When President George W. Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 05) into law last year, the White House said the measure "will increase conservation and efficiency, diversify our energy supply with alternative and renewable sources, expand domestic energy production in environmentally sensitive ways and modernize our electricity infrastructure."
Others saw it differently. One nonpartisan commentator, dismissed it as "a politically beneficial way to funnel $14.5 billion to farmers, energy companies and an assortment of pop-culture ideas." The latter item referring to the array of concepts, programs and actions in the Act designed to develop new energy resources. In other words, pork-barrel politics in high gear.
There are, indeed, a few pop-culture ideas nestled among the many programs the Act supports - things like extracting bioenergy from cellulose feedstocks, tapping ocean energy, co-generating hydrogen and electricity from renewable sources and even encouraging (to the tune of $5,150,000) energy conservation through bicycling.
Top Billing for Efficiency
In fact, much of the technological aspects - pop culture and otherwise - of EPAct 05 do focus on energy resource development, while others attempt to reshuffle consumption, as by promoting hybrid electric vehicles. But, thankfully, there is also a good deal of solid content in the Act concerning electrical energy efficiency improvements. That's encouraging, because efficiency improvements are the quickest and cheapest near-to-intermediate-term solutions to the national energy supply/demand imbalance. Efficiency improvements don't require new fuels or nascent technology; they work just fine when proven methods are applied to old, inefficient infrastructures to stop wasting the energy we already have.
That's where copper-rotor motors come in. The Department of Energy, the Consortium for Energy Efficiency and other organizations remind us that industrial electric-motor-driven systems consume approximately 679 billion kWh annually - 23 percent of all electricity used in the United States and 70 percent of all electricity used in industrial facilities. Motors, they tell us, represent the largest single category of electricity use in the country. Presumably with this knowledge in hand, Congress gave improvements in electrical efficiency top billing - Title I - in EPAct 05.
Specifically, Subtitle A, Section 101, calls for amending the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECP, an earlier statute) such that:
(a) The Architect of the Capitol-
(1) shall develop, update, and implement a cost-effective energy conservation and managment plan … for all facilities administered by Congress …to meet the energy performance requirements for Federal buildings established under section 543(a)(1); …
(b) The plan shall include-
(1) a description of the life cycle cost analysis used to determine the cost-effectiveness of proposed energy efficiency projects;
(2) a schedule of energy surveys to ensure complete surveys of all congressional buildings every 5 years to determine the cost and payback period of energy and water conservation measures;
(3) a strategy for installation of life cycle cost-effective energy and water conservation measures;
Energy conservation, life-cycle cost analysis, energy surveys: all are principles that favor copper, so opportunities for the adoption of copper-rotor motors abound in these few provisions alone.
But it gets even better - at least on paper. The Act spells out a ten-year schedule under which annual two-percent improvements in building efficiencies will be mandatory, ending with an accumulated 20% boost by 2015. If the government enforces the statute literally, the mandates simply cannot be met without, at one point, upgrading the old motors in those buildings!
In addition, the Act takes specific aim at commercial products such as beverage vending machines, dehumidifiers, ceiling fans, commercial refrigerators, freezers and refrigerator-freezers. Motors in these and other appliances might become targets for improved efficiency regulations, although the Act doesn't specifically address that issue.
And there's more, Section 106, VOLUNTARY COMMITMENTS TO REDUCE INDUSTRIAL ENERGY INTENSITY, contains:
(a) DEFINITION OF ENERGY INTENSITY.-In this section, the term ''energy intensity'' means the primary energy consumed for each unit of physical output in an industrial process. and provides for:
(b) VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS.-The Secretary may enter into voluntary agreements with one or more persons in industrial sectors that consume significant quantities of primary energy for each unit of physical output to reduce the energy intensity of the production activities of the persons. that trigger:
(e) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.-A person that enters into an agreement under this section and continues to make a good faith effort to achieve the energy efficiency goals specified in the agreement shall be eligible to receive from the Secretary a grant or technical assistance, as appropriate, to assist in the achievement of those goals.
Will such grants subsidize the purchase of copper motors? We shall see. There are also provisions under Subtitle B, Section 125, that encourage, again through subsidies, individual states to upgrade efficiency of public buildings.
Unfortunately, the Act contains several huge loopholes. For example, Section 102 makes further amendments to NECP which permit that:
(A) An agency may exclude, from the energy performance requirement for a fiscal year … and the energy management requirement … any Federal building or collection of Federal buildings, if the head of the agency finds that-
(i) compliance with those requirements would be impracticable;
(ii) the agency has completed and submitted all federally required energy management reports;
(iii)the agency has achieved compliance with the energy efficiency requirements of this Act, the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Executive orders, and other Federal law; and
(iv) the agency has implemented all practicable, life cycle cost-effective projects with respect to the Federal building or collection of Federal buildings to be excluded.
Also excluded are "Federal building[s] or collection of Federal buildings used in the performance of a national security function," a broad caveat that could potentially let the White House and all buildings owned by the departments of Defense, Transportation and State, among others, off the hook.
Really Good News
But there is some good news even in the case of excluded buildings. In fact, it's potentially the best news for copper motors in the entire Act. Section 104 of EPAct 05 amends Part 3 of Title V of NECP by adding Sec. 553, FEDERAL PROCUREMENT OF ENERGY EFFICIENT PRODUCTS, which generally mandates the purchase of Energy Star or FEMP-approved equipment. Clearly stated in the section, however, is Part (d)(1), which mandates that:
In the case of electric motors of 1 to 500 horsepower, agencies shall select only premium efficient motors that meet a standard designated by the Secretary.
Wow! There it is in black and white. The government must buy premium motors. The standard subsequently designated by the Secretary for this mandate is NEMA Standards Publication MG 1-2003, Tables 12-12 and 12-13, commonly known as NEMA Premium™ Efficiency Motors. Therefore, unless agencies can show that premium-efficiency motors are not cost-effective on a life-cycle basis (which is virtually never the case), they are committed to buying NEMA Premium-efficiency motors or better.
Here's the interesting part: EPAct was signed into law on August, 2005, when NEMA Premium motors largely constituted the best commercially available motor technology in terms of efficiency. That is no longer the case, because Siemens AG, the world's first- or second-largest motor manufacturer (depending on which motors are counted) has announced that it is bringing "Above NEMA" copper-rotor motors to the North American market. It can reasonably be expected that other major manufacturers will eventually follow suit.
One strong incentive should be CDA's recent finding that copper-rotor motors can cost significantly less to produce - between 14.3% and nearly 18% for 7.5-hp and 15-hp motors, respectively - than aluminum-rotor models with similar operating characteristics and efficiencies. To be precise, the CDA study compared copper- and aluminum-motor production costs based on EPAct 02/EFF-1 efficiency standards. We don't know yet how much, if any, of the cost savings made possible by copper rotors will remain in motors meeting NEMA Premium standards.
There are a few other unresolved issues beyond the question of cost. Will the copper-rotor motors that manufacturers other than Siemens will soon bring to market meet or exceed NEMA Premium standards? Can government agencies be convinced to purchase "super-premium" copper-rotor motors if they're offered? Time will tell, of course, but it's clear that EPAct 05 offers plenty of reasons to be optimistic about prospects for copper-rotor motors:
- We now have an Energy Act that spells out what the government will do to improve energy efficiency over the coming 10 years.
- Many government buildings must be made significantly more energy-efficient over the next 10 years, and
- Life-cycle cost analyses (which usually favor copper) must be used to evaluate proposed improvement programs for those facilities, and
- In most cases, the fastest and possibly most cost-effective method to raise a building's energy efficiency is to replace inefficient motors with premium-efficiency models. Moreover,
- The law clearly states that only motors that meet NEMA Premium efficiency standards shall be purchased by government agencies. Also, we know that
- Copper-rotor motors, which are intrinsically among the most efficient models available, easily meet or exceed NEMA Premium standards. And,
- Copper-rotor motors can compete with comparable aluminum motors on a cost basis. And finally,
- Copper-rotor motors are now commercially available throughout North America.
Critics have suggested the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is a massive pork wallow. That may or may not be the case, but we would encourage those same critics to look more closely at the Act and they'll see the truly massive energy savings that (at least portions of) it will ultimately produce. Copper-rotor motors can and will make those savings a reality. And that's not baloney!