EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0010 attachment 1

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT: ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT: Electric Motors February 2022 U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Building Technologies Program Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards Washington, DC 20585 This Document was prepared for the Department of Energy by staff members of Guidehouse Consulting, Inc. and Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS ES.1 ES.2 ES.3 ES.3.1 ES.3.2 ES.3.3 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................ES-1 TEST PROCEDURES ...................................................................................................ES-1 KEY ANALYSES AND RESULTS .............................................................................ES-2 Market and Technology Assessment .............................................................................ES-2 Screening Analysis.........................................................................................................ES-2 Engineering Analysis .....................................................................................................ES-3 Equipment Classes Analyzed...................................................................... ES-3 Efficiency Levels Defined .......................................................................... ES-4 Manufacturer Costs and Selling Prices ....................................................... ES-5 ES.3.4 Markups Analysis ..........................................................................................................ES-7 ES.3.5 Energy Use Analysis ....................................................................................................ES-10 ES.3.6 Life-cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis .............................................................ES-13 ES.3.7 Shipments Analysis......................................................................................................ES-50 ES.3.8 National Impact Analysis .............................................................................................ES-54 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ES-63 LIST OF TABLES Table ES.3.3.1 Table ES.3.3.2 Table ES.3.3.3 Table ES.3.3.4 Table ES.3.3.5 Table ES.3.3.6 Table ES.3.3.7 Table ES.3.3.8 Table ES.3.3.9 Table ES.3.4.1 Table ES.3.4.2 Table ES.3.4.3 Table ES.3.4.4 Table ES.3.4.5 Table ES.3.5.1 Equipment Class Groups of Electric Motors .................................................ES-3 Proposed New Equipment Class Groups of Electric Motors ........................ES-4 Efficiency Levels of Each Representative Unit ............................................ES-4 Efficiency Levels of Each SNEM Representative Unit ................................ES-5 Efficiency Levels of Each AO SNEM Representative Unit..........................ES-5 MSP of Each Representative Unit Currently in Scope at 10 CFR 431.25 ....ES-6 MSP of Each AO MEM Representative Unit ...............................................ES-6 MSP of Each SNEM Representative Unit .....................................................ES-7 MSP of Each AO SNEM Representative Unit ..............................................ES-7 Distribution Channels for Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation Standards at 10 CFR 431.25 and AO-MEMs .........................ES-8 Distribution Channels for SNEMs and AO SNEMs .....................................ES-8 Summary of Overall Baseline Markups for Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25 and AO-MEMs..............ES-8 Summary of Overall Incremental Markups for Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25 and AO-MEMs .........ES-9 Summary of Overall Baseline and Incremental Markups for SNEMs and AO SNEMs .............................................................................................ES-9 Representative Units for Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation Standards at 10 CFR 431.25 .................................................ES-10 ES-i Table ES.3.5.2 Table ES.3.5.3 Table ES.3.5.4 Table ES.3.6.1 Table ES.3.6.2 Table ES.3.6.3 Table ES.3.6.4 Table ES.3.6.5 Table ES.3.6.6 Table ES.3.6.7 Table ES.3.6.8 Table ES.3.6.9 Table ES.3.6.10 Table ES.3.6.11 Table ES.3.6.12 Table ES.3.6.13 Table ES.3.6.14 Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level for Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation Standards at 10 CFR 431.25. ....................................ES-12 Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level for SNEMs .................................ES-12 Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level for Air-Over Electric Motors .....ES-13 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for NEMA Design A and B, 5-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 1) ...............................................................................ES-15 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for NEMA Design A and B, 5-Horsepower, 4Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 1) ..............................ES-16 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for NEMA Design A and B, 30-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 2) Without Repair ......................................................ES-16 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for NEMA Design A and B, 30-Horsepower, 4Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 2) Without Repair ....ES-17 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for NEMA Design A and B, 30-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 2) With Repair ...........................................................ES-17 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for NEMA Design A and B, 30-Horsepower, 4Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 2) With Repair..........ES-18 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for NEMA Design A and B, 75-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 3) ...............................................................................ES-18 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for NEMA Design A and B, 75-Horsepower, 4Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 3) ..............................ES-19 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for NEMA Design A and B, 150-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 9) ...............................................................................ES-19 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for NEMA Design A and B, 150-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 9) ...........................ES-20 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for NEMA Design A and B, 250-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 10) .............................................................................ES-20 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for NEMA Design A and B, 250-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 10) .........................ES-21 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for NEMA Design C 5-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 4) ...............................................................................ES-21 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for NEMA Design C, 5-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 4) .......................................ES-22 ES-ii Table ES.3.6.15 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for NEMA Design C, 50-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 5) ...............................................................................ES-22 Table ES.3.6.16 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for NEMA Design C, 50-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 5) .......................................ES-23 Table ES.3.6.17 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for NEMA Design C, 150-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 11) .............................................................................ES-23 Table ES.3.6.18 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for NEMA Design C, 150-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 11) .....................................ES-24 Table ES.3.6.19 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for Fire Pump, 5-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 6) ..ES-24 Table ES.3.6.20 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for Fire Pump, 5-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 6) .......................................................ES-25 Table ES.3.6.21 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for Fire Pump, 30Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 7) ..............................................................................ES-25 Table ES.3.6.22 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for Fire Pump, 30-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 7) .......................................ES-26 Table ES.3.6.23 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level Fire Pump, 75Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 8) .....ES-26 Table ES.3.6.24 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for Fire Pump, 75-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 8) .......................................ES-27 Table ES.3.6.25 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level SNEM SinglePhase (High LRT), 0.33-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 12)........................................................................................................ES-27 Table ES.3.6.26 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 0.33Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 12) ..................................ES-28 Table ES.3.6.27 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level SNEM SinglePhase (High LRT), 1-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 13) ................................................................................................................ES-28 Table ES.3.6.28 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 1Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 13) ..................................ES-28 Table ES.3.6.29 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level SNEM SinglePhase (High LRT), 2-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 14) ................................................................................................................ES-29 Table ES.3.6.30 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 2Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 14) ..................................ES-29 ES-iii Table ES.3.6.31 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level SNEM SinglePhase (High LRT), 0.25-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 15)........................................................................................................ES-29 Table ES.3.6.32 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 0.25Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 15) ............................ES-30 Table ES.3.6.33 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level SNEM SinglePhase (High LRT), 1-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 16)........................................................................................................ES-30 Table ES.3.6.34 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 1Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 16) ............................ES-30 Table ES.3.6.35 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level SNEM SinglePhase (High LRT), 3-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 17)........................................................................................................ES-31 Table ES.3.6.36 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 3Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 17) ............................ES-31 Table ES.3.6.37 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level SNEM SinglePhase (Medium LRT), 0.33-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 18)........................................................................................................ES-31 Table ES.3.6.38 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT), 0.33Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 18) ..................................ES-32 Table ES.3.6.39 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level SNEM SinglePhase (Low LRT), 0.25-Horsepower, 6-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 19)........................................................................................................ES-32 Table ES.3.6.40 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT), 0.25Horsepower, 6-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 19) ............................ES-33 Table ES.3.6.41 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level SNEM SinglePhase (Low LRT), 0.5-Horsepower, 6-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 20) ................................................................................................................ES-33 Table ES.3.6.42 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT), 0.5Horsepower, 6-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 20) ..................................ES-34 Table ES.3.6.43 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level SNEM Polyphase 0.33-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 21) ..ES-34 Table ES.3.6.44 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for SNEM Polyphase, 0.33-Horsepower, 4Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 21) .....................................................ES-35 Table ES.3.6.45 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level SNEM Polyphase, 0.5-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 22) ...ES-35 Table ES.3.6.46 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for SNEM Polyphase, 0.5-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 22) ..............................................................ES-36 ES-iv Table ES.3.6.47 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level SNEM Polyphase, 0.75-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 23) ................................................................................................................ES-36 Table ES.3.6.48 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for SNEM Polyphase, 0.75-Horsepower, 4Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 23) .....................................................ES-37 Table ES.3.6.49 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 0.33-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 24) .............................................................................ES-37 Table ES.3.6.50 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 0.33Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 24) ..................................ES-38 Table ES.3.6.51 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 1-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 25)........................................................................................................ES-38 Table ES.3.6.52 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 1Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 25) ..................................ES-38 Table ES.3.6.53 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 2-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 26)........................................................................................................ES-39 Table ES.3.6.54 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 2Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 26) ..................................ES-39 Table ES.3.6.55 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 0.25-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 27) .............................................................................ES-39 Table ES.3.6.56 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 0.25Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 27) ............................ES-40 Table ES.3.6.57 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 1-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 28) .............................................................................ES-40 Table ES.3.6.58 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 1Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 28) ............................ES-40 Table ES.3.6.59 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 3-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 29) .............................................................................ES-41 Table ES.3.6.60 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 3Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 29) ............................ES-41 Table ES.3.6.61 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT), 0.33-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 30) .............................................................................ES-41 ES-v Table ES.3.6.62 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT), 0.33-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 30) .........................ES-42 Table ES.3.6.63 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT), 0.25-Horsepower, 6-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 31) .............................................................................ES-42 Table ES.3.6.64 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT), 0.25Horsepower, 6-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 31) ..................................ES-43 Table ES.3.6.65 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT), 0.5-Horsepower, 6-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 32) .............................................................................ES-43 Table ES.3.6.66 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT), 0.5Horsepower, 6-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 32) ..................................ES-44 Table ES.3.6.67 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.33-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 33) ................................................................................................................ES-44 Table ES.3.6.68 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.33-Horsepower, 4Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 33) .....................................................ES-45 Table ES.3.6.69 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.5-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 34) ...ES-45 Table ES.3.6.70 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.5-Horsepower, 4Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 34) ....................................................ES-46 Table ES.3.6.71 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.75-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 35) ................................................................................................................ES-46 Table ES.3.6.72 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.75-Horsepower, 4Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 35) .....................................................ES-47 Table ES.3.6.73 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-MEM Polyphase, 5-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 36) ......ES-47 Table ES.3.6.74 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-MEM Polyphase, 5-Horsepower, 4Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 36) .....................................................ES-48 Table ES.3.6.75 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-MEM Polyphase, 30-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 37) ....ES-48 Table ES.3.6.76 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-MEM Polyphase, 30-Horsepower, 4Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 37) .....................................................ES-49 Table ES.3.6.77 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-MEM Polyphase, 75-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 38) ....ES-49 ES-vi Table ES.3.6.78 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-MEM Polyphase, 75-Horsepower, 4Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 38) .....................................................ES-50 Table ES.3.7.1 Shipment Projections for Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation Standards at 10 CFR 431.25 .................................................ES-51 Table ES.3.7.2 Shipment Projections for SNEMs ...............................................................ES-51 Table ES.3.7.3 Shipment Projections for AO Electric Motors ............................................ES-52 Table ES.3.7.4 Percentage of Consumers Purchasing Synchronous Electric Motors in each Standards Case ....................................................................................ES-53 Table ES.3.7.5 Initial Expanded Scope Shipments Estimates for 2020..............................ES-53 Table ES.3.8.1 Representative Units and Associated Horsepower Ranges .........................ES-54 Table ES.3.8.2 Representative Units and Associated Horsepower Ranges for SNEMs......ES-55 Table ES.3.8.3 Representative Units and Associated Horsepower Ranges for AO Electric Motors ............................................................................................ES-56 Table ES.3.8.4 Cumulative Full Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings for Electric Motors Subject to Standards at 10 CFR 431.25 (Quads) ............................ES-57 Table ES.3.8.5 Cumulative Full Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings for SNEMs (Quads) ........................................................................................................ES-57 Table ES.3.8.6 Cumulative Full Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings for AO Electric Motors (Quads)............................................................................................ES-58 Table ES.3.8.7 Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation Standards at 10 CFR 431.25: Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value, Discounted at 3 Percent, $2020 .............................................................................................ES-59 Table ES.3.8.8 SNEMs: Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value, Discounted at 3 Percent, $2020 .............................................................................................ES-60 Table ES.3.8.9 AO Electric Motors: Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value, Discounted at 3 Percent, $2020 ...................................................................ES-60 Table ES.3.8.10 Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation Standards at 10 CFR 431.25: Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value, Discounted at 7 Percent .........................................................................................................ES-61 Table ES.3.8.11 SNEMs: Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value, Discounted at 7 Percent .........................................................................................................ES-62 Table ES.3.8.12 AO Electric Motors: Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value, Discounted at 7 Percent ...............................................................................ES-62 ES-vii LIST OF ACRONYMS Acronym AO CFR DOE ECG EL LCC LRT MEM MPC MSP NEMA NIA PBP RFI SNEM TSD Term Air-Over Code of Federal Regulations Department of Energy Equipment Class Group Efficiency Level Life-Cycle Cost Locked Rotor Torque Medium Electric Motor Manufacturer Production Cost Manufacturer Selling Price National Electrical Manufacturers Association National Impact Analysis Payback Period Request For Information Small, Non-“small electric motor”, Electric Motor Technical Support Document ES-viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 INTRODUCTION This preliminary technical support document (“TSD”) describes the approaches to and results of preliminary activities that the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) performed in investigating amended energy conservation standards for electric motors. This executive summary summarizes DOE’s preliminary activities and results. DOE published an Early Assessment Request for Information (“RFI”) in the Federal Register on May 21, 2020 (the “May 2020 Early Assessment RFI”) soliciting information to assist in its evaluation of whether amended standards may be necessary for consumer electric motors. 85 FR 30878. Chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD summarizes the comments received in response to the May 2020 Early Assessment RFI as well as DOE’s responses to those comments, and includes additional requests for comment on the preliminary analysis. DOE conducted the preliminary analysis described in this TSD using information that it collected, as well as information received in response to the RFI. ES.2 TEST PROCEDURES DOE’s currently applicable test procedures for electric motors are currently prescribed at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) – specifically, at appendix B to subpart B of 10 CFR part 431. On October 5, 2020, DOE published a NOPR proposing to establish a test procedure and an accompanying labeling requirement for dedicated-purpose pool pump motors, which currently are not subject to energy conservation standards. 85 FR 62816. (“October 2020 NOPR”) Further, in its recent test procedure proposal, see 86 FR 71710 (December 17, 2021) (“December 2021 TP NOPR”), DOE also proposed to expand the scope and establish test procedure requirements for certain categories of electric motors not currently subject to energy conservation standards. These categories are (1) air-over electric motors; (2) submersible electric motors; (3) certain electric motors greater than 500 hp; (4) electric motors considered small by industry; and (5) inverter-only electric motors. Finally, DOE also proposed to include within the scope of the test procedure synchronous electric motor technologies. 86 FR 71710, 71726-71727. For this preliminary analysis, DOE is only presenting its technical analysis for electric motors currently subject to energy conservation standards in 10 CFR 431.25(g). DOE may consider new energy conservation standards for the expanded scope and present any corresponding technical analysis in the energy conservation standards NOPR. ES-1 ES.3 KEY ANALYSES AND RESULTS The following sections summarize the key analyses DOE performed and the results obtained in developing this preliminary TSD. ES.3.1 Market and Technology Assessment When initiating an analysis of potential energy conservation standards for appliances or equipment, DOE obtains information on the present and past industry structure and market characteristics for the products concerned. DOE assesses industries and products both quantitatively and qualitatively, based on publicly available information. For this preliminary analysis, DOE addressed: (1) manufacturer market share and characteristics, (2) existing regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives for improving product efficiency, and (3) trends in product characteristics and retail markets. These data and resource material were used throughout the analysis. DOE reviewed available public literature and interviewed manufacturers to develop an overall understanding of the electric motor industry in the United States. In particular, DOE sought information on: (1) manufacturers and their market share, (2) product information, and (3) industry trends. Chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD describes the market analysis and resulting information. DOE typically uses information about existing and past technology options and working prototype designs to determine which technologies and combinations of technologies manufacturers use to attain higher performance levels. In consultation with interested parties, DOE develops a list of technologies to be considered. DOE developed a list of technologies for electric motors from trade publications, technical papers, manufacturer literature, and through consultation with manufacturers. Because existing products contain many technologies for improving equipment efficiency, equipment literature and direct examination provided additional information. ES.3.2 Screening Analysis The screening analysis (chapter 4 of the preliminary TSD) examines whether technologies identified in the technology assessment: (1) are technologically feasible; (2) are practicable to manufacture, install, and service; (3) have an adverse impact on equipment utility or availability; and/or (4) have adverse impacts on health and safety. DOE conducted this screening analysis in consultation with interested parties. In the subsequent engineering analysis, DOE further examined the technology options that it did not remove from consideration in the screening analysis. ES-2 ES.3.3 Engineering Analysis The engineering analysis (chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD) establishes the relationship between the costs of manufacturing electric motors and their efficiencies. These relationships serve as the basis for calculating costs and benefits of modified product designs for consumers, manufacturers, and the nation. Chapter 5 describes the product classes DOE analyzed, the representative baseline units, the efficiency levels DOE analyzed, the methodology DOE used to develop the manufacturing production cost model, and the cost-efficiency results. Equipment Classes Analyzed When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE may establish separate standards for a group of covered equipment (i.e., establish a separate equipment class) if DOE determines that separate standards are justified based on the type of energy used, or if DOE determines that a product’s capacity or other performance-related feature justifies a different standard. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(A) and (B)) 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. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) For this preliminary analysis, DOE is proposing to expand the equipment classes used in the May 2014 Final Rule. Table ES.3.3.1 shows the equipment class groups considered for motors currently in scope at 10 CFR 431.25 with the addition of motors between 500 and 750 rated horsepower for Equipment Class Group (“ECG”) 1. Table ES.3.3.1 Equipment Class Groups of Electric Motors Equipment Class Group (or “ECG”) Electric Motor Design Type Horsepower Rating Pole Configuration 1 NEMA Design A & B* 1 – 750 2, 4, 6, 8 2 NEMA Design C* 1 – 200 4, 6, 8 3 Fire Pump Motors* 1 – 500 2, 4, 6, 8 Enclosure Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed DOE is proposing to add new equipment classes and representative units to the scope of the energy conservation standards, these equipment class groups are shown in Table ES.3.3.2. ES-3 Table ES.3.3.2 Proposed New Equipment Class Groups of Electric Motors Equipment Class Group Electric Motor Design Type Horsepower Rating Pole Configuration SNEM Single-phase, Polyphase >=.25 2, 4, 6, 8 AO SNEM Single-phase, Polyphase >=.25 2, 4, 6, 8 AO MEM NEMA Design A & B* 1 – 500 2, 4, 6, 8 Enclosure Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Efficiency Levels Defined DOE based its preliminary analysis for electric motors on the metric of nominal full-load efficiency. For each established representative unit, DOE selects a baseline model as a reference point against which any changes resulting from energy conservation standards can be measured. The baseline model of each representative unit represents the characteristics of common or typical products in that class. Typically, a baseline model is one that just meets the current minimum energy conservation standards by a small margin. DOE initially considered the current standards for electric motors established in 10 CFR 431.25. These data were used to develop the baseline efficiency level (“EL”) examined as part of this TSD. DOE also analyzed several higher efficiency levels, including a maximum technologically feasible level, for each representative unit consistent with products and design options currently available on the market. Table ES.3.3.3 provides the efficiency levels expressed in nominal full-load efficiency of each representative unit. Since AO motors are designed largely the same as non-AO motors, DOE used the same higher efficiency levels for AO MEM motors. Table ES.3.3.4 and Table ES.3.3.5 provide the efficiency levels for SNEM and AO SNEM representative units, respectively. Table ES.3.3.3 Efficiency Levels of Each Representative Unit Equipment Class Group 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 Rep. Unit EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 Design B, 5-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 30-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 75-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design C, 5-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design C, 50-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 5-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 30-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 75-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed 89.50% 93.60% 95.40% 89.50% 94.50% 87.50% 92.40% 94.10% 90.20% 94.10% 95.80% 90.20% 95.00% 89.50% 93.60% 95.40% 91.00% 94.50% 96.20% 91.00% 95.40% 90.20% 94.10% 95.80% 91.70% 95.00% 96.50% 91.70% 95.80% 91.00% 94.50% 96.20% 92.40% 95.40% 96.80% 92.40% 95.80% 92.40% 95.40% 96.80% ES-4 Table ES.3.3.4 Efficiency Levels of Each SNEM Representative Unit Equipment Class Group Horsepower EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (Medium LRT) Single-Phase (Low LRT) Single-Phase (Low LRT) Polyphase Polyphase Polyphase .33 1 2 .25 1 3 .33 .25 .33 .33 .5 .75 58.20% 70.00% 71.40% 55.00% 67.00% 77.00% 55.20% 35.78% 63.42% 64.30% 73.00% 75.50% 61.00% 74.40% 78.50% 57.00% 75.00% 80.00% 59.20% 42.22% 63.42% 69.20% 74.00% 78.50% 72.40% 82.60% 84.50% 74.00% 82.60% 85.50% 62.00% 54.32% 69.67% 70.10% 76.10% 80.00% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 60.98% 74.09% 74.00% 78.20% 81.50% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 77.00% 82.50% 84.20% Table ES.3.3.5 Efficiency Levels of Each AO SNEM Representative Unit Equipment Class Group Horsepower EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (Medium LRT) Single-Phase (Low LRT) Single-Phase (Low LRT) Polyphase Polyphase Polyphase .33 1 2 .25 1 3 .33 .25 .33 .33 .5 .75 61.15% 72.00% 73.04% 58.17% 69.11% 78.26% 58.21% 38.80% 66.00% 67.06% 75.17% 77.37% 63.87% 76.21% 79.85% 60.13% 76.78% 81.14% 62.12% 45.40% 66.00% 71.75% 76.11% 80.20% 74.78% 83.95% 85.54% 76.41% 83.95% 86.38% 64.84% 57.50% 72.00% 72.60% 78.09% 81.61% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 64.00% 76.20% 76.29% 80.06% 83.01% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 79.10% 84.07% 85.53% Chapter 5 of this preliminary TSD includes additional details on how DOE developed the efficiency levels for its analysis. Manufacturer Costs and Selling Prices To determine the manufacturer production cost (“MPC”) required to achieve higher efficiency levels DOE used a combination of physical teardowns, software-modelled motor designs, and input from manufacturers. This analysis consists of disassembling representative units, analyzing the materials and manufacturing processes, analyzing the design approaches manufacturers use, and developing a spreadsheet analysis to ascribe costs to the various electric motor designs relevant to this TSD. Chapter 5 of the TSD includes information on the inputs used to determine the incremental MPC. DOE calculated the MSP as the sum of production cost ES-5 and nonproduction cost. Chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD includes information on the inputs used to determine the manufacturing cost, including material, labor, and overhead costs. DOE’s engineering analysis produced cost-efficiency curves for each electric motor representative unit. The cost-efficiency curves are described by the efficiency levels DOE analyzed and the increase in MSP required to improve a baseline-efficiency product to each of the considered efficiency levels. Table ES.3.3.6 provide the MSP of each representative unit for each newly proposed equipment class group. Table ES.3.3.6 MSP of Each Representative Unit Currently in Scope at 10 CFR 431.25 Equipment Class Group 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 Rep. Unit Design B, 5-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 30-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 75-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design C, 5-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design C, 50-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 5-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 30-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 75-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 $295.12 $340.49 $367.30 $403.44 $509.63 $1,185.21 $1,233.05 $1,273.73 $1,528.57 $1,596.68 $3,014.23 $3,431.54 $3,969.67 $4,116.89 $4,443.22 $345.59 $361.16 $389.22 $442.70 $489.79 $2,386.46 $2,531.06 $2,682.51 $2,847.38 $2,847.38 $267.77 $295.12 $340.49 $367.30 $509.63 $1,072.41 $1,185.21 $1,233.05 $1,273.73 $1,596.68 $2,430.83 $3,014.23 $3,431.54 $3,969.67 $4,443.22 Table ES.3.3.7 MSP of Each AO MEM Representative Unit Equipment Class Group AO MEM AO MEM AO MEM Rep. Unit Design B, 5-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 30-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 75-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 $254.04 $282.73 $300.22 $345.75 $460.53 $1,052.77 $1,167.83 $1,216.42 $1,257.16 $1,555.96 $2,964.05 $2,964.05 $3,385.21 $3,916.19 $4,405.27 ES-6 Table ES.3.3.8 MSP of Each SNEM Representative Unit Phase HP Enclosure Single Single Single Single Single Single Single Single Single Poly Poly Poly .33 1 2 .25 1 3 .33 .25 .5 .33 .5 .75 Open Open Open Enclosed Enclosed Enclosed Open Open Open Enclosed Enclosed Enclosed Pole Count 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 4 4 4 Torque Class High High High High High High Medium Low Low - EL0 95.67 158.25 233.17 92.11 173.55 292.85 54.27 48.25 69.47 93.67 105.68 114.19 MSP (2020$) EL1 EL2 EL3 98.99 120.35 171.39 188.50 244.21 264.78 94.61 115.94 187.87 206.52 311.87 340.47 61.90 65.68 49.61 59.90 62.71 69.47 80.61 92.68 96.92 104.64 106.99 107.46 124.50 127.37 125.33 131.28 151.18 EL4 135.89 178.86 191.71 Table ES.3.3.9 MSP of Each AO SNEM Representative Unit Phase HP Enclosure Single Single Single Single Single Single Single Single Single Poly Poly Poly .33 1 2 .25 1 3 .33 .25 .5 .33 .5 .75 Open Open Open Enclosed Enclosed Enclosed Open Open Open Enclosed Enclosed Enclosed Pole Count 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 4 4 4 Torque Class High High High High High High Medium Low Low - EL0 95.30 157.24 231.27 91.83 172.54 290.11 53.90 47.97 68.94 93.30 105.15 113.41 MSP (2020$) EL1 EL2 EL3 98.62 119.98 170.38 187.49 242.31 262.88 94.33 115.66 186.86 205.51 309.13 337.73 61.53 65.31 49.33 59.62 62.43 68.94 80.08 92.15 96.55 104.27 106.62 106.93 123.97 126.84 124.55 130.50 150.40 EL4 135.52 178.33 190.93 ES.3.4 Markups Analysis In chapter 6 of this preliminary TSD, DOE calculates the markups to manufacturer selling prices (“MSPs”) that occur throughout the distribution channels for electric motors, converting the estimated manufacturer selling prices derived from the engineering analysis to consumer prices. In calculating markups, DOE identified the distribution channels for electric motors and the markup associated with each step in the channels. Table ES.3.4.1 and Table ES.3.4.2 provide a summary of the distribution channels considered for electric motors, including SNEMs and AO electric motors. ES-7 Table ES.3.4.1 Distribution Channels for Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation Standards at 10 CFR 431.25 and AO-MEMs Shipments (%) Distribution Channel Manufacturer to OEM to End-User 47 Manufacturer to OEM to Retailer to End-User 20 Manufacturer to Retailer to End-User 12 Manufacturer to Motor Wholesaler to OEM to End-User 5 Manufacturer to Contractor to End-User 1 Manufacturer to Retailer to Contractor to End-User 7 Manufacturer to End-User 8 Table ES.3.4.2 Distribution Channels for SNEMs and AO SNEMs Distribution Channel Manufacturer to OEM to Equipment Wholesaler to Contractor to End-User Manufacturer to Motor Wholesaler to OEM to Equipment Wholesaler to Contractor to End-User Manufacturer to Motor Wholesaler to Retailer to Contractor to End-User Share of Shipments (%) 65 30 5 DOE estimated the markups taken at each step in the distribution channels and included sales taxes. DOE developed separate markups for baseline products (baseline markups) and for the incremental cost attributable to more expensive, more efficient products (incremental markups). Table ES.3.4.3 through Table ES.3.4.5 summarize the markups DOE developed for the prices consumers pay for electric motors. Table ES.3.4.3 Summary of Overall Baseline Markups for Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25 and AO-MEMs OEM to EndUser OEM to Retailer to End-User Retailer to EndUser Motor wholesaler to OEM to End-User Contractor to EndUser Retailer to Contractor to End-User Motor Wholesaler - - - 1.35 - - OEM 1.44 1.44 - 1.44 - - Retailer - 1.53 1.53 - - 1.53 Contractor - - - - 1.10 1.10 Sales Tax 1.073 1.073 1.073 1.073 1.073 1.073 ES-8 OEM to EndUser OEM to Retailer to End-User Retailer to EndUser Motor wholesaler to OEM to End-User Contractor to EndUser Retailer to Contractor to End-User 1.54 2.36 1.65 2.08 1.18 1.81 Overall (incl. Tax and variance) Table ES.3.4.4 Summary of Overall Incremental Markups for Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25 and AO-MEMs OEM to EndUser OEM to Retailer to End-User Retailer to EndUser Motor wholesaler to OEM to EndUser Contractor to EndUser Retailer to Contractor to End-User Motor Wholesa ler - - - 1.20 - - OEM 1.20 1.20 - 1.20 - - Retailer - 1.26 1.26 - - 1.26 Contract or - - - - 1.10 1.10 Sales Tax 1.073 1.073 1.073 1.073 1.073 1.073 Overall (incl. Tax) 1.29 1.62 1.35 1.55 1.18 1.48 Table ES.3.4.5 Summary of Overall Baseline and Incremental Markups for SNEMs and AO SNEMs OEM to Equipment Wholesaler to Contractor to End-User Baseline Incremental Motor Wholesaler to OEM to Equipment Wholesaler to Contractor to End-User Baseline Incremental Motor Wholesaler to Retailer to Contractor to End-User Baseline Incremental Motor Wholesale Distributor - - 1.35 1.20 1.35 1.20 Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) 1.49 1.24 1.49 1.24 - - Equipment Distributor 1.41 1.20 1.41 1.20 - - Retailer - - - - 1.53 1.26 Contractor or Installer 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Overall (incl. Tax) 2.48 1.75 3.34 2.10 2.44 1.79 ES-9 ES.3.5 Energy Use Analysis To conduct the life-cycle cost (“LCC”) and payback period (“PBP”) analyses, DOE must determine the operating cost savings to consumers from using more efficient equipment. The goal of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual energy consumption of electric motors for use in the LCC and PBP analyses. Energy use characterization generates a range of energy use values that reflect real-world electric motor use in the commercial, industrial, and agricultural sectors. For electric motors subject to energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25, the analysis focuses on eight representative units identified in the engineering analysis. In addition, for NEMA Design A and B and NEMA Design C electric motors, DOE included additional representative units to represent consumers of larger sized electric motors (i.e., units 9, 10, and 11). See Table ES.3.5.1. In addition, DOE considered 12 representative units for SNEMs and 15 representative units for AO electric motors described in the engineering analysis section (see section ES.3.3.1). For each representative unit, DOE determined the annual energy consumption value by multiplying the motor input power by the annual operating hours for a representative sample of electric motor consumers. Chapter 7 of this TSD provide details on DOE’s energy use analysis for electric motors. Table ES.3.5.1 Representative Units for Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation Standards at 10 CFR 431.25 Equipment Class Group NEMA Design A and B Electric Motor NEMA Design C Electric Motor Fire Pump Electric Motor Representative Unit (4-pole, enclosed) 1 HP 5 2 30 3 75 9 150 10 250 4 5 5 50 11 150 6 5 7 30 8 75 To establish a reasonable range of energy consumption in the field for electric motors, DOE created a consumer sample to represent consumers of electric motors in the commercial, industrial, and agricultural sectors. DOE used the sample to determine electric motor annual energy consumption as well as for conducting the LCC and PBP analyses. Each consumer in the ES-10 sample was assigned a sector, an application, and a region. The sector and application determine the usage profile of the electric motor and the economic characteristics of the motor owner vary by sector and region. To develop this sample, DOE primarily used data from a recent DOEAMO report 1, the 2018 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey, 2 the 2018 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey, 3 the 2013 Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey, and information from the Small electric Motors January 2021 Final Determination Technical Support Document 4 (See Chapter 7 and 8). 5, a. The energy use analysis requires DOE to establish a range of annual operating hours and a range of average annual operating loads in order to estimate annual energy consumption by an electric motor. For Design A, B, and C electric motors, SNEMs, and AO electric motors used in the commercial and industrial sectors, DOE estimated the distributions of motor annual operating hours and average annual operating load by application based on information from the DOEAMO report. In the agricultural sector, DOE relied on data from the 2013 Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey. For fire pump motors, DOE did not find application-specific operating hour information and used a uniform distribution between 0.5 hours and 6 hours per year to establish the annual operating hours, based on information from the May 2014 Final Rule. For SNEMs and AO electric motors used in the residential sector, DOE relied on the same operating hours as used in the Chapter 7 of the January 2021 Final Determination Technical Support Document for small electric motors. For each considered efficiency level, DOE determined the annual energy consumption value by multiplying the motor input power by the annual operating hours in a representative sample of electric motor consumers. DOE calculated the motor input power as the sum of: (1) the electric motor rated horsepower multiplied by the electric motor operating load (i.e., the motor output power), and of (2) the losses at the operating load (i.e., part-load losses). DOE determined the part-load losses at a given operating load using outputs from the engineering analysis (full-load efficiency at each efficiency level) and published part-load efficiency information from 2020 catalog data from four large manufacturers to model motor part-load losses as a function of the motor’s operating load. For electric motors subject to energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25 and AOMEMs, DOE also considered the impact of potential increases in speed on energy use. An increase in the motor's efficiency can sometimes result in a higher operating speed and a potential overloading of the motor. The cubic relation between speed and power requirements in variable torque applications can affect the benefits gained by efficient motors, which may have a lower slip. DOE incorporated this effect into the LCC analysis and assumed that 20 percent of consumers with fan, pump, and air compressor applications would be negatively impacted by higher operating speeds. Table ES.3.5.2 through Table ES.3.5.4 present the annual energy use estimated at each efficiency level that DOE is considering for electric motors. The 2013 Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey is the most recent version available that includes operating hour data (the 2018 Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey does not include operating hours information). a ES-11 Table ES.3.5.2 Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level for Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation Standards at 10 CFR 431.25. Representative Unit 1 2 3 9 10 4 5 11 6 7 8 Description Design B, 5 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 30 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 75 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 150 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 250 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Design C, 5 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Design C, 50 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Design C, 150 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Fire pump,5 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Fire pump, 30 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Fire pump, 75 hp, 4-pole, enclosed EL 0 kilowatt-hours per year EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 9,072 52,222 124,541 9,009 51,967 124,020 8,954 51,740 123,737 8,884 51,490 123,352 8,823 51,277 122,969 258,369 257,281 256,682 255,877 255,077 430,968 429,158 428,081 426,743 425,413 7,662 75,745 7,600 75,342 7,531 75,168 7,471 74,843 7,422 74,843 234,551 233,296 232,707 231,697 231,697 7.13 6.94 6.87 6.80 6.68 39.66 39.05 38.80 38.61 38.17 96.76 95.26 94.81 94.36 93.69 Table ES.3.5.3 Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level for SNEMs Representative Unit 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Description Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, open Single-Phase (High LTR), 2 hp, 4-pole, open Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Single-Phase (High LTR), 3 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Single-Phase (Medium LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.25 hp, 6-pole, open Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.5 hp, 6-pole, open Polyphase, 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Polyphase, 0.5 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Polyphase, 0.75 hp, 4-pole, enclosed ES-12 kilowatt-hours per year EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 886 2,074 4,101 842 2,015 3,885 697 1,790 3,573 - - 718 691 518 - - 2,099 5,849 2,005 5,603 1,799 5,195 - - 1,193 1,104 1,049 - - 1,606 1,835 891 1,213 1,691 1,344 1,835 821 1,157 1,617 1,021 1,530 809 1,121 1,583 898 1,426 761 1,087 1,549 728 1,036 1,493 Table ES.3.5.4 Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level for Air-Over Electric Motors Representative Unit 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 EL 0 kilowatt-hours per year EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 1,134 1,082 910 - - 2,823 2,749 2,468 - - 5,476 5,208 4,824 - - 931 898 691 - - 2,822 2,706 2,450 - - 7,989 7,675 7,157 - - 1,244 1,158 1,104 - - 1,457 1,230 949 - - 1,743 1,743 1,472 1,379 - 1,035 961 948 897 - 1,420 1,361 1,322 1,286 1,230 1,995 1,916 1,879 1,843 1,781 11,468 11,210 11,139 11,090 10,936 65,628 64,691 64,397 64,119 63,577 156,982 156,982 156,330 156,148 155,186 Description AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, open AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 2 hp, 4-pole, open AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, enclosed AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 3 hp, 4-pole, enclosed AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.25 hp, 6-pole, open AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.5 hp, 6-pole, open AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.33 hp, 4pole, enclosed AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.5 hp, 4-pole, enclosed AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.75 hp, 4pole, enclosed AO-MEM Polyphase, 5 hp, 4-pole, enclosed AO-MEM Polyphase, 30 hp, 4-pole, enclosed AO-MEM Polyphase, 75 hp, 4-pole, enclosed EL 4 ES.3.6 Life-cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis DOE analyzed the net financial effect on consumers of potential standards for electric motors by evaluating the LCC and PBP of the product (chapter 8 of this preliminary analysis TSD). In performing this analysis, DOE used the cost-efficiency relationship derived from the engineering and markups analyses, along with the energy costs derived from the energy use characterization. Because the operating costs of more expensive, higher-efficiency equipment may decrease in response to new standards, at some time in the life of that equipment the net savings in operating costs since the time of purchase equal the increase in the purchase price of the equipment. The time required for a product to reach that cost-equivalency point is known as ES-13 the PBP. DOE’s analysis produces a simple PBP based on using single-point average values to estimate the purchase price and undiscounted first-year operating cost. DOE identified several inputs for estimating the LCC and simple PBP, including retail prices and installation costs, energy prices, discount rates, and equipment lifetimes. DOE examined installation, maintenance, and repair costs for the efficiency levels considered in this preliminary analysis. DOE found that, incremental changes in energy efficiency produce no changes in installation (other than shipping costs) and maintenance costs over baseline efficiency equipment. DOE found that repair costs increase with efficiency and assumed that only units above 20 horsepower are repaired. DOE used a breakpoint of 20 horsepower consistent with the May 2014 Final Rule, and based on the findings from a previous DOE report 6 stating that electric motor less than 20 horsepower tend to be replaced when they fail since repairing these motors often exceeds the cost of a new motor. The LCC and simple PBP analysis utilized values that reflect unit energy consumption in the field. For electricity prices, DOE used marginal and average prices, which vary by region and sector. DOE estimated these prices using Edison Electric Institute data published in its Typical Bills and Average Rates reports for summer and winter 2020 and the methodology provided in a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report. 7 DOE then used projections of the prices from EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2021 8 ("AEO 2021") to estimate future electricity and natural gas prices. DOE developed distributions of discount rates by estimating the cost of capital for companies or public entities that purchase electric motors in the industrial, commercial, and agricultural sectors. To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE identified all relevant household debt or asset classes in order to approximate a consumer’s opportunity cost of funds related to appliance energy cost savings. DOE used probability distributions to characterize electric motor lifetimes. DOE first estimated the average mechanical lifetime of electric motors in hours (i.e., the total number of hours an electric motor operates throughout its lifetime) and used different values depending on the electric motor's horsepower. DOE then developed Weibull distributions of mechanical lifetimes. The lifetime in years for a sampled electric motor is calculated by dividing the sampled mechanical lifetime by the sampled annual operating hours of the electric motor. This model produces a negative correlation between annual hours of operation and electric motor lifetime: electric motors operated many hours per year are likely to be retired sooner than electric motors that are used for only a few hundred hours per year. Electric motors that are rated at less than 75 horsepower are typically embedded in other equipment such as pumps or compressors (i.e., an application). For such applications, DOE developed Weibull distributions of application lifetimes expressed in years and compared the sampled motor mechanical lifetime (in years) with the sampled application lifetime. DOE assumed that the electric motor would be retired at the earlier of the two ages. The resulting average lifetimes ranged from 6.7 to 30 years depending on the representative unit considered. To estimate the percentage of consumers who would be affected by a standard at each efficiency level, the LCC analysis considered the projected distribution of efficiencies for ES-14 electric motors purchased under the no-new-standards case. To estimate the energy efficiency distribution of electric motors for 2026, DOE relied on model counts by efficiency from the 2016 and 2020 manufacturer catalog data and assumed no changes in electric motor efficiency over time. Using the projected distribution of efficiencies for each representative unit, DOE assigned a specific equipment efficiency to each consumer. If a consumer was assigned a product efficiency that equaled or exceeded the efficiency of the efficiency level under consideration, the LCC calculation showed that the consumer would be unaffected by that standard level. Table ES.3.6.1 through Table ES.3.6.78 show the LCC and simple PBP results for electric motor representative units by efficiency level. As described in section ES.1.2, representative unit 2 is used to represent electric motors between 6 and 50 horsepower. Electric motors at or below 20 horsepower are not repaired while units above 20 horsepower are repaired. Therefore, for representative unit 2, DOE is presenting results with and without repair costs. Table ES.3.6.1 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for NEMA Design A and B, 5-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 1) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 563.0 816.0 5,705.1 6,268.2 -- 12.5 1 632.2 810.4 5,665.9 6,298.0 12.4 12.5 2 668.5 805.6 5,631.9 6,300.4 10.2 12.5 3 721.3 799.4 5,588.5 6,309.8 9.6 12.5 4 869.2 794.1 5,551.2 6,420.4 14.0 12.5 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. ES-15 Table ES.3.6.2 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for NEMA Design A and B, 5-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 1) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 -30.0 70.1% 2 -29.7 59.1% 3 -37.9 63.9% 4 -148.0 86.5% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.3 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for NEMA Design A and B, 30-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 2) Without Repair Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 2,262.7 4,717.1 34,355.2 36,617.5 -- 12.7 1 2,298.2 4,694.6 34,190.1 36,487.9 1.6 12.7 2 2,355.9 4,674.6 34,044.3 36,399.8 2.2 12.7 3 2,730.0 4,652.5 33,882.5 36,612.0 7.2 12.7 4 2,828.4 4,633.7 33,745.6 36,573.5 6.8 12.7 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. ES-16 Table ES.3.6.4 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for NEMA Design A and B, 30-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 2) Without Repair Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 129.1 16.5% 2 203.6 15.8% 3 -19.8 58.3% 4 18.8 54.6% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.5 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for NEMA Design A and B, 30-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 2) With Repair Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 2,262.7 4,717.1 39,370.7 41,633.2 -- 13.9 1 2,298.2 4,694.6 39,332.9 41,631.0 1.6 13.9 2 2,355.9 4,674.6 39,316.5 41,672.2 2.2 13.9 3 2,730.0 4,652.5 39,282.3 42,012.1 7.2 13.9 4 2,828.4 4,633.7 39,275.9 42,104.2 6.8 13.9 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. ES-17 Table ES.3.6.6 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for NEMA Design A and B, 30-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 2) With Repair Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 1.8 46.3% 2 -39.9 58.9% 3 -377.6 83.6% 4 -466.3 83.6% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.7 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for NEMA Design A and B, 75-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 3) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 5,736.5 10,567.6 87,471.8 93,208.6 -- 14.1 1 6,301.2 10,524.2 87,399.4 93,701.0 13.0 14.1 2 7,062.7 10,500.9 87,483.8 94,546.9 19.9 14.1 3 7,254.7 10,468.8 87,503.1 94,758.3 15.4 14.1 4 7,721.6 10,436.9 87,524.0 95,246.1 15.2 14.1 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. ES-18 Table ES.3.6.8 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for NEMA Design A and B, 75-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 3) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 -496.1 72.2% 2 -1,272.9 87.2% 3 -1,391.6 91.4% 4 -1,853.5 94.5% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.9 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for NEMA Design A and B, 150-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 9) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 9,655.4 21,564.9 244,797.0 254,452.2 -- 25.8 1 10,605.7 21,475.6 244,489.1 255,094.7 10.6 25.8 2 11,888.8 21,426.6 244,612.9 256,501.5 16.2 25.8 3 12,211.7 21,360.5 244,564.2 256,775.7 12.5 25.8 4 12,998.6 21,294.9 244,520.0 257,518.4 12.4 25.8 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. ES-19 Table ES.3.6.10 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for NEMA Design A and B, 150-Horsepower, 4Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 9) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 -637.0 62.9% 2 -1,941.0 79.4% 3 -2,031.6 83.9% 4 -2,764.9 86.7% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.11 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for NEMA Design A and B, 250-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 10) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 14,977.0 36,442.3 413,030.9 428,005.7 -- 25.7 1 16,446.8 36,292.1 412,401.9 428,846.2 9.8 25.7 2 18,431.0 36,202.6 412,423.6 430,852.1 14.4 25.7 3 18,930.5 36,091.5 412,230.5 431,158.3 11.3 25.7 4 20,147.5 35,981.1 412,045.0 432,189.7 11.2 25.7 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. ES-20 Table ES.3.6.12 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for NEMA Design A and B, 250-Horsepower, 4Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 10) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 -838.1 65.2% 2 -2,727.1 82.8% 3 -2,977.9 81.1% 4 -4,009.3 83.1% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.13 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for NEMA Design C 5-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 4) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 650.7 684.8 4,971.1 5,621.8 -- 12.7 1 670.1 679.4 4,931.7 5,601.9 3.6 12.7 2 712.3 673.3 4,887.5 5,599.8 5.3 12.7 3 787.6 668.0 4,849.4 5,637.1 8.2 12.7 4 852.7 663.7 4,817.7 5,670.5 9.6 12.7 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. ES-21 Table ES.3.6.14 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for NEMA Design C, 5-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 4) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 19.9 25.4% 2 22.0 37.8% 3 -15.3 59.8% 4 -48.7 68.2% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.15 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for NEMA Design C, 50-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 5) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 4,449.8 6,413.3 56,357.0 60,806.8 -- 14.5 1 4,648.4 6,379.8 56,275.5 60,924.0 5.9 14.5 2 4,856.0 6,364.9 56,349.9 61,206.0 8.4 14.5 3 5,092.1 6,337.9 56,324.1 61,416.4 8.5 14.5 4* 5,092.1 6,337.9 56,324.1 61,416.4 8.5 14.5 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. * same as EL3 ES-22 Table ES.3.6.16 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for NEMA Design C, 50-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 5) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 -117.2 72.7% 2 -399.2 79.5% 3 -609.6 82.2% 4* -609.6 82.2% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). * same as EL3 Table ES.3.6.17 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for NEMA Design C, 150-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 11) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 11,076.7 19,495.3 226,879.7 237,956.8 -- 26.2 1 11,575.4 19,392.7 226,388.1 237,963.9 4.9 26.2 2 12,096.5 19,344.0 226,502.4 238,599.4 6.7 26.2 3 12,687.1 19,261.4 226,239.7 238,927.2 6.9 26.2 4* 12,687.1 19,261.4 226,239.7 238,927.2 6.9 26.2 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. * same as EL3 ES-23 Table ES.3.6.18 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for NEMA Design C, 150-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 11) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 -7.1 58.3% 2 -642.6 65.5% 3 -970.4 68.6% 4* -970.4 68.6% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). * same as EL3 Table ES.3.6.19 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for Fire Pump, 5Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 6) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 511.5 0.6 8.4 519.9 -- 30.0 1 550.9 0.6 8.2 559.1 2,382.3 30.0 2 619.9 0.6 8.1 628.0 4,892.1 30.0 3 656.1 0.6 8.0 664.1 5,080.2 30.0 4 856.3 0.6 7.9 864.1 8,784.3 30.0 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. ES-24 Table ES.3.6.20 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for Fire Pump, 5-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 6) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 -39.2 100.0% 2 -108.1 100.0% 3 -144.2 100.0% 4 -344.3 100.0% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.21 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for Fire Pump, 30-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 7) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 2,048.6 3.6 46.8 2,095.3 -- 30.0 1 2,225.6 3.5 46.1 2,271.7 3,303.6 30.0 2 2,261.3 3.5 45.8 2,307.1 2,815.9 30.0 3 2,318.9 3.5 45.6 2,364.5 2,909.9 30.0 4 2,791.8 3.5 45.1 2,836.9 5,652.7 30.0 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. ES-25 Table ES.3.6.22 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for Fire Pump, 30-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 7) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 -176.4 95.6% 2 -204.0 100.0% 3 -261.4 100.0% 4 -733.8 100.0% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.23 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level Fire Pump, 75Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 8) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 4,685.0 8.8 113.6 4,798.5 -- 29.8 1 5,522.7 8.6 111.8 5,634.5 6,307.6 29.8 2 6,086.7 8.6 111.3 6,198.0 8,105.0 29.8 3 6,847.4 8.6 110.8 6,958.2 10,163.9 29.8 4 7,505.7 8.5 110.0 7,615.7 10,376.0 29.8 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. ES-26 Table ES.3.6.24 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for Fire Pump, 75-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor (Representative Unit 8) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 -836.0 100.0% 2 -1,399.5 100.0% 3 -2,159.7 100.0% 4 -2,817.2 100.0% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.25 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level SNEM SinglePhase (High LRT), 0.33-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 12) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 261.6 80.3 394.1 655.8 -- 7.5 1 267.7 76.3 374.9 642.7 1.6 7.5 2 307.3 63.5 311.8 619.2 2.7 7.5 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. ES-27 Table ES.3.6.26 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 0.33Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 12) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 13.0 6.9% 2 28.2 30.2% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.27 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level SNEM SinglePhase (High LRT), 1-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 13) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 432.6 188.2 930.6 1363.4 -- 7.5 1 456.9 183.0 904.6 1361.7 4.6 7.5 2 488.6 163.1 806.2 1295.0 2.2 7.5 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table ES.3.6.28 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 1Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 13) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 1.5 16.7% 2 67.4 20.5% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). ES-28 Table ES.3.6.29 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level SNEM SinglePhase (High LRT), 2-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 14) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 637.0 372.4 1831.1 2468.2 -- 7.5 1 657.5 353.2 1736.5 2394.0 1.1 7.5 2 695.6 325.6 1600.6 2296.2 1.3 7.5 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table ES.3.6.30 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 2Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 14) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 74.8 4.6% 2 125.2 15.5% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.31 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level SNEM SinglePhase (High LRT), 0.25-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 15) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 252.4 65.3 320.1 572.6 -- 7.5 1 257.1 62.8 308.2 565.3 1.9 7.5 2 296.7 47.5 232.9 529.6 2.5 7.5 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. ES-29 Table ES.3.6.32 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 0.25Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 15) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 7.2 11.3% 2 39.5 26.4% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.33 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level SNEM SinglePhase (High LRT), 1-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 16) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 474.8 192.1 944.9 1419.5 -- 7.5 1 501.3 183.7 903.8 1405.0 3.2 7.5 2 535.9 165.3 813.1 1348.9 2.3 7.5 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table ES.3.6.34 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 1Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 16) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 14.3 17.4% 2 63.6 23.4% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). ES-30 Table ES.3.6.35 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level SNEM SinglePhase (High LRT), 3-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 17) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 800.0 530.3 2622.9 3422.9 -- 7.5 1 835.2 508.4 2514.6 3349.9 1.6 7.5 2 888.2 472.3 2335.9 3224.1 1.5 7.5 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table ES.3.6.36 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 3Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 17) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 73.5 9.6% 2 164.2 17.8% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.37 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level SNEM SinglePhase (Medium LRT), 0.33-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 18) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 148.6 109.3 492.7 641.2 -- 7.0 1 162.7 101.4 456.8 619.5 1.8 7.0 2 169.7 96.5 434.7 604.4 1.7 7.0 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. ES-31 Table ES.3.6.38 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT), 0.33Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 18) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 21.7 5.6% 2 28.4 7.9% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.39 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level SNEM SinglePhase (Low LRT), 0.25-Horsepower, 6-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 19) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 132.3 148.1 661.2 793.4 -- 6.8 1 134.8 124.6 556.3 691.1 0.1 6.8 2 153.9 95.6 426.5 580.3 0.4 6.8 3 159.1 84.5 337.0 536.1 0.4 6.8 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. ES-32 Table ES.3.6.40 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT), 0.25Horsepower, 6-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 19) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 101.6 0.3% 2 170.4 2.8% 3 191.4 3.1% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.41 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level SNEM SinglePhase (Low LRT), 0.5-Horsepower, 6-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 20) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 190.1 170.1 760.6 950.8 -- 6.8 1* 190.1 170.1 760.6 950.8 0.0 6.8 2 210.8 142.6 637.5 848.3 0.8 6.8 3 233.1 133.2 595.5 828.7 1.2 6.8 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. *Same as baseline ES-33 Table ES.3.6.42 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT), 0.5Horsepower, 6-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 20) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1* 0.0 0.0% 2 102.5 2.9% 3 93.4 8.2% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). * Same as baseline. Table ES.3.6.43 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level SNEM Polyphase 0.33-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 21) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 255.9 79.8 481.7 737.5 -- 9.2 1 261.9 73.7 444.6 706.5 1.0 9.2 2 276.2 72.6 438.3 714.5 2.8 9.2 3 280.5 68.4 413.0 693.5 2.2 9.2 4 334.0 65.5 395.3 729.3 5.5 9.2 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. ES-34 Table ES.3.6.44 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for SNEM Polyphase, 0.33-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 21) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 31.3 3.3% 2 11.7 26.9% 3 30.0 13.4% 4 -12.4 62.1% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.45 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level SNEM Polyphase, 0.5-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 22) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 289.0 108.8 651.9 941.0 -- 9.2 1 292.3 103.9 622.8 915.2 0.7 9.2 2 323.9 100.8 603.8 927.7 4.4 9.2 3 329.2 97.8 585.8 915.1 3.7 9.2 4 424.7 93.2 558.7 983.3 8.7 9.2 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. ES-35 Table ES.3.6.46 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for SNEM Polyphase, 0.5-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 22) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 25.6 2.4% 2 3.9 28.5% 3 15.7 22.3% 4 -56.0 80.2% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.47 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level SNEM Polyphase, 0.75-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 23) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 312.7 151.4 911.2 1223.9 -- 9.2 1 333.4 145.0 872.5 1205.9 3.2 9.2 2 344.4 141.9 854.2 1198.6 3.4 9.2 3 355.8 139.0 836.5 1192.4 3.5 9.2 4 456.5 134.0 806.4 1263.0 8.3 9.2 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. ES-36 Table ES.3.6.48 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for SNEM Polyphase, 0.75-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 23) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 18.3 8.7% 2 19.0 14.6% 3 20.9 19.9% 4 -54.2 77.6% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.49 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-SNEM SinglePhase (High LRT), 0.33-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 24) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 260.4 104.7 470.6 730.9 -- 6.8 1 266.6 100.0 449.3 715.8 1.3 6.8 2 306.1 84.5 379.6 685.7 2.3 6.8 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. ES-37 Table ES.3.6.50 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 0.33Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 24) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 15.0 4.0% 2 35.5 19.5% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.51 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 1-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 25) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 430.7 260.8 1158.4 1589.2 -- 6.8 1 455.1 254.1 1128.6 1583.8 3.6 6.8 2 486.9 228.9 1016.3 1503.2 1.8 6.8 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table ES.3.6.52 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 1Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 25) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 5.2 12.6% 2 82.1 11.8% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). ES-38 Table ES.3.6.53 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 2-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 26) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 633.0 509.0 2261.6 2894.4 -- 6.8 1 653.5 484.7 2153.5 2806.9 0.8 6.8 2 691.6 449.8 1998.7 2690.1 1.0 6.8 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table ES.3.6.54 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 2Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 26) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 89.1 2.4% 2 149.2 8.6% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.55 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 0.25-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 27) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 250.9 85.9 378.6 629.5 -- 6.7 1 255.6 83.0 365.6 621.1 1.6 6.7 2 295.1 64.3 283.3 578.4 2.0 6.7 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. ES-39 Table ES.3.6.56 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 0.25Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 27) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 8.5 6.3% 2 47.1 17.0% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.57 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 1-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 28) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 472.8 262.5 1175.0 1648.0 -- 6.8 1 499.4 252.0 1127.9 1627.5 2.5 6.8 2 534.0 228.7 1023.9 1558.1 1.8 6.8 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table ES.3.6.58 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 1Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 28) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 20.2 10.7% 2 80.1 13.3% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). ES-40 Table ES.3.6.59 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 3-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 29) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 793.6 735.0 3276.3 4070.1 -- 6.8 1 828.9 706.7 3150.5 3979.6 1.3 6.8 2 881.9 660.2 2943.2 3825.3 1.2 6.8 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table ES.3.6.60 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT), 3Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 29) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 89.4 5.4% 2 199.8 9.5% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.61 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT), 0.33-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 30) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 147.5 115.0 509.4 657.0 -- 6.8 1 161.7 107.2 474.7 636.4 1.8 6.8 2 168.7 102.3 453.0 621.7 1.7 6.8 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. ES-41 Table ES.3.6.62 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT), 0.33Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 30) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 20.8 4.4% 2 27.2 6.5% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.63 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT), 0.25-Horsepower, 6-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 31) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 131.1 135.4 603.3 734.4 -- 6.8 1 133.6 114.8 511.4 645.1 0.1 6.8 2 152.7 89.3 397.7 550.4 0.5 6.8 3 157.9 79.6 354.4 512.3 0.5 6.8 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. ES-42 Table ES.3.6.64 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT), 0.25Horsepower, 6-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 31) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings(2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 91.0 0.1% 2 106.5 4.0% 3 120.8 4.4% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.65 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT), 0.5-Horsepower, 6-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 32) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 188.3 161.7 722.0 910.3 -- 6.8 1* 188.3 161.7 722.0 910.3 0.0 6.8 2 208.9 137.2 612.4 821.3 0.8 6.8 3 231.3 128.8 575.0 806.2 1.3 6.8 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. * Same as baseline. ES-43 Table ES.3.6.66 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT), 0.5Horsepower, 6-Pole, Open (Representative Unit 32) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1* 0.0 0.0% 2 89.2 4.6% 3 85.5 11.2% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). * Same as baseline. Table ES.3.6.67 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.33-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 33) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 254.9 92.4 522.2 777.0 -- 8.7 1 260.9 85.9 485.3 746.2 0.9 8.7 2 275.2 84.8 479.2 754.4 2.7 8.7 3 279.5 80.3 454.0 733.6 2.1 8.7 4 333.1 77.2 436.4 769.5 5.2 8.7 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. ES-44 Table ES.3.6.68 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.33-Horsepower, 4Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 33) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 30.9 4.0% 2 19.6 18.7% 3 35.5 12.4% 4 -2.2 57.2% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.69 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.5-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 34) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 287.5 126.5 712.7 1000.2 -- 8.7 1 290.8 121.3 683.7 974.5 0.6 8.7 2 322.4 118.0 664.7 987.1 4.1 8.7 3 327.7 114.8 646.7 974.5 3.4 8.7 4 423.1 109.9 619.5 1042.7 8.2 8.7 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. ES-45 Table ES.3.6.70 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.5-Horsepower, 4Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 34) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 25.8 2.9% 2 10.7 26.5% 3 20.7 22.5% 4 -48.6 86.2% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.71 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.75-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 35) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 309.8 178.1 1009.5 1319.3 -- 8.7 1 330.4 171.2 970.5 1300.9 3.0 8.7 2 341.4 168.0 952.0 1293.5 3.1 8.7 3 352.8 164.9 934.3 1287.1 3.2 8.7 4 453.3 159.5 904.0 1357.3 7.7 8.7 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. ES-46 Table ES.3.6.72 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.75-Horsepower, 4Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 35) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 18.3 13.4% 2 24.0 15.6% 3 24.6 22.3% 4 -46.8 82.8% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.73 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-MEM Polyphase, 5-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 36) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 490.2 1023.6 6662.9 7153.1 -- 11.6 1 536.3 1001.1 6516.1 7052.4 2.1 11.6 2 559.8 994.8 6475.3 7035.1 2.4 11.6 3 625.4 990.6 6447.4 7072.8 4.1 11.6 4 784.7 977.1 6359.5 7144.2 6.3 11.6 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. ES-47 Table ES.3.6.74 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-MEM Polyphase, 5-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 36) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 100.1 5.9% 2 65.1 24.9% 3 26.9 46.2% 4 -44.5 64.4% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.75 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-MEM Polyphase, 30-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 37) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 2031.9 5874.1 46610.8 48642.7 -- 13.4 1 2159.5 5792.0 46104.9 48264.5 1.6 13.4 2 2227.9 5766.2 46038.4 48266.3 1.8 13.4 3 2308.4 5741.8 45982.1 48290.6 2.1 13.4 4 2722.8 5694.3 45745.9 48468.7 3.8 13.4 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. ES-48 Table ES.3.6.76 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-MEM Polyphase, 30-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 37) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 381.0 9.8% 2 179.8 42.9% 3 154.4 48.6% 4 -23.6 59.9% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). Table ES.3.6.77 Summary of LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level AO-MEM Polyphase, 75-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 38) Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 5652.6 14055.4 107962.4 113615.6 -- 13.1 1* 5652.6 14055.4 107962.4 113615.6 0.0 13.1 2 6222.7 13998.3 107834.3 114057.5 10.0 13.1 3 6974.4 13982.9 108015.2 114990.2 18.2 13.1 4 7654.8 13898.6 107682.3 115337.8 12.8 13.1 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. * Same as baseline. ES-49 Table ES.3.6.78 Summary of Life-Cycle Costs Relative to the No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for AO-MEM Polyphase, 75-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed (Representative Unit 38) Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1* 0.0 0.0% 2 -442.3 91.4% 3 -1372.3 95.6% 4 -1719.9 92.6% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). * Same as baseline. ES.3.7 Shipments Analysis DOE estimated the shipments of regulated electric motors subject to energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25 to 4.5 million units in 2020 based on data from the 2019 LowVoltage Motors, World Market Report from IHS Markit 9 and on the share of low-voltage motors b that are subject to the electric motors energy conservation standards. DOE estimated the total shipments of SNEMs and AO electric motors in 2020 to be 20.6 million units and 8.2 million units, respectively. For electric motors subject to the energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25, DOE developed a distribution of shipments by equipment class group, horsepower, enclosure, and pole configuration based on data from manufacturer interviews. For SNEMs and AO electric motors, DOE relied on model counts using the 2016/2020 Manufacturer Catalog Data. DOE projected shipments of electric motors regulated at 431.25 for the no-new standards case under the assumption that long-term growth of electric motor shipments will be driven by long-term growth of fixed investments. DOE relied on the AEO 2021 forecast of fixed investments through 2050 to inform its shipments projection. For the years beyond 2050, DOE assumed that fixed investment growth will follow the same growth trend as GDP, which DOE projected based on the GDP forecast provided by AEO 2021. DOE estimated shipments for each equipment class group and horsepower range based on the market shares by equipment class group and horsepower range from manufacturer interviews. For SNEM and AO electric motors, which are typically lower horsepower motors, DOE used the same methodology as in the March 2010 Final Rule and projected shipments using the following sector-specific market drivers from b Low-voltage means below or equal to 600 volts. ES-50 AEO 2021: commercial building floor space, housing numbers, and value of manufacturing activity for the commercial, residential, and industrial sector, respectively. DOE estimated shipments for each equipment class group and horsepower range based on equipment class group/horsepower range market shares using information gleaned from manufacturer interviews and 2020 and 2016 Manufacturer Catalog data model counts. Table ES.3.7.1 through Table ES.3.7.3 present DOE’s projections of shipments by equipment class group and horsepower range for selected years of the analysis period. The projections refer to estimates that DOE developed using the forecast in the AEO 2021 Reference case. In addition to these projections, DOE projected shipments using the High-Economic Growth and Low-Economic Growth cases in AEO 2021. See chapter 9 of the TSD. Table ES.3.7.1 Shipment Projections for Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation Standards at 10 CFR 431.25 Equipment Class Group NEMA Design A and B Electric Motor NEMA Design C Electric Motor Fire Pump Electric Motor Shipments Projection (thousand units) Horsepower Range (all poles and enclosures) 1 to 5 2026 2922 2036 3917 2046 5083 2055 6217 6 to 20 1840 2467 3200 3915 21 to 50 555 744 965 1181 51 to 100 187 250 325 397 101 to 200 91 122 159 194 201 to 500 43 57 74 91 1 to 20 25 34 44 53 21 to 100 3.5 4.7 6.1 7.4 101 to 200 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 1 to 5 1.5 2.0 2.6 3.1 6 to 50 16 21 27 33 51 to 500 14 19 24 30 Table ES.3.7.2 Shipment Projections for SNEMs Equipment Class Group Single-Phase (High LRT) Horsepower Range (all poles and enclosures unless specified otherwise) 0.25 to 0.75 (open) Shipments Projection (thousand units) 2026 2036 2046 2055 253 285 321 341 0.76 to 1.5 (open) 317 356 402 426 Above 1.5 (open) 771 866 978 1038 0.25 to 0.75 (enclosed) 1248 1401 1583 1679 0.76 to 1.5 (enclosed) 845 950 1073 1138 ES-51 Equipment Class Group Single-Phase (Medium LRT) Single-Phase (Low LRT) Polyphase Shipments Projection (thousand units) 2026 2036 2046 2055 909 1021 1153 1223 Horsepower Range (all poles and enclosures unless specified otherwise) Above 1.5 (enclosed) At and above 0.25 4343 4879 5510 5845 0.25 to 0.33 2752 3092 3492 3704 Above 0.33 10266 11532 13025 13816 0.25 to 0.33 247 277 313 332 0.34 to 0.5 280 314 355 377 Above 0.5 487 548 618 656 Table ES.3.7.3 Shipment Projections for AO Electric Motors Equipment Class Group AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) AO-MEM Polyphase Horsepower Range (all poles and enclosures unless specified otherwise) Shipments Projection (thousand units) 0.25 to 0.75 (open) 2026 29 2036 33 2046 37 2055 43 0.76 to 1.5 (open) 29 33 37 43 Above 1.5 (open) 265 297 335 390 0.25 to 0.75 (enclosed) 118 132 149 174 0.76 to 1.5 (enclosed) 383 429 485 564 Above 1.5 (enclosed) 235 264 298 347 At and above 0.25 618 694 783 911 0.25 to 0.33 3856 4328 4882 5683 Above 0.33 3149 3535 3988 4642 0.25 to 0.33 13 14 16 19 0.34 to 0.5 18 21 23 27 Above 0.5 79 89 100 117 1 to 20 193 216 244 284 21 to 50 64 72 81 95 Above 50 7 8 9 11 In each standard case, DOE accounted for the possibility that some consumers may choose to purchase a synchronous electric motor (which is outside the scope of this preliminary analysis) rather than purchasing a more efficient NEMA Design A or B electric motor. DOE developed a consumer choice model to estimate the percentage of consumers that would ES-52 purchase a synchronous electric motor based on the payback period of such investment. Table ES.3.7.4 presents DOE’s estimates of the percentages of consumers that would purchase a synchronous electric motor instead of a NEMA Design A or B electric motor, for the horsepower ranges within which DOE believes these purchase substitutions may occur. Table ES.3.7.4 Percentage of Consumers Purchasing Synchronous Electric Motors in each Standards Case Equipment Class Group Horsepower Range (all poles and enclosures) NEMA Design A and B Electric Motor 1 to 5 6 to 50 51 to 100 EL 1 2.3% 6.6% 2.9% Standard Case EL 2 EL 3 2.6% 3.2% 7.3% 9.8% 5.0% 6.7% EL 4 5.8% 10.5% 7.7% DOE further developed initial estimates of the shipments of different categories of electric motors that DOE may potentially consider in the expanded scope. See Table ES.3.7.5 Table ES.3.7.5 Initial Expanded Scope Shipments Estimates for 2020 Category Submersible Electric Motor* Electric Motors greater than 500 hp*** Synchronous Electric Motors† Sub-Category Units Single Phase 170,000 Polyphase Polyphase 50,000 Line Start Permanent Magnet Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motors 50,000 Switched Reluctance Synchronous Reluctance Electronically Commutated Motors (ECM) 2,000,000 Based on 120,000 units of submersible motors in clean water pumps and assuming these represent approximately 70% of the total submersible motor market. ** Estimated assuming these represent 1% of currently regulated electric motors at 10 CFR 431.25. † ECM shipments based on 2013 DOE study ( "Energy Savings Potential and Opportunities for High-Efficiency Electric Motors in Residential and Commercial Equipment") and other shipments estimated assuming these represent 1% of currently regulated electric motors. * Chapter 9 of this preliminary TSD provides additional details regarding the shipments analysis. ES-53 ES.3.8 National Impact Analysis The national impact analysis (“NIA”) estimates the following national impacts from possible efficiency levels for electric motors: (1) national energy savings (NES); (2) monetary value of the energy savings due to standards; (3) increased total installed costs of the considered equipment due to standards; and (4) the net present value (NPV) of the difference between the value of energy savings and increased total installed costs. DOE prepared spreadsheet models to estimate energy savings and national consumer economic costs and savings resulting from potential standards. In contrast to the LCC and PBP analyses, which use probability distributions for the inputs, the NIA uses average or typical values for inputs. In its analysis, DOE analyzes the energy and economic impacts of a potential standard on all equipment classes aggregated by horsepower range. For electric motors subject to standards at 10 CFR 431.25, non-representative equipment classes (i.e., those not analyzed in the engineering, energy-use, and LCC analyses) are scaled using results for the analyzed equipment classes that best represents each non-representative equipment class. For example, results from representative unit 1 (NEMA Design A and B electric motor, 5-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed) are scaled to represent all NEMA Design A and B electric motor equipment classes between 1 and 5 horsepower. See Table ES.3.8.1. Energy use values were calculated by applying the ratio of the current federal standard baseline between the two equipment classes and ratio of horsepower and assuming the incremental decrease between efficiency levels is the same for representative and non-representative equipment classes. Retail price and installation costs (i.e., shipping costs) at EL0 were estimated using price and weight data obtained from 2020 Manufacturer Catalog Data and outputs from the engineering analysis, and assuming the incremental cost between efficiency levels is the same for representative and non-representative equipment classes. Repair costs for each non-represented equipment class were estimated based on information from Vaughen's National Average Prices. 10 For each equipment class group and horsepower range analyzed in the NIA, DOE then developed shipment-weighted average inputs per unit. For SNEMs and AO electric motors, DOE did not scale the results of the representative units due to the smaller size of horsepower ranges associated to each representative unit (See Table ES.3.8.2 and Table ES.3.8.3), and lower shipments of motors at larger horsepower. Table ES.3.8.1 Representative Units and Associated Horsepower Ranges Equipment Class Group NEMA Design A and B Electric Motor 1 Horsepower (4-pole, enclosed unless specified otherwise) 5 Horsepower Range (all poles and enclosures unless specified otherwise) 1 to 5 2 30 6 to 20 2 30 21 to 50 3 75 51 to 100 9 150 101 to 200 Representative Unit ES-54 Equipment Class Group NEMA Design C Electric Motor Fire Pump Electric Motor 10 Horsepower (4-pole, enclosed unless specified otherwise) 250 Horsepower Range (all poles and enclosures unless specified otherwise) 201 to 500 4 5 1 to 20 5 50 21 to 100 11 150 101 to 200 6 5 1 to 5 7 30 6 to 50 8 75 51 to 500 Representative Unit Table ES.3.8.2 Representative Units and Associated Horsepower Ranges for SNEMs Equipment Class Group SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT) SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) SNEM Polyphase 12 Horsepower (4-pole, enclosed unless specified otherwise) 0.33 (open) Horsepower Range (all poles and enclosures unless specified otherwise) 0.25 to 0.75 (open) 13 1 (open) 0.76 to 1.5 (open) 14 2 (open) Above 1.5 (open) 15 0.25 (enclosed) 0.25 to 0.75 (enclosed) 16 1 (enclosed) 0.76 to 1.5 (enclosed) 17 3 (enclosed) Above 1.5 (enclosed) 18 0.33 (open) Above 0.25 19 0.25 (6-pole, open) 0.25 to 0.33 20 0.5 (6-pole, open) 0.34 to 5 21 0.33 0.25 to 0.33 22 0.5 0.34 to 0.5 23 0.75 Above 0.5 Representative Unit ES-55 Table ES.3.8.3 Representative Units and Associated Horsepower Ranges for AO Electric Motors Equipment Class Group AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) AO-SNEM Polyphase AO-MEM Polyphase 24 Horsepower (4-pole, enclosed unless specified otherwise) 0.33 (open) Horsepower Range (all poles and enclosures unless specified otherwise) 0.25 to 0.75 (open) 25 1 (open) 0.76 to 1.5 (open) 26 2 (open) Above 1.5 (open) 27 0.25 (enclosed) 0.25 to 0.75 (enclosed) 28 1 (enclosed) 0.76 to 1.5 (enclosed) 29 3 (enclosed) Above 1.5 (enclosed) 30 0.33 (open) Above 0.25 31 0.25 (6-pole, open) 0.25 to 0.33 32 0.5 (6-pole, open) 0.34 to 5 33 0.33 0.25 to 0.33 34 0.5 0.34 to 0.5 35 0.75 Above 0.5 36 5 1 to 20 37 30 21 to 50 38 75 Above 51 Representative Unit See chapter 10 of the preliminary analysis TSD for more details. DOE calculated annual NES as the difference between national energy consumption in the no-new-standards-case and under a potential standard set at each EL. Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the annual NES over the period in which products shipped in 2026-2055 are in operation. The NES results shown in Table ES.3.8.4 through Table ES.3.8.6 are expressed as full-fuel cycle energy savings in quads (quadrillion Btus). ES-56 Table ES.3.8.4 Cumulative Full Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings for Electric Motors Subject to Standards at 10 CFR 431.25 (Quads) Quads (FFC) Equipment class and Horsepower Range NEMA Design A and B (1-5 hp) NEMA Design A and B (6-20 hp) NEMA Design A and B (21-50 hp) NEMA Design A and B (51-100 hp) NEMA Design A and B (101-200 hp) NEMA Design A and B (201-500 hp) NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (1-5 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (6-20 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (21-50 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (51-100 hp)* NEMA Design C (1-20 hp) NEMA Design C (21-100 hp) NEMA Design C (101-200 hp) Fire Pump (1-5) Fire Pump (6-50 hp) Fire Pump (51-500 hp) EL 1 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.7 EL 2 0.8 1.6 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.2 EL 3 1.3 2.5 2.3 0.8 1.6 1.9 EL 4 1.6 3.3 3.0 1.1 2.1 2.5 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.7 1.9 2.5 2.7 1.5 1.7 2.3 2.4 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Substitution out of scope to permanent magnet motors. Note: Results for NEMA Design A and B motors reflect the fraction of the market that does not substitute to synchronous electric motors * Table ES.3.8.5 Cumulative Full Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings for SNEMs (Quads) Quads (FFC) Equipment Class and Horsepower Range EL 1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.07 0.03 0.20 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above1.5 hp) Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) ES-57 EL 2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.4 1.4 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 EL 3 1.8 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 EL 4 0.1 0.1 0.1 Table ES.3.8.6 Cumulative Full Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings for AO Electric Motors (Quads) Equipment Class and Horsepower Range AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (1 to 20 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (21 to 50 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (Above 51 hp) Quads (FFC) EL 1 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.11 0.00 EL 2 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.04 0.19 0.25 0.05 1.26 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.18 0.02 EL 3 1.81 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.15 0.25 0.02 EL 4 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.25 0.39 0.05 DOE calculated net monetary savings in each year as the difference between total savings in operating costs and increases in total equipment costs in the no-new-standards case and standards cases. DOE calculated savings over the life of the equipment purchased in the forecast period. The NPV is the difference between the present value of operating cost savings and the present value of increased total installed costs. DOE used discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent to discount future costs and savings to the present. DOE discounted costs and savings to 2021. The NPV results are shown in Table ES.3.8.7 through Table ES.3.8.12. ES-58 Table ES.3.8.7 Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation Standards at 10 CFR 431.25: Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value, Discounted at 3 Percent, $2020 Equipment Class and Horsepower Range NEMA Design A and B (1-5 hp) NEMA Design A and B (6-20 hp) NEMA Design A and B (21-50 hp) NEMA Design A and B (51-100 hp) NEMA Design A and B (101-200 hp) NEMA Design A and B (201-500 hp) NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (1-5 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (6-20 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (21-50 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (51-100 hp)* NEMA Design C (1-20 hp) NEMA Design C (21-100 hp) NEMA Design C (101-200 hp) Fire Pump (1-5) Fire Pump (6-50 hp) Fire Pump (51-500 hp) Billion (2020$) EL 1 -0.379 2.709 0.705 -1.413 -0.614 -0.175 EL 2 -0.011 4.872 0.811 -4.429 -3.211 -2.358 EL 3 0.288 0.989 -3.281 -5.077 -3.377 -2.094 EL 4 -2.739 2.198 -3.914 -6.818 -4.594 -2.819 0.211 0.242 0.293 0.535 2.655 2.930 3.905 4.162 2.147 2.385 3.198 3.413 -0.213 -0.345 -0.440 -0.500 0.027 -0.006 0.004 -0.001 -0.039 -0.278 0.043 -0.027 -0.002 -0.002 -0.046 -0.466 0.028 -0.041 -0.003 -0.002 -0.059 -0.719 0.012 -0.041 -0.003 -0.005 -0.167 -0.939 * Substitution out of scope to permanent magnet motors. Note: Results for NEMA Design A and B motors reflect the fraction of the market that does not substitute to synchronous electric motors ES-59 Table ES.3.8.8 SNEMs: Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value, Discounted at 3 Percent, $2020 Billion (2020$) Equipment Class and Horsepower Range Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.75 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.76 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.75 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.76 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) EL 1 0.02 0.00 0.38 0.11 0.08 0.61 0.51 2.08 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.06 EL 2 0.13 0.38 1.74 0.96 0.87 2.66 1.11 5.89 9.11 0.03 0.01 0.10 EL 3 7.67 11.37 0.10 0.06 0.14 EL 4 -0.05 -0.28 -0.48 Table ES.3.8.9 AO Electric Motors: Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value, Discounted at 3 Percent, $2020 Equipment Class and Horsepower Range AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (1 to 20 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (21 to 50 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (Above 51 hp) ES-60 Billion (2020$) EL 1 0.00 0.00 0.15 EL 2 0.02 0.04 0.69 EL 3 - EL 4 - 0.01 0.09 - - 0.07 0.52 - - 0.19 0.07 0.60 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.23 0.28 0.00 0.83 0.15 4.94 3.41 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.32 0.31 -0.06 7.19 4.08 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.19 0.31 -0.19 0.00 -0.02 -0.08 -0.04 0.14 -0.23 Table ES.3.8.10 Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation Standards at 10 CFR 431.25: Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value, Discounted at 7 Percent Equipment Class and Horsepower Range NEMA Design A and B (1-5 hp) NEMA Design A and B (6-20 hp) NEMA Design A and B (21-50 hp) NEMA Design A and B (51-100 hp) NEMA Design A and B (101-200 hp) NEMA Design A and B (201-500 hp) NEMA Design C (1-20 hp) NEMA Design C (21-100 hp) NEMA Design C (101-200 hp) Fire Pump (1-5) Fire Pump (6-50 hp) Fire Pump (51-500 hp) NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (1-5 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (6-20 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (21-50 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (51-100 hp)* Billion (2020$) EL 1 -0.334 1.071 0.072 -0.848 -0.574 -0.409 0.010 -0.005 0.000 0.000 -0.020 -0.141 EL 2 -0.281 1.870 -0.153 -2.454 -2.057 -1.736 0.014 -0.018 -0.004 -0.001 -0.023 -0.236 EL 3 -0.307 -0.419 -2.530 -2.898 -2.390 -1.883 0.003 -0.027 -0.006 -0.001 -0.030 -0.365 EL 4 -1.980 -0.088 -3.117 -3.894 -3.256 -2.529 -0.008 -0.027 -0.006 -0.002 -0.085 -0.476 0.025 0.029 0.036 0.066 0.723 0.794 1.055 1.125 0.500 0.556 0.748 0.800 -0.197 -0.324 -0.423 -0.483 Substitution out of scope to permanent magnet motors. Note: Results for NEMA Design A and B motors reflect the fraction of the market that does not substitute to synchronous electric motors * ES-61 Table ES.3.8.11 SNEMs: Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value, Discounted at 7 Percent Equipment Class and Horsepower Range Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.75 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.76 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.75 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.76 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) Billion (2020$) EL 1 0.01 0.00 0.17 0.04 0.04 0.27 0.22 0.97 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 EL 2 0.05 0.16 0.77 0.40 0.34 1.17 0.48 2.73 4.16 0.01 0.00 0.04 EL 3 0.48 3.55 5.05 0.04 0.02 0.05 EL 4 5.05 -0.05 -0.17 -0.30 Table ES.3.8.12 AO Electric Motors: Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value, Discounted at 7 Percent Equipment Class and Horsepower Range AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (1 to 20 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (21 to 50 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (Above 51 hp) ES-62 Billion (2020$) EL 1 0.00 0.00 0.07 EL 2 0.01 0.02 0.31 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.10 0.00 0.22 0.37 0.06 2.25 1.54 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.08 -0.04 EL 3 - EL 4 - 1.79 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 -0.11 -0.01 -0.05 -0.12 -0.09 -0.14 REFERENCES 1. Prakash Rao et al., “U.S. Industrial and Commercial Motor System Market Assessment Report Volume 1: Characteristics of the Installed Base,” January 12, 2021, https://doi.org/10.2172/1760267. 2. “2018 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey,” November 1, 2020, 24. 3. “2018 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey Data, Table11.1Electricity:ComponentsofNetDemand,2018,” accessed April 26, 2021, https://www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/data/2018/pdf/Table11_1.pdf. 4. “Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Small Electric Motors Final Determination (Prepared for the Department of Energy by Staff Members of Navigant Consulting, Inc and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, January 2021),” accessed November 29, 2021, https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0008-0035. 5. “US Department of Agriculture (2012), Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (2013), Volume 3, Special Studies, Part 1,” November 1, 2014, https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/Online_Resources/Farm_and_R anch_Irrigation_Survey/fris13.pdf. 6. “Advanced Manufacturing Office, Premium Efficiency Motor Selection and Application Guide, A Handbook for Industry,” February 2014, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2014/04/f15/amo_motors_handbook_web.pdf. 7. Katie Coughlin and Bereket Beraki, “Non-Residential Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods,” 2019. https://eta.lbl.gov/publications/non-residential-electricity-prices 8. “Annual Energy Outlook 2021,” accessed June 3, 2021, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/. 9. “Low-Voltage Motors, World Market Report, IHS Markit,” November 1, 2019. 10. “Vaughen’s National Average Prices, Random Wound AC Motors Stator Rewinds - 2021 Edition,” n.d. ES-63 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT .......................................................................................... 1-1 OVERVIEW OF THE APPLIANCES AND COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT STANDARDS PROGRAM ............................................................................................. 1-1 OVERVIEW OF ELECTRIC MOTOR STANDARDS.................................................. 1-2 PROCESS FOR SETTING ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS ................... 1-3 STRUCTURE OF THE DOCUMENT............................................................................ 1-3 1-i CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT This Technical Support Document (TSD) provides the analytical approaches, inputs and results associated with U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) study of energy conservation standards for electric motors. This TSD also serves to provide technical detail and is a compendium to the life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP), and National Impact Analysis (NIA) spreadsheets that are available on regulations.gov, docket number EERE-2020BT-STD-0007 at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007 1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE APPLIANCES AND COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT STANDARDS PROGRAM The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”), 1 authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of several consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291–6317) Title III, Part C2 of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, §441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve the energy efficiency of certain types of industrial equipment, including electric motors, the subject of this preliminary analysis. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(1) and (2); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a standard is economically justified, DOE must, after receiving views and comments furnished with respect to the proposed standard, determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by, to the greatest extent practicable, considering: 1. the economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of products subject to the standard; 2. the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products likely to result from imposition of the standard; 3. the total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from imposition of the standard; All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 27, 2020). 2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A-1. 1 1-1 4. any lessening of utility or performance of the covered products likely to result from imposition of the standard; 5. the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, likely to result from imposition of the standard; 6. the need for national energy conservation; and 7. other factors the Secretary considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) Additionally, DOE must periodically review its already established energy conservation standards for each type of covered equipment at least once every six years for covered equipment. This 6-year look-back provision requires that DOE publish either a determination that standards do not need to be amended or a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR), including new proposed standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) EPCA further provides that, not later than 3 years after a final determination not to amend standards, DOE must make a new determination not to amend the standards or issue a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) DOE must make the analysis on which a determination is based publicly available and provide an opportunity for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2)) In making a determination that the standards do not need to be amended, DOE must evaluate under the criteria of 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2) whether amended standards (1) will result in significant conservation of energy, (2) are technologically feasible, and (3) are cost effective as described under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and (n)(2)) Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an evaluation of cost effectiveness requires DOE to consider savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered products which are likely to result from the imposition of the standard. Before proposing a standard, DOE typically seeks public input on the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE intends to use to evaluate standards for the equipment at issue and the results of preliminary analyses DOE performed for the equipment. This TSD provides the analytical approaches, inputs, and results associated with DOE’s preliminary analysis in satisfaction of the 6-year review requirement in EPCA. 1.3 OVERVIEW OF ELECTRIC MOTOR STANDARDS On May 29, 2014, DOE published a final rule adopting new and amended energy conservation standards for electric motors other than fire pump electric motors, consistent with the efficiency levels (“ELs”) specified in Table 12-12 of National Electrical Manufacturers 1-2 Association (“NEMA”) Standards Publication MG 1-2011, “Motors and Generators,” and retained the standards for fire pump electric motors. 79 FR 30934 (“May 2014 Final Rule”). These standards are set forth in DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 431.25. 1.4 PROCESS FOR SETTING ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS In conducting energy conservation standard rulemakings, DOE involves interested parties through formal public notifications (i.e., Federal Register notices). On May 21, 2020, DOE published notification that it was initiating an early assessment review to determine whether any new or amended standards would satisfy the relevant requirements of EPCA for a new or amended energy conservation standard for electric motors and a request for information (“RFI”). 85 FR 30878 (“May 2020 Early Assessment Review RFI”). Specifically, through the published notification and request for information, DOE sought data and information that could enable the agency to determine whether DOE should propose a “no new standard” determination because a more stringent standard: (1) would not result in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of foregoing. Id. DOE received a number of comments from interested parties in response to the May 2020 Early Assessment Review RFI. Chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD summarizes and addresses the comments received. 1.5 STRUCTURE OF THE DOCUMENT This TSD consists of 17 chapters, plus additional appendices. Chapter 1 Introduction: Provides an overview of the appliance standards program and how it applies to the electric motors rulemaking, provides a history of DOE’s actions to date, and outlines the structure of the TSD. Chapter 2 Analytical Framework, Comments from Interested Parties, and DOE Responses: Describes the rulemaking process, and provides an overview of each analysis. Chapter 3 Market and Technology Assessment: Characterizes the electric motor market and the technologies available for increasing equipment efficiency, and outlines equipment classes. Chapter 4 Screening Analysis: Determines which technology options are viable for consideration in the engineering analysis. Chapter 5 Engineering Analysis: Describes DOE’s approach to the engineering analysis, which consists of two main analyses - the selection of efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the “efficiency analysis”) and the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the “cost analysis”). 1-3 Chapter 6 Markups Analysis: Discusses the methods DOE used for establishing markups to convert manufacturer selling prices to installed customer equipment prices. Chapter 7 Energy Use Analysis: Discusses the process DOE used for generating energy use estimates and end-use applications for electric motors. Chapter 8 Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses: Describes the impact of energy conservation standards on consumers of electric motors. This chapter compares the life-cycle cost of electric motors and other measures of consumer impact with and without updated energy conservation standards. Chapter 9 Shipments Analysis: discusses the methods used for forecasting shipments with and without higher energy conservation standards Chapter 10 National Impact Analysis: discusses the methods used for forecasting national energy consumption and national economic impacts based on annual product shipments and estimates of future product efficiency distributions in the absence and presence of higher efficiency standards Chapter 11 Consumer Subgroup Analysis: discusses the methods to be used to study the impacts of standards on a subgroup of consumers and to calculate the LCC and PBP for these consumers Chapter 12 Manufacturer Impact Analysis: discusses the methods to be used to study the impacts of standards on the finances and profitability of electric motor manufacturers, and presents preliminary manufacturer impact analysis results Chapter 13 Emissions Analysis: discusses the methods to be used to study the effects of standards on sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), mercury (Hg), and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions Chapter 14 Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits: discusses the methods to be used to study the effects of standards on monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO2 and NOX Chapter 15 Utility Impact Analysis: discusses the methods to be used to study the effects of standards on the installed generation capacity of electric utilities Chapter 16 Employment Impact Analysis: discusses the methods to be used to analyze the effects of standards on national employment Chapter 17 Regulatory Impact Analysis: discusses present regulatory actions and the methods to be used to determine the impact of non-regulatory alternatives to energy conservation standards 1-4 Appendix 2A Summary of Requests for Comments: Contains a list of the requests for comments included in chapter 2. Appendix 5A Detailed Engineering Data: Contains a list of the design parameters used for each simulated or torn-down design. Appendix 6A Detailed Data for Equipment Price Markups: Describes the data DOE used for establishing markups to convert manufacturer selling prices to installed customer equipment prices. Appendix 8A Uncertainty and Variability in the Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis: Discusses the uncertainty and variability and describes how the U.S. DOE incorporated these into the life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) analysis. Appendix 8B Repair Cost Sensitivity: Discusses the alternate assumptions that DOE used for repair costs and associated life-cycle cost savings. Appendix 8C Distributions used for Discount Rates in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors: Discusses the methods DOE used for establishing discount rates for the commercial and industrial sectors. Appendix 8D Distributions used for Discount Rates in the Residential Sector: Discusses the methods DOE used for establishing discount rates for residential sector. Appendix 10A Baseline Manufacturer Selling Price and Weight Results: Presents the baseline values of manufacturer selling prices and weights for all equipment classes. Appendix 10B Full-Fuel-Cycle Multipliers: Summarizes the methods used to calculate full-fuelcycle (FFC) energy savings expected to result from potential standards. Appendix 10C National Impact Analysis: Additional Results for High and Low Scenarios: presents additional results for the AEO high and low scenarios. 1-5 CHAPTER 2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK, COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES, AND DOE RESPONSES TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Test Procedure ................................................................................................................. 2-5 2.2 SCOPE OF COVERAGE ................................................................................................ 2-5 2.2.1 Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 .................................................................. 2-5 2.2.2 Definitions........................................................................................................................ 2-7 2.2.3 Expanded Scope ............................................................................................................... 2-8 2.2.3.1 Summary of Proposed Expanded TP Scope ...................................................... 2-8 2.2.3.2 Electric Motors Analyzed in This Preliminary Analysis ................................ 2-10 2.2.3.3 Potential Future Further Expansion................................................................. 2-11 2.2.4 Comments Related to Scope .......................................................................................... 2-11 2.2.4.1 Supporting Expansion ..................................................................................... 2-11 2.2.4.2 Not Supporting Expansion .............................................................................. 2-12 2.2.4.3 Motor System Approach ................................................................................. 2-13 2.2.5 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 2-13 2.3 MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ...................................................... 2-13 2.3.1 Equipment Classes ......................................................................................................... 2-13 2.3.1.1 EMs Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 ................................................................... 2-14 2.3.1.2 EMs Analyzed in Preliminary Analysis .......................................................... 2-18 2.3.1.3 EMs Not Analyzed in Preliminary Analysis ................................................... 2-20 2.3.2 Technology Assessment................................................................................................. 2-22 2.3.2.1 Electrical Steel................................................................................................. 2-24 2.3.2.2 Variable-Speed Operation ............................................................................... 2-24 2.4 SCREENING ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 2-25 2.4.1 Technology Options Screened Out ................................................................................ 2-25 2.4.2 Technology Options Considered Further in DOE’s Analysis........................................ 2-27 2.5 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS........................................................................................ 2-27 2.5.1 Two Distinct Engineering Analysis Approaches ........................................................... 2-28 2.5.2 Representative Units Analyzed ...................................................................................... 2-28 2.5.2.1 Scope: 10 CFR 431.25 .................................................................................... 2-28 2.5.2.2 Scope: Expanded ............................................................................................. 2-29 2.5.3 Efficiency Analysis ........................................................................................................ 2-31 2.5.3.1 Baseline and Higher Efficiency Levels ........................................................... 2-32 2.5.4 Cost Analysis ................................................................................................................. 2-37 2.5.4.1 General Methodology ...................................................................................... 2-38 2.5.4.2 Constructing a Bill of Materials ...................................................................... 2-42 2.5.4.3 Conductor Prices ............................................................................................. 2-42 2.5.4.4 Electrical Steel Prices ...................................................................................... 2-43 2-i 2.5.4.5 Other Material Prices ...................................................................................... 2-44 2.5.4.6 Labor Costs ..................................................................................................... 2-45 2.5.4.7 Markup ............................................................................................................ 2-46 2.5.5 Engineering Analysis Results ........................................................................................ 2-48 2.5.5.1 Scope: 10 CFR 431.25 .................................................................................... 2-48 2.5.5.2 Expanded Scope .............................................................................................. 2-49 2.6 MARKUPS ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 2-50 2.7 ENERGY USE ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 2-53 2.7.1 Consumer Sample .......................................................................................................... 2-54 2.7.2 Motor Input Power ......................................................................................................... 2-55 2.7.3 Annual Operating Hours ................................................................................................ 2-55 2.7.4 Impact of Electric Motor Speed ..................................................................................... 2-56 2.8 LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSES .................................. 2-57 2.8.1 Equipment Cost.............................................................................................................. 2-60 2.8.2 Installation Cost ............................................................................................................. 2-60 2.8.3 Annual Energy Consumption......................................................................................... 2-61 2.8.4 Energy Prices ................................................................................................................. 2-61 2.8.5 Maintenance and Repair Costs....................................................................................... 2-61 2.8.6 Equipment Lifetime ....................................................................................................... 2-62 2.8.7 Discount Rates ............................................................................................................... 2-64 2.8.8 Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case ................................... 2-65 2.8.9 Payback Period Analysis................................................................................................ 2-67 2.9 SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS............................................................................................. 2-68 2.10 NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS .............................................................................. 2-73 2.10.1 National Energy Savings................................................................................................ 2-75 2.10.2 Net Present Value of Consumer Benefit ........................................................................ 2-76 2.11 PRELIMINARY MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS ..................................... 2-77 2.11.1 Industry Cash-Flow Analysis......................................................................................... 2-78 2.11.2 Manufacturer Subgroup Analysis .................................................................................. 2-78 2.11.3 Competitive Impacts Assessment .................................................................................. 2-78 2.11.4 Cumulative Regulatory Burden ..................................................................................... 2-79 2.11.5 Results for the Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis .......................................... 2-79 2.11.6 Enforcement of Noncompliant Imports ......................................................................... 2-80 2.12 CONSUMER SUBGROUP ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 2-80 2.13 EMISSIONS IMPACT ANALYSIS.............................................................................. 2-81 2.14 MONETIZATION OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION BENEFITS ................................. 2-82 2.15 UTILITY IMPACT ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 2-82 2.16 EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 2-83 2.17 REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS........................................................................ 2-83 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 2-85 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1.1 Early Assessment RFI Written Comments ....................................................... 2-4 2-ii Table 2.3.1 Table 2.3.2 Table 2.3.3 Table 2.4.1 Table 2.5.1 Table 2.5.2 Table 2.5.3 Table 2.5.4 Table 2.5.5 Table 2.5.6 Table 2.5.7 Table 2.5.8 Table 2.5.9 Table 2.5.10 Table 2.5.11 Table 2.5.12 Table 2.5.13 Table 2.5.14 Table 2.5.15 Table 2.5.16 Table 2.5.17 Table 2.5.18 Table 2.5.19 Table 2.5.20 Table 2.5.21 Table 2.6.1 Table 2.6.2 Table 2.7.1 Table 2.8.1 Table 2.8.2 Table 2.8.3 Table 2.8.4 Table 2.9.1 Table 2.9.2 Table 2.9.3 Table 2.9.4 Table 2.9.5 Table 2.9.6 Current Electric Motors Equipment Class Groups ......................................... 2-17 SNEMs Proposed in Scope by December 2021 TP NOPR ............................ 2-19 Technology Options Presented in the May 2020 Early Assessment RFI ...... 2-23 Screened-Out Technology Options ................................................................. 2-26 Equipment Classes and Representative Units ................................................. 2-29 Representative Units of Proposed MEM Air-Over Equipment Classes ......... 2-30 Motor Topologies of Each Equipment Class Group ....................................... 2-30 Representative Units of Proposed SNEM Equipment Classes ....................... 2-31 Representative Units of Proposed AO SNEM Equipment Classes ................ 2-31 Baseline Efficiency Ratings of Representative Units ..................................... 2-32 Efficiency Levels by Representative Unit ...................................................... 2-33 SNEM Baseline Efficiency by Representative Unit ....................................... 2-35 SNEM Efficiency Levels by Representative Unit .......................................... 2-36 AO SNEM Efficiency Levels by Representative Unit ................................... 2-37 AO-MEM Efficiency Levels by Representative Unit ..................................... 2-37 Max Theoretical Stack Length for Each Representative Unit ........................ 2-39 Stack Length of Each Design.......................................................................... 2-41 Estimated Conductor Prices ............................................................................ 2-42 Estimated Electrical Steel Prices .................................................................... 2-43 Estimated Other Material Prices ..................................................................... 2-44 Labor Markups for Electric Motor Manufacturers ......................................... 2-46 MSP (2020$) of Each Representative Unit ..................................................... 2-48 MSP of Each EL for AO MEM RUs Analyzed .............................................. 2-49 MSP of Each EL for SNEM RUs Analyzed ................................................... 2-50 MSP of Each EL for AO SNEM RUs Analyzed ............................................ 2-50 Distribution Channels for Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25 and AO-MEMs. ........................... 2-51 Distribution Channels for SNEMs and AO-SNEMs ...................................... 2-52 Representative Units for Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation Standards at 10 CFR 431.25 ..................................................... 2-53 Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis* ................ 2-59 No-New Standards Case Efficiency Distributions in the Compliance Year for Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation Standards at 10 CFR 431.25 ................................................................................................ 2-65 No-New Standards Case Efficiency Distributions in the Compliance Year for SNEMs ............................................................................................. 2-66 No-New Standards Case Efficiency Distributions in the Compliance Year for AO Electric Motors .......................................................................... 2-66 SNEMs and AO Electric Motors Shipments in 2020 ..................................... 2-69 Shipment Projections for Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation Standards at 10 CFR 431.25 ..................................................... 2-70 Shipment Projections for SNEMs ................................................................... 2-70 Shipment Projections for AO Electric Motors ................................................ 2-71 Percentage of Consumers Purchasing Synchronous Electric Motors in each Standards Case........................................................................................ 2-72 Initial Expanded Scope Shipments Estimates for 2020 ................................. 2-72 2-iii Table 2.10.1 Representative Units and Horsepower Range Analyzed ................................ 2-74 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1.1 Flow Diagram of Analyses for the Rulemaking Process .................................. 2-2 2-iv CHAPTER 2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK, COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES, AND DOE RESPONSES 2.1 INTRODUCTION 2.1.1 Overview This chapter provides a description of the general analytical framework that DOE is using to evaluate potential standards for electric motors. The analytical framework is a description of the methodology, analytical tools, and relationships among the various analyses that are part of this rulemaking. For example, the methodology that addresses the statutory requirement for economic justification includes analyses of life-cycle cost (“LCC”), payback period (“PBP”), national impact analysis (“NIA”), economic impact on manufacturers and users, national benefits, impacts, if any, on utility companies, and impacts, if any, from lessening competition among manufacturers. Figure 2.1.1 summarizes the analytical components that may be conducted as part of the standards-setting process. The focus of this figure is the center column, identified as “Analyses.” The columns labeled “Key Inputs” and “Key Outputs” show how the analyses fit into the rulemaking process, and how the analyses relate to each other. Key inputs are the types of data and information that the analyses require. Some key inputs exist in public databases; DOE collects other inputs from stakeholders or persons with special knowledge. Key outputs are analytical results that feed directly into the standards-setting process. Dotted lines connecting analyses show types of information that feed from one analysis to another. 2-1 Figure 2.1.1 Flow Diagram of Analyses for the Rulemaking Proces 2-2 The analyses performed as part of the preliminary analysis stage and reported in this preliminary technical support document (“TSD”) are listed below. • • • • • • • • • A market and technology assessment to characterize the relevant product markets and existing technology options, including prototype designs. A screening analysis to review each technology option and determine if it is technologically feasible; is practical to manufacture, install, and service; would adversely affect product utility or product availability; or would have adverse impacts on health and safety. An engineering analysis to develop cost-efficiency relationships that show the manufacturer’s cost of achieving increased efficiency. An analysis of markups for determining product price; markups throughout the distribution channel relate the manufacturer production cost (“MPC”) to the retail cost paid by the consumer. An energy use analysis to determine the annual energy use of the considered product for a representative set of users. A life-cycle cost (“LCC”) and payback period (“PBP”) analysis to calculate the savings in operating costs the consumer will realize throughout the life of the covered product compared to any increase in installed product cost likely to result directly from imposition of a standard. A shipments analysis to forecast product shipments, which then are used to calculate the national impacts of potential standards on energy consumption, net present value (“NPV”), and future manufacturer cash flows. A national impact analysis (“NIA”) to assess the aggregate impacts, at the national level, of potential energy conservation standards for the considered product, as measured by the NPV of total consumer economic impacts and the national energy savings (“NES”). A preliminary manufacturer impact analysis (“MIA”) to assess the potential impacts of energy conservation standards on manufacturers, such as impacts on capital conversion expenditures, marketing costs, shipments, and research and development costs. The analyses DOE will perform in any subsequent notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) stage include those listed below. • • • • An LCC subgroup analysis to evaluate variations in customer characteristics that might cause a standard to affect particular consumer sub-populations, such as low-income households, differently than the overall population. An MIA to estimate the financial impact of standards on manufacturers and to calculate impacts on competition, employment, and manufacturing capacity. A utility impact analysis to estimate the effects of proposed standards on electric utilities. An employment impact analysis to assess the aggregate impacts of amended energy conservation standards on national employment. 2-3 • • An environmental impact analysis to provide estimates of the effects of amended energy conservation standards on emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and mercury (Hg), and of two additional greenhouse gases, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). A regulatory impact analysis to present major alternatives to proposed amended energy conservation standards that could achieve substantially the same regulatory goal at a lower cost. In addition, DOE will revise the analyses it performed in the preliminary analysis based on comments and new information received on topics including, but not limited, to those listed throughout this chapter. Appendix 2A summarizes the requests for comments presented in this chapter. In place of the framework document, DOE published a request for information (“RFI”) on May 21, 2020 (the “May 2020 Early Assessment RFI”) describing the approaches and methods DOE will use in evaluating the need for amended standards for electric motors. 85 FR 30878. In response to May 2020 Early Assessment RFI, DOE received comments from interested parties regarding DOE’s analytical approach. 85 FR 30878. Table 2.1.1 Early Assessment RFI Written Comments Commenter(s) Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Natural Resources Defense Council California Investor-Owned Utilities—Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison Reference in this NOPR Commenter Type Efficiency Advocates Policy Advocacy CA IOUs Utilities Copper Development Association CDA Institute for Policy Integrity Lennox International Inc. IPI Lennox Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance NEEA National Electrical Manufacturers Association NEMA 2-4 Trade Organization Other Manufacturer Efficiency Organization Trade Organization A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public docket. a This chapter summarizes the key comments and describes DOE’s responses. 2.1.2 Test Procedure DOE is conducting a rulemaking concerning the test procedure for certain electric motors. On December 17, 2021, DOE published a test procedure notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) for electric motors. (“December 2021 TP NOPR”) The December 2021 TP NOPR proposed to use full-load efficiency metrics for all electric motors within its proposed scope. 86 FR 71710, 71743-71745. In response to the May 2020 Early Assessment RFI, the CA IOUs commented that partload operational performance with a variable-speed drive (“VSD”) of expanded-scope motors can significantly exceed that of conventional induction motors over most ranges of load and speed, and that permanent magnet motors demonstrate particularly excellent part-load efficiency under low-load conditions. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 6-7) Variable-speed technologies (i.e., motors driven by variable frequency drives) are included within the proposed scope of the electric motors test procedure. 86 FR 71710, 7172671727. Although the December 2021 TP NOPR proposed to use full-load efficiency metrics for all electric motors within its proposed scope, the energy use analysis is calculated based on motor operating load conditions in the field (i.e., not at full-load). 2.2 SCOPE OF COVERAGE 2.2.1 Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 The definition for “electric motor” is “a machine that converts electrical power into rotational mechanical power.” 10 CFR 431.12. Currently, DOE regulates electric motors falling into the NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, NEMA Design C, and fire pump motor categories and those electric motors that meet the criteria specified at 10 CFR 431.25(g). 10 CFR 431.25(h)-(j). Section 431.25(g) specifies that the relevant standards apply only to electric motors, including partial electric motors, that satisfy the following criteria: 1) Are single-speed, induction motors; The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE’s rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for electric motors. (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007 which is maintained at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007). The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document). a 2-5 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. 10 CFR 431.25(g). NEMA Design A, B and C motors are all squirrel-cage motors. NEMA Design A and B motors are very similar with one main difference being the absence of locked-rotor current limits for NEMA Design A motors. (NEMA Design B motors have maximum locked-rotor current limits specified in NEMA MG 1-2009.) Otherwise, NEMA Design A and NEMA Design B motors have similar requirements for locked-rotor, pull-up, and breakdown torque, which result in their use in similar applications. IEC Design N motors have similar locked-rotor, pull-up, and breakdown torque requirements except that these requirements are specified in IEC 60034-12 edition 2.1 rather than in NEMA MG 1-2009. NEMA Design C motors, by contrast, have higher torque requirements than NEMA Design A or B motors. The difference in torque requirements restrict which applications can use which NEMA design types. As a result, NEMA Design C motors will not always be replaceable with NEMA Design A or B motors, or vice versa. IEC Design H motors have similar torque requirements except these are specified in IEC 60034-12 edition 2.1. Fire pump electric motors are motors with special design characteristics that make them more suitable for emergency operation. These electric motors, per the requirements of National Fire Protection (“NFPA”) standard NFPA 20, must be marked as complying with NEMA Design B performance standards and be capable of operating even if it overheats or may be damaged due to continued operation. 2-6 The definitions for NEMA Design A motors, NEMA Design B motors, NEMA Design C motors, fire pump electric motors, IEC Design N motors and IEC Design H motors are codified in 10 CFR 431.12. DOE has also exempted certain categories of motors from being regulated including: • Air-over electric motors; • Component sets of an electric motor; • Liquid-cooled electric motors; • Submersible electric motors; and • Inverter-only electric motors. 10 CFR 431.25(l) 2.2.2 Definitions In the May 2020 Early Assessment RFI, DOE requested comments on whether additional equipment definitions are necessary to clarify any potential definitional ambiguities between existing equipment class groups. Further, DOE also requested comment on whether IEC Design NE, NEY, NY, HE, HEY, and HY motors are equivalent designs to NEMA Design A, B, or C motors. 85 FR 30878, 30881. DOE provided preliminary responses to the comments regarding electric motors scope and definitions in the December 2021 TP NOPR. Accordingly, in the December 2021 TP NOPR, DOE proposed to specify that certain equipment described using IEC Design letters are within the scope of the current electric motors test procedure. Specifically, DOE clarified that IEC Design NE, NY, NEY, HE, HY and HEY motors are variants of IEC Design N and IEC Design H motors. 86 FR 71710, 86 FR 71728-71729. In response to the May 2020 Early Assessment RFI, NEMA commented that no additions or modifications to equipment definitions for equipment class groups are needed. (NEMA, No. 4 at p. 2) DOE proposed definitions related to the proposed applicability of the electric motors test procedures to additional varieties of electric motors to eliminate ambiguity in the previous definitions. 86 FR 71710, 71729-71732. 2-7 2.2.3 Expanded Scope DOE is proposing to expand the scope of energy conservation standards to include certain electric motors that do not meet the scoping criteria presented in section 2.2.1. The scope of potential energy conservation standards contemplated for future analysis is described in the December 2021 TP NOPR and in section 2.2.3.1. 86 FR 71710, 71715-71728. In this preliminary analysis, DOE provides additional analysis for two categories of electric motors that are currently not subject to energy conservations standards and are proposed for inclusion in the December 2021 TP. (See section 2.2.3.2) DOE may also consider expanding the scope of analysis for future stages of this rulemaking to include the additional categories of electric motors proposed for inclusion in the December 2021 TP. (See section 2.2.3.3) 2.2.3.1 Summary of Proposed Expanded TP Scope In the December 2021 TP NOPR, DOE proposed to add the following categories of electric motors in the scope of the test procedure: Electric motors above 500 horsepower; Small, Non-Small-Electric-Motor, Electric Motors ("SNEM"), and Electric motors that are synchronous motors. 86 FR 71710, 71715-71728 In addition, DOE proposed to remove the exemptions for air-over, inverter-only, and submersible electric motors. As proposed in the December 2021 TP NOPR, an “electric motors above 500 horsepower” is an electric motor having a rated horsepower above 500 and up to 750 hp that meets the criteria listed at 431.25(g), with the exception of criteria 431.25(g)(8), and are not listed at 431.25(l)(2)-(4). 86 FR 71710, 71719. As proposed in the December 2021 TP, an SNEM is an electric motor that: (a) Is not a small electric motor, as defined in section 431.442 and is not a dedicated pool pump motor as defined in section 431.483; (b) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC); 2-8 (c) Is capable of operating on polyphase or single phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power (with or without an inverter); (d) Is rated for 600 volts or less; (e) Is a single-speed induction motor; (f) Produces a rated motor horsepower greater than or equal to 0.25 horsepower (0.18 kW); and (g) Is built in the following frame sizes: any frame sizes if the motor operates on singlephase power; any frame size if the motor operates on polyphase power, and has a rated motor horsepower less than 1 horsepower (0.75 kW); or a two-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), if the motor operates on polyphase power, has a rated motor horsepower equal to or greater than 1 horsepower (0.75 kW), and is not an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent). 86 FR 71710, 71722-71723. As proposed an “Electric Motor that is a Synchronous Motor” is: (1) Not a dedicated purpose pool pump motor as defined at section 431.438 (2) A synchronous electric motor; (3) Are rated for continuous duty (MG1) or operation for duty type S1 (IEC) (4) Capable of operating on polyphase or single phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz); sinusoidal line power (with or without an inverter); (5) Rated 600 volts or less; (6) Has a 2-, 4-, 6-, 8-pole configuration; (7) Produces at least 0.25 hp (0.18 kW) but not greater than 750 hp (559 kW).” 86 FR 71710, 71727. As proposed, an air-over electric motor is an electric motor an electric motor that does not reach thermal equilibrium (i.e., thermal stability) during a rated load temperature test according to section 2 of Appendix B, without the application of forced cooling by a free flow of air from an external device not mechanically connected to the motor 2-9 86 FR 71710, 71731. As proposed, an inverter-only electric motor is as an electric motor that is capable of continuous operation solely with an inverter, and is not designed for operation when directly connected to AC sinusoidal or DC power supply. 86 FR 71710, 71730. As proposed, A “submersible electric motor” is an electric motor that: (1) Is intended to operate continuously only while submerged in liquid; (2) Is capable of operation while submerged in liquid for an indefinite period of time; and (3) Has been sealed to prevent ingress of liquid from contacting the motor's internal parts. 10 CFR 431.12. 2.2.3.2 Electric Motors Analyzed in This Preliminary Analysis In addition to electric motors described in section 2.2.1 (i.e., those regulated at 10 CFR 431.25), DOE analyzed the following categories of electric motors in this preliminary analysis, all of which are described in the December 2021 TP NOPR and in section 2.2.3.1: 1) Small, Non-Small-Electric-Motor, Electric Motors ("SNEM") that do not have air-over enclosures; b 2) Electric Motors with air-over ("AO") enclosures that otherwise meet the description of a currently regulated “medium” electric motor (see section 2.2.1) ("AO-MEMs") or of a SNEM ("AO-SNEMs"). 86 FR 71710, 71717-71725. In this preliminary analysis, DOE did not include SNEMs that are inverter-only or submersible electric motors. This preliminary analysis is using the term “SNEM,” or “Small, Non-SEM Electric Motor,” to reference these motors as described in the December 2021 TP NOPR. In the rest of this TSD, SNEMs designates SNEMs that do not have an air-over enclosure, while AO-SNEM designate SNEMs with an air-over enclosure. b 2-10 The Efficiency Advocates commented that tens of millions of currently unregulated low horsepower motors are sold each year and minimum standards could potentially achieve large savings. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 9 at p. 5) In this preliminary analysis, DOE included SNEMs with horsepower equal to or greater than 0.25 hp. 2.2.3.3 Potential Future Further Expansion For this preliminary analysis, DOE is only presenting technical analysis for electric motors currently subject to energy conservation standards in 10 CFR 431.25(g) as well as additional electric motors identified in section 2.2.3.2 – SNEMs, AO-MEMs, and AO-SNEMs. DOE may consider analyzing energy conservation standards for additional electric motors that may be covered under the "electric motor" definition and present any corresponding technical analysis in the energy conservation standards NOPR. Specifically, DOE may consider including electric motors above 500 horsepower and electric motors that are synchronous motors. DOE may also consider removing the exemptions for inverter-only electric motors and submersible electric motors. DOE seeks comment regarding the potential to include additional categories of electric motors. 2.2.4 Comments Related to Scope 2.2.4.1 Supporting Expansion Several commenters supported expanding the scope of coverage generally and in several specific areas. CDA recommended that DOE investigate motor categories beyond the current scope, specifically noting motors over 500 HP. (CDA, No. 3 at p. 1) The CA IOUs recommended that DOE expand scope to include switched-reluctance motors, synchronous-reluctance motors, permanent-magnet (PM) alternating-current (AC) (PMAC) motors, permanent-magnet synchronous motors (PMSM), and motors with integrated variable-speed drives because there is potential for significant energy savings. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 1) The CA IOUs commented that IE4 motors are capable of displacing conventional NEMA general purpose motors (i.e., type B) motors in core general purpose motor applications. Therefore, they recommended that modern motor architectures and conventional induction motors are competing in the same space, therefore, should be analyzed together, and joint coverage may be warranted. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 10) 2-11 The CA IOUs stated that economically, these expanded scope motors are experiencing both cost reductions and continued market growth. CA IOUs presented a relative cost table of IE4 electric motors for a number of electric motor topologies. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at pp. 8-9) CA IOUs stated that one manufacturer reports highly efficient motors based on PMSMs with 30 percent lower core losses and ten percent less energy consumption in end-use applications than IE3 motors. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 5) The CA IOUs noted that part-load efficiency for motors falling within the expanded scope would exceed conventional induction motor efficiency when paired with a VSD and that PM motors demonstrate particularly high part-load efficiency under low-load conditions. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 6) NEEA recommended DOE expand its scope to include not only advanced motor technologies, but also shaded pole, permanent-split capacitor, and split phase motors. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 2) The Efficiency Advocates commented that DOE may be able to achieve larger savings by expanding the scope of DOE’s motor standards to address advanced motor technologies, additional types of induction motors (air-over and submersible) and low horsepower motors that are not currently regulated. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 9 at p. 1) They suggested that air-over motors and submersible motors have large annual shipments since they are used in two of the most common motor applications: fans and pumps. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 9 at p. 4) They also recommended that DOE expand the scope to include advanced motors such as synchronous reluctance motors, line-start permanent magnet motors, electronically commutated motors, switched reluctance and written-pole motors; going on to state that ABB markets its line of IE4 compliant synchronous reluctance motors as perfect for retrofits and WEG advertises a line of permanent magnet motors as "IE5 Ultra Premium" motors. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 9 at p. 34) The Efficiency Advocates recommended that DOE expand the scope to include additional small motors, such as shaded pole, permanent split capacitor, and split phase. They stated that these motors typically have efficiency performance levels well below regulated small electric motors and that tens of millions of currently unregulated low horsepower motors are sold each year and applying minimum standards to these unregulated motors could potentially achieve very large savings. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 9 at p. 4 - 5) NEMA commented that IEC Design NE, NEY, NY, HE, HEY, and HY motors are equivalent designs to NEMA Design A, B, or C motors. (NEMA, No. 4 at p. 2) 2.2.4.2 Not Supporting Expansion Lennox commented that DOE should not expand the scope energy conservations standards beyond those electric motors DOE already regulates and particularly not in the HVACR industry (this includes maintaining the current exemptions). (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 1) 2-12 2.2.4.3 Motor System Approach Two commenters supported a “system” approach to energy conservation standards, wherein standards are applied at the level of a system or assembly that contains an electric motor without introducing or amending standards specific to the (subcomponent) electric motor. Lennox opposed regulating components (like electric motors) that are used in covered products and covered equipment and supported a finished-product approach to energy efficiency regulation. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 2) Similarly, CDA suggested that overall evaluation of “system” efficiency is very important and represents in many applications important and major opportunities for improved efficiency. (CDA, No. 3 at p. 2) 2.2.5 Conclusion DOE is aligning the scope of this preliminary analysis with that of the December 2021 TP NOPR, including the rationale for the proposed definitions regarding the proposal proposing to include certain additional electric motors within the scope of the test procedure. The scope of this preliminary analysis is discussed in section 2.2. Regarding comments supporting a “system approach” with respect to electric motors, DOE does employ such an approach in developing energy conservation standards for various covered equipment which may include electric motors as components. Different efficiency levels may be cost effective for different covered equipment as a function of the specific manufacturing and operating costs of that equipment. The possible presence of electric motors in such other covered equipment, however, does not exclude the possibility of cost-effective energy conservation standards for electric motors individually, which is the subject of this rulemaking. 2.3 MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT When initiating a standards rulemaking, DOE develops information on the present and past industry structure and market characteristics for the equipment concerned. This activity assesses the industry and equipment, both quantitatively and qualitatively, based on publicly available information. As such, for the considered equipment, DOE addressed the following: (1) manufacturer market share and characteristics; (2) existing regulatory and non-regulatory equipment efficiency improvement initiatives; (3) equipment classes; and (4) trends in equipment characteristics and retail markets. This information serves as resource material throughout the rulemaking and can be found in chapter 3 of the TSD. 2.3.1 Equipment Classes DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of product that has the same function or intended use, if DOE determines that products within such group: (A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 2-13 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) As described in section 2.2.3, this preliminary analysis includes: (1) motors already subject to energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25(g); (2) motors not currently subject to energy conservation standards for which analysis and results are presented; and (3) motors not currently subject to energy conservation standards for which analysis and results are not presented. Equipment classes are discussed separately for each of these three categories of electric motors. 2.3.1.1 EMs Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 For electric motors subject to standards at 10 CFR 431.25, due to the large number of characteristics involved in electric motor design, DOE developed both “equipment class groups” and “equipment classes”. With respect to equipment class groups, the current energy conservation standards specified in 10 CFR 431.25 are based on three broad equipment groupings determined according to performance-related features that provide utility to the consumer and are described in terms of motor design (i.e., NEMA Design A and B, NEMA Design C, and Fire Pump Motors). Electric Motor Design Various industry organizations, such as NEMA and IEC, publish performance criteria that provide specifications that electric motors must meet in order to be assigned different design types. As these design types represent a certain set of performance parameters, they provide electric motor users with an easy reference to use when designing their equipment and when purchasing a motor to drive their equipment. The electric motors within the current scope of this analysis must meet one of three NEMA design types. For medium polyphase alternating current (AC) induction motors, the three NEMA design types considered general purpose and that are covered by EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, are Design A, Design B, and Design C. The definitions for these three motor types, as codified in 10 CFR Part 431.12, are as follows: “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 §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 greater 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. 2-14 “NEMA Design B motor” means a squirrel-cage motor that (1) is designed to withstand full-voltage starting, (2) develops locked-rotor, breakdown, and pull-up torques adequate for general application as specified in sections 12.38, 12.39 and 12.40 of NEMA Standards Publication MG 1–2009 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.15), (3) draws locked-rotor current not to exceed the values shown in section 12.35.1 for 60 hertz and 12.35.2 for 50 hertz of NEMA Standards Publication MG 1–2009, and (4) has a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent for motors with fewer than 10 poles. “NEMA Design C motor” means a squirrel-cage motor that: (1) is designed to withstand full-voltage starting and developing locked-rotor torque for high-torque applications up to the values shown in NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 12.38.2 (incorporated by reference, see §431.15); (2) has pull-up torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 12.40.2; (3) has breakdown torque not less than the values shown in NEMA MG1-2009, paragraph 12.39.2; (4) has a locked-rotor current not to exceed the values shown in NEMA MG1-2009, paragraphs 12.35.1 for 60 hertz and 12.35.2 for 50 hertz; and (5) has a slip at rated load of less than 5 percent. NEMA Design A and NEMA Design B motors have different locked-rotor current requirements. NEMA Design A motors have no locked-rotor current limits whereas NEMA Design B motors are required to stay below certain maximums specified in NEMA MG 1-2011, paragraph 12.35.1. This tolerance for higher locked-rotor current will allow NEMA Design A motors to reach the same efficiency levels (“ELs”) as NEMA Design B with fewer design changes and constraints. However, NEMA Design A and NEMA Design B motors have the same requirements for locked-rotor, pull-up, and breakdown torque and are consequently used in many of the same applications. Additionally, as is shown in section 2.9 below, NEMA Design B motors constitute a significantly larger population of the electric motors that are shipped relative to NEMA Design A motors. NEMA Design C motors, on the other hand, have different torque requirements than NEMA Design A or B motors. NEMA Design C motors typically have higher torque requirements. DOE believes that this performance change represents a change in utility which can also affect efficiency. Additionally, the difference in torque requirements will restrict which applications can use which NEMA Design types. As a result, NEMA Design C motors will not always be interchangeable with NEMA Design A or B motors, or vice versa. Congress applied the same energy conservation standards to NEMA Design A and NEMA Design B motors through EPACT 1992 (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)) and EISA 2007 (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)) (see requirements for general purpose electric motors (subtype I)). For this preliminary analysis, DOE has followed the precedent set by EPACT 1992 and EISA 2007 and has considered NEMA Design A and B motors in a group together, while placing NEMA Design C motors in their own equipment class group. Additionally, IEC-equivalent design types are also within the scope of this preliminary analysis and grouped with their corresponding NEMA design letter type. 2-15 Fire Pump Electric Motors EISA 2007 prescribed energy conservation standards for electric motors that are fire pump motors. (42 U.S.C. § 6313(b)(2)(B)) EISA 2007 did not define “fire pump motor.” In general, fire pump electric motors are motors with special design characteristics that make them more suitable for emergency operation. DOE adopted a definition of “fire pump electric motor,” which incorporated portions of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 20, “Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection” (2010). Per the requirements of NFPA 20, these electric motors are required to be marked to indicate their compliance with NEMA Design B performance standards and be capable of operating even if it overheats or may be damaged due to continued operation. Rated Output Power Rated output power is a measurement directly related to the capacity of an electric motor to perform useful work and, therefore, it is one of DOE’s primary criteria in considering equipment classes. Rated output power characterizes the rate at which a motor can do work and is typically measured in horsepower or watts. c Generally, that efficiency scales with horsepower. For example, a 50-horsepower motor is usually more efficient than a 10-horsepower motor of similar design and technology. Rated output power is a critical performance attribute of an electric motor, and because there is a direct correlation between horsepower and efficiency, DOE uses rated output power as an equipment class criterion for this preliminary analysis. Pole Configuration An electric motor’s pole configuration corresponds to the number of magnetic poles d present in the motor. Consequently, the number of magnetic poles (or “poles”) dictates the revolutions per minute (“RPM”) of the rotor and shaft. For each pole configuration, there is a corresponding synchronous speed, in RPMs, which is the theoretical maximum speed at which a motor might operate without a load. All of the electric motors being examined by DOE as part of its standards analysis are asynchronous motors, meaning they cannot reach this speed. 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 RPMs. Because the number of poles has a direct impact on the rotational speed of a motor shaft, it also affects a motor’s utility and performance, including efficiency. Therefore, DOE is also using pole configuration to separate equipment classes for this preliminary analysis. 1 horsepower equals 745.7 watts. Poles can be thought of where the stator’s magnetic field primarily originates. The stator’s magnetic field is what exerts torque on the rotor, causing it to rotate. c d 2-16 Enclosure There are two primary variations of enclosures for electric motors: open and enclosed. DOE defines both of these terms at 10 CFR 431.12. An “enclosed motor” is “an electric motor so constructed as to prevent the free exchange of air between the inside and outside of the case but not sufficiently enclosed to be termed airtight.” An open motor is defined under 10 CFR 431.12 as “an electric motor having ventilating openings which permit passage of external cooling air over and around the windings of the machine.” 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 pressure-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 may be. The enclosure type also affects an electric motor’s ability to dissipate heat, which affects efficiency. For these reasons, DOE used an electric motor’s enclosure type (open or enclosed) as an equipment class factor in this preliminary analysis. Table 2.3.1 lists the current three equipment class groups for electric motors and the associated factors for delineating an individual equipment class. Table 2.3.1 Current Electric Motors Equipment Class Groups Equipment Electric Motor Design Horsepower Pole Class Group Type Rating Configuration (or “ECG”) 1 NEMA Design A & B* 1 – 500 2, 4, 6, 8 2 NEMA Design C* 1 – 200 4, 6, 8 3 Fire Pump Motors* 1 – 500 2, 4, 6, 8 Enclosure Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed *Including IEC equivalents. In the May 2020 Early Assessment RFI, DOE requested comment on whether changes to these individual equipment class groups and the associated class factors should be made or whether certain class groups should be merged or separated. Further, DOE also sought 2-17 information regarding any other new equipment class groups it should consider for inclusion in its analysis. 85 FR 30878, 30881-30882. NEMA commented that the current electric motor equipment class groups are sufficient and that no changes are needed. (NEMA, No. 4 at p. 2) DOE did not receive any other comments on the current equipment classes. DOE reviewed the current electric motor equipment class groups and found that the performance differences in each group were still present. Consequently, DOE tentatively concludes that no changes are currently justified for these equipment class groups. DOE may consider additional factors to further delineate equipment classes in a potential future NOPR, particularly for motors outside the scope of current standards, if DOE obtains information suggesting they are warranted. DOE seeks comment regarding the current equipment classes for electric motors. DOE specifically seeks comment on the availability of NEMA Design C motors and if there are cases for which a NEMA Design A motor could, or commonly does, replace a NEMA Design C motor. DOE seeks comment regarding whether motors built in an open enclosure should be subject to the same standards as enclosed motors. DOE seeks comment on if a given enclosed motor could meet the same or higher efficiency standards as an open motor, what utility could be lost be switching to an enclosed motor from an open one. 2.3.1.2 EMs Analyzed in Preliminary Analysis DOE is considering additional factors to delineate equipment classes under an expanded scope. The following paragraphs discuss DOE’s preliminary research and requests for comment on potential equipment classes if DOE were to consider standards for an expanded scope of coverage for electric motors. SNEMs (Small, Non-SEM, Electric Motors) In the December 2021 TP NOPR, DOE proposed to extend the scope of applicability of the electric motors test procedure to include certain motors that the NOPR referred to as “Electric Motors Considered Small by Industry.” The December 2021 TP NOPR specifically addressed electric motors that are not “small electric motors” as that term is defined at 10 CFR 431.442, but that are nonetheless considered small by industry (i.e., “small motors”). To reference those motors clearly and succinctly, this preliminary analysis will use the acronym “SNEM” to represent “Small, Non-small-electric-motor, Electric Motor.” In this section, DOE specifically discusses SNEMs that are induction motors. Synchronous motors are discussed in section 2.3.1.3. 2-18 The December 2021 TP NOPR proposed to include SNEMs meeting the criteria listed in Table 2.3.2. Table 2.3.2 SNEMs Proposed in Scope by December 2021 TP NOPR Criteria Description Number Are not small electric motors, as defined at 10 CFR 431.442 and are not 1 dedicated- purpose pool pump motors as defined at 10 CFR 431.483. 2 Are single-speed induction motors 3 Are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC) Capable of operating on polyphase or single phase alternating current 604 hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power (with or without an inverter) 5 Are rated for 600 volts or less Are built in the following frame sizes: Any frame sizes if the motor operates on single-phase power; Any frame size if the motor operates on polyphase power, and has a rated motor horsepower less than 1 horsepower (0.75 kW); or 6 A two-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), if the motor operates on polyphase power, has a rated motor horsepower equal to or greater than 1 horsepower (0.75 kW), and is not an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent). Produce a rated motor horsepower greater than or equal to 0.25 7 horsepower (0.18 kW) Through market research, DOE found that a variety of topologies appear in this category, including shaded-pole, permanent-split-capacitor, split-phase, capacitor-start induction-run, and capacitor-start, capacitor-run motors. While the topologies vary in a number of ways, a primary basis for selection appears to be the locked-rotor torque e required by the intended application. Certain applications, for example, some fans, may be relatively indifferent to locked-rotor torque, whereas for others, a minimum locked-rotor torque may be required to begin operation. DOE has tentatively determined to use locked-rotor torque as an equipment class factor for a supplementary preliminary engineering analysis it conducted based on available SNEM catalog data harvested in 2016, the results of which are presented in section 2.5.5.2. Locked-rotor torque refers to torque developed by an electric motor whose rotor is locked in place, i.e., not rotating. Locked-rotor torque characterizes a motor’s ability to begin moving loads at rest, an attribute which is important to varying degree across applications. e 2-19 DOE seeks comment regarding the use of a combination of output power, phase count, and locked-rotor torque as an equipment class factor for potential energy conservation standards for electric motors. DOE seeks comment on if any applications require a low locked-rotor torque and would not operate with a high locked-rotor torque motor. DOE seeks comment specifically regarding whether locked-rotor torque is necessary to maintain as an equipment class factor if the highesttorque SNEMs (e.g., CSCR) can reach the highest available efficiency levels among the set of electric motors which are used as substitutes for similar applications. Air-Over Electric Motors DOE currently defines an air-over electric motor at 10 CFR 431.12 as an electric motor “rated to operate in and be cooled by the airstream of a fan or blower that is not supplied with the motor and whose primary purpose is providing airflow to an application other than the motor driving it.” As such, these motors are often designed without an internal fan, which allows for smaller packaging, reduced cost, and possibly higher measured efficiency since the motor is not driving an internal fan. However, the inability to self-cool may be a limitation in many applications where cooling airflow is unavailable or uncertain. DOE tentatively concludes that the inability to self-cool would be a performance-related feature that justifies a separate class. DOE seeks comment regarding the use of inability to self-cool, or “air-over” rating, as an equipment class factor for potential energy conservation standards for electric motors. 2.3.1.3 EMs Not Analyzed in Preliminary Analysis Synchronous Electric Motors The December 2021 TP NOPR proposed to include certain synchronous electric motors within the scope of the electric motors test procedure. In contrast to induction electric motors, synchronous electric motors do not “slip” f relative to the frequency of the electrical power provided to them. g Examples of synchronous electric motors include, but are not limited to, line Slip expresses the relative degree to which an asynchronous electric motor’s rotor lags the electrical input signal. For example, a 2-pole induction motor rotating at 3420 rpm, relative to a 3600-rpm input signal (“synchronous speed”) would be described as having a slip of 5%, calculated as ((3600-3420)/3600)*100. See IEEE 112-2017 Section 5.4.2. g NEMA MG 1-2016 paragraph 1.17.3.4 defines a “synchronous machine,” as an “alternating-current machine in which the average speed of the normal operation is exactly proportional to the frequency of the system to which it is connected.” f 2-20 start permanent magnet (“LSPM”); h permanent magnet AC (“PMAC,” also known as permanent magnet synchronous motor (“PMSM”) or brushless AC); switched reluctance (“SR”); synchronous reluctance motors (“SynRMs”); and electronically commutated motor (“ECMs”). i DOE has tentatively determined that synchronous electric motors are generally capable of reaching the same or greater efficiency levels as induction motors, and on that basis tentatively plans to analyze them jointly with induction motors of similar output power, speed range, and torque/speed characteristic. DOE seeks comment regarding the tentative determination not to analyze synchronous electric motors in a separate equipment class from induction motors on the basis that they are able to reach the same efficiency levels. DOE seeks comment regarding whether synchronous motors provide utility to consumers that induction motors do not provide and, if so, which applications could be served only by synchronous motors. Inverter-Only Induction Electric Motors The December 2021 TP NOPR proposed to include certain inverter-only induction electric motors within the scope of the electric motors test procedure. DOE has tentatively determined that inverter-only induction electric motors do not have a performance-related feature that justifies separate class. Inverter-only induction electric motors provide the same function as inverter-capable induction electric motors, which may use but do not require an inverter to operate. As such an inverter-only induction electric motor does not provide a unique utility. DOE seeks comment specifically regarding its tentative determination that inverter-only induction electric motors do not warrant a separate equipment class. DOE also seeks comment as to how prevalent inverter-only induction electric motors are and how they are used. Advanced Energy commented that LSPM motors are synchronous motors. Although these motors use a squirrel cage, they do not operate on the principle of induction as is attributed to regular induction motors. The cage is simply for starting the motor and these motors are essentially synchronous motors. (Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-TP0047; Advanced Energy , No. 25 at p. 2) This technology is described further in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.4, Page 3-19 of the technical support document accompanying the May 2014 Final Rule. During the motor transient start up, the squirrel cage in the rotor contributes to the production of enough torque to start the rotation of the rotor, albeit at an asynchronous speed. When the speed of the rotor approaches synchronous speed, the constant magnetic field of the permanent magnet locks to the rotating stator field, thereby pulling the rotor into synchronous operation. (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0108) i These 5 topologies are subsets of what this rulemaking refers to as “synchronous” electric motors, and generally and represent motor technologies that have been more recently gained market acceptance and have variable-speed capabilities. h 2-21 Submersible Electric Motors DOE currently defines a submersible electric motor at 10 CFR 431.12 as an electric motor that “(1) Is intended to operate continuously only while submerged in liquid; (2) Is capable of operation while submerged in a liquid for an indefinite period of time; and (3) Has been sealed to prevent ingress of liquid from contacting the motor’s internal parts.” Submersible electric motors provide the ability to operate while submerged in a liquid, which nonsubmersible motors are unable to do. Due to greater sealing requirements, submersible electric motors may experience higher friction and windage losses than non-submersible electric motors, which may limit the potential efficiency improvements of such motors. DOE tentatively concludes that the ability to operate in a submerged environment would be a performance-related feature that justifies a separate class. DOE seeks comment regarding the use of submerged operating capability as an equipment class factor for potential energy conservation standards for electric motors. DOE seeks comment regarding the feasibility of establishing energy conservation standards for submersible electric motors, in particular, whether standards for submersible motors generally or any subset thereof are likely to be economically justified. Induction Electric Motors of >500, ≤750 hp DOE proposed to define an “electric motors above 500 horsepower” as “an electric motor having a rated horsepower above 500 and up to 750 hp that meets the criteria listed at 431.25(g), with the exception of 431.25(g)(8), and are not listed at 431.25(l)(2)-(4).” 86 FR 71710, 71719. Generally, electric motor efficiency tends to increase with motor output power. As a result, induction electric motors >500, ≤750 hp may be able to reach the same or greater efficiencies as induction electric motors currently subject to energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25(g). DOE seeks comment regarding the feasibility of establishing energy conservation standards for induction electric motors of >500, ≤750 hp, in particular, whether standards for induction electric motors of >500, ≤750 hp are likely to be economically justified. 2.3.2 Technology Assessment As part of the market and technology assessment, DOE developed a list of technologies to consider in improving electric motor efficiency. DOE typically uses information about existing and past technology options and prototype designs to determine which technologies manufacturers use to attain higher full-load efficiency. These technologies encompass all those DOE initially identified as technologically feasible. 2-22 In the May 2020 Early Assessment RFI, DOE presented the technology options that were considered during the previous rulemaking. A complete list of the options presented are provided in Table 2.3.3. Table 2.3.3 Technology Options Presented in the May 2020 Early Assessment RFI 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 Increase cross-sectional area of end rings Increase cross-sectional area of rotor conductor bars Use a die-cast copper rotor cage 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. Each technology option falls into one of five basic loss categories, which must be collectively optimized relative to each other during the design process. Most of the design changes identified in Table 2.3.3 produce interacting effects on the motor’s breakdown torque, locked-rotor torque, locked-rotor current, and other operating parameters. Motor designers making a specific design change evaluate the effects of that change against all of a motor’s performance characteristics, including efficiency. DOE sought comment in the May 2020 Early Assessment RFI as to whether there have been sufficient technological or market changes since the May 2014 Standards Final Rule that justify more stringent standards. 85 FR 30878, 30882. NEMA commented that there are no changes to how and whether technology options might be incorporated into equipment performance. (NEMA, No. 4 at p. 6) NEEA, the CA IOUs, and the Efficiency Advocates all commented in support of reviewing the current electric motor market and technologies to improve efficiency. NEEA recommended that DOE consider additional technology options for electric motors. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 3) The CA IOUs recommended that modern motor architectures should be analyzed with conventional induction motors because they are competing for the same applications. (CA IOUs, 2-23 No. 7 at p. 10) The Efficiency Advocates stated the market, including regulated electric motors, has changed significantly since publication of the May 2014 Final Rule. They go on to state that new DOE standards effective in 2016 nearly doubled the U.S. sales volume of motors meeting or exceeding TSL 2 of the May 2014 Final Rule. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 9 at p. 2) Due to the changes in the electric motor market and the interchangeability of some advanced motor technologies with induction motors, DOE is considering these technology options and advanced motor technologies in this preliminary analysis. 2.3.2.1 Electrical Steel DOE conducted a review of the electrical steel market and found multiple steels with lower measured core loss that were not considered in the previous rulemaking. For example, AK Steel, an American electrical steel manufacturer, advertises an M-10X grade steel with a maximum core loss of 2.2 W/kg (at 1.5T, 50 Hz) compared to M47 which ranges from 5.4 to 7 W/kg at the same operating conditions. DOE also identified a Japanese manufacturer offering 35H210 with a maximum core loss of 2.1 W/kg at 1.5T, 50 Hz. DOE used these low loss steels as design options for the higher efficiency levels that were analyzed. DOE seeks comment and data on the availability of these higher efficiency electrical steels. DOE seeks comment on its decision to use these steels in its analysis. 2.3.2.2 Variable-Speed Operation NEEA recommended factoring additional technology options that can be applied to those electric motors that DOE may consider under an expanded scope, with the most important of these options being variable-speed drives and controls. NEEA suggested that the ability of a motor to operate at variable speeds is the greatest opportunity for energy savings in motor driven systems. NEEA stated that a variable-speed drive or variable-speed controls can significantly decrease energy consumption, as well as offer many non-energy benefits. NEEA stated most systems in the residential and commercial sectors could benefit from a variable frequency drive, and that motor speed and control can result in savings from 30-80%. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 3) The December 2021 TP NOPR proposed to evaluate electric motor efficiency only at full-load, which does not reflect the potential energy savings of VSDs, as associated energy savings materialized only during operating cycles, which include part-load output. 86 FR 71710, 71744-71745. DOE has introduced three variable-speed synchronous designs in this preliminary engineering analysis and may consider analyzing energy use over a variety of operating cycles including part-load operation as part of a future proposal to amend its current regulations regarding energy conservation standards for electric motors. 2-24 DOE requests comment and data on the additional costs of variable-speed drives (“VSDs”), and other limitations of using a VSD. 2.4 SCREENING ANALYSIS The screening analysis (chapter 4 of the TSD) examines various technologies as to: (i) Technological feasibility. Technologies incorporated in commercial equipment or in working prototypes will be considered technologically feasible. (ii) Practicability to manufacture, install and service. If mass production of a technology under consideration for use in commercially available products (or 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 that technology will be considered practicable to manufacture, install and service. (iii) Adverse Impacts on Product Utility or Product Availability. (iv) Adverse Impacts on Health or Safety. (v) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be considered further. 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430 subpart C appendix A section 6(b)(3)(i)-(v). As described in section 2.3.2, DOE develops an initial list of efficiency-enhancement options from the technologies identified as technologically feasible in the technology assessment. DOE then reviews the list to determine if these options are practicable to manufacture, install, and service, would adversely affect equipment utility or availability, or would have adverse impacts on health and safety. In addition, DOE removed from the list of technology options that lack energy consumption data as well as technology options whose energy consumption could not be adequately measured by DOE’s test procedures. In the engineering analysis, DOE further considers efficiency enhancement options that it did not screen out in the screening analysis. 2.4.1 Technology Options Screened Out In the market and technology assessment (chapter 3 of the TSD), DOE developed an initial list of technologies expected to have the potential to improve the energy efficiency of electric motors. In the screening analysis, DOE screened out technologies based on the criteria discussed above. The list of remaining technologies becomes one of the key inputs to the 2-25 engineering analysis (discussed subsequently). For reasons explained below, DOE screened out a number of technologies, listed in Table 2.4.1. Table 2.4.1 Screened-Out Technology Options EPCA Criteria (X = Basis for Screening Out) Adverse Practicability Adverse Type of Impacts Screened to Impact Loss Technological on Technology Option Manufacture, on Reduced Feasibility Health Install, and Product and Service Utility Safety Plastic Bonded Iron Core Losses X Powder (PBIP) Amorphous Steels Core Losses X In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment on the screening criteria it applied and how the criteria relate to the various options included in the technology assessment section above. 85 FR 30878, 30883-30884. DOE further requested comment on if any of the technology options listed in Table 2.5 would continue to be screened out. In response to the May 2020 RFI, CDA recommended that DOE should continue to include copper rotor motors in its analysis. CDA included content for the purpose of demonstrating the commercial availability of die-cast copper rotor motors. (CDA, No. 3 at p. 2) NEMA commented that there are no new technology options for the currently covered products and that the options listed in Table 2.5 are still appropriate. (NEMA, No. 4 at p. 2) NEMA commented that the assessments and conclusions of the previous rulemaking regarding the screening criteria impacts to technology options remain relevant and accurate. NEMA goes on to note that the previously screened-out design options noted in Table 2.5 remain screened out for the same reasons given during the 2014 Final Rule process; they have not become more feasible since the previous rulemaking. (NEMA, No. 4 at p. 4) The CA IOUs commented that changes to the motor market (specifically, the availability of motors rated with a higher full-load efficiency than the previous max-tech level) warrant updates to the max-tech level, and that DOE should consider amorphous steel technology. They further commented that in 2019 Hitachi constructed a prototype electric motor using amorphous metals. In noting this prototype, the CA IOUs referenced Hitachi’s claims regarding the prototype motor it constructed that the company claimed resulted in “a four to five-fold reduction in core loss than [that] experienced in a comparable motor with standard magnetic steel sheet teeth” and noted that this approach has been applied this to a new design that Hitachi claims can 2-26 be economically mass-produced. The CA IOUs noted that an evaluation of the prototype confirmed a motor efficiency of 97.2 percent, which the CA IOUs stated is high enough to meet the IE5 classification, the highest level in the guidelines for motor energy efficiency of the IEC. The CA IOUs stated that the prototype is an 11 kilowatt (kW) radial gap motor which is the most common motor type distributed in the market, and this similarity with current motor design allows the use of a stator coil structure which can be mass-produced using existing manufacturing technology. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 3) DOE could not find evidence of amorphous steel being used at scale in a currently regulated electric motor. DOE also could not find data concerning the cost associated with amorphous steel. DOE did not receive sufficient data indicating that any of these technologies could be used in currently regulated electric motors at scale and therefore has maintained them as screened out in this preliminary analysis. DOE requests further data concerning the feasibility of amorphous steel being used at scale. DOE also requests comment regarding the costs of volume production using amorphous steels, as well as data concerning the core loss of amorphous steel at typical electric motor operating parameters. 2.4.2 Technology Options Considered Further in DOE’s Analysis After screening out PBIP and amorphous steels, the remaining viable “design options” were all the options listed in Table 2.3.3. The market and technology assessment (chapter 3 of the TSD) provides a detailed description of these design options. These design options will be considered by DOE in the engineering analysis and are listed in chapter 5 of the TSD. For more details on how DOE developed the technology options and the process for screening these options and the design options that DOE is considering, see the market and technology assessment (chapter 3 of the TSD) and the screening analysis (chapter 4 of the TSD). 2.5 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS The purpose of the engineering analysis (chapter 5 of the TSD) is to establish the relationship between the efficiency and cost of electric motors. There are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the “efficiency analysis”) and the determination of equipment cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the “cost analysis”). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency equipment, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations not eliminated by the screening analysis. For the analyzed equipment class, DOE estimates the manufacturer production cost (“MPC”) for the baseline as well as higher efficiency levels. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency “curves” that are used in downstream analyses. 2-27 DOE converts the MPC to the manufacturer selling price (“MSP”) by applying a manufacturer markup. The MSP is the price the manufacturer charges its first customer, when selling into the equipment distribution channels. The manufacturer markup accounts for manufacturer non-production costs and profit margin. DOE developed the manufacturer markup by examining publicly available financial information for manufacturers of the covered equipment. Chapter 5 discusses the equipment classes DOE analyzed, the representative baseline units, the incremental efficiency levels, the methodology DOE used to develop the manufacturing production costs, the cost-efficiency relationship, and the impact of efficiency improvements on the considered equipment. 2.5.1 Two Distinct Engineering Analysis Approaches To determine the MSP of a given representative unit DOE utilized two different approaches. For representative units subject to energy conservation standards under 10 CFR 431.25(g), DOE performed motor efficiency tests and motor teardowns that informed a motor performance model. For representative units not currently regulated at 10 CFR 431.25, DOE used a retail-based analysis, which combined catalog data across six manufacturers and aggregated the results to estimate the average MPC for a given representative unit efficiency and horsepower. DOE utilized a retail-based analysis for the expanded scope since it was the most accessible source of information. In preparing the NOPR, however, DOE will also consider adding a test and teardown approach to determine the MSP of these new representative units. 2.5.2 Representative Units Analyzed 2.5.2.1 Scope: 10 CFR 431.25 Electric motors currently regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 are divided into different equipment classes categorized by physical characteristics that affect equipment efficiency. Key physical characteristics are: (1) horsepower output, (2) pole configuration, (3) enclosure, and (4) motor design type (e.g., NEMA Design A or B). Because it is impractical to conduct detailed engineering analysis at every hp rating, DOE conducts detailed modeling on 5 “representative units” (“RUs”). These RUs are selected both to represent the more common designs found in the market and to include a variety of design specifications to enable generalization of the results. The representative units do not map to equipment classes 1:1. RUs used in the May 2014 Standards Final Rule are unchanged. 79 FR 30934, 30966-30969. These representative units are listed in Table 2.5.1. 2-28 Table 2.5.1 Equipment Classes and Representative Units Equipment Class Group Represented Electric Motor Design Type Horsepower Pole Rating Configuration 1, 3 NEMA Design B 5 4 Totally Enclosed, Fan Cooled 1, 3 NEMA Design B 30 4 Totally Enclosed, Fan Cooled 1, 3 NEMA Design B 75 4 Totally Enclosed, Fan Cooled 2 NEMA Design C 5 4 Totally Enclosed, Fan Cooled 2 NEMA Design C 50 4 Totally Enclosed, Fan Cooled Enclosure In response to the May 2020 RFI, NEMA commented that it is appropriate for ECG 1 and ECG 3 to use the same representative units for the engineering analysis. NEMA also commented that using representative units to span a subset of motors remains a good approach. (NEMA, No. 4 at p. 7) NEMA commented that the previous practice is appropriate to use again and agreed with the DOE conclusion in the prior rulemaking that it is not feasible to evaluate 482 separate product classes, and that treating them like basic models and using a small subset as representatives of a product class of related designs remains a good approach. (NEMA, No. 4 at p. 7) DOE finds that the representative units selected for the 2014 Final Rule remain appropriate and retains them for this preliminary analysis. The representative units are as presented in Table 2.6. DOE may consider additional representative units in a future rulemaking stage if warranted. DOE seeks comment on the representative units selected for this preliminary analysis. If DOE expands the scope of potential energy conservation standards to include any varieties of the electric motors described in Section 2.2.3.1 regarding what, if any, representative units may be most important to add. 2.5.2.2 Scope: Expanded For electric motors that meet the criteria listed at 10 CFR 431.25(g) but are excluded on the basis of being an air-over motor according to 10 CFR 431.25(l)(1), DOE used three RUs to represent these proposed equipment classes. These RUs were similar to the three RUs of ECG 1 2-29 in all characteristics except enclosure, which were all air-over instead of totally enclosed, fan cooled (“TEFC”) in construction. Table 2.5.2 Representative Units of Proposed MEM Air-Over Equipment Classes Equipment Class Group Represented Electric Motor Design Type Horsepower Pole Rating Configuration AO-MEM NEMA Design B 5 4 Totally Enclosed, Air-over AO-MEM NEMA Design B 30 4 Totally Enclosed, Air-over AO-MEM NEMA Design B 75 4 Totally Enclosed, Air-over Enclosure For electric motors that do not meet the criteria listed at 10 CFR 431.25(g) but are included in the proposed expanded scope, DOE chose 24 RUs to represent these equipment classes. The proposed equipment classes are categorized by physical characteristics that affect equipment efficiency. Key physical characteristics for these motors are: (1) horsepower output, (2) pole configuration, (3) enclosure, (4) phases of input power, and (5), locked-rotor torque. For SNEMs, DOE split these motors into equipment class groups based on locked rotor torque (“LRT”) since these motors do not use the same NEMA Design A, B, or C designations that other motors in the scope of this rule do, and certain applications require a certain locked rotor torque to operate. SNEMs were split into three equipment class groups: high-locked-rotor torque, medium-locked-rotor torque, and low-locked-rotor torque. Each equipment class group was filled by specific motor topologies because of the different torque-speed curves associated with each topology. Within each equipment class group, SNEMs were further split based on whether external cooling was needed for continuous operation or not. SNEMs that do not need external cooling are referred to here as SNEMs and those that do need external cooling are referred to as ‘Air-over’ (“AO”). The grouping of topologies is shown in Table 2.5.3. The RUs selected for each equipment class group is shown in Table 2.5.4 and Table 2.5.5. Table 2.5.3 Motor Topologies of Each Equipment Class Group Equipment Class Group by Motor Topologies Locked Rotor Torque Capacitor-Start Induction-Run High Capacitor-Start Capacitor-Run Medium Split Phase Shaded Pole Low Permanent Split Capacitor 2-30 Table 2.5.4 Representative Units of Proposed SNEM Equipment Classes Pole Equipment Class Group Horsepowe Configuratio Enclosure Represented r Rating n Single-Phase (High LRT) .33 4 Open Single-Phase (High LRT) 1 4 Open Single-Phase (High LRT) 2 4 Open Single-Phase (High LRT) .25 4 Enclosed Single-Phase (High LRT) 1 4 Enclosed Single-Phase (High LRT) 3 4 Enclosed Single-Phase (Medium Open .33 4 LRT) Single-Phase (Low LRT) .25 4 Open Single-Phase (Low LRT) .5 4 Open Polyphase .33 4 Enclosed Polyphase .5 4 Enclosed Polyphase .75 4 Enclosed Table 2.5.5 Representative Units of Proposed AO SNEM Equipment Classes Equipment Class Group Horsepower Pole Represented Rating Configuration Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (Medium LRT) Single-Phase (Low LRT) Single-Phase (Low LRT) Polyphase Polyphase Polyphase 2.5.3 Enclosure .33 1 2 .25 1 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 Open, Air-over Open, Air-over Open, Air-over Enclosed, Air-over Enclosed, Air-over Enclosed, Air-over .33 4 Open, Air-over .25 .5 .33 .5 .75 4 4 4 4 4 Open, Air-over Open, Air-over Enclosed, Air-over Enclosed, Air-over Enclosed, Air-over Efficiency Analysis DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiencylevel approach), or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e., the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are 2-31 determined based on the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on the range of efficiencies and efficiency level “clusters” that already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended using the design option approach to interpolate to define “gap fill” levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in cases where the max-tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on the market). 2.5.3.1 Baseline and Higher Efficiency Levels To perform the engineering analysis, DOE generally selects a baseline model as a reference point for each equipment class, and measures changes resulting from potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The baseline model in each equipment class represents the characteristics of an equipment typical of that class (e.g., capacity). Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market. Table 2.5.6 lists baseline efficiency values for each representative unit. Scope: 10 CFR 431.25 Table 2.5.6 Baseline Efficiency Ratings of Representative Units Equipment Class Rep. Unit Group Design B, 5-horsepower, 4-pole, 1 enclosed Design B, 30-horsepower, 4-pole, 1 enclosed Design B, 75-horsepower, 4-pole, 1 enclosed Design C, 5-horsepower, 4-pole, 2 enclosed Design C, 50-horsepower, 4-pole, 2 enclosed Design B, 5-horsepower, 4-pole, 3 enclosed Design B, 30-horsepower, 4-pole, 3 enclosed Design B, 75-horsepower, 4-pole, 3 enclosed 2-32 Baseline (EL0) Efficiency 89.50% 93.60% 95.40% 89.50% 94.50% 87.50% 92.40% 94.10% With the baseline established, DOE selects functionally similar units at higher efficiency levels within the equipment class. These higher-efficiency units are selected to, as much as possible, maintain the important attributes of the baseline unit and vary mostly in cost and efficiency. By subtracting the cost of a higher-efficiency unit from the cost of a baseline unit, DOE estimates the incremental purchase cost to an electric motor buyer. Table 2.5.7 lists all ELs by representative unit. As a note, efficiency level 0 (“EL0”) is synonymous with “baseline” for all representative units in this preliminary analysis. Table 2.5.7 Efficiency Levels by Representative Unit Equipment Rep. Unit EL0 EL1 Class Group Design B, 5-horsepower, 1 89.50% 90.20% 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 301 horsepower, 4-pole, 93.60% 94.10% enclosed Design B, 751 horsepower, 4-pole, 95.40% 95.80% enclosed Design C, 5-horsepower, 2 89.50% 90.20% 4-pole, enclosed Design C, 502 horsepower, 4-pole, 94.50% 95.00% enclosed Design B, 5-horsepower, 3 87.50% 89.50% 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 303 horsepower, 4-pole, 92.40% 93.60% enclosed Design B, 753 horsepower, 4-pole, 94.10% 95.40% enclosed EL2 EL3 EL4 91.00% 91.70% 92.40% 94.50% 95.00% 95.40% 96.20% 96.50% 96.80% 91.00% 91.70% 92.40% 95.40% 95.80% 95.80% 90.20% 91.00% 92.40% 94.10% 94.50% 95.40% 95.80% 96.20% 96.80% To establish ELs higher than the baseline, DOE used different approaches based on ECG. For ECGs 1 and 2, DOE started at the baseline and each EL above baseline incremented one 2-33 NEMA band j higher in efficiency than the previous EL. Each NEMA band represents a 10% reduction in losses from the level below it. In instances where the max-tech level was less than four NEMA bands above baseline, the next highest efficiency is repeated to allow for analysis of all ELs across ECs. For ECG 3, DOE started at the baseline and made EL1 equivalent in efficiency to EL0 of ECG 1, ELs 2 and 3 were each one NEMA band higher than the previous ELs, and EL 4 is equivalent in efficiency to EL4 of ECG 1. In response to the May 2020 RFI, the Efficiency Advocates commented that the range of efficiency performance available above the minimally compliant products has increased. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 9 at p. 2) They noted that previous TSL 4 motors are more commercially available from certain manufacturers, and that manufacturers market these products as a potential low total cost option, and that these motors are marketed as drop-in replacements for induction or lower efficiency motors. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 9 at p. 3) The Efficiency Advocates added that improved motor standards could provide large savings and identified what they asserted were max-tech levels that would reduce motor losses by 15%, which would be equivalent to IE4 or NEMA super-premium levels. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 9 at p. 2) The CA IOUs commented that changes to the motor market warrant updates to the maxtech level. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 1) They recommended that DOE reevaluate the costeffectiveness of TSL 3 of the May 2014 Final Rule due to shifts in the electric motor market since then. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 3) The CA IOUs also commented that IE3 motors (equivalent efficiency to NEMA Premium) have become the predominant motor type in the U.S. Market, which could suggest additional room for standards evaluation. They stated that IE4 motors account for approximately 1.5 to 2 percent of the U.S. motor market. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 3) The CA IOUs recommended that DOE review the IEC 60034-30-2 standard, which defines efficiency classes for variable-speed AC motors not covered in IEC 60034-30-1, including PMSMs and synchronous reluctance motors that are controlled by a frequency converter. The IEC 60034-30-2 standard includes a higher EL, IE5, that is not currently addressed in U.S. motor regulations. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 11) The CA IOUs also presented a table of expanded scope motors, IE level and motor technology. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at Appendix B) CDA recommended that DOE investigate the development of a new efficiency category above the current NEMA Premium level, noting that several manufacturers currently offer motors significantly above NEMA Premium in nameplate efficiency. (CDA, No. 3 at p. 2) NEMA commented that the analytical options investigated in the previous rulemaking remain accurate, but the maximum available efficiency levels shown in Table II.4 of the 2014 j NEMA MG 1 2016, Table 12-10 2-34 Final Rule are not economically justified for the reasons given by DOE. (NEMA, No. 4 at p. 5) NEMA also commented that the current established energy conservation standards are appropriate baseline efficiency levels for this review and that no new baseline efficiency levels are needed. (NEMA, No. 4 at p. 4) The CA IOUs commented that a unique 15 HP PMAC motor has been demonstrated by a third-party lab to achieve 96.9 percent efficiency in operation without a VSD, and 95 percent efficiency with a VSD. The CA IOUs stated that this efficiency result was estimated to be IE7 equivalent, if following the convention that each IE classification reduces losses from the previous classification by 20 percent. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 7) DOE notes that all TSLs of the current rule will be evaluated for cost-effectiveness, and that there are levels analyzed in this rule that are above the NEMA Premium efficiency levels. DOE is using motor performance modeling for each representative unit to determine the maximum efficiency level that is technologically feasible while remaining within NEMA Design B performance constraints as defined in NEMA MG-1 2016 Sections 12.35.1, 12.38, 12.39, and 12.40. DOE intends to evaluate new synchronous motor technologies like the PMAC motor referenced by the CA IOUs if the scope of DOE’s standards is expanded to include them. Scope: Expanded With no energy conservation standards in place, DOE selected a baseline for SNEM equipment classes based on a modified version of the current small electric motors (“SEM”) energy conservation standards located at 10 CFR 431.446. DOE created a function of motor losses vs. HP of the current SEM standards and then increased the losses based on the listed efficiency of motors in each equipment class group. For single-phase high LRT, the baseline was an 81% in losses compared to the SEM standard. For medium LRT the baseline was a 25% increase in losses and for low LRT the baseline was a 96% increase in losses, except at .25 horsepower where shaded-pole motors were readily available, which had a baseline that was a 157% increase in losses compared to the SEM standard. For polyphase SNEMs the baseline was a 38% increase in losses compared to the SEM standard. Table 2.5.8 contains the baseline efficiency for each SNEM representative unit. Table 2.5.8 SNEM Baseline Efficiency by Representative Unit Equipment Class Group Horsepower Baseline (EL0) Efficiency Single-Phase (High LRT) .33 58.20% Single-Phase (High LRT) 1 72.50% Single-Phase (High LRT) 2 74.80% Single-Phase (High LRT) .25 55.00% Single-Phase (High LRT) 1 72.00% Single-Phase (High LRT) 3 77.00% Single-Phase (Medium LRT) .33 55.20% 2-35 Single-Phase (Low LRT) Single-Phase (Low LRT) Polyphase Polyphase Polyphase .25 .5 .33 .5 .75 35.78% 59.30% 64.30% 71.00% 75.50% For efficiency levels higher than baseline, DOE used different methods based on equipment class group. For single-phase high LRT, EL1 represents a 12.5% reduction in loss from the baseline efficiency and EL2 approximated the current SEM standards. For medium LRT, EL1 was a 15% decrease in loss from baseline and EL2 was a 22.5% decrease in loss from baseline. For low LRT, EL1 was a repeat of EL0 for every equipment class except .25 HP where shaded-pole motors are prevalent. This repeat in EL was chosen to simplify the structure of the eventual LCC and NIA analyses. EL2 was a 38% reduction in losses from the previous EL, and EL3 approximated the SEM standard. For polyphase SNEMs, EL1 was a 12.5% decrease in loss from baseline, EL2 an 18.5% decrease in loss from baseline, EL3 an approximation of current SEM standards, and EL4 was a 20% decrease in losses from the SEM standard. Table 2.5.9 SNEM Efficiency Levels by Representative Unit Horse Equipment Class Group EL0 EL1 EL2 power Single-Phase (High LRT) .33 58.20% 61.00% 72.40% Single-Phase (High LRT) 1 72.50% 74.40% 82.60% Single-Phase (High LRT) 2 74.80% 78.50% 84.50% Single-Phase (High LRT) .25 55.00% 57.00% 74.00% Single-Phase (High LRT) 1 72.00% 75.00% 82.60% Single-Phase (High LRT) 3 77.00% 80.00% 85.50% Single-Phase (Medium LRT) .33 55.20% 59.20% 62.00% Single-Phase (Low LRT) .25 35.78% 42.22% 54.32% Single-Phase (Low LRT) .5 59.30% 59.30% 69.67% Polyphase .33 64.30% 69.20% 70.10% Polyphase .5 71.00% 74.00% 76.10% Polyphase .75 75.50% 78.50% 80.00% EL3 EL4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 60.98% 74.09% 74.00% 78.20% 81.50% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 77.00% 81.60% 84.20% To analyze air-over motors, DOE used a modified version of each representative unit for both SNEMs and equipment classes with standards at 10 CFR 431.25. First, DOE performed motor efficiency testing on five SNEMs according to the test procedure proposed in the December 2021 TP NOPR. Then, the internal fans were removed and the motor was tested according to the air-over test procedure proposed in the December 2021 TP NOPR. DOE then analyzed the measured efficiency difference in the two tests and plotted a function of fan loss as 2-36 a percentage of total losses vs. rated horsepower. Using this function, DOE created a theoretical air-over version of each of the representative units. For SNEMs, this resulted in higher measured efficiencies for each representative unit. DOE notes that this increase in efficiency between an air-over and a non-air-over motor may not always result in energy savings to the end-user because in many cases a fan is still being driven by the motor even if the energy required to drive it is not measured by the test procedure. For the air-over versions of motors currently in the scope of 10 CFR 431.25, the nominal efficiency of each unit is the same as the non-air-over versions because the fan losses were never more than 10% of the total losses that a NEMA band represents. Table 2.5.10 shows the efficiency of each air-over SNEM representative unit. Table 2.5.11 shows the efficiency of each air-over version of motors currently regulated at 10 CFR 431.25. Table 2.5.10 AO SNEM Efficiency Levels by Representative Unit Equipment Class Group Horsepower EL0 EL1 EL2 Single-Phase (High LRT) .33 61.15% 63.87% 74.78% Single-Phase (High LRT) 1 74.39% 76.21% 83.95% Single-Phase (High LRT) 2 76.31% 79.85% 85.54% Single-Phase (High LRT) .25 58.17% 60.13% 76.41% Single-Phase (High LRT) 1 73.92% 76.78% 83.95% Single-Phase (High LRT) 3 78.26% 81.14% 86.38% Single-Phase (Medium LRT) .33 58.21% 62.12% 64.84% Single-Phase (Low LRT) .25 38.80% 45.40% 57.50% Single-Phase (Low LRT) .5 62.00% 62.00% 72.00% Polyphase .33 67.06% 71.75% 72.60% Polyphase .5 73.27% 76.11% 78.09% Polyphase .75 77.37% 80.20% 81.61% EL3 EL4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 64.00% N/A 76.20% N/A 76.29% 79.10% 80.06% 83.24% 83.01% 85.53% Table 2.5.11 AO-MEM Efficiency Levels by Representative Unit Rep. Unit EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 Design B, 5-horsepower, 4-pole, 87.50% 89.50% 90.20% 91.00% 92.40% air-over Design B, 30-horsepower, 4-pole, 92.40% 93.60% 94.10% 94.50% 95.40% air-over Design B, 75-horsepower, 4-pole, 95.40% 95.40% 95.80% 96.20% 96.80% air-over 2.5.4 Cost Analysis 2-37 The cost analysis portion of the Engineering Analysis is conducted using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated product, availability, and timeliness of purchasing the equipment on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows: Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to develop a detailed bill of materials for the product. Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example) to develop the bill of materials for the product. Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise impractical (e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and other commercial channels. 2.5.4.1 General Methodology To derive the production and material costs of each EL, DOE used a combination of teardowns, software modeling, and retail price data. DOE performed a motor efficiency test and extensive teardown on one model for each representative unit in ECG 1 and the results of this performance test and teardown were used to inform the software modelled designs. Coupling these two approaches allowed DOE to analyze ELs that were theoretically possible but not available on the market. Teardowns Due to limited manufacturer feedback concerning cost data and production costs, DOE derived its production and material costs by having a professional motor laboratory disassemble and inventory the physical electric motors purchased. DOE performed teardowns on three electric motors that were advertised as having higher efficiency than EL0 for equipment class group 1. These teardowns provided DOE the necessary data to construct a bill of materials (“BOM”), which DOE could normalize using a standard cost model and markup to produce a projected manufacturer selling price (MSP). DOE used the MSP derived from the engineering tear-down paired with the corresponding nameplate nominal efficiency to report the relative costs of achieving improvements in energy efficiency. DOE derived material prices from a consensus of current, publicly available data, manufacturer feedback, and conversations with its subject matter experts (“SMEs”). DOE supplemented the findings from its tests and teardowns 2-38 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. 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, using die-cast copper rotors, 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 generally increases and the electric motor’s efficiency improves. Software Modeling DOE worked with technical experts to develop the highest efficiency levels (i.e., the max-tech levels) technologically feasible for each representative unit analyzed. DOE used a combination of electric motor software design programs and SME input. DOE retained an electric motor expert with design experience and software, who prepared a set of designs with increasing efficiency. The SME also checked his designs against tear-down data and calibrated his software using the relevant test results. As new designs were created, careful attention was paid to the required performance characteristics of NEMA Design B as defined in NEMA MG 12016 Tables 12-2, 12-3, 12-4, and paragraph 12.35.1, which collectively define locked-rotor torque, breakdown torque, pull-up torque and maximum locked-rotor currents, respectively. This was done to ensure that the utility of the baseline unit was conserved as efficiency was improved through the application of various design options. Additionally, DOE limited its modeled stack length increases based on tear-down data and the maximum “C” dimensions found in manufacturer’s catalogs. DOE limited the amount by which it would increase the stack length of its softwaremodeled electric motors to preserve the utility of the baseline model torn down. 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 NEMA design letter, horsepower rating, NEMA frame series, 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 product was the value that DOE chose to use as the maximum stack length in its software-modeled designs. Table 2.5.12 shows the estimated maximum stack length that was used as an upper bound in the software-modeled ELs. Table 2.5.13 shows the stack length and efficiency of each modeled design. Table 2.5.12 Max Theoretical Stack Length for Each Representative Unit HP ECG Frame Size Max Theoretical Stack Length (in) 2-39 5 30 75 5 50 1 1 1 2 2 184T 286T 365T 184T 326T 7.19 11.21 16.42 7.19 12.60 2-40 Table 2.5.13 Stack Length of Each Design HP 5 5 5 5 5 30 30 30 30 30 75 75 75 75 75 50 50 50 50 50 ECG 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 EL 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Efficiency (%) Stack Length (in) 89.50 5.14 90.20 6.00 91.00 6.30 91.70 6.50 92.40 6.50 93.60 8.84 94.10 8.84 94.50 8.84 95.00 10.95 95.40 11.05 95.40 13.50 95.80 13.68 96.20 10.85 96.50 13.68 96.80 13.68 94.50 12.13 95.00 12.13 95.40 12.13 95.80 12.13 95.80 12.13 DOE modeled a synchronous motor (specifically a permanent magnet design) as a replacement for a 5 HP motor and included in the total cost the cost of the drive needed to run the motor. DOE observed that in the vast majority of applications a drive would be needed to operate a synchronous motor. Retail Price Analysis For SNEMs, DOE harvested price data from six motor manufacturers and used it to derive the MSP of each RU. First, DOE began by finding the average correlation of manufacturer suggested retail price (“MSRP”) and retail price of a given motor. Once that was found for each of the six manufacturers in the data set, DOE then filtered the catalog data to match each representative unit in horsepower, LRT, pole, and enclosure. Further characteristics including duty cycle, purpose (i.e., general vs. dedicated), and input voltage were used to further narrow the selection criteria. Once this similar group of motors was developed, it was further filtered by efficiency and the MSP of each EL was found by taking the average MSP of motors within that EL. 2-41 DOE notes that these retail data were recorded in 2016 and will likely not be the basis of the analysis presented in any NOPR develops. DOE further notes that the 2016 prices that were collected were adjusted for inflation and were analyzed in 2020 dollars for this preliminary analysis. 2.5.4.2 Constructing a Bill of Materials The BOM calculated for each design contained four types of material costs: conductors, electrical steel, insulation, and hardware. In the May 2014 Final Rule, DOE used a fixed cost depending on horsepower for components like insulation and frame hardware. In this preliminary analysis, DOE broke down these components so that every component in the BOM could vary depending on EL. Each item in the BOM is organized by the type of cost (i.e., variable, insulation, and hardware) and the component of the electric motor to which they apply. The variable costs portion of the BOM includes the following subheadings, each with an itemized parts list: stator assembly, rotor assembly, and other major costs. The subheadings that have an itemized list of components include the stator assembly, rotor assembly, and other major costs. The stator assembly’s itemized lists include prices for steel laminations and copper wire. The rotor assembly portion of the BOM includes prices for laminations, rotor conductor material, (either aluminum or copper) and shaft extension material. The other major costs heading contains items for the frame material and base, terminal housing components, bearing-type, and end-shield material. 2.5.4.3 Conductor Prices Aluminum and copper are the materials used as conductors. The prices of aluminum and copper conductor are strongly correlated to the price of the underlying commodities, which are tracked in various public indices. In this preliminary analysis, DOE used a combination of cost extrapolation from the public indices and calibrated the data based on information received in manufacturer interviews. Further, DOE assumed that the 10 percent aluminum tariff would be partially offset by, e.g., changes in sourcing, suppliers’ absorbing some cost, and reduced demand for aluminum throughout the market. Therefore, in the base-case price scenario, DOE assumed a price increase of 7.5 percent as a result of aluminum tariffs. DOE also included price sensitivity scenarios in TSD chapter 5, which include modeling of a market without tariffs on aluminum. Table 2.5.14 Estimated Conductor Prices Category Description Unit Price / Unit ($) Copper Cu lb $5.29 2-42 Copper 20.5 Copper 20 Copper 19.5 Copper 19 Copper 18.5 Other Metals Al Other Metals Lead Wire 14 Ga (in) 2.19. lb lb lb lb lb lb in $5.30 $5.29 $5.29 $5.29 $5.29 $2.02 $0.01 DOE requests feedback and data on the costs of conductor material presented in Table 2.5.4.4 Electrical Steel Prices The other major material cost in electric motors are the electrical steels used in the stator and rotor laminations. In general, the electrical steels with lower core loss per unit weight cost more than their higher loss counterparts. DOE used a mixture of publicly available price data and feedback from manufacturer interviews to estimate the cost of each electrical steel. For some newer steels such as 35H210, where price data were unavailable, the price was estimated by extrapolating the relationship of core loss vs. price based on the general electrical steel market. Table 2.5.15 Estimated Electrical Steel Prices Item and description 2020 Price ($/lb) M56 $0.64 M47 $0.69 M400-50A $0.71 M600-50A $0.69 26M19 $1.01 29M19 $1.11 35H210 $1.25 DOE requests feedback and data on the costs of electrical steels presented in Table 2.20. Further, DOE requests data on the relative costs between lower-loss grades of steel. DOE requests feedback and data on the relative costs increases associated with the application of electrical steel tariffs. 2-43 2.5.4.5 Other Material Prices In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment on the cost of other materials used in the production of electric motors. 85 FR 30878, 30885. Table 2.5.16 shows the estimated costs of these other materials used in this preliminary analysis. Table 2.5.16 Estimated Other Material Prices Category Power/Heat Transmission Power/Heat Transmission Power/Heat Transmission Power/Heat Transmission Power/Heat Transmission Power/Heat Transmission Insulation Insulation Insulation Insulation Insulation Insulation Insulation Hardware Hardware Hardware Hardware Hardware Hardware Hardware Hardware Hardware Hardware Hardware Hardware Housing Housing Item Unit 2020 Price ($/unit) Fan ea 0.25 Shaft lb 2.80 Bearings (5-HP) ea 2.25 Bearings (30-HP) ea 22.00 Bearings (50-HP) ea 49.00 Bearings (75-HP) ea 58.00 Lace Cord Insulation Sleeves Splices Varnish Cleat Slot Liner Slot Peg Seal Washer Mounting Bolts Cap Screws Thermal switch screws Terminal block screws Terminal Cover Screws Bearing Wave Spring Studs Female Disconnects 3/16 Conduit Cap Female Disconnects 1/4 Nameplate Housing Paint in ea ea gal ea in^2 in^2 ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea lb ea $0.01 $0.02 $0.04 $68.00 $0.20 $0.01 $0.01 $0.02 $0.03 $0.02 $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 $0.05 $0.03 $0.03 $0.05 $0.03 $0.10 $0.82 $1.39 2-44 Category Item Unit Housing End Cap Assembly End Cap Assembly End Cap Assembly End Cap Assembly End Cap Assembly End Cap Assembly End Cap Assembly End Cap Assembly Hardware Fan Shroud Cast and Machined Shaft End Cast and Machined Fan End Bearing Insert Bearing Cap Terminal Board Thermal Switch Terminal Cover Terminal Cover Gasket Labeling lb lb lb ea ea ea ea ea ea ea 2020 Price ($/unit) $0.82 $0.82 $0.82 $0.16 $0.90 $1.00 $1.56 $0.30 $0.04 $0.10 DOE also included costs for various additional components like bearings, frame hardware, and insulation components. Some of these costs differed slightly for each representative unit and are listed in chapter 5 of the TSD. DOE requests feedback and data on the cost of the other materials used in electric motor manufacturing listed in Table 2.21. 2.5.4.6 Labor Costs Due to the varying degree of automation used in manufacturing electric motors, labor costs differ for each representative unit. DOE analyzed teardown results to determine which electric motors were machine-wound and which electric motors were hand-wound. From this analysis, DOE applied a higher labor hour amount for the hand-wound electric motors. For the max-tech software-modeled electric motors, DOE always assumed hand-winding was used and that a higher labor hour amount applied. Labor hours for each of the representative units were based on SME input and manufacturer interviews. DOE used the same hourly labor rate for all electric motors analyzed. The base hourly rate was developed from the 2007 Economic Census of Industry, published by the U.S. Census Bureau, as well as manufacturer and SME input. k The base hourly rate is an aggregate rate of a foreign labor rate and a domestic labor rate. DOE weighed the foreign labor rate more than the domestic labor rate due to manufacturer feedback indicating off-shore production accounts for a majority of electric motor production by American-based companies. Several markups were The Economic Census of Industry data are used to inform how markup percentages are applied but do not comprise the primary source of labor rate data for electric motor manufacturing. Instead, these data were obtained primarily through interviews with manufacturers of electric motors. DOE is, however, considering using the 2017 Economic Census of Industry for potential future rulemaking stages. k 2-45 applied to this hourly rate to obtain a fully burdened rate, which is representative of the labor costs associated with manufacturing electric motors. Table 2.5.17 shows the markups that were applied, their corresponding markup percentage, and the new burdened labor rate. Table 2.5.17 Labor Markups for Electric Motor Manufacturers Markup Item description Rate per hour percentage Labor cost per hour‫٭‬ $18.02 Indirect Production‫٭٭‬ 33 % $23.97 Overhead‫٭٭٭‬ 30 % $31.16 Fringe† 24 % $38.64 Assembly Labor Up-time†† 43 % $55.26 Cost of Labor Input to $55.26 Spreadsheet 2.22. DOE requests comment on the labor rate applied and associated markups listed in Table 2.5.4.7 Markup DOE used the three markups described below to account for non-production costs that are part of each electric motor leaving a manufacturer’s facility. Handling and scrap factor, overhead, and non-production markups will vary from manufacturer to manufacturer because their profit margins, overheads, prices paid for goods, and business structures vary. DOE prepared estimates for these three non-production cost manufacturer markups from Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10K annual reports, and conversations with manufacturers and experts. Factory Overhead Factory overhead: 15 percent markup. Factory overhead includes all the indirect costs associated with production, indirect materials and energy use, taxes, and insurance. DOE applies factory overhead to the sum of direct material production costs (including the handling and scrap factor) and the direct labor costs. The overhead increases to 20 percent when copper die-casting is used in the rotor. This accounts for additional energy, insurance, and other indirect costs associated with the copper die-casting process. DOE requests comment on the magnitude and application of the factory overhead markup. 2-46 Scrap Factor Handling and scrap factor: 2.5 percent markup. This markup was applied to the direct material production costs of each electric motor. It accounts for the handling of material (loading into assembly or winding equipment) and the scrap material that cannot be used in the production of a finished electric motor (e.g., lengths of wire too short to wind). DOE requests comment on the appropriateness and magnitude of the markups applied as material scrap in this preliminary analysis. Conversion Costs DOE understands that even without new conservation standards, manufacturers will be expending resources on research and development, capital equipment replacement, and testing and certification for new products in the normal course of their day-to-day business operations. However, DOE also realizes that some of the conservation standards under consideration may require significant levels of investment, in time and dollars, by manufacturers above and beyond their typical operational levels. To account for the additional investments that manufacturers will have to make to reach certain ELs, DOE included a conversion cost adder in the cost model. The conversion cost adder was only applied to designs that use thinner steels than what is currently used in most motors for the stator and rotor laminations and thus would require retooling the die-stamping portion of the manufacturing line. l For designs that use a .018” thickness electrical steel, a product conversion markup of 4.1 percent was used. For designs that use a .014” (approximately .35 mm), a product conversion markup of 6.5 percent was used. The magnitudes of these markups are consistent with what was used in the May 2014 Final Rule. 79 FR 30934, 30975 DOE requests comment on the appropriateness and magnitude of the markups used to account for product conversion costs in this preliminary analysis. Nonproduction To account for manufacturers’ nonproduction costs and profit margin, DOE applies a nonproduction cost multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (“MSP”) is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. l Examples of these thinner steels are 29M19 and 35H210. 2-47 DOE did not receive any comments recommending a different manufacturer markup from what was used in the May 2014 Final Rule. In this preliminary analysis, DOE maintained a manufacturer markup of 37 – 45 percent. This markup reflects costs including sales and general administrative, research and development, interest payments, and profit factor. DOE applies the non-production markup to the sum of the direct material production, the direct labor, the factory overhead, and the product conversion costs. For the analyzed electric motors at or below 5horsepower, this markup was 37 percent; for electric motors above 5-horsepower, this markup was 45 percent. 2.5.5 Engineering Analysis Results 2.5.5.1 Scope: 10 CFR 431.25 The results of the engineering analysis are reported as cost-efficiency data (or “curves”) in the form of energy efficiency (in percentage) versus MSP (in dollars), which form the basis for subsequent analyses in the preliminary analysis. DOE developed fourteen curves representing the fourteen representative units. DOE implemented design options by analyzing a variety of core steel material, winding material, and core construction methods for each representative unit and applying manufacturer selling prices to the output of the model for each design option combination. See TSD chapter 5 for additional detail on the engineering analysis. Table 2.23 shows the MSP of each representative unit for each EL. Table 2.5.18 MSP (2020$) of Each Representative Unit Equipment Rep. Unit EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 Class Group Design B, 51 horsepower, 4$295.12 $340.49 $367.30 $403.44 $509.63 pole, enclosed Design B, 301 horsepower, 4- $1,185.21 $1,233.05 $1,273.73 $1,528.57 $1,596.68 pole, enclosed Design B, 751 horsepower, 4- $3,014.23 $3,431.54 $3,969.67 $4,116.89 $4,443.22 pole, enclosed Design C, 52 horsepower, 4$345.59 $361.16 $389.22 $442.70 $489.79 pole, enclosed Design C, 502 horsepower, 4- $2,386.46 $2,531.06 $2,682.51 $2,847.38 $2,847.38 pole, enclosed Design B, 53 horsepower, 4$267.77 $295.12 $340.49 $367.30 $509.63 pole, enclosed 2-48 Equipment Class Group 3 3 2.5.5.2 Rep. Unit Design B, 30horsepower, 4pole, enclosed Design B, 75horsepower, 4pole, enclosed EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 $1,072.41 $1,185.21 $1,233.05 $1,273.73 $1,596.68 $2,430.83 $3,014.23 $3,431.54 $3,969.67 $4,443.22 Expanded Scope The results of the engineering analysis are reported as cost-efficiency data (or “curves”). No downstream (e.g., LCC, NIA) results are included for the following equipment varieties. DOE notes that the representative units used in this analysis for the expanded scope may evolve as DOE continues to develop data regarding the appropriate representative units to use as part of its analysis in a potential proposed rulemaking affecting these equipment. The MSP for each AO MEM is shown in Table 2.5.19. The MSP associated with each EL for SNEM and AO SNEM RUs is shown in Table 2.5.20 and Table 2.5.21, respectively. Table 2.5.19 MSP of Each EL for AO MEM RUs Analyzed Equipment Rep. Unit EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 Class Group Design B, 5AO MEM horsepower, 4$254.04 $282.73 $300.22 $345.75 $460.53 pole, enclosed Design B, 30AO MEM horsepower, 4$1,052.77 $1,167.83 $1,216.42 $1,257.16 $1,555.96 pole, enclosed Design B, 75AO MEM horsepower, 4$2,964.05 $2,964.05 $3,385.21 $3,916.19 $4,405.27 pole, enclosed 2-49 Table 2.5.20 MSP of Each EL for SNEM RUs Analyzed Pole Torque Phase HP Enclosure Count Class EL0 Single .33 Open 4 High 95.67 Single 1 Open 4 High 158.25 Single 2 Open 4 High 233.17 Single .25 Enclosed 4 High 92.11 Single 1 Enclosed 4 High 173.55 Single 3 Enclosed 4 High 292.85 Single .33 Open 4 Medium 54.27 Single .25 Open 6 Low 48.25 Single .5 Open 6 Low 69.47 Poly .33 Enclosed 4 93.67 Poly .5 Enclosed 4 105.68 Poly .75 Enclosed 4 114.19 MSP (2020$) EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 98.99 120.35 171.39 188.50 244.21 264.78 94.61 115.94 187.87 206.52 311.87 340.47 61.90 65.68 49.61 59.90 62.71 69.47 80.61 92.68 96.92 104.64 106.99 135.89 107.46 124.50 127.37 178.86 125.33 131.28 137.41 191.71 Table 2.5.21 MSP of Each EL for AO SNEM RUs Analyzed MSP (2020$) Pole Torque Phase HP Enclosure Count Class EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 Single .33 Open 4 High 95.30 98.62 119.98 Single 1 Open 4 High 157.24 170.38 187.49 Single 2 Open 4 High 231.27 242.31 262.88 Single .25 Enclosed 4 High 91.83 94.33 115.66 Single 1 Enclosed 4 High 172.54 186.86 205.51 Single 3 Enclosed 4 High 290.11 309.13 337.73 Single .33 Open 4 Medium 53.90 61.53 65.31 Single .25 Open 6 Low 47.97 49.33 59.62 62.43 Single .5 Open 6 Low 68.94 68.94 80.08 92.15 Poly .33 Enclosed 4 93.30 96.55 104.27 106.62 135.52 Poly .5 Enclosed 4 105.15 106.93 123.97 126.84 178.33 Poly .75 Enclosed 4 113.41 124.55 130.50 136.63 190.93 DOE requests comment on these preliminary results and if the efficiency values are appropriate for each EL. DOE also requests comment on what representative units should be used for SNEM equipment classes. 2.6 MARKUPS ANALYSIS The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g., retailer markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution chain and collects information regarding sales 2-50 taxes to convert the MSP derived in the engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC and PBP analysis. At each step in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of equipment to cover business costs and profit margin. In the May 2020 Early Assessment RFI, DOE requested comment on the seven distribution channels identified during the previous rulemaking and the estimated fraction of electric motor sales that go through each channel. 85 FR 30878, 30886. NEMA commented that since the last rulemaking, there had been an increase in the share of motors sold directly to endusers and NEMA provided updated market shares of shipments through each distribution channel. (NEMA, No. 4 at p. 7) For the preliminary analysis, DOE reviewed additional information regarding distribution channels provided by the 2019 Low-Voltage Motors, World Market Report from IHS Markit 1 and updated the proportion of shipments going through each of these channels based on NEMA's input. For AO-MEMs, DOE relied on the same distribution channels as for electric motors subject to energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25. For SNEMs and AO-SNEMs, DOE relied on the distribution channels used in the Final Determination for small electric motors. 86 FR 4885, 4898-4899 (January 19, 2021) ("January 2021 Final Determination ") Table 2.6.1 and Table 2.6.2 provide a summary of the distribution channels and market shares considered for electric motors analyzed in this preliminary analysis. Table 2.6.1 Distribution Channels for Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25 and AO-MEMs. Share of Distribution Channel Shipments (%) Manufacturer to OEM to End-user 47 Manufacturer to OEM to Retailer to End-user 20 Manufacturer to Retailer to End-user 12 Manufacturer to Motor Wholesaler to OEM to End-user 5 Manufacturer to Contractor to End-user 1 Manufacturer to Retailer to Contractor to End-user 7 Manufacturer to End-user 8 2-51 Table 2.6.2 Distribution Channels for SNEMs and AO-SNEMs Distribution Channel Manufacturer to OEM to Equipment Wholesaler to Contractor to End-User Manufacturer to Motor Wholesaler to OEM to Equipment Wholesaler to Contractor to End-User Manufacturer to Motor Wholesaler to Retailer to Contractor to End-User Share of Shipments (%) 65 30 5 DOE developed baseline and incremental markups for each agent in the distribution chain. Baseline markups are applied to the price of equipment with baseline efficiency, while incremental markups are applied to the difference in price between baseline and higherefficiency models (the incremental cost increase). The incremental markup is typically less than the baseline markup and is designed to maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and after new or amended standards. m DOE relied on 2020 RS Means Electrical Cost Data and on economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate average baseline and incremental markups. The markups methodology is described in chapter 6 of this TSD. DOE did not receive any additional comments regarding the distribution channels. For electric motors that DOE may consider in a potential expanded scope in the NOPR, (i.e., electric motors above 500 horsepower; electric motors that are synchronous motors; submersible electric motors, and inverter-only electric motors), DOE is considering applying the distribution channels and respective share of sales volume as presented in Table 2.6.1. Should sufficient information become available, DOE may consider different distribution channels and share of sales volume. DOE requests data and information to characterize the distribution channels for each category of electric motors analyzed, as well as for the additional categories of electric motors that DOE may consider including in the NOPR (i.e., electric motors above 500 horsepower; Because the projected price of products at efficiency levels above the baseline is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would result in higher perunit operating profit. While such an outcome is possible, DOE maintains that in markets that are reasonably competitive it is unlikely that standards would lead to a sustainable increase in profitability in the long run. m 2-52 electric motors that are synchronous motors; submersible electric motors, and inverter-only electric motors). DOE also requests data on the fraction of sales that go through these channels. 2.7 ENERGY USE ANALYSIS The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual energy consumption of electric motors at different efficiencies for representative U.S. consumers in the commercial, industrial, residential, and agricultural sectors, and to assess the energy savings potential of increased electric motor efficiency. The energy use analysis estimates the range of energy use of electric motors in the field (i.e., as they are actually used by consumers). The energy use analysis provides the basis for other analyses DOE performed, particularly assessments of the energy savings and the savings in consumer operating costs that could result from adoption of amended or new standards. For electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25, the analysis focuses on 8 representative units identified in the engineering analysis (section 2.5). In addition, for NEMA Design A, B and C electric motors, additional representative units were added to represent consumers of larger sized electric motors (i.e., units 9, 10, and 11). See Table 2.7.1. For SNEMs, DOE analyzed 12 representative units and for AO electric motors, DOE analyzed 15 representative units (see section 2.5.2.2). For each representative unit, DOE determined the annual energy consumption value by multiplying the motor input power by the annual operating hours in a representative sample of electric motor consumers. Chapter 7 of this TSD provides details on DOE’s energy use analysis for electric motors. Table 2.7.1 Representative Units for Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation Standards at 10 CFR 431.25 Representative Unit Equipment Class Group HP (4-pole, enclosed) 1 5 2 30 NEMA Design A and B Electric Motor 3 75 9 150 10 250 4 5 NEMA Design C Electric Motor 5 50 11 150 6 5 Fire Pump Electric Motor 7 30 8 75 2-53 2.7.1 Consumer Sample DOE created a consumer sample to represent consumers of electric motors in the commercial, industrial, residential, and agricultural sectors. DOE used the sample to determine electric motor annual energy consumption as well as for conducting the LCC and PBP analyses. Each consumer in the sample was assigned a sector, an application, and a region. The sector and application determine the usage profile of the electric motor and the economic characteristics of the motor owner vary by sector and region. DOE used data from the 2019 Low-Voltage Motors, World Market Report, the May 2014 Final Rule Technical Support Document, 2 and from the January 2021 Final Determination Technical Support Document 3 to establish distributions of consumers by sector and horsepower. Seven motor applications (air compressors, fans, pumps, material handling, material processing, refrigeration compressors, and others) were selected as representative electric motor applications based on a DOE-AMO report. 4 Distributions of consumers by application in commercial and industrial sectors were also derived from the DOE-AMO report. In the agricultural sector, DOE considered the pump application for agricultural farm and ranch irrigation based on the 2013 Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey. 5 For fire pump electric motors, DOE considered a separate fire pump application. For the residential sector, DOE used the distributions of consumers by application from the January 2021 Final Determination Technical Support Document. In addition, for AO electric motors, DOE assumed all AO electric motors were used in fan applications. For each sector, DOE developed distributions across regions based on the 2018 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) 6, the 2018 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS), 7 the 2013 Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey, n and the 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS). 8 For electric motors that DOE may consider in a potential expanded scope, (i.e., electric motors above 500 horsepower; electric motors that are synchronous motors; and submersible electric motors), DOE is considering relying on the same sample as for electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25. See chapter 7 of the TSD for more details on the resulting distribution of consumers by sector, applications, and regions. DOE seeks input on data sources that DOE can use to help establish a consumer sample for each category of electric motor analyzed and for electric motors that DOE may consider including in the NOPR (i.e., electric motors above 500 horsepower; electric motors that are synchronous motors; submersible electric motors, and inverter-only electric motors). Specifically, DOE requests comments on the distribution of electric motors by sector, applications, and region used to characterize the consumer sample for electric motors analyzed The 2013 Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey is the most recent version available that includes operating hour data (the 2018 Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey does not include operating hours information). n 2-54 and for electric motors that DOE may consider including in the NOPR (i.e., electric motors above 500 horsepower; electric motors that are synchronous motors; submersible electric motors, and inverter-only electric motors). 2.7.2 Motor Input Power DOE calculated the motor input power as the sum of (1) the electric motor’s rated horsepower multiplied by its operating load (i.e., the motor output power), and (2) the losses at the operating load (i.e., part-load losses). DOE estimated distributions of motor average annual operating load by application and sector based on information from the DOE-AMO report. DOE determined the part-load losses using outputs from the engineering analysis (full-load efficiency at each efficiency level) and published part-load efficiency information from 2016 and 2020 catalog data from five manufacturers ("2016 Manufacturer Catalog Data") 9, 10, 11 , 12, 13 and four manufacturers (“2020 Manufacturer Catalog Data”) 14, 15, 16, 17 to model motor part-load losses as a function of the motor’s operating load. See chapter 7 of the TSD for the resulting distribution of load for each application. DOE requests comments on the distribution of average annual operating load by application and sector used to characterize the variability in energy use for currently regulated electric motors, SNEMs, and AO electric motors. DOE seeks input on data sources that DOE can use to help characterize load profiles (i.e., percentage of annual operating hours spent at specified load points) for currently regulated electric motors, SNEMs, and AO electric motors, including the distribution of those profiles by application and sector. DOE seeks input on data sources that DOE can use to help characterize the variability in annual energy consumption for additional categories of electric motors that may be considered for inclusion in the NOPR (i.e., electric motors above 500 horsepower; electric motors that are synchronous motors; submersible electric motors, and inverter-only electric motors). Specifically, DOE is requesting data and information related to: (1) the distribution of motor average annual operating loads by application and sector; and (2) applicable the load profiles (i.e., percentage of annual operating hours spent at specified load points), including the distribution of those profiles by application and sector. 2.7.3 Annual Operating Hours DOE used information from the DOE-AMO report to establish distributions of motor annual hours of operation by application for the commercial and industrial sectors. The DOEAMO report provided average, mean, median, minimum, maximum, and quartile boundaries for annual operating hours across industrial and commercial sectors by application and showed no significant difference in average annual hours of operation between horsepower ranges. DOE 2-55 used this information to develop application-specific statistical distributions of annual operating hours in the commercial and industrial sectors. For electric motors used in the agricultural sector, DOE derived statistical distributions of annual operating hours of irrigation pumps by region using data from the 2013 Census of Agriculture Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey. DOE used a uniform distribution between 0.5 hours and 6 hours per year to establish the fire pump electric motors annual operating hours, based on information from the May 2014 Final Rule. For SNEMS and AO electric motors used in the residential sector, DOE relied on the distributions of operating hours by application as presented in the Chapter 7 of the January 2021 Final Determination Technical Support Document. For electric motors that DOE may consider in a potential expanded scope in the NOPR, (i.e., electric motors above 500 horsepower; electric motors that are synchronous motors; and submersible electric motors), DOE is considering relying on the same operating hours as those used for the electric motors that are regulated at 10 CFR 431.25. In response to the May 2020 Early Assessment RFI, NEEA referenced a report it prepared regarding the operating hours and energy consumption of motors installed on clean water pump systems in the Pacific Northwest. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 4) The data referenced by NEEA include operating hours and energy use data for clean water pumps used in the Pacific Northwest. However, DOE's analysis covers all pump applications (not restricted to clean water pumps) and considers all geographic regions. In addition, the level of aggregation used in the DOE-AMO report does not allow the combining of these data with the information provided in the DOE-AMO dataset in a way that would provide representative results for all pumps applications and across all regions. Therefore, DOE used data available in the DOE-AMO report instead. DOE is requesting comments on the distribution of annual operating hours by application and sector used to characterize the variability in energy use of currently regulated electric motors, SNEMs, and AO electric motors. DOE seeks input on data sources that DOE can use to help establish the distribution of annual operating hours by application and sector for each additional category of electric motor that may be considered in the expanded scope in the NOPR (i.e., electric motors above 500 horsepower; electric motors that are synchronous motors; submersible electric motors, and inverter-only electric motors). 2.7.4 Impact of Electric Motor Speed The energy use analysis accounts for any changes in the motor's rated speed with an increase in efficiency levels. A decrease in slip can result in a higher operating speed and a potential overloading of the motor. The cubic relation between speed and power requirements in variable torque applications can affect the benefits gained by efficient motors, which may have a lower slip. 2-56 In response to the May 2020 Early Assessment RFI, NEMA commented that DOE's previous analysis did not account for the impacts of an increase in motor speed with increased efficiency. NEMA commented that as the slip decreases, the motor will drive the load faster and increase its input power consumption. (NEMA, No. 4 at p. 8) DOE incorporated the effect of potential increase in speed into the energy use analysis for those electric motors that are currently regulated under 10 CFR 431.25 and for AO-MEMs. Based on information from a European motor study. 18 DOE assumed that 20 percent of consumers with fan, pump, and air compressor applications would be negatively impacted by higher operating speeds. o For other electric motor categories that it analyzed, DOE did not characterize the motor speed by ELs (see section 2.5) and DOE did not include this analysis. DOE requests comment on its assumption that 20 percent of consumers with fan, pump, and air compressor applications would be negatively impacted by higher operating speeds. DOE seeks additional information and analysis on projected impacts related to any increases in motor nominal speed. 2.8 LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSES DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for electric motors. The effect of new or amended energy conservation standards on individual consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and an increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following two metrics to measure consumer impacts: • The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the product. • The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost at higher The European motor study estimates, as a "worst case scenario," that up to 40 percent of consumers purchasing motors for replacement applications may not see any decrease or increase in energy use due to this impact and did not incorporate any change in energy use with increased speed. In addition, the European motor study also predicts that any energy use impact will be reduced over time because new motor driven equipment would be designed to take account of this change in speed. Therefore, the study did not incorporate this effect in the analysis (i.e., 0 percent of negatively impacted consumers). In the absence of additional data to estimate the percentage of consumers that may be negatively impacted in the compliance year, DOE relied on the mid-point value of 20 percent. o 2-57 efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect. For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the estimated efficiency distribution of electric motors in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for a given efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline product. For each considered efficiency level in each equipment class, DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of consumers. As previously stated in section 2.7.1, DOE developed a sample for consumers in the commercial, industrial, and agricultural sectors. For each sample consumer, DOE determined the energy consumption for the analyzed electric motor and the appropriate energy price. By developing a representative sample of consumers, the analysis captured the variability in energy consumption and energy prices associated with the use of electric motors. Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost of the equipment—which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, distributor and retailer markups, and sales taxes—and installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and maintenance costs, product lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE created distributions of values for equipment lifetime, discount rates, and sales taxes, with probabilities attached to each value, to account for their uncertainty and variability. The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC and PBP relies on a Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input values from the probability distributions and the electric motor consumer sample. The model calculated the LCC and PBP for equipment at each efficiency level for 10,000 consumers per simulation run. The analytical results include a distribution of 10,000 data points showing the range of LCC savings for a given efficiency level relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. In performing an iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation for a given consumer, equipment efficiency is chosen based on its probability. If the chosen equipment efficiency is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the standard level under consideration, the LCC and PBP calculation reveals that a consumer is not impacted by the standard level. By accounting for consumers who already purchase moreefficient equipment, DOE avoids overstating the potential benefits from increasing equipment efficiency. DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all consumers of electric motors as if each were to purchase a new electric motor in the expected year of required compliance with new or amended 2-58 standards. For purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2026 as the first year of compliance with any amended standards for electric motors. p Table 2.8.1 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8 of the TSD and its appendices. Similar to the energy use analysis, the LCC and PBP analyses were conducted for the representative units listed in Table 2.7.1. Table 2.8.1 Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis* Inputs Source/Method Derived by multiplying MSPs by manufacturer and distribution channel Equipment Cost markups and sales tax. Used a constant price trend to project equipment costs based on historical data. Installation Costs Assumed no change with efficiency level other than shipping costs. Motor input power multiplied by annual operating hours per year. Variability: Primarily based on site surveys from recent AMO-DOE Annual Energy Use study and information from the 2018 CBECS, 2018 MECS, 2015 RECS, and 2013 Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey. Electricity: Based on EEI Typical Bills and Average Rates reports for Energy Prices 2020. Variability: Regional energy prices Energy Price Trends Based on AEO2021 price projections. Repair and Assumed no change with efficiency level. Maintenance Costs Average: 6.7 to 30 years depending on the equipment class group and Equipment Lifetime horsepower considered Commercial, Industrial, Agriculture: Calculated as the weighted average cost of capital for entities purchasing electric motors. Primary data source was Damodaran Online Discount Rates Residential: approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase the considered appliance(s), or might be affected indirectly. Primary data source was the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances. Compliance Date 2026 * References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the TSD. In the May 2014 Final Rule, DOE was informed by the statutorily mandated rulemaking schedule (see 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)) in providing a two-year lead time between the finalized rule and required compliance. 79 FR 30934, 30944 (May 29, 2014). p 2-59 2.8.1 Equipment Cost To calculate consumer equipment costs, DOE multiplied the MSPs developed in the engineering analysis by the markups described previously (along with sales taxes). In addition, for electric motors regulated under 10 CFR 431.25, DOE updated the model used in the May 2014 Final Rule q to establish a relationship between MSP and horsepower and estimate the MSP of the additional representative units analyzed (i.e., units 9, 10, and 11). In this preliminary analysis, DOE assumed the real prices of electric motors would remain constant over time. 2.8.2 Installation Cost Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts needed to install the product. Based on information from the May 2014 Final Rule and installation cost data from RS Means Electrical Cost Data 2021, r DOE estimated that installation costs do not increase with equipment efficiency except in terms of shipping costs, which depend on the weight of the electric motor. To arrive at total installed costs, DOE included shipping costs as part of the installation costs for equipment classes for which these data were available. These shipping costs were based on weight data from the engineering analysis for the representative units. In addition, for electric motors regulated under 10 CFR 431.25, DOE updated the model used in the May 2014 Final Rule s to establish a relationship between weight and horsepower and estimate the weight of the additional representative units analyzed in the LCC (i.e., units 9, 10, and 11). DOE requests feedback and data on whether the installation costs at higher efficiency levels differ in comparison to the baseline installation costs for currently regulated electric motors, SNEMs, and AO electric motors. To the extent that these costs differ, DOE seeks supporting data and the reasons for those differences. DOE seeks data and information to help establish installation costs by efficiency level for each additional category of electric motor that may be considered in the expanded scope in the NOPR (i.e., electric motors above 500 horsepower; electric motors that are synchronous motors; submersible electric motors, and inverter-only electric motors). Specifically, at a given horsepower, DOE seeks information on how these installation costs may differ compared to the installation costs of a NEMA Design A or B motor at the baseline efficiency level. q DOE relied on the following model: 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀4,𝑒𝑒 (ℎ𝑝𝑝) = 𝑎𝑎 ∙ ℎ𝑝𝑝𝑏𝑏 where 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀4,𝑒𝑒 (ℎ𝑝𝑝) is the MSP of a 4-pole enclosed unit with horsepower hp, and a and b are parameters calibrated for each equipment class group/subgroup and EL. r RS Means. Electrical Cost Data, 44th Annual Edition, 2021. Rockland, MA. p. 321. s DOE relied on the following model: 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊ℎ𝑡𝑡4,𝑒𝑒 (ℎ𝑝𝑝) = 𝑎𝑎 ∙ ℎ𝑝𝑝𝑏𝑏 where 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊ℎ𝑡𝑡4,𝑒𝑒 (ℎ𝑝𝑝) is the weight of a 4-pole enclosed unit with horsepower hp, and a and b are parameters calibrated for each equipment class group/subgroup and EL. 2-60 2.8.3 Annual Energy Consumption For each sampled consumer, DOE determined the energy consumption of an electric motor at different efficiency levels using the approach previously described in section 2.7. 2.8.4 Energy Prices Because the marginal electricity price more accurately captures the incremental savings associated with a change in energy use from higher efficiency, it provides a better representation of incremental change in consumer costs than average electricity prices. Therefore, DOE applied average electricity prices for the energy use of the equipment purchased in the no-new-standards case, and marginal electricity prices for the incremental change in energy use associated with the other efficiency levels considered. DOE derived average and marginal annual electricity prices in 2020 by sector using data from EEI Typical Bills and Average Rates reports 19 and the methodology provided in a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report. 20 DOE's methodology allows electricity prices to vary by sector, region, and season. In the analysis, variability in electricity prices is chosen to be consistent with the way the consumer economic and energy use characteristics are defined in the LCC and PBP analyses. For the agricultural sector, DOE relied on the industrial prices. See chapter 8 of the TSD for details. To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the 2020 energy prices by the projection of annual average price changes by sector from the Reference case in AEO 2021. 21 AEO 2021 has an end year of 2050 and DOE assumed a flat rate of change in prices from 2050. 2.8.5 Maintenance and Repair Costs Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing equipment components that have failed in an appliance; maintenance costs are associated with maintaining the operation of the product. Typically, small incremental increases in equipment efficiency produce no, or only minor, changes in repair and maintenance costs compared to baseline efficiency products. DOE defined motor repair as including rewinding and reconditioning. DOE estimated repair costs as a function of efficiency based on data from Vaughen’s National Average Prices. 22 Based on these data, DOE estimated the repair costs for baseline electric motors, and used a 15 percent repair cost increase per NEMA efficiency band increase. In addition, based on the May 2014 Final Rule and DOE AMO Premium Motor Selection and Application Guide, 23 DOE considered that electric motors at or below 20 horsepower are not repaired. DOE also assumed that electric motors with a horsepower greater than 20 and less than or equal to 100 horsepower are repaired once over their lifetime, while electric motors with a horsepower greater than 100 and less than or equal to 500 are repaired twice over their lifetime. As in the May 2014 Final Rule, DOE did not consider any repairs for fire pump electric motors due to their low operating hours. As in the May 2014 Final Rule, DOE also assumed that all electric motors above 20 horsepower would be repaired at least one, regardless of the sampled lifetime. For SNEMs and 2-61 AO electric motors, DOE included repair costs for units with a horsepower greater than 20 horsepower. NEMA commented that definite-or special-purpose electric motors have higher repairrates than general purpose electric motors. (NEMA, No. 4 at p. 9) NEMA did not provide additional data to estimate the repair rates for these motors and differentiate between definite-or special-purpose electric motors and general-purpose motors. In the preliminary analysis, DOE used an average repair frequency by horsepower range, for all electric motors (except for fire pump electric motors, which are not repaired). For the maintenance costs, DOE did not find data indicating a variation in maintenance costs between baseline efficiency and higher efficiency motors. The cost of replacing bearings, which is the most common maintenance practice, is constant across efficiency levels. DOE seeks comment and data regarding the repair costs (by efficiency level) for the electric motors analyzed. DOE also seeks comment and data on the repair frequency assumptions used in the LCC and PBP analyses. Among the issues of interest to DOE is whether DOE’s analysis should continue to assume that all electric motors between 21 and 100 horsepower are repaired once during their lifetime, or if the analysis should treat some electric motors with shorter lifetimes as not being repaired (e.g., electric motors with sampled lifetimes that are lower than half the average motor lifetime). Similarly, DOE requests comment on whether its analysis should continue to assume that all electric motors between 101 and 500 horsepower are repaired twice during their lifetime, or to treat some electric motors with shorter lifetimes as not being repaired (e.g., electric motors with sampled lifetimes that are lower than a third of the average motor lifetime). DOE requests feedback and data on whether maintenance costs at higher efficiency levels differ in comparison to the baseline maintenance costs for any of the representative units analyzed. To the extent that these costs differ, DOE seeks supporting data and the reasons for those differences. DOE seeks data and information to help establish repair and maintenance costs by efficiency level for each additional category of electric motor that may be considered in the expanded scope in the NOPR (i.e., electric motors above 500 horsepower; electric motors that are synchronous motors; submersible electric motors, and inverter-only electric motors). Specifically, DOE seeks information on how these repair and maintenance costs may differ compared to the maintenance costs of a NEMA Design A or B motor at the baseline efficiency level at a given horsepower. 2.8.6 Equipment Lifetime For electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25, DOE estimated the average mechanical lifetime of electric motors (i.e., the total number of hours an electric motor operates throughout 2-62 its lifetime) and used different values depending on the electric motor's horsepower. In the May 2020 Early Assessment RFI, DOE presented the methodology and information used in the previous rulemaking to develop electric motors lifetimes. DOE requested input on the appropriate lifetimes for electric motors. 85 FR 30878, 30887. DOE did not receive any comments on this topic. For NEMA Design A, B, and C electric motors, and AO EMs, DOE established sector-specific motor lifetime estimates to account for differences in maintenance practices and field usage conditions. For electric motors used in the industrial sector, DOE used data from an industrial expert provided during the May 2014 Final Rule to establish estimates of average mechanical lifetimes by horsepower range. 24 For NEMA Design A, B, and NEMA Design C electric motors used in the agricultural and commercial and sectors, and for fire pump electric motors, DOE calculated the average mechanical lifetimes by multiplying the average motor lifetimes (in years) as established in the May 2014 Final Rule by the average annual operating hours as established in the energy use analysis. In addition, DOE applied a maximum lifetime of 30 years as used in the May 2014 Final Rule. For SNEMs and AO SNEMs, DOE used mechanical lifetime estimates based on the January 2020 Final Determination analysis (See chapter 8 of the January 2021 Final Determination Technical Support Document for small electric motors) and on information from DOE’s Advanced Manufacturing Office, 25 Both sources estimate average mechanical lifetimes at 30,000 hours for single-phase, CSCR motors and 40,000 hours for polyphase motors. In addition, when estimating the minimum mechanical lifetime for SNEMs, based on the January 2020 Final Determination analysis, DOE assumed single-phase motors would not suffer mechanical failure until they have run at least 15,000 hours, and polyphase motors until 20,000 hours. To estimate the maximum mechanical lifetime, DOE assumed that the mean value is centered between the minimum and maximum value. DOE then developed Weibull distributions of mechanical lifetimes. The lifetime in years for a sampled electric motor is calculated by dividing the sampled mechanical lifetime by the sampled annual operating hours of the electric motor. This model produces a negative correlation between annual hours of operation and electric motor lifetime. Electric motors operated many hours per year are likely to be retired sooner than electric motors that are used for only a few hundred hours per year. DOE considered that electric motors of less than or equal to 75 horsepower are most likely to be embedded in a piece of equipment (i.e., an application). For such applications, DOE developed Weibull distributions of application lifetimes expressed in years and compared the sampled motor mechanical lifetime (in years) with the sampled application lifetime. DOE assumed that the electric motor would be retired at the earlier of the two ages. DOE requests comments on the equipment lifetimes (both in years and in mechanical hours) used for each representative unit considered in the LCC and PBP analyses. DOE seeks data and information to help establish equipment lifetimes (either in years or in mechanical hours) for each additional category of electric motor that may considered in the 2-63 NOPR. To the extent that these lifetimes differ by horsepower or sector, DOE seeks supporting data to characterize these differences. 2.8.7 Discount Rates When calculating LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate to consumers in the residential, industrial, commercial, and agricultural sectors to estimate the present value of future operating costs. As part of its analysis, DOE also applies weighted average discount rates calculated from consumer debt and asset data, rather than marginal or implicit discount rates. t The LCC analysis estimates net present value over the lifetime of the equipment, so the appropriate discount rate will reflect the general opportunity cost of household funds, taking this time scale into account. Given the long time horizon modeled in the LCC analysis, the application of a marginal interest rate associated with an initial source of funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the method of purchase, consumers are expected to continue to rebalance their debt and asset holdings over the LCC analysis period, based on the restrictions consumers face in their debt payment requirements and the relative size of the interest rates available on debts and assets. DOE estimates the aggregate impact of this rebalancing using the historical distribution of debts and assets. To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE identified all relevant household debt or asset classes in order to approximate a consumer’s opportunity cost of funds related to appliance energy cost savings. It estimated the average percentage shares of the various types of debt and equity by household income group using data from the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances u (“SCF”) for 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2016. Using the SCF and other sources, DOE developed a distribution of rates for each type of debt and asset by income group to represent the rates that may apply in the year in which amended standards would take effect. For the commercial, industrial, and agricultural sectors, DOE derived these discount rates by estimating the cost of capital for companies or public entities that purchase electric motors. For private firms, the weighted average cost of capital is commonly used to estimate the present value of cash flows to be derived from a typical company project or investment. Most companies use both debt and equity capital to fund investments, so their cost of capital is the weighted average of the cost to the firm of equity and debt financing. As discount rates can differ across industries, DOE estimates separate discount rate distributions for a number of aggregate sectors with which elements of the LCC consumer sample can be The implicit discount rate is inferred from a consumer purchase decision between two otherwise identical goods with different first cost and operating cost. It is the interest rate that equates the increment of first cost to the difference in net present value of lifetime operating cost, incorporating the influence of several factors: transaction costs; risk premiums and response to uncertainty; time preferences; and interest rates at which a consumer is able to borrow or lend. u Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Survey of Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2016. Available at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scfindex.htm. t 2-64 associated. Damodaran Online, the primary source of data for this analysis, is a widely used source of information about debt and equity financing for most types of firms 26. See chapter 8 of the TSD for further details on the development of discount rates. 2.8.8 Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be affected by a potential energy conservation standard at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s LCC analysis considered the projected distribution (market shares) of product efficiencies under the no-new-standards case (i.e., the case without amended or new energy conservation standards). The CA IOUs commented that changes to the motor market warranted updates to the efficiency distributions as established in the previous rulemaking. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 2) To estimate the energy efficiency distribution of electric motors for 2026, DOE relied on model counts by efficiency from the 2016 and 2020 Manufacturer Catalog Data and assumed no changes in electric motor efficiency over time. The estimated market shares for the no-newstandards case for electric motors are shown in Table 2.8.2 by equipment class group and horsepower range. See chapter 8 of the TSD for further information on the derivation of the efficiency distributions. Table 2.8.2 No-New Standards Case Efficiency Distributions in the Compliance Year for Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation Standards at 10 CFR 431.25 Equipment Class Group Horsepower Range 1 to 5 6 to 50 51 to 100 NEMA Design A and B 101 to 200 201 to 500 1 to 20 21 to 100 NEMA Design C 101 to 200 1 to 5 6 to 50 Fire Pump Electric Motor 51 to 500 * May not sum to 100% due to rounding 2-65 EL0 84.8% 83.2% 77.8% 77.4% 84.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 95.8% 100.0% EL1 9.1% 10.4% 13.1% 12.8% 13.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.2% 0.0% EL2 4.1% 5.4% 7.1% 9.3% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% EL3 1.3% 0.9% 1.7% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% EL4 0.7% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Table 2.8.3 No-New Standards Case Efficiency Distributions in the Compliance Year for SNEMs Horsepower Range Equipment (includes all enclosures and EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 Class Group poles unless specified otherwise) 0.25 to 0.75 (open) 34.3% 60.0% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.76 to 1.5 (open) 34.3% 60.0% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% SNEM SingleAbove 1.5 (open) 34.3% 60.0% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% Phase 0.25 to 0.75 (enclosed) 48.7% 45.9% 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% (High LRT) 0.76 to 1.5 (enclosed) 48.7% 45.9% 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% Above 1.5 (enclosed) 48.7% 45.9% 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% SNEM SinglePhase 0.25 and Above 29.2% 18.8% 52.1% 0.0% 0.0% (Medium LRT) SNEM Single0.25 to 0.33 39.4% 28.1% 10.8% 21.6% 0.0% Phase 0.34 to 5 46.4% 0.0% 17.9% 35.7% 0.0% (Low LRT) 0.25 to 0.33 33.8% 19.8% 16.2% 19.9% 10.3% SNEM 0.34 to 0.5 33.8% 19.8% 16.2% 19.9% 10.3% Polyphase Above 0.5 33.8% 19.8% 16.2% 19.9% 10.3% * May not sum to 100% due to rounding Table 2.8.4 No-New Standards Case Efficiency Distributions in the Compliance Year for AO Electric Motors Horsepower Range Equipment (includes all enclosures and EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 Class Group poles unless specified otherwise) 0.25 to 0.75 (open) 34.3% 60.0% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.76 to 1.5 (open) 34.3% 60.0% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% AO-SNEM Above 1.5 (open) 34.3% 60.0% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% Single-Phase (High LRT) 0.25 to 0.75 (enclosed) 48.7% 45.9% 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.76 to 1.5 (enclosed) 48.7% 45.9% 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% Above 1.5 (enclosed) 48.7% 45.9% 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% AO-SNEM Single-Phase 0.25 and Above 29.2% 18.8% 52.1% 0.0% 0.0% (Medium LRT) AO-SNEM 0.25 to 0.33 9.2% 54.5% 18.2% 18.2% 0.0% Single-Phase (Low LRT) 0.34 to 5 64.9% 0.0% 17.5% 17.5% 0.0% AO-SNEM Polyphase 0.25 to 0.33 0.34 to 0.5 64.3% 64.3% 2-66 7.1% 7.1% 23.2% 23.2% 5.4% 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% Equipment Class Group AO-MEM Polyphase Horsepower Range (includes all enclosures and poles unless specified otherwise) Above 0.5 1 to 20 21 to 50 51 to 500 * May not sum to 100% due to rounding EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 64.3% 87.8% 87.8% 87.8% 7.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 23.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 0.0% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% DOE requests comments on the efficiency distribution in the no-new standards case for currently regulated electric motors, SNEMs, and AO electric motors. DOE seeks information and data to help establish efficiency distribution in the no-new standards case for each additional electric motors category that may be considered in the NOPR expanded scope and by horsepower. DOE requests data and information on any trends in the electric motor market that could be used to forecast expected trends in market share by efficiency levels for each equipment class (for both currently regulated electric motors, SNEMs, AO electric motors, and electric motors that DOE may consider in the NOPR expanded scope). If disaggregated data are not available at the equipment class level, DOE requests aggregated data at the equipment class group level. 2.8.9 Payback Period Analysis The payback period is the amount of time it takes the consumer to recover the additional installed cost of more-efficient equipment, compared to baseline equipment, through energy cost savings. Payback periods are expressed in years. Payback periods that exceed the life of the product mean that the increased total installed cost is not recovered in reduced operating expenses. The inputs to the PBP calculation for each efficiency level are the change in total installed cost of the equipment and the change in the first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline. The PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, except that discount rates are not needed. As noted previously, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing equipment complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the first year’s energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered efficiency level, DOE determined the value of the first year’s energy savings by calculating the energy savings in accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure and 2-67 multiplying those savings by the average energy price projection for the year in which compliance with the amended standards would be required. 2.9 SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS DOE uses projections of annual equipment shipments to calculate the national impacts of potential amended or new energy conservation standards on energy use, net present value of benefits (“NPV”), and future manufacturer cash flows. v The shipments model takes an accounting approach, tracking market shares of each equipment class and the vintage of units in the stock. Stock accounting uses equipment shipments as inputs to estimate the age distribution of in-service equipment stocks for all years. The age distribution of in-service equipment stocks is a key input to calculations of both the National Energy Savings (“NES”) and NPV, because operating costs for any year depend on the age distribution of the stock. In the May 2020 Early Assessment RFI, DOE presented the methodology used for estimating shipments during the previous rulemaking. 85 FR 30878, 30888. DOE requested data and input on sales data and on the rate at which annual sales of electric motors is expected to change in the next 5 -10 years. DOE did not receive any data on electric motor shipments. DOE estimated the shipments of electric motors regulated under 10 CFR 431.25 to be approximately 4.5 million units in 2020 based on data from the 2019 Low-Voltage Motors, World Market Report, and on the share of low-voltage motors that are subject to the electric motors energy conservation standards. DOE estimated the total shipments of SNEMs and AO electric motors in 2020 to be 20.6 million units, and 8.2 million units respectively. (See Table 2.9.1) For electric motors regulated under 10 CFR 431.25, DOE developed a distribution of shipments by equipment class group, horsepower, enclosure, and poles based on data from manufacturer interviews. For SNEMs and AO electric motors, DOE relied on model counts from the 2020 and 2016/2020 Manufacturer Catalog Data. DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as a proxy for national sales, as aggregate data on sales are lacking. In general, one would expect a close correspondence between shipments and sales. v 2-68 Table 2.9.1 SNEMs and AO Electric Motors Shipments in 2020 Category Sub-Category AO-SNEM Single Phase AO-SNEM Polyphase AO Electric Motor* AO-MEM Polyphase High Torque - Capacitor-Start Capacitor-Run and Capacitor-Run Induction-Run Medium Torque - Split Phase SNEMs** Low Torque - Permanent Split Capacitor (PSC) Low Torque - Shaded Pole Polyphase Units 7,890,000 100,000 240,000 3,940,000 3,940,000 10,830,000 980,000 920,000 Estimated assuming air-over electric motors represent 25% of all single-phase motors and 5 percent of all polyphase motors. ** Estimated assuming non-regulated polyphase and capacitor start motors (CS) are equal to shipments of polyphase and CS small electric motors subject to standards at 10 CFR 430.446, and based on the following market shares of non-regulated single-phase motors: 20 percent (split phase); 20 percent (CS); 55 percent (PSC); 5 percent (shaded pole). These market shares exclude small electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.446. DOE estimated the total shipments of single phase small electric motors subject to standards at 10 CFR 430.446 in 2020 to 3.9 million. See Small Electric Motors Final Rule Analytical Spreadsheets: Small Capacitor-Start Electric Motors National Impact Analysis Spreadsheet available at: regulations.gov/document/EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007-0055 * For electric motors currently subject to energy conservation standards which are primarily used in the industry and commercial sectors, DOE projected shipments in the no-new standards case under the assumption that long-term growth of electric motor shipments will be driven by long-term growth of fixed investments. w DOE relied on the AEO 2021 forecast of fixed investments through 2050 to inform its shipments projection. For the years beyond 2050, DOE assumed that fixed investment growth will follow the same growth trend as GDP, which DOE projected for years after 2050 based on the GDP forecast provided by AEO 2021. For SNEM and AO electric motors, which are typically lower horsepower motors, DOE used the same methodology as in the March 2010 Final Rule 27 and projected shipments using the following sector-specific market drivers from AEO 2021: commercial building floor space, housing numbers, and value of manufacturing activity for the commercial, residential, and industrial sector, respectively. DOE estimated shipments for each equipment class group and horsepower range based on equipment class group/horsepower range market shares using information gleaned from manufacturer interviews and 2020 and 2016 Manufacturer Catalog data model counts. Table 2.9.2 through Table 2.9.4 presents DOE’s projections of shipments by equipment class group and horsepower range for selected years of the analysis period. The projections refer to estimates that DOE developed using the forecast in the AEO 2021 Reference case. In addition w Fixed investments represent the accumulation of physical assets including machinery and buildings. 2-69 to these projections, DOE projected shipments using the High-Economic Growth and LowEconomic Growth cases in AEO 2021. See chapter 9 of the TSD. Table 2.9.2 Shipment Projections for Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation Standards at 10 CFR 431.25 Shipments Projection (thousand Horsepower Range Equipment units) (all poles and Class Group enclosures) 2026 2036 2046 2055 1 to 5 2922 3917 5083 6217 6 to 20 1840 2467 3200 3915 NEMA Design A 21 to 50 555 744 965 1181 and B Electric 51 to 100 187 250 325 397 Motor 101 to 200 91 122 159 194 201 to 500 43 57 74 91 1 to 20 25 34 44 53 NEMA Design C 21 to 100 3.5 4.7 6.1 7.4 Electric Motor 101 to 200 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 1 to 5 1.5 2.0 2.6 3.1 Fire Pump 6 to 50 16 21 27 33 Electric Motor 51 to 500 14 19 24 30 Table 2.9.3 Shipment Projections for SNEMs Horsepower Range Equipment Class (all poles and enclosures unless Group specified otherwise) 0.25 to 0.75 (open) 0.76 to 1.5 (open) Above 1.5 HP (open) Single-Phase (High LRT) 0.25 to 0.75 (enclosed) 0.76 to 1.5 (enclosed) Above 1.5 (enclosed) Single-Phase At and above 0.25 (Medium LRT) 0.25 to 0.33 Single-Phase (Low LRT) Above 0.33 0.25 to 0.33 Polyphase 0.34 to 0.5 Above 0.5 2-70 Shipments Projection (thousand units) 2026 2036 2046 2055 253 285 321 341 317 356 402 426 771 866 978 1038 1248 1401 1583 1679 845 950 1073 1138 909 1021 1153 1223 4343 4879 5510 5845 2752 10266 247 280 487 3092 11532 277 314 548 3492 13025 313 355 618 3704 13816 332 377 656 Table 2.9.4 Shipment Projections for AO Electric Motors Shipments Projection Horsepower Range Equipment Class (thousand units) (all poles and enclosures Group unless specified otherwise) 2026 2036 2046 2055 0.25 to 0.75 (open) 29 33 37 43 0.76 to 1.5 (open) 29 33 37 43 Above 1.5 HP (open) 265 297 335 390 AO-SNEM - SinglePhase (High LRT) 0.25 to 0.75 (enclosed) 118 132 149 174 0.76 to 1.5 (enclosed) 383 429 485 564 Above 1.5 (enclosed) 235 264 298 347 AO-SNEM - SingleAt and above 0.25 618 694 783 911 Phase (Medium LRT) 0.25 to 0.33 3856 4328 4882 5683 AO-SNEM - SinglePhase (Low LRT) Above 0.33 3149 3535 3988 4642 0.25 to 0.33 13 14 16 19 AO-SNEM - Polyphase 0.34 to 0.5 18 21 23 27 Above 0.5 79 89 100 117 1 to 20 193 216 244 284 AO-MEM - Polyphase 21 to 50 64 72 81 95 51 to 500 7 8 9 11 NEEA suggested that many manufacturers market advanced technology motors as direct replacements for single-speed squirrel cage induction motors. NEEA stated that consumers may choose these motor technologies over induction motors for their efficiency, variable-speed capabilities, and unique benefits. NEEA commented that DOE should account for this expected market shift to advanced motor technologies in their electric motors analysis. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 4) The Efficiency Advocates commented that changes in the relative purchase price resulting from potential new standards will cause some buyers to switch from induction motors to advanced motors. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 9 at p. 5) The CA IOUs commented that IE4 motors are capable of displacing conventional NEMA general purpose motors (i.e., Design B) motors in core general purpose motor applications. They stated that modern motor architectures and conventional induction motors are competing in the same space, and therefore, should be analyzed together, and joint coverage may be warranted. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 10) The CA IOUs also presented a table of the annual growth rates for each of the expanded motor types, which showed continued market growth rates for all expanded scope motors. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 10) In each standard case, DOE accounted for the possibility that some consumers may choose to purchase a synchronous electric motor (out of scope of this preliminary analysis) rather than a more efficient NEMA Design A or B electric motor. DOE developed a consumer choice model to estimate the percentage of consumers that would purchase a synchronous electric motor based on the payback period of such investment. Table 2.9.5 presents DOE’s estimates of the 2-71 percentages of consumers that would purchase a synchronous electric motor instead of a NEMA Design A or B electric motor for the horsepower ranges that DOE believes these purchase substitutions may occur. Table 2.9.5 Percentage of Consumers Purchasing Synchronous Electric Motors in each Standards Case Horsepower Range Standard Case Equipment (all poles and Class Group EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 enclosures) 1 to 5 2.3% 2.6% 3.2% 5.8% NEMA Design A and B Electric 6 to 50 6.6% 7.3% 9.8% 10.5% Motor 51 to 100 2.9% 5.0% 6.7% 7.7% Chapter 9 of the final rule TSD provides a detailed description of the shipments analysis. DOE further developed initial estimates of the shipments of different categories of electric motors that DOE may potentially consider in the expanded scope as described in section 2.2.3. See Table 2.9.6. Table 2.9.6 Initial Expanded Scope Shipments Estimates for 2020 Category Sub-Category Single Phase * Submersible Electric Motor Polyphase Electric Motors greater than 500 hp*** Synchronous Electric Motors† Polyphase Line Start Permanent Magnet Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motors Switched Reluctance Synchronous Reluctance Electronically Commutated Motors (ECM) Units 170,000 50,000 50,000 2,000,000 Based on 120,000 units of submersible motors in clean water pumps and assuming these represent approximately 70% of the total submersible motor market. ** Estimated assuming these represent 1% of currently regulated electric motors at 10 CFR 431.25. † ECM shipments based on 2013 DOE study ( "Energy Savings Potential and Opportunities for High-Efficiency Electric Motors in Residential and Commercial Equipment") and other synchronous motor shipments estimated assuming these represent 1% of currently regulated electric motors. * 2-72 Chapter 9 of the TSD provides a detailed description of the shipments analysis. DOE requests comment and additional data on its 2020 shipments estimates for electric motors currently regulated under 10 CFR 431.25, SNEMs, and AO electric motors. DOE seeks comment on the methodology used to project future shipments of electric motors. DOE seeks information on other data sources that can be used to estimate future shipments. For this analysis, DOE assumed that the fraction of shipments in each equipment class group and horsepower range do not change over time. DOE requests information and additional data on whether there is an expected shift from one horsepower range to another over time. In addition, DOE requests comments on whether establishing different potential standards by horsepower would result in a shift from one horsepower range to another over time. DOE requests 2020 (or the most recently available) shipments data for each additional category of electric motors that may be considered in the NOPR expanded scope by horsepower and sector (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial, and agriculture). Specifically, DOE requests feedback on its shipments estimates presented in Table 2.9.6. In addition, DOE requests information on the rate at which annual shipments of electric motors considered in the expanded scope is expected to change in the next 5-10 years. If possible, DOE requests this information by electric motor category. DOE requests comment on the methodology used to analyze the potential market shift from NEMA Design A and B electric motors to unregulated synchronous electric motor in the standards case. 2.10 NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS The national impact analysis assesses the aggregate impacts at the national level of potential energy conservation standards for each of the considered equipment class groups, as measured by the NPV of total consumer economic impacts and the NES. DOE determined the NPV and NES for the efficiency levels considered for each of the equipment class groups analyzed (disaggregated by horsepower ranges). To make the analysis more accessible and transparent to all interested parties, DOE prepared a model to forecast NES and the national consumer economic costs and savings resulting from the amended standards. The model uses typical values as inputs (as opposed to probability distributions). To assess the effect of input uncertainty on NES and NPV results, DOE may conduct sensitivity analyses by running scenarios on specific input variables. Chapter 10 of this TSD provides additional details regarding the national impact analysis. Several of the inputs for determining NES and NPV depend on the forecast trends in equipment energy efficiency. For the base case (which presumes no amended standards), DOE uses the efficiency distributions developed for the LCC analysis and assumes no change over the forecast period. In this analysis, DOE has used a roll-up scenario in developing its forecasts of efficiency trends after standards take effect. Under a roll-up scenario, all equipment performing 2-73 at levels below a prospective standard are moved, or rolled-up, to the minimum performance level allowed under the standard. The share of equipment efficiencies above the standard level under consideration would remain the same as before the amended standard takes effect. In its analysis, DOE analyzes the energy and economic impacts of a potential standard on all equipment classes aggregated by horsepower range. (See Table 2.40) For electric motors regulated under 10 CFR 431.25, inputs for non-representative equipment classes (i.e., those not analyzed in the engineering, energy-use, and LCC analyses) are scaled using results for the analyzed representative equipment classes. For example, results from representative unit 1 (NEMA Design A and B electric motors, 5-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed) are scaled to represent all NEMA Design A and B electric motor equipment classes between 1 and 5 horsepower. Scaled energy use values were calculated by applying the ratio of the current federal standard baseline between the representative and non-representative equipment classes and multiplying by the ratio of horsepower and assuming the incremental decrease between efficiency levels is the same for representative and non-representative equipment classes. Scaled retail price and installation costs (i.e., shipping costs) at EL0 were estimated using price and weight data obtained from 2020 Manufacturer Catalog Data and outputs from the engineering analysis, and assuming the incremental cost between efficiency levels is the same for representative and nonrepresentative equipment classes. Repair costs for each non-represented equipment class were estimated based on information from Vaughen's National Average Prices. For each equipment class group and horsepower range analyzed in the NIA, DOE then developed shipment-weighted average inputs per unit. For SNEMs and AO electric motors, DOE did not scale the results of the representative units due to the smaller size of horsepower ranges associated for each representative unit, and lower shipments of motors at larger horsepower ratings. Table 2.10.1 Representative Units and Horsepower Range Analyzed Equipment Class Representative Horsepower (4-pole, Horsepower Range (all Group Unit enclosed) poles and enclosures) 1 5 1 to 5 2 30 6 to 20 NEMA Design A 2 30 21 to 50 and B Electric 3 75 51 to 100 Motor 9 150 101 to 200 10 250 201 to 500 4 5 1 to 20 NEMA Design C 5 50 21 to 100 Electric Motor 11 150 101 to 200 6 5 1 to 5 Fire Pump 7 30 6 to 50 Electric Motor 8 75 51 to 500 2-74 DOE requests comment on its approach for estimating the energy-use and cost of nonrepresentative equipment classes of electric motors regulated under 10 CFR 431.25. 2.10.1 National Energy Savings The inputs for determining the NES for the equipment analyzed are: (1) average annual energy consumption per unit; (2) shipments; (3) equipment stock; (4) national site energy consumption; and (5) site-to-primary energy conversion factors and FFC conversion factors. DOE calculated the national site energy consumption by multiplying the number of units, or stock, of the equipment (by vintage, or age) by the unit energy consumption (also by vintage). DOE calculated annual NES based on the difference in national energy consumption for the base case (without new efficiency standards) and for each higher efficiency standard. Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the NES for each year. Use of higher-efficiency equipment is occasionally associated with a direct rebound effect, which refers to an increase in utilization of the equipment due to the increase in efficiency. DOE did not find any data on the rebound effect specific to electric motors and did not apply a rebound effect in the calculation of the NES. For electric motors regulated under 10 CFR 431.25, DOE examined each equipment class group and horsepower range and calculated the shipments-weighted average annual energy consumption per unit (at each EL) based on (1) the market share of each equipment class included in the range and (2) the estimated average annual energy consumption per unit of each equipment class. Within each range, the inputs to the energy use calculation (i.e., operating hours, load) are assumed to be constant. DOE calculated the average annual energy consumption per unit of each non-representative equipment class by multiplying the average annual energy consumption of the associated representative unit by a scaling factor. x For SNEMs and AO electric motors, DOE did not scale the results of the representative units due to the smaller size of horsepower ranges associated for each representative unit, and lower shipments of motors at larger horsepower ratings. Instead, for each equipment class group and horsepower range analyzed, DOE directly applied the results of the associated representative unit. In the standard case, as the price of NEMA Design A and B increases with higher efficiency levels and the difference in price with more synchronous electric motors decreases, DOE assumed a fraction of consumers would choose synchronous electric motors rather than purchase NEMA Design A and B motors (See section 2.9). DOE calculated the average annual Where the scaling factor is equal to the ratio of the current federal standard baseline between the representative and non-representative equipment classes multiplied by the ratio of horsepower. Note: The annual energy consumption of an electric motor is calculated as the motor horsepower multiplied by the motor operating load and operating hours divided by the motor's efficiency. The energy use of two motors operating at the same load and for the same number of hours is proportional to the ratio of horsepower and efficiency. x 2-75 energy consumption for these consumers by multiplying the shipments-weighted average annual energy consumption per unit at EL0 by the ratio of the nominal full-load efficiency at EL0 divided by the full-load efficiency of the synchronous electric motor. DOE also accounted for the energy use reduction associated with using synchronous electric motors that incorporate speed controls. DOE requests comment and data regarding the potential increase in utilization of electric motors due to any increase in efficiency. 2.10.2 Net Present Value of Consumer Benefit The inputs for determining NPV of the total costs and benefits experienced by consumers of the considered equipment are: (1) total annual installed costs; (2) total annual savings in operating costs; and (3) a discount factor. DOE calculated net savings in each year as the difference between the base case and each standards case in total savings in operating costs and total increases in installed costs. DOE calculated savings over the life of the equipment shipped in 2026-2055. The NPV is the difference between the present value of operating cost savings and the present value of total installed costs. DOE used a discount factor based on real discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent to discount future costs and savings to present values. DOE calculated increases in total installed costs as the product of the difference in total installed cost between the base case and standards case (i.e., once the standards take effect). DOE expressed savings in operating costs as decreases associated with the lower energy consumption of equipment bought in the standards case compared to the base efficiency case. Total savings in operating costs are the product of savings per unit and the number of units of each vintage that survive in a given year. For currently regulated electric motors, for each equipment class group and horsepower range analyzed, DOE calculated the average total annual installed cost and total annual savings in operating costs using the shipments-weighted average price, shipments-weighted average installation costs, and shipments-weighted average repair costs of all electric motor equipment classes included in the considered range. DOE calculated the shipments-weighted average price per unit based on the market share of each equipment class included in the range, and on the estimated average price per unit of each equipment class. Similarly, DOE calculated the shipments-weighted average installation costs per unit based on the market share of each equipment class included in the range, and on the estimated installation costs per unit of each equipment class. In addition, for each equipment class group and horsepower range analyzed, DOE calculated the shipments-weighted repair costs per unit based on the market share of each equipment class included in the range and on the estimated repair costs per unit of each equipment class. For SNEMs and AO electric motors, for each equipment class group and horsepower range analyzed, DOE used the results of the associated representative unit. 2-76 In response to the May 2020 Early Assessment RFI, regarding already-regulated motors, Lennox commented that DOE must not promulgate any tightened standards that are not economically justified, and DOE should exercise caution when considering such standards. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 2) DOE is not establishing energy conservation standards in this preliminary analysis. Under EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) DOE is publishing this Preliminary Analysis to collect data and information to inform its decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA. 2.11 PRELIMINARY MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS DOE performed a preliminary manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) (chapter 12 of the TSD) to estimate the financial impact of amended energy conservation standards on electric motor manufacturers, and to calculate the impact of such standards on employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA has both quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative part of the MIA relies on the Government Regulatory Impact Model (“GRIM”), an industrycash-flow model customized for these three industries. The GRIM inputs are information on the industry cost structure, shipments, and revenues. This includes information from many of the analyses described above, such as manufacturing costs and prices from the engineering analysis and shipments forecasts. The key GRIM output is the industry net present value (INPV). Different sets of assumptions (scenarios) will produce different results. The qualitative part of the MIA addresses (or assesses as appropriate) factors such as equipment characteristics, characteristics of particular firms, market and equipment trends, and the impacts of standards on manufacturer subgroups. DOE conducts each MIA in three phases and will further tailor the analytical framework for each MIA based on comments from interested parties. In Phase I, DOE creates an industry profile to characterize the industry and identify important issues that require consideration. In Phase II, DOE prepares an industry cash-flow model and interview questionnaire to guide subsequent discussions. In Phase III, DOE interviews manufacturers and assesses the impacts of standards quantitatively and qualitatively. DOE assesses industry and subgroup cash flow and NPV using the GRIM. DOE then assesses impacts on competition, manufacturing capacity, employment, and regulatory burden based on manufacturer interview feedback and discussions. DOE has evaluated and is reporting preliminary MIA information in this preliminary analysis (see chapter 12 of the preliminary TSD). As part of the NOPR, DOE will seek comments from manufacturers about their potential loss of market share, changes in the efficiency distribution within each industry, and the total reduction in equipment shipments at each new energy conservation standard level. DOE will 2-77 then estimate the impacts on the industry quantitatively and qualitatively. The following is an overview of the information DOE intends to collect and analyze. 2.11.1 Industry Cash-Flow Analysis The industry cash-flow analysis relies primarily on the GRIM. DOE uses the GRIM to analyze the financial impacts of more stringent energy conservation standards on the industry that produces the equipment covered by the standard. The GRIM analysis uses many factors to determine annual cash flows from a new standard: annual expected revenues; manufacturer costs, including cost of goods sold, depreciation, research, and development, selling, general, and administrative expenses; taxes; and conversion capital expenditures. DOE compares the results from this analysis against no-standards case projections that involve no new standards. The financial impact of new standards is the difference between the two sets of discounted annual cash flows. Other performance metrics, such as return on invested capital, are available from the GRIM. For more information on the industry cash-flow analysis, refer to chapter 12 of the TSD. In the May 2020 Early Assessment RFI, NEMA commented that NEMA members experienced higher than forecast requirements for resources and time to adapt products to the current energy conservation standards adopted by DOE in the May 2014 Final Rule. NEMA commented that, if DOE decides to revise its standards, DOE should revisit its analyses for product and capital conversion costs, increase in equipment repair, enforcement, and cumulative regulatory burden. (NEMA, No. 4 at p. 3) As described in section 2.11, DOE will invite manufacturers of electric motors to provide input regarding the issues cited by NEMA as well as any others in forming an accurate model of financial impacts to their business on account of potential amended standards for electric motors. 2.11.2 Manufacturer Subgroup Analysis Industry cost estimates may not be adequate to assess differential impacts among subgroups of manufacturers. For example, small and niche manufacturers, or manufacturers whose cost structure differs significantly from the industry average, could be more negatively affected by the imposition of standards. Ideally, DOE would consider the impact on every firm individually; however, since this usually is not possible, DOE typically uses the results of the industry characterization to group manufacturers exhibiting similar characteristics. 2.11.3 Competitive Impacts Assessment DOE must consider whether a new standard is likely to reduce industry competition, and the Attorney General must determine the impacts, if any, of reduced competition. DOE will make a determined effort to gather and report firm-specific financial information and impacts. The competitive impacts assessment will focus on assessing the impacts on smaller manufacturers. DOE will base this assessment on manufacturing cost data and information collected from interviews with manufacturers. The interviews will focus on gathering information to help assess asymmetrical cost increases to some manufacturers, increased 2-78 proportion of fixed costs potentially increasing business risks, and potential barriers to market entry (e.g., proprietary technologies). The NOPR will be submitted to the Attorney General for a review of the impacts of standards on competition. The Attorney General’s comments on the proposed rule will be considered in preparing the final rule. 2.11.4 Cumulative Regulatory Burden One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves looking at the cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry. Multiple regulations affecting the same manufacturers can strain profits and lead companies to abandon markets with lower expected future returns than competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to appliance efficiency. DOE will analyze and consider the impact on manufacturers of multiple product-specific, Federal regulatory actions. In comments to the May 2020 Early Assessment RFI, RFI Lennox recommended that DOE should not only consider the direct cumulative regulatory burden of motor manufacturers which are largely used as components of larger system but should also consider the downstream impacts and cumulative burden to manufacturers who apply these products. Lennox stated that this burden should include not only the burden and cost increase of the motors but also burden and cost to the end use products. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 2) As required under EPCA, when determining whether a standard is economically justified, DOE evaluates the economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers of the products subject to such standard. (See 42 USC 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)) In the specific case of motors, whose potential scope of application is broad, it may not be feasible to directly assess potential impacts of amended energy conservation standards on all potential applications relying on electric motors. However, DOE’s engineering analysis seeks to characterize the relationship between efficiency and manufacturer selling price when holding constant or nearly constant the attributes of a motor that are likely to be important to manufacturers of equipment that use electric motors. For example, using the NEMA Design Letter as an equipment class factor limits the degree to which several operational parameters can vary, including inrush current, locked-rotor torque, breakdown torque, and slip. 2.11.5 Results for the Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis In this preliminary analysis, DOE presents its assumptions and initial calculations. DOE relied on publicly available information as well as data from the April 2013 Standards Final Rule. For more details, see chapter 12 of the TSD. 2-79 2.11.6 Enforcement of Noncompliant Imports In comments to the May 2020 Early Assessment RFI, NEMA suggested that, before revising these or other Standards, DOE should first invest resources in providing better information to the Customs and Border Patrol for the enforcement of imports, in this case for embedded electric motors. NEMA asserted that it is unfair to burden responsible manufacturers with more costly regulations if their offshore competitors are not equally obligated/policed. (NEMA, No. 4 at p. 2) EPCA provides that any covered product or equipment “offered for importation in violation of section 6302 of this title shall be refused admission into the customs territory of the United States under rules issued by the Secretary of the Treasury,” except under certain terms and conditions authorized under those rules. (42 U.S.C. 6301) Under the regulations issued by the Department of Treasury and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), if the DOE or the Federal Trade Commission “notifies CBP that a covered import does not comply with an applicable energy conservation or energy labeling standard, CBP will refuse admission to the covered import, or pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, CBP may allow conditional release of the covered import so that it may be brought into compliance.” (19 CFR 12.50(b)) In addition, EPCA authorizes DOE to require importers of covered products and equipment “to submit information or reports” with respect to energy efficiency, energy use, or water use of covered products and equipment “as the Secretary determines may be necessary to establish and revise test procedures, labeling rules, and energy conservation standards for such product and to [ensure] compliance with the requirements of this part.” (42 U.S.C. 6296(d)) Under 10 CFR 429.5, persons importing covered products or covered equipment are required to comply with the provisions of 10 CFR parts 429, 430, and 431. Part 429 requires, among other things, that importers of covered products or covered equipment subject to an applicable energy conservation standard submit a certification report to DOE prior to distributing their products in U.S. commerce. (10 CFR 429.12.(a)) The certification report must provide specific information for each basic model, including the product or equipment type, the brand name, and the basic model number, as well as specific energy use information. (10 CFR 429.12(b)). Importers are currently required to submit certifications on product-specific templates to DOE's Compliance and Certification Management System (CCMS), which assigns each certification submission a unique attachment identification number. (10 CFR 429.12(h)) 2.12 CONSUMER SUBGROUP ANALYSIS The consumer subgroup analysis (chapter 11 of the TSD) evaluates economic impacts on selected consumer subgroups who might be adversely affected by a change in the energy conservation standards for the considered equipment. A consumer subgroup comprises a subset of the consumer population that may be affected disproportionately by new or revised energy conservation standards. The purpose of a subgroup analysis is to determine the extent of any 2-80 such disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates impacts on particular subgroups of customers in part by analyzing the LCC impacts and PBP for those particular customers. DOE has identified two consumer subgroups that it believes may be affected disproportionately by new or revised energy conservation standards: consumers in low electricity price regions, and small businesses. In support of a subsequent NOPR, should one be issued, DOE will conduct a consumer subgroup analysis. DOE welcomes input regarding which, if any, consumer subgroups should be considered when developing potential energy conservation standards for electric motors. 2.13 EMISSIONS IMPACT ANALYSIS The emissions impact analysis, which is conducted in the NOPR phase, consists of two components. The first component estimates the effect of potential energy conservation standards on power sector and site (where applicable) combustion emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg. The second component estimates the impacts of potential standards on emissions of two additional greenhouse gases, methane (“CH4”) and nitrous oxide (“N2O”), as well as the reductions to emissions of all species due to “upstream” activities in the fuel production chain. These upstream activities comprise extraction, processing, and transporting fuels to the site of combustion. The associated emissions are referred to as upstream emissions. The analysis of power sector emissions uses marginal emissions factors that are derived from data in the most recent publication of AEO. The methodology is described in chapter 13 and 15 of this TSD. Combustion emissions of CH4 and N2O are estimated using emissions intensity factors published by the EPA. The FFC upstream emissions are estimated based on the methodology described in chapter 15 of the preliminary TSD. The upstream emissions include both emissions from fuel combustion during extraction, processing, and transportation of fuel, and “fugitive” emissions (direct leakage to the atmosphere) of CH4 and CO2. The emissions intensity factors are expressed in terms of physical units per megawatthour (“MWh”) or MMBtu of site energy savings. Total emissions reductions are estimated using the energy savings calculated in the NIA. The AEO incorporates the projected impacts of existing air quality regulations on emissions. AEO generally represents current legislation and environmental regulations, including recent government actions, for which implementing regulations were available as of the time of its preparation. The methodology is described in more detail in chapter 13 of the preliminary analysis TSD. 2-81 DOE requests comment on its approach to conducting the emissions analysis for electric motors. 2.14 MONETIZATION OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION BENEFITS DOE may consider the estimated monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, NOX and SO2 that are expected to result from each of the potential standard levels considered in the next phase of the rulemaking, should DOE proceed to a NOPR. Currently, in compliance with the preliminary injunction issued on February 11, 2022, in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.), DOE is not monetizing the costs of greenhouse gas emissions. To estimate the monetary value of reduced NOX and SO2 emissions from electricity generation attributable to the standard levels it considers, DOE will use benefit-per-ton estimates derived from analysis conducted by the EPA. For NOX and SO2 emissions from combustion at the site of product use, DOE will use another set of benefit-per-ton estimates published by the EPA. DOE invites input on the proposed approach for estimating monetary benefits associated with emissions reductions. 2.15 UTILITY IMPACT ANALYSIS To estimate the impacts of potential energy conservation standards on the electric utility industry, DOE uses published output from the NEMS associated with the most recent publication of AEO. NEMS is a large, multi-sectoral, partial-equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector that EIA has developed over several years, primarily for the purpose of preparing the AEO. NEMS produces a widely recognized forecast for the United States through 2050 and is available to the public. DOE uses a methodology based on results published for the AEO Reference case, as well as a number of side cases that estimate the economy-wide impacts of changes to energy supply and demand. DOE estimates the marginal impacts of reduction in energy demand on the energy supply sector. In principle, marginal values should provide a better estimate of the actual impact of energy conservation standards. DOE uses the side cases to estimate the marginal impacts of reduced energy demand on the utility sector. These marginal factors are estimated based on the changes to electricity sector generation, installed capacity, fuel consumption and emissions in the AEO Reference case and various side cases. The methodology is described in more detail in chapter 15 of the preliminary TSD. The output of this analysis is a set of time-dependent coefficients that capture the change in electricity generation, primary fuel consumption, installed capacity and power sector 2-82 emissions due to a unit reduction in demand for a given end use. These coefficients are multiplied by the stream of electricity savings calculated in the NIA to provide estimates of selected utility impacts of potential new or amended energy conservation standards. See chapter 15 of the preliminary TSD. DOE seeks comment on the planned approach to conduct the utility impact analysis. 2.16 EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS The adoption of energy conservation standards can affect employment both directly and indirectly. Direct employment impacts are changes in the number of employees at the plants that produce the covered equipment. DOE evaluates direct employment impacts in the MIA. Indirect employment impacts may result from expenditures shifting between goods (the substitution effect) and changes in income and overall expenditure levels (the income effect) that occur due to standards. DOE defines indirect employment impacts from standards as net jobs eliminated or created in the general economy as a result of increased spending driven by increased product prices and reduced spending on energy. The indirect employment impacts are investigated in the employment impact analysis using the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s “Impact of Sector Energy Technologies” (“ImSET”) model. The ImSET model was developed for DOE’s Office of Planning, Budget, and Analysis to estimate the employment and income effects of energy-saving technologies in buildings, industry, and transportation. Compared with simple economic multiplier approaches, ImSET allows for more complete and automated analysis of the economic impacts of energy conservation investments. See chapter 16 of the preliminary TSD. DOE welcomes input on its proposed approach for assessing national employment impacts. 2.17 REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS In the NOPR stage, if conducted, DOE prepares an analysis that evaluates potential nonregulatory policy alternatives, comparing the costs and benefits of each to those of the proposed standards. DOE recognizes that non-regulatory policy alternatives can substantially affect energy efficiency or reduce energy consumption. DOE bases its assessment on the actual impacts of any such initiatives to date, but also considers information presented by interested parties regarding the potential future impacts of current initiatives. See chapter 17 of the preliminary TSD. 2-83 DOE requests any available data or reports that would contribute to the analysis of alternatives to standards for electric motors. In particular, DOE seeks information on the effectiveness of existing or past efficiency improvement programs for this equipment. 2-84 REFERENCES 1. “Low-Voltage Motors, World Market Report, IHS Markit,” November 1, 2019. 2. “Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Electric Motors (Prepared for the Department of Energy by Staff Members of Navigant Consulting, Inc and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, May 2014).” 3. “Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Small Electric Motors Final Determination (Prepared for the Department of Energy by Staff Members of Navigant Consulting, Inc and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, January 2021).” 4. Prakash Rao et al., “U.S. Industrial and Commercial Motor System Market Assessment Report Volume 1: Characteristics of the Installed Base,” January 12, 2021, https://doi.org/10.2172/1760267. 5. “US Department of Agriculture (2012), Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (2013), Volume 3, Special Studies, Part 1,” November 1, 2014, https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/Online_Resources/Farm_and_R anch_Irrigation_Survey/fris13.pdf. 6. “2018 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey,” November 1, 2020, 24. 7. “2018 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey Data, Table11.1Electricity:ComponentsofNetDemand,2018,” accessed April 26, 2021, https://www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/data/2018/pdf/Table11_1.pdf. 8. “2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey Data,” accessed November 29, 2021, https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/c&e/pdf/ce2.1.pdf. 9. “Baldor: Online Manufacturer Catalog., Last Accessed April 11, 2016,” n.d., http://www.baldor.com/catalog/. 10. “US Motors: Online Manufacturer Catalog., Last Accessed May 1, 2016,” n.d., http://ecatalog.motorboss.com/Catalog/Motors/. 11. “Marathon: Online Manufacturer Catalog., Last Accessed April 22, 2016,” n.d., http://www.marathonelectric.com/MMPS/. 12. “Leeson: Online Manufacturer Catalog., Last Accessed April 11, 2016,” n.d., http://www.leeson.com/leeson/. 13. “WEG: Online Manufacturer Catalog., Last Accessed April 26, 2016,” n.d., http://ecatalog.weg.net/. 2-85 14. “ABB (Baldor-Reliance): Online Manufacturer Catalog.,” last accessed July 6, 2020, https://www.baldor.com/catalog/. 15. “Nidec (US Motors): Online Manufacturer Catalog.,” last accessed July 6, 2020, https://ecatalog.motorboss.com/Catalog/Motors/ALL/. 16. “Regal (Century, Marathon, Leeson): Online Manufacturer Catalog.,” last accessed May 27, 2020, https://www.regalbeloit.com:443/products/,-w-,. 17. “WEG: Online Manufacturer Catalog.,” last accessed April 17, 2020, http://ecatalog.weg.net/. 18. “EuP-LOT-30-Task-7-Jun-2014.Pdf,” accessed April 26, 2021, https://www.eupnetwork.de/fileadmin/user_upload/EuP-LOT-30-Task-7-Jun-2014.pdf. 19. Katie Coughlin and Bereket Beraki, “Non-Residential Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods,” 2019. 20. Katie Coughlin and Bereket Beraki, “Residential Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods,” 2018. 21. “Annual Energy Outlook 2021,” accessed June 3, 2021, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/. 22. “Vaughen’s National Average Prices, Random Wound AC Motors Stator Rewinds - 2021 Edition,” n.d. 23. “US Department of Energy, Advanced Manufacturing Office, Premium Efficiency Motor Selection and Application Guide,” February 2014, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/04/f15/amo_motors_handbook_web.pdf. 24. “Research Performed by Austin Bonnet in Support of the May 2014 Final Rule (2011),” n.d. 25. “US. Department of Energy. Advanced Manufacturing Office., ‘Motors Systems Tip Sheet #3. Energy Tips: Motor Systems. Extending the Operating Life of Your Motor,’ 2012.,” n.d., 2. 26. “Damodaran, A. Data Page: Costs of Capital by Industry Sector. 2020.,” accessed April 26, 2021, http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/. 27. “Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Small Electric Motors Final Determination (Prepared for the Department of Energy by Staff Members of Navigant Consulting, Inc and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, March 2010).” 2-86 CHAPTER 3. MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.1 3.2 3.3 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 3-1 MARKET ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................. 3-1 Definitions........................................................................................................................ 3-1 Statutory ............................................................................................................ 3-1 2013 Test Procedure .......................................................................................... 3-2 2021 Test Procedure .......................................................................................... 3-2 Equipment Class Groups and Equipment Classes ........................................................... 3-2 Electric Motor Shipments ................................................................................................ 3-3 Pole Configuration ............................................................................................ 3-3 Enclosure Type .................................................................................................. 3-4 Horsepower Ratings .......................................................................................... 3-5 Manufacturers and Market Share ..................................................................................... 3-5 Application and Performance of Existing Equipment ..................................................... 3-6 Air-Over Electric Motors .................................................................................. 3-6 Synchronous Electric Motors ............................................................................ 3-7 Submersible Electric Motors ............................................................................. 3-7 Trade Associations ........................................................................................................... 3-8 National Electrical Manufacturers Association................................................. 3-8 Regulatory Programs ....................................................................................................... 3-8 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT .................................................................................... 3-9 Technology Options for I2R Losses ............................................................................... 3-10 Technology Options for Core Losses ............................................................................ 3-10 Amorphous Metal Laminations ....................................................................... 3-11 Plastic Bonded Iron Powder ............................................................................ 3-12 Technology Options for Friction and Windage Losses ................................................. 3-12 Technology Options for Stray-Load Losses .................................................................. 3-12 Summary of Technology Options under Consideration ................................................ 3-13 LIST OF TABLES Table 3.3.1 Technology Options to Increase Motor Efficiency .............................................................. 3-13 3-i LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.2.1 Figure 3.2.2 Figure 3.2.3 NEMA Design A and B Electric Motor Shipments by Pole Configuration for 2020 ................................................................................................................................. 3-4 Electric Motor Shipments by Enclosure Type for 2020................................................... 3-4 Electric Motor Shipments by Horsepower for 2020 ........................................................ 3-5 3-ii CHAPTER 3. CHAPTER 3. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK, COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES, AND DOE RESPONSES 3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter provides a profile of the electric motor industry in the United States. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) developed the market and technology assessment presented in this chapter primarily from a combination publicly available and privately obtained information. This assessment is helpful in identifying the major manufacturers and their equipment characteristics, which form the basis for the engineering and life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis. This chapter consists of two sections: the market assessment and the technology assessment. The market assessment provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment concerned, including a scope of the equipment subject to potential energy conservation standards, equipment classes, estimated respective manufacturer market shares; any regulatory and nonregulatory efficiency improvement programs; market trends, and estimated quantities of equipment sold. The technology assessment identifies a preliminary list of technology options for reducing motor losses to consider in the screening analysis. The information DOE gathers for the market and technology assessment serves as resource material for use throughout the rulemaking. DOE considers both quantitative and qualitative information from publicly available sources and interested parties. 3.2 MARKET ASSESSMENT This section addresses the scope of the rulemaking, identifies potential equipment classes, estimates national shipments of electric motors, and the market shares of electric motor manufacturers. This section also discusses the application and performance of existing equipment and regulatory and nonregulatory programs that apply to electric motors. Definitions Statutory The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT 1992), had previously established a definition for “electric motor” as “any motor which is a general purpose T-frame, single-speed, foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage induction motor of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association [NEMA] Design A and B, continuous rated, operating on 230/460 volts and constant 60 Hertz line power as defined in NEMA Standards Publication MG1–1987.” (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) (1992)) Through subsequent amendments to EPCA and, in particular, the Energy Independence and Security Act that was signed into law on December 19, 2007 (EISA 2007), Congress 3-1 struck the EPACT 1992 definition and replaced it with language that covered a broader scope of general purpose electric motors. (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)-(B) (2010)) 2013 Test Procedure In order to facilitate the potential application of energy conservation standards to motors built in certain configurations, DOE adopted definitions for different types of motors in a 2013 Test Procedure Final Rule. The definitions addressed motors already subject to standards, motors considered for inclusion in a newly expanded scope of standards, and motors that DOE at the time declined to regulate through energy conservation standards. Some of these clarifying definitions, such as the definitions for NEMA Design A and C motors, came from NEMA MG 1-2009. DOE worked with subject matter experts (SMEs), manufacturers, and the Motor Coalition to create working definitions for “partial electric motor” and “brake electric motor”. These definitions are discussed in detail in the 2013 Test Procedures for Electric Motors. (78 FR 75961, December 13, 2013) 2021 Test Procedure On December 17, 2021, DOE published a test procedure notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) for electric motors. (“2021 TP NOPR”). The December 2021 TP NOPR proposed test procedures for motors that previously had no DOE test procedure to measure their efficiency at full-load. The proposed test procedures included test procedures for air-over electric motors, submersible electric motors, small non-“small electric motor” motors, and inverter-only/inverter-capable motors. 86 FR 71710, 71735-71743. With these types of motors proposed to be within scope of the test procedure, DOE is considering setting energy conservation standards for each motor type. For more detail on the exact scope of the 2021 Test Procedure for Electric Motors, see 86 FR 71710, 71715-71728. Equipment Class Groups and Equipment Classes In general, when DOE amends energy conservation standards, it divides covered equipment into classes. By statute, these classes are based on: (a) the type of energy used; (b) the capacity of the equipment; or (c) any other performance-related feature that justifies different efficiency levels, such as features affecting consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)). In the following sections, DOE discusses the design features that it is considering as part of its analysis. Due to the number of electric motor characteristics (e.g., horsepower rating, pole configuration, and enclosure), DOE is using two constructs, at this stage, to help develop appropriate energy conservation standards for electric motors: “equipment class groups” and “equipment classes.” An equipment class group (“ECG”) is a collection of electric motors that share a common design trait. Equipment class groups include motors over a range of horsepower ratings, enclosure types, and pole configurations. Essentially, each equipment class group is a collection of a large number of equipment classes with the same design trait. An equipment class represents a unique combination of motor characteristics for which DOE will determine an energy efficiency conservation standard. For example, given a combination of motor design type, horsepower rating, pole configuration, and enclosure type, the 3-2 motor design type dictates the equipment class group, while the combination of the remaining characteristics dictates the specific equipment class. For this preliminary analysis, DOE has created ten equipment class groups based on various motors characteristics. For medium electric motors, these characteristics are: NEMA (or IEC) Design letter, if the motor needs external cooling for continuous operation, and whether a motor meets the definition of a fire pump electric motor. For SNEMs, the two characteristics are locked-rotor torque and if the motor needs external cooling for continuous operation. DOE’s resulting equipment classes groups are: NEMA Design A and B motors, NEMA Design C motors, fire pump electric motors, low locked-rotor torque SNEMs, medium locked-rotor torque SNEMs, high locked-rotor torque SNEMs, and air-over versions of the NEMA Design A and B ECG as well as air-over versions for all three SNEM ECGs. Within each of these ECGs, DOE uses combinations of other pertinent motor characteristics to enumerate its individual equipment classes. Electric Motor Shipments To prepare an estimate of the national impact of energy conservation standards for electric motors, DOE needed to estimate annual motor shipments of the regulated equipment classes. For this stage of the rulemaking, DOE developed shipment projects based both on historical data and manufacturer input of distribution of shipments by horsepower, enclosure, and pole count. The shipment data and market trend information can be found in chapter 9 of the TSD. Pole Configuration Figure 3.2.1 shows the proportion of total NEMA Design A and B motor shipments that each pole count accounts for. Almost 90% of NEMA Design A and B motors shipped are either 2-pole or 4-pole designs, with 4-pole designs being the most prominent of all pole configurations. 3-3 3% 8% 23% 67% 2 Figure 3.2.1 4 6 8 NEMA Design A and B Electric Motor Shipments by Pole Configuration for 2020 Enclosure Type Figure 3.2.2 illustrates the breakdown of shipments for NEMA Design A and B motors by enclosure type. 38% 62% Open Figure 3.2.2 Enclosed Electric Motor Shipments by Enclosure Type for 2020 3-4 Horsepower Ratings Figure 3.2.3 illustrates the distribution of horsepower ratings for shipments of regulated motors. The 1-5 horsepower range accounts for over 50% of all shipments, and the 6-20 range accounts for an additional 32%. 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1-5 Figure 3.2.3 6-20 21-50 51-100 101-200 201-500 Electric Motor Shipments by Horsepower for 2020 Manufacturers and Market Share The major manufacturers that dominate the electric motor market for this rulemaking, in alphabetical order, are: ABB Motors and Mechanical (formerly Baldor Electric), General Electric Industrial Motors, Nidec Motor Corporation, Regal Rexnord Corporation (formerly Regal-Beloit), Siemens Industry Inc, Toshiba, and WEG. The manufacturers identified above are all major manufacturers with diverse portfolios of equipment offerings, including electric motors covered under EPCA. Over the past decade, there has been a consolidation of motor manufacturing in the United States and this list is a result of those mergers and acquisitions. DOE does not have empirical data on the market shares of particular manufacturers of electric motors. Nevertheless, estimates of available cumulative data indicate that shipments of electric motors from these companies constitute over a significant portion of the total U.S. market. 3-5 Application and Performance of Existing Equipment The electric motors covered in this analysis are used in a wide range of applications that include the following: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • blowers business equipment commerical food processing compressors conveyors crushers fans farm equipment general industrial applications grinders heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning equipment machine tools milking machines pumps winches woodworking machines Air-Over Electric Motors DOE is considering expanding the scope of the energy conservation standards to include air-over electric motors. Air-over electric motors were previously excluded from scope according to 10 CFR 431.25(l)(1). In the December 2021 TP NOPR, DOE proposed to amend the definition of an air-over electric motor at 10 CFR 431.12 to be: “an electric motor that does not reach thermal equilibrium during a rated load temperature test according to section 2 of appendix B without the application of forced cooling by a free flow of air from an external device not mechanically connected to the motor.” 86 FR 71710, 71731. Air-over electric motors are commonly used in HVAC applications to drive the blower that forces air through the HVAC system. The airstream generated by the motor for use in the HVAC system has the secondary effect of cooling the motor itself and removes the need for an internal cooling fan in many cases. Common motor topologies found in these HVAC blowers include shaded-pole, permanent-split capacitor, electronically commutated motors (“ECMs”), and polyphase designs. 3-6 Synchronous Electric Motors DOE is considering expanding the scope of the energy conservation standards to include synchronous electric motors. Synchronous electric motors were previously excluded from standards according to 10 CFR 431.25(g)(1). Synchronous electric motors are made in various topologies and use different methods to generate torque, some common topologies are: permanent magnet motors, ECMs, switched-reluctance, synchronous reluctance, and line-start permanent magnet motors. In 2021 NEMA released NEMA SM 1-2021, “Guide to General-Purpose Synchronous motors without Excited Rotor Windings”. In this standard, definitions and specifications were given for permanent magnet motors including ECMs and line-start permanent magnet motors. NEMA defines a permanent magnet motor as a “synchronous motor in which the field excitation of the rotor is provided by permanent magnets.” in section 1.12.2. NEMA also defined NEMA Designs MA and MB in sections 1.13.1 and 1.13.2 which appear to serve the same purpose for line-start permanent magnet motors as NEMA Designs A and B do for induction motors. Similar to NEMA Design B, NEMA Design MB specifies limits on the locked-rotor current of motors with this designation. DOE may consider using these “MA” and “MB” design letters in a future stage of this rulemaking but notes the exclusion of synchronous electric motors that are not able to start direct-on-line from their definition, which DOE believes to be a significant portion of the synchronous motor market. Synchronous electric motors often have greater full-load efficiencies due to the removal of the rotor I2R losses that are present in induction motors due to the induced current flowing through the rotor cage. Synchronous electric motors may be able to reach greater power densities, allowing for greater power outputs from smaller frame sizes compared to induction designs. Most synchronous electric motors require a drive to operate, and the use of a drive allows for “turning down” the motor where the overall energy consumption is reduced by reducing the power output when the application does not need a fullload power. Drives are not exclusively used for synchronous electric motors and there are induction designs that are rated for inverter-duty that allow for the use of a drive if desired; however, drives are often paired with a synchronous motor instead because of the greater full-load efficiency and, in some cases, lesser cost of the synchronous motor compared to an asynchronous design. Submersible Electric Motors DOE is also considering expanding the scope of the energy conservation standards to include submersible electric motors. Submersible electric motors were previously excluded from standards according to 10 CFR 431.25(l)(4). DOE defines a submersible electric motor as an electric motor that: “(1) is intended to operate continuously only while submerged in liquid; (2) is capable of operation while submerged in liquid for an indefinite period of time; and (3) has been sealed to prevent the ingress of liquid from contacting the motor’s internal parts. 10 CFR 431.12. Submersible electric motors are often used in well pumps, wastewater treatment, sewage management, lift stations, and drain water management. DOE reviewed trade publications submitted by 3-7 the CA IOUs that indicated submersible pumps are becoming more common due to their lower first cost, smaller size, and flood resistance. Since these motors are often placed into bore-holes with a limited diameter, they often have a much larger aspect ratio than typical general purpose motors to meet similar output power requirements and lose energy differently than their general purpose counterparts due to this unique design requirement. Trade Associations DOE is aware of one trade association for manufacturers of medium electric motors, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA). National Electrical Manufacturers Association NEMA was established as a trade association in 1926 and has since been divided into five core departments that provide different functions for its members. Those departments are: • • • • • Technical Services Governmental Relations Industry Operations Business Information Services Medical Through these groups, NEMA establishes voluntary standards for the performance, size, and functionality of electrical equipment to facilitate communication among motor manufacturers, original equipment manufacturers engineers, purchasing agents, and users. An example of NEMA’s role in standardization is the NEMA Standards Publication MG 1, “Motors and Generators,” (MG 1) document, which is a reference document for motor and generator manufacturers and users. MG 1 provides guidance to motor manufacturers on performance and construction specifications for a broad range of electric motors. By standardizing around certain parameters, NEMA makes it easier for users to identify and purchase electric motors. MG 1 is a complete industry reference document for standardizing the motors offered in the market. The groups above also set up work that NEMA, as a whole, does to contribute to U.S. public policy and the economic data analysis it performs. Regulatory Programs EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6311, et seq., as amended by EPACT 1992, established energy conservation standards and test procedures for certain commercial and industrial electric motors manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece of equipment) after October 24, 1997. Then, in December 2007, Congress passed into law EISA 2007. (Pub. L. No. 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. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) 3-8 EPCA also directs that the Secretary [of Energy] shall publish a final rule no later than 24 months after the effective date of the previous final rule to determine whether to amend the standards in effect for such product. Any such amendment shall apply to electric motors manufactured after a date which is five years after – (i) the effective date of the previous amendment; or (ii) if the previous final rule did not amend the standards, the earliest date by which a previous amendment could have been effective. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(4)) As described previously, EISA 2007 constitutes the most recent amendment to EPCA and energy conservation standards for electric motors. The compliance date prescribed by statute would require manufacturers to begin manufacturing compliant motors by December 19, 2015 (as calculated under 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(4)(B)). DOE, however, recognizes that the statute also contemplated a three-year lead time for manufacturers to account for the potential logistical and production hurdles that manufacturers may face when transitioning to the new standards. To account for these challenges while remaining cognizant of, and the statutory timeline provided by Congress, DOE has modified its proposed deadline and sets a compliance date of June 1, 2016, which should provide manufacturers with sufficient lead-time to adjust to the new standards required by today’s rule. Additionally, DOE covers certain other motors not covered in this rulemaking under the requirements of 10 CFR 431, Subpart X, which pertains to Small Electric Motors. 3.3 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT Induction motors have two core components: a stator and a rotor. The components work together to convert electrical energy into rotational mechanical power. This is done by creating a rotating magnetic field in the stator which induces currents in the conductor of the rotor. A “squirrel-cage” rotor of induction motors consists of longitudinal conductive bars (rotor bars) connected at both ends by rings (end rings) forming a cage-like shape. The currents in the rotor squirrel-cage create magnetic fields in the rotor which then react with the stator’s rotating magnetic field to create torque. This torque provides the rotational force delivered to the load via the shaft. The purpose of the technology assessment is to develop a preliminary list of technology options that may improve the efficiency of electric motors. For the electric motors covered in this rulemaking, energy efficiency losses are grouped into five main categories: stator I2R losses, rotor I2R losses, core losses, friction and windage losses, and stray-load losses. Designers must balance the five basic losses to optimize the various motor performance criteria. There are numerous trade-offs that must be considered. Efficiency is only one performance metric that needs to be met and different applications require different torque-speed curves from the motor. Reducing one loss may increase another. Different manufacturers utilize different approaches for minimizing motor losses. 3-9 Technology Options for I2R Losses I2R losses are produced from either the current flow through the copper windings in the stator (stator I2R losses) or the squirrel cage of the rotor (rotor I2R losses). Stator I2R losses are reduced by decreasing resistance to current flow in the electrical components of a motor. These losses are manifested as heat, which can shorten the service life of a motor. One method of reducing resistance losses in the stator is decreasing the length of the coil extensions at the end turns. Reducing the length of copper wire in 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. Another way to reduce stator I2R losses is to increase the cross-sectional area of the stator winding conductors (e.g., copper wire diameter). This can be accomplished by either increasing the slot fill and/or increasing the size of the stator slots. However, this method replaces some of the stator magnetic cross-sectional area and increases the flux density in the stator. Increasing the flux density may increase core losses. Furthermore, there are practical limits to how much slot fill can be increased. Very high slot fills may require hand winding, a manufacturing technique that is far more labor-intensive than machine winding. The motor designer must carefully weigh the trade-offs to optimize the motor design. There are also various ways to reduce rotor I2R losses. The squirrel-cage is the part of the rotor in which current flows. Squirrel-cages are usually made of aluminum in electric motors. However, one method of increasing the efficiency of the motor is to substitute copper for aluminum when die-casting the rotor squirrel-cage. Copper has a lower electrical resistivity (1.68 x 10-8 ohm-m) than aluminum (2.65 x 10-8 ohm-m). Copper’s 63 percent lower electrical resistance compared to aluminum can result in reduced rotor I2R losses. There are, however, design trade-offs when using die-cast copper in a rotor. Copper’s lower resistivity may result in a higher locked-rotor current. This can be mitigated by modifying the geometry of the rotor slots to keep locked-rotor current within NEMA Design B limits. Increasing the cross-sectional area of the rotor conductor bars can also improve motor efficiency. Resistance is inversely proportional to the cross-sectional area of the material through which current is flowing. By increasing the cross-sectional area, rotor bar resistance will decrease which may reduce rotor I2R losses. Similarly, increasing the cross-sectional area of the rotor end rings can also reduce rotor I2R losses. Current flows through the end rings of the rotor and increasing the size of the end ring may decrease resistance and reduce the associated rotor I2R losses. These two techniques can result in reduced rotor I2R losses if the increase in rotor current does not exceed the square of the decrease in the rotor resistance. Technology Options for Core Losses Core losses are losses created in the electrical steel components of a motor. These losses, like I2R losses, manifest themselves as heat. Core losses are generated in the steel by two electromagnetic phenomena: hysteresis losses and eddy currents. Hysteresis losses are caused by magnetic domains in the 3-10 steel resisting reorientation to the alternating magnetic field. Eddy currents are currents that are induced in the steel laminations by the magnetic flux. One technique for reducing core losses is using a higher grade of electrical steel in the core. Higher grades of steel exhibit lower core losses as well as higher magnetic permeability. 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. In studying the different types of steel available, 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. The exotic steels are not generally manufactured for use specifically in the electric motors covered in this rulemaking. These steels offer lower core losses than the best conventional 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. Conventional steels are commonly used in electric motors manufactured today. There are three types of steel that DOE considers “conventional:” cold-rolled magnetic laminations (CRML), fully processed non-oriented electrical steel, and semi-processed non-oriented electrical steel. Each steel type is sold in a range of grades. In general, as the grade number goes down, so does the amount of core loss associated with the steel (i.e., watts of loss per pound of steel). The induction saturation level also drops, causing the need for increased stack length. Of these three types, CRML steels are the most commonly used, but also the least efficient. The fully processed steels are annealed before punching and therefore do not require annealing after being punched and assembled, and are available in a range of steel grades from M56 through M15. Semi-processed electrical steels are designed for annealing after punching and assembly. Another possible option for reducing core loss is to use thinner laminations. Thinner laminations generally have lower eddy current losses and this contributes toward improving motor efficiency. Adding electrical steel laminations to the rotor and stator to lengthen the motor can also reduce the core losses in an electric motor. Increasing the 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. Amorphous Metal Laminations Using amorphous metals in the rotor laminations is another technology option to improve the efficiency of electric motors. Amorphous metal is extremely thin, has high electrical resistivity, and has little or no magnetic domain definition. Because of amorphous steel’s high resistance it exhibits a reduction in hysteresis and eddy current losses, which reduce overall losses in electric motors. However, amorphous steel is a very brittle material which makes it difficult to punch into motor laminations. 3-11 Plastic Bonded Iron Powder DOE is aware of a technology that Lund University researchers in Sweden developed in the production of magnetic components for electric motors from plastic bonded iron powder (PBIP). The technique has the potential to cut production costs by 50 percent while doubling motor output. The method uses two main ingredients: metal powder and plastics. Combining the ingredients creates a material with low conductivity and high permeability. The metal particles are surrounded by an insulating plastic, which prevents electric current from developing in the material. This is critical because it essentially eliminates losses in the core due to eddy currents. Properties of PBIP can differ depending on the processing. If the metal particles are too closely compacted and begin to touch, the material will gain electrical conductivity, counteracting one of its most important features. Another advantage of PBIP is a reduction in the number of production steps. A second way to increase savings is to build an inductor with PBIP. During processing, the plastic and metal are molded together using a centrifugal force. During this process, the inductor core consisting of PBIP and prewound windings are baked into the core. This inductor is then used as a filter for grid power application. The filter then reduces the use of cooling equipment in the motor design. Technology Options for Friction and Windage Losses Friction and windage losses are caused by friction in the bearings of the motor and aerodynamic losses associated with the ventilation fan and other rotating parts. One way to reduce these losses is to optimize the selection of bearings and a lubricant. Using improved bearings and lubricants can minimize mechanical resistance to the rotation of the rotor, which also extends motor life. Optimizing a motor’s cooling system is another technology option to improve the efficiency of electric motors. An optimized cooling system design provides ample motor cooling while reducing air resistance. Technology Options for Stray-Load Losses Stray-load loss is defined as the difference between the total motor loss and the sum of the other four losses referred to above. Stray-load losses arise from a variety of sources. One way to reduce strayload losses is to reduce the skew in the rotor squirrel cage. The rotor conductor bars of the rotor cage are often skewed. This means the conductor bars are slightly offset from one end of the rotor to the other. By skewing the rotor bars, motor designers can reduce harmonics that add cusps to the speed-torque characteristics of the motor. The cusps in the speed-torque curves mean that the acceleration of the motor will not be completely smooth. The degree of skew matters because reducing the skew will help reduce the rotor resistance and reactance, which can result in improved efficiency. However, reducing the skew may have adverse impacts on the speed-torque characteristics. Another way to reduce stray-load losses is to improve insulation between the rotor squirrel-cage and the rotor laminations. Motors with insulated rotor cages often exhibit lower stray-load losses when compared to motors with un-insulated rotor cages. 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 the rotor (i.e. rapid cooling, generally by 3-12 immersion in a fluid instead of allowing the rotor temperature to equalize to ambient) to separate rotor bars from rotor laminations after die-casting. Summary of Technology Options under Consideration Table 3.3.1 summarizes the technology options discussed in this TSD technology assessment and those that DOE will consider in the screening analysis (see TSD chapter 4). The options that pass all four screening criteria are considered “design options” and are used in the engineering analysis (see TSD chapter 5) as a means of improving the efficiency of electric motors. Table 3.3.1 Technology Options to Increase Motor Efficiency Type of Loss to Reduce Stator I2R Losses Technology Option Increase cross-sectional area of copper in stator slots Decrease the length of coil extensions Increase cross-sectional area of end rings Rotor I2R Losses Increase cross-sectional area of rotor conductor bars Use a die-cast copper rotor cage Use electrical steel laminations with lower losses (watts/lb) Core Losses Use thinner steel laminations Increase stack length (i.e., add electrical steel laminations) Friction and Windage Losses Stray-Load Losses Optimize bearing and lubrication selection. Improve cooling system design Reduce skew on rotor cage. Improve rotor bar insulation. Most of the design changes in Table 3.3.1 produce interacting effects on the motor’s breakdown torque, locked-rotor torque, locked-rotor current, and so forth. Therefore, motor designers making a specific design change must evaluate the effects against all of a motor’s performance characteristics and not just focus on efficiency. 3-13 CHAPTER 4. SCREENING ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.1 4.2 4.3 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 4-1 DISCUSSION OF DESIGN OPTIONS .......................................................................... 4-1 TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS NOT SCREENED OUT OF THE ANALYSIS................. 4-3 Increase the Cross-Sectional Area of Copper in Stator Slots .......................................... 4-3 Decrease the Length of Coil Extensions .......................................................................... 4-3 Copper Die-Cast Rotor Cage ........................................................................................... 4-4 Increase Cross-Sectional Area of Rotor Conductor Bars ................................................ 4-5 Increase Cross-Sectional Area of Rotor End Rings ......................................................... 4-5 Use Electrical Steel with Lower Losses........................................................................... 4-6 Thinner Steel Laminations ............................................................................................... 4-7 Increase Stack Length ...................................................................................................... 4-7 Optimize Bearing and Lubricant Selection ...................................................................... 4-7 Improve Cooling System Design ..................................................................................... 4-8 Reduce Skew in Rotor Conductor Cage .......................................................................... 4-8 Improved Rotor Bar Insulation ........................................................................................ 4-9 Summary of Technology Options Not Screened Out ...................................................... 4-9 4.4 TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS SCREENED OUT OF THE ANALYSIS .......................... 4-9 Amorphous Metal Laminations ....................................................................................... 4-9 Plastic Bonded Iron Powder........................................................................................... 4-10 Summary of Technology Options Screened Out of the Analysis .................................. 4-10 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 4-11 LIST OF TABLES Table 4.2.1 Methods to Reduce Losses in Electric Motors ....................................................................... 4-2 Table 4.4.1 Technology Options Screened Out of the Analysis.............................................................. 4-10 4-i CHAPTER 4. SCREENING ANALYSIS 4.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the screening analysis is to identify design options that improve electric motor efficiency and determine which options the Department of Energy (DOE) will either evaluate or screen out. DOE consults with industry participants, technical experts, and other interested parties in developing a list of design options for consideration. Then DOE applies the following set of screening criteria to determine which design options are unsuitable for further consideration in the rulemaking (See Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 430, Subpart C, Appendix A at 4(a)(4) and 5(b)): (1) Technological feasibility: Technologies incorporated in commercial equipment or in working prototypes will be considered technologically feasible. (2) 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. (3) Adverse impacts on equipment utility or equipment availability: DOE will not further consider a technology if DOE determines that a technology will have significant adverse impact on the utility of the equipment to significant subgroups of consumers. 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. (4) 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. This chapter discusses the design options that DOE considered for improving the energy efficiency of electric motors and describes how DOE applied the screening criteria. 4.2 DISCUSSION OF DESIGN OPTIONS Several well-established engineering practices and techniques exist for improving the efficiency of an electric motor. Improving the construction materials (i.e., the core steel, the rotor conductor material) and modifying the motor’s geometric configuration (i.e., the core and winding assemblies, the rotor, and stator) can make an electric motor more energy efficient. As discussed in the market and technology assessment (chapter 3), there are four general areas of efficiency loss in electric motors: I2R, core, friction and windage, and stray-load. In this analysis DOE 4-1 presented a list of technology options used to reduce energy consumption and thus improve the efficiency of general purpose induction motors. Unfortunately, methods of reducing electrical losses in the equipment are not completely independent of one another. This means that some technology options that decrease one type of loss may cause an increase in a different type of loss in the motor. Thus, it requires significant engineering skill to maximize the efficiency gains in a motor design overall, balancing out the loss mechanisms. In some instances, motor design engineers must make design tradeoffs to maintain utility when finding the appropriate combination of materials and costs. However, there are multiple design pathways to achieve a given efficiency level. I2R losses arise chiefly from the current flow through the windings in the stator (stator I2R losses) and the squirrel cage of the rotor (rotor I2R losses). These losses are manifested as heat, which can reduce the service life of a motor. Core losses are the losses created in the electrical steel components of a motor. These losses, like I2R losses, manifest themselves as heat. Core losses are generated in the steel by two electromagnetic phenomena: hysteresis losses and eddy currents. Hysteresis losses are caused by magnetic domains in the steel resisting reorientation to the alternating magnetic field. Eddy currents are currents that are induced in the steel laminations by the magnetic flux. Although I2R and core losses account for the majority of the losses in an induction motor, friction and windage losses and stray-load losses also contribute to the total loss. In an induction motor, friction and windage losses are caused by friction in the bearings of the motor and aerodynamic losses associated with the ventilation fan and other rotating parts. Any losses that are otherwise unaccounted for and not attributed to I2R losses, core losses, or friction and windage losses are considered stray-load losses. Table 4.2.1 presents a general summary of the 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 length). Table 4.2.1 Methods to Reduce Losses in Electric Motors Type of Loss to Reduce Stator I2R Losses Technology Option Increase cross-sectional area of copper in stator slots Decrease the length of coil extensions Increase cross-sectional area of end rings Rotor I2R Losses Increase cross-sectional area of rotor conductor bars Use a die-cast copper rotor cage Use electrical steel laminations with lower losses (watts/lb) Core Losses Use thinner steel laminations Increase stack length (i.e., add electrical steel laminations) Optimize bearing and lubrication selection. 4-2 Type of Loss to Reduce Friction and Windage Losses Stray-Load Losses 4.3 Technology Option Improve cooling system design Reduce skew on rotor cage. Improve rotor bar insulation. TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS NOT SCREENED OUT OF THE ANALYSIS This section discusses the technology options that DOE considers viable means of improving the efficiency of electric motors. Increase the Cross-Sectional Area of Copper in Stator Slots Increasing the cross-sectional area of copper in the stator slots, by either increasing the slot fill percentage and/or increasing the size of the stator slots, can increase motor efficiency. Motor design engineers can achieve higher slot fills by manipulating the wire gauges to allow for a greater total crosssectional area of wire to be incorporated into the stator slots. This could mean either an increase or decrease in wire gauge, depending on the dimensions of the stator slots and insulation thicknesses. Motor design engineers may also consider increasing the size of the stator slots to accommodate additional copper windings. However, this method replaces some of the stator magnetic cross-sectional area and increases the flux density in the stator. Increasing the flux density may increase core losses. Furthermore, there are practical limits to how much slot fill can be increased. 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. Very high slot fills may require hand winding, a manufacturing technique that is far more labor intensive than machine winding. The motor designer must carefully weigh the trade-offs to optimize the motor design. Considering the four screening criteria for this technology option, DOE did not screen out with increasing the cross-sectional area of copper in the stator as a means of improving efficiency. Motor design engineers adjust this technology option 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 increasing the cross-sectional area of copper in the stator to obtain increased efficiency. Decrease the Length of Coil Extensions One method of reducing resistance losses in the stator is decreasing the length of the coil extensions at the end turns. Reducing the length of copper wire in 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. 4-3 Considering the four screening criteria for this technology option, DOE did not screen out decreasing the length of the coil extensions as a means of improving efficiency. Motor design engineers adjust this particular variable when manufacturing to obtain 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 decreasing the length of coil extensions to obtain increased efficiency. Copper Die-Cast Rotor Cage Aluminum is the most common material used today to create die-cast rotor bars in 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 offers better performance than aluminum because copper has a higher electrical conductivity (i.e., a lower electrical resistance) per unit area. However, copper has a higher melting point than aluminum, so the casting process becomes more difficult and is likely to increase both production time and cost for manufacturing a motor. When assessing the technological feasibility of die-cast rotors, DOE notes that electric motors incorporating this technology option are already commercially available. DOE is aware of two large manufacturers — Siemens and SEW-Eurodrive — that offer die-cast copper rotor motors up to 30horsepower. At larger horsepower ratings, DOE recognizes that assessing the technological feasibility of die-cast rotors is made more complex by the fact that manufacturers do not offer them commercially. That could be for a variety of reasons, among them: 1) Large copper die-cast rotors are physically impossible to construct; 2) They are possible to construct, but impossible to construct to required specifications; 3) They are possible to construct to required specifications, but would require high manufacturing capital investment to do so and be so costly that few (if any) consumers would choose them. DOE is hesitant to screen out copper die-cast rotors on the basis of technological feasibility. It has not seen anything to suggest the advantages associated with copper rotors would vanish beyond a certain size. Relative to the above list of possible reasons for their absence from the high-horsepower market, DOE’s analysis does not conclude copper die-cast rotors are either: (1) physically impossible to construct or (2) possible to construct, but impossible to construct to required specifications. DOE also does not believe it has grounds to screen out copper die-cast rotors on the basis of practicability to manufacture, install, and service. The available facts indicate that manufacturers are already producing electric motors with die-cast copper rotors. At present, DOE does not believe there is sufficient evidence to screen out copper die-cast rotors from the analysis on the basis of adverse impacts to equipment utility or availability. 4-4 The higher melting point of copper (1085 degrees Celsius versus 660 degrees Celsius for aluminum) and could theoretically affect 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 maintain strict safety protocols in both cases. 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 represented 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 a part. a Considering the four screening criteria for this technology option, DOE did not screen out copper as a die-cast rotor cage conductor material. Increase Cross-Sectional Area of Rotor Conductor Bars Increasing the cross-sectional area of the rotor conductor bars can also improve motor efficiency. Resistance is inversely proportional to the cross-sectional area of the material through which current is flowing. By increasing the cross-sectional area, rotor bar resistance will decrease which may reduce rotor I2R losses. This technique can result in reduced rotor I2R losses if the increase in rotor current does not exceed the square of the decrease in the rotor resistance. 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. Considering the four screening criteria for this technology option, DOE did not screen out increasing the cross-sectional area of rotor conductor bars as a means of improving efficiency. Motor design engineers adjust this particular variable when manufacturing to obtain 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 increasing the crosssectional area of rotor conductor bars to obtain increased efficiency. Increase Cross-Sectional Area of Rotor End Rings Increasing the cross-sectional area of the rotor end rings can also reduce rotor I2R losses. Current flows through the end rings of the rotor and increasing the size of the end ring may decrease resistance For a list of OSHA standards, visit http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/citedstandard.sic?p_esize=&p_state=FEFederal&p_sic=3364. The July 11, 2013, material from this website is available in Docket #EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027 at regulations.gov. a 4-5 and reduce the associated rotor I2R losses. This technique can result in reduced rotor I2R losses if the increase in rotor current does not exceed the square of the decrease in the rotor resistance. Considering the four screening criteria for this technology option, DOE did not screen out increasing end ring size as a means of improving efficiency. As with some of the previous technology options, motor design engineers adjust this variable when manufacturing an electric motor to achieve performance and efficiency targets. Automated production and casting equipment, which allow some degree of variability, determine the end ring size. 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 increasing the size of the rotor end rings to obtain increased efficiency. Use Electrical Steel with Lower Losses Using a higher grade of electrical steel in the core can reduce core losses. Higher grades of steel exhibit lower core losses as well as higher magnetic permeability. 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. In studying the different types of steel available, 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. The exotic steels are not generally manufactured for use specifically in the electric motors covered in this rulemaking. These steels offer lower core losses than the best conventional 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. There are three types of steel that DOE considers “conventional”: cold-rolled magnetic laminations (CRML), fully processed non-oriented electrical steel, and semi-processed non-oriented electrical steel. Each steel type is sold in a range of grades. In general, as the grade number goes down, so does the amount of core loss associated with the steel (i.e., watts of loss per pound of steel). The induction saturation level also drops, necessitating increased stack length. Of these three types, CRML steels are the most common but generally least efficient. The fully processed steels are annealed before punching and therefore do not require annealing after being punched and assembled and are available in a range of steel grades from M56 through M15. Semi-processed electrical steels are designed for annealing after punching and assembly. Considering the four screening criteria for this technology option, DOE did not screen out lower loss electrical steel in the core as a means of improving efficiency. Design engineers use this approach 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 using lower loss electrical steel. 4-6 Thinner Steel Laminations DOE can use thinner laminations of core steel to reduce eddy currents. DOE can either change grades of electrical steel as described above or use a thinner gauge of the same grade of electrical steel. The magnitude of the eddy currents induced by the magnetic field becomes smaller in thinner laminations, which can result in a more energy efficient motor. Considering the four screening criteria for this technology option, DOE did not screen out thinner steel laminations as a means of improving efficiency. Design engineers use this approach to achieve desired improvements in performance and efficiency. 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 using thinner steel laminations. Increase Stack Length Adding electrical steel laminations to the rotor and stator to lengthen the motor can also reduce the core losses in an electric motor. Increasing the stack length reduces the magnetic flux density, which generally reduces core losses. However, increasing the stack length affects other performance attributes of the motor, such as starting torque. Problems can also arise when installing a longer motor in applications with dimensional constraints. Considering the four screening criteria for this technology option, DOE did not screen out additional stack length as a means of improving efficiency. Design engineers use this approach to achieve desired improvements in performance and efficiency. Because this design technique is in commercial use today, DOE considers this technology option technologically feasible. Regarding the second screening criterion—practicable to manufacture, install, and service— DOE understands that there are practical limits to lengthening a motor due to dimensional constraints of users. However, DOE recognizes that many motor applications are not constrained by motor length. Thus, DOE believes that this technology option meets the second screening criterion. DOE is not aware of any adverse impacts on consumer utility, reliability, health, or safety associated with increased stack length. Optimize Bearing and Lubricant Selection One way to improve efficiency is to optimize the selection of bearings and lubricant. Using improved bearings and lubricants can minimize mechanical resistance to the rotation of the rotor, which also extends motor life. Considering the four screening criteria for this technology option, DOE did not screen out optimizing bearing and lubricant selection as a means of improving efficiency. Design engineers use this approach to achieve desired improvements in performance and efficiency. Because this design technique is in commercial use today, DOE considers this technology option both technologically feasible and 4-7 practicable to manufacture, install, and service. DOE is not aware of any adverse impacts on consumer utility, reliability, health, or safety associated with better ball bearings and lubricant. Improve Cooling System Design Optimizing a motor’s cooling system is another technology option to improve the efficiency of electric motors. An optimized cooling system design provides ample motor cooling while reducing air resistance. Considering the four screening criteria for this technology option, DOE did not screen out an improved cooling system as a means of improving efficiency. Design engineers use this approach to achieve desired improvements in performance and efficiency. 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 improved cooling systems for electric motors. Reduce Skew in Rotor Conductor Cage One way to reduce stray-load losses is to reduce the skew in the rotor squirrel cage. The rotor conductor bars of the rotor cage are often skewed. This means the conductor bars are slightly offset from one end of the rotor to the other. By skewing the rotor bars, motor designers can reduce harmonics that add cusps to the speed-torque characteristics of the motor. The cusps in the speed-torque curves mean that the acceleration of the motor will not be completely smooth. The degree of skew matters because reducing the skew will help reduce the rotor resistance and reactance, which can result in improved efficiency. However, reducing the skew may have adverse impacts on the speed-torque characteristics. Considering the four screening criteria for this technology option, DOE did not screen out adjusting rotor skew as a means of improving efficiency. Rotor skew is one of the variables that motor design engineers can manipulate to obtain certain performance and efficiency targets. The rotor skew is a part of the overall motor design, which is input into automated production equipment that punches and stacks the steel to create a rotor with the desired skew. 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 properly manipulating the rotor skew to obtain improved performance. 4-8 Improved Rotor Bar Insulation Another way to reduce stray-load losses is to improve insulation between the rotor squirrel-cage and the rotor laminations. Motors with insulated rotor cages often exhibit lower stray-load losses when compared to motors with un-insulated rotor cages. 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 the rotor (i.e., rapid cooling, generally by immersion in a fluid instead of allowing the rotor temperature to equalize to the ambient temperature) to separate rotor bars from rotor laminations after die-casting. Considering the four screening criteria for this technology option, DOE did not screen out improved rotor bar insulation as a means of improving efficiency. Design engineers use this approach to achieve desired improvements in performance and efficiency. 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 improved rotor bar insulation. Summary of Technology Options Not Screened Out Every design option presented in Table 4.1 was not screened out of this preliminary analysis. 4.4 TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS SCREENED OUT OF THE ANALYSIS DOE screened out the following design options from further consideration because they do not meet the screening criteria. Amorphous Metal Laminations Using amorphous metals in the rotor laminations is another technology option to improve the efficiency of electric motors. Amorphous metal is extremely thin, has high electrical resistivity, and has little or no magnetic domain definition. Because of amorphous steel’s high resistance, it exhibits a reduction in hysteresis and eddy current losses, which reduce overall losses in electric motors. However, amorphous steel is a very brittle material which makes it difficult to punch into motor laminations. 1 Amorphous steel may also be less structurally stiff, requiring additional mechanical support to implement. Finally, amorphous steel may entail greater acoustic noise levels, which may be unsuitable for some applications or require design compromises to mitigate. DOE is unaware of use of amorphous metal in motors commercially to any significant degree. Considering the four screening criteria for this technology option, DOE screened out amorphous metal laminations as a means of improving efficiency. Although amorphous metals have the potential to improve efficiency, DOE does not consider this technology option technologically feasible, because it has not been incorporated into a working prototype of an electric motor. Furthermore, DOE is uncertain whether amorphous metals are practicable to manufacture, install, and service, because a prototype 4-9 amorphous metal electric motor has not been made and little information is available on the ability to manufacture this technology to make a judgment. DOE is not aware of any adverse impacts on consumer utility, reliability, health, or safety associated with amorphous metal laminations. Plastic Bonded Iron Powder Plastic bonded iron powder (PBIP) could cut production costs while increasing the output of electric motors. Although other researchers may be working on this technology option, DOE is aware of a research team at Lund University in Sweden that published a paper about PBIP. This technology option is based on an iron powder alloy that is suspended in plastic and is used in certain motor applications such as fans, pumps, and household appliances.2 The compound is then shaped into motor components using a centrifugal mold, reducing the number of manufacturing steps. Researchers claim that this technology option could cut losses by as much as 50 percent. The Lund University team already produces inductors, transformers, and induction heating coils using PBIP, but has not yet produced an electric motor. In addition, it appears that PBIP technology is aimed at torus, claw-pole, and transversal flux motors, none of which fall under DOE’s scope of analysis as defined by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act. Considering the four screening criteria for this technology option, DOE screened out PBIP as a means of improving efficiency. Although PBIP has the potential to improve efficiency while reducing manufacturing costs, DOE does not consider this technology option technologically feasible, because it has not been incorporated into a working prototype of an electric motor. Also, DOE is uncertain whether the material has the structural integrity to form into the necessary shape of an electric motor steel frame. Furthermore, DOE is uncertain whether PBIP is practicable to manufacture, install, and service, because a prototype PBIP electric motor has not been made and little information is available on the ability to manufacture this technology to make a judgment. However, DOE is not aware of any adverse impacts on equipment utility, equipment availability, health, or safety that may arise from the use of PBIP in electric motors. Summary of Technology Options Screened Out of the Analysis Table 4.4.1 shows the criteria DOE used to screen amorphous metal laminations and plastic bonded iron powder (PBIP) out of the analysis. Table 4.4.1 Technology Options Screened Out of the Analysis Technology Option Excluded Amorphous Metals PBIP Basis for Screening Out Technological feasibility Technological feasibility 4-10 REFERENCES 1. S.R. Ning, J. Gao, and Y.G. Wang. Review on Applications of Low Loss Amorphous Metals in Motors. 2010. ShanDong University. Weihai, China 4-11 CHAPTER 5. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 5-1 EQUIPMENT CLASSES AND REPRESENTATIVE UNITS ...................................... 5-1 Scope: 10 CFR 431.25 ..................................................................................................... 5-1 Scope: Expanded.............................................................................................................. 5-2 EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS.............................................................................................. 5-3 Baseline and Higher Efficiency Levels............................................................................ 5-4 Scope: 10 CFR 431.25 ...................................................................................... 5-4 Scope: Expanded ............................................................................................... 5-5 COST MODEL ................................................................................................................ 5-7 Two Distinct Engineering Approaches ............................................................................ 5-8 General Methodology ...................................................................................................... 5-8 Teardowns ......................................................................................................... 5-8 Software Modeling ............................................................................................ 5-9 Retail Price Analysis ....................................................................................... 5-10 Constructing a Bill of Materials ..................................................................................... 5-11 Conductor Prices ............................................................................................................ 5-11 Electrical Steel Prices .................................................................................................... 5-12 Other Material Prices ..................................................................................................... 5-12 Labor Costs .................................................................................................................... 5-13 Markups ......................................................................................................................... 5-14 Factory Overhead ............................................................................................ 5-14 Scrap Factor..................................................................................................... 5-15 Conversion Costs............................................................................................. 5-15 Nonproduction ................................................................................................. 5-15 RESULTS OF ENGINEERING ANALYSIS ............................................................... 5-16 Scope: 10 CFR 431.25 ................................................................................................... 5-16 Expanded Scope ............................................................................................................. 5-16 SCALING METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 5-17 Scaling Approach Using Incremental Improvements of Motors Losses ....................... 5-18 Scope: 10 CFR 431.25 .................................................................................... 5-18 Scope: Expanded ............................................................................................. 5-18 LIST OF TABLES Table 5.2.1 Table 5.2.2 Table 5.2.3 Table 5.2.4 Table 5.2.5 Equipment Classes and Representative Units .................................................................. 5-2 Representative Units of Proposed MEM Air-Over Equipment Classes ............................. 5-2 Motor Topologies of Each Equipment Class Group......................................................... 5-3 Representative Units of Proposed SNEM Equipment Classes .......................................... 5-3 Representative Units of Proposed AO SNEM Equipment Classes .................................... 5-3 5-i Table 5.3.1 Table 5.3.2 Table 5.3.3 Table 5.3.4 Table 5.3.5 Table 5.3.6 Table 5.4.1 Table 5.4.2 Table 5.4.3 Table 5.4.4 Table 5.4.5 Table 5.4.6 Table 5.5.1 Table 5.5.2 Table 5.5.3 Table 5.5.4 Baseline Efficiency Ratings of Representative Units ....................................................... 5-4 Efficiency Levels by Representative Unit ....................................................................... 5-5 SNEM Baseline Efficiency by Representative Unit ......................................................... 5-6 SNEM Efficiency Levels by Representative Unit ............................................................ 5-6 AO SNEM Efficiency Levels by Representative Unit...................................................... 5-7 AO-MEM Efficiency Levels by Representative Unit....................................................... 5-7 Max Theoretical Stack Length for Each Representative Unit ......................................... 5-10 Stack Length of Each Design....................................................................................... 5-10 Estimated Conductor Prices......................................................................................... 5-12 Estimated Electrical Steel Prices .................................................................................. 5-12 Estimated Other Material Prices .................................................................................. 5-12 Labor Markups for Electric Motor Manufacturers ......................................................... 5-14 MSP (2020$) of Each Representative Unit ................................................................... 5-16 MSP of Each EL for AO MEM RUs Analyzed ............................................................. 5-17 MSP of Each EL for SNEM RUs Analyzed .................................................................. 5-17 MSP of Each EL for AO SNEM RUs Analyzed ............................................................ 5-17 5-ii CHAPTER 5. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS 5.1 INTRODUCTION The engineering analysis estimates the increase in manufacturer selling price (MSP) associated with technological design changes that improve the efficiency of an electric motor. This chapter presents the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) assumptions, methodology and findings for the electric motor engineering analysis. The output from the engineering analysis is a “cost-efficiency” relationship for each electric motor analyzed which describes how its cost changes as efficiency increases. The output of the engineering analysis is used as an input to the life-cycle cost analysis (Technical Support Document (TSD) chapter 8) and the national impact analysis (TSD chapter 10). The engineering analysis takes input from the market and technology assessment (see TSD chapter 3) and the screening analysis (see TSD chapter 4). These inputs include equipment classes, baseline electric motor performance, methods for improving efficiency, and design options that have passed the screening criteria. The engineering analysis uses these inputs, coupled with material price estimates, design parameters, and other manufacturer inputs to develop the relationship between the MSP and nominal full-load efficiency of the representative electric motors studied. At its most basic level, the output of the engineering analysis is a curve that estimates the MSP for a range of efficiency values. This output is subsequently marked-up to determine the end-user prices based on the various distribution channels (see TSD chapter 6). After determining customer prices by applying distribution chain markups, sales tax, and contractor markups, the data is combined with the energy-use and end-use load characterization (see TSD chapter 7) and used as a critical input to the customer’s life-cycle cost and payback period analysis (see TSD chapter 8). 5.2 EQUIPMENT CLASSES AND REPRESENTATIVE UNITS Scope: 10 CFR 431.25 Electric motors currently in scope at 10 CFR 431.25 are divided into different equipment classes categorized by physical characteristics that affect equipment efficiency. Key physical characteristics are: (1) horsepower output, (2) pole configuration, (3) enclosure, and (4) motor design type (e.g., NEMA Design A or B). Because it is impractical to conduct detailed engineering analysis at every hp rating, DOE conducts detailed modeling on 5 “representative units” (“RUs”). These RUs are selected both to represent the more common designs found in the market and to include a variety of design specifications to enable generalization of the results. The representative units do not map to equipment classes 1:1. RUs used in the May 2014 Standards Final Rule are unchanged. 79 FR 30934, 30966. These representative units are listed in Table 5.2.1. 5-1 Table 5.2.1 Equipment Classes and Representative Units Equipment Class Group Represented Electric Motor Design Type Horsepower Rating Pole Configuration Enclosure 1, 3 NEMA Design B 5 4 Totally Enclosed, Fan Cooled 1, 3 NEMA Design B 30 4 Totally Enclosed, Fan Cooled 1, 3 NEMA Design B 75 4 Totally Enclosed, Fan Cooled 2 NEMA Design C 5 4 Totally Enclosed, Fan Cooled 2 NEMA Design C 50 4 Totally Enclosed, Fan Cooled Scope: Expanded For electric motors that meet the criteria listed at 10 CFR 431.25(g) but are excluded on the basis of being an air-over motor according to 10 CFR 431.25(l)(1), DOE used 3 RUs to represent these proposed equipment classes. These RUs were similar to the 3 RUs of ECG 1 in all characteristics except enclosure, which were all air-over instead of TEFC. Table 5.2.2 Representative Units of Proposed MEM Air-Over Equipment Classes Equipment Class Group Represented Electric Motor Design Type Horsepower Rating Pole Configuration Enclosure AO-MEM NEMA Design B 5 4 Totally Enclosed, Air-over AO-MEM NEMA Design B 30 4 Totally Enclosed, Air-over AO-MEM NEMA Design B 75 4 Totally Enclosed, Air-over For electric motors that do not meet the criteria listed at 10 CFR 431.25(g) but are included in the prosed expanded scope, DOE chose 24 RUs to represent these equipment classes. The proposed equipment classes are categorized by physical characteristics that affect equipment efficiency. Key physical characteristics for these motors are: (1) horsepower output, (2) pole configuration, (3) enclosure, (4) phases of input power, and (5), locked-rotor torque. For SNEMs, DOE split these motors into equipment class groups based on locked rotor torque since these motors do not use the same NEMA Design A, B, or C designations that other motors in the scope of this rule do, and certain applications require a certain locked rotor torque to operate. SNEMs were split into three equipment class groups: high locked rotor torque, medium locked rotor torque, and low locked rotor torque. Each equipment class group was filled by specific motor topologies because of the different torque-speed curves associated with each topology. Within each equipment class group, SNEMs were further split based on if external cooling was needed for continuous operation or not. SNEMs that do not need external cooling are referred to here as SNEMs and those that do need external cooling are referred to as ‘Airover’ (“AO”). The grouping of topologies is shown in Table 5.2.3. The RUs selected for each equipment class group is shown in tables Table 5.2.4 and Table 5.2.5. 5-2 Table 5.2.3 Motor Topologies of Each Equipment Class Group Equipment Class Group by Motor Topologies Locked Rotor Torque Capacitor-Start Induction-Run High Capacitor-Start Capacitor-Run Medium Split Phase Shaded Pole Low Permanent Split Capacitor Table 5.2.4 Representative Units of Proposed SNEM Equipment Classes Equipment Class Group Represented Horsepower Rating Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (Medium LRT) Single-Phase (Low LRT) Single-Phase (Low LRT) Polyphase Polyphase Polyphase Pole Configuration Enclosure 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Open Open Open Enclosed Enclosed Enclosed Open Open Open Enclosed Enclosed Enclosed .33 1 2 .25 1 3 .33 .25 .5 .33 .5 .75 Table 5.2.5 Representative Units of Proposed AO SNEM Equipment Classes Equipment Class Group Represented Horsepower Rating Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (Medium LRT) Single-Phase (Low LRT) Single-Phase (Low LRT) Polyphase Polyphase Polyphase 5.3 .33 1 2 .25 1 3 .33 .25 .5 .33 .5 .75 Pole Configuration Enclosure 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Open, Air-over Open, Air-over Open, Air-over Enclosed, Air-over Enclosed, Air-over Enclosed, Air-over Open, Air-over Open, Air-over Open, Air-over Enclosed, Air-over Enclosed, Air-over Enclosed, Air-over EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiencylevel approach), or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated with 5-3 incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e., the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on the range of efficiencies and efficiency level “clusters” that already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended using the design option approach to interpolate to define “gap fill” levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in cases where the max-tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on the market). Baseline and Higher Efficiency Levels To perform engineering analysis, DOE generally selects a baseline model as a reference point for each equipment class, and measures changes resulting from potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The baseline model in each equipment class represents the characteristics of an equipment typical of that class (e.g., capacity). Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market. Table 5.3.1 lists baseline efficiency values for each representative unit. Scope: 10 CFR 431.25 Table 5.3.1 Baseline Efficiency Ratings of Representative Units Equipment Class Group Rep. Unit Baseline (EL0) Efficiency 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 Design B, 5-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 30-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 75-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design C, 5-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design C, 50-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 5-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 30-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 75-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed 89.50% 93.60% 95.40% 89.50% 94.50% 87.50% 92.40% 94.10% With baseline established, DOE selects functionally similar units at higher efficiency levels within the equipment class. These higher-efficiency units are selected to, as much as possible, maintain the important attributes of the baseline unit and vary mostly in cost and efficiency. By subtracting the cost of a higher-efficiency unit from the cost of a baseline unit, DOE estimates the incremental purchase cost to an electric motor buyer. Table 5.3.2 lists all ELs by representative unit. As a note, efficiency level 0 (“EL0”) is synonymous with “baseline” for all representative units in this preliminary analysis. 5-4 Table 5.3.2 Efficiency Levels by Representative Unit Equipment Class Group 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 Rep. Unit EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 Design B, 5-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 30-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 75-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design C, 5-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design C, 50-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 5-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 30-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 75-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed 89.50% 93.60% 95.40% 89.50% 94.50% 87.50% 92.40% 94.10% 90.20% 94.10% 95.80% 90.20% 95.00% 89.50% 93.60% 95.40% 91.00% 94.50% 96.20% 91.00% 95.40% 90.20% 94.10% 95.80% 91.70% 95.00% 96.50% 91.70% 95.80% 91.00% 94.50% 96.20% 92.40% 95.40% 96.80% 92.40% 95.80% 92.40% 95.40% 96.80% To establish ELs higher than baseline, DOE used different approaches based on ECG. For ECGs 1 and 2, DOE started at the baseline and each EL above baseline incremented one NEMA band1 higher in efficiency than the previous EL. Each NEMA band represents a 10% reduction in losses from the level below it. In instances where the max-tech level was less than four NEMA bands above baseline, the next highest efficiency is repeated to allow for analysis of all ELs across ECs. For ECG 3, DOE started at the baseline and made EL1 equivalent in efficiency to EL0 of ECG 1, ELs 2 and 3 were each one NEMA band higher than the previous ELs, and EL 4 is equivalent in efficiency to EL4 of ECG 1. DOE notes that all TSLs of the current rule will be evaluated for cost-effectiveness, and that there are levels analyzed in this rule that are above NEMA Premium efficiency levels. DOE is using motor performance modeling for each representative unit to determine the maximum efficiency level that is technologically feasible while remaining within NEMA Design B performance constraints as defined in NEMA MG-1 2016 Sections 12.35.1, 12.38, 12.39, and 12.40. Scope: Expanded With no energy conservation standards in place, DOE selected a baseline for SNEM equipment classes based on a modified version of the current small electric motors (“SEM”) energy conservation standards located at 10 CFR 431.446. DOE created a function of motor losses vs. HP of the current SEM standards and then increased the losses based on the listed efficiency of motors in each equipment class group. For single-phase high LRT, the baseline was an 81% in losses compared to the SEM standard. For medium LRT the baseline was a 25% increase in losses and for low LRT the baseline was a 96% increase in losses, except at .25 horsepower where shaded-pole motors were readily available, which had a baseline that was a 157% increase in losses compared to the SEM standard. For polyphase SNEMs the baseline was a 38% increase in losses compared to the SEM standard. Table 5.3.3 contains the baseline efficiency for each SNEM representative unit. 1 NEMA MG 1 2016, Table 12-10 5-5 Table 5.3.3 SNEM Baseline Efficiency by Representative Unit Equipment Class Group Horsepower Baseline (EL0) Efficiency Single-Phase (High LRT) .33 58.20% Single-Phase (High LRT) 1 72.50% Single-Phase (High LRT) 2 74.80% Single-Phase (High LRT) .25 55.00% Single-Phase (High LRT) 1 72.00% Single-Phase (High LRT) 3 77.00% Single-Phase (Medium LRT) .33 55.20% Single-Phase (Low LRT) .25 35.78% Single-Phase (Low LRT) .5 59.30% Polyphase .33 64.30% Polyphase .5 71.00% Polyphase .75 75.50% For efficiency levels higher than baseline, DOE used different methods based on equipment class group. For single-phase high LRT, EL1 represents a 12.5% reduction in loss from the baseline efficiency and EL2 approximated the current SEM standards. For medium LRT, EL1 was a 15% decrease in loss from baseline and EL2 was a 22.5% decrease in loss from baseline. For low LRT, EL1 was a repeat of EL0 for every equipment class except .25 HP where shaded-pole motors are prevalent. This repeat in EL was chosen to simplify the structure of the eventual LCC and NIA analyses. EL2 was a 38% reduction in losses from the previous EL, and EL3 approximated the SEM standard. For polyphase SNEMs, EL1 was 12.5% decrease in loss from baseline, EL2 an 18.5% decrease in loss from baseline, EL3 an approximation of current SEM standards, and EL4 was a 20% decrease in losses from the SEM standard. Table 5.3.4 SNEM Efficiency Levels by Representative Unit Equipment Class Group Horsepower EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (Medium LRT) Single-Phase (Low LRT) Single-Phase (Low LRT) Polyphase Polyphase Polyphase .33 1 2 .25 1 3 .33 .25 .5 .33 .5 .75 58.20% 72.50% 74.80% 55.00% 72.00% 77.00% 55.20% 35.78% 59.30% 64.30% 71.00% 75.50% 61.00% 74.40% 78.50% 57.00% 75.00% 80.00% 59.20% 42.22% 59.30% 69.20% 74.00% 78.50% 72.40% 82.60% 84.50% 74.00% 82.60% 85.50% 62.00% 54.32% 69.67% 70.10% 76.10% 80.00% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 60.98% 74.09% 74.00% 78.20% 81.50% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 77.00% 81.60% 84.20% To analyze air-over motors, DOE used a modified version of each representative unit for both SNEMs and equipment classes with standards at 10 CFR 431.25. First, DOE performed motor efficiency testing on five SNEMs according to the test procedure proposed in the December 2021 TP NOPR. Then, the internal fans were removed and the motor was tested according to the air-over test procedure proposed in the December 2021 TP NOPR. DOE then 5-6 analyzed the measured efficiency difference in the two tests and plotted a function of fan loss as a percent of total losses vs. rated horsepower. Using this function, DOE created a theoretical airover version of each of the representative units. For SNEMs, this resulted in higher measured efficiencies for each representative unit. DOE notes that this increase in efficiency between an air-over and a non-air over motor may not always result in energy savings to the end-user because in many cases a fan is still being driven by the motor even if the energy required to drive it is not measured by the test procedure. For the air-over versions of motors currently in the scope of 10 CFR 431.25, the nominal efficiency of each unit is the same as the non-air-over versions because the fan losses were never more than 10% of the total losses that a NEMA band represents. Table 5.3.5 shows the efficiency of each air-over SNEM representative unit. Table 5.3.6 shows the efficiency of each air-over version of motors currently in scope at 10 CFR 431.25. Table 5.3.5 AO SNEM Efficiency Levels by Representative Unit Equipment Class Group Horsepower EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (High LRT) Single-Phase (Medium LRT) Single-Phase (Low LRT) Single-Phase (Low LRT) Polyphase Polyphase Polyphase .33 1 2 .25 1 3 .33 .25 .5 .33 .5 .75 61.15% 74.39% 76.31% 58.17% 73.92% 78.26% 58.21% 38.80% 62.00% 67.06% 73.27% 77.37% 63.87% 76.21% 79.85% 60.13% 76.78% 81.14% 62.12% 45.40% 62.00% 71.75% 76.11% 80.20% 74.78% 83.95% 85.54% 76.41% 83.95% 86.38% 64.84% 57.50% 72.00% 72.60% 78.09% 81.61% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 64.00% 76.20% 76.29% 80.06% 83.01% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 79.10% 83.24% 85.53% Table 5.3.6 AO-MEM Efficiency Levels by Representative Unit Rep. Unit EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 Design B, 5-horsepower, 4-pole, air-over Design B, 30-horsepower, 4-pole, air-over Design B, 75-horsepower, 4-pole, air-over 87.50% 92.40% 95.40% 89.50% 93.60% 95.40% 90.20% 94.10% 95.80% 91.00% 94.50% 96.20% 92.40% 95.40% 96.80% 5.4 COST MODEL The cost analysis portion of the Engineering Analysis is conducted using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated product, availability, and timeliness of purchasing the equipment on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows: 5-7 • Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to develop a detailed bill of materials for the product. • Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example) to develop the bill of materials for the product. • Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise impractical (e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and other commercial channels. Two Distinct Engineering Approaches To determine the MSP of a given representative unit DOE utilized two different approaches. For representative units subject to energy conservation standards 10 CFR 431.25(g), DOE performed motor efficiency tests and motor teardowns that informed a motor performance model. For representative units not currently in scope at 10 CFR 431.25, DOE used a retail-based analysis. This retail analysis combined catalog data across six manufacturers and aggregated the results to estimate the average MPC for a given representative unit efficiency and horsepower. DOE utilized a retail-based analysis for the expanded scope since it was the most accessible source of information but for the NOPR, DOE will consider adding a test and teardown approach to determine the MSP of these new representative units. General Methodology To derive the production and material costs of each EL, DOE used a combination of teardowns, software modeling, and retail price data. DOE performed a motor efficiency test and extensive teardown on one model for each representative unit in ECG 1 and the results of this performance test and teardown were used to inform the software modelled designs. Coupling these two approaches allowed DOE to analyze ELs that were theoretically possible but not available on the market. Teardowns Due to limited manufacturer feedback concerning cost data and production costs, DOE derived its production and material costs by having a professional motor laboratory disassemble and inventory the physical electric motors purchased. DOE performed teardowns on three electric motors that were advertised as having higher efficiency than EL0 for equipment class group 1. These teardowns provided DOE the necessary data to construct a bill of materials, 5-8 which DOE could normalize using a standard cost model and markup to produce a projected manufacturer selling price (MSP). DOE used the MSP derived from the engineering tear-down paired with the corresponding nameplate nominal efficiency to report the relative costs of achieving improvements in energy efficiency. DOE derived material prices from a consensus of current, publicly available data, manufacturer feedback, and conversations with its subject matter experts. DOE supplemented the findings from its tests and teardowns 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. 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, using die-cast copper rotors, 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 generally increases and the electric motor’s efficiency improves. Software Modeling DOE worked with technical experts to develop the highest efficiency levels (i.e., the max-tech levels) technologically feasible for each representative unit analyzed. DOE used a combination of electric motor software design programs and SME input. DOE retained an electric motor expert with design experience and software, who prepared a set of designs with increasing efficiency. The SME also checked his designs against tear-down data and calibrated his software using the relevant test results. As new designs were created, careful attention was paid to the required performance characteristics of NEMA Design B as defined in NEMA MG 12016 Tables 12-2, 12-3, 12-4, and paragraph 12.35.1, which define locked-rotor torque, breakdown torque, pull-up torque and maximum locked-rotor currents, respectively. This was done to ensure that the utility of the baseline unit was conserved as efficiency was improved through the application of various design options. Additionally, DOE limited its modeled stack length increases based on tear-down data and the maximum “C” dimensions found in manufacturer’s catalogs. DOE limited the amount by which it would increase the stack length of its softwaremodeled electric motors to preserve the utility of the baseline model torn down. 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 NEMA design letter, horsepower rating, NEMA frame series, 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 product was the value that DOE chose to use as the maximum stack length in its software modeled designs. Table 5.4.1 shows the estimated maximum stack length that was used as an upper bound in the software modeled ELs. Table 5.4.2 shows the stack length and efficiency of each modeled design. 5-9 Table 5.4.1 Max Theoretical Stack Length for Each Representative Unit Table 5.4.2 Stack Length of Each Design HP 5 30 75 5 50 HP 5 5 5 5 5 30 30 30 30 30 75 75 75 75 75 50 50 50 50 50 ECG 1 1 1 2 2 ECG 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 Frame Size 184T 286T 365T 184T 326T EL 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Max Theoretical Stack Length (in) 7.19 11.21 16.42 7.19 12.60 Efficiency (%) 89.50 90.20 91.00 91.70 92.40 93.60 94.10 94.50 95.00 95.40 95.40 95.80 96.20 96.50 96.80 94.50 95.00 95.40 95.80 95.80 Stack Length (in) 5.14 6.00 6.30 6.50 6.50 8.84 8.84 8.84 10.95 11.05 13.50 13.68 10.85 13.68 13.68 12.13 12.13 12.13 12.13 12.13 Retail Price Analysis For SNEMs, DOE harvested price data from six motor manufacturers and used it to derive the MSP of each RU. First, DOE began by finding the average correlation of manufacturer suggested retail price (MSRP) and retail price of a given motor. Once that was found for each of the six manufacturers in the data set, DOE then filtered the catalog data to match each representative unit in horsepower, LRT, pole, and enclosure. Further characteristics including duty cycle, purpose (i.e., general vs. dedicated), and input voltage were used to further narrow the selection criteria. Once this similar group of motors was found it was filtered by efficiency and the MSP of each EL was found by taking the average MSP of motors within that EL. 5-10 DOE notes that this retail data was recorded in 2017 and will likely not be the basis of the analysis presented in the NOPR of this rule, but that the 2017 prices were adjusted for inflation and were analyzed in 2020 dollars. Constructing a Bill of Materials The bill of material (BOM) calculated for each design contained four types of material costs: conductors, electrical steel, insulation, and hardware. In the May 2014 Final Rule, DOE used a fixed cost depending on horsepower for components like insulation and frame hardware. In this preliminary analysis, DOE opted to breakdown these components so that every component in the BOM could vary depending on EL. Each item in the BOM is organized by the type of cost (i.e., variable, insulation, and hardware) and the component of the electric motor to which they apply. The variable costs portion of the BOM includes the following subheadings, each with an itemized parts list: stator assembly, rotor assembly, and other major costs. The subheadings that have an itemized list of components include the stator assembly, rotor assembly, and other major costs. The stator assembly’s itemized lists include prices for steel laminations and copper wire. The rotor assembly portion of the BOM includes prices for laminations, rotor conductor material, (either aluminum or copper) and shaft extension material. The other major costs heading contains items for the frame material and base, terminal housing components, bearing-type, and end-shield material. Conductor Prices Aluminum and copper are the materials used as conductors. The prices of aluminum and copper conductor are strongly correlated to the price of the underlying commodities, which are tracked in various public indices. In this preliminary analysis, DOE used a combination of cost extrapolation from the public indexes and calibrated the data based on information received in manufacturer interviews. Further, DOE assumed that the 10 percent aluminum tariff would be partially offset by, e.g., changes in sourcing, suppliers’ absorbing some cost, and reduced demand for aluminum throughout the market. Therefore, in the base-case price scenario, DOE assumed a price increase of 7.5 percent as a result of aluminum tariffs. DOE also included price sensitivity scenarios in the engineering analysis, which include modeling of a market without tariffs on aluminum. 5-11 Table 5.4.3 Estimated Conductor Prices Category Description Copper Cu Copper 20.5 Copper 20 Copper 19.5 Copper 19 Copper 18.5 Other Metals Al Other Metals Lead Wire 14 Ga (in) Unit lb lb lb lb lb lb lb in Price / Unit ($) $5.29 $5.30 $5.29 $5.29 $5.29 $5.29 $2.02 $0.01 Electrical Steel Prices The other major material cost in electric motors are the electrical steels used in the stator and rotor laminations. In general, the electrical steels with lower core loss per unit weight cost more than their higher loss counterparts. DOE used a mixture of publicly available price data and feedback from manufacturer interviews to estimate the cost of each electrical steel. For some newer steels such as 35H210 where price data was unavailable, the price was estimated by extrapolating the relationship of core loss vs. price based on the general electrical steel market. Table 5.4.4 Estimated Electrical Steel Prices Item and description 2020 Price ($/lb) M56 $0.64 M47 $0.69 M400-50A $0.71 M600-50A $0.69 26M19 $1.01 29M19 $1.11 35H210 $1.25 Other Material Prices In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment on the cost other materials used in the production of electric motors. Table 5.4.5 shows the estimated costs of these other materials used in this preliminary analysis. Table 5.4.5 Estimated Other Material Prices Category Item Unit Power/Heat Transmission Power/Heat Transmission Power/Heat Transmission Fan Shaft Bearings (5 HP) ea lb ea 5-12 2020 Price ($/unit) 0.25 2.80 2.25 Category Item Unit Power/Heat Transmission Power/Heat Transmission Power/Heat Transmission Insulation Insulation Insulation Insulation Insulation Insulation Insulation Hardware Hardware Hardware Hardware Hardware Hardware Hardware Hardware Hardware Hardware Hardware Hardware Housing Housing Housing End Cap Assembly End Cap Assembly End Cap Assembly End Cap Assembly End Cap Assembly End Cap Assembly End Cap Assembly End Cap Assembly Hardware Bearings (30 HP) Bearings (50 HP) Bearings (75 HP) Lace Cord Insulation Sleeves Splices Varnish Cleat Slot Liner Slot Peg Seal Washer Mounting Bolts Cap Screws Thermal switch screws Terminal block screws Terminal Cover Screws Bearing Wave Spring Studs Female Disconnects 3/16 Conduit Cap Female Disconnects 1/4 Nameplate Housing Paint Fan Shroud Cast and Machined Shaft End Cast and Machined Fan End Bearing Insert Bearing Cap Terminal Board Thermal Switch Terminal Cover Terminal Cover Gasket Labeling ea ea ea in ea ea gal ea in^2 in^2 ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea lb ea lb lb lb ea ea ea ea ea ea ea 2020 Price ($/unit) 22.00 49.00 58.00 $0.01 $0.02 $0.04 $68.00 $0.20 $0.01 $0.01 $0.02 $0.03 $0.02 $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 $0.05 $0.03 $0.03 $0.05 $0.03 $0.10 $0.82 $1.39 $0.82 $0.82 $0.82 $0.16 $0.90 $1.00 $1.56 $0.30 $0.04 $0.10 Labor Costs Due to the varying degree of automation used in manufacturing electric motors, labor costs differ for each representative unit. DOE analyzed teardown results to determine which electric motors were machine wound and which electric motors were hand wound and based on this analysis, DOE applied a higher labor hour amount for the hand-wound electric motors. For the max-tech software modeled electric motors, DOE always assumed hand-winding and 5-13 therefore a higher labor hour amount. Labor hours for each of the representative units were based on SME input and manufacturer interviews. DOE used the same hourly labor rate for all electric motors analyzed. The base hourly rate was developed from the 2007 Economic Census of Industry, published by the U.S. Census Bureau, as well as manufacturer and SME input.2 The base hourly rate is an aggregate rate of a foreign labor rate and a domestic labor rate. DOE weighed the foreign labor rate more than the domestic labor rate due to manufacturer feedback indicating off-shore production accounts for a majority of electric motor production by American-based companies. Several markups were applied to this hourly rate to obtain a fully burdened rate which is representative of the labor costs associated with manufacturing electric motors. Table 5.4.6 shows the markups that were applied, their corresponding markup percentage, and the new burdened labor rate. Table 5.4.6 Labor Markups for Electric Motor Manufacturers Item description Labor cost per hour‫٭‬ Indirect Production‫٭٭‬ Overhead‫٭٭٭‬ Fringe† Assembly Labor Up-time†† Cost of Labor Input to Spreadsheet Markup percentage 33 % 30 % 24 % 43 % Rate per hour $18.02 $23.97 $31.16 $38.64 $55.26 $55.26 DOE used the three markups described below to account for non-production costs that are part of each electric motor leaving a manufacturer’s facility. Handling and scrap factor, overhead, and non-production markups will vary from manufacturer to manufacturer because their profit margins, overheads, prices paid for goods, and business structures vary. DOE prepared estimates for these three non-production cost manufacturer markups from Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Form 10K annual reports, and conversations with manufacturers and experts. Markups Factory Overhead Factory overhead: 15 percent markup. Factory overhead includes all the indirect costs associated with production, indirect materials and energy use, taxes, and insurance. DOE applies factory overhead to the sum of direct material production costs (including the handling and scrap factor) and the direct labor costs. The overhead increases to 20 percent when copper die-casting The Economic Census of Industry data is used to inform how markup percentages are applied but is not the primary source of labor rate date for electric motor manufacturing, which was obtained primarily through interviews with manufacturers of electric motors. DOE is considering using the 2017 Economic Census of Industry for potential future rulemaking stages. 2 5-14 is used in the rotor. This accounts for additional energy, insurance, and other indirect costs associated with the copper die-casting process. Scrap Factor Handling and scrap factor: 2.5 percent markup. This markup was applied to the direct material production costs of each electric motor. It accounts for the handling of material (loading into assembly or winding equipment) and the scrap material that cannot be used in the production of a finished electric motor (e.g., lengths of wire too short to wind). Conversion Costs DOE understands that even without new conservation standards, manufacturers will be expending resources on research and development, capital equipment replacement, and testing and certification for new products in the normal course of their day-to-day business operations. However, DOE also realizes that some of the conservation standards under consideration may require significant levels of investment, in time and dollars, by manufacturers above and beyond their typical operational levels. To account for the additional investments that manufacturers will have to make to reach certain ELs, DOE included a conversion cost adder in the cost model. The conversion cost adder was only applied to designs that use thinner steels than what is currently used in most motors for the stator and rotor laminations and thus would require retooling the die-stamping portion of the manufacturing line.3 For designs that use a .018” thickness electrical steel, a product conversion markup of 4.1 percent was used. For designs that use a .014” (approximately .35 mm), a product conversion markup of 6.5 percent was used. The magnitudes of these markups are consistent with what was used in the May 2014 Final Rule. 79 FR 30934, 30975 Nonproduction To account for manufacturers’ nonproduction costs and profit margin, DOE applies a nonproduction cost multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (“MSP”) is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. DOE did not receive any comments recommending a different manufacturer markup. In this preliminary analysis, DOE maintained a manufacturer markup of 37 – 45 percent. This markup reflects costs including sales and general administrative, research and development, interest payments, and profit factor. DOE applies the non-production markup to the sum of the direct material production, the direct labor, the factory overhead, and the product conversion costs. For the analyzed electric motors at or below 5-horsepower this markup was 37 percent and for electric motors above 5-horsepower this markup was 45 percent. 3 Examples of these thinner steels are 29M19 and 35H210. 5-15 5.5 RESULTS OF ENGINEERING ANALYSIS Scope: 10 CFR 431.25 The results of the engineering analysis are reported as cost-efficiency data (or “curves”) in the form of energy efficiency (in percentage) versus MSP (in dollars), which form the basis for subsequent analyses in the preliminary analysis. DOE developed fourteen curves representing the fourteen representative units. DOE implemented design options by analyzing a variety of core steel material, winding material and core construction method for each representative unit and applying manufacturer selling prices to the output of the model for each design option combination. Table 5.5.1 shows the MSP of each representative unit for each EL. Table 5.5.1 MSP (2020$) of Each Representative Unit Equipment Class Group 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 Rep. Unit Design B, 5-horsepower, 4pole, enclosed Design B, 30-horsepower, 4pole, enclosed Design B, 75-horsepower, 4pole, enclosed Design C, 5-horsepower, 4pole, enclosed Design C, 50-horsepower, 4pole, enclosed Design B, 5-horsepower, 4pole, enclosed Design B, 30-horsepower, 4pole, enclosed Design B, 75-horsepower, 4pole, enclosed EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 $295.12 $340.49 $367.30 $403.44 $509.63 $1,185.21 $1,233.05 $1,273.73 $1,528.57 $1,596.68 $3,014.23 $3,431.54 $3,969.67 $4,116.89 $4,443.22 $345.59 $361.16 $389.22 $442.70 $489.79 $2,386.46 $2,531.06 $2,682.51 $2,847.38 $2,847.38 $267.77 $295.12 $340.49 $367.30 $509.63 $1,072.41 $1,185.21 $1,233.05 $1,273.73 $1,596.68 $2,430.83 $3,014.23 $3,431.54 $3,969.67 $4,443.22 Expanded Scope The results of the engineering analysis are reported as cost-efficiency data (or “curves”). No downstream (e.g., LCC, NIA) results are included for the following equipment varieties. DOE notes that the representative units used in this analysis will likely not be the same representative units used in the analysis for the NOPR of this rule. The MSP for each AO MEM is shown in Table 5.5.2. The MSP associated with each EL for SNEM and AO SNEM RUs is shown in Table 5.5.3 and Table 5.5.4, respectively. 5-16 Table 5.5.2 MSP of Each EL for AO MEM RUs Analyzed Equipment Class Group AO MEM AO MEM AO MEM Rep. Unit Design B, 5-horsepower, 4pole, enclosed Design B, 30-horsepower, 4pole, enclosed Design B, 75-horsepower, 4pole, enclosed EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 $254.04 $282.73 $300.22 $345.75 $460.53 $1,052.77 $1,167.83 $1,216.42 $1,257.16 $1,555.96 $2,964.05 $2,964.05 $3,385.21 $3,916.19 $4,405.27 Table 5.5.3 MSP of Each EL for SNEM RUs Analyzed Phase HP Enclosure Single Single Single Single Single Single Single Single Single Poly Poly Poly .33 1 2 .25 1 3 .33 .25 .5 .33 .5 .75 Open Open Open Enclosed Enclosed Enclosed Open Open Open Enclosed Enclosed Enclosed Pole Count 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 4 4 4 Torque Class High High High High High High Medium Low Low - EL0 95.67 158.25 233.17 92.11 173.55 292.85 54.27 48.25 69.47 93.67 105.68 114.19 MSP (2020$) EL1 EL2 EL3 98.99 120.35 171.39 188.50 244.21 264.78 94.61 115.94 187.87 206.52 311.87 340.47 61.90 65.68 49.61 59.90 62.71 69.47 80.61 92.68 96.92 104.64 106.99 107.46 124.50 127.37 125.33 131.28 137.41 EL4 135.89 178.86 191.71 Table 5.5.4 MSP of Each EL for AO SNEM RUs Analyzed Phase HP Enclosure Single Single Single Single Single Single Single Single Single Poly Poly Poly .33 1 2 .25 1 3 .33 .25 .5 .33 .5 .75 Open Open Open Enclosed Enclosed Enclosed Open Open Open Enclosed Enclosed Enclosed 5.6 Pole Count 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 4 4 4 Torque Class High High High High High High Medium Low Low - EL0 95.30 157.24 231.27 91.83 172.54 290.11 53.90 47.97 68.94 93.30 105.15 113.41 MSP (2020$) EL1 EL2 EL3 98.62 119.98 170.38 187.49 242.31 262.88 94.33 115.66 186.86 205.51 309.13 337.73 61.53 65.31 49.33 59.62 62.43 68.94 80.08 92.15 96.55 104.27 106.62 106.93 123.97 126.84 124.55 130.50 136.63 EL4 135.52 178.33 190.93 SCALING METHODOLOGY Due to the large number of equipment classes, DOE was not able to perform a detailed engineering analysis on each one. Instead, DOE focused its analysis on the equipment classes of the representative units and scaled the results to equipment classes not directly analyzed in the engineering analysis. DOE used different scaling methodologies for MEMs and SNEMs. 5-17 Scaling Approach Using Incremental Improvements of Motors Losses Scaling electric motor efficiencies is a complicated proposition that has the potential to result in efficiency standards that are not evenly stringent across all equipment classes. Among DOE’s various ECGs, there are several hundred combinations of horsepower rating, pole configuration, and enclosure. Within these combinations there is a large number of standardized frame number series. Given this sizable number of frame number series, DOE cannot feasibly analyze all of these variants — hence, the need for scaling. Scaling across horsepower ratings, pole configurations, enclosures, and frame number series is a necessity. Scope: 10 CFR 431.25 For motors currently in scope at 10 CFR 431.25, DOE based the ELs of each representative unit on a torn-down or simulated model at various NEMA nominal efficiencies based on NEMA MG 1-2016, Table 12-10. Each NEMA ‘band’ refers to a specific nominal efficiency and an increase in one NEMA band represents a ten percent reduction in motor losses. For ECGs 1 and 2, each EL represents a one NEMA band increase in efficiency. To scale to all equipment classes, DOE began with the current standards at 10 CFR 431.25 (Table 5 for ECG 1, and Table 6 for ECG 2). The efficiency of each pole and horsepower combination was then found by increasing the efficiency by the appropriate number of NEMA bands where EL 1 was a one NEMA band increase compared to the current standard, EL 2 a two NEMA band increase, etc. For ECG 3, each EL corresponds to a certain NEMA band increase in efficiency but is not perfectly sequential like ECGs 1 and 2. This is due to the lower standards currently imposed on ECG 3 motors. DOE again began with the current standards at 10 CFR 431.25 (Table 7 for ECG 3) and increased the efficiency of each pole/horsepower combination according to a certain number of NEMA bands. EL 1 represented a two NEMA band increase in efficiency compared to current standards, EL 2 a three NEMA band increase, EL 3 a four NEMA band increase, and EL 4 a six NEMA band increase. Scope: Expanded For AO MEMs, a scaling approach similar to those used in ECGs 1-3 was applied. Consistent with the representative units used for AO MEMs, the efficiency of each horsepower/pole combination was found by shifting the efficiency a certain number of NEMA bands for each EL. Since the baseline efficiency was a two NEMA band decrease in efficiency compared to standards for equivalent non-air-over motors at 10 CFR 431.25, EL 1 was equivalent to current standards. EL 2 was a one NEMA band increase compared to current nonair-over standards, EL 3 a two NEMA band increase, etc. For SNEMs a different scaling methodology was used since these motors are not referred to using NEMA bands as commonly as MEMs are. For all SNEMs, DOE began by finding the motor losses of each pole/horsepower combination of the current standards for SEMs at 10 CFR 431.446 and fitting a power law equation to the motor loss vs. horsepower relationship. Once this relationship was found for each pole count, the entire function was shifted up or down by a 5-18 specific factor depending on what DOE found in catalog data regarding commonly available lower efficiency SNEMs, discussed in Section 5.3.1. Using the modified motor loss vs. horsepower relationship for a given pole count, the efficiency of each pole/horsepower combination was then found. For AO SNEMs, DOE began with the same methodology used for SNEMs. Using the function of fan loss (in Watts) vs. rated motor horsepower found through motor testing, DOE converted the non-air-over efficiency of each equipment class to the theoretical efficiency of the motor if the fan was removed, absent any other changes to the motor design. 5-19 CHAPTER 6. MARKUPS ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 6-1 DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS ....................................................................................... 6-1 MANUFACTURER MARKUP ...................................................................................... 6-2 APPROACH FOR WHOLESALER, OEM, RETAILER, AND CONTRACTOR MARKUPS ...................................................................................................................... 6-2 6.4.1 Wholesaler Markups ........................................................................................................ 6-4 6.4.1.1 Motor Wholesaler Markups ........................................................................... 6-4 6.4.1.2 Equipment Wholesaler Markups.................................................................... 6-5 6.4.2 Original Equipment Manufacturer Markups.................................................................... 6-5 6.4.3 Contractor Markup ........................................................................................................... 6-7 6.4.4 Retailer Markups .............................................................................................................. 6-7 DERIVATION OF MARKUPS ...................................................................................... 6-8 6.5.1 Wholesaler Markups ........................................................................................................ 6-8 6.5.1.1 Motor Wholesaler Markups ........................................................................... 6-8 6.5.1.2 Equipment Wholesaler Markups.................................................................... 6-8 6.5.2 Original Equipment Manufacturer Markups.................................................................... 6-9 6.5.3 Contractor Markup ......................................................................................................... 6-11 6.5.4 Retailer Markups ............................................................................................................ 6-11 SALES TAX .................................................................................................................. 6-12 OVERALL MARKUPS................................................................................................. 6-13 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 6-16 LIST OF TABLES Table 6.2.1 Table 6.4.1 Table 6.4.2 Table 6.5.1 Table 6.5.2 Table 6.5.3 Table 6.5.4 Table 6.5.5 Table 6.5.6 Table 6.6.1 Table 6.7.1 Table 6.7.2 Fraction of Electric Motor Shipments by Distribution Channel .......................... 6-2 Competitive Environment of Relevant Sectors.................................................... 6-3 Original Equipment Manufacturer List................................................................ 6-5 Markup Estimation for Motor Wholesalers ......................................................... 6-8 Markup Estimation for Equipment Wholesalers.................................................. 6-9 Markup Calculation for Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 and AO-MEMs ........................................................................................................... 6-9 Markup Calculation for SNEMs and AO-SNEMs............................................. 6-10 Markup Estimation for Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealers................................................................................................. 6-11 Data for Calculating Incremental Markup: Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealers ....................................................................... 6-12 Sales Tax by Region .......................................................................................... 6-13 Summary of Overall Baseline and Incremental Markups for Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 and AO-MEMs ....................................... 6-14 Summary of Overall Baseline and Incremental Markups for SNEMs and AO-SNEMs ........................................................................................................ 6-15 6-i CHAPTER 6. MARKUP ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION To carry out its analyses, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) determines the cost to the consumer of both baseline equipment (i.e., equipment that exactly meet the amended energy conservation standards) and more efficient equipment. DOE calculates such costs based on engineering estimates of manufacturing costs plus appropriate markups for the various distribution channels for electric motors. Generally, companies mark up the price of equipment to cover their business costs and profit margin. In financial statements, gross margin is the difference between the company revenue and the company cost of sales or cost of goods sold (CGS). The gross margin takes account of the expenses of companies in the distribution channel, including overhead costs (sales, general, and administration); research and development (R&D) and interest expenses; depreciation; and taxes—and company profits. In order for sales of equipment to contribute positively to company cash flow, the product’s markup must be greater than the corporate gross margin. Equipment commands lower or higher markups, depending on company expenses associated with the product and the degree of market competition. DOE estimates a baseline markup and an incremental markup for each market participant besides manufacturers. DOE defines a baseline markup as a multiplier that converts the manufacturer selling price (MSP) of the equipment with baseline efficiency to the consumer purchase price for the equipment at the same baseline efficiency level. An incremental markup is defined as the multiplier to convert the incremental increase in MSP of higher efficiency equipment to the consumer purchase price for the same equipment. Because companies mark up the price at each point in the distribution channel, both baseline and incremental markups are dependent on the distribution channel, as described in section 6.2. DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS The appropriate markups for determining equipment prices depend on the type of distribution channels through which equipment moves from manufacturers to consumers. DOE identified seven primary distribution channels for currently "medium" regulated electric motors at 10 CFR 431.25 and estimated their respective shares of shipments. DOE estimated the proportion of shipments through each distribution channel based on input from the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA). (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-STD0007, NEMA, No.4 at p.7) For air over electric motors that otherwise meet the description of currently regulated "medium" electric motors ("AO-MEMs"), DOE relied on the same distribution channels and proportions of shipments as for electric motors subject to energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25. 6-1 For small, non-small-electric-motor electric motors ("SNEMs") that do not have air-over enclosures and SNEMs with air-over enclosures ("AO-SNEMs"), DOE relied on the distribution channels and proportion of shipments used in the Final Determination for small electric motors. 86 FR 86 4885, 4898-4899 (January 19, 2021) Table 6.2.1 provides a summary of the distribution channels considered for electric motors. Table 6.2.1 Fraction of Electric Motor Shipments by Distribution Channel Shipments Distribution Channel (%) Electric Motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 and AO-MEMs Manufacturer to original equipment manufacturer (OEM) to 47 End-user Manufacturer to OEM to Retailer to End-user 20 Manufacturer to Retailer to End-user 12 Manufacturer to Motor Wholesaler to OEM to End-user 5 Manufacturer to Contractor to End-user 1 Manufacturer to Retailer to Contractor to End-user 7 Manufacturer to End-user 8 SNEMs and AO-SNEMs Manufacturer to OEMs to Equipment Wholesaler to Contractor to End-Users Manufacturers to Motor Wholesaler to OEMs to Equipment Wholesaler to Contractor to End-Users Manufacturers to Motor Wholesaler to Retailer to Contractor to End-Users 65 30 5 MANUFACTURER MARKUP For electric motor sales, DOE uses manufacturer markups to convert a manufacturer’s product cost into a MSP for motors. A detailed description of the methodology used to derive manufacturer markups is described in the engineering analysis (chapter 5). APPROACH FOR WHOLESALER, OEM, RETAILER, AND CONTRACTOR MARKUPS A change in energy efficiency standards usually increases the MSP that wholesalers or original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) pay, and in turn the wholesale price that an OEM, retailer, or contractor would pay. In the past, DOE used the same markups as for baseline 6-2 products to estimate the product price of more efficient product. Applying a fixed markup on higher manufacturer selling price would imply an increase in the dollar margin earned by wholesalers, OEMs, and retailers and an increase in per-unit profit. Based on microeconomic theory, the degree to which firms can pass along a cost increase depends on the level of market competition, as well as the market structure on both supply and demand side (e.g., supply and demand elasticity). DOE examined industry data from IBISWorld and the results suggest that most of the industries relevant to motor wholesalers, OEMs, and retailers are generally quite competitive (Table 6.4.1).1 Under relatively competitive markets, it may be tenable for motor wholesalers, OEMs, and retailers to maintain a fixed markup for a short period of time after the input price increases, but the market competition should eventually force them to readjust their markups to reach a medium-term equilibrium of which per-unit profit is relatively unchanged before and after standards are implemented. Table 6.4.1 Competitive Environment of Relevant Sectors Industry Sector Competition Concentration Electronic Part & Equipment High and Low Wholesaling increasing Electrical Equipment Low High and steady Wholesaling Industrial Machinery & Medium and Low Equipment Wholesaling increasing Heating & Air-Conditioning Medium and Medium Equipment Manufacturing increasing Metalworking Machinery High and Low Manufacturing increasing High and Hardware Stores Low increasing Medium and Home Improvement Stores High steady Barriers to Entry Low and steady Low and steady Low and steady Medium and steady Medium and steady Medium and steady Medium and steady Thus, DOE concluded that applying fixed markups for both baseline products and higherpriced products meeting a standard is not viable in the medium to long term considering the competitive nature of the motor wholesale, OEMs, and retail industry. DOE developed the incremental markup approach based on the widely accepted economic view that firms are not able to sustain a persistently higher dollar margin in a competitive market in the medium term. If the price of the product increases under standards, the only way to maintain the same dollar margin as before is for the markup (and percent gross margin) to decline. To estimate the markup under standards, DOE derived an incremental markup that is applied to the incremental equipment costs of higher efficiency products. DOE’s incremental markup approach allows the part of the cost that is thought to be affected by the standard to scale with the change in manufacturer price. The income statements DOE used to develop wholesaler, OEM, and retailer markups itemize firm costs into a number of expense categories, including direct costs to purchase or install the equipment, operating labor and occupancy costs, and other 6-3 operating costs and profit. Although motor wholesalers, OEMs, and retailers tend to handle multiple commodity lines, DOE contends that these aggregated data provide the most accurate indication of the expenses associated with motors and the cost structure of distribution channel participants. DOE uses these income statements to divide firm costs between those that are not likely to scale with the manufacturer price of equipment (labor and occupancy expenses, or “invariant” costs) and those that are (operating expenses and profit, or “variant” costs). For example, when the manufacturer selling price of equipment increases, only a fraction of a wholesaler’s expenses increase (operating expenses and profit), while the remainder can be expected to stay relatively constant (labor and occupancy expenses). If the unit price of a motor increases by 20 percent under standards, it is unlikely that the cost of secretarial support in an administrative office or office rental expenses will increase proportionally. 6.4.1 Wholesaler Markups 6.4.1.1 Motor Wholesaler Markups DOE based the wholesaler markups for motors on financial data for “Household Appliances and Electrical and Electronic Goods Merchant Wholesaler” sector from the 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade Report (AWTR)2 published by the U.S. Census, which is the most recent survey that includes industry-wide detailed operating expenses for that economic sector. DOE organized the financial data into statements that break down cost components incurred by firms in the sector. The baseline markup converts the MSP of baseline products to the wholesaler sales price. DOE considers baseline models to be products that just meet current Federal energy conservation standards. DOE used the following equation to calculate an average baseline markup (MUBASE) for motor wholesalers. Where: MUWHOLE_BASE = CGSWHOLE = GMWHOLE = 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊_𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 = 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 + 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 motor wholesaler’s baseline markup, motor wholesaler’s CGS, and motor wholesaler’s GM. To estimate incremental wholesaler markups, as described previously, DOE divides wholesalers’ operating expenses into two categories: (1) those that do not change when CGS increases because of amended efficiency standards (“invariant”), and (2) those that increase proportionately with CGS (“variant”). DOE defines invariant costs as including labor and 6-4 occupancy expenses, because those costs likely will not increase as a result of a rise in CGS. All other expenses, as well as net profit, are assumed to vary in proportion to CGS. Although it is possible that some other expenses may not scale with CGS, DOE takes a conservative position that includes other expenses as variant costs. (Note: under DOE’s approach, a high fixed cost component yields a low incremental markup.) DOE used the following equation to calculate the incremental markup (MUINCR) for motor wholesalers. 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊_𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 = Where: MUWHOLE_INCR = CGSWHOLE = VCWHOLE = 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 + 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 motor wholesaler’s incremental markup, motor wholesaler’s cost of goods sold, and motor wholesaler’s variant costs. 6.4.1.2 Equipment Wholesaler Markups Similarly, DOE based the wholesaler markups for equipment on financial data for “Machinery, Equipment, and Supplies Merchant Wholesaler” sector from the 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade Report (AWTR)3 published by the U.S. Census, which is the most recent survey that includes industry-wide detailed operating expenses for that economic sector. The methodology used to develop baseline and incremental markups for equipment wholesalers is the same as described in section 6.4.1.1. 6.4.2 Original Equipment Manufacturer Markups DOE estimated the OEM markups for electric motors based on financial data of different sets of OEMs that use respective electric motors from the latest 2019 Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM)4 (see Table 6.4.2) Table 6.4.2 Original Equipment Manufacturer List NAICS 333111 333120 333131 333132 333241 333242 333243 333244 333249 Industry Farm machinery and equipment manufacturing Construction machinery manufacturing Mining machinery and equipment manufacturing Oil and gas field machinery and equipment manufacturing Food product machinery manufacturing Semiconductor Machinery manufacturing Sawmill, woodworking, and paper machinery manufacturing Printing machinery and equipment manufacturing Other industrial machinery manufacturing 6-5 EMs and AO-EMs          SNEMs and AO-SNEMs     NAICS Industry 333413 Industrial and commercial fan and blower and air purification equipment manufacturing Heating equipment (except warm air furnaces) manufacturing Air-conditioning and warm air heating equipment and commercial and industrial refrigeration equipment manufacturing Machine tool manufacturing Rolling mill and other metalworking machinery manufacturing Air and gas compressor manufacturing Measuring, dispensing, and other pumping equipment manufacturing Elevator and moving stairway manufacturing Conveyor and conveying equipment manufacturing Packaging machinery manufacturing Fluid power pump and motor manufacturing 333414 333415 333517 333519 333912 333914 333921 333922 333993 333996 EMs and AO-EMs  SNEMs and AO-SNEMs                DOE organized the financial data into statements that break down cost components incurred by firms in the sector. DOE calculated the baseline markup for OEMs as follows: 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂_𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 = Where: MUOEM_BASE = SALESOEM = PAY = MAT = CAP = CGSOEM = 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 = 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 + 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀_𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 OEM’s baseline markup. value of shipments, payroll expenses, material input expenses, capital expenses, and OEM’s cost of goods sold To estimate incremental markup for OEMs, DOE used a similar approach as described in the wholesaler markup methodology where manufacturers’ operating expenses were divided into two categories: (1) those that do not change when CGS increases because of amended efficiency standards (“invariant”), and (2) those that increase proportionately with CGS (“variant”). DOE used the following equation to calculate the incremental markup (MUINCR) for OEMs. Where: 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂_𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 = MUOEM_INCR = OEM’s incremental markup, CGSOEM = OEM’s cost of goods sold, and VCOEM = OEM’s variant costs. 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 + 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 6-6 6.4.3 Contractor Markup DOE used information from RSMeans Electrical Cost Data5 to estimate markups used by contractors in the installation of equipment with electric motors or replacement motors. RSMeans electrical cost data estimates material expense markups for electrical contractors as 10%, leading to a markup factor of 1.10. For SNEMs and AO-SNEMs, DOE recognizes that contractors are not used in all installations, since some firms have in-house technicians who would install equipment or replace a motor. However, DOE has no information on the extent to which this occurs, so it applied a markup of 1.10 in all cases. 6.4.4 Retailer Markups DOE based the retailer markups on financial data for “Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealers” from the 2017 U.S. Census Annual Retail Trade Survey (ARTS)6, which is the most recent survey that includes industry-wide detailed operating expenses for that economic sector. The baseline markup converts the MSP of baseline products to the retailer sales price. DOE considers baseline models to be equipment that just meet the current Federal energy conservation standards. DOE used the following equation to calculate an average baseline markup (MUBASE) for retailers. Where: MUBASE = SALESRTL = CGSRTL = GMRTL = 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 = 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 + 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝑅𝑅𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 = =1+ 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 retailer’s baseline markup, retailer’s sales revenue, retailer’s cost of goods sold (CGS), and retailer’s gross margin (GM). To estimate incremental retailer markups, DOE divides retailers’ operating expenses into invariant and variant cost categories, as described in previous section. DOE used the following equation to calculate the incremental markup (MUINCR) for retailers. Where: MUINCR = CGSRTL = VCRTL = 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 = 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 + 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 =1+ 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 retailer’s incremental markup multiplier, retailer’s cost of goods sold, and retailer’s variant costs. 6-7 DERIVATION OF MARKUPS 6.5.1 Wholesaler Markups 6.5.1.1 Motor Wholesaler Markups The 2017 AWTR data for “Household Appliances and Electrical and Electronic Goods Merchant Wholesalers” provide total sales data and detailed operating expenses for motor wholesalers. Table 6.5.1 shows the calculation of motor wholesaler markups. (Appendix 6A contains the full set of data.) Table 6.5.1 Markup Estimation for Motor Wholesalers 0.742 0.107 Per Dollar Cost of Goods $ 1.000 0.145 0.062 0.084 0.088 0.119 1.35 1.20 Per Dollar Sales Revenue $ Descriptions Direct Cost of Product Sales: Cost of goods sold Labor and Occupancy Expenses Other Operating Expenses: Depreciation, advertising, and insurance. Operating Profit Motor Wholesaler Baseline Markup (MUWHOLE_BASE) Motor Wholesaler Incremental Markup (MUWHOLE_INCR) Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade Report (NAICS 4236 Household Appliance and Electrical and Electronic Goods Merchant Wholesalers) https://www.census.gov/wholesale/index.html 6.5.1.2 Equipment Wholesaler Markups The 2017 AWTR data for “Machinery, Equipment, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers” provide total sales data and detailed operating expenses for equipment wholesalers. Table 6.5.2 shows the calculation of equipment wholesaler markups. (Appendix 6A.2 contains the full set of data.) 6-8 Table 6.5.2 Markup Estimation for Equipment Wholesalers 0.708 0.153 Per Dollar Cost of Goods $ 1.000 0.217 0.068 0.096 0.071 0.100 1.41 1.20 Per Dollar Sales Revenue $ Descriptions Direct Cost of Product Sales: Cost of goods sold Labor and Occupancy Expenses Other Operating Expenses: Depreciation, advertising, and insurance. Operating Profit Motor Wholesaler Baseline Markup (MUWHOLE_BASE) Motor Wholesaler Incremental Markup (MUWHOLE_INCR) Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade Report (NAICS 4238 Machinery, Equipment, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers) https://www.census.gov/wholesale/index.html 6.5.2 Original Equipment Manufacturer Markups The 2019 AMS provided total value of shipment and detailed operating expenses for OEMs considered for both types of electric motors. DOE is able to estimate baseline and incremental markups for each of OEMs following the methodology described in section 6.4.2, and then calculated average baseline and incremental markups weighted by value of shipments. Table 6.5.3 and Table 6.5.4 summarizes the markup calculation for electric motors. (Appendix 6A contains the full set of data.) Table 6.5.3 Markup Calculation for Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 and AOMEMs Value of Shipments Baseline Incremental OEM Type ($1,000) Markup Markup Farm machinery and equipment 30,385,299 1.48 1.29 manufacturing Construction machinery manufacturing 36,099,826 1.42 1.25 Mining machinery and equipment 5,256,975 1.19 0.96 manufacturing Oil and gas field machinery and 14,544,275 1.25 1.00 equipment manufacturing Food product machinery manufacturing 5,879,908 1.43 1.16 Semiconductor machinery manufacturing 9,267,109 1.20 0.96 Sawmill, woodworking, and paper 3,678,474 1.35 1.06 machinery manufacturing Printing machinery and equipment 1,644,228 1.27 0.98 manufacturing Other industrial machinery 15,648,497 1.45 1.15 manufacturing 6-9 OEM Type Industrial and commercial fan and blower and air purification equipment manufacturing Heating equipment (except warm air furnaces) manufacturing Air-conditioning and warm air heating equipment and commercial and industrial refrigeration equipment manufacturing Machine tool manufacturing Rolling mill and other metalworking machinery manufacturing Air and gas compressor manufacturing Measuring, dispensing, and other pumping equipment manufacturing Elevator and moving stairway manufacturing Conveyor and conveying equipment manufacturing Packaging machinery manufacturing Fluid power pump and motor manufacturing Value of Shipments ($1,000) 6,340,784 Baseline Markup 1.46 Incremental Markup 1.17 4,916,817 1.59 1.34 34,194,512 1.52 1.29 8,013,804 3,508,675 1.56 1.38 1.23 1.01 10,319,277 18,307,059 1.33 1.72 1.16 1.47 3,709,132 1.30 1.11 10,328,217 1.28 0.98 7,716,297 4,208,599 1.38 1.37 1.15 1.12 Weighted Average: 1.44 1.20 Baseline Markup Incremental Markup 1.48 1.29 1.45 1.15 1.43 1.16 1.35 1.06 1.46 1.17 1.59 1.34 1.52 1.29 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2019 Annual Survey of Manufactures Table 6.5.4 Markup Calculation for SNEMs and AO-SNEMs Value of Shipments OEM Type ($1,000) Farm machinery and equipment 30,385,299 manufacturing All other industrial machinery 15,648,497 manufacturing Food product machinery manufacturing 5,879,908 Sawmill, woodworking, and paper 3,678,474 machinery manufacturing Industrial and commercial fan and blower and air purification equipment 6,340,784 manufacturing Heating equipment (except warm air 4,916,817 furnaces) manufacturing Air-conditioning and warm air heating 34,194,512 equipment and commercial and 6-10 OEM Type industrial refrigeration equipment manufacturing Machine tool manufacturing Rolling mill and other metalworking machinery manufacturing Value of Shipments ($1,000) Baseline Markup Incremental Markup 8,013,804 1.56 1.23 3,508,675 1.38 1.01 1.49 1.24 Weighted Average: Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2019 Annual Survey of Manufactures 6.5.3 Contractor Markup As described in section 6.4.3, DOE estimated the motor contractor markup to be 1.10 based on information from RSMeans 2020 Electrical Cost Data. 6.5.4 Retailer Markups The 2017 ARTS data for “Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealers” provide total sales data and detailed operating expenses. A separate document published along with the 2017 ARTS contains historical sales values and gross margin percentage for all retail sectors. DOE took the GM value for 2017 and combined with 2017 ARTS detail cost data to construct a complete income statement for building material and garden equipment and supplies dealers to estimate both baseline and incremental markups. Table 6.5.5 shows the calculation of the baseline retailer markup. Table 6.5.5 Markup Estimation for Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealers Business Item Amount ($1,000,000) Sales 365,651 Cost of goods sold (CGS) 238,404 Gross margin (GM) 127,247 Baseline markup = (CGS+GM)/CGS 1.53 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey (NAICS 444 Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealers) www.census.gov/retail/index.html#arts Table 6.5.6 shows the breakdown of operating expenses for building material and garden equipment and supplies dealers based on the 2017 ARTS data. The incremental markup is calculated as 1.26. 6-11 Table 6.5.6 Data for Calculating Incremental Markup: Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealers Business Item Sales Cost of goods sold (CGS) Gross margin (GM) Labor & Occupancy Expenses (invariant) Annual payroll Employer costs for fringe benefit Contract labor costs, including temporary help Purchased utilities, total Purchased repair and maintenance services - buildings, structure, offices Purchased professional and technical services Purchased repair and maintenance services - machinery and equipment Purchased communication services Lease and rental payments – building, structure, offices Subtotal: Other Operating Expenses & Profit (variant) Expensed equipment Purchased packaging and containers Other materials and supplies not for resale Purchased transportation, shipping, and warehousing services Purchased advertising and promotional services Cost of purchased software Data processing and other computer services Lease and rental payment – machinery, equipment Commissions paid Taxes and license fees Depreciation and amortization charges Other operating expenses Subtotal: Net profit before tax (operating profit) Incremental markup = (CGS + Total Other Operating Expenses and Profit)/CGS Amount ($1,000,000) 365,651 238,404 127,247 43,640 8,749 710 2,134 1,122 1,269 1,268 776 5,415 65,720 806 181 1,757 1,276 3,248 314 492 637 539 1,999 5,663 10,562 26,837 34,691 1.26 Source: U.S. Census. 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey. SALES TAX The sales tax represents state and local sales taxes that are applied to the consumer equipment price. The sales tax is a multiplicative factor that increases the consumer equipment price. DOE derived state and local taxes from data provided by the Sales Tax Clearinghouse.7 DOE derived a population-weighted average tax value by region (See Table 6.6.1). 6-12 Table 6.6.1 Sales Tax by Region Region Sales Tax (%) Midwest 7.10 Northeast 6.91 South 7.35 West 7.55 Nation 7.28 OVERALL MARKUPS DOE uses the overall baseline markup to estimate the equipment price of baseline models, given the manufacturer cost of the baseline models. As stated previously, DOE considers baseline models to be equipment that just meet the current Federal energy conservation standards. The following equation shows how DOE uses the overall baseline markup to determine the equipment price for baseline models. 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 = 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 × (𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 × 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 × 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 ) = 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 × 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂_𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 Where: EPBASE = equipment price for baseline models, COSTMFG = manufacturer cost for baseline models, MUMFG = manufacturer markup, MUBASE = baseline markup, TaxSALES = sales tax, and MUOVERALL_BASE = baseline overall markup. Similarly, DOE uses the overall incremental markup to estimate changes in the equipment price, given changes in the manufacturer cost from the baseline model cost resulting from a potential energy conservation standard to raise product energy efficiency. The total equipment price for more energy-efficient models is composed of two components: the equipment price of the baseline model and the change in equipment price associated with the increase in manufacturer cost to meet the new energy conservation standard. The following equation shows how DOE uses the overall incremental markup to determine the equipment price for more energy-efficient models (i.e., models meeting new energy conservation standards). 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 × 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂_𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 + ∆𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 × (𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 × 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 × 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 ) = 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 + ∆𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐺𝐺 × 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂_𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 Where: EPSTD = equipment price for models meeting new energy conservation standards, 6-13 EPBASE = equipment price for baseline models, COSTMFG = manufacturer cost for baseline models, ΔCOSTMFG = change in manufacturer cost for more energy-efficient models, MUMFG = manufacturer markup, MUINCR = incremental markup, TaxSALES = sales tax, MUOVERALL_BASE = baseline overall markup (product of manufacturer markup, baseline channel markup, and sales tax), and MUOVERALL_INCR = incremental overall markup. Table 6.7.1 and Table 6.7.2 summarize the national average baseline and incremental markups for each market participant under different distribution channels in electric motor sales. Table 6.7.1 Summary of Overall Baseline and Incremental Markups for Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 and AO-MEMs Manufacturer to OEM to End-user Manufacturer to OEM to Retailer to End-user Manufacturer to Retailer to End-user Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental Motor Wholesaler - - - - - - OEM 1.44 1.20 1.44 1.20 - - Retailer - - 1.53 1.26 1.53 1.26 Contractor - - - - - - Sales Tax 1.073 1.073 1.073 1.073 1.073 1.073 Overall Markups 1.54 1.29 2.36 1.62 1.65 1.35 Manufacturer to Motor Wholesaler to OEM to Enduser Manufacturer to Contractor to End-user Manufacturer to Retailer to Contractor to End-user Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental Motor Wholesaler 1.35 1.20 - - - - OEM 1.44 1.20 - - - - Retailer - - - - 1.53 1.26 Contractor - - 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Sales Tax 1.073 1.073 1.073 1.073 1.073 1.073 6-14 Overall Markups 2.08 1.55 1.18 1.18 1.81 1.49 Manufacturer to End-user Baseline Incremental Motor Wholesaler - - OEM - - Retailer - - Contractor - - Sales Tax 1.073 1.073 Overall Markups 1.07 1.07 Table 6.7.2 Summary of Overall Baseline and Incremental Markups for SNEMs and AO-SNEMs Manufacturer to OEMs to Equipment Wholesaler to Contractor to End-Users Manufacturers to Motor Wholesaler to OEMs to Equipment Wholesaler to Contractor to End-Users Manufacturers to Motor Wholesaler to Retailer to Contractor to End-Users Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental Motor Wholesaler - - 1.35 1.20 1.35 1.20 OEM 1.49 1.24 1.49 1.24 - - Equipment Wholesaler 1.41 1.20 1.41 1.20 - - Retailer - - - - 1.53 1.26 Contractor 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Sales Tax 1.073 1.073 1.073 1.073 1.073 1.073 Overall Markups 2.48 1.75 3.34 2.10 2.44 1.79 6-15 REFERENCES 1. IBISWorld. US Industry Reports (NAICS): 42361 - Electrical Equipment Wholesale; 42369 - Electrical Part & Equipment Wholesale; 42383 - Industrial Machinery & Equipment Wholesale; 33341 - Heating & Air Conditioning Equipment Manufacturing; 33351 - Metalworking Machinery Manufacturing; 44413 - Hardware Stores; 44411 Home Improvement Stores. 2020. IBISWorld. www.ibisworld.com. 2. U.S. Census Bureau. 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade Report, NAICS 4236: Household Appliances and Electrical and Electronic Goods Merchant Wholesalers. 2017. Washington, D.C. (Last accessed April 7, 2020.) www.census.gov/wholesale/index.html. 3. U.S. Census Bureau. 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade Report, NAICS 4238: Machinery, Equipment, and Supplies Merchant Wholesaler. 2017. Washington, D.C. (Last accessed June 19, 2019.) www.census.gov/wholesale/index.html. 4. U. S. Census Bureau. 2019 Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM): Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries. (Last accessed March 23, 2021.) https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm.html. 5. RS Means. Electrical Cost Data 2020. 2020. Rockland, Ma. 6. U.S. Census Bureau. 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey, 4441: Building Material and Supplies Dealers. 2017. https://www.census.gov/programssurveys/arts/data/tables.2017.html. 7. Sales Tax Clearinghouse Inc. State Sales Tax Rates Along with Combined Average City and County Rates. July 2021. (Last accessed July 1, 2021.) http://thestc.com/STrates.stm. 6-16 CHAPTER 7. ENERGY USE CHARACTERIZATION TABLE OF CONTENTS 7.1 7.2 7.2.1 7.2.2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 7-1 ENERGY USE ANALYSIS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS ............................................. 7-2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 7-2 Motor Losses .................................................................................................................... 7-2 7.2.2.1 Impact of Speed ............................................................................................. 7-4 7.2.3 Motor Applications .......................................................................................................... 7-4 7.2.4 Load ................................................................................................................................. 7-9 7.2.5 Motor Annual Hours of Operation ................................................................................. 7-10 7.3 ANNUAL ENERGY USE ............................................................................................. 7-11 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 7-15 LIST OF TABLES Table 7.1.1 Table 7.2.1 Table 7.2.2 Table 7.2.3 Table 7.2.4 Table 7.2.5 Table 7.2.6 Table 7.2.7 Table 7.2.8 Table 7.2.9 Table 7.2.10 Table 7.2.11 Table 7.2.12 Table 7.2.13 Table 7.2.14 Table 7.3.1 Representative Units for Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation Standards at 10 CFR 431.25 ................................................................................ 7-1 Polynomial Equation Coefficients for Losses vs. Load relationship for Electric Motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 and AO-MEMs ............................. 7-3 Polynomial Equation Coefficients for Losses vs. Load relationship SNEMs and AO-SNEMs ..................................................................................... 7-3 Distribution of Electric Motors by Application for NEMA Design A and B Motors .................................................................................................................. 7-6 Distribution of Electric Motors by Application for NEMA Design C Motors .................................................................................................................. 7-6 Distribution of Electric Motors by Application for SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT) .......................................................................................................... 7-6 Distribution of Electric Motors by Application for SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) ..................................................................................................... 7-7 Distribution of Electric Motors by Application for SNEM Polyphase ................ 7-7 Distribution of Electric Motors by Sector by horsepower range for Electric Motors Currently Regulated Under 10 CFR 431.25 ............................................ 7-8 Distribution of Electric Motors by Sector for SNEMs and AO Electric Motors .................................................................................................................. 7-8 Load Distribution by Application for Industry Sector ......................................... 7-9 Load Distribution by Application for Commercial Sector .................................. 7-9 Average Motor Operating Hours by Application for Industrial Sector ............. 7-10 Average Motor Operating Hours by Application for Commercial Sector ......... 7-10 Average Motor Operating Hours by Application for Residential Sector .......... 7-11 Average Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level for Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation Standards at 10 CFR 431.25 .............. 7-12 7-i Table 7.3.2 Table 7.3.3 Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level for SNEMs......................... 7-13 Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level for Air-Over Electric Motors ................................................................................................................ 7-14 7-ii CHAPTER 7. ENERGY USE CHARACTERIZATION 7.1 INTRODUCTION A key component of the life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) calculations described in chapter 8 is the savings in operating costs that customers would realize from more energy-efficient equipment. Energy costs are the most significant component of customer operating costs. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) uses annual energy use, along with energy prices, to establish energy costs at various energy efficiency levels. This chapter describes how DOE determined the annual energy use of electric motors. For electric motors subject to energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.25, the analysis focuses on eight representative units identified in the engineering analysis (see chapter 5). In addition, for NEMA Design A, B and C electric motors, DOE included additional representative units to represent consumers of larger horsepower electric motors (i.e., units 9, 10, and 11). See Table 7.1.1. DOE further analyzed 12 representative units for small, non-smallelectric motors electric motors (SNEMs) that do not have air-over enclosures, and 15 representative units for air-over electric motors.a The representative units for SNEMs and airover electric motors are further described in the engineering analysis section (see chapter 5) and are not included in Table 7.1.1. Table 7.1.1 Representative Units for Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation Standards at 10 CFR 431.25 Equipment Class Group NEMA Design A and B Electric Motor NEMA Design C Electric Motor Fire Pump Electric Motor Representative Unit (4 poles, enclosed) 1 HP 5 2 30 3 75 9 150 10 250 4 5 5 50 11 150 6 5 7 30 8 75 a Air over electric motors analyzed in this preliminary analysis include air over electric motors that otherwise meet the description of currently regulated "medium" electric motors at 10 CFR 431.25 ("AO-MEM") and SNEMs that have air over enclosures (AO-SNEMs). See chapter 5. 7-1 7.2 ENERGY USE ANALYSIS FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS 7.2.1 Introduction The energy use by electric motors is derived from two components: energy converted to useful mechanical shaft power and motor losses. The annual unit energy consumption (UEC) in kilowatt-hours per year of a given motor is represented by the following equation: 𝑈𝐸𝐶 = 𝑂𝑝𝐻𝑟𝑠 × (𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 (𝑥) + 𝐿(𝑥)) × 0.746 Where: OpHrs Poutput(x ) L(x ) x 0.746 = = = = = the annual operating hours, the output power of the motor at load x in horsepower, the motor losses at load x in horsepower, the motor load as a fraction of rated horsepower in percent, and unit conversion factor from horsepower to kilowatt. And: 𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 (𝑥) = 𝐻𝑃 × 𝑥 Where: 𝐻𝑃 7.2.2 = motor horsepower. Motor Losses DOE calculates the motor losses at load 𝑥 in horsepower as follows: 𝐿(𝑥) = 𝑦(𝑥) × 𝐹𝐿 Where: L(x ) FL x y(x) = = = = the motor losses at load x in horsepower, motor full-load losses in horsepower b motor load as a fraction of rated horsepower, and ratio of motor losses at load x, divided by the motor full-load losses DOE obtained data on motor losses at various load points from 2016 and 2020 catalog data from five manufacturers (“2016 Manufacturer Catalog Data”) 1,2,3,4,5 and four manufacturers (“2020 Manufacturer Catalog Data”) 6,7,8,9. Based on this data, DOE modeled the ratio of motor losses divided by the motor full-load losses as a function of loading using a third-degree polynomial equation10: b The full-load losses (FL) can be calculated based on the motor rated horsepower (HP) and its full-load efficiency (FLE) provided by the engineering analysis, FL = HP * (1/FLE-1) 7-2 𝑦(𝑥) = 𝑎 + 𝑏 × 𝑥 + 𝑐 × 𝑥 2 + 𝑑 × 𝑥 3 Where: y(x ) = x A, b, c, d = = the losses of the motor at load x divided by the motor full-load losses, motor load in percent, and polynomial equation coefficients. Table 7.2.1 presents the polynomial equation coefficients used to calculate the part-load losses of electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 and AO-MEM electric motors. DOE developed these coefficients based on catalog data for NEMA Design A and B, and IEC Design N motors subject to current standards and uses these coefficients to determine motor load losses for NEMA Design A and B, NEMA Design C, Fire Pump motors, and AO-MEMs.c Table 7.2.1 Polynomial Equation Coefficients for Losses vs. Load relationship for Electric Motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 and AO-MEMs Electric Motor Horsepower Range (hp) a b c d 0.078 0.499 0.013 0.413 1 to 50 * 0.184 0.362 0.103 0.354 51 to 100 0.272 0.167 0.215 0.346 101 to 200 0.358 -0.001 0.319 0.324 201 to 500 * DOE used polynomial equation coefficients representing the range 51-100 for Representative Unit 5 (50 Hp) as that RPU represents motors in the 21-100 hp range Table 7.2.2 presents the polynomial equation coefficients used to calculate part-load losses of SNEMs and AO-SNEMs electric motors. Table 7.2.2 Polynomial Equation Coefficients for Losses vs. Load relationship SNEMs and AO-SNEMs Equipment Class Group a b c d SNEM and AO-SNEM Single-Phase 0.1846 0.141 0.0527 0.6217 (High LRT) SNEM and AO -SNEM Single-Phase 0 0.6431 -0.52 0.8769 (Medium LRT) SNEM and AO SNEM Single-Phase 0.7784 -1.0295 0.5926 0.6621 (Low LRT) SNEM and AO-SNEM -0.071 0.5805 -0.1822 0.6728 Polyphase c The catalog data had only a limited sample of NEMA Design C and Fire Pump Electric motors with part-load efficiency information. Therefore, for these electric motors, DOE used the same coefficients as for NEMA Design A and B. The only difference between AO-MEM electric motors and regulated electric motors at 10 CFR 431.25 is the enclosure, therefore, DOE used the same coefficients for AO-MEM electric motors. 7-3 7.2.2.1 Impact of Speed For electric motors that are currently regulated under 10 CFR 431.25 and AO-MEMs, the energy use analysis accounts for any changes in the motor's rated speed with increase in efficiency levels, as provided by the engineering analysis. For SNEMs and AO-SNEMs the engineering analysis did not characterize the motor speed by efficiency level and DOE did not include the impact of speed in its energy use analysis. A decrease in slip can result in a higher operating speed and a potential overloading of the motor. The cubic relation between speed and power requirement in variable torque applications can affect the benefits gained by efficient motors, which may have a lower slip. Based on information from a European motor study,11 DOE assumed that 20 percent of consumers with fan, pump, and air compressor applications would be negatively impacted by higher operating speeds.d For these consumers, DOE incorporated the effect of increased speed into the energy use analysis and calculated the motor losses at the efficiency level considered (𝐿(𝑥)𝐸𝐿′ ) as follows12: 𝐿(𝑥)𝐸𝐿′ = 𝐻𝑃 × ( 1 𝑅𝑃𝑀 3 𝜂𝐸𝐿′ × (𝑅𝑃𝑀 𝐸𝐿 ) 𝐸𝐿′ − 1) × 𝑦(𝑥) Where: 7.2.3 y(x ) = x A, b, c, d = = the losses of the motor at load x divided by the motor full-load losses, motor load in percent, and polynomial equation coefficients. Motor Applications The annual operating hours and loading of motors depend on the sector (i.e., industrial, agricultural, commercial and residential) and end-use application (e.g., pump). DOE estimated the share of motors in each application depending on the equipment class group and used a d DOE notes that the European motor study estimates that up to 40 percent of consumers purchasing motors for replacement may not see any decrease or increase in energy use due to this impact. The European motor study did not include any increase in energy use. In addition, the European motor study also predicts that this impact will be reduced overtime because new motor driven equipment will be designed to take account of this change in speed Therefore, the study did not incorporate this effect in the analysis (i.e., 0 percent of negatively impacted consumers). In the absence of additional data to estimate the percentage of consumers that may be negatively impacted, DOE relied on the mid-point value of 20 percent. 7-4 distribution of motors across sectors by motor size. DOE drew upon several data sources to develop a model of the applications for which motors covered in this analysis are used. In the commercial and industrial sector, seven motor applications (air compressors, fans, pumps, material handling, material processing, refrigeration compressors, and others) were selected as representative applications based on a DOE-AMO report.13 Distributions by applications in the commercial and industrial sectors were also derived from the DOE-AMO report. The DOE-AMO report did not provide application distributions by horsepower range, because the distributions did not vary significantly across horsepower range for industrial and commercial sectors. Therefore, DOE used the same distributions across all horsepower ranges in this analysis. For the residential sector, DOE identified five applications (fans, pumps, refrigeration compressors, and others) based on information from the Small Electric Motors January 2021 Final Determination Technical Support Document14 and used the distributions by application as provided in that same report.e In the agricultural sector, DOE only considered the pump application for agricultural farm and ranch irrigation. 15 For fire pump electric motors, DOE considered a separate fire pump application. In addition, DOE adjusted these distributions to account for the specific torque capabilities of each equipment class group and only consider applications in which a motor in a given equipment class group can be used: (1) for NEMA Design A and B motors, DOE considered these electric motors can operate in any application and did not make any adjustment; (2) for NEMA Design C motors, DOE assumed these motors are primarily used in high and medium starting torque applications and adjusted the distributions to exclude fan applications; (3) for SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT) motors, DOE considered these electric motors can operate in any application and did not make any adjustment; and (4) for SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) motors, DOE assumed these motors are used in medium- and low- starting torque application only and adjusted the distributions to exclude air compressor, material handling, material processing and refrigeration compressor applications. Finally, DOE assumed that AO-MEMs, SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) motors, and AO-SNEMs are only used in fan applications. Table 7.2.3 and Table 7.2.4 summarize the resulting sector-specific distributions of NEMA Design A and B motors and NEMA Design C motors by applications. Table 7.2.5, Table 7.2.6, Table 7.2.7 summarize the resulting sector-specific distributions for SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT) motors, SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) motors, and SNEM Polyphase motors by application. e SNEMs cover a similar horsepower range as SEMs currently regulated at 10 CFR 431.446, and used in the same applications. SEM data from the Small Electric Motors January 2021 Final Determination Technical Support Document is used to represent SNEMs usage in this analysis unless more recent data was found. 7-5 Table 7.2.3 Distribution of Electric Motors by Application for NEMA Design A and B Motors (%) Air Compressor Fan Pump Material Handling Material Processing Refrigeration Compressor Other Industry 3 26 15 12 35 6 3 Commercial 3 41 5 2 3 45 1 Agriculture - - 100 - - - - Residential - - - - - - - *May not sum to 100% due to rounding Table 7.2.4 Distribution of Electric Motors by Application for NEMA Design C Motors (%) Air Compressor Fan Pump Material Handling Material Processing Refrigeration Compressor Other Industry 4 - 22 18 51 - 4 Commercial 6 - - 4 6 83 2 Agriculture - - 100 - - - - Residential - - - - - - - *May not sum to 100% due to rounding Table 7.2.5 Distribution of Electric Motors by Application for SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT) (%) Air Compressor Fan Pump Material Handling Material Processing Refrigeration Compressor Other Industry 3 26 15 12 35 6 3 Commercial 3 41 5 2 3 45 1 Agriculture - - 100 - - - - Residential - 24 14 - - 40 22 *May not sum to 100% due to rounding 7-6 Table 7.2.6 Distribution of Electric Motors by Application for SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (%) Air Compressor Material Handling Material Processing Refrigeration Compressor Other Industry - 63 37 - - - - Commercial - 89 11 - - - - Agriculture - - 100 - - - - Residential - 63 37 - - - - Fan Pump *May not sum to 100% due to rounding Table 7.2.7 Distribution of Electric Motors by Application for SNEM Polyphase (%) Air Compressor Material Handling Material Processing Refrigeration Compressor Other Industry 3 26 15 12 35 6 3 Commercial 3 41 5 2 3 45 1 Agriculture - - - - - - - Residential - - - - - - - Fan Pump *May not sum to 100% due to rounding DOE developed distributions of shipments by sector and horsepower range for electric motors currently regulated under 10 CFR 431.25 based on information from the 2014 Final Rule Technical Standard Document16. DOE also used updated information from a market research report17 which provided breakdown of electric motors shipments in the commercial and industrial sector. Table 7.2.8 presents the estimated shipments of electric motors by sector and horsepower range for electric motors currently regulated under 10 CFR 431.25. These were also updated based on updated information regarding the distribution of shipments by horsepower (See Chapter 9). For SNEMs and AO-SNEMs, DOE used the same sector-specific distributions as for small electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.446 as provided in the Small Electric Motors January 2021 Final Determination Technical Support Document. In addition, DOE adjusted these distributions to account for the following assumptions: (1) DOE assumed that polyphase SNEMs and polyphase AO-SNEMs which operate on three phase power supply are not used in residential sector; (2) DOE assumed that polyphase SNEMs, which are below 50 hp are not used in the agricultural sector (consistent with Table 7.2.8); and (3) DOE assumed that polyphase AOSNEMs are only used in fan applications and therefore are not used in the agricultural sector (pump only). Table 7.2.9 presents the sector-specific distributions for SNEMs and AO electric motors. 7-7 Table 7.2.8 Distribution of Electric Motors by Sector by horsepower range for Electric Motors Currently Regulated Under 10 CFR 431.25 Horsepower Range Equipment Class NEMA Design A and B Electric Motor / NEMA Design C Electric Motor Fire Pump Electric Motor 1 to 50 Industrial Commercial Sector Sector (%) (%) 47 53 Residential Sector (%) Agricultural Sector (%) 0 0 51 to 100** 72 21 0 7 101 to 200 82 15 0 3 201 to 500 77 20 0 3 1 to 500 49 51 0 0 *May not sum to 100% due to rounding ** DOE used sector-specific distribution for range 51-100 for Representative Unit 5 (50 Hp) as that RPU represents motors in the 21-100 hp range Table 7.2.9 Distribution of Electric Motors by Sector for SNEMs and AO Electric Motors Industrial Commercial Residential Agricultural Equipment Class Sector (%) Sector (%) Sector (%) Sector (%) Group SNEM Single-Phase 42 39 4 15 (High LRT) SNEM Single-Phase 42 39 4 15 (Medium LRT) SNEM Single-Phase 49 46 5 0 (Low LRT) SNEM 51 49 0 0 Polyphase AO-SNEM Single49 46 5 0 Phase (High LRT) AO-SNEM Single49 46 5 0 Phase (Medium LRT) AO-SNEM Single49 46 5 0 Phase (Low LRT) AO-SNEM 51 49 0 0 Polyphase AO-MEM 51 49 0 0 Polyphase *May not sum to 100% due to rounding 7-8 7.2.4 Load For all equipment class groups except fire pump electric motors, DOE derived distributions of motor load by application in the commercial and industrial sectors from the DOE-AMO report. The report reported the fraction of motors operating at constant and variable load and within a specified load range (i.e., less than or equal to 40 percent load, greater than 40 percent and less than 75 percent load, and greater or equal to 75 percent load). DOE aggregated constant and variable load distributions to determine average annual motor load distribution by reported load ranges for both constant and variable load applications. In addition, within each range, DOE assumed a uniform distribution. DOE also used a maximum load factor of 1 to ensure a resulting average load across all application in the 0.55 to 0.85 range.f Table 7.2.10 presents the load distribution by all applications for industrial sector. Table 7.2.11 presents the load distribution by all applications for commercial sector. For the agricultural sector, DOE did not find sector-specific load information and used the same load distributions for industrial pump applications instead. For the residential sector, DOE did not find sector-specific load information and used the same load distributions as in the commercial sector. Finally, DOE did not find application specific information for fire pump electric motors and assumed a uniform load distribution between 0 and 1. Table 7.2.10 Load Distribution by Application for Industry Sector Application Air Compressors Fans Pumps Material Handling Material Processing Refrigeration Compressors Other Load Factor <= 0.4 16 % 6% 7% 23 % 8% 5% 0% 0.4 < Load Factor < 0.75 28 % 42 % 40 % 34 % 26 % 42 % 70 % 0.75 <= Load Factor 56 % 52 % 52 % 43 % 66 % 53 % 30 % *May not sum to 100% due to rounding Table 7.2.11 Load Distribution by Application for Commercial Sector Application Air Compressors Fans Pumps Material Handling Material Processing Refrigeration Compressors Other Load Factor <= 0.4 0% 1% 4% 31 % 0% 4% 0% 0.4 < Load Factor < 0.75 37 % 46 % 39 % 40 % 97 % 69 % 6% 0.75 <= Load Factor 63 % 53 % 58 % 29 % 3% 27 % 94 % *May not sum to 100% due to rounding f The DOE-AMO report that across all driven equipment types, the most common operating condition is estimated to be constant motor load systems operating at 0.75 load factor. 7-9 7.2.5 Motor Annual Hours of Operation The DOE-AMO report provides motor annual hours of operation by application for the commercial and industrial sectors. The DOE-AMO report provides average, median, minimum, maximum, and quartile boundaries for annual operating hours in the industrial and commercial sector by application and showed no significant difference in average annual hours of operation across horsepower ranges. DOE used this information to develop statistical distributions of annual operating hour by application in the commercial and industrial sectors. For the residential sector, DOE used distributions of annual operating hours from the Small Electric Motors January 2021 Final Determination Technical Support Document which were provided in tabular format. Table 7.2.12, Table 7.2.13, and Table 7.2.14 display the resulting average annual operating hours by application for the industrial, commercial, and residential sector, respectively. For the industrial and commercial sectors, Table 7.2.12, Table 7.2.13 also provide the median, minimum, maximum, and quartile boundaries reported in the DOE-AMO report. Table 7.2.12 Average Motor Operating Hours by Application for Industrial Sector 1 1 1st Quartile 1,000 1,900 3rd Quartile 4,200 5,750 8,766 1 1,800 4,800 1,752 8,766 1 500 4,200 2,355 3,827 2,040 3,643 8,766 8,766 1 1 900 1,800 2,400 4,900 3,414 2,628 8,766 100 1,800 4,300 Application Average Median Max Min Air Compressors Fans Material Handling Material Processing Other Pumps Refrigeration Compressors 2,843 3,905 2,190 3,145 8,766 8,766 3,429 3,120 2,512 Table 7.2.13 Average Motor Operating Hours by Application for Commercial Sector Application Air Compressors Fans Material Handling Material Processing Other Pumps Refrigeration Compressors Average Median Max Min 1st Quartile 3rd Quartile 1,275 1,170 8,766 1 800 1,200 3,564 2,621 8,766 1 1,800 5,100 5,449 6,355 8,766 1 3,100 7,600 513 104 8,766 1 75 950 1,880 4,423 1,747 4,368 8,766 8,766 1 1 1,000 1,900 2,500 6,500 2,677 2,184 8,766 1 1,800 3,500 7-10 Table 7.2.14 Average Motor Operating Hours by Application for Residential Sector Application Average Fans Pumps Other Refrigeration Compressors 4,383 2,868 1,887 551 For fire pump electric motors, DOE did not find application-specific information on operating hours. These electric motors are used very intermittently and typically operate when being tested on a monthly basis. DOE assumed a uniform distribution between 0.5 and 6 hours based on the 2014 Final Rule Technical Standard Document. For agricultural sector, DOE derived statistical distribution of annual operating hours of irrigation pumps from the 2013 Census of Agriculture Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey by region (resulting in a national average operating hours of 957 hours per year). 7.3 ANNUAL ENERGY USE Table 7.3.2 and Table 7.3.3 show the results of the energy use analysis at each considered energy efficiency level. Results are given for baseline level (EL 0) and the higher efficiency levels (ELs) being considered. 7-11 Table 7.3.1 Average Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level for Electric Motors Subject to Energy Conservation Standards at 10 CFR 431.25 Rep. kilowatt-hours per year ECG* Description Unit 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 4 2 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 1 9 1 10 2 11 Design B, T-frame, 5 hp, 4 poles, enclosed Design B, T-frame, 30 hp, 4 poles, enclosed Design B, T-frame, 75 hp, 4 poles, enclosed Design C, T-frame, 5 hp, 4 poles, enclosed Design C, T-frame, 50 hp, 4 poles, enclosed Fire pump electric motor,5 hp, 4 poles, enclosed Fire pump electric motor, 30 hp, 4 poles, enclosed Fire pump electric motor, 75 hp, 4 poles, enclosed Design B, T-frame, 150 hp, 4 poles, enclosed Design B, T-frame, 250 hp, 4 poles, enclosed Design C, T-frame, 150 hp, 4 poles, enclosed EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 9,072 9,009 8,954 8,884 8,823 52,222 51,967 51,740 51,490 51,277 124,541 124,020 123,737 123,352 122,969 7,662 7,600 7,531 7,471 7,422 75,745 75,342 75,168 74,843 74,843 7 7 7 7 7 40 39 39 39 38 97 95 95 94 94 258,369 257,281 256,682 255,877 255,077 430,968 429,158 428,081 426,743 425,413 234,551 233,296 232,707 231,697 231,697 * ECG = Equipment Class Group. 7-12 Table 7.3.2 Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level for SNEMs ECG* 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 6 6 7 7 7 Rep. Unit 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 kilowatt-hours per year EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 Description Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, open Single-Phase (High LTR), 2 hp, 4-pole, open Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Single-Phase (High LTR), 3 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Single-Phase (Medium LTR), 0.33 hp, 4pole, open Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.25 hp, 6-pole, open Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.5 hp, 6-pole, open Polyphase, 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Polyphase, 0.5 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Polyphase, 0.75 hp, 4-pole, enclosed * ECG = Equipment Class Group. 7-13 886 - - 2,074 2,015 1,790 - - 4,101 3,885 3,573 - - - - 2,099 2,005 1,799 - - 5,849 5,603 5,195 - - 1,193 1,104 1,049 - - 1,606 1,344 1,021 898 - 1,835 1,835 1,530 1,426 - 891 821 809 1,213 1,157 1,121 1,691 1,617 1,583 761 728 1,087 1,036 1,549 1,493 718 842 691 697 518 Table 7.3.3 Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level for Air-Over Electric Motors ECG* 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 10 10 11 11 11 12 12 12 Rep. Unit 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 kilowatt-hours per year EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 Description EL 0 AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High 1,134 1,082 910 LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 2,823 2,749 2,468 4-pole, open AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High 5,476 5,208 4,824 LTR), 2 hp, 4-pole, open AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High 931 898 691 LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High 2,822 2,706 2,450 LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, enclosed AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High 7,989 7,675 7,157 LTR), 3 hp, 4-pole, enclosed AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LTR), 0.33 hp, 41,244 1,158 1,104 pole, open AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low 1,457 1,230 949 LTR), 0.25 hp, 6-pole, open AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low 1,743 1,743 1,472 LTR), 0.5 hp, 6-pole, open AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.33 hp, 1,035 961 948 4-pole, enclosed AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.5 hp, 1,420 1,361 1,322 4-pole, enclosed AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.75 hp, 1,995 1,916 1,879 4-pole, enclosed AO-MEM Polyphase, 5 hp, 411,468 11,210 11,139 pole, enclosed AO-MEM Polyphase, 30 hp, 465,628 64,691 64,397 pole, enclosed AO-MEM Polyphase, 75 hp, 4156,982 156,982 156,330 pole, enclosed * ECG = Equipment Class Group. 7-14 EL 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,379 - 897 - 1,286 1,230 1,843 1,781 11,090 10,936 64,119 63,577 156,148 155,186 REFERENCES 1. Baldor: Online Manufacturer Catalog., Last Accessed April 11, 2016, n.d., http://www.baldor.com/catalog/. 2. US Motors: Online Manufacturer Catalog., Last Accessed May 1, 2016, n.d., http://ecatalog.motorboss.com/Catalog/Motors/. 3. Marathon: Online Manufacturer Catalog., Last Accessed April 22, 2016, n.d., http://www.marathonelectric.com/MMPS/. 4. Leeson: Online Manufacturer Catalog., Last Accessed April 11, 2016, n.d., http://www.leeson.com/leeson/. 5. WEG: Online Manufacturer Catalog., Last Accessed April 26, 2016, n.d., http://ecatalog.weg.net/. 6. ABB (Baldor-Reliance): Online Manufacturer Catalog., July 6, 2020, https://www.baldor.com/catalog/. 7. Nidec (US Motors): Online Manufacturer Catalog., July 6, 2020, https://ecatalog.motorboss.com/Catalog/Motors/ALL/. 8. Regal (Century, Marathon, Leeson): Online Manufacturer Catalog, May 27, 2020, https://www.regalbeloit.com/ 9. WEG: Online Manufacturer Catalog., April 17, 2020, http://ecatalog.weg.net/. 10. Fernando J. T. E. Ferreira, Aníbal T. De Almeida (September 2011), Technical and Economical Considerations of Line-Start PM Motors Including the Applicability of the IEC600-34-2-1 Standard, Energy Efficiency in Motor Driven Systems, Alexandria, VA, n.d. 11. EuP-LOT-30-Task-7-Jun-2014.Pdf, accessed April 26, 2021, https://www.eupnetwork.de/fileadmin/user_upload/EuP-LOT-30-Task-7-Jun-2014.pdf. 12. Emmanuel B. Agamloh, “The Partial-Load Efficiency of Induction Motors,” IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications 45, no. 1 (January 2009): 332–40, https://doi.org/10.1109/TIA.2008.2009718. 13. Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Small Electric Motors Final Determination (Prepared for the Department of Energy by Staff Members of Navigant Consulting, Inc and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, January 2021),” accessed November 29, 2021, https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0008-0035. 7-15 14. Prakash Rao et al., “U.S. Industrial and Commercial Motor System Market Assessment Report Volume 1: Characteristics of the Installed Base,” January 12, 2021, https://doi.org/10.2172/1760267. 15. US Department of Agriculture (2012), Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (2013), Volume 3, Special Studies, Part 1, November 1, 2014, https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/Online_Resources/Farm_and_R anch_Irrigation_Survey/fris13.pdf. 16. Technical Support Document: Energy Eficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Electric Motors” (Prepared for the Department of Energy by staff members of Navigant Consulting, Inc and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, May 2014). 17. Low-Voltage Motors, World Market Report, IHS Markit, November 1, 2019. 7-16 CHAPTER 8. LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS 8.1 8.1.1 8.1.2 8.1.3 8.2 8.2.1 8.2.2 8.2.3 8.2.4 8.2.5 8.3 8.3.1 8.3.2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 8-1 General Analysis Approach ............................................................................................. 8-1 Overview of Analysis Inputs ........................................................................................... 8-4 Sample of Electric Motors Users ..................................................................................... 8-6 TOTAL INSTALLED COST INPUTS ......................................................................... 8-10 Manufacturer Costs ........................................................................................................ 8-10 Overall Markup .............................................................................................................. 8-12 Application of Learning Rate for Electric Motor Prices ................................................ 8-12 Installation Cost ............................................................................................................. 8-14 Total Installed Cost ........................................................................................................ 8-15 OPERATING COST INPUTS....................................................................................... 8-15 Annual Energy Consumption......................................................................................... 8-16 Energy Prices ................................................................................................................. 8-16 8.3.2.1 Recent Energy Prices .................................................................................... 8-16 8.3.2.2 Future Energy Price Trends .......................................................................... 8-17 8.3.3 Repair Costs and Maintenance Costs ............................................................................. 8-18 8.3.4 Equipment Lifetime ....................................................................................................... 8-20 8.3.4.1 The Weibull Distribution .............................................................................. 8-22 8.3.4.2 Mechanical Motor Lifetime and Application Lifetime ................................. 8-23 8.3.5 Discount Rates ............................................................................................................... 8-26 8.3.5.1 Commercial/Industrial .................................................................................. 8-26 8.3.5.2 Residential ..................................................................................................... 8-30 8.4 ENERGY EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS ................................................................ 8-37 8.5 LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS ...................................... 8-41 8.5.1 Summary of Results ....................................................................................................... 8-42 8.5.2 Rebuttable Payback Period ............................................................................................ 8-81 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 8-85 LIST OF TABLES Table 8.1.1 Table 8.1.2 Table 8.1.3 Table 8.1.4 Table 8.1.5 Representative Units Analyzed for Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25................................................................................................................... 8-3 Summary of Inputs to Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period ............................... 8-6 Distribution of Electric Motors by Sector (by horsepower range) for Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 ...................................................... 8-7 Distribution of Electric Motors by Sector for SNEMs, AO-SNEMs and AO-MEMs ........................................................................................................... 8-7 Distribution of Electric Motors by Application for NEMA Design A and B Electric Motors..................................................................................................... 8-8 8-i Table 8.1.6 Table 8.1.7 Table 8.1.8 Table 8.1.9 Table 8.1.10 Table 8.2.1 Table 8.2.2 Table 8.2.3 Table 8.2.4 Table 8.3.1 Table 8.3.2 Table 8.3.3 Table 8.3.4 Table 8.3.5 Table 8.3.6 Table 8.3.7 Table 8.3.8 Table 8.3.9 Table 8.3.10 Table 8.3.11 Table 8.3.12 Table 8.3.13 Table 8.3.14 Table 8.3.15 Table 8.3.16 Table 8.3.17 Table 8.3.18 Table 8.4.1 Table 8.4.2 Table 8.4.3 Table 8.5.1 Table 8.5.2 Table 8.5.3 Table 8.5.4 Table 8.5.5 Distribution of Electric Motors by Application for NEMA Design C Electric Motors..................................................................................................... 8-8 Distribution of Electric Motors by Application for SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT) .......................................................................................................... 8-8 Distribution of Electric Motors by Application for SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) ..................................................................................................... 8-8 Distribution of Electric Motors by Application for SNEM Polyphase ................ 8-9 Distributions of Consumers by Region ................................................................ 8-9 Parameters used to Estimate MSP of 4-Pole Enclosed Motors by Horsepower ........................................................................................................ 8-11 Manufacturer Selling Price for Representative Units 9, 10 and 11 by EL ........ 8-11 Parameters used to Estimate Weight of 4-Pole Enclosed Motors by Horsepower ........................................................................................................ 8-15 Weight for Representative Units 9, 10 and 11 by EL ........................................ 8-15 Average Electricity Prices in 2020 .................................................................... 8-17 Marginal Electricity Prices in 2020 ................................................................... 8-17 Lifetime Repair Costs by Efficiency Level ....................................................... 8-19 Motor Lifetime by Horsepower Range and Sector for NEMA Design A and B, NEMA Design C .................................................................................... 8-21 Weibull Parameters for Mechanical Motor Lifetimes for Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 and AO-MEMs .................................................... 8-23 Weibull Parameters for Mechanical Motor Lifetimes for SNEMs and AOSNEMs ............................................................................................................... 8-24 Weibull Parameters for Application Lifetimes .................................................. 8-24 Resulting Average Sampled Electric Motor Lifetimes ...................................... 8-24 Mapping of Aggregate Sectors to CBECS Categories ...................................... 8-27 Risk Free Rate and Equity Risk Premium ......................................................... 8-28 Weighted Average Cost of Capital for Commercial/Industrial Sectors............. 8-29 Definition of Income Groups ............................................................................. 8-30 Average Shares of Household Debt and Asset Types by Income Group (%)...................................................................................................................... 8-32 Data Used to Calculate Real Effective Mortgage Rates .................................... 8-33 Average Real Effective Interest Rates for Household Debt (%) ....................... 8-33 Average Capital Gains Marginal Tax Rate by Income Group (%) .................... 8-34 Average Real Interest Rates for Household Assets (%) .................................... 8-35 Average Real Effective Discount Rates ............................................................. 8-36 No-New Standards Case Efficiency Distribution in 2026 for Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 ................................................................. 8-38 No-New Standards Case Efficiency Distribution in 2026 for SNEMs .............. 8-39 No-New Standards Case Efficiency Distribution in 2026 for AO Electric ....... 8-40 Unit #1: NEMA Design B, T-Frame, 5 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed .......................... 8-42 Unit #1: NEMA Design B, T-Frame, 5 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed .......................... 8-42 Unit#2: NEMA Design B, T-frame, 30 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed (6 to 20 hp)....... 8-43 Unit #2: NEMA Design B, T-Frame, 30 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed (6 to 20 hp)..... 8-43 Unit#2: NEMA Design B, T-frame, 30 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed (21 to 50 hp)..... 8-44 8-ii Table 8.5.6 Table 8.5.7 Table 8.5.8 Table 8.5.9 Table 8.5.10 Table 8.5.11 Table 8.5.12 Table 8.5.13 Table 8.5.14 Table 8.5.15 Table 8.5.16 Table 8.5.17 Table 8.5.18 Table 8.5.19 Table 8.5.20 Table 8.5.21 Table 8.5.22 Table 8.5.23 Table 8.5.24 Table 8.5.25 Table 8.5.26 Table 8.5.27 Table 8.5.28 Table 8.5.29 Table 8.5.30 Table 8.5.31 Table 8.5.32 Table 8.5.33 Table 8.5.34 Table 8.5.35 Table 8.5.36 Table 8.5.37 Table 8.5.38 Table 8.5.39 Table 8.5.40 Table 8.5.41 Table 8.5.42 Table 8.5.43 Table 8.5.44 Table 8.5.45 Table 8.5.46 Table 8.5.47 Table 8.5.48 Table 8.5.49 Table 8.5.50 Unit #2: NEMA Design B, T-Frame, 30 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed (21 to 50 hp) ...................................................................................................................... 8-44 Unit #3: NEMA Design B, T-Frame, 75 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed ........................ 8-45 Unit #3: NEMA Design B, T-Frame, 75 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed ........................ 8-45 Unit#4: NEMA Design C, T-frame, 5 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed ............................ 8-46 Unit#4: NEMA Design C, T-frame, 5 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed ............................ 8-46 Unit #5: NEMA Design B, T-Frame, 50 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed ........................ 8-47 Unit #5: NEMA Design B, T-Frame, 50 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed ........................ 8-47 Unit #6: Fire pump, 5 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed ...................................................... 8-48 Unit #6: Fire pump, 5 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed ...................................................... 8-48 Unit #7: Fire pump, 30 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed .................................................... 8-49 Unit #7: Fire pump, 30 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed .................................................... 8-49 Unit #8: Fire pump, 75 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed .................................................... 8-50 Unit #8: Fire pump, T-Frame, 75 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed .................................... 8-50 Unit #9: NEMA Design B, T-frame, 150 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed ....................... 8-51 Unit#9: NEMA Design B, T-frame, 150 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed ........................ 8-51 Unit #10: NEMA Design B, T-Frame, 250 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed .................... 8-52 Unit #10: NEMA Design B, T-Frame, 250 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed .................... 8-52 Unit #11: NEMA Design C, T-Frame, 150 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed .................... 8-53 Unit #11: NEMA Design C, T-Frame, 150 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed .................... 8-53 Unit#12: SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open ................... 8-54 Unit#12: SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open ................... 8-54 Unit#13: SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, open ........................ 8-55 Unit#13: SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, open ........................ 8-55 Unit#14: SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 2 hp, 4-pole, open ........................ 8-56 Unit#14: SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 2 hp, 4-pole, open ........................ 8-56 Unit#15: SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed ............. 8-57 Unit#15: SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed ............. 8-57 Unit#16: SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, enclosed .................. 8-58 Unit#16: SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, enclosed .................. 8-58 Unit#17: SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 3 hp, 4-pole, enclosed .................. 8-59 Unit#17: SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 3 hp, 4-pole, enclosed .................. 8-59 Unit#18: SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open.............. 8-60 Unit#18: SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open.............. 8-60 Unit#19: SNEM Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.25 hp, 6-pole, open .................... 8-61 Unit#19: SNEM Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.25 hp, 6-pole, open .................... 8-61 Unit#20: SNEM Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.5 hp, 6-pole, open ...................... 8-62 Unit#20: SNEM Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.5 hp, 6-pole, open ...................... 8-62 Unit#21: SNEM Polyphase, 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed ..................................... 8-63 Unit#21: SNEM Polyphase, 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed ..................................... 8-63 Unit#22: SNEM Polyphase, 0.5 hp, 4-pole, enclosed....................................... 8-64 Unit#22: SNEM Polyphase, 0.5 hp, 4-pole, enclosed ....................................... 8-64 Unit#23: SNEM Polyphase, 0.75 hp, 4-pole, enclosed ..................................... 8-65 Unit#23: SNEM Polyphase, 0.75 hp, 4-pole, enclosed ..................................... 8-65 Unit#24: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open ............ 8-66 Unit#24: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open ............ 8-66 8-iii Table 8.5.51 Table 8.5.52 Table 8.5.53 Table 8.5.54 Table 8.5.55 Table 8.5.56 Table 8.5.57 Table 8.5.58 Table 8.5.59 Table 8.5.60 Table 8.5.61 Table 8.5.62 Table 8.5.63 Table 8.5.64 Table 8.5.65 Table 8.5.66 Table 8.5.67 Table 8.5.68 Table 8.5.69 Table 8.5.70 Table 8.5.71 Table 8.5.72 Table 8.5.73 Table 8.5.74 Table 8.5.75 Table 8.5.76 Table 8.5.77 Table 8.5.78 Table 8.5.79 Table 8.5.80 Unit#25: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, open ................. 8-67 Unit#25: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, open ................. 8-67 Unit#26: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 2 hp, 4-pole, open ................. 8-68 Unit#26: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 2 hp, 4-pole, open ................. 8-68 Unit#27: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed ...... 8-69 Unit#27: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed ...... 8-69 Unit#28: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, enclosed ........... 8-70 Unit#28: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, enclosed ........... 8-70 Unit#29: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 3 hp, 4-pole, enclosed ........... 8-71 Unit#29: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 3 hp, 4-pole, enclosed ........... 8-71 Unit#30: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open ...... 8-72 Unit#30: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open ...... 8-72 Unit#31: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.25 hp, 6-pole, open............. 8-73 Unit#31: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.25 hp, 6-pole, open............. 8-73 Unit#32: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.5 hp, 6-pole, open ............... 8-74 Unit#32: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.5 hp, 6-pole, open ............... 8-74 Unit#33: AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed .............................. 8-75 Unit#33: AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed .............................. 8-75 Unit#34: AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.5 hp, 4-pole, enclosed ................................ 8-76 Unit#34: AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.5 hp, 4-pole, enclosed ................................ 8-76 Unit#35: AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.75 hp, 4-pole, enclosed .............................. 8-77 Unit#35: AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.75 hp, 4-pole, enclosed .............................. 8-77 Unit#36: AO-MEM Polyphase, 5 hp, 4-pole, enclosed ..................................... 8-78 Unit#36: AO-MEM Polyphase, 5 hp, 4-pole, enclosed ..................................... 8-78 Unit#37: AO-MEM Polyphase, 30 hp, 4-pole, enclosed ................................... 8-79 Unit#37: AO-MEM Polyphase, 30 hp, 4-pole, enclosed ................................... 8-79 Unit#38: AO-MEM Polyphase, 75 hp, 4-pole, enclosed ................................... 8-80 Unit#38: AO-MEM Polyphase, 75 hp, 4-pole, enclosed ................................... 8-80 Summary of Inputs for Rebuttable PBP Analysis.............................................. 8-81 Rebuttable Presumption Payback for Electric Motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25................................................................................................................. 8-82 Table 8.5.81 Rebuttable Presumption Payback for SNEMs ................................................... 8-83 Table 8.5.82 Rebuttable Presumption Payback for AO Electric Motors ................................ 8-84 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 8.1.1 Figure 8.2.1 Figure 8.2.2 Figure 8.2.3 Flow Diagram of Inputs for the Determination of LCC and PBP ....................... 8-5 NEMA Design A and B MSP at EL0 ................................................................ 8-11 Historical Nominal and Deflated Producer Price Indexes for Integral Horsepower Motors and Generators Manufacturing from 1969 to 2020 .......... 8-12 Historical Nominal and Deflated Producer Price Indexes for Fractional Horsepower Motors and Generators Manufacturing from 1967 to 2020 .......... 8-13 8-iv Figure 8.2.4 Figure 8.3.1 Historical Deflated Producer Price Indexes for Copper Smelting, Steel Mills and Aluminum Manufacturing ................................................................. 8-14 National Electricity Price Trends Based on AEO 2021 Reference Case ........... 8-18 8-v CHAPTER 8. LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS 8.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) method for analyzing the economic impacts on individual consumers a from potential energy efficiency standards for electric motors. The effects of standards on individual consumers include a change in purchase price (usually an increase) and a change in operating costs (usually a decrease). This chapter describes three metrics DOE used to determine the impact of standards on individual consumers: • Life-cycle cost (LCC) is the total consumer expense during the lifetime of an appliance (or other equipment), including purchase expense and operating costs (including energy expenditures). DOE discounts future operating costs to the year of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the electric motor. • Payback period (PBP) measures the amount of time it takes a consumer to recover the higher purchase price of a more energy efficient electric motor through lower operating costs. DOE calculates a simple payback period which does not discount operating costs. • Rebuttable payback period is a special case of the PBP. Whereas LCC is estimated for a range of inputs that reflect real-world conditions, rebuttable payback period is based on laboratory conditions as specified in the DOE test procedure. Inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations are described in sections 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4. Results of the LCC and PBP analysis are presented in section 8.5. DOE performed the calculations discussed herein using a computer model that relies on a Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the analysis. These calculations are described in Microsoft Excel® spreadsheet that is accessible at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/). 8.1.1 General Analysis Approach Life-cycle cost is calculated using the following equation: For commercial and industrial equipment, the consumer is the business or other entity that pays for the equipment (directly or indirectly) and its energy costs. a 8-1 𝑁𝑁−1 Where: LCC = TIC = ∑= N= OC = r= t= 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 = 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 + � 𝑡𝑡=0 𝑂𝑂𝐶𝐶𝑡𝑡 (1 + 𝑟𝑟)𝑡𝑡 Eq. 8.1 life-cycle cost (in dollars), total installed cost in dollars, sum over the appliance lifetime, from year 1 to year N, lifetime of the appliance in years, operating cost in dollars, discount rate, and year to which operating cost is discounted. The payback period is the ratio of the increase in total installed cost (i.e., from a less energy efficient design to a more efficient design) to the decrease in annual operating expenditures. This type of calculation results in what is termed a simple payback period, because it does not take into account changes in energy expenses over time or the time value of money. That is, the calculation is done at an effective discount rate of zero percent. The equation for PBP is: 𝛥𝛥𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 𝛥𝛥𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 Eq. 8.2 Where: ΔTIC = ΔOC = difference in total installed cost between a more energy efficient design and the baseline design, and difference in annual operating expenses. Payback periods are expressed in years. Payback periods greater than the life of the equipment indicate that the increased total installed cost is not recovered through reduced operating expenses. Recognizing that inputs to the determination of consumer LCC and PBP may be either variable or uncertain, DOE conducts the LCC and PBP analysis by modeling both the uncertainty and variability of the inputs using Monte Carlo simulation and probability distributions for inputs. Appendix 8A provides a detailed explanation of Monte Carlo simulation and the use of probability distributions and discusses the tool used to incorporate these methods. DOE calculates impacts relative to a case without amended or new energy conservation standards (referred to as the “no-new-standards case”). In the no-new-standards case, some consumers may purchase equipment with energy efficiency higher than a baseline model. For any given standard level under consideration, consumers expected to purchase equipment with efficiency equal to or greater than the considered level in the no-new-standards case would be unaffected by that standard. 8-2 DOE calculates the LCC and PBP as if all consumers purchase the electric motor in the expected initial year of compliance with a new or amended standard. At this time, the expected compliance date of potential energy conservation standards for electric motors manufactured in, or imported into, the United States is in 2026. Therefore, DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analysis assuming purchases take place in 2026. As described in chapter 7, for electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25, the analysis focuses on 8 representative units identified in the engineering analysis (chapter 5). In addition, for NEMA Design A and B and NEMA Design C electric motors, additional units were added to represent consumers of larger size electric motors (9, 10, and 11). See Table 8.1.1. Further, two sets of LCC results were generated for representative unit 2: one set with lifetime and repair inputs specific to the 6 to 20 horsepower range, and with lifetime and repair inputs specific to the 21 to 50 horsepower range. In addition, DOE analyzed 12 representative units for small, nonsmall-electric motors electric motors (SNEMs) that do not have air over enclosures, and 15 representative units for air over electric motors. b The representative units for SNEMs and air over electric motors are further described in the engineering analysis section (see chapter 5) and are not included in Table 8.1.1. Table 8.1.1 Representative Units Analyzed for Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 Horsepower Equipment Class Horsepower Representative Unit Range (all poles Group (4 poles, enclosed) and enclosures) 1 5 1 to 5 2 30 6 to 20 NEMA Design A 2 30 21 to 50 and B Electric 3 75 51 to 100 Motor 9 150 101 to 200 10 250 201 to 500 4 5 1 to 20 NEMA Design C 5 50 21 to 100 Electric Motor 11 150 101 to 200 6 5 1 to 5 Fire Pump 7 30 6 to 50 Electric Motor 8 75 51 to 500 Each representative unit was then associated to a horsepower range as described in Table 8.1.1.Within each of these horsepower ranges, all LCC inputs are assumed to remain constant and equal to that of the representative unit except for the manufacturer selling price (MSP), weight, full-load efficiency, and repair costs. In the National Impact Analysis (NIA), DOE uses the LCC results of each representative unit to estimate the shipments-weighted average total Air-over electric motors analyzed in this preliminary analysis include air over electric motors that otherwise meet the description of currently regulated "medium" electric motors at 10 CFR 431.25 ("AO-MEM") and SNEMs that have air over enclosures (AO-SNEMs). See chapter 5. b 8-3 installed costs, annual energy use, and repair costs of the units in the associated horsepower range. These values are then used as inputs to the NIA. (See Chapter 10) 8.1.2 Overview of Analysis Inputs The LCC analysis uses inputs for establishing (1) the purchase expense, otherwise known as the total installed cost, and (2) the operating costs over the equipment lifetime. The primary inputs for establishing the total installed cost are: • Baseline manufacturer cost: The costs incurred by the manufacturer to produce electric motors that meet current minimum efficiency standards, or another efficiency level designated as the baseline for analysis. • Standard-level manufacturer cost: The manufacturer cost (or cost increase) associated with producing electric motors that meet particular efficiency levels above the baseline. • Markups and sales tax: The markups and sales tax associated with converting the manufacturer cost to a consumer equipment cost. • Installation cost: All costs required to install the equipment, including labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts. The primary inputs for calculating the operating cost are: • Equipment energy consumption: The equipment energy consumption is the site energy use associated with operating the electric motor. • Energy prices: The prices consumers pay for energy (e.g., electricity or natural gas). • Energy price trends: The annual rates of change projected for energy prices during the study period. • Repair costs and maintenance costs: Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing components that fail. Maintenance costs are associated with maintaining the operation of the equipment. • Lifetime: The age at which the equipment is retired from service. • Discount rates: The rates at which DOE discounts future expenditures to establish their present value. The inputs for calculating the PBP are the total installed cost and the first-year operating costs. The inputs to operating costs are the first-year energy cost and the annualized repair cost. 8-4 The PBP uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, except the PBP does not require energy price trends or discount rates. Figure 8.1.1 depicts the relationships among the inputs to installed cost and operating cost for calculating an electric motor’s LCC and PBP. In the figure, the tan boxes indicate inputs, the green boxes indicate intermediate outputs, and the blue boxes indicate final outputs. Figure 8.1.1 Flow Diagram of Inputs for the Determination of LCC and PBP Table 8.1.2 provides a summary of inputs, with a greater degree of detail, used in the analysis. 8-5 Table 8.1.2 Inputs Summary of Inputs to Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Equipment Cost Installation Costs Annual Energy Use Energy Prices Energy Price Trends Repair and Maintenance Costs Product Lifetime Discount Rates Compliance Date 8.1.3 Source/Method Derived by multiplying MSPs by manufacturer and distribution channel markups and sales tax. Used a constant price trend to project equipment costs based on historical data. Assumed no change with efficiency level other than shipping costs. Motor input power multiplied by annual operating hours per year. Variability: Based on site surveys from recent AMO-DOE study and information from the 2018 CBECS, 2018 MECS, 2015 RECS and 2013 Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey. Electricity: Based on EEI Typical Bills and Average Rates reports for 2020. Variability: Regional energy prices Based on AEO2021 price projections. Assumed to change with efficiency level. Average: 6.7 to 30 years depending on the equipment class group and horsepower considered Commercial, Industrial, Agriculture: Calculated as the weighted average cost of capital for entities purchasing electric motors. Primary data source was Damodaran Online Residential: approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase the considered appliance(s), or might be affected indirectly. Primary data source was the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances. 2026 Sample of Electric Motors Users The LCC and PBP calculations detailed here are for a representative sample of individual electric motor users. By developing consumer samples, DOE accounts for the variability in energy consumption and energy price associated with a range of consumers. DOE created consumer samples for four individual sectors: agriculture, commercial, residential and industrial. DOE used the samples to determine electric motor annual energy consumption as well as for conducting the LCC and PBP analyses. Each consumer in the sample was assigned a sector, an application, and a region. As described in this chapter and in chapter 7 of this TSD, applications determine the usage profile of the motor and the economic characteristics of the motor owner and vary by sector and region. DOE established distributions of consumers by sector and application for each representative unit. Table 8.1.3 and Table 8.1.4 show the market shares of each sector. See Chapter 7 for more details on how these distributions were developed. 8-6 Table 8.1.3 Distribution of Electric Motors by Sector (by horsepower range) for Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 Equipment Class group NEMA Design A and B/NEMA Design C Fire Pump Electric Motors Horsepower range Industrial Commercial Residential Agricultural 1 to 50 47% 53% 0% 0% 51 to 100* 72% 21% 0% 7% 101 to 200 82% 15% 0% 3% 201 to 500 77% 20% 0% 3% 1 to 500 49% 51% 0% 0% *May not sum to 100% due to rounding **DOE used sector-specific distribution for range 51-100 for Representative Unit 5 (50 Hp) as that RPU represents motors in the 21-100 hp range Table 8.1.4 Distribution of Electric Motors by Sector for SNEMs, AO-SNEMs and AOMEMs Equipment Class Group Industrial Commercial Residential Agricultural SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT) 42% 39% 4% 15% SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) 42% 39% 4% 15% SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) 49% 46% 5% 0% SNEM Polyphase 51% 49% 0% 0% AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT) 49% 46% 5% 0% AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) 49% 46% 5% 0% AO-SNEM Single Phase (Low LRT) 49% 46% 5% 0% AO-SNEM Polyphase 51% 49% 0% 0% AO-MEM Polyphase 51% 49% 0% 0% *May not sum to 100% due to rounding Table 8.1.5 and Table 8.1.6 show the sector-specific distributions of electric motors across applications for NEMA Design A and B motors and NEMA Design C electric motors (all fire pump motors were assumed to be used in pump applications). Table 8.1.7 and Table 8.1.8 and Table 8.1.9 show the sector-specific distributions by application for SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT) motors, SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) motors and SNEM Polyphase motors, respectively. DOE assumed SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) and AO-MEMs are used only in fan applications. DOE also assumed a percent of consumers would be negatively impacted by changes in the electric motor's nominal speed (with increased efficiency). See Chapter 7 for more details on how these distributions were developed. 8-7 Table 8.1.5 Distribution of Electric Motors by Application for NEMA Design A and B Electric Motors Air Compressor (%) Fan (%) Pump (%) Material Handling (%) Material Processing (%) Refrigeration Compressor (%) Other (%) Industrial 3 26 15 12 35 6 3 Commercial 3 41 5 2 3 45 1 Agricultural - - 100 - - - - *May not sum to 100% due to rounding Table 8.1.6 Distribution of Electric Motors by Application for NEMA Design C Electric Motors Air Compressor (%) Fan (%) Pump (%) Material Handling (%) Material Processing (%) Refrigeration Compressor (%) Other (%) Industrial 4 - 22 18 51 - 4 Commercial 6 - - 4 6 83 2 Agricultural - - 100 - - - - *May not sum to 100% due to rounding Table 8.1.7 Distribution of Electric Motors by Application for SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT) Air Compressor (%) Fan (%) Pump (%) Material Handling (%) Material Processing (%) Refrigeration Compressor (%) Other (%) Industrial 3 26 15 12 35 6 3 Commercial 3 41 5 2 3 45 1 Agricultural - - 100 - - - - Residential - 24 14 - - 40 22 *May not sum to 100% due to rounding Table 8.1.8 Distribution of Electric Motors by Application for SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) Air Compressor (%) Fan (%) Pump (%) Material Handling (%) 8-8 Material Processing (%) Refrigeration Compressor (%) Other (%) Industrial - 63 37 - - - - Commercial - 89 11 - - - - Agricultural - - 100 - - - - Residential - 63 37 - - - - *May not sum to 100% due to rounding Table 8.1.9 Distribution of Electric Motors by Application for SNEM Polyphase Air Compressor (%) Fan (%) Pump (%) Material Handling (%) Material Processing (%) Refrigeration Compressor (%) Other (%) Industrial 3 26 15 12 35 6 3 Commercial 3 41 5 2 3 45 1 *May not sum to 100% due to rounding For the LCC analysis, DOE also developed sector-specific distributions of consumers by region. The distribution by regions in the commercial sector was obtained from the 2018 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey 1, in the industrial sector from the 2018 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey 2, in the residential sector from the 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey 3, and in the agricultural sector from the 2013 Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey 4. Table 8.1.10 presents the sector-specific distributions by region. Table 8.1.10 Distributions of Consumers by Region Sector Northeast (%) Industry Midwest (%) South (%) West (%) 9 30 48 13 Commercial 17 27 13 17 * Residential 14 20 49 18 Agriculture 3 27 37 33 *May not sum to 100% due to rounding In each Monte Carlo iteration, for each representative unit, one of the sector, region, and application is identified by sampling from a distribution of sector, a distribution of region, and a distribution of application for that representative unit. The selected application determines the number of operating hours per years as well as the motor load. The operating hours and the motor loading for the application are used in the energy use calculation (see Chapter 6). The sector to which the application belongs determines the discount rate and region determines the sales tax. The sector and region to which the application belongs determine the electricity price used in the LCC calculation in each simulation. 8-9 8.2 TOTAL INSTALLED COST INPUTS DOE uses the following equation to define the total installed cost. 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 = 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 + 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 Where: TIC = CPC = IC = Eq. 8.3 total installed cost, consumer purchase cost, and installation cost. The consumer purchase cost is equal to the manufacturer cost multiplied by markups, and where applicable, sales tax. The cost varies based on the distribution channel through which the consumer purchases the equipment. The installation cost represents all costs to the consumer for installing the equipment including labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts. The installation cost may vary by efficiency level. The rest of this section provides information about each of the inputs that DOE used to calculate the total installed cost of electric motors. 8.2.1 Manufacturer Costs DOE developed manufacturer costs at each efficiency level for the representative units as described in chapter 5 of this TSD. To derive the MSPs for the additional representative units analyzed in the LCC (representative units 9, 10, and 11), DOE developed a model to estimate the baseline MSPs (i.e., at EL0) of 4-pole enclosed electric motors for all motor horsepower ratings, within each equipment class group. The model is expressed by the following equation: 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀4,𝑒𝑒 (ℎ𝑝𝑝) = 𝑎𝑎 ∙ ℎ𝑝𝑝𝑏𝑏 where: 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀4,𝑒𝑒 (ℎ𝑝𝑝) a and b = the MSP of a 4-pole enclosed unit with horsepower hp, and = parameters calibrated for each equipment class group/subgroup and EL. DOE calibrated the model to each equipment class group and EL level using the corresponding MSPs of the representative units provided by the engineering analysis. Table 8.2.1 presents the values of parameters a and b that DOE estimated for each equipment class group. Figure 8.2.1 illustrates the models for NEMA Design A and B electric motors. These equations were used to estimate the MSP of the additional units analyzed in the LCC 8-10 NEMA Design A and B - MSP (EL0) $3,500.00 $3,000.00 MSP ($2020) $2,500.00 $2,000.00 $1,500.00 y = 73.149x0.8468 R² = 0.9949 $1,000.00 MSP - EL0 - AB $500.00 $- Power (MSP - EL0 - AB) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Horsepower Figure 8.2.1 NEMA Design A and B MSP at EL0 Table 8.2.1 Parameters used to Estimate MSP of 4-Pole Enclosed Motors by Horsepower NEMA Design A and B Electric Motors EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 a 73.15 84.31 86.59 99.51 136.91 b 0.847 0.837 0.853 0.84 0.777 NEMA Design C Electric Motors EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 a 89.53 92.61 100.98 120.53 120.53 b 0.839 0.846 0.838 0.808 0.808 For representative units 9 and 10, in order to calculate the MSP at higher ELs, DOE assumed the same incremental increase in MSP by EL as observed in representative unit 3. For representative unit 11, DOE assumed the same incremental increase in MSP by EL as observed in representative unit 5. The resulting MSPs for representative units 9, 10, and 11 by EL are presented in Table 8.2.2. Table 8.2.2 Manufacturer Selling Price for Representative Units 9, 10 and 11 by EL $ 2020 Representative Unit EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 9 5,092 5,797 6,707 6,955 7,507 10 7,848 8,935 10,336 10,720 11,569 11 6,000 6,364 6,745 7,159 7,159 8-11 8.2.2 Overall Markup For a given distribution channel, the overall markup is the value determined by multiplying all the associated markups and the applicable sales tax together to arrive at a single overall distribution chain markup value. Because there are baseline and incremental markups associated with the various market participants, the overall markup is also divided into a baseline markup (i.e., a markup used to convert the baseline manufacturer price into a consumer price) and an incremental markup (i.e., a markup used to convert a standard-compliant manufacturer cost increase due to an efficiency increase into an incremental consumer price). Refer to chapter 6 of this TSD for details. 8.2.3 Application of Learning Rate for Electric Motor Prices To derive a price trend for electric motors, DOE obtained historical Producer Price Index (PPI) data for integral horsepower motors and generators manufacturing spanning the time period 1969-2020 and for fractional horsepower motors and generators manufacturing between 1967-2020 from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS). c The PPI data reflect nominal prices, adjusted for electric motor quality changes. An inflation-adjusted (deflated) price index for integral and fractional horsepower motors and generators manufacturing was calculated by dividing the PPI series by the implicit price deflator for Gross Domestic Product. Price indices in 2020 dollar value for integral motors and fractional motors are presented in Figure 8.2.2 and Figure 8.2.3. Figure 8.2.2 Historical Nominal and Deflated Producer Price Indexes for Integral Horsepower Motors and Generators Manufacturing from 1969 to 2020 Series ID PCU3353123353123 and PCU3353123353121 for integral and fractional horsepower motors and generators manufacturing, respectively; http://www.bls.gov/ppi/ c 8-12 Figure 8.2.3 Historical Nominal and Deflated Producer Price Indexes for Fractional Horsepower Motors and Generators Manufacturing from 1967 to 2020 The deflated price index for integral horsepower motors was mostly flat before early 2000s, and then the deflated price index picked up drastically. The trend is found to align with the copper, steel and aluminum deflated price indices to some extent, as they are the major material used in electric motors (see Figure 8.2.4). The rising prices for those commodities during the 2000s were primarily a result of strong demand from China and other emerging economies. Since then, a slowdown in global economic activity from the beginning of 2011 dragged down the commodity prices. DOE believes that the extent to how these trends will continue in the future is very uncertain. In addition, the deflated price index for fractional horsepower motors was mostly flat during the entire period from 1967 to 2020. Therfore, DOE relied on a constant price assumption as the default price factor index to project future electric motor prices. 8-13 Figure 8.2.4 Historical Deflated Producer Price Indexes for Copper Smelting, Steel Mills and Aluminum Manufacturing 8.2.4 Installation Cost Motor installation cost data from 2013 RS Means Electrical Cost Data 5 show a variation in installation costs according to the motor horsepower (for three-phase electric motors), but not according to efficiency. Therefore, in the preliminary analysis, DOE did not incorporate changes in installation costs for motors that are more efficient than baseline equipment. DOE assumed there is no variation in installation costs between a baseline efficiency motor and a higher efficiency motor except in terms of shipping costs which DOE estimated as function of weight As explained in Chapter 6, the weight of each representative unit as provided in Chapter 5 was used to calculate shipping costs as a function of ELs. (See Chapter 6 for more details). DOE relied on the same model used to estimate the baseline MSPs of representative units 9, 10, and 11 to estimate the weights of these representative units. Table 8.2.3 provides the coefficients used to calculate the weights of 4 pole rating (at EL0). 8-14 Table 8.2.3 Parameters used to Estimate Weight of 4-Pole Enclosed Motors by Horsepower NEMA Design A and B Electric Motors EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 a 21.55 25.97 24.92 27.68 b 0.855 0.791 0.977 0.792 NEMA Design C Electric Motors EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 a 29.30 27.72 30.95 32.26 b 0.748 0.762 0.734 0.731 EL 4 28.47 0.793 EL 4 32.26 0.731 For representative units 9 and 10, in order to calculate the weights at higher ELs, DOE assumed the same incremental increase in weight by EL as observed in representative unit 3. For representative unit 11, DOE assumed the same incremental increase in MSP by EL as observed in representative unit 5. The resulting weights for representative units 9, 10, and 11 by EL are presented in Table 8.2.4. Table 8.2.4 Weight for Representative Units 9, 10 and 11 by EL lbs Representative Unit EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 8.2.5 EL 3 EL 4 9 5,092 5,797 6,707 6,955 7,507 10 7,848 8,935 10,336 10,720 11,569 11 6,000 6,364 6,745 7,159 7,159 Total Installed Cost The total installed cost is the sum of the consumer equipment cost and installation cost. The total installed costs for each electric motor representative unit and additional unit analyzed in the LCC at each efficiency level considered are shown in the tables in section 8.5. 8.3 OPERATING COST INPUTS DOE defines operating cost (OC) using the following equation: Where: 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 = 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 + 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 EC = energy cost associated with operating the equipment, RC = repair cost associated with component failure, and MC = maintenance cost. 8-15 Eq. 8.4 DOE defines the energy cost using the following equation: 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸(𝑡𝑡) = 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴(𝑡𝑡) × 𝐸𝐸𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 (𝑡𝑡) Where: AEC(t) = Eprice(t) = Eq. 8.5 annual energy consumption at the site in year t, and energy price in year t. The annual energy costs of the equipment are computed from energy consumption per unit for the baseline and the considered efficiency levels, combined with the energy prices. electric motor lifetime, discount rate, and compliance date of the standard are required for determining the operating cost and for establishing the present value of the operating cost. The remainder of this section provides information about the variables that DOE used to calculate the operating cost for electric motors. 8.3.1 Annual Energy Consumption For each representative unit and additional unit analyzed, DOE calculated the annual energy use for each sample equipment user at each efficiency level, as described in chapter 7 of this TSD. Tables in chapter 7 provide the average annual energy consumption by efficiency level for electric motors. 8.3.2 Energy Prices 8.3.2.1 Recent Energy Prices Because marginal electricity price more accurately captures the incremental savings associated with a change in energy use from higher efficiency, it provides a better representation of incremental change in consumer costs than average electricity prices. Therefore, DOE applied average electricity prices for the energy use of the equipment purchased in the no-new-standards case, and marginal electricity prices for the incremental change in energy use associated with the other efficiency levels considered. DOE derived average and marginal electricity prices in 2020 for each census division using data from EEI Typical Bills and Average Rates reports 6 and the methodology described in a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report 7. DOE's methodology allows electricity prices to vary by sector, region, and season. In the analysis, variability in electricity prices is chosen to be consistent with the way the consumer economic and energy use characteristics are defined in 8-16 the LCC and PBP analyses. d Using the EEI data, DOE calculated average and marginal price for the four census regions for the industrial, commercial and residential sector. The values for the industrial sector were also used for the agricultural sector. Table 8.3.1 and Table 8.3.2 show the average and marginal prices for each census region. Table 8.3.1 Average Electricity Prices in 2020 Average Industrial Census Region Price 2020$/kWh 1 Northeast 0.095 2 Midwest 0.088 3 South 0.073 4 West 0.105 National 0.082 Table 8.3.2 Marginal Electricity Prices in 2020 Census Region 1 2 3 4 Northeast Midwest South West National 8.3.2.2 Average Industrial Price 2020$/kWh 0.089 0.088 0.074 0.097 0.080 Average Commercial Price 2020$/kWh 0.118 0.088 0.090 0.121 0.097 Average Residential Price 2020$/kWh 0.192 0.135 0.114 0.190 0.157 Average Commercial Price 2020$/kWh 0.109 0.092 0.085 0.118 0.094 Average Residential Price 2020$/kWh 0.177 0.121 0.098 0.218 0.155 Future Energy Price Trends To estimate electricity prices in future years, DOE multiplied the 2020 electricity prices by the sector-specific forecasts of annual national average price changes from EIA’s Reference case in the Annual Energy Outlook 2021 (AEO 2021). 8 The Reference case is a business-as-usual estimate, given known market, demographic, and technological trends. Figure 8.3.1 shows the projected national electricity price trends for the commercial, industrial, and residential sectors as a fraction of the 2020 electricity price. AEO 2021 has an end year of 2050. DOE assumed a flat rate of change in prices from 2050. The values for the industrial sector were used for the agricultural sector as well. In addition for electric motors in the commercial and industrial sector, DOE used a MLF equal to 0.5. For a given change in electricity consumption, the corresponding change in demand is defined through the marginal load factor (MLF). The MLF is equal to the ratio of the average hourly change in electricity use during the billing period to the change in electricity use in the hour of the building peak load. The marginal load factor is equal to the ratio of the number of hours that the equipment is on divided by the total number of hours in the billing period d 8-17 AEO 2021 Electricity Price Trends 40 $ 2020/MMBtu 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Year Industrial Sector Commercial Sector Residential Sector Figure 8.3.1 National Electricity Price Trends Based on AEO 2021 Reference Case 8.3.3 Repair Costs and Maintenance Costs The repair cost is the cost to repair the equipment when a component fails. The maintenance cost is the cost of regular equipment maintenance. DOE defined a motor repair as repair as including rewinding and reconditioning. DOE estimated repair costs as a function of efficiency based on data from Vaughen’s. 9 Based on this data and on information from a DOE report, 10 DOE estimated the electric motor rewind costs for NEMA premium efficiency level e motors and used a 15 percent repair cost increase/decrease per NEMA efficiency band increase/decrease. Similar to what was done in the 2014 Final Rule Technical Support Document, DOE assumed that: (1) there is no repair for electric motors in range 1 to 20 horsepower; (2) electric motors between 21 and 100 horsepower all get repaired once over their lifetime (regardless of the electric motor's lifetime operating hours); and (3) electric motors between 101 and 500 horsepower are all repaired twice over their lifetime (regardless of the motor's lifetime operating hours). Similarly, for SNEMs, AO-SNEMs and AO-MEMs, DOE only included repair costs for units with a horsepower greater than 20 horsepower. Table 8.3.3 presents the lifetime repair costs for representative units that are assumed to undergo repairs. For representative unit 2, which is associated to both the 6 to 20 horsepower range and the 21 to 50 horsepower range, DOE established two sets of LCC results, one considering no repair, and one considering one repair over the lifetime of the electric motor. f As a sensitivity analysis, DOE also considered a scenario where motors are repaired only upon meeting certain The NEMA premium efficiency level corresponds to the EL0 efficiency level for electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 as noted in Chapter 5. The NEMA band concept is also further described in Chapter 5. e f Referred to as Unit#2: NEMA Design B, T-frame, 30 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed (6 to 20 hp) and Unit#2: NEMA Design B, T-frame, 30 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed (21 to 50 hp) 8-18 lifetime criteria as described in Appendix 8B. Fire pump electric motors are assumed to not be repaired due to low annual operating hours. For the maintenance costs, DOE did not find data indicating a variation in maintenance costs between baseline efficiency and higher efficiency motors. According to Vaughen’s, the price of replacing bearings, which is the most common maintenance practice, is the same at all efficiency levels. Table 8.3.3 Lifetime Repair Costs by Efficiency Level Unit #2 NEMA Design B, T-Frame, 30 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed Efficiency Level Repair Cost (2020$) * 1,586 1 1,824 2 2,062 3 2,300 0 Unit #3: NEMA Design B, T-Frame, 75 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed Efficiency Level Repair Cost (2020$) * 3,075 1 3,536 2 3,997 3 4,458 4 4,920 0 Unit #5: NEMA Design C, T-Frame, 50 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed Efficiency Level Repair Cost (2020$) 0* 2,285 1 2,627 2 2,970 3 3,313 4 3,313 Unit #9: NEMA Design B, T-Frame, 150 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed Efficiency Level Repair Cost (2020$) * 10,272 1 11,812 2 13,353 3 14,894 4 16,435 0 Unit #10: NEMA Design B, T-Frame, 250 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed Efficiency Level 0 * Repair Cost (2020$) 15,530 8-19 1 17,859 2 20,189 3 22,518 4 24,848 Unit #11: NEMA Design C, T-Frame, 150 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed Efficiency Level Repair Cost (2020$) * 10,272 1 11,812 2 13,353 3 14,894 4 14,894 0 Unit #37: AO-MEM Polyphase, 30 hp, 4-Pole, Enclosed Efficiency Level Repair Cost (2020$) 0 1,379 1* 1,586 2 1,793 3 2,000 4 2,206 Unit #38: AO-MEM Polyphase, 75 hp, 4-Pole, Enclosed Efficiency Level Repair Cost (2020$) 0* 3,536 1 3,536 2 3,998 3 4,459 4 4,920 *This EL corresponds to the NEMA premium efficiency level 8.3.4 Equipment Lifetime The equipment lifetime is the age at which an equipment is retired from service. Because equipment lifetime varies, DOE uses lifetime distributions to characterize the probability an equipment will be retired from service at a given age. DOE’s motor lifetime model relies on four distributions: (1) the annual operating hours distribution as presented in the energy use analysis (see chapter 6); (2) the distribution of motor shipments by application, each with its own distribution of annual hours of operation; (3) a Weibull distribution of mechanical motor lifetimes, expressed in total hours of operation before failure; and (4) a Weibull distribution of application lifetimes, expressed in years. DOE’s Monte Carlo analysis of a motor’s LCC selected an application, an appropriate number of hours of operation, a motor mechanical lifetime, and an application lifetime from these distributions in order to calculate a sampled motor’s lifetime in years. 8-20 As described above, the motor lifetime model combines annual operating hours by application and sector with motor mechanical lifetime in hours to estimate the distribution of motor lifetimes in years. This model results in a negative correlation between annual hours of operation and motor lifetime; motors operated many hours per year are likely to be retired sooner than motors that are used for only a few hundred hours per year. For NEMA Design A and B electric motors, and NEMA Design C electric motors, DOE established sector-specific motor lifetime estimates to account for differences in maintenance practices and field usage conditions. DOE relied on several sources to inform its lifetime model. For electric motors used in the industrial sector, DOE used data from a subject matter expert provided during the May 2014 Final Rule to establish estimates of average mechanical lifetimes by horsepower range. 11 For the agricultural sector, DOE referred to an article by Michael Gallaher et al 12 to determine average motor lifetimes (in years). For the commercial sector, because DOE could not find sector-specific estimates, it used average motor lifetimes by horsepower range from the Energy Efficient Motor Systems handbook 13 instead. DOE then converted all lifetimes into mechanical lifetimes in hours based on average annual operating hours by horsepower range and sector (see chapter 6 for more details on the annual operating hours). Table 8.3.4 presents the shipments-weighted mechanical motor lifetimes by sector. See Chapter 9 for shipment distributions by horsepower range and equipment class group. For AOMEM electric motors, DOE relied on the same mechanical motor lifetime distributions. Table 8.3.4 Motor Lifetime by Horsepower Range and Sector for NEMA Design A and B, NEMA Design C Lifetime Mechanical Hours Weighted Average Across Applications† Years Horsepower Range Industrial Sector* Agricultural Sector** Commercial Sector*** 1–5 6 – 20 21 – 50 51 – 100 101 – 200 201 – 500 1–5 6 – 20 21 – 50 51 – 100 101 – 200 201 – 500 43,800 43,800 87,600 87,600 131,400 131,400 19, 120 19, 120 19, 120 19, 120 19, 120 19, 120 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 52,609 62,938 63,033 88,561 89,776 89,589 17.1 19.4 20.6 28.5 28.9 29.3 13.7 27.1 27.2 27.4 40.6 40.1 * Weighted average lifetimes in years were calculated based on the mechanical lifetime estimates and dividing by the weighted average annual operating hours across applications and equipment class groups for electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25. ** Mechanical lifetimes were calculated based on an average 20-year lifetime estimate in agriculture and multiplying by the annual operating hours across pump application and all equipment class groups. *** Mechanical lifetimes were calculated based on average lifetime estimates by horsepower range and multiplying by the weighted average annual operating hours across applications and equipment class groups for electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25. 8-21 For fire pump electric motors, DOE assumed an average lifetime of 29 years and developed a Weibull distribution around this value. For SNEMs and AO-SNEMs, DOE used average mechanical lifetime estimates based on the Small Electric Motors January 2021 Final Determination Technical Support Document 14 and on information from DOE’s Advanced Manufacturing Office. 15 Both sources estimate average mechanical lifetimes at 30,000 hours for single-phase motors and 40,000 hours for polyphase motors. In addition, when estimating the minimum mechanical lifetime for SNEMs, based on the Small Electric Motors January 2021 Final Determination Technical Support Document, DOE assumed single-phase motors would not suffer mechanical failure until they have run at least 15,000 hours, and polyphase motors not until 20,000 hours. To estimate the maximum mechanical lifetime, DOE assumed that the mean value is centered between the minimum and maximum value. For SNEMs and AO-SNEMs, DOE did not find any sector specific information and used the same mechanical lifetime across all sectors. Motors that are smaller than 75 horsepower are typically embedded in other equipment (i.e., “application”) such as pumps or compressors. For each of these motors (less than 75 hp), DOE determined the motor lifetime in years by dividing the mechanical lifetime in hours by the annual hours of operation. DOE then compared this lifetime (in years) with the sampled application lifetime (also in years) and assumed that the motor would be retired at the younger of these two ages. For example, a pump motor with annual operating hours of 2,500 hours per year may have a mechanical lifetime of 30,000 hours (12 years) and an application lifetime of 10 years. DOE assumed the motor would retire in 10 years, when its application reached the end of its lifetime, even if the motor itself could run for two more years. If the pump motor were to run for 6,000 hours per year, with the same mechanical and application lifetimes, DOE would assume it would retire after 5 years due to motor failure upon reaching its mechanical lifetime of 30,000 hours. Based on multiple sources, 16,17,18,19 DOE used an average application lifetime of 15 years for applications driven by electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 and AO-MEMs less than 75 horsepower. Based on the Small Electric Motors January 2021 Final Determination Technical Support Document, DOE used application lifetimes of 7.8 years for single-phase SNEMs and AO-SNEMs; and 9.8 years for applications driven by polyphase SNEMs and AOSNEMs. Further, based on a literature review, 20,21,22 DOE assumed that the maximum motor lifetime in years is 30 years. DOE also used a minimum motor lifetime of 3 years for electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25, and 2 years for SNEMs, AO-SNEMS and AO-MEMs based on warranty periods as published in manufacturer catalogs. 23,24 8.3.4.1 The Weibull Distribution DOE assumes that the probability function for the annual survival of electric motors takes the form of a Weibull distribution, which is a probability distribution commonly used to measure 8-22 failure rates. g Its form is similar to an exponential distribution, which models a fixed failure rate, except that a Weibull distribution allows for a failure rate that changes over time in a specific fashion. The cumulative Weibull distribution takes the form: 𝑃𝑃(𝑥𝑥) = , 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑥𝑥 > 𝜃𝜃, and 𝑃𝑃(𝑥𝑥) = 1 for 𝑥𝑥 ≤ 𝜃𝜃 Where: P(x) = x= θ= α= β= 𝑥𝑥−𝜃𝜃 𝛽𝛽 𝑒𝑒 −� 𝛼𝛼 � Eq. 8.6 probability that the equipment is still in use at age x, age of equipment in years, delay parameter, which allows for a delay before any failures occur, scale parameter, which would be the decay length in an exponential distribution, and shape parameter, which determines the way in which the failure rate changes through time. When β = 1, the failure rate is constant over time, giving the distribution the form of a cumulative exponential distribution. In the case of equipment such as motors, β commonly is greater than 1, reflecting an increasing failure rate as equipment ages. 8.3.4.2 Mechanical Motor Lifetime and Application Lifetime Based on the lifetime information presented earlier in this section, DOE derived sectorspecific Weibull parameters for mechanical and application lifetimes of electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25. See Table 8.3.5. DOE used the same Weibull parameters to establish mechanical lifetimes of AO-MEMs. For AO-MEMs in the residential sector, DOE used the same Weibull parameters as for commercial sector. For SNEMs and AO-SNEMS, the Weibull parameters describing the mechanical lifetimes were based on the Small Electric Motors January 2021 Final Determination Technical Support Document. See Table 8.3.6. Table 8.3.5 Weibull Parameters for Mechanical Motor Lifetimes for Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 and AO-MEMs Equipment Class Group Horsepower Range (hp) α β θ Commercial Sector NEMA Design A and B g 1 to 5 48,835 2.65 9,235 6 to 50 51 to 100 60,581 48,079 2.65 2.65 9,178 8,568 For reference on the Weibull distribution, see sections 1.3.6.6.8 and 8.4.1.3 of the NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods. www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/. 8-23 NEMA Design C NEMA Design A and B, NEMA Design C NEMA Design A and B NEMA Design C 101 to 200 201 to 500 1 to 20 21 to 100 101 to 200 90,587 90,479 44,178 64,775 77,459 Industrial Sector 1 to 20 19,712 21 to 75 68,993 76 to 500 118,247 Agricultural Sector 1 to 500 1 to 200 17,889 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 9,326 9,173 7,724 7,797 7,974 2.65 2.65 2.65 26,280 26,280 26,280 4.17 2,868 Table 8.3.6 Weibull Parameters for Mechanical Motor Lifetimes for SNEMs and AOSNEMs Equipment Class Group β θ α SNEM Single-Phase, (High, Medium and Low LTR), AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High, Medium and Low LTR) 17,000 2.5 15,000 SNEM Polyphase, AO-SNEM Polyphase 23,000 2.5 20,000 DOE’s derived Weibull parameters for all motor applications. Weibull parameters for all applications other than fire pumps are the same. See Table 8.3.7. Table 8.3.7 Weibull Parameters for Application Lifetimes Parameters Equipment Class Group α Β NEMA Design A and B, NEMA Design C motors, AO-MEMs SNEMs and AO-SNEMs (Single-Phase) SNEMs and AO-SNEMs (Polyphase) Fire Pump θ 13.5 2.21 3 3.12 3.03 16.3 1.9 1.9 2.65 5 7.1 14.5 Table 8.3.8 presents the resulting average lifetimes by representative unit. Table 8.3.8 Resulting Average Sampled Electric Motor Lifetimes Average Lifetime Representative Unit yr 1 NEMA Design B, T-frame, 5 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 12.6 2 NEMA Design B, T-frame, 30 hp, 4 poles, enclosed (6 -20 hp) 12.7 8-24 Average Lifetime yr Representative Unit 2 3 4 NEMA Design B, T-frame, 30 hp, 4 poles, enclosed (21 to 50 hp) NEMA Design B, T-frame, 75 hp, 4 poles, enclosed NEMA Design C, T-frame, 5 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 13.9 14.4 13.2 5 NEMA Design C, T-frame, 50 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 14.5 6 Fire pump, 5 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 30.0 7 Fire pump, 30 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 30.0 8 Fire pump, 75 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 30.0 9 NEMA Design B, T-frame, 150 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 25.6 10 NEMA Design B, T-frame, 250 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 25.5 11 NEMA Design C, T-frame, 150 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 26.2 12 SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open 13 SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, open 7.5 7.5 14 SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 2 hp, 4-pole, open 7.5 15 SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed 7.5 16 SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, enclosed 7.5 17 SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 3 hp, 4-pole, enclosed 18 SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open 7.5 7 19 SNEM Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.25 hp, 6-pole, open 20 SNEM Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.5 hp, 6-pole, open 6.8 21 SNEM Polyphase, 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed 9.2 22 SNEM Polyphase, 0.5 hp, 4-pole, enclosed 9.2 23 SNEM Polyphase, 0.75 hp, 4-pole, enclosed 9.2 24 AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open 6.8 25 AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, open 6.8 26 AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 2 hp, 4-pole, open 6.8 27 AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed 6.7 28 AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, enclosed 6.8 29 6.8 30 AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 3 hp, 4-pole, enclosed AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open 6.8 31 AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.25 hp, 6-pole, open 6.8 32 AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.5 hp, 6-pole, open 6.8 33 AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed 8.7 34 AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.5 hp, 4-pole, enclosed 8.7 35 AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.75 hp, 4-pole, enclosed 8.7 7 36 AO-MEM Polyphase, 5 hp, 4-pole, enclosed 11.6 37 AO-MEM Polyphase, 30 hp, 4-pole, enclosed 13.4 38 AO-MEM Polyphase, 75 hp, 4-pole, enclosed 13.1 8-25 8.3.5 Discount Rates The discount rate is the rate at which future energy cost savings and operations and maintenance expenditures are discounted to establish their present value. For residential consumers, DOE calculated discount rates as the weighted average real interest rate across consumer debt and equity holdings. For consumers in the commercial, industrial, and agricultural sectors, DOE calculated sector-specific discount rates as the weighted average cost of capital. 8.3.5.1 Commercial/Industrial DOE’s method views the purchase of a higher efficiency appliance as an investment that yields a stream of energy cost savings. DOE derived the discount rates for the LCC analysis by estimating the cost of capital for companies or public entities that purchase electric motors. For private firms, the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) is commonly used to estimate the present value of cash flows to be derived from a typical company project or investment. Most companies use both debt and equity capital to fund investments, so their cost of capital is the weighted average of the cost to the firm of equity and debt financing, as estimated from financial data for publicly traded firms in the sectors that purchase electric motors 25. As discount rates can differ across industries, DOE estimates separate discount rate distributions for a number of aggregate sectors with which elements of the LCC building sample can be associated. Damodaran Online, the primary source of data for this analysis, is a widely used source of information about debt and equity financing for most types of firms 26. The nearly 200 detailed industries included in the Damodaran Online data (shown in a table in Appendix 8C were assigned to the aggregate sectors shown in Table 8.3.9, which also shows the mapping between the aggregate sectors and CBECS Principal Building Activities (PBAs). h Damodaran Online data for manufacturing and other similar industries were assigned to the aggregate Industrial sector, while data for farming and agriculture were assigned to the Agriculture sector. Previously, Damodaran Online provided firm-level data, but now only industry-level data is available, as compiled from individual firm data, for the period of 1998-2018. The data sets note the number of firms included in the industry average for each year. h 8-26 Table 8.3.9 Mapping of Aggregate Sectors to CBECS Categories Applied to CBECS PBAs Sector in DOE Analysis (Name and PBA number) i Education (14) Education Food Sales Food Service Food sales (6) Food service (15) Health Care Outpatient health care (8); Inpatient health care (16); Nursing (17); Laboratory (4) Lodging Lodging (18) Office Enclosed mall (24); Strip shopping mall (23); Retail other than mall (25) Office (2) Public Assembly Public assembly (13) Service Service (26) All CBECS PBAs, including those specified above Not in CBECS Not in CBECS Not in CBECS Not in CBECS Mercantile All Commercial Industrial Agriculture Federal Government State/Local Government Note: CBECS only includes buildings used by firms in “commercial” sectors, so Industrial, Agriculture, Federal Government, and State/Local Government have no associated PBA identifier. However, discount rate distributions are required for these sectors because they are significant consumers of some types of appliances and energyconsuming equipment. For private firms, DOE estimated the cost of equity using the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) 27. CAPM assumes that the cost of equity (ke) for a particular company is proportional to the systematic risk faced by that company, where high risk is associated with a high cost of equity and low risk is associated with a low cost of equity. In CAPM, the systematic risk facing a firm is determined by several variables: the risk coefficient of the firm (β), the expected return on risk-free assets (Rf), and the equity risk premium (ERP). The cost of equity can be estimated at the industry level by averaging across constituent firms. The risk coefficient of the firm indicates the risk associated with that firm relative to the price variability in the stock market. The expected return on risk-free assets is defined by the yield on long-term government bonds. The ERP represents the difference between the expected stock market return and the risk-free rate. The cost of equity financing is estimated using the following equation, where the variables are defined as above: This sector applies to private education, while public education is covered under the later discussion of buildings operated by state and local government entities. i 8-27 Where: 𝑘𝑘𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 = 𝑅𝑅𝑓𝑓 + 𝛽𝛽𝑖𝑖 × 𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 Eq. 8.7 kei = cost of equity for industry i, Rf = expected return on risk-free assets, βi = risk coefficient of industry i, and ERP = equity risk premium. Several parameters of the cost of capital equations can vary substantially over time, and therefore the estimates can vary with the time period over which data is selected and the technical details of the data averaging method. For guidance on the time period for selecting and averaging data for key parameters and the averaging method, DOE used Federal Reserve methodologies for calculating these parameters. In its use of the CAPM, the Federal Reserve uses a forty-year period for calculating discount rate averages, utilizes the gross domestic product price deflator for estimating inflation, and considers the best method for determining the risk free rate as one where “the time horizon of the investor is matched with the term of the riskfree security 28. By taking a forty-year geometric average of Federal Reserve data on annual nominal returns for 10-year Treasury bonds, as provided by Damodaran Online, DOE estimated the risk free rates shown in Table 8.3.10 29,30. DOE also estimated the ERP by calculating the difference between risk free rate and stock market return for the same time period, as estimated using Damodaran Online data on the historical return to stocks. Table 8.3.10 Risk Free Rate and Equity Risk Premium Risk-Free Risk-Free Year ERP (%) Year Rate (%) Rate (%) 1998 7.15 4.76 2009 7.50 1999 6.62 5.83 2010 7.47 2000 6.98 4.52 2011 7.80 2001 6.98 4.42 2012 7.78 2002 7.32 2.80 2013 7.46 2003 7.23 3.16 2014 7.65 2004 7.33 3.02 2015 7.27 2005 7.33 3.45 2016 7.26 2006 7.43 3.16 2017 7.36 2007 7.61 2.84 2018 7.34 2008 8.25 1.15 ERP (%) 2.46 2.51 1.75 2.62 4.59 3.86 3.67 4.21 4.49 3.90 The cost of debt financing (kd) is the interest rate paid on money borrowed by a company. The cost of debt is estimated by adding a risk adjustment factor (Ra) to the risk-free rate. This risk adjustment factor depends on the variability of stock returns represented by standard deviations in stock prices. This same calculation can alternatively be performed with industry8-28 level data. Tax rates also impact the cost of debt financing. Using industry average tax rates provided by Damodaran Online, DOE incorporates the after-tax For industry i, the cost of debt financing is: Where: 𝑘𝑘𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = �𝑅𝑅𝑓𝑓 + 𝑅𝑅𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 � × (1 − 𝑡𝑡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑖 ) Eq. 8.8 kdi = (after-tax) cost of debt financing for industry, i, Rf = expected return on risk-free assets, Rai = risk adjustment factor to risk-free rate for industry, i, and taxi = tax rate of industry, i. DOE estimates the weighted average cost of capital using the following equation: Where: 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 = 𝑘𝑘𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 + 𝑊𝑊𝑒𝑒,𝑖𝑖 + 𝑘𝑘𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 𝑤𝑤𝑑𝑑,𝑖𝑖 Eq. 8.9 WACCi = weighted average cost of capital for industry i, kei = cost of equity for industry i, kdi = cost of debt financing for industry, i, we = proportion of equity financing for industry i, and wd = proportion of debt financing for industry i. DOE accounts for inflation using the all items Gross Domestic Product deflator, as published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis 31. Table 8.3.11 shows the real average WACC values for the major sectors that purchase electric motors. Tables providing full discount rate distributions by sector are included in appendix 8C. While WACC values for any sector may trend higher or lower over substantial periods of time, these values represent a cost of capital that is averaged over major business cycles. For each entity in the consumer sample for electric motors, a discount rate is drawn from the distribution for the appropriate sector. Table 8.3.11 Weighted Average Cost of Capital for Commercial/Industrial Sectors Sector Observations Total Firms Mean WACC (%) All Commercial 929 80,520 6.67% Industrial 1,301 78,249 7.16% Agriculture 8 270 6.94% Note: “Observations” reflect the number of Damodaran Online detailed industries included in DOE’s aggregate sector calculation, while “Total Firms” presents a sum of the number of individual companies represented by those detailed industries. These are two measures of the comprehensiveness of the data used in the WACC calculation. 8-29 8.3.5.2 Residential DOE calculates the consumer discount rate using publicly available data (the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF)) to estimate a consumer’s required rate of return or opportunity cost of funds related to appliances 32. In the economics literature, opportunity cost reflects potential foregone benefit resulting from choosing one option over another. Opportunity cost of capital refers to the rate of return that one could earn by investing in an alternate project with similar risk; similarly, opportunity cost may be defined as the cost associated with opportunities that are foregone when resources are not put to their highest-value use. 33 DOE’s method views the purchase of a higher efficiency appliance as an investment that yields a stream of energy cost savings. The stream of savings is discounted at a rate reflecting (1) the rates of return associated with other investments available to the consumer, and (2) the observed costs of credit options available to the consumer to reflect the value of avoided debt. DOE notes that the LCC does not analyze the appliance purchase decision, so the implicit discount rate is not relevant in this model. The LCC estimates net present value over the lifetime of the product, so the appropriate discount rate will reflect the general opportunity cost of household funds, taking this time scale into account. Given the long time horizon modeled in the LCC, the application of a marginal interest rate associated with an initial source of funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the method of purchase, consumers are expected to continue to rebalance their debt and asset holdings over the LCC analysis period, based on the restrictions consumers face in their debt payment requirements and the relative size of the interest rates available on debts and assets. DOE estimates the aggregate impact of this rebalancing using the historical distribution of debts and assets. The discount rate is the rate at which future savings and expenditures are discounted to establish their present value. DOE estimates separate discount rate distributions for six income groups, divided based on income percentile as reported in the SCF. These income groups are listed in Table 8.3.12. This disaggregation reflects the fact that low and high-income consumers tend to have substantially different shares of debt and asset types, as well as facing different rates on debts and assets. Summaries of shares and rates presented in this chapter are averages across the entire population. Table 8.3.12 Definition of Income Groups Income Group Percentile of Income 1 0 – 19.9 2 20 – 39.9 3 40 – 59.9 4 60 – 79.9 5 80 – 89.9 6 90 - 100 8-30 Sources: Federal Reserve Board. Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) for 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019. Shares of Debt and Asset Classes DOE’s approach considers all household debt or equity classes in order to approximate a consumer’s opportunity cost of funds over the equipment’s lifetime. This approach assumes that in the long term, consumers are likely to draw from or add to their collection of debt and equity holdings approximately in proportion to their current holdings when future expenditures are required or future savings accumulate. DOE now includes several previously excluded debt types (i.e., vehicle and education loans, mortgages, all forms of home equity loan) in order to better account for all of the options used by consumers. The average share of total debt plus assets and the associated rate of each debt and asset type are used to calculate a weighted average discount rate for each SCF household (Table 8.3.13). The household-level discount rates are then aggregated to form discount rate distributions for each of the six income groups. j DOE estimated the average percentage shares of the various types of debt and assets using data from the SCF for 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2016 and 2019. k DOE derived the household-weighted mean percentages of each source of across the twenty-one years covered by the eight survey versions. DOE posits that these long-term averages are most appropriate to use in its analysis. Note that previously DOE performed aggregation of asset and debt types over households by summing the dollar value across all households and then calculating shares. Weighting by dollar value gave disproportionate influence to the asset and debt shares and rates of higher income consumers. DOE has shifted to a household-level weighting to more accurately reflect the average consumer in each income group. k Note that two older versions of the SCF are also available (1989 and 1992); these surveys are not used in this analysis because they do not provide all of the necessary types of data (e.g., credit card interest rates, etc.). DOE feels that the time span covered by the eight surveys included is sufficiently representative of recent debt and equity shares and interest rates. j 8-31 Table 8.3.13 Average Shares of Household Debt and Asset Types by Income Group (%) Income Group Type of Debt or Equity 1 2 3 4 5 6 All Debt: Mortgage 14.3 22.2 33.1 43.3 47.5 37.0 31.0 Home equity loan 1.5 1.8 2.4 3.5 4.6 7.7 3.1 Credit card 15.8 12.2 9.4 6.1 4.0 1.9 9.3 Other installment loan 31.9 28.0 23.9 16.9 11.5 5.9 21.9 Other line of credit 1.4 1.8 1.5 2.0 2.5 2.3 1.8 Other residential loan 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.5 Savings account 19.1 15.0 11.6 9.0 8.2 7.5 12.5 Money market account 3.5 4.3 3.8 3.6 4.4 6.7 4.1 Certificate of deposit 6.0 6.4 4.6 3.8 3.1 3.3 4.8 Savings bond 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.5 State & local bonds 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 1.3 0.3 Corporate bonds 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 Stocks 2.3 3.2 3.8 4.8 6.0 12.2 4.6 Mutual funds 1.8 3.0 3.7 4.8 6.1 12.5 4.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Equity: Total Sources: Federal Reserve Board. Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) for 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019. Rates for Types of Debt DOE estimated interest rates associated with each type of debt. The source for interest rates for mortgages, loans, credit cards, and lines of credit was the SCF for 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019, which associates an interest rate with each type of debt for each household in the survey. DOE adjusted the nominal rates to real rates for each type of debt by using the annual inflation rate for each year (using the Fisher formula). l In calculating effective interest rates for home equity loans and mortgages, DOE also accounted for the fact that interest on both such loans is tax deductible. This rate corresponds to the interest rate after deduction of mortgage interest for income tax purposes and after adjusting for inflation. The specific inflation rates vary by SCF year, while the marginal tax rates vary by SCF year and income bin as shown in Table 8.3.14. For example, a 6 percent nominal mortgage rate has an effective nominal rate of 5.5 Fisher formula is given by: Real Interest Rate = [(1 + Nominal Interest Rate) / (1 + Inflation Rate)] – 1. Note that for this analysis DOE used a minimum real effective debt interest rate of 0 percent. l 8-32 percent for a household at the 25 percent marginal tax rate. When adjusted for an inflation rate of 2 percent, the effective real rate becomes 2.45 percent. Table 8.3.14 Data Used to Calculate Real Effective Mortgage Rates Applicable Marginal Tax Rate by Income Group (%) Inflation Year Rate (%) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1995 2.81 15.0 15.0 15.0 28.0 28.0 39.6 1998 1.55 15.0 15.0 15.0 28.0 28.0 39.6 2001 2.83 10.0 15.0 15.0 27.5 27.5 39.1 2004 2.68 10.0 15.0 15.0 25.0 25.0 35.0 2007 2.85 10.0 15.0 15.0 25.0 25.0 35.0 2010 1.64 10.0 15.0 15.0 25.0 25.0 35.0 2013 1.46 10.0 15.0 15.0 25.0 25.0 37.3 2016 1.26 10.0 15.0 15.0 25.0 25.0 37.3 2019 1.81 10.0 12.0 12.0 22.0 22.0 36.0 Table 8.3.15 shows the household-weighted average effective real interest rates on debt in each year and the mean rate across years. Because the interest rates for each type of household debt reflect economic conditions throughout numerous years and various phases of economic growth and recession, they are expected to be representative of rates in effect in 2026. Table 8.3.15 Average Real Effective Interest Rates for Household Debt (%) Income Group Type of Debt 1 2 3 4 5 6 All Mortgage 4.09 3.74 3.60 2.92 2.79 2.19 3.18 Home equity loan 4.29 4.34 3.86 3.24 3.11 2.45 3.35 Credit card 9.80 11.02 11.15 11.26 10.90 10.11 10.64 Other installment loan 6.14 7.09 5.98 5.33 4.54 4.42 6.10 Other line of credit 3.73 3.67 6.23 5.47 4.89 5.33 4.97 Other residential loan 6.53 6.41 5.22 4.96 4.33 3.99 5.32 Sources: Federal Reserve Board. Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) for 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019. Rates for Types of Assets No similar rate data are available from the SCF for classes of assets, so DOE derived asset interest rates from various sources of national historical data. The rates for stocks are the annual returns on the Standard and Poor’s 500 for 1990–2020. 34 The interest rates associated 8-33 with AAA corporate bonds were collected from Moody’s time-series data for 1990–2020. 35 Rates on Certificates of Deposit (CDs) accounts came from Cost of Savings Index (COSI) data covering 1990–2020. 36,37,38,39,40, m. The interest rates associated with state and local bonds (20year municipal bonds) were collected from Federal Reserve Board economic data time-series for 1990–2020. 41,n The interest rates associated with treasury bills (30-year treasury constant maturity rate) were collected from Federal Reserve Board economic data time-series for 1990– 2020. 42,43,o Rates for money market accounts are based on 3-month money market account rates reported by Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) from 1990– 2020. 44 Rates for savings accounts are assumed to be half the average real money market rate. Rates for mutual funds are a weighted average of the stock rates and the bond rates. p DOE adjusted the nominal rates to real rates using the annual inflation rate in each year (see appendix 8D of this TSD). In addition, DOE adjusted the nominal rates to real effective rates by accounting for the fact that interest or gain on such equity types is taxable. The capital gains marginal tax rate varies for households based on income as shown in Table 8.3.16. Table 8.3.16 Average Capital Gains Marginal Tax Rate by Income Group (%) Income Group Year 4 5 1 2 3 6 1995 12.5 12.5 12.5 28.0 28.0 33.8 1998 12.5 12.5 12.5 24.0 28.0 29.8 2001 7.5 10.0 15.0 21.3 27.5 27.1 2004 7.5 10.0 15.0 21.3 25.0 27.1 2007 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 2010 5.0 7.5 15.0 20.0 25.0 25.0 2013 5.0 7.5 15.0 20.0 25.0 27.4 2016 5.0 7.5 15.0 20.0 25.0 27.4 2019 5.0 6.0 6.0 18.5 18.5 26.8 Average real effective interest rates for the classes of household assets are listed Table 8.3.17 Because the interest and return rates for each type reflect economic conditions throughout numerous years, they are expected to be representative of rates that may be in effect in the The Wells COSI is based on the interest rates that the depository subsidiaries of Wells Fargo & Company pay to individuals on CDs, also known as personal time deposits. Wells Fargo COSI started in November 200937. From July 2007 to October 2009 the index was known as Wachovia COSI38 and from January 1984 to July 2007 the index was known as GDW (or World Savings) COSI39,40. n This index was discontinued in 2016. To calculate the 2017 and 2018 values, DOE compared 1977–2018 data for 30-Year Treasury Constant Maturity Rate42, and Moody’s AAA Corporate Bond Yield35 to the 20-Bond Municipal Bond Index data41. o From 2003–2005 there are no data. For 2003–2005, DOE used 20-Year Treasury Constant Maturity Rate43. p SCF reports what type of mutual funds the household has (e.g. stock mutual fund, savings bond mutual fund, etc.). For mutual funds with a mixture of stocks and bonds, the mutual fund interest rate is a weighted average of the stock rates (two-thirds weight) and the savings bond rates (one-third weight). m 8-34 compliance year. The average nominal interest rates and the distribution of real interest rates by year are shown in appendix 8D of this TSD. Table 8.3.17 Average Real Interest Rates for Household Assets (%) Income Group Equity Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 All Savings accounts 0.35 0.34 0.32 0.29 0.29 0.27 0.32 Money market accounts 0.69 0.68 0.64 0.59 0.59 0.54 0.63 Certificate of deposit 0.94 0.92 0.87 0.79 0.79 0.73 0.87 Treasury bills 2.43 2.38 2.25 2.06 2.06 1.90 2.23 State/Local bonds 2.18 2.13 2.02 1.85 1.85 1.70 1.84 AAA corporate bonds 3.20 3.13 2.97 2.71 2.71 2.50 2.80 Stocks 7.95 7.79 7.38 6.74 6.74 6.22 6.97 Mutual funds 6.65 6.67 6.40 5.81 5.88 5.21 5.94 8-35 Discount Rate Calculation and Summary Using the asset and debt data discussed above, DOE calculated discount rate distributions for each income group as follows. First, DOE calculated the discount rate for each consumer in each of the versions of the SCF, using the following formula: 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖 = � 𝑆𝑆ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 × 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 𝑗𝑗 Where: 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖 = 𝑆𝑆ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 = 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 = Eq. 8.10 discount rate for consumer i, share of asset or debt type j for consumer i, and real interest rate or rate of return of asset or debt type j for consumer i. The rate for each debt type is drawn from the SCF data for each household. The rate for each asset type is drawn from the distributions described above. Once the real discount rate was estimated for each consumer, DOE compiled the distribution of discount rates in each survey by income group by calculating the proportion of consumers with discount rates in bins of 1-percent increments, ranging from 0-1 percent to greater than 30 percent. Giving equal weight to each survey, DOE compiled the overall distribution of discount rates. Table 8.3.18 presents the average real effective discount rate for each of the six income groups. To account for variations among households, DOE sampled a rate for each RECS household from the distributions for the appropriate income group. (RECS provides household income data.) Appendix 8D of this TSD presents the full probability distributions for each income group that DOE considered in the LCC analysis. Table 8.3.18 Average Real Effective Discount Rates Income Group Rate (%) 1 4.74 2 5.01 3 4.51 4 3.87 5 3.50 6 3.18 Overall Average 4.29 Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Survey of Consumer Finances (1995 – 2019) 8-36 8.4 ENERGY EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS To estimate the percentage of consumers who would be affected by a potential standard at any of the considered efficiency levels, DOE first develops a distribution of efficiencies for equipment that consumers purchase under the no-new-standards case. DOE used manufacturer catalog data from 2020 for electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 and AO-MEMs, and manufacturer catalog data from 2016 for SNEMs and AO-SNEMs to develop the no-new standards-case efficiency distributions. DOE used the number of models across all poles and enclosures that meet the requirements of each efficiency level in year 2020 within horsepower ranges that are described in Table 8.1.1. The distribution is estimated separately for each horsepower range and used for corresponding representative units from Table 8.1.1 in this analysis. q DOE assumed these would remain constant through 2026. Table 8.4.1, Table 8.4.2, and Table 8.4.3 show the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution in the compliance year for electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25, SNEMs and AO electric motors. Using these distributions of efficiencies for electric motors, DOE randomly assigned an efficiency to each user drawn from the consumer samples. If a consumer is assigned an efficiency that is greater than or equal to the efficiency under consideration, the consumer would not be affected by a standard at that efficiency level. In some cases where DOE did not have enough models with efficiency information within a single horsepower range, DOE aggregated horsepower ranges. In addition for certain AO-SNEM electric motors, DOE did not find enough models with efficiency information to develop a distribution and used the efficiency distributions of the corresponding non-AO equipment class instead. q 8-37 Table 8.4.1 No-New Standards Case Efficiency Distribution in 2026 for Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 Representative Market Share Horsepower Range Unit (horsepower) EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 Equipment Class Group 1 (NEMA Design A and B) 1-5 hp 1 (5 hp) 84.8% 9.1% 4.1% 1.3% 0.7% 6-20 hp 2 (30 hp) 83.2% 10.4% 5.4% 0.9% 0.2% 21-50 hp 2 (30 hp) 83.2% 10.4% 5.4% 0.9% 0.2% 51-100 hp 3 (75 hp) 77.8% 13.1% 7.1% 1.7% 0.2% 101-200 hp 9 (150 hp) 77.4% 12.8% 9.3% 0.5% 0.0% 201-500 hp 10 (250 hp) 84.6% 13.6% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% Equipment Class Group 2 (NEMA Design C) 1-20 hp 4 (5 hp) 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21-100 hp 5 (50 hp) 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 101-200 hp 11 (150 hp) 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Equipment Class Group 3 (Fire Pump Electric Motors) 1-5 hp 6 (5 hp) 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6-0 hp 7 (30 hp) 95.8% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21-50 hp 8 (75 hp) 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8-38 Table 8.4.2 No-New Standards Case Efficiency Distribution in 2026 for SNEMs Representative Market Share Horsepower Range Unit (horsepower) EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 Equipment Class Group 4 (SNEM Single-Phase High LRT) 0.25 to 0.75 (open) 12 (0.33 hp) 0.76 to 1.5 (open) 13 (1 hp) Above 1.5 (open) 14 (2 hp) 0.25 to 0.75 (enclosed) 15 (0.25 hp) 0.76 to 1.5 (enclosed) 16 (1 hp) Above 1.5 (enclosed) 17 (3 hp) 34.3% 60.0% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% 34.3% 60.0% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% 34.3% 60.0% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% 48.7% 45.9% 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 48.7% 45.9% 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 48.7% 45.9% 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% Equipment Class Group 5 (SNEM Single-Phase Medium LRT) Above 0.25 18 (0.33 hp) 29.2% 18.8% 52.1% 0.0% 0.0% Equipment Class Group 6 (SNEM Single-Phase Low LRT) 0.25 to 0.33 19 (0.25 hp) 39.4% 28.1% 10.8% 21.6% 0.0% 0.34 to 5 20 (0.33 hp) 46.4% 0.0% 17.9% 35.7% 0.0% Equipment Class Group 7 (SNEM Polyphase) 0.25 to 0.33 21 (0.33 hp) 33.8% 19.8% 16.2% 19.9% 10.3% 0.34 to 0.5 22 (0.5 hp) 33.8% 19.8% 16.2% 19.9% 10.3% Above 0.5 23 (0.75 hp) 33.8% 19.8% 16.2% 19.9% 10.3% 8-39 Table 8.4.3 No-New Standards Case Efficiency Distribution in 2026 for AO Electric Motors Representative Market Share Horsepower Range Unit (horsepower) EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 Equipment Class Group 8 (AO-SNEM Single-Phase High LRT) 0.25 to 0.75 (open) 24 (0.33 hp) 0.76 to 1.5 (open) 25 (1 hp) Above 1.5 (open) 26 (2 hp) 0.25 to 0.75 (enclosed) 27 (0.25 hp) 0.76 to 1.5 (enclosed) 28 (1 hp) Above 1.5 (enclosed) 29 (3) 34.3% 60.0% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% 34.3% 60.0% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% 34.3% 60.0% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% 48.7% 45.9% 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 48.7% 45.9% 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 48.7% 45.9% 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% Equipment Class Group 9 (AO-SNEM Single-Phase Medium LRT) Above 0.25 30 (0.33 hp) 29.2% 18.8% 52.1% 0.0% 0.0% Equipment Class Group 10 (AO-SNEM Single-Phase Low LRT) 0.25 to 0.33 31 (0.25 hp) 9.2% 54.5% 18.2% 18.2% 0.0% 0.34 to 5 32 (0.33 hp) 64.9% 0.0% 17.5% 17.5% 0.0% Equipment Class Group 11 (AO-SNEM Polyphase) 0.25 to 0.33 33 (0.33 hp) 64.3% 7.1% 23.2% 5.4% 0.0% 0.34 to 0.5 34 (0.5 hp) 64.3% 7.1% 23.2% 5.4% 0.0% Above 0.5 35 (0.75 hp) 64.3% 7.1% 23.2% 5.4% 0.0% Equipment Class Group 12 (AO-MEM Polyphase) 1 to 20 36 (0.33 hp) 46.8% 52.5% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 21 to 50 37 (0.5 hp) 46.8% 52.5% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% Above 51 38 (0.75 hp) 99.3% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 8-40 8.5 LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS The LCC calculations were performed for each of the 10,000 consumers in the sample of consumers established for each equipment class. Each LCC calculation sampled inputs from the probability distributions that DOE developed to characterize many of the inputs to the analysis. For the set of the sample consumers for each equipment class, DOE calculated the average installed cost, first year’s operating cost, lifetime operating cost, and LCC for each EL. These averages are calculated assuming that all of the sample purchasers purchase equipment at each EL. This allows the installation costs, operating costs, and LCCs for each EL to be compared under the same conditions, across a variety of sample purchasers. DOE used these average values to calculate the PBP for each EL, relative to the baseline EL. DOE first assigned an electric motor to consumers using the efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case. DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all consumers as if each were to purchase a new electric motor in the expected year of compliance with amended standards. For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC relative to the LCC in the no-newstandards case, which reflects the estimated efficiency distribution of electric motors in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. The following sections present the key LCC and PBP results. A consumer is considered to have received a net LCC cost if the purchaser had negative LCC savings at the EL being analyzed. DOE presents the average LCC savings for affected consumers, which includes only consumers with non-zero LCC savings due to the standard. 8-41 8.5.1 Summary of Results Table 8.5.1 Unit #1: NEMA Design B, T-Frame, 5 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed Efficiency Level Average Costs (2020$) Simple PBP (years) Average Lifetime (years) Installed Cost First Year’s Operating Cost Lifetime Operating Cost LCC Baseline 563.0 816.0 5,705.1 6,268.2 -- 12.5 1 632.2 810.4 5,665.9 6,298.0 12.4 12.5 2 668.5 805.6 5,631.9 6,300.4 10.2 12.5 3 721.3 799.4 5,588.5 6,309.8 9.6 12.5 4 869.2 794.1 5,551.2 6,420.4 14.0 12.5 Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use electric Motors with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline electric Motors. Table 8.5.2 Unit #1: NEMA Design B, T-Frame, 5 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed % of Consumers that Experience Efficiency Average LCC Savings* Net Cost Level 2020$ 1 -30.0 70.1% 2 -29.7 59.1% 3 -37.9 63.9% 4 -148.0 86.5% * The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 8-42 Table 8.5.3 Unit#2: NEMA Design B, T-frame, 30 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed (6 to 20 hp) Efficiency Level Average Costs (2020$) Simple PBP (years) Average Lifetime (years) Installed Cost First Year’s Operating Cost Lifetime Operating Cost LCC Baseline 2,262.7 4,717.1 34,355.2 36,617.5 -- 12.7 1 2,298.2 4,694.6 34,190.1 36,487.9 1.6 12.7 2 2,355.9 4,674.6 34,044.3 36,399.8 2.2 12.7 3 2,730.0 4,652.5 33,882.5 36,612.0 7.2 12.7 4 2,828.4 4,633.7 33,745.6 36,573.5 6.8 12.7 Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use electric Motors with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline electric Motors. Table 8.5.4 Unit #2: NEMA Design B, T-Frame, 30 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed (6 to 20 hp) Efficiency Average LCC Savings* Level 2020$ 1 129.1 2 203.6 3 -19.8 4 18.8 % of Consumers that Experience Net Cost 16.5% 15.8% 58.3% 54.8% * The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 8-43 Table 8.5.5 Unit#2: NEMA Design B, T-frame, 30 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed (21 to 50 hp) Efficiency Level Average Costs (2020$) Simple PBP (years) Average Lifetime (years) Installed Cost First Year’s Operating Cost Lifetime Operating Cost LCC Baseline 2,262.7 4,717.1 39,370.7 41,633.2 -- 13.9 1 2,298.2 4,694.6 39,332.9 41,631.0 1.6 13.9 2 2,355.9 4,674.6 39,316.5 41,672.2 2.2 13.9 3 2,730.0 4,652.5 39,282.3 42,012.1 7.2 13.9 4 2,828.4 4,633.7 39,275.9 42,104.2 6.8 13.9 Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use electric Motors with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline electric Motors. Table 8.5.6 Unit #2: NEMA Design B, T-Frame, 30 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed (21 to 50 hp) Efficiency Average LCC Savings* Level 2020$ 1 1.8 2 -39.9 3 -377.6 4 -466.3 % of Consumers that Experience Net Cost 46.3% 58.9% 83.6% 83.6% * The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 8-44 Table 8.5.7 Unit #3: NEMA Design B, T-Frame, 75 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed Efficiency Level Average Costs (2020$) Simple PBP (years) Average Lifetime (years) Installed Cost First Year’s Operating Cost Lifetime Operating Cost LCC Baseline 5,736.5 10,567.6 87,471.8 93,208.6 -- 14.1 1 6,301.2 10,524.2 87,399.4 93,701.0 13.0 14.1 2 7,062.7 10,500.9 87,483.8 94,546.9 19.9 14.1 3 7,254.7 10,468.8 87,503.1 94,758.3 15.4 14.1 4 7,721.6 10,436.9 87,524.0 95,246.1 15.2 14.1 Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use electric Motors with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline electric Motors. Table 8.5.8 Unit #3: NEMA Design B, T-Frame, 75 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed Efficiency Average LCC Savings* Level 2020$ 1 -496.1 2 -1,272.9 3 -1,391.6 4 -1,853.5 % of Consumers that Experience Net Cost 72.2% 87.2% 91.4% 94.5% * The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 8-45 Table 8.5.9 Unit#4: NEMA Design C, T-frame, 5 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed Efficiency Level Average Costs (2020$) Simple PBP (years) Average Lifetime (years) Installed Cost First Year’s Operating Cost Lifetime Operating Cost LCC Baseline 650.7 684.8 4,971.1 5,621.8 -- 12.7 1 670.1 679.4 4,931.7 5,601.9 3.6 12.7 2 712.3 673.3 4,887.5 5,599.8 5.3 12.7 3 787.6 668.0 4,849.4 5,637.1 8.2 12.7 4 852.7 663.7 4,817.7 5,670.5 9.6 12.7 Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use electric Motors with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline electric Motors. Table 8.5.10 Unit#4: NEMA Design C, T-frame, 5 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed Efficiency Average LCC Savings* 2020$ Level 1 19.9 2 22.0 3 -15.3 4 -48.7 % of Consumers that Experience Net Cost 25.4% 37.8% 59.8% 68.2% * The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 8-46 Table 8.5.11 Unit #5: NEMA Design B, T-Frame, 50 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed Efficiency Level Average Costs (2020$) Simple PBP (years) Average Lifetime (years) Installed Cost First Year’s Operating Cost Lifetime Operating Cost LCC Baseline 4,449.8 6,413.3 56,357.0 60,806.8 -- 14.5 1 4,648.4 6,379.8 56,275.5 60,924.0 5.9 14.5 2 4,856.0 6,364.9 56,349.9 61,206.0 8.4 14.5 3 5,092.1 6,337.9 56,324.1 61,416.4 8.5 14.5 4** 5,092.1 6,337.9 56,324.1 61,416.4 8.5 14.5 Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use electric Motors with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline electric Motors. **same as EL3 Table 8.5.12 Unit #5: NEMA Design B, T-Frame, 50 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed Efficiency Average LCC Savings* Level 2020$ 1 -117.2 2 -399.2 3 -609.6 4** -609.6 % of Consumers that Experience Net Cost 72.7% 79.5% 82.2% 82.2% * The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. **same as EL3 8-47 Table 8.5.13 Unit #6: Fire pump, 5 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed Efficiency Level Average Costs (2020$) Simple PBP (years) Average Lifetime (years) Installed Cost First Year’s Operating Cost Lifetime Operating Cost LCC Baseline 511.5 0.6 8.4 519.9 -- 30.0 1 550.9 0.6 8.2 559.1 2,382.3 30.0 2 619.9 0.6 8.1 628.0 4,892.1 30.0 3 656.1 0.6 8.0 664.1 5,080.2 30.0 4 856.3 0.6 7.9 864.1 8,784.3 30.0 Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use electric Motors with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline electric Motors. Table 8.5.14 Unit #6: Fire pump, 5 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed Efficiency Average LCC Savings* Level 2020$ 1 -39.2 2 -108.1 3 -144.2 4 -344.3 % of Consumers that Experience Net Cost 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% * The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 8-48 Table 8.5.15 Unit #7: Fire pump, 30 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed Efficiency Level Average Costs (2020$) Simple PBP (years) Average Lifetime (years) Installed Cost First Year’s Operating Cost Lifetime Operating Cost LCC Baseline 2,048.6 3.6 46.8 2,095.3 -- 30.0 1 2,225.6 3.5 46.1 2,271.7 3,303.6 30.0 2 2,261.3 3.5 45.8 2,307.1 2,815.9 30.0 3 2,318.9 3.5 45.6 2,364.5 2,909.9 30.0 4 2,791.8 3.5 45.1 2,836.9 5,652.7 30.0 Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use electric Motors with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline electric Motors. Table 8.5.16 Unit #7: Fire pump, 30 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed Efficiency Average LCC Savings* Level 2020$ 1 -176.4 2 -204.0 3 -261.4 4 -733.8 % of Consumers that Experience Net Cost 95.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% * The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 8-49 Table 8.5.17 Unit #8: Fire pump, 75 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed Efficiency Level Average Costs (2020$) Simple PBP (years) Average Lifetime (years) Installed Cost First Year’s Operating Cost Lifetime Operating Cost LCC Baseline 4,685.0 8.8 113.6 4,798.5 -- 29.8 1 5,522.7 8.6 111.8 5,634.5 6,307.6 29.8 2 6,086.7 8.6 111.3 6,198.0 8,105.0 29.8 3 6,847.4 8.6 110.8 6,958.2 10,163.9 29.8 4 7,505.7 8.5 110.0 7,615.7 10,376.0 29.8 Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use electric Motors with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline electric Motors. Table 8.5.18 Unit #8: Fire pump, T-Frame, 75 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed Efficiency Average LCC Savings* Level 2020$ 1 -836.0 2 -1,399.5 3 -2,159.7 4 -2,817.2 % of Consumers that Experience Net Cost 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% * The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 8-50 Table 8.5.19 Unit #9: NEMA Design B, T-frame, 150 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed Efficiency Level Average Costs (2020$) Simple PBP (years) Average Lifetime (years) Installed Cost First Year’s Operating Cost Lifetime Operating Cost LCC Baseline 9,655.4 21,564.9 244,797.0 254,452.2 -- 25.8 1 10,605.7 21,475.6 244,489.1 255,094.7 10.6 25.8 2 11,888.8 21,426.6 244,612.9 256,501.5 16.2 25.8 3 12,211.7 21,360.5 244,564.2 256,775.7 12.5 25.8 4 12,998.6 21,294.9 244,520.0 257,518.4 12.4 25.8 Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use electric Motors with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline electric Motors. Table 8.5.20 Unit#9: NEMA Design B, T-frame, 150 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed Efficiency Average LCC Savings* Level 2020$ 1 -637.0 2 -1,941.0 3 -2,031.6 4 -2,764.9 % of Consumers that Experience Net Cost 62.9% 79.4% 83.9% 86.7% * The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 8-51 Table 8.5.21 Unit #10: NEMA Design B, T-Frame, 250 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed Efficiency Level Average Costs (2020$) Simple PBP (years) Average Lifetime (years) Installed Cost First Year’s Operating Cost Lifetime Operating Cost LCC Baseline 14,977.0 36,442.3 413,030.9 428,005.7 -- 25.7 1 16,446.8 36,292.1 412,401.9 428,846.2 9.8 25.7 2 18,431.0 36,202.6 412,423.6 430,852.1 14.4 25.7 3 18,930.5 36,091.5 412,230.5 431,158.3 11.3 25.7 4 20,147.5 35,981.1 412,045.0 432,189.7 11.2 25.7 Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use electric Motors with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline electric Motors. Table 8.5.22 Unit #10: NEMA Design B, T-Frame, 250 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed Efficiency Average LCC Savings* Level 2020$ 1 -838.1 2 -2,727.1 3 -2,977.9 4 -4,009.3 % of Consumers that Experience Net Cost 65.2% 82.8% 81.1% 83.1% * The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 8-52 Table 8.5.23 Unit #11: NEMA Design C, T-Frame, 150 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed Efficiency Level Average Costs (2020$) Simple PBP (years) Average Lifetime (years) Installed Cost First Year’s Operating Cost Lifetime Operating Cost LCC Baseline 11,076.7 19,495.3 226,879.7 237,956.8 -- 26.2 1 11,575.4 19,392.7 226,388.1 237,963.9 4.9 26.2 2 12,096.5 19,344.0 226,502.4 238,599.4 6.7 26.2 3 12,687.1 19,261.4 226,239.7 238,927.2 6.9 26.2 4 12,687.1 19,261.4 226,239.7 238,927.2 6.9 26.2 Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use electric Motors with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline electric Motors. Table 8.5.24 Unit #11: NEMA Design C, T-Frame, 150 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed Efficiency Average LCC Savings* Level 2020$ 1 -7.1 2 -642.6 3 -970.4 4 -970.4 % of Consumers that Experience Net Cost 58.3% 65.5% 68.6% 68.6% * The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. 8-53 Table 8.5.25 Unit#12: SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 261.6 80.3 394.1 655.8 -- 7.5 1 267.7 76.3 374.9 642.7 1.6 7.5 2 307.3 63.5 311.8 619.2 2.7 7.5 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table 8.5.26 Unit#12: SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 13.0 6.9% 2 28.2 30.2% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). 8-54 Table 8.5.27 Unit#13: SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, open Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 432.6 188.2 930.6 1363.4 -- 7.5 1 456.9 183.0 904.6 1361.7 4.6 7.5 2 488.6 163.1 806.2 1295.0 2.2 7.5 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table 8.5.28 Unit#13: SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, open Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 1.5 16.7% 2 67.4 20.5% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). 8-55 Table 8.5.29 Unit#14: SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 2 hp, 4-pole, open Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost Lifetime First Year Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 637.0 372.4 1831.1 2468.2 -- 7.5 1 657.5 353.2 1736.5 2394.0 1.1 7.5 2 695.6 325.6 1600.6 2296.2 1.3 7.5 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table 8.5.30 Unit#14: SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 2 hp, 4-pole, open Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 74.8 4.6% 2 125.2 15.5% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). 8-56 Table 8.5.31 Unit#15: SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 252.4 65.3 320.1 572.6 -- 7.5 1 257.1 62.8 308.2 565.3 1.9 7.5 2 296.7 47.5 232.9 529.6 2.5 7.5 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table 8.5.32 Unit#15: SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 7.2 11.3% 2 39.5 26.4% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). 8-57 Table 8.5.33 Unit#16: SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 474.8 192.1 944.9 1419.5 -- 7.5 1 501.3 183.7 903.8 1405.0 3.2 7.5 2 535.9 165.3 813.1 1348.9 2.3 7.5 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table 8.5.34 Unit#16: SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 14.3 17.4% 2 63.6 23.4% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). 8-58 Table 8.5.35 Unit#17: SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 3 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 800.0 530.3 2622.9 3422.9 -- 7.5 1 835.2 508.4 2514.6 3349.9 1.6 7.5 2 888.2 472.3 2335.9 3224.1 1.5 7.5 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table 8.5.36 Unit#17: SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 3 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 73.5 9.6% 2 164.2 17.8% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). 8-59 Table 8.5.37 Unit#18: SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 148.6 109.3 492.7 641.2 -- 7.0 1 162.7 101.4 456.8 619.5 1.8 7.0 2 169.7 96.5 434.7 604.4 1.7 7.0 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table 8.5.38 Unit#18: SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 21.7 5.6% 2 28.4 7.9% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). 8-60 Table 8.5.39 Unit#19: SNEM Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.25 hp, 6-pole, open Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 132.3 148.1 661.2 793.4 -- 6.8 1 134.8 124.6 556.3 691.1 0.1 6.8 2 153.9 95.6 426.5 580.3 0.4 6.8 3 159.1 84.5 337.0 536.1 0.4 6.8 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table 8.5.40 Unit#19: SNEM Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.25 hp, 6-pole, open Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 101.6 0.3% 2 170.4 2.8% 3 191.4 3.1% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). 8-61 Table 8.5.41 Unit#20: SNEM Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.5 hp, 6-pole, open Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 190.1 170.1 760.6 950.8 -- 6.8 1* 190.1 170.1 760.6 950.8 0.0 6.8 2 210.8 142.6 637.5 848.3 0.8 6.8 3 233.1 133.2 595.5 828.7 1.2 6.8 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. *Same as baseline Table 8.5.42 Unit#20: SNEM Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.5 hp, 6-pole, open Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1* 0.0 0.0% 2 102.5 2.9% 3 93.4 8.2% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). * Same as baseline. 8-62 Table 8.5.43 Unit#21: SNEM Polyphase, 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 255.9 79.8 481.7 737.5 -- 9.2 1 261.9 73.7 444.6 706.5 1.0 9.2 2 276.2 72.6 438.3 714.5 2.8 9.2 3 280.5 68.4 413.0 693.5 2.2 9.2 4 334.0 65.5 395.3 729.3 5.5 9.2 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table 8.5.44 Unit#21: SNEM Polyphase, 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 31.3 3.3% 2 11.7 26.9% 3 30.0 13.4% 4 -12.4 62.1% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). 8-63 Table 8.5.45 Unit#22: SNEM Polyphase, 0.5 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 289.0 108.8 651.9 941.0 -- 9.2 1 292.3 103.9 622.8 915.2 0.7 9.2 2 323.9 100.8 603.8 927.7 4.4 9.2 3 329.2 97.8 585.8 915.1 3.7 9.2 4 424.7 93.2 558.7 983.3 8.7 9.2 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table 8.5.46 Unit#22: SNEM Polyphase, 0.5 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 25.6 2.4% 2 3.9 28.5% 3 15.7 22.3% 4 -56.0 80.2% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). 8-64 Table 8.5.47 Unit#23: SNEM Polyphase, 0.75 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 312.7 151.4 911.2 1223.9 -- 9.2 1 333.4 145.0 872.5 1205.9 3.2 9.2 2 344.4 141.9 854.2 1198.6 3.4 9.2 3 355.8 139.0 836.5 1192.4 3.5 9.2 4 456.5 134.0 806.4 1263.0 8.3 9.2 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table 8.5.48 Unit#23: SNEM Polyphase, 0.75 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 18.3 8.7% 2 19.0 14.6% 3 20.9 19.9% 4 -54.2 77.6% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). 8-65 Table 8.5.49 Unit#24: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 260.4 104.7 470.6 730.9 -- 6.8 1 266.6 100.0 449.3 715.8 1.3 6.8 2 306.1 84.5 379.6 685.7 2.3 6.8 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table 8.5.50 Unit#24: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 15.0 4.0% 2 35.5 19.5% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). 8-66 Table 8.5.51 Unit#25: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, open Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 430.7 260.8 1158.4 1589.2 -- 6.8 1 455.1 254.1 1128.6 1583.8 3.6 6.8 2 486.9 228.9 1016.3 1503.2 1.8 6.8 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table 8.5.52 Unit#25: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, open Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 5.2 12.6% 2 82.1 11.8% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). 8-67 Table 8.5.53 Unit#26: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 2 hp, 4-pole, open Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 633.0 509.0 2261.6 2894.4 -- 6.8 1 653.5 484.7 2153.5 2806.9 0.8 6.8 2 691.6 449.8 1998.7 2690.1 1.0 6.8 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table 8.5.54 Unit#26: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 2 hp, 4-pole, open Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 89.1 2.4% 2 149.2 8.6% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). 8-68 Table 8.5.55 Unit#27: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 250.9 85.9 378.6 629.5 -- 6.7 1 255.6 83.0 365.6 621.1 1.6 6.7 2 295.1 64.3 283.3 578.4 2.0 6.7 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table 8.5.56 Unit#27: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 8.5 6.3% 2 47.1 17.0% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). 8-69 Table 8.5.57 Unit#28: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 472.8 262.5 1175.0 1648.0 -- 6.8 1 499.4 252.0 1127.9 1627.5 2.5 6.8 2 534.0 228.7 1023.9 1558.1 1.8 6.8 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table 8.5.58 Unit#28: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 20.2 10.7% 2 80.1 13.3% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). 8-70 Table 8.5.59 Unit#29: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 3 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 793.6 735.0 3276.3 4070.1 -- 6.8 1 828.9 706.7 3150.5 3979.6 1.3 6.8 2 881.9 660.2 2943.2 3825.3 1.2 6.8 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table 8.5.60 Unit#29: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 3 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 89.4 5.4% 2 199.8 9.5% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). 8-71 Table 8.5.61 Unit#30: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 147.5 115.0 509.4 657.0 -- 6.8 1 161.7 107.2 474.7 636.4 1.8 6.8 2 168.7 102.3 453.0 621.7 1.7 6.8 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table 8.5.62 Unit#30: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 20.8 4.4% 2 27.2 6.5% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). 8-72 Table 8.5.63 Unit#31: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.25 hp, 6-pole, open Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 131.1 135.4 603.3 734.4 -- 6.8 1 133.6 114.8 511.4 645.1 0.1 6.8 2 152.7 89.3 397.7 550.4 0.5 6.8 3 157.9 79.6 354.4 512.3 0.5 6.8 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table 8.5.64 Unit#31: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.25 hp, 6-pole, open Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 91.0 0.1% 2 106.5 4.0% 3 120.8 4.4% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). 8-73 Table 8.5.65 Unit#32: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.5 hp, 6-pole, open Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 188.3 161.7 722.0 910.3 -- 6.8 1* 188.3 161.7 722.0 910.3 0.0 6.8 2 208.9 137.2 612.4 821.3 0.8 6.8 3 231.3 128.8 575.0 806.2 1.3 6.8 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. * Same as baseline. Table 8.5.66 Unit#32: AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.5 hp, 6-pole, open Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1* 0.0 0.0% 2 89.2 4.6% 3 85.5 11.2% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). * Same as baseline. 8-74 Table 8.5.67 Unit#33: AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 254.9 92.4 522.2 777.0 -- 8.7 1 260.9 85.9 485.3 746.2 0.9 8.7 2 275.2 84.8 479.2 754.4 2.7 8.7 3 279.5 80.3 454.0 733.6 2.1 8.7 4 333.1 77.2 436.4 769.5 5.2 8.7 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table 8.5.68 Unit#33: AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 30.9 4.0% 2 19.6 18.7% 3 35.5 12.4% 4 -2.2 57.2% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). 8-75 Table 8.5.69 Unit#34: AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.5 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 287.5 126.5 712.7 1000.2 -- 8.7 1 290.8 121.3 683.7 974.5 0.6 8.7 2 322.4 118.0 664.7 987.1 4.1 8.7 3 327.7 114.8 646.7 974.5 3.4 8.7 4 423.1 109.9 619.5 1042.7 8.2 8.7 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table 8.5.70 Unit#34: AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.5 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 25.8 2.9% 2 10.7 26.5% 3 20.7 22.5% 4 -48.6 86.2% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). 8-76 Table 8.5.71 Unit#35: AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.75 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 309.8 178.1 1009.5 1319.3 -- 8.7 1 330.4 171.2 970.5 1300.9 3.0 8.7 2 341.4 168.0 952.0 1293.5 3.1 8.7 3 352.8 164.9 934.3 1287.1 3.2 8.7 4 453.3 159.5 904.0 1357.3 7.7 8.7 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table 8.5.72 Unit#35: AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.75 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 18.3 13.4% 2 24.0 15.6% 3 24.6 22.3% 4 -46.8 82.8% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). 8-77 Table 8.5.73 Unit#36: AO-MEM Polyphase, 5 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 490.2 1023.6 6662.9 7153.1 -- 11.6 1 536.3 1001.1 6516.1 7052.4 2.1 11.6 2 559.8 994.8 6475.3 7035.1 2.4 11.6 3 625.4 990.6 6447.4 7072.8 4.1 11.6 4 784.7 977.1 6359.5 7144.2 6.3 11.6 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table 8.5.74 Unit#36: AO-MEM Polyphase, 5 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 100.1 5.9% 2 65.1 24.9% 3 26.9 46.2% 4 -44.5 64.4% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). 8-78 Table 8.5.75 Unit#37: AO-MEM Polyphase, 30 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 2031.9 5874.1 46610.8 48642.7 -- 13.4 1 2159.5 5792.0 46104.9 48264.5 1.6 13.4 2 2227.9 5766.2 46038.4 48266.3 1.8 13.4 3 2308.4 5741.8 45982.1 48290.6 2.1 13.4 4 2722.8 5694.3 45745.9 48468.7 3.8 13.4 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. Table 8.5.76 Unit#37: AO-MEM Polyphase, 30 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1 381.0 9.8% 2 179.8 42.9% 3 154.4 48.6% 4 -23.6 59.9% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). 8-79 Table 8.5.77 Unit#38: AO-MEM Polyphase, 75 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Average Costs (2020$) EL Installed Cost First Year Lifetime Operating Cost Operating Cost LCC Simple Payback (Years) Average Lifetime (Years) Baseline 5652.6 14055.4 107962.4 113615.6 -- 13.1 1* 5652.6 14055.4 107962.4 113615.6 0.0 13.1 2 6222.7 13998.3 107834.3 114057.5 10.0 13.1 3 6974.4 13982.9 108015.2 114990.2 18.2 13.1 4 7654.8 13898.6 107682.3 115337.8 12.8 13.1 Note: The average LCC, LCC savings, and simple PBP for each efficiency level are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment having the given efficiency level. Thus, results for all efficiency levels can be compared under the same conditions. * Same as baseline. Table 8.5.78 Unit#38: AO-MEM Polyphase, 75 hp, 4-pole, enclosed Life-Cycle Costs and Savings EL Average Savings (2020$) Percent of Consumers Who Experience Net Cost Baseline -- -- 1* 0.0 0.0% 2 -442.3 91.4% 3 -1372.3 95.6% 4 -1719.9 92.6% Note: The LCC savings for each efficiency level are calculated relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. The calculation excludes consumers that experience zero LCC savings (no impact). * Same as baseline. 8-80 8.5.2 Rebuttable Payback Period DOE calculates so-called rebuttable PBPs to test the legally established rebuttable presumption that an energy efficiency standard is economically justified if the additional equipment costs attributed to the standard are less than three times the value of the first-year energy cost savings. (42 U.S.C. §6295 (o)(2)(B)(iii)) The basic equation for rebuttable PBP is the same as that used for PBP. However, the rebuttable PBP is not based on the use of consumer samples and probability distributions. Instead, the rebuttable PBP is based on discrete single-point values for certain inputs (See Table 8.5.79). In addition, the rebuttable PBP relies on the DOE test procedure to determine the equipment’s efficiency (measured at full load) and the associated annual energy consumption. The rebuttable PBP also excludes any maintenance and repair costs. Table 8.5.79 Summary of Inputs for Rebuttable PBP Analysis Inputs Single-point value Energy Use Inputs Horsepower Rating Same as for LCC analysis Motor Load Factor 100% Annual Operating Hours Same as for LCC analysis RPM Impact Factor Same as for LCC analysis Total Installed Cost Inputs Electric Motors Price Same as for LCC analysis Sales Tax 7.3% Operating Cost Inputs Electricity Prices ($/kWh) Commercial sector: 0.097 $/kWh Industrial sector: 0.082 $/kWh Agricultural sector: 0.082 $/kWh Residential sector: 0.16 $/kWh 8-81 Table 8.5.80, Table 8.5.81, Table 8.5.82 presents the rebuttable payback periods for electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25, SNEMs, and AO Electric Motors. Table 8.5.80 Rebuttable Presumption Payback for Electric Motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 Representative Unit Payback Period years EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 1 NEMA Design B, T-frame, 5 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 5.9 4.2 4.4 6.5 2 NEMA Design B, T-frame, 30 hp, 4 poles, enclosed* 0.9 1.2 4.0 3.7 3 NEMA Design B, T-frame, 75 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 6.6 7.8 6.5 6.7 4 NEMA Design C, T-frame, 5 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 1.9 2.8 4.3 4.9 5 NEMA Design C, T-frame, 50 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 3.0 3.4 3.7 3.7 6 Fire pump, 5 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 1107.9 2275.1 2362.6 4085.2 7 Fire pump, 30 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 1522.6 1297.7 1341.0 2605.1 8 Fire pump, 75 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 2751.8 3536.0 4434.2 4526.7 9 NEMA Design B, T-frame, 150 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 5.4 6.3 5.3 5.4 10 NEMA Design B, T-frame, 250 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 4.9 5.8 4.9 5.0 11 NEMA Design C, T-frame, 150 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 2.4 2.8 3.0 3.0 *Simple Payback Period (PBP) is dependent only on Total Installed Cost and First Year’s Operating Cost; therefore, Rebuttable PBP is same in the range 6-50 horsepower. 8-82 Table 8.5.81 Rebuttable Presumption Payback for SNEMs Representative Unit SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 12 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 13 hp, 4-pole, open SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 2 14 hp, 4-pole, open SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 15 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 16 hp, 4-pole, enclosed SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 3 17 hp, 4-pole, enclosed SNEM Single-Phase (Medium 18 LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open SNEM Single-Phase (Low LTR), 19 0.25 hp, 6-pole, open SNEM Single-Phase (Low LTR), 20 0.5 hp, 6-pole, open SNEM Polyphase, 0.33 hp, 4-pole, 21 enclosed SNEM Polyphase, 0.5 hp, 4-pole, 22 enclosed SNEM Polyphase, 0.75 hp, 4-pole, 23 enclosed Payback Period years EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 1.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 3.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.7 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.8 2.4 1.8 4.6 0.6 3.7 3.1 7.4 2.7 2.9 3.0 7.0 8-83 Table 8.5.82 Rebuttable Presumption Payback for AO Electric Motors Representative Unit Payback Period years EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 24 AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open 1.1 1.9 1.9 1.9 25 AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, open 3.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 26 AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 2 hp, 4-pole, open 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 27 AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, enclosed 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 28 AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 1 hp, 4-pole, enclosed 2.1 1.5 1.5 1.5 29 AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LTR), 3 hp, 4-pole, enclosed 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 30 AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LTR), 0.33 hp, 4-pole, open 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 31 AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.25 hp, 6-pole, open 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 32 AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LTR), 0.5 hp, 6-pole, open 0.0 0.7 1.2 1.2 33 AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.33 hp, 4pole, enclosed 0.8 2.3 1.8 4.4 34 AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.5 hp, 4pole, enclosed 0.6 3.5 2.9 7.0 35 AO-SNEM Polyphase, 0.75 hp, 4pole, enclosed 2.6 2.7 2.8 6.6 36 AO-MEM Polyphase, 5 hp, 4-pole, enclosed 1.5 1.8 3.1 4.8 37 AO-MEM Polyphase, 30 hp, 4pole, enclosed 1.2 1.4 1.6 2.9 38 AO-MEM Polyphase, 75 hp, 4pole, enclosed 0.0 7.3 13.3 9.3 8-84 REFERENCES 1. U.S. Department of Energy–Energy Information Administration, “2018 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS),” 2018 CBECS Survey Data, 2018, https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2018/index.php?view=methodology. 2. “2018 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey,” accessed August 17, 2021, https://www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/data/2018/pdf/Table11_1.pdf. 3. “2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey Data,” accessed November 29, 2021, https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/c&e/pdf/ce2.1.pdf. 4. “US Department of Agriculture (2012), Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (2013), Volume 3, Special Studies, Part 1, November 1, 2014,” accessed August 6, 2021, https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/Online_Resources/Farm_and_R anch_Irrigation_Survey/fris13. 5. RS Means (2013), Electrical Cost Data, 36th Annual Edition (Kingston, MA., n.d.). 6. Katie Coughlin and Berket Beraki, “Non-Residential Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods,” April 15, 2019, https://doi.org/10.2172/1515782. 7. Katie Coughlin and Bereket Beraki, “Residential Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods,” 2018. 8. “Annual Energy Outlook 2021,” accessed June 3, 2021, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/. 9. “Vaughen’s National Average Prices, Random Wound AC Motors Stator Rewinds - 2021 Edition,” n.d. 10. “US Department of Energy, Advanced Manufacturing Office, Premium Efficiency Motor Selection and Application Guide,” February 2014, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/04/f15/amo_motors_handbook_web.pdf. 11. Research performed by Austin Bonnet in support of the May 2014 Final Rule (2011) 12. Gallaher, M., Delhotal, K., & Petrusa, J. (2009), Estimating the potential CO2 mitigation from agricultural energy efficiency in the United States, Energy Efficiency (2), 207-220. 13. Nadel, Steven et al. (2002), Energy Efficient Motor Systems: A Handbook on Technology, Program, and Policy Opportunities, American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy, Washington, D.C. 14. “Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Small Electric Motors Final Determination 8-85 (Prepared for the Department of Energy by Staff Members of Navigant Consulting, Inc and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, January 2021).” 15. “US. Department of Energy. Advanced Manufacturing Office., ‘Motors Systems Tip Sheet #3. Energy Tips: Motor Systems. Extending the Operating Life of Your Motor,’ 2012.,” n.d., 2. 16. Fraunhofer (2008), Eup Lot 11: Fans for Ventilation in Non Residential Building. 17. Falkner, Hugh and Geoff Dollard (2008), Lot 11 - Water Pumps (in commercial buildings, drinking water pumping, food industry, agriculture). 18. Innovation Center for US Dairy, Case Study - Compressed Air Systems. http://www.usdairy.com/Sustainability/BestPractices/Documents/CaseStudyCompresedAirSystems.pdf 19. Conveyor Dynamics, Inc., A New Era In Overland Conveyor Belt Design. http://www.ckit.co.za/secure/conveyor/papers/troughed/overland/overland.htm 20. John C. Andrea (1982), Energy-Efficient Electric Motors: Selection and Application. 21. Northwest Power & Conservation Council (2009), Regional Technical Forum. http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/rtf/measures/Default.asp 22. ACEEE (2007), Impact of Proposed Increases to Motor Efficiency Performance Standards, Proposed Federal Motor Tax Incentives and Suggested New Directions Forward. http://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/researchreports/ie073.pdf 23. “Standard Warranty Information for Baldor-Reliance 2020.Pdf,” accessed April 27, 2021, https://www.baldor.com/~/media/files/brands/baldorreliance/warranty%20documents/standard%20warranty%20information%20for%20baldo r-reliance%202020.ashx?la=en. 24. “WEG-Standard-Stock-Catalog-Complete-Catalog-Us100-Brochure-English.Pdf,” accessed April 27, 2021, https://static.weg.net/medias/downloadcenter/h14/h8f/WEGstandard-stock-catalog-complete-catalog-us100-brochure-english.pdf. 25. “Modigliani, F. and M. H. Miller. The Cost of Capital, Corporations Finance and the Theory of Investment. American Economic Review. 1958. 48(3): Pp. 261–297.,” n.d. 26. “Damodaran, A. Data Page: Costs of Capital by Industry Sector. 2020.,” accessed April 26, 2021, http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/. 27. “Ibbotson Associates. SBBI Valuation Edition 2009 Yearbook. 2009. Chicago, IL. Http://Corporate.Morningstar.Com/Ib/Asp/Detail.Aspx?Xmlfile=1431.Xml.,” n.d. 8-86 28. “U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Federal Reserve Bank Services Private Sector Adjustment Factor. 2005. Washington, D.C. Report No. OP-1229 (Docket),” accessed April 26, 2021, https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/press/other/2005/20051012/attachment.pdf. 29. “Damodaran, A. Data Page: Historical Returns on Stocks, Bonds and Bills-United States. 2019.,” n.d., http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/. 30. “U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-94 Appendix C: Real Interest Rates on Treasury Notes and Bonds of Specified Maturities. 2019. Washington, D.C.,” n.d., https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a094/a94_appx-c. 31. “U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA),” accessed April 26, 2021, https://www.bea.gov/. 32. U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “Survey of Consumer Finances,” Research Resources: Survey of Consumer Finances, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019, http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scfindex.htm. 33. Robert S. Pindyck and Daniel L. Rubinfeld, Microeconomics, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall Series in Economics (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2001). 34. Aswath Damodaran, “Data Page: Historical Returns on Stocks, Bonds and Bills-United States,” Damodaran Online, 2021, http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/. 35. Moody’s, “Moody’s Seasoned Aaa Corporate Bond Yield [AAA], Retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis,” accessed December 15, 2021, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AAA. 36. Wells Fargo, “Wells Fargo Cost of Savings Index (COSI),” 2020, https://www.wellsfargo.com/mortgage/manage-account/cost-of-savings-index/. 37. Wells Fargo, “Wells Fargo Cost of Savings Index (COSI): Historical Data (2009-2019) Retrieved from MoneyCafe.Com,” accessed December 15, 2021, https://www.moneycafe.com/cosi-rate-wells-fargo-cost-of-savings-index/. 38. Wachovia, “Wachovia Cost of Savings Index (COSI): Historical Data (2007-2009) Retrieved from Mortgage-X - Mortgage Information Service,” 2020, http://mortgagex.com/general/indexes/wachovia_cosi.asp. 39. Golden West Financial Corporation, “GDW (World Savings) Cost of Savings Index (COSI): Historical Data (1984-1990) Retrieved from Mortgage-X - Mortgage Information Service,” accessed December 15, 2021, http://mortgagex.com/general/indexes/cosi_history.asp. 8-87 40. Golden West Financial Corporation, “GDW (World Savings) Cost of Savings Index (COSI): Historical Data (1991-2007) Retrieved from Mortgage-X - Mortgage Information Service,” accessed December 15, 2021, http://mortgagex.com/general/indexes/default.asp. 41. U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “State and Local Bonds - Bond Buyer Go 20-Bond Municipal Bond Index (DISCONTINUED) [WSLB20], Retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis,” accessed December 15, 2021, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WSLB20. 42. U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “30-Year Treasury Constant Maturity Rate [DGS30], Retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis,” 2020, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DGS30. 43. U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “20-Year Treasury Constant Maturity Rate [DGS20], Retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis,” 2020, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DGS20. 44. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), “Short-Term Interest Rates (Indicator),” accessed December 15, 2021, https://data.oecd.org/interest/short-term-interest-rates.htm. 8-88 CHAPTER 9. SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS 9.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 9-1 9.2 TOTAL SHIPMENTS ..................................................................................................... 9-1 9.2.1 Base Year Shipments ....................................................................................................... 9-1 9.2.2 Market Segmentation ....................................................................................................... 9-3 9.3 SHIPMENTS PROJECTION .......................................................................................... 9-5 9.4 IMPACTS OF STANDARDS ON CONSUMER CHOICE ........................................... 9-8 9.5 RESULTS ...................................................................................................................... 9-10 9.5.1 Shipments in The No-New-Standards Case ................................................................... 9-10 9.5.2 Shipments Projections in The Standards Cases ............................................................ 9-12 9.6 EXPANDED SCOPE ELECTRIC MOTORS ............................................................... 9-13 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 9-14 LIST OF TABLES Table 9.2.1 Table 9.2.2 Table 9.2.3 Table 9.2.4 Table 9.2.5 Table 9.3.1 Table 9.4.1 Table 9.4.2 Table 9.4.3 Table 9.5.1 Table 9.5.2 Table 9.5.3 Table 9.5.4 Table 9.6.1 Base Year 2020 Shipments of SNEM and AO Electric Motors .......................... 9-3 Shipment Shares by Equipment Class Group, Enclosure, and Horsepower Range ................................................................................................................... 9-3 Shipment Shares by Equipment Class Group and Pole Configuration ................ 9-4 Shipment Shares by Equipment Class Group, Enclosure, and Horsepower Range ................................................................................................................... 9-4 Shipment shares by Equipment Class Group and Sector ..................................... 9-5 Shipment Projections Modeling Parameter Estimates ......................................... 9-7 Shipments-Weighted Average Per-Unit Annual Energy Consumption of the Substitute for NEMA Design A and B Motors. ............................................. 9-9 Percentage of Consumers with Variable Load Applications and No Variable Frequency Drive .................................................................................... 9-9 Percentage of Consumers Purchasing Synchronous Electric Motors in each Standards Case ................................................................................................... 9-10 Projected Shipments in the No-New Standards Case - Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 .............................................................................. 9-10 Projected Shipments in the No-New Standards Case - SNEMs ........................ 9-11 Projected Shipments in the No-New Standards Case - AO Electric Motors ..... 9-11 Shipments Projected in each Standard Case (thousands) .................................. 9-12 Initial Expanded Scope Shipments Estimates for 2020 ..................................... 9-13 9-i LIST OF FIGURES Figure 9.3.1 Figure 9.3.2 Figure 9.3.3 Relationship between Chained GDP and Business Fixed Investments (2020-2050).......................................................................................................... 9-6 Projection of Chained GDP ................................................................................. 9-6 Projection of Chained Business Fixed Investments ............................................. 9-7 9-ii CHAPTER 9. SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS 9.1 INTRODUCTION Projections of product shipments are a necessary input for calculating national energy savings (NES) and net present value (NPV) of potential new or amended energy efficiency standards. Shipments also are a necessary input to the manufacturer impact analysis. This chapter describes DOE’s method and results of projecting annual shipments for electric motors over the 30-year analysis period. The shipments model developed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) relies on three types of inputs: an estimate of total shipments in the base year (2020), projections of macroeconomic indicators that drive electric motor shipments, and estimates of total shipments of electric motors by equipment class group, horsepower, poles, and enclosure configuration. To estimate the effect of potential standard levels on electric motor shipments, the shipments model also accounts for potential substitutions of NEMA Design A and B motors with synchronous electric motors that are currently out of the scope of this analysis. DOE’s electric motor shipments projections are based on forecasts of economic growth and do not discriminate shipments between replacements and purchases for new applications. For this analysis, DOE assumed that any new energy efficiency standards for electric motors would require compliance in 2026. Thus, all electric motors purchased starting in 2026 are affected by the standard level. DOE’s analysis considers shipments over a 30-year period, in this case from 2026 through 2055. The shipments model was developed as a part of the Excel spreadsheet used for the national impacts analysis (NIA). Section 9.2 describes the data inputs and analysis of market segments; section 9.3 describes how DOE projected shipments through 2055 in the no-new or amended standards case; section 9.4 discusses the effect of potential standards on shipments; and section 9.5 presents the model results for the efficiency levels considered. Finally, section 9.6 presents initial estimates of 2020 shipments for additional categories of electric motors that DOE may consider analyzing in the NOPR stage. 9.2 TOTAL SHIPMENTS 9.2.1 Base Year Shipments In its preliminary analysis, DOE estimated total shipments of regulated electric motors to 4.5 million units in 2020 based on information from (1) the 2019 Low-Voltage Motors, World Market Report1; and (2) the share of low voltage motors that are subject to the electric motors energy conservation standards. a a DOE estimated that 85 percent of low voltage electric motors above 1 hp are regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 based on the total shipments of low voltage electric motors in 2011 and total shipments of regulated electric motors in 2011 from the May 2014 Final Rule. 9-1 In its preliminary analysis, DOE estimated the total shipments of SNEMs that do not have air-over enclosures and AO electric motors in 2020 to be 20.6 million units and 8.2 million units respectively. Estimates of shipments of SNEMs that do not have air-over enclosures were obtained using the following assumptions: • • DOE estimated that the shipments of SNEM polyphase and capacitor start motors (CS) are equal to shipments of polyphase and CS small electric motors (SEM) regulated at 10 CFR 430.446 in 2020, as projected in the March 2010 Small Electric Motors Final Rule2. Based on this assumption, DOE estimated the shipments of SNEM high torque motors to 3,940,000 units and of polyphase SNEM motors to 920,000 units in 2020. Based on information from a previous DOE report3 and data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Industrial Reports4, 5,6 ,7,8 DOE estimates that SNEM low torque permanent split capacitor (PSC) and shaded pole electric motors represent the over 50 percent of the market of single phase SNEMs. Based on these same sources, DOE estimates that the market share of CS electric motors is equal to the market share of SNEM medium torque split phase (SP) electric motors. Therefore, DOE calculated the shipments of other SNEM electric motors using the following market shares estimates of single-phase SNEM motors: 20 percent for CS; 20 percent for SP; 55 percent for PSC; and 5 percent for shaded pole. Based on this assumption, DOE estimated the 2020 shipments of SP electric motors to 3,940,000 units, and shipments of PSC and shaded pole electric motors to 10,830,000 and 980,000 units respectively. DOE did not find air-over electric motor specific market data and calculated shipments of AO electric motors assuming air-over electric motors represent 25% of all single-phase motors (SNEM and SEM)b and 5 percent of all polyphase motors (SNEM polyphase, SEM polyphase, and polyphase electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25) based on catalog model counts. Based on this assumption, DOE estimated the 2020 shipments of single phase SNEM motors with air-over enclosures (AO-SNEM) to 7,890,000 units, shipments of polyphase AO-SNEM to 100,000 units, and shipments of air-over motors which otherwise meet the description of "medium" electric motor regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 (AO-MEM) to 240,000 units. DOE then distributed the shipments of single-phase AO-SNEM motors by topology based on catalog model counts of single AO electric motors. See resulting shipments in Table 9.2.1 b DOE estimates that for single phase motors, air-over enclosure is one of the four most common enclosure type with open drip proof, totally enclosed non-ventilated, and totally enclosed fan-cooled enclosures. Therefore, DOE applied a 25% market share. 9-2 Table 9.2.1 Base Year 2020 Shipments of SNEM and AO Electric Motors Category AO Electric Motor SNEMs 9.2.2 Sub-Category SNEM High Torque - Capacitor-Start Capacitor-Run and Capacitor-Run Induction-Run SNEM Medium Torque - Split Phase SNEM Low Torque - Permanent Split Capacitor (PSC) SNEM Low Torque - Shaded Pole AO-SNEM Polyphase AO-MEM Polyphase High Torque - Capacitor-Start Capacitor-Run and Capacitor-Run Induction-Run Medium Torque - Split Phase Low Torque - Permanent Split Capacitor (PSC) Low Torque - Shaded Pole Polyphase Units 790,000 790,000 5,990,000 320,000 100,000 240,000 3,940,000 3,940,000 10,830,000 980,000 920,000 Market Segmentation For regulated electric motors, DOE relied on information from manufacturer interview conducted in preparation for this preliminary analysis to estimate market shares by equipment class group, horsepower, poles, and enclosure configuration. See Table 9.2.2 and Table 9.2.3. As needed, to further distribute shipments by individual horsepower, poles, and enclosure configuration within an equipment class group, DOE relied on the following assumptions: (1) the shares of electric motors by pole do not change with horsepower and (2) shipments are distributed equally across individual horsepower within a horsepower range. DOE assumed these market shares were constant throughout the analysis period (2026-2055). Table 9.2.2 Shipment Shares by Equipment Class Group, Enclosure, and Horsepower Range NEMA Design Fire Pump Electric Enclosure Horsepower NEMA Design C A and B Motor 1-5 20.76% 0.10% 0.02% 6-20 12.39% 0.05% 0.14% 21-50 3.38% 0.01% 0.11% Open 51-100 1.06% 0.00% 0.15% 101-200 0.41% 0.00% 0.06% 201-500 0.28% n/a 0.01% 1-5 30.52% 0.17% 0.00% 6-20 19.90% 0.12% 0.02% Enclosed 21-50 6.36% 0.03% 0.01% 51-100 2.22% 0.01% 0.02% 101-200 1.19% 0.01% 0.01% 9-3 Enclosure Horsepower 201-500 NEMA Design A and B 0.47% NEMA Design C n/a Fire Pump Electric Motor 0.00% Table 9.2.3 Shipment Shares by Equipment Class Group and Pole Configuration Poles NEMA Design A and B NEMA Design C Fire Pump Electric Motor 2 23% 13% 50% 4 67% 75% 50% 6 8% 10% 0% 8 3% 2% 0% For SNEM and AO electric motors, DOE relied on catalog model counts to develop distributions of shipments by horsepower range and enclosure. See Table 9.2.4. Table 9.2.4 Shipment Shares by Equipment Class Group, Enclosure, and Horsepower Range Equipment Class Group HP range Enclosure Percentage 0.25 - 0.75 Open 6% 0.76 - 1.5 Open 7% At and above 1.6 HP Open 18% SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT) 0.25 - 0.75 Enclosed 29% 0.76 - 1.5 Enclosed 19% At and above 1.6 HP Enclosed 21% At and above 0.25 All 100% SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) 0.25 - 0.33 All 21% SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) At and above 0.34 All 79% 0.25 - 0.33 All 24% SNEM Polyphase 0.34 - 0.5 All 28% At and above 0.51 HP All 48% 0.25 - 0.75 Open 3% 0.76 - 1.5 Open 3% At and above 1.6 HP Open 25% AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT) 0.25 - 0.75 Enclosed 11% 0.76 - 1.5 Enclosed 36% At and above 1.6 HP Enclosed 22% At and above 0.25 All 100% AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) 0.25 -0.33 All 55% AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) 0.34 - 5 All 45% AO-SNEM Polyphase 0.25-0.33 All 11% 9-4 Equipment Class Group AO-MEM Polyphase HP range Enclosure Percentage 0.34-0.5 All 17% At and above 0.51 HP All 72% All 73% 1-20 All 24% 21-50 All 3% At and above 51 In addition, for SNEM and AO electric motors, DOE considered the following market shares by sector. See Chapter 8 for more detail on these distributions. Table 9.2.5 Shipment shares by Equipment Class Group and Sector Equipment Class Group SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT) Industrial 42% Commercial 39% Residential 4% Agricultural 15% SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) 42% 39% 4% 15% SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) 49% 46% 5% 0% SNEM Polyphase 51% 49% 0% 0% AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) 49% 46% 5% 0% 49% 46% 5% 0% 49% 46% 5% 0% AO-SNEM Polyphase AO-MEM Polyphase 51% 51% 49% 49% 0% 0% 0% 0% *May not sum to 100% due to rounding 9.3 SHIPMENTS PROJECTION DOE has previously identified that sales of electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 are driven by, and follow the same trend as private fixed investments9. In this preliminary analysis, DOE relied on its previous findings to project shipments of electric motors and performed the following steps: (a) DOE chained (2020=1) the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Business Fixed Investments from the DOE’s Energy Information Administration (EIA)’s Annual Energy Outlook 2021 (AEO2021) and estimated a linear model to express GDP as a function of Business Fixed Investments. Figure 9.3.1 presents the linear relationship DOE derived from the chained GDP and Business Fixed Investment chained values for 2020 to 2050. 9-5 Figure 9.3.1 Relationship between Chained GDP and Business Fixed Investments (20202050) (b) DOE estimated a quadratic model to extrapolate the chained GDP and used the model to project chained GDP values from 2051 to 2055, the last shipment year in the analysis period. Figure 9.3.2 shows the model DOE estimated and the chained GDP projection. Figure 9.3.2 Projection of Chained GDP (c) DOE used the relationship described in (a), the chained AEO 2021 GDP values, and the chained GDP values projected through 2055 in (b) to project chained Business Fixed Investment values from 2051 to 2055. Figure 9.3.3 shows the chained Business Fixed 9-6 Investments DOE projected through 2055. The chained Business Fixed Investments provide a trend for electric motor shipments, which DOE applied to its estimates of shipments in 2020. Figure 9.3.3 Projection of Chained Business Fixed Investments DOE used the approach described above to estimate chained values of Business Fixed Investments for the AEO 2021 Reference-, Low- and High Economic Growth scenarios. Table 9.3.1 shows the parameters DOE estimated for the models described in (a) and (b) above for each AEO economic growth scenario. Table 9.3.1 Shipment Projections Modeling Parameter Estimates AEO Scenario (a) BFI = f(GDP) (b) GDP = f(t) Reference BFI = 1.659 * GDP – 0.711 R2=0.999 GDP = 0.00015t2 + 0.0239t + 1.0019 R2=0.999 Low Growth BFI = 1.578 * GDP – 0.607 R2=0.997 GDP = 0.00006t2 + 0.0175t + 0.9968 R2=0.999 BFI = 1.650 * GDP – 0.721 R2=0.999 * BFI = Business Fixed Investments GDP = 0.00002t2 + 0.0299t + 1.0045 R2=0.999 High Growth DOE projected shipments of SNEMs and AO electric motors using a model driven by forecasted economic growth as previously used by DOE to project shipments of small electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.44610. DOE’s projections assumed that SNEM and AO electric motor sales are driven by macroeconomic activity of the sectors in which they are used. DOE used the estimated shares of shipments by sector shown in Table 9.2.3 to develop a weighted9-7 average market growth. Annual shipments growth rates for each sector are set as equal to annual growth rates in the following drivers, which are provided by the AEO 2021 through 2050: • • • Industrial and Agricultural: Manufacturing activity (total shipments—manufacturing only, in dollars); Commercial: Commercial floor space; Residential: Number of households. DOE continued the growth trend in AEO forecasts through 2055 by, first, determining the growth rate for these drivers between 2020 and 2050, and then continuing that rate from 2050 to 2055. DOE used the approach described above to estimate growth rates for the AEO 2021 Reference-, Low- and High Economic Growth scenarios. 9.4 IMPACTS OF STANDARDS ON CONSUMER CHOICE In each standard case, DOE accounted for the possibility that some consumers may choose to purchase a synchronous electric motor (out of scope of this preliminary analysis) rather than purchasing a more efficient NEMA Design A or B electric motor. DOE developed a consumer choice model to estimate the percentage of consumers that would purchase a synchronous electric motor based on the payback period of such investment. DOE estimated the payback period of the investment on a synchronous electric motor as the quotient between the additional total installed cost and the annual operating cost savings of a synchronous electric motor relative to a NEMA Design A and B motor. To support the payback calculation, DOE estimated the total installed cost and annual operating cost of a synchronous electric motor. DOE scaled up the MSP of a NEMA Design A and B electric motor to estimate the MSP of the corresponding, potential substitute synchronous electric motor. DOE also accounted for the higher weight and associated shipments costs of a synchronous electric motor when estimating its total installed cost. DOE estimated the operating costs of a synchronous electric motor with a speed control, as described in chapter 5. DOE assumed that, in some cases, consumers that chose to purchase a synchronous electric motor would also see a reduction in energy use due to controls. DOE assumed a reduction in energy use of 30 percent based on information from a previous DOE study which reported ranges of energy savings from case studies of speed control installation.11 Table 9.4.1 shows the annual energy consumption DOE estimated for the substitute motors. DOE also assumed that consumers that operate with a variable load application and who do not already have a variable frequency drive would benefit from the additional energy reductions due to speed controls. DOE relied on information from a previous DOE study12 to estimate the share of consumers with variable load applications and without a variable frequency drive by sector and application (See Table 9.4.2). 9-8 Table 9.4.1 Shipments-Weighted Average Per-Unit Annual Energy Consumption of the Substitute for NEMA Design A and B Motors. NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor Horsepower Range 1 to 5 6 to 20 21 to 50 51 to 100 kWh/yr 3,957 20,506 20,506 95,696 Table 9.4.2 Percentage of Consumers with Variable Load Applications and No Variable Frequency Drive Application (Industrial) Industrial Commercial Air Compressor Pump* Fan Material Handling Material Processing Refrigeration Compressor Other 46.4% 6.9% 13.5% 25.7% 14.6% 55.8% 56.4% 18.9% 2.2% 18.8% 85.8% 1.5% 82.6% 56.9% * Also used for Agriculture For each standards case DOE calculated, for each consumer in the LCC sample with a no-new standards case efficiency below the efficiency level considered at that standards case, the payback period from investing in a new synchronous electric motor rather than purchasing a new NEMA Design A and B motor at the efficiency level set for that standard case. Because total installed costs and operating costs savings vary across consumers, the payback from investing in a synchronous electric motor also varies, and some consumers represented in the LCC sample would have larger payback periods than others. DOE assumed that consumers with a payback period equal to or shorter than 2 years13 would select a synchronous electric motor rather than a compliant NEMA Design A and B electric motor. Table 9.4.3 presents DOE’s estimates of the resulting percentages of consumers that would purchase a synchronous electric motor instead of a NEMA Design A or B electric motor, for the horsepower ranges that DOE believes these purchase substitutions may occur. 9-9 Table 9.4.3 Percentage of Consumers Purchasing Synchronous Electric Motors in each Standards Case Equipment Class Group NEMA Design A and B Electric Motor Horsepower Range (all poles and enclosures) Standard Case 1 to 5 EL 1 2.3% EL 2 2.6% EL 3 3.2% EL 4 5.8% 6 to 50 6.6% 7.3% 9.8% 10.5% 51 to 100 2.9% 5.0% 6.7% 7.7% 9.5 RESULTS 9.5.1 Shipments in the No-New-Standards Case Table 9.5.1 through Table 9.5.3 presents projected shipments of electric motors in the nonew-standards case. Table 9.5.1 Projected Shipments in the No-New Standards Case - Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 Equipment Class Group NEMA Design A and B Electric Motor NEMA Design C Electric Motor Fire Pump Electric Motor Horsepower Range (all poles and enclosures unless specified) 1 to 5 2026 2036 2046 2055 2,922 3,917 5,083 6,217 6 to 20 1,840 2,467 3,200 3,915 21 to 50 555 744 965 1,181 51 to 100 187 250 325 397 101 to 200 91 122 159 194 201 to 500 43 57 74 91 1 to 20 25 34 44 53 21 to 100 3.5 4.7 6.1 7.4 101 to 200 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 1 to 5 1.5 2.0 2.6 3.1 6 to 50 16 21 27 33 51 to 500 14 19 24 30 Shipments Projection (thousand units) 9-10 Table 9.5.2 Projected Shipments in the No-New Standards Case - SNEMs Equipment Class Group SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT) SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) SNEM Polyphase Horsepower Range (all poles and enclosures unless specified) 0.25 to 0.75 (open) 2026 2036 2046 2055 253 285 321 341 0.76 to 1.5 (open) 317 356 402 426 Above 1.5 (open) 771 866 978 1,038 0.25 to 0.75 (enclosed) 1,248 1,401 1,583 1,679 0.76 to 1.5 (enclosed) 845 950 1,073 1,138 Above 1.5 (enclosed) 909 1,021 1,153 1,223 Above 0.25 4,343 4,879 5,510 5,845 0.25 to 0.33 2,752 3,092 3,492 3,704 0.34 to 5 10,266 11,532 13,025 13,816 0.25 to 0.33 247 277 313 332 0.34 to 0.5 280 314 355 377 Above 0.5 487 548 618 656 Shipments Projection (thousand units) Table 9.5.3 Projected Shipments in the No-New Standards Case - AO Electric Motors Equipment Class Group AO-SNEM SinglePhase (High LRT) AO-SNEM SinglePhase (Medium LRT) AO-SNEM SinglePhase (Low LRT) AO-SNEM Polyphase AO-MEM Polyphase Horsepower Range (all poles and enclosures unless specified) 0.25 to 0.75 (open) 2026 2036 2046 2055 29 33 37 43 0.76 to 1.5 (open) 29 33 37 43 Above 1.5 (open) 265 297 335 390 0.25 to 0.75 (enclosed) 118 132 149 174 0.76 to 1.5 (enclosed) 383 429 485 564 Above 1.5 (enclosed) 235 264 298 347 Above 0.25 618 694 783 911 0.25 to 0.33 3,856 4,328 4,882 5,683 Above 0.34 3,149 3,535 3,988 4,642 0.25 to 0.33 13 14 16 19 0.34 to 0.5 18 21 23 27 Above 0.5 79 89 100 117 1 to 20 193 216 244 284 21 to 50 64 72 81 95 Above 51 7 8 9 11 Shipments Projection (thousand units) 9-11 9.5.2 Shipments Projections in the Standards Cases This section presents the shipments projected in each standards case considered. Because DOE assumed that some consumers may select synchronous motors instead of NEMA Design A and B electric motors between 1 - 100 horsepower, the shipments of NEMA Design A and B electric motors between 1 and 100 horsepower diminishes in the standards case, and are replaced by shipments of synchronous electric motors. See Table 9.5.4. Shipments for other electric motors equipment classes remain equal to the no-new standards case. See section 9.5.1. Table 9.5.4 Shipments Projected in each Standard Case (thousands) Standards Case Equipment Class Group NEMA Design A and B EL1 Substitute to NEMA Design A and B NEMA Design A and B EL2 Substitute to NEMA Design A and B NEMA Design A and B EL3 Substitute to NEMA Design A and B EL4 NEMA Design A and B Substitute to NEMA Horsepower Range 2026 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 1 to 5 6 to 20 21 to 50 51 to 100 1 to 5 6 to 20 21 to 50 51 to 100 1 to 5 6 to 20 21 to 50 51 to 100 1 to 5 6 to 20 21 to 50 51 to 100 1 to 5 6 to 20 21 to 50 51 to 100 1 to 5 6 to 20 21 to 50 51 to 100 1 to 5 6 to 20 21 to 50 2,855 1,719 519 181 67 121 36 5 2,846 1,705 515 178 77 135 41 9 2,829 1,659 501 174 93 181 55 12 2,829 1,659 501 3,206 1,931 582 204 75 136 41 6 3,196 1,915 578 199 86 151 46 10 3,177 1,863 562 196 104 203 61 14 3,177 1,863 562 3,738 2,251 679 237 88 158 48 7 3,726 2,233 674 233 100 176 53 12 3,705 2,173 655 228 122 237 71 16 3,705 2,173 655 4,217 2,539 766 268 99 179 54 8 4,203 2,519 760 262 113 199 60 14 4,179 2,451 739 258 137 267 81 18 4,179 2,451 739 4,842 2,916 880 308 114 205 62 9 4,826 2,892 873 301 130 228 69 16 4,799 2,814 849 296 158 307 93 21 4,799 2,814 849 5,498 3,311 999 349 129 233 70 11 5,480 3,284 991 342 147 259 78 18 5,449 3,195 964 336 179 348 105 24 5,449 3,195 964 6,074 3,657 1,103 386 143 257 78 12 6,054 3,628 1,095 378 163 287 86 20 6,019 3,530 1,065 371 198 385 116 26 6,019 3,530 1,065 51 to 100 1 to 5 6 to 20 174 93 181 196 104 203 228 122 237 258 137 267 296 158 307 336 179 348 371 198 385 9-12 Standards Case Equipment Class Group Design A and B Horsepower Range 2026 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 21 to 50 51 to 100 55 12 61 14 71 16 81 18 93 21 105 24 116 26 9.6 EXPANDED SCOPE ELECTRIC MOTORS DOE developed initial estimates of the shipments of different categories of electric motors that DOE may potentially consider in the expanded scope of the NOPR. See Table 9.6.1. Table 9.6.1 Initial Expanded Scope Shipments Estimates for 2020 Category Submersible Electric Motor* Electric Motors greater than 500 hp** Synchronous Electric Motors*** Sub-Category Units Single Phase 200,000 Polyphase Polyphase 50,000 Line Start Permanent Magnet 50,000 Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motors Switched Reluctance Synchronous Reluctance Electronically Commutated Motors (ECM) 2,000,000 * Based on 120,000 units of submersible motors in clean water pumps and assuming these represent approximately 70% of the total submersible motor market. ** Estimated assuming these represent 1% of currently regulated electric motors at 10 CFR 431.25. ***ECM shipments based on 2013 DOE study ( "Energy Savings Potential and Opportunities for High-Efficiency Electric Motors in Residential and Commercial Equipment") and other synchronous motor shipments estimated assuming these represent 1% of currently regulated electric motors. 9-13 REFERENCES 1. "Low-Voltage Motors, World Market Report, IHS Markit,” November 1, 2019. 2. Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Small Electric Motors Final Determination (Prepared for the Department of Energy by Staff Members of Navigant Consulting, Inc and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, March 2010). (Last accessed November 30, 2021.) https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007-0054. 3. Goetzler, W., T. Sutherland, and C. Reis. Energy Savings Potential and Opportunities for High-Efficiency Electric Motors in Residential and Commercial Equipment. 2013. Report No. DOE/EE--0975, 1220812. (Last accessed February 9, 2022.) http://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1220812/. 4. U.S. Census Bureau (August 1998), Motors and Generators – 1997.MA36H(97)-1. 5. U.S. Census Bureau (August 2003), Motors and Generators – 2002.MA335H(02)-1. 6. U.S. Census Bureau (November 2004), Motors and Generators – 2003.MA335H(03)-1. 7. U.S. Census Bureau (September 2002), Motors and Generators – MA335H(01)-1. 8. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Industrial Report: Manufacturing Profiles, 1994-1998. 9. Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Electric Motors Final Determination (Prepared for the Department of Energy by Staff Members of Navigant Consulting, Inc and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, May 2021). https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0108. 10. Small Electric Motors Final Rule Analytical Spreadsheets: Small Capacitor-Start Electric Motors National Impact Analysis Spreadsheet. (Last accessed February 9, 2022.) https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007-0055. 11. U.S Department of Energy. United States Industrial Electric Motor Systems Market Opportunities Assessment. 2002. 12. Rao, P., P. Sheaffer, Y. Chen, M. Goldberg, B. Jones, J. Cropp, and J. Hester. U.S. Industrial and Commercial Motor System Market Assessment Report Volume 1: Characteristics of the Installed Base. 2021. Report No. None, 1760267, ark:/13030/qt42f631k3. (Last accessed August 6, 2021.) https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1760267/. 13. Elliott, R. N. Energy Investment Decisions in the Industrial Sector Prepared for the Energy Information Administration, December 9. 2007. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/documentation/workshops/pdf/energy_investments.pdf 9-14 CHAPTER 10. NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS 10.1 10.2 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 10-1 REPRESENTATIVE UNITS AND NON- REPRESENTATIVE EQUIPMENT CLASSES ...................................................................................................................... 10-2 10.2.1 Annual Energy Consumption Values for Non-Representative Equipment Classes ...... 10-4 10.2.2 Per-Unit Retail Price and Installation Costs Values for Non-Represented Equipment Classes ......................................................................................................... 10-5 10.3 PROJECTED ENERGY EFFICIENCY TREND .......................................................... 10-8 10.4 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS ............................................................................... 10-9 10.4.1 Definition ..................................................................................................................... 10-10 10.4.2 Annual Energy Consumption per Unit ........................................................................ 10-10 10.4.3 Shipments and Equipment Stock ................................................................................. 10-13 10.4.4 Site-to-Primary Energy Conversion Factor ................................................................. 10-13 10.4.5 Full-Fuel-Cycle Multipliers ......................................................................................... 10-14 10.5 NET PRESENT VALUE ............................................................................................. 10-15 10.5.1 Definition ..................................................................................................................... 10-15 10.5.2 Total Installed Cost ...................................................................................................... 10-16 10.5.3 Annual Operating Costs Savings ................................................................................. 10-19 10.5.4 Discount Factor ............................................................................................................ 10-19 10.5.5 Present Value of Increased Installed Costs and Savings ............................................. 10-20 10.6 RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 10-20 10.6.1 National Energy Savings.............................................................................................. 10-20 10.6.2 Net Present Value ........................................................................................................ 10-23 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 10-28 LIST OF TABLES Table 10.1.1 Inputs to Calculating National Energy Savings and Net Present Value ............ 10-1 Table 10.2.1 Representative Units and Associated Horsepower Ranges for Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 ................................................................. 10-3 Table 10.2.2 Representative Units and Associated Horsepower Ranges for SNEMs ............ 10-3 Table 10.2.3 Representative Units and Associated Horsepower Ranges for AO Electric Motors ................................................................................................................ 10-4 Table 10.2.4 MSP scaling indices ........................................................................................... 10-6 Table 10.2.5 Weight scaling indices ....................................................................................... 10-8 Table 10.3.1 No-new Standards Case Efficiency Distributions by Efficiency Level in 2026.................................................................................................................... 10-9 Table 10.4.1 Shipments-Weighted Average Per-Unit Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level (kWh/yr) - Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 .... 10-11 Table 10.4.2 Average Per-Unit Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level (kWh/yr) - SNEMs ........................................................................................... 10-11 10-i Table 10.4.3 Average Per-Unit Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level (kWh/yr) - AO Electric Motors....................................................................... 10-12 Table 10.4.4 Shipments-Weighted Average Per-Unit Annual Energy Consumption of the Substitute for NEMA Design A and B Motors. ......................................... 10-13 Table 10.4.5 Site-to-Primary Conversion Factors (MMBtu primary/MWh site) Used for Electric Motors................................................................................................. 10-14 Table 10.4.6 Full-Fuel-Cycle Energy Multipliers (based on AEO 2021) ............................. 10-15 Table 10.5.1 Shipments-Weighted Average Total Installed Cost by Efficiency Level Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 (2020$) .................................... 10-17 Table 10.5.2 Average Total Installed Cost by Efficiency Level - SNEMs (2020$) ............. 10-17 Table 10.5.3 Average Total Installed Cost by Efficiency Level - AO Electric Motors (2020$) ............................................................................................................. 10-18 Table 10.5.4 Shipments-Weighted Average Total Installed Costs of the Substitute for NEMA Design A and B Motors....................................................................... 10-19 Table 10.6.1 Cumulative Primary National Energy Savings for Electric Motors (Quads) .. 10-21 Table 10.6.2 Cumulative Primary National Energy Savings for SNEMs (Quads) ............... 10-21 Table 10.6.3 Cumulative Primary National Energy Savings for AO Electric Motors (Quads)............................................................................................................. 10-22 Table 10.6.4 Cumulative Full Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings for Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 (Quads) .............................................................. 10-22 Table 10.6.5 Cumulative Full Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings for SNEMs (Quads) ... 10-23 Table 10.6.6 Cumulative Full Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings for AO Electric Motors (Quads) ................................................................................................ 10-23 Table 10.6.7 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL (billion $2020), 3% Discount Rate - Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 ........................ 10-24 Table 10.6.8 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL (billion $2020), 3% Discount Rate - SNEMs ................................................................................... 10-24 Table 10.6.9 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL (billion $2020), 3% Discount Rate - AO Electric Motors ................................................................ 10-25 Table 10.6.10 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL (billion $2020), 7% Discount Rate - Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 ........................ 10-26 Table 10.6.11 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL (billion $2020), 7% Discount Rate - SNEMs ................................................................................... 10-26 Table 10.6.12 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL (billion $2020), 7% Discount Rate - AO Electric Motors ................................................................ 10-27 10-ii CHAPTER 10. NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 10.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the methods the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) used to conduct a national impact analysis (NIA) of potential energy efficiency standard levels for electric motors, and the results of the analysis. For each potential standard level, DOE evaluated the following impacts: (1) national energy savings (NES), (2) monetary value of the energy savings for consumers of electric motors, (3) increased total installed costs, and (4) the net present value (NPV), which is the difference between the savings in operating costs and the increase in total installed costs. DOE determined the NES and NPV for all the efficiency levels (ELs) considered for electric motors. DOE performed all calculations using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet model, which is accessible on the Internet at www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/. The spreadsheet combines the calculations for determining the NES and NPV for each considered EL with input from the appropriate shipments model. The NIA calculation starts with the shipments model. Chapter 9 of this TSD provides a detailed description of the shipments model that DOE used to project future purchases of electric motors, and how standards might affect the level of shipments. The analysis is described more fully in subsequent sections. The descriptions include overviews of how DOE performed each model’s calculations and summaries of the major inputs. Table 10.1.1 summarizes inputs to the NIA model. The efficiency levels referenced in this chapter are detailed in Chapter 5 of the TSD. Table 10.1.1 Inputs to Calculating National Energy Savings and Net Present Value Input Data Description Shipments Annual shipments from shipments model (chapter 9). Compliance date of standard 2026. Analysis period For equipment shipped between 2026 through 2055 Energy efficiency in no-newNo efficiency trend in the no-new-standards case standards case Energy efficiency in standards cases Roll-up scenario Annual energy consumption per unit Annual shipments-weighted unit energy consumption (UEC) as a function of efficiency level (see chapter 7). Total installed cost per unit Annual shipments-weighted-average values as a function of efficiency level. Energy cost per unit Annual weighted-average values as a function of the annual UEC and energy prices (see chapter 8 for energy prices). 10-1 Input Repair and maintenance costs per unit Trend in energy prices Energy site-to-primary factor Full-fuel-cycle multiplier Discount rate Present year 10.2 Data Description Lifetime repair cost as a function of efficiency level (see chapter 8). Based on Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2021 Reference case (see chapter 8). A time-series conversion factor that accounts for energy used to generate electricity. Developed to include the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting or distributing primary fuels. 3 percent and 7 percent. Future expenses are discounted to 2021. REPRESENTATIVE UNITS AND NON- REPRESENTATIVE EQUIPMENT CLASSES In the NIA, DOE analyzes the energy and economic impacts of a potential standard on all equipment classes aggregated by horsepower range. Non-representative equipment classes (i.e., those not analyzed in the engineering, energy-use, and LCC analyses) are estimated using results for the analyzed equipment classes that best represents each non-representative equipment class. See Table 10.2.1, Table 10.2.2, and Table 10.2.3. For electric motors regulated at 10 CFR431.25 where the representative unit covers a wide horsepower range, DOE scaled the results of the representative units. For example, results from representative unit 1 (NEMA Design A and B electric motor, 5 horsepower, 4 poles, enclosed) were scaled to represent all NEMA Design A and B electric motor equipment classes between 1 and 5 horsepower. For SNEM and AO electric motors, where the representative units covered a narrower horsepower range, DOE did not perform any scaling and directly used the results of the representative unit. For electric motors regulated at 10 CFR431.25 where the representative unit covers a wide horsepower range, DOE scaled the results of the representative units as follows: • Annual energy consumption values of the non-representative equipment classes at EL0 were calculated by applying the ratio of the current federal standard and ratio of horsepower to the annual energy consumption of the representative units. DOE also assumed that the incremental decrease in energy use between efficiency levels is the same for representative and non-representative equipment classes. See section 10.2.1 for more detail. • Retail price and installation costs (i.e., shipping costs) at EL0 were estimated using retail price and weight data obtained from four manufacturers online catalogs ("2020 Manufacturer Catalog Data")1, 2, 3, 4 and outputs from the engineering analysis. DOE further assumed that the incremental change in MSP and weights between efficiency levels is the same for representative and non-representative equipment classes. See section 10.2.2 for more detail. 10-2 • Repair costs for each non-representative equipment class were estimated based on information from Vaughen's National Average Prices. For each equipment class group and horsepower range analyzed in the NIA, DOE then developed shipment-weighted average inputs per unit. Table 10.2.1 Representative Units and Associated Horsepower Ranges for Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 Equipment Class Group NEMA Design A and B Electric Motor NEMA Design C Electric Motor Fire Pump Electric Motor 1 Horsepower of the Representative Unit (4 poles, enclosed) 5 2 30 6 to 20 2 30 21 to 50 3 75 51 to 100 9 150 101 to 200 10 250 201 to 500 4 5 1 to 20 5 50 21 to 100 11 150 101 to 200 6 5 1 to 5 7 30 6 to 50 8 75 51 to 500 Associated Representative Unit Horsepower Range (all poles and enclosures) 1 to 5 Table 10.2.2 Representative Units and Associated Horsepower Ranges for SNEMs Equipment Class Group SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT) SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) SNEM Polyphase 12 Horsepower (4-pole, enclosed unless specified otherwise) 0.33 (open) Horsepower Range (all poles and enclosures unless specified otherwise) 0.25 to 0.75 (open) 13 1 (open) 0.76 to 1.5 (open) 14 2 (open) Above 1.5 (open) 15 0.25 (enclosed) 0.25 to 0.75 (enclosed) 16 1 (enclosed) 0.76 to 1.5 (enclosed) 17 3 (enclosed) Above 1.5 (enclosed) 18 0.33 (open) Above 0.25 19 0.25 (6-pole, open) 0.25 to 0.33 20 0.5 (6-pole, open) 0.34 to 5 21 0.33 0.25 to 0.33 22 0.5 0.34 to 0.5 23 0.75 Above 0.5 Representative Unit 10-3 Table 10.2.3 Representative Units and Associated Horsepower Ranges for AO Electric Motors Equipment Class Group AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) AO-SNEM Polyphase AO-MEM Polyphase 24 Horsepower (4-pole, enclosed unless specified otherwise) 0.33 (open) Horsepower Range (all poles and enclosures unless specified otherwise) 0.25 to 0.75 (open) 25 1 (open) 0.76 to 1.5 (open) 26 2 (open) Above 1.5 (open) 27 0.25 (enclosed) 0.25 to 0.75 (enclosed) 28 1 (enclosed) 0.76 to 1.5 (enclosed) 29 3 (enclosed) Above 1.5 (enclosed) 30 0.33 (open) Above 0.25 31 0.25 (6-pole, open) 0.25 to 0.33 32 0.5 (6-pole, open) Above 0.34 33 0.33 0.25 to 0.33 34 0.5 0.34 to 0.5 35 0.75 Above 0.5 36 5 1 to 20 37 30 21 to 50 38 75 Above 51 Representative Unit 10.2.1 Annual Energy Consumption Values for Non-Representative Equipment Classes This section describes the method used to scale the annual energy consumption values of the representative unit to non-representative equipment classes for electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25. For SNEMs and AO electric motors, no scaling was applied. DOE derived annual energy consumption values (or unit energy consumption "UEC") for each non-representative equipment class at each EL considered as follows: first, DOE calculated the annual energy consumption at EL0 using the following equations: 𝜂𝜂𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 × 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 = 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 × 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝜂𝜂𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 Where: 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 = annual energy consumption of the non-representative equipment class at EL0 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 = annual energy consumption of the associated representative unit at EL0 (see a chapter 6) 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = horsepower of the non-representative equipment class For example, for all equipment classes that are NEMA Design A and B motors between 1 and 5 horsepower, the associated representative unit is representative unit 1. a 10-4 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝜂𝜂𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 𝜂𝜂𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 = horsepower of the associated representative unit = nominal full-load efficiency of the non-representative equipment class at EL0 = nominal full-load efficiency of the associated representative unit at EL0 To obtain annual consumption value at higher ELs, DOE applied the same incremental change than observed in the associated representative unit: 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 × 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 Where: 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = annual energy consumption of the non-representative equipment class at the considered EL 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = annual energy consumption of the associated representative unit at the considered EL (See chapter 6) At each EL, DOE then calculated the shipment-weighted average annual energy consumption values for each equipment class group and horsepower range considered in the NIA. (See Chapter 9 for details regarding the shipments distributions by equipment class). 10.2.2 Per-Unit Retail Price and Installation Costs Values for Non-Represented Equipment Classes This section describes the method used to scale the retail price and installation costs (i.e., shipping costs) of the representative unit to non-representative equipment classes for electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25. For SNEMs and AO electric motors, no scaling was applied. DOE derived retail price and installation costs (i.e., shipping costs) for each nonrepresentative equipment class at each EL considered as follows: first, DOE used the model established in chapter 8 to estimate the MSP at EL0 for all non-representative equipment classes that are 4-poles, enclosed. b (See Chapter 8) Then, DOE derived a set of indices to characterize how baseline MSPs (or retail price) vary with pole and enclosure across a fixed range of horsepower rating. DOE established these indices using statistical estimates derived from a database of motor prices which DOE built upon data collected from 2020 catalog data from four large manufacturers (2020 Manufacturer Catalog Data). DOE used the following regression model to estimate MSPs for all motor configurations (poles and enclosure) of a given horsepower range: Where: 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = 𝛽𝛽𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 + 𝛽𝛽𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 + 𝛽𝛽𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 . 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 + 𝜀𝜀 In chapter 8, DOE derived a model to estimate the MSP as a function of horsepower for 4 poles enclosed electric motors. b 10-5 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝛽𝛽𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝛽𝛽𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝛽𝛽𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝜀𝜀 = MSP of a baseline (EL0) motor = Indicates whether the model’s enclosure is ‘enclosed’ (𝛽𝛽𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 = 1) = Indicates whether the model’s enclosure is ‘open’ (𝛽𝛽𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 = 1) = Regression coefficient that applies to the number of poles of a model = Number the poles of a model = Statistical error. DOE used the MSP it estimated for a 4-pole enclosed motor from the regression model above to normalize the MSP values it estimated and calculate the corresponding MSP indices. Table 10.2.4 shows the MSP scaling indices DOE estimated for each motor configuration and horsepower range. Table 10.2.4 MSP scaling indices Enclosed Horsepower Range 2 poles 4 poles 6 poles Open 8 poles 2 poles 4 poles 6 poles 8 poles 1 to 5 0.863 1.000 1.137 1.274 0.571 0.708 0.845 0.981 6 to 50 0.738 1.000 1.262 1.524 0.541 0.803 1.065 1.327 51 to 100 0.764 1.000 1.236 1.472 0.443 0.679 0.915 1.151 101 to 200 0.908 1.000 1.092 1.183 0.680 0.772 0.864 0.955 201 to 500 0.966 1.000 1.034 1.068 0.775 0.809 0.843 0.877 DOE applied these indices to the MSPs of 4 poles enclosed electric motors, to estimate the MSPs of all non-representative equipment classes at EL0. (See Appendix 10A) DOE calculated the purchase price of each non-represented equipment class at EL0 as follows: Where: 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 = 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 × 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 = retail price of the non-representative equipment class at EL0 = retail price of the associated representative unit at EL0 (See chapter 8) = MSP of the non-representative equipment class at EL0 = MSP of the associated representative unit at EL0 (See chapter 8) To obtain retail price values at higher ELs, DOE applied the same incremental change as observed in the associated representative unit: 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 × 10-6 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 Where: 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 EL 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 (See chapter 6) = retail price of the non-representative equipment class at the considered = retail price of the associated representative unit at the considered EL At each EL, DOE then calculated the shipments-weighted average price for each equipment class group and horsepower range considered in the NIA, using the shipments distributions described in Chapter 9. DOE followed the same approach, using the models developed in chapter 8 to estimate the weights of non-representative equipment classes at EL0. DOE derived a set of indices to characterize how baseline weights vary with pole and enclosure across a fixed range of horsepower rating. DOE established these indices using statistical estimates derived from a database of motor weights which DOE built upon data collected from 2020 catalog data from four large manufacturers (2020 Manufacturer Catalog Data). The resulting weight values are presented in Appendix 10A. DOE used the following regression model to estimate weights for all motor configurations (poles and enclosure) of a given horsepower range: Where: 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝛽𝛽𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝛽𝛽𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝛽𝛽𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝜀𝜀 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 = 𝛽𝛽𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 + 𝛽𝛽𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 + 𝛽𝛽𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 . 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 + 𝜀𝜀 = Weight of a baseline (EL0) motor = Indicates whether the model’s enclosure is ‘enclosed’ (𝛽𝛽𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 = 1) = Indicates whether the model’s enclosure is ‘open’ (𝛽𝛽𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 = 1) = Regression coefficient that applies to the number of poles of a model = Number the poles of a model = Statistical error. DOE used the weight it estimated for a 4-pole enclosed motor from the regression model above to normalize the weight values it estimated and calculate the corresponding weight indices. Table 10.2.5 shows the weight scaling indices DOE estimated for each motor configuration and horsepower range. 10-7 Table 10.2.5 Weight scaling indices Enclosed Horsepower Range 2 poles 4 poles 6 poles Open 8 poles 2 poles 4 poles 6 poles 8 poles 1 to 5 0.682 1.000 1.318 1.635 0.544 0.862 1.179 1.497 6 to 50 0.726 1.000 1.274 1.548 0.572 0.846 1.120 1.394 51 to 100 0.738 1.000 1.262 1.525 0.542 0.805 1.067 1.329 101 to 200 0.875 1.000 1.125 1.251 0.586 0.711 0.837 0.962 201 to 500 0.913 1.000 1.087 1.174 0.639 0.726 0.813 0.900 DOE then relied on the weight data to calculate the installation costs of nonrepresentative equipment classes as follows: 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 = 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 × 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊ℎ𝑡𝑡𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊ℎ𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 Where: 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = Installation costs of the non-representative equipment class at EL0 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 = Installation costs of the associated representative unit at EL0 (See chapter 6) 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊ℎ𝑡𝑡𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = weight of the non-representative equipment class at EL0 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊ℎ𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 = weight of the associated representative unit at EL0 (See chapter 6) To obtain installation costs values at higher ELs, DOE applied the same incremental change than observed in the associated representative unit: 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 × 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 Where: 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = Installation costs of the non-representative equipment class at the considered EL 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = Installation costs of the associated representative unit at the considered EL (See chapter 6) At each EL, DOE then calculated the shipments-weighted average installation costs for each equipment class group and horsepower range considered in the NIA, using the shipments distributions described in Chapter 9. 10.3 PROJECTED ENERGY EFFICIENCY TREND The trend in forecasted energy efficiency is a key factor in estimating NES and NPV for the no-new-standards case and each potential standards case. For calculating the NES, per-unit average annual energy consumption is a direct function of equipment energy efficiency. For the 10-8 NPV, both the per-unit total installed cost and the per-unit annual operating cost are dependent on equipment energy efficiency. DOE used the shipments-weighted energy efficiency distribution for 2026 (the assumed date of compliance with a new standard) as a starting point (See Table 10.3.1). To represent the distribution of equipment energy efficiencies in 2026, DOE used the same market shares as used in the no-new-standards case for the life-cycle cost analysis (described in chapter 8 of this TSD). To project efficiencies for the no-new-standards case, DOE assumed no changes in the shipments-weighted energy efficiency distribution over time. Table 10.3.1 No-new Standards Case Efficiency Distributions by Efficiency Level in 2026 Equipment Class Group NEMA Design A and B NEMA Design C Fire Pump Electric Motor Horsepower Range 1 to 5 6 to 50 51 to 100 101 to 200 201 to 500 1 to 20 21 to 100 101 to 200 1 to 5 6 to 50 51 to 500 * May not sum to 100% due to rounding EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 84.8% 83.2% 77.8% 77.4% 84.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 95.8% 100.0% 9.1% 10.4% 13.1% 12.8% 13.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.2% 0.0% 4.1% 5.4% 7.1% 9.3% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.9% 1.7% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% To determine the standards-case efficiencies, DOE assumed a “roll-up” scenario to establish the shipment-weighted efficiency for the year that standards are assumed to take effect. DOE assumed that equipment efficiencies in the no-new-standard case that did not meet the standard under consideration would “roll up” to meet the new standard level. DOE also assumed that all equipment efficiencies in the no-new-standard case that exceeded the standard would not be affected. Taking this standards-case efficiency distribution as a starting point, DOE assumed no changes in the shipments-weighted energy efficiency distribution over time. 10.4 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS DOE calculated the NES associated with the difference between the no-new-standards case and each standards case for electric motors. DOE’s analysis considers lifetime energy use of equipment shipped in the 30-year period beginning in the compliance year—in this case, 2026. The analysis period ends when all of the equipment shipped in the 30-year period are retired from the stock. DOE calculates NES expressed as: • Site energy: Accounts for the electricity used, • Primary energy: Accounts for the energy used to generate electricity, 10-9 • Full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy: Accounts for the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting or distributing primary fuels. 10.4.1 Definition DOE calculates annual NES for a given year as the difference between the national annual energy consumption (AEC) in a no-new-standards case and a standards case. Cumulative energy savings are the sum of annual NES throughout the analysis period. In determining national AEC, DOE first calculates AEC at the site. DOE calculates the national annual site energy consumption by multiplying the number or stock of the equipment (by vintage) by its unit energy consumption (also by vintage). National annual energy consumption is calculated using the following equation: Where: AEC-s STOCKV UECV V y 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶-𝑠𝑠𝑦𝑦 = � 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐾𝐾𝑉𝑉 × 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝐶𝐶𝑉𝑉 = annual national site energy consumption in quadrillion British thermal units (quads), = stock of equipment of vintage V that survive in the year for which DOE calculates the AEC, = annual energy consumption per unit, = year in which the equipment was purchased as a new unit, = year in the forecast. The stock of an equipment depends on annual shipments and the lifetime of the equipment. As described in chapter 9 of this TSD, DOE projected equipment shipments under the no-new-standards case and standards cases. To avoid including savings attributable to shipments displaced (units not purchased) because of standards, DOE used the projected standards-case shipments and, in turn, the standards-case stock, to calculate the AEC for the nonew-standards case. DOE applies conversion factors to site energy to calculate primary AEC and to primary energy to calculate FFC AEC. 10.4.2 Annual Energy Consumption per Unit The annual energy consumption per unit inputs used in the NIA are presented in Table 10.4.1 through Table 10.4.3. For electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431, DOE developed perunit annual energy consumption as a function of equipment energy efficiency for electric motors (see section 10.2.1). DOE used the shipments-weighted energy efficiency distributions in the nonew-standards case and standards cases, along with the estimates of shipments-weighted annual energy use by efficiency level, to estimate the shipments-weighted annual average per-unit energy use under the no-new-standards and standards cases. See chapter 8 for more detail on the 10-10 efficiency distributions. Table 10.4.1 show the values applied by equipment class group and horsepower range for electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25. For SNEMs and AO motors, DOE did not apply any scaling and directly uses the results of the representative units. Table 10.4.1 Shipments-Weighted Average Per-Unit Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level (kWh/yr) - Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 Equipment Class Group NEMA Design A and B NEMA Design C Fire Pump Electric Motor Horsepower Range 1 to 5 6 to 20 21 to 50 51 to 100 101 to 200 201 to 500 1 to 20 21 to 100 101 to 200 1 to 5 6 to 50 51 to 500 EL0 4,636.2 23,288.0 63,104.9 103,190.7 273,389.9 632,108.5 9,903.5 62,447.7 247,716.0 3.5 31.4 148.2 EL1 4,603.7 23,174.2 62,796.5 102,759.2 272,238.5 629,454.2 9,823.4 62,115.3 246,390.8 3.4 30.9 145.9 EL2 4,575.9 23,073.1 62,522.5 102,524.8 271,605.4 627,874.8 9,733.3 61,971.9 245,768.5 3.4 30.7 145.2 EL3 4,539.8 22,961.5 62,220.2 102,205.7 270,753.6 625,911.7 9,655.8 61,703.5 244,701.4 3.4 30.6 144.5 EL4 4,509.0 22,866.8 61,963.5 101,888.4 269,907.1 62,3960.8 9,593.3 61,703.5 244,701.4 3.3 30.2 143.5 Table 10.4.2 Average Per-Unit Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level (kWh/yr) - SNEMs Equipment Class Group SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT) SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) SNEM Polyphase Horsepower Range (all poles and enclosures unless specified otherwise) 0.25 to 0.75 (open) EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 886 842 697 - - 0.76 to 1.5 (open) 2,074 2,015 1,790 - - Above 1.5 (open) 0.25 to 0.75 (enclosed) 0.76 to 1.5 (enclosed) 4,101 3,885 3,573 - - 718 691 518 - - 2,099 2,005 1,799 - - Above 1.5 (enclosed) 5,849 5,603 5,195 - - Above 0.25 1,193 1,104 1,049 - - 0.25 to 0.33 1,606 1,344 1,021 898 - 0.34 to 5 1,835 1,835 1,530 1,426 - 0.25 to 0.33 891 821 809 761 728 0.34 to 0.5 1,213 1,157 1,121 1,087 1,036 Above 0.5 1,691 1,617 1,583 1,549 1,493 10-11 Table 10.4.3 Average Per-Unit Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level (kWh/yr) - AO Electric Motors Equipment Class Group AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) AO-SNEM Polyphase AO-MEM Polyphase Horsepower Range (all poles and enclosures unless specified otherwise) 0.25 to 0.75 (open) EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 1,134 1,082 910 - - 0.76 to 1.5 (open) 2,823 2,749 2,468 - - Above 1.5 (open) 5,476 5,208 4,824 - - 0.25 to 0.75 (enclosed) 931 898 691 - - 0.76 to 1.5 (enclosed) 2,822 2,706 2,450 - - Above 1.5 (enclosed) 7,989 7,675 7,157 - - Above 0.25 1,244 1,158 1,104 - - 0.25 to 0.33 1,457 1,230 949 - - Above 0.34 1,743 1,743 1,472 1,379 - 0.25 to 0.33 1,035 961 948 897 - 0.34 to 0.5 1,420 1,361 1,322 1,286 1,230 Above 0.5 1,995 1,916 1,879 1,843 1,781 1 to 20 11,468 11,210 11,139 11,090 10,936 21 to 50 65,628 64,691 64,397 64,119 63,577 Above 51 156,982 156,982 156,330 156,148 155,186 In addition, as discussed in chapter 9, in each standard case, DOE accounted for the possibility that some consumers may choose to purchase a synchronous electric motor (out of scope of this preliminary analysis) rather than purchasing a more efficient NEMA Design A or B electric motor between 1 and 100 horsepower. The shipments-weighted average annual energy use of the substitute electric motor for each considered horsepower range is summarized in Table 10.4.4. See chapter 9 for more details. 10-12 Table 10.4.4 Shipments-Weighted Average Per-Unit Annual Energy Consumption of the Substitute for NEMA Design A and B Motors. NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor Horsepower Range 1 to 5 6 to 20 21 to 50 51 to 100 kWh/yr 3,957.2 20,506.3 20,506.3 95,695.8 10.4.3 Shipments and Equipment Stock As described in chapter 9, DOE forecasted shipments of electric motors under the nonew-standard case and all standards cases. Because the increased total installed cost of more efficient products may cause some customers to forego purchasing the product, shipments forecasted under the standards cases may be lower than under the no-new-standards case. DOE believes it would be inappropriate to count energy savings that result from a decline in shipments because of standards. Therefore, each time a standards case was compared with the no-newstandards case, DOE used shipments associated with that particular standards case. As a result, all of the calculated energy savings are attributable to higher energy efficiency in the standards case. The equipment stock in a given year is the number of equipment shipped from earlier years that survive in that year. The shipments model, which feeds into the NIA, tracks the number of units shipped each year. DOE assumes that equipment have an increasing probability of retiring as they age. The probability of survival as a function of years since purchase is called the survival function. These were derived from the lifetime distributions described in Chapter 8 of this TSD. 10.4.4 Site-to-Primary Energy Conversion Factor The site-to-primary energy conversion factor is a multiplicative factor used to convert site energy consumption into primary or source energy consumption, expressed in quads. For electricity from the grid, primary energy consumption is equal to the heat content of the fuels used to generate that electricity. c For natural gas and fuel oil, primary energy is equivalent to site energy. DOE used annual conversion factors based on the version of the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) d that corresponds to AEO 2021.7 The factors are marginal values, which represent the response of the national power system to incremental changes in For electricity sources such as nuclear energy and renewable energy, the primary energy is calculated using the convention used by EIA (see appendix 10B). d For more information on NEMS, refer to the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration documentation. A useful summary is National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 2000, DOE/EIA0581(2000), March 2000. EIA approves use of the name NEMS to describe only an official version of the model with no modification to code or data. c 10-13 consumption. The conversion factors change over time in response to projected changes in generation sources (the types of power plants projected to provide electricity). Specific conversion factors were generated from NEMS for a number of end uses in each sector. Appendix 10B describes how DOE derived these factors. Table 10.4.5 shows the conversion factors used for electric motors. DOE used the factors corresponding to ‘other uses’ in the commercial and residential sector and factors that apply to all uses in the industrial sector. DOE applied shipments-weighted average factors based on the fraction of shipments sold to each sector as presented in chapter 8. Table 10.4.5 Site-to-Primary Conversion Factors (MMBtu primary/MWh site) Used for Electric Motors 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050+ Commercial Other Uses 9.389 9.161 9.162 9.111 9.062 9.042 Residential Other Uses 9.484 9.259 9.258 9.206 9.154 9.134 Industrial All Uses 9.389 9.161 9.162 9.111 9.062 9.042 10.4.5 Full-Fuel-Cycle Multipliers DOE uses an FFC multiplier to account for the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting or distributing primary fuels, which are referred to as upstream activities. DOE developed FFC multipliers using data and projections generated for AEO 2021. AEO 2021 provides extensive information about the energy system, including projections of future oil, natural gas, and coal supplies; energy use for oil and gas field and refinery operations; and fuel consumption and emissions related to electric power production. The information can be used to define a set of parameters that represent the energy intensity of energy production. The method used to calculate FFC energy multipliers is described in appendix 10B of this TSD. The multipliers are applied to primary energy consumption. Table 10.4.6 shows the FFC energy multipliers for selected years. 10-14 Table 10.4.6 Full-Fuel-Cycle Energy Multipliers (based on AEO 2021) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Electricity 10.5 1.042 1.039 1.038 1.037 1.038 2050+ 1.037 NET PRESENT VALUE 10.5.1 Definition The NPV is the value in the present of a time-series of costs and savings. The NPV is described by the equation: NPV = PVS _ PVC Where: PVS PVC = present value of operating cost savings, e and = present value of increased total installed costs (purchase price and any installation costs). DOE determines the PVS and PVC according to the following expressions. PVS = ∑ OCSy × DFy Where: OCS DF TIC y PVC = ∑TICy × DFy = total annual savings in operating costs summed over vintages of the stock; = discount factor in each year; = total annual increases in installed cost summed over vintages of the stock; and = year in the forecast. DOE calculated the total annual consumer savings in operating costs by multiplying the number or stock of the equipment (by vintage) by its per-unit operating cost savings (also by vintage). DOE calculated the total annual increases in consumer product price by multiplying the number or shipments of the product (by vintage) by its per-unit increase in consumer cost (also by vintage). Total annual operating cost savings and total annual product installed cost increases are calculated by the following equations. OCS y = ∑ STOCK V × UOCSV e The operating cost includes energy, water (if relevant), repair, and maintenance. 10-15 Where: OCSy = STOCKV = UOCSV V TICy SHIPy UTICy = = = = = TIC y = ∑ SHIPy × UTIC y operating cost savings per unit in year y, stock of equipment of vintage V that survive in the year for which DOE calculated annual energy consumption, annual operating cost savings per unit of vintage V, year in which the equipment was purchased as a new unit; total increase in installed equipment cost in year y. shipments of the equipment in year y; and annual per-unit increase in installed product cost in year y. DOE determined the total increased product cost for each year from 2026 to 2055. DOE determined the present value of operating cost savings for each year from 2026 to the year when all units purchased in 2055 are estimated to retire (2084). DOE calculated installed cost and operating cost savings as the difference between a standards case and a no-new-standards case. As with the calculation of NES, DOE did not use no-new-standards case shipments to calculate total annual installed costs and operating cost savings. To avoid including savings attributable to shipments displaced by consumers deciding not to buy higher-cost products, DOE used the standards-case projection of shipments and, in turn, the standards-case stock, to calculate these quantities. DOE developed a discount factor from the national discount rate and the number of years between the “present” (year to which the sum is being discounted) and the year in which the costs and savings occur. 10.5.2 Total Installed Cost The total installed cost inputs used in the NIA are presented in Table 10.5.1 through Table 10.5.3. For electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431, DOE developed total installed costs values as a function of equipment energy efficiency for electric motors (see section 10.2.2). DOE used the shipments-weighted energy efficiency distributions for the no-new-standards case and standards cases, along with the estimates of shipments-weighted total installed costs by efficiency level, to estimate the shipments-weighted total installed costs under the no-newstandards and standards cases. Table 10-8 show the values applied by equipment class group and horsepower range. For SNEMs and AO motors, DOE did not apply any scaling and directly uses the results of the representative units. 10-16 Table 10.5.1 Shipments-Weighted Average Total Installed Cost by Efficiency Level Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 (2020$) Equipment Class Group NEMA Design A and B NEMA Design C Fire Pump Electric Motor Horsepower Range 1 to 5 6 to 20 21 to 50 51 to 100 101 to 200 201 to 500 1 to 20 21 to 100 101 to 200 1 to 5 6 to 50 51 to 500 EL0 262.61 1,100.01 2,583.85 5,091.22 9,392.97 18,960.17 751.30 4,044.10 11,169.02 193.50 1,191.47 4,458.58 EL1 294.86 1,117.54 2,624.59 5,590.51 10,319.50 20,828.67 773.77 4,224.31 11,672.32 208.38 1,294.74 5,257.89 EL2 311.71 1,145.58 2,690.42 6,264.86 11,569.25 23,346.95 822.42 4,412.60 12,198.31 234.47 1,313.69 5,797.43 EL3 336.30 1,327.53 3,117.65 6,434.48 11,884.32 23,982.81 909.48 4,627.06 12,794.04 248.13 1,347.04 6,523.68 EL4 404.98 1,375.43 3,230.09 6,848.11 12,650.68 25,526.70 984.74 4,627.06 12,794.04 323.68 1,621.21 7,152.60 Table 10.5.2 Average Total Installed Cost by Efficiency Level - SNEMs (2020$) Equipment Class Group SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT) SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) SNEM Polyphase Horsepower Range (all poles and enclosures unless specified otherwise) 0.25 to 0.75 (open) EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 261.55 267.71 307.29 - - 0.76 to 1.5 (open) 432.57 456.93 488.63 - - Above 1.5 (open) 0.25 to 0.75 (enclosed) 0.76 to 1.5 (enclosed) 637.00 657.45 695.55 - - 252.42 257.06 296.65 - - 474.79 501.34 535.91 - - Above 1.5 (enclosed) 800.00 835.23 888.21 - - Above 0.25 148.57 162.73 169.74 - - 0.25 to 0.33 132.25 134.77 153.87 159.08 - 0.34 to 5 190.10 190.10 210.76 233.14 - 0.25 to 0.33 255.85 261.87 276.16 280.52 334.04 0.34 to 0.5 289.04 292.34 323.92 329.24 424.67 Above 0.5 312.74 333.40 344.44 355.81 456.54 10-17 Table 10.5.3 Average Total Installed Cost by Efficiency Level - AO Electric Motors (2020$) Equipment Class Group AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) AO-SNEM Polyphase AO-MEM Polyphase Horsepower Range (all poles and enclosures unless specified otherwise) 0.25 to 0.75 (open) EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 260.41 266.56 306.14 - - 0.76 to 1.5 (open) 430.73 455.11 486.85 - - Above 1.5 (open) 632.99 653.46 691.61 - - 0.25 to 0.75 (enclosed) 250.92 255.55 295.06 - - 0.76 to 1.5 (enclosed) 472.81 499.38 533.99 - - Above 1.5 (enclosed) 793.60 828.86 881.87 - - Above 0.25 147.51 161.66 168.67 - - 0.25 to 0.33 131.08 133.60 152.66 157.86 - Above 0.34 188.28 188.28 208.91 231.26 - 0.25 to 0.33 254.87 260.89 275.19 279.54 333.08 0.34 to 0.5 287.52 290.82 322.40 327.72 423.14 Above 0.5 309.75 330.38 341.40 352.75 453.32 1 to 20 490.17 536.32 559.78 625.36 784.70 21 to 50 2031.87 2159.45 2227.87 2308.44 2722.77 Above 51 5652.61 5652.61 6222.66 6974.43 7654.83 In addition, as discussed in chapter 9, in each standard case, DOE accounted for the possibility that some consumers may choose to purchase a synchronous electric motor (out of scope of this preliminary analysis) rather than purchasing a more efficient NEMA Design A or B electric motor between 1 and 100 horsepower. DOE calculated the shipments-weighted average total installed costs of the synchronous motor as follows: 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 Where: 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 horsepower range 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 range 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 horsepower range 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊ℎ𝑡𝑡𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 horsepower range 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊ℎ𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 range 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 + 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊ℎ𝑡𝑡𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊ℎ𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 = MSP of the substitute electric motor for the considered = MSP of the representative unit for the considered horsepower = Retail price of the representative unit for the considered = Weight of the substitute electric motor for the considered = Weight of the representative unit for the considered horsepower 10-18 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟,𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸0 horsepower range = Installation costs of the representative unit for the considered The resulting shipments-weighted total installed costs of the substitute electric motor for each considered horsepower range is summarized in Table 10.5.4. Table 10.5.4 Shipments-Weighted Average Total Installed Costs of the Substitute for NEMA Design A and B Motors. NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor 10.5.3 Horsepower Range 1 to 5 6 to 20 21 to 50 51 to 100 $2020 681.78 2,496.97 5,862.49 11,439.83 Annual Operating Costs Savings Per-unit annual operating costs encompass the annual costs for energy, repair, and maintenance. DOE determined the savings in per-unit annual energy cost by multiplying the savings in per-unit annual energy consumption by the appropriate energy price, and any associated costs or savings for repair and maintenance. For substitute motors, DOE assumed the repair cost would be twice as much as the cost of a baseline NEMA A and B electric motor, based on input from manufacturer interviews. As described in chapter 8 of this TSD, to estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the recent electricity prices by a projection of annual national-average commercial and industrial electricity prices. The total savings in annual operating costs at a given EL is the product of the annual operating cost savings per unit under that standard and the number of units of each vintage. This approach accounts for differences in savings in annual operating costs from year to year. 10.5.4 Discount Factor DOE multiplies monetary values in future years by a discount factor to determine present values. The discount factor (DF) is described by the equation: DF = Where: r = y = 1 (1 + r ) ( y _ yp ) discount rate, year of the monetary value, and 10-19 yP = year in which the present value is being determined. DOE uses both a 3-percent and a 7-percent real discount rate when estimating national impacts. Those discount rates were applied in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)’s guidance to Federal agencies on developing regulatory analyses (OMB Circular A-4, September 17, 2003, and section E., “Identifying and Measuring Benefits and Costs,” therein). DOE defined the present year as 2021. 10.5.5 Present Value of Increased Installed Costs and Savings The present value of increased installed costs is the annual increase in installed cost for each year (i.e., the difference between the standards case and no-new-standards), discounted to the present and summed over the forecast period (2026–2055). The increase in total installed cost refers to both product and installation costs associated with the higher energy efficiency of products purchased under a standards case compared to the no-new-standards case. f DOE calculated annual increases in installed cost as the difference in total cost of new products installed each year, multiplied by the shipments in the standards case. The present value of operating cost savings is the annual savings in operating cost (the difference between the no-new-standards case and a standards case), discounted to the present and summed over the period that begins with the expected compliance date of potential standards and ends when the last installed unit is retired from service. Savings represent decreases in operating costs associated with the higher energy efficiency of products purchased in a standards case compared to the no-new-standards case. Total annual operating cost savings are the savings per unit multiplied by the number of units of each vintage that survive in a particular year. Because a product consumes energy throughout its lifetime, the energy consumption for units installed in a given year includes energy consumed until the unit is retired from service. 10.6 RESULTS 10.6.1 National Energy Savings This section provides NES results that DOE calculated for each EL analyzed. NES results are shown as savings in primary and FFC energy. Because DOE based the inputs to the NIA model on weighted-average values, results are discrete point values, rather than a distribution of values as produced by the life-cycle cost and payback period analysis. National energy savings for high and low economic growth scenarios are presented in appendix 10C of this TSD. For the NIA, DOE excludes sales tax from the product cost, because sales tax is essentially a transfer and therefore is more appropriate to include when estimating consumer benefits. f 10-20 Table 10.6.1 Cumulative Primary National Energy Savings for Electric Motors (Quads) Quads (Primary) Equipment class and Horsepower Range NEMA Design A and B (1-5 hp) NEMA Design A and B (6-20 hp) NEMA Design A and B (21-50 hp) NEMA Design A and B (51-100 hp) NEMA Design A and B (101-200 hp) NEMA Design A and B (201-500 hp) NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (1-5 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (6-20 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (21-50 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (51-100 hp)* NEMA Design C (1-20 hp) NEMA Design C (21-100 hp) NEMA Design C (101-200 hp) Fire Pump (1-5) Fire Pump (6-50 hp) Fire Pump (51-500 hp) EL 1 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.7 EL 2 0.7 1.6 1.4 0.5 0.9 1.2 EL 3 1.2 2.4 2.2 0.8 1.5 1.8 EL 4 1.6 3.2 2.9 1.1 2.0 2.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.6 1.8 2.4 2.6 1.5 1.6 2.2 2.3 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Substitution out of scope to permanent magnet motors. Note: Results for NEMA Design A and B motors reflect the fraction of the market that does not substitute to synchronous electric motors * Table 10.6.2 Cumulative Primary National Energy Savings for SNEMs (Quads) Quads (Primary) Equipment Class and Horsepower Range EL 1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above1.5 hp) Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) 10-21 EL 2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.4 1.4 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 EL 3 1.8 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 EL 4 0.1 0.1 0.1 Table 10.6.3 Cumulative Primary National Energy Savings for AO Electric Motors (Quads) Quads (Primary) Equipment Class and Horsepower Range AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (1 to 20 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (21 to 50 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (Above 51 hp) EL 1 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.11 0.00 EL 2 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.04 0.18 0.24 0.05 1.21 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.17 0.02 EL 3 1.74 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.15 0.24 0.02 EL 4 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.24 0.37 0.05 Table 10.6.4 Cumulative Full Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings for Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 (Quads) Quads (FFC) Equipment class and Horsepower Range NEMA Design A and B (1-5 hp) NEMA Design A and B (6-20 hp) NEMA Design A and B (21-50 hp) NEMA Design A and B (51-100 hp) NEMA Design A and B (101-200 hp) NEMA Design A and B (201-500 hp) NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (1-5 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (6-20 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (21-50 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (51-100 hp)* NEMA Design C (1-20 hp) NEMA Design C (21-100 hp) NEMA Design C (101-200 hp) Fire Pump (1-5) Fire Pump (6-50 hp) Fire Pump (51-500 hp) EL 1 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.7 EL 2 0.8 1.6 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.2 EL 3 1.3 2.5 2.3 0.8 1.6 1.9 EL 4 1.6 3.3 3.0 1.1 2.1 2.5 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.7 1.9 2.5 2.7 1.5 1.7 2.3 2.4 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 * Substitution out of scope to permanent magnet motors. Note: Results for NEMA Design A and B motors reflect the fraction of the market that does not substitute to synchronous electric motors 10-22 Table 10.6.5 Cumulative Full Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings for SNEMs (Quads) Quads (FFC) Equipment Class and Horsepower Range EL 1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.07 0.03 0.20 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above1.5 hp) Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) EL 2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.4 1.4 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 EL 3 1.8 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 EL 4 0.1 0.1 0.1 Table 10.6.6 Cumulative Full Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings for AO Electric Motors (Quads) Equipment Class and Horsepower Range AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (1 to 20 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (21 to 50 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (Above 51 hp) Quads (FFC) EL 1 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.11 0.00 EL 2 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.04 0.19 0.25 0.05 1.26 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.18 0.02 EL 3 1.81 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.15 0.25 0.02 EL 4 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.25 0.39 0.05 10.6.2 Net Present Value This section provides results of calculating the NPV of consumer benefits for each EL considered for electric motors. Results, which are cumulative, are shown as the discounted value of the net savings in dollar terms. DOE based the inputs to the NIA model on weighted-average values, yielding results that are discrete point values, rather than a distribution of values as in the LCC and payback period analysis. Table 10.6.7 and Table 10.6.12 show the results of calculating the NPV for the ELs analyzed for electric motors, at both a 3-percent and a 7-percent discount rate. The NPVs for high and low economic growth scenarios are presented in appendix 10C of this TSD. 10-23 Table 10.6.7 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL (billion $2020), 3% Discount Rate - Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 NPV (billion $2020) Equipment class and Horsepower Range NEMA Design A and B (1-5 hp) NEMA Design A and B (6-20 hp) NEMA Design A and B (21-50 hp) NEMA Design A and B (51-100 hp) NEMA Design A and B (101-200 hp) NEMA Design A and B (201-500 hp) NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (1-5 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (6-20 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (21-50 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (51-100 hp)* NEMA Design C (1-20 hp) NEMA Design C (21-100 hp) NEMA Design C (101-200 hp) Fire Pump (1-5) Fire Pump (6-50 hp) Fire Pump (51-500 hp) EL 1 -0.379 2.709 0.705 -1.413 -0.614 -0.175 EL 2 -0.011 4.872 0.811 -4.429 -3.211 -2.358 EL 3 0.288 0.989 -3.281 -5.077 -3.377 -2.094 EL 4 -2.739 2.198 -3.914 -6.818 -4.594 -2.819 0.211 0.242 0.293 0.535 2.655 2.930 3.905 4.162 2.147 2.385 3.198 3.413 -0.213 -0.345 -0.440 -0.500 0.027 -0.006 0.004 -0.001 -0.039 -0.278 0.043 -0.027 -0.002 -0.002 -0.046 -0.466 0.028 -0.041 -0.003 -0.002 -0.059 -0.719 0.012 -0.041 -0.003 -0.005 -0.167 -0.939 Substitution out of scope to permanent magnet motors. Note: Results for NEMA Design A and B motors reflect the fraction of the market that does not substitute to synchronous electric motors * Table 10.6.8 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL (billion $2020), 3% Discount Rate - SNEMs Equipment Class and Horsepower Range Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.75 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.76 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.75 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.76 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) 10-24 NPV (billion $2020) EL 1 0.02 0.00 0.38 0.11 0.08 0.61 0.51 2.08 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.06 EL 2 0.13 0.38 1.74 0.96 0.87 2.66 1.11 5.89 9.11 0.03 0.01 0.10 EL 3 7.67 11.37 0.10 0.06 0.14 EL 4 -0.05 -0.28 -0.48 Table 10.6.9 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL (billion $2020), 3% Discount Rate - AO Electric Motors Equipment Class and Horsepower Range AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (1 to 20 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (21 to 50 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (Above 51 hp) 10-25 NPV (billion $2020) EL 1 0.00 0.00 0.15 EL 2 0.02 0.04 0.69 EL 3 - EL 4 - 0.01 0.09 - - 0.07 0.52 - - 0.19 0.07 0.60 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.23 0.28 0.00 0.83 0.15 4.94 3.41 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.32 0.31 -0.06 7.19 4.08 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.19 0.31 -0.19 0.00 -0.02 -0.08 -0.04 0.14 -0.23 Table 10.6.10 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL (billion $2020), 7% Discount Rate - Electric Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 NPV (billion $2020) Equipment class and Horsepower Range NEMA Design A and B (1-5 hp) NEMA Design A and B (6-20 hp) NEMA Design A and B (21-50 hp) NEMA Design A and B (51-100 hp) NEMA Design A and B (101-200 hp) NEMA Design A and B (201-500 hp) NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (1-5 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (6-20 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (21-50 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (51-100 hp)* NEMA Design C (1-20 hp) NEMA Design C (21-100 hp) NEMA Design C (101-200 hp) Fire Pump (1-5) Fire Pump (6-50 hp) Fire Pump (51-500 hp) EL 1 -0.334 1.071 0.072 -0.848 -0.574 -0.409 EL 2 -0.281 1.870 -0.153 -2.454 -2.057 -1.736 EL 3 -0.307 -0.419 -2.530 -2.898 -2.390 -1.883 EL 4 -1.980 -0.088 -3.117 -3.894 -3.256 -2.529 0.025 0.029 0.036 0.066 0.723 0.794 1.055 1.125 0.500 0.556 0.748 0.800 -0.197 -0.324 -0.423 -0.483 0.010 -0.005 0.000 0.000 -0.020 -0.141 0.014 -0.018 -0.004 -0.001 -0.023 -0.236 0.003 -0.027 -0.006 -0.001 -0.030 -0.365 -0.008 -0.027 -0.006 -0.002 -0.085 -0.476 * Substitution out of scope to permanent magnet motors. Note: Results for NEMA Design A and B motors reflect the fraction of the market that does not substitute to synchronous electric motors Table 10.6.11 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL (billion $2020), 7% Discount Rate - SNEMs Equipment Class and Horsepower Range Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.75 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.76 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.75 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.76 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) 10-26 NPV (billion $2020) EL 1 0.01 0.00 0.17 0.04 0.04 0.27 0.22 0.97 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 EL 2 0.05 0.16 0.77 0.40 0.34 1.17 0.48 2.73 4.16 0.01 0.00 0.04 EL 3 0.48 3.55 5.05 0.04 0.02 0.05 EL 4 5.05 -0.05 -0.17 -0.30 Table 10.6.12 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL (billion $2020), 7% Discount Rate - AO Electric Motors Equipment Class and Horsepower Range AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (1 to 20 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (21 to 50 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (Above 51 hp) 10-27 NPV (billion $2020) EL 1 0.00 0.00 0.07 EL 2 0.01 0.02 0.31 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.10 0.00 0.22 0.37 0.06 2.25 1.54 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.08 -0.04 EL 3 - EL 4 - 1.79 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 -0.11 -0.01 -0.05 -0.12 -0.09 -0.14 REFERENCES 1. ABB (Baldor-Reliance): Online Manufacturer Catalog., last accessed July 6, 2020. https://www.baldor.com/catalog. 2. Nidec (US Motors): Online Manufacturer Catalog., last accessed July 6, 2020,. https://ecatalog.motorboss.com/Catalog/Motors/ALL/. 3. Regal (Century, Marathon, Leeson): Online Manufacturer Catalog., last accessed May 27, 2020. https://www.regalbeloit.com:443/products. 4. WEG: Online Manufacturer Catalog., last accessed April 17, 2020,. http://ecatalog.weg.net/. 5. U.S Department of Energy. United States Industrial Electric Motor Systems Market Opportunities Assessment. 2002. 6. Rao, P., P. Sheaffer, Y. Chen, M. Goldberg, B. Jones, J. Cropp, and J. Hester. U.S. Industrial and Commercial Motor System Market Assessment Report Volume 1: Characteristics of the Installed Base. 2021. Report No. None, 1760267, ark:/13030/qt42f631k3. (Last accessed August 6, 2021.) https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1760267/. 7. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2021 with Projections to 2050. 2021. Washington, D.C. (Last accessed March 18, 2021.) https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/. 10-28 CHAPTER 11. CONSUMER SUBGROUP ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS 11.1 OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................. 11-1 11-i CHAPTER 11. 11.1 CONSUMER SUBGROUP ANALYSIS OVERVIEW The consumer subgroup analysis evaluates potential impacts from new standards on any identifiable groups of consumers who may be disproportionately affected by a national energy conservation standard. When appropriate, DOE will conduct this analysis as one of the analyses for the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) should DOE determine to issue a NOPR. DOE will accomplish this, in part, by analyzing the life-cycle costs (LCCs) and payback periods (PBPs) for the identified consumer subgroups. DOE will evaluate variations in regional energy prices, energy use, and installation and operational costs that might affect the impacts of a standard to consumer subgroups. To the extent possible, DOE will obtain estimates of each input parameter’s variability and will consider this variability in its calculation of consumer impacts. DOE will determine the impact on consumer subgroups using the LCC Spreadsheet Model. The standard LCC analysis (described in chapter 8) focuses on the consumers that use electric motors. DOE can use the LCC Spreadsheet Model to analyze the LCC for any subgroup by sampling only that subgroup. (Chapter 8 explains in detail the inputs to the model used in determining LCC and PBPs.) 11-1 CHAPTER 12. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS 12.1 12.2 12.3 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 12-1 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 12-1 Phase I: Industry Profile................................................................................................. 12-1 Phase II: Industry Cash Flow Analysis and Interview Guide ........................................ 12-2 Industry Cash Flow Analysis .......................................................................... 12-2 Interview Guide ............................................................................................... 12-2 Phase III: Industry and Subgroup Analysis ................................................................... 12-3 Manufacturer Interviews ................................................................................. 12-3 Revised Industry Cash Flow Analysis ............................................................ 12-3 Manufacturer Subgroup Analysis.................................................................... 12-3 Competitive Impact Assessment ..................................................................... 12-4 Manufacturing Capacity Impact ...................................................................... 12-4 Direct Employment Impacts............................................................................ 12-4 Cumulative Regulatory Burden ....................................................................... 12-4 PRELIMINARY FINDINGS......................................................................................... 12-5 Initial Financial Parameters ........................................................................................... 12-5 Manufacturer Subgroups................................................................................................ 12-6 Cumulative Regulatory Burden ..................................................................................... 12-6 LIST OF TABLES Table 12.3.1 Initial Financial Metrics .............................................................................................. 12-5 12-i CHAPTER 12. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS 12.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (“MIA”) is to identify and quantify the impacts of any potential new and/or amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers. The Process Rule provides guidance for conducting this analysis with input from manufacturers and other interested parties. The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) will apply this methodology to its evaluation of any energy conservation standards for electric motors. DOE will consider a wide range of quantitative and qualitative industry impacts. For example, a particular standard level could require changes to manufacturing practices, production equipment, raw materials, etc. DOE will identify and analyze these manufacturer impacts during the notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) stage of the analysis. DOE announced changes to the MIA format through a report issued to Congress in January 2006 entitled “Energy Conservation Standards Activities.” (as required by section 141 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (“EPACT 2005”)) 1 Previously, DOE did not report any MIA results before the NOPR phase; however, under this new format, DOE collects, evaluates, and reports preliminary information and data. 12.2 METHODOLOGY DOE conducts the MIA in three phases, and further tailors the analytical framework based on the comments it receives. In Phase I, DOE creates an industry profile to characterize the industry and identify important issues that require consideration. In Phase II, DOE prepares an industry cash-flow model and considers what information it might gather in manufacturer interviews. In Phase III, DOE interviews manufacturers and assesses the impacts of standards both quantitatively and qualitatively. DOE assesses industry and subgroup cash flows and industry net present value (“INPV”) using the Government Regulatory Impact Model (“GRIM”). DOE then assesses impacts on competition, manufacturing capacity, employment, and cumulative regulatory burden. Phase I: Industry Profile In Phase I of the MIA, DOE collects pertinent qualitative and quantitative information about the market and manufacturer financials. This includes research and development (“R&D”) expenses; selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses; capital expenditures; property, plant, and equipment expenses; tax rate; and depreciation rate for electric motor manufacturers, as well as wages, employment, and industry costs for electric motors. Sources of information include reports published by industry groups, trade journals, the U.S. Census Bureau, and Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) 10 K This report is available on the DOE website at www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/congressional_report_013106.pdf 1 12-1 filings, as well as prior DOE rulemakings related to electric motors. The initial estimates of financial parameters are presented in section 12.3.1. In addition, DOE develops a comprehensive manufacturer list, develops market share estimates, and evaluates consolidation trends, as presented in the market and technology assessment. Characterizations of the current equipment offerings and market efficiency distributions are presented in the engineering analysis and shipment analysis. Phase II: Industry Cash Flow Analysis and Interview Guide Phase II activities occur after publication of the preliminary analysis. In Phase II, DOE performs a preliminary industry cash-flow analysis and prepares an interview guide for manufacturer interviews, if conducted. Industry Cash Flow Analysis DOE uses the GRIM to analyze the financial impacts of potential new and/or amended energy conservation standards. The implementation of these standards may require manufacturer investments, raise manufacturer production costs (“MPCs”), and/or affect revenue possibly through higher prices and lower shipments. The GRIM uses a suite factors to determine annual cash flows for the years leading up to the compliance date of new and/or amended energy conservation standards and for 30 years after implementation. These factors include industry financial parameters, annual expected revenues, costs of goods sold, SG&A expenses, taxes, and capital expenditures. Inputs to the GRIM include financial information, MPCs, shipment forecasts, and price forecasts developed in other analyses. Financial parameters are based on publicly available data and any confidentially submitted manufacturer information. DOE compares the GRIM results for potential standard levels against the results for the nonew-standards case, in which energy conservation standards are not established and/or amended. The financial impact of analyzed new and/or amended energy conservation standards is the difference between the two sets of discounted annual cash flows. Interview Guide When feasible, DOE conducts interviews with manufacturers to gather information on the effects new and/or amended energy conservation standards could have on revenues and finances, direct employment, capital assets, and industry competitiveness. These interviews take place during Phase III of the MIA. Before the interviews, DOE distributes an interview guide that will help identify the impacts of potential standard levels on individual manufacturers or subgroups of manufacturers within the electric motor industry. The interview guide covers financial parameters, MPCs, shipment projections, market share, equipment mix, conversion costs, markups and profitability, assessment of the impact on competition, manufacturing capacity, and other relevant topics. 12-2 Phase III: Industry and Subgroup Analysis Phase III activities occur after publication of the preliminary analysis. These activities include manufacturer interviews, if conducted; revision of the industry cash flow analysis; manufacturer subgroup analyses, where appropriate; an assessment of the impacts on industry competition, manufacturing capacity, direct employment, and the cumulative regulatory burden; and other qualitative impacts. Manufacturer Interviews DOE supplements the information gathered in Phase I and the cash-flow analysis constructed in Phase II with information gathered through interviews with manufacturers and written comments from stakeholders during Phase III. DOE conducts detailed interviews with manufacturers to gain insight into the potential impacts of any new and/or amended energy conservation standards on sales, direct employment, capital assets, and industry competitiveness. Generally, interviews are scheduled well in advance to provide every opportunity for key individuals to be available for comment. Although a written response to the questionnaire is acceptable, DOE prefers interactive interviews, if possible, which help clarify responses and provide the opportunity to identify additional issues. A non-disclosure agreement allows DOE to consider confidential or sensitive information in the decision-making process. Confidential information, however, is not made available in the public record. At most, sensitive or confidential information may be aggregated and presented in the form of industrywide representations. Revised Industry Cash Flow Analysis During interviews, DOE requests information about profitability impacts, necessary plant changes, and other manufacturing impacts. Following any such interviews, DOE revises the preliminary cash-flow prepared in Phase II based on the feedback it receives during interviews. Manufacturer Subgroup Analysis The use of average cost assumptions to develop an industry cash flow estimate may not adequately assess differential impacts of potential new and/or amended energy conservation standards among manufacturer subgroups. Smaller manufacturers, niche players, and manufacturers exhibiting a cost structure that differs largely from the industry average could be more negatively or positively affected. DOE customarily uses the results of the industry characterization to group manufacturers with similar characteristics. When possible, DOE discusses the potential subgroups that have been identified for the analysis in manufacturer interviews. DOE asks manufacturers and other interested parties to suggest what subgroups or characteristics are most appropriate for the analysis. One subgroup commonly identified is small business manufacturers. 12-3 Competitive Impact Assessment EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) Furthermore, as part of the MIA, DOE evaluates the potential impact of standards to create asymmetric cost increases for manufacturer sub-groups, shifts in competition due to proprietary technologies, and business risks due to limited supplier availability or raw material constraints. Manufacturing Capacity Impact One of the potential outcomes of new and/or amended energy conservation standards is the obsolescence of existing manufacturing assets, including tooling and other investments. The manufacturer interview guide has a series of questions to help identify impacts on manufacturing capacity, specifically capacity utilization and plant location decisions in the U.S. with and without new and/or amended energy conservation standards; the ability of manufacturers to upgrade or remodel existing facilities to accommodate the new requirements; the nature and value of any stranded assets; and estimates for any one-time restructuring or other charges, where applicable. Direct Employment Impacts The impact of potential new and/or amended energy conservation standards on direct employment is an important consideration in DOE’s analysis. Manufacturer interviews aid in assessing how domestic employment patterns might be impacted by new and/or amended energy conservation standards. Typically, the interview guide contains a series of questions that are designed to explore current employment trends in the electric motor industry and to solicit manufacturers’ views on changes in direct employment patterns that may result from either new or increased standard levels. These questions focus on current employment levels at production facilities, expected future direct employment levels with and without changes in energy conservation standards, differences in workforce skills, and employee retraining. Cumulative Regulatory Burden DOE seeks to mitigate the overlapping effects on manufacturers of potential new and/or amended energy conservation standards and other Federal regulatory actions affecting the same products/equipment or companies within a short timeframe. DOE analyzes and considers the impact of multiple, equipment-specific regulatory actions on manufacturers. 12-4 12.3 PRELIMINARY FINDINGS The following section summarizes information gathered for the preliminary MIA that are not already presented in the market and technology analysis, engineering analysis, or shipments analysis. Initial Financial Parameters For electric motors, DOE identified 24 publicly listed manufacturers of the electric motors covered by this rulemaking. DOE chose to begin the analysis of industry financial parameters with values used in the May 2014 Final Rule. 2 The May 2014 Final Rule financial parameters were vetted by multiple manufacturers in confidential interviews and went through public notice and comment. The results for electric motors are the most robust equipment-specific estimates that are publicly available. DOE compared these values with the financials of four major publicly traded electric motor manufacturers to confirm that the parameters were still relevant. 3 DOE noted that tax rates estimates from before 2018 are not relevant for modeling future cash-flows due to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 4, which was signed into law in December 2017 and changed the maximum Federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. Table 12.3.1 below shows DOE’s initial financial parameter estimates. DOE will further refine these values using feedback from manufacturer and public comments. Table 12.3.1 Initial Financial Metrics Financial Metric Initial Estimate Tax Rate (% of Taxable Income) 5 21.0 Working Capital (% of Revenue) 16.0 SG&A (% of Revenue) 15.0 R&D (% of Revenues) 4.8 Depreciation (% of Revenues) 4.2 Capital Expenditures (% of Revenues) 4.8 Net Property, Plant, and Equipment 18.4 (% of Revenues) 79 FR 30934 (May 29, 2014). The four publicly traded companies used were: Regal Beloit Corporation, ABB Ltd., Altra Industrial Motion, and Siemens AG. 4 www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1/BILLS-115hr1enr.pdf 5 The tax rate used in the May 2014 Final Rule was 33.3 percent. 2 3 12-5 The manufacturer selling price (“MSP”) is the price manufacturers charge their first customers. The MSP equals the MPC multiplied by the manufacturer markup. The manufacturer markup covers all electric motor manufacturer’s non-production costs (e.g., SG&A, R&D, and interest) and profit. The MSP is different from the cost the end-user pays because there are additional markups from entities along the distribution chain between the manufacturer and the end-user. DOE considered the manufacturer markups used in the May 2014 Final Rule to be the most robust equipment-specific data available. DOE estimated the industry average manufacturer markup for the analyzed electric motors at or below 5-horsepower to be 1.37 and for the analyzed electric motors above 5-horsepower to be 1.45. Manufacturer Subgroups DOE performed a preliminary investigation into small business manufacturers as a subgroup for consideration in subsequent stages of the electric motor rulemaking. DOE relied on the Small Business Association (“SBA”) size standards for determining the threshold for an entity to be a small business. The SBA size standards are set based on the North American Classification System (“NAICS”) code. For NAICS code 335312, described as “motor and generator manufacturing,” the size threshold is 1,250 employees for an entity to be a small business. The size threshold is based on enterprise-wide employment, which includes enterprise subsidiaries and branches, as well as unrelated establishments of the parent company. DOE identified six potential companies that meet the SBA definition of a small businesses and that manufacture electric motors in the United States. DOE will continue its investigation of small business manufacturers in future phases of the MIA through manufacturer interviews and the notice and comment process. Cumulative Regulatory Burden While any one regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the combined effects of several impending regulations may have significant consequences for individual manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or entire industries. In the cumulative regulatory burden analysis, DOE considers expenditures associated with meeting other Federal, equipment-specific regulations that occur within the cumulative regulatory burden analysis timeframe. The cumulative regulatory burden analysis timeframe is a seven-year period that covers the three years before the compliance year, the compliance year, and the three years after the compliance year of any new and/or amended energy conservation standards for electric motors. In the MIA’s Phase III (as described in section 12.2.3 of this TSD), which is conducted prior to the NOPR publication, manufacturer interviews help DOE identify potential opportunities to coordinate regulatory actions in a manner that mitigates cumulative impacts, such as multiple successive redesigns of the same equipment with a short period of time. Some electric motor manufacturers might produce other products or equipment that are regulated by other DOE energy conservation standards. The exact regulations contributing to cumulative regulatory burden will be determined once a compliance date is proposed in the NOPR phase of the energy conservation standards rulemaking. 12-6 CHAPTER 13. EMISSIONS IMPACT ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS 13.1 OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................. 13-1 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 13-2 13-i CHAPTER 13. EMISSIONS IMPACT ANALYSIS 13.1 OVERVIEW The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conducts an emissions analysis for the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) stage should DOE determine to issue a NOPR. In the emissions analysis, DOE estimates the reduction in power sector combustion emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), mercury (Hg), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) from potential energy conservation standards for the considered products, as well as emissions at the building site if applicable. In addition, DOE estimates emissions impacts in production activities (extracting, processing, and transporting fuels) that provide the energy inputs to power plants and for site combustion. 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)), the FFC analysis includes impacts on emissions of methane and nitrous oxide, both of which are recognized as greenhouse gases. DOE conducts the emissions analysis using marginal emissions factors that are primarily derived from data in the latest version of the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), supplemented by data from other sources. EIA prepares the AEO using the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS).a Each annual version of NEMS incorporates the projected impacts of existing air quality regulations on emissions. Site emissions of CO2 and NOX are estimated using emissions intensity factors from a publication of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).1 Combustion emissions of CH4 and N2O are estimated using emissions intensity factors published by the EPA GHG Emissions Factors Hub.b The FFC upstream emissions are estimated based on the methodology developed by Coughlin (2013).2 The upstream emissions include both emissions from fuel combustion during extraction, processing and transportation of fuel, and “fugitive” emissions (direct leakage to the atmosphere) of CH4 and CO2. a For more information about NEMS, please refer to the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration documentation. A useful summary is National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 2009, DOE/EIA-0581 (October 2009), available at: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/nems/overview/pdf/0581(2009).pdf b https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/emission-factors_nov_2015_v2.pdf 13-1 REFERENCES 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. AP-42: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors. 1998. Washington, D.C. (Last accessed March 31, 2021.) https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-airemission-factors. 2. Coughlin, K. Projections of Full-Fuel-Cycle Energy and Emissions Metrics. 2013. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-6025E. (Last accessed March 31, 2021.) https://etapublications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/lbnl6025e_ffc.pdf. 13-2 CHAPTER 14. MONETIZATION OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS BENEFITS TABLE OF CONTENTS OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................. 14-1 14-i CHAPTER 14. MONETIZATION OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS BENEFITS OVERVIEW DOE may consider the estimated monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, NOX and SO2 that are expected to result from each of the potential standard levels considered in the next phase of the rulemaking, should DOE proceed to a NOPR. Currently, in compliance with the preliminary injunction issued on February 11, 2022, in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.), DOE is not monetizing the costs of greenhouse gas emissions. To estimate the monetary value of reduced NOX and SO2 emissions from electricity generation attributable to the standard levels it considers, DOE uses benefit-per-ton estimates derived from analysis conducted by the EPA. For NOX and SO2 emissions from combustion at the site of product use, DOE uses another set of benefit-per-ton estimates published by the EPA. 14-1 CHAPTER 15. UTILITY IMPACT ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS 15.1 OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................. 15-1 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 15-2 15-i CHAPTER 15. UTILITY IMPACT ANALYSIS 15.1 OVERVIEW The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) analyzes the changes in electric installed capacity and power generation that result for each considered trial standard level for the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) stage should DOE determine to issue a NOPR. The utility impact analysis is based on output of the DOE/Energy Information Administration (EIA)’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS).1 NEMS is a public domain, multi-sectored, partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector. Each year, DOE/EIA uses NEMS to produce an energy forecast for the United States, the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). The EIA publishes a reference case, which incorporates all existing energy-related policies at the time of publication, and a variety of side cases which analyze the impact of different policies, energy price and market trends. DOE’s methodology is based on results published for the most recent Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) Reference case, as well as a number of side cases that estimate the economywide impacts of changes to energy supply and demand. DOE estimates the marginal impacts of reduction in energy demand on the energy supply sector. In principle, marginal values should provide a better estimate of the actual impact of energy conservation standards. DOE uses the side cases to estimate the marginal impacts of reduced energy demand on the utility sector. These marginal factors are estimated based on the changes to electricity sector generation, installed capacity, fuel consumption and emissions in the AEO Reference case and various side cases. The methodology is described in more detail in K. Coughlin, “Utility Sector Impacts of Reduced Electricity Demand.”2,3 The output of this analysis is a set of time-dependent coefficients that capture the change in electricity generation, primary fuel consumption, installed capacity and power sector emissions due to a unit reduction in demand for a given end use. These coefficients are multiplied by the stream of electricity savings calculated in the NIA to provide estimates of selected utility impacts of new or amended energy conservation standards. 15-1 REFERENCES 1. U.S. Department of Energy–Energy Information Administration. The National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 2009. 2009. Report No. DOE/EIA-0581(2009). (Last accessed March 31, 2021.) http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/archive/0581(2009).pdf. 2. Coughlin, K. Utility Sector Impacts of Reduced Electricity Demand. 2014. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-6864E. (Last accessed March 31, 2021.) http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1165372. 3. Coughlin, K. Utility Sector Impacts of Reduced Electricity Demand: Updates to Methodology and Results. 2019. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-2001256. (Last accessed May 24, 2021.) https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1580427/. 15-2 CHAPTER 16. EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS 16.1 OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................. 16-1 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 16-2 16-i CHAPTER 16. EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS 16.1 OVERVIEW Energy conservation standards can impact employment both directly and indirectly. Direct employment impacts are changes in the number of employees at the plants that produce the covered electric motors resulting from standards, and are evaluated in the manufacturer impact analysis, as described in chapter 12 of this Technical Support Document. The employment impact analysis described in this chapter covers indirect employment impacts which may result from expenditures shifting between goods (the substitution effect) and changes in income and overall expenditure levels (the income effect) that occur due to the implementation of standards. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conducts this analysis in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) stage should DOE determine to issue a NOPR. DOE expects new or amended energy conservation standards to decrease energy consumption and, therefore, reduce expenditures for energy. In turn, savings in energy expenditures may be redirected for new investment and other items. Notwithstanding, energy conservation standards may potentially increase the purchase price of electric motors, including the retail price plus sales tax, and may increase installation costs. Using an input-output model of the U.S. economy, the employment impact analysis seeks to estimate the year-to-year effect of these expenditure impacts on net national employment. DOE intends the employment impact analysis to quantify the indirect employment impacts of these expenditure changes. To investigate the indirect employment impacts, DOE uses the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s (PNNL’s) “Impact of Sector Energy Technologies” (ImSET 3.1.1) model.1 PNNL developed ImSET, a computer-based I-O model of the U.S. economy with structural coefficients to characterize economic flows between sectors, for DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. ImSET is a special-purpose version of the U.S. Benchmark National InputOutput (I-O) model, which has been designed to estimate the national employment and income effects of energy saving technologies that are deployed by DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. ImSET’s sector multipliers were constructed from the detailed U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis benchmark I-O table for 2007, by collapsing to the 187 sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, and residential building energy use. In comparison with the previous versions of the model used in earlier rulemakings, this version allows for more complete and automated analysis of the essential features of energy efficiency investments in buildings, industry, transportation, and the electric power sectors. 16-1 REFERENCES 1. Livingston, O. and et al. ImSET 4.0: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies Model Description and User’s Guide. 2015. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-24563.pdf. 16-2 CHAPTER 17. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS 17.1 17.2 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 17-1 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 17-1 LIST OF TABLES Table 17.1.1 Non-Regulatory Alternatives to Standards ........................................................ 17-1 17-i CHAPTER 17. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS 17.1 INTRODUCTION Under appendix A to subpart C of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 430, Procedures for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products (Process Rule) the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is committed to explore nonregulatory alternatives to energy conservation standards. Accordingly, DOE will prepare a draft regulatory impact analysis pursuant to Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” which will be subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR). Pursuant to the Process Rule, DOE has identified five major alternatives to standards that represent feasible policy options to reduce the energy consumption of electric motors. It will evaluate each alternative in terms of its ability to achieve significant energy savings at a reasonable cost, and will compare the effectiveness of each alternative to the effectiveness of the proposed standard. Table 17.1.1 lists the non-regulatory means of achieving energy savings that DOE proposes to analyze. The technical support document (TSD) prepared in support of DOE’s NOPR will include a complete quantitative analysis of each alternative, the methodology for which is briefly addressed below. Table 17.1.1 Non-Regulatory Alternatives to Standards No New Regulatory Action Consumer Rebates Consumer Tax Credits Manufacturer Tax Credits Voluntary Energy Efficiency Targets Bulk Government Purchases 17.2 METHODOLOGY DOE will use the national impact analysis (NIA) spreadsheet model for electric motors to calculate the national energy savings and the net present value (NPV) corresponding to each candidate standard. The NIA model is discussed in chapter 10 of the TSD. To compare each alternative quantitatively to the proposed energy conservation standards, DOE will need to quantify the effect of each alternative on the purchase of energy efficient electric motors. DOE will create an integrated NIA-RIA model, built upon the NIA model, where DOE will make the appropriate revisions to the inputs in the NIA models. Key inputs that DOE may revise in the NIA-RIA model are: • Electric motors market shares of products meeting target efficiency levels (identical to the trial standard levels for the mandatory standards) 17-1 • Shipments of electric motors when those are affected by the proposed energy conservation standards. The following are the key measures of the impact of each alternative: • National energy savings: Cumulative national energy use from the no-new-standards case projection minus the alternative-policy-case projection. • Net present value: The value of future operating cost savings from the equipment bought during the period from the required compliance date of the new standard [2026 to 2055]. DOE will calculate the NPV as the difference between the present value of equipment and operating expenditures (including energy) in the no-new-standards case, and the present value of expenditures under each alternative-policy case. DOE will calculate operating expenses (including energy costs) for the life of the equipment. It will discount future operating and equipment expenditures to 2021 using a 7-percent and 3-percent real discount rate. 17-2 APPENDIX 2A. SUMMARY OF REQUESTS FOR COMMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 2A.1 2A.1.1 2A.1.2 2A.1.3 2A.1.4 2A.1.5 2A.1.6 2A.1.7 2A.1.8 2A.1.9 2A.1.10 2A.1.11 2A.1.12 2A.1.13 2A.1.14 2A.1.15 2A.1.16 2A.1.17 2A.1.18 2A.1.19 2A.1.20 2A.1.21 2A.1.22 2A.1.23 2A.1.24 2A.1.25 2A.1.26 2A.1.27 2A.1.28 2A.1.29 2A.1.30 2A.1.31 2A.1.32 2A.1.33 2A.1.34 REQUESTS FOR COMMENTS ............................................................................ 2A-1 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis ............................................................ 2A-1 Issues on which the Department Seeks Public Comment ....................................... 2A-1 Equipment Classes for Electric Motors .................................................................. 2A-1 Motor Enclosure Utility .......................................................................................... 2A-1 Class Setting Factors ............................................................................................... 2A-2 Locked-Rotor Torque as a Class Setting Factor for SNEMs .................................. 2A-2 Synchronous Motor Equipment Class .................................................................... 2A-2 Synchronous Motor Utility ..................................................................................... 2A-2 Air-Over Cooling as an Equipment Class Setting Factor ....................................... 2A-2 Inverter-Only Induction Electric Motors ................................................................ 2A-2 Submerged Operation as an Equipment Class Setting Factor ................................ 2A-2 Electric Steels Used in Electric Motors .................................................................. 2A-2 Variable Speed Drives ............................................................................................ 2A-3 Amorphous Electrical Steels ................................................................................... 2A-3 Representative Units Used in Analysis ................................................................... 2A-3 Electric Motor Conductor Prices ............................................................................ 2A-3 Electrical Steel Prices ............................................................................................. 2A-3 Other Material Prices .............................................................................................. 2A-3 Factory Overhead Markup ...................................................................................... 2A-3 Scrap Markup .......................................................................................................... 2A-3 Product Conversion Costs ....................................................................................... 2A-4 SNEM Preliminary Results ..................................................................................... 2A-4 Distribution Channels for Currently Regulated and Expanded Scope Electric Motors ..................................................................................................................... 2A-4 Consumer Sample ................................................................................................... 2A-4 Average Annual Operating Load ............................................................................ 2A-4 Load Profiles ........................................................................................................... 2A-4 Usage Profiles for Electric Motors Considered in the NOPR as Expanded Scope ....................................................................................................................... 2A-5 Annual Operating Hours ......................................................................................... 2A-5 Annual Operating Hours for Electric Motors Considered in the NOPR as Expanded Scope ...................................................................................................... 2A-5 Impact of Speed ...................................................................................................... 2A-5 Installation Costs..................................................................................................... 2A-5 Installation Costs for Electric Motors Considered in the NOPR as Expanded Scope ....................................................................................................................... 2A-5 Repair Costs ............................................................................................................ 2A-6 Maintenance Costs .................................................................................................. 2A-6 2A-i 2A.1.35 2A.1.36 2A.1.37 2A.1.38 2A.1.39 2A.1.40 2A.1.41 2A.1.42 2A.1.43 2A.1.44 2A.1.45 2A.1.46 2A.1.47 2A.1.48 2A.1.49 2A.1.50 2A.1.51 Maintenance Costs for Electric Motors Considered in the NOPR as Expanded Scope ....................................................................................................................... 2A-6 Lifetimes ................................................................................................................. 2A-6 Lifetimes for Electric Motors Considered in the Expanded Scope......................... 2A-7 Efficiency Distributions in the No-new Standards Case......................................... 2A-7 Efficiency Distributions in the No-new Standards Case for Electric Motors Considered in the Expanded Scope......................................................................... 2A-7 Efficiency Distribution Trends ............................................................................... 2A-7 Shipments Analysis................................................................................................. 2A-7 Shipments Analysis for Electric Motors Considered in the Expanded Scope ........ 2A-7 Market Substitution................................................................................................. 2A-8 Non-Representative Equipment Classes ................................................................. 2A-8 Rebound Effect ....................................................................................................... 2A-8 Consumer Subgroup Analysis................................................................................. 2A-8 Emissions Analysis ................................................................................................. 2A-8 Monetization of Emissions Reductions Benefits .................................................... 2A-8 Utility Impact Analysis ........................................................................................... 2A-8 Employment Impact Analysis ................................................................................. 2A-9 Regulatory Impact Analysis .................................................................................... 2A-9 2A-ii APPENDIX 6A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST FOR COMMENTS 2A.1 REQUESTS FOR COMMENTS This appendix summarizes the requests for comments presented in Chapter 2. 2A.1.1 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis DOE conducts the manufacturer impact analysis (“MIA”) in three phases and further tailors the analytical framework based on comments received from interested parties. In Phase 1, DOE creates an industry profile to characterize the industry and typically conducts manufacturer interviews to identify important issues that require special consideration. The preliminary analysis TSD, chapter 12, presents the results of the Phase 1 analysis. In Phase 2, DOE prepares an industry cash-flow model and an interview questionnaire to guide subsequent discussions if manufacturer interviews are conducted. In Phase 3, DOE typically interviews manufacturers and assesses the impacts of analyzed amended energy conservation standards both quantitatively and qualitatively. If DOE determines that amended standards need to be proposed, a NOPR TSD presents the results of Phase 2 and Phase 3 analyses. During the preliminary MIA for this analysis, DOE identified potential impacts to manufacturers of electric motors through confidential interviews. Chapter 12 of the preliminary TSD includes details on the key issues identified by DOE during manufacturer interviews. 2A.1.2 Issues on which the Department Seeks Public Comment DOE is interested in receiving comments from interested parties on all aspects of this preliminary TSD, especially comments or data that might improve DOE’s analyses. DOE welcomes data or information that will help resolve the following specific issues, which were raised during preparation of this preliminary TSD. 2A.1.3 Equipment Classes for Electric Motors DOE seeks comment regarding the current equipment classes for electric motors. DOE specifically seeks comment on the availability of NEMA Design C motors and if there are cases for which a NEMA Design A motor could, or commonly does, replace a NEMA Design C motor. 2A.1.4 Motor Enclosure Utility DOE seeks comment regarding whether motors built in an open enclosure should be subject to the same standards as enclosed motors. DOE seeks comment on if a given enclosed motor could meet the same or higher efficiency standards as an open motor, what utility could be lost be switching to an enclosed motor from an open one. 2A-1 2A.1.5 Class Setting Factors DOE seeks comment regarding the use of a combination of output power, phase count, and locked-rotor torque as an equipment class factor for potential energy conservation standards for electric motors. 2A.1.6 Locked-Rotor Torque as a Class Setting Factor for SNEMs DOE seeks comment specifically regarding whether locked-rotor torque is necessary to maintain as an equipment class factor if the highest-torque SNEMs (e.g., CSCR) can reach the highest available efficiency levels among the set of electric motors which are used as substitutes for similar applications. 2A.1.7 Synchronous Motor Equipment Class DOE seeks comment regarding the tentative determination not to analyze synchronous electric motors in a separate equipment class from induction motors on the basis that they are able to reach the same efficiency levels. 2A.1.8 Synchronous Motor Utility DOE seeks comment regarding whether synchronous motors provide utility to consumers that induction motors do not provide and, if so, which applications could be served only by synchronous motors. 2A.1.9 Air-Over Cooling as an Equipment Class Setting Factor DOE seeks comment regarding the use of air-over cooling as an equipment class factor for potential energy conservation standards for electric motors. 2A.1.10 Inverter-Only Induction Electric Motors DOE seeks comment specifically regarding its tentative determination that inverter-only induction electric motors do not justify a separate equipment class. 2A.1.11 Submerged Operation as an Equipment Class Setting Factor DOE seeks comment regarding the use of submerged operating capability as an equipment class factor for potential energy conservation standards for electric motors. 2A.1.12 Electric Steels Used in Electric Motors DOE seeks comment and data on the availability of these higher efficiency electrical steels. DOE seeks comment on its decision to use these steels in its analysis. 2A-2 2A.1.13 Variable Speed Drives DOE requests comment and data on the additional costs of variable speed drives (“VSDs”), and other limitations of using a VSD. 2A.1.14 Amorphous Electrical Steels DOE requests further data concerning the feasibility of amorphous steel being used at scale. DOE also requests comment regarding the costs of volume production using amorphous steels, as well as data concerning the core loss of amorphous steel at typical electric motor operating parameters. 2A.1.15 Representative Units Used in Analysis DOE seeks comment on the representative units selected for this preliminary analysis. If DOE expands the scope of potential energy conservation standards to include any of the varieties of electric motors described in Section 2.2.3, DOE seeks input regarding what, if any, representative units may be the most important ones for DOE to add to its analysis. 2A.1.16 Electric Motor Conductor Prices DOE requests feedback and data on the costs of conductor material presented in Section 2.5.4.3. 2A.1.17 Electrical Steel Prices DOE requests feedback and data on the costs of electrical steels presented in Table 2.20. Further, DOE requests data on the relative costs between lower-loss grades of steel. DOE requests feedback and data on the relative costs increases associated with the application electrical steel tariffs. 2A.1.18 Other Material Prices DOE requests feedback and data on the cost of the other materials used in electric motor manufacturing listed in Table 2.21. 2A.1.19 Factory Overhead Markup DOE requests comment on the magnitude and application of the factory overhead markup. 2A.1.20 Scrap Markup DOE requests comment on the appropriateness and magnitude of the markups applied as material scrap in this preliminary analysis. 2A-3 2A.1.21 Product Conversion Costs DOE requests comment on the appropriateness and magnitude of the markups used to account for product conversion costs in this preliminary analysis. 2A.1.22 SNEM Preliminary Results DOE requests comment on these preliminary results and if the efficiency values are appropriate for each EL. DOE also requests comment on what representative units should be used for SNEM equipment classes. 2A.1.23 Distribution Channels for Currently Regulated and Expanded Scope Electric Motors DOE requests data and information to characterize the distribution channels for each category of electric motors analyzed, as well as for the additional categories of electric motors that DOE may consider including in the NOPR (i.e., electric motors above 500 horsepower; electric motors that are synchronous motors; submersible electric motors, and inverter-only electric motors). DOE also requests data on the fraction of sales that go through these channels. See chapter 6 of the preliminary TSD. 2A.1.24 Consumer Sample DOE seeks input on data sources that DOE can use to help establish a consumer sample for each category of electric motor analyzed, and for electric motors that DOE may consider including in the NOPR (i.e., electric motors above 500 horsepower; electric motors that are synchronous motors; submersible electric motors, and inverter-only electric motors). Specifically, DOE requests comments on the distribution of electric motors by sector, applications, and region used to characterize the consumer sample for electric motors analyzed and for electric motors that DOE may consider including in the NOPR (i.e., electric motors above 500 horsepower; electric motors that are synchronous motors; submersible electric motors, and inverter-only electric motors). See chapter 7 of the preliminary TSD. 2A.1.25 Average Annual Operating Load DOE requests comments on the distribution of average annual operating load by application and sector used to characterize the variability in energy use for currently regulated electric motors, SNEMs, and AO electric motors. See chapter 7 of the preliminary TSD. 2A.1.26 Load Profiles DOE seeks input on data sources that DOE can use to help characterize load profiles (i.e., percentage of annual operating hours spent at specified load points) for currently regulated electric motors, SNEMs, and AO electric motors, including the distribution of those profiles by application and sector. See chapter 7 of the preliminary TSD. 2A-4 2A.1.27 Usage Profiles for Electric Motors Considered in the NOPR as Expanded Scope DOE seeks input on data sources that DOE can use to help characterize the variability in annual energy consumption for additional categories of electric motors that may be considered for inclusion in the NOPR (i.e., electric motors above 500 horsepower; electric motors that are synchronous motors; submersible electric motors, and inverter-only electric motors). Specifically, DOE is requesting data and information related to: (1) the distribution of motor average annual operating loads by application and sector; and (2) applicable the load profiles (i.e., percentage of annual operating hours spent at specified load points), including the distribution of those profiles by application and sector. See chapter 7 of the preliminary TSD. 2A.1.28 Annual Operating Hours DOE is requesting comments on the distribution of annual operating hours by application and sector used to characterize the variability in energy use of currently regulated electric motors, SNEMs, and AO electric motors. See chapter 7 of the preliminary TSD. 2A.1.29 Annual Operating Hours for Electric Motors Considered in the NOPR as Expanded Scope DOE seeks input on data sources that DOE can use to help establish the distribution of annual operating hours by application and sector for each additional category of electric motor that may be considered in the expanded scope in the NOPR (i.e., electric motors above 500 horsepower; electric motors that are synchronous motors; submersible electric motors, and inverter-only electric motors). See chapter 7 of the preliminary TSD. 2A.1.30 Impact of Speed DOE requests comment on its assumption that 20 percent of consumers with fan, pump, and air compressor applications would be negatively impacted by higher operating speeds. DOE seeks additional information and analysis on projected impacts related to any increases in motor nominal speed. See chapter 7 of the preliminary TSD. 2A.1.31 Installation Costs DOE requests feedback and data on whether the installation costs at higher efficiency levels differ in comparison to the baseline installation costs for currently regulated electric motors, SNEMs, and AO electric motors. To the extent that these costs differ, DOE seeks supporting data and the reasons for those differences. See chapter 8 of the preliminary TSD. 2A.1.32 Installation Costs for Electric Motors Considered in the NOPR as Expanded Scope DOE seeks data and information to help establish installation costs by efficiency level for each additional category of electric motor that may be considered in the expanded scope in the 2A-5 NOPR (i.e., electric motors above 500 horsepower; electric motors that are synchronous motors; submersible electric motors, and inverter-only electric motors). Specifically, at a given horsepower, DOE seeks information on how these installation costs may differ compared to the installation costs of a NEMA Design A or B motor at the baseline efficiency level. 2A.1.33 Repair Costs DOE seeks comment and data regarding the repair costs (by efficiency level) for the electric motors analyzed. DOE also seeks comment and data on the repair frequency assumptions used in the LCC and PBP analyses. Among the issues of interest to DOE is whether DOE’s analysis should continue to assume that all electric motors between 21 and 100 horsepower are repaired once during their lifetime, or if the analysis should treat some electric motors with shorter lifetimes as not being repaired (e.g., electric motors with sampled lifetimes that are lower than half the average motor lifetime). Similarly, DOE requests comment on whether its analysis should continue to assume that all electric motors between 101 and 500 horsepower are repaired twice during their lifetime, or to treat some electric motors with shorter lifetimes as not being repaired (e.g., electric motors with sampled lifetimes that are lower than a third of the average motor lifetime). See chapter 8 of the preliminary TSD. 2A.1.34 Maintenance Costs DOE requests feedback and data on whether maintenance costs at higher efficiency levels differ in comparison to the baseline maintenance costs for any of the representative units analyzed. To the extent that these costs differ, DOE seeks supporting data and the reasons for those differences. See chapter 8 of the preliminary TSD. 2A.1.35 Maintenance Costs for Electric Motors Considered in the NOPR as Expanded Scope DOE seeks data and information to help establish repair and maintenance costs by efficiency level for each additional category of electric motor that may be considered in the expanded scope in the NOPR (i.e., electric motors above 500 horsepower; electric motors that are synchronous motors; submersible electric motors, and inverter-only electric motors). Specifically, DOE seeks information on how these repair and maintenance costs may differ compared to the maintenance costs of a NEMA Design A or B motor at the baseline efficiency level at a given horsepower. See chapter 8 of the preliminary TSD. 2A.1.36 Lifetimes DOE requests comments on the equipment lifetimes (both in years and in mechanical hours) used for each representative unit considered in the LCC and PBP analyses. See chapter 8 of the preliminary TSD. 2A-6 2A.1.37 Lifetimes for Electric Motors Considered in the Expanded Scope DOE seeks data and information to help establish equipment lifetimes (either in years or in mechanical hours) for each additional category of electric motor that may considered in the NOPR. To the extent that these lifetimes differ by horsepower or sector, DOE seeks supporting data to characterize these differences. See chapter 8 of the preliminary TSD. 2A.1.38 Efficiency Distributions in the No-new Standards Case DOE requests comments on the efficiency distribution in the no-new standards case for currently regulated electric motors, SNEMs, and AO electric motors. See chapter 8 of the preliminary TSD. 2A.1.39 Efficiency Distributions in the No-new Standards Case for Electric Motors Considered in the Expanded Scope DOE seeks information and data to help establish efficiency distribution in the no-new standards case for each additional electric motors category that may be considered in the NOPR expanded scope and by horsepower. See chapter 8 of the preliminary TSD. 2A.1.40 Efficiency Distribution Trends DOE requests data and information on any trends in the electric motor market that could be used to forecast expected trends in market share by efficiency levels for each equipment class (for both currently regulated electric motors, SNEMs, AO electric motors, and electric motors that DOE may consider in the NOPR expanded scope). If disaggregated data are not available at the equipment class level, DOE requests aggregated data at the equipment class group level. See chapter 8 of the preliminary TSD. 2A.1.41 Shipments Analysis DOE requests comment and additional data on its 2020 shipments estimates for electric motors currently regulated under 10 CFR 431.25, SNEMs, and AO electric motors. DOE seeks comment on the methodology used to project future shipments of electric motors. DOE seeks information on other data sources that can be used to estimate future shipments. For this analysis, DOE assumed that the fraction of shipments in each equipment class group and horsepower range do not change over time. DOE requests information and additional data on whether there is an expected shift from one horsepower range to another over time. In addition, DOE requests comments on whether establishing different potential standards by horsepower would result in a shift from one horsepower range to another over time. See chapter 9 of the preliminary TSD. 2A.1.42 Shipments Analysis for Electric Motors Considered in the Expanded Scope DOE requests 2020 (or the most recently available) shipments data for each additional category of electric motors that may be considered in the NOPR expanded scope by horsepower and sector (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial, and agriculture). Specifically, DOE requests 2A-7 feedback on its shipments estimates presented in Table 2.39. In addition, DOE requests information on the rate at which annual shipments of electric motors considered in the expanded scope is expected to change in the next 5-10 years. If possible, DOE requests this information by electric motor category. See chapter 9 of the preliminary TSD. 2A.1.43 Market Substitution DOE requests comment on the methodology used to analyze the potential market shift from NEMA Design A and B electric motors to unregulated synchronous electric motor in the standards case. See chapter 9 of the preliminary TSD. 2A.1.44 Non-Representative Equipment Classes DOE requests comment on its approach for estimating the energy-use and cost of nonrepresentative equipment classes of electric motors regulated under 10 CFR 431.25. See chapter 10 of the preliminary TSD. 2A.1.45 Rebound Effect DOE requests comment and data regarding the potential increase in utilization of electric motors due to any increase in efficiency. See chapter 10 of the preliminary TSD. 2A.1.46 Consumer Subgroup Analysis DOE welcomes input regarding which, if any, consumer subgroups should be considered when developing potential energy conservation standards for electric motors. See chapter 11 of the preliminary TSD. See chapter 11 of the preliminary TSD. 2A.1.47 Emissions Analysis DOE requests comment on its approach to conducting the emissions analysis for electric motors. See chapter 13 of the preliminary TSD. 2A.1.48 Monetization of Emissions Reductions Benefits DOE invites input on the proposed approach for estimating monetary benefits associated with emissions reductions. See chapter 14 of the preliminary TSD. 2A.1.49 Utility Impact Analysis DOE seeks comment on the planned approach to conduct the utility impact analysis. See chapter 15 of the preliminary TSD. 2A-8 2A.1.50 Employment Impact Analysis DOE welcomes input on its proposed approach for assessing national employment impacts. See chapter 16 of the preliminary TSD. 2A.1.51 Regulatory Impact Analysis DOE requests any available data or reports that would contribute to the analysis of alternatives to standards for electric motors. In particular, DOE seeks information on the effectiveness of existing or past efficiency improvement programs for this equipment. See chapter 17 of the preliminary TSD. 2A-9 APPENDIX 5A. ENGINEERING DATA TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 5A-2 Design Data for Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 .................................................. 5A-2 Fan-On and Fan-Off Test Results for Internally-Cooled SNEMs ................................ 5A-3 LIST OF TABLES Table 5A.2.1 Baseline Design Data (Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25) .......................... 5A-2 Table 5A.2.2 Maximum-Technology Design Data (Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25) ... 5A-3 Table 5A.3.1 Results of Fan-On vs. Fan-Off Testing ............................................................. 5A-3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 5A.3.1 Fan Loss vs. Horsepower ............................................................................... 5A-4 5A-i APPENDIX 5A. ENGINEERING DATA INTRODUCTION This appendix present specifications and detailed cost-efficiency results for a portion of the electric motor representative units analyzed in the engineering analysis. DESIGN DATA FOR MOTORS REGULATED AT 10 CFR 431.25 Table 5A.2.1 lists the design parameters for each baseline representative unit used in the preliminary analysis. Table 5A.2.2 lists the design parameters for the maximum technologically feasible designs for each representative unit in this preliminary analysis. Table 5A.2.1 Baseline Design Data (Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25) Parameter (Units) Efficiency Power Factor Voltage Current Full-load Speed Frame Size Core Steel Stack Length Rotor Winding Material Main Wire Breakdown Torque Locked-Rotor Torque Locked-Rotor Current Unit % % V A RPM in 5 HP (Design B) 30 HP (Design B) 75 HP (Design B) 5 HP (Design C) 5 HP (Design C) 81.3 87.6 73.3 83.8 78.0 89.5 460 84.6 1744 184T 93.6 460 138.3 1773 284T 95.4 460 418.7 1773 365T 89.5 460 90.3 1747 184T 94.5 460 697 1759 326T M47 M600-50A M400-50A M600-50A 29M19 - Al Al Al Al Al AWG % F.L. % F.L. A 20 362.5 290.1 84.61 20 294.6 155.9 138.3 20 276.3 144.9 418.7 20 404.9 321.3 90.3 19 239.5 204.0 697 *% F.L. denotes percent of Full Load Torque 5.14 8.84 5A-2 13.5 5.75 12.13 Table 5A.2.2 Maximum-Technology Design Data (Motors Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25) Parameter (Units) Efficiency Power Factor Voltage Current Full-load Speed Frame Size Core Steel Stack Length Rotor Winding Material Main Wire Breakdown Torque Locked-Rotor Torque Locked-Rotor Current 5 HP (Design B) 75 HP (Design B) 5 HP (Design C) 5 HP (Design C) in 92.4 85.2 460 88.95 1769 184T 35H210 6.5 30 HP (Design B) - Cu Al Cu Cu Cu AWG % F.L. % F.L. A 20 364.8 189.6 89.0 19.5 282.2 152.1 216.4 20 268 189.8 434.4 20 366.2 201.3 90.2 20 207.2 210.7 706.1 Unit % % V A RPM *% F.L. denotes percent of Full Load Torque 95.4 84.9 460.00 216.4 1780 284T 35H210 11.05 96.8 77.2 460.0 434.4 1783 365T 35H210 13.68 92.4 65. 460.0 90.2 1769 184T 35H210 6.5 95.8 78.0 460.0 706.1 1776 326T 35H210 12.13 FAN-ON AND FAN-OFF TEST RESULTS FOR INTERNALLY-COOLED SNEMS In an attempt to characterize the typical energy losses due to the fan internally-cooled motors experience during operation, DOE conducted efficiency tests on five SNEMs with the internal fan attached and operating as designed, then removed the fan and conducted efficiency tests for each motor according to NEMA MG-1 Section 34.4, a test procedure for measuring the efficiency of air-over motors. The results of this testing are displayed in Table 5A.3.1. Table 5A.3.1 Results of Fan-On vs. Fan-Off Testing Losses with Fan Losses without Fan* HP Pole Count (W) (W) .25 4 74.4 57.8 .25 4 155.0 133.2 .25 4 144.1 126.1 1 4 185.2 133.2 1 4 390.2 298.5 Fan Loss (W) 16.6 21.9 18.0 52.1 91.7 *The resistive losses measured by the efficiency test were corrected to the temperature of the fan-on test to minimize differences in losses that were not due to the energy consumed by the fan 5A-3 Since the energy consumed by the external fan is not recorded in air-over motor efficiency tests according to NEMA Section 34.4, DOE set out to characterize the difference of measurements of efficiency for the same motor tested under NEMA Section 34.4 (without an internal fan) and typical IEEE 112 or 114 test methods (tested with the internal fan). DOE modeled the relationship of fan loss in terms of percent of total loss vs. horsepower shown in Figure 5A.3.1. Each point represents the average of tested data of the fan loss for various sized motors and the dotted trendline used to characterize this relationship. For motors rated 1 horsepower and above, data for friction & windage losses (“F&W”) taken from IEEE 112 Test Method B reports was used to estimate the losses due to the fan, with DOE estimating 90 percent of F&W losses being due to the fan. DOE also set a minimum of fan losses as 1 percent of total losses due to the poor behavior of this relationship at higher rated horsepower motors. % of Total Losses Caused by Fan 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0 5 10 15 20 Rated Horsepower Figure 5A.3.1 Fan Loss vs. Horsepower 5A-4 25 30 35 APPENDIX 6A. DETAILED DATA FOR PRODUCT PRICE MARKUPS TABLE OF CONTENTS 6A.1 6A.2 6A.3 6A.4 DETAILED MOTOR WHOLESALER COST DATA .......................................... 6A-1 DETAILED EQUIPMENT WHOLESALER COST DATA ................................. 6A-2 DETAILED ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER DATA .................. 6A-3 STATE SALES TAX RATES .............................................................................. 6A-17 LIST OF TABLES Table 6A.1.1 Table 6A.2.1 Table 6A.3.1 Table 6A.3.2 Table 6A.3.3 Table 6A.3.4 Table 6A.3.5 Table 6A.3.6 Table 6A.3.7 Table 6A.3.8 Table 6A.3.9 Table 6A.3.10 Table 6A.3.11 Table 6A.3.12 Table 6A.3.13 Table 6A.3.14 Table 6A.3.15 Table 6A.3.16 Table 6A.3.17 Table 6A.3.18 Motor Wholesaler Expenses and Markups Used To Scale the Incremental Markups .................................................................................. 6A-1 Equipment Wholesaler Expenses and Markups Used To Scale the Incremental Markups .................................................................................. 6A-2 Detailed Expenses for Farm Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing ... 6A-3 Detailed Expenses for Construction Machinery Manufacturing ................ 6A-4 Detailed Expenses for Mining Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing ............................................................................................. 6A-5 Detailed Expenses for Oil and Gas Field Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing ............................................................................................. 6A-5 Detailed Expenses for Food Product Machinery Manufacturing ............... 6A-6 Detailed Expenses for Semiconductor Machinery Manufacturing ............. 6A-7 Detailed Expenses for Sawmill, Woodworking, and Paper Machinery Manufacturing ............................................................................................. 6A-7 Detailed Expenses for Printing Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing ............................................................................................. 6A-8 Detailed Expenses for All Other Industrial Machinery Manufacturing ...... 6A-9 Detailed Expenses for Industrial and Commercial Fan and Blower and Air Purification Equipment Manufacturing ................................................ 6A-9 Detailed Expenses for Heating Equipment Manufacturing ...................... 6A-10 Detailed Expenses for Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing ........................................................................................... 6A-11 Detailed Expenses for Machine Tool Manufacturing ............................... 6A-11 Detailed Expenses for Rolling Mill and Other Metalworking Machinery Manufacturing ........................................................................ 6A-12 Detailed Expenses for Air and Gas Compressor Manufacturing .............. 6A-13 Detailed Expenses for Measuring, Dispensing and Other Pumping Equipment Manufacturing ........................................................................ 6A-13 Detailed Expenses for Elevator and Moving Stairway Manufacturing .... 6A-14 Detailed Expenses for Conveyor and Conveying Equipment Manufacturing ........................................................................................... 6A-15 6A-i Table 6A.3.19 Table 6A.3.20 Table 6A.4.1 Detailed Expenses for Packaging Machinery Manufacturing .................. 6A-15 Detailed Expenses for Fluid Power Pump and Motor Manufacturing ...... 6A-16 State Sales Tax Rates ................................................................................ 6A-17 6A-ii APPENDIX 6A. DETAILED DATA FOR PRODUCT PRICE MARKUPS 6A.1 DETAILED MOTOR WHOLESALER COST DATA Table 6.5.1 in chapter 6 is based on the 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade Report for “Household Appliance and Electrical and Electronic Goods Merchant Wholesalers” (NAICS 4236). The complete income statement for that sector is shown in Table 6A.1.1 by both dollar value and percentage terms. Table 6A.1.1 Motor Wholesaler Expenses and Markups Used To Scale the Incremental Markups Items Total Cost of Equipment Sales Gross Margin Labor & Occupancy Expenses Annual payroll Employer costs for fringe benefit Contract labor costs including temporary help Purchased utilities, total Purchased repairs and maintenance to buildings, structures, and offices Purchased repairs and maintenance to machinery and equipment Purchased communication services Lease and rental payments for machinery and equipment Lease and rental payments for buildings, structures, offices Other Operating Expenses Expensed equipment (e.g. computer related supplies) Purchases of other materials, parts, and supplies (not for resale) Cost of purchased packaging and containers Cost of purchased transportation, shipping and warehousing services Cost of purchased advertising and promotional services Purchased professional and technical services Cost of purchased software Cost of data processing and other purchased computer services, except communications Depreciation and amortization charges Commissions paid Taxes and license fees 6A-1 Amount ($1,000,000) 433,056 150,578 Scaling 44,715 10,082 1,797 522 566 Baseline 592 973 3,440 1,147 943 5,627 5,087 889 649 4,956 3,074 843 Baseline & Incremental Other Operating Expenses - Net Profit Before Income Taxes Baseline & Incremental 51,636 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade Report (NAICS 4236 Household Appliance and Electrical and Electronic Goods Merchant Wholesalers) https://www.census.gov/wholesale/index.html Note: “-“ means that data is not published due to insufficient responses; however, these do not affect the markup estimation. 6A.2 DETAILED EQUIPMENT WHOLESALER COST DATA Table 6.5.2 in chapter 6 is based on the 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade Report for “Machinery, Equipment, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers” (NAICS 4238). The complete income statement for that sector is shown in Table 6A.2.1 by both dollar value and percentage terms. Table 6A.2.1 Equipment Wholesaler Expenses and Markups Used to Scale the Incremental Markups Items Total Cost of Equipment Sales Gross Margin Labor & Occupancy Expenses Annual payroll Employer costs for fringe benefit Contract labor costs including temporary help Purchased utilities, total Purchased repairs and maintenance to machinery and equipment Purchased repairs and maintenance to buildings, structures, and offices Purchased communication services Lease and rental payments for machinery and equipment Lease and rental payments for buildings, structures, offices Other Operating Expenses Expensed equipment (e.g. computer related supplies) Purchases of other materials, parts, and supplies (not for resale) Cost of purchased packaging and containers Cost of purchased transportation, shipping and warehousing services Cost of purchased advertising and promotional services Cost of purchased software Cost of data processing and other purchased computer services, except communications Purchased professional and technical services 6A-2 Amount ($1,000,000) 290,065 119,631 Scaling 43,813 10,634 1,020 1,033 1,119 Baseline 651 837 585 3,707 551 1,825 804 3,312 1,593 442 559 2,547 Baseline & Incremental Depreciation and amortization charges Commissions paid Taxes and license fees Other Operating Expenses 4,408 1,565 1,083 8,490 Net Profit Before Income Taxes 29,053 Baseline & Incremental Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade Report (NAICS 4238 Machinery, Equipment, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers) https://www.census.gov/wholesale/index.html 6A.3 DETAILED ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER DATA Table 6.5.2 in chapter 6 summarizes markups for nine original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) from the latest 2019 Annual Survey of Manufacturers. Table 6A.3.1 to Table 6A.3.20 provide the complete income statement for each OEM expressed in both dollar value and percentage terms. Table 6A.3.1 Detailed Expenses for Farm Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing Item Total cost of goods sold Total capital expenditures Annual payroll Total cost of materials Gross Margin Payroll and Occupancy Expenses Total fringe benefits Production workers annual wages Total rental payments or lease payments Temporary staff and leased employee expenses Repair and maintenance services of buildings and/or machinery Purchased professional and technical services Taxes and license fees Other Operating Expenses Expensed computer hardware and other equipment Expensed purchases of software Data processing and other purchased computer services Communication services Refuse removal (including hazardous waste) services Advertising and promotional services All other operating expenses Net Profit Before Taxes Dollar Value $1,000 20,571,107 438,097 3,335,672 16,797,338 9,814,192 3,800,809 1,362,607 1,696,798 116,117 210,672 191,240 Percentage % 67.70 1.44 10.98 55.28 32.30 12.51 4.48 5.58 0.38 0.69 0.63 158,652 64,723 1,523,505 13,541 21,593 11,866 0.52 0.21 5.01 0.04 0.07 0.04 20,108 24,032 0.07 0.08 61,434 1,370,931 4,489,878 0.20 4.51 14.78 Scaling Baseline Baseline & Incremental Source: 2019 Annual Survey of Manufacturers: Farm Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 333111) 6A-3 Table 6A.3.2 Detailed Expenses for Construction Machinery Manufacturing Item Total cost of goods sold Total capital expenditures Annual payroll Total cost of materials Gross Margin Payroll and Occupancy Expenses Total fringe benefits Production workers annual wages Total rental payments or lease payments Temporary staff and leased employee expenses Repair and maintenance services of buildings and/or machinery Purchased professional and technical services Taxes and license fees Other Operating Expenses Expensed computer hardware and other equipment Expensed purchases of software Data processing and other purchased computer services Communication services Refuse removal (including hazardous waste) services Advertising and promotional services All other operating expenses Net Profit Before Taxes Dollar Value $1,000 25,346,846 681,002 3,843,911 20,821,933 10,752,980 4,521,435 1,367,827 2,254,474 145,072 206,905 276,194 Percentage % 70.21 1.89 10.65 57.68 29.79 12.52 3.79 6.25 0.40 0.57 0.77 201,685 69,278 1,621,393 24,174 25,793 54,446 0.56 0.19 4.49 0.07 0.07 0.15 25,255 41,370 0.07 0.11 85,919 1,364,436 4,610,152 0.24 3.78 12.77 Scaling Baseline Baseline & Incremental Source: 2019 Annual Survey of Manufacturers: Construction Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS 333120) 6A-4 Table 6A.3.3 Detailed Expenses for Mining Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing Item Total cost of goods sold Total capital expenditures Annual payroll Total cost of materials Gross Margin Payroll and Occupancy Expenses Total fringe benefits Production workers annual wages Total rental payments or lease payments Temporary staff and leased employee expenses Repair and maintenance services of buildings and/or machinery Purchased professional and technical services Taxes and license fees Other Operating Expenses Expensed computer hardware and other equipment Expensed purchases of software Data processing and other purchased computer services Communication services Refuse removal (including hazardous waste) services Advertising and promotional services All other operating expenses Net Profit Before Taxes Dollar Value $1,000 4,433,862 96,736 934,981 3,402,145 823,113 1,021,567 353,385 467,800 39,357 75,373 27,436 Percentage % 84.34 1.84 17.79 64.72 15.66 19.43 6.72 8.90 0.75 1.43 0.52 34,507 23,709 237,578 9,204 3,989 3,445 0.66 0.45 4.52 0.18 0.08 0.07 6,833 7,625 0.13 0.15 15,177 191,305 (436,032) 0.29 3.64 -8.29 Scaling Baseline Baseline & Incremental Source: 2019 Annual Survey of Manufacturers: Mining Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 333131) Table 6A.3.4 Detailed Expenses for Oil and Gas Field Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing Item Total cost of goods sold Total capital expenditures Annual payroll Total cost of materials Gross Margin Payroll and Occupancy Expenses Total fringe benefits Production workers annual wages Total rental payments or lease payments Temporary staff and leased employee expenses Repair and maintenance services of buildings and/or machinery Purchased professional and technical services Taxes and license fees Other Operating Expenses 6A-5 Dollar Value $1,000 11,678,296 383,230 2,489,102 8,805,964 2,865,979 2,851,742 816,793 1,429,145 130,970 130,060 132,328 Percentage % 80.29 2.63 17.11 60.55 19.71 19.61 5.62 9.83 0.90 0.89 0.91 115,180 97,266 114,350 0.79 0.67 0.79 Scaling Baseline Item Expensed computer hardware and other equipment Expensed purchases of software Data processing and other purchased computer services Communication services Refuse removal (including hazardous waste) services Advertising and promotional services All other operating expenses Net Profit Before Taxes Dollar Value $1,000 12,533 18,112 7,269 Percentage % 0.09 0.12 0.05 21,638 18,150 0.15 0.12 36,648 (100,113) 0.25 -0.69 Scaling Baseline & Incremental Source: 2019 Annual Survey of Manufacturers: Oil and Gas Field Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 333132) Table 6A.3.5 Detailed Expenses for Food Product Machinery Manufacturing Item Total cost of goods sold Total capital expenditures Annual payroll Total cost of materials Gross Margin Payroll and Occupancy Expenses Total fringe benefits Production workers annual wages Total rental payments or lease payments Temporary staff and leased employee expenses Repair and maintenance services of buildings and/or machinery Purchased professional and technical services Taxes and license fees Other Operating Expenses Expensed computer hardware and other equipment Expensed purchases of software Data processing and other purchased computer services Communication services Refuse removal (including hazardous waste) services Advertising and promotional services All other operating expenses Net Profit Before Taxes Dollar Value $1,000 4,121,420 158,925 1,250,188 2,712,307 1,758,488 1,115,924 329,840 585,659 61,855 36,544 33,703 Percentage % 70.09 2.70 21.26 46.13 29.91 18.98 5.61 9.96 1.05 0.62 0.57 51,211 17,112 361,917 11,402 14,763 5,917 0.87 0.29 6.16 0.19 0.25 0.10 11,825 6,351 0.20 0.11 26,369 285,290 280,647 0.45 4.85 4.77 Scaling Baseline Baseline & Incremental Source: 2019 Annual Survey of Manufacturers: Food Product Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS 333241) 6A-6 Table 6A.3.6 Detailed Expenses for Semiconductor Machinery Manufacturing Item Total cost of goods sold Total capital expenditures Annual payroll Total cost of materials Gross Margin Payroll and Occupancy Expenses Total fringe benefits Production workers annual wages Total rental payments or lease payments Temporary staff and leased employee expenses Repair and maintenance services of buildings and/or machinery Purchased professional and technical services Taxes and license fees Other Operating Expenses Expensed computer hardware and other equipment Expensed purchases of software Data processing and other purchased computer services Communication services Refuse removal (including hazardous waste) services Advertising and promotional services All other operating expenses Net Profit Before Taxes Dollar Value $1,000 7,714,992 365,096 2,683,135 4,666,761 1,552,117 1,896,423 832,773 577,556 56,824 114,864 43,215 Percentage % 83.25 3.94 28.95 50.36 16.75 20.46 8.99 6.23 0.61 1.24 0.47 240,438 30,753 1,263,974 36,288 33,781 9,738 2.59 0.33 13.64 0.39 0.36 0.11 21,902 36,541 0.24 0.39 8,124 1,117,600 (1,608,280) 0.09 12.06 -17.35 Scaling Baseline Baseline & Incremental Source: 2019 Annual Survey of Manufacturers: Semiconductor Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS 333242) Table 6A.3.7 Detailed Expenses for Sawmill, Woodworking, and Paper Machinery Manufacturing Item Total cost of goods sold Total capital expenditures Annual payroll Total cost of materials Gross Margin Payroll and Occupancy Expenses Total fringe benefits Production workers annual wages Total rental payments or lease payments Temporary staff and leased employee expenses Repair and maintenance services of buildings and/or machinery Purchased professional and technical services Taxes and license fees 6A-7 Dollar Value $1,000 2,715,708 70,278 898,594 1,746,836 962,766 786,316 244,832 404,270 35,897 21,401 30,449 Percentage % 73.83 1.91 24.43 47.49 26.17 21.38 6.66 10.99 0.98 0.58 0.83 35,862 13,605 0.97 0.37 Scaling Baseline Item Other Operating Expenses Expensed computer hardware and other equipment Expensed purchases of software Data processing and other purchased computer services Communication services Refuse removal (including hazardous waste) services Advertising and promotional services All other operating expenses Net Profit Before Taxes Dollar Value $1,000 198,088 5,085 5,956 4,830 Percentage % 5.39 0.14 0.16 0.13 8,224 9,012 0.22 0.24 10,491 154,490 (21,638) 0.29 4.20 -0.59 Scaling Baseline & Incremental Source: 2019 Annual Survey of Manufacturers: Sawmill, Woodworking, and Paper Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS 333243) Table 6A.3.8 Detailed Expenses for Printing Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing Item Total cost of goods sold Total capital expenditures Annual payroll Total cost of materials Gross Margin Payroll and Occupancy Expenses Total fringe benefits Production workers annual wages Total rental payments or lease payments Temporary staff and leased employee expenses Repair and maintenance services of buildings and/or machinery Purchased professional and technical services Taxes and license fees Other Operating Expenses Expensed computer hardware and other equipment Expensed purchases of software Data processing and other purchased computer services Communication services Refuse removal (including hazardous waste) services Advertising and promotional services All other operating expenses Net Profit Before Taxes Dollar Value $1,000 1,295,901 38,744 402,386 854,771 348,327 369,255 111,739 181,913 27,141 12,701 12,225 Percentage % 78.82 2.36 24.47 51.99 21.18 22.46 6.80 11.06 1.65 0.77 0.74 17,412 6,124 197,172 2,528 3,309 1,949 1.06 0.37 11.99 0.15 0.20 0.12 4,551 5,272 0.28 0.32 7,956 171,607 (218,100) 0.48 10.44 -13.26 Scaling Baseline Baseline & Incremental Source: 2019 Annual Survey of Manufacturers: Printing Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 333244) 6A-8 Table 6A.3.9 Detailed Expenses for All Other Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Item Total cost of goods sold Total capital expenditures Annual payroll Total cost of materials Gross Margin Payroll and Occupancy Expenses Total fringe benefits Production workers annual wages Total rental payments or lease payments Temporary staff and leased employee expenses Repair and maintenance services of buildings and/or machinery Purchased professional and technical services Taxes and license fees Other Operating Expenses Expensed computer hardware and other equipment Expensed purchases of software Data processing and other purchased computer services Communication services Refuse removal (including hazardous waste) services Advertising and promotional services All other operating expenses Net Profit Before Taxes Dollar Value $1,000 10,763,859 378,937 3,566,025 6,818,897 4,884,638 3,322,297 937,164 1,765,944 197,588 127,738 83,605 Percentage % 68.79 2.42 22.79 43.58 31.21 21.23 5.99 11.29 1.26 0.82 0.53 150,346 59,912 1,210,004 24,684 34,477 22,024 0.96 0.38 7.73 0.16 0.22 0.14 36,762 33,500 0.23 0.21 62,701 995,856 352,337 0.40 6.36 2.25 Scaling Baseline Baseline & Incremental Source: 2019 Annual Survey of Manufacturers: Other Industrial Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS 333249) Table 6A.3.10 Detailed Expenses for Industrial and Commercial Fan and Blower and Air Purification Equipment Manufacturing Item Total cost of goods sold Total capital expenditures Annual payroll Total cost of materials Gross Margin Payroll and Occupancy Expenses Total fringe benefits Production workers annual wages Total rental payments or lease payments Temporary staff and leased employee expenses Repair and maintenance services of buildings and/or machinery Purchased professional and technical services Taxes and license fees 6A-9 Dollar Value $1,000 4,345,768 130,152 1,273,156 2,942,460 1,995,016 1,269,596 367,234 667,595 65,622 69,352 42,156 Percentage % 68.54 2.05 20.08 46.41 31.46 20.02 5.79 10.53 1.03 1.09 0.66 37,587 20,050 0.59 0.32 Scaling Baseline Item Other Operating Expenses Expensed computer hardware and other equipment Expensed purchases of software Data processing and other purchased computer services Communication services Refuse removal (including hazardous waste) services Advertising and promotional services All other operating expenses Net Profit Before Taxes Dollar Value $1,000 396,313 9,929 12,266 6,071 Percentage % 6.25 0.16 0.19 0.10 11,286 11,400 0.18 0.18 18,002 327,359 329,107 0.28 5.16 5.19 Scaling Baseline & Incremental Source: 2019 Annual Survey of Manufacturers: Industrial and Commercial Fan and Blower and Air Purification Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 333413) Table 6A.3.11 Detailed Expenses for Heating Equipment Manufacturing Item Total cost of goods sold Total capital expenditures Annual payroll Total cost of materials Gross Margin Payroll and Occupancy Expenses Total fringe benefits Production workers annual wages Total rental payments or lease payments Temporary staff and leased employee expenses Repair and maintenance services of buildings and/or machinery Purchased professional and technical services Taxes and license fees Other Operating Expenses Expensed computer hardware and other equipment Expensed purchases of software Data processing and other purchased computer services Communication services Refuse removal (including hazardous waste) services Advertising and promotional services All other operating expenses Net Profit Before Taxes Dollar Value $1,000 3,093,541 121,582 839,415 2,132,544 1,823,276 784,817 231,676 382,895 42,581 60,492 21,290 Percentage % 62.92 2.47 17.07 43.37 37.08 15.96 4.71 7.79 0.87 1.23 0.43 31,306 14,577 347,684 7,033 4,960 4,186 0.64 0.30 7.07 0.14 0.10 0.09 9,809 7,877 0.20 0.16 27,658 286,161 690,775 0.56 5.82 14.05 Source: 2019 Annual Survey of Manufacturers: Heating Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 333414) 6A-10 Scaling Baseline Baseline & Incremental Table 6A.3.12 Detailed Expenses for Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing Item Total cost of goods sold Total capital expenditures Annual payroll Total cost of materials Gross Margin Payroll and Occupancy Expenses Total fringe benefits Production workers annual wages Total rental payments or lease payments Temporary staff and leased employee expenses Repair and maintenance services of buildings and/or machinery Purchased professional and technical services Taxes and license fees Other Operating Expenses Expensed computer hardware and other equipment Expensed purchases of software Data processing and other purchased computer services Communication services Refuse removal (including hazardous waste) services Advertising and promotional services All other operating expenses Net Profit Before Taxes Dollar Value $1,000 22,448,445 684,491 4,796,526 16,967,428 11,746,067 5,326,194 1,632,200 2,817,581 221,429 183,043 154,580 Percentage % 65.65 2.00 14.03 49.62 34.35 15.58 4.77 8.24 0.65 0.54 0.45 223,435 93,926 1,339,398 41,723 20,328 27,506 0.65 0.27 3.92 0.12 0.06 0.08 27,022 31,786 0.08 0.09 69,032 1,122,001 5,080,475 0.20 3.28 14.86 Scaling Baseline Baseline & Incremental Source: 2019 Annual Survey of Manufacturers: Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 333415) Table 6A.3.13 Detailed Expenses for Machine Tool Manufacturing Item Total cost of goods sold Total capital expenditures Annual payroll Total cost of materials Gross Margin Payroll and Occupancy Expenses Total fringe benefits Production workers annual wages Total rental payments or lease payments Temporary staff and leased employee expenses Repair and maintenance services of buildings and/or machinery Purchased professional and technical services 6A-11 Dollar Value $1,000 5,152,434 193,147 1,722,945 3,236,342 2,861,370 1,664,271 477,430 887,906 88,501 68,728 46,905 Percentage % 64.29 2.41 21.50 40.38 35.71 20.77 5.96 11.08 1.10 0.86 0.59 60,576 0.76 Scaling Baseline Item Taxes and license fees Other Operating Expenses Expensed computer hardware and other equipment Expensed purchases of software Data processing and other purchased computer services Communication services Refuse removal (including hazardous waste) services Advertising and promotional services All other operating expenses Net Profit Before Taxes Dollar Value $1,000 34,225 736,540 21,000 15,704 9,789 Percentage % 0.43 9.19 0.26 0.20 0.12 19,104 9,381 0.24 0.12 104,613 556,949 460,559 1.31 6.95 5.75 Scaling Baseline & Incremental Source: 2019 Annual Survey of Manufacturers: Machine Tool Manufacturing (NAICS 333517) Table 6A.3.14 Detailed Expenses for Rolling Mill and Other Metalworking Machinery Manufacturing Item Total cost of goods sold Total capital expenditures Annual payroll Total cost of materials Gross Margin Payroll and Occupancy Expenses Total fringe benefits Production workers annual wages Total rental payments or lease payments Temporary staff and leased employee expenses Repair and maintenance services of buildings and/or machinery Purchased professional and technical services Taxes and license fees Other Operating Expenses Expensed computer hardware and other equipment Expensed purchases of software Data processing and other purchased computer services Communication services Refuse removal (including hazardous waste) services Advertising and promotional services All other operating expenses Net Profit Before Taxes Dollar Value $1,000 2,548,470 94,896 925,407 1,528,167 960,205 939,797 237,578 537,693 50,461 44,981 24,725 Percentage % 72.63 2.70 26.37 43.55 27.37 26.78 6.77 15.32 1.44 1.28 0.70 32,277 12,082 156,688 7,318 8,461 6,107 0.92 0.34 4.47 0.21 0.24 0.17 8,863 10,918 0.25 0.31 8,596 106,425 (136,280) 0.24 3.03 -3.88 Scaling Baseline Baseline & Incremental Source: 2019 Annual Survey of Manufacturers: Rolling Mill and Other Metalworking Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS 333519) 6A-12 Table 6A.3.15 Detailed Expenses for Air and Gas Compressor Manufacturing Item Total cost of goods sold Total capital expenditures Annual payroll Total cost of materials Gross Margin Payroll and Occupancy Expenses Total fringe benefits Production workers annual wages Total rental payments or lease payments Temporary staff and leased employee expenses Repair and maintenance services of buildings and/or machinery Purchased professional and technical services Taxes and license fees Other Operating Expenses Expensed computer hardware and other equipment Expensed purchases of software Data processing and other purchased computer services Communication services Refuse removal (including hazardous waste) services Advertising and promotional services All other operating expenses Net Profit Before Taxes Dollar Value $1,000 7,754,279 296,895 1,468,870 5,988,514 2,564,998 1,331,026 421,837 595,064 74,913 103,751 40,751 Percentage % 75.14 2.88 14.23 58.03 24.86 12.90 4.09 5.77 0.73 1.01 0.39 56,715 37,995 534,962 19,979 14,610 10,211 0.55 0.37 5.18 0.19 0.14 0.10 21,646 8,567 0.21 0.08 29,856 430,093 699,010 0.29 4.17 6.77 Scaling Baseline Baseline & Incremental Source: 2019 Annual Survey of Manufacturers: Air and Gas Compressor Manufacturing (NAICS 333912) Table 6A.3.16 Detailed Expenses for Measuring, Dispensing and Other Pumping Equipment Manufacturing Item Total cost of goods sold Total capital expenditures Annual payroll Total cost of materials Gross Margin Payroll and Occupancy Expenses Total fringe benefits Production workers annual wages Total rental payments or lease payments Temporary staff and leased employee expenses Repair and maintenance services of buildings and/or machinery Purchased professional and technical services 6A-13 Dollar Value $1,000 10,662,315 473,714 2,661,321 7,527,280 7,644,744 2,621,778 876,460 1,229,651 132,650 79,087 105,057 Percentage % 58.24 2.59 14.54 41.12 41.76 14.32 4.79 6.72 0.72 0.43 0.57 144,720 0.79 Scaling Baseline Item Taxes and license fees Other Operating Expenses Expensed computer hardware and other equipment Expensed purchases of software Data processing and other purchased computer services Communication services Refuse removal (including hazardous waste) services Advertising and promotional services All other operating expenses Net Profit Before Taxes Dollar Value $1,000 54,153 1,023,471 19,658 36,509 24,994 Percentage % 0.30 5.59 0.11 0.20 0.14 29,922 19,518 0.16 0.11 62,079 830,791 3,999,495 0.34 4.54 21.85 Scaling Baseline & Incremental Source: 2019 Annual Survey of Manufacturers: Measuring, Dispensing and Other Pumping Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 333914) Table 6A.3.17 Detailed Expenses for Elevator and Moving Stairway Manufacturing Item Total cost of goods sold Total capital expenditures Annual payroll Total cost of materials Gross Margin Payroll and Occupancy Expenses Total fringe benefits Production workers annual wages Total rental payments or lease payments Temporary staff and leased employee expenses Repair and maintenance services of buildings and/or machinery Purchased professional and technical services Taxes and license fees Other Operating Expenses Expensed computer hardware and other equipment Expensed purchases of software Data processing and other purchased computer services Communication services Refuse removal (including hazardous waste) services Advertising and promotional services All other operating expenses Net Profit Before Taxes Dollar Value $1,000 2,860,863 86,819 605,555 2,168,489 848,269 528,530 161,538 248,244 43,514 18,045 20,196 Percentage % 77.13 2.34 16.33 58.46 22.87 14.25 4.36 6.69 1.17 0.49 0.54 23,591 13,402 212,117 2,430 5,072 12,938 0.64 0.36 5.72 0.07 0.14 0.35 6,847 3,250 0.18 0.09 10,813 170,767 107,622 0.29 4.60 2.90 Scaling Baseline Baseline & Incremental Source: 2019 Annual Survey of Manufacturers: Elevator and Moving Stairway Manufacturing (NAICS 333921) 6A-14 Table 6A.3.18 Detailed Expenses for Conveyor and Conveying Equipment Manufacturing Item Total cost of goods sold Total capital expenditures Annual payroll Total cost of materials Gross Margin Payroll and Occupancy Expenses Total fringe benefits Production workers annual wages Total rental payments or lease payments Temporary staff and leased employee expenses Repair and maintenance services of buildings and/or machinery Purchased professional and technical services Taxes and license fees Other Operating Expenses Expensed computer hardware and other equipment Expensed purchases of software Data processing and other purchased computer services Communication services Refuse removal (including hazardous waste) services Advertising and promotional services All other operating expenses Net Profit Before Taxes Dollar Value $1,000 8,090,811 263,432 2,515,920 5,311,459 4,884,638 2,397,326 676,063 1,196,024 161,882 123,012 51,988 Percentage % 78.34 2.55 24.36 51.43 21.66 23.21 6.55 11.58 1.57 1.19 0.50 78,251 110,106 648,936 11,383 26,422 9,983 0.76 1.07 6.28 0.11 0.26 0.10 56,795 9,647 0.55 0.09 41,607 493,099 (808,856) 0.40 4.77 -7.83 Scaling Baseline Baseline & Incremental Source: 2019 Annual Survey of Manufacturers: Conveyor and Conveying Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 333922) Table 6A.3.19 Detailed Expenses for Packaging Machinery Manufacturing Item Total cost of goods sold Total capital expenditures Annual payroll Total cost of materials Gross Margin Payroll and Occupancy Expenses Total fringe benefits Production workers annual wages Total rental payments or lease payments Temporary staff and leased employee expenses Repair and maintenance services of buildings and/or machinery Purchased professional and technical services Taxes and license fees 6A-15 Dollar Value $1,000 5,586,256 126,591 1,558,330 3,901,335 2,130,041 1,318,304 408,838 681,193 69,799 67,211 29,203 Percentage % 72.40 1.64 20.20 50.56 27.60 17.08 5.30 8.83 0.90 0.87 0.38 39,277 22,783 0.51 0.30 Scaling Baseline Item Other Operating Expenses Expensed computer hardware and other equipment Expensed purchases of software Data processing and other purchased computer services Communication services Refuse removal (including hazardous waste) services Advertising and promotional services All other operating expenses Net Profit Before Taxes Dollar Value $1,000 393,465 8,443 11,839 7,837 Percentage % 5.10 0.11 0.15 0.10 13,018 6,537 0.17 0.08 27,347 318,444 418,272 0.35 4.13 5.42 Scaling Baseline & Incremental Source: 2019 Annual Survey of Manufacturers: Packaging Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS 333993) Table 6A.3.20 Detailed Expenses for Fluid Power Pump and Motor Manufacturing Item Total cost of goods sold Total capital expenditures Annual payroll Total cost of materials Gross Margin Payroll and Occupancy Expenses Total fringe benefits Production workers annual wages Total rental payments or lease payments Temporary staff and leased employee expenses Repair and maintenance services of buildings and/or machinery Purchased professional and technical services Taxes and license fees Other Operating Expenses Expensed computer hardware and other equipment Expensed purchases of software Data processing and other purchased computer services Communication services Refuse removal (including hazardous waste) services Advertising and promotional services All other operating expenses Net Profit Before Taxes Dollar Value $1,000 3,073,052 61,164 690,185 2,321,703 1,135,547 755,597 242,032 376,487 21,346 41,139 35,220 Percentage % 73.02 1.45 16.40 55.17 26.98 17.95 5.75 8.95 0.51 0.98 0.84 28,051 11,322 164,904 10,687 11,519 3,852 0.67 0.27 3.92 0.25 0.27 0.09 11,670 3,495 0.28 0.08 4,277 119,404 215,046 0.10 2.84 5.11 Scaling Baseline Baseline & Incremental Source: 2019 Annual Survey of Manufacturers: Fluid Power Pump and Motor Manufacturing (NAICS 333996) 6A-16 6A.4 STATE SALES TAX RATES Table 6A.4.1 State Sales Tax Rates Combined Combined State and Local State State and Local Tax Rate % Tax Rate % Alabama 8.65 Kentucky 6.00 Alaska 1.30 Louisiana 9.40 Arizona 7.30 Maine 5.50 Arkansas 9.20 Maryland 6.00 California 8.70 Massachusetts 6.25 Colorado 6.35 Michigan 6.00 Connecticut 6.35 Minnesota 7.45 Delaware -Mississippi 7.05 Dist. of Columbia 6.00 Missouri 7.00 Florida 7.00 Montana -Georgia 7.35 Nebraska 6.10 Hawaii 4.45 Nevada 8.25 New Idaho 6.00 -Hampshire Illinois 8.60 New Jersey 6.60 Indiana 7.00 New Mexico 7.05 Iowa 6.95 New York 8.45 Kansas 8.40 North Carolina 7.00 State North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Combined State and Local Tax Rate % 6.25 7.20 8.55 -6.35 7.00 7.45 6.00 9.50 7.95 7.15 6.10 Virginia 5.75 Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 9.25 6.15 5.45 5.40 State Source: The Sales Tax Clearinghouse at https://thestc.com/STRates.stm (Accessed on July 01, 2021). 6A-17 APPENDIX 8A. UNCERTAINTY AND VARIABILITY TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 8A-1 UNCERTAINTY AND VARIABILITY ................................................................ 8A-1 APPROACHES TO UNCERTAINTY AND VARIABILITY .............................. 8A-1 PROBABILITY ANALYSIS AND THE USE OF MONTE CARLO SIMULATION IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSES ................................................................... 8A-2 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 8A.3.1 Normal, Triangular, Uniform, Weibull, and Custom Probability Distributions ................................................................................................ 8A-3 8A-i APPENDIX 8A. UNCERTAINTY AND VARIABILITY IN THE LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSES INTRODUCTION This appendix discusses uncertainty and variability and describes how the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) incorporated these into the life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) analysis in this technical support document (TSD) for the Electric Motor energy conservation standards (ECS) rulemaking. The two key approaches are (1) to use distributions to capture uncertainties and variations in input variables when such distributions are reasonably well defined, and (2) to use scenarios that capture the bounds of uncertainty when the bounds are less well defined. UNCERTAINTY AND VARIABILITY DOE develops mathematical models to analyze the impacts of proposed energy conservation standards. The models generate outputs (e.g., the LCC impact of proposed standards) based on inputs that are often uncertain, variable, or both. Variability means that the quantity of interest takes on different values at different times or under different conditions. Variability may be caused by many factors. For example, the hours of use of a lamp depend on environmental factors (e.g., diurnal variations in light) and behavioral factors (e.g., the schedules and preferences of the inhabitants of a house). Manufacturing irregularities can also cause variability. For example, 10 lamps of the same model may each have slightly different power consumptions. DOE attempts to account for major sources of variability in its analyses. Uncertainty has many sources. Variability may lead to uncertainty in model inputs, because analysts frequently must estimate the values of interest based on samples of a variable quantity (for example, the hours of use of lighting in a home). Measurement uncertainty is another source of uncertainty, which may result from instrumental uncertainties (resulting, for example, from drift, bias, and precision of resolution) and human factors (e.g., variations in experimental setup, errors in instrument readings or recordings). Uncertainty can also arise when there is limited data available to estimate a particular parameter. DOE attempts to address the major sources of uncertainties in its analyses. APPROACHES TO UNCERTAINTY AND VARIABILITY This section describes two approaches to address uncertainty and variability in numerical modeling that in practice are often used in tandem, as they are in this rulemaking: (1) probability analysis and (2) scenario analysis. Probability analysis considers the probability that a variable has a given value over its range of possible values. For quantities with variability (e.g., electricity rates in different 8A-1 households), data from surveys or other forms of measurement can be used to generate a frequency distribution of numerical values to estimate the probability that the variable takes a given value. By sampling values from the resulting distribution, it is possible to quantify the impact of known variability in a particular variable on the outcome of the analysis. In this analysis, DOE used probability distributions to estimate Electric Motor lifetime, annual operating hours, part-load factors, discount rates, and other variables. Unlike probability analysis, which considers the impact of known variability, scenario analysis estimates the sensitivity of an analysis to sources of uncertainty and variability whose probability distribution is not well known. Certain model inputs are modified to take a number of different values, and models are re-analyzed, in a set of different model scenarios. Because only selected inputs are changed in each scenario, the variability in the results for each scenario helps to quantify the impact of uncertainty in the input parameters. Whereas it is relatively simple to perform scenario analyses for a range of scenarios, scenario analyses provide no information regarding the likelihood of any given scenario’s actually occurring. Scenario and probability analysis provide some indication of the robustness of the policy given the uncertainties and variability. A policy is robust when the impacts are acceptable over a wide range of possible conditions. PROBABILITY ANALYSIS AND THE USE OF MONTE CARLO SIMULATION IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSES To quantify the uncertainty and variability that exist in inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, DOE used Monte Carlo simulation and probability distributions to conduct probability analyses. Simulation refers to any analytical method meant to imitate a real-life system, especially when other analyses are too mathematically complex or too difficult to reproduce. Without the aid of simulation, a model will only reveal a single outcome, generally the most likely or average scenario. Probabilistic risk analysis uses both a spreadsheet model and simulation to automatically analyze the effect of varying inputs on the outputs of a modeled system. One type of simulation is Monte Carlo simulation, which repeatedly generates random values for uncertain variables, drawn from a probability distribution, to simulate a model. For each uncertain variable, the range of possible values is controlled by a probability distribution. The type of distribution selected is based on the conditions surrounding that variable. Probability distribution types include normal, triangular, uniform, and Weibull distributions, as well as custom distributions where needed. Example plots of these distributions are shown in Figure 8A.3.1 8A-2 UNIFORM TRIANGULAR NORMAL CUSTOM WEIBULL Figure 8A.3.1 Normal, Triangular, Uniform, Weibull, and Custom Probability Distributions During a simulation, multiple scenarios of a model are calculated by repeatedly sampling values from the probability distributions for the uncertain variables and using those values for that input. Monte Carlo simulations can consist of as many trials as desired, with larger numbers of trials yielding more accurate average results. During a single trial, the simulation randomly selects a value from the defined possibilities (the range and shape of the probability distribution) for each uncertain variable and then recalculates the result for that trial. The computer model DOE used to calculate the LCC and PBP relies on a Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input values from the probability distributions and consumer samples. The model calculated the LCC and PBP for equipment at each efficiency level for 10,000 consumers per representative unit per simulation run. The analytical results include a distribution of 10,000 data points showing the range of LCC savings for a given efficiency level relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. 8A-3 APPENDIX 8B. REPAIR COST SENSITIVITY TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 8B-1 RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 8B-1 LIST OF TABLES Table 8B.1.1 Table 8B.1.2 Percent of consumers which undergo repairs ..............................................8B-2 LCC and LCC Savings for affected consumers ...........................................8B-2 8B-i APPENDIX 8B. REPAIR COST SENSITIVITY INTRODUCTION In the LCC analysis, as in the previous rulemaking, DOE relied on the following assumptions when estimating the repair costs: • • • • Electric motors at or below 20 horsepower (hp) are not repaired (i.e., representative units 1, 2 - when analyzed to represent the 6 to 20 hp range, and representative unit 4) Electric motors at or above 21 hp and below 100 hp are repaired once at half-life (i.e., representative units 2 - when analyzed to represent the 21 to 50 hp range, and representative unit 3 and 5); Electric motors at or above 101 hp are repaired twice, at a third and two-third of their lifetimes; Fire Pump Electric Motors are not repaired (representative units 6, 7, and 8). As in the previous rulemaking, DOE assumes 100 percent of consumers of representative units that undergo at least one repair as listed above will repair the electric motors (once or twice as listed above), regardless of the lifetime of the motor. As a sensitivity analysis, for electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25, DOE considered an alternative scenario, as follows: • • Electric motors at or above 21 hp and below 100 hp are repaired once over their lifetime, only if their lifetime is greater than half the average mechanical lifetime; Electric motors at or above 101 hp and below 500 hp are repaired, once if their lifetime is greater than one-third of the average mechanical lifetime, and twice if their lifetime is greater than two-third of the average mechanical lifetime. For example, for representative unit 4, if a consumer in the industrial sector (i.e., average mechanical lifetime of 87,600 - see chapter 8) has an electric motor operating 3,000 hours and a lifetime of 10 years, then DOE did not assume a repair because 10 × 3,000 = 30,000 hours and 30,000 is less than half of the average mechanical lifetime (87,600/2 = 43,800 hours). RESULTS Based on the alternative scenario discussed above, Table 8B.1.1 shows the fraction of consumers having none, or one, or two repairs. 8B-1 Table 8B.1.1 Percent of consumers which undergo repairs Equipment Class Group NEMA Design A&B NEMA Design C Representative Units Consumers which undergo one repair (%) Consumers which undergo two repair (%) rpu2 rpu3 rpu9 rpu10 rpu5 rpu11 49.0% 41.1% 31.8% 31.1% 45.1% 29.3% 40.2% 42.0% 40.3% Consumers which do not undergo repair (%) 51.0% 58.9% 28.0% 26.9% 54.9% 30.4% Table 8B.1.2 shows the LCC and LCC savings for affected consumers, for representative units which are assumed to be repaired according to the alternative scenario described previously. Table 8B.1.2 LCC and LCC Savings for affected consumers % of Consumers that Experience Net Efficiency Level Cost** Unit#2: NEMA Design B, T-frame, 30 hp, 4 poles, enclosed (21 to 50 hp) Baseline 38,885.7 41,148.3 1 38,760.9 41,058.9 77.6 20.8% 2 38,664.4 41,020.1 103.5 29.6% 3 38,554.2 41,284.0 (166.8) 76.8% 4 38,472.4 41,300.6 (182.0) 75.6% Unit#3: NEMA Design B, T-frame, 75 hp, 4 poles, enclosed Baseline 86,402.0 92,138.9 1 86,137.0 92,438.6 (349.6) 60.1% 2 86,044.2 93,107.3 (1,407.9) 77.8% 3 85,894.7 93,149.9 (1,261.9) 79.7% 4 85,748.9 93,471.0 (1,711.7) 83.8% Unit#9: NEMA Design B, T-frame, 75 hp, 4 poles, enclosed Baseline 243,015.2 252,670.4 1 242,328.8 252,934.3 (102.3) 48.3% 2 242,126.6 254,015.1 (947.9) 67.4% 3 241,788.8 254,000.3 (598.2) 63.3% 4 241,457.5 254,455.9 (803.9) 67.2% Unit#10: NEMA Design B, T-frame, 75 hp, 4 poles, enclosed Baseline 410,334.6 425,309.3 1 409,182.7 425,627.0 (416.4) 62.0% 2 408,769.8 427,198.2 (1,943.5) 80.8% 3 408,155.0 427,082.8 (1,788.6) 77.5% 4 407,547.9 427,692.6 (2,398.4) 80.1% Unit #5: NEMA Design B, T-Frame, 50 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed Baseline 55,595.4 60,045.3 1 55,399.7 60,048.3 (3.0) 58.7% 2 55,359.9 60,216.0 (170.7) 68.6% 3 55,219.9 60,312.2 (266.9) 73.2% 4 55,219.9 60,312.2 (266.9) 73.2% Unit #11: NEMA Design B, T-Frame, 150 hp, 4 poles, Enclosed Baseline 243,015.2 236,006.8 Lifetime Operating Cost*(2020$) LCC*(2020$) 8B-2 Average LCC Savings**(2020$) % of Consumers that Experience Net Efficiency Level Cost** 1 242,328.8 235,721.4 285.4 43.6% 2 242,126.6 236,064.3 (57.6) 53.3% 3 241,788.8 236,099.7 (92.9) 57.5% 4 241,457.5 236,099.7 (92.9) 57.5% Note – Installed Cost, First Year’s Operating Cost and Simple PBP are independent of repair costs. Hence, not shown here. *The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use Electric Motors with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline Electric Motors. ** The calculation considers only affected consumers. It excludes purchasers whose purchasing decision would not change under a standard set at the corresponding EL, i.e., those with zero LCC savings. Lifetime Operating Cost*(2020$) LCC*(2020$) 8B-3 Average LCC Savings**(2020$) APPENDIX 8C. DISTRIBUTIONS USED FOR DISCOUNT RATES TABLE OF CONTENTS 8C.1 8C.2 DISTRIBUTIONS USED FOR COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL DISCOUNT RATES ……………………………………………………………………………………..8C-1 ASSIGNMENT OF DETAILED DATA TO AGGREGATE SECTORS FOR DISCOUNT RATE ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 8C-9 LIST OF TABLES Table 8C.1.1 Table 8C.1.2 Table 8C.1.3 Table 8C.1.4 Table 8C.1.5 Table 8C.1.6 Table 8C.1.7 Table 8C.1.8 Table 8C.1.9 Table 8C.1.10 Table 8C.1.11 Table 8C.1.12 Table 8C.1.13 Table 8C.1.14 Table 8C.1.15 Table 8C.1.16 Table 8C.2.1 Education Sector Discount Rate Distribution ..............................................8C-1 Food Sales Sector Discount Rate Distribution.............................................8C-1 Food Service Sector Discount Rate Distribution .........................................8C-2 Health Care Sector Discount Rate Distribution ...........................................8C-3 Lodging Sector Discount Rate Distribution .................................................8C-3 Mercantile Discount Rate Distribution ........................................................8C-4 Office Sector Discount Rate Distribution ....................................................8C-4 Public Assembly Sector Discount Rate Distribution ...................................8C-5 Service Sector Discount Rate Distribution ..................................................8C-5 All Commercial Sectors Discount Rate Distribution ...................................8C-6 Industrial Sectors Discount Rate Distribution .............................................8C-6 Agriculture Sector Discount Rate Distribution ............................................8C-7 R.E.I.T./Property Management Sector Discount Rate Distribution.............8C-7 Investor-Owned Utility Sector Discount Rate Distribution .........................8C-8 State/Local Government Discount Rate Distribution ..................................8C-8 Federal Government Discount Rate Distribution ........................................8C-9 Detailed Industries Assigned to Each Aggregate CBECS PBA Sector .......8C-9 8C-i APPENDIX 8C. DISTRIBUTIONS USED FOR DISCOUNT RATES 8C.1 DISTRIBUTIONS USED FOR COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL DISCOUNT RATES Table 8C.1.1 Education Sector Discount Rate Distribution Bin Bin Range 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 <0% ≥0 to <1% 1-2% 2-3% 3-4% 4-5% 5-6% 6-7% 7-8% 8-9% 9-10% 10-11% 11-12% 12-13% ≥13% Weighted Average Table 8C.1.2 Rates Weight (% of companies) # of Companies 5.33% 6.62% 7.44% 8.40% 9.38% 17.6% 40.0% 12.6% 20.7% 9.1% 141 320 101 166 73 7.12% Food Sales Sector Discount Rate Distribution Bin Average Discount Rate Weight (% of companies) # of Companies 3-4% 3.79% 2.9% 25 6 4-5% 4.63% 47.2% 409 7 5-6% 5.60% 23.2% 201 8 6-7% 6.29% 13.3% 115 9 7-8% 7.61% 3.8% 33 10 8-9% 8.76% 5.8% 50 11 9-10% 9.28% 2.1% 18 12 10-11% 10.32% 1.7% 15 13 11-12% Bin Bin Range 1 2 3 4 <0% 0-1% 1-2% 2-3% 5 8C-1 Bin Bin Range 14 12-13% 15 ≥13% Weighted Average Table 8C.1.3 Bin Average Discount Rate Weight (% of companies) # of Companies 5.60% Food Service Sector Discount Rate Distribution Bin Average Discount Rate Weight (% of companies) # of Companies 4-5% 4.88% 9.8% 180 7 5-6% 5.54% 31.1% 572 8 6-7% 6.56% 36.8% 677 9 7-8% 7.24% 18.0% 332 10 8-9% 11 9-10% 9.79% 4.3% 79 12 10-11% 13 11-12% 14 12-13% 15 ≥13% Bin Bin Range 1 2 3 4 <0% 0-1% 1-2% 2-3% 5 3-4% 6 Weighted Average 6.34% 8C-2 Table 8C.1.4 Health Care Sector Discount Rate Distribution Bin Average Discount Rate Weight (% of companies) # of Companies 5-6% 5.59% 31.6% 1710 8 6-7% 6.47% 26.4% 1428 9 7-8% 7.40% 22.6% 1222 10 8-9% 8.42% 19.5% 1056 11 9-10% 12 10-11% 13 11-12% 14 12-13% 15 ≥13% Bin Bin Range 1 2 3 4 <0% 0-1% 1-2% 2-3% 5 3-4% 6 4-5% 7 Weighted Average Table 8C.1.5 6.78% Lodging Sector Discount Rate Distribution Bin Average Discount Rate Weight (% of companies) # of Companies 4-5% 4.78% 24.0% 389 7 5-6% 5.49% 16.9% 274 8 6-7% 6.47% 23.8% 385 9 7-8% 7.29% 25.7% 416 10 8-9% 8.36% 5.5% 89 11 9-10% 9.98% 4.1% 66 12 10-11% 13 11-12% 14 12-13% 15 ≥13% Bin Bin Range 1 2 3 4 <0% 0-1% 1-2% 2-3% 5 3-4% 6 Weighted Average 6.35% 8C-3 Table 8C.1.6 Mercantile Discount Rate Distribution Bin Average Discount Rate Weight (% of companies) # of Companies 4-5% 4.75% 0.9% 50 5-6% 5.58% 16.8% 926 6-7% 6.50% 36.0% 1984 7-8% 7.43% 34.2% 1884 8-9% 8.18% 9.7% 536 9-10% 9.16% 2.1% 115 10-11% 10.69% 0.3% 15 Bin Bin Range 1 2 3 4 <0% 0-1% 1-2% 2-3% 5 3-4% 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 11-12% 14 12-13% 15 ≥13% Weighted Average Table 8C.1.7 6.88% Office Sector Discount Rate Distribution Bin Average Discount Rate Weight (% of companies) # of Companies 3-4% 3.78% 6.4% 2902 6 4-5% 4.58% 17.3% 7771 7 5-6% 5.50% 21.7% 9772 8 6-7% 6.44% 14.7% 6615 9 7-8% 7.49% 9.2% 4159 10 8-9% 8.58% 15.2% 6839 11 9-10% 9.35% 8.2% 3710 12 10-11% 10.44% 2.8% 1282 13 11-12% 11.36% 1.7% 776 14 12-13% 12.82% 1.9% 838 15 ≥13% 14.36% 0.8% 342 Bin Bin Range 1 2 3 4 <0% 0-1% 1-2% 2-3% 5 Weighted Average 6.78% 8C-4 Table 8C.1.8 Public Assembly Sector Discount Rate Distribution Bin Average Discount Rate Weight (% of companies) # of Companies 4-5% 4.99% 2.0% 73 7 5-6% 5.71% 7.7% 285 8 6-7% 6.51% 40.2% 1487 9 7-8% 7.44% 27.9% 1031 10 8-9% 8.51% 14.2% 525 11 9-10% 9.11% 8.0% 297 12 10-11% 13 11-12% 14 12-13% 15 ≥13% Bin Bin Range 1 2 3 4 <0% 0-1% 1-2% 2-3% 5 3-4% 6 Weighted Average Table 8C.1.9 7.17% Service Sector Discount Rate Distribution Bin Average Discount Rate Weight (% of companies) # of Companies 3-4% 3.85% 5.2% 818 6 4-5% 4.44% 13.7% 2133 7 5-6% 5.53% 29.2% 4559 8 6-7% 6.38% 25.3% 3941 9 7-8% 7.55% 12.3% 1926 10 8-9% 8.57% 9.9% 1549 11 9-10% 9.15% 4.4% 680 12 10-11% 13 11-12% 14 12-13% 15 ≥13% Bin Bin Range 1 2 3 4 <0% 0-1% 1-2% 2-3% 5 Weighted Average 6.22% 8C-5 Table 8C.1.10 All Commercial Sectors Discount Rate Distribution Bin Average Discount Rate Weight (% of companies) # of Companies 3-4% 3.79% 4.7% 3745 6 4-5% 4.57% 13.8% 11084 7 5-6% 5.52% 23.0% 18497 8 6-7% 6.45% 21.1% 16953 9 7-8% 7.46% 13.8% 11125 10 8-9% 8.53% 13.4% 10810 11 9-10% 9.32% 6.3% 5038 12 10-11% 10.44% 1.6% 1312 13 11-12% 11.36% 1.0% 776 14 12-13% 12.82% 1.0% 838 15 ≥13% 14.36% 0.4% 342 Bin Bin Range 1 2 3 4 <0% 0-1% 1-2% 2-3% 5 Weighted Average 6.67% Table 8C.1.11 Industrial Sectors Discount Rate Distribution Bin Average Discount Rate Weight (% of companies) # of Companies <0% 0-1% 1-2% 2-3% 1.61% 2.63% 0.0% 0.1% 13 59 5 3-4% 3.67% 1.6% 1257 6 4-5% 4.62% 6.8% 5350 7 5-6% 5.55% 19.4% 15185 8 6-7% 6.47% 21.0% 16461 9 7-8% 7.51% 16.1% 12632 10 8-9% 8.49% 23.1% 18090 11 9-10% 9.47% 8.1% 6301 12 10-11% 10.54% 2.8% 2213 13 11-12% 11.59% 0.4% 282 14 12-13% 12.52% 0.4% 285 15 ≥13% 13.06% 0.2% 121 Bin Bin Range 1 2 3 4 Weighted Average 7.16% 8C-6 Table 8C.1.12 Agriculture Sector Discount Rate Distribution Bin Average Discount Rate Weight (% of companies) # of Companies 6-7% 6.68% 76.7% 207 9 7-8% 7.38% 11.5% 31 10 8-9% 8.15% 11.9% 32 11 9-10% 12 10-11% 13 11-12% 14 12-13% 15 ≥13% Bin Bin Range 1 2 3 4 <0% 0-1% 1-2% 2-3% 5 3-4% 6 4-5% 7 5-6% 8 Weighted Average 6.94% Table 8C.1.13 R.E.I.T./Property Management Sector Discount Rate Distribution Bin Average Discount Rate Weight (% of companies) # of Companies 4-5% 4.90% 10.8% 466 7 5-6% 5.48% 19.3% 833 8 6-7% 6.34% 44.4% 1913 9 7-8% 7.47% 14.1% 609 10 8-9% 8.46% 9.8% 422 11 9-10% 9.14% 1.6% 70 12 10-11% 13 11-12% 14 12-13% 15 ≥13% Bin Bin Range 1 2 3 4 <0% 0-1% 1-2% 2-3% 5 3-4% 6 Weighted Average 6.43% 8C-7 Table 8C.1.14 Investor-Owned Utility Sector Discount Rate Distribution Bin Average Discount Rate Weight (% of companies) # of Companies <0% 0-1% 1-2% 2-3% 1.61% 2.50% 0.6% 0.8% 13 16 5 3-4% 3.67% 49.9% 1064 6 4-5% 4.32% 39.0% 832 7 5-6% 5.42% 4.3% 91 8 6-7% 6.47% 3.9% 83 9 7-8% 7.30% 1.5% 33 10 8-9% 11 9-10% 12 10-11% 13 11-12% 14 12-13% 15 ≥13% Bin Bin Range 1 2 3 4 Weighted Average 4.14% Table 8C.1.15 State/Local Government Discount Rate Distribution Bin Average Discount Rate Weight (% of years) # of Years <0% 0-1% 1-2% 2-3% 1.6% 2.5% 15.6% 25.0% 5 8 5 3-4% 3.6% 43.8% 14 6 4-5% 4.1% 6.3% 2 7 5-6% 5.3% 9.4% 3 8 6-7% 9 7-8% 10 8-9% 11 9-10% 12 10-11% 13 11-12% 14 12-13% 15 >13% Bin Bin Range 1 2 3 4 Weighted Average 3.21% 8C-8 Table 8C.1.16 Federal Government Discount Rate Distribution Bin Bin Range Bin Average Discount Rate Weight (% of months) # of Months 1 2 3 4 <0% 0-1% 1-2% 2-3% -0.5% 0.5% 1.6% 2.5% 7.6% 23.2% 16.1% 18.8% 29 89 62 72 5 3-4% 3.5% 18.8% 72 6 4-5% 4.3% 12.5% 48 7 5-6% 8 6-7% 9 7-8% 10 8-9% 11 9-10% 12 10-11% 13 11-12% 14 12-13% 15 >13% Weighted Average 8C.2 ASSIGNMENT OF DETAILED DATA TO AGGREGATE SECTORS FOR DISCOUNT RATE ANALYSIS Table 8C.2.1 Aggregate Sector for CBECS Mapping Education Food Sales Food Service Health Care Lodging Mercantile 2.17% Detailed Industries Assigned to Each Aggregate CBECS PBA Sector Detailed Sector Names as Provided in Damodaran Online Data Sets (1998-2018) Education; Educational Services Food Wholesalers; Grocery; Retail (Grocery and Food); Retail/Wholesale Food Restaurant; Restaurant/Dining Healthcare Facilities; Healthcare Information; Healthcare Services; Healthcare Support Services; Healthcare Information and Technology; Hospitals/Healthcare Facilities; Medical Services Hotel/Gaming Drugstore; Retail (Automotive); Retail (Building Supply); Retail (Distributors); Retail (General); Retail (Hardlines); Retail (Softlines); Retail (Special Lines); Retail Automotive; Retail Building Supply; Retail Store 8C-9 Aggregate Sector for CBECS Mapping Detailed Sector Names as Provided in Damodaran Online Data Sets (1998-2018) Office Advertising; Bank; Bank (Canadian); Bank (Midwest); Bank (Money Center); Banks (Regional); Broadcasting; Brokerage & Investment Banking; Business & Consumer Services; Cable TV; Computer Services; Computer Software; Computer Software/Svcs; Diversified; Diversified Co.; E-Commerce; Human Resources; Insurance (General); Insurance (Life); Insurance (Prop/Cas.); Internet; Investment Co.; Investment Co.(Foreign); Investment Companies; Investments & Asset Management; Property Management; Public/Private Equity; R.E.I.T.; Real Estate (Development); Real Estate (General/Diversified); Real Estate (Operations & Services); Reinsurance; Retail (Internet); Retail (Online); Securities Brokerage; Software (Entertainment); Software (Internet); Software (System & Application); Telecom. Utility; Thrift Public Assembly Entertainment; Recreation Service All Commercial Financial Svcs.; Financial Svcs. (Div.); Financial Svcs. (Non-bank & Insurance); Foreign Telecom.; Funeral Services; Industrial Services; Information Services; Internet software and services; IT Services; Office Equip/Supplies; Office Equipment & Services; Oilfield Svcs/Equip.; Pharmacy Services; Telecom. Services All detailed sectors included in: Education, Food Sales, Food Service, Health Care, Mercantile, Office, Public Assembly, Service 8C-10 Aggregate Sector for CBECS Mapping Industrial Agriculture Utilities R.E.I.T. / Property Detailed Sector Names as Provided in Damodaran Online Data Sets (1998-2018) Aerospace/Defense; Air Transport; Aluminum; Apparel; Auto & Truck; Auto Parts; Auto Parts (OEM); Auto Parts (Replacement); Automotive; Beverage; Beverage (Alcoholic); Beverage (Soft); Biotechnology; Building Materials; Cement & Aggregates; Chemical (Basic); Chemical (Diversified); Chemical (Specialty); Coal; Coal & Related Energy; Computers/Peripherals; Construction; Construction Supplies; Copper; Drug; Drugs (Biotechnology); Drugs (Pharmaceutical); Electric Util. (Central); Electric Utility (East); Electric Utility (West); Electrical Equipment; Electronics; Electronics (Consumer & Office); Electronics (General); Engineering; Engineering & Const; Engineering/Construction; Entertainment Tech; Environmental; Environmental & Waste Services; Food Processing; Foreign Electronics; Furn/Home Furnishings; Gold/Silver Mining; Green & Renewable Energy; Healthcare Equipment; Healthcare Products; Heavy Construction; Heavy Truck & Equip; Heavy Truck/Equip Makers; Home Appliance; Homebuilding; Household Products; Machinery; Manuf. Housing/RV; Maritime; Med Supp Invasive; Med Supp NonInvasive; Medical Supplies; Metal Fabricating; Metals & Mining; Metals & Mining (Div.); Natural Gas (Div.); Natural Gas Utility; Newspaper; Oil/Gas (Integrated); Oil/Gas (Production and Exploration); Oil/Gas Distribution; Packaging & Container; Paper/Forest Products; Petroleum (Integrated); Petroleum (Producing); Pharma & Drugs; Pipeline MLPs; Power; Precious Metals; Precision Instrument; Publishing; Publishing & Newspapers; Railroad; Rubber& Tires; Semiconductor; Semiconductor Equip; Shipbuilding & Marine; Shoe; Steel; Steel (General); Steel (Integrated); Telecom (Wireless); Telecom. Equipment; Textile; Tire & Rubber; Tobacco; Toiletries/Cosmetics; Transportation; Transportation (Railroads); Trucking; Utility (Foreign); Utility (General); Utility (Water); Water Utility; Wireless Networking Farming/Agriculture Natural Gas Utility; Utility (Foreign); Utility (General); Utility (Water); Water Utility Property Management; R.E.I.T.; Real Estate (Development); Real Estate (General/Diversified); Real Estate (Operations & Services) 8C-11 APPENDIX 8D. DISTRIBUTIONS USED FOR DISCOUNT RATES TABLE OF CONTENTS 8D.1 INTRODUCTION: DISTRIBUTIONS USED FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSUMER DISCOUNT RATES ....................................................................... 8D-1 8D.1.1 Distribution of Rates for Equity Classes................................................................. 8D-1 8D.2 DISTRIBUTION OF REAL EFFECTIVE DISCOUNT RATES BY INCOME GROUP ................................................................................................................... 8D-6 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 8D-8 LIST OF TABLES Table 8D.1.1 Table 8D.2.1 30-Year Average Nominal Interest Rates for Household Equity Type ...... 8D-2 Distribution of Real Discount Rates by Income Group .............................. 8D-7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 8D.1.1 Figure 8D.1.2 Figure 8D.1.3 Figure 8D.1.4 Figure 8D.1.5 Figure 8D.1.6 Figure 8D.1.7 Figure 8D.2.1 Distribution of Annual Rate of Money Market Accounts .......................... 8D-2 Distribution of Annual Rate of Return on CDs .......................................... 8D-3 Distribution of Annual Rate of Return on Savings Bonds (30 Year Treasury Bills) ............................................................................................ 8D-3 Distribution of Annual Rate of State and Local Bonds .............................. 8D-4 Distribution of Annual Rate of Return on Corporate AAA Bonds............. 8D-4 Distribution of Annual Rate of Return on S&P 500 ................................... 8D-5 Annual Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) Rate .............................................. 8D-5 Distribution of Real Discount Rates by Income Group .............................. 8D-6 8D-i APPENDIX 8D. DISTRIBUTIONS USED FOR DISCOUNT RATES 8D.1 INTRODUCTION: DISTRIBUTIONS USED FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSUMER DISCOUNT RATES The Department of Energy (“DOE”) derived consumer discount rates for the life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis using data on interest or return rates for various types of debt and equity to calculate a real effective discount rate for each household in the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) in 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019.1 To account for variation among households in rates for each of the types, DOE sampled a rate for each household in its building sample from a distribution of discount rates for each of six income groups. This appendix describes the distributions used. 8D.1.1 Distribution of Rates for Equity Classes Figure 8D.1.1 through Figure 8D.1.6 show the distribution of real interest rates for different types of equity. Data for equity classes are not available from the Federal Reserve Board’s SCF, so DOE derived data for these classes from national-level historical data (19912020). The rates for stocks are the annual returns on the Standard and Poor’s 500 for 1991– 2020.2 The interest rates associated with AAA corporate bonds were collected from Moody’s time-series data for 1991–2020.3 Rates on Certificates of Deposit (“CD”s) accounts came from Cost of Savings Index (“COSI”) data covering 1991–2020.4,a The interest rates associated with state and local bonds (20-bond municipal bonds) were collected from Federal Reserve Board economic data time-series for 1991–2020.9,b The interest rates associated with treasury bills (30Year treasury constant maturity rate) were collected from Federal Reserve Board economic data time-series for 1991–2020.10,c Rates for money market accounts are based on three-month money market account rates reported by Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) from 1991–2020.12 Rates for savings accounts are assumed to be half the average real money market rate. Rates for mutual funds are a weighted average of the stock rates and the bond rates. d The 30-year average nominal interest rates are shown in Table 8D.1.1. DOE adjusted the nominal rates to real rates using the annual inflation rate in each year (see Figure 8D.1.7). In addition, DOE adjusted the nominal rates to real effective rates by accounting for the fact that interest on such equity types is taxable. The capital gains marginal tax rate varies for The Wells COSI is based on the interest rates that the depository subsidiaries of Wells Fargo & Company pay to individuals on certificates of deposit (CDs), also known as personal time deposits. Wells Fargo COSI started in November 2009.5 From July 2007 to October 2009 the index was known as Wachovia COSI6 and from January 1984 to July 2007 the index was known as GDW (or World Savings) COSI.7,8 b This index was discontinued in 2016. To calculate the 2017 and after values, DOE compared 1981-2020 data for 30-Year Treasury Constant Maturity Rate and Moody’s AAA Corporate Bond Yield to the 20-Bond Municipal Bond Index data.3,9,10 c From 2003-2005 there are no data. For 2003-2005, DOE used 20-Year Treasury Constant Maturity Rate.11 d SCF reports what type of mutual funds the household has (e.g. stock mutual fund, savings bond mutual fund, etc.). For mutual funds with a mixture of stocks and bonds, the mutual fund interest rate is a weighted average of the stock rates (two-thirds weight) and the savings bond rates (one-third weight). a 8D-1 each household based on income as shown in chapter 8 (the impact of this is not shown in Figure 8D.1.1 through Figure 8D.1.6, which are only adjusted for inflation). Table 8D.1.1 30-Year Average Nominal Interest Rates for Household Equity Type 30 Year Average Type of Equity Nominal Rate (%) Savings accounts 2.58 Money market accounts 2.84 Certificate of deposit 3.15 Treasury Bills (T-bills) 4.82 State/Local bonds 4.62 AAA Corporate Bonds 5.68 Stocks (S&P 500) 12.03 Mutual funds 9.63 Figure 8D.1.1 Distribution of Annual Rate of Money Market Accounts 8D-2 Figure 8D.1.2 Distribution of Annual Rate of Return on CDs Figure 8D.1.3 Distribution of Annual Rate of Return on Savings Bonds (30 Year Treasury Bills) 8D-3 Figure 8D.1.4 Distribution of Annual Rate of State and Local Bonds Figure 8D.1.5 Distribution of Annual Rate of Return on Corporate AAA Bonds 8D-4 Figure 8D.1.6 Distribution of Annual Rate of Return on S&P 500 Figure 8D.1.7 Annual Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) Rate 8D-5 8D.2 DISTRIBUTION OF REAL EFFECTIVE DISCOUNT RATES BY INCOME GROUP Real effective discount rates were calculated for each household of the SCF using the method described in Chapter 8. Interest rates for asset types were as described in 8D.1.1. The data source for the interest rates for mortgages, home equity loans, credit cards, installment loans, other residence loans, and other lines of credit is the Federal Reserve Board’s SCF in 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019. DOE adjusted the nominal rates to real rates using the annual inflation rate in each year. Using the appropriate SCF data for each year, DOE adjusted the nominal mortgage interest rate and the nominal home equity loan interest rate for each relevant household in the SCF for mortgage tax deduction and inflation. In cases where the effective interest rate is equal to or below the inflation rate (resulting in a negative real interest rate), DOE set the real effective interest rate to zero. Figure 8D.2.1 provides a graphical representation of the real effective discount rate distributions by income group, while Table 8D.2.1 provides the full distributions as used in the LCC analysis. Figure 8D.2.1 Distribution of Real Discount Rates by Income Group 8D-6 Table 8D.2.1 Distribution of Real Discount Rates by Income Group DR Bin (%) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30 >30 Total Income Group 1 (0-19.9 percentile) Rate Weight % % 0.31 34.02 1.51 6.63 2.45 8.04 3.51 7.54 4.48 8.82 5.47 6.40 6.47 5.68 7.46 3.64 8.52 3.24 9.47 2.65 10.50 1.69 11.48 1.16 12.51 1.09 13.54 1.17 14.52 1.24 15.56 1.29 16.49 1.22 17.58 0.95 18.41 0.70 19.45 0.52 20.56 0.44 21.44 0.54 22.51 0.39 23.41 0.17 24.61 0.18 25.35 0.16 26.52 0.13 27.49 0.07 28.14 0.09 29.87 0.01 68.17 0.14 4.76 100.00 Income Group 2 Income Group 3 (20-39.9 percentile) (40-59.9 percentile) Rate % 0.38 1.52 2.49 3.49 4.48 5.46 6.47 7.47 8.48 9.49 10.46 11.53 12.47 13.52 14.57 15.55 16.39 17.50 18.47 19.40 20.42 21.43 22.48 23.52 24.47 25.40 26.47 27.41 28.29 29.37 125.34 Weight % 23.86 7.99 10.51 10.82 10.00 8.44 5.99 4.42 4.42 2.04 1.72 1.40 1.19 0.91 1.13 0.97 0.94 0.73 0.56 0.50 0.26 0.34 0.23 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.19 Rate % 0.42 1.57 2.49 3.49 4.48 5.46 6.46 7.50 8.43 9.50 10.43 11.51 12.54 13.50 14.60 15.53 16.46 17.51 18.41 19.45 20.38 21.34 22.58 23.41 24.56 25.47 26.50 27.41 28.38 29.31 135.29 Weight % 15.15 9.30 14.15 14.76 12.88 9.42 6.83 4.58 4.05 1.58 1.31 1.04 0.74 0.69 0.74 0.56 0.51 0.44 0.34 0.22 0.18 0.16 0.08 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.02 Rate % 0.47 1.58 2.52 3.49 4.47 5.46 6.46 7.45 8.50 9.46 10.42 11.53 12.46 13.49 14.51 15.44 16.42 17.48 18.38 19.60 20.41 21.44 22.72 23.44 24.09 25.33 0.00 27.27 0.00 0.00 53.85 Weight % 9.89 14.62 20.89 17.96 12.81 8.48 5.73 3.66 1.30 1.05 0.70 0.52 0.33 0.45 0.34 0.30 0.31 0.21 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rate % 0.53 1.57 2.51 3.48 4.46 5.46 6.49 7.42 8.45 9.63 10.44 11.42 12.49 13.43 14.54 15.43 16.17 17.54 18.47 19.41 20.47 21.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.80 0.00 27.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 Weight % 7.46 16.85 23.73 19.77 14.11 8.06 4.70 2.61 0.66 0.62 0.22 0.28 0.16 0.11 0.19 0.13 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rate % 0.56 1.58 2.50 3.47 4.48 5.47 6.47 7.46 8.42 9.64 10.37 11.54 12.40 13.30 14.43 15.65 16.40 17.93 18.50 19.17 20.13 0.00 0.00 23.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Weight % 8.66 20.22 22.21 18.75 13.32 9.11 5.80 0.79 0.29 0.22 0.25 0.14 0.06 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.99 100.00 4.54 100.00 3.84 100.00 3.47 100.00 3.23 100.00 8D-7 Income Group 4 Income Group 5 (60-79.9 percentile) (80-89.9 percentile) Income Group 6 (90-100 percentile) REFERENCES 1. U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Survey of Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019. (Last accessed December 15, 2021.) http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scfindex.htm. 2. Damodaran, A. Data Page: Historical Returns on Stocks, Bonds and Bills-United States. 2021. (Last accessed December 15, 2021.) http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/. 3. Moody’s. Moody’s Seasoned Aaa Corporate Bond Yield [AAA], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. (Last accessed December 15, 2021.) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AAA. 4. Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo Cost of Savings Index (COSI). 2020. (Last accessed December 15, 2021.) https://www.wellsfargo.com/mortgage/manage-account/cost-of-savingsindex/. 5. Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo Cost of Savings Index (COSI): Historical Data (2009-2019) retrieved from MoneyCafe.com. (Last accessed December 15, 2021.) https://www.moneycafe.com/cosi-rate-wells-fargo-cost-of-savings-index/. 6. Wachovia. Wachovia Cost of Savings Index (COSI): Historical Data (2007-2009) retrieved from Mortgage-X - Mortgage Information Service. 2020. (Last accessed December 15, 2021.) http://mortgage-x.com/general/indexes/wachovia_cosi.asp. 7. Golden West Financial Corporation. GDW (World Savings) Cost of Savings Index (COSI): Historical Data (1984-1990) retrieved from Mortgage-X - Mortgage Information Service. (Last accessed December 15, 2021.) http://mortgagex.com/general/indexes/cosi_history.asp. 8. Golden West Financial Corporation. GDW (World Savings) Cost of Savings Index (COSI): Historical Data (1991-2007) retrieved from Mortgage-X - Mortgage Information Service. (Last accessed December 15, 2021.) http://mortgage-x.com/general/indexes/default.asp. 9. U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. State and Local Bonds - Bond Buyer Go 20-Bond Municipal Bond Index (DISCONTINUED) [WSLB20], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. (Last accessed December 15, 2021.) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WSLB20. 10. U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 30-Year Treasury Constant Maturity Rate [DGS30], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. (Last accessed December 15, 2021.) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DGS30. 8D-8 11. U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 20-Year Treasury Constant Maturity Rate [DGS20], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. (Last accessed December 15, 2021.) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DGS20. 12. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Short-term interest rates (indicator). (Last accessed December 15, 2021.) https://data.oecd.org/interest/shortterm-interest-rates.htmhttps://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DGS20. 8D-9 APPENDIX 10A. BASELINE MANUFACTURER SELLING PRICE AND WEIGHT RESULTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 10A.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 10A-1 LIST OF TABLES Table 10A.1.1 Table 10A.1.2 Table 10A.1.3 Table 10A.1.4 Table 10A.1.5 Table 10A.1.6 Table 10A.1.7 Representative Units and Scaling used in the National Impact Analysis . 10A-1 Estimated Manufacturer Selling Price for NEMA Design A and B Electric Motors at EL0 .............................................................................. 10A-3 Estimated Manufacturer Selling Price for NEMA Design C Electric Motors at EL0 ........................................................................................... 10A-4 Estimated Manufacturer Selling Price for Fire Pump Electric Motors at EL0 ............................................................................................................ 10A-4 Estimated Weights for NEMA Design A and B Electric Motors at EL0 . 10A-5 Estimated Weights for NEMA Design C Electric Motors at EL0 ............ 10A-6 Estimated Weights for Fire Pump Electric Motors at EL0 ....................... 10A-6 10A-i APPENDIX 10A. BASELINE MANUFACTURER SELLING PRICE AND WEIGHT RESULTS 10A.1 INTRODUCTION The engineering analysis and life-cycle cost analysis focus on a limited number of representative equipment classes (RU). For electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 the National Impact Analysis (NIA) relies on scaling relationships to develop MSP, installation costs, and energy use values for non-representative equipment classes and develop shipments-weighted inputs for each equipment class group by horsepower range. For small, non-small-electric-motor, electric motors ("SNEM") that do not have air-over enclosures and air-over electric motors, no scaling was performed and the NIA directly uses the MSP, installation cost, and energy use value. See Table 10A.1.1. This appendix presents the manufacturing selling prices (MSPs) and weights that were used in the calculation of shipments weighted average MSPs and weights when scaling was performed. For electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 See Table 10A.1.2 through Table 10A.1.7. The scaling equations are further explained in chapter 10 of this TSD. Table 10A.1.1 Representative Units and Scaling used in the National Impact Analysis Equipment Class Group (ECG) Representative Unit Number 1 2 1.NEMA Design A and B Electric Motor 2 3 9 10 4 2.NEMA Design C Electric Motor 5 11 6 3.Fire Pump Electric Motor 7 8 4. SNEM SinglePhase (High LRT) 12 13 Representative Unit Description Design B, 5-horsepower, 4pole, enclosed Design B, 30-horsepower, 4pole, enclosed Design B, 30-horsepower, 4pole, enclosed Design B, 75-horsepower, 4pole, enclosed Design B, 150-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 200-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design C, 5-horsepower, 4pole, enclosed Design C, 50-horsepower, 4pole, enclosed Design C, 150-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Design B, 5-horsepower, 4pole, enclosed Design B, 30-horsepower, 4pole, enclosed Design B, 75-horsepower, 4pole, enclosed 0.33-horsepower, 4-pole, open 1-horsepower, 4-pole, open 10A-1 Scaling Performed in NIA Scaled to represent all ECG1 motors between 1 - 5 hp Scaled to represent all ECG1 motors between 6 to 20 hp (no repair) Scaled to represent all ECG1 motors between 21 to 50 hp (with repair) Scaled to represent all ECG1 motors between 51 to 100 hp Scaled to represent all ECG1 motors between 101 to 200 hp Scaled to represent all ECG1 motors between 201 to 500 hp Scaled to represent all ECG1 motors between 1 to 20 hp Scaled to represent all ECG1 motors between 21 to 100 hp Scaled to represent all ECG1 motors between 101 to 200 hp Scaled to represent all ECG1 motors between 1 to 5 hp Scaled to represent all ECG1 motors between 6 to 50 hp Scaled to represent all ECG1 motors between 51 to 500 hp Represents all open ECG4 motors between 0.25 - 0.75 hp (no scaling) Represents all open ECG4 motors between 0.76 - 1.5 hp (no scaling) Equipment Class Group (ECG) Representative Unit Number Representative Unit Description 14 2-horsepower, 4-pole, open 0.25-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed 1-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed 3-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Represents all open ECG4 motors above 1.6 hp (no scaling) Represents all enclosed ECG4 motors between 0.25 - 0.75 hp (no scaling) Represents all enclosed ECG4 motors between 0.76 - 1.5 hp (no scaling) Represents all enclosed ECG4 motors above 1.6 hp (no scaling) 0.33-horsepower, 4-pole, open Represents all ECG5 motors above 0.25 hp (no scaling) 0.25-horsepower, 6-pole, open 0.5-horsepower, 6-pole, open 0.33-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed 0.5-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed 0.75-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed 0.33-horsepower, 4-pole, open 0.25-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed 1-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed 3-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Represents all ECG6 motors between 0.25-0.33 hp (no scaling) Represents all ECG6 motors between 0.34 (no scaling) Represents all ECG7 motors between 0.25-0.33 hp (no scaling) Represents all ECG7 motors between 034 -0.5 hp (no scaling) Represents all ECG7 motors above 0.5 hp (no scaling) Represents all open ECG8 motors between 0.25 - 0.75 hp (no scaling) Represents all open ECG8 motors between 0.76 - 1.5 hp (no scaling) Represents all open ECG8 motors above 1.6 hp (no scaling) Represents all enclosed ECG8 motors between 0.25 - 0.75 hp (no scaling) Represents all enclosed ECG8 motors between 0.76 - 1.5 hp (no scaling) Represents all enclosed ECG8 motors above 1.6 hp (no scaling) 30 0.33-horsepower, 4-pole, open Represents all ECG9 motors above 0.25 hp (no scaling) 31 0.25-horsepower, 6-pole, open Represents all ECG10 motors between 0.25-0.33 hp (no scaling) 0.5-horsepower, 6-pole, open 0.33-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed 0.5-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed 0.75-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed 5-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed 30-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed Represents all ECG10 motors between 0.34 (no scaling) Represents all ECG11 motors between 0.25-0.33 hp (no scaling) Represents all ECG11 motors between 034 -0.5 hp (no scaling) Represents all ECG11 motors above 0.5 hp (no scaling) Represents all ECG12 motors between 1 to 5 hp (no scaling) Represents all ECG12 motors between 6 to 50 hp (no scaling) 15 16 17 5. SNEM SinglePhase (Medium LRT) 6. SNEM SinglePhase (Low LRT) 18 19 20 21 7. SNEM Polyphase 22 23 24 8. AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT) 25 1-horsepower, 4-pole, open 26 2-horsepower, 4-pole, open 27 28 29 9. AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) 10. AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) 32 33 11. AO-SNEM polyphase Scaling Performed in NIA 34 35 36 12. AO-MEM 37 10A-2 Equipment Class Group (ECG) Representative Unit Number Representative Unit Description 75-horsepower, 4-pole, enclosed 38 Scaling Performed in NIA Represents all ECG12 motors between 51 to 500 hp (no scaling) Table 10A.1.2 Estimated Manufacturer Selling Price for NEMA Design A and B Electric Motors at EL0 $2020 Enclosed HP 1 1.5 2 3 5 7.5 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 60 75 100 125 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Open 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 $63 $89 $114 $160 $255 $297 $379 $535 $682 $824 $875 $1,227 $1,482 $1,791 $2,303 $3,281 $3,964 $4,626 $5,902 $7,581 $8,846 $10,080 $11,286 $12,470 $13,634 $73 $103 $132 $185 $295 $403 $514 $725 $925 $1,117 $1,185 $1,663 $2,009 $2,344 $3,014 $3,613 $4,364 $5,092 $6,497 $7,848 $9,159 $10,436 $11,685 $12,911 $14,115 $83 $117 $150 $211 $335 $509 $649 $915 $1,167 $1,410 $1,496 $2,099 $2,535 $2,897 $3,726 $3,944 $4,764 $5,559 $7,092 $8,116 $9,471 $10,792 - $93 $131 $168 $236 $376 $614 $784 $1,105 $1,409 $1,702 $1,807 $2,534 $3,062 $3,451 $4,437 $4,275 $5,164 $6,026 $7,688 $8,384 - $42 $59 $75 $106 $169 $218 $278 $392 $500 $604 $641 $899 $1,086 $1,038 $1,335 $2,458 $2,970 $3,465 $4,421 $6,083 $7,099 $8,089 $9,057 $10,007 $10,941 $52 $73 $93 $131 $209 $323 $413 $582 $742 $896 $951 $1,335 $1,612 $1,592 $2,047 $2,789 $3,369 $3,932 $5,017 $6,351 $7,411 $8,445 $9,456 $10,447 $11,422 $62 $87 $111 $157 $249 $429 $547 $772 $984 $1,189 $1,262 $1,771 $2,139 $2,145 $2,758 $3,120 $3,769 $4,399 $5,612 $6,619 $7,724 $8,801 - $72 $101 $129 $182 $290 $535 $682 $962 $1,227 $1,482 $1,573 $2,206 $2,665 $2,698 $3,470 $3,451 $4,169 $4,865 $6,207 $6,887 - 10A-3 Table 10A.1.3 Estimated Manufacturer Selling Price for NEMA Design C Electric Motors at EL0 $2020 Enclosed HP 1 1.5 2 3 5 7.5 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 60 75 100 125 150 200 2 - Table 10A.1.4 4 $90 $126 $160 $225 $346 $486 $618 $869 $1,106 $1,334 $1,555 $1,979 $2,386 $2,781 $3,354 $4,270 $5,149 $6,000 $7,639 Open 6 $102 $143 $182 $256 $393 $613 $780 $1,097 $1,396 $1,684 $1,962 $2,498 $3,012 $3,438 $4,146 $4,661 $5,621 $6,550 $8,339 8 $114 $160 $204 $287 $440 $740 $942 $1,324 $1,686 $2,033 $2,369 $3,016 $3,637 $4,094 $4,937 $5,052 $6,093 $7,100 $9,039 2 - 4 $63 $89 $113 $159 $245 $390 $496 $697 $888 $1,071 $1,248 $1,589 $1,916 $1,888 $2,277 $3,297 $3,976 $4,633 $5,898 6 $76 $106 $135 $190 $292 $517 $658 $925 $1,178 $1,420 $1,655 $2,107 $2,541 $2,545 $3,069 $3,688 $4,447 $5,183 $6,598 8 $88 $123 $157 $221 $339 $644 $820 $1,153 $1,468 $1,770 $2,063 $2,626 $3,167 $3,202 $3,861 $4,079 $4,919 $5,733 $7,298 Estimated Manufacturer Selling Price for Fire Pump Electric Motors at EL0 Fire Pump HP 1 1.5 2 3 5 7.5 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 60 75 Enclosed Open 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 $62 $86 $108 $151 $231 $270 $341 $473 $597 $715 $791 $1,046 $1,253 $1,503 $1,857 $72 $100 $126 $174 $268 $366 $462 $641 $809 $969 $1,072 $1,418 $1,698 $1,968 $2,431 $81 $113 $143 $198 $304 $462 $583 $809 $1,021 $1,223 $1,353 $1,789 $2,143 $2,432 $3,005 $91 $127 $160 $222 $341 $558 $704 $977 $1,233 $1,477 $1,635 $2,161 $2,588 $2,897 $3,579 $57 $72 $100 $153 $198 $250 $347 $437 $524 $580 $766 $918 $872 $1,077 $51 $70 $89 $123 $190 $294 $371 $515 $649 $778 $861 $1,138 $1,363 $1,336 $1,651 $61 $84 $106 $147 $226 $390 $492 $683 $862 $1,032 $1,142 $1,509 $1,808 $1,801 $2,224 $70 $98 $123 $171 $263 $486 $613 $851 $1,074 $1,286 $1,423 $1,881 $2,253 $2,265 $2,798 10A-4 Fire Pump Enclosed HP 100 125 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Open 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 $2,702 $3,237 $3,751 $4,734 $6,030 $6,989 $7,917 $8,820 $9,702 $10,565 $2,975 $3,563 $4,130 $5,212 $6,243 $7,235 $8,196 $9,131 $10,044 $10,938 $3,248 $3,890 $4,508 $5,690 $6,456 $7,482 $8,476 - $3,520 $4,217 $4,887 $6,167 $6,669 - $2,024 $2,425 $2,810 $3,547 $4,839 $5,608 $6,353 $7,078 $7,785 $8,478 $2,297 $2,751 $3,189 $4,024 $5,052 $5,855 $6,633 $7,389 $8,128 $8,851 $2,570 $3,078 $3,567 $4,502 $5,265 $6,102 $6,912 - $2,842 $3,405 $3,946 $4,980 $5,478 - Table 10A.1.5 Estimated Weights for NEMA Design A and B Electric Motors at EL0 lbs HP 1 1.5 2 3 5 7.5 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 60 75 100 125 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Enclosed Open 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 15 21 27 38 60 88 112 158 203 245 267 367 444 527 668 815 1170 1367 1749 2209 2582 2945 3302 3651 3996 22 30 39 55 87 121 154 218 279 338 368 505 611 714 905 1105 1338 1563 1999 2420 2828 3226 3617 4000 4377 28 40 51 73 115 154 197 278 356 430 469 643 779 902 1143 1395 1506 1760 2250 2630 3074 3507 - 35 50 64 90 143 187 239 338 432 523 570 782 946 1089 1380 1685 1674 1956 2501 2841 - 12 17 21 30 48 69 88 125 160 193 210 289 349 387 491 600 784 916 1171 1545 1806 2060 2309 2554 2795 19 26 34 48 75 102 131 185 236 286 311 427 517 575 729 890 952 1112 1422 1756 2052 2341 2624 2902 3176 25 36 46 65 103 135 173 244 313 378 412 565 684 762 966 1179 1120 1308 1673 1967 2298 2622 - 32 46 58 83 131 168 215 304 389 471 513 704 852 949 1203 1469 1287 1505 1924 2177 - 10A-5 Table 10A.1.6 Estimated Weights for NEMA Design C Electric Motors at EL0 lbs Enclosed HP 1 1.5 2 3 5 7.5 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 60 75 100 125 150 200 Open 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 - 29 40 49 67 98 132 164 222 275 325 373 462 546 626 740 918 1084 1243 1541 39 52 65 88 129 168 209 283 351 415 475 589 696 790 934 1158 1220 1399 1734 48 65 80 109 160 205 254 344 426 504 577 716 846 955 1128 1399 1356 1554 1928 - 25 34 42 57 84 112 139 188 233 275 315 391 462 504 595 738 771 884 1096 35 47 58 79 115 148 184 249 308 364 418 518 612 668 790 979 907 1040 1289 44 59 74 100 146 184 229 309 384 453 520 644 761 832 984 1220 1043 1196 1483 Table 10A.1.7 Estimated Weights for Fire Pump Electric Motors at EL0 lbs HP 1 1.5 2 3 5 7.5 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 60 75 100 125 150 Enclosed Open 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 14 20 26 36 57 83 106 148 189 228 240 338 407 482 620 739 1057 1231 21 30 38 53 84 114 146 204 260 314 331 465 561 653 841 1002 1208 1408 28 39 50 70 111 146 185 260 331 400 422 592 714 824 1061 1265 1360 1584 35 49 62 87 138 177 225 316 403 486 512 720 868 996 1282 1528 1511 1761 16 21 29 46 65 83 117 149 179 189 266 320 354 456 544 708 825 18 26 33 46 73 97 123 173 220 265 280 393 474 526 677 806 859 1001 25 35 45 63 99 128 163 229 291 351 371 521 628 697 897 1069 1011 1178 32 44 57 79 126 159 203 285 363 437 461 648 781 868 1118 1332 1163 1355 10A-6 lbs Enclosed HP 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Open 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 1567 1972 2297 2614 2923 3227 3524 1791 2160 2516 2863 3202 3534 3861 2016 2348 2735 3113 - 2241 2536 - 1049 1379 1607 1828 2045 2257 2465 1274 1567 1826 2078 2324 2565 2801 1499 1755 2045 2327 - 1724 1943 - 10A-7 APPENDIX 10B. FULL-FUEL-CYCLE ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS 10B.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................10B-1 10B.2 SITE-TO-PRIMARY ENERGY FACTORS ...............................................................10B-2 10B.3 FFC METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................10B-3 10B.4 ENERGY MULTIPLIERS FOR THE FULL FUEL CYCLE .....................................10B-5 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................10B-6 LIST OF TABLES Table 10B.2.1 Table 10B.3.1 Table 10B.4.1 Electric Power Heat Rates (MMBtu/MWh) by Sector and End-Use ........10B-2 Dependence of FFC Parameters on AEO Inputs ........................................10B-4 Energy Multipliers for the Full Fuel Cycle (Based on AEO 2021)............10B-5 10B-i APPENDIX 10B. FULL-FUEL-CYCLE ANALYSIS 10B.1 INTRODUCTION This appendix summarizes the methods the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) used to calculate the estimated full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings from potential energy conservation standards. The FFC measure includes point-of-use (site) energy; the energy losses associated with generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity; and the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting or distributing primary fuels. DOE’s method of analysis previously encompassed only site energy and the energy lost through generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. In 2011 DOE announced its intention, based on recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences, to use FFC measures of energy use and emissions when analyzing proposed energy conservation standards.1 This appendix summarizes the methods DOE used to incorporate impacts of the full fuel cycle into the analysis. In the national energy savings calculation, DOE estimates the site, primary and full-fuelcycle (FFC) energy consumption for each standard level, for each year in the analysis period. DOE defines these quantities as follows: • Site energy consumption is the physical quantity of fossil fuels or electricity consumed at the site where the end-use service is provided. a The site energy consumption is used to calculate the energy cost input to the NPV calculation. • Primary energy consumption is defined by converting the site fuel use from physical units, for example cubic feet for natural gas, or kWh for electricity, to common energy units (million Btu or MMBtu). For electricity the conversion factor is a marginal heat rate that incorporates losses in generation, transmission and distribution, and depends on the sector, end use and year. • The full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy use is equal to the primary energy use plus the energy consumed "upstream" of the site in the extraction, processing and distribution of fuels. The FFC energy use was calculated by applying a fuel-specific FFC energy multiplier to the primary energy use. For electricity from the grid, site energy is measured in terawatt-hours (TWh). The primary energy of a unit of grid electricity is equal to the heat content of the fuels used to generate that electricity, including transmission and distribution losses.b DOE typically measures the primary energy associated with the power sector in quads (quadrillion Btu). Both primary fuels and electricity are used in upstream activities. The treatment of electricity in full-fuel-cycle analysis must distinguish between electricity generated by fossil fuels and electricity generated from renewable sources (wind, solar, and hydro). For the former, the upstream fuel cycle relates a For fossil fuels, this is the site of combustion of the fuel. For electricity sources like nuclear energy and renewable energy, the primary energy is calculated using the convention described below. b 10B-1 to the fuel consumed at the power plant. There is no upstream component for the latter, because no fuel per se is used. 10B.2 SITE-TO-PRIMARY ENERGY FACTORS DOE uses heat rates to convert site electricity savings in TWh to primary energy savings in quads. The heat rates are developed as a function of the sector, end-use and year of the analysis period. For this analysis DOE uses output of the DOE/Energy Information Administration (EIA)’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS).2 EIA uses the NEMS model to produce the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). DOE’s approach uses the most recently available edition, in this case AEO 2021.3 The AEO publication includes a reference case and a series of side cases incorporating different economic and policy scenarios. DOE calculates marginal heat rates as the ratio of the change in fuel consumption to the change in generation for each fossil fuel type, where the change is defined as the difference between the reference case and the side case. DOE calculates a marginal heat rate for each of the principal fuel types: coal, natural gas and oil. DOE uses the EIA convention of assigning a heat rate of 10.5 Btu/Wh to nuclear power and 9.5 Btu/Wh to electricity from renewable sources. DOE multiplied the fuel share weights for sector and end-use, described in appendix 15A of this TSD, by the fuel specific marginal heat rates, and summed over all fuel types, to define a heat rate for each sector/end-use. This step incorporates the transmission and distribution losses. In equation form: h(u,y) = (1 + TDLoss)*∑r,f g(r,f,y) H(f,y) Where: TDLoss = the fraction of total generation that is lost in transmission and distribution, equal to 0.07037 u = an index representing the sector/end-use (e.g. commercial cooling) y = the analysis year f = the fuel type H(f,y) = the fuel-specific heat rate g(r,f,y) = the fraction of generation provided by fuel type f for end-use u in year y h(u,y) = the end-use specific marginal heat rate The sector/end-use specific heat rates are shown in Table 10B.2.1. These heat rates convert site electricity to primary energy in quads; i.e., the units used in the table are quads per TWh. Table 10B.2.1 Electric Power Heat Rates (MMBtu/MWh) by Sector and End-Use 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050+ Residential Clothes Dryers Cooking Freezers Lighting 9.484 9.473 9.496 9.511 9.258 9.246 9.267 9.289 10B-2 9.257 9.245 9.264 9.290 9.205 9.193 9.211 9.238 9.153 9.142 9.159 9.186 9.133 9.122 9.138 9.167 2025 Residential Refrigeration Space Cooling Space Heating Water Heating Other Uses Commercial Cooking Lighting Office Equipment (Non-Pc) Office Equipment (Pc) Refrigeration Space Cooling Space Heating Ventilation Water Heating Other Uses Industrial All Uses 10B.3 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050+ 9.496 9.397 9.526 9.493 9.484 9.267 9.146 9.306 9.270 9.259 9.264 9.133 9.308 9.271 9.258 9.212 9.080 9.256 9.219 9.206 9.159 9.026 9.204 9.168 9.154 9.138 9.001 9.185 9.149 9.134 9.409 9.426 9.374 9.374 9.476 9.378 9.532 9.478 9.409 9.389 9.184 9.200 9.145 9.145 9.250 9.125 9.313 9.253 9.184 9.161 9.185 9.200 9.145 9.145 9.249 9.111 9.314 9.252 9.186 9.162 9.135 9.150 9.095 9.095 9.197 9.058 9.262 9.200 9.136 9.111 9.085 9.100 9.046 9.046 9.146 9.005 9.210 9.149 9.087 9.062 9.065 9.079 9.026 9.026 9.126 8.979 9.191 9.129 9.067 9.042 9.389 9.161 9.162 9.111 9.062 9.042 FFC METHODOLOGY The methods used to calculate FFC energy use are summarized here. The mathematical approach to determining FCC is discussed in Coughlin (2012).4 Details related to the modeling of the fuel production chain are presented in Coughlin (2013).5 When all energy quantities are normalized to the same units, FFC energy use can be represented as the product of the primary energy use and an FFC multiplier. Mathematically the FFC multiplier is a function of a set of parameters that represent the energy intensity and material losses at each stage of energy production. Those parameters depend only on physical data, so the calculations require no assumptions about prices or other economic factors. Although the parameter values may differ by geographic region, this analysis utilizes national averages. The fuel cycle parameters are defined as follows. • ax is the quantity of fuel x burned per unit of electricity produced for grid electricity. The calculation of ax includes a factor to account for losses incurred through the transmission and distribution systems. • by is the amount of grid electricity used in producing fuel y, in MWh per physical unit of fuel y. • cxy is the amount of fuel x consumed in producing one unit of fuel y. • qx is the heat content of fuel x (MBtu/physical unit). 10B-3 All the parameters are calculated as functions of an annual time step; hence, when evaluating the effects of potential new standards, a time series of annual values is used to estimate the FFC energy and emissions savings in each year of the analysis period and cumulatively. The FFC multiplier is denoted µ (mu). A separate multiplier is calculated for each fuel used on site. Also calculated is a multiplier for electricity that reflects the fuel mix used in its generation. The multipliers are dimensionless numbers applied to primary energy savings to obtain the FFC energy savings. The upstream component of the energy savings is proportional to (µ-1). The fuel type is denoted by a subscript on the multiplier µ. The method for performing the full-fuel-cycle analysis utilizes data and projections published in the AEO 2021. Table 10B.3.1 summarizes the data used as inputs to the calculation of various parameters. The column titled "AEO Table" gives the name of the table that provided the reference data. Table 10B.3.1 Dependence of FFC Parameters on AEO Inputs Parameter(s) Fuel(s) AEO Table Variables qx All Conversion factors MMBtu per physical unit Electricity supply, disposition, Generation by fuel type prices, and emissions ax All Energy consumption by sector Electric energy consumption and source by the power sector Coal production by region and Coal production by type and bc, cnc, cpc Coal type sulfur content Refining industry energy Refining-only energy use consumption Liquid fuels supply and Crude supply by source disposition bp, cnp, cpp Petroleum International liquids supply Crude oil imports and disposition Domestic crude oil Oil and gas supply production Oil and gas supply U.S. dry gas production cnn Natural gas Natural gas supply, disposition, Pipeline, lease, and plant fuel and prices Electricity supply, disposition, zx All Power sector emissions prices, and emissions The AEO 2021 does not provide all the information needed to estimate total energy use in the fuel production chain. Coughlin (2013) describes the additional data sources needed to complete the analysis. The time dependence in the FFC multipliers, however, arises exclusively from variables taken from the AEO. 10B-4 10B.4 ENERGY MULTIPLIERS FOR THE FULL FUEL CYCLE FFC energy multipliers for selected years are presented in Table 10B.4.1. The 2050 value was held constant for the analysis period beyond 2050, which is the last year in the AEO 2021 projection. The multiplier for electricity reflects the shares of various primary fuels in total electricity generation throughout the forecast period. Table 10B.4.1 Electricity Energy Multipliers for the Full Fuel Cycle (Based on AEO 2021) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050+ 1.042 1.039 1.038 10B-5 1.037 1.038 1.037 REFERENCES 1. U.S. Department of Energy. Federal Register. August 18, 2011. vol. 76, no. 160: pp. 51281–51289. (Last accessed September 1, 2020.) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR2011-08-18/pdf/FR-2011-08-18.pdf. 2. U.S. Department of Energy–Energy Information Administration. The National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 2009. 2009. Report No. DOE/EIA-0581(2009). (Last accessed September 1, 2020.) http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/archive/0581(2009).pdf. 3. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2021 with Projections to 2050. 2021. Washington, D.C. Report No. AEO2021. (Last accessed March 18, 2021.) https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/AEO_Narrative_2021.pdf. 4. Coughlin, K. A Mathematical Analysis of Full Fuel Cycle Energy Use. Energy. 2012. 37(1): pp. 698–708. 5. Coughlin, K. Projections of Full-Fuel-Cycle Energy and Emissions Metrics. 2013. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-6025E. (Last accessed September 1, 2020.) https://etapublications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/lbnl6025e_ffc.pdf. 10B-6 APPENDIX 10C. NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ADDITIONAL RESULTS FOR HIGH AND LOW SCENARIOS TABLE OF CONTENTS 10C.1 10C.2 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................10C-1 RESULTS ..............................................................................................................10C-1 LIST OF TABLES Table 10C.2.1 Table 10C.2.2 Table 10C.2.3 Table 10C.2.4 Table 10C.2.5 Table 10C.2.6 Table 10C.2.7 Table 10C.2.8 Table 10C.2.9 Table 10C.2.10 Table 10C.2.11 Table 10C.2.12 Table 10C.2.13 Cumulative Full Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings for Electric Motors Currently Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 (Low Growth Scenario) ..10C-1 Cumulative Full Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings for Electric Motors Currently Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 (High Growth Scenario) ....................................................................................................10C-2 Cumulative Primary National Energy Savings for Electric Motors Currently Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 (Low Growth Scenario) ..............10C-3 Cumulative Primary National Energy Savings for Electric Motors Currently Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 (High Growth Scenario)..............10C-4 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL for Electric Motors Currently Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 (3% Discount Rate, Low Growth Rate Scenario) ......................................................................10C-5 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL for Electric Motors Currently Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 (3% Discount Rate, High Growth Rate Scenario)......................................................................10C-6 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL for Electric Motors Currently Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 (7% Discount Rate, Low Growth Rate Scenario) ......................................................................10C-7 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL for Electric Motors Currently Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 (7% Discount Rate, High Growth Rate Scenario)......................................................................10C-8 Cumulative Full Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings for SNEMs (Low Growth Scenario) .............................................................................10C-9 Cumulative Full Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings for SNEMs (High Growth Scenario).............................................................................10C-9 Cumulative Primary National Energy Savings for SNEMs (Low Growth Scenario) .....................................................................................10C-10 Cumulative Primary National Energy Savings for SNEMs (High Growth Scenario) .....................................................................................10C-10 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL for SNEMs (3% Discount Rate, Low Growth Rate Scenario)............................................10C-11 10C-i Table 10C.2.14 Table 10C.2.15 Table 10C.2.16 Table 10C.2.17 Table 10C.2.18 Table 10C.2.19 Table 10C.2.20 Table 10C.2.21 Table 10C.2.22 Table 10C.2.23 Table 10C.2.24 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL for SNEMs (3% Discount Rate, High Growth Rate Scenario) ...........................................10C-11 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL for SNEMs (7% Discount Rate, Low Growth Rate Scenario)............................................10C-12 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL for SNEMs (7% Discount Rate, High Growth Rate Scenario) ...........................................10C-12 Cumulative Full Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings for AO-EMs (Low Growth Scenario) ...........................................................................10C-13 Cumulative Full Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings for AO-EMs (High Growth Scenario)...........................................................................10C-14 Cumulative Primary National Energy Savings for AO-EMs (Low Growth Scenario) .....................................................................................10C-15 Cumulative Primary National Energy Savings for AO-EMs (High Growth Scenario) .....................................................................................10C-16 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL for AO-EMs (3% Discount Rate, Low Growth Rate Scenario) ....................................10C-17 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL for AO-EMs (3% Discount Rate, High Growth Rate Scenario) ...................................10C-18 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL for AO-EMs (7% Discount Rate, Low Growth Rate Scenario) ....................................10C-18 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL for AO-EMs (7% Discount Rate, High Growth Rate Scenario) ...................................10C-20 10C-ii APPENDIX 10C. NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ADDITIONAL RESULTS FOR HIGH AND LOW SCENARIOS 10C.1 INTRODUCTION This appendix presents the national impact analysis results under the AEO 2021 highand low- growth scenarios. 10C.2 RESULTS Table 10C.2.1 Cumulative Full Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings for Electric Motors Currently Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 (Low Growth Scenario) Equipment class and Horsepower Range NEMA Design A and B (1-5 hp) NEMA Design A and B (6-20 hp) NEMA Design A and B (21-50 hp) NEMA Design A and B (51-100 hp) NEMA Design A and B (101-200 hp) NEMA Design A and B (201-500 hp) NEMA Design C (1-20 hp) NEMA Design C (21-100 hp) NEMA Design C (101-200 hp) Fire Pump (1-5) Fire Pump (6-50 hp) Fire Pump (51-500 hp) NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (1-5 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (6-20 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (21-50 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (51-100 hp)* EL 1 0.33 0.69 0.62 0.29 0.50 0.60 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EL 2 0.63 1.36 1.23 0.46 0.82 1.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 Quads EL 3 1.04 2.10 1.89 0.71 1.30 1.54 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 EL 4 1.36 2.74 2.47 0.96 1.77 2.07 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.26 0.47 1.42 1.58 2.11 2.24 1.28 1.42 1.90 2.02 0.19 0.32 0.43 0.50 * Substitution out of scope to permanent magnet motors. Note: The results for NEMA Design A and B results include the reduction in shipments due to substitution to permanent magnet motors. ** Total may not match due to rounding 10C-1 Table 10C.2.2 Cumulative Full Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings for Electric Motors Currently Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 (High Growth Scenario) Equipment class and Horsepower Range NEMA Design A and B (1-5 hp) NEMA Design A and B (6-20 hp) NEMA Design A and B (21-50 hp) NEMA Design A and B (51-100 hp) NEMA Design A and B (101-200 hp) NEMA Design A and B (201-500 hp) NEMA Design C (1-20 hp) NEMA Design C (21-100 hp) NEMA Design C (101-200 hp) Fire Pump (1-5) Fire Pump (6-50 hp) Fire Pump (51-500 hp) NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (1-5 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (6-20 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (21-50 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (51-100 hp)* EL 1 0.45 0.94 0.85 0.39 0.69 0.83 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 EL 2 0.87 1.87 1.68 0.63 1.12 1.40 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 Quads EL 3 1.43 2.88 2.59 0.97 1.78 2.12 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 EL 4 1.87 3.76 3.39 1.31 2.43 2.84 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.36 0.65 1.95 2.16 2.89 3.08 1.75 1.95 2.60 2.77 0.27 0.44 0.59 0.68 * Substitution out of scope to permanent magnet motors. Note: The results for NEMA Design A and B results include the reduction in shipments due to substitution to permanent magnet motors. ** Total may not match due to rounding 10C-2 Table 10C.2.3 Cumulative Primary National Energy Savings for Electric Motors Currently Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 (Low Growth Scenario) Equipment class and Horsepower Range NEMA Design A and B (1-5 hp) NEMA Design A and B (6-20 hp) NEMA Design A and B (21-50 hp) NEMA Design A and B (51-100 hp) NEMA Design A and B (101-200 hp) NEMA Design A and B (201-500 hp) NEMA Design C (1-20 hp) NEMA Design C (21-100 hp) NEMA Design C (101-200 hp) Fire Pump (1-5) Fire Pump (6-50 hp) Fire Pump (51-500 hp) NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (1-5 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (6-20 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (21-50 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (51-100 hp)* EL 1 0.31 0.66 0.60 0.28 0.48 0.58 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EL 2 0.61 1.31 1.18 0.44 0.79 0.98 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 Quads EL 3 1.00 2.02 1.82 0.68 1.25 1.49 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 EL 4 1.31 2.64 2.38 0.92 1.71 1.99 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.25 0.45 1.37 1.52 2.03 2.16 1.23 1.37 1.83 1.95 0.19 0.31 0.42 0.48 * Substitution out of scope to permanent magnet motors. Note: The results for NEMA Design A and B results include the reduction in shipments due to substitution to permanent magnet motors. ** Total may not match due to rounding 10C-3 Table 10C.2.4 Cumulative Primary National Energy Savings for Electric Motors Currently Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 (High Growth Scenario) Equipment class and Horsepower Range * NEMA Design A and B (1-5 hp) NEMA Design A and B (6-20 hp) NEMA Design A and B (21-50 hp) NEMA Design A and B (51-100 hp) NEMA Design A and B (101-200 hp) NEMA Design A and B (201-500 hp) NEMA Design C (1-20 hp) NEMA Design C (21-100 hp) NEMA Design C (101-200 hp) Fire Pump (1-5) Fire Pump (6-50 hp) Fire Pump (51-500 hp) NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (1-5 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (6-20 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (21-50 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (51-100 hp)* EL 1 0.43 0.91 0.82 0.38 0.66 0.80 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EL 2 0.84 1.80 1.62 0.61 1.08 1.35 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 Quads EL 3 1.38 2.77 2.50 0.93 1.71 2.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 EL 4 1.80 3.62 3.26 1.26 2.34 2.73 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.34 0.62 1.88 2.08 2.78 2.97 1.69 1.88 2.51 2.67 0.26 0.43 0.57 0.66 Substitution out of scope to permanent magnet motors. Total may not match due to rounding ** 10C-4 Table 10C.2.5 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL for Electric Motors Currently Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 (3% Discount Rate, Low Growth Rate Scenario) Equipment class and Horsepower Range * NEMA Design A and B (1-5 hp) NEMA Design A and B (6-20 hp) NEMA Design A and B (21-50 hp) NEMA Design A and B (51-100 hp) NEMA Design A and B (101-200 hp) NEMA Design A and B (201-500 hp) NEMA Design C (1-20 hp) NEMA Design C (21-100 hp) NEMA Design C (101-200 hp) Fire Pump (1-5) Fire Pump (6-50 hp) Fire Pump (51-500 hp) NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (1-5 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (6-20 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (21-50 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (51-100 hp)* EL 1 (0.376) 2.175 0.491 (1.243) (0.605) (0.251) 0.021 (0.006) 0.002 (0.000) (0.033) (0.235) $2020 (billion) EL 2 EL 3 (0.116) 0.068 3.890 0.482 0.478 (3.095) (3.822) (4.413) (2.855) (3.078) (2.168) (2.036) 0.033 0.019 (0.024) (0.037) (0.003) (0.004) (0.001) (0.002) (0.039) (0.050) (0.394) (0.608) EL 4 (2.546) 1.396 (3.728) (5.927) (4.188) (2.738) 0.005 (0.037) (0.004) (0.004) (0.141) (0.794) 0.147 0.168 0.204 0.373 2.006 2.212 2.946 3.141 1.599 1.777 2.383 2.544 (0.213) (0.347) (0.445) (0.507) Substitution out of scope to permanent magnet motors. Total may not match due to rounding ** 10C-5 Table 10C.2.6 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL for Electric Motors Currently Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 (3% Discount Rate, High Growth Rate Scenario) Equipment class and Horsepower Range NEMA Design A and B (1-5 hp) NEMA Design A and B (6-20 hp) NEMA Design A and B (21-50 hp) NEMA Design A and B (51-100 hp) NEMA Design A and B (101-200 hp) NEMA Design A and B (201-500 hp) NEMA Design C (1-20 hp) NEMA Design C (21-100 hp) NEMA Design C (101-200 hp) Fire Pump (1-5) Fire Pump (6-50 hp) Fire Pump (51-500 hp) NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (1-5 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (6-20 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (21-50 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (51-100 hp)* Substitution out of scope to permanent magnet motors. ** Total may not match due to rounding * EL 1 (0.355) 3.221 0.937 (1.534) (0.583) (0.063) 0.033 (0.005) 0.005 (0.001) (0.044) (0.314) $2020 (billion) EL 2 EL 3 0.131 0.563 5.821 1.594 1.195 (3.286) (4.907) (5.585) (3.449) (3.531) (2.441) (2.025) 0.052 0.037 (0.029) (0.043) (0.001) (0.001) (0.002) (0.002) (0.052) (0.067) (0.527) (0.814) EL 4 (2.790) 3.109 (3.871) (7.499) (4.801) (2.728) 0.022 (0.043) (0.001) (0.005) (0.189) (1.062) 0.282 0.322 0.391 0.712 3.326 3.673 4.896 5.218 2.719 3.019 4.047 4.318 (0.197) (0.318) (0.400) (0.453) 10C-6 Table 10C.2.7 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL for Electric Motors Currently Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 (7% Discount Rate, Low Growth Rate Scenario) Equipment class and Horsepower Range NEMA Design A and B (1-5 hp) NEMA Design A and B (6-20 hp) NEMA Design A and B (21-50 hp) NEMA Design A and B (51-100 hp) NEMA Design A and B (101-200 hp) NEMA Design A and B (201-500 hp) NEMA Design C (1-20 hp) NEMA Design C (21-100 hp) NEMA Design C (101-200 hp) Fire Pump (1-5) Fire Pump (6-50 hp) Fire Pump (51-500 hp) NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (1-5 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (6-20 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (21-50 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (51-100 hp)* Substitution out of scope to permanent magnet motors. ** Total may not match due to rounding * EL 1 (0.307) 0.882 0.026 (0.747) (0.523) (0.387) 0.008 (0.005) (0.000) (0.000) (0.017) (0.121) $2020 (billion) EL 2 EL 3 (0.279) (0.327) 1.530 (0.486) (0.204) (2.292) (2.142) (2.538) (1.819) (2.135) (1.555) (1.711) 0.011 0.001 (0.016) (0.024) (0.004) (0.006) (0.001) (0.001) (0.020) (0.026) (0.204) (0.314) EL 4 (1.787) (0.239) (2.832) (3.412) (2.908) (2.298) (0.009) (0.024) (0.006) (0.002) (0.073) (0.410) 0.010 0.012 0.016 0.029 0.538 0.590 0.783 0.835 0.355 0.395 0.532 0.569 (0.181) (0.298) (0.390) (0.446) 10C-7 Table 10C.2.8 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL for Electric Motors Currently Regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 (7% Discount Rate, High Growth Rate Scenario) Equipment class and Horsepower Range NEMA Design A and B (1-5 hp) NEMA Design A and B (6-20 hp) NEMA Design A and B (21-50 hp) NEMA Design A and B (51-100 hp) NEMA Design A and B (101-200 hp) NEMA Design A and B (201-500 hp) NEMA Design C (1-20 hp) NEMA Design C (21-100 hp) NEMA Design C (101-200 hp) Fire Pump (1-5) Fire Pump (6-50 hp) Fire Pump (51-500 hp) NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (1-5 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (6-20 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (21-50 hp)* NEMA Design A and B Substitution to Synchronous Electric Motor (51-100 hp)* Substitution out of scope to permanent magnet motors. ** Total may not match due to rounding * EL 1 (0.345) 1.253 0.132 (0.923) (0.601) (0.410) 0.012 (0.006) 0.000 (0.000) (0.022) (0.157) $2020 (billion) EL 2 EL 3 (0.260) (0.255) 2.202 (0.291) (0.070) (2.668) (2.702) (3.176) (2.231) (2.566) (1.859) (1.982) 0.017 0.005 (0.019) (0.029) (0.004) (0.006) (0.001) (0.001) (0.026) (0.033) (0.264) (0.407) EL 4 (2.096) 0.132 (3.276) (4.268) (3.495) (2.662) (0.006) (0.029) (0.006) (0.003) (0.094) (0.531) 0.044 0.051 0.062 0.113 0.926 1.018 1.354 1.444 0.663 0.738 0.991 1.059 (0.204) (0.335) (0.436) (0.498) 10C-8 Table 10C.2.9 Cumulative Full Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings for SNEMs (Low Growth Scenario) Equipment Class and Horsepower Range Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.75 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.76 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.75 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.76 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) Note: Total may not match due to rounding Quads EL 1 0.01 0.01 0.1 0.03 0.07 0.19 0.18 0.42 0 0.01 0.01 0.03 EL 2 0.07 0.13 0.48 0.37 0.35 0.78 0.35 1.31 2.18 0.02 0.02 0.05 EL 3 1.71 3.21 0.04 0.04 0.07 EL 4 0.05 0.07 0.13 Table 10C.2.10 Cumulative Full Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings for SNEMs (High Growth Scenario) Equipment Class and Horsepower Range Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.75 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.76 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.75 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.76 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) Note: Total may not match due to rounding 10C-9 Quads EL 1 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.03 0.08 0.22 0.21 0.51 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 EL 2 0.08 0.15 0.59 0.45 0.42 0.95 0.43 1.59 2.64 0.02 0.03 0.06 EL 3 2.07 3.88 0.04 0.05 0.09 EL 4 0.06 0.08 0.15 Table 10C.2.11 Cumulative Primary National Energy Savings for SNEMs (Low Growth Scenario) Equipment Class and Horsepower Range Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.75 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.76 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.75 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.76 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) Note: Total may not match due to rounding Quads EL 1 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.06 0.18 0.17 0.41 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.03 EL 2 0.06 0.12 0.47 0.36 0.34 0.75 0.34 1.27 2.10 0.02 0.02 0.05 EL 3 1.65 3.09 0.03 0.04 0.07 EL 4 0.05 0.07 0.12 Table 10C.2.12 Cumulative Primary National Energy Savings for SNEMs (High Growth Scenario) Equipment Class and Horsepower Range Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.75 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.76 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.75 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.76 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) Note: Total may not match due to rounding 10C-10 Quads EL 1 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.03 0.08 0.22 0.20 0.49 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 EL 2 0.08 0.15 0.56 0.44 0.41 0.91 0.41 1.53 2.54 0.02 0.03 0.05 EL 3 1.99 3.74 0.04 0.05 0.08 EL 4 0.06 0.08 0.15 Table 10C.2.13 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL for SNEMs (3% Discount Rate, Low Growth Rate Scenario) Equipment Class and Horsepower Range Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.75 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.76 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.75 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.76 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) Note: Total may not match due to rounding $2020 (billion) EL 1 0.02 (0.00) 0.33 0.07 0.09 0.54 0.45 1.87 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.05 EL 2 0.11 0.33 1.54 0.74 0.84 2.35 0.97 5.27 8.11 0.03 0.01 0.08 EL 3 6.86 10.05 0.09 0.05 0.12 EL 4 (0.06) (0.27) (0.47) Table 10C.2.14 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL for SNEMs (3% Discount Rate, High Growth Rate Scenario) Equipment Class and Horsepower Range Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.75 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.76 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.75 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.76 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) Note: Total may not match due to rounding 10C-11 $2020 (billion) EL 1 0.03 0.00 0.44 0.10 0.14 0.72 0.61 2.40 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.07 EL 2 0.15 0.45 2.03 1.04 1.14 3.12 1.30 6.82 10.57 0.04 0.02 0.12 EL 3 8.88 13.31 0.12 0.08 0.17 EL 4 (0.05) (0.30) (0.51) Table 10C.2.15 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL for SNEMs (7% Discount Rate, Low Growth Rate Scenario) Equipment Class and Horsepower Range Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.75 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.76 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.75 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.76 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) Note: Total may not match due to rounding $2020 (billion) EL 1 0.01 (0.00) 0.15 0.03 0.03 0.24 0.19 0.88 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 EL 2 0.04 0.14 0.69 0.30 0.35 1.04 0.43 2.46 3.75 0.01 (0.00) 0.03 EL 3 3.21 4.51 0.04 0.02 0.04 EL 4 (0.05) (0.17) (0.29) Table 10C.2.16 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL for SNEMs (7% Discount Rate, High Growth Rate Scenario) Equipment Class and Horsepower Range Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.75 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.76 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.75 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.76 to 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above 1.5 hp) Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) Note: Total may not match due to rounding 10C-12 $2020 (billion) EL 1 0.01 (0.00) 0.19 0.04 0.05 0.31 0.25 1.10 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 EL 2 0.06 0.19 0.88 0.41 0.47 1.35 0.56 3.09 4.74 0.01 (0.00) 0.04 EL 3 4.03 5.80 0.05 0.02 0.06 EL 4 (0.05) (0.18) (0.31) Table 10C.2.17 Cumulative Full Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings for AO-EMs (Low Growth Scenario) Equipment Class and Horsepower Range AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (1 to 20 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (21 to 50 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (Above 51 hp) Note: Total may not match due to rounding 10C-13 Quads EL 1 0.00 0.00 0.04 EL 2 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.10 0.00 0.17 0.23 0.05 1.16 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.17 0.02 EL 3 - EL 4 - - - - - 1.66 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.23 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.23 0.36 0.04 Table 10C.2.18 Cumulative Full Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings for AO-EMs (High Growth Scenario) Equipment Class and Horsepower Range AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (1 to 20 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (21 to 50 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (Above 51 hp) Note: Total may not match due to rounding 10C-14 Quads EL 1 0.00 0.00 0.04 EL 2 0.01 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.12 0.00 0.20 0.27 0.06 1.37 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.13 0.20 0.02 EL 3 - EL 4 - - - - - 1.97 1.42 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.27 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.27 0.42 0.05 Table 10C.2.19 Cumulative Primary National Energy Savings for AO-EMs (Low Growth Scenario) Equipment Class and Horsepower Range AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (1 to 20 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (21 to 50 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (Above 51 hp) Note: Total may not match due to rounding 10C-15 Quads EL 1 0.00 0.00 0.04 EL 2 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.10 0.00 0.17 0.22 0.05 1.11 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.16 0.02 EL 3 - EL 4 - - - - - 1.60 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.13 0.22 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.22 0.34 0.04 Table 10C.2.20 Cumulative Primary National Energy Savings for AO-EMs (High Growth Scenario) Equipment Class and Horsepower Range AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (1 to 20 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (21 to 50 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (Above 51 hp) Note: Total may not match due to rounding 10C-16 Quads EL 1 0.00 0.00 0.04 EL 2 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.11 0.00 0.20 0.26 0.05 1.32 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.19 0.02 EL 3 - EL 4 - - - - - 1.89 1.36 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.26 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.26 0.40 0.05 Table 10C.2.21 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL for AO-EMs (3% Discount Rate, Low Growth Rate Scenario) Equipment Class and Horsepower Range AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (1 to 20 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (21 to 50 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (Above 51 hp) Note: Total may not match due to rounding 10C-17 $2020 (billion) EL 1 0.00 0.00 0.13 EL 2 0.01 0.04 0.61 0.01 0.08 0.06 0.17 0.06 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.20 0.24 0.00 0.46 0.73 0.13 4.37 3.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.28 0.26 (0.05) EL 3 - EL 4 - - - - - 6.38 3.57 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.15 0.25 (0.18) (0.00) (0.02) (0.07) (0.07) 0.07 (0.22) Table 10C.2.22 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL for AO-EMs (3% Discount Rate, High Growth Rate Scenario) Equipment Class and Horsepower Range AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (1 to 20 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (21 to 50 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (Above 51 hp) Note: Total may not match due to rounding $2020 (billion) EL 1 0.00 0.00 0.17 EL 2 0.02 0.05 0.79 0.01 0.11 0.08 0.22 0.08 0.68 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.26 0.32 0.00 0.61 0.95 0.17 5.60 3.87 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.37 0.37 (0.06) EL 3 - EL 4 - - - - - 8.15 4.68 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.23 0.38 (0.20) 0.00 (0.02) (0.08) 0.00 0.22 (0.24) Table 10C.2.23 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL for AO-EMs (7% Discount Rate, Low Growth Rate Scenario) 10C-18 Equipment Class and Horsepower Range AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (1 to 20 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (21 to 50 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (Above 51 hp) Note: Total may not match due to rounding 10C-19 $2020 (billion) EL 1 0.00 (0.00) 0.06 EL 2 0.01 0.02 0.28 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.09 0.00 0.20 0.33 0.06 2.03 1.39 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.10 0.07 (0.04) EL 3 - EL 4 - - - - - 2.96 1.59 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 (0.10) (0.00) (0.01) (0.05) (0.13) (0.11) (0.13) Table 10C.2.24 Cumulative Consumer Net Present Value for Each EL for AO-EMs (7% Discount Rate, High Growth Rate Scenario) Equipment Class and Horsepower Range AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT open) (Above 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.25 to 0.74 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (0.75 to 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (High LRT enclosed) (Above 1.5 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Medium LRT) (Above 0.25 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Single-Phase (Low LRT) (0.34 to 5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.25 to 0.33 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (0.34 to 0.5 hp) AO-SNEM Polyphase (Above 0.5 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (1 to 20 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (21 to 50 hp) AO-MEM Polyphase (Above 51 hp) Note: Total may not match due to rounding 10C-20 $2020 (billion) EL 1 0.00 0.00 0.08 EL 2 0.01 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.10 0.03 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.10 0.12 0.00 0.26 0.42 0.07 2.53 1.74 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.10 (0.04) EL 3 - EL 4 - - - - - 3.69 2.03 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.08 (0.12) (0.00) (0.01) (0.05) (0.11) (0.08) (0.15)

EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0010 attachment 1

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib