5C-i

APPENDIX 5C. Q1 2005 MATERIAL PRICING ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5C.1 MATERIAL PRICING TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-1

5C.2 Q1 2005 MATERIAL PRICE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS RESULTS . . . . . . . . . 5C-3

5C.2.1 Design Line 1 Engineering Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-4

5C.2.2 Design Line 2 Engineering Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-6

5C.2.3 Design Line 3 Engineering Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-8

5C.2.4 Design Line 4 Engineering Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-10

5C.2.5 Design Line 5 Engineering Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-12

5C.2.6 Design Line 9 Engineering Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-14

5C.2.7 Design Line 10 Engineering Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-16

5C.2.8 Design Line 11 Engineering Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-18

5C.2.9 Design Line 12 Engineering Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-20

5C.2.10 Design Line 13 Engineering Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-22

5C.3 Q1 2005 MATERIAL PRICE LIFE-CYCLE COST RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-24

5C.3.1 Design Line 1 Life-Cycle Cost Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-25

5C.3.2 Design Line 2 Life-Cycle Cost Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-26

5C.3.3 Design Line 3 Life-Cycle Cost Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-27

5C.3.4 Design Line 4 Life-Cycle Cost Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-28

5C.3.5 Design Line 5 Life-Cycle Cost Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-29

5C.3.6 Design Line 9 Life-Cycle Cost Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-30

5C.3.7 Design Line 10 Life-Cycle Cost Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-31

5C.3.8 Design Line 11 Life-Cycle Cost Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-32

5C.3.9 Design Line 12 Life-Cycle Cost Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-33

5C.3.10 Design Line 13 Life-Cycle Cost Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-34

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5C.1.1 Liquid-Immersed Material Prices Used in the Engineering Analyses . . . . . . . 5C-2

Table 5C.1.2 Dry-Type Material Prices Used in the Engineering Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-3

Table 5C.3.1 Comparison of LCC Results for Two Pricing Scenarios, Design Line 1 . . . . 5C-25

Table 5C.3.2 Comparison of LCC Results for Two Pricing Scenarios, Design Line 2 . . . . 5C-26

Table 5C.3.3 Comparison of LCC Results for Two Pricing Scenarios, Design Line 3 . . . . 5C-27

Table 5C.3.4 Comparison of LCC Results for Two Pricing Scenarios, Design Line 4 . . . . 5C-28

Table 5C.3.5 Comparison of LCC Results for Two Pricing Scenarios, Design Line 5 . . . . 5C-29

Table 5C.3.6 Comparison of LCC Results for Two Pricing Scenarios, Design Line 9 . . . . 5C-30

Table 5C.3.7 Comparison of LCC Results for Two Pricing Scenarios, Design Line 10 . . . 5C-31

Table 5C.3.8 Comparison of LCC Results for Two Pricing Scenarios, Design Line 11 . . . 5C-32

Table 5C.3.9 Comparison of LCC Results for Two Pricing Scenarios, Design Line 12 . . . 5C-33

Table 5C.3.10 Comparison of LCC Results for Two Pricing Scenarios, Design Line 13 . . . 5C-34
5C-ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 5C.2.1 Price and Efficiency for Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario, Design Line 1 . . . . 5C-4

Figure 5C.2.2 Material Price Scenarios Comparison Plot for Design Line 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-5

Figure 5C.2.3 Price and Efficiency for Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario, Design Line 2 . . . . 5C-6

Figure 5C.2.4 Material Price Scenarios Comparison Plot for Design Line 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-7

Figure 5C.2.5 Price and Efficiency for Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario, Design Line 3 . . . . 5C-8

Figure 5C.2.6 Material Price Scenarios Comparison Plot for Design Line 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-9

Figure 5C.2.7 Price and Efficiency for Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario, Design Line 4 . . . 5C-10

Figure 5C.2.8 Material Price Scenarios Comparison Plot for Design Line 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-11

Figure 5C.2.9 Price and Efficiency for Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario, Design Line 5 . . . 5C-12

Figure 5C.2.10 Material Price Scenarios Comparison Plot for Design Line 5 . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-13

Figure 5C.2.11 Price and Efficiency for Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario, Design Line 9 . . 5C-14

Figure 5C.2.12 Material Price Scenarios Comparison Plot for Design Line 9 . . . . . . . . . . . 5C-15

Figure 5C.2.13 Price and Efficiency for Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario, Design Line 10 . 5C-16

Figure 5C.2.14 Material Price Scenarios Comparison Plot for Design Line 10 . . . . . . . . . . 5C-17

Figure 5C.2.15 Price and Efficiency for Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario, Design Line 11 . 5C-18

Figure 5C.2.16 Material Price Scenarios Comparison Plot for Design Line 11 . . . . . . . . . . 5C-19

Figure 5C.2.17 Price and Efficiency for Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario, Design Line 12 . 5C-20

Figure 5C.2.18 Material Price Scenarios Comparison Plot for Design Line 12 . . . . . . . . . . 5C-21

Figure 5C.2.19 Price and Efficiency for Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario, Design Line 13 . 5C-22

Figure 5C.2.20 Material Price Scenarios Comparison Plot for Design Line 13 . . . . . . . . . . 5C-23
5C-1

APPENDIX 5C. Q1 2005 MATERIAL PRICING ANALYSIS

Core steel is one of the major cost drivers of a distribution transformer and is

fundamentally linked to the efficiency of the finished transformer. When looking at energy

conservation standards for distribution transformers, it is important to understand core steel

pricing and influences on that pricing. The Department received several comments on the

advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) analysis, stating that material prices, and

particularly core steel, were experiencing a rapid increase. Therefore, in addition to its analysis on

a five-year average material price (2000 through 2004), the Department conducted a “current

price” scenario of the first quarter (Q1) of 2005. The results of the five-year average are

presented in Chapter 5 of the technical support document (TSD). The results of the current price

scenario are presented in this appendix.

Section 5C.3 of this appendix presents the life-cycle cost (LCC) results for the Q1 2005

material price scenario and compares these results to the 2000–2004 average material price

scenario. Chapter 8 of the TSD provides more detailed LCC results for the 2000–2004 average

material price scenario. Chapter 8 also presents the Department’s sensitivity analyses conducted

on various LCC inputs, including material prices. In Chapter 8, the Q1 2005 material price is

referred to as the “high” price scenario and the 2000–2004 average price scenario is called the

“medium” price scenario. The Department also created a “low” price scenario to establish a

lower bound for the LCC sensitivity analysis. It based the low price scenario on material prices in

2002 (the calender year with the lowest $/pound for M6 core steel) and reduced all the material

prices in that year by 15 percent. These material prices can be found in the material price tables in

Chapter 5, and the low-price scenario manufacturer selling prices can be found in the LCC

spreadsheets.

5C.1 MATERIAL PRICING TABLES

The Department completed a supplementary engineering analysis using Q1 2005 material

prices. The following table presents the five-year average and Q1 2005 material prices used for

liquid-immersed units.
5C-2

Table 5C.1.1 Liquid-Immersed Material Prices Used in the Engineering Analyses

Material Q1 2005

$/lb.

5-Year Average

$/lb.

M2 core steel 1.71 0.95

M3 core steel 1.63 0.80

M4 core steel 1.56 0.76

M6 core steel 1.42 0.70

ZDMH (mechanically-scribed core steel, finished core) 2.75 1.47

SA1 (amorphous) - finished core, volume production 2.50 1.80

Copper wire, formvar, round #10-20 2.25 1.55

Copper wire, enameled, round #7-10 flattened 2.21 1.51

Copper wire, enameled, rectangular sizes 2.65 1.76

Aluminum wire, formvar, round #9-17 1.56 1.43

Aluminum wire, formvar, round #7-10 1.58 1.46

Copper strip, thickness range 0.020-0.045 2.92 2.32

Copper strip, thickness range 0.030-0.060 2.84 2.24

Aluminum strip, thickness range 0.020-0.045 1.66 1.54

Aluminum strip, thickness range 0.045-0.080 1.69 1.45

Kraft insulating paper with diamond adhesive 1.56 1.59

Tank Steel 0.50 0.35

Mineral oil 2.40 1.71

Likewise, the Department used material prices from the Q1 2005 to conduct an additional

engineering analysis for dry-type units. The following table presents the five-year average and Q1

2005 material prices used in both engineering analyses for dry-type units.
5C-3

Table 5C.1.2 Dry-Type Material Prices Used in the Engineering Analyses

Material Q1 2005

$/lb.

5-Year Average

$/lb.

H-O DR core steel (domain-refined) 1.85 0.99

M3 core steel 1.63 0.80

M4 core steel 1.56 0.76

M5 core steel 1.47 0.72

M6 core steel 1.42 0.70

M19 core steel (26 gauge) 0.82 0.56

M36 core steel (29 gauge) 0.69 0.50

M36 core steel (26 gauge) 0.65 0.45

M43 core steel (26 gauge) 0.58 0.43

Copper wire, rectangular 0.1 x 0.2, Nomex wrapped 2.69 2.00

Aluminum wire, rectangular 0.1 x 0.2, Nomex wrapped 2.05 2.06

Copper strip, thickness range 0.020-0.045 2.92 2.32

Aluminum strip, thickness range 0.020-0.045 1.66 1.54

Nomex insulation 18.00 18.11

Cequin insulation 12.00 11.99

Impregnation (per gallon) 19.00 17.80

Enclosure steel 0.50 0.35

Winding combs 10.00 10.24

The Department used the same markup percentages for both engineering analyses,

including markups of 2.5 percent for the scrap factor, 4 percent for additional scrap due to the

core steel mitering process, 12.5 percent for factory overhead, and 25 percent for non-production

costs.

5C.2 Q1 2005 MATERIAL PRICE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS RESULTS

This section provides a visual representation of the results of the Q1 2005 material pricing

analysis. The scatter plots in this section show the relationship between the manufacturer's selling

price and efficiency relationships for each of the 10 design lines. Each dot on the plots represents

one unique design created by the software at a given manufacturer's selling price and efficiency
5C-4

level. The placement of each dot (and the uniqueness of each design) is dictated by the design

option combinations (core steel and windings), core shape, and combination of A and B factors

(the capitalized cost per watt of no-load and load losses).

Additional scatter plots within each subsection illustrate the manufacturer selling price

delta between transformer designs using 2000–2004 average material prices and Q1 2005 material

prices. Each scatter plot also visually presents the candidate standard levels chosen for

consideration by the Department, for that particular design line.

5C.2.1 Design Line 1 Engineering Analysis Results

Figure 5C.2.1 presents a plot of the Q1 2005 manufacturer selling prices and efficiency

levels for the full database of designs for the representative unit from design line 1. The efficiency

levels shown in this plot represent transformers at 50 percent of nameplate load and are corrected

for temperature. 

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2600

2800

3000

3200

98.40% 98.60% 98.80% 99.00% 99.20% 99.40% 99.60% 99.80%

Transformer Efficiency at 50% Load

Manufacturer Selling Price ($)

M6AlAl_sh

M6CuAl_sh

M3AlAl_sh

M3CuAl_sh

M2CuAl_sh

M2CuCu_sh

ZDMHCuCu_sh

SA1CuCu_sh

Figure 5C.2.1 Price and Efficiency for Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario, Design Line 1
5C-5

Figure 5C.2.2 presents a plot of the manufacturer selling prices and efficiency levels for

the full database of designs for the representative unit from design line 1 using both 2000–2004

average material prices and Q1 2005 material prices. The efficiency levels shown in this plot

represent transformers at 50 percent of nameplate load and are corrected for temperature. The

vertical lines represent the candidate standard efficiency levels considered by the Department.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

98.40% 98.60% 98.80% 99.00% 99.20% 99.40% 99.60% 99.80%

Efficiency at 50% load

Manufacturer Selling Price ($)

2000-2004

Average Material

Prices

Q1 2005 Material

Prices

CSLs

TP1: 98.9%

Figure 5C.2.2 Material Price Scenarios Comparison Plot for Design Line 1
5C-6

5C.2.2 Design Line 2 Engineering Analysis Results

Figure 5C.2.3 presents a plot of the Q1 2005 manufacturer selling prices and efficiency

levels for the full database of designs for the representative unit from design line 2. The efficiency

levels shown in this plot represent transformers at 50 percent of nameplate load and are corrected

for temperature.

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

97.80% 98.00% 98.20% 98.40% 98.60% 98.80% 99.00% 99.20% 99.40% 99.60%

Transformer Efficiency at 50% Load

Manufacturer Selling Price ($)

M6AlAl_sh

M6CuAl_sh

M4AlAl_sh

M4CuAl_sh

M3CuAl_sh

M3CuCu_sh

M2CuAl_sh

M2CuCu_sh

ZDMHCuCu_sh

SA1CuCu_co

Figure 5C.2.3 Price and Efficiency for Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario, Design Line 2
5C-7

Figure 5C.2.4 presents a plot of the manufacturer selling prices and efficiency levels for

the full database of designs for the representative unit from design line 2 using both 2000–2004

average material prices and Q1 2005 material prices. The efficiency levels shown in this plot

represent transformers at 50 percent of nameplate load and are corrected for temperature. The

vertical lines represent the candidate standard efficiency levels considered by the Department.

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

2,200

2,400

98.00% 98.20% 98.40% 98.60% 98.80% 99.00% 99.20% 99.40% 99.60% 99.80%

Efficiency at 50% load

Manufacturer Selling Price ($)

2000-2004

Average Material

Prices

Q1 2005 Material

Prices

CSLs

TP1: 98.7%

Figure 5C.2.4 Material Price Scenarios Comparison Plot for Design Line 2
5C-8

5C.2.3 Design Line 3 Engineering Analysis Results

Figure 5C.2.5 presents a plot of the Q1 2005 manufacturer selling prices and efficiency

levels for the full database of designs for the representative unit from design line 3. The efficiency

levels shown in this plot represent transformers at 50 percent of nameplate load and are corrected

for temperature.

2500

3500

4500

5500

6500

7500

8500

9500

10500

11500

12500

13500

14500

15500

16500

98.90% 99.00% 99.10% 99.20% 99.30% 99.40% 99.50% 99.60% 99.70% 99.80% 99.90%

Transformer Efficiency at 50% Load

Manufacturer Selling Price ($)

M6AlAl_sh

M4CuAl_sh

M3CuAl_sh

M2CuAl_sh

M2CuCu_sh

ZDMHCuCu_sh

SA1CuCu_co

Figure 5C.2.5 Price and Efficiency for Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario, Design Line 3
5C-9

Figure 5C.2.6 presents a plot of the manufacturer selling prices and efficiency levels for

the full database of designs for the representative unit from design line 3 using both 2000–2004

average material prices and Q1 2005 material prices. The efficiency levels shown in this plot

represent transformers at 50 percent of nameplate load and are corrected for temperature. The

vertical lines represent the candidate standard efficiency levels considered by the Department.

1,000

3,000

5,000

7,000

9,000

11,000

13,000

15,000

17,000

19,000

98.90% 99.00% 99.10% 99.20% 99.30% 99.40% 99.50% 99.60% 99.70% 99.80%

Efficiency at 50% load

Manufacturer Selling Price ($)

2000-2004

Average Material

Prices

Q1 2005 Material

Prices

CSLs

TP1: 99.3%

Figure 5C.2.6 Material Price Scenarios Comparison Plot for Design Line 3
5C-10

5C.2.4 Design Line 4 Engineering Analysis Results

Figure 5C.2.7 presents a plot of the Q1 2005 manufacturer selling prices and efficiency

levels for the full database of designs for the representative unit from design line 4. The efficiency

levels shown in this plot represent transformers at 50 percent of nameplate load and are corrected

for temperature.

1500

2500

3500

4500

5500

6500

7500

8500

9500

98.20% 98.40% 98.60% 98.80% 99.00% 99.20% 99.40% 99.60% 99.80%

Transformer Efficiency at 50% Load

Manufacturer Selling Price ($)

M6AlAl_co

M4AlAl_co

M3CuAl_co

M2CuAl_co

M2CuCu_co

ZDMHCuCu_co

SA1CuCu_co

Figure 5C.2.7 Price and Efficiency for Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario, Design Line 4
5C-11

Figure 5C.2.8 presents a plot of the manufacturer selling prices and efficiency levels for

the full database of designs for the representative unit from design line 4 using both 2000–2004

average material prices and Q1 2005 material prices. The efficiency levels shown in this plot

represent transformers at 50 percent of nameplate load and are corrected for temperature. The

vertical lines represent the candidate standard efficiency levels considered by the Department.

1,500

2,500

3,500

4,500

5,500

6,500

7,500

8,500

9,500

10,500

11,500

98.20% 98.40% 98.60% 98.80% 99.00% 99.20% 99.40% 99.60% 99.80%

Efficiency at 50% load

Manufacturer Selling Price ($)

2000-2004 Average

Material Prices

Q1 2005 Material

Prices

CSLs

TP1: 98.9%

Figure 5C.2.8 Material Price Scenarios Comparison Plot for Design Line 4
5C-12

5C.2.5 Design Line 5 Engineering Analysis Results

Figure 5C.2.9 presents a plot of the Q1 2005 manufacturer selling prices and efficiency

levels for the full database of designs for the representative unit from design line 5. The efficiency

levels shown in this plot represent transformers at 50 percent of nameplate load and are corrected

for temperature.

6000

11000

16000

21000

26000

31000

36000

41000

46000

98.90% 99.00% 99.10% 99.20% 99.30% 99.40% 99.50% 99.60% 99.70% 99.80%

Transformer Efficiency at 50% Load

Manufacturer Selling Price ($)

M4AlAl_co

M4CuAl_co

M3CuAl_co

M2CuAl_co

M2CuCu_co

ZDMHCuCu_co

SA1CuCu_co

Figure 5C.2.9 Price and Efficiency for Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario, Design Line 5
5C-13

Figure 5C.2.10 presents a plot of the manufacturer selling prices and efficiency levels for

the full database of designs for the representative unit from design line 5 using both 2000–2004

average material prices and Q1 2005 material prices. The efficiency levels shown in this plot

represent transformers at 50 percent of nameplate load and are corrected for temperature. The

vertical lines represent the candidate standard efficiency levels considered by the Department.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

55,000

98.90% 99.00% 99.10% 99.20% 99.30% 99.40% 99.50% 99.60% 99.70% 99.80%

Efficiency at 50% load

Manufacturer Selling Price ($)

2000-2004 Average Material Prices

Q1 2005 Material Prices

CSLs

TP1: 99.3%

Figure 5C.2.10 Material Price Scenarios Comparison Plot for Design Line 5
5C-14

5C.2.6 Design Line 9 Engineering Analysis Results

Figure 5C.2.11 presents a plot of the Q1 2005 manufacturer selling prices and efficiency

levels for the full database of designs for the representative unit from design line 9. The efficiency

levels shown in this plot represent transformers at 50 percent of nameplate load and are corrected

for temperature.

4600

5600

6600

7600

8600

9600

10600

11600

12600

13600

14600

98.20% 98.40% 98.60% 98.80% 99.00% 99.20% 99.40% 99.60%

Transformer Efficiency at 50% Load

Manufacturer Selling Price ($)

M6AlAl_bl

M6CuCu_mtf

M5AlAl_mtf

M3CuAl_mtf

HOCuCu_mtf

Figure 5C.2.11 Price and Efficiency for Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario, Design Line 9
5C-15

Figure 5C.2.12 presents a plot of the manufacturer selling prices and efficiency levels for

the full database of designs for the representative unit from design line 9 using both 2000–2004

average material prices and Q1 2005 material prices. The efficiency levels shown in this plot

represent transformers at 50 percent of nameplate load and are corrected for temperature. The

vertical lines represent the candidate standard efficiency levels considered by the Department.

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

98.20% 98.40% 98.60% 98.80% 99.00% 99.20% 99.40% 99.60%

Efficiency at 50% load

Manufacturer Selling Price ($)

2000-2004 Average

Material Prices

Q1 2005 Material

Prices

CSLs

TP-1: 98.6%

Figure 5C.2.12 Material Price Scenarios Comparison Plot for Design Line 9
5C-16

5C.2.7 Design Line 10 Engineering Analysis Results

Figure 5C.2.13 presents a plot of the Q1 2005 manufacturer selling prices and efficiency

levels for the full database of designs for the representative unit from design line 10. The

efficiency levels shown in this plot represent transformers at 50 percent of nameplate load and are

corrected for temperature.

14000

18000

22000

26000

30000

34000

38000

42000

46000

50000

54000

98.60% 98.70% 98.80% 98.90% 99.00% 99.10% 99.20% 99.30% 99.40% 99.50% 99.60%

Transformer Efficiency at 50% Load

Manufacturer Selling Price ($)

M6AlAl_cfm

M6CuCu_cfm

M4CuAl_cfm

M3CuCu_cfm

HOCuCu_cfm

Figure 5C.2.13 Price and Efficiency for Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario, Design Line 10
5C-17

Figure 5C.2.14 presents a plot of the manufacturer selling prices and efficiency levels for

the full database of designs for the representative unit from design line 10 using both 2000–2004

average material prices and Q1 2005 material prices. The efficiency levels shown in this plot

represent transformers at 50 percent of nameplate load and are corrected for temperature. The

vertical lines represent the candidate standard efficiency levels considered by the Department.

2,000

12,000

22,000

32,000

42,000

52,000

62,000

98.60% 98.70% 98.80% 98.90% 99.00% 99.10% 99.20% 99.30% 99.40% 99.50% 99.60%

Efficiency at 50% load

Manufacturer Selling Price ($)

2000-2004 Average Material Prices

Q1 2005 Material Prices

CSLs

TP1=99.1%

Figure 5C.2.14 Material Price Scenarios Comparison Plot for Design Line 10
5C-18

5C.2.8 Design Line 11 Engineering Analysis Results

Figure 5C.2.15 presents a plot of the Q1 2005 manufacturer selling prices and efficiency

levels for the full database of designs for the representative unit from design line 11. The

efficiency levels shown in this plot represent transformers at 50 percent of nameplate load and are

corrected for temperature.

5000

6500

8000

9500

11000

12500

14000

15500

17000

18500

20000

97.60% 97.80% 98.00% 98.20% 98.40% 98.60% 98.80% 99.00% 99.20% 99.40%

Transformer Efficiency at 50% Load

Manufacturer Selling Price ($)

M6AlAl_mtf

M6CuCu_mtf

M4CuAl_mtf

M3CuCu_mtf

HOCuCu_mtf

Figure 5C.2.15 Price and Efficiency for Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario, Design Line 11
5C-19

Figure 5C.2.16 presents a plot of the manufacturer selling prices and efficiency levels for

the full database of designs for the representative unit from design line 11 using both 2000–2004

average material prices and Q1 2005 material prices. The efficiency levels shown in this plot

represent transformers at 50 percent of nameplate load and are corrected for temperature. The

vertical lines represent the candidate standard efficiency levels considered by the Department.

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

22,000

24,000

97.60% 97.80% 98.00% 98.20% 98.40% 98.60% 98.80% 99.00% 99.20% 99.40%

Efficiency at 50% load

Manufacturer Selling Price ($)

2000-2004 Average Material Prices

Q1 2005 Material Prices

CSLs

TP1: 

98.5%

Figure 5C.2.16 Material Price Scenarios Comparison Plot for Design Line 11
5C-20

5C.2.9 Design Line 12 Engineering Analysis Results

Figure 5C.2.17 presents a plot of the Q1 2005 manufacturer selling prices and efficiency

levels for the full database of designs for the representative unit from design line 12. The

efficiency levels shown in this plot represent transformers at 50 percent of nameplate load and are

corrected for temperature.

14000

18000

22000

26000

30000

34000

38000

42000

46000

50000

54000

58000

98.70% 98.80% 98.90% 99.00% 99.10% 99.20% 99.30% 99.40% 99.50% 99.60%

Transformer Efficiency at 50% Load

Manufacturer Selling Price ($)

M6AlAl_cfm

M6CuCu_cfm

M4CuAl_cfm

M3CuCu_cfm

HOCuCu_cfm

Figure 5C.2.17 Price and Efficiency for Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario, Design Line 12
5C-21

Figure 5C.2.18 presents a plot of the manufacturer selling prices and efficiency levels for

the full database of designs for the representative unit from design line 12 using both 2000–2004

average material prices and Q1 2005 material prices. The efficiency levels shown in this plot

represent transformers at 50 percent of nameplate load and are corrected for temperature. The

vertical lines represent the candidate standard efficiency levels considered by the Department.

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

55,000

60,000

65,000

98.70% 98.80% 98.90% 99.00% 99.10% 99.20% 99.30% 99.40% 99.50% 99.60%

Efficiency at 50% load

Manufacturer Selling Price ($)

2000-2004 Average

Material Prices

Q1 2005 Material

Prices

CSL

TP-1: 99.0%

Figure 5C.2.18 Material Price Scenarios Comparison Plot for Design Line 12
5C-22

5C.2.10 Design Line 13 Engineering Analysis Results

Figure 5C.2.19 presents a plot of the Q1 2005 manufacturer selling prices and efficiency

levels for the full database of designs for the representative unit from design line 13. The

efficiency levels shown in this plot represent transformers at 50 percent of nameplate load and are

corrected for temperature.

20000

26000

32000

38000

44000

50000

56000

62000

68000

74000

98.90% 99.00% 99.10% 99.20% 99.30% 99.40% 99.50% 99.60% 99.70%

Transformer Efficiency at 50% Load

Manufacturer Selling Price ($)

M6AlAl_cfm

M6CuCu_cfm

M4CuAl_cfm

M3CuCu_cfm

HOCuCu_cfm

Figure 5C.2.19 Price and Efficiency for Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario, Design Line 13
5C-23

Figure 5C.2.20 presents a plot of the manufacturer selling prices and efficiency levels for

the full database of designs for the representative unit from design line 13 using both 2000–2004

average material prices and Q1 2005 material prices. The efficiency levels shown in this plot

represent transformers at 50 percent of nameplate load and are corrected for temperature. The

vertical lines represent the candidate standard efficiency levels considered by the Department.

2,000

12,000

22,000

32,000

42,000

52,000

62,000

72,000

82,000

92,000

98.90% 99.00% 99.10% 99.20% 99.30% 99.40% 99.50% 99.60% 99.70%

Efficiency at 50% load

Manufacturer Selling Price ($)

2000-2004

Average Material

Prices

Q1 2005 Material

Prices

CSL

TP-1: 99.0%

Figure 5C.2.20 Material Price Scenarios Comparison Plot for Design Line 13
5C-24

5C.3 Q1 2005 MATERIAL PRICE LIFE-CYCLE COST RESULTS

This section presents summary LCC results for the Q1 2005 material price scenario for all

10 design lines, and compares them to the five-year average price scenario. In each table, the

Department presents the mean LCC savings, the percent of transformers having positive LCC

savings, and the mean payback for both price scenarios, plus an expression of the difference

between the scenarios. Explanations for the factors included in these tables can be found in

Chapter 8 (LCC Analysis). Chapter 8 also presents the sensitivity analyses the Department

conducted on various LCC inputs, which includes material prices. In Chapter 8, the Q1 2005

material price is referred to as the “high” price scenario and the 2000–2004 average price scenario

is called the “medium” price scenario. The Department also created a “low” price scenario (not

presented in this appendix) to establish a lower bound for the LCC sensitivity analysis. The low

price scenario is based on material prices in 2002 (the calender year with the lowest $/pound for

M6 core steel) and reduces all the material prices in that year by 15 percent. These material prices

can be found in the material price tables in Chapter 5 (Tables 5.4.1 and 5.4.4) and the low-price

scenario manufacturer selling prices can be found in the LCC spreadsheets.
5C-25

5C.3.1 Design Line 1 Life-Cycle Cost Results

Table 5C.3.1 presents the summary of the LCC analysis for the representative unit from

design line 1, a 50 kVA, liquid-immersed, single-phase, pad-mounted transformer. For this unit

the consumer equipment cost before installation was $1,382.00 in the 2000–2004 average price

scenario and $1,633.00 in the Q1 2005 price scenario.

Table 5C.3.1 Comparison of LCC Results for Two Pricing Scenarios, Design Line 1

Candidate Standard Level

1 (TP 1) 2 3 4 5 6

Mean LCC Savings ($)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 93 98 5 180 3 -688

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 86 75 35 202 -56 -924

Change in Mean LCC Savings ($) -7 -23 30 22 -59 -236

Transformers having LCC Savings $ $0(%)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 95.1 83.4 47.2 72.3 42.1 9.5

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 89.6 73.1 56.5 76.9 37.9 7.3

Change in Transformers having

LCC Savings $ $0(%)

-5.5 -10.3 9.3 4.6 -4.2 -2.2

Mean Payback (Years)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 11.4 21.9 36 15.5 24.4 45

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 15.1 25.8 25.7 15.9 30.2 51.6

Change in Mean Payback (Years) 3.7 3.9 -10.3 0.4 5.8 6.6
5C-26

5C.3.2 Design Line 2 Life-Cycle Cost Results

Table 5C.3.2 presents the summary of the LCC analysis for the representative unit from

design line 2, a 25 kVA, liquid-immersed, single-phase, pole-mounted transformer. For this unit

the consumer equipment cost before installation was $737.00 in the default 2000–2004 average

material price scenario and $925.00 in the Q1 2005 price scenario.

Table 5C.3.2 Comparison of LCC Results for Two Pricing Scenarios, Design Line 2

Candidate Standard Level

1 (TP 1) 2 3 4 5 6

Mean LCC Savings ($)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 69 70 72 71 7 -953

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 70 66 71 74 -37 -1,127

Change in Mean LCC Savings ($) 1 -4 -1 3 -44 -174

Transformers having LCC Savings $ $0(%)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 98.6 97.0 94.8 91.4 56.1 1.1

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 96.7 94.1 92.8 90.0 37.5 0.8

Change in Transformers having

LCC Savings $ $0(%)

-1.9 -2.8 -2.0 -1.4 -18.6 -0.3

Mean Payback (Years)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 4.8 6.8 8.8 12 31.7 66.6

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 7.5 10.1 10.9 12.4 34.9 69.1

Change in Mean Payback (Years) 2.7 3.3 2.1 0.4 3.2 2.5
5C-27

5C.3.3 Design Line 3 Life-Cycle Cost Results

Table 5C.3.3 presents the summary of the LCC analysis for the representative unit from

design line 3, a 500 kVA, liquid-immersed, single-phase distribution transformer. For this unit the

consumer equipment cost before installation was $5,428.00 in the 2000–2004 average material

price scenario and $6,536.00 in the Q1 2005 price scenario.

Table 5C.3.3 Comparison of LCC Results for Two Pricing Scenarios, Design Line 3

Candidate Standard Level

1 (TP 1) 2 3 4 5 6

Mean LCC Savings ($)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 1,746 2,267 2,775 2,876 627 -410

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 1,809 2,322 2,857 2,635 26 -976

Change in Mean LCC Savings ($) 63 55 82 -241 -601 -566

Transformers having LCC Savings $ $0(%)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 99.8 98.6 93.9 60.1 33.7 29.2

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 99.5 98.2 87.4 55.1 32.3 28.3

Change in Transformers having

LCC Savings $ $0(%)

-0.3 -0.4 -6.5 -5.0 -1.5 -0.9

Mean Payback (Years)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 1.4 4.3 10.4 19.8 29.3 32.3

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 2.0 5.6 13.5 22.9 30.8 34.1

Change in Mean Payback (Years) 0.6 1.3 3.1 3.1 1.5 1.8
5C-28

5C.3.4 Design Line 4 Life-Cycle Cost Results

Table 5C.3.4 presents the summary of the LCC analysis for the representative unit from

design line 4, a 150 kVA, liquid-immersed, three-phase distribution transformer. For this unit the

consumer equipment cost before installation was $3,335.00 in the 2000–2004 average material

price scenario and $4,150.00 in the Q1 2005 price scenario.

Table 5C.3.4 Comparison of LCC Results for Two Pricing Scenarios, Design Line 4

Candidate Standard Level

1 (TP 1) 2 3 4 5 6

Mean LCC Savings ($)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 556 629 450 767 56 -572

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 580 650 710 827 -267 -1,059

Change in Mean LCC Savings ($) 24 21 260 60 -323 -487

Transformers having LCC Savings $ $0(%)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 96.7 83.2 59.0 68.8 35.6 25.5

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 94.2 77.9 80.6 71.9 30.2 21.5

Change in Transformers having

LCC Savings $ $0(%)

-2.4 -5.3 21.6 3.0 -5.4 -4.0

Mean Payback (Years)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 8.5 18.1 21.5 17 29.2 34.9

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 10.8 18.4 14.2 18.1 34.7 40.2

Change in Mean Payback (Years) 2.3 0.3 -7.3 1.1 5.5 5.3
5C-29

5C.3.5 Design Line 5 Life-Cycle Cost Results

Table 5C.3.5 presents the summary of the LCC analysis for the representative unit from

design line 5, a 1500 kVA, liquid-immersed, three-phase distribution transformer. For this unit

the consumer equipment cost before installation was $11,931.00 in the 2000–2004 average

material price scenario and $16,591.00 in the Q1 2005 price scenario.

Table 5C.3.5 Comparison of LCC Results for Two Pricing Scenarios, Design Line 5

Candidate Standard Level

1 (TP 1) 2 3 4 5 6

Mean LCC Savings ($)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 3,957 5,463 6,504 7,089 4,431 3,902

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 3,969 5,206 6,629 7,093 2,633 2,600

Change in Mean LCC Savings ($) 12 -257 125 4 -1,798 -1,302

Transformers having LCC Savings $ $0(%)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 99.7 98.5 89.8 84.1 42.9 42.8

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 99.0 95.8 87.0 80.8 40.0 40.4

Change in Transformers having

LCC Savings $ $0(%)

-0.7 -2.7 -2.8 -3.3 -3.0 -2.4

Mean Payback (Years)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 3.4 6.1 12.7 14.1 25.6 26.1

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 5.3 9.0 14.0 15.1 26.7 28.8

Change in Mean Payback (Years) 1.9 2.9 1.3 1.0 1.1 2.7
5C-30

5C.3.6 Design Line 9 Life-Cycle Cost Results

Table 5C.3.6 presents the summary of the LCC analysis for the representative unit from

design line 9, a 300 kVA, medium-voltage, dry-type, three-phase transformer with a 45kV BIL. 

For this unit the consumer equipment cost before installation was $7,510.00 in the 2000–2004

average material price scenario and $9,080.00 in the Q1 2005 price scenario.

Table 5C.3.6 Comparison of LCC Results for Two Pricing Scenarios, Design Line 9

Candidate Standard Level

1 (TP 1) 2 3 4 5 6

Mean LCC Savings ($)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 988 1,968 3,103 3,532 1,181 1,274

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 384 1,115 2,361 2,406 -832 -818

Change in Mean LCC Savings ($) -604 -853 -742 -1,126 -2,013 -2,092

Transformers having LCC Savings $0(%)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 99.4 98.9 94.7 74.3 43.7 45.0

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 99.8 95.1 89.9 66.2 31.0 31.3

Change in Transformers having

LCC Savings $0(%)

0.5 -3.8 -4.8 -8.1 -12.7 -13.7

Mean Payback (Years)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 1.5 2.4 5.4 12.4 21.7 21.5

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 1.5 6.0 8.4 14.6 25.9 25.9

Change in Mean Payback (Years) 0.0 3.6 3.0 2.2 4.2 4.4
5C-31

5C.3.7 Design Line 10 Life-Cycle Cost Results

Table 5C.3.7 presents the summary of the LCC analysis for the representative unit from

design line 10, a 1500 kVA, medium-voltage, dry-type, three-phase transformer with a 45kV BIL. 

For this unit the consumer equipment cost before installation was $33,584.00 in the 2000–2004

average material price scenario and $38,522.00 in the Q1 2005 price scenario.

Table 5C.3.7 Comparison of LCC Results for Two Pricing Scenarios, Design Line 10

Candidate Standard Level

1 (TP 1) 2 3 4 5 6

Mean LCC Savings ($)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 4,041 5,227 6,818 7,699 1,279 1,124

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 3,929 5,552 6,854 6,586 -4,960 -4,797

Change in Mean LCC Savings ($) -112 325 36 -1,113 -6,239 -5,921

Transformers having LCC Savings $0(%)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 95.6 94.9 91.1 79.0 33.7 33.8

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 83.7 86.0 81.6 66.7 25.2 25.9

Change in Transformers having

LCC Savings $0(%)

-11.9 -8.8 -9.5 -12.4 -8.5 -7.9

Mean Payback (Years)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 7.7 8.3 10 13.4 28.7 29.4

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 14.1 11.9 13.1 17.1 32.0 31.8

Change in Mean Payback (Years) 6.4 3.6 3.1 3.7 3.3 2.4
5C-32

5C.3.8 Design Line 11 Life-Cycle Cost Results

Table 5C.3.8 presents the summary of the LCC analysis for the representative unit from

design line 11, a 300 kVA, medium-voltage, dry-type, three-phase transformer with a 95kV BIL. 

For this unit the consumer equipment cost before installation was $10,945.00 in the 2000–2004

average material price scenario and $13,564.00 in the Q1 2005 price scenario.

Table 5C.3.8 Comparison of LCC Results for Two Pricing Scenarios, Design Line 11

Candidate Standard Level

1 (TP 1) 2 3 4 5 6

Mean LCC Savings ($)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 2,491 3,621 4,313 4,845 4,186 4,289

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 2,598 3,570 4,460 4,717 3,340 3,334

Change in Mean LCC Savings ($) 107 -51 147 -128 -846 -955

Transformers having LCC Savings $ $0(%)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 97.6 96.1 90.2 78.0 65.8 66.8

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 96.7 94.9 86.3 74.5 59.0 58.6

Change in Transformers having

LCC Savings $ $0(%)

-0.9 -1.2 -3.9 -3.5 -6.8 -8.3

Mean Payback (Years)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 3.8 4.9 7.9 11.8 15.1 14.8

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 5.1 6.1 9.5 12.7 17.3 17.6

Change in Mean Payback (Years) 1.3 1.2 1.6 0.9 2.2 2.8
5C-33

5C.3.9 Design Line 12 Life-Cycle Cost Results

Table 5C.3.9 presents the summary of the LCC analysis for the representative unit from

design line 12, a 1500 kVA, medium-voltage, dry-type, three-phase transformer with a 95kV BIL. 

For this unit the consumer equipment cost before installation was $33,590.00 in the 2000–2004

average material price scenario and $42,661.00 in the Q1 2005 price scenario.

Table 5C.3.9 Comparison of LCC Results for Two Pricing Scenarios, Design Line 12

Candidate Standard Level

1 (TP 1) 2 3 4 5 6

Mean LCC Savings ($)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 2,600 3,973 5,485 6,812 -650 -655

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 2,534 4,279 5,906 7,091 -5,842 -5,797

Change in Mean LCC Savings ($) -66 306 421 279 -5,192 -5,142

Transformers having LCC Savings $0(%)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 98.6 98.5 94.2 81.8 29.4 29.9

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 93.8 95.7 90.6 76.1 23.6 23.7

Change in Transformers having

LCC Savings $0(%)

-4.8 -2.8 -3.6 -5.7 -5.8 -6.2

Mean Payback (Years)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 4.6 4.7 8.3 12.7 29.3 29.3

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 10.2 7.9 10.6 14.9 33.3 33.2

Change in Mean Payback (Years) 5.6 3.2 2.3 2.2 4.0 3.9
5C-34

5C.3.10 Design Line 13 Life-Cycle Cost Results

Table 5C.3.10 presents the summary of the LCC analysis for the representative unit from

design line 13, a 2000 kVA, medium-voltage, dry-type, three-phase transformer with a 125kV

BIL. For this unit the consumer equipment cost before installation was $41,873.00 in the

2000–2004 average material price scenario and $50,919.00 in the Q1 2005 price scenario. 

Table 5C.3.10Comparison of LCC Results for Two Pricing Scenarios, Design Line 13

Candidate Standard Level

1 (TP 1) 2 3 4 5 6

Mean LCC Savings ($)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 662 3,125 5,430 6,435 -5,303 -5,218

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 843 3,640 6,282 5,751 -13,435 -13,706

Change in Mean LCC Savings ($) 181 515 852 -684 -8,132 -8,488

Transformers having LCC Savings $0(%)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 96.2 98.5 95.6 57.4 24.2 24.3

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 93.6 93.4 91.8 51.0 17.5 17.2

Change in Transformers having

LCC Savings $0(%)

-2.6 -5.1 -3.8 -6.3 -6.7 -7.1

Mean Payback (Years)

2000-2004 Average Price Scenario 9.7 5.8 8.0 19.5 32.5 32.4

Q1 2005 Material Price Scenario 10.9 10.4 10.5 21.8 37.1 37.2

Change in Mean Payback (Years) 1.2 4.6 2.5 2.3 4.6 4.8