 Hello everybody, thank you for joining us on this webinar today, morning, afternoon, evening, wherever you may be, in the world. We wanted to get together to have a conversation about motor efficiency in the mining industry. This is important to us because about 3% of industrial energy use goes into mining and electricity accounts to 44% of that. So, electricity going through numerous motors in the system, many of which we believe could be more efficient. And we're looking for experience from countries around the world on how we can improve that efficiency. So we've brought together a panel of people from some important mining countries to share their experience. This is just one conversation on a journey where we're trying to build a picture of what governments could be doing in terms of policy to promote energy efficiency in mining and we'll continue the conversation having enriched it with today's conversation. And with that, I will hand over to my friend and colleague, Steve, to make some opening remarks. Great, thanks so much, Mel, and thanks to the IEA for putting the spotlight on motors and efficiency and its role in climate action more broadly. Mae motors and the systems they drive account for about half of global electricity consumption. And in some countries, highly industrialized nations like Japan, that could be as high as 70%. So let me first of all introduce myself. I'm Steve Cacode with the International Copper Association and I lead our global partnerships work. Well, you know, why copper? Copper is one of the critical building blocks for the clean energy transition. According to McKinsey, two thirds of the solutions we need to decarbonize will require copper. And IEA is, I would say, one of the leading advocates when it comes to motors in terms of efficiency, in terms of standards, but also developing technologies to make motors more efficient. Earlier this year, we formed the Motor Efficiency Global Alliance, or MEGA, along with the IEA, United for Efficiency, and some other key partners, and MEGA is intended to be all things related to motors. And Mel mentions minimum energy performance standards, MEPS. These are critical, and MEPS for motors are largely in place, I would say, in the OECD countries, not so much in the developing world. But even where we have MEPS, we'd like to see increased ambition. Technologies for motors have come a long way, and the MEPS needs to keep up with that. But we also advocate for the early replacement of electrical motors. MEPS addresses the future, so we ensure that we have a baseline for the products that are entering the marketplace. The issue, though, is that motors have long lifetimes, and now let's hear, let's get directly into the mining sector. Chile is the largest producer of copper in the world, but 30% of our copper comes from Chile. And we did an audit a few years ago of several mines there, and we showed that the average replacement time for a motor was 37 years. Chile has MEPS in place, but it's going to take decades for that market to catch up to the MEPS, and we don't have decades for climate action. I mean, 46% of the electricity consumed in the mining sector in Chile goes to their electric motors. So with this in mind, we're in the process of forming new initiatives to support Chile's mining industry. And that will focus on MEPS. We'd like to see Chile to be more ambitious when it comes to MEPS and maybe to have some regional cooperation there. But it is also focused on early replacements, so trying to get at that installed base. And this is an issue not limited to Chile. We see this more broadly as well that why we're not seeing this turnover of the installed base is a dollars and cents issue. Capital expenditure budgets are limited. They're focused on necessary maintenance products that are truly at their ends of life. And then functioning motor doesn't become a priority. But we estimate that the payback period for motors in Chile can be as low as two years and four years in the worst case scenario. I said a 37 year average replacement time. So, you know, the motor can pay for itself 10 times or more. So in this initiative, we're also trying to build financing to support the mining sector. And we're doing that through through mission efficiency. So I invite you to learn more about mega mega dash initiative dot org and mission efficiency dot org. And we're looking forward to the discussion. And thanks again to the IEA for bringing us together here today. Many thanks, Steve. And thanks for that really important kind of context setting to demonstrate why we're here today and the sorts of things that we need to talk about. We have, when we've been talking to countries like Chile, who are less advanced in their development of their efficiency standards for things like motors. They've come across a number of barriers that they found. And what we're hoping in this conversation today is to explore some of those and see what advice we can give or what future research needs to be done through projects like mega to make sure that we can we can help remove those barriers and make progress much more quickly in this. So for our panel today, we're very lucky to have with us Marcus Zeller, who's from Canada, Chris Bloomfield from Australia and Makutin Ligundi from South Africa. All people that we've worked with and who have represent energy efficiency policies that are really important to global knowledge. But also have been chosen because they have very significant mining sectors. And so with that, I'd like to perhaps ask each one of our panel members firstly to reflect on what they see as the challenges. So maybe if you could just each take two three minutes to set the scene in your context and then to know the good things and the not so good things that you've been experiencing, and then we can dig into them perhaps a bit more. So maybe just because of how people appear on my screen, maybe I can go to Marcus first. Yeah, good morning everybody. Thank you for inviting me to this panel. And I'm from I work for the Electric Utility here in Vancouver, British Columbia. The utility is called BC Hydro. We are 98% clean and renewable electricity generation. So very fortunate to have such a power grid. We have very resource intensive industries in British Columbia, such as mining, pulp and paper and oil and gas sector. Like it was mentioned before, a lot of it is only a portion of it is electrified or electric powered by electricity. The major energy use in British Columbia are still 70% fossil fuels. And that's a significant portion to for as a decarbonisation opportunity. So I work for the utility. We have a number of initiatives and programs for industries such as industrial energy managers that play a key role in implementing energy efficiency, low carbon electrification projects, load management, behind the meter distributed energy resources, energy storage, decarbonisation strategies and demonstration of innovative electric technologies. Participation in advisory committees for collaborative research in mining and pulpin paper. And interact with our Alliance of Energy Professionals and Service Providers to identify and investigate and implement energy efficiency projects. So motor efficiency is very dear to my heart. I've been involved in motor efficiency since I was a co-op student many, many years ago. And we've candidates a leader in standard development through the Canadian Standards Association, which I still participate in several committees developing standards on motor efficiency, drive efficiency, transformer efficiency. And actually a new area that we're participating in is motor refurbishment testing to make sure that efficiency is retained throughout the long life of electric motors. So with that, I'll pass it on to Chris, I guess, is next. Thank you, Marcus. My name's Chris Bloomfield. I work for the Australian Government in the Department called the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water, or DQ for short. I manage Australia's industrial energy efficiency policy, which incorporates both manufacturing and our resources sector. The resources sector is a really critical part of Australia's economy that accounts for more than two thirds of Australia's export earnings with iron ore, coal and natural gas being the top three and seven out of the top ten all being resources exports. And it's a really significant parts of our domestic energy mix. Australia's domestic energy consumption is about 4,000 petajoules, of which about 860 is in the resources sector. So it's a biggie for us. It's not 4%, it's 20% plus. It's also worth noting that many of our resources energy uses are not grid connected at the moment. So of that 860-odd petajoules, about 700 is fossil fuel with about 160 electrified. And that means that the quantum of energy used in fossil fuels in our resources sector is about the same size as Australia's current electricity sector. So that presents a real opportunity, but also a real challenge on how to transition smart to lower carbon resources. I'll also talk a little bit about the opportunities we see. We see a big capital investment wave coming across the resources sector at the moment. And that's partly driven by a change in the commodity mix, two of our large exports, LNG and coal. I'm not sure people would consider them growth industries, but other commodities like lithium certainly are. So some sectors of the resources industry are rapidly expanding and planning additional capacity, which provides the opportunity to get equipment installed smart the first time round. And the second big investment wave we see, there is a strong drive to decarbonise the resources sector. It is driven both by investors seeking lower carbon investments, but also by regulatory pressure within Australia. Many of our resources companies are captured by the safeguard mechanism, which imposes a declining baseline for carbon emissions on our largest emitters. So many of them are busy trying to figure out how to decarbonise, which gives the opportunity to get the settings right and get that investment done right the first time round. So a really exciting space. I'm also quite upfront that Australia is not a leader in our current minimum standards, particularly in electric motors. Our current minimum standard is for IE2 motors, which is not one of the leaders amongst the OECD. But we're currently undergoing a reform of our greenhouse energy minimum standards programme, which provides the opportunity to reset and uplift some of those standards. And really keen to hear from the rest of the panel both what to do to set the standards at the right level, but also to capture the right equipment. We see many of our resources companies as they're decarbonising. They're used to buying electric motors for a pump or for a fan or for a grinding system, where they typically buy a motor. But the equipment they're buying now is far more complex packaged equipment. They're not buying a motor, they're buying a battery electric haul truck. And our interest is both how to target traditional motors, but also how to expand the scope of motor standards into the packaged and complex equipment that companies are ordering. And at that point, I'll pass across to our next panellist, Maputi. Good morning colleagues here in South Africa still in the morning. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Yes. My name is Maputi Lohodi. I'm with the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy in South Africa in the office or in the unit responsible for energy efficiency projects, energy efficiency policy development and stakeholder engagement. I would be talking to the context around the South African industrial perspective in so far as energy or electric motors is concerned. And just to give a perspective of where we are as a country in respect of trying to address the issues pertaining to inefficiencies in the industrial sector, but also taking into account the fact that over the last 10 years, South Africa has been struggling with energy availability in terms of electricity supply. And therefore, energy efficiency within the industrial sector plays a significant role in making sure that we minimize the impact of load shedding, which also would then benefit partly the economic development or economic performance, which over the years we have seen our economy shrinking as a result of the ongoing load shedding. So the perspective to address or to deal with issues of efficiency within the industrial sector is once the issues around the energy security in total. So I will be talking to our view and our approach in so far as the electric motor systems improvement in terms of energy efficiency will be approached within the industrial sector. Thank you very much. Thank you all for those introduction words. I'd like to, having listened to that, I'd like to start by asking about conversations and how your conversations have been going with industry. Steve brought this up in his opening remarks, and I think this is something that you kind of all have dealings with. How do you develop policy that you have consulted well with industry and you know it's going to be followed through? We see some countries introducing maps without doing that process and you end up with this kind of conflict. I mean, how do you think it's best done? And I'll start with Marcus because you've been thinking about this for a long time. Yeah, it's industry wants to make sure whatever they are doing is relevant. It needs to save money and energy for them. So you have to give them the right information at the right time. We found that the system approach or a focus on the reduction of energy losses is often more important than the. Efficiency improvement, and I'm saying that is because part load efficiency might be less than full load efficiency of a piece of equipment. But the energy loss reduction or the energy consumed at part load is much, much lower than at full load. So it's not only about efficiency, but it's also about energy performance and reduction of energy waste. We have also launched another series of standards that is of very high interest to the industry. And we call them a user oriented standards that make energy performance more relevant and specific to the application. And as part of strategic energy management practices, we've realized that the maps are very limited in size and scope. And application, I mean, maps are typically 1 to 500 horsepower and whether it's IE 2 or IE 3 or IE 4, it doesn't matter. Why does matter, but it's very limited to what's actually falls under the regulatory framework of maps. Even in that horsepower range, you're still only capturing probably only half the motors that are installed. Because the others are not general purpose motors, but definite purpose motors or something unique that does not usually exempt from the maps regulation. So we're really looking with our customers to give them opportunity and give them information that is user oriented rather than just a regulatory compliance with enforcement that may not make the fullest benefit of strategic energy management. So thank you, Marcus. That's really interesting and really important. We've had several mentions so far already of the kind of systems approach, and this is I think a build on that. We not just looking at the individual motor, which perhaps is easy to regulate, but is not necessarily representative of the whole market that we're trying to impact. So hopefully you might be able to share those user oriented regulations with us so that we can share them around interesting parties and see whether that's an approach other people might want to build upon. Chris, you have a strong regulatory process that requires discussion with industry at various steps. How's that going in terms of things like motors and mining? Are you finding more interest because it's more interesting climate now or are you still finding it being sort of more of a controversial conversation? What's the status there in Australia? Yeah, I wouldn't say it's easy to open the discussion. Australian industry tends to be a little bit allergic to regulation, so that discussion is never easy nor straightforward. But saying that, it's good to understand what the drivers are from their shoes and what we can do to try and align the discussion with that. And if I look at some of the feedback with some of the resources companies we talk with, one of the biggest challenges in this space for them is time. And you can put that in two categories. There's those who's trying to build a new mine and they're racing to get first production and they're not really caring about lifecycle levelised costs. They might in a couple of years, but right now they are racing to get a particular product to market. They're trying to get lithium out while the price is high or another commodity to get first output. And that time pressure means that during that design phase, their focus is on how do I do it quick rather than how do I optimise the lifecycle costs? And I think part of our role as policymakers is to help make the case for the lifecycle costs and nudge where you can on the influences for investment. So we're doing quite a bit around our ESG investment frameworks and disclosures in Australia because if you can turn off or change the flow of investment into new assets, it'll change behaviour. Now it's not minimum standards, but it's another way to drive behaviour. The other group that are captured by time, most mines have a finite life and some commodities I might be brave enough to say also have a finite life. Someone looking at thermal coal mines while we're busy decommissioning thermal coal power plants is probably reluctant to invest in an asset they think has a limited lifetime. So we have the other piece of time where they're uncertain about the life of an asset and getting the payback on new investment. And I think trying to deal with that paradox of time, those who are trying to get things up and running quickly versus lifecycle cost is one of our policy challenges. And the other one that's really fascinating for us, and it may be a bit unique to Australia where many of our mines are not connected to the grid, flexibility of load is really high on many of our miners' agendas. And the reason for that is that they're busy trying to decarbonise their remote area power supplies. They're building wind and solar, but those variable renewables, they can't firm it with a grid. They're left with the firming cost. You can't fix it with a transmission line. You can't fix it with an import or an export to another area. So you have to deal with the cost of firming yourself, which means that for those remote area power supplies, they're really interested in the flexibility of their loads. So if they look at electrification of fleet, it might come to how do I sequence and charge when solar resources are abundant, as opposed to needing to to implement a lot more storage in their remote area power system or keep a higher fraction of fossil fuel in their remote area power system. So I think those are some of the sort of macro drivers. They're ones which give us more case because there's investment happening in these sites. But it hasn't helped the discussion of why should we raise or broaden the coverage of our minimum energy performance standards. And that's one that we're busy trying to unpack and drive at the moment. And as I started this response, it's not proving to be easy. And if if anyone else has any smart suggestions on how to deal with all the new types of kit that are coming in, really came to hear it. Thanks, Chris, enlightening, I think, I have to say, and probably a foresight of the problems that we see to come for others who are trying to improve efficiency in these areas. Maputi, when you're dealing with the mining industry in South Africa, which is obviously massively important to economic growth, massively important to employment, what sort of response do you get when you want to talk to them about efficiency? Is it something that they're prepared to talk about? Do you have to impose policy that because they don't want to talk about it, what's your current experience? You're muted, Maputi. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Melanie. I think in terms of the South African context, of course, we are the most industrialised country in Africa in terms of the mining. And therefore, most of our mining businesses involves the use of a number of electric motors, which consumes a lot of electricity if you were to think about the magnitude or the numbers that are deployed within the mining industry. Of course, many of them are being used for crushers, for grinders, for hoists, for pumps, for mills, for conveyor belts, for ventilation, and given the magnitude of the size of the mining industry in South Africa, the impact of the energy efficiency improvement within the system perspective is significant. And therefore, we had to begin to engage them, also considering the fact that we have been struggling with electricity supply and security for quite some time. And of course, it worked in our advantage for a little bit because I think in the main industry was also frustrated with the ongoing electricity shortages. And as much as they also wanted to deploy some of their own interventions to improve the supply on site in their areas of operation, they were a bit welcome to any intervention, policy intervention that government would put into place that would perhaps ease the burden of load shedding. And therefore, we found them to be more, at least in the majority of them, receptive to the idea of introducing the maps, for instance, for electric motors as part of the overall system optimisation approach. We had one company that was very resistant, primarily because if you look at the South African market in so far as electric motors are concerned, we are mainly the assemblers of the electric motors. We don't necessarily manufacture. So the negative response from this single company, which has got a bigger market share, was that the introduction of the IE3, for instance, which is what we wanted to adopt as an immediate intervention, will significantly affect the industry, the AC motors industry, in the sense that they were not ready for the IE3 introduction. And secondly, the argument was that the company has a huge part of SMMEs, small, medium enterprises that they supply with electric motors and BSDs. And therefore, a sudden or a quick introduction of the IE3 motors or maps in relation to AC motors would kill the industry, especially the SMMPs, because then it would require them to reinvest in improving or replacing the IE2 and IE1 motors with the IE3 motors, which the argument was that the cost is will be significant. And of course, we acknowledged the input that the company provided to us. We called another stakeholder meeting. I think we had about three stakeholder meetings where the company consent did not pitch, but it was only on the last day when we were about to finalize the proposed maps for electric motors that they wrote a very long letter to the Minister of Trade and Industry trying to block the process saying they were not given an adequate opportunity to apply their minds, their inputs were not listened to, and so forth. And obviously at the political level, the instruction was that go back and engage this company. And when we engaged them, fortunately, we were working with Mike from GLASP who helped us a lot in terms of gathering data and justifying some of the technical benefits of moving from the IE1, IE2 to IE3. And also justifying the research component that significantly gave us the impetus to argue the case against the said company that was giving us a negative opposition in terms of moving forward. But in the end, we had to use a concept of majority rule because we had the majority of the industry giving us thumbs up to move towards IE3. And despite the fact that the quantity in terms of the numbers of deployment was not enough or that is not huge from those independent companies or individual companies as compared to this particular company that argued that their main focus is on the SMMEs, which in the majority are black companies, which then they had to use as an argument to say the government wants to kill the development of the SMMEs and so forth and so forth. But eventually we had to make a decision. We called them to a meeting, we presented the facts on the table to them, we asked them to present the effects and their argument necessarily did not convince us otherwise. And we eventually agreed that we would move as a country towards the adoption of the maps for the IE3 as a national requirement and eventually we had to go back to the political heads and inform them that no, we had engaged. Evidence is here that we can move and there are benefits in terms of movement. And therefore we propose that we go ahead with the implementation or the introduction of the maps for the electric motors. And fortunately, the political heads supported us and the national regulator for composite specifications eventually published or gazetted the new regulations, the VC9113 for the introduction of the maps for electric motors, which is mainly focused on IE3 requirements. So it wasn't a huge battle considering that we were aided a bit by the fact that the industry themselves were frustrated by the electricity shortage over the years and therefore they needed anything that would help them to restore or keep at least stability of the energy generation and supply within the country, which would then help them to keep a uniform performance over a period because their performance was going up and down as a result of the energy shortage. So anything that would be seen to be aiding them in that respect, they would accept. Hence, we are aware we are aware we are now in terms of the regulations themselves, they were published for public comments and then the closing date was on the, I think the 15th of November, that was the closing date for public comments. So we are now beginning to consolidate the inputs from the public comments and working towards finalising the regulations themselves. Thank you very much. Thank you, Llewethe, and may I just say congratulations, I know it's been a hard journey and Marcus and Chris are both nodding because we know they've both been through the same process. I'd like to say it gets easier, but I'm not sure that's true, but well done, and I think what's really interesting in what you've said and kind of feeds this conversation is the importance of the evidence that our colleagues in class, Mike Stirland in particular, were able to help bring to that debate to make sure that you were able, as a government, to provide the right evidence and push it forward. Push this through. I think also interesting the context, of course, your power shortages, making the need for efficiency a bit clearer perhaps to industry. As a contrast to Chris's experience where fast investment, you know, because of the booming resources market, meaning that people weren't perhaps prepared to give the time to thinking about those long term issues, so I think there's an interesting counterpoint there. Steve, can I come back to you a moment, because you've watched these debates around the world between governments and industry for decades, and as an organisation, have you got any, you know, best examples of how engagement with industry has really worked, that we can share with people, and maybe even if you dare, at least with examples, but let's focus on the positives for a start. No, it's been a really fascinating debate. Everyone is making important points. I really encourage to see the work that's being done in South Africa. You know, if I may, Mel, I want to focus on an important point that's come out in all three discussions, and I think it really is just around the benefits of energy efficiency and probably a lack of awareness for it. Chris spoke about the reluctance. I forget the word that you used, Chris, but how the industries there are maybe not always in favour of regulations. I think the way you get around that, and if you ask Mel about the positive experiences, and I think the IEA deserves a lot of credit for putting the spotlight on the multiple benefits of energy efficiency. So maybe one of the ways, Chris, you get around that is by saying if you just focus on efficiency, you want to get your material out of the ground faster. If you do it more efficiently, you're going to increase your profitability and your competitiveness from the very early stages of production because you'll be using less energy. I think South Africa is a good example of putting that message forward of how if you've got concerns with load shedding and the supply of electricity, we'll just use less of it, and you'll solve that problem at least in part. I'll give a specific example, Mel. I don't want to name the country because they're not represented here, but there is another mining rich country in Africa that we're speaking with to try to get them to do more on efficiency. And their answer is to produce more power, to generate more power, and kind of banging our heads and saying, no, just use less of it. We're giving you solutions to use less. Don't generate more power if you don't need to. I think South Africa is a good example and maybe we should connect with the people I'm speaking with in this other country to show them maybe a better way to do it. I'm really enjoying the discussion and the challenges that are being highlighted here. Thanks, Steve. Thanks everybody. Fascinating. One of the things that's coming up in our conversations with countries on a regular basis, and I remember Chris, we had this problem when I was working in Australia too, is how do you test motors? How do you have, when most of the motors aren't made in the countries that are sitting around this table and the countries that we're talking to, and there needs to be some sort of quality control, some evidence about performance of those motors, how do we recommend to regulators they cope with that situation? Is it through building test labs, which many countries feel they have to build test labs for every product they regulate, but that's expensive, and the business models for the test labs can be a bit doubtful if there's not other requirements for them beyond the government programs. And there are other options for recognising testing done by others in other parts of the world, but not everybody's regulatory framework allows for that. So I just wonder if we could just have a quick go around the three countries again and say, how do you provide for testing, do you accept test results from other countries? How do you manage that process? And let's go back to Marcus to start with, please. Yeah, in terms of standard development, the Canadian Standards Association has been a leader in the world, especially around testing motors and the verification and validation of motor efficiency that has been done in Canada through, mostly through utility efforts and sponsorship to find out which is the true efficiency that is most representative for the industry. I mean, standards have to be repeatable, reproducible, representative and reasonable. It's my four hours of standard development. And the representativeness is really the challenge. How do you make a laboratory test represent what's really happening in the real world under different voltage conditions and operating conditions that all impact the loading of the motor and the energy use? We do have good solid, very solid motor standards. Most of them require a dynamometer for testing. And the problem is that for large motors, you don't really have a dynamometer anymore. You can't test them very accurately or test them through a dynamometer anymore. Anything above the maps level, above 1,000 kilowatts, you're going to run into trouble having load testing done. So you have to do simulation of an engineering analysis and come up with an efficiency number of that motor. And I think the manufacturers are doing a reasonable job with that. The real problem is the system approach, I think, because you cannot test the system approach in the lab anymore because now you have components of a motor, a drive, a gear reducer and a piece of equipment that you need to be tested. And a lot of the mining equipment is very, very large. I mean, you can have motors up to 20,000, 30,000 horsepower, driving sag mills and ball mills, like we have in British Columbia. And you got to have something, I think something more user friendly that helps the customer understand how does the system perform as a whole. And one good example that we have found is that some of our customers have installed, especially doing new mine design. They've installed low speed synchronous motors to drive the ball mill and the sag mill with a variable frequency drive. And with that combination of equipment, they were able to eliminate the gear reducer that's usually fit in between. So motor efficiency is slightly lower for lower speed motors, but the overall efficiency was higher because you were able to eliminate the losses of the gear reducer. So the system approach is really, really important. The testing of that becomes much, much more challenging in a lab laboratory environment. But there's other tests and we found through our refurbishment, motor refurbishment testing that there's a series of tests that can be done by, even by motor service centres doing the repair and rewinding of existing motors. You can do a no load test, you can do insulation test, resistance test, and through that you can actually have a good confidence that the efficiency was maintained during the repair process. So you can do a combination of tests and you don't have to necessarily do dynamic, very expensive controlled dynamometer testing of very large machines. Thank you, Marcus. Really, really interesting stuff again. And how do you just briefly, because it's one of the issues that people have, how do you ensure compliance? Do you have a, I've lost Marcus, so I'll go to Marcus. Sorry, I lost you for a moment. I just, I wanted to ask you how you ensure compliance with your maps for those motors that you do regulate. What testing do you require and where can that be done? So testing has to be done in Canada for motors that qualify for the maps through the Canadian Standards Association C390 test, which is equivalent to the fully harmonised with the IEEE 112 method B test, as well as the IEC test method. They're fully harmonised for the maps level. And that has, I think it has worked out well. We've done, in the past, we've done some validation testing, and we found that in general the distribution of efficiencies that were tested to the standard was acceptable. So we believe that you cannot test every motor, which is way too costly. But in general, for the maps level, I think we have a reasonable estimate of motor efficiency. I think the real challenge is the larger motors that are difficult to test. But what about the, so what was the business model for the test labs? Is there enough work in the Canadian environment for them to be able to survive or are they supported by government? So when the utility, before the maps regulation or the IE3, three regulations came in, the utilities had such as BC Hydro, Manitoba Hydro, Hydro-Quebec had incentive programmes to encourage customers to purchase premium efficiency motors. And at that time, we had several test labs in Canada, but now that the regulation has come in and there's no more incentive from a utility to install premium efficiency motors, all the test labs have closed down. So there's no testing, there's no motor efficiency testing in Canada at this time. But you have a regulation that requires testing again in Canada, but you don't have that. But neither is there any motor manufacturing done in Canada either. No, okay. So it's all, yeah, either overseas or North America and in the United States. Okay. And Chris, what's the situation now in Australia? How do you run your compliance programme for mechs for motors? Yeah, good point. And look, the piece about test labs is a really good discussion. And look, Australia has some test labs, but they're really focused on the equipment that you can pull out and measure a motor in isolation. So it's quite narrow in the power ranges that they can test. And it's also really limited away from systems to separable motors. And we've done a bit of analysis of equipment import data. There's not a lot of motors made in Australia these days. So import data captures most of the market. And we find that 88% of motor imports are currently outside of our testing and compliance regime. So we can talk about mutual recognition. We can talk about ways to try and improve the quality of testing. But there's a really big scope piece here that at the moment we're capturing one tenth of the motor market. And that's probably our problem number one. Let's get the capture rights and the hurdle rights and then not get too caught up in the testing. That said, following being invited to this seminar, we thought we better do a bit of fact checking on what MRAs we do use in Australia for motors in mining. And there's not many that are used for efficiency, but there is a lot of activity for mining equipment MRAs in explosive atmosphere certification. And that relationship in precedent is quite strong. And the appetite from our testing and certification agencies for efficiency based MRAs is quite strong provided there's a reasonable justification for it. So I'd say there's certainly interest in expanding mutual recognition for motor certification. But we think first through our GEMs review process, we need to get the scope right and we need to get the threshold right. Very good points, very well made. Thank you Chris, very interesting. But Putie, with your new regulations that you've gazetted in November, what's the plan for testing compliance? Do you know that yet? Have you decided what you will accept in terms of testing? Yes Melan, I think we are a bit fortunate in the sense that we don't have a local manufacturing company for the electric motors. Most of our motors are being imported. And therefore the application of the maps will be regulated at the entrance level where the national regulator for compulsory specifications would receive applications from industry in terms of importing these motors as per the maps. And therefore it is at that point where the regulations would be enforced in terms of the importation of such motors. At the moment locally our testing facility is limited to 80 kilowatt motors. And therefore if you look beyond that we are unable to do any testing in that regard. So we are banking on the fact that because it would be a regulated market and therefore we need to beef up our ability and capabilities to enforce the regulations. Particularly in relation to the issuing of what we call the letter of authority to sell these products locally. So you can only get that from NRCS as a regulating entity, but also on condition that you comply with the regulations. Therefore you will get the approval to import such motors. Of course one has to be cognisant of the fact that especially in the developing countries I think the investment in the infrastructure and facilities relating to particularly around energy efficiency improvement was not so much in place. And therefore any interventions that are of regulatory nature would then require an upgrade in the test facilities. And at times it becomes a competitive or a competition between the requirement to invest in the facility and the need for the public service in terms of goods and services that the government have to invest money for the public. And therefore there is that weight that has to be put on to justify why you would need to spend such amount of money to build a new test laboratory to test this particular type of appliances or equipment as compared to having to use that money to provide services to the public. So those are the debates that in most cases we find ourselves having to contend with in government in terms of securing funding for the upgrade of test laboratories. But as I said in our case we are fortunate in the sense that most of our motors are being imported. There were a few companies that are doing motor rewinding which in the main would have to then up their cases or their businesses in terms of making sure that they comply with the requirement of the maps in so far as efficiency is consent. So we are hoping that even with the discussions around the Satec region through the SACRI and the East African communities centre for renewable energy and energy efficiency, we would be in a position to at least have a common understanding in harmonising the standards but also to have a common approach in terms of centralising or perhaps identifying the sport where we can as a community invest in putting in place a testing facility that will be saving, that will be capable enough to save both the Satec region as well as the East African region. So those are the discussions that we are still discussing at the regional level to look at the ways to harmonise the implementation and adoption of the maps but also to address issues of infrastructure availability to support the regulatory functions that are required. So I think for us, we are in a much better position in terms of regulations because what would then happen if you have to comply with the requirement of the maps of the IE3, then it means when you require the LOA from NRCS to import these machines, you've got to bring on board also. Testing report from accredited test laboratories that confirms that that product that you are importing complies with the maps for IE3 which would then be an international standard that most of the motor industry or motor manufacturers would have to comply with. So for us, I think that is an advantage that we are sitting with. Thank you very much. Thank you, Maputi. That was a really, it's one of the hearts of the issues that we're struggling with in these conversations and it's come up in many regions. So it comes up in Africa, in South East Asia and Latin America as well in the regions where we're all collectively working with developing emerging economies who are starting out on programs or trying to step up their programs. Motors is a particularly tricky one because setting out test labs for the lighting is much simpler and some of the domestic appliances is much simpler but motors is much more of an issue. So thanks for alerting us to that and that is a model that we are trying to explore for other regions too. Steve, you've been part of the conversations we've been having in Latin America about this and we've been promoting this idea of regional capacity. Have you got any further thoughts on that since we last discussed them and in the context of this conversation today? Yeah, I mean maybe I could add just a little bit. I was really encouraged to hear Maputi put a to talk about the need for regional harmonization. I really think that's critical. I could see no reason why all of the countries in the United States and Saudi Arabia need to have their own testing facility, for example. So if there's a way to have some regional cooperation there, you're going to see an acceleration of this movement towards energy efficiency. I think the discussion is also highlighting the need to take a holistic view when it comes to maps. It's not just about the standards itself. It's about monitoring the verification, the enforcement. Again, I don't want to mention the country because it's not represented here. A number of years back in a developing country, we personally, ICA went out and purchased motors and had them tested and we found about 20% weren't in compliance with the efficiency that was shown on the label. So just one example where MVE wasn't working and you mentioned Latin America. The very beginning I talked about the work we're trying to do in Chile because mining is such a critical sector there and a big energy user there for a big emitter of CO2. One of the issues with Chile is that they don't have the ability to do testing in particular if they increase their ambition on maps. So we're trying to encourage them to create a regulatory framework that will allow them to accept testing done from another country in the region. So just to reiterate a point and to conclude that remark is harmonization where it's possible is so important and if Southern Africa is able to make some inroads there then I think good for that region but then also an opportunity for sharing best practices in Latin America and other parts of the world. Thanks. Thanks, Steve. That's absolutely our experience as well in having these conversations and one of the reasons we wanted to put this group together today to explore how things can be done. The cost of testing is high and it's not something that every single country who wants to regulate notice can possibly absorb. So we need to explore these definitions but as we said earlier that does require a new point of this out with Chile. That does require that their regulatory framework allows for that. And in some cases that would require changing of, you know, higher level regulations than just the energy efficiency ones because sometimes we're associating energy efficiency with other types of regulation like Chris said, you know, explosive safety situations. Sometimes it's electrical safety. There's all sorts of regulations that we've been hooking our mechs on over the years and they have to have the basic ability to be able to accept test requirements, test results that aren't on onshore. So it's something that we need to be thinking that more. Chris, do you have your hand up please? Please do go ahead. Thank you. I just wanted to follow up and echo one of Steve's comments then about needing to be a little bit holistic about the system efficiency for motor efficiency. We've talked to a number of large Australian entities that have voluntarily adopted a standard higher than our minimum for motor efficiency. So we've asked them how how did it go? And there's a number of steps in that value chain beyond the lab that are needed or the testing lab that are needed. And when we when we talk to them, their first piece was coming up with a policy of yes, we're going to do this as a good business case for it pays for itself. We accept we need to do it. Okay, we're going to implement IE4 murders across the board. But then getting that spect in their projects with the engineers is easier said than done because there's an education piece and a bit of concern about how to integrate that into systems. Then for new projects generally those those specifications are going out to tender with original equipment manufacturers responding with bids, many of which didn't match the original spec. So there's a little bit of upskilling needed for the client side engineers to check that the proposal or contract that comes back is actually what they asked for. Then the next part was literal physical inspection of equipment delivered to site. They had a contract that might have said IE4 motors, but the equipment that turned up was IE2. And then the last of their concerns is does the motor match its label for efficiency, which is really the role of the test lab. So I think getting the test labs in place and having certainty that something does what it says on the label is really important. But there's a number of complementary and perhaps education measures that need to go with it to ensure that it's used. Thank you. Again, good points, but well made Chris. I mean, and Australia's compliance program is very good in that context of making sure that you start with everybody understanding what the rules are. So that those who want to comply can comply and then going through the pyramid until you get to the point where you actually do sort of flush out the people who are kind of deliberately contributing things. So I think it's a really cost effective approach to compliance and one that's a great model for others. I wanted to touch, we've not got many people on the line. So instead of taking Q&A, we carry on with our Q&A between ourselves. So just to start, let me know if any of you want to ask a question of everybody else on the panel. And if you do, just put your hand up please. We'll be most welcome. But there's a couple of points in the meantime I'd like to touch on. And one of them is we've gone into the system's territory a few times in this conversation. And one of the problems in the past has been that the individual motor is relatively easy to test. It's more complicated than any other product that we tend to regulate, but it's relatively easy to test. But once you start to get into the motor plus the driven device, get slightly more complicated, and then when you get into the broader system even more so. So it becomes much more difficult to regulate in a conventional sort of a way, in a MEPs type way, and to ensure compliance because we end up with an infinite number of combinations of things. Digital technologies, modern sensors that can tell us what a motor is doing in service or the system is doing in real time would allow us to change our approach and understand much better the actual duty cycle of a particular motor or system and then be able to perhaps improve efficiency by understanding that better and understanding how policy can drive improvements. Has anybody got any experience of these kind of digital energy management approaches either in the lab at the moment or full scale in factories? Anybody got any comments to make on what digitalisation can bring us in terms of motor efficiency and system efficiency? I'll have a go. It's more around the system efficiency rather than using digitalisation. But one of the methods we've used in the Australian market is where an asset is relatively homogenous, typically in our building stock, we've looked very much at performance ratings for the building as a whole through things like our neighbour's ratings. And that provides a performance and actual measured output benchmark against others to see who's doing well. And it's focused on the outcome of the whole system. And we've looked fairly hard at whether we can translate that from assets like office buildings and data centres into our resources sector. But we really struggle with the homogeneity of the stock. So it's one that we haven't solved. But I think we have concluded that that broad benchmarking approach doesn't really work when you have quite an uncomparable site base. I don't know if any of the rest of the panel has any views on the digitalisation aspects. And what you say, Chris, I mean, clearly is what's led us to energy management standards, which are being built on the previous quality and environmental standards type audit type approach, the paper trail that you build around all of that. But is there any, but that's obviously somewhat difficult to regulate. You can say that people have to follow a certain approach, but what the outcomes of that approach are going to be is of course more difficult to discuss. Anybody, any other thoughts on on whether the opportunities, what opportunities digitalisation brings us to go more towards the systems approach? Any experience anybody would like to share? Yeah, I have a couple of comments regarding the system approach. We encourage customers to use verbal frequency, verbal speed drives as part of the motor system. And we found that manufacturers of verbal speed drives, they give you an efficiency of the verbal frequency drive of 97%. And then when you ask them, well, what does that mean? It means 100% speed 100% torque full full speed full torque efficiency rating of that drive. Well, that doesn't mean anything because the drive is there not to operate at full speed. It's there to control the speed and the power load efficiency of a verbal frequency drive is much, much different than the full load. Speed. So that's why at Canadian Standards Association, we actually developed a standard to test the spectrum of speed torque variations in verbal frequency drives. So we can add those components to the motor and get the overall system efficiency much more educated. The other problem we found or opportunity challenge is that the new motor technologies are not are totally different than the induction motors. Like if you have permanent magnet motors, synchronous switched reluctance motors, they are not the 1500 rpm at 50 hertz or 1800 rpm at 60 hertz capability anymore. They are a motor that can be programmed at any speed that you want that you can optimize your system at. And we found that, for example, air compressor manufacturers, they use that technology and they say, oh, I don't 1800 rpm is not the right optimum speed of the air compressor. I want to run it at 5000 rpm and I get a much better efficiency and I can only do that with a permanent magnet motor or switched reluctance motor technology that requires a drive to operate. And it's really that whole extended product system efficiency that is going to look so much different than in the past where we just dealt with general purpose motors at given horsepower and given speed and given enclosure ratings. I think the future is going to look totally totally different. Like even in the residential sector, your washing machine used to be a very standard motor and it had four speeds for Vincent's spin cycles. Very simple. Now a washing machine, a residential washing machine is a complex permanent magnet motor at many, many different 2030, 50 program levels that you can't figure out, but it's an appliance where you just press start and it's self sensing and self controlling and optimizing. And I think we're going to see that type of approach of whether you call it digitalization or intelligence. That's going to go into the industrial appliance as well. We're going to see motors that are self configuring pumps pump systems that are self configuring self tuning. First at the smaller scale, like we already see it in circulator pumps that are used in buildings, but it's going to go upscale larger scale and we're going to see those in mining and resource intensive industries. But then when you look at it as an industrial appliance, the motor efficiency is irrelevant. Like it's, I don't, it took hairs, right? It's like I want the system efficiency to be self learning and optimized to the application that's driving and the overall result is what makes the impact. It's not the component efficiencies of a motor and a drive and a gearbox and this and that. So it's going to be, it's very interesting times ahead, I think, and these new technologies are very promising. And learning is, yeah, I think education, I've seen a lot of variable frequency drives on put on motors. And when I go to the industrial site, they will operate them at 100% speed. They use them for soft start. Oh, that's all I need, right? No, you can use the VFD to control your process and actually achieve much more significant energy savings than. But that's a lot of training and knowledge and energy management is required rather than, and it's very difficult to regulate those, right? It's almost impossible to regulate applications. But the training of it is very important. I mean, also what we've done with our user oriented standards where we use ideal state benchmarking approach. Of what sort of a wire to water, wire to air efficiency for clean water pumps. We have one for slurry pumping systems, refrigeration systems, fan systems where we take the actual conditions that user has and benchmark it to their ideal state of the actual work that's being done by the system. And then the customer or the user can use that data. If he does it on a regular basis hourly, he can use that for continuous monitoring and continuous improvement. And we find those have a significant impact on the customers because it's his data, it's his numbers and his improvement. He's showing his improvements in real, almost real time. Interesting vision of the future. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that, Marcus. I'd like to, we're coming towards the end. I'd just like to do a round of comments if I may and ask everybody for two things. One is where they see the opportunities for international collaboration, what they've seen work well, you know, what's one of the benefits. And also, you know, what what their number one recommendation to fellow policy makers would be. But on this goodness context, if we could stick to the to the conventional minimum of energy costs for all standards approach, because that's where, you know, we wanted to focus on this discussion for today. If we could go round the table and have those two points from everybody and then we'll close and maybe I could start with Chris. Sure. Look, I'll start with the international collaboration piece. And I was really interested to hear Maputi's comments about getting some of the industry on side. And I think there's a lesson for us in that that we need to do a bit more active seeking of some coaches or supporters in industry, because nothing is more powerful if the regulators support, so the regulated support being regulated. So that that's one of the takeaways for me about this session and benefit of collaboration straight off, but really, really keen to hear from the others maybe offline about other ways to try and entice and build that industry support. I'm sure Steve, some of your copper constituency are active in Australia. Maybe some of them are willing to lend their voice to help us advocate in this space. So very, very keen to to follow that up. And I have to confess, I didn't catch the other questions. So could you repeat it please? Yes, what your number one piece of advice for fellow policy makers who are trying to regulate women and making performance standards for the motors? I think it's looking at the the Australian markets. And again, because we are a separated series of small grids with lots of solar, perhaps we're early in this piece. But there's a really big capital investment wave coming to try and manage storage in that system. And you can either do it by storage on the supply side or smart and efficient demand side. So for us, we have a real interest in driving that capex for miners in particular to be more efficient and ideally efficient in ways where we can control the load to help flex and avoid supply disruption and curtailment. Good point, thank you very much. Now Putie, what benefits of international collaboration when you think it might go to your benefit in the future and number one piece of advice to fellow policy makers? I think the international collaboration is very critical in ensuring that because the global communities are connected, we are living in a world where we are connected either in politics or in economic activities. It's even worse now we are connected as a result of the climate change impact. Nobody would now act to be immune to climate change consequences. And I think in the main that drives the international communities, international cooperation to be in the forefront of addressing some of these issues pertaining to the adoption of energy efficiency standards and regulations and policies as a measure to, you know, contributes towards the reduction of the impact on climate change. But also to work as one and share experiences in so far as the impact of some of these catastrophic events that are taking place as a result of climate change are concerned. So the international cooperation plays a critical role in terms of addressing that. But secondly, I think it is also critical that as policy developers, we become honest in the way in which we approach our industries and stakeholders honest in the level of transparency that we present to them. Honest in the data that we present to them, but also honest in terms of the objectives of some of the policies that we want to put across. Because if you do not become honest and transparent to the stakeholders that you are targeting, but also the industries that you are targeting, you are bound to receive resistance from them because they are driven by money, they are driven by making income. So anything else that would be seen to be eating into their revenue, they will resist that. But then if you give them the understanding of why certain things have to happen and you give them evidence of what or why certain things are happening and why there should be a change, you are likely to get support from them because if you look at the impact of climate change, it doesn't matter whether you are a CEO of a company, you are earning millions of dollars as an individual. But when catastrophe strikes, it doesn't measure that Melanie, because he is a CEO, is earning a lot of money, let me spare him or her and move to the rest. It affects everybody else and therefore you need to create that sense of understanding, sense of understanding of humanity by those that are running our industries such that they see value in the contribution that they can make besides only looking at money as a revenue that they want to collect at all times. But I just think that that forms a critical component of how we would move towards changing the perception but also getting support that we need from those that are regarded as the captains of the industry. Transparency, doing enough research, justifying our information or our argument with data and evidence but also communicating our intentions as policy makers and the benefits of the activities or other policies that you want to put across. And I think that for me would go a long way in terms of seeing the greater adoption of energy efficiency and energy technologies international but coupled with that is the need for international cooperation. Regional corporations in different areas of our countries are critical so that we can be able to move as one humanity with one peoples. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Very, very wise words, very emotive words. We have come to the end of our time and I would like to suggest if our other speakers don't mind to say that I don't think we can better what Mofuti has just said. I think it stands as a wonderful end note to our conversation. And with all your permission, we will carry on this conversation in different environments and different formats and it just remains for me to thank you all and we'll be in touch. And thank you for those people on the line who have been listening to our conversation today. Goodbye. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you all.