[Federal Register: July 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 131)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 38799-38808]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10jy06-12]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
[[Page 38799]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket No. EE-DET-02-002]
RIN 1904-AA87
Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment:
Determination Concerning the Potential for Energy Conservation
Standards for Small Electric Motors
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Departmental determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) has
determined, based on the best information currently available, that
energy conservation standards for certain single-phase, capacitor-
start, induction-run, small electric motors are technologically
feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant
energy savings. This determination initiates the process of
establishing, by notice and comment rulemaking, test procedures and
energy conservation standards for this equipment.
ADDRESSES: For access to the docket (EE-DET-02-002) to read background
documents or comments received, visit the U.S. Department of Energy,
Forrestal Building, Room 1J-018 (Resource Room of the Building
Technologies Program), 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC,
(202) 586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones at the
above telephone number for additional information regarding visiting
the Resource Room. Please note: The Department's Freedom of Information
Reading Room (formerly Room 1E-190 at the Forrestal Building) is no
longer housing rulemaking materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Antonio Bouza, U.S. Department of
Energy, Building Technologies Program (EE-2J), Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone (202) 586-4563, or
antonio.bouza@ee.doe.gov.
Thomas B. DePriest, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
General Counsel, Mail Station GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone (202) 586-7432, or
thomas.depriest@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Rulemaking Procedures
C. Background
II. Discussion of the Analysis of Small Motors
A. Purpose and Content
B. Methodology
1. Market Research
2. Engineering Analysis
3. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
4. National Energy Savings Analysis
5. National Consumer Impacts Analysis
C. Analysis Results
1. Engineering Analysis
2. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
3. National Energy Savings and Consumer Impacts
D. Discussion
1. Significance of Energy Savings
2. Impact on Consumers
III. Conclusion
A. Determination
B. Future Proceedings
I. Introduction
A. Authority
The National Energy Conservation Policy Act of 1978, amended the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA or the Act) to add a part C to
title III of EPCA, to establish an energy-conservation program for
certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) The Energy Policy
Act of 1992 (EPACT), Public Law 102-486, also amended EPCA, and
included amendments that expanded title III to include small electric
motors. Specifically, EPACT amended section 346 of EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6317) to provide in paragraph (b) that the Secretary of Energy must
prescribe testing requirements and energy conservation standards for
those small electric motors for which the Secretary determines that
standards ``would be technologically feasible and economically
justified, and would result in significant energy savings.'' (42 U.S.C.
6317(b)(1)).
DOE construes section 346 in light of the provisions of section
325(n) and (o) of EPCA (which are in part B of title III of EPCA and
apply specifically to residential appliances). DOE does so for two
reasons. First, section 346(c) specifically makes the criteria in
section 325(n) applicable to the determination for small motor
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6317(c)) Second, and more generally, section
345(a) makes subsections (l) through (s) of section 325 applicable to
provisions of part C of title III of EPCA which includes section 346.
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a)).
Section 325(n) deals with petitions for amended standards.
Paragraph (n)(2) of section 325(n) provides for an initial
determination by DOE of technological feasibility, economic
justification, and significant energy savings in deciding whether to
grant a petition. This initial determination does not focus on specific
standard levels. Paragraph (n)(2) further provides that the initial
determination does not create any presumption with regard to the
application of these statutory criteria for promulgating specific
standards in a rulemaking pursuant to DOE's decision to grant a
petition. Section 325(o)(2) requires that determinations of
technological feasibility, economic justification, and significant
energy saving must ultimately be based on specific standards levels
that were proposed for public comment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)) The
textual linkage of these provisions of section 325 to section 346(b)
implies that today's determination is similar in character and legal
effect to an initial determination upon a petition for new or amended
standards and that it does not create any presumptions with regard to
the determination of specific standard levels yet to be proposed.
In addition to this structural analysis of EPCA, DOE is also of the
view that, as a matter of policy, it is impractical to proceed on any
other basis. It is impractical because, even if one or more design
options have the potential for achieving energy savings, a
determination that such savings could in fact be achieved cannot be
made without first having developed test procedures to measure the
energy efficiency of small motors designs, and then conducting an in-
depth analysis of each design option. Such analysis might
[[Page 38800]]
show that no standard meets all three of the prescribed criteria: i.e.,
technological feasibility, economic justification and significant
energy savings.
For these reasons, the Department construes section 346(b) and
related provisions as requiring it to: (1) Determine preliminarily
whether standards for small motors would be ``technologically feasible
and economically justified, and would result in significant energy
savings,'' and (2) if energy conservation standards appear to be
warranted under these criteria, prescribe test procedures and conduct a
rulemaking concerning such standards. During the standards rulemaking,
the Department would describe whether, and at what level(s), to
promulgate energy conservation standards. This decision would be based
on in-depth consideration, with public participation, of the
technological feasibility, economic justification, and energy savings
of potential standard levels in the context of the criteria and
procedures for prescribing new or amended standards established by
section 325(o) and (p) (42 U.S.C. 6295(o), (p)).
Section 340(13)(F) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(F)) provides the
following definition for ``small electric motor'': The term ``small
electric motor'' means a NEMA [National Electrical Manufacturers
Association] general-purpose alternating-current single-speed induction
motor, built in a two-digit frame number series in accordance with NEMA
Standards Publication MG1-1987.
In NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987, which is entitled ``Motors
and Generators,'' the two-digit frame series encompasses NEMA frame
sizes 42, 48, and 56, and motors with horsepower ratings ranging from
\1/4\ to 3 horsepower. These motors operate at 60 hertz and have either
a single-phase or a three-phase electrical design.
Section 346(b)(3) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)) specifies that a
standard prescribed for small electric motors shall not apply to any
small electric motor that is a component of a covered product under
section 322(a) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)) or of covered equipment
under section 340 (42 U.S.C. 6311). Such products and equipment include
residential air conditioners and heat pumps, furnaces, refrigerators
and freezers, clothes washers and dryers, and commercial packaged air-
conditioning and heating equipment.
B. Rulemaking Procedures
EPCA does not explicitly identify the rulemaking procedures that
govern promulgation of test procedures and standards for small electric
motors. In conducting rulemakings generally, the Department must, at a
minimum, adhere to the procedures required by the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) and section 501 of the Department
of Energy Organization Act (DOE Organization Act) (42 U.S.C. 7191).
Section 501 of the DOE Organization Act in essence requires the
following: (1) Issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR), (2)
an opportunity for comment, (3) an opportunity for presentation of oral
comments, if there exists ``a substantial issue of fact or law'' or if
the rule will have a ``substantial impact,'' and (4) publication of the
final rule accompanied by appropriate explanation. Pursuant to
Executive Order 12889, ``Implementation of the North American Free
Trade Agreement,'' December 27, 1993, the comment period on a NOPR must
be at least 75 days.
Consistent with section 345(a), in promulgating test procedures for
small electric motors, the Department will also use procedures
prescribed for adopting test procedures under parts B and C of EPCA.
(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2) and 6314(b)) Therefore, in addition to the
generic procedural requirements described above, the Department will
provide an opportunity for oral comment (i.e., hold a public meeting)
on the proposed test procedures, regardless of the ``substantial
issue'' or ``substantial impact'' criteria, as it does in other EPCA
test procedure rulemakings. See, for example, 42 U.S.C. 6314(b).
Consistent with section 345(a), in determining by rule whether to
impose a specified standard level, the Department will use the
following procedures:
1. The Department will issue an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANOPR), followed by a comment period (42. U.S.C. 6295
(p)(1));
2. The Department will issue a NOPR setting forth the maximum
efficiency improvement that is technologically feasible and, if the
proposed standard does not achieve this level, an explanation of why
(42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(2)); and
3. The Department will hold a public meeting following issuance of
the NOPR. (42 U.S.C. 6306(a)(1).)
In addition, the Department also has a policy, in conducting
rulemakings on appliance standards, of allowing 75 days for comment on
an ANOPR (rather than the 60 days required by EPCA), with at least one
public hearing or meeting during this period. Procedures for
Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for
Consumer Products, 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, Appendix A (Process
Rule).
C. Background
The Department began the analysis for this determination by
collecting information from manufacturers of small motors and others.
The Department conducted preliminary analyses and shared its
preliminary findings regarding efficiency improvement in small motors.
Subsequently, the Department received data and information, including
that provided by both the National Electrical Manufacturers Association
(NEMA) and the Small Motors and Motion Association (SMMA) (the NEMA/
SMMA Working Group).
A key issue that arose early in this determination process is the
definition of a ``small electric motor'' and precisely which motors are
covered by this rulemaking. The definition of a ``small electric
motor'' derives from the definition of the term ``general purpose
motor.'' The EPCA definition \1\ of a small motor is tied to the NEMA
Standards Publication MG1-1987 performance requirements that NEMA has
established for general purpose motors, such as the minimum levels for
breakdown and locked rotor torque for small electric motors presented
in MG1-1987 paragraph 12.32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPCA does not define the term ``general purpose motor,''
although it does define the terms ``definite purpose motor'' and
``special purpose motor.'' According to EPCA, ``definite purpose
motor'' means ``any motor designed in standard ratings with standard
operating characteristics or standard mechanical construction for
use under service conditions other than usual or for use on a
particular type of application and which cannot be used in most
general purpose applications.'' Section 340(13)(B). (42 U.S.C. 6311
(13)(B)) Likewise, ``special purpose motor'' means ``any motor,
other than a general purpose motor or definite purpose motor, which
has special operating characteristics or special mechanical
construction, or both, designed for a particular application. `` Id.
at (C). Consequently, DOE must derive the term ``general purpose''
by eliminating those definite purpose motors and special purpose
motors and must subsequently define the term within the context of
NEMA performance characteristics that can operate successfully in
many different applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this determination process, the Department considered only those
classes of small electric motors covered under the EPCA definition
which satisfy the performance requirements for general purpose motors
established by NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987, and which are not a
component of another product covered under EPCA.
In consideration of the above, DOE finds that of the motors that
satisfy the frame-size requirements of the small-motors definition,
only a subset satisfies the other performance requirements of
[[Page 38801]]
the definition. Among single-phase motors with a two-digit frame size,
the Department found that only capacitor-start motors, including both
capacitor-start, induction run and capacitor-start, capacitor-run
motors, can meet the torque requirements for NEMA general-purpose
motors. Among three-phase small motors, the Department found that only
non-servo motors can meet the NEMA performance requirements for
general-purpose motors. Hence, the Department's analysis covered only
these types of single- and three-phase small motors, and the Department
identifies them in this determination as ``considered small motors.''
The annual commercial sales volume of considered small motors is
approximately four million units for capacitor-start motors and one
million units for three-phase motors. These motors are used in a wide
variety of commercial and industrial machine and processing
applications, with the largest being pumping equipment and commercial/
industrial heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning equipment rated
over 760,000 British thermal units per hour (Btu/h).
The Department then conducted an analysis that estimated the likely
range of energy savings and economic benefits that would result from
energy conservation standards for small electric motors, and prepared a
report describing its analysis. In June 2003, the Department made the
report ``Analysis of Energy Conservation Standards for Small Electric
Motors'' available for public comment on its Web site at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/small_electric_motors.html.
The report made no recommendation concerning the
The Department received comments concerning its analysis of small
motors from NEMA, SMMA, and the American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy (ACEEE). In general, the comments received did not
criticize specific elements of the Department's technical analysis. The
ACEEE comment indicated that ACEEE found the analysis to be
``technically robust.'' (ACEEE, No. 3 at p. 1) \2\ However, NEMA
asserted that energy conservation standards for certain small motors
were not economically justified and would harm U.S. motor
manufacturers, and ACEEE claimed that energy conservation standards for
small motors are unlikely to save much energy and would be a diversion
from exploring other energy savings approaches. (NEMA, No. 1 at p. 2;
ACEEE, No. 3 at p. 2) ACEEE commented that the Department could achieve
greater energy savings if it did not restrict its analysis to
capacitor-start, capacitor-run and capacitor-start, induction-run
single-phase motors, and three-phase motors. ACEEE commented that these
categories of small motors account for only four percent of domestic
shipments and that much greater energy savings could be realized by
switching between different types of small motors. (ACEEE, No. 3 at p.
1) ACEEE suggested that the Department encourage users of small motors
to shift between classes of motors, such as from split-phase and
shaded-pole motors to capacitor-start, capacitor-run and capacitor-
start, induction-run motors; it commented that the substitution would
yield greater savings than improvements that are restricted to the
category of capacitor-start, induction-run motors. Further, ACEEE
suggested replacing considered small motors with advanced types, such
as electronically commutated permanent magnet motors. (ACEEE, No. 3 at
p. 1) While the Department understands ACEEE's concern, the market
transformation that ACEEE suggests is outside the scope of this
determination since the purpose of energy conservation standards is to
increase the energy performance of regulated products rather than
change the product-purchase-and-use behavior of consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A notation in the form ``ACEEE, No. 3 at p. 1'' identifies a
written comment the Department has received and has included in the
docket of this rulemaking. This particular notation refers to a
comment (1) by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
(ACEEE), (2) in document number 3 in the docket of this rulemaking
(maintained in the Resource Room of the Building Technologies
Program), and (3) appearing on page 1 of document number 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SMMA generally supported the findings of the NEMA/SMMA Working
Group. (SMMA, No. 2 at p. 1) The main findings of the NEMA/SMMA Working
Group pertained to the cost-efficiency relationship for small motors,
and these findings were incorporated into the Department's engineering
analysis for this determination.
NEMA commented that many small motors are used in other equipment
that is subject to Federal energy conservation standards, and that
small motors in those product applications are not within the scope of
the Department's analysis and proceeding. (NEMA, No. 1 at p. 1) The
Department agrees with NEMA, insofar as the EPCA definition of small
motors and exclusions constrain the motors considered in the
Department's analysis to a subset of the total population of small
electric motors. As stated above, pursuant to section 346(b)(3) of EPCA
(42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)), the Department did not consider in its analysis
motors that are a component of a covered product or equipment.
In a related comment, NEMA requested that the Department designate
small motors as ``covered equipment,'' which it asserted was done for
general-service incandescent lamps although there was no standard for
such lamps, and cited 59 FR 49468 (September 28, 1994). NEMA requested
the designation so that States that are attempting to set efficiency
standards for small motors would be preempted by the Federal action.
(NEMA, No. 1 at p. 1) Section 345(a) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
provides in part that section 327 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 6297), which
addresses preemption of State energy conversation requirements by EPCA,
shall apply to various equipment covered by part C of title III of
EPCA, which includes small electric motors. Thus, State energy use and
efficiency requirements for ``small electric motors,'' as defined in 42
U.S.C. 6311(13)(F), are already preempted to the extent provided in
section 327 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6297). No further action by DOE is
needed to provide for such preemption. Small motors that are not within
EPCA's definition of small motors are not covered by EPCA; therefore,
the Act does not preempt State energy use and efficiency requirements
with respect to motors not covered by EPCA.
II. Discussion of the Analysis of Small Motors
A. Purpose and Content
The Department performed an analysis of the feasibility of
achieving significant energy savings as a result of energy conservation
standards for considered small electric motors. The Department presents
the results of this analysis in a technical support document (TSD) for
this determination. In subsequent analyses for the standards ANOPR,
NOPR, and final rule, DOE will perform the more robust analyses
required by EPCA. These analyses will involve more precise and detailed
information that the Department will develop and receive during the
standards rulemaking process, and will detail the effects of proposed
energy conservation standards for small electric motors.
B. Methodology
To address EPCA requirements that DOE determine whether energy
conservation standards for small motors would be technologically
feasible and economically justified, and result in significant energy
savings (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(1)), the Department's analysis
[[Page 38802]]
consisted of five major elements: (1) Market research to better
understand where and how small motors are used, (2) engineering
analysis to estimate how different design options affect efficiency and
cost, (3) life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis to estimate the costs and
benefits to users from increased efficiency in small motors, (4)
national energy savings analysis to estimate the potential energy
savings on a national scale, and (5) national consumer impacts analysis
to estimate potential economic costs and benefits that would result
from improving energy efficiency in the considered small motors. The
following is a brief description of each element.
1. Market Research
The Department conducted research on the market for considered
small motors, including annual shipments, the current range of energy
efficiencies, motor applications and utilization, market structure, and
distribution channels. It used information from original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs), trade associations that support industrial
sectors, consultation with small motor manufacturers, and independent
experts. Also, NEMA provided data, on its own initiative, to the
Department on sales of two-digit-frame small motors to domestic
customers by its member manufacturers, covering the period from 1971 to
2001. Based on its market research, the Department estimated that, on
average, capacitor-start and three-phase small motors are used 2,500
hours annually at a loading of 70 percent of rating.
Based on its market research, including input from OEMs that
incorporate small motors into their products and the NEMA/SMMA Working
Group, the Department used seven years as the mean lifetime for
capacitor-start motors, and nine years for three-phase motors.
Also based on its market research, the Department determined that
the small motors considered in this determination are used in
commercial and industrial settings with the corresponding tariffs. The
Department estimated that approximately three-fourths of capacitor-
start motors are used by utility customers on a commercial tariff,
while virtually all users of small, three-phase motors are on an
industrial tariff. Industrial electricity prices tend to be lower than
commercial prices.
2. Engineering Analysis
In the engineering analysis, the Department examined methods for
increasing energy efficiency that included increasing the amount of
active material (e.g., the diameter of wire conductors), substituting a
higher grade of steel for the magnetic components, improving the
mechanical components and design (winding, bearings, and fan), and
improving the quality control of components and assembly. Manufacturers
of small motors use all of these methods of motor-efficiency
improvement in their design and production processes. In general, the
Department found that these methods may increase either the motor cost
or size if there are no other changes in the motor-design parameters.
In particular, the Department evaluated several ways to achieve
increased efficiency, including (1) changing the quality of the grade
of electrical steel, (2) changing the quantity of electrical steel
(stack length), and (3) changing the magnetic flux density by adjusting
the effective turns in the copper windings and/or changing the
thickness of the steel laminations in the core of a small motor. In its
preliminary engineering evaluation, the Department found the efficiency
improvement method of changing flux density to be the most expensive of
the three methods. As a result, the Department analyzed only the two
lower-cost efficiency improvement methods to help maintain the
simplicity and clarity of its analysis.
In particular, the Department examined a one-half-horsepower,
capacitor-start, induction-run motor and a one-horsepower, three-phase
motor as prototypes for improving the energy efficiency of small
motors. To estimate the efficiency changes and additional costs
resulting from design changes, the Department used two sets of data.
The Department derived the first set by engaging an independent motor
industry expert to estimate motor-efficiency costs from motor test data
and design cost estimates. The expert obtained motor test data for a
sample of small motors using a traditional motor performance program
based on equivalent-circuit analysis to calculate efficiency changes
resulting from changes in steel grades and stack lengths. This
methodology was similar to methods commonly used by motor
manufacturers. The NEMA/SMMA Working Group provided, on its own
initiative, a comparable set of data in an aggregated form.
The Department had a concern that the cost-efficiency curves
presented in the June 2003 report ``Analysis of Energy Conservation
Standards for Small Electric Motors'' were based on 2001 materials
pricing data, which represented a relative low-price point for many
electrical steels (i.e., the steel used for building electric motor
rotors and stators). The price of electrical steels has increased since
2001. However, the slope of the engineering analysis cost-efficiency
curves depends on the price difference between the baseline unit (i.e.,
low efficiency steel) and the higher efficiency unit (i.e., better
grade steel). Electrical steel price data collected in 2005 for the
distribution transformer standards rulemaking along with a check of
2001 and 2005 pricing for specific steels used in small motors verified
that the price differential between the baseline and high-efficiency
steels did not increase between 2001 and 2005. For this reason, the
Department determined that it was not necessary to update the material
prices for the engineering analysis, because updating the material
prices, or calculating average material prices representative of a
multi-year period, would not significantly change the Department's
engineering results.
3. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
Based on its engineering analysis of the available technical data,
the Department conducted a life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis to estimate
the net benefit to users from increased efficiency in capacitor-start
and three-phase small motors. The LCC analysis compared the additional
up-front cost of a higher-efficiency motor to the discounted value of
electricity savings over the life of the motor. The Department's LCC
analysis used the following inputs: estimated average motor use in
terms of hours and loading and typical motor lifetime (discussed
above), estimated average prices for base motors and more-efficient
motors, average electricity prices paid by users of capacitor-start and
three-phase small motors, and the discount rate.
The Department received significant comment regarding its estimates
of motor lifetimes. The Department understands that the typical
lifetime of a small motor is not well documented. Most industry experts
with whom the Department consulted suggested the average life for
considered motors is at most ten years, depending on the use and
physical environment. The NEMA/SMMA Working Group estimated an average
life of five years for a capacitor-start motor and ten years for a
three-phase motor. In view of these considerations, the Department
estimated the mean lifetime for a capacitor-start motor at seven years
and a three-phase motor at nine years. Moreover, the Department
believes that the potential lifetime of a considered motor may be
greater than that of the driven equipment. Thus, the actual motor
lifetime may be limited by the
[[Page 38803]]
lifetime of the equipment it drives. In view of this issue, NEMA
commented that the economic justification of energy conservation
standards for the user was not good. Where simple payback periods range
from 4.9 to 9 years, NEMA questioned whether the equipment driven by
the small motor will last that long and, thus, enable the payback for
the higher cost of improved efficiency to be realized. (NEMA, No. 1 at
p. 2).
The Department acknowledges that a small motor's lifetime could be
limited by the life of the equipment it drives. The Department used a
distribution of lifetimes for small electric motors in its analysis.
For capacitor-start motors, the analysis used the range of 5 to 9 years
for the lifetime, and for polyphase motors the Department used a range
of 7 to 11 years. Given existing data and the balance of diverse
stakeholder and expert comments, the Department considers its current
lifetime estimates to be reasonable and accurate for this determination
analysis.
The Department estimated the base purchase price of typical
capacitor-start and three-phase small motors using (1) prices listed in
the 2001-2002 W.W. Grainger, Inc., catalog, (2) estimates of the
percentage of the list price paid in different motor distribution
channels, and (3) estimates of the distribution of sales among the
three channels (motor manufacturer to OEM, motor manufacturer to
distributor to original equipment manufacturer, and motor manufacturer
to distributor to end user). The Department derived the price for a
motor that incorporated design changes to improve efficiency by
applying the estimated percentage of incremental cost from the
engineering analysis to the average base price of the motor estimated
from the Grainger, Inc., catalog.
The Department estimated average commercial and industrial
electricity prices using the 2010 and 2020 forecasts from the Energy
Information Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2006. It then
derived average prices paid by users of capacitor-start and three-phase
small motors based on the tariff classes of users (discussed above).
Given that relatively small industrial establishments use considered
small, polyphase (i.e., three-phase) motors more than larger
establishments, and that small industrial establishments have higher
electricity tariffs than larger industry, the Department estimated the
electricity price for polyphase motors as five percent higher than the
national average industrial price of electricity.
The Department derived a discount rate based on the weighted-
average cost of capital for representative companies using products
containing the considered small motors. After deducting for expected
inflation, the Department estimated the average cost of capital for
considered small motor owners as 7.5 percent.
4. National Energy Savings Analysis
To estimate national energy savings for small motors sold from 2010
through 2030, the Department calculated the energy consumption of two
typical sizes of small motors: One-half horsepower, capacitor-start,
induction-run motors, and one-horsepower, three-phase motors. The
Department used both its own data and the NEMA/SMMA Working Group data
for capacitor-start, induction-run motors. However, it used only its
own data for three-phase motors because the NEMA/SMMA Working Group
based its analysis on a one-half horsepower motor, which is less common
than the one-horsepower motor, and which therefore has losses that may
not be representative of considered small, three-phase motors. The
Department calculated the energy efficiencies of small motors with
improved-steel-grade and increased-stack-length design options, and
extrapolated the results to a national average for all new capacitor-
start, induction-run and three-phase motors (constituting the energy
conservation standards cases).
The Department estimated the energy savings of the standards cases
relative to two base cases--little improvement and moderate improvement
in efficiency--in the absence of any standards. The Department
formulated each base case using information from historical trends, and
input from the NEMA/SMMA Working Group, provided on its own initiative.
The Department also evaluated two small-motors-shipments scenarios,
estimating national energy savings for average annual growth in
shipments of 1 percent and 1.5 percent. These shipments scenarios are
also based upon historical trends and input from the NEMA/SMMA Working
Group.
To estimate potential energy savings from a possible energy
conservation standard, the Department used an accounting model that
calculated total end-use electricity savings in each year of a 35-year
forecast. The model featured a product-retirement function to calculate
the number of units sold in a given year, or vintage, which would still
be in operation in future years. Some of the small motors sold in 2030
will operate through 2040. The retirement function assumed that
individual motor lifetime is evenly distributed in a five-year interval
around the mean lifetime.
The Department calculated primary energy savings associated with
end-use electricity savings using data from EIA's Annual Energy Outlook
2006 (AEO). These data provided an average multiplier for relating end-
use electricity to primary energy use (energy consumption by the power
plant) for each year from 2010 to 2020. The Department extrapolated the
trend in these years to derive factors for 2021 to 2040.
5. National Consumer Impacts Analysis
The Department estimated national economic impacts on end users in
terms of the net present value (NPV) of cumulative benefits from 2010
to 2040. It considered these impacts under the same range of scenarios
as it did for estimating national energy savings. It used the
incremental equipment costs and energy savings for each energy-
efficiency level that it applied in the LCC analysis. To simplify the
analysis, the Department estimated the value of energy savings using
the average AEO forecast electricity price from 2010 to 2020. The
Department discounted future costs and benefits by using a seven-
percent discount rate, according to the ``Guidelines and Discount Rates
for Benefit Analysis of Federal Programs,'' issued by the Office of
Management and Budget in 1992 (Circular No. A-94, Revised).
C. Analysis Results
1. Engineering Analysis
As described above, the Department conducted separate analyses of
changes in the grade of electrical steel and a change in the stack
length to improve the energy efficiency of small motors. In each case,
the Department gave the base motor a ``per-unit'' cost of one. The
Department related all design-option changes to the base motor per-unit
cost of one. For example, if a change in electrical steel created a 10
percent change in the cost of materials, such as electrical steel, the
Department assigned the per-unit number of 1.10 for the new design. In
addition, the NEMA/SMMA Working Group provided, on its own initiative,
comparable data, where each of four manufacturers selected a typical
small motor to use as the base motor. For steel-grade design options,
the NEMA data refer to the average values of the four manufacturers.
For stack-change design options, the NEMA/SMMA Working Group provided
data that it considered most typical. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the
results of the analysis of steel-grade and stack-length
[[Page 38804]]
changes. For capacitor-start motors, the Department analyzed the cost
of efficiency improvements for both 56-frame and 48-frame motors. These
two frames represent distinct frame sizes that are common for one-half
horsepower motors.
Overall, the Department's analysis and the NEMA/SMMA Working Group
data were more comparable for the stack-change design options than they
were for the design options related to steel-grade changes. The NEMA/
SMMA Working Group estimated a much smaller efficiency improvement due
to steel grade improvements than the Department's analysis.
Table 1.--Capacitor-Start Motors, \1/2\ Horsepower, 4-Pole, Open Drip-Proof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grade A Grade B Grade B+ M47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steel-Grade Design Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE Analysis, 56-Frame:
Per-unit Cost............................... 1.00 1.03 1.08 1.25
Efficiency.................................. 53.9% 57.4% 59.3% 60.5%
DOE analysis, 48-Frame:
Per-unit Cost............................... 1.00 1.03 1.10 1.25
Efficiency.................................. 62.6% 65.4% 66.8% 69.0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA/SMMA data:
Per-unit Cost............................................... 1.00 1.10 1.21
Efficiency.................................................. 60.0% 61.7% 62.9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Plus stack Plus 2 stack Plus 3 stack
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stack-Change Design Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE analysis, 56-Frame:
Per-unit Cost............................... 1.00 1.09 1.19 1.29
Efficiency.................................. 53.9% 58.1% 60.3% 62.0%
DOE analysis, 48-Frame:.......................
Per-unit Cost............................... 1.00 1.07 1.15 1.22
Efficiency.................................. 62.6% 63.5% 64.4% 65.1%
NEMA/SMMA data:
Per-unit Cost............................... 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30
Efficiency.................................. 62.0% 64.3% 65.5% 66.5%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Polyphase Motors, 4-Pole, Open Drip-Proof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grade A+ Grade B+ M47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steel-Grade Design Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE analysis, 1 horsepower:
Per-unit Cost............................................... 1.0 1.04 1.20
Efficiency.................................................. 76.4% 78.3% 81.2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA/SMMA data, \1/2\ horsepower:
Per-unit Cost............................................... 1.00 1.10 1.20
Efficiency.................................................. 68.1% 70.7% 72.1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Plus stack Plus 2 stack Plus 3 stack
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stack-Change Design Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE analysis, 1 horsepower:
Per-unit Cost............................... 1.00 1.06 1.18 1.24
Efficiency.................................. 76.4% 77.2% 78.9% 79.2%
NEMA/SMMA analysis, \1/2\ horsepower:
Per-unit Cost............................... 1.00 1.08 1.16 1.24
Efficiency.................................. 72.2% 73.1% 73.9% 74.1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated above, the Department received no comments criticizing
specific elements of its technical analysis. NEMA agreed with the
Department's conclusions that it is technically feasible to increase
the efficiency of small motors in frame sizes 42, 48, and 56 for three-
phase and single-phase motors, and that improving grades of steel and
redesigning laminations will provide increased efficiency, but at much
higher capital costs. (NEMA, No. 1 at p. 2) ACEEE found the
Department's analysis to be ``technically robust.'' (ACEEE, No. 3 at p.
1).
NEMA commented that manufacturer costs and impacts from a possible
[[Page 38805]]
standard may be high. It asserted that there will be high capital costs
and, presumably, less economic benefit to the manufacturer than the
Department described in its June 2003 determination report ``Analysis
of Energy Conservation Standards for Small Electric Motors.'' (NEMA,
No. 1 at p. 2) While the economic impacts of a possible standard on
manufacturers may be substantial, DOE did not evaluate the full impact
of possible standards on manufacturers in this determination. The
Department instead used the presence of high-efficiency designs in the
marketplace as an indicator of the probable economic feasibility of
manufacturing high efficiency designs. The Department will address
detailed economic impacts on manufacturers at such time that it
conducts a manufacturer impact analysis for an energy efficiency
standards rulemaking.
In addition, NEMA commented that there was a strong likelihood that
OEMs will switch to alternative small motors that are not covered to
avoid any added costs resulting from energy conservation standards.
(NEMA, No. 1 at p. 2) The Department believes that shifting from, for
example, a capacitor-start, induction-run small motor to a less
efficient shaded-pole or split-phase small motor design would reduce
potential energy savings. However, the Department understands that
small motors are not generally interchangeable. Physical constraints in
some current equipment designs may preclude the substitution of another
type of motor for a considered small motor. Lacking clear evidence or
data regarding the change in sales of considered small motors due to
possible standards, the Department did not model this potential
phenomenon in the determination analysis. (As explained below, the
Department intends to undertake a rulemaking to develop standards for
small motors. If it appears to DOE in the initial phases of the
rulemaking that the potential for motor switching warrants further
examination, the Department will address that issue in its analyses
during the rulemaking.)
2. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
The Department presents key results for capacitor-start motors in
Tables 3 and 4 below. Using the DOE data for capacitor-start motors,
the steel-grade options all have lower LCC than the base motor.
However, results using the NEMA/SMMA average data show an increase in
LCC at steel grade 3, with no change in LCC at steel grade 2. The DOE
analysis shows the stack-length options increasing the LCC, while the
NEMA/SMMA results show a slight decrease for the first option, but then
an increase in LCC for the higher-efficiency stack change options.
Table 3.--Impacts of Efficiency Improvement on Typical End User, Capacitor-Start, \1/2\ Horsepower, DOE Data*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steel grade Stack change
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grade A Plus 2 Plus 3
(base) Grade B Grade B+ M47 Plus stack stack stack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor Price-Buyer **......................................... $103 $106 $114 $129 $111 $119 $126
Annual Operating Cost........................................ $75 $72 $70 $68 $74 $73 $72
Life-Cycle Cost (7.5% DR).................................... $501 $487 $486 $490 $502 $505 $508
Change in LCC (WRT Base)..................................... ........... -$14.07 -$14.47 -$11.37 $1.51 $4.05 $7.47
Percent Change in LCC........................................ ........... -2.8% -2.9% -2.3% 0.3% 0.8% 1.5%
Payback Period (years)....................................... ........... 1.0 2.2 3.7 6.7 7.2 7.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data refer to a specific typical motor.
** Based on actual motor price in Grainger catalog.
Table 4.--Impacts of Efficiency Improvement on Typical End User, Capacitor-Start, \1/2\ Horsepower, NEMA/SMMA Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steel grade * Stack change **
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grade 1 Plus 2 Plus 3
(base) Grade 2 Grade 3 Base Plus stack stack stack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor Price-Buyer ***........................................ $117 $128 $141 $117 $128 $140 $152
Annual Operating Cost........................................ $78 $76 $75 $76 $73 $72 $71
Life-Cycle Cost (7.5% DR).................................... $532 $532 $537 $518 $516 $520 $526
Change in LCC (WRT Base)..................................... ........... -$0.01 $5.20 ........... -$2.63 $1.41 $7.36
Percent Change in LCC........................................ ........... 0.0% 1.0% ........... -0.5% 0.3% 1.4%
Payback Period (years)....................................... ........... 5.3 6.7 ........... 4.3 5.6 6.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data are average of four manufacturers.
** Data reflect costs and performance of a typical motor.
*** Estimated by DOE based on Grainger catalog prices.
Tables 5 and 6 present results for small, polyphase motors.
Although the base motors are different in the DOE and NEMA/SMMA data
sets, it is the relative change for each motor that is of most
interest. Using the DOE data, the steel-grade options both have lower
LCC than the base motor. However, results based on the NEMA/SMMA
average data show an increase in LCC at steel grade 3, with the LCC at
steel grade 2 being equivalent to that for the base motor. Using the
DOE data, the stack-length options moderately increase the LCC relative
to the base motor, while the increase in LCC is more pronounced in the
results based on the NEMA/SMMA data.
[[Page 38806]]
Table 5.--Impacts of Efficiency Improvement on Typical End User, Polyphase 1 Horsepower, DOE Data*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steel grade Stack change
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grade A Plus 2 Plus 3
(base) Grade B+ M47 Plus stack stack Stack
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor Price-Buyer **.............. $119 $124 $143 $126 $140 $148
Annual Operating Cost............. $98 $96 $93 $97 $95 $95
Life-Cycle Cost (7.5% DR)......... $746 $736 $733 $747 $748 $752
Change in LCC (WRT Base).......... ........... -$10.49 -$12.98 $0.86 $1.69 $6.14
Percent Change in LCC............. ........... -1.4% -1.7% 0.1% 0.2% 0.8%
Payback Period (years)............ ........... 2.0 4.1 7.3 6.9 8.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data refer to a specific typical motor.
** Based on actual motor price in Grainger catalog.
Table 6.--Impacts of Efficiency Improvement on Typical End User, Polyphase \1/2\ Horsepower, NEMA/SMMA Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steel grade * Stack change **
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grade 1 Plus 2 Plus 3
(base) Grade 2 Grade 3 Base Plus stack stack stack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor Price-Buyer ***........................................ $125 $138 $151 $126 $136 $146 $156
Annual Operating Cost........................................ 53.9 $51.9 $50.9 $50.8 $50.2 $49.7 $49.5
Life-Cycle Cost (7.5% DR).................................... 469 $469 $475 $450 $456 $463 $472
Change in LCC (WRT Base)..................................... ........... -$0.02 $6.02 ........... $6.48 $12.96 $22.14
Percent Change in LCC........................................ ........... 0.0% 1.3% ........... 1.4% 2.9% 4.9%
Payback Period (years)....................................... ........... 6.4 8.4 ........... 17.9 17.9 23.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data are average of four manufacturers.
** Data reflect costs and performance of a typical motor.
*** Estimated by DOE based on Grainger catalog prices.
3. National Energy Savings and Consumer Impacts
The Department estimated national energy savings and consumer
impacts of energy conservation standards for the considered small
motors using its own engineering analysis data and the NEMA/SMMA
Working Group data. The Department assumed that energy conservation
standards would take effect in 2010, and estimated cumulative energy
savings and NPV impacts relative to alternative base cases.
The results using the Department's analysis of design options
indicate cumulative energy savings for capacitor-start, induction run-
small motors ranging from 0.47 to 0.59 quad (see table 7). The
corresponding NPV ranges from $0.28 to $0.35 billion. The results based
on the data provided by the NEMA/SMMA Working Group, on its own
initiative, show lower energy savings and economic benefits.
The results using the Department's analysis of design options for
three-phase small motors indicate cumulative energy savings from 0.14
to 0.19 quad (see table 8). The corresponding NPV ranges from $0.08 to
$0.11 billion. For the three-phase motors, the Department did not
estimate national impacts using the data provided by the NEMA/SMMA
Working Group, on its own initiative, because these data were based on
a one-half horsepower motor instead of the more typical one-half
horsepower size. The NEMA/SMMA data for half-horsepower motors show
some efficiency gains, but with an increase in LCC, which would lead to
a negative NPV.
Table 7.--Cumulative Energy and Consumer Impacts of Energy Efficiency Improvement for \1/2\ Horsepower Capacitor
Start-Induction-Run Motors Projected to be Sold in the 2010-2030 Period *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy savings (quads) NPV (year 2005 dollars in
-------------------------------- billions, discounted at 7
Future scenario percent to 2005)
DOE NEMA/SMMA -------------------------------
DOE NEMA/ SMMA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-efficiency-gain base case, low shipments 0.54 0.19 0.33 0.04
growth.........................................
Low-efficiency-gain base case, high shipments 0.59 0.21 0.35 0.04
growth.........................................
Moderate-efficiency-gain base case, low 0.47 0.12 0.28 -0.05
shipments growth...............................
Moderate-efficiency-gain base case, high 0.51 0.12 0.30 -0.05
shipments growth...............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The values given for each scenario correspond to the design option with the combination of highest energy
savings and most favorable consumer NPV.
[[Page 38807]]
Table 8.--Cumulative Energy and Consumer Impacts of Energy Efficiency Improvement for One-Horsepower Three-Phase
Motors Projected To Be Sold in the 2010-2030 Period *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy savings (quads) NPV (year 2005 dollars in
-------------------------------- billions, discounted at 7
Future scenario percent to 2005)
DOE NEMA/ SMMA -------------------------------
DOE NEMA/ SMMA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-efficiency-gain base case, low shipments 0.17 (\1\) 0.10 (\1\)
growth.........................................
Low-efficiency-gain base case, high shipments 0.19 (\1\) 0.11 (\1\)
growth.........................................
Moderate-efficiency-gain base case, low 0.14 (\1\) 0.08 (\1\)
shipments growth...............................
Moderate-efficiency-gain base case, high 0.15 (\1\) 0.09 \1\
shipments growth...............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The values given for each scenario correspond to the design option with the combination of highest energy
savings and most favorable consumer NPV.
\1\ Not available.
The differences between the results using the Department's analysis
of design options and those using the data that the NEMA/SMMA Working
Group provided on its own initiative reflect differences in estimates
of the efficiency and cost increases associated with different design
options.
D. Discussion
1. Significance of Energy Savings
Section 346(b)(1) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(1)) mandates the
Department to determine whether energy conservation standards for small
motors would result in ``significant energy savings.'' NEMA commented
that energy conservation standards for the considered small motors are
not likely to save the threshold amount of one quad. (NEMA, No. 1 at p.
1) While the term ``significant'' is not defined in the Act, the U.S.
Court of Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington,
768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress intended
``significant'' energy savings in a similar context in section 325 of
the Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) to be savings that were not
``genuinely trivial.'' Using the Department's analysis of design
options, the estimated energy savings of 0.61 to 0.78 quad over a 20-
year period for the considered small motors are comparable to those the
Department found to be significant for room air conditioners, where
energy savings projected to result from standards ranged from 0.36 to
0.96 quad over a 30-year period. 62 FR 50122, 50142 (September 24,
1997). The Department believes that the estimated energy savings for
the considered small motors are not ``genuinely trivial,'' and are, in
fact, ``significant.''
2. Impact on Consumers
Section 346(b)(1) of EPCA requires that energy conservation
standards for small motors be economically justified (42 U.S.C.
6317(b)(1)). Using the methods and data described in section II.B., the
Department conducted an LCC analysis to estimate the net benefits to
users from increased efficiency in the considered small motors. The
Department then aggregated the results from the LCC analysis to the
national level to estimate national energy savings and national
economic impacts. Given the results on energy savings and economic
benefits, the Department concluded that there is also likely to be
reduced emissions from decreased electricity generation, decreased
demand for the construction of electricity power plants, and
potentially net indirect employment benefits from shifting expenditures
from the capital-intensive utility sector to consumer expenditures.
While the Department did not quantify these potential benefits, it
concluded that the benefits are likely to be positive based on the
results of the Department's analyses regarding energy conservation
standards for similar products. The Department will provide detailed
estimates of such impacts as part of the standards rulemaking process
that will result from this determination.
III. Conclusion
A. Determination
Based on its analysis of the information now available, the
Department has determined that energy conservation standards for
certain small electric motors appear to be technologically feasible and
economically justified, and are likely to result in significant energy
savings. Consequently, the Department will initiate the development of
energy-efficiency test procedures and standards for certain small
electric motors.
All design options addressed in today's determination notice are
technologically feasible. The Department's data, and data submitted by
manufacturers, on their own initiative, show that the considered
technologies are available to all manufacturers. These technologies
include increased use of higher-grade steel, and greater amounts of
electrical steel. The machinery and tools used to produce more-energy-
efficient small motors are generally available to manufacturers.
The scenarios examined in the Department's analysis show that there
is potential for significant energy savings. The combined savings for
capacitor-start and polyphase motors range from 0.61 to 0.78 quad using
DOE's data. They are lower using the NEMA/SMMA data.
For the considered capacitor-start, induction-run motors and using
the DOE engineering data, all of the scenarios evaluated would result
in economic benefits to the Nation as shown by the positive NPV. For
the same motors, using the NEMA/SMMA data, three of the four scenarios
evaluated have positive NPV. For the considered three-phase motors and
using the DOE engineering data, all of the scenarios evaluated have
positive NPV for at least one design option (national NPV was not
calculated for three-phase motors based upon the NEMA/SMMA engineering
data, because the data provided were for an unrepresentative size).
While it is still uncertain whether further analyses will confirm these
findings, the Department believes that standards for considered small
motors appear economically justified based on balanced consideration of
the information and analysis available to the Department at this time.
The Department has not produced detailed estimates of the potential
adverse impacts of a national standard on manufacturers or on
individual categories of users. The Department is instead relying on
the presence of high-efficiency designs in the market place today as an
indicator of the probable economic feasibility for manufacturers to
exclusively produce high-efficiency designs if required by standards.
During
[[Page 38808]]
the course of the standards rulemaking process, the Department will
perform a detailed analysis of the impact of possible standards on
manufacturers, as well as a more disaggregated assessment of their
possible impacts on user-subgroups.
B. Future Proceedings
The Department will begin, therefore, the process of establishing
testing requirements for small electric motors, which it expects will
result in the publication of a proposed rule. During the rulemaking
process, the Department will consider the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard 114-2001, Test Procedures for
Single-Phase Induction Motors.
The Department also will begin a proceeding to consider
establishment of energy conservation standards for small electric
motors. Throughout the rulemaking process, the Department intends to
adhere to the provisions of the Process Rule, where applicable. During
the standards rulemaking, the Department will review and analyze the
likely effects of industry-wide voluntary programs, such as ENERGY STAR
and NEMA Premium[supreg]. In addition, any efforts by NEMA and SMMA to
strengthen their efforts to promote voluntary standards for small
motors will be considered. The Department will collect additional
information about design options, inputs to the engineering and LCC
analyses, and potential impacts on the manufacturers and consumers of
small motors. During the standards rulemaking process, the Department
will evaluate whether standards are technologically feasible and
economically justified, and are likely to result in significant energy
savings in accordance with the requirements of EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)) If further analyses reveal that standards are not warranted,
DOE will revise this determination and will not proceed to promulgate
standards.
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 27, 2006.
Alexander A. Karsner,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. E6-10437 Filed 7-7-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P