1. Beyond NEMA Premium Using CEE Motors List 1

2. Savings Summary Worksheet 2

3. 3

4. Savings Calculations 4

5. 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

6. Establishing Motor Savings 6 Study of end-use data indicates some variation exists between end use types

7. Establishing Motor Savings 7 Comparing Load Factor x Hours of each End Use to averages HP shows slight variation for a few end uses

8. Establishing Motor Savings 8 Overall, some variation exists between using a common load factor and hours of use associated with each HP

9. Establishing Motor Savings 9 End Uses which had fewer savings than HP average make up 60% of total count

10. 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

11. Baseline Case 11

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. Proposed Case 17

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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 efficiencies 20

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. First look at Cost-effectiveness 24 Measure #Energy Efficiency Measure Name Measure Lifetime (Maximum 70 yrs) Annual Electricity Savings (kWh) Total Incremental Cost of Measure Combined Societal BCR kWh Levelized Cost 11 HP1554$132.360.4$0.02 21.5 HP1574$60.221.1$0.02 32 HP1549-$140.87inf$0.04 43 HP1590-$20.43inf$0.03 55 HP15157$134.371.1$0.03 67.5 HP15176$239.570.7$0.04 710 HP15161$468.310.3$0.06 815 HP15251$38.965.8$0.06 920 HP15407$300.371.2$0.05 1025 HP15476$657.190.7$0.05 1130 HP15531$630.700.8$0.06 1240 HP15601$147.643.7$0.06 1350 HP15914$527.701.6$0.05 1460 HP15734$1,218.280.5$0.08 1575 HP151091$485.492.0$0.07 16100 HP151280$1,779.510.6$0.08 17125 HP151193$2,357.540.5$0.08 18150 HP152167$3,276.020.6$0.05 19200 HP152203$1,420.961.4$0.07

25. First look at Cost-effectiveness 25 Measure #Energy Efficiency Measure Name Measure Lifetime (Maximum 70 yrs) Annual Electricity Savings (kWh) Total Incremental Cost of Measure Combined Societal BCR kWh Levelized Cost 11 HP1554$44.031.1$0.02 21.5 HP1574$53.981.2$0.02 32 HP1549-$25.44inf$0.04 43 HP1590-$223.65inf$0.03 55 HP15157-$189.57inf$0.03 67.5 HP15176-$333.40inf$0.04 710 HP15161-$157.46inf$0.06 815 HP15251-$1,174.24inf$0.06 920 HP15407-$1,287.35inf$0.05 1025 HP15476$540.050.8$0.05 1130 HP15531-$840.68inf$0.06 1240 HP15601-$2,319.85inf$0.06 1350 HP15914-$2,332.52inf$0.05 1460 HP15734-$2,345.05inf$0.08 1575 HP151091-$3,142.09inf$0.07 16100 HP151280-$3,230.20inf$0.08 17125 HP151193-$1,878.07inf$0.08 18150 HP152167-$1,801.26inf$0.05 19200 HP152203-$1,433.04inf$0.07

26. Condensing Measures Sensitivity Analysis Work in Progress…. 26

27. 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

28. Baseline Efficiency – Sensitivity 28

29. Baseline Efficiency – Sensitivity 29

30. Baseline Efficiency – Combine Encl. 30

31. 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

32. Baseline Efficiency – Combine RPM 32

33. 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?

34. Now what? 34 Lemme know… Nicholas O'Neil, P.E., LEED ® AP Senior Planning Engineer Energy Trust of Oregon 851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1200 Portland, Oregon 97204 503.459.4077 DIRECT 503.546.6862 FAX nicholas.oneil@energytrust.org