US Department of Energy Adopts
Higher Efficiency Standards for
Distribution Transformers
Michael Scholand, CLASP
International Energy Efficient Transformers Workshop 2013
Bangkok, 13 November 2013
Purpose and Disclaimer
•
Review the new Distribution Transformer regulation adopted in the
United States on 18 April 2013
•
Compare with the previous requirements that were adopted in 2007
Important Disclaimer: I do not represent the US Department of Energy (DOE)
nor the US Government. I worked as a contractor to DOE for 10 years, seven of
which were spent on the 2007 regulation of Transformers. I did not work on the
2013 Final Rule. All the views expressed in this presentation represent my
personal observations and understanding, and do not necessarily represent
those of the DOE.
2
Table of Contents
1
Overview of US Transformer Programs
2
US Regulatory Program Process
3
Efficiency Levels Adopted
4
Benefits and Conclusions
3
Introduction
Authority
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT 1992)
added Distribution Transformers
Sec. 6317. Energy conservation standards for high-intensity discharge lamps,
distribution transformers, and small electric motors
(a) High-intensity discharge lamps and distribution transformers
(1) The Secretary shall, within 30 months after October 24, 1992, prescribe
testing requirements for those [ . . . ] distribution transformers for which the
Secretary makes a determination that energy conservation standards would be
technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in
significant energy savings.
(2) The Secretary shall, within 18 months after the date on which testing
requirements are prescribed by the Secretary pursuant to paragraph (1),
prescribe, by rule, energy conservation standards for those [ . . . ] distribution
transformers for which the Secretary prescribed testing requirements under
paragraph (1).
4
Introduction
Authority
Detailed Timeline of US Activity
•
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) developed a voluntary efficiency standard
called “TP-1”, first published in 1996 and later revised in 2002
•
US DOE initiated a series of market studies with Oak Ridge National Laboratory (1994-1997)
•
NEMA developed a test method for measuring transformer efficiency called “TP-2”, first published
in 1998 and later revised in 2005
•
US DOE initiated work on test procedures in 1996, which was completed in 2006
•
US EPA created the ENERGY STAR Transformers in 1999 to help accelerate market adoption of
NEMA TP-1 levels (focus was on low-voltage dry-type)
•
US DOE initiated work on the energy conservation standard (i.e., minimum energy performance
standards) in 2000, and it was completed in 2007
•
Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 establishing energy conservation standards for
certain distribution transformers - low-voltage dry-type
•
US EPA stopped ENERGY STAR Transformers in May 2007, because same level as EPACT 2005
•
NEMA launches NEMA Premium Transformers for low-voltage dry-type in May 2010
•
US DOE initiated its review of the 2007 regulation in early 2011
•
DOE completed its review and published the updated efficiency standards for Distribution
Transformers on 13 April 2013
5
Introduction
Authority
Timeline of US Activity on Distribution Transformers
• A combination of voluntary (grey) and mandatory (purple) programs
• However, the mandatory programs have had more impact on the market
NEMA
publishes
TP-1
1992
EPACT
1992
NEMA
publishes
TP-2
1996
ORNL
studies
EPA’s ENERGY
STAR
Transformers
TP-1 and
TP-2
revised
2000
Test
Procedure
Energy Conservation
Regulation (first one)
2004
NEMA
Premium
Transformers
2008
DOE
Efficiency
Regulation
Final Rule
EPACT 2005
for LV drytype
2012
2016
DOE
Energy
Efficiency
Revision
Effective date
of first DOE
regulation
Effective
date of
revised DOE
regulation
6
Table of Contents
1
Overview of US Transformer Programs
2
US Regulatory Program Process
3
Efficiency Levels Adopted
4
Benefits and Conclusions
7
Regulatory Process
Authority
Mandatory Requirements
•
Two main ways to set mandatory efficiency requirements for
products and equipment in the US:
1. Congress (Legislative) develops and adopts a bill and
the President signs it into law (EPACT 2005 – LV Dry)
2. Congress empowers the US Department of Energy
(DOE) to conduct a rulemaking
•
•
Open process with defined stages
•
DOE publishes analysis, stakeholders comment
•
Final rule establishes requirements taking all
viewpoints into consideration
Recently, DOE added a new procedure under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act
•
Negotiated Rulemaking – form an expert committee of
stakeholders and agree a level, propose it to DOE
8
Regulatory Process
Authority
DOE Regulations on Transformers
•
•
The 2007 DOE transformer rulemaking followed traditional approach
•
Proposed requirements followed by stakeholder review and meetings
•
Revised proposal, followed by review and ultimately the Final Rule
The 2013 DOE transformer rulemaking started with a ‘negotiated rulemaking’
•
Formed a committee of stakeholders (industry, utilities, associations,
environmental groups) who tried to reach consensus on an efficiency proposal
•
Met approximately 10 times, shared data, real-time discussion and
understanding of view points, however could not agree
•
DOE therefore reverted to traditional approach, but at second step – revised
proposal, followed by review and meetings and based on the data from the
negotiated rulemaking (N.B. this effort was not wasted)
•
DOE published the updated Final Rule on 18 April 2013
Link: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0048-0762
9
Regulatory Process
Methodology
Summary
Negotiated Rulemaking – Data Example
NEMA said although this process did not reach consensus, they found it
much better for enabling all stakeholders to understand their viewpoint –
data and discussion in real time.
10
Regulatory
Process
EPCA
Criteria
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) requires DOE
to consider 7 factors when setting efficiency standards
Factor
Analysis
1. Economic impact on consumers
and manufacturers
Life-cycle cost analysis
Manufacturer impact analysis
2. Lifetime operating cost savings
Life-cycle cost analysis
3. Total projected energy savings
National impact analysis
4. Impact on utility or performance
Engineering analysis
Screening analysis
5. Impact of any lessening of
competition
Manufacturer impact analysis
6. Need for national energy
conservation
National impact analysis
7. Other factors the Secretary
considers relevant
Environmental assessment
Utility impact analysis
Employment impact analysis
11
Regulatory
KeyProcess
Analyses
Four Key Analyses of Standards Rulemaking
• Engineering Analysis
The relationship between cost and efficiency
• Life-Cycle Cost Assessment
The savings (or costs) that accrue to transformer customers
• National Impacts Analysis
The benefits (or costs) to the nation from the regulation
• Manufacturer Impact Analysis
The impact (positive/negative) on manufacturers from the regulation
• Together, these four analyses cover 6 of the 7 EPCA factors
12
Regulatory
Process
Background
Scope of Coverage*
Distribution transformer means a transformer that—
1) Has an input voltage of 34.5 kV or less;
2) Has an output voltage of 600 V or less;
3) Is rated for operation at a frequency of 60 Hz; and
4) Has a capacity of 10 kVA to 2500 kVA for liquid-immersed units
and 15 kVA to 2500 kVA for dry-type units; but
5) The term “distribution transformer” does not include a transformer that is an—
i. Autotransformer;
viii.Sealed transformer;
ii. Drive (isolation) transformer;
ix. Special-impedance transformer;
iii. Grounding transformer;
x. Testing transformer;
iv. Machine-tool (control)
xi. Transformer with tap range
transformer;
of 20% or more;
v. Non-ventilated transformer;
xii. Uninterruptible power supply
transformer; or
vi. Rectifier transformer;
xiii.Welding transformer.
vii. Regulating transformer;
* Scope of Coverage from 2013 Energy Conservation Standard Final Rule.
Table of Contents
1
Overview of US Transformer Programs
2
US Regulatory Program Process
3
Efficiency Levels Adopted
4
Benefits and Conclusions
14
Efficiency Levels
Cross-cutting
Issues
Liquid-Immersed Distribution Transformers
Single-Phase
Efficiency (% at 50% load)
kVA
2010
2016
10
98.62
98.70
15
98.76
98.82
25
98.91
98.95
37.5
99.01
99.05
50
99.08
99.11
75
99.17
99.19
100
99.23
99.25
167
99.25
99.33
250
99.32
99.39
333
99.36
99.43
500
99.42
99.49
667
99.46
99.52
833
99.49
99.55
Three-Phase
Efficiency (% at 50% load)
kVA
2010
2016
15
98.36
98.65
30
98.62
98.83
45
98.76
98.92
75
98.91
99.03
112.5
99.01
99.11
150
99.08
99.16
225
99.17
99.23
300
99.23
99.27
500
99.25
99.35
750
99.32
99.40
1000
99.36
99.43
1500
99.42
99.48
2000
99.46
99.51
2500
99.49
99.53
Note: All efficiency values are at 50 percent of nameplate-rated load, determined according
to the DOE Test-Procedure. 10 CFR Part 431, Subpart K, Appendix A.
15
Efficiency Levels
Cross-cutting
Issues
Liquid-Immersed Distribution Transformers
Note: All efficiency values are at 50 percent of nameplate-rated load, determined according
to the DOE Test-Procedure. 10 CFR Part 431, Subpart K, Appendix A.
16
Efficiency Levels
Cross-cutting
Issues
Medium-Voltage Dry-Type Distribution Transformers
Single-Phase – No Change
kVA
15
25
37.5
50
75
100
167
250
333
500
667
833
2010 Single Phase Efficiency (%)
20–45kV
46–95kV
≥96kV
BIL
BIL
BIL
98.10
97.86
98.33
98.12
98.49
98.30
98.60
98.42
98.73
98.57
98.53
98.82
98.67
98.63
98.96
98.83
98.80
99.07
98.95
98.91
99.14
99.03
98.99
99.22
99.12
99.09
99.27
99.18
99.15
99.31
99.23
99.20
kVA
15
25
37.5
50
75
100
167
250
333
500
667
833
2016 Single Phase Efficiency (%)
20–45kV
46–95kV
≥96kV
BIL
BIL
BIL
98.10
98.33
98.49
98.60
98.73
98.82
98.96
99.07
99.14
99.22
99.27
99.31
97.86
98.12
98.30
98.42
98.57
98.67
98.83
98.95
99.03
99.12
99.18
99.23
98.53
98.63
98.80
98.91
98.99
99.09
99.15
99.20
Note: All efficiency values are at 50 percent of nameplate-rated load, determined according to the DOE TestProcedure. 10 CFR Part 431, Subpart K, Appendix A.
17
Efficiency Levels
Cross-cutting
Issues
Medium-Voltage Dry-Type Distribution Transformers
Three-Phase
kVA
15
30
45
75
112.5
150
225
300
500
750
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
2010 Three-Phase Efficiency (%)
20–45kV
46–95kV
≥96kV
BIL
BIL
BIL
97.50
97.18
97.90
97.63
98.10
97.86
98.33
98.12
98.49
98.30
98.60
98.42
98.73
98.57
98.53
98.82
98.67
98.63
98.96
98.83
98.80
99.07
98.95
98.91
99.14
99.03
98.99
99.22
99.12
99.09
99.27
99.18
99.15
99.31
99.23
99.20
kVA
15
30
45
75
112.5
150
225
300
500
750
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
2016 Three-Phase Efficiency (%)
20–45kV
46–95kV
≥96kV
BIL
BIL
BIL
97.50
97.18
97.90
97.63
98.10
97.86
98.33
98.13
98.52
98.36
98.65
98.51
98.82
98.69
98.57
98.93
98.81
98.69
99.09
98.99
98.89
99.21
99.12
99.02
99.28
99.20
99.11
99.37
99.30
99.21
99.43
99.36
99.28
99.47
99.41
99.33
Note: All efficiency values are at 50 percent of nameplate-rated load, determined according to the DOE TestProcedure. 10 CFR Part 431, Subpart K, Appendix A.
18
Efficiency Levels
Cross-cutting
Issues
Medium-Voltage Dry-Type Distribution Transformers
Three-Phase (10-200 kVA)
Note: All efficiency values are at 50 percent of nameplate-rated load, determined according to the DOE
Test-Procedure. 10 CFR Part 431, Subpart K, Appendix A.
19
Efficiency Levels
Cross-cutting
Issues
Medium-Voltage Dry-Type Distribution Transformers
Three-Phase (200-3000 kVA)
Note: All efficiency values are at 50 percent of nameplate-rated load, determined according to the DOE
Test-Procedure. 10 CFR Part 431, Subpart K, Appendix A.
20
Efficiency Levels
Cross-cutting
Issues
Low-Voltage Dry-Type Transformers
Single and Three-Phase
Single-Phase
Efficiency (% at 35% load)
kVA
2010
2016
15
97.7
97.70
25
98.0
98.00
37.5
98.2
98.20
50
98.3
98.30
75
98.5
98.50
100
98.6
98.60
167
98.7
98.70
250
98.8
98.80
333
98.9
98.90
Three-Phase
Efficiency (% at 35% load)
kVA
2010
2016
15
97.0
97.89
30
97.5
98.23
45
97.7
98.40
75
98.0
98.60
112.5
98.2
98.74
150
98.3
98.83
225
98.5
98.94
300
98.6
99.02
500
98.7
99.14
750
98.8
99.23
1000
98.9
99.28
Single-Phase
NEMA Premium
kVA
% Eff35
15
98.39 %
25
98.60 %
37.5
98.74 %
50
98.81 %
75
98.95 %
100
99.02 %
167
99.09 %
250
99.16 %
333
99.23 %
Three-Phase
NEMA Premium
kVA
% Eff35
15
97.90 %
30
98.25 %
45
98.39 %
75
98.60 %
112.5
98.74 %
150
98.81 %
225
98.95 %
300
99.02 %
500
99.09 %
750
99.16 %
1000
99.23 %
Note: All efficiency values are at 35 percent of nameplate-rated load, determined according to the DOE Test-Procedure.
10 CFR Part 431, Subpart K, Appendix A.
21
Efficiency Levels
Cross-cutting
Issues
Low-Voltage Dry-Type Transformers
Single and Three-Phase
Note: All efficiency values are at 35 percent of nameplate-rated load, determined
according to the DOE Test-Procedure. 10 CFR Part 431, Subpart K, Appendix A.
22
Table of Contents
1
Overview of US Transformer Programs
2
US Regulatory Program Process
3
Efficiency Levels Adopted
4
Benefits and Conclusions
23
Benefits
and Conclusions
Cross-cutting
Issues
Regulatory Benefits to the Nation
Considering equipment sold over a 30 year period (2016 to 2045), DOE
estimates the following benefits to the nation from the new regulation:
$12.9 billion in total costs to consumers — saving families and
businesses money while also reducing energy consumption
3.63 quadrillion British thermal units of energy (approx. 1064 TWh)
Compared to the 2007 regulation, electrical losses decreased by about:
8% for liquid-immersed transformers
13% for medium-voltage dry-type transformers, and
18% for low-voltage dry-type transformers
Avoids ~264.7 million metric tons of CO2 emissions, equivalent to the
annual emissions of about 51.75 million automobiles
24
Issues and Lessons
Cross-cutting
Issues
Some concluding remarks...
The US has 15+ years of experience with
voluntary and mandatory programs on distribution
transformers
Voluntary programs didn’t have a large market
impact, but they encouraged manufacturers to
innovate and offer high-efficiency models
Mandatory programs achieve energy saving
objectives, but level of ambition must be set
carefully, balancing technical and economic factors
DOE increased the ambition of its regulations on nearly
all Distribution Transformers starting from 2016
It started as a negotiated rulemaking (DOE’s first), and
was completed as a traditional rulemaking
Data from the negotiation was extremely valuable and all
participants came to understand the diverse viewpoints
of the different stakeholders
25
Final
Slide
Activity
Summary
Thank you for your Attention.
Are there any Questions?
26