Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-26531

Proposed Rule2023-26531

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Expanded Scope 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

December 15, 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. In this notice of proposed rulemaking ("NOPR"), DOE proposes new energy conservation standards for a subset of electric motors, expanded scope electric motors, expressed in terms of average full-load efficiency, and also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 240 (Friday, December 15, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 240 (Friday, December 15, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 87062-87153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26531]

[[Page 87061]]

Vol. 88

Friday,

No. 240

December 15, 2023

Part II

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Expanded
Scope Electric Motors; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 2023 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 87062]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007]
RIN 1904-AF55

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Expanded Scope Electric Motors

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

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

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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including electric
motors. In this notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR''), DOE proposes
new energy conservation standards for a subset of electric motors,
expanded scope electric motors, expressed in terms of average full-load
efficiency, and also announces a public meeting to receive comment on
these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

DATES:
Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding
this NOPR no later than February 13, 2024.
Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, January 17,
2024, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. This meeting will also
be broadcast as a webinar.
Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed
standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in
the ADDRESSES section on or before January 16, 2024.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-245, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585. See section VII of this document, ``Public
Participation,'' for further details, including procedures for
attending the in-person meeting, webinar registration information,
participant instructions, and information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> under docket number
EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by
docket number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007, by any of the following methods:
Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fbbe979e98b6948f948988c9cbc9cba8afbfcbcbcbccbb9e9ed59f949ed59c948d">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include the docket number
EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007 in the subject line of the message.
Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program,
U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant
Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445.
If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section VII of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the
docket are listed in the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> index. However, not all
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/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. See
section VII of this document for information on how to submit comments
through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites
input from market participants and other interested persons with views
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested
persons may contact the Antitrust Division at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a2c7ccc7d0c5db8cd1d6c3ccc6c3d0c6d1e2d7d1c6cdc88cc5cdd4">[email&#160;protected]</a> on or before the date specified in the DATES
section. Please indicate in the ``Subject'' line of your email the
title and Docket Number of this proposed rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#adecddddc1c4ccc3cec8fed9ccc3c9ccdfc9defcd8c8ded9c4c2c3deedc8c883c9c2c883cac2db">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Ms. Kristin Koernig, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-3593. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2249504b51564b4c0c494d47504c4b45624a530c464d470c454d54">[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#8ccdfcfce0e5ede2efe9dff8ede2e8edfee8ffddf9e9fff8e5e3e2ffcce9e9a2e8e3e9a2ebe3fa">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits and Costs
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for ESEMs
3. Electric Motors Working Group Recommended Standard Levels
C. Deviation From Process Rule
1. Public Comment Period
2. Framework Document
III. General Discussion
A. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes
1. General Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes
2. Structure of the Regulatory Text
3. Air-Over Medium Electric Motors and Air-Over ESEMs
B. Test Procedure
C. Represented Values
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
E. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
F. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC
and PBP)
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

[[Page 87063]]

A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Scope of Coverage
2. Air-Over ESEMs
3. Equipment Classes
4. Technology Options
5. Imported Embedded Motors
B. Screening Analysis
1. Screened-Out Technologies
2. Remaining Technologies
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
a. Representative Units Analyzed
b. Baseline Efficiency
c. Higher Efficiency Levels
2. Cost Analysis
3. Technical Specifications
4. Cost-Efficiency Results
5. Scaling Methodology
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
1. Consumer Sample
2. Motor Input Power
3. Annual Operating Hours
4. Impact of Electric Motor Speed
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Equipment Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
6. Equipment Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
G. Shipments Analysis
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Equipment Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
b. Shipments Projections
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios
3. Manufacturer Interviews
K. Emissions Analysis
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a. Social Cost of Carbon
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
M. Utility Impact Analysis
N. Employment Impact Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
C. Conclusion
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for ESEM Standards
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and
Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Information Quality
VII. Public Participation
A. Attendance at the Public Meeting
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Public Meeting
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C \2\ of EPCA established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-
6317) Such equipment includes electric motors. Expanded scope electric
motors (``ESEMs''), a subcategory of electric motors, are the subject
of this rulemaking. This proposed rulemaking does not address small
electric motors that are covered under title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (``CFR'') part 431 subpart X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))
Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed
in this document, DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of four trial
standard levels (``TSLs'') for ESEMs. The TSLs and their associated
benefits and burdens are discussed in detail in sections V.A through
V.C of this document. As discussed in section V.C of this document, DOE
has tentatively determined that TSL 2 represents the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and
economically justified. The proposed standards, which are expressed in
average full-load efficiency, are shown in Table I-1 through Table I-3
and are equivalent to those recommended in a joint recommendation for
energy conservation standards for ESEMs \3\ (``December 2022 Joint
Recommendation'') from the Electric Motors Working Group, representing
the motors industry, energy efficiency organizations and
utilities.4 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ In the letter, this category is referred to as ``SNEM.'' See
discussion on the change in terminology in sections III.A and III.B
of this document.
\4\ Full recommendation available at: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0038">www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0038</a>.
\5\ The members of the Electric Motors Working Group included
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Appliance
Standards Awareness Project, National Electrical Manufacturers
Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Diego Gas &
Electric, and Southern California Edison.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upon receipt of the December 2022 Joint Recommendation, DOE
considered whether the statutory requirements of

[[Page 87064]]

42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) would be satisfied and thus warrant the issuance
of a direct final rule by DOE. In particular, EPCA requires DOE to
determine whether the recommended standard contained in a statement
submitted jointly by interested parties is in accordance with 42 U.S.C.
6295(o); i.e., whether the recommended standard would achieve the
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i)) If
the Secretary determines the recommended standard is in accordance with
42 U.S.C. 6295(o), the Secretary may issue a final rule that
establishes the recommended energy conservation standard. (Id.) If the
Secretary determines that a direct final rule cannot be issued based on
the statement, the Secretary must publish a notice of the
determination, together with an explanation of the reasons for such
determination. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(ii)) EPCA defines seven factors
by which DOE must determine whether a proposed standard is economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) Having considered the
December 2022 Joint Recommendation, DOE has tentatively determined that
the recommended standard is in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
However, because EPCA does not require DOE to issue a direct final rule
under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p), DOE is interested in seeking public comment on
the proposed, and recommended, standards level through this proposed
rule to better understand the impacts of those standards.
These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all ESEMs
listed in Table I-1 through Table I-3 manufactured in, or imported
into, the United States starting on January 1, 2029.

Table I-1--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for High and Medium-Torque ESEMs
[Compliance Starting on January 1, 2029] [Recommended TSL 2]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average full load efficiency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hp Open Enclosed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-pole 4-pole 6-pole 8-pole 2-pole 4-pole 6-pole 8-pole
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.25........................................................... 59.5 59.5 57.5 .......... 59.5 59.5 57.5 .........
0.33........................................................... 64.0 64.0 62.0 50.5 64.0 64.0 62.0 50.5
0.5............................................................ 68.0 69.2 68.0 52.5 68.0 67.4 68.0 52.5
0.75........................................................... 76.2 81.8 80.2 72.0 75.5 75.5 75.5 72.0
1.............................................................. 80.4 82.6 81.1 74.0 77.0 80.0 77.0 74.0
1.5............................................................ 81.5 83.8 ......... .......... 81.5 81.5 80.0 .........
2.............................................................. 82.9 84.5 ......... .......... 82.5 82.5 ......... .........
3.............................................................. 84.1 ......... ......... .......... 84.0 ......... ......... .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table I-2--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Low-Torque ESEMs
[Compliance Starting on January 1, 2029] [Recommended TSL 2]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average full load efficiency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hp Open Enclosed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-pole 4-pole 6-pole 8-pole 2-pole 4-pole 6-pole 8-pole
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.25........................................................... 63.9 66.1 60.2 52.5 60.9 64.1 59.2 52.5
0.33........................................................... 66.9 69.7 65.0 56.6 63.9 67.7 64.0 56.6
0.5............................................................ 68.8 70.1 66.8 57.1 65.8 68.1 65.8 57.1
0.75........................................................... 70.5 74.8 73.1 62.8 67.5 72.8 72.1 62.8
1.............................................................. 74.3 77.1 77.3 65.7 71.3 75.1 76.3 65.7
1.5............................................................ 79.9 82.1 80.5 72.2 76.9 80.1 79.5 72.2
2.............................................................. 81.0 82.9 81.4 73.3 78.0 80.9 80.4 73.3
3.............................................................. 82.4 84.0 82.5 74.9 79.4 82.0 81.5 74.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table I-3--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Polyphase ESEMs
[Compliance Starting on January 1, 2029] [Recommended TSL 2]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average full load efficiency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hp Open Enclosed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-pole 4-pole 6-pole 8-pole 2-pole 4-pole 6-pole 8-pole
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.25........................................................... 65.6 69.5 67.5 62.0 66.0 68.0 66.0 62.0
0.33........................................................... 69.5 73.4 71.4 64.0 70.0 72.0 70.0 64.0
0.5............................................................ 73.4 78.2 75.3 66.0 72.0 75.5 72.0 66.0
0.75........................................................... 76.8 81.1 81.7 70.0 75.5 77.0 74.0 70.0
1.............................................................. 77.0 83.5 82.5 75.5 75.5 77.0 74.0 75.5
1.5............................................................ 84.0 86.5 83.8 77.0 84.0 82.5 87.5 78.5
2.............................................................. 85.5 86.5 ......... 86.5 85.5 85.5 88.5 84.0
3.............................................................. 85.5 86.9 ......... 87.5 86.5 86.5 89.5 85.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 87065]]

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I-4 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the
proposed standards on consumers of ESEMs, as measured by the average
life-cycle cost (``LCC'') savings and the simple payback period
(``PBP'').\6\ The average LCC savings are positive for all
representative units, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of
ESEMs, which is estimated to be 7.1 years (see section IV.F of this
document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected
by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency
distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market
in the compliance year in the absence of new standards (see section
IV.F.9 of this document). The simple PBP, which is designed to
compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to the
baseline product (see section IV.C of this document).

Table I-4--Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of ESEMs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC savings Simple payback period
Representative unit (2022$) (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESEM High/Med Torque, 4 poles, enclosed, 0.25 hp............... 51 1.1
ESEM High/Med Torque, 4 poles, enclosed, 1 hp.................. 138 0.9
ESEM High/Med Torque, 4 poles, enclosed, 5 hp.................. 147 0.7
ESEM Low Torque, 6 poles, enclosed, 0.25 hp.................... 100 1.5
ESEM Low Torque, 6 poles, enclosed, 0.5 hp..................... 26 2.0
ESEM Polyphase, 4 poles, enclosed, 0.25 hp..................... 83 0.8
AO-ESEM High/Med Torque, 4 poles, enclosed, 0.25 hp............ 160 0.8
AO-ESEM High/Med Torque, 4 poles, enclosed, 1 hp............... 121 0.7
AO-ESEM High/Med Torque, 4 poles, enclosed, 5 hp............... 88 1.3
AO-ESEM Low Torque, 6 poles, enclosed, 0.25 hp................. 40 1.8
AO-ESEM Low Torque, 6 poles, enclosed, 0.5 hp.................. 51 1.2
AO-ESEM Polyphase, 4 poles, enclosed, 0.25 hp.................. 138 1.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (``INPV'') is the sum of the
discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the
end of the analysis period (2024-2058). Using a real discount rate of
9.1 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of ESEMs in
the case without new standards is $2,019 million in 2022$. Under the
proposed standards, DOE estimates the change in INPV to range from -
13.1 percent to -6.5 percent, which is approximately -$264 million to -
$131 million. In order to bring equipment into compliance with new
standards, it is estimated that industry will incur total conversion
costs of $339 million.
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on
manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document. The
analytic results of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') are
presented in section V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs 7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2022
dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation
standards for ESEMs would save a significant amount of energy. Relative
to the case without new standards, the lifetime energy savings for
ESEMs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated
year of compliance with the new standards (2029-2058) amount to 8.9
quadrillion British thermal units (``Btu''), or quads.\8\ This
represents a savings of 9 percent relative to the energy use of these
products in the case without new standards (referred to as the ``no-
new-standards case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy
savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal,
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete
picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more
information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer
benefits of the proposed standards for ESEMs ranges from $38.3 billion
(at a 7-percent discount rate) to $72.8 billion (at a 3-percent
discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future
operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment and
installation costs for ESEMs purchased in 2029-2058.
In addition, the proposed standards for ESEMs are projected to
yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the
proposed standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over
the same period as for energy savings) of 160.5 million metric tons
(``Mt'') \9\ of carbon dioxide (``CO<INF>2</INF>''), 43.8 thousand tons
of sulfur dioxide (``SO<INF>2</INF>''), 299.8 thousand tons of nitrogen
oxides (``NO<INF>X</INF>''), 1,362.2 thousand tons of methane
(``CH<INF>4</INF>''), 1.4 thousand tons of nitrous oxide
(``N<INF>2</INF>O''), and 0.3 tons of mercury (``Hg'').\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for
emissions other than CO<INF>2</INF> are presented in short tons.
\10\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy
Outlook 2023 (``AEO2023''). AEO2023 reflects, to the extent
possible, laws and regulations adopted through mid-November 2022,
including the Inflation Reduction Act. See section IV.K of this
document for further discussion of AEO2023 assumptions that effect
air pollutant emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in
greenhouse gases (``GHG'') using four different estimates of the social
cost of CO<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 interim SC-GHG values (in terms of benefit
per ton of GHG avoided) developed by an Interagency Working Group on
the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (``IWG'').\11\ The derivation of
these values is discussed in section IV.L of this document. For
presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated with the
average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $9.4
billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate and
it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits

[[Page 87066]]

calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this
analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical
Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide
Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February
2021 by the IWG. (``February 2021 SC-GHG TSD''). <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 estimated the monetary health benefits of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates
from the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA''),\12\ as discussed in
section IV.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of the
health benefits would be $7.9 billion using a 7-percent discount rate,
and $18.3 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.\13\ DOE is currently
only monetizing health benefits from changes in ambient fine
particulate matter (``PM<INF>2.5</INF>'') concentrations from two
precursors (SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>), and from changes in
ambient ozone from one precursor (for NO<INF>X</INF>), but will
continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health
benefits from reductions in direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ U.S. EPA. Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing
Directly Emitted PM<INF>2.5</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF> Precursors and
Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at <a href="http://www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors">www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors</a>.
\13\ DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of
complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Table I-5--Summary of Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy
Conservation Standards for ESEMs
[TSL 2]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Billion $2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings........................ 54.7
Climate Benefits *..................................... 9.4
Health Benefits **..................................... 18.3
Total Benefits [dagger]................................ 82.4
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs [Dagger].......... 9.7
Net Benefits........................................... 72.8
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV [dagger][dagger]).... (0.3)-(0.1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings........................ 26.1
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate).................. 9.4
Health Benefits **..................................... 7.9
Total Benefits [dagger]................................ 43.5
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs [Dagger].......... 5.1
Net Benefits........................................... 38.3
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV [dagger][dagger]).... (0.3)-(0.1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with ESEMs
shipped in 2029-2058. These results include consumer, climate, and
health benefits which accrue after 2029 from the equipment shipped in
2029-2058.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the
social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), methane (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide
(SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent
discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate) (see
section IV.L of this document). Together these represent the global SC-
GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits
associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are
shown; however, DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering
the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To
monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses
the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document:
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates
Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX
and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5
precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health
benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other
effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5
emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and
health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation
purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent
cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount
rate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs.
[dagger][dagger] Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life
cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in
detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE's
national impacts analysis includes all impacts (both costs and
benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased
costs to the manufacturer to manufacture the equipment and ending with
the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately
conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the
MIA). See section IV.J of this document. In the detailed MIA, DOE
models manufacturers' pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding
investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces
a range of impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV.
The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry
cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital
expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. Change in INPV is
calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value
of 9.1 percent that is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the
NOPR TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average
cost of capital). For ESEMs, those values are -$264 million and -$131
million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing
whether a TSL is economically justified. See section IV.J of this
document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two
markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is
the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer
Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of
Operating Profit scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not
be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to
increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of
estimated INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained
further in section IV.J of this document, to provide additional
context for assessing the estimated impacts of this rule to society,
including potential changes in production and consumption, which is
consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to
include the INPV into the net benefit calculation for this proposed
rule, the net benefits would range from $72.5 billion to $72.7 billion
at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $38.0 billion to $38.2
billion at 7-percent discount rate. Numbers in parentheses are
negative numbers. DOE seeks comment on this approach.

[[Page 87067]]

The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be
expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the
total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating
costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and
installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits
of emission reductions, all annualized.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2022, the year
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings.
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur
(e.g., 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year
to 2022. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed
annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance
year, that yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S.
consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the
covered products and are measured for the lifetime of ESEMs shipped in
2029-2058. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a
result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the
lifetime of ESEMs shipped in 2029-2058. Total benefits for both the 3-
percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social
costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are
presented for all four discount rates in section V.B of this document.
Table I-6 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs
associated with the proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized
values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from reduced NO<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
proposed in this rule is $543 million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $2,757 million in
reduced equipment operating costs, $542 million in climate benefits,
and $836 million in health benefits. In this case. The net benefit
would amount to $3,592 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the proposed standards is $556 million per year in
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are
$3,140 million in reduced operating costs, $542 million in climate
benefits, and $1,052 million in health benefits. In this case, the net
benefit would amount to $4,179 million per year.

Table I-6--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for ESEMs
[TSL 2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 2022$/year
-----------------------------------------------
Low-net- High-net-
Primary benefits benefits
estimate estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings................................. 3,140 2,962 3,341
Climate Benefits *.............................................. 542 526 562
Health Benefits **.............................................. 1,052 1,021 1,089
Total Benefits [dagger]......................................... 4,734 4,509 4,992
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs [Dagger]................... 556 598 529
Net Benefits.................................................... 4,179 3,911 4,464
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV [dagger][dagger])............. (25)-(13) (25)-(13) (25)-(13)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings................................. 2,757 2,615 2,921
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)........................... 542 526 562
Health Benefits **.............................................. 836 814 863
Total Benefits [dagger]......................................... 4,135 3,955 4,346
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs [Dagger]................... 543 578 520
Net Benefits.................................................... 3,592 3,377 3,826
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV [dagger][dagger])............. (25)-(13) (25)-(13) (25)-(13)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with ESEMs shipped in 2029-2058. These results
include consumer, climate, and health benefits which accrue after 2058 from the equipment shipped in 2029-
2058. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from
the AEO2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In
addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a constant rate in the Primary Estimate, an increasing rate in
the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a declining rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to
derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F and IV.4 of this document. Note that the Benefits
and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this
document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG
at a 3 percent discount rate are shown; however, DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the
benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG
emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost
of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021
by the IWG.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
(for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits but will
continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
percent discount rate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs.

[[Page 87068]]

[dagger][dagger] Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national
impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE's national
impacts analysis includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with
the increased costs to the manufacturer to manufacture the equipment and ending with the increase in price
experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers
(the MIA). See section IV.J. of this document. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers' pricing
decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA
produces a range of impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the
present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital
expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. The annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry
weighted average cost of capital value of 9.1 percent that is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the NOPR
TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For ESEMs, those values are
$25 million and -$13 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is
economically justified. See section IV.J of this NOPR. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV
under two markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup
scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of
Operating Profit Markup scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit
operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of
estimated annualized change in INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J
of this document to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this rule to society,
including potential changes in production and consumption, which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and
E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for this proposed
rule, the annualized net benefits would range from $4,154 million to $4,166 million at 3-percent discount rate
and would range from $3,567 million to $3,579 million at 7-percent discount rate. Numbers in parentheses are
negative numbers. DOE seeks comment on this approach.

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

D. Conclusion

DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified, and would result in the
significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to
technological feasibility, equipment achieving these standard levels
are already commercially available for all equipment classes covered by
this proposal. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that
the benefits of the proposed standard exceed, to a great extent, the
burdens of the proposed standards.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
NO<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
proposed standards for ESEMs is $543 million per year in increased
equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $2,757 million
in reduced equipment operating costs, $542 million in climate benefits
and $836 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $3,592
million per year.
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\15\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have substantial energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates
the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As previously mentioned, the standards are projected to result in
estimated national energy savings of 8.9 quad FFC, the equivalent of
the primary annual energy use of 95.7 million homes. In addition, they
are projected to reduce CO<INF>2</INF> emissions by 160.5 Mt. Based on
these findings, DOE has initially determined the energy savings from
the proposed standard levels are ``significant'' within the meaning of
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed discussion of the basis for
these tentative conclusions is contained in the remainder of this
document and the accompanying technical support document (``TSD'').
DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as
potential standards, and is still considering them in this proposed
rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential
burdens of the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh
the projected benefits.
Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in
response to this document and related information collected and
analyzed during the course of this proposed rulemaking effort, DOE may
adopt energy efficiency levels presented in this document that are
either higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination
of level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

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

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
C of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a),
established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve
the energy efficiency of certain types of industrial equipment,
including electric motors. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) ESEMs, the subject of
this document, are a category of electric motors.
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (``EPACT 1992'') (Pub. L. 102-486
(Oct. 24, 1992)) further amended EPCA by establishing energy
conservation standards and test procedures for certain commercial and
industrial electric motors that are manufactured alone or as a
component of another piece of equipment. In December 2007, Congress
enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA
2007'') (Pub. L. 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007). Section 313(b)(1) of EISA
2007 updated the energy conservation standards for those electric
motors already covered by EPCA and established energy conservation
standards for a larger scope of motors not previously covered by
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) EISA 2007 also revised certain
statutory definitions related to electric motors. See EISA 2007, sec.
313 (amending statutory definitions related to electric motors at 42
U.S.C. 6311(13)).
The energy conservation program under EPCA, consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C.
6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the
authority to require information and reports from

[[Page 87069]]

manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede state laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however,
grant waivers of Federal preemption in limited instances for particular
state laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other
provisions set forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) (applying the
preemption waiver provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297))
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered equipment. (See 42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and (r)) Manufacturers of
covered equipment must use the Federal test procedures as the basis
for: (1) certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the
applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations
about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly,
DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment
complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedure for ESEMs appear at
10 CFR part 431, subpart B, appendix B (``appendix B'').
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered equipment, including ESEMs. Any new or
amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy
determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt
any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard (1) for certain
equipment, including ESEMs, if no test procedure has been established
for the equipment, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard
is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed
standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE must make this determination after
receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the
greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the
covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') considers
relevant.

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

B. Background

1. Current Standards
DOE does not currently have energy conservation standards for ESEMs
even though DOE has the authority to regulate electric motors broadly.
DOE has adopted energy conservation standards for medium electric
motors (``MEMs'') at 10 CFR 431.25 (see section III.A of this document
for further description), as well as small electric motors (``SEMs'')
at 10 CFR 431.446, which are separately regulated categories.
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for ESEMs
On May 21, 2020, DOE issued an early assessment request for
information (``RFI'') (``May 2020 Early Assessment Review RFI'') in
which DOE stated that it was initiating an early assessment review to
determine whether any new or amended standards would satisfy the
relevant requirements of EPCA for a new or amended energy conservation
standard for electric motors and sought information related to that
effort. Specifically, DOE sought data and information that could enable
the agency to determine whether DOE should propose a ``no new
standard'' determination because a more stringent standard: (1) would
not result in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not
technologically feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any
combination of the foregoing. 85 FR 30878, 30879.

[[Page 87070]]

On March 2, 2022, DOE published a Preliminary Analysis for electric
motors (``March 2022 Preliminary Analysis''). 87 FR 11650. In
conjunction with the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE published the
March 2022 Preliminary TSD, which presented the results of the in-depth
technical analyses in the following areas: (1) engineering; (2) markups
to determine equipment price; (3) energy use; (4) LCC and PBP; and (5)
national impacts. The results presented included the current scope of
electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25, in addition to an expanded
scope of motors, including electric motors above 500 horsepower, air-
over electric motors, and ESEMs.\16\ See chapter 2 of the March 2022
Preliminary TSD. DOE requested comment on a number of topics regarding
the analysis presented. However, DOE is only responding to comments
pertaining to ESEMs and air-over expanded scope electric motors (``AO-
ESEMs'') in this NOPR, as DOE responded to the rest of the comments
pertaining to medium electric motors and their air-over equivalents in
the Electric Motors Direct Final Rule published on June 1, 2023 (``June
2023 DFR'') that amended energy conservation standards for medium
electric motors and their air-over equivalents. 88 FR 36066.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE used the term
small, non-small electric motor, electric motors (``SNEMs'') to
designate ESEMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On April 5, 2022, DOE held a public webinar in which it presented
the methods and analysis in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis and
solicited public comment. (``April 5, 2022, Public Meeting'').

Table II-1--March 2022 Preliminary Analysis Written Commenters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this
Commenter(s) NOPR Docket No. Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Electric Motors 38 Working Group.
Economy, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Working Group.
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, American Joint Advocates....... 27 Efficiency Advocacy
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Organizations.
Natural Resources Defense Council, New York
State Energy Research and Development Authority.
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers; Air- AHAM and AHRI......... 25 Trade Association.
Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration AHRI.................. 26 Trade Association.
Institute.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas CA IOUs............... 30 Utilities.
and Electric, and Southern California Edison;
collectively, the California Investor-Owned
Utilities.
Electrical Apparatus Service Association, Inc... EASA.................. 21 Trade Association.
Hydraulics Institute............................ HI.................... 31 Trade Association.
Lennox International............................ Lennox................ 29 Manufacturer.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance............ NEEA.................. 33 Efficiency Advocacy
Organization.
National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Joint Industry 23 Trade Associations.
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Stakeholders.
the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and
Refrigeration Institute, the Medical Imaging
Technology Alliance, the Outdoor Power
Equipment Institute, Home Ventilating
Institute, and the Power Tool Institute.
National Electrical Manufacturers Association... NEMA.................. 22 Trade Association.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\17\
To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments
that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided
during the April 5, 2022, public meeting, DOE cites the written
comments throughout this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for electric motors. (Docket No. EERE-
2020-BT-STD-0007, which is maintained at <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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

By letter dated December 22, 2022, DOE received the December 2022
Joint Recommendation from the Electric Motors Working Group. The
December 2022 Joint Recommendation addressed energy conservation
standards for high-torque, medium-torque, low-torque, and polyphase
ESEMs that are 0.25-3 hp, and AO-ESEMs. The December 2022 Joint
Recommendation recommended a compliance date for updated energy
conservation standards for AO-ESEMs as well. (Electric Motors Working
Group, No. 38 at p. 5)
3. Electric Motors Working Group Recommended Standard Levels
This section summarizes the standard levels recommended in the
December 2022 Joint Recommendation and the subsequent procedural steps
taken by DOE. Further discussion on scope is provided in section III.A
of this document. The Electric Motors Working Group stated that the
recommended levels would minimize potential market disruptions by
allowing smaller designs to remain on the market. Specifically the
Electric Motors Working Group stated that the recommended levels for
high and medium torque ESEM could allow smaller capacitor start
induction run (``CSIR'') motors and currently unregulated split-phase
motors, which are common in certain space-constrained products; for low
torque ESEMs, the Electric Motors Working Group stated that
manufacturers believe efficiency levels above the recommended levels
could result in significant increases in the physical size,
unavailability of product, and, in some cases, may be extremely
difficult to achieve with current permanent split capacitor (``PSC'')
technology; and for AO-ESEMs, the Electric Motors Working Group stated
that the recommended levels represented the highest feasible
efficiencies given the potential design constraints associated with
their use in covered equipment. (Id. at pp. 3-5)
Recommendation A: For high-torque and medium-torque ESEMs (i.e.,
CSIR, capacitor start capacitor run (``CSCR''), and split-phase
motors), the Electric Motors Working Group recommended the following
standard levels, expressed in average full-load efficiency:
(1) Values for open and enclosed motors rated at 0.25, 0.33, and
0.5 hp (all pole configurations) that are largely based on the levels
in NEMA MG 1, Table 12-19, ``Premium Efficiency Levels for Capacitor-
Start/Induction-

[[Page 87071]]

Run Single-Phase Small Motors.'' The exceptions are the open and
enclosed 0.5 hp 4-pole values, which have lower efficiency standards
described in Table II-2. For cases where Table 12-19 lists two frame
sizes (e.g., 48 and 56 frame) for a given hp rating, the recommended
efficiency level reflects the smaller frame size (i.e., lower
efficiency).
(2) Values for open motors (2-, 4-, 6-pole) above 0.5 hp that are
consistent with the current small electric motor standards for CSCR and
CSIR motors found in 10 CFR part 431, subpart X (Sec. 431.446).
(3) Values for 8-pole open motors above 0.5 hp and all enclosed
motors above 0.5 hp that are based on the levels in NEMA MG 1, Table
12-20, ``Premium Efficiency Levels for Capacitor-Start/Capacitor-Run
Single-Phase Small Motors.'' For cases where Table 12-20 lists two
frame sizes (e.g., 48 and 56 frame) for a given hp rating, the
recommended efficiency level reflects the smaller frame size (i.e.,
lower efficiency).

Table II-2--Recommended Energy Conservation Standards for High-Torque and Medium-Torque ESEMs
[i.e., CSIR, CSCR, and split-phase motors]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average full load efficiency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hp Open Enclosed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-pole 4-pole 6-pole 8-pole 2-pole 4-pole 6-pole 8-pole
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.25........................................................... 59.5 59.5 57.5 .......... 59.5 59.5 57.5 .........
0.33........................................................... 64.0 64.0 62.0 50.5 64.0 64.0 62.0 50.5
0.5............................................................ 68.0 69.2 68.0 52.5 68.0 67.4 68.0 52.5
0.75........................................................... 76.2 81.8 80.2 72.0 75.5 75.5 75.5 72.0
1.............................................................. 80.4 82.6 81.1 74.0 77.0 80.0 77.0 74.0
1.5............................................................ 81.5 83.8 ......... .......... 81.5 81.5 80.0 .........
2.............................................................. 82.9 84.5 ......... .......... 82.5 82.5 ......... .........
3.............................................................. 84.1 ......... ......... .......... 84.0 ......... ......... .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Id. at pp. 3, 6).
Recommendation B: For low-torque ESEMs (i.e., shaded pole and PSC
motors), the Electric motors Working Group recommended the following
standard levels, expressed in terms of average full-load efficiency:
(1) Values for open motors rated at 0.25 hp, 0.33 hp, and 1.5 hp
and above that are based on DOE's new efficiency level (EL 3).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ ``DOE's new efficiency level'' refers to preliminary
efficiency levels that were developed during the private
negotiations of the Electric Motors Working Group. See Table II-3
for the final values chosen from those preliminary efficiency
levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Values for open motors rated at 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0 hp that are
based on DOE's new EL 2, with two exceptions: \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ See footnote 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) The 6-pole, 1.0 hp value is the mid-point between EL 2 (75.3%)
and EL 3 (79.2%)
(b) The 2-pole, 0.5 hp value is the mid-point between EL 2 (66.4%)
and EL 3 (71.1%)
(3) Values for enclosed motors that are based on the equivalent
open motor efficiency but are adjusted to account for the lack of
additional cooling, which is a function of motor rpm (i.e., number of
poles). The adjustment is 3% for 2-pole motors, 2% for 4-pole motors,
1% for 6-pole motors, and 0% for 8-pole motors.

Table II-3--Recommended Energy Conservation Standards for Low-Torque ESEMs
[i.e., shaded pole and PSC motors]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average full load efficiency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hp Open Enclosed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-pole 4-pole 6-pole 8-pole 2-pole 4-pole 6-pole 8-pole
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.25........................................................... 63.9 66.1 60.2 52.5 60.9 64.1 59.2 52.5
0.33........................................................... 66.9 69.7 65.0 56.6 63.9 67.7 64.0 56.6
0.5............................................................ 68.8 70.1 66.8 57.1 65.8 68.1 65.8 57.1
0.75........................................................... 70.5 74.8 73.1 62.8 67.5 72.8 72.1 62.8
1.............................................................. 74.3 77.1 77.3 65.7 71.3 75.1 76.3 65.7
1.5............................................................ 79.9 82.1 80.5 72.2 76.9 80.1 79.5 72.2
2.............................................................. 81.0 82.9 81.4 73.3 78.0 80.9 80.4 73.3
3.............................................................. 82.4 84.0 82.5 74.9 79.4 82.0 81.5 74.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Id. at pp. 4, 6)
Recommendation C: For polyphase ESEMs (i.e., three-phase ESEMs),
the Electric Motors Working Group recommended the following standard
levels, expressed in terms of average full-load efficiency:
(1) Values for 2-pole, 4-pole, and 6-pole open motors that are
consistent with the current small electric motor standards for
polyphase motors found in 10 CFR part 431, subpart X (Sec. 431.446).
(2) Values for 8-pole open and all enclosed motors from NEMA MG 1,
Table 12-21, ``Premium Efficiency Levels for Three-Phase Induction
Small Motors.'' For cases where Table 12-21 lists two frame sizes
(e.g., 48 and 56 frame) for a given hp rating, the recommended
efficiency level reflects the smaller frame size (i.e., lower
efficiency).

[[Page 87072]]

Table II-4--Recommended Energy Conservation Standards for Polyphase ESEMs
[i.e., Three-Phase ESEMs]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average full load efficiency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hp Open Enclosed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-pole 4-pole 6-pole 8-pole 2-pole 4-pole 6-pole 8-pole
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.25........................................................... 65.6 69.5 67.5 62.0 66.0 68.0 66.0 62.0
0.33........................................................... 69.5 73.4 71.4 64.0 70.0 72.0 70.0 64.0
0.5............................................................ 73.4 78.2 75.3 66.0 72.0 75.5 72.0 66.0
0.75........................................................... 76.8 81.1 81.7 70.0 75.5 77.0 74.0 70.0
1.............................................................. 77.0 83.5 82.5 75.5 75.5 77.0 74.0 75.5
1.5............................................................ 84.0 86.5 83.8 77.0 84.0 82.5 87.5 78.5
2.............................................................. 85.5 86.5 ......... 86.5 85.5 85.5 88.5 84.0
3.............................................................. 85.5 86.9 ......... 87.5 86.5 86.5 89.5 85.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Id.)
Recommendation D: The Electric Motors Working Group recommended
that if standards are warranted for AO-ESEMs, DOE set the standards at
the same levels as those for comparable ESEMs used in non-air-over
applications. (Id. at p. 5)
Recommendation E: The Electric Motors Working Group recommended
that DOE align the compliance date for AO-ESEMs with the compliance
date for updated energy conservation standards for Commercial Unitary
Air Conditioners/Heat Pumps (``CUAC/HPs'') currently under negotiation
in DOE's Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee
(``ASRAC'') Working Group on CUAC/HPs. The Electric Motors Working
Group stated this recommended compliance date would appropriately
balance energy savings and the time needed for manufacturers of
equipment with AO-ESEMs to re-design products. (Id.)
DOE notes that the scope and standards proposed in this document
are equivalent to those recommended by the Electric Motors Working
Group. Regarding the compliance year for energy conservation standards
for ESEMs, the Electric Motors Working Group recommended that DOE align
the compliance date for AO-ESEMs with the compliance date for updated
energy conservation standards for CUAC/HP, which were under negotiation
in DOE's ASRAC Working Group on CUAC/HPs at the time. Since then, the
CUAC/HP negotiations have concluded and include a recommended
compliance year of 2029 (i.e., January 1, 2029).\20\ ESEMs are a type
of electric motor, but not among the types of electric motor for which
Congress established standards and a rulemaking schedule in 42 U.S.C.
6313(b). As such, they are exempt from the requirements of 42 U.S.C.
6313(b), including the compliance deadlines provided in that section.
Because section 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) applies certain requirements of 42
U.S.C. 6295(l)-(s) of EPCA to certain equipment, including electric
motors, DOE considered whether the compliance deadlines of 42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(4) applies to ESEMs. 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(A) defines compliance
deadlines for specific products; however, electric motors and ESEMs are
not listed, nor does 42 U.S.C. 6316 apply a cross reference on how to
apply these paragraphs to electric motors or ESEMs. Accordingly, DOE
has determined that these compliance deadlines do not apply to ESEMs.
Additionally, DOE reviewed section 6295(m)(4)(B), which states that a
manufacturer shall not be required to apply new standards to a product
with respect to which other new standards have been required in the
prior 6-year period. As no standards for ESEMs have not yet been
established, this paragraph also does not apply to ESEMs. As such, DOE
has determined that it has discretion to establish compliance deadlines
for ESEMs. Therefore, DOE proposes a January 1, 2029, compliance date
in accordance with the recommendation from the Electric Motors Working
Group. DOE has tentatively determined that this compliance date would
provide sufficient lead time to motor manufacturers based on the
recommendation from the Electric Motors Working Group, which includes
NEMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ See CUAC/HP ASRAC Working group term sheet at:
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0087">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0087</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Deviation From Process Rule

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A (``Process Rule''), DOE notes that it is deviating from the
provision in the Process Rule regarding the pre-NOPR and NOPR stages
for an energy conservation standards rulemaking.
1. Public Comment Period
Section 6(f)(2) of the Process Rule specifies that the length of
the public comment period for a NOPR will be not less than 75 calendar
days. For this NOPR, DOE has opted instead to provide a 60-day comment
period, consistent with EPCA requirements. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(p). DOE is opting to deviate from the 75-day comment period
because stakeholders have already been afforded multiple opportunities
to provide comments on this proposed rulemaking. As noted previously,
DOE requested comment on various issues pertaining to this standards
rulemaking in the May 2020 Early Assessment Review RFI and provided
stakeholders with a 30-day comment period. 85 FR 30878. Additionally,
DOE provided a 60-day comment period for stakeholders to provide input
on the analyses presented in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis. 87 FR
11650. The analytical assumptions and approaches used for the analyses
conducted for this NOPR are similar to those used for the preliminary
analysis. Furthermore, as discussed previously in this document, the
standards proposed in this document are equivalent to those recommended
by the Electric Motors Working Group for the electric motor types
subject to this proposal. Therefore, DOE believes a 60-day comment
period is appropriate and will provide interested parties with a
meaningful opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.
2. Framework Document
Section 6(a)(2) of the Process Rule states that if DOE determines
it is appropriate to proceed with a rulemaking, the preliminary stages
of a rulemaking to issue or amend an energy conservation standard that
DOE will undertake will be a framework document and preliminary
analysis, or

[[Page 87073]]

an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. While DOE published a
preliminary analysis for this rulemaking (see 87 FR 11650), DOE did not
publish a framework document in conjunction with the preliminary
analysis. DOE notes, however, that chapter 2 of the March 2022
Preliminary TSD that accompanied the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis--
entitled Analytical Framework, Comments from Interested Parties, and
DOE Responses--describes the general analytical framework that DOE uses
in evaluating and developing potential new energy conservation
standards.\21\ As such, publication of a separate framework document
would be largely redundant of chapter 2 of the March 2022 Preliminary
TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ The March 2022 Preliminary TSD is available at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0010">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0010</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. General Discussion

DOE developed this proposal after considering oral and written
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent
a variety of interests, including the December 2022 Joint
Recommendation. The following discussion addresses issues raised by
these commenters.

A. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes

1. General Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes
This document covers certain equipment meeting the definition of
electric motors as defined in 10 CFR 431.12. Specifically, the
definition for ``electric motor'' is ``a machine that converts
electrical power into rotational mechanical power.'' 10 CFR 431.12.
This NOPR addresses ESEMs, which are covered under 10 CFR part 431
subpart B. This NOPR does not address small electric motors, which are
covered under 10 CFR part 431 subpart X.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ DOE uses the term ``expanded scope electric motor'' or
``ESEM'' (formally known as ``small, non-small electric motor,
electric motors'' or ``SNEMs''), to describe those small electric
motors that are not included in the definition ``small electric
motor'' under EPCA, but otherwise fall within the definition of
``electric motor'' under EPCA. The term ``small electric motor''
means a NEMA general purpose alternating current single-speed
induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number series in
accordance with NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987. (42 U.S.C.
6311(13)(G)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently, DOE regulates MEMs falling into the NEMA Design A, NEMA
Design B, NEMA Design C, and fire pump motor categories and those
electric motors that meet the criteria specified at 10 CFR 431.25(g).
10 CFR 431.25(h)-(j). Section 431.25(g) specifies that the relevant
standards apply only to electric motors, including partial electric
motors, that satisfy the following criteria:
(1) Are single-speed, induction motors;
(2) Are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type
S1 (IEC);
(3) Contain a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or cage (IEC) rotor;
(4) Operate on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz sinusoidal
line power;
(5) Are rated 600 volts or less;
(6) Have a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration;
(7) Are built in a three-digit or four-digit NEMA frame size (or
IEC metric equivalent), including those designs between two consecutive
NEMA frame sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA
frame size (or IEC metric equivalent);
(8) Produce at least one horsepower (0.746 kW) but not greater than
500 horsepower (373 kW), and
(9) Meet all of the performance requirements of one of the
following motor types: A NEMA Design A, B, or C motor or an IEC Design
N, NE, NEY, NY or H, HE, HEY, HYmotor.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ DOE added the ``E'' and ``Y'' designations for IEC Design
motors into 10 CFR 431.25(g) in the electric motors test procedure
final rule. 87 FR 63588, 63596-636597, 63606 (Oct. 19, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10 CFR 431.25(g).
The definitions for ``NEMA Design A motors,'' ``NEMA Design B
motors,'' ``NEMA Design C motors,'' ``fire pump electric motors,''
``IEC Design N motor,'' and ``IEC Design H motor,'' as well as ``E''
and ``Y'' designated IEC Design motors, are codified in 10 CFR 431.12.
DOE has also currently exempted certain categories of motors from
standards. The exemptions are as follows:
(1) Air-over electric motors;
(2) Component sets of an electric motor;
(3) Liquid-cooled electric motors;
(4) Submersible electric motors; and
(5) Inverter-only electric motors.
10 CFR 431.25(l).
On October 19, 2022, DOE published the electric motors test
procedure final rule (``October 2022 Final Rule''). 87 FR 63588. As
part of the October 2022 Final Rule, DOE expanded the test procedure
scope to additional categories of electric motors that currently do not
have energy conservation standards. 87 FR 63588, 63593-63606. The
expanded test procedure scope included the following:
(1) Electric motors having a rated horsepower above 500 and up to
750 hp that meets the criteria listed at 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;
(2) Expanded Scope Electric Motors (``ESEM'', formally known as
``small, non-small electric motor, electric motors'' or ``SNEMs''),
that are not air-over electric motors, which:
(a) Are not a small electric motor, as defined at Sec. 431.442 and
is not a dedicated pool pump motors as defined at Sec. 431.483;
(b) Are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type
S1 (IEC);
(c) Operate on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-
hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; or is used with an inverter that
operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz)
sinusoidal line power;
(d) Are rated for 600 volts or less;
(e) Are a single-speed induction motor capable of operating without
an inverter or is an inverter-only electric motor;
(f) Produce a rated motor horsepower greater than or equal to 0.25
horsepower (0.18 kW); and
(g) Are built in the following frame sizes: any two-, or three-
digit NEMA frame size (or IEC equivalent) if the motor operates on
single-phase power; any two-, or three-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC
equivalent) if the motor operates on polyphase power, and has a rated
motor horsepower less than 1 horsepower (0.75 kW); or a two-digit NEMA
frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), if the motor operates on
polyphase power, has a rated motor horsepower equal to or greater than
1 horsepower (0.75 kW), and is not an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or
IEC metric equivalent).
(3) ESEMs that are air-over electric motors (``AO-ESEMs'') and
inverter-only electric motors;
(4) A synchronous electric motor, which:
(a) Is not a dedicated pool pump motor as defined at Sec. 431.483
or is not an air-over electric motor;
(b) Is a synchronous electric motor;
(c) Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type
S1 (IEC);
(d) Operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-
hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; or is used with an inverter that
operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz)
sinusoidal line power;
(e) Is rated 600 volts or less; and
(f) Produces at least 0.25 hp (0.18 kW) but not greater than 750 hp
(559 kW).
(5) Synchronous electric motors that are inverter-only electric
motors.
See section 1.2, appendix B.
In the October 2022 Final Rule, DOE noted that, for these motors
newly included within the scope of the test procedure for which there
was no established energy conservation standards, such as ESEMs and AO-

[[Page 87074]]

ESEMs, manufacturers would not be required to use the test procedure to
certify these motors to DOE until such time as a standard is
established. 87 FR 63588, 63591.\24\ Further, the October 2022 Final
Rule continued to exclude the following categories of electric motors:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ However, manufacturers making voluntary representations
respecting the energy consumption or cost of energy consumed by such
motors are required to use the DOE test procedure for making such
representations beginning 180 days following publication of the
October 2022 Final Rule. Id. at 87 FR 63591.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Inverter-only electric motors that are air-over electric
motors;
(2) Component sets of an electric motor;
(3) Liquid-cooled electric motors; and
(4) Submersible electric motors.
Due to the number of electric motor characteristics (e.g.,
horsepower rating, pole configuration, and enclosure), in the March
2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE used two constructs to help develop
appropriate energy conservation standards for electric motors:
``equipment class'' and ``equipment class groups.'' An equipment class
represents a unique combination of motor characteristics for which DOE
is establishing a specific energy conservation standard. This includes
permutations of electric motor design topologies (i.e., CSIR/CSCR,
split phase, shaded pole, PSC, or polyphase), standard horsepower
ratings (i.e., standard ratings from 0.25 to 3 horsepower varying based
on torque level and pole count), pole configurations (i.e., 2-, 4-, 6-,
or 8-pole), and enclosure types (i.e., open or enclosed). An ECG is a
collection of electric motors that share a common design trait.
Equipment class groups include motors over a range of horsepower
ratings, enclosure types, and pole configurations. Essentially, each
equipment class group is a collection of a large number of equipment
classes with the same design trait. As such, in the March 2022
Preliminary Analysis, DOE presented equipment class groups based on
electric motor topology, horsepower rating, pole configuration. and
enclosure type. See sections 2.3.1 and 3.2.2 of the March 2022
Preliminary TSD.
In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE analyzed the additional
motors now included within the scope of the test procedure after the
October 2022 Final Rule. See sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.3.2 of the March
2022 Preliminary TSD. This analysis included MEMs from 1-500hp, AO-
MEMs, and ESEMs (including AO-ESEMs). This NOPR proposes new standards
for only a portion of the scope analyzed in the March 2022 Preliminary
Analysis and included within the scope of the test procedure after the
October 2022 Final Rule. Specifically, in this NOPR, DOE is only
proposing standards for ESEMs, including AO-ESEMs. As further described
in section IV.A.3 of this document, DOE used multiple performance
characteristics to establish the equipment classes used in this NOPR.
Among these performance characteristics are locked-rotor torque and
number of phases of the input power of a motor, used to create the
following groups: high and medium torque single-phase ESEMs (i.e.,
CSIR/CSCR and split phase), low torque single phase ESEMs (i.e., shaded
pole, PSC) and polyphase ESEMs that meet the criteria a) through g) as
listed previously (See section 1.2, 10 CFR part 431, appendix B). These
are typically used in residential as well as commercial and industrial
applications.
Further discussion on equipment classes and the basis used to
establish them is provided in section IV.A.3 of this document.
2. Structure of the Regulatory Text
In addition to proposing new requirements for ESEMs, in this NOPR,
DOE proposes to move portions of the existing electric motor
regulations that pertain to the energy conservation standards and their
compliance dates (at 10 CFR 431.25) to improve clarity. In this NOPR,
DOE proposes to revise 10 CFR 431.25 by retaining the existing electric
motor energy conservation standards and their compliance dates, adding
provisions pertaining to ESEMs, and reorganizing all provisions
currently in 10 CFR 431.25 by compliance date (i.e., each section has a
different compliance date) to improve clarity. See Table III-1 for
details.

Table III-1--Revisions to 10 CFR 431.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Content high-level Proposed revised
Current location description location Impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 431.25(a)-(f)................. Describes standards for None................... None--Removed as these
certain electric requirements are no
motors manufactured on longer current.
or after December 19,
2010, but before June
1, 2016.
Sec. 431.25(k), Sec. 431.25(q)... Describes how to Sec. 431.25(a)....... Avoids repeating
establish the identical provisions
horsepower for in each subsection.
purposes of
determining the
required minimum
nominal full-load
efficiency of an
electric motor.
Sec. 431.25(g)..................... Describes the criteria Sec. 431.25(b)(1)(i). Moves the ``inclusion''
for inclusion for criteria, so that the
certain electric proper scope is
motors manufactured on presented fully
or after June 1, 2016, upfront in each
but before June 1, section.
2027 subject to energy
conservation standards.
Sec. 431.25(h)..................... Describes standards for Sec. 431.25(b)(2)(i). Makes each section
certain NEMA Design A ``comprehensive'' by
and B electric motors carrying over the
(and IEC equivalent) existing standards for
manufactured on or all electric motors
after June 1, 2016, categories in each
but before June 1, section.
2027.
Sec. 431.25(i)..................... Describes standards for Sec. Makes each section
certain NEMA Design C 431.25(b)(2)(ii), Sec. ``comprehensive'' by
electric motors (and 431.25(c)(2)(iv), carrying over the
IEC equivalent) Sec. existing standards for
manufactured on or 431.25(d)(3)(iv). all electric motors
after June 1, 2016. categories in each
section.

[[Page 87075]]

Sec. 431.25(j)..................... Describes standards for Sec. Makes each section
certain fire pump 431.25(b)(2)(iii), ``comprehensive'' by
electric motors (and Sec. carrying over the
IEC equivalent) 431.25(c)(2)(v), Sec. existing standards for
manufactured on or 431.25(d)(3)(v). all electric motors
after June 1, 2016. categories in each
section.
Sec. 431.25(l)..................... Describes the criteria Sec. 431.25(b)(1)(ii) Moves the
for exclusion for ``exemptions'' to
certain electric directly after the
motors manufactured on ``inclusion''
or after June 1, 2016, criteria, so that the
but before June 1, proper scope is
2027 subject to energy presented fully
conservation standards. upfront in each
section, prior to
presenting the sub-
group criteria and
standards.
Sec. 431.25(m)..................... Describes the criteria Sec. 431.25(c)(1)(i). Moves the ``inclusion''
for inclusion for criteria, so that the
certain electric proper scope is
motors manufactured on presented fully
or after June 1, 2027 upfront in each
subject to energy section.
conservation standards.
Sec. 431.25(n)..................... Describes standards for Sec. 431.25(c)(2)(i), Makes each section
certain NEMA Design A Sec. 431.25(d)(3)(i). ``comprehensive'' by
and B electric motors carrying over the
(and IEC existing standards for
equivalent),but all electric motors
excluding fire pump categories in each
electric motors and section.
air-over electric
motors manufactured on
or after June 1, 2027.
Sec. 431.25(o)..................... Describes standards for Sec. Makes each section
certain air-over NEMA 431.25(c)(2)(ii), Sec. ``comprehensive'' by
Design A and B 431.25(d)(3)(ii). carrying over the
electric motors (and existing standards for
IEC equivalent), built all electric motors
in standard frame size categories in each
manufactured on or section.
after June 1, 2027.
Sec. 431.25(p)..................... Describes standards for Sec. Makes each section
certain air-over NEMA 431.25(c)(2)(iii), ``comprehensive'' by
Design A and B Sec. carrying over the
electric motors (and 431.25(d)(3)(iii). existing standards for
IEC equivalent), built all electric motors
in specialized frame categories in each
size manufactured on section.
or after June 1, 2027.
Sec. 431.25(r)..................... Describes the criteria Sec. 431.25(c)(1)(ii) Moves the
for exclusion for ``exemptions'' to
certain electric directly after the
motors manufactured on ``inclusion''
or after June 1, 2027, criteria, so that the
subject to energy proper scope is
conservation standards. presented fully
upfront in each
section, prior to
presenting the sub-
group criteria and
standards.
New section.......................... Describes the criteria Sec. 431.25(d)(2)(i). New section--Adds the
for inclusion as ESEM. ESEM provisions
proposed in this NOPR.
New section.......................... Describes the criteria Sec. 431.25(d)(2)(ii) New section--Adds the
for exclusion for ESEM provisions
certain ESEM electric proposed in this NOPR.
motors manufactured on
or after January 1,
2029.
New section.......................... Describes standards for Sec. 431.25(d)(3)(vi) New section--Adds the
certain high and ESEM provisions
medium torque ESEM proposed in this NOPR.
manufactured on or
after January 1, 2029.
New section.......................... Describes standards for Sec. New section--Adds the
certain low torque 431.25(d)(3)(vii). ESEM provisions
ESEMs manufactured on proposed in this NOPR.
or after January 1,
2029.
New section.......................... Describes standards for Sec. New section--Adds the
certain polyphase 431.25(d)(3)(viii). ESEM provisions
ESEMs manufactured on proposed in this NOPR.
or after January 1,
2029.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Air-Over Medium Electric Motors and Air-Over ESEMs
The June 2023 DFR amended the existing energy conservation
standards for electric motors by establishing higher standards for
certain horsepower electric motors and expanding the scope of the
energy conservation standards to include certain air-over electric
motors and electric motors with horsepower greater than 500. DOE
adopted standards that were consistent with a joint recommendation that
was submitted to DOE on November 15, 2022 (the ``November 2022 Joint
Recommendation''), after determining that the new and amended energy
conservation standards for these products would result in significant
conservation of energy and are technologically feasible and
economically justified. 88 FR 36066, 36067-36069.
In the June 2023 DFR, DOE described that DOE currently regulates
MEMs falling into the NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, NEMA Design C, and
fire pump motor categories and those electric motors that meet the
criteria specified at 10 CFR 431.25(g). See id. at 88 FR 36079-36080;
10 CFR 431.25(h)-(j). Specifically, DOE noted the nine criteria used to
describe currently regulated MEMs, including the criteria at 10 CFR
431.25(g)(7), which specifies MEMs: ``Are built in a three-digit or
four-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), including those
designs between two consecutive NEMA

[[Page 87076]]

frame sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA frame
size (or IEC metric equivalent)''. 88 FR 36066, 36080.
In the June 2023 DFR, to support the new energy conservations
standards for air-over electric motors, DOE created new equipment
classes: one for standard frame size air-over motors (``AO-MEM
(Standard frame size)'')) and one for specialized frame size air-over
electric motors (``AO-Polyphase (Specialized frame size)''). Id. at 88
FR 36088. DOE also established a definition for ``specialized frame
size,'' based on a table that specified the maximum NEMA frame diameter
(or size) for a given motor horsepower, pole configuration, and
enclosure combination. Id. This table was part of the November 2022
Joint Recommendation. Id. In this table, the maximum frame diameter
specified ranges from a 48 NEMA frame motor diameter up to a 210 NEMA
frame diameter, therefore including intermediate sizes such as 56 NEMA
frame size in enclosed and open enclosure configurations. Id.
To clarify that AO-Polyphase (Specialized frame size) are not
included in the scope of electric motors included as ESEMs, DOE
proposes to add ``and do not have an air-over enclosure and a
specialized frame size if the motor operates on polyphase power'' to
the ESEM scope criteria in the proposed paragraph (d)(2)(i)(1) of 10
CFR 431.25 in this NOPR. DOE notes that AO-MEM (Standard frame size) do
not meet the frame criteria for ESEMs and are not included in the scope
of ESEMs.
In the June 2023 DFR, DOE further noted that the specialized frame
size air-over electric motors equipment class included frame sizes
beyond those described at 10 CFR 431.25(g)(7). Id. To better
characterize this distinction in frame sizes, DOE stated that it was
renaming ``Specialized Frame Size AO-MEMs'' (from the November 2022
Joint Recommendation) to ``AO-Polyphase (Specialized frame size).'' Id.
DOE added that only the naming convention was changed compared to the
November 2022 Joint Recommendation; and the scope of motors being
represented in that equipment class continued to stay the same as in
the November 2022 Joint Recommendation. Id.
The general scope description in 10 CFR 431.25(m) of the regulatory
text published in the June 2023 DFR presents the nine criteria that
determine what electric motors the standards in 10 CFR 431.25 apply to.
Specifically, the criteria at 10 CFR 431.25(m)(7) specifies that the
standards apply to electric motors that: ``Are built in a three-digit
or four-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), including
those designs between two consecutive NEMA frame sizes (or IEC metric
equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric
equivalent).''
When describing the energy conversation standards adopted for
specialized frame sizes air-over electric motors, DOE specified that
the standards are applicable to ``air-over electric motor meeting the
criteria in paragraph (m) of this section and [. . .] built in a
specialized frame size'' in section 10 CFR 431.25(p) of the regulatory
text published in the June 2023 DFR. 88 FR 36066, 36150.
As published, the general scope description in 10 CFR 431.25(m)(7)
of the regulatory text in the June 2023 DFR, and the scope description
in section 10 CFR 431.25(p) may be interpreted as inconsistent with the
scope of electric motors included in the AO-Polyphase (Specialized
frame size) equipment class analyzed in the June 2023 DFR, and for
which DOE intended to establish new standards in 10 CFR 431.25(p).
Specifically, DOE identified that the criteria at 10 CFR 431.25 (m)(7),
which is identical to the criteria currently at 10 CFR 431.25(g)(7),
excludes specialized frame air-over motors built in two-digit NEMA
frame sizes (other than enclosed 56 frame size motors). Therefore,
while in the preamble, DOE explicitly stated that the specialized frame
size air-over electric motors equipment class included frame sizes
beyond those described at 10 CFR 431.25(g)(7), the regulatory text as
written may be interpreted as limiting the covered frame sizes to those
specifically described at 10 CFR 431.25(g)(7).
Therefore, to clarify the intent of the preamble of the June 2023
DFR when establishing standards for the AO-polyphase (Specialized frame
size) equipment class, which was to include frame sizes beyond those
described at 10 CFR 431.25(g)(7), DOE proposes to make the following
clarification by adding ``or have an air-over enclosure and a
specialized frame size'' to the criteria originally included under 10
CFR 431.25 (m)(7) in the June 2023 DFR, to read as follows: ``Are built
in a three-digit or four-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric
equivalent), including those designs between two consecutive NEMA frame
sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or
IEC metric equivalent), or have an air-over enclosure and a specialized
frame size''. As previously discussed, DOE proposes to re-organize the
regulatory text at 10 CFR 431.25 and therefore is adding this proposed
clarification in the new paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(7) and (d)(1)(i)(7).

B. Test Procedure

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a))
Manufacturers of covered equipment must use these test procedures to
certify to DOE that their equipment complies with energy conservation
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their equipment. On October
19, 2022, DOE published the October 2022 Final Rule. 87 FR 63588. As
described previously in this document, the October 2022 Final Rule
expanded the types of motors included within the scope of the test
procedure, including the new class of ESEMs for which DOE is
establishing energy conservation standards in this NOPR. DOE's test
procedures for electric motors are currently prescribed at appendix B
as ``small, non-small-electric-motor electric motor'' and measure the
full-load efficiency of an electric motor. To harmonize terminology, in
this NOPR, DOE is replacing any reference to small, non-small-electric-
motor electric motor (``SNEM'') in appendix B with the term ``expanded
scope electric motor,'' or ``ESEM.''

C. Represented Values

DOE's energy conservation standards for electric motors are
currently prescribed at 10 CFR 431.25. DOE's current energy
conservation standards for electric motors are expressed in terms of
nominal full-load efficiency and manufacturers must certify the
represented value of nominal full-load efficiency of each basic model.
10 CFR 429.64. The provisions establishing how to determine the average
full-load efficiency and the nominal full-load efficiency of a basic
model are provided at 10 CFR 429.64.
As discussed in section II.B.3 of this document, the ESEM standard
levels recommended by the Electric Motors Working Group are expressed
in average full-load efficiency and not in terms of nominal full-load
efficiency. To align with the Electric Motors Working Group
recommendations, DOE proposes to revise the provisions related to the
determination of the represented values for ESEMs at 10 CFR 429.64 such
that manufacturers of ESEMs would certify a represented value of
average full-load efficiency instead of a represented value of nominal
full-load efficiency. DOE also proposes edits to 10 CFR 429.70(j) to
reflect the use of a represented value of average full-load efficiency
instead of

[[Page 87077]]

a represented value of nominal full-load efficiency for ESEMs.
DOE requests comments on the proposal to use a represented value of
average full-load efficiency for ESEMs and proposed revisions to 10 CFR
429.64 and 429.70(j).

D. Technological Feasibility

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

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from application of the
TSL to ESEMs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of
compliance with the proposed standards (2029-2058).\25\ The savings are
measured over the entire lifetime of ESEMs purchased in the previous
30-year period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each
TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case
and the no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a
projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a
product would likely evolve in the absence of new energy conservation
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each
product class. The TSLs considered for this NOPR are described in
section V.A of this document. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis
that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE used its national impact analysis (``NIA'') spreadsheet model
to estimate national energy savings (``NES'') from potential new
standards for ESEMs. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section
IV.H of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of site
energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the
locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national
energy savings in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings
in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site
electricity. DOE also calculates NES in terms of FFC energy savings.
The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing,
and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum
fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of
energy conservation standards.\26\ DOE's approach is based on the
calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by
covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy
savings, see section IV.H of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy
and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE
must determine that such action would result in significant energy
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given proposed rulemaking.\27\
For example, some covered products and equipment have most of their
energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The
impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more
pronounced than products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly,
DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case
basis, taking into account the significance of cumulative FFC national
energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need
to confront the global climate crisis, among other factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ The numeric threshold for determining the significance of
energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14,
2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670) was subsequently eliminated in a final rule
published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70892).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated, the standard levels proposed in this NOPR are projected
to result in national energy savings of 8.9 quad FFC, the equivalent of
the primary annual energy use of 95.7 million homes. Based on the
amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in emissions, and
need to confront the global climate crisis, DOE has tentatively
determined the energy savings from the standard levels proposed in this
NOPR are ``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in
determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has
addressed each of those seven factors in this proposed rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
In determining the impacts of a potential new or amended standard
on manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of
this document. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine
the quantitative impacts. This step includes

[[Page 87078]]

both a short-term assessment--based on the cost and capital
requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and
when entities must comply with the regulation--and a long-term
assessment over a 30-year period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed
include (1) INPV, which values the industry on the basis of expected
future cash flows, (2) cash flows by year, (3) changes in revenue and
income, and (4) other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE
analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers,
including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the
impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and
manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to
result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE
takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and
other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the
changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These
measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers
in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of
the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular
standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected
disproportionately by a standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and
PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC
and PBP analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of equipment (including
its installation) and the operating expense (including energy,
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of
the equipment. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as
equipment prices, equipment energy consumption, energy prices,
maintenance and repair costs, equipment lifetime, and discount rates
appropriate for consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability
in specific inputs, such as equipment lifetime and discount rate, DOE
uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each
value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient equipment through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will
purchase the covered equipment in the first year of compliance with new
standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are
calculated relative to the case that reflects projected market trends
in the absence of new standards. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is
discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this document.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section IV.H of this document,
DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing product classes and in evaluating design options
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the
considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards
proposed in this document would not reduce the utility or performance
of the equipment under consideration in this proposed rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is
likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to
determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to
result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to
the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule,
together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy
of this proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the
Department of Justice (``DOJ'') provide its determination on this
issue. DOE will publish and respond to the Attorney General's
determination in the final rule. DOE invites comment from the public
regarding the competitive impacts that are likely to result from this
proposed rule. In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments
separately to DOJ regarding these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES
section for information to send comments to DOJ.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water
conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the proposed standards
are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of
the Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity
also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the
Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to
estimate how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation
capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of this document.
DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take
into account when considering the need for national energy
conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air
pollutants and greenhouse gases (``GHGs'') associated with energy
production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how
potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section
IV.K of this document; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in
section V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value
of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as
discussed in section IV.L of this document.
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the
Secretary deems to be

[[Page 87079]]

relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the
extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic
justification that does not fit into the other categories described
previously, DOE could consider such information under ``other
factors.''
2. Rebuttable Presumption
EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation
standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the
consumer of the equipment that meets the standard is less than three
times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the
standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) DOE's LCC and PBP analyses
generate values used to calculate the effects that new energy
conservation standards would have on the PBP for consumers. These
analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year PBP contemplated
under the rebuttable-presumption test.
In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that
considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the
Nation, and the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a) and 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B). The results of this analysis serve as the basis
for DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential
standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any
preliminary determination of economic justification). The rebuttable
presumption payback calculation is discussed in section V.B.1.c of this
document.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
proposed rulemaking with regard to ESEMs. Separate subsections address
each component of DOE's analyses. In this NOPR, DOE is only addressing
comments and analysis specific to the scope of motors provided in the
December 2022 Joint Recommendation (i.e., ESEMs and AO-ESEMs). As such,
any analysis and comments related to MEMs and AO-MEMs were addressed in
the separate June 2023 DFR published on June 1, 2023. 88 FR 36066.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the
standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet
that presents the calculations of the LCC savings and PBP of potential
new energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a
second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and
calculates national energy savings and net present value of total
consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy
conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the
Government Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), to assess manufacturer
impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are
available on the DOE website for this rulemaking: <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''), a widely known energy projection for
the United States, for the emissions and utility impact analyses.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products
concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used
in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly-available
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology
assessment for this proposed rulemaking include (1) a determination of
the scope of the proposed rulemaking and equipment classes, (2)
manufacturers and industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs,
(4) shipments information, (5) market and industry trends; and (6)
technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency
of ESEMs. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in
the following sections. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further
discussion of the market and technology assessment.
1. Scope of Coverage
This document covers ESEMs, a category of electric motors. The term
``electric motor'' is defined at 10 CFR 431.12. Specifically, the
definition for ``electric motor'' is ``a machine that converts
electrical power into rotational mechanical power.'' 10 CFR 431.12.
In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE presented analysis for
the current scope of electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25, in
addition to certain expanded scope, including air-over electric motors,
and ESEMs and AO-ESEMs. See chapter 2 of the March 2022 Preliminary
TSD. Since then, DOE has published the October 2022 Final Rule, which
established test procedures for expanded scope, as discussed in detail
in section III.B of this NOPR. Additionally, DOE has also published the
June 2023 DFR, which established energy conservations standards for
MEMs and AO-MEMs.
In response to the scope presented in the March 2022 Preliminary
Analysis, DOE received a number of comments, which are discussed in the
subsections below. In this NOPR, DOE is only addressing comments and
analysis specific to the scope of motors proposed in this NOPR, which
includes ESEMs and AO-ESEMs.
NEEA supported the inclusion of ESEMs in the scope of the
standards. NEEA noted that including ESEMs will allow comparison of
performance and informed purchase decisions. (NEEA, No. 33 at p. 2)
AHAM and AHRI strongly opposed DOE's plan to expand the existing
scope of coverage of electric motors to include motors destined for
particular applications in finished goods, and instead recommended that
DOE should apply a finished-product approach to energy efficiency
regulations. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 25 at pp. 7-9) Lennox added that it
strongly objects to any expansion of coverage (including development of
test procedures, energy conservation requirements, and/or certification
requirements) for electric motors that would circumvent the statutory
exemption that Congress provided for small electric motors that are
components of EPCA-covered products/equipment. (Lennox, No. 29 at p. 3)
AHAM and AHRI commented that they interpret the EPCA exemption for SEMs
that are components of covered product and equipment as to also mean
that small special and definite purpose motors, whether they are
classified as small electric motors or as an ESEM, should not be
subject to energy conservation standards. AHAM and AHRI stated that
such motors are, by definition, destined for particular products, and
when that product is a covered product/piece of equipment, that motor
is destined for a product already subject to energy conservation
standards and has defining features to identify it as such. (AHAM and
AHRI, No. 25 at pp. 1,6)
AHRI and AHAM further commented that regulating ESEMs could affect
the following product categories: clothes washers (top and front load),
clothes dryers, food waste disposers, refrigerators, room air
conditioners, and stick vacuums. Apart from stick vacuums and food
waste disposers, AHAM and AHRI noted that the products listed are
already subject to energy conservation standards. AHAM and AHRI also
commented that

[[Page 87080]]

regulating ESEM and AO motors could impact the following products:
small, large, very large commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment, residential air conditioners and heat pumps, single
package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps, commercial and
residential furnaces, commercial and residential boilers, commercial
and residential water heaters, air cooled condensing unit, central
station air handling units, geothermal heat pumps, unit coolers, unit
ventilators, and water source heat pumps. (AHAM and AHRI, No. 25 at pp.
1-2)
HI recommended that dedicated-purpose ESEMs should be regulated as
part of their final product instead of as motors specifically. (HI, No.
31 at p. 1)
The Joint Industry Stakeholders commented that they strongly object
to any expansion of coverage (including development of test procedures,
energy conservation requirements, and/or certification requirements)
for electric motors that would circumvent the statutory exemption that
Congress provided for small electric motors that are components of
EPCA-covered products/equipment. They stated that embedded motor
testing, and ultimately energy conservation standards, would save
minimal energy and would create needless testing, paperwork, and
record-keeping requirements that would raise costs for consumers.
(Joint Industry Stakeholders, No. 23 at pp. 3-4) The Joint Industry
Stakeholders and AHAM and AHRI agreed with the previous determination
in which DOE recognized that Congress intentionally excluded these
motors from coverage by DOE regulation when such motors are used as
components of products and equipment that are already subject to DOE
regulation, and they noted that these are the motors that DOE now seeks
to regulate as ESEMs and by expanding the scope of the test procedure
to \1/4\ hp. The Joint Industry Stakeholders and AHAM and AHRI added
that, despite the similarity between ESEMs and SEMs, DOE is proposing
to subject ESEMs used as components in EPCA-covered equipment/products
to duplicative energy conservation standards at both the motor level
and the finished product/equipment stage and that DOE provides no
rationale or explanation for doing so. (Joint Industry Stakeholders,
No. 23 at pp. 3-4; AHAM and AHRI, No. 25 at pp. 7- 9) Further, the
Joint Industry Stakeholders commented that ESEMs include special and
definite purpose motors that have been built to meet the needs of
original equipment manufacturer (``OEM'') products. The Joint Industry
Stakeholders added that many of these OEM products are already
regulated by DOE. (Joint Industry Stakeholders, No. 23 at p. 2)
As discussed in the October 2022 Final Rule, EPCA, as amended
through EISA 2007, provides DOE with the authority to regulate the
expanded scope of motors addressed in this rule. 87 FR 63588, 63596.
Before the enactment of EISA 2007, EPCA defined the term ``electric
motor'' as any motor that is a general purpose T-frame, single-speed,
foot-mounting, polyphase squirrel-cage induction motor of the NEMA,
Design A and B, continuous rated, operating on 230/460 volts and
constant 60 Hertz line power as defined in NEMA Standards Publication
MG1-1987. (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) (2006)) Section 313(a)(2) of EISA
2007 removed that definition and the prior limits that narrowly defined
what types of motors would be considered as electric motors. In its
place, EISA 2007 inserted a new ``Electric motors'' heading, and
created two new subtypes of electric motors: General purpose electric
motor (subtype I) and general purpose electric motor (subtype II). (42
U.S.C. 6311(13)(A)-(B) (2011)) In addition, section 313(b)(2) of EISA
2007 established energy conservation standards for four types of
electric motors: general purpose electric motors (subtype I) (i.e.,
subtype I motors) with a power rating of 1 to 200 horsepower; fire pump
motors; general purpose electric motor (subtype II) (i.e., subtype II
motors) with a power rating of 1 to 200 horsepower; and NEMA Design B,
general purpose electric motors with a power rating of more than 200
horsepower, but less than or equal to 500 horsepower. (42 U.S.C.
6313(b)(2)) The term ``electric motor'' was left undefined. However, in
a May 4, 2012 final rule amending the electric motors test procedure
(the ``May 2012 TP Final Rule''), DOE adopted the broader definition of
``electric motor,'' currently found in 10 CFR 431.12, because DOE noted
that the absence of a definition may cause confusion about which
electric motors are required to comply with mandatory test procedures
and energy conservation standards, and the broader definition provided
DOE with the flexibility to set energy conservation standards for other
types of electric motors without having to continuously update the
definition of ``electric motors''. 77 FR 26608, 26613.
Some electric motors included in this proposed rule may be sold
embedded into covered products and equipment or sold alone as
replacements. DOE is proposing new energy conservation standards for
ESEMs in this proposed rule that apply to the motor's efficiency
regardless of whether the ESEM is being sold alone or embedded into a
covered product or equipment. As discussed in section III.D of this
document, DOE has determined that energy savings from the standard
levels proposed in this NOPR are ``significant'' within the meaning of
42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)
The provisions of EPCA make clear that DOE may regulate electric
motors ``alone or as a component of another piece of equipment.'' (See
42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1) and (2) (providing that standards for electric
motors be applied to electric motors manufactured ``alone or as a
component of another piece of equipment'')) In contrast, Congress
exempted SEM that are a component of a covered product or a covered
equipment from the standards that DOE was required to establish under
42 U.S.C. 6317(b). Congress did not, however, similarly restrict
electric motors.
Congress defined what equipment comprises a SEM--specifically, ``a
NEMA general purpose alternating current single-speed induction motor,
built in a two-digit frame number series in accordance with NEMA
Standards Publication MG1-1987.'' \28\ (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G)) ESEMs,
which are electric motors, are not SEMs because they do not satisfy the
more specific statutory SEM definition. Unlike SEMs, the statute does
not limit DOE's authority to regulate an electric motor with respect to
whether ``electric motors'' are stand-alone equipment items or
components of a covered product or covered equipment. Rather, Congress
specifically provided that DOE could regulate electric motors that are
components of other covered equipment in the standards established by
DOE. (See 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1) (providing that standards for electric
motors be applied to electric motors manufactured ``alone or as a
component of another piece of equipment'')) Accordingly, DOE disagrees
with commenters that the SEM component exemption should apply to ESEMs
and, therefore, includes ESEMs installed as components in other DOE-
regulated products and equipment in these proposed energy conservation
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ DOE clarified, at industry's urging, that the definition
also includes motors that are IEC metric equivalents to the
specified NEMA motors prescribed by the statute. See 74 FR 32059,
32061-32062 (July 7, 2009); 10 CFR 431.442.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, ESEMs are built in standard NEMA frame sizes and are
not common in currently regulated consumer products including those
listed by AHAM and AHRI (i.e., clothes washers (top and front load),
clothes

[[Page 87081]]

dryers, food waste disposers, refrigerators, room air conditioners, and
stick vacuums). Therefore, DOE believes the standards proposed in this
NOPR would not impact manufacturers of consumer products. In commercial
equipment, DOE identified the following equipment as potentially
incorporating ESEMs: walk-in coolers and freezers,\29\ circulator
pumps,\30\ air circulating fans,\31\ and commercial unitary air
conditioning equipment.\32\ If the proposed energy conservation
standards for these rules finalize as proposed, DOE has identified that
these rules would all: (1) have a compliance year that is at or before
the ESEM standard compliance year (2029) and/or (2) require a motor
that is either outside of the scope of this rule (e.g., an
electronically commutated motor (``ECM'')) or an ESEM with an
efficiency above the proposed ESEM standards, and therefore not be
impacted by the proposed ESEM rule (i.e., the ESEM rule would not
trigger a redesign of these equipment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ The walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers standards
rulemaking docket number is: EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016.
\30\ The circulator pumps energy conservation standard
rulemaking docket number is: EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004.
\31\ The commercial and industrial fans and blowers energy
conservation standard rulemaking docket number is: EERE-2013-BT-STD-
0006. Air circulating fans are a subcategory of fans.
\32\ The small, large, and very large air-cooled commercial
package air conditioners and heat pumps energy conservation standard
rulemaking docket number is: EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furthermore, EPCA requires that any new or amended standard for
covered equipment must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement
in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In this
NOPR, DOE performs the necessary analyses to determine what new
standards would meet the aforementioned criteria. Further, DOE has
determined that the proposed standards provide cost-effective standards
that would result in the significant conservation of energy. Further
discussion on the analytical results and DOE's justification is
provided in section V of this document.
NEEA commented that the term ``small, non-small electric motors''
is confusing and recommended using ``Other Small HP Motors (OSHM)'' or
``Other Small Electric Motors (OSEM)'' as alternative options. (NEEA,
No. 33 at p. 2) DOE has opted to use the term ``ESEM'' in this NOPR.
The Joint Industry Stakeholders commented that the proposed
definition for ESEMs used in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis is
vague. Specifically, the Joint Industry Stakeholders requested
clarification regarding (1) the definition of full-rated load; (2)
whether brushless permanent magnet motors were included; (3) whether
some motors, which have motor assemblies that are connected to 60 Hz
and which are rectified internally to DC power and require brush
maintenance were included. (Joint Industry Stakeholders, No. 23 at pp.
1-2) In response, DOE notes that the October 2022 Final Rule finalized
a definition for ``rated load,'' which is currently provided in 10 CFR
431.12 (87 FR 63588, 63623), and included specifications on what
electric motors meet the definition of ESEM, which is currently
provided in section 1 of appendix B (87 FR 63588, 63599). Specifically,
10 CFR 431.12 currently relates rated load to full-load, full rated
load, or rated full-load, and defines it as ``the rated output power of
an electric motor.'' Further, section 1.1 of appendix B states that an
ESEM means a motor that ``is a single-speed induction motor capable of
operating without an inverter or is an inverter-only electric motor'';
therefore, the ESEM scope does not include non-induction electric
motors. However, DOE does separately include in scope ``synchronous
electric motors,'' which entails an electric motor that is
``synchronous'' and ``produces at least 0.25 hp but not greater than
750 hp''. See Section 1.1, appendix B. However, DOE is not adopting
standards for synchronous electric motors in this NOPR. Finally, the
ESEM scope specifically states that an electric motor would meet the
scope if it operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current
60-hertz (Hz) sinusoidal line power; or is used with an inverter that
operates on polyphase or single-phase alternating current 60-hertz (Hz)
sinusoidal line power. An ``inverter'' is defined as ``an electronic
device that converts an input AC or DC power into a controlled output
AC or DC voltage or current. An inverter may also be called a
converter.'' 10 CFR 431.12.
The Joint Industry Stakeholders recommended that DOE exclude
refrigeration compressor motors from the scope of the ESEM rulemaking.
The Joint Industry Stakeholders explained that such motors are
hermetically sealed and are cooled by the refrigerant flowing within
the appliance/equipment, and that there is no accurate way to measure
the efficiency of just the motor and thus, it is not appropriate or
feasible to include refrigeration compressor motors in the scope of
this rulemaking. (Joint Industry Stakeholders, No. 23 at p. 9) DOE
defines a liquid-cooled electric motor as a motor that is cooled by
liquid circulated using a designated cooling apparatus such that the
liquid or liquid-filled conductors come into direct contact with the
parts of the motor but is not submerged in a liquid during operation.
10 CFR 431.12. DOE reviewed refrigeration compressor motors and
understands that they would be considered a liquid-cooled electric
motor according to this definition because they require flowing
refrigerant to adequately cool during operation. The designated cooling
apparatus in this case is shared with the greater refrigeration system.
Liquid-cooled electric motors are currently exempt from DOE's standards
for electric motors, generally. See 10 CFR 431.25(l)(3). Accordingly,
because the refrigeration compressor motor described by the commenters
meets the definition of a ``liquid-cooled electric motor,'' it is
exempt from the test procedure and energy conservation standards
proposed by this NOPR. DOE also notes that many refrigeration
compressor motors are not built in standard NEMA frame sizes, and this
would also disqualify them from the scope of this NOPR. As such, DOE
does not see a need to specifically exempt refrigeration compression
motors from the scope of this NOPR, but may revisit the issue in the
future, as necessary.
Additionally, NEMA stated that there is no room for explosion proof
motors to accommodate a run capacitor because of the added enclosure
constraints associated with explosion proof motors. (NEMA, No. 22 at p.
3) DOE agrees with NEMA that the enclosure constraints for explosion
proof motors do not allow for the addition of a run capacitor. The new
standard levels proposed by this NOPR will not require CSIR motors to
incorporate an additional run capacitor and will not require CSIR
motors to be replaced by CSCR motors. Therefore, DOE believes NEMA's
concern is addressed.
The CA IOUs recommended exploring stakeholder interest in convening
an ASRAC Working Group to clearly define the scope of an ESEM
regulation before moving forward with an energy conservation standard
rulemaking. (CA IOUs, No. 30 at p. 2) In response, DOE notes that
several members of industry and other stakeholders did convene on a
negotiation, which ended in the December 2022 Joint Recommendation. The
December 2022 Joint Recommendation limited its scope to high-torque and
medium-torque ESEMs, low-torque ESEMs, and polyphase ESEMs.

[[Page 87082]]

The Joint Industry Stakeholders also commented that ESEMs are the
same as SEMs and that DOE's reliance on the SEM data as an analog to
ESEM performance demonstrates that the products are the same.
Additionally, the Joint Industry Stakeholders said that DOE did not
provide sufficient data to support its analysis or to allow commenters
to fully understand, interpret, or analyze the March 2022 Preliminary
TSD and provide meaningful comment. The Joint Industry Stakeholders
also stated that DOE's reliance on old data for what DOE claims is a
different product and its drawing of conclusions without providing
further detail fails to meet the requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act (``APA'') or the Data Quality Act. (Joint Industry
Stakeholders, No. 23 at pp. 2-3) As noted previously, EPCA provides a
very specific definition for SEMs that DOE regulates under 10 CFR part
431 subpart X. ESEMs can be similar to SEMs in many aspects, but
nevertheless fall outside of the EPCA-provided definition. Accordingly,
ESEMs are treated differently for purposes of DOE's energy conservation
standards. That DOE used SEMs data as an analog to ESEM performance to
help construct the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis does not change the
fact that they are treated differently under EPCA, or that, as electric
motors, DOE may regulate ESEMs used as components in other covered
equipment. Notably, in response to the comment from the Joint
Stakeholders, DOE has made updates to the ESEMs analysis in this NOPR
compared to what was presented in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis;
specifically, DOE has performed additional testing, teardowns, and
modeling of electric motors that more closely align with the ESEM scope
and updated the engineering analysis accordingly. In addition, DOE
reviewed the latest motor catalog data to inform the updated analyses.
Further discussion on this updated analysis is provided in section IV.C
of this document. Therefore, DOE has met the APA's requirements as DOE
has explained throughout this NOPR and in the NOPR TSD the details of
the analysis conducted by DOE and the information DOE relied on in
conducting that analysis. Further, DOE has complied with DOE's
guidelines for implementing the Data Quality Act that ensure the
quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of the data presented in
this document.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ See the discussion of the Data Quality Act in section VI.J
of this document; see also <a href="http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/cioprod/documents/finalinfoqualityguidelines03072011.pdf">www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/cioprod/documents/finalinfoqualityguidelines03072011.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Air-Over ESEMs
In response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, AHRI commented
that air-over motors are explicitly exempted from regulation in 10 CFR
431.25(l), and that DOE has not overcome the challenges to include
these exempted products, procedurally or technically. AHRI added that
the claimed similarities between SEMs and the newly proposed AO-ESEMs
category warrant the same exemption for AO-ESEMs that Congress
expressly provided for small electric motors, and AHRI referenced the
requirement of EPCA, which says that energy conservation standards
``shall not apply to any small electric motor which is a component of a
covered product under section 6292(a) of this title or covered
equipment under section 6311 of this title.'' (AHRI, No. 26 at pp. 1,
2)
With regards to the comment from AHRI, DOE is covering AO-ESEMs
under its ``electric motors'' authority. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A); 42
U.S.C. 6313(b)) As discussed in section III.A of this document, the
statute does not limit DOE's authority to regulate electric motors
(that are not SEMs) with respect to whether they are stand-alone
equipment items or as components of a covered product or covered
equipment. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1) (providing that standards for
electric motors be applied to electric motors manufactured ``alone or
as a component of another piece of equipment'') AO-ESEMs do not fall
within the SEMs definition under EPCA, and, therefore, DOE is
regulating AO-ESEMs under its ``electric motors'' authority.
DOE's previous determination in the December 2013 Final Rule to
exclude air-over electric motors from scope was due to insufficient
information available to DOE at the time to support establishment of a
test method. 78 FR 75962, 75974-75975. Since that time, NEMA published
a test standard for air-over motors in Section IV, ``Performance
Standards Applying to All Machines,'' Part 34 ``Air-Over Motor
Efficiency Test Method'' of NEMA MG 1-2016 (``NEMA Air-over Motor
Efficiency Test Method''). The air-over method was originally published
as part of the 2017 NEMA MG-1 Supplements and is also included in the
latest version of NEMA MG 1-2016. Accordingly, in the October 2022
Final Rule, DOE included air-over electric motors in the test procedure
scope and established test procedures for such motors. 87 FR 63588,
63597. In this NOPR, DOE has analyzed the scope of electric motors
based on the finalized test procedures and proposes new energy
conservation standards for AO-ESEMs that align with the December 2022
Joint Recommendation.
3. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
may establish separate standards for a group of covered products (i.e.,
establish a separate equipment class) if DOE determines that separate
standards are justified based on the type of energy used, or if DOE
determines that a product's capacity or other performance-related
feature justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(1)) In making a determination whether a performance-related
feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors
as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE
determines are appropriate. (Id.)
In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE considered potential
equipment classes defined on the basis of motor horsepower rating, pole
configuration (i.e., 2, 4, 6, or 8 poles), enclosure type (i.e., open
or enclosed construction), locked-rotor torque level (i.e., high,
medium, or low), type of input power (i.e., phase), and motor cooling
approach (i.e., air-over or non-air-over). See chapter 2 of the March
2022 Preliminary TSD.
Regarding horsepower, DOE has previously established separate
equipment classes for electric motors on the basis of horsepower
rating. In an electric motors final rule that published on May 29, 2014
(``May 2014 Electric Motors Final Rule''), DOE discussed that
horsepower is a performance attribute of an electric motor that is
directly related to the capacity of an electric motor to perform useful
work, and that horsepower generally scales with efficiency. 79 FR
30934, 30958. For example, a 50-horsepower electric motor would
generally be considered more efficient than a 10-horsepower electric
motor. Id. For these reasons, DOE has tentatively determined that
horsepower represents a performance-related feature that justifies
separate equipment classes for ESEMs.
Regarding pole configuration, DOE has also previously established
separate equipment classes for electric motors on the basis of pole
configuration. In the May 2014 Electric Motors Final Rule, DOE
discussed that the number of poles in an induction motor determines the
synchronous speed (i.e., revolutions per minute) of that motor, and
that there is an inverse relationship between the number of poles and a
motor's speed. Id. at 79 FR 30958-30959. As the number

[[Page 87083]]

of poles increases from two to four to six to eight, the synchronous
speed drops from 3,600 to 1,800 to 1,200 to 900 revolutions per minute,
respectively. Id. The number of poles has a direct impact on the
electric motor's performance and achievable efficiency because the
number of poles affects the amount of available space inside an
electric motor that can be used to accommodate efficiency improvements.
Id. For example, eight pole motors have twice as many poles as four-
pole motors and, correspondingly, less space for efficiency
improvements. Id. For these reasons, DOE has tentatively determined
that pole configuration represents a performance-related feature that
justifies separate equipment classes for ESEMs.
Regarding enclosure type, DOE has also previously established
separate equipment classes for electric motors on the basis of
enclosure type. In the May 2014 Electric Motors Final Rule, DOE
discussed that electric motors manufactured with open construction
allow a free interchange of air between the electric motor's interior
and exterior. Id. at 79 FR 30959. Whereas, electric motors with
enclosed construction have no direct air interchange between the
motor's interior and exterior (but are not necessarily air-tight) and
may be equipped with an internal fan for cooling. Id. Whether an
electric motor is open or enclosed affects its utility; open motors are
generally not used in harsh operating environments, whereas totally
enclosed electric motors often are. Id. The enclosure type also affects
an electric motor's ability to dissipate heat, which directly affects
efficiency. For these reasons, DOE has tentatively determined that the
enclosure type represents a performance-related feature that justifies
separate equipment classes ESEMs.
Regarding locked-rotor torque level, DOE considered three
classifications of locked-rotor torque in the March 2022 Preliminary
Analysis: high, medium, and low. The high locked-rotor torque motor
topologies included CSCR and CSIR motors; the medium locked-rotor
torque topologies included split phase motors; and the low locked-rotor
torque topologies included PSC and shaded pole motors. Locked-rotor
torque refers to torque developed by an electric motor whose rotor is
locked in place, i.e., not rotating. Locked-rotor torque characterizes
a motor's ability to begin moving loads at rest, an attribute which is
important to varying degree across applications. Certain applications,
for example, some fans, may be relatively indifferent to locked-rotor
torque; whereas for others, a minimum locked-rotor torque may be
required to begin operation. DOE understands that high and medium
locked-rotor torque motors are generally physically larger than low-
locked rotor torque motors and may not fit in many embedded
applications that low locked-rotor torque motors are used in.
Additionally, low locked-rotor torque motors may not provide sufficient
starting torque (i.e., the motor would stall and the application would
never start) to the many applications that have a high starting load
(e.g., compressors and pumps). DOE also understands that high and
medium locked-rotor torque motors generally operate inherently more
efficiently than low locked-rotor torque motors. As such, DOE has
tentatively determined that separate standards (i.e., separate
equipment classes) are warranted for the high/medium locked-rotor
torque topologies (i.e., CSCR, CSIR, and split phase) and low locked-
rotor torque topologies (i.e., PSC and shaded pole). In the March 2022
Preliminary Analysis, DOE sought comment on whether any applications
require a low locked-rotor torque and would not operate with a high
locked-rotor torque motor, and whether locked-rotor torque is necessary
to maintain as an equipment class factor if the highest-torque motor
types (e.g., CSCR) can reach the highest available efficiency levels
among the set of electric motors which are used as substitutes for
similar applications. Section 2.3.1.2 of the March 2022 TSD.
In response to the equipment classes presented in the March 2022
Preliminary Analysis, NEMA agreed that locked-rotor torque (or
alternatively, the motor technology) is necessary to maintain as an
equipment class factor even if the high locked-rotor torque ESEMs can
reach the highest efficiencies among the full range of ESEMs
(regardless of locked-rotor torque categorization). They substantiated
their recommendation by stating that certain high locked-rotor torque
motors are often not interchangeable with lower locked-rotor torque
motors in specific applications because of the larger physical size of
the high locked-rotor torque motor due to the presence of additional
capacitors. (NEMA, No. 22 at pp. 6-7) The December 2022 Joint
Recommendation recommended equipment classes with locked-rotor torque
as one of the differentiators among equipment classes, although in
contrast to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, it merged the high and
medium locked-rotor torque classes to form a single high locked-rotor
torque class. DOE infers from this recommendation that the performance
of split phase motors does not inherently differ substantially from the
performance of CSCR and CSIR motors, such that a higher or lower energy
conservation standard for split phase motors would not be warranted in
relation to a standard established for CSCR and CSIR motors. As such,
DOE has tentatively determined that separate equipment classes for
ESEMs are warranted for two groupings of locked-rotor torque: high and
medium locked-rotor torque (represented by the grouping of CSCR, CSIR,
and split phase topologies) and low locked-rotor torque (represented by
the grouping of PSC and shaded pole topologies).
Regarding motor cooling approach, DOE discussed the differentiation
between air-over and non-air-over motors in the March 2022 Preliminary
Analysis. See section 2.3.1.2 of the March 2022 Preliminary TSD. DOE
currently defines an air-over electric motor at 10 CFR 431.12 as an
electric motor ``rated to operate in and be cooled by the airstream of
a fan or blower that is not supplied with the motor and whose primary
purpose is providing airflow to an application other than the motor
driving it.'' As such, air-over motors are often designed without an
internal fan, which allows for smaller packaging, reduced cost, and the
potential for higher-efficiency performance because the motor is not
driving an internal fan. DOE notes, however, the inability to self-cool
may be a limitation in many applications where cooling airflow is
unavailable or too variable to provide a reliable cooling source. For
these reasons, DOE has tentatively determined that the cooling approach
represents a performance-related feature that justifies separate
equipment classes for AO-ESEMs.
Based on the above considerations, DOE is proposing to establish
equipment class groupings for ESEMs based on the following
characteristics: horsepower rating, pole configuration (i.e., 2, 4, 6,
or 8 poles), enclosure type (i.e., open or enclosed), locked-rotor
torque level (i.e., high and medium locked-rotor torque, represented by
the grouping of CSCR, CSIR, and split phase topologies; and low locked-
rotor torque, represented by the grouping of PSC and shaded pole
topologies), type of input power (i.e., phase), and motor cooling
approach (i.e., air-over or non-air-over). Table IV-1 presents the
equipment class groups proposed in this NOPR. Within each equipment
class group, DOE would establish individual equipment classes for each
pole configuration, enclosure type, and horsepower range. The equipment
class groups shown in Table IV-1 represent a total of 350 equipment
classes.

[[Page 87084]]

Table IV-1--Equipment Class Groups
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Horsepower Pole
Equipment class groups (``ECG'') Motor topology rating configuration Enclosure Cooling requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................... CSCR, CSIR, Split Phase .25-3 2, 4, 6, 8 Open...................... Non-Air-Over.
Enclosed..................
2.................................... PSC, Shaded Pole....... .25-3 2, 4, 6, 8 Open...................... Non-Air-Over.
Enclosed..................
3.................................... Polyphase.............. .25-3 2, 4, 6, 8 Open...................... Non-Air-Over.
Enclosed..................
4.................................... CSCR, CSIR, Split Phase .25-3 2, 4, 6, 8 Open...................... Air-Over
Enclosed..................
5.................................... PSC, Shaded Pole....... .25-3 2, 4, 6, 8 Open...................... Air-Over
Enclosed..................
6.................................... Polyphase.............. .25-3 2, 4, 6, 8 Open...................... Air-Over
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE requests comment on the proposed equipment classes for this
NOPR.
4. Technology Options
In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis market and technology
assessment, DOE identified several technology options that were
initially determined to improve the efficiency of ESEMs, as measured by
the DOE test procedure. Table IV-2 presents the technology options
considered in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis.

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

DOE maintains the same technology options from the March 2022
Preliminary Analysis in this NOPR. DOE received a number of comments
regarding technology options. As these options are applicable to
electric motors, broadly, DOE responded to these comments in the June
2023 DFR and refers to that discussion for purposes of technology
options considered in this NOPR. See 88 FR 36066, 36089-36090.
5. Imported Embedded Motors
In response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE received
comments regarding compliance logistics and general issues regarding
embedded motors being imported into the United States. NEMA commented
that they estimate between 30 and 60 percent of ESEMs will be imported
as a motor or embedded in a piece of equipment, and that the importers
of these equipment are the responsible parties to comply. NEMA stated
that if DOE ignores these importers, the rule will harm American
equipment manufacturers incorporating ESEMs who compete with offshore
suppliers and will not maintain a ``level playing field'' amongst motor
manufacturers. NEMA added that they believe that adding the ESEM
categories as defined in the March 2022 Preliminary TSD will have
significant negative effects on U.S. suppliers and jobs, giving
offshore equipment producers an unfair advantage over American
producers. NEMA continued by saying that if DOE does not provide a
funded and feasible border enforcement plan, the energy savings
estimates for a regulation for ESEM will need to be adjusted by
removing the savings of the offshore motors that escape regulation.
(NEMA, No. 22 at pp. 18-19) DOE recognizes that importing embedded
motors within larger pieces of equipment poses logistical challenges
regarding the compliance of these embedded motors with the new energy
conservation standards. However, DOE notes that imported motors that
meet the scope criteria proposed in this NOPR will be subject to the
energy conservation standards that are being promulgated regardless of
whether the motor is imported on its own or embedded in a separate
piece of equipment. DOE is committed to enforcing its regulations in a
fair and equitable manner to ensure a level playing field is preserved
for domestic manufacturers.

B. Screening Analysis

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

[[Page 87085]]

that technology will not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility. If a technology is determined to
have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to
subgroups of consumers, or result in the unavailability of any covered
product type with performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as products generally available in the United States at the time,
it will not be considered further.
(4) Safety of technologies. If it is determined that a technology
would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not
be considered further.
(5) Unique-pathway proprietary technologies. If a technology has
proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a
given efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to the
potential for monopolistic concerns.
10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 6(c)(3) and
7(b).
In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination
of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria,
it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering
analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in
the following sections.
The subsequent sections include comments from interested parties
pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each
technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether
DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (``screened
out'') based on the screening criteria.
1. Screened-Out Technologies
In the March 2022 Preliminary TSD, DOE screened out amorphous metal
laminations and plastic bonded iron powder (``PBIP'') from the
analysis. DOE requested further data on the feasibility of amorphous
steel being used in electric motors at scale. See chapter 3 of the
March 2022 Preliminary TSD. In response, DOE received comments
regarding the technologies excluded from this engineering analysis,
which DOE responded to in the June 2023 DFR as those comments are
applicable to the broader suite of electric motors (including ESEMs).
In the June 2023 DFR, DOE determined that it was not definitive that
amorphous steel could meet all the screening criteria, and therefore,
DOE continued to screen out amorphous metal in the June 2023 DFR on the
basis of technological feasibility. 88 FR 36066, 36091. That reasoning
continues to apply in the case of the ESEMs within the scope of this
NOPR.
Accordingly, consistent with the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis
and the June 2023 DFR, DOE is continuing to screen out amorphous metal
laminations and PBIP in this NOPR.
2. Remaining Technologies
In the March 2022 Preliminary TSD, DOE did not screen out the
following technology options: increasing cross-sectional area of copper
in stator slots; decreasing the length of coil extensions; increasing
cross-sectional area of end rings; increasing cross-sectional area of
rotor conductor bars; using a die-cast copper rotor cage; using
electrical steel laminations with lower losses (watts/lb); using
thinner steel laminations; increasing stack length; optimizing bearing
and lubrication selection; improving cooling system design; reducing
skew on rotor cage; and improving rotor bar insulation. See chapter 3
of the March 2022 Preliminary TSD. DOE received comments regarding the
remaining technologies included in this engineering analysis, which
were responded to in the June 2023 DFR as those comments are applicable
to the broader suite of electric motors (including ESEMs). 88 FR 36066,
36091-36092. DOE believes the responses to those comments in the June
2023 DFR are applicable to this discussion regarding ESEMs.
Accordingly, DOE has not screened out any of these technologies for its
analysis in this NOPR.
Otherwise, through a review of each technology, DOE concludes that
all of the other identified technologies listed in this section met all
five screening criteria to be examined further as design options in
DOE's NOPR analysis. The design options screened-in are consistent with
the design options from the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis. DOE
determined that these technology options are technologically feasible
because they are being used or have previously been used in
commercially-available equipment or working prototypes. DOE also finds
that all of the remaining technology options meet the other screening
criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do
not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product
availability, health, or safety). For additional details, see chapter 4
of the NOPR TSD.
DOE requests comment on the remaining technology options considered
in this NOPR.

C. Engineering Analysis

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between the efficiency and cost of ESEMs. There are two
elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of
efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ``efficiency analysis'') and
the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the
``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency
equipment, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations
not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each equipment class, DOE
estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the
product/equipment at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output
of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency ``curves'' that
are used in downstream analyses (i.e., the LCC and PBP analyses and the
NIA).
1. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach),
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on
the market distribution of existing equipment (in other words, based on
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that
already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended
using the design option approach to ``gap fill'' levels (to bridge
large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to
extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in cases where the max-
tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on
the market).
In this proposed rulemaking, DOE applied a combination of the
efficiency-level approach and the design-option approach to establish
efficiency levels to

[[Page 87086]]

analyze. The design-option approach was used to characterize efficiency
levels that are not available on the market but appear to be market
solutions for those higher efficiency levels if sufficient demand
existed. For the efficiency levels available on the market, sufficient
performance data was publicly available to characterize these levels.
a. Representative Units Analyzed
Due to the large number of equipment classes, DOE did not directly
analyze all equipment classes of electric motors considered in this
NOPR. Instead, DOE selected representative units based on two factors:
(1) the quantity of motor models available within an equipment class
and (2) the ability to scale to other equipment classes.
For this NOPR, DOE updated the horsepower output and pole
configuration in response to feedback received on the March 2022
Preliminary Analysis and on feedback received through manufacturer
interviews. For more information on the manufacturer interviews, see
section IV.J.2 of this document. Table IV-3 presents the representative
units analyzed, and the covered horsepower ranges for each of the
representative units.

Table IV-3 Representative Units Analyzed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Representative Represented horsepower range (all
ECG unit (RU) unit horsepower poles, all enclosures)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESEM High Torque................... 1 0.25 0.25 <= hp <= 0.50.
2 1 0.5 < hp <= 3.
ESEM Low Torque.................... 3 0.25 0.25 hp.
4 0.5 0.25 < hp <= 3.
ESEM Polyphase..................... 5 0.25 0.25 <= hp <= 3.
AO-ESEM High Torque................ 6 0.25 0.25 <= hp <= 0.50.
7 1 0.5 < hp <= 3.
AO-ESEM Low Torque................. 8 0.25 0.25 hp.
9 0.5 0.25 < hp <= 3
AO-ESEM Polyphase.................. 10 0.25 0.25 <= hp <= 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE received a
comment from NEMA stating that DOE should conduct more testing of motor
efficiency at higher efficiency levels rather than relying so heavily
on scaled results. (NEMA, No. 22 at pp. 15, 24) DOE notes that
teardowns of motors at higher efficiency levels were conducted for each
ECG that was directly analyzed. This comment was also discussed in
section IV.C.1 of the June 2023 DFR. See 88 FR 36066, 36093. DOE
believes the responses to that comment in the June 2023 DFR are
applicable to this discussion regarding ESEMs. Additionally, for more
information on scaling as it pertains to ESEMs, see section IV.C.5 of
this document.
DOE requests comment on the representative units used in this NOPR.
b. Baseline Efficiency
For each equipment class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as
a reference point for each class and measures changes resulting from
potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The
baseline model in each equipment class represents the characteristics
of an equipment typical of that class (e.g., capacity, physical size).
Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy
conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline
is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market.
In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE generated a baseline
efficiency level for ESEMs by creating a curve-fit of motor losses vs.
hp based on the SEM energy conservation standards located at 10 CFR
431.446, and shifting this curve-fit down to fit what was observed in
catalog data for a given ESEM ECG. See chapter 5 of the March 2022
Preliminary TSD. In response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis,
DOE received comments on how the baseline efficiencies were established
for ESEMs.
The Joint Advocates commented that DOE tested five ESEMs with and
without the fan using the proposed NOPR test procedure to determine the
difference in efficiency between AO and non-AO motors. Removing the
motor fan resulted in baseline efficiencies several percent higher for
the AO-ESEMs. As such, the Joint Advocates recommend that DOE a

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on December 15, 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.