Ecmweb 6502 Motor Efficiency Pr
Ecmweb 6502 Motor Efficiency Pr
Ecmweb 6502 Motor Efficiency Pr
Ecmweb 6502 Motor Efficiency Pr
Ecmweb 6502 Motor Efficiency Pr

Trawling, Not Squeezing, for Motor Efficiency

July 16, 2014
Altered DOE course on next stage of EISA motor efficiency rules aims at capturing more energy savings by netting more motors.

Energy efficiency always carries a price, and the federal government’s latest initiative to wring more savings from efficient electric motors offers proof.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has abandoned a plan to take existing NEMA Premium electric motor efficiency standards a notch higher. As an alternative, it has opted to extend premium energy efficiency standards implemented in 2010 to an expanded scope of motors.

It’s a move that DOE projects will yield more total energy savings than a narrower “super” premium approach and, quite possibly, more than any single energy efficiency initiative ever instituted by the federal government.

Dmitry Naumov/Hemera/Thinkstock

Unveiled in May and set to take effect June 1, 2016, DOE’s final rule brings various types of motors held to lower or no efficiency standards at all in line with the full load efficiency ratings defined in NEMA MG 1 Table 12-12, otherwise known as the NEMA Premium standard.

Now covered are virtually all 3-phase, single-speed, low-voltage integral HP motors (1 hp to 500 hp), many of which were not included in DOE’s initial thrust three years ago to begin nudging motor manufacturers and users toward more energy-efficient products.

In that rule, which grew out of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), DOE raised the efficiency levels of an array of general-purpose, 1-hp to 500-hp motors to the higher levels defined in Table 12-12.

Hramovnick/iStock/Thinkstock

This latest rule addresses NEMA Design A, B, and C motors, as well as IEC Designs N and H motors that were excluded from that rule, which took effect in 2010. Special design motors, such as gear, partial, vertical, TENV, encapsulated, and immersible that were unaffected are also now subject to higher efficiency standards.

As of the effective date, the universe of covered motors will include any motor meeting all of nine characteristics: single-speed induction; continuous or S1 duty-rated; squirrel-cage or cage rotor; polyphase AC current 60-Hz operable; 600V or less rating; 2-,4-,6-,8-pole configured; 3- or 4-digit frame size, including those between two consecutive NEMA frame sizes or enclosed 56 NEMA frame; 1 hp to 500 hp; and conformance to NEMA Design A, B, C, or IEC Design N and H requirements.

Course correction

DOE’s original strategy to take the next step on motor efficiency was tied to a belief in the value of incremental improvements. It envisioned building on the goal of steadily improving the efficiency of installed motors by mandating that covered motors be retooled to become between 0.4% and 1.5% more efficient, depending on the rated horsepower. That’s the equivalent of between one and three bands on the NEMA motor efficiency scale.

tvierimaa/iStock/Thinkstock

But a group of stakeholders intervened. A coalition that included motor manufacturers, as well as environmental groups and associations representing various industry interests, looked at the proposed rule and saw a better way.

A “Motor Coalition,” led by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) and the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), argued successfully that “more” would be a better approach than “higher.” Even small increases in the efficiency ratings of covered motors would require costly motor redesigns, it said; expanding the existing rule’s reach would produce a better net effect.

Coalition member Rob Boteler, chairman of the NEMA Energy Management Committee and government relations manager for Nidec Motor Corp., St. Louis, says the push for a different approach stemmed from concerns that attempting to squeeze more efficiency out of NEMA Premium motors might jeopardize product utility for many motor users.

“Manufacturers looked at it and said if you try to push for two more bands, in all likelihood the motors would jump the frame size or they would have to become much longer, and they would no longer be retrofits for the end-user or OEM,” says Boteler. “They then would be faced with having to reconfigure equipment for a larger motor, and, if that occurred, most end-users would go to the used market or continue to use the old motor and repair that motor and not take advantage of the higher efficiency we can gain from NEMA 12-12.”

The physical changes would spring from the need for additional materials, and redesign needed to boost efficiency. Those additional costs — coming just three years after manufacturers made substantial investments to bring many motors into EISA compliance — would be reflected in still higher motor prices. That would give bottom-line-oriented end-users and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) even more incentive to avoid buying higher efficiency products.

The No. 1 goal of the DOE is to capture more energy savings from a wider group of motor types (kantapat/iStock/Thinkstock).

Alex Chausovsky, associate director, Motors & Mechanical Power Transmission for IHS, an Englewood, Colo., business intelligence provider, endorses DOE’s revised approach as a better way to speed up conversion to more energy-efficient motors. The new rule is most effective, he says, in closing loopholes that allowed motor buyers and their suppliers to skirt the intent of the original EISA rule. With more motors covered, avenues of escape have been better sealed off, and the problem of a lack of “teeth” in the law has been addressed.

“We haven’t seen a real transformation in the market with EISA because manufacturers, customers, and distributors had ways of getting around the specifications in the legislation, such as changing nameplates and recharacterizing products,” says Chausovsky. “Combined with a lack of resources for the government to enforce the new motor rules, change has been very slow to occur.”

Repair or replace?

While the new rule is aimed at increasing adoption of more efficient motors over time, there’s little consensus on the expected pace. That’s because questions still persist about the willingness of buyers to replace rather than repair motors. Plus, even though the rule DOE settled on was conceived to be minimally onerous from a redesign angle, some of the new covered motors will have new designs that could still pose some functionality, retrofit, and backwards-compatibility challenges for users.

Dale Basso, product manager, low-voltage motors, for WEG Electric Corp., a Duluth, Ga., motor manufacturer, says “fit and function” may well be impacted, requiring equipment design modification. That, along with cost, will be part of the calculations end-users make as they’re faced with decisions on old or failing motors. But Basso says a blend of circumstances probably points to enough end-users replacing rather than repairing to make the rule’s aim achievable over time.

“The price differential for repair versus replace will make the replacement more attractive,” he says. “With increasing energy costs and possible utility incentives, we expect many will get replaced as long as they fit.”

The question remains whether buyers will choose to repair or replace existing motors (Yury Minaev/iStock/Thinkstock).

The redesign and compatibility issue, though, can’t be dismissed, Boteler says, and it “will require a substantial amount of electrical reconfiguration.” But that was amply factored into the stakeholders’ calculations regarding the advisability of upping the efficiency of covered motors or bringing new motors into the fold. The consensus was that those issues wouldn’t present a major barrier to the goal of bringing more premium efficiency motors online over time with the least amount of pain.

That’s partly because most motors manufacturers build — perhaps 75% or more — ultimately go through distributors to OEMs , who incorporate them into the products they sell to end-users. Covered motors in any new products OEMs build after the effective date will have to conform to the new efficiency standards.

Knowing that, OEMs eager to offer the most energy-efficient products in the marketplace factor in design changes to reflect motor sizing well in advance of rule effective dates, Boteler says — a situation that has largely played out with respect to the 2010 EISA rule.

Impact will vary

Some OEMs may be more affected than others by the new rule. John Malinowski, general product manager for AC motors at Baldor Electric Co., a member of The ABB Group, says builders of products using motors that employ special shafts and mountings could be challenged.

“The biggest impact of the rule is likely to be on OEM customers who were buying customized motors that were previously exempt from regulations,” he says. “There could be a big change in price and size for them. Those using 56 Frame enclosed motors that could now have larger footprints will also be affected. And motors over 200 hp will become heavier and more expensive to reflect the need for additional materials.”

Reconfiguring existing motor connections to accommodate a premium efficiency motor isn’t always a simple option (Nian Liu/iStock/Thinkstock).

While OEMs will be more constrained on their ability to use exempt motors as they build new equipment for customers, end-users that buy free-standing motors will still enjoy a measure of flexibility. They’ll be more limited in their ability to alter motor specifications to get around efficiency rules that apply to more motors, yet they’ll still retain the option of repairing motors.

For many, that might remain a viable alternative. Even though more efficient motors promise long-term energy savings, improved overall performance and a relatively quick payback depending on the application, up-front costs and productivity concerns still outweigh energy costs in the calculations.

“Uptime is the most important thing for many end-users, and so some will say that if they can save any money off the cost of new, they’ll repair no matter what,” says George Flolo, chair of the marketing and industry awareness committee of the Electrical Apparatus & Service Association (EASA) and vice president of The Flolo Corp., a Chicago-based electrical motor distributor and service specialist. “Sometimes they like that option, because they know it will come back with the connection box in exactly the same place versus having a replacement motor in a slightly different position. Then there are others that automatically replace and don’t even consider repair, even those who use 60 hp and under, IEEE 841 motors. There are so many things that go into the repair-replace decision that it’s insane to try to create [a one-size-fits-all solution].”

A slow build. But a stubborn bias toward repair, combined with rules friendly to users who may balk at replacement, has slowed the market transition to more efficient motors, Chausovsky says.  Even with the new DOE rule covering more motors, he predicts it could be another five to seven years before the majority of those in operation will be NEMA Premium.

It’s proving a slow, uphill climb, Chausovsky says, partly because interests aren’t aligned in a way that puts a premium on energy efficiency as a concern. In the case of OEMs intent on bringing the lowest cost products to market, “they are not responsible for paying the energy costs associated with running the machine,” he says. And for many end-users, especially the 90% of all manufacturing companies that have fewer than 500 employees, “the purchasing guys are not incentivized to buy a more expensive motor; lowest initial outlay is their main concern.”

There were 7.3 million low-voltage motors sold in the United States in 2013.

Yet there’s some speculation that the initial EISA rule produced the desired effect. The preliminary consensus at Baldor, says Malinowski, was that the repair option would look even more appealing, at least initially. Instead, there’s some evidence that the formal rule pushed more buyers to finally buy premium efficient motors that manufacturers had been trying to sell with only spotty success. Looking ahead to 2016, Malinowski sees the new rule perhaps forcing some to give repair a closer look.

“When you get something where it changes size, where it’s no longer backwards-compatible, I don’t think the end-user has a whole lot of outs other than either redesigning his machine or rewinding what he’s already got, so I think you could see more of that [rewinding] happen than we’ve seen in the last two regulations [EISA in 2010 and the Energy Policy Act of 1992],” he says.

The value of a wider net approach

Though uncertainties dog the new rule — and it’s unclear how users will factor it into their calculations — it is being hailed as a “win” for stakeholders generally, according to Malinowski.

Had the DOE chosen to override objections and instituted a rule requiring higher efficiency for covered motors, there’s a general consensus that the costs and time involved in redesigning motors would have substantially lowered the expected return on savings in energy usage.

“The plan to move higher would have guaranteed many more fit and function issues as well as require major retooling for all motor manufacturers at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars,” says Basso. “Implementation would not have been possible for at least five years due to the resource requirements.”

Innovation, he says, likely would have stalled as manufacturers focused on adapting existing technology to the new mandates. Now, Basso asserts, within two years many more motors can be brought up to premium standards in a process that, though still fraught with “cost and pain,” holds the promise of economic benefits that make them “justifiable.”

Indeed, a crunching of the numbers produces a rosy picture of what the new rule might spawn. Citing projections developed by the DOE and the Motor Coalition, Boteler says if the rule were in place today, it would apply to some 5-million, 1-hp to 500-hp motors sold annually. By comparison, as the rule currently stands, it covers between 1.6-million and 2-million units. In terms of connected horsepower, the number jumps from around 18-million to nearly 50-million.

But the key, big-picture number is 5.3 million. That’s how many terawatt-hours of electricity stand to be saved annually, according to DOE calculations and projections — making the new rule in DOE’s estimation the “most significant energy-saving rule ever written,” says Boteler.

“The coalition feels like this is a victory,” he adds. “It’s a great working rule for the manufacturers because we feel comfortable that we can deliver, and we feel like it’s a great rule for our end-users, our distributors, and our OEMs because we’re going to gain this huge amount of energy saving… and we’re doing it, we think, with the least amount of disruption to the OEMs and the end-users to have to do any major reconfiguring or redesign of their products.”  

Zind is a freelance writer based in Lee’s Summit, Mo. He can be reached at [email protected].

SIDEBAR: Motor Market Study in the Works

Electric motor industry interests appear to have secured a pledge from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) that it will coordinate the first comprehensive study of the U.S. electric motor market in 15 years.

Rob Boteler, chairman of the Energy Management Committee of the National Electrical Manufacturer’s Association (NEMA) and government relations manager for Nidec Motor Corp., St. Louis, says DOE’s Advanced Manufacturing Office will take the lead on conducting a motor market assessment that could span two to three years.

The goal is similar to the one NEMA had been seeking in the form of legislation now stalled in Congress. It has been a backer of the Motor Systems Market Awareness Act of 2014 — a bill that would open the way to a more comprehensive and longer-term market study.

The aim of the more modest DOE study, Boteler says, will be to gather basic information on the nature of the installed base of motors; better understand motor buyer motivations and concerns as they relate to repair, maintenance, and replacement decisions; and gauge the market’s understanding of and readiness for adopting performance- and efficiency enhancements contained in emerging motor technologies.

“Motor manufacturers are all spending a lot on advanced technologies like electronically commutated motors, interior magnets, switch reluctance, and a host of other technologies,” he says. “We need to better understand the market’s perspective on this and how we as NEMA might move forward developing standards that will help customers adapt to the introduction of these advanced technologies.”

A transition to these technologies is taking place, Boteler says, but the market may be getting ahead of itself in some respects. A thorough study of the market could help correct misperceptions and better frame the conversation about where the motor market is headed in coming years.

“There’s a segment of the market that seems to be thinking the induction motor will be replaced in the next 20 years, and that’s wrong,” he says. “The vast majority of applications will remain induction motors for a long time, because there’s no silver bullet to magically replace this workhorse.”

About the Author

Tom Zind | Freelance Writer

Zind is a freelance writer based in Lee’s Summit, Mo. He can be reached at [email protected].

Voice your opinion!

To join the conversation, and become an exclusive member of EC&M, create an account today!

Sponsored Recommendations

Electrical Conduit Comparison Chart

CHAMPION FIBERGLASS electrical conduit is a lightweight, durable option that provides lasting savings when compared to other materials. Compare electrical conduit types including...

Don't Let Burn-Through Threaten Another Data Center or Utility Project

Get the No Burn-Through Elbow eGuide to learn many reasons why Champion Fiberglass elbows will enhance your data center and utility projects today.

Considerations for Direct Burial Conduit

Installation type plays a key role in the type of conduit selected for electrical systems in industrial construction projects. Above ground, below ground, direct buried, encased...

How to Calculate Labor Costs

Most important to accurately estimating labor costs is knowing the approximate hours required for project completion. Learn how to calculate electrical labor cost.