Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Expanded Scope Electric Motors
Federal RegisterDec 15, 2023
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007]
RIN 1904-AF55
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Expanded Scope Electric Motors
AGENCY:
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
ACTION:
Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting.
SUMMARY:
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including electric motors. In this notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”), DOE proposes new energy conservation standards for a subset of electric motors, expanded scope electric motors, expressed in terms of average full-load efficiency, and also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.
DATES:
Comments:
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NOPR no later than February 13, 2024.
Meeting:
DOE will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, January 17, 2024, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. This meeting will also be broadcast as a webinar.
Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in the
ADDRESSES
section on or before January 16, 2024.
ADDRESSES:
The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-245, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. See section VII of this document, “Public Participation,” for further details, including procedures for attending the in-person meeting, webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov
under docket number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007, by any of the following methods:
Email: ElecMotors2020STD0007@ee.doe.gov.
Include the docket number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007 in the subject line of the message.
Postal Mail:
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (“CD”), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
Hand Delivery/Courier:
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (“faxes”) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section VII of this document.
Docket:
The docket for this activity, which includes
Federal Register
notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at
www.regulations.gov.
All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov
index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007.
The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section VII of this document for information on how to submit comments through
www.regulations.gov.
EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites input from market participants and other interested persons with views on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested persons may contact the Antitrust Division at
energy.standards@usdoj.gov
on or before the date specified in the
DATES
section. Please indicate in the “Subject” line of your email the title and Docket Number of this proposed rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Kristin Koernig, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-3593. Email:
kristin.koernig@hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits and Costs
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for ESEMs
3. Electric Motors Working Group Recommended Standard Levels
C. Deviation From Process Rule
1. Public Comment Period
2. Framework Document
III. General Discussion
A. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes
1. General Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes
2. Structure of the Regulatory Text
3. Air-Over Medium Electric Motors and Air-Over ESEMs
B. Test Procedure
C. Represented Values
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
E. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
F. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Scope of Coverage
2. Air-Over ESEMs
3. Equipment Classes
4. Technology Options
5. Imported Embedded Motors
B. Screening Analysis
1. Screened-Out Technologies
2. Remaining Technologies
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
a. Representative Units Analyzed
b. Baseline Efficiency
c. Higher Efficiency Levels
2. Cost Analysis
3. Technical Specifications
4. Cost-Efficiency Results
5. Scaling Methodology
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
1. Consumer Sample
2. Motor Input Power
3. Annual Operating Hours
4. Impact of Electric Motor Speed
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Equipment Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
6. Equipment Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
G. Shipments Analysis
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Equipment Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
b. Shipments Projections
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios
3. Manufacturer Interviews
K. Emissions Analysis
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a. Social Cost of Carbon
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
M. Utility Impact Analysis
N. Employment Impact Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
C. Conclusion
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for ESEM Standards
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Information Quality
VII. Public Participation
A. Attendance at the Public Meeting
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution
C. Conduct of the Public Meeting
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as amended (“EPCA”),
1
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
2
of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) Such equipment includes electric motors. Expanded scope electric motors (“ESEMs”), a subcategory of electric motors, are the subject of this rulemaking. This proposed rulemaking does not address small electric motors that are covered under title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 431 subpart X.
1
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.
2
For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A-1.
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of four trial standard levels (“TSLs”) for ESEMs. The TSLs and their associated benefits and burdens are discussed in detail in sections V.A through V.C of this document. As discussed in section V.C of this document, DOE has tentatively determined that TSL 2 represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. The proposed standards, which are expressed in average full-load efficiency, are shown in Table I-1 through Table I-3 and are equivalent to those recommended in a joint recommendation for energy conservation standards for ESEMs
3
(“December 2022 Joint Recommendation”) from the Electric Motors Working Group, representing the motors industry, energy efficiency organizations and utilities.
4 5
3
In the letter, this category is referred to as “SNEM.” See discussion on the change in terminology in sections III.A and III.B of this document.
4
Full recommendation available at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0038.
5
The members of the Electric Motors Working Group included American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric, and Southern California Edison.
Upon receipt of the December 2022 Joint Recommendation, DOE considered whether the statutory requirements of
42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) would be satisfied and thus warrant the issuance of a direct final rule by DOE. In particular, EPCA requires DOE to determine whether the recommended standard contained in a statement submitted jointly by interested parties is in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o);
i.e.,
whether the recommended standard would achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i)) If the Secretary determines the recommended standard is in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), the Secretary may issue a final rule that establishes the recommended energy conservation standard. (
Id.
) If the Secretary determines that a direct final rule cannot be issued based on the statement, the Secretary must publish a notice of the determination, together with an explanation of the reasons for such determination. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(ii)) EPCA defines seven factors by which DOE must determine whether a proposed standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) Having considered the December 2022 Joint Recommendation, DOE has tentatively determined that the recommended standard is in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). However, because EPCA does not require DOE to issue a direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p), DOE is interested in seeking public comment on the proposed, and recommended, standards level through this proposed rule to better understand the impacts of those standards.
These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all ESEMs listed in Table I-1 through Table I-3 manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on January 1, 2029.
Table I-1—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for High and Medium-Torque ESEMs
[Compliance Starting on January 1, 2029] [Recommended TSL 2]
hp
Average full load efficiency
Open
2-pole
4-pole
6-pole
8-pole
Enclosed
2-pole
4-pole
6-pole
8-pole
0.25
59.5
59.5
57.5
59.5
59.5
57.5
0.33
64.0
64.0
62.0
50.5
64.0
64.0
62.0
50.5
0.5
68.0
69.2
68.0
52.5
68.0
67.4
68.0
52.5
0.75
76.2
81.8
80.2
72.0
75.5
75.5
75.5
72.0
1
80.4
82.6
81.1
74.0
77.0
80.0
77.0
74.0
1.5
81.5
83.8
81.5
81.5
80.0
2
82.9
84.5
82.5
82.5
3
84.1
84.0
Table I-2—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Low-Torque ESEMs
[Compliance Starting on January 1, 2029] [Recommended TSL 2]
hp
Average full load efficiency
Open
2-pole
4-pole
6-pole
8-pole
Enclosed
2-pole
4-pole
6-pole
8-pole
0.25
63.9
66.1
60.2
52.5
60.9
64.1
59.2
52.5
0.33
66.9
69.7
65.0
56.6
63.9
67.7
64.0
56.6
0.5
68.8
70.1
66.8
57.1
65.8
68.1
65.8
57.1
0.75
70.5
74.8
73.1
62.8
67.5
72.8
72.1
62.8
1
74.3
77.1
77.3
65.7
71.3
75.1
76.3
65.7
1.5
79.9
82.1
80.5
72.2
76.9
80.1
79.5
72.2
2
81.0
82.9
81.4
73.3
78.0
80.9
80.4
73.3
3
82.4
84.0
82.5
74.9
79.4
82.0
81.5
74.9
Table I-3—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Polyphase ESEMs
[Compliance Starting on January 1, 2029] [Recommended TSL 2]
hp
Average full load efficiency
Open
2-pole
4-pole
6-pole
8-pole
Enclosed
2-pole
4-pole
6-pole
8-pole
0.25
65.6
69.5
67.5
62.0
66.0
68.0
66.0
62.0
0.33
69.5
73.4
71.4
64.0
70.0
72.0
70.0
64.0
0.5
73.4
78.2
75.3
66.0
72.0
75.5
72.0
66.0
0.75
76.8
81.1
81.7
70.0
75.5
77.0
74.0
70.0
1
77.0
83.5
82.5
75.5
75.5
77.0
74.0
75.5
1.5
84.0
86.5
83.8
77.0
84.0
82.5
87.5
78.5
2
85.5
86.5
86.5
85.5
85.5
88.5
84.0
3
85.5
86.9
87.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
85.5
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
Table I-4 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the proposed standards on consumers of ESEMs, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (“LCC”) savings and the simple payback period (“PBP”).
6
The average LCC savings are positive for all representative units, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of ESEMs, which is estimated to be 7.1 years (see section IV.F of this document).
6
The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market in the compliance year in the absence of new 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-4—Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of ESEMs
Representative unit
Average LCC savings
(2022$)
Simple payback period
(years)
ESEM High/Med Torque, 4 poles, enclosed, 0.25 hp
51
1.1
ESEM High/Med Torque, 4 poles, enclosed, 1 hp
138
0.9
ESEM High/Med Torque, 4 poles, enclosed, 5 hp
147
0.7
ESEM Low Torque, 6 poles, enclosed, 0.25 hp
100
1.5
ESEM Low Torque, 6 poles, enclosed, 0.5 hp
26
2.0
ESEM Polyphase, 4 poles, enclosed, 0.25 hp
83
0.8
AO-ESEM High/Med Torque, 4 poles, enclosed, 0.25 hp
160
0.8
AO-ESEM High/Med Torque, 4 poles, enclosed, 1 hp
121
0.7
AO-ESEM High/Med Torque, 4 poles, enclosed, 5 hp
88
1.3
AO-ESEM Low Torque, 6 poles, enclosed, 0.25 hp
40
1.8
AO-ESEM Low Torque, 6 poles, enclosed, 0.5 hp
51
1.2
AO-ESEM Polyphase, 4 poles, enclosed, 0.25 hp
138
1.1
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on consumers is described in section IV.F of this document.
B. Impact on Manufacturers
The industry net present value (“INPV”) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2024-2058). Using a real discount rate of 9.1 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of ESEMs in the case without new standards is $2,019 million in 2022$. Under the proposed standards, DOE estimates the change in INPV to range from −13.1 percent to −6.5 percent, which is approximately −$264 million to −$131 million. In order to bring equipment into compliance with new standards, it is estimated that industry will incur total conversion costs of $339 million.
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document. The analytic results of the manufacturer impact analysis (“MIA”) are presented in section V.B.2 of this document.
C. National Benefits and Costs
7
7
All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2022 dollars.
DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation standards for ESEMs would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without new standards, the lifetime energy savings for ESEMs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the new standards (2029-2058) amount to 8.9 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads.
8
This represents a savings of 9 percent relative to the energy use of these products in the case without new standards (referred to as the “no-new-standards case”).
8
The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (“FFC”) energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (
i.e.,
coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.1 of this document.
The cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer benefits of the proposed standards for ESEMs ranges from $38.3 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $72.8 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 ESEMs purchased in 2029-2058.
In addition, the proposed standards for ESEMs are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the proposed standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 160.5 million metric tons (“Mt”)
9
of carbon dioxide (“CO
2
”), 43.8 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (“SO
2
”), 299.8 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (“NO
X
”), 1,362.2 thousand tons of methane (“CH
4
”), 1.4 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (“N
2
O”), and 0.3 tons of mercury (“Hg”).
10
9
A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for emissions other than CO
2
are presented in short tons.
10
DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the
Annual Energy Outlook 2023
(
“AEO2023”
).
AEO2023
reflects, to the extent possible, laws and regulations adopted through mid-November 2022, including the Inflation Reduction Act. 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
2
(“SC-CO
2
”), the social cost of methane (“SC-CH
4
”), and the social cost of nitrous oxide (“SC-N
2
O”). Together these represent the social cost of GHG (“SC-GHG”). DOE used interim SC-GHG values (in terms of benefit per ton of GHG avoided) developed by an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (“IWG”).
11
The derivation of these values is discussed in section IV.L of this document. For presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $9.4 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.
11
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
2
and NO
X
emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”),
12
as discussed in section IV.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would be $7.9 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $18.3 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
13
DOE is currently only monetizing health benefits from changes in ambient fine particulate matter (“PM
2.5
”) concentrations from two precursors (SO
2
and NO
X
), and from changes in ambient ozone from one precursor (for NO
X
), but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM
2.5
emissions.
12
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.
13
DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
Table I-5 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to result from the proposed standards for ESEMs. There are other important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate benefits, unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits, and distributional effects, among others.
Table I-5—Summary of Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for ESEMs
[TSL 2]
Billion $2022
3% discount rate
Consumer Operating Cost Savings
54.7
Climate Benefits *
9.4
Health Benefits **
18.3
Total Benefits †
82.4
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ‡
9.7
Net Benefits
72.8
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV ††)
(0.3)-(0.1)
7% discount rate
Consumer Operating Cost Savings
26.1
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)
9.4
Health Benefits **
7.9
Total Benefits †
43.5
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ‡
5.1
Net Benefits
38.3
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV ††)
(0.3)-(0.1)
Note:
This table presents the costs and benefits associated with ESEMs shipped in 2029-2058. These results include consumer, climate, and health benefits which accrue after 2029 from the equipment shipped in 2029-2058.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO
2
), methane (SC-CH
4
), and nitrous oxide (SC-N
2
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; however, DOE 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
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NO
X
and SO
2.
DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO
2
and NO
X
) PM
2.5
precursor health benefits and (for NO
X
) 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.
‡ Costs include incremental equipment 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 national impacts analysis 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 9.1 percent that is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For ESEMs, those values are −$264 million and −$131 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified. See section IV.J 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 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 proposed rule, the net benefits would range from $72.5 billion to $72.7 billion at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $38.0 billion to $38.2 billion at 7-percent discount rate. Numbers in parentheses are negative numbers. DOE seeks comment on this approach.
The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits of emission reductions, all annualized.
14
14
To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2022, the year used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur (
e.g.,
2030), and then discounted the present value from each year to 2022. 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 ESEMs shipped in 2029-2058. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of ESEMs shipped in 2029-2058. 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 of this document.
Table I-6 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the proposed 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
X
and SO
2
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards proposed in this rule is $543 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $2,757 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $542 million in climate benefits, and $836 million in health benefits. In this case. The net benefit would amount to $3,592 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards is $556 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $3,140 million in reduced operating costs, $542 million in climate benefits, and $1,052 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $4,179 million per year.
Table I-6—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for ESEMs
[TSL 2]
Million 2022$/year
Primary
estimate
Low-net-
benefits
estimate
High-net-
benefits
estimate
3% discount rate
Consumer Operating Cost Savings
3,140
2,962
3,341
Climate Benefits *
542
526
562
Health Benefits **
1,052
1,021
1,089
Total Benefits †
4,734
4,509
4,992
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ‡
556
598
529
Net Benefits
4,179
3,911
4,464
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV ††)
(25)-(13)
(25)-(13)
(25)-(13)
7% discount rate
Consumer Operating Cost Savings
2,757
2,615
2,921
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)
542
526
562
Health Benefits **
836
814
863
Total Benefits †
4,135
3,955
4,346
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ‡
543
578
520
Net Benefits
3,592
3,377
3,826
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV ††)
(25)-(13)
(25)-(13)
(25)-(13)
Note:
This table presents the costs and benefits associated with ESEMs shipped in 2029-2058. These results include consumer, climate, and health benefits which accrue after 2058 from the equipment shipped in 2029-2058. 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 constant rate in the Primary Estimate, an increasing rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a declining rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F and IV.4 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; however, DOE 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.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NO
X
and SO
2
. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO
2
and NO
X
) PM
2.5
precursor health benefits and (for NO
X
) 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.
‡ Costs include incremental equipment 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 national impacts analysis 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. The annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 9.1 percent that is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For ESEMs, those values are −$25 million and −$13 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified. See section IV.J of this NOPR. 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 proposed rule, the annualized net benefits would range from $4,154 million to $4,166 million at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $3,567 million to $3,579 million at 7-percent discount rate. Numbers in parentheses are negative numbers. DOE seeks comment on this approach.
DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is described in sections IV.G, IV.K, and IV.L of this document.
D. Conclusion
DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in the significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to technological feasibility, equipment achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for all equipment classes covered by this proposal. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that the benefits of the proposed standard exceed, to a great extent, the burdens of the proposed standards.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and NO
X
and SO
2
reduction benefits, and a 3-percent discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards for ESEMs is $543 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $2,757 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $542 million in climate benefits and $836 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $3,592 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.
15
For example, some covered products and equipment have substantial 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.
15
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 8.9 quad FFC, the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 95.7 million homes. In addition, they are projected to reduce CO
2
emissions by 160.5 Mt. Based on these findings, DOE has initially determined the energy savings from the proposed standard levels are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed discussion of the basis for these tentative conclusions is contained in the remainder of this document and the accompanying technical support document (“TSD”).
DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as potential standards, and is still considering them in this proposed rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the projected benefits.
Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in response to this document and related information collected and analyzed during the course of this proposed rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt energy efficiency levels presented in this document that are either higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for ESEMs.
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), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve the energy efficiency of certain types of industrial equipment, including electric motors. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) ESEMs, the subject of this document, are a category of electric motors.
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (“EPACT 1992”) (Pub. L. 102-486 (Oct. 24, 1992)) further amended EPCA by establishing energy conservation standards and test procedures for certain commercial and industrial electric motors that are manufactured alone or as a component of another piece of equipment. In December 2007, Congress enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA 2007”) (Pub. L. 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007). Section 313(b)(1) of EISA 2007 updated the energy conservation standards for those electric motors already covered by EPCA and established energy conservation standards for a larger scope of motors not previously covered by standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) EISA 2007 also revised certain statutory definitions related to electric motors. See EISA 2007, sec. 313 (amending statutory definitions related to electric motors at 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)).
The energy conservation program under EPCA, consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede state laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption in limited instances for particular state laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (
See
42 U.S.C. 6316(a) (applying the preemption waiver provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297))
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered equipment. (
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 procedure for ESEMs appear at 10 CFR part 431, subpart B, appendix B (“appendix B”).
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered equipment, including ESEMs. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard (1) for certain equipment, including ESEMs, if no test procedure has been established for the equipment, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(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 of Energy (“Secretary”) considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA 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 or equipment that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of product that has the same function or intended use, if DOE determines that products within such group: (A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of equipment, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of 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
DOE does not currently have energy conservation standards for ESEMs even though DOE has the authority to regulate electric motors broadly. DOE has adopted energy conservation standards for medium electric motors (“MEMs”) at 10 CFR 431.25 (see section III.A of this document for further description), as well as small electric motors (“SEMs”) at 10 CFR 431.446, which are separately regulated categories.
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for ESEMs
On May 21, 2020, DOE issued an early assessment request for information (“RFI”) (“May 2020 Early Assessment Review RFI”) in which DOE stated that it was initiating an early assessment review to determine whether any new or amended standards would satisfy the relevant requirements of EPCA for a new or amended energy conservation standard for electric motors and sought information related to that effort. Specifically, DOE sought data and information that could enable the agency to determine whether DOE should propose a “no new standard” determination because a more stringent standard: (1) would not result in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of the foregoing. 85 FR 30878, 30879.
On March 2, 2022, DOE published a Preliminary Analysis for electric motors (“March 2022 Preliminary Analysis”). 87 FR 11650. In conjunction with the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE published the March 2022 Preliminary TSD, which presented the results of the in-depth technical analyses in the following areas: (1) engineering; (2) markups to determine equipment price; (3) energy use; (4) LCC and PBP; and (5) national impacts. The results presented included the current scope of electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25, in addition to an expanded scope of motors, including electric motors above 500 horsepower, air-over electric motors, and ESEMs.
16
See
chapter 2 of the March 2022 Preliminary TSD. DOE requested comment on a number of topics regarding the analysis presented. However, DOE is only responding to comments pertaining to ESEMs and air-over expanded scope electric motors (“AO-ESEMs”) in this NOPR, as DOE responded to the rest of the comments pertaining to medium electric motors and their air-over equivalents in the Electric Motors Direct Final Rule published on June 1, 2023 (“June 2023 DFR”) that amended energy conservation standards for medium electric motors and their air-over equivalents. 88 FR 36066.
16
In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE used the term small, non-small electric motor, electric motors (“SNEMs”) to designate ESEMs.
On April 5, 2022, DOE held a public webinar in which it presented the methods and analysis in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis and solicited public comment. (“April 5, 2022, Public Meeting”).
Table II-1—March 2022 Preliminary Analysis Written Commenters
Commenter(s)
Reference in
this NOPR
Docket No.
Commenter type
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison
Electric Motors Working Group
38
Working Group.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Natural Resources Defense Council, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
Joint Advocates
27
Efficiency Advocacy Organizations.
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers; Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
AHAM and AHRI
25
Trade Association.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
AHRI
26
Trade Association.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison; collectively, the California Investor-Owned Utilities
CA IOUs
30
Utilities.
Electrical Apparatus Service Association, Inc
EASA
21
Trade Association.
Hydraulics Institute
HI
31
Trade Association.
Lennox International
Lennox
29
Manufacturer.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
NEEA
33
Efficiency Advocacy Organization.
National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, the Medical Imaging Technology Alliance, the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, Home Ventilating Institute, and the Power Tool Institute
Joint Industry Stakeholders
23
Trade Associations.
National Electrical Manufacturers Association
NEMA
22
Trade Association.
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.
17
To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided during the April 5, 2022, public meeting, DOE cites the written comments throughout this document.
17
The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for electric motors. (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007, which is maintained at
www.regulations.gov
). The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document).
By letter dated December 22, 2022, DOE received the December 2022 Joint Recommendation from the Electric Motors Working Group. The December 2022 Joint Recommendation addressed energy conservation standards for high-torque, medium-torque, low-torque, and polyphase ESEMs that are 0.25-3 hp, and AO-ESEMs. The December 2022 Joint Recommendation recommended a compliance date for updated energy conservation standards for AO-ESEMs as well. (Electric Motors Working Group, No. 38 at p. 5)
3. Electric Motors Working Group Recommended Standard Levels
This section summarizes the standard levels recommended in the December 2022 Joint Recommendation and the subsequent procedural steps taken by DOE. Further discussion on scope is provided in section III.A of this document. The Electric Motors Working Group stated that the recommended levels would minimize potential market disruptions by allowing smaller designs to remain on the market. Specifically the Electric Motors Working Group stated that the recommended levels for high and medium torque ESEM could allow smaller capacitor start induction run (“CSIR”) motors and currently unregulated split-phase motors, which are common in certain space-constrained products; for low torque ESEMs, the Electric Motors Working Group stated that manufacturers believe efficiency levels above the recommended levels could result in significant increases in the physical size, unavailability of product, and, in some cases, may be extremely difficult to achieve with current permanent split capacitor (“PSC”) technology; and for AO-ESEMs, the Electric Motors Working Group stated that the recommended levels represented the highest feasible efficiencies given the potential design constraints associated with their use in covered equipment. (
Id.
at pp. 3-5)
Recommendation A:
For high-torque and medium-torque ESEMs (
i.e.,
CSIR, capacitor start capacitor run (“CSCR”), and split-phase motors), the Electric Motors Working Group recommended the following standard levels, expressed in average full-load efficiency:
(1) Values for open and enclosed motors rated at 0.25, 0.33, and 0.5 hp (all pole configurations) that are largely based on the levels in NEMA MG 1, Table 12-19, “Premium Efficiency Levels for Capacitor-Start/Induction-
Run Single-Phase Small Motors.” The exceptions are the open and enclosed 0.5 hp 4-pole values, which have lower efficiency standards described in Table II-2. For cases where Table 12-19 lists two frame sizes (
e.g.,
48 and 56 frame) for a given hp rating, the recommended efficiency level reflects the smaller frame size (
i.e.,
lower efficiency).
(2) Values for open motors (2-, 4-, 6-pole) above 0.5 hp that are consistent with the current small electric motor standards for CSCR and CSIR motors found in 10 CFR part 431, subpart X (§ 431.446).
(3) Values for 8-pole open motors above 0.5 hp and all enclosed motors above 0.5 hp that are based on the levels in NEMA MG 1, Table 12-20, “Premium Efficiency Levels for Capacitor-Start/Capacitor-Run Single-Phase Small Motors.” For cases where Table 12-20 lists two frame sizes (
e.g.,
48 and 56 frame) for a given hp rating, the recommended efficiency level reflects the smaller frame size (
i.e.,
lower efficiency).
Table II-2—Recommended Energy Conservation Standards for High-Torque and Medium-Torque ESEMs
[
i.e.,
CSIR, CSCR, and split-phase motors]
hp
Average full load efficiency
Open
2-pole
4-pole
6-pole
8-pole
Enclosed
2-pole
4-pole
6-pole
8-pole
0.25
59.5
59.5
57.5
59.5
59.5
57.5
0.33
64.0
64.0
62.0
50.5
64.0
64.0
62.0
50.5
0.5
68.0
69.2
68.0
52.5
68.0
67.4
68.0
52.5
0.75
76.2
81.8
80.2
72.0
75.5
75.5
75.5
72.0
1
80.4
82.6
81.1
74.0
77.0
80.0
77.0
74.0
1.5
81.5
83.8
81.5
81.5
80.0
2
82.9
84.5
82.5
82.5
3
84.1
84.0
(
Id.
at pp. 3, 6).
Recommendation B:
For low-torque ESEMs (
i.e.,
shaded pole and PSC motors), the Electric motors Working Group recommended the following standard levels, expressed in terms of average full-load efficiency:
(1) Values for open motors rated at 0.25 hp, 0.33 hp, and 1.5 hp and above that are based on DOE's new efficiency level (EL 3).
18
18
“DOE's new efficiency level” refers to preliminary efficiency levels that were developed during the private negotiations of the Electric Motors Working Group. See Table II-3 for the final values chosen from those preliminary efficiency levels.
(2) Values for open motors rated at 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0 hp that are based on DOE's new EL 2, with two exceptions:
19
19
See footnote 18.
(a) The 6-pole, 1.0 hp value is the mid-point between EL 2 (75.3%) and EL 3 (79.2%)
(b) The 2-pole, 0.5 hp value is the mid-point between EL 2 (66.4%) and EL 3 (71.1%)
(3) Values for enclosed motors that are based on the equivalent open motor efficiency but are adjusted to account for the lack of additional cooling, which is a function of motor rpm (
i.e.,
number of poles). The adjustment is 3% for 2-pole motors, 2% for 4-pole motors, 1% for 6-pole motors, and 0% for 8-pole motors.
Table II-3—Recommended Energy Conservation Standards for Low-Torque ESEMs
[
i.e.,
shaded pole and PSC motors]
hp
Average full load efficiency
Open
2-pole
4-pole
6-pole
8-pole
Enclosed
2-pole
4-pole
6-pole
8-pole
0.25
63.9
66.1
60.2
52.5
60.9
64.1
59.2
52.5
0.33
66.9
69.7
65.0
56.6
63.9
67.7
64.0
56.6
0.5
68.8
70.1
66.8
57.1
65.8
68.1
65.8
57.1
0.75
70.5
74.8
73.1
62.8
67.5
72.8
72.1
62.8
1
74.3
77.1
77.3
65.7
71.3
75.1
76.3
65.7
1.5
79.9
82.1
80.5
72.2
76.9
80.1
79.5
72.2
2
81.0
82.9
81.4
73.3
78.0
80.9
80.4
73.3
3
82.4
84.0
82.5
74.9
79.4
82.0
81.5
74.9
(
Id.
at pp. 4, 6)
Recommendation C:
For polyphase ESEMs (
i.e.,
three-phase ESEMs), the Electric Motors Working Group recommended the following standard levels, expressed in terms of average full-load efficiency:
(1) Values for 2-pole, 4-pole, and 6-pole open motors that are consistent with the current small electric motor standards for polyphase motors found in 10 CFR part 431, subpart X (§ 431.446).
(2) Values for 8-pole open and all enclosed motors from NEMA MG 1, Table 12-21, “Premium Efficiency Levels for Three-Phase Induction Small Motors.” For cases where Table 12-21 lists two frame sizes (
e.g.,
48 and 56 frame) for a given hp rating, the recommended efficiency level reflects the smaller frame size (
i.e.,
lower efficiency).
Table II-4—Recommended Energy Conservation Standards for Polyphase ESEMs
[
i.e.,
Three-Phase ESEMs]
hp
Average full load efficiency
Open
2-pole
4-pole
6-pole
8-pole
Enclosed
2-pole
4-pole
6-pole
8-pole
0.25
65.6
69.5
67.5
62.0
66.0
68.0
66.0
62.0
0.33
69.5
73.4
71.4
64.0
70.0
72.0
70.0
64.0
0.5
73.4
78.2
75.3
66.0
72.0
75.5
72.0
66.0
0.75
76.8
81.1
81.7
70.0
75.5
77.0
74.0
70.0
1
77.0
83.5
82.5
75.5
75.5
77.0
74.0
75.5
1.5
84.0
86.5
83.8
77.0
84.0
82.5
87.5
78.5
2
85.5
86.5
86.5
85.5
85.5
88.5
84.0
3
85.5
86.9
87.5
86.5
86.5
89.5
85.5
(
Id.
)
Recommendation D:
The Electric Motors Working Group recommended that if standards are warranted for AO-ESEMs, DOE set the standards at the same levels as those for comparable ESEMs used in non-air-over applications. (
Id.
at p. 5)
Recommendation E:
The Electric Motors Working Group recommended that DOE align the compliance date for AO-ESEMs with the compliance date for updated energy conservation standards for Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners/Heat Pumps (“CUAC/HPs”) currently under negotiation in DOE's Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (“ASRAC”) Working Group on CUAC/HPs. The Electric Motors Working Group stated this recommended compliance date would appropriately balance energy savings and the time needed for manufacturers of equipment with AO-ESEMs to re-design products. (
Id.
)
DOE notes that the scope and standards proposed in this document are equivalent to those recommended by the Electric Motors Working Group. Regarding the compliance year for energy conservation standards for ESEMs, the Electric Motors Working Group recommended that DOE align the compliance date for AO-ESEMs with the compliance date for updated energy conservation standards for CUAC/HP, which were under negotiation in DOE's ASRAC Working Group on CUAC/HPs at the time. Since then, the CUAC/HP negotiations have concluded and include a recommended compliance year of 2029 (
i.e.,
January 1, 2029).
20
ESEMs 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). As such, they are exempt from the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6313(b), including the compliance deadlines provided in that section. Because section 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) applies certain requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)-(s) of EPCA to certain equipment, including electric motors, DOE considered whether the compliance deadlines of 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4) applies to ESEMs. 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(A) defines compliance deadlines for specific products; however, electric motors and ESEMs are not listed, nor does 42 U.S.C. 6316 apply a cross reference on how to apply these paragraphs to electric motors or ESEMs. Accordingly, DOE has determined that these compliance deadlines do not apply to ESEMs. Additionally, DOE reviewed section 6295(m)(4)(B), which states that a manufacturer shall not be required to apply new standards to a product with respect to which other new standards have been required in the prior 6-year period. As no standards for ESEMs have not yet been established, this paragraph also does not apply to ESEMs. As such, DOE has determined that it has discretion to establish compliance deadlines for ESEMs. Therefore, DOE proposes a January 1, 2029, compliance date in accordance with the recommendation from the Electric Motors Working Group. DOE has tentatively determined that this compliance date would provide sufficient lead time to motor manufacturers based on the recommendation from the Electric Motors Working Group, which includes NEMA.
20
See
CUAC/HP ASRAC Working group term sheet at:
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0087.
C. Deviation From Process Rule
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (“Process Rule”), DOE notes that it is deviating from the provision in the Process Rule regarding the pre-NOPR and NOPR stages for an energy conservation standards rulemaking.
1. Public Comment Period
Section 6(f)(2) of the Process Rule specifies that the length of the public comment period for a NOPR will be not less than 75 calendar days. For this NOPR, DOE has opted instead to provide a 60-day comment period, consistent with EPCA requirements. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p). DOE is opting to deviate from the 75-day comment period because stakeholders have already been afforded multiple opportunities to provide comments on this proposed rulemaking. As noted previously, DOE requested comment on various issues pertaining to this standards rulemaking in the May 2020 Early Assessment Review RFI and provided stakeholders with a 30-day comment period. 85 FR 30878. Additionally, DOE provided a 60-day comment period for stakeholders to provide input on the analyses presented in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis. 87 FR 11650. The analytical assumptions and approaches used for the analyses conducted for this NOPR are similar to those used for the preliminary analysis. Furthermore, as discussed previously in this document, the standards proposed in this document are equivalent to those recommended by the Electric Motors Working Group for the electric motor types subject to this proposal. Therefore, DOE believes a 60-day comment period is appropriate and will provide interested parties with a meaningful opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.
2. Framework Document
Section 6(a)(2) of the Process Rule states that if DOE determines it is appropriate to proceed with a rulemaking, the preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue or amend an energy conservation standard that DOE will undertake will be a framework document and preliminary analysis, or
an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. While DOE published a preliminary analysis for this rulemaking (
see
87 FR 11650), DOE did not publish a framework document in conjunction with the preliminary analysis. DOE notes, however, that chapter 2 of the March 2022 Preliminary TSD that accompanied the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis—entitled
Analytical Framework, Comments from Interested Parties, and DOE Responses
—describes the general analytical framework that DOE uses in evaluating and developing potential new energy conservation standards.
21
As such, publication of a separate framework document would be largely redundant of chapter 2 of the March 2022 Preliminary TSD.
21
The March 2022 Preliminary TSD is available at
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0010.
III. General Discussion
DOE developed this proposal after considering oral and written comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent a variety of interests, including the December 2022 Joint Recommendation. The following discussion addresses issues raised by these commenters.
A. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes
1. General Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes
This document covers certain equipment meeting the definition of electric motors as defined in 10 CFR 431.12. Specifically, the definition for “electric motor” is “a machine that converts electrical power into rotational mechanical power.” 10 CFR 431.12. This NOPR addresses ESEMs, which are covered under 10 CFR part 431 subpart B. This NOPR does not address small electric motors, which are covered under 10 CFR part 431 subpart X.
22
22
DOE uses the term “expanded scope electric motor” or “ESEM” (formally known as “small, non-small electric motor, electric motors” or “SNEMs”), to describe those small electric motors that are not included in the definition “small electric motor” under EPCA, but otherwise fall within the definition of “electric motor” under EPCA. The term “small electric motor” means a NEMA general purpose alternating current single-speed induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number series in accordance with NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G)).
Currently, DOE regulates MEMs falling into the NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, NEMA Design C, and fire pump motor categories and those electric motors that meet the criteria specified at 10 CFR 431.25(g). 10 CFR 431.25(h)-(j). Section 431.25(g) specifies that the relevant standards apply only to electric motors, including partial electric motors, that satisfy the following criteria:
(1) Are single-speed, induction motors;
(2) Are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC);
(3) Contain a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or cage (IEC) rotor;
(4) Operate on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz sinusoidal line power;
(5) Are rated 600 volts or less;
(6) Have a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration;
(7) Are built in a three-digit or four-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), including those designs between two consecutive NEMA frame sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent);
(8) Produce at least one horsepower (0.746 kW) but not greater than 500 horsepower (373 kW), and
(9) Meet all of the performance requirements of one of the following motor types: A NEMA Design A, B, or C motor or an IEC Design N, NE, NEY, NY or H, HE, HEY, HYmotor.
23
23
DOE added the “E” and “Y” designations for IEC Design motors into 10 CFR 431.25(g) in the electric motors test procedure final rule. 87 FR 63588, 63596-636597, 63606 (Oct. 19, 2022).
10 CFR 431.25(g).
The definitions for “NEMA Design A motors,” “NEMA Design B motors,” “NEMA Design C motors,” “fire pump electric motors,” “IEC Design N motor,” and “IEC Design H motor,” as well as “E” and “Y” designated IEC Design motors, are codified in 10 CFR 431.12. DOE has also currently exempted certain categories of motors from standards. The exemptions are as follows:
(1) Air-over electric motors;
(2) Component sets of an electric motor;
(3) Liquid-cooled electric motors;
(4) Submersible electric motors; and
(5) Inverter-only electric motors.
10 CFR 431.25(l).
On October 19, 2022, DOE published the electric motors test procedure final rule (“October 2022 Final Rule”). 87 FR 63588. As part of the October 2022 Final Rule, DOE expanded the test procedure scope to additional categories of electric motors that currently do not have energy conservation standards. 87 FR 63588, 63593-63606. The expanded test procedure scope included the following:
(1) Electric motors having a rated horsepower above 500 and up to 750 hp that meets the criteria listed at § 431.25(g), with the exception of criteria § 431.25(g)(8) to air-over electric motors (“AO-MEMs”), and inverter-only electric motors;
(2) Expanded Scope Electric Motors (“ESEM”, formally known as “small, non-small electric motor, electric motors” or “SNEMs”), that are not air-over electric motors, which:
(a) Are not a small electric motor, as defined at § 431.442 and is not a dedicated pool pump motors as defined at § 431.483;
(b) Are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC);
(c) Operate on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; or is used with an inverter that operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power;
(d) Are rated for 600 volts or less;
(e) Are a single-speed induction motor capable of operating without an inverter or is an inverter-only electric motor;
(f) Produce a rated motor horsepower greater than or equal to 0.25 horsepower (0.18 kW); and
(g) Are built in the following frame sizes: any two-, or three-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC equivalent) if the motor operates on single-phase power; any two-, or three-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC equivalent) if the motor operates on polyphase power, and has a rated motor horsepower less than 1 horsepower (0.75 kW); or a two-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), if the motor operates on polyphase power, has a rated motor horsepower equal to or greater than 1 horsepower (0.75 kW), and is not an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent).
(3) ESEMs that are air-over electric motors (“AO-ESEMs”) and inverter-only electric motors;
(4) A synchronous electric motor, which:
(a) Is not a dedicated pool pump motor as defined at § 431.483 or is not an air-over electric motor;
(b) Is a synchronous electric motor;
(c) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC);
(d) Operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; or is used with an inverter that operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power;
(e) Is rated 600 volts or less; and
(f) Produces at least 0.25 hp (0.18 kW) but not greater than 750 hp (559 kW).
(5) Synchronous electric motors that are inverter-only electric motors.
See
section 1.2, appendix B.
In the October 2022 Final Rule, DOE noted that, for these motors newly included within the scope of the test procedure for which there was no established energy conservation standards, such as ESEMs and AO-
ESEMs, manufacturers would not be required to use the test procedure to certify these motors to DOE until such time as a standard is established. 87 FR 63588, 63591.
24
Further, the October 2022 Final Rule continued to exclude the following categories of electric motors:
24
However, manufacturers making voluntary representations respecting the energy consumption or cost of energy consumed by such motors are required to use the DOE test procedure for making such representations beginning 180 days following publication of the October 2022 Final Rule.
Id.
at 87 FR 63591.
(1) Inverter-only electric motors that are air-over electric motors;
(2) Component sets of an electric motor;
(3) Liquid-cooled electric motors; and
(4) Submersible electric motors.
Due to the number of electric motor characteristics (
e.g.,
horsepower rating, pole configuration, and enclosure), in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE used two constructs to help develop appropriate energy conservation standards for electric motors: “equipment class” and “equipment class groups.” An equipment class represents a unique combination of motor characteristics for which DOE is establishing a specific energy conservation standard. This includes permutations of electric motor design topologies (
i.e.,
CSIR/CSCR, split phase, shaded pole, PSC, or polyphase), standard horsepower ratings (
i.e.,
standard ratings from 0.25 to 3 horsepower varying based on torque level and pole count), pole configurations (
i.e.,
2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole), and enclosure types (
i.e.,
open or enclosed). An ECG is a collection of electric motors that share a common design trait. Equipment class groups include motors over a range of horsepower ratings, enclosure types, and pole configurations. Essentially, each equipment class group is a collection of a large number of equipment classes with the same design trait. As such, in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE presented equipment class groups based on electric motor topology, horsepower rating, pole configuration. and enclosure type.
See
sections 2.3.1 and 3.2.2 of the March 2022 Preliminary TSD.
In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE analyzed the additional motors now included within the scope of the test procedure after the October 2022 Final Rule.
See
sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.3.2 of the March 2022 Preliminary TSD. This analysis included MEMs from 1-500hp, AO-MEMs, and ESEMs (including AO-ESEMs). This NOPR proposes new standards for only a portion of the scope analyzed in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis and included within the scope of the test procedure after the October 2022 Final Rule. Specifically, in this NOPR, DOE is only proposing standards for ESEMs, including AO-ESEMs. As further described in section IV.A.3 of this document, DOE used multiple performance characteristics to establish the equipment classes used in this NOPR. Among these performance characteristics are locked-rotor torque and number of phases of the input power of a motor, used to create the following groups: high and medium torque single-phase ESEMs (
i.e.,
CSIR/CSCR and split phase), low torque single phase ESEMs (
i.e.,
shaded pole, PSC) and polyphase ESEMs that meet the criteria a) through g) as listed previously (
See
section 1.2, 10 CFR part 431, appendix B). These are typically used in residential as well as commercial and industrial applications.
Further discussion on equipment classes and the basis used to establish them is provided in section IV.A.3 of this document.
2. Structure of the Regulatory Text
In addition to proposing new requirements for ESEMs, in this NOPR, DOE proposes to move portions of the existing electric motor regulations that pertain to the energy conservation standards and their compliance dates (at 10 CFR 431.25) to improve clarity. In this NOPR, DOE proposes to revise 10 CFR 431.25 by retaining the existing electric motor energy conservation standards and their compliance dates, adding provisions pertaining to ESEMs, and reorganizing all provisions currently in 10 CFR 431.25 by compliance date (
i.e.,
each section has a different compliance date) to improve clarity. See Table III-1 for details.
Table III-1—Revisions to 10 CFR 431.25
Current location
Content high-level description
Proposed revised location
Impact
§ 431.25(a)-(f)
Describes standards for certain electric motors manufactured on or after December 19, 2010, but before June 1, 2016
None
None—Removed as these requirements are no longer current.
§ 431.25(k), § 431.25(q)
Describes how to establish the horsepower for purposes of determining the required minimum nominal full-load efficiency of an electric motor
§ 431.25(a)
Avoids repeating identical provisions in each subsection.
§ 431.25(g)
Describes the criteria for inclusion for certain electric motors manufactured on or after June 1, 2016, but before June 1, 2027 subject to energy conservation standards
§ 431.25(b)(1)(i)
Moves the “inclusion” criteria, so that the proper scope is presented fully upfront in each section.
§ 431.25(h)
Describes standards for certain NEMA Design A and B electric motors (and IEC equivalent) manufactured on or after June 1, 2016, but before June 1, 2027
§ 431.25(b)(2)(i)
Makes each section “comprehensive” by carrying over the existing standards for all electric motors categories in each section.
§ 431.25(i)
Describes standards for certain NEMA Design C electric motors (and IEC equivalent) manufactured on or after June 1, 2016
§ 431.25(b)(2)(ii), § 431.25(c)(2)(iv), § 431.25(d)(3)(iv)
Makes each section “comprehensive” by carrying over the existing standards for all electric motors categories in each section.
§ 431.25(j)
Describes standards for certain fire pump electric motors (and IEC equivalent) manufactured on or after June 1, 2016
§ 431.25(b)(2)(iii), § 431.25(c)(2)(v), § 431.25(d)(3)(v)
Makes each section “comprehensive” by carrying over the existing standards for all electric motors categories in each section.
§ 431.25(l)
Describes the criteria for exclusion for certain electric motors manufactured on or after June 1, 2016, but before June 1, 2027 subject to energy conservation standards
§ 431.25(b)(1)(ii)
Moves the “exemptions” to directly after the “inclusion” criteria, so that the proper scope is presented fully upfront in each section, prior to presenting the sub-group criteria and standards.
§ 431.25(m)
Describes the criteria for inclusion for certain electric motors manufactured on or after June 1, 2027 subject to energy conservation standards
§ 431.25(c)(1)(i)
Moves the “inclusion” criteria, so that the proper scope is presented fully upfront in each section.
§ 431.25(n)
Describes standards for certain NEMA Design A and B electric motors (and IEC equivalent),but excluding fire pump electric motors and air-over electric motors manufactured on or after June 1, 2027
§ 431.25(c)(2)(i), § 431.25(d)(3)(i)
Makes each section “comprehensive” by carrying over the existing standards for all electric motors categories in each section.
§ 431.25(o)
Describes standards for certain air-over NEMA Design A and B electric motors (and IEC equivalent), built in standard frame size manufactured on or after June 1, 2027
§ 431.25(c)(2)(ii), § 431.25(d)(3)(ii)
Makes each section “comprehensive” by carrying over the existing standards for all electric motors categories in each section.
§ 431.25(p)
Describes standards for certain air-over NEMA Design A and B electric motors (and IEC equivalent), built in specialized frame size manufactured on or after June 1, 2027
§ 431.25(c)(2)(iii), § 431.25(d)(3)(iii)
Makes each section “comprehensive” by carrying over the existing standards for all electric motors categories in each section.
§ 431.25(r)
Describes the criteria for exclusion for certain electric motors manufactured on or after June 1, 2027, subject to energy conservation standards
§ 431.25(c)(1)(ii)
Moves the “exemptions” to directly after the “inclusion” criteria, so that the proper scope is presented fully upfront in each section, prior to presenting the sub-group criteria and standards.
New section
Describes the criteria for inclusion as ESEM
§ 431.25(d)(2)(i)
New section—Adds the ESEM provisions proposed in this NOPR.
New section
Describes the criteria for exclusion for certain ESEM electric motors manufactured on or after January 1, 2029
§ 431.25(d)(2)(ii)
New section—Adds the ESEM provisions proposed in this NOPR.
New section
Describes standards for certain high and medium torque ESEM manufactured on or after January 1, 2029
§ 431.25(d)(3)(vi)
New section—Adds the ESEM provisions proposed in this NOPR.
New section
Describes standards for certain low torque ESEMs manufactured on or after January 1, 2029
§ 431.25(d)(3)(vii)
New section—Adds the ESEM provisions proposed in this NOPR.
New section
Describes standards for certain polyphase ESEMs manufactured on or after January 1, 2029
§ 431.25(d)(3)(viii)
New section—Adds the ESEM provisions proposed in this NOPR.
3. Air-Over Medium Electric Motors and Air-Over ESEMs
The June 2023 DFR amended the existing energy conservation standards for electric motors by establishing higher standards for certain horsepower electric motors and expanding the scope of the energy conservation standards to include certain air-over electric motors and electric motors with horsepower greater than 500. DOE adopted standards that were consistent with a joint recommendation that was submitted to DOE on November 15, 2022 (the “November 2022 Joint Recommendation”), after determining that the new and amended energy conservation standards for these products would result in significant conservation of energy and are technologically feasible and economically justified. 88 FR 36066, 36067-36069.
In the June 2023 DFR, DOE described that DOE currently regulates MEMs falling into the NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, NEMA Design C, and fire pump motor categories and those electric motors that meet the criteria specified at 10 CFR 431.25(g).
See id.
at 88 FR 36079-36080; 10 CFR 431.25(h)-(j). Specifically, DOE noted the nine criteria used to describe currently regulated MEMs, including the criteria at 10 CFR 431.25(g)(7), which specifies MEMs: “Are built in a three-digit or four-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), including those designs between two consecutive NEMA
frame sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent)”. 88 FR 36066, 36080.
In the June 2023 DFR, to support the new energy conservations standards for air-over electric motors, DOE created new equipment classes: one for standard frame size air-over motors (“AO-MEM (Standard frame size)”)) and one for specialized frame size air-over electric motors (“AO-Polyphase (Specialized frame size)”).
Id.
at 88 FR 36088. DOE also established a definition for “specialized frame size,” based on a table that specified the maximum NEMA frame diameter (or size) for a given motor horsepower, pole configuration, and enclosure combination.
Id.
This table was part of the November 2022 Joint Recommendation.
Id.
In this table, the maximum frame diameter specified ranges from a 48 NEMA frame motor diameter up to a 210 NEMA frame diameter, therefore including intermediate sizes such as 56 NEMA frame size in enclosed and open enclosure configurations.
Id.
To clarify that AO-Polyphase (Specialized frame size) are not included in the scope of electric motors included as ESEMs, DOE proposes to add “and do not have an air-over enclosure and a specialized frame size if the motor operates on polyphase power” to the ESEM scope criteria in the proposed paragraph (d)(2)(i)(1) of 10 CFR 431.25 in this NOPR. DOE notes that AO-MEM (Standard frame size) do not meet the frame criteria for ESEMs and are not included in the scope of ESEMs.
In the June 2023 DFR, DOE further noted that the specialized frame size air-over electric motors equipment class included frame sizes beyond those described at 10 CFR 431.25(g)(7).
Id.
To better characterize this distinction in frame sizes, DOE stated that it was renaming “Specialized Frame Size AO-MEMs” (from the November 2022 Joint Recommendation) to “AO-Polyphase (Specialized frame size).”
Id.
DOE added that only the naming convention was changed compared to the November 2022 Joint Recommendation; and the scope of motors being represented in that equipment class continued to stay the same as in the November 2022 Joint Recommendation.
Id.
The general scope description in 10 CFR 431.25(m) of the regulatory text published in the June 2023 DFR presents the nine criteria that determine what electric motors the standards in 10 CFR 431.25 apply to. Specifically, the criteria at 10 CFR 431.25(m)(7) specifies that the standards apply to electric motors that: “Are built in a three-digit or four-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), including those designs between two consecutive NEMA frame sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent).”
When describing the energy conversation standards adopted for specialized frame sizes air-over electric motors, DOE specified that the standards are applicable to “air-over electric motor meeting the criteria in paragraph (m) of this section and [. . .] built in a specialized frame size” in section 10 CFR 431.25(p) of the regulatory text published in the June 2023 DFR. 88 FR 36066, 36150.
As published, the general scope description in 10 CFR 431.25(m)(7) of the regulatory text in the June 2023 DFR, and the scope description in section 10 CFR 431.25(p) may be interpreted as inconsistent with the scope of electric motors included in the AO-Polyphase (Specialized frame size) equipment class analyzed in the June 2023 DFR, and for which DOE intended to establish new standards in 10 CFR 431.25(p). Specifically, DOE identified that the criteria at 10 CFR 431.25 (m)(7), which is identical to the criteria currently at 10 CFR 431.25(g)(7), excludes specialized frame air-over motors built in two-digit NEMA frame sizes (other than enclosed 56 frame size motors). Therefore, while in the preamble, DOE explicitly stated that the specialized frame size air-over electric motors equipment class included frame sizes beyond those described at 10 CFR 431.25(g)(7), the regulatory text as written may be interpreted as limiting the covered frame sizes to those specifically described at 10 CFR 431.25(g)(7).
Therefore, to clarify the intent of the preamble of the June 2023 DFR when establishing standards for the AO-polyphase (Specialized frame size) equipment class, which was to include frame sizes beyond those described at 10 CFR 431.25(g)(7), DOE proposes to make the following clarification by adding “or have an air-over enclosure and a specialized frame size” to the criteria originally included under 10 CFR 431.25 (m)(7) in the June 2023 DFR, to read as follows: “Are built in a three-digit or four-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), including those designs between two consecutive NEMA frame sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), or have an air-over enclosure and a specialized frame size”. As previously discussed, DOE proposes to re-organize the regulatory text at 10 CFR 431.25 and therefore is adding this proposed clarification in the new paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(7) and (d)(1)(i)(7).
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 equipment must use these test procedures to certify to DOE that their equipment complies with energy conservation standards and to quantify the efficiency of their equipment. On October 19, 2022, DOE published the October 2022 Final Rule. 87 FR 63588. As described previously in this document, the October 2022 Final Rule expanded the types of motors included within the scope of the test procedure, including the new class of ESEMs for which DOE is establishing energy conservation standards in this NOPR. DOE's test procedures for electric motors are currently prescribed at appendix B as “small, non-small-electric-motor electric motor” and measure the full-load efficiency of an electric motor. To harmonize terminology, in this NOPR, DOE is replacing any reference to small, non-small-electric-motor electric motor (“SNEM”) in appendix B with the term “expanded scope electric motor,” or “ESEM.”
C. Represented Values
DOE's energy conservation standards for electric motors are currently prescribed at 10 CFR 431.25. DOE's current energy conservation standards for electric motors are expressed in terms of nominal full-load efficiency and manufacturers must certify the represented value of nominal full-load efficiency of each basic model. 10 CFR 429.64. The provisions establishing how to determine the average full-load efficiency and the nominal full-load efficiency of a basic model are provided at 10 CFR 429.64.
As discussed in section II.B.3 of this document, the ESEM standard levels recommended by the Electric Motors Working Group are expressed in average full-load efficiency and not in terms of nominal full-load efficiency. To align with the Electric Motors Working Group recommendations, DOE proposes to revise the provisions related to the determination of the represented values for ESEMs at 10 CFR 429.64 such that manufacturers of ESEMs would certify a represented value of average full-load efficiency instead of a represented value of nominal full-load efficiency. DOE also proposes edits to 10 CFR 429.70(j) to reflect the use of a represented value of average full-load efficiency instead of
a represented value of nominal full-load efficiency for ESEMs.
DOE requests comments on the proposal to use a represented value of average full-load efficiency for ESEMs and proposed revisions to 10 CFR 429.64 and 429.70(j).
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of this proposed 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(c)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1), Process Rule.
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 10 CFR 431.4; sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5), Process Rule. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for ESEMs, 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 proposed rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When DOE proposes to adopt a new or amended standard for a type or class of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 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 ESEMs, using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this proposed rulemaking are described in section IV.C of this proposed rule and in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
E. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to ESEMs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the proposed standards (2029-2058).
25
The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of ESEMs purchased in the previous 30-year period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a product would likely evolve in the absence of new energy conservation standards.
25
Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each product class. The TSLs considered for this NOPR are described in section V.A of this document. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
DOE used its national impact analysis (“NIA”) spreadsheet model to estimate national energy savings (“NES”) from potential new standards for ESEMs. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. DOE also calculates NES in terms of FFC energy savings. The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (
i.e.,
coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards.
26
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 of this document.
26
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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given proposed rulemaking.
27
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.
27
The numeric threshold for determining the significance of energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14, 2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670) was subsequently eliminated in a final rule published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70892).
As stated, the standard levels proposed in this NOPR are projected to result in national energy savings of 8.9 quad FFC, the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 95.7 million homes. Based on the amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in emissions, and need to confront the global climate crisis, DOE has tentatively determined the energy savings from the standard levels proposed in this NOPR are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).
F. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this proposed rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
In determining the impacts of a potential new or amended standard on manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of this document. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. This step includes
both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows, (2) cash flows by year, (3) changes in revenue and income, and (4) other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of equipment (including its installation) and the operating expense (including energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the equipment. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as equipment prices, equipment energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, equipment lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as equipment lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a more-efficient equipment through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost 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 equipment in the first year of compliance with new 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 standards. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this document.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section IV.H of this document, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing product classes and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards proposed in this document would not reduce the utility or performance of the equipment under consideration in this proposed rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of this proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will publish and respond to the Attorney General's determination in the final rule. DOE invites comment from the public regarding the competitive impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule. In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ regarding these potential impacts. See the
ADDRESSES
section for information to send comments to DOJ.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the proposed standards are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of this document.
DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take into account when considering the need for national energy conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) associated with energy production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.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 of this document.
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy conservation standard is economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be
relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the other categories described previously, DOE could consider such information under “other factors.”
2. Rebuttable Presumption
EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of 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. 6313(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the effects that new energy conservation standards would have on the PBP for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year PBP 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. 6313(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section V.B.1.c of this document.
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this proposed rulemaking with regard to ESEMs. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses. In this NOPR, DOE is only addressing comments and analysis specific to the scope of motors provided in the December 2022 Joint Recommendation (
i.e.,
ESEMs and AO-ESEMs). As such, any analysis and comments related to MEMs and AO-MEMs were addressed in the separate June 2023 DFR published on June 1, 2023. 88 FR 36066.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet that presents the calculations of the LCC savings and PBP of potential new energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and calculates national energy savings and net present value of total consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the Government Regulatory Impact Model (“GRIM”), to assess manufacturer impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are available on the DOE website for this rulemaking:
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007.
Additionally, DOE used output from the latest version of the Energy Information Administration's (“EIA's”)
Annual Energy Outlook
(“
AEO
”), a widely known energy projection for the United States, for the emissions and utility impact analyses.
A. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment that provides an overall picture of the market for the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly-available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this proposed rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope of the proposed rulemaking and equipment 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 ESEMs. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.
1. Scope of Coverage
This document covers ESEMs, a category of electric motors. The term “electric motor” is defined at 10 CFR 431.12. Specifically, the definition for “electric motor” is “a machine that converts electrical power into rotational mechanical power.” 10 CFR 431.12.
In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE presented analysis for the current scope of electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25, in addition to certain expanded scope, including air-over electric motors, and ESEMs and AO-ESEMs. See chapter 2 of the March 2022 Preliminary TSD. Since then, DOE has published the October 2022 Final Rule, which established test procedures for expanded scope, as discussed in detail in section III.B of this NOPR. Additionally, DOE has also published the June 2023 DFR, which established energy conservations standards for MEMs and AO-MEMs.
In response to the scope presented in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE received a number of comments, which are discussed in the subsections below. In this NOPR, DOE is only addressing comments and analysis specific to the scope of motors proposed in this NOPR, which includes ESEMs and AO-ESEMs.
NEEA supported the inclusion of ESEMs in the scope of the standards. NEEA noted that including ESEMs will allow comparison of performance and informed purchase decisions. (NEEA, No. 33 at p. 2)
AHAM and AHRI strongly opposed DOE's plan to expand the existing scope of coverage of electric motors to include motors destined for particular applications in finished goods, and instead recommended that DOE should apply a finished-product approach to energy efficiency regulations. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 25 at pp. 7-9) Lennox added that it strongly objects to any expansion of coverage (including development of test procedures, energy conservation requirements, and/or certification requirements) for electric motors that would circumvent the statutory exemption that Congress provided for small electric motors that are components of EPCA-covered products/equipment. (Lennox, No. 29 at p. 3) AHAM and AHRI commented that they interpret the EPCA exemption for SEMs that are components of covered product and equipment as to also mean that small special and definite purpose motors, whether they are classified as small electric motors or as an ESEM, should not be subject to energy conservation standards. AHAM and AHRI stated that such motors are, by definition, destined for particular products, and when that product is a covered product/piece of equipment, that motor is destined for a product already subject to energy conservation standards and has defining features to identify it as such. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 25 at pp. 1,6)
AHRI and AHAM further commented that regulating ESEMs could affect the following product categories: clothes washers (top and front load), clothes dryers, food waste disposers, refrigerators, room air conditioners, and stick vacuums. Apart from stick vacuums and food waste disposers, AHAM and AHRI noted that the products listed are already subject to energy conservation standards. AHAM and AHRI also commented that
regulating ESEM and AO motors could impact the following products: small, large, very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, residential air conditioners and heat pumps, single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps, commercial and residential furnaces, commercial and residential boilers, commercial and residential water heaters, air cooled condensing unit, central station air handling units, geothermal heat pumps, unit coolers, unit ventilators, and water source heat pumps. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 25 at pp. 1-2)
HI recommended that dedicated-purpose ESEMs should be regulated as part of their final product instead of as motors specifically. (HI, No. 31 at p. 1)
The Joint Industry Stakeholders commented that they strongly object to any expansion of coverage (including development of test procedures, energy conservation requirements, and/or certification requirements) for electric motors that would circumvent the statutory exemption that Congress provided for small electric motors that are components of EPCA-covered products/equipment. They stated that embedded motor testing, and ultimately energy conservation standards, would save minimal energy and would create needless testing, paperwork, and record-keeping requirements that would raise costs for consumers. (Joint Industry Stakeholders, No. 23 at pp. 3-4) The Joint Industry Stakeholders and AHAM and AHRI agreed with the previous determination in which DOE recognized that Congress intentionally excluded these motors from coverage by DOE regulation when such motors are used as components of products and equipment that are already subject to DOE regulation, and they noted that these are the motors that DOE now seeks to regulate as ESEMs and by expanding the scope of the test procedure to
1/4
hp. The Joint Industry Stakeholders and AHAM and AHRI added that, despite the similarity between ESEMs and SEMs, DOE is proposing to subject ESEMs used as components in EPCA-covered equipment/products to duplicative energy conservation standards at both the motor level and the finished product/equipment stage and that DOE provides no rationale or explanation for doing so. (Joint Industry Stakeholders, No. 23 at pp. 3-4; AHAM and AHRI, No. 25 at pp. 7- 9) Further, the Joint Industry Stakeholders commented that ESEMs include special and definite purpose motors that have been built to meet the needs of original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) products. The Joint Industry Stakeholders added that many of these OEM products are already regulated by DOE. (Joint Industry Stakeholders, No. 23 at p. 2)
As discussed in the October 2022 Final Rule, EPCA, as amended through EISA 2007, provides DOE with the authority to regulate the expanded scope of motors addressed in this rule. 87 FR 63588, 63596. Before the enactment of EISA 2007, EPCA defined the term “electric motor” as any motor that is a general purpose T-frame, single-speed, foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage induction motor of the NEMA, Design A and B, continuous rated, operating on 230/460 volts and constant 60 Hertz line power as defined in NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987. (
See
42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) (2006)) Section 313(a)(2) of EISA 2007 removed that definition and the prior limits that narrowly defined what types of motors would be considered as electric motors. In its place, EISA 2007 inserted a new “Electric motors” heading, and created two new subtypes of electric motors: General purpose electric motor (subtype I) and general purpose electric motor (subtype II). (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)-(B) (2011)) In addition, section 313(b)(2) of EISA 2007 established energy conservation standards for four types of electric motors: general purpose electric motors (subtype I) (
i.e.,
subtype I motors) with a power rating of 1 to 200 horsepower; fire pump motors; general purpose electric motor (subtype II) (
i.e.,
subtype II motors) with a power rating of 1 to 200 horsepower; and NEMA Design B, general purpose electric motors with a power rating of more than 200 horsepower, but less than or equal to 500 horsepower. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) The term “electric motor” was left undefined. However, in a May 4, 2012 final rule amending the electric motors test procedure (the “May 2012 TP Final Rule”), DOE adopted the broader definition of “electric motor,” currently found in 10 CFR 431.12, because DOE noted that the absence of a definition may cause confusion about which electric motors are required to comply with mandatory test procedures and energy conservation standards, and the broader definition provided DOE with the flexibility to set energy conservation standards for other types of electric motors without having to continuously update the definition of “electric motors”. 77 FR 26608, 26613.
Some electric motors included in this proposed rule may be sold embedded into covered products and equipment or sold alone as replacements. DOE is proposing new energy conservation standards for ESEMs in this proposed rule that apply to the motor's efficiency regardless of whether the ESEM is being sold alone or embedded into a covered product or equipment. As discussed in section III.D of this document, DOE has determined that energy savings from the standard levels proposed in this NOPR are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)
The provisions of EPCA make clear that DOE may regulate electric motors “alone or as a component of another piece of equipment.” (
See
42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1) and (2) (providing that standards for electric motors be applied to electric motors manufactured “alone or as a component of another piece of equipment”)) In contrast, Congress exempted SEM that are a component of a covered product or a covered equipment from the standards that DOE was required to establish under 42 U.S.C. 6317(b). Congress did not, however, similarly restrict electric motors.
Congress defined what equipment comprises a SEM—specifically, “a NEMA general purpose alternating current single-speed induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number series in accordance with NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987.”
28
(42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G)) ESEMs, which are electric motors, are not SEMs because they do not satisfy the more specific statutory SEM definition. Unlike SEMs, the statute does not limit DOE's authority to regulate an electric motor with respect to whether “electric motors” are stand-alone equipment items or components of a covered product or covered equipment. Rather, Congress specifically provided that DOE could regulate electric motors that are components of other covered equipment in the standards established by DOE. (
See
42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1) (providing that standards for electric motors be applied to electric motors manufactured “alone or as a component of another piece of equipment”)) Accordingly, DOE disagrees with commenters that the SEM component exemption should apply to ESEMs and, therefore, includes ESEMs installed as components in other DOE-regulated products and equipment in these proposed energy conservation standards.
28
DOE clarified, at industry's urging, that the definition also includes motors that are IEC metric equivalents to the specified NEMA motors prescribed by the statute.
See
74 FR 32059, 32061-32062 (July 7, 2009); 10 CFR 431.442.
In addition, ESEMs are built in standard NEMA frame sizes and are not common in currently regulated consumer products including those listed by AHAM and AHRI (
i.e.,
clothes washers (top and front load), clothes
dryers, food waste disposers, refrigerators, room air conditioners, and stick vacuums). Therefore, DOE believes the standards proposed in this NOPR would not impact manufacturers of consumer products. In commercial equipment, DOE identified the following equipment as potentially incorporating ESEMs: walk-in coolers and freezers,
29
circulator pumps,
30
air circulating fans,
31
and commercial unitary air conditioning equipment.
32
If the proposed energy conservation standards for these rules finalize as proposed, DOE has identified that these rules would all: (1) have a compliance year that is at or before the ESEM standard compliance year (2029) and/or (2) require a motor that is either outside of the scope of this rule (
e.g.,
an electronically commutated motor (“ECM”)) or an ESEM with an efficiency above the proposed ESEM standards, and therefore not be impacted by the proposed ESEM rule (
i.e.,
the ESEM rule would not trigger a redesign of these equipment).
29
The walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers standards rulemaking docket number is: EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016.
30
The circulator pumps energy conservation standard rulemaking docket number is: EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004.
31
The commercial and industrial fans and blowers energy conservation standard rulemaking docket number is: EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006. Air circulating fans are a subcategory of fans.
32
The small, large, and very large air-cooled commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps energy conservation standard rulemaking docket number is: EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007.
Furthermore, EPCA requires that any new or amended standard for covered equipment must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In this NOPR, DOE performs the necessary analyses to determine what new standards would meet the aforementioned criteria. Further, DOE has determined that the proposed standards provide cost-effective standards that would result in the significant conservation of energy. Further discussion on the analytical results and DOE's justification is provided in section V of this document.
NEEA commented that the term “small, non-small electric motors” is confusing and recommended using “Other Small HP Motors (OSHM)” or “Other Small Electric Motors (OSEM)” as alternative options. (NEEA, No. 33 at p. 2) DOE has opted to use the term “ESEM” in this NOPR.
The Joint Industry Stakeholders commented that the proposed definition for ESEMs used in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis is vague. Specifically, the Joint Industry Stakeholders requested clarification regarding (1) the definition of full-rated load; (2) whether brushless permanent magnet motors were included; (3) whether some motors, which have motor assemblies that are connected to 60 Hz and which are rectified internally to DC power and require brush maintenance were included. (Joint Industry Stakeholders, No. 23 at pp. 1-2) In response, DOE notes that the October 2022 Final Rule finalized a definition for “rated load,” which is currently provided in 10 CFR 431.12 (87 FR 63588, 63623), and included specifications on what electric motors meet the definition of ESEM, which is currently provided in section 1 of appendix B (87 FR 63588, 63599). Specifically, 10 CFR 431.12 currently relates rated load to full-load, full rated load, or rated full-load, and defines it as “the rated output power of an electric motor.” Further, section 1.1 of appendix B states that an ESEM means a motor that “is a single-speed induction motor capable of operating without an inverter or is an inverter-only electric motor”; therefore, the ESEM scope does not include non-induction electric motors. However, DOE does separately include in scope “synchronous electric motors,” which entails an electric motor that is “synchronous” and “produces at least 0.25 hp but not greater than 750 hp”.
See
Section 1.1, appendix B. However, DOE is not adopting standards for synchronous electric motors in this NOPR. Finally, the ESEM scope specifically states that an electric motor would meet the scope if it operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; or is used with an inverter that operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power. An “inverter” is defined as “an electronic device that converts an input AC or DC power into a controlled output AC or DC voltage or current. An inverter may also be called a converter.” 10 CFR 431.12.
The Joint Industry Stakeholders recommended that DOE exclude refrigeration compressor motors from the scope of the ESEM rulemaking. The Joint Industry Stakeholders explained that such motors are hermetically sealed and are cooled by the refrigerant flowing within the appliance/equipment, and that there is no accurate way to measure the efficiency of just the motor and thus, it is not appropriate or feasible to include refrigeration compressor motors in the scope of this rulemaking. (Joint Industry Stakeholders, No. 23 at p. 9) DOE defines a liquid-cooled electric motor as a motor that is cooled by liquid circulated using a designated cooling apparatus such that the liquid or liquid-filled conductors come into direct contact with the parts of the motor but is not submerged in a liquid during operation. 10 CFR 431.12. DOE reviewed refrigeration compressor motors and understands that they would be considered a liquid-cooled electric motor according to this definition because they require flowing refrigerant to adequately cool during operation. The designated cooling apparatus in this case is shared with the greater refrigeration system. Liquid-cooled electric motors are currently exempt from DOE's standards for electric motors, generally.
See
10 CFR 431.25(l)(3). Accordingly, because the refrigeration compressor motor described by the commenters meets the definition of a “liquid-cooled electric motor,” it is exempt from the test procedure and energy conservation standards proposed by this NOPR. DOE also notes that many refrigeration compressor motors are not built in standard NEMA frame sizes, and this would also disqualify them from the scope of this NOPR. As such, DOE does not see a need to specifically exempt refrigeration compression motors from the scope of this NOPR, but may revisit the issue in the future, as necessary.
Additionally, NEMA stated that there is no room for explosion proof motors to accommodate a run capacitor because of the added enclosure constraints associated with explosion proof motors. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 3) DOE agrees with NEMA that the enclosure constraints for explosion proof motors do not allow for the addition of a run capacitor. The new standard levels proposed by this NOPR will not require CSIR motors to incorporate an additional run capacitor and will not require CSIR motors to be replaced by CSCR motors. Therefore, DOE believes NEMA's concern is addressed.
The CA IOUs recommended exploring stakeholder interest in convening an ASRAC Working Group to clearly define the scope of an ESEM regulation before moving forward with an energy conservation standard rulemaking. (CA IOUs, No. 30 at p. 2) In response, DOE notes that several members of industry and other stakeholders did convene on a negotiation, which ended in the December 2022 Joint Recommendation. The December 2022 Joint Recommendation limited its scope to high-torque and medium-torque ESEMs, low-torque ESEMs, and polyphase ESEMs.
The Joint Industry Stakeholders also commented that ESEMs are the same as SEMs and that DOE's reliance on the SEM data as an analog to ESEM performance demonstrates that the products are the same. Additionally, the Joint Industry Stakeholders said that DOE did not provide sufficient data to support its analysis or to allow commenters to fully understand, interpret, or analyze the March 2022 Preliminary TSD and provide meaningful comment. The Joint Industry Stakeholders also stated that DOE's reliance on old data for what DOE claims is a different product and its drawing of conclusions without providing further detail fails to meet the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) or the Data Quality Act. (Joint Industry Stakeholders, No. 23 at pp. 2-3) As noted previously, EPCA provides a very specific definition for SEMs that DOE regulates under 10 CFR part 431 subpart X. ESEMs can be similar to SEMs in many aspects, but nevertheless fall outside of the EPCA-provided definition. Accordingly, ESEMs are treated differently for purposes of DOE's energy conservation standards. That DOE used SEMs data as an analog to ESEM performance to help construct the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis does not change the fact that they are treated differently under EPCA, or that, as electric motors, DOE may regulate ESEMs used as components in other covered equipment. Notably, in response to the comment from the Joint Stakeholders, DOE has made updates to the ESEMs analysis in this NOPR compared to what was presented in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis; specifically, DOE has performed additional testing, teardowns, and modeling of electric motors that more closely align with the ESEM scope and updated the engineering analysis accordingly. In addition, DOE reviewed the latest motor catalog data to inform the updated analyses. Further discussion on this updated analysis is provided in section IV.C of this document. Therefore, DOE has met the APA's requirements as DOE has explained throughout this NOPR and in the NOPR TSD the details of the analysis conducted by DOE and the information DOE relied on in conducting that analysis. Further, DOE has complied with DOE's guidelines for implementing the Data Quality Act that ensure the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of the data presented in this document.
33
33
See the discussion of the Data Quality Act in section VI.J of this document; see also
www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/cioprod/documents/finalinfoqualityguidelines03072011.pdf
.
2. Air-Over ESEMs
In response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, AHRI commented that air-over motors are explicitly exempted from regulation in 10 CFR 431.25(l), and that DOE has not overcome the challenges to include these exempted products, procedurally or technically. AHRI added that the claimed similarities between SEMs and the newly proposed AO-ESEMs category warrant the same exemption for AO-ESEMs that Congress expressly provided for small electric motors, and AHRI referenced the requirement of EPCA, which says that energy conservation standards “shall not apply to any small electric motor which is a component of a covered product under section 6292(a) of this title or covered equipment under section 6311 of this title.” (AHRI, No. 26 at pp. 1, 2)
With regards to the comment from AHRI, DOE is covering AO-ESEMs under its “electric motors” authority. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)) As discussed in section III.A of this document, the statute does not limit DOE's authority to regulate electric motors (that are not SEMs) with respect to whether they are stand-alone equipment items or as components of a covered product or covered equipment.
See
42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1) (providing that standards for electric motors be applied to electric motors manufactured “alone or as a component of another piece of equipment”) AO-ESEMs do not fall within the SEMs definition under EPCA, and, therefore, DOE is regulating AO-ESEMs under its “electric motors” authority.
DOE's previous determination in the December 2013 Final Rule to exclude air-over electric motors from scope was due to insufficient information available to DOE at the time to support establishment of a test method. 78 FR 75962, 75974-75975. Since that time, NEMA published a test standard for air-over motors in Section IV, “Performance Standards Applying to All Machines,” Part 34 “Air-Over Motor Efficiency Test Method” of NEMA MG 1-2016 (“NEMA Air-over Motor Efficiency Test Method”). The air-over method was originally published as part of the 2017 NEMA MG-1 Supplements and is also included in the latest version of NEMA MG 1-2016. Accordingly, in the October 2022 Final Rule, DOE included air-over electric motors in the test procedure scope and established test procedures for such motors. 87 FR 63588, 63597. In this NOPR, DOE has analyzed the scope of electric motors based on the finalized test procedures and proposes new energy conservation standards for AO-ESEMs that align with the December 2022 Joint Recommendation.
3. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE may 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 justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) 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 March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE considered potential equipment classes defined on the basis of motor horsepower rating, pole configuration (
i.e.,
2, 4, 6, or 8 poles), enclosure type (
i.e.,
open or enclosed construction), locked-rotor torque level (
i.e.,
high, medium, or low), type of input power (
i.e.,
phase), and motor cooling approach (
i.e.,
air-over or non-air-over).
See
chapter 2 of the March 2022 Preliminary TSD.
Regarding horsepower, DOE has previously established separate equipment classes for electric motors on the basis of horsepower rating. In an electric motors final rule that published on May 29, 2014 (“May 2014 Electric Motors Final Rule”), DOE discussed that horsepower is a performance attribute of an electric motor that is directly related to the capacity of an electric motor to perform useful work, and that horsepower generally scales with efficiency. 79 FR 30934, 30958. For example, a 50-horsepower electric motor would generally be considered more efficient than a 10-horsepower electric motor.
Id.
For these reasons, DOE has tentatively determined that horsepower represents a performance-related feature that justifies separate equipment classes for ESEMs.
Regarding pole configuration, DOE has also previously established separate equipment classes for electric motors on the basis of pole configuration. In the May 2014 Electric Motors Final Rule, DOE discussed that the number of poles in an induction motor determines the synchronous speed (
i.e.,
revolutions per minute) of that motor, and that there is an inverse relationship between the number of poles and a motor's speed.
Id.
at 79 FR 30958-30959. As the number
of poles increases from two to four to six to eight, the synchronous speed drops from 3,600 to 1,800 to 1,200 to 900 revolutions per minute, respectively.
Id.
The number of poles has a direct impact on the electric motor's performance and achievable efficiency because the number of poles affects the amount of available space inside an electric motor that can be used to accommodate efficiency improvements.
Id.
For example, eight pole motors have twice as many poles as four-pole motors and, correspondingly, less space for efficiency improvements.
Id.
For these reasons, DOE has tentatively determined that pole configuration represents a performance-related feature that justifies separate equipment classes for ESEMs.
Regarding enclosure type, DOE has also previously established separate equipment classes for electric motors on the basis of enclosure type. In the May 2014 Electric Motors Final Rule, DOE discussed that electric motors manufactured with open construction allow a free interchange of air between the electric motor's interior and exterior.
Id.
at 79 FR 30959. Whereas, electric motors with enclosed construction have no direct air interchange between the motor's interior and exterior (but are not necessarily air-tight) and may be equipped with an internal fan for cooling.
Id.
Whether an electric motor is open or enclosed affects its utility; open motors are generally not used in harsh operating environments, whereas totally enclosed electric motors often are.
Id.
The enclosure type also affects an electric motor's ability to dissipate heat, which directly affects efficiency. For these reasons, DOE has tentatively determined that the enclosure type represents a performance-related feature that justifies separate equipment classes ESEMs.
Regarding locked-rotor torque level, DOE considered three classifications of locked-rotor torque in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis: high, medium, and low. The high locked-rotor torque motor topologies included CSCR and CSIR motors; the medium locked-rotor torque topologies included split phase motors; and the low locked-rotor torque topologies included PSC and shaded pole motors. Locked-rotor torque refers to torque developed by an electric motor whose rotor is locked in place,
i.e.,
not rotating. Locked-rotor torque characterizes a motor's ability to begin moving loads at rest, an attribute which is important to varying degree across applications. Certain applications, for example, some fans, may be relatively indifferent to locked-rotor torque; whereas for others, a minimum locked-rotor torque may be required to begin operation. DOE understands that high and medium locked-rotor torque motors are generally physically larger than low-locked rotor torque motors and may not fit in many embedded applications that low locked-rotor torque motors are used in. Additionally, low locked-rotor torque motors may not provide sufficient starting torque (
i.e.,
the motor would stall and the application would never start) to the many applications that have a high starting load (
e.g.,
compressors and pumps). DOE also understands that high and medium locked-rotor torque motors generally operate inherently more efficiently than low locked-rotor torque motors. As such, DOE has tentatively determined that separate standards (
i.e.,
separate equipment classes) are warranted for the high/medium locked-rotor torque topologies (
i.e.,
CSCR, CSIR, and split phase) and low locked-rotor torque topologies (
i.e.,
PSC and shaded pole). In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE sought comment on whether any applications require a low locked-rotor torque and would not operate with a high locked-rotor torque motor, and whether locked-rotor torque is necessary to maintain as an equipment class factor if the highest-torque motor types (
e.g.,
CSCR) can reach the highest available efficiency levels among the set of electric motors which are used as substitutes for similar applications. Section 2.3.1.2 of the March 2022 TSD.
In response to the equipment classes presented in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, NEMA agreed that locked-rotor torque (or alternatively, the motor technology) is necessary to maintain as an equipment class factor even if the high locked-rotor torque ESEMs can reach the highest efficiencies among the full range of ESEMs (regardless of locked-rotor torque categorization). They substantiated their recommendation by stating that certain high locked-rotor torque motors are often not interchangeable with lower locked-rotor torque motors in specific applications because of the larger physical size of the high locked-rotor torque motor due to the presence of additional capacitors. (NEMA, No. 22 at pp. 6-7) The December 2022 Joint Recommendation recommended equipment classes with locked-rotor torque as one of the differentiators among equipment classes, although in contrast to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, it merged the high and medium locked-rotor torque classes to form a single high locked-rotor torque class. DOE infers from this recommendation that the performance of split phase motors does not inherently differ substantially from the performance of CSCR and CSIR motors, such that a higher or lower energy conservation standard for split phase motors would not be warranted in relation to a standard established for CSCR and CSIR motors. As such, DOE has tentatively determined that separate equipment classes for ESEMs are warranted for two groupings of locked-rotor torque: high and medium locked-rotor torque (represented by the grouping of CSCR, CSIR, and split phase topologies) and low locked-rotor torque (represented by the grouping of PSC and shaded pole topologies).
Regarding motor cooling approach, DOE discussed the differentiation between air-over and non-air-over motors in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis.
See
section 2.3.1.2 of the March 2022 Preliminary TSD. DOE currently defines an air-over electric motor at 10 CFR 431.12 as an electric motor “rated to operate in and be cooled by the airstream of a fan or blower that is not supplied with the motor and whose primary purpose is providing airflow to an application other than the motor driving it.” As such, air-over motors are often designed without an internal fan, which allows for smaller packaging, reduced cost, and the potential for higher-efficiency performance because the motor is not driving an internal fan. DOE notes, however, the inability to self-cool may be a limitation in many applications where cooling airflow is unavailable or too variable to provide a reliable cooling source. For these reasons, DOE has tentatively determined that the cooling approach represents a performance-related feature that justifies separate equipment classes for AO-ESEMs.
Based on the above considerations, DOE is proposing to establish equipment class groupings for ESEMs based on the following characteristics: horsepower rating, pole configuration (
i.e.,
2, 4, 6, or 8 poles), enclosure type (
i.e.,
open or enclosed), locked-rotor torque level (
i.e.,
high and medium locked-rotor torque, represented by the grouping of CSCR, CSIR, and split phase topologies; and low locked-rotor torque, represented by the grouping of PSC and shaded pole topologies), type of input power (
i.e.,
phase), and motor cooling approach (
i.e.,
air-over or non-air-over). Table IV-1 presents the equipment class groups proposed in this NOPR. Within each equipment class group, DOE would establish individual equipment classes for each pole configuration, enclosure type, and horsepower range. The equipment class groups shown in Table IV-1 represent a total of 350 equipment classes.
Table IV-1—Equipment Class Groups
Equipment class
groups (“ECG”)
Motor topology
Horsepower
rating
Pole
configuration
Enclosure
Cooling
requirements
1
CSCR, CSIR, Split Phase
.25-3
2, 4, 6, 8
Open
Enclosed.
Non-Air-Over.
2
PSC, Shaded Pole
.25-3
2, 4, 6, 8
Open
Enclosed.
Non-Air-Over.
3
Polyphase
.25-3
2, 4, 6, 8
Open
Enclosed.
Non-Air-Over.
4
CSCR, CSIR, Split Phase
.25-3
2, 4, 6, 8
Open
Enclosed.
Air-Over
5
PSC, Shaded Pole
.25-3
2, 4, 6, 8
Open
Enclosed.
Air-Over
6
Polyphase
.25-3
2, 4, 6, 8
Open
Air-Over
DOE requests comment on the proposed equipment classes for this NOPR.
4. Technology Options
In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis market and technology assessment, DOE identified several technology options that were initially determined to improve the efficiency of ESEMs, as measured by the DOE test procedure. Table IV-2 presents the technology options considered in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis.
Table IV-2—March 2022 Preliminary Analysis Technology Options To Increase Motor Efficiency
Type of loss to reduce
Technology option
Stator I2R Losses
Increase cross-sectional area of copper in stator slots.
Decrease the length of coil extensions.
Rotor I2R Losses
Increase cross-sectional area of end rings.
Increase cross-sectional area of rotor conductor bars.
Use a die-cast copper rotor cage.
Core Losses
Use electrical steel laminations with lower losses (watts/lb).
Use thinner steel laminations.
Increase stack length (
i.e.,
add electrical steel laminations).
Friction and Windage Losses
Optimize bearing and lubrication selection.
Improve cooling system design.
Stray-Load Losses
Reduce skew on rotor cage.
Improve rotor bar insulation.
DOE maintains the same technology options from the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis in this NOPR. DOE received a number of comments regarding technology options. As these options are applicable to electric motors, broadly, DOE responded to these comments in the June 2023 DFR and refers to that discussion for purposes of technology options considered in this NOPR.
See
88 FR 36066, 36089-36090.
5. Imported Embedded Motors
In response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE received comments regarding compliance logistics and general issues regarding embedded motors being imported into the United States. NEMA commented that they estimate between 30 and 60 percent of ESEMs will be imported as a motor or embedded in a piece of equipment, and that the importers of these equipment are the responsible parties to comply. NEMA stated that if DOE ignores these importers, the rule will harm American equipment manufacturers incorporating ESEMs who compete with offshore suppliers and will not maintain a “level playing field” amongst motor manufacturers. NEMA added that they believe that adding the ESEM categories as defined in the March 2022 Preliminary TSD will have significant negative effects on U.S. suppliers and jobs, giving offshore equipment producers an unfair advantage over American producers. NEMA continued by saying that if DOE does not provide a funded and feasible border enforcement plan, the energy savings estimates for a regulation for ESEM will need to be adjusted by removing the savings of the offshore motors that escape regulation. (NEMA, No. 22 at pp. 18-19) DOE recognizes that importing embedded motors within larger pieces of equipment poses logistical challenges regarding the compliance of these embedded motors with the new energy conservation standards. However, DOE notes that imported motors that meet the scope criteria proposed in this NOPR will be subject to the energy conservation standards that are being promulgated regardless of whether the motor is imported on its own or embedded in a separate piece of equipment. DOE is committed to enforcing its regulations in a fair and equitable manner to ensure a level playing field is preserved for domestic manufacturers.
B. Screening Analysis
DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy conservation standards rulemaking:
(1) Technological feasibility.
Technologies that are not incorporated in commercial products or in 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 result in the unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered further.
(4) 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 efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.
10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 6(c)(3) and 7(b).
In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in the following sections.
The subsequent sections include comments from interested parties pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (“screened out”) based on the screening criteria.
1. Screened-Out Technologies
In the March 2022 Preliminary TSD, DOE screened out amorphous metal laminations and plastic bonded iron powder (“PBIP”) from the analysis. DOE requested further data on the feasibility of amorphous steel being used in electric motors at scale.
See
chapter 3 of the March 2022 Preliminary TSD. In response, DOE received comments regarding the technologies excluded from this engineering analysis, which DOE responded to in the June 2023 DFR as those comments are applicable to the broader suite of electric motors (including ESEMs). In the June 2023 DFR, DOE determined that it was not definitive that amorphous steel could meet all the screening criteria, and therefore, DOE continued to screen out amorphous metal in the June 2023 DFR on the basis of technological feasibility. 88 FR 36066, 36091. That reasoning continues to apply in the case of the ESEMs within the scope of this NOPR.
Accordingly, consistent with the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis and the June 2023 DFR, DOE is continuing to screen out amorphous metal laminations and PBIP in this NOPR.
2. Remaining Technologies
In the March 2022 Preliminary TSD, DOE did not screen out the following technology options: increasing cross-sectional area of copper in stator slots; decreasing the length of coil extensions; increasing cross-sectional area of end rings; increasing cross-sectional area of rotor conductor bars; using a die-cast copper rotor cage; using electrical steel laminations with lower losses (watts/lb); using thinner steel laminations; increasing stack length; optimizing bearing and lubrication selection; improving cooling system design; reducing skew on rotor cage; and improving rotor bar insulation.
See
chapter 3 of the March 2022 Preliminary TSD. DOE received comments regarding the remaining technologies included in this engineering analysis, which were responded to in the June 2023 DFR as those comments are applicable to the broader suite of electric motors (including ESEMs). 88 FR 36066, 36091-36092. DOE believes the responses to those comments in the June 2023 DFR are applicable to this discussion regarding ESEMs. Accordingly, DOE has not screened out any of these technologies for its analysis in this NOPR.
Otherwise, through a review of each technology, DOE concludes that all of the other identified technologies listed in this section met all five screening criteria to be examined further as design options in DOE's NOPR analysis. The design options screened-in are consistent with the design options from the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis. DOE determined that these technology options are technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in commercially-available equipment or working prototypes. DOE also finds that all of the remaining technology options meet the other screening criteria (
i.e.,
practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product availability, health, or safety). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.
DOE requests comment on the remaining technology options considered in this NOPR.
C. Engineering Analysis
The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the relationship between the efficiency and cost of ESEMs. 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 product/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 equipment (in other words, based on the range of efficiencies and efficiency level “clusters” that already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended using the design option approach to “gap fill” levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in cases where the max-tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on the market).
In this proposed rulemaking, DOE applied a combination of the efficiency-level approach and the design-option approach to establish efficiency levels to
analyze. The design-option approach was used to characterize efficiency levels that are not available on the market but appear to be market solutions for those higher efficiency levels if sufficient demand existed. For the efficiency levels available on the market, sufficient performance data was publicly available to characterize these levels.
a. Representative Units Analyzed
Due to the large number of equipment classes, DOE did not directly analyze all equipment classes of electric motors considered in this NOPR. Instead, DOE selected representative units based on two factors: (1) the quantity of motor models available within an equipment class and (2) the ability to scale to other equipment classes.
For this N
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.