cost to the
consumer of purchasing equipment
complying with an energy conservation
standard level will be less than three
times the value of the energy (and, as
applicable, water) savings during the
first year that the consumer will receive
as a result of the standard, as calculated
under the test procedure in place for
that standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(a)) For each
considered efficiency level, DOE
determines the value of the first year’s
energy savings by calculating the
quantity of those savings in accordance
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30980
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
with the applicable DOE test procedure,
and multiplying that amount by the
average energy price forecast for the
year in which compliance with the new
or amended standards would be
required.
13. Comments on Other Issues
In response to DOE’s request for
comments regarding whether there are
features or attributes of the more
efficient electric motors that could
impact how customers use their
equipment. NEMA commented that
higher efficiency motors could have
increased inrush currents, reduced
starting torque, longer frames, and
higher speeds. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 15).
DOE acknowledges that some
manufacturers may choose to produce
higher efficiency motors in a way that
could impact the inrush current, starting
torque, frame size, and speed. However,
in the engineering analysis, for all
efficiency levels, DOE analyzed motors
that remain within the NEMA Design B
design requirements for inrush currents
and torque characteristics and kept the
frame size constant. Therefore, DOE
maintained installation costs constant
across all efficiency levels (see section
IV.F.2)
With respect to the potential for
higher efficiency motors having higher
speed, DOE acknowledges that this
could occur and affect the benefits
gained by using efficient electric motors.
Although it is possible to quantify this
impact for an individual motor, DOE
was not able to extend this analysis to
the national level because DOE does not
have robust data related to the overall
share of motors that would be negatively
impacted by higher speeds. Instead,
DOE developed assumptions 70 and
estimated the effects of higher operating
speeds as a sensitivity analysis in the
LCC spreadsheet (see appendix 7–A of
the final TSD).
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
G. Shipments Analysis
DOE uses projections of equipment
shipments to calculate the national
impacts of standards on energy use,
NPV, and future manufacturer cash
flows. DOE develops shipment
70 DOE assumed that 60 percent of pumps, fans
and compressor applications are variable torque
applications. Of these 60 percent, DOE assumed
that all fans and a majority (70 percent) of
compressors and pumps would be negatively
impacted by higher operating speeds; and that 30
percent of compressors and pumps would not be
negatively impacted from higher operating speeds
as their time of use would decrease as the flow
increases with the speed (e.g. a pump filling a
reservoir).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
projections based on historical data and
an analysis of key market drivers for
each type of equipment.
To populate the model with current
data, DOE used data from a market
research report,71 confidential inputs
from manufacturers, trade associations,
and other interested parties’ responses
to the 2011 RFI. DOE then used
estimates of market distributions to
redistribute the shipments across pole
configurations, horsepower, and
enclosures within each electric motor
equipment class and also by sector.
DOE’s shipments projection assumes
that electric motor sales are driven by
machinery production growth for
equipment, including motors. DOE
estimated that growth rates for total
motor shipments correlate to growth
rates in fixed investment in equipment
and structures including motors, which
is provided by the U.S. Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA).72 Projections
of real gross domestic product (GDP)
from AEO 2013 for 2015–2040 were
used to project fixed investments in
equipment and structures including
motors. The current market
distributions are maintained over the
forecast period.
For the preliminary analysis, DOE
collected data on historical series of
shipment quantities and values for the
1990–2003 period, but concluded that
the data were not sufficient to estimate
motor price elasticity.73 Consequently,
DOE assumed zero price elasticity for all
efficiency standards cases and did not
estimate any impact of potential
standards levels on shipments. DOE
requested stakeholder recommendations
on data sources to help better estimate
the impacts of increased efficiency
levels on shipments. DOE did not
receive further comments on this issue
and retained the same approach for the
final rule.
Including the NOPR’s proposed
expansion of motor coverage, DOE
71 IMS Research (February 2012), The World
Market for Low Voltage Motors, 2012 Edition
(Available at: https://www.imsresearch.com/report/
Motor_Drives_Low_Voltage_World_2012).
72 Bureau of Economic Analysis (March 1, 2012),
Private Fixed Investment in Equipment and
Software by Type and Private Fixed Investment in
Structures by Type (Available at: https://
www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=12&step=1).
73 Business Trend Analysts, The Motor and
Generator Industry, 2002; U.S. Census Bureau
(November 2004), Motors and Generators—
2003.MA335H(03)–1 (Available at: https://
www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/historical_data/
discontinued/ma335h/); and U.S. Census
Bureau (August 2003), Motors and Generators—
2002.MA335H(02)–1 (Available at: https://
www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/historical_data/
discontinued/ma335h/ma335h02.xls).
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
estimates total in-scope shipments were
5.43 million units in 2011. DOE did not
receive any NOPR comments on
shipments and maintained the same
estimate for the final rule. For further
information on DOE’s shipments
analysis, see chapter 9 of the final rule
TSD.
H. National Impact Analysis
The NIA assesses the national energy
savings (NES) and the national NPV of
total customer costs and savings that
would be expected to result from new
and amended standards at specific
efficiency levels.
To make the analysis more accessible
and transparent to all interested parties,
DOE used a spreadsheet model to
calculate the energy savings and the
national customer costs and savings
from each TSL.74 The NES and NPV are
based on the annual energy
consumption and total installed cost
data from the energy use analysis and
the LCC analysis. DOE forecasted the
lifetime energy savings, energy cost
savings, equipment costs, and NPV of
customer benefits for each equipment
class for equipment sold from 2016
through 2045. In addition, DOE
analyzed scenarios that used inputs
from the AEO 2013 Low Economic
Growth and High Economic Growth
cases. These cases have higher and
lower energy price trends compared to
the reference case.
DOE evaluated the impacts of
potential new and amended standards
for electric motors by comparing basecase projections with standards-case
projections. The base-case projections
characterize energy use and customer
costs for each equipment class in the
absence of new and amended energy
conservation standards. DOE compared
these projections with projections
characterizing the market for each
equipment class if DOE were to adopt
new or amended standards at specific
energy efficiency levels (i.e., the
standards cases) for that class.
Table IV.25 summarizes all the major
NOPR analysis inputs to the NIA and
whether those inputs were revised for
the final rule.
74 DOE’s use of spreadsheet models provides
interested parties with access to the models within
a familiar context. In addition, the TSD and other
documentation that DOE provides during the
rulemaking help explain the models and how to use
them, and interested parties can review DOE’s
analyses by changing various input quantities
within the spreadsheet.
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
30981
TABLE IV.25—INPUTS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Input
NOPR Analysis description
Changes for final rule
Shipments ......................................
Compliance date of standard .........
Equipment Classes ........................
Annual shipments from shipments model. .............................................
2016 ........................................................................................................
Four separate equipment class groups for NEMA Design A and B motors, NEMA Design C motors, Fire Electric Pump Motors, and brake
motors.
Base case efficiencies ...................
Constant efficiency from 2015 through 2044 for ECG 2 and 3.Trend
for the efficiency distribution of ECG 1 and 4.
Standards case efficiencies ...........
Constant efficiency from 2015 through 2044 for ECG 2 and 3.Trend
for the efficiency distribution of ECG 1 and 4.
Annual energy consumption per
unit.
Average unit energy use data are calculated for each horsepower rating and equipment class based on inputs from the Energy use analysis..
Based on the MSP and weight data from the engineering, and then
scaled for different hp and enclosure categories..
Annual energy use for each equipment class is multiplied by the corresponding average energy price..
AEO 2013 forecasts (to 2035) and extrapolation for 2044 and beyond.
A time series conversion factor; includes electric generation, transmission, and distribution losses..
3% and 7% real. .....................................................................................
2013. .......................................................................................................
No change.
No change.
Three separate equipment class
groups. Brake motors were
added to ECG 1 (NEMA Design
A and B motors).
No change in methodology. Constant efficiency from 2016
through 2045 for ECG 2 and
3.Trend for the efficiency distribution of ECG 1.
No change in methodology. Constant efficiency from 2016
through 2045 for ECG 2 and
3.Trend for the efficiency distribution of ECG 1.
No change.
Total installed cost per unit ............
Electricity expense per unit ............
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Escalation of electricity prices ........
Electricity site-to-primary conversion.
Discount rates ................................
Present year ...................................
1. Efficiency Trends
As explained in section IV.F, for the
NOPR, DOE assumed that the efficiency
distributions in the base case for ECGs
1 changes over time. The projected
share of 1 to 5 horsepower Premium
motors (EL 2) for equipment class
subgroup 1.a. grows from 36.6 percent
to 45.5 percent over the analysis period,
and for equipment class subgroup 1.b.,
it grows from 30.0 percent to 38.9
percent. For ECG 2 and 3, DOE assumed
that the efficiency remains constant
from 2016 to 2045.
In the standards cases, equipment
with efficiency below the standard
levels ‘‘roll up’’ to the standard level in
the compliance year. Thereafter, for ECG
1, DOE assumed that the level
immediately above the standard would
show a similar increase in market
penetration as the Premium motors in
the base case.
The Joint Advocates commented that
DOE’s ‘‘rollup’’ scenario will lead to
conservative energy saving estimates
and given that some manufacturers
already offer motors with efficiency
levels above Premium, one would
expect that the adoption of standards at
or above Premium would accelerate the
interest in more efficient motor designs.
(Joint Advocates, No. 97 at p. 3)
The ‘‘rollup’’ scenario was used to
establish the efficiency distributions in
the compliance year. Thereafter, for
ECGs 1, DOE used a shift scenario and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
assumed that the level immediately
above the standard would show a
similar increase in market penetration
as the Premium motors in the base case.
This approach aligns with the Joint
Advocates’ suggestion. DOE did not
receive any other comments on
efficiency trends and, consequently,
retained the same approach for the final
rule. The assumed efficiency trends in
the base case and standards cases are
described in chapter 10 of the TSD.
2. National Energy Savings
For each year in the forecast period,
DOE calculates the national energy
savings for each standard level by
multiplying the shipments of electric
motors affected by the energy
conservation standards by the per-unit
lifetime annual energy savings.
Cumulative energy savings are the sum
of the NES for all motors shipped during
the analysis period, 2016–2045.
DOE estimated energy consumption
and savings based on site energy and
converted the electricity consumption
and savings to primary energy (power
plant energy use) using annual
conversion factors derived from the
AEO 2013 version of the NEMS.
DOE has historically presented NES
in terms of primary energy savings. In
response to the recommendations of a
committee on ‘‘Point-of-Use and FullFuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to
Energy Efficiency Standards’’ appointed
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
No change.
No change.
No change.
No change.
No change.
2014.
by the National Academy of Science,
DOE announced its intention to use fullfuel-cycle (FFC) measures of energy use
and greenhouse gas and other emissions
in the national impact analyses and
emissions analyses included in future
energy conservation standards
rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (August 18,
2011). After evaluating the approaches
discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice,
DOE published a statement of amended
policy in the Federal Register in which
DOE explained its determination that
NEMS is the most appropriate tool for
its FFC analysis and its intention to use
NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701
(August 17, 2012). The approach used
for today’s final rule, and the FFC
multipliers that were applied, are
described in appendix 10–C of the final
TSD.
3. Electric Motor Weights
NEMA commented that motors vary
greatly when it comes to frame length,
thickness, material and weights for
comparable ratings. It disagreed a with
the motor weight estimates as performed
by DOE. NEMA stated that there are too
many variables to accurately determine
weights relative to motor performance
attributes. NEMA listed variables such
as the construction material for the
frame (iron, steel, and aluminum), the
casting variations (robust, thin), the
inclusion of packaging weight in the
total weight, and other variations in
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30982
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
construction practices. NEMA did not
provide an alternative method or
additional information that could be
used to refine the approach DOE used
for estimating weights. (NEMA, No. 93
at pp. 6–7)
Weight data are used to estimate
shipping costs, which are a component
of the total installed cost used to
calculate the life cycle cost. The LCC
results show that the average shipping
costs represent a small fraction of the
total installed costs (about 15 percent)
and less than one percent of the total
life cycle cost. While manufacturer
catalogs contain weight data, these data
showed some variations in weights.75
To account for these variations, DOE
performed a sensitivity analysis to
evaluate the impacts of lower and
higher weight assumptions. Since the
shipping costs are such a small fraction
of the LCC, the variations in weights did
not significantly impact the results.
Therefore, DOE retained the same
approach for establishing weights for
motors configurations not directly
analyzed in the engineering analysis.
4. Equipment Price Forecast
As noted in section IV.F.2, DOE
assumed no change in electric motor
prices over the 2016–2045 period. In
addition, DOE conducted a sensitivity
analysis using alternative price trends.
DOE developed one forecast in which
prices decline after 2011, and one in
which prices rise. These price trends,
and the NPV results from the associated
sensitivity cases, are described in
appendix 10–B of the TSD.
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
In analyzing the potential impacts of
new or amended standards, DOE
evaluates impacts on identifiable groups
(i.e., subgroups) of customers that may
be disproportionately affected by a
national standard. For the final rule,
DOE evaluated impacts on various
subgroups (e.g., customer from the
agricultural, commercial, and industrial
sector; customers with lower electricity
prices) using the LCC spreadsheet
model. DOE did not receive any
comments on its consumer subgroup
analysis in response to the NOPR. The
customer subgroup analysis is discussed
in detail in chapter 11 of the final rule
TSD.
The inputs for determining the NPV
of the total costs and benefits
experienced by consumers of
considered equipment are: (1) Total
annual installed cost; (2) total annual
savings in operating costs; and (3) a
discount factor. DOE calculates the
lifetime net savings for motors shipped
each year as the difference between the
base case and each standards case in
total lifetime savings in lifetime
operating costs and total lifetime
increases in installed costs. DOE
calculates lifetime operating cost
savings over the life of each motor
shipped during the forecast period.
In calculating the NPV, DOE
multiplies the net savings in future
years by a discount factor to determine
their present value. DOE estimates the
NPV using both a 3-percent and a 7-
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
DOE conducted an MIA to estimate
the financial impact of new and
amended energy conservation standards
on manufacturers of covered electric
motors. The MIA also estimates the
impact standards could have on direct
employment, manufacturing capacity,
manufacturer subgroups, and the
cumulative regulatory burden. The MIA
has both quantitative and qualitative
aspects. The quantitative aspect of the
MIA primarily relies on the GRIM, an
industry cash-flow model customized
for electric motors covered in this
rulemaking. The key GRIM inputs are
data on the industry cost structure,
MPCs, shipments, and assumptions
about manufacturer markups and
conversion costs. The key MIA output is
INPV. DOE used the GRIM to calculate
cash flows using standard accounting
principles and to compare changes in
INPV between a base case and various
TSLs (the standards case). The
difference in INPV between the base and
standards cases represents the financial
impact of standards on manufacturers of
covered electric motors. DOE employed
different assumptions about
manufacturer markups to produce
ranges of results that represent the
75 For example, in the case of a 50 horsepower
motor, a standard deviation equal to 18 percent of
the average weight was observed.
76 OMB Circular A–4, section E (September 17,
2003). https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_
a004_a-4.
5. Net Present Value of Customer
Benefit
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
percent real discount rate, in accordance
with guidance provided by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to
Federal agencies on the development of
regulatory analysis.76 The 7-percent real
value is an estimate of the average
before-tax rate of return to private
capital in the U.S. economy. The 3percent real value represents the ‘‘social
rate of time preference,’’ which is the
rate at which society discounts future
consumption flows to their present
value.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
uncertainty about how electric motor
manufacturers will respond to
standards. The qualitative part of the
MIA addresses factors such as
manufacturing capacity; characteristics
of, and impacts on, any particular
subgroup of manufacturers; impacts on
competition; and the cumulative
regulatory burden of electric motor
manufacturers.
DOE outlined its complete
methodology for the MIA in the
previously published NOPR. Also the
complete MIA is presented in chapter
12 of this final TSD.
1. Manufacturer Production Costs
Manufacturing more efficient
equipment is typically more expensive
than manufacturing baseline equipment
due to the need for more costly
components and more extensive R&D to
reduced motor losses. The resulting
changes in the MPCs of the analyzed
equipment can affect the revenues, gross
margins, and cash flows of
manufacturers. DOE strives to
accurately model the potential changes
in these equipment costs, as they are a
key input for the GRIM and DOE’s
overall analysis. For the final rule, DOE
only updated the dollar year of the
MPCs from 2012$, the dollar year used
in the NOPR, to 2013$. For a complete
description of the how the MPCs were
created see section IV.C of this final
rule.
2. Shipment Projections
Changes in sales volumes and
efficiency distribution of equipment
over time can significantly affect
manufacturer finances. The GRIM
estimates manufacturer revenues based
on total unit shipment projections and
the distribution of shipments by
efficiency level. For the final rule, DOE
slightly altered the distribution of
shipments across pole configuration at
the highest horsepower ratings based on
stakeholder comments. This had a
negligible effect on the MIA results. For
the MIA, the GRIM used the NIA’s
annual shipment projections from 2014,
the base year, to 2045, the end of the
analysis period. For a complete
description of the shipment analysis see
section IV.G of this final rule.
3. Markup Scenarios
For the MIA, DOE modeled three
standards case markup scenarios to
represent the uncertainty regarding the
potential impacts on prices and
profitability for manufacturers following
the implementation of new and
amended energy conservation
standards: (1) A flat, or preservation of
gross margin, markup scenario; (2) a
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
preservation of operating profit markup
scenario; and (3) a two-tiered markup
scenario. These scenarios lead to
different manufacturer markup values,
which when applied to the inputted
MPCs, result in varying revenue and
cash-flow impacts.
The Joint Advocates commented that
the lower bound markup scenarios
overstated the negative impacts to
electric motor manufacturers. They also
stated that manufacturer support for the
standards proposed in the NOPR
suggests that the lower bound markup
scenario is unrealistic. (Joint Advocates,
No. 97 at p. 4) DOE presents an upper
bound to manufacturer impacts, which
are positive for all TSLs, and a lower
bound to manufacturer impacts, which
are negative for all TSLs. This range of
possible manufacturer impacts
represents the uncertainty of
manufacturers’ profitability following
standards. The lower bound to
manufacturer impacts represents a
worst-case scenario for manufacturers
and does not imply that this will be the
markup scenario manufacturers will
face following standards. Just as the
upper bound markup scenario
represents a best-case scenario for
manufacturers and again does not imply
that this will be the markup scenario
manufacturers will face following
standards. Therefore, DOE believes that
the lower bound markup scenario
presented in this final rule is an
appropriate worst-case scenario for
manufacturers and is not intended to
represent the true outcome for all
electric motor manufacturers following
standards, simply the lower bound of a
range of possible outcomes.
NEEA commented that since there is
an enormous range of electric motor
types covered in this rulemaking (e.g.,
horsepower, pole configuration) and
since there are several distribution
channels these motors could be sold
through, different markup scenarios
might apply to different motor sizes,
different markets, and different
distribution channels. (NEEA, Pub. Mtg.
Tr., No. 87 at p. 172) DOE agrees with
this assessment of the market as various
manufacturers could markup various
motors differently following new and
amended energy conservation
standards. The upper and lower bound
markup scenarios represent this range of
various markup options that
manufacturers will pursue following
standards given the unique
circumstances each manufacture faces.
For the final rule, DOE did not alter
the markup scenarios or the
methodology used to calculate the
markup values from those used in the
NOPR analysis.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
4. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
New and amended energy
conservation standards will cause
manufacturers to incur one-time
conversion costs to bring their
production facilities and equipment
designs into compliance. For the MIA,
DOE classified these one-time
conversion costs into two major groups:
(1) Product conversion costs and (2)
capital conversion costs. Product
conversion costs are one-time
investments in R&D, testing,
compliance, marketing, and other noncapitalized costs necessary to make
equipment designs comply with
standards. Capital conversion costs are
one-time investments in property, plant,
and equipment necessary to adapt or
change existing production facilities
such that new equipment designs can be
fabricated and assembled. For the
preliminary analysis NEMA commented
that electric motors at ELs above
premium efficiency levels, and
especially at ELs requiring die-cast
copper rotors, would require
manufacturers to make significant
capital investments and significant time
to redesign, test, and certify their entire
production lines. (NEMA, No. 54 at p.
4 & 11) For the NOPR analysis, DOE
incorporated NEMA’s comment when
creating the conversion costs for electric
motors at ELs requiring die-cast copper
rotors. For the final rule, DOE only
updated the dollar year of the
conversion costs from 2012$, the dollar
year used in the NOPR, to 2013$.
5. Other Comments From Interested
Parties
During the NOPR public meeting and
comment period, interested parties
commented on the assumptions,
methodology, and results of the NOPR
MIA. DOE received comments about the
manufacturer markups used in the MIA
versus the NIA and potential trade
barriers. These comments are addressed
in the following sections.
a. Manufacturer Markups Used in the
MIA Versus the NIA
The Joint Advocates commented that
while the MIA presents a range of
potential changes to manufacturers’
INPV by altering the manufacturer
markups, the NIA only uses one
manufacturer markup when analyzing
the impacts to customers. Further, they
state that the manufacturer markup that
is used in the NIA typically yields a
higher customer purchase price for more
efficient equipment analyzed in the
rulemaking. (Joint Advocates, No. 97 at
p. 4) Based on manufacturer interviews
and DOE’s understanding of the electric
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
30983
motor market, DOE believes that
manufacturers might not be able to
maintain their gross margin on all
motors sold if the MPCs for those
motors increased significantly due to
standards. Therefore, the MIA
conducted a sensitivity analysis around
the manufacturer markup by modeling a
lower bound manufacturer markup
where manufacturers must compress
their manufacturer markup to maintain
market competition. This lower bound
represents a worse-case scenario for
manufacturer profitability. The NIA,
which looks at the impacts of standards
on customers, only models the scenario
where manufacturers are able to
maintain their manufacturer markup
(the upper bound manufacturer markup
scenario in the MIA). This manufacturer
markup used in the NIA is the most
conservative estimate for the purchase
price that customers would pay for the
equipment. Since there is uncertainty
regarding how manufacturers would
markup specific equipment following
standards, DOE uses the most
conservative estimates for the impacts to
customers and manufacturers in the NIA
and MIA respectively.
b. Potential Trade Barriers
Baldor commented that if electric
motor energy conservation standards are
set above the rest of the world’s
standards, it could be a potential trade
barrier for foreign motor manufacturer
trying to sell electric motors in the
United States. Baldor states that there
are a lot of small foreign motor
manufacturers, so they might not have
the resources to manufacture separate
motor production lines specifically to
comply with U.S. electric motor
standards. (Baldor, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87
at p. 176–177) DOE acknowledge that
manufacturers selling motors in the
United States and other countries with
standards below the United States could
be required to operate motor production
lines specifically for the U.S. market.
However, DOE does not believe that
setting electric motor standards above
other countries’ standards would
constitute a potential trade barrier
because all motor sold in the United
States must comply with U.S. standards
regardless if the motor is manufactured
domestically or abroad. Also, DOE is not
adopting standards above premium
efficiency levels, which are the
standards other countries have recently
adopted for electric motors (e.g., the
European Union).
6. Manufacturer Interviews
DOE interviewed manufacturers
representing more than 75 percent of
covered electric motor sales in the
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30984
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
United States. The NOPR interviews
were in addition to the preliminary
interviews DOE conducted as part of the
preliminary analysis. DOE outlined the
key issues for the rulemaking for electric
motor manufacturers in the NOPR. DOE
considered the information received
during these interviews in the
development of the NOPR and this final
rule. Comments on the NOPR regarding
the impact of standards on
manufacturers were discussed in the
preceding sections. DOE did not
conduct interviews with manufacturers
between the publication of the NOPR
and this final rule. Also, DOE did not
receive any comments on the key issues
identified in the NOPR.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
K. Emissions Analysis
In the emissions analysis, DOE
estimates the reduction in power sector
emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide
(SO2), and mercury (Hg) from potential
energy conservation standards for
electric motors. In addition, DOE
estimates emissions impacts in
production activities (extracting,
processing, and transporting fuels) that
provide the energy inputs to power
plants. These are referred to as
‘‘upstream’’ emissions. Together, these
emissions account for the full-fuel-cycle
(FFC). In accordance with DOE’s FFC
Statement of Policy (76 FR 51282
(August 18, 2011) as amended at 77 FR
49701 (August 17, 2012), the FFC
analysis includes impacts on emissions
of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide
(N2O), both of which are recognized as
greenhouse gases.
DOE primarily conducted the
emissions analysis using emissions
factors for CO2 and other gases derived
from data in AEO 2013, supplemented
by data from other sources. DOE
developed separate emissions factors for
power sector emissions and upstream
emissions. The method that DOE used
to derive emissions factors is described
in chapter 13 of the TSD.
For CH4 and N2O, DOE calculated
emissions reduction in tons and also in
terms of units of carbon dioxide
equivalent (CO2eq). Gases are converted
to CO2eq by multiplying the physical
units by the gas’ global warming
potential (GWP) over a 100 year time
horizon. Based on the Fourth
Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change,77 DOE used GWP values of 25
for CH4 and 298 for N2O.
77 Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T.
Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean,
D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn,G. Raga,
M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland. 2007: Changes in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
EIA prepares the Annual Energy
Outlook using the National Energy
Modeling System (NEMS). Each annual
version of NEMS incorporates the
projected impacts of existing air quality
regulations on emissions. AEO 2013
generally represents current legislation
and environmental regulations,
including recent government actions, for
which implementing regulations were
available as of December 31, 2012.
SO2 emissions from affected electric
generating units (EGUs) are subject to
nationwide and regional emissions capand-trade programs. Title IV of the
Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions
cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48
contiguous States (42 U.S.C. 7651 et
seq.) and the District of Columbia (DC).
SO2 emissions from 28 eastern states
and DC were also limited under the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR; 70 FR
25162 (May 12, 2005)), which created an
allowance-based trading program. CAIR
was remanded to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit but it
remained in effect.78 See North Carolina
v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008);
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896
(D.C. Cir. 2008). In 2011, EPA issued a
replacement for CAIR, the Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 76 FR
48208 (August 8, 2011). On August 21,
2012, the DC Circuit issued a decision
to vacate CSAPR.79 The court ordered
EPA to continue administering CAIR.
The AEO 2013 emissions factors used
for today’s final rule assumes that CAIR
remains a binding regulation through
2040.
The attainment of emissions caps is
typically flexible among EGUs and is
enforced through the use of tradable
emissions allowances. Under existing
EPA regulations, any excess SO2
emissions allowances resulting from the
lower electricity demand caused by the
adoption of a new or amended
efficiency standard could be used to
allow offsetting increases in SO2
emissions by any regulated EGU. In past
rulemakings, DOE recognized that there
was uncertainty about the effects of
Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing.
In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M.
Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt,
M.Tignor and H.L. Miller, Editors. 2007. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA. p. 212.
78 See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C.
Cir. 2008); North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896
(D.C. Cir. 2008).
79 See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA,
696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 81
U.S.L.W. 3567, 81 U.S.L.W. 3696, 81 U.S.L.W. 3702
(U.S. June 24, 2013) (No. 12–1182).
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
efficiency standards on SO2 emissions
covered by the existing cap-and-trade
system, but it concluded that negligible
reductions in power sector SO2
emissions would occur as a result of
standards.
Beginning in 2015, however, SO2
emissions will fall as a result of the
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
(MATS) for power plants. 77 FR 9304
(February 16, 2012). In the final MATS
rule, EPA established a standard for
hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for
acid gas hazardous air pollutants (HAP),
and also established a standard for SO2
(a non-HAP acid gas) as an alternative
equivalent surrogate standard for acid
gas HAP. The same controls are used to
reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas;
thus, SO2 emissions will be reduced as
a result of the control technologies
installed on coal-fired power plants to
comply with the MATS requirements
for acid gas. AEO 2013 assumes that, in
order to continue operating, coal plants
must have either flue gas
desulfurization or dry sorbent injection
systems installed by 2015. Both
technologies, which are used to reduce
acid gas emissions, also reduce SO2
emissions. Under the MATS, NEMS
shows a reduction in SO2 emissions
when electricity demand decreases (e.g.,
as a result of energy efficiency
standards). Emissions will be far below
the cap that would be established by
CAIR, so it is unlikely that excess SO2
emissions allowances resulting from the
lower electricity demand would be
needed or used to allow offsetting
increases in SO2 emissions by any
regulated EGU. Therefore, DOE believes
that efficiency standards will reduce
SO2 emissions in 2015 and beyond.
CAIR established a cap on NOX
emissions in 28 eastern States and the
District of Columbia. Energy
conservation standards are expected to
have little effect on NOX emissions in
those States covered by CAIR because
excess NOX emissions allowances
resulting from the lower electricity
demand could be used to allow
offsetting increases in NOX emissions.
However, standards would be expected
to reduce NOX emissions in the States
not affected by the caps, so DOE
estimated NOX emissions reductions
from the standards considered in
today’s final rule for these States.
The MATS limit mercury emissions
from power plants, but they do not
include emissions caps and, as such,
DOE’s energy conservation standards
would likely reduce Hg emissions. DOE
estimated mercury emissions reduction
using emissions factors based on AEO
2013, which incorporates the MATS.
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other
Emissions Impacts
As part of the development of today’s
rule, DOE considered the estimated
monetary benefits from the reduced
emissions of CO2 and NOX that are
expected to result from each of the TSLs
considered. In order to make this
calculation analogous to the calculation
of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE
considered the reduced emissions
expected to result over the lifetime of
equipment shipped in the forecast
period for each TSL. This section
summarizes the basis for the monetary
values used for each of these emissions
and presents the values considered in
this final rule.
For today’s final rule, DOE is relying
on a set of values for the SCC that was
developed by a Federal interagency
process. The basis for these values is
summarized below, and a more detailed
description of the methodologies used is
provided as an appendix to chapter 14
of the final rule TSD.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
1. Social Cost of Carbon
The SCC is an estimate of the
monetized damages associated with an
incremental increase in carbon
emissions in a given year. It is intended
to include (but is not limited to) changes
in net agricultural productivity, human
health, property damages from
increased flood risk, and the value of
ecosystem services. Estimates of the
SCC are provided in dollars per metric
ton of carbon dioxide. A domestic SCC
value is meant to reflect the value of
damages in the United States resulting
from a unit change in carbon dioxide
emissions, while a global SCC value is
meant to reflect the value of damages
worldwide.
Under section 1(b) of Executive Order
12866, agencies must, to the extent
permitted by law, ‘‘assess both the costs
and the benefits of the intended
regulation and, recognizing that some
costs and benefits are difficult to
quantify, propose or adopt a regulation
only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended
regulation justify its costs’’. The purpose
of the SCC estimates presented here is
to allow agencies to incorporate the
monetized social benefits of reducing
CO2 emissions into cost-benefit analyses
of regulatory actions. The estimates are
presented with an acknowledgement of
the many uncertainties involved and
with a clear understanding that they
should be updated over time to reflect
increasing knowledge of the science and
economics of climate impacts.
As part of the interagency process that
developed these SCC estimates,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
technical experts from numerous
agencies met on a regular basis to
consider public comments, explore the
technical literature in relevant fields,
and discuss key model inputs and
assumptions. The main objective of this
process was to develop a range of SCC
values using a defensible set of input
assumptions grounded in the existing
scientific and economic literatures. In
this way, key uncertainties and model
differences transparently and
consistently inform the range of SCC
estimates used in the rulemaking
process.
a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
When attempting to assess the
incremental economic impacts of carbon
dioxide emissions, the analyst faces a
number of challenges. A report from the
National Research Council 80 points out
that any assessment will suffer from
uncertainty, speculation, and lack of
information about (1) future emissions
of GHGs, (2) the effects of past and
future emissions on the climate system,
(3) the impact of changes in climate on
the physical and biological
environment, and (4) the translation of
these environmental impacts into
economic damages. As a result, any
effort to quantify and monetize the
harms associated with climate change
will raise questions of science,
economics, and ethics and should be
viewed as provisional.
Despite the limits of both
quantification and monetization, SCC
estimates can be useful in estimating the
social benefits of reducing CO2
emissions. The agency can estimate the
benefits from reduced (or costs from
increased) emissions in any future year
by multiplying the change in emissions
in that year by the SCC values
appropriate for that year. The net
present value of the benefits can then be
calculated by multiplying each of these
future benefits by an appropriate
discount factor and summing across all
affected years.
It is important to emphasize that the
interagency process is committed to
updating these estimates as the science
and economic understanding of climate
change and its impacts on society
improves over time. In the meantime,
the interagency group will continue to
explore the issues raised by this analysis
and consider public comments as part of
the ongoing interagency process.
80 National Research Council. Hidden Costs of
Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy
Production and Use. 2009. National Academies
Press: Washington, DC.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
30985
b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon
Values
In 2009, an interagency process was
initiated to offer a preliminary
assessment of how best to quantify the
benefits from reducing carbon dioxide
emissions. To ensure consistency in
how benefits are evaluated across
Federal agencies, the Administration
sought to develop a transparent and
defensible method, specifically
designed for the rulemaking process, to
quantify avoided climate change
damages from reduced CO2 emissions.
The interagency group did not
undertake any original analysis. Instead,
it combined SCC estimates from the
existing literature to use as interim
values until a more comprehensive
analysis could be conducted. The
outcome of the preliminary assessment
by the interagency group was a set of
five interim values: Global SCC
estimates for 2007 (in 2006$) of $55,
$33, $19, $10, and $5 per metric ton of
CO2. These interim values represented
the first sustained interagency effort
within the U.S. government to develop
an SCC for use in regulatory analysis.
The results of this preliminary effort
were presented in several proposed and
final rules.
c. Current Approach and Key
Assumptions
After the release of the interim values,
the interagency group reconvened on a
regular basis to generate improved SCC
estimates. Specially, the group
considered public comments and
further explored the technical literature
in relevant fields. The interagency group
relied on three integrated assessment
models commonly used to estimate the
SCC: The FUND, DICE, and PAGE
models. These models are frequently
cited in the peer-reviewed literature and
were used in the last assessment of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). Each model was given
equal weight in the SCC values that
were developed.
Each model takes a slightly different
approach to model how changes in
emissions result in changes in economic
damages. A key objective of the
interagency process was to enable a
consistent exploration of the three
models, while respecting the different
approaches to quantifying damages
taken by the key modelers in the field.
An extensive review of the literature
was conducted to select three sets of
input parameters for these models:
climate sensitivity, socio-economic and
emissions trajectories, and discount
rates. A probability distribution for
climate sensitivity was specified as an
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30986
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
input into all three models. In addition,
the interagency group used a range of
scenarios for the socio-economic
parameters and a range of values for the
discount rate. All other model features
were left unchanged, relying on the
model developers’ best estimates and
judgments.
The interagency group selected four
sets of SCC values for use in regulatory
analyses. Three sets of values are based
on the average SCC from the three IAMs,
at discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5 percent.
The fourth set, which represents the
95th percentile SCC estimate across all
three models at a 3-percent discount
rate, was included to represent higher
than expected impacts from temperature
change further out in the tails of the
SCC distribution. The values grow in
real terms over time. Additionally, the
interagency group determined that a
range of values from 7 percent to 23
percent should be used to adjust the
global SCC to calculate domestic
effects,81 although preference is given to
consideration of the global benefits of
reducing CO2 emissions. Table IV.26
presents the values in the 2010
interagency group report,82 which is
reproduced in appendix 14–A of the
TSD.
TABLE IV.26—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2010 INTERAGENCY REPORT, 2010–2050
[In 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2]
Discount rate %
Year
3
2.5
3
Average
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
5
Average
Average
95th percentile
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
The SCC values used for today’s
notice were generated using the most
recent versions of the three integrated
assessment models that have been
published in the peer-reviewed
literature.83 Table IV.27 shows the
updated sets of SCC estimates in 5-year
4.7
5.7
6.8
8.2
9.7
11.2
12.7
14.2
15.7
21.4
23.8
26.3
29.6
32.8
36.0
39.2
42.1
44.9
35.1
38.4
41.7
45.9
50.0
54.2
58.4
61.7
65.0
64.9
72.8
80.7
90.4
100.0
109.7
119.3
127.8
136.2
capturing the uncertainties involved in
regulatory impact analysis, the
interagency group emphasizes the
importance of including all four sets of
SCC values.
increments from 2010 to 2050. The full
set of annual SCC estimates between
2010 and 2050 is reported in appendix
14B of the DOE final rule TSD. The
central value that emerges is the average
SCC across models at the 3 percent
discount rate. However, for purposes of
TABLE IV.27—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2013 INTERAGENCY REPORT, 2010–2050
[In 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2]
Discount rate %
Year
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
3
2.5
3
Average
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
5
Average
Average
95th percentile
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
11
11
12
14
16
19
21
24
26
32
37
43
47
52
56
61
66
71
51
57
64
69
75
80
86
92
97
89
109
128
143
159
175
191
206
220
It is important to recognize that a
number of key uncertainties remain, and
that current SCC estimates should be
treated as provisional and revisable
since they will evolve with improved
scientific and economic understanding.
The interagency group also recognizes
that the existing models are imperfect
and incomplete. The 2009 National
Research Council report mentioned
above points out that there is tension
between the goal of producing
81 It is recognized that this calculation for
domestic values is approximate, provisional, and
highly speculative. There is no a priori reason why
domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of
net global damages over time.
82 Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact
Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency
Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United
States Government, February 2010.
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/
inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-forRIA.pdf.
83 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon
for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive
Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on Social
Cost of Carbon, United States Government. May
2013; revised November 2013. https://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/
inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-forregulator-impact-analysis.pdf
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
quantified estimates of the economic
damages from an incremental ton of
carbon and the limits of existing efforts
to model these effects. There are a
number of analytic challenges that are
being addressed by the research
community, including research
programs housed in many of the Federal
agencies participating in the interagency
process to estimate the SCC. The
interagency group intends to
periodically review and reconsider
those estimates to reflect increasing
knowledge of the science and
economics of climate impacts, as well as
improvements in modeling.
In summary, in considering the
potential global benefits resulting from
reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the
values from the 2013 interagency report
adjusted to 2012$ using the GDP price
deflator. For each of the four sets of SCC
values, the values for emissions in 2015
were $11.8, $39.7, $61.2, and $117 per
metric ton avoided (values expressed in
2012$). DOE derived values after 2050
using the relevant growth rates for the
2040–2050 period in the interagency
update.
DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions
reduction estimated for each year by the
SCC value for that year in each of the
four cases. To calculate a present value
of the stream of monetary values, DOE
discounted the values in each of the
four cases using the specific discount
rate that had been used to obtain the
SCC values in each case.
NEMA provided a lengthy critique of
the integrated assessment models
(IAMs) that were utilized by the
Interagency Working Group to
projecting future damages from CO2
emissions, pointing out that there is
enormous uncertainty in the models.
(NEMA, No. 93 at p. 16) The Cato
Institute stated that the determination of
the SCC is discordant with the best
scientific literature on the equilibrium
climate sensitivity and the fertilization
effect of carbon dioxide—two critically
important parameters for establishing
the net externality of carbon dioxide
emissions, at odds with existing OMB
guidelines for preparing regulatory
analyses, and founded upon the output
of IAMs that encapsulate such large
uncertainties as to provide no reliable
guidance as to the sign, much less the
magnitude of the social cost of carbon.
(Cato Institute, No. 94 at p. 1)
NEMA stated that the monetized
benefits of carbon emission reductions
are informative at some level, but
should not be considered as
determinative in the Secretary’s
decision-making under EPCA. NEMA
believes that DOE should base its net
benefit determination for justifying a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
particular energy conservation standard
on the traditional criteria relied upon by
DOE—impacts on manufacturers,
consumers, employment, energy
savings, and competition. (NEMA, No.
93 at p. 16) The American Forest &
Paper Association (AF&PA) and the
American Fuel & Petrochemical
Manufacturers (AFPM) stated that the
SCC calculation should not be used in
any rulemaking and/or policymaking
until it undergoes a more rigorous
notice, review and comment process.84
(AF&PA and AFPM, No. 95 at p. 1)
Similarly, the Cato Institute stated that
the SCC should not be used in this or
other rulemakings. (Cato Institute, No.
94 at p. 1) In contrast, the Joint
Advocates and CA IOUs expressed
support for the use of the updated SCC
values that are based on the interagency
working group’s most recent review of
peer-reviewed models on the subject.
(Joint Advocates, No. 97 at p. 4; CA
IOUs, No. 99 at p. 2)
In response to the comments on the
SCC values, DOE acknowledges the
limitations in the SCC estimates, which
are discussed in detail in the 2010
interagency group report. Specifically,
uncertainties in the assumptions
regarding climate sensitivity, as well as
other model inputs such as economic
growth and emissions trajectories, are
discussed and the reasons for the
specific input assumptions chosen are
explained. However, the three
integrated assessment models used to
estimate the SCC are frequently cited in
the peer-reviewed literature and were
used in the last assessment of the IPCC.
In addition, new versions of the models
that were used in 2013 to estimate
revised SCC values were published in
the peer-reviewed literature (see
appendix 14B of the final rule TSD for
discussion). Although uncertainties
remain, the revised estimates that were
issued in November, 2013 are based on
the best available scientific information
on the impacts of climate change. The
current estimates of the SCC have been
developed over many years, using the
best science available, and with input
from the public. In November 2013,
OMB announced a new opportunity for
public comment on the interagency
technical support document underlying
the revised SCC estimates. See 78 FR
70586. The comment period for the
OMB announcement closed on February
26, 2014. OMB is currently reviewing
84 AF&PA and AFPM pointed to more detailed
comments that were filed by AFPM and several
other trade associations on DOE’s Energy
Conservation Standards for Commercial
Refrigeration Equipment. https://
www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE2010-BT-STD-0003-0079.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
30987
comments and considering whether
further revisions to the 2013 SCC
estimates are warranted. DOE stands
ready to work with OMB and the other
members of the interagency working
group on further review and revision of
the SCC estimates as appropriate.
2. Valuation of Other Emissions
Reductions
DOE investigated the potential
monetary benefit of reduced NOX
emissions from the TSLs it considered.
As noted above, DOE has taken into
account how new or amended energy
conservation standards would reduce
NOX emissions in those 22 states not
affected by the CAIR. DOE estimated the
monetized value of NOX emissions
reductions resulting from each of the
TSLs considered for today’s rule based
on estimates found in the relevant
scientific literature. Estimates of
monetary value for reducing NOX from
stationary sources range from $476 to
$4,893 per ton (2013$).85 DOE
calculated monetary benefits using a
medium value for NOX emissions of
$2,684 per short ton (in 2014$), and real
discount rates of 3 percent and 7
percent.
DOE is evaluating appropriate
monetization of avoided SO2 and Hg
emissions in energy conservation
standards rulemakings. It has not
included monetization in the current
analysis.
M. Utility Impact Analysis
The utility impact analysis estimates
several effects on the power generation
industry that would result from the
adoption of new or amended energy
conservation standards. In the utility
impact analysis, DOE analyzes the
changes in installed electricity capacity
and generation that would result for
each trial standard level. The utility
impact analysis uses NEMS–BT to
account for selected utility impacts of
new or amended energy conservation
standards. DOE’s analysis consists of a
comparison between model results for
the most recent AEO Reference case and
for cases in which energy use is
decremented to reflect the impact of
potential standards. The energy savings
inputs associated with each TSL come
from the NIA. Chapter 15 of the final
rule TSD describes the utility impact
analysis in further detail.
85 For additional information, refer to U.S. Office
of Management and Budget, Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, 2006 Report to Congress on
the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and
Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal
Entities, Washington, DC.
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30988
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
N. Employment Impact Analysis
Employment impacts from new or
amended energy conservation standards
include direct and indirect impacts.
Direct employment impacts are any
changes in the number of employees of
manufacturers of the equipment subject
to standards; the MIA addresses those
impacts. Indirect employment impacts
are changes in national employment
that occur due to the shift in
expenditures and capital investment
caused by the purchase and operation of
more-efficient equipment. Indirect
employment impacts from standards
consist of the jobs created or eliminated
in the national economy, other than in
the manufacturing sector being
regulated, due to: (1) Reduced spending
by end users on energy; (2) reduced
spending on new energy supply by the
utility industry; (3) increased consumer
spending on the purchase of new
equipment; and (4) the effects of those
three factors throughout the economy.
One method for assessing the possible
effects on the demand for labor of such
shifts in economic activity is to compare
sector employment statistics developed
by the Labor Department’s Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS 86). BLS regularly
publishes its estimates of the number of
jobs per million dollars of economic
activity in different sectors of the
economy, as well as the jobs created
elsewhere in the economy by this same
economic activity. Data from BLS
indicate that expenditures in the utility
sector generally create fewer jobs (both
directly and indirectly) than
expenditures in other sectors of the
economy. There are many reasons for
these differences, including wage
differences and the fact that the utility
sector is more capital-intensive and less
labor-intensive than other sectors.
Energy conservation standards have the
effect of reducing consumer utility bills.
Because reduced consumer
expenditures for energy likely lead to
increased expenditures in other sectors
of the economy, the general effect of
efficiency standards is to shift economic
activity from a less labor-intensive
sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more
labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the retail
and service sectors). Thus, based on the
BLS data alone, DOE believes net
national employment may increase
because of shifts in economic activity
resulting from new and amended
standards.
For the standard levels considered,
DOE estimated indirect national
employment impacts using an input/
output model of the U.S. economy
called Impact of Sector Energy
Technologies, Version 3.1.1 (ImSET).
ImSET is a special purpose version of
the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark National InputOutput’’ (I–O) model, which was
designed to estimate the national
employment and income effects of
energy-saving technologies. The ImSET
software includes a computer-based I–O
model having structural coefficients that
characterize economic flows among the
187 sectors. ImSET’s national economic
I–O structure is based on a 2002 U.S.
benchmark table, specially aggregated to
the 187 sectors most relevant to
industrial, commercial, and residential
building energy use. DOE notes that
ImSET is not a general equilibrium
forecasting model, and understands the
uncertainties involved in projecting
employment impacts, especially
changes in the later years of the
analysis. Because ImSET does not
incorporate price changes, the
employment effects predicted by ImSET
may over-estimate actual job impacts
over the long run. For the final rule,
DOE did not receive any comments and
retained the same approach using
ImSET only to estimate short-term
employment impacts.
For more details on the employment
impact analysis, see chapter 16 of the
final rule TSD.
O. Other Comments Received
In response to the NOPR, interested
parties submitted additional comments
on a variety of general issues. CEC and
NEMA both pointed out a table
formatting error that appeared in Table
4 on p. 73679 the Federal Register
version of the NOPR.87 (CEC, No. 96 at
p. 3, NEMA, No. 93 at p. 30) DOE notes
that this error was corrected in the CFR
and future versions of the table. The
Office of the Federal Register published
a correction to the table on February 14,
2014. See 79 FR 8309.
In response to the NOPR, Scott Mohs
raised concern about loss of wildlife
habitat due to corn acreage. (Scott Mohs,
No. 102 at p. 1) This issue is beyond the
scope of the electric motors rulemaking,
and, accordingly, DOE does not discuss
corn acreage in today’s final rule.
V. Analytical Results
A. Trial Standard Levels
DOE ordinarily considers several Trial
Standard Levels (TSLs) in its analytical
process. TSLs are formed by grouping
different Efficiency Levels (ELs), which
are standard levels for each Equipment
Class Grouping (ECG) of motors. Within
each equipment class grouping, DOE
established equipment classes based on
pole configuration, horsepower rating,
and enclosure, leading to a total of 482
equipment classes (see section IV.A.4).
DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens
of the TSLs developed for today’s final
rule. DOE examined four TSLs for
electric motors. Table V.1 presents the
TSLs analyzed and the corresponding
efficiency level for each equipment class
group.
The efficiency levels in each TSL can
be characterized as follows: TSL 1
represents each equipment class group
moving up one efficiency level from the
current baseline, with the exception of
fire-pump motors, which remain at their
baseline level; TSL 2 represents
Premium levels for all equipment class
groups with the exception of fire-pump
motors, which remain at the baseline;
TSL 3 represents one NEMA band above
Premium for all groups except firepump motors, which move up to
Premium; and TSL 4 represents the
maximum technologically feasible level
(max-tech) for all equipment class
groups.1 Because today’s final rule
includes equipment class groups
containing both currently regulated
motors and newly regulated motors, at
certain TSLs, an equipment class group
may encompass different standard
levels, some of which may be above one
EL above the baseline. For example, at
TSL1, EL1 is being selected for
equipment class group 1. However, a
large number of motors in equipment
class group 1 already have to meet EL2.
If TSL1 was selected, these motors
would continue to be required to meet
the standards at TSL2, while currently
un-regulated motors would be regulated
to TSL1 (see TSD chapter 10).
TABLE V.1—SUMMARY OF TSLS
Equipment class group
TSL 1
TSL 2
TSL 3
1 .....................................................................
EL 1 ...........................
EL 2 ...........................
EL 3 ...........................
86 See Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Current Employment Statistics (Available
at: https://www.bls.gov/ces/.)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
87 78
PO 00000
FR 73679.
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
TSL 4
EL 4.
30989
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE V.1—SUMMARY OF TSLS—Continued
Equipment class group
TSL 1
TSL 2
TSL 3
2 .....................................................................
3 .....................................................................
EL 1 ...........................
EL 0 ...........................
EL 1 ...........................
EL 0 ...........................
EL 2 ...........................
EL 1 ...........................
B. Economic Justification and Energy
Savings
As discussed in section II.A, EPCA
provides seven factors to be evaluated in
determining whether a potential energy
conservation standard is economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–
(VII) as applied to equipment via
6316(a)) The following sections
generally discuss how DOE is
addressing each of those seven factors in
this rulemaking.
1. Economic Impacts on Individual
Customers
DOE analyzed the economic impacts
on electric motor customers by looking
at the effects standards would have on
the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined
the rebuttable presumption payback
periods for each equipment class, and
the impacts of potential standards on
customer subgroups. These analyses are
discussed below.
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
To evaluate the net economic impact
of standards on electric motor
customers, DOE conducted LCC and
PBP analyses for each TSL. In general,
higher-efficiency equipment would
typically affect customers in two ways:
(1) Annual operating expense would
decrease, and (2) purchase price would
increase. Section IV.F of this rule
discusses the inputs DOE used for
calculating the LCC and PBP. The LCC
TSL 4
EL 2.
EL 3.
and PBP results are calculated from
electric motor cost and efficiency data
that are modeled in the engineering
analysis (section IV.C).
For each representative unit, the key
outputs of the LCC analysis are a mean
LCC savings and a median PBP relative
to the base case, as well as the fraction
of customers for which the LCC will
decrease (net benefit), increase (net
cost), or exhibit no change (no impact)
relative to the base-case product
forecast. No impacts occur when the
base-case efficiency equals or exceeds
the efficiency at a given TSL. Table V.2
show the key shipment-weighted
average of results for the representative
units in each equipment class group.
TABLE V.2—SUMMARY LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR EQUIPMENT CLASS GROUP 1
Trial Standard Level *
1
2
3
4
Efficiency Level
1
2
3
4
Customers with Net LCC Cost (%) ** ..............................................................................................
Customers with Net LCC Benefit (%) ** ..........................................................................................
Customers with No Change in LCC (%) ** ......................................................................................
Mean LCC Savings ($) ....................................................................................................................
Median PBP (Years) ........................................................................................................................
0.3
10.9
88.8
$55
1.0
7.8
34.3
57.9
$160
2.9
34.8
44.7
20.4
$98
6.0
83.3
9.4
7.3
¥$409
26.5
* The results for equipment class group 1 are the shipment weighted averages of the results for representative units 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10.
** Rounding may cause some items to not total 100 percent.
TABLE V.3—SUMMARY LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR EQUIPMENT CLASS GROUP 2
Trial Standard Level *
1
2
3
4
Efficiency Level
1
1
2
2
Customers with Net LCC Cost (%) ** ..............................................................................................
Customers with Net LCC Benefit (%) ** ..........................................................................................
Customers with No Change in LCC (%) ** ......................................................................................
Mean LCC Savings ($) ....................................................................................................................
Median PBP (Years) ........................................................................................................................
18.6
71.5
9.8
$53
4.5
18.6
71.5
9.8
$53
4.5
92.8
7.2
0.0
¥$280
20.7
92.8
7.2
0.0
¥$280
20.7
* The results for equipment class group 2 are the shipment weighted averages of the results for representative units 4 and 5.
** Rounding may cause some items to not total 100 percent.
TABLE V.4—SUMMARY LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR EQUIPMENT CLASS GROUP 3
1
2
3
4
Efficiency Level
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Trial Standard Level *
0
0
1
3
Customers with Net LCC Cost (%) ** ..............................................................................................
Customers with Net LCC Benefit (%) ** ..........................................................................................
Customers with No Change in LCC (%) ** ......................................................................................
Mean LCC Savings ($) ....................................................................................................................
Median PBP (Years) ........................................................................................................................
0.0
0.0
0.0
N/A ***
N/A ***
0.0
0.0
0.0
N/A ***
N/A ***
81.7
0.0
18.3
¥$64.6
3016
* The results for equipment class group 3 are the shipment weighted averages of the results for representative units 6, 7, and 8.
** Rounding may cause some items to not total 100 percent.
*** For equipment class group 3, TSLs 1 and 2 are the same as the baseline; thus, no customers are affected.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
100.0
0.0
0.0
¥$807
11632
30990
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
In the customer subgroup analysis,
DOE estimated the LCC impacts of the
electric motor TSLs on various groups of
customers. Table V.5 and Table V.6
compare the weighted average mean
LCC savings and median payback
periods for ECG 1 at each TSL for
different customer subgroups. Chapter
11 of the TSD presents the detailed
results of the customer subgroup
analysis and results for the other
equipment class groups.
TABLE V.5—SUMMARY LIFE-CYCLE COST RESULTS FOR SUBGROUPS FOR EQUIPMENT CLASS GROUP 1: AVERAGE LCC
SAVINGS
Average LCC savings (2013$) *
EL
1
2
3
4
TSL
.................................................
.................................................
.................................................
.................................................
Reference
scenario
1
2
3
4
Low energy
price
55
160
98
¥409
Small
business
55
160
97
¥410
Industrial
sector only
49
141
76
¥439
Commercial
sector only
65
195
136
¥355
Agricultural
sector only
52
148
85
¥428
20
11
¥100
¥701
* The results for equipment class group 1 are the shipment weighted averages of the results for representative units 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10.
TABLE V.6—SUMMARY LIFE-CYCLE COST RESULTS FOR SUBGROUPS FOR EQUIPMENT CLASS GROUP 1: MEDIAN
PAYBACK PERIOD
Median payback period
(years)*
EL
TSL
Reference
scenario
1
2
3
4
.................................................
.................................................
.................................................
.................................................
1
2
3
4
Low energy
price
1.0
2.9
6.0
26.5
Small
business
1
3
6
26
Industrial
sector only
1
3
6
27
Commercial
sector only
1
2
4
18
Agricultural
sector only
1
3
7
30
3
7
23
126
* The results for equipment class group 1 are the shipment weighted averages of the results for representative units 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10.
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
As discussed in section IV.F.12, EPCA
establishes a rebuttable presumption
that an energy conservation standard is
economically justified if the increased
purchase cost for equipment that meets
the standard is less than three times the
value of the first-year energy savings
resulting from the standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(a)) DOE
calculated a rebuttable-presumption
PBP for each TSL to determine whether
full range of impacts to the customer,
manufacturer, Nation, and environment,
as required under 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i) as applied to equipment
via 42 U.S.C. 6316(a). The results of that
analysis serve as the basis for DOE to
definitively evaluate the economic
justification for a potential standard
level (thereby supporting or rebutting
the results of any three-year PBP
analysis). Section V.C addresses how
DOE considered the range of impacts to
select today’s final rule.
DOE could presume that a standard at
that level is economically justified. DOE
based the calculations on average usage
profiles. As a result, DOE calculated a
single rebuttable-presumption payback
value, and not a distribution of PBPs, for
each TSL. Table V.7 shows the
rebuttable-presumption PBPs for the
considered TSLs. The rebuttable
presumption is fulfilled in those cases
where the PBP is three years or less.
However, DOE routinely conducts an
economic analysis that considers the
TABLE V.7—REBUTTABLE-PRESUMPTION PAYBACK PERIODS (YEARS)
Equipment
class group*
Trial standard level
1
1 ..................
2 ..................
3 ..................
2
3
0.5
1.6
N/A**
4
0.8
1.6
N/A**
1.2
7.3
817
4.0
7.3
4,991
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
*The results for each equipment class group (ECG) are a shipment weighted average of results for the representative units in the group. ECG
1: Representative units 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10; ECG 2: Representative units 4 and 5; ECG 3: Representative units 6, 7, and 8.
**For equipment class group 3, TSLs 1 and 2 are the same as the baseline; thus, no customers are affected.
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
DOE performed an MIA to estimate
the impact of new and amended energy
conservation standards on
manufacturers of covered electric
motors. The following section describes
the expected impacts on manufacturers
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
at each TSL. Chapter 12 of this final rule
TSD explains the analysis in further
detail.
a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results
The results below show three INPV
tables representing the three markup
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
scenarios used for the analysis. The first
table reflects the flat, or gross margin,
markup scenario, which is the upper
(less severe) bound of impacts. To assess
the lower end of the range of potential
impacts, DOE modeled two potential
markup scenarios, a two-tiered markup
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30991
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
scenario and a preservation of operating
profit markup scenario. The two-tiered
markup scenario assumes manufacturers
offer two different tiers of markups—
one for lower efficiency levels and one
for higher efficiency levels. Meanwhile
the preservation of operating profit
markup scenario assumes that in the
standards case, manufacturers would be
able to earn the same operating margin
in absolute dollars in the standards case
as in the base case. In general, the larger
the MPC price increases, the less likely
manufacturers are able to fully pass
through additional costs due to
standards calculated in the flat markup
scenario.
Table V.8, Table V.9, and Table V.10
present the results for all electric motors
under the flat, two-tiered, and
preservation of operating profit markup
scenarios. DOE examined all three ECGs
(Design A and B motors, Design C
motors, fire pump motors) together.
TABLE V.8—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS—FLAT MARKUP SCENARIO
Trial standard level
Units
Base case
1
INPV ..........................................................
Change in INPV ........................................
...................................................................
Product Conversion Costs ........................
Capital Conversion Costs .........................
Total Conversion Costs ............................
(2013$ millions) ................
(2013$ millions) ................
(%) ....................................
(2013$ millions) ................
(2013$ millions) ................
(2013$ millions) ................
$3,478.0
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
2
$3,486.4
$8.4
0.2%
$6.2
$0.0
$6.2
$3,870.6
$392.6
11.3%
$58.0
$26.6
$84.6
3
4
$4,541.9
$1,063.9
30.6%
$618.1
$222.8
$841.0
$5,382.1
$1,904.1
54.7%
$627.4
$707.2
$1,334.6
TABLE V.9—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS—TWO-TIERED MARKUP SCENARIO
Trial standard level
Units
Base case
1
INPV ..........................................................
Change in INPV ........................................
...................................................................
Product Conversion Costs ........................
Capital Conversion Costs .........................
Total Conversion Costs ............................
(2013$ millions) ................
(2013$ millions) ................
(%) ....................................
(2013$ millions) ................
(2013$ millions) ................
(2013$ millions) ................
$3,478.0
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
2
$3,481.6
$3.6
0.1%
$6.2
$0.0
$6.2
$3,130.4
$¥347.7
¥10.0%
$58.0
$26.6
$84.6
3
$2,928.3
$¥549.7
¥15.8%
$618.1
$222.8
$841.0
4
$3,282.0
$¥196.0
¥5.6%
$627.4
$707.2
$1,334.6
TABLE V.10—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS—PRESERVATION OF OPERATING PROFIT
MARKUP SCENARIO
Trial standard level
Units
Base case
1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
INPV ..........................................................
Change in INPV ........................................
...................................................................
Product Conversion Costs ........................
Capital Conversion Costs .........................
Total Conversion Costs ............................
(2013$ millions) ................
(2013$ millions) ................
(%) ....................................
(2013$ millions) ................
(2013$ millions) ................
(2013$ millions) ................
TSL 1 represents EL 1 for ECG 1 and
ECG 2 motors and baseline for ECG 3
motors. At TSL 1, DOE estimates
impacts on INPV to range from $8.4
million to ¥$16.7 million, or a change
in INPV of 0.2 percent to ¥0.5 percent.
At this TSL, industry free cash flow is
estimated to decrease by approximately
1 percent to $164.3 million, compared
to the base case value of $166.1 million
in 2015.
The INPV impacts at TSL 1 range
from slightly positive to slightly
negative. Consequently, DOE does not
anticipate that manufacturers would
lose a significant portion of their INPV
at this TSL. This is because the vast
majority of shipments already meets or
exceeds the efficiency levels prescribed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
$3,478.0
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
$3,461.3
$¥16.7
¥0.5%
$6.2
$0.0
$6.2
at TSL 1. DOE estimates that in the year
of compliance (2016), 90 percent of all
electric motor shipments (91 percent of
ECG 1a, 68 percent of ECG 1b, 8 percent
of ECG 2, and 100 percent of ECG 3
shipments) would already meet the
efficiency levels at TSL 1 or higher in
the base case. Since ECG 1a shipments
account for over 97 percent of all
electric motor shipments, the effects on
those motors are the primary driver for
the impacts at this TSL. Only a few ECG
1a shipments not currently covered by
the existing electric motor standard and
a small amount of ECG 1b and ECG 2
shipments would need to be converted
to comply with efficiency standards
prescribed at TSL 1.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2
$3,643.0
$165.0
4.7%
$58.0
$26.6
$84.6
3
$3,362.0
$¥116.0
¥3.3%
$618.1
$222.8
$841.0
4
$2,048.3
$¥1,429.8
¥41.1%
$627.4
$707.2
$1,334.6
DOE expects conversion costs to be
small compared to the industry value
because most of the electric motor
shipments, on a volume basis, already
meet the efficiency levels analyzed at
this TSL. DOE estimates product
conversion costs of $6.2 million due to
the expanded scope of motors covered
by this rulemaking, which includes
motors previously not covered by the
existing electric motor energy
conservation standards. DOE believes
that at this TSL, there will be some
engineering costs, as well as testing and
certification costs associated with this
scope expansion. DOE estimates the
capital conversion costs to be minimal
at TSL 1. This is mainly because almost
all manufacturers currently produce
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
30992
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
some motors that are compliant at TSL
1 efficiency levels, and it would not be
much of a capital investment to bring all
motor production to this efficiency
level.
TSL 2 represents EL 2 for ECG 1a and
ECG 1b motors, EL 1 for ECG 2 motors,
and baseline for ECG 3 motors. At TSL
2, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to
range from $392.6 million to ¥$347.7
million, or a change in INPV of 11.3
percent to ¥10.0 percent. At this TSL,
industry free cash flow is estimated to
decrease by approximately 17 percent to
$137.1 million, compared to the base
case value of $166.1 million in 2015.
The INPV impacts at TSL 2 range
from moderately positive to slightly
negative. DOE estimates that in the year
of compliance (2016), 60 percent of all
electric motor shipments (60 percent of
ECG 1a, 31 percent of ECG 1b, 8 percent
of ECG 2, and 100 percent of ECG 3
shipments) would already meet the
efficiency levels at TSL 2 or higher in
the base case. The majority of shipments
are currently covered by an electric
motors standard that requires general
purpose Design A and B motors to meet
the efficiency levels at this TSL.
Therefore, only previously non-covered
Design A and B motors and most ECG
1b and ECG 2 motors would need to be
converted to comply with efficiency
standards prescribed at TSL 2.
At TSL 2, DOE expects conversion
costs to increase significantly from TSL
1. However, these conversion costs do
not represent a large portion of the base
case INPV, since the majority of electric
motor shipments already meet the
efficiency levels required at this TSL.
DOE estimates product conversion costs
of $58.0 million due to the expanded
scope of this rulemaking, which
includes motors not previously covered
by the existing electric motor energy
conservation standards and the
inclusion of ECG 1b and ECG 2 motors.
DOE believes there will be moderate
engineering costs, as well as testing and
certification costs at this TSL associated
with this scope expansion. DOE
estimates the capital conversion costs to
be approximately $26.6 million at TSL
2. While most manufacturers already
produce at least some motors that are
compliant at TSL 2, these manufacturers
would likely have to invest in
machinery to bring all motor production
to these efficiency levels.
TSL 3 represents EL 3 for ECG 1a and
ECG 1b motors, EL 2 for ECG 2 motors,
and EL 1 for ECG 3 motors. At TSL 3,
DOE estimates the impacts on INPV to
range from $1,063.9 million to ¥$549.7
million, or a change in INPV of 30.6
percent to ¥15.8 percent. At this TSL,
industry free cash flow is estimated to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
decrease by approximately 170 percent
to ¥$116.0 million, compared to the
base case value of $166.1 million in
2015.
The INPV impacts at TSL 3 range
from significantly positive to
moderately negative. DOE estimates that
in the year of compliance (2016), 23
percent of all electric motor shipments
(24 percent of ECG 1a, 4 percent of ECG
1b, less than 1 percent of ECG 2, and 19
percent of ECG 3 shipments) would
already meet the efficiency levels at TSL
3 or higher in the base case. The
majority of shipments would need to be
converted to comply with efficiency
standards prescribed at TSL 3.
DOE expects conversion costs to
increase significantly at TSL 3 and
become a substantial investment for
manufacturers. DOE estimates product
conversion costs of $618.1 million at
TSL 3, since most electric motors in the
base case do not exceed the current
motor standards set at premium
efficiency levels for Design A and B
motors, which represents EL 2 for ECG
1a. DOE believes there would need to be
a massive reengineering effort that
manufacturers would have to undergo to
have all motors meet this TSL.
Additionally, motor manufacturers
would have to increase the efficiency
levels for ECG 1b, ECG 2, and ECG 3
motors. DOE estimates the capital
conversion costs to be approximately
$222.8 million at TSL 3. Most
manufacturers would have to make
significant investments to their
production facilities in order to convert
all their motors to be compliant at TSL
3.
TSL 4 represents EL 4 for ECG 1a and
ECG 1b motors, EL 2 for ECG 2 motors,
and EL 3 for ECG 3 motors. At TSL 4,
DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range
from $1,904.1 million to ¥$1,429.8
million, or a change in INPV of 54.7
percent to ¥41.1 percent. At this TSL,
industry free cash flow is estimated to
decrease by approximately 303 percent
to ¥$336.6 million, compared to the
base case value of $166.1 million in
2015.
The INPV impacts at TSL 4 range
from significantly positive to
significantly negative. DOE estimates
that in the year of compliance (2016)
only 8 percent of all electric motor
shipments (9 percent of ECG 1a, less
than 1 percent of ECG 1b, less than 1
percent of ECG 2, and no ECG 3
shipments) would meet the efficiency
levels at TSL 2 or higher in the base
case. Almost all shipments would need
to be converted to comply with
efficiency standards prescribed at TSL
4.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
DOE expects conversion costs again to
increase significantly from TSL 3 to TSL
4. Conversion costs at TSL 4 now
represent a massive investment for
electric motor manufacturers. DOE
estimates product conversion costs of
$627.4 million at TSL 4, which are only
slightly more than at TSL 3. DOE
believes that manufacturers would need
to completely reengineer almost all
electric motors sold, as well as test and
certify those motors. DOE estimates
capital conversion costs of $707.2
million at TSL 4. This is a significant
increase in capital conversion costs
from TSL 3, since manufacturers would
need to adopt copper die-casting at TSL
4. This technology requires a significant
level of investment because the majority
of manufacturers’ machinery would
need to be replaced or significantly
modified.
b. Impacts on Employment
DOE quantitatively assessed the
impact of new and amended energy
conservation standards on direct
employment in the electric motors
industry. DOE used the GRIM to
estimate the domestic labor
expenditures and number of domestic
production workers in the base case and
at each TSL from the announcement of
standards in 2014 (i.e., the publication
of this final rule) to the end of the
analysis period in 2045. DOE used
statistical data from the U.S. Census
Bureau’s 2011 Annual Survey of
Manufacturers 88 (ASM), the results of
the engineering analysis, and interviews
with manufacturers to determine the
inputs necessary to calculate industrywide labor expenditures and domestic
employment levels. Labor expenditures
involved with the manufacturing of
electric motors are a function of the
labor intensity of the equipment, the
MPC of the equipment, the sales
volume, and an assumption that wages
remain fixed in real terms over time.
In the GRIM, DOE used the labor
content of the equipment and the MPCs
to estimate the annual labor
expenditures of the industry. DOE used
Census data and interviews with
manufacturers to estimate the portion of
the total labor expenditures attributable
to domestic labor.
The production worker estimates in
this employment section cover only
workers up to the line-supervisor level
who are directly involved in fabricating
and assembling an electric motor within
a motor facility. Workers performing
services that are closely associated with
production operations, such as material
88 See https://www.census.gov/manufacturing/
asm/.
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30993
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
handling with a forklift, are also
included as production labor. DOE’s
estimates account for only production
workers who manufacture the specific
equipment covered by this rulemaking.
For example, a worker on an electric
motor production line manufacturing a
fractional horsepower motor (i.e., a
motor with less than one horsepower)
would not be included with this
estimate of the number of electric motor
workers, since fractional motors are not
covered by this rulemaking.
The employment impacts shown in
the tables below represent the potential
production employment impact
resulting from new and amended energy
conservation standards. The upper
bound of the results estimates the
maximum change in the number of
production workers that could occur
after compliance with standards when
assuming that manufacturers continue
to produce the same scope of covered
equipment in the same production
facilities. It also assumes that domestic
production does not shift to lower-laborcost countries. Because there is a real
risk of manufacturers evaluating
sourcing decisions in response to
standards, the lower bound of the
employment results includes the
estimated total number of U.S.
production workers in the industry who
could lose their jobs if some or all
existing production were moved outside
of the U.S. While the results present a
range of employment impacts following
2016, the following sections also
include qualitative discussions of the
likelihood of negative employment
impacts at the various TSLs. Finally, the
employment impacts shown are
independent of the indirect employment
impacts from the broader U.S. economy,
which are documented in chapter 16 of
this final rule TSD.
Based on 2011 ASM data and
interviews with manufacturers, DOE
estimates approximately 60 percent of
electric motors sold in the U.S. are
manufactured domestically. Using this
assumption, DOE estimates that in the
absence of new and amended energy
conservation standards, there would be
approximately 7,313 domestic
production workers involved in
manufacturing all electric motors
covered by this rulemaking in 2016.
Table V.11 shows the range of potential
impacts of standards on U.S. production
workers in the electric motor industry.
However, because ECG 1a motors
comprise more than 97 percent of the
electric motors covered by this
rulemaking, DOE believes that potential
changes in domestic employment will
be driven primarily by the standards
that are selected for ECG 1a (i.e., Design
A and B motors).
TABLE V.11—POTENTIAL CHANGES IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ALL DOMESTIC ELECTRIC MOTOR PRODUCTION WORKERS
IN 2016
Trial standard level
Base case
1
Total Number of Domestic Production
Workers in 2016 (upper bound: without
changes in production locations) .............
Total Number of Domestic Production
Workers in 2016 (lower bound: with
changes to off-shore production locations) .........................................................
Potential Changes in Domestic Production
Workers in 2016* ......................................
2
3
4
7,313
7,346
7,498
8,374
16,049
7,313
7,313
6,947
3,657
0
........................
33 to 0
185 to ¥366
1,061 to ¥3,656
8,736 to ¥7,313
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
* DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts.
Most manufacturers agree that any
standard that involves expanding the
scope of equipment required to meet
premium efficiency levels for ECG 1a
motors would not significantly change
domestic employment levels. For
standards that required ECG 1a motors
to be at premium efficiency levels (the
efficiency levels required for ECG 1a
motors at TSL 2), most large
manufacturers would not need to make
major modifications to their production
lines nor would they have to undertake
new manufacturing processes. A few
small manufacturers who primarily
make electric motors outside the scope
of coverage for the existing electric
motor standards, but whose equipment
would be covered by these electric
motor standards, could be impacted by
efficiency standards at TSL 2. These
impacts to small manufacturers,
including employment impacts, are
discussed in more detail in section VI.B
of today’s final rule.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
Overall, DOE believes there would not
be a significant decrease in domestic
employment levels at TSL 2, the
selected TSL in today’s final rule. DOE
created a lower bound of the potential
loss of domestic employment at 366
employees for TSL 2. DOE based this
lower bound estimate on the fact that
approximately 5 percent of the electric
motor market is comprised of
manufacturers that do not currently
produce any motors at Premium
efficiency levels. Therefore, DOE
estimated that at most 5 percent of
domestic electric motor employment in
the base case in 2016 could potentially
move abroad or exit the market entirely.
However, DOE similarly estimated that
all electric motor manufacturers
produce some electric motors at or
above TSL 1 efficiency levels. Therefore,
DOE does not believe that any potential
loss of domestic employment would
occur at TSL 1.
Manufacturers, however, cautioned
that any energy conservation standard
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
set above premium efficiency levels
would require major changes to
production lines, large investments in
capital and labor, and would result in
extensive stranded assets. This is largely
because manufacturers would have to
design and build motors with larger
frame sizes and could potentially have
to use copper, rather than aluminum
rotors. Several manufacturers pointed
out that this would require extensive
retooling, vast engineering resources,
and would ultimately result in a more
labor-intensive production process.
Manufacturers generally agreed that a
shift toward copper rotors would cause
companies to incur higher labor costs.
These factors could cause manufacturers
to consider moving production offshore
in an attempt to reduce labor costs or
they may choose to exit the market
entirely. Therefore, DOE believes it is
more likely that efficiency standards set
above premium efficiency levels could
result in a decrease of labor.
Accordingly, DOE set the lower bound
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30994
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
on the potential loss of domestic
employment at 50 percent of the
domestic labor market in the base case
in 2016 for TSL 3 and 100 percent for
TSL 4. However, these values represent
the worst-case scenario DOE modeled.
Manufacturers also stated that larger
motor manufacturing (i.e., the
manufacturing of motors above 200
horsepower) would be very unlikely to
move abroad, because the shipping costs
associated with those motors are very
large. Consequently, DOE believes that
standards set at TSL 3 and TSL 4 would
not necessarily result in the large losses
of domestic employment suggested by
the lower bound of DOE’s direct
employment analysis.
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
Most manufacturers agree that any
standard expanding the scope of
equipment required to meet premium
efficiency levels would not have a
significant impact on manufacturing
capacity. Manufacturers pointed out,
however, that standards that required
them to use copper rotors would
severely disrupt manufacturing
capacity. Baldor commented that motor
manufacturers do not have the capacity
to produce 5 million copper rotors per
year. They stated it is challenging to
manufacture better motor designs in
actual production, compared to what
can be obtained on paper. (Baldor, Pub.
Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at p. 118–119) Most
manufacturers emphasized they do not
currently have the machinery,
technology, or engineering resources to
produce copper rotors in-house. Some
manufacturers claim that the few
manufacturers that do have the
capability of producing copper rotors
are not able to produce these motors in
volumes sufficient to meet the demands
of the entire market. For manufacturers
to either completely redesign their
motor production lines or significantly
expand their fairly limited copper rotor
production line would require a massive
retooling and engineering effort, which
could take several years to complete.
Most manufacturers stated they would
have to outsource copper rotor
production because they would not be
able to modify their facilities and
production processes to produce copper
rotors in-house within a two year time
period. Most manufacturers agree that
outsourcing copper rotor die-casting
would constrain capacity by creating a
bottleneck in copper rotor production,
as there are very few companies that
produce copper rotors.
Manufacturers also pointed out that
there is substantial uncertainty
surrounding the global availability and
price of copper, which has the potential
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
to constrain capacity. NEMA
commented they are concerned about
the potential price volatility with any
standards requiring copper rotors.
(NEMA, No. 93 at p. 12) DOE
acknowledges that it is likely that there
could be copper capacity concerns at
any TSL requiring copper rotor motors.
Currently, there is only a limited
amount of copper die-casting machinery
and companies with experience diecasting copper today. In addition, there
could be significant fluctuations in the
price of copper in the near term, which
could lead to supply chain problems.
Because the TSL selected in today’s
final rule (TSL 2) does not require the
use of copper rotors for any motors,
DOE does not anticipate that today’s
electric motor standards will cause any
manufacturing capacity constraints.
d. Impacts on Sub-Group of
Manufacturers
Using average cost assumptions to
develop industry cash-flow estimates
may not adequately assess differential
impacts among manufacturer subgroups.
Small manufacturers, niche equipment
manufacturers, and manufacturers
exhibiting cost structures substantially
different from the industry average
could be affected disproportionately.
DOE analyzed the impacts to small
businesses in section VI.B and did not
identify any other adversely impacted
electric motor subgroups for this
rulemaking based on the results of the
industry characterization.
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
While any one regulation may not
impose a significant burden on
manufacturers, the combined effects of
recent or impending regulations may
have serious consequences for some
manufacturers, groups of manufacturers,
or an entire industry. Assessing the
impact of a single regulation may
overlook this cumulative regulatory
burden. In addition to energy
conservation standards, other
regulations can significantly affect
manufacturers’ financial operations.
Multiple regulations affecting the same
manufacturer can strain profits and lead
companies to abandon production lines
or markets with lower expected future
returns than competing equipment. For
these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis
of cumulative regulatory burden as part
of its rulemakings pertaining to
equipment efficiency.
During previous stages of this
rulemaking, DOE identified a number of
requirements, in addition to new and
amended energy conservation standards
for electric motors, that manufacturers
will face for equipment they
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
manufacture approximately three years
prior to, and three years after, the
compliance date of the standards
selected in today’s final rule, such as the
small electric motors standard (75 FR
10874) and the distribution transformers
standard (78 FR 23336). The following
section briefly addresses comments DOE
received with respect to cumulative
regulatory burden.
Baldor commented that DOE should
try to harmonize electric motor
standards with the rest of the world.
Baldor stated that the European Union’s
(EU’s) electric motor standards will be
set at premium efficiency levels in the
next few years, so having U.S. electric
motor standards at premium efficiency
levels would harmonize U.S. electric
motor standards with the EU’s
standards. Baldor also stated that no
other country is setting electric motor
standards above premium efficiency
levels, so any U.S. standards set above
premium efficiency levels would cause
the U.S. motor market to be out of
synchronization with the rest of the
world’s standards. Also, there is an
ongoing effort to develop global
markings for electric motors so that
manufacturers do not have to conduct
separate compliance testing and
approvals for each country. Therefore,
standards that are harmonized with the
rest of the world’s standards would
benefit manufacturers. (Baldor, Pub.
Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at p. 176–180) The
standards adopted in today’s final rule
do not require motor manufacturers to
exceed premium efficiency levels for
any motors. Therefore, the U.S.
standards prescribed in today’s final
rule would keep U.S. standards in
harmony with the rest of the world and
would not significantly add to the motor
manufacturers’ cumulative regulatory
burden from a global standards
perspective.
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
For each TSL, DOE projected energy
savings for electric motors purchased in
the 30-year period that begins in the
year of compliance with new and
amended standards (2016–2045). The
savings are measured over the entire
lifetime of equipment purchased in the
30-year period. DOE quantified the
energy savings attributable to each TSL
as the difference in energy consumption
between each standards case and the
base case. Table V.12 presents the
estimated primary energy savings for
each considered TSL, and Table V.13
presents the estimated FFC energy
savings for each considered TSL. The
approach for estimating national energy
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30995
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
savings is further described in section
IV.H.
TABLE V.12—CUMULATIVE PRIMARY ENERGY SAVINGS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR UNITS
SOLD IN 2016–2045
Trial standard level
Equipment class
1
2
3
4
quads
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
1.08
0.02
0.00
6.83
0.02
0.00
10.54
0.03
0.00
13.42
0.03
0.00
Total all classes ................................................................................................................................
1.10
6.85
10.57
13.45
TABLE V.13—CUMULATIVE FULL-FUEL-CYCLE ENERGY SAVINGS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR
UNITS SOLD IN 2016–2045
Trial standard level
Equipment class
1
2
3
4
quads
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
1.10
0.02
0.00
6.95
0.02
0.00
10.72
0.03
0.00
13.64
0.03
0.00
Total all classes ................................................................................................................................
1.12
6.97
10.75
13.67
OMB Circular A–4 requires agencies
to present analytical results, including
separate schedules of the monetized
benefits and costs that show the type
and timing of benefits and costs.
Circular A–4 also directs agencies to
consider the variability of key elements
underlying the estimates of benefits and
costs. For this rulemaking, DOE
undertook a sensitivity analysis using
nine rather than 30 years of equipment
shipments. The choice of a nine-year
period is a proxy for the timeline in
EPCA for the review of certain energy
conservation standards and potential
revision of and compliance with such
revised standards.89 DOE notes that the
review timeframe established in EPCA
generally does not overlap with the
equipment lifetime, equipment
manufacturing cycles, or other factors
specific to electric motors. Thus, this
information is presented for
informational purposes only and is not
indicative of any change in DOE’s
analytical methodology. The NES
results based on a 9-year analytical
period are presented in Table V.14. The
impacts are counted over the lifetime of
electric motors purchased in 2016–2024.
TABLE V.14—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR UNITS
SOLD IN 2016–2024
Trial standard level
Equipment class
1
2
3
4
quads
0.42
0.00
0.00
1.59
0.00
0.00
2.35
0.01
0.00
3.05
0.01
0.00
Total all classes ................................................................................................................................
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
0.43
1.59
2.36
3.06
89 EPCA requires DOE to review its standards at
least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain
products, a 3-year period after any new standard is
promulgated before compliance is required, except
that in no case may any new standards be required
within 6 years of the compliance date of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
previous standards. While adding a 6-year review
to the 3-year compliance period adds up to 9 years,
DOE notes that it may undertake reviews at any
time within the 6 year period and that the 3-year
compliance date may yield to the 6-year backstop.
A 9-year analysis period may not be appropriate
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
given the variability that occurs in the timing of
standards reviews and the fact that for some
consumer products, the compliance period is 5
years rather than 3 years.
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30996
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
b. Net Present Value of Customer Costs
and Benefits
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of
the total costs and savings for customers
that would result from the TSLs
considered for electric motors. In
accordance with OMB’s guidelines on
regulatory analysis,90 DOE calculated
the NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3percent real discount rate. The 7-percent
rate is an estimate of the average beforetax rate of return on private capital in
the U.S. economy, and it reflects the
returns on real estate and small business
capital as well as corporate capital. This
discount rate approximates the
opportunity cost of capital in the private
sector (OMB analysis has found the
average rate of return on capital to be
near this rate). The 3-percent rate
reflects the potential effects of standards
on private consumption (e.g., through
higher prices for equipment and
reduced purchases of energy). This rate
represents the rate at which society
discounts future consumption flows to
their present value. It can be
approximated by the real rate of return
on long-term government debt (i.e.,
yield on United States Treasury notes),
which has averaged about 3-percent for
the past 30 years.
TABLE V.15—NET PRESENT VALUE OF CUSTOMER BENEFITS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR
UNITS SOLD IN 2016–2045
[Billion 2013$]
3
6.91
0.06
0.00
6.97
28.75
0.06
0.00
28.81
8.61
¥0.02
0.00
8.59
¥39.27
¥0.02
¥0.03
¥39.32
7
1 .........................................................................................................................
2 .........................................................................................................................
3 .........................................................................................................................
Total All Classes .........................................................................................
2
3
1 .........................................................................................................................
2 .........................................................................................................................
3 .........................................................................................................................
Total All Classes .........................................................................................
The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical period are
presented in Table V.16. The impacts
are counted over the lifetime of
equipment purchased in 2016–2024.
Trial standard level
Discount
rate %
Equipment class
1
3.34
0.02
0.00
3.36
11.27
0.02
0.00
11.29
¥1.50
¥0.03
0.00
¥1.54
¥31.29
¥0.03
¥0.02
¥31.34
The review timeframe established in
EPCA is generally not synchronized
with the product lifetime, product
manufacturing cycles, or other factors
specific to electric motors. As
4
mentioned previously, this information
is presented for informational purposes
only and is not indicative of any change
in DOE’s analytical methodology or
decision criteria.
TABLE V.16—NET PRESENT VALUE OF CUSTOMER BENEFITS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR
UNITS SOLD IN 2016–2024
[Billion 2013$]
1 .........................................................................................................................
2 .........................................................................................................................
3 .........................................................................................................................
Total All Classes .........................................................................................
1 .........................................................................................................................
2 .........................................................................................................................
3 .........................................................................................................................
Total All Classes .........................................................................................
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
DOE expects energy conservation
standards for electric motors to reduce
energy costs for equipment owners, with
the resulting net savings being
redirected to other forms of economic
activity. Those shifts in spending and
economic activity could affect the
overall domestic demand for labor. As
described in section IV.N, DOE used an
Trial standard level
Discount
rate %
Equipment class
1
2
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
3
8.81
0.01
0.00
8.83
4.79
¥0.01
0.00
4.78
¥11.60
¥0.01
¥0.01
¥11.61
7
1.95
0.01
0.00
1.95
5.02
0.01
0.00
5.02
1.04
¥0.02
0.00
1.03
¥12.94
¥0.02
¥0.01
¥12.97
input/output model of the U.S. economy
to estimate indirect employment
impacts of the TSLs that DOE
considered in this rulemaking. DOE
understands that there are uncertainties
involved in projecting employment
impacts, especially changes in the later
years of the analysis. Therefore, DOE
generated results for near-term time
frames (2016–2021), where these
uncertainties are reduced.
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
4
3.15
0.01
0.00
3.17
The results suggest that today’s
standards are likely to have negligible
impact on the net demand for labor in
the economy. The net change in jobs is
so small that it would be imperceptible
in national labor statistics and might be
offset by other, unanticipated effects on
employment. Chapter 16 of the TSD
presents detailed results.
90 OMB Circular A–4, section E (September 17,
2003), available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/
omb/circulars_a004_a-4.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
3
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
4. Impact on Utility or Performance
DOE believes that today’s standards
will not lessen the utility or
performance of electric motors.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of
Competition
DOE has also considered any
lessening of competition that is likely to
result from new and amended energy
conservation standards. The Attorney
General determines the impact, if any,
of any lessening of competition likely to
result from a proposed standard, and
transmits such determination in writing
to the Secretary, together with an
analysis of the nature and extent of such
impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)
and (ii); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
To assist the Attorney General in
making such determination, DOE
transmitted a copy of its proposed rule
and NOPR TSD to the Attorney General
with a request that the Department of
Justice (DOJ) provide its determination
on this issue. DOJ’s response, that the
proposed energy conservation standards
are unlikely to have a significant
adverse impact on competition, is
reprinted at the end of this rule.
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve
Energy
Enhanced energy efficiency, where
economically justified, improves the
Nation’s energy security, strengthens the
economy, and reduces the
environmental impacts or costs of
energy production. Reduced electricity
demand due to energy conservation
standards is also likely to reduce the
cost of maintaining and increase the
30997
reliability of the electricity system,
particularly during peak-load periods.
As a measure of this reduced demand,
chapter 15 in the TSD presents the
estimated reduction in the growth of
generating capacity in 2044 for the TSLs
that DOE considered in this rulemaking.
Energy savings from energy
conservation standards for electric
motors could also produce
environmental benefits in the form of
reduced emissions of air pollutants and
greenhouse gases associated with
electricity production. Table V.17
provides DOE’s estimate of cumulative
emissions reductions projected to result
from the TSLs considered in this
rulemaking. DOE reports annual
emissions reductions for each TSL in
chapter 13 of the TSD.
TABLE V.17—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATED FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS
Trial standard level
1
2
3
4
62.7
106
33.6
0.132
1.24
7.38
373
668
196
0.819
8.30
46.2
574
1,032
301
1.26
12.9
71.4
731
1,312
383
1.61
16.3
90.7
3.55
0.761
48.8
0.002
0.036
296
22.0
4.71
302
0.012
0.221
1,837
33.9
7.26
466
0.018
0.341
2,834
43.1
9.23
593
0.023
0.433
3,604
66.2
107
82.5
0.134
1.27
304
395
673
498
0.831
8.52
1,883
608
1,039
767
1.28
13.2
2,905
774
1,321
977
1.63
16.8
3,695
Primary Energy Emissions
CO2 (million metric tons) ..........................................................................................................
NOX (thousand tons) ...............................................................................................................
SO2 (thousand tons) ................................................................................................................
Hg (tons) ..................................................................................................................................
N2O (thousand tons) ................................................................................................................
CH4 (thousand tons) ................................................................................................................
Upstream Emissions
CO2 (million metric tons) ..........................................................................................................
NOX (thousand tons) ...............................................................................................................
SO2 (thousand tons) ................................................................................................................
Hg (tons) ..................................................................................................................................
N2O (thousand tons) ................................................................................................................
CH4 (thousand tons) ................................................................................................................
Full-Fuel-Cycle Emissions
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
CO2 (million metric tons) ..........................................................................................................
NOX (thousand tons) ...............................................................................................................
SO2 (thousand tons) ................................................................................................................
Hg (tons) ..................................................................................................................................
N2O (thousand tons) ................................................................................................................
CH4 (thousand tons) ................................................................................................................
As part of the analysis for this rule,
DOE estimated monetary benefits likely
to result from the reduced emissions of
CO2 and NOX that DOE estimated for
each of the TSLs considered. As
discussed in section IV.L, DOE used
values for the SCC developed by an
interagency process. The four sets of
SCC values resulting from that
process 91 (expressed in 2013$) are
represented in today’s rule as the value
of emission reductions in 2015 by
$12.0/metric ton (the average value from
a distribution that uses a 5-percent
discount rate), $40.5/metric ton (the
average value from a distribution that
uses a 3-percent discount rate), $62.4/
metric ton (the average value from a
distribution that uses a 2.5-percent
discount rate), and $119 metric ton (the
95th-percentile value from a
distribution that uses a 3-percent
discount rate). These values correspond
to the value of emission reductions in
2015; the values for later years are
higher due to increasing damages as the
projected magnitude of climate change
increases.
Table V.18 presents the global value
of CO2 emissions reductions at each
TSL. For each of the four cases, DOE
calculated a present value of the stream
of annual values using the same
discount rate as was used in the studies
upon which the dollar-per-ton values
are based. DOE calculated domestic
91 These values reflect the latest SCC values
developed by interagency process (November 2013)
(see IV.L.1).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30998
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
values as a range from 7 percent to 23
percent of the global values, and these
results are presented in chapter 14 of
the final rule TSD.
TABLE V.18—ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION UNDER ELECTRIC MOTORS TRIAL
STANDARD LEVELS
[Million 2013$]
SCC Case *
TSL
5% discount
rate, average *
3% discount
rate, average *
2.5% discount
rate, average *
3% discount
rate, 95th
percentile *
465
2,529
3,870
4,939
2,070
11,720
17,985
22,923
3,269
18,651
28,633
36,488
6,373
36,225
55,600
70,858
25.7
146
223
285
116
682
1,049
1,335
183
1,087
1,673
2,129
357
2,110
3,246
4,132
491
2,675
4,094
5,223
2,185
12,402
19,033
24,258
3,452
19,738
30,306
38,618
6,730
38,335
58,845
74,991
Primary Energy Emissions
1
2
3
4
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
Upstream Emissions
1
2
3
4
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
Full-Fuel-Cycle Emissions
1
2
3
4
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
* For each of the four cases, the corresponding SCC value for emissions in 2015 is $12.0, $40.5, $62.4, and $119 per metric ton (2013$).
DOE is well aware that scientific and
economic knowledge about the
contribution of CO2 and other
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to
changes in the future global climate and
the potential resulting damages to the
world economy continues to evolve
rapidly. Thus, any value placed on
reducing CO2 emissions in this
rulemaking is subject to change. DOE,
together with other Federal agencies,
will continue to review various
methodologies for estimating the
monetary value of reductions in CO2
and other GHG emissions. This ongoing
review will consider the comments on
this subject that are part of the public
record for this and other rulemakings, as
well as other methodological
assumptions and issues.
DOE also estimated a range for the
cumulative monetary value of the
economic benefits associated with NOX
emissions reductions anticipated to
result from new and amended standards
for electric motors. The low and high
dollar-per-ton values that DOE used are
discussed in section IV.L. Table V.19
presents the estimated cumulative
present values of NOX emissions
reductions for each TSL calculated
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
using seven-percent and three-percent
discount rates.
7. Summary of National Economic
Impacts
The NPV of the monetized benefits
TABLE V.19—ESTIMATES OF PRESENT
VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS REDUC- associated with emissions reductions
TION UNDER ELECTRIC MOTORS can be viewed as a complement to the
NPV of the customer savings calculated
TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS
for each TSL considered in this
rulemaking. Table V.20 presents the
NPV values that result from adding the
TSL
3% discount
7% discount
estimates of the potential economic
rate
rate
benefits resulting from reduced CO2 and
Power Sector Emissions
NOX emissions in each of four valuation
scenarios to the NPV of customer
................
52.1
28.8
savings calculated for each TSL
................
269
131
................
410
197 considered in this rulemaking, at both a
................
524
253 seven-percent and three-percent
discount rate. The CO2 values used in
Upstream Emissions
the columns of each table correspond to
the four sets of SCC values discussed
................
71.5
36.9
above.
[Million 2013$]
1
2
3
4
1
2 ................
3 ................
4 ................
396
606
773
179
272
348
Full-Fuel-Cycle Emissions
1
2
3
4
................
................
................
................
PO 00000
Frm 00066
124
664
1,016
1,297
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
65.8
310
469
601
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
30999
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE V.20—NET PRESENT VALUE OF CUSTOMER SAVINGS COMBINED WITH NET PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED
BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS
[Billion 2013$]
SCC Case
$12.0/metric ton
CO2* and Low
Value for NOX**
TSL
SCC Case
$40.5/metric ton
CO2* and
Medium Value
for NOX**
SCC Case
$62.4/metric ton
CO2* and
Medium Value
for NOX**
SCC Case $119/
metric ton CO2*
and High Value
for NOX**
Customer NPV at 3% Discount Rate added with:
1
2
3
4
.......................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
7.5
31.6
12.9
¥33.9
9.3
41.9
28.6
¥13.8
10.6
49.2
39.9
0.6
13.9
68.4
69.3
38.0
Customer NPV at 7% Discount Rate added with:
1
2
3
4
.......................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
3.9
14.0
2.6
¥26.0
5.6
24.0
18.0
¥6.5
6.9
31.3
29.2
7.9
10.2
50.2
58.2
44.7
* These label values represent the global SCC in 2015, in 2013$.
** Low Value corresponds to $476 per ton of NOX emissions. Medium Value corresponds to $2,684 per ton, and High Value corresponds to
$4,893 per ton.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Although adding the value of
customer savings to the values of
emission reductions provides a valuable
perspective, two issues should be
considered. First, the national operating
cost savings are domestic U.S. customer
monetary savings that occur as a result
of market transactions, while the value
of CO2 reductions is based on a global
value. Second, the assessments of
operating cost savings and the SCC are
performed with different methods that
use quite different time frames for
analysis. The national operating cost
savings is measured for the lifetime of
equipment shipped in 2016–2045. The
SCC values, on the other hand, reflect
the present value of future climaterelated impacts resulting from the
emission of one metric ton of CO2 in
each year. These impacts continue well
beyond 2100.
8. Other Factors
The Secretary of Energy, in
determining whether a standard is
economically justified, may consider
any other factors that the Secretary
deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) DOE has considered
the submission of the Petition under
this factor. As described previously,
DOE believes the Petition sets forth a
statement by interested persons that are
fairly representative of relevant points
of view (including representatives of
manufacturers of covered equipment,
efficiency advocates, and others) and
contains recommendations with respect
to an energy conservation standard that
are technologically feasible,
economically justified, and likely to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
save significant energy. DOE encourages
the submission of such consensus
agreements as a way to bring diverse
interested parties together, to develop
an independent and probative analysis
useful in DOE standard setting, and to
expedite the rulemaking process. DOE
also believes that standard levels
recommended in the Petition may
increase the likelihood for regulatory
compliance, while decreasing the risk of
litigation.
C. Conclusions
When considering standards, the new
or amended energy conservation
standard that DOE adopts for any type
(or class) of covered equipment shall be
designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that
the Secretary of Energy determines is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a)) In
determining whether a standard is
economically justified, the Secretary
must determine whether the benefits of
the standard exceed its burdens to the
greatest extent practicable, considering
the seven statutory factors discussed
previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)
and 6316(a)) The new or amended
standard must also ‘‘result in significant
conservation of energy’’. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(a))
For today’s final rule, DOE considered
the impacts of standards at each TSL,
beginning with the max-tech level, to
determine whether that level was
economically justified. Where the maxtech level was not justified, DOE then
considered the next most efficient level
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and undertook the same evaluation until
it reached the highest efficiency level
that is technologically feasible,
economically justified, and saves a
significant amount of energy.
Throughout this process, DOE also
considered the consensus
recommendations made by the Motors
Coalition and the views of other
stakeholders in their submitted
comments.
To aid the reader in understanding
the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL,
tables in this section summarize the
quantitative analytical results for each
TSL, based on the assumptions and
methodology discussed herein. The
efficiency levels contained in each TSL
are described in section V.A. In addition
to the quantitative results presented in
the tables, DOE also considers other
burdens and benefits that affect
economic justification. These include
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of
customers who may be
disproportionately affected by a national
standard, and impacts on employment.
Section V.B.1.b presents the estimated
impacts of each TSL for the considered
subgroup. DOE discusses the impacts on
employment in the electric motor
manufacturing sector in section V.B.2.b,
and discusses the indirect employment
impacts in section V.B.3.c
1. Benefits and Burdens of Trial
Standard Levels Considered for Electric
Motors
Table V.21 and Table V.22 summarize
the quantitative impacts estimated for
each TSL for electric motors.
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
31000
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE V.21—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS: NATIONAL IMPACTS
Category
TSL 1
TSL 2
TSL 3
TSL 4
National Full-Fuel-Cycle Energy Savings quads
1.1
7.0
10.7
13.7
7.0
3.4
28.8
11.3
8.6
¥1.5
¥39.3
¥31.3
66.2
107
82.5
0.134
1.27
304
395
673
498
0.831
8.52
1,883
608
1,039
767
1.28
13.2
2,905
774
1,321
977
1.63
16.8
3,695
491 to 6,730
2,675 to
38,335
664
310
4,094 to
58,845
1,016
469
5,233 to
74,991
1,297
601
NPV of Consumer Benefits 2013$ billion
3% discount rate .......................................................................................
7% discount rate .......................................................................................
Cumulative Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions)
CO2 million metric tons .............................................................................
SO2 thousand tons ...................................................................................
NOX thousand tons ..................................................................................
Hg tons .....................................................................................................
N2O thousand tons ...................................................................................
CH4 thousand tons ...................................................................................
Value of Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions)
CO2 2013$ million* ...................................................................................
NOX—3% discount rate 2013$ million .....................................................
NOX—7% discount rate 2013$ million .....................................................
124
66
* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions.
TABLE V.22—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS: MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS
Category
TSL 1
Manufacturer Impacts
INPV (2013$ million) (Base Case INPV of $3,478.0) .....................................
INPV (change in 2013$) ..................................................................................
INPV (% change) .............................................................................................
Consumer Mean LCC Savings * 2013$
Equipment Class Group 1 ...............................................................................
Equipment Class Group 2 ...............................................................................
Equipment Class Group 3 ...............................................................................
Consumer Median PBP * years
Equipment Class Group 1 ...............................................................................
Equipment Class Group 2 ...............................................................................
Equipment Class Group 3 ...............................................................................
Equipment Class Group 1
Net Cost % ......................................................................................................
Net Benefit % ...................................................................................................
No Impact % ....................................................................................................
Equipment Class Group 2
Net Cost % ......................................................................................................
Net Benefit % ...................................................................................................
No Impact % ....................................................................................................
Equipment Class Group 3
Net Cost (%) ....................................................................................................
Net Benefit (%) ................................................................................................
No Impact (%) ..................................................................................................
TSL 2
TSL 3
TSL 4
0.2 to ¥0.5
3,870.6 to
3,130.4
392.6 to
¥347.7
11.3 to ¥10.0
4,541.9 to
2,928.3
1,063.9 to
¥549.7
30.6 to ¥15.8
5,382.2 to
2,048.3
1,904.1 to
¥1,429.8
54.7 to ¥41.1
55
53
N/A **
160
53
N/A **
98
¥280
¥65
¥409
¥280
¥807
1.0
4.5
N/A **
2.9
4.5
N/A **
6.0
20.7
3,016
26.5
20.7
11,632
0.3
10.9
88.8
7.8
34.3
57.9
34.8
44.7
20.4
83.3
9.4
7.3
18.6
71.5
9.8
18.6
71.5
9.8
92.8
7.2
0.0
92.8
7.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
81.7
0.0
18.3
100.0
0.0
0.0
3,486.4 to
3,461.3
8.4 to ¥16.7
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
* The results for each equipment class group (ECG) are a shipment weighted average of results for the representative units in the group. ECG
1: Representative units 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10; ECG 2: Representative units 4 and 5; ECG 3: Representative units 6, 7, and 8.
** For equipment class group 3, TSL 1 and 2 are the same as the baseline; thus, no customers are affected.
First, DOE considered TSL 4, the most
efficient level (max-tech), which would
save an estimated total of 13.7 quads of
energy, an amount DOE considers
significant. TSL 4 has an estimated NPV
of customer benefit of ¥31.3 billion
using a 7-percent discount rate, and
¥39.3 billion using a 3-percent
discount rate.
The cumulative emissions reductions
at TSL 4 are 774 million metric tons of
CO2, 977 thousand tons of NOX, 1,321
thousand tons of SO2, and 1.6 tons of
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 4
ranges from $5,233 million to $74,991
million.
At TSL 4, the weighted average LCC
impact ranges from $¥807 for ECG 3 to
$¥280 for ECG 2. The weighted average
median PBP ranges from 20.7 years for
ECG 2 to 11,632 years for ECG 3. The
weighted average share of customers
experiencing a net LCC benefit ranges
from 0-percent for ECG 3 to 9.4-percent
for ECG 1.
At TSL 4, the projected change in
INPV ranges from a decrease of $1,429.8
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
million to an increase of $1,904.1
million. If the decrease of $1,429.8
million were to occur, TSL 4 could
result in a net loss of 41.1 percent in
INPV to manufacturers of covered
electric motors.
Based on the foregoing, DOE
concludes that, at TSL 4 for electric
motors, the benefits of energy savings,
generating capacity reductions,
emission reductions, and the estimated
monetary value of the emissions
reductions would be outweighed by the
potential multi-billion dollar negative
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
net economic cost; the economic burden
on customers as indicated by the
increase in customer LCC (negative
savings), large PBPs, the large
percentage of customers who would
experience LCC increases; the increase
in the cumulative regulatory burden on
manufacturers; and the capital and
engineering costs that could result in a
large reduction in INPV for
manufacturers at TSL 4. Additionally,
DOE believes that efficiency standards
at this level could result in significant
impacts on OEMs due to larger and
faster motors. Although DOE has not
quantified these potential OEM impacts,
DOE believes that it is possible that
these impacts could be significant and
further reduce any potential benefits of
standards established at this TSL.
Consequently, DOE has concluded that
TSL 4 is not economically justified.
Next, DOE considered TSL 3, which
would save an estimated total of 10.7
quads of energy, an amount DOE
considers significant. TSL 3 has an
estimated NPV of customer benefit of
$¥1.5 billion using a 7-percent
discount rate, and $8.6 billion using a
3-percent discount rate.
The cumulative emissions reductions
at TSL 3 are 608 million metric tons of
CO2, 767 thousand tons of NOX, 1,039
thousand tons of SO2, and 1.3 tons of
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the
CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 4
ranges from $4,094 million to $58,845
million.
At TSL 3, the weighted average LCC
impact ranges from $¥280 for ECG 2 to
$98 for ECG 1. The weighted average
median PBP ranges from 6 years for ECG
1 to 3,016 years for ECG 3. The share of
customers experiencing a net LCC
benefit ranges from 0-percent for ECG 3
to 44.7-percent for ECG 1.
At TSL 3, the projected change in
INPV ranges from a decrease of $549.7
million to an increase of $1,063.9
million. If the decrease of $549.7
million were to occur, TSL 3 could
result in a net loss of 15.8 percent in
INPV to manufacturers of covered
electric motors.
Based on the foregoing, DOE
concludes that, at TSL 3 for electric
motors, the benefits of energy savings,
positive weighted average customer LCC
savings for some ECGs, generating
capacity reductions, emission
reductions, and the estimated monetary
value of the emissions reductions would
be outweighed by the potential negative
net economic cost; the economic burden
on customers as indicated by the
increase in weighted average LCC for
some ECGs (negative savings), large
PBPs, the large percentage of customers
who would experience LCC increases;
the increase in the cumulative
regulatory burden on manufacturers;
and the capital and engineering costs
that could result in a large reduction in
INPV for manufacturers at TSL 3.
Additionally, DOE believes that
efficiency standards at this level could
result in significant impacts on OEMs
due to larger and faster motors.
Although DOE has not quantified these
potential OEM impacts, DOE believes
that it is possible that these impacts
could be significant and further reduce
any potential benefits of standards
established at this TSL. Consequently,
DOE has concluded that TSL 3 is not
economically justified.
Next, DOE considered TSL 2, which
would save an estimated total of 7.0
quads of energy, an amount DOE
considers significant. TSL 2 has an
estimated NPV of customer benefit of
$11.3 billion using a 7-percent discount
rate, and $28.8 billion using a 3-percent
discount rate.
The cumulative emissions reductions
at TSL 2 are 395 million metric tons of
CO2, 498 thousand tons of NOX, 673
thousand tons of SO2, and 0.8 tons of
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the
CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 4
ranges from $2,675 million to $38,335
million.
At TSL 2, the weighted average LCC
impact ranges from no impacts for ECG
3 to $160 for ECG 1. The weighted
average median PBP ranges from 0 years
for ECG 3 to 4.5 years for ECG 2. The
31001
share of customers experiencing a net
LCC benefit ranges from 0-percent for
ECG 3 to 71.5-percent for ECG 2.The
share of motors already at TSL2
efficiency levels varies by equipment
class group and by horsepower range
(from 0- to 57.9-percent). For ECG 1,
which represents the most significant
share of the market, about 30-percent of
motors already meet the TSL levels.
At TSL 2, the projected change in
INPV ranges from a decrease of $347.7
million to an increase of $392.6 million.
If the decrease of $347.7 million were to
occur, TSL 2 could result in a net loss
of 10.0 percent in INPV to
manufacturers of covered electric
motors.
After considering the analysis and
weighing the benefits and the burdens,
DOE has concluded that at TSL 2 for
electric motors, the benefits of energy
savings, positive NPV of customer
benefit, positive impacts on consumers
(as indicated by positive weighted
average LCC savings for all ECGs
impacted at TSL 2), favorable PBPs, the
large percentage of customers who
would experience LCC benefits,
emission reductions, and the estimated
monetary value of the emissions
reductions would outweigh the slight
increase in the cumulative regulatory
burden on manufacturers and the risk of
small negative impacts if manufacturers
are unable to recoup investments made
to meet the standard. In particular, the
Secretary of Energy has concluded that
TSL 2 would save a significant amount
of energy and is technologically feasible
and economically justified.
In addition, DOE notes that TSL 2
most closely corresponds to the
standards that were proposed by the
Motor Coalition, as described in section
II.B.2. Based on the above
considerations, DOE today adopts the
energy conservation standards for
electric motors at TSL 2. Table V.23
through Table V.25 present the energy
conservation standards for electric
motors.
TABLE V.23—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR NEMA DESIGN A AND NEMA DESIGN B MOTORS
[Compliance starting June 1, 2016]
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
Motor horsepower/
standard kilowatt
equivalent
2-Pole
Enclosed
1/.75 .................................
1.5/1.1 ..............................
2/1.5 .................................
3/2.2 .................................
5/3.7 .................................
7.5/5.5 ..............................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
77.0
84.0
85.5
86.5
88.5
89.5
Jkt 232001
4-Pole
Open
Enclosed
77.0
84.0
85.5
85.5
86.5
88.5
PO 00000
Frm 00069
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
91.7
Fmt 4701
6-Pole
Open
Enclosed
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
Sfmt 4700
82.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
8-Pole
Open
82.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
29MYR2
Enclosed
75.5
78.5
84.0
85.5
86.5
86.5
Open
75.5
77.0
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
31002
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE V.23—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR NEMA DESIGN A AND NEMA DESIGN B MOTORS—Continued
[Compliance starting June 1, 2016]
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
Motor horsepower/
standard kilowatt
equivalent
2-Pole
Enclosed
10/7.5 ...............................
15/11 ................................
20/15 ................................
25/18.5 .............................
30/22 ................................
40/30 ................................
50/37 ................................
60/45 ................................
75/55 ................................
100/75 ..............................
125/90 ..............................
150/110 ............................
200/150 ............................
250/186 ............................
300/224 ............................
350/261 ............................
400/298 ............................
450/336 ............................
500/373 ............................
4-Pole
Open
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
Enclosed
89.5
90.2
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.1
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.8
96.2
96.2
6-Pole
Open
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.8
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
8-Pole
Enclosed
91.7
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
96.2
96.2
Open
Enclosed
Open
91.0
91.7
91.7
93.0
93.0
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
....................
....................
....................
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.8
95.8
95.8
....................
....................
....................
89.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.7
91.7
92.4
92.4
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
95.0
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
94.1
94.1
94.1
94.1
94.1
95.0
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
TABLE V.24—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR NEMA DESIGN C MOTORS
[Compliance starting June 1, 2016]
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent
4-Pole
Enclosed
1/.75 .................................................................................
1.5/1.1 ..............................................................................
2/1.5 .................................................................................
3/2.2 .................................................................................
5/3.7 .................................................................................
7.5/5.5 ..............................................................................
10/7.5 ...............................................................................
15/11 ................................................................................
20/15 ................................................................................
25/18.5 .............................................................................
30/22 ................................................................................
40/30 ................................................................................
50/37 ................................................................................
60/45 ................................................................................
75/55 ................................................................................
100/75 ..............................................................................
125/90 ..............................................................................
150/110 ............................................................................
200/150 ............................................................................
6-Pole
Open
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.8
96.2
Enclosed
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.7
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.8
95.8
82.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
93.0
93.0
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.8
95.8
8-Pole
Open
Enclosed
82.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
75.5
78.5
84.0
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.7
91.7
92.4
92.4
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
Open
75.5
77.0
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
94.1
94.1
94.1
94.1
94.1
TABLE V.25—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS
[Compliance starting June 1, 2016]
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Motor horsepower/
standard kilowatt
equivalent
2-Pole
Enclosed
1/.75 .................................
1.5/1.1 ..............................
2/1.5 .................................
3/2.2 .................................
5/3.7 .................................
7.5/5.5 ..............................
10/7.5 ...............................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
75.5
82.5
84.0
85.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
Jkt 232001
4-Pole
Open
Enclosed
....................
82.5
84.0
84.0
85.5
87.5
88.5
PO 00000
Frm 00070
82.5
84.0
84.0
87.5
87.5
89.5
89.5
Fmt 4701
6-Pole
Open
Enclosed
82.5
84.0
84.0
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
Sfmt 4700
80.0
85.5
86.5
87.5
87.5
89.5
89.5
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
8-Pole
Open
80.0
84.0
85.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
90.2
29MYR2
Enclosed
74.0
77.0
82.5
84.0
85.5
85.5
88.5
Open
74.0
75.5
85.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
31003
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE V.25—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS—Continued
[Compliance starting June 1, 2016]
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
Motor horsepower/
standard kilowatt
equivalent
2-Pole
Enclosed
15/11 ................................
20/15 ................................
25/18.5 .............................
30/22 ................................
40/30 ................................
50/37 ................................
60/45 ................................
75/55 ................................
100/75 ..............................
125/90 ..............................
150/110 ............................
200/150 ............................
250/186 ............................
300/224 ............................
350/261 ............................
400/298 ............................
450/336 ............................
500/373 ............................
4-Pole
Open
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
Enclosed
89.5
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.8
95.8
2. Summary of Benefits and Costs
(Annualized) of Today’s Standards
The benefits and costs of today’s
standards, for equipment sold in 2016–
2045, can also be expressed in terms of
annualized values. The annualized
monetary values are the sum of: (1) The
annualized national economic value of
the benefits from consumer operation of
equipment that meet the standards
(consisting primarily of operating cost
savings from using less energy, minus
increases in equipment purchase and
installation costs, which is another way
of representing consumer NPV), and (2)
the annualized monetary value of the
benefits of emission reductions,
including CO2 emission reductions.92
Although combining the values of
operating savings and CO2 emission
reductions provides a useful
perspective, two issues should be
considered. First, the national operating
savings are domestic U.S. consumer
6-Pole
Open
91.0
91.0
92.4
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.8
8-Pole
Enclosed
91.0
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.8
95.8
Open
Enclosed
Open
90.2
90.2
91.7
91.7
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.1
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
....................
....................
....................
90.2
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.4
95.4
95.4
....................
....................
....................
88.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.5
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.6
93.6
93.6
93.6
93.6
94.5
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
monetary savings that occur as a result
of market transactions while the value
of CO2 reductions is based on a global
value. Second, the assessments of
operating cost savings and CO2 savings
are performed with different methods
that use different time frames for
analysis. The national operating cost
savings is measured for the lifetime of
electric motors shipped in 2016–2045.
The SCC values, on the other hand,
reflect the present value of some future
climate-related impacts resulting from
the emission of one ton of carbon
dioxide in each year. These impacts
continue well beyond 2100.
Estimates of annualized benefits and
costs of today’s standards for electric
motors are shown in Table V.26. The
results under the primary estimate are
as follows. Using a 7-percent discount
rate for benefits and costs other than
CO2 reduction, for which DOE used a 3percent discount rate along with the
average SCC series that uses a 3-percent
discount rate, the cost of today’s
standards is $517 million per year in
increased equipment costs; while the
estimated benefits are $1,367 million
per year in reduced equipment
operating costs, $614 million per year in
CO2 reductions, and $23.3 million per
year in reduced NOX emissions. In this
case, the net benefit would amount to
$1,488 million per year. Using a 3percent discount rate for all benefits and
costs and the average SCC series, the
estimated cost of today’s standards is
$621 million per year in increased
equipment costs; while the estimated
benefits are $2,048 million per year in
reduced operating costs, $614 million
per year in CO2 reductions, and $32.9
million per year in reduced NOX
emissions. In this case, the net benefit
would amount to approximately $2,074
million per year.
TABLE V.26—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF STANDARDS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS
[Million 2013$/year]
Discount rate
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Benefits
Consumer Operating Cost Savings ...............................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.0/t case) * ..........
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($40.5/t case) * ..........
92 DOE used a two-step calculation process to
convert the time-series of costs and benefits into
annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present
value in 2014, the year used for discounting the
NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the
time-series of costs and benefits using discount
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
7%
3%
5%
3%
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
Primary estimate *
Low net benefits
estimate *
1,367 .....................
2,048 .....................
166 ........................
614 ........................
1,134 .....................
1,684 .....................
143 ........................
531 ........................
rates of three and seven percent for all costs and
benefits except for the value of CO2 reductions. For
the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as
shown in Table I.3. From the present value, DOE
then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30year period (2016 through 2045) that yields the
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
High net benefits
estimate *
1,664
2,521
192
712
same present value. The fixed annual payment is
the annualized value. Although DOE calculated
annualized values, this does not imply that the
time-series of cost and benefits from which the
annualized values were determined is a steady
stream of payments.
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
31004
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE V.26—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF STANDARDS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS—Continued
[Million 2013$/year]
Discount rate
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($62.4/t case) * ..........
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value $119/t case) * ............
NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,684/ton) ** ......
Total Benefits † ........................................................
Costs
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ......................
Net Benefits
Total † ......................................................................
Primary estimate *
Low net benefits
estimate *
2.5% ......................
3% .........................
7% .........................
3% .........................
7% plus CO2 range
7% .........................
3% plus CO2 range
3% .........................
920 ........................
1,899 .....................
23.3 .......................
32.9 .......................
1,556 to 3,289 .......
2,005 .....................
2,247 to 3,980 .......
2,696 .....................
795 ........................
1,641 .....................
20.1 .......................
28.4 .......................
1,297 to 2,795 .......
1,685 .....................
1,855 to 3,353 .......
2,243 .....................
1,066
2,200
26.8
38.0
1,882 to 3,890
2,402
2,750 to 4,758
3,270
7% .........................
3% .........................
517 ........................
621 ........................
582 ........................
697 ........................
503
616
7%
7%
3%
3%
1,039
1,488
1,626
2,074
716 to 2,213 ..........
1,103 .....................
1,158 to 2,656 .......
1,546 .....................
1,380 to 3,388
1,900
2,134 to 4,143
2,654
plus CO2 range
.........................
plus CO2 range
.........................
to 2,772 .......
.....................
to 3,359 .......
.....................
High net benefits
estimate *
* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with electric motors shipped in 2016–2045. These results include benefits to
consumers which accrue after 2044 from the equipment purchased in years 2016–2045. Costs incurred by manufacturers, some of which may
be incurred in preparation for the rule, are not directly included, but are indirectly included as part of incremental equipment costs. The Primary,
Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates are in view of projections of energy prices from the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2013 Reference
case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium constant projected equipment
price in the Primary Estimate, a decline rate for projected equipment price trends in the Low Benefits Estimate, and an increasing rate for projected equipment price trends in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.F.1.
** The interagency group selected four sets of SCC values for use in regulatory analyses. Three sets of values are based on the average SCC
from the three integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5 percent. The fourth set, which represents the 95th percentile
SCC estimate across all three models at a 3-percent discount rate, is included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from temperature
change further out in the tails of the SCC distribution. The values in parentheses represent the SCC in 2015. The SCC time series incorporate
an escalation factor. The value for NOX is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis.
† Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount
rate. In the rows labeled ‘‘7% plus CO2 range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2 range,’’ the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled
discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders
12866 and 13563
Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order
12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (October. 4,
1993), requires each agency to identify
the problem that it intends to address,
including, where applicable, the failures
of private markets or public institutions
that warrant new agency action, as well
as to assess the significance of that
problem. The problems that today’s
standards address are as follows: There
are external benefits resulting from
improved energy efficiency of covered
electric motors which are not captured
by the users of such equipment. These
benefits include externalities related to
environmental protection and energy
security that are not reflected in energy
prices, such as emissions of greenhouse
gases. DOE attempts to quantify some of
the external benefits through use of
Social Cost of Carbon values.
In addition, DOE has determined that
today’s regulatory action is a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f)(1) Executive Order 12866.
DOE presented to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) in the OMB for review the draft
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
rule and other documents prepared for
this rulemaking, including the RIA, and
has included these documents in the
rulemaking record. The assessments
prepared pursuant to Executive Order
12866 can be found in the technical
support document for this rulemaking.
DOE has also reviewed this regulation
pursuant to Executive Order 13563,
issued on January 18, 2011. 76 FR 3281
(January 21, 2011). EO 13563 is
supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms
the principles, structures, and
definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866.
To the extent permitted by law, agencies
are required by Executive Order 13563
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
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
Executive Order 13563 requires agencies
to use the best available techniques to
quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as
possible. In its guidance, OIRA has
emphasized that such techniques may
include identifying changing future
compliance costs that might result from
technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes. For the reasons
stated in the preamble, DOE believes
that today’s final rule is consistent with
these principles, including the
requirement that, to the extent
permitted by law, benefits justify costs
and that net benefits are maximized.
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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,
and a final regulatory flexibility analysis
(FRFA) for any such rule that an agency
adopts as a final rule, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated,
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. As required by Executive Order
13272, ‘‘Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR
53461 (August 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 Web site (https://
energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
DOE reviewed the December 2013
NOPR (78 FR 73590) and today’s final
rule under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the
procedures and policies published on
February 19, 2003.
As a result of this review, DOE has
prepared a FRFA for electric motors. As
presented and discussed in the
following section, the FRFA describes
impacts on electric motor manufacturers
and discusses alternatives that could
minimize these impacts. A statement of
the reasons for establishing the
standards in today’s final rule, and the
objectives of, and legal basis for these
standards, are set forth elsewhere in the
preamble and not repeated here.
Chapter 12 of the TSD contains more
information about the impact of this
rulemaking on manufacturers.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
1. Description and Estimated Number of
Small Entities Regulated
For manufacturers of electric motors,
the Small Business Administration
(SBA) has set a size threshold, which
defines those entities classified as
‘‘small businesses’’ for the purposes of
the statute. DOE used the SBA’s small
business size standards to determine
whether any small entities would be
subject to the requirements of the rule.
65 FR 30836, 30850 (May 15, 2000), as
amended at 65 FR 53533, 53545
(September 5, 2000) and codified at 13
CFR part 121. The size standards are
listed by North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) code and
industry description and are available at
https://www.sba.gov/content/table-smallbusiness-size-standards. Electric motor
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
manufacturing is classified under
NAICS 335312, ‘‘Motor and Generator
Manufacturing’’. The SBA sets a
threshold of 1,000 employees or less for
an entity to be considered as a small
business for this category.
To estimate the number of companies
that could be small business
manufacturers of equipment covered by
this rulemaking, DOE conducted a
market survey using publicly available
information. DOE’s research involved
industry trade association membership
directories (including NEMA 93),
information from previous rulemakings,
UL qualification directories, individual
company Web sites, and market
research tools (e.g., Hoover’s reports 94).
DOE also asked stakeholders and
industry representatives if they were
aware of any other small manufacturers
during manufacturer interviews and
DOE public meetings. DOE used
information from these sources to create
a list of companies that could
potentially manufacture electric motors
covered by this rulemaking. As
necessary, DOE contacted companies to
determine whether they met the SBA’s
definition of a small business
manufacturer. DOE screened out
companies that do not offer equipment
covered by this rulemaking, do not meet
the definition of a ‘‘small business,’’ or
are completely foreign-owned and
-operated.
DOE initially identified 60 potential
manufacturers of electric motors sold in
the United States. After reviewing
publicly available information on these
potential electric motor manufacturers,
DOE determined that 33 were either
large manufacturers or manufacturers
that did not sell electric motors covered
by this rulemaking. DOE then contacted
the remaining 27 companies to
determine whether they met the SBA
definition of a small business and
whether they manufactured the
equipment that would be affected by
today’s standards. Based on these
efforts, DOE estimates that there are 13
small business manufacturers of electric
motors covered by this rulemaking in
the United States.
a. Manufacturer Participation
As stated in the December 2013 NOPR
(78 FR at 73670), DOE attempted to
contact the 13 identified small
businesses to invite them to take part in
a small business manufacturer impact
analysis interview. Of the electric motor
manufacturers DOE contacted, 10
responded, and three did not. Eight of
93 https://www.nema.org/Products/Pages/Motorand-Generator.aspx.
94 https://www.hoovers.com.
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
31005
the 10 responding manufacturers
declined to be interviewed. Therefore,
DOE was able to reach and discuss
potential standards with two of the 13
small business manufacturers. DOE also
obtained information about small
business manufacturers and potential
impacts while interviewing large
manufacturers.
b. Electric Motor Industry Structure and
Nature of Competition
Eight major manufacturers supply
approximately 90 percent of the market
for electric motors. None of the major
manufacturers of electric motors
covered in this rulemaking is a small
business. DOE estimates that
approximately 50 percent of the market
is served by imports. Many of the small
businesses that compete in the electric
motor market produce specialized
motors, many of which have not been
regulated under previous standards.
Most of these low-volume
manufacturers do not compete directly
with large manufacturers and tend to
occupy niche markets for their
equipment, which are currently not
required to comply with existing
electric motor standards but would be
required to comply with the standards
in this final rule. There are a few small
business manufacturers that produce
general purpose motors; however, these
motors already meet premium efficiency
levels, which correspond to the
efficiency levels being selected for the
majority of electric motors covered in
today’s final rule.
c. Comparison Between Large and Small
Entities
For electric motors, small
manufacturers differ from large
manufacturers in several ways that
affect the extent to which a
manufacturer would be impacted by
selected standards. Characteristics of
small manufacturers include: lower
production volumes, fewer engineering
resources, less technical expertise, and
less access to capital.
A lower-volume manufacturer’s
conversion costs would need to be
spread over fewer units than a larger
competitor. Smaller companies are also
more likely to have more limited
engineering resources, and they often
operate with lower levels of design and
manufacturing sophistication. Smaller
companies typically also have less
experience and expertise in working
with more advanced technologies.
Standards that required these
technologies could strain the
engineering resources of these small
manufacturers, if they chose to maintain
a vertically integrated business model.
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
31006
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Small manufacturers of electric motor
can also be at a disadvantage due to
their lack of purchasing power for highperformance materials. For example,
more expensive low-loss steels are
needed to meet higher efficiency
standards, and steel cost grows as a
percentage of the overall equipment
cost. Small manufacturers who pay
higher per-pound prices would be
disproportionately impacted by these
prices. Lastly, small manufacturers
typically have less access to capital,
which may be needed by some to cover
the conversion costs associated with
new technologies.
2. Description and Estimate of
Compliance Requirements
In its market survey, DOE identified
three categories of small manufacturers
of electric motors that may be impacted
differently by today’s final rule. The
first group, which includes
approximately five of the 13 small
businesses, consists of manufacturers
that produce specialty motors that were
not required to meet previous Federal
standards, but would need to do so
under the expanded scope of today’s
final rule. DOE believes that this group
would likely be the most impacted by
expanding the scope of equipment
required to meet premium efficiency
levels. The second group, which
includes approximately five different
small businesses, consists of
manufacturers that produce a small
amount of covered equipment and
primarily focus on other types of motors
not covered in this rulemaking, such as
single-phase or direct-current motors.
Because generally less than 10 percent
of these manufacturers’ revenue comes
from covered equipment, DOE does not
believe new standards will substantially
impact their business. The third group,
which includes approximately three
small businesses, consists of
manufacturers that already offer
premium efficiency general purpose and
specialty motors. DOE expects these
manufacturers to face conversion costs
similar to large manufacturers, in that
they will not experience high capital
conversion costs as they already have
the design and production experience
necessary to bring their motors up to
premium efficiency levels. It is likely,
however, that some of the specialty
equipment these manufacturers produce
will be included in the expanded scope
of this rule and is likely to result in
these small businesses incurring
additional certification and testing
costs. These manufacturers could also
face equipment development costs if
they have to redesign any motors that
are not currently meeting the premium
level.
At TSL 2, the level adopted in today’s
notice, DOE estimates capital
conversion costs of $1.88 million and
equipment conversion costs of $3.75
million for a typical small manufacturer
in the first group (manufacturers that
produce specialized motors previously
not covered by Federal standards).
Meanwhile, DOE estimates a typical
large manufacturer would incur capital
and equipment conversion costs of
$3.29 million and $7.25 million,
respectively, at the same TSL. Small
manufacturers that predominately
produce specialty motors would face
higher relative capital conversion costs
at TSL 2 than large manufacturers
because large manufacturers have been
independently pursuing higher
efficiency motors as a result of the
efficiency standards prescribed by EISA
2007 (10 CFR 431.25) and,
consequently, have built up more design
and production experience. Large
manufacturers have also been
innovating as a result of the small
electric motors rulemaking at 75 FR
10874 (March 9, 2010). This rule did not
apply to non-general purpose small
electric motors that many of these small
business manufacturers produce. Many
large manufacturers of general purpose
motors offer equipment that was
covered by the 2010 small electric
motors rule, as well as equipment that
falls under this rule. Small
manufacturers pointed out that this fact
would give large manufacturers an
advantage in that they already have
experience with the technology
necessary to redesign their equipment
and are familiar with the steps they will
have to take to upgrade their
manufacturing equipment and
processes. Small manufacturers, whose
specialized motors were not required to
meet the standards prescribed by the
small electric motors rule and EISA
2007 have not undergone these
processes and, therefore, would have to
put more time and resources into
redesign efforts.
The small businesses whose
equipment lines consist of a high
percentage of equipment that are not
currently required to meet efficiency
standards would need to make
significant capital investments relative
to large manufacturers to upgrade their
production lines with equipment
necessary to produce motors that can
satisfy the levels being adopted today.
As Table VI.1 illustrates, these
manufacturers would have to drastically
increase their capital expenditures to
purchase new lamination die sets, and
new winding and stacking equipment.
For small manufacturers in the second
group (manufacturers whose revenue
from covered equipment in this
rulemaking is less than 10 percent of
total company revenue), DOE believes
that these small manufacturers would
lose no more than 10 percent of their
company revenue. This lower bound is
because these manufacturers could
always choose not to make the
investments necessary to convert the
newly covered electric motors subject to
standards in today’s final rule. This
lower bound is similar to the lower
bound estimate of the entire electric
motor industry at TSL 2, the TSL
adopted in this final rule.
For small manufacturers in the third
group (manufacturer that produces
general purpose motors currently
covered by Federal standards), DOE
predicts that these small manufacturers
would not have any conversion costs or
decrease in revenue since they already
manufacture electric motors that are
compliant with the standards being
adopted for this final rule.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
TABLE VI.1—ESTIMATED CAPITAL AND PRODUCT CONVERSION COSTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF ANNUAL CAPITAL
EXPENDITURES AND R&D EXPENSE
Capital conversion
cost as a
percentage of
annual capital
expenditures
(percent)
Typical large manufacturer ........................................................................................
Typical small manufacturer that produces specialty motors previously not covered
by Federal standards .............................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Product
conversion cost
as a percentage
of annual
R&D expense
(percent)
Total conversion
cost as a
percentage of
annual revenue
(percent)
14
31
2
188
490
75
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
31007
TABLE VI.1—ESTIMATED CAPITAL AND PRODUCT CONVERSION COSTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF ANNUAL CAPITAL
EXPENDITURES AND R&D EXPENSE—Continued
Capital conversion
cost as a
percentage of
annual capital
expenditures
(percent)
Typical small manufacturer who revenue from covered equipment is less than
10% of total company revenue ..............................................................................
Typical small manufacturer that produces general purpose motors currently covered by Federal standards .....................................................................................
Product
conversion cost
as a percentage
of annual
R&D expense
(percent)
Total conversion
cost as a
percentage of
annual revenue
(percent)
NA
NA
0
0
*
≤ 10
0
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
* The most these manufacturers would lose is 10% of their annual revenue if they choose not to invest in upgrading the equipment they currently manufacture, which is not covered by Federal energy conservation standards, but that would now be covered by the standards prescribed
in this final rule.
Table VI.1 also illustrates that small
manufacturers whose equipment lines
contain many motors that are not
currently required to meet Federal
standards face high relative equipment
conversion costs compared to large
manufacturers, despite the lower dollar
value. In interviews, these small
manufacturers expressed concern that
they would face a large learning curve
relative to large manufacturers, due to
the fact that many of the equipment
types have not had to meet Federal
standards. In its market survey, DOE
learned that for some manufacturers, the
expanded scope of specialized motors
that would have to meet the levels
adopted by today’s rule could affect
nearly half the equipment they offer.
They would need to hire additional
engineers and would have to spend
considerable time and resources
redesigning their equipment and
production processes. DOE does not
expect the small businesses that already
manufacture motors meeting the levels
adopted by today’s rule or those small
businesses that offer very few
alternating-current motors to incur these
high costs.
Manufacturers also expressed concern
about testing and certification costs
associated with new standards. They
pointed out that these costs are
particularly burdensome on small
businesses that produce a wide variety
of specialized equipment. As a result of
the wide variety of equipment they
produce and their relatively low output,
small manufacturers are forced to certify
multiple small batches of motors, the
costs of which are spread out over far
fewer units than large manufacturers.
Small manufacturers that produce
equipment not currently required to
meet efficiency standards also pointed
out that they would face significant
challenges supporting current business
while making changes to their
production lines. While large
manufacturers could shift production of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
certain equipment to different plants or
equipment lines while they made
updates, small businesses would have
limited options. Most of these small
businesses have only one plant and
would have to find a way to continue
to fulfill customer needs while
redesigning production lines and
installing new equipment. In interviews
with DOE, small manufacturers said that
it would be difficult to quantify the
impacts that downtime and the possible
need for external support could have on
their businesses.
3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict
With Other Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or
regulations that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict With the rule being considered
today.
4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
Section VI.B.2 analyzes impacts on
small businesses that would result from
DOE’s adopted final rule. Though TSLs
lower than the one serving as the basis
for today’s final rule would be likely to
reduce the impacts on small entities,
DOE is required by EPCA to establish
standards that achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that
are technically feasible and
economically justified, and result in a
significant conservation of energy.
Therefore, DOE rejected the lower TSLs
it had been considering.
In addition to the other TSLs that
DOE considered, the final rule TSD
includes a regulatory impact analysis
(RIA). For electric motors, the RIA
discusses the following policy
alternatives: (1) Consumer rebates, (2)
consumer tax credits, (3) manufacturer
tax credits, (4) voluntary energy
efficiency targets, (5) early replacement,
and (6) bulk government purchases.
While these alternatives may mitigate to
some varying extent the economic
impacts on small entities compared to
the standards, DOE determined that the
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
energy savings of these alternatives are
significantly smaller than those that
would be expected to result from the
adopted standard levels. Accordingly,
DOE is declining to adopt any of these
alternatives and is adopting the
standards set forth in this rulemaking.
(See chapter 17 of this final TSD for
further detail on the policy alternatives
DOE considered.)
DOE only received one public
comment regarding the impact of the
rule on small manufacturers. Baldor
asked why DOE does not consider
impacts on the many small
manufacturers outside of the U.S.
(Baldor, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp.
176–177). Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, the term ‘‘small business
concern’’ is defined by reference to
SBA’s regulations. SBA’s regulations
state that a small business concern is ‘‘a
business entity organized for profit,
with a place of business located in the
United States, and which operates
primarily within the United States or
which makes a significant contribution
to the U.S. economy through payment of
taxes or use of American products,
materials or labor’’. 13 CFR
121.105(a)(1). As a result, under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, DOE must
assess impacts on domestic small
businesses. DOE did not receive any
comments suggesting that small
business manufacturers would not be
able to achieve the efficiency levels
required at TSL 2, the selected
standards in today’s final rule.
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act
Manufacturers of electric motors that
are currently subject to energy
conservation standards must certify to
DOE that their equipment complies with
any applicable energy conservation
standards. In certifying compliance,
manufacturers must test their
equipment according to the DOE test
procedures for electric motors,
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
31008
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
including any amendments adopted for
those test procedures. The collection-ofinformation requirement for the
certification and recordkeeping is
subject to review and approval by OMB
under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA). This requirement has been
approved by OMB under OMB control
number 1910–1400. Public reporting
burden for the certification is estimated
to average 20 hours per response,
including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
DOE intends to address revised
certification requirements for electric
motors in a separate rulemaking.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, nor shall any person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the PRA, unless
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969, DOE has determined that the rule
fits within the category of actions
included in Categorical Exclusion (CX)
B5.1 and otherwise meets the
requirements for application of a CX.(10
CFR part 1021, App. B, B5.1(b);
1021.410(b) and Appendix B, B(1)–(5)).
The rule fits within the category of
actions because it is a rulemaking that
establishes energy conservation
standards for consumer products or
industrial equipment, and for which
none of the exceptions identified in CX
B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made
a CX determination for this rulemaking,
and DOE does not need to prepare an
Environmental Assessment or
Environmental Impact Statement for
this rule. DOE’s CX determination for
this rule is available at https://
cxnepa.energy.gov/.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’
64 FR 43255 (August10, 1999) imposes
certain requirements on Federal
agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt
State law or that have Federalism
implications. The Executive Order
requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority
supporting any action that would limit
the policymaking discretion of the
States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The
Executive Order also requires agencies
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
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. EPCA
governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to
energy conservation for the equipment
that is the subject of today’s final rule.
States can petition DOE for exemption
from such preemption to the extent, and
based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6297) No further action is
required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of
Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice
Reform,’’ imposes on Federal agencies
the general duty to adhere to the
following requirements: (1) Eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; and
(3) provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general
standard and promote simplification
and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729
(February 7, 1996). Section 3(b) of
Executive Order 12988 specifically
requires that Executive agencies make
every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal
law or regulation; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct
while promoting simplification and
burden reduction; (4) specifies the
retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order
12988 requires Executive agencies to
review regulations in light of applicable
standards in section 3(a) and section
3(b) to determine whether they are met
or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to
the extent permitted by law, this final
rule meets the relevant standards of
Executive Order 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
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec.
201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For the
new and amended regulatory action
likely to result in a rule that may cause
the expenditure by State, local, and
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
by the private sector of $100 million or
more in any one year (adjusted annually
for inflation), section 202 of UMRA
requires a Federal agency to publish a
written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other
effects on the national economy. (2
U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also
requires a Federal agency to develop an
effective process to permit timely input
by elected officers of State, local, and
Tribal governments on a ‘‘significant
intergovernmental mandate,’’ and
requires an agency plan for giving notice
and opportunity for timely input to
potentially affected small governments
before establishing any requirements
that might significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. 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 https://
energy.gov/gc/downloads/unfundedmandates-reform-actintergovernmental-consultation.
DOE has concluded that this final rule
would likely require expenditures of
$100 million or more. Such
expenditures may include: (1)
Investment in research and
development and in capital
Expenditures by electric motor
manufacturers in the years between the
final rule and the compliance date for
the new standards, and (2) incremental
additional expenditures by consumers
to purchase higher-efficiency electric
motors, starting at the compliance date
for the applicable standard.
Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a
Federal agency to respond to the content
requirements of UMRA in any other
statement or analysis that accompanies
the final rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The
content requirements of section 202(b)
of UMRA relevant to a private sector
mandate substantially overlap the
economic analysis requirements that
apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and
Executive Order 12866. The
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
today’s final rule and the ‘‘Regulatory
Impact Analysis’’ section of the TSD
accompanying the final rule respond to
those requirements.
Under section 205 of UMRA, the
Department is obligated to identify and
consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives before
promulgating a rule for which a written
statement under section 202 is required.
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
2 U.S.C. 1535(a). DOE is required to
select from those alternatives the most
cost-effective and least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule unless DOE publishes an
explanation for doing otherwise, or the
selection of such an alternative is
inconsistent with law. As required by 42
U.S.C. 6295(d), (f), and (o) and 6316(a),
today’s final rule would establish energy
conservation standards for electric
motors that are designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE has determined to
be both technologically feasible and
economically justified. A full discussion
of the alternatives considered by DOE is
presented in the ‘‘Regulatory Impact
Analysis’’ section of the TSD for today’s
final rule.
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being. This
rule would not have any impact on the
autonomy or integrity of the family as
an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to
prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive
Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions
and Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859
(March 18, 1988), that this regulation
would not result in any takings that
might require compensation under the
Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
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 guidelines established
by each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has
reviewed today’s final rule under the
OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with
applicable policies in those guidelines.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ 66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to
prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a
Statement of Energy Effects for any
significant energy action. A ‘‘significant
energy action’’ is defined as any action
by an agency that promulgates or is
expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866, or any successor order; and (2)
is likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, or (3) is designated by the
Administrator of OIRA as a significant
energy action. For any significant energy
action, the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use
should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the
action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has concluded that today’s
regulatory action, which sets forth
energy conservation standards for
electric motors, is not a significant
energy action because the new and
amended standards are not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy,
nor has it been designated as such by
the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly,
DOE has not prepared a Statement of
Energy Effects on the final rule.
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 (January14, 2005).The Bulletin
establishes that certain scientific
information shall be peer reviewed by
qualified specialists before it is
disseminated by the Federal
Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency
regulatory actions. The purpose of the
bulletin is to enhance the quality and
credibility of the Government’s
scientific information. Under the
Bulletin, the energy conservation
standards rulemaking analyses are
‘‘influential scientific information,’’
which the Bulletin defines as scientific
information the agency reasonably can
determine will have, or does have, a
clear and substantial impact on
important public policies or private
sector decisions. 70 FR 2667.
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
31009
In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE
conducted formal in-progress peer
reviews of the energy conservation
standards development process and
analyses and has prepared a Peer
Review Report pertaining to the energy
conservation standards rulemaking
analyses. Generation of this report
involved a rigorous, formal, and
documented evaluation using objective
criteria and qualified and independent
reviewers to make a judgment as to the
technical/scientific/business merit, the
actual or anticipated results, and the
productivity and management
effectiveness of programs and/or
projects. The ‘‘Energy Conservation
Standards Rulemaking Peer Review
Report’’ dated February 2007 has been
disseminated and is available at the
following Web site:
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/peer_review.html.
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will
report to Congress on the promulgation
of this rule prior to its effective date.
The report will state that it has been
determined that the rule is a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
VII. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of today’s final rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Commercial and industrial Equipment,
Imports, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, and
Small businesses.
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 8, 2014.
David T. Danielson,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, DOE amends part 431 of
chapter II of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 431—ENERGY CONSERVATION
PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 431
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317.
2. Amend § 431.12 by revising the
definitions of ‘‘NEMA Design A motor’’
and ‘‘partial electric motor’’ to read as
follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
31010
§ 431.12
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
NEMA Design A motor means a
squirrel-cage motor that:
(1) Is designed to withstand fullvoltage starting and developing lockedrotor torque as shown in NEMA MG 1–
2009, paragraph 12.38.1 (incorporated
by reference, see § 431.15);
(2) Has pull-up torque not less than
the values shown in NEMA MG 1–2009,
paragraph 12.40.1;
(3) Has breakdown torque not less
than the values shown in NEMA MG 1–
2009, paragraph 12.39.1;
(4) Has a locked-rotor current higher
than the values shown in NEMA MG 1–
2009, paragraph 12.35.1 for 60 hertz and
NEMA MG 1–2009, paragraph 12.35.2
for 50 hertz; and
(5) Has a slip at rated load of less than
5 percent for motors with fewer than 10
poles.
*
*
*
*
*
Partial electric motor means an
assembly of motor components
necessitating the addition of no more
than two endshields, including
bearings, to create an electric motor
capable of operation in accordance with
the applicable nameplate ratings.
*
*
*
*
*
■
3. Revise § 431.25 to read as follows:
§ 431.25 Energy conservation standards
and effective dates.
(a) Except as provided for fire pump
electric motors in paragraph (b) of this
section, each general purpose electric
motor (subtype I) with a power rating of
1 horsepower or greater, but not greater
than 200 horsepower, including a
NEMA Design B or an equivalent IEC
Design N motor that is a general purpose
electric motor (subtype I), manufactured
(alone or as a component of another
piece of equipment) on or after
December 19, 2010, but before June 1,
2016, shall have a nominal full-load
efficiency that is not less than the
following:
TABLE 1—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF GENERAL PURPOSE ELECTRIC MOTORS (SUBTYPE I), EXCEPT FIRE
PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS
Nominal full-load efficiency
Open motors
(number of poles)
Motor horsepower/Standard kilowatt equivalent
6
1/.75 .........................................................................................................
1.5/1.1 ......................................................................................................
2/1.5 .........................................................................................................
3/2.2 .........................................................................................................
5/3.7 .........................................................................................................
7.5/5.5 ......................................................................................................
10/7.5 .......................................................................................................
15/11 ........................................................................................................
20/15 ........................................................................................................
25/18.5 .....................................................................................................
30/22 ........................................................................................................
40/30 ........................................................................................................
50/37 ........................................................................................................
60/45 ........................................................................................................
75/55 ........................................................................................................
100/75 ......................................................................................................
125/90 ......................................................................................................
150/110 ....................................................................................................
200/150 ....................................................................................................
(b) Each fire pump electric motor that
is a general purpose electric motor
(subtype I) or general purpose electric
4
82.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
Enclosed motors
(number of poles)
2
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.7
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.8
95.8
motor (subtype II) manufactured (alone
or as a component of another piece of
equipment) on or after December 19,
6
77.0
84.0
85.5
85.5
86.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.1
95.0
4
82.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
93.0
93.0
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.8
95.8
2
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.8
96.2
77.0
84.0
85.5
86.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
95.0
95.0
95.4
2010, but before June 1, 2016, shall have
a nominal full-load efficiency that is not
less than the following:
TABLE 2—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS
Nominal full-load efficiency
Open motors
(number of poles)
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
8
1/.75 .................................................................
1.5/1.1 ..............................................................
2/1.5 .................................................................
3/2.2 .................................................................
5/3.7 .................................................................
7.5/5.5 ..............................................................
10/7.5 ...............................................................
15/11 ................................................................
20/15 ................................................................
25/18.5 .............................................................
30/22 ................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
6
74.0
75.5
85.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
Frm 00078
4
80.0
84.0
85.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.7
92.4
Fmt 4701
Enclosed motors
(number of poles)
2
82.5
84.0
84.0
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
91.7
92.4
Sfmt 4700
................
82.5
84.0
84.0
85.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.0
91.0
8
6
74.0
77.0
82.5
84.0
85.5
85.5
88.5
88.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
4
80.0
85.5
86.5
87.5
87.5
89.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.7
91.7
2
82.5
84.0
84.0
87.5
87.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
92.4
92.4
75.5
82.5
84.0
85.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.0
31011
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS—Continued
Nominal full-load efficiency
Open motors
(number of poles)
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent
Enclosed motors
(number of poles)
8
6
4
2
40/30 ................................................................
50/37 ................................................................
60/45 ................................................................
75/55 ................................................................
100/75 ..............................................................
125/90 ..............................................................
150/110 ............................................................
200/150 ............................................................
250/186 ............................................................
300/224 ............................................................
350/261 ............................................................
400/298 ............................................................
450/336 ............................................................
500/373 ............................................................
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.6
93.6
93.6
93.6
93.6
94.5
................
................
................
................
................
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.4
95.4
95.4
................
................
................
(c) Except as provided for fire pump
electric motors in paragraph (b) of this
section, each general purpose electric
motor (subtype II) with a power rating
of 1 horsepower or greater, but not
greater than 200 horsepower, including
a NEMA Design B or an equivalent IEC
Design N motor that is a general purpose
electric motor (subtype II),
manufactured (alone or as a component
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.8
95.8
8
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.8
95.8
6
4
91.0
91.7
91.7
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.5
................
................
................
................
................
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.1
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
................
................
................
2
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.8
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
of another piece of equipment) on or
after December 19, 2010, but before June
1, 2016, shall have a nominal full-load
efficiency that is not less than the
following:
TABLE 3—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF GENERAL PURPOSE ELECTRIC MOTORS (SUBTYPE II), EXCEPT FIRE
PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS
Nominal full-load efficiency
Motor horsepower/
Standard kilowatt equivalent
Open motors
(number of poles)
8
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
1/.75 .................................................................
1.5/1.1 ..............................................................
2/1.5 .................................................................
3/2.2 .................................................................
5/3.7 .................................................................
7.5/5.5 ..............................................................
10/7.5 ...............................................................
15/11 ................................................................
20/15 ................................................................
25/18.5 .............................................................
30/22 ................................................................
40/30 ................................................................
50/37 ................................................................
60/45 ................................................................
75/55 ................................................................
100/75 ..............................................................
125/90 ..............................................................
150/110 ............................................................
200/150 ............................................................
(d) Each NEMA Design B or an
equivalent IEC Design N motor that is a
general purpose electric motor (subtype
I) or general purpose electric motor
(subtype II), excluding fire pump
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
6
74.0
75.5
85.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.6
93.6
93.6
93.6
93.6
4
80.0
84.0
85.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
Enclosed motors
(number of poles)
2
82.5
84.0
84.0
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.0
................
82.5
84.0
84.0
85.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.5
electric motors, with a power rating of
more than 200 horsepower, but not
greater than 500 horsepower,
manufactured (alone or as a component
of another piece of equipment) on or
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
8
6
74.0
77.0
82.5
84.0
85.5
85.5
88.5
88.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
4
80.0
85.5
86.5
87.5
87.5
89.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.7
91.7
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.1
95.0
95.0
2
82.5
84.0
84.0
87.5
87.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
92.4
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
75.5
82.5
84.0
85.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.5
94.5
95.0
after December 19, 2010, but before June
1, 2016 shall have a nominal full-load
efficiency that is not less than the
following:
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
31012
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF NEMA DESIGN B GENERAL PURPOSE ELECTRIC MOTORS (SUBTYPE I
AND II), EXCEPT FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS
Nominal full-load efficiency
Motor horsepower/
standard kilowatt equivalent
Open motors
(number of poles)
8
250/186
300/224
350/261
400/298
450/336
500/373
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
(e) For purposes of determining the
required minimum nominal full-load
efficiency of an electric motor that has
a horsepower or kilowatt rating between
two horsepower or two kilowatt ratings
listed in any table of energy
conservation standards in paragraphs (a)
through (d) of this section, each such
motor shall be deemed to have a listed
horsepower or kilowatt rating,
determined as follows:
(1) A horsepower at or above the
midpoint between the two consecutive
horsepowers shall be rounded up to the
higher of the two horsepowers;
(2) A horsepower below the midpoint
between the two consecutive
horsepowers shall be rounded down to
the lower of the two horsepowers; or
(3) A kilowatt rating shall be directly
converted from kilowatts to horsepower
using the formula 1 kilowatt = ( 1/0.746)
horsepower. The conversion should be
calculated to three significant decimal
places, and the resulting horsepower
6
94.5
................
................
................
................
................
95.4
95.4
95.4
................
................
................
Enclosed motors
(number of poles)
4
2
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.8
95.8
8
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.8
95.8
shall be rounded in accordance with
paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this section,
whichever applies.
(f) The standards in Table 1 through
Table 4 of this section do not apply to
definite purpose electric motors, special
purpose electric motors, or those motors
exempted by the Secretary.
(g) The standards in Table 5 through
Table 7 of this section apply only to
electric motors, including partial
electric motors, that satisfy the
following criteria:
(1) Are single-speed, induction
motors;
(2) Are rated for continuous duty (MG
1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC);
(3) Contain a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or
cage (IEC) rotor;
(4) Operate on polyphase alternating
current 60-hertz sinusoidal line power;
(5) Are rated 600 volts or less;
(6) Have a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole
configuration,
(7) Are built in a three-digit or fourdigit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric
6
4
94.5
................
................
................
................
................
95.0
95.0
95.0
................
................
................
2
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.8
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
equivalent), including those designs
between two consecutive NEMA frame
sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an
enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC
metric equivalent),
(8) Produce at least one horsepower
(0.746 kW) but not greater than 500
horsepower (373 kW), and
(9) Meet all of the performance
requirements of one of the following
motor types: A NEMA Design A, B, or
C motor or an IEC Design N or H motor.
(h) Starting on June 1, 2016, each
NEMA Design A motor, NEMA Design
B motor, and IEC Design N motor that
is an electric motor meeting the criteria
in paragraph (g) of this section and with
a power rating from 1 horsepower
through 500 horsepower, but excluding
fire pump electric motors, manufactured
(alone or as a component of another
piece of equipment) shall have a
nominal full-load efficiency of not less
than the following:
TABLE 5—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF NEMA DESIGN A, NEMA DESIGN B AND IEC DESIGN N MOTORS
(EXCLUDING FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS) AT 60 HZ
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
Motor horsepower/
standard kilowatt equivalent
2 Pole
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Enclosed
1/.75 .................................................................
1.5/1.1 ..............................................................
2/1.5 .................................................................
3/2.2 .................................................................
5/3.7 .................................................................
7.5/5.5 ..............................................................
10/7.5 ...............................................................
15/11 ................................................................
20/15 ................................................................
25/18.5 .............................................................
30/22 ................................................................
40/30 ................................................................
50/37 ................................................................
60/45 ................................................................
75/55 ................................................................
100/75 ..............................................................
125/90 ..............................................................
150/110 ............................................................
200/150 ............................................................
250/186 ............................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
77.0
84.0
85.5
86.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.8
Frm 00080
4 Pole
Open
77.0
84.0
85.5
85.5
86.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.1
95.0
95.0
Fmt 4701
Enclosed
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.8
96.2
96.2
Sfmt 4700
6 Pole
Open
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.7
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.8
95.8
95.8
Enclosed
8 Pole
Open
82.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
93.0
93.0
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.8
95.8
95.8
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
82.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.8
Enclosed
75.5
78.5
84.0
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.7
91.7
92.4
92.4
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
95.0
Open
75.5
77.0
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
94.1
94.1
94.1
94.1
94.1
95.0
31013
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 5—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF NEMA DESIGN A, NEMA DESIGN B AND IEC DESIGN N MOTORS
(EXCLUDING FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS) AT 60 HZ—Continued
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
Motor horsepower/
standard kilowatt equivalent
2 Pole
Enclosed
300/224
350/261
400/298
450/336
500/373
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
(i) Starting on June 1, 2016, each
NEMA Design C motor and IEC Design
H motor that is an electric motor
meeting the criteria in paragraph (g) of
4 Pole
Open
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
Enclosed
95.4
95.4
95.8
96.2
96.2
6 Pole
Open
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.2
95.8
95.8
95.8
96.2
96.2
this section and with a power rating
from 1 horsepower through 200
horsepower manufactured (alone or as a
component of another piece of
8 Pole
Enclosed
Open
Enclosed
Open
95.8
95.8
................
................
................
95.8
95.8
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
equipment) shall have a nominal fullload efficiency that is not less than the
following:
TABLE 6—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF NEMA DESIGN C AND IEC DESIGN H MOTORS AT 60 HZ
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent
4 Pole
Enclosed
1/.75 .................................................................................
1.5/1.1 ..............................................................................
2/1.5 .................................................................................
3/2.2 .................................................................................
5/3.7 .................................................................................
7.5/5.5 ..............................................................................
10/7.5 ...............................................................................
15/11 ................................................................................
20/15 ................................................................................
25/18.5 .............................................................................
30/22 ................................................................................
40/30 ................................................................................
50/37 ................................................................................
60/45 ................................................................................
75/55 ................................................................................
100/75 ..............................................................................
125/90 ..............................................................................
150/110 ............................................................................
200/150 ............................................................................
(j) Starting on June 1, 2016, each fire
pump electric motor meeting the criteria
in paragraph (g) of this section and with
6 Pole
Open
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.8
96.2
Enclosed
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.7
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.8
95.8
82.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
93.0
93.0
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.8
95.8
a power rating of 1 horsepower through
500 horsepower, manufactured (alone or
as a component of another piece of
8 Pole
Open
82.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
Enclosed
75.5
78.5
84.0
85.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.7
91.7
92.4
92.4
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
Open
75.5
77.0
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
92.4
93.0
94.1
94.1
94.1
94.1
94.1
equipment) shall have a nominal fullload efficiency that is not less than the
following:
TABLE 7—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS AT 60 HZ
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
Motor horsepower/
standard kilowatt
equivalent
2 Pole
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Enclosed
1/.75 .................................
1.5/1.1 ..............................
2/1.5 .................................
3/2.2 .................................
5/3.7 .................................
7.5/5.5 ..............................
10/7.5 ...............................
15/11 ................................
20/15 ................................
25/18.5 .............................
30/22 ................................
40/30 ................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 28, 2014
75.5
82.5
84.0
85.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
Jkt 232001
4 Pole
Open
Enclosed
....................
82.5
84.0
84.0
85.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
PO 00000
Frm 00081
82.5
84.0
84.0
87.5
87.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
92.4
92.4
93.0
Fmt 4701
6 Pole
Open
Enclosed
82.5
84.0
84.0
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.0
Sfmt 4700
80.0
85.5
86.5
87.5
87.5
89.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.7
91.7
93.0
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
8 Pole
Open
80.0
84.0
85.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.0
29MYR2
Enclosed
74.0
77.0
82.5
84.0
85.5
85.5
88.5
88.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
Open
74.0
75.5
85.5
86.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.0
31014
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 7—NOMINAL FULL-LOAD EFFICIENCIES OF FIRE PUMP ELECTRIC MOTORS AT 60 HZ—Continued
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
Motor horsepower/
standard kilowatt
equivalent
2 Pole
Enclosed
50/37 ................................
60/45 ................................
75/55 ................................
100/75 ..............................
125/90 ..............................
150/110 ............................
200/150 ............................
250/186 ............................
300/224 ............................
350/261 ............................
400/298 ............................
450/336 ............................
500/373 ............................
Open
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
19:20 May 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
Enclosed
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.8
95.8
(k) For purposes of determining the
required minimum nominal full-load
efficiency of an electric motor that has
a horsepower or kilowatt rating between
two horsepower or two kilowatt ratings
listed in any table of energy
conservation standards in paragraphs
(h) through (l) of this section, each such
motor shall be deemed to have a listed
horsepower or kilowatt rating,
determined as follows:
(1) A horsepower at or above the
midpoint between the two consecutive
horsepowers shall be rounded up to the
higher of the two horsepowers;
(2) A horsepower below the midpoint
between the two consecutive
horsepowers shall be rounded down to
the lower of the two horsepowers; or
(3) A kilowatt rating shall be directly
converted from kilowatts to horsepower
using the formula 1 kilowatt = ( 1/ 0.746)
horsepower. The conversion should be
calculated to three significant decimal
places, and the resulting horsepower
shall be rounded in accordance with
paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this section,
whichever applies.
(l) The standards in Table 5 through
Table 7 of this section do not apply to
the following electric motors exempted
by the Secretary, or any additional
electric motors that the Secretary may
exempt:
(1) Air-over electric motors;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
4 Pole
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.8
6 Pole
Open
Enclosed
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.8
95.8
Open
Enclosed
Open
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.1
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
....................
....................
....................
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.4
95.4
95.4
....................
....................
....................
91.7
91.7
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.5
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
91.7
92.4
93.6
93.6
93.6
93.6
93.6
94.5
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
(2) Component sets of an electric
motor;
(3) Liquid-cooled electric motors;
(4) Submersible electric motors; and
(5) Inverter-only electric motors.
[Note: The following letter from the
Department of Justice will not appear in the
Code of Federal Regulations.]
APPENDIX TO FINAL RULE
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
William J. Baer
Assistant Attorney General
RFK Main Justice Building
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.
Washington, DC 20530–0001
(202) 514–2401/(202) 616–2645 (Fax)
February 3, 2014
Eric J. Fygi
Deputy General Counsel
Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
Dear Deputy General Counsel Fygi:
I am responding to your December 11, 2013
letter seeking the views of the Attorney
General about the potential impact on
competition of proposed energy conservation
standards for certain types of commercial and
industrial electric motors. Your request was
submitted under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as
amended (ECPA), 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which requires the
Attorney General to make a determination of
the impact of any lessening of competition
that is likely to result from the imposition of
proposed energy conservation standards. The
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
8 Pole
Attorney General’s responsibility for
responding to requests from other
departments about the effect of a program on
competition has been delegated to the
Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust
Division in 28 CFR § 0.40(g).
In conducting its analysis the Antitrust
Division examines whether a proposed
standard may lessen competition, for
example, by substantially limiting consumer
choice, by placing certain manufacturers at
an unjustified competitive disadvantage, or
by inducing avoidable inefficiencies in
production or distribution of particular
products. A lessening of competition could
result in higher prices to manufacturers and
consumers, and perhaps thwart the intent of
the revised standards by inducing
substitution to less efficient products.
We have reviewed the proposed standards
contained in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (78 Fed. Reg. 235, December 6,
2013). We have also reviewed supplementary
information submitted to the Attorney
General by the Department of Energy,
including a transcript of the public meeting
held on the proposed standards on December
11, 2013. Based on this review, our
conclusion is that the proposed energy
conservation standards for certain
commercial and industrial electric motors
can advance the Department of Energy’s goal
of energy conservation without causing a
significant adverse impact on competition.
Sincerely,
William J. Baer.
[FR Doc. 2014–11201 Filed 5–28–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
E:\FR\FM\29MYR2.SGM
29MYR2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 103 (Thursday, May 29, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30933-31014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11201]
[[Page 30933]]
Vol. 79
Thursday,
No. 103
May 29, 2014
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 431
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Commercial and Industrial Electric Motors; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 30934]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027]
RIN 1904-AC28
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Commercial and Industrial Electric Motors
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as
amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer
products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including
commercial and industrial electric motors. EPCA also requires the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) to determine whether more-stringent, amended
standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified,
and would save a significant amount of energy. In this final rule, DOE
establishes energy conservation standards for a number of different
groups of electric motors that DOE has not previously regulated. For
those groups of electric motors currently regulated, today's rulemaking
would maintain the current energy conservation standards for some
electric motor types and amend the energy conservation standards for
other electric motor types. DOE has determined that the new and amended
energy conservation standards for this equipment would result in
significant conservation of energy, and are technologically feasible
and economically justified.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is July 28, 2014. Compliance
with the standards established for commercial and industrial electric
motors in today's final rule is required starting on June 1, 2016.
The incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in
this rule was approved by the Federal Register on May 4, 2012.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All
documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index.
However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
A link to the docket Web page can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027. This Web
page will contain a link to the docket for this rule on the
regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page will contain simple
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms.
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies
Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-8654. Email: medium_electric_motors@ee.doe.gov.
Ami Grace-Tardy, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-5709. Email: Ami.Grace-Tardy@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits and Costs
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Electric Motors
3. Process for Setting Energy Conservation Standards
III. General Discussion
A. Compliance Date
B. Test Procedure
1. Vertical Electric Motors
C. Current Equipment Classes and Scope of Coverage
D. Updated Equipment Classes and Scope of Coverage
E. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
F. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
G. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
b. Life-Cycle Costs
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Current Scope of Electric Motors Energy Conservation
Standards
2. Expanded Scope of Electric Motor Energy Conservation
Standards
a. Summary
b. Definitions, Terminology, and Regulatory Language
c. Horsepower Rating
d. High-Horsepower Six- and Eight-Pole Motors
e. Frame Size
f. IEC Motors
g. Frequency
h. Random Winding
i. Duty Cycle
j. Gear Motors
k. Partial Electric Motors
l. Certification Considerations Related to Expanded Scope
m. Electric Motors With Separately Powered Blowers
3. Advanced Electric Motors
4. Equipment Class Groups and Equipment Classes
a. U-Frame Motors
b. Electric Motor Design Letter
c. Fire Pump Electric Motors
d. Brake Electric Motors
e. Horsepower Rating
f. Pole Configuration
g. Enclosure Type
h. Other Motor Characteristics
5. Technology Assessment
a. Increase the Cross-Sectional Area of Copper in the Stator
Slots
b. Decrease the Length of Coil Extensions
c. Die-Cast Copper Rotor Cage
d. Increase Cross-Sectional Area of Rotor Conductor Bars
e. Increase Cross-Sectional Area of End Rings
f. Electrical Steel With Lower Losses
g. Thinner Steel Laminations
h. Increase Stack Length
i. Optimize Bearing and Lubrication
j. Improve Cooling System
k. Reduce Skew on Conductor Cage
l. Improve Rotor Bar Insulation
m. Technology Options Not Considered
B. Screening Analysis
1. Technology Options Not Screened Out of the Analysis
a. Die-Cast Copper Rotors
b. Increase the Cross-Sectional Area of Copper in the Stator
Slots
c. Power Factor
2. Technology Options Screened Out of the Analysis
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Engineering Analysis Methodology
2. Representative Units
a. Electric Motor Design Type
b. Horsepower Rating
c. Pole-Configuration
d. Enclosure Type
3. Efficiency Levels Analyzed
4. Testing and Teardowns
5. Software Modeling
6. Cost Model
a. Copper Pricing
b. Labor Rate and Non-Production Markup
[[Page 30935]]
c. Catalog Prices
d. Product Development Cost
7. Engineering Analysis Results
8. Scaling Methodology
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Equipment Costs
2. Installation Costs
3. Maintenance Costs
4. Repair Costs
5. Unit Energy Consumption
6. Electricity Prices and Electricity Price Trends
7. Lifetime
8. Discount Rate
9. Base Case Market Efficiency Distributions
10. Compliance Date
11. Payback Period Inputs
12. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Period
13. Comments on Other Issues
G. Shipments Analysis
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
3. Electric Motor Weights
4. Equipment Price Forecast
5. Net Present Value of Customer Benefit
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Manufacturer Production Costs
2. Shipment Projections
3. Markup Scenarios
4. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
5. Other Comments from Interested Parties
a. Manufacturer Markups used in the MIA versus the NIA
b. Potential Trade Barriers
6. Manufacturer Interviews
K. Emissions Analysis
L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts
1. Social Cost of Carbon
a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon Values
c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions
2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions
M. Utility Impact Analysis
N. Employment Impact Analysis
O. Other Comments Received
V. Analytical Results
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Customers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results
b. Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Sub-Group of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value of Customer Costs and Benefits
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
4. Impact on Utility or Performance
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
7. Summary of National Economic Impacts
8. Other Factors
C. Conclusions
1. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard Levels Considered for
Electric Motors
2. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of Today's
Standards
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
a. Manufacturer Participation
b. Electric Motor Industry Structure and Nature of Competition
c. Comparison Between Large and Small Entities
2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and
Regulations
4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
M. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits
Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42
U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; ``EPCA''), Public Law 94-163, sets forth a
variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part C of
title III, which for editorial reasons was re-designated as Part A-1
upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317),
establishes the ``Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment,'' including certain electric motors.\1\ (Within this
preamble, DOE will use the terms ``electric motors'' and ``motors''
interchangeably as today's rulemaking only pertains to electric
motors.) Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation
standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a))
Furthermore, the new or amended standards must result in significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(a))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical
Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Pub. L. 112-210 (December 18, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed
in this final rule, DOE is adopting new and amended energy conservation
standards for electric motors by applying the standards currently in
place to a wider scope of electric motors that DOE does not currently
regulate. In setting these standards, DOE is addressing a number of
different groups of electric motors that have, to date, not been
required to satisfy the energy conservation standards currently set out
in 10 CFR part 431. In addition, today's rule, would require all
currently regulated motors, with the exception of fire pump electric
motors, to satisfy the efficiency levels (ELs) prescribed in Table 12-
12 of National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) Standards
Publication MG 1-2011, ``Motors and Generators;'' fire pump motors
would continue to meet the current standards that apply. All other
electric motors covered in today's rulemaking would also need to meet
the efficiency levels found in MG 1-2011, Table 12-12. As a practical
matter, most currently regulated motors would continue to be required
to meet the same standards that they are already required to meet, but
certain motors, such as those that satisfy the general purpose electric
motors (subtype II) (i.e. ``subtype II'') or that are NEMA Design B (or
equivalent IEC Design N) motors with a power rating of more than 200
horsepower, but not greater than 500 horsepower, would now be required
to meet the more stringent levels prescribed by MG 1-2011, Tables 12-
12. These adopted efficiency levels (depicted here as trial standard
levels or ``TSLs'') and the motor types to which they apply are shown
in Table I.1.
[[Page 30936]]
Table I.1--Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors
[Compliance starting June 1, 2016]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class Electric motor Horsepower Pole
group design type rating configuration Enclosure Adopted TSL**
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................. NEMA Design A & B* 1-500 2, 4, 6, 8 Open............. 2
Enclosed......... 2
2.................. NEMA Design C*.... 1-200 4, 6, 8 Open............. 2
Enclosed......... 2
3.................. Fire Pump*........ 1-500 2, 4, 6, 8 Open............. 2
Enclosed......... 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Indicates International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) equivalent electric motors are included. Also, due
to the elimination of an equipment class for brake motors, previously reported brake motor results are now
reported in Equipment Class Group 1 (ECG 1).
**Tables I.2 through I.4 detail the various standard levels that compose TSL 2. Table I.2 applies to NEMA
Design A & B, Table I.3 applies to NEMA Design C and Table I.4 applies to fire pump electric motors.
In determining where a particular motor with a certain horsepower
(hp) or kilowatt (kW) rating would fall within the requirements,
today's final rule establishes the same approach provided in current
regulations to determine which rating would apply for compliance
purposes. Namely:
1. A horsepower at or above the midpoint between the two
consecutive horsepowers shall be rounded up to the higher of the two
horsepowers;
2. A horsepower below the midpoint between the two consecutive
horsepowers shall be rounded down to the lower of the two horsepowers;
and
3. A kilowatt rating shall be directly converted from kilowatts to
horsepower using the formula 1 kilowatt = (1/0.746) horsepower. The
conversion should be calculated to three significant decimal places,
and the resulting horsepower shall be rounded in accordance with the
rules listed in (1) and (2).
Table I.2--Energy Conservation Standards for NEMA Design A and NEMA Design B Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors)
[Compliance starting June 1, 2016]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (percent)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt 2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
equivalent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75................................... 77.0 77.0 85.5 85.5 82.5 82.5 75.5 75.5
1.5/1.1................................. 84.0 84.0 86.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 78.5 77.0
2/1.5................................... 85.5 85.5 86.5 86.5 88.5 87.5 84.0 86.5
3/2.2................................... 86.5 85.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 87.5
5/3.7................................... 88.5 86.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 86.5 88.5
7.5/5.5................................. 89.5 88.5 91.7 91.0 91.0 90.2 86.5 89.5
10/7.5.................................. 90.2 89.5 91.7 91.7 91.0 91.7 89.5 90.2
15/11................................... 91.0 90.2 92.4 93.0 91.7 91.7 89.5 90.2
20/15................................... 91.0 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 92.4 90.2 91.0
25/18.5................................. 91.7 91.7 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.0 90.2 91.0
30/22................................... 91.7 91.7 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.6 91.7 91.7
40/30................................... 92.4 92.4 94.1 94.1 94.1 94.1 91.7 91.7
50/37................................... 93.0 93.0 94.5 94.5 94.1 94.1 92.4 92.4
60/45................................... 93.6 93.6 95.0 95.0 94.5 94.5 92.4 93.0
75/55................................... 93.6 93.6 95.4 95.0 94.5 94.5 93.6 94.1
100/75.................................. 94.1 93.6 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 93.6 94.1
125/90.................................. 95.0 94.1 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 94.1 94.1
150/110................................. 95.0 94.1 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.1 94.1
200/150................................. 95.4 95.0 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.5 94.1
250/186................................. 95.8 95.0 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.0 95.0
300/224................................. 95.8 95.4 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 ............ ............
350/261................................. 95.8 95.4 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 ............ ............
400/298................................. 95.8 95.8 96.2 95.8 ............ ............ ............ ............
450/336................................. 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ............ ............ ............
500/373................................. 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ............ ............ ............ ............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 30937]]
Table I.3--Energy Conservation Standards for NEMA Design C Motors
[Compliance starting June 1, 2016]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (percent)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
kilowatt equivalent -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75....................... 85.5 85.5 82.5 82.5 75.5 75.5
1.5/1.1..................... 86.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 78.5 77.0
2/1.5....................... 86.5 86.5 88.5 87.5 84.0 86.5
3/2.2....................... 89.5 89.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 87.5
5/3.7....................... 89.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 86.5 88.5
7.5/5.5..................... 91.7 91.0 91.0 90.2 86.5 89.5
10/7.5...................... 91.7 91.7 91.0 91.7 89.5 90.2
15/11....................... 92.4 93.0 91.7 91.7 89.5 90.2
20/15....................... 93.0 93.0 91.7 92.4 90.2 91.0
25/18.5..................... 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.0 90.2 91.0
30/22....................... 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.6 91.7 91.7
40/30....................... 94.1 94.1 94.1 94.1 91.7 91.7
50/37....................... 94.5 94.5 94.1 94.1 92.4 92.4
60/45....................... 95.0 95.0 94.5 94.5 92.4 93.0
75/55....................... 95.4 95.0 94.5 94.5 93.6 94.1
100/75...................... 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 93.6 94.1
125/90...................... 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 94.1 94.1
150/110..................... 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.1 94.1
200/150..................... 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.5 94.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table I.4--Energy Conservation Standards for Fire Pump Electric Motors
[Compliance starting June 1, 2016]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (percent)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt 2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
equivalent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75................................... 75.5 ............ 82.5 82.5 80.0 80.0 74.0 74.0
1.5/1.1................................. 82.5 82.5 84.0 84.0 85.5 84.0 77.0 75.5
2/1.5................................... 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 86.5 85.5 82.5 85.5
3/2.2................................... 85.5 84.0 87.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 84.0 86.5
5/3.7................................... 87.5 85.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 85.5 87.5
7.5/5.5................................. 88.5 87.5 89.5 88.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 88.5
10/7.5.................................. 89.5 88.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 90.2 88.5 89.5
15/11................................... 90.2 89.5 91.0 91.0 90.2 90.2 88.5 89.5
20/15................................... 90.2 90.2 91.0 91.0 90.2 91.0 89.5 90.2
25/18.5................................. 91.0 91.0 92.4 91.7 91.7 91.7 89.5 90.2
30/22................................... 91.0 91.0 92.4 92.4 91.7 92.4 91.0 91.0
40/30................................... 91.7 91.7 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 91.0 91.0
50/37................................... 92.4 92.4 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 91.7
60/45................................... 93.0 93.0 93.6 93.6 93.6 93.6 91.7 92.4
75/55................................... 93.0 93.0 94.1 94.1 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.6
100/75.................................. 93.6 93.0 94.5 94.1 94.1 94.1 93.0 93.6
125/90.................................. 94.5 93.6 94.5 94.5 94.1 94.1 93.6 93.6
150/110................................. 94.5 93.6 95.0 95.0 95.0 94.5 93.6 93.6
200/150................................. 95.0 94.5 95.0 95.0 95.0 94.5 94.1 93.6
250/186................................. 95.4 94.5 95.0 95.4 95.0 95.4 94.5 94.5
300/224................................. 95.4 95.0 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.4 ............ ............
350/261................................. 95.4 95.0 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.4 ............ ............
400/298................................. 95.4 95.4 95.4 95.4 ............ ............ ............ ............
450/336................................. 95.4 95.8 95.4 95.8 ............ ............ ............ ............
500/373................................. 95.4 95.8 95.8 95.8 ............ ............ ............ ............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Energy conservation standards for fire pump electric motors have not changed and remain at the current efficiency levels.
[[Page 30938]]
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
Table I.5 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of
today's standards on consumers of electric motors, as measured by the
weighted average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and the median payback
period. The average LCC savings are positive for all equipment classes
for which consumers are impacted by the standards.
Table I.5--Impacts of Today's Standards on Consumers of Electric Motors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted average Weighted median
Equipment class group LCC savings* payback period*
(2013$) (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 160............... 2.9
2............................... 53................ 4.5
3............................... N/A**............. N/A**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The results for each equipment class group (ECG) are a shipment
weighted average of results for the representative units in the group.
ECG 1: Representative units 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10; ECG 2: Representative
units 4 and 5; ECG 3: Representative units 6, 7, and 8. The weighted
average lifetime in each equipment class is 15 years and ranges from 8
to 29 years, depending on the motor horsepower and application.
** For the ECG 3 motor, the standard level is the same as the baseline;
thus, no customers are affected.
B. Impact on Manufacturers
The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted
cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the
analysis period (2014 to 2045). Using a real discount rate of 9.1
percent, DOE estimates that the industry net present value (INPV) for
manufacturers of electric motors is $3,478 million in 2013$. Under
today's standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may lose up to 10.0
percent of their INPV, which is approximately $348 million.
Additionally, based on DOE's interviews with the manufacturers of
electric motors, DOE does not expect any plant closings or significant
loss of employment based on the energy conservation standards chosen in
today's rule.
C. National Benefits and Costs \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ All monetary values in this section are expressed in 2013
dollars and are discounted to 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's analyses indicate that today's standards would save a
significant amount of energy. Estimated lifetime savings for electric
motors purchased over the 30-year period that begins in the year of
compliance with new and amended standards (2016-2045) would amount to
7.0 quads (full-fuel-cycle energy).\3\ The annualized energy savings
(0.23 quad) is equivalent to one percent of total U.S. industrial
primary energy consumption in 2013.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The agency also conducted the site energy analysis as well
(see TSD chapter 10). One quad (quadrillion Btu) is the equivalent
of 293 billion kilowatt hours (kWh) or 172.3 million barrels of oil.
\4\ Based on U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information
Administration, Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2013 data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimated cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer
costs and savings attributed to today's standards for electric motors
ranges from $11.3 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $28.8
billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the
estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the
estimated increased equipment costs for equipment purchased in 2016-
2045.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The analytic timeframe includes motors shipped each year
from 2016 to 2045.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, today's standards would have significant environmental
benefits across the entire analysis period. Estimated energy savings
would result in cumulative greenhouse gas emission reductions of
approximately 395 million metric tons (Mt) \6\ of carbon dioxide
(CO2), 1,883 thousand tons of methane, 673 thousand tons of
sulfur dioxide (SO2), 498 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and 0.8 tons of mercury (Hg).\7\ The cumulative
reduction in CO2 emissions through 2030 amounts to 96 Mt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for
NOX and Hg are presented in short tons.
\7\ DOE calculates emissions reductions relative to the Annual
Energy Outlook (AEO) 2013 Reference case, which generally represents
current legislation and environmental regulations for which
implementing regulations were available as of December 31, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The value of the CO2 reductions is calculated using a
range of values per metric ton of CO2 (otherwise known as
the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) developed by a recent Federal
interagency process.\8\ The derivation of the SCC values is discussed
in section IV.L. Using discount rates appropriate for each set of SCC
values, DOE estimates that the present monetary value of the
CO2 emissions reductions is between $2.7 billion and $38.3
billion. DOE also estimates that the present monetary value of the
NOX emissions reductions is $0.3 billion at a 7-percent
discount rate, and $0.7 billion at a 3-percent discount rate.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory
Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency Working
Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government. May 2013;
revised November 2013. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf.
\9\ DOE is currently investigating valuation of avoided Hg and
SO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table I.6 summarizes the national economic costs and benefits
expected to result from today's standards for electric motors.
Table I.6--Summary of National Economic Benefits and Costs of Electric
Motors Energy Conservation Standards, Present Value for Motors Shipped
in 2016-2045 in Billion 2013$ *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present value
Category billion 2013$ Discount rate %
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings... 18.2 7
41.4 3
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value 2.7 5
($12.0/t case) **
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value 12.4 3
($40.5/t case) **
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value 19.7 2.5
($62.4/t case) **
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value 38.3 3
($119/t case) **
NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at 0.3 7
$2,684/ton) **...................
0.7 3
Total Benefits [dagger]....... 30.9 7
54.4 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 30939]]
Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Installed 6.9 7
Costs............................
12.5 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Including CO2 and NOX Reduction 24.0 7
Monetized Value..................
41.9 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table presents the costs and benefits associated with electric
motors shipped in 2016-2045. These results include benefits to
customers which accrue after 2045 from the equipment purchased in 2016-
2045. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs
incurred by manufacturers due to the amended standard, some of which
may be incurred in preparation for this final rule.
** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in
2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The
first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated
using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case
represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated
using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporates
an escalation factor. The value for NOX is the average of the low and
high values used in DOE's analysis.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using
the series corresponding to SCC value of $40.5/t in 2015.
The benefits and costs of today's standards for electric motors,
sold in 2016-2045, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values.
The annualized monetary values are the sum of: (1) The annualized
national economic value of the benefits from operation of the
commercial and industrial equipment that meet the standards (consisting
primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus
increases in equipment purchase and installation costs, which is
another way of representing consumer NPV); and (2) the annualized
monetary value of the benefits of emission reductions, including
CO2 emission reductions.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the
time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values. First, DOE
calculated a present value in 2014, the year used for discounting
the NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the time-series of
costs and benefits using discount rates of three and seven percent
for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO2
reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as
shown in Table I.3. From the present value, DOE then calculated the
fixed annual payment over a 30-year period (2016 through 2045) that
yields the same present value. The fixed annual payment is the
annualized value. Although DOE calculated annualized values, this
does not imply that the time-series of cost and benefits from which
the annualized values were determined is a steady stream of
payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although combining the value of operating savings and
CO2 emissions reductions provides a useful perspective, two
issues should be considered. First, the national operating cost savings
are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of
market transactions, while the value of CO2 reductions is
based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost
savings and CO2 savings are performed with different methods
that use different time frames for analysis. The national operating
cost savings is measured over the lifetime of electric motors shipped
in years 2016-2045. The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the
present value of some future climate-related impacts resulting from the
emission of one ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts
continue well beyond 2100.
Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of today's standards are
shown in Table I.8. The results under the primary estimate are as
follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other
than CO2 reduction (for which DOE used a 3-percent discount
rate along with the average SCC series that uses a 3-percent discount
rate) the cost of the standards in today's rule is $517 million per
year in increased equipment costs (incremental installed costs), while
the estimated benefits are $1,367 million per year in reduced equipment
operating costs, $614 million in CO2 emission reductions,
and $23.3 million in reduced NOX emissions. In this case,
the net benefits would amount to $1,488 million per year. Using a 3-
percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the average SCC
series, the estimated cost of the standards in today's rule is $621
million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated
benefits are $2,048 million per year in reduced operating costs, $614
million in CO2 emission reductions, and $32.9 million in
reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit would
amount to approximately $2,074 million per year.
Table I.8--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors
[Million 2013$/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary estimate Low net benefits High net benefits
Discount rate * estimate * estimate *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings..... 7% 1,367 1,134 1,664
3% 2,048 1,684 2,521
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.0/ 5% 166 143 192
t case) *..........................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($40.5/ 3% 614 531 712
t case) *..........................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($62.4/ 2.5% 920 795 1,066
t case) *..........................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($119/ 3% 1,899 1,641 2,200
t case) *..........................
NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at 7% 23.3 20.1 26.8
$2,684/ton) **.....................
[[Page 30940]]
3% 32.9 28.4 38.0
Total Benefits [dagger]............. 7% plus CO2 range 1,556 to 3,289 1,297 to 2,795 1,882 to 3,890
7% 2,005 1,685 2,402
3% plus CO2 range 2,247 to 3,980 1,855 to 3,353 2,750 to 4,758
3% 2,696 2,243 3,270
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Installed Costs......... 7% 517 582 503
3% 621 697 616
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total [dagger]...................... 7% plus CO2 range 1,039 to 2,772 716 to 2,213 1,380 to 3,388
7% 1,488 1,103 1,900
3% plus CO2 range 1,626 to 3,359 1,158 to 2,656 2,134 to 4,143
3% 2,074 1,546 2,654
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with electric motors shipped in 2016-2045.
These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2045 from the equipment purchased in years 2016-
2045. Costs incurred by manufacturers, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule, are not
directly included, but are indirectly included as part of incremental equipment costs. The Primary, Low
Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates are in view of projections of energy prices from the Annual Energy
Outlook (AEO) 2013 Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental
equipment costs reflect a medium constant projected equipment price in the Primary Estimate, a declining rate
for projected equipment price trends in the Low Benefits Estimate, and an increasing rate for projected
equipment price trends in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are
explained in section IV.F.1.
** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the
updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and
2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution
calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an escalation factor. The
value for NOX is the average of the low and high values used in DOE's analysis.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to
average SCC with 3-percent discount rate. In the rows labeled ``7% plus CO2 range'' and ``3% plus CO2 range,''
the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added
to the full range of CO2 values.
D. Conclusion
DOE has concluded that the standards in today's final rule
represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result
in significant conservation of energy. DOE further notes that equipment
achieving these standard levels is already commercially available for
most equipment classes covered by today's final rule. Based on the
analyses described above, DOE has concluded that the benefits of the
standards to the Nation (energy savings, positive NPV of consumer
benefits, consumer LCC savings, and emission reductions) would outweigh
the burdens (loss of INPV for manufacturers and LCC increases for some
consumers).
DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as
trial standard levels. However, DOE has concluded that the potential
burdens of the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh
the projected benefits.
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying today's final rule, as well as some of the relevant
historical background related to the establishment of standards for
electric motors.
A. Authority
Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42
U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; ``EPCA''), Public Law 94-163, sets forth a
variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part C of
title III, which for editorial reasons was re-designated as Part A-1
upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as
codified), establishes the ``Energy Conservation Program for Certain
Industrial Equipment,'' including certain electric motors.\11\ The
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT 1992) (Pub. L. 102-486) amended EPCA
by establishing energy conservation standards and test procedures for
certain commercial and industrial electric motors (in context,
``motors'') manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece of
equipment) after October 24, 1997. In December 2007, Congress enacted
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) (Pub. L.
110-140). Section 313(b)(1) of EISA 2007 updated the energy
conservation standards for those electric motors already covered by
EPCA and established energy conservation standards for a larger scope
of motors not previously covered by standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the
statute as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing
Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (December 18,
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program for covered
equipment consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2)
labeling; (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation
standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. For those
electric motors for which Congress established standards, or for which
DOE amends or establishes standards, the required test procedure is
found at 10 CFR part 431, subpart B. The test procedure is subject to
review
[[Page 30941]]
and revision by the Secretary in accordance with certain criteria and
conditions. (See 42 U.S.C. 6314(a))
As required by section 343(a)(5)(A) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(5)(A), DOE's electric motors test procedures are those
procedures specified in two documents: National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA) Standards Publication MG 1 and
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard 112
(Test Method B) for motor efficiency.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ DOE also added Canadian Standards Association (CSA) CAN/CSA
C390-93, ``Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Three-Phase Induction
Motors'' as an equivalent and acceptable test method, which aligns
with industry practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers of covered equipment must use these methods, as
described in appendix B to subpart B of 10 CFR part 431as the basis for
certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable
energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making
representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of
such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Similarly, DOE must use these test
procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with standards
adopted pursuant to EPCA.
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new and
amended standards for covered equipment. In the case of electric
motors, the criteria set out in relevant subsections of 42 U.S.C. 6295
apply to the setting of energy conservation standards for motors via 42
U.S.C. 6316(a). As indicated above, new and amended standards must be
designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that
is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard
that would not result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3) and 6316(a)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1)
For certain commercial and industrial equipment, including electric
motors, if no test procedure has been established for the equipment, or
(2) if DOE determines by rule that the new and amended standard is not
technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(A)-(B) and 6316(a)) In deciding whether a new and amended
standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(a)) DOE must make this determination after
receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the
greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors:
1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the equipment subject to the standard;
2. The 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 imposition of the
standard;
3. The total projected amount of energy, or as applicable, water,
savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard;
4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
equipment likely to result from the imposition of the standard;
5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
imposition of the standard;
6. The need for national energy and water conservation; and
7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers
relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII) and 6316(a))
EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing
any new or amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable
energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a
covered product or piece of equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) and
6316(a)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new
standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of
the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the
unavailability in the United States of any covered product- or
equipment-type (or class) of performance characteristics (including
reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are
substantially the same as those generally available in the United
States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and 6316(a))
Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption
that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that
the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing equipment complying
with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three
times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the
consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under
the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and
6316(a))
Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1), as applied to covered equipment
via 42 U.S.C. 6316(a), specifies requirements when promulgating a
standard for a type or class of covered equipment that has two or more
subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level than that
which applies generally to such type or class of equipment for any
group of covered equipment that have the same function or intended use
if DOE determines that equipment within such group: (A) Consumes a
different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered equipment
within such type (or class); or (B) has a capacity or other
performance-related feature which other equipment within such type (or
class) does not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) and 6316(a)) In determining whether a
performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group
of equipment, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the
consumer of such a feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id.
Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the
basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(2) and 6316(a))
Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State
laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling,
and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c) and 6316(a)) DOE may, however,
grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set
forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d)).
B. Background
1. Current Standards
An electric motor is a device that converts electrical power into
rotational mechanical power. The outside structure of the motor is
called the frame, which houses a rotor (the spinning part of the motor)
and the stator (the stationary part that creates a magnetic field to
drive the rotor). Although many different technologies exist, DOE's
rulemaking is concerned with squirrel-cage induction motors, which
represent the majority of electric motor energy use. In squirrel-cage
induction motors, the stator drives the rotor by inducing an electric
current in the squirrel-cage, which then reacts with the rotating
magnetic field to propel the rotor in the same way a person can repel
one handheld magnet with another. The squirrel-cage used in the rotor
of induction motors consists of longitudinal conductive bars (rotor
bars) connected at both ends by rings (end rings) forming a cage-like
shape. Among other design parameters, motors can
[[Page 30942]]
vary in horsepower, number of ``poles'' (which determines how quickly
the motor rotates), and torque characteristics. Most motors have
``open'' frames that allow cooling airflow through the motor body,
though some have enclosed frames that offer added protection from
foreign substances and bodies. DOE regulates various motor types from
between 1 and 500 horsepower, with 2, 4, 6, and 8 poles, and with both
open and enclosed frames.
EPACT 1992 amended EPCA by establishing energy conservation
standards and test procedures for certain commercial and industrial
electric motors manufactured either alone or as a component of another
piece of equipment on or after October 24, 1997. Section 313 of EISA
2007 amended EPCA by: (1) Striking the definition of ``electric motor''
provided under EPACT 1992, (2) setting forth definitions for ``general
purpose electric motor (subtype I)'' and ``general purpose electric
motor (subtype II),'' and (3) prescribing energy conservation standards
for ``general purpose electric motors (subtype I),'' ``general purpose
electric motors (subtype II),'' ``fire pump electric motors,'' and
``NEMA Design B general purpose electric motors'' with a power rating
of more than 200 horsepower but not greater than 500 horsepower. (42
U.S.C. 6311(13) and 6313(b)) The current standards for these motors
(available at 10 CFR 431.25(a)-(e)), which are reproduced in the
regulatory text at the end of this rulemaking, are divided into four
tables that prescribe specific efficiency levels for each of those
groups of motors.
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Electric Motors
On October 5, 1999, DOE published in the Federal Register, a final
rule to codify the EPACT 1992 electric motor requirements. See 64 FR
54114. After EISA 2007's enactment, DOE updated, among other things,
the corresponding electric motor regulations at 10 CFR part 431 by
incorporating the new definitions and energy conservation standards
that the law established. See 74 FR 12058 (March 23, 2009). DOE
subsequently updated its test procedures for electric motors and small
electric motors, see 73 FR 78220 (December 22, 2008), and later
finalized key provisions related to small electric motor testing. See
74 FR 32059 (July 7, 2009). Further updates to the test procedures for
electric motors and small electric motors followed when DOE issued a
rule that primarily focused on updating various definitions and
incorporations by reference related to the current test procedure. See
77 FR 26608 (May 4, 2012). That rule defined the term ``electric
motor'' to account for EISA 2007's removal of the previous statutory
definition of ``electric motor''. DOE also clarified definitions
related to those motors that EISA 2007 laid out as part of EPCA's
statutory framework, including motor types that DOE had not previously
regulated. See generally, id. at 26613-26619. DOE also published a new
test procedure on December 13, 2013, that further refined various
electric motor definitions and added certain definitions and test
procedure preparatory steps to address a wider variety of electric
motor types than are currently regulated, including those electric
motors that are largely considered to be special-or definite-purpose
motors. 78 FR 75961.
DOE received numerous comments from interested parties who provided
significant input to DOE in response to DOE's framework document and
preliminary analysis for this rulemaking. See 75 FR 59657 (September
28, 2010) (framework document notice of availability) and 77 FR 43015
(July 23, 2012) (preliminary analysis notice of availability). All such
comments were addressed in the December 6, 2013, notice of proposed
rulemaking (standards NOPR). 78 FR 73589 During the framework document
comment period, several interested parties urged DOE to consider
including additional motor types currently without energy conservation
standards in DOE's analyses and establishing standards for such motor
types. In the commenters' view, this approach would more effectively
increase energy savings than setting more stringent standards for
currently regulated electric motors. In response, DOE published a
Request for Information (RFI) seeking public comments from interested
parties regarding establishment of energy conservation standards for
several types of definite and special purpose motors for which EISA
2007 did not provide energy conservation standards. 76 FR 17577 (March
30, 2011) DOE received comments responding to the RFI advocating that
DOE regulate many of the electric motors discussed in the RFI, as well
as many additional motor types.
Then, on August 15, 2012, a group of interested parties (the
``Motor Coalition'' \13\) submitted the ``Joint Petition to Adopt Joint
Stakeholder Proposal As it Relates to the Rulemaking on Energy
Conservation Standards for Electric Motors'' (the ``Petition'') to DOE
asking the agency to adopt a consensus stakeholder proposal that would
amend the energy conservation standards for electric motors.\14\ The
Motor Coalition's proposal advocated expanding the scope of coverage to
a broader range of motors than what DOE currently regulates and it
recommended that energy conservation standards for all covered electric
motors be set at levels that are largely equivalent to what DOE adopts
in today's notice (i.e., efficiency levels in NEMA MG 1-2011 Tables 12-
12).\15\ (Motor Coalition, No. 35 at pp. 1-3) Several interested
parties submitted comments supporting the Petition, including: U.S.
Senators Lisa Murkowski and Jeff Bingaman, BBF and Associates, the Air
Movement and Control Association International, Inc., the Hydraulic
Institute, the Arkansas Economic Development and Commission--Energy
Office, and the Power Transmission Distributors Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The members of the Motor Coalition include: National
Electrical Manufacturers Association, American Council for an
Energy[hyphen]Efficient Economy, Appliance Standards Awareness
Project, Alliance to Save Energy, Earthjustice, Natural Resources
Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Northeast
Energy Efficiency Partnerships, and Northwest Power and Conservation
Council.
\14\ The Petition is available at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0035.
\15\ DOE's final rule differs from the Motor Coalition's
proposal in that DOE's rule covers all types of brake electric
motors and does not set separate, lower standards for U-frame motors
and does not cover open, special- and definite-purpose 56-frame
motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Process for Setting Energy Conservation Standards
Section 325(o) of EPCA (as applied to covered equipment via 42
U.S.C. 6316(a)), provides criteria for prescribing new or amended
standards which are designed to achieve the maximum improvement in
energy efficiency and for which the Secretary of Energy determines are
technologically feasible and economically justified. Consequently, DOE
must consider, to the greatest extent practicable, the seven factors
listed at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII) (as applied to commercial
equipment via 6316(a)). Other statutory requirements are set forth in
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)-(2)(A), (2)(B)(ii)-(iii), and (3)-(4). These
criteria apply to the setting of standards for electric motors through
42 U.S.C. 6316(a).
The Motor Coalition expressed concern that much of the relevant
information regarding electric motors spans various rulemaking
documents. It requested that DOE consolidate all documents related to
electric motors at one place, which can serve as a quick and easy
reference for any consumer or
[[Page 30943]]
manufacturer in the U.S or outside the U.S. (Motor Coalition, Pub. Mtg.
Tr., No. 87 at p. 20-21) Baldor expressed similar concerns and
suggested that DOE clearly state in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) whatever information manufacturers need to comply with standards.
(Baldor, No. 100 at p. 2) NEMA commented that the notice needs to be
clearer and unambiguous so that it is easier for anyone (such as
offshore suppliers) to follow it. It added that the final rule should
include all required information. (NEMA, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at p.
46-47)
First, DOE notes that its regulatory requirements are incorporated
into the CFR. The regulations laid out in the CFR comprise the official
set of requirements that a regulated entity must follow. While any
member of the public (including manufacturers) may seek guidance from
DOE, the requirements laid out in the CFR provide the regulatory
framework that manufacturers must follow and apply when determining
which (if any) requirements a given motor must meet. DOE may issue
related guidance documents, if needed, which are available on its Web
site at https://www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1.
Finally, it is worth noting that the division of regulations in 10 CFR
431.25(a)-(f) (for currently regulated electric motors) and 10 CFR
431.25(g)-(l) (for newly regulated electric motors) was developed as a
mechanism to demonstrate the upcoming change in standards without
creating confusion about existing standards. At some point in the
future after the new standards being adopted in this final rule have
been in effect for some time, DOE anticipates removing the standards
currently at 10 CFR 431.25(a)-(f), as DOE has done in the past.
III. General Discussion
DOE developed today's rule after considering input, including
verbal and written comments, data, and information from interested
parties that represent a variety of interests. All commenters, along
with their corresponding abbreviations and affiliations, are listed in
Table III.1 below. The issues raised by these commenters are addressed
in the discussions that follow.
Table III.1--Summary of Commenters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company or organization Abbreviation Affiliation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Movement and Control AMCAI................... Trade
Association International, Association.
Inc..
Alliance to Save Energy...... ASE..................... Energy
Efficiency
Advocates.
American Council for an ACEEE................... Energy
Energy-Efficient Economy. Efficiency
Advocates.
American Forest & Paper AF&PA................... Trade
Association. Association.
American Fuel & Petrochemical AFPM.................... Trade
Manufacturers. Association.
Appliance Standards Awareness ASAP.................... Energy
Project. Efficiency
Advocates.
Baldor Electric Co........... Baldor.................. Manufacturers.
BBF & Associates............. BBF..................... Representative
for Trade
Association.
California Energy Commission. CEC..................... State
Government
Agency.
California Investor Owned CA IOUs................. Utilities.
Utilities.
Cato Institute............... Cato.................... Public Interest
Group.
China WTO/TBT National China WTO/TBT........... Chinese
Notification & Enquiry Government
Center. Agency.
Copper Development CDA..................... Trade
Association. Association.
Earthjustice................. Earthjustice............ Energy
Efficiency
Advocates.
Edison Electric Institute.... EEI..................... Association of
U.S. investor-
owned electric
companies.
Electric Apparatus Service EASA.................... Trade
Association. Association.
European Committee of CEMEP................... Trade
Manufacturers of Electrical Association.
Machines and Power
Electronics.
Flolo Corporation............ Flolo................... Electromechanic
al Repairer.
Greg Gerritsen............... Gerritsen............... Individual.
Industrial Energy Consumers IECA.................... Trade
of America. Association.
Motor Coalition*............. MC...................... Energy
Efficiency
Advocates,
Trade
Associations,
Manufacturers,
Utilities.
National Electrical NEMA.................... Trade
Manufacturers Association. Association.
Natural Resources Defense NRDC.................... Energy
Council. Efficiency
Advocates.
Nidec Corporation............ Nidec................... Manufacturer.
NORD Gear Corporation........ NORD Gear............... Manufacturer.
Northwest Energy Efficiency NEEA.................... Energy
Alliance. Efficiency
Advocates.
Northeast Energy Efficiency NEEP.................... Energy
Partnerships. Efficiency
Advocates.
Northwest Power & NPCC.................... Utilities.
Conservation Council.
Oakland University........... OU...................... Academic
Institution.
PlasticMetal................. PlasticMetal............ Non-motor
Manufacturer.
Regal Beloit................. Regal Beloit............ Manufacturer.
Scott Mohs................... Scott................... Individual.
SEW-Eurodrive, Inc........... SEWE.................... Manufacturer.
Siemens...................... Siemens................. Manufacturer.
Southern California Edison... SCE..................... Utility.
UL LLC....................... UL...................... Testing
Laboratory.
University of Michigan....... UMI..................... Academic
Institution.
WEG Electric Corporation..... WEG..................... Manufacturer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The members of the Motor Coalition include: National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA), American Council for an
Energy[hyphen]Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Appliance Standards Awareness
Project (ASAP), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), Earthjustice, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
(NEEA), Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP), and Northwest
Power and Conservation Council (NPCC).
[[Page 30944]]
A. Compliance Date
During the NOPR public meeting and in written comments, many
interested parties, including the Motor Coalition, requested that DOE
provide at least two years for compliance from the date of publication
of the final rule. (Motor Coalition, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 21-
22; NEMA, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at p. 29; CA IOUs, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No.
87 at p. 31; ASAP, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at p. 32; CEMEP, No. 89 at p.
2; Joint Advocates, \16\ No. 97 at p. 3; NEMA, No. 93 at p. 7; CA IOUs,
No. 99 at p. 2; Nidec, No. 98 at pp. 2-3; SCE, No. 101 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ For the purposes of this document, ``Joint Advocates'' is a
term used to describe NPCC, NEEA, ACEEE, ASAP, Earthjustice, ASE,
NRDC, and NEEP, who commented jointly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE received other comments on the proposed compliance date for the
newly covered equipment requesting that DOE provide more than two years
after publication of the final rule for newly covered motors to comply
with today's standards because such motors may require testing and/or
modification of original equipment manufacturer (OEM) equipment within
which these motors are used. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 7; NEMA, Pub. Mtg.
Tr., No. 87 at p. 30-31) Regal Beloit commented that manufacturers of
these newly covered motors should be given 48 months for compliance,
whereas EEI argued for a three-year lead time for such motors. (Regal
Beloit, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 34-35; EEI, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87
at pp. 24-25, 33) EEI also noted that many manufacturers should be fine
with a two-year compliance lead time for already-covered equipment
since they anticipated the change in regulatory requirements coming
after EISA 2007. (EEI, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 24-25, 33) DOE
notes that NEMA, as part of the Motor Coalition, had commented earlier
in the Petition that a two-year compliance lead time would be
sufficient for all motors covered by today's rule and this stance was
reiterated by the Motor Coalition representative at the NOPR public
meeting and NEMA in their NOPR comments. (Motor Coalition, Pub. Mtg.
Tr., No. 87 at pp. 21-22; Motor Coalition, No. 35 at p. 9; NEMA, No. 93
at p. 7)
Regarding the compliance date that would apply to the requirements
of today's rule, the energy conservation standards established under
EISA 2007 went into effect after the three-year period beginning on the
date of enactment of EISA 2007. Under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6313(b)(4)(B),
EPCA directs the Secretary of Energy to publish a final rule amending
such standards and to apply the rule to electric motors manufactured
five years after the effective date EISA 2007. DOE is relying on the
Congressionally established two-year spread between the effective date
of the latest amendments to electric motor energy conservation
standards and the date by which DOE must amend such standards to arrive
at the two-year lead-time for manufacturers to comply with today's rule
after its date of issuance. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(b).
B. Test Procedure
On June 26, 2013, DOE published a notice that proposed to
incorporate definitions for certain motor types not currently subject
to energy conservation standards (78 FR 38456). The notice also
proposed to clarify several definitions for motor types currently
regulated by energy conservation standards and add some necessary steps
to facilitate the testing of certain motor types that DOE does not
currently require to meet standards. During the preliminary analysis
stage, DOE received comments concerning definitions and test procedure
set-up steps suggested for testing motors under an expanded scope
approach. DOE addressed the comments as part of the test procedure
NOPR. See 78 FR 38456.
On December 13, 2013, DOE published a test procedure final rule
(2013 test procedure) that incorporated comments from the test
procedure NOPR and added and clarified both definitions and testing
instructions for a variety of electric motors that DOE was considering
for regulation under this standards rulemaking. 78 FR 75961. The test
procedure changes published in the 2013 final test procedure allow DOE
to require testing and compliance to meet the energy conservation
standards established today.
Commenting on DOE's recent round of electric motor rulemakings,
Baldor raised concerns that developing the standards rulemaking and
test procedures rulemaking in parallel has caused inconsistencies that
need to be resolved. For example, the 2013 test procedure used the term
``brake electric motor'' to refer jointly to what the standards NOPR
published earlier had called ``integral'' and ``non-integral'' brake
electric motors. Baldor suggested that definitions for NEMA Design A
and B motors in the 2013 test procedure should refer to nine
characteristics for covered equipment that are laid out in the NOPR.
(Baldor, No. 100 at p. 7)
Inconsistencies, if any, are resolved in today's rule. DOE
developed the nine criteria in 10 CFR 431.25(g) below to characterize
all of the newly covered and currently covered motor types. Therefore,
adding these characteristics to the definitions for motor types is
unnecessary. Moreover, as described earlier, the regulatory structure
proposed by DOE and adopted in this rule preserves the existing
standards and structure for currently regulated motors while providing
a new section for new standards for motors being regulated for the
first time and amended standards for currently regulated motors.
CEC recommended that DOE should add definitions of continuous duty
and duty type S1 (IEC) in 10 CFR 431.12. It also recommended that DOE
revise the current definitions of NEMA Design A, B, and C motors to
update the reference from NEMA MG 1-2009 to the revised document ANSI/
NEMA MG 1-2011. (CEC, No. 96 at p. 3)
DOE understands that ``continuous'' and ``S1'' are terms well
understood by the motor industry, and DOE has therefore not established
definitions for these terms. DOE clarifies in this rule that these
terms are used to designate a motor that can operate indefinitely in
rated conditions and reaches thermal equilibrium. This stands in
contrast to motors that may be rated for intermittent operation or with
specific loading, braking, or starting restrictions.
With respect to the MG 1 publication version, DOE notes that the
terms mentioned by CEC are identical in both versions of MG 1. DOE,
therefore, finds there is no reason to amend the reference.
1. Vertical Electric Motors
NEMA and Nidec both suggested several modifications in the test
procedure for vertical electric motors and expressed concern that,
without these changes, it will be difficult for manufacturers to test
vertical electric motors correctly for compliance purposes. (NEMA, No.
93 at p. 29; Nidec, No. 98 at p. 9-10)
DOE recognizes the desire for clarification in the 2013 test
procedure for vertical electric motors, but notes that the rule has now
gone into effect and the changes suggested by commenters are beyond the
scope of today's energy conservation standard. Based on stakeholder
concerns, however, DOE will evaluate whether further clarification on
the testing of vertical electric motors is necessary.
C. Current Equipment Classes and Scope of Coverage
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy
[[Page 30945]]
used or by capacity or other performance-related features that would
justify a different standard. In making a determination whether a
performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must
consider factors such as the utility to the consumer of the feature and
other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q) and
6316(a))
Existing energy conservation standards cover electric motors that
fall into four categories based on design features of the motor. These
four categories are: General purpose electric motors (subtype I),
general purpose electric motors (subtype II), fire pump electric
motors, and NEMA Design B motors (with a horsepower rating from 201
through 500). Definitions for each of these terms can be found at 10
CFR 431.12.
D. Updated Equipment Classes and Scope of Coverage
DOE has the authority to set energy conservation standards for a
wider range of electric motors than those classified as general purpose
electric motors (e.g., definite or special purpose motors). EPACT 1992
first provided DOE with the statutory authority to regulate ``electric
motors,'' which were defined as including certain ``general purpose''
motors. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) (1992)) In addition to defining this
term, Congress prescribed specific energy conservation standards for
electric motors (i.e., general purpose electric motors (subtype I).
EPACT 1992 also defined the terms ``definite purpose motors'' and
``special purpose motor''. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(C) and (D) (1992)) EPACT
1992 explicitly excluded definite purpose and special purpose motors
from the prescribed standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1) (1992)) However,
EISA 2007 struck the narrow EPACT 1992 definition of ``electric
motor''. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)) With the removal of this definition, the
term ``electric motor'' became broader in scope. As a result of these
changes, both definite and special purpose motors fell under the broad
heading of ``electric motors'' that previously only applied to
``general purpose'' motors. While EISA 2007 prescribed standards for
general purpose motors, it did not apply those standards to definite or
special purpose motors. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b) (2012))
Consistent with EISA 2007's reworking of the ``electric motor''
definition, the 2012 test procedure broadly defined the term ``electric
motor''. 77 FR 26608 (codified at 10 CFR 431.12). In view of the
changes introduced by EISA 2007 and the absence of energy conservation
standards for special purpose and definite purpose motors, it is DOE's
view that both of these motors are categories of ``electric motors''
covered under EPCA, as currently amended. Accordingly, DOE added the
term ``electric'' to the definitions of ``special purpose motor'' and
``definite purpose motor'' in the 2013 test procedure. See 78 FR 75994.
Today's rule amends and establishes standards for a variety of electric
motors, including certain definite purpose and special purpose motors.
DOE is setting energy conservation standards for any electric motor
exhibiting all of the following nine characteristics:
(1) Is a single-speed, induction motor,
(2) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type
S1 (IEC),
(3) Contains a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or cage (IEC) rotor,
(4) Operates on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz sinusoidal
line power,
(5) Is rated 600 volts or less,
(6) Has a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration,
(7) Is built in a three-digit or four-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC
metric equivalent), including those designs between two consecutive
NEMA frame sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA
frame size (or IEC metric equivalent),
(8) Produces at least 1 horsepower (0.746 kW) but not greater than
500 horsepower (373 kW), and
(9) Meets all of the performance requirements of a NEMA Design A,
B, or C motor or of an IEC Design N or H motor.
However, the updated standards specifically do not apply to the
following equipment:
Air-over electric motors;
Component sets of an electric motor;
Liquid-cooled electric motors;
Submersible electric motors; and
Inverter-only electric motors.
To facilitate the potential application of energy conservation
standards to special and definite purpose motors, DOE defined certain
motors and provided certain preparatory test procedure steps in the
2013 test procedure. See 78 FR 75961. DOE chose not to establish
standards for the component sets of an electric motor, liquid-cooled,
submersible, and inverter-only electric motors listed above because of
the current absence of a reliable and repeatable method to test them
for efficiency. If a test procedure becomes available, DOE may consider
setting standards for these motors at that time. For air-over electric
motors, during the course of the test procedure rulemaking, DOE learned
about a possible test procedure for such motors but DOE does not
currently have enough information to support the establishment of a
test method. 78 FR 75975.
Finally, as discussed in the NOPR, although DOE believes that EPCA,
as amended through EISA 2007, provides sufficient statutory authority
to regulate a wider variety of electric motors (including those
commonly referred to as special purpose or definite purpose motors)
than those already regulated as ``electric motors,'' DOE notes that
section 10 of the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections
Act (``AEMTCA''), Public Law 112-210 (December 18, 2012), amended DOE's
authority to regulate commercial and industrial equipment by including
``other motors,'' in addition to ``electric motors''. (42 U.S.C.
6311(2)(B)(xiii).) Therefore, even if special and definite purpose
motors were not ``electric motors,'' special and definite purpose
motors would be considered as ``other motors'' that EPCA already treats
as covered industrial equipment.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ EPCA specifies the types of industrial equipment that can
be classified as covered in addition to the equipment enumerated in
42 U.S.C. 6311(1). This equipment includes ``other motors'' (to be
codified at 42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)). Industrial equipment must also,
without regard to whether such equipment is in fact distributed in
commerce for industrial or commercial use, be of a type that: (1) In
operation consumes, or is designed to consume, energy in operation;
(2) to any significant extent, is distributed in commerce for
industrial or commercial use; and (3) is not a covered product as
defined in 42 U.S.C. 6291(a)(2) of EPCA, other than a component of a
covered product with respect to which there is in effect a
determination under 42 U.S.C. 6312(c). (42 U.S.C. 6311 (2)(A).) Data
from the 2002 United States Industrial Electric Motor Systems Market
Opportunities Assessment estimated total energy use from industrial
motor systems to be 747 billion kWh. Based on the expansion of
industrial activity, it is likely that current annual electric motor
energy use is higher than this figure. Electric motors are
distributed in commerce for both the industrial and commercial
sectors. According to data provided by the Motor Coalition, the
number of electric motors manufactured in, or imported into, the
United States is over five million electric motors annually,
including special and definite purpose motors. Finally, special and
definite purpose motors are not currently regulated under Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 430 (10 CFR Part 430).
To classify equipment as covered commercial or industrial
equipment, the Secretary must also determine that classifying the
equipment as covered equipment is necessary for the purposes of Part
A-1 of EPCA. The purpose of Part A-1 is to improve the efficiency of
electric motors, pumps and certain other industrial equipment to
conserve the energy resources of the nation. (42 U.S.C. 6312(a)-(b))
In today's rule, DOE has determined that the regulation of special
and definite purpose motors is necessary to carry out the purposes
of part A-1 of EPCA because regulating these motors will promote the
conservation of energy supplies. Efficiency standards that may
result from coverage would help to capture some portion of the
potential for improving the efficiency of special and definite
purpose motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 30946]]
In response to the NOPR, the Motor Coalition recognized that DOE's
proposed broadening of the scope of motors that would be covered at TSL
2 efficiency levels is consistent with the Petition. (Motor Coalition,
Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 18-19) NEMA agreed with DOE's proposed
expansion of scope of coverage, noting that it is largely consistent
with the Petition. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 3) Nidec commented that DOE's
proposal presents a sufficiently broad scope of coverage and that no
further adjustment is needed. (Nidec, No. 98 at p. 5) The CA IOUs
supported DOE in adopting TSL 2 for most equipment class groups. (CA
IOUs, No. 99 at pp. 1-2) The Joint Advocates supported the proposed
standards, noting that the standards will save 7 quads of energy over
thirty years of equipment sales and will significantly contribute to
the President's Climate Action Plan goal for new standards. It urged
DOE to complete the final rule by May 2014 as previously committed to
the Attorneys General of several states. (Joint Advocates, No. 97 at p.
2) The European Committee of Manufacturers of Electrical Machines and
Power Electronics (CEMEP) expressed support for increasing certain
motor efficiency standards to TSL 2, or NEMA Table 12-12. CEMEP noted
that DOE is appropriately considering impacts on and perspectives of
OEMs and end users, as well as global harmonization issues. (CEMEP, No.
89 at p. 2) Gerritsen supported the proposed standards, noting that is
the standards are essential to curb carbon dioxide emissions.
(Gerritsen, No. 81 at p. 1) Southern California Edison commented that
they support DOE in adopting TSL 2, i.e., NEMA Premium[supreg]\18\
levels, noting that these will lead to ``the maximum improvement in
energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically
justified'' as well as significant energy savings. In view of
significant energy savings and general stakeholder support, SCE
requested that DOE publish final rule soon. (SCE, No. 101 at pp. 1-2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ DOE notes that ``NEMA Premium'' is a registered trademark
of NEMA. NEMA has removed the term ``NEMA'' from the title of MG 1-
2011, Table 12-12. Unless indicated otherwise, in the remainder of
this document, any reference to ``premium'' standards should be
considered a reference to MG 1-2011, Table 12-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Copper Development Association (CDA) supported DOE's current
rulemaking and the inclusion of additional motor categories and
requiring motors that operate at 201 hp through 500 hp to meet premium
standards. CDA suggested that DOE investigate covering motors over 500
hp and currently uncovered motors 1 hp through 500 hp for future
rulemaking. CDA noted that motors over 500 hp consume 27 percent of all
U.S. energy consumed by motors in operation. Noting that some
manufacturers even currently offer motors significantly above premium
efficiency levels, CDA suggested that DOE investigate the development
of a new even higher energy efficiency category--``super premium''
above the current premium efficiencies. (CDA, No. 90 at pp. 1-2)
DOE may consider expanding the scope of its regulations to large
motors, which carry different technologies and usage patterns, in
future updates to the rule. At that time, DOE would consider any
efficiency levels beyond premium efficiency in place and evaluate them
for standards.
E. Technological Feasibility
1. General
EPCA requires that any new or amended energy conservation standard
that DOE prescribes shall be designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically
feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a)). In each standards
rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information
gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that
could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the
subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE
develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation
with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE
then determines which of those means for improving efficiency are
technologically feasible.
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option
in view of the following additional screening criteria: (1)
Practicability to manufacture, install, or service; (2) adverse impacts
on equipment utility or availability; and (3) adverse impacts on health
or safety. Section IV.B of this rule discusses the results of the
screening analysis for electric motors, particularly the designs DOE
considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the
trial standard levels (TSLs) in this rulemaking. For further details on
the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the final
TSD.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When DOE adopts a new or amended standard for a type or class of
covered equipment, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically
feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) This requirement also
applies to DOE proposals to amend the standards for electric motors.
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) Accordingly, in its engineering analysis, DOE
determined the maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'')
improvements in energy efficiency for electric motors, using the design
parameters for the most efficient motors available on the market or in
working prototypes. (See chapter 5 of the final TSD.) The max-tech
levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section
IV.C.3 of this final rule.
In response to the NOPR, CEC claimed that DOE has not provided the
technological feasibility and economic justification as required by
statute for updating the existing energy consumption standards for
general purpose electric motors (subtype I or II) that are not NEMA
Design A, B, or C, or IEC Design N or H, and for polyphase motors rated
between 1 and 250 hp (2 poles) and motors between 1 and 350 hp (8
poles). It further stated that DOE did not provide market and
technology analysis for motors greater than 500 hp, motors with more
than 8 poles and shaded pole motors. (CEC, No. 96 at pp. 1, 3)
DOE acknowledges that the motors in the scope of today's rulemaking
are not the only possible motors for which standards may produce
economically justified energy savings. As detailed above, DOE's
electric motor regulations came about due to statutory requirements
that initially included a narrow scope of electric motors that DOE
could regulate, but that has become increasingly broad with the changes
brought about by EISA 2007 and AEMTCA. As that universe of electric
motors that DOE is authorized to regulate expands, DOE considers other
motor types that it may regulate under the statute and considers what
types of electric motors use large amounts of energy, are produced in
large volume, and have opportunities for efficiency gains. DOE may
consider future regulation of some of the motor types which CEC
mentions and welcomes data that illustrates savings potential of
currently unregulated technologies.
The University of Michigan and Oakland University (UMI & OU)
[[Page 30947]]
suggested that before finalizing the current rulemaking, DOE should
conduct a study to update National Electrical Code Table 430.250, which
is used to design circuits of motors covered by current regulation. UMI
& OU suggested that before finalizing the current rulemaking, a study
should be conducted to determine the optional method of establishing
the nameplate ratings of combination HVAC equipment rated according to
running load amperes. (UMI & OU, No. 92 at pp. 1-2)
DOE understands that NEC Table 430.250, mentioned by UMI & OU,
helps engineers specify wiring in building by providing current as a
function of motor power, voltage, and power factor. DOE understands
that more efficient motors may cause application engineers to
differently design building circuits which contain electric motors. If
such changes brought by a technology have adverse impacts to safety or
equipment utility, DOE may opt to remove that technology from
consideration in its screening analysis. Presently, DOE has not learned
of any such expected impacts resulting from the standard levels
selected in today's rule. Moreover, the National Electrical Code is
developed by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and DOE
has no authority to change this code.
F. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
Section 325(o) of EPCA also provides that any new or amended energy
conservation standard that DOE prescribes shall be designed to achieve
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)-(B) and 6316(a)) In
addition, in determining whether such standard is technologically
feasible and economically justified, DOE may not prescribe standards
for certain types or classes of electric motors if such standards would
not result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and
6316(a)) For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from the motors
that would be covered under this rulemaking and that would be purchased
in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the
new and amended standards (2016-2045). The savings are measured over
the entire lifetime of equipment purchased in the 30-year period.\19\
DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the
difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the
base case. The base case represents a projection of energy consumption
in the absence of new or amended mandatory efficiency standards, and
considers market forces and policies that affect demand for more
efficient equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ In the past DOE, presented energy savings results for only
the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance. In the
calculation of economic impacts, however, DOE considered operating
cost savings measured over the entire lifetime of equipment
purchased in the 30-year period. DOE has chosen to modify its
presentation of national energy savings to be consistent with the
approach used for its national economic analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE used its national impact analysis (NIA) spreadsheet model to
estimate energy savings from new and amended standards for electric
motors subject to this rulemaking. The NIA spreadsheet model (described
in section IV.H of this rule) calculates energy savings in site energy,
which is the energy directly consumed by motors at the locations where
they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in
terms of the savings in the energy that is used to generate and
transmit the site electricity, which is referred to as primary energy.
To convert electricity in kWh to primary energy units, on-site
electricity consumption is multiplied by the site-to-power plant energy
use factor (see TSD chapter 10). The site-to-power plant energy use
factor is defined as the ratio of the marginal change in total primary
energy consumption by the electric power sector (in quadrillion Btu's)
divided by the change in total electricity generation due to a
standard. DOE derives site-to-power plant energy use factors from the
model used to prepare the Energy Information Administration's (EIA)
Annual Energy Outlook (AEO).
DOE also estimates full-fuel-cycle energy savings. 76 FR 51282
(August 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). The
full-fuel-cycle (FFC) metric includes the energy consumed in
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal,
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete
picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. DOE's evaluation
of FFC savings is driven in part by the National Academy of Science's
(NAS) report on FFC measurement approaches for DOE's Appliance
Standards Program.\20\ The NAS report discusses that FFC was primarily
intended for energy efficiency standards rulemakings where multiple
fuels may be used by a particular product or piece of equipment. In the
case of this rulemaking pertaining to electric motors, only a single
fuel--electricity--is consumed by the equipment. DOE's approach is
based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy
types used by covered equipment. Although, the addition of FFC energy
savings in the rulemakings is consistent with the recommendations, the
methodology for estimating FFC does not project how fuel markets would
respond to this particular standard rulemaking. The FFC methodology
simply estimates how much additional energy, and in turn how many tons
of emissions, may be displaced if the estimated fuel were not consumed
by the equipment covered in this rulemaking. It is also important to
note that inclusion of FFC savings does not affect DOE's choice of
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ ``Review of Site (Point-of-Use) and Full-Fuel-Cycle
Measurement Approaches to DOE/EERE Building Appliance Energy-
Efficiency Standards,'' (Academy report) was completed in May 2009
and included five recommendations. A copy of the study can be
downloaded at: https://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12670.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Significance of Savings
As noted above, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) (as applied to equipment
via 6316(a)) prevents DOE from adopting a standard for a covered
product unless such standard would result in ``significant'' energy
savings. Although the term ``significant'' is not explicitly defined in
EPCA, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense Council
v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated that
Congress intended ``significant'' energy savings in this context to be
savings that were not ``genuinely trivial''. DOE believes that the
energy savings for all of the TSLs considered in this rulemaking
(presented in section V.A) are nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE
considers them ``significant'' within the meaning of section 325 of
EPCA.
G. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether
a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) (as applied to equipment via 6316(a))) The
following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven
factors in this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
In determining the impacts of a standard on manufacturers, DOE
first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative
impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment--based on the
cost and capital requirements during the period between when a
regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the
[[Page 30948]]
regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period.\21\ The
industry-wide impacts analyzed include industry net present value
(INPV), which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash
flows; cash flows by year; changes in revenue and income; and other
measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports
the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on
small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on
domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as
the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of
capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts
of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on
manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers
impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the
changes in life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) associated
with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed further in
the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also
calculates the national net present value of the economic impacts
applicable to a particular rulemaking. DOE also evaluates the LCC
impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers
that may be affected disproportionately by a national standard.
b. Life-Cycle Costs
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment compared
to any increase in the price of the covered equipment that are likely
to result from the imposition of the standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II) and 6316(a)) DOE conducts this comparison in its
LCC and PBP analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a piece of equipment
(including its installation) and the operating expense (including
energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the
lifetime of the equipment. To account for uncertainty and variability
in specific inputs, such as equipment lifetime and discount rate, DOE
uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each
value. For its analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the
covered equipment in the first year of compliance with amended
standards.
The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated
relative to a base case that reflects projected market trends in the
absence of amended standards.
DOE identifies the percentage of consumers estimated to receive LCC
savings or experience an LCC increase, in addition to the average LCC
savings associated with a particular standard level.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory
requirement for imposing an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III) and
6316(a)) As discussed in section IV.H, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet to
project national site energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing classes of equipment, and in evaluating design
options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the
considered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and 6316(a)) As
noted earlier, the substance of this provision applies to the equipment
at issue in today's rule as well. DOE has determined that the standards
in today's notice will not reduce the utility or performance of the
equipment under consideration in this rulemaking. Currently, many
motors are already commonly being sold at the selected levels (i.e.,
``premium efficiency'' designation). In addition, the selected
standards closely track the recommendations of NEMA, a trade
association that represents electric motor manufacturers. DOE assumes
that NEMA would not recommend efficiency levels that would harm
electric motor performance or utility.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of
competition that is likely to result from the imposition of a standard.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and 6316(a)) It also directs the
Attorney General of the United States to determine the impact, if any,
of any lessening of competition likely to result from a standard and to
transmit such determination to the Secretary of Energy within 60 days
of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the
nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and
(B)(ii)) To assist the Attorney General in making a determination for
electric motor standards, DOE provided the Department of Justice (DOJ)
with copies of the NOPR and the TSD for review. DOE received no adverse
comments from DOJ regarding the proposal.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
The energy savings from today's standards are likely to provide
improvements to the security and reliability of the nation's energy
system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in
reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the nation's
electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate
how standards may affect the nation's needed power generation capacity.
Today's standards also are likely to result in environmental
benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and
greenhouse gases associated with energy production. DOE reports the
emissions impacts from today's standards, and from each TSL it
considered, in section V.B.4 of this rule. DOE also reports estimates
of the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the
considered TSLs.
g. Other Factors
EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a
standard is economically justified, to consider any other factors that
the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)
and 6316(a)) In developing this final rule, DOE has also considered the
submission of the Petition, which DOE believes sets forth a statement
by interested persons that are representative of relevant points of
view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered equipment,
and efficiency advocates) and contains recommendations with respect to
an energy conservation standard. DOE has encouraged the submission of
consensus agreements as a way to bring diverse interested parties
together, to develop an independent and probative analysis useful in
DOE standard setting, and to expedite the rulemaking process. DOE also
believes that standard levels recommended in the Petition may increase
the likelihood for regulatory compliance, while decreasing the risk of
litigation.
2. Rebuttable Presumption
As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a
rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is
economically justified if the additional cost to the
[[Page 30949]]
consumer of a product or piece of equipment that meets the standard is
less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings
resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE
test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to
calculate the effect potential amended energy conservation standards
would have on the payback period for consumers. These analyses include,
but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period contemplated under
the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an
economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to
consumers, manufacturers, the nation, and the environment, as required
under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as
the basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a
potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results
of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The
rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section
IV.F.12 of this final rule.
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
DOE used four spreadsheet tools to estimate the impact of today's
standards. The first spreadsheet calculates LCCs and PBPs of potential
new energy conservation standards. The second provides shipments
forecasts and the third calculate national energy savings and net
present value impacts of potential new energy conservation standards.
The fourth tool helps assess manufacturer impacts, largely through use
of the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM).
Additionally, DOE estimated the impacts of energy conservation
standards for electric motors on utilities and the environment. DOE
used a version of EIA's National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) for the
utility and environmental analyses. The NEMS model simulates the energy
sector of the U.S. economy. EIA uses NEMS to prepare its Annual Energy
Outlook (AEO), a widely known energy forecast for the United States.
The version of NEMS used for standards analysis is called NEMS-BT \22\
and is based on the AEO version with minor modifications.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ BT stands for DOE's Building Technologies Program.
\23\ The EIA allows the use of the name ``NEMS'' to describe
only an AEO version of the model without any modification to code or
data. Because the present analysis entails some minor code
modifications and runs the model under various policy scenarios that
deviate from AEO assumptions, the name ``NEMS-BT'' refers to the
model as used here. For more information on NEMS, refer to The
National Energy Modeling System: An Overview, DOE/EIA-0581 (98)
(February 1998), available at: https://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/forecasting/058198.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Market and Technology Assessment
For the market and technology assessment, DOE develops information
that provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment
concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the industry
structure, and market characteristics. This activity includes both
quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly
available information. The subjects addressed in the market and
technology assessment for this rulemaking include scope of coverage,
equipment classes, types of equipment sold and offered for sale, and
technology options that could improve the energy efficiency of the
equipment under examination. Chapter 3 of the TSD contains additional
discussion of the market and technology assessment.
1. Current Scope of Electric Motors Energy Conservation Standards
EISA 2007 amended EPCA to prescribe energy conservation standards
for four categories of electric motors: General purpose electric motors
(subtype I) (hereinafter, ``subtype I''), general purpose electric
motors (subtype II) (hereinafter, ``subtype II''), fire pump electric
motors, and NEMA Design B, general purpose electric motors that also
meet the subtype I or subtype II definitions and are rated above 200
horsepower through 500 horsepower. DOE's 2012 test procedure added
clarity to the definitions for each of these motor categories, which
are now codified at 10 CFR 431.12. 77 FR 26608.
DOE understands that an IEC frame motor could be treated as either
a subtype I or subtype II motor depending on its other characteristics.
Having an IEC frame alone does not dictate whether a motor is a general
purpose subtype I or subtype II motor; rather, other characteristics
provided in the definitions of general purpose electric motor (subtype
I or subtype II) at 10 CFR 431.12 determine whether an IEC motor should
be considered subtype I or II. All of these elements flow directly from
the statutory changes enacted by EISA 2007. Currently, electric motors
are required to meet energy conservation standards as follows:
Table IV.1--Current Electric Motor Energy Conservation Standards \24\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric motor category Horsepower range Energy conservation standard level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Purpose Electric Motors 1 to 200 (inclusive)...... MG 1-2011 Table 12-12.
(Subtype I).
General Purpose Electric Motors 1 to 200 (inclusive)...... MG 1-2011 Table 12-11.
(Subtype II).
NEMA Design B and IEC Design N Motors.. 201 to 500 (inclusive).... MG 1-2011 Table 12-11.
Fire Pump Electric Motors.............. 1 to 500 (inclusive)...... MG 1-2011 Table 12-11.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the NOPR, NEMA commented that the proposed standards
do not resolve the confusion regarding IEC electric motors. NEMA
explained that it is not clear whether an electric motor in an IEC
frame size that meets the other criteria of a general purpose electric
motor (subtype I) would be classified as equivalent to a T-frame, hence
subtype I, or U-frame, hence subtype II. Therefore, NEMA suggested that
IEC frame sizes be considered equivalent to NEMA T-frames. NEMA
suggested that the pertinent portion of the definition of ``general
purpose electric motor (subtype II)'' in 10 CFR 431.12 should be
revised from ``(i) A U-Frame motor'' to read ``(i) Is built in
accordance with NEMA U-frame dimensions as described in NEMA MG 1-1967
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15), including a frame size
that is between two consecutive NEMA frame sizes.'' (NEMA, No. 93 at
pp. 3-5, 32)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ For the purposes of determining compliance, DOE assesses a
motors horsepower rating according to the provisions of 10 CFR
431.25(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes to the applicability of the electric motor standards
currently in effect are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
Additionally, DOE notes that NEMA's proposed changes to the definition
of ``general purpose electric motor (subtype II)'' reflect that it may
have been looking at an older version of the definition rather than the
current
[[Page 30950]]
definition found at 10 CFR 431.12. DOE notes that the current
definition of ``general purpose electric motor (subtype II)'' already
includes the language being suggested by NEMA.
2. Expanded Scope of Electric Motor Energy Conservation Standards
a. Summary
As referenced above, on August 15, 2012, the Motor Coalition
petitioned DOE to adopt the Coalition's consensus agreement, which, in
part, formed the basis for today's rule. The Motor Coalition petitioned
DOE to simplify coverage to address a broad array of electric motors
with a few clearly identified exceptions. The Motor Coalition advocated
this approach to simplify manufacturer compliance and to help
facilitate DOE's enforcement efforts. The Petition highlighted
potential energy savings that would result from expanding the scope of
covered electric motors. (Motor Coalition, No. 35 at pp. 1-30)
DOE is now requiring electric motor types beyond those currently
covered to meet energy conservation standards. DOE's proposed expansion
is similar to the approach recommended by the Motor Coalition in its
Petition (Motor Coalition, No. 35 at pp. 1-3). DOE establishes energy
conservation standards for electric motors that exhibit all of the
characteristics listed in Table IV.2, with a limited number of
exceptions, listed in Table IV.4.
Table IV.2--Characteristics of Motors Regulated Under Expanded Scope of
Coverage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor characteristic
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is a single-speed, induction motor,
Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC),
Contains a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or cage (IEC) rotor,
Operates on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz sinusoidal power,
Is rated for 600 volts or less,
Is built with a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration,
Is built in a three-digit or four-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric
equivalent), including those designs between two consecutive NEMA frame
sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or
IEC metric equivalent),
Produces at least 1 horsepower (0.746 kW) but not greater than 500
horsepower (373 kW) and
Meets all of the performance requirements of a NEMA Design A, B, or C
motor or of an IEC Design N or H electric motor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.3 lists the formerly unregulated electric motor types that
will be covered by today's rule. Further details and definitions for
the specific motor types can be found in DOE's 2013 test procedure. 78
FR 75961.
Table IV.3--Currently Unregulated Motor Types That Are Covered by This
Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Motor Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA Design A from 201 to 500 Electric motors with non-standard
horsepower endshields or flanges.
Electric motors with moisture Electric motors with non-standard
resistant windings bases.
Electric motors with sealed Electric motors with special
windings shafts.
Partial electric motors Vertical hollow-shaft electric
motors.
Totally enclosed non-ventilated Electric motors with sleeve
(TENV) electric motors bearings.
Immersible electric motors Electric motors with thrust
bearings.
Brake electric motors Electric motors with encapsulated
windings.
Electric motors with separately ...................................
powered blowers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the new standards specifically do not apply to the
following equipment:
Table IV.4--Equipment Specifically Excluded From Coverage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Motor Type
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-over electric motors.
Component sets of an electric motor.
Liquid-cooled electric motors.
Submersible electric motors.
Inverter-only electric motors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, DOE is clarifying the design, construction, and
performance characteristics of covered electric motors. Specifically,
DOE is clarifying that only motors rated from 1 to 500 horsepower
(inclusive), or their IEC equivalents, would be covered by the
standards established in today's rulemaking. Finally, with regard to
IEC-frame motors, DOE's standards would not regulate IEC motors on the
singular basis of frame size, but would regulate such motors if they
meet all the criteria of Table IV.2. In other words, an IEC-frame motor
that meets these nine criteria and does not fit within one of the five
exceptions would have to meet today's final standards.
In response to the NOPR, DOE received several comments on its scope
criteria. CEMEP supported the nine characteristics to define electric
motors, noting that using those criteria to define covered motors will
lead to huge energy savings by covering millions of units. CEMEP
believed that the nine characteristics definition can be applied by
customs and other enforcement officers to improve overall enforcement
activities. (CEMEP, No. 89 at p. 2).
Nidec commented that DOE should bring more clarity to
characteristic 8 (i.e., 1-500 hp as proposed as (g)(8)) by
including kilowatt values corresponding to the given horsepower values
(e.g., 500 horsepower (343 kilowatts), 1 horsepower (0.75 kilowatt).
(Nidec, No. 98 at pp. 2, 7-8) DOE believes this is a helpful suggestion
that comports with the inclusion of IEC motors in today's rulemaking
and is incorporating the suggestion into today's rule.
NEMA sought clarification regarding whether solid shaft medium and
high thrust motors are included in the scope of coverage. (NEMA, No. 93
at p. 27) During the NOPR public meeting, CEC and EEI requested
clarification on whether pool pump motors are covered under new
standards or by the Small Electric Motors regulations. (CEC, Pub. Mtg.
Tr., No. 87 at p. 55) The CA IOUs commented during the public meeting
that most pump motors are single-phase and, sometimes, variable-speed,
both of which would disqualify motors from coverage. (CA IOUs, Pub.
Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 55-56). Nidec added its belief that the small
motor rule does not cover variable speed motors. (Nidec, Pub. Mtg. Tr.,
No. 87 at p.56).
Any motor that meets the nine criteria as given in paragraph (g)
and which is not explicitly exempted by criteria given in paragraph (m)
is covered under the current rulemaking. Both single-phase and variable
speed motors are not
[[Page 30951]]
covered in today's rule, and so any motor with those qualities would
not be subject to today's standards.
b. Definitions, Terminology, and Regulatory Language
In response to the NOPR, DOE received a number of comments
requesting clarification on its choice of terminology.
``Motor'' and ``Electric Motor''
Baldor commented that the use of the terms ``motor'' and ``electric
motor'' interchangeably in the NOPR is very confusing. DOE understands
that the terms ``motor'' and ``electric motor'' may refer to a variety
of machines outside of its regulatory context. In the NOPR, DOE used
the terms to mean the same thing. 78 FR 73589. In addition, because
there are no NEMA Design B motors, for example, that are not
electrically driven, in DOE's view, the potential for ambiguity is
minimal.
The Department chose to not include the term ``electric'' in the
NEMA-designated motor types to be consistent with NEMA's definitions.
In the regulatory context, however, DOE does not consider there to be
any difference between the two terms and notes that all motors
currently regulated under 10 CFR part 431, subpart B, are electric
motors as stated in the title to 10 CFR part 431, subpart B and the
purpose and scope section at 10 CFR 431.11. Moreover, NEMA itself uses
the term ``motor'' in MG 1 to refer to electric motors.
Specificity of Definitions
Baldor stated that the definitions for ``NEMA Design A motor'' and
``NEMA Design B motor'' in 2013 test procedure does not make reference
to nine characteristics listed in paragraph (g) and, thus, implies that
it includes multi-speed motors, motors rated for voltages greater than
600 volts, motors rated for only 50 Hz, and motors constructed with
more than 8 poles. According to Baldor, this conflicts with DOE's
proposed scope of coverage in Table 4 and Table 5 of the NOPR. It noted
that paragraph (i) and Table 6 for NEMA Design C motor are similarly
confusing. (Baldor, No. 100 at pp. 2-4)
DOE agrees with Baldor that minimizing ambiguity in regulatory text
is critical. In this case, however, DOE does not see the potential for
confusion. DOE believes that today's regulatory text is of sufficient
clarity that stakeholders will understand that the new standards apply
only to those motors that meet the nine criteria in the new 10 CFR
431.25(g).
NEMA Design A, B or C motors are not defined to include these nine
characteristics, which DOE is using to narrow the scope of covered
electric motors. The definition of NEMA Design A may include multi-
speed motors, motors rated for voltages greater than 600 volts, motors
rated for only 50 Hz, and motors constructed with more than 8 poles.
However, only NEMA Design A motors meeting all nine characteristics in
Sec. 431.25(g) are covered under today's rule. DOE's regulatory
structure maintains the current standards at 10 CFR 431.25(a)-(f) while
adding broader coverage in new paragraphs (g) through (l). The
structure that DOE chose preserves the current regulatory text and
allows DOE to use the same definitions for all motors covered under 10
CFR 431.25.
``NEMA Design A Motor'' Correction
NEMA commented that the definition for NEMA Design A motor needs to
be corrected by replacing the phrase ``has a locked rotor current not
to exceed'' the values shown in NEMA MG 1-2009, as proposed in the NOPR
with ``has a locked rotor current higher than'' the values shown in
NEMA MG 1-2009. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 29) The Joint Advocates requested
that DOE consider NEMA's comments on definitions to bring clarity to
the covered motors. (Joint Advocates, No. 97 at p. 3)
DOE agrees with NEMA that the Department inadvertently used the
incorrect phrase when discussing the locked rotor current in the
definition of a ``NEMA Design A motor''. As evidenced in the preamble
of the 2013 test procedure (78 FR 75968) and the preamble and
regulatory text of the proposed test procedure (78 FR 38462, 38481),
DOE intended to include locked rotor current that exceeds the maximum
locked rotor current established for a NEMA Design B motor in the
``NEMA Design A motor'' definition. In today's rule, DOE is modifying
the regulatory text accordingly.
``NEMA Design C Motor'' Correction
NEMA suggested DOE revise paragraph (i) and the title of Table 6 of
the proposed 10 CFR 431.25 by replacing ``NEMA Design C electric
motor'' with ``NEMA Design C motor'' for consistency with DOE's
regulatory definitions.
As described above, DOE agrees, and has made the corresponding
change in the regulatory text for consistency with the definitions
adopted in the 2013 test procedure. DOE notes that it has further
corrected the reference to ``NEMA Design A and B motors'' in the title
of Table 5 to be consistent with the DOE regulatory definitions.
``Inverter-Only Electric Motor'' Definition
Baldor and NEMA raised concerns that DOE has defined ``inverter-
only electric motor'' and not ``definite-purpose, inverter-fed electric
motors'' which is the term that the NOPR referenced. Baldor noted that
the term ``definite-purpose, inverter-fed electric motors'' is
preferred and recognized by the motor industry as given in Part 31 of
the NEMA MG 1 standard. (Baldor, No. 100 at p. 6; NEMA at pp. 2-3)
Although DOE has previously used the term ``definite-purpose,
inverter-fed electric motor,'' DOE instead adopted the term ``inverter-
only electric motor'' in its 2013 test procedure because ''definite-
purpose''' is a term that has meaning in the context of many other
motor types which DOE does not wish to be confused with those requiring
inverters. DOE also wishes to define these motors in terms of their
actual capabilities instead of design intent. See 78 FR 75989.
c. Horsepower Rating
DOE's proposed standards include only motors rated from 1-500
horsepower, inclusive. In its comments, NEMA agreed with DOE's decision
not to cover fractional hp motors, noting that these motors do not fall
within the scope of rating for which NEMA Design A, B and C performance
standards are defined. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 15) Consequently, DOE is
continuing not to regulate fractional horsepower, enclosed, 56-frame
motors in today's notice.
d. High-Horsepower Six- and Eight-Pole Motors
NEMA noted that Table 2 does not contain the higher horsepower
ratings for large motors in 6 and 8 poles that are added in Table 7 and
it suggested that DOE conform Table 7 to Table 2. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp.
23-26) Baldor made a similar comment. (Baldor, No. 100 at p. 4)
In keeping with the Motor Coalition's Petition and with MG 1-2009,
DOE had proposed standards for motors with certain high horsepower and
pole ratings (8-pole above 250 hp and 6-pole above 350 hp) that NEMA
commented do not exist under MG 1's medium motors designations. For
example, it is impossible to produce a NEMA Design A 6-pole motor of
400 hp because the criteria required to qualify a medium
[[Page 30952]]
motor as Design A \25\ do not extend to such a high horsepower motor.
NEMA notes that the table in the 2011 version of MG 1 has corrected the
mistake of MG 1-2009 and moved these higher horsepower motors to the
large motor Table 20-20 of MG 1. In its written comments in response to
the NOPR, NEMA asked DOE not to adopt standards for motors of this pole
and horsepower configuration because NEMA Design A and B types are not
defined for and are not applicable to large motors. (NEMA, No. 93 at
pp. 23-26) Accordingly, DOE has removed several efficiency levels that
were proposed in table 5. As the eliminated ratings are nonexistent--it
is not possible to build motors meeting such specifications--motors
shipments analyses used in today's rule are unaffected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ As described in both MG 1-2009 and 10 CFR 431.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Frame Size
In response to the NOPR, DOE received a number of comments related
to frame size.
Scope Characteristic 7
NEMA requested that DOE amend the nine characteristics of regulated
motor to include four-digit frame sizes because 500 hp and 6- and 8-
pole motors only come in frame sizes larger than three-digit frame
sizes. (NEMA, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 42-43; NEMA, No. 93 at p 26)
NEMA also noted that IEC does not put design specifications on the
motor, especially for larger-sized motors. Therefore, it requested that
DOE use language that will include all such motors (through 500 hp)
equivalent to covered NEMA motors. (NEMA, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp.
42-44; NEMA, No. 93 at p. 26)
Nidec added that the higher horsepower ratings as shown in table 4
of the NOPR are above current three-digit frame size. (Nidec, Pub. Mtg.
Tr., No. 87 at p. 45) Secondly, Nidec commented that while the proposed
standard helps clarify the IEC motor coverage, removing characteristic
7 from the nine characteristics in paragraph (g) of 10 CFR
431.25 would remove any confusion about motor size. It commented that
DOE may add electric motors covered by the regulations for small
electric motors to the list of exempted motors in paragraph (m) of the
proposed 10 CFR 431.25.
DOE agrees with the above commenters that it was DOE's intent to
ensure that four-digit frame size motors and IEC equivalents of covered
motors are covered by these new standards and has adopted revised
language in paragraph (g)(7) of Sec. 431.25 to reflect that fact. The
updated language covers three-digit frame sizes, four-digit frame
sizes, IEC equivalents, and equivalents between NEMA frame sizes.
NEMA 56-Frame Motors Coverage
NEMA 56-frame motors at 1 hp or greater have been the subject of
considerable discussion, due to the fact that they may be covered as a
small electric motor under subpart X of 10 CFR part 431, or as an
electric motor under subpart B of 10 CFR part 431 depending on whether
they are general-purpose, definite or special purpose, or have an open
or enclosed frame. Currently, 56-frame motors are covered as small
electric motors if the motor is an open, general-purpose motor that
meets the ``small electric motor'' definition at 10 CFR 431.442. The
NOPR proposed to extend coverage to 56-frame enclosed motors rated at 1
hp or greater. 78 FR 73589. For 56-frame open, special and definite
purpose motors, the NOPR stated that DOE was considering establishing
standards for these motor types as well, but requested additional
information on those motor types. 78 FR 73606, 73679. Today's rule
covers enclosed 56-frame motors rated at 1 hp or greater but does not
establish standards for 56-frame open, definite or special purpose
motors. DOE notes that, because today's rule covers all enclosed 56-
frame motors, both general purpose and special and definite purpose
enclosed 56-frame motors are covered under today's rule.
In response to the NOPR, NEMA provided detailed comments about how
DOE should rephrase characteristic 7 and add a sixth exemption
to 10 CFR 431.25 if DOE chose to include 56-frame open, definite or
special purpose motors. This would also eliminate any confusion
regarding covering all IEC frame sizes and all frame sizes between two
consecutive NEMA or IEC frame sizes. It also commented that it is
ambiguous as to whether a 56-frame, open general purpose motor has
different efficiency levels and nameplate markings as compared to the
56-frame open, special and definite purpose motors. (NEMA, No. 93 at
pp. 14-15; NEMA, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at p. 61) NEMA noted that the
current rulemaking cannot be compared with the small motors rule in
terms of efficiency requirements and ELs, because the small motor rule
requirements are based on average efficiency while electric motor rule
are based on nominal full-load efficiency. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 28-29)
DOE agrees that coverage of 56-frame, open, special- and definite-
purpose motors would require coordination with DOE's small electric
motor requirements. In the NOPR, DOE requested additional data on this
subset of 56-frame motors to allow DOE to fully assess these motor
types. No commenter provided DOE such data. As a result of these
complications and the need for more data, DOE does not cover them in
today's rule, but may consider covering such motors in a future
rulemaking. As explained in the ``Scope Characteristic 7''
section of this section, IVA.2.e, DOE has modified Characteristic
7 accordingly. Table IV.5 provides a summary of respective
coverage of 56-frame electric motors.
Table IV.5--56-Frame Regulation, 1 Horsepower and Greater
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Enclosed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Purpose............... Covered as a ``small Not currently
electric motor'' up covered;
to 3 hp.\26\ covered by this
rule.
Special/Definite Purpose...... Not currently covered; Not currently
not covered by this covered;
rule. covered by this
rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
f. IEC Motors
NEMA noted that: (1) There is no one-to-one correspondence between
NEMA frame sizes and IEC metric equivalents; (2) the phrase ``NEMA
frame'' refers to specific NEMA T-frame sizes; and (3) IEC 100 frames
are currently exempt but should be covered. Based on the above, NEMA
commented that DOE has
[[Page 30953]]
removed nearly all IEC motors from any requirement to meet efficiency
standards. In order to effectively include standards for IEC motors, it
suggested DOE to change the titles of table 5 and 6 and the contents of
paragraphs (h) and (i) within 10 CFR 431.25 to reflect that they
included the IEC equivalents. (NEMA, No. 93 at p 4) DOE agrees that it
was the intent to cover these motors and has amended the regulatory
language to make this clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See 10 CFR 431.442.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the NOPR, NEMA commented that it believed DOE may be
of the opinion that because, in DOE's proposed rule, reference is no
longer being made to T-frames and all covered frame sizes would have
three digits, that DOE no longer needs the text ``including a frame
size that is between two consecutive NEMA frame sizes or their IEC
metric equivalents'' when describing coverage. NEMA noted, however,
that manufacturers may mistakenly equate ``NEMA frame'' with ``T-
frame,'' and mistakenly conclude that certain IEC motors (e.g., IEC 100
frame) were uncovered. To remedy this ambiguity, NEMA suggested that
DOE modify scope Characteristic 7. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 26)
DOE appreciates the need to clarify coverage of NEMA versus IEC
motors and their equivalents and, consistent with its stated intentions
in the NOPR to cover IEC-equivalents of all covered motors, has
modified characteristic 7 to make coverage of IEC equivalents
more explicit. See 78 FR 73589.
g. Frequency
NEMA noted that characteristic 4 in paragraph (g) is
described as ``operate on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz line
power''. NEMA acknowledged that DOE has explained that this is intended
to cover electric motors rated at 60 Hz and 50/60 Hz; however, as
written, the provision could be read as requiring coverage of 50 Hz
motors that are operated on 60 Hz. It is not clear from the proposed
standards whether an efficiency standard would apply to a motor's
operation at the frequency or frequencies marked on the nameplate of
the electric motor or to operation just at 60 Hz. NEMA suggested that
DOE add ``at 60 Hz'' to all efficiency table titles to make clear that
the covered motors were required to meet the efficiency standard while
operating at 60 Hz. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 5)
DOE agrees that the suggestion brings clarity to the regulations
and reflects DOE's intent in the NOPR. Therefore, corresponding changes
were made in the regulatory text. Although the efficiency values apply
at 60 Hz only, DOE points out that the ability to operate at other
frequencies (e.g., 50 Hz) in addition to 60 Hz does not, itself,
exclude a motor from coverage.
h. Random Winding
Noting that DOE has established the efficiency levels based on NEMA
MG 1 Table 12-12, Nidec raised concern that Table 12-12 is intended
only for random wound motors and, therefore, DOE, should amend
characteristic 5 to include only electric motors that contain
a random wound stator winding. (Nidec, No. 98 at pp. 2, 7-8)
DOE is not aware of any particular winding technique that would
make it significantly more difficult for a motor to meet standards and
has received no comment suggesting as much. DOE's understanding is that
random winding is mostly done automatically to reduce assembly cost,
and that more strategic winding (e.g., on a form) is generally done for
increased insulation performance at higher voltages. Hand winding is
considered in DOE's analysis and generally exhibits performance
superior to random winding and would more easily reach higher
efficiencies. As a result, DOE perceives no reason to further constrain
scope and does not alter scope with respect to the winding method in
today's rule.
i. Duty Cycle
DOE's proposed standards applied only to motors rated for
continuous duty, which means that a motor may operate indefinitely
without pausing for heat to dissipate.
CEC suggested that DOE revise the criterion in proposed section
431.25(g)(2) such that motors not rated for continuous duty are also
subject to standards. It suggested that both motors rated or not rated
for continuous duty can meet the nominal full-load efficiency
standards. (CEC, No. 96 at p. 3)
Although DOE did not receive data on the relative usages of
continuous vs. intermittent duty motors, it understands that continuous
duty motors account for the majority of the energy consumption of
motors investigated within this rulemaking. Due to their inherent
limitations, intermittent duty motors are more likely to be used in
applications with a lower fraction of the time spent switched on. As a
result, these motors use less energy than continuous duty motors.
Although DOE has thus far focused its efforts on continuous duty
motors, it remains possible that other motor types may achieve cost-
effective energy savings through standards, and DOE may consider
exploring their future inclusion. DOE notes that the scope of the MG 1
sections to which the standards listed in Tables 12-10, 12-11, and 12-
12 apply is continuous duty motors. DOE also notes that today's rule
represents an evolution of existing standards for General Purpose
Electric Motors (Subtypes I and II), which are defined in 10 CFR part
431, subpart B to have continuous ratings.
j. Gear Motors
Presently, DOE does not define ``gear motor'' or ``gearmotor,'' but
understands that these are motors that have gears attached to the motor
body, usually for the purpose of trading speed for torque. Depending on
the exact configuration, the motor may meet the definition of ``partial
electric motor'' as defined in 10 CFR 431.12. In the NOPR, DOE stated
that it believed that certain gearmotors could be tested as partial
electric motors by first removing the gearbox, so that manufacturers
could certify the partial electric motor and be freed from certifying
every conceivable motor/gearbox combination. 78 FR 73647. In the 2013
test procedure, DOE specifically addressed integral gear motors and how
to test such motors if they meet DOE's definition of ``partial electric
motor''. See 78 FR 75979, 75994.
Baldor raised concern that the scope of coverage of integral gear
motors (or other integral motors under the groupings of ``partial
electric motors'') is not clear. Moreover, DOE did not define or
propose test procedures for ``integral gearmotors'' in the 2013 test
procedure. (Baldor, No. 100 at p. 5-6) In response, DOE reiterates that
it does not, at this time, treat gear motors as a distinct category of
equipment. Gear motors would be subject to standards if they meet the
definition of ``partial electric motor'' or of another type of
equipment subject to standards. In those cases, gear motors would be
required to certify using whichever test instructions were applicable
to that type of motor. DOE notes that manufacturers may apply for a
test procedure waiver if their equipment cannot be tested under the
methods found in 10 CFR part 431, subpart B.
NORD Gear Corp. recommended that integral gear motors be excluded
from the coverage as they do not meet the statutory definition of
``electric motor''. It commented that if gearmotors are subject to
rulemaking, it would require the NORD gear motors to be heavier due to
the increased copper, steel and aluminum content. It will also require
an increase in frame size for some motors and, thus, will prevent the
combination of some gearmotors that are currently in use, leading to a
product gap in the market for significant amount
[[Page 30954]]
of time and creating undue economic burden on gearmotor end users.
Further, if gear motors are redesigned to meet the standard, millions
of combinations of motors and gearboxes will have to be tested and this
would place an undue economic burden on gearbox manufacturers. (NORD
Gear, No. 91 at p. 2)
DOE understands that an investment of time and capital may be
required by the imposition of any standard, and has attempted to
discuss, quantify and consider those investments in its Manufacturer
Impact Analysis in section IV.J. DOE believes that there should be
sufficient time for manufacturers to make changes in designs (if
needed) to comply with standards and make the integral gear motors
available in the market. With respect to the question of statutory
authority, DOE believes that EPCA, as amended through EISA 2007,
provides sufficient statutory authority for the regulation of a wide
variety of electric motors as described in detail in section II.A.
k. Partial Electric Motors
In response to the NOPR, NEMA raised concern that it is not clear
whether the proposed standards in Tables 5 through 8 apply to partial
electric motors. To clarify, NEMA recommended that DOE either revise
paragraph (g) in 10 CFR 431.15 or add a tenth characteristic to include
``partial electric motors''. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 26-27) Baldor raised
concerns that the content of Table IV of the NOPR implies that DOE
intends to cover partial electric motors, however, these motors are
neither mentioned in the NOPR nor are efficiency standard levels
proposed for them. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 26-27)
Under the new regulatory scheme in today's final rule, DOE
considers partial electric motors to be electric motors subject to the
new requirements listed in 10 CFR 431.25(h)-(l) if they meet the nine
criteria specified in paragraph (g) of the new Sec. 431.25. DOE's 2013
test procedure provides instructions for testing these motor types to
ensure their nominal full-load efficiency can be assessed. 78 FR 75961.
To make the inclusion of these motor types abundantly clear, DOE has
taken NEMA's suggestion of modifying the regulatory text in 10 CFR
431.25(g) to expressly state that partial electric motors are included.
Additionally, DOE now refers in the to ``special-purpose'' and
``definite-purpose'' ``electric motors''. The word ``electric'' was
added in the 2013 test procedure. 78 FR 75961.
Finally, DOE notes that it has updated the definition of ``partial
electric motor'' found in 10 CFR 431.12 to correct a typographical
error: Repetition of the word ``an'' before ``electric motor''.
l. Certification Considerations Related to Expanded Scope
Baldor sought clarification on which manufacturer should be
responsible to file compliance certification report with DOE. Baldor
asked whether it should be the manufacturer of the partial electric
motor or if instead the manufacturer of the electric motor or assembly
of which the partial electric motor is a component must certify it.
(Baldor, No. 100 at pp. 5-7)
DOE noted in the 2011 certification, compliance and enforcement
rule that it intends to undertake a rulemaking to moving and harmonize,
where possible, the certification, compliance, and enforcement
provisions for electric motors into Part 429. 76 FR 12422, 12447. DOE
will address the party responsible for certifying in that rulemaking.
m. Electric Motors With Separately Powered Blowers
In its comments, NEMA provides an ``Appendix B'' in which it
outlines the ``industry interpretation'' of which motor types are
covered by the rule. DOE notes that NEMA lists electric motors with
separately powered blowers under the ``not a covered product''
category. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 37)
In the 2013 test procedure, DOE established a method of testing for
this type of motor and stated that at least some non-immersible motors
that are furnished with separately-powered blowers would meet the same
nine criteria that DOE was, at that time, considering applying with
respect to its standards rulemaking. 78 FR 75986. Moreover, DOE did not
propose to exempt these types of motors from standards in the standards
NOPR. 78 FR 73681. DOE maintains its position that electric motors with
separately powered blowers that meet the requirements in the new 10 CFR
431.25(g) are covered in today's rule.
3. Advanced Electric Motors
In its final rule analysis, DOE addressed various ``advanced
electric motor'', which included those listed in Table IV.6. While DOE
recognizes that such motors could offer improved efficiency, regulating
them would represent a significant shift for DOE, which has primarily
focused on the efficiency of polyphase, single-speed induction motors.
Table IV.6--Advanced Electric Motors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor Description
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inverter drives.
Permanent magnet motors.
Electrically commutated motors.
Switched-reluctance motors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this time, DOE has chosen not to regulate advanced motors and
knows of no established definitions or test procedures that could be
applied to them. Because DOE agrees that significant energy savings may
be possible for some advanced motors, DOE plans to keep abreast of
changes to these technologies and their use within industry, and may
consider regulating them in the future.
4. Equipment Class Groups and Equipment Classes
When DOE prescribes or amends an energy conservation standard for a
type (or class) of covered equipment, it considers: (1) The type of
energy used; (2) the capacity of the equipment; or (3) any other
performance-related feature that justifies different standard levels,
such as features affecting consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q) and
6316(a)) Due to the large number of characteristics involved in
electric motor design, DOE has developed both ``equipment class
groups'' and ``equipment classes''. An equipment class represents a
unique combination of motor characteristics for which DOE is
establishing a specific energy conservation standard. There are 482
potential equipment classes that consist of all permutations of
electric motor design types (i.e., NEMA Design A & B, NEMA Design C
(and IEC equivalents), and fire pump electric motor), standard
horsepower ratings (i.e., standard ratings from 1 to 500 horsepower),
pole configurations (i.e., 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole), and enclosure types
(i.e., open or enclosed). An equipment class group is a collection of
equipment classes that share a common motor design type. The NEMA
Standards Publication MG 1-2011, ``Motors and Generators,'' defines a
series of standard electric motor designs (i.e., Designs A, B and C)
that are differentiated by variations in performance requirements. DOE
chose to use these design types to establish equipment class groups
because design types affect an electric motor's utility and efficiency.
In the NOPR, DOE had divided electric motors into four groups based
on three main characteristics: NEMA (or IEC) design letter, whether the
motor met the definition of ``fire pump electric
[[Page 30955]]
motor,'' and whether the motor had a brake. Within each of these
groups, DOE utilized combinations of other pertinent motor
characteristics to enumerate individual equipment classes. To
illustrate the differences between the two terms, consider the
following example. A NEMA Design B, 50 horsepower, two-pole enclosed
electric motor and a NEMA Design B, 100 horsepower, six-pole open
electric motor would be in the same equipment class group (ECG 1), but
each would represent a unique equipment class that will ultimately have
its own efficiency standard.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ At its core, the equipment class concept, which is being
applied only as a structural tool for purposes of this rulemaking,
is equivalent to a ``basic model''. See 10 CFR 431.12. The
fundamental difference between these concepts is that a ``basic
model'' pertains to an individual manufacturer's equipment class.
Each equipment class for a given manufacturer would comprise a basic
model for that manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the NOPR stage, brake electric motors were separated out because
DOE was concerned that the presence of a brake (which provides utility
in the form of hastened stopping of the motor) might cause additional
losses, thereby reducing the motors' ability to meet standards cost-
effectively. In its 2013 test procedure, however, DOE established a
method of testing brake motors that allowed exclusion of losses
attributable to the brake, thereby allowing brake electric motors to be
tested without regard to the brake. 78 FR 75995.
For today's final rule, then, DOE divided electric motors into
three groups based on two main characteristics: NEMA (or IEC) design
letter and whether the motor met the definition of a fire pump electric
motor. DOE's three resulting equipment class groups are: NEMA Design A
and B and IEC Design N motors (ECG 1), NEMA Design C and IEC Design H
motors (ECG 2), and fire pump electric motors (ECG 3). Table IV.7
outlines the relationships between equipment class groups and the
characteristics used to define equipment classes.
Table IV.7--Electric Motor Equipment Class Groups for the Final Rule Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class group Electric motor design Horsepower Poles Enclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................... NEMA Design A & B*....... 1-500 2, 4, 6, 8 Open.
Enclosed.
2......................... NEMA Design C*........... 1-200 4, 6, 8 Open.
Enclosed.
3......................... Fire Pump*............... 1-500 2, 4, 6, 8 Open.
Enclosed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Including IEC equivalents.
a. U-Frame Motors
EISA 2007 prescribed energy conservation standards for electric
motors built with a U-frame, whereas previously, only electric motors
built with a T-frame were covered.\28\ (Compare 42 U.S.C.
6311(13)(A)(1992) with 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(B)(2011)) In general, for the
same combination of horsepower rating and pole configuration, an
electric motor built in a U-frame is built with a larger ``D''
dimension than an electric motor built in a T-frame. The ``D''
dimension is a measurement of the distance from the centerline of the
shaft to the bottom of the mounting feet. Consequently, U-frame motors
should be able to reach efficiencies as high, or higher, than T-frame
motors with similar ratings (i.e., horsepower, pole-configuration, and
enclosure) because the larger frame size allows for more active
materials, such as copper wiring and electrical steel, which help
reduce I\2\R (i.e., losses arising from the resistivity of the current-
carrying material) and core losses (i.e., losses that result from
magnetic field stability changes).\29\ Furthermore, U-frame motors do
not have any unique utility relative to comparable T-frame motors. In
general, a T-frame design could replace an equivalent U-frame design
with minor modification of the mounting configuration for the driven
equipment. By comparison, a U-frame design that is equivalent to a T-
frame design could require substantial modification to the mounting
configuration for the same piece of driven equipment because of its
larger size. DOE's research indicated that manufacturers sell
conversion brackets for installing T-frame motors into applications
where a U-frame motor had previously been used.\30\ In the NOPR, DOE
proposed standards for both T-frame and U-frame motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The terms ``U-frame'' and ``T-frame'' refer to lines of
frame size dimensions, with a T-frame motor having a smaller frame
size for the same horsepower rating as a comparable U-frame motor.
In general, ``T'' frame became the preferred motor design around
1964 because it provided more horsepower output in a smaller
package.
Under EPACT 1992, the only covered electric motors were T-frame
electric motors. See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)(1992). These motors were
redefined to be ``general purpose electric motor (subtype I)'' under
EISA 2007, which, at the time, DOE defined as a motor that can be
used in most general purpose applications and that meets standard
operating characteristics and mechanical construction for use under
usual or unusual service conditions in accordance with specific
provisions of NEMA MG 1-1993. That version of MG 1 only included
specifications for T-frame motors because the last version of MG 1
to contain U-frame dimensions was published in 1967. See 77 FR
266.8.
\29\ Several manufacturers provide premium efficient U-frame
motors. See, for example, https://www.usmotors.com/Our-Products/~/
media/USMotors/Documents/Literature/Datasheets/PDS/PDS--PREMIUM--
EFFICIENT.ashx.
\30\ See, for example, https://www.overlyhautz.com/adaptomounts1.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the NOPR, NEMA and the Joint Advocates recommended
that DOE keep the standards for U-frame motors at current EPACT 1992
(NEMA MG 1-2011,Table 12-11) levels. These commenters argued that U-
frame motors are a legacy design used only in the automotive
manufacturing industry and that their market share is small and
declining; according to these commenters, re-designing of U-frame
motors would entail huge costs. NEMA commented that new U-frame motors
are not being designed currently, and the old designs primarily cater
to the replacement market. According to NEMA, there are no suppliers of
U-frame general purpose motors (subtype II) at premium efficiency
levels, and its review showed that only one manufacturer of U-frame
general purpose electric motors (subtype II) would be impacted by the
proposed change in efficiency standards. NEMA also stated that the cost
of U-frame motors is generally significantly higher than T-frame motors
of the same rating, as indicative of the larger size of the U-frame
motor and the costs associated with maintaining of production equipment
for old designs. Therefore, it would be highly unlikely that
[[Page 30956]]
consumers would increase purchases of U-frame motors of lower
efficiency as substitutes for T-frame motors. NEMA claimed that DOE did
not evaluate the cost burden on manufacturers from re-designing old U-
frame motors, and if it did, the results would not support the increase
in efficiency standards proposed in the NOPR. The Joint Advocates
commented that leaving U-frame motor standards unchanged would enable
manufacturers to direct scarce product design resources to product
types with larger market shares. (NEMA, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp.
69-70; NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 27-28; Joint Advocates, No. 97 at p. 2)
By contrast, Nidec supported DOE's proposal to raise efficiency
standards of U-frame motors to EL2 (i.e., Table 12-12) levels, noting
that it is technologically feasible to increase the efficiency level of
these motors. (Nidec, No. 98 at p. 5)
DOE understands NEMA's concerns regarding the diminishing market
size of U-frame motors. However, DOE has determined that a complete
phase-out of U-frame motors would not be the result of an efficiency
standard that is technologically infeasible for U-frame motors, but
because U-frame motors offer no unique utility relative to T-frame
motors. Furthermore, DOE has concluded that the updated standards are
unlikely to result in the unavailability of U-frame motors. Based on
catalog data from several large electric motor manufacturers, DOE has
observed manufacturer offerings of premium efficiency U-frame motors on
the market today.\31\ DOE sees no technical reason why U-frame
manufacturers would not be able to comply with standards corresponding
to TSL 2. DOE notes that it requested, but did not receive, data
suggesting that U-frame motors would be eliminated from the market
under the standard levels adopted in today's final rule. See 78 FR
73610.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See, for example: https://www.marathonelectric.com/motors/docs/manuals/SB547.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4), as applied to commercial and industrial
equipment via 42 U.S.C. 6316(a), DOE cannot prescribe a standard that
would result in the ``unavailability in the United States in any
covered equipment type (or class) of performance characteristics
(including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that
are substantially the same as those generally available in the United
States at the time of the Secretary's finding''. However, DOE notes
that this statutory provision does not require the continued protection
of particular classes or types of equipment--in this case, electric
motors--if the same utility continues to be available to consumers.
Consequently, based on available information, DOE continues to believe
that U-frame motors fail to merit a separate equipment class with lower
standards and has not created one for them in this final rule.
b. Electric Motor Design Letter
The first criterion that DOE considered when disaggregating
equipment class groups was based on the NEMA (and IEC) design letter.
The NEMA Standards Publication MG 1-2011, ``Motors and Generators,''
defines a series of standard electric motor designs that are
differentiated by variations in performance requirements. These designs
are designated by letter--Designs A, B, and C. (See NEMA MG 1-2011,
paragraph 1.19.1). These designs are categorized by performance
requirements for full-voltage starting and developing locked-rotor
torque, breakdown torque, and locked-rotor current, all of which affect
an electric motor's utility and efficiency. DOE is regulating the
efficiency of motors of each of these design types.
The primary difference between a NEMA Design A and NEMA Design B
motor is that they have different locked-rotor current requirements.
NEMA Design B motors must not exceed the applicable locked-rotor
current level specified in NEMA MG 1-2011, paragraph 12.35.1. NEMA
Design A motors, on the other hand, do not have a maximum locked-rotor
current limit. In most applications, NEMA Design B motors are generally
preferred because locked-rotor current is constrained to established
industry standards, making it easier to select suitable motor-starting
devices. However, certain applications have special load torque or
inertia requirements, which result in a design with high locked-rotor
current (NEMA Design A). When selecting starting devices for NEMA
Design A motors, extra care must be taken in properly sizing electrical
protective devices to avoid nuisance tripping during motor startup. The
distinction between NEMA Design A and NEMA Design B motors is important
to applications that are sensitive to high locked-rotor current;
however, both NEMA Design A and Design B motors have identical
performance requirements in all other metrics, which indicates that
they offer similar levels and types of utility. Given these
similarities, DOE is grouping these motors together into a single
equipment class group for the purposes of this rulemaking.
In contrast, DOE believes that the different torque requirements
for NEMA Design C motors represent a change in utility that can affect
efficiency performance. NEMA Design C motors are characterized by high
starting torques. Applications that are hard to start, such as heavily
loaded conveyors and rock crushers, require this higher starting
torque. The difference in torque requirements will restrict which
applications can use which NEMA Design types. As a result, NEMA Design
C motors cannot always be replaced with NEMA Design A or B motors, or
vice versa. Therefore, as in the preliminary analysis and NOPR, DOE has
analyzed NEMA Design C motors in an equipment class group separate from
NEMA Design A and B motors.
In chapter two, ``Analytical Framework,'' of the technical support
document, DOE noted numerous instances where manufacturers were
marketing electric motors rated greater than 200 horsepower as NEMA
Design C motors. (see Chapter 2 of TSD) \32\ DOE understands that NEMA
MG 1-2011 specifies Design C performance requirements for motors rated
1-200 hp in four-, six-, and eight-pole configurations--a motor rated
above 200 hp or using a two-pole configuration would not meet the
Design C specifications. DOE understands that without established
performance standards that form the basis for a two-pole NEMA Design C
motor or a NEMA Design C motor with a horsepower rating above 200,
motors labeled as such would not meet the regulatory definition for
``NEMA Design C motor'' as provided in the 2013 test procedure. 78 FR
75994. DOE considers motors at these ratings to be improperly labeled
if they are name-plated as NEMA Design C. Mislabeled NEMA Design C
motors, however, are still subject to energy conservation standards if
they meet the definitions and performance standards for a regulated
motor--e.g., NEMA Design A or B. And since these motors either need to
meet the same efficiency levels or would be required by customers to
meet specific performance criteria expected of a given design letter
(i.e., Design A, B, or C), DOE does not foresee at this time any
incentive that would encourage a manufacturer to identify a Design A or
B motor as a Design C motor for standards circumvention purposes. DOE
understands, however, that NEMA Design C motors as a whole constitute
[[Page 30957]]
an extremely small percentage of motor shipments--less than two percent
of shipments--covered by this rulemaking, which would appear to create
an unlikely risk that mislabeling motors as NEMA Design C will be used
as an avenue to circumvent standards. In addition, DOE received no
comments suggesting this would be likely. Nevertheless, DOE will
monitor the potential presence of such motors and may reconsider
standards for them provided such practice becomes prevalent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ For instructions on how to access the TSD, visit the
rulemaking page at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Fire Pump Electric Motors
In addition to considering the NEMA design type when establishing
equipment class groups, DOE considered whether an electric motor is a
fire pump electric motor. EISA 2007 prescribed energy conservation
standards for fire pump electric motors (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(B)) and,
subsequently, DOE adopted a definition for the term ``fire pump
electric motor,'' which incorporated portions of National Fire
Protection Association Standard (NFPA) 20, ``Standard for the
Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection'' (2010). (See 77
FR 26608 (codified at 10 CFR 431.12)) Pursuant to NFPA 20, a fire pump
electric motor must comply with NEMA Design B performance standards and
must continue to operate in spite of any risk of damage stemming from
overheating or continuous operation. The additional requirements for a
fire pump electric motor are intended to further the purpose of public
safety and constitute a change in utility that DOE believes could also
affect its performance and efficiency. Therefore, DOE established a
separate equipment class group for such motors in the preliminary
analysis to account for the special utility offered by these motors and
maintained that practice through the NOPR and today's final rule.
Regarding the ``fire pump electric motor'' definition, as detailed
in the 2012 test procedure (77 FR 26608), DOE intends its ``fire pump
electric motor'' definition to cover both NEMA Design B motors and IEC-
equivalents that meet the requirements of section 9.5 of NFPA 20. See
77 FR 26617-26618. As stated in the 2012 test procedure, DOE believes
that IEC-equivalent motors should be included within the scope of the
definition of ``fire pump electric motor,'' although NFPA 20 does not
explicitly recognize the use of IEC motors with fire pumps. Id. DOE
realizes that section 9.5 of NFPA 20 specifically requires that fire
pump motors shall be marked as complying with NEMA Design B. The fire
pump electric motor definition that DOE created focuses on ensuring
that compliance with the energy efficiency requirements are applied in
a consistent manner. DOE believes that there are IEC motors that can be
used in fire pump applications that meet both NEMA Design B and IEC
Design N criteria, as well as NEMA MG 1 service factors. DOE's
definition encompasses both NEMA Design B motors and IEC-equivalents.
To the extent that there is any ambiguity as to how DOE would apply
this definition, in DOE's view, any Design B or IEC-equivalent motor
that otherwise satisfies the relevant NFPA requirements would meet the
fire pump electric motor definition in 10 CFR 431.12. See the standards
NOPR for a historical discussion of comments related to fire pump
electric motors. 78 FR 73623.
NEMA suggested that DOE should change the title of Table 7 and the
content of paragraph (j) to specifically refer to NEMA Design B fire
pump electric motors. NEMA commented that although DOE has stated that
the standards for fire pump electric motors are based on NEMA Design B
types, that fact it is not clear in the definition of ``fire pump
electric motor'' in 10 CFR 431.12. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 5) Baldor also
raised concern that the scope of coverage of fire pump electric motors
is not clear from only referring to the definition proposed in 10 CFR
431.12., nothing that it had to go through several documents to
determine that fire pump electric motors that meet nine criteria and
are limited to NEMA Design B and IEC equivalents are covered. (Baldor,
No. 100 at p. 4)
Pursuant to NFPA 20, a fire pump electric motor must comply with
NEMA Design B performance standards and must continue to run in spite
of any risk of damage stemming from overheating or continuous
operation. Therefore, DOE considers it unnecessary to add further
restrictions in its regulatory text. DOE also wishes to avoid the
implication that IEC equivalents would not be covered. Regarding having
to review the nine criteria in the new 10 CFR 431.25(g) to know if a
fire pump motor is covered, as DOE explained above, the regulatory
scheme used in the new regulations was chosen to maintain the existing
regulations for currently regulated electric motors while providing the
criteria that all motors must meet if they are regulated motors under
the new standards.
NEMA commented that it is aware of few entities that have listed
IEC motors for application with fire pumps in the U.S. It also
commented that there is confusion regarding the coverage of the
efficiency standards for fire pump electric motors. (NEMA, No. 93 at p.
14) By contrast, Nidec provided a link to data on companies that have a
UL certification for IEC motors for fire pump applications. (Nidec, No.
98 at p. 5)
Regarding IEC fire pump motors, DOE views Nidec's comment and the
fact that IEC motors can be built to very similar specifications as
Design B motors (even though they may not be labeled as such) as
sufficient cause to maintain the requirement that IEC designs comply
with fire pump motor standards as well.
Specifically regarding standards for fire pump electric motors,
NEMA and Baldor both raised concerns that the proposed standards for
fire pump electric motors in Table 7 were not consistent with the
current standards for fire pump electric motors in Table 2, as
suggested in the Petition and as DOE intended to propose (see 78 FR
73592). (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 23, 26; Baldor, No. 100 at p. 4)
Finally, the NOPR had mistakenly listed a standard for 1 hp, 2
pole, open fire pump electric motors even though no standard for this
configuration is currently in effect, as evidenced by the absence of a
standard for this rating in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.25(b). This
standard has been removed from the final rule.
d. Brake Electric Motors
In its final rule analyses, DOE considered whether brake electric
motors (both integral brake electric motors and non-integral brake
electric motors). In the 2013 test procedure, DOE adopted a definition
for brake electric motors. 78 FR 75993 In the NOPR, the two types of
brake electric motor were contained in one equipment class group as
separate from the equipment class groups established for NEMA Design A
and B motors, NEMA Design C motors, and fire pump electric motors.
DOE understands that brake electric motors contain multiple
features that can affect both utility and efficiency. In most
applications, electric motors are not required to stop immediately.
Instead, electric motors typically slow down and gradually stop after
power is removed from the motor due to a buildup of friction and
windage from the internal components of the motor. However, some
applications \33\ require electric motors to stop quickly. Motors used
in such applications may employ a brake component that, when engaged,
abruptly slows or stops shaft rotation.
[[Page 30958]]
The brake component attaches to one end of the motor and surrounds a
section of the motor's shaft. During normal operation of the motor, the
brake is disengaged from the motor's shaft--it neither touches nor
interferes with the motor's operation. However, under normal operating
conditions, the brake is drawing power from the electric motor's power
source and may also be contributing to windage losses, because the
brake is an additional rotating component on the motor's shaft. When
power is removed from the electric motor (and therefore the brake
component), the brake component de-energizes and engages the motor
shaft, quickly slowing or stopping rotation of the rotor and shaft
components. Because of these utility related features that affect
efficiency, DOE had proposed to establish a separate equipment class
group for electric motors with a brake.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ For example, some conveyor and other material-handling
applications require motors to stop quickly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the NOPR public meeting, NEMA argued that DOE has captured
most standard stock available and agreed with DOE's decision to limit
standards for brake motors to 1-30 hp and 4-, 6- and 8-pole
configurations. It commented that larger brake motors are generally
design D or intermittent-duty motors for cranes and hoists, which are
currently out of the scope of coverage. (NEMA, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at
pp. 70-71) In its written comments, NEMA noted that brakes can be
treated as an accessory because in DOE's test procedure for brake
motors, brake electrical losses are not included in the efficiency
calculation. Therefore, it suggested that brake motors should not be
put in separate equipment class but should be included in tables 5 and
6. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 7-8)
The Joint Advocates stated that they support inclusion of integral
brake motors in the scope of coverage. However, they commented that
establishing a separate class and table of standards for brake motors
is unnecessary, because DOE has proposed setting standards for brake
motors identical to other motors. Moreover, it requested that DOE
include brake motors above 30 hp since there are some motors sold above
30 hp, and capping the brake motors coverage at 30 hp may create
confusion about scope of coverage. (Joint Advocates, No. 97 at p. 2)
The Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) commented that if
brake motors have the same standards as other motors, they would not
require a separate equipment class group and would not only be
regulated at the limited horsepower range proposed. (ASAP, Pub. Mtg.
Tr., No. 87 at p. 74)
Regarding the brake motor standards proposed, Baldor raised concern
that the title of table 8 does not fully identify the type of integral
brake electric motors and non-integral brake electric motors to which
the proposed standards apply. Baldor raised concern that DOE has not
defined integral and non-integral brake motors in 10 CFR 431.12, even
though it makes reference to these motors in the NOPR. Baldor raised
concern that the term ``dedicated mechanism for speed reduction'' used
in the definition of brake electric motors is ambiguous, stating that
it is not clear what DOE intends to cover other than a ``brake''.
(Baldor, No. 100 at p. 5)
WEG raised concern that even though a slight friction or windage
adder needs to be considered due to brake, there is no need to create a
separate equipment class group for brake motors because separate
efficiency levels are not set for these motors. WEG commented that
larger brake motors exist in the market, but most of them are special
motors, which are out of scope of coverage. However, if any larger
brake motor falls under the scope of coverage, the proposed standards
(only up to 30 hp) may create a loophole. It commented that if it is a
standard motor with a brake, the manufacturers would like to use same
standard electrical design and not create special one to account for
just a few losses. Therefore, it requested that DOE consider exclusion
of the brake losses in the criteria. (WEG, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp.
72-73, 75)
In response, DOE notes that as per the updated test procedures for
brake motors, only power used to drive the motor is included in the
efficiency calculation, and the power supplied to prevent the brake
from engaging is not considered. Through that lens, the efficiency
determination for brake motors is similar to that for any motor.
Therefore, DOE has removed the separate equipment class group for brake
motors in the final rule. DOE understands that most brake motors sold
in the market would fall into ECG 1, but notes that a brake motor could
be constructed such that it fell into other equipment classes, or none
at all. For the purposes of analytical results, however, DOE is still
reporting brake motors separately as equipment class subgroup 1b.
Results of the former ECG 1 (NEMA Design A and Design B) are now
reported as equipment class subgroup 1a. DOE notes that in the final
rule, it is not segregating brake motors into ``integral brake motors''
and ``non-integral brake motors'' because it is not necessary for
testing. Under this same logic, larger brake motors (i.e., above 30 hp)
are now also subject to coverage if rated from 1-500 hp, just as would
any other motor type in ECG 1.
With respect to Baldor's concern on terminology, DOE's definition
makes reference to a ``dedicated mechanism for speed reduction'' to
clarify what is meant by a ``brake''. The definition aims to maintain
the general sense of the term to avoid any loophole that may arise with
an unnecessarily narrow definition.
The Chinese WTO/TBT National Notification & Enquiry Center
acknowledged the energy conservation efforts of United States and
requested more clarification about the efficiency values for brake
motors given in Table I.5 of NOPR, particularly for 8-pole brake
motors, 4-pole open brake motors and 6-pole closed brake motors. (China
WTO/TBT NNEC, No. 104 at p. 3)
DOE notes that the confusion around Table I.5 in the NOPR is due to
the formatting issues. For the final rule, DOE has deleted what was
previously Table I.5 because brake motors are no longer in a separate
equipment class group. Depending on the specific characteristics and
configuration of a brake motor, it may fall under any ECG category and
be subject to the corresponding efficiency standards.
e. Horsepower Rating
In its preliminary analysis, DOE considered three criteria when
differentiating equipment classes. The first criterion was horsepower,
a critical performance attribute of an electric motor that is directly
related to the capacity of an electric motor to perform useful work and
that generally scales with efficiency. For example, a 50-horsepower
electric motor would generally be considered more efficient than a 10-
horsepower electric motor. In view of the direct correlation between
horsepower and efficiency, DOE preliminarily used horsepower rating as
a criterion for distinguishing equipment classes in the framework
document. In today's rule, DOE continues to use horsepower as an
equipment class-setting criterion.
f. Pole Configuration
The number of poles in an induction motor determines the
synchronous speed (i.e., revolutions per minute) of that motor. There
is an inverse relationship between the number of poles and a motor's
speed. As the number of poles increases from two to four to six to
eight, the synchronous speed drops from 3,600 to 1,800 to 1,200 to 900
revolutions per minute, respectively. In addition, manufacturer
comments and independent analysis performed on behalf of DOE indicate
[[Page 30959]]
that the number of poles has a direct impact on the electric motor's
performance and achievable efficiency because some pole configurations
utilize the space inside of an electric motor enclosure more
efficiently than other pole configurations. For example, eight pole
motors have twice as many poles as four-pole motors and,
correspondingly, less space for efficiency improvements. Two-pole
motors have more internal space, but carry a greater magnetic field
spacing which yields inherently less-efficient operation. DOE used the
number of poles as a means of differentiating equipment classes in the
preliminary analysis. In today's rule, DOE continues to use pole-
configuration as an equipment class-setting criterion.
g. Enclosure Type
EISA 2007 prescribes separate energy conservation standards for
open and enclosed electric motors. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) Electric
motors manufactured with open construction allow a free interchange of
air between the electric motor's interior and exterior. Electric motors
with enclosed construction have no direct air interchange between the
motor's interior and exterior (but are not necessarily air-tight) and
may be equipped with an internal fan for cooling. Whether an electric
motor is open or enclosed affects its utility; open motors are
generally not used in harsh operating environments, whereas totally
enclosed electric motors often are. The enclosure type also affects an
electric motor's ability to dissipate heat, which directly affects
efficiency. For these reasons, DOE used an electric motor's enclosure
type (open or enclosed) as an equipment class setting criterion in the
preliminary analysis. DOE received no related comments during the NOPR.
In today's rule, DOE is continuing to use separate equipment class
groups for open and enclosed electric motors but is declining to
further break out separate equipment classes for different types of
open or enclosed enclosures because DOE does not have data supporting
such separation.
h. Other Motor Characteristics
In its analysis, DOE addressed various other motor characteristics,
but did not use them to disaggregate equipment classes. In the final
TSD, DOE provided its rationale for not disaggregating equipment
classes for vertical electric motors, electric motors with thrust or
sleeve bearings, close-coupled pump motors, or by rated voltage or
mounting feet. DOE believes that none of these electric motor
characteristics provide any special utility that would impact
efficiency and justify separate equipment classes.
5. Technology Assessment
The technology assessment provides information about existing
technology options and designs used to construct more energy-efficient
electric motors. Electric motors have four main types of losses that
can be reduced to improve efficiency: Losses due to the resistance of
conductive materials (stator and rotor I\2\R losses), core losses,
friction and windage losses, and stray load losses. These losses are
interrelated such that measures taken to reduce one type of loss can
result in an increase in another type of losses. In consultation with
interested parties, DOE identified several technology options that
could be used to reduce such losses and improve motor efficiency. These
technology options are presented in Table IV.8. (See chapter 3 of the
TSD for details.)
Table IV.8--Technology Options To Increase Electric Motor Efficiency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of loss to reduce Technology option
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stator I\2\R Losses.................... Increase cross-sectional area
of copper in stator slots.
Decrease the length of coil
extensions.
Rotor I\2\R Losses..................... Use a die-cast copper rotor
cage.
Increase cross-sectional area
of rotor conductor bars.
Increase cross-sectional area
of end rings.
Core Losses............................ Use electrical steel
laminations with lower losses
(watts/lb).
Use thinner steel laminations
Increase stack length (i.e.,
add electrical steel
laminations).
Friction and Windage Losses............ Optimize bearing and
lubrication selection.
Improve cooling system design.
Stray-Load Losses...................... Reduce skew on rotor cage.
Improve rotor bar insulation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE made several changes to the technology options considered and
how they are analyzed between the NOPR TSD and the final rule TSD.
First, DOE notes the listed option of ``improved rotor insulation''
refers to increasing the resistance between the rotor squirrel-cage and
the rotor laminations. Manufacturers use different methods to insulate
rotor cages, such as applying an insulating coating on the rotor slot
prior to die-casting or heating and quenching \34\ the rotor to
separate rotor bars from rotor laminations after die-casting. DOE has
updated the discussion in the TSD chapter 3 to clarify that there are
multiple ways to implement this technology option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Quenching is rapid cooling, generally by immersion in a
fluid instead of allowing the rotor temperature to equalize to
ambient temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, DOE notes that increasing the cross-sectional area of
copper in the stator is synonymous with reducing the stator resistance,
and has updated the discussion in TSD chapter 3 for clarity.
Third, DOE notes that increasing rotor slot size is a technique
that reduces rotor resistivity. DOE also considered other techniques to
reduce rotor resistivity such as increasing the volume of the rotor end
rings and using die-cast copper rotors. For the sake of clarity, DOE
has replaced the technology option ``reduce rotor resistance'' in the
TSD discussion with the specific techniques that DOE considered in its
analysis: Increasing the cross-sectional area of the rotor conductor
bars, increasing the cross-sectional area of the end rings, and using a
die-cast copper rotor cage.
Fourth, with regard to increasing the flux density in the air gap,
DOE consulted with its subject matter expert (SME) \35\ and
acknowledges that this approach is not necessarily an independently
adjustable design parameter used to increase motor efficiency and has
removed it from its discussion in chapters 3 and 4 of the TSD. DOE
notes that it understands that the technology options that it discusses
do have limits, both practical limits in terms of manufacturing and
design limits in terms of their effectiveness. DOE also understands
that a manufacturer must balance any options to improve efficiency
against the possible impacts on the performance attributes of its motor
designs.
Other technology options considered are described in detail below.
a. Increase the Cross-Sectional Area of Copper in the Stator Slots
A manufacturer may increase the total cross-section of copper in
the stator slots by either increasing slot fill or by increasing the
number of stator slots.
Increasing Slot Fill
Increasing the slot fill by either adding windings or changing the
gauge of wire used in the stator winding can also increase motor
efficiency. Motor design engineers can achieve this by manipulating the
wire gauges to allow for a greater total cross-sectional area of wire
to be incorporated into the stator slots. This could mean either an
[[Page 30960]]
increase or decrease in wire gauge, depending on the dimensions of the
stator slots and insulation thicknesses. As with the benefits
associated with larger cross-sectional area of rotor conductor bars,
using more total cross-sectional area in the stator windings decreases
the winding resistance and associated losses. However, this change
could affect the slot fill factor of the stator. The stator slot
openings must be able to fit the wires so that automated machinery or
manual labor can pull (or push) the wire into the stator slots. In the
preliminary analysis, DOE increased the cross-sectional area of copper
in the stator slots of the representative units by employing a
combination of additional windings, thinner gauges of copper wire, and
larger slots.
As described in the NOPR, DOE calculated the slot fill by measuring
the total area of the stator slot and then subtracting the cross-
sectional area for the slot insulation. This method gave DOE a net area
of the slot available to house copper winding. DOE then identified the
slot with the most windings and found the cross-sectional area of the
insulated copper wires to get the total copper cross sectional area per
slot. DOE then divided the total copper cross-sectional area by the
total slot area to derive the slot fill. 78 FR 73620-73621. DOE's
estimated slot fills for its teardowns and software models are all
provided in chapter 5 of the TSD.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See TSD at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that the software designs exhibiting these changes in
slot fill were used when switching from aluminum to a copper rotor
design. Therefore, changing slot geometries impacted the design's slot
fill and the slot fill changes resulted from different motor designs.
Consequently, a 3-percent increase in slot fill does not imply that
this change was made to increase the efficiency of another design, but
could have been made to change other performance criteria of the motor,
such as locked-rotor current.
DOE notes that motor design engineers can adjust slot fill by
changing the gauge of wire used in fractions of half a gauge. DOE
clarified that all the modeled motors utilized standard AWG wire sizes,
either whole- or half-gauge sizes (i.e., 18 or 18\1/2\). DOE clarifies
that the statement of ``fractions of a half gauge'' referred to sizes
in between a whole gauge (i.e. 18\1/2\ of a gauge is a fraction of 18
gauge wire). DOE did not end up using fractions consisting of a half
gauge of wire sizes to conduct its modeling, but did indicate that this
was a design option used by the motor industry.
DOE is aware of the extra time involved with hand winding and has
attempted to incorporate this time into efficiency levels that it
believes would require hand winding. DOE added additional labor hours
accounted for hand winding in its engineering analysis. DOE reiterates
that should the increase in infrastructure, manpower, or motor cost
increase beyond a reasonable means, then ELs utilizing this technology
will be screened out during the downstream analysis.
DOE captured the impact of jobs shifting out of the country if hand
winding became more widespread during the manufacturer impact analysis
(MIA) portion of DOE's analysis. Please see section IV.J for a
discussion of the manufacturer impact analysis.
Increase the Number of Stator Slots
Increasing the number of stator slots associated with a given motor
design can, in some cases, improve motor efficiency. Similar to
increasing the amount of copper wire in a particular slot, increasing
the number of slots may in some cases permit the manufacturer to
incorporate more copper into the stator slots. This option would
decrease the losses in the windings, but can also affect motor
performance. Torque, speed and current can vary depending on the
combination of stator and rotor slots used.
With respect to stator slot numbers, DOE understands that a motor
manufacturer would not add stator slots without any appreciation of the
impacts on the motor's performance. DOE also understands that there is
an optimum combination of stator and rotor slots for any particular
frame size and horsepower combination. DOE consulted with its SME and
understands that optimum stator and rotor slot combinations have been
determined by manufacturers and are already currently in use on
existing production lines. DOE does not anticipate further efficiency
gains from optimizing the combination of stator and rotor slots at the
efficiency levels being considered for this rulemaking. Consequently,
DOE removed this technology option from chapter 4 of the TSD in the
NOPR.
b. Decrease the Length of Coil Extensions
One method of reducing resistance losses in the stator is by
decreasing the length of the coil extensions at the end turns. Reducing
the length of copper wire outside the stator slots not only reduces the
resistive losses, but also reduces the material cost of the electric
motor because less copper is being used.
DOE understands that there may be limited efficiency gains, if any,
for most electric motors using this technology option. DOE also
understands that electric motors have been produced for many decades
and that many manufacturers have improved their production techniques
to the point where certain design parameters may already be fully
optimized. However, DOE maintains that this is a design parameter that
affects efficiency and should be considered when designing an electric
motor. DOE did not receive any additional comments regarding this
technology option in response to the NOPR and continues to consider it
for the final rule analysis.
c. Die-Cast Copper Rotor Cage
Copper offers lower resistivity than aluminum, as well as a
potentially more compact design, both of which can contribute to higher
efficiency. Manufacturers commonly use copper today to build high
performance motors. Although a rotor of arbitrary size may be
fabricated by hand, the economics of scale manufacturing demand die-
casting of those wishing to produce at significant volumes. As a
result, DOE considered die-cast copper only as a technology option.
Die-cast copper rotors have been the subject of frequent comment and
are more thoroughly discussed in the screening analysis section
IV.B.1.a.
d. Increase Cross-Sectional Area of Rotor Conductor Bars
Increasing the cross-sectional area of the rotor bars, by changing
the cross-sectional geometry of the rotor, can improve motor
efficiency. Increasing the cross-sectional area of the rotor bars
reduces the resistance and thus lowers the I\2\R losses. However,
changing the shape of the rotor bars may affect the size of the end
rings and can also change the torque characteristics of the motor.
DOE recognizes that increasing the cross-sectional area of a
conductor rotor bar may yield limited efficiency gains for most
electric motors. However, DOE maintains that this is a design parameter
that affects efficiency and must be considered when designing an
electric motor. Additionally, when creating its software models, DOE
considered rotor slot design, including cross sectional areas, such
that any software model produced was designed to meet the appropriate
NEMA performance requirements for torque and locked rotor current. DOE
did not receive any additional comments regarding this
[[Page 30961]]
technology option in response to the NOPR and continues to consider it
for the final rule analysis.
e. Increase Cross-Sectional Area of End Rings
End rings are the components of a squirrel-cage rotor that create
electrical connections between the rotor bars. Increasing the cross-
sectional area of the end rings reduces the resistance and, thus,
lowers the I\2\R losses in the end rings. A reduction in I\2\R losses
will occur only when any proportional increase in current as a result
of an increase in the size of the end ring is less than the square of
the proportional reduction in the end ring resistance.
When developing its software models, DOE relied on the expertise of
its SME. Generally, increases to end ring area were limited to 10-20
percent, which are unlikely to have significant negative impacts on the
mechanical aspects of the rotor. Furthermore, DOE ensured that the
appropriate NEMA performance requirements for torque and locked-rotor
current were maintained with its software modeled motors. DOE did not
receive any additional comments regarding this technology option in
response to the NOPR and continues to consider it for the final rule
analysis.
f. Electrical Steel With Lower Losses
Losses generated in the electrical steel in the core of an
induction motor can be significant and are classified as either
hysteresis or eddy current losses. Hysteresis losses are caused by
magnetic domains resisting reorientation to the alternating magnetic
field. Eddy currents are physical currents that are induced in the
steel laminations by the magnetic flux produced by the current in the
windings. Both of these losses generate heat in the electrical steel.
In studying the techniques used to reduce steel losses, DOE
considered two types of materials: Conventional silicon steels, and
``exotic'' steels, which contain a relatively high percentage of boron
or cobalt. Conventional steels are commonly used in electric motors
manufactured today. There are three types of steel that DOE considers
``conventional:'' Cold-rolled magnetic laminations, fully processed
non-oriented electrical steel, and semi-processed non-oriented
electrical steel.
One way to reduce core losses is to incorporate a higher grade of
core steel into the electric motor design (e.g., switching from an M56
to an M19 grade). In general, higher grades of electrical steel exhibit
lower core losses. Lower core losses can be achieved by adding silicon
and other elements to the steel, thereby increasing its electrical
resistivity. Lower core losses can also be achieved by subjecting the
steel to special heat treatments during processing.
The exotic steels are not generally manufactured for use
specifically in the electric motors covered in this rulemaking. These
steels include vanadium permendur and other alloyed steels containing a
high percentage of boron or cobalt. These steels offer a lower loss
level than the best electrical steels, but are more expensive per
pound. In addition, these steels can present manufacturing challenges
because they come in nonstandard thicknesses that are difficult to
manufacture.
In the NOPR, DOE noted that its computer software did not model
general classes of electrical steel, but instead modeled vendor-
specific electrical steel. DOE's software utilized core loss vs. flux
density curves supplied by an electrical steel vendor as one component
of the core loss calculated by the program. A second component was also
added to account for high frequency losses. DOE noted that relative
performance derived from Epstein testing might not be indicative of
relative performance in actual motor prototypes. DOE did not solely
rely on relative steel grade when selecting electrical steels for its
designs. To illustrate this point, DOE noted that almost all of its
software modeled designs utilized M36 grade steel, even though it was
not the highest grade of electrical steel considered in the analysis.
When higher grade M15 steel was evaluated in DOE's software modeled
designs, the resulting efficiencies were actually lower than the
efficiencies when using M36 grade steel for several reasons. The
Epstein test results for various grades of steel provided in chapter 3
of the NOPR TSD were purely informational and intended to give an
indication of the relative performance of a sample of electrical steels
considered. That information was removed from chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD
to avoid any further confusion. See 78 FR 73614.
DOE did not receive any additional comments regarding this
technology option in response to the NOPR and continues to consider it
for the final rule analysis.
g. Thinner Steel Laminations
As addressed earlier, there are two types of core losses that
develop in the electrical steel of induction motors--hysteresis losses
and losses due to eddy current. Electric motors can use thinner
laminations of core steel to reduce eddy currents. The magnitude of the
eddy currents induced by the magnetic field become smaller in thinner
laminations, making the motor more energy efficient. In the technology
analysis, DOE only considered conventional steels with standard gauges
available in the market. DOE did not receive any comments regarding
this technology option in response to the NOPR and continues to
consider it for the final rule analysis.
h. Increase Stack Length
Adding electrical steel to the rotor and stator to lengthen the
motor (axially) can also reduce the core losses in an electric motor.
Lengthening the motor by increasing stack length reduces the magnetic
flux density, which reduces core losses. However, increasing the stack
length affects other performance attributes of the motor, such as
starting torque. Issues can arise when installing a more efficient
motor with additional stack length because the motor becomes longer and
may not fit into applications with dimensional constraints. DOE did not
receive any comments regarding this technology option in response to
the NOPR and continues to consider it in the final rule analysis.
i. Optimize Bearing and Lubrication
DOE notes that bearings and lubrication can be optimized for cost,
performance, maintenance, and other attributes depending on the design
requirements. However, DOE is of the understanding that choice of
bearing and lubricant is generally driven by considerations unrelated
to efficiency for common motors, and so does not vary it as a design
parameter in the engineering analysis. DOE received no comments
regarding this technology in response to the NOPR and does not include
performance gains due to advanced bearings or lubricants in the
engineering analysis in today's final rule.
j. Improve Cooling System
Optimizing a motor's cooling system that circulates air through the
motor is another technology option to improve the efficiency of
electric motors. Improving the cooling system reduces air resistance
and associated frictional losses and decreases the operating
temperature (and associated electrical resistance) by cooling the motor
during operation. This can be accomplished by changing the fan or
adding baffles to the current fan to help redirect airflow through the
motor.
DOE notes that an improved cooling system may be more or less
efficient, itself, as long losses within the motor at-large decline.
When the design of an
[[Page 30962]]
electric motor is changed, losses associated with the cooling system
may increase in order to provide a decrease in losses associated with
some other part of the design. DOE did not receive any comments
regarding this technology option in response to the NOPR and continues
to consider it for the final rule analysis.
k. Reduce Skew on Conductor Cage
In the rotor, the conductor bars are not straight from one end to
the other, but skewed or twisted slightly around the axis of the rotor.
Decreasing the degree of skew can improve a motor's efficiency. The
conductor bars are skewed to help eliminate harmonics that add cusps,
losses, and noise to the motor's speed-torque characteristics. Reducing
the degree of skew can help reduce the rotor resistance and reactance,
which helps improve efficiency. However, overly reducing the skew also
may have adverse effects on starting, noise, and the speed-torque
characteristics.
DOE notes that all software designs used in the technology analysis
had skewed rotor designs and, in general, the skews used were
approximately 100 percent of a stator or rotor slot pitch, whichever
had the smaller number of slots. Additionally, DOE intended for the
option of reducing the skew on the conductor cage to be an option
associated with reducing stray load losses and has made the appropriate
adjustments to its text and tables. (See TSD Chapter 4)
l. Improve Rotor Bar Insulation
In motors, rotor bars are usually insulated to contain current
within the rotor. Because no insulation is ideal, some current will
always leak and induce undesired stray losses in other parts of the
motor. By improving rotor insulation, this effect may be reduced.
Insulation, however, competes for space within the motor with conductor
and electrical steel. Therefore, manufacturers look to balance
insulation with preservation of volume. DOE received no comments in
response to the NOPR and does not change insulation assumptions for the
final rule.
m. Technology Options Not Considered
Variable-speed drives (VSDs) are solid-state electronic devices
able to vary the voltage, current, and frequency of a motor's input
signal in order to vary (often continuously) vary torque and speed. DOE
acknowledges that the ability to modulate motor output may produce
energy savings in certain applications, if properly controlled. DOE
does not consider this technology in today's rule because the scope of
coverage only pertains to single-speed motors. DOE notes that many
motors within the scope of the rulemaking may be capable of operation
with a VSD. Inverter-only motors, which are not able to operate on 60
Hz sinusoidal current, are not subject to today's standards as today's
rule only applies to motors capable of operation at 60 Hz.
In response to the NOPR, PlasticMetal commented that DOE should
consider the use of syncrospeed VFD technology in reducing the energy
consumed by motors, especially for motors used in injection molding
machines. PlasticMetal noted that VFD technology can also be used for
agricultural pump and hydraulic pump motors. (PlasticMetal, No. 80 at
p. 1)
Although DOE's proposed standards were limited to single-speed
motors, DOE recognizes that VFDs may offer further energy savings in
injection molding (among other applications). DOE may consider
exploring this technology further in a future rulemaking, but at
present retains coverage of only single-speed motors.
B. Screening Analysis
After DOE identified the technologies that might improve the energy
efficiency of electric motors, DOE conducted a screening analysis. The
purpose of the screening analysis is to determine which options to
consider further and which to screen out. DOE consulted with industry,
technical experts, and other interested parties in developing a list of
design options. DOE then applied the following set of screening
criteria, under sections 4(a)(4) and 5(b) of appendix A to subpart C of
10 CFR part 430, ``Procedures, Interpretations and Policies for
Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for
Consumer Products,'' to determine which design options are unsuitable
for further consideration in the rulemaking:
Technological Feasibility: DOE will consider only those
technologies incorporated in commercial equipment or in working
prototypes to be technologically feasible.
Practicability to Manufacture, Install, and Service: If
mass production of a technology in commercial equipment and reliable
installation and servicing of the technology could be achieved on the
scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the
effective date of the standard, then DOE will consider that technology
practicable to manufacture, install, and service.
Adverse Impacts on Equipment Utility or Equipment
Availability: DOE will not further consider a technology if DOE
determines it will have a significant adverse impact on the utility of
the equipment to significant subgroups of customers. DOE will also not
further consider a technology that will result in the unavailability of
any covered equipment type with performance characteristics (including
reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are
substantially the same as equipment generally available in the United
States at the time.
Adverse Impacts on Health or Safety: DOE will not further
consider a technology if DOE determines that the technology will have
significant adverse impacts on health or safety.
Table IV.9 presents a general summary of potential methods that a
manufacturer may use to reduce losses in electric motors. The
approaches presented in this table refer either to specific
technologies (e.g., aluminum versus copper die-cast rotor cages,
different grades of electrical steel) or physical changes to the motor
geometries (e.g., cross-sectional area of rotor conductor bars,
additional stack height). For additional details on the screening
analysis, please refer to chapter 4 of the final rule TSD.
Table IV.9--Summary List of Options From Technology Assessment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of loss to reduce Technology option
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stator I\2\R Losses.................... Increase cross-sectional area
of copper in stator slots.
Decrease the length of coil
extensions.
Rotor I\2\R Losses..................... Use a die-cast copper rotor
cage.
Increase cross-sectional area
of rotor conductor bars.
Increase cross-sectional area
of end rings.
Core Losses............................ Use electrical steel
laminations with lower losses
(watts/lb).
Use thinner steel laminations.
Increase stack length (i.e.,
add electrical steel
laminations).
Friction and Windage Losses............ Optimize bearing and
lubrication selection.
Improve cooling system design.
Stray-Load Losses...................... Reduce skew on rotor cage.
Improve rotor bar insulation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Technology Options Not Screened Out of the Analysis
The technology options in this section are options that passed the
screening
[[Page 30963]]
criteria of the analysis. DOE considers the technology options in this
section to be viable means of improving the efficiency of electric
motors.
In the NOPR, DOE stated that the notice provides detailed
information about each technology option considered. With the exception
of die-cast copper rotors, which many manufacturers stated they would
usually never consider when increasing efficiency for the reasons
detailed below, DOE understands that each technology option that it has
not screened out is a design option that a manufacturer would consider
for each motor designed and built. DOE recognized that manufacturers
design their motors to balance a number of competing and interrelated
factors, including performance, reliability, and energy efficiency.
Because the options DOE had identified can be modified to improve
efficiency while maintaining performance, it was DOE's view that at
least some significant level of energy efficiency improvement is
possible with each technology option not screened out by DOE. See 78 FR
73616.
Furthermore, DOE noted that it did not explicitly use each of the
technology options that passed the screening criteria in the
engineering analysis. As discussed in section IV.C of the NOPR, DOE's
engineering analysis was a mixture of two approaches that DOE routinely
uses in its engineering analysis methodology: The reverse-engineering
approach (in which DOE has no control over the design parameters) and
the efficiency-level approach (in which DOE tried to achieve a certain
level of efficiency, rather than applying specific design options).
This hybrid of methods did not allow for DOE to fully control which
design parameters were ultimately used for each representative unit in
the analysis. Without the ability to apply specific design options, DOE
could not include every option that was not screened out of the
analysis. See 78 FR 73616.
In addition, in the NOPR, DOE noted that its analysis neither
assumes nor requires manufacturers to use identical technology for all
motor types, horsepower ratings, or equipment classes. In other words,
DOE's standards are technology-neutral and permit manufacturers design
flexibility. See id.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding the technology screening
process in response to the NOPR and maintains this same approach in the
final rule.
a. Die-Cast Copper Rotors
Aluminum is the most common material used today to create die-cast
rotor bars for electric motors. Some manufacturers that focus on
producing high-efficiency designs have started to offer electric motors
with die-cast rotor bars made of copper. Copper can offer better
performance than aluminum because it has better electrical conductivity
(i.e., a lower electrical resistance). However, because copper also has
a higher melting point than aluminum, the casting process becomes more
difficult and is likely to increase both production time and cost.
DOE acknowledges that using copper in rotors may require different
design approaches and considerations. In its own modeling and testing
of copper rotor motors, DOE ensured that performance parameters stayed
within MG 1-2011 limits (i.e., met NEMA Design B criteria).
DOE did not screen out copper as a die-cast rotor conductor
material in the NOPR because it believed that it passed the four
screening criteria. Because several manufacturers currently die-cast
copper rotors, DOE concluded that this material is both technologically
feasible and practicable to manufacture, install, and service.
Additionally, manufacturers are already producing such equipment, with
no known increase in accidents or other health/safety problems.
Finally, DOE's own engineering analysis supports what it sees in the
market for copper rotors--that copper rotor motors may require some
design tradeoffs but that, in general, it is possible to use copper and
remain within NEMA Design A, B, or C specifications. In addition, DOE
notes that its analysis neither assumes nor requires manufacturers to
use identical technology for all motor types, horsepower ratings, or
equipment classes. Moreover, DOE does not believe that the TSL chosen
for today's standard would require most manufacturers to use copper
rotor motors.
DOE received considerable feedback concerning copper rotor
technology both in response to the preliminary analysis and the NOPR.
DOE addressed comments made on this topic at the preliminary analysis
stage in the NOPR (see 78 FR 73616-73620). Here DOE responds to
comments made on this topic in response to the NOPR and organizes its
responses by the four screening criteria. Although it is well-
documented that die-cast copper rotors are available in the market to
at least 30 hp, they are not widely marketed at the higher horsepower
ratings. It is not clear precisely why copper rotor motors are not
marketed at horsepowers greater than 30. It is possible that because it
is impracticable to die-cast copper at those rotor sizes or there is
simply a lack of demand at higher horsepowers to justify investment in
production capacity.
As part of its analysis, DOE intends to ensure that utility, which
includes frame size considerations, is maintained. Increased shipping
costs are also taken into account in the national impact analysis (NIA)
and the life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis portions of DOE's analytical
procedures.
Technological Feasibility
In the NOPR, DOE cited a number of high horsepower designs with
copper rotors as evidence of technological feasibility, as well as
observing that distribution transformers, another large industrial
product that uses conductors around electrical steel, commonly improve
efficiency by replacing aluminum with copper. 78 FR 73618.
In response to the statements that DOE made in the NOPR (see 78 FR
73618), NEMA pointed out that transformers and induction motors are not
comparable because the performance tradeoff between efficiency and
inrush current is different in both cases. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 10)
Nidec commented that the examples of Tesla, REMY, and Oshkosh traction
motors cited by DOE as evidence of the feasibility of copper die-cast
rotors involved motors that operated at higher speeds and lower
torques. Consequently, in its view, these comparisons were not an
accurate representation of those motors that would be covered under
DOE's proposal. (Nidec, No. 98 at pp. 3-4) NEMA agreed with Nidec, and
made the point that it is physical rotor size, and not horsepower, that
sets limits on copper die-casting. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 9) NEMA also
noted that, from a manufacturer perspective, the issue of importance is
not the feasibility of designing a suitable copper rotor, but rather
the issue of whether copper rotors can be die-cast and mass-produced.
(NEMA, No. 93 at p. 9)
DOE recognizes that assessing the technological feasibility of
high-horsepower copper die-cast rotors is made more complex by the fact
that DOE believes that manufacturers do not offer them commercially.
DOE acknowledges that the listed motor examples are of higher speed
that those under consideration in this rule, and that horsepower must
be discussed in the context of speed. DOE agrees with NEMA that the
challenges with designing with copper rotor motors lie less in the
feasibility of designing
[[Page 30964]]
copper rotor motors, and more in the die-casting of large copper
rotors. As a result, DOE views the debate as residing chiefly in the
domain of manufacturability, considered in the next section. Commenters
have not demonstrated that it would be technologically infeasible to
develop and incorporate copper die-cast rotors in lower-speed motors.
Therefore, DOE does not screen out die-cast copper on the basis of
technological feasibility.
Practicability to Manufacture, Install, and Service
In the NOPR, DOE stated that it was not able to conclude copper
rotors were impracticable to manufacture because DOE identified parties
already manufacturing copper rotor motors. DOE was able to purchase and
tear down a copper rotor motor, which performed at DOE's max-tech level
at its horsepower (5 hp) and met NEMA Design B requirements. 78 FR
73617.
In response to the NOPR, NEMA maintained its position that copper
die-cast rotors should be screened out of the analysis for the current
rulemaking. NEMA and Nidec argued that designs modeled by DOE for ECG 1
at EL 4 and ECG 2 at EL 2 used copper rotor technology and, thus,
implied that copper rotor technology is a requirement to meet max-tech
efficiency levels. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 8; Nidec, No. 98 at p. 3)
Referring to the U.S. Department of the Army studies on die-cast copper
rotor motors that NEMA discussed in its preliminary analysis comments,
NEMA raised concern that it is difficult to successfully die cast a
copper rotors of the required size in mass production. NEMA commented
that it is not aware of manufacturing, in the United States or outside,
capable of mass production of copper die-cast rotors ``on the scale
necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the effective
date of the standard,'' as proposed in the NOPR. NEMA stated that the
challenge to design a motor when the material of the rotor is changed
is not limited to meeting only a required value of efficiency and the
limits on torques and current that DOE specifies in the definitions in
10 CFR 431.12. Noting that particular TSL levels were developed based
on the EL levels, NEMA commented that if the copper die-cast rotor
technology were screened out, then EL 4 would not be included in the
creation of any TSL level, and TSL 3 would represent the maximum
technology designs. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 8-12)
Baldor commented that the Motor Coalition has submitted earlier
that they do not have the capacity to produce copper rotors at a volume
of 5 million units per year. It raised concerns that it is challenging
to manufacture a better design in actual production. (Baldor, Pub. Mtg.
Tr., No. 87 at pp. 118-119)
In contrast, CDA disagreed with the manufacturers' claims that die-
cast copper rotor motors are not commercially available. CDA commented
that die-cast copper rotor motors--60 Hz ``Ultra'' motors manufactured
by Siemens--have been commercially available at certain horsepower
ratings in North America since February 2006. Siemens has copper rotor
die-casting capabilities in Denver, Ohio, and Mexico. Multiple
countries in Europe and Asia also have copper rotor die casters.
Siemens produces 50 Hz motors in Germany, and SEW-Eurodrive produces 50
Hz and 60 Hz motors for worldwide shipment. Therefore, CDA stated that
die-cast copper rotors are commercially available, and DOE should
continue to include them in their evaluations. (CDA, No. 90 at p. 2)
Following publication of the NOPR, DOE was able to speak with a
manufacturer of die-casting equipment who confirmed their ability to
die-cast copper rotors in excess of 500 lbs in a single ``shot''. DOE
has not been able to obtain written verification of this capability. If
true, however, the question is whether such rotor size is sufficient to
reach the limits of the horsepower scope of today's rule.
Although DOE did not directly model a copper rotor that large, DOE
did purchase and tear down a 30 hp motor of specification within the
scope of this rulemaking with a die-cast copper rotor and found the
weight to be 29 lbs, or roughly 1 lb/hp. DOE understands that the
active mass of a motor grows sublinearly with power, and by extension,
that a 500 hp motor of similar design could be built with a copper
rotor of less than 500 lbs.
Although these figures are estimates, DOE believes there is
evidence to suggest that copper die-cast rotor would be practicable to
manufacture, install, or service and, consequently, this technology
should not be screened out on that basis. DOE understands that full-
scale deployment of copper would likely require considerable capital
investment and that such investment could increase the production cost
of large copper rotor motors considerably. DOE believes that its
current engineering analysis reflects this likelihood. DOE acknowledges
that if it were adopting a max-tech standard, the chance that any
manufacturer would use copper die-cast rotors would be much greater
than the chance that any manufacturer would choose to use this
technology under the efficiency level chosen in today's rule.
Adverse Impacts on Equipment Utility or Equipment Availability
For the NOPR, DOE acknowledged that the industry would need to make
substantial investments in production capital to ensure the
availability of motors at current production levels. DOE noted that, in
some cases, redesigning equipment lines to use copper would entail
substantial cost. DOE's engineering analysis reflects its estimates of
these costs and discusses them in detail in section IV.C. Although
using copper in place of aluminum can require design changes in order
to keep parameters such as locked-rotor current within rated limits,
DOE was able to model copper rotor motors adhering to the
specifications of NEMA Design B,\37\ including the reduced (relative to
Design A) locked-rotor current.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The parameters DOE believed to present the largest risk of
rendering a motor noncompliant with NEMA MG 1-2011standards were
those related to NEMA design letter, which were adhered to in DOE's
modeling efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, to the NOPR, NEMA reiterated many of its concerns
about production capability worldwide and that utility may be impacted
with respect to torque/speed characteristics if copper becomes a de
facto standard. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 11-13)
Based on DOE's own shipments analysis (see final TSD, Chapter 9)
and estimates of worldwide annual copper production,\38\ DOE estimates
that .01-.02 percent of worldwide copper supply would be required for
electric motor manufacturers to use copper rotors for every single
motor within DOE's scope of coverage. DOE acknowledges the need to vary
design parameters in order to maintain equipment utility through a
transition to copper rotors, but does not believe commenters have
demonstrated that it is infeasible, particularly when DOE has been able
to procure and test equipment meeting Design B specification. At the
present, DOE does not believe there is sufficient evidence to screen
copper die-cast rotors from the analysis on the basis of adverse
impacts to equipment utility or availability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/copper/mcs-2012-coppe.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adverse Impacts on Health or Safety
In the NOPR, DOE did not screen out copper die-casting on the basis
of adverse impacts to health or safety. DOE is aware of the higher
melting point of copper (1084 degrees Celsius versus 660 degrees
Celsius for aluminum) and the potential impacts this may have on the
[[Page 30965]]
health or safety of plant workers. However, DOE does not believe at
this time that this potential impact is sufficiently adverse to screen
out copper as a die-cast material for rotor conductors. The process for
die-casting copper rotors involves risks similar to those of die-
casting aluminum. DOE believes that manufacturers who die-cast metal at
660 Celsius or 1085 Celsius (the respective temperatures required for
aluminum and copper) would need to observe strict protocols to operate
safely. DOE understands that many plants already work with molten
aluminum die-casting processes and believes that similar processes
could be adopted for copper. DOE has not received any supporting data
about the increased risks associated with copper die-casting, and could
not locate any studies suggesting that the die-casting of copper
inherently represents incrementally more risks to worker safety and
health. DOE notes that several OSHA standards relate to the safety of
``Nonferrous Die-Castings, Except Aluminum,'' of which die-cast copper
is part. DOE did not receive comment on this topic specifically in
response to the NOPR and maintains this approach for the final rule.
b. Increase the Cross-Sectional Area of Copper in the Stator Slots
DOE describes its approach for ``Increase the Cross-Sectional Area
of Copper in the Stator Slots'' in section IV.A.5.a. Considering the
four screening criteria for this technology option, DOE did not screen
out the possibility of changing gauges of copper wire in the stator as
a means of improving efficiency. Motor design engineers adjust this
option by using different wire gauges when manufacturing an electric
motor to achieve desired performance and efficiency targets. Because
this design technique is in commercial use today, DOE considers this
technology option both technologically feasible and practicable to
manufacture, install, and service. DOE is not aware of any adverse
impacts on consumer utility, reliability, health, or safety associated
with changing the wire gauges in the stator to obtain increased
efficiency. Should the technology option prove to not be economical on
a scale necessary to supply the entire industry, then this technology
option would be likely not be selected for in the analysis, either in
the LCC or MIA.
In response to the NOPR, NEMA commented that hand winding is not a
viable technology to gain an increase in slot fill of less than 5% and
thus suggested that hand winding should be screened out. NEMA stated
that hand winding poses adverse impacts on manufacturing relative to
mass production and may shift production of stators to cheaper labor
locations outside of the United States. Hand winding also has adverse
impacts on health and safety of personnel and on product utility and
availability. Noting that none of the representative units are hand
wound, it commented that the engineering analysis should not be based
on stator slot fill levels which require hand winding (NEMA, No. 93 at
pp. 12-13)
DOE acknowledges that the industry is moving towards increased
automation. However, hand winding is currently practiced by
manufacturers, making it a viable option for DOE to consider as part of
its engineering analysis. Furthermore, DOE is not aware of any data or
studies suggesting hand-winding leads to negative health consequences
and notes that hand winding is currently practiced by industry. In
response to the NOPR, DOE did not receive any comment on its cost
estimates for hand-wound motors nor on studies suggesting any health
impacts. DOE acknowledges that, were hand-winding to become widespread,
manufacturers would need to hire more workers to perform hand-winding
to maintain person-winding-hour equivalence and has accounted for the
added costs of hand-winding in its engineering analysis.
c. Power Factor
Although not considered as a technology option per se, several
commenters commented on power factor in response to DOE's NOPR. Power
factor is the ratio of real power to apparent power, or the fraction of
power sent to a device divided by its actual power consumption. Power
factor equals one for purely resistive loads, but falls for circuits
with loads that are capacitive or (in the usual case of electric
motors) inductive. Generally, low power factor is viewed as
undesirable; it may force the use of larger conductors and hardware
within a building. Furthermore, many industrial customers are charged
more for electrical power by their utility as their net power factor
falls. Because power factor has value to owners of electric motors, any
standard that causes power factor to rise significantly could be said
to negatively affected consumer utility. Several parties commented on
power factor in response to DOE's NOPR.
The CA IOUs noted that energy saved in the motor can show up as
energy lost in the building and utility distribution systems. (CA IOUs,
Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at p. 115)
Baldor commented that it is challenging to get a higher efficiency
motor along with good power factor and low inrush current. When a motor
is redesigned for efficiency, power factor goes down when efficiency
goes up and inrush current can rise and change motor design from Design
B to Design A. (Baldor, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 118-119)
EEI expressed concern that larger industrial facilities (having
heavy motor populations) may incur higher economic costs if higher
efficiency requirements lead to lower power factor. This is because
larger customers are metered for kVA and they are penalized if the
facility power factor goes below a certain level. (EEI, Pub. Mtg. Tr.,
No. 87 at pp. 120-121)
DOE acknowledges that power factor is one parameter of many that
requires supervision in redesigning motors for greater efficiency.
Electric motors, by their very nature, are highly inductive loads with
correspondingly low power factors. Facilities with large numbers of
motors often choose to add capacitance in parallel with their inductive
loads in order to correct power factor, and often be charged lower
rates for electricity. Several motor manufacturers advocate power
factor correction and advertise equipment to do it.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ For example, https://www.baldor.com/support/Literature/Load.ashx/FM1307?LitNumber=FM1307.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, DOE notes that MG 1-2009 characterizes the
relationship between motor efficiency and power factor in paragraph
14.44.1. This relationship is nonlinear, but it can be used to show
that \40\ even when going from 74% motor efficiency \41\ to the
corresponding premium efficiency requirement of 82.5%, power factor
falls by only 11% Higher horsepower motors would be predicted (by
paragraph 14.44.1) to experience smaller declines in power factor.
Finally, Premium efficiency motors are in widespread use today,
suggesting to DOE that the associated power factor considerations are
not insurmountable. As a result, DOE does not view power factor as a
significant obstacle in adopted of today's standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Taking the derivative suggests that power factor may scale
inversely with efficiency raised to the -2 power.
\41\ The current requirement for 1 horsepower, 8-pole, subtype
II electric motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Technology Options Screened Out of the Analysis
DOE developed an initial list of design options from the
technologies identified in the technology assessment.
[[Page 30966]]
DOE reviewed the list to determine if the design options are
practicable to manufacture, install, and service; would adversely
affect equipment utility or equipment availability; or would have
adverse impacts on health and safety. In the engineering analysis, DOE
did not consider any of those options that failed to satisfy one or
more of the screening criterion. The design options screened out are
summarized in Table IV.10.
Table IV.10--Design Options Screened Out of the Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design option excluded Eliminating screening criterion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plastic Bonded Iron Powder Technological Feasibility.
(PBIP).
Amorphous Steels............. Technological Feasibility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the preliminary analysis stage, NEMA, Baldor, and NPCC agreed
with DOE that plastic bonded iron powder has not been proven to be a
technologically feasible method of construction of stator and rotor
cores in induction motors, and that amorphous metal laminations are not
a type of material that lends itself to use in electric motors in the
foreseeable future. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 63-64; Baldor, Pub. Mtg. Tr.,
No. 60 at p. 108; Advocates, No. 56 at p. 3)
As DOE did in the NOPR, DOE is continuing to screen out both of
these technology options from further consideration in the engineering
analysis in the final rule. See 78 FR 73622. Additionally, DOE
understands the concerns expressed by NEMA regarding technological
feasibility, but DOE maintains that if a working prototype exists,
which implies that the motor has performance characteristics consistent
with other motors using a different technology, then that technology
would be deemed technologically feasible. However, that fact would not
necessarily mean that a technology option would pass all three of the
remaining screening criteria.
Chapter 4 of the TSD discusses each of these screened out design
options in more detail, as well as the design options that DOE
considered in the electric motor engineering analysis. DOE did not
receive additional comments on the technology options screened out in
response to the NOPR.
C. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis develops cost-efficiency relationships for
the equipment that are the subject of a rulemaking by estimating
manufacturer costs of achieving increased efficiency levels. DOE uses
manufacturing costs to determine retail prices for use in the LCC
analysis and MIA. In general, the engineering analysis estimates the
efficiency improvement potential of individual design options or
combinations of design options that pass the four criteria in the
screening analysis. The engineering analysis also determines the
maximum technologically feasible energy efficiency level.
When DOE adopts a new or amended standard for a type or class of
covered equipment, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically
feasible for such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1) and 6316(a))
Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum
technologically feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in energy
efficiency for electric motors, using the design parameters for the
most efficient equipment available on the market or in working
prototypes. (See chapter 5 of the TSD) The max-tech levels that DOE
determined for this rulemaking are described in IV.3 of this rule.
In general, DOE used three methodologies to generate the
manufacturing costs needed for the engineering analysis. These methods
are:
(1) The design-option approach--reporting the incremental costs of
adding design options to a baseline model;
(2) the efficiency-level approach--reporting relative costs of
achieving improvements in energy efficiency; and
(3) the reverse engineering or cost assessment approach--involving
a ``bottoms up'' manufacturing cost assessment based on a detailed bill
of materials derived from electric motor teardowns.
1. Engineering Analysis Methodology
DOE's analysis for the electric motor rulemaking is based on a
combination of the efficiency-level approach and the reverse
engineering approach. Primarily, DOE elected to derive its production
costs by tearing down electric motors and recording detailed
information regarding individual components and designs. DOE used the
costs derived from the engineering teardowns and the corresponding
nameplate nominal efficiency of the torn down motors to report the
relative costs of achieving improvements in energy efficiency. DOE
derived material prices from current, publicly available data, as well
as input from SMEs and manufacturers. For most representative units
analyzed, DOE was not able to test and teardown a max-tech unit,
because such units are generally cost-prohibitive and are not readily
available. Therefore, DOE supplemented the results of its test and
teardown analysis with software modeling.
When developing its engineering analysis for electric motors, DOE
divided covered equipment into equipment class groups. As discussed
above, there are three electric motor equipment class groups: ECG 1:
NEMA Design A and B motors, ECG 2: NEMA Design C motors, and ECG 3:
Fire pump electric motors. The motors within these ECGs are further
divided into equipment classes based on pole-configuration, enclosure
type, and horsepower rating. For DOE's rulemaking, there are 482
equipment classes.
2. Representative Units
Due to the high number of equipment classes for electric motors,
DOE selected and analyzed only a few representative units from each ECG
and based its overall analysis for all equipment classes within that
ECG on those representative units. Results are scaled to equipment
classes not directly analyzed.\42\ During the final rule analysis, DOE
selected three units to represent ECG 1 and two units to represent ECG
2. DOE based the analysis of ECG 3 on the representative units for ECG
1 because of the low shipment volume and run time of fire pump electric
motors. When selecting representative units for each ECG, DOE
considered NEMA design type, horsepower rating, pole-configuration, and
enclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See Chapter 5 of the TSD for details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Electric Motor Design Type
For ECG 1, which includes all NEMA Design A and B motors, DOE only
selected NEMA Design B motors as representative units to analyze in the
engineering analysis. DOE chose NEMA Design B motors because NEMA
Design
[[Page 30967]]
B motors have slightly more stringent performance requirements, namely
their locked-rotor current has a maximum allowable level for a given
rating. Consequently, NEMA Design B motors are slightly more restricted
in terms of their maximum efficiency levels. Therefore, by analyzing a
NEMA Design B motor, DOE could ensure technological feasibility for all
designs covered in ECG 1. Additionally, NEMA Design B units have much
higher shipment volumes than NEMA Design A motors because most motor
driven equipment is designed (and UL listed) to run with NEMA Design B
motors.
As mentioned for ECG 2, DOE selected two representative units to
analyze. Because NEMA Design C is the only NEMA design type covered by
this ECG, DOE only selected NEMA Design C motors as its representative
units.
For ECG 3, which consists of fire pump electric motors, DOE based
its engineering analysis on the NEMA Design B units analyzed for ECG 1.
As noted above, in order to be in compliance with section 9.5 of
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) ``Standard for the
Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection'' Standard 20-
2010, which is a requirement for a motor to meet DOE's current
definition of a ``fire pump electric motor,'' the motor must comply
with NEMA Design B requirements.\43\ Although DOE understands that fire
pump electric motors have additional performance requirements, DOE
believed that analysis of the ECG 1 motors would serve as a sufficient
approximation for the cost-efficiency relationship for fire pump
electric motors. The design differences between a NEMA Design B motor
(or IEC-equivalent) and fire pump electric motor are small and unlikely
to greatly affect incremental cost behavior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ With the exception of having a thermal shutoff switch,
which could prevent a fire pump motor from performing its duty in
hot conditions, NFPA 20 also excludes several motor types not
considered in this rulemaking from the NEMA Design B requirement.
They are direct current, high-voltage (over 600 V), large-horsepower
(over 500 hp), single-phase, universal-type, and wound-rotor motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding DOE's ``fire pump electric motor'' definition, as
detailed in the electric motors 2012 test procedure,\44\ DOE intends
its ``fire pump electric motor'' definition to cover both NEMA Design B
motors and IEC-equivalents that meet the requirements of section 9.5 of
NFPA 20. See 77 FR 26617-18. As stated in the 2012 test procedure, DOE
agrees that IEC-equivalent motors should be included within the scope
of the definition of ``fire pump electric motor,'' although NFPA 20
does not explicitly recognize the use of IEC motors with fire pumps. 77
FR 26617. DOE realizes that section 9.5 of NFPA 20 specifically
requires that fire pump motors shall be marked as complying with NEMA
Design B. The ``fire pump electric motor'' definition that DOE created
focuses on ensuring that compliance with the energy efficiency
requirements are applied in a consistent manner. DOE believes that
there are IEC motors that can be used in fire pump applications that
meet both NEMA Design B and IEC Design N criteria, as well as NEMA MG 1
service factors. DOE's definition encompasses both NEMA Design B motors
and IEC-equivalents. To the extent that there is any ambiguity as to
how DOE would apply this definition, in DOE's view, any Design B or
IEC-equivalent motor that otherwise satisfies the relevant NFPA
requirements would meet the ``fire pump electric motor'' definition in
10 CFR 431.12. See the standards NOPR for a historical discussion of
comments related to fire pump electric motors. 78 FR 73623.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ 77 FR 26608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECG 4 proposed in the NOPR consisted of brake electric motors and
was also based on ECG 1, because DOE is only aware of brake motors
being built to NEMA Design B specifications. Furthermore, DOE
understands that there is no fundamental difference in design between
brake and non-brake electric motors, other than the presence of the
brake. Therefore, the same design options could be used on both sets of
electric motors, and both motor types are likely to exhibit similar
cost versus efficiency relationships. In today's final rule, brake
motors no longer constitute a separate equipment class group and,
therefore, brake motors fall into equipment classes based on their
other characteristics (e.g., pole count, design type).
b. Horsepower Rating
Horsepower rating is an important equipment class setting
criterion. When DOE selected its preliminary analysis representative
units, DOE chose those horsepower ratings that constitute a high volume
of shipments in the market and provide a wide range upon which DOE
could reasonably base a scaling methodology. For NEMA Design B motors,
for example, DOE chose 5-, 30-, and 75-horsepower-rated electric motors
to analyze as representative units. DOE selected the 5-horsepower
rating because these motors have the highest shipment volume of all
motors. DOE selected the 30-horsepower rating as an intermediary
between the small and large frame number series electric motors.
Finally, DOE selected a 75-horsepower unit because there is minimal
variation in efficiency for motors with horsepower ratings above 75-
horsepower. Based on this fact, DOE determined it was unnecessary to
analyze a higher horsepower motor. Additionally, as horsepower levels
increase, shipments typically decrease. Therefore, DOE believed there
would be minimal gains to its analysis had it examined a higher
horsepower representative unit.
DOE selected the 5-horsepower motor for multiple reasons. The 5-
horsepower unit had the highest percentage of shipments for all covered
electric motors, which ensured that there would be multiple efficiency
levels from multiple manufacturers available for comparison during the
teardown analysis. In addition, because DOE later employed scaling to
establish efficiency levels for all equipment classes, it attempted to
find a frame series and D-dimension \45\ that could serve as a strong
basis from which to scale to a relatively small set of unanalyzed frame
series. The standard NEMA MG 1-2011 frame series for the 5-horsepower
enclosed motor was a midpoint between the standard frame series for 1
horsepower and 10-horsepower motors, which was the group of ratings
covered by the 5- horsepower representative unit. A larger
representative unit would have meant a larger range of frame series on
which to apply the scaling methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ ``D'' dimension is the length from the centerline of the
shaft to the mounting feet of the motor, and impacts how large the
motor's laminations can be, impacting the achievable efficiency of
the motor. ``D'' dimensions are designated in NEMA MG 1-2011 Section
4.2.1, Table 4-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to DOE's selection of the 75-horsepower representative unit as a
maximum, DOE understands that the 75-horsepower motor is not built in
the largest NEMA MG 1-2011 frame series covered, but maintains that its
selection is appropriate for this analysis. As stated previously,
efficiency changes slowly when approaching the highest horsepower
ratings, and choosing a higher horsepower rating would not have
provided any appreciable improvement over the data DOE already
developed for its analysis. DOE has found minimal variation in
efficiency for motors above 75-horsepower. Because the change in
efficiency diminishes with increasing horsepower, one may achieve a
similar level of analytical accuracy with fewer data points at higher
horsepower. Stated inversely, one needs more data points to accurately
characterize a curve where it has a greater rate of change, such as
[[Page 30968]]
lower horsepower. Finally, DOE notes that its scaling methodology
mirrors the scaling methodology used in NEMA's MG 1-2011 tables of
efficiencies, including the rate of change in efficiency with
horsepower.
DOE also notes that part 13 \46\ of NEMA MG 1-2011 does not
standardize frame series for NEMA Design B motors at the highest
horsepower levels covered in today's rule. Therefore, motors with the
highest capacity have variability in their frame series. This added
flexibility would give manufacturers more options to improve the
efficiency of their largest motors covered by this rulemaking. Although
altering the frame size of a motor may be costly, DOE believes that its
selection of a 75-hp representative unit for higher horsepower motors
is appropriate for scaling higher horsepower efficiency levels and the
efficiency levels examined are technologically feasible for the largest
capacity motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ This part provides standardized frame sizing by horsepower
and speed for integral horsepower AC induction motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For NEMA Design C motors, DOE again selected the 5-horsepower
rating because of its prevalence. In addition, DOE selected a 50-
horsepower rating as an incrementally higher representative unit. DOE
only selected two horsepower ratings for these electric motors because
of their low shipment volumes. For more information on how DOE selected
these horsepower ratings see chapter 5 of the TSD.
In its preliminary analysis comments NEMA questioned DOE's
selection of the 50-horsepower representative unit for the NEMA Design
C equipment class group because the NEMA T-frame size for such a rating
is three NEMA T-frame number series below the largest frame number
series and the fact that the 2011 shipment data that DOE used to select
its representative units was not broken down by NEMA design type.
(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 66)
As stated in the NOPR and as DOE maintains in this final rule, as
with ECG 1, DOE selected representative units that fell in the middle
of the range of ratings covered in this rulemaking and not necessarily
the largest frame size covered in the rulemaking. Furthermore, as
discussed earlier, NEMA Design C motors are produced in a smaller range
of horsepower ratings than NEMA Design B motors (1 to 200 rather than 1
to 500). With this smaller horsepower range, a correspondingly smaller
range of representative units is needed. Therefore, DOE selected a
slightly lower rating as its maximum for ECG 2. See 78 FR 73625. As for
the shipments data used to select the 5-hp representative unit, DOE did
not separate the data by design type within an ECG because the same
standard applies to motors of any design type (e.g., ``Design A'')
within an ECG, and has revised the text for the final TSD to clarify
that fact. See id. However, DOE still maintains that the prevalence of
5-hp units make it an appropriate selection as a representative unit.
DOE did not receive further comments on representative units in
response to the NOPR and has maintained its approach for the final
rule.
c. Pole-Configuration
Pole-configuration is another important equipment class setting
criterion that DOE had to consider when selecting its representative
units. For the preliminary analysis, DOE selected 4-pole motors for all
of its representative units. DOE chose 4-pole motors because they
represent the highest shipment volume of motors compared to other pole
configurations. DOE chose not to alternate between pole configurations
for its representative units because it wanted to keep as many design
characteristics constant as possible. Doing so allowed DOE to more
accurately identify how design changes affect efficiency across
horsepower ratings. Additionally, DOE believed that the horsepower
rating-versus-efficiency relationship is the most important (rather
than pole-configuration and enclosure type-versus-efficiency) because
there are significantly more horsepower ratings to consider.
In the preliminary analysis, NEMA and Baldor commented that scaling
across pole configurations will lead to inaccurate results. (NEMA, No.
54 at pp. 26, 66-67; Baldor, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 60 at pp. 130, 131)
As mentioned earlier, DOE assessed energy conservation standards
for 482 equipment classes. As described in the NOPR \47\ and as DOE
retains in today's rule, analyzing each of the classes individually is
not feasible, which requires DOE to select representative units on
which to base its analysis. DOE understands that different pole-
configurations have different design constraints. Originally, DOE
selected only 4-pole motors to analyze because they were the most
common, allowing DOE to most accurately characterize motor behavior at
the pole configuration consuming the majority of motor energy.
Additionally, by holding pole-configuration constant across its
representative units, DOE would be able to develop a baseline from
which to scale. By maintaining this baseline and holding all other
variables constant, DOE is able to modify the horsepower of the various
representative units and isolate which efficiency effects are due to
size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See 78 FR 73625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also as described in the NOPR \48\ and as DOE retains in today's
rule, as discussed in section IV.C.8, DOE has used the simpler of two
scaling approaches presented in the preliminary analysis because both
methods had similar results. This simpler approach does not require DOE
to develop a relationship for 4-pole motors from which to scale.
Furthermore, DOE notes that the scaling approach it selected mirrors
the scaling laid out in NEMA's MG 1-2011 tables, in which at least a
subset of the motors industry has already presented a possible
relationship between efficiency and pole count. DOE has continued to
analyze 4-pole electric motors because they are the most common and DOE
believes that all of the efficiency levels it has developed are
technologically feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See 78 FR 73625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Enclosure Type
The final equipment class setting criterion that DOE considered
when selecting its representative units was enclosure type. For the
preliminary analysis, DOE elected to analyze electric motors with
enclosed designs rather than open designs for all of its representative
units. DOE selected enclosed motors because, as with pole-
configurations, these motors have higher shipments than open motors.
Again, DOE did not alternate between the two design possibilities for
its representative units because it sought to keep design
characteristics as constant as possible in an attempt to more
accurately identify the reasons for efficiency improvements.
At the preliminary analysis stage, NEMA and Baldor commented that
DOE's analysis did not consider the significance of enclosure type as
it relates to efficiency as there is generally a lower efficiency level
designated for open-frame motors. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 68; Baldor, Pub.
Mtg. Tr., No. 60 at p. 131)
For the preliminary analysis, DOE analyzed only electric motors
with totally enclosed, fan-cooled (TEFC) designs rather than open
designs for all of its representative units. DOE selected TEFC motors
because, as with pole configurations, DOE wanted as many design
characteristics to remain constant as possible. The Department used the
same approach for the NOPR \49\
[[Page 30969]]
and today's final rule. DOE believed then and still believes that such
an approach allows it to more accurately pinpoint the factors that
affect efficiency. While DOE only analyzed one enclosure type, it notes
that its scaling follows NEMA's efficiency tables (Table 12-11 and
Table 12-12), which already map how efficiency changes with enclosure
type. Finally, TEFC electric motors represented more than three times
the shipment volume of open motors. DOE chose ELs that correspond to
the tables of standards published in NEMA's MG 1-2011 and to efficiency
bands derived from those tables, preserving the relationship between
NEMA's standards for open and enclosed motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See 78 FR 73625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE did not receive additional comments on enclosure type as an
equipment class setting criterion in response to the NOPR.
3. Efficiency Levels Analyzed
After selecting its representative units for each electric motor
equipment class group, DOE examined the impacts on the cost of
improving the efficiency of each of the representative units to
evaluate the impact and assess the viability of potential energy
conservation standards. As described in the technology assessment and
screening analysis, there are numerous design options available for
improving efficiency and each incremental improvement increases the
electric motor efficiency along a continuum. The engineering analysis
develops cost estimates for several efficiency levels \50\ along that
continuum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ For the purposes of the final rule, the term ``efficiency
level'' (EL) is equivalent to that of Candidate Standard Level (CSL)
in the preliminary analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELs are often based on: (1) Efficiencies available in the market;
(2) voluntary specifications or mandatory standards that cause
manufacturers to develop equipment at particular efficiency levels; and
(3) the max-tech level.
Currently, there are two energy conservation standard levels that
apply to various types of electric motors. In ECG 1, some motors
currently must meet efficiency standards that correspond to NEMA MG 1-
2011 Table 12-11 (i.e., EPACT 1992 levels \51\), others must meet
efficiency standards that correspond to NEMA MG 1-2011 Table 12-12
(i.e., premium efficiency levels), and some are not currently required
to meet any energy conservation standard levels. DOE cannot establish
energy conservation standards that are less efficient than current
standards (i.e., the ``anti-backsliding'' provision at 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(1) as applied via 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)). ECG 1 includes both
currently regulated and unregulated electric motors. For the baseline,
DOE selected the lowest efficiency level available for unregulated
motors for all motors in this group rather than applying the current
standard requirements to an ECG that includes unregulated motors.
However, in estimating the base case efficiency distribution, DOE
accounted for the fact that the regulated motors are already at least
at the current standard requirements. For ECG 1, DOE established an EL
that corresponded to each of these levels, with EL 0 as the baseline
(i.e., the lowest efficiency level available for unregulated motors),
EL 1 as equivalent to EPACT 1992 levels, and EL 2 as equivalent to
premium efficiency levels for ECG 1 motors. Additionally, DOE analyzed
two ELs above EL 2. One of these levels was the max-tech level, denoted
as EL 4 and one was an incremental level that approximated a best-in-
market efficiency level (EL 3). For all equipment classes within ECG 1,
EL 3 was a one ``band'' increase in NEMA nominal efficiency relative to
premium efficiency and EL 4 was a two ``band'' increase.\52\ For ECG 3
and 4, DOE used the same ELs with one exception for ECG 3. Because fire
pump electric motors are required to meet EPACT 1992 efficiency levels
and those are the only motors in that equipment class group, EPACT 1992
levels were used as the baseline efficiency level, which means that
fire pump electric motors have one fewer EL than ECG 1 for purposes of
DOE's analysis. Following the preliminary analysis, DOE adjusted one
max-tech Design B representative unit level (5 hp) after receiving
additional data in order to base that level on a physical unit in place
of modeling. Table IV.11 and Table IV.12 show the ELs for ECGs 1 and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ EPACT 1992 only established efficiency standards for motors
up to and including 200 hp. Eventually, NEMA MG 1-2011 added a
table, 20-A, which functioned as an extension of Table 12-11. So,
although EPACT 1992 is a slight misnomer, DOE is using it to refer
to those ELs that were based on Table 12-11.
\52\ Because motor efficiency varies from unit to unit, even
within a specific model, NEMA has established a list of standardized
efficiency values that manufacturers use when labeling their motors.
Each incremental step, or ``band,'' constitutes a 10 percent change
in motor losses. NEMA MG 1-2011 Table 12-10 contains the list of
NEMA nominal efficiencies.
Table IV.11--Efficiency Levels for Equipment Class Group 1**
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 0 EL 1 (EPACT EL 2 (premium EL 3 (best-in- EL 4 (max-
Representative unit (baseline) 1992) efficiency) market*) tech)
(percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 hp (ECG 1).................... 82.5 87.5 89.5 90.2 91.0
30 hp (ECG 1)................... 89.5 92.4 93.6 94.1 94.5
75 hp (ECG 1)................... 93.0 94.1 95.4 95.8 96.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Best-in-market represents the best or near best efficiency level at which current manufacturers are producing
electric motors. Although these efficiencies represent the best-in-market values found for the representative
units, but when efficiency was scaled to the remaining equipment classes, the scaled efficiency was sometimes
above and sometimes below the best-in-market value for a particular rating.
** ECG 1 includes both currently regulated and unregulated electric motors. For the baseline, DOE selected the
lowest efficiency level available for unregulated motors for all motors in this group rather than applying the
current standard requirements to an ECG that includes unregulated motors. However, in estimating the base case
efficiency distribution, DOE accounted for the fact that the regulated motors are already at least at the
current standard requirements.
[[Page 30970]]
Table IV.12--Efficiency Levels for Equipment Class Group 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 0 (EPACT EL 1 (premium EL 2 (best-in- EL 3 (max-
Representative unit 1992) efficiency) market *) tech)
(percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 hp............................................ 87.5 89.5 90.2 91.0
30 hp........................................... 92.4 93.6 94.1 94.5
75 hp........................................... 94.1 95.4 95.8 96.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For ECG 2, DOE took a similar approach in developing its ELs as it
did for ECG 1, but with two primary differences. First, when DOE
examined catalog data, it found that no NEMA Design C motors had
efficiencies below EPACT 1992 levels, which is the current standard for
all covered NEMA Design C motors. For DOE's representative units, it
also found no catalog listings above the required EPACT 1992 levels.
Additionally, when DOE's SME modeled NEMA Design C motors, the model
would only generate designs at premium efficiency levels and one
incremental level above that while maintaining proper performance
standards. Therefore, ECG 2 only contains three ELs: EPACT 1992 (EL 0),
premium efficiency (EL 1), and a max-tech level (EL 2).
These ELs differed slightly from the CSLs presented in the
preliminary analysis for ECG2. In the preliminary analysis, a CSL for
the 50 hp unit existed between two industry standard levels in order to
provide greater resolution in selection of a standard (NEMA MG 1 Table
12-11 and Table 12-12). For the final rule analysis, this level was
removed so that the ELs analyzed would align with Tables 12-11 and 12-
12. For the 5 hp representative unit, DOE also removed one preliminary
analysis CSL, which was intended to represent the ``best in market''
level in the preliminary analysis. After further market research, DOE
found that few Design C motors are offered above the baseline, and
those that were mainly met the premium efficiency level, without going
higher in efficiency. It determined that for the final rule analysis,
the previously designated ``max in market'' level was not applicable.
The ELs analyzed for ECG2 are shown in Table IV.13.
Table IV.13--Efficiency Levels for Equipment Class Group 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 0 (EPACT EL 1 (premium EL 2 (max-
Representative unit 1992) efficiency) tech)
(percent) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 hp............................................................ 87.5 89.5 91.0
50 hp........................................................... 93.0 94.5 95.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has found many instances of electric motors being sold and
marketed one or two NEMA bands of efficiency above premium efficiency,
which suggests that manufacturers have extended technological
performance where they perceived market demand for higher efficiencies.
In other words, DOE has seen no evidence suggesting that the absence of
equipment on the market at any given EL implies that such equipment
could not be developed, were there sufficient demand. DOE contends that
all of the ELs analyzed in its engineering analysis are viable because
equipment is currently commercially available at such levels \53\ and,
to the extent possible, has been included in DOE's analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ DOE understands that this is not true for every equipment
classes covered by this rulemaking, but has not seen evidence to
suggest that the absence of equipment in any particular classes is
not due to lack of market demand instead of technological
limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the NOPR, NEMA and Baldor both raised concern that
it is not clear what horsepower rated motors in 6 and 8 poles are
covered because NEMA Design A and B are not defined under MG 1 for
large motors. This is because motors of higher horsepower rating in 6
and 8 poles are covered by the standards for large motors in Part 20 of
NEMA MG 1. However, DOE defined NEMA Design A and Design B types in 10
CFR 431.12 with respect to the standards in Part 12 of NEMA MG 1 and
not with respect to Part 20. NEMA noted that DOE took Table 5 values
for large motors from an incorrect table (i.e., Table 12-12) that was
submitted to DOE previously in the Petition. NEMA commented that in
order to align Table 12-12 with the scope of Part 12, it has removed
the ratings for large motors from Table 12-12 and has included them in
premium efficiency standards in Part 20 for large motors. NEMA and
Baldor suggested that DOE either remove standards for higher horsepower
rating 6 and 8 poles motors from Table 5 of the proposed rule to
properly represent only ratings for which Design A and B standards
apply. NEMA also suggested that DOE could modify 10 CFR 431.12 to
define large motors covered by the standards and 10 CFR 431.25 to
include efficiency standards for these new covered large motors. (NEMA,
No. 93 at p. 22; NEMA, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 48-50, Baldor, No.
100 at p. 4)
DOE agrees with NEMA and Baldor that large motors given in NEMA MG
1 Part 20 (i.e. 6-pole motors with horsepower ratings greater than 400
hp and 8-pole motors with horsepower ratings greater than 300 hp) are
not defined for NEMA Design A and B. Therefore, DOE has modified the
efficiency tables as suggested. See Section IV.A.2.c for further
detail. DOE notes that the standards adopted today, as well as those
proposed in the NOPR, as well as those suggested by the Motor
Coalition, still contain efficiency values for 300 and 350 hp 6 pole
motors which are the same as their corresponding 250 hp values and
which are not found on MG 1-2011's Table 12-12.
In response to the NOPR, CEC sought clarification on the efficiency
levels selected by DOE for Design C motors. CEC commented that it
expected DOE to choose a baseline above the current market minimum.
Second, CEC asked for clarification regarding the selected ECG 2
representative unit picked to
[[Page 30971]]
represent the efficiency levels and noted that the baseline level was
below the EPACT 1992 level for the 50 horsepower motor. Third, CEC
asked clarification regarding the EL numbering for ECG 2 in Table IV.11
of the NOPR. (CEC, No. 96 at p. 3)
Both ECG 1 and ECG 2 contain currently regulated and unregulated
electric motors. For the baseline, DOE selected the lowest efficiency
level available for unregulated motors for all motors in this group
rather than applying the current standard requirements to an ECG that
includes unregulated motors. However, in estimating the base case
efficiency distribution, DOE accounted for the fact that the regulated
motors are already at least at the current standard requirements. See
Chapter 10 of the TSD for details.
With respect to the EL numbering in Table IV.10 of the NOPR, DOE
notes that the table's values should have begun at EL 0 (instead of EL
1) and reached EL 2 (instead of EL 3). DOE always labels its baseline
``EL 0'' in this rulemaking, and the error was limited to mislabeling
of the table in question rather than a more fundamental mistake in the
analysis. In other words, there are no representative units for which
the analysis should be at EL 1, as had been indicated in the NOPR's
Table V.10. This mislabeling was confined to the table in question and
has been fixed for the final rule.
4. Testing and Teardowns
Whenever possible, DOE attempted to base its engineering analysis
on actual electric motors being produced and sold in the market today.
First, DOE identified electric motors in manufacturer catalogs that
represented a range of efficiencies corresponding to the ELs discussed
in the previous sections. Next, DOE had the electric motors shipped to
a certified testing laboratory where each was tested in accordance with
IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) to verify its nameplate-rated
efficiency. After testing, DOE derived production and material costs by
having a professional motor laboratory \54\ disassemble and inventory
the purchased electric motors. For ECG 1, DOE obtained tear-down
results for all of the 5-horsepower ELs and all of the 30- and 75-
horsepower ELs except the max-tech levels. For ECG 2, DOE obtained
tear-down results only for the baseline EL, which corresponds to EPACT
1992 efficiency levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ The Center for Electromechanics at the University of Texas
at Austin, a 140,000 sq. ft. lab with 40 years of operating
experience, performed the teardowns, which were overseen by Dr.
Angelo Gattozzi, an electric motor expert with previous industry
experience. DOE also used Advanced Energy Corporation of North
Carolina to perform some of the teardowns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These tear-downs provided DOE with the necessary data to construct
a bill of materials (BOM), which, along with a standardized cost model
and markup structure, DOE could use to estimate a manufacturer selling
price (MSP). DOE paired the MSP derived from the tear-down with the
corresponding nameplate nominal efficiency to report the relative costs
of achieving improvements in energy efficiency. DOE's estimates of
material prices came from a combination of current, publicly available
data, manufacturer feedback, and conversations with its SME. DOE
supplemented the findings from its tests and tear-downs through: (1) a
review of data collected from manufacturers about prices, efficiencies,
and other features of various models of electric motors, and (2)
interviews with manufacturers about the techniques and associated costs
used to improve efficiency.
As discussed earlier, DOE's engineering analysis documents the
design changes and associated costs when improving electric motor
efficiency from the baseline level up to a max-tech level. This
includes considering improved electrical steel for the stator and
rotor, interchanging aluminum and copper rotor bar material, increasing
stack length, and any other applicable design options remaining after
the screening analysis. As each of these design options are added, the
manufacturer's cost increases and the electric motor's efficiency
improves.
At the preliminary analysis stage, DOE received multiple comments
regarding its test and tear-down analysis. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 27, 74-
75) In its NOPR response, DOE stated that it accurately captured such
changes because electric motor was torn down, components such as
electrical steel and copper wiring were weighed. 78 FR 73629.
DOE noted in the NOPR and re-assert today that an increased sample
size would improve the value of efficiency used in its analysis, but
only if DOE were using an average full-load efficiency value, as it did
for the small electric motors rulemaking engineering analysis, which
did not have the benefit of NEMA-developed nominal efficiency values.
See 78 FR 73629. For the analysis in the NOPR and the final rule, DOE
did not use the tested efficiency value and believes that to do so
would be erroneous precisely because it only tested and tore down one
unit for a given representative unit and EL. Rather than using an
average efficiency of a sample of multiple units that is likely to
change with each additional motor tested, DOE elected to use the
nameplate NEMA nominal efficiency given. DOE understands that this
value, short of testing data, is the most accurate value to use to
describe a statistically valid population of motors of a given design;
that is, in part, why manufacturers use NEMA nominal efficiencies on
their motors' nameplates.
Also, DOE believes that the bill of materials generated is more is
likely to be representative of the motor's nominal efficiency value
rather efficiency than as-tested. DOE believes that the variance from
unit-to-unit, in terms of materials, is likely to be insignificant
because manufacturers have an incentive to produce equipment with
consistent performance (i.e., characteristics other than efficiency).
Changes in the tested efficiency are likely to occur because of
variations in production that motor manufacturers have less control
over (e.g., the quality of the electrical steel). DOE does not believe
that the amount of material (in particular, electrical steel, copper
wiring, and die-cast material) from unit-to-unit for a given design is
likely to change significantly, if at all, because manufacturers have
much greater control of those production variables. Therefore,
additional tests and tear-downs are unlikely to change the MSP
estimated for a given motor design and DOE believes that its sample
size of one is appropriate.
In the preliminary engineering analysis, DOE replaced a tear-down
result with a software model for CSL 2 of its 30-horsepower
representative unit because it believed that it had inadvertently
tested and torn down a motor with an efficiency equivalent to CSL 3.
DOE noted that it removed the tear-down because there was conflicting
efficiency information on the Web site, in the catalog, and on the
physical nameplate. Subsequently, NEMA and Baldor commented that the
30-horsepower, CSL 2 motor should not have been replaced with a
software-modeled motor, stating that the test result was statistically
viable. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 76-79; Baldor, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 60 at
pp. 150-155) NEMA and Baldor also asserted that DOE had placed emphasis
on the use of purchased motors in its analysis only when the tested
value of efficiency was less than or not significantly greater than the
marked value of NEMA efficiency. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 80; Baldor, Pub.
Mtg. Tr., No. 60 at pp. 156, 157)
[[Page 30972]]
DOE understands that the test result may have been viable for
either of the efficiency ratings that the manufacturer had assigned.
Given the uncertainty, however, DOE elected to replace the motor. For
its updated NOPR engineering analysis, DOE has tested and torn down a
new 30-horsepower motor to describe CSL 2. As stated previously, DOE
always prefers to base its analysis using motors purchased in the
market when possible.
After DOE's tear-down lab determined that the torn-down motors were
machine-wound, a precise measurement of the slot fill was not taken.
Although the actual measurement of slot fill has no bearing on the
estimates of the MSP, because the actual copper weights were measured
and not calculated, DOE did ask its lab to provide actual measurements
of slot fill on any subsequent tear-downs and has included the data in
chapter 5 of the TSD.
5. Software Modeling
DOE worked with technical experts to develop certain ELs, in
particular, the max-tech efficiency levels for each representative unit
analyzed. To this end, DOE retained an electric motors (SME \55\ with
significant experience in terms of both design and related software,
who prepared a set of electric motor designs with increasing
efficiency. The software program used for this analysis is a
proprietary software program called VICA.\56\ The SME also checked his
designs against tear-down data and calibrated the software using the
relevant test results. As new designs were created, DOE's SME ensured
that the critical performance characteristics that define a NEMA design
letter (e.g., locked-rotor torque, breakdown torque, pull-up torque,
and locked-rotor currents) were maintained. For a given representative
unit, DOE ensured that the modeled electric motors met the same set of
torque and locked-rotor current requirements as the purchased electric
motors. This was done to ensure that the utility of the baseline unit
was maintained as efficiency improved, and that the unit in question
did not meet the criteria of a different equipment class. Additionally,
DOE limited its modeled stack length increases based on teardown data
and maximum ``C'' dimensions found in manufacturer's catalogs, also to
ensure the utility of the baseline units was maintained \57\ DOE has
provided comparisons of software estimates and tested efficiencies in
Appendix 5C of the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Dr. Howard Jordan, Ph.D., an electric motor design expert
with over 40 years of industry experience, served as DOE's subject
matter expert.
\56\ VICA stands for ``Veinott Interactive Computer Aid''.
\57\ The ``C'' dimension of an electric motor is the length of
the electric motor from the end of the shaft to the end of the
opposite side's fan cover guard. Essentially, the ``C'' dimension is
the overall length of an electric motor including its shaft
extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the preliminary analysis, DOE approached motor laboratories
in an attempt to build physical prototypes of its software models. DOE
was unable to identify a laboratory that could prototype its software-
modeled motors in a manner that would exactly replicate the designs
produced (i.e., they could not die-cast copper). Consequently, DOE did
not build a prototype of its software models. However, DOE was able to
procure a 5-horsepower NEMA Design B die-cast copper rotor motor with
an efficiency two NEMA bands above the premium efficiency level.
Therefore, DOE elected to use this design to represent the max-tech EL
for the 5-horsepower representative unit in equipment class group 1,
rather than the software-modeled design used in the preliminary
analysis. DOE's SME used information gained from testing and tearing
down this motor to help corroborate the software modeling.
Since that time, DOE has conducted further calibration of its
software program using data obtained from motor teardowns, has provided
comparisons of software estimates, and tested efficiencies for both
aluminum and copper rotor motors in Appendix 5C of the TSD. DOE
eliminated designs from its preliminary analysis because of concerns
regarding the feasibility of certain efficiency levels. Regarding
performance parameters beyond efficiency,\58\ DOE understands that
these characteristics must be maintained when improving an electric
motor's efficiency. However, the performance parameters DOE believed to
present the largest risk of rendering a motor noncompliant with NEMA MG
1-2011 standards were those related to NEMA design letter, and these
were adhered to in DOE's modeling efforts. Based on comparisons of
motor teardowns and software estimates, DOE has no reason at this time
to believe that its modeled designs would violate the additional
performance parameters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ For example, locked-rotor current or locked-rotor torque.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's SME, who has been designing electric motors for several
decades, is well qualified to understand the design tradeoffs that must
be considered. Although the SME's primary task was to design a more-
efficient motor using various technologies, it was of critical
importance that the designs be feasible. Even though DOE was unable to
prototype its modeled designs, DOE has conducted comparisons of
software estimates and tested efficiencies for both aluminum and copper
rotor motors and has concluded that these actions corroborate the
modeled designs. Based on this work and its total analysis, which
included input from its SME, DOE has concluded that it has developed a
sufficiently robust set of technically feasible efficiency levels for
its engineering analysis.
In the final rule TSD, DOE also shows that any increase in stack
length would fit into the existing frame designation for that
particular motor rating. (DOE noted that the frame designation does not
limit frame length, but rather frame diameter.) DOE understands that
manufacturers have fixed-length frames that they use when manufacturing
motors. In addition to generating per-unit costs associated with
redesigning motors with new frames at all ELs above the premium
efficiency levels (see section IV.C.6), DOE sought to maintain motor
length by limiting how much it would modify stack dimensions to improve
efficiency. First, the software models created by DOE used lamination
diameters observed during teardowns, which ensured that the software-
modeled designs would fit into existing frame designations. However,
for some designs, DOE increased the number of laminations (i.e., length
of the stack of laminations, or stack length) beyond the stack lengths
observed during the motor teardowns in order to achieve the desired
efficiency gains.
DOE limited the amount by which it would increase the stack length
of its software-modeled electric motors in order to preserve the
motor's utility. The maximum stack lengths used in the software-modeled
ELs were determined by first analyzing the stack lengths and ``C''
dimensions of torn-down electric motors. Then, DOE analyzed the ``C''
dimensions of various electric motors in the marketplace conforming to
the same design constraints as the representative units (same
horsepower rating, NEMA frame size, enclosure type, and pole
configuration). For each representative unit, DOE found the largest
``C'' dimension currently available on the marketplace and estimated a
maximum stack length based on the stack length to ``C'' dimension
ratios of motors it tore down. The resulting equipment served as the
basis for the maximum stack length value that DOE used in its software-
modeled designs, although DOE notes that it did not always model a
motor with that maximum stack length. In most instances, the SME was
[[Page 30973]]
able to achieve the desired improvement in efficiency with a stack
length shorter than DOE's estimated maximum. Table IV.14 presents the
estimated maximum stack length,\59\ the maximum stack length found
during tear-downs, and the maximum stack length modeled for a given
representative unit. DOE notes that the 5-horsepower Design B
representative unit is not shown because modeling was not performed, as
described earlier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Based on manufacturer product offerings. See Chapter 5 of
the TSD for details.
Table IV.14--Maximum Stack Length Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated maximum stack Maximum stack length Maximum stack length
Representative unit length of a torn down motor modeled
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 Horsepower Design B.............. 8.87 in................ 8.02 in. (EL 2)....... 7.00 in.
75 Horsepower Design B.............. 13.06 in............... 11.33 in. (EL 3)...... 12.00 in.
5 Horsepower Design C............... 5.80 in................ 4.75 in. (EL 0)....... 5.32 in.
50 Horsepower Design C.............. 9.55 in................ 8.67 in. (EL 0)....... 9.55 in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the NOPR public meeting, several parties commented with
respect to modeling. Noting that all the components of loss are first
calculated and summed together to obtain efficiency, Nidec sought
clarification as to how friction and windage component losses
(mechanical loss), I\2\R losses and stray losses were obtained. Nidec
also sought clarification on how the area of conductors was calculated
to obtain slot fill. (Nidec, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 103-108)
Regal Beloit commented that the VICA program used by DOE's SME to model
efficiency may be over ten years old. (Regal Beloit, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No.
87 at p. 110)
DOE responded that the friction and windage losses were input items
into the VICA program and were obtained as average values from data on
various frame sizes. I\2\R losses and stray losses were also input
items into VICA. Stray losses were obtained as a percentage of the
full-load value. DOE performed correlations of the estimated value and
the values obtained from the testing of motors. DOE found that the
estimated value was very close to the average of tested values. DOE
also noted that the square method was used to calculate the area of the
conductor. The number of conductors in the slot was multiplied by the
square of the conductor diameter.
6. Cost Model
When developing manufacturer selling prices (MSPs) for the motor
designs obtained from DOE's tear-downs and software models, DOE used
modeling to generate a more accurate approximation of the costs
necessary to improve electric motor efficiency. DOE derived the
manufacturer's selling price for each design in the engineering
analysis by considering the full range of production and non-production
costs. The full production cost is a combination of direct labor,
direct materials, and overhead. The overhead contributing to full
production cost includes indirect labor, indirect material,
maintenance, depreciation, taxes, and insurance related to company
assets. Non-production cost includes the cost of selling, general and
administrative items (market research, advertising, sales
representatives, logistics), research and development (R&D), interest
payments, warranty and risk provisions, shipping, and profit factor.
Because profit factor is included in the non-production cost, the sum
of production and non-production costs is an estimate of the MSP. DOE
utilized various markups to arrive at the total cost for each component
of the electric motor, which are detailed in chapter 5 of the final
rule TSD. The following subsections discuss specific features of the
DOE's cost model.
a. Copper Pricing
DOE conducted the engineering analysis using material prices based
on manufacturer feedback, industry experts, and publicly available
data. In the preliminary analysis, most material prices were based on
2011 prices, with the exception of cast copper and copper wire pricing,
which were based on a five-year (2007-2011) average price.
Noting the comments of interested parties during the preliminary
analysis phase, DOE slightly modified its approach in the NOPR. First,
DOE added updated data for 2012 pricing. Second, rather than a five-
year average, DOE changed to a three-year average price for copper
materials. DOE made this modification based on feedback received during
manufacturer interviews. By reducing to a three-year average, DOE
eliminated data from 2008 and 2009, which manufacturers believed were
unrepresentative data points due to the recession. Data from those two
years had the effect of depressing the five-year average calculated.
In response to the NOPR, NEMA raised concern about the potential
for copper price volatility. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 12)
DOE acknowledges that price volatility can affect the economic
results of a standards rulemaking, either in the positive or negative
direction depending on the relative movement of raw materials and
energy. To diminish the effect of volatility on the engineering
analysis results, DOE used a 3-year average for copper, from 2010-2012.
DOE's understanding is that manufacturers may choose to use financial
instruments in cases where raw material volatility is exceptionally
high in order to guarantee margins. Although DOE has not published a
formal materials price sensitivity in this rulemaking, it observes that
for the highest ELs examined across all representative units, copper
cost amount to roughly 3 percent of the installed price. At these
levels, copper would have to more than quadruple in price in order to
increase installed price by 10 percent. At the levels being adopted in
today's rule, however, DOE's engineering analysis does not suggest
significantly increased demand for copper and, therefore, does not
suggest significantly increased exposure to volatility in copper price.
DOE discusses material pricing in greater detail in Appendix 5A of the
final rule TSD.
b. Labor Rate and Non-Production Markup
In the preliminary analysis, DOE looked at the percentage of
electric motors imported into the U.S. and the percentage of electric
motors built domestically and calculated the ratio of foreign and
domestic labor rates on these percentages. During the preliminary
analysis public meeting, Nidec commented that the labor rate DOE used
in its analysis seems high if
[[Page 30974]]
that number is weighted towards offshore labor. Nidec agreed with DOE's
smaller markup on the lower-horsepower motors, but commented that the
overall markups seem to be high. (Nidec, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 60 at p.
184) WEG commented that DOE was adequately addressing the cost
structure variations among the different motor manufacturers.
Additionally, WEG stated that basing a labor rate on both foreign and
domestic labor rates increases accuracy of the analysis, but that it
could encourage production moving outside the United States. (WEG, Pub.
Mtg. Tr., No. 60 at pp. 184-186)
In the NOPR, and again in today's final rule, DOE elected to keep
the same labor rates and markups as were used in the preliminary
analysis. DOE is basing this decision on additional feedback received
during interviews with manufacturers (which suggested that DOE's labor
rates and markups are appropriate) and the absence of any alternative
labor rate or markups to apply. DOE does not expect that use of the
most accurate labor rates possible in its analyses will contribute to
outsourcing of jobs in the electric motors industry.
Finally, DOE is aware of potential cost increases caused by
increased slot fill,\60\ including the transition to hand-wound stators
in motors requiring higher slot fills. In the preliminary analysis, DOE
assigned a higher labor hour to any tear-down motor which it determined
to be hand-wound. DOE found that none of the tear-down motors were
hand-wound, and, therefore, no hand-winding labor-hour amounts were
assigned. This has been clarified in the final rule analysis.
Additionally, DOE has assumed that all of its max-tech software models
require hand-winding, which is reflected in its increased labor time
assumptions for those motors. For additional details, please see
chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ A measure of how efficiently conductor is packed into the
stator slots, which affects efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE understands that lower-volume equipment will often realize
higher per-unit costs, and has concluded that this reality is common to
most or all manufacturing processes in general. Because DOE's analysis
focuses on the differential impacts on cost due to energy conservation
standards, and because DOE has no evidence to suggest a significant
market shift to lower production volume equipment in a post-standards
scenario, DOE expects that the relative mix of high-volume and low-
volume production would be preserved. Indeed, because DOE is expanding
the scope of coverage and bringing many previously excluded motor types
to premium efficiency levels, DOE sees the possibility that
standardization may increase and that average production volume may, in
fact, rise.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Labor costs may rise starkly at max-tech levels, where
hand-winding is employed in order to maximize slot fill. DOE's
engineering analysis reflects this fact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Catalog Prices
At the preliminary analysis stage, NEMA requested that DOE publish
the purchase price for its torn-down motors, so that they could be
compared to the MSPs DOE derived from its motor tear-downs. (NEMA, No.
54 at p. 27; Baldor, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 60 at pp. 181, 182) As stated
in the NOPR \62\ and reaffirmed today, DOE elects not to include the
purchase price for its torn-down motors. DOE believes that such
information is not relevant and could lead to erroneous conclusions.
Some of the purchased motors were more expensive to purchase based on
certain features that do not affect efficiency, which could skew the
price curves incorrectly and indicate incorrect trends. For these
reasons, in the engineering analysis, DOE develops its own cost model
so that a consistent cost structure can be applied to similar
equipment. The details of this model are available in Appendix 5A of
the final rule TSD. Because DOE purchased electric motors that were
built by different manufacturers and sold by different distributors,
who all have different costs structures, DOE does not believe that such
a comparison as NEMA suggests would provide a meaningful evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See 78 FR 73633.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Product Development Cost
DOE's preliminary analysis cost model included an incremental
markup used to account for higher production costs associated with
manufacturing copper die-cast rotors. Although DOE used this
incremental markup in the preliminary analysis, after conducting
manufacturer interviews, it determined that additional cost adders were
warranted for the examined ELs that exceeded the premium efficiency
level. For the NOPR and final rule, DOE developed a per-unit adder \63\
for the manufacturer production costs (MPCs) intended to capture one-
time increased equipment development and capital conversion costs that
would likely result if an energy conservation standard with an
efficiency level above premium efficiency levels were established.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ The ``per-unit adder'' discussed in this section refers to
a fixed adder for each motor that varies based on horsepower and
NEMA design letter. Each representative unit has their own unique
``per-unit adder'' that is fixed for the analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's per-unit adder reflects the additional cost passed along to
the consumer by manufacturers attempting to recover the costs incurred
from having to redevelop their equipment lines as a result of higher
energy conservation standards. The conversion costs incurred by
manufacturers include capital investment (e.g., new tooling and
machinery), equipment development (e.g., reengineering each motor
design offered), plus testing and compliance certification costs.
The conversion cost adder was only applied to ELs above premium
efficiency based on manufacturer feedback. Most manufacturers now offer
premium efficiency motors for a significant portion of their equipment
lines as a result of EISA 2007, which required manufacturers to meet
this level. Many manufacturers also offer certain ratings with
efficiency levels higher than premium efficiency. However, DOE is not
aware of any manufacturer with a complete line of motors above premium
efficiency. Consequently, DOE believes that energy conservation
standards above premium efficiency would result in manufacturers
incurring significant conversion costs to bring offerings of electric
motors up to the higher standard.
DOE developed the various conversion costs from data collected
during manufacturer interviews that were conducted for the Manufacturer
Impact Analysis (MIA). For more information on the MIA, see chapter 12
of the final rule TSD. DOE used the manufacturer-supplied data to
estimate industry-wide capital conversion costs and equipment
conversion costs for each EL above premium efficiency. DOE then assumed
that manufacturers would mark up their motors to recover the total
conversion costs over a seven-year period. By dividing industry-wide
conversion costs by seven years of expected industry-wide revenue, DOE
obtained a percentage estimate of how much each motor would be marked
up by manufacturers. The conversion costs as a percentage of seven-year
revenue that DOE derived for each NEMA band above premium efficiency
are shown below. Details on these calculations are shown in Chapter 5
of the final rule TSD.
[[Page 30975]]
Table IV.15--Product Conversion Costs as a Percentage of 7-Year Revenue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversion costs
NEMA Bands above premium efficiency as a percentage
of 7-year revenue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................................... 4.1%
2.................................................... 6.5%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The percentage markup was then applied to the full production cost
(direct material + direct labor + overhead) at the premium efficiency
levels to derive the per-unit adder for levels above premium efficiency
(see Table IV.16). DOE received no comments in response to the NOPR and
maintained its approach for the final rule.
Table IV.16--Product Conversion Costs for Efficiency Levels Above
Premium Efficiency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per-unit adder Per-unit adder
for 1 band above for 2 bands
Representative unit premium above premium
efficiency efficiency
(2013$) (2013$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 hp, Design B...................... $11.06 $17.36
30 hp, Design B..................... 32.89 51.61
75 hp, Design B..................... 66.18 103.86
5 hp, Design C...................... 10.68 16.75
50 hp, Design C..................... 60.59 95.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Engineering Analysis Results
The results of the engineering analysis are reported as cost-
versus-efficiency data in the form of MSP (in dollars) versus nominal
full-load efficiency (in percentage). These data form the basis for
subsequent analyses in today's notice. Table IV.17 through Table IV.21
show the results of DOE's updated engineering analysis.
Results for Equipment Class Group 1 (NEMA Design A and B Motors)
Table IV.17--Manufacturer Selling Price and Efficiency for 5-Horsepower
Representative Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer
Efficiency level Efficiency (%) selling price
(2013$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 0 (Baseline)..................... 82.5 333
EL 1 (EPACT 1992)................... 87.5 344
EL 2 (Premium Efficiency)........... 89.5 371
EL 3 (Best-in-Market)............... 90.2 406
EL 4 (Max-Tech)..................... 91.0 677
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.18--Manufacturer Selling Price and Efficiency for 30-Horsepower
Representative Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer
Efficiency level Efficiency (%) selling price
(2013$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 0 (Baseline)..................... 89.5 856
EL 1 (EPACT 1992)................... 92.4 1,096
EL 2 (Premium Efficiency)........... 93.6 1,168
EL 3 (Best-in-Market)............... 94.1 1,308
EL 4 (Max-Tech)..................... 94.5 2,077
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.19--Manufacturer Selling Price and Efficiency for 75-Horsepower
Representative Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer
Efficiency level Efficiency (%) selling price
(2013$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 0 (Baseline)..................... 93.0 1,910
EL 1 (EPACT 1992)................... 94.1 2,068
EL 2 (Premium Efficiency)........... 95.4 2,351
EL 3 (Best-in-Market)............... 95.8 2,804
EL 4 (Max-Tech)..................... 96.2 3,656
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results for Equipment Class Group 2 (NEMA Design C Motors)
[[Page 30976]]
Table IV.20--Manufacturer Selling Price and Efficiency for 5-Horsepower
Representative Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer
Efficiency level Efficiency (%) selling price
(2013$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 0 (Baseline/EPACT 1992).......... 87.5 334
EL 1 (Premium Efficiency)........... 89.5 358
EL 2 (Max-Tech)..................... 91.0 627
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.21--Manufacturer Selling Price and Efficiency for 50-Horsepower
Representative Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer
Efficiency level Efficiency (%) selling price
(2013$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 0 (Baseline/EPACT 1992).......... 93.0 1,552
EL 1 (Premium Efficiency)........... 94.5 2,152
EL 2 (Max-Tech)..................... 95.0 2,612
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results for Equipment Class Group 3 (Fire Pump Electric Motors)
Table IV.22--Manufacturer Selling Price and Efficiency for 5-Horsepower
Representative Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer
Efficiency level Efficiency (%) selling price
(2013$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 0 (Baseline/EPACT 1992).......... 87.5 344
EL 1 (Premium Efficiency)........... 89.5 371
EL 2 (Best-in-Market)............... 90.2 406
EL 3 (Max-Tech)..................... 91.0 677
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.23--Manufacturer Selling Price and Efficiency for 30-Horsepower
Representative Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer
Efficiency level Efficiency (%) selling price
(2013$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 0 (Baseline/EPACT 1992).......... 92.4 1,096
EL 1 (Premium Efficiency)........... 93.6 1,168
EL 2 (Best-in-Market)............... 94.1 1,308
EL 3 (Max-Tech)..................... 94.5 2,077
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.24--Manufacturer Selling Price and Efficiency for 75-Horsepower
Representative Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer
Efficiency level Efficiency (%) selling price
(2013$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 0 (Baseline/EPACT 1992).......... 94.1 2,068
EL 1 (Premium Efficiency)........... 95.4 2,351
EL 2 (Best-in-Market)............... 95.8 2,804
EL 3 (Max-Tech)..................... 96.2 3,656
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Scaling Methodology
Once DOE has identified cost-efficiency relationships for its
representative units, it must appropriately scale the efficiencies
analyzed for its representative units to those equipment classes not
directly analyzed. DOE recognizes that scaling motor efficiencies is a
complicated proposition that has the potential to result in efficiency
standards that are not evenly stringent across all equipment classes.
However, between DOE's three ECGs, there are 482 equipment classes,
reflecting the various combinations of horsepower rating, pole
configuration, and enclosure. Within these combinations, there are a
large number of standardized frame number series. Given the sizable
number of frame number series and equipment classes, DOE cannot
feasibly analyze all of these variants directly, hence, the need for
scaling. Thus, scaling across horsepower ratings, pole configurations,
enclosures, and frame number series is a necessity.
For the preliminary analysis, DOE considered two methods to
scaling, one that develops a set of power law equations based on the
relationships found in the EPACT 1992 and Premium tables of efficiency
in MG 1, and one based on the incremental improvement in motor losses.
As discussed in the preliminary analysis, DOE did not find a large
discrepancy between the results of the two approaches and, therefore,
[[Page 30977]]
used the simpler, incremental improvement in motor losses approach in
its final rule analysis.
As discussed in section IV.C.3, some of the ELs analyzed by DOE
were based on existing efficiency standards (i.e., EPACT 1992 and
premium efficiency). Additionally, the baseline EL is based on the
lowest efficiency levels found for each horsepower rating, pole
configuration, and enclosure type observed in motor catalog data.
Therefore, DOE only required the use of scaling when developing the two
ELs above premium efficiency (only one EL above premium efficiency for
ECG 2).
For the higher ELs in ECG 1, DOE's scaling approach relies on NEMA
MG 1-2011 Table 12-10 of nominal efficiencies and the relative
improvement in motor losses of the representative units. As has been
discussed, each incremental improvement in NEMA nominal efficiency (or
NEMA band) corresponds to roughly a 10-percent reduction in motor
losses. After ELs 3 and 4 were developed for each representative unit,
DOE applied the same reduction in motor losses (or the same number of
NEMA band improvements) to various segments of the market based on its
representative units. DOE assigned a segment of the electric motors
market, based on horsepower ratings, to each representative unit
analyzed. DOE's assignments of these segments of the markets were in
part based on the standardized NEMA frame number series that NEMA MG 1-
2011 assigns to horsepower and pole combinations. In the end, EL 3
corresponded to a one band improvement relative to premium efficiency
level, and EL 4 corresponded to a two-band improvement relative to
premium efficiency level.
DOE maintains that scaling is a tool necessary to analyze the
potential effects of energy conservation standards above premium
efficiency levels. As stated earlier, DOE is evaluating energy
conservation standards for 482 equipment classes. DOE acknowledges that
analyzing every one of these classes individually is not feasible,
which requires DOE to choose representative units on which to base its
analysis. Consequently, DOE has concluded that scaling is necessary and
suitable for establishing appropriate efficiency levels for new or
amended energy conservation standards for electric motors.
However, DOE notes that its analysis neither assumes nor requires
manufacturers to use identical technology for all motor types and
horsepower ratings. In other words, although DOE may choose a certain
set of technologies to estimate cost behavior at varying efficiencies,
DOE's standards are technology-neutral and permit manufacturers design
flexibility. DOE clarifies that the national impacts analysis is one of
the primary ways in which DOE analyses those potential efficiency
levels and determines if they would be economically justified. As DOE
has stated, it is also important that the levels be technically
feasible. In order to maintain technical feasibility, DOE has
maintained the scaling approach that it developed for the preliminary
analysis, which accomplishes that objective while maintaining the use
of NEMA nominal efficiencies. For each incremental EL above the premium
efficiency level, DOE has incremented possible efficiency levels by
just one band of efficiency. Through the use of this conservative
approach to scaling, DOE believes that it has helped ensure the
technological feasibility of each of its ELs to the greatest extent
practicable. DOE received no comments in response to the NOPR on this
issue and has maintained its approach for the final rule.
D. Markups Analysis
The markups analysis develops appropriate markups in the
distribution chain to convert the estimates of manufacturer selling
price derived in the engineering analysis to customer prices (the term
``customer'' refers to purchasers of the equipment being regulated).
For the NOPR, DOE determined the distribution channels for electric
motors, the percentage of shipments sold through either of these
channels, and the markups associated with the main parties in the
distribution chain (distributors and contractors).
Several stakeholders, including NEMA and NEEA, commented that the
OEM distribution channel (manufacturer to OEM to end-user), which
represents the distribution channel for 50 percent of shipments, is
further divided into shipments going directly to the user (25 percent)
and shipments going through a distributor and then to the customer (25
percent). (WEG, NEMA, NEEA, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at p. 131) For the
final rule, DOE modified its distribution channels in accordance with
the channels and shares described by the commenters.
DOE developed average distributor and contractor markups by
examining the contractor cost estimates provided by RS Means Electrical
Cost Data 2013.\64\ DOE calculates baseline and overall incremental
markups based on the equipment markups at each step in the distribution
chain. The incremental markup relates the change in the manufacturer
sales price of higher-efficiency models (the incremental cost increase)
to the change in the customer price. Chapter 6 of the final rule TSD
addresses estimating markups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ RS Means (2013), Electrical Cost Data, 36th Annual Edition
(Available at: https://www.rsmeans.com).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Energy Use Analysis
The energy use analysis provides estimates of the annual energy
consumption of commercial and industrial electric motors at the
considered efficiency levels. DOE uses these values in the LCC and PBP
analyses and in the NIA. DOE developed energy consumption estimates for
all equipment analyzed in the engineering analysis.
The annual energy consumption of an electric motor that has a given
nominal full-load efficiency depends on the electric motor's sector
(industry, agriculture, or commercial) and application (compressor,
fans, pumps, material handling, fire pumps, and others), which in turn
determine the electric motor's annual operating hours and load.
To calculate the annual kilowatt-hours (kWh) consumed at each
efficiency level in each equipment class, DOE used the nominal
efficiencies at various loads from the engineering analysis, along with
estimates of operating hours and electric motor load for electric
motors in various sectors and applications.
In the preliminary analysis, DOE used statistical information on
annual electric motor operating hours and load derived from a database
of more than 15,000 individual motor field assessments obtained through
the Washington State University and the New York State Energy Research
and Development Authority \65\ to determine the variation in field
energy use in the industrial sector. For the agricultural and the
commercial sectors, DOE relied on data found in the literature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Database of motor nameplate and field measurement data
compiled by the Washington State University Extension Energy Program
(WSU) and Applied Proactive Technologies (APT) under contract with
the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA). 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of its NOPR analysis, for the industrial sector, DOE re-
examined its initial usage profiles and recalculated motor distribution
across applications, operating hours, and load information based on
additional motor field data
[[Page 30978]]
compiled by the Industrial Assessment Center at the University of
Oregon,\66\ which includes over 20,000 individual motor records. For
the agricultural sector, DOE revised its average annual operating hours
assumptions based on additional data found in the literature. No
changes were made to the commercial sector average annual operating
hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Strategic Energy Group (January, 2008), Northwest
Industrial Motor Database Summary. From Regional Technical Forum.
Retrieved March 5, 2013 from https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/subcommittees/osumotor/Default.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the NOPR, DOE did not receive any comments regarding
the energy use analysis and retained the same approach for the final
rule. Chapter 7 of the final rule TSD describes the energy use analysis
in further detail.
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
For each representative unit analyzed in the engineering analysis,
DOE conducts LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts on
individual customers of potential energy conservation standards for
electric motors. The LCC is the total customer expense over the life of
the motor, consisting of equipment and installation costs plus
operating costs over the lifetime of the equipment (expenses for energy
use, maintenance and repair). DOE discounts future operating costs to
the time of purchase using customer discount rates. The PBP is the
estimated amount of time (in years) it takes customers to recover the
increased total installed cost (including equipment and installation
costs) of a more efficient type of equipment through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in total installed
cost (normally higher) due to a standard by the change in annual
operating cost (normally lower) which results from the standard.
For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the PBP and the change
in LCC relative to an estimate of the base-case efficiency levels. The
base-case estimate reflects the market in the absence of new or amended
energy conservation standards, including the market for equipment that
exceeds the current energy conservation standards.
For each representative unit, DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for a
distribution of individual electric motors across a range of operating
conditions. DOE used Monte Carlo simulations to model the distributions
of inputs. The Monte Carlo process statistically captures input
variability and distribution without testing all possible input
combinations. Therefore, while some atypical situations may not be
captured in the analysis, DOE believes the analysis captures an
adequate range of situations in which electric motors operate.
The following sections contain brief discussions of comments on the
inputs and key assumptions of DOE's LCC and PBP analysis and explain
how DOE took these comments into consideration.
1. Equipment Costs
In the LCC and PBP analysis, the equipment costs faced by electric
motor purchasers are derived from the MSPs estimated in the engineering
analysis and the overall markups estimated in the markups analysis.
To forecast a price trend for the NOPR analysis, DOE derived an
inflation-adjusted index of the producer price index (PPI) for integral
horsepower motors and generators manufacturing from 1969 to 2011. These
data show a long-term decline in the PPI from 1985 to 2003, and a steep
increase in the PPI since then. DOE also examined a forecast based on
the ``chained price index--industrial equipment'' that was forecasted
for AEO2013 out to 2040. This index is the most disaggregated category
that includes electric motors. These data show a short-term increase in
the PPI from 2011 to 2015, and then a steep decrease. DOE believes that
there is considerable uncertainty as to whether the recent increasing
trend has peaked, and would be followed by a return to the previous
long-term declining trend, or whether the recent trend represents the
beginning of a long-term rising trend due to global demand for electric
motors and rising commodity costs for key motor components. Given the
uncertainty, DOE chose to use constant prices for both its LCC and PBP
analysis and the NIA. For the NIA, DOE also analyzed the sensitivity of
results to alternative electric motor price forecasts.
DOE did not receive comments on the trend it used for electric
motor prices, and it retained the approach used in the NOPR analysis
for the final rule.
2. Installation Costs
In the NOPR analysis, the engineering analysis showed that for some
representative units, increased efficiency led to increased stack
length. However, the electric motor frame remained in the same NEMA
frame size requirements as the baseline electric motor, and the motor's
``C'' dimension remained fairly constant across efficiency levels. In
addition, electric motor installation cost data from RS Means
Electrical Cost Data 2013 showed a variation in installation costs by
horsepower (for three-phase electric motors), but not by efficiency.
Therefore, in the NOPR analysis, DOE assumed there is no variation in
installation costs between a baseline efficiency electric motor and a
higher efficiency electric motor.
DOE did not receive comments on the installation costs it used for
electric motors, and it retained the approach used in the NOPR analysis
for the final rule.
3. Maintenance Costs
In the NOPR analysis, DOE did not find data indicating a variation
in maintenance costs between a baseline efficiency and higher
efficiency electric motor. According to data from Vaughen's Price
Publishing Company,\67\ which publishes an industry reference guide on
motor repair pricing, the price of replacing bearings, which is the
most common maintenance practice, is the same at all efficiency levels.
Therefore, DOE did not consider maintenance costs for electric motors.
DOE did not receive comments on this issue and retained the approach
used for the NOPR analysis for the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Vaughen's (2011, 2013), Vaughen's Motor & Pump Repair Price
Guide, 2011, 2013 Edition. https://www.vaughens.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Repair Costs
In the NOPR analysis, DOE accounted for the differences in repair
costs of a higher efficiency motor compared to a baseline efficiency
motor and defined a repair as including a rewind and reconditioning.
Based on data from Vaughen's, DOE derived a model to estimate repair
costs by horsepower, enclosure and pole, for each EL.
The Electrical Apparatus Service Association (EASA), which
represents the electric motor repair service sector, noted that DOE
should clarify the definition of repair as including rewinding and
reconditioning. (EASA, No. 86 at p. 1) DOE agrees with this suggestion
and defines a motor repair as repair including rewinding and
reconditioning.
5. Unit Energy Consumption
The analysis used in the final rule uses the same approach for
determining unit energy consumptions (UECs) as the NOPR analysis. The
UEC was determined for each application and sector based on estimated
load points and annual operating hours.
6. Electricity Prices and Electricity Price Trends
In the NOPR analysis, DOE derived sector-specific weighted average
electricity prices for four different U.S.
[[Page 30979]]
Bureau of the Census (Census) regions (Northeast, Midwest, South, and
West) using data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA Form
861). For each utility in a region, DOE used the average industrial or
commercial price, and then weighted the price by the number of
customers in each sector for each utility.
For each representative motor, DOE assigned electricity prices
using a Monte Carlo approach that incorporated weightings based on the
estimated share of electric motors in each region. The regional shares
were derived based on indicators specific to each sector (e.g.,
commercial floor space from the Commercial Building Energy Consumption
Survey for the commercial sector \68\) and assumed to remain constant
over time. To estimate future trends in energy prices, DOE used
projections from the EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2013 (AEO 2013). DOE
did not receive any comments regarding the electricity prices and
today's rulemaking retains the same approach for determining
electricity prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ U.S. Department of Energy Information Administration
(2003), Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2003/pdf/a4.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Lifetime
In the NOPR analysis, DOE estimated the mechanical lifetime of
electric motors in hours (i.e., the total number of hours an electric
motor operates throughout its lifetime), depending on its horsepower
size and sector of application. DOE then developed Weibull
distributions of mechanical lifetimes. The lifetime in years for a
sampled electric motor was then calculated by dividing the sampled
mechanical lifetime by the sampled annual operating hours of the
electric motor. DOE did not receive any comments regarding lifetimes
and retained the same approach and lifetime assumptions for the final
rule.
8. Discount Rate
DOE did not receive any comments regarding discount rates and
retained the same approach as used in the NOPR for the final rule. The
discount rate is the rate at which future expenditures are discounted
to estimate their present value. The cost of capital commonly is 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 the cost of capital is the
weighted-average cost to the firm of equity and debt financing. DOE
uses the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) to calculate the equity
capital component, and financial data sources to calculate the cost of
debt financing.
For today's rulemaking, DOE estimated a statistical distribution of
industrial and commercial customer discount rates by calculating the
average cost of capital for the different types of electric motor
owners (e.g., chemical industry, food processing, and paper industry).
For the agricultural sector, DOE assumed similar discount rates as in
industry. More details regarding DOE's estimates of motor customer
discount rates are provided in chapter 8 of the TSD.
9. Base Case Market Efficiency Distributions
For the LCC analysis, DOE analyzed the considered motor efficiency
levels relative to a base case (i.e., the case without new or amended
energy efficiency standards). This requires an estimate of the
distribution of equipment efficiencies in the base case (i.e., what
consumers would have purchased in the compliance year in the absence of
new standards). DOE refers to this distribution of equipment energy
efficiencies as the base case efficiency distribution.
Data on motor sales by efficiency are not available. In the
preliminary analysis, DOE used the number of models meeting the
requirements of each efficiency level from six major manufacturers and
one distributor's catalog data to develop the base-case efficiency
distributions. The distribution is estimated separately for each
equipment class group and horsepower range and was assumed constant and
equal to 2012 throughout the analysis period.
For the NOPR, DOE retained the same approach to estimate the base
case efficiency distribution in 2012, but it updated the base case
efficiency distributions to account for the NOPR engineering analysis
(revised ELs) and for the update in the scope of electric motors
considered in the analysis. Beyond 2012, DOE assumed the efficiency
distributions for equipment class group 1 and 4 vary over time based on
historical data \69\ for the market penetration of Premium motors
within the market for integral alternating current induction motors.
For equipment class groups 2 and 3, which represent a very minor share
of the market (less than 0.2 percent), DOE believes the overall trend
in efficiency improvement for the total integral AC induction motors
may not be representative, so DOE kept the base case efficiency
distributions in the compliance year equal to 2012 levels. DOE did not
receive additional comments and retained the same approach for the
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Robert Boteler, USA Motor Update 2009, Energy Efficient
Motor Driven Systems Conference (EEMODS) 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Compliance Date
DOE calculated customer impacts as if each new electric motor
purchase occurs in the year that manufacturers must comply with the
standard. As discussed in section III.A, any amended standard for
electric motors shall apply to electric motors manufactured on or after
June 1, 2016. DOE has chosen to retain the same compliance date for
both the amended and new energy conservation standards to simplify the
requirements and to avoid any potential confusion for manufacturers.
11. Payback Period Inputs
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. DOE did not receive any
comments regarding the PBP calculation.
The inputs to the PBP calculation are the total installed cost of
the equipment to the customer for each efficiency level and the average
annual operating expenditures for each efficiency level. The PBP
calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, except that
discount rates are not needed as it only takes into account the totaled
installed costs and the first year of operating expenses.
12. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Period
EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is
economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost
to the consumer of purchasing equipment complying with an energy
conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of
the energy (and, as applicable, water) savings during the first year
that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as
calculated under the test procedure in place for that standard. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(a)) For each considered efficiency
level, DOE determines the value of the first year's energy savings by
calculating the quantity of those savings in accordance
[[Page 30980]]
with the applicable DOE test procedure, and multiplying that amount by
the average energy price forecast for the year in which compliance with
the new or amended standards would be required.
13. Comments on Other Issues
In response to DOE's request for comments regarding whether there
are features or attributes of the more efficient electric motors that
could impact how customers use their equipment. NEMA commented that
higher efficiency motors could have increased inrush currents, reduced
starting torque, longer frames, and higher speeds. (NEMA, No. 93 at p.
15).
DOE acknowledges that some manufacturers may choose to produce
higher efficiency motors in a way that could impact the inrush current,
starting torque, frame size, and speed. However, in the engineering
analysis, for all efficiency levels, DOE analyzed motors that remain
within the NEMA Design B design requirements for inrush currents and
torque characteristics and kept the frame size constant. Therefore, DOE
maintained installation costs constant across all efficiency levels
(see section IV.F.2)
With respect to the potential for higher efficiency motors having
higher speed, DOE acknowledges that this could occur and affect the
benefits gained by using efficient electric motors. Although it is
possible to quantify this impact for an individual motor, DOE was not
able to extend this analysis to the national level because DOE does not
have robust data related to the overall share of motors that would be
negatively impacted by higher speeds. Instead, DOE developed
assumptions \70\ and estimated the effects of higher operating speeds
as a sensitivity analysis in the LCC spreadsheet (see appendix 7-A of
the final TSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ DOE assumed that 60 percent of pumps, fans and compressor
applications are variable torque applications. Of these 60 percent,
DOE assumed that all fans and a majority (70 percent) of compressors
and pumps would be negatively impacted by higher operating speeds;
and that 30 percent of compressors and pumps would not be negatively
impacted from higher operating speeds as their time of use would
decrease as the flow increases with the speed (e.g. a pump filling a
reservoir).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Shipments Analysis
DOE uses projections of equipment shipments to calculate the
national impacts of standards on energy use, NPV, and future
manufacturer cash flows. DOE develops shipment projections based on
historical data and an analysis of key market drivers for each type of
equipment.
To populate the model with current data, DOE used data from a
market research report,\71\ confidential inputs from manufacturers,
trade associations, and other interested parties' responses to the 2011
RFI. DOE then used estimates of market distributions to redistribute
the shipments across pole configurations, horsepower, and enclosures
within each electric motor equipment class and also by sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ IMS Research (February 2012), The World Market for Low
Voltage Motors, 2012 Edition (Available at: https://www.imsresearch.com/report/Motor_Drives_Low_Voltage_World_2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's shipments projection assumes that electric motor sales are
driven by machinery production growth for equipment, including motors.
DOE estimated that growth rates for total motor shipments correlate to
growth rates in fixed investment in equipment and structures including
motors, which is provided by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA).\72\ Projections of real gross domestic product (GDP) from AEO
2013 for 2015-2040 were used to project fixed investments in equipment
and structures including motors. The current market distributions are
maintained over the forecast period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Bureau of Economic Analysis (March 1, 2012), Private Fixed
Investment in Equipment and Software by Type and Private Fixed
Investment in Structures by Type (Available at: https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=12&step=1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the preliminary analysis, DOE collected data on historical
series of shipment quantities and values for the 1990-2003 period, but
concluded that the data were not sufficient to estimate motor price
elasticity.\73\ Consequently, DOE assumed zero price elasticity for all
efficiency standards cases and did not estimate any impact of potential
standards levels on shipments. DOE requested stakeholder
recommendations on data sources to help better estimate the impacts of
increased efficiency levels on shipments. DOE did not receive further
comments on this issue and retained the same approach for the final
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Business Trend Analysts, The Motor and Generator Industry,
2002; U.S. Census Bureau (November 2004), Motors and Generators--
2003.MA335H(03)-1 (Available at: https://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/historical_data/discontinued/ma335h/);
and U.S. Census Bureau (August 2003), Motors and Generators--
2002.MA335H(02)-1 (Available at: https://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/historical_data/discontinued/ma335h/ma335h02.xls).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Including the NOPR's proposed expansion of motor coverage, DOE
estimates total in-scope shipments were 5.43 million units in 2011. DOE
did not receive any NOPR comments on shipments and maintained the same
estimate for the final rule. For further information on DOE's shipments
analysis, see chapter 9 of the final rule TSD.
H. National Impact Analysis
The NIA assesses the national energy savings (NES) and the national
NPV of total customer costs and savings that would be expected to
result from new and amended standards at specific efficiency levels.
To make the analysis more accessible and transparent to all
interested parties, DOE used a spreadsheet model to calculate the
energy savings and the national customer costs and savings from each
TSL.\74\ The NES and NPV are based on the annual energy consumption and
total installed cost data from the energy use analysis and the LCC
analysis. DOE forecasted the lifetime energy savings, energy cost
savings, equipment costs, and NPV of customer benefits for each
equipment class for equipment sold from 2016 through 2045. In addition,
DOE analyzed scenarios that used inputs from the AEO 2013 Low Economic
Growth and High Economic Growth cases. These cases have higher and
lower energy price trends compared to the reference case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ DOE's use of spreadsheet models provides interested parties
with access to the models within a familiar context. In addition,
the TSD and other documentation that DOE provides during the
rulemaking help explain the models and how to use them, and
interested parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various
input quantities within the spreadsheet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE evaluated the impacts of potential new and amended standards
for electric motors by comparing base-case projections with standards-
case projections. The base-case projections characterize energy use and
customer costs for each equipment class in the absence of new and
amended energy conservation standards. DOE compared these projections
with projections characterizing the market for each equipment class if
DOE were to adopt new or amended standards at specific energy
efficiency levels (i.e., the standards cases) for that class.
Table IV.25 summarizes all the major NOPR analysis inputs to the
NIA and whether those inputs were revised for the final rule.
[[Page 30981]]
Table IV.25--Inputs for the National Impact Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Input NOPR Analysis description Changes for final rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments...................... Annual shipments from shipments No change.
model..
Compliance date of standard.... 2016............................. No change.
Equipment Classes.............. Four separate equipment class Three separate equipment class groups. Brake
groups for NEMA Design A and B motors were added to ECG 1 (NEMA Design A
motors, NEMA Design C motors, and B motors).
Fire Electric Pump Motors, and
brake motors.
Base case efficiencies......... Constant efficiency from 2015 No change in methodology. Constant
through 2044 for ECG 2 and efficiency from 2016 through 2045 for ECG 2
3.Trend for the efficiency and 3.Trend for the efficiency distribution
distribution of ECG 1 and 4. of ECG 1.
Standards case efficiencies.... Constant efficiency from 2015 No change in methodology. Constant
through 2044 for ECG 2 and efficiency from 2016 through 2045 for ECG 2
3.Trend for the efficiency and 3.Trend for the efficiency distribution
distribution of ECG 1 and 4. of ECG 1.
Annual energy consumption per Average unit energy use data are No change.
unit. calculated for each horsepower
rating and equipment class based
on inputs from the Energy use
analysis..
Total installed cost per unit.. Based on the MSP and weight data No change.
from the engineering, and then
scaled for different hp and
enclosure categories..
Electricity expense per unit... Annual energy use for each No change.
equipment class is multiplied by
the corresponding average energy
price..
Escalation of electricity AEO 2013 forecasts (to 2035) and No change.
prices. extrapolation for 2044 and
beyond..
Electricity site-to-primary A time series conversion factor; No change.
conversion. includes electric generation,
transmission, and distribution
losses..
Discount rates................. 3% and 7% real................... No change.
Present year................... 2013............................. 2014.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Efficiency Trends
As explained in section IV.F, for the NOPR, DOE assumed that the
efficiency distributions in the base case for ECGs 1 changes over time.
The projected share of 1 to 5 horsepower Premium motors (EL 2) for
equipment class subgroup 1.a. grows from 36.6 percent to 45.5 percent
over the analysis period, and for equipment class subgroup 1.b., it
grows from 30.0 percent to 38.9 percent. For ECG 2 and 3, DOE assumed
that the efficiency remains constant from 2016 to 2045.
In the standards cases, equipment with efficiency below the
standard levels ``roll up'' to the standard level in the compliance
year. Thereafter, for ECG 1, DOE assumed that the level immediately
above the standard would show a similar increase in market penetration
as the Premium motors in the base case.
The Joint Advocates commented that DOE's ``rollup'' scenario will
lead to conservative energy saving estimates and given that some
manufacturers already offer motors with efficiency levels above
Premium, one would expect that the adoption of standards at or above
Premium would accelerate the interest in more efficient motor designs.
(Joint Advocates, No. 97 at p. 3)
The ``rollup'' scenario was used to establish the efficiency
distributions in the compliance year. Thereafter, for ECGs 1, DOE used
a shift scenario and assumed that the level immediately above the
standard would show a similar increase in market penetration as the
Premium motors in the base case. This approach aligns with the Joint
Advocates' suggestion. DOE did not receive any other comments on
efficiency trends and, consequently, retained the same approach for the
final rule. The assumed efficiency trends in the base case and
standards cases are described in chapter 10 of the TSD.
2. National Energy Savings
For each year in the forecast period, DOE calculates the national
energy savings for each standard level by multiplying the shipments of
electric motors affected by the energy conservation standards by the
per-unit lifetime annual energy savings. Cumulative energy savings are
the sum of the NES for all motors shipped during the analysis period,
2016-2045.
DOE estimated energy consumption and savings based on site energy
and converted the electricity consumption and savings to primary energy
(power plant energy use) using annual conversion factors derived from
the AEO 2013 version of the NEMS.
DOE has historically presented NES in terms of primary energy
savings. In response to the recommendations of a committee on ``Point-
of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy Efficiency
Standards'' appointed by the National Academy of Science, DOE announced
its intention to use full-fuel-cycle (FFC) measures of energy use and
greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses and
emissions analyses included in future energy conservation standards
rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (August 18, 2011). After evaluating the
approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, DOE published a
statement of amended policy in the Federal Register in which DOE
explained its determination that NEMS is the most appropriate tool for
its FFC analysis and its intention to use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR
49701 (August 17, 2012). The approach used for today's final rule, and
the FFC multipliers that were applied, are described in appendix 10-C
of the final TSD.
3. Electric Motor Weights
NEMA commented that motors vary greatly when it comes to frame
length, thickness, material and weights for comparable ratings. It
disagreed a with the motor weight estimates as performed by DOE. NEMA
stated that there are too many variables to accurately determine
weights relative to motor performance attributes. NEMA listed variables
such as the construction material for the frame (iron, steel, and
aluminum), the casting variations (robust, thin), the inclusion of
packaging weight in the total weight, and other variations in
[[Page 30982]]
construction practices. NEMA did not provide an alternative method or
additional information that could be used to refine the approach DOE
used for estimating weights. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 6-7)
Weight data are used to estimate shipping costs, which are a
component of the total installed cost used to calculate the life cycle
cost. The LCC results show that the average shipping costs represent a
small fraction of the total installed costs (about 15 percent) and less
than one percent of the total life cycle cost. While manufacturer
catalogs contain weight data, these data showed some variations in
weights.\75\ To account for these variations, DOE performed a
sensitivity analysis to evaluate the impacts of lower and higher weight
assumptions. Since the shipping costs are such a small fraction of the
LCC, the variations in weights did not significantly impact the
results. Therefore, DOE retained the same approach for establishing
weights for motors configurations not directly analyzed in the
engineering analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ For example, in the case of a 50 horsepower motor, a
standard deviation equal to 18 percent of the average weight was
observed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Equipment Price Forecast
As noted in section IV.F.2, DOE assumed no change in electric motor
prices over the 2016-2045 period. In addition, DOE conducted a
sensitivity analysis using alternative price trends. DOE developed one
forecast in which prices decline after 2011, and one in which prices
rise. These price trends, and the NPV results from the associated
sensitivity cases, are described in appendix 10-B of the TSD.
5. Net Present Value of Customer Benefit
The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits
experienced by consumers of considered equipment are: (1) Total annual
installed cost; (2) total annual savings in operating costs; and (3) a
discount factor. DOE calculates the lifetime net savings for motors
shipped each year as the difference between the base case and each
standards case in total lifetime savings in lifetime operating costs
and total lifetime increases in installed costs. DOE calculates
lifetime operating cost savings over the life of each motor shipped
during the forecast period.
In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. DOE
estimates the NPV using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent real discount
rate, in accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory
analysis.\76\ The 7-percent real value is an estimate of the average
before-tax rate of return to private capital in the U.S. economy. The
3-percent real value represents the ``social rate of time preference,''
which is the rate at which society discounts future consumption flows
to their present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ OMB Circular A-4, section E (September 17, 2003). https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
In analyzing the potential impacts of new or amended standards, DOE
evaluates impacts on identifiable groups (i.e., subgroups) of customers
that may be disproportionately affected by a national standard. For the
final rule, DOE evaluated impacts on various subgroups (e.g., customer
from the agricultural, commercial, and industrial sector; customers
with lower electricity prices) using the LCC spreadsheet model. DOE did
not receive any comments on its consumer subgroup analysis in response
to the NOPR. The customer subgroup analysis is discussed in detail in
chapter 11 of the final rule TSD.
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
DOE conducted an MIA to estimate the financial impact of new and
amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers of covered
electric motors. The MIA also estimates the impact standards could have
on direct employment, manufacturing capacity, manufacturer subgroups,
and the cumulative regulatory burden. The MIA has both quantitative and
qualitative aspects. The quantitative aspect of the MIA primarily
relies on the GRIM, an industry cash-flow model customized for electric
motors covered in this rulemaking. The key GRIM inputs are data on the
industry cost structure, MPCs, shipments, and assumptions about
manufacturer markups and conversion costs. The key MIA output is INPV.
DOE used the GRIM to calculate cash flows using standard accounting
principles and to compare changes in INPV between a base case and
various TSLs (the standards case). The difference in INPV between the
base and standards cases represents the financial impact of standards
on manufacturers of covered electric motors. DOE employed different
assumptions about manufacturer markups to produce ranges of results
that represent the uncertainty about how electric motor manufacturers
will respond to standards. The qualitative part of the MIA addresses
factors such as manufacturing capacity; characteristics of, and impacts
on, any particular subgroup of manufacturers; impacts on competition;
and the cumulative regulatory burden of electric motor manufacturers.
DOE outlined its complete methodology for the MIA in the previously
published NOPR. Also the complete MIA is presented in chapter 12 of
this final TSD.
1. Manufacturer Production Costs
Manufacturing more efficient equipment is typically more expensive
than manufacturing baseline equipment due to the need for more costly
components and more extensive R&D to reduced motor losses. The
resulting changes in the MPCs of the analyzed equipment can affect the
revenues, gross margins, and cash flows of manufacturers. DOE strives
to accurately model the potential changes in these equipment costs, as
they are a key input for the GRIM and DOE's overall analysis. For the
final rule, DOE only updated the dollar year of the MPCs from 2012$,
the dollar year used in the NOPR, to 2013$. For a complete description
of the how the MPCs were created see section IV.C of this final rule.
2. Shipment Projections
Changes in sales volumes and efficiency distribution of equipment
over time can significantly affect manufacturer finances. The GRIM
estimates manufacturer revenues based on total unit shipment
projections and the distribution of shipments by efficiency level. For
the final rule, DOE slightly altered the distribution of shipments
across pole configuration at the highest horsepower ratings based on
stakeholder comments. This had a negligible effect on the MIA results.
For the MIA, the GRIM used the NIA's annual shipment projections from
2014, the base year, to 2045, the end of the analysis period. For a
complete description of the shipment analysis see section IV.G of this
final rule.
3. Markup Scenarios
For the MIA, DOE modeled three standards case markup scenarios to
represent the uncertainty regarding the potential impacts on prices and
profitability for manufacturers following the implementation of new and
amended energy conservation standards: (1) A flat, or preservation of
gross margin, markup scenario; (2) a
[[Page 30983]]
preservation of operating profit markup scenario; and (3) a two-tiered
markup scenario. These scenarios lead to different manufacturer markup
values, which when applied to the inputted MPCs, result in varying
revenue and cash-flow impacts.
The Joint Advocates commented that the lower bound markup scenarios
overstated the negative impacts to electric motor manufacturers. They
also stated that manufacturer support for the standards proposed in the
NOPR suggests that the lower bound markup scenario is unrealistic.
(Joint Advocates, No. 97 at p. 4) DOE presents an upper bound to
manufacturer impacts, which are positive for all TSLs, and a lower
bound to manufacturer impacts, which are negative for all TSLs. This
range of possible manufacturer impacts represents the uncertainty of
manufacturers' profitability following standards. The lower bound to
manufacturer impacts represents a worst-case scenario for manufacturers
and does not imply that this will be the markup scenario manufacturers
will face following standards. Just as the upper bound markup scenario
represents a best-case scenario for manufacturers and again does not
imply that this will be the markup scenario manufacturers will face
following standards. Therefore, DOE believes that the lower bound
markup scenario presented in this final rule is an appropriate worst-
case scenario for manufacturers and is not intended to represent the
true outcome for all electric motor manufacturers following standards,
simply the lower bound of a range of possible outcomes.
NEEA commented that since there is an enormous range of electric
motor types covered in this rulemaking (e.g., horsepower, pole
configuration) and since there are several distribution channels these
motors could be sold through, different markup scenarios might apply to
different motor sizes, different markets, and different distribution
channels. (NEEA, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at p. 172) DOE agrees with this
assessment of the market as various manufacturers could markup various
motors differently following new and amended energy conservation
standards. The upper and lower bound markup scenarios represent this
range of various markup options that manufacturers will pursue
following standards given the unique circumstances each manufacture
faces.
For the final rule, DOE did not alter the markup scenarios or the
methodology used to calculate the markup values from those used in the
NOPR analysis.
4. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
New and amended energy conservation standards will cause
manufacturers to incur one-time conversion costs to bring their
production facilities and equipment designs into compliance. For the
MIA, DOE classified these one-time conversion costs into two major
groups: (1) Product conversion costs and (2) capital conversion costs.
Product conversion costs are one-time investments in R&D, testing,
compliance, marketing, and other non-capitalized costs necessary to
make equipment designs comply with standards. Capital conversion costs
are one-time investments in property, plant, and equipment necessary to
adapt or change existing production facilities such that new equipment
designs can be fabricated and assembled. For the preliminary analysis
NEMA commented that electric motors at ELs above premium efficiency
levels, and especially at ELs requiring die-cast copper rotors, would
require manufacturers to make significant capital investments and
significant time to redesign, test, and certify their entire production
lines. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 4 & 11) For the NOPR analysis, DOE
incorporated NEMA's comment when creating the conversion costs for
electric motors at ELs requiring die-cast copper rotors. For the final
rule, DOE only updated the dollar year of the conversion costs from
2012$, the dollar year used in the NOPR, to 2013$.
5. Other Comments From Interested Parties
During the NOPR public meeting and comment period, interested
parties commented on the assumptions, methodology, and results of the
NOPR MIA. DOE received comments about the manufacturer markups used in
the MIA versus the NIA and potential trade barriers. These comments are
addressed in the following sections.
a. Manufacturer Markups Used in the MIA Versus the NIA
The Joint Advocates commented that while the MIA presents a range
of potential changes to manufacturers' INPV by altering the
manufacturer markups, the NIA only uses one manufacturer markup when
analyzing the impacts to customers. Further, they state that the
manufacturer markup that is used in the NIA typically yields a higher
customer purchase price for more efficient equipment analyzed in the
rulemaking. (Joint Advocates, No. 97 at p. 4) Based on manufacturer
interviews and DOE's understanding of the electric motor market, DOE
believes that manufacturers might not be able to maintain their gross
margin on all motors sold if the MPCs for those motors increased
significantly due to standards. Therefore, the MIA conducted a
sensitivity analysis around the manufacturer markup by modeling a lower
bound manufacturer markup where manufacturers must compress their
manufacturer markup to maintain market competition. This lower bound
represents a worse-case scenario for manufacturer profitability. The
NIA, which looks at the impacts of standards on customers, only models
the scenario where manufacturers are able to maintain their
manufacturer markup (the upper bound manufacturer markup scenario in
the MIA). This manufacturer markup used in the NIA is the most
conservative estimate for the purchase price that customers would pay
for the equipment. Since there is uncertainty regarding how
manufacturers would markup specific equipment following standards, DOE
uses the most conservative estimates for the impacts to customers and
manufacturers in the NIA and MIA respectively.
b. Potential Trade Barriers
Baldor commented that if electric motor energy conservation
standards are set above the rest of the world's standards, it could be
a potential trade barrier for foreign motor manufacturer trying to sell
electric motors in the United States. Baldor states that there are a
lot of small foreign motor manufacturers, so they might not have the
resources to manufacture separate motor production lines specifically
to comply with U.S. electric motor standards. (Baldor, Pub. Mtg. Tr.,
No. 87 at p. 176-177) DOE acknowledge that manufacturers selling motors
in the United States and other countries with standards below the
United States could be required to operate motor production lines
specifically for the U.S. market. However, DOE does not believe that
setting electric motor standards above other countries' standards would
constitute a potential trade barrier because all motor sold in the
United States must comply with U.S. standards regardless if the motor
is manufactured domestically or abroad. Also, DOE is not adopting
standards above premium efficiency levels, which are the standards
other countries have recently adopted for electric motors (e.g., the
European Union).
6. Manufacturer Interviews
DOE interviewed manufacturers representing more than 75 percent of
covered electric motor sales in the
[[Page 30984]]
United States. The NOPR interviews were in addition to the preliminary
interviews DOE conducted as part of the preliminary analysis. DOE
outlined the key issues for the rulemaking for electric motor
manufacturers in the NOPR. DOE considered the information received
during these interviews in the development of the NOPR and this final
rule. Comments on the NOPR regarding the impact of standards on
manufacturers were discussed in the preceding sections. DOE did not
conduct interviews with manufacturers between the publication of the
NOPR and this final rule. Also, DOE did not receive any comments on the
key issues identified in the NOPR.
K. Emissions Analysis
In the emissions analysis, DOE estimates the reduction in power
sector emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and mercury (Hg)
from potential energy conservation standards for electric motors. In
addition, DOE estimates emissions impacts in production activities
(extracting, processing, and transporting fuels) that provide the
energy inputs to power plants. These are referred to as ``upstream''
emissions. Together, these emissions account for the full-fuel-cycle
(FFC). In accordance with DOE's FFC Statement of Policy (76 FR 51282
(August 18, 2011) as amended at 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012), the FFC
analysis includes impacts on emissions of methane (CH4) and
nitrous oxide (N2O), both of which are recognized as
greenhouse gases.
DOE primarily conducted the emissions analysis using emissions
factors for CO2 and other gases derived from data in AEO
2013, supplemented by data from other sources. DOE developed separate
emissions factors for power sector emissions and upstream emissions.
The method that DOE used to derive emissions factors is described in
chapter 13 of the TSD.
For CH4 and N2O, DOE calculated emissions
reduction in tons and also in terms of units of carbon dioxide
equivalent (CO2eq). Gases are converted to CO2eq
by multiplying the physical units by the gas' global warming potential
(GWP) over a 100 year time horizon. Based on the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,\77\ DOE used
GWP values of 25 for CH4 and 298 for N2O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R.
Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J.
Nganga, R. Prinn,G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland. 2007:
Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M.
Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller,
Editors. 2007. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA. p. 212.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EIA prepares the Annual Energy Outlook using the National Energy
Modeling System (NEMS). Each annual version of NEMS incorporates the
projected impacts of existing air quality regulations on emissions. AEO
2013 generally represents current legislation and environmental
regulations, including recent government actions, for which
implementing regulations were available as of December 31, 2012.
SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units
(EGUs) are subject to nationwide and regional emissions cap-and-trade
programs. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions cap on
SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous States (42 U.S.C.
7651 et seq.) and the District of Columbia (DC). SO2
emissions from 28 eastern states and DC were also limited under the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR; 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), which
created an allowance-based trading program. CAIR was remanded to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit but it remained in effect.\78\ See
North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008); North Carolina
v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). In 2011, EPA issued a
replacement for CAIR, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 76 FR
48208 (August 8, 2011). On August 21, 2012, the DC Circuit issued a
decision to vacate CSAPR.\79\ The court ordered EPA to continue
administering CAIR. The AEO 2013 emissions factors used for today's
final rule assumes that CAIR remains a binding regulation through 2040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008);
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
\79\ See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38
(D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 81 U.S.L.W. 3567, 81 U.S.L.W. 3696,
81 U.S.L.W. 3702 (U.S. June 24, 2013) (No. 12-1182).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The attainment of emissions caps is typically flexible among EGUs
and is enforced through the use of tradable emissions allowances. Under
existing EPA regulations, any excess SO2 emissions
allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand caused by the
adoption of a new or amended efficiency standard could be used to allow
offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by any regulated EGU.
In past rulemakings, DOE recognized that there was uncertainty about
the effects of efficiency standards on SO2 emissions covered
by the existing cap-and-trade system, but it concluded that negligible
reductions in power sector SO2 emissions would occur as a
result of standards.
Beginning in 2015, however, SO2 emissions will fall as a
result of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for power plants.
77 FR 9304 (February 16, 2012). In the final MATS rule, EPA established
a standard for hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for acid gas hazardous
air pollutants (HAP), and also established a standard for
SO2 (a non-HAP acid gas) as an alternative equivalent
surrogate standard for acid gas HAP. The same controls are used to
reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; thus, SO2 emissions will be
reduced as a result of the control technologies installed on coal-fired
power plants to comply with the MATS requirements for acid gas. AEO
2013 assumes that, in order to continue operating, coal plants must
have either flue gas desulfurization or dry sorbent injection systems
installed by 2015. Both technologies, which are used to reduce acid gas
emissions, also reduce SO2 emissions. Under the MATS, NEMS
shows a reduction in SO2 emissions when electricity demand
decreases (e.g., as a result of energy efficiency standards). Emissions
will be far below the cap that would be established by CAIR, so it is
unlikely that excess SO2 emissions allowances resulting from
the lower electricity demand would be needed or used to allow
offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by any regulated EGU.
Therefore, DOE believes that efficiency standards will reduce
SO2 emissions in 2015 and beyond.
CAIR established a cap on NOX emissions in 28 eastern
States and the District of Columbia. Energy conservation standards are
expected to have little effect on NOX emissions in those
States covered by CAIR because excess NOX emissions
allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand could be used to
allow offsetting increases in NOX emissions. However,
standards would be expected to reduce NOX emissions in the
States not affected by the caps, so DOE estimated NOX
emissions reductions from the standards considered in today's final
rule for these States.
The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not
include emissions caps and, as such, DOE's energy conservation
standards would likely reduce Hg emissions. DOE estimated mercury
emissions reduction using emissions factors based on AEO 2013, which
incorporates the MATS.
[[Page 30985]]
L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts
As part of the development of today's rule, DOE considered the
estimated monetary benefits from the reduced emissions of
CO2 and NOX that are expected to result from each
of the TSLs considered. In order to make this calculation analogous to
the calculation of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE considered the
reduced emissions expected to result over the lifetime of equipment
shipped in the forecast period for each TSL. This section summarizes
the basis for the monetary values used for each of these emissions and
presents the values considered in this final rule.
For today's final rule, DOE is relying on a set of values for the
SCC that was developed by a Federal interagency process. The basis for
these values is summarized below, and a more detailed description of
the methodologies used is provided as an appendix to chapter 14 of the
final rule TSD.
1. Social Cost of Carbon
The SCC is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an
incremental increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is
intended to include (but is not limited to) changes in net agricultural
productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk,
and the value of ecosystem services. Estimates of the SCC are provided
in dollars per metric ton of carbon dioxide. A domestic SCC value is
meant to reflect the value of damages in the United States resulting
from a unit change in carbon dioxide emissions, while a global SCC
value is meant to reflect the value of damages worldwide.
Under section 1(b) of Executive Order 12866, agencies must, to the
extent permitted by law, ``assess both the costs and the benefits of
the intended regulation and, recognizing that some costs and benefits
are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a
reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs''. The purpose of the SCC estimates presented here is
to allow agencies to incorporate the monetized social benefits of
reducing CO2 emissions into cost-benefit analyses of
regulatory actions. The estimates are presented with an acknowledgement
of the many uncertainties involved and with a clear understanding that
they should be updated over time to reflect increasing knowledge of the
science and economics of climate impacts.
As part of the interagency process that developed these SCC
estimates, technical experts from numerous agencies met on a regular
basis to consider public comments, explore the technical literature in
relevant fields, and discuss key model inputs and assumptions. The main
objective of this process was to develop a range of SCC values using a
defensible set of input assumptions grounded in the existing scientific
and economic literatures. In this way, key uncertainties and model
differences transparently and consistently inform the range of SCC
estimates used in the rulemaking process.
a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
When attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of
carbon dioxide emissions, the analyst faces a number of challenges. A
report from the National Research Council \80\ points out that any
assessment will suffer from uncertainty, speculation, and lack of
information about (1) future emissions of GHGs, (2) the effects of past
and future emissions on the climate system, (3) the impact of changes
in climate on the physical and biological environment, and (4) the
translation of these environmental impacts into economic damages. As a
result, any effort to quantify and monetize the harms associated with
climate change will raise questions of science, economics, and ethics
and should be viewed as provisional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ National Research Council. Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced
Consequences of Energy Production and Use. 2009. National Academies
Press: Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the limits of both quantification and monetization, SCC
estimates can be useful in estimating the social benefits of reducing
CO2 emissions. The agency can estimate the benefits from
reduced (or costs from increased) emissions in any future year by
multiplying the change in emissions in that year by the SCC values
appropriate for that year. The net present value of the benefits can
then be calculated by multiplying each of these future benefits by an
appropriate discount factor and summing across all affected years.
It is important to emphasize that the interagency process is
committed to updating these estimates as the science and economic
understanding of climate change and its impacts on society improves
over time. In the meantime, the interagency group will continue to
explore the issues raised by this analysis and consider public comments
as part of the ongoing interagency process.
b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon Values
In 2009, an interagency process was initiated to offer a
preliminary assessment of how best to quantify the benefits from
reducing carbon dioxide emissions. To ensure consistency in how
benefits are evaluated across Federal agencies, the Administration
sought to develop a transparent and defensible method, specifically
designed for the rulemaking process, to quantify avoided climate change
damages from reduced CO2 emissions. The interagency group
did not undertake any original analysis. Instead, it combined SCC
estimates from the existing literature to use as interim values until a
more comprehensive analysis could be conducted. The outcome of the
preliminary assessment by the interagency group was a set of five
interim values: Global SCC estimates for 2007 (in 2006$) of $55, $33,
$19, $10, and $5 per metric ton of CO2. These interim values
represented the first sustained interagency effort within the U.S.
government to develop an SCC for use in regulatory analysis. The
results of this preliminary effort were presented in several proposed
and final rules.
c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions
After the release of the interim values, the interagency group
reconvened on a regular basis to generate improved SCC estimates.
Specially, the group considered public comments and further explored
the technical literature in relevant fields. The interagency group
relied on three integrated assessment models commonly used to estimate
the SCC: The FUND, DICE, and PAGE models. These models are frequently
cited in the peer-reviewed literature and were used in the last
assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Each model was given equal weight in the SCC values that were
developed.
Each model takes a slightly different approach to model how changes
in emissions result in changes in economic damages. A key objective of
the interagency process was to enable a consistent exploration of the
three models, while respecting the different approaches to quantifying
damages taken by the key modelers in the field. An extensive review of
the literature was conducted to select three sets of input parameters
for these models: climate sensitivity, socio-economic and emissions
trajectories, and discount rates. A probability distribution for
climate sensitivity was specified as an
[[Page 30986]]
input into all three models. In addition, the interagency group used a
range of scenarios for the socio-economic parameters and a range of
values for the discount rate. All other model features were left
unchanged, relying on the model developers' best estimates and
judgments.
The interagency group selected four sets of SCC values for use in
regulatory analyses. Three sets of values are based on the average SCC
from the three IAMs, at discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5 percent. The
fourth set, which represents the 95th percentile SCC estimate across
all three models at a 3-percent discount rate, was included to
represent higher than expected impacts from temperature change further
out in the tails of the SCC distribution. The values grow in real terms
over time. Additionally, the interagency group determined that a range
of values from 7 percent to 23 percent should be used to adjust the
global SCC to calculate domestic effects,\81\ although preference is
given to consideration of the global benefits of reducing
CO2 emissions. Table IV.26 presents the values in the 2010
interagency group report,\82\ which is reproduced in appendix 14-A of
the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ It is recognized that this calculation for domestic values
is approximate, provisional, and highly speculative. There is no a
priori reason why domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of
net global damages over time.
\82\ Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under
Executive Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of
Carbon, United States Government, February 2010. www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-for-RIA.pdf.
Table IV.26--Annual SCC Values From 2010 Interagency Report, 2010-2050
[In 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate %
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 5 3 2.5 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Average Average 95th percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010................................ 4.7 21.4 35.1 64.9
2015................................ 5.7 23.8 38.4 72.8
2020................................ 6.8 26.3 41.7 80.7
2025................................ 8.2 29.6 45.9 90.4
2030................................ 9.7 32.8 50.0 100.0
2035................................ 11.2 36.0 54.2 109.7
2040................................ 12.7 39.2 58.4 119.3
2045................................ 14.2 42.1 61.7 127.8
2050................................ 15.7 44.9 65.0 136.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SCC values used for today's notice were generated using the
most recent versions of the three integrated assessment models that
have been published in the peer-reviewed literature.\83\ Table IV.27
shows the updated sets of SCC estimates in 5-year increments from 2010
to 2050. The full set of annual SCC estimates between 2010 and 2050 is
reported in appendix 14B of the DOE final rule TSD. The central value
that emerges is the average SCC across models at the 3 percent discount
rate. However, for purposes of capturing the uncertainties involved in
regulatory impact analysis, the interagency group emphasizes the
importance of including all four sets of SCC values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for
Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency
Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government.
May 2013; revised November 2013. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf
Table IV.27--Annual SCC Values From 2013 Interagency Report, 2010-2050
[In 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate %
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 5 3 2.5 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Average Average 95th percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010................................ 11 32 51 89
2015................................ 11 37 57 109
2020................................ 12 43 64 128
2025................................ 14 47 69 143
2030................................ 16 52 75 159
2035................................ 19 56 80 175
2040................................ 21 61 86 191
2045................................ 24 66 92 206
2050................................ 26 71 97 220
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to recognize that a number of key uncertainties
remain, and that current SCC estimates should be treated as provisional
and revisable since they will evolve with improved scientific and
economic understanding. The interagency group also recognizes that the
existing models are imperfect and incomplete. The 2009 National
Research Council report mentioned above points out that there is
tension between the goal of producing
[[Page 30987]]
quantified estimates of the economic damages from an incremental ton of
carbon and the limits of existing efforts to model these effects. There
are a number of analytic challenges that are being addressed by the
research community, including research programs housed in many of the
Federal agencies participating in the interagency process to estimate
the SCC. The interagency group intends to periodically review and
reconsider those estimates to reflect increasing knowledge of the
science and economics of climate impacts, as well as improvements in
modeling.
In summary, in considering the potential global benefits resulting
from reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the values from the
2013 interagency report adjusted to 2012$ using the GDP price deflator.
For each of the four sets of SCC values, the values for emissions in
2015 were $11.8, $39.7, $61.2, and $117 per metric ton avoided (values
expressed in 2012$). DOE derived values after 2050 using the relevant
growth rates for the 2040-2050 period in the interagency update.
DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions reduction estimated for
each year by the SCC value for that year in each of the four cases. To
calculate a present value of the stream of monetary values, DOE
discounted the values in each of the four cases using the specific
discount rate that had been used to obtain the SCC values in each case.
NEMA provided a lengthy critique of the integrated assessment
models (IAMs) that were utilized by the Interagency Working Group to
projecting future damages from CO2 emissions, pointing out
that there is enormous uncertainty in the models. (NEMA, No. 93 at p.
16) The Cato Institute stated that the determination of the SCC is
discordant with the best scientific literature on the equilibrium
climate sensitivity and the fertilization effect of carbon dioxide--two
critically important parameters for establishing the net externality of
carbon dioxide emissions, at odds with existing OMB guidelines for
preparing regulatory analyses, and founded upon the output of IAMs that
encapsulate such large uncertainties as to provide no reliable guidance
as to the sign, much less the magnitude of the social cost of carbon.
(Cato Institute, No. 94 at p. 1)
NEMA stated that the monetized benefits of carbon emission
reductions are informative at some level, but should not be considered
as determinative in the Secretary's decision-making under EPCA. NEMA
believes that DOE should base its net benefit determination for
justifying a particular energy conservation standard on the traditional
criteria relied upon by DOE--impacts on manufacturers, consumers,
employment, energy savings, and competition. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 16)
The American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and the American Fuel &
Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) stated that the SCC calculation
should not be used in any rulemaking and/or policymaking until it
undergoes a more rigorous notice, review and comment process.\84\
(AF&PA and AFPM, No. 95 at p. 1) Similarly, the Cato Institute stated
that the SCC should not be used in this or other rulemakings. (Cato
Institute, No. 94 at p. 1) In contrast, the Joint Advocates and CA IOUs
expressed support for the use of the updated SCC values that are based
on the interagency working group's most recent review of peer-reviewed
models on the subject. (Joint Advocates, No. 97 at p. 4; CA IOUs, No.
99 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ AF&PA and AFPM pointed to more detailed comments that were
filed by AFPM and several other trade associations on DOE's Energy
Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment.
https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003-
0079.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the comments on the SCC values, DOE acknowledges the
limitations in the SCC estimates, which are discussed in detail in the
2010 interagency group report. Specifically, uncertainties in the
assumptions regarding climate sensitivity, as well as other model
inputs such as economic growth and emissions trajectories, are
discussed and the reasons for the specific input assumptions chosen are
explained. However, the three integrated assessment models used to
estimate the SCC are frequently cited in the peer-reviewed literature
and were used in the last assessment of the IPCC. In addition, new
versions of the models that were used in 2013 to estimate revised SCC
values were published in the peer-reviewed literature (see appendix 14B
of the final rule TSD for discussion). Although uncertainties remain,
the revised estimates that were issued in November, 2013 are based on
the best available scientific information on the impacts of climate
change. The current estimates of the SCC have been developed over many
years, using the best science available, and with input from the
public. In November 2013, OMB announced a new opportunity for public
comment on the interagency technical support document underlying the
revised SCC estimates. See 78 FR 70586. The comment period for the OMB
announcement closed on February 26, 2014. OMB is currently reviewing
comments and considering whether further revisions to the 2013 SCC
estimates are warranted. DOE stands ready to work with OMB and the
other members of the interagency working group on further review and
revision of the SCC estimates as appropriate.
2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions
DOE investigated the potential monetary benefit of reduced
NOX emissions from the TSLs it considered. As noted above,
DOE has taken into account how new or amended energy conservation
standards would reduce NOX emissions in those 22 states not
affected by the CAIR. DOE estimated the monetized value of
NOX emissions reductions resulting from each of the TSLs
considered for today's rule based on estimates found in the relevant
scientific literature. Estimates of monetary value for reducing
NOX from stationary sources range from $476 to $4,893 per
ton (2013$).\85\ DOE calculated monetary benefits using a medium value
for NOX emissions of $2,684 per short ton (in 2014$), and
real discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ For additional information, refer to U.S. Office of
Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
2006 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal
Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal
Entities, Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is evaluating appropriate monetization of avoided
SO2 and Hg emissions in energy conservation standards
rulemakings. It has not included monetization in the current analysis.
M. Utility Impact Analysis
The utility impact analysis estimates several effects on the power
generation industry that would result from the adoption of new or
amended energy conservation standards. In the utility impact analysis,
DOE analyzes the changes in installed electricity capacity and
generation that would result for each trial standard level. The utility
impact analysis uses NEMS-BT to account for selected utility impacts of
new or amended energy conservation standards. DOE's analysis consists
of a comparison between model results for the most recent AEO Reference
case and for cases in which energy use is decremented to reflect the
impact of potential standards. The energy savings inputs associated
with each TSL come from the NIA. Chapter 15 of the final rule TSD
describes the utility impact analysis in further detail.
[[Page 30988]]
N. Employment Impact Analysis
Employment impacts from new or amended energy conservation
standards include direct and indirect impacts. Direct employment
impacts are any changes in the number of employees of manufacturers of
the equipment subject to standards; the MIA addresses those impacts.
Indirect employment impacts are changes in national employment that
occur due to the shift in expenditures and capital investment caused by
the purchase and operation of more-efficient equipment. Indirect
employment impacts from standards consist of the jobs created or
eliminated in the national economy, other than in the manufacturing
sector being regulated, due to: (1) Reduced spending by end users on
energy; (2) reduced spending on new energy supply by the utility
industry; (3) increased consumer spending on the purchase of new
equipment; and (4) the effects of those three factors throughout the
economy.
One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for
labor of such shifts in economic activity is to compare sector
employment statistics developed by the Labor Department's Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS \86\). BLS regularly publishes its estimates of
the number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in
different sectors of the economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere
in the economy by this same economic activity. Data from BLS indicate
that expenditures in the utility sector generally create fewer jobs
(both directly and indirectly) than expenditures in other sectors of
the economy. There are many reasons for these differences, including
wage differences and the fact that the utility sector is more capital-
intensive and less labor-intensive than other sectors. Energy
conservation standards have the effect of reducing consumer utility
bills. Because reduced consumer expenditures for energy likely lead to
increased expenditures in other sectors of the economy, the general
effect of efficiency standards is to shift economic activity from a
less labor-intensive sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more labor-
intensive sectors (e.g., the retail and service sectors). Thus, based
on the BLS data alone, DOE believes net national employment may
increase because of shifts in economic activity resulting from new and
amended standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ See Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current
Employment Statistics (Available at: https://www.bls.gov/ces/.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the standard levels considered, DOE estimated indirect national
employment impacts using an input/output model of the U.S. economy
called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies, Version 3.1.1 (ImSET).
ImSET is a special purpose version of the ``U.S. Benchmark National
Input-Output'' (I-O) model, which was designed to estimate the national
employment and income effects of energy-saving technologies. The ImSET
software includes a computer-based I-O model having structural
coefficients that characterize economic flows among the 187 sectors.
ImSET's national economic I-O structure is based on a 2002 U.S.
benchmark table, specially aggregated to the 187 sectors most relevant
to industrial, commercial, and residential building energy use. DOE
notes that ImSET is not a general equilibrium forecasting model, and
understands the uncertainties involved in projecting employment
impacts, especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Because
ImSET does not incorporate price changes, the employment effects
predicted by ImSET may over-estimate actual job impacts over the long
run. For the final rule, DOE did not receive any comments and retained
the same approach using ImSET only to estimate short-term employment
impacts.
For more details on the employment impact analysis, see chapter 16
of the final rule TSD.
O. Other Comments Received
In response to the NOPR, interested parties submitted additional
comments on a variety of general issues. CEC and NEMA both pointed out
a table formatting error that appeared in Table 4 on p. 73679 the
Federal Register version of the NOPR.\87\ (CEC, No. 96 at p. 3, NEMA,
No. 93 at p. 30) DOE notes that this error was corrected in the CFR and
future versions of the table. The Office of the Federal Register
published a correction to the table on February 14, 2014. See 79 FR
8309.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ 78 FR 73679.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the NOPR, Scott Mohs raised concern about loss of
wildlife habitat due to corn acreage. (Scott Mohs, No. 102 at p. 1)
This issue is beyond the scope of the electric motors rulemaking, and,
accordingly, DOE does not discuss corn acreage in today's final rule.
V. Analytical Results
A. Trial Standard Levels
DOE ordinarily considers several Trial Standard Levels (TSLs) in
its analytical process. TSLs are formed by grouping different
Efficiency Levels (ELs), which are standard levels for each Equipment
Class Grouping (ECG) of motors. Within each equipment class grouping,
DOE established equipment classes based on pole configuration,
horsepower rating, and enclosure, leading to a total of 482 equipment
classes (see section IV.A.4). DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of
the TSLs developed for today's final rule. DOE examined four TSLs for
electric motors. Table V.1 presents the TSLs analyzed and the
corresponding efficiency level for each equipment class group.
The efficiency levels in each TSL can be characterized as follows:
TSL 1 represents each equipment class group moving up one efficiency
level from the current baseline, with the exception of fire-pump
motors, which remain at their baseline level; TSL 2 represents Premium
levels for all equipment class groups with the exception of fire-pump
motors, which remain at the baseline; TSL 3 represents one NEMA band
above Premium for all groups except fire-pump motors, which move up to
Premium; and TSL 4 represents the maximum technologically feasible
level (max-tech) for all equipment class groups.\1\ Because today's
final rule includes equipment class groups containing both currently
regulated motors and newly regulated motors, at certain TSLs, an
equipment class group may encompass different standard levels, some of
which may be above one EL above the baseline. For example, at TSL1, EL1
is being selected for equipment class group 1. However, a large number
of motors in equipment class group 1 already have to meet EL2. If TSL1
was selected, these motors would continue to be required to meet the
standards at TSL2, while currently un-regulated motors would be
regulated to TSL1 (see TSD chapter 10).
Table V.1--Summary of TSLs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class group TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... EL 1.............. EL 2.............. EL 3.............. EL 4.
[[Page 30989]]
2............................... EL 1.............. EL 1.............. EL 2.............. EL 2.
3............................... EL 0.............. EL 0.............. EL 1.............. EL 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
As discussed in section II.A, EPCA provides seven factors to be
evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation
standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-
(VII) as applied to equipment via 6316(a)) The following sections
generally discuss how DOE is addressing each of those seven factors in
this rulemaking.
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Customers
DOE analyzed the economic impacts on electric motor customers by
looking at the effects standards would have on the LCC and PBP. DOE
also examined the rebuttable presumption payback periods for each
equipment class, and the impacts of potential standards on customer
subgroups. These analyses are discussed below.
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
To evaluate the net economic impact of standards on electric motor
customers, DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses for each TSL. In general,
higher-efficiency equipment would typically affect customers in two
ways: (1) Annual operating expense would decrease, and (2) purchase
price would increase. Section IV.F of this rule discusses the inputs
DOE used for calculating the LCC and PBP. The LCC and PBP results are
calculated from electric motor cost and efficiency data that are
modeled in the engineering analysis (section IV.C).
For each representative unit, the key outputs of the LCC analysis
are a mean LCC savings and a median PBP relative to the base case, as
well as the fraction of customers for which the LCC will decrease (net
benefit), increase (net cost), or exhibit no change (no impact)
relative to the base-case product forecast. No impacts occur when the
base-case efficiency equals or exceeds the efficiency at a given TSL.
Table V.2 show the key shipment-weighted average of results for the
representative units in each equipment class group.
Table V.2--Summary Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results for Equipment Class Group 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial Standard Level * 1 2 3 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency Level 1 2 3 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customers with Net LCC Cost (%) **.................................. 0.3 7.8 34.8 83.3
Customers with Net LCC Benefit (%) **............................... 10.9 34.3 44.7 9.4
Customers with No Change in LCC (%) **.............................. 88.8 57.9 20.4 7.3
Mean LCC Savings ($)................................................ $55 $160 $98 -$409
Median PBP (Years).................................................. 1.0 2.9 6.0 26.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The results for equipment class group 1 are the shipment weighted averages of the results for representative
units 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10.
** Rounding may cause some items to not total 100 percent.
Table V.3--Summary Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results for Equipment Class Group 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial Standard Level * 1 2 3 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency Level 1 1 2 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customers with Net LCC Cost (%) **.................................. 18.6 18.6 92.8 92.8
Customers with Net LCC Benefit (%) **............................... 71.5 71.5 7.2 7.2
Customers with No Change in LCC (%) **.............................. 9.8 9.8 0.0 0.0
Mean LCC Savings ($)................................................ $53 $53 -$280 -$280
Median PBP (Years).................................................. 4.5 4.5 20.7 20.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The results for equipment class group 2 are the shipment weighted averages of the results for representative
units 4 and 5.
** Rounding may cause some items to not total 100 percent.
Table V.4--Summary Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results for Equipment Class Group 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial Standard Level * 1 2 3 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency Level 0 0 1 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customers with Net LCC Cost (%) **.................................. 0.0 0.0 81.7 100.0
Customers with Net LCC Benefit (%) **............................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Customers with No Change in LCC (%) **.............................. 0.0 0.0 18.3 0.0
Mean LCC Savings ($)................................................ N/A *** N/A *** -$64.6 -$807
Median PBP (Years).................................................. N/A *** N/A *** 3016 11632
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The results for equipment class group 3 are the shipment weighted averages of the results for representative
units 6, 7, and 8.
** Rounding may cause some items to not total 100 percent.
*** For equipment class group 3, TSLs 1 and 2 are the same as the baseline; thus, no customers are affected.
[[Page 30990]]
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
In the customer subgroup analysis, DOE estimated the LCC impacts of
the electric motor TSLs on various groups of customers. Table V.5 and
Table V.6 compare the weighted average mean LCC savings and median
payback periods for ECG 1 at each TSL for different customer subgroups.
Chapter 11 of the TSD presents the detailed results of the customer
subgroup analysis and results for the other equipment class groups.
Table V.5--Summary Life-Cycle Cost Results for Subgroups for Equipment Class Group 1: Average LCC Savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC savings (2013$) *
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL TSL Reference Low energy Industrial Commercial Agricultural
scenario price Small business sector only sector only sector only
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 1 55 55 49 65 52 20
2............................................... 2 160 160 141 195 148 11
3............................................... 3 98 97 76 136 85 -100
4............................................... 4 -409 -410 -439 -355 -428 -701
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The results for equipment class group 1 are the shipment weighted averages of the results for representative units 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10.
Table V.6--Summary Life-Cycle Cost Results for Subgroups for Equipment Class Group 1: Median Payback Period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Median payback period (years)*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL TSL Reference Low energy Industrial Commercial Agricultural
scenario price Small business sector only sector only sector only
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 1 1.0 1 1 1 1 3
2............................................... 2 2.9 3 3 2 3 7
3............................................... 3 6.0 6 6 4 7 23
4............................................... 4 26.5 26 27 18 30 126
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The results for equipment class group 1 are the shipment weighted averages of the results for representative units 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10.
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
As discussed in section IV.F.12, EPCA establishes a rebuttable
presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically
justified if the increased purchase cost for equipment that meets the
standard is less than three times the value of the first-year energy
savings resulting from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and
6316(a)) DOE calculated a rebuttable-presumption PBP for each TSL to
determine whether DOE could presume that a standard at that level is
economically justified. DOE based the calculations on average usage
profiles. As a result, DOE calculated a single rebuttable-presumption
payback value, and not a distribution of PBPs, for each TSL. Table V.7
shows the rebuttable-presumption PBPs for the considered TSLs. The
rebuttable presumption is fulfilled in those cases where the PBP is
three years or less. However, DOE routinely conducts an economic
analysis that considers the full range of impacts to the customer,
manufacturer, Nation, and environment, as required under 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i) as applied to equipment via 42 U.S.C. 6316(a). The
results of that analysis serve as the basis for DOE to definitively
evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard level
(thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any three-year PBP
analysis). Section V.C addresses how DOE considered the range of
impacts to select today's final rule.
Table V.7--Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Periods (Years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Equipment class group* ---------------------------------------
1 2 3 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 0.5 0.8 1.2 4.0
2............................... 1.6 1.6 7.3 7.3
3............................... N/A** N/A** 817 4,991
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The results for each equipment class group (ECG) are a shipment
weighted average of results for the representative units in the group.
ECG 1: Representative units 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10; ECG 2: Representative
units 4 and 5; ECG 3: Representative units 6, 7, and 8.
**For equipment class group 3, TSLs 1 and 2 are the same as the
baseline; thus, no customers are affected.
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of new and amended
energy conservation standards on manufacturers of covered electric
motors. The following section describes the expected impacts on
manufacturers at each TSL. Chapter 12 of this final rule TSD explains
the analysis in further detail.
a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results
The results below show three INPV tables representing the three
markup scenarios used for the analysis. The first table reflects the
flat, or gross margin, markup scenario, which is the upper (less
severe) bound of impacts. To assess the lower end of the range of
potential impacts, DOE modeled two potential markup scenarios, a two-
tiered markup
[[Page 30991]]
scenario and a preservation of operating profit markup scenario. The
two-tiered markup scenario assumes manufacturers offer two different
tiers of markups--one for lower efficiency levels and one for higher
efficiency levels. Meanwhile the preservation of operating profit
markup scenario assumes that in the standards case, manufacturers would
be able to earn the same operating margin in absolute dollars in the
standards case as in the base case. In general, the larger the MPC
price increases, the less likely manufacturers are able to fully pass
through additional costs due to standards calculated in the flat markup
scenario.
Table V.8, Table V.9, and Table V.10 present the results for all
electric motors under the flat, two-tiered, and preservation of
operating profit markup scenarios. DOE examined all three ECGs (Design
A and B motors, Design C motors, fire pump motors) together.
Table V.8--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Electric Motors--Flat Markup Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Units Base case ---------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................... (2013$ millions) $3,478.0 $3,486.4 $3,870.6 $4,541.9 $5,382.1
Change in INPV............... (2013$ millions) ........... $8.4 $392.6 $1,063.9 $1,904.1
(%)............. ........... 0.2% 11.3% 30.6% 54.7%
Product Conversion Costs..... (2013$ millions) ........... $6.2 $58.0 $618.1 $627.4
Capital Conversion Costs..... (2013$ millions) ........... $0.0 $26.6 $222.8 $707.2
Total Conversion Costs....... (2013$ millions) ........... $6.2 $84.6 $841.0 $1,334.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.9--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Electric Motors--Two-Tiered Markup Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Units Base case ---------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................... (2013$ millions) $3,478.0 $3,481.6 $3,130.4 $2,928.3 $3,282.0
Change in INPV............... (2013$ millions) ........... $3.6 $-347.7 $-549.7 $-196.0
(%)............. ........... 0.1% -10.0% -15.8% -5.6%
Product Conversion Costs..... (2013$ millions) ........... $6.2 $58.0 $618.1 $627.4
Capital Conversion Costs..... (2013$ millions) ........... $0.0 $26.6 $222.8 $707.2
Total Conversion Costs....... (2013$ millions) ........... $6.2 $84.6 $841.0 $1,334.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.10--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Electric Motors--Preservation of Operating Profit Markup Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Units Base case ---------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................... (2013$ millions) $3,478.0 $3,461.3 $3,643.0 $3,362.0 $2,048.3
Change in INPV............... (2013$ millions) ........... $-16.7 $165.0 $-116.0 $-1,429.8
(%)............. ........... -0.5% 4.7% -3.3% -41.1%
Product Conversion Costs..... (2013$ millions) ........... $6.2 $58.0 $618.1 $627.4
Capital Conversion Costs..... (2013$ millions) ........... $0.0 $26.6 $222.8 $707.2
Total Conversion Costs....... (2013$ millions) ........... $6.2 $84.6 $841.0 $1,334.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 1 represents EL 1 for ECG 1 and ECG 2 motors and baseline for
ECG 3 motors. At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range from
$8.4 million to -$16.7 million, or a change in INPV of 0.2 percent to -
0.5 percent. At this TSL, industry free cash flow is estimated to
decrease by approximately 1 percent to $164.3 million, compared to the
base case value of $166.1 million in 2015.
The INPV impacts at TSL 1 range from slightly positive to slightly
negative. Consequently, DOE does not anticipate that manufacturers
would lose a significant portion of their INPV at this TSL. This is
because the vast majority of shipments already meets or exceeds the
efficiency levels prescribed at TSL 1. DOE estimates that in the year
of compliance (2016), 90 percent of all electric motor shipments (91
percent of ECG 1a, 68 percent of ECG 1b, 8 percent of ECG 2, and 100
percent of ECG 3 shipments) would already meet the efficiency levels at
TSL 1 or higher in the base case. Since ECG 1a shipments account for
over 97 percent of all electric motor shipments, the effects on those
motors are the primary driver for the impacts at this TSL. Only a few
ECG 1a shipments not currently covered by the existing electric motor
standard and a small amount of ECG 1b and ECG 2 shipments would need to
be converted to comply with efficiency standards prescribed at TSL 1.
DOE expects conversion costs to be small compared to the industry
value because most of the electric motor shipments, on a volume basis,
already meet the efficiency levels analyzed at this TSL. DOE estimates
product conversion costs of $6.2 million due to the expanded scope of
motors covered by this rulemaking, which includes motors previously not
covered by the existing electric motor energy conservation standards.
DOE believes that at this TSL, there will be some engineering costs, as
well as testing and certification costs associated with this scope
expansion. DOE estimates the capital conversion costs to be minimal at
TSL 1. This is mainly because almost all manufacturers currently
produce
[[Page 30992]]
some motors that are compliant at TSL 1 efficiency levels, and it would
not be much of a capital investment to bring all motor production to
this efficiency level.
TSL 2 represents EL 2 for ECG 1a and ECG 1b motors, EL 1 for ECG 2
motors, and baseline for ECG 3 motors. At TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts
on INPV to range from $392.6 million to -$347.7 million, or a change in
INPV of 11.3 percent to -10.0 percent. At this TSL, industry free cash
flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 17 percent to $137.1
million, compared to the base case value of $166.1 million in 2015.
The INPV impacts at TSL 2 range from moderately positive to
slightly negative. DOE estimates that in the year of compliance (2016),
60 percent of all electric motor shipments (60 percent of ECG 1a, 31
percent of ECG 1b, 8 percent of ECG 2, and 100 percent of ECG 3
shipments) would already meet the efficiency levels at TSL 2 or higher
in the base case. The majority of shipments are currently covered by an
electric motors standard that requires general purpose Design A and B
motors to meet the efficiency levels at this TSL. Therefore, only
previously non-covered Design A and B motors and most ECG 1b and ECG 2
motors would need to be converted to comply with efficiency standards
prescribed at TSL 2.
At TSL 2, DOE expects conversion costs to increase significantly
from TSL 1. However, these conversion costs do not represent a large
portion of the base case INPV, since the majority of electric motor
shipments already meet the efficiency levels required at this TSL. DOE
estimates product conversion costs of $58.0 million due to the expanded
scope of this rulemaking, which includes motors not previously covered
by the existing electric motor energy conservation standards and the
inclusion of ECG 1b and ECG 2 motors. DOE believes there will be
moderate engineering costs, as well as testing and certification costs
at this TSL associated with this scope expansion. DOE estimates the
capital conversion costs to be approximately $26.6 million at TSL 2.
While most manufacturers already produce at least some motors that are
compliant at TSL 2, these manufacturers would likely have to invest in
machinery to bring all motor production to these efficiency levels.
TSL 3 represents EL 3 for ECG 1a and ECG 1b motors, EL 2 for ECG 2
motors, and EL 1 for ECG 3 motors. At TSL 3, DOE estimates the impacts
on INPV to range from $1,063.9 million to -$549.7 million, or a change
in INPV of 30.6 percent to -15.8 percent. At this TSL, industry free
cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 170 percent to -
$116.0 million, compared to the base case value of $166.1 million in
2015.
The INPV impacts at TSL 3 range from significantly positive to
moderately negative. DOE estimates that in the year of compliance
(2016), 23 percent of all electric motor shipments (24 percent of ECG
1a, 4 percent of ECG 1b, less than 1 percent of ECG 2, and 19 percent
of ECG 3 shipments) would already meet the efficiency levels at TSL 3
or higher in the base case. The majority of shipments would need to be
converted to comply with efficiency standards prescribed at TSL 3.
DOE expects conversion costs to increase significantly at TSL 3 and
become a substantial investment for manufacturers. DOE estimates
product conversion costs of $618.1 million at TSL 3, since most
electric motors in the base case do not exceed the current motor
standards set at premium efficiency levels for Design A and B motors,
which represents EL 2 for ECG 1a. DOE believes there would need to be a
massive reengineering effort that manufacturers would have to undergo
to have all motors meet this TSL. Additionally, motor manufacturers
would have to increase the efficiency levels for ECG 1b, ECG 2, and ECG
3 motors. DOE estimates the capital conversion costs to be
approximately $222.8 million at TSL 3. Most manufacturers would have to
make significant investments to their production facilities in order to
convert all their motors to be compliant at TSL 3.
TSL 4 represents EL 4 for ECG 1a and ECG 1b motors, EL 2 for ECG 2
motors, and EL 3 for ECG 3 motors. At TSL 4, DOE estimates impacts on
INPV to range from $1,904.1 million to -$1,429.8 million, or a change
in INPV of 54.7 percent to -41.1 percent. At this TSL, industry free
cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 303 percent to -
$336.6 million, compared to the base case value of $166.1 million in
2015.
The INPV impacts at TSL 4 range from significantly positive to
significantly negative. DOE estimates that in the year of compliance
(2016) only 8 percent of all electric motor shipments (9 percent of ECG
1a, less than 1 percent of ECG 1b, less than 1 percent of ECG 2, and no
ECG 3 shipments) would meet the efficiency levels at TSL 2 or higher in
the base case. Almost all shipments would need to be converted to
comply with efficiency standards prescribed at TSL 4.
DOE expects conversion costs again to increase significantly from
TSL 3 to TSL 4. Conversion costs at TSL 4 now represent a massive
investment for electric motor manufacturers. DOE estimates product
conversion costs of $627.4 million at TSL 4, which are only slightly
more than at TSL 3. DOE believes that manufacturers would need to
completely reengineer almost all electric motors sold, as well as test
and certify those motors. DOE estimates capital conversion costs of
$707.2 million at TSL 4. This is a significant increase in capital
conversion costs from TSL 3, since manufacturers would need to adopt
copper die-casting at TSL 4. This technology requires a significant
level of investment because the majority of manufacturers' machinery
would need to be replaced or significantly modified.
b. Impacts on Employment
DOE quantitatively assessed the impact of new and amended energy
conservation standards on direct employment in the electric motors
industry. DOE used the GRIM to estimate the domestic labor expenditures
and number of domestic production workers in the base case and at each
TSL from the announcement of standards in 2014 (i.e., the publication
of this final rule) to the end of the analysis period in 2045. DOE used
statistical data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2011 Annual Survey of
Manufacturers \88\ (ASM), the results of the engineering analysis, and
interviews with manufacturers to determine the inputs necessary to
calculate industry-wide labor expenditures and domestic employment
levels. Labor expenditures involved with the manufacturing of electric
motors are a function of the labor intensity of the equipment, the MPC
of the equipment, the sales volume, and an assumption that wages remain
fixed in real terms over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ See https://www.census.gov/manufacturing/asm/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the GRIM, DOE used the labor content of the equipment and the
MPCs to estimate the annual labor expenditures of the industry. DOE
used Census data and interviews with manufacturers to estimate the
portion of the total labor expenditures attributable to domestic labor.
The production worker estimates in this employment section cover
only workers up to the line-supervisor level who are directly involved
in fabricating and assembling an electric motor within a motor
facility. Workers performing services that are closely associated with
production operations, such as material
[[Page 30993]]
handling with a forklift, are also included as production labor. DOE's
estimates account for only production workers who manufacture the
specific equipment covered by this rulemaking. For example, a worker on
an electric motor production line manufacturing a fractional horsepower
motor (i.e., a motor with less than one horsepower) would not be
included with this estimate of the number of electric motor workers,
since fractional motors are not covered by this rulemaking.
The employment impacts shown in the tables below represent the
potential production employment impact resulting from new and amended
energy conservation standards. The upper bound of the results estimates
the maximum change in the number of production workers that could occur
after compliance with standards when assuming that manufacturers
continue to produce the same scope of covered equipment in the same
production facilities. It also assumes that domestic production does
not shift to lower-labor-cost countries. Because there is a real risk
of manufacturers evaluating sourcing decisions in response to
standards, the lower bound of the employment results includes the
estimated total number of U.S. production workers in the industry who
could lose their jobs if some or all existing production were moved
outside of the U.S. While the results present a range of employment
impacts following 2016, the following sections also include qualitative
discussions of the likelihood of negative employment impacts at the
various TSLs. Finally, the employment impacts shown are independent of
the indirect employment impacts from the broader U.S. economy, which
are documented in chapter 16 of this final rule TSD.
Based on 2011 ASM data and interviews with manufacturers, DOE
estimates approximately 60 percent of electric motors sold in the U.S.
are manufactured domestically. Using this assumption, DOE estimates
that in the absence of new and amended energy conservation standards,
there would be approximately 7,313 domestic production workers involved
in manufacturing all electric motors covered by this rulemaking in
2016. Table V.11 shows the range of potential impacts of standards on
U.S. production workers in the electric motor industry. However,
because ECG 1a motors comprise more than 97 percent of the electric
motors covered by this rulemaking, DOE believes that potential changes
in domestic employment will be driven primarily by the standards that
are selected for ECG 1a (i.e., Design A and B motors).
Table V.11--Potential Changes in the Total Number of All Domestic Electric Motor Production Workers in 2016
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Base case ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Number of Domestic Production Workers in 2016 (upper 7,313 7,346 7,498 8,374 16,049
bound: without changes in production locations)............
Total Number of Domestic Production Workers in 2016 (lower 7,313 7,313 6,947 3,657 0
bound: with changes to off-shore production locations).....
Potential Changes in Domestic Production Workers in 2016\*\. .............. 33 to 0 185 to -366 1,061 to -3,656 8,736 to -7,313
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts.
Most manufacturers agree that any standard that involves expanding
the scope of equipment required to meet premium efficiency levels for
ECG 1a motors would not significantly change domestic employment
levels. For standards that required ECG 1a motors to be at premium
efficiency levels (the efficiency levels required for ECG 1a motors at
TSL 2), most large manufacturers would not need to make major
modifications to their production lines nor would they have to
undertake new manufacturing processes. A few small manufacturers who
primarily make electric motors outside the scope of coverage for the
existing electric motor standards, but whose equipment would be covered
by these electric motor standards, could be impacted by efficiency
standards at TSL 2. These impacts to small manufacturers, including
employment impacts, are discussed in more detail in section VI.B of
today's final rule.
Overall, DOE believes there would not be a significant decrease in
domestic employment levels at TSL 2, the selected TSL in today's final
rule. DOE created a lower bound of the potential loss of domestic
employment at 366 employees for TSL 2. DOE based this lower bound
estimate on the fact that approximately 5 percent of the electric motor
market is comprised of manufacturers that do not currently produce any
motors at Premium efficiency levels. Therefore, DOE estimated that at
most 5 percent of domestic electric motor employment in the base case
in 2016 could potentially move abroad or exit the market entirely.
However, DOE similarly estimated that all electric motor manufacturers
produce some electric motors at or above TSL 1 efficiency levels.
Therefore, DOE does not believe that any potential loss of domestic
employment would occur at TSL 1.
Manufacturers, however, cautioned that any energy conservation
standard set above premium efficiency levels would require major
changes to production lines, large investments in capital and labor,
and would result in extensive stranded assets. This is largely because
manufacturers would have to design and build motors with larger frame
sizes and could potentially have to use copper, rather than aluminum
rotors. Several manufacturers pointed out that this would require
extensive retooling, vast engineering resources, and would ultimately
result in a more labor-intensive production process. Manufacturers
generally agreed that a shift toward copper rotors would cause
companies to incur higher labor costs. These factors could cause
manufacturers to consider moving production offshore in an attempt to
reduce labor costs or they may choose to exit the market entirely.
Therefore, DOE believes it is more likely that efficiency standards set
above premium efficiency levels could result in a decrease of labor.
Accordingly, DOE set the lower bound
[[Page 30994]]
on the potential loss of domestic employment at 50 percent of the
domestic labor market in the base case in 2016 for TSL 3 and 100
percent for TSL 4. However, these values represent the worst-case
scenario DOE modeled. Manufacturers also stated that larger motor
manufacturing (i.e., the manufacturing of motors above 200 horsepower)
would be very unlikely to move abroad, because the shipping costs
associated with those motors are very large. Consequently, DOE believes
that standards set at TSL 3 and TSL 4 would not necessarily result in
the large losses of domestic employment suggested by the lower bound of
DOE's direct employment analysis.
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
Most manufacturers agree that any standard expanding the scope of
equipment required to meet premium efficiency levels would not have a
significant impact on manufacturing capacity. Manufacturers pointed
out, however, that standards that required them to use copper rotors
would severely disrupt manufacturing capacity. Baldor commented that
motor manufacturers do not have the capacity to produce 5 million
copper rotors per year. They stated it is challenging to manufacture
better motor designs in actual production, compared to what can be
obtained on paper. (Baldor, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at p. 118-119) Most
manufacturers emphasized they do not currently have the machinery,
technology, or engineering resources to produce copper rotors in-house.
Some manufacturers claim that the few manufacturers that do have the
capability of producing copper rotors are not able to produce these
motors in volumes sufficient to meet the demands of the entire market.
For manufacturers to either completely redesign their motor production
lines or significantly expand their fairly limited copper rotor
production line would require a massive retooling and engineering
effort, which could take several years to complete. Most manufacturers
stated they would have to outsource copper rotor production because
they would not be able to modify their facilities and production
processes to produce copper rotors in-house within a two year time
period. Most manufacturers agree that outsourcing copper rotor die-
casting would constrain capacity by creating a bottleneck in copper
rotor production, as there are very few companies that produce copper
rotors.
Manufacturers also pointed out that there is substantial
uncertainty surrounding the global availability and price of copper,
which has the potential to constrain capacity. NEMA commented they are
concerned about the potential price volatility with any standards
requiring copper rotors. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 12) DOE acknowledges that
it is likely that there could be copper capacity concerns at any TSL
requiring copper rotor motors. Currently, there is only a limited
amount of copper die-casting machinery and companies with experience
die-casting copper today. In addition, there could be significant
fluctuations in the price of copper in the near term, which could lead
to supply chain problems. Because the TSL selected in today's final
rule (TSL 2) does not require the use of copper rotors for any motors,
DOE does not anticipate that today's electric motor standards will
cause any manufacturing capacity constraints.
d. Impacts on Sub-Group of Manufacturers
Using average cost assumptions to develop industry cash-flow
estimates may not adequately assess differential impacts among
manufacturer subgroups. Small manufacturers, niche equipment
manufacturers, and manufacturers exhibiting cost structures
substantially different from the industry average could be affected
disproportionately. DOE analyzed the impacts to small businesses in
section VI.B and did not identify any other adversely impacted electric
motor subgroups for this rulemaking based on the results of the
industry characterization.
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
While any one regulation may not impose a significant burden on
manufacturers, the combined effects of recent or impending regulations
may have serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of
manufacturers, or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single
regulation may overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition
to energy conservation standards, other regulations can significantly
affect manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations
affecting the same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies
to abandon production lines or markets with lower expected future
returns than competing equipment. For these reasons, DOE conducts an
analysis of cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings
pertaining to equipment efficiency.
During previous stages of this rulemaking, DOE identified a number
of requirements, in addition to new and amended energy conservation
standards for electric motors, that manufacturers will face for
equipment they manufacture approximately three years prior to, and
three years after, the compliance date of the standards selected in
today's final rule, such as the small electric motors standard (75 FR
10874) and the distribution transformers standard (78 FR 23336). The
following section briefly addresses comments DOE received with respect
to cumulative regulatory burden.
Baldor commented that DOE should try to harmonize electric motor
standards with the rest of the world. Baldor stated that the European
Union's (EU's) electric motor standards will be set at premium
efficiency levels in the next few years, so having U.S. electric motor
standards at premium efficiency levels would harmonize U.S. electric
motor standards with the EU's standards. Baldor also stated that no
other country is setting electric motor standards above premium
efficiency levels, so any U.S. standards set above premium efficiency
levels would cause the U.S. motor market to be out of synchronization
with the rest of the world's standards. Also, there is an ongoing
effort to develop global markings for electric motors so that
manufacturers do not have to conduct separate compliance testing and
approvals for each country. Therefore, standards that are harmonized
with the rest of the world's standards would benefit manufacturers.
(Baldor, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at p. 176-180) The standards adopted in
today's final rule do not require motor manufacturers to exceed premium
efficiency levels for any motors. Therefore, the U.S. standards
prescribed in today's final rule would keep U.S. standards in harmony
with the rest of the world and would not significantly add to the motor
manufacturers' cumulative regulatory burden from a global standards
perspective.
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings for electric motors
purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance
with new and amended standards (2016-2045). The savings are measured
over the entire lifetime of equipment purchased in the 30-year period.
DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the
difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the
base case. Table V.12 presents the estimated primary energy savings for
each considered TSL, and Table V.13 presents the estimated FFC energy
savings for each considered TSL. The approach for estimating national
energy
[[Page 30995]]
savings is further described in section IV.H.
Table V.12--Cumulative Primary Energy Savings for Electric Motors Trial
Standard Levels for Units Sold in 2016-2045
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Equipment class ---------------------------------------
1 2 3 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
quads
---------------------------------------
1............................... 1.08 6.83 10.54 13.42
2............................... 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03
3............................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
---------------------------------------
Total all classes........... 1.10 6.85 10.57 13.45
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.13--Cumulative Full-Fuel-Cycle Energy Savings for Electric
Motors Trial Standard Levels for Units Sold in 2016-2045
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Equipment class ---------------------------------------
1 2 3 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
quads
---------------------------------------
1............................... 1.10 6.95 10.72 13.64
2............................... 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03
3............................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
---------------------------------------
Total all classes........... 1.12 6.97 10.75 13.67
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB Circular A-4 requires agencies to present analytical results,
including separate schedules of the monetized benefits and costs that
show the type and timing of benefits and costs. Circular A-4 also
directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements underlying
the estimates of benefits and costs. For this rulemaking, DOE undertook
a sensitivity analysis using nine rather than 30 years of equipment
shipments. The choice of a nine-year period is a proxy for the timeline
in EPCA for the review of certain energy conservation standards and
potential revision of and compliance with such revised standards.\89\
DOE notes that the review timeframe established in EPCA generally does
not overlap with the equipment lifetime, equipment manufacturing
cycles, or other factors specific to electric motors. Thus, this
information is presented for informational purposes only and is not
indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology. The NES
results based on a 9-year analytical period are presented in Table
V.14. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of electric motors
purchased in 2016-2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ EPCA requires DOE to review its standards at least once
every 6 years, and requires, for certain products, a 3-year period
after any new standard is promulgated before compliance is required,
except that in no case may any new standards be required within 6
years of the compliance date of the previous standards. While adding
a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance period adds up to 9 years,
DOE notes that it may undertake reviews at any time within the 6
year period and that the 3-year compliance date may yield to the 6-
year backstop. A 9-year analysis period may not be appropriate given
the variability that occurs in the timing of standards reviews and
the fact that for some consumer products, the compliance period is 5
years rather than 3 years.
Table V.14--Cumulative National Energy Savings for Electric Motors Trial
Standard Levels for Units Sold in 2016-2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Equipment class ---------------------------------------
1 2 3 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
quads
---------------------------------------
1............................... 0.42 1.59 2.35 3.05
2............................... 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
3............................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
---------------------------------------
Total all classes........... 0.43 1.59 2.36 3.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 30996]]
b. Net Present Value of Customer Costs and Benefits
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for
customers that would result from the TSLs considered for electric
motors. In accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory analysis,\90\
DOE calculated the NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real
discount rate. The 7-percent rate is an estimate of the average before-
tax rate of return on private capital in the U.S. economy, and it
reflects the returns on real estate and small business capital as well
as corporate capital. This discount rate approximates the opportunity
cost of capital in the private sector (OMB analysis has found the
average rate of return on capital to be near this rate). The 3-percent
rate reflects the potential effects of standards on private consumption
(e.g., through higher prices for equipment and reduced purchases of
energy). This rate represents the rate at which society discounts
future consumption flows to their present value. It can be approximated
by the real rate of return on long-term government debt (i.e., yield on
United States Treasury notes), which has averaged about 3-percent for
the past 30 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ OMB Circular A-4, section E (September 17, 2003), available
at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4.
Table V.15--Net Present Value of Customer Benefits for Electric Motors Trial Standard Levels for Units Sold in
2016-2045
[Billion 2013$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Equipment class Discount -----------------------------------------------
rate % 1 2 3 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................... 6.91 28.75 8.61 -39.27
2................................................... 0.06 0.06 -0.02 -0.02
3................................................... 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.03
Total All Classes............................... 6.97 28.81 8.59 -39.32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................... 3.34 11.27 -1.50 -31.29
2................................................... 0.02 0.02 -0.03 -0.03
3................................................... 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.02
Total All Classes............................... 3.36 11.29 -1.54 -31.34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPV results based on the afore-mentioned 9-year analytical
period are presented in Table V.16. The impacts are counted over the
lifetime of equipment purchased in 2016-2024. The review timeframe
established in EPCA is generally not synchronized with the product
lifetime, product manufacturing cycles, or other factors specific to
electric motors. As mentioned previously, this information is presented
for informational purposes only and is not indicative of any change in
DOE's analytical methodology or decision criteria.
Table V.16--Net Present Value of Customer Benefits for Electric Motors Trial Standard Levels for Units Sold in
2016-2024
[Billion 2013$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Equipment class Discount -----------------------------------------------
rate % 1 2 3 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................... 3.15 8.81 4.79 -11.60
2................................................... 0.01 0.01 -0.01 -0.01
3................................................... 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01
Total All Classes............................... 3.17 8.83 4.78 -11.61
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................... 1.95 5.02 1.04 -12.94
2................................................... 0.01 0.01 -0.02 -0.02
3................................................... 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01
Total All Classes............................... 1.95 5.02 1.03 -12.97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
DOE expects energy conservation standards for electric motors to
reduce energy costs for equipment owners, with the resulting net
savings being redirected to other forms of economic activity. Those
shifts in spending and economic activity could affect the overall
domestic demand for labor. As described in section IV.N, DOE used an
input/output model of the U.S. economy to estimate indirect employment
impacts of the TSLs that DOE considered in this rulemaking. DOE
understands that there are uncertainties involved in projecting
employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of the
analysis. Therefore, DOE generated results for near-term time frames
(2016-2021), where these uncertainties are reduced.
The results suggest that today's standards are likely to have
negligible impact on the net demand for labor in the economy. The net
change in jobs is so small that it would be imperceptible in national
labor statistics and might be offset by other, unanticipated effects on
employment. Chapter 16 of the TSD presents detailed results.
[[Page 30997]]
4. Impact on Utility or Performance
DOE believes that today's standards will not lessen the utility or
performance of electric motors.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
DOE has also considered any lessening of competition that is likely
to result from new and amended energy conservation standards. The
Attorney General determines the impact, if any, of any lessening of
competition likely to result from a proposed standard, and transmits
such determination in writing to the Secretary, together with an
analysis of the nature and extent of such impact. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (ii); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
To assist the Attorney General in making such determination, DOE
transmitted a copy of its proposed rule and NOPR TSD to the Attorney
General with a request that the Department of Justice (DOJ) provide its
determination on this issue. DOJ's response, that the proposed energy
conservation standards are unlikely to have a significant adverse
impact on competition, is reprinted at the end of this rule.
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves
the Nation's energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the
environmental impacts or costs of energy production. Reduced
electricity demand due to energy conservation standards is also likely
to reduce the cost of maintaining and increase the reliability of the
electricity system, particularly during peak-load periods. As a measure
of this reduced demand, chapter 15 in the TSD presents the estimated
reduction in the growth of generating capacity in 2044 for the TSLs
that DOE considered in this rulemaking.
Energy savings from energy conservation standards for electric
motors could also produce environmental benefits in the form of reduced
emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with
electricity production. Table V.17 provides DOE's estimate of
cumulative emissions reductions projected to result from the TSLs
considered in this rulemaking. DOE reports annual emissions reductions
for each TSL in chapter 13 of the TSD.
Table V.17--Cumulative Emissions Reduction Estimated for Electric Motors Trial Standard Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
-----------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Energy Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)....................................... 62.7 373 574 731
NOX (thousand tons)............................................. 106 668 1,032 1,312
SO2 (thousand tons)............................................. 33.6 196 301 383
Hg (tons)....................................................... 0.132 0.819 1.26 1.61
N2O (thousand tons)............................................. 1.24 8.30 12.9 16.3
CH4 (thousand tons)............................................. 7.38 46.2 71.4 90.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upstream Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)....................................... 3.55 22.0 33.9 43.1
NOX (thousand tons)............................................. 0.761 4.71 7.26 9.23
SO2 (thousand tons)............................................. 48.8 302 466 593
Hg (tons)....................................................... 0.002 0.012 0.018 0.023
N2O (thousand tons)............................................. 0.036 0.221 0.341 0.433
CH4 (thousand tons)............................................. 296 1,837 2,834 3,604
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-Fuel-Cycle Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)....................................... 66.2 395 608 774
NOX (thousand tons)............................................. 107 673 1,039 1,321
SO2 (thousand tons)............................................. 82.5 498 767 977
Hg (tons)....................................................... 0.134 0.831 1.28 1.63
N2O (thousand tons)............................................. 1.27 8.52 13.2 16.8
CH4 (thousand tons)............................................. 304 1,883 2,905 3,695
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the analysis for this rule, DOE estimated monetary
benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO2
and NOX that DOE estimated for each of the TSLs considered.
As discussed in section IV.L, DOE used values for the SCC developed by
an interagency process. The four sets of SCC values resulting from that
process \91\ (expressed in 2013$) are represented in today's rule as
the value of emission reductions in 2015 by $12.0/metric ton (the
average value from a distribution that uses a 5-percent discount rate),
$40.5/metric ton (the average value from a distribution that uses a 3-
percent discount rate), $62.4/metric ton (the average value from a
distribution that uses a 2.5-percent discount rate), and $119 metric
ton (the 95th-percentile value from a distribution that uses a 3-
percent discount rate). These values correspond to the value of
emission reductions in 2015; the values for later years are higher due
to increasing damages as the projected magnitude of climate change
increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ These values reflect the latest SCC values developed by
interagency process (November 2013) (see IV.L.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.18 presents the global value of CO2 emissions
reductions at each TSL. For each of the four cases, DOE calculated a
present value of the stream of annual values using the same discount
rate as was used in the studies upon which the dollar-per-ton values
are based. DOE calculated domestic
[[Page 30998]]
values as a range from 7 percent to 23 percent of the global values,
and these results are presented in chapter 14 of the final rule TSD.
Table V.18--Estimates of Global Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction under Electric Motors Trial Standard
Levels
[Million 2013$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCC Case *
---------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 5% discount 3% discount 2.5% discount 3% discount
rate, average rate, average rate, average rate, 95th
* * * percentile *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Energy Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 465 2,070 3,269 6,373
2............................................... 2,529 11,720 18,651 36,225
3............................................... 3,870 17,985 28,633 55,600
4............................................... 4,939 22,923 36,488 70,858
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upstream Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 25.7 116 183 357
2............................................... 146 682 1,087 2,110
3............................................... 223 1,049 1,673 3,246
4............................................... 285 1,335 2,129 4,132
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-Fuel-Cycle Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 491 2,185 3,452 6,730
2............................................... 2,675 12,402 19,738 38,335
3............................................... 4,094 19,033 30,306 58,845
4............................................... 5,223 24,258 38,618 74,991
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For each of the four cases, the corresponding SCC value for emissions in 2015 is $12.0, $40.5, $62.4, and $119
per metric ton (2013$).
DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the
contribution of CO2 and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
to changes in the future global climate and the potential resulting
damages to the world economy continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any
value placed on reducing CO2 emissions in this rulemaking is
subject to change. DOE, together with other Federal agencies, will
continue to review various methodologies for estimating the monetary
value of reductions in CO2 and other GHG emissions. This
ongoing review will consider the comments on this subject that are part
of the public record for this and other rulemakings, as well as other
methodological assumptions and issues.
DOE also estimated a range for the cumulative monetary value of the
economic benefits associated with NOX emissions reductions
anticipated to result from new and amended standards for electric
motors. The low and high dollar-per-ton values that DOE used are
discussed in section IV.L. Table V.19 presents the estimated cumulative
present values of NOX emissions reductions for each TSL
calculated using seven-percent and three-percent discount rates.
Table V.19--Estimates of Present Value of NOX Emissions Reduction Under
Electric Motors Trial Standard Levels
[Million 2013$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount 7% discount
TSL rate rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power Sector Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 52.1 28.8
2....................................... 269 131
3....................................... 410 197
4....................................... 524 253
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upstream Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 71.5 36.9
2....................................... 396 179
3....................................... 606 272
4....................................... 773 348
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-Fuel-Cycle Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 124 65.8
2....................................... 664 310
3....................................... 1,016 469
4....................................... 1,297 601
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Summary of National Economic Impacts
The NPV of the monetized benefits associated with emissions
reductions can be viewed as a complement to the NPV of the customer
savings calculated for each TSL considered in this rulemaking. Table
V.20 presents the NPV values that result from adding the estimates of
the potential economic benefits resulting from reduced CO2
and NOX emissions in each of four valuation scenarios to the
NPV of customer savings calculated for each TSL considered in this
rulemaking, at both a seven-percent and three-percent discount rate.
The CO2 values used in the columns of each table correspond
to the four sets of SCC values discussed above.
[[Page 30999]]
Table V.20--Net Present Value of Customer Savings Combined With Net Present Value of Monetized Benefits From CO2
and NOX Emissions Reductions
[Billion 2013$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCC Case $12.0/ SCC Case $40.5/ SCC Case $62.4/ SCC Case $119/
metric ton CO2* metric ton CO2* metric ton CO2* metric ton CO2*
TSL and Low Value and Medium Value and Medium Value and High Value
for NOX** for NOX** for NOX** for NOX**
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer NPV at 3% Discount Rate added with:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 7.5 9.3 10.6 13.9
2....................................... 31.6 41.9 49.2 68.4
3....................................... 12.9 28.6 39.9 69.3
4....................................... -33.9 -13.8 0.6 38.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer NPV at 7% Discount Rate added with:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 3.9 5.6 6.9 10.2
2....................................... 14.0 24.0 31.3 50.2
3....................................... 2.6 18.0 29.2 58.2
4....................................... -26.0 -6.5 7.9 44.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These label values represent the global SCC in 2015, in 2013$.
** Low Value corresponds to $476 per ton of NOX emissions. Medium Value corresponds to $2,684 per ton, and High
Value corresponds to $4,893 per ton.
Although adding the value of customer savings to the values of
emission reductions provides a valuable perspective, two issues should
be considered. First, the national operating cost savings are domestic
U.S. customer monetary savings that occur as a result of market
transactions, while the value of CO2 reductions is based on
a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and
the SCC are performed with different methods that use quite different
time frames for analysis. The national operating cost savings is
measured for the lifetime of equipment shipped in 2016-2045. The SCC
values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of future climate-
related impacts resulting from the emission of one metric ton of
CO2 in each year. These impacts continue well beyond 2100.
8. Other Factors
The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is
economically justified, may consider any other factors that the
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) DOE
has considered the submission of the Petition under this factor. As
described previously, DOE believes the Petition sets forth a statement
by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points
of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered
equipment, efficiency advocates, and others) and contains
recommendations with respect to an energy conservation standard that
are technologically feasible, economically justified, and likely to
save significant energy. DOE encourages the submission of such
consensus agreements as a way to bring diverse interested parties
together, to develop an independent and probative analysis useful in
DOE standard setting, and to expedite the rulemaking process. DOE also
believes that standard levels recommended in the Petition may increase
the likelihood for regulatory compliance, while decreasing the risk of
litigation.
C. Conclusions
When considering standards, the new or amended energy conservation
standard that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered equipment
shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and
6316(a)) In determining whether a standard is economically justified,
the Secretary must determine whether the benefits of the standard
exceed its burdens to the greatest extent practicable, considering the
seven statutory factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(a)) The new or amended standard must also
``result in significant conservation of energy''. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(a))
For today's final rule, DOE considered the impacts of standards at
each TSL, beginning with the max-tech level, to determine whether that
level was economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not
justified, DOE then considered the next most efficient level and
undertook the same evaluation until it reached the highest efficiency
level that is technologically feasible, economically justified, and
saves a significant amount of energy. Throughout this process, DOE also
considered the consensus recommendations made by the Motors Coalition
and the views of other stakeholders in their submitted comments.
To aid the reader in understanding the benefits and/or burdens of
each TSL, tables in this section summarize the quantitative analytical
results for each TSL, based on the assumptions and methodology
discussed herein. The efficiency levels contained in each TSL are
described in section V.A. In addition to the quantitative results
presented in the tables, DOE also considers other burdens and benefits
that affect economic justification. These include the impacts on
identifiable subgroups of customers who may be disproportionately
affected by a national standard, and impacts on employment. Section
V.B.1.b presents the estimated impacts of each TSL for the considered
subgroup. DOE discusses the impacts on employment in the electric motor
manufacturing sector in section V.B.2.b, and discusses the indirect
employment impacts in section V.B.3.c
1. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard Levels Considered for
Electric Motors
Table V.21 and Table V.22 summarize the quantitative impacts
estimated for each TSL for electric motors.
[[Page 31000]]
Table V.21--Summary of Analytical Results for Electric Motors: National Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Full-Fuel-Cycle Energy Savings quads
1.1 7.0 10.7 13.7
NPV of Consumer Benefits 2013$ billion
3% discount rate............................ 7.0 28.8 8.6 -39.3
7% discount rate............................ 3.4 11.3 -1.5 -31.3
Cumulative Emissions Reduction (Total FFC
Emissions)
CO2 million metric tons..................... 66.2 395 608 774
SO2 thousand tons........................... 107 673 1,039 1,321
NOX thousand tons........................... 82.5 498 767 977
Hg tons..................................... 0.134 0.831 1.28 1.63
N2O thousand tons........................... 1.27 8.52 13.2 16.8
CH4 thousand tons........................... 304 1,883 2,905 3,695
Value of Emissions Reduction (Total FFC
Emissions)
CO2 2013$ million*.......................... 491 to 6,730 2,675 to 4,094 to 5,233 to
38,335 58,845 74,991
NOX--3% discount rate 2013$ million......... 124 664 1,016 1,297
NOX--7% discount rate 2013$ million......... 66 310 469 601
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2
emissions.
Table V.22--Summary of Analytical Results for Electric Motors: Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer Impacts
INPV (2013$ million) (Base Case INPV of 3,486.4 to 3,870.6 to 4,541.9 to 5,382.2 to
$3,478.0)...................................... 3,461.3 3,130.4 2,928.3 2,048.3
INPV (change in 2013$).......................... 8.4 to -16.7 392.6 to - 1,063.9 to - 1,904.1 to -
347.7 549.7 1,429.8
INPV (% change)................................. 0.2 to -0.5 11.3 to -10.0 30.6 to -15.8 54.7 to -41.1
Consumer Mean LCC Savings * 2013$
Equipment Class Group 1......................... 55 160 98 -409
Equipment Class Group 2......................... 53 53 -280 -280
Equipment Class Group 3......................... N/A ** N/A ** -65 -807
Consumer Median PBP * years
Equipment Class Group 1......................... 1.0 2.9 6.0 26.5
Equipment Class Group 2......................... 4.5 4.5 20.7 20.7
Equipment Class Group 3......................... N/A ** N/A ** 3,016 11,632
Equipment Class Group 1
Net Cost %...................................... 0.3 7.8 34.8 83.3
Net Benefit %................................... 10.9 34.3 44.7 9.4
No Impact %..................................... 88.8 57.9 20.4 7.3
Equipment Class Group 2
Net Cost %...................................... 18.6 18.6 92.8 92.8
Net Benefit %................................... 71.5 71.5 7.2 7.2
No Impact %..................................... 9.8 9.8 0.0 0.0
Equipment Class Group 3
Net Cost (%).................................... 0.0 0.0 81.7 100.0
Net Benefit (%)................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
No Impact (%)................................... 0.0 0.0 18.3 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The results for each equipment class group (ECG) are a shipment weighted average of results for the
representative units in the group. ECG 1: Representative units 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10; ECG 2: Representative units
4 and 5; ECG 3: Representative units 6, 7, and 8.
** For equipment class group 3, TSL 1 and 2 are the same as the baseline; thus, no customers are affected.
First, DOE considered TSL 4, the most efficient level (max-tech),
which would save an estimated total of 13.7 quads of energy, an amount
DOE considers significant. TSL 4 has an estimated NPV of customer
benefit of -31.3 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and -39.3
billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 774 million metric
tons of CO2, 977 thousand tons of NOX, 1,321
thousand tons of SO2, and 1.6 tons of Hg. The estimated
monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 4
ranges from $5,233 million to $74,991 million.
At TSL 4, the weighted average LCC impact ranges from $-807 for ECG
3 to $-280 for ECG 2. The weighted average median PBP ranges from 20.7
years for ECG 2 to 11,632 years for ECG 3. The weighted average share
of customers experiencing a net LCC benefit ranges from 0-percent for
ECG 3 to 9.4-percent for ECG 1.
At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$1,429.8 million to an increase of $1,904.1 million. If the decrease of
$1,429.8 million were to occur, TSL 4 could result in a net loss of
41.1 percent in INPV to manufacturers of covered electric motors.
Based on the foregoing, DOE concludes that, at TSL 4 for electric
motors, the benefits of energy savings, generating capacity reductions,
emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the emissions
reductions would be outweighed by the potential multi-billion dollar
negative
[[Page 31001]]
net economic cost; the economic burden on customers as indicated by the
increase in customer LCC (negative savings), large PBPs, the large
percentage of customers who would experience LCC increases; the
increase in the cumulative regulatory burden on manufacturers; and the
capital and engineering costs that could result in a large reduction in
INPV for manufacturers at TSL 4. Additionally, DOE believes that
efficiency standards at this level could result in significant impacts
on OEMs due to larger and faster motors. Although DOE has not
quantified these potential OEM impacts, DOE believes that it is
possible that these impacts could be significant and further reduce any
potential benefits of standards established at this TSL. Consequently,
DOE has concluded that TSL 4 is not economically justified.
Next, DOE considered TSL 3, which would save an estimated total of
10.7 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. TSL 3 has an
estimated NPV of customer benefit of $-1.5 billion using a 7-percent
discount rate, and $8.6 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 608 million metric
tons of CO2, 767 thousand tons of NOX, 1,039
thousand tons of SO2, and 1.3 tons of Hg. The estimated
monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 4
ranges from $4,094 million to $58,845 million.
At TSL 3, the weighted average LCC impact ranges from $-280 for ECG
2 to $98 for ECG 1. The weighted average median PBP ranges from 6 years
for ECG 1 to 3,016 years for ECG 3. The share of customers experiencing
a net LCC benefit ranges from 0-percent for ECG 3 to 44.7-percent for
ECG 1.
At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$549.7 million to an increase of $1,063.9 million. If the decrease of
$549.7 million were to occur, TSL 3 could result in a net loss of 15.8
percent in INPV to manufacturers of covered electric motors.
Based on the foregoing, DOE concludes that, at TSL 3 for electric
motors, the benefits of energy savings, positive weighted average
customer LCC savings for some ECGs, generating capacity reductions,
emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the emissions
reductions would be outweighed by the potential negative net economic
cost; the economic burden on customers as indicated by the increase in
weighted average LCC for some ECGs (negative savings), large PBPs, the
large percentage of customers who would experience LCC increases; the
increase in the cumulative regulatory burden on manufacturers; and the
capital and engineering costs that could result in a large reduction in
INPV for manufacturers at TSL 3. Additionally, DOE believes that
efficiency standards at this level could result in significant impacts
on OEMs due to larger and faster motors. Although DOE has not
quantified these potential OEM impacts, DOE believes that it is
possible that these impacts could be significant and further reduce any
potential benefits of standards established at this TSL. Consequently,
DOE has concluded that TSL 3 is not economically justified.
Next, DOE considered TSL 2, which would save an estimated total of
7.0 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. TSL 2 has an
estimated NPV of customer benefit of $11.3 billion using a 7-percent
discount rate, and $28.8 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 395 million metric
tons of CO2, 498 thousand tons of NOX, 673
thousand tons of SO2, and 0.8 tons of Hg. The estimated
monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 4
ranges from $2,675 million to $38,335 million.
At TSL 2, the weighted average LCC impact ranges from no impacts
for ECG 3 to $160 for ECG 1. The weighted average median PBP ranges
from 0 years for ECG 3 to 4.5 years for ECG 2. The share of customers
experiencing a net LCC benefit ranges from 0-percent for ECG 3 to 71.5-
percent for ECG 2.The share of motors already at TSL2 efficiency levels
varies by equipment class group and by horsepower range (from 0- to
57.9-percent). For ECG 1, which represents the most significant share
of the market, about 30-percent of motors already meet the TSL levels.
At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$347.7 million to an increase of $392.6 million. If the decrease of
$347.7 million were to occur, TSL 2 could result in a net loss of 10.0
percent in INPV to manufacturers of covered electric motors.
After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and the
burdens, DOE has concluded that at TSL 2 for electric motors, the
benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of customer benefit, positive
impacts on consumers (as indicated by positive weighted average LCC
savings for all ECGs impacted at TSL 2), favorable PBPs, the large
percentage of customers who would experience LCC benefits, emission
reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the emissions
reductions would outweigh the slight increase in the cumulative
regulatory burden on manufacturers and the risk of small negative
impacts if manufacturers are unable to recoup investments made to meet
the standard. In particular, the Secretary of Energy has concluded that
TSL 2 would save a significant amount of energy and is technologically
feasible and economically justified.
In addition, DOE notes that TSL 2 most closely corresponds to the
standards that were proposed by the Motor Coalition, as described in
section II.B.2. Based on the above considerations, DOE today adopts the
energy conservation standards for electric motors at TSL 2. Table V.23
through Table V.25 present the energy conservation standards for
electric motors.
Table V.23--Energy Conservation Standards for NEMA Design A and NEMA Design B Motors
[Compliance starting June 1, 2016]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/ standard kilowatt equivalent 2-Pole 4-Pole 6-Pole 8-Pole
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75........................................... 77.0 77.0 85.5 85.5 82.5 82.5 75.5 75.5
1.5/1.1......................................... 84.0 84.0 86.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 78.5 77.0
2/1.5........................................... 85.5 85.5 86.5 86.5 88.5 87.5 84.0 86.5
3/2.2........................................... 86.5 85.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 87.5
5/3.7........................................... 88.5 86.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 86.5 88.5
7.5/5.5......................................... 89.5 88.5 91.7 91.0 91.0 90.2 86.5 89.5
[[Page 31002]]
10/7.5.......................................... 90.2 89.5 91.7 91.7 91.0 91.7 89.5 90.2
15/11........................................... 91.0 90.2 92.4 93.0 91.7 91.7 89.5 90.2
20/15........................................... 91.0 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 92.4 90.2 91.0
25/18.5......................................... 91.7 91.7 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.0 90.2 91.0
30/22........................................... 91.7 91.7 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.6 91.7 91.7
40/30........................................... 92.4 92.4 94.1 94.1 94.1 94.1 91.7 91.7
50/37........................................... 93.0 93.0 94.5 94.5 94.1 94.1 92.4 92.4
60/45........................................... 93.6 93.6 95.0 95.0 94.5 94.5 92.4 93.0
75/55........................................... 93.6 93.6 95.4 95.0 94.5 94.5 93.6 94.1
100/75.......................................... 94.1 93.6 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 93.6 94.1
125/90.......................................... 95.0 94.1 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 94.1 94.1
150/110......................................... 95.0 94.1 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.1 94.1
200/150......................................... 95.4 95.0 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.5 94.1
250/186......................................... 95.8 95.0 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.0 95.0
300/224......................................... 95.8 95.4 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 ........... ...........
350/261......................................... 95.8 95.4 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 ........... ...........
400/298......................................... 95.8 95.8 96.2 95.8 ........... ........... ........... ...........
450/336......................................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ........... ........... ........... ...........
500/373......................................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ........... ........... ........... ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.24--Energy Conservation Standards for NEMA Design C Motors
[Compliance starting June 1, 2016]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt 4-Pole 6-Pole 8-Pole
equivalent -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75............................. 85.5 85.5 82.5 82.5 75.5 75.5
1.5/1.1........................... 86.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 78.5 77.0
2/1.5............................. 86.5 86.5 88.5 87.5 84.0 86.5
3/2.2............................. 89.5 89.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 87.5
5/3.7............................. 89.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 86.5 88.5
7.5/5.5........................... 91.7 91.0 91.0 90.2 86.5 89.5
10/7.5............................ 91.7 91.7 91.0 91.7 89.5 90.2
15/11............................. 92.4 93.0 91.7 91.7 89.5 90.2
20/15............................. 93.0 93.0 91.7 92.4 90.2 91.0
25/18.5........................... 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.0 90.2 91.0
30/22............................. 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.6 91.7 91.7
40/30............................. 94.1 94.1 94.1 94.1 91.7 91.7
50/37............................. 94.5 94.5 94.1 94.1 92.4 92.4
60/45............................. 95.0 95.0 94.5 94.5 92.4 93.0
75/55............................. 95.4 95.0 94.5 94.5 93.6 94.1
100/75............................ 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 93.6 94.1
125/90............................ 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 94.1 94.1
150/110........................... 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.1 94.1
200/150........................... 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.5 94.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.25--Energy Conservation Standards for Fire Pump Electric Motors
[Compliance starting June 1, 2016]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/ standard kilowatt equivalent 2-Pole 4-Pole 6-Pole 8-Pole
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75........................................... 75.5 ........... 82.5 82.5 80.0 80.0 74.0 74.0
1.5/1.1......................................... 82.5 82.5 84.0 84.0 85.5 84.0 77.0 75.5
2/1.5........................................... 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 86.5 85.5 82.5 85.5
3/2.2........................................... 85.5 84.0 87.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 84.0 86.5
5/3.7........................................... 87.5 85.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 85.5 87.5
7.5/5.5......................................... 88.5 87.5 89.5 88.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 88.5
10/7.5.......................................... 89.5 88.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 90.2 88.5 89.5
[[Page 31003]]
15/11........................................... 90.2 89.5 91.0 91.0 90.2 90.2 88.5 89.5
20/15........................................... 90.2 90.2 91.0 91.0 90.2 91.0 89.5 90.2
25/18.5......................................... 91.0 91.0 92.4 91.7 91.7 91.7 89.5 90.2
30/22........................................... 91.0 91.0 92.4 92.4 91.7 92.4 91.0 91.0
40/30........................................... 91.7 91.7 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 91.0 91.0
50/37........................................... 92.4 92.4 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 91.7
60/45........................................... 93.0 93.0 93.6 93.6 93.6 93.6 91.7 92.4
75/55........................................... 93.0 93.0 94.1 94.1 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.6
100/75.......................................... 93.6 93.0 94.5 94.1 94.1 94.1 93.0 93.6
125/90.......................................... 94.5 93.6 94.5 94.5 94.1 94.1 93.6 93.6
150/110......................................... 94.5 93.6 95.0 95.0 95.0 94.5 93.6 93.6
200/150......................................... 95.0 94.5 95.0 95.0 95.0 94.5 94.1 93.6
250/186......................................... 95.4 94.5 95.0 95.4 95.0 95.4 94.5 94.5
300/224......................................... 95.4 95.0 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.4 ........... ...........
350/261......................................... 95.4 95.0 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.4 ........... ...........
400/298......................................... 95.4 95.4 95.4 95.4 ........... ........... ........... ...........
450/336......................................... 95.4 95.8 95.4 95.8 ........... ........... ........... ...........
500/373......................................... 95.4 95.8 95.8 95.8 ........... ........... ........... ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of Today's Standards
The benefits and costs of today's standards, for equipment sold in
2016-2045, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The
annualized monetary values are the sum of: (1) The annualized national
economic value of the benefits from consumer operation of equipment
that meet the standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings
from using less energy, minus increases in equipment purchase and
installation costs, which is another way of representing consumer NPV),
and (2) the annualized monetary value of the benefits of emission
reductions, including CO2 emission reductions.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the
time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values. First, DOE
calculated a present value in 2014, the year used for discounting
the NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the time-series of
costs and benefits using discount rates of three and seven percent
for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO2
reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as
shown in Table I.3. From the present value, DOE then calculated the
fixed annual payment over a 30-year period (2016 through 2045) that
yields the same present value. The fixed annual payment is the
annualized value. Although DOE calculated annualized values, this
does not imply that the time-series of cost and benefits from which
the annualized values were determined is a steady stream of
payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although combining the values of operating savings and
CO2 emission reductions provides a useful perspective, two
issues should be considered. First, the national operating savings are
domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of
market transactions while the value of CO2 reductions is
based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost
savings and CO2 savings are performed with different methods
that use different time frames for analysis. The national operating
cost savings is measured for the lifetime of electric motors shipped in
2016-2045. The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present value
of some future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of
one ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts continue well
beyond 2100.
Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of today's standards for
electric motors are shown in Table V.26. The results under the primary
estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits
and costs other than CO2 reduction, for which DOE used a 3-
percent discount rate along with the average SCC series that uses a 3-
percent discount rate, the cost of today's standards is $517 million
per year in increased equipment costs; while the estimated benefits are
$1,367 million per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $614
million per year in CO2 reductions, and $23.3 million per
year in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit
would amount to $1,488 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount
rate for all benefits and costs and the average SCC series, the
estimated cost of today's standards is $621 million per year in
increased equipment costs; while the estimated benefits are $2,048
million per year in reduced operating costs, $614 million per year in
CO2 reductions, and $32.9 million per year in reduced
NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit would amount to
approximately $2,074 million per year.
Table V.26--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Standards for Electric Motors
[Million 2013$/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary estimate Low net benefits High net benefits
Discount rate * estimate * estimate *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
Consumer Operating Cost 7%............... 1,367............ 1,134............ 1,664
Savings.
3%............... 2,048............ 1,684............ 2,521
CO2 Reduction Monetized 5%............... 166.............. 143.............. 192
Value ($12.0/t case) *.
CO2 Reduction Monetized 3%............... 614.............. 531.............. 712
Value ($40.5/t case) *.
[[Page 31004]]
CO2 Reduction Monetized 2.5%............. 920.............. 795.............. 1,066
Value ($62.4/t case) *.
CO2 Reduction Monetized 3%............... 1,899............ 1,641............ 2,200
Value $119/t case) *.
NOX Reduction Monetized 7%............... 23.3............. 20.1............. 26.8
Value (at $2,684/ton) **.
3%............... 32.9............. 28.4............. 38.0
Total Benefits [dagger]. 7% plus CO2 range 1,556 to 3,289... 1,297 to 2,795... 1,882 to 3,890
7%............... 2,005............ 1,685............ 2,402
3% plus CO2 range 2,247 to 3,980... 1,855 to 3,353... 2,750 to 4,758
3%............... 2,696............ 2,243............ 3,270
Costs
Consumer Incremental 7%............... 517.............. 582.............. 503
Equipment Costs.
3%............... 621.............. 697.............. 616
Net Benefits
Total [dagger].......... 7% plus CO2 range 1,039 to 2,772... 716 to 2,213..... 1,380 to 3,388
7%............... 1,488............ 1,103............ 1,900
3% plus CO2 range 1,626 to 3,359... 1,158 to 2,656... 2,134 to 4,143
3%............... 2,074............ 1,546............ 2,654
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with electric motors shipped in 2016-2045.
These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2044 from the equipment purchased in years 2016-
2045. Costs incurred by manufacturers, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule, are not
directly included, but are indirectly included as part of incremental equipment costs. The Primary, Low
Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates are in view of projections of energy prices from the Annual Energy
Outlook (AEO) 2013 Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental
equipment costs reflect a medium constant projected equipment price in the Primary Estimate, a decline rate
for projected equipment price trends in the Low Benefits Estimate, and an increasing rate for projected
equipment price trends in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are
explained in section IV.F.1.
** The interagency group selected four sets of SCC values for use in regulatory analyses. Three sets of values
are based on the average SCC from the three integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5
percent. The fourth set, which represents the 95th percentile SCC estimate across all three models at a 3-
percent discount rate, is included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from temperature change further
out in the tails of the SCC distribution. The values in parentheses represent the SCC in 2015. The SCC time
series incorporate an escalation factor. The value for NOX is the average of the low and high values used in
DOE's analysis.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to
average SCC with 3-percent discount rate. In the rows labeled ``7% plus CO2 range'' and ``3% plus CO2 range,''
the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added
to the full range of CO2 values.
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (October. 4, 1993), requires each agency to
identify the problem that it intends to address, including, where
applicable, the failures of private markets or public institutions that
warrant new agency action, as well as to assess the significance of
that problem. The problems that today's standards address are as
follows: There are external benefits resulting from improved energy
efficiency of covered electric motors which are not captured by the
users of such equipment. These benefits include externalities related
to environmental protection and energy security that are not reflected
in energy prices, such as emissions of greenhouse gases. DOE attempts
to quantify some of the external benefits through use of Social Cost of
Carbon values.
In addition, DOE has determined that today's regulatory action is a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f)(1) Executive Order
12866. DOE presented to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB for review the draft rule and other documents
prepared for this rulemaking, including the RIA, and has included these
documents in the rulemaking record. The assessments prepared pursuant
to Executive Order 12866 can be found in the technical support document
for this rulemaking.
DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order
13563, issued on January 18, 2011. 76 FR 3281 (January 21, 2011). EO
13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are
required by Executive Order 13563 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 Executive Order 13563 requires agencies
to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present
and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its
guidance, OIRA has emphasized that such techniques may include
identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from
technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the
reasons stated in the preamble, DOE believes that today's final rule is
consistent with these principles, including the requirement that, to
the extent permitted by law, benefits justify costs and that net
benefits are maximized.
[[Page 31005]]
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, and a final
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any such rule that an agency
adopts as a final rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order
13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,''
67 FR 53461 (August 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 Web site (https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE reviewed the December 2013 NOPR (78 FR 73590) and
today's final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003.
As a result of this review, DOE has prepared a FRFA for electric
motors. As presented and discussed in the following section, the FRFA
describes impacts on electric motor manufacturers and discusses
alternatives that could minimize these impacts. A statement of the
reasons for establishing the standards in today's final rule, and the
objectives of, and legal basis for these standards, are set forth
elsewhere in the preamble and not repeated here. Chapter 12 of the TSD
contains more information about the impact of this rulemaking on
manufacturers.
1. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
For manufacturers of electric motors, the Small Business
Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those
entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of the
statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine
whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the
rule. 65 FR 30836, 30850 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533,
53545 (September 5, 2000) and codified at 13 CFR part 121. The size
standards are listed by North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) code and industry description and are available at https://www.sba.gov/content/table-small-business-size-standards. Electric motor
manufacturing is classified under NAICS 335312, ``Motor and Generator
Manufacturing''. The SBA sets a threshold of 1,000 employees or less
for an entity to be considered as a small business for this category.
To estimate the number of companies that could be small business
manufacturers of equipment covered by this rulemaking, DOE conducted a
market survey using publicly available information. DOE's research
involved industry trade association membership directories (including
NEMA \93\), information from previous rulemakings, UL qualification
directories, individual company Web sites, and market research tools
(e.g., Hoover's reports \94\). DOE also asked stakeholders and industry
representatives if they were aware of any other small manufacturers
during manufacturer interviews and DOE public meetings. DOE used
information from these sources to create a list of companies that could
potentially manufacture electric motors covered by this rulemaking. As
necessary, DOE contacted companies to determine whether they met the
SBA's definition of a small business manufacturer. DOE screened out
companies that do not offer equipment covered by this rulemaking, do
not meet the definition of a ``small business,'' or are completely
foreign-owned and -operated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ https://www.nema.org/Products/Pages/Motor-and-Generator.aspx.
\94\ https://www.hoovers.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE initially identified 60 potential manufacturers of electric
motors sold in the United States. After reviewing publicly available
information on these potential electric motor manufacturers, DOE
determined that 33 were either large manufacturers or manufacturers
that did not sell electric motors covered by this rulemaking. DOE then
contacted the remaining 27 companies to determine whether they met the
SBA definition of a small business and whether they manufactured the
equipment that would be affected by today's standards. Based on these
efforts, DOE estimates that there are 13 small business manufacturers
of electric motors covered by this rulemaking in the United States.
a. Manufacturer Participation
As stated in the December 2013 NOPR (78 FR at 73670), DOE attempted
to contact the 13 identified small businesses to invite them to take
part in a small business manufacturer impact analysis interview. Of the
electric motor manufacturers DOE contacted, 10 responded, and three did
not. Eight of the 10 responding manufacturers declined to be
interviewed. Therefore, DOE was able to reach and discuss potential
standards with two of the 13 small business manufacturers. DOE also
obtained information about small business manufacturers and potential
impacts while interviewing large manufacturers.
b. Electric Motor Industry Structure and Nature of Competition
Eight major manufacturers supply approximately 90 percent of the
market for electric motors. None of the major manufacturers of electric
motors covered in this rulemaking is a small business. DOE estimates
that approximately 50 percent of the market is served by imports. Many
of the small businesses that compete in the electric motor market
produce specialized motors, many of which have not been regulated under
previous standards. Most of these low-volume manufacturers do not
compete directly with large manufacturers and tend to occupy niche
markets for their equipment, which are currently not required to comply
with existing electric motor standards but would be required to comply
with the standards in this final rule. There are a few small business
manufacturers that produce general purpose motors; however, these
motors already meet premium efficiency levels, which correspond to the
efficiency levels being selected for the majority of electric motors
covered in today's final rule.
c. Comparison Between Large and Small Entities
For electric motors, small manufacturers differ from large
manufacturers in several ways that affect the extent to which a
manufacturer would be impacted by selected standards. Characteristics
of small manufacturers include: lower production volumes, fewer
engineering resources, less technical expertise, and less access to
capital.
A lower-volume manufacturer's conversion costs would need to be
spread over fewer units than a larger competitor. Smaller companies are
also more likely to have more limited engineering resources, and they
often operate with lower levels of design and manufacturing
sophistication. Smaller companies typically also have less experience
and expertise in working with more advanced technologies. Standards
that required these technologies could strain the engineering resources
of these small manufacturers, if they chose to maintain a vertically
integrated business model.
[[Page 31006]]
Small manufacturers of electric motor can also be at a disadvantage due
to their lack of purchasing power for high-performance materials. For
example, more expensive low-loss steels are needed to meet higher
efficiency standards, and steel cost grows as a percentage of the
overall equipment cost. Small manufacturers who pay higher per-pound
prices would be disproportionately impacted by these prices. Lastly,
small manufacturers typically have less access to capital, which may be
needed by some to cover the conversion costs associated with new
technologies.
2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
In its market survey, DOE identified three categories of small
manufacturers of electric motors that may be impacted differently by
today's final rule. The first group, which includes approximately five
of the 13 small businesses, consists of manufacturers that produce
specialty motors that were not required to meet previous Federal
standards, but would need to do so under the expanded scope of today's
final rule. DOE believes that this group would likely be the most
impacted by expanding the scope of equipment required to meet premium
efficiency levels. The second group, which includes approximately five
different small businesses, consists of manufacturers that produce a
small amount of covered equipment and primarily focus on other types of
motors not covered in this rulemaking, such as single-phase or direct-
current motors. Because generally less than 10 percent of these
manufacturers' revenue comes from covered equipment, DOE does not
believe new standards will substantially impact their business. The
third group, which includes approximately three small businesses,
consists of manufacturers that already offer premium efficiency general
purpose and specialty motors. DOE expects these manufacturers to face
conversion costs similar to large manufacturers, in that they will not
experience high capital conversion costs as they already have the
design and production experience necessary to bring their motors up to
premium efficiency levels. It is likely, however, that some of the
specialty equipment these manufacturers produce will be included in the
expanded scope of this rule and is likely to result in these small
businesses incurring additional certification and testing costs. These
manufacturers could also face equipment development costs if they have
to redesign any motors that are not currently meeting the premium
level.
At TSL 2, the level adopted in today's notice, DOE estimates
capital conversion costs of $1.88 million and equipment conversion
costs of $3.75 million for a typical small manufacturer in the first
group (manufacturers that produce specialized motors previously not
covered by Federal standards). Meanwhile, DOE estimates a typical large
manufacturer would incur capital and equipment conversion costs of
$3.29 million and $7.25 million, respectively, at the same TSL. Small
manufacturers that predominately produce specialty motors would face
higher relative capital conversion costs at TSL 2 than large
manufacturers because large manufacturers have been independently
pursuing higher efficiency motors as a result of the efficiency
standards prescribed by EISA 2007 (10 CFR 431.25) and, consequently,
have built up more design and production experience. Large
manufacturers have also been innovating as a result of the small
electric motors rulemaking at 75 FR 10874 (March 9, 2010). This rule
did not apply to non-general purpose small electric motors that many of
these small business manufacturers produce. Many large manufacturers of
general purpose motors offer equipment that was covered by the 2010
small electric motors rule, as well as equipment that falls under this
rule. Small manufacturers pointed out that this fact would give large
manufacturers an advantage in that they already have experience with
the technology necessary to redesign their equipment and are familiar
with the steps they will have to take to upgrade their manufacturing
equipment and processes. Small manufacturers, whose specialized motors
were not required to meet the standards prescribed by the small
electric motors rule and EISA 2007 have not undergone these processes
and, therefore, would have to put more time and resources into redesign
efforts.
The small businesses whose equipment lines consist of a high
percentage of equipment that are not currently required to meet
efficiency standards would need to make significant capital investments
relative to large manufacturers to upgrade their production lines with
equipment necessary to produce motors that can satisfy the levels being
adopted today. As Table VI.1 illustrates, these manufacturers would
have to drastically increase their capital expenditures to purchase new
lamination die sets, and new winding and stacking equipment.
For small manufacturers in the second group (manufacturers whose
revenue from covered equipment in this rulemaking is less than 10
percent of total company revenue), DOE believes that these small
manufacturers would lose no more than 10 percent of their company
revenue. This lower bound is because these manufacturers could always
choose not to make the investments necessary to convert the newly
covered electric motors subject to standards in today's final rule.
This lower bound is similar to the lower bound estimate of the entire
electric motor industry at TSL 2, the TSL adopted in this final rule.
For small manufacturers in the third group (manufacturer that
produces general purpose motors currently covered by Federal
standards), DOE predicts that these small manufacturers would not have
any conversion costs or decrease in revenue since they already
manufacture electric motors that are compliant with the standards being
adopted for this final rule.
Table VI.1--Estimated Capital and Product Conversion Costs as a Percentage of Annual Capital Expenditures and
R&D Expense
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Product
conversion cost conversion cost Total conversion
as a percentage as a percentage cost as a
of annual capital of annual R&D percentage of
expenditures expense annual revenue
(percent) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typical large manufacturer............................. 14 31 2
Typical small manufacturer that produces specialty 188 490 75
motors previously not covered by Federal standards....
[[Page 31007]]
Typical small manufacturer who revenue from covered NA NA \*\ <= 10
equipment is less than 10% of total company revenue...
Typical small manufacturer that produces general 0 0 0
purpose motors currently covered by Federal standards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The most these manufacturers would lose is 10% of their annual revenue if they choose not to invest in
upgrading the equipment they currently manufacture, which is not covered by Federal energy conservation
standards, but that would now be covered by the standards prescribed in this final rule.
Table VI.1 also illustrates that small manufacturers whose
equipment lines contain many motors that are not currently required to
meet Federal standards face high relative equipment conversion costs
compared to large manufacturers, despite the lower dollar value. In
interviews, these small manufacturers expressed concern that they would
face a large learning curve relative to large manufacturers, due to the
fact that many of the equipment types have not had to meet Federal
standards. In its market survey, DOE learned that for some
manufacturers, the expanded scope of specialized motors that would have
to meet the levels adopted by today's rule could affect nearly half the
equipment they offer. They would need to hire additional engineers and
would have to spend considerable time and resources redesigning their
equipment and production processes. DOE does not expect the small
businesses that already manufacture motors meeting the levels adopted
by today's rule or those small businesses that offer very few
alternating-current motors to incur these high costs.
Manufacturers also expressed concern about testing and
certification costs associated with new standards. They pointed out
that these costs are particularly burdensome on small businesses that
produce a wide variety of specialized equipment. As a result of the
wide variety of equipment they produce and their relatively low output,
small manufacturers are forced to certify multiple small batches of
motors, the costs of which are spread out over far fewer units than
large manufacturers.
Small manufacturers that produce equipment not currently required
to meet efficiency standards also pointed out that they would face
significant challenges supporting current business while making changes
to their production lines. While large manufacturers could shift
production of certain equipment to different plants or equipment lines
while they made updates, small businesses would have limited options.
Most of these small businesses have only one plant and would have to
find a way to continue to fulfill customer needs while redesigning
production lines and installing new equipment. In interviews with DOE,
small manufacturers said that it would be difficult to quantify the
impacts that downtime and the possible need for external support could
have on their businesses.
3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict With the rule being considered today.
4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
Section VI.B.2 analyzes impacts on small businesses that would
result from DOE's adopted final rule. Though TSLs lower than the one
serving as the basis for today's final rule would be likely to reduce
the impacts on small entities, DOE is required by EPCA to establish
standards that achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency
that are technically feasible and economically justified, and result in
a significant conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE rejected the lower
TSLs it had been considering.
In addition to the other TSLs that DOE considered, the final rule
TSD includes a regulatory impact analysis (RIA). For electric motors,
the RIA discusses the following policy alternatives: (1) Consumer
rebates, (2) consumer tax credits, (3) manufacturer tax credits, (4)
voluntary energy efficiency targets, (5) early replacement, and (6)
bulk government purchases. While these alternatives may mitigate to
some varying extent the economic impacts on small entities compared to
the standards, DOE determined that the energy savings of these
alternatives are significantly smaller than those that would be
expected to result from the adopted standard levels. Accordingly, DOE
is declining to adopt any of these alternatives and is adopting the
standards set forth in this rulemaking. (See chapter 17 of this final
TSD for further detail on the policy alternatives DOE considered.)
DOE only received one public comment regarding the impact of the
rule on small manufacturers. Baldor asked why DOE does not consider
impacts on the many small manufacturers outside of the U.S. (Baldor,
Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 87 at pp. 176-177). Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, the term ``small business concern'' is defined by reference to
SBA's regulations. SBA's regulations state that a small business
concern is ``a business entity organized for profit, with a place of
business located in the United States, and which operates primarily
within the United States or which makes a significant contribution to
the U.S. economy through payment of taxes or use of American products,
materials or labor''. 13 CFR 121.105(a)(1). As a result, under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, DOE must assess impacts on domestic small
businesses. DOE did not receive any comments suggesting that small
business manufacturers would not be able to achieve the efficiency
levels required at TSL 2, the selected standards in today's final rule.
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
Manufacturers of electric motors that are currently subject to
energy conservation standards must certify to DOE that their equipment
complies with any applicable energy conservation standards. In
certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their equipment
according to the DOE test procedures for electric motors,
[[Page 31008]]
including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. The
collection-of-information requirement for the certification and
recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by
OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the
certification is estimated to average 20 hours per response, including
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection of information. DOE intends to address revised
certification requirements for electric motors in a separate
rulemaking.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969,
DOE has determined that the rule fits within the category of actions
included in Categorical Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise meets the
requirements for application of a CX.(10 CFR part 1021, App. B,
B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and Appendix B, B(1)-(5)). The rule fits within
the category of actions because it is a rulemaking that establishes
energy conservation standards for consumer products or industrial
equipment, and for which none of the exceptions identified in CX
B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made a CX determination for this
rulemaking, and DOE does not need to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for this rule. DOE's CX
determination for this rule is available at https://cxnepa.energy.gov/.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' 64 FR 43255 (August10, 1999)
imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that
have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. EPCA governs and
prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy
conservation for the equipment that is the subject of today's final
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No
further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988,
``Civil Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty
to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors
and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3)
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a
general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR
4729 (February 7, 1996). Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it
is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law,
this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 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 the new and amended regulatory action likely to result in a rule
that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in
any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA
requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates
the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national
economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal
agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by
elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a
``significant intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan
for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially
affected small governments before establishing any requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. 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 https://energy.gov/gc/downloads/unfunded-mandates-reform-act-intergovernmental-consultation.
DOE has concluded that this final rule would likely require
expenditures of $100 million or more. Such expenditures may include:
(1) Investment in research and development and in capital Expenditures
by electric motor manufacturers in the years between the final rule and
the compliance date for the new standards, and (2) incremental
additional expenditures by consumers to purchase higher-efficiency
electric motors, starting at the compliance date for the applicable
standard.
Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a Federal agency to respond to the
content requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that
accompanies the final rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The content requirements
of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private sector mandate
substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that apply
under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of today's final rule and the
``Regulatory Impact Analysis'' section of the TSD accompanying the
final rule respond to those requirements.
Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before
promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is
required.
[[Page 31009]]
2 U.S.C. 1535(a). DOE is required to select from those alternatives the
most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule unless DOE publishes an explanation for doing
otherwise, or the selection of such an alternative is inconsistent with
law. As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(d), (f), and (o) and 6316(a),
today's final rule would establish energy conservation standards for
electric motors that are designed to achieve the maximum improvement in
energy efficiency that DOE has determined to be both technologically
feasible and economically justified. A full discussion of the
alternatives considered by DOE is presented in the ``Regulatory Impact
Analysis'' section of the TSD for today's final rule.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the
family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not
necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation 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
guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines
issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February
22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October
7, 2002). DOE has reviewed today's final rule 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
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA
at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy
supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has concluded that today's regulatory action, which sets forth
energy conservation standards for electric motors, is not a significant
energy action because the new and amended standards are not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at
OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects
on the final rule.
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 (January14,
2005).The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The
purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as scientific information the
agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear and
substantial impact on important public policies or private sector
decisions. 70 FR 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress
peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process
and analyses and has prepared a Peer Review Report pertaining to the
energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses. Generation of this
report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented evaluation using
objective criteria and qualified and independent reviewers to make a
judgment as to the technical/scientific/business merit, the actual or
anticipated results, and the productivity and management effectiveness
of programs and/or projects. The ``Energy Conservation Standards
Rulemaking Peer Review Report'' dated February 2007 has been
disseminated and is available at the following Web site:
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/peer_review.html.
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of this rule prior to its effective date. The report will
state that it has been determined that the rule is a ``major rule'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's final
rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Commercial and industrial Equipment,
Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Small businesses.
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 8, 2014.
David T. Danielson,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 431 of
chapter II of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
PART 431--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
0
2. Amend Sec. 431.12 by revising the definitions of ``NEMA Design A
motor'' and ``partial electric motor'' to read as follows:
[[Page 31010]]
Sec. 431.12 Definitions.
* * * * *
NEMA Design A motor means a squirrel-cage motor that:
(1) Is designed to withstand full-voltage starting and developing
locked-rotor torque as shown in NEMA MG 1-2009, paragraph 12.38.1
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.15);
(2) Has pull-up torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG 1-
2009, paragraph 12.40.1;
(3) Has breakdown torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG
1-2009, paragraph 12.39.1;
(4) Has a locked-rotor current higher than the values shown in NEMA
MG 1-2009, paragraph 12.35.1 for 60 hertz and NEMA MG 1-2009, paragraph
12.35.2 for 50 hertz; and
(5) Has a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent for motors with
fewer than 10 poles.
* * * * *
Partial electric motor means an assembly of motor components
necessitating the addition of no more than two endshields, including
bearings, to create an electric motor capable of operation in
accordance with the applicable nameplate ratings.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise Sec. 431.25 to read as follows:
Sec. 431.25 Energy conservation standards and effective dates.
(a) Except as provided for fire pump electric motors in paragraph
(b) of this section, each general purpose electric motor (subtype I)
with a power rating of 1 horsepower or greater, but not greater than
200 horsepower, including a NEMA Design B or an equivalent IEC Design N
motor that is a general purpose electric motor (subtype I),
manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece of equipment) on
or after December 19, 2010, but before June 1, 2016, shall have a
nominal full-load efficiency that is not less than the following:
Table 1--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of General Purpose Electric Motors (Subtype I), Except Fire Pump
Electric Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Open motors (number of poles) Enclosed motors (number of
Motor horsepower/Standard kilowatt equivalent --------------------------------- poles)
--------------------------------
6 4 2 6 4 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75......................................... 82.5 85.5 77.0 82.5 85.5 77.0
1.5/1.1....................................... 86.5 86.5 84.0 87.5 86.5 84.0
2/1.5......................................... 87.5 86.5 85.5 88.5 86.5 85.5
3/2.2......................................... 88.5 89.5 85.5 89.5 89.5 86.5
5/3.7......................................... 89.5 89.5 86.5 89.5 89.5 88.5
7.5/5.5....................................... 90.2 91.0 88.5 91.0 91.7 89.5
10/7.5........................................ 91.7 91.7 89.5 91.0 91.7 90.2
15/11......................................... 91.7 93.0 90.2 91.7 92.4 91.0
20/15......................................... 92.4 93.0 91.0 91.7 93.0 91.0
25/18.5....................................... 93.0 93.6 91.7 93.0 93.6 91.7
30/22......................................... 93.6 94.1 91.7 93.0 93.6 91.7
40/30......................................... 94.1 94.1 92.4 94.1 94.1 92.4
50/37......................................... 94.1 94.5 93.0 94.1 94.5 93.0
60/45......................................... 94.5 95.0 93.6 94.5 95.0 93.6
75/55......................................... 94.5 95.0 93.6 94.5 95.4 93.6
100/75........................................ 95.0 95.4 93.6 95.0 95.4 94.1
125/90........................................ 95.0 95.4 94.1 95.0 95.4 95.0
150/110....................................... 95.4 95.8 94.1 95.8 95.8 95.0
200/150....................................... 95.4 95.8 95.0 95.8 96.2 95.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Each fire pump electric motor that is a general purpose
electric motor (subtype I) or general purpose electric motor (subtype
II) manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece of
equipment) on or after December 19, 2010, but before June 1, 2016,
shall have a nominal full-load efficiency that is not less than the
following:
Table 2--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of Fire Pump Electric Motors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent Open motors (number of poles) Enclosed motors (number of poles)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 6 4 2 8 6 4 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75........................................................... 74.0 80.0 82.5 ......... 74.0 80.0 82.5 75.5
1.5/1.1......................................................... 75.5 84.0 84.0 82.5 77.0 85.5 84.0 82.5
2/1.5........................................................... 85.5 85.5 84.0 84.0 82.5 86.5 84.0 84.0
3/2.2........................................................... 86.5 86.5 86.5 84.0 84.0 87.5 87.5 85.5
5/3.7........................................................... 87.5 87.5 87.5 85.5 85.5 87.5 87.5 87.5
7.5/5.5......................................................... 88.5 88.5 88.5 87.5 85.5 89.5 89.5 88.5
10/7.5.......................................................... 89.5 90.2 89.5 88.5 88.5 89.5 89.5 89.5
15/11........................................................... 89.5 90.2 91.0 89.5 88.5 90.2 91.0 90.2
20/15........................................................... 90.2 91.0 91.0 90.2 89.5 90.2 91.0 90.2
25/18.5......................................................... 90.2 91.7 91.7 91.0 89.5 91.7 92.4 91.0
30/22........................................................... 91.0 92.4 92.4 91.0 91.0 91.7 92.4 91.0
[[Page 31011]]
40/30........................................................... 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7
50/37........................................................... 91.7 93.0 93.0 92.4 91.7 93.0 93.0 92.4
60/45........................................................... 92.4 93.6 93.6 93.0 91.7 93.6 93.6 93.0
75/55........................................................... 93.6 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.0 93.6 94.1 93.0
100/75.......................................................... 93.6 94.1 94.1 93.0 93.0 94.1 94.5 93.6
125/90.......................................................... 93.6 94.1 94.5 93.6 93.6 94.1 94.5 94.5
150/110......................................................... 93.6 94.5 95.0 93.6 93.6 95.0 95.0 94.5
200/150......................................................... 93.6 94.5 95.0 94.5 94.1 95.0 95.0 95.0
250/186......................................................... 94.5 95.4 95.4 94.5 94.5 95.0 95.0 95.4
300/224......................................................... ......... 95.4 95.4 95.0 ......... 95.0 95.4 95.4
350/261......................................................... ......... 95.4 95.4 95.0 ......... 95.0 95.4 95.4
400/298......................................................... ......... ......... 95.4 95.4 ......... ......... 95.4 95.4
450/336......................................................... ......... ......... 95.8 95.8 ......... ......... 95.4 95.4
500/373......................................................... ......... ......... 95.8 95.8 ......... ......... 95.8 95.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Except as provided for fire pump electric motors in paragraph
(b) of this section, each general purpose electric motor (subtype II)
with a power rating of 1 horsepower or greater, but not greater than
200 horsepower, including a NEMA Design B or an equivalent IEC Design N
motor that is a general purpose electric motor (subtype II),
manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece of equipment) on
or after December 19, 2010, but before June 1, 2016, shall have a
nominal full-load efficiency that is not less than the following:
Table 3--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of General Purpose Electric Motors (Subtype II), Except Fire Pump Electric Motors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/ Standard kilowatt equivalent Open motors (number of poles) Enclosed motors (number of poles)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 6 4 2 8 6 4 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75........................................................... 74.0 80.0 82.5 ......... 74.0 80.0 82.5 75.5
1.5/1.1......................................................... 75.5 84.0 84.0 82.5 77.0 85.5 84.0 82.5
2/1.5........................................................... 85.5 85.5 84.0 84.0 82.5 86.5 84.0 84.0
3/2.2........................................................... 86.5 86.5 86.5 84.0 84.0 87.5 87.5 85.5
5/3.7........................................................... 87.5 87.5 87.5 85.5 85.5 87.5 87.5 87.5
7.5/5.5......................................................... 88.5 88.5 88.5 87.5 85.5 89.5 89.5 88.5
10/7.5.......................................................... 89.5 90.2 89.5 88.5 88.5 89.5 89.5 89.5
15/11........................................................... 89.5 90.2 91.0 89.5 88.5 90.2 91.0 90.2
20/15........................................................... 90.2 91.0 91.0 90.2 89.5 90.2 91.0 90.2
25/18.5......................................................... 90.2 91.7 91.7 91.0 89.5 91.7 92.4 91.0
30/22........................................................... 91.0 92.4 92.4 91.0 91.0 91.7 92.4 91.0
40/30........................................................... 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7
50/37........................................................... 91.7 93.0 93.0 92.4 91.7 93.0 93.0 92.4
60/45........................................................... 92.4 93.6 93.6 93.0 91.7 93.6 93.6 93.0
75/55........................................................... 93.6 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.0 93.6 94.1 93.0
100/75.......................................................... 93.6 94.1 94.1 93.0 93.0 94.1 94.5 93.6
125/90.......................................................... 93.6 94.1 94.5 93.6 93.6 94.1 94.5 94.5
150/110......................................................... 93.6 94.5 95.0 93.6 93.6 95.0 95.0 94.5
200/150......................................................... 93.6 94.5 95.0 94.5 94.1 95.0 95.0 95.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Each NEMA Design B or an equivalent IEC Design N motor that is
a general purpose electric motor (subtype I) or general purpose
electric motor (subtype II), excluding fire pump electric motors, with
a power rating of more than 200 horsepower, but not greater than 500
horsepower, manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece of
equipment) on or after December 19, 2010, but before June 1, 2016 shall
have a nominal full-load efficiency that is not less than the
following:
[[Page 31012]]
Table 4--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design B General Purpose Electric Motors (Subtype I and II), Except Fire Pump Electric Motors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/ standard kilowatt equivalent Open motors (number of poles) Enclosed motors (number of poles)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 6 4 2 8 6 4 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
250/186......................................................... 94.5 95.4 95.4 94.5 94.5 95.0 95.0 95.4
300/224......................................................... ......... 95.4 95.4 95.0 ......... 95.0 95.4 95.4
350/261......................................................... ......... 95.4 95.4 95.0 ......... 95.0 95.4 95.4
400/298......................................................... ......... ......... 95.4 95.4 ......... ......... 95.4 95.4
450/336......................................................... ......... ......... 95.8 95.8 ......... ......... 95.4 95.4
500/373......................................................... ......... ......... 95.8 95.8 ......... ......... 95.8 95.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) For purposes of determining the required minimum nominal full-
load efficiency of an electric motor that has a horsepower or kilowatt
rating between two horsepower or two kilowatt ratings listed in any
table of energy conservation standards in paragraphs (a) through (d) of
this section, each such motor shall be deemed to have a listed
horsepower or kilowatt rating, determined as follows:
(1) A horsepower at or above the midpoint between the two
consecutive horsepowers shall be rounded up to the higher of the two
horsepowers;
(2) A horsepower below the midpoint between the two consecutive
horsepowers shall be rounded down to the lower of the two horsepowers;
or
(3) A kilowatt rating shall be directly converted from kilowatts to
horsepower using the formula 1 kilowatt = ( \1\/0.746)
horsepower. The conversion should be calculated to three significant
decimal places, and the resulting horsepower shall be rounded in
accordance with paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this section, whichever
applies.
(f) The standards in Table 1 through Table 4 of this section do not
apply to definite purpose electric motors, special purpose electric
motors, or those motors exempted by the Secretary.
(g) The standards in Table 5 through Table 7 of this section apply
only to electric motors, including partial electric motors, that
satisfy the following criteria:
(1) Are single-speed, induction motors;
(2) Are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type
S1 (IEC);
(3) Contain a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or cage (IEC) rotor;
(4) Operate on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz sinusoidal
line power;
(5) Are rated 600 volts or less;
(6) Have a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration,
(7) Are built in a three-digit or four-digit NEMA frame size (or
IEC metric equivalent), including those designs between two consecutive
NEMA frame sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA
frame size (or IEC metric equivalent),
(8) Produce at least one horsepower (0.746 kW) but not greater than
500 horsepower (373 kW), and
(9) Meet all of the performance requirements of one of the
following motor types: A NEMA Design A, B, or C motor or an IEC Design
N or H motor.
(h) Starting on June 1, 2016, each NEMA Design A motor, NEMA Design
B motor, and IEC Design N motor that is an electric motor meeting the
criteria in paragraph (g) of this section and with a power rating from
1 horsepower through 500 horsepower, but excluding fire pump electric
motors, manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece of
equipment) shall have a nominal full-load efficiency of not less than
the following:
Table 5--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors) at 60 Hz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/ standard kilowatt equivalent 2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75........................................................... 77.0 77.0 85.5 85.5 82.5 82.5 75.5 75.5
1.5/1.1......................................................... 84.0 84.0 86.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 78.5 77.0
2/1.5........................................................... 85.5 85.5 86.5 86.5 88.5 87.5 84.0 86.5
3/2.2........................................................... 86.5 85.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 87.5
5/3.7........................................................... 88.5 86.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 86.5 88.5
7.5/5.5......................................................... 89.5 88.5 91.7 91.0 91.0 90.2 86.5 89.5
10/7.5.......................................................... 90.2 89.5 91.7 91.7 91.0 91.7 89.5 90.2
15/11........................................................... 91.0 90.2 92.4 93.0 91.7 91.7 89.5 90.2
20/15........................................................... 91.0 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 92.4 90.2 91.0
25/18.5......................................................... 91.7 91.7 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.0 90.2 91.0
30/22........................................................... 91.7 91.7 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.6 91.7 91.7
40/30........................................................... 92.4 92.4 94.1 94.1 94.1 94.1 91.7 91.7
50/37........................................................... 93.0 93.0 94.5 94.5 94.1 94.1 92.4 92.4
60/45........................................................... 93.6 93.6 95.0 95.0 94.5 94.5 92.4 93.0
75/55........................................................... 93.6 93.6 95.4 95.0 94.5 94.5 93.6 94.1
100/75.......................................................... 94.1 93.6 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 93.6 94.1
125/90.......................................................... 95.0 94.1 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 94.1 94.1
150/110......................................................... 95.0 94.1 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.1 94.1
200/150......................................................... 95.4 95.0 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.5 94.1
250/186......................................................... 95.8 95.0 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.0 95.0
[[Page 31013]]
300/224......................................................... 95.8 95.4 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 ......... .........
350/261......................................................... 95.8 95.4 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 ......... .........
400/298......................................................... 95.8 95.8 96.2 95.8 ......... ......... ......... .........
450/336......................................................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ......... ......... .........
500/373......................................................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ......... ......... .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Starting on June 1, 2016, each NEMA Design C motor and IEC
Design H motor that is an electric motor meeting the criteria in
paragraph (g) of this section and with a power rating from 1 horsepower
through 200 horsepower manufactured (alone or as a component of another
piece of equipment) shall have a nominal full-load efficiency that is
not less than the following:
Table 6--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design C and IEC Design H Motors at 60 Hz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
equivalent -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75............................. 85.5 85.5 82.5 82.5 75.5 75.5
1.5/1.1........................... 86.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 78.5 77.0
2/1.5............................. 86.5 86.5 88.5 87.5 84.0 86.5
3/2.2............................. 89.5 89.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 87.5
5/3.7............................. 89.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 86.5 88.5
7.5/5.5........................... 91.7 91.0 91.0 90.2 86.5 89.5
10/7.5............................ 91.7 91.7 91.0 91.7 89.5 90.2
15/11............................. 92.4 93.0 91.7 91.7 89.5 90.2
20/15............................. 93.0 93.0 91.7 92.4 90.2 91.0
25/18.5........................... 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.0 90.2 91.0
30/22............................. 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.6 91.7 91.7
40/30............................. 94.1 94.1 94.1 94.1 91.7 91.7
50/37............................. 94.5 94.5 94.1 94.1 92.4 92.4
60/45............................. 95.0 95.0 94.5 94.5 92.4 93.0
75/55............................. 95.4 95.0 94.5 94.5 93.6 94.1
100/75............................ 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 93.6 94.1
125/90............................ 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 94.1 94.1
150/110........................... 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.1 94.1
200/150........................... 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.5 94.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(j) Starting on June 1, 2016, each fire pump electric motor meeting
the criteria in paragraph (g) of this section and with a power rating
of 1 horsepower through 500 horsepower, manufactured (alone or as a
component of another piece of equipment) shall have a nominal full-load
efficiency that is not less than the following:
Table 7--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of Fire Pump Electric Motors at 60 Hz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/ standard kilowatt equivalent 2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75........................................... 75.5 ........... 82.5 82.5 80.0 80.0 74.0 74.0
1.5/1.1......................................... 82.5 82.5 84.0 84.0 85.5 84.0 77.0 75.5
2/1.5........................................... 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 86.5 85.5 82.5 85.5
3/2.2........................................... 85.5 84.0 87.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 84.0 86.5
5/3.7........................................... 87.5 85.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 85.5 87.5
7.5/5.5......................................... 88.5 87.5 89.5 88.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 88.5
10/7.5.......................................... 89.5 88.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 90.2 88.5 89.5
15/11........................................... 90.2 89.5 91.0 91.0 90.2 90.2 88.5 89.5
20/15........................................... 90.2 90.2 91.0 91.0 90.2 91.0 89.5 90.2
25/18.5......................................... 91.0 91.0 92.4 91.7 91.7 91.7 89.5 90.2
30/22........................................... 91.0 91.0 92.4 92.4 91.7 92.4 91.0 91.0
40/30........................................... 91.7 91.7 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 91.0 91.0
[[Page 31014]]
50/37........................................... 92.4 92.4 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 91.7
60/45........................................... 93.0 93.0 93.6 93.6 93.6 93.6 91.7 92.4
75/55........................................... 93.0 93.0 94.1 94.1 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.6
100/75.......................................... 93.6 93.0 94.5 94.1 94.1 94.1 93.0 93.6
125/90.......................................... 94.5 93.6 94.5 94.5 94.1 94.1 93.6 93.6
150/110......................................... 94.5 93.6 95.0 95.0 95.0 94.5 93.6 93.6
200/150......................................... 95.0 94.5 95.0 95.0 95.0 94.5 94.1 93.6
250/186......................................... 95.4 94.5 95.0 95.4 95.0 95.4 94.5 94.5
300/224......................................... 95.4 95.0 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.4 ........... ...........
350/261......................................... 95.4 95.0 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.4 ........... ...........
400/298......................................... 95.4 95.4 95.4 95.4 ........... ........... ........... ...........
450/336......................................... 95.4 95.8 95.4 95.8 ........... ........... ........... ...........
500/373......................................... 95.4 95.8 95.8 95.8 ........... ........... ........... ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(k) For purposes of determining the required minimum nominal full-
load efficiency of an electric motor that has a horsepower or kilowatt
rating between two horsepower or two kilowatt ratings listed in any
table of energy conservation standards in paragraphs (h) through (l) of
this section, each such motor shall be deemed to have a listed
horsepower or kilowatt rating, determined as follows:
(1) A horsepower at or above the midpoint between the two
consecutive horsepowers shall be rounded up to the higher of the two
horsepowers;
(2) A horsepower below the midpoint between the two consecutive
horsepowers shall be rounded down to the lower of the two horsepowers;
or
(3) A kilowatt rating shall be directly converted from kilowatts to
horsepower using the formula 1 kilowatt = ( \1\/ 0.746)
horsepower. The conversion should be calculated to three significant
decimal places, and the resulting horsepower shall be rounded in
accordance with paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this section, whichever
applies.
(l) The standards in Table 5 through Table 7 of this section do not
apply to the following electric motors exempted by the Secretary, or
any additional electric motors that the Secretary may exempt:
(1) Air-over electric motors;
(2) Component sets of an electric motor;
(3) Liquid-cooled electric motors;
(4) Submersible electric motors; and
(5) Inverter-only electric motors.
[Note: The following letter from the Department of Justice will
not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.]
APPENDIX TO FINAL RULE
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
William J. Baer
Assistant Attorney General
RFK Main Justice Building
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
(202) 514-2401/(202) 616-2645 (Fax)
February 3, 2014
Eric J. Fygi
Deputy General Counsel
Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
Dear Deputy General Counsel Fygi:
I am responding to your December 11, 2013 letter seeking the
views of the Attorney General about the potential impact on
competition of proposed energy conservation standards for certain
types of commercial and industrial electric motors. Your request was
submitted under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, as amended (ECPA), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V),
which requires the Attorney General to make a determination of the
impact of any lessening of competition that is likely to result from
the imposition of proposed energy conservation standards. The
Attorney General's responsibility for responding to requests from
other departments about the effect of a program on competition has
been delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust
Division in 28 CFR Sec. 0.40(g).
In conducting its analysis the Antitrust Division examines
whether a proposed standard may lessen competition, for example, by
substantially limiting consumer choice, by placing certain
manufacturers at an unjustified competitive disadvantage, or by
inducing avoidable inefficiencies in production or distribution of
particular products. A lessening of competition could result in
higher prices to manufacturers and consumers, and perhaps thwart the
intent of the revised standards by inducing substitution to less
efficient products.
We have reviewed the proposed standards contained in the Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (78 Fed. Reg. 235, December 6, 2013). We have
also reviewed supplementary information submitted to the Attorney
General by the Department of Energy, including a transcript of the
public meeting held on the proposed standards on December 11, 2013.
Based on this review, our conclusion is that the proposed energy
conservation standards for certain commercial and industrial
electric motors can advance the Department of Energy's goal of
energy conservation without causing a significant adverse impact on
competition.
Sincerely,
William J. Baer.
[FR Doc. 2014-11201 Filed 5-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
