Accelerated Up Take Electric l

7/25/2019 Accelerated Up Take Electric l

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/accelerated-up-take-electric-l 1/36

REPORT

ACCELERATED REPLACEMENT OF ELECTRIC MOTORS

Jeroen de Beer, Florian Hemmer (Ecofys)

Hugh Falkner (Atkins Global)

September 2013

ECI Publication No Cu0188

Available from www.leonardo-energy.org



Publication No Cu0188

Issue Date: September 2013

Page i

Document Issue Control Sheet

Document Title: Report - Accelerated replacement of electric motors

Publication No: Cu0188

Issue: 01

Release: Public

Author(s): Jeroen de Beer, Florian Hemmer, Hugh Falkner

Reviewer(s): Hans De Keulenaer

Document History

Issue Date Purpose

1 Sep 2013 Initial public release

2

3

Disclaimer

This publication has been prepared by Ecofys and Atkins Global for European Copper Institute. While this

publication has been prepared with care, European Copper Institute and other contributors provide no

warranty with regards to the content and shall not be liable for any direct, incidental or consequential

damages that may result from the use of the information or the data contained.

Copyright© European Copper Institute.

Reproduction is authorised providing the material is unabridged and the source is acknowledged.





Page ii

CONTENTS

Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 2

2 Benefits of Early Replacement .......................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................. 4

2.2 Scope ........................................................................................................... ............................................. 4

2.3 Assumptions ........................................................................................................... .................................. 4

2.4 Savings .............................................................. ................................................................. ....................... 5

2.4.1 Electricity Savings ................................................................................................................. .... 6

2.4.2 Avoided CO2 Emissions............................................................................................................. 7

2.4.3 Total Cost of Ownership .............................................................. ............................................. 8

3 Devising programmes and actions to promote early replacement .................................................... 9

3.1 defining programme objectives ............ ................................................................. .................................. 9

3.2 Motor Decision Moments ..................... ................................................................. .................................. 9

3.3 Programmes and action to promote best practice in motor repair and replacement........................... 10

3.3.1 Programmes and actions reviewed ........................................................ ................................ 10

3.3.2 Motor Management Policy .................................................................... ................................ 11

3.3.3 Improving availability of high efficiency motors at local stockists ......................................... 13

3.3.4 Third party “ESCO” type contracts to keep motors running .................................................. 13

3.3.5 Motor selection tools and cost effectiveness of replacement options .................................. 14

3.3.6 over-coming the price premium for more efficient motors by offering financial rebates .... 16

3.3.1 Using a standard to drive forward energy management – ISO50001 ................................. 16

3.3.1 Bringing it together – the Motor Decisions Matter campaign ............................................... 16

3.4 Best practice in selection and design of policy options for encouraging early replacement of motors 17

4 Current EU Policy Frameworks ........................................................................................................ 19

4.1 EcoDesign Directive .......................................................................... ...................................................... 20

4.2 Energy Efficiency Directive ..................................................... .............................................................. .. 22

4.3 Industrial Emissions Directive .... ................................................................. ........................................... 27

4.4 Emission Trading Directive ..................................................... .............................................................. .. 28

4.5 Conclusions............................................................................................................................................. 29

5 Appendix I – Methodology on Estimating Savings .......................................................................... 30

5.1 Assumptions and Data................................................. ................................................................. .......... 30





Page iii

5.1.1 Motor Data ............................................................. ................................................................ 30

5.1.2 Market Data ........................................................................................................................... 30

5.2 Annual Savings ....................................................................................................................................... 31

5.2.1 Interpolation of annual sales ................................................................................................. 31

5.2.2 Standard motor ......................................................................................................... ............. 31

5.2.3 Electricity savings ................................................................................................................... 31

5.2.4 Avoided CO2 emissions .......................................................................................................... 32





Page 1

SUMMARY

This paper investigates whether opportunities exist to encourage premature replacement of electric motors by

more efficient ones.

By installing efficient motors energy is saved and the emission of CO 2 is reduced. Both contribute to the EUtargets to increase the energy efficiency by 20% in 2020 (compared to projections made in 2007) and to

reduce the emissions of CO2 by 20% in 2020 as compared to 1990.

Companies can also benefit from replacing motors by more efficient types. It will reduce their energy bill and

reduce the risk on unplanned downtime. Furthermore, the life cycle costs are lower. The higher initial

investment costs of high efficiency motors are more than balanced by the lower electricity costs during

operation. Last but not least, it will contribute to obligatory or voluntary improvement of the energy efficiency.

The Ecodesign directive describes that motors sold on the EU market should be of a high efficiency class or be

combined with a variable speed drive. The effects of the directive will only be noticed when actually a new

motor is installed. Premature replacement of electric motors is a rarity despite of the benefits. Important

reasons why this is not done are that the cost of decision are too high, investments and benefits are split over

different budgets, there is aversion to the risks of installing a new motor and uncertainty of returns.

Many programmes and actions have been devised that aim to overcome these barriers. A review of these

programmes is done to distil best practices. Lessons to take into account when designing new programs are:

- be ahead of the market, do not promote what is seen by the market as the ‘standard’ motor;

- reserve enough budget to keep the program running for sufficient time;

- keep things simple, not only in providing information but also in procedures for claiming any financial

rebates;

- adequate publicity by a trustworthy organisation, preferably a Government. Keep promotional

materials up-to-date;

- target those most likely to make the change;

- realise that the savings of individual motors will only give a modest change.

We evaluated the current EU policy framework for energy efficiency in order to identify opportunities to

accelerate the uptake of efficient motors. The relevant directives are:

- Energy Efficiency Directive

- Ecodesign Directive

- Industrial Emissions Directive

- Emission Trading Directive

The Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) offers the best opportunities to encourage premature replacement of

motors. Much will depend on the implementation of the EED by national governments, which should largely

be in place by 2014.





Page 2

1 INTRODUCTION

Electric motors are used for a wide range of diverse applications. The variety in power output, the

controllability and the convenience of using electricity make electric motors the ideal driver for many

operations. About 110 million low-voltage AC motors are operational in the European industrial and tertiary

sector and about 10 million are sold every year in Europe. Electric motors account for about two thirds ofelectricity consumption in the industry

1. The associated electricity consumptions amounts to roughly 1119

TWh/a in 2010, or 97.2 billion Euro and 513 Mtonne of CO2 emissions. It has been predicted that the electricity

consumption of motors will increase to 1252 TWh/a in 2020 if no measures to limit the consumption are

taken2.

Motors are grouped into four efficiency classes, IE1 being the standard efficiency and IE4 a super premium

efficiency. The efficiencies depend primarily on the size, as shown in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1: IE EFFIENCY CLASSES OF A 4-POLE MOTOR AT 50 HZ3

Currently, the majority of the electric motors in the EU are still of the class IE1; representing more than 82% of

European market share in 20094. Obviously, there is a considerable potential for energy saving by increasing

the efficiency of operational motors, not just waiting for existing ones to be replaced. Motors are usually run

to failure, and even then it is common to repair rather than replace them. To tap into this energy savings

potential, and associated mitigation of GHG emissions and cost savings, the existing stock of electric motors

should be upgraded to new and more efficiency motors. This will mean encouraging a fresh look at the way

that an organisation takes to maintaining and replacing its stock of motors. Just being satisfied that working

motors are good motors is no longer sufficient if life cycle operating costs are to be be minimised.

1 Wachter, B. de, “White Paper - Electric Motor Asset Management”, ECI, 2001.

2 Implementing Directive 2005/32/EC

3 ABB, Technical note IEC 60034-30 standard on efficiency classes for low voltage AC motors

4 CEMEP, 2010. Energy saving motors result 1998-2009. [online] Available at: http://www.cemep.org/index.php?id=21

http://www.cemep.org/index.php?id=21








Page 3

The Ecodesign directive set standards for the efficiency of new motors sold on the EU market. The

implementation of these standards follows a step wise approach and is shown in table 1.

TABLE 1: ECODESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ELECTRIC MOTORS5

Rated output: From 16 June 2011 From 1 Jan 2015 From 1 Jan 2017

0.75 – 7.5 kW IE2 IE2 IE3 or IE2 + VSD

7.5 – 375 kW IE2 IE3 or IE2 + VSD IE3 or IE2 + VSD

It is estimated that the electricity savings by Ecodesign amount to 135 TWh in 20206. This estimate is based on

a stock turnover rate assuming average lifetimes of motors per size. Electric motors have an average lifetime

of 10 – 20 years, but in most companies are run to failure, which can be much longer. Although a harmful

operational environment, e.g. abrasive dust or high temperatures, can severely reduce a motors lifetime a

majority of motors operate beyond its technical lifetime. Some motors will be repaired or rewound multiple

times, extending the lifetime beyond the 10 – 20 years. As rewinding of motors usually also results in an

efficiency loss, it will take much longer before the minimum efficiency requirements on new equipment lead to

a substantially more efficient stock.

This paper investigates the opportunities to enforce or stimulate the early replacement of motors by more

efficient ones. First, we will have a more detailed look at the benefits of early replacement in terms of energy

saved, costs and CO2-emissions avoided. We will also estimate the additional copper demand. Second, we will

explore the factors that hinder replacement of motors. Third, we will evaluate what we can learn from past

programmes directed at motor efficiencies. Where are these programmes successful in taking away the

barriers to implementation? Finally, we will analyse what room current EU policy frameworks offer to

accelerate electric motor stock turnover.

5 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 640/2009

6 EC, 2009. Full Impact Assessment (regard to ecodesign requirements for electric motors). SEC(2009)1014





Page 4

2 BENEFITS OF EARLY REPLACEMENT

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The preparatory study for the EcoDesign directive on electric motors7 shows that the vast majority of both the

lifecycle costs and environmental impact are during the use phase of an electric motor. Notably electrical

energy typically takes up more than 95% of the lifecycle costs, based on an assumed lifetime of twelve to

twenty years, and typical load factors. A higher energy efficiency of the electric motor stock will therefore

greatly reduce the electricity consumption and related environmental impacts.

In this section we will present scenarios for early replacement of electric motors and calculate the benefits in

terms of energy savings, avoided CO2-emission and costs.

2.2 SCOPE

The scope of this study entails low voltage AC motors within the European Union (EU-27), and is the same

scope as used for the EcoDesign Directive on electric motors. This scope has been chosen for the followingreasons:

More than 96% of EU25 integral horsepower motors sold are AC motors, the remainder are DC

motors.

87% of the number of AC motors sold in the EU25 are 3phase induction motors, the remainder are

single phase (4%), synchronous (5%) and universal (4%).

The EcoDesign Directive imposes minimum requirements on newly sold motors and is therefore an

important factor in determining the baseline.

In line with the EU’s 2020 targets and reported EcoDesign savings the estimated savings of e.g. stimulating

early replacement or reducing motor rewinding are calculated up till 2020 or 2025.

2.3 ASSUMPTIONS

The European EcoDesign directive includes minimum efficiency requirements for newly sold electric motors.

First minimum requirements took effect in mid-2011 and further minimum requirements will come into effect

in 2015 and 2017. According to the EC impact assessment of 20098 the imposed minimum requirements will

result in annual savings of 135-139 TWh in 2020 and cumulative savings of 657 TWh by 2020. These savings

account for an avoided 301 Mt CO2 and monetary savings of € 84 billion in the period 2010-2020. Specifics on

the EcoDesign Directive, like the phased implementation of minimum requirements, can be found in section

4.1

There are three moment in the working life of a motor that a decision can be taken to replace the motor.

These moments are: (1) when the motor fails; (2) when the motor comes to the end of its technical lifetime;

(3) when it is worthwhile to replace the motor before the end of its lifetime. An alternative to replacement is

repair of the motor. We will explain more about the life time of a motor in chapter 3.

7 de Alemeida, et al., 2008. EUP Lot 11 Motors. ISR – University of Coimbra






Page 5

In estimating potential savings by rewinding/repairing or replacing an electric motor the following assumption

are made:

A repair/rewind reduces motor efficiency by 0.5-2.0%pt9. High quality rewinding can restore a motor’s

original efficiency but is uncommon due to time pressure constraints.

Three motor ‘sizes’ are used to represent the full spectrum: 1.1, 11 and 110 kW. The market shares ofthese sizes are respectively 87, 12 and 1%, specified as the share of total units.

These motors have an assumed planned/technical lifetime of respectively 12, 15 and 20 years.

For all motors a total of 4,000 operating hours per year and a load factor of 60% is used in the

calculations. This is in line with the assumptions underpinning the EcoDesign directive and represents

average operational characteristics in the market.

Application of a variable speed drive (VSD) increases the efficiency of the total stock with 20% by

reducing losses in the application systems.

The figure below gives an indicative overview of the change in motor efficiency as a result of repair/rewind or

replacement upon decision moments. The figure indicates that the repair/rewind of an electric motor, no

matter the decision moment, will generally result in a slight loss of efficiency. Opposed to the loss of efficiencyby a repair/rewind is the installation of a new motor, which in general has a significantly higher efficiency.

Note that a motor replacement in this figure implies a replacement with a new high efficiency motor and not

replacing the motor with exactly the same model.

FIGURE 2: CHANGES IN MOTOR EFFIENCY BY REPAIR OR REPLACE BY MORE EFFICIENCT MOTOR UPON DECISION MOMENTS

2.4 SAVINGS

The savings associated with the implementation of the EcoDesign directive for electric motors are estimated at

135-139 TWh per year in 2020. Assumptions underlying these savings are for example a motor lifetime of 12 to

20 years for small to large motors, running hours of 4,000hpa and a load factor of 60%. These assumptions

have been used to estimate savings as a result of shorter and longer motor lifetimes. Changes of the assumed

motor lifetime are used to estimate the impact of a slower or faster dissemination of high efficient motors in

the market.

9 EASA/AEMT, 2003. The Effect of Repair/Rewinding on Motor Efficiency.

M o t o r E f f i c i e n c y - - >

Motor Life -->

Failure: Replace Planned: Replace Shortened: ReplaceShortened: Rewind Planned: Rewind Failure: RewindMotor Base Efficiency

Shortened Lifetime

Planned End of Life

Motor Failure





Page 6

2.4.1 ELECTRICITY SAVINGS

Electricity savings by setting minimum requirements on newly bought motors according to the EcoDesign

directive results in annual savings of 136 TWh in 2020. If average motor lifetimes10

are in fact longer than

assumed in the EcoDesign preparatory study and impact assessment these annual savings, in 2020, would drop

to an estimated 114 TWh at +2 years and 82 TWh at +5 years. This equates to a decrease of 16% or 40%

respectively as opposed to the calculated EcoDesign savings.

Incentivising earlier replacement of existing motors by more efficient motors, shortening the lifetime of

existing low efficient motors, leads to an increase in potential savings. Annual energy savings amount to an

estimated 158 TWh at -2 years and 191 TWh at -5 years in 2020. These savings are an increase of 16 to 40% as

opposed to the calculated EcoDesign savings.

FIGURE 3: ESTIMATED ANNUAL ELECTRICTY SAVINGS

The cumulative savings by 2020 based on the EcoDesign assumptions and phased implementation are

estimated at 574 TWh. Note that these cumulative savings are counted starting 2011, when the first minimum

requirements of EcoDesign were implemented. Savings by a slower or faster pace of high efficiency motor

dissemination result in a decrease or increase of 16 to 40% for 2 to 5 years respectively.

10 In Ecodesign average lifetimes are taken into accout, whereas actual lifetimes may be longer. To show this effect we

have also calculated saving potentials with longer lifetimes.

136

158

191

114

82

0

50

100

150

200

250

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

A n n u a l S a v i n g s [ T W h / a ]

EcoDesign EcoDesign -2yr EcoDesign -5yr EcoDesign +2yr EcoDesign +5yr





Page 7

FIGURE 4: ESTIMATED CUMULATIVE ELECTRICITY SAVINGS

2.4.2 AVOIDED CO2 EMISSIONS

Avoided CO2 emissions are calculated by applying an EU average emission factor of 0.465 tCO 2 per MWhe.

Estimated annual savings by the implementation of EcoDesign are 63 MtCO2 in 2020. Increasing or decreasing

the pace of dissemination leads to an increase or decrease of 16 to 40% for increasing or decreasing motor

lifetime with 2 to 5 years respectively.

FIGURE 5: ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVOIDED CO2 EMISSIONS

574

666

804

481

343

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

C u m u l a t i v e S a v i n g s [

T W h ]

EcoDesign EcoDesign -2yr EcoDesign -5yr EcoDesign +2yr EcoDesign +5yr

63

74

89

53

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

A n n u a l S a v i n g s [ M t C O 2 ]

EcoDesign EcoDesign -2yr EcoDesign -5yr

EcoDesign +2yr EcoDesign +5yr





Page 8

The cumulative amount of avoided CO2 emissions by 2020 based on the EcoDesign assumptions and phased

implementation is estimated at 267 MtCO2. Note that these cumulative savings are counted starting 2011,

when the first minimum requirements of EcoDesign were implemented. Savings by a slower or faster pace of

high efficiency motor dissemination result in a decrease or increase of 16 to 40% for 2 to 5 years respectively.

FIGURE 6: ESTIMATED CUMULATIVE AVOIDED CO2 EMISSIONS

2.4.3 TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP

Total cost of ownership (TCO) include both investment costs and operation costs during the lifetime of the

motor. As the energy costs dominate and not the investment costs, it is fair to take the TCO into account when

evaluating early replacement of a motor.

The question is, however, which costs should be taken into account. When looking to decide whether to

replace or repair a motor, it is the difference in costs that is important. But when looking to prematurely

replace a working motor, it might be considered that it is the whole price of the new motor that is

important. This will usually be considerably larger, often several times larger than the cost difference between

repair and replace. However, this approach is simplistic and does not take account of the whole situation.

Premature replacement of a working motor not only saves money by avoiding the costs of unplanned

downtime, but also gives the opportunity to select the optimum motor for replacement. However, if we look

more carefully at the actual financial consequences of the decision simply in terms of expenditure and energy

savings, the situation actually becomes quite favourable. The real question (ignoring for now the benefits of

using a more efficient motor, and of the reduction in capital expenditure by possibly repairing rather than

replacing), is the difference between buying a new now, or buying the same new motor at a time in the

future. So if for example it is known that statistically a particular motor will fail in two years’ time, then the

difference in expenditure is simply the cost of borrowing for that time. This should be then compared to the

energy savings accruing through premature replacement. The overall picture will vary according to the

individual company circumstances and motor application, but in many cases it will represent a positive cash

flow.

267

310

374

224

160

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

C u m

u l a t i v e S a v i n g s [ M t C O 2 ]

EcoDesign EcoDesign -2yr EcoDesign -5yr

EcoDesign +2yr EcoDesign +5yr





Page 9

Let us consider the following simplified example:

11kW motor with an IE1 efficiency (87.6%) or IE3 efficiency (91.4%)

Motor is to be replaced after 15 years

4000 operating hours per year, no load factor compensation

IE1 motor cost of €450, IE3 motor cost of €675, electricity price of €0.09/kWh

The first approach we use is taking into account the full cost difference between the IE1 and IE3 motor. Annual

energy costs of the IE1 motor amount to €4520 and €4332 for the IE3 motor, saving €188 a year. The

difference in motor costs is a mere €225, implying that the higher investment costs are compensated by a

reduction in energy costs within two years.

The second approach is that we consider is bringing forward the investment in a new motor for two years. We

can use the net present value to calculate this. We assume that the motor will be linearly depreciated over five

years, so after two years the motor still has a value of € 405. The net present value with a discount rate of 10%

is € 582. The costs for bringing forward this investment are € 675 - € 582 = € 93. This cost difference is

compensated by the savings on electricity costs within half a year. Obviously, this outcome depends stronglyon the assumptions of the discount rate and the depreciation method.

Another case we need to consider is comparison of rewinding and replacing. Motor rewinding generally

reduces motor efficiency and comes at two thirds of the costs of a new motor. In the above case, with a

rewind caused efficiency loss of 0.5%pt, the difference in annual energy costs would rise to €214 a year. The

difference in investment costs would be €350 (rewind vs new more efficient motor), resulting in a less than

two year simple payback period. The assumed 0.5% efficiency loss is based on a high quality rewind. Usually

motor rewinds are carried out under time-pressure and therefore generally result in typical winding loss of

efficiency of about 2%pt. Such a loss in efficiency would further reduce the simple payback period..

3 DEVISING PROGRAMMES AND ACTIONS TO PROMOTE EARLY REPLACEMENT

3.1 DEFINING PROGRAMME OBJECTIVES

We have shown that early replacement of motors has benefits for both society and the company that uses the

motor. In the past, several actions and programs have been directed at increasing the efficiency of motors and

motor systems. Still it is a fact that early replacement of motors is a rarity. That raises the question as to what

barriers hamper a faster substitution of motors by more efficient ones, and hence what actions can be taken

to help overcome these? The aim is that from the lessons learned from looking at the impact of actions

already tried, we can distil the best practices to stimulate the enhanced uptake of more efficient motors.

3.2 MOTOR DECISION MOMENTS

We distinguish three moments in the working life time of a motor on which it can be decided to replace a

motor by a more efficient one or repair the old one:

1. Motor Failure

Replacing a motor upon motor failure can be undesirable as it is often associated with an additional downtime

of production or auxiliary processes, or at the least the risk that this might happen. As downtime can be costly,

a quick solution is preferred and depending on motor size and characteristics a new motor can be supplied

quickly or a repair/rewind can be carried out on short notice. Alternatively replacement motors can be kept in

stock to ensure a swift replacement. The vast majority of operational motors are however considerably lessefficient than high efficiency motors currently available. Replacing a failed motor with a newer more efficient





Page 10

motor can therefore lead to considerable savings on operational costs. Fitting a not-identical motor can

however require (minor) adjustments to the motor system, requirements which are not necessary if replaced

with an identical motor or repaired/rewound.

2. Planned End of Life

Instead of running a motor up to the moment of failure a planned or technical end of life can be applied.

Planning a motor’s end of life enables the coordination of motor replacement or repair. This enables

replacements or repairs to be scheduled at times of low production or during major overall maintenance, and

above all facilitates optimisation of motor replacement in general. This optimisation can include an adjustment

of requirements based upon actual operations and observing total cost of ownership as opposed to only initial

investment costs.

3. Shortened Lifetime/Premature replacement

As the energy consumption of an electric motor makes up more than 95% of its lifecycle costs an early

replacement by a more efficient motor, despite the investment cost, can reduce total costs. This premature

replacement is in fact a planned end of life taking into account the efficiency gains, and energy savings, of a

new more efficient motor.

At each of these critical instances, the following considerations will dictate which option is selected.

1. Cost of decision: An option that costs more than the cheapest possible option will be likely to require

higher level authorisation. This is exacerbated in instances where the decision maker only pays for

the initial expense, but does not benefit from the reduction in electricity consumption.

2. Risk aversion: The cost of early failure or additional delay in the plant recommencing operation may

be so high that there will be an imperative to “play safe”. This might mean for example repairing the

old motor because of the certainty it will fit.

3. Uncertainty of the returns: While the energy savings from more efficient motors may be understood

in a general way, it can be hard to understand what this might mean for the fleet of motors at a

particular site.

Many programmes and actions have been devised that aim to overcome these barriers to behaviour change,

which are reviewed in the following section.

3.3 PROGRAMMES AND ACTION TO PROMOTE BEST PRACTICE IN MOTOR REPAIR AND

REPLACEMENT

3.3.1 PROGRAMMES AND ACTIONS REVIEWED

The following programmes and actions are critically reviewed, with a focus on the barriers they are attempting

to overcome:

- Motor management policy.

- Improving availability of high efficiency motors at local stockists.

- Third party “ESCO” type contracts to keep motors running.

- Motor selection tools to identify candidate motors and cost effectiveness of replacement options.

- Over-coming the price premium for more efficient motors by offering financial rebates.

- Using a standard to drive forward energy management – ISO50001.

- Bringing it together – the Motor Decisions Matter campaign.





Page 11

3.3.2 MOTOR MANAGEMENT POLICY

Motor Management Policy is the term used to describe a formalised procedure for deciding what actions to

take when a new motor is to be purchased or an existing motor fails. They were originally devised and

promoted by motor manufacturers in order to sell higher efficiency motors, and have since also been

promoted by many independent energy saving organisations. The primary objectives of this are to:

- Ensure that all new motors are purchased to the agreed procurement specification. This will include

the motors that are bought as part of OEM equipment, which typically comprise the bulk of motors

bought;

- Ensure that on failure, the optimum action is taken to maximise reliability and minimise lifetime

energy costs;

At the heart of a Motor Management Policy is usually a simple payback analysis that develops a simple policy

tailored for each site.

FIGURE 7: MOTOR REPLACE:REPAIR CHART, BASED ON LIFECYCLE COSTS OF ENERGY (ABB)

FIGURE 8: EXAMPLE OF DECISION FLOW CHART (ABB MOTORS)





Page 12

A successfully implemented motor management policy can lead to benefits additional to the apparent increase

in efficiency11

:

- Over-Sizing: At failure, there is the opportunity to replace the motor with one that is better sized for

the actual duty. This can both reduce the purchase price and may improve the efficiency, but the

actual new energy consumption depends on the detailed specifications of the motors beingconsidered. As a guide, the existing motor needs to be over-sized by at least a factor of two for this to

be worth considering. Care needs to be taken that the smaller motor can cope with peak loads that

may occur either in normal or abnormal operation, or at start-up.

- Customising of the motor at repair: Motor efficiency or torque can be adjusted to more closely match

the actual duty. But as with over-sizing, this requires measurements to be taken in advance of failure.

Starting torque should be carefully assessed, as this may require a larger motor than steady state

running would indicate.

- TCO minimized: The total costs of ownership for the motor will be reduced. It is not just the

purchasing price and installations costs that must be taken into account, but also the energy

consumption, production efficiency and maintenance costs.

- Predictive and preventative maintenance: Best practice is for predictive and preventative

maintenance to be used as the basis for minimising unplanned downtime and so planning actions in

advance of failure. Linking motor replace/repair actions to maintenance programmes can be very

effective for several reasons:

- Cost savings through the use of the motor maintenance inventory.

- The barrier of needing to make rapid decisions is removed if the action is pre-planned.

- The maintenance staff have a vested interest in minimal unplanned outages, and so will be

supportive of a plan that will also help to improve reliability.

A critical point is that different organisations will have different circumstances that lead to subtly different

policies. Some organisations may embrace the Motor Management Policy in detail, but most will read the

information and do some quick calculations to give their own internal guidance.

The Motor Management Programme adopted by a company can run from maintaining a simple inventory to

more complex systems. An inventory enables decisions to be made in advance of a motor failure, or by

providing quick access to all essential data for specification, enables a speedy decision to be made on failure.

This overcomes the barrier of selecting the repair option as the default if the detailed data to look for an

alternative is not available.

A simple inventory may be no more than the motor maintenance inventory, a more thorough one may include

indicative information on the duty. A detailed specification should include both basic nameplate information

and any special requirements such as starting torque / current requirements. Using this information, the

action at failure can be calculated. Ideally this can be recorded on the motor, or in accompanying

documentation, and might even include the part number for a replacement.

Although a motor management policy is company specific it can be incentivised by policies. An example is the

Swedish program for improving energy efficiency in energy intensive industries (PFE), which aims to increase

11 CEE, 2011. Motor Efficiency, Selection, and Management – A Guidebook for Industrial Efficiency Programs. Consortium

for Energy Efficiency, Washington. Available at: http://www.motorsmatter.org/tools/CEEMotorGuidebook.pdf

http://www.motorsmatter.org/tools/CEEMotorGuidebook.pdf








Page 13

the energy efficiency in energy intensive industries. The PFE has a focus on electricity consumption and offers

an exemption on taxes raised on industrial process-related electricity as an incentive. Participating companies

are to obtain certification for a standardised energy management system. Results of an energy review include

a list of measures that are to be implemented in the following years. Moreover, companies must introduce

procedures for the purchasing of high consumption electrical equipment. An evaluation12

of the PFE, published

in 2012, indicates that 49% of realised savings are in the category “Production processes: large variety ofmeasures, often involves optimisation of motor-related” . The same study indicates that savings of the category

“Industrial Motors: installation of efficient motors, VSD control” amount to 4% of realised savings.

3.3.3 IMPROVING AVAILABILITY OF HIGH EFFICIENCY MOTORS AT LOCAL STOCKISTS

Many sites will keep a stock of spare critical motors, but not only does this involve an up-front cost, but the

motors require attention even while they are in storage: Occasional turning of the rotor is needed in order to

avoid bearing damage, and they may also require heater windings energising if there is the risk of

condensation. Using a local stockist to instead maintain stocks, which will also have a much higher turnover, is

therefore tempting.

However, a historical barrier was that the availability of high efficiency motors was often poor, and so unlessstocks were held “in house”, an arrangement would be made whereby a local stockist would keep stocks of

motors that a particular site needed. Now that you can only buy high efficiency motors, this is no longer so

important. However, good local stock levels will still make it more tempting to purchase an immediate

replacement rather than waiting for a repair. Even the difference between immediate availability, a 2 hour

courier or next day delivery service can drive the decision.

Motor suppliers may be prepared to undertake a stock review for free, with the intention of better matching

the requirements and hence increasing sales.

3.3.4 THIRD PARTY “ESCO” TYPE CONTRACTS TO KEEP MOTORS RUNNING

This is where an outside organisation has a contract to maintain the company motors, ideally beingincentivised to undertake preventative and predictive maintenance. Where motors are critical to the

organisation, the payments to a third party can be thought of as an insurance policy to avoid unplanned

outages.

In many cases, such an arrangement could also be thought of as an ESCO that keeps the motors turning rather

than supplying energy, as many of the considerations governing performance are similar. For large sites a

contractor may actually be resident on site, ensuring prompt response and the development of a detailed

understanding of the site operation. 13

An important but sometimes hidden advantage of this is that the third party is paid to follow strict guidelines,

and so may suffer financially if it is influenced by other factors. By placing a Motor Management Policy at theheart of the contractual agreement, there is a much higher chance that this will be successfully implemented.

12 Stenqvist & Nilsson, 2012. Energy Efficiency in energy-intensive industries – an evaluation of the Swedish voluntary

agreement PFE.

13 Siemens, 2012. Long Term monitor management for higher plant availability. [Press Release] Available at:

http://www.siemens.com/press/en/pressrelease/?press=/en/pressrelease/2012/industry/drive-

technologies/idt2012034022.htm

http://www.siemens.com/press/en/pressrelease/?press=/en/pressrelease/2012/industry/drive-technologies/idt2012034022.htm









Page 14

3.3.5 MOTOR SELECTION TOOLS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS OF REPLACEMENT OPTIONS

Software tools, such as Motormaster14

and Eurodeem15

(see Figure 9), allow the user to look at the total costs

of ownership (TCO) of different motor repair/replace options. They allow for rapid evaluation of different

replace repair options, both for individual motors and even for the installed stock of motors at a site. This gives

the benefit of excellent visibility on the overall situation, and a traceable source of data and robust calculations

when presenting results to management. There are various reasons why these have not been widely used:

- These tools require a huge amount of effort to keep updated, as motor specifications change

continuously.

- It is very hard to put in representative prices, as these vary hugely depending on the buyer.

- Assessing the efficiency of an existing motor is often hard, as the nameplate may be hard to read

(painted over or removed), and if it has been repaired will not represent the true efficiency.

Some variants have a built in inventory where you can add the details of your site motors, so allowing for

optimisation of motor purchases for a whole site. This is powerful, but there is a data collection cost that

some sites will find prohibitive:

- It is very time consuming, and few organisations do this unless it is subsidised.

- All TCO analysis are based on understanding the annual operating load profile and time, the load

profile in particular which is hard to estimate without costly monitoring.

- It is obviously not possible to monitor a motor load when it is burnt out.

While the software may offer motors from a wide selection of sources, in practice organisations will contract

to buy from a single supplier in order to achieve best prices, and so the real life choice for a specifier is less and

hence simpler to comprehend.

In summary, the consensus is possibly that such tools are an interesting introduction for users, but are too

time consuming to use to the maximum of their potential.

14 US Department of Energy, 2010. MotorMaster+ Software. Available at:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/tech_deployment/software_motormaster.html


15 EC Joint Research Centre – Institute for Energy and Transport, 2013. The EuroDeem Approach. Available at:

http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/eurodeem/basic-features











Page 15

FIGURE 9 FLOW CHART SHOWING THE OPERATION OF EURODEEM MOTOR SELECTION TOOL, (MOTORMASTER USES IDENTICAL

METHODOLOGY)

In response to these barriers, simpler tools such as the cardboard slide rule have been popular. This tool gives

an estimate of the savings from fitting different motors, but without the flexibility or precision of software

tools. An example is given in Figure 10.

FIGURE 10: SIMPLE SLIDE RULE OFFERED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO SOFTWARE PRODUCTS, PRODUCED FOR THE MOTOR DECISIONS

MATTER CAMPAIGN





Page 16

3.3.6 OVER-COMING THE PRICE PREMIUM FOR MORE EFFICIENT MOTORS BY OFFERING

FINANCIAL REBATES

Rebated for fitting more efficient motors encourage the purchase of new more efficient motors, with the value

only needing to meet the cost premium to be attractive. A variant is a motor scrappage scheme whereby old

motors are scrapped and new higher efficiency motors are installed instead.

These have been used in many countries, first Canada, then USA, and now European countries such as

Denmark and UK.

Key issues:

- Cost to User of claiming rebate should not be excessive.

- For best leverage of funds, the subsidy should be given to the producer rather than buyer.

- Schemes must be changed in line with changing motors regulations.

- All schemes should have a clearly defined duration, and should anyway cease once clear sale levels

have been reached.

These are of decreasing relevance given the high values of efficiency of new motors. However, in US there are

now rebates for the very high NEMA Premium efficiency level.

In addition to the greater marketing effort, a fixed amount of cash has a greater impact through being

magnified through the distributor margin. For example, if there is a 50% mark up between manufacturing cost

and retail price, then 1 euro given to the manufacturer could convert to a 1.5 euros reduction in the retail

price.

3.3.1 USING A STANDARD TO DRIVE FORWARD ENERGY MANAGEMENT – ISO50001

Including the use of a Motor Management Policy as part of a wider Energy Management Policy is a common

measure recommended by consultants, although it is unclear how closely it is followed in practice.

The idea of using this ISO50001 standard to drive forward energy management is a “hot topic”, and so should

be considered carefully. The Dutch programme16

is probably the most advanced in Europe, and explains in

some detail the mechanics of how this works. This gives a solid framework for the introduction of an Energy

Management system, which can include a motor management policy. It therefore raises the profile of Motor

Management policies, but does not automatically overcome the real world barriers to adhering closely to a

plan.

3.3.1 BRINGING IT TOGETHER – THE MOTOR DECISIONS MATTER CAMPAIGN

An example of an concerted approach that attempts to address most of the barriers to adoption, launched by

motor manufacturers and several energy efficiency organisations, is the US-based Motor Decisions Mattercampaign

17. This programme developed a sequence of questions that should be considered when tailoring a

Motor Management Policy to a particular organisation, critically giving flexibility in the approach needed. This

enhances the likelihood of adoption of and adherence to a plan by devising it to match to the particular

16 http://www.motorsummit.ch/data/files/MS_2012/presentation/ms12_van_werkhoven_update.pdf

17 See www.motorsmatter.com





Page 17

circumstances of that organisation. Through a third party being more closely involved, they are themselves in

a position to help influence organisation behaviour to make it more likely that it will work as hoped.

A key aspect of the Motor Decisions Matter Campaign is that it is addressed at motor suppliers or repairers.

This overcomes the difficulty of communicating directly with end users, and gives better value for money by

leveraging effort through an intermediary.

FIGURE 11: MOTOR DECISIONS MATTER CAMPAIGN SUGGESTED SEQUENCE OF QUESTIONS FOR THE SUPPLIER TO ASK WHEN

ESTABLISHING A MOTOR MANAGEMENT POLICY

3.4 BEST PRACTICE IN SELECTION AND DESIGN OF POLICY OPTIONS FOR ENCOURAGING

EARLY REPLACEMENT OF MOTORS

Reviewing the outcomes of examples of the schemes listed, the following points should be considered when

devising new schemes:

Changes in the market. Promotional schemes should be trying to grow the market for products that are

better than the norm. But as soon as the product being promoted becomes popular, or indeed becomes

regulated as a mandatory MEPS, then the programme is no longer needed. So for example, promotions of IE3

motors must end once or just before IE3 becomes the MEPS.

Budget for the programme. Both suppliers and users alike must understand the budget and duration of the

programme. This allows for planning by giving some certainty of the future.

Simplicity of claims. Financial rebates must be made sufficiently simple to complete, otherwise smaller

organisations with only a low total claim may see it as being too much effort to participate.

Adequate publicity. The importance of the credibility that comes from the independence of Government

organisations should not be underestimated. Government publicity also gives confidence to suppliers involved

in the scheme that there is whole-hearted support, and so encourages further supplier engagement.

Targeting of users. Where they are known, limited budget should be used to target those most likely to makethe change, and those who can save the most carbon or money as a result of the changing practices. Giving





Page 18

incentives to the manufacturer or supplier may give better results than giving them direct to the end user. It ’s

easier because there are fewer people to influence, suppliers can subtly alter messages to match the needs of

each user, and the margins that each stage in the route to market makes means there is a gearing effect on the

value of the money to the user.

Keeping things simple. It can be tempting to provide lots of detailed information, but care must be taken toensure a focus is kept on the key messages. If the decision is made too complicated, then people are unlikely

to digest and act on it.

Avoiding unplanned failure. Maintenance and reliability is usually of more interest on a site, and so focusing

on motor repair may be a good option for winning attention.

Keeping materials up to date. Databases and promotional programme web-sites need to be maintained in

order to be up to date and keep their relevance. The ongoing cost of this may be substantial, and so must be

budgeted for at project initiation.

Motor energy savings are invisible in that, even a site wide change out will only give a modest change in

measured power. Furthermore, an individual high efficiency motor may draw more current than the one it

replaces due to the higher speed that it runs at, but if properly controlled then the energy will still be less. So

assessing the actual gain in efficiency may be hard.

Free-riders. Free-riders are those organisations who take some form of benefit from a programme, but who

would actually have undertaken the action anyway without the programme. The proportion of expected free-

riders should be estimated and costed into the programme. As beneficiaries become converted to the new

practices, they too become free-riders, and so over time the programme will attract more and more dead

weight.





Page 19

4 CURRENT EU POLICY FRAMEWORKS

In this chapter we will assess whether or not current EU policy framework offer opportunities for energy

efficiency improvement by accelerated uptake of more efficient motors. .

There are a number of current directives that aim directly or indirectly at improving energy efficiency of

operations. These are:

- The Ecodesign Directive

- The Energy Efficiency Directive

- The Industrial Emissions Directive

- The Emissions Trading Directive





Page 20

4.1 ECODESIGN DIRECTIVE

First introduction: 2005, extension to energy related products in 2009.

Demands on Electric Motors starting 2011.

Current status: Ongoing

Expected update:

Geographical scope: EU27

Legislator: EU directive, implementation by national governments

Responsible agency: National competent authorities

Objective: Ecodesign aims to reduce products’ environmental impacts during the complete lifecycle. It

seeks to reach this objective by phasing out non energy efficient products and stimulate

investment in energy efficient technologies. So called ‘implementing measures’ set mandatory

requirements for specific products.

Participation: Mandatory

Electric Motors: Specific requirements for electric motors

Energy Efficiency or Fuel

Switching Targets:

Estimated annual savings by the Implementing Measure on Electric Motors is 135 TWh/a by

2020. Estimated accumulated savings amount to 657 TWh by 2020.

16 June 2011: minimum IE2 efficiency for all motors 0.75 – 375 kW1 January 2015: minimum IE3 efficiency or IE2+VSD for motors 7.5 – 375 kW

1 January 2017: minimum IE3 efficiency or IE2+VSD for motors 0.75 – 375 kW

Demands change of: Motor manufacturers: minimum motor efficiency requirements.

Results of Evaluation: 2012 EcoDesign evaluation:

- About a third of original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) are unaware of

forthcoming requirements

- Seems unlikely that the phasing out of IE1 motors would happen without EcoDesign

requirements.

- US and Canada introduced IE3 requirements in 2010 and IE3 motors have a market

share of 39% in Canada. Implying the EU targets are rather relaxed.

The subject matter and scope of the Ecodesign Directive (2009/125/EC) is described in Article 1. Important forexisting motors is the following:

‘This Directive establishes a framework for the setting of Community Ecodesign requirements for

energy-related products with the aim of ensuring the free movement of such product within the

internal market’ (Art. 1.1).

‘This Directive provides for the setting of requirements which the energy-related products covered by

implementing measures must fulfil in order to be placed on the market and /or put into service.’ (Art.

1.2).

‘Ecodesign requirements’ can be

Generic: any Ecodesign requirement based on the ecological profile as a whole of a product without

set limit values for particular environmental aspects’ (Art. 2.25)

Specific: ‘a quantified and measurable Ecodesign requirement relating to a particular aspect of a

product, such as energy consumption during use, calculated for a given unit of output performance’

(Art. 2.26)

Furthermore, conformity to Ecodesign requirements is shown by affixing CE marking before placement of a

product on the market and/or putting it into service and issuing a EC declaration of conformity (Art. 5).

When products are examined for legislation, criteria from Art. 15 are applied. Relevant for our purpose are:





Page 21

The product shall represent a significant volume of sales and trade, indicatively more than 200 000

units a year within the Community (Art. 15.2a).

The product shall represent significant potential for improvement in terms of its environmental

impact without entailing excessive costs (Art. 15.2c).

There shall be no significant negative impact on industry’s competitiveness.

These few articles from the Ecodesign Directive show that the Directive is not designed to cover products

already in place. Even though the word ‘new’ is not explicitly mentioned, the whole framework assumes it to

related to new products that are put on the market with a certain volume. Manufacturers and importers are

responsible for ensuring conformity. It should be noted that any Ecodesign requirements on new motors apply

to all motors manufactured in and imported into the EU, whereas any requirements on existing motors would

apply only in the EU.

Voluntary agreements (VA)

The Ecodesign Directive dictates that ‘priority should be given to alternative courses of action such as self -

regulation by the industry where such action is likely to deliver the policy objectives faster or in a less costly

manner than mandatory requirements.’

Nine criteria for self-regulation are laid down in Annex VIII. The Commission also published the second draft of

its ‘Guidelines on the self-regulation measures concluded by industry under the Ecodesign Directive

2009/125/EC’18

. These guidelines are much more specific than the first draft and than the Directive itself. For

example, the Ecodesign Annex VIII Criterion ‘Industry and their associations taking part in a self-regulatory

action must represent a large majority of the relevant economic sector’ is translated into a requirement of

market coverage of at least 70%.

An Ecodesign VA is a replacement of legislation. It is therefore closely monitored by the Commission and

stakeholders. In case of failure of the VA, legislation will follow after all.

The fact that possible legislation will follow in case of failure is a stick for showing some ambition and

complying to the VA rules by industry. However, many stakeholders are sceptical on the ambitions of the VAs

in development and implemented thus far (a VA on complex settop boxes is endorsed by the Commission, a

VA on imaging equipment is awaiting endorsement). The final word has not been said about this.

Opportunities for accelerated uptake for high efficiency motors

We see no opportunities to use the Ecodesign Directive to enhance the implementation rate of high efficiency

motors, as the Directive is completely designed around products that are available on the market. It doesn’t

offer any possibility to enforce decisions within a company.

18 Draft guidelines from Jan. 22nd. 2013.





Page 22

4.2 ENERGY EFFICIENCY DIRECTIVE

First introduction: 2012


Expected update: June 2014, reporting of EC on whether national energy efficiency targets and implantation

plans are sufficient to reach the EU’s target.


Legislator: EU directive stipulating requirements for by national regulation


Objective: The directive aims to bridge the gap between current policies and the required policies to

achieve the 20% energy efficiency target as set by the EU. The directive affects the whole

energy system, from supply via transformation and distribution to energy consumption. As

national implementation measures are to be presented by April 2013 the exact implantation is

unknown as of now. Key measures of the directive, potentially related to electric motors, are

an obligation on energy suppliers to deliver an annual 1.5% energy saving among end-users

and a requirement for energy audits and management.

Participation: Mandatory, exact implementation not yet known.

Electric Motors: Not specific


Switching Targets:

20% improvement in the EU’s energy efficiency, of which the Energy Efficiency Directive

contributes 15%.

(20% target: EU energy consumption of no more than 1 474 Mtoe of primary energy and/or no

more than 1 078 Mtoe of final energy in 2020)

Demands change of: Industry, Manufactures, Energy supply and other energy consumers.

Results of Evaluation: Evaluation scheduled for

Upcoming Related

Activities/Issues:

April 2013 Member states report on achieved progress on setting national energy

efficiency targets and implementation plans

April 2014 Member states submit national energy efficiency action plans. This occurs

every three years thereafter.

June 2014 Reporting of EC on sufficiency of national targets and implementation plans.

December

2015

EC review of effectiveness of the implementation of Article 6: purchasing of

high energy efficiency products, services, housing by central governments.June 2016 Reporting of EC on the implementation of Article 7: energy efficiency

obligation schemes

June 2018 EC assessment on the progress made by member states on removing the

regulatory and non-regulatory barriers to energy efficiency.

The commission proposed the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) as it estimated that it would fall short by 11%

for the target of a 20% reduction of energy use of the EU in 2020. The target is defined as a maximum of 1474

Mtoe primary energy of 1078 Mtoe final energy consumption in 2020. The energy savings gap with current

policies is 190 MToe.

Although the EU 2020 target on energy use is the overarching objective of the EED the targets are set atnational levels:

1. National indicative targets. The MS have to set their own national indicative targets for energy

efficiency improvement by April 2014. The Commission will assess whether all national indicative

targets are sufficient to achieve the EU 2020 objective. If not, further legislative actions can be

proposed.





Page 23

2. National binding target for end use savings. A general binding target to deliver 1.5% cumulative

annual energy end use savings19

. Cumulative means that in year one 1.5% savings have to be

achieved, in year two 3% and so on. The energy companies must fulfil this target.

These targets are very general and do as such not provide a way to set very specific targets for the

replacement of electric motors. The EED contains several articles that might give an opening for influencingthe rate of uptake of efficient motors. We will review them one by one:

Article 4: Building renovation. This article requires member states to develop a long-term strategy for

mobilizing building renovations, both commercial and public, with the aim to improve the energy performance

of buildings. This is potentially very promising as it can induce a scale up of the market of energy efficient

building renovation. The long term strategy should include, amongst others:

Identification of cost effective approaches to renovation relevant to building type an climate zone

(article 3b);

Polices and measures to stimulate cost-effective deep renovations of buildings, including staged deep

renovations (article 3c).

Those two sub articles offer the opportunity to be very specific about the implementation of efficient motors

and drives used in buildings, mainly for HVAC purposes. The accelerated uptake of motors can go along with

the renovation strategy. However, this article is not specific about energy performance targets or

implementation rate. In fact this article is only asking national governments to give a clear signal to investors

that this market will be scaled up.

The member states shall publish a first version of the strategy by 30 April 2014 and update it every three years.

The strategy is part of the National Energy Efficiency Action Plan (see later).

Article 5: Exemplary role of public bodies’ buildings. This article does set a target and pace for the improvement

of the energy performance of buildings, albeit for a specific sector, namely of buildings owned and occupied by

central government.

The main requirements of this Article are as follows:

From 1 January 2014, 3% of the floor space of buildings owned and occupied by central government

that are over 500m2 must be renovated to meet EPBD minimum energy performance standards.

From 9 July 2015 this expands to cover buildings of this type when they are over 250m2.

The lowest performing buildings must be prioritized where possible.

An inventory of the buildings covered by this obligation and their performance must be published by

1 January 2014, so for each country we will know what the scope of the annual obligation is.

The EPBD minimum energy performance standards don’t articulate what type of motor should be used. The

EPBD gives some flexibility in the type of measures to be implemented as long as the minimum energy

performance is achieved. It is up to the member states to be more specific about standards.

19 It is the first time a binding energy saving target for member states is set. Before that only an indicative energy efficiency

target of 1% per year for the period 2007-2016 had been in place with the Energy Service Directive of 2006.





Page 24

Article 6: Purchasing by public bodies. This article enforces that central governments only purchase high-

efficiency products. For motors this has already be ensured by the Ecodesign directive.

Article 7: Energy Efficiency Obligation Schemes. This article states that each Member State shall oblige its

energy distributors and/or energy sales companies to achieve a new energy savings target of 1.5% each year in

the period 1/1/14 to 31/12/20. The member states shall set up an energy efficiency obligation scheme (EEO) todo so. EEO’s have been used in certain EU countries since 2013, so quite some experience has been gained

with it. The key steps to an EEO are to set a target, to set out the rules for determining the energy savings and

to have procedures for monitoring and verifying that these measures have in fact been installed. EEO can

contain a form of trading the energy savings, these are often referred to as white certificates.

EEO have been particularly used for promoting energy efficiency for households and small enterprises. As the

potential for energy efficient motors does not lie specifically in these sectors, it might be questioned whether

EEO offer an opportunity for implementing efficient motors. However, a recent Danish evaluation shows that

EEO is not only restricted to the smaller consumers but also that half of the savings are achieved in the

industry and trade sector, see Figure 12.

FIGURE 12: RECORDED ENERGY SAVINGS PER SECTOR IN DENMARK, 2006 TO 200820

EEO can act as a vehicle to deliver energy services. The energy company or third party can provide energy

services to a company in the form of taking away concerns about investment and maintenance risks. In fact,

this is what some motor suppliers already offer. EEOs can be used for the accelerated uptake of efficient

motors, in all sectors. The potential is quite significant and can therefore contribute to a large extent to the

energy savings target of the energy company. For the energy company it can be effective to team up with a

motor supplier so that it doesn’t need to keep the motors in stock itself.

The costs of EEOs have been shown to be relatively low. The Danish evaluation showed that EEOs are one of

the most cost-effective instruments to achieve energy savings. The costs for purchase and implementation of

energy efficiency measures should be in the first place be incurred or subsidized by the energy company. They

20 IEADSM, 2012, Implementing Energy Efficiency Obligation Schemes

Residential

sector

42%

Public sector

8%

Trade and

Industries

50%

Energy Savings in Denmark 2006-2008 (7117 TJ)





Page 25

can earn back these costs by a premium on the electricity price or by specifying electricity savings on the

energy bill. Another option is to install a revolving fund for energy savings.

There are still many hurdles to be overcome for a further roll out of EEOs. These hurdles have to do with

monitoring and verification, ensuring a transparent market, cost allocation and effect on the energy price and

synergies with other energy efficiency policies.

Article 8: Energy audits and energy management systems. MS shall promote the availability of high quality

energy audits21

to all final consumers. The minimum criteria for energy audits are given in Annex VI to the

Directive and include:

Guidelines on the level of detail of the energy consumption data, load profile, the energy

performance and the opportunities for improvement

Guidelines to use life-cycle costs analysis instead of simple pay-back time to calculate the profitability

of measures

Energy audits should allow detailed and validated calculations for the proposed measures so as to

provide clear information on overall savings.

These criteria – although still vague - can make the energy audits to be more favourable for replacement of

electric motors. Since 95% of the costs of electric motors are made during the use phase, the guideline of using

life-cycle costs is particularly advantageous.

There is a difference per sector to what extent energy audits are obligatory:

Large companies must undertake energy audits every 4 years (with their first within 3 years from the

Directive coming into force in spring 2014); and

Audits must be promoted to small and medium sized companies. The benefits of energy management

system should also be promoted.

Audits must also be promoted to households.

Audits should take into account relevant European or International Standards such as EN ISO 50001 (Energy

Management) or EN 16247-1 (Energy Audits) or if including an energy audit EN ISO 14000 (Environmental

Management) and also be in line with the requirements in the technical annexes of the Directive. Training

programmes to ensure there are sufficient expert auditors should also be encouraged.

The International Standards are very much focussed on the organisation of energy management and less on

the specific measures. Compliance with the ISO standards as such does provide little opportunity for

accelerated uptake of electric motors. The risk is that energy audits will not be specific enough to facilitate the

replacement of motors.

Currently the models for calculating the life-cycle costs of motor replacement are not easy-to-use and require

the input of specific data. A motor expert is able to use this model, but an energy auditor, being more general

in training, will in general lack the knowledge. This can be resolved in two ways: (1) provide specific training to

energy auditors to use the models; (2) make the models easier to use. As training all energy auditors is an

expensive operation, the copper institute can better focus on the second option.

21 An Energy Audit is defined as a systematic procedure with the purpose of obtaining adequate knowledge of the existing

energy consumption profile of a building or group of buildings, an industrial or commercial operation or installation or a

private or public service, identifying and quantifying cost-effective energy savings opportunities, and reporting the findings.





Page 26

Article 18: Energy services. Delivering energy services – i.e. the useful outcome of using energy – instead of

purely energy is a way to bring energy efficiency to the market. Companies delivering energy services, so-

called ESCO’s, exist already but so far market conditions and the legislative framework were not supportive for

successful business models. Article 18 prompts MS to promote the energy services markets and access for

SME’s to this market . The article stipulates various instruments for MS focussing on how and what kind of

information should be disseminated.

A crucial part of the delivery of an energy service is the energy performance contract (EPC), of which a

definition is given in article 222

. The MS have to provide model contracts and best practices, the minimum

requirements given in Annex XIII to the Directive. The MS are also supposed to remove regulatory and non-

regulatory barriers that impede the uptake of EPC and other energy efficiency service models.

In the previous chapter we have shown that several motor suppliers and local stockists have delivered energy

services in the form of motor management programs but with limited success so far. This might change if the

requirements in this article are successfully implemented by the member states. However, the article still

leaves room for flexibility in actions. For instance, MS can argue that they have taken away barriers to the

uptake of EPC but the non-functioning market is out of their power to influence.

What is required is that EPC models and examples of best practices on energy efficiency improvements by

providing motor services are developed. These models and best practices can be disseminated by the MS as

part of their implementation of article 18.

22 Energy performance contracting is defined as a contractual arrangement, between the beneficiary and the provider of an

energy efficiency improvement measure, verified and monitored during the whole term of the contract, where

investments in that measure are paid in relation to a contractually agreed level of energy efficiency improvement or other

agreed energy performance criterion, such as financial savings.





Page 27

4.3 INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS DIRECTIVE

First introduction: 2010, National implementation by January 2013


Expected update: The EC has 12 months (until January 2014) to evaluate the national implementation plans and

raise objections.


Legislator: EU directive with implementation by national governments


Objective: Avoidance or minimisation of polluting emissions to atmosphere, water and soil as well as

waste from industrial and agricultural installations. The directive establishes a permit

procedure and requirements that have to be met by industrial activities with a major pollution

potential. Industrial installations carrying out the activities mentioned in Appendix I of the

directive must meet basic obligations:

- preventive measures are taken against pollution;

- the best available techniques (BAT) are applied;

- no significant pollution is caused;

- waste is reduced, recycled or disposed of in the manner which creates least

pollution;- energy efficiency is maximised;

- accidents are prevented and their impact limited;

- sites are remediated when the activities come to an end.

Participation: Mandatory for activities as defined in Annex I of the directive.



Switching Targets:

Best Available Techniques (BATs) are to be applied and energy efficiency is to maximised.

(Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for Energy Efficiency, 2009)

Demands change of: Industrial installations as defined in Annex I of the directive.

Results of Evaluation: Not available

Upcoming Related

Activities/Issues:

The objective of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) is to avoid or minimise polluting emissions of industrial

and agricultural installations by establishing a permit procedure, to be implemented by the MS, based on

BREF23

. The IED is a recast of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) directive.

The IED targets Industrial activities with a major pollution potential (energy industries, production and

processing of metals, mineral industry, chemical industry, waste management etc.). Industrial installations

must use the best available techniques to achieve a high general level of protection of the environment as a

whole, which are developed on a scale which allows implementation in the relevant industrial sector, under

economically and technically viable conditions. The European Commission must adopt BAT conclusions

containing the emission levels associated with the BAT. These conclusions shall serve as a reference for thedrawing up of permit conditions. Industrial activities can only operate if they have a permit. The emission of

greenhouse gases as regulated by the Emission Trading Directive, are excluded from the scope of the IED.

As the IED regulated emissions to the environment and during the use phase of electric motors no substances

are emitted to the environment, this Directive doesn’t provide any prospect to directly influence the

regulation on the implementation of energy efficient motors. Even indirect influence, via the electricity price,

is missing, as the emissions of CO2 of power plants is exempted.

23 BREF= Best Available Technologies Reference reports.





Page 28

Member States have the possibility to set regulations on energy efficiency in the environmental permit for

non-ETS installations. Improving the efficiency of motor systems can be part of the permit. It should be

realised, however, monitoring and verification of these permits is costly and requires specific knowledge of the

auditor.

Emission Trading Directive

First introduction: 2008,


Expected update: Currently a discussion on the reform is ongoing as the carbon market price is too low to drive

investments. Opponents to the reform argue that the systems is exactly doing what it should,

since emissions are below the cap. Current trading period runs until 2020 after which an

update is required anyhow.


Legislator: EU directive with implementation by national governments


Objective: Reduce the CO2-emissions by putting a cap at CO2 emissions of large industrial installations.

Emissions above benchmarks should be avoided by reduction measures or be compensated bybuying allowances on the market.

Participation: Mandatory for activities as defined in Annex I of the directive.



Switching Targets:

No specific targets. It is left to the companies to decide whether to buy allowances or reduce

GHG emissions reduction by e.g. improving energy efficiency or fuel switching.

Demands change of: Industrial installations as defined in Annex I of the directive.

Results of Evaluation: Not available

Upcoming Related

Activities/Issues:

See expected update

The EU emissions trading system (EU ETS) is one of the most important building blocks of the European climate

policy. The intention is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions cost-effectively by capping the total emissions and

allowing trading under this cap between the participants. By tightening the gap over the years the total

emissions will be 21% lower than in 2005. The market would determine a price for carbon, bringing investment

decisions on GHG abatement to the board rooms, at least that was the idea.

However, currently the number of allowances exceeds the actual emissions. One of the reasons for this is the

falling production of many industrial sectors due to the economic crisis. The current price is so low that it

doesn’t induce additional low carbon technologies to be implemented. The EC has proposed a number of

measures to reform the carbon market and is consulting stakeholders about this right now. The debate

between allies and opponents is polarized and an outcome is not to be expected soon. That will probably

mean that the carbon price stays low for a while.

As ETS is the regulatory framework to encourage investments in energy efficiency in a large part of the

industry, including energy efficient motors, the low carbon price means this industry has no extra impetus to

invest in energy efficiency. Some MS, like the UK, have circumvented this by setting a floor price for carbon, to

be levied as a carbon tax for instance.





Page 29

4.4 CONCLUSIONS

Table 2 summarizes the conclusions of this chapter. In the next chapter we will elaborate on the actions.

TABLE 2: REVIEW OF THE EU DIRECTIVES THAT MIGHT GIVE A FRAMEWORK TO ACCELERATE THE UPTAKE OF EFFICIENT MOTORS

EcoDesignDirective

Energy EfficiencyDirective

Industrial EmissionDirective

Emission TradingDirective

Objective

To reduce

products’

environmental

impacts during the

complete lifecycle.

The directive aims

to bridge the gap

between current

policies and the

required policies

to achieve the 20%

energy efficiency

target as set by the

EU.

Avoidance or

minimisation of

polluting emissions

to atmosphere,

water and soil as

well as waste from

industrial and

agricultural

installations.

Reduce the CO2-

emissions by

putting a cap at

CO2 emissions of

large industrial

installations.

Type of instruments

Minimum energy

performancerequirements of

products

Mix of

instruments,implementation

left to member

states

Best Available

Technologiesrequirements for

emissions

reduction

Market based

mechanism

Potential direct effect

on the efficiency of

motors

Large for new

motors, limited for

early replacement

Via energy audits,

energy efficiency

obligation schemes

and energy

services

Energy efficiency

can be an integral

part of the

environmental

permit issued by

the MS

No direct effect.

Carbon price

should induce

investments in

energy efficiency





Page 30

5 APPENDIX I – METHODOLOGY ON ESTIMATING SAVINGS

The estimated savings are based upon the assumptions and implementation of the EcoDesign Directive. This

directive puts minimum efficiency requirement on newly sold electric motors and is thus defining a baseline onmotor efficiency within Europe in the coming years. The preparatory study

24 and impact assessment

25 contain

the assumptions, market data and methodology used to estimate the impact and potential savings of the

EcoDesign directive. Most of the underlying assumptions and market data have been used to estimate the

savings as incorporated in this report.

5.1 ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA

5.1.1 MOTOR DATA

TABLE 5-1: MOTOR SIZE, LIFETIME AND EFFICIENCY (SOURCES: IEC 60023-20, CEMEP, EUP LOT 11 MOTORS)

Motor Size LifetimeEfficiency

IE1

Efficiency

IE2

Efficiency

IE3

Efficiency

EFF3

Efficiency

EFF2

Efficiency

EFF1

1.1 kW 12 years 75.0% 81.4% 84.1% 72.0% 76.2% 83.8%

11 kW 15 years 87.6% 89.8% 91.4% 84.0% 88.4% 91.0%

110 kW 20 years 93.3% 94.3% 95.4% 89.0% 93.9% 95.0%

Operating characteristics:

Load factor of 60%

Operating hours of 4000h/annum

Variable Speed Drive (VSD) characteristics:

Efficiency: 95%

Efficiency gains on motor stock: 20% (assuming applicability to 2/3 of motors, savings achieved in

motor(driven) systems)

Source of VSD characteristics: EUP Lot 11 Motors, EC ecodesign impact assessment electric motors)

5.1.2 MARKET DATA

TABLE 5-2: EU MOTOR PARK AND ANNUAL SALES (SOURCE: EC ECODESIGN IMPACT ASSESSMENT ELECTRIC MOTORS)

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

EU Motor Park[1000 units]

72,282 79,868 87,455 96,173 106,468 116,446 123,933 130,344

24 de Alemeida, et al., 2008. EUP Lot 11 Motors. ISR – University of Coimbra






Page 31

EU Sales[1000 units]

6,719 7,351 7,983 8,993 9,899 10,394 10,850 11,540

5.2 ANNUAL SAVINGS

5.2.1 INTERPOLATION OF ANNUAL SALES

Annual electric motor sales were given for every 5 years in the period 1990 to 2025. The growth in motor sales

over 2010-2025 has been used to interpolate sales to a yearly bases.

( )

5.2.2 STANDARD MOTOR

A standard motor is derived from the motor data and market share of both efficiency and motor size classes,

this is based upon the EUP Lot 11 motor study. The efficiency of a standard motor with an IE1 class efficiency is

for example 76.7% and has a lifetime of 12.44 years. Such a standard motor is derived by the summing up the

multiplication of motor characteristics with the applicable market share, see Table 5-3 for an example on an

IE1 efficiency motor.

TABLE 5-3: EXAMPLE, DERIVING A STANDARD MOTOR

Motor 1.1 kW 11 kW 110 kW3. (standard

motor)

IE1 Efficiency 75.0% 87.6% 93.3% 76.7%

Lifetime 12 years 15 years 20 years 12.44 years

Market Share 87.0% 12.0% 1.0%

5.2.3 ELECTRICITY SAVINGS

The electricity consumption is calculated for the standard motor, taking motor efficiency class into account.

Total annual electricity consumption is calculated by multiplying the standard motor’s annual electricityconsumption with the amount of motors. To estimate the savings of the dissemination of more efficient

motors the annual electricity consumption of newly sold motors is calculated for the standard efficiency and

high efficiency. The difference between these are the estimated savings as the amount of sold motors

determines the replacement rate of electric motors.

To account for a slower or faster pace of high efficiency motor dissemination in the market, motor lifetimes

can be varied. In the estimations this factor is accounted for by increasing or decreasing the annual motor

sales for shorter or longer motor lifetimes respectively. The increase or decrease of annual sales is achieved

by:

() ()



As an example: if motor lifetimes are prolonged by two years this will decrease annual sales by 16%, which in

turn reduces the amount of high efficient motors replacing existing stock.

5.2.4 AVOIDED CO2 EMISSIONS

The amount of avoided CO2 emissions are estimated by multiplying the electricity savings with an EU average

emission factor on electricity generation. The used emission factor is 0.465 tCO2 per MWhe consumed.

Accelerated Up Take Electric l

Documents

Transcript of Accelerated Up Take Electric l