Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 49 (2022) 101694

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/seta

Original article

Techno-economic-environmental impacts of industrial energy assessment:

Sustainable industrial motor systems of small and medium-sized enterprises
Angelica Errigo a, Jun-Ki Choi a, *, Kelly Kissock b
a
Industrial Assessment Center, University of Dayton, OH 45409, USA
b
Energy and Efficiency Institute, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Energy assessments can provide an effective way of identifying and implementing energy efficiency measures to
Energy efficiency save energy costs and avoid emissions throughout manufacturing facilities. Consequently, it generates significant
Energy audit economic and environmental benefits to localities, states, and the nation. Quantifying these benefits requires a
Industrial motor systems
systematic techno-economic-environmental framework for capturing the interactions. This article employs
Input–output analysis
methodologies to improve the energy efficiency of small and medium-size industries through their sustainable
industrial motor systems. Motor systems offer large opportunities to enhance energy efficiency through adopting
advanced technologies and better-informed operations. Case studies presented illuminate the potential savings
and impacts from implementing sustainable motor systems and the importance of energy assessments. The in­
tegrated macro-economic analysis quantifies the regional sustainability impacts of implementing the industrial
energy efficiency offered by an energy auditing program in Ohio over a ten-year period. Results show that
implementing all the center’s motor recommendations have directly saved $702 M in energy costs, avoided 2.7
million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, and created 3,445 jobs, resulting in a total annual economic
impact of $788 M stemming from direct, indirect, and induced regional economic impacts. It provides policy
implications for encouraging sustainable industrial motor systems.

Introduction
Currently, the industrial sector consumes about 25 % of the world’s
total energy use [1], encouraging industrial facilities to reduce their
energy use by implementing energy-efficient technologies and lowering
their consumption [2]. Given, however, that the primary goal of small
and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is to ensure profitability, energy
management issues are often overlooked [3–5]. Energy audits are one
effective method for ensuring that a facility optimizes its energy con­
sumption, which inherently leads to significant cost savings, emission
reductions, and increased productivity [6,7]. In 1978, the US Depart­
ment of Energy initiated the most extensive energy audit program in the
world, the Industrial Assessment Center (IAC) program, to provide free
audit services to SMEs [8]. These energy audits identify and assess many
types of industrial energy systems to identify potential energy-saving
opportunities [9]. Some of the most cost-effective and impactful en­
ergy assessment recommendations implemented by manufacturers are
related to industrial motors systems. Motors are required in various in­
dustrial machines [10]. Every year 30 million new industrial electric
motors are sold, and 300 million are currently in use throughout the
manufacturing industry [11], accounting for more than 60% of that
industry’s electricity consumption [12]. Improving the efficiency of
these systems is thus a vital part of reducing energy consumption.
Energy audits not only improve individual facilities’ energy effi­
ciency but contribute to the local economy by purchasing energy effi­
ciency measures, creating jobs, and enhancing society’s health by
reducing greenhouse gas emissions [13]. Too often, the only factor
considered in decisions regarding making energy-efficient improve­
ments is based on the initial investment cost and the time it will take for
this recommendation to pay off, known as its simple payback period
[14]. Even when many factors are examined and considered to imple­
ment energy-efficient technologies in the industry, the cascading eco­
nomic impacts of such implementations are often not included in the
decision-making. Nonetheless, these impacts can be forecasted
through economic modeling tools [15,16], such as an economic
input–output analysis [17] to provide a broad view of these advance­
ments’ overall economic impact on society.
In the rest of this article, section 2 reviews literature related to

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jchoi1@udayton.edu (J.-K. Choi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101694
Received 25 July 2021; Received in revised form 23 October 2021; Accepted 23 October 2021
Available online 2 November 2021
2213-1388/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Errigo et al.
energy efficient motor systems, and section 3 explains the methodolo­
gies taken for this analysis. Section 4 offers several technical case studies
of implemented energy-efficient motor system recommendations to
provide examples of such changes and their impact. Section 5 presents
the results of input–output analysis to show the impacts these energy-
efficient changes can have on the overall community, and section 6
discusses the implications of these results.
Sustainable industrial motor systems
Because motors systems consume massive amounts of energy
throughout every manufacturing facility, finding ways to optimize the
use of motors in a facility is crucial to reducing energy consumption.
This section shows some literature to improve industrial energy effi­
ciency measures regarding motor systems.
Energy efficient belts
A plethora of research has identified ways to improve industrial
energy efficiency in this area. One such strategy is utilizing energy-
efficient belts and other improved mechanisms. Industrial belts reduce
the efficiency of a motor as a result of frictional losses [18]. Different
types of energy-efficient belts have been surveyed and researched
[19,20] to understand ways to decrease these losses and maximize a
system’s performance. Cogged v-belts are more efficient than smooth v-
belts [21,22]. Another optimal replacement for v-belts is synchronous
belts, which, by using Kevlar cords and polyurethane as the material for
the body of the belt [23], optimizes the energy used for initial loads and
is ideal for loads requiring accurate correlations between the power
consumed and the velocity of the motors [19,24]. These belts allow
optimal efficiency throughout the system by reducing noise and
increasing damping [25].
Variable frequency drive
Although flow control valves can be used to regulate flow and
dissipate pump energy over the lifetime of a system, this is an inefficient
way to compensate for oversizing and causes an increase in pressure
drops [26]. Installing a variable frequency drive (VFD) can increase a
motor’s efficiency between 95% and 98% in a system [27] by optimizing
energy use, compared to modulation or load/unload control for the
same power output [28]. Motors with greater horsepower (hp) and
higher speeds will have the highest efficiency, leading to increased
savings [29]. Other benefits of using a VFD include an increase in the
motor’s performance and the reliability of a system [30]. Making a
system more reliable also lengthens its life span, decreases noise and
vibration, and reduces thermal and mechanical stresses [31]. A study
performed on a chilled water pump showed that the output flow de­
creases slightly when using a VFD, but the power input is 56% less than
that of a valve control method [32]. Another strategy for optimizing a
motor’s use is replacing oversized motors and pumps with optimally
sized ones.
Other measures
Researchers have found that trimming the impellor reduces the head
loss by around 15% while maintaining the same amount of flow [33,34].
One study showed that the optimal length for an impeller was 75% of the
impeller diameter; if an impeller is too long or too small, the efficiency
and head may decrease [35]. A study performed on a motor system
machined to three different diameters concluded that the smallest
diameter of 800 mm had the best efficiency and used the least power
[36]. Developing a repair-or-replace policy for industrial motor systems
has also been shown to provide significant benefits. A study showed that
81% of motors of 20 hp or greater are rewound instead of replaced
because of the higher initial cost of replacement [37]. Although
2
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 49 (2022) 101694
replacing a motor requires increased initial investment, the reduction in
yearly expenses, from maintenance, equipment, repairs, and inefficient
use of electricity, typically increase savings for a facility [38]. The cost of
operating a motor can be 60–200 times that of the initial investment.
[39]. Typically, rewinding a motor leads to an average reduction in ef­
ficiency of between 0 and 2.5% each time it is rewound, which wastes
electricity and decreases the motor system’s economic value [40]. The
other EE motor recommendations are presented in Chapter 4 with some
detailed case studies.
Methodology
The methodology of this study consists of three main steps as shown
in Fig. 1: (1) conducting energy audits, identifying savings opportu­
nities, and calculating the savings based on the assessment recommen­
dations; (2) collecting data for analysis; and (3) performing an economic
input–output analysis.
The audits that constitute the first of these steps were conducted with
191 participating manufacturing plants between 2008 and 2018. These
audits begin with the UD-IAC team’s reviewing all of the facility’s utility
bills and production data, followed by a one-day on-site audit to identify
energy saving opportunities and gather necessary data for technical
analysis. Using the information collected, the team calculates the esti­
mated cost and energy savings, and CO2 reductions from implementing
the recommended energy efficiency measure. This information is
compiled together in a detailed report and sent to the facility personnel.
The contents in the report are shown through thorough calculations and
references to assist the company accurately know their exact savings,
reductions, and costs. This helps the facility justify the costs associated
with the recommendations because the cost and energy savings are
accurately shown in the report. The final report includes plethora of
resources such as vendor and price information of each EE measures.
The report also includes information about local, regional, national
energy efficiency programs for assisting the implementation of the en­
ergy efficiency measures. After 9 months from the audit day, team check
with industries what type of assessment recommendations are imple­
mented in the plant. For calculating CO2 emission reduction, following
emission factors are utilized; 1.95 lb CO2 per kWh for electricity and
117 lb CO2 per mmBTU for natural gas [41]. Also, the implementation
costs associated with these recommendations vary based on the appli­
cation and system being updated. Usually, they consist of the cost of
purchasing equipment and materials and labor to install the recom­
mended measures. Nine months after the audit, the team checks back
with the facility to learn which of the recommendations they have
implemented.
During the second step, we collected data on 117 energy-efficiency
recommendations regarding motor systems that facilities in Ohio
implemented following a UD-IAC audit. Those recommendations rep­
resented an implementation rate of 42.7% of the total of 274 motor
system recommendations made during the period of this study
(2008–2018).
In the third step of this research, we performed an economic
input–output analysis to quantify the regional impacts of implementing
the energy efficiency recommendations about industrial motor systems,
which we classified as direct, indirect, and induced impacts. Direct im­
pacts are related to purchasing new materials and labor required to
implement the energy-efficient motor practices. Indirect impacts stem
from increased business activities by suppliers of energy-efficient motor
systems. Induced impacts flow from increased household income and
job increases that accrue from direct and indirect impacts within the
community. The model used is the Leontief IO model, which is very
popular macroeconomic modeling tool to use for the calculation of GDP
of any nation [17]. It considers external changes in demand and calcu­
lates the necessary production to maintain supply equal to demand. The
core of this model is the fixed direct requirement matrix, the collection
of factors that represent the cost required for a company to create a
A. Errigo et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 49 (2022) 101694

Fig. 1. Flow diagram of the methodology of this study.

dollar of output. The change in a total production vector × can thus be

Table 1
predicted from a final demand vector y by Eq. (1):
Breakdown of innovative solutions for efficiency of motor systems (* indicate
Δx = (I − A)− 1 Δy (1) selected example for this work).
EE recommendations Example of EE recommendations
where A is the n × n direct requirement matrix, y is the monetary
Operation • Use notched v-belts on belt-driven applications*
amount of the final demand column vector, and × is the total monetary • Turn off presses when not in use
industry output column vector. This model has been previously applied • Utilize energy-efficient belts and other improved
to determine the impacts of investments in energy-saving technologies mechanisms
• Install soft-start to eliminate nuisance trips
[16,42,43] and energy efficiency policies [15,44,45]. IO models are
• Install motor voltage controller on lightly loaded
used not only to estimate dollar amounts but changes in GDP and motors
employment [46]. Hardware • Replace existing large grinders with new grinders
We then calculated the total environmental impacts of implementing • Trim impeller on cooling tower pump*
the motor system recommendations and used UD-IAC data to extrapo­ • Replace spray-off pumps and motors with properly
sized units
late the impacts for Ohio’s entire manufacturing sector.
• Size electric motors for peak operating efficiency
• Use the most efficient type of electric motors
Sustainable industrial motor systems case studies • Replace electric motor with fossil fuel engine
Motor system drives • Replace constant-volume air-cooled chiller with VFD*
• Install VFDs on deck spencer vacuum pump motors*
This section introduces some detailed energy-efficient (EE) motor • Un-throttle make-up water pumps, city water booster
recommendations selected from Table 1. Table 1 lists several assessment pump, stripper
recommendations (ARs) provided on audits performed in Ohio between • Install VFD on various motor systems such as dust
2008 and 2018. Some examples of these ARs will be thoroughly collector, cooling tower fans, evaporative condenser fan
motor, pumps, blower motors, etc.
described in this section. This section shows detailed calculations on
• Reduce spiral freezer fan speed during non-production
how the estimated energy and cost savings are achieved and explains hours
real-world examples provided to manufacturing sites to assist the facility • Install blast gates on wire drawers and VFD on the dust
in decreasing energy consumption and costs. collector
• Unthrottled and install VFD on de-panning blower
motors
Motor maintenance/ • Replace rather than rewind failed motors with premium
Operation: Use notched v-belts on belt-driven applications
repair efficiency
• Replace screw machine motors with premium efficiency
During our visit to a Ferroalloy manufacturing plant, whose principal motors*
product is galvannealed coiled steel sheets, we noticed several fan mo­ • Use only certified motor repair shops
tors use standard V-belts. Standard, well-maintained V-belts have been • Avoid emergency rewind of motors
• Standardize motor inventory
shown to have an efficiency of about 92%, meaning as the belts go
• Establish a preventative maintenance program
around the pulleys, about 8% of the work produced by the motor is lost
as heat when it flexes and slips. Belts with notches on the inner face flex
easier and have been shown to increase the efficiency of the drive system notched V-belts for the equipment can be found by Eq. (2).
by 2% to 8% [47]. For our calculations, we assumed a 3% increase in ( )
efficiency to be conservative. Fig. 2 shows notched and standard V-belts. 0.746 kWhp
hp
In the plant, there were four 100 hp motors in hot air dryers, seven 25 ED(kW) = #ofmotorsx xPercentLoadx x3%savings
motor Motorefficiency
hp motors in makeup air units (MAU), and one 100 hp motor in the
scrubber fans. Every motor was run with standard v-belts. Therefore, we (2)
recommended replacing the standard smooth V-belts with notched V- In general, notched V-belts cost about 40% more than smooth V-
belts on all belt-driven systems except for clutching applications. We belts. However, notched V-belts last from 50% to 400% longer than
assume that all motors are 90% efficient and are 75% loaded. Thus, the smooth V-belts. Thus, the overall replacement cost would be less with
electrical demand savings, ED (kW), for replacing smooth V-belts with

3
A. Errigo et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 49 (2022) 101694

Fig. 2. Notched (left) and standard (right) V-belts.

notched V-belts. We recommended replacing the current belts with

Table 3
notched V-belts as they fail so that no additional labor cost would be
Summary of pump motor input power under different operation.
required for implementation. Since these calculations were based on an
estimation, plant personnel can use this methodology to identify costs Pump 1 Pump 2 Pump 3
and savings more accurately. Table 2 lists the motors throughout the Design Design Flow (gpm) 690 690 480
facility, detailing their applications, quantity, hp, along with savings Design Pressure 65 55 35
(gpm)
achieved from each piece of equipment for an annual runtime of 8,400 h.
Rated Motor Power 25 20 10
Table 3 compares the pump motor input power under different (hp)
operation. Impellor Size 9.25 8.75 7.5
(inches)
Existing Operation Throttle (%) 75% 75% 75%
Hardware: Trim impeller on cooling tower pump before trim Current Flow (gpm) 518 518 360
Current Pressure (ft- 70 70 55
A facility that manufactures burial caskets used a washer line to clean H2O)
and rinse the casket pieces before going through the painting process. Power Output (hp) 12 12 6.9
Motor Load (%) 49% 61% 69%
The washer line contains six stages where cleaning, phosphate appli­ Motor Efficiency (%) 93% 94% 94%
cation, and rinsing are performed. Each stage uses an array of spray Power Input (hp) 13 13 7.4
nozzles to accommodate the appropriate action. Fluid is pumped from a Proposed operation k (ft-H2O/gpm2) 1.40E- 1.20E- 1.50E-
holding tank to the nozzles and then returned. A general schematic of 04 04 04
Psys (ft-H2O) 37 31 20
the pumping stages and spray system is shown in Fig. 3.
Power Output (hp) 7 5.9 3
After observing the washer line, the facility’s management indicated Motor Load (%) 28% 30% 30%
the butterfly valves, throttled to about 75%. These butterfly valves are Motor Efficiency (%) 87% 88% 88%
throttled to restrict fluid flow through 3 out of the six total stages. Pump Power Input (hp) 8.1 6.8 3.4
motor output depends on the product of volume flow rate and the
pressure change across the pump. Throttling a fluid reduces the volume
where k is a constant and P0 is the elevation head loss.
flow rate and increases the pressure across the pump, resulting in a
As the butterfly valve is throttled, the pump “rides” upon the pump
decrease in motor power; however, throttling is a relatively inefficient
curve to operate at point “B.” At this point, the head pressure is about 55
means of flow control. An energy-efficient method of accomplishing the
ft-H2O, and pump efficiency is about 75%. Pump motor output power
same desired system operation is to trim pump impellers. A smaller
can be calculated according to Eq. (4).
pump impeller moves less fluid. Therefore, we recommended trimming
[ ]/
the impellors of the pumps that were throttled to 75% flow, to achieve Power out (hp) = Psys x V (gpm) (3, 960 gpm − ft − H2 O/hp xhpump )
the appropriate flow for each washer line stage. (4)
As an example, the pump curve for one of the pumps, Pump 3, is
shown in Fig. 4. The design point, indicated by the letter “A”, is where where, Psys is the system pressure, V is the volume flow rate, and ηpump is
flow is 480 gpm and 35 ft-H2O. This point suggests an impellor size of the pump efficiency. The motor efficiency at this load can be approxi­
7.5 in., which is under system design. Furthermore, the system curve for mated using the relationship given below shown in Eq. (5).
un-throttled flow is also shown (solid line). The system curve is defined ( )
according to the general relationship between system pressure loss (Psys) hmotor = 94.187 1 − − e− 0.0904 pl (5)
and volume flow rate (V) as shown in the Eq. (3).
where pl is the percent of motor nameplate load. Power input to the
Psys (ft − H2 O) = kV 2 + P0 (3) pump motor is then calculated as 7.4 hp by using Eqs. (4) and (5).
Now, instead of closing the butterfly and throttling fluid flow, the

Table 2
Annual savings associated with energy efficient belt usage.
Motor application Annual Savings

Quantity of motors Size of motor (hp) Electrical energy (kWh) Electrical demand (kW) CO2 (tonnes) Electrical cost

Hot Air Dryers 4 100 63,000 7.5 56 $2,205

MAU’s 7 25 27,563 3.3 25 $995
Scrubber Fans 1 100 15,750 1.9 14 $568
Total 106,313 12.7 95 $3,836

4
A. Errigo et al.
Fig. 3. Schematic of pumping stages for spray system.
Fig. 4. Pump curve for Pump 3.
impellor blade could be trimmed to equally reduce fluid flow rates. In
Fig. 4, if the impellor were trimmed to about 6′′ and the butterfly valve
opened to 100% of fully open, the pump would operate at point “C”. By
using the same principle applied, the power input to the motor for the
case of trimming the impellor blade is found to be 3.4 hp. Therefore, 4
hp is saved for case “C” compared to the case “B”.
If the impellors were trimmed to about 6′′ and the butterfly valve
opened to 100% of fully open, the total power input of the pumps would
decrease from 33 hp to 18 hp (11 kW), which would reduce both fluid
flow and pressure rise, resulting in significant energy savings.
According to management, there is no labor cost, as machining of
impellor blades would be completed in-house by the plant’s mainte­
nance personnel. This indicates the estimated simple payback would be
immediate, which incentivizes facilities to implement these advance­
ments as quickly as possible. With this facility being charged $14.33 /
kW, the yearly demand savings are $1,892, and the annual electrical
energy savings are calculated to be $1,040. This totals the yearly savings
to $2,932 and prevented 51.8 tonnes of CO2 from being emitted into the
atmosphere. Trimming the impellor reduces both fluid flow and pressure
rise, resulting in significant energy savings.
Motor systems drives: Replace constant-volume air-cooled chiller with
variable-speed water-cooled chiller unit
A facility that manufactures plastic extrusions for decking and
railing, has a two-stage 140-ton air-cooled reciprocating chiller. This
chiller provides cooling to six of the extrusion lines in throughout the
plant. A 20-hp constant volume pump circulates water from the primary
heat exchangers at the extrusion lines through the chiller. During our
site visit, only one extrusion line was operating with a mass flow rate of
5
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 49 (2022) 101694
plastic of 700 lb./h. We measured the temperature of plastic entering the
calibrator heat exchanger to be about 350F and the temperature of
plastic leaving the calibrator heat exchanger to be about 105F. In
addition, we observed the leaving chilled water temperature (Tcw1) at
about 48.5 F. Older, air-cooled reciprocating chillers draw about 1.0
kW/ton throughout their operating range. New high-efficiency, water-
cooled, VFD-equipped centrifugal chillers in the 100-ton size range draw
about 0.55 kW/ton at full load and an entering condenser water tem­
perature (ECWT) of 75F.
A schematic of the chilled water unit and extrusion line before and
after the proposed VFD design is shown in Fig. 5. A 20-hp VFD pump is
designed to provide chilled water to all six extrusion lines. The current
piping design does not have two-way valves in the piping serving the
primary heat exchangers to stop water flow when the extrusion line is
not operating. Thus, water continues to flow through the primary heat
exchangers, regardless of whether the extrusion line operates. Installing
two-way valves in the piping at each primary heat exchanger and a VFD
on the 20-hp pump’s motor would allow the pump to provide the
required amount of cooling water. This is possible without bypassing
water through the primary heat exchangers when the extrusion line is
not operating. During the winter months, the cooling tower can provide
chilled water temperatures to meet process cooling requirements. Thus,
installing a cooling tower increases chiller performance and allows the
chiller to be turned off a significant amount of time during the winter.
An additional heat exchanger with by-pass piping around the chiller is
needed to utilize the cooling tower’s capability.
Furthermore, we recommend VFDs on the cooling tower fan and the
cooling tower pump. For the portion of the year when the chiller can be
turned off, the cooling tower water pump can be controlled to match the
flow rate of the chiller pump. When the chiller is operational, the volume
flow rate of the cooling tower fan can be controlled with a VFD to
provide the required condenser water temperature to the chiller.
During the site visit, management indicated leaving the chilled water
temperature could be increased by 5 ◦ F. We performed a heat exchanger
analysis using Engineering Equation Solver (EES) based on water and
plastic temperatures measured during our site visit. Based upon this
model, we estimate leaving plastic temperature would be about 108F if
the leaving chilled water temperature was increased by 5 ◦ F. Accounting
for the chiller and pump, the annual electrical demand and cost savings
for replacing the current chiller with a water-cooled VFD chilled water
unit was calculated as $9,114 and $3,381, respectively. In addition,
carbon dioxide emission of 231 tonnes per year is achieved from the
electric energy savings. Management also indicated that the mainte­
nance cost of the chiller unit is about $10,000 per year. The equipment
controlled with VFDs not only operates more efficiently but the equip­
ment also generates less heat. As a result, equipment lasts longer and
requires less maintenance. We calculated the annual maintenance sav­
ings of about $8,000. In addition, VFDs allow for better process control.
Motor maintenance/repair: Replace screw machine motors with premium
efficiency motors
A precision machining manufacturing facility we performed an audit
on had 1,075 hp of motors operate screw machines. According to plant
personnel, the efficiency of the current motors was about 70%. The fa­
cility is in production 20 h per day, 4 days per week, and 50 weeks per
year for 4,000 h per year. The screw machines operate 65% of the total
production hours, for 2,600 h per year. Replacing the existing motors
with premium efficiency motors would result in significant energy and
cost savings. In addition to energy, they would also enable soft starts on
motors, improving employees’ safety operating these machines. Using
MotorMaster + software [48], we calculate the savings from replacing
motors with premium efficiency motors. The plant demand cost of
$6.06/kW-month and electrical consumption cost of $0.08173/kWh are
used in this calculation. We estimate that the motors are 70% loaded.
Total demand saving (Ds) is calculated by Eq.6.
A. Errigo et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 49 (2022) 101694

Fig. 5. Constant volume chilled water unit and extrusion line before and after VFD installed.

( )
kW 1 1
Ds = #ofmotors × RatedPower(hp) × Percentload × 0.746 × −
hp ηc ηc
(6)
where ηc and ηc are the efficiency of current and premium motors,
respectively.
With all four motors running at the same low efficiency of 70 %,
Table 4 shows the increase in efficiency, costs, and the savings associ­
ated with installing a new premium efficiency motor. In addition, AEP
Ohio offered rebates for purchasing new premium efficiency motors,
which assisted facilities in implementing these changes.
The implementation cost and simple payback are dependent on the
hp of the motor being replaced. Motors with more hp will have signifi­
cant costs associated with the replacement of these systems. At some
facilities, depending on the hp of the motors, the initial costs outweigh
the savings, so the payback is much longer than a few years. With the
assistance of rebate programs for this facility, the implementation cost
was $75,499 for all 1,075 hp, but the yearly savings were $58,864. The
simple payback period is only 16 months. To portray the benefits of this
recommendation, the 7-year savings associated with this recommenda­
tion are illustrated in Fig. 6. Fig. 6 depicts the internal rate of return
(IRR), which is the percent calculated with or without using the energy
escalation rate of 3.3%, to determine the rate of return on an investment
(ROI).” Using an inflation rate of 3.3%, the IRR for this recommendation
is about 80 %.
Motor system drives: Install VFDs on deck spencer vacuum pump motors
A manufacturing facility that creates quartz tubing and shapes, uses
three independent Deck Spencer vacuum pumps to remove contami­
nants from the furnace deck process. The motors driving these pumps
currently operate 24 h per day and seven days per week. We logged the
current draw of Deck Spencer, and the data indicate the motor runs
idling for the majority of the weekend. Furthermore, when the motor
runs idling, it still draws about 80% of its full-load power. Installing
VFDs on the Deck Spencer vacuum pump motors would reduce the speed
of the motor, resulting in an idling power draw of about 15% of its full-
load power. Slowing the vacuum pump motors down with a VFD when
idling would result in electricity and cost savings and reduce the pump’s
yearly rotations, increasing the life of bearings, seals, and rotating as­
semblies. As shown in Fig. 7, the data show that during normal pro­
duction hours until about 2 pm on Saturday, the vacuum pump motor is
primarily loaded, drawing an average of 20.3 Amps. The motor operates
primarily idling weekly from about 2 pm Saturday to 6 am Monday (40 h
per week) for 51 weeks per year, for a total of 2,040 h per year. The data
show that during this period, the motor is idling 82% of the time.
Initial inputs from the logged data and calculations are shown in
Table 6.
According to plant management, the Deck Spencer vacuum pump
motors run at 3-phase and 480 Volt. Plant management also indicated
that the logged current from Deck Spencer B would represent the current
draw for the other two operating Deck Spencer vacuum pumps. We as­
sume a power factor of 0.86 kW/kVA and that no electrical demand cost
savings could be realized due to the facility’s contracted minimum
electrical demand. Table 7 summarizes these inputs with the marginal
energy costs and carbon intensity of electricity.
With these inputs, the annual total energy savings was $2,267 per
year, and 34 tonnes of CO2 emissions are avoided. According to RS
Means Mechanical Cost Data 2012, the total material, labor, overhead,
and profit cost to install a VFD on a 20-hp motor is about $4,150 per
motor. Therefore, the total implementation cost was $12,450. The local
utility offers energy efficiency rebates of $60 /hp for controlling motors
with VFDs. The total rebate was $3,600, therefore, the net imple­
mentation cost was $8,850.

Table 4
Savings associated with the implementation of energy efficient motors.
Motor Size Number of Premium Demand cost Electrical consumption cost Annual cost Annual CO2 Total Motor Rebate (per
(hp) motors Efficiency savings savings savings saving Cost motor)

15 7 92.8 % $ 1,399 $ 4,089 $ 5,489 35 $ 7,784 $ 60

25 6 93.6 % $ 2,052 $ 5,995 $ 8,047 52 $11,352 $ 80
30 10 94.0 % $ 4,155 $ 12,142 $ 16,297 105 $ 22,270 $ 90
40 13 94.9 % $ 7,402 $ 21,629 $ 29,030 187 $ 37,193 $ 100

6
A. Errigo et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 49 (2022) 101694

Fig. 6. Seven-year life-cycle cash flow for replacing an energy inefficient motor.

Fig. 7. Deck Spencer B Logged Current.

Table 6 Table 7
Initial inputs and calculations for the Deck Spencer vacuum pumps. Saving inputs.
Term Value Units Term Value Units

Loaded current draw from logged data 20.3 Amps Idling current savings (CS) 13.2 Amps
Idling current draw from logged data 16.3 Amps Voltage (V) 480 Volts
Idling percent of loaded current draw 80 % Power factor (PF) 0.86 kW/kVA
VFD idling percent of loaded current draw 15 % Number of operating motors (N) 3
VFD idling current draw 3.1 Amps Idling hours per year (IH) 1,682 hr/yr
Idling current savings 13.2 Amps Demand saving months (DSM) 0 mo/yr
Weekend hours per year 2,040 hrs/yr Demand cost (CD) 4.34 $/kW-mo
Percent of time idling from logged data 82 % Electricity cost (CE) 0.04747 $/kWh
Idling hours per year 1,682 hrs/yr Carbon intensity electricity (CIE) 1.56 lb-CO2/kWh

Results: Regional impact of implementing sustainable industrial
motor systems
This section presents the input–output analysis results to examine the
impacts of implementing energy-efficient motor recommendations in
industrial facilities. Focusing specifically on the 191 facilities
throughout Ohio where 274 motor system recommendations were made
and out of the total made, 117 of the recommendations were imple­
mented throughout these facilities. This analysis first examined the total
impacts generated by all of the facilities assessed by UD-IAC between
2008 and 2018. A summary of the costs and savings associated with
these recommendations is provided in Table 8. Table 8 includes the
number of recommendations in each category, with the highest number
of recommendations in the operations category and the lowest number
of recommendations in the hardware category. Each recommendation’s
implementation costs were divided into labor and material costs and
then organized into four main categories: operations, hardware, motor
system drives (MSD), and motor maintenance and repair (MMR).
Fig. 8 compares the one-time total implementation cost, the annual
energy cost savings, and the simple payback in months of the energy-

7
A. Errigo et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 49 (2022) 101694

Table 8
Costs and savings associated with each implemented category.
Description Number of Recommendations Labor Cost Materials Cost Savings Energy Savings (MWh) Demand Savings (kW) Avoided CO2 (tonnes)

Operations 83 $1,625 $400 $259,848 3,750 3,568 2,708

Hardware 37 $29,063 $28,263 $178,840 2,384 401 1,914
MSD 128 $87,619 $1,413,730 $913,089 15,993 8,592 12,491
MMR 26 $0 $250,743 $123,141 1,246 2,869 893

demanded by industries and some service sectors because the installa­

tion of energy efficient measures requires contractors’ services. The
increased direct and indirect benefits throughout all 546 economic
sectors led to more dollars being distributed through employment
compensation or creating new jobs in the community and, in turn pro­
duced the induced impacts on the economy as people spent more within
the community in various ways. Examples of sectors that mainly
benefited from induced impacts include hospitals, realty firms that sell
owner-occupied dwellings, and insurance carriers. Increased compen­
sation of existing or new employee from EE measure manufacturer or
supplier spend more disposable income to the community through these
activities.
Fig. 10 shows the forecasted impacts for three scenarios to depict the
impacts of the recommendations made throughout the state of Ohio.
Scenario 1 conveys data on the costs and savings of the 117 implemented
motor systems recommendations made by the UD-IAC. Scenario 2
Fig. 8. The cost, savings, and simple payback of each category.
combines the estimated costs and savings if all 274 motor system rec­
ommendations had been implemented. Scenario 3 examines the esti­
efficient motor systems in the four main categories. This figure depicts mated impact if all these recommendations were applied throughout all
the average length of time, over the last ten years, these categories took the manufacturing facilities in Ohio, which the North American
to pay off calculated by the initial cost over the yearly savings times the Manufacturing Association identifies as 12,507 in 2018 [50]. Fig. 10
numbers of months in a year. As it shows, the assessment recommen­ also depicts the estimated reduction in CO2 emissions as a result of each
dations that fall under the operations category provided energy savings of these three scenarios. As it shows, the overall potential reduction of
with the smallest investment costs, making their simple payback period scenario 3 is 1,161,070 tonnes of CO2 that could have been prevented
rapid. The recommendations for MMR had the longest simple payback of from being released into the atmosphere, equivalent to the emissions
24 months due to their high material costs. Table 9 presents how these released by 129,000 U.S. homes annually. The recommendations
costs were allocated to various economic sectors listed in North Amer­ included in all three scenarios reduced CO2 emissions significantly.
ican Industry Classification System (NAICS) and organized into four Fig. 11 quantifies the cascading economic impacts (i.e., direct, in­
main categories to perform the IMPLAN [49] analysis. direct, and induced) of implementing the motor systems recommenda­
Fig. 9 shows a percentage breakdown of the top 20 industries tions in each of the four categories included in scenario 3. It shows that
affected by implementing the energy-efficient motor system recom­ the category that would have the greatest direct impact is MSD due to
mendations by our audited industries. As shown in the bottom three bars the significant costs of these implementations and the likely increases in
of the figure, the industries showing the highest direct impact were all the number of job opportunities they would make available throughout
directly involved with the substantial investments required for pur­ Ohio. The MMR-related recommendations would greatly impact the
chasing EE motor systems and materials: the manufacturing sectors of community due to their notable direct costs, followed closely by the
motors, generators, and speed changers; industrial high-speed drives; hardware-related ones. The exponential increase in jobs is directly
and commercial machinery. The industry sectors that benefitted most correlated to the investment that facilities would make for each
from the indirect effects of the energy-efficient motor recommendations recommendation.
were those that supply materials for motor manufacturing. Others whose
benefits were mostly indirect included the power generation sector, as Discussions and conclusions
more energy is required to produce more energy-efficient motors
This study of the real impacts of industrial energy audits employs
Table 9 data gathered from 274 assessment recommendations regarding indus­
NAICS code in each motor category. trial motor systems throughout facilities in Ohio that allowed us to es­
Energy-efficient NAICS Economic sector description timate the broader benefits of the IAC energy audit program. Savings
motor category related to industrial motor systems, which are among the most versatile
Operation 326,220 V-belts, rubber or plastics, manufacturing machines in all manufacturing processes, offer some of the most sig­
811,310 Commercial and industrial machinery and nificant energy-saving impacts available to the industry. Over the 10-
equipment (except automotive and electronic) year period, facilities have saved around $1.5 M in energy costs from
repair and maintenance implemented energy efficient practices and if all of the 274 recom­
Hardware 423,830 Industrial machinery and equipment merchant
mendations were implemented then the energy cost savings were
wholesalers
811,310 Commercial and industrial machinery and calculated to be about $4.3 M per year in the state of Ohio.
equipment (except Automotive and Electronic) As this analysis shows, providing manufacturing facilities with such
repair and maintenance recommendations can be an impactful method of improving energy ef­
333,996 Fluid power pump and motor manufacturing
ficiency and offers financial and environmental benefits not only to the
MSD 333,612 Speed changer, industrial high-speed drive, and
gear manufacturing companies undergoing such audits, but to industries across the larger
MMR 335,312 Motor and generator manufacturing community through indirect and induced effects. The 191 facilities

8
A. Errigo et al.
Fig. 9. Top 20 industries influenced by the percentile of direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts from energy-efficient motor systems.
Fig. 10. The economic and environmental comparison shown for the
three scenarios.
included in this study represent only about 2% of the facilities
throughout Ohio. If programs such as the IAC were expanded to cover
more facilities, the economic and environmental impact would be sig­
nificant, we calculated the savings from these recommendations alone
would be about $ 276 M annually. Some facilities are hesitant to
implement recommendations because it is inconvenient, or the imple­
mentation cost is too high. To provide more benefits to the small and
medium-sized manufacturing industries, government or utility incen­
tivized programs, such as rebate programs, could play an essential role
in implementing energy-efficient practices. The broader view afforded
by the proposed framework can be used to support better energy policy
decisions and improve our current understanding of the relationship
between energy and the economy and environment while emphasizing
the importance of energy-efficient practices in manufacturing facilities,
communities, and states.
9
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 49 (2022) 101694
Fig. 11. Direct, indirect, and induced effect of making recommended changes
in all Ohio manufacturing facilities.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
We would like to express our gratitude to the US Department of
Energy for supporting this work through the Industrial Assessment
Center program (DE-EE0007710). We acknowledge previous and cur­
rent UD-IAC students for their contributions to this continuing effort and
thank our industrial partners for their significant contributions.
References
[1] Menghi R, Papetti A, Germani M, Marconi M. Energy efficiency of manufacturing
systems: A review of energy assessment methods and tools. J Cleaner Prod 2019;
240:118276.
A. Errigo et al.
[2] Vine E, Sullivan M, Lutzenhiser L, Blumstein C, Miller B. Experimentation and the
evaluation of energy efficiency programs. Energ Effi 2014;7(4):627–40.
[3] Thollander P, Palm J. Improving energy efficiency in industrial energy systems: An
interdisciplinary perspective on barriers, energy audits, energy management,
policies, and programs. Springer Science & Business Media; 2012.
[4] Kluczek A, Olszewski P. Energy audits in industrial processes. J Cleaner Prod 2017;
142:3437–53.
[5] Máša V, Stehlík P, Touš M, Vondra M. Key pillars of successful energy saving
projects in small and medium industrial enterprises. Energy 2018;158:293–304.
[6] Choi J-K, Thangamani D, Kissock K. A systematic methodology for improving
resource efficiency in small and medium-sized enterprises. Resour Conserv Recycl
2019;147:19–27.
[7] Choi J-K, Schuessler R, Ising M, Kelley D, Kissock K. A Pathway Towards
Sustainable Manufacturing for Mid-size Manufacturers. Procedia CIRP 2018;69:
230–5.
[8] Trianni A, Cagno E, Accordini D. Energy efficiency measures in electric motors
systems: A novel classification highlighting specific implications in their adoption.
Appl Energy 2019;252:113481.
[9] Choi J-K, Kissock K, Hallinan K. Beyond industrial energy assessments: The life
cycle design perspective. In: Proceedings of the ACEEE Summer Study 2013 on
Energy Efficiency in Industry; 2013. p. 4–11.
[10] Boglietti A, Cavagnino A, Parvis M, Vallan A. Evaluation of radiation thermal
resistances in industrial motors. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 2006;42(3):688–93.
[11] Zuberi MJS, Tijdink A, Patel MK. Techno-economic analysis of energy efficiency
improvement in electric motor driven systems in Swiss industry. Appl Energy 2017;
205:85–104.
[12] De Almeida A, Fong J, Brunner C, Werle R, Van Werkhoven M. New technology
trends and policy needs in energy efficient motor systems-A major opportunity for
energy and carbon savings. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;115:109384.
[13] Tonn B, Peretz JH. State-level benefits of energy efficiency. Energy Policy 2007;35
(7):3665–74.
[14] Gómez JR, Quispe EC, Castrillón RDP, Viego PR. Identification of technoeconomic
opportunities with the use of premium efficiency motors as alternative for
developing countries. Energies 2020;13(20):5411. https://doi.org/10.3390/
en13205411.
[15] Choi J-K, Eom J, McClory E. Economic and environmental impacts of local utility-
delivered industrial energy-efficiency rebate programs. Energy Policy 2018;123:
289–98.
[16] Choi J-K, Kissock K, Hallinan K, Brecha R. Economic and Environmental Impacts of
Energy Efficiency Investment on Local Manufacturers. ASME-IDETC. Boston, MA.
2015.
[17] Leontief W, Duchin F, Szyld DB. New approaches in economic analysis. Science
1985;228(4698):419–22.
[18] Cutler, D., J. Dean, and J. Acosta, Synchronous and Cogged Fan Belt Performance
Assessment. 2014, National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United
States).
[19] De Almeida A, Greenberg S. Technology assessment: energy-efficient belt
transmissions. Energy Build 1995;22(3):245–53.
[20] Nadel S. Energy-efficient motor systems: a handbook on technology, program, and
policy opportunities. Amer Council for an Energy; 1991.
[21] Sever F, Mohammed AQ, Ritchey S, Seryak J. Deemed Power Savings of Cogged V-
belts versus Smooth V-belts. Energy Eng 2017;114(1):39–62.
[22] Bertini L, Carmignani L, Frendo F. Analytical model for the power losses in rubber
V-belt continuously variable transmission (CVT). Mech Mach Theory 2014;78:
289–306.
[23] Dalgarno KW, Day AJ, Childs THC, Moore RB. Stiffness loss of synchronous belts.
Compos B Eng 1998;29(3):217–22.
[24] Iizuka H, Watanabe K, Mashimo S. Observations of Fatigue Failure in Synchronous
Belts. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 1994;17(7):783–90.
[25] Fuwen Hu, Jiajian C, Yunhua He. Interactive design for additive manufacturing: a
creative case of synchronous belt drive. Internat J Interact Design Manuf (IJIDeM)
2018;12(3):889–901.
10
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 49 (2022) 101694
[26] Okhotnikov I, Noroozi S, Sewell P, Godfrey P. Evaluation of steady flow torques
and pressure losses in a rotary flow control valve by means of computational fluid
dynamics. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 2017;64:89–102.
[27] Khalid N. Efficient energy management: is variable frequency drives the solution.
Proc Soci Behav Sci 2014;145:371–6.
[28] Burt CM, Piao X, Gaudi F, Busch B, Taufik NF. Electric Motor Efficiency under
Variable Frequencies and Loads. J Irrig Drain Eng 2008;134(2):129–36.
[29] Rooks, J. and A.K. Wallace. Energy efficiency of variable speed drive systems. in
Conference Record of the 2003 Annual Pulp and Paper Industry Technical
Conference, 2003. 2003. IEEE.
[30] Tutterow, V. and A.T. McKane, Variable speed pumping: A guide to successful
applications. 2004.
[31] VFD, E.L.-V., Variable frequency drive. This may be used interchangeably with
VSD, variable, 2018.
[32] Du Plessis GE, Liebenberg L, Mathews EH. The use of variable speed drives for cost-
effective energy savings in South African mine cooling systems. Appl Energy 2013;
111:16–27.
[33] Swain D, Engeda A. Effect of impeller blade trimming on the performance of a 5.5:
1 pressure ratio centrifugal compressor. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part A: J Power
Energy 2014;228(6):602–13.
[34] Caridad J, Asuaje M, Kenyery F, Tremante A, Aguillón O. Characterization of a
centrifugal pump impeller under two-phase flow conditions. J Petrol Sci Eng 2008;
63(1-4):18–22.
[35] Šavar M, Kozmar H, Sutlović I. Improving centrifugal pump efficiency by impeller
trimming. Desalination 2009;249(2):654–9.
[36] Chunxi Li, Ling WS, Yakui J. The performance of a centrifugal fan with enlarged
impeller. Energy Convers Manage 2011;52(8-9):2902–10.
[37] Hasanuzzaman, M.H., 2010, N. Rahim, and R. Saidur. Analysis of energy savings
for rewinding and replacement of industrial motor. in 2010 IEEE International
Conference on Power and Energy. 2010. IEEE.
[38] Penrose, H.W., Test methods for determining the impact of motor condition on
motor efficiency and reliability. ALL-TEST Pro, LLC, 2007.
[39] Ferreira FJTE, de Almeida AT. Induction motor downsizing as a low-cost strategy
to save energy. J Cleaner Prod 2012;24:117–31.
[40] OFA, S.S., United States Industrial Electric Motor Systems Market Opportunities
Assessment. 2002.
[41] U.S.EPA. Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID). Washington
DC: Office of Atmospheric Programs, Clean Air Markets Division 2021.
[42] Brown MA, Soni A, Li Y. Estimating Employment from Energy-Efficiency
Investments. MethodsX 2020;7:100955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
mex.2020.100955.
[43] Naji A, Al Tarhuni B, Choi J-K, Alshatshati S, Ajena S. Toward cost-effective
residential energy reduction and community impacts: A data-based machine
learning approach. Energy and AI 2021;4:100068.
[44] Choi J-K, Morrison D, Hallinan KP, Brecha RJ. Economic and environmental
impacts of community-based residential building energy efficiency investment.
Energy 2014;78:877–86.
[45] Berck, P.a.H., Sandra, Assessing the Employment Impacts of Environmental and
Natural Resource Policy. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2002. 22: p. 133-
156.
[46] Yushchenko A, Patel MK. Contributing to a green energy economy? A
macroeconomic analysis of an energy efficiency program operated by a Swiss
utility. Appl Energy 2016;179:1304–20.
[47] NREL, Replace V-Belts with Cogged or Synchronous Belt Drives, in Office of Industrial
Technologies, U.S. Department of Energy,, DOE/GO-102000-0972, Editor. 2021:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/27833.pdf.
[48] EERE. MotorMaster+ Software Tool Brochure. Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy 2021.
[49] IMPLAN. IMPLAN Group, LLC. 2018.
[50] OMA, Facts about the economic impact of ohio manufacturing, O.M.s. Association,
Editor. 2018.