[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4885-4908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00336]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2019-BT-STD-0008]
RIN 1904-AD29
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Small Electric Motors
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 small
electric motors (``SEMs''). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of
Energy (``DOE'') to periodically determine whether more-stringent
standards would be technologically feasible and
[[Page 4886]]
economically justified, and would result in significant conservation of
energy. In this final determination, DOE has determined that more
stringent SEMs standards would not be cost effective, and thus has
determined that standards for SEMs should not be amended.
DATES: The effective date of this final determination is January 19,
2021.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the http://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: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0008. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket.
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: [email protected].
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to review the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Final Determination
II. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemakings for Small Electric Motors
III. General Discussion
A. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes
B. Test Procedure
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
D. Significance of Energy Savings
E. Cost Effectiveness
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Scope of Coverage
2. Equipment Classes
3. Technology Options for Efficiency Improvement
B. Screening Analysis
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Summary of Significant Data Sources
2. Representative Equipment Classes
3. Efficiency Analysis
4. Cost Analysis
5. Scaling Relationships
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
1. Consumer Sample
2. Motor Input Power
3. Annual Operating Hours
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. Motor Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Energy Savings
B. Cost Effectiveness
C. Final Determination
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866
B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
M. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Final Determination
Title III, Part C \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as
amended (``EPCA''),\2\ established the Energy Conservation Program for
Certain Industrial Equipment, (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317), which includes
small electric motors (``SEMs''), the subject of this final
determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was re-designated Part A-1.
\2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018,
Public Law 115-270 (October 23, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the EPCA requirement that not later than 6 years after
issuance of any final rule establishing or amending an energy
conservation standard for covered equipment, DOE must publish either a
notice of determination that standards for the equipment do not need to
be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') including new
proposed energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(m))
DOE analyzed the SEMs currently subject to the standards found at
title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 431. See 10
CFR 431.446. Of these motors, DOE first analyzed the technological
feasibility of more efficient SEMs. For currently available SEMs with
efficiencies exceeding the levels of the current energy conservation
standards, DOE determined that more stringent standards would be
technologically feasible. For these SEMs, DOE evaluated whether more
stringent standards would also be cost effective by conducting
preliminary life-cycle cost (``LCC'') and payback period (``PBP'')
analyses.
Based on these analyses, as summarized in section V of this
document, DOE has determined that more stringent energy conservation
standards would not be cost effective. Therefore, DOE has determined
that the current standards for SEMs do not need to be amended.
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this final determination, as well as some of the relevant
historical background related to the establishment of standards for
SEMs.
A. Authority and Background
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
C of EPCA includes the small electric motors that are the subject of
this final determination. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G)) As discussed in the
following paragraphs, EPCA directed DOE to establish test procedures
and prescribe energy conservation standards for SEMs. (42 U.S.C.
6317(b))
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of the Act specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures
(42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the
authority to require information and
[[Page 4887]]
reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
EPCA directed DOE to establish a test procedure for those SEMs for
which DOE determined that energy conservation standards would (1) be
technologically feasible and economically justified and (2) result in
significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(1)) 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)). The DOE
test procedures for SEMs appear at 10 CFR part 431, subpart X.
EPCA further directed DOE to prescribe energy conservation
standards for those SEMs for which test procedures were established.
(42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(2)) Additionally, EPCA prescribed that any such
standards shall not apply to any SEM which is a component of a covered
product under 42 U.S.C. 6292(a) or covered equipment under 42 U.S.C.
6311 of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)) Federal energy efficiency
requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally
supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation
testing, labeling, and standards. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)).
EPCA requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of
any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE evaluate the
energy conservation standards for each type of covered equipment,
including those at issue here, and publish either a notice of
determination that the standards do not need to be amended, or a NOPR
that includes new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to
a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)). EPCA further provides that, not later than 3 years after
the issuance of a final determination not to amend standards, DOE must
make a new determination not to amend the standards or issue a NOPR
including new proposed energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) DOE must make the analysis on which a
determination is based publicly available and provide an opportunity
for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2))
In making a determination that the standards do not need to be
amended, DOE must evaluate under the criteria of 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)
whether amended standards (1) will result in significant conservation
of energy, (2) are technologically feasible, and (3) are cost effective
as described under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a);
42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) Under 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an evaluation of cost effectiveness requires DOE
to consider 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 products which are likely to result from the
imposition of the standard.
DOE is publishing this document in accordance with its authority
under EPCA, and in satisfaction of its statutory requirement under
EPCA.
1. Current Standards
The current energy conservation standards for SEMs are located in
title 10 CFR 431.446, and are presented in Table II-1 and Table II-2.
Table II-1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Polyphase Small Electric Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average full load efficiency
-----------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/ standard kilowatt equivalent Open motors (number of poles)
-----------------------------------------------
6 4 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.25/0.18....................................................... 67.5 69.5 65.6
0.33/0.25....................................................... 71.4 73.4 69.5
0.5/0.37........................................................ 75.3 78.2 73.4
0.75/0.55....................................................... 81.7 81.1 76.8
1/0.75.......................................................... 82.5 83.5 77.0
1.5/1.1......................................................... 83.8 86.5 84.0
2/1.5........................................................... N/A 86.5 85.5
3/2.2........................................................... N/A 86.9 85.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II-2--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Capacitor-Start Induction-Run and Capacitor-Start
Capacitor-Run Small Electric Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average full load efficiency
-----------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/ standard kilowatt equivalent Open motors (number of poles)
-----------------------------------------------
6 4 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.25/0.18....................................................... 62.2 68.5 66.6
0.33/0.25....................................................... 66.6 72.4 70.5
0.5/0.37........................................................ 76.2 76.2 72.4
0.75/0.55....................................................... 80.2 81.8 76.2
1/0.75.......................................................... 81.1 82.6 80.4
1.5/1.1......................................................... N/A 83.8 81.5
2/1.5........................................................... N/A 84.5 82.9
3/2.2........................................................... N/A N/A 84.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4888]]
2. History of Standards Rulemakings for Small Electric Motors
In 2006, DOE determined that energy conservation standards for
certain single-phase, capacitor-start, induction-run, SEMs are
technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result
in significant energy savings. 71 FR 38799 (July 10, 2006). Later, in
2010, DOE issued a final rule (the ``March 2010 Final Rule'')
establishing energy conservation standards for SEMs manufactured
starting on March 9, 2015.\3\ 75 FR 10874 (March 9, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In a technical correction, DOE revised the compliance date
for energy conservation standards to March 9, 2015, for each small
electric motor manufactured (alone or as a component of another
piece of non-covered equipment), or March 9, 2017, in the case of a
small electric motor which requires listing or certification by a
nationally recognized safety testing laboratory. 75 FR 17036 (April
5, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2019, DOE published a request for information (``April
2019 ECS RFI'') to solicit input and data from interested parties to
aid in the development of the technical analyses for the determination
of whether new and/or amended standards for SEMs are warranted. 84 FR
14027 (April 9, 2019). The comment period was re-opened in response to
a request from an interested party, see NEMA, No. 4 at p. 1, until June
7, 2019. See 84 FR 25203 (May 31, 2019).
In April 2020, DOE published a notice of proposed determination
(``April 2020 NOPD'') with the tentative determination that energy
conservation standards for SEMs do not need to be amended. 85 FR 24146
(April 30, 2020). The comment period for this notice closed on June 29,
2020. On September 18, 2020, DOE published a notification of webinar
public meeting and a limited reopening of the comment period
(``September 2020 Notice''), which extended the comment period to
October 20, 2020. 85 FR 58299. On October 6, 2020, DOE held a webinar
to present the results from the April 2020 NOPD.
DOE received nine relevant comments from interested parties in
response to the April 2020 NOPD and the September 2020 Notice. These
comments are listed in Table II-3.\4\ NEMA and CA IOUs each had two
separate comment submissions: One in response to the April 2020 NOPD
and another as a follow up to the September 2020 Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ DOE received two comments unrelated to the issues raised by
the Notice of Proposed Determination (See Crosby, No. 30 and Crosby,
No. 31).
Table II-3--April 2020 NOPD and September 2020 Notice Written Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this
Commenter/organization(s) NOPD Organization type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and AHRI and AHAM..... Trade
Refrigeration Institute Associations.
(``AHRI'') and Association of
Home Appliance Manufacturers
(``AHAM'').
Appliance Standards Awareness ASAP, et al....... Advocacy Groups
Project (``ASAP''), Alliance to and State
Save Energy, American Council Governmental
for an Energy-Efficient Agency.
Economy, the California Energy
Commission, and Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance.
California Investor-Owned CA IOUs........... Utilities.
Utilities (``CA IOUs'')--
Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, San Diego Gas and
Electric, and Southern
California Edison.
General Electric Appliances GEA............... Manufacturer.
(``GEA'').
Lennox International Inc........ Lennox............ Manufacturer.
National Electrical NEMA.............. Trade Association.
Manufacturers Association
(``NEMA'').
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE also notes that NEMA submitted a comment related to
certification, compliance and enforcement issues, but this comment fell
outside the scope of this rulemaking and is not addressed in this
document. Additionally, DOE received a comment from an individual
commenter (Tyler Crosby) who noted the potential impact of small
electric motors standards to increase the number electric bicycle
users--an outcome that the commenter supported. While DOE appreciates
this feedback, it also falls outside of the specific issues raised in
the NOPD. The remaining relevant comments and DOE's responses are
provided in the appropriate sections of this document.
III. General Discussion
A. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes
This document covers equipment meeting the definition of ``small
electric motor,'' as codified in 10 CFR 431.442 and consistent with the
statutory definition set by Congress for this 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, including IEC metric
equivalent motors.'' 10 CFR 431.442.\5\ The scope of coverage for these
motors is discussed in further detail in section IV.A.1 of this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The term ``IEC'' refers to the International
Electrotechnical Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy
used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify
a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In
determining whether capacity or another performance-related feature
justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the
utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems
appropriate. (Id.) The equipment classes for this final determination
are discussed further in section IV.A.2 of this document.
B. Test Procedure
As noted, EPCA directed DOE to establish a test procedure for those
SEMs for which DOE determined that energy conservation standards would
(1) be technologically feasible and economically justified and (2)
result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(1))
In April 2019, DOE proposed amending its test procedure for SEMs
(``April 2019 NOPR''). 84 FR 17004 (April 23, 2019). In the April 2019
NOPR, DOE proposed to harmonize its procedure with industry practice by
incorporating a new industry standard that manufacturers would be
permitted to use in addition to the three industry standards currently
incorporated by reference as options for use when testing SEM
efficiency. 84 FR 17004, 17012-17014. The proposed industry standards
from the Institute of Electrical
[[Page 4889]]
and Electronics Engineers (``IEEE''), Canadian Standards Association
(``CSA''), and the International Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'')
are listed in Table III-1. In addition, DOE proposed to adopt industry
provisions related to the test conditions used to ensure the
comparability of test results for SEMs. 84 FR 17004, 17014-17018.
Table III-1--April 2019 NOPR Proposed Industry Standards for Small
Electric Motors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment description Industry test procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-phase small electric motors........... IEEE 114-2010.
CSA C747-09.
IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method
2-1-1A.
Polyphase small electric motors less than or IEEE 112-2017 Test Method
equal to 1 horsepower. A.
CSA C747-09.
IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method
2-1-1A.
Polyphase small electric motors greater than IEEE 112-2017 Test Method
1 horsepower. B.
CSA C390-10.
IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method
2-1-1B.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
In evaluating potential amendments to energy conservation
standards, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information
gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that
could improve the efficiency of the product or equipment at issue. 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 equipment
or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. See 10 CFR
part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(c)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1); 10
CFR 431.4.
After DOE has determined that particular 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 equipment utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 10
CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(c)(3)(ii)-(v) and
7(b)(2)-(5); 10 CFR 431.4.
Section IV.B of this final determination discusses the results of
the screening analysis for SEMs, particularly the designs DOE
considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the
final determination. In this final determination, based on its review
of the market and comments received in response to the April 2020 NOPD
and September 2020 Notice, DOE has determined that no significant
technical advancements in induction motor technology within the scope
of SEMs have been made since publication of the March 2010 Final Rule.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When DOE evaluates the potential for new or amended standards, DOE
must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum
reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such
equipment. (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 SEMs
using the design parameters for the most efficient equipment available
on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE
has determined are described in section IV.C of this final
determination.
D. Significance of Energy Savings
In determining whether to amend the current energy conservation
standards for SEMs, DOE must assess whether amended standards will
result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A). See also 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2).) While the term
``significant'' is not defined in EPCA, DOE has established a
significance threshold for energy savings. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart
C, appendix A, section 6(b); 10 CFR 431.4. In evaluating the
significance of energy savings, DOE conducts a two-step approach that
considers both an absolute site energy savings threshold and a
threshold that is percent reduction in the covered equipment energy
use. Id. DOE first evaluates the projected energy savings from a
potential maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') standard over
a 30-year period against a 0.3 quads of site energy threshold. 10 CFR
431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 6(b)(2). If the
0.3 quad-threshold is not met, DOE then compares the max-tech savings
to the total energy usage of the covered equipment to calculate a
percentage reduction in energy usage. 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430,
subpart C, appendix A, section 6(b)(3). If this comparison does not
yield a reduction in site energy use of at least 10 percent over a 30-
year period, the analysis ends and DOE proposes that no significant
energy savings would likely result from setting new or amended
standards. 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A,
section 6(b)(3). The two-step approach allows DOE to ascertain whether
a potential standard satisfies EPCA's significant energy savings
requirements in EPCA to ensure that DOE avoids setting a standard that
``will not result in significant conservation of energy.''
EPCA defines ``energy efficiency'' as the ratio of the useful
output of services from an article of industrial equipment to the
energy use of such article, measured according to the Federal test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(3)) EPCA defines ``energy use'' as the
quantity of energy directly consumed by an article of industrial
equipment at the point of use, as measured by the Federal test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(4))
As discussed in section V.B of this document, DOE has determined
that amended standards would not satisfy the cost-effectiveness
criterion as required by EPCA when determining whether to amend its
standards for a given covered product or equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a);
42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(C)) See also sections
IV.F and V.B (discussing in greater detail DOE's analysis of the
available data in reaching this determination). Consequently, DOE did
not separately determine whether
[[Page 4890]]
the potential energy savings would be significant for the purpose of 42
U.S.C. 6295(n)(2).
E. Cost Effectiveness
In making a determination of whether amended energy conservation
standards are needed, EPCA requires DOE to consider the cost
effectiveness of amended standards in the context of the savings in
operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered
equipment class compared to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered equipment
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2))
In determining cost effectiveness, DOE conducted LCC and PBP
analyses that estimate the costs and benefits to users from standards.
The LCC is the sum of the initial 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 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 analyses, DOE assumes that consumers would
purchase the covered equipment in the first year of compliance with any
amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels
are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected market
trends in the absence of amended standards. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis
is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this final
determination.
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
This section addresses the analyses DOE performed for this final
determination regarding SEMs. Separate subsections address each
component of DOE's analyses and responses to related comments. DOE used
a spreadsheet tool that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential
energy conservation standards. This spreadsheet tool is available on
the website: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?EERE-2019-BT-STD-0008.
Lennox supported DOE's proposed determination not to amend energy
conservation standards for SEMs. (Lennox, No. 21 at p. 1) NEMA
concurred with DOE that it is not cost effective to increase the
stringency of SEM energy conservation standards. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 5;
NEMA, No. 32 at p. 2-3) CA IOUs also concurred with DOE that there is
limited opportunity for additional energy efficiency in the current
scope of regulation for SEMs. (CA IOUs, No. 24 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 33
at p. 2) As discussed previously, based on the analyses summarized in
section V of this document, DOE has determined that more stringent
energy conservation standards would not be cost effective. Therefore,
DOE has determined that the current standards for SEMs do not need to
be amended under the relevant criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and
42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2). See also 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) (applying 42 U.S.C.
6295(m) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n) to small electric motors).
A. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE has conducted a market and technology assessment in support of
the final determination for SEMs. DOE develops information in the
market and technology assessment that provides an overall picture of
the market for the equipment concerned, including the purpose of the
equipment, the industry structure, manufacturers, market
characteristics, and technologies used in the equipment. 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 final determination include (1) a
determination of the scope 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 SEMs. The
key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following
sections. See chapter 3 of the final determination technical support
document (``TSD'') for further discussion of the market and technology
assessment.
1. Scope of Coverage
By statute, a ``small electric motor'' is ``a NEMA general purpose
alternating-current single-speed induction motor, built in a two-digit
frame number series in accordance with NEMA Standards Publication MG 1-
1987.'' (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G)) DOE later clarified by regulation that
this definition also includes IEC metric equivalent motors--i.e., those
motors that otherwise satisfy the statutory definition of ``small
electric motor'' but that happen to be built in accordance with metric
units. See 10 CFR 431.442. Equipment meeting this definition are within
DOE's scope of coverage but not all may be subject to DOE's current
standards.
DOE's standards regulate the energy efficiency of those SEMs that
fall within three topologies (i.e., arrangements of component parts):
Capacitor-start induction-run (``CSIR''), capacitor-start capacitor-run
(``CSCR''), and polyphase motors. See 10 CFR 431.446. EPCA prescribes
that standards for SEMs do not apply to any SEM which is a component of
a covered product or covered equipment under EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6317(b)(3)) DOE's current energy conservation standards only apply to
SEMs manufactured alone or as a component of another piece of non-
covered equipment. 10 CFR 431.446(a).
Subpart X of part 431 includes energy conservation standards and
test procedures for the SEMs listed in Table IV-1. In the April 2020
NOPD, DOE did not propose any changes to the scope of SEMs subject to
energy conservation standards (i.e., ``scope of applicability'').
Table IV-1--Small Electric Motors Currently Subject to Energy
Conservation Standards
[Manufactured alone or as a component of another piece of non-covered
equipment]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor output
Motor topology Pole configuration power
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-phase:
CSIR..................... 2, 4, 6 0.25-3 hp. (0.18-
2.2 kW).*
[[Page 4891]]
CSCR..................... 2, 4, 6 0.25-3 hp. (0.18-
2.2 kW).
Polyphase.................... 2, 4, 6 0.25-3 hp. (0.18-
2.2 kW).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain motor categories are not currently subject to standards. These
include:
Polyphase, 6-pole, 2 and 3 hp motors;
CSCR and CSIR, 6-pole, 1.5, 2, and 3 hp motors;
CSCR and CSIR, 4-pole, 3 hp motors.
* The values in parentheses are the equivalent metric ratings.
In response to the April 2020 NOPD and September 2020 Notice, DOE
received a number of comments relevant to the scope of applicability of
energy conservation standards for SEMs. Lennox, AHRI and AHAM supported
maintaining the existing standards scope for SEMs. (Lennox, No. 21 at
p. 2; AHRI and AHAM, No. 25 at p. 2) In addition, NEMA stated that
motor efficiency has reached its peak of practicality, and that system
efficiency in applications must be the focus. NEMA commented in support
of DOE's efforts investigating or already establishing Extended Product
Rulemakings (e.g., pumps) which set a system efficiency, rather than
continue to focus on components (i.e,. the motor). (NEMA, No. 32 at p.
2)
The Efficiency Advocates asserted that given DOE's mandate to carry
out the energy conservation purposes of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, DOE must consider expanding the scope of its motor
standards, either in this docket or the electric motors docket.
(Efficiency Advocates, No. 23 at p. 2) Similarly, the CA IOUs commented
that there is limited opportunity for additional energy efficiency
gains in the current scope of regulation for SEMs and added that the
industry technical standards on which the current SEM definition is
based--NEMA MG1-1987--is no longer representative of the market. (CA
IOUs, No. 24 at p. 2; No. 33 at p. 2)
In the view of the CA IOUs, DOE should expand the scope of the SEM
rulemaking to consider advances in motor technology and incorporate
brushless direct current (DC) and synchronous permanent magnet AC
(``PMAC'') motors, irrespective of the limits already defined by
Congress. See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G) (defining the term ``small electric
motor'') and 10 CFR 431.442 (incorporating motors meeting the statutory
definition that are built in metric units). The CA IOUs provided an
analysis and market data and technical information as to the energy
savings potential, cost, and technical feasibility of brushless DC
motors such as electronically commutated motors (``ECMs'') and PMAC
motors compared to other available motor technologies such as
permanent-split capacitor (``PSC'') motors. The CA IOUs further
commented that motor consumers and regulators in other markets are
already considering advanced motor technologies as substitutes for SEMs
within the current scope of DOE's energy conservation standards. (CA
IOUs, No. 24 at p. 2-7; No. 33 at p. 2-8)
In addition, the CA IOUs recommended that DOE consider expanding
the definition of SEMs beyond the ``general purpose motor'' definition
included in NEMA MG1-1987 (and as specified in the statute) to include
additional motors used in general purpose applications such as split-
phase, shaded pole, and PSC motors. In cases where the application
requirements rely on part-load operation, the CA IOUs recommended that
these motors be compared in a technology-neutral manner against other
motor designs optimized for part load operation (i.e., brushless DC,
synchronous PMAC/Q-Sync). (CA IOUs, No. 24 at p. 7; No. 33 at p. 8-9)
Regarding the potential coverage of ECMs, NEMA commented that ECMs
were not squirrel cage induction motors but instead are permanent
magnet synchronous motors with electronic controls/drives integral to
the machine and were not included in the scope of SEMs (NEMA, No. 32 at
p. 2).\6\ In addition, NEMA commented that ECMs tend to be more
expensive than single-speed SEMs, and typically installed as components
in appliances that DOE already regulates. In these instances, strict
energy efficiency requirements on those appliances and the use of
better motor controls outweigh the increased expense of using ECMs.
NEMA added that making ECMs more efficient would not make regulated
appliances more efficient because of component efficiency tradeoffs in
satisfying efficiency requirements and protections from double-
regulation. (NEMA, No. 32 at p. 2-3) NEMA commented that bringing ECMs
into scope could have significant impacts on Original Equipment
Manufacturers (``OEMs''). NEMA added that ECMs are not drop-in fit
replacements for SEMs and that DOE has not sufficiently examined the
downstream impacts of adding such motors in scope on OEMs. (NEMA, No.
32 at p. 2) Regarding PMAC/Q-sync designs, NEMA noted that such PMAC/Q-
sync motors did not meet NEMA MG-1-1987 torque requirements and were
not effective substitutes for SEMs, as indicated by their small market
share. (NEMA, No. 32 at p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ DOE notes that the definition of a SEM only includes single
speed induction motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously stated in section III.A, this document pertains only
to equipment meeting the definition of small electric motor, as
codified in 10 CFR 431.442, which includes general purpose single speed
induction motors. See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G) and 10 CFR 431.442. Single-
speed induction motors, as delineated and described in MG1-1987, fall
into five categories: Split-phase, shaded-pole, capacitor-start (both
CSIR and CSCR), PSC, and polyphase. Of these five motor categories, DOE
determined in the March 2010 Final Rule that only CSIR, CSCR, and
polyphase motors were able to meet the relevant performance
requirements in NEMA MG1-1987 and fell within the general purpose
alternating current motor category, as indicated by the listings found
in manufacturers' catalogs. 75 FR 10874, 10882-10883. Therefore, for
this determination, DOE only considered the regulated SEMs currently
subject to energy conservation standards.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ DOE also notes that were it to determine that expansion of
the scope is warranted and permissible, it would first need to
establish test methods for any such motors. See 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR
part 430 subpart C appendix A section 8(d). Nothing DOE has
reviewed--or that commenters have submitted--suggests that the
existing test procedures for SEM are appropriate for motors that
fall outside of the already prescribed small electric motor scope
set by Congress and the definition of small electric motor. Comments
related to the scope of applicability of the DOE test procedure for
small electric motors were discussed as part of DOE's test procedure
NOPR. 84 FR 17004, 17009 (April 23, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4892]]
AHAM and AHRI referenced the statutory exemption regarding the
application of energy conservation standards for SEMs that are
components of covered products (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)) and requested
that DOE interpret the exemption to apply to all SEMs destined for or
used in covered products or equipment. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 25 at p. 4)
Lennox commented that it opposes regulating components used in products
and equipment already regulated by DOE, instead it supports a finished-
product approach to energy efficiency regulation. (Lennox, No. 21 at p.
2) GEA commented that any regulation of individual components in
products whose energy consumption is regulated on a product level will
provide little to no energy savings for consumers, will disrupt the
complex balance of component selection and design, and will likely
increase cost for consumers for no benefit to consumers. (GEA, No. 26
at p. 2) NEMA commented that because SEMs are always used as a
component in larger product systems that consume electricity, there
already exist dozens of appliance- and device-level regulations that
address energy consumption of those end-use products. NEMA suggested
examining and measuring energy savings at the end-use device makes the
most sense, as system dynamics can vary for designs within each product
class and from class to class. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 2)
As noted, EPCA directs DOE to establish test procedures and energy
conservation standards for SEMs, see 42 U.S.C. 6317(b), both of which
DOE has already done. EPCA further provides that standards shall not
apply to any SEM which is a component of a covered product or covered
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)) DOE has evaluated the scope of the
SEM standards in this final determination in accordance with EPCA.
2. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy
used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify
a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In
determining whether capacity or another performance-related feature
justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the
utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems
appropriate. (Id.) For the April 2020 NOPD, DOE assessed the 62
equipment classes currently established based on phase count (i.e.,
single-phase versus polyphase), topology of single-phase motors, number
of poles, and horsepower. This section reviews the motor
characteristics used to delineate equipment classes for SEMs.
The first characteristic used to establish equipment classes is
phase count. Polyphase and single-phase equipment classes are used to
differentiate motors based on the fundamental differences in how the
two types of motors operate. 10 CFR 431.446(a). For a rotor to move,
the stator (i.e., the stationary part of the motor) must produce a
rotating magnetic field. To operate on single-phase alternating current
(``AC'') power, the single-phase motor uses an auxiliary winding (or
start winding) with current and voltage out of phase with the original
(main) winding to produce a net rotating magnetic field. To operate on
three-phase power, the polyphase motor uses windings arranged such that
when supplied by three-phase alternating current, a rotating magnetic
field is produced. In short, three-phase power in a polyphase motor
naturally produces rotation, whereas a single-phase motor requires the
auxiliary winding to ``engineer'' the conditions for rotation. Due to
these differences, polyphase motors are inherently more efficient but
require use of a three-phase power source. Based on the differences in
efficiency and consumer utility, DOE separated equipment classes based
on phase count in the March 2010 Final Rule. 75 FR 10874, 10886. DOE
relied on the same approach for the proposed determination. See 85 FR
24146, 24153.
In addition to differentiating equipment classes by phase count,
equipment classes are differentiated by the topology of single-phase
motors. 10 CFR 431.446(a). DOE identified two topologies of single-
phase motors meeting the statutory definition of SEMs: CSIR and CSCR.
CSIR and CSCR motors both utilize a capacitor (``start-capacitor'') and
two windings (``start-winding'' and ``run-winding''). The difference
between the two motors occurs when reaching operating speed; while CSIR
motors run on the run-winding alone with no capacitor, CSCR motors run
using an additional ``run-capacitor'' and both windings. While this
additional capacitor can boost CSCR motor efficiency to levels higher
than those exhibited by CSIR motor designs, it usually constitutes
dimensional changes due to the need to mount the run-capacitor
externally on the motor housing. This additional spatial requirement
could potentially limit the use of CSCR motors in space-constrained
applications, and would cause motor topology to directly impact
consumer utility. Given that motor topology can affect motor
performance and consumer utility, DOE differentiated single-phase
equipment classes by topology in the March 2010 Final Rule. 75 FR
10886. DOE proposed to use the same approach in the April 2020 NOPD.
See 85 FR 24146, 24153.
The current energy conservation standards also differentiate
classes based on the number of poles in a motor. 10 CFR 431.446(a). The
number of poles in an induction motor determines the synchronous speed
(i.e., revolutions per minute). There is an inverse relationship
between the number of poles and speed: As a motor design increases from
two to eight poles, the synchronous speed drops from 3,600 to 900
revolutions per minute. The desired synchronous speed varies by end use
application, making the number of poles in a motor a factor directly
impacting consumer utility. By examining the efficiency ratings for 1-
200 horsepower polyphase electric motors (10 CFR 431.25),\8\ motors
meeting the NEMA Premium Motor standard, and manufacturer catalogs, DOE
observed that full-load efficiency percentages tend to decrease with
the number of poles. Therefore, DOE determined that the number of poles
has a direct impact on the motor's performance and consumer utility,
and consequently, the number of poles is a further means of
differentiating among equipment classes. 75 FR 10886. DOE relied on the
same approach for the proposed determination. See 85 FR 24146, 24153.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ While there is no overlap between the scope of applicability
for electric motor standards at 10 CFR 431.25 and small electric
motors standards at 10 CFR 431.446, the pole-efficiency
relationships observed in the electric motor standards from 1 to 3
horsepower can be considered when determining appropriate pole-
efficiency relationships for small electric motors in this
horsepower range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, DOE employs motor horsepower as an equipment class setting
factor under the current energy conservation standards. 10 CFR
431.446(a). Average full load efficiency generally correlates with
motor horsepower (e.g., a 3-horsepower motor is usually more efficient
than a \1/4\-horsepower motor). DOE found that motor efficiency varies
with motor horsepower by evaluating manufacturers' catalog data, the
efficiency ratings of the established SEM energy conservation standards
(10 CFR 431.446), and the efficiency
[[Page 4893]]
requirements of the NEMA Premium Motor program. Additionally, motor
horsepower dictates the maximum load that a motor can drive, which
means that a motor's rated horsepower can influence and limit the end
use applications where that motor can be used. Horsepower is a critical
performance attribute of a small electric motor, and since horsepower
has a direct relationship with average full load efficiency and
consumer utility, DOE used this element as a criterion for
distinguishing among equipment classes in the March 2010 Final Rule. 75
FR 10886. DOE relied on the same approach for the proposed
determination. See 85 FR 24146, 24153.
DOE did not receive any comments on the current structure of the
equipment classes as assessed in the April 2020 NOPD. Accordingly, in
this final determination DOE continues to assess the SEM equipment
classes as currently established. Table IV-2 summarizes the structure
of the equipment classes identified for this final determination and as
designated by the current standards at 10 CFR 431.446.
Table IV-2--Summary of Small Electric Motor Equipment Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor topology Pole configuration Motor output power hp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-phase:
CSIR...................................................... 2, 4, 6 0.25-3
CSCR...................................................... 2, 4, 6 0.25-3
Polyphase..................................................... 2, 4, 6 0.25-3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See chapter 3 of the final determination TSD for further discussion
of the equipment classes.
3. Technology Options for Efficiency Improvement
The purpose of the technology assessment is to develop a list of
technology options that could improve the efficiency of SEMs. For the
motors covered in this determination, energy efficiency losses are
grouped into four main categories: I\2\R losses,\9\ core losses,
friction and windage losses, and stray load losses. The technology
options considered in this section are categorized by these four
categories of losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ I\2\R losses refer to conductor losses. In AC circuits,
these losses are computed as the square of the current (``I'')
multiplied by the conductor resistance (``R'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SEMs evaluated in this determination are all AC induction
motors. Induction motors have two core components: A stator and a
rotor. The components work together to convert electrical energy into
rotational mechanical energy. This is done by creating a rotating
magnetic field in the stator, which induces a current flow in the
rotor. This current flow creates an opposing magnetic field in the
rotor, which creates rotational forces. Because of the orientation of
these fields, the rotor field follows the stator field. The rotor is
connected to a shaft that also rotates and provides the mechanical
energy output.
Table IV-3 summarizes the technology options identified in the
April 2020 NOPD.
Table IV-3--Summary of Technology Options for Improving Efficiency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of loss to reduce Technology option applied
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I2R Losses................... Use a copper die-cast rotor cage.
Reduce skew on conductor cage.
Increase cross-sectional area of rotor
conductor bars.
Increase end ring size.
Changing gauges of copper wire in stator.
Manipulate stator slot size.
Decrease radial air gap.
Change run-capacitor rating.
Core Losses.................. Improve grades of electrical steel.
Use thinner steel laminations.
Anneal steel laminations.
Add stack height (i.e., add electrical
steel laminations).
Use high-efficiency lamination materials.
Use plastic bonded iron powder.
Friction and Windage Losses.. Use better bearings and lubricant.
Install a more efficient cooling system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
85 FR 24146, 24155.
DOE did not receive comments on the technology options identified
in the April 2020 NOPD. Accordingly, DOE continued to consider the
technology options identified in the April 2020 NOPD in developing this
final determination. Chapter 3 of the TSD provides details on the DOE's
market and technology assessment for SEMs.
B. Screening Analysis
DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which
technology options are suitable \10\ for further consideration of new
or amended energy conservation standards:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ DOE refers to the technology options that pass the
screening criteria as ``design options.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not
be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing
of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the
scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the
projected compliance date of the standard, then that
[[Page 4894]]
technology will not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If it is
determined that a technology would have a significant adverse impact on
the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers or
would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be
considered further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a
technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety,
it will not be considered further.
(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option
utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to
achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be
considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 6(c)(3) and 7(b); 10 CFR
431.4.
In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination
of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the above five criteria,
it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering
analysis.
Table IV-3 provides a summary of all the technology options DOE
considered for improving SEM efficiency. For a description of how each
of these technology options improves SEM efficiency, see final
determination TSD chapter 3. For the April 2020 NOPD, DOE initially
screened out three of the identified technology options: Reducing the
air gap below .0125 inches, amorphous metal laminations, and plastic
bonded iron powder (``PBIP'').
Reducing the air gap between the rotor and stator can improve motor
efficiency. For SEMs, the air gap is commonly set at 15 thousandths of
an inch. A reduction in air gaps is technologically feasible and DOE is
unaware of any adverse impacts on health or safety associated with
reducing the radial air gap below 12.5 thousandths of an inch. However,
this technology option fails the screening criterion of being
practicable to manufacture, install, and service. Such a tight air gap
may cause problems in manufacturing and service, with the rotor
potentially coming into contact with the stator. This technology option
also fails the screening criterion of avoiding adverse impacts on
consumer utility and reliability, because the motor may experience
higher failure rates in service when the manufactured air gaps are less
than 12.5 thousandths of an inch.
Using amorphous metals in the rotor laminations is another
potential technology option to improve the efficiency of SEMs.
Amorphous metal is extremely thin, has high electrical resistivity, and
has little or no magnetic domain definition. Because of amorphous
steel's high resistance, it exhibits a reduction in hysteresis and eddy
current losses, which in turn reduces overall losses in SEMs. However,
amorphous steel is a very brittle material which makes it difficult to
punch into motor laminations.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 1 S.R. Ning, J. Gao, and Y.G. Wang. Review on Applications
of Low Loss Amorphous Metals in Motors. 2010. ShanDong University.
Weihai, China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although amorphous metals have the potential to improve efficiency,
DOE does not consider this technology option technologically feasible,
because it has not been incorporated into a working prototype of a
small electric motor. Furthermore, DOE is uncertain whether amorphous
metals are practicable to manufacture, install, and service, because a
prototype amorphous metal-based SEM has not been made and little
information is available on the feasibility of adapting this technology
for manufacturing SEMs to reach any conclusions regarding the
practicability of using this option. DOE is not aware of any adverse
impacts on consumer utility, reliability, health, or safety associated
with amorphous metal laminations.
Using PBIP to manufacture SEMs could cut production costs while
increasing production output. Although other researchers may be working
on this technology option, DOE notes that a research team at Lund
University in Sweden published a paper in 2007 about using PBIP in
manufacturing, which is the most recent applicable paper on the
subject. This technology option is based on an iron powder alloy that
is suspended in plastic, and is used in certain motor applications such
as fans, pumps, and household appliances.\12\ The compound is then
shaped into motor components using a centrifugal mold, reducing the
number of manufacturing steps. Researchers claim that this technology
option could cut losses by as much as 50 percent. The Lund University
study, which is the most recent research paper to address the use of
PBIP in the production context, indicated that its study team already
produced inductors, transformers, and induction heating coils using
PBIP, but had not yet produced a small electric motor. In addition, it
appears that PBIP technology is aimed at torus, claw-pole, and
transversal flux motors, none of which are with in the regulatory
definition of SEMs at 10 CFR 431.442. DOE has found no evidence of any
significant research or technical advancement in PBIP methodologies
that could be applied to SEMs since publication of the March 2010 Final
Rule or the April 2020 NOPD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Horrdin, H., and E. Olsson. Technology Shifts in Power
Electronics and Electric Motors for Hybrid Electric Vehicles: A
Study of Silicon Carbide and Iron Powder Materials. 2007. Chalmers
University of Technology. G[ouml]teborg, Sweden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although PBIP has the potential to improve efficiency while
reducing manufacturing costs, DOE does not consider this technology
option technologically feasible because it has not been incorporated
into a working prototype of a small electric motor. Also, DOE is
uncertain whether the material has the structural integrity to form
into the necessary shape of a SEM steel frame. Specifically, properties
of PBIP can differ depending on the processing. If the metal particles
are too closely compacted and begin to touch, the material will gain
electrical conductivity, counteracting one of its most important
features of preventing electric current from developing, which is
critical because this essentially eliminates losses in the core due to
eddy currents. If the metal particles are not compacted closely enough,
its structural integrity could be compromised because the resulting
material will be very porous.
Furthermore, DOE is uncertain whether PBIP is practicable to
manufacture, install, and service, because a prototype PBIP SEM has not
yet been made and little information is available on the feasibility of
adapting this option for manufacturing SEMs. DOE continues to be
unaware of any adverse impacts on product utility, product
availability, health, or safety that may arise from the use of PBIP in
SEMs.
In the April 2020 NOPD, DOE tentatively determined that the
remaining technology options listed in Table IV-2 are technologically
feasible. The evaluated technologies all have been used (or are being
used) in commercially available products or working prototypes. These
technologies all incorporate materials and components that are
commercially available in today's supply markets for the SEMs that are
the subject of this document.
DOE did not receive comments on the screening analysis in the April
2020 NOPD. Accordingly, DOE considered the same screening analysis from
the
[[Page 4895]]
April 2020 NOPD in this final determination and is screening out the
following technology options: Reducing the air gap below .0125 inches,
amorphous metal laminations, and plastic bonded iron powder (``PBIP'').
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, and do not represent unique
pathway proprietary technologies). Chapter 4 of the TSD provides
details on the DOE's screening analysis for SEMs.
C. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis establishes the relationship between the
efficiency and cost of an SEM. There are two elements to consider in
the engineering analysis; the selection of efficiency levels to analyze
(i.e., the ``efficiency analysis'') and the determination of product
cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the ``cost analysis''). In
determining the performance of higher-efficiency equipment, DOE
considers technologies and design option combinations not eliminated by
the screening analysis. For each equipment class, DOE estimates the
baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the equipment at
efficiency levels above the baseline. The output of the engineering
analysis is a set of cost-efficiency ``curves'' that are used in
downstream analyses (i.e., the LCC and PBP analyses). The following
sections provide further details on the engineering analysis
methodology.
1. Summary of Significant Data Sources
DOE utilized two principal data sources for the engineering
analysis: (1) The database of SEM manufacturer suggested retail price
(``MSRP'') and performance data based on the current market (as
evaluated in the April 2020 NOPD), and (2) motor modeling data, test
data, and performance specifications from the March 2010 Final Rule.
DOE determined that relying on the data from the March 2010 Final Rule
was reasonable because a review of the catalog data suggested that
there were no significant technological advancements in the motor
industry that could lead to more efficient or lower cost motor designs
relative to the motors modeled for the March 2010 Final Rule. In
response to the April 2020 NOPD, NEMA also commented that the motor
designs and associated efficiency levels adopted from the March 2010
Final Rule analysis are appropriate. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 3)
Accordingly, in preparing this determination, DOE continued to evaluate
the motor designs that were modeled for the March 2010 Final Rule
analysis.
DOE collected MSRP and performance data from product literature and
catalogs distributed by four major motor manufacturers: ABB (which
includes the manufacturer formerly known as Baldor Electric Company),
Nidec Motor Corporation (which includes the US Motors brand), Regal-
Beloit Corporation (which includes the Marathon and Leeson brands), and
WEG Electric Motors Corporation.\13\ Based on market information from
the Low-Voltage Motors World Market Report,\14\ DOE estimates that the
four major motor manufacturers noted comprise the majority of the U.S.
SEM market and are consistent with the motor brands considered in the
March 2010 Final Rule. (Throughout this document this data will be
referred to as the ``manufacturer catalog data.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ ABB (Baldor-Reliance): Online Manufacturer Catalog,
accessed January 3, 2019. Available at https://www.baldor.com/catalog#category=2; Nidec: Online Manufacturer Catalog, accessed
December 26, 2018. Available at ecatalog.motorboss.com/Catalog/Motors/ALL; Regal (Marathon and Leeson): Online Manufacturer
Catalog, accessed December 27, 2018. Available at https://www.regalbeloit.com/Products/Faceted-Search?category=Motors&brand=Leeson,Marathon%20Motors; WEG: Online
Manufacturer Catalog, accessed December 24, 2018. Available at
http://catalog.wegelectric.com/.
\14\ Based on the Low-Voltage Motors, World Market Report (IHS
Markit Report September 2017, Edition 2017-2018) Table 5.15: Market
Share Estimates for Low-voltage Motors: Americas; Suppliers `share
of the Market in 2015 and 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Representative Equipment Classes
Due to the large number of equipment classes, DOE did not directly
analyze all 62 equipment classes of SEMs considered under this final
determination. Instead, DOE selected representative classes 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.
DOE notes that the minimum energy conservation standards adopted in
the March 2010 Final Rule correspond to the efficiency level that
represented the maximum technologically feasible efficiency for CSIR
motors. As discussed previously, DOE was unable to identify any
additional design options that passed the screening criteria that would
indicate that a motor design meeting a higher efficiency level is
technologically feasible and commercially viable. In addition, DOE was
unable to identify any CSIR motors in the manufacturer catalog data
that exhibited efficiency levels exceeding the current energy
conservation standards for CSIR motors. From this information, DOE
proposed in the April 2020 NOPD that more stringent energy conservation
standards for CSIR motors do not appear to be technologically feasible.
Consequently, DOE did not include a representative CSIR equipment class
as part of the engineering analysis.
The minimum energy conservation standards adopted in the March 2010
Final Rule corresponded to efficiency levels below the maximum
technologically feasible levels for the CSCR and polyphase topologies,
and therefore DOE elected to analyze one representative equipment class
for each of these motor topologies. Equipment classes in both the
polyphase and CSCR topologies were directly analyzed due to the
fundamental differences in their starting and running electrical
characteristics. These differences in operation have a direct impact on
performance and indicate that polyphase motors are typically more
efficient than single-phase motors. In addition, the efficiency
relationships across horsepower and pole configuration are different
between single-phase and polyphase motors.
DOE did not vary the pole configuration of the representative
classes it analyzed because analyzing the same pole configuration
provided the strongest relationship upon which to base its scaling. See
section IV.C.5 of this document for details on DOE's scaling
methodology. Keeping as many design characteristics constant as
possible enabled DOE to more accurately identify how design changes
affect efficiency across horsepower ratings. For each motor topology,
DOE directly analyzed the most common pole-configuration. For both
motor topologies analyzed, 4-pole motors constitute the largest
fraction of motor models on the market.
When DOE selected its representative equipment classes, DOE chose
the horsepower ratings that constitute a high volume of motor models
and approximate the middle of the range of covered horsepower ratings
so that DOE could develop a reasonable scaling methodology. DOE notes
that the representative equipment classes for polyphase and CSCR motors
that were selected for the engineering analysis align with the
representative classes that were directly analyzed in the March
[[Page 4896]]
2010 Final Rule. 75 FR 10874, 10888. The proposed representative
equipment classes from the April 2020 NOPD are outlined in Table IV-4.
Table IV-4--Representative Equipment Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor topology Pole configuration Motor output power hp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polyphase..................................................... 4 1.00
Single-phase CSCR............................................. 4 0.75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA commented that the selected representative equipment classes
are appropriate because there have not been any significant changes to
design practices which might warrant modification. (NEMA, No. 22 at p.
2) DOE did not receive any other comments regarding the representative
equipment classes. Accordingly, DOE continued to analyze the same
representative equipment classes from the April 2020 NOPD in preparing
this final determination.
3. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) Relying on observed
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach),
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on
the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that
already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended
using the design option approach to interpolate to define ``gap fill''
levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency
levels) and/or to extrapolate to the ``max-tech'' level (particularly
in cases where the ``max tech'' level exceeds the maximum efficiency
level currently available on the market).
In the March 2010 Final Rule DOE and in the April 2020 NOPD, DOE
relied on the design option approach. DOE maintained the design option
approach for this final determination. In this design option approach,
DOE considers efficiency levels corresponding to motor designs that
meet or exceed the efficiency requirements of the current energy
conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.446. DOE has determined that there
are no additional technology options that pass the screening criteria
that would enable the consideration of any additional efficiency levels
representing higher efficiency levels than the maximum technologically
feasible level analyzed in the March 2010 Final Rule.
For each equipment class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as
a reference point, and measures changes resulting from potential energy
conservation standards against the baseline. The baseline model in each
equipment class represents the characteristics of a product/equipment
typical of that class (e.g., capacity, physical size). Generally, a
baseline model is one that just meets current energy conservation
standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline is typically
the most common or least efficient unit on the market.
DOE considered the current minimum energy conservation standards to
establish the baseline efficiency levels for each representative
equipment class. As discussed previously, DOE selected representative
equipment classes that align with the classes analyzed in the March
2010 Final Rule. See March 2010 Final Rule TSD, sec. 5.2.1. DOE
identified specific motor designs from the March 2010 Final Rule
engineering analysis that exhibit full-load efficiency ratings that are
representative of the minimum energy conservation standards for SEMs.
DOE used these motor designs to form the baseline against which to
compare improved efficiency design options in DOE's analysis. Each
increase in efficiency over the baseline level that DOE analyzed was
assigned an efficiency level (``EL'') number.
For the March 2010 Final Rule engineering analysis, DOE purchased
and tested motors with the lowest catalog efficiency rating available
in the market for each representative equipment class. DOE's technical
expert tore down each motor to obtain dimensions, a BOM, and other
pertinent design information. DOE worked with a subcontractor to
reproduce these motor designs using modeling software and then applied
design options to a modeled motor that would increase that motor's
efficiency to develop a series of motor designs spanning a range of
efficiency levels. For the current evaluation, DOE continued to base
its analysis on the modeled motor designs. In light of its catalog
review, DOE discerned no significant technological advancements in the
motor industry that could lead to more efficient or lower cost motor
designs relative to the motors modeled for the March 2010 Final Rule.
In addition, DOE did not receive any contrasting comments suggesting
any significant technological advancements for small electric motors
within current scope.
In developing the modeled motor designs and associated costs, DOE
also considered both space-constrained and non-space-constrained
scenarios. DOE prepared designs of increased efficiency covering both
scenarios for each representative equipment class. The design levels
prepared for the space-constrained scenario included baseline and
intermediate levels, a level for a design using a copper rotor, and a
max-tech level with a design using a copper rotor and exotic core
steel. The high-efficiency space-constrained designs incorporate copper
rotors and exotic core steel in order to meet comparable levels of
efficiency to the high-efficiency non-space-constrained designs while
meeting the parameters for minimally increased stack length. The design
levels created for the non-space-constrained scenario corresponded to
the same efficiency levels created for the space-constrained scenario.
Further information on the development of modeled motor designs is
available in section 5.3 of the March 2010 Final Rule TSD.
[[Page 4897]]
NEMA commented that improving efficiency in SEMs may not always
result in overall equipment-level efficiency improvements. It noted
that any modification to energy conservation standards or scope of
regulated SEMs would require a revised analysis of the downstream
impact of SEM design changes on OEM devices and appliances. NEMA
asserted that changes in motor size, weight, rotational speed,
slip,\15\ and other factors due to more stringent energy conservation
standards have not been sufficiently evaluated. It added that because
of the potential increase in the speed of the motor due to increases in
efficiency, more stringent energy conservation standards could have
significant downstream impacts in OEM devices which use these motors
and would not always guarantee higher efficiency or better performance
by that end-use device. (NEMA, No. 22 at pp. 1-2, 5; No. 32 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``Motor slip'' is the difference between the speed of the
rotor (operating speed) and the speed of the rotating magnetic field
of the stator (synchronous speed). When net rotor resistance of a
motor design is reduced, efficiency of the motor increases but slip
decreases, resulting in higher operating speeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE continued to use the designs analyzed for the March 2010 Final
Rule in preparing this final determination. The designs analyzed in the
engineering analysis did not show a significant (less than 2 percent)
and consistent increase in speed with increasing efficiency (some more
efficient designs had slightly lower speeds) across all ELs (See Final
Determination TSD Chapter 5). In addition, as discussed previously, to
account for motor size and weight limitations, DOE also analyzed both
space-constrained and non-space-constrained scenarios. However, in this
final determination, DOE is not considering amending the current energy
conservation standards for this equipment.
Given that DOE was unable to identify any additional design options
for improving efficiency that passed the screening criteria and were
not already considered in the March 2010 Final Rule engineering
analysis, DOE analyzed the same motor designs that were developed for
the March 2010 Final Rule except for CSIR motors (which, as indicated
earlier, did not appear to have any technologically-feasible options
available to improve their efficiency). For each representative
equipment class, DOE established an efficiency level for each motor
design that exhibited improved efficiency over the baseline design. As
discussed previously, DOE considered the current minimum energy
conservation standards as the baseline efficiency levels for each
representative equipment class. These April 2020 NOPD efficiency levels
are summarized in Table IV-5.
Table IV-5--Summary of Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative equipment class EL Efficiency (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-phase CSCR, 4-pole, 0.75-hp...... 0 81.8
1 82.8
2 84.0
3 84.6
4 86.7
5 87.9
Polyphase, 4-pole, 1-hp................. 0 83.5
1 85.2
2 86.3
3 87.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned previously, NEMA commented that the motor designs and
associated efficiency levels adopted into this analysis from the March
2010 Final Rule analysis are appropriate. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 3)
Accordingly, similar to the April 2020 NOPD, DOE adopted the motor
modeling approach used in support of the March 2010 Final Rule to
analyze and establish efficiency levels and incremental motor MSPs. DOE
did not identify any additional design options in the market for
improving efficiency that were not already considered in the March 2010
Final Rule.
4. Cost Analysis
The cost analysis portion of the Engineering Analysis is conducted
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost
approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated
product and the availability and timeliness of purchasing the equipment
on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically
dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to
develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.
Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a
product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available
from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example)
to develop the bill of materials (``BOM'') for the product.
Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as
fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which
parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise
impractical (e.g. large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price surveys
using publicly available pricing data published on major online
retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and
other commercial channels.
In the present case, a standard BOM was constructed for each motor
design that includes direct material costs and labor time estimates
along with costs. DOE notes that the costs established for direct
material costs and labor time were initially determined in terms of
$2009 for the March 2010 Final Rule. For the April 2020 NOPD, DOE
updated these material and labor costs to be representative of the
market in 2018. DOE adjusted historical material prices to $2018 using
the historical Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Indices
(``PPI'') \16\ for each commodity's industry. In addition, DOE updated
labor costs and markups based on the most recent and complete version
(i.e.
[[Page 4898]]
2012) of the Economic Census of Industry by the U.S. Census Bureau.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ www.bls.gov/ppi/.
\17\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of Industry Series
Reports for Industry, U.S. Department of Commerce, 2012; NAICS code
3353121 ``Fractional Horsepower Motors'' Production workers hours
and wages. Although some summary statistics of the 2017 Economic
Census for Manufacturing is currently available, the detailed
statistics for the U.S. is estimated to be released in the time
frame of November 2020-September 2021. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/economic-census/about/release-schedules.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE did not receive comments on the cost analysis presented in the
April 2020 NOPD. Accordingly, using the same methodology presented in
the April 2020 NOPD, in this final determination DOE updated the
material and labor costs to be representative of the market in 2019$.
5. Scaling Relationships
In analyzing the equipment classes, DOE developed a systematic
approach to scaling efficiency across horsepower ratings and pole
configurations, while retaining reasonable levels of accuracy, in a
manner similar to the March 2010 Final Rule. DOE's current energy
conservation standards for SEMs found at 10 CFR 431.446 list minimum
required efficiencies over a range of horsepower and pole
configurations, providing a basis for scaling efficiency across
horsepower and pole configurations for polyphase and single-phase
motors. The efficiency relationships in the established standards are
based on a combination of NEMA recommended efficiency standards, NEMA
premium designations, catalog data, and test data for individual
manufacturer motor product lines.
In the April 2020 NOPD, DOE proposed to apply the same scaling
methodologies used to support the March 2010 Final Rule to the
engineering analysis. This includes scaling to two additional
representative units needed in the energy use and life-cycle cost
analyses to separately analyze consumers of integral (i.e., with
horsepower greater than or equal to 1 hp) single-phase CSCR SEMs and
fractional (i.e., with horsepower less than 1 hp) polyphase SEMs. This
scaling approach has been presented previously to stakeholders and has
been updated based on stakeholder input. Additionally, the approach has
the added advantage of reducing the analytical complexity associated
with conducting a detailed engineering analysis of the cost-efficiency
relationship on all 62 equipment classes. 75 FR 10874, 10894-10895.
NEMA commented that the previously developed scaling methodologies
remain effective and appropriate. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 3) DOE did not
receive any other comments on the scaling analysis methodology proposed
in the April 2020 NOPD. DOE continues to apply the scaling analysis
methodology from the April 2020 NOPD in this final determination.
Chapter 5 of the TSD provides details on the DOE's engineering analysis
for SEMs.
D. Markups Analysis
To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit
margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer
markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (``MSP'')
is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into
commerce. DOE developed an average manufacturer markup by examining the
annual Securities and Exchange Commission 10-K reports filed by
publicly-traded manufacturers primarily engaged in appliance
manufacturing and whose combined product range includes SEM.
The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g., retailer
markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution
chain to convert the MSP estimates derived in the engineering analysis
to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC and PBP analysis. At
each step in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of
the equipment to cover business costs and profit margin. For SEMs, the
main parties in the distribution chain are manufacturers, distributors,
contractors or installers, OEMs of equipment incorporating SEMs, and
consumers.
DOE relied on estimates provided by NEMA during the March 2010
Final Rule to establish the proportion of shipments through each
distribution channel.\18\ In response to the April 2020 NOPD, DOE did
not receive any comments or data to support alternative distribution
channels for SEMs. In this final determination, DOE relied on the same
distributions of shipments by distribution channels as in the April
2020 NOPD. Further, DOE did not receive any comments on the approach
used to develop markups. DOE continued to rely on the same methodology
for developing markups and updated relevant data sources to the most
recent information available in preparation of this final
determination. DOE used data from the U.S. Census Bureau and US
Economic Census \19\ and the Sales Tax Clearinghouse \20\ to develop
distribution channel markups and sales tax estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ For more details see chapter 7 of the 2010 small electric
motors final rule TSD, at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007-0036.
\19\ U.S. Census Bureau. 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade Report.
2017. Washington, DC (Last accessed June 19, 2019.) https://www.census.gov/wholesale/index.html; U.S. Census Bureau. 2017 Annual
Retail Trade Survey, 2017. (Last accessed June 19, 2019.) https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/arts/data/tables.2017.html.; 2017
Economic Census: Manufacturing: Summary Statistics for the U.S.,
States, and Selected Geographies: 2017. 2020. U.S. Census Bureau.
(Last accessed October 21, 2020.) https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/economic-census/naics-sector-31-33.html.
\20\ Sales Tax Clearinghouse Inc. State Sales Tax Rates Along
with Combined Average City and County Rates. October 21, 2020. (Last
accessed October 21, 2020.) http://thestc.com/STrates.stm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE used the same approach as in the April 2020 NOPD and developed
baseline and incremental markups for each actor in the distribution
chain. Baseline markups are applied to the price of equipment with
baseline efficiency, while incremental markups are applied to the
difference in price between baseline and higher-efficiency models (the
incremental cost increase). The incremental markup is typically less
than the baseline markup and is designed to maintain similar per-unit
operating profit before and after new or amended standards.\21\ DOE
relied on economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate average
baseline and incremental markups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Because the projected price of standards-compliant products
(and equipment) is typically higher than the price of baseline
products (and equipment), using the same markup for the incremental
cost and the baseline cost would result in higher per-unit operating
profit. While such an outcome is possible, DOE maintains that in
markets that are reasonably competitive it is unlikely that imposing
more stringent standards would lead to a sustainable increase in
profitability in the long run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, in the space-constrained scenario, DOE developed a
modified OEM markup to account for the costs faced by those OEMs of
equipment incorporating SEMs needing to redesign their products in
order to incorporate SEMs of different, including larger, sizes.
Nationally, businesses spend about 2.7 percent of U.S. gross domestic
product on research and development (``R&D'').\22\ DOE estimates that
R&D by equipment OEMs, including the design of new products,
approximately represents at most 2.7 percent of company revenue. DOE
followed the same approach used in the March 2010
[[Page 4899]]
Final Rule and accounted for the additional costs to redesign products
and incorporate differently-shaped motors by adding 2.7 percent to the
OEM markups.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ National Science Board. January 15, 2020. Science and
Engineering Indicators 2020. Research and Development: U.S Trends
and International Comparisons. Figure 4-3, Ratio of U.S. R&D to
gross domestic product, by roles of federal, business, and other
nonfederal funding for R&D: 1953-2017. 2020. National Science Board:
Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB-2020-3).
\23\ Fore more details see chapter 7 of the 2010 small electric
motors final rule TSD, at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007-0036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV-6 summarizes the overall baseline and incremental markups
for each distribution channel considered for SEMs. These markups were
updated since the April 2020 NOPD to reflect updates to relevant data
sources to the most recent information available.
Table IV-6--Small Electric Motors Distribution Channel Markups
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution channel (from manufacturer) Direct to OEMs (65%) Via wholesalers to OEMs (30%) Via wholesalers to end-users
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (5%)
-------------------------------
Main party Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor Wholesaler........................................ .............. .............. 1.35 1.20 1.35 1.20
Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) *................. 1.45/1.48 1.20/1.23 1.45/1.48 1.20/1.23 .............. ..............
Equipment Wholesaler.................................... 1.41 1.20 1.41 1.20 .............. ..............
Retailer................................................ .............. .............. .............. .............. 1.53 1.27
Contractor.............................................. 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sales Tax............................................... 1.0727
1.0727
1.0727
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall................................................. 2.42/2.47 1.69/1.73 3.26/3.33 2.04/2.08 2.44 1.80
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Non-space-constrained scenario/space-constrained scenario.
Chapter 6 of the TSD provides details on the DOE's markup analysis
for SEMs.
E. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual
energy consumption of SEMs at different efficiency levels and to assess
the energy savings potential of increased efficiency. The analysis
estimates the range of energy use of SEMs in the field (i.e., as they
are actually used by consumers). The energy use analysis provides the
basis for other analyses DOE performed, particularly assessments of the
energy savings and the savings in consumer operating costs that could
result from adoption of amended or new standards.
The analysis focuses on the two representative units identified in
the engineering analysis (see section IV.C) for which engineering
analysis results were obtained at levels at and above the baseline. Two
additional representative units were included to separately analyze
consumers of integral (i.e., with horsepower greater than or equal to 1
hp) single-phase CSCR SEMs and fractional (i.e., with horsepower less
than 1 hp) polyphase SEMs (see Table IV-7).\24\ For each representative
unit, DOE determined the annual energy consumption value by multiplying
the motor input power by the annual operating hours for a
representative sample of motor consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Similar to the approach used in the engineering analysis
when selecting representative units, DOE reviewed model counts from
the manufacturer online catalog data to identify these additional
units. DOE reviewed counts of CSCR, 4-poles small electric motors
and polyphase, 4-poles, small electric motors models. For CSCR
motors, the 1 horsepower value had the most counts and DOE selected
a unit at 1 horsepower. For polyphase motors, the 0.33, 0.5, and
0.75 horsepower values had the most counts (and similar counts) and
DOE selected a unit at 0.5 horsepower (i.e. the mid-range of these
horsepower values).
Table IV-7--Representative Units Analyzed in the Energy Use and Life-Cycle Cost Analyses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rated
Representative unit Equipment class group Pole configuration horsepower
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... Single-phase, CSCR........ 4-pole.................... 0.75
2....................................... Polyphase................. 4-pole.................... 1
3....................................... Single-phase, CSCR........ 4-pole.................... 1
4....................................... Polyphase................. 4-pole.................... 0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the April 2020 NOPD, NEMA commented that the inputs
used to characterize the energy use of SEMs were appropriate. (NEMA,
No. 22 at p. 3) Additionally, NEMA commented that improving SEM
efficiency may not always result in overall equipment-level efficiency
improvements. NEMA commented that any modification to energy
conservation standards or scope of regulated SEMs would require a
revised analysis of the downstream impact of SEM design changes on OEM
devices and appliances, before proceeding to modify energy savings
methodology and estimates. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 5)
As discussed previously, to account for motor size and weight
limitations (including in OEM devices and appliances), DOE analyzed
both space-constrained and non-space-constrained scenarios. DOE did not
modify the scope or amend the current energy conservation standards for
this equipment. Chapter 7 of the TSD provides details on the DOE's
energy use analysis for SEMs.
1. Consumer Sample
DOE used the same approach as in the April 2020 NOPD and created
consumer samples for each representative unit, including three
individual sectors: Residential, commercial, and industrial. DOE used
the samples to determine SEM annual energy consumption as well as for
conducting the LCC and PBP analyses. Each consumer in the sample was
assigned a sector and an application. DOE used data from the March 2010
Final Rule to establish distributions of SEMs by sector. Five
[[Page 4900]]
main motor applications were selected as representative applications
(compressors, fans, pumps, material handling, and others). In order to
characterize the distributions of SEMs across applications in the
industrial sector, DOE used data from hundreds of field assessments
aggregated in two databases: (1) A database of motor nameplate and
field data and; \25\ (2) a database of motor nameplate and field data
compiled by the Industrial Assessment Center at Oregon University
(``field assessment data'').\26\ For the commercial and residential
sectors, DOE used data from a previous DOE publication to estimate
distribution of SEMs by application.\27\ DOE also assumed that 20
percent of consumers had space-constraints and 80 percent were non-
space-constrained based on data from the March 2010 Final Rule. In
response to the April 2020 NOPD, NEMA commented that the inputs used to
characterize the distributions of consumers across sectors and
applications were appropriate. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 3) DOE used the same
consumer sample as in the April 2020 NOPD for this final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Database of motor nameplate and field measurement data
compiled by the Washington State University Extension Energy Program
(WSU) and Applied Proactive Technologies (APT) under contract with
the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA).
\26\ Strategic Energy Group (January 2008), Northwest Industrial
Motor Database Summary. Regional Technical Forum. Available at
http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/subcommittees/osumotor/Default.htm.
\27\ W. Goetzler, T. Sutherland, C. Reis. ``Energy Savings
Potential and Opportunities for High-Efficiency Electric Motors in
Residential and Commercial Equipment'' U.S. Department of Energy,
December 4, 2013. Available at https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/02/f8/Motor%20Energy%20Savings%20Potential%20Report%202013-12-4.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Chapter 7 of the TSD for more details on the resulting
distribution of consumers by sector and applications.
2. Motor Input Power
DOE used the same approach as in the April 2020 NOPD and calculated
the motor input power as the sum of the motor rated horsepower
multiplied by the motor operating load (i.e., the motor output power)
and of the losses at the operating load (i.e., part-load losses). DOE
determined the part-load losses using outputs from the engineering
analysis (full-load efficiency at each efficiency level) and published
part-load efficiency information from manufacturer catalogs to model
motor part-load losses as a function of the motor's operating load. DOE
estimated the operating load using operating load data specific to
motors in the 0.25-3 hp range, which was based on additional field
assessments data collected since the publication of the March 2010
Final Rule.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ This horsepower range was selected as it corresponds to the
motor horsepower of small electric motors that are currently subject
to standards (see section IV.A.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the April 2020 NOPD, NEMA commented that an upcoming
publication from DOE's Advanced Manufacturing Office ``Motor System
Market Assessment'' may provide additional information regarding load.
(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 4) DOE is aware of this upcoming report but notes
that it is not yet available. Accordingly, DOE used the same load
distributions as in the April 2020 NOPD for this final determination.
See chapter 7 of the TSD for the resulting distribution of load for
each application.
3. Annual Operating Hours
DOE used the same approach as in the April 2020 NOPD and DOE
developed distributions of operating hours by application and sector.
For the industrial sector, DOE used data specific to motors in the
0.25-3 hp range from the field assessment data to establish
distributions of annual operating hours by application.\29\ For the
commercial and residential sectors, DOE used operating hours data from
the March 2010 Final Rule.\30\ In response to the April 2020 NOPD, NEMA
commented in support of the annual operating hours values used in the
NOPD. NEMA commented that if DOE were to consider standards for a
different scope, these assumptions would no longer be adequate. (NEMA,
No. 22 at p. 4) As discussed previously, DOE is not modifying the scope
of the energy conservation standards for SEMs. Accordingly, DOE used
the same operating hour distributions as in the April 2020 NOPD for
this final determination. Table IV-8 shows the estimated average annual
energy use at each efficiency level analyzed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Database of motor nameplate and field measurement data
compiled by the Washington State University Extension Energy Program
(WSU) and Applied Proactive Technologies (APT) under contract with
the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA).
\30\ For more details see chapter 6 of the 2010 small electric
motors final rule TSD, at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007-0036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The annual energy use values are calculated as an intermediate
result in the LCC and PBP analysis. As further discussed section IV.F,
the computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC and PBP relies on a
Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into
the analysis. Although the energy use calculation performed in
preparation of this final rule relied on the same probability
distributions as used in the April 2020 NOPD, each Monte Carlo
simulation run randomly samples input values from the probability
distributions and consumer samples, which resulted in updated annual
energy use results.
Table IV-8--Small Electric Motors Annual Energy Use Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kilowatt-hours per year
Rep. Unit Description -----------------------------------------------------------------
EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................... Single-phase, CSCR, 1,653.6 1,628.2 1,598.5 1,583.8 1,536.0 1,509.0
4-pole, 0.75 hp.
2....................... Polyphase, 4-pole, 1 2,092.8 2,047.7 2,020.8 1,983.8 ......... .........
hp.
3....................... Single-phase, CSCR, 2,191.9 2,159.1 2,122.7 2,103.9 2,043.2 2,008.0
4-pole, 1 hp.
4....................... Polyphase, 4-pole, 1,152.6 1,117.9 1,096.7 1,068.1 ......... .........
0.5 hp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Chapter 7 of the TSD for more details on the distributions of
annual operating hours by application and sector.
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts
on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for
SEMs. The effect of new or amended energy conservation standards on
individual consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and
an increase in purchase price. DOE used
[[Page 4901]]
the following two metrics to measure consumer impacts:
The LCC is the total consumer expense of equipment over
the life of that equipment, consisting of total installed cost (MSP,
distribution chain markups, sales tax, and installation costs) plus
operating costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). To
compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating costs to
the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the equipment.
The simple PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years)
it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of more-efficient equipment through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the simple PBP by dividing the change in purchase
cost at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost
for the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.
For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC
relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the
estimated efficiency distribution of SEMs in the absence of new or
amended energy conservation standards. In contrast, the simple PBP for
a given efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline
equipment. The analysis focuses on the four representative units
identified in Table IV-7.
For each considered efficiency level in each equipment class, DOE
calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of
consumers. As stated previously, DOE developed a sample based on
distributions of consumers across sectors and applications, as well as
across efficiency levels. For each sample consumer, DOE determined the
unit energy consumption and appropriate energy price. By developing a
representative sample of consumers, the analysis captured the
variability in energy consumption and energy prices associated with the
use of SEMs.
Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost
of the equipment--which includes MSPs, retailer markups, and sales
taxes--and installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating
expenses include annual energy consumption, energy prices and price
projections, repair and maintenance costs, equipment lifetimes, and
discount rates. DOE created distributions of values for equipment
lifetime, discount rates, and sales taxes, with probabilities attached
to each value, to account for their uncertainty and variability.
The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC and PBP relies on
a Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability
into the analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input
values from the probability distributions and consumer samples. The
model calculated the LCC and PBP for equipment at each efficiency level
for 10,000 consumers per representative unit per simulation run. The
analytical results include a distribution of 10,000 data points showing
the range of LCC savings for a given efficiency level relative to the
no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. In performing an
iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation for a given consumer, equipment
efficiency is chosen based on its probability. If the chosen equipment
efficiency is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the standard
level under consideration, the LCC and PBP calculation reveals that a
consumer is not impacted by the standard level. By accounting for
consumers who already purchase more-efficient equipment, DOE avoids
overstating the potential benefits from increasing equipment
efficiency.
DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all consumers as if each were to
purchase a new motor in the expected year of compliance with amended
standards. For purposes of its analysis, DOE estimated that any amended
standards would apply to SEMs manufactured 5 years after the date on
which the amended standard is published. DOE estimated publication of a
final rule in the first half of 2023. Therefore, for purposes of its
analysis, DOE used 2028 as the first full year of compliance.
Table IV-9 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. DOE updated relevant data
sources to the most recent information available in preparation of this
final determination. The subsections that follow provide further
discussion.
Table IV-9--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Source/method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment Cost............... Derived by multiplying MSPs by
distribution channel markups and sales
tax, as appropriate.
Installation Costs........... Assumed no change with efficiency level
other than shipping costs.
Annual Energy Use............ Motor input power multiplied by annual
operating hours per year. Variability:
Based on plant surveys and previous DOE
study.
Energy Prices................ Electricity: Used average and marginal
prices methodology from (Coughlin and
Beraki) and updated data from Edison
Electric Institute Typical Bill and
Average Rates Reports Winter 2019,
Summer 2019.
Energy Price Trends.......... Based on AEO 2020 price projections.
Repair and Maintenance Costs. Assumed no change with efficiency level.
Equipment Lifetime........... Estimated using information from March
2010 Final Rule and from DOE's Advanced
Manufacturing Office.
Discount Rates............... Residential: Approach involves
identifying all possible debt or asset
classes that might be used to purchase
the considered appliances, or might be
affected indirectly. Primary data source
was the Federal Reserve Board's Survey
of Consumer Finances.
Commercial: Calculated as the weighted
average cost of capital for entities
purchasing small electric motors.
Primary data source was Damodaran
Online.
Compliance Date.............. 2028.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided
in the sections following the table.
1. Equipment Cost
To calculate consumer equipment costs, DOE multiplied the MSPs
developed in the engineering analysis by the distribution channel
markups described in section IV.D (along with sales taxes). DOE used
different markups for baseline motors and higher-efficiency motors,
because DOE applies an incremental markup to the increase in MSP
associated with higher-efficiency equipment. Further, in this final
determination, DOE assumed the prices of SEMs would remain constant
over time (no decrease in price).
[[Page 4902]]
2. Installation Cost
Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous
materials and parts needed to install the equipment. In response to the
April 2020 NOPD, DOE did not receive any information on SEM consumer
installation costs and has relied on the same approach to estimate
installations costs for this final determination. Based on information
from the March 2010 Final Rule and installation cost data from RS Means
Electrical Cost Data 2020,\31\ DOE estimated that installation costs do
not increase with equipment efficiency except in terms of shipping
costs depending on the weight of the more efficient motor.\32\ To
arrive at total installed costs, DOE included shipping costs as part of
the installation costs. These were based on weight data from the
engineering analysis, which accounted for updated manufacturer catalog
data collected by DOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ RS Means. Electrical Cost Data, 43rd Annual Edition, 2020.
Rockland, MA. p. 315.
\32\ For more details see chapter 8 of the 2010 small electric
motors final rule TSD, at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007-0036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Chapter 8 of the TSD for more information on the installation
costs for SEMs.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
For each sampled consumer, DOE determined the energy consumption
for SEMs in each standards case analyzed using the approach described
in section IV.E of this final determination.
4. Energy Prices
In response to the April 2020 NOPD, DOE did not receive any
comments on electricity prices and relied on the same approach to
develop national annual marginal and average prices and estimate energy
prices in future years. DOE updated data sources to the most recent
information available. For electricity prices, DOE used average and
marginal electricity prices. As in the April 2020 NOPD, DOE estimated
these prices using the methodology provided in two Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory reports (Coughlin and Beraki).\33\ In addition, in
preparation for this final determination, DOE used updated data
published from the Edison Electric Institute Typical Bills and Average
Rates reports for summer and winter 2019 to reflect the latest
electricity price information available. To estimate energy prices in
future years, DOE multiplied the energy prices by a projection of
annual change in average price consistent with the projections in the
Energy Information Administration's (EIA's) Annual Energy Outlook 2020
(AEO 2020),\34\ which has an end year of 2050. To estimate price trends
after 2050, DOE used the average annual rate of change in prices from
2028 to 2050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. Residential Electricity
Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods. 2018.
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United
States). Report No. LBNL-2001169. (Last accessed May 21, 2019.)
https://ees.lbl.gov/publications/residential-electricity-prices-review. See also Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. Non-residential
Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods.
2019. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United
States). Report No. LBNL-2001203. (Last accessed May 21, 2019.)
https://ees.lbl.gov/publications/non-residential-electricity-prices.
\34\ U.S. Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy
Analysis, U.S. Department of Energy. U.S. Energy Information
Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2020 with projections to 2050.
2020. Washington DC. 20585 (Last accessed August 11, 2020). https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/AEO/pdf/AEO2020.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing SEM
components that have failed; maintenance costs are associated with
maintaining the operation of the equipment. SEMs are usually not
repaired. Most small motors are mass produced and are not constructed
or designed to be repaired because the manufacturing process uses spot
welding welds and rivets to fasten or secure the frame and assembled
components, not nuts and bolts--meaning that the SEM cannot be readily
disassembled and reassembled. In addition, during the rulemaking for
the March 2010 Final Rule, DOE found no evidence that repair or
maintenance costs, if any, would increase with higher motor energy
efficiency.\35\ DOE reviewed more recent motor repair cost data for
SEMs and found no evidence that maintenance and repair costs increase
with efficiency for SEMs in scope.\36\ In response to the April 2020
NOPD, NEMA supported DOE's finding that SEMs are generally not
repaired. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ For more details see chapter 8 of the 2010 small electric
motors final rule TSD, at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007-0036.
\36\ Vaughen's (2013), Vaughen's Motor & Pump Repair Price
Guide, 2013 Edition. Available at www.vaughens.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, similar to what was done in the April 2020 NOPD, DOE
did not account for any repair costs in the LCC calculation.
See Chapter 8 of the TSD for more information on the repair and
maintenance costs for SEMs.
6. Motor Lifetime
To characterize lifetimes in a manner to reflect that this factor
depends on an SEM's application, DOE used two Weibull
distributions.\37\ One characterizes the motor lifetime in total
operating hours (i.e., mechanical lifetime), while the other
characterizes the lifetime in years of use in the application (e.g., a
pump).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The Weibull distribution is one of the most commonly used
distributions in reliability. It is commonly used to model time to
fail, time to repair and material strength.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the April 2020 NOPD, NEMA commented in support of
the lifetime distributions developed by DOE. (NEMA, No. 22 at pp. 4-5)
Consistent with the approach used in the April 2020 NOPD, DOE used
mechanical lifetime data from the March 2010 Final Rule analysis and
from a 2012 report from DOE's Advanced Manufacturing Office \38\ to
derive an estimated average mechanical lifetime of 30,000 hours for
CSCR motors and 40,000 hours for polyphase motors. The Weibull
parameters from the March 2010 Final Rule were used to derive these
lifetime distributions.\39\ In the course of the LCC analysis, DOE's
current analysis further combines these two distributions with OEM
application lifetimes to estimate the distribution of SEM lifetimes.
DOE determined the mechanical lifetime of each motor in years by
dividing its mechanical lifetime in hours by its annual hours of
operation. DOE then compared this mechanical lifetime (in years) with
the sampled application lifetime (also in years), and assumed that the
motor would be retired at the younger of these two ages. In the March
2010 Final Rule, this approach resulted in projected average lifetimes
of 7 years for single-phase CSCR motors and 9 years for polyphase
motors. Because of updates made to the annual operating hours (see
section IV.E.3) and calculation rounding, the updated analysis for this
final determination yielded average lifetimes of 7.0 years for single-
phase CSCR motors and 8.7 years for polyphase motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ U.S. Department of Energy. Advanced Manufacturing Office.
Motors Systems Tip Sheet #3. Energy Tips: Motor Systems. Extending
the Operating Life of Your Motor. 2012. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/04/f15/extend_motor_operlife_motor_systemts3.pdf.
\39\ For more details see chapter 8 of the 2010 small electric
motors final rule TSD, at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007-0036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Chapter 8 of the TSD for more information on the lifetime of
SEMs.
7. Discount Rates
In calculating LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate to
commercial, industrial, and residential consumers to estimate the
present value
[[Page 4903]]
of future operating costs. DOE estimated a distribution of discount
rates for SEMs based on the cost of capital of publicly traded firms in
the sectors that purchase SEMs.
As part of its analysis, DOE also applies weighted average discount
rates calculated from consumer debt and asset data, rather than
marginal or implicit discount rates.\40\ DOE notes that the LCC does
not analyze the equipment purchase decision, so the implicit discount
rate is not relevant in this model. The LCC estimates net present value
over the lifetime of the equipment, so the appropriate discount rate
will reflect the general opportunity cost of household funds, taking
this time scale into account. Given the long time horizon modeled in
the LCC, the application of a marginal interest rate associated with an
initial source of funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the method of
purchase, consumers are expected to continue to rebalance their debt
and asset holdings over the LCC analysis period, based on the
restrictions consumers face in their debt payment requirements and the
relative size of the interest rates available on debts and assets. DOE
estimates the aggregate impact of this rebalancing using the historical
distribution of debts and assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ The implicit discount rate is inferred from a consumer
purchase decision between two otherwise identical goods with
different first cost and operating cost. It is the interest rate
that equates the increment of first cost to the difference in net
present value of lifetime operating cost, incorporating the
influence of several factors: Transaction costs; risk premiums and
response to uncertainty; time preferences; interest rates at which a
consumer is able to borrow or lend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE
identified all relevant household debt or asset classes in order to
approximate a consumer's opportunity cost of funds related to appliance
energy cost savings. It estimated the average percentage shares of the
various types of debt and equity by household income group using data
from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances \41\
(``SCF'') for 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2016. Using
the SCF and other sources, DOE developed a distribution of rates for
each type of debt and asset by income group to represent the rates that
may apply in the year in which amended standards would take effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Survey of
Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, and
2016. Available at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scfindex.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For commercial and industrial consumers, DOE used the cost of
capital to estimate the present value of cash flows to be derived from
a typical company project or investment. Most companies use both debt
and equity capital to fund investments, so the cost of capital is the
weighted-average cost to the firm of equity and debt financing. This
corporate finance approach is referred to as the weighted-average cost
of capital. DOE used currently available economic data in developing
discount rates. In response to the April 2020 NOPD, DOE did not receive
any comments on discount rates. DOE used the same approach for
developing discount rates as in the April 2020 NOPD for this final
determination. DOE updated data sources to the most recent information
available. See chapter 8 of the TSD for details on the development of
end-user discount rates.
8. Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be
affected by a potential energy conservation standard at a particular
efficiency level, DOE's LCC analysis considered the projected
distribution (market shares) of equipment efficiencies in the ``no-new-
standards'' case (i.e., the case without amended or new energy
conservation standards) in the compliance year. In its analysis for the
March 2010 Final Rule, DOE developed no-new standards case efficiency
distributions based on the distributions of then currently available
models for which SEM efficiency is included in catalog listings. In
preparation for the April 2020 NOPD, DOE collected updated catalog data
and analyzed the distribution of SEMs in the manufacturer catalog data
for CSCR and polyphase SEMs.\42\ DOE projected that these efficiency
distributions would remain constant throughout 2028. In response to the
April 2020 NOPD, DOE did not receive any comments related to efficiency
distributions and efficiency trends. Accordingly, DOE retained the same
efficiency distributions used in the April 2020 NOPD in preparing this
final determination. See chapter 8 of the TSD for the estimated
efficiency distributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ DOE relied on 140 models of CSCR small electric motors and
229 models of polyphase small electric motors identified in the
manufacturer catalog data. More details on the distributions of
currently available models for which motor catalog list efficiency
is available in Chapter 8 of the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Payback Period Analysis
The PBP is the amount of time it takes the consumer to recover the
additional installed cost of more-efficient equipment, compared to
baseline equipment, through energy cost savings. PBPs are expressed in
years. PBPs that exceed the life of the equipment mean that the
increased total installed cost is not recovered in reduced operating
expenses.
The inputs to the simple PBP calculation for each efficiency level
are the change in total installed cost of the equipment and the change
in the first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the
baseline. The simple PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC
analysis, except that discount rates are not needed.
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses
with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for SEMs
examined by DOE. It addresses the ELs examined by DOE and the projected
impacts of each of these levels. Additional details regarding DOE's
analyses are contained in the NOPD TSD supporting this document.
A. Energy Savings
For each standards case considered, DOE estimated the per unit
lifetime energy savings for SEMs purchased in the expected compliance
year of any potential standards. The per unit energy savings were used
in the calculation of the LCC and PBP values. DOE did not separately
evaluate the significance of the potential energy conservation under
the considered amended standards because it has determined that the
potential standards would not be cost-effective as defined in EPCA.\43\
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ The March 2010 Final Rule estimated the national energy
savings achieved by the current energy conservation standards to be
2.2 quads of primary energy savings (i.e., 0.29 quad at TSL 4b for
polyphase SEMs and 1.91 quad at TSL 7 for single phase SEMs). The
March 2010 Final Rule also estimated that the TSL resulting in the
maximum national energy savings would provide a total of 2.7 quads
of primary energy savings (i.e., 0.37 quad at TSL 7 for polyphase
SEMs and 2.33 quad at TSL 8 for single phase SEMs). 75 FR 10874,
10916 (March 9, 2010) Although DOE did not separately evaluate the
significance of the potential energy conservation under the
considered amended standards, this previous analysis indicates an
upper limit of 0.5 quad of primary energy savings (2.7 - 2.2 = 0.5)
which corresponds to 0.2 quad site national energy savings and is
below the 0.3 quad threshold for determining whether energy savings
would be significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Cost Effectiveness
In general, higher-efficiency equipment affects consumers in two
ways: (1) Purchase price increases and (2) annual operating cost
decreases. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total
installed costs (i.e., equipment price plus installation costs),
[[Page 4904]]
and operating costs (i.e., annual energy and water use, energy and
water prices, energy and water price trends, repair costs, and
maintenance costs). The LCC calculation also uses equipment lifetime
and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the final determination TSD provides
detailed information on the LCC and PBP analyses.
Table V-1 through Table V-7 show the LCC and PBP results for the
ELs considered for each equipment class. These results were updated
since the April 2020 NOPD to reflect updates of relevant data sources
to the most recent information available. Results for each
representative unit are presented by two tables: In the first of each
pair of tables, the simple payback is measured relative to the baseline
equipment. In the second table, the impacts are measured relative to
the efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case in the
expected compliance year for the potential standards considered.
Because some consumers purchase equipment with higher efficiency in the
no-new-standards case, the average savings are greater than the
difference between the average LCC of the baseline equipment and the
average LCC at each EL. The savings refer only to consumers who are
affected by a standard at a given EL. Those who already purchase SEMs
with an efficiency at or above a given EL are not affected. Consumers
for whom the LCC-increases at a given EL experience a net cost.
Table V-1--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for Representative Unit 1: Single-Phase, CSCR, 4-Pole, 0.75 hp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs 2019$ Simple Average
---------------------------------------------------------------- payback years lifetime years
Efficiency level Total First year's Lifetime total first year's
installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC installed cost operating cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 488.1 156.8 631.5 1,119.5 .............. 6.97
1....................................................... 504.4 154.4 621.8 1,126.2 6.8 6.97
2....................................................... 525.7 151.6 610.6 1,136.3 7.3 6.97
3....................................................... 567.1 150.3 605.0 1,172.0 12.0 6.97
4....................................................... 594.7 145.8 586.8 1,181.5 9.6 6.97
5....................................................... 1,411.4 143.2 576.6 1,988.0 67.9 6.97
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured
relative to the baseline equipment.
Table V-2--LCC Savings Relative to the No-New Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for Representative Unit 1:
Single-Phase, CSCR, 4-Pole, 0.75 hp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Percent of customers that Average savings *
Efficiency level experience -----------------------------
------------------------------
Net cost (percent) 2019$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................... 81.4 -6.4
2................................................... 83.3 -16.2
3................................................... 91.7 -51.4
4................................................... 88.8 -59.9
5................................................... 100.0 -855.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
Table V-3--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for Representative Unit 2: Polyphase, 4-Pole, 1 hp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs 2019$ Average
---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback lifetime years
Efficiency level Total First year's Lifetime years total first year's
installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC installed cost operating cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 451.0 193.1 969.5 1,420.5 .............. 8.73
1....................................................... 520.7 189.0 948.8 1,469.5 16.9 8.73
2....................................................... 580.0 186.5 936.4 1,516.3 19.5 8.73
3....................................................... 1,395.5 183.1 919.3 2,314.8 94.5 8.73
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured
relative to the baseline equipment.
[[Page 4905]]
Table V-4--LCC Savings Relative to the No-New Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for Representative Unit 2:
Polyphase, 4-Pole, 1 hp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Percent of customers that Average savings *
Efficiency level experience -----------------------------
------------------------------
Net cost (percent) 2019$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................... 89.5 -48.1
2................................................... 99.1 -92.3
3................................................... 100.0 -878.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
Table V-5--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for Representative Unit 3: Single-Phase, CSCR, 4-Pole, 1 hp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs 2019$ Simple Average
---------------------------------------------------------------- payback years lifetime years
Efficiency level Total First year's Lifetime total first year's
installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC installed cost operating cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 554.8 208.4 831.5 1,386.4 .............. 6.95
1....................................................... 573.5 205.3 819.2 1,392.6 6.0 6.95
2....................................................... 597.8 201.9 805.4 1,403.2 6.6 6.95
3....................................................... 643.6 200.1 798.3 1,441.9 10.7 6.95
4....................................................... 675.1 194.4 775.4 1,450.5 8.6 6.95
5....................................................... 1,581.3 191.0 762.1 2,343.4 59.2 6.95
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured
relative to the baseline equipment.
Table V-6--LCC Savings Relative to the No-New Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for Representative Unit 3:
Single-Phase, CSCR, 4-Pole, 1 hp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Percent of customers that Average savings *
Efficiency level experience -----------------------------
------------------------------
Net cost (percent) 2019$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................... 76.9 -6.0
2................................................... 79.7 -16.2
3................................................... 88.5 -54.3
4................................................... 85.6 -61.8
5................................................... 100.0 -942.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
Table V-7--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for Representative Unit 4: Polyphase, 4-Pole, 0.5 hp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs 2019$ Simple Average
---------------------------------------------------------------- payback years lifetime years
Efficiency level Total First year's Lifetime total first year's
installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC installed cost operating cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 375.7 106.6 535.2 910.9 .............. 8.70
1....................................................... 433.1 103.5 519.2 952.2 18.0 8.70
2....................................................... 482.6 101.5 509.3 991.9 20.8 8.70
3....................................................... 1,148.6 98.9 496.1 1,644.7 99.6 8.70
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each EL represent the average value if all purchasers in the sample use equipment with that efficiency level. The PBP is measured
relative to the baseline equipment.
[[Page 4906]]
Table V-8--LCC Savings Relative to the No-New Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for Representative Unit 4:
Polyphase, 4-Pole, 0.5 hp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Percent of customers that Average savings *
Efficiency level experience -----------------------------
------------------------------
Net cost (percent) 2019$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................... 91.7 -40.5
2................................................... 99.6 -77.9
3................................................... 100.0 -721.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
C. Final Determination
For this final determination, DOE analyzed whether amended
standards for SEMs would be technological feasible and cost effective.
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2))
EPCA mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy conservation
standards for SEMs would be technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(B)) DOE has
determined that there are technology options that would improve the
efficiency of SEMs. These technology options are being used in
commercially available SEMs and therefore are technologically feasible.
(See section IV.B for further information.) Hence, DOE has determined
that amended energy conservation standards for SEMs are technologically
feasible.
EPCA requires DOE to consider whether energy conservation standards
for SEMs would be cost effective through an evaluation of the savings
in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered
product/equipment compared to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered products/
equipment which are/is likely to result from the imposition of an
amended standard. (42 U.S.C. 63136(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A), 42
U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(C), and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) As presented
in the prior section, the average customer purchasing a representative
SEM would experience an increase in LCC at each evaluated standards
case as compared to the no new standards case. The simple PBP for the
average of a representative SEM customer at each EL is projected to be
generally longer than the mean lifetime of the equipment. Based on the
above considerations, DOE has determined that more stringent amended
energy conservation standards for SEMs cannot satisfy the relevant
statutory requirements because such standards would not be cost
effective as required under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(II); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
Having determined that amended energy conservation standards for
SEMs would not be cost-effective, DOE did not separately evaluate the
significance of the amount of energy conservation under the considered
amended standards because it has determined that the potential
standards would not be cost-effective (and by extension, would not be
economically justified) as required under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B))
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866
This final determination has been determined to be not significant
for purposes of Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning
and Review.'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). As a result, the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') did not review this final
determination.
B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
On January 30, 2017, the President issued E.O. 13771, ``Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.'' E.O. 13771 stated the
policy of the executive branch is to be prudent and financially
responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private
sources. E.O. 13771 stated it is essential to manage the costs
associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures
required to comply with Federal regulations.
Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued E.O.
13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.'' See 82 FR 12285
(March 1, 2017). E.O. 13777 required the head of each agency to
designate an agency official as its Regulatory Reform Officer
(``RRO''). Each RRO oversees the implementation of regulatory reform
initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies effectively carry out
regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable law. Further, E.O. 13777
requires the establishment of a regulatory task force at each agency.
The regulatory task force is required to make recommendations to the
agency head regarding the repeal, replacement, or modification of
existing regulations, consistent with applicable law. At a minimum,
each regulatory reform task force must attempt to identify regulations
that:
(1) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
(2) Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
(3) Impose costs that exceed benefits;
(4) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
(5) Are inconsistent with the requirements of the Information
Quality Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to that Act, particularly
those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information,
or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently
transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or
(6) Derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential
directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially
modified.
DOE concludes that this final determination is consistent with the
directives set forth in these executive orders. As discussed in this
document, DOE is not amending the current energy conservation standards
for SEMs and will not have any cost impact on manufacturers of SEMs.
Therefore, this determination is an E.O. 13771 Other Action.
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility
[[Page 4907]]
analysis (``IRFA'') and a final regulatory flexibility analysis
(``FRFA'') for any rule that by law must be proposed for public
comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated,
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461
(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19,
2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small
entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR
7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office
of the General Counsel's website (http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
DOE reviewed this final determination pursuant to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies discussed above. DOE
has concluded that, based on the data and available information it has
been able to review, amended energy conservation standards for SEMs
would not be cost-effective. Therefore, DOE is not amending the current
energy conservation standards for SEMs. On the basis of the foregoing,
DOE certifies that this final determination will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly,
DOE has not prepared an FRFA for this final determination. DOE has
transmitted its certification and supporting statement of factual basis
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
Manufacturers of SEMs must certify to DOE that their equipment
comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying
compliance, manufacturers must test their equipment according to the
DOE test procedures, including any amendments adopted for those test
procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and
recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and
commercial equipment, including SEMs. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011); 80
FR 5099 (Jan. 30, 2015). The collection-of-information requirement for
the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval
by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). This requirement
has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public
reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 30 hours
per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number. This final determination, which
concludes that amended energy conservation standards for SEMs would not
be cost effective (and by extension, not economically justified) as
required under the relevant statute, imposes no new information or
recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, clearance from the OMB is not
required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE analyzed this final determination in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA'') and DOE's NEPA
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include
a categorical exclusion for actions which are interpretations or
rulings with respect to existing regulations. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart
D, Appendix A4. DOE has determined that this action qualifies for
categorical exclusion A4 because it is an interpretation or ruling in
regards to an existing regulation and otherwise meets the requirements
for application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410.
F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999),
imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that
have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. As this final
determination does not amend the standards for SEMs, there is no impact
on the policymaking discretion of the States. Therefore, no action is
required by Executive Order 13132.
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988,
``Civil Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty
to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors
and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3)
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a
general standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction.
61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section
3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that
Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2)
clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3)
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined
that, to the extent permitted by law, this final determination meets
the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The
[[Page 4908]]
UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to
permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal
governments on a ``significant intergovernmental mandate,'' and
requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely
input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March
18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy
statement is also available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf. This final determination does not contain
a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require
expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State, local,
and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. As
a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This final determination will not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR
8859 (March 18, 1988), DOE has determined that this final determination
will not result in any takings that might require compensation under
the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to
review most disseminations of information to the public under
information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to
general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67
FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE
published updated guidelines which are available at https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this final determination under the OMB and DOE guidelines and
has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') at OMB, a
Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final
rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy
supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
Because this final determination does not amend the current
standards for SEMs, it is not a significant energy action, nor has it
been designated as such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE
has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
M. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan.
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The
purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information
the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector
decisions.'' 70 FR 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress
peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process
and analyses and has prepared a Peer Review Report pertaining to the
energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses. Generation of this
report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented evaluation using
objective criteria and qualified and independent reviewers to make a
judgment as to the technical/scientific/business merit, the actual or
anticipated results, and the productivity and management effectiveness
of programs and/or projects. The ``Energy Conservation Standards
Rulemaking Peer Review Report'' dated February 2007 has been
disseminated and is available at: http://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/peer-review.
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
determination.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on January 5,
2021, by Daniel R Simmons, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the
Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date
is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on January 6, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021-00336 Filed 1-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P