ARTICLE IN PRESS

Energy Policy 35 (2007) 34243439

www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Energy-efciency standards for electric motors in Brazilian industry

Agenor Gomes Pinto Garciaa,, Alexandre S. Szkloa, Roberto Schaeffera, Michael A. McNeilb
a

Federal University of Rio de JaneiroUFRJ, Energy Planning Program of Graduate School of Engineering (COPPE) Centro de Tecnologia, Bloco C,
Sala 211 Cidade Universitaria Ilha do Fundao 21941-972 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
b
Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, One Cyclotron Rd, Berkeley, California 94720, USA
Received 4 October 2006; accepted 27 November 2006
Available online 7 February 2007

Abstract
The rst regulation of the Energy Efcient Act for electric motors, launched in 2002, established two sets of minimum efciency
performance standards (MEPS), for standard (mandatory) and high efciency (voluntary) motors. An updated regulation, from the
end of 2005 (Edict 553/2005), established the previous high-efciency MEPS as mandatory for all motors in the Brazilian market. This
paper analyses the consequences of this new regulation, which is foreseen to take effect in 2010. These new Brazilian MEPS are
compatible with those implemented in other countries. The costbenet analysis, considered for different scenarios for industrial
consumers, showed that motor substitution (from standard to high efciency) is generally advantageous. A sample of nine thousand
industrial motors has been used, with measured operation in actual conditions, to analyze the investment costbenet in three different
scenarios. This analysis also demonstrated the benet of motor substitution, with an average MWh cost from 20 to 35 US$, and with
only a few substitutions presenting an unfavorable costbenet relationship to the user. We assess that Edict 553 avoided construction of
350 MW of hydroelectric capacity. Nevertheless, since the cost of conserved energy for this energy-saving measure is generally below the
marginal cost of expansion of the Brazilian electric system, we propose mechanisms to share investment costs among the society as a
whole, including demand-side bidding.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Electrical motors; Minimum efciency standard performance (MEPS); Brazil

1. Introduction
After the electricity shortage of 2001, the Energy
Efcient Act (Law 10,295 of 2001, Oct, 17Brasil, 2001)
was launched as an instrument to establish MEPS (minimum energy performance standards) for equipment and
appliances. MEPS are an effective mechanism to promote
energy efciency, and are applied in many countries (Geller
et al., 2003). The rst equipment type that was regulated
in Brazil was squirrel cage three-phase induction electric
motor, covered by Decree 4,508 of 2002, Dec, 11th (Brasil,
2002). This equipment uses about 32% of electricity in
Brazil (MMEMinisterio das Minas e Energia, 2001).
Decree 4,508 established two tables of MEPS, one
for standard motors and the other for high efciency
motorssee Table 1.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +552135123229; fax: +552135123199.

E-mail address: agenorgarcia@ppe.ufrj.br (A.G.P. Garcia).

0301-4215/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.11.024

In fact, Decree 4,508 was a further step in a voluntary

process of energy efciency improvement pursued since 1993
through the Brazilian Labeling Program (PBE -Programa
Brasileiro de EtiquetagemSchaeffer et al., 2005). Through
the PBE, Brazilian motors manufacturers, CEPEL1 (responsible for motors testing) and INMETRO2 (PBE coordinator)
dened, by consensus, a series of sequentially more stringent
annual or biennial efciency targets for both standard and
high-efciency classes on a voluntary basis. The success of
this process justied the adoption of mandatory MEPS for
induction motors. In particular, Brazilian manufacturers saw
a benet, since standards would eliminate the foreign
concurrence of less efcient units, which had been sold
primarily as components. The voluntary process improved
1
Centro de Pesquisas de Energia Eletrica da Eletrobras, http://
www.cepel.br.
2
InmetroInstituto Nacional de Metrologia, Normalizac- ao e Qualidade Industrial, an institute of the Ministry of Science and Technology,
which is responsible for the labeling program.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.G.P. Garcia et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 34243439

3425

Table 1
MEPS of Decree 4,508/2002
hp

kW

St2

St4

St6

St8

HE2

HE4

HE6

HE8

1
1.5
2
3
4
5
6
7.5
10
12.5
15
20
25
30
40
50
60
75
100
125
150
175
200
250

0.75
1.1
1.5
2.2
3
3.7
4.5
5.5
7.5
9.2
11
15
18.5
22
30
37
45
55
75
90
110
132
150
185

77.0
78.5
81.0
81.5
82.5
84.5
85.0
86.0
87.5
87.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
89.5
90.2
91.5
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.0
93.5
94.1
94.1

78.0
79.0
81.5
83.0
83.0
85.0
85.5
87.0
87.5
87.5
88.5
89.5
90.5
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.2
93.2
93.5
94.1
94.5
94.5

73.0
75.0
77.0
78.5
81.0
83.5
84.0
85.0
86.0
87.5
89.0
89.5
90.2
91.0
91.7
91.7
91.7
92.1
93.0
93.0
94.1
94.1
94.1

66.0
73.5
77.0
78.0
79.0
80.0
82.0
84.0
85.0
86.0
87.5
88.5
88.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.5
92.0
92.5
92.5

80.0
82.5
83.5
85.0
85.0
87.5
88.0
88.5
89.5
89.5
90.2
90.2
91.0
91.0
91.7
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.5
94.5
94.7
95.0
95.4

80.5
81.5
84.0
85.0
86.0
87.5
88.5
89.5
89.5
90.0
91.0
91.0
92.4
92.4
93.0
93.0
93.6
94.1
94.5
94.5
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0

80.0
77.0
83.0
83.0
85.0
87.5
87.5
88.0
88.5
88.5
90.2
90.2
91.7
91.7
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6
94.1
94.1
95.0
95.0
95.0

70.0
77.0
82.5
84.0
84.5
85.5
85.5
85.5
88.5
88.5
88.5
89.5
89.5
91.0
91.0
91.7
91.7
93.0
93.0
93.6
93.6

Source: BRAZIL (2002).

Note: Stx means the MEPS for x poles standard motors and HEx the MEPS for high-efciency units. By Edict 553/2005, all motors commercialized in
Brazil after 2009, the Dec, 8th, must have efciencies above the HE MEPS.

the Brazilian motor energy efciency signicantly. The last

step aloneMEPS adoptionsaved 1% of the electricity
used by motors (Garcia, 2003), which postponed a 250 MW
hydroelectric power station.3
The next step towards energy efciency was the
Interministerial Ordinance 553 (MMEMinisterio das
Minas e Energia, 2005), which was launched in December
2005 (to come in force 4 years after approval). It specied a
single set of MEPS level eliminating efciency levels below
those previously dened as high efciency. This means
that only high efciency motors will be manufactured after
2010 in Brazil (currently all manufacturers have a high
efciency motors line, but these represent only about 10%
of production). This transition is expected to have deep
repercussions in industrial processes and equipment prices
for consumers.
This paper discusses the opportunity presented by this
regulation of the Energy Efciency Act in Brazil, analyzing
its impact in industry, the main sector for motor use.
Section 2 shows the technical characteristics of the
induction motor, mainly those of high efciency motors,
and the Brazilian motor manufacturer market. Section 3
compares the Brazilian MEPS with those adopted in other
countries. Section 4 assess likely impacts of Ordinance 553,

from the point of view of manufacturers, industrial

consumers and the Brazilian electric system. Finally,
Section 5 presents analysis conclusions and proposes some
actions to distribute the burdens of the Ordinance 553,
which provides an energy savings benet to society as a
whole, but whose costs are shouldered only by the motor
consumers (despite all the efforts made to promote high
efciency motors, they currently share only 10% of the
market, indicating that purchasers are not yet willing to
assume the investment costs for high efciency motors).
2. Induction electric motors and the Brazilian market
2.1. The Brazilian motor market
Four manufacturers produce electric motors in Brazil:
Weg (http://www.weg.com.br/), which enjoys 80% of
the market,4 focused on industrial end users; Eberle
(http://www.eberle.com.br/), which holds 10%; Kohlbach
(http://www.kohlbach.com.br/), with three phase motors
up to 150 hp, holding 8% of the market; and Sew (http://
www.sew.com.br/), which produces small motors that are
generally coupled to speed variation devices. In addition to
these, motors manufactured by General Electric, which
dominated the market through to the 1970s, are still in

Brazil has a 260 GW of hydroelectric power generation potential, from

which only 80 GW is already utilized. The electric system expansion is
done thus mostly by hydro power.

4
Weg has many plants abroad, in Argentina, Mexico, China, Portugal
and sells motors for more than 100 countries (WEG, 2006).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.G.P. Garcia et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 34243439

3426

operating efciency, however, varies with shaft load,

especially for loads below 50% as can be seen in Fig. 1.
Efciency is related to power losses according Eq. (1):

Table 2
Breakdown of motors electricity consumption by activity sector
Sector (2004)

Energy
Residential
Commercial
Public
Agriculture
Transportation
Cement
Pig iron and steel
Ferro-alloys
Mining/
pelletization
Non-ferrous
Chemical
Foods and
beverage
Textile
Pulp and paper
Ceramics
Other industry
Total
121.364
% of electricity
consumption
% of motor
consumption

A Motors
(GWh)

Three-phase motors
B Motors (%)

C
(GWh)

D
(%)

11.869
2.357
7.308
8.389
12.676
623
3.692
14.111
222
8.586

90
20
50
50
50
50
90
90
90
90

10.683
471
3.654
4.194
6.338
312
3.323
12.700
200
7.727

8.8
0.4
3.0
3.5
5.2
0.3
2.7
10.5
0.2
6.4

10.282
15.922
12.351

90
90
90

9.254
14.329
11.116

7.6
11.8
9.2

4.471
13.358
2.745
20.606
149.569
100.0
41.6%

90
90
90
90

4.024
12.022
2.471
18.546

3.3
9.9
2.0
15.3

33.8%
81.1%

Column A shows motor consumption, by activity sector, in 2004,

according electricity use shown in the Brazilian Energy Balance (BEN)
and Brazilian Useful Energy Balance (BEU) assessment of motor quota.
Column B assess three-phase induction motors quota in motor total
consumption, by sector. Column C A*B shows three-phase motors
consumption by sector. Column D is a breakdown of three-phase motors
consumption by activity sector.
Source: Based on BEN (EPE, 2005), BEU (MME, 2005) and estimated use
of three-phase motors.

operation, as well as those sold under brands such as

Bufalo and Brasil, which are no longer made. Siemens has
also commercialized motors in Brazil in the last few years.
The introduction of motors manufactured outside Brazil
occurs mainly through assembled equipment, particularly
in the timber processing sector (furniture, etc.) and the
equipment industry. The motors market is currently
dominated by Brazilian manufacturers, however, who
probably control more than 90% of the market, although
no exact data is publicly available.
Three phase induction electric motors are used in all
sectors of the economy, especially in industry (around
80%see Table 2).
2.2. Efficiency and losses
Induction three-phase motors with squirrel-cage rotors,
the subject of this paper, are highly efcient, with typical
name plate efciency of 90% (Garcia, 2003). Their

1
,
1 Pd=Pmec

(1)

where Z is the efciency [adimensional], Pmec the mechanical power [kW], Pd the losses [kW], and Pd/Pmec the loss
rate [adimensional].
The motor losses, when converting electrical to mechanical energy, are from different origins, normally separated
into xed losses (that do not vary with load) and variable
losses (Schaeffer et al., 2005). The xed losses are due to
magnetic eld circulation (known as iron losses) and
mechanical losses, by friction and windage. The variable
losses are due to electric current circulation, both in the
stator and rotor (copper losses), and to imperfections in the
motor construction, known as stray losses.
2.3. The high efficiency motor
Historically, the primary goal in motors manufacture
has been to reduce production costs while preserving
available power. Often, this has meant using less material
and thus reducing the efciency. Currently, the goal is to
optimize the life cycle cost5 (including manufacturing cost
and electricity costs during motor life). Nevertheless, a
motor can be used in many situations6 (hours/year of
operation, loading and electricity cost), making this
optimization more complex. The most widely used
technique is making many manufacturing lines (generally,
a standard and a high-efciency lines), with different prices
and efciencies, leaving the nal choice to the user,
according to his own motor use.
In Brazil, the high-efciency motor line is more expensive
and more efcient due to many design improvements:
magnetic core with plates made of ferrosilicon alloys (with
lower reluctance and thinner than SAE 1006/1008 ones used
in standard motors), better-lled slots using more copper,
larger rotor conductors, and improvements in air-gaps, core
heads, fans and bearings, and in the dimensional design
(Schaeffer et al., 2005). High-efciency motors typically
cost 1025% more than standard onescurrently in Brazil
they cost 40% more (Schaeffer et al., 2005).
3. Comparison to international practices
This section compares Brazilian MEPS (those established by Ordinance 553/2005 and the past MEPS for the
standard line) to those used in other countries. Remember
that Ordinance 553/2005 requires now for all motors the
5
High-efciency motors present acquisition costs higher than conventional ones. However, the great efciency offsets this price difference,
because these motors provide marked energy savings and guarantee fast
return of the initial investment (WEG, 2006).
6
Nadel et al. (2002) report that 44% of American industrial motors
operate below 40% nominal load.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.G.P. Garcia et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 34243439

0.0

1.0
Efficiency (%)
0.9

80

0.8

1.0

Power factor (%)

2.0
Slip (%)

90

Slip (%)
0.7

60

0.6

50

0.5

40

0.4

3.0
4.0

100

80
Amps (220 V)
60

40

Power factor

Efficiency (%)

70

5.0
Amps (220 V)

100

3427

20

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

Operating load (%)

Fig. 1. Induction motor performance curves. Source: WEG catalogue (20 hp, 4 poles). Avaiable at: http://www.weg.com.br/. Acess in 2003, Aug 27th.

MEPS adopted previously only for high-efciency motors

(see Table 1).
According to the survey carried out by Asea-Pacic
Economic CooperationEnergy Standards Information
System (APEC-ESIS), 2003, comparisons among the levels
established in the various economies7 have complicating
factors, mainly supply frequency (50 or 60 Hz) and
differences in test procedures. Despite this, the coincidence
of the MEPS in a signicant proportion is notable, implying
that economies of scale will make that stringency level most
economic (Asea-Pacic Economic CooperationEnergy
Standards Information System (APEC-ESIS), 2003, p. 1).
Based on the power supply frequency, it is expected that
motors designed for 50 Hz will operate at this frequency
with an efciency close to that of similar models designed
for 60 Hz and operating at this frequency. However, small
50 Hz motors (under 7.5 hp) should run slightly less
efciently than 60 Hz models.8
There are two main performance test procedures: those
based on the IEC 34-2 and those based on IEEE 112
(already included in the IEC 61972 proposal of standard).
The Brazilian test procedures are covered by the latter. The
main difference in the two test procedures lies in how stray
losses are handled: the IEC procedure uses assumed values
for these losses as 0.5% of the full load losses, while the
IEEE procedure measures them directly (other standards
such as that used in Japan simply ignore them).
The difference in efciency levels established by different
test procedures may be signicant, particularly for small

motors. For example, the rated efciency of a motor

between 1 and 20 hp will be 2% lower through the IEEE
method than by the IEC. The difference drops to around
0.5% above 125 hp.

7
The authors prefer to use the word economy rather than country, as
there are now markets covering several countries, while others are limited
to parts of a single country.
8
The 50 Hz motors are larger because they contain more iron, which
requires longer coils. In small motors, the stator winding losses prevail,
making them less efcient.

3.2. European union (and India)

3.1. USA and Canada

Both countries require the same minimum rated efciency
level for motors at full load, separated into open and closed
motors (Brazils MEPS cover only closed motors) varying
from 1 to 200 hp, 26 poles. A premium class is established
by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association
(NEMA) with rated and minimum efciency levels for
closed and open motors from 2 to 6 poles, and includes
motors up to 500 hp. Compliance with the premium class is
voluntary, and is not dened by US Government standards.
Consequently, we compared the MEPS for closed motors
with the current Brazilian standard level and high
efciency level (to be made mandatory by 2010).
The ndings are presented in Fig. 2 for 2 and 4 poles,
which are the most commonly used motors. The Ordinance
553 MEPS are basically the same as those for the standard
motors, other than for small motors. Although lacking
physical signicance, the points are joined up by lines in the
Figures to display the comparison more clearly. For 6 pole
motors, the results are similar, with greater deviation in
small motors. The effect of the updated standard is largely,
therefore, to bring mandatory standards in line with those
in the US and Canada.

The European Union has three efciency classes with

voluntary compliance called eff 1 (most efcient), eff 2
and eff 3, for 2 and 4 pole motors from 1.5 to 100 hp

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.G.P. Garcia et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 34243439

3428

100

95

[%]

90

85

80

2 poles
EUA 2p

EUA prem 2p

Br HE 2p

EUA 4p

20
0

150

10
0

60

40

25

4 poles

Rated power (hp)

Br St 2p

15

10

200

10
0

150

60

40

25

15

10

75

EUA prem 4p

Br St 4p

Br HE 4p

Fig. 2. Comparison with USA and Canada2 and 4 poles. Source: Own elaboration, based in APEC-ESIS (2003) e BRAZIL (2002).

100

95

[%]

90

85

80

2 poles
Eff2 2 p

Eff1 2p

Rated power (hp)

Br St 2p

Br HE 2p

Eff1 4p

200

150

100

60

40

25

15

10

200

10
0

150

60

40

25

15

10

75

4 poles
Eff2 4p

Br HE 4p

Br AR 4p

Fig. 3. Comparison with Europe2 and 4 poles. Source: Own elaboration, based in APEC-ESIS (2003) and BRAZIL (2002).

(1.175 kW). The power supply voltage is 50 Hz, and the

motors are tested according to the IEC. India also follows
this procedure for its voluntary standards. Taking the
differences in the test methods into account, the Brazilian
high efciency levels are roughly equivalent to the eff 1
classication (see Fig. 3).

420 hp (0.55315 kW), and for two to six poles. The test
procedure is similar to that of the IEC, although the
Chinese standard assumes higher stray losses: from 2.5%
for smaller motors up to 1.3% for motors over 250 hp. The
MEPS in Brazils Edict 553/2005 are generally slightly
lower than those for Chinas high-efciency motors, unless
differences in the test method are taken in consideration.9

3.3. China
China has mandatory ratings for standard motors and
voluntary ratings for high-efciency motors from 0.75 to

9
In particular, the stray losses may be higher, if measured as in the IEEE
method (as in Brazilian procedures).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.G.P. Garcia et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 34243439

Brazilian MEPS, therefore, are similar to those adopted

elsewhere, particularly those of Edict 553/2005. The
adoption of even higher MEPS (like a premium class) is
difcult because Brazilian motors frame size, which follows
IEC standards, are smaller than NEMA ones, that can
contain more active material.
4. Impacts of Edict 553/2005
This section assesses the impacts of adopting a single and
higher MEPS, as proposed by Edict 553, on the manufacturers, users and the Brazilian electricity system.
4.1. Impact on manufacturers
All Brazilian motors manufacturers have already a highefciency line, which accounts for about 10% of total
production. Nevertheless, expansion of this share to 100%
will have a large impact on the manufacturers, mainly
because of the thickness of the core ferrosilicon plates,
which are thinner (and 2 to 3 times more expensive) than
the SAE 1006/1008 used in standard motors, thus requiring
new stamp machines. Moreover, there is only one national
manufacturer of ferrosilicon plates, so adequate supply
needed for all motor production is uncertain.10
Therefore, we assumed that the extension of the high
efciency line to all production will not bring economies of
scale that would lower prices. Considering 2003 prices,
high-efciency motors costs typically 40% more, as can be
seen in Table 3.
We worked with Weg (2005) and Kohlbach Price Lists
(March 2005) supplied by the manufacturers, known as the
Full Lists. Commonly, a discount is given, which varies
from 33% to 50%. We therefore considered prices at 65%
of the Full List. For the Eberle motors, the BDMotor
(CEPELCentro de Pesquisas em Energia Eletrica, 2003)
prices were used, which are close to those considered for
the other two manufacturers. The prices are a weighted
average, considering market sharing: 80% for Weg, 10%
for Kohlbach and 10% for Eberle.
4.2. Impact on the industrial user
For an industry, Edict 553 will be considered when
replacing a motor, at the end of its useful life or when
building a new plant or expanding one. Users will pay a
higher price for a motor and will have a motor that will
consume less electricity during its useful life. The cost
benet ratio will be, therefore
DPr

CBR
DP h
10

C ee 1tdul 1
1000 td 1td ul

(2)

Personal communication from manufacturers to the author, when

visiting motor industries in 2005, March, by CLASP/UN/DESA project
(Schaeffer et al., 2005).

3429

Table 3
Percentage incremental price between high-efciency and standard motors
Rated
power (hp)

1
1.5
2
3
4
5
6
7.5
10
12.5
15
20
25
30
40
50
60
75
100
125
150
175
200
250

Poles
2 (%)

4 (%)

6 (%)

8 (%)

36
25
27
24
47
39
34
44
36
44
43
17
44
42
21
24
32
25
40
36
38
43
35
45

33
36
35
41
43
45
29
31
38
44
51
28
47
30
24
24
34
37
38
34
44
43
42
44

25
43
34
46
36
35
35
44
44
34
31
43
44
35
56
44
48
45
43
43
43
44
45

38
43
38
28
21
46
22
23
45
27
28
42
34
43
37
44
43
43
44
3
4

Source: Own elaboration.

where CBR is the costbenet ratio [adimensional], DPr the

difference in price between high-efciency and standard
motors [US$], DP the difference between high-efciency
and standard operational power [hp], h is hours of
operation per year [h], Cee is electricity price [US$/MWh],
1/1000 is kWhMWh [MWh/kWh], td is discount rate [%],
ul is useful lifetime [years].
In Eq. (2), the difference of operational power can be
calculated as



1
1
DP Prated g 0:746

,
Zst Zhe

(3)

where Prated is the rated power [hp], g the load factor [1],
0.746 the hpkW [kW/hp], Zst the operational efciency for
standard motor [adimensional], and Zhe the operational
efciency for high-efciency motor [adimensional].
In Eq. (2) and (3), many variables should be assessed:
load factor, operating h/yr, electricity cost and discount
rate. For an industry analysis, it is necessary to know, also,
how many and what motors there are, and how they
operate (load factor and operating h/yr). In this paper, we
have considered two analyses: one analyzing motor-bymotor, in several combinations of load factor and
operating h/yr; and another, which considers a sample of
industrial motors in normal operating conditions according
to actual measured data.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
3430

A.G.P. Garcia et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 34243439

Table 4
Operating conditions considered
Load factor (%)

h/yr

25
50
75
100

2000
4000
6000
8000

4.2.1. Motor-by-motor analysis

We considered all 92 motors in Table 1 operating in the
conditions shown in Table 4 (16 operating conditions for
each motor).
We considered motor prices as mentioned in Section 4.1
(65% of full price, averaged by Brazilian motor market
share). The efciencies have also been averaged by motor
market share. The complete set of results is in Appendix A.
We plotted the incremental efciency vs. incremental price
for Brazilian motors in Fig. 4, along with the same
variables for the same type of US motors, available at
software Motor Master International (US Department Of
Energy (US-DOE), 2003), with different efciency grades
(NEMA 60 Hz, TEFCtotally enclosed fan cooled,
efciencies 1 and 2). The ndings show that Brazilian
incremental efciencies, prices and price-efciency elasticity are greater than those in the United States.
The useful motor life is assumed to be a function of the
motor rated power, following De Almeida and Fonseca
(1996, apud Asea-Pacic Economic CooperationEnergy
Standards Information System (APEC-ESIS), 2003, p. 26):
12, 15 and 20 years for motors up to 10 hp, 100 hp and over
100 hp respectively.
We made two scenarios of analysis:

an economic scenario, that compares investments in

high efciency motors with those for expanding the
Brazilian electric power systemwe have considered as
a marginal expansion cost the result of the December
2005 auction of Brazilian electrical systemUS$49.3/
MWh11 with a discount rate of 12%;
a market scenario, for an analysis from the industry
point of viewwe have considered the average tariff of
Brazilian the industrial sector of US$77.1/MWh (in
December, 2005Agencia Nacional De Energia EletricaANEEL, 2006) and two discount rates, 15% and
22%. The rst one is used by BNDES to FINAME
loans.12 In this case, we have assumed that the enterprise
plans its investment and can access public funding. The

11
For better details of Brazilian auction for electrical generation
expansion, see the Ten-Year Plan (Plano Nacional de Energia Eletrica
20062015, EPEEmpresa de Pesquisa Energetica, 2006). We considered
2,4 R$/US$ as for 2005 (Bacen, 2006).
12
BNDES (2006) funds equipment acquisition by a project named
FINAME, whose interest rate is composed of TJLP (long term interest
rate, today 8.15%aa), BNDESs remuneration (14%) and the intermediate
fund institution (until 4%). A more accurate analysis can be found at
Schaeffer et al. (2005). See also http://www.bndes.gov.br/linhas/name.asp.

second one is used in loans at nancial institutions, such

as private banks, as for working capital (Banco Itau,
2006). This case is commonly used for non-planning
investments (equipment reposition) or due to difculty
in assessing public funding. So, the market scenario is
divided in public funding and private funding.
4.2.1.1. Economic scenario. Fig. 5 shows the CBRs
calculated for 2 pole motors and load factor of 75%the
vertical axis was truncated at [0,2] for better viewing of
values between 0 and 1.
Only at low duties are the substitutions not protable,
and even then only for some motors. Small motors
have better return on investment since their CBR are, in
general, smaller due to higher efciency increases. In
general, Table 5 shows the fraction of cost-effective
substitutions in each situation.
In general, there is an advantage to the motor substitution: the situation is more favorable for motors with higher
rotation speed (lower number of poles), greater load factor
and more operating h/yr. The change for almost all motors
operating at rated load and high duty is advantageous. In
cases where a motor is operating for less time (2000 h/yr),
the use of standard motor is more cost effective. In many
cases of 6 and especially 8 poles, the substitution is not
worthwhile.
4.2.1.2. Market scenariopublic funding. With respect to
the previous one, this scenario has a slightly higher
discount rate and a much higher electricity cost, leading
to greater benets from substitution. In general, therefore,
the situation is advantageous. Table 6 sums up the
situation.
Almost all substitutions are cost-effective for high load
and duty factors. For high speed motors (2 and 4 poles)
high efciency motors are worthwhile even at light load
when the use is not very intensive. For low speed motors
(6 and, mainly 8 poles), however, many substitutions are
not cost-effective with low load factor or, more commonly,
with low duty factor.
Fig. 6 shows a benecial CBR for 4 poles motors, which
are the most widely used, at 75% of full load, in almost
situations except with low duty factors.
4.2.1.3. Market scenarioprivate funding. This scenario
has a much higher discount rate, but uses the same
electricity tariff as the previously discussed scenario. The
benets of substitution are therefore much lower, as shown
by Table 7.
This scenario, which shows the perspective of industry
using its own capital, points out that many substitutions
are not cost-effective (realizing that many motors in the
industry operate at less than 50% full load and less than
4,000 h/yr), which explains in a certain sense the low
voluntary adhesion to high efciency motors (only 10% of
manufactured line). Again, the situation is more critical for
low speed motors, low load factor and low duty factor. At

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.G.P. Garcia et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 34243439

3431

60%

Price variation

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

Efficiency variation
Brazil

MM International

Linear (MM International)

Linear (Brazil)

Fig. 4. Variation in efciency and price for Brazilian and American motors. Source: Own elaboration, based on BDMotor (Cepel, 2005) and MM
International (US-DOE, 2003).
2.00

CBR

1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20

8000 - 0.75
6000 - 0.75
4000 - 0.75
2000 - 0.75

200

250

150

175

100

125

60

75

25

30

40

50

hp

15

20

10

12.5

7.5

1
1.52
2
3

0.00

load factor

h/year

Fig. 5. CBR for substitution of 2 poles motors at 75% loading (economic scenario). Source: Own elaboration.

2000 operating h/yr very few substitutions are costeffective.

Fig. 7 shows, with respect to Fig. 6, the sensitivity of
CBR to the discount rate considered.

4.2.2. Brazilian electric motors sample analysis

The previous Section 4.2.1 has considered a motor-bymotor analysis, for every unit available in the Brazilian
market. Nevertheless, some motor capacities are more

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.G.P. Garcia et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 34243439

3432

We used two motor samples and respective load factors:

Table 5
Fraction of cost-effective substitutions (economic scenario)

Load factor (%)

[h/yr]

0.25

0.5

0.75

2000
4000
6000
8000

17
55
74
79

13
64
80
88

21
66
86
93

36
73
93
98

Poles (%)

[h/yr]

2000
4000
6000
8000

40
89
95
95

26
84
98
98

15
50
82
95

4
31
56
69

Load factor (%)

poles

0.25

0.5

0.75

2
4
6
8

70
70
51
32

76
76
58
32

84
77
61
40

88
83
72
55

Source: Own elaboration.

Table 6
Fraction of cost-effective substitutions (market scenariopublic funding)
%

Load factor (%)

[h/yr]

0.25

0.5

0.75

2000
4000
6000
8000

37
70
79
86

37
78
89
90

41
80
93
98

50
86
98
99

Poles (%)

[h/yr]

2000
4000
6000
8000

63
93
95
96

58
97
98
100

26
74
96
98

14
46
69
77

Load factor (%)

poles

0.25

0.5

0.75

2
4
6
8

78
83
65
42

88
89
72
43

89
89
77
56

92
93
79
67

Source: Own elaboration.

widely used than others, at different loads and with

different operating duties. Therefore, we tried to analyze
a sample of industrial motors.

The rst one considers 2119 motors in 18 plants (Garcia,

2003), with directly measured data (amps or electric
power), performed for energy audits;
The second one considers 6820 motors in 209 plants,
using data obtained from questionnaires. These questionnaires were part of a research project to assess the
electrical efciency market in Brazil, coordinated by
Procel (PROCELPrograma Nacional de Conservac- ao
de Energia Eletrica e GEFGlobal Environment
Facility, 2006). This research in the industrial sector
was implemented by Ecoluz13, a Brazilian ESCO, which
is surveying 1000 enterprises regarding about equipment
ownership and use patterns. The results presented in this
paper are partial, available at this moment, from the
rst 209 plants visited. In this questionnaire, an ofcer
from each enterprise detailed the number of motors per
type of driven machine, the predominant rated power,
the supposed loading (see Table 8) and the operating
h/d. In that sample, many plants are medium sized, with
electrical supply in 13.8 kV and average demand about
1000 kW.

Table 9 shows the breakdown of motors by activity

sector (joining the data from the two samples, with 8939
motors).
The motor loading, by rated power group, is summarized in Table 10.
Most motors operate between 50% and 75% full load,
with a few units below that. However, only 24% of the load
data (the 2119 motors from the rst sample) are from
measurement, the rest was only declared by the plant
personel. Nadel et al. (2002) mention a US motor sample in
which 44% of units operate below 40% of rated load. In
the 2119 motors measured in 18 Brazilian plants in the rst
sample, 36% operated below 50% full load (Garcia, 2003).
This suggests that the plant personal may over-represent
motor loading and therefore its efciency14maybe the
real knowledge of the actual situation could result in a
higher demand for more efciency.
Table 11 shows the breakdown by rated power and
operating h/yr.
The distribution between 2 and 8 thousand h/yr is fairly
at. The largest motors generally operate for more hours and
with greater loading, what can be seen in Tables 10 and 11.
4.2.2.1. Economic scenario. Under the economic scenario
conditions49.30 US$/MWh and 12% discount rate, the
cost effective substitutions are shown in Table 12.
Only 72% of substitutions are advantageous. The factors
which most inuence the cost effectiveness are: polarity
(generally cost effective for 2 and 4 poles; 8 poles much

13

http://www.ecoluz.com.br/.
Higher loading have higher efciencysee Fig. 1.

14

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.G.P. Garcia et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 34243439

3433

2.00

CBR
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20

250

8000 - 0.75
6000 - 0.75
4000 - 0.75
2000 - 0.75

200

150

175

100

125

60

75

40

hp

50

25

30

15

20

10

12.5

7.5

1
1.54
2
3

0.00

load factor

h/year

Fig. 6. CBR for 4 poles motors substitution at 75% of full load (public fundingmarket scenario). Source: Own elaboration.

Table 7
Fraction of cost-effective substitutions (market scenarioprivate funding)
%

Load factor (%)

[h/yr]

0.25

0.5

0.75

2000
4000
6000
8000

16
57
73
79

12
63
82
88

23
66
85
92

38
71
91
98

Poles (%)

[h/yr]

2000
4000
6000
8000

40
89
94
95

26
83
98
98

15
49
79
95

6
31
56
68

Load factor (%)

poles

0.25

0.5

0.75

2
4
6
8

69
71
50
32

76
75
57
33

84
78
60
40

88
81
72
55

Source: Own elaboration.

less cost effective); operating hours (the fewer the h/yr, the
less advantageous); and loading, to a lesser degree
(substitution of motors with higher loading is more cost
effective).
On average, the cost of conserved energy for motor
substitution is 21.97 US$/MWh.
4.2.2.2. Market scenario (public funding). At market
scenario conditions (industry point of view) Table 13
shows the cost effectiveness of the different use pattern
situations, in new projects or revamps (77.07 US$/MWh
and 15% of discount rate).
The distribution is similar to the previous scenario, while
the results are generally more favorable. On average, the
cost of conserved energy for motor substitution is, at this
discount rate, 25.02 US$/MWh.
4.2.2.3. Market scenario (private funding). In this scenario, where the industry uses its own capital to substitute
motors (at a tariff of 77.07 US$/MWh and a discount rate
of 22%), the situation is very close to that in economic
scenario, as can be seen in Table 14.
The cost of conserved energy for motor substitution, at a
discount rate of 22% is 32.13 US$/MWh.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.G.P. Garcia et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 34243439

3434

2.00

CBR

1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20

8000 - 0.75
6000 - 0.75
4000 - 0.75
2000 - 0.75

200

250

150

175

100

125

60

75

40

50

25

30

15

hp

20

10

12.5

7.5

1
1.54
2
3

0.00

load factor

h/year

Fig. 7. CBR for 4 poles motors substitution at 75% full load (market scenarioprivate funding). Source: Own elaboration.

US$/MWh of conserved energy and avoiding construction

of 350 MW of hydroelectric capacity.15

Table 8
Research load factor zones
Code

Values

Value considered

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(0)

o40%
40 a 55%
56 a 65%
66 a 75%
475%
Not known

0.20
0.48
0.61
0.71
0.88
0.71

Note: The answers to the questionnaire were grouped in 6 zones, as above.

4.3. Impact in the Brazilian electric system

It would be necessary a more representative sample of
Brazilian industrial motors to assess the impact in the
Brazilian electric system. In respect to Nadels sample to
US industry (Nadel et al., 2002, p. 197), the breakdown
of motors by rated power is not very far from ours, as
Table 15 shows.
Therefore, to get an idea about the gures involved, if we
supposed that our sample is representative of the Brazilian
industry motors, which consumes 121 TWh/year, as can be
seen in Table 2, and considering the economic scenario, the
savings would be of 1691 GWh/year at an annualized cost
of 37 million US$, which means an average cost of 21.97

5. Final comments
The adoption of the MEPS now proposed to Brazilian
electric motors is a step forward towards greater energy
efciency.
In the majority of motor power categories and operating
situations there are signicant operating cost savings,
which compensate the higher initial motor cost. In the
sample considered, the average gain was estimated in 2%
of the motors consumption.
If we compare in detail the Brazilian MEPS with
voluntary or mandatory standards in several other
economies, we can conclude that the Brazilian MEPS are
similar to those adopted elsewhere, in particular in the
USA and Canada, European Union and China.
Currently, only 10% of motors made in Brazil are high
efciency. Expansion of this market share to 100% will
require signicant changes in the manufacturing process,
including new equipment, tools and operation schedule,
15

1,691,000 MWh/8760 h 193 MW, and considering a capacity factor

of 0.55 (typical for Brazilian medium30 to 600 MWhydro), as in
Schaeffer and Szklo (2001), results in a 350 MW plant.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.G.P. Garcia et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 34243439

3435

Table 9
Breakdown of motors by sector and capacity
Sector

110 hp

12.550 hp

60100 hp

Food and beverage

Textile
Other industries
Plastics
Chemistry
Metals
Paper
Pulp
Ceramics
Foundry
Steel
Automobile
Shoes
Tires
Stones
Cementproducts
Rubber
Glass
Total

1976
781
124
483
399
252
87
223
212
93

241
401
684
318
218
197
456
125
132
242
119
11
12
23
25
1
3
2
3210

76
39
50
41
33
76
1
58
40
4
105
7
1
8
2

120
42
18
11
13
9
10
4853

125250 hp
49
40
34
15
23
96
1
18
5
4
46

1
2

1
542

334

Total
2342
1261
892
857
673
621
545
424
389
343
270
138
55
50
38
16
13
12
8939

Source: Own elaboration.

Table 10
Motor breakdown by loading and rated power
Rated
power

110 hp
12.550 hp
60100 hp
125250 hp
Total

Load factor (%)

Up to 25

2550

5075

75100

More
than 100

Total

6.0
3.6
2.4
0.9
4.7

8.0
12.2
4.8
4.2
9.2

67.6
57.7
41.1
41.9
61.5

16.9
25.8
49.4
52.1
23.4

1.5
0.7
2.2
0.9
1.2

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

Source: Own elaboration.

affecting all manufacturers, but especially the smaller ones.

Therefore, the economies of scale achieved with the
production increase will be in great part offset by the need
for new investments, which means that is reasonable assume
that current prices of high efciency motors, about 40%
higher than standard ones, will not change signicantly.
The mass production of high efciency motors will
require a meaningful increase in the use of some materials,
particularly in ferro-silicon plates, for which there is only
one supplier in the national market. In addition, the
demand for steel has strongly increased in the last few years
in the global economy. Some action is therefore needed to
assure adequate supply of this material, in order to avoid
even greater impacts in the retail motor prices.
Increase in the minimum efciency of motors produced by
Brazilian manufacturers and its impact on prices is likely to
encourage further entry to the market by less expensive,
foreign made products, mainly motors as a component of
equipment. The Energy Efciency Law requires the same
performance for these motors, but the enforcement is more
complicated and is still in its initial control stage.

Analyzing the nancial impacts motor-by-motor (of

each rated power and speed), we can conclude that the
motor substitution is, in general, advantageous. Meanwhile, the cost effectiveness varies with use patterns and
electricity cost, rated power and polarity.
Considering a sample of industrial motors, the average
cost of the conserved energy by motor substitution, at a
12% of discount rate, usually adopted to the Brazilian
electrical system expansion, would be 21.97 US$/MWh.
This gure is very far below the winning bids in the
auctions for the Brazilian electrical system expansion, as of
December 2005. Furthermore, it does not include the social
and environmental benets of saving electricity.
On the other hand, as these costs will be supported only
by the nal users, we suggest the adoption of a policy that
can transfer a part of the saved investment to the sector, in
order to reduce prices. One alternative would be the
implementation of mechanisms of energy efciency biddings, with specic rules, where the set of all manufacturers
could sell saved energy to the pool of electrical utilities.16
16
Demand-side bidding has been practiced by at least 35 utilities in the US,
with prices ranging from 54 to 80 US$/MWh, in a sample of 10 utilities with
data entirely available (Goldman and Kito, 1995). The Brazilian electrical
sector current model, proposed by the Instituto de Cidadania (2002, p. 18),
which was the basis for the plan adopted recently by the President Lula
government, foresaw the implementation of policies for a efcient and
rational use of energy, with the restructuring of the National Energy Saving
ProgramProcel, of Eletrobras, making more energy available for use by its
more efcient consumption. This general approach of the energy efciency
issue received several concerns (Schaeffer, in Brasil Energia, July, 2004).
Among the coming proposals for more concrete policies for increased efciency
was that of blocks of energy saved, which could be negotiated as alternative
energies like wind, solar, biomass or small hydroelectric units (Schaeffer, 2004),
which will have a mandatory quantity bought by the utilities pool (MME
Ministerio das Minas e Energia, 2003, item 13.1).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.G.P. Garcia et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 34243439

3436

Table 11
Motor breakdown by operating hours and rated power
Rated power

Operating h/yr (%)

110 hp
12.550 hp
60100 hp
125250 hp
Total

Up to 2000

24000

46000

68000

More than 8000

Total

14.8
14.1
6.6
16.5
14.1

29.7
15.2
16.6
5.1
22.8

22.3
25.4
19.0
21.6
23.2

25.5
32.1
16.8
28.1
27.4

7.7
13.1
41.0
28.7
12.5

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

Source: Own elaboration.

Table 12
Cost effective substitutions (economic scerariosample)
hp

h/yr

Loading (%)

Poles

110 hp
12.550 hp
60100 hp
125250 hp

67
79
66
81

Up to 25
2550
5075
75100
More than 100
Total

58
47
75
76
92
72

68
75
59
44

72

2
54
87
97
98
72

2
4
6
8

Total

Up to 2000
20004000
40006000
60008000
48000
Total

Total

72

Source: Own elaboration.

Table 13
Cost effective substitutions (market scenariopublic funding)
hp

h/yr

Loading (%)

Poles

110 hp
12.550 hp
60100 hp
125250 hp

81
85
87
83

Up to 25
2550
5075
75100
More than 100
Total

65
54
89
83
94
83

88
83
75
56

83

14
83
98
99
99
83

2
4
6
8

Total

Up to 2 mil h/yr
24 mil h/yr
46 mil h/yr
68 mil h/yr
8 mil h/yr
Total

Total

83

Source: Own elaboration.

Table 14
Available changes (market scenarioprivate funding)
Hp

h/yr

Loading (%)

Poles

110 hp
12.550 hp
60100 hp
125250 hp

70
81
69
81

Up to 25
2550
5075
75100
More than 100
Total

61
50
78
77
93
74

71
77
63
50

74

2
59
92
98
99
74

2
4
6
8

Total

Up to 2 mil h/yr
24 mil h/yr
46 mil h/yr
68 mil h/yr
8 mil h/yr
Total

Total

74

Source: Own elaboration.

Finally, the MEPS standardization is only one measure to

make the motor use more efcient. Other measures can also
be signicant, such as to optimize the driven machine or the

driven system (for example, the hydraulic system driven by a

pump), the use of adjustable speed drives, the correct sizing
of motors and the balancing of the phases grid.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.G.P. Garcia et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 34243439

3437

Table 15
Comparison between Nadels sample and ours
Nadel

This paper

Rated power

TWh/yr

% accumulated

Rated power

% accumulated

15 hp
5.120 hp
2150 hp
51100 hp
101200 hp
Sub-total
201500 hp
4500 hp

44
163
175
230
294
906
181
215

5
18
19
25
32
100

5
23
42
68
100

110 hp
1150 hp
60100 hp
125250 hp
4250 hp

9
39
23
28

9
48
72
100

Source: Own elaboration, with data from Nadel (2002, p. 197).

Acknowledgements
We thank the CLASPCollaborative Labeling and
Appliance Standards Programteam for the opportunity
to develop the project (Schaeffer et al., 2005) of which the
main analysis presented in this paper is an outcome. The
participation of the CLASP team and the comments of its
consultants were essential to make the analysis more
consistent. We also thank the COPPE team which
contributed to the work, in particular with regard to the
economical analysis of Tatiana L. V. da Silva. We thank to

Procel/GEF the use of a data sample of motors and to

Ecoluz who collected these data. One of us (Agenor
Garcia) thanks to CNPq the opportunity to realize
studies for the PhD at the Energy Planning Program of
COPPE/UFRJ.

Appendix A
Table A.1. Prices and efciencies considered

Table A.1
Poles

Hp

Efciencies (at x% loading)

Prices

Standard

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4

1
1.5
2
3
4
5
6
7.5
10
12.5
15
20
25
30
40
50
60
75
100
125
150
175
200
250
1

High efciency

Standard

High
efciency

50%

75%

100%

50%

75%

100%

US$

US$

70.05
76.04
77.20
77.78
81.07
81.15
82.89
84.07
83.85
85.29
84.92
86.03
87.61
89.43
88.15
89.63
87.89
88.77
90.03
89.14
89.13
89.48
90.22
90.27
72.30

74.43
78.03
79.29
79.87
82.39
84.73
84.38
86.23
86.45
87.12
87.58
88.39
89.32
90.54
89.86
91.31
90.19
91.33
92.15
91.69
92.10
92.17
92.61
92.90
77.43

77.00
78.50
81.00
81.50
82.90
85.48
85.06
86.61
87.58
87.55
87.94
88.95
89.50
90.70
90.36
92.06
91.78
92.44
93.05
93.07
93.34
93.56
94.11
94.12
79.20

75.28
80.06
80.02
82.44
83.69
84.35
84.69
85.51
87.56
87.25
88.32
88.51
90.26
89.89
90.39
91.16
90.07
90.86
91.51
91.47
91.90
92.53
92.87
93.40
77.39

79.49
81.28
83.07
84.55
85.24
86.27
86.97
87.58
88.90
88.83
89.85
91.05
91.66
91.73
91.91
92.58
92.09
92.72
92.84
93.25
93.60
94.00
94.41
94.73
80.21

80.97
82.55
83.55
85.01
85.96
87.51
88.00
88.69
89.50
89.50
90.44
91.64
91.80
91.83
92.85
93.28
93.00
93.02
93.62
94.50
94.50
94.70
95.00
95.40
82.40

68.75
84.68
92.67
113.40
125.83
157.57
198.34
206.16
276.77
311.06
342.30
507.37
566.05
614.12
1.093.47
1.162.47
1.827.12
2.071.84
2.430.22
3.514.97
3.907.51
4.672.96
5.073.56
7.220.26
77.51

93.20
106.16
117.34
140.12
185.68
218.91
266.23
297.30
376.40
447.65
489.05
592.10
812.28
871.06
1.324.60
1.443.52
2.401.80
2.590.56
3.393.52
4.783.40
5.392.74
6.889.07
7.035.87
10.793.08
103.05

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.G.P. Garcia et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 34243439

3438
Table A.1 (continued )
Poles

Hp

Efciencies (at x% loading)

Prices

Standard

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

1.5
2
3
4
5
6
7.5
10
12.5
15
20
25
30
40
50
60
75
100
125
150
175
200
250
1
1.5
2
3
4
5
6
7.5
10
12.5
15
20
25
30
40
50
60
75
100
125
150
175
200
1
1.5
2
3
4
5
6
7.5
10
12.5
15
20
25

High efciency

Standard

High
efciency

50%

75%

100%

50%

75%

100%

US$

US$

72.59
77.34
79.40
80.00
82.31
83.25
86.24
85.95
86.33
86.95
87.96
88.93
89.23
89.44
90.23
91.01
90.51
91.57
90.19
90.32
91.22
90.80
91.22
69.10
70.27
74.28
75.10
78.14
82.44
82.74
83.01
84.06
85.75
87.68
88.22
89.07
89.55
90.12
88.43
90.09
90.61
90.52
91.62
91.67
92.11
91.22
61.86
65.48
73.84
75.97
76.20
78.31
80.73
81.41
83.27
85.80
86.56
86.76
86.91

77.25
81.04
82.16
81.40
84.35
84.34
87.35
87.88
87.78
88.26
89.33
89.98
90.14
90.63
91.60
92.29
92.12
92.60
92.17
92.48
93.08
93.14
93.11
72.71
73.30
76.32
77.33
80.72
84.05
84.04
84.65
85.81
86.98
88.89
89.06
89.73
90.73
91.13
90.96
91.33
92.04
92.32
92.61
93.06
93.48
93.11
64.14
72.09
77.27
78.82
79.38
81.38
83.24
84.30
85.91
87.14
87.73
88.28
88.51

79.40
82.30
83.00
83.05
85.41
85.55
87.80
88.70
88.30
88.50
90.13
90.90
91.00
91.70
92.40
93.00
93.00
93.23
93.26
93.56
94.10
94.50
94.50
74.20
75.00
77.80
78.50
81.20
84.05
84.15
85.10
86.34
87.90
89.40
89.50
90.20
91.00
91.70
91.73
91.78
92.89
93.00
93.00
94.10
94.10
94.11
66.20
73.60
78.60
79.60
80.84
82.40
84.22
85.60
87.00
87.78
88.55
89.45
89.15

76.80
79.05
82.93
83.50
85.03
86.89
88.09
88.32
89.08
89.99
90.07
91.05
91.47
91.73
92.30
92.49
92.51
93.03
92.94
92.99
93.56
94.29
93.96
76.63
74.58
79.45
78.49
84.51
85.78
85.79
86.26
86.92
87.82
89.32
89.43
90.96
90.86
91.90
91.68
91.96
91.98
92.88
93.28
94.01
94.20
94.03
66.36
72.57
78.41
82.26
80.44
81.45
83.17
84.16
86.23
87.93
87.93
88.06
89.00

79.21
82.68
84.63
85.78
87.46
88.02
89.10
90.10
90.50
90.99
91.11
92.27
92.46
92.98
92.97
93.42
93.63
94.21
93.86
94.47
94.79
95.14
95.16
79.45
77.18
82.16
81.86
85.80
87.04
87.07
87.88
88.12
89.00
90.03
90.09
91.54
91.89
92.65
92.58
93.04
93.06
93.63
93.81
94.53
94.72
94.67
69.34
76.91
81.40
84.04
82.59
83.28
85.63
86.61
87.81
89.07
89.07
89.20
89.69

81.50
84.02
85.01
86.43
87.90
88.90
89.90
90.90
90.94
91.63
92.26
92.58
92.88
93.00
93.17
93.86
94.10
94.50
94.55
95.00
95.00
95.44
95.44
80.05
77.40
83.49
83.08
86.33
87.52
87.60
88.55
88.67
89.51
90.28
90.35
91.75
92.47
93.04
93.05
93.61
93.62
94.11
94.14
95.00
95.01
95.03
70.85
78.25
82.68
84.56
85.10
85.50
86.16
87.12
88.70
89.55
89.57
89.70
90.15

85.74
104.38
120.36
153.52
161.73
221.86
234.34
287.07
323.75
344.22
499.00
577.83
818.28
1.101.82
1.220.86
1.764.90
1.957.01
2.320.69
3.404.85
3.710.36
4.474.22
4.709.72
5.545.28
107.23
111.25
141.03
154.04
230.64
273.81
303.86
330.48
373.96
521.49
570.52
664.77
983.34
1.158.72
1.517.54
1.929.32
2.233.27
2.365.19
3.371.38
3.774.38
4.413.56
5.314.94
5.478.16
122.18
159.51
228.74
297.07
336.90
367.22
536.35
539.12
592.46
806.05
876.74
960.66
1.165.83

116.25
140.39
169.39
219.72
234.72
285.90
308.01
396.24
466.45
519.84
639.70
847.33
1.066.47
1.365.98
1.507.94
2.362.85
2.677.72
3.191.93
4.536.94
5.335.18
6.631.68
6.907.52
8.250.94
133.80
158.23
188.73
225.34
313.13
369.77
408.93
476.04
538.33
696.77
747.63
947.14
1.419.94
1.564.05
2.368.73
2.791.54
3.304.55
3.440.75
4.839.74
5.392.02
6.499.88
7.900.22
8.228.01
168.05
228.89
315.15
379.89
408.36
536.21
651.37
661.15
856.26
1.039.95
1.118.90
1.363.67
1.560.03

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.G.P. Garcia et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 34243439

3439

Table A.1 (continued )

Poles

Hp

Efciencies (at x% loading)

Prices

Standard

8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

30
40
50
60
75
100
125
150

High efciency

Standard

High
efciency

50%

75%

100%

50%

75%

100%

US$

US$

88.45
88.97
89.52
89.44
90.53
90.63
91.11
91.11

89.66
89.83
90.41
90.44
91.53
91.66
91.99
92.02

90.28
90.33
91.00
91.05
91.95
92.05
92.61
92.64

89.44
89.68
90.39
90.39
91.26
91.32
92.21
92.17

90.62
90.73
91.23
91.24
92.66
92.72
93.18
93.20

91.13
91.20
91.89
91.89
93.11
93.15
93.72
93.74

1.814.87
1.926.17
2.244.19
2.413.02
3.413.97
3.679.07
5.240.39
5.581.80

2.590.95
2.638.35
3.230.43
3.455.64
4.872.00
5.313.88
7.709.15
8.296.86

Source: Own elaboration, based in Weg, Kolbach and BDMotor.

References
Agencia Nacional De Energia EletricaANEEL, 2006. Average Tariffs
by Consumption Class by Regions and Brazil (R$/MWh). Available at
/http://www.aneel.gov.br/S. Acess in: 2006, March.
Asea-Pacic Economic CooperationEnergy Standards Information
System (APEC-ESIS), 2003. A Survey of Efciency Levels Specied
for Three-Phase Cage Induction Motors.
BACENBanco Central do Brasil, 2006. Site with data from the nancial
Brazilian system. Available at: /http://www.bacen.gov.brS. Acess in:
2006, Apr.
Banco Itau, 2006. Daily Analisys. Available at: /http://www.itau.
com.brS. Acess in: 2006, Apr.
CEPELCentro de Pesquisas em Energia Eletrica, 2003. BDMOTOR.
Software. Cepel, Rio de Janeiro. 1 CD-ROM.
Brasil, Decreto 4.508 of 2002, Dec. Establish the MEPS for induction
three-phase electrical motors with squirrel-cage rotor, Brazilian
or foreign made. D.O.U., Bras lia, DF: 2002, December 12th. Available
at: /http://www.energiabrasil.gov.br/decretos/decreto4508.pdfS. Acess in:
2003, April.
Brasil. Law 10.295, of 2001, OctoberEnergy Efciency Law. D.O.U.,
Bras lia, DF, 2001, Oct. Available at: /http://www.mme.gov.brS.
Acess in 2003, Apr.
Collaborative Labeling And Appliance Standards Program (CLASP).
Main authors: Wiel, S. e McMahon, J. E. Energy-Efciency
Labels and Standards: A Guidebook for Appliances, Equipment,
and Lighting. Washington, DC, 2001. Available at: /http://www.
clasponline.org/download/General/2001/211/index.php3S. Acess in:
21.jul.2003.
EPEEmpresa de Pesquisa Energetica, 2005. Brazilian Energy Balance
2005: Base year 2004. EPE, Rio de Janeiro.
EPEEmpresa de Pesquisa Energetica, 2006. Decennial Plan of Electrical
Energy Expansion: 20062015. Presentation in pdf. Available at:
/http://www.epe.gov.br/S. Acess in: 2006, Mar. EPE, Rio de Janeiro.
Garcia, A.G.P., 2003. The Impact of the Energy Efciency Law on
Industrial Electrical Motors Energy Saving Potential. MSc thesis in
Energy Planning. COPPE/UFRJ, Rio Gde Janeiro.

Geller, H.S., et al., 2003. The efcient use of electricity in Brazil: progress
and opportunities. Energy Policy, vol. 26, no 11, p. 859872, 1998.
Available at: /http://www.sciencedirect.comS. Acess in: 2003, Sep.
Goldman, C.A., Kito, E., 1995. M. S. Review of US Utility Demand-Side
Bidding Programs. Utilities Policy, vol. 5(1), Elsevier, Great-Britain,
pp. 1325.
Instituto de Cidadania, 2002. Diretrizes e Linhas de Ac- ao para o Setor
Eletrico Brasileiro. Rio de Janeiro.
MMEMinisterio das Minas e Energia, 2001. Secretaria de Energia.
Departamento Nacional de Desenvolvimento Energetico. Energy
Efciency. Bras lia, 2001. Available at: /http://www.mme.gov.br/
desenvenergetico/DocumentosS. Acess in: 2003, Apr.
MMEMinisterio das Minas e Energia, 2003. Modelo Institucional do
Setor Eletrico. Bras lia, 2003, Dec.
MMEMinisterio das Minas e Energia, 2005. Portaria Interministerial no
553, de 8 de dezembro de 2005. Establish MEPS for induction electric
three-phase motors with squirrel cage rotor . Bras liaDF, 2005.
Nadel, et al., 2002. Energy-Efcient Motor Systems: a Handbook on
Technology, Program and Policy Opportunities, second ed. ACEEE,
Washington, DC.
PROCELPrograma Nacional de Conservac- ao de Energia Eletrica e
GEFGlobal Environment Facility, 2006. Avaliac- ao do Mercado de
Eciencia Energetica no Brasil. Project in course. Procel.
Schaeffer, R., 2004. Energia e refem do jogo pol tico. Interview to Brasil
Energia journal 284, 2024.
Schaeffer, R., Szklo, A.S., 2001. Future electric power technology choices
of Brazil: a possible conict between local pollution and global climate
change. Energy Policy 29, 355369.
Schaeffer, R., et al., 2005. Avaliac- ao dos Indices de Eciencia Energetica
para Motores Trifasicos de Induc- ao. Final report of the project done
for CLASP, in behalf of UN/DESA. COPPE/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro.
US Department Of Energy (US-DOE), 2003. Motor Master+International. Software for motor energy use. Available at: /http://www.oit.
doe.gov/bestpractices/software_tools.shtmlS. Acess in: 2003, Jul.
Weg, 2005. Annual Report 2004. Jaragua do SulSC: Weg.
Weg, 2006. Motores Trifasicos IP55Alto Rendimento Plus. Document
in pdf. Available at: /http://www.weg.com.br/S. Acess in: 2006, Aug.