Home/Federal/Federal Register/2022-11745

Proposed Rule2022-11745

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

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

June 21, 2022

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

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

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 118 (Tuesday, June 21, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 21, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37122-37186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11745]

[[Page 37121]]

Vol. 87

Tuesday,

No. 118

June 21, 2022

Part III

Department of Energy

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

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

Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 37122]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048]
RIN 1904-AF27

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

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public
meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

DATES:
Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding
this NOPR no later than August 22, 2022.
Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed
standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in
the ADDRESSES section on or before July 21, 2022.
Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Tuesday,
July 26, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section IV, ``Public
Participation,'' for webinar registration information, participant
instructions and information about the capabilities available to
webinar participants.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons
may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048,
by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#efabbfbfa2809b809d9cdddfded8bcbbabdfdfdbd7af8a8ac18b808ac1888099">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include docket number
EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048 in the subject line of the message.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section IV of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions
through a variety of mechanisms, including the Federal eRulemaking
Portal, email, postal mail and hand delivery/courier, the Department
has found it necessary to make temporary modifications to the comment
submission process in light of the ongoing corona virus 2019 (``COVID-
19'') pandemic. DOE is currently suspending receipt of public comments
via postal mail and hand delivery/courier. If a commenter finds that
this change poses an undue hardship, please contact Appliance Standards
Program staff at (202) 586-1445 to discuss the need for alternative
arrangements. Once the COVID-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved,
DOE anticipates resuming all of its regular options for public comment
submission, including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the
docket are listed in the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail">www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail</a>;D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section VII of this document for information on how
to submit comments through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites
input from market participants and other interested persons with views
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested
persons may contact the Division at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#02676c6770657b2c7176636c6663706671427771666d682c656d74">[email&#160;protected]</a> on or
before the date specified in the DATES section. Please indicate in the
``Subject'' line of your email the title and Docket Number of this
proposed rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 586-9870. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#48093838242129262b2d1b3c29262c293a2c3b193d2d3b3c2127263b082d2d662c272d662f273e">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC,
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2588. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8aebe7efe6e3eba4fde2e3fee3e4edcae2fba4eee5efa4ede5fc">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting,
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202)
287-1445 or by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c180b1b1ada8a0afa2a492b5a0afa5a0b3a5b290b4a4b2b5a8aeafb281a4a4efa5aea4efa6aeb7">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE proposes to maintain the following
previously approved standard in part 431 and incorporate by reference
it into part 429: UL 1004-10 (1004-10:2022), ``Standard for Safety for
Pool Pump Motors,'' First Edition, approved February 28, 2020,
including revisions through March 24, 2022.
Copies of UL 1004-10:2022 can be obtained from: Underwriters
Laboratories, 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062, (841) 272-8800,
or go to <a href="https://www.ul.com">https://www.ul.com</a>.
For a further discussion of this standard, see section VI.M of this
document.

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits and Costs
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for DPPP Motors
C. Deviation From Appendix A
III. General Discussion
A. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes
B. Test Procedure
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
E. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC
and PBP)
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation

[[Page 37123]]

g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Scope of Coverage
2. Market Review
3. Equipment Classes
4. Technology Assessment and Options
a. Motor Topology
b. Motor Speed
B. Screening Analysis
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
a. Representative Units
b. Baseline Efficiency Levels
c. Higher Efficiency Levels
2. Cost Analysis
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
1. DPPP Motor Applications
2. DPPP Motor Consumer Sample
3. Self-Priming and Non-Self-Priming Pool Pump Motor Input Power
4. Pressure Cleaner Booster Pumps Motor Input Power
5. Daily Operating Hours
6. Annual Days of Operation
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Equipment Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
6. Equipment Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
G. Shipments Analysis
1. Base-Year Shipments
2. No-New-Standards Case Shipment Projections
3. Standards-Case Shipment Projections
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Equipment Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
b. Shipments Projections
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
d. Markup Scenarios
3. Manufacturer Interviews
K. Emissions Analysis
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a. Social Cost of Carbon
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
M. Utility Impact Analysis
N. Employment Impact Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
C. Conclusion
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for DPPP Motors
Standards
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and
Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Information Quality
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

Title III, Part C \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) Such equipment
includes electric motors, which include dedicated-purpose pool pump
motors (``DPPP motors'' or ``DPPPMs'' or ``pool pump motors''), the
subject of this proposed rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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 the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,
Public Law 117-58 (Nov. 15, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))
Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed
in this document, DOE proposes new energy conservation standards for
DPPP motors. DOE is proposing performance standard for a class of DPPP
motors and design requirements for certain classes of DPPP motors. The
proposed performance standard, which are expressed in full-load
efficiency, and proposed design requirements are shown in Table I.1 of
this document. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all
DPPP motors listed in Table I.1 of this NOPR manufactured in, or
imported into, the United States starting on the date 2 years after the
publication of the final rule for this proposed rulemaking.

[[Page 37124]]

Table I.1--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated Purpose Pool Pump Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance
standard: full-
Motor total horsepower (THP) load Design requirement: speed Design requirement: freeze
efficiency capability protection
(%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THP < 0.5.............................. 69 None...................... None.
0.5 <= THP < 1.15...................... .............. Variable speed control.... Only for DPPP motors with
freeze protection
controls.
1.15 <= THP <= 5....................... .............. Variable speed control.... Only for DPPP motors with
freeze protection
controls.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE also proposes to require that DPPP motors greater than or equal
to 0.5 THP must be variable speed control DPPP motors.\3\ Finally, for
DPPP motors greater than or equal to 0.5 THP, DOE proposes that DPPP
motors with freeze protection controls are to be shipped with the
freeze protection feature disabled, or with the following default,
user-adjustable settings: (a) the default dry-bulb air temperature
setting shall be no greater than 40 [deg]F; (b) the default run time
setting shall be no greater than 1 hour (before the temperature is
rechecked); and (c) the default motor speed in freeze protection mode
shall not be more than half of the maximum operating speed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Variable speed control DPPP motor is defined in UL 1004-
10:2020 (incorporated by reference, See 10 CFR 431.482 and 10 CFR
431.483). In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to reference the latest
version of the UL standard, UL 1004-10:2022; see discussion in
section III.A.1. Throughout this NOPR, a variable speed motor is a
DPPP motor that meets the definition of ``variable speed control
dedicated-purpose pool pump motor'' as defined by UL 1004-10:2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the
proposed standards on consumers of DPPP motors, as measured by the
average life-cycle cost (``LCC'') savings and the simple payback period
(``PBP'').\4\ The average LCC savings are positive for all equipment
classes, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of DPPP motors,
which is estimated to be 4.5 years (see section IV.F.6 of this
document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected
by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency
distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market
in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards
(see section IV.F.8 of this document). The simple PBP, which is
designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative
to the baseline product (see section V.B.1.a of this document).

Table I.2--Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on
Consumers of DPPP Motors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Simple payback
Motor total horsepower (THP) savings (2020$) period (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THP < 0.5........................... 3 0.7
0.5 <= THP < 1.15................... 69 2.3
1.15 <= THP <= 5.................... 292 0.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (``INPV'') is the sum of the
discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the
end of the analysis period (2021-2055). Using a real discount rate of
7.2 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of DPPP
motors in the case without standards is $798 million in 2020$. Under
the proposed standards, the change in INPV is estimated to range from -
23.7 percent to 12.9 percent, which is approximately -$189.3 million to
$102.9 million. In order to bring products into compliance with
standards, it is estimated that the industry would incur total
conversion costs of $46.2 million.
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on
manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document. The
analytic results of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') are
presented in section V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2020
dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation
standards for DPPP motors would save a significant amount of energy.
Relative to the case without standards, the lifetime energy savings for
DPPP motors purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the
anticipated first full year of compliance with the standards (2026-
2055) amount to 0.99 quadrillion British thermal units (``Btu''), or
quads.\6\ This represents a savings of 19.8 percent relative to the
energy use of these products in the case without amended standards
(referred to as the ``no-new-standards case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy
savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal,
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete
picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more
information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer
benefits of the proposed standards for DPPP motors ranges from $3.0
billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $6.3 billion (at a 3-percent
discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future
operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment costs
for DPPP motors purchased in 2026-2055.
In addition, the proposed standards for DPPP motors are projected
to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the
proposed standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over
the same period as for energy savings) of 36.2 million metric tons
(``Mt'') \7\ of carbon dioxide (``CO<INF>2</INF>''), 15.8 thousand tons
of sulfur dioxide (``SO<INF>2</INF>''), 49.9 thousand tons of nitrogen
oxides (``NO<INF>X</INF>''), 237.2 thousand tons of methane
(``CH<INF>4</INF>''), 0.4 thousand tons of

[[Page 37125]]

nitrous oxide (``N<INF>2</INF>O''), and 0.1 tons of mercury
(``Hg'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for
emissions other than CO<INF>2</INF> are presented in short tons.
\8\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy
Outlook 2021 (``AEO2021''). AEO2021 represents current federal and
state legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the
time of its preparation. See section IV.K of this document for
further discussion of AEO2021 assumptions that effect air pollutant
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in
greenhouse gases using four different estimates of the social cost of
CO<INF>2</INF> (``SC-CO<INF>2</INF>''), the social cost of methane
(``SC-CH<INF>4</INF>''), and the social cost of nitrous oxide (``SC-
N<INF>2</INF>O''). Together these represent the social cost of
greenhouse gases (SC-GHG). DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by
an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases
(IWG).\9\ The derivation of these values is discussed in section IV.L
of this document. For presentational purposes, the climate benefits
associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are
estimated to be $1.8 billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG
point estimate and it emphasizes the importance and value of
considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG
estimates.\10\ DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions, also discussed
in section IV.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of
the health benefits would be $1.6 billion using a 7-percent discount
rate, and $3.3 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.\11\ DOE is
currently only monetizing (for SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>)
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor health benefits and (for NO<INF>X</INF>)
ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the
ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from
reductions in direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse
Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane,
and Nitrous Oxide. Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990,
Washington, DC, February 2021. (``February 2021 SC-GHG TSD''). /
<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf">www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf</a>.
\10\ On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No.
22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction
issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a
result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is
no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's
appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other
things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that
case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying
upon'' the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse
gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize
the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of
further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach
prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits where
appropriate and permissible under law
\11\ DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of
complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
\12\ On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No.
22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction
issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a
result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is
no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's
appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other
things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that
case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying
upon'' the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse
gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize
the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of
further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach
prior to the injunction and present monetized benefits where
appropriate and permissible under law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Table I.3--Summary of Monetized Economic Benefits and Costs of Proposed
Energy Conservation Standards for DPPP Motors
[TSL 7]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Billion 2020$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings....................... 8.8
Climate Benefits *.................................... 1.8
Health Benefits **.................................... 3.3
-----------------
Total Benefits [dagger]........................... 13.9
-----------------
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs.............. 2.5
-----------------
Net Benefits...................................... 11.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings....................... 4.6
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)................. 1.8
Health Benefits **.................................... 1.6
Total Benefits[dagger]............................ 8.0
-----------------
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs.............. 1.5
-----------------
Net Benefits...................................... 6.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with DPPP
motors shipped in 2026-2055. These results include benefits to
consumers which accrue after 2055 from the products shipped in 2026-
2055.

[[Page 37126]]

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the
social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), methane (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide
(SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent
discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate), as shown
in Table IV.17 and Table IV.18. Together these represent the global SC-
GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits
associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are
shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point
estimate. See section IV.L of this document for more details. On March
16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted
the federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of
the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v.
Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth
Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect,
pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that
injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the
preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from
``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the
interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were
issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further
intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the
injunction and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and
permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX
and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5
precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health
benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other
effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5
emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and
health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation
purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent
cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount
rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point
estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the
benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates.

The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be
expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the
total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating
costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and
installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits
of emission reduction, all annualized.\13\ The national operating
savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur
as a result of purchasing the covered products and are measured for the
lifetime of DPPP motors shipped in 2026-2055. The benefits associated
with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the proposed standards
are also calculated based on the lifetime of DPPP motors shipped in
2026-2055. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases
are presented using the average GHG social costs with 3-percent
discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are presented for all four
discount rates in section V.B.8 of this document. Table I.4 presents
the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the
proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2026, the year
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings.
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur
(e.g., 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year
to 2026. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed
annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance
year, that yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed
standards are shown in Table I.4 of this document. The results under
the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from reduced NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions benefits, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate
benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the
standards proposed in this rule is $163.5 million per year in increased
equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $482.3 million
in reduced equipment operating costs $104.2 million in GHG climate
benefits, and $168.7 million in health benefits. In this case, the net
benefit would amount to $591.6 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the proposed standards is $142.9 million per year in
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are
$504.2 million in reduced operating costs, $104.2 million in climate
benefits, and $188.9 million in health benefits. In this case, the net
benefit would amount to $654.4 million per year.

Table I.4--Annualized Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for DPPP Motors
[TSL 7]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 2020$/year
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Low-net-benefits High-net-benefits
Primary estimate estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings............... 504.2 436.2 580.9
Climate Benefits *............................ 104.2 92.6 115.6
Health Benefits **............................ 188.9 168.1 209.3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits [dagger]................... 797.3 696.9 905.9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs...... 142.9 110.0 178.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits.............................. 654.4 587.0 727.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings............... 482.3 424.8 546.8
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)......... 104.2 92.6 115.6
Health Benefits **............................ 168.7 152.0 185.0
Total Benefits [dagger]................... 755.2 669.5 847.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 37127]]

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs...... 163.5 129.2 199.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits.............................. 591.6 540.3 648.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with DPPP motors shipped in 2026-2055. These results
include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2055 from the products shipped in 2026-2055. The Primary, Low
Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2021 Reference
case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental
equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net
Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive
projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.1of this document. Note that the Benefits and
Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this
document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG
at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point
estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-
GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal
government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued
in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the
preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that
injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in
that case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim estimates of the
social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the
absence of further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the injunction and
presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
(for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L
of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.

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

D. Conclusion

DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified, and would result in the
significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to
technological feasibility products achieving these standard levels are
already commercially available for all equipment classes covered by
this proposal. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that
the benefits of the proposed standard exceed, to a great extent, the
burdens of the proposed standards.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> reduction, and a
3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG
emissions, the estimated cost of the proposed standards for DPPPM is
$163.5 million per year in increased DPPPM costs, while the estimated
annual benefits are $482.3 million in reduced equipment operating
costs, $104.2 million in climate benefits, and $168.7 million in health
benefits. The net benefit amounts to $591.6 million per year.
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\14\ For
example, the United States rejoined the Paris Agreement on February 19,
2021. As part of that agreement, the United States has committed to
reducing GHG emissions in order to limit the rise in mean global
temperature. As such, energy savings that reduce GHG emissions have
taken on greater importance. Additionally, some covered products and
equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of
peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the energy
infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively
constant demand. In evaluating the significance of energy savings, DOE
considers differences in primary energy and FFC effects for different
covered products and equipment when determining whether energy savings
are significant. Primary energy and FFC effects include the energy
consumed in electricity production (depending on load shape), in
distribution and transmission, and in extracting, processing, and
transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels),
and thus present a more complete picture of the impacts of energy
conservation standards. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of
energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As previously mentioned, the proposed standards would result in
estimated national energy savings of 0.99 quad FFC, the equivalent of
the electricity use of 9.6 million homes in one year. DOE has initially
determined the energy savings from the proposed standard levels are
``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). Finally,
DOE notes that a more detailed discussion of the basis for these
tentative conclusions is contained in the remainder of this document
and the accompanying TSD.
DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as
potential standards, and is still considering them in this proposed
rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential
burdens of the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh
the projected benefits.
Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in
response to

[[Page 37128]]

this document and related information collected and analyzed during the
course of this proposed rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt energy
efficiency levels presented in this document that are either higher or
lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that
incorporate the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

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

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
C of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a) (42
U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This equipment
includes those electric motors that are DPPP motors, the subject of
this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C.
6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of
Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under
EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) (applying the preemption waiver provisions
of 42 U.S.C. 6297))
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers
of covered equipment must use the Federal test procedures as the basis
for: (1) certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the
applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations
about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly,
DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment
complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for DPPP motors
appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part
431, subpart Z.
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered equipment, including those electric
motors that are DPPP motors. Any new or amended standard for a covered
product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may not
adopt any standard that would not result in the significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) for certain
equipment, including those electric motors that are DPPP motors, if no
test procedure has been established for the equipment, or (2) if DOE
determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-
(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified,
DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its
burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make
this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard,
and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following
seven statutory factors:

(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared
to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance
expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the
standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable,
water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the
covered products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'')
considers relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard
is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional
cost to the consumer of purchasing an equipment complying with an
energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the
value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer
will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the
applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA also contains what is known as an ``anti-backsliding''
provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended
standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of covered equipment.
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not
prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have
established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is
likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any
covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics
(including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that
are substantially the same as those generally available in the United
States. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an
energy conservation standard for covered equipment that has two or more
subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type
or class of equipment that has the same function or intended use, if
DOE determines that equipment within such group: (A) consume a
different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered equipment
within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other
performance-related feature which other equipment within such type (or
class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining
whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard
for a group of equipment, DOE must consider such factors as the utility
to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate.
Id. Any rule prescribing such a standard must

[[Page 37129]]

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

B. Background

1. Current Standards
DPPP motors are electric motors, which are defined as machines that
convert electrical power into rotational mechanical power. 10 CFR
431.12. DOE has established test procedures, labeling requirements, and
energy conservation standards for certain electric motors (10 CFR part
431 subpart B), but those requirements do not apply to DPPP motors
subject to the proposed energy conservation standards. DOE has
separately established test procedure for DPPP motors in 10 CFR part
431 subpart Z (``Subpart Z'').
Currently, DPPP motors that would be subject to the proposed energy
conservation standards are not subject to any Federal energy
conservation standards or labeling requirements because they do not
fall within any of the specific classes of electric motors that are
currently regulated by DOE.\15\ However, DPPP motors are electric
motors and, therefore, are and have been among the types of industrial
equipment for which Congress has authorized DOE to establish applicable
regulations under EPCA without need for DOE to undertake any additional
prior administrative action. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ The current energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.425
apply to electric motors that satisfy nine criteria listed at 10 CFR
431.425(g), subject to the exemptions listed at 10 CFR 431.25(l).
The nine criteria are as follows: (1) are single-speed, induction
motors; (2) are rated for continuous duty (MG1) operation or for
duty type S1 (IEC); (3) contain a squirrel-cage (MG1) or cage (IEC)
rotor; (4) operate on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz
sinusoidal line power; (5) are rated 600 volts or less; (6) have a
2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration; (7) are built in a three digit
or four-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), including
those designs between two consecutive NEMA frame sizes (or IEC
metric equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric
equivalent); (8) produce at least one horsepower (0.746 kW) but not
greater than 500 horsepower (373 kW), and; (9) meet all of the
performance requirements of one of the following motor types: A NEMA
Design A, B, or C motor or an IEC Design N or H motor. The
exemptions listed at 10 CFR 431.25(l) are: (1) air-over electric
motors; (2) component sets of an electric motor; (3) liquid-cooled
electric motors; (4) submersible electric motors; and (5) inverter-
only electric motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for DPPP Motors
On January 18, 2017, DOE published a direct final rule establishing
energy conservation standards for DPPPs. 82 FR 5650 (the ``January 2017
Direct Final Rule'').\16\ Acknowledging comments received in response
to the direct final rule in support of regulating DPPP motors that
would serve as replacement motors to the regulated pool pumps, DOE
published a notice of public meeting on July 3, 2017, and held a public
meeting on August 10, 2017, to consider potential scope, definitions,
equipment characteristics, and metrics for pool pump motors. 82 FR
30845. DOE also requested comment on potential requirements for DPPP
motors in a request for information (``RFI'') pertaining to test
procedures for small electric motors and electric motors. 82 FR 35468
(July 31, 2017). On August 14, 2018, DOE received a petition submitted
by a variety of entities (collectively, the ``Joint Petitioners'') \17\
requesting that DOE issue a direct final rule to establish prescriptive
standards and a labeling requirement for DPPP motors (``Joint
Petition'').\18\ The Joint Petitioners sought a compliance date of July
19, 2021, to align with the standards compliance date for DPPPs. (Id.)
See also 82 FR 24218 (May 26, 2017). DOE published a notice of the
Joint Petition and sought comment on whether to proceed with the
proposal, as well as any data or information that could be used in
DOE's determination of whether to issue a direct final rule. 83 FR
45851 (Sept. 11, 2018).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ DOE confirmed the adoption of the standards and the
effective date and compliance date in a notice published on May 26,
2017. 82 FR 24218. DOE also established a test procedure for DPPPs.
82 FR 36858 (August 7, 2017).
\17\ The Joint Petitioners are: The Association of Pool & Spa
Professionals, Alliance to Save Energy, American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy, Appliance Standards Awareness Project,
Arizona Public Service, California Energy Commission, California
Investor Owned Utilities, Consumer Federation of America, Florida
Consumer Action Network, Hayward Industries, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Nidec
Motor Corporation, Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Pentair
Water Pool and Spa, Regal Beloit Corporation, Speck Pumps, Texas
ROSE (Ratepayers' Organization to Save Energy), Waterway Plastics,
WEG Commercial Motors, and Zodiac Pool Systems.
\18\ The Joint Petition is available at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048-0014">www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048-0014</a>.
\19\ Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048, available at:
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket">www.regulations.gov/docket</a>?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On December 12, 2018, representatives from APSP, NEMA, Nidec
Motors, Regal Beloit, and Zodiac met with DOE to reiterate the need for
implementation of the Joint Petition. (December 2018 Ex Parte Meeting,
No. 42 at p. 1) \20\ On February 5, 2019, the Association of Pool & Spa
Professionals (``APSP''), National Electrical Manufacturers Association
(``NEMA''), Hayward, Pentair, Nidec Motors, Regal Beloit, WEG
Commercial Motors, and Zodiac Pool Systems met with DOE to present an
alternative approach to the Joint Petition, suggesting DOE propose a
labeling requirement for DPPP motors. (February 2019 Ex Parte Meeting,
No. 43 at p. 1) \21\ These interested parties specifically requested
that DOE base the labeling requirement on a newly-available industry
standard for pool pump motors published on July 1, 2019 (UL 1004-
10:2019, ``Pool Pump Motors''), a design standard that incorporates
some of the proposals contained in the Joint Petition. (February 2019
Ex Parte Slides, No. 43 at pp. 9-10) A follow-up memorandum was
submitted to DOE on March 1, 2019, providing additional information
related to UL 1004-10:2019. (March 2019 Ex Parte Memo, No. 44) The
interested parties noted the timelines and costs that would be involved
in applying a label to the affected pool pump motors and the impacts
flowing from past labeling efforts. (See generally id. at 1-3.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ With respect to each of the ex parte communications noted
in this document, DOE posted a memorandum submitted by the
interested party/parties that summarized the issues discussed in the
relevant meeting as well as its date and attendees, in compliance
with DOE's Guidance on Ex Parte Communications. 74 FR 52795-52796
(Oct. 14, 2009). The memorandum of the meeting as well as any
documents given to DOE employees during the meeting were added to
the docket as specified in that guidance. See Id. at 74 FR 52796.
\21\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop the
test procedure and labeling requirements for DPPP motors. (Docket
No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0008, which is maintained at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail">www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail</a>;D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0008). The
references are arranged as follows: (commenter, comment docket ID
number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 37130]]

that catalogs and marketing materials include the full-load efficiency
of the motor; require manufacturers to notify DOE of the subject DPPP
motor models in current production (according to the manufacturer's
model number) and whether the motor model is certified to UL 1004-
10:2019; and require manufacturers to report to DOE the full-load
efficiency of the subject DPPP motor models as determined pursuant to
the proposed test procedure. 85 FR 62816, 62820. Additionally, if a
DPPP motor model is certified to UL 1004-10:2019, DOE proposed to
require manufacturers to report the total horsepower (``THP'') and
speed configuration of the motor model as provided on the nameplate
pursuant to the UL certification. Id.
On July 29, 2021, DOE published a final rule adopting a test
procedure for DPPP motors. 86 FR 40765. (``July 2021 Final Rule'').
Specifically, the test procedure requires to use CSA C747-09 (R2014),
``Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Small Motors'' (``CSA C747-09'')
for testing the full-load efficiency of DPPP motors and incorporates by
reference UL 1004-10:2020 ``Standard for Pool Pump Motors'' (``UL 1004-
10:2020'') pertaining to definitions and scope. The new test procedure
is currently located in 10 CFR part 431, subpart Z (``Subpart Z''). 86
FR 40765, 40768. DOE did not establish a labeling requirement and
stated that it intends to address any such labeling and/or energy
conservation standards requirement in a separate notification. Id.

C. Deviation From Appendix A

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A (``appendix A''), applicable to covered equipment under 10
CFR 431.4, DOE notes that it is deviating from the provision in
appendix A regarding the process for proposing new or amended energy
conservation standards. Section 6(a)(1) of appendix A states that as
the first step in any proceeding to consider establishing any energy
conservation standard, DOE will consider initiating a rulemaking
proceeding. Section 6(a)(2) of appendix A states that if the Department
determines it is appropriate to proceed with a rulemaking, the
preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue an energy conservation
standard that DOE will undertake will be a framework document and
preliminary analysis, or an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(``ANOPR''). DOE is opting to deviate from both provisions by a
publishing a NOPR without first publishing a document announcing that
DOE is considering initiating a rulemaking proceeding, a framework
document and preliminary analysis or an ANOPR. DOE believes that given
the stakeholder involvement and information received to date regarding
DPPP motors and potential standards for such equipment, there has been
already been significant stakeholder engagement on this topic
including: (1) the RFI on July 31, 2017, which include issues for
comment relating to dedicated purpose pool pump motors (82 FR 35468);
(2) the Joint Petition requesting a direct final rule to establish
standards and a labeling requirement for DPPPMs, on which DOE requested
comment along with any data or information that could be used in DOE's
determination of whether to issue a direct final rule (83 FR 45851);
(3) stakeholders engagement from substantive ex parte communications
with DOE; and (4) the analysis conducted in support of the energy
conservation standards for DPPPs, included analyses of DPPP motors
comparable to the analyses conducted in support of this NOPR (See 82 FR
5650).
Section 6(f)(2) of appendix A states that the length of the public
comment period for NOPR rulemaking documents will vary depending upon
the circumstances of the particular rulemaking, but will not be less
than 75 calendar days. DOE is opting to deviate from this provision in
providing a 60-day comment period. DOE has tentatively that a 60-day
comment period should be sufficient for stakeholders to evaluate the
proposal presented in this NOPR and provide comment given the extensive
stakeholder involvement to date and the prior opportunities to comment.

III. General Discussion

A. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes

This document covers equipment meeting the definition of DPPP motor
as defined in 10 CFR 431.483 and the scope specified in 10 CFR
431.481(b). Specifically, the scope covers DPPP motors with a total THP
of less than or equal to 5, but does not apply to: (i) DPPP motors that
are polyphase motors capable of operating without a drive and
distributed in commerce without a drive that converts single-phase
power to polyphase power; (ii) waterfall pump motors; (iii) rigid
electric spa pump motors, (iv) storable electric spa pump motors; (v)
integral cartridge-filter pool pump motors, and (vi) integral sand-
filter pool pump motors.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ These terms are defined in UL 1004-10:2020, which is
incorporated by reference in DOE's test procedure in Subpart Z of 10
CFR part 431. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to reference the latest
version of the UL standard, UL 1004-10:2022; see discussion in
section III.A.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy
used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify
differing standards. In making a determination whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such
factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors
DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
DOE is proposing to establish equipment classes for DPPP motors
based on THP. DOE is proposing an extra-small-size equipment
corresponding to motors with a THP less than 0.5 hp, a small-size
equipment class corresponding to motors with a total horsepower rating
greater than or equal to 0.5 hp but less than 1.15 hp, and a standard-
size equipment class corresponding to motor with a THP greater than or
equal to 1.15 hp and less than or equal to 5 hp. Table III.1 provides a
summary of the proposed equipment classes. See section IV.A.3 for
further details on the reasoning why DOE determined these equipment
classes are appropriate and justify having separate standards.

Table III.1--Proposed Equipment Classes for DPPP Motors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor total horsepower
Equipment class (Hp)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extra-small-size.......................... THP < 0.5
Small-size................................ 0.5 <= THP < 1.15
Standard-size............................. 1.15 <= THP <= 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Test Procedure

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a))
Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to
certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product.
As stated, DOE established subpart Z which specifies that the test
procedure applies to DPPP motors with a THP of less than or equal to 5,
but does not apply to: (i) DPPP motors that are polyphase motors
capable of operating without a drive and distributed in commerce
without a drive that converts single-phase power to polyphase power;
(ii) waterfall pump motors; (iii) rigid electric spa pump motors, (iv)
storable

[[Page 37131]]

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

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General
In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a
screening analysis based on information gathered on all current
technology options and prototype designs that could improve the
efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the
rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list
of technology options for consideration in consultation with
manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then
determines which of those means for improving efficiency are
technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in
commercially-available products or in working prototypes to be
technologically feasible. Sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A
to 10 CFR part 430, subpart C (``Process Rule'').
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1)
practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse
impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 10
CFR 431.4; Sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process
Rule. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the
screening analysis for DPPP motors, particularly the designs DOE
considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the
standards considered in this proposed rulemaking. For further details
on the screening analysis for this proposed rulemaking, see chapter 4
of the NOPR technical support document (``TSD'').
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class
of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically
feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1))
Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum
technologically feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in energy
efficiency for DPPP motors, using the design parameters for the most
efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes.
The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this proposed rulemaking
are described in section IV.C.1.c of this proposed rule and in chapter
5 of the NOPR TSD.

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
For each trial standard level (``TSL''), DOE projected energy
savings from application of the TSL to DPPP motors purchased in the 30-
year period that begins in the first full year of compliance with the
proposed standards (2026-2055).\23\ The savings are measured over the
entire lifetime of DPPP motors purchased in the previous 30-year
period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as
the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and
the no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a
projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a
product would likely evolve in the absence of new energy conservation
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each
product class. The TSLs considered for this NOPR are described in
section V.A. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis that considers
impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE used its national impact analysis (``NIA'') spreadsheet model
to estimate national energy savings (``NES'') from potential amended or
new standards for DPPP motors. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in
section IV.H of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of
site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the
locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national
energy savings in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings
in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site
electricity. DOE also calculates NES in terms of FFC energy savings.
The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing,
and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum
fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of
energy conservation standards.\24\ DOE's approach is based on the
calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by
covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy
savings, see section IV.H.2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy
and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE
must determine that such action would result in significant energy
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6315(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) The significance
of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation
standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific
circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\25\ For example, the
United States rejoined the Paris Agreement on February 19, 2021. As
part of that agreement, the United States has committed to reducing
greenhouse gas (``GHG'') emissions in order to limit the rise in mean
global temperature.\26\ As such, energy savings that reduce GHG
emission have taken on greater importance. Additionally, some covered
products and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur
during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on
the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with
relatively constant demand. In evaluating the significance of energy
savings, DOE considers differences in primary energy and full-fuel-
cycle (``FFC'') effects for different covered products and equipment
when determining whether energy savings are significant. Primary energy
and FFC effects include the energy consumed in electricity production
(depending on load shape), in distribution and transmission, and in
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal,
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus present a more complete

[[Page 37132]]

picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ See 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
\26\ See Executive Order 14008, 86 FR 7619 (Feb. 1, 2021)
(``Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in
determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has
addressed each of those seven factors in this proposed rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
In determining the impacts of a potential amended standard on
manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of
this document. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine
the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term
assessment--based on the cost and capital requirements during the
period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must
comply with the regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year
period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which
values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows, (2)
cash flows by year, (3) changes in revenue and income, and (4) other
measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports
the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on
small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on
domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as
the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of
capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts
of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on
manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the
changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These
measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers
in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of
the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular
standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected
disproportionately by a standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC and
PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC
and PBP analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including
its installation) and the operating expense (including energy,
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of
the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as
product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance
and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for
consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific
inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a
distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will
purchase the covered products in the first full year of compliance with
new or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency
levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected
market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and
PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this
document.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section III.D, DOE uses the NIA
spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing product classes and in evaluating design options
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the
considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards
proposed in this document would not reduce the utility or performance
of the products under consideration in this proposed rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is
likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to
determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to
result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to
the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule,
together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy
of this proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the
Department of Justice (``DOJ'') provide its determination on this
issue. DOE will publish and respond to the Attorney General's
determination in the final rule. DOE invites comment from the public
regarding the competitive impacts that are likely to result from this
proposed rule. In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments
separately to DOJ regarding these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES
section for information to send comments to DOJ.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water
conservation

[[Page 37133]]

in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The
energy savings from the proposed standards are likely to provide
improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy
system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in
reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's
electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate
how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity,
as discussed in section IV.M of this document.
DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take
into account when considering the need for national energy
conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air
pollutants and greenhouse gases (``GHGs'') associated with energy
production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how
potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section
IV.KIV.K; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in section V.B.6
of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section
IV.L of this document.
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE identifies any relevant
information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the
other categories described previously, DOE could consider such
information under ``other factors.''
2. Rebuttable Presumption
EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation
standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the
equipment that meets the standard is less than three times the value of
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a);
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate
values used to calculate the effects that proposed energy conservation
standards would have on the payback period for consumers. These
analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period
contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test.
In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that
considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the
Nation, and the environment, as required under (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)). The results of this analysis serve as the
basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a
potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results
of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The
rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section
V.B.1.c of this proposed rule.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
proposed rulemaking with regard to DPPP motors. Separate subsections
address each component of DOE's analyses.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the
standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new
energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a
second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and
calculates national energy savings and net present value of total
consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy
conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the
Government Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), to assess manufacturer
impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are
available on the DOE website for this proposed rulemaking:
<a href="http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=76">www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=76</a>. Additionally, DOE used output from the
latest version of the Energy Information Administration's (``EIA's'')
Annual Energy Outlook (``AEO''), a widely known energy projection for
the United States, for the emissions and utility impact analyses.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products
concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used
in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly-available
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology
assessment for this proposed rulemaking include (1) a determination of
the scope of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and
industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments
information, (5) market and industry trends; and (6) technologies or
design options that could improve the energy efficiency of DPPP motors.
The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the
following sections. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further
discussion of the market and technology assessment.
1. Scope of Coverage
DPPP motors are a category of electric motor used in DPPP
applications. In the July 2021 Final Rule, DOE incorporated by
reference UL 1004-10:2020 and referenced the definitions published in
that industry standard for DPPP motors. 10 CFR 431.483; 86 FR 40765,
40768. Section 2.3 of UL 1004-10:2020 defines a DPPP motor as ``an
electric motor that is single-phase or poly-phase and is designed and/
or marketed for use in dedicated purpose pool pump applications''. DOE
defines dedicated-purpose pool pump as comprising ``self-priming pool
filter pumps, non-self-priming pool filter pumps, waterfall pumps,
pressure cleaner booster pumps, integral sand-filter pool pumps,
integral-cartridge filter pool pumps, storable electric spa pumps, and
rigid electric spa pumps.'' 10 CFR 431.462.
With regards to scope, 10 CFR 431.481(b) specifies that the
requirements in subpart Z apply to DPPP motors, as specified in
paragraphs 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 of UL 1004-10:2020. This scope covers DPPP
motors with a total THP of less than or equal to 5, but does not apply
to: (i) DPPP motors that are polyphase motors capable of operating
without a drive and distributed in commerce without a drive that
converts single-phase power to polyphase power; (ii) waterfall pump
motors; (iii) rigid electric spa pump motors, (iv) storable electric
spa pump motors; (v) integral cartridge-filter pool pump motors, and
(vi) integral sand-filter pool pump motors. Section 1.3 and 1.4 of UL
1004-10: 2020.
Since the July 2021 Final Rule, UL 1004-10 has been updated to the
ANSI approved March 24, 2022 version.\27\ In the 2022 version, DOE
notes that the only update was the addition of a glossary term for
``factory default setting'' in section 2.7A, which is defined as ``upon
application of power

[[Page 37134]]

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

\27\ <a href="https://standardscatalog.ul.com/ProductDetail.aspx?UniqueKey=42496">https://standardscatalog.ul.com/ProductDetail.aspx?UniqueKey=42496</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE seeks comment on updating the UL 1004-10 reference from the
2020 version to the 2022 version.
The scope of this DPPP motors energy conservation standards
rulemaking covers motors for use in the following dedicated purpose
pool pump applications only: (i) self-priming pool filter pumps; (ii)
non-self-priming pool filter pumps; and (iii) pressure cleaner booster
pumps. The scope of the pool pump application is consistent with the
scope of pool pumps that currently have performance-based standards in
10 CFR 431.465(f). Further, the DPPP motor energy conservation
standards scope includes both single and polyphase motors (but
excluding polyphase motors capable of operating without a drive and
distributed in commerce without a drive that converts single-phase
power to polyphase power) with a total THP of less than or equal to 5.
2. Market Review
To review the current market of DPPP motors incorporated in DPPPs,
DOE relied on information from the DOE Compliance and Certification
Database, the California Energy Commission (``CEC''), and the ENERGY
STAR program.\28\ (``2021 DPPP Database''). These databases included
the DPPP motor speed-control capabilities, motor THP, and the weighted-
efficiency factor (``WEF'') \29\ of the pump with which the motor was
certified. The 2021 DPPP database did not contain information related
to motor efficiency or topology. To supplement the market review, DOE
also reviewed general motor catalog data from 2020 and created a
database which contained information regarding motor speed-control,
topology, THP, motor application, and full-load efficiency (``2020
Motor Database''). To make the two databases more comparable, DOE
filtered the 2020 Motor Database to analyze only motors used in DPPP
applications. DOE notes that DPPPMs are electromechanically similar to
general motors and use similar methods to improve the efficiency of a
given motor, therefore DOE tentatively concludes that efficiencies of
the 2020 Motor Database can be expected to mirror the DPPPM market. See
section IV.A.4 for further discussion on the DPPP motor technology
assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ DOE Compliance Certification Management System. Compliance
and Certification Database. Information for DPPP products.
<a href="http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data">www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data</a> (last access July 29,
2021); The California Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database
System. Information for DPPP products. <a href="https://cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx">https://cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx</a>
(last access July 29, 2021); Energy Star Program. Information for
DPPP products. <a href="http://www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-pool-pumps/results">www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-pool-pumps/results</a> (last access July 29, 2021).
\29\ DOE notes that while the DPPP energy conservation standards
at 10 CFR 431.465(f) does not contain performance standards for the
motors used in DPPPs, the DPPP performance metric of weighted energy
factor (``WEF'') is directly affected by motor efficiency and the
speed-control of the motor sold with the pump.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, DOE analyzed the distribution of motor THP and speed-control
from the 2021 DPPP Database and compared this to what was observed in
the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. DOE observed that the distribution
of THP and speed-control has not changed significantly since 2017.
Because the 2021 DPPP Database did not specifically have information
related to motor efficiency or topology, DOE compared the motor
efficiency data used for the January 2017 Direct Final Rule with
efficiencies found in the 2020 Motor Database. In this review, DOE
reviewed the range of efficiencies and average catalog efficiency for
each available motor topology (capacitor-start induction-run
[``CSIR''], capacitor-start capacitor-run [``CSCR''], permanent-split
capacitor [``PSC''], etc.) at each THP. DOE found that the range of
efficiencies and average catalog efficiency did not significantly
change since 2017. DOE also reviewed the distribution of motor topology
in the 2020 Motor Database and observed that it has not significantly
changed since 2017. Accordingly, DOE has based its engineering analysis
on the analysis conducted for the January 2017 Direct Final Rule (see
section IV.C).
Separately, DOE also notes that the standard for DPPPs at 10 CFR
431.465(f) and the CEC performance and prescriptive standards for
replacement DPPP motors, both having a compliance date starting July
19, 2021, are expected to influence the overall DPPP motor market.
Specifically, in the October 2020 NOPR, DOE specified that standard-
size self-priming pool filter pumps which are subject to the DOE DPPP
energy conservation standards would likely require a variable-speed
control motor. 85 FR 62816, 62824. Relatedly, the California standard
for replacement DPPP motors requires all DPPPMs greater than or equal
to 0.5 THP to be variable-speed. California Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 20, Section 1605.3(g)(6)(B).
3. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy
used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify
a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In
determining whether capacity or another performance-related feature
justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the
utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems
appropriate. (Id.)
As discussed previously, DOE is limiting the scope of this energy
conservation standard to motors used in self-priming pool filter pumps,
non-self-priming pool filter pumps, and pressure cleaner booster pumps.
The scope of the pool pump application is consistent with the scope of
pool pumps that currently have performance-based standards in 10 CFR
431.465(f). For this energy conservation standards, DOE is dividing the
DPPP motors into equipment classes based on capacity. The capacity of a
dedicated-purpose pool pump motor can be expressed in terms of motor
total horsepower.
Full load efficiency generally correlates with motor horsepower
(e.g., a 3-horsepower motor is usually more efficient than a \1/4\-
horsepower motor). DOE found that motor efficiency varies with motor
horsepower in the 2020 Motor Database. Additionally, motor horsepower
dictates the maximum load that a motor can drive, which means that a
motor's rated horsepower can influence and limit the end use
applications where that motor can be used, which in this case is a
dedicated purpose pool pump. Horsepower is a critical performance
attribute of a DPPP motor, and since horsepower has a direct
relationship with full load efficiency and consumer utility, DOE used
this element as a criterion for distinguishing among equipment classes.
The motor capacity breakpoints developed in this NOPR align with
the pump capacity breakpoints recommended by the consensus working
group established under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking

[[Page 37135]]

Federal Advisory Committee (the ``ASRAC DPPP Working
Group'').30 31 82 FR 5650, 5669. (Jan. 18, 2017). In the
January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE finalized equipment classes for
dedicated purpose pool pumps based on the DPPP Working Group
recommendation to set the breakpoint between small-size and standard-
size self-priming pool filter pumps at 0.711 hydraulic horsepower
(``hhp''). 82 FR 5650, 5669.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and
the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C. App.; 5 U.S.C. 561-570).
\31\ The dedicated-purpose pool pumps energy conservation
standard rulemaking docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008 contains all
notices, public comments, public meeting transcripts, and supporting
documents pertaining to this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the Joint Petition for DPPP motors, the Joint Petitioners stated
that the 0.711 hhp threshold in the DPPP standards for self-priming
pool filter pumps aligns with a 1.15 THP motor threshold (1.15 THP is
roughly equivalent to 0.711 hhp). Further, the Joint Petition stated
that almost all motors used in non-self-priming pool filter pumps and
pressure cleaner booster pumps have THPs less than 1.15 THP. (Joint
Petition, No. 14 at p. 8). Finally, in the October 2020 NOPR, DOE
described that DPPP motors with a total horsepower greater than or
equal to 1.15 THP are primarily used in standard-size self-priming pool
filter pumps (52 percent of DPPP motor applications), while pool pump
motors below 1.15 THP are typically found in small-size self-priming
pool filter pumps, non-self-priming pool filter pumps, and pressure
cleaner booster pumps (which represent 48 percent of the DPPP motor
applications).\32\ 85 FR 62816, 62824. Accordingly, because full load
efficiency generally correlates with motor horsepower, and the distinct
utility of DPPP motors less than 1.15 THP (almost all are used in non-
self-priming pool filter pumps and pressure cleaner booster pumps) is
different than of DPPP motors equal to or greater than 1.15 THP
(primarily used in standard-size self-priming pool filter pumps), DOE
proposes to establish small-size and standard-size equipment classes
based on a 1.15 THP threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ Estimate of DPPP motors shipments by DPPP applications for
2021. 85 FR 62816, 62824.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE also considered an
extra-small-size equipment class for non-self-priming pool filter pumps
less than 0.13 hhp. 82 FR 5650, 5672. This equipment class was
ultimately merged into the small-size equipment class after DOE
selected the same efficiency level for both extra-small-size and small-
size non-self-priming pool filter pumps. Id. However, in the context of
DPPP motors for this rulemaking, DOE notes that the non-self-priming
pool filter DPPP motors with an hhp of less than 0.13 have different
maximum efficiency potential than non-self-priming pool filter DPPP
motors with an hhp of 0.13 or greater. Specifically, Table 5.6.3 in the
TSD for the January 2017 Direct Final Rule (``January 2017 Direct Final
Rule TSD'') \33\ did not consider either two-speed or variable speed
motors for the extra-small-size DPPPP equipment class because both
these types of motors provide inadequate flow to the pool pump. Because
the distinct performance potential and utility of DPPP motors with an
hhp less than 0.13, DOE proposes to include an extra-small-size
equipment class for DPPP motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ The dedicated-purpose pool pumps energy conservation
standard rulemaking TSD can be found in docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-
0008-0105 (<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To develop the proposed motor total horsepower tier threshold for
the extra-small-size equipment class, DOE considered the appropriate
motor THP threshold that is applicable to the extra-small-size
equipment class hydraulic horsepower threshold from the January 2017
Direct Final Rule. Based on pump fundamentals, the power out of the
drive of the motor (i.e., brake horsepower) is the hydraulic horsepower
divided by the pump efficiency.\34\ Accordingly, DOE converted the hhp
to thp by dividing the hydraulic horsepower threshold for the extra-
small-size equipment class (0.13 hhp limit from the January 2017 Direct
Final Rule) by the hydraulic efficiency for the representative unit
meeting the 0.13 hhp threshold (23 percent from Table 5.6.4 of the
January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD). This approximates to a 0.57 THP
motor horsepower threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/hydraulic-horsepower">www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/hydraulic-horsepower</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As part of this proposed rulemaking, DOE collected confidential
DPPP motor shipment data from manufacturers in 2018 through non-
disclosure agreements (``2018 confidential DPPP motor shipments''). In
reviewing that data, DOE notes there were no DPPP motor shipments at
0.57 THP; rather, the largest motor THP under 0.57 THP with any
shipments was 0.5 THP. Accordingly, for this NOPR, DOE proposes to use
the 0.5 THP threshold instead, and therefore proposes an extra-small-
size equipment class based on the 0.5 THP threshold.
Table IV.1 provides the summary of the proposed equipment classes
for DPPP motors.

Table IV.1--Proposed Equipment Classes for DPPP Motors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor total horsepower
Equipment class (Hp)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extra-small-size.......................... THP < 0.5
Small-size................................ 0.5 <= THP < 1.15
Standard-size............................. 1.15 <= THP <= 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE seeks comments on the proposed equipment classes for DPPP
motors based on motor THP thresholds.
DOE seeks comment on the proposed equipment classes for DPPP motors
based on motor THP thresholds.
4. Technology Assessment and Options
The purpose of the technology assessment is to develop a
preliminary list of technology options that could improve the
efficiency of DPPP motors. The efficiency of a DPPP motor is dependent
on motor topology, capacity, and operating speed. As previously
discussed in section IV.A.2 of this document, DOE proposes to delineate
equipment classes based on motor capacity (i.e., motor horsepower).
a. Motor Topology
The DPPP motors covered in this proposed rulemaking include both
alternating current (AC) (single and certain polyphase) induction
motors and permanent magnet AC motors (also known as Electronically
Commutated Motors [``ECMs'']).
In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE noted that the majority
of the pool filter pumps available on the market come equipped with
single-phase induction motors, of which the majority are either CSCR or
PSC motors. 82 FR 5650, 5676. Based on a review of the 2020 Motor
Database, DOE concludes that a majority of DPPPMs are still CSCR or PSC
motors. Specifically, single-speed DPPPMs are almost exclusively PSC or
CSCR and variable-speed motors are primarily ECMs.
AC induction motors have two core components: a stator and a rotor.
The components work together to convert electrical energy into
rotational mechanical energy. This is done by creating a rotating
magnetic field in the stator, which induces a current flow in the
rotor. This current flow creates an opposing magnetic field in the
rotor, which creates rotational forces. Because of the orientation of
these fields, the rotor field follows the stator field. The rotor is
connected to a shaft that also rotates and provides the mechanical
energy output.
DOE identified six categories of AC induction motors: shaded-pole,
split-phase, capacitor-start (CSIR and CSCR),

[[Page 37136]]

permanent-split capacitor (PSC), and polyphase. A shaded-pole motor is
a single-phase induction motor provided with an auxiliary short-
circuited winding or windings displaced in magnetic position from the
main winding. Shaded-pole motors are typically only used in low-torque
applications with power requirements less than \1/10\ hp. A split-phase
motor is a single-phase induction motor equipped with an auxiliary
winding displaced in magnetic position from, and connected parallel to,
the main winding. The term ``split-phase motor'' describes a motor to
be used without impedance other than that offered by the motor windings
themselves. A CSCR motor is a single-phase motor with different values
of effective capacitance for the starting and running conditions. A PSC
motor is another category of single-phase motor that has the same value
of capacitance for both starting and running conditions. A polyphase
motor is an electric motor that uses the phase changes of the
electrical supply to induce a rotational magnetic field and thereby
supply torque to the rotor.
Single-phase AC induction motors are inherently less efficient than
polyphase AC induction motors due to the fundamental differences in how
the two categories of motors operate. Three-phase power in a polyphase
motor naturally produces rotation, whereas a single-phase motor
requires an auxiliary winding with current and voltage out of phase of
the main winding to produce a net rotating magnetic field. The more
efficient polyphase AC induction motors require the end user to have
access to a three-phase power source. Residential power sources are
typically single-phase.
Motor topology within the single-phase AC induction motor category
can also have an impact on motor efficiency. CSCR and PSC motors are
typically more efficient than CSIR, split-phase, and shaded pole motors
due to the presence of a run capacitor that remains connected while the
motors are operating. In the notice of the Joint Petition, the
recommendation included prohibiting CSIR or split phase motors for
DPPPMs because (1) this would align with the DPPP standards; (2) this
requirement would be consistent with certain state standards, and (3)
these motors are very inefficient. (Joint Petition, No. 14 at p. 7)
In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE also noted that the pool
pump market included ECMs and that ECMs are typically used in variable-
speed pool filter pump applications. 82 FR 5650, 5676. Based on a
review of the 2021 DPPP database, ECMs are becoming more prevalent
because of the recent standards implemented by the CEC and the January
2017 Direct Final Rule standards discussed in section IV.A.2 of this
NOPR.
ECMs are similar in construction to AC squirrel-cage induction
motors, but feature a different rotor configuration. Instead of using
conductive material in the rotor, permanent magnets are integrated into
the rotor's laminations or fixed to the rotor's outer surface and do
not need to be energized. The magnetic field established by the
permanent magnets interacts with the field produced by windings in the
stator to generate a torque. Because permanent magnet motors do not
require current to be induced in rotor conductors, overall power
consumption can be reduced compared to induction motors. Further,
because permanent magnet motors operate at synchronous speed, they
require a variable frequency drive to start rotation.
ECMs can typically achieve higher motor efficiencies than AC
induction motors with similar capacities. ECMs employ rare-earth metal
based permanent magnets in the rotor design to establish a magnetic
field, which avoids the energy consumption observed when energizing an
electro-magnetic rotor for the operation of AC induction motors.
Because of the removal of rotor energy losses, ECMs often have higher
full-load efficiencies than their induction counterparts. ECMs require
a variable speed drive to operate, which may introduce additional
losses into the motor system. Even after considering the losses from
the variable speed drive and control electronics, ECMs are the most
efficient motor topology currently used in dedicated-purpose pool
pumps.
b. Motor Speed
Dedicated-purpose pool pumps are designed to circulate water in
pool systems to facilitate pool cleaning in addition to water
filtering, heating, and chlorination. Pool cleaning functions require a
high flow rate, and subsequently a high motor speed, to provide the
agitation necessary to stir up large debris so that the filtration
system can effectively remove any contaminants. Heating functions
typically require a moderate to high flow rate to ensure that heat is
dissipated sufficiently and pool system components are not damaged by
overheating. Water filtration is most effective at low motor speeds, as
a low flow rate will ensure water bypassing the filter will be
minimized.
DPPP motors exist in several configurations with different speed
capabilities. Single-speed motors can operate at one predefined speed,
and therefore the associated dedicated-purpose pool pump can provide
only a single flow rate in any given pool system. Single-speed motors
are sized to provide the minimum flow rate necessary to facilitate
effective pool cleaning, and therefore pool pump functions that operate
most efficiently at lower flow rates are rendered less effective.
Two-speed motors can operate at two distinct rotational speeds.
Two-speed motors can be sized so that high flow functions like pool
cleaning are effective at full speed operation and low flow tasks like
filtration can be completed at low speed operation. Two-speed pumps can
be operated by timers or other control systems to run at high speed for
long enough to complete cleaning functions before switching to low
speed operation for the duration of the cycle. The ability to operate
at multiple speeds can provide energy savings when utilized correctly,
i.e., pool cleaning at high speed and filtration at lower speeds.
Multi-speed motors function similarly to two-speed motors, but provide
additional flexibility to maximize the effectiveness of specific pool
pump functions by allowing users to program pumps to run at more than
two distinct speeds.
Variable-speed motors can provide greater energy savings than two-
speed or multi-speed motors due to the ability to program these motors
to operate at user-defined speed settings. Variable-speed motors used
in DPPP applications are typically one of two configurations: an AC
induction motor paired with a variable frequency drive or a permanent
magnet motor with an integral drive. Permanent magnet variable-speed
motors offer improved efficiency over AC induction motors due to the
incorporation of a permanent magnet rotor design in place of the
powered electro-magnetic rotor design used in AC induction motors. This
improvement in efficiency is particularly evident at lower speed
settings, where AC induction motor efficiency drops considerably from
full speed efficiency.
DOE seeks comment on the technologies considered for higher DPPP
motor efficiency. DOE seeks comment on whether other motor topologies
should be considered as applicable in pool pumps.

B. Screening Analysis

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

[[Page 37137]]

consideration in an energy conservation standards rulemaking:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not
be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing
of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the
scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the
projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will
not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If it is
determined that a technology would have a significant adverse impact on
the utility of the product for significant subgroups of consumers or
would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be
considered further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a
technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety,
it will not be considered further.
(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option
utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to
achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be
considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).
In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination
of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria,
it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering
analysis.
In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE considered ``improved
motor efficiency'' as a screened in technology option for the pool pump
analysis. 82 FR 5650, 5676. This screened-in technology option
considered motor topology (induction and ECM motor) and speed
applications (i.e., single-, dual- and variable speed). 82 FR 5650,
5676. For this DPPP motor analysis, DOE relied on and aligned with the
January 2017 Direct Final Rule analysis where possible. As discussed in
sections IV.A.2 and IV.A.4 of this document, the motor technologies
applicable to pool pump motors analyzed in the January 2017 Direct
Final Rule remain relevant and applicable in the current DPPP motor
market. Therefore, DOE has initially determined that the technology
options previously considered continue to be technologically feasible
because they are being used or have previously been used in
commercially-available products or working prototypes. DOE also finds
that the technology options continue to meet the other screening
criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do
not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product
availability, health, or safety, unique-pathway proprietary
technologies). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.

C. Engineering Analysis

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between the efficiency and cost of DPPP motors. There are
two elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of
efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ``efficiency analysis'') and
the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the
``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency
equipment, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations
not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each equipment class, DOE
estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the
equipment at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output of the
engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency ``curves'' that are
used in downstream analyses (i.e., the LCC and PBP analyses and the
NIA).
1. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach),
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on
the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that
already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended
using the design option approach to ``gap fill'' levels (to bridge
large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to
extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in cases where the max-
tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on
the market).
For this analysis, DOE relied on the conclusions from the
``improved motor efficiency'' design option from the January 2017
Direct Final Rule. As discussed in sections IV.A.2 and IV.A.4 of this
document, the motor technologies applicable to pool pump motors
analyzed in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule remain relevant and
applicable in the current DPPP motor market. Therefore, in line with
the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE considered three tiers of motor
efficiency (low, medium, and high efficiency) and design requirements
specifically for two-speed, multi-speed motors and variable speed
motors. This is a combination of the efficiency level and design level
approach discussed previously. Section 5.6.2 of the January 2017 Direct
Final Rule TSD discusses that DOE presented the designs and motor
efficiency assumptions to the DPPP Working Group and subsequently
refined them to incorporate feedback from the DPPP Working Group.
a. Representative Units
DOE opted to use representative units for each equipment class,
consistent with the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, for the engineering
analysis. Representative units exemplify typical capacities in each
equipment class and are used to quantify the manufacturing costs and
the energy savings potential for each equipment class.
Table IV.2 details the DPPP application and associated motor THP of
each representative unit considered for the analysis. The DPPP
application (pump type, size and hhp) is consistent with Table 5.4.1 of
the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, except that DOE did not merge
the extra-small-size and standard-size non self-priming pumps into one
class for this NOPR. As discussed in section IV.A.3 of this document,
the extra-small-size non-self-priming pool filter DPPP motors have
different maximum efficiency potential than small- or standard-size
equipment classes and are therefore analyzed separately.
The associated motor THP of the representative units are consistent
with

[[Page 37138]]

the motor THPs provided in Table 5.7.1 of the January 2017 Direct Final
Rule TSD, with three exceptions: (1) a DPPP motor associated with self-
priming filter pump application at 0.65 hhp (Representative unit 2A)
was added to represent standard-size DPPP motors that are used in
small-size self-priming DPPPs as DOE observed motors on the market of
this size going into small-size self-priming pumps; (2) a DPPP motor
associated with non-self priming filter pump at 0.87 hhp
(Representative unit 6) was added to analyze standard-size DPPPMs used
in non-self-priming filter pump applications to better represent THPs
observed in the market; and (3) a DPPP motor of 1.125 thp instead of
1.25 thp associated with pressure cleaner booster pump (Representative
unit 7) was considered so as to keep this representative unit in the
small-size equipment class (EC 2), and to better represent the THP
range of motors in pressure cleaner booster pumps.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ The Joint Petition noted that almost all motors used in
pressure cleaner booster pumps have THPs less than 1.15 THP. (Joint
Petition, No. 14 at p. 8).

Table IV.2--Representative Units THP and DPPP Application
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. unit Equipment class THP DPPP application *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............... 2 (Small)........ 0.75 Self-priming Filter
Pump, Small-size
(0.44 hhp).
2............... 3 (Standard)..... 1.65 Self-priming Filter
Pump, Standard-size
(0.95 hhp).
2A.............. 3 (Standard)..... 1.65 Self-priming Filter
Pump, Small-size
(0.65 hhp).
3............... 3 (Standard)..... 3.45 Self-priming Filter
Pump, Standard-size
(1.88 hhp).
4............... 1 (Extra-small).. 0.22 Non Self-priming
Filter Pump, Extra-
Small (0.09 hhp).
5............... 2 (Small)........ 1 Non Self-priming
Filter Pump, Standard-
size (0.52 hhp).
6............... 3 (Standard)..... 1.5 Non Self-priming
Filter Pump, Standard-
size (0.87 hhp).
7............... 2 (Small)........ 1.125 Pressure Cleaner
Booster Pump.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For self-priming pumps, the terms small and standard refer to the
hydraulic horsepower. Small-size designates pool pump applications
with hydraulic horsepower less than 0.711 hhp, while standard-size
designates pool pump applications with hydraulic horsepower greater
than or equal to 0.711 hhp. DOE distinguishes extra-small non self-
priming filter pumps (less than 0.13 hhp) and standard-size non self-
priming filter pumps (less than 2.5 hhp and greater than 0.13 hhp).

DOE seeks comment on the proposed representative units and
associated DPPP applications used for the engineering analysis.
b. Baseline Efficiency Levels
For each equipment class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as
a reference point for each class, and measures changes resulting from
potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The
baseline model in each equipment class represents the characteristics
of an equipment typical of that class (e.g., capacity, physical size).
Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy
conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline
is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market.
Mirroring the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, this DPPP motor analysis
also considered the least efficient single-speed DPPP motor on the
market for each representative unit.
c. Higher Efficiency Levels
As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level
is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE
also defines a ``max-tech'' efficiency level to represent the maximum
possible efficiency for a given product.
Once the baseline was established, higher ELs were established by
substituting with higher full-load efficiency DPPPMs and DPPPMs with
finer levels of speed control, similar to the January 2017 Direct Final
Rule. Table IV.3 details the full-load efficiency, or motor topologies
and speed configurations of each EL for each representative unit. The
full-load efficiencies and speed configurations being considered are
consistent with Table 5.6.3 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD.
As discussed in section IV.A.4.b of this document, DPPPM have
different functions, including pool cleaning, water filtering, heating,
freeze protection control and chlorination, that all require different
flow rates and motor speeds. Therefore, the ability to operate at
multiple speeds can provide energy savings when utilized correctly. As
such, there are energy savings that come from controlling the speed of
the motor with two-speed, multi-speed or variable-speed capabilities.
Accordingly, DOE proposes to include design requirements of speed
capability as part of the engineering analysis to capture these added
energy savings.\36\ These design requirements are consistent with the
motor speed design options considered in the January 2017 Direct Final
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ Full-load efficiency does not capture the energy saving
benefits of speed control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further, as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this NOPR, the
efficiency of a DPPP motor is dependent on motor topology. CSCR and PSC
motors are typically more efficient than CSIR, split-phase, and shaded
pole motors due to the presence of a run capacitor that remains
connected while the motors are operating. In the January 2017 Direct
Final Rule, DOE noted that the majority of the pool filter pumps
available on the market come equipped with CSCR or PSC motors. 82 FR
5650, 5676. Accordingly, DOE proposes to include design requirements
based on motor topology as part of the engineering analysis to capture
these added energy savings.
Table IV.3 presents the proposed performance and design
requirements for the DPPPM efficiency levels. Efficiency levels 0
through 2 is consistent with Table 5.6.3 of the January 2017 Direct
Final Rule TSD and represents the low-efficiency, medium-efficiency and
high-efficiency performance of single-speed DPPPMs. Efficiency levels 3
through 6 incorporate certain design requirements based on motor speed
capability and topology.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ For the purposes of the analysis, however, DOE did consider
the full-load efficiencies presented in Table 5.6.3 of the January
2017 Direct Final Rule TSD for efficiency levels 3 through 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 37139]]

EL 6 includes variable speed only, which provides the highest energy
savings.
As discussed in section IV.A.3 of this document, efficiency levels
3-6 do not apply to representative unit 4 because two-speed, multi-
speed and variable speed motors provide inadequate flow to the pool
pump for the extra-small-size DPPPP equipment class. Further,
consistent with the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE only considered
one speed and variable speed motors for representative unit 7 (pressure
cleaner booster pump application). 82 FR 5650, 5683. Specifically, the
January 2017 Direct Final Rule noted that pressure cleaner booster
pumps are only operated at one speed, however the pool pump WEF metric
accounts for energy savings available from adjusting the pump speed to
reach the minimum required test pressure, i.e., 60 feet, therefore
allowing variable-speed motor applications. Id. Accordingly, for
representative unit 7, efficiency levels 3 through 6 would require
variable-speed motors only.

Table IV.3--Proposed Performance and Design Requirements for DPPPM ELs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Motor EL0 EL1 EL2
EC unit THP DPPP application (%) (%) (%) EL3 * EL4 * EL5 * EL6 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........... 4 0.22 Non Self-priming 55 69 76
Filter Pump, Extra-
Small (0.09 hhp).
2........... 1 0.75 Self-priming Filter 55 69 76 Two-speed--OR-- Two-speed/Multi- Two-speed/Multi- Variable speed
2........... 5 1 Pump, Small-size 55 69 76 Multi-speed--OR-- speed, not CSIR, speed, not CSIR, only.
(0.44 hhp). Variable speed. not shaded pole, not shaded pole,
Non Self-priming not split-phase;-- not split-phase,
Filter Pump, Small- OR--Variable speed. not PSC;--OR--
size (0.52 hhp). Variable speed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2........... 7 1.125 Pressure Cleaner 55 69 76 Variable speed only.
Booster Pump.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3........... 6 1.5 Non Self-priming 55 69 77 Two-speed--OR-- Two-speed/Multi- Two-speed/Multi- Variable speed
3........... 2 1.65 Filter Pump (0.87 55 69 77 Multi-speed--OR-- speed, not CSIR, speed, not CSIR, only.
3........... 2A 1.65 hhp). 55 69 77 Variable speed. not shaded pole, not shaded pole,
Self-priming Filter not split-phase;-- not split-phase,
Pump, Standard- OR--Variable speed. not PSC;--OR--
size (0.95 hhp). Variable speed.
Self-priming Filter
Pump, Small-size
(0.65 hhp).
3........... 3 3.45 Self-priming Filter 75 79 84
Pump, Standard-
size (1.88 hhp).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* includes freeze protection control design requirements.

To determine the motor input power for the energy use analysis in
section IV.E, DOE also had to determine the hydraulic power of each
pump. DOE calculated the relationships between flow rate of the pump
and the total dynamic head required for each system curve. Once these
relationships were established, the hydraulic power required for each
curve was calculated using both the head and flow rate. See Section
5.3.1.3 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD. Each efficiency
level presented has an associated Energy Factor (in Gallons/Watt-hour)
and Flow (in gallons per minute) used to determine efficiency of the
pump system. This energy factor considers the performance of the motor
and the energy savings that come from running the motor at a lower
speed. For this analysis, all pump performance curves were kept
consistent with Tables 5.8.1, 5.8.2, 5.8.3 and 5.8.4 of the January
2017 Direct Final Rule TSD. For more information on how these curves
were developed, see Section 5.8.2 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule
TSD.
DOE seeks comment on the efficiency levels, including the
associated full load efficiencies and design requirements evaluated in
the engineering analysis.
2. Cost Analysis
The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost
approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated
product, the availability and timeliness of purchasing DPPPMs on the
market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a
product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available
from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example)
to develop the bill of materials for the product.
<bullet> Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as
fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which
parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise
impractical (e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price
surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online
retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and
other commercial channels.
In the present case, DOE conducted the cost analysis using
historical price surveys and product teardowns. DOE used feedback from
manufacturers presented in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule to
determine the cost of DPPP motors. Specifically, Table 5.7.1 of the
January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD presents the manufacturer production
cost (``MPC'') of DPPPMs used in the analysis. However, DOE notes this
cost data was in terms of 2015$. For this evaluation, DOE updated the
cost data to be representative of the market in 2020. DOE adjusted the
2015$ costs to 2020$ using the historical Bureau of Labor Statistics
Producer Price Index (``PPI'')

[[Page 37140]]

for each product's industry.\38\ Finally, DOE also conducted physical
teardowns to determine updated DPPP motor controller costs for
variable-speed motors. DOE did not consider any added costs for the
freeze protection design requirements, as these requirements do not
require any additional labor, material, or technology to produce a DPPP
motor meeting these requirements, and a manufacturer is able to just
disable the controls to meet the requirement. Further, the January 2017
Direct Final Rule, which also adopted freeze protection controls as a
prescriptive standards per the ASRAC DPPP Working Group, did not
consider any added costs. 82 FR 5650, 5737.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ Series IDs: Integral motors (<=1 hp): WPU117304, Fractional
motors (<1 hp): WPU117303, Environmental Controls: WPU1181;
<a href="http://www.bls.gov/ppi/">www.bls.gov/ppi/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Table IV.4--MSPs in 2020$ for DPPPMs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep.
EC unit THP DPPP application EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............ 4 0.22 Non Self-priming $25 $31 $51 ....... ....... ....... .......
Filter Pump,
Extra-Small
(0.09 hhp).
2............ 1 0.75 Self-priming 57 71 90 $93 $104 $115 $357
Filter Pump,
Small-size
(0.44 hhp).
2............ 5 1 Non Self-priming 52 57 77 79 94 111 357
Filter Pump,
Small-size
(0.52 hhp).
2............ 7 1.125 Pressure Cleaner 60 78 98 ....... ....... ....... 357
Booster Pump.
3............ 6 1.5 Non Self-priming 68 90 108 109 128 149 357
Filter Pump
(0.87 hhp).
3............ 2 1.65 Self-priming 75 96 115 116 135 155 357
Filter Pump,
Standard-size
(0.95 hhp).
3............ 2A 1.65 Self-priming 75 96 115 116 135 155 357
Filter Pump,
Small-size
(0.65 hhp).
3............ 3 3.45 Self-priming 161 201 224 256 271 287 480
Filter Pump,
Standard-size
(1.88 hhp).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE seeks comment on using a 1.37 manufacturer markup for the cost
analysis.
DOE seeks comment on the cost methodology and associated costs for
each of efficiency levels evaluated in the engineering analysis,
including any associated costs for the proposed freeze protection
controls requirement.

D. Markups Analysis

The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g., retailer
markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution
chain and sales taxes to convert the MSP estimates derived in the
engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC
and PBP analysis and in the manufacturer impact analysis. At each step
in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product
to cover business costs and profit margin.
DOE identified distribution channels for DPPP motors incorporated
in pumps (See Table IV.5) and replacement DPPP motors sold alone (See
Table IV.6). To characterize these channels, DOE referred to
information collected in support of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule,
which reflects the consensus of the ASRAC DPPP Working Group.

Table IV.5--Distribution Channels for DPPP Motors Incorporated in Pumps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fraction of
Distribution channel shipments (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement for an Existing Pool
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DPPP Motor Manufacturer ><h-dar/uar><u-arrow><h-dar/ 75
uar><h-dar/uar>< DPPP Manufacturer ><h-dar/uar><u-
arrow><h-dar/uar><h-dar/uar>< Wholesaler ><h-dar/uar><u-
arrow><h-dar/uar><h-dar/uar>< Pool Service Contractor
><h-dar/uar><u-arrow><h-dar/uar><h-dar/uar>< Consumer..
DPPP Motor Manufacturer ><h-dar/uar><u-arrow><h-dar/ 20
uar><h-dar/uar>< DPPP Manufacturer ><h-dar/uar><u-
arrow><h-dar/uar><h-dar/uar>< Pool Product Retailer ><h-
dar/uar><u-arrow><h-dar/uar><h-dar/uar>< Consumer......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Installation for a New Pool
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DPPP Motor Manufacturer ><h-dar/uar><u-arrow><h-dar/ 5
uar><h-dar/uar>< DPPP Manufacturer ><h-dar/uar><u-
arrow><h-dar/uar><h-dar/uar>< Pool Builder ><h-dar/
uar><u-arrow><h-dar/uar><h-dar/uar>< Consumer..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table IV.6--Distribution Channels for Replacement DPPP Motors Sold Alone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fraction of
Distribution channel shipments %
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DPPP Motor Manufacturer ><h-dar/uar><u-arrow><h-dar/ 25
uar><h-dar/uar>< Wholesaler ><h-dar/uar><u-arrow><h-dar/
uar><h-dar/uar>< Contractor ><h-dar/uar><u-arrow><h-dar/
uar><h-dar/uar>< End-User..............................
DPPP Motor Manufacturer ><h-dar/uar><u-arrow><h-dar/ 25
uar><h-dar/uar>< Wholesaler ><h-dar/uar><u-arrow><h-dar/
uar><h-dar/uar>< Retailer ><h-dar/uar><u-arrow><h-dar/
uar><h-dar/uar>< End-User..............................
DPPP Motor Manufacturer ><h-dar/uar><u-arrow><h-dar/ 50
uar><h-dar/uar>< Pool Pump Retailer ><h-dar/uar><u-
arrow><h-dar/uar><h-dar/uar>< End-User.................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 37141]]

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.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ Because the projected price of standards-compliant products
is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the
same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would
result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an outcome is
possible, DOE maintains that in markets that are reasonably
competitive it is unlikely that standards would lead to a
sustainable increase in profitability in the long run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To estimate average baseline and incremental markups DOE relied on
several sources including: (1) for pool wholesalers, SEC form 10-K from
Pool Corp; \40\ (2) for pool product retailers, SEC form 10-K from
several major home improvement centers \41\ and U.S. Census Bureau 2017
Annual Retail Trade Survey for the miscellaneous store retailers sector
(NAICS 453),\42\ (3) for pool contractors and pool builders, U.S.
Census Bureau 2017 Economic Census data for the plumbing, heating and
air-conditioning contractor sector (NAICS 238220) and all other
specialty trade contractors sector (NAICS 238990),\43\ (4) for motor
wholesalers, U.S. Census Bureau 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade Survey for
the household appliances and electrical and electronic goods merchant
wholesaler sector (NAICS 4536),\44\ (5) for electrical contractor, 2020
RSMeans Electrical Cost Data,\45\ (6) for motor retailers, U.S. Census
Bureau 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey for the building material and
garden equipment and supplies dealers (NAICS 444), and (7) for pool
pump retailers, U.S. Census Bureau 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey for
the miscellaneous store retailers sector (NAICS 453).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. SEC 10-K Reports
for Pool Corp (2010-2017). Available at <a href="http://www.sec.gov/">www.sec.gov/</a> (Last accessed
July 26, 2021.)
\41\ U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. SEC 10-K Reports
for Home Depot, Lowe's, Wal-Mart and Costco. Available at
<a href="http://www.sec.gov/">www.sec.gov/</a> (Last accessed July 26, 2021.)
\42\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey,
available at <a href="http://www.census.gov/retail/index.html">www.census.gov/retail/index.html</a> (last accessed July
26, 2021).
\43\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census Data, available at
<a href="http://www.census.gov/econ/">www.census.gov/econ/</a> (last accessed July 26, 2021).
\44\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade Survey,
available at <a href="http://www.census.gov/awts">www.census.gov/awts</a> (last accessed July 26, 2021).
\45\ RSMeans Electrical Cost Data, available at <a href="http://www.rsmeans.com">www.rsmeans.com</a>
(last accessed July 26, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to the markups, DOE obtained state and local taxes from
data provided by the Sales Tax Clearinghouse.\46\ These data represent
weighted average taxes that include county and city rates. DOE derived
shipment-weighted average tax values for each region considered in the
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ Sales Tax Clearinghouse Inc., State Sales Tax Rates Along
with Combined Average City and County Rates (2021), available at
<a href="https://thestc.com/STrates.stm">https://thestc.com/STrates.stm</a> (last accessed Feb. 14, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE's development of
markups for DPPP motors.
DOE seeks comment on the distribution channels identified for DPPP
motors and fraction of sales that go through each of these channels.

E. Energy Use Analysis

The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual
energy consumption of DPPP motors at different efficiency levels in
representative U.S. single-family homes, multi-family residences, and
commercial buildings, and to assess the energy savings potential
associated to each DPPP motor efficiency level. The energy use analysis
estimates the range of energy use of DPPP motors in the field (i.e., as
they are actually used by consumers). The energy use analysis provides
the basis for other analyses DOE performed, particularly assessments of
the potential energy savings and the savings in consumer operating
costs that could result from adoption of new standards.
1. DPPP Motor Applications
The annual energy consumption of a pool pump motor is expressed in
terms of electricity consumption and depends on the DPPP motor
efficiency level, pool pumping requirement, on the performance of the
DPPP incorporating the motor, and on the DPPP annual operating hours.
This electricity consumption is identical to the annual electricity
consumption of the DPPP incorporating the motor. The pool pump motor
energy consumption value is the sum of the energy consumption values in
each mode of operation. Each mode of operation corresponds to a motor
speed setting. Single-speed motors only have one mode of operation,
while dual and variable-speed pool pump motors operate at a low- and
high-speed mode. The unit energy consumption values in each mode are
calculated based on the DPPP usage, which is calculated based on the
pool pump system curve that the DPPP is operating on, the pump flow
rate of the mode, the pump energy factor of the mode (which in turn
determine the motor input power) \47\ and the annual run time of the
pool pump spent in that mode. DOE calculated the pool pump annual run
time based on the application (residential or commercial), the assumed
pool size, the assumed number of turns per day, and the sample
application's geographic location, which implies the corresponding pool
seasons. A typical DPPP application, characterized by the DPPP
equipment class and hydraulic horsepower (hhp), was associated to each
representative unit in equipment classes 1, 2, and 3 based on inputs
from the engineering analysis (See Table IV.2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\47\ The motor input power is equal to the DPPP flow (gallon per
minute) divided by the DPPP Energy Factor (gallon per Wh) and
multiplied by 60 (number of minutes in an hour).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. DPPP Motor Consumer Sample
DOE created individual consumer samples for five DPPP motor
markets: (1) single-family homes with a swimming pool; (2) indoor
swimming pools in commercial applications; (3) single-family community
swimming pools; (4) multi-family community swimming pools; and (5)
outdoor swimming pools in commercial applications. DOE used the samples
to determine DPPP motor annual energy consumption as well as for
conducting the LCC and PBP analyses.
DOE used the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) 2015
Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS 2015) to establish a sample
of single-family homes that have a swimming pool.48 49 For
DPPPs used in indoor swimming pools in commercial applications, DOE
developed a sample using the 2012 Commercial Building Energy
Consumption Survey (CBECS 2012).\50\ RECS and CBECS include information
such as the household or building owner demographics and the location
of the household or building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\48\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration. 2009 RECS Survey Data. (Last accessed July 27,
2016.) <a href="http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/">www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/</a>.
\49\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration. 2015 RECS Survey Data. (Last accessed September 11,
2018.) <a href="http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/">www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/</a>.
\50\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration. 2012 CBECS Survey Data. (Last accessed: July 27,
2016.) <a href="http://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/index.cfm?view=microdata">www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/index.cfm?view=microdata</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neither RECS nor CBECS provide data on community pools or outdoor
swimming pools in commercial applications, so DOE created samples based
on other available data. To develop samples for DPPPs in single or
multi-family communities, DOE used a combination of RECS 2009,\51\ U.S.
Census 2009 American Home Survey

[[Page 37142]]

Data (2009 AHS),\52\ and 2015 PK Data report.\53\ To develop a sample
for pool pumps in outdoor commercial swimming pools, DOE used a
combination of CBECS 2012 and 2015 PK Data report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\51\ The earlier version of RECS was used for consistency with
the year of the AHS survey available with pool ownership
information.
\52\ U.S. Census Bureau. 2009 AHS survey data (Last accessed:
September 13, 2021.) www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/2009/
ahs-2009-public-use-file_puf-/2009-ahs-national-puf-microdata.html.
\53\ PK Data. 2015 Swimming Pool and Pool Heater Customized
Report for LBNL. (Last accessed: April 30, 2016.) <a href="http://www.pkdata.com/annual-reports.html/">www.pkdata.com/annual-reports.html/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Table IV.7--Fraction of DPPP Motor Application by Market
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fraction of
DPPP
Description motor stock
(%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Single Family Swimming Pools................... 95.1
Community Pools (Single Family)............................ 0.8
Community Pools (Multi Family)............................. 0.4
Commercial Indoor Pools.................................... 0.3
Commercial Outdoor Swimming Pools.......................... 3.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DPPPs can be installed with either above-ground or in-ground
swimming pools. DOE established separate sets of consumer samples for
in-ground pools and above-ground pools by adjusting the original sample
weights using data on the number of installed in-ground and above-
ground pools gathered during the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, which
relied on 2014 data per state provided by APSP.\54\ The consumer
samples for DPPP motors used in self-priming and pressure cleaner
booster pumps are drawn from the in-ground pool samples; the consumer
samples for motors used with non-self-priming pool pumps are obtained
from the above-ground pool samples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\54\ For more details see chapter 7 of the dedicated-purpose
pool pumps January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105">www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

See chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD for more details about the creation
of the consumer samples and the regional breakdowns.
DOE seeks comment on the overall methodology to develop consumer
samples and on the fraction of DPPP motor existing stock across the
five following markets: (1) single-family homes with a swimming pool;
(2) indoor swimming pools in commercial applications; (3) single-family
community swimming pools; (4) multi-family community swimming pools;
and (5) outdoor swimming pools in commercial applications.
3. Self-Priming and Non-Self-Priming Pool Pump Motor Input Power
The input power of DPPP motors used in self-priming and non-self-
priming pump applications was calculated based on the flow rates
(gallons per minute) and typical Energy Factor (gallons per watt hour)
associated to each representative unit.\55\ At efficiency levels
corresponding to single-speed and dual-speed motors, the flow and
Energy Factor values were based on input from the engineering analysis
(see section IV.C) and provided for each system curve (A, B or C).\56\
For each user of self-priming and non-self-priming pool pump in the
consumer sample, DOE then specified the system curve used (A, B or C)
by drawing from a probability distribution in which 35 percent of the
pool pumps follow curve A, 10 percent of the pool pumps follow curve B,
and the remaining 55 percent follow curve C. The probability
distribution was based on inputs from the ASRAC DPPP Working Group
gathered during the January 2017 Direct Final Rule.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\55\ The motor input power is equal to the flow (gallon per
minute) divided by the Energy Factor (gallon per Wh) and multiplied
by 60 (number of minutes in an hour).
\56\ When a pump is tested on a system curve (such as curve C),
any one of the measurements hydraulic power, P (hp), volumetric
flow, Q (gpm) and total dynamic head, H (feet of water) can be used
to calculate the other two measurements.
\57\ For more details see chapter 7 of the dedicated-purpose
pool pumps January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105">www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

At efficiency levels corresponding to variable-speed motors, the
engineering analysis only provided flow and Energy Factor values for
the high-speed mode on each system curve. For the low-speed mode, DOE
used data on pool volume and desired time per turnover from the January
2017 Direct Final Rule technical support document to calculate a
consumer-specific low-speed flow.\58\ These relied on inputs from
stakeholders and several other references.59 60 61 DOE then
used the equation provided by the engineering analysis to calculate the
Energy Factor as a function of Q for each representative unit on each
system curve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\58\ Flow (in gallon per minute) is equal to the pool volume
(gallon) divided by the desired time per turnover (in minutes).
\59\ CEE Residential Swimming Pool Initiative, December 2021.
\60\ California Energy Commission Pool Heater CASE. (Last
Accessed: July 28, 2016) <a href="https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=71754&DocumentContentId=8285">https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=71754&DocumentContentId=8285</a>.
\61\ Evaluation of potential best management practices--Pools,
Spas, and Fountains 2010. (Last Accessed: July 28, 2016) <a href="https://calwep.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Pools-Spas-and-Fountains-PBMP-2010.pdf">https://calwep.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Pools-Spas-and-Fountains-PBMP-2010.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Pressure Cleaner Booster Pumps Motor Input Power
The input power of DPPP motors used in pressure cleaner booster
pumps was calculated using the relationship between input power and
flow and the system curve provided by the engineering analysis (see
section IV.C). To characterize operating flow for each consumer in the
sample, DOE drew a value from a statistical distribution of flow
established during the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. This
distribution was developed around the test procedure test point of 10
gpm of flow rate, as recommended by the ASRAC DPPP Working Group.
(Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0092 p. 311) For single-speed pressure
cleaner booster pumps, DOE then calculated the input power using the
power curve from the engineering analysis. For variable-speed motors
used in pressure cleaner booster pumps, DOE also calculated the pool
pump motor input power in a low-speed setting. Based on information
from the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE used a value of 10 gpm to
characterize the low-speed flow and calculate the hydraulic horsepower
using the system curve.\62\ Then, DOE calculated the input power using
the relationship between input power and flow as provided by the
engineering analysis (see section IV.C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\62\ For more details see chapter 7 of the dedicated-purpose
pool pumps January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105">www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Daily Operating Hours
DOE relied on information gathered during the January 2017 Direct
Final Rule to develop estimates of pool pump daily operating hours. For
self-priming and non-self-priming pool filter pumps in residential
applications, operating hours are calculated uniquely for each consumer
based on pool size, number of turnovers per day (itself based on
ambient conditions), and the pump flow rate. In commercial
applications, DOE assumed these pumps operate 24 hours per day. For
pressure cleaner booster pumps, operating hours are drawn from a
distribution which were based on the January 2017 Direct Final
Rule.\63\ Table IV.8 summarizes the resulting daily

[[Page 37143]]

operating hours during the pool operating season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\63\ For more details see chapter 7 of the dedicated-purpose
pool pumps direct final rule TSD, at /<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105">www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105</a>.

Table IV.8--Weighted-Average Daily Operating Hours by Representative Unit and Pool Pump Application
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Commercial
weighted weighted
Equipment class Representative THP Pool pump application * average daily average daily
unit operating operating
hours ** hours **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................... 4 0.22 Non Self-priming Filter 3.3 ..............
Pump, Extra-Small (0.09
hhp).
2......................... 1 0.75 Self-priming Filter Pump, 9.6 ..............
Small-size (0.44 hhp).
2......................... 5 1 Non Self-priming Filter 8.2 ..............
Pump, Small-size (0.52
hhp).
2......................... 7 1.125 Pressure Cleaner Booster 2.5 2.5
Pump.
3......................... 6 1.5 Non Self-priming Filter 8.2 ..............
Pump (0.87 hhp).
3......................... 2 1.65 Self-priming Filter Pump, 15.3 ..............
Standard-size (0.95 hhp).
3......................... 2A 1.65 Self-priming Filter Pump, 9.6 ..............
Small-size (0.65 hhp).
3......................... 3 3.45 Self-priming Filter Pump, 14.6 22.7
Standard-size (1.88 hhp).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For self-priming pumps, the terms small and standard refer to the hydraulic horsepower. Small-size designates
pool pump applications with hydraulic horsepower less than 0.711 hhp, while standard-size designates pool pump
applications with hydraulic horsepower greater than or equal to 0.711 hhp.
** During the pool operating season.

6. Annual Days of Operation
DOE calculated the annual unit energy consumption (UEC) by
multiplying the daily operating hours by the annual days of operation,
which depends on the number of months of pool operation. For each
consumer sample, DOE assigned different annual days of operation
depending on the region in which the DPPP is installed. Table IV.9
provides the assumptions of pool pump operating season based on
geographical locations. This assignment was based on information
collected during the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. It is based on
several sources: DOE's Energy Saver website assumptions \64\ and PK
Data \65\ that include average pool season length (i.e., operating
months) by state, along with discussion of the geographic distribution
of pool operating days by the ASRAC DPPP Working Group. The ASRAC DPPP
Working Group suggested that although some of the regions had warm
weather, the pool pumps should still be operating all year long. (See
Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0094 pp. 191-193)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\64\ DOE Energy Saver. (Last Accessed: April 26, 2016) <a href="https://energy.gov/energysaver/articles/heat-pump-swimming-pool-heaters">https://energy.gov/energysaver/articles/heat-pump-swimming-pool-heaters</a>.
\65\ PK Data. 2015 Swimming Pool and Pool Heater Customized
Report for LBNL. (Last accessed: April 16, 2016) <a href="http://www.pkdata.com/annual-reports.html/">www.pkdata.com/annual-reports.html/</a>.

Table IV.9--Pool Pump Operating Season by Geographical Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg. months Pool use
Location (states or census divisions) of pool use months
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CT, ME, NH, RI, VT...................... 4 5/1-8/31
MA...................................... 4 5/1-8/31
NY...................................... 4 5/1-8/31
NJ...................................... 4 5/1-8/31
PA...................................... 4 5/1-8/31
IL...................................... 4 5/1-8/31
IN, OH.................................. 4 5/1-8/31
MI...................................... 4 5/1-8/31
WI...................................... 4 6/1-9/30
IA, MN, ND, SD.......................... 4 6/1-9/30
KS, NE.................................. 4 6/1-9/30
MO...................................... 4 6/1-9/30
VA...................................... 7 4/1-10/31
DE, DC, MD.............................. 5 5/1-9/30
GA...................................... 7 4/1-10/31
NC, SC.................................. 7 4/1-10/31
FL...................................... 12 1/1-12/31
AL, KY, MS.............................. 12 1/1-12/31
TN...................................... 12 1/1-12/31
AR, LA, OK.............................. 12 1/1-12/31
TX...................................... 12 1/1-12/31
CO...................................... 4 5/1-8/31
ID, MT, UT, WY.......................... 4 5/1-8/31
AZ...................................... 12 1/1-12/31
NV, NM.................................. 12 1/1-12/31
CA...................................... 12 1/1-12/31
OR, WA.................................. 3 6/1-8/31
AK...................................... 5 5/1-9/30
HI...................................... 12 1/1-12/31
WV...................................... 5 5/1-9/30

[[Page 37144]]

New England............................. 4 5/1-8/31
Middle Atlantic......................... 5 5/1-9/30
East North Central...................... 5 5/1-9/30
West North Central...................... 4 6/1-9/30
South Atlantic.......................... 12 1/1-12/31
East South Central...................... 12 1/1-12/31
West South Central...................... 12 1/1-12/31
Mountain................................ 4 5/1-8/31
Pacific................................. 12 1/1-12/31
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE's energy use
analysis for DPPP motors.
DOE seeks comment on the overall methodology and inputs used to
estimate DPPP motor energy use. Specifically, DOE seeks feedback on the
average daily operating hours and annual days of operation used in the
energy use analysis.

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts
on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for
DPPP motors. The effect of new energy conservation standards on
individual consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and
an increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following two metrics to
measure consumer impacts:
<bullet> The LCC is the total consumer expense of an equipment over
the life of that equipment, consisting of total installed cost
(manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales tax, and
installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy use,
maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts
future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the
lifetime of the product.
<bullet> The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it
takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient equipment through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for
the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.
For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC
relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the
estimated efficiency distribution of DPPP motors in the absence of new
or amended energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for a
given efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline product.
For each considered efficiency level in each equipment class, DOE
calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of
consumers. As stated previously, DOE considered five DPPP motor
markets: (1) single-family homes with a swimming pool; (2) indoor
swimming pools in commercial applications; (3) single-family community
swimming pools; (4) multi-family community swimming pools; and (5)
outdoor swimming pools in commercial applications. As described in
section IV.E.2, DOE developed consumer samples from various data
sources including 2009 RECS, 2009 AHS, 2015 RECS and 2012 CBECS. For
each consumer in the sample, DOE determined the energy consumption for
the DPPP motor and the appropriate energy price. By developing a
representative sample of consumers, the analysis captured the
variability in energy consumption and energy prices associated with the
use of DPPP motors.
Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost
of the product--which includes MSPs, retailer and distributor markups,
and sales taxes--and installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of
operating expenses include annual energy consumption, energy prices and
price projections, repair and maintenance costs, product lifetimes, and
discount rates. DOE created distributions of values for equipment
lifetime, discount rates, and sales taxes, with probabilities attached
to each value, to account for their uncertainty and variability.
The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC and PBP relies on
a Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability
into the analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input
values from the probability distributions and DPPP motor user samples.
For this rulemaking, the Monte Carlo approach is implemented in MS
Excel together with the Crystal Ball\TM\ add-on.\66\ The model
calculated the LCC and PBP for equipment at each efficiency level for
10,000 consumers per simulation run. The analytical results include a
distribution of 10,000 data points showing the range of LCC savings for
a given efficiency level relative to the no-new-standards case
efficiency distribution. In performing an iteration of the Monte Carlo
simulation for a given consumer, equipment efficiency is chosen based
on its probability. If the chosen equipment efficiency is greater than
or equal to the efficiency of the standard level under consideration,
the LCC and PBP calculation reveals that a consumer is not impacted by
the standard level. By accounting for consumers who already purchase
more-efficient equipment, DOE avoids overstating the potential benefits
from increasing equipment efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\66\ Crystal Ball\TM\ is commercially-available software tool to
facilitate the creation of these types of models by generating
probability distributions and summarizing results within Excel,
available at <a href="http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/crystalball/overview/index.html">www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/crystalball/overview/index.html</a> (last accessed July 6, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all consumers of DPPP motors as
if each were to purchase a new equipment in the expected first full
year of required compliance with new standards. New standards would
apply to DPPP motor manufactured 2 years after the date on which any
new or amended standard is published.\67\ At this time, DOE estimates
publication of a final rule in the second half of 2023. Therefore, for
purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2026 as the first full year of
compliance with any amended standards for DPPP motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\67\ In the Electric Motors Final Rule, DOE was informed by the
statutorily mandated rulemaking schedule (see 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)) in
providing a two-year lead time between the finalized rule and
required compliance. 79 FR 30934, 30944 (May 29, 2014). For the
purposes of this analysis, DOE is following the same 2-year lead
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 37145]]

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

Table IV.10--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Source/method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment Cost.......................................... Derived by multiplying MSPs by distribution channel
markups and sales tax, as appropriate. Used
historical data to derive a price index to project
equipment costs.
Installation Costs...................................... Baseline installation cost determined using data from
manufacturer gathered during the January 2017 Direct
Final Rule.
Annual Energy Use....................................... The daily energy consumption multiplied by the number
of operating days per year.
Variability: Based on the 2009 RECS, 2009 AHS, 2015
RECS and 2012 CBECS and other data sources.
Energy Prices........................................... Electricity: Based on EEI data for 2020.
Variability: Regional energy prices determined for 9
census divisions for pool pump motors in individual
single-family homes and 9 census divisions for pool
pump motors in community and commercial pool pump
motors.
Average and marginal prices used for electricity.
Energy Price Trends..................................... Based on AEO2021 price projections.
Repair and Maintenance Costs............................ Assumed no repair or maintenance on pool pump motors.
Equipment Lifetime...................................... Average: 3.6 to 5 years depending on the DPPP
applications.
Variability: Based on Weibull distribution.
Discount Rates.......................................... Residential: approach involves identifying all
possible debt or asset classes that might be used to
purchase the considered appliances, or might be
affected indirectly. Primary data source was the
Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances.
Commercial: Calculated as the weighted average cost of
capital for entities purchasing pool pumps. Primary
data source was Damodaran Online.
Compliance Date......................................... 2026 (first full year).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in
chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.

1. Equipment Cost
To calculate consumer equipment costs, DOE multiplied the MSPs
developed in the engineering analysis by the distribution channel
markups described previously (along with sales taxes). DOE used
different markups for baseline equipment and higher-efficiency
equipment, because DOE applies an incremental markup to the increase in
MSP associated with higher-efficiency equipment.
To project an equipment price trend, DOE derived an inflation-
adjusted index of the Producer Price Index (PPI) for integral and
fractional horsepower motors and generators manufacturing over the
period 1967-2020.\68\ For fractional horsepower motors, the data shows
a slightly downward trend before early 2000s, and then the price index
increases to a small degree. For integral horsepower motors, the trend
is mostly flat before early 2000s, and then the price index increases
slightly. The trend is found to align with the copper and steel
deflated price indices to some extent, as they are the major material
used in small electric motors. Given the degree of uncertainty, DOE
decided to use a constant price assumption as the default price factor
index to project future DPPP motor prices. For dual-speed DPPP motors,
however, DOE assumed that the timer control portion of the installation
cost would be affected by price learning. DOE used PPI data on
``Automatic environmental control manufacturing'' between 1980 and 2020
to estimate the historic price trend of the electronic components in
the timer control.\69\ The regression performed as an exponential trend
line fit results in an R-square of 0.86, with an annual price decline
rate of 0.4 percent. For variable-speed DPPP motors, DOE assumed that
the controls portion of the DPPP motor would be affected by price
learning. Similarly, DOE used PPI data on ``Semiconductors and related
device manufacturing'' between 1967 and 2020 to estimate the historic
price trend of electronic components in the control.\70\ The regression
performed as an exponential trend line fit results in an R-square of
0.99, with an annual price decline rate of 6 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\68\ Series ID PCU 3353123353121; <a href="http://www.bls.gov/ppi/">www.bls.gov/ppi/</a>.
\69\ Automatic environmental control manufacturing PPI series
ID: PCU334512334512; <a href="http://www.bls.gov/ppi/">www.bls.gov/ppi/</a>.
\70\ Semiconductors and related device manufacturing PPI series
ID: PCU334413334413; <a href="http://www.bls.gov/ppi/">www.bls.gov/ppi/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE seeks comment on the approach and inputs used to project an
equipment price trend for DPPP motors.
2. Installation Cost
Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous
materials and parts needed to install the equipment. During the January
2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE simplified the calculation and only
accounted for the difference of installation cost by efficiency levels.
For two-speed pumps, DOE included the cost of a timer control and its
installation where applicable, as recommended by the ASRAC DPPP Working
Group. During the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE used information
obtained in the manufacturer interviews to calculate the supplemental
installation labor costs for two-speed and variable-speed pumps.\71\
DOE retained the same estimates for this NOPR as applied to two-speed
and variable speed DPPP motors.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\71\ For more details see chapter 8 of the dedicated-purpose
pool pumps direct final rule TSD, at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105">www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105</a>.
\72\ Adjusted to $2020 and compliance year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE seeks comment on installation costs estimates used in the LCC
analysis.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
For each sampled installation, DOE determined the energy
consumption for a DPPP motor at different efficiency levels using the
approach described in section IV.E of this document.
4. Energy Prices
Because marginal electricity price more accurately captures the
incremental savings associated with a change in energy use from higher
efficiency, it provides a better representation of incremental change
in consumer costs than average electricity prices. Therefore, DOE
applied average electricity prices for the energy use of the DPPP motor
purchased in the no-new-standards case, and marginal electricity prices
for the incremental

[[Page 37146]]

change in energy use associated with the other efficiency levels
considered.
DOE derived electricity prices in 2020 using data from EEI Typical
Bills and Average Rates reports. Based upon comprehensive, industry-
wide surveys, this semi-annual report presents typical monthly electric
bills and average kilowatt-hour costs to the customer as charged by
investor-owned utilities. For the residential sector, DOE calculated
electricity prices using the methodology described in Coughlin and
Beraki (2018).\73\ For the commercial sector, DOE calculated
electricity prices using the methodology described in Coughlin and
Beraki (2019).\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\73\ Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2018. Residential Electricity
Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods. Lawrence
Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-2001169.
<a href="https://ees.lbl.gov/publications/residential-electricity-prices-review">https://ees.lbl.gov/publications/residential-electricity-prices-review</a>.
\74\ Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2019. Non-residential
Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods.
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-
2001203. <a href="https://ees.lbl.gov/publications/non-residential-electricity-prices">https://ees.lbl.gov/publications/non-residential-electricity-prices</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE's methodology allows electricity prices to vary by sector,
region and season. In the analysis, variability in electricity prices
is chosen to be consistent with the way the consumer economic and
energy use characteristics are defined in the LCC analysis. For DPPP
motors, regional weighted-average values for both average and marginal
prices were calculated for the nine census divisions. Each EEI utility
in a region was assigned a weight based on the number of consumers it
serves. Consumer counts were taken from the most recent EIA's Form EAI-
861 data (2020).
To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the 2020
average regional energy prices by a projection of annual change in
national-average residential and commercial energy price in AEO 2021,
which has an end year of 2050.\75\ To estimate price trends after 2050,
DOE used the average annual rate of change in prices from 2040 through
2050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\75\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2021 with Projections to 2050.
Washington, DC. Available at <a href="http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/">www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for details.
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing components
that have failed in an equipment; maintenance costs are associated with
maintaining the operation of the equipment. Typically, small
incremental increases in equipment efficiency produce no, or only
minor, changes in repair and maintenance costs compared to baseline
efficiency equipment. DOE assumed that for maintenance costs, there is
no change with efficiency level, and therefore DOE did not include
those costs in the model. In addition, DPPP motors are not repaired and
DOE assumed no repair costs.
DOE seeks comment on its decision to not include DPPP motor repair
and maintenance costs in the LCC analysis.
6. Equipment Lifetime
For DPPP motors used in residential applications, DOE calculated
lifetime estimates using DPPP lifetime data and rates of repair from
the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, which estimated that motor
replacement occurs at the halfway point in a pump's lifetime, but only
for those DPPPs whose lifetime exceeds the average lifetime for the
relevant equipment class.\76\ The data allowed DOE to develop a
survival function, which provides a distribution of lifetime ranging
from a minimum of 1 year based on warranty covered period, to a maximum
of 10 years, with a mean value of 5 years for self-priming pumps, to a
maximum of 8 years, with a mean value of 3.6 years for non-self-priming
and pressure cleaner booster pumps. These values are applicable to DPPP
motors in residential applications. For commercial applications, DOE
adjusted the lifetimes to account for the higher operating hours
compared to residential applications, resulting in a reduced average
lifetime of 3.2 years for self-priming pumps and 3.5 years for pressure
cleaner booster pumps. The resulting shipments-weighted average
lifetime across all DPPP motor equipment classes is 4.5 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\76\ For DPPPs that do not include a repair, the DPPP motor
lifetime is equal to the DPPP lifetime. For DPPPs that are repaired,
the DPPP motor lifetime is equal to half of the DPPP lifetime. See
chapter 8 of the dedicated-purpose pool pumps January 2017 Direct
Final Rule TSD, at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105">www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE seeks comment on the approach and inputs used to develop DPPP
motor lifetime estimates.
7. Discount Rates
In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate
to consumers to estimate the present value of future operating cost
savings. DOE estimated a distribution of discount rates for DPPP motors
based on the opportunity cost of consumer funds.
DOE applies weighted average discount rates calculated from
consumer debt and asset data, rather than marginal or implicit discount
rates.\77\ The LCC analysis 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
analysis, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\77\ The implicit discount rate is inferred from a consumer
purchase deci

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on June 21, 2022.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.