‘Small Motor’ Energy Conservation Reg Upheld

The 4th Circuit upholds the Department of Energy’s energy conservation standards for electric induction motors that classify “small electric motors” as motors with a power output from .25 to 3 horsepower, despite a challenge from an industry trade association that says a federal statute clearly excludes from regulation all motors exceeding 1 hp.

The National Electrical Manufacturers Association petitions for review of a final rule promulgated by the U.S. Department of Energy setting conservation standards for electric induction motors, 75 Fed. Reg. 10874 (Mar. 9, 2010). In promulgating the Final Rule, the DOE invoked its authority to establish energy conservation standards for “small electric motors,” a term defined by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. NEMA contends the relevant statutory definition unambiguously excludes all such motors exceeding 1 hp, as well as certain motors rated at and less than 1 horsepower, from being regulated as small electric motors.

Because the Final Rule embodies a permissible interpretation of the statutory definition, we deny the petition for review.

The resolution of this challenge turns on the meaning of the term “small electric motor,” which under the ECPA “means a NEMA general purpose alternating current single-speed induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number series in accordance with NEMA Standards Publication MGI-1987.” NEMA argues that Parts 10 and 12 of MGI-1987 restrict the horsepower of small electric induction motors, and that the statutory definition unambiguously incorporates this limitation.

For NEMA to prevail, the statutory definition must unambiguously incorporate the horsepower limitation that NEMA contends is found in MGI-1987. In light of the language and structure of the definition, as well as the ordinary principles of grammar, we conclude the definition does not unambiguously incorporate such a limitation. To begin with, we are not free to disregard Congress’s decision to break the definition into two clauses. Second, the express reference to MGI-1987 in the definition’s second clause does not unambiguously incorporate all of that publication’s provisions, but rather only its specifications for frame size. Third, the term “NEMA general purpose … motor” in the definition’s first clause likewise does not unambiguously impose NEMA’s proposed horsepower limitation. Finally, the available legislative history does not justify NEMA’s reading.

We deny NEMA’s petition for review.

Dissent

Shedd, J.: When viewed in context, the statute we are reviewing is clearly unambiguous, and the DOE’s final rule is contrary to the statute and Congress’s clear direction. Therefore, I would grant the petition, vacate the final rule and remand the matter to DOE for action consistent with the law. I respectfully dissent.

National Electrical Manufacturers Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy (King) No. 10-1533, Aug. 16, 2011; On Petition for Review; John A. Hodges for petitioner; H. Thomas Byron III, USDOJ, for respondent. VLW 011-2-140, 44 pp.