LET’S BE
June 2012
PACIFIC
™
Volume 12 Number 2
DOE Mandated Minimum Efficiencies
For Distribution Transformers
Medium Voltage Dry, Medium Voltage Liquid, Low Voltage Dry
At this moment almost everyone associated with
The DOE decided that they would include the Low Voltage
Distribution Transformers, including transformer
Ventilated Dry Transformers also in their evaluation of
manufacturers, end users, suppliers of raw materials
whether new mandated efficiency levels were needed.
environmental petitioners (advocates), is anxiously
Higher efficiency levels prescribed by the DOE are
awaiting the final ruling of the U.S. Department of Energy
DOE Medium Voltage Dry Efficiencies 46-95 KV BIL
required by law to be (1) technologically feasible; (2)
(DOE) on the new minimum efficiency levels that will be
Proposed
Present
economically
justifiable; and (3) provide a significant
Pre-2010
DOE 2010 DOE 2016
KVA
required of both liquid filled and dry type Distribution
Efficiency
Efficiency
Efficiency
energy
savings
and an overall benefit to preservation of
Transformers.
112.5
96.7%environment
98.3%
98.4% and natural resources.
the
150
97.1%
98.4%
98.5%
We are all aware that the first DOE mandated efficiency225 97.5% 98.6% 98.7%
Exhibits
1
and
300
97.6%
98.7%
98.8%2 provide a graphical representation of
levels, known as TP-1, were required for low voltage500 97.9% 98.8% 99.0%
how
dry type
750
98.3% the99.0%
99.1%transformer efficiencies have been raised
ventilated dry type transformers beginning in January of1000
98.5%
99.0%
99.2%
to
higher
levels
2007. Next the DOE implemented minimum efficiency1500 98.6% 99.1% 99.3%starting in 2007 for Low Voltage and in
2010
for
Medium
2000
98.7%
99.2%
99.4% Voltage, then will move to recommended
levels for Medium Voltage Distribution Transformers in the2500
99.0%
99.2%
99.4%
higher
levels
effective
in 2016. The left bar, colored blue,
categories of both liquid filled and dry-type transformers
DOE Medium Voltage Dry 3 Phase Efficiencies 46-95 KV BIL
(ventilated and CAST) that became effective in
January of 2010. These new efficiency levels for
%Efficiency
medium voltage are sometimes called TSL-2 or
99.5%
more correctly referenced: “MEETS EFFICIENCY
99.0%
98.5%
LEVELS AS REQUIRED BY DOE 10 CFR 431
Pre-2010 Efficiency
98.0%
SECTION 196”.
Present DOE 2010 Efficiency
97.5%
Brief Background
The new 2010 Medium Voltage mandated efficiencies
were finalized by DOE in October 2007. Right after
this final rule was published certain parties, called
petitioners or advocates, filed petitions for review in
the United States Courts of Appeals in the Second
and Ninth Circuits, challenging this final rule by
alleging that the DOE did not comply with certain
provisions of the 1975 Energy Policy Conservation
Act (EPCA). In other words the DOE had not set the
newly mandated efficiencies at a high enough level
to suit the petitioners.
Under the aegis of the courts the petitioners entered
into a settlement that directed the DOE to review the
mandated energy efficiency standards for Medium
Voltage Dry and Liquid Distribution Transformers
and publish their final findings by October 1, 2012.
Proposed DOE 2016 Efficiency
97.0%
96.5%
96.0%
95.5%
95.0%
112.5
150
225
300
500
750
1000
1500
2000
KVA
2500
Exhibit 1
DOE Low Voltage Dry 3 Phase Efficiencies
% Efficiency
99.5%
99.0%
98.5%
98.0%
97.5%
97.0%
96.5%
96.0%
95.5%
95.0%
94.5%
94.0%
93.5%
93.0%
Pre-2007 TP-1 Efficiency
2007
TP-1 Efficiency
Proposed 2016 Efficiency
15
30
45
75
112.5
150
225
300
500
750
1000
KVA
Exhibit 2
1
This document contains proprietary information of Electro-Mechanical Corporation or its operating divisions in whom title remains. Any reproduction, distribution, disclosure or use not
otherwise expressly approved in writing is strictly prohibited. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.
represents the efficiency prior to the implementation of
any of the DOE mandated efficiencies. The middle bar,
shown in red, is the present efficiency level for both the
Low Voltage and the Medium Voltage Dry Types. Finally
the bar on the far right, colored green, represents the
DOE proposed new efficiencies in its February 2012
NOPR (Notice of Proposed Rule Making).
DOE engaged an analytical consultant, Navigant, who
interviewed major stakeholders and compiled a lot of
design data from the manufacturers. Navigant used the
services from Lawrence Berkley National Labs (LBNL)
for macroeconomic and transformer design data
analyses. In addition a prominent software transformer
design engineering company, Optimized Program
Services, Inc.(OPS), was hired to provide transformer
design data.
In this newsletter the graphical representation of the
rising efficiencies is shown for only the three phase units,
as the single phase units are basically not changing from
the present levels in 2016. While the steps may seem
small when presented graphically, the actual reduction
in losses required to meet the proposed levels for 2016
represent a 50% to 60% reduction in wasted energy
from transformer losses before being regulated.
Obviously there wasn’t time to analyze all of the liquid
and dry designs, so representative designs as shown in
Exhibit 3 were employed with the idea that other designs
in similar categories would be scaled accordingly using
a convention known as the 3/4 scaling factors.
During the analyses many different varieties of core
steels were analyzed for the best efficiency performance
as shown in Exhibit 4. Not only were there many core
steel alternatives considered, but also the manufacturers
Negotiated Rulemaking Activity
In the early part of 2011 the DOE decided that a team
comprised of the transformer manufacturers and all
Exhibit
3. Rob
pasted a better
other interested stakeholders,
including
transformer
Design
users, petitioners, and raw material
suppliers,
plus
others
version in the Word
Document.
Best option
like economists and NEMA representatives, would work
6
kVA
the Excel
for this. 125phase
toward reaching consensusIondid
newfind
transformer
efficiency
dry
10kV BIL Alternatives
minimum levels.This “negotiated rulemaking” procedure
had beenDistribution
used successfully
in the major appliance and
oltage Dry-Type
Transformers
electric motor industries.
7
Best option
75 kVA
3 phase
dry
10kV BIL
Dry-Type, Medium Voltage, Three-Phase
kVA
EC 6
Low BIL
20-45kV
EC 8
Med BIL
46-95kV
EC 10
High BIL
>96kV
-
30
-
45
-
DL 9
DL 11
15
75
112.5
150
8
300 kVA
3 phase
dry
10kV BIL
9
300 kVA
3 phase
dry
45kV BIL
10
1,500
kVA
3 phase
dry
45kV BIL
-
11
300 kVA
3 phase
dry
45kV BIL
-
225
Rep Unit
Rep Unit
Rep Unit
500
1500
2000
Rep Unit
Rep Unit
DL 12
1000
DL 10
750
12
1,500
kVA
3 phase
dry
95kV BIL
DL 13 (A & B)
300
Rep Unit
2500
Exhibit 3
ormers
t Class 4
ow
Voltage
Design
Line
2
Alternatives
Best option
CSL-0
(current)
CSL-1
CSL-2
CSL-3
CSL-4
M-6
M-0H
laser
M-3
SA1
M-0H
laser
M-3
M-0H
laser
M-3
M-0H
laser
M-6
M-12
M-12
M-6
M-5
M-5
M-3
M-4
M-6
M-3
M-4
M-3
M-0H
laser
M-5
M-5
M-3
M-6
M-3
M-0H
laser
M-6
M-0H
laser
M-3
M-4
M-6
M-6
Alternatives
Best option
Alternatives
Best option
M-5
M-4
M-6
M-5
Alternatives
Best option
Alternatives
Best option
Alternatives
M-4
M-6
M-5
M-3
M-5
SA1
SA1
CSL-5
CSL-6
CSL-7
M-3
M-6
M-0H
laser
M-4
M-0H
laser
SA1
M-3
SA1
SA1
M-0H
laser
SA1
SA1
SA1
SA1
SA1
SA1
M-4
M-3
M-4
M-0H
laser
M-3
SA1
SA1
SA1
SA1
SA1
SA1
SA1
SA1
SA1
M-0H
laser
M-5
M-5
M-4
M-0H
laser
M-0H
laser
SA1
SA1
M-4
M-3
M-0H
laser
M-3
M-4
M-5
M-0H
laser
M-3
M-4
SA1
M-0H
laser
M-0H
laser
M-3
M-4
M-4
M-0H
SA1
M-3
M-4
M-3
M-4
M-0H
laser
SA1
SA1
M-4
Exhibit 4
SA1
like Federal Pacific most likely will be forced to invest in
new core cutting and forming equipment that will yield
higher efficiency core performance. An example of this
conversion is shown in Exhibit 5 where the wound core
may replace the traditional stacked core. Certainly the
step-lap miter core (a stacked core) requiring expensive
core cutting equipment, will replace in most cases the
often used butt-lap core construction.
were also several teleconferences that included the
negotiating team members.
The result of all of this effort yielded a lot of excellent
information on possible more efficient transformer
designs; however only one of the transformer segments,
the Medium Voltage Dry-Type, MVDT, reached
consensus on the new efficiency levels.This situation left
the DOE without consensus recommendations to develop
NOPR (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) proposing new
efficiencies for 2016 published in the Federal Register
on February 10, 2012. This NOPR does an excellent job
of explaining how the DOE arrived at the new efficiency
levels.
Most of this analytical activity was done and presented
in six separate three-day meetings in Washington, D.C.
by usually 20-30 participants, that were part of the
24 member rule-making negotiating team or their
alternates, and the consultants engaged by the DOE.
During this approximate six month time period there
Stacked
Core
Wound
Core
Exhibit 5
3
Summarizing graphically the complexity of evaluating
designs and trying to get consensus by all stakeholders
Exhibit 6 illustrates many of the different interests and
possibilities associated with this effort.
transformers. Federal Pacific, a NEMA Premium®
participant, was especially pleased with the support
and leadership shown by NEMA toward working for a
consensus position on higher transformer efficiencies.
Exhibit 7 illustrates the savings that the NEMA
Premium® transformer offers over a 20 year period
relative to the presently regulated TP-1 designs.
Federal Pacific is proud to have been a major participant
in the negotiated rule making activity, and is publishing
in this newsletter a graphical summary in Exhibit 7
of the end user benefits of installing higher efficiency
3-Phase LVDT NOPR Efficiency Levels
50.00%
Advocates EL4 (47% loss reduction)
45.00%
Advocates EL4 (40% loss reduction)
40.00%
NOPR Average (35%)
35.00%
% Loss Reduction
NEMA Position (30%)
30.00%
NEMA Position (24%)
25.00%
NOPR Average (22.3%)
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
15
30
45
75
112.5
150
225
300
500
750
1000
KVA
NOPR Values
.75 Scaling
Exhibit 6
®
Projected Energy Savings
Dollars Over 20 Years
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
15
30
45
75
112.5
150
225
300
500
KVA
NOTE - Actual savings are subject to energy rates over time. Numbers shown based
on national average energy cost of $0.0967/kwhr and 35% average load.
Exhibit 7
4
NP30 PAYBACK CHECK
3/27/2012