Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pump Motors

Federal RegisterJun 21, 2022

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048]

RIN 1904-AF27

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pump Motors

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting.

SUMMARY:

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including electric motors. In this notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”), the Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to establish energy conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pump motors, a category of electric motors, and also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

DATES:

Comments:

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NOPR no later than August 22, 2022.

Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in the

ADDRESSES

section on or before July 21, 2022.

Meeting:

DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Tuesday, July 26, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section IV, “Public Participation,” for webinar registration information, participant instructions and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.

ADDRESSES:

Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at

www.regulations.gov

. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048, by any of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov

. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Email:

DPPMotors2017STD0048@ee.doe.gov

. Include docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048 in the subject line of the message.

No telefacsimiles (“faxes”) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section IV of this document.

Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions through a variety of mechanisms, including the Federal eRulemaking Portal, email, postal mail and hand delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of the ongoing corona virus 2019 (“COVID-19”) pandemic. DOE is currently suspending receipt of public comments via postal mail and hand delivery/courier. If a commenter finds that this change poses an undue hardship, please contact Appliance Standards Program staff at (202) 586-1445 to discuss the need for alternative arrangements. Once the COVID-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates resuming all of its regular options for public comment submission, including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.

Docket:

The docket for this activity, which includes

Federal Register

notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at

www.regulations.gov

. All documents in the docket are listed in the

www.regulations.gov

index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

The docket web page can be found at

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048

. The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section VII of this document for information on how to submit comments through

www.regulations.gov

EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites input from market participants and other interested persons with views on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested persons may contact the Division at

energy.standards@usdoj.gov

on or before the date specified in the

DATES

section. Please indicate in the “Subject” line of your email the title and Docket Number of this proposed rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870. Email:

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov

Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2588. Email:

amelia.whiting@hq.doe.gov

For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

DOE proposes to maintain the following previously approved standard in part 431 and incorporate by reference it into part 429: UL 1004-10 (1004-10:2022), “Standard for Safety for Pool Pump Motors,” First Edition, approved February 28, 2020, including revisions through March 24, 2022.

Copies of UL 1004-10:2022 can be obtained from: Underwriters Laboratories, 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062, (841) 272-8800, or go to

https://www.ul.com

For a further discussion of this standard, see section VI.M of this document.

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

B. Impact on Manufacturers

C. National Benefits and Costs

D. Conclusion

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

1. Current Standards

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for DPPP Motors

C. Deviation From Appendix A

III. General Discussion

A. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes

B. Test Procedure

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

2. Significance of Savings

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)

c. Energy Savings

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

g. Other Factors

2. Rebuttable Presumption

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Scope of Coverage

2. Market Review

3. Equipment Classes

4. Technology Assessment and Options

a. Motor Topology

b. Motor Speed

B. Screening Analysis

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Efficiency Analysis

a. Representative Units

b. Baseline Efficiency Levels

c. Higher Efficiency Levels

2. Cost Analysis

D. Markups Analysis

E. Energy Use Analysis

1. DPPP Motor Applications

2. DPPP Motor Consumer Sample

3. Self-Priming and Non-Self-Priming Pool Pump Motor Input Power

4. Pressure Cleaner Booster Pumps Motor Input Power

5. Daily Operating Hours

6. Annual Days of Operation

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. Equipment Cost

2. Installation Cost

3. Annual Energy Consumption

4. Energy Prices

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs

6. Equipment Lifetime

7. Discount Rates

8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case

9. Payback Period Analysis

G. Shipments Analysis

1. Base-Year Shipments

2. No-New-Standards Case Shipment Projections

3. Standards-Case Shipment Projections

H. National Impact Analysis

1. Equipment Efficiency Trends

2. National Energy Savings

3. Net Present Value Analysis

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs

a. Manufacturer Production Costs

b. Shipments Projections

c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs

d. Markup Scenarios

3. Manufacturer Interviews

K. Emissions Analysis

1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts

1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

a. Social Cost of Carbon

b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide

2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts

M. Utility Impact Analysis

N. Employment Impact Analysis

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions

A. Trial Standard Levels

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers

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. Direct Impacts on Employment

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

3. National Impact Analysis

a. Significance of Energy Savings

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy

7. Other Factors

8. Summary of Economic Impacts

C. Conclusion

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for DPPP Motors Standards

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs 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 of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule

3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Information Quality

M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

VII. Public Participation

A. Participation in the Webinar

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution

C. Conduct of the Webinar

D. Submission of Comments

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

Title III, Part C

of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA)

established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) Such equipment includes electric motors, which include dedicated-purpose pool pump motors (“DPPP motors” or “DPPPMs” or “pool pump motors”), the subject of this proposed rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))

For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, part C was re-designated part A-1.

All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58 (Nov. 15, 2021).

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))

In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE proposes new energy conservation standards for DPPP motors. DOE is proposing performance standard for a class of DPPP motors and design requirements for certain classes of DPPP motors. The proposed performance standard, which are expressed in full-load efficiency, and proposed design requirements are shown in Table I.1 of this document. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all DPPP motors listed in Table I.1 of this NOPR manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on the date 2 years after the publication of the final rule for this proposed rulemaking.

Table I.1—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated Purpose Pool Pump Motors

Motor total horsepower

(THP)

Performance standard: full-load efficiency

(%)

Design requirement: speed

capability

Design requirement: freeze protection

THP < 0.5

None

None.

0.5 ≤ THP < 1.15

Variable speed control

Only for DPPP motors with freeze protection controls.

1.15 ≤ THP ≤ 5

Variable speed control

Only for DPPP motors with freeze protection controls.

DOE also proposes to require that DPPP motors greater than or equal to 0.5 THP must be variable speed control DPPP motors.

Finally, for DPPP motors greater than or equal to 0.5 THP, DOE proposes that DPPP motors with freeze protection controls are to be shipped with the freeze protection feature disabled, or with the following default, user-adjustable settings: (a) the default dry-bulb air temperature setting shall be no greater than 40 °F; (b) the default run time setting shall be no greater than 1 hour (before the temperature is rechecked); and (c) the default motor speed in freeze protection mode shall not be more than half of the maximum operating speed.

Variable speed control DPPP motor is defined in UL 1004-10:2020 (incorporated by reference, See 10 CFR 431.482 and 10 CFR 431.483). In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to reference the latest version of the UL standard, UL 1004-10:2022; see discussion in section III.A.1. Throughout this NOPR, a variable speed motor is a DPPP motor that meets the definition of “variable speed control dedicated-purpose pool pump motor” as defined by UL 1004-10:2022.

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the proposed standards on consumers of DPPP motors, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (“LCC”) savings and the simple payback period (“PBP”).

The average LCC savings are positive for all equipment classes, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of DPPP motors, which is estimated to be 4.5 years (see section IV.F.6 of this document).

The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards (

see

section IV.F.8 of this document). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline product (

see

section V.B.1.a of this document).

Table I.2—Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of DPPP Motors

Motor total horsepower

(THP)

Average LCC

savings

(2020$)

Simple payback

period

(years)

THP < 0.5

0.7

0.5 ≤ THP < 1.15

2.3

1.15 ≤ THP ≤ 5

292

0.9

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on consumers is described in section IV.F of this document.

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 (2021-2055). Using a real discount rate of 7.2 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of DPPP motors in the case without standards is $798 million in 2020$. Under the proposed standards, the change in INPV is estimated to range from −23.7 percent to 12.9 percent, which is approximately −$189.3 million to $102.9 million. In order to bring products into compliance with standards, it is estimated that the industry would incur total conversion costs of $46.2 million.

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document. The analytic results of the manufacturer impact analysis (“MIA”) are presented in section V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs

All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2020 dollars.

DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation standards for DPPP motors would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without standards, the lifetime energy savings for DPPP motors purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated first full year of compliance with the standards (2026-2055) amount to 0.99 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads.

This represents a savings of 19.8 percent relative to the energy use of these products in the case without amended standards (referred to as the “no-new-standards case”).

The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (“FFC”) energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (

i.e.,

coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more information on the FFC metric,

see

section IV.H.1 of this document.

The cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer benefits of the proposed standards for DPPP motors ranges from $3.0 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $6.3 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 DPPP motors purchased in 2026-2055.

In addition, the proposed standards for DPPP motors are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the proposed standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 36.2 million metric tons (“Mt”)

of carbon dioxide (“CO

”), 15.8 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (“SO

”), 49.9 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (“NO

”), 237.2 thousand tons of methane (“CH

”), 0.4 thousand tons of

nitrous oxide (“N

O”), and 0.1 tons of mercury (“Hg”).

A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for emissions other than CO

are presented in short tons.

DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the

Annual Energy Outlook 2021

(“

AEO2021”

AEO2021

represents current federal and state legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the time of its preparation.

See

section IV.K of this document for further discussion of

AEO2021

assumptions that effect air pollutant emissions.

DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in greenhouse gases using four different estimates of the social cost of CO

(“SC-CO

”), the social cost of methane (“SC-CH

”), and the social cost of nitrous oxide (“SC-N

O”). Together these represent the social cost of greenhouse gases (SC-GHG). DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG).

The derivation of these values is discussed in section IV.L of this document. For presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $1.8 billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates.

DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO

and NO

emissions reductions, also discussed in section IV.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would be $1.6 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $3.3 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.

DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO

and NO

) PM

2.5

precursor health benefits and (for NO

) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM

2.5

emissions.

See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide. Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, Washington, DC, February 2021. (“February 2021 SC-GHG TSD”).

/www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf.

On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in

Louisiana

Biden,

No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from “adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon” the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law

DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.

Louisiana

Biden,

No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from “adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon” the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the injunction and present monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.

Table I.3 summarizes the economic benefits and costs expected to result from the proposed standards for DPPP motors. There are other important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate benefits, unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits, and distributional effects, among others.

Table I.3—Summary of Monetized Economic Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for DPPP Motors

[TSL 7]

Billion 2020$

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

8.8

Climate Benefits *

1.8

Health Benefits **

3.3

Total Benefits

†

13.9

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs

2.5

Net Benefits

11.4

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

4.6

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)

1.8

Health Benefits **

1.6

Total Benefits

†

8.0

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs

1.5

Net Benefits

6.4

Note:

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO

), methane (SC-CH

), and nitrous oxide (SC-N

O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate), as shown in Table IV.17 and Table IV.18. Together these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.

See

section IV.L of this document for more details. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in

Louisiana

Biden,

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NO

and SO

. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO

and NO

) PM

2.5

precursor health benefits and (for NO

) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM

2.5

emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.

†

Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates.

The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits of emission reduction, all annualized.

The national operating savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered products and are measured for the lifetime of DPPP motors shipped in 2026-2055. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of DPPP motors shipped in 2026-2055. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are presented for all four discount rates in section V.B.8 of this document. Table I.4 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized values.

To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2026, the year used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur (

e.g.,

2030), and then discounted the present value from each year to 2026. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year, that yields the same present value.

Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed standards are shown in Table I.4 of this document. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.

Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from reduced NO

and SO

emissions benefits, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards proposed in this rule is $163.5 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $482.3 million in reduced equipment operating costs $104.2 million in GHG climate benefits, and $168.7 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $591.6 million per year.

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards is $142.9 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $504.2 million in reduced operating costs, $104.2 million in climate benefits, and $188.9 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $654.4 million per year.

Table I.4—Annualized Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for DPPP Motors

[TSL 7]

Million 2020$/year

Primary estimate

Low-net-benefits

estimate

High-net-benefits

estimate

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

504.2

436.2

580.9

Climate Benefits *

104.2

92.6

115.6

Health Benefits **

188.9

168.1

209.3

Total Benefits

†

797.3

696.9

905.9

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs

142.9

110.0

178.0

Net Benefits

654.4

587.0

727.9

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

482.3

424.8

546.8

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)

104.2

92.6

115.6

Health Benefits **

168.7

152.0

185.0

Total Benefits

†

755.2

669.5

847.5

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs

163.5

129.2

199.0

Net Benefits

591.6

540.3

648.5

Note:

This table presents the costs and benefits associated with DPPP motors shipped in 2026-2055. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2055 from the products shipped in 2026-2055. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2021 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.1of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in

Louisiana

Biden,

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NO

and SO

. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO

and NO

) PM

2.5

precursor health benefits and (for NO

) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM

2.5

emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for more details.

†

Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.

DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is described in sections IV.G.2, IV.K and IV.L of this document.

D. Conclusion

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. Specifically, with regards to technological feasibility products achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for all equipment classes covered by this proposal. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that the benefits of the proposed standard exceed, to a great extent, the burdens of the proposed standards.

Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from NO

and SO

reduction, and a 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the proposed standards for DPPPM is $163.5 million per year in increased DPPPM costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $482.3 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $104.2 million in climate benefits, and $168.7 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $591.6 million per year.

The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.

For example, the United States rejoined the Paris Agreement on February 19, 2021. As part of that agreement, the United States has committed to reducing GHG emissions in order to limit the rise in mean global temperature. As such, energy savings that reduce GHG emissions have taken on greater importance. Additionally, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively constant demand. In evaluating the significance of energy savings, DOE considers differences in primary energy and FFC effects for different covered products and equipment when determining whether energy savings are significant. Primary energy and FFC effects include the energy consumed in electricity production (depending on load shape), in distribution and transmission, and in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (

i.e.,

coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus present a more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.

Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).

As previously mentioned, the proposed standards would result in estimated national energy savings of 0.99 quad FFC, the equivalent of the electricity use of 9.6 million homes in one year. DOE has initially determined the energy savings from the proposed standard levels are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). Finally, DOE notes that a more detailed discussion of the basis for these tentative conclusions is contained in the remainder of this document and the accompanying TSD.

DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as potential standards, and is still considering them in this proposed rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the projected benefits.

Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in response to

this document and related information collected and analyzed during the course of this proposed rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt energy efficiency levels presented in this document 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 this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for DPPP motors.

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part C of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This equipment includes those electric motors that are DPPP motors, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296).

Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) (applying the preemption waiver provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297))

Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the Federal test procedures as the basis for: (1) certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for DPPP motors appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 431, subpart Z.

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered equipment, including those electric motors that are DPPP motors. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))

Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) for certain equipment, including those electric motors that are DPPP motors, if no test procedure has been established for the equipment, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory 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 standard;

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

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from 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 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))

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

EPCA also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) 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 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. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))

Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for covered equipment that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of equipment that has 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of equipment, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate.

Id.

Any rule prescribing such a standard must

include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))

B. Background

1. Current Standards

DPPP motors are electric motors, which are defined as machines that convert electrical power into rotational mechanical power. 10 CFR 431.12. DOE has established test procedures, labeling requirements, and energy conservation standards for certain electric motors (10 CFR part 431 subpart B), but those requirements do not apply to DPPP motors subject to the proposed energy conservation standards. DOE has separately established test procedure for DPPP motors in 10 CFR part 431 subpart Z (“Subpart Z”).

Currently, DPPP motors that would be subject to the proposed energy conservation standards are not subject to any Federal energy conservation standards or labeling requirements because they do not fall within any of the specific classes of electric motors that are currently regulated by DOE.

However, DPPP motors are electric motors and, therefore, are and have been among the types of industrial equipment for which Congress has authorized DOE to establish applicable regulations under EPCA without need for DOE to undertake any additional prior administrative action. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))

The current energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.425 apply to electric motors that satisfy nine criteria listed at 10 CFR 431.425(g), subject to the exemptions listed at 10 CFR 431.25(l). The nine criteria are as follows: (1) are single-speed, induction motors; (2) are rated for continuous duty (MG1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC); (3) contain a squirrel-cage (MG1) or cage (IEC) rotor; (4) operate on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz sinusoidal line power; (5) are rated 600 volts or less; (6) have a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration; (7) are built in a three digit or four-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), including those designs between two consecutive NEMA frame sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent); (8) produce at least one horsepower (0.746 kW) but not greater than 500 horsepower (373 kW), and; (9) meet all of the performance requirements of one of the following motor types: A NEMA Design A, B, or C motor or an IEC Design N or H motor. The exemptions listed at 10 CFR 431.25(l) are: (1) air-over electric motors; (2) component sets of an electric motor; (3) liquid-cooled electric motors; (4) submersible electric motors; and (5) inverter-only electric motors.

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for DPPP Motors

On January 18, 2017, DOE published a direct final rule establishing energy conservation standards for DPPPs. 82 FR 5650 (the “January 2017 Direct Final Rule”).

Acknowledging comments received in response to the direct final rule in support of regulating DPPP motors that would serve as replacement motors to the regulated pool pumps, DOE published a notice of public meeting on July 3, 2017, and held a public meeting on August 10, 2017, to consider potential scope, definitions, equipment characteristics, and metrics for pool pump motors. 82 FR 30845. DOE also requested comment on potential requirements for DPPP motors in a request for information (“RFI”) pertaining to test procedures for small electric motors and electric motors. 82 FR 35468 (July 31, 2017). On August 14, 2018, DOE received a petition submitted by a variety of entities (collectively, the “Joint Petitioners”)

requesting that DOE issue a direct final rule to establish prescriptive standards and a labeling requirement for DPPP motors (“Joint Petition”).

The Joint Petitioners sought a compliance date of July 19, 2021, to align with the standards compliance date for DPPPs. (Id.)

See also

82 FR 24218 (May 26, 2017). DOE published a notice of the Joint Petition and sought comment on whether to proceed with the proposal, as well as any data or information that could be used in DOE's determination of whether to issue a direct final rule. 83 FR 45851 (Sept. 11, 2018).

DOE confirmed the adoption of the standards and the effective date and compliance date in a notice published on May 26, 2017. 82 FR 24218. DOE also established a test procedure for DPPPs. 82 FR 36858 (August 7, 2017).

The Joint Petitioners are: The Association of Pool & Spa Professionals, Alliance to Save Energy, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Arizona Public Service, California Energy Commission, California Investor Owned Utilities, Consumer Federation of America, Florida Consumer Action Network, Hayward Industries, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Nidec Motor Corporation, Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Regal Beloit Corporation, Speck Pumps, Texas ROSE (Ratepayers' Organization to Save Energy), Waterway Plastics, WEG Commercial Motors, and Zodiac Pool Systems.

The Joint Petition is available at

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048-0014.

Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048, available at:

www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048.

On December 12, 2018, representatives from APSP, NEMA, Nidec Motors, Regal Beloit, and Zodiac met with DOE to reiterate the need for implementation of the Joint Petition. (December 2018

Ex Parte

Meeting, No. 42 at p. 1)

On February 5, 2019, the Association of Pool & Spa Professionals (“APSP”), National Electrical Manufacturers Association (“NEMA”), Hayward, Pentair, Nidec Motors, Regal Beloit, WEG Commercial Motors, and Zodiac Pool Systems met with DOE to present an alternative approach to the Joint Petition, suggesting DOE propose a labeling requirement for DPPP motors. (February 2019

Ex Parte

Meeting, No. 43 at p. 1)

These interested parties specifically requested that DOE base the labeling requirement on a newly-available industry standard for pool pump motors published on July 1, 2019 (UL 1004-10:2019, “Pool Pump Motors”), a design standard that incorporates some of the proposals contained in the Joint Petition. (February 2019

Ex Parte

Slides, No. 43 at pp. 9-10) A follow-up memorandum was submitted to DOE on March 1, 2019, providing additional information related to UL 1004-10:2019. (March 2019

Ex Parte

Memo, No. 44) The interested parties noted the timelines and costs that would be involved in applying a label to the affected pool pump motors and the impacts flowing from past labeling efforts. (

See generally

id. at 1-3.)

With respect to each of the

ex parte

communications noted in this document, DOE posted a memorandum submitted by the interested party/parties that summarized the issues discussed in the relevant meeting as well as its date and attendees, in compliance with DOE's Guidance on

Ex Parte

Communications. 74 FR 52795-52796 (Oct. 14, 2009). The memorandum of the meeting as well as any documents given to DOE employees during the meeting were added to the docket as specified in that guidance.

See Id.

at 74 FR 52796.

The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop the test procedure and labeling requirements for DPPP motors. (Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0008, which is maintained at

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0008

). The references are arranged as follows: (commenter, comment docket ID number, page of that document).

On October 5, 2020, in response to the Joint Petition and the alternative recommendation presented by several of the Joint Petitioners following submission of the Joint Petition, DOE published a NOPR proposing to establish a test procedure and an accompanying labeling requirement for DPPP motors. 85 FR 62816 (“October 2020 NOPR”). Specifically, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference UL Standard 1004-10:2019 “Outline of Investigation for Pool Pump Motors” (“UL 1004-10:2019”) pertaining to DPPP definitions and marking requirements; require the use of CSA C747-09 (R2014), “Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Small Motors” (“CSA C747-09”) for testing the energy efficiency of DPPP motors; require the nameplate of a subject DPPP motor (1) to include the full-load efficiency of the motor as determined under the proposed test procedure, and (2) if the DPPP motor is certified to UL-1004-10:2019, to include the statement, “Certified to UL 1004-10:2019”; require

that catalogs and marketing materials include the full-load efficiency of the motor; require manufacturers to notify DOE of the subject DPPP motor models in current production (according to the manufacturer's model number) and whether the motor model is certified to UL 1004-10:2019; and require manufacturers to report to DOE the full-load efficiency of the subject DPPP motor models as determined pursuant to the proposed test procedure. 85 FR 62816, 62820. Additionally, if a DPPP motor model is certified to UL 1004-10:2019, DOE proposed to require manufacturers to report the total horsepower (“THP”) and speed configuration of the motor model as provided on the nameplate pursuant to the UL certification.

Id.

On July 29, 2021, DOE published a final rule adopting a test procedure for DPPP motors. 86 FR 40765. (“July 2021 Final Rule”). Specifically, the test procedure requires to use CSA C747-09 (R2014), “Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Small Motors” (“CSA C747-09”) for testing the full-load efficiency of DPPP motors and incorporates by reference UL 1004-10:2020 “Standard for Pool Pump Motors” (“UL 1004-10:2020”) pertaining to definitions and scope. The new test procedure is currently located in 10 CFR part 431, subpart Z (“Subpart Z”). 86 FR 40765, 40768. DOE did not establish a labeling requirement and stated that it intends to address any such labeling and/or energy conservation standards requirement in a separate notification.

Id.

C. Deviation From Appendix A

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (“appendix A”), applicable to covered equipment under 10 CFR 431.4, DOE notes that it is deviating from the provision in appendix A regarding the process for proposing new or amended energy conservation standards. Section 6(a)(1) of appendix A states that as the first step in any proceeding to consider establishing any energy conservation standard, DOE will consider initiating a rulemaking proceeding. Section 6(a)(2) of appendix A states that if the Department determines it is appropriate to proceed with a rulemaking, the preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue an energy conservation standard that DOE will undertake will be a framework document and preliminary analysis, or an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANOPR”). DOE is opting to deviate from both provisions by a publishing a NOPR without first publishing a document announcing that DOE is considering initiating a rulemaking proceeding, a framework document and preliminary analysis or an ANOPR. DOE believes that given the stakeholder involvement and information received to date regarding DPPP motors and potential standards for such equipment, there has been already been significant stakeholder engagement on this topic including: (1) the RFI on July 31, 2017, which include issues for comment relating to dedicated purpose pool pump motors (82 FR 35468); (2) the Joint Petition requesting a direct final rule to establish standards and a labeling requirement for DPPPMs, on which DOE requested comment along with any data or information that could be used in DOE's determination of whether to issue a direct final rule (83 FR 45851); (3) stakeholders engagement from substantive

ex parte

communications with DOE; and (4) the analysis conducted in support of the energy conservation standards for DPPPs, included analyses of DPPP motors comparable to the analyses conducted in support of this NOPR (

See

82 FR 5650).

Section 6(f)(2) of appendix A states that the length of the public comment period for NOPR rulemaking documents will vary depending upon the circumstances of the particular rulemaking, but will not be less than 75 calendar days. DOE is opting to deviate from this provision in providing a 60-day comment period. DOE has tentatively that a 60-day comment period should be sufficient for stakeholders to evaluate the proposal presented in this NOPR and provide comment given the extensive stakeholder involvement to date and the prior opportunities to comment.

III. General Discussion

A. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes

This document covers equipment meeting the definition of DPPP motor as defined in 10 CFR 431.483 and the scope specified in 10 CFR 431.481(b). Specifically, the scope covers DPPP motors with a total THP of less than or equal to 5, but does not apply to: (i) DPPP motors that are polyphase motors capable of operating without a drive and distributed in commerce without a drive that converts single-phase power to polyphase power; (ii) waterfall pump motors; (iii) rigid electric spa pump motors, (iv) storable electric spa pump motors; (v) integral cartridge-filter pool pump motors, and (vi) integral sand-filter pool pump motors.

These terms are defined in UL 1004-10:2020, which is incorporated by reference in DOE's test procedure in Subpart Z of 10 CFR part 431. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to reference the latest version of the UL standard, UL 1004-10:2022; see discussion in section III.A.1.

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

DOE is proposing to establish equipment classes for DPPP motors based on THP. DOE is proposing an extra-small-size equipment corresponding to motors with a THP less than 0.5 hp, a small-size equipment class corresponding to motors with a total horsepower rating greater than or equal to 0.5 hp but less than 1.15 hp, and a standard-size equipment class corresponding to motor with a THP greater than or equal to 1.15 hp and less than or equal to 5 hp. Table III.1 provides a summary of the proposed equipment classes. See section IV.A.3 for further details on the reasoning why DOE determined these equipment classes are appropriate and justify having separate standards.

Table III.1—Proposed Equipment Classes for DPPP Motors

Equipment class

Motor total

horsepower

(Hp)

Extra-small-size

THP < 0.5

Small-size

0.5 ≤ THP < 1.15

Standard-size

1.15 ≤ THP ≤ 5

B. Test Procedure

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)) Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product.

As stated, DOE established subpart Z which specifies that the test procedure applies to DPPP motors with a THP of less than or equal to 5, but does not apply to: (i) DPPP motors that are polyphase motors capable of operating without a drive and distributed in commerce without a drive that converts single-phase power to polyphase power; (ii) waterfall pump motors; (iii) rigid electric spa pump motors, (iv) storable

electric spa pump motors; (v) integral cartridge-filter pool pump motors, and (vi) integral sand-filter pool pump motors). Further, Subpart Z incorporates by reference CSA C747-09 as the energy efficiency test method for DPPP motors, with “full-load efficiency” as the metric.

The test procedure references UL 1004-10:2020 “Standard for Safety for Pool Pump Motors” for the definitions, (10 CFR 431.483) and references CSA C747-09 as the energy efficiency test method for DPPP motors (10 CFR 431.484(b)). The test procedure establishes full-load efficiency as the metric for DPPP motors. 10 CFR 431.484(b). In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to reference the latest version of the UL standard, UL 1004-10:2022, which added a definition for the term “factory default setting”; see discussion in section III.A.1. As such, DOE is proposing product-specific enforcement requirements at 10 CFR 429.134 that require DPPPMs be tested in accordance with UL 1004-10:2022 to verify variable-speed capability and applicable freeze protection design requirements.

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General

In each energy conservation 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. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially-available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. Sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430, subpart C (“Process Rule”).

After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 10 CFR 431.4; Sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process Rule. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for DPPP motors, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this proposed rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this proposed rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR technical support document (“TSD”).

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

When DOE proposes to adopt an 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for DPPP motors, using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this proposed rulemaking are described in section IV.C.1.c of this proposed rule and in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

For each trial standard level (“TSL”), DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to DPPP motors purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the first full year of compliance with the proposed standards (2026-2055).

The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of DPPP motors purchased in the previous 30-year period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a product would likely evolve in the absence of new energy conservation standards.

Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each product class. The TSLs considered for this NOPR are described in section V.A. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.

DOE used its national impact analysis (“NIA”) spreadsheet model to estimate national energy savings (“NES”) from potential amended or new standards for DPPP motors. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. DOE also calculates NES in terms of FFC energy savings. The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (

i.e.,

coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards.

DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.2 of this document.

The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).

2. Significance of Savings

To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE must determine that such action would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6315(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.

For example, the United States rejoined the Paris Agreement on February 19, 2021. As part of that agreement, the United States has committed to reducing greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions in order to limit the rise in mean global temperature.

As such, energy savings that reduce GHG emission have taken on greater importance. Additionally, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively constant demand. In evaluating the significance of energy savings, DOE considers differences in primary energy and full-fuel-cycle (“FFC”) effects for different covered products and equipment when determining whether energy savings are significant. Primary energy and FFC effects include the energy consumed in electricity production (depending on load shape), in distribution and transmission, and in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (

i.e.,

coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus present a more complete

picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards.

See

86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).

See

Executive Order 14008, 86 FR 7619 (Feb. 1, 2021) (“Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad”).

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, among other factors. DOE estimates a combined total of 0.99 quads of FFC energy savings at the proposed efficiency levels for DPPP motors. This represents 19.8 percent energy savings relative to the no-new-standards case energy consumption for DPPP motors. DOE has initially determined the energy savings for the trial standard levels considered in this proposal are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this proposed rulemaking.

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

In determining the impacts of a potential amended standard on manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of this document. 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 (1) INPV, which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows, (2) cash flows by year, (3) changes in revenue and income, and (4) other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.

For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a standard.

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)

EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis.

The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including its installation) and the operating expense (including energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.

The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.

For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered products in the first full year of compliance with new or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this document.

c. Energy Savings

Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for adopting 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section III.D, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

In establishing product classes and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards proposed in this document would not reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration in this proposed rulemaking.

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 a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of this proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will publish and respond to the Attorney General's determination in the final rule. DOE invites comment from the public regarding the competitive impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule. In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ regarding these potential impacts. See the

ADDRESSES

section for information to send comments to DOJ.

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

DOE also considers the need for national energy and water conservation

in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) 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, as discussed in section IV.M of this document.

DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take into account when considering the need for national energy conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) associated with energy production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.KIV.K; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in section V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L of this document.

g. Other Factors

In determining whether an energy conservation standard is economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the other categories described previously, DOE could consider such information under “other factors.”

2. Rebuttable Presumption

EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the equipment that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) 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 3-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test.

In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the environment, as required under (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 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 V.B.1.c of this proposed rule.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this proposed rulemaking with regard to DPPP motors. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses.

DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and calculates national energy savings and net present value of total consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the Government Regulatory Impact Model (“GRIM”), to assess manufacturer impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are available on the DOE website for this proposed rulemaking:

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=76.

Additionally, DOE used output from the latest version of the Energy Information Administration's (“EIA's”)

Annual Energy Outlook

(“

AEO

”), a widely known energy projection for the United States, for the emissions and utility impact analyses.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment that provides an overall picture of the market for the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly-available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this proposed rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information, (5) market and industry trends; and (6) technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency of DPPP motors. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.

1. Scope of Coverage

DPPP motors are a category of electric motor used in DPPP applications. In the July 2021 Final Rule, DOE incorporated by reference UL 1004-10:2020 and referenced the definitions published in that industry standard for DPPP motors. 10 CFR 431.483; 86 FR 40765, 40768. Section 2.3 of UL 1004-10:2020 defines a DPPP motor as “an electric motor that is single-phase or poly-phase and is designed and/or marketed for use in dedicated purpose pool pump applications”. DOE defines dedicated-purpose pool pump as comprising “self-priming pool filter pumps, non-self-priming pool filter pumps, waterfall pumps, pressure cleaner booster pumps, integral sand-filter pool pumps, integral-cartridge filter pool pumps, storable electric spa pumps, and rigid electric spa pumps.” 10 CFR 431.462.

With regards to scope, 10 CFR 431.481(b) specifies that the requirements in subpart Z apply to DPPP motors, as specified in paragraphs 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 of UL 1004-10:2020. This scope covers DPPP motors with a total THP of less than or equal to 5, but does not apply to: (i) DPPP motors that are polyphase motors capable of operating without a drive and distributed in commerce without a drive that converts single-phase power to polyphase power; (ii) waterfall pump motors; (iii) rigid electric spa pump motors, (iv) storable electric spa pump motors; (v) integral cartridge-filter pool pump motors, and (vi) integral sand-filter pool pump motors. Section 1.3 and 1.4 of UL 1004-10: 2020.

Since the July 2021 Final Rule, UL 1004-10 has been updated to the ANSI approved March 24, 2022 version.

In the 2022 version, DOE notes that the only update was the addition of a glossary term for “factory default setting” in section 2.7A, which is defined as “upon application of power

at initial installation, the program that the unit will run without outside interference or change by the user.” DOE understands that this definition does not change the content and requirements of UL 1004-10:2020, but only provides a clarification regarding factory default setting as it applies to the industry standard. As such, in this NOPR, DOE proposes to update the reference to the latest version of the industry standard, from UL 1004-10:2020 to UL 1004-10:2022, in sections 10 CFR 431.481(b), 10 CFR 431.482(c)(1) and 10 CFR 431.483.

https://standardscatalog.ul.com/ProductDetail.aspx?UniqueKey=42496.

DOE seeks comment on updating the UL 1004-10 reference from the 2020 version to the 2022 version.

The scope of this DPPP motors energy conservation standards rulemaking covers motors for use in the following dedicated purpose pool pump applications only: (i) self-priming pool filter pumps; (ii) non-self-priming pool filter pumps; and (iii) pressure cleaner booster pumps. The scope of the pool pump application is consistent with the scope of pool pumps that currently have performance-based standards in 10 CFR 431.465(f). Further, the DPPP motor energy conservation standards scope includes both single and polyphase motors (but excluding polyphase motors capable of operating without a drive and distributed in commerce without a drive that converts single-phase power to polyphase power) with a total THP of less than or equal to 5.

2. Market Review

To review the current market of DPPP motors incorporated in DPPPs, DOE relied on information from the DOE Compliance and Certification Database, the California Energy Commission (“CEC”), and the ENERGY STAR program.

(“2021 DPPP Database”). These databases included the DPPP motor speed-control capabilities, motor THP, and the weighted-efficiency factor (“WEF”)

of the pump with which the motor was certified. The 2021 DPPP database did not contain information related to motor efficiency or topology. To supplement the market review, DOE also reviewed general motor catalog data from 2020 and created a database which contained information regarding motor speed-control, topology, THP, motor application, and full-load efficiency (“2020 Motor Database”). To make the two databases more comparable, DOE filtered the 2020 Motor Database to analyze only motors used in DPPP applications. DOE notes that DPPPMs are electromechanically similar to general motors and use similar methods to improve the efficiency of a given motor, therefore DOE tentatively concludes that efficiencies of the 2020 Motor Database can be expected to mirror the DPPPM market. See section IV.A.4 for further discussion on the DPPP motor technology assessment.

DOE Compliance Certification Management System. Compliance and Certification Database. Information for DPPP products.

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data

(last access July 29, 2021); The California Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database System. Information for DPPP products.

https://cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx

(last access July 29, 2021); Energy Star Program. Information for DPPP products.

www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-pool-pumps/results

(last access July 29, 2021).

DOE notes that while the DPPP energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.465(f) does not contain performance standards for the motors used in DPPPs, the DPPP performance metric of weighted energy factor (“WEF”) is directly affected by motor efficiency and the speed-control of the motor sold with the pump.

First, DOE analyzed the distribution of motor THP and speed-control from the 2021 DPPP Database and compared this to what was observed in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. DOE observed that the distribution of THP and speed-control has not changed significantly since 2017. Because the 2021 DPPP Database did not specifically have information related to motor efficiency or topology, DOE compared the motor efficiency data used for the January 2017 Direct Final Rule with efficiencies found in the 2020 Motor Database. In this review, DOE reviewed the range of efficiencies and average catalog efficiency for each available motor topology (capacitor-start induction-run [“CSIR”], capacitor-start capacitor-run [“CSCR”], permanent-split capacitor [“PSC”], etc.) at each THP. DOE found that the range of efficiencies and average catalog efficiency did not significantly change since 2017. DOE also reviewed the distribution of motor topology in the 2020 Motor Database and observed that it has not significantly changed since 2017. Accordingly, DOE has based its engineering analysis on the analysis conducted for the January 2017 Direct Final Rule (

see

section IV.C).

Separately, DOE also notes that the standard for DPPPs at 10 CFR 431.465(f) and the CEC performance and prescriptive standards for replacement DPPP motors, both having a compliance date starting July 19, 2021, are expected to influence the overall DPPP motor market. Specifically, in the October 2020 NOPR, DOE specified that standard-size self-priming pool filter pumps which are subject to the DOE DPPP energy conservation standards would likely require a variable-speed control motor. 85 FR 62816, 62824. Relatedly, the California standard for replacement DPPP motors requires all DPPPMs greater than or equal to 0.5 THP to be variable-speed. California Code of Federal Regulations, Title 20, Section 1605.3(g)(6)(B).

3. Equipment Classes

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

Id.

)

As discussed previously, DOE is limiting the scope of this energy conservation standard to motors used in self-priming pool filter pumps, non-self-priming pool filter pumps, and pressure cleaner booster pumps. The scope of the pool pump application is consistent with the scope of pool pumps that currently have performance-based standards in 10 CFR 431.465(f). For this energy conservation standards, DOE is dividing the DPPP motors into equipment classes based on capacity. The capacity of a dedicated-purpose pool pump motor can be expressed in terms of motor total horsepower.

Full load efficiency generally correlates with motor horsepower (

e.g.,

a 3-horsepower motor is usually more efficient than a

1/4

-horsepower motor). DOE found that motor efficiency varies with motor horsepower in the 2020 Motor Database. Additionally, motor horsepower dictates the maximum load that a motor can drive, which means that a motor's rated horsepower can influence and limit the end use applications where that motor can be used, which in this case is a dedicated purpose pool pump. Horsepower is a critical performance attribute of a DPPP motor, and since horsepower has a direct relationship with full load efficiency and consumer utility, DOE used this element as a criterion for distinguishing among equipment classes.

The motor capacity breakpoints developed in this NOPR align with the pump capacity breakpoints recommended by the consensus working group established under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking

Federal Advisory Committee (the “ASRAC DPPP Working Group”).

30 31

82 FR 5650, 5669. (Jan. 18, 2017). In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE finalized equipment classes for dedicated purpose pool pumps based on the DPPP Working Group recommendation to set the breakpoint between small-size and standard-size self-priming pool filter pumps at 0.711 hydraulic horsepower (“hhp”). 82 FR 5650, 5669.

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C. App.; 5 U.S.C. 561-570).

The dedicated-purpose pool pumps energy conservation standard rulemaking docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008 contains all notices, public comments, public meeting transcripts, and supporting documents pertaining to this rulemaking.

In the Joint Petition for DPPP motors, the Joint Petitioners stated that the 0.711 hhp threshold in the DPPP standards for self-priming pool filter pumps aligns with a 1.15 THP motor threshold (1.15 THP is roughly equivalent to 0.711 hhp). Further, the Joint Petition stated that almost all motors used in non-self-priming pool filter pumps and pressure cleaner booster pumps have THPs less than 1.15 THP. (Joint Petition, No. 14 at p. 8). Finally, in the October 2020 NOPR, DOE described that DPPP motors with a total horsepower greater than or equal to 1.15 THP are primarily used in standard-size self-priming pool filter pumps (52 percent of DPPP motor applications), while pool pump motors below 1.15 THP are typically found in small-size self-priming pool filter pumps, non-self-priming pool filter pumps, and pressure cleaner booster pumps (which represent 48 percent of the DPPP motor applications).

85 FR 62816, 62824. Accordingly, because full load efficiency generally correlates with motor horsepower, and the distinct utility of DPPP motors less than 1.15 THP (almost all are used in non-self-priming pool filter pumps and pressure cleaner booster pumps) is different than of DPPP motors equal to or greater than 1.15 THP (primarily used in standard-size self-priming pool filter pumps), DOE proposes to establish small-size and standard-size equipment classes based on a 1.15 THP threshold.

Estimate of DPPP motors shipments by DPPP applications for 2021. 85 FR 62816, 62824.

In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE also considered an extra-small-size equipment class for non-self-priming pool filter pumps less than 0.13 hhp. 82 FR 5650, 5672. This equipment class was ultimately merged into the small-size equipment class after DOE selected the same efficiency level for both extra-small-size and small-size non-self-priming pool filter pumps.

Id.

However, in the context of DPPP motors for this rulemaking, DOE notes that the non-self-priming pool filter DPPP motors with an hhp of less than 0.13 have different maximum efficiency potential than non-self-priming pool filter DPPP motors with an hhp of 0.13 or greater. Specifically, Table 5.6.3 in the TSD for the January 2017 Direct Final Rule (“January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD”)

did not consider either two-speed or variable speed motors for the extra-small-size DPPPP equipment class because both these types of motors provide inadequate flow to the pool pump. Because the distinct performance potential and utility of DPPP motors with an hhp less than 0.13, DOE proposes to include an extra-small-size equipment class for DPPP motors.

The dedicated-purpose pool pumps energy conservation standard rulemaking TSD can be found in docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105 (

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105

To develop the proposed motor total horsepower tier threshold for the extra-small-size equipment class, DOE considered the appropriate motor THP threshold that is applicable to the extra-small-size equipment class hydraulic horsepower threshold from the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. Based on pump fundamentals, the power out of the drive of the motor (

i.e.,

brake horsepower) is the hydraulic horsepower divided by the pump efficiency.

Accordingly, DOE converted the hhp to thp by dividing the hydraulic horsepower threshold for the extra-small-size equipment class (0.13 hhp limit from the January 2017 Direct Final Rule) by the hydraulic efficiency for the representative unit meeting the 0.13 hhp threshold (23 percent from Table 5.6.4 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD). This approximates to a 0.57 THP motor horsepower threshold.

www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/hydraulic-horsepower.

As part of this proposed rulemaking, DOE collected confidential DPPP motor shipment data from manufacturers in 2018 through non-disclosure agreements (“2018 confidential DPPP motor shipments”). In reviewing that data, DOE notes there were no DPPP motor shipments at 0.57 THP; rather, the largest motor THP under 0.57 THP with any shipments was 0.5 THP. Accordingly, for this NOPR, DOE proposes to use the 0.5 THP threshold instead, and therefore proposes an extra-small-size equipment class based on the 0.5 THP threshold.

Table IV.1 provides the summary of the proposed equipment classes for DPPP motors.

Table IV.1—Proposed Equipment Classes for DPPP Motors

Equipment class

Motor total

horsepower

(Hp)

Extra-small-size

THP < 0.5

Small-size

0.5 ≤ THP < 1.15

Standard-size

1.15 ≤ THP ≤ 5

DOE seeks comments on the proposed equipment classes for DPPP motors based on motor THP thresholds.

DOE seeks comment on the proposed equipment classes for DPPP motors based on motor THP thresholds.

4. Technology Assessment and Options

The purpose of the technology assessment is to develop a preliminary list of technology options that could improve the efficiency of DPPP motors. The efficiency of a DPPP motor is dependent on motor topology, capacity, and operating speed. As previously discussed in section IV.A.2 of this document, DOE proposes to delineate equipment classes based on motor capacity (

i.e.,

motor horsepower).

a. Motor Topology

The DPPP motors covered in this proposed rulemaking include both alternating current (AC) (single and certain polyphase) induction motors and permanent magnet AC motors (also known as Electronically Commutated Motors [“ECMs”]).

In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE noted that the majority of the pool filter pumps available on the market come equipped with single-phase induction motors, of which the majority are either CSCR or PSC motors. 82 FR 5650, 5676. Based on a review of the 2020 Motor Database, DOE concludes that a majority of DPPPMs are still CSCR or PSC motors. Specifically, single-speed DPPPMs are almost exclusively PSC or CSCR and variable-speed motors are primarily ECMs.

AC induction motors have two core components: a stator and a rotor. The components work together to convert electrical energy into rotational mechanical energy. This is done by creating a rotating magnetic field in the stator, which induces a current flow in the rotor. This current flow creates an opposing magnetic field in the rotor, which creates rotational forces. Because of the orientation of these fields, the rotor field follows the stator field. The rotor is connected to a shaft that also rotates and provides the mechanical energy output.

DOE identified six categories of AC induction motors: shaded-pole, split-phase, capacitor-start (CSIR and CSCR),

permanent-split capacitor (PSC), and polyphase. A shaded-pole motor is a single-phase induction motor provided with an auxiliary short-circuited winding or windings displaced in magnetic position from the main winding. Shaded-pole motors are typically only used in low-torque applications with power requirements less than

1/10

hp. A split-phase motor is a single-phase induction motor equipped with an auxiliary winding displaced in magnetic position from, and connected parallel to, the main winding. The term “split-phase motor” describes a motor to be used without impedance other than that offered by the motor windings themselves. A CSCR motor is a single-phase motor with different values of effective capacitance for the starting and running conditions. A PSC motor is another category of single-phase motor that has the same value of capacitance for both starting and running conditions. A polyphase motor is an electric motor that uses the phase changes of the electrical supply to induce a rotational magnetic field and thereby supply torque to the rotor.

Single-phase AC induction motors are inherently less efficient than polyphase AC induction motors due to the fundamental differences in how the two categories of motors operate. Three-phase power in a polyphase motor naturally produces rotation, whereas a single-phase motor requires an auxiliary winding with current and voltage out of phase of the main winding to produce a net rotating magnetic field. The more efficient polyphase AC induction motors require the end user to have access to a three-phase power source. Residential power sources are typically single-phase.

Motor topology within the single-phase AC induction motor category can also have an impact on motor efficiency. CSCR and PSC motors are typically more efficient than CSIR, split-phase, and shaded pole motors due to the presence of a run capacitor that remains connected while the motors are operating. In the notice of the Joint Petition, the recommendation included prohibiting CSIR or split phase motors for DPPPMs because (1) this would align with the DPPP standards; (2) this requirement would be consistent with certain state standards, and (3) these motors are very inefficient. (Joint Petition, No. 14 at p. 7)

In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE also noted that the pool pump market included ECMs and that ECMs are typically used in variable-speed pool filter pump applications. 82 FR 5650, 5676. Based on a review of the 2021 DPPP database, ECMs are becoming more prevalent because of the recent standards implemented by the CEC and the January 2017 Direct Final Rule standards discussed in section IV.A.2 of this NOPR.

ECMs are similar in construction to AC squirrel-cage induction motors, but feature a different rotor configuration. Instead of using conductive material in the rotor, permanent magnets are integrated into the rotor's laminations or fixed to the rotor's outer surface and do not need to be energized. The magnetic field established by the permanent magnets interacts with the field produced by windings in the stator to generate a torque. Because permanent magnet motors do not require current to be induced in rotor conductors, overall power consumption can be reduced compared to induction motors. Further, because permanent magnet motors operate at synchronous speed, they require a variable frequency drive to start rotation.

ECMs can typically achieve higher motor efficiencies than AC induction motors with similar capacities. ECMs employ rare-earth metal based permanent magnets in the rotor design to establish a magnetic field, which avoids the energy consumption observed when energizing an electro-magnetic rotor for the operation of AC induction motors. Because of the removal of rotor energy losses, ECMs often have higher full-load efficiencies than their induction counterparts. ECMs require a variable speed drive to operate, which may introduce additional losses into the motor system. Even after considering the losses from the variable speed drive and control electronics, ECMs are the most efficient motor topology currently used in dedicated-purpose pool pumps.

b. Motor Speed

Dedicated-purpose pool pumps are designed to circulate water in pool systems to facilitate pool cleaning in addition to water filtering, heating, and chlorination. Pool cleaning functions require a high flow rate, and subsequently a high motor speed, to provide the agitation necessary to stir up large debris so that the filtration system can effectively remove any contaminants. Heating functions typically require a moderate to high flow rate to ensure that heat is dissipated sufficiently and pool system components are not damaged by overheating. Water filtration is most effective at low motor speeds, as a low flow rate will ensure water bypassing the filter will be minimized.

DPPP motors exist in several configurations with different speed capabilities. Single-speed motors can operate at one predefined speed, and therefore the associated dedicated-purpose pool pump can provide only a single flow rate in any given pool system. Single-speed motors are sized to provide the minimum flow rate necessary to facilitate effective pool cleaning, and therefore pool pump functions that operate most efficiently at lower flow rates are rendered less effective.

Two-speed motors can operate at two distinct rotational speeds. Two-speed motors can be sized so that high flow functions like pool cleaning are effective at full speed operation and low flow tasks like filtration can be completed at low speed operation. Two-speed pumps can be operated by timers or other control systems to run at high speed for long enough to complete cleaning functions before switching to low speed operation for the duration of the cycle. The ability to operate at multiple speeds can provide energy savings when utilized correctly,

i.e.,

pool cleaning at high speed and filtration at lower speeds. Multi-speed motors function similarly to two-speed motors, but provide additional flexibility to maximize the effectiveness of specific pool pump functions by allowing users to program pumps to run at more than two distinct speeds.

Variable-speed motors can provide greater energy savings than two-speed or multi-speed motors due to the ability to program these motors to operate at user-defined speed settings. Variable-speed motors used in DPPP applications are typically one of two configurations: an AC induction motor paired with a variable frequency drive or a permanent magnet motor with an integral drive. Permanent magnet variable-speed motors offer improved efficiency over AC induction motors due to the incorporation of a permanent magnet rotor design in place of the powered electro-magnetic rotor design used in AC induction motors. This improvement in efficiency is particularly evident at lower speed settings, where AC induction motor efficiency drops considerably from full speed efficiency.

DOE seeks comment on the technologies considered for higher DPPP motor efficiency. DOE seeks comment on whether other motor topologies should be considered as applicable in pool pumps.

B. Screening Analysis

DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which technology options are suitable for further

consideration in an energy conservation standards rulemaking:

(1)

Technological feasibility.

Technologies that are not incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not be considered further.

(2)

Practicability to manufacture, install, and service.

If it is determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will not be considered further.

(3)

Impacts on product utility or product availability.

If it is determined that a technology would have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product for significant subgroups of consumers or would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered further.

(4)

Adverse impacts on health or safety.

If it is determined that a technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered further.

(5)

Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies.

If a design option utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).

In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering analysis.

In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE considered “improved motor efficiency” as a screened in technology option for the pool pump analysis. 82 FR 5650, 5676. This screened-in technology option considered motor topology (induction and ECM motor) and speed applications (

i.e.,

single-, dual- and variable speed). 82 FR 5650, 5676. For this DPPP motor analysis, DOE relied on and aligned with the January 2017 Direct Final Rule analysis where possible. As discussed in sections IV.A.2 and IV.A.4 of this document, the motor technologies applicable to pool pump motors analyzed in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule remain relevant and applicable in the current DPPP motor market. Therefore, DOE has initially determined that the technology options previously considered continue to be technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in commercially-available products or working prototypes. DOE also finds that the technology options continue to meet the other screening criteria (

i.e.,

practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product availability, health, or safety, unique-pathway proprietary technologies). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.

C. Engineering Analysis

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the relationship between the efficiency and cost of DPPP motors. There are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of efficiency levels to analyze (

i.e.,

the “efficiency analysis”) and the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (

i.e.,

the “cost analysis”). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency equipment, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each equipment class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the equipment at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency “curves” that are used in downstream analyses (

i.e.,

the LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).

1. Efficiency Analysis

DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed efficiency levels in the market (

i.e.,

the efficiency-level approach), or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (

i.e.,

the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on the range of efficiencies and efficiency level “clusters” that already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended using the design option approach to “gap fill” levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in cases where the max-tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on the market).

For this analysis, DOE relied on the conclusions from the “improved motor efficiency” design option from the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. As discussed in sections IV.A.2 and IV.A.4 of this document, the motor technologies applicable to pool pump motors analyzed in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule remain relevant and applicable in the current DPPP motor market. Therefore, in line with the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE considered three tiers of motor efficiency (low, medium, and high efficiency) and design requirements specifically for two-speed, multi-speed motors and variable speed motors. This is a combination of the efficiency level and design level approach discussed previously. Section 5.6.2 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD discusses that DOE presented the designs and motor efficiency assumptions to the DPPP Working Group and subsequently refined them to incorporate feedback from the DPPP Working Group.

a. Representative Units

DOE opted to use representative units for each equipment class, consistent with the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, for the engineering analysis. Representative units exemplify typical capacities in each equipment class and are used to quantify the manufacturing costs and the energy savings potential for each equipment class.

Table IV.2 details the DPPP application and associated motor THP of each representative unit considered for the analysis. The DPPP application (pump type, size and hhp) is consistent with Table 5.4.1 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, except that DOE did not merge the extra-small-size and standard-size non self-priming pumps into one class for this NOPR. As discussed in section IV.A.3 of this document, the extra-small-size non-self-priming pool filter DPPP motors have different maximum efficiency potential than small- or standard-size equipment classes and are therefore analyzed separately.

The associated motor THP of the representative units are consistent with

the motor THPs provided in Table 5.7.1 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, with three exceptions: (1) a DPPP motor associated with self-priming filter pump application at 0.65 hhp (Representative unit 2A) was added to represent standard-size DPPP motors that are used in small-size self-priming DPPPs as DOE observed motors on the market of this size going into small-size self-priming pumps; (2) a DPPP motor associated with non-self priming filter pump at 0.87 hhp (Representative unit 6) was added to analyze standard-size DPPPMs used in non-self-priming filter pump applications to better represent THPs observed in the market; and (3) a DPPP motor of 1.125 thp instead of 1.25 thp associated with pressure cleaner booster pump (Representative unit 7) was considered so as to keep this representative unit in the small-size equipment class (EC 2), and to better represent the THP range of motors in pressure cleaner booster pumps.

The Joint Petition noted that almost all motors used in pressure cleaner booster pumps have THPs less than 1.15 THP. (Joint Petition, No. 14 at p. 8).

Table IV.2—Representative Units THP and DPPP Application

Rep. unit

Equipment class

THP

DPPP application *

2 (Small)

0.75

Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.44 hhp).

3 (Standard)

1.65

Self-priming Filter Pump, Standard-size (0.95 hhp).

3 (Standard)

1.65

Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.65 hhp).

3 (Standard)

3.45

Self-priming Filter Pump, Standard-size (1.88 hhp).

1 (Extra-small)

0.22

Non Self-priming Filter Pump, Extra-Small (0.09 hhp).

2 (Small)

Non Self-priming Filter Pump, Standard-size (0.52 hhp).

3 (Standard)

1.5

Non Self-priming Filter Pump, Standard-size (0.87 hhp).

2 (Small)

1.125

Pressure Cleaner Booster Pump.

* For self-priming pumps, the terms small and standard refer to the hydraulic horsepower. Small-size designates pool pump applications with hydraulic horsepower less than 0.711 hhp, while standard-size designates pool pump applications with hydraulic horsepower greater than or equal to 0.711 hhp. DOE distinguishes extra-small non self-priming filter pumps (less than 0.13 hhp) and standard-size non self-priming filter pumps (less than 2.5 hhp and greater than 0.13 hhp).

DOE seeks comment on the proposed representative units and associated DPPP applications used for the engineering analysis.

b. Baseline Efficiency Levels

For each equipment class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as a reference point for each class, and measures changes resulting from potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The baseline model in each equipment class represents the characteristics of an equipment typical of that class (

e.g.,

capacity, physical size). Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market. Mirroring the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, this DPPP motor analysis also considered the least efficient single-speed DPPP motor on the market for each representative unit.

c. Higher Efficiency Levels

As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE also defines a “max-tech” efficiency level to represent the maximum possible efficiency for a given product.

Once the baseline was established, higher ELs were established by substituting with higher full-load efficiency DPPPMs and DPPPMs with finer levels of speed control, similar to the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. Table IV.3 details the full-load efficiency, or motor topologies and speed configurations of each EL for each representative unit. The full-load efficiencies and speed configurations being considered are consistent with Table 5.6.3 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD.

As discussed in section IV.A.4.b of this document, DPPPM have different functions, including pool cleaning, water filtering, heating, freeze protection control and chlorination, that all require different flow rates and motor speeds. Therefore, the ability to operate at multiple speeds can provide energy savings when utilized correctly. As such, there are energy savings that come from controlling the speed of the motor with two-speed, multi-speed or variable-speed capabilities. Accordingly, DOE proposes to include design requirements of speed capability as part of the engineering analysis to capture these added energy savings.

These design requirements are consistent with the motor speed design options considered in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule.

Full-load efficiency does not capture the energy saving benefits of speed control.

Further, as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this NOPR, the efficiency of a DPPP motor is dependent on motor topology. CSCR and PSC motors are typically more efficient than CSIR, split-phase, and shaded pole motors due to the presence of a run capacitor that remains connected while the motors are operating. In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE noted that the majority of the pool filter pumps available on the market come equipped with CSCR or PSC motors. 82 FR 5650, 5676. Accordingly, DOE proposes to include design requirements based on motor topology as part of the engineering analysis to capture these added energy savings.

Table IV.3 presents the proposed performance and design requirements for the DPPPM efficiency levels. Efficiency levels 0 through 2 is consistent with Table 5.6.3 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD and represents the low-efficiency, medium-efficiency and high-efficiency performance of single-speed DPPPMs. Efficiency levels 3 through 6 incorporate certain design requirements based on motor speed capability and topology.

For the purposes of the analysis, however, DOE did consider the full-load efficiencies presented in Table 5.6.3 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD for efficiency levels 3 through 6.

DOE proposes that EL 3 requires motors that are two-speeds, multi-speed or variable speed, but with no restrictions on motor topology. EL 4 requires motors that are two-speeds or multi-speed, but does not allow for the low-efficiency motor topologies (split-phase, shaded-pole, CSIR)—or—requires variable speed motors. EL 5 requires motors that are two-speeds or multi-speed, but does not allow for PSC motors in addition to the other low-efficiency motor topologies—or—requires variable speed motors. Finally,

EL 6 includes variable speed only, which provides the highest energy savings.

As discussed in section IV.A.3 of this document, efficiency levels 3-6 do not apply to representative unit 4 because two-speed, multi-speed and variable speed motors provide inadequate flow to the pool pump for the extra-small-size DPPPP equipment class. Further, consistent with the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE only considered one speed and variable speed motors for representative unit 7 (pressure cleaner booster pump application). 82 FR 5650, 5683. Specifically, the January 2017 Direct Final Rule noted that pressure cleaner booster pumps are only operated at one speed, however the pool pump WEF metric accounts for energy savings available from adjusting the pump speed to reach the minimum required test pressure,

i.e.,

60 feet, therefore allowing variable-speed motor applications.

Id.

Accordingly, for representative unit 7, efficiency levels 3 through 6 would require variable-speed motors only.

Table IV.3—Proposed Performance and Design Requirements for DPPPM ELs

Rep. unit

Motor THP

DPPP application

EL0

(%)

EL1

(%)

EL2

(%)

EL3 *

EL4 *

EL5 *

EL6 *

0.22

Non Self-priming Filter Pump, Extra-Small (0.09 hhp)

0.75

Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.44 hhp)

Non Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.52 hhp)

Two-speed—OR—Multi-speed—OR—Variable speed

Two-speed/Multi-speed, not CSIR, not shaded pole, not split-phase;—OR—Variable speed

Two-speed/Multi-speed, not CSIR, not shaded pole, not split-phase, not PSC;—OR—Variable speed

Variable speed only.

1.125

Pressure Cleaner Booster Pump

Variable speed only.

1.5

1.65

Non Self-priming Filter Pump (0.87 hhp)

Self-priming Filter Pump, Standard-size (0.95 hhp)

Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.65 hhp)

Two-speed—OR—Multi-speed—OR—Variable speed

Two-speed/Multi-speed, not CSIR, not shaded pole, not split-phase;—OR—Variable speed

Two-speed/Multi-speed, not CSIR, not shaded pole, not split-phase, not PSC;—OR—Variable speed

Variable speed only.

3.45

Self-priming Filter Pump, Standard-size (1.88 hhp)

* includes freeze protection control design requirements.

To determine the motor input power for the energy use analysis in section IV.E, DOE also had to determine the hydraulic power of each pump. DOE calculated the relationships between flow rate of the pump and the total dynamic head required for each system curve. Once these relationships were established, the hydraulic power required for each curve was calculated using both the head and flow rate.

See

Section 5.3.1.3 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD. Each efficiency level presented has an associated Energy Factor (in Gallons/Watt-hour) and Flow (in gallons per minute) used to determine efficiency of the pump system. This energy factor considers the performance of the motor and the energy savings that come from running the motor at a lower speed. For this analysis, all pump performance curves were kept consistent with Tables 5.8.1, 5.8.2, 5.8.3 and 5.8.4 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD. For more information on how these curves were developed, see Section 5.8.2 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD.

DOE seeks comment on the efficiency levels, including the associated full load efficiencies and design requirements evaluated in the engineering analysis.

2. Cost Analysis

The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated product, the availability and timeliness of purchasing DPPPMs on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:

•

Physical teardowns:

Under this approach, DOE physically dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.

•

Catalog teardowns:

In lieu of physically deconstructing a product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example) to develop the bill of materials for the product.

•

Price surveys:

If neither a physical nor catalog teardown is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise impractical (

e.g.,

large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and other commercial channels.

In the present case, DOE conducted the cost analysis using historical price surveys and product teardowns. DOE used feedback from manufacturers presented in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule to determine the cost of DPPP motors. Specifically, Table 5.7.1 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD presents the manufacturer production cost (“MPC”) of DPPPMs used in the analysis. However, DOE notes this cost data was in terms of

2015$.

For this evaluation, DOE updated the cost data to be representative of the market in 2020. DOE adjusted the

2015$

costs to

2020$

using the historical Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Index (“PPI”)

for each product's industry.

Finally, DOE also conducted physical teardowns to determine updated DPPP motor controller costs for variable-speed motors. DOE did not consider any added costs for the freeze protection design requirements, as these requirements do not require any additional labor, material, or technology to produce a DPPP motor meeting these requirements, and a manufacturer is able to just disable the controls to meet the requirement. Further, the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, which also adopted freeze protection controls as a prescriptive standards per the ASRAC DPPP Working Group, did not consider any added costs. 82 FR 5650, 5737.

Series IDs: Integral motors (<=1 hp): WPU117304, Fractional motors (<1 hp): WPU117303, Environmental Controls: WPU1181;

www.bls.gov/ppi/.

To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (“MSP”) is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. DOE developed an average manufacturer markup of 1.37 by examining the annual Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports filed by publicly-traded manufacturers primarily engaged in DPPP manufacturing and whose combined product range includes a variety of pool products. Table IV.4 lists the MSPs of each EL for DPPPMs. See TSD chapter 5 for additional detail on the engineering analysis and complete cost-efficiency results.

Table IV.4—MSPs in 2020$ for DPPPMs

Rep. unit

THP

DPPP application

EL0

EL1

EL2

EL3

EL4

EL5

EL6

0.22

Non Self-priming Filter Pump, Extra-Small (0.09 hhp)

$25

$31

$51

0.75

Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.44 hhp)

$93

$104

$115

$357

Non Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.52 hhp)

111

357

1.125

Pressure Cleaner Booster Pump

357

1.5

Non Self-priming Filter Pump (0.87 hhp)

108

109

128

149

357

1.65

Self-priming Filter Pump, Standard-size (0.95 hhp)

115

116

135

155

357

1.65

Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.65 hhp)

115

116

135

155

357

3.45

Self-priming Filter Pump, Standard-size (1.88 hhp)

161

201

224

256

271

287

480

DOE seeks comment on using a 1.37 manufacturer markup for the cost analysis.

DOE seeks comment on the cost methodology and associated costs for each of efficiency levels evaluated in the engineering analysis, including any associated costs for the proposed freeze protection controls requirement.

D. Markups Analysis

The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (

e.g.,

retailer markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution chain and sales taxes to convert the MSP estimates derived in the engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC and PBP analysis and in the manufacturer impact analysis. At each step in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product to cover business costs and profit margin.

DOE identified distribution channels for DPPP motors incorporated in pumps (See Table IV.5) and replacement DPPP motors sold alone (See Table IV.6). To characterize these channels, DOE referred to information collected in support of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, which reflects the consensus of the ASRAC DPPP Working Group.

Table IV.5—Distribution Channels for DPPP Motors Incorporated in Pumps

Distribution channel

Fraction of

shipments

(%)

Replacement for an Existing Pool

DPPP Motor Manufacturer

→

DPPP Manufacturer

→

Wholesaler

→

Pool Service Contractor

→

Consumer

DPPP Motor Manufacturer

→

DPPP Manufacturer

→

Pool Product Retailer

→

Consumer

New Installation for a New Pool

DPPP Motor Manufacturer

→

DPPP Manufacturer

→

Pool Builder

→

Consumer

Table IV.6—Distribution Channels for Replacement DPPP Motors Sold Alone

Distribution channel

Fraction of

shipments

DPPP Motor Manufacturer

→

Wholesaler

→

Contractor

→

End-User

DPPP Motor Manufacturer

→

Wholesaler

→

Retailer

→

End-User

DPPP Motor Manufacturer

→

Pool Pump Retailer

→

End-User

DOE developed baseline and incremental markups for each actor in the distribution chain. Baseline markups are applied to the price of equipment with baseline efficiency, while incremental markups are applied

to the difference in price between baseline and higher-efficiency models (the incremental cost increase). The incremental markup is typically less than the baseline markup and is designed to maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and after new or amended standards.

Because the projected price of standards-compliant products is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an outcome is possible, DOE maintains that in markets that are reasonably competitive it is unlikely that standards would lead to a sustainable increase in profitability in the long run.

To estimate average baseline and incremental markups DOE relied on several sources including: (1) for pool wholesalers, SEC form 10-K from Pool Corp;

(2) for pool product retailers, SEC form 10-K from several major home improvement centers

and U.S. Census Bureau 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey for the miscellaneous store retailers sector (NAICS 453),

(3) for pool contractors and pool builders, U.S. Census Bureau 2017 Economic Census data for the plumbing, heating and air-conditioning contractor sector (NAICS 238220) and all other specialty trade contractors sector (NAICS 238990),

(4) for motor wholesalers, U.S. Census Bureau 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade Survey for the household appliances and electrical and electronic goods merchant wholesaler sector (NAICS 4536),

(5) for electrical contractor, 2020 RSMeans Electrical Cost Data,

(6) for motor retailers, U.S. Census Bureau 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey for the building material and garden equipment and supplies dealers (NAICS 444), and (7) for pool pump retailers, U.S. Census Bureau 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey for the miscellaneous store retailers sector (NAICS 453).

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

SEC 10-K Reports

for Pool Corp (2010-2017). Available at

www.sec.gov/

(Last accessed July 26, 2021.)

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

SEC 10-K Reports

for Home Depot, Lowe's, Wal-Mart and Costco. Available at

www.sec.gov/

(Last accessed July 26, 2021.)

U.S. Census Bureau,

2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey,

available at

www.census.gov/retail/index.html

(last accessed July 26, 2021).

U.S. Census Bureau,

2017 Economic Census Data,

available at

www.census.gov/econ/

(last accessed July 26, 2021).

U.S. Census Bureau,

2017 Annual Wholesale Trade Survey,

available at

www.census.gov/awts

(last accessed July 26, 2021).

RSMeans Electrical Cost Data, available at

www.rsmeans.com

(last accessed July 26, 2021).

In addition to the markups, DOE obtained state and local taxes from data provided by the Sales Tax Clearinghouse.

These data represent weighted average taxes that include county and city rates. DOE derived shipment-weighted average tax values for each region considered in the analysis.

Sales Tax Clearinghouse Inc., State Sales Tax Rates Along with Combined Average City and County Rates (2021), available at

https://thestc.com/STrates.stm

(last accessed Feb. 14, 2021).

Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE's development of markups for DPPP motors.

DOE seeks comment on the distribution channels identified for DPPP motors and fraction of sales that go through each of these channels.

E. Energy Use Analysis

The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual energy consumption of DPPP motors at different efficiency levels in representative U.S. single-family homes, multi-family residences, and commercial buildings, and to assess the energy savings potential associated to each DPPP motor efficiency level. The energy use analysis estimates the range of energy use of DPPP motors in the field (

i.e.,

as they are actually used by consumers). The energy use analysis provides the basis for other analyses DOE performed, particularly assessments of the potential energy savings and the savings in consumer operating costs that could result from adoption of new standards.

1. DPPP Motor Applications

The annual energy consumption of a pool pump motor is expressed in terms of electricity consumption and depends on the DPPP motor efficiency level, pool pumping requirement, on the performance of the DPPP incorporating the motor, and on the DPPP annual operating hours. This electricity consumption is identical to the annual electricity consumption of the DPPP incorporating the motor. The pool pump motor energy consumption value is the sum of the energy consumption values in each mode of operation. Each mode of operation corresponds to a motor speed setting. Single-speed motors only have one mode of operation, while dual and variable-speed pool pump motors operate at a low- and high-speed mode. The unit energy consumption values in each mode are calculated based on the DPPP usage, which is calculated based on the pool pump system curve that the DPPP is operating on, the pump flow rate of the mode, the pump energy factor of the mode (which in turn determine the motor input power)

and the annual run time of the pool pump spent in that mode. DOE calculated the pool pump annual run time based on the application (residential or commercial), the assumed pool size, the assumed number of turns per day, and the sample application's geographic location, which implies the corresponding pool seasons. A typical DPPP application, characterized by the DPPP equipment class and hydraulic horsepower (hhp), was associated to each representative unit in equipment classes 1, 2, and 3 based on inputs from the engineering analysis (See Table IV.2).

The motor input power is equal to the DPPP flow (gallon per minute) divided by the DPPP Energy Factor (gallon per Wh) and multiplied by 60 (number of minutes in an hour).

2. DPPP Motor Consumer Sample

DOE created individual consumer samples for five DPPP motor markets: (1) single-family homes with a swimming pool; (2) indoor swimming pools in commercial applications; (3) single-family community swimming pools; (4) multi-family community swimming pools; and (5) outdoor swimming pools in commercial applications. DOE used the samples to determine DPPP motor annual energy consumption as well as for conducting the LCC and PBP analyses.

DOE used the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS 2015) to establish a sample of single-family homes that have a swimming pool.

48 49

For DPPPs used in indoor swimming pools in commercial applications, DOE developed a sample using the 2012 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS 2012).

RECS and CBECS include information such as the household or building owner demographics and the location of the household or building.

U.S. Department of Energy—Energy Information Administration.

2009 RECS Survey Data.

(Last accessed July 27, 2016.)

www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/.

U.S. Department of Energy—Energy Information Administration.

2015 RECS Survey Data.

(Last accessed September 11, 2018.)

www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/.

U.S. Department of Energy—Energy Information Administration. 2012 CBECS Survey Data. (Last accessed: July 27, 2016.)

www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/index.cfm?view=microdata.

Neither RECS nor CBECS provide data on community pools or outdoor swimming pools in commercial applications, so DOE created samples based on other available data. To develop samples for DPPPs in single or multi-family communities, DOE used a combination of RECS 2009,

U.S. Census 2009 American Home Survey

Data (2009 AHS),

and 2015 PK Data report.

To develop a sample for pool pumps in outdoor commercial swimming pools, DOE used a combination of CBECS 2012 and 2015 PK Data report.

The earlier version of RECS was used for consistency with the year of the AHS survey available with pool ownership information.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009 AHS survey data (Last accessed: September 13, 2021.)

www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/2009/ahs-2009-public-use-file--puf-/2009-ahs-national-puf-microdata.html.

PK Data. 2015 Swimming Pool and Pool Heater Customized Report for LBNL. (Last accessed: April 30, 2016.)

www.pkdata.com/annual-reports.html/.

Table IV.7 shows the estimated shares of the five DPPP markets in the existing stock based on the afore-mentioned sources. The vast majority of DPPPs are used for residential single-family swimming pools.

Table IV.7—Fraction of DPPP Motor Application by Market

Description

Fraction of

DPPP

motor stock

(%)

Residential Single Family Swimming Pools

95.1

Community Pools (Single Family)

0.8

Community Pools (Multi Family)

0.4

Commercial Indoor Pools

0.3

Commercial Outdoor Swimming Pools

3.4

DPPPs can be installed with either above-ground or in-ground swimming pools. DOE established separate sets of consumer samples for in-ground pools and above-ground pools by adjusting the original sample weights using data on the number of installed in-ground and above-ground pools gathered during the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, which relied on 2014 data per state provided by APSP.

The consumer samples for DPPP motors used in self-priming and pressure cleaner booster pumps are drawn from the in-ground pool samples; the consumer samples for motors used with non-self-priming pool pumps are obtained from the above-ground pool samples.

For more details see chapter 7 of the dedicated-purpose pool pumps January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, at

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105.

See chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD for more details about the creation of the consumer samples and the regional breakdowns.

DOE seeks comment on the overall methodology to develop consumer samples and on the fraction of DPPP motor existing stock across the five following markets: (1) single-family homes with a swimming pool; (2) indoor swimming pools in commercial applications; (3) single-family community swimming pools; (4) multi-family community swimming pools; and (5) outdoor swimming pools in commercial applications.

3. Self-Priming and Non-Self-Priming Pool Pump Motor Input Power

The input power of DPPP motors used in self-priming and non-self-priming pump applications was calculated based on the flow rates (gallons per minute) and typical Energy Factor (gallons per watt hour) associated to each representative unit.

At efficiency levels corresponding to single-speed and dual-speed motors, the flow and Energy Factor values were based on input from the engineering analysis (see section IV.C) and provided for each system curve (A, B or C).

For each user of self-priming and non-self-priming pool pump in the consumer sample, DOE then specified the system curve used (A, B or C) by drawing from a probability distribution in which 35 percent of the pool pumps follow curve A, 10 percent of the pool pumps follow curve B, and the remaining 55 percent follow curve C. The probability distribution was based on inputs from the ASRAC DPPP Working Group gathered during the January 2017 Direct Final Rule.

The motor input power is equal to the flow (gallon per minute) divided by the Energy Factor (gallon per Wh) and multiplied by 60 (number of minutes in an hour).

When a pump is tested on a system curve (such as curve C), any one of the measurements hydraulic power, P (hp), volumetric flow, Q (gpm) and total dynamic head, H (feet of water) can be used to calculate the other two measurements.

For more details see chapter 7 of the dedicated-purpose pool pumps January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, at

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105.

At efficiency levels corresponding to variable-speed motors, the engineering analysis only provided flow and Energy Factor values for the high-speed mode on each system curve. For the low-speed mode, DOE used data on pool volume and desired time per turnover from the January 2017 Direct Final Rule technical support document to calculate a consumer-specific low-speed flow.

These relied on inputs from stakeholders and several other references.

59 60 61

DOE then used the equation provided by the engineering analysis to calculate the Energy Factor as a function of Q for each representative unit on each system curve.

Flow (in gallon per minute) is equal to the pool volume (gallon) divided by the desired time per turnover (in minutes).

CEE Residential Swimming Pool Initiative, December 2021.

California Energy Commission Pool Heater CASE. (Last Accessed: July 28, 2016)

https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=71754&DocumentContentId=8285.

Evaluation of potential best management practices—Pools, Spas, and Fountains 2010. (Last Accessed: July 28, 2016)

https://calwep.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Pools-Spas-and-Fountains-PBMP-2010.pdf.

4. Pressure Cleaner Booster Pumps Motor Input Power

The input power of DPPP motors used in pressure cleaner booster pumps was calculated using the relationship between input power and flow and the system curve provided by the engineering analysis (see section IV.C). To characterize operating flow for each consumer in the sample, DOE drew a value from a statistical distribution of flow established during the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. This distribution was developed around the test procedure test point of 10 gpm of flow rate, as recommended by the ASRAC DPPP Working Group. (Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0092 p. 311) For single-speed pressure cleaner booster pumps, DOE then calculated the input power using the power curve from the engineering analysis. For variable-speed motors used in pressure cleaner booster pumps, DOE also calculated the pool pump motor input power in a low-speed setting. Based on information from the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE used a value of 10 gpm to characterize the low-speed flow and calculate the hydraulic horsepower using the system curve.

Then, DOE calculated the input power using the relationship between input power and flow as provided by the engineering analysis (see section IV.C).

For more details see chapter 7 of the dedicated-purpose pool pumps January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, at

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105.

5. Daily Operating Hours

DOE relied on information gathered during the January 2017 Direct Final Rule to develop estimates of pool pump daily operating hours. For self-priming and non-self-priming pool filter pumps in residential applications, operating hours are calculated uniquely for each consumer based on pool size, number of turnovers per day (itself based on ambient conditions), and the pump flow rate. In commercial applications, DOE assumed these pumps operate 24 hours per day. For pressure cleaner booster pumps, operating hours are drawn from a distribution which were based on the January 2017 Direct Final Rule.

Table IV.8 summarizes the resulting daily

operating hours during the pool operating season.

For more details see chapter 7 of the dedicated-purpose pool pumps direct final rule TSD, at

/www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105.

Table IV.8—Weighted-Average Daily Operating Hours by Representative Unit and Pool Pump Application

Equipment class

Representative unit

THP

Pool pump application *

Residential

weighted

average daily

operating

hours **

Commercial

weighted

average daily

operating

hours **

0.22

Non Self-priming Filter Pump, Extra-Small (0.09 hhp)

3.3

0.75

Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.44 hhp)

9.6

Non Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.52 hhp)

8.2

1.125

Pressure Cleaner Booster Pump

2.5

1.5

Non Self-priming Filter Pump (0.87 hhp)

8.2

1.65

Self-priming Filter Pump, Standard-size (0.95 hhp)

15.3

1.65

Self-priming Filter Pump, Small-size (0.65 hhp)

9.6

3.45

Self-priming Filter Pump, Standard-size (1.88 hhp)

14.6

22.7

** During the pool operating season.

6. Annual Days of Operation

DOE calculated the annual unit energy consumption (UEC) by multiplying the daily operating hours by the annual days of operation, which depends on the number of months of pool operation. For each consumer sample, DOE assigned different annual days of operation depending on the region in which the DPPP is installed. Table IV.9 provides the assumptions of pool pump operating season based on geographical locations. This assignment was based on information collected during the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. It is based on several sources: DOE's Energy Saver website assumptions

and PK Data

that include average pool season length (

i.e.,

operating months) by state, along with discussion of the geographic distribution of pool operating days by the ASRAC DPPP Working Group. The ASRAC DPPP Working Group suggested that although some of the regions had warm weather, the pool pumps should still be operating all year long. (

See

Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0094 pp. 191-193)

DOE Energy Saver. (Last Accessed: April 26, 2016)

https://energy.gov/energysaver/articles/heat-pump-swimming-pool-heaters.

PK Data. 2015 Swimming Pool and Pool Heater Customized Report for LBNL. (Last accessed: April 16, 2016)

www.pkdata.com/annual-reports.html/.

Table IV.9—Pool Pump Operating Season by Geographical Location

Location

(states or census divisions)

Avg. months

of pool use

Pool use

months

CT, ME, NH, RI, VT

5/1-8/31

IN, OH

5/1-8/31

6/1-9/30

IA, MN, ND, SD

6/1-9/30

KS, NE

6/1-9/30

4/1-10/31

DE, DC, MD

5/1-9/30

4/1-10/31

NC, SC

4/1-10/31

1/1-12/31

AL, KY, MS

1/1-12/31

AR, LA, OK

1/1-12/31

5/1-8/31

ID, MT, UT, WY

5/1-8/31

1/1-12/31

NV, NM

1/1-12/31

OR, WA

6/1-8/31

5/1-9/30

1/1-12/31

5/1-9/30

New England

5/1-8/31

Middle Atlantic

5/1-9/30

East North Central

5/1-9/30

West North Central

6/1-9/30

South Atlantic

1/1-12/31

East South Central

1/1-12/31

West South Central

1/1-12/31

Mountain

5/1-8/31

Pacific

1/1-12/31

Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE's energy use analysis for DPPP motors.

DOE seeks comment on the overall methodology and inputs used to estimate DPPP motor energy use. Specifically, DOE seeks feedback on the average daily operating hours and annual days of operation used in the energy use analysis.

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for DPPP motors. The effect of new energy conservation standards on individual consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and an increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following two metrics to measure consumer impacts:

• The LCC is the total consumer expense of an equipment over the life of that equipment, consisting of total installed cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the product.

• The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a more-efficient equipment through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.

For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the estimated efficiency distribution of DPPP motors in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for a given efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline product.

For each considered efficiency level in each equipment class, DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of consumers. As stated previously, DOE considered five DPPP motor markets: (1) single-family homes with a swimming pool; (2) indoor swimming pools in commercial applications; (3) single-family community swimming pools; (4) multi-family community swimming pools; and (5) outdoor swimming pools in commercial applications. As described in section IV.E.2, DOE developed consumer samples from various data sources including 2009 RECS, 2009 AHS, 2015 RECS and 2012 CBECS. For each consumer in the sample, DOE determined the energy consumption for the DPPP motor and the appropriate energy price. By developing a representative sample of consumers, the analysis captured the variability in energy consumption and energy prices associated with the use of DPPP motors.

Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost of the product—which includes MSPs, retailer and distributor markups, and sales taxes—and installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and maintenance costs, product lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE created distributions of values for equipment lifetime, discount rates, and sales taxes, with probabilities attached to each value, to account for their uncertainty and variability.

The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC and PBP relies on a Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input values from the probability distributions and DPPP motor user samples. For this rulemaking, the Monte Carlo approach is implemented in MS Excel together with the Crystal Ball

add-on.

The model calculated the LCC and PBP for equipment at each efficiency level for 10,000 consumers per simulation run. The analytical results include a distribution of 10,000 data points showing the range of LCC savings for a given efficiency level relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. In performing an iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation for a given consumer, equipment efficiency is chosen based on its probability. If the chosen equipment efficiency is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the standard level under consideration, the LCC and PBP calculation reveals that a consumer is not impacted by the standard level. By accounting for consumers who already purchase more-efficient equipment, DOE avoids overstating the potential benefits from increasing equipment efficiency.

Crystal Ball

is commercially-available software tool to facilitate the creation of these types of models by generating probability distributions and summarizing results within Excel, available at

www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/crystalball/overview/index.html

(last accessed July 6, 2021).

DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all consumers of DPPP motors as if each were to purchase a new equipment in the expected first full year of required compliance with new standards. New standards would apply to DPPP motor manufactured 2 years after the date on which any new or amended standard is published.

At this time, DOE estimates publication of a final rule in the second half of 2023. Therefore, for purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2026 as the first full year of compliance with any amended standards for DPPP motors.

In the Electric Motors Final Rule, DOE was informed by the statutorily mandated rulemaking schedule (see 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)) in providing a two-year lead time between the finalized rule and required compliance. 79 FR 30934, 30944 (May 29, 2014). For the purposes of this analysis, DOE is following the same 2-year lead time.

Table IV.10 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The

subsections that follow provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD and its appendices.

Table IV.10—Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis *

Inputs

Source/method

Equipment Cost

Derived by multiplying MSPs by distribution channel markups and sales tax, as appropriate. Used historical data to derive a price index to project equipment costs.

Installation Costs

Baseline installation cost determined using data from manufacturer gathered during the January 2017 Direct Final Rule.

Annual Energy Use

The daily energy consumption multiplied by the number of operating days per year.

Variability:

Based on the 2009 RECS, 2009 AHS, 2015 RECS and 2012 CBECS and other data sources.

Energy Prices

Electricity:

Based on EEI data for 2020.

Variability:

Regional energy prices determined for 9 census divisions for pool pump motors in individual single-family homes and 9 census divisions for pool pump motors in community and commercial pool pump motors.

Average and marginal prices used for electricity.

Energy Price Trends

Based on

AEO2021

price projections.

Repair and Maintenance Costs

Assumed no repair or maintenance on pool pump motors.

Equipment Lifetime

Average:

3.6 to 5 years depending on the DPPP applications.

Variability:

Based on Weibull distribution.

Discount Rates

Residential:

approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase the considered appliances, or might be affected indirectly. Primary data source was the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances.

Commercial:

Calculated as the weighted average cost of capital for entities purchasing pool pumps. Primary data source was Damodaran Online.

Compliance Date

2026 (first full year).

* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.

1. Equipment Cost

To calculate consumer equipment costs, DOE multiplied the MSPs developed in the engineering analysis by the distribution channel markups described previously (along with sales taxes). DOE used different markups for baseline equipment and higher-efficiency equipment, because DOE applies an incremental markup to the increase in MSP associated with higher-efficiency equipment.

To project an equipment price trend, DOE derived an inflation-adjusted index of the Producer Price Index (PPI) for integral and fractional horsepower motors and generators manufacturing over the period 1967-2020.

For fractional horsepower motors, the data shows a slightly downward trend before early 2000s, and then the price index increases to a small degree. For integral horsepower motors, the trend is mostly flat before early 2000s, and then the price index increases slightly. The trend is found to align with the copper and steel deflated price indices to some extent, as they are the major material used in small electric motors. Given the degree of uncertainty, DOE decided to use a constant price assumption as the default price factor index to project future DPPP motor prices. For dual-speed DPPP motors, however, DOE assumed that the timer control portion of the installation cost would be affected by price learning. DOE used PPI data on “Automatic environmental control manufacturing” between 1980 and 2020 to estimate the historic price trend of the electronic components in the timer control.

The regression performed as an exponential trend line fit results in an R-square of 0.86, with an annual price decline rate of 0.4 percent. For variable-speed DPPP motors, DOE assumed that the controls portion of the DPPP motor would be affected by price learning. Similarly, DOE used PPI data on “Semiconductors and related device manufacturing” between 1967 and 2020 to estimate the historic price trend of electronic components in the control.

The regression performed as an exponential trend line fit results in an R-square of 0.99, with an annual price decline rate of 6 percent.

Series ID PCU 3353123353121;

www.bls.gov/ppi/.

Automatic environmental control manufacturing PPI series ID: PCU334512334512;

www.bls.gov/ppi/.

Semiconductors and related device manufacturing PPI series ID: PCU334413334413;

www.bls.gov/ppi/.

DOE seeks comment on the approach and inputs used to project an equipment price trend for DPPP motors.

2. Installation Cost

Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous

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.