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-345C-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-235C-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 thes e 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 an d 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 PR ICING 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 efficiency5C-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 se lling 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% LoadManufacturer 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 15C-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% loadManufacturer Selling Price ($) 2000-2004 Average Material Prices Q1 2005 Material Prices CSLs TP1: 98.9%

Figure 5C.2.2 Material Price Scenario s Comparison Plot for Design Line 15C-6 5C.2.2 Design Line 2 Engineering Analysis Results Figure 5C.2.3 presents a plot of the Q1 2005 manufacturer se lling 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% LoadManufacturer 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 25C-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% loadManufacturer Selling Price ($) 2000-2004 Average Material Prices Q1 2005 Material Prices CSLs
TP1: 98.7%

Figure 5C.2.4 Material Price Scenario s Comparison Plot for Design Line 25C-8 5C.2.3 Design Line 3 Engineering Analysis Results Figure 5C.2.5 presents a plot of the Q1 2005 manufacturer se lling 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% LoadManufacturer 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 35C-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% loadManufacturer Selling Price ($) 2000-2004 Average Material Prices Q1 2005 Material Prices CSLs TP1: 99.3%

Figure 5C.2.6 Material Price Scenario s Comparison Plot for Design Line 35C-10 5C.2.4 Design Line 4 Engineering Analysis Results Figure 5C.2.7 presents a plot of the Q1 2005 manufacturer se lling 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% LoadManufacturer 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 45C-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% loadManufacturer Selling Price ($) 2000-2004 Average Material Prices Q1 2005 Material Prices CSLs
TP1: 98.9%

Figure 5C.2.8 Material Price Scenario s Comparison Plot for Design Line 45C-12 5C.2.5 Design Line 5 Engineering Analysis Results Figure 5C.2.9 presents a plot of the Q1 2005 manufacturer se lling 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% LoadManufacturer 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 55C-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% loadManufacturer Selling Price ($) 2000-2004 Average Material Prices Q1 2005 Material Prices CSLs TP1: 99.3%

Figure 5C.2.10 Material Price Scenario s Comparison Plot for Design Line 55C-14 5C.2.6 Design Line 9 Engineering Analysis Results Figure 5C.2.11 presents a plot of the Q1 2005 manufacturer se lling 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% LoadManufacturer 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 95C-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% loadManufacturer Selling Price ($) 2000-2004 Average Material Prices Q1 2005 Material Prices CSLs

TP-1: 98.6%

Figure 5C.2.12 Material Price Scenario s Comparison Plot for Design Line 95C-16 5C.2.7 Design Line 10 Engineering Analysis Results Figure 5C.2.13 presents a plot of the Q1 2005 manufacturer se lling 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% LoadManufacturer 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 105C-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% loadManufacturer Selling Price ($) 2000-2004 Average Material Prices Q1 2005 Material Prices CSLs TP1=99.1%

Figure 5C.2.14 Material Price Scenario s Comparison Plot for Design Line 105C-18 5C.2.8 Design Line 11 Engineering Analysis Results Figure 5C.2.15 presents a plot of the Q1 2005 manufacturer se lling 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% LoadManufacturer 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 115C-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% loadManufacturer Selling Price ($) 2000-2004 Average Material Prices Q1 2005 Material Prices CSLs TP1: 98.5%

Figure 5C.2.16 Material Price Scenario s Comparison Plot for Design Line 115C-20 5C.2.9 Design Line 12 Engineering Analysis Results Figure 5C.2.17 presents a plot of the Q1 2005 manufacturer se lling 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% LoadManufacturer 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 125C-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% loadManufacturer Selling Price ($) 2000-2004 Average Material Prices Q1 2005 Material Prices CSL TP-1: 99.0%

Figure 5C.2.18 Material Price Scenario s Comparison Plot for Design Line 125C-22 5C.2.10 Design Line 13 Engineering Analysis Results Figure 5C.2.19 presents a plot of the Q1 2005 manufacturer se lling 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% LoadManufacturer 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 135C-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% loadManufacturer Selling Price ($)

2000-2004 Average Material Prices Q1 2005 Material Prices CSL TP-1: 99.0%

Figure 5C.2.20 Material Price Scenario s Comparison Plot for Design Line 135C-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 6.65C-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 2.55C-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 1.85C-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 5.35C-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 2.75C-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 4.45C-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 2.45C-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 2.85C-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 3.95C-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