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

Federal RegisterSep 28, 2023

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048]

RIN 1904-AF27

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

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

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 dedicated purpose pool pump motors. When DOE is considering adopting energy conservation standards, EPCA requires that the standards be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency, which DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. In this final rule, DOE is adopting amended energy conservation standards for dedicated purpose pool pump motors. It has determined that the new 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 November 27, 2023. Compliance with the new standards established for dedicated purpose pool pump motors with motor total horsepower <0.5 THP in this final rule is required on and after September 29, 2025. Compliance with the new standards established for dedicated purpose pool pump motors with motor total horsepower ≥0.5 THP and <1.15 THP in this final rule is required on and after September 28, 2027. Finally, compliance with the new standards established for dedicated purpose pool pump motors with motor total horsepower ≥1.15 THP and ≤5 THP in this final rule is required on and after September 29, 2025. The incorporation of refence of certain material listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on November 27 2023.

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-2017-BT-STD-0048.

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

For further information on how to review 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.

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

amelia.whiting@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

DOE incorporates by reference the following standard into parts 429 and 431:

UL 1004-10,

Standard for Safety for Pool Pump Motors,

Revised First Edition, Dated March 24, 2022 (“UL 1004-10:2022”).

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

www.ul.com.

For a further discussion of this standard,

see

section VI.N of this document.

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the 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 DPPP Motors

III. General Discussion

A. General Comments

B. Test Procedure

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

2. Significance of Savings

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

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

c. Energy Savings

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

g. Other Factors

2. Rebuttable Presumption

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Scope of Coverage and Definitions

2. Market Review

3. Equipment Classes

4. Technology Options

B. Screening Analysis

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Efficiency Analysis

a. Representative Units

b. Baseline Efficiency

c. Higher Efficiency Levels

2. Cost Analysis

D. Markups Analysis

E. Energy Use Analysis

1. DPPP Motor Applications

2. DPPP Motor Consumer Sample

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

4. Pressure Cleaner Booster Pumps Motor Input Power

5. Daily Operating Hours

6. Annual Days of Operation

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. Equipment Cost

2. Installation Costs

3. Annual Energy Consumption

4. Energy Prices

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs

6. Equipment Lifetime

7. Discount Rates

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

9. Payback Period Analysis

G. Shipments Analysis

1. Base-Year Shipments

2. No-New-Standards Case Shipment Projections

3. Standards Case Shipment Projections

H. National Impact Analysis

1. Product 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

4. Comments From Interested Parties

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 Conclusion

A. Trial Standard Levels

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results

b. Direct Impacts on Employment

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

3. National Impact Analysis

a. Significance of Energy Savings

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy

7. Other Factors

8. Summary of Economic Impacts

C. Conclusion

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

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14904

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. Need for, Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule

2. Significant Comments in Response to the IRFA

3. Comments Filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy

4. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated

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

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Information Quality

M. Congressional Notification

N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

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

established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) Such equipment includes electric motors, which include dedicated-purpose pool pump motors (“DPPP motors” or “DPPPMs” or “pool pump motors”), the subject of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)). This rulemaking does not concern standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps (“DPPPs”), which are being addressed in a separate 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.

Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-0001, which is maintained at

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0001.

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 significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))

In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE is adopting new energy conservation standards for DPPP motors. The adopted standards, which are expressed in full-load efficiency and design requirements, are shown in Table I.1. DOE is finalizing standards that apply to all products listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on the dates provided in the table.

Table I.1—Energy Conservation Standards for DPPP Motors (TSL 7)

Motor total

horsepower

(THP)

Performance

standard: full-

load efficiency

(%)

Design

requirement:

speed capability

Design

requirement:

freeze protection

Compliance date

THP <0.5

69%

None

September 29, 2025.

0.5 ≤ THP < 1.15

Variable speed control *

Only for DPPP motors with freeze protection controls **

September 28, 2025.

1.15 ≤ THP ≤ 5

Variable speed control *

Only for DPPP motors with freeze protection controls **

September 29, 2025.

* A variable speed motor is a DPPP motor that meets the definition of “variable-speed control dedicated-purpose pool pump motor” as defined by UL 1004-10:2022.

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

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

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

The average LCC savings are positive for each equipment class, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of DPPP motors, which is estimated to be 4.5 years (

see

section IV.F of this document).

The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected by a standard and are measured relative to the distribution of purchased DPPP motors, and their associated energy 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.9 of this document). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline product (

see

section IV.C of this document).

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

DPPP Motors

equipment class

Average LCC

savings

(2022$)

Simple payback period

(years)

Extra-small-size (THP <0.5)

0.9

Small-size (0.5 ≤ THP < 1.15)

3.4

Standard-size (1.15 ≤ THP ≤ 5)

236

1.3

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, which align with the industry profits from producing DPPP motors, from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2024-2055).

Using a real discount rate of 7.2 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of DPPP motors in the case without new standards is $661 million in 2022$. Under the adopted standards, DOE estimates the change in INPV to range from −32.4 percent to 12.0 percent, which is approximately −$214.2 million to $79.0 million change in profits. In order to bring products into compliance with new standards, it is estimated that industry will incur total conversion costs of $56.2 million.

This time period captures manufacturers' profits starting with the years leading up to the compliance date, at which time they are making investments to comply with standards, and throughout the 30-year analysis period after the compliance date.

Conversion costs are included in the INPV calculation.

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 and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2024 unless explicitly stated otherwise.

DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation standards for DPPP motors would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without new standards, the lifetime energy savings for DPPP motors purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated first full year of compliance with the new standards (2026-2055),

amount to 1.56 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads.

This represents a savings of 27.5 percent relative to the energy use of these products in the case without new standards (referred to as the “no-new-standards case”).

DOE conducted the analysis over a 30-year period starting in 2026 (2026-2055). As discussed in section III.A of this document, for all TSLs DOE considered a 2-year lead time resulting in a first full year of compliance of 2026, except for small-size DPPP motors at TSL 7 where DOE uses a 4-year compliance lead time, resulting in a compliance year of 2028. In this case, DOE considered 28 years of shipments (2028-2055).

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

i.e.,

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

see

section IV.H.1 of this document.

The cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer benefits of the standards for DPPP motors ranges from $5.4 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $10.2 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 DPPP motors purchased in 2026-2055 relative to the no-new-standards case.

For small size DPPP motors, as noted previously, DOE considered 28 years of shipments (2028-2055).

In addition, the adopted standards for DPPP motors are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the standards will result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 31.2 million metric tons (Mt)

of carbon dioxide (CO

), 9.8 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO

), 56.4 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NO

), 247.2 thousand tons of methane (CH

), 0.32 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (N

O), and 0.07 tons of mercury (Hg).

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

are presented in short tons.

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

Annual Energy Outlook 2023

(

AEO2023

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

AEO2023

assumptions that effect air pollutant emissions.

DOE estimates the value of 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 interim SC-GHG values developed by an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG).

The derivation of these values is discussed in section IV.L of this document. For presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate over the period of analysis are estimated to be $2.0 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 sets of 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 IWG. (“February 2021 SC-GHG TSD”).

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

DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO

and NO

emissions reductions, using benefit per ton estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency,

as discussed in section IV.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would be $2.0 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $3.9 billion using a 3-percent discount rate. DOE is currently only monetizing health benefits from changes in ambient fine particulate matter (PM

2.5

) concentrations from two precursors (SO

and (for NO

) and from changes in ambient ozone from one precursor (NO

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

2.5

emissions.

U.S. EPA. Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing Directly Emitted PM

2.5

, PM

2.5

Precursors and Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at

www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors.

Table I.3 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to result from the amended standards for DPPP motors. There are other important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate benefits,

unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits, and distributional effects, among others.

Table I.3—Present Value in 2024 of Monetized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Energy Conservation Standards for DPPP Motors

Billion 2022$

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

14.0

Climate Benefits *

2.0

Health Benefits **

3.9

Total Monetized Benefits †

19.9

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ‡

3.9

Net Monetized Benefits

16.0

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV ††)

(0.21)-0.08

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

7.9

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)

2.0

Health Benefits **

2.0

Total Monetized Benefits †

11.9

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ‡

2.6

Net Monetized Benefits

9.3

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV ††)

(0.21)-0.08

Note:

This table presents the present value of the monetized costs and benefits associated with product name shipped in 2026-2055, except for small-size DPPP motors where shipments in 2028-2055 are considered. These results include consumer, climate, and health benefits which accrue after 2055 from the products shipped in 2026-2055 (or 2028-2055).

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

), methane (SC-CH

), and nitrous oxide (SC-N

O) (model average at 2.5-percent, 3-percent, and 5-percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3-percent discount rate) (

see

section IV.L of this document). Together these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. To monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas 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).

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

and SO

. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO

and NO

) PM

2.5

precursor health benefits and (for NO

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

2.5

emissions.

See

section IV.L of this document for more details.

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

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

†† Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in detail below.

See

sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE's NIA includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to manufacture the equipment and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA).

See

section IV.J of this document. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. Change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 7.2% that is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the Final Rule TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For DPPP motors, those values are -$214 million and $79 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating Profit Markup scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in Section IV.J of this document, to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this rule to society, including potential changes in production and consumption, which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the net benefit calculation for this final rule, the net benefits would range from $15.79 billion to $16.08 billion at 3-percent discount rate and range from $9.09 billion to $9.38 billion at 7-percent discount rate.

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 monetized value of climate and health benefits of emission reductions, all annualized.

To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2024, 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 or 2040), and then discounted the present value from each year to 2024. 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.

The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S. consumer

monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered products and are measured for the lifetime of DPPP motors shipped in (2026-2055).

The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the adopted standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of DPPP motors shipped in (2026-2055).

Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are presented for all four discount rates in section V.B.6 of this document.

For small size DPPP motors, as noted previously, DOE considered 28 years of shipments (2028-2055).

Table I.4 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the standard, expressed in terms of annualized values. 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 monetized cost of the standards adopted in this rule is $221 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $684 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $103 million in monetized climate benefits, and $173 million in monetized health benefits. In this case, the monetized net benefit would amount to $739 million per year.

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated monetized cost of the standards is $204 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual monetized benefits are $738 million in reduced operating costs, $103 million in monetized climate benefits, and $205 million in monetized health benefits. In this case, the monetized net benefit would amount to $841 million per year.

Table I.4—Annualized Monetized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Standards for DPPP Motors

Million 2022$/year

Primary estimate

Low-net-benefits

estimate

High-net-benefits

estimate

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

738

721

760

Climate Benefits *

103

Health Benefits **

205

Total Monetized Benefits †

1,046

1029

1,068

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ‡

204

235

173

Monetized Net Benefits

841

793

895

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV ††)

(17)-6

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

684

671

703

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)

103

Health Benefits **

173

Total Monetized Benefits †

960

947

979

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ‡

221

250

190

Monetized Net Benefits

739

696

790

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV ††)

(17)-6

Note:

This table presents the costs and benefits associated with DPPP motors shipped in 2026-2055, except for small-size DPPP motors where shipments in 2028-2055 are considered. These results include consumer, climate, and health benefits which accrue after 2055 from the products shipped in 2026-2055 (or 2028-2055). The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the

AEO2023

Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, an increasing rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (

see

section IV.L of this document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but 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 sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas 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).

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

and SO

. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO

and NO

) PM

2.5

precursor health benefits and (for NO

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

2.5

emissions.

See

section IV.L of this document for more details.

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

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

†† Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in detail below.

See

section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating Profit Markup scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated annualized change in INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of this document, to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this rule to society, including potential changes in production and consumption, which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for this final rule, the annualized net benefits would range from $824 million to $847 million at 3-percent discount rate and range from $722 million to $745 million at 7-percent discount rate.

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

D. Conclusion

DOE concludes that the standards adopted in this final rule represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in the significant conservation of energy. Specifically, equipment are able to achieve these standard levels using technology options currently available in the DPPPM market. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that the benefits of the standards exceed the burdens of the standards.

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 monetized cost of the standards for DPPP motors is $221 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual monetized benefits are $684 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $103 million in monetized climate benefits, and $173 million in monetized ambient air pollutant health benefits. The monetized net benefit amounts to $739 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.

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 1.56 quads FFC, the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 16.8 million homes. In addition, they are projected to reduce CO

emissions by 31.2 Mt. Based on these findings, DOE has determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this final rule are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed discussion of the basis for these conclusions is contained in the remainder of this document and the accompanying TSD.

Associated with DPPP motors shipped in 2026-2055, except for small-size DPPP motors where shipments in 2028-2055 are considered.

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this final rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for DPPP motors.

A. Authority

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

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6316 (a); 42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).

Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6297) There are currently no Federal energy conservation standards for DPPP motors. DOE noted in the July 2021 Final Rule that efforts by States to set energy conservation standards, test procedures, or labeling requirements for DPPP motors—or any other electric motor—are preempted as a matter of law. 86 FR 40765, 40767.

Upon further consideration, however, DOE is clarifying here that none of the provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6313 apply to DPPP motors because, although they are a category of electric motor, DPPPP motors are not among the category of electric motors for which Congress established standards and a rulemaking schedule in 42 U.S.C. 6313(b). Thus, State DPPP motor standards are not already preempted as a matter of law. EPCA outlines rules of preemption for State energy conservation standards before a Federal standard promulgated becomes effective. 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6297(b). Specifically, it provides that no State regulation concerning energy efficiency or energy use of covered equipment shall be effective with respect to the covered equipment—in the absence of a Federal regulation—unless the State regulation is a regulation regulating electric motors other than those to which 42 U.S.C. 6313 is applicable. 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)(7); 42 U.S.C. 6297(b)(4). As discussed in

section III.A. of this document, DPPPM are a category of electric motor, but are excepted from the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6313(b).

See

42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1). Further, there are no other provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6313 that would apply to DPPP motors. Therefore, any State regulations establishing or amending standards for DPPPM are not currently preempted.

Instead, under 42 U.S.C. 6297(c), upon the compliance date for the Federal standards in this final rule, the Federal standards will supersede the CEC standards requirements for replacement dedicated-purpose pool pump motors (“RDPPPM”) for the first time. For extra-small-size and standard-size DPPP motors, the CEC standards will be superseded on the compliance date applicable to these DPPP motors, which is 2 years after the publication of this final rule. For small-size DPPP motors, which have an additional two-year lead time, the CEC standards would be superseded on the compliance date applicable to small-size DPPP motors, which is 4 years after the publication of this final rule. 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. (

See

42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and (r)) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the Federal test procedures as the basis for: (1) certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for DPPP motors appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) § 431.484.

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered equipment, including DPPP motors. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) 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 DPPP 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)(3)(A)-(B)) 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 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))

DOE must also periodically evaluate the energy conservation standards for certain covered equipment, including electric motors, and publish either a notification of determination that the standards do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) that includes new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate).

See

42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1).

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))

B. Background

1. Current Standards

DPPP motors are electric motors, which are defined as machines that convert electrical power into rotational mechanical power. 10 CFR 431.12. DOE has established test procedures, labeling requirements, and energy conservation standards for certain electric motors (10 CFR part 431, subpart B), but those

requirements do not apply to DPPP motors. DOE has separately established a test procedure for DPPP motors in 10 CFR 431.484. The scope of the DPPP motor definition includes DPPP motors regardless of how the equipment is sold;

i.e.,

incorporated in a DPPP or sold separately.

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

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

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

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for DPPP Motors

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

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

In comments submitted in response to the direct final rule, several interested parties discussed the issue of the efficiency of electric motors used in DPPPs. Comments were received from a broad range of interested parties, including manufacturers, trade associations, and energy efficiency advocacy organizations suggesting that energy conservation standards were also needed for motors used in pool pumps. Commenters wanted to ensure that consumers who purchased pool pumps compliant with the new standards at 10 CFR 431.465(f), who subsequently needed to replace their motor, would do so with a motor of equal or greater efficiency. All comments received that discussed DPPP motors supported further rulemaking to address these motors. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008; Regal Beloit Corporation (“Regal Beloit”), No. 122 at p. 1; Hayward Industries, Inc. (“Hayward”), No. 125 at p. 1; Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc. (“Pentair”), No. 132 at pp. 1-2; Zodiac Pool Systems (“Zodiac”), No. 134 at pp. 1-2; Association of Pool and Spa Professionals (“APSP”), No. 127 at p. 2; Appliance Standards Awareness Project (“ASAP”), No. 133 at pp. 4-5; Natural Resource Defense Council (“NRDC”), No. 121 at p. 4; California Investor Owned Utilities (“CA IOUs”), No. 130 at p. 2)

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

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

The Joint Petitioners stated that the motor on a pool pump will often fail before the pump itself needs to be replaced, and motor-only replacements are common. (Joint Petition, No. 14 at p. 2) They added that without a complementary standard for DPPP motors, upon replacing a pool pump motor, consumers may install replacement motors that are less efficient than the motor with which the DPPP was originally equipped. (

Id.

) To address this concern, the Joint Petitioners asked DOE to establish a direct final rule establishing prescriptive standards and a labeling requirement for DPPP motors. (Joint Petition, No. 14 at pp. 6-9) The Joint Petitioners sought a compliance date of July 19, 2021, to align with the standards compliance date for DPPPs. (

Id.

)

See also

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

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

The Joint Petition is available at

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

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

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

On December 12, 2018, representatives from the Association of Pool & Spa Professionals (“APSP”), the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (“NEMA”), Nidec Motors, Regal Beloit, and Zodiac met with DOE to reiterate the need for implementation of the Joint Petition. (December 2018

Ex Parte

Meeting, No. 42 at p. 1)

On February 5, 2019, APSP, NEMA, Hayward, Pentair, Nidec Motors, Regal Beloit, WEG Commercial Motors, and Zodiac Pool Systems met with DOE to present an alternative approach to the Joint Petition, suggesting DOE propose a labeling requirement for DPPP motors. (February 2019

Ex Parte

Meeting, No. 43 at p. 1)

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

contained in the Joint Petition. (February 2019

Ex Parte

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

Ex Parte

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

See generally Id.

at 1-3.)

With respect to each of the

ex parte

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

Ex Parte

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

See Id.

at 74 FR 52796.

The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop the test procedure and labeling requirements for DPPP motors. (Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048, which is maintained at

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

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

On April 7, 2020, the California Energy Commission (“CEC”) adopted new regulations for RDPPPMs, with an effective date of July 19, 2021. The adopted standards included nominal efficiency at full-load and maximum operating speed requirements, in addition to a requirement that RDPPPMs with a total horsepower (“THP”) greater than or equal to 0.5 THP manufactured on or after July 19, 2021, must be variable-speed.

See Docket # 19-AAER-02 at

www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and-regulations/appliance-efficiency-regulations-title-20/appliance-efficiency-proceedings-2

On October 5, 2020, in response to the Joint Petition and the alternative recommendation presented by several of the Joint Petitioners following submission of the Joint Petition, DOE published a NOPR proposing to establish a test procedure and an accompanying labeling requirement for DPPP motors. 85 FR 62816 (“October 2020 NOPR”). Specifically, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference UL Standard 1004-10:2019 “Outline of Investigation for Pool Pump Motors” (“UL 1004-10:2019”) pertaining to DPPP motor definitions and marking requirements; require the use of Canadian Standards Association (“CSA”) C747-09 (R2014), “Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Small Motors” (“CSA C747-09”) for testing the energy efficiency of DPPP motors; require the nameplate of a subject DPPP motor (1) to include the full-load efficiency of the motor as determined under the proposed test procedure, and (2) if the DPPP motor is certified to UL-1004-10:2019, to include the statement, “Certified to UL 1004-10:2019”; require that catalogs and marketing materials include the full-load efficiency of the motor; require manufacturers to notify DOE of the subject DPPP motor models in current production (according to the manufacturer's model number) and whether the motor model is certified to UL 1004-10:2019; and require manufacturers to report to DOE the full-load efficiency of the subject DPPP motor models as determined pursuant to the proposed test procedure. 85 FR 62816, 62820. Additionally, if a DPPP motor model is certified to UL 1004-10:2019, DOE proposed to require manufacturers to report the THP and speed configuration of the motor model as provided on the nameplate pursuant to the UL certification.

Id.

On July 29, 2021, DOE published a final rule adopting a test procedure for DPPP motors. 86 FR 40765. (“July 2021 Final Rule”). Specifically, the test procedure requires use of CSA C747-09 (R2014), “Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Small Motors” (“CSA C747-09”) for testing the full-load efficiency of DPPP motors and incorporates by reference UL 1004-10:2020 “Standard for Pool Pump Motors” (“UL 1004-10:2020”) pertaining to definitions and scope. The new test procedure is currently located at 10 CFR 431.484. 86 FR 40765, 40768. DOE did not establish a labeling requirement and stated that it intends to address any such labeling and/or energy conservation standards requirement in a separate notification.

Id.

On June 21, 2022, DOE published a NOPR proposing energy conservation standards for DPPP motors. 87 FR 37122. (“June 2022 NOPR”). DOE proposed a performance standard for a class of DPPP motors and design requirements for certain classes of DPPP motors. Specifically, DOE proposed to require that DPPP motors less than 0.5 THP must have a full-load efficiency of 69 percent, and DPPP motors greater than or equal to 0.5 THP must be variable speed control DPPP motors. In addition, for DPPP motors greater than or equal to 0.5 THP, DOE also proposed to implement freeze-protection requirements. 87 FR 37122, 37123-37124. On July 26, 2022, DOE presented the proposed standards and accompanying analysis in a public meeting.

DOE received comments in response to the June 2022 NOPR from the interested parties listed in Table II.1.

Table II.1—June 2022 NOPR Written Comments

Commenter(s)

Abbreviation

Comment No. in the Docket

Commenter type

Anonymous

Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients (NCLC), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA)

Joint Advocates

Efficiency Organizations.

California Energy Commission and New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

CEC and NYSERDA

State Agencies.

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists

Joint SC-GHG Commenters

Efficiency Organizations and Legal Institute.

Fluidra

91, 101

Pool Pump Manufacturer.

Hayward Industries, Inc.

Hayward

Pool Pump Manufacturer.

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

NEEA

Efficiency Organization.

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

CA IOUs

Utilities.

Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc.

Pentair

Pool Pump Manufacturer.

The Pool & Hot Tub Alliance and National Electrical Manufacturers Association

PHTA and NEMA

Trade Associations.

The Pool & Hot Tub Alliance

PHTA

100

Trade Association.

Regal Rexnord

Regal

Motor Manufacturer.

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

To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided during the July 26, 2022 public meeting, DOE cites the written comments throughout this final rule. Any oral comments provided during the webinar that are not substantively addressed by written comments are summarized and cited separately throughout this final rule.

The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for DPPP motors. (Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048, which is maintained at

www.regulations.gov

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

III. General Discussion

DOE developed this final rule after considering oral and written comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues raised by these commenters.

A. General Comments

This section summarizes general comments received from interested parties regarding rulemaking timing and process.

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed a performance standard (

i.e.,

full-load efficiency) and design requirements (

i.e.,

speed capability) based on DPPP motor THP. Specifically, for motors <0.5 THP, DOE proposed DPPP motors to meet a full-load efficiency of 69 percent. For motors ≥0.5 THP, DOE proposed variable speed control design requirements, and freeze protection control requirements for DPPP motors with freeze protection controls. 87 FR 37122, 37124.

Waterway Plastics commented that the proposal does not align with CEC scope because that scope is only for replacement DPPP motors and requested clarity on the scope of the June 2022 NOPR. (Waterway Plastics, Public Meeting, No. 88 at p. 6) The scope of the final rule includes DPPP motors regardless of how the equipment is sold

i.e.,

incorporated in a DPPP or sold separately (

i.e.,

as a replacement motor).

One anonymous commenter stated that the proposed standard for DPPP motors is more stringent than the standard for DPPPs that went into effect in 2021 and would make the DPPP rule obsolete. Specifically, the anonymous commenter stated that with the DPPP standard, a 1 hp single-speed pump would still meet the weighted energy factor (“WEF”) requirement, but this does not seem to be the case in the proposed DPPP motor rule. In addition, the anonymous commenter stated that the WEF DPPP standard was less stringent for non-self-priming pumps, whereas the proposed DPPP motor level does not separate non-self-priming pumps motors. The anonymous commenter stated that typically rules for subcomponents (motors) would have less stringent or equal requirements to the fully assembled product (

i.e.,

pumps), otherwise the standard for pool pumps would be obsolete due to the more stringent motor rule. (Anonymous, No. 89 at p. 1) Waterway Plastics commented that the proposal could affect the DPPPs that are being manufactured in the United States, and that they had concerns that the June 2022 NOPR proposal does not align with the DPPP standards. (Waterway Plastics, Public Meeting, No. 88 at p. 6)

In addition to setting freeze protection requirements, the standard for DPPPs at 10 CFR 431.465(f) would likely require DPPP motors sold in DPPPs to be variable speed for standard-size self priming pool pumps (using DPPP motors greater than or equal to 1.15 THP)

and to have a higher efficiency for small-size self priming pumps, non-self priming pumps, and PCBPs.

The DPPP standards apply to DPPPs only and do not apply to DPPP motors sold alone as replacement motors. As stated previously, motor-only replacements are common and comments were received from a broad range of interested parties, including manufacturers, trade associations, and energy efficiency advocacy organizations suggesting that energy conservation standards were also needed for motors used in pool pumps to ensure that consumers who purchased pool pumps compliant with the new standards at 10 CFR 431.465(f), who subsequently needed to replace their motor, would do so with a motor of equal or greater efficiency. In contrast, the CEC standards apply to replacement DPPP motors only and would require variable speed replacement DPPP motors at or above 0.5 THP, and also sets requirements for nominal efficiency at full-load and maximum operating speed.

In this final rule, DOE establishes DPPP motor standard for both motors sold in DPPPs and sold alone for replacement purposes. While the motor improvements realized by this DPPP motor final rule could be enough to improve a DPPP such that the DPPP would meet the DPPP standard, DOE notes that the DPPP energy conservation standards and the DPPP motor standards are complementary to help ensure a harmonized approach to DPPP and DPPP motors that are replacements. The DPPP standards includes the hydraulic efficiency of the pump, the motor efficiency, and the efficiency of the associated controls and drives supporting the DPPP. By contrast, the DPPP motor standard focuses on just the motor aspect and is meant to complement the DPPP standard by ensuring the replacement motors are at least as efficient as originally intended by the DPPP manufacturer in the DPPP design. Therefore, DOE does not agree with the commenter that these two standards are overlapping. Instead, DOE believes it is addressing complementary but different equipment regulations to help ensure the efficiencies that consumers expect when purchasing their DPPPs are maintained when replacing the motor. Since the regulations apply to both domestically produced equipment and imported equipment and are intended to be complementary by design, DOE does not agree with Waterway Plastics that domestic manufacturers will be disadvantaged.

The 0.711 hhp threshold in the DPPP standards for self-priming pool filter pumps aligns with a 1.15 THP motor threshold (1.15 THP is roughly equivalent to 0.711 hhp).

See

section IV.A.3 of this document.

The DPPP standard at 10 CFR 431.465(f) would likely require DPPP motors sold in DPPPs to meet the requirements equivalent to TSL 6, while this DFR establishes standards at TSL 8 for DPPP motors, regardless of how they are sold (

i.e.,

incorporated in a DPPP or sold separately).

See

section V.A of this document.

See Docket # 19-AAER-02 at

www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and-regulations/appliance-efficiency-regulations-title-20/appliance-efficiency-proceedings-2

Regarding pressure cleaner booster pumps (“PCBP”), Fluidra recommended separating PCBP into their own equipment class, requiring 69-percent efficiency for motors less than 1.15 THP, and implementing further review of energy use, efficiency, and cost effectiveness for the motors at 1.15 to 5 THP. (Fluidra, No. 91 at p. 2). PHTA and NEMA recommended that if DOE confirms that a variable speed requirement is not cost-effective for PCBP, DOE should not require variable speed for PCBP motors below 1.15 THP. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 5)

On the other hand, CEC and NYSERDA supported DOE's proposed standards, specifically the proposal to require variable-speed motors, and encouraged that DOE finalize the rule as soon as possible. CEC and NYSERDA stated that the proposed standards will

extend the 2017 DPPP final rule energy efficiency benefits to replacement DPPP motors, which currently are unregulated on the Federal level, and provide additional energy efficiency improvements to new DPPPs. CEC and NYSERDA also stated that some of the energy savings in this NOPR are already being realized in California through that State's Replacement DPPP Motor Regulations, which went into effect July 19, 2021, and which are projected to provide 451 GWh in annual electricity savings and $82 million in annual savings to California businesses and individuals. (CEC and NYSERDA, No. 94 at p. 2) Further, CEC and NYSERDA commented that variable-speed motors are extremely beneficial to consumers, as DPPPs have different operational modes with different speed requirements, and because real-world pool design complicates the size selection of DPPP motors. Further, CEC and NYSERDA stated that the benefit of variable-speed motors for PCBP applications, which is the ability to adjust motor speed, will eliminate the need to use pressure discs or pressure relief valves. (CEC and NYSERDA, No. 94 at p. 3)

The Joint Advocates commented that they support the proposed standards for DPPP motors, which generally align with the existing California standards for replacement DPPP motors, and would ensure that all DPPP motors greater than or equal to 0.5 THP are variable-speed. The Joint Advocates also supported the proposed freeze protection control requirements. (Joint Advocates, No. 97 at p. 1)

The CA IOUs supported DOE's proposal to adopt TSL 7 for DPPP motors. The CA IOUs commented that they surveyed the CEC certifications database and the DOE Compliance Certification Management System (“CCMS”) database and noted that small-size DPPP motors represent motors in PCBPs, small self-priming pool filter pumps, and small non-self-priming pool filter pumps. The CA IOUs agreed that the 0.5 THP to 1.15 THP threshold is an appropriate range for the DOE analysis and standard. Further, the CA IOUs commented that the standard-sized DPPP motor range, between 1.15 to 5.0 THP, represents motors mostly found in standard-size self-priming pool filter pump applications. (CA IOUs, No. 96 at pp. 1-2) The CA IOUs commented that the proposed standard for a small-size DPPP motor will provide technically feasible and cost-effective consumer savings through variable speed motor technology, allowing consumers to choose the lowest speed that meets their pool maintenance needs and reducing pressure head losses through the pump affinity laws. The CA IOUs noted that this energy savings strategy is consistent with the industry standard American National Standards Institute/Pool and Hot Tub Alliance/International Code Council (ANSI/PHTA/ICC)-15:2021, which recommends that “for maximum energy efficiency, pool filtration should be operated at the lowest possible flowrate for a time period that provides sufficient water turnover for clarity and sanitation.” (CA IOUs, No. 96 at p. 2) Further, the CA IOUs supported DOE's proposal to adopt freeze protection setting requirements, which aligns with the requirements of the DPPP rule and provides essential energy savings by ensuring that products shopped with freeze protection have the appropriate settings to protect equipment from freezing while not using excessive energy. (CA IOUs, No. 96 at p. 2)

Regal commented that they generally support DOE moving forward with the DPPPM energy conservation standards rule. Regal commented that they believe the proposed rule will enable the achievement of significant energy savings, if careful consideration is given to the rule's underlying technical analysis and the timeline for implementation. (Regal, No. 98 at p.1) ASAP commented in support of DOE's proposed standards for DPPP motors and noted that these generally align with the existing standards in California. (ASAP, Public Meeting, No. 88 at p.5) As part of this final rule, DOE considered comments received regarding the technical analysis and made any needed updates, as discussed in section IV of this document. DOE also updated the market data information to match the current market of DPPP motors available, as discussed in section IV.A.2 of this document. Finally, DOE notes that DOE conducted DPPP motor manufacturer interviews as part of the June 2022 NOPR, as discussed in the manufacturer impact analysis, and incorporated feedback to estimate the manufacturer impacts of setting variable-speed requirements as standards. 87 FR 37122, 37154.

In regard to creating an equipment class for DPPP motors used in PCBP applications, DOE generally does not consider end-use applications (for DPPP motors, end-use would be DPPPs) when analyzing equipment classes for covered equipment.

See

further discussion in IV.A.3 of this document. DOE also notes that, assuming the same motor output power, there are no technological features that distinguish a DPPP motor used in a PCBP from a DPPP motor used in a self-priming or non-self-priming application. As such, DOE continues to base the analysis in this final rule only on DPPP motor equipment classes determined only by motor THP, as defined in Table III.1 of this document.

DOE reviewed the cost-effectiveness of the trial standard levels considered with the updates for this final rule and continues to conclude that the proposal from the June 2022 NOPR is technologically feasible and economically justified.

See

section V of this document for analytical results. Section IV provides further details on the analysis conducted, the analysis inputs, and responses to any analysis-specific comments that were received regarding the June 2022 NOPR.

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed that new standards would apply to DPPP motors manufactured two years after the date on which any new or amended standard is published.

DOE estimated the publication of a final rule in the second half of 2023. Therefore, in the June 2022 NOPR, for purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2026 as the first full year of compliance with any new standards for DPPP motors. 87 FR 37122, 37144.

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE followed the same 2-year lead time.

See

87 FR 37122, 37144 at FN67.

Several commenters recommended that DOE consider a two-step approach to allow for further analysis and data collection and coordinate between DPPP and DPPP motors. As a first step, PHTA, NEMA, and Hayward recommended that DOE adopt a final rule as soon as possible that would adopt and require a DPPP motor listing to UL 1004-10:2022 “Standard for Pool Pump Motors” (“UL 1004-10:2022”) in its entirety, which would provide alignment with the current DPPP rule and a means for certification and labeling that will provide for easier enforcement. Further, PHTA, NEMA, and Hayward noted that manufacturers anticipated compliance with UL 1004-10, which was established in the 2018-2020 efforts to obtain a corresponding DPPP motor rule. Therefore, PHTA, NEMA, and Hayward stated that manufacturers are ready and able to provide compliant product 12 months after a final rule effective date. As a second step, PHTA, NEMA, and Hayward commented that DOE should set up a negotiation working group on both DPPP and DPPP motor rules to dig deeper into the concerns highlighted in their comment submission and ensure performance and timing alignments long term. PHTA, NEMA, and Hayward commented that they are committed to initiating step two as soon as possible and stated that if a two-step approach is unfeasible, that

prior to issuing a final DPPP motor rule, the cost-effective concerns laid out in their comments should be further analyzed and manufacturer interviews conducted. PHTA, NEMA, and Hayward stated that although this approach will slow down obtaining a final rule, the current NOPR deviates from the Joint Petition and the commenters have provided multiple concerns that require attention. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 9; Hayward, No. 93 at pp. 2-3)

In response, Fluidra requested a 5-year transition period to implement compliance with the DPPP motor regulation proposal. Fluidra noted that this transition period would give manufacturers adequate time to develop, test, certify, launch, and transition product lines, as well as educate distributors, pool builders, and consumers on this product transition. (Fluidra, No. 91 at p. 2) Hayward, PHTA, and NEMA requested a compliance date of at least 5 years following the effective date if DOE decides against the implementation of UL 1004-10 based rule. Hayward, PHTA, and NEMA noted that more time is required to: address the limited product that currently exists in the small fractional motor category; find solutions to the design of other products impacted by a DPPP motor rule; and provide better alignment with any coming revisions to the current DPPP rule. (Hayward, No. 93 at pp. 2-3; PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 9) PHTA stated that any final DPPPM rule compliance date should be extended a minimum of 5 years to allow manufacturers to recover investments made to comply with the pump rule. (PHTA, No. 100 at p. 3) In addition, Hayward recommended the alignment of the DPPP and DPPP motor implementation dates. (Hayward, No. 93 at p. 2) Regal recommended that DOE endeavor to better align both the performance requirements and compliance deadlines between the DPPP and DPPP motor rules. Regal commented that this will allow for maximizing energy savings, while avoiding unintended market disruptions and significant fiscal impacts to industry and consumers. (Regal, No. 98 at p. 1) Specifically, PHTA and NEMA commented that they were concerned the different implementation dates of the DPPP and DPPP motor rules will cause confusion and difficulties for manufacturers and risk the potential to undercut savings by unaligned implementation of the two rules. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at pp. 2)

DOE notes that PHTA and NEMA's original recommendation to DOE was to adopt UL 1004-10:2022 in its entirety (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 9, 10), which includes the requirement that DPPP motors rated greater or equal to 1.15 THP shall not be marked for single-speed, two-speed, or multi-speed (

i.e.,

shall instead be marked for variable-speed). (section 7.1(b) of UL 1004-10:2022). Further, PHTA and NEMA stated that manufacturers were ready and able to provide products compliant with UL 1004-10:2022 12 months after a final rule effective date. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 9) Finally, PHTA and NEMA suggested that DOE require compliance with the entire UL 1004-10 standard and not just the scope and definitions sections because doing so would better align and provide consistency with the DPPP rule. They also stated that doing so would provide an easier enforcement tool for DOE by requiring nameplate markings on those motors captured in the scope of the NOPR and in UL 1004-10, and would also ensure products not within the scope, such as rigid electric spa motors, be labelled for that intended use only. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 10) This is an energy conservation standard and not a labeling rulemaking. In this final rule, DOE is requiring variable speed control for standard-size DPPP motors (

i.e.,

1.15 ≤ THP ≤5), consistent with UL 1004-10:2022. However, DOE is also requiring variable-speed control for small-size DPPP motors (

i.e.,

0.5 ≤ THP <1.15), which is more stringent than UL 1004-10:2022. In this final rule, DOE has concluded that the proposal from the June 2022 NOPR is technologically feasible and economically justified.

See

section V for analytical results.

As noted previously, PHTA, NEMA, and Hayward recommended a two-step approach. In addition, most if not all comments to the June 2022 NOPR concerned the transition to variable-speed for the small-size equipment class.

DOE reviewed the compliance dates proposed in the June 2022 NOPR with specific concern for the compliance dates applicable to that class. In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE provided a two-year compliance timeline for DPPP motors based on the statutorily mandated rulemaking schedule provided in section 6313.

See

87 FR 37122, 37144 at FN 67, and 37186. Upon further review, DOE has determined that the rulemaking schedule provided in 42 U.S.C. 6313(b) does not apply to DPPPM. As discussed in section II.A. of this document, DPPPM are a type of electric motor, but not among the types of electric motor for which Congress established standards and a rulemaking schedule in 42 U.S.C. 6313(b). DPPPM are definite purpose motors.

See

42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(C). As such, they are excepted from the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6313(b), including the compliance deadlines provided in that section. Because 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) applies certain requirements of section 6295(l)-(s) of EPCA to certain equipment, including electric motors, DOE considered whether the compliance deadlines of section 6295(m)(4) applied to DPPPM. Section 6295(m)(4)(A) defines compliance deadlines for specific products. But electric motors and DPPPMs are not listed, nor does section 6316 apply a cross reference on how to apply these paragraphs to electric motors or DPPPMs. Accordingly, DOE determined that these compliance deadlines do not apply to DPPPM. Additionally, DOE reviewed section 6296(m)(4)(B), which states that DOE cannot apply new standards to a product with respect to which other new standards have been required in the prior 6-year period. As this is the first time DOE is establishing standards for this product, this paragraph also does not apply. As such, DOE has determined that it has discretion to establish compliance deadlines for DPPPM.

See:

(Anonymous, No. 89 at p. 1), (Pentair, No. 90 at p. 1, 3), (Fluidra, No. 91 at p. 2), (Hayward, No. 93 at p. 2), (CA IOUs, No. 96 at p. 1-2), (Joint Advocates, No. 97 at p. 1), (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 10), (PHTA, No. 100 at p. 3)

DOE notes CEC's standards for RDPPM, which include standards for the small-size equipment class, require compliance beginning July of 2021. Docket #19-AAER-02. The CEC standards set a variable speed motor requirement for motors at or above 0.5 THP as well as minimum motor full-load efficiency requirements. 20 CA ADC 1605.3(g)(6)(B). DOE's final rule matches the stringency of the California standards (requiring variable speed controls for all motors over 0.5 THP) for replacement DPPP motors but DOE's proposal extends the variable speed requirement to all DPPP motors, regardless of whether they are sold with a DPPP or on their own. DOE believes manufacturers are already producing standard-size and extra-small DPPPMs that will have to comply with DOE's standards in this final rule. In addition, some manufacturers already produce small-size DPPPMs that align with CEC's variable speed RDPPM standards.

However, DOE understands that some manufacturers may need additional time to scale up their

manufacturing lines, especially for the small-size DPPP motors.

Therefore, DOE is adopting two different compliance dates in this final rule depending on the total horsepower of the motor. Doing so will allow DOE to begin the transition to a Federal standard for DPPP motors quickly, which will help alleviate any circumvention and unintended consequences that may be occurring because of the DPPP Federal standard, while balancing the needs of industry to have additional time to increase manufacturing scale of the small DPPP motors. Based on the comments received, DOE has concluded that the need for additional time is particularly relevant for small-size equipment. Accordingly, DOE is extending the compliance timeline to 4 years, instead of the proposed two years, for the small-size equipment class as DOE believes this provides industry sufficient time to scale up their manufacturing lines.

https://www.regalrexnord.com/products/electric-motors/ac-motors-nema/pump-motors/pool-pump-motors/pool-pump-motor-01-85-hp-1-ph-60-hz-115-v-3600-rpm-48y-frame-tefc-elv08tb.

DOE included the capital and product conversion costs necessary for these DPPP motor manufacturers to introduce variable-speed DPPP motor models for the small-size equipment class. See section III.J of this document.

For the extra-small-size and standard-size equipment classes, DOE is maintaining the two-year compliance timelines as proposed. For the extra-small-size and standard-size equipment classes, the adopted TSL (TSL7) aligns with the requirements in UL 1004-10:2022 and as noted by PHTA and NEMA, manufacturers are ready and able to provide products compliant with UL 1004-10:2022 12 months after a final rule effective date. Therefore, for the extra-small-size and standard-size equipment classes DOE has determined that two years provides sufficient lead time.

The CA IOUs recommended that DOE update the DPPP ECS to align with the proposed DPPP motor standards. The CA IOUs commented that the proposed standard requires variable speed capability for small and standard size DPPP motors, which will impact the motors installed in DPPPs. The CA IOUs added that the non-self-priming pool filter pump and PCBP WEF standards allow performance levels achievable by single-speed, dual-speed, and variable-speed motors. (CA IOUs, No. 96 at p. 6) DOE appreciates CA IOUs comments. However, because this rulemaking is concerning DPPP motors only and not DPPPs, DOE may consider coordinating compliance timelines as part of any upcoming DPPP rulemakings.

Finally, Pentair stated that after the DPPP rule, it saw a large increase in internet activity selling illegal pumps and motors that do not meet DOE requirements. (Pentair, No. 90 at pp. 1-2) Fluidra commented that American manufacturers may also be negatively impacted by imports of non-compliant DPPPs and DPPP motors from foreign manufacturers who unknowingly or knowingly disregard enforcement of this regulation. (Fluidra, No. 91 at p. 2) Based on input from five manufacturers, PHTA and NEMA commented that they estimate approximately 5 percent of the current market to be made up of inexpensive imported pumps sold through online retailers that likely do not comply with DOE's current energy conservation standard. PHTA and NEMA commented that these manufacturers have indicated that the current value (5 percent) is approximately double what it was prior to the compliance date for the DPPP standard. PHTA and NEMA commented that the manufacturers also estimate that a DPPP motor standard, established as currently proposed by DOE, will double the percentage of the market made up of non-compliant DPPPs, increasing it to 10 percent. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at pp. 7-8) PHTA and NEMA also stated that the misalignment of the compliance dates for the DPPP energy conservation standards and the proposed DPPP motor standards could cause confusion for manufacturers and importers, potentially leading to more non-compliant DPPP motors being imported. PHTA and NEMA reiterated NEMA's concerns about port of entry enforcement that they have separately commented on numerous times. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 8) Nidec commented that they were concerned that because of the disconnect of the proposal to the current DPPP regulations (DPPPMs between 0.5 to 1.15 THP), there may be issues with enforcement of pumps assembled offshore and coming into the U.S. with non-compliant DPPPMs. Nidec commented that because of the rulemaking, there is a high risk that DPPPs may not get assembled anymore in the U.S. and instead will be done offshore unless there is proper enforcement that brings the DPPP regulations and the proposed DPPPM regulations into harmony. (Nidec, Public Meeting, No. 88, at pp. 45-46) DOE currently does not have any energy conservation standards for DPPP motors. This final rule will finalize standards for DPPP motors and product-specific enforcement requirements at § 429.134. Any enforcement-related issues, particularly compliance dates, regarding DPPPs will be addressed as part of the DPPP rulemaking, or through a separate avenue.

Nidec requested comment on whether there are any other examples where an end-product rule defines a lower threshold for compliance versus a component threshold and how DOE has successfully managed that. They stated that in their experience, the end-product generally overrides the component standard, and for the DPPPM proposal, it would not be the case. (Nidec, Public Meeting, No. 88 at p. 47) EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. This equipment includes those electric motors that are DPPP motors, the subject of this document, and also pumps (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) Accordingly, DOE has the authority to regulate both a component (DPPPM) and the end-product (DPPPs). Given the current misalignment amongst the Federal DPPP standards and the CA DPPP replacement motor standards along with DOE's authority for electric motors, DOE is taking an approach to facilitate harmonization of the standards at the Federal level and ensure a complimentary regulatory approach for DPPPs and replacement DPPP motors which will help ensure energy savings are realized in the field.

Scope of Coverage

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

These terms are defined in UL 1004-10:2020, which is incorporated by reference in DOE's test procedure at 10 CFR 431.484. In this final rule, DOE is incorporating by reference the latest version of the UL standard, UL 1004-10:2022;

see

discussion in section III.A.1 of this document.

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, which other products within such type (or class) do not have, that justify differing standards. In making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of the

feature to the consumer and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q))

DOE is establishing equipment classes for DPPP motors based on THP. DOE is proposing an extra-small-size equipment class corresponding to motors with a THP less than 0.5 THP, a small-size equipment class corresponding to motors with a total horsepower rating greater than or equal to 0.5 THP but less than 1.15 THP, and a standard-size equipment class corresponding to a motor with a THP greater than or equal to 1.15 THP and less than or equal to 5 THP. Table III.1 provides a summary of the equipment classes.

See

section IV.A.3 for further details on the reasoning as to why DOE determined these equipment classes are appropriate and justify having separate standards.

Table III.1—Equipment Classes for DPPP Motors

Equipment class

Motor total

horsepower

(Hp)

Extra-small-size

THP <0.5.

Small-size

0.5 ≤ THP < 1.15.

Standard-size

1.15 ≤ THP ≤ 5.

See

section IV.A.1 of this document for discussion of the equipment classes analyzed in this final rule.

B. Test Procedure

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)) Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a), 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))

The test procedure references UL 1004-10:2020 “Standard for Safety for Pool Pump Motors” for the definitions (10 CFR 431.483) and references CSA C747-09 as the energy efficiency test method for DPPP motors (10 CFR 431.484(b)). The test procedure establishes full-load efficiency as the metric for DPPP motors. 10 CFR 431.484(b). In this final rule, DOE is incorporating by reference the latest version of the UL standard, UL 1004-10:2022; further discussion on this topic and any comments received are provided in section IV.A.1 of this document. In addition, DOE is also finalizing product-specific enforcement requirements at 10 CFR 429.134 that require DPPP motors to be tested in accordance with UL 1004-10:2022 to verify variable-speed capability and applicable freeze protection design requirements.

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General

In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. 10 CFR 431.4; sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430 subpart C (“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. 10 CFR 431.4; section 7(b)(2)-(5) of appendix A. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for DPPP motors, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking,

see

chapter 4 of the final rule technical support document (“TSD”).

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for DPPP motors, using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C of this final rule and in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

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

The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of equipment 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 a product would likely evolve in the absence of energy conservation standards.

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 models to estimate national energy savings (“NES”) from standards for DPPP motors. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.G.2 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. For natural gas, the primary energy savings are considered to be equal to the site energy savings. 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, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, among other factors.

As stated, the standard levels adopted in this final rule are projected to result in national energy savings of 1.56 quads FFC, the equivalent of the electricity use of 16.8 million homes in one year. Based on the amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in emissions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, DOE has determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this final rule are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

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

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

In determining the impacts of potential amended standards 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 payback period (“PBP”) associated with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a standard.

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

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

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

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

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

c. Energy Savings

Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section IV.G.2 of this document, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

In establishing equipment 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 equipment. (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 equipment 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 proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.

6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) 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 noted the possibility of anticompetitive effects stemming from the differences between the energy conservation standards for DPPP motors and DPPPs, as well as the high cost of compliance for domestic small businesses identified by DOE. DOJ elaborated that the difference in standards between DPPP motors and DPPPs would force domestic manufacturers to comply with both standards while foreign manufacturers could import DPPPs that are compliant with the DPPP rule but contain a non-compliant motor. DOJ ultimately concluded that they do not have sufficient information to conclude that the proposed energy conservation standards for DPPP motor are likely to have a significant adverse impact on competition. DOE notes that DPPP motors that are a component of an imported DPPP are subject to energy conservation standards. DOE is publishing the Attorney General's assessment at the end of this 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 of this document; 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 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 effect potential amended energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 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 final rule.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

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

DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the standards 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.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=76.

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

Annual Energy Outlook

(“

AEO

”) 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 DPPP motors. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections.

See

chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.

1. Scope of Coverage and Definitions

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

pump motors; and (vi) integral sand-filter pool pump motors.

The scope includes DPPP motors regardless of how the equipment is sold;

i.e.,

incorporated in a DPPP or sold separately. The DPPP motors in the scope of this rule are used primarily in the residential sector and light commercial applications, in self-priming pool filter pumps (typically used in inground pools), non-self-priming pool filter pumps (typically used in above-ground pools), and pressure cleaner booster pumps (typically used for pressure-side pool cleaner applications).

These terms are defined in UL 1004-10:2020, which is incorporated by reference in DOE's test procedure at 10 CFR 431.484. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to reference the latest version of the UL standard, UL 1004-10:2022; see discussion in section III.A.1 of this document.

DOE received some comments on scope and definitions. PHTA and NEMA commented that storable pools use non-integral pumps, which are certified to DPPP, but the current direct motor replacements are not variable-speed capable per what the NOPR would require. PHTA and NEMA stated that the replacement motors made for this type of pool are motors integrated with the control unit, and that these motors are specific to a set pump for the storable pool and cannot be used in other applications, as there is no way to (dis)connect them. PHTA and NEMA further stated that these pools are purchased in retail stores, and based on input from two manufacturers, have an average retail price slightly over $400. Accordingly, PHTA and NEMA recommended that DOE consider exempting this specific type of motor based on application and obtain additional manufacturer information about this specific product related to the current market, shipments, and pricing for this type of pool, and to consider the limited use of replacement motors. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 5)

DPPP motors in scope are those electric motors identified in sections 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 of UL 1004-10:2022. 10 CFR 431.481(n), as updated in this final rule. DOE notes that the DPPP definition comprises self-priming pool filter pumps, non-self-priming pool filter pumps, waterfall pumps, PCBPs, integral sand-filter pool pumps, integral-cartridge filter pool pumps, storable electric spa pumps, and rigid electric spa pumps. 10 CFR 431.462. In addition, section 1.4 of UL 1004-10:2022 specifically excludes DPPP motors that are polyphase motors capable of operating without a drive and distributed in commerce without a drive that converts single-phase power to polyphase power, waterfall pump motors, rigid electric spa pump motors, storable electric spa pump motors, integral cartridge-filter pool pump motors, and integral sand-filter pool pump motors. As such, the example application provided by PHTA and NEMA would need to meet the definition of DPPP and not be one of the aforementioned exclusions to be considered within the scope of DPPP motor.

As previously noted, storable electric spa pump motors are specifically excluded from the scope of this rulemaking. Section 2 of UL 1004-10:2022 defines storable electric spa pump motor as a DPPP motor that is a component of a storable electric spa pump as defined 10 CFR 431.462, subpart Y, Pumps. Storable electric spa pumps are defined to include an integral heater and an integral air pump. 10 CFR 431.462. The example application provided by PHTA and NEMA specifically stated that it has a non-integral pump. However, PHTA and NEMA did not provide details on what type of DPPP the example would be considered to be.

As such, DOE attempted to determine what type of product PHTA and NEMA were referring to and reviewed manufacturer data and specification sheets to confirm what type of DPPP the example could be considered to be. Based on DOE's review, DOE did not identify any DPPPs for storable pumps that would not be applicable to variable-speed motors as defined due to their integration with controls and other components, and not already be excluded for other reasons. Specifically, of the examples DOE was able to find of variable-speed motors integrated with controllers, they were applicable to integral-cartridge or integral-sand filter pumps, both of which are already excluded from DPPP motor scope. Otherwise, DOE also reviewed an outlier filtration system for storable pools, but could not identify any apparent integration of the DPPP motor with controls, and there was also no indication that it would not be able to be replaceable with a variable-speed option being considered in this rulemaking. As such, DOE could not definitively conclude that there is a need for the exclusion recommended by PHTA and NEMA, and therefore maintains the scope from the June 2022 NOPR.

Regarding the variable-speed definition, CEC and NYSERDA recommended that DOE update the definition to align with the definition used in the California Code of Regulations, Title 20, section 1602(g)(4), instead of the current definition based on UL 1004-10:2022. CEC and NYSERDA stated that with the current definition, at minimum, only four operating speeds are required to meet the definition, whereas the California code specifies “operating at a variety of user-determined speeds,” which CEC and NYSERDA suggested described a truly variable-speed motor and aligns with how variable-speed is understood by consumers. CEC and NYSERDA noted that they were unaware of any DPPP motors that meet the current definition of variable speed, but do not meet the Title 20 California definition. However, CED and NYSERDA also commented that if such a motor exists, having only four operating speeds would constrain operational flexibility and lead to non-optimal operation and unnecessary electricity consumption. CEC and NYSERDA stated that allowing for the potential introduction of less energy efficient “variable-speed” motors is unnecessary and might jeopardize some of the energy savings associated with this proposed rule. (CEC and NYSERDA, No. 94 at pp. 3-4)

DOE incorporated by reference UL 1004-10:2020, which includes a definition of variable speed in the July 2021 Final Rule. 86 FR 40765, 40769-40770. UL 1004-10 is an industry standard specific to DPPP motors and has been used by industry since 2019. In this final rule, DOE is not considering any changes in scope; rather, this rulemaking is finalizing standards based on the scope and definitions established in the July 2021 Final Rule, and which are currently in 10 CFR 431.481. Further, as noted by commenters, there are no DPPP motors that meet the current definition of variable speed but do not meet the Title 20 California definition. As such, if there is any discrepancy in the future, DOE may consider this issue in a future rulemaking.

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE also proposed to update the UL 1004-10 reference to the latest version of the industry standard, from UL 1004-10:2020 to UL 1004-10:2022, in sections 10 CFR 431.481(b), 10 CFR 431.482(c)(1), and 10 CFR 431.483. 87 FR 37122, 37133-37134. DOE concluded that the only update was the addition of a glossary term for “factory default setting” in section 2.7A, which did not change the content and requirements of UL 1004-10:2020, but only provided a clarification regarding the factory default setting as it applies to the industry standard.

Id.

Further, DOE also proposed product-specific enforcement requirements at 10 CFR 429.134 that require DPPP motors be tested in accordance with UL 1004-

10:2022 to verify variable-speed capability and applicable freeze protection design requirements. 87 FR 37122, 37131.

In response, PHTA and NEMA supported the DOE's decision to update from the 2020 to the 2022 version of the UL 1004-10 Standard. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 10) In this final rule, DOE is incorporating by reference the latest version of the UL standard, UL 1004-10:2022 to be consistent with industry practice.

Separately, the Joint Advocates supported the proposed product-specific enforcement provisions because they will provide clarity regarding how DOE would determine whether a DPPP motor complies with the requirements regarding variable-speed capability and freeze protection design. (Joint Advocates, No. 97 at p. 2) As such, DOE is also finalizing the proposed product-specific enforcement requirements at 10 CFR 429.134.

2. Market Review

In the June 2022 NOPR, to review the current market of DPPP motors incorporated in DPPPs, DOE relied on information from the DOE Compliance and Certification Database, the CEC, and the ENERGY STAR program. (“2021 DPPP Database”) To supplement the market review, DOE also reviewed general motor catalog data from 2020 and created a database that contained information regarding motor speed-control, topology, THP, motor application, and full-load efficiency (“2020 Motor Database”). To make the two databases more comparable, DOE filtered the 2020 Motor Database to analyze only motors used in DPPP applications. 87 FR 37122, 37134.

DOE received a number of comments regarding the data that were used for the market analysis. Pentair commented that a lot has changed in the past 7 years and DOE should consider the latest data versus data used for the DPPP rule in 2015. (Pentair, No. 90 at p. 1) Hayward commented that DOE should update its information on the current market. Specifically, Hayward noted that it has stopped selling any pumps that were not compliant with the minimum WEF requirements and modified other pumps that were marginal in performance. In addition, Hayward noted that variable-speed pumps have continued to gain market share and therefore would provide a different baseline. (Hayward, No. 93 at p. 2) PHTA and NEMA commented that DOE relied heavily on the analysis performed during the 2017 DPPP DFR and recommended that DOE conduct interviews to obtain current market information, pricing, and shipments data. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 2) Regal commented that it agrees with PHTA and NEMA's comments that DOE should consider conducting additional interviews and analyses to better understand current market offerings, pricing, and shipments. (Regal, No. 98 at p. 1) PHTA commented that using 2015 market data is not accurate because the DPPP market has substantially changed since then and the 2015 data is invalid in its application to the DPPPM analysis. PHTA provided data showing that nearly 60 percent of pool pump listings were non-compliant with the 2017 DPPP rule and had to be modified or removed by the July 19, 2021 compliance date. (PHTA, No. 100 at p. 2) On the other hand, CEC and NYSERDA stated that DOE's analysis is robust and appropriately representative. (CEC and NYSERDA, No. 94 at p. 3)

First, DOE notes that DOE did consider the latest DPPPM market data available for the analysis conducted in the June 2022 NOPR, as previously discussed. In addition, for this final rule, DOE updated the market review using current information from the DOE Compliance and Certification Database, the CEC, and the ENERGY STAR program. (“2022 DPPP Database”) DOE supplemented this review with information from general motor catalogs surveyed in 2022; these motor catalogs contained information regarding motor THP, topology, full-load efficiency, pole configuration, and speed-control. DOE then analyzed the range of efficiencies offered at a given THP, topology, and pole configuration as well as the average efficiency of that subset of motors. DOE found that the average and range of efficiency offered for a given THP, topology, and pole configuration were not significantly different than what was observed in the data provided by manufacturers for the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. Based on the similar efficiencies being offered, DOE concluded that the technology used to meet each efficiency level has not substantially changed since the analysis for the January 2017 Direct Final Rule.

DOE notes that the shipments efficiency distribution are based on a review of the 2022 DPPP Database and that this updated database captures the changes to the DPPP market that have occurred since 2017, including those changes due to the January 2017 Direct Final Rule (See section IV.F.8 of this document for more details). For details on how DOE accounted for the DPPP motor price changes since the January 2017 Direct Final Rule,

see

section IV.C.2 of this document. DOE also notes that it had conducted manufacturer interviews as part of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule and incorporated the updated manufacturer feedback in its analysis. DOE also conducted DPPP motor manufacturer interviews as part of the June 2022 NOPR, as discussed in the manufacturer impact analysis, and incorporated feedback to estimate the manufacturer impacts of setting variable-speed requirements as standards. 87 FR 37122, 37154. As such, DOE concluded that additional manufacturer interviews were not needed since DOE performed interviews, and already considered recent market offering, pricing, and shipments information in this final rule.

3. Equipment Classes

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE shall establish separate standards for a group of covered products (

i.e.,

establish a separate equipment class) if DOE determines that separate standards are justified based on the type of energy used, or if DOE determines that a product's capacity or other performance-related feature, which other products within such type (or class) do not have, justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) 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. (

Id.

)

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to establish equipment classes for DPPP motors based on THP. DOE proposed an extra-small-size equipment class corresponding to motors with a THP less than 0.5 THP, a small-size equipment class corresponding to motors with a total horsepower rating greater than or equal to 0.5 THP but less than 1.15 THP, and a standard-size equipment class corresponding to motors with a THP greater than or equal to 1.15 THP and less than or equal to 5 THP. 87 FR 37122, 37130.

In response to the June 2022 NOPR, DOE received a number of comments regarding equipment classes. PHTA and NEMA recommended that DOE analyze DPPP motors based on equipment classes considered in the DPPP rule. PHTA and NEMA commented that it is critical to differentiate by application, not just size, to really determine what is or is not cost-effective. As such, PHTA and NEMA commented that if the analysis was separated based on PCBP self-priming and non-self-priming, it would show that not all the current proposed requirements were cost-effective. Specifically, PHTA and NEMA

stated that when looking at PCBP as a separate equipment class, a variable-speed requirement is not cost-effective (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at pp. 4-5) In addition, PHTA and NEMA commented that DOE should break down the 0.5-1.15 THP and analyze the following additional THP ranges: 0.5 < 0.75 THP; 0.75 < 1 THP; 1 > 1.15 THP based on the assessment of available products and previously recommended THP disaggregation. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 5; PHTA, No. 100 at p. 3) Further, PHTA and NEMA commented that breaking down the 0.5-1.15 THP into smaller categories for an analysis would provide a truer picture of cost-effectiveness when combined with breaking out PCBP self-priming and non-self-priming applications. PHTA and NEMA stated that to do otherwise will cause market confusion and unintended consequences with non-compliant products being distributed. For example, PHTA and NEMA commented that imported pump products with THP ratings between 0.50 and 1.14 can meet the DPPP rule and bypass the DPPP motor proposal, which will negate the DPPP motor proposed rule and not deliver the intended energy savings. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 10)

Hayward stated that equipment class should be disaggregated by pump size and application and noted that THP misrepresents the overall effect and impact of the rule. Hayward also supported PHTA and NEMA's recommendations on disaggregation. (Hayward, No. 93 at p. 2) Fluidra recommended that equipment be disaggregated not only by THP, but also by application type. Specifically, Fluidra commented that it was concerned that PCBPs and pool filtration pumps were combined into the same equipment class. (Fluidra, No. 91 at p. 1)

Waterway Plastic commented that in the negotiations that resulted in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, there was consideration of a separate category for non-self-priming pool pumps that are used in above-ground pool pump applications, that range from 0.75 to 1 THP, and are typically two-speed or single-speed pumps. Accordingly, they stated that the DPPPM rule would not consider this separate category of DPPPs, which allowed for single- or two-speed DPPPMs to be used to meet the ultimate WEF standard, and were concerned on how the DPPPM rulemaking would overwrite the conclusions from the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. (Waterway Plastic, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at pp. 16-17) Dose also commented asking if DOE considered breaking the small-size THP range into subcategories after they suggested the favorable results would be from the higher THPs. (Dose, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at pp. 39-40)

DOE notes that this rule concerns DPPP motors, not DPPPs. Further, DOE notes that the scope includes DPPP motors regardless of how the equipment is sold (

i.e.,

incorporated in a DPPP or sold separately). Accordingly, imported pump products that include a DPPP motor would be subject to the DPPP motor standard as well.

When considering equipment classes, DOE determines whether separate standards are justified based on the type of energy used for the equipment in question (which in this rulemaking is DPPP motors only), or if a DPPP motor's capacity or other DPPPM performance-related feature justifies a different standard. Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the Federal test procedure as the basis for 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)). The metric for DPPP motors based on the DOE test procedure is full-load efficiency (10 CFR 431.484(b)), and full-load efficiency does not take into consideration the ultimate application of the DPPP motor in a DPPP and the motor is tested without an associated DPPP. The DPPP motors in this rule also consume the same type of energy. Further, DOE notes that there are no physical or technological distinguishing factors in a DPPP motor that could be used to identify a particular end-use DPPP application (

e.g.,

PCBP, self-priming, non-self-priming). If sized correctly, a given DPPP motor could serve any of the DPPP applications discussed in this rulemaking. The ranges of motor THP that serve each application overlap and preclude DOE from setting equipment classes using the motor THP to distinguish each application. Accordingly, DOE is not considering DPPP application in addition to motor THP when setting equipment classes and energy conservation standards for this final rule.

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE discussed that full-load efficiency generally correlates with motor horsepower. DOE explained motor horsepower dictates the maximum load that a motor can drive, which means that a motor's rated horsepower can influence and limit the end use applications where that motor can be used, which in this case is dedicated purpose pool pumps. Horsepower is a critical performance attribute of a DPPP motor, and since horsepower has a direct relationship with full load efficiency and consumer utility, used this element as a criterion for distinguishing among equipment classes. 87 FR 37122, 37134. In determining the proposed equipment classes, DOE considered how motor total horsepower can be used to decide whether separate standards are justified based on the utility of the DPPP motor. Accordingly, DOE first justified a utility argument for the 0.5 THP cut-off based on maximum efficiency potential in non-self-priming pool filter pumps (

i.e.,

two-speed or variable-speed motors below 0.5 THP would provide inadequate flow to the pool pump). Finally, DOE justified a utility argument for the 1.15 THP cut-off based on how almost all DPPP motors greater than or equal to 1.15 THP are primarily used in standard-size self-priming pool filter pumps, while pool pump motors below 1.15 THP are typically found in small-size, self-priming pool filter pumps, non-self-priming pool filter pumps, and PCBPs. 87 FR 37122, 37135.

To review the recommendation from PHTA and NEMA to further break down the 0.5-1.15 THP range (

i.e.,

small-size equipment class), DOE analyzed the 2022 DPPP Database to determine whether there was any other utility argument to consider. DOE identified DPPP motors used in PCBP applications primarily in the 0.75-1.15 DPPP motor THP range; however, PCBPs in that range were only 4 percent of the total model count (96 percent of the models were either self-priming or non-self-priming). Further, DPPP motors in self-priming pool filter pumps and non-self-priming pool filter pumps were identified throughout the small-size equipment class THP range. Accordingly, there was no THP range within the small-size equipment class that clearly illustrated that only PCBP motors would be used and therefore have a specific utility, and so, DOE was unable to determine a clear utility argument that would allow for the small-size equipment class to be segregated further. Therefore, because DOE is not considering DPPP application in addition to motor total horsepower for creating equipment classes, DOE is maintaining the June 2022 NOPR proposed equipment classes in this final rule.

Fluidra recommended including a definition for a PCBP DPPP motor as “a motor used for a pressure cleaner booster pump”, and a definition for pressure cleaner booster pump as “an end suction, dry rotor pump designed and marketed for pressure-side pool cleaner applications, and which may be

UL listed under ANSI/UL 1081-2016. (Fluidra, No. 91 at p. 2) PHTA and NEMA recommended that DOE define a PCBP DPPP motor as “an electric motor that is single phase or poly phase and is designed and/or marketed for use on pressure cleaner booster pumps, as defined in 10 CFR 431.462.” PHTA and NEMA commented that this definition aligns with the definitions of a DPPP motor and PCBP, both of which define the respective equipment based on the design and marketed purpose of the equipment. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at pp. 4-5) DOE understands that the definitions provided by the commenters were intended for distinguishing PCBP within the equipment class structure. As discussed previously, DOE is not separating equipment classes based on application. As such, DOE does not need to incorporate a definition for a PCBP motor and is therefore not including a definition in this final rule.

4. Technology Options

In the June 2022 NOPR market analysis and technology assessment, DOE identified several technology options initially determined to improve the efficiency of DPPP motors. Specifically, DOE stated that the efficiency of a DPPP motor is dependent on motor topology, capacity, and operating speed. Because DOE proposed to delineate equipment classes based on motor capacity (

i.e.,

motor horsepower), DOE considered motor topology and operating speed as technology options. 87 FR 37122, 37135-37136.

For motor topology, DOE considered AC induction motors and permanent magnet DPPP motors. Within AC induction motors, DOE identified six categories of motors, including shaded-pole, split-phase, capacitor-start (capacitor-start induction-run “CSIR” and capacitor-start capacitor-run “CSCR”), permanent-split capacitor (“PSC”), and polyphase. 87 FR 37122, 37135-37136. For operating speed, DOE considered single-speed, multi-speed, and variable-speed DPPP motors. Single-speed motors can operate at one predefined speed, and therefore the associated pool pump can provide only a single flow rate in any given pool system. Two-speed motors can be sized so that high-flow functions like pool cleaning are effective at full-speed operation and low-flow tasks like filtration can be completed at low-speed operation. Multi-speed motors function similarly to two-speed motors, but provide additional flexibility. Finally, variable-speed motors can provide greater energy savings than two-speed or multi-speed motors due to the ability to program these motors to operate at user-defined speed settings. 87 FR 37122, 37136. Variable-speed motors can also offer non-energy-saving benefits like reduced pool system wear and reduced noise levels during operation, both due to the reduced amount of water flow during pumping. DOE requested comment on the technologies considered for higher DPPP motor efficiency.

Id.

PHTA and NEMA commented that to meet the current DPPP rulemaking, synchronous motor technologies with a variable frequency drive are already being utilized to meet system efficiency requirements. As such, PHTA and NEMA suggested that small additional increments in already implemented synchronous motor efficiency will have minimal impact on system efficiency, but significant impact on costs. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 10) DOE notes that this rule is specifically regarding the DPPP motor, not DPPP, and therefore technology options considered are with regards to DPPP motors and not the whole DPPP system. DOE also understands that meeting the current DPPP WEF standards would not require synchronous motor technologies for the range of DPPP motor equipment classes being considered. Specifically, in the October 2020 NOPR, DOE specified that only standard-size self-priming pool filter pumps, which are subject to the DOE DPPP energy conservation standards, would likely require a variable-speed control motor. 85 FR 62816, 62824. DOE noted that this generally reflects DPPP motors with a THP greater than or equal to 1.15.

Id.

As such, there are potential savings to be considered for the full scope of DPPP motors being considered, and as discussed previously, the synchronous motor technology option allows for multiple operating speeds, which can provide energy savings. Finally, DOE included the incremental costs for requiring variable speed as part of the engineering analysis, which is discussed further in section IV.C.2 of this document.

Similarly, PHTA and NEMA commented that variable-speed fractional HP pumps cannot provide minimum flow at required lower speeds. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 100 at p. 3) DOE notes that variable-speed motors are only considered as a design option for DPPP motors where the associated pump can provide adequate flow at lower speeds, and that the representative units analyzed in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule contained fractional THP variable-speed motors.

See

Table 5.6.5 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, where a .44 hhp pump is driven by a .75 THP variable-speed motor and provides adequate flow.

Separately, Fluidra, PHTA, and NEMA suggested that the operating window of a PCBP in practical application is limited to an approximate motor speed of 2,900 RPM-3,450 RPM (max speed); runs on a timer for 2-2.5 hours a day at a single operating speed; and, once set, is typically not further adjusted for speed like one would for a filtration pump. (Fluidra, No. 101 at p. 1; PHTA and NEMA, No. 100 at p. 3) Accordingly, Fluidra and PHTA stated that the definition for a variable-speed control DPPP motor does not make practical sense in a PCBP application, and therefore recommended separating PCBP requirements from other DPPP applications. (Fluidra, No. 101 at pp. 1-3; PHTA, No. 100 at pp. 2-3) DOE notes that the definition for variable speed comes from UL 1004-10:2020, which is an industry standard DOE incorporated by reference in the July 2021 Final Rule based on recommendations from several stakeholders. 86 FR 40765, 40769-40770. (July 29, 2021). Further, the scope of UL 1004-10:2020 does not specifically exclude PCBP applications for DPPP motors.

See

section 1 of UL 1004-10:2020. As such, DOE concludes that the definitions from UL 1004-10:2020 are applicable to all DPPP motors in scope, including PCBPs, and there is no technical reasoning to exclude application to PCBPs.

Separately, in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE also considered variable-speed motors for PCBPs (82 FR 5650, 5684), as the WEF metric accounts for energy savings available from reducing the pump speed to reach the minimum required pressure of 60 feet.

See

section 3.6.2 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD. While the test procedure specifies only one load point for testing PCBPs (

see

Table 1 of appendix C to subpart Y of 10 CFR part 431), the test procedure does not specify that PCBPs are tested at maximum speed; rather, it specifies that PCBPs are tested at the lowest speed that can achieve 60 feet of head at the 10 gpm test condition. Therefore, a PCBP may be able to achieve a higher (more beneficial) WEF score if it has the ability to operate at reduced speeds, and as such, the definition for a variable-speed control DPPP motor would still make practical sense in terms of examining energy savings potential.

Finally, as part of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, the DPPP Working Group discussed that PCBPs on the market supply between 100 and 125 feet of head at the pump outlet at the test condition of 10 gpm, but these pumps provide more pressure than the cleaner

requires because the pump must overcome head losses imposed by piping, couplings, and hoses between the pump and the cleaner. In pool installations with high head loss, these pumps may deliver the recommended amount of head to the cleaner when operating at maximum speed with no flow restriction; in pool installations with low head loss, these pumps may supply more head than is needed to drive the pressure cleaner. As such, the DPPP Working Group discussed how, in installations with low head loss, energy could be conserved by operating the pressure cleaner booster pump at a reduced speed rather than by releasing pressure that was supplied unnecessarily. Therefore, there is benefit to variable-speed control for PCBP applications.

See

section 3.6.2.2 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD.

NEEA recommended that DOE include non-proprietary, standardized connectivity design requirements for DPPP motors consistent with the voluntary requirements in the ENERGY STAR Product Specification for Pool Pumps Version 3.1. The ENERGY STAR specification presents connected product criteria for a connected pool pump system (“CPPS”). As part of the CPPS criteria, ENERGY STAR requires communication and demand response functionality. Specifically, ENERGY STAR requires that the CPPS shall meet the communication and equipment performance standards for OpenADR 2.0 and/or CTA-2045. NEEA commented that this requirement to use these non-proprietary communication protocols and hardware standards ensures there is an open-source platform that allows demand response service providers and utilities to interface with as many demand response customers as possible. NEEA noted that the DOE DPPP motor rule would benefit from this additional demand response design requirement because the DPPP motor serves as the energy-consuming component of the pool pump. However, NEEA further recommended that this requirement additionally be applied to the pool pumps themselves, so that the pump controller can provide interface for response signals. Finally, NEEA noted that connectivity design requirements would provide the greatest benefits to two-speed or variable-speed motors, and that DOE should assess the additional cost requirements for integrating connectivity requirements into DPPP motors with the multitude of efficiency and grid benefits that grid-connected pool pumps can provide. NEEA also provided an example of a case study by Electric Power Research Institute,

which showed connected pool pumps systems can provide significant grid benefits. (NEEA, No. 99 at pp. 1-2)

Performance Test Results: CTA-2045 Variable Speed Pool Pumps,

https://www.bpa.gov/-/media/Aep/energy-efficiency/emerging-technologies/ET-Documents/NREL-testing-CTA-2045-VariableSpeedPoolPump-Nov2017-000000003002011749.pdf.

The subject of this final rule is DPPP motors, which are within the scope of electric motors. DOE notes that these potential design criteria described by NEEA would not directly impact the measured efficiency of DPPP motors per the DOE test procedure, but could serve an important purpose for grid flexibility generally, when used in conjunction with the DPPP. For this final rule, DOE is only considering technology options that can be directly implemented as part of the DPPP motor to improve measured efficiency. As such, an additional connectivity design requirement would be beyond the scope of this final rule and therefore is not being considered at this time.

B. Screening Analysis

DOE uses the following four screening criteria to determine which technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy conservation standards rulemaking:

(1)

Technological feasibility.

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

(2)

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.

(3)

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 results in the unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered further.

(4)

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.

(5)

Unique-pathway proprietary technologies.

If a technology has proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a given EL, 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 sum, 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.

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE determined that all the technology options considered continue to be technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in commercially available products or working prototypes. DOE also found that the technology options continue to meet the other screening criteria (

i.e.,

practicable to manufacture, install, and service; do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product availability, health, or safety; and are not unique-pathway proprietary technologies). 87 FR 37122, 37137. As such, DOE screened-in all technology options considered.

DOE did not receive any comments regarding the screening analysis. As such, through a review of each technology, similar to the conclusions from the June 2022 NOPR, DOE concludes that all of the identified technologies listed in section IV.A.4 of this document met all five screening criteria to be examined further as design options in DOE's final rule analysis.

C. Engineering Analysis

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

i.e.,

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

i.e.,

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

i.e.,

the LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).

1. Efficiency Analysis

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

i.e.,

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

i.e.,

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

In this final rule, DOE applied a combination of the two approaches. In line with the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE considered three tiers of motor efficiency (low, medium, and high efficiency) and design requirements specifically for two-speed, multi-speed, and variable-speed motors. As discussed in sections IV.A.2 and IV.A.4 of this document, the motor technologies applicable to pool pump motors analyzed in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule remain relevant and applicable in the current DPPP motor market.

a. Representative Units

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE opted to use representative units for each equipment class for the engineering analysis. The associated motor THP of the proposed representative units were consistent with the motor THPs provided in Table 5.7.1 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, with three exceptions: (1) Representative unit 2A was added to represent standard-size DPPP motors that are used in small-size self-priming DPPPs; (2) Representative unit 6 was added to analyze standard-size DPPP motors used in non-self-priming filter pump applications; and (3) Representative unit 7 at 1.125 THP, instead of 1.25 THP was considered so as to keep this representative unit in the small-size equipment class (EC 2), and to better represent the THP range of motors in PCBPs.

87 FR 37122, 37137-37138. The proposed representative units are provided in Table IV.1.

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

Table IV.1—Representative Units THP and DPPP Application

Rep. unit

Equipment class

THP

DPPP application *

2 (Small)

0.75

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

3 (Standard)

1.65

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

3 (Standard)

1.65

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

3 (Standard)

3.45

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

1 (Extra-small)

0.22

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

2 (Small)

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

3 (Standard)

1.5

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

2 (Small)

1.125

Pressure Cleaner Booster Pump.

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

In response to the proposal, DOE received a number of comments. Fluidra commented that Rep. Unit #4 appears too small and irrelevant and may only be used for pump/filter combos or spas, which is out of the scope of this regulation. (Fluidra, No. 91 at p. 3) Based on the 2022 DPPP Database, DOE notes that there are at least 15 non-self-priming filter pumps having DPPP motors at or less than 0.22 THP. While Rep. Unit #4 may be a small segment of the whole DPPPM market (3 percent; see shipments in Table IV.9), these are DPPP motors that would be in scope as they are part of the non-self-priming DPPP motor class. For this final rule, DOE specifically included an extra-small-size equipment class because DPPP motors in that class have different maximum efficiency potential than small- or standard-size equipment classes and therefore need to be analyzed separately. As such, DOE continues to include Rep. Unit #4 as part of the analysis.

Fluidra also stated that Rep. Unit #7 only represents single-stage booster pumps and not multi-stage, which are typically >1.125 THP and significantly higher WEF, and therefore should be reviewed separately. (Fluidra, No. 91 at p. 3) PHTA stated that DOE should review the improvements made in booster pump hydraulic efficiency and go on to note that a multi-stage booster pump can result in a 40-percent higher WEF than a single-stage booster pump. (PHTA, No. 100 at p. 3) DOE notes that representative units exemplify typical capacities in each equipment class and are used to quantify the manufacturing costs and the energy savings potential for each equipment class. As discussed previously, almost all DPPP motors used in PCBPs have THPs less than 1.15 THP. DOE also confirmed the same in the 2022 DPPP Database, with PCBP applications having DPPPMs ranging from 0.75 to 1.13 THP, with the majority of the models in the 1.1 to 1.13 THP range. Accordingly, the chosen DPPP motor representative unit for the PCBP application, Rep. Unit #7 at 1.125 THP, was considered to represent the full THP range of motors in PCBPs, which

are primarily in the small-size equipment class.

The pump performance curve associated with the DPPP motor Rep. Unit #7 and used in the analysis was based on the pump performance curve used in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. Section 5.8.2.3 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD specifically notes that DOE developed the equations by aggregating pump test data that were submitted by manufacturers, and does not specify that the test data was only for single-stage pumps. In reviewing the underlying data that were used to develop the equations, DOE can confirm that the selection of a representative PCBP unit and its corresponding performance characteristics was informed by the presence of more efficient multi-stage pumps available on the market to the extent they represent PCBP units with the exceptionally high hydraulic efficiency. However, DOE believed that these motors do not comprise as significant of a share of the market as single-stage pumps. Consequently, the ultimate representative unit and performance characteristics more closely resembled the single-stage PCBPs.

PHTA and NEMA commented that PCBP motors at or above 1.15 THP were not included in the DOE analysis, and if DOE intends to regulate these products, PHTA and NEMA requested that DOE update the analysis. (PHTA and NEMA, No. 92 at p. 5) Further, in a separate comment, PHTA restated the need for analysis of PCBP motors above 1.15 THP. (PHTA, No. 100 at p. 2) Based on the 2022 DPPP Database, DOE identifies only one DPPP motor used in a PCBP application that would be above the 1.15 THP threshold. Further, based on the 2022 DPPP Database, DOE notes that the majority of DPPP motors above 1.15 THP are self-priming DPPP applications (74 percent based on model count), with non-self-priming DPPP applications being the next highest percentage (26 percent based on model count). DOE generally selects representative units based on the quantity of motor models available within an equipment class. Considering that the number of DPPP motors above 1.15 T

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.