1 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

The Parker Ranch installation in Hawaii

Small Manufacturer Survey Overview

Distribution Transformers December 20, 2011

Low Voltage Dry Type
2 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

• Definition: A distribution transformer manufacturer and its affiliates may 

employ no more than 750 employees to be considered a small business.

• DOE consulted several sources to identify manufacturers:

• Past rulemaking contacts

• SBA database

• Asked manufacturers during interviews about small businesses

• DOE’s certification and compliance database

• NEMA member lists

• This search yielded 56 unique manufacturers:

• Of these, 35 appeared to produce LVDT transformers based on an 

initial screening and contacts. Upon further investigation, DOE found 6 

of these to be either distributors or engineering firms only, leaving 29 

potential manufacturers.

Small Business Analysis
3 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Small Businesses in LDVT Market

14 

Meet US Small Biz Definition

11

Low-volume, But Don't Meet 

Definition

29 Companies Identifed as LVDT Manufacturers

4

Large Mkt Share 

and Don't Meet 

Small Biz Def

Reached 8 Reached 5

• Of the 29 potential LVDT manufacturers DOE identified:

– 4 firms are large companies with large market share

– 14 firms met the definition of a small business

• Of these, DOE successfully reached 8 (2 of which said DOE-covered were 

not meaningful to their business).

– 11 firms could be considered low-volume players in the industry 

but do NOT* meet the definition of a U.S. small business 

• Of these, DOE successfully reached 5.

* Six of these 11 had parent companies with more than 750 employees; the other five operated primarily outside the US).
4 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Survey Summary

• Of the 6 US Small businesses DOE reached:

– 4/6 produce in the U.S.; however, the majority of the volume 

produced by these six is produced outside the country.

– 3/6 also compete in MVDT market also.

– 3/6 have in-house mitering or wound core construction capability.

• Of all 11 low-volume businesses surveyed:

– 6/11 produce in US; however, the majority of the volume 

produced by these six is produced outside the country.

– 5/11 compete in MVDT market also.

– 7/11 have in-house mitering or wound core construction 

capability.

– 4 made nearly all cores in-house; 2 sourced all cores; 5 had a 

mix 
5 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Issue:

Answers to each question are scrambled in each row to protect 

confidentiality. A given column does NOT represent one 

manufacturer’s complete set of answers.

Revenue from 

DOE-covered 

LVDT

35% 25% 20% 5% 65% 80%

Expected

Impact and 

Response to a 

standard set at 

a NEMA 

Premium Level

Unsure. But 

probably don’t 

have ability to 

meet. 

No impact. 

Not a significant 

impact. 

Probably would 

source cores; 

depends on 

steel prices. 

Would probably 

exit product line. 

Minimum of 

$750K 

investment in 

new machinery. 

Significant 

impact, but 

would likely 

invest to make 

in house, 

although 

source a 

greater share 

of cores. 

Unsure. If 

capital too 

great, they’d 

exit the LVDT 

market. 

Also in MVDT? Yes No Yes No. No Yes.

Produce in US? Yes No. No Yes Yes Yes.

Share of cores 

sourced 

currently.

100% 0%

Varies 

depending on 

pricing. 

0% 20% 0%

In-house 

mitering or 

wound core 

capability?*

Yes. Yes. No. Yes. No. No. 

Capital and 

one-time R&D 

investments

Unknown $1.6 M for 

NEMA Premium 

Not provided. 

Not a concern. $0 Unknown $750K to 

$1.5M 
6 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Issue:

Answers to each question are scrambled in each row to protect 

confidentiality. A given column does NOT represent one 

manufacturer’s complete set of answers.

Share of Revenue

from DOE-covered 

LVDT

100% Up to 40% 100% 35% 35%

Expected Impact 

and Response to a 

standard set at a 

NEMA Premium 

Level

Unclear; significant 

investment in that 

there would be 

investment would be 

R&D for new 

designs. 

No Impact. 

Already in high 

efficiency focus. 

No Impact. 

Already in high 

efficiency focus. 

No Impact. 

Already in high 

efficiency focus. 

Big Impact. 

Would likely 

source cores. 

Also in MVDT

Market? No No Yes No No 

Produce in US? No No Yes No Yes

Share of cores 

sourced currently 100% 0% Varies 0% Varies 

In-house full 

mitering or wound

core capability?*

Yes Yes Yes No Yes 

Capital and onetime R&D 

investments

$0 $1.5M minimum Unknown but 

significant R&D $0 $0 
7 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

• The wide range of responses from small manufacturers makes 

clear summary statements difficult come by.

– Five manufacturers thought there would be no significant impact for them at 

NEMA Premium levels.

• Two of these companies expressed some ambivalence about CSLs higher than 

NEMA Premium because of the trade-off between the potential for increased 

market share versus the prospect of the commoditization of their high-efficiency 

niche.

– Six manufacturers thought the impact would be significant or was too 

uncertain to comment on at this time. Of these 6 companies:

• Three said they might exit the DOE-covered LVDT product line or source their 

cores after considering the costs of compliance.

• One business indicated any change in standards would threaten their business 

altogether.

Survey Conclusions