Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors

Federal RegisterJun 1, 2023

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007]

RIN 1904-AE63

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including electric motors. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) to periodically determine whether more-stringent, standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. In this direct final rule, DOE is adopting new and amended energy conservation standards for electric motors. It has determined that the new and amended energy conservation standards for these products would result in significant conservation of energy, and are technologically feasible and economically justified.

DATES:

The effective date of this rule is September 29, 2023, unless adverse comment is received by September 19, 2023. If adverse comments are received that DOE determines may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule, a timely withdrawal of this rule will be published in the

Federal Register

. If no such adverse comments are received, compliance with the new and amended standards established for electric motors in this direct final rule is required on and after June 1, 2027.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this rulemaking, which includes

Federal Register

notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, 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

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007.

The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

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

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

Mr. Matthew Ring, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2555; Email:

matthew.ring@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:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Direct Final 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 Electric Motors

3. Electric Motors Working Group Recommended Standard Levels

III. General Discussion

A. General Comments

B. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes

C. Test Procedure

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

2. Significance of Savings

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

b. 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

a. Motor Used as a Component of a Covered Product or Equipment

b. Air-Over Electric Motors

c. AC Induction Electric Motors Greater Than 500 Horsepower

d. AC Induction Inverter-Only and Synchronous Electric Motors

e. Submersible Electric Motors

2. Test Procedure and Metric

3. Equipment Classes

4. Technology Options

B. Screening Analysis

1. Screened-Out Technologies

2. Remaining Technologies

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Efficiency Analysis

a. Representative Units Analyzed

b. Baseline Efficiency

c. Higher Efficiency Levels

2. Cost Analysis

3. Cost-Efficiency Results

4. Scaling Methodology

D. Markups Analysis

E. Energy Use Analysis

1. Consumer Sample

2. Motor Input Power

3. Annual Operating Hours

4. Impact of Electric Motor Speed

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

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 Electric Motors Standards

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Standards

D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Information Quality

M. Congressional Notification

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Direct Final Rule

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as amended (“EPCA”),

authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C

of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317). Such equipment includes electric motors, the subject of this rulemaking.

All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.

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

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)) EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m))

In light of the above and under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing this direct final rule amending the energy conservation standards for electric motors. The amended standard levels in this document were submitted in a joint recommendation (the “November 2022 Joint Recommendation”)

by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (“ACEEE”), Appliance Standards Awareness Project (“ASAP”), National Electrical Manufacturers Association (“NEMA”), Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”), Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (“NEEA”), Pacific Gas & Electric Company (“PG&E”), San Diego Gas & Electric (“SDG&E”), and Southern California Edison (“SCE”) hereinafter referred to as “the Electric Motors Working Group.” In a letter comment submitted December 12, 2022, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (“NYSERDA”) expressed its support of the November 2022 Joint Recommendation and urged DOE to implement it in a timely manner. The November 2022 Joint Recommendation was preceded by the following DOE actions in this rulemaking and stakeholder comments thereon: May 2020 Early Assessment Review RFI (85 FR 30878 (May 21, 2020)); March 2022 Preliminary Analysis (87 FR 11650 (March 2, 2022)) and the Preliminary Analysis TSD (“March 2022 Prelim TSD”). See sections II.B.2 and II.B.3 for a detailed history of the current rulemaking and a discussion of the November 2022 Joint Recommendation.

Joint comment response to the published Notification of a webinar and availability of preliminary technical support document;

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0035.

After carefully considering the November 2022 Joint Recommendation, DOE determined that the recommendations contained therein are compliant with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i) for the issuance of a direct final rule. As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i), DOE is simultaneously publishing a NOPR proposing that the identical standard levels contained in this direct final rule be adopted. Consistent with the statute, DOE is providing a 110-day public comment period on the direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(B)) If DOE determines that any comments received provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), DOE will continue the rulemaking under the simultaneously published NOPR. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) See section II.A for more details on DOE's statutory authority.

This direct final rule documents DOE's analyses to objectively and independently evaluate the energy savings potential, technological feasibility, and economic justification of the standard levels recommended in the November 2022 Joint Recommendation, as per the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).

Ultimately, DOE found that the standard levels recommended in the November 2022 Joint Recommendation would result in significant energy savings and are technologically feasible and economically justified. Table I-1 through Table I-3 document the amended standards for electric motors. The amended standards correspond to the recommended trial standard level (“TSL”) 2 (as described in section V.A of this document) and are expressed in terms of nominal full-load efficiency. The amended standards are the same as those recommended by the Electric Motors Working Group. These standards apply to all products listed in through Table I-1 through Table I-3 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on June 1, 2027.

Table I-1—Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N, NE, NEY or NY Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors and Air-Over Electric Motors) at 60 Hz

Motor horsepower/

standard kilowatt

equivalent

Nominal full-load efficiency (%)

2 Pole

Enclosed

Open

4 Pole

Enclosed

Open

6 Pole

Enclosed

Open

8 Pole

Enclosed

Open

1/.75

77.0

85.5

82.5

75.5

1.5/1.1

84.0

86.5

87.5

86.5

78.5

77.0

2/1.5

85.5

86.5

88.5

87.5

84.0

86.5

3/2.2

86.5

85.5

89.5

88.5

85.5

87.5

5/3.7

88.5

86.5

89.5

86.5

88.5

7.5/5.5

89.5

88.5

91.7

91.0

90.2

86.5

89.5

10/7.5

90.2

89.5

91.7

91.0

91.7

89.5

90.2

15/11

91.0

90.2

92.4

93.0

91.7

89.5

90.2

20/15

91.0

93.0

91.7

92.4

90.2

91.0

25/18.5

91.7

93.6

93.0

90.2

91.0

30/22

91.7

93.6

94.1

93.0

93.6

91.7

40/30

92.4

94.1

91.7

50/37

93.0

94.5

94.1

92.4

60/45

93.6

95.0

94.5

92.4

93.0

75/55

93.6

95.4

95.0

94.5

93.6

94.1

100/75

95.0

94.5

96.2

95.8

94.5

95.0

125/90

95.4

94.5

96.2

95.8

95.0

150/110

95.4

94.5

96.2

95.8

95.0

200/150

95.8

95.4

96.5

96.2

95.8

95.4

95.0

250/186

96.2

95.4

96.5

96.2

95.4

300/224

95.8

95.4

96.2

95.8

350/261

95.8

95.4

96.2

95.8

400/298

95.8

96.2

95.8

450/336

95.8

96.2

500/373

95.8

96.2

550/410

95.8

96.2

600/447

95.8

96.2

650/485

95.8

96.2

700/522

95.8

96.2

750/559

95.8

96.2

Table I-2—Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N, NE, NEY or NY Standard Frame Size Air-Over Electric Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors) at 60 Hz

Motor horsepower/

standard kilowatt

equivalent

Nominal full-load efficiency (%)

2 Pole

Enclosed

Open

4 Pole

Enclosed

Open

6 Pole

Enclosed

Open

8 Pole

Enclosed

Open

1/.75

77.0

85.5

82.5

75.5

1.5/1.1

84.0

86.5

87.5

86.5

78.5

77.0

2/1.5

85.5

86.5

88.5

87.5

84.0

86.5

3/2.2

86.5

85.5

89.5

88.5

85.5

87.5

5/3.7

88.5

86.5

89.5

86.5

88.5

7.5/5.5

89.5

88.5

91.7

91.0

90.2

86.5

89.5

10/7.5

90.2

89.5

91.7

91.0

91.7

89.5

90.2

15/11

91.0

90.2

92.4

93.0

91.7

89.5

90.2

20/15

91.0

93.0

91.7

92.4

90.2

91.0

25/18.5

91.7

93.6

93.0

90.2

91.0

30/22

91.7

93.6

94.1

93.0

93.6

91.7

40/30

92.4

94.1

91.7

50/37

93.0

94.5

94.1

92.4

60/45

93.6

95.0

94.5

92.4

93.0

75/55

93.6

95.4

95.0

94.5

93.6

94.1

100/75

95.0

94.5

96.2

95.8

94.5

95.0

125/90

95.4

94.5

96.2

95.8

95.0

150/110

95.4

94.5

96.2

95.8

95.0

200/150

95.8

95.4

96.5

96.2

95.8

95.4

95.0

250/186

96.2

95.4

96.5

96.2

95.4

Table I-3—Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N, NE, NEY or NY Specialized Frame Size Air-Over Electric Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors) at 60 Hz

Motor horsepower/

standard kilowatt equivalent

Nominal full-load efficiency (%)

2 Pole

Enclosed

Open

4 Pole

Enclosed

Open

6 Pole

Enclosed

Open

8 Pole

Enclosed

Open

1/.75

74.0

82.5

80.0

74.0

1.5/1.1

82.5

84.0

85.5

84.0

77.0

75.5

2/1.5

84.0

86.5

85.5

82.5

85.5

3/2.2

85.5

84.0

87.5

86.5

87.5

86.5

84.0

86.5

5/3.7

87.5

85.5

87.5

85.5

87.5

7.5/5.5

88.5

87.5

89.5

88.5

89.5

88.5

85.5

88.5

10/7.5

89.5

88.5

89.5

90.2

15/11

90.2

89.5

91.0

20/15

90.2

91.0

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I-4 summarizes DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the adopted standards on consumers of electric 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 representative units, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of electric motors, which is estimated to be 13.6 years (see section V.B.1 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 IV.F.9 of this document).

Table I-4—Impacts of Adopted Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Electric Motors

Equipment class group

Representative

unit

Average LCC savings

(2021$)

Simple payback period

(years)

MEM, 1-500 hp, NEMA Design A and B

RU1

N/A

RU2

N/A

RU3

N/A

RU4

567.1

4.1

RU5

N/A

MEM, 501-750 hp, NEMA Design A and B above 500 hp

RU6

2,550.1

3.7

AO-MEM (Standard Frame Size)

RU7

57.6

4.0

RU8

472.4

1.6

RU9 *

RU10

930.7

4.9

AO-Polyphase (Specialized Frame Size)

RU11

49.9

4.1

The entry “N/A” means not applicable because there is no change in the standard at certain TSLs.

* No impact because there are no shipments below the efficiency level corresponding to TSL1 and TSL2 for RU9.

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted 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 (2023-2056). Using a real discount rate of 9.1 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of electric motors in the case without new and amended standards is $5,023 million in 2021 dollars. Under the adopted standards, DOE estimates the change in INPV to range from −6.6 percent to −6.0 percent, which is approximately −$333 million to −$303 million. In order to bring products into compliance with new and amended standards, it is estimated that industry will incur total conversion costs of $468 million.

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on manufacturers is described in sections IV.J and V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs

All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2021 dollars.

DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation standards for electric motors would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without new and amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for electric motors purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the new and amended standards (2027-2056) amount to 3.0 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads.

This represents a savings of 0.2 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.2 of this document.

The cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer benefits of the standards for electric motors ranges from $2.23 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $7.47 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV

expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment and installation costs for electric motors purchased in 2027-2056.

In addition, the adopted standards for electric motors are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the adopted standards will result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 91.69 million metric tons (“Mt”)

of carbon dioxide (“CO

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

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

”), 690.10 thousand tons of methane (“CH

”), 0.82 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (“N

O”), and 0.23 tons of mercury (“Hg”).

The estimated cumulative reduction in CO

emissions through 2030 amounts to 0.90 million Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions resulting from the annual electricity use of more than 0.15 million homes.

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 2022

(“

AEO2022

”).

AEO2022

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

AEO2022

assumptions that effect air pollutant emissions.

DOE estimates climate benefits from a reduction in greenhouse gases (GHG) 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 GHG (SC-GHG). DOE used SC-GHG values based on the interim values developed by an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG),

as discussed in section IV.K of this document. For presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are $3.14 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.

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.

DOE also estimated health benefits from SO

and NO

emissions reductions.

DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would be $1.76 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $5.72 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.

DOE estimated the monetized value of SO

and NO

emissions reductions associated with electricity savings using benefit per ton estimates from the scientific literature. See section IV.L.2 of this document for further discussion.

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.

Table I-5 summarizes the economic benefits and costs expected to result from the new and amended standards for electric 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-5—Summary of Economic Benefits and Costs of Adopted Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors

[TSL 2]

Billion $2021

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

8.8

Climate Benefits *

3.1

Health Benefits **

5.7

Total Benefits †

17.7

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ‡

1.4

Net Benefits

16.3

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

3.0

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)

3.1

Health Benefits **

1.8

Total Benefits †

7.8

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ‡

0.7

Net Benefits

7.1

Note:

This table presents the costs and benefits associated with product name shipped in 2027-2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2027 from the products shipped in 2027-2056.

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the 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 of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates.

** 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 and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. 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. See Table V-41 for net benefits using all four SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the

Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990

published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG).

‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.

The benefits and costs of the 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 the benefits of GHG and NO

and SO

emission reductions, 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 electric motors shipped in 2027-2056. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of electric motors shipped in 2027-2056.

To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2023, 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 2023. 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 adopted standards are shown in Table I-6. 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, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards adopted in this rule is $62.1 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $254.8 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $164.8 million in climate benefits, and $151.4 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $508.9 million per year.

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the standards is $71.0 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $463.6 million in reduced operating costs, $164.8 million in climate benefits, and $300.7 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $858.2 million per year.

Table I-6—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Standards for Electric Motors

[TSL 2]

Million 2021$/year

Primary

estimate

Low-net-

benefits

estimate

High-net-

benefits

estimate

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

463.6

405.1

542.9

Climate Benefits *

164.8

148.0

186.5

Health Benefits **

300.7

269.5

341.0

Total Benefits †

929.1

822.5

1070.4

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ‡

71.0

73.7

73.0

Net Benefits

858.2

748.8

997.4

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

254.8

225.3

293.6

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)

164.8

148.0

186.5

Health Benefits **

151.4

137.1

169.5

Total Benefits †

571.0

510.4

649.6

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ‡

62.1

63.8

63.9

Net Benefits

508.9

446.6

585.6

Note:

This table presents the costs and benefits associated with electric motors shipped in 2027-2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056.

* 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.

** 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.

Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990

published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG).

‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.

DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the adopted standards is described in sections IV.H, V.B.3 and V.C of this document.

D. Conclusion

DOE has determined that the November 2022 Joint Recommendation containing recommendations with respect to energy conservation standards for electric motors was submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A). After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and burdens, DOE has determined that the recommended standards are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), which contains the criteria for prescribing new or amended standards. Specifically, the Secretary has determined that the adoption of the recommended standards would result in the significant conservation of energy and is technologically feasible and economically justified. In determining whether the recommended standards are economically justified, the Secretary has determined that the benefits of the recommended standards exceed the burdens. Namely, the Secretary has concluded that the recommended standards, when considering the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions, and positive average LCC savings, would yield benefits outweighing the negative impacts on some consumers and on manufacturers, including the conversion costs that could result in a reduction in INPV for manufacturers.

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

and SO

reduction benefits, and a 3-percent discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the standards for electric motors is $62.1 million per year in increased equipment and installation costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $254.8 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $164.8 million in climate benefits and $151.4 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $508.9 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, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.

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 standards are projected to result in estimated national energy savings of 3.0 quads (FFC), the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 31 million homes. The NPV of consumer benefit for these projected energy savings is $2.2 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $7.5 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent. The cumulative emission reductions associated with these energy savings are 91.69 Mt of CO

35.12 thousand tons of SO

, 148.74 thousand tons of NO

, 690.10 thousand tons of CH

, 0.82 thousand tons of N

O, and 0.23 tons of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) is $3.14 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health benefits from reduced SO

and NO

emissions is $1.76 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $5.72 billion using a 3-percent discount rate. Based on these findings, DOE has determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this DFR are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed discussion of the basis for these tentative conclusions is contained in the remainder of this document and the accompanying TSD.

Under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing this direct final rule (“DFR”) amending the energy conservation standards for electric motors. Consistent with this authority, DOE is also publishing elsewhere in this

Federal Register

a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing standards that are identical to those contained in this direct final rule. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i).

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this direct final rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for electric 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 the energy efficiency of certain types of industrial equipment, including electric motors, the subject of this direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)). The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (“EPACT 1992”) (Pub. L. 102-486 (Oct. 24, 1992)) further amended EPCA by establishing energy conservation standards and test procedures for certain commercial and industrial electric motors that are manufactured alone or as a component of another piece of equipment. In December 2007, Congress enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA 2007”) (Pub. L. 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007). Section 313(b)(1) of EISA 2007 updated the energy conservation standards for those electric motors already covered by EPCA and established energy conservation standards for a larger scope of motors not previously covered by standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) EISA 2007 also revised certain statutory definitions related to electric motors.

See

EISA 2007, sec. 313 (amending statutory definitions related to electric motors at 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)).

For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A-1.

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) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption in limited instances 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. 6314(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 electric motors appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 431, subpart B, appendix B.

EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered equipment, including electric 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 products, including electric motors, if no test procedure has been established for the product, 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, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))

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

Id.

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

Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE authority to issue a final rule (

i.e.,

a “direct final rule” or “DFR”) establishing an energy conservation standard on receipt of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary, that contains recommendations with respect to an energy or water conservation standard that are in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the Secretary must also determine whether a jointly-submitted recommendation for an energy or water conservation standard satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable.

The direct final rule must be published simultaneously with a NOPR that proposes an energy or water conservation standard that is identical to the standard established in the direct final rule, and DOE must provide a public comment period of at least 110 days on this proposal. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) Based on the comments received during this period, the direct final rule will either become effective, or DOE will withdraw it not later than 120 days after its issuance if (1) one or more adverse comments is received, and (2) DOE determines that those comments, when viewed in light of the rulemaking record related to the direct final rule, provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), or any other applicable law. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) Receipt of an alternative joint recommendation may also trigger a DOE withdrawal of the direct final rule in the same manner.

Id.

After withdrawing a direct final rule, DOE must proceed with the notice of proposed rulemaking published simultaneously with the direct final rule and publish in the

Federal Register

the reasons why the direct final rule was withdrawn.

Id.

Typical of other rulemakings, it is the substance, rather than the quantity, of comments that will ultimately determine whether a direct final rule will be withdrawn. To this end, the substance of any adverse comment(s) received will be weighed against the anticipated benefits of the jointly-submitted recommendations and the likelihood that further consideration of the comment(s) would change the results of the rulemaking. DOE notes that, to the extent an adverse comment had been previously raised and addressed in the rulemaking proceeding, such a submission will not typically provide a basis for withdrawal of a direct final rule.

B. Background

1. Current Standards

In a final rule published on May 29, 2014, DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for electric motors manufactured on and after June 1, 2016. 79 FR 30934 (“May 2014 Final Rule”). These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.25 and are repeated in Table II-1, Table II-2, and Table II-3.

Table II-1—Energy Conservation Standards for NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors) at 60 H

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent

Nominal full-load efficiency (%)

2 Pole

Enclosed

Open

4 Pole

Enclosed

Open

6 Pole

Enclosed

Open

8 Pole

Enclosed

Open

1/.75

77.0

85.5

82.5

75.5

1.5/1.1

84.0

86.5

87.5

86.5

78.5

77.0

2/1.5

85.5

86.5

88.5

87.5

84.0

86.5

3/2.2

86.5

85.5

89.5

88.5

85.5

87.5

5/3.7

88.5

86.5

89.5

86.5

88.5

7.5/5.5

89.5

88.5

91.7

91.0

90.2

86.5

89.5

10/7.5

90.2

89.5

91.7

91.0

91.7

89.5

90.2

15/11

91.0

90.2

92.4

93.0

91.7

89.5

90.2

20/15

91.0

93.0

91.7

92.4

90.2

91.0

25/18.5

91.7

93.6

93.0

90.2

91.0

30/22

91.7

93.6

94.1

93.0

93.6

91.7

40/30

92.4

94.1

91.7

50/37

93.0

94.5

94.1

92.4

60/45

93.6

95.0

94.5

92.4

93.0

75/55

93.6

95.4

95.0

94.5

93.6

94.1

100/75

94.1

93.6

95.4

95.0

93.6

94.1

125/90

95.0

94.1

95.4

95.0

94.1

150/110

95.0

94.1

95.8

95.4

94.1

200/150

95.4

95.0

96.2

95.8

95.4

94.5

94.1

250/186

95.8

95.0

96.2

95.8

95.0

300/224

95.8

95.4

96.2

95.8

350/261

95.8

95.4

96.2

95.8

400/298

95.8

96.2

95.8

450/336

95.8

96.2

500/373

95.8

96.2

Table II-2—Energy Conservation Standards for NEMA Design C and IEC Design H Motors at 60 H

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent

Nominal full-load efficiency (%)

4 Pole

Enclosed

Open

6 Pole

Enclosed

Open

8 Pole

Enclosed

Open

1/.75

85.5

82.5

75.5

1.5/1.1

86.5

87.5

86.5

78.5

77.0

2/1.5

86.5

88.5

87.5

84.0

86.5

3/2.2

89.5

88.5

85.5

87.5

5/3.7

89.5

86.5

88.5

7.5/5.5

91.7

91.0

90.2

86.5

89.5

10/7.5

91.7

91.0

91.7

89.5

90.2

15/11

92.4

93.0

91.7

89.5

90.2

20/15

93.0

91.7

92.4

90.2

91.0

25/18.5

93.6

93.0

90.2

91.0

30/22

93.6

94.1

93.0

93.6

91.7

40/30

94.1

91.7

50/37

94.5

94.1

92.4

60/45

95.0

94.5

92.4

93.0

75/55

95.4

95.0

94.5

93.6

94.1

100/75

95.4

95.0

93.6

94.1

125/90

95.4

95.0

94.1

150/110

95.8

95.4

94.1

200/150

96.2

95.8

95.4

94.5

94.1

Table II-3—Energy Conservation Standards for Fire Pump Electric Motors At 60 H

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent

Nominal full-load efficiency (%)

2 Pole

Enclosed

Open

4 Pole

Enclosed

Open

6 Pole

Enclosed

Open

8 Pole

Enclosed

Open

1/.75

75.5

82.5

80.0

74.0

1.5/1.1

82.5

84.0

85.5

84.0

77.0

75.5

2/1.5

84.0

86.5

85.5

82.5

85.5

3/2.2

85.5

84.0

87.5

86.5

87.5

86.5

84.0

86.5

5/3.7

87.5

85.5

87.5

85.5

87.5

7.5/5.5

88.5

87.5

89.5

88.5

89.5

88.5

85.5

88.5

10/7.5

89.5

88.5

89.5

90.2

88.5

89.5

15/11

90.2

89.5

91.0

90.2

88.5

89.5

20/15

90.2

91.0

90.2

91.0

89.5

90.2

25/18.5

91.0

92.4

91.7

89.5

90.2

30/22

91.0

92.4

91.7

92.4

91.0

40/30

91.7

93.0

91.0

50/37

92.4

93.0

91.7

60/45

93.0

93.6

91.7

92.4

75/55

93.0

94.1

93.6

93.0

93.6

100/75

93.6

93.0

94.5

94.1

93.0

93.6

125/90

94.5

93.6

94.5

94.1

93.6

150/110

94.5

93.6

95.0

94.5

93.6

200/150

95.0

94.5

95.0

94.5

94.1

93.6

250/186

95.4

94.5

95.0

95.4

95.0

95.4

94.5

300/224

95.4

95.0

95.4

95.0

95.4

350/261

95.4

95.0

95.4

95.0

95.4

400/298

95.4

450/336

95.4

95.8

95.4

95.8

500/373

95.4

95.8

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Electric Motors

In the May 2020 Early Assessment Review RFI, DOE stated that it was initiating an early assessment review to determine whether any new or amended standards would satisfy the relevant requirements of EPCA for a new or amended energy conservation standard for electric motors and sought information related to that effort. Specifically, DOE sought data and information that could enable the agency to determine whether DOE should propose a “no new standard” determination because a more stringent standard: (1) would not result in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of the foregoing. 85 FR 30878, 30879.

On March 2, 2022, DOE published the preliminary analysis for electric motors. 87 FR 11650 (“March 2022 Preliminary Analysis”). In conjunction with the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE published a technical support document (“March 2022 Prelim TSD”) which presented the results of the in-depth technical analyses in the following areas: (1) Engineering; (2) markups to determine equipment price; (3) energy use; (4) life cycle cost (“LCC”) and payback period (“PBP”); and (5) national impacts. The results presented included the current scope of electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25, in addition to an expanded scope of motors, including electric motors above 500 horsepower, air-over electric motors, and small, non-small-electric-motor, electric motors (“SNEM”). See Chapter 2 of the March 2022 Prelim TSD. DOE requested comment on a number of topics regarding the analysis presented.

DOE received comments in response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis from the interested parties listed in Table II-4.

Table II-4—March 2022 Preliminary Analysis Written Comments

Commenter(s)

Reference in this final rule

Docket No.

Commenter type

ABB Motors and Mechanical Inc

ABB

Manufacturer.

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison

Electric Motors Working Group

35, 36

Working Group.

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Natural Resources Defense Council, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

Joint Advocates

Efficiency Organizations.

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers; Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute

AHAM and AHRI

Industry OEM Trade Association.

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute

AHRI

Industry OEM Trade Association.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison (SCE)

CA IOUs

Utilities.

Daikin Comfort Technologies Manufacturing Company, L.P

Daikin

Manufacturer.

Electrical Apparatus Service Association, Inc

EASA

International Trade Association.

Hydraulics Institute

Industry Pump Trade Association.

Lennox International

Lennox

Manufacturer.

Metglas, Inc

Metglas

Materials supplier.

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

NEEA

Non-profit organization.

National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), the Medical Imaging Technology Alliance (MITA), the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI), Home Ventilating Institute (HVI) and the Power Tool Institute (PTI)

Joint Industry Stakeholders

Industry Trade Associations.

National Electrical Manufacturers Association

NEMA

Industry Trade Association.

By letter dated on November 15, 2022, DOE received a joint recommendation for energy conservation standards for electric motors (“November 2022 Joint Recommendation”). The November 2022 Joint Recommendation represented the motors industry, energy efficiency organizations and utilities (collectively, “the Electric Motors Working Group”).

The November 2022 Joint Recommendation addressed energy conservation standards for medium electric motors that are 1-750 hp and polyphase, and air-over medium electric motors. On December 9, 2022, DOE received a supplemental letter to the November 2022 Joint Recommendation from the Electric Motors Working Group. The supplemental letter provided additional guidance on the recommended levels for open medium electric motors rated 100 hp to 250 hp, and a recommended compliance date for standards presented in the November 2022 Joint Recommendation.

The members of the Electric Motors Working Group included ACEEE, ASAP, NEMA, NRDC, NEEA, PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE.

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.

The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for electric motors. (Docket NO EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007, which is maintained at

www.regulations.gov

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

3. Electric Motors Working Group Recommended Standard Levels

This section summarizes the standard levels recommended in the November 2022 Joint Recommendation and supplement by the Electric Motors Working Group and the subsequent procedural steps taken by DOE. Further discussion on scope is provided in section III.B of this document.

Recommendation #1:

For NEMA Design A/B medium electric motors (“MEM”) rated up to 500 hp at 60Hz, standard levels as follows:

a. Less than 100 hp—remain at Premium LevelIE3 level

IE3 efficiency level refers to the 60 Hz efficiency values in Table 8 of IEC 60034-30-1:2014.

b. 100-250 hp—increase to Super Premium/IE4 level,

aligning with European Union (“EU”) Ecodesign Directive 2019/1781 which requires IE4 levels for 75-200 kW motors.

IE4 efficiency level refers to the 60 Hz efficiency values in Table 10 of IEC 60034-30-1:2014.

c. Over 250 and up to 500 hp—remain at Premium Level/IE3 level

Separately, because the efficiencies for the IE4 level in IEC 60034-30-1:2014 do not distinguish between enclosed and open motors, the supplemental letter to the November 2022 Joint Recommendation recommended efficiencies for open motors based on the efficiencies for enclosed motors in the IEC standard. The supplemental letter stated that for some horsepower ratings, open motors have different minimum efficiencies which account for the different frame size at a given horsepower rating.

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent

Nominal full-load efficiency (%)

2 Pole

Enclosed

Open

4 Pole

Enclosed

Open

6 Pole

Enclosed

Open

8 Pole

Enclosed

Open

100/75

95.0

94.5

96.2

95.8

94.5

95.0

125/90

95.4

94.5

96.2

95.8

95.0

150/110

95.4

94.5

96.2

95.8

95.0

200/150

95.8

95.4

96.5

96.2

95.8

95.4

95.0

250/186

96.2

95.4

96.5

96.2

95.4

Premium efficiency level refers to the efficiency values in NEMA MG 1-2016 Tables 12-12. The current standards for NEMA Design A/B in Table 5 of 10 CFR 431.25 are at Premium efficiency. Accordingly, in this direct final rule, pursuant to the November 22 Joint Recommendation, the energy conservation standards for NEMA Design A/B medium electric motors (“MEM”) less than 100 hp and between 250 to 500 hp, remain at the current levels in 10 CFR 430.25. However, the energy conservation standards for such MEMs between 100 and 250 hp increase to the Super Premium/IE4 Level, which approximately represents a 20 percent reduction of losses over Premium/IE3. Table II-4 presents a comparison of the current and updated standards for MEMs between 100 and 250 hp.

Table II-4—Crosswalk of Current and New Efficiency Standards for MEMs 100-250 hp

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent

Nominal full-load efficiency (%)

2 Pole

Enclosed

Open

4 Pole

Enclosed

Open

6 Pole

Enclosed

Open

8 Pole

Enclosed

Open

Current Standards in Table 5 of 10 CFR 431.25

100/75

94.1

93.6

95.4

95.0

93.6

94.1

125/90

95.0

94.1

95.4

95.0

94.1

150/110

95.0

94.1

95.8

95.4

94.1

200/150

95.4

95.0

96.2

95.8

95.4

94.5

94.1

250/186

95.8

95.0

96.2

95.8

95.0

Updated Standards in this DFR, pursuant to the November 2022 Joint Recommendation

100/75

95.0

94.5

96.2

95.8

94.5

95.0

125/90

95.4

94.5

96.2

95.8

95.0

150/110

95.4

94.5

96.2

95.8

95.0

200/150

95.8

95.4

96.5

96.2

95.8

95.4

95.0

250/186

96.2

95.4

96.5

96.2

95.4

Recommendation #2:

For medium electric motors rated over 500 hp and up to 750 hp at 60 Hz, standard levels that correspond to IE3 levels for open and enclosed electric motors.

The current energy conservation standards for MEMs do not contain standards for MEMs with greater than 500 hp. However, in the May 2014 Final Rule, DOE noted that it may consider future regulation of motor types not regulated in the May 2014 Final Rule, including motors greater than 500 hp.

See

79 FR 30946. As discussed more in section III.B of this document, DOE recently expanded the electric motor test procedure to include motors between 500 hp and 750 hp. Pursuant to the November 2022 Joint Recommendation, this direct final rule establishes standards for motors between 500 and 750 hp at levels consistent with IE3 levels for open and enclosed electric motors.

Recommendation #3:

For air-over

medium electric motors (“AO-MEMs”), establish two equipment classes and corresponding energy conservation standards for AO MEMs: AO-MEMs in standard NEMA frame sizes and air-over motors in specialized NEMA frame sizes, with standard levels as follows:

Air-over electric motor

means an electric motor that does not reach thermal equilibrium (

i.e.,

thermal stability), during a rated load temperature test according to section 2 of appendix B, without the application of forced cooling by a free flow of air from an external device not mechanically connected to the motor within the motor enclosure. 10 CFR 430.12.

a. Standard Frame Size AO-MEMs: For AO MEMs sold in standard NEMA frame sizes aligned with NEMA MG 1-2016, Table 13.2 (open motors) and Table 13.3 (enclosed motors), standard levels consistent with Recommendation #1 (

i.e.,

standard levels for NEMA MG 1 12-12 levels for motors rated less than 100 hp, IE4 levels for motors rated 100 to 250 hp, and MG 1 12-12 levels for motors rated over 250 hp).

b. Specialized Frame Size air-over electric motors: For air-over electric motors sold in smaller, specialized NEMA frame sizes, standard levels consistent with current fire pump efficiency levels (in Table 7 of 10 CFR 431.25), but with constraint on frame size as follows:

HP/kW

2 Pole

(maximum NEMA

frame diameter)

Enclosed

Open

4 Pole

(maximum NEMA

frame diameter)

Enclosed

Open

6 Pole

(maximum NEMA

frame diameter)

Enclosed

Open

8 Pole

(maximum NEMA

frame diameter)

Enclosed

Open

1/.75

74 (48)

82.5 (48)

80 (48)

74 (140)

1.5/1.1

82.5 (48)

84 (48)

85.5 (140)

84 (140)

77 (140)

75.5 (140)

2/1.5

84 (48)

86.5 (140)

85.5 (140)

82.5 (180)

85.5 (180)

3/2.2

85.5 (140)

84 (48)

87.5 (140)

86.5 (140)

87.5 (180)

86.5 (180)

84 (180)

86.5 (180)

5/3.7

87.5 (140)

85.5 (140)

87.5 (140)

87.5 (180)

85.5 (210)

87.5 (210)

7.5/5.5

88.5 (180)

87.5 (140)

89.5 (180)

88.5 (180)

89.5 (210)

88.5 (210)

85.5 (210)

88.5 (210)

10/7.5

89.5 (180)

88.5 (180)

89.5 (180)

89.5 (210)

90.2 (210)

15/11

90.2 (210)

89.5 (180)

91 (210)

20/15

90.2 (210)

91 (210)

The current energy conservation standard for electric motors in 10 CFR 430.25 exempt air-over electric motors from the standards. 10 CFR 430.25(l). In the May 2014 Final Rule, DOE explained that this exemption was due to a lack of information at that time to support the establishment of a test method for air-over electric motors.

See

79 FR 30946; 78 FR 38474. However, as discussed more in section III.B, DOE recently expanded the electric motor test procedure to include AO-MEMs. Accordingly, pursuant to the November 2022 Joint Recommendation, this direct final rule establishes 2 equipment classes for AO-MEMs (AO-MEMs in standard NEMA frame sizes, and those in specialized NEMA frame sizes) and corresponding standards based on the November 2022 Joint Recommendation. However, based on DOE's review of the market, DOE only observed AO-MEMs up to 250 hp. As such, in this direct final rule, DOE is only establishing standards for AO-MEMs up to 250 hp.

Recommendation #4:

For synchronous and inverter-only electric motors, a recommendation to forego establishing standards until an updated test procedure is adopted that better captures the energy-saving benefits of these motors.

The current energy conservation standard for electric motors in 10 CFR 430.25 exempts inverter-only electric motors from the standards. 10 CFR 431.25(l). Similarly, the current energy conservation standards apply to AC induction motors, which do not include synchronous motors.

Accordingly, following this recommendation, this direct final rule continues to exempt these types of motors from the energy conservation standards.

In the May 2014 Final Rule, DOE chose not to establish standards for inverter-only electric motors because of the then absence of a reliable and repeatable method to test them for efficiency, but DOE noted that if a test procedure became available, DOE may consider setting standards for inverter-only electric motors at that time. 79 FR 30945. DOE recently expanded the electric motor test procedure to include inverter-only and synchronous electric motors.

See

87 FR 63600-63605. Similarly, DOE expanded the scope of the test procedure to include synchronous electric motors. 87 FR 63601-63605. However, pursuant to the November 2022 Joint Recommendation, DOE is not separately regulating inverter-only and synchronous electric motors in this direct final rule. Rather, DOE is only considering the substitution effects of switching to these electric motors if higher standards for MEMs are established. More discussion on inverter-only and synchronous electric motors may be found in sections IV.A and F of this document.

Recommendation #5:

For the recommended energy conservation standard levels, a compliance date of four (4) years from the date of publication of the final rule.

In the May 2014 Final Rule, DOE provided a 2-year compliance lead time based on the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(4)(B). See 79 FR 30944. DOE notes that EPCA generally requires a 3-year compliance lead time from the effective date of an amended standard under EPCA's 6-year lookback provisions. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) However, EPCA's direct final rule provision (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)) conveys upon DOE a substantive grant of rulemaking authority, thereby allowing stakeholders to negotiate over more aspects of the energy or water conservation standard, so long as the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) are met.

See

86 FR 70892, 70915. In the past, DOE has looked to joint recommendations to fill in necessary details that EPCA does not place upon the direct final rule process, including compliance periods. DOE's direct final rules have frequently utilized alternative compliance dates, while continuing to ensure that the standards in these rules represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified.

After carefully considering the November 2022 Joint Recommendation and supplement for amending the energy conservation standards for electric motors submitted by the Electric Motors Working Group, DOE has determined that these recommendations are in accordance with the statutory requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) for the issuance of a direct final rule.

More specifically, these recommendations comprise a statement submitted by interested persons who are fairly representative of relevant points of view on this matter. In appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430 (“Appendix A”), DOE explained that to be “fairly representative of relevant points of view,” the group submitting a joint statement must, where appropriate, include larger concerns and small business in the regulated industry/manufacturer community, energy advocates, energy utilities, consumers, and States. However, it will be necessary to evaluate the meaning of “fairly representative” on a case-by-case basis, subject to the circumstances of a particular rulemaking, to determine whether fewer or additional parties must be part of a joint statement in order to be “fairly representative of relevant points of view.” Section 10 of appendix A. In reaching this determination, DOE took into consideration the fact that the Joint Recommendation was signed and submitted by a broad cross-section of interests, including a manufacturers' trade association, environmental and energy-efficiency advocacy organizations, and electric utility companies. NYSERDA, a state organization, also submitted a letter supporting the Joint Recommendation. DOE notes that these organizations include the relevant points of view specifically identified by Congress: manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A))

DOE also evaluated whether the recommendation satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as applicable. In making this determination, DOE conducted an analysis to evaluate whether the potential energy conservation standards under consideration achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically

feasible and economically justified and result in significant energy conservation. The evaluation is the same comprehensive approach that DOE typically conducts whenever it considers potential energy conservation standards for a given type of product or equipment.

Upon review, the Secretary determined that the November 2022 Joint Recommendation comports with the standard-setting criteria set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A). Accordingly, the Electric Motors Working Group recommended efficiency levels were included as the “recommended TSL” for electric motors (see section V.A for description of all of the considered TSLs). The details regarding how the Electric Motors Working Group-recommended TSLs comply with the standard-setting criteria are discussed and demonstrated in the relevant sections throughout this document.

In sum, as the relevant criteria under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) have been satisfied, the Secretary has determined that it is appropriate to adopt the Electric Motors Working Group-recommended amended energy conservation standards for Electric Motors through this direct final rule. Also, in accordance with the provisions described in section II.A of this document, DOE is simultaneously publishing a NOPR proposing that the identical standard levels contained in this direct final rule be adopted.

III. General Discussion

A. General Comments

This section summarizes general comments received from interested parties regarding rulemaking timing and process for the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis.

Lennox commented that long-standing DOE practice recognizes the benefit of establishing an appropriate test procedure before undertaking an energy conservation standards rulemaking. Lennox commented that the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis was issued in February 2022 while comments on the test procedure NOPR were due. As such, Lennox suggested that DOE cutting corners on the regulatory process undermines the accuracy and reliability of data contained in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD. (Lennox, No. 29 at p. 4-5) The Joint Industry Stakeholders commented that the process DOE is using for the electric motor test procedure and standards undermines the value of early stakeholder engagement. Specifically, they claimed that DOE is: (1) shortening comment periods; (2) overlapping comment periods; and (3) condensing the rulemaking process. The Joint Industry Stakeholders noted that DOE published the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis two months after issuing a proposed test procedure. Furthermore, the Joint Industry Stakeholders commented that there were numerous comments challenging DOE's proposed test procedure, which resulted in significant changes. They commented that manufacturers and others lack enough time with the proposed test procedure to fully understand or comment upon its impact on potential energy conservation standards, especially for SNEMs where they stated that DOE has done no testing. The Joint Industry Stakeholders commented that they recognize and support DOE's interest in moving rulemakings forward, especially rules such as the electric motor standards and test procedures, which have missed statutory deadlines. However, they stated that DOE should have released the proposed test procedure earlier so that DOE could receive feedback on the test procedure before proceeding with its resource-intensive preliminary analysis. (Joint Industry Stakeholders, No. 23 at p. 9-10)

Appendix A establishes procedures, interpretations, and policies to guide DOE in the consideration and promulgation of new or revised appliance energy conservation standards and test procedures under EPCA. DOE has maintained the process and timeline for the electric motors test procedure and energy conservation standards based on appendix A.

Appendix A requires that DOE provide for early input from stakeholders so that the initiation and direction of rulemaking is informed by comments from interested parties. Appendix A, section 1(a). As discussed in section II.B.2 of this document, DOE provided opportunity for comment for these energy conservation standards through the May 2020 Early Assessment Review RFI, which had a 30-day comment period, and the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, which had a 60-day comment period. Further, DOE provided multiple opportunities for stakeholder comments and inputs through the test procedure rulemaking process; DOE published a request for information (85 FR 34111; June 3, 2020 “June 2020 RFI”), which had a 45-day comment period, and DOE published a test procedure NOPR (86 FR 71710; December 17, 2021 “December 2021 NOPR”), which originally had a 60-day comment period, which was extended to a 75-day comment period. 87 FR 6436. Even though some of these comment periods overlapped to some extent, DOE has nonetheless provided ample opportunity for stakeholder review and comments and has considered such comments and recommendations in this notice.

Appendix A also generally requires that test procedure rulemakings establishing methodologies used to evaluate proposed energy conservation standards will be finalized prior to publication of a NOPR proposing new or amended energy conservation standards. Appendix A, section 8(d)(1). Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), published elsewhere in the

Federal Register

is a NOPR accompanying this direct final rule, which proposes standards identical to those in this direct final rule. On October 19, 2022, DOE published the electric motor test procedure final rule. (“October 2022 Final Rule”). Thus, in accordance with appendix A section 8(d)(1), the October 2022 Final Rule prior was published 180 days prior to publication of this energy conservations standards direct final rule and the accompanying NOPR.

B. Scope of Coverage and 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 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))

This document covers certain equipment meeting the definition of electric motors as defined in 10 CFR 431.12. Specifically, the definition for “electric motor” is “a machine that converts electrical power into rotational mechanical power.”

Id.

Electric motors are used in a wide range of applications in commercial building and in the industrial sector (

e.g.,

chemicals, primary metals, food, paper, plastic/rubber, petroleum refining, and wastewater), including: fans, compressors, pumps, material handling equipment, and material processing equipment.

Currently, DOE regulates medium electric motors (“MEMs”) falling into the NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, NEMA Design C, and fire pump motor categories and those electric motors that meet the criteria specified at 10 CFR 431.25(g). 10 CFR 431.25(h)-(j). Section

431.25(g) specifies that the relevant standards apply only to electric motors, including partial electric motors, that satisfy the following criteria:

(1) Are single-speed, induction motors;

(2) Are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC)

(3) Contain a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or cage (IEC) rotor;

(4) Operate on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz sinusoidal line power;

(5) Are rated 600 volts or less;

(6) Have a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration;

(7) Are built in a three-digit or four-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), including those designs between two consecutive NEMA frame sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent);

(8) Produce at least one horsepower (0.746 kW) but not greater than 500 horsepower (373 kW), and

(9) Meet all of the performance requirements of one of the following motor types: A NEMA Design A, B, or C motor or an IEC Design N, NE, NEY, NY or H, HE, HEY, HYmotor.

DOE added the “E” and “Y” designations for IEC Design motors into § 431.25(g) in the October 2022 Final Rule. 87 FR 63596, 636597, 6306.

10 CFR 431.25(g).

The definitions for NEMA Design A motors, NEMA Design B motors, NEMA Design C motors, fire pump electric motors, IEC Design N motor and IEC Design H motor, as well as “E” and “Y” designated IEC Design motors, are codified in 10 CFR 431.12. DOE has also currently exempted certain categories of motors from standards. The exemptions are as follows:

(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.

10 CFR 431.25(l)

On October 19, 2022, DOE published the electric motors test procedure final rule. 87 FR 63588 (“October 2022 Final Rule”). As part of the October 2022 Final Rule, DOE expanded the test procedure scope to additional categories of electric motors that currently do not have energy conservation standards. 87 FR 63588, 63593-63606. The expanded test procedure scope included the following:

• Electric motors having a rated horsepower above 500 and up to 750 hp that meets the criteria listed at § 431.25(g), with the exception of criteria § 431.25(g)(8) to air-over electric motors (“AO-MEMs”), and inverter-only electric motors;

• Small, non-Small-Electric Motor, Electric Motors (“SNEM”), which:

(a) Is not a small electric motor, as defined at § 431.442 and is not a dedicated pool pump motors as defined at § 431.483;

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

(c) Operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; or is used with an inverter that operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power;

(d) Is rated for 600 volts or less;

(e) Is a single-speed induction motor capable of operating without an inverter or is an inverter-only electric motor;

(f) Produces a rated motor horsepower greater than or equal to 0.25 horsepower (0.18 kW); and

(g) Is built in the following frame sizes: any two-, or three-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC equivalent) if the motor operates on single-phase power; any two-, or three-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC equivalent) if the motor operates on polyphase power, and has a rated motor horsepower less than 1 horsepower (0.75 kW); or a two-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), if the motor operates on polyphase power, has a rated motor horsepower equal to or greater than 1 horsepower (0.75 kW), and is not an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent).

• SNEMs that are air-over electric motors (“AO-SNEMs”) and inverter-only electric motors;

• Synchronous electric motors, which:

(a) Is not a dedicated pool pump motor as defined at § 431.483 or is not an air-over electric motor;

(b) Is a synchronous electric motor;

(d) Is rated 600 volts or less; and

(e) Produces at least 0.25 hp (0.18 kW) but not greater than 750 hp (559 kW).

• Synchronous electric motors that are inverter-only electric motors.

In the October 2022 Final Rule, DOE noted that, for these motors newly included within the scope of the test procedure for which there was no established energy conservation standard, manufacturers would not be required to use the test procedure to certify these motors to DOE until such time as a standard is established. 87 FR 63591.

Further, the October 2022 Final Rule continued to exclude the following categories of electric motors:

However, manufacturers making voluntary representations respecting the energy consumption or cost of energy consumed by such motors are required to use the DOE test procedure for making such representations beginning 180 days following publication of the October 2022 Final Rule.

Id.

• inverter-only electric motors that are air-over electric motors;

• component sets of an electric motor;

• liquid-cooled electric motors; and

• submersible electric motors.

In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE analyzed the additional motors now included within the scope of the test procedure after the October 2022 Final Rule.

See sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.3.2 of the March 2022 Prelim TSD. This included MEMs from 1-500 hp, AO-MEMs, SNEMs, and AO-SNEMs. However, consistent with the November 2022 Joint Recommendation, this direct final rule establishes new and amended standards for only a portion of the scope analyzed in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis and included within the scope of the test procedure after the October 2022 Final Rule. Specifically, in this direct final rule, DOE is only amending standards for certain MEMs and establishing new standards for AO-MEMs and certain air-over polyphase motors. DOE may address in a future rulemaking energy conservation standards for electric motor equipment classes not addressed in this direct final rule. Table III-1 summarizes the equipment class groups (“ECG”) DOE established pursuant to the November 2022 Joint Recommendation and analyzed in this direct final rule. Further discussion on equipment classes is provided in section IV.A.3 of this document.

At the time, most of these motors had been proposed for inclusion in the scope of the test procedure in the December 2021 Test Procedure NOPR. 86 FR 71710.

Table III-1—Equipment Class Groups Considered

ECG

ECG motor design type

Motor

topology

Horsepower

rating

Pole

configuration

Enclosure

MEM 1-500 hp, NEMA Design A & B

Polyphase

1-500

2, 4, 6, 8

Open.

Enclosed.

MEM 501-750 hp, NEMA Design A & B

Polyphase

501-750

2, 4

Open.

Enclosed.

AO-MEM (Standard Frame Size)

Polyphase

1-250

2, 4, 6, 8

Open.

Enclosed.

AO-Polyphase (Specialized Frame Size)

Polyphase

1-20

2, 4, 6, 8

Open.

Enclosed.

As described in section II.B.3 of this document, this direct final rule establishes new equipment classes for AO-MEMs, AO-polyphase motors, and MEMs between 500 and 750 hp, and amends the standards for the 100-250 hp MEMs equipment classes.

C. 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. On October 19, 2022, DOE published the electric motor test procedure final rule. 87 FR 63588 (“October 2022 Final Rule”). As described previously, the October 2022 Final Rule expanded the types of motors included within the scope of the test procedure, including the new classes of electric motors for which DOE is establishing energy conservation standards in this final rule. DOE's test procedures for electric motors are currently prescribed at appendix B to subpart B of 10 CFR part 431 (“appendix B”).

DOE's energy conservation standards for electric motors are currently prescribed at 10 CFR 431.25. DOE's current energy conservation standards for electric motors are expressed in terms of nominal full-load efficiency.

D. 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. 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(c)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) (“Appendix A”).

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. Section 7(b)(2)-(5) of appendix A. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for electric motors, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the direct final rule technical support document (“TSD”).

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

When DOE adopts 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 electric 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 rulemaking are described in section III.C of this direct final rule and in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

For each trial standard level (“TSL”), DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to electric motors purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the first year of compliance with the amended standards (2027-2056).

The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of electric motors purchased in the 30-year analysis 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 an equipment would likely evolve in the absence of new and amended energy conservation standards.

Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each product class. The TSLs considered for this direct final rule are described in section V.A of this document. DOE also presents 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 electric 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. 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, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively constant demand.

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions, health benefits, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, among other factors.

As stated, the standard levels adopted in this direct final rule are projected to result in national energy savings of 3.0 quads, the equivalent of the electricity use of 31 million homes in one year. Based on the amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in emissions, and need to confront the global climate crisis, DOE has determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this direct final rule are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

F. 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 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 an equipment(including its installation) and the operating costs (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 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 IV.H of this document, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet model 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 adopted in this document would not reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration in this 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 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 standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60

days of the publication of a 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)) To assist the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in making such a determination, DOE transmitted copies of its proposed rule and the NOPR TSD to the Attorney General for review, with a request that the DOJ provide its determination on this issue. In its assessment letter responding to DOE, DOJ concluded that the energy conservation standards for electric motors are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition. DOE is publishing the Attorney General's assessment at the end of this direct final rule.

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 adopted 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 adopted 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.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 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 IV.F of this direct final rule.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with regards to electric motors. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses. In this direct final rule, DOE is only addressing comments and analysis specific to the scope of motors provided in the November 2022 Joint Recommendation. As such, any analysis and comments related to SNEMs and AO-SNEMs will be addressed in a separate NOPR.

DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the standards considered 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 rulemaking:

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007.

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

Annual Energy Outlook

(“

AEO

”) 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 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 electric motors. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the direct final rule TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.

1. Scope of Coverage

This document covers equipment meeting the definition of electric motors as defined in 10 CFR 431.12. Specifically, the definition for “electric motor” is “a machine that converts electrical power into rotational mechanical power.”

Id.

In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE presented analysis for the current scope of electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25, as well as expanded scope proposed in the December 2021 test procedure NOPR, which included air-over electric motors and SNEMs. See Chapter 2 of the March 2022 Prelim TSD. Since, DOE has published the October 2022 Final Rule, which expanded the scope of the test procedures to include such motors, as discussed in detail in section III.B of this direct final rule.

In response to the scope presented in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE received a number of comments, which are discussed in the subsections

below. In this direct final rule, DOE is only addressing comments and analysis specific to the scope of motors provided in the November 2022 Joint Recommendation, which includes MEMs and polyphase air-over electric motors.

a. Motor Used as a Component of a Covered Product or Equipment

Generally, Lennox noted that DOE should apply a finished-product approach to energy efficiency regulations. Specifically, Lennox commented that system performance standards of HVAC-R products include the energy used by the electric motors, and that increasing the stringency of component-level regulation does not have any efficiency benefit when the ultimate efficiency is measured at the systems level and manufacturers adjust other equipment parameters based on the overall system level of performance, offsetting increased motor costs by reducing other component costs and efficiencies to mitigate adverse financial impacts on consumers.

Lennox stated that mandating additional testing and certification of motors used in already-regulated HVAC-R products would not save energy and create needless testing, paperwork, and record-keeping requirements that raise consumer costs. (Lennox, No. 29 at p. 2-3) Lennox elaborated that the HVAC-R standards in place will drive more efficient design of relevant components, including motors, without unnecessary further regulation of components, and that the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis has not adequately accounted for these cumulative manufacturer burdens.

(Lennox, No. 29 at p. 6)

Lennox made these comments in the context of air-over and inverter-only motors included within HVACR products, requesting that DOE maintain the exemptions to the energy conservation standards for these motors contained in 10 CFR 431.25(l). (Lennox, No. 29 at p. 2) DOE addresses Lennox's comments regarding the exemption for these specific motors in sections IV.1.b and d of this document.

Lennox also commented that DOE should continue exempting SEMs used as a component in covered equipment (specifically, HVACR equipment) from the energy conservation standards for electric motors, and that including SNEMs in the energy conversation standards for electric motors would circumvent Congressional intent to exempt from regulation small electric motors that are components of EPCA covered products and covered equipment. (Lennox, No. 29 at p. 3). As noted previously, DOE is not including SNEMs within the scope of this direct final rule. SNEMs may be addressed in a future rulemaking, and DOE will consider such comments in that rulemaking.

AHAM and AHRI strongly opposed DOE's plan to expand the existing scope of coverage of electric motors to include motors destined for particular applications in finished goods, and instead recommended that DOE should apply a finished-product approach to energy efficiency regulations. (AHAM, AHRI, No. 25 at p. 7-9) NEMA commented that further elevations to component efficiencies or changes to scope for electric motors energy conservation standards will lead to diminishing returns, and are therefore less practical, because previous electric motors rulemakings adequately addressed concerns for “application and performance of existing equipment” to the maximum extent practical. NEMA stated that DOE should allow application-dependent solutions like power drive systems to take over from minimum energy conservation standards as the most-appropriate and best-fit market transformation vehicles, but they must be selected and installed with due regard for their application-specific nature, which calls for “other than regulatory action” on the part of DOE. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 26)

Daikin commented that they do not support the regulation of electric motors that are components of a covered equipment such as HVAC equipment. Daikin added that regulating embedded components creates both apparent and likely unforeseen issues. For HVAC manufacturers, Daikin commented that regulating components reduces design flexibility and may not result in optimal design for overall system performance. Daikin stated that standards for HVAC equipment are regularly evaluated by DOE to ensure regulations are aligned with the most cost-effective product for consumers, and HVAC manufacturers generally respond by producing a class of equipment at these federal minimum efficiency levels. As such, Daikin stated that regulating an embedded component will not improve the overall product's energy efficiency. (Daikin, No. 32 at p. 1)

On the other hand, the Joint Advocates commented in support of regulating electric motors that are components of covered equipment. The Joint Advocates stated that there is value in regulating the motors separately. The Joint Advocates agreed with DOE that different motor efficiency levels may be cost-effective for different covered products, and the presence of electric motors in covered equipment does not preclude the possibility of cost-effective energy standards for electric motors individually. Furthermore, the Joint Advocates commented that absent standards for motors that are used in covered equipment, consumers may get stuck with inefficient replacement motors. Finally, the Joint Advocates commented that motors used in covered equipment are often purchased by the original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) from a motor manufacturer, and thus, exempting motors used in covered equipment would likely create enforcement challenges since it would be difficult to determine a given motor's end use application. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at p. 5)

DOE understands that the majority of the concerns summarized in this section and provided separately by commenters stems from DOE potentially regulating SNEMs and AO-SNEMs. This direct final rule does not address SNEMs or AO-SNEMs as part of the scope. DOE may consider in a future rulemaking energy conservation standards for electric motor equipment classes not addressed in this direct final rule, including SNEMs and AO-SNEMs. If so, DOE will address these comments and concerns as part of any future rulemaking. As such, in this final rule, DOE is generally addressing comments regarding electric motors scope and what DOE has the authority to regulate.

As discussed in the October 2022 Final Rule, EPCA, as amended through EISA 2007, provides DOE with the authority to regulate the expanded scope of motors addressed in this rule. 87 FR 63588, 63596. Before the enactment of EISA 2007, EPCA defined the term “electric motor” as any motor that is a general purpose T-frame, single-speed, foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage induction motor of the NEMA, Design A and B, continuous rated, operating on 230/460 volts and constant 60 Hertz line power as defined in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987. (

See

42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) (2006)) Section 313(a)(2) of EISA 2007 removed that definition and the prior limits that narrowly defined what types of motors would be considered as electric motors. In its place, EISA 2007 inserted a new “Electric motors” heading, and created two new subtypes of electric motors: General purpose electric motor (subtype I) and general purpose electric motor (subtype II). (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)-(B) (2011)) In addition, section 313(b)(2) of EISA 2007 established energy conservation standards for four types of electric motors: general purpose electric motors (subtype I) (

i.e.,

subtype I motors) with a power rating of 1 to 200 horsepower; fire pump motors; general purpose electric motor (subtype II) (

i.e.,

subtype II motors) with a power rating of 1 to 200 horsepower; and NEMA Design B, general purpose electric motors with a power rating of more than 200 horsepower, but less than or equal to 500 horsepower. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) The term “electric motor” was left undefined. However, in a May 4, 2012 final rule amending the electric

motors test procedure (the May 2012 Final Rule), DOE adopted the broader definition of “electric motor” currently found in 10 CFR 431.12 because DOE noted that the absence of a definition may cause confusion about which electric motors are required to comply with mandatory test procedures and energy conservation standards, and to provide DOE with the flexibility to set energy conservation standards for other types of electric motors without having to continuously update the definition of “electric motors” each time DOE sets energy conservation standards for a new subset of electric motors. 77 FR 26608, 26613.

The provisions of EPCA make clear that DOE may regulate electric motors “alone or as a component of another piece of equipment.” See 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1) & (2) (providing that standards for electric motors be applied to electric motors manufactured “alone or as a component of another piece of equipment”) In contrast, Congress exempted small electric motors (SEMs)

that are a component of a covered product or a covered equipment from the standards that DOE was required to establish under 42 U.S.C. 6317(b). Congress did not, however, similarly restrict electric motors. Unlike SEMs, the statute does not limit DOE's authority to regulate an electric motor with respect to whether “electric motors” are stand-alone equipment items or components of a covered product or covered equipment. Rather, Congress specifically provided that DOE could regulate electric motors that are components of other covered equipment in the standards established by DOE.

Congress defined what equipment comprises a small electric motor (“SEM”)—specifically, “a NEMA general purpose alternating current single-speed induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number series in accordance with NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987.” (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G)) (DOE clarified, at industry's urging, that the definition also includes motors that are IEC metric equivalents to the specified NEMA motors prescribed by the statute.

See

74 FR 32059, 32061-32062; 10 CFR 431.442.

Additionally, EPCA requires that 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)) In this direct final rule, DOE performs the necessary analyses to determine whether amended or new standards would meet the aforementioned criteria. Further, DOE has determined that the amended standards provide cost-effective standards that would result in the significant conservation of energy. Further discussion on double-counting as it relates to energy savings is provided in section IV.F of this document. Further discussion on the analytical results and DOE's justification is provided in section V.C of this document.

b. Air-Over Electric Motors

NEEA supported the inclusion of air-over electric motors in the scope of the standards, noting that including them will allow comparison of performance and informed purchase decisions. (NEEA, No. 33 at p. 2) The CA IOUs supported the inclusion of Totally Enclosed Air Over (“TEAO”) motors in the analysis. In addition, the CA IOUs commented that they support establishing standards for air-over motors that otherwise meet the description of regulated motors (

i.e.,

“AO-MEM”) consistent with the levels for totally enclosed fan cooled (“TEFC”) electric motors. (CA IOUs, No. 30 at p. 1-2)

Lennox commented that DOE must continue the current electric motor exemptions specified in 10 CFR 431.25(l) for air-over, particularly when those motors are used in already-regulated HVACR products. (Lennox, No. 29 at p. 3) AHRI commented that air-over motors are explicitly exempted from regulation in 10 CFR 431.25(l), and that DOE has not overcome the challenges to include these exempted products, procedurally or technically. (AHRI, No. 26 at p. 1, 2)

DOE is covering air-over electric motors under its “electric motors” authority. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) As previously discussed, the statute does not limit DOE's authority to regulate an electric motor with respect to whether they are stand-alone equipment items or as components of a covered product or covered equipment. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1) (providing that standards for electric motors be applied to electric motors manufactured “alone or as a component of another piece of equipment”).

DOE's previous determination in the December 2013 Final Rule to exclude air-over electric motors from scope was due to insufficient information available to DOE at the time to support establishment of a test method.

See

78 FR 75962, 75974-75975. Since that time, NEMA published a test standard for air-over motors in Section IV, “Performance Standards Applying to All Machines,” Part 34 “Air-Over Motor Efficiency Test Method” of NEMA MG 1-2016 (“NEMA Air-over Motor Efficiency Test Method”). The air-over method was originally published as part of the 2017 NEMA MG-1 Supplements and is also included in the latest version of NEMA MG 1-2016. In the October 2022 Final Rule, DOE used the aforementioned argument to include air-over electric motors into the test procedure scope and establish test procedures.

See

87 FR 63588, 63597. In this direct final rule, DOE has analyzed the scope of electric motors based on the finalized test procedures from the October 2022 Final Rule, and amended energy conservation standards based on the November 2022 Joint Recommendation.

c. AC Induction Electric Motors Greater Than 500 Horsepower

NEEA commented in support of expanding the scope to include AC induction electric motors greater than 500 horsepower to identify their energy use, potential for energy savings, price, and prevalence in the market today. NEEA added that these motors consume a significant amount of energy, and that motor efficiency generally improves as a function of motor size, so it may be possible to establish higher efficiency standards for greater than 500 HP motors. (NEEA, No. 33 at p. 3)

NEMA stated that energy conservation standards for >500 HP motors would likely not be justified because of how tiny their market share is. It also stated that there are unique performance requirements applied to these motors that require custom designs that limit efficiency. NEMA stated that, at minimum, if a motor has one of the following special requirements, it should not be subject to standards; those special requirements are: <550 percent locked-rotor current, minimum locked rotor steady state supply voltage of <80 percent, ability to accelerate a moment of inertia greater than the moment of inertia defined by NEMA, ability to operate outside the range of −20 °C to +60 °C, ability to operate above 4,000 m above sea level, a load-torque envelope with a minimum torque of 25 percent of rated torque with a square shaped T−n^2 up to a max load, ability to start consecutively from cold three times or from hot two times, being a multi-speed motor, submersible, smoke extraction motor, explosion-proof motor, or a motor used in nuclear plants. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 9-10)

Since the comments to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, the Electric Motors Working Group, which included NEEA and NEMA, recommended standards for medium electric motors rated over 500 hp and up to 750 hp at 60 Hz (Recommendation #2). The scope of medium electric motors includes those electric motors that currently meet

10 CFR 431.25(g), but expanded to include motor horsepower >500 hp but less than 750 hp. Accordingly, in this direct final rule, DOE is including the aforementioned scope of electric motors for consideration of new standards, based on the November 2022 Joint Recommendation. Specifically, in the November 2022 Joint Recommendation, the Electric Motors Working Group agreed on establishing efficiency levels corresponding to 60 Hz NEMA Premium levels for motors rated over 500 hp and up to 750 hp. The Electric Motors Working Group noted that extending the horsepower range of electric motors subject to energy conservation standards would be beneficial in aligning with EU Ecodesign Directive 2019/1781,

which covers motors up to 1000 kW (1341 hp) at NEMA Premium levels, and for which manufacturers are making investments to comply.

In terms of standardized horsepowers, this would correspond to 100-250 hp when applying the guidance from 10 CFR 431.25(k) (and new section 10 CFR 431.25(q)).

d. AC Induction Inverter-Only and Synchronous Electric Motors

NEEA commented in support of expanding the scope of standards to synchronous and inverter-only motors to identify their energy use, potential for energy savings, price, and prevalence in the market today. NEEA recommended to include these motors in the same equipment classes are induction motors. In addition, NEEA recommended not to establish stricter efficiency requirements for these motors based on full-load efficiency because these motors allow energy savings at part load conditions. (NEEA, No. 33 at p. 3) NEMA stated that synchronous motors should have their own equipment class until analysis concludes they are not needed. NEMA suggested DOE make an “other than regulatory action” to save energy at the application and reference NEMA Standard 10011-22 with regards to the power index. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 8)

CA IOUs supported including inverter-only and synchronous electric motors, but in the same equipment class as currently regulated induction motors. The CA IOUs recommended convening an Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (“ASRAC”) Working Group to finalize a test procedure and part-load metric for these motors before finalizing a test procedure and energy conservation standards rulemaking. (CA IOUs, No. 30 at p. 2) The Joint Advocates also commented supporting analyzing synchronous motors jointly with currently covered motors and recommended that DOE also analyze synchronous motors jointly with relevant SNEM and AO motors. The Joint Advocates commented that synchronous motors represent the most efficient motors on the market and highlighted the potential energy savings opportunities facilitated by market shifts to synchronous motors. In addition, the Joint Advocates commented that the potential life-cycle cost savings associated with synchronous motor substitutions should be directly accounted for when evaluating potential amended standards for electric motors. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at p. 2) Similarly, the CA IOUs also provided the following supporting data to show that synchronous and inverter-only electric motor are designed, marketed, capable, and are being used to replace induction motors: (1) manufacturer reference tables that promote the direct replacement of currently regulated induction motors with synchronous and inverter-only motors (2) data showing synchronous motor performance exceeding a best-in-class copper cage induction motor paired with a commercially available VFD (which the CA IOUs stated corroborates the PTSD savings estimates for synchronous electric motors), and (3) a summary of case studies docketed in response to the December 2021 test procedure NOPR. The CA IOUs commented that this supporting data demonstrates the use of synchronous and inverter-only motors in applications where National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) Design B motors are typically used. (CA IOUs, No. 30 at p. 2-3)

AHAM and AHRI commented that if DOE includes inverter-only and synchronous motors in the scope of the ECS, it should first publish a preliminary analysis or NODA for these motors before proceeding to a NOPR. (AHAM, AHRI, No. 25 at p. 2) Lennox commented that DOE imposing increased costs on inverter-only motors by additional regulation may inhibit HVACR manufacturer use of these motors in innovative applications. Further, Lennox commented that DOE ceasing its exemptions for inverter-only motors, and thereby unduly-burdening manufacturers and forcing higher HVACR product costs on consumers with component-level regulation, is particularly inappropriate during an ongoing pandemic where inflation has been at a 40-year high. (Lennox, No. 29 at p. 2-3) NEMA stated that by regulating synchronous motors, DOE is regulating both the required adjustable speed drive and the motor itself. It stated that this is unnecessary and poorly conceived, and that synchronous motors do not generally conform to the torque-speed curves required by NEMA and IEC Designs. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 7) In addition, NEMA stated that inverter-only induction motors have characteristics warranting their own equipment class. It stated these motors are used exclusively for constant torque or constant HP applications and that certain applications have performance requirements like acceleration, deceleration, and overload capability for optimal control of a process. NEMA also stated that the performance requirements go beyond a single steady-state load condition that the test procedure uses, and that targeting a specific operating point's efficiency could restrict the other torque and thermal requirements of these motors. It also states that since the metric includes the losses of the inverter, these motors will have a lower maximum potential efficiency than typical induction motors. NEMA pointed to IEC 60034-30-2 as an example for efficiency values that pertain specifically to variable-speed motors. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 8-9)

In this direct final rule, DOE is not separately regulating or establishing standards for inverter-only and synchronous electric motors. As a sensitivity analysis, DOE notes that it analyzed the impacts of potentially switching to these electric motors as a result of higher standards that will be finalized for MEMs 100-250 hp, NEMA Design A & B in this DFR; further discussion is provided in section IV.F of this document.

e. Submersible Electric Motors

NEEA and HI recommended excluding submersible motors from the scope of the standards due to the lack of repeatable and representative test procedures. (NEEA, No. 33 at p. 4; HI, No. 31 at p. 1) CA IOUs commented that they do not support including submersible electric motors, and that DOE should collaborate with industry stakeholders in developing a test procedure for this motor category. (CA IOUs, No. 30 at p. 2) Finally, NEMA stated that submersible electric motors should be removed from the rulemaking. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 9) In the October 2022 Final Rule, DOE did not finalize a test method for submersible electric motors.

See

87 FR 63588, 63605. Moreover, the November 2022 Joint Recommendation did not recommend energy conservation standards for submersible electric motors. Accordingly, submersible electric motors continue to be excluded

from the test procedure and are not included in this standards direct final rule.

2. Test Procedure and Metric

DOE received comments regarding the test procedure and efficiency metric for electric motors subject to these energy conservation standards.

NEMA requested an SNOPR for the test procedure and requested that the energy conservation standards rulemaking not move forward until the test procedure is finished. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 2). DOE published the electric motor test procedure final rule on October 19, 2022. 87 FR 63588.

NEEA commented that, until DOE revises their test procedure and efficiency metric to account for part-load operating conditions, they do not recommend that DOE establish stricter efficiency requirements for synchronous electric motors and inverter-only electric motors. (NEEA, No. 33 at p. 4,5) CA IOUs commented similarly, strongly encouraging DOE to adopt the use of a metric that is representative of part-load performance for inverter-only and synchronous electric motors. CA IOUs provided data in support of the use of a part-load metric for inverter-only and synchronous electric motor applications to better reflect how these motors operate in the field. (CA IOUs, No. 30 at p. 2) The Joint Advocates explained that inverter-only AC motors may not have a higher full-load efficiency than a comparable single-speed motor, but they may save energy by reducing motor speed and resulting input power at partial loads. Therefore, they commented that because the efficiency is evaluated only at full load, inverter-only motors would be at a disadvantage as the input losses associated with the inverter would be included in the efficiency calculation, but the potential energy savings resulting from its speed control capabilities would not be captured. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at p. 3) NEMA commented that DOE should transition away from a single point efficiency metric and instead should develop a Power Index that incorporates the savings associated with power drive systems. NEMA commented that by applying a fixed speed efficiency testing at full load metric, the DOE misses the true opportunity for energy savings. NEMA explained that while at certain load points the motor losses might be a fraction (0.5 percent) lower, the application of a PDS would save 25-50 percent of power in the integral horsepower market and that these savings dwarf the 0.8 percent reduction associated with EL2. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 5)

The currently prescribed test procedure in appendix B requires testing electric motors at full-load only. In the October 2022 Final Rule, DOE argued that variable-load applications primarily operate in a range where efficiency is relatively flat as a function of load, and therefore measuring the performance of these motors at full-load is representative of an average use cycle.

See

87 FR 63588, 63620. Moreover, in this direct final rule, DOE is not proposing to separately regulate inverter-only and synchronous electric motors, but rather DOE is considering substitution effects to these motors for higher efficiency standards for MEMs.

Lennox commented that there would be insufficient testing facilities to accommodate significantly expanded motor product classes, such as DOE expanding motor regulations into SNEMs, air-over, synchronous or inverter-only motors, specifically in view of the proposal to require third-party laboratory testing. (Lennox, No. 29 at p. 5-6) The Joint Industry Stakeholders commented that DOE proposed that electric motors certified to the new test procedure could only be certified by 3rd party test labs, instead of certified labs in accordance with longstanding recognized practice. They stated that special and definite-purpose motors potentially classified as SNEM could not possibly be tested, redesigned, retested, certified, and made available for OEM use by the few third-party small electric motor certification bodies recognized by DOE today. (Joint Industry Stakeholders, No. 23 at p. 9) As discussed in section IV.A.1, in this direct final rule, DOE is only amending standards for certain MEMs and establishing standards for AO-MEMs and certain air-over polyphase motors. Further, DOE understands the Joint Industry Stakeholders comments to be directed at the proposals from the test procedure rulemaking. Since this proposal, DOE published the October 2022 Final Rule, where DOE decided to not adopt its proposal to require the use of an independent testing program, and to instead continue permitting the use of accredited labs as currently allowed through National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) and National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (“NVLAP”) accreditation.

See

87 FR 62588, 63628-63629.

3. Equipment Classes

Due to the number of electric motor characteristics (

e.g.,

horsepower rating, pole configuration, and enclosure), in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE used two constructs to help develop appropriate energy conservation standards for electric motors: “equipment class” and “equipment class groups.” An equipment class represents a unique combination of motor characteristics for which DOE is establishing a specific energy conservation standard. This includes permutations of electric motor design types (

i.e.,

NEMA Design A & B (and IEC equivalents)), standard horsepower ratings (

i.e.,

standard ratings from 1 to 500 horsepower), pole configurations (

i.e.,

2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole), and enclosure types (

i.e.,

open or enclosed). An equipment class group (“ECG”) is a collection of electric motors that share a common design trait. Equipment class groups include motors over a range of horsepower ratings, enclosure types, and pole configurations. Essentially, each equipment class group is a collection of a large number of equipment classes with the same design trait. As such, in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE presented equipment class groups based on electric motor design, motor topology, horsepower rating, pole configuration and enclosure type. See Chapters 2.3.1 and 3.2.2 of the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD.

Further, although DOE acknowledged that synchronous electric motors, inverter-only electric motors and induction electric motors >500 hp and ≤750 hp would be within scope, DOE did not create separate equipment classes for these electric motors and did not evaluate separate energy conservation standards. (See Chapter 2.3.1.3 of the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD) However, DOE did evaluate synchronous and inverter-only electric motors jointly with the induction motors because the motors did not have a performance-related feature that would justify a separate class.

Id.

In response to the equipment classes, DOE received a number of comments, which are presented below. Comments regarding SNEM and AO-SNEM equipment classes will be addressed in a separate NOPR.

Regarding air-over motors, NEMA agreed that an air-over rating warrants a separate equipment class because these motors are often built in a smaller frame size to take advantage of the outside airflow. NEMA stated that these motors built in a smaller frame size are limited in their efficiency capability because less active material can fit in them. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 7)

Since the comments to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD, the November 2022 Joint Recommendation specifically recommended that DOE establish two separate equipment classes for AO-MEMs,

i.e.,

standard frame AO-MEMs and specialized frame AO-MEMs, because of their different applications. The November 2022 Joint Recommendation identified standard frame AO-MEMs as AO-MEMs sold in standard NEMA frame sizes aligned with NEMA MG1, Table 13.2 and Table 13.3. In addition, the November 2022 Joint Recommendation identified specialized, smaller frame AO-MEMs as a group of motors for which the rated output exceeds the horsepower-frame size limits in the aforementioned NEMA MG1 tables. The Electric Motors Working Group noted that these motors are used in specialty applications where the design is optimized to meet space constraints and take advantage of higher-than-normal airflows, such as in agriculture applications. They also stated that because of the higher airflows, the motor operates at greater power densities than standard-frame motors, which therefore results in the motor being loaded to a slightly less efficient operating point. Accordingly, they recommended these motors be separated into their own equipment class. See November 2022 Joint Recommendation at 4-5.

Consistent with the November 2022 Joint Recommendation, in this direct final rule, DOE is separating the air-over equipment class into two equipment classes. As such, DOE is including “AO-MEM (Standard frame size),” and renaming “Specialized Frame Size AO-MEMs” (from the November 2022 Joint Recommendation) to “AO-Polyphase (Specialized frame size)”. DOE notes that the frame size constraints from Recommendation 3.b. include frame sizes beyond those specifically in the AO-MEM scope; as discussed in section III.A, 10 CFR 431.25(g)(7) specifically states that a MEM built in a two-digit frame size would only be an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), whereas Recommendation 3.b. specifies maximum NEMA frame diameters at 48 NEMA frame size. Accordingly, to provide a more representative naming convention for these motors, DOE is using “AO-Polyphase (Specialized frame size)” in this direct final rule. DOE notes that only the naming convention is changed compared to the November 2022 Joint Recommendation; the scope of motors being represented continues to stay the same.

In addition, to clarify what is meant by “standard frame size” and “specialized frame size,” DOE is adding definitions in the CFR consistent with the recommendations from the November 2022 Joint Recommendation. Specifically, in this direct final rule, DOE is adding a definition for “standard frame size” as “aligned with the specifications in NEMA MG 1-2016 section 13.2 for open motors, and NEMA MG 1-2016 section 13.3 for enclosed motors.” Further, DOE is adding a definition for “specialized frame size” as “means an electric motor frame size for which the rated output power of the motor exceeds the motor frame size limits specified for standard frame size. Specialized frame sizes have maximum diameters corresponding to the following NEMA Frame Sizes:”

Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent

Maximum NEMA frame diameter

2 Pole

Enclosed

Open

4 Pole

Enclosed

Open

6 Pole

Enclosed

Open

8 Pole

Enclosed

Open

1/.75

140

1.5/1.1

140

2/1.5

140

180

3/2.2

140

180

5/3.7

140

180

210

7.5/5.5

180

140

180

210

10/7.5

180

210

15/11

210

180

210

20/15

210

Regarding motors already covered at 10 CFR 431.25(g), NEMA stated that locked-rotor torque is not a typical design criterion used by end-users and that this value is already captured in the NEMA Design A, B, C etc. classification. NEMA also stated that locked-rotor torque is not a reliable means for determining energy efficiency. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 6) DOE agrees with the statement and is therefore not incorporating locked-rotor torque as an equipment class identifier for MEMs currently covered at 10 CFR 431.25(g).

Regarding synchronous and inverter-only electric motors, NEEA recommended that DOE not create separate equipment classes because these motors are used in the same applications as their induction motor counterparts. (NEEA, No. 33 at p. 3) The Joint Advocates stated that while they agree that inverter-only induction electric motors do not have a unique performance-related feature or utility that justifies a separate class from non-inverter and inverter-capable motors, they were concerned that inverter-only motors may be at an unfair disadvantage relative to single-speed induction motors when efficiencies are evaluated only at full load. (Joint Advocates, No. 28 at p. 3) As discussed in section IV.A.1.d of this document, DOE is not separately regulating inverter-only and synchronous electric motors in this direct final rule. Rather, DOE is only considering the substitution effects of switching to these electric motors if higher standards for MEMs are established. Otherwise, comments regarding the test procedure and metric are addressed in section IV.A.2 of this document.

Therefore, Table IV-1 presents the ECGs considered in this direct final rule. The equipment class groups represent a total of 425 equipment classes.

Table IV-1—Equipment Class Groups Considered

ECG

ECG motor design type

Motor topology

Horsepower

rating

Pole

configuration

Enclosure

MEM 1-500 hp, NEMA Design A & B

Polyphase

1-500

2, 4, 6, 8

Open.

Enclosed.

MEM 501-750 hp, NEMA Design A & B

Polyphase

501-750

2, 4

Open.

Enclosed.

AO-MEM (Standard Frame Size)

Polyphase

1-250

2, 4, 6, 8

Open.

Enclosed.

AO-Polyphase (Specialized Frame Size)

Polyphase

1-20

2, 4, 6, 8

Open.

Enclosed.

4. Technology Options

In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis market and technology assessment, DOE identified several technology options that were initially determined to improve the efficiency of electric motors, as measured by the DOE test procedure. Table IV-2 presents the technology options considered in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis.

Table IV-2—March 2022 Preliminary Analysis Technology Options To Increase Motor Efficiency

Type of loss to reduce

Technology option

Stator I2R Losses

Increase cross-sectional area of copper in stator slots

Decrease the length of coil extensions

Rotor I2R Losses

Increase cross-sectional area of end rings.

Increase cross-sectional area of rotor conductor bars.

Use a die-cast copper rotor cage.

Core Losses

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

Use thinner steel laminations.

Increase stack length (

i.e.,

add electrical steel laminations).

Friction and Windage Losses

Optimize bearing and lubrication selection.

Improve cooling system design.

Stray-Load Losses

Reduce skew on rotor cage.

Improve rotor bar insulation.

In response to the technology options, DOE received several comments.

Regarding electrical steel, NEMA stated that newer grade steels are available but not in the high volumes required to replace today's production, and that many new grades are imported and subject to tariffs and delays. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 10) NEMA argued that using lower-loss steel would not necessarily result in a more efficient electric motor. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 10-13) Specifically, NEMA stated that processing of the steel during motor manufacturing could alter electrical steel performance. As an example, NEMA noted that thinner steels would deform more when punched than thicker grades. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 11) Additionally, NEMA stated that different steel grades could have different heat transfer rates, which may affect motor operating temperature and, thus, efficiency. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 11) NEMA provided certain test data illustrating its claims regarding the potential for steel loss and motor efficiency to diverge. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 12) Relatedly, NEMA provided finite element model data illustrating magnetic flux density over the cross section of a 4-pole induction motor and noting the nonuniformity of the flux density values obtained, which NEMA observed could exceed the 1.5T-reference value commonly used by steel producers to rate their products. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 13-14)

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

In evaluating techniques used to reduce steel losses, DOE considered two types of material: conventional non-oriented electrical steel and “non-conventional” steels, which may contain high proportions of boron or cobalt or lack metal grain structure altogether. Conventional steels are more commonly used in electric motors manufactured today. The three types of steel that DOE classifies as “conventional,” include cold-rolled magnetic laminations, fully processed non-oriented electrical steel, and semi-processed non-oriented electrical steel. DOE does not model non-conventional electrical steels in its analysis of electric motors, including cobalt-based and amorphous steels. For additional details on DOE's software modeling and analysis of electrical steel performance, see chapter 3 of the direct final rule TSD.

DOE acknowledges the potential for increased non-oriented steel demand arising from a larger trend toward electrification of vehicles and equipment. However, DOE's research of publicly announced non-oriented electrical steel manufacturing capacity expansions

either currently underway

or planned for the near future suggests that steelmakers, both US-based and international, are anticipating increased demand and demonstrating willingness to increase supply accordingly.

E.g.,

(1) US-based Cleveland-Cliffs doubles NOES capacity by 2023, adding 70 kilotons of annual capacity in response to customer demand.

(2) US-based Big River Steel (a subsidiary of United States Steel Corporation) announced plans to increase annual NOES production capacity by 200 kilotons by September 2023.

(3) JFE Steel reports plans to double NOES production capacity by the first half of the 2024 fiscal year, which begins in April 2024.

(4) Baoshan Iron & Steel (“Baosteel”, a subsidiary of China Baowu Steel Group) is reported to be expanding NOES production capacity by 500 kilotons by March 2023.

(5) POSCO announced groundbreaking for a NOES production facility which will approximately quadruple high-efficiency NOES capacity to 400 kilotons by 2025.

Regarding tariffs on imported steels, DOE presented the costs for various steel grades to manufacturers during interviews and updated the costs based on input received. The input DOE received about steel prices incorporated changes in costs due to importing delays, tariffs, and global supply. Because the steel tariff applies to articles imported into the United States, it does not directly affect prices paid for steel in other nations, including those which manufacture motors sold in the US market.

Regarding the uncertain ability of lower-loss electrical steel to increase motor efficiency, electric motor manufacturers stated during confidential interviews that lower-loss steel would generally increase motor efficiency, even when considering the potential increase in steel loss that can arise during manufacturing. Accordingly, DOE considers lower-loss electrical steel to be an available option for improving motor efficiency in general, even if not in all possible motor designs. Electric motor manufacturers during confidential interviews did not report having constructed or tested electric motor designs using what appear to be the lowest-loss electrical steel grades available in the market. In cases, manufacturers reported unfamiliarity with the grades. As a result, DOE is not able to assess whether testing performed by manufacturers, including the example presented by NEMA (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 12), establishes a limitation on the degree of electric motor efficiency improvement possible through use of increasingly lower-loss electric steel.

Regarding the flux density map from finite element modeling provided by NEMA, it is reasonable to expect variation in flux density levels throughout both the motor laminations and over time, as NEMA observes. DOE's analysis does not assume a constant flux density would exist throughout an electric motor. Those variations would cause instantaneous, localized steel loss levels to vary accordingly, and depart from the manufacturer-rated values at a given, single reference value (1.5T, commonly for non-oriented electric steels). All grades of non-oriented electrical steel that DOE has identified share the property of increasing loss with increasing flux density. Thus, the flux density variation cited by NEMA would ostensibly exist for electrical steels generally; it would not be unique to lower-loss steel grades. Additionally, when evaluating use of a higher steel grade, manufacturers would likely optimize the design for the grade in question for any design likely to be built in significant volume. For DOE's modeling, DOE considered a conservative approach to represent performance of these lower-loss electrical steels, which is discussed further in section IV.C.1.c of this document.

Some production requirements associated with using lower-loss steel grades are understood and able to be accounted for with a cost. For example, increasing the silicon content of an alloy may increase resistivity (and thus, potentially reduce loss) but increase the hardness of the grade as a side effect. The comparatively harder steel may wear punching dies more rapidly, which would be likely to worsen the quality of the punched steel laminations more quickly if tooling were not replaced correspondingly more often or substituted with a harder tooling material. More frequent tooling replacement and harder tooling would be likely to add cost to the electric motor manufacturing process, which DOE accounts for in the manufacturer impact analysis.

Separately, NEMA also commented on another technology option that DOE considered. Specifically, NEMA stated that the benefits of reducing the length of the coil extensions are not clear. It noted that to reduce the I

R loss, the mean length of each turn in the end coil region would have to be reduced during the coil winding stage but doing so would increase the difficulty of winding insertion due to increased crowding with adjacent coils. However, NEMA stated that if such a reduction in mean length was feasible, it is likely to have already been exploited to their full extent because it would reduce the amount of copper in the winding, and would also be a cost-saving measure. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 3) DOE agrees that decreasing the length of the coil extensions in the stator slots of an electric motor reduces the resistive I

R losses, and reduces the material cost of the electric motor because less copper is being used. DOE also agrees that there may be limited efficiency gains, if any, for most electric motors using this technology option. DOE understands that electric motors have been produced for many decades and that many manufacturers have improved their production techniques to the point where certain design parameters may already be fully optimized. However, DOE cannot conclude that this design parameter is fully optimized for all electric motors, and therefore maintains that this is a design parameter that affects efficiency and should be considered when designing an electric motor because it is a technology option that continues to be technologically feasible. DOE has previously made similar conclusions in the May 2014 Final Rule.

See

79 FR 30934, 30960.

The CA IOUs strongly suggested that DOE update the maximum technology feasible for electric motors to include, at a minimum, the commercially available technology with the highest efficiency. The CA IOUs provided data for commercially available electric motors, as well as built and tested prototypes, that exceed the max-tech performance assumption in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 30 at p. 3) For the analysis, DOE uses the maximum efficiency technology option to represent the design option which yields the highest energy efficiency that is technologically feasible within the scope of MEMs and air-over electric motors, which are all induction motors. In their comment, the CA IOU's present high efficiency motors that are all outside the scope of this direct final rule, such as permanent magnet synchronous motors, and electronically commutated motors. As such, DOE is not amending the maximum technology design option in this direct final rule.

Therefore, DOE maintains the same technology options from the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis in this direct final rule.

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:

(8)

Technological feasibility.

Technologies that are not incorporated in commercial products or in commercially viable, existing prototypes will not be considered further.

(9)

Practicability to manufacture, install, and service.

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

(10)

Impacts on product utility.

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

(11)

Safety of technologies.

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

(12)

Unique-pathway proprietary technologies.

If a technology has proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a given efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.

10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(c)(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. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in the following sections.

As part of the May 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE requested feedback, in part, on its screening analysis based on the five criteria described in this section. 87 FR 11650. The subsequent sections include comments from interested parties pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each

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.