Beyond NEMA Premium Using CEE Motors List

1

Savings Summary Worksheet

2

Savings Summary Worksheet

3

Savings Calculations

4

Establishing Motor Savings

• Three sources to collate data from– 2008 NW motors database gives us:

• Average hours of use, load factors and end uses found for each motor HP surveyed in the NW (22,000 cases)

– 2010 Motormaster+ database gives us:• Efficiency and list price of all available motors by HP,

enclosure type, and speed (13,000 filtered cases)

– 2010 CEE List gives us:• Qualified Product List (QPL) of motors, their target

efficiencies, and number of efficiency bands above NEMA Premium baseline (633 cases)

5

Establishing Motor Savings

6

• Study of end-use data indicates some variation exists between end use types

Compressed Air

Fan Material Handling

Material Pro-cessing

Other Process Heat Pump Refrigeration Space Condi-tioning

Grand Aver-age

Hours 5844.12497898493

5990.08798410429

4719.12222308767

4499.08530808006

5332.19402349487

5508 5669.88150857999

6908.81352313168

6115.0107421875

5233.08164730155

500

1,500

2,500

3,500

4,500

5,500

6,500

Annual hours of use by End Use

Annu

al H

ours

Establishing Motor Savings

7

• Comparing Load Factor x Hours of each End Use to averages HP shows slight variation for a few end uses

Compressed Air

Fan Material Handling

Material Pro-cessing

Other Process Heat Pump Refrigeration Space Condi-tioning

Grand Aver-age

End Use LFxHrs

4501.7246363668

3997.87611013269

2915.01765108319

2687.60141974977

3376.96310741648

4404.18252546917

3768.90118215622

4908.07198389889

4220.41983737652

3367.61335914688

Avg. HP LFxHrs

3766.75 3368.61 3415.86 3368.61 3605.76 3685.12 3605.76 3368.61 3415.86 3510.10271604938

500

1500

2500

3500

4500

5500

Comparison between End Use LFxHrs and Average LFxHrs

Hour

s x LF

Establishing Motor Savings

8

• Overall, some variation exists between using a common load factor and hours of use associated with each HP

Compressed Air

Fan Material Handling

Material Pro-cessing

Other Process Heat Pump Refrigeration Space Condi-tioning

Grand Aver-age

% Differ-ence

0.163265125198767

0.157400102653958

-0.17181451

6708229

-0.25338897

9201255

-0.0677522629966079

0.163268102834264

0.0432861394532209

0.313659210571717

0.190635024091975

-0.0423116734928855

-25%

-15%

-5%

5%

15%

25%

35%

% Difference in LFxHrs by End Use vs. Average HP LFxHrs

% D

iffer

ence

Establishing Motor Savings

9

• End Uses which had fewer savings than HP average make up 60% of total count

Compressed Air

Fan Material Han-dling

Material Pro-cessing

Other Process Heat Pump Refrigeration Space Condi-tioning

Count 1594 4763 13439 8349 1813 28 3312 3225 527

1,000

3,000

5,000

7,000

9,000

11,000

13,000

15,000

Motor count by End Use

Qua

ntity

Establishing Motor Savings

• Question?– Are the variations in End Use small enough to

warrant using average LF and Hours of use for each HP regardless of End Use?

• This will result in fewer average savings for most HP’s

– If they are not small enough, how should we separate measures out?

• 114 separate cases for each end use?• Exclude certain end uses?• Weighting of hours and LF by End Use presence?

10

Baseline Case

11

Establishing the Baseline Efficiency

• What should the baseline efficiency be?– Option 1 – Average efficiency of all motors in

Motormaster+ database that meet or exceed the Federal NEMA Premium standard

• This includes motors that meet the proposed efficient case as well as NEMA Premium motors

– Option 2 – Efficiency of only motors that are equal to the Federal NEMA Premium standard

• This will not include motors that meet the proposed efficient case and only includes motors that meet NEMA Premium but do not exceed

12

Baseline Efficiency – Option 1

• Reasons to go with Option 1– Consistent with RTF proxy for establishing a

baseline when sales weighted market data is unknown

– Helps eliminate potential for free riders by incorporating efficient motors into baseline case

13

Baseline Efficiency – Option 2

• Reasons to go with Option 2– SOME market sales data is actually known

• NEMA provided shipment data shows somewhat low penetration of NEMA Premium motors in PNW

< 30% in OR and WA < 60% in MT and ID (combined as one datapoint)

• Option 1 results in an inflated baseline estimate for some motors. On average, 0.4% higher than NEMA Premium but with a max of 5.9% higher Biggest difference seen in smaller motors <10 HP

14

Baseline Efficiency

• Question?– Is this penetration rate low enough to assume

little-to-no market penetration will happen above the baseline of a NEMA Premium motor without incentives?

15

Establishing Baseline Cost

• Associate cost of each motor enclosure and speed configuration under each HP with list price in Motormaster+ dataset– Produces accurate comparisons tied to specific

motor configurations on CEE list• Ex. Any 1HP, 1800 RPM, TEFC motor on the CEE list is

compared to the average cost of that same configuration in the Motormaster+ database

16

Proposed Case

17

Establishing the Proposed Efficiency

• Proposed Efficiency – Option 1• Use the CEE list of approved motors to indicate

which ones are eligible+ Creates Qualified Products List (QPL) to point to+ List already verified to include multiple manufacturers

within each motor HP configuration− However, not every motor type is represented in the

CEE list (Ex. No 50HP, ODP, 1800 RPM motor exists)− Need to rely on CEE list as source of target efficiency

(Updated bi-annually)− Multiple motors appear within each configuration which

means averaging must take place eventually within the QPL

18

Establishing the Proposed Efficiency

• Proposed Efficiency – Option 2• Create a minimum efficiency band specification

above NEMA Premium to indicate which motors are eligible

+ Spec level could be set so that most motor HP’s are found cost-effective to build a comprehensive program

+ Ex. Find sweet spot of overall efficiency band above NEMA Premium that results in most cost-effective measures

− No QPL to point to− CEE motor list requires a minimum of 1 NEMA band

above NEMA Premium, and a requirement that motor and stated efficiency levels must be listed publically in catalogs

19

Establishing the Proposed Cost

• What is the cost of the proposed case?• Option 1 – Use average cost of each motor configuration in

the Motormaster+ database that at least meets CEE requirements for each HP configuration

• Ex. 1HP, 3600 RPM, ODP motor is assigned an average cost of any motor that meets or exceeds the minimum efficiency target for that exact configuration

+ Links specific motor type in CEE list to Motormaster+ database price

– Requires that a motor configuration exists on the CEE list and has a cost associated with it in Motormaster+ database. Some values are therefore unknown

– Includes more efficient motors in with CEE minimum requirements for each motor HP

– Some configurations have different efficiencies20

Establishing the Proposed Cost

• What is the cost of the proposed case?• Option 2 – Use minimum cost within each motor

configuration in the Motormaster+ database that at least meets CEE requirements for each HP configuration

• Ex. Cost of 1HP, 3600 RPM, ODP motor that is 1 NEMA band above federal requirements is used

+ Estimates minimum cost associated with obtaining efficiency in a motor to meet minimum 1 NEMA band reqt.

− Some configurations have different efficiencies for each manufacturer, so min. cost will not capture higher models and therefore not really be tied to CEE QPL

− A minimum proposed case cost is being compared to an average baseline cost

21

Establishing the Proposed Cost

• What is the cost of the proposed case?• Option 3 – Use average cost of each motor configuration in

the Motormaster+ database that just meets the CEE requirements for each HP configuration

• Ex. 1HP, 3600 RPM, ODP motor is assigned an average cost of any motor that just meets the minimum efficiency target for that exact configuration

+ Estimates minimum cost associated with obtaining efficiency in a motor to meet CEE QPL

− Some configurations have different efficiencies for each manufacturer, so min. cost may not capture higher models

− Requires that a motor configuration exists on the CEE list and has a cost associated with it in Motormaster+ database. Many values are therefore unknown

22

Establishing the Proposed Cost

• What is the cost of the proposed case?– Option 4 – Match name and model number of each motor

configuration from CEE list to Motormaster+ database• Ex. Siemens 1HP motor model #GP100 costs $xx according to

Motormaster+ list price

+ Seen as most accurate method to tie cost to a list of qualifying products

– Not all motors from CEE list match database, and some that do are missing either price or efficiency data

– Since different configurations have several efficiency requirements, would we end up averaging cost anyway?

23

First look at Cost-effectiveness

24

Measure # Energy Efficiency Measure NameMeasure Lifetime (Maximum 70 yrs)

Annual Electricity

Savings (kWh)

Total Incremental

Cost of Measure

Combined Societal BCR

kWh Levelized

Cost

1 1 HP 15 54 $132.36 0.4 $0.02

2 1.5 HP 15 74 $60.22 1.1 $0.02

3 2 HP 15 49 -$140.87 inf $0.04

4 3 HP 15 90 -$20.43 inf $0.03

5 5 HP 15 157 $134.37 1.1 $0.03

6 7.5 HP 15 176 $239.57 0.7 $0.04

7 10 HP 15 161 $468.31 0.3 $0.06

8 15 HP 15 251 $38.96 5.8 $0.06

9 20 HP 15 407 $300.37 1.2 $0.05

10 25 HP 15 476 $657.19 0.7 $0.05

11 30 HP 15 531 $630.70 0.8 $0.06

12 40 HP 15 601 $147.64 3.7 $0.06

13 50 HP 15 914 $527.70 1.6 $0.05

14 60 HP 15 734 $1,218.28 0.5 $0.08

15 75 HP 15 1091 $485.49 2.0 $0.07

16 100 HP 15 1280 $1,779.51 0.6 $0.08

17 125 HP 15 1193 $2,357.54 0.5 $0.08

18 150 HP 15 2167 $3,276.02 0.6 $0.05

19 200 HP 15 2203 $1,420.96 1.4 $0.07

First look at Cost-effectiveness

25

Measure # Energy Efficiency Measure NameMeasure Lifetime (Maximum 70 yrs)

Annual Electricity

Savings (kWh)

Total Incremental

Cost of Measure

Combined Societal BCR

kWh Levelized

Cost

1 1 HP 15 54 $44.03 1.1 $0.02

2 1.5 HP 15 74 $53.98 1.2 $0.02

3 2 HP 15 49 -$25.44 inf $0.04

4 3 HP 15 90 -$223.65 inf $0.03

5 5 HP 15 157 -$189.57 inf $0.03

6 7.5 HP 15 176 -$333.40 inf $0.04

7 10 HP 15 161 -$157.46 inf $0.06

8 15 HP 15 251 -$1,174.24 inf $0.06

9 20 HP 15 407 -$1,287.35 inf $0.05

10 25 HP 15 476 $540.05 0.8 $0.05

11 30 HP 15 531 -$840.68 inf $0.06

12 40 HP 15 601 -$2,319.85 inf $0.06

13 50 HP 15 914 -$2,332.52 inf $0.05

14 60 HP 15 734 -$2,345.05 inf $0.08

15 75 HP 15 1091 -$3,142.09 inf $0.07

16 100 HP 15 1280 -$3,230.20 inf $0.08

17 125 HP 15 1193 -$1,878.07 inf $0.08

18 150 HP 15 2167 -$1,801.26 inf $0.05

19 200 HP 15 2203 -$1,433.04 inf $0.07

Condensing Measures

Sensitivity AnalysisWork in Progress….

26

Baseline Efficiency – Sensitivity

• Can measure count be condensed? – Current method - Average efficiency of CEE motor

compared to similar baseline configuration• Ex. 1200 RPM, TEFC, 1HP motor has a different

baseline than a 1200 RPM, ODP, 1HP motor

– Proposed Method - Average efficiency of a CEE motor compared to similar baseline HP

• Ex. All 1HP motors have same baseline regardless of enclosure type and speed

27

Baseline Efficiency – Sensitivity

28

1 1.5 2 3 5 7.5 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 60 75 100 125 150 200

-1.0%

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

Efficiency Difference Between ODP and TEFC1200 RPM 1800 RPM 3600 RPM

HP

% D

iffer

ence

Baseline Efficiency – Sensitivity

29

1 1.5 2 3 5 7.5 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 60 75 100 125 150 200 Grand Total

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Model Count for ODP and TEFC by HP and RPMODP 1200 ODP 1800 ODP 3600 TEFC 1200 TEFC 1800 TEFC 3600

HP

% T

otal

Baseline Efficiency – Combine Encl.

30

1 1.5 2 3 5 7.5 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 60 75 100 125 150 200

-0.4%

-0.2%

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

Efficiency Difference of ODP and TEFC over Weighted Average Ef-ficiency

ODP Average TEFC Average

HP

% D

iffer

ence

Baseline Efficiency – Combine Encl.

31

• Question?– Should we combine enclosure types to reduce

number of measures seeing that little variation occurs when doing so?

• Using an average efficiency baseline across enclosure types results in lower savings potential overall

• Could result in some motor types being non cost-effective when they would have been before when separate

Baseline Efficiency – Combine RPM

32

1 1.5 2 3 5 7.5 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 60 75 100 125 150 200

-3.0%

-2.0%

-1.0%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

Comparison of TEFC motor RPM efficiency to weighted averageTEFC 1200 TEFC 1800 TEFC 3600

HP

% C

ompa

red

to a

vera

ge

Baseline Efficiency – Combine RPM

33

• Question?– Should we combine RPM speeds to reduce

measure count? • Combining results in fewer savings on average• Most motors at the high end show little change between

RPM changes• BUT, majority motors coming into ETO program are

lower HP (30% are under 10HP)• However smaller HP motors may not end up being cost-effective

anyway, so is combining an issue?

Now what?

34

Lemme know…Nicholas O'Neil, P.E., LEED® APSenior Planning Engineer Energy Trust of Oregon851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1200Portland, Oregon 97204 503.459.4077  DIRECT503.546.6862  FAXnicholas.oneil@energytrust.org