Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-10019

Rule2023-10019

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Electric 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 1, 2023

Effective

September 29, 2023

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

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

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 105 (Thursday, June 1, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 105 (Thursday, June 1, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36066-36152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10019]

[[Page 36065]]

Vol. 88

Thursday,

No. 105

June 1, 2023

Part III

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Part 431

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Electric
Motor; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2023 / Rules
and Regulations

[[Page 36066]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007]
RIN 1904-AE63

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Electric Motors

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

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

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

DATES: The effective date of this rule is September 29, 2023, unless
adverse comment is received by September 19, 2023. If adverse comments
are received that DOE determines may provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawal of the direct final rule, a timely withdrawal of this rule
will be published in the Federal Register. If no such adverse comments
are received, compliance with the new and amended standards established
for electric motors in this direct final rule is required on and after
June 1, 2027.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for
review at <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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007</a>. The docket web page contains instructions on how to
access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#98d9e8e8f4f1f9f6fbfdcbecf9f6fcf9eafcebc9edfdebecf1f7f6ebd8fdfdb6fcf7fdb6fff7ee">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0b4a7b7b67626a65686e587f6a656f6a796f785a7e6e787f626465784b6e6e256f646e256c647d">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Mr. Matthew Ring, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-2555; Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#066b6772726e637128746f6861466e772862696328616970">[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#460736362a2f2728252315322728222734223517332335322f2928350623236822292368212930">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Direct Final Rule
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits and Costs
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Electric Motors
3. Electric Motors Working Group Recommended Standard Levels
III. General Discussion
A. General Comments
B. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes
C. Test Procedure
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
E. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
F. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC
and PBP)
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Scope of Coverage
a. Motor Used as a Component of a Covered Product or Equipment
b. Air-Over Electric Motors
c. AC Induction Electric Motors Greater Than 500 Horsepower
d. AC Induction Inverter-Only and Synchronous Electric Motors
e. Submersible Electric Motors
2. Test Procedure and Metric
3. Equipment Classes
4. Technology Options
B. Screening Analysis
1. Screened-Out Technologies
2. Remaining Technologies
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
a. Representative Units Analyzed
b. Baseline Efficiency
c. Higher Efficiency Levels
2. Cost Analysis
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
4. Scaling Methodology
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
1. Consumer Sample
2. Motor Input Power
3. Annual Operating Hours
4. Impact of Electric Motor Speed
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Equipment Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
6. Equipment Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
G. Shipments Analysis
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Equipment Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
b. Shipments Projections
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
d. Markup Scenarios
3. Manufacturer Interviews
K. Emissions Analysis
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a. Social Cost of Carbon
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
M. Utility Impact Analysis
N. Employment Impact Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions

[[Page 36067]]

A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
C. Conclusion
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Electric Motors
Standards
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Standards
D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Information Quality
M. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Direct Final Rule

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C \2\ of EPCA established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-
6317). Such equipment includes electric motors, the subject of this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was re-designated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))
Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after issuance of any
final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either
a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to
be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed
energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
In light of the above and under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing this direct final rule amending the energy
conservation standards for electric motors. The amended standard levels
in this document were submitted in a joint recommendation (the
``November 2022 Joint Recommendation'') \3\ by the American Council for
an Energy-Efficient Economy (``ACEEE''), Appliance Standards Awareness
Project (``ASAP''), National Electrical Manufacturers Association
(``NEMA''), Natural Resources Defense Council (``NRDC''), Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance (``NEEA''), Pacific Gas & Electric Company
(``PG&E''), San Diego Gas & Electric (``SDG&E''), and Southern
California Edison (``SCE'') hereinafter referred to as ``the Electric
Motors Working Group.'' In a letter comment submitted December 12,
2022, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
(``NYSERDA'') expressed its support of the November 2022 Joint
Recommendation and urged DOE to implement it in a timely manner. The
November 2022 Joint Recommendation was preceded by the following DOE
actions in this rulemaking and stakeholder comments thereon: May 2020
Early Assessment Review RFI (85 FR 30878 (May 21, 2020)); March 2022
Preliminary Analysis (87 FR 11650 (March 2, 2022)) and the Preliminary
Analysis TSD (``March 2022 Prelim TSD''). See sections II.B.2 and
II.B.3 for a detailed history of the current rulemaking and a
discussion of the November 2022 Joint Recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Joint comment response to the published Notification of a
webinar and availability of preliminary technical support document;
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0035">www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0035</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After carefully considering the November 2022 Joint Recommendation,
DOE determined that the recommendations contained therein are compliant
with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i) for
the issuance of a direct final rule. As required by 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(A)(i), DOE is simultaneously publishing a NOPR proposing
that the identical standard levels contained in this direct final rule
be adopted. Consistent with the statute, DOE is providing a 110-day
public comment period on the direct final rule. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(B)) If DOE determines that any comments received provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under 42
U.S.C. 6295(o), DOE will continue the rulemaking under the
simultaneously published NOPR. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) See section
II.A for more details on DOE's statutory authority.
This direct final rule documents DOE's analyses to objectively and
independently evaluate the energy savings potential, technological
feasibility, and economic justification of the standard levels
recommended in the November 2022 Joint Recommendation, as per the
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
Ultimately, DOE found that the standard levels recommended in the
November 2022 Joint Recommendation would result in significant energy
savings and are technologically feasible and economically justified.
Table I-1 through Table I-3 document the amended standards for electric
motors. The amended standards correspond to the recommended trial
standard level (``TSL'') 2 (as described in section V.A of this
document) and are expressed in terms of nominal full-load efficiency.
The amended standards are the same as those recommended by the Electric
Motors Working Group. These standards apply to all products listed in
through Table I-1 through Table I-3 and manufactured in, or imported
into, the United States starting on June 1, 2027.

[[Page 36068]]

Table I-1--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N, NE, NEY or NY Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors
and Air-Over Electric Motors) at 60 Hz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/ standard kilowatt equivalent 2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75........................................................... 77.0 77.0 85.5 85.5 82.5 82.5 75.5 75.5
1.5/1.1......................................................... 84.0 84.0 86.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 78.5 77.0
2/1.5........................................................... 85.5 85.5 86.5 86.5 88.5 87.5 84.0 86.5
3/2.2........................................................... 86.5 85.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 87.5
5/3.7........................................................... 88.5 86.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 86.5 88.5
7.5/5.5......................................................... 89.5 88.5 91.7 91.0 91.0 90.2 86.5 89.5
10/7.5.......................................................... 90.2 89.5 91.7 91.7 91.0 91.7 89.5 90.2
15/11........................................................... 91.0 90.2 92.4 93.0 91.7 91.7 89.5 90.2
20/15........................................................... 91.0 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 92.4 90.2 91.0
25/18.5......................................................... 91.7 91.7 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.0 90.2 91.0
30/22........................................................... 91.7 91.7 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.6 91.7 91.7
40/30........................................................... 92.4 92.4 94.1 94.1 94.1 94.1 91.7 91.7
50/37........................................................... 93.0 93.0 94.5 94.5 94.1 94.1 92.4 92.4
60/45........................................................... 93.6 93.6 95.0 95.0 94.5 94.5 92.4 93.0
75/55........................................................... 93.6 93.6 95.4 95.0 94.5 94.5 93.6 94.1
100/75.......................................................... 95.0 94.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.8 94.5 95.0
125/90.......................................................... 95.4 94.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.0 95.0
150/110......................................................... 95.4 94.5 96.2 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.0 95.0
200/150......................................................... 95.8 95.4 96.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.4 95.0
250/186......................................................... 96.2 95.4 96.5 96.2 96.2 96.2 95.4 95.4
300/224......................................................... 95.8 95.4 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 ......... .........
350/261......................................................... 95.8 95.4 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 ......... .........
400/298......................................................... 95.8 95.8 96.2 95.8 ......... ......... ......... .........
450/336......................................................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ......... ......... .........
500/373......................................................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ......... ......... .........
550/410......................................................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ......... ......... .........
600/447......................................................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ......... ......... .........
650/485......................................................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ......... ......... .........
700/522......................................................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ......... ......... .........
750/559......................................................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ......... ......... .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table I-2--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N, NE, NEY or NY
Standard Frame Size Air-Over Electric Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors) at 60 Hz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/ standard 2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
kilowatt equivalent -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75....................... 77.0 77.0 85.5 85.5 82.5 82.5 75.5 75.5
1.5/1.1..................... 84.0 84.0 86.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 78.5 77.0
2/1.5....................... 85.5 85.5 86.5 86.5 88.5 87.5 84.0 86.5
3/2.2....................... 86.5 85.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 87.5
5/3.7....................... 88.5 86.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 86.5 88.5
7.5/5.5..................... 89.5 88.5 91.7 91.0 91.0 90.2 86.5 89.5
10/7.5...................... 90.2 89.5 91.7 91.7 91.0 91.7 89.5 90.2
15/11....................... 91.0 90.2 92.4 93.0 91.7 91.7 89.5 90.2
20/15....................... 91.0 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 92.4 90.2 91.0
25/18.5..................... 91.7 91.7 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.0 90.2 91.0
30/22....................... 91.7 91.7 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.6 91.7 91.7
40/30....................... 92.4 92.4 94.1 94.1 94.1 94.1 91.7 91.7
50/37....................... 93.0 93.0 94.5 94.5 94.1 94.1 92.4 92.4
60/45....................... 93.6 93.6 95.0 95.0 94.5 94.5 92.4 93.0
75/55....................... 93.6 93.6 95.4 95.0 94.5 94.5 93.6 94.1
100/75...................... 95.0 94.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.8 94.5 95.0
125/90...................... 95.4 94.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.0 95.0
150/110..................... 95.4 94.5 96.2 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.0 95.0
200/150..................... 95.8 95.4 96.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.4 95.0
250/186..................... 96.2 95.4 96.5 96.2 96.2 96.2 95.4 95.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 36069]]

Table I-3--Nominal Full-Load Efficiencies of NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N, NE, NEY or NY
Specialized Frame Size Air-Over Electric Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors) at 60 Hz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/ standard 2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
kilowatt equivalent -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75....................... 74.0 ........ 82.5 82.5 80.0 80.0 74.0 74.0
1.5/1.1..................... 82.5 82.5 84.0 84.0 85.5 84.0 77.0 75.5
2/1.5....................... 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 86.5 85.5 82.5 85.5
3/2.2....................... 85.5 84.0 87.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 84.0 86.5
5/3.7....................... 87.5 85.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 85.5 87.5
7.5/5.5..................... 88.5 87.5 89.5 88.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 88.5
10/7.5...................... 89.5 88.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 90.2 ......... ........
15/11....................... 90.2 89.5 91.0 91.0 ......... ........ ......... ........
20/15....................... 90.2 90.2 91.0 91.0 ......... ........ ......... ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I-4 summarizes DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of
the adopted standards on consumers of electric motors, as measured by
the average life-cycle cost (``LCC'') savings and the simple payback
period (``PBP'').\4\ The average LCC savings are positive for all
representative units, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of
electric motors, which is estimated to be 13.6 years (see section V.B.1
of this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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 IV.F.9 of this document).

Table I-4--Impacts of Adopted Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Electric Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Simple payback
Equipment class group Representative unit savings (2021$) period (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEM, 1-500 hp, NEMA Design A and B....... RU1.............................. N/A N/A
RU2.............................. N/A N/A
RU3.............................. N/A N/A
RU4.............................. 567.1 4.1
RU5.............................. N/A N/A
MEM, 501-750 hp, NEMA Design A and B RU6.............................. 2,550.1 3.7
above 500 hp.
AO-MEM (Standard Frame Size)............. RU7.............................. 57.6 4.0
RU8.............................. 472.4 1.6
RU9 *............................ ................ ................
RU10............................. 930.7 4.9
AO-Polyphase (Specialized Frame Size).... RU11............................. 49.9 4.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The entry ``N/A'' means not applicable because there is no change in the standard at certain TSLs.
* No impact because there are no shipments below the efficiency level corresponding to TSL1 and TSL2 for RU9.

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

B. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (``INPV'') is the sum of the
discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the
end of the analysis period (2023-2056). Using a real discount rate of
9.1 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of electric
motors in the case without new and amended standards is $5,023 million
in 2021 dollars. Under the adopted standards, DOE estimates the change
in INPV to range from -6.6 percent to -6.0 percent, which is
approximately -$333 million to -$303 million. In order to bring
products into compliance with new and amended standards, it is
estimated that industry will incur total conversion costs of $468
million.
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on
manufacturers is described in sections IV.J and V.B.2 of this document.

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

\5\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2021
dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation
standards for electric motors would save a significant amount of
energy. Relative to the case without new and amended standards, the
lifetime energy savings for electric motors purchased in the 30-year
period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the new
and amended standards (2027-2056) amount to 3.0 quadrillion British
thermal units (``Btu''), or quads.\6\ This represents a savings of 0.2
percent relative to the energy use of these products in the case
without amended standards (referred to as the ``no-new-standards
case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 36070]]

expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings
minus the estimated increased equipment and installation costs for
electric motors purchased in 2027-2056.
In addition, the adopted standards for electric motors are
projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates
that the adopted standards will result in cumulative emission
reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 91.69
million metric tons (``Mt'') \7\ of carbon dioxide
(``CO<INF>2</INF>''), 35.12 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide
(``SO<INF>2</INF>''), 148.74 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides
(``NO<INF>X</INF>''), 690.10 thousand tons of methane
(``CH<INF>4</INF>''), 0.82 thousand tons of nitrous oxide
(``N<INF>2</INF>O''), and 0.23 tons of mercury (``Hg'').\8\ The
estimated cumulative reduction in CO<INF>2</INF> emissions through 2030
amounts to 0.90 million Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions
resulting from the annual electricity use of more than 0.15 million
homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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 2022 (``AEO2022''). AEO2022 represents current federal and
state legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the
time of its preparation. See section IV.K of this document for
further discussion of AEO2022 assumptions that effect air pollutant
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimates climate benefits from a reduction in greenhouse gases
(GHG) using four different estimates of the social cost of
CO<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 GHG (SC-
GHG). DOE used SC-GHG values based on the interim values developed by
an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases
(IWG),\9\ as discussed in section IV.K of this document. For
presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated with the
average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are $3.14 billion. DOE does
not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate and it emphasizes the
importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all
four SC-GHG estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE also estimated health benefits from SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions.\10\ DOE estimated the present
value of the health benefits would be $1.76 billion using a 7-percent
discount rate, and $5.72 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ DOE estimated the monetized value of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions associated with electricity
savings using benefit per ton estimates from the scientific
literature. See section IV.L.2 of this document for further
discussion.
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table I-5 summarizes the economic benefits and costs expected to
result from the new and amended standards for electric motors. There
are other important unquantified effects, including certain
unquantified climate benefits, unquantified public health benefits from
the reduction of toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified
energy security benefits, and distributional effects, among others.

Table I-5--Summary of Economic Benefits and Costs of Adopted Energy
Conservation Standards for Electric Motors
[TSL 2]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Billion $2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings....................... 8.8
Climate Benefits *.................................... 3.1
Health Benefits **.................................... 5.7
-----------------
Total Benefits [dagger]........................... 17.7
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs [Dagger]......... 1.4
-----------------
Net Benefits...................................... 16.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings....................... 3.0
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)................. 3.1
Health Benefits **.................................... 1.8
-----------------
Total Benefits [dagger]........................... 7.8
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs [Dagger]......... 0.7
-----------------
Net Benefits...................................... 7.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with product
name shipped in 2027-2056. These results include benefits to consumers
which accrue after 2027 from the products shipped in 2027-2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the
SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this document). For presentational
purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the
average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the
Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and
it emphasizes the importance of considering the benefits calculated
using all four SC-GHG estimates.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for 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.

[[Page 36071]]

[dagger] Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health
benefits. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both
the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-
GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a
single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance
and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG
estimates. See Table V-41 for net benefits using all four SC-GHG
estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this
analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support
Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim
Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by
the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases
(IWG).
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as
installation costs.

The benefits and costs of the standards can also be expressed in
terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the total
annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating costs,
minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and installation
costs, plus (3) the value of the benefits of GHG and NO<INF>X</INF> and
SO<INF>2</INF> emission reductions, all annualized.\12\ The national
operating savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings
that occur as a result of purchasing the covered products and are
measured for the lifetime of electric motors shipped in 2027-2056. The
benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the
standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of electric motors
shipped in 2027-2056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2023, the year
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings.
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur
(e.g., 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year
to 2023. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed
annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance
year, that yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the adopted standards
are shown in Table I-6. The results under the primary estimate are as
follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from reduced NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards adopted
in this rule is $62.1 million per year in increased equipment costs,
while the estimated annual benefits are $254.8 million in reduced
equipment operating costs, $164.8 million in climate benefits, and
$151.4 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would
amount to $508.9 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the standards is $71.0 million per year in increased
equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $463.6 million
in reduced operating costs, $164.8 million in climate benefits, and
$300.7 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would
amount to $858.2 million per year.

Table I-6--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Standards for Electric Motors
[TSL 2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 2021$/year
-----------------------------------------------
Low-net- High-net-
Primary benefits benefits
estimate estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings................................. 463.6 405.1 542.9
Climate Benefits *.............................................. 164.8 148.0 186.5
Health Benefits **.............................................. 300.7 269.5 341.0
-----------------------------------------------
Total Benefits [dagger]..................................... 929.1 822.5 1070.4
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs [Dagger]................... 71.0 73.7 73.0
-----------------------------------------------
Net Benefits................................................ 858.2 748.8 997.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings................................. 254.8 225.3 293.6
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)........................... 164.8 148.0 186.5
Health Benefits **.......................................... 151.4 137.1 169.5
-----------------------------------------------
Total Benefits [dagger]..................................... 571.0 510.4 649.6
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs [Dagger]................... 62.1 63.8 63.9
-----------------------------------------------
Net Benefits................................................ 508.9 446.6 585.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with electric motors shipped in 2027-2056. These
results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this
document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG
at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point
estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-
GHG estimates.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for 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.

[[Page 36072]]

[dagger] Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total
and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes
the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates. See Table V-
41 for net benefits using all four SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this
analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon,
Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the
Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG).
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.

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

D. Conclusion

DOE has determined that the November 2022 Joint Recommendation
containing recommendations with respect to energy conservation
standards for electric motors was submitted jointly by interested
persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view, in
accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A). After considering the analysis
and weighing the benefits and burdens, DOE has determined that the
recommended standards are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), which
contains the criteria for prescribing new or amended standards.
Specifically, the Secretary has determined that the adoption of the
recommended standards would result in the significant conservation of
energy and is technologically feasible and economically justified. In
determining whether the recommended standards are economically
justified, the Secretary has determined that the benefits of the
recommended standards exceed the burdens. Namely, the Secretary has
concluded that the recommended standards, when considering the benefits
of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission
reductions, the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions,
and positive average LCC savings, would yield benefits outweighing the
negative impacts on some consumers and on manufacturers, including the
conversion costs that could result in a reduction in INPV for
manufacturers.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> reduction benefits, and a 3-percent
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the
standards for electric motors is $62.1 million per year in increased
equipment and installation costs, while the estimated annual benefits
are $254.8 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $164.8 million
in climate benefits and $151.4 million in health benefits. The net
benefit amounts to $508.9 million per year.
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\13\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates
the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

As previously mentioned, the standards are projected to result in
estimated national energy savings of 3.0 quads (FFC), the equivalent of
the primary annual energy use of 31 million homes. The NPV of consumer
benefit for these projected energy savings is $2.2 billion using a
discount rate of 7 percent, and $7.5 billion using a discount rate of 3
percent. The cumulative emission reductions associated with these
energy savings are 91.69 Mt of CO<INF>2,</INF> 35.12 thousand tons of
SO<INF>2</INF>, 148.74 thousand tons of NO<INF>X</INF>, 690.10 thousand
tons of CH<INF>4</INF>, 0.82 thousand tons of N<INF>2</INF>O, and 0.23
tons of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the climate benefits from
reduced GHG emissions (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-
percent discount rate) is $3.14 billion. The estimated monetary value
of the health benefits from reduced SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions is $1.76 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $5.72
billion using a 3-percent discount rate. Based on these findings, DOE
has determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in
this DFR are ``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed discussion of the basis for these
tentative conclusions is contained in the remainder of this document
and the accompanying TSD.
Under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is
issuing this direct final rule (``DFR'') amending the energy
conservation standards for electric motors. Consistent with this
authority, DOE is also publishing elsewhere in this Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking proposing standards that are identical to
those contained in this direct final rule. See 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(A)(i).

II. Introduction

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

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
C \14\ of EPCA added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a) (42
U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve the energy efficiency of certain types
of industrial equipment, including electric motors, the subject of this
direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)). The Energy Policy Act of
1992 (``EPACT 1992'') (Pub. L. 102-486 (Oct. 24, 1992)) further amended
EPCA by establishing energy conservation standards and test procedures
for certain commercial and industrial electric motors that are
manufactured alone or as a component of another piece of equipment. In
December 2007, Congress enacted the Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007'') (Pub. L. 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007). Section
313(b)(1) of EISA 2007 updated the energy conservation standards for
those electric motors already covered by EPCA and established energy
conservation standards for a larger scope of motors not previously
covered by standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) EISA 2007 also revised
certain statutory definitions related to electric motors. See EISA
2007, sec. 313 (amending statutory definitions related to electric
motors at 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C.

[[Page 36073]]

6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C.
6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers
of Federal preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set
forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) (applying the preemption
waiver provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297))
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers
of covered equipment must use the Federal test procedures as the basis
for: (1) certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the
applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations
about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly,
DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment
complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for electric motors
appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part
431, subpart B, appendix B.
EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the
issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE
must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the
product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking
including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered equipment, including electric motors. Any
new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to
achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary
of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would
not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) for certain
products, including electric motors, if no test procedure has been
established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the
standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a
proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether
the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after
receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the
greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the
covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') considers
relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption
that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that
the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying
with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three
times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the
consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under
the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy
use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary
may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have
established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is
likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any
covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics
(including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that
are substantially the same as those generally available in the United
States. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an
energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more
subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type
or class of products that has the same function or intended use, if DOE
determines that products within such group: (A) consume a different
kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such
type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related
feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have
and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products,
DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a
feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule
prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on
which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a);
42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE
authority to issue a final rule (i.e., a ``direct final rule'' or
``DFR'') establishing an energy conservation standard on receipt of a
statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly
representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of
manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates),
as determined by the Secretary, that contains recommendations with
respect to an energy or water conservation standard that are in
accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the Secretary must also
determine whether a jointly-submitted recommendation for an energy or
water conservation standard satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable.

[[Page 36074]]

The direct final rule must be published simultaneously with a NOPR
that proposes an energy or water conservation standard that is
identical to the standard established in the direct final rule, and DOE
must provide a public comment period of at least 110 days on this
proposal. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) Based on the comments received
during this period, the direct final rule will either become effective,
or DOE will withdraw it not later than 120 days after its issuance if
(1) one or more adverse comments is received, and (2) DOE determines
that those comments, when viewed in light of the rulemaking record
related to the direct final rule, provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawal of the direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B), or any other applicable law. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C))
Receipt of an alternative joint recommendation may also trigger a DOE
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the same manner. Id. After
withdrawing a direct final rule, DOE must proceed with the notice of
proposed rulemaking published simultaneously with the direct final rule
and publish in the Federal Register the reasons why the direct final
rule was withdrawn. Id.
Typical of other rulemakings, it is the substance, rather than the
quantity, of comments that will ultimately determine whether a direct
final rule will be withdrawn. To this end, the substance of any adverse
comment(s) received will be weighed against the anticipated benefits of
the jointly-submitted recommendations and the likelihood that further
consideration of the comment(s) would change the results of the
rulemaking. DOE notes that, to the extent an adverse comment had been
previously raised and addressed in the rulemaking proceeding, such a
submission will not typically provide a basis for withdrawal of a
direct final rule.

B. Background

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

Table II-1--Energy Conservation Standards for NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B and IEC Design N Motors (Excluding
Fire Pump Electric Motors) at 60 Hz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard 2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
kilowatt equivalent -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75....................... 77.0 77.0 85.5 85.5 82.5 82.5 75.5 75.5
1.5/1.1..................... 84.0 84.0 86.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 78.5 77.0
2/1.5....................... 85.5 85.5 86.5 86.5 88.5 87.5 84.0 86.5
3/2.2....................... 86.5 85.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 87.5
5/3.7....................... 88.5 86.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 86.5 88.5
7.5/5.5..................... 89.5 88.5 91.7 91.0 91.0 90.2 86.5 89.5
10/7.5...................... 90.2 89.5 91.7 91.7 91.0 91.7 89.5 90.2
15/11....................... 91.0 90.2 92.4 93.0 91.7 91.7 89.5 90.2
20/15....................... 91.0 91.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 92.4 90.2 91.0
25/18.5..................... 91.7 91.7 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.0 90.2 91.0
30/22....................... 91.7 91.7 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.6 91.7 91.7
40/30....................... 92.4 92.4 94.1 94.1 94.1 94.1 91.7 91.7
50/37....................... 93.0 93.0 94.5 94.5 94.1 94.1 92.4 92.4
60/45....................... 93.6 93.6 95.0 95.0 94.5 94.5 92.4 93.0
75/55....................... 93.6 93.6 95.4 95.0 94.5 94.5 93.6 94.1
100/75...................... 94.1 93.6 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 93.6 94.1
125/90...................... 95.0 94.1 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 94.1 94.1
150/110..................... 95.0 94.1 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.1 94.1
200/150..................... 95.4 95.0 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.5 94.1
250/186..................... 95.8 95.0 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.0 95.0
300/224..................... 95.8 95.4 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 ......... ........
350/261..................... 95.8 95.4 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 ......... ........
400/298..................... 95.8 95.8 96.2 95.8 ......... ........ ......... ........
450/336..................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ........ ......... ........
500/373..................... 95.8 96.2 96.2 96.2 ......... ........ ......... ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table II-2--Energy Conservation Standards for NEMA Design C and IEC Design H Motors at 60 Hz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75......................................... 85.5 85.5 82.5 82.5 75.5 75.5
1.5/1.1....................................... 86.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 78.5 77.0
2/1.5......................................... 86.5 86.5 88.5 87.5 84.0 86.5
3/2.2......................................... 89.5 89.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 87.5
5/3.7......................................... 89.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 86.5 88.5
7.5/5.5....................................... 91.7 91.0 91.0 90.2 86.5 89.5
10/7.5........................................ 91.7 91.7 91.0 91.7 89.5 90.2
15/11......................................... 92.4 93.0 91.7 91.7 89.5 90.2
20/15......................................... 93.0 93.0 91.7 92.4 90.2 91.0

[[Page 36075]]

25/18.5....................................... 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.0 90.2 91.0
30/22......................................... 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.6 91.7 91.7
40/30......................................... 94.1 94.1 94.1 94.1 91.7 91.7
50/37......................................... 94.5 94.5 94.1 94.1 92.4 92.4
60/45......................................... 95.0 95.0 94.5 94.5 92.4 93.0
75/55......................................... 95.4 95.0 94.5 94.5 93.6 94.1
100/75........................................ 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 93.6 94.1
125/90........................................ 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 94.1 94.1
150/110....................................... 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.1 94.1
200/150....................................... 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.5 94.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table II-3--Energy Conservation Standards for Fire Pump Electric Motors At 60 Hz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent 2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75........................................................... 75.5 ......... 82.5 82.5 80.0 80.0 74.0 74.0
1.5/1.1......................................................... 82.5 82.5 84.0 84.0 85.5 84.0 77.0 75.5
2/1.5........................................................... 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 86.5 85.5 82.5 85.5
3/2.2........................................................... 85.5 84.0 87.5 86.5 87.5 86.5 84.0 86.5
5/3.7........................................................... 87.5 85.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 85.5 87.5
7.5/5.5......................................................... 88.5 87.5 89.5 88.5 89.5 88.5 85.5 88.5
10/7.5.......................................................... 89.5 88.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 90.2 88.5 89.5
15/11........................................................... 90.2 89.5 91.0 91.0 90.2 90.2 88.5 89.5
20/15........................................................... 90.2 90.2 91.0 91.0 90.2 91.0 89.5 90.2
25/18.5......................................................... 91.0 91.0 92.4 91.7 91.7 91.7 89.5 90.2
30/22........................................................... 91.0 91.0 92.4 92.4 91.7 92.4 91.0 91.0
40/30........................................................... 91.7 91.7 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 91.0 91.0
50/37........................................................... 92.4 92.4 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 91.7 91.7
60/45........................................................... 93.0 93.0 93.6 93.6 93.6 93.6 91.7 92.4
75/55........................................................... 93.0 93.0 94.1 94.1 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.6
100/75.......................................................... 93.6 93.0 94.5 94.1 94.1 94.1 93.0 93.6
125/90.......................................................... 94.5 93.6 94.5 94.5 94.1 94.1 93.6 93.6
150/110......................................................... 94.5 93.6 95.0 95.0 95.0 94.5 93.6 93.6
200/150......................................................... 95.0 94.5 95.0 95.0 95.0 94.5 94.1 93.6
250/186......................................................... 95.4 94.5 95.0 95.4 95.0 95.4 94.5 94.5
300/224......................................................... 95.4 95.0 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.4 ......... .........
350/261......................................................... 95.4 95.0 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.4 ......... .........
400/298......................................................... 95.4 95.4 95.4 95.4 ......... ......... ......... .........
450/336......................................................... 95.4 95.8 95.4 95.8 ......... ......... ......... .........
500/373......................................................... 95.4 95.8 95.8 95.8 ......... ......... ......... .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Electric Motors
In the May 2020 Early Assessment Review RFI, DOE stated that it was
initiating an early assessment review to determine whether any new or
amended standards would satisfy the relevant requirements of EPCA for a
new or amended energy conservation standard for electric motors and
sought information related to that effort. Specifically, DOE sought
data and information that could enable the agency to determine whether
DOE should propose a ``no new standard'' determination because a more
stringent standard: (1) would not result in a significant savings of
energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3) is not economically
justified; or (4) any combination of the foregoing. 85 FR 30878, 30879.
On March 2, 2022, DOE published the preliminary analysis for
electric motors. 87 FR 11650 (``March 2022 Preliminary Analysis''). In
conjunction with the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE published a
technical support document (``March 2022 Prelim TSD'') which presented
the results of the in-depth technical analyses in the following areas:
(1) Engineering; (2) markups to determine equipment price; (3) energy
use; (4) life cycle cost (``LCC'') and payback period (``PBP''); and
(5) national impacts. The results presented included the current scope
of electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25, in addition to an
expanded scope of motors, including electric motors above 500
horsepower, air-over electric motors, and small, non-small-electric-
motor, electric motors (``SNEM''). See Chapter 2 of the March 2022
Prelim TSD. DOE requested comment on a number of topics regarding the
analysis presented.
DOE received comments in response to the March 2022 Preliminary
Analysis from the interested parties listed in Table II-4.

[[Page 36076]]

Table II-4--March 2022 Preliminary Analysis Written Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this final
Commenter(s) rule Docket No. Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Motors and Mechanical Inc............ ABB........................ 28 Manufacturer.
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Electric Motors Working 35, 36 Working Group.
Economy, Appliance Standards Awareness Group.
Project, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association, Natural
Resources Defense Council, Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance, Pacific Gas
& Electric Company, San Diego Gas &
Electric, Southern California Edison.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Joint Advocates............ 27 Efficiency Organizations.
American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy, Natural Resources Defense
Council, New York State Energy Research
and Development Authority.
Association of Home Appliance AHAM and AHRI.............. 25 Industry OEM Trade
Manufacturers; Air-Conditioning, Association.
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and AHRI....................... 26 Industry OEM Trade
Refrigeration Institute. Association.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), CA IOUs.................... 30 Utilities.
San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and
Southern California Edison (SCE).
Daikin Comfort Technologies Manufacturing Daikin..................... 32 Manufacturer.
Company, L.P.
Electrical Apparatus Service Association, EASA....................... 21 International Trade
Inc. Association.
Hydraulics Institute..................... HI......................... 31 Industry Pump Trade
Association.
Lennox International..................... Lennox..................... 29 Manufacturer.
Metglas, Inc............................. Metglas.................... 24 Materials supplier.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance..... NEEA....................... 33 Non-profit organization.
National Electrical Manufacturers Joint Industry Stakeholders 23 Industry Trade
Association (NEMA), Association of Home Associations.
Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), the Air-
Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute (AHRI), the Medical Imaging
Technology Alliance (MITA), the Outdoor
Power Equipment Institute (OPEI), Home
Ventilating Institute (HVI) and the
Power Tool Institute (PTI).
National Electrical Manufacturers NEMA....................... 22 Industry Trade Association.
Association.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By letter dated on November 15, 2022, DOE received a joint
recommendation for energy conservation standards for electric motors
(``November 2022 Joint Recommendation''). The November 2022 Joint
Recommendation represented the motors industry, energy efficiency
organizations and utilities (collectively, ``the Electric Motors
Working Group'').\15\ The November 2022 Joint Recommendation addressed
energy conservation standards for medium electric motors that are 1-750
hp and polyphase, and air-over medium electric motors. On December 9,
2022, DOE received a supplemental letter to the November 2022 Joint
Recommendation from the Electric Motors Working Group. The supplemental
letter provided additional guidance on the recommended levels for open
medium electric motors rated 100 hp to 250 hp, and a recommended
compliance date for standards presented in the November 2022 Joint
Recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ The members of the Electric Motors Working Group included
ACEEE, ASAP, NEMA, NRDC, NEEA, PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for electric motors. (Docket NO EERE-
2020-BT-STD-0007, which is maintained at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>). The
references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket
ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Electric Motors Working Group Recommended Standard Levels
This section summarizes the standard levels recommended in the
November 2022 Joint Recommendation and supplement by the Electric
Motors Working Group and the subsequent procedural steps taken by DOE.
Further discussion on scope is provided in section III.B of this
document.
Recommendation #1: For NEMA Design A/B medium electric motors
(``MEM'') rated up to 500 hp at 60Hz, standard levels as follows:
a. Less than 100 hp--remain at Premium LevelIE3 level \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ IE3 efficiency level refers to the 60 Hz efficiency values
in Table 8 of IEC 60034-30-1:2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. 100-250 hp--increase to Super Premium/IE4 level,\18\ aligning
with European Union (``EU'') Ecodesign Directive 2019/1781 which
requires IE4 levels for 75-200 kW motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ IE4 efficiency level refers to the 60 Hz efficiency values
in Table 10 of IEC 60034-30-1:2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Over 250 and up to 500 hp--remain at Premium Level/IE3 level
Separately, because the efficiencies for the IE4 level in IEC
60034-30-1:2014 do not distinguish between enclosed and open motors,
the supplemental letter to the November 2022 Joint Recommendation
recommended efficiencies for open motors based on the efficiencies for
enclosed motors in the IEC standard. The supplemental letter stated
that for some horsepower ratings, open motors have different minimum
efficiencies which account for the different frame size at a given
horsepower rating.

[[Page 36077]]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent 2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100/75.......................................................... 95.0 94.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.8 94.5 95.0
125/90.......................................................... 95.4 94.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.0 95.0
150/110......................................................... 95.4 94.5 96.2 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.0 95.0
200/150......................................................... 95.8 95.4 96.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.4 95.0
250/186......................................................... 96.2 95.4 96.5 96.2 96.2 96.2 95.4 95.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Table II-4--Crosswalk of Current and New Efficiency Standards for MEMs 100-250 hp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal full-load efficiency (%)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent 2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Standards in Table 5 of 10 CFR 431.25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100/75.......................................................... 94.1 93.6 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 93.6 94.1
125/90.......................................................... 95.0 94.1 95.4 95.4 95.0 95.0 94.1 94.1
150/110......................................................... 95.0 94.1 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.1 94.1
200/150......................................................... 95.4 95.0 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.4 94.5 94.1
250/186......................................................... 95.8 95.0 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.0 95.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated Standards in this DFR, pursuant to the November 2022 Joint Recommendation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100/75.......................................................... 95.0 94.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.8 94.5 95.0
125/90.......................................................... 95.4 94.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.8 95.0 95.0
150/110......................................................... 95.4 94.5 96.2 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.0 95.0
200/150......................................................... 95.8 95.4 96.5 96.2 96.2 95.8 95.4 95.0
250/186......................................................... 96.2 95.4 96.5 96.2 96.2 96.2 95.4 95.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommendation #2: For medium electric motors rated over 500 hp and
up to 750 hp at 60 Hz, standard levels that correspond to IE3 levels
for open and enclosed electric motors.
The current energy conservation standards for MEMs do not contain
standards for MEMs with greater than 500 hp. However, in the May 2014
Final Rule, DOE noted that it may consider future regulation of motor
types not regulated in the May 2014 Final Rule, including motors
greater than 500 hp. See 79 FR 30946. As discussed more in section
III.B of this document, DOE recently expanded the electric motor test
procedure to include motors between 500 hp and 750 hp. Pursuant to the
November 2022 Joint Recommendation, this direct final rule establishes
standards for motors between 500 and 750 hp at levels consistent with
IE3 levels for open and enclosed electric motors.
Recommendation #3: For air-over \19\ medium electric motors (``AO-
MEMs''), establish two equipment classes and corresponding energy
conservation standards for AO MEMs: AO-MEMs in standard NEMA frame
sizes and air-over motors in specialized NEMA frame sizes, with
standard levels as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ Air-over electric motor means an electric motor that does
not reach thermal equilibrium (i.e., thermal stability), during a
rated load temperature test according to section 2 of appendix B,
without the application of forced cooling by a free flow of air from
an external device not mechanically connected to the motor within
the motor enclosure. 10 CFR 430.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Standard Frame Size AO-MEMs: For AO MEMs sold in standard NEMA
frame sizes aligned with NEMA MG 1-2016, Table 13.2 (open motors) and
Table 13.3 (enclosed motors), standard levels consistent with
Recommendation #1 (i.e., standard levels for NEMA MG 1 12-12 levels for
motors rated less than 100 hp, IE4 levels for motors rated 100 to 250
hp, and MG 1 12-12 levels for motors rated over 250 hp).
b. Specialized Frame Size air-over electric motors: For air-over
electric motors sold in smaller, specialized NEMA frame sizes, standard
levels consistent with current fire pump efficiency levels (in Table 7
of 10 CFR 431.25), but with constraint on frame size as follows:

[[Page 36078]]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Pole (maximum NEMA 4 Pole (maximum NEMA 6 Pole (maximum NEMA 8 Pole (maximum NEMA
frame diameter) frame diameter) frame diameter) frame diameter)
HP/kW -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75................................................... 74 (48) .......... 82.5 (48) 82.5 (48) 80 (48) 80 (48) 74 (140) 74 (140)
1.5/1.1................................................. 82.5 (48) 82.5 (48) 84 (48) 84 (48) 85.5 (140) 84 (140) 77 (140) 75.5 (140)
2/1.5................................................... 84 (48) 84 (48) 84 (48) 84 (48) 86.5 (140) 85.5 (140) 82.5 (180) 85.5 (180)
3/2.2................................................... 85.5 (140) 84 (48) 87.5 (140) 86.5 (140) 87.5 (180) 86.5 (180) 84 (180) 86.5 (180)
5/3.7................................................... 87.5 (140) 85.5 (140) 87.5 (140) 87.5 (140) 87.5 (180) 87.5 (180) 85.5 (210) 87.5 (210)
7.5/5.5................................................. 88.5 (180) 87.5 (140) 89.5 (180) 88.5 (180) 89.5 (210) 88.5 (210) 85.5 (210) 88.5 (210)
10/7.5.................................................. 89.5 (180) 88.5 (180) 89.5 (180) 89.5 (180) 89.5 (210) 90.2 (210) .......... ..........
15/11................................................... 90.2 (210) 89.5 (180) 91 (210) 91 (210) .......... .......... .......... ..........
20/15................................................... 90.2 (210) 90.2 (210) 91 (210) 91 (210) .......... .......... .......... ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The current energy conservation standard for electric motors in 10
CFR 430.25 exempt air-over electric motors from the standards. 10 CFR
430.25(l). In the May 2014 Final Rule, DOE explained that this
exemption was due to a lack of information at that time to support the
establishment of a test method for air-over electric motors. See 79 FR
30946; 78 FR 38474. However, as discussed more in section III.B, DOE
recently expanded the electric motor test procedure to include AO-MEMs.
Accordingly, pursuant to the November 2022 Joint Recommendation, this
direct final rule establishes 2 equipment classes for AO-MEMs (AO-MEMs
in standard NEMA frame sizes, and those in specialized NEMA frame
sizes) and corresponding standards based on the November 2022 Joint
Recommendation. However, based on DOE's review of the market, DOE only
observed AO-MEMs up to 250 hp. As such, in this direct final rule, DOE
is only establishing standards for AO-MEMs up to 250 hp.
Recommendation #4: For synchronous and inverter-only electric
motors, a recommendation to forego establishing standards until an
updated test procedure is adopted that better captures the energy-
saving benefits of these motors.
The current energy conservation standard for electric motors in 10
CFR 430.25 exempts inverter-only electric motors from the standards. 10
CFR 431.25(l). Similarly, the current energy conservation standards
apply to AC induction motors, which do not include synchronous
motors.\20\ Accordingly, following this recommendation, this direct
final rule continues to exempt these types of motors from the energy
conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ In the May 2014 Final Rule, DOE chose not to establish
standards for inverter-only electric motors because of the then
absence of a reliable and repeatable method to test them for
efficiency, but DOE noted that if a test procedure became available,
DOE may consider setting standards for inverter-only electric motors
at that time. 79 FR 30945. DOE recently expanded the electric motor
test procedure to include inverter-only and synchronous electric
motors. See 87 FR 63600-63605. Similarly, DOE expanded the scope of
the test procedure to include synchronous electric motors. 87 FR
63601-63605. However, pursuant to the November 2022 Joint
Recommendation, DOE is not separately regulating inverter-only and
synchronous electric motors in this direct final rule. Rather, DOE
is only considering the substitution effects of switching to these
electric motors if higher standards for MEMs are established. More
discussion on inverter-only and synchronous electric motors may be
found in sections IV.A and F of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommendation #5: For the recommended energy conservation standard
levels, a compliance date of four (4) years from the date of
publication of the final rule.
In the May 2014 Final Rule, DOE provided a 2-year compliance lead
time based on the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(4)(B). See 79 FR
30944. DOE notes that EPCA generally requires a 3-year compliance lead
time from the effective date of an amended standard under EPCA's 6-year
lookback provisions. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) However,
EPCA's direct final rule provision (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)) conveys upon
DOE a substantive grant of rulemaking authority, thereby allowing
stakeholders to negotiate over more aspects of the energy or water
conservation standard, so long as the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)
are met. See 86 FR 70892, 70915. In the past, DOE has looked to joint
recommendations to fill in necessary details that EPCA does not place
upon the direct final rule process, including compliance periods. DOE's
direct final rules have frequently utilized alternative compliance
dates, while continuing to ensure that the standards in these rules
represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and economically justified.
After carefully considering the November 2022 Joint Recommendation
and supplement for amending the energy conservation standards for
electric motors submitted by the Electric Motors Working Group, DOE has
determined that these recommendations are in accordance with the
statutory requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) for the issuance of a
direct final rule.
More specifically, these recommendations comprise a statement
submitted by interested persons who are fairly representative of
relevant points of view on this matter. In appendix A to subpart C of
10 CFR part 430 (``Appendix A''), DOE explained that to be ``fairly
representative of relevant points of view,'' the group submitting a
joint statement must, where appropriate, include larger concerns and
small business in the regulated industry/manufacturer community, energy
advocates, energy utilities, consumers, and States. However, it will be
necessary to evaluate the meaning of ``fairly representative'' on a
case-by-case basis, subject to the circumstances of a particular
rulemaking, to determine whether fewer or additional parties must be
part of a joint statement in order to be ``fairly representative of
relevant points of view.'' Section 10 of appendix A. In reaching this
determination, DOE took into consideration the fact that the Joint
Recommendation was signed and submitted by a broad cross-section of
interests, including a manufacturers' trade association, environmental
and energy-efficiency advocacy organizations, and electric utility
companies. NYSERDA, a state organization, also submitted a letter
supporting the Joint Recommendation. DOE notes that these organizations
include the relevant points of view specifically identified by
Congress: manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency
advocates. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A))
DOE also evaluated whether the recommendation satisfies 42 U.S.C.
6295(o), as applicable. In making this determination, DOE conducted an
analysis to evaluate whether the potential energy conservation
standards under consideration achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically

[[Page 36079]]

feasible and economically justified and result in significant energy
conservation. The evaluation is the same comprehensive approach that
DOE typically conducts whenever it considers potential energy
conservation standards for a given type of product or equipment.
Upon review, the Secretary determined that the November 2022 Joint
Recommendation comports with the standard-setting criteria set forth
under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A). Accordingly, the Electric Motors Working
Group recommended efficiency levels were included as the ``recommended
TSL'' for electric motors (see section V.A for description of all of
the considered TSLs). The details regarding how the Electric Motors
Working Group-recommended TSLs comply with the standard-setting
criteria are discussed and demonstrated in the relevant sections
throughout this document.
In sum, as the relevant criteria under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) have
been satisfied, the Secretary has determined that it is appropriate to
adopt the Electric Motors Working Group-recommended amended energy
conservation standards for Electric Motors through this direct final
rule. Also, in accordance with the provisions described in section II.A
of this document, DOE is simultaneously publishing a NOPR proposing
that the identical standard levels contained in this direct final rule
be adopted.

III. General Discussion

A. General Comments

This section summarizes general comments received from interested
parties regarding rulemaking timing and process for the March 2022
Preliminary Analysis.
Lennox commented that long-standing DOE practice recognizes the
benefit of establishing an appropriate test procedure before
undertaking an energy conservation standards rulemaking. Lennox
commented that the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis was issued in
February 2022 while comments on the test procedure NOPR were due. As
such, Lennox suggested that DOE cutting corners on the regulatory
process undermines the accuracy and reliability of data contained in
the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD. (Lennox, No. 29 at p. 4-5) The
Joint Industry Stakeholders commented that the process DOE is using for
the electric motor test procedure and standards undermines the value of
early stakeholder engagement. Specifically, they claimed that DOE is:
(1) shortening comment periods; (2) overlapping comment periods; and
(3) condensing the rulemaking process. The Joint Industry Stakeholders
noted that DOE published the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis two months
after issuing a proposed test procedure. Furthermore, the Joint
Industry Stakeholders commented that there were numerous comments
challenging DOE's proposed test procedure, which resulted in
significant changes. They commented that manufacturers and others lack
enough time with the proposed test procedure to fully understand or
comment upon its impact on potential energy conservation standards,
especially for SNEMs where they stated that DOE has done no testing.
The Joint Industry Stakeholders commented that they recognize and
support DOE's interest in moving rulemakings forward, especially rules
such as the electric motor standards and test procedures, which have
missed statutory deadlines. However, they stated that DOE should have
released the proposed test procedure earlier so that DOE could receive
feedback on the test procedure before proceeding with its resource-
intensive preliminary analysis. (Joint Industry Stakeholders, No. 23 at
p. 9-10)
Appendix A establishes procedures, interpretations, and policies to
guide DOE in the consideration and promulgation of new or revised
appliance energy conservation standards and test procedures under EPCA.
DOE has maintained the process and timeline for the electric motors
test procedure and energy conservation standards based on appendix A.
Appendix A requires that DOE provide for early input from
stakeholders so that the initiation and direction of rulemaking is
informed by comments from interested parties. Appendix A, section 1(a).
As discussed in section II.B.2 of this document, DOE provided
opportunity for comment for these energy conservation standards through
the May 2020 Early Assessment Review RFI, which had a 30-day comment
period, and the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, which had a 60-day
comment period. Further, DOE provided multiple opportunities for
stakeholder comments and inputs through the test procedure rulemaking
process; DOE published a request for information (85 FR 34111; June 3,
2020 ``June 2020 RFI''), which had a 45-day comment period, and DOE
published a test procedure NOPR (86 FR 71710; December 17, 2021
``December 2021 NOPR''), which originally had a 60-day comment period,
which was extended to a 75-day comment period. 87 FR 6436. Even though
some of these comment periods overlapped to some extent, DOE has
nonetheless provided ample opportunity for stakeholder review and
comments and has considered such comments and recommendations in this
notice.
Appendix A also generally requires that test procedure rulemakings
establishing methodologies used to evaluate proposed energy
conservation standards will be finalized prior to publication of a NOPR
proposing new or amended energy conservation standards. Appendix A,
section 8(d)(1). Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), published elsewhere
in the Federal Register is a NOPR accompanying this direct final rule,
which proposes standards identical to those in this direct final rule.
On October 19, 2022, DOE published the electric motor test procedure
final rule. (``October 2022 Final Rule''). Thus, in accordance with
appendix A section 8(d)(1), the October 2022 Final Rule prior was
published 180 days prior to publication of this energy conservations
standards direct final rule and the accompanying NOPR.

B. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy
used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify
differing standards. In making a determination whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such
factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors
DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
This document covers certain equipment meeting the definition of
electric motors as defined in 10 CFR 431.12. Specifically, the
definition for ``electric motor'' is ``a machine that converts
electrical power into rotational mechanical power.'' Id. Electric
motors are used in a wide range of applications in commercial building
and in the industrial sector (e.g., chemicals, primary metals, food,
paper, plastic/rubber, petroleum refining, and wastewater), including:
fans, compressors, pumps, material handling equipment, and material
processing equipment.
Currently, DOE regulates medium electric motors (``MEMs'') falling
into the NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, NEMA Design C, and fire pump
motor categories and those electric motors that meet the criteria
specified at 10 CFR 431.25(g). 10 CFR 431.25(h)-(j). Section

[[Page 36080]]

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

(1) Are single-speed, induction motors;
(2) Are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty
type S1 (IEC)
(3) Contain a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or cage (IEC) rotor;
(4) Operate on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz sinusoidal
line power;
(5) Are rated 600 volts or less;
(6) Have a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration;
(7) Are built in a three-digit or four-digit NEMA frame size (or
IEC metric equivalent), including those designs between two
consecutive NEMA frame sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an
enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent);
(8) Produce at least one horsepower (0.746 kW) but not greater
than 500 horsepower (373 kW), and
(9) Meet all of the performance requirements of one of the
following motor types: A NEMA Design A, B, or C motor or an IEC
Design N, NE, NEY, NY or H, HE, HEY, HYmotor.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ DOE added the ``E'' and ``Y'' designations for IEC Design
motors into Sec. 431.25(g) in the October 2022 Final Rule. 87 FR
63596, 636597, 6306.

10 CFR 431.25(g).
The definitions for NEMA Design A motors, NEMA Design B motors,
NEMA Design C motors, fire pump electric motors, IEC Design N motor and
IEC Design H motor, as well as ``E'' and ``Y'' designated IEC Design
motors, are codified in 10 CFR 431.12. DOE has also currently exempted
certain categories of motors from standards. The exemptions are as
follows:

(1) Air-over electric motors;
(2) Component sets of an electric motor;
(3) Liquid-cooled electric motors;
(4) Submersible electric motors; and
(5) Inverter-only electric motors.

10 CFR 431.25(l)
On October 19, 2022, DOE published the electric motors test
procedure final rule. 87 FR 63588 (``October 2022 Final Rule''). As
part of the October 2022 Final Rule, DOE expanded the test procedure
scope to additional categories of electric motors that currently do not
have energy conservation standards. 87 FR 63588, 63593-63606. The
expanded test procedure scope included the following:
<bullet> Electric motors having a rated horsepower above 500 and up
to 750 hp that meets the criteria listed at Sec. 431.25(g), with the
exception of criteria Sec. 431.25(g)(8) to air-over electric motors
(``AO-MEMs''), and inverter-only electric motors;
<bullet> Small, non-Small-Electric Motor, Electric Motors
(``SNEM''), which:
(a) Is not a small electric motor, as defined at Sec. 431.442 and
is not a dedicated pool pump motors as defined at Sec. 431.483;
(b) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type
S1 (IEC);
(c) Operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-
hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; or is used with an inverter that
operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz)
sinusoidal line power;
(d) Is rated for 600 volts or less;
(e) Is a single-speed induction motor capable of operating without
an inverter or is an inverter-only electric motor;
(f) Produces a rated motor horsepower greater than or equal to 0.25
horsepower (0.18 kW); and
(g) Is built in the following frame sizes: any two-, or three-digit
NEMA frame size (or IEC equivalent) if the motor operates on single-
phase power; any two-, or three-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC
equivalent) if the motor operates on polyphase power, and has a rated
motor horsepower less than 1 horsepower (0.75 kW); or a two-digit NEMA
frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), if the motor operates on
polyphase power, has a rated motor horsepower equal to or greater than
1 horsepower (0.75 kW), and is not an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or
IEC metric equivalent).
<bullet> SNEMs that are air-over electric motors (``AO-SNEMs'') and
inverter-only electric motors;
<bullet> Synchronous electric motors, which:
(a) Is not a dedicated pool pump motor as defined at Sec. 431.483
or is not an air-over electric motor;
(b) Is a synchronous electric motor;
(c) Operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-
hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; or is used with an inverter that
operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz)
sinusoidal line power;
(d) Is rated 600 volts or less; and
(e) Produces at least 0.25 hp (0.18 kW) but not greater than 750 hp
(559 kW).
<bullet> Synchronous electric motors that are inverter-only
electric motors.
In the October 2022 Final Rule, DOE noted that, for these motors
newly included within the scope of the test procedure for which there
was no established energy conservation standard, manufacturers would
not be required to use the test procedure to certify these motors to
DOE until such time as a standard is established. 87 FR 63591.\22\
Further, the October 2022 Final Rule continued to exclude the following
categories of electric motors:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ However, manufacturers making voluntary representations
respecting the energy consumption or cost of energy consumed by such
motors are required to use the DOE test procedure for making such
representations beginning 180 days following publication of the
October 2022 Final Rule. Id.

<bullet> inverter-only electric motors that are air-over electric
motors;
<bullet> component sets of an electric motor;
<bullet> liquid-cooled electric motors; and
<bullet> submersible electric motors.
In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE analyzed the additional
motors now included within the scope of the test procedure after the
October 2022 Final Rule.\23\ See sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.3.2 of the
March 2022 Prelim TSD. This included MEMs from 1-500 hp, AO-MEMs,
SNEMs, and AO-SNEMs. However, consistent with the November 2022 Joint
Recommendation, this direct final rule establishes new and amended
standards for only a portion of the scope analyzed in the March 2022
Preliminary Analysis and included within the scope of the test
procedure after the October 2022 Final Rule. Specifically, in this
direct final rule, DOE is only amending standards for certain MEMs and
establishing new standards for AO-MEMs and certain air-over polyphase
motors. DOE may address in a future rulemaking energy conservation
standards for electric motor equipment classes not addressed in this
direct final rule. Table III-1 summarizes the equipment class groups
(``ECG'') DOE established pursuant to the November 2022 Joint
Recommendation and analyzed in this direct final rule. Further
discussion on equipment classes is provided in section IV.A.3 of this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ At the time, most of these motors had been proposed for
inclusion in the scope of the test procedure in the December 2021
Test Procedure NOPR. 86 FR 71710.

Table III-1--Equipment Class Groups Considered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECG motor design Horsepower Pole
ECG type Motor topology rating configuration Enclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................. MEM 1-500 hp, Polyphase..... 1-500 2, 4, 6, 8 Open.
NEMA Design A & Enclosed.
B.

[[Page 36081]]

2............................. MEM 501-750 hp, Polyphase..... 501-750 2, 4 Open.
NEMA Design A & Enclosed.
B.
3............................. AO-MEM (Standard Polyphase..... 1-250 2, 4, 6, 8 Open.
Frame Size). Enclosed.
4............................. AO-Polyphase Polyphase..... 1-20 2, 4, 6, 8 Open.
(Specialized Enclosed.
Frame Size).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

C. Test Procedure

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a))
Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to
certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. On October
19, 2022, DOE published the electric motor test procedure final rule.
87 FR 63588 (``October 2022 Final Rule''). As described previously, the
October 2022 Final Rule expanded the types of motors included within
the scope of the test procedure, including the new classes of electric
motors for which DOE is establishing energy conservation standards in
this final rule. DOE's test procedures for electric motors are
currently prescribed at appendix B to subpart B of 10 CFR part 431
(``appendix B'').
DOE's energy conservation standards for electric motors are
currently prescribed at 10 CFR 431.25. DOE's current energy
conservation standards for electric motors are expressed in terms of
nominal full-load efficiency.

D. Technological Feasibility

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

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
For each trial standard level (``TSL''), DOE projected energy
savings from application of the TSL to electric motors purchased in the
30-year period that begins in the first year of compliance with the
amended standards (2027-2056).\24\ The savings are measured over the
entire lifetime of electric motors purchased in the 30-year analysis
period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as
the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and
the no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a
projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for an
equipment would likely evolve in the absence of new and amended energy
conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each
product class. The TSLs considered for this direct final rule are
described in section V.A of this document. DOE also presents a
sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for products shipped in
a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE used its national impact analysis (``NIA'') spreadsheet model
to estimate national energy savings (``NES'') from potential amended or
new standards for electric motors. The NIA spreadsheet model (described
in section IV.H of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of
site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the
locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national
energy savings in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings
in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site
electricity. DOE also calculates NES in terms of FFC energy savings.
The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing,
and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum
fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of
energy conservation standards.\25\ DOE's

[[Page 36082]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy
and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE
must determine that such action would result in significant energy
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking. For example,
some covered products and equipment have most of their energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products with relatively constant demand.
Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a
case-by-case basis, taking into account the significance of cumulative
FFC national energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions,
health benefits, and the need to confront the global climate crisis,
among other factors.
As stated, the standard levels adopted in this direct final rule
are projected to result in national energy savings of 3.0 quads, the
equivalent of the electricity use of 31 million homes in one year.
Based on the amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in
emissions, and need to confront the global climate crisis, DOE has
determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this
direct final rule are ``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

F. Economic Justification

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

[[Page 36083]]

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

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
rulemaking with regards to electric motors. Separate subsections
address each component of DOE's analyses. In this direct final rule,
DOE is only addressing comments and analysis specific to the scope of
motors provided in the November 2022 Joint Recommendation. As such, any
analysis and comments related to SNEMs and AO-SNEMs will be addressed
in a separate NOPR.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the
standards considered in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new
energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a
second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and
calculates national energy savings and net present value of total
consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy
conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the
Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), to assess manufacturer
impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are
available on the DOE website for this rulemaking: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007</a>. Additionally, DOE used output from the
latest version of the Energy Information Administration's (``EIA's'')
Annual Energy Outlook (``AEO'') for the emissions and utility impact
analyses.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products
concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used
in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly-available
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology
assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope
of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry
structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information,
(5) market and industry trends; and (6) technologies or design options
that could improve the energy efficiency of electric motors. The key
findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following
sections. See chapter 3 of the direct final rule TSD for further
discussion of the market and technology assessment.
1. Scope of Coverage
This document covers equipment meeting the definition of electric
motors as defined in 10 CFR 431.12. Specifically, the definition for
``electric motor'' is ``a machine that converts electrical power into
rotational mechanical power.'' Id.
In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE presented analysis for
the current scope of electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25, as
well as expanded scope proposed in the December 2021 test procedure
NOPR, which included air-over electric motors and SNEMs. See Chapter 2
of the March 2022 Prelim TSD. Since, DOE has published the October 2022
Final Rule, which expanded the scope of the test procedures to include
such motors, as discussed in detail in section III.B of this direct
final rule.
In response to the scope presented in the March 2022 Preliminary
Analysis, DOE received a number of comments, which are discussed in the
subsections

[[Page 36084]]

below. In this direct final rule, DOE is only addressing comments and
analysis specific to the scope of motors provided in the November 2022
Joint Recommendation, which includes MEMs and polyphase air-over
electric motors.
a. Motor Used as a Component of a Covered Product or Equipment
Generally, Lennox noted that DOE should apply a finished-product
approach to energy efficiency regulations. Specifically, Lennox
commented that system performance standards of HVAC-R products include
the energy used by the electric motors, and that increasing the
stringency of component-level regulation does not have any efficiency
benefit when the ultimate efficiency is measured at the systems level
and manufacturers adjust other equipment parameters based on the
overall system level of performance, offsetting increased motor costs
by reducing other component costs and efficiencies to mitigate adverse
financial impacts on consumers.\26\ Lennox stated that mandating
additional testing and certification of motors used in already-
regulated HVAC-R products would not save energy and create needless
testing, paperwork, and record-keeping requirements that raise consumer
costs. (Lennox, No. 29 at p. 2-3) Lennox elaborated that the HVAC-R
standards in place will drive more efficient design of relevant
components, including motors, without unnecessary further regulation of
components, and that the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis has not
adequately accounted for these cumulative manufacturer burdens.\27\
(Lennox, No. 29 at p. 6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ Lennox made these comments in the context of air-over and
inverter-only motors included within HVACR products, requesting that
DOE maintain the exemptions to the energy conservation standards for
these motors contained in 10 CFR 431.25(l). (Lennox, No. 29 at p. 2)
DOE addresses Lennox's comments regarding the exemption for these
specific motors in sections IV.1.b and d of this document.
\27\ Lennox also commented that DOE should continue exempting
SEMs used as a component in covered equipment (specifically, HVACR
equipment) from the energy conservation standards for electric
motors, and that including SNEMs in the energy conversation
standards for electric motors would circumvent Congressional intent
to exempt from regulation small electric motors that are components
of EPCA covered products and covered equipment. (Lennox, No. 29 at
p. 3). As noted previously, DOE is not including SNEMs within the
scope of this direct final rule. SNEMs may be addressed in a future
rulemaking, and DOE will consider such comments in that rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AHAM and AHRI strongly opposed DOE's plan to expand the existing
scope of coverage of electric motors to include motors destined for
particular applications in finished goods, and instead recommended that
DOE should apply a finished-product approach to energy efficiency
regulations. (AHAM, AHRI, No. 25 at p. 7-9) NEMA commented that further
elevations to component efficiencies or changes to scope for electric
motors energy conservation standards will lead to diminishing returns,
and are therefore less practical, because previous electric motors
rulemakings adequately addressed concerns for ``application and
performance of existing equipment'' to the maximum extent practical.
NEMA stated that DOE should allow application-dependent solutions like
power drive systems to take over from minimum energy conservation
standards as the most-appropriate and best-fit market transformation
vehicles, but they must be selected and installed with due regard for
their application-specific nature, which calls for ``other than
regulatory action'' on the part of DOE. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 26)
Daikin commented that they do not support the regulation of
electric motors that are components of a covered equipment such as HVAC
equipment. Daikin added that regulating embedded components creates
both apparent and likely unforeseen issues. For HVAC manufacturers,
Daikin commented that regulating components reduces design flexibility
and may not result in optimal design for overall system performance.
Daikin stated that standards for HVAC equipment are regularly evaluated
by DOE to ensure regulations are aligned with the most cost-effective
product for consumers, and HVAC manufacturers generally respond by
producing a class of equipment at these federal minimum efficiency
levels. As such, Daikin stated that regulating an embedded component
will not improve the overall product's energy efficiency. (Daikin, No.
32 at p. 1)
On the other hand, the Joint Advocates commented in support of
regulating electric motors that are components of covered equipment.
The Joint Advocates stated that there is value in regulating the motors
separately. The Joint Advocates agreed with DOE that different motor
efficiency levels may be cost-effective for different covered products,
and the presence of electric motors in covered equipment does not
preclude the possibility of cost-effective energy standards for
electric motors individually. Furthermore, the Joint Advocates
commented that absent standards for motors that are used in covered
equipment, consumers may get stuck with inefficient replacement motors.
Finally, the Joint Advocates commented that motors used in covered
equipment are often purchased by the original equipment manufacturer
(``OEM'') from a motor manufacturer, and thus, exempting motors used in
covered equipment would likely create enforcement challenges since it
would be difficult to determine a given motor's end use application.
(Joint Advocates, No. 27 at p. 5)
DOE understands that the majority of the concerns summarized in
this section and provided separately by commenters stems from DOE
potentially regulating SNEMs and AO-SNEMs. This direct final rule does
not address SNEMs or AO-SNEMs as part of the scope. DOE may consider in
a future rulemaking energy conservation standards for electric motor
equipment classes not addressed in this direct final rule, including
SNEMs and AO-SNEMs. If so, DOE will address these comments and concerns
as part of any future rulemaking. As such, in this final rule, DOE is
generally addressing comments regarding electric motors scope and what
DOE has the authority to regulate.
As discussed in the October 2022 Final Rule, EPCA, as amended
through EISA 2007, provides DOE with the authority to regulate the
expanded scope of motors addressed in this rule. 87 FR 63588, 63596.
Before the enactment of EISA 2007, EPCA defined the term ``electric
motor'' as any motor that is a general purpose T-frame, single-speed,
foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage induction motor of the NEMA,
Design A and B, continuous rated, operating on 230/460 volts and
constant 60 Hertz line power as defined in NEMA Standards Publication
MG1-1987. (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) (2006)) Section 313(a)(2) of EISA
2007 removed that definition and the prior limits that narrowly defined
what types of motors would be considered as electric motors. In its
place, EISA 2007 inserted a new ``Electric motors'' heading, and
created two new subtypes of electric motors: General purpose electric
motor (subtype I) and general purpose electric motor (subtype II). (42
U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)-(B) (2011)) In addition, section 313(b)(2) of EISA
2007 established energy conservation standards for four types of
electric motors: general purpose electric motors (subtype I) (i.e.,
subtype I motors) with a power rating of 1 to 200 horsepower; fire pump
motors; general purpose electric motor (subtype II) (i.e., subtype II
motors) with a power rating of 1 to 200 horsepower; and NEMA Design B,
general purpose electric motors with a power rating of more than 200
horsepower, but less than or equal to 500 horsepower. (42 U.S.C.
6313(b)(2)) The term ``electric motor'' was left undefined. However, in
a May 4, 2012 final rule amending the electric

[[Page 36085]]

motors test procedure (the May 2012 Final Rule), DOE adopted the
broader definition of ``electric motor'' currently found in 10 CFR
431.12 because DOE noted that the absence of a definition may cause
confusion about which electric motors are required to comply with
mandatory test procedures and energy conservation standards, and to
provide DOE with the flexibility to set energy conservation standards
for other types of electric motors without having to continuously
update the definition of ``electric motors'' each time DOE sets energy
conservation standards for a new subset of electric motors. 77 FR
26608, 26613.
The provisions of EPCA make clear that DOE may regulate electric
motors ``alone or as a component of another piece of equipment.'' See
42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1) & (2) (providing that standards for electric
motors be applied to electric motors manufactured ``alone or as a
component of another piece of equipment'') In contrast, Congress
exempted small electric motors (SEMs) \28\ that are a component of a
covered product or a covered equipment from the standards that DOE was
required to establish under 42 U.S.C. 6317(b). Congress did not,
however, similarly restrict electric motors. Unlike SEMs, the statute
does not limit DOE's authority to regulate an electric motor with
respect to whether ``electric motors'' are stand-alone equipment items
or components of a covered product or covered equipment. Rather,
Congress specifically provided that DOE could regulate electric motors
that are components of other covered equipment in the standards
established by DOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ Congress defined what equipment comprises a small electric
motor (``SEM'')--specifically, ``a NEMA general purpose alternating
current single-speed induction motor, built in a two-digit frame
number series in accordance with NEMA Standards Publication MG1-
1987.'' (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G)) (DOE clarified, at industry's
urging, that the definition also includes motors that are IEC metric
equivalents to the specified NEMA motors prescribed by the statute.
See 74 FR 32059, 32061-32062; 10 CFR 431.442.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, EPCA requires that any new or amended standard for a
covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in
energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In this
direct final rule, DOE performs the necessary analyses to determine
whether amended or new standards would meet the aforementioned
criteria. Further, DOE has determined that the amended standards
provide cost-effective standards that would result in the significant
conservation of energy. Further discussion on double-counting as it
relates to energy savings is provided in section IV.F of this document.
Further discussion on the analytical results and DOE's justification is
provided in section V.C of this document.
b. Air-Over Electric Motors
NEEA supported the inclusion of air-over electric motors in the
scope of the standards, noting that including them will allow
comparison of performance and informed purchase decisions. (NEEA, No.
33 at p. 2) The CA IOUs supported the inclusion of Totally Enclosed Air
Over (``TEAO'') motors in the analysis. In addition, the CA IOUs
commented that they support establishing standards for air-over motors
that otherwise meet the description of regulated motors (i.e., ``AO-
MEM'') consistent with the levels for totally enclosed fan cooled
(``TEFC'') electric motors. (CA IOUs, No. 30 at p. 1-2)
Lennox commented that DOE must continue the current electric motor
exemptions specified in 10 CFR 431.25(l) for air-over, particularly
when those motors are used in already-regulated HVACR products.
(Lennox, No. 29 at p. 3) AHRI commented that air-over motors are
explicitly exempted from regulation in 10 CFR 431.25(l), and that DOE
has not overcome the challenges to include these exempted products,
procedurally or technically. (AHRI, No. 26 at p. 1, 2)
DOE is covering air-over electric motors under its ``electric
motors'' authority. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) As previously discussed, the
statute does not limit DOE's authority to regulate an electric motor
with respect to whether they are stand-alone equipment items or as
components of a covered product or covered equipment. See 42 U.S.C.
6313(b)(1) (providing that standards for electric motors be applied to
electric motors manufactured ``alone or as a component of another piece
of equipment'').
DOE's previous determination in the December 2013 Final Rule to
exclude air-over electric motors from scope was due to insufficient
information available to DOE at the time to support establishment of a
test method. See 78 FR 75962, 75974-75975. Since that time, NEMA
published a test standard for air-over motors in Section IV,
``Performance Standards Applying to All Machines,'' Part 34 ``Air-Over
Motor Efficiency Test Method'' of NEMA MG 1-2016 (``NEMA Air-over Motor
Efficiency Test Method''). The air-over method was originally published
as part of the 2017 NEMA MG-1 Supplements and is also included in the
latest version of NEMA MG 1-2016. In the October 2022 Final Rule, DOE
used the aforementioned argument to include air-over electric motors
into the test procedure scope and establish test procedures. See 87 FR
63588, 63597. In this direct final rule, DOE has analyzed the scope of
electric motors based on the finalized test procedures from the October
2022 Final Rule, and amended energy conservation standards based on the
November 2022 Joint Recommendation.
c. AC Induction Electric Motors Greater Than 500 Horsepower
NEEA commented in support of expanding the scope to include AC
induction electric motors greater than 500 horsepower to identify their
energy use, potential for energy savings, price, and prevalence in the
market today. NEEA added that these motors consume a significant amount
of energy, and that motor efficiency generally improves as a function
of motor size, so it may be possible to establish higher efficiency
standards for greater than 500 HP motors. (NEEA, No. 33 at p. 3)
NEMA stated that energy conservation standards for >500 HP motors
would likely not be justified because of how tiny their market share
is. It also stated that there are unique performance requirements
applied to these motors that require custom designs that limit
efficiency. NEMA stated that, at minimum, if a motor has one of the
following special requirements, it should not be subject to standards;
those special requirements are: <550 percent locked-rotor current,
minimum locked rotor steady state supply voltage of <80 percent,
ability to accelerate a moment of inertia greater than the moment of
inertia defined by NEMA, ability to operate outside the range of -20
[deg]C to +60 [deg]C, ability to operate above 4,000 m above sea level,
a load-torque envelope with a minimum torque of 25 percent of rated
torque with a square shaped T-n[supcaret]2 up to a max load, ability to
start consecutively from cold three times or from hot two times, being
a multi-speed motor, submersible, smoke extraction motor, explosion-
proof motor, or a motor used in nuclear plants. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 9-
10)
Since the comments to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, the
Electric Motors Working Group, which included NEEA and NEMA,
recommended standards for medium electric motors rated over 500 hp and
up to 750 hp at 60 Hz (Recommendation #2). The scope of medium electric
motors includes those electric motors that currently meet

[[Page 36086]]

10 CFR 431.25(g), but expanded to include motor horsepower >500 hp but
less than 750 hp. Accordingly, in this direct final rule, DOE is
including the aforementioned scope of electric motors for consideration
of new standards, based on the November 2022 Joint Recommendation.
Specifically, in the November 2022 Joint Recommendation, the Electric
Motors Working Group agreed on establishing efficiency levels
corresponding to 60 Hz NEMA Premium levels for motors rated over 500 hp
and up to 750 hp. The Electric Motors Working Group noted that
extending the horsepower range of electric motors subject to energy
conservation standards would be beneficial in aligning with EU
Ecodesign Directive 2019/1781,\29\ which covers motors up to 1000 kW
(1341 hp) at NEMA Premium levels, and for which manufacturers are
making investments to comply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ In terms of standardized horsepowers, this would correspond
to 100-250 hp when applying the guidance from 10 CFR 431.25(k) (and
new section 10 CFR 431.25(q)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. AC Induction Inverter-Only and Synchronous Electric Motors
NEEA commented in support of expanding the scope of standards to
synchronous and inverter-only motors to identify their energy use,
potential for energy savings, price, and prevalence in the market
today. NEEA recommended to include these motors in the same equipment
classes are induction motors. In addition, NEEA recommended not to
establish stricter efficiency requirements for these motors based on
full-load efficiency because these motors allow energy savings at part
load conditions. (NEEA, No. 33 at p. 3) NEMA stated that synchronous
motors should have their own equipment class until analysis concludes
they are not needed. NEMA suggested DOE make an ``other than regulatory
action'' to save energy at the application and reference NEMA Standard
10011-22 with regards to the power index. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 8)
CA IOUs supported including inverter-only and synchronous electric
motors, but in the same equipment class as currently regulated
induction motors. The CA IOUs recommended convening an Appliance
Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (``ASRAC'') Working
Group to finalize a test procedure and part-load metric for these
motors before finalizing a test procedure and energy conservation
standards rulemaking. (CA IOUs, No. 30 at p. 2) The Joint Advocates
also commented supporting analyzing synchronous motors jointly with
currently covered motors and recommended that DOE also analyze
synchronous motors jointly with relevant SNEM and AO motors. The Joint
Advocates commented that synchronous motors represent the most
efficient motors on the market and highlighted the potential energy
savings opportunities facilitated by market shifts to synchronous
motors. In addition, the Joint Advocates commented that the potential
life-cycle cost savings associated with synchronous motor substitutions
should be directly accounted for when evaluating potential amended
standards for electric motors. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at p. 2)
Similarly, the CA IOUs also provided the following supporting data to
show that synchronous and inverter-only electric motor are designed,
marketed, capable, and are being used to replace induction motors: (1)
manufacturer reference tables that promote the direct replacement of
currently regulated induction motors with synchronous and inverter-only
motors (2) data showing synchronous motor performance exceeding a best-
in-class copper cage induction motor paired with a commercially
available VFD (which the CA IOUs stated corroborates the PTSD savings
estimates for synchronous electric motors), and (3) a summary of case
studies docketed in response to the December 2021 test procedure NOPR.
The CA IOUs commented that this supporting data demonstrates the use of
synchronous and inverter-only motors in applications where National
Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) Design B motors are
typically used. (CA IOUs, No. 30 at p. 2-3)
AHAM and AHRI commented that if DOE includes inverter-only and
synchronous motors in the scope of the ECS, it should first publish a
preliminary analysis or NODA for these motors before proceeding to a
NOPR. (AHAM, AHRI, No. 25 at p. 2) Lennox commented that DOE imposing
increased costs on inverter-only motors by additional regulation may
inhibit HVACR manufacturer use of these motors in innovative
applications. Further, Lennox commented that DOE ceasing its exemptions
for inverter-only motors, and thereby unduly-burdening manufacturers
and forcing higher HVACR product costs on consumers with component-
level regulation, is particularly inappropriate during an ongoing
pandemic where inflation has been at a 40-year high. (Lennox, No. 29 at
p. 2-3) NEMA stated that by regulating synchronous motors, DOE is
regulating both the required adjustable speed drive and the motor
itself. It stated that this is unnecessary and poorly conceived, and
that synchronous motors do not generally conform to the torque-speed
curves required by NEMA and IEC Designs. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 7) In
addition, NEMA stated that inverter-only induction motors have
characteristics warranting their own equipment class. It stated these
motors are used exclusively for constant torque or constant HP
applications and that certain applications have performance
requirements like acceleration, deceleration, and overload capability
for optimal control of a process. NEMA also stated that the performance
requirements go beyond a single steady-state load condition that the
test procedure uses, and that targeting a specific operating point's
efficiency could restrict the other torque and thermal requirements of
these motors. It also states that since the metric includes the losses
of the inverter, these motors will have a lower maximum potential
efficiency than typical induction motors. NEMA pointed to IEC 60034-30-
2 as an example for efficiency values that pertain specifically to
variable-speed motors. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 8-9)
In this direct final rule, DOE is not separately regulating or
establishing standards for inverter-only and synchronous electric
motors. As a sensitivity analysis, DOE notes that it analyzed the
impacts of potentially switching to these electric motors as a result
of higher standards that will be finalized for MEMs 100-250 hp, NEMA
Design A & B in this DFR; further discussion is provided in section
IV.F of this document.
e. Submersible Electric Motors
NEEA and HI recommended excluding submersible motors from the scope
of the standards due to the lack of repeatable and representative test
procedures. (NEEA, No. 33 at p. 4; HI, No. 31 at p. 1) CA IOUs
commented that they do not support including submersible electric
motors, and that DOE should collaborate with industry stakeholders in
developing a test procedure for this motor category. (CA IOUs, No. 30
at p. 2) Finally, NEMA stated that submersible electric motors should
be removed from the rulemaking. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 9) In the October
2022 Final Rule, DOE did not finalize a test method for submersible
electric motors. See 87 FR 63588, 63605. Moreover, the November 2022
Joint Recommendation did not recommend energy conservation standards
for submersible electric motors. Accordingly, submersible electric
motors continue to be excluded

[[Page 36087]]

from the test procedure and are not included in this standards direct
final rule.
2. Test Procedure and Metric
DOE received comments regarding the test procedure and efficiency
metric for electric motors subject to these energy conservation
standards.
NEMA requested an SNOPR for the test procedure and requested that
the energy conservation standards rulemaking not move forward until the
test procedure is finished. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 2). DOE published the
electric motor test procedure final rule on October 19, 2022. 87 FR
63588.
NEEA commented that, until DOE revises their test procedure and
efficiency metric to account for part-load operating conditions, they
do not recommend that DOE establish stricter efficiency requirements
for synchronous electric motors and inverter-only electric motors.
(NEEA, No. 33 at p. 4,5) CA IOUs commented similarly, strongly
encouraging DOE to adopt the use of a metric that is representative of
part-load performance for inverter-only and synchronous electric
motors. CA IOUs provided data in support of the use of a part-load
metric for inverter-only and synchronous electric motor applications to
better reflect how these motors operate in the field. (CA IOUs, No. 30
at p. 2) The Joint Advocates explained that inverter-only AC motors may
not have a higher full-load efficiency than a comparable single-speed
motor, but they may save energy by reducing motor speed and resulting
input power at partial loads. Therefore, they commented that because
the efficiency is evaluated only at full load, inverter-only motors
would be at a disadvantage as the input losses associated with the
inverter would be included in the efficiency calculation, but the
potential energy savings resulting from its speed control capabilities
would not be captured. (Joint Advocates, No. 27 at p. 3) NEMA commented
that DOE should transition away from a single point efficiency metric
and instead should develop a Power Index that incorporates the savings
associated with power drive systems. NEMA commented that by applying a
fixed speed efficiency testing at full load metric, the DOE misses the
true opportunity for energy savings. NEMA explained that while at
certain load points the motor losses might be a fraction (0.5 percent)
lower, the application of a PDS would save 25-50 percent of power in
the integral horsepower market and that these savings dwarf the 0.8
percent reduction associated with EL2. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 5)
The currently prescribed test procedure in appendix B requires
testing electric motors at full-load only. In the October 2022 Final
Rule, DOE argued that variable-load applications primarily operate in a
range where efficiency is relatively flat as a function of load, and
therefore measuring the performance of these motors at full-load is
representative of an average use cycle. See 87 FR 63588, 63620.
Moreover, in this direct final rule, DOE is not proposing to separately
regulate inverter-only and synchronous electric motors, but rather DOE
is considering substitution effects to these motors for higher
efficiency standards for MEMs.
Lennox commented that there would be insufficient testing
facilities to accommodate significantly expanded motor product classes,
such as DOE expanding motor regulations into SNEMs, air-over,
synchronous or inverter-only motors, specifically in view of the
proposal to require third-party laboratory testing. (Lennox, No. 29 at
p. 5-6) The Joint Industry Stakeholders commented that DOE proposed
that electric motors certified to the new test procedure could only be
certified by 3rd party test labs, instead of certified labs in
accordance with longstanding recognized practice. They stated that
special and definite-purpose motors potentially classified as SNEM
could not possibly be tested, redesigned, retested, certified, and made
available for OEM use by the few third-party small electric motor
certification bodies recognized by DOE today. (Joint Industry
Stakeholders, No. 23 at p. 9) As discussed in section IV.A.1, in this
direct final rule, DOE is only amending standards for certain MEMs and
establishing standards for AO-MEMs and certain air-over polyphase
motors. Further, DOE understands the Joint Industry Stakeholders
comments to be directed at the proposals from the test procedure
rulemaking. Since this proposal, DOE published the October 2022 Final
Rule, where DOE decided to not adopt its proposal to require the use of
an independent testing program, and to instead continue permitting the
use of accredited labs as currently allowed through National Institute
of Standards and Technology (``NIST'') and National Voluntary
Laboratory Accreditation Program (``NVLAP'') accreditation. See 87 FR
62588, 63628-63629.
3. Equipment Classes
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))
Due to the number of electric motor characteristics (e.g.,
horsepower rating, pole configuration, and enclosure), in the March
2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE used two constructs to help develop
appropriate energy conservation standards for electric motors:
``equipment class'' and ``equipment class groups.'' An equipment class
represents a unique combination of motor characteristics for which DOE
is establishing a specific energy conservation standard. This includes
permutations of electric motor design types (i.e., NEMA Design A & B
(and IEC equivalents)), standard horsepower ratings (i.e., standard
ratings from 1 to 500 horsepower), pole configurations (i.e., 2-, 4-,
6-, or 8-pole), and enclosure types (i.e., open or enclosed). An
equipment class group (``ECG'') is a collection of electric motors that
share a common design trait. Equipment class groups include motors over
a range of horsepower ratings, enclosure types, and pole
configurations. Essentially, each equipment class group is a collection
of a large number of equipment classes with the same design trait. As
such, in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE presented equipment
class groups based on electric motor design, motor topology, horsepower
rating, pole configuration and enclosure type. See Chapters 2.3.1 and
3.2.2 of the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD.
Further, although DOE acknowledged that synchronous electric
motors, inverter-only electric motors and induction electric motors
>500 hp and <=750 hp would be within scope, DOE did not create separate
equipment classes for these electric motors and did not evaluate
separate energy conservation standards. (See Chapter 2.3.1.3 of the
March 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD) However, DOE did evaluate
synchronous and inverter-only electric motors jointly with the
induction motors because the motors did not have a performance-related
feature that would justify a separate class. Id.
In response to the equipment classes, DOE received a number of
comments, which are presented below. Comments regarding SNEM and AO-
SNEM equipment classes will be addressed in a separate NOPR.

[[Page 36088]]

Regarding air-over motors, NEMA agreed that an air-over rating
warrants a separate equipment class because these motors are often
built in a smaller frame size to take advantage of the outside airflow.
NEMA stated that these motors built in a smaller frame size are limited
in their efficiency capability because less active material can fit in
them. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 7)
Since the comments to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD, the
November 2022 Joint Recommendation specifically recommended that DOE
establish two separate equipment classes for AO-MEMs, i.e., standard
frame AO-MEMs and specialized frame AO-MEMs, because of their different
applications. The November 2022 Joint Recommendation identified
standard frame AO-MEMs as AO-MEMs sold in standard NEMA frame sizes
aligned with NEMA MG1, Table 13.2 and Table 13.3. In addition, the
November 2022 Joint Recommendation identified specialized, smaller
frame AO-MEMs as a group of motors for which the rated output exceeds
the horsepower-frame size limits in the aforementioned NEMA MG1 tables.
The Electric Motors Working Group noted that these motors are used in
specialty applications where the design is optimized to meet space
constraints and take advantage of higher-than-normal airflows, such as
in agriculture applications. They also stated that because of the
higher airflows, the motor operates at greater power densities than
standard-frame motors, which therefore results in the motor being
loaded to a slightly less efficient operating point. Accordingly, they
recommended these motors be separated into their own equipment class.
See November 2022 Joint Recommendation at 4-5.
Consistent with the November 2022 Joint Recommendation, in this
direct final rule, DOE is separating the air-over equipment class into
two equipment classes. As such, DOE is including ``AO-MEM (Standard
frame size),'' and renaming ``Specialized Frame Size AO-MEMs'' (from
the November 2022 Joint Recommendation) to ``AO-Polyphase (Specialized
frame size)''. DOE notes that the frame size constraints from
Recommendation 3.b. include frame sizes beyond those specifically in
the AO-MEM scope; as discussed in section III.A, 10 CFR 431.25(g)(7)
specifically states that a MEM built in a two-digit frame size would
only be an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent),
whereas Recommendation 3.b. specifies maximum NEMA frame diameters at
48 NEMA frame size. Accordingly, to provide a more representative
naming convention for these motors, DOE is using ``AO-Polyphase
(Specialized frame size)'' in this direct final rule. DOE notes that
only the naming convention is changed compared to the November 2022
Joint Recommendation; the scope of motors being represented continues
to stay the same.
In addition, to clarify what is meant by ``standard frame size''
and ``specialized frame size,'' DOE is adding definitions in the CFR
consistent with the recommendations from the November 2022 Joint
Recommendation. Specifically, in this direct final rule, DOE is adding
a definition for ``standard frame size'' as ``aligned with the
specifications in NEMA MG 1-2016 section 13.2 for open motors, and NEMA
MG 1-2016 section 13.3 for enclosed motors.'' Further, DOE is adding a
definition for ``specialized frame size'' as ``means an electric motor
frame size for which the rated output power of the motor exceeds the
motor frame size limits specified for standard frame size. Specialized
frame sizes have maximum diameters corresponding to the following NEMA
Frame Sizes:''

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum NEMA frame diameter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalent 2 Pole 4 Pole 6 Pole 8 Pole
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open Enclosed Open
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/.75........................................................... 48 ......... 48 48 48 48 140 140
1.5/1.1......................................................... 48 48 48 48 140 140 140 140
2/1.5........................................................... 48 48 48 48 140 140 180 180
3/2.2........................................................... 140 48 140 140 180 180 180 180
5/3.7........................................................... 140 140 140 140 180 180 210 210
7.5/5.5......................................................... 180 140 180 180 210 210 210 210
10/7.5.......................................................... 180 180 180 180 210 210 ......... .........
15/11........................................................... 210 180 210 210 ......... ......... ......... .........
20/15........................................................... 210 210 210 210 ......... ......... ......... .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding motors already covered at 10 CFR 431.25(g), NEMA stated
that locked-rotor torque is not a typical design criterion used by end-
users and that this value is already captured in the NEMA Design A, B,
C etc. classification. NEMA also stated that locked-rotor torque is not
a reliable means for determining energy efficiency. (NEMA, No. 22 at p.
6) DOE agrees with the statement and is therefore not incorporating
locked-rotor torque as an equipment class identifier for MEMs currently
covered at 10 CFR 431.25(g).
Regarding synchronous and inverter-only electric motors, NEEA
recommended that DOE not create separate equipment classes because
these motors are used in the same applications as their induction motor
counterparts. (NEEA, No. 33 at p. 3) The Joint Advocates stated that
while they agree that inverter-only induction electric motors do not
have a unique performance-related feature or utility that justifies a
separate class from non-inverter and inverter-capable motors, they were
concerned that inverter-only motors may be at an unfair disadvantage
relative to single-speed induction motors when efficiencies are
evaluated only at full load. (Joint Advocates, No. 28 at p. 3) As
discussed in section IV.A.1.d of this document, DOE is not separately
regulating inverter-only and synchronous electric motors in this direct
final rule. Rather, DOE is only considering the substitution effects of
switching to these electric motors if higher standards for MEMs are
established. Otherwise, comments regarding the test procedure and
metric are addressed in section IV.A.2 of this document.
Therefore, Table IV-1 presents the ECGs considered in this direct
final rule. The equipment class groups represent a total of 425
equipment classes.

[[Page 36089]]

Table IV-1--Equipment Class Groups Considered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Horsepower Pole
ECG ECG motor design type Motor topology rating configuration Enclosure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... MEM 1-500 hp, NEMA Polyphase.................... 1-500 2, 4, 6, 8 Open.
Design A & B. Enclosed.
2................................... MEM 501-750 hp, NEMA Polyphase.................... 501-750 2, 4 Open.
Design A & B. Enclosed.
3................................... AO-MEM (Standard Frame Polyphase.................... 1-250 2, 4, 6, 8 Open.
Size). Enclosed.
4................................... AO-Polyphase Polyphase.................... 1-20 2, 4, 6, 8 Open.
(Specialized Frame Enclosed.
Size).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Table IV-2--March 2022 Preliminary Analysis Technology Options To
Increase Motor Efficiency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of loss to reduce Technology option
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stator I2R Losses............ Increase cross-sectional area of copper
in stator slots
Decrease the length of coil extensions
Rotor I2R Losses............. Increase cross-sectional area of end
rings.
Increase cross-sectional area of rotor
conductor bars.
Use a die-cast copper rotor cage.
Core Losses.................. Use electrical steel laminations with
lower losses. (watts/lb)
Use thinner steel laminations.
Increase stack length (i.e., add
electrical steel laminations).
Friction and Windage Losses.. Optimize bearing and lubrication
selection.
Improve cooling system design.
Stray-Load Losses............ Reduce skew on rotor cage.
Improve rotor bar insulation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the technology options, DOE received several
comments.
Regarding electrical steel, NEMA stated that newer grade steels are
available but not in the high volumes required to replace today's
production, and that many new grades are imported and subject to
tariffs and delays. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 10) NEMA argued that using
lower-loss steel would not necessarily result in a more efficient
electric motor. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 10-13) Specifically, NEMA stated
that processing of the steel during motor manufacturing could alter
electrical steel performance. As an example, NEMA noted that thinner
steels would deform more when punched than thicker grades. (NEMA, No.
22 at p. 11) Additionally, NEMA stated that different steel grades
could have different heat transfer rates, which may affect motor
operating temperature and, thus, efficiency. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 11)
NEMA provided certain test data illustrating its claims regarding the
potential for steel loss and motor efficiency to diverge. (NEMA, No. 22
at p. 12) Relatedly, NEMA provided finite element model data
illustrating magnetic flux density over the cross section of a 4-pole
induction motor and noting the nonuniformity of the flux density values
obtained, which NEMA observed could exceed the 1.5T-reference value
commonly used by steel producers to rate their products. (NEMA, No. 22
at p. 13-14)
Losses generated in the electrical steel in the core of an
induction motor can be significant and are classified as either
hysteresis or eddy current losses. Hysteresis losses are caused by
magnetic domains resisting reorientation to the alternating magnetic
field. Eddy currents are physical currents that are induced in the
steel laminations by the magnetic flux produced by the current in the
windings. Both hysteresis and eddy current losses generate heat in the
electrical steel.
In evaluating techniques used to reduce steel losses, DOE
considered two types of material: conventional non-oriented electrical
steel and ``non-conventional'' steels, which may contain high
proportions of boron or cobalt or lack metal grain structure
altogether. Conventional steels are more commonly used in electric
motors manufactured today. The three types of steel that DOE classifies
as ``conventional,'' include cold-rolled magnetic laminations, fully
processed non-oriented electrical steel, and semi-processed non-
oriented electrical steel. DOE does not model non-conventional
electrical steels in its analysis of electric motors, including cobalt-
based and amorphous steels. For additional details on DOE's software
modeling and analysis of electrical steel performance, see chapter 3 of
the direct final rule TSD.
DOE acknowledges the potential for increased non-oriented steel
demand arising from a larger trend toward electrification of vehicles
and equipment. However, DOE's research of publicly announced non-
oriented electrical steel manufacturing capacity expansions \30\ either
currently underway

[[Page 36090]]

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

\30\ E.g., (1) US-based Cleveland-Cliffs doubles NOES capacity
by 2023, adding 70 kilotons of annual capacity in response to
customer demand.
(2) US-based Big River Steel (a subsidiary of United States
Steel Corporation) announced plans to increase annual NOES
production capacity by 200 kilotons by September 2023.
(3) JFE Steel reports plans to double NOES production capacity
by the first half of the 2024 fiscal year, which begins in April
2024.
(4) Baoshan Iron & Steel (``Baosteel'', a subsidiary of China
Baowu Steel Group) is reported to be expanding NOES production
capacity by 500 kilotons by March 2023.
(5) POSCO announced groundbreaking for a NOES production
facility which will approximately quadruple high-efficiency NOES
capacity to 400 kilotons by 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding tariffs on imported steels, DOE presented the costs for
various steel grades to manufacturers during interviews and updated the
costs based on input received. The input DOE received about steel
prices incorporated changes in costs due to importing delays, tariffs,
and global supply. Because the steel tariff applies to articles
imported into the United States, it does not directly affect prices
paid for steel in other nations, including those which manufacture
motors sold in the US market.
Regarding the uncertain ability of lower-loss electrical steel to
increase motor efficiency, electric motor manufacturers stated during
confidential interviews that lower-loss steel would generally increase
motor efficiency, even when considering the potential increase in steel
loss that can arise during manufacturing. Accordingly, DOE considers
lower-loss electrical steel to be an available option for improving
motor efficiency in general, even if not in all possible motor designs.
Electric motor manufacturers during confidential interviews did not
report having constructed or tested electric motor designs using what
appear to be the lowest-loss electrical steel grades available in the
market. In cases, manufacturers reported unfamiliarity with the grades.
As a result, DOE is not able to assess whether testing performed by
manufacturers, including the example presented by NEMA (NEMA, No. 22 at
p. 12), establishes a limitation on the degree of electric motor
efficiency improvement possible through use of increasingly lower-loss
electric steel.
Regarding the flux density map from finite element modeling
provided by NEMA, it is reasonable to expect variation in flux density
levels throughout both the motor laminations and over time, as NEMA
observes. DOE's analysis does not assume a constant flux density would
exist throughout an electric motor. Those variations would cause
instantaneous, localized steel loss levels to vary accordingly, and
depart from the manufacturer-rated values at a given, single reference
value (1.5T, commonly for non-oriented electric steels). All grades of
non-oriented electrical steel that DOE has identified share the
property of increasing loss with increasing flux density. Thus, the
flux density variation cited by NEMA would ostensibly exist for
electrical steels generally; it would not be unique to lower-loss steel
grades. Additionally, when evaluating use of a higher steel grade,
manufacturers would likely optimize the design for the grade in
question for any design likely to be built in significant volume. For
DOE's modeling, DOE considered a conservative approach to represent
performance of these lower-loss electrical steels, which is discussed
further in section IV.C.1.c of this document.
Some production requirements associated with using lower-loss steel
grades are understood and able to be accounted for with a cost. For
example, increasing the silicon content of an alloy may increase
resistivity (and thus, potentially reduce loss) but increase the
hardness of the grade as a side effect. The comparatively harder steel
may wear punching dies more rapidly, which would be likely to worsen
the quality of the punched steel laminations more quickly if tooling
were not replaced correspondingly more often or substituted with a
harder tooling material. More frequent tooling replacement and harder
tooling would be likely to add cost to the electric motor manufacturing
process, which DOE accounts for in the manufacturer impact analysis.
Separately, NEMA also commented on another technology option that
DOE considered. Specifically, NEMA stated that the benefits of reducing
the length of the coil extensions are not clear. It noted that to
reduce the I\2\R loss, the mean length of each turn in the end coil
region would have to be reduced during the coil winding stage but doing
so would increase the difficulty of winding insertion due to increased
crowding with adjacent coils. However, NEMA stated that if such a
reduction in mean length was feasible, it is likely to have already
been exploited to their full extent because it would reduce the amount
of copper in the winding, and would also be a cost-saving measure.
(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 3) DOE agrees that decreasing the length of the
coil extensions in the stator slots of an electric motor reduces the
resistive I\2\R losses, and reduces the material cost of the electric
motor because less copper is being used. DOE also agrees that there may
be limited efficiency gains, if any, for most electric motors using
this technology option. DOE understands that electric motors have been
produced for many decades and that many manufacturers have improved
their production techniques to the point where certain design
parameters may already be fully optimized. However, DOE cannot conclude
that this design parameter is fully optimized for all electric motors,
and therefore maintains that this is a design parameter that affects
efficiency and should be considered when designing an electric motor
because it is a technology option that continues to be technologically
feasible. DOE has previously made similar conclusions in the May 2014
Final Rule. See 79 FR 30934, 30960.
The CA IOUs strongly suggested that DOE update the maximum
technology feasible for electric motors to include, at a minimum, the
commercially available technology with the highest efficiency. The CA
IOUs provided data for commercially available electric motors, as well
as built and tested prototypes, that exceed the max-tech performance
assumption in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 30 at
p. 3) For the analysis, DOE uses the maximum efficiency technology
option to represent the design option which yields the highest energy
efficiency that is technologically feasible within the scope of MEMs
and air-over electric motors, which are all induction motors. In their
comment, the CA IOU's present high efficiency motors that are all
outside the scope of this direct final rule, such as permanent magnet
synchronous motors, and electronically commutated motors. As such, DOE
is not amending the maximum technology design option in this direct
final rule.
Therefore, DOE maintains the same technology options from the March
2022 Preliminary Analysis in this direct final rule.

B. Screening Analysis

DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy
conservation standards rulemaking:
(8) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial products or in commercially viable, existing
prototypes will not be considered further.
(9) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the
time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that
technology will not be considered further.

[[Page 36091]]

(10) Impacts on product utility. If a technology is determined to
have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to
subgroups of consumers, or result in the unavailability of any covered
product type with performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as products generally available in the United States at the time,
it will not be considered further.
(11) Safety of technologies. If it is determined that a technology
would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not
be considered further.
(12) Unique-pathway proprietary technologies. If a technology has
proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a
given efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to the
potential for monopolistic concerns.
10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections
6(c)(3) and 7(b).
In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination
of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria,
it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering
analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in
the following sections.
As part of the May 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE requested
feedback, in part, on its screening analysis based on the five criteria
described in this section. 87 FR 11650. The subsequent sections include
comments from interested parties pertinent to the screening criteria,
DOE's evaluation of each technology option against the screening
analysis criteria, and whether DOE determined that a technology option
should be excluded (``screened out'') based on the screening criteria.
1. Screened-Out Technologies
In the March 2022 Prelim TSD, DOE screened out amorphous metal
laminations and plastic bonded iron powder (``PBIP'') from the
analysis. DOE requested further data on the feasibility of amorphous
steel being used in electric motors at scale. See chapter 3 of the
March 2022 Prelim TSD. In response, DOE received comments regarding the
technologies excluded from this engineering analysis.
Metglas commented that they strongly disagree with the decision to
exclude electric motors that use amorphous steel. Metglas stated that
Hitachi Industrial Equipment Systems Co., Ltd. (Hitachi Sanki Systems)
has commercially produced higher efficiency air compressors (IE5 class)
with an amorphous metal-based motor since 2017. Metglas noted that
Hitachi Ltd. is using novel motor topologies to optimize the use of
amorphous foil in the fabrication process. Metglas claimed that other
motor producers are actively designing amorphous metal-based motors,
and while amorphous metal-based motors are certainly not predominant
today, they do represent where the maximum technological feasibility
efficiency levels can be set for electric motors. Metglas claimed the
losses when using an amorphous metal stator have been shown to drop by
more than 75 percent compared to a conventional non-oriented electrical
steel, and that this allows for higher operational frequencies which
reduces the ov

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on June 1, 2023.

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.