Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial and Industrial Electric Motors

Federal RegisterDec 6, 2013

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket Number EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027]

RIN 1904-AC28

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial and Industrial Electric Motors

AGENCY:

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and public meeting.

SUMMARY:

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including commercial and industrial electric motors. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to determine whether more-stringent, amended standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would save a significant amount of energy. In this notice, DOE proposes energy conservation standards for a number of different groups of electric motors that DOE has not previously regulated. For those groups of electric motors currently regulated, the proposed standards would maintain the current energy conservation standards for some electric motor types and amend the energy conservation standards for other electric motor types. The document also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

DATES:

DOE will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, December 11, 2013, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast as a webinar. See section VII Public Participation for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NOPR before and after the public meeting, but no later than February 4, 2014. See section VII Public Participation for details.

ADDRESSES:

The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945. Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to advance security screening procedures. Any foreign national wishing to participate in the meeting should advise DOE as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Edwards to initiate the necessary procedures. Please also note that those wishing to bring laptops into the Forrestal Building will be required to obtain a property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing laptops, or allow an extra 45 minutes. Persons can attend the public meeting via webinar. For more information, refer to the Public Participation section near the end of this notice.

Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Energy Conservation Standards for electric motors, and provide docket numberEE-2010-BT-STD-2027 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AC28. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov

. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Email: ElecMotors-2010-STD-0027@ee.doe.gov

. Include the docket number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.

Mail:

Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.

Hand Delivery/Courier:

Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy through the methods listed above and by email to

Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov

For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section VII of this document (Public Participation).

Docket:

The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.

A link to the docket Web page can be found at

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027

. This Web page will contain a link to the docket for this notice on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section VII for further information on how to submit comments through

www.regulations.gov

For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8654. Email:

Jim.Raba@ee.doe.gov

Ms. Ami Grace-Tardy, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-5709. Email:

Ami.Grace-Tardy@hq.doe.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

B. Impact on Manufacturers

C. National Benefits

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

1. Current Standards

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Electric Motors

3. Process for Setting Energy Conservation Standards

III. General Discussion

A. Test Procedure

B. Equipment Classes and Current Scope of Coverage

C. Expanded Scope of Coverage

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

2. Significance of Savings

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

b. Life-Cycle Costs

c. Energy Savings

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

g. Other Factors

2. Rebuttable Presumption

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Current Scope of Electric Motors Energy Conservation Standards

2. Expanded Scope of Electric Motor Energy Conservation Standards

3. Advanced Electric Motors

4. Equipment Class Groups and Equipment Classes

a. Electric Motor Design Letter

b. Fire Pump Electric Motors

c. Brake Motors

d. Horsepower Rating

e. Pole Configuration

f. Enclosure Type

g. Other Motor Characteristics

5. Technology Assessment

a. Decrease the Length of Coil Extensions

b. Increase Cross-Sectional Area of Rotor Conductor Bars

c. Increase Cross-Sectional Area of End Rings

d. Increase the Number of Stator Slots

e. Electrical Steel With Lower Losses

f. Thinner Steel Laminations

g. Increase Stack Length

h. More Efficient Cooling System

i. Reduce Skew on Conductor Cage

B. Screening Analysis

1. Technology Options Not Screened Out of the Analysis

a. Copper Die-Cast Rotors

b. Increase the Cross-Sectional Area of Copper in the Stator Slots

2. Technology Options Screened Out of the Analysis

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Engineering Analysis Methodology

2. Representative Units

a. Electric Motor Design Type

b. Horsepower Rating

c. Pole-Configuration

d. Enclosure Type

3. Efficiency Levels Analyzed

4. Test and Teardowns

5. Software Modeling

6. Cost Model

a. Copper Pricing

b. Labor Rate and Non-Production Markup

c. Catalog Prices

d. Product Development Cost

7. Engineering Analysis Results

8. Scaling Methodology

D. Markups Analysis

E. Energy Use Analysis

1. Comments on Operating Hours

2. Comments on Other Issues

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. Equipment Costs

2. Installation Costs

3. Maintenance Costs

4. Repair Costs

5. Unit Energy Consumption

6. Electricity Prices and Electricity Price Trends

7. Lifetime

8. Discount Rate

9. Base Case Market Efficiency Distributions

10. Compliance Date

11. Payback Period Inputs

12. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Period

G. Shipments Analysis

H. National Impact Analysis

1. Efficiency Trends

2. National Energy Savings

3. Equipment Price Forecast

4. Net Present Value of Customer Benefit

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

2. GRIM Analysis and Key Inputs

a. Product and Capital Conversion Costs

b. Manufacturer Production Costs

c. Shipment Forecast

d. Markup Scenarios

3. Discussion of Comments

a. Scope of Coverage

b. Conversion Costs

c. Enforcement of Standards

d. Motor Refurbishment

4. Manufacturer Interviews

a. Efficiency Levels above NEMA Premium

b. Increase in Equipment Repairs

c. Enforcement

K. Emissions Analysis

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

1. Social Cost of Carbon

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions

b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in Past Regulatory Analyses

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions

2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions

M. Utility Impact Analysis

N. Employment Impact Analysis

O. Other Comments Received

V. Analytical Results

A. Trial Standard Levels

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Customers

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results

b. Impacts on Employment

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity

d. Impacts on Sub-Group of Manufacturers

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

3. National Impact Analysis

a. Significance of Energy Savings

b. Net Present Value of Customer Costs and Benefits

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment

4. Impact on Utility or Performance

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy

7. Summary of National Economic Impacts

8. Other Factors

C. Proposed Standards

1. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard Levels Considered for Electric Motors

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Proposed Standards

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated

a. Methodology for Estimating the Number of Small Entities

b. Manufacturer Participation

c. Electric Motor Industry Structure and Nature of Competition

d. Comparison Between Large and Small Entities

2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements

3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict with Other Rules and Regulations

4. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule

5. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

VII. Public Participation

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements For Distribution

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting

D. Submission of Comments

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:

2. Revise § 431.25 to read as follows:

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. Part C of Title III of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) established a similar program for “Certain Industrial Equipment,” including certain electric motors.

(Within this preamble, DOE will use the terms “electric motors” and “motors” interchangeably.) Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard that DOE may prescribe for certain equipment, such as electric motors, shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a)). Furthermore, any new or amended standard must result in a significant

conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(a)).

For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Parts B and C were redesignated as Parts A and A-1, respectively.

In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this notice, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposes amending the energy conservation standards for electric motors by applying the standards currently in place to a wider scope of electric motors for which DOE does not currently regulate. In setting these standards, DOE is proposing to address a number of different groups of electric motors that have, to date, not been required to satisfy the energy conservation standards currently set out in 10 CFR part 431. In addition, with the exception of fire pump electric motors, the proposal would require all currently regulated motors to satisfy the efficiency levels prescribed in Table 12-12 and Table 20-B

of MG1-2011, published by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association; fire pump motors would continue to meet the current standards that apply. All other electric motors that DOE is proposing to regulate would also need to meet these efficiency levels (i.e. Tables 12-12 and 20-B). As a practical matter, the many currently regulated motors would continue to be required to meet the standards that they already meet, but certain motors, such as those that satisfy the general purpose electric motors (subtype II) (“subtype II”) or that are NEMA Design B motors from 201 through 500 horsepower, would need to meet the more stringent levels prescribed by MG1-2011 Tables 12-12 and 20-B. These proposed efficiency levels are shown in Table I.1. If adopted, the proposed standards would apply to all covered motor types listed in Table I.1 that are manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on December 19, 2015. DOE may, however, depending on the nature of the comments it receives, revisit this proposed compliance date.

Table 20-B of MG1-2011 provides nominal full-load efficiencies for ratings without nominal full-load efficiencies in Table 12-12 of MG1-2011.

Table I.1—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors

[Compliance starting December 19, 2015]

Equipment class group

Electric motor design type

Horsepower

rating

Pole

configuration

Enclosure

Proposed TSL

NEMA Design A & B *

1-500

2, 4, 6, 8

Open

Enclosed

NEMA Design C *

1-200

4, 6, 8

Open

Enclosed

Fire Pump *

1-500

2, 4, 6, 8

Open

Enclosed

Brake Motors *

1-30

4, 6, 8

Open

Enclosed

* Indicates IEC equivalent electric motors are included.

The following tables (Tables I.2 to I.5) detail the various proposed standard levels that comprise TSL 2 and that DOE would apply to each group of motors. In determining where a particular motor with a certain horsepower (hp) or kilowatt rating would fall within the requirements, as in DOE's current regulations, DOE would apply the following approach in determining which rating would apply for compliance purposes:

(1) A horsepower at or above the midpoint between the two consecutive horsepowers shall be rounded up to the higher of the two horsepowers;

(2) A horsepower below the midpoint between the two consecutive horsepowers shall be rounded down to the lower of the two horsepowers; or

(3) A kilowatt rating shall be directly converted from kilowatts to horsepower using the formula 1 kilowatt = (1/0.746) horsepower. The conversion should be calculated to three significant decimal places, and the resulting horsepower shall be rounded in accordance with the rules listed in (1) and (2).

Table I.2—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for NEMA Design A and NEMA Design B Electric Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors, Integral Brake Electric Motors, and Non-Integral Brake Electric Motors)

[Compliance starting December 19, 2015]

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt

equivalent

Nominal full load efficiency (%)

2 Pole

Enclosed

Open

4 Pole

Enclosed

Open

6 Pole

Enclosed

Open

8 Pole

Enclosed

Open

1/.75

77.0

85.5

82.5

75.5

1.5/1.1

84.0

86.5

87.5

86.5

78.5

77.0

2/1.5

85.5

86.5

88.5

87.5

84.0

86.5

3/2.2

86.5

85.5

89.5

88.5

85.5

87.5

5/3.7

88.5

86.5

89.5

86.5

88.5

7.5/5.5

89.5

88.5

91.7

91.0

90.2

86.5

89.5

10/7.5

90.2

89.5

91.7

91.0

91.7

89.5

90.2

15/11

91.0

90.2

92.4

93.0

91.7

89.5

90.2

20/15

91.0

93.0

91.7

92.4

90.2

91.0

25/18.5

91.7

93.6

93.0

90.2

91.0

30/22

91.7

93.6

94.1

93.0

93.6

91.7

40/30

92.4

94.1

91.7

50/37

93.0

94.5

94.1

92.4

60/45

93.6

95.0

94.5

92.4

93.0

75/55

93.6

95.4

95.0

94.5

93.6

94.1

100/75

94.1

93.6

95.4

95.0

93.6

94.1

125/90

95.0

94.1

95.4

95.0

94.1

150/110

95.0

94.1

95.8

95.4

94.1

200/150

95.4

95.0

96.2

95.8

95.4

94.5

94.1

250/186

95.8

95.0

96.2

95.8

95.0

300/224

95.8

95.4

96.2

95.8

95.0

350/261

95.8

95.4

96.2

95.8

95.0

400/298

95.8

96.2

95.8

95.0

450/336

95.8

96.2

95.8

96.2

95.0

500/373

95.8

96.2

95.8

96.2

95.0

Table I.3—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for NEMA Design C Electric Motors (Excluding Non-Integral Brake Electric Motors and Integral Brake Electric Motors)

[Compliance starting December 19, 2015]

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent

Nominal full load efficiency (%)

4 Pole

Enclosed

Open

6 Pole

Enclosed

Open

8 Pole

Enclosed

Open

1/.75

85.5

82.5

75.5

1.5/1.1

86.5

87.5

86.5

78.5

77.0

2/1.5

86.5

88.5

87.5

84.0

86.5

3/2.2

89.5

88.5

85.5

87.5

5/3.7

89.5

86.5

88.5

7.5/5.5

91.7

91.0

90.2

86.5

89.5

10/7.5

91.7

91.0

91.7

89.5

90.2

15/11

92.4

93.0

91.7

89.5

90.2

20/15

93.0

91.7

92.4

90.2

91.0

25/18.5

93.6

93.0

90.2

91.0

30/22

93.6

94.1

93.0

93.6

91.7

40/30

94.1

91.7

50/37

94.5

94.1

92.4

60/45

95.0

94.5

92.4

93.0

75/55

95.4

95.0

94.5

93.6

94.1

100/75

95.4

95.0

93.6

94.1

125/90

95.4

95.0

94.1

150/110

95.8

95.4

94.1

200/150

96.2

95.8

95.4

94.5

94.1

Table I.4—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Fire Pump Electric Motors

[Compliance starting December 19, 2015]

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt

equivalent

Nominal full load efficiency (%)

2 Pole

Enclosed

Open

4 Pole

Enclosed

Open

6 Pole

Enclosed

Open

8 Pole

Enclosed

Open

1/.75

75.5

82.5

80.0

74.0

1.5/1.1

82.5

84.0

85.5

84.0

77.0

75.5

2/1.5

84.0

86.5

85.5

82.5

85.5

3/2.2

85.5

84.0

87.5

86.5

87.5

86.5

84.0

86.5

5/3.7

87.5

85.5

87.5

85.5

87.5

7.5/5.5

88.5

87.5

89.5

88.5

89.5

88.5

85.5

88.5

10/7.5

89.5

88.5

89.5

90.2

88.5

89.5

15/11

90.2

89.5

91.0

90.2

88.5

89.5

20/15

90.2

91.0

90.2

91.0

89.5

90.2

25/18.5

91.0

92.4

91.7

89.5

90.2

30/22

91.0

92.4

91.7

92.4

91.0

40/30

91.7

93.0

91.0

50/37

92.4

93.0

91.7

60/45

93.0

93.6

91.7

92.4

75/55

93.0

94.1

93.6

93.0

93.6

100/75

93.6

93.0

94.5

94.1

93.0

93.6

125/90

94.5

93.6

94.5

94.1

93.6

150/110

94.5

93.6

95.0

94.5

93.6

200/150

95.0

94.5

95.0

94.5

94.1

93.6

250/186

95.4

94.5

95.0

95.4

95.0

95.4

94.5

300/224

95.4

95.0

95.4

95.0

95.4

94.5

350/261

95.4

95.0

95.4

95.0

95.4

94.5

400/298

95.4

95.0

95.4

94.5

450/336

95.4

95.8

95.4

95.8

95.0

95.4

94.5

500/373

95.4

95.8

95.0

95.4

94.5

Table I.5—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Integral Brake Electric Motors and Non-Integral Brake Electric Motors

[Compliance starting December 19, 2015]

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent

Nominal full load efficiency (%)

4 Pole

Enclosed

6 Pole

Open

8 Pole

Enclosed

Open

Enclosed

Open

1/.75

85.5

82.5

75.5

1.5/1.1

86.5

87.5

86.5

78.5

77.0

2/1.5

86.5

88.5

87.5

84.0

86.5

3/2.2

89.5

88.5

85.5

87.5

5/3.7

89.5

86.5

88.5

7.5/5.5

91.7

91.0

90.2

86.5

89.5

10/7.5

91.7

91.0

91.7

89.5

90.2

15/11

92.4

93.0

91.7

89.5

90.2

20/15

93.0

91.7

92.4

90.2

91.0

25/18.5

93.6

93.0

90.2

91.0

30/22

93.6

94.1

93.0

93.6

91.7

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.6 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the proposed standards on consumers of electric motors, as measured by the weighted average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and the weighted average median payback period.

Table I.6—Impacts of Proposed Standards on Consumers of Electric Motors

Weighted average LCC

savings * (2012$)

Weighted average median payback period * (years)

Equipment Class Group 1

132

3.3

Equipment Class Group 2

5.0

Equipment Class Group 3

N/A **

Equipment Class Group 4

259

1.9

* The results for each equipment class group (ECG) are a shipment weighted average of results for the representative units in the group. ECG 1: Representative units 1, 2, and 3; ECG 2: Representative units 4 and 5; ECG 3: Representative units 6, 7, and 8; ECG 4: Representative units 9 and 10. The weighted average lifetime in each equipment classes is 15 years and ranges from 8 to 29 years depending on the motor horsepower and application.

** For equipment class group 3, the proposed standard level is the same as the baseline; thus, no customers are affected.

B. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2013 to 2044). Using a real discount rate of 9.1 percent, DOE estimates that the industry net present value (INPV) for manufacturers of electric motors is $3,371.2 million in 2012$. Under the proposed standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may lose up to 8.4 percent of their INPV, which corresponds to approximately $283.5 million. Additionally, based on DOE's interviews with the manufacturers of electric motors, DOE does not expect any plant closings or significant loss of employment based on the energy conservation standards chosen in today's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR).

C. National Benefits and Costs

All monetary values in this section are expressed in 2012 dollars and are discounted to 2013.

DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed standards would save a significant amount of energy. Estimated lifetime savings for electric motors purchased over the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with new and amended standards (2015-2044) would amount to 7.0 quads (full-fuel-cycle energy).

The annualized energy savings (0.23 quads) are equivalent to one percent of total U.S. industrial primary energy consumption in 2011.

One quad (quadrillion Btu) is the equivalent of 293.1 billion kilowatt hours (kWh) or 172.3 million barrels of oil.

Based on U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2013 data.

The estimated cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and savings attributed to the proposed standards for electric motors ranges from $8.7 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $23.3 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment costs for equipment purchased in 2015-2044.

In addition, the proposed standards would have significant environmental benefits. Estimated energy savings would result in cumulative emission reductions of 396 million metric tons (Mt)

of carbon dioxide (CO

), 674 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO

), 499 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NO

) and 0.8 tons of mercury (Hg).

Through 2030, the estimated energy savings would result in cumulative emissions reductions of 96 Mt of CO

A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for NO

and Hg are presented in short tons.

DOE calculates emissions reductions relative to the

AEO2013

reference case, which generally represents current legislation and environmental regulations for which implementing regulations were available as of December 31, 2012.

The value of the CO

reductions is calculated using a range of values per metric ton of CO

(otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) developed by an interagency process).

The derivation of the SCC values is discussed in section IV.M. DOE estimates the present monetary value of the CO

emissions reduction is between $2.5 and $36.6 billion. DOE also estimates the present monetary value of the NO

emissions reduction is $0.3 billion at a 7-percent discount rate and $0.6 billion at a 3-percent discount rate.

Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866.

Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government. May 2013; revised November 2013.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf

DOE is currently investigating valuation of avoided Hg and SO

emissions.

Table I.7 summarizes the national economic costs and benefits expected to result from the proposed standards for electric motors.

Table I.7—Summary of National Economic Benefits and Costs of Electric Motors Energy Conservation Standards, Present Value for Motors Shipped in 2015-2044 in Billion 2012$

Category

Present value

billion 2012$

Discount rate

(%)

Benefits:

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

14.8

34.9

Reduction Monetized Value ($11.8/t case) *

2.5

Reduction Monetized Value ($39.7/t case) *

11.8

Reduction Monetized Value ($61.2/t case) *

18.9

2.5

Reduction Monetized Value ($117.0/t case) *

36.6

Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,639/ton) **

0.3

0.6

Total Benefits †

26.9

47.4

Costs:

Consumer Incremental Installed Costs

6.1

11.7

Net Benefits:

Including CO

and NO

Reduction Monetized Value

20.8

35.7

* The interagency group selected four sets of SCC values for use in regulatory analyses. Three sets of values are based on the average SCC from the three integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5 percent. The fourth set, which represents the 95th percentile SCC estimate across all three models at a 3-percent discount rate, is included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from temperature change further out in the tails of the SCC distribution. The values in parentheses represent the SCC in 2015. The SCC time series incorporate an escalation factor.

** The value represents the average of the low and high NO

values used in DOE's analysis.

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to SCC value of $39.7/t in 2015.

The benefits and costs of today's proposed standards for electric motors, sold in years 2015-2044, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the annualized national economic value of the benefits from operation of the commercial and industrial equipment that meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in equipment purchase and installation costs, which is another way of representing consumer NPV), and (2) the annualized monetary value of the benefits of emission reductions, including CO

emission reductions.

DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present value in 2013, the year used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the time-series of costs and benefits using discount rates of three and seven percent for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO

reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as shown in Table I.3. From the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period (2015 through 2044) that yields the same present value. The fixed annual payment is the annualized value. Although DOE calculated annualized values, this does not imply that the time-series of cost and benefits from which the annualized values were determined is a steady stream of payments.

Although combining the values of operating savings and CO

emission reductions provides a useful perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the national operating savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of market transactions while the value of CO

reductions is based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and CO

savings are performed with different methods that use different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost savings is measured over the lifetime of electric motors shipped in years 2015-2044. The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of some future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of one ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts continue well beyond 2100.

Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed standards for electric motors are shown in Table I.8. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than CO

reduction, for which DOE used a 3-percent discount rate along with the average SCC series that uses a 3-percent discount rate, the cost of the standards proposed in today's rule is $462 million per year in increased equipment costs; while the estimated benefits are $1,114 million per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $586 million in CO

reductions, and $21.5 million in reduced NO

emissions. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $957 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the average SCC series, the estimated cost of the standards proposed in today's rule is $577 million per year in increased equipment costs; while the estimated benefits are $1,730 million per year in reduced operating costs, $586 million in CO

reductions, and $31.5 million in reduced NO

emissions. In this case, the net benefit would amount to approximately $1,354 million per year.

Table I.8—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors, in Million 2012$

Discount rate

Primary estimate *

Low net benefits estimate *

High net benefits estimate *

million 2012$/year

Benefits:

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

1,114

1,730

924

1,421

1,358

2,134

Reduction Monetized Value ($11.8/t case) *

155

134

179

Reduction Monetized Value ($39.7/t case) *

586

506

679

Reduction Monetized Value ($61.2/t case) *

2.5%

882

762

1022

Reduction Monetized Value ($117.0/t case) *

1,811

1,565

2,098

Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,639/ton) **

21.46

31.48

18.55

27.20

24.68

36.39

Total Benefits †

7% plus CO

range

3% plus CO

range

1,290 to 2,947

1,721

1,916 to 3,572

2,347

1,077 to 2,507

1,449

1,583 to 3,014

1,955

1,562 to 3,481

2,061

2,350 to 4,268

2,849

Costs:

Incremental Installed Costs

462

577

492

601

447

569

Net Benefits:

Total †

7% plus CO

range

3% plus CO

range

585 to 2,016

957

982 to 2,413

1,354

1,115 to 3,033

1,614

1,781 to 3,700

2,280

1,353 to 3,438

1,887

1,957 to 4,043

2,492

* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with electric motors shipped in 2015-2044. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2044 from the equipment purchased in years 2015-2044. Costs incurred by manufacturers, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule, are not directly included, but are indirectly included as part of incremental equipment costs. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates are in view of projections of energy prices from the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2013 Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium constant projected equipment price in the Primary Estimate, a declining rate for projected equipment price trends in the Low Benefits Estimate, and an increasing rate for projected equipment price trends in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.F.1.

** The interagency group selected four sets of SCC values for use in regulatory analyses. Three sets of values are based on the average SCC from the three integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5 percent. The fourth set, which represents the 95th percentile SCC estimate across all three models at a 3-percent discount rate, is included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from temperature change further out in the tails of the SCC distribution. The values in parentheses represent the SCC in 2015. The SCC time series incorporate an escalation factor. The value for NO

is the average of the low and high values used in DOE's analysis.

† Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount rate. In the rows labeled “7% plus CO

range” and “3% plus CO

range,” the operating cost and NO

benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO

values.

DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in the significant conservation of energy. DOE further notes that equipment achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for most equipment classes covered by today's proposal. Based on the analyses described above, DOE has tentatively concluded that the benefits of the proposed standards to the Nation (energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, consumer LCC savings, and emission reductions) would outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV for manufacturers and LCC increases for some consumers).

DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as trial standard levels, and is still considering them in this rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the projected benefits. Depending on the comments that DOE receives in response to this notice and related information collected and analyzed during the course of this rulemaking, DOE may adopt energy efficiency levels presented in this notice that are either higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying today's proposed rule, as well as some relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for electric motors.

A. Authority

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) established the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.” Part C of Title III of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) established a similar program for “Certain Industrial Equipment,” including electric motors.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT 1992) (Pub. L. 102-486) amended EPCA by establishing energy conservation standards and test procedures for certain commercial and industrial electric motors (in context, “motors”) manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece of equipment) after October 24, 1997. In December 2007, Congress passed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) (Pub. L. 110-140). Section 313(b)(1) of EISA 2007 updated the energy conservation standards for those electric motors already covered by EPCA and established energy conservation standards for a larger scope of motors not previously covered by standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) EPCA directs the Secretary of Energy to publish a final rule no later than 24 months after the effective date of the previous final rule to determine whether to amend the standards already in effect. Any such amendment shall apply to electric motors manufactured after a date which is five years after either: (1) The effective date of the previous amendment or (2) if the previous final rule did not amend the standards, the earliest date by which a previous amendment could have been effective. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(4)(B))

For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Parts B and C were redesignated as Parts A and A-1, respectively.

DOE is issuing today's proposal pursuant to Part C of Title III, which establishes an energy conservation program for covered equipment that consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. For those electric motors for which Congress established standards, or for which DOE amends or establishes standards, the DOE test procedure must be the prescribed procedures that currently appear at 10 CFR part 431 that apply to electric motors. The test procedure is subject to review and revision by the Secretary in accordance with certain criteria and conditions. (See 42 U.S.C. 6314(a))

Section 343(a)(5)(B)-(C) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(B)-(C), provides in part that if the NEMA- and IEEE-developed test procedures are amended, DOE shall so amend the test procedures

under 10 CFR part 431, unless the Secretary determines, by rule, that the amended industry procedures would not meet the requirements for test procedures to produce results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of the tested motor, or, would be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)-(3), (a)(5)(B)) As newer versions of the NEMA and IEEE test procedures for electric motors were developed, DOE updated 10 CFR part 431 to reflect these changes. Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA.

Id.

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new and amended standards for covered equipment. In the case of electric motors, the criteria set out in relevant subsections of 42 U.S.C. 6295, which normally applies to standards related to consumer products, also apply to the setting of energy conservation standards for motors via 42 U.S.C. 6316(a). As indicated above, new and amended standards must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3) and 6316(a)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) For certain equipment, including electric motors, if no test procedure has been established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the proposed standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-6316(a)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(a)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors:

1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the 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 that are likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

3. The total projected amount of energy, or as applicable, water, savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard;

4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

6. The need for national energy and water conservation; and

7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII) and 6316(a))

EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any new or amended standards that either increase the maximum allowable energy use or decrease the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) and 6316(a)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States of any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and 6316(a))

Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(a))

Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1), as applied to covered equipment via 42 U.S.C. 6316(a), specifies requirements when promulgating a standard for a type or class of covered product that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level than that which applies generally to such type or class of equipment for any group of covered equipment that have the same function or intended use if DOE determines that equipment within such group: (A) Consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered equipment within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other equipment within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6294(q)(1) and 6316(a)). In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate.

Id.

Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2) and 6316(a))

Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c) and 6316(a)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d)).

B. Background

1. Current Standards

An electric motor is a device that converts electrical power into rotational mechanical power. The outside structure of the motor is called the frame, which houses a rotor (the spinning part of the motor) and the stator (the stationary part that creates a magnetic field to drive the rotor). Although many different technologies exist, DOE's rulemaking is concerned with squirrel-cage induction motors, which represent the majority of electric motor energy use. In squirrel-cage induction motors, the stator drives the rotor by inducing an electric current in the squirrel-cage, which then reacts with the rotating magnetic field to propel the rotor in the same way a person can repel one handheld magnet with another. The squirrel-cage used in the rotor of induction motors consists of longitudinal conductive bars (rotor bars) connected at both ends by rings (end rings) forming a cage-like shape. Among other design parameters, motors can vary in horsepower, number of “poles” (which determines how quickly the motor rotates), and torque characteristics. Most motors have “open” frames that allow cooling airflow through the motor body, though

some have enclosed frames that offer added protection from foreign substances and bodies. DOE regulates various motor types from between 1 and 500 horsepower, with 2, 4, 6, and 8 poles, and with both open and enclosed frames.

EPACT 1992 amended EPCA by establishing energy conservation standards and test procedures for certain commercial and industrial electric motors manufactured either alone or as a component of another piece of equipment after October 24, 1997. Section 313 of EISA 2007 amended EPCA by: (1) Striking the definition of “electric motor” provided under EPACT 1992, (2) setting forth definitions for “general purpose electric motor (subtype I)” and “general purpose electric motor (subtype II),” and (3) prescribing energy conservation standards for “general purpose electric motors (subtype I),” “general purpose electric motors (subtype II), “fire pump electric motors,” and “NEMA Design B general purpose electric motors” with a power rating of more than 200 horsepower but not greater than 500 horsepower. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13), 6313(b)). The current standards for these motors, which are reproduced in the proposed regulatory text at the end of this notice, are divided into four tables that prescribe specific efficiency levels for each of those groups of motors.

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Electric Motors

On October 5, 1999, DOE published in the

Federal Register

, a final rule to implement the EPACT 1992 electric motor requirements. 64 FR 54114. In response to EISA 2007, on March 23, 2009, DOE updated, among other things, the corresponding electric motor regulations at 10 CFR part 431 with the new definitions and energy conservation standards. 74 FR 12058. On December 22, 2008, DOE proposed to update the test procedures under 10 CFR part 431 both for electric motors and small electric motors. 73 FR 78220. DOE finalized key provisions related to small electric motor testing in a 2009 final rule at 74 FR 32059 (July 7, 2009), and further updated the test procedures for electric motors and small electric motors at 77 FR 26608 (May 4, 2012). The May 2012 final rule primarily focused on updating various definitions and incorporations by reference related to the current test procedure. In that rule, DOE promulgated a regulatory definition of “electric motor” to account for EISA 2007's removal of the previous statutory definition of “electric motor.” DOE also clarified definitions related to those motors that EISA 2007 laid out as part of EPCA's statutory framework, including motor types that DOE had not previously regulated. See generally, id. at 26613-26619. DOE published a new proposed test procedure rulemaking on June 26, 2013, that proposes to further refine some existing electric motor definitions and add certain definitions and test procedure preparatory steps to address a wider variety of electric motor types than are currently regulated. 78 FR 38456.

Regarding the compliance date that would apply to the requirements of today's proposed rule, EPCA directs the Secretary of Energy to publish a final rule no later than 24 months after the effective date of the previous final rule to determine whether to amend the standards in effect for such equipment. Any such amendment shall apply to electric motors manufactured after a date which is five years after: (i) The effective date of the previous amendment; or (ii) if the previous final rule did not amend the standards, the earliest date by which a previous amendment could have been effective. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(4))

As described previously, EISA 2007 constitutes the most recent amendment to EPCA and energy conservation standards for electric motors. Because these amendments required compliance on December 19, 2010, DOE had indicated during the course of public meetings held in advance of today's proposal that motors manufactured after December 19, 2015, would need to comply with any applicable new standards that DOE may set as part of this rulemaking. Today's proposed standards would apply to motors manufactured starting on December 19, 2015. As noted in detail later in this notice, however, DOE is interested in receiving comments on the ability of manufacturers to meet this deadline.

DOE received numerous comments from interested parties who provided significant input to DOE in response to the framework document and preliminary analysis that the agency had issued. See 75 FR 59657 (Sept. 28, 2010) (framework document notice of availability) and 77 FR 43015 (July 23, 2012) (preliminary analysis notice of availability). During the framework document comment period for this rulemaking, several interested parties urged DOE to consider including additional motor types currently without energy conservation standards in DOE's analyses and establishing standards for such motor types. In the commenters' view, this approach would more effectively increase energy savings than setting more stringent standards for currently regulated electric motors. In response, DOE published a Request for Information (RFI) seeking public comments from interested parties regarding establishment of energy conservation standards for several types of definite and special purpose motors for which EISA 2007 did not provide energy conservation standards. 76 FR 17577 (March 30, 2011). DOE received comments responding to the RFI advocating that DOE regulate many of the electric motors discussed in the RFI, as well as many additional motor types.

Then, on August 15, 2012, a group of interested parties (the “Motor Coalition”

) submitted a Petition to DOE asking the agency to adopt a consensus stakeholder proposal that would amend the energy conservation standards for electric motors. The Motor Coalition's proposal advocated expanding the scope of coverage to a broader range of motors than what DOE currently regulates and it recommended that energy conservation standards for all covered electric motors be set at levels that are largely equivalent to what DOE proposes in today's NOPR (i.e., efficiency levels in NEMA MG1-2011 Tables 12-12 and 20-B).

The members of the Motor Coalition include: National Electrical Manufacturers Association, American Council for an Energy‐Efficient Economy, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Alliance to Save Energy, Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, and Northwest Power and Conservation Council.

DOE's proposal differs from that of the Motor Coalition in that DOE's proposal covers brake motors and does not set separate standards for U-frame motors. It also seeks supplemental information regarding certain 56-frame motors. See section IV.A.2 for details.

DOE received several comments from NEMA regarding the December 19, 2015, compliance date. First, NEMA pointed out that all publications and presentations prior to that preliminary analysis public meeting on August 21, 2012, indicated that DOE's statutory deadline for any final rule was December 19, 2012, but at the public meeting DOE showed a final rule completion date as the end of 2013. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 2, 6-7) NEMA questioned the authority by which DOE has decided to delay the Final Rule beyond the date of December 19, 2012, as stipulated in EPCA. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 2)

Second, NEMA commented that shortening the time to comply with any new standards from three years to two years would place additional burdens on manufacturers considering all of the electric motors types that DOE is considering in the preliminary TSD, the burdensome candidate standard levels that DOE is considering, and the

possibility of expanding the scope of energy conservation standards. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 2, 7; NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 60 at p. 30)

Third, NEMA also noted that when EPACT 1992 first added electric motors as covered equipment, motor manufacturers were allowed five years to modify motor designs and certify compliance to the new standards. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 7) It further noted that NEMA MG 1-1998 subsequently introduced NEMA Premium efficiency standards, and between 1998 and 2007 manufacturers voluntarily increased the number of NEMA Premium efficiency motor models available. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 7) NEMA commented that this transition period eased the burden of satisfying the added stringency of the standards set by EISA 2007, which allowed three years to update energy conservation standards to mandatory NEMA Premium levels for certain motor ratings. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 7) NEMA added that adhering to the statutory deadline for setting any new and amended standards would minimize any disruption in the electric motor market. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 8) NEMA also commented that since the EISA 2007 standards were enacted, only a limited number of motor ratings above NEMA Premium have been offered because there is not sufficient space available in most frame ratings to increase the efficiency. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 7) NEMA added that any standards above NEMA Premium would force manufacturers to redesign entire product lines and go through the process of certification and compliance, all of which would be expected to take longer than three years. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 7, 8)

Finally, NEMA also attempted to illustrate the difficulty of reaching NEMA Premium levels in IEC frame motors, noting that a comparison of certificates of compliance before and after EISA 2007 standards went into effect would demonstrate that some manufacturers were forced to abandon the U.S. electric motor market for some period of time before they could update their IEC frame motor product line. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 8) NEMA added that increasing the efficiency of subtype II motors to NEMA Premium efficiency and expanding the scope of motors subject to energy conservation standards (many of which currently have efficiency levels below EPACT 1992 energy conservation levels) will also require extensive redesign, and manufacturers would be forced to comply in only three years. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 8)

During the course of preparing for the electric motors energy conservation standards rulemaking, information was submitted to DOE by NEMA, ASAP, and CDA in response to DOE's RFI and then later in the Petition from the Motors Coalition

that caused DOE to reevaluate the scope of electric motors it was considering in this rulemaking. That Petition, and related supporting information, suggested that DOE apply the NEMA Premium efficiency levels (“NEMA Premium”) to a much broader swath of electric motors than are currently regulated by DOE, rather than increase the stringency of the standards that had only recently come into effect (i.e., EISA 2007 standards). As part of its routine practice, DOE reviewed the information and the merits of the Petition. With the potential prospect of expanding the types of motors that would be regulated by standards, DOE recognized the need to amend its test procedures to add the necessary testing preparatory steps (i.e. test set-up procedures) to DOE's regulations. The inclusion of these steps would help ensure that manufacturers of these new motor types would be performing the same steps as are performed when testing currently regulated motors.

The Petition is available at:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0035

The compliance date prescribed by statute would require manufacturers to begin manufacturing compliant motors by December 19, 2015. Accordingly, DOE is proposing a December 19, 2015, compliance date. DOE, however, recognizes that the statute also contemplated a three-year lead time for manufacturers in order to account for the potential logistical and production hurdles that manufacturers may face when transitioning to the new standards. Accordingly, while DOE is proposing a December 19, 2015 compliance deadline, it is also interested in comments that detail any hurdles with meeting this compliance deadline along with the merits of receiving the three-year lead-time also set out in the statute.

3. Process for Setting Energy Conservation Standards

Section 325(o) provides criteria for prescribing new or amended standards which are designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency and for which the Secretary of Energy determines are technologically feasible and economically justified. Consequently, DOE must consider, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors: (1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard; (2) the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the products compared to any increase in the prices, initial costs, or maintenance expenses for the products that are likely to result from the imposition of the standard; (3) the total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard; (4) any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the imposition of the standard; (5) the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard; (6) the need for national energy conservation; and (7) other factors the Secretary considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(a))

Other statutory requirements are set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)-(2)(A), (2)(B)(ii)-(iii), and (3)-(4). These criteria apply to the setting of standards for electric motors through 42 U.S.C. 6316(a).

III. General Discussion

DOE developed today's proposed rule after considering input, including verbal and written comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent a variety of interests. All commenters, along with their corresponding abbreviations and affiliations, are listed in Table III.1 below. The issues raised by these commenters are addressed in the discussions that follow.

Table III.1—Summary of Commenters

Company or organization

Abbreviation

Affiliation

Air Movement and Control Association International, Inc

AMCAI

Trade Association.

Alliance to Save Energy

ASE

Energy Efficiency Advocates.

American Council for an

Energy-Efficient Economy.

ACEEE

Energy Efficiency Advocates.

Appliance Standards Awareness Project

ASAP

Energy Efficiency Advocates.

Baldor Electric Co.

Baldor

Manufacturers.

BBF & Associates

BBF

Representative for Trade Association.

California Investor Owned Utilities

CA IOUs

Utilities.

Copper Development Association

CDA

Trade Association.

Earthjustice

Energy Efficiency Advocates.

Electric Apparatus Service Association

EASA

Trade Association.

Flolo Corporation

Flolo

Other.

Industrial Energy Consumers of America

IECA

Trade Association.

Motor Coalition *

Energy Efficiency Advocates, Trade Associations, Manufacturers, Utilities.

National Electrical Manufacturers Association

NEMA

Trade Association.

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

NEEA

Energy Efficiency Advocates.

Northwest Power & Conservation Council

NPCC

Utilities.

SEW-Eurodrive, Inc.

SEWE

Manufacturer.

UL LLC

Testing Laboratory.

* The members of the Motor Coalition include: National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), American Council for an Energy‐Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP), and Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC).

Subsequent to DOE's preliminary analysis public meeting, several other interested parties submitted comments supporting the Petition. Those supporters included: BBF and Associates, the Air Movement and Control Association International, Inc., U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski and Jeff Bingaman, the Hydraulic Institute, the Arkansas Economic Development and Commission-Energy Office, and the Power Transmission Distributors Association.

A. Test Procedure

On June 26, 2013, DOE published a notice that proposed to incorporate definitions for certain motor types not currently subject to energy conservation standards (78 FR 38456). The notice also proposed to clarify several definitions for motor types currently regulated by energy conservation standards and adding some necessary steps to facilitate the testing of certain motor types that DOE does not currently require to meet standards. During its preliminary analysis stage, DOE received comments concerning definitions and test procedure set-up steps suggested for testing motors under an expanded scope approach. DOE addressed the comments as part of the test procedure NOPR. For additional details, see 78 FR 38456 (June 26, 2013).

B. Equipment Classes and Current Scope of Coverage

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or other performance-related features that would justify a different standard. In making a determination whether a performance-related feature would justify a different standard, DOE must consider factors such as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors that DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q) and 6316(a))

Existing energy conservation standards cover electric motors that fall into four categories based on physical design features of the motor. These four categories are: General purpose electric motors (subtype I), general purpose electric motors (subtype II), fire pump electric motors, and NEMA Design B motors (with a horsepower rating from 201 through 500). Definitions for each of these terms can be found at 10 CFR 431.12.

C. Expanded Scope of Coverage

DOE has the authority to set energy conservation standards for a wider range of electric motors than those classified as general purpose electric motors (e.g., definite or special purpose motors). EPACT 1992 amended EPCA to include, among other things, a definition for the term “electric motor”—which the statute defined as including certain “general purpose” motors. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) (1992)) The amendments also defined the terms “definite purpose motors” and “special purpose motor.” (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(C) and (D)) (1992)) EPACT 1992 initially prescribed energy conservation standards for “electric motors” (i.e., subtype I general purpose electric motors) and explicitly stated that these standards did not apply to definite purpose or special purpose motors. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1) (1992)) However, EISA 2007 struck the narrow EPACT 1992 definition of “electric motor.” With the removal of this definition, the term “electric motor” became broader in scope. As a result of these changes, both definite and special purpose motors fell under the broad heading of “electric motors” that previously only applied to “general purpose” motors. While EISA 2007 prescribed standards for general purpose motors, the Act did not apply those standards to definite or special purpose motors. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b) (2012))

Although DOE believes that EPCA, as amended through EISA 2007, provides sufficient statutory authority for the regulation of special purpose and definite purpose motors as “electric motors,” DOE notes it has additional authority under section 10 of the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act, Public Law 112-210, which amended DOE's authority to regulate commercial and industrial equipment under section 340(2)(B) of EPCA to include “other motors,” in addition to “electric motors”. (42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)(xiii)). Therefore, even if special and definite purpose motors were not “electric motors,” special and definite purpose motors would be considered as “other

motors” that EPCA already treats as covered industrial equipment.

EPCA specifies the types of industrial equipment that can be classified as covered in addition to the equipment enumerated in 42 U.S.C. 6311(1). This equipment includes “other motors” (to be codified at 42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)). Industrial equipment must also, without regard to whether such equipment is in fact distributed in commerce for industrial or commercial use, be of a type that: (1) In operation consumes, or is designed to consume, energy in operation; (2) to any significant extent, is distributed in commerce for industrial or commercial use; and (3) is not a covered product as defined in 42 U.S.C. 6291(a)(2) of EPCA, other than a component of a covered product with respect to which there is in effect a determination under 42 U.S.C. 6312(c). (42 U.S.C. 6311 (2)(A)). Data from the 2002 United States Industrial Electric Motor Systems Market Opportunities Assessment estimated total energy use from industrial motor systems to be 747 billion kWh. Based on the expansion of industrial activity, it is likely that current annual electric motor energy use is higher than this figure. Electric motors are distributed in commerce for both the industrial and commercial sectors. According to data provided by the Motor Coalition, the number of electric motors manufactured in, or imported into, the United States is over five million electric motors annually, including special and definite purpose motors. Finally, special and definite purpose motors are not currently regulated under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 430 (10 CFR part 430).

To classify equipment as covered commercial or industrial equipment, the Secretary must also determine that classifying the equipment as covered equipment is necessary for the purposes of Part A-1 of EPCA. The purpose of Part A-1 is to improve the efficiency of electric motors, pumps and certain other industrial equipment to conserve the energy resources of the nation. (42 U.S.C. 6312(a)-(b)) In today's proposal, DOE has tentatively determined that the regulation of special and definite purpose motors is necessary to carry out the purposes of part A-1 of EPCA because regulating these motors will promote the conservation of energy supplies. Efficiency standards that may result from coverage would help to capture some portion of the potential for improving the efficiency of special and definite purpose motors.

Consistent with EISA 2007's reworking of the definition, the 2012 test procedure final rule broadly defined the term “electric motor.” at 10 CFR 431.12. (77 FR 26608 (May 4, 2012)). That definition covers “general purpose,” “special purpose” and “definite purpose” electric motors (as defined by EPCA). As noted above, EPCA did not require either “special purpose” or “definite purpose” motor types to meet energy conservation standards because they were not considered “general purpose” under the EPCA definition of “general purpose motor”—a necessary element to meet the pre-EISA 2007 “electric motor” definition. See 77 FR 26612. Because of the restrictive nature of the prior electric motor definition, along with the restrictive definition of the term “industrial equipment,” DOE would have been unable to set standards for such motors without this change. (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B) (2006) (limiting the scope of equipment covered under EPCA)) In view of the changes introduced by EISA 2007 and the absence of energy conservation standards for special purpose and definite purpose motors, as noted in chapter 2 of DOE's July 2012 electric motors preliminary analysis technical support document (TSD),

it is DOE's view that both of these motors are categories of “electric motors” covered under EPCA, as currently amended. Accordingly, DOE is proposing standards for certain definite purpose and special purpose motors. To this end, DOE is considering setting energy conservation standards for those motors that exhibit all of the following nine characteristics:

The preliminary TSD published in July 2012 is available at:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0023.

• Is a single-speed, induction motor,

• Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC),

• Contains a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or cage (IEC) rotor,

• Operates on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz sinusoidal line power,

• Is rated 600 volts or less,

• Has a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration,

• Has a three-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent) or an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent),

• Has no more than 500 horsepower, but greater than or equal to 1 horsepower (or kilowatt equivalent), and

• Meets all of the performance requirements of a NEMA Design A, B, or C electric motor or an IEC design N or H electric motor.

However, motor types that exhibit all of the characteristics listed above, but that DOE does not believe should be subject to energy conservation standards at this time because of the current absence of a reliable and repeatable method to test them for efficiency, would be listed as motors that would not at this time be subject to energy conservation standards. Once a test procedure becomes available, DOE may consider setting standards for these motors at that time. See generally, 78 FR 38456 (June 26, 2013). DOE requests comment on these nine characteristics and their appropriateness for outlining scope of coverage.

To facilitate the potential application of energy conservation standards to special and definite purpose motors, DOE proposed to define such motors and provide certain preparatory test procedure steps. 78 FR 38456 (June 26, 2013). The definitions under consideration would address motors currently subject to standards, specific motors DOE is considering requiring to meet standards, and some motors that will continue to not be required to meet particular energy conservation standards. Some of the clarifying definitions, such as the definitions for NEMA Design A and C electric motors, come from NEMA Standards Publication MG 1-2009, “Motors and Generators.” DOE understands that some of the motors addressed, such as partial motors and integral brake motors, do not have standard industry-accepted definitions. For such motor types, DOE worked with subject-matter experts (SMEs), manufacturers, and the Motor Coalition to create the working definitions that are proposed in the test procedure NOPR. (8 FR 38456 (June 26, 2013).

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General

EPCA requires that any new or amended energy conservation standard that DOE prescribes shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a)). In each standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible.

Where DOE determines that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in view of the following additional screening criteria: (1) Practicability to manufacture, install, or service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; and (3) adverse impacts on health or safety. Section IV.B of this notice addresses the results of the screening analysis for electric motors, particularly the designs DOE considered—those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the trial standard levels (TSLs) in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

When DOE proposes to adopt a new or amended standard for a type or class of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) This requirement also applies to DOE proposals to amend the standards for electric motors. See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a). Accordingly, in its engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for electric motors, using the design parameters for the most efficient motors available on the market or in working prototypes. (See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.) The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C.3 of this proposed rule.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

Section 325(o) of EPCA also provides that any new or amended energy conservation standard that DOE prescribes shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)-(B) and 6316(a)). In addition, in determining whether such standard is technologically feasible and economically justified, DOE may not prescribe standards for certain types or classes of electric motors if such standards would not result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(a)). For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from the motors that would be covered under this rulemaking and that would be purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the new and amended standards (2015-2044). The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of equipment purchased in the 30-year period.

DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the base case. The base case represents a projection of energy consumption in the absence of new or amended mandatory efficiency standards, and considers market forces and policies that affect demand for more efficient equipment.

In the past DOE, presented energy savings results for only the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance. In the calculation of economic impacts, however, DOE considered operating cost savings measured over the entire lifetime of equipment purchased in the 30-year period. DOE has chosen to modify its presentation of national energy savings to be consistent with the approach used for its national economic analysis.

DOE used its national impact analysis (NIA) spreadsheet model to estimate the energy savings from new and amended standards for the equipment that would be subject to this rulemaking. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this notice) calculates energy savings in site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by motors at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. To calculate source energy, DOE derives annual conversion factors from the model used to prepare the Energy Information Administration's (EIA)

Annual Energy Outlook (AEO)

DOE has begun to also estimate full-fuel-cycle energy savings. 76 FR 51282 (August 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). The full-fuel-cycle (FFC) metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels, and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. DOE's evaluation of FFC savings is driven in part by the National Academy of Science's (NAS) report on FFC measurement approaches for DOE's Appliance Standards Program.

The NAS report discusses that FFC was primarily intended for energy efficiency standards rulemakings where multiple fuels may be used by a particular product. In the case of this rulemaking pertaining to electric motors, only a single fuel—electricity—is consumed by the equipment. DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered equipment. The methodology for estimating FFC does not project how fuel markets would respond to this particular standard rulemaking. The FFC methodology simply estimates how much additional energy, and in turn how many tons of emissions, may be displaced if the estimated fuel were not consumed by the equipment covered in this rulemaking. It is also important to note that inclusion of FFC savings does not affect DOE's choice of proposed standards.

“Review of Site (Point-of-Use) and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to DOE/EERE Building Appliance Energy-Efficiency Standards,” (Academy report) was completed in May 2009 and included five recommendations. A copy of the study can be downloaded at:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12670

2. Significance of Savings

As noted above, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) prevents DOE from adopting a standard for a covered product unless such standard would result in “significant” energy savings. Although the term “significant” is not explicitly defined in EPCA, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in

Natural Resources Defense Council

Herrington,

768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress intended “significant” energy savings in this context to be savings that were not “genuinely trivial.” DOE believes that the energy savings for all of the TSLs considered in this rulemaking (presented in section V.A) are nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE considers them “significant” within the meaning of section 325 of EPCA.

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The following sections detail how DOE addresses each of those factors in this rulemaking.

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

In determining the impacts of a new or amended standard on manufacturers, DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period.

The industry-wide impacts analyzed include industry net present value (INPV), which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows; cash flows by year; changes in revenue and income; and other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.

DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.

For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) associated with new or amended standards. The LCC, addressed

as “savings in operating costs” at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), is one of seven factors considered in determining the economic justification for a new or amended standard and is discussed in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the economic impacts applicable to a particular rulemaking.

b. Life-Cycle Costs

The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a piece of equipment (including its installation) and the operating expense (including energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of that equipment. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to a base case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as equipment prices, equipment energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, equipment lifetime, and consumer discount rates. For its analysis, DOE assumes that consumers, as users of electric motors, will purchase the considered equipment in the first year of compliance with new or amended standards.

To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as equipment lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values with probabilities attached to each value. DOE identifies the percentage of consumers estimated to receive LCC savings or experience an LCC increase, in addition to the average LCC savings associated with a particular standard level. DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a national standard.

c. Energy Savings

Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for imposing an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section IV.H, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet to project national energy savings.

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance

In establishing classes of products, and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) As noted earlier, the substance of this provision applies to the equipment at issue in today's proposal as well. DOE has determined that the standards proposed in today's notice will not reduce the utility or performance of the equipment under consideration in this rulemaking. One piece of evidence for this claim includes the fact that many motors are already commonly being sold at the proposed levels (NEMA's “Premium” designation). A second piece of evidence is that the proposed standards closely track the recommendations of NEMA, which represents manufacturers who understand deeply the design compromises entailed in reaching higher efficiencies and who would be acting against the interest of their customers in recommending standards that would harm performance or utility.

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

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 the imposition of a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V). It also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary of Energy within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of today's proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (DOJ) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will address the Attorney General's determination in the final rule.

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

The energy savings from the proposed standards are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity.

The proposed standards also are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with energy production. DOE reports the emissions impacts from today's standards, and from each TSL it considered, in section V.B.4 of this notice. DOE also reports estimates of the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs.

g. Other Factors

EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is economically justified, to consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII))

2. Rebuttable Presumption

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the effects that proposed energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the three-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section IV.F.12 of this proposed rule.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

DOE used four spreadsheet tools to estimate the impact of today's proposed standards. The first spreadsheet calculates LCCs and PBPs of potential new energy conservation standards. The second provides shipments forecasts and the third calculates national energy savings and net present value impacts of potential new energy conservation standards. The fourth tool helps assess manufacturer impacts, largely through use of the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM).

Additionally, DOE estimated the impacts of energy conservation standards for electric motors on utilities

and the environment. DOE used a version of EIA's National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) for the utility and environmental analyses. The NEMS model simulates the energy sector of the U.S. economy. EIA uses NEMS to prepare its

Annual Energy Outlook (AEO),

a widely known energy forecast for the United States. The version of NEMS used for appliance standards analysis is called NEMS-BT

and is based on the

AEO

version with minor modifications.

The NEMS-BT model offers a sophisticated picture of the effect of standards because it accounts for the interactions between the various energy supply and demand sectors and the economy as a whole.

BT stands for DOE's Building Technologies Program.

The EIA allows the use of the name “NEMS” to describe only an AEO version of the model without any modification to code or data. Because the present analysis entails some minor code modifications and runs the model under various policy scenarios that deviate from AEO assumptions, the name “NEMS-BT” refers to the model as used here. For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy Modeling System: An Overview, DOE/EIA-0581 (98) (Feb. 1998), available at:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/forecasting/058198.pdf.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

For the market and technology assessment, DOE develops information that provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the industry structure, and market characteristics. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this rulemaking include scope of coverage, equipment classes, types of equipment sold and offered for sale, and technology options that could improve the energy efficiency of the equipment under examination. Chapter 3 of the TSD contains additional discussion of the market and technology assessment.

1. Current Scope of Electric Motors Energy Conservation Standards

EISA 2007 amended EPCA to prescribe energy conservation standards for four categories of electric motors: General purpose electric motors (subtype I) (hereinafter, “subtype I”), general purpose electric motors (subtype II) (hereinafter, “subtype II”), fire pump electric motors, and NEMA Design B, general purpose electric motors that also meet the subtype I or subtype II definitions and are rated above 200 horsepower through 500 horsepower. DOE's most recent test procedure final rule added clarity to the definitions for each of these motor categories, which are now codified at 10 CFR 431.12. 77 FR 26608.

Although DOE is not proposing to modify these definitions, commenters sought additional clarifications. During the preliminary analysis public meeting, NEMA expressed confusion regarding whether IEC frame motors would fall under the subtype I or subtype II designation, as DOE defined them to be related to both definitions. NEMA added that because subtype I and subtype II electric motors are subject to different efficiency standards, manufacturers producing IEC frame motors are confused as to whether IEC frame motors are subject to NEMA MG 1 Table 12-11 or Table 12-12 efficiency standards.

(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 60 at pp. 36, 37)

The efficiency levels found in Table 12-12 are the more stringent of the two sets of efficiency tables.

DOE understands that an IEC frame motor could be treated as either a subtype I or subtype II motor depending on its other characteristics. Having an IEC frame alone does not dictate whether a motor is a general purpose subtype I or subtype II motor; rather, other physical characteristics, such as equivalency to a NEMA Design A, B, or C electric motor, and whether it has mounting feet could determine the subtype designation and associated energy efficiency standard level. All of these elements flow directly from the statutory changes enacted by EISA 2007. (See EISA 2007, sec. 313(a)(3), codified at 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)) Currently, electric motors are required to meet energy conservation standards as follows:

Table IV.1—Current Electric Motor Energy Conservation Standards

Electric motor category

Horsepower range

Energy conservation standard level

General Purpose Electric Motors (Subtype I)

1 to 200 (inclusive)

MG 1-2011 Table 12-12.

General Purpose Electric Motors (Subtype II)

1 to 200 (inclusive)

MG 1-2011 Table 12-11.

NEMA Design B and

IEC Design N Motors

201 to 500 (inclusive)

MG 1-2011 Table 12-11.

Fire Pump Electric Motors

1 to 500 (inclusive)

MG 1-2011 Table 12-11.

For the purposes of determining compliance, DOE assesses a motors horsepower rating according to the provisions of 10 CFR 431.25(e).

Additionally, NEMA requested clarification on the terminology DOE intends to use for NEMA Design B motors, namely whether the term is “NEMA Design B motor” or “NEMA Design B electric motor” and what, if any, differences there are between the two terms. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 14) DOE understands that the terms “motor” and “electric motor” may refer to a variety of machines outside of its regulatory context. However, because there are no NEMA Design B motors that are not electrically-driven, in DOE's view, the potential for ambiguity is minimal. DOE clarifies that it is using the term “NEMA Design B motor,” as is currently codified in 10 CFR 431.12. Additionally, DOE does not consider there to be any meaningful difference between the two terms and notes that all motors currently regulated under 10 CFR part 431, subpart B, are electric motors.

DOE requests comment on whether the proposed standards help resolve the potential issue on which it had previously issued clarification of whether a [IEC] motor may be considered to be subject to two standards.

2. Expanded Scope of Electric Motor Energy Conservation Standards

As referenced above, on August 15, 2012, the Motor Coalition petitioned DOE to adopt the Coalition's consensus agreement, which, in part, formed the basis for today's proposal.

The Motor Coalition petitioned DOE to simplify coverage to address a broad array of electric motors with a few clearly identified exceptions. The Motor Coalition advocated this approach to

simplify manufacturer compliance and to help facilitate DOE's enforcement efforts. The Petition highlighted potential energy savings that would result from expanding the scope of covered electric motors. (Motor Coalition, No 35 at pp. 1-30) Subsequent to DOE's preliminary analysis public meeting, several other interested parties submitted comments supporting the Petition. Those supporters included: BBF and Associates, the Air Movement and Control Association International, Inc., U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski and Jeff Bingaman, the Hydraulic Institute, the Arkansas Economic Development and Commission-Energy Office, and the Power Transmission Distributors Association.

The Petition is available at:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0035

The California Investor Owned Utilities (CA IOUs), represented by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Gas Company (SCGC), San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison (SCE) commented that they supported the Petition's intent to expand the scope of coverage to the vast majority of single speed, polyphase, and integral horsepower induction motors between 1 and 500 horsepower, as well as increasing energy conservation standards for some covered products. (CA IOUs, No. 57 at p. 2)

The Air Movement and Control Association International, Inc. (AMCA International) endorsed the Petition. AMCA International encouraged DOE to adopt the Petition to save energy as soon as possible. (AMCA International, No. 59 at p. 1)

The CDA and BBF supported DOE's preliminary analysis and the Petition, indicating that the Petition sets minimum efficiency levels that represent a challenge to the industry and can have a great impact on U.S. energy use. (BBF & Associates, No. 51 at pp. 1, 2; CDA, No. 55 at p. 1) BBF also urged DOE to investigate energy conservation standards for motors over 500 horsepower because preliminary indications suggest that as much as 27 percent of total motor power consumed in the U.S. is from motors over 500 horsepower, and higher efficiencies can provide substantial savings. (BBF, No. 51 at p. 4)

EASA supported the Motor Coalition's Petition, asserting that it is in the best interests of saving energy, U.S. jobs, and the economy overall to adopt that Petition's approach. EASA strongly encouraged the DOE to adopt the recommendations of the Motor Coalition, citing large and economically justified energy savings. (EASA, No. 47 at p. 1)

ACEEE commented on behalf of the Motor Coalition, stating that expanding the scope of energy conservation standards and only excluding a small group of motor types will enhance enforcement efforts by the government, by simplifying the standards to only include explicit exclusions. (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 60 at p. 19)

After reviewing the Petition, DOE is proposing to require electric motor types beyond those currently covered (and discussed in section IV.A.1) to meet energy conservation standards. DOE's proposed expansion is similar to the approach recommended by the Motor Coalition in its Petition (Motor Coalition, No. 35 at pp. 1-3). DOE's proposal would establish energy conservation standards for electric motors that exhibit all of the characteristics listed in Table IV.2, with a limited number of exceptions.

Table IV.2—Characteristics of Motors Regulated Under Expanded Scope of Coverage

Motor characteristic

Is a single-speed, induction motor,

Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC),

Contains a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or cage (IEC) rotor,

Operates on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz sinusoidal power,

Is rated for 600 volts or less,

Is built with a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration,

Is a NEMA Design A, B, or C motor (or IEC Design N or H)

Is built in a three-digit NEMA frame size or an enclosed 56-frame (or any IEC equivalent), and

Is rated from 1 to 500 horsepower (inclusive).

In response to its preliminary analysis, DOE received several comments about the characteristics that DOE should use to define the broad scope of electric motors potentially subject to energy conservation standards. First, NEMA suggested that DOE define motor types exhibiting the nine characteristics listed in Table IV.2. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 32) NEMA also requested that DOE clarify the range of horsepower ratings included and the scope of 56- and IEC-frame motors covered. The Energy Advocates (NPCC, NEEA, ACEEE, ASAP, Earthjustice, ASE) also suggested that DOE include IEC-equivalents and NEMA 56-frame sizes in the scope of coverage. (NPCC, No. 56 at p. 2)

Additionally, DOE is proposing to clarify the design, construction, and performance characteristics of covered electric motors. Specifically, DOE is proposing to clarify that only motors rated from 1 to 500 horsepower (inclusive), or their IEC equivalents, would be covered by the standards being proposed in today's rulemaking. Finally, with regard to IEC-frame motors, DOE would not cover IEC motors on the singular basis of frame size, but would consider covering such motors when they meet the criteria of Table IV.2. In other words, an IEC-frame motor would need to satisfy these nine criteria for the proposed standards to apply.

In its submitted Petition, the Coalition requested that DOE cover all single-speed, polyphase, 56-frame induction motors rated at one horsepower or greater that do not meet the regulatory definition for “small electric motor” in 10 CFR part 431, subpart X. This definition applies to both single-phase and polyphase open-frame general purpose AC induction motors built in a two-digit frame size. The proposal put forth by the Coalition would expand energy conservation standards to polyphase, enclosed 56-frame motors rated at one or more horsepower along with polyphase, special and definite purpose open 56-frame motors of horsepower greater than or equal to one that are not covered by DOE's small electric motor regulations.

Regarding 56-frame motors at 1-hp or greater, DOE is proposing standards for polyphase, enclosed 56-frame motors that are rated at 1-hp or greater. DOE is also tentatively proposing TSL 2 for polyphase, open 56-frame special and definite purpose motors that are rated at 1-hp or greater as advocated by the Motor Coalition. With respect to these motors (i.e. 56-frame, open, special and definite purpose), DOE seeks additional data related to these motors, including, but not limited to the following categories: Motor efficiency distributions; shipment breakdowns between horsepower ratings, open and enclosed motors, and between general and special and definite purpose electric motors; and information regarding the typical applications that use these motors. If this proposal is adopted in the final rule, DOE will account for a substantial majority of 56-frame motors that are not already regulated by efficiency standards and ensure coverage for all general purpose motors along with a substantial number of special and definite purpose motors.

Based on currently available data, DOE estimates that approximately 270,000 polyphase, open 56-frame special and definite purpose motors (1-hp or greater) were shipped in 2011 and at least 70% of these motors have

efficiency levels below NEMA Premium.

In addition, based on this data, DOE believes that establishing TSL 2 for this subset of 56-frame motors would result in national energy savings of 0.58 quads (full-fuel-cycle) and net present value savings of $1.11 billion (2012$), with a 7 percent discount rate.

DOE has not merged its data and analyses related to this subset of 56-frame motors with the other analyses in today's NOPR. As described above, DOE seeks additional information that can be incorporated into its final analysis.

Shipments for these 56-open frame motors were estimated from data provided by the Motor Coalition. DOE assumed 56-frame open motors are distributed across 2-, 4-, and 6-pole configurations and 1 to 5 horsepower ratings. With this assumption, DOE used the shipments distributions from ECG 1 motors across these motor configurations and ratings to establish shipments data for open 56-frame motors by motor configuration and horsepower rating. Efficiency distributions were based on a limited survey of electric motor models from six major manufacturer catalogs.

DOE used the same NIA model and inputs described in section IV.H to estimate these values of NES and NPV, but adjusted the shipments and efficiency distributions to match the data specific to these 56-frame open motors.

DOE notes that enclosed 56-frame motors with horsepower ratings below 1 horsepower would not, however, be covered as part of today's proposal. DOE is not proposing to cover 56-frame size fractional motors because EPCA, as amended, establishes energy conservation standards for electric motors at 1-hp or greater and DOE requires the use of different test procedures for motors above and below 1-hp. In particular, DOE's regulations prescribe, consistent with industry practice, the use of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard 112 (Test Method A) to test motors rated below 1-hp, and IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) to test motor rated at or above 1-hp. To ensure consistent testing results, DOE requires application of the same test procedure to all electric motors. Therefore, DOE is not proposing to regulate enclosed 56-frame size motors rated under 1-hp.

This tentative decision, however, does not foreclose the possibility that DOE may regulate the efficiency of these motors and may change depending on the nature of the feedback provided by commenters with respect to this issue. DOE requests comment on its tentative decision to not address fractional horsepower enclosed 56-frame motors as part of today's proposal, along with any relevant information and data.

DOE notes that general purpose, open 56-frame motors are already addressed by the standards for small electric motors.

In view of Table IV.2, Table IV.3 lists the various electric motor types that would be covered by DOE's proposed approach. Further details and definitions for the motor types can be found in DOE's electric motors test procedure NOPR, which was published on June 26, 2013 (78 FR 38456).

Table IV.3—Currently Unregulated Motor Types DOE Proposes To Cover

Electric Motor Type

NEMA Design A from 201 to 500 horsepower.

Electric motors with non-standard endshields or flanges.

Electric motors with moisture resistant windings.

Electric motors with non-standard bases.

Electric motors with sealed windings.

Electric motors with special shafts.

Partial electric motors.

Vertical hollow-shaft electric motors.

Totally enclosed non-ventilated (TENV) electric motors.

Electric motors with sleeve bearings.

Immersible electric motors.

Electric motors with thrust bearings.

Integral brake electric motors.

Non-integral brake electric motors.

In view of DOE's proposed approach described in Table IV.3, DOE is proposing to include certain motor types that some interested parties have suggested that DOE continue to exclude from any energy efficiency requirements. For example, the Motor Coalition would exclude integral brake motors from coverage, as DOE once did through policy guidance,

see

62 FR 59978 (November 5, 1997), but which was subsequently removed.

See

77 FR 26638 (May 4, 2012). (Motor Coalition, No. 35 at p. 3) SEW-Eurodrive also commented that there are two basic types of integral gearmotor: (1) One that meets the definition in DOE's preliminary analysis, and (2) another having a special shaft or mounting configuration. SEW-Eurodrive contended that the second type of integral gearmotor would require replacement of the entire rotor shaft and rotor cage to be tested. (SEWE, No. 53, p. 3)

In view of the foregoing, DOE continues to believe that consistent and repeatable test procedures can be prescribed for integral brake motors, integral gearmotors, integral partial motors, and partial ¾ motors. See 78 FR 38456 (June 26, 2013). In particular, DOE believes that an integral brake motor that meets the nine criteria in Table IV.2, could be readily tested and satisfy the proposed standards. In addition, DOE believes that the definition for “partial electric motor” and “component set” proposed in its June test procedure NOPR will clarify what types of items would meet these definitions, which should help manufacturers determine whether the equipment they manufacture fall under these terms. See 78 FR 38456 (June 26, 2013). Furthermore, DOE believes that the type of integral gearmotor addressed by SEW-Eurodrive (i.e., with a special shaft or mounting configuration) would likely satisfy DOE's proposed definition of component set, because it would require more than the addition of end shields and a bearing to create an operable motor. (Component sets would not be required to meet standards under today's proposal)

ACEEE supported the Motor Coalition's Petition in its approach to expand the scope of covered motors to comply with the energy efficiency levels found in Table 12-12 of NEMA Standards Publication MG 1-2011. According to ACEEE, such approach could be easily accomplished by manufacturers and, at the same time, allow them to refocus resources on designing and building the next generation of electric motor. (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 60 at pp. 18, 19) UL agreed with the ACEEE approach and suggested that DOE clarify the scope of coverage with a statement whereby all electric motors are subject to standards, except for those specifically mentioned as excluded. (UL, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 60 at pp. 60, 61) Finally, the California Independently Owned Utilities (CA IOUs) submitted similar comments, suggesting that DOE expand the scope of coverage and explicitly define those motor types excluded from standards. The CA IOUs stressed that this approach would provide clarity both to

compliance and enforcement efforts by government agencies and manufacturers. (CA IOUs, No. 57 atp. 1)

After considering these comments, and further analyzing available relevant information, DOE believes that a simplified approach to determining coverage would help ensure consistency to the extent possible when applying the proposed standards. Therefore, in today's notice, DOE is proposing that an electric motor that meets the nine characteristics in Table IV-3 would be covered and required to meet the applicable energy conservation standards, either in NEMA MG 1 Table 12-11 or 12-12. Additionally, DOE is proposing not to set standards at this time for the following motors: component sets, liquid-cooled motors, submersible motors, and definite-purpose inverter-fed motors. DOE is not proposing to set standards for these motors in light of the substantial difficulties and complexities that would be involved in testing these motors at this time. In addition, DOE is proposing not to set standards at this time for air-over motors, but intends to address these types of motors in a separate rulemaking. Definitions for the motor types and additional details about these issues are addressed at 78 FR 38456 (June 26, 2013).

3. Advanced Electric Motors

In its preliminary analysis, DOE addressed various “advanced electric motor,” which included those listed in Table IV.4. While DOE recognized that such motors could offer improved efficiency, regulating them would represent a significant shift for DOE, which has primarily focused on the efficiency of polyphase, single-speed induction motors. Seeking more information, DOE solicited public comments about these types of motors and how they would be tested for energy efficiency.

Table IV.4—Advanced Electric Motors

Motor description

Inverter drives.

Permanent magnet motors.

Electrically commutated motors.

Switched-reluctance motors.

DOE received comments about advanced motors from various interested parties. NEMA asserted that, in certain applications, inverter drives, permanent-magnet motors, electronically commutated motors, and switched-reluctance motors, could offer improved efficiency. However, NEMA also noted that these motors may include technologies where standard test procedures are still being developed, making it unable to comment. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 18-19) DOE understands that a test procedure would be necessary before it contemplates setting energy conservation standards for these types of motors. Additionally, during the preliminary analysis public meeting, ACEEE commented that advanced motor designs present the largest opportunity for future energy savings within the motor marketplace and NEMA member manufacturers are already exploring the standards-setting process for advanced motor designs in the NEMA MG 1 standards publication. (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 60 at p. 19)

Other interested parties submitted comments regarding the efficiency of “advanced motor systems” and, in general, motor-driven systems. Danfoss commented that system efficiency improvements would provide significant energy savings, and cited variable frequency drives (VFDs) as an example of a way to improve system efficiency. VFDs, or inverter drives, are external components used in motor-driven systems to control motor speed and torque by varying motor input frequency and voltage Danfoss elaborated that VFDs could save 20 to 30 percent of the energy that typical, non-VFD-motors consume and urged that DOE consider this approach, instead of seeking minimal energy conservation improvements in across-the-line start polyphase electric motors.

(Danfoss, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 60 at pp. 21-23, 174, 175) UL submitted similar comments during the preliminary analysis public meeting, indicating that DOE and the industry should focus on improving system-level efficiency. UL added that if a motor is not properly matched to its load then the system efficiency could be 20 or 30 percent less efficient than possible. (UL, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 60 at pp. 69, 70) BBF and the CDA commented that the overall evaluation of system efficiency is very important, and the evaluation of VFDs and the motor system represents many major opportunities for improved efficiency. (BBF, No. 51, p. 4; CDA, No. 55, p. 2)

For this rulemaking, “across-the-line start” indicates the electric motor is run directly on polyphase, alternating current (AC) sinusoidal power, without any devices or controllers manipulating the power signal fed to the motor.

DOE understands the concerns from interested parties regarding advanced motor efficiency and its connection with the possible regulation of advanced electric motors. At this time, however, DOE has chosen not to regulate advanced motors and knows of no established definitions or test procedures that could be applied to them. Because DOE agrees that significant energy savings may be possible for some advanced motors, DOE plans to keep abreast of changes to these technologies and their use within industry, and may consider regulating them in the future. DOE invites comment on the topic of advanced motors, including any related definitions or test procedures that it should consider applying as part of today's rulemaking.

4. Equipment Class Groups and Equipment Classes

When DOE prescribes or amends an energy conservation standard for a type (or class) of covered equipment, it considers (1) the type of energy used; (2) the capacity of the equipment; or (3) any other performance-related feature that justifies different standard levels, such as features affecting consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) Due to the large number of characteristics involved in electric motor design, DOE has used two constructs to help develop its energy conservation standards proposals for electric motors: “equipment class groups” and “equipment classes.” An equipment class represents a unique combination of motor characteristics for which DOE is proposing a specific energy conservation standard. There are 580 potential equipment classes that consist of all permutations of electric motor design types (i.e., NEMA Design A & B, NEMA Design C, fire pump electric motor, or brake electric motor), standard horsepower ratings (i.e., standard ratings from 1 to 500 horsepower), pole configurations (i.e.,2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole), and enclosure types (i.e., open or enclosed). An equipment class group is a collection of equipment classes that share a common design type. For example, given a combination of motor design type, horsepower rating, pole-configuration, and enclosure type, the motor's design type dictates its equipment class group, while the combination of the remaining characteristics dictates its specific equipment class.

At its core, the equipment class concept, which is being applied only as a structural tool for purposes of this rulemaking, is equivalent to a “basic model.” See 10 CFR 431.12. The fundamental difference between these concepts is that a “basic model” pertains to an individual manufacturer's equipment class. Each equipment class for a given manufacturer would comprise a basic model for that manufacturer.

In the preliminary analysis, DOE divided electric motors into three groups based on two main characteristics: NEMA (or IEC) design letter and whether the motor met the definition of a fire pump electric motor. For the NOPR, DOE is keeping these three groups and adding a fourth equipment class group for electric motors with brakes (integral and non-integral). DOE's four resulting equipment class groups are: NEMA Design A and B motors (ECG 1), NEMA Design C motors (ECG 2), fire pump electric motors (ECG 3), and electric motors with brakes (ECG 4). Within each of these groups, DOE would use combinations of other pertinent motor characteristics to enumerate individual equipment classes. To illustrate the differences between the two terms, consider the following example. A NEMA Design B, 50 horsepower, two-pole enclosed electric motor and a NEMA Design B, 100 horsepower, six-pole open electric motor would be in the same equipment class group (ECG 1), but each would represent a unique equipment class that will ultimately have its own efficiency standard. Table IV.5 outlines the relationships between equipment class groups and the characteristics used to define equipment classes.

Table IV.5—Electric Motor Equipment Class Groups for the NOPR Analysis

Equipment class group

Electric motor design

Horsepower

Poles

Enclosure

NEMA Design A & B *

1-500

2, 4, 6, 8

Open.

Enclosed.

NEMA Design C *

1-200

4, 6, 8

Open.

Enclosed.

Fire Pump *

1-500

2, 4, 6, 8

Open.

Enclosed.

Brake Motors *

1-30

4, 6, 8

Open.

Enclosed.

* Including IEC equivalents.

NEMA submitted multiple comments about DOE's equipment class groups and equipment classes. First, NEMA argued that such expansive groups could make it difficult to properly determine efficiency standards, particularly given the large expansion of scope being contemplated by DOE. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 40) NEMA recommended that “for `electric motors' the term `equipment class' be identified as those electric motors which are of the polyphase squirrel-cage induction type.” It added that:

“An `equipment class group' can be defined as a particular `group' of such `electric motor' having a particular set of common characteristics, such as NEMA Design A and B electric motors or NEMA Design C electric motors, or fire pump electric motors. Each `equipment class group' can be organized according to `rating' where `rating' is as it is presently defined in § 431.12 [of 10 CFR Part 431]. When appropriate, an AEDM [alternative efficiency determination method] can then be substantiated for the complete `equipment class' of polyphase squirrel-cage induction electric motors as is permitted and done today.”

Additionally, NEMA suggested that DOE separate U-frame motors fromT-frame motors during the analysis because any proposed increase in efficiency standards for the low volume production of U-frame motors would likely result in a reduction in the availability of U-frame motors, which they assert, is not permitted under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4). (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 20, 26) Citing the high cost of redesigning these motors relative to the potential savings, the Motor Coalition predicted manufacturers would exit the U-frame market leaving only one or two manufacturers. (Motor Coalition, No. 35 at p. 13) NEMA also stated that the demand for this type of motor has been declining since the 1960's and U-frame motors have not been included in the NEMA MG 1 standard since U-frame motors were replaced by T-frame motors as the NEMA standard in the 1960s. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 19, 20) NEMA added that the challenge created by substituting a U-frame motor with aT-frame motor must be accounted for in the manufacturer and national impact analyses.

EISA 2007 prescribed energy conservation standards for electric motors built with a U-frame, whereas previously only electric motors built with a T-frame were covered.

(Compare 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)(1992) with 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(B)(2011)) In general, for the same combination of horsepower rating and pole configuration, an electric motor built in a U-frame is built with a larger “D” dimension than an electric motor built in a T-frame. The “D” dimension is a measurement of the distance from the centerline of the shaft to the bottom of the mounting feet. Consequently, U-frame motors should be able to reach efficiencies as high, or higher, than T-frame motors with similar ratings (i.e., horsepower, pole-configuration, and enclosure) because the larger frame size allows for more active materials, such as copper wiring and electrical steel, which help reduce I

R (i.e., losses arising from the resistivity of the current-carrying material) and core losses (losses that result from magnetic field stability changes). Furthermore,U-frame motors do not have any unique utility relative to comparable T-frame motors. In general, a T-frame design could replace an equivalent U-frame design with minor modification of the mounting configuration for the driven equipment. By comparison, a U-frame design that is equivalent to a T-frame design could require substantial modification to the mounting configuration for the same piece of driven equipment because of its larger size. DOE's research indicated that manufacturers sell conversion brackets for installing T-frame motors into applications where a U-frame motor had previously been used.

The terms “U-frame” and “T-frame” refer to lines of frame size dimensions, with a T-frame motor having a smaller frame size for the same horsepower rating as a comparable U-frame motor. In general, “T” frame became the preferred motor design around 1964 because it provided more horsepower output in a smaller package.

See, for example,

http://www.overlyhautz.com/adaptomounts1.html

Regarding NEMA's contention thatU-frame motors will become unavailable if DOE does not separate these motors from T-frame motors when developing efficiency standards, DOE understands NEMA's concerns regarding the diminishing market size of U-frame motors and the potential for them to disappear. However, DOE believes that such an occurrence would not be the

result of an efficiency standard that is technologically infeasible for U-frame motors, but because U-frame motors offer no unique utility relative toT-frame motors. Furthermore, DOE believes that the proposed standards are unlikely to result in the unavailability of U-frame motors. Based on catalog data from several large electric motor manufacturers, DOE observed that 70 percent of currently available U-frame models meet the proposed standard (TSL 2). With much of the U-frame market already at the proposed standard, DOE sees no technical reason that U-frame manufacturers would not be able to comply with TSL 2.

DOE also notes that under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4), EPCA proscribes the promulgation of standards that would result in the “unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States at the time of the Secretary's finding.” The provision does not require the continued protection of particular classes or types of product—or in this case, electric motors—if the same utility continues to be available for the consumers who are purchasing the given product. Consequently, based on available information, DOE has not separated U-frame motors into a unique equipment class group. DOE welcomes any additional data relevant to this finding, including data that would suggest the need for an alternate approach. DOE also requests additional information from manufacturers on whether covering U-frame motors would cause them to be unavailable in the U.S. and whether U-frame motors have any particular performance characteristics, features, sizes, capacities, or volumes.

Finally, NEMA questioned DOE's use of the term “equipment class” to describe a combination of horsepower rating, pole configuration, and enclosure type instead of using the term “rating,” which is defined in 10 CFR 431.12, as part of the definition of a “basic model.” (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 25) NEMA believes that this could cause confusion because of proposals regarding certification, alternative efficiency determination methods (AEDMs), and enforcement in a separate rulemaking, which are all centered around “equipment classes.” (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 25) NEMA stated that DOE's definition in this rulemaking has the adverse impact of requiring substantiation of an AEDM separately for every rating for which it is to be used and would constitute a significant increase in compliance burden. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 25) DOE understands NEMA's concerns regarding the potential of undue compliance burden. DOE notes that it has not proposed a regulatory definition for the term “equipment class.” It is merely a construct for use in the various analyses in today's rulemaking. The term “equipment class” as described in this rulemaking should not be misconstrued as having any regulatory meaning as it relates to the definition of “basic model.” In today's rulemaking, DOE is continuing to use the terminology as described in the preliminary analysis and above. DOE intends to address NEMA's concerns regarding the potential compliance burden in a separate rulemaking that will address compliance, certification and enforcement-related issues.

a. Electric Motor Design Letter

The first criterion that DOE considered when disaggregating equipment class groups was based on the NEMA (and IEC) design letter. The NEMA Standards Publication MG 1-2011, “Motors and Generators,” defines a series of standard electric motor designs that are differentiated by variations in performance requirements. These designs are designated by letter—Designs A, B, and C. (See NEMA MG 1-2011, paragraph 1.19.1). These designs are categorized by performance requirements for full-voltage starting and developing locked-rotor torque, breakdown torque, and locked-rotor current, all of which affect an electric motor's utility and efficiency. DOE is proposing to regulate the efficiency of each of these design types.

The primary difference between a NEMA Design A and NEMA Design B electric motor is that they have different locked-rotor current requirements. NEMA Design B motors must not exceed the applicable locked-rotor current level specified in NEMA MG 1-2011, paragraph 12.35.1. NEMA Design A motors, on the other hand, do not have a maximum locked-rotor current limit. In most applications, NEMA Design B motors are generally preferred because locked-rotor current is constrained to established industry standards, making it easier to select suitable motor-starting devices. However, certain applications have special load torque or inertia requirements, which result in a design with high locked-rotor current (NEMA Design A). When selecting starting devices for NEMA Design A motors, extra care must be taken in properly sizing electrical protective devices to avoid nuisance tripping during motor startup. The distinction between NEMA Design A and NEMA Design B motors is important to users who are sensitive to high locked-rotor current; however, both NEMA Design A and Design B motors have identical performance requirements in all other metrics, which indicates that they offer similar levels and types of utility. Given these similarities, DOE is proposing to group these motors together into a single equipment class grouping for the purposes of this rulemaking.

In contrast, DOE believes that the different torque requirements for NEMA Design C electric motors represent a change in utility that can affect efficiency performance. NEMA Design C motors are characterized by high starting torques. Applications that are hard to start, such as heavily loaded conveyors and rock crushers, require this higher starting torque. The difference in torque requirements will restrict which applications can use which NEMA Design types. As a result, NEMA Design C motors cannot always be replaced with NEMA Design A or B motors, or vice versa. Therefore, as in the preliminary analysis, DOE has analyzed NEMA Design C motors in an equipment class group separate from NEMA Design A and B motors.

In chapter two, “Analytical Framework,” of the preliminary technical support document, DOE noted numerous instances where manufacturers were marketing electric motors rated greater than 200 horsepower as NEMA Design C motors. DOE understands that NEMA MG 1-2011 specifies Design C performance requirements for motors rated 1-200 hp in four-, six-, and eight-pole configurations—a motor rated above 200 hp or using a two-pole configuration would not meet the Design C specifications. DOE requested public comment about whether motors that are name-plated as NEMA Design C, but that fall outside the ratings for which NEMA Design C is defined, can be considered to be NEMA Design C motors. In its comments, NEMA asserted it did not support marking a motor as NEMA Design C where no standard exists for two-pole designs, or four-, six- or eight-pole motors over 200 horsepower. NEMA recommended that any such improperly marked motor be examined for determination of its proper Design letter relative to the applicable standards in NEMA MG 1. Furthermore, NEMA recommended that DOE not include efficiency standards for motors of any design type for which NEMA or IEC standards do not exist. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 19)

DOE understands that without established performance standards that form the basis for a two-pole NEMA

Design C motor or a NEMA Design C motor with a horsepower rating above 200, motors labeled as such would not meet the proposed regulatory definition for “NEMA Design C motor.” 78 FR 38456 (June 26, 2013). DOE considers motors at these ratings to be improperly labeled if they are name-plated as NEMA Design C. Mislabeled NEMA Design C motors, however, are still subject to energy conservation standards if they meet the definitions and performance standards for a regulated motor—e.g. NEMA Design A or B. And since these motors either need to meet the same efficiency levels or would be required by customers to meet specific performance criteria expected of a given design letter (i.e. Design A, B, or C), DOE does not foresee at this time any incentive that would encourage a manufacturer to identify a Design A or B motor as a Design C motor for standards compliance purposes. DOE understands, however, that NEMA Design C motors as a whole constitute an extremely small percentage of motor shipments—less than two percent of shipments—covered by this rulemaking, which would appear to create an unlikely risk that mislabeling motors as NEMA Design C will be used as an avenue to circumvent standards. Nevertheless, DOE will monitor the potential presence of such motors and may reconsider standards for them provided such practice becomes prevalent.

b. Fire Pump Electric Motors

In addition to considering the NEMA design type when establishing equipment class groups, DOE considered whether an electric motor is a fire pump electric motor. EISA 2007 prescribed energy conservation standards for fire pump electric motors (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)(B)) and, subsequently, DOE adopted a definition for the term “fire pump electric motor,” which incorporated portions of National Fire Protection Association Standard (NFPA) 20, “Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection” (2010). Pursuant to NFPA 20, a fire pump electric motor must comply with NEMA Design B performance standards and must continue to run in spite of any risk of damage stemming from overheating or continuous operation. The additional requirements for a fire pump electric motor constitutes a change in utility that DOE believes could also affect its performance and efficiency. Therefore, DOE established a separate equipment class group for such motors in the preliminary analysis to account for the special utility offered by these motors. In its comments, NEMA agreed with DOE's decision to separate fire pump electrical motors as a separate equipment class group. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 20) Consequently, DOE is proposing to continue using a separate equipment class group for fire pump electric motors.

c. Brake Motors

In its NOPR analyses, DOE considered whether the term “electric motor” should include an integral brake electric motor or a non-integral brake electric motor (collectively, “brake motors”). In the test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed definitions both for integral and non-integral brake electric motors. 78 FR 38456 (June 26, 2013). Both of these electric motor types are contained in one equipment class group as separate from the equipment class groups established for NEMA Design A and B motors, NEMA Design C motors, and fire pump electric motors.

DOE understands that brake motors contain multiple features that can affect both utility and efficiency. In most applications, electric motors are not required to stop immediately. Instead, electric motors typically slow down and gradually stop after power is removed from the motor due to a buildup of friction and windage from the internal components of the motor. However, some applications require electric motors to stop quickly. Such motors may employ a brake component that, when engaged, abruptly slows or stops shaft rotation. The brake component attaches to one end of the motor and surrounds a section of the motor's shaft. During normal operation of the motor, the brake is disengaged from the motor's shaft—it neither touches nor interferes with the motor's operation. However, under normal operating conditions, the brake is drawing power from the electric motor's power source and may also be contributing to windage losses, because the brake is an additional rotating component on the motor's shaft. When power is removed from the electric motor (and therefore the brake component), the brake component de-energizes and engages the motor shaft, quickly slowing or stopping rotation of the rotor and shaft components. Because of these utility related features that affect efficiency, DOE has preliminarily established a separate equipment class group for electric motors with an integral or non-integral brake.

d. Horsepower Rating

In its preliminary analysis, DOE considered three criteria when differentiating equipment classes. The first criterion was horsepower, a critical performance attribute of an electric motor that is directly related to the capacity of an electric motor to perform useful work and that generally scales with efficiency. For example, a 50-horsepower electric motor would generally be considered more efficient than a 10-horsepower electric motor. In view of the direct correlation between horsepower and efficiency, DOE preliminarily used horsepower rating as a criterion for distinguishing equipment classes in the framework document and continued with that approach for the preliminary analysis.

NEMA agreed with DOE's view that horsepower is a performance attribute that must be considered when evaluating efficiency and urged that this long-established and workable concept not be abandoned. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 40) In today's proposal, DOE continues to use horsepower as an equipment class-setting criterion.

e. Pole Configuration

The number of poles in an induction motor determines the synchronous speed (i.e., revolutions per minute) of that motor. There is an inverse relationship between the number of poles and a motor's speed. As the number of poles increases from two to four to six to eight, the synchronous speed drops from 3,600 to 1,800 to 1,200 to 900 revolutions per minute, respectively. In addition, manufacturer comments and independent analysis performed on behalf of DOE indicate that the number of poles has a direct impact on the electric motor's performance and achievable efficiency because some pole configurations utilize the space inside of an electric motor enclosure more efficiently than other pole configurations. DOE used the number of poles as a means of differentiating equipment classes in the preliminary analysis.

In response to the preliminary analysis, NEMA agreed that the number of poles of an electric motor has impacts a motor's achievable efficiency and supported DOE's decision to take this characteristic into consideration. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 41) In today's proposal, DOE continues to use pole-configuration as an equipment class-setting criterion.

f. Enclosure Type

EISA 2007 prescribes separate energy conservation standards for open and enclosed electric motors. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1)) Electric motors manufactured with open construction allow a free interchange of air between the electric motor's interior and exterior. Electric motors with enclosed

construction have no direct air interchange between the motor's interior and exterior (but are not necessarily air-tight) and may be equipped with an internal fan for cooling (see NEMA MG 1-2011, paragraph 1.26). Whether an electric motor is open or enclosed affects its utility; open motors are generally not used in harsh operating environments, whereas totally enclosed electric motors often are. The enclosure type also affects an electric motor's ability to dissipate heat, which directly affects efficiency. For these reasons, DOE used an electric motor's enclosure type (open or enclosed) as an equipment class setting criterion in the preliminary analysis.

NEMA acknowledged in its comments that the enclosure type is an important characteristic that affects the achievable efficiency for any particular electric motor. NEMA added that it may become necessary to consider separate groups for various enclosures as DOE continues to expand the scope of electric motors subject to energy conservation standards, but did not make any specific suggestions regarding which enclosures could be considered separately. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 42)

At this time, DOE is continuing to use separate equipment class groups for open and enclosed electric motors but is declining to further break out separate equipment classes for different types of open or enclosed enclosures because DOE does not have data supporting such separation.

g. Other Motor Characteristics

In the preliminary analysis, DOE addressed various other motor characteristics, but did not use them to disaggregate equipment classes. In the preliminary analysis TSD, DOE provided its rationale for not disaggregating equipment classes for vertical electric motors, electric motors with thrust or sleeve bearings, close-coupled pump motors, or by rated voltage or mounting feet. DOE believes that none of these electric motor characteristics provide any special utility that would impact efficiency and justify separate equipment classes.

In response to the preliminary analysis, DOE received comments about how it should treat other motor characteristics. NEMA agreed with DOE's decision that vertical motors, motors with thrust or sleeve bearings, and close-coupled pump motors do not merit separate equipment classes. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 20) With no comments suggesting that DOE use any one of the alternative characteristics as a criterion for equipment class, DOE is using the approach it laid out in its preliminary analysis.

DOE also requests additional information from manufacturers on whether covering any of these technology options would reduce consumer utility or performance or cause any of the covered electric motors to be unavailable in the U.S. and whether U-frame motors have any particular performance characteristics, features, sizes, capacities, or volumes. In particular, DOE requests any information or data if these technology options would lead to increases in the size of the motors such that it would no longer work in a particular space constricted application, to decreases in power thereby affecting their usability of these motors, or to changes in any other characteristics that would affect the performance or utility of the motor.

5. Technology Assessment

The technology assessment provides information about existing technology options and designs used to construct more energy-efficient electric motors. Electric motors have four main types of losses that can be reduced to improve efficiency: Losses due to the resistance of conductive materials (stator and rotor I

R losses), core losses, friction and windage losses, and stray load losses. These losses are interrelated such that measures taken to reduce one type of loss can result in an increase in another type of losses. In consultation with interested parties, DOE identified several technology options that could be used to reduce such losses and improve motor efficiency. These technology options are presented in Table IV.6. (See chapter 3 of the TSD for details).

Table IV.6—Technology Options To Increase Electric Motor Efficiency

Type of loss to reduce

Technology option

Stator I

R Losses

Increase cross-sectional area of copper in stator slots.

Decrease the length of coil extensions.

Rotor I

R Losses

Use a die-cast copper rotor cage.

Increase cross-sectional area of rotor conductor bars.

Increase cross-sectional area of end rings.

Core Losses

Use electrical steel laminations with lower losses (watts/lb).

Use thinner steel laminations.

Increase stack length (i.e., add electrical steel laminations).

Friction and Windage Losses

Optimize bearing and lubrication selection.

Improve cooling system design.

Stray-Load Losses

Reduce skew on rotor cage.

Improve rotor bar insulation.

In response to the preliminary analysis, DOE received multiple comments about these options.

At the preliminary analysis public meeting, NEMA requested clarification on what was meant by the technology option listed as “improving rotor bar insulation.” (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 60 at p. 158) NEMA commented on the option of increasing the cross sectional area of the stator windings and clarified that this is one way to decrease stator resistance, but not necessarily a separate technology option. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 44) NEMA also clarified that reducing rotor resistance through a change in volume is synonymous with an increase in rotor slot size, unless DOE intends to include variations in the volume of the end rings. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 45)

NEMA also noted that chapter 3 of DOE's preliminary TSD did not discuss the option of increasing the flux density in the air gap, while chapter 4 did. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 46) NEMA added that the air gap flux density is not a design option that can be independently adjusted and that for a given core length the only option available for changing the air gap flux density is to change the number of effective turns in the stator winding. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 62, 63) NEMA also commented on the limitations associated with reducing a motor's air gap by noting that manufacturers must ensure that the motor is still functional and that the air gap is not so small such that the rotor

and stator may strike each other during operation. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 44-45)

Lastly, during the preliminary analysis public meeting, Danfoss commented that the term “technology options” is a bit misleading because of the design tradeoffs that must be made in order to maintain motor performance (other than efficiency). (Danfoss, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 60 at pp. 98, 99)

Regarding the requested clarifications, DOE notes the listed option of “improved rotor insulation” refers to increasing the resistance between the rotor squirrel-cage and the rotor laminations. Manufacturers use different methods to insulate rotor cages, such as applying an insulating coating on the rotor slot prior to die-casting or heating and quenching

the rotor to separate rotor bars from rotor laminations after die-casting. DOE has updated the discussion in the TSD chapter to clarify that there are multiple ways to implement this technology option.

Quenching is rapid cooling, generally by immersion in a fluid instead of allowing the rotor temperature to equalize to ambient

DOE agrees with NEMA that increasing the cross-sectional area of copper in the stator is synonymous with reducing the stator resistance, and has updated the discussion in TSD chapter 3 for clarity. Furthermore, DOE agrees with NEMA that increasing rotor slot size is a technique that reduces rotor resistivity. DOE also considered other techniques to reduce rotor resistivity such as increasing the volume of the rotor end rings and using die-cast copper rotors. For the sake of clarity, DOE has replaced the technology option “reduce rotor resistance” in the TSD discussion with the specific techniques that DOE considered in its analysis: Increasing the cross-sectional area of the rotor conductor bars, increasing the cross-sectional area of the end rings, and using a die-cast copper rotor cage.

With regard to increasing the flux density in the air gap, DOE consulted with its subject matter expert and acknowledges that this approach is not necessarily an independently adjustable design parameter used to increase motor efficiency and has removed it from its discussion in chapters 3 and 4 of the TSD. DOE notes that it understands that the technology options that it discusses do have limits, both practical limits in terms of manufacturing and design limits in terms of their effectiveness. DOE also understands that a manufacturer must balance any options to improve efficiency against the possible impacts on the performance attributes of its motor designs.

a. 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 outside the stator slots not only reduces the resistive losses, but also reduces the material cost of the electric motor because less copper is being used.

NEMA submitted comments acknowledging decreased coil extension as an option to increase efficiency, but did not see the practicability. NEMA asserted that decreasing the length of a coil extension has been a common industry practice for over 50 years and it would be difficult to achieve any further reductions in motor losses under this option. NEMA added that any design changes that would decrease the length of a coil extension must be carefully considered to ensure that the coil heads meet all applicable creep and strike distance requirements.

(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 57)

Creep distance is the shortest path between two conductive parts. An adequate creep distance protects against tracking, a process that can lead to insulation deterioration and eventual short circuit. Strike distance is the shortest distance through air from one conductor to another conductor or to ground. Adequate strike distance is required to prevent electrical discharge between two conductors or between conductors and ground.

DOE understands that there may be limited efficiency gains, if any, for most electric motors using this technology option. DOE also understands that electric motors have been produced for many decades and that many manufacturers have improved their production techniques to the point where certain design parameters may already be fully optimized. However, DOE maintains that this is a design parameter that affects efficiency and should be considered when designing an electric motor.

b. Increase Cross-Sectional Area of Rotor Conductor Bars

Increasing the cross-sectional area of the rotor bars, by changing the cross-sectional geometry of the rotor, can improve motor efficiency. Increasing the cross-sectional area of the rotor bars reduces the resistance and thus lowers the I

R losses. However, changing the shape of the rotor bars may affect the size of the end rings and can also change the torque characteristics of the motor.

NEMA acknowledged that increasing the cross-sectional area of rotor bars is an option to increase efficiency, but doubted whether any additional reductions in motor losses were possible by using this method. After 50 years of increasing efficiency through this technique, NEMA questioned whether manufacturers could further increase the cross-sectional area of the rotor bars, adding that the increase in rotor current cannot exceed the square of the decrease in the rotor resistance in order for the rotor losses to decrease. NEMA added that any design changes using this option must be carefully considered to ensure that the motor will meet the applicable NEMA MG 1 performance requirements (i.e., stall time, temperature rise, overspeed) and, for certain applications, any other industry standards (i.e., IEEE 841

) to maintain the same level of utility. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 57, 58)

IEEE 841-2009, “IEEE Standard for Petroleum and Chemical Industry—Premium-Efficiency, Severe-Duty, Totally Enclosed Fan-Cooled (TEFC) Squirrel Cage Induction Motors—Up to and Including 370 kW (500 hp),” identifies the recommended practice for petroleum and chemical industry severe duty squirrel-cage induction motors.

DOE recognizes that increasing the cross-sectional area of a conductor rotor bar may yield limited efficiency gains for most electric motors. However, DOE maintains that this is a design parameter that affects efficiency and must be considered when designing an electric motor. Additionally, when creating its software models, DOE considered rotor slot design, including cross sectional areas, such that any software model produced was designed to meet the appropriate NEMA performance requirements for torque and locked rotor current.

c. Increase Cross-Sectional Area of End Rings

End rings are the components of a squirrel-cage rotor that create electrical connections between the rotor bars. Increasing the cross-sectional area of the end rings reduces the resistance and thus lowers the I

R losses in the end rings. A reduction in I

R losses will occur only when any proportional increase in current as a result of an increase in the size of the end ring is less than the square of the proportional reduction in the end ring resistance.

NEMA commented that increasing the end ring size increases the rotor weight, and consideration must be given to the effects a heavier end ring will have on the life of the rotor. NEMA added that any design changes using this option must be carefully considered to ensure that the applicable design requirements are met and intended utility retained. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 58)

When developing its software models, DOE relied on the expertise of its subject matter expert. Generally,

increases to end ring area were limited to 10-20% are unlikely to have significant impacts on the mechanical aspects of the rotor. Furthermore, DOE ensured that the appropriate NEMA performance requirements for torque and locked-rotor current were maintained with its software modeled motors.

d. Increase the Number of Stator Slots

Increasing the number of stator slots associated with a given motor design can, in some cases, improve motor efficiency. Similar to increasing the amount of copper wire in a particular slot, increasing the number of slots may in some cases permit the manufacturer to incorporate more copper into the stator slots. This option would decrease the losses in the windings, but can also affect motor performance. Torque, speed and current can vary depending on the combination of stator and rotor slots used.

NEMA indicated that increasing the number of slots to allow the motor design engineer to incorporate additional copper into the stator slots is contrary to any practical analysis. NEMA elaborated that the stator core holds the stator winding in the slots and carries the magnetic flux in the electrical steel. As stator slots increase, insulating material will increase, reducing the total amount of cross-sectional area for stator winding. Additionally, too large of an increase in the number of stator slots may make it impractical to wind the stator on automated equipment and the same may be true for a low number of stator slots. NEMA also commented that while it agrees with DOE that the number of stator slots can affect motor torque and efficiency, there is a relationship between the number of rotor slots and stator slots, and the combination of the two can have significant effects on starting torque, sound levels, and stray load losses. NEMA concluded that all of these effects must be considered to ensure the practicability of manufacturing the affected motors. Other factors NEMA noted included winding and potential sound levels—all of which could impact utility along with health and safety concerns. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 61)

With respect to stator slot numbers, DOE understands that a motor manufacturer would not add stator slots without any appreciation of the impacts on the motor's performance. DOE also understands that there is an optimum combination of stator and rotor slots for any particular frame size and horsepower combination. DOE consulted with its subject matter expert and understands that optimum stator and rotor slot combinations have been determined by manufacturers and are in use on existing production lines.” Consequently, DOE has removed this technology option from chapter 4 of the TSD.

e. Electrical Steel with Lower Losses

Losses generated in the electrical steel in the core of an induction motor can be significant and are classified as either hysteresis or eddy current losses. Hysteresis losses are caused by magnetic domains resisting reorientation to the alternating magnetic field. Eddy currents are physical currents that are induced in the steel laminations by the magnetic flux produced by the current in the windings. Both of these losses generate heat in the electrical steel.

In studying the techniques used to reduce steel losses, DOE considered two types of materials: Conventional silicon steels, and “exotic” steels, which contain a relatively high percentage of boron or cobalt. Conventional steels are commonly used in electric motors manufactured today. There are three types of steel that DOE considers “conventional:” cold-rolled magnetic laminations, fully processed non-oriented electrical steel, and semi-processed non-oriented electrical steel.

One way to reduce core losses is to incorporate a higher grade of core steel into the electric motor design (

e.g.,

switching from an M56 to an M19 grade). In general, higher grades of electrical steel exhibit lower core losses. Lower core losses can be achieved by adding silicon and other elements to the steel, thereby increasing its electrical resistivity. Lower core losses can also be achieved by subjecting the steel to special heat treatments during processing.

The exotic steels are not generally manufactured for use specifically in the electric motors covered in this rulemaking. These steels include vanadium permendur and other alloyed steels containing a high percentage of boron or cobalt. These steels offer a lower loss level than the best electrical steels, but are more expensive per pound. In addition, these steels can present manufacturing challenges because they come in nonstandard thicknesses that are difficult to manufacture.

NEMA and Baldor submitted multiple comments concerning DOE's discussion during the preliminary analysis regarding the use of Epstein testing to determine an electrical steel grade that would improve the efficiency of an electric motor. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 21-23, 62; NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 60 at pp. 100, 102, 103) The grading o

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.