dt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- i CHAPTER 10. NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CO NTENTS

10.1 INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 10

- 1

10.2 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVI NGS

................................ ................................ ............... 10

- 4

10.2.1 Overview

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 10

- 5

10.2.2 Inputs

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 10

- 6

10.2.2.1 Size Scaling of Losses and Costs

................................ ................................ . 10

- 6

10.2.2.2 Mapping Design Line Data to Equipment Classes

................................ ...... 10

- 8

10.2.2.3 Mapping Draft Efficiency Level to Draft Trial Standard Level

................ 10

- 10

10.2.2.4 Root Mean Square Load

................................ ................................ ............ 10

- 11

10.2.2.5 Load Growth

................................ ................................ .............................. 10

- 11

10.2.2.6 Affected Stock

................................ ................................ ........................... 10

- 12

10.2.2.7 Unit Energy Consumption

................................ ................................ ......... 10

- 13

10.2.2.8 Site

- to

- Source Electricity Conversion

................................ ....................... 10

- 13

10.3 NET PRESENT VALUE

................................ ................................ ............................. 10

- 15

10.3.1 Overview

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 10

- 15

10.3.2 Inputs

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 10

- 17

10.3.2.1 First Cost

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 10

- 17

10.3.2.2 O perating Costs

................................ ................................ .......................... 10

- 18

10.3.2.3 Peak Responsibility Factor

................................ ................................ ........ 10

- 19

10.3.2.4 Initial Peak Load

................................ ................................ ........................ 10

- 19

10.3.2.5 Scalar for Electricity Price Forecasts

................................ ......................... 10

- 20

10.3.2.6 Marginal Electricity Costs

................................ ................................ ......... 10

- 20

10.3.2.7 Discount Rate

................................ ................................ ............................. 10

- 20

10.3.2.8 Projection of Future Product Prices

................................ ........................... 10

- 21

10.4 RESULTS

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 10

- 21

10.4.1 National Energy Savings and Net Present Value for Draft Trial Standard Levels

...... 10

- 21

10.4.1.2 Results for Liquid

- Immersed Transformers

................................ ............... 10

- 22

10.4.1.3 Results for Low

- Voltage Dry

- Type Transformers

................................ .... 10

- 23

10.4.1.4 Results for Medium

- Voltage Dry

- Type Transformers

.............................. 10

- 24

LIST OF TABLES

Table 10.2.1 Mapping of Design Line to Equipment Class

................................ .................... 10

- 9

Table 10.2.2 Mapping of Draft Efficiency L evels to Draft Trial Standard Levels for Liquid

- Immersed Transformers

................................ ................................ ....... 10

- 10

Table 10.2.3 Mapping of Draft Efficiency Levels to Draft Trial Standard Levels for

Low

- Voltage Dry

- Type Transformers

................................ ............................. 10

- 10

Table 10.2.4 Mapping of Draft Efficiency Levels to Draft Trial S tandard Levels for

Medium

- Voltage Dry

- Type Transformers

................................ ....................... 10

- 11dt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- ii Table 10.2.5 Average Site

- to

- Source Conversion Factors for No

- Load Losses and Load

Losses

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 10

- 14

Table 10.3.1 First Cost of Distribution Transformers by Draft Trial Standard Level and Equipment Class (2010$/kVA)

................................ ................................ ........ 10

- 18

Table 10.3.2 Peak Responsibility Factors by Equipment Class

................................ ............ 10

- 19

Table 10.3.3 Initial Peak Loading by Equipment Class

................................ ........................ 10

- 20

Table 10.3.4 Marginal Energy and Capacity Costs by Equipment Class

............................. 10

- 20

Table 10.4.1 Results of Calcul ating Cumulative National Energy Savings (2016

– 2045) and Net Present Value (2016

– 2104)

................................ ................................ 10

- 22

LIST OF FIGURE S

Figure 10.1.1 Flowchart of National Impact Analysis

................................ ............................. 10

- 3 Figure 10.4.1 Liquid

- Immersed Distribution Tra nsformers: Impacts of Standards on National Energy Savings and Net Present Value

................................ ............. 10

- 23 Figure 10.4.2 Low

- Voltage Dry

- Type Distribut ion Transformers: Impacts of Standards on National Energy Savings and Net Present Value

................................ ........ 10

- 24 Figure 10.4.3 Medium

- Voltage Dry

- Type Distribution Transformers: Impacts of Standards on National Energy Savings and Net Present Value

....................... 10

- 25dt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- 1 CHAPTER 10. NATIONAL IMPACT ANAL YSIS

10.1 INTRODUCTION

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975, as amended, states that any

new or amended energy efficiency standard must be selected to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is both technologically feasible and economically justified. In determining whether a standard is economic ally justifi ed , the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) must determine whether the benefits of the potential standard outweigh its burdens. Key factors in this decision are the total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard, and the savings in opera ting costs throughout

the life of the covered equipment compared to any increase in its price, or in its initial charges or maintenance, that are likely to result from promulgation of the standard.

To satisfy this EPCA requirement and to more fully understand the overall impact of potential efficiency standard s for distribution transformers, DOE conducted a national impact analysis (NIA) . Th e NIA assessed future national energy savings (NES) from ene rgy conservation standards for transformer s and the national economic impact using the net present value (NPV). This chapter describes the method DOE used to estimate the national impacts of

draft trial standard levels for medium

- voltage liquid

- immersed and low

- and medium

- voltage dry

- type distribution transformers

. The analyses that preceded the shipments analysis in chapter

9 (e.g., the engineering analysis [chapter 5] and the life

- cycle cost analysis [chapter 8] e xamined transformers by design line, ac counting for the 1 4 distinct design options found in transformers. For the NIA, DOE must examine impacts as they relate to equipment classes, because the final standards will apply to equipment classes, not design lines. DOE evaluated the following impacts : (1) NES attributable to each potential standard, (2) monetary value of the NES to purchas ers of the considered equipment , (3) increased total installed cost of the equipment because of standards, and (4) NPV of energy savings (the difference between the operating cost savings and increased total installed cost).

To conduct its NIA, DOE determined both the NES and NPV for each draft trial standard

level being considered for distribution transformers . DOE performed all calculations for each

considered eq uipment class using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet model

. The national impact spreadsheet is available as an Excel file on the DOE website: www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/distribution_transformers.html

.

The spreadsheets combine the calculations for determining the NES and NPV for each

considered equipment class with input from the appropriate shipments model th at DOE used to forecast future purchases of transformers . Chapter 9 provides a detailed description of the shipments model

, includ ing c ustome rs’ sensitivities to total installed cost, operating cost, and

income , and how DOE captured those sensitivities wit hin the model. The NES and NPV together

constitute the NIA model. Additional d etails , along with instructions for using the NIA spreadsheet

, are provided in appendix 10A of this technical support document

.dt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- 2 Figure 10.1.1 presents a flow diagram of the mode l and spreadsheet s used to perform the NIA (NES and NPV) for distribution transformers. In the diagram, arrows show the direction

that information flow s when the calculation is performed . The process begins with inputs (shown as parallelograms). As information flows from the inputs, it may be integrated into intermediate results (shown as rectangles) or

, via integrating sums or differences (shown as circles)

, into major outputs (shown as bo xes having wavy bottom edges).

The NIA calculation start s with the shipments model (chapter 9) , which is shaded in the flow diagram

. For transformers, the model integrated the inputs of estimates of 2001 and 2009 shipments from DOE’s contractor

, 1

, 2 the U.S. Bureau of Ec onomic Analysis (BEA) transformer quantity index

, 3 electricity market shares from DOE’s Energy Information Administration (EIA)

, 4

, 5 and equipment price estimates from DOE’s life

- cycle cost (LCC) analysis

. The model produce d both a backcast and a forecast of total shipments. DOE used the total shipments and a retirement function to produce an accounting of in

- service transformers (stoc ks), enabling DOE

to estimate the stock that would be affected by draft trial standard level s and transformer

retirements.

DOE used a scaling factor (described in section 10.2.2.1) t o estimate the national impacts of new standards for all the equipment classes considered in this rulemaking . The scaling factor is applied to the equipment cost and annual energy consumption of each representative transformer size so they can describe all sizes within that equipment class.dt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- 3 Figure 10.1.1 Flowchart of National Impact Analysis

Following the calculation of shipments, the calculations of NES and NPV begin. For both

calculations

, k ey inputs from the LCC analysis are the average rated no

- load and load losses and the cost of transformers, including installation. DOE adju sted the losses and equipment costs for

transformer size an d type to convert the applicability of the data from representative design lines

to average equipment class es . Additional inputs on average and peak losses

— including root mean square (RMS) loading, peak loading, and peak responsibility factor

— enabled DOE todt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- 4 convert rated losses into actual losses. At this point, the information flow for the NES and NPV calculation split s into two paths.

On one path, the NES calculation sums the kilo watt

- hours of e n ergy consumed by the

affected stock

, tak ing the difference between the base

- case and standards scenario to calculate site energy savings. DOE converted site energy savings to energy savings at the source (i.e., at the power plant) , using a verage heat rate s for base load and peak load generation from DOE’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS )

. 6 The average heat rates from NEMS include

transmission and distribution losses

. Summing the annual energy savings for the forecast period

, which extends from 2016 through 2045

, provides the final NES result.

On the other path, the NPV calculation starts with marginal price inputs from th e LCC analysis for both energy and capacity costs and for both load and no

- load losses. The marginal prices, combined with the actual peak and average losses, provide estimate s of operating cost s

. Meanwhile, the adjusted cost of installed equipment times t he annual shipments provide s the estimate of the total annual equipment costs. DOE calculated three differences to assess the net impact of each draft trial standard level ( dTSL ) . The first difference was between equipment

costs in each dTSL scenario and t he base case to obtain the net increase in equipment cost

attributable to the dTSL . The second difference was between operating cost s under the base

- case scenario and each dTSL to obtain the net operating cost savings from the dTSL . The third difference was between the net operating cost savings and the net increase in equipment cost

, which provides the net expense or savings for each year. T o obtain the N PV impact of a dTSL

, DOE discounted the net expenses or savings to 20 10 $ and s ummed them for 2016

– 2104 a for transformers purchased during 2016

– 2045

.

T he t wo models that comprise the NIA are describ ed below

— the NES model in section 10.2, and the NPV model in section 10.3. Each description begins with a summary of the model

, followed by a n overview of how DOE performed that model’s calculations . Then model inputs

are summarized . The final subsections of the two sections describe each of the major inputs and computation al steps in detail and with equations when appropriate. Aft er the technical descriptions of the model s , this chapter presents the results of the NIA calculations.

10.2 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVI NGS

DOE developed the national energy savings ( NES ) model to estimate the total NES using results from the shipments model combined with information from the LCC on energy savings. The savings shown in the NES reflect decreased energy losses resulting from the installation of new, more efficient transformer units nationwide, in compariso n to a base case in which there are no national standards. Positive values of NES correspond to net energy savings, specifically a decrease in energy consumption after implementation of a standard

, in comparison to the energy consumption in the base

- case s cenario.

a The analysis period for NPV is based on the cumulative operating cost savings of the last unit shipped ( 2045 +
maximum transformer life

- 1).dt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- 5 10.2.1 Overview

DOE calculated the cumulative incremental energy savings from each potential transformer efficiency standard relative to a base

- case scenario of no standard

. It calculated NES

, in units of quads, throughout the forecast period for standa rds that it assumed will be effective in

2016 . The NES calculation started with estimates of transformer shipments and stocks (in

service transformers), which are outputs of the shipments model ( c hapter 9). DOE then obtained

estimates of transformer energy losses from the LCC analysis ( c hapter 8), and calculated the total energy use by the stock of transformers for each year for both a base case and a standards

case. I n each standards case, as more efficient transformers replace less efficient ones th at retire

from service

, the energy per unit capacity used by the stock of transformers gradually decreases

relative to the base case. DOE used a site

- to

- source conversion factor to convert the amount of energy used by the transformers into the amount of en ergy consumed at the source of electricity generation (the source energy). The site

- to

- source conversion factor accounts for transmission, distribution, and generation losses. For each year analyzed, the difference in source energy use

between the base cas e and the standards scenario is the annual energy savings. DOE summed the annual energy savings from 2016 through 2045 to calculate the total NES for the forecast period.

In calculating the NES, DOE did not assume any trends in transformer name

- plate

ef

ficiency besides the incremental improvement indicated by the LCC calculation. In examin ing proprietary shipments data provided by the transformer industry , DOE found that the data

revealed no conclusive trends in improv ed efficiency. Deciding that future efficiency trends generally a re indeterminate , DOE chose to use fixed baseline efficiency. DOE also assumed that the efficiency of transformers does not degrade over time. Th erefore the annual energy savings

can be described in terms of an affe cted stock, as described in section 9.3.11 of the shipments chapter

. A nnual energy savings therefore are described by the following equation.

AES(y) = (UECBase − UECStd) × Aff_ Stock(y)

W here :

AES(y) = the annual energy savings in year y , UECBase = t he site unit energy consumption for the base case,

UECStd = the site unit energy consumption for the standards case, and Aff_Stock(y) = the stock of transformers of all vintages that are operational in year y

.

G iven the annual energy savings, the cumulative NES can then be calculated as a simple

sum

.

NES = ∑ SiteToSource (

y

) × AEC (

y

) 2045

y

=

St

d year

W here :

Std year = the year standards come into effect, SiteToSource(y) = the site

- to

- source conversion factor in year y , and

AEC = the annual energy consumption.dt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- 6 After the shipments model provides the estimate of affected stock, the NES calculates

UECBase and UECStd using the output from the LCC analysis and including the site

- to

- source conversion factor. The following section summarizes the inputs necessary for the NES

calculation and then describe s each input individually.

10.2.2 Inputs

Inputs to t he NES model fall into three broad categories: (1) those that help convert the

data from the LCC into data relevant to the equipment classes and transformer si ze distributions

used in the NES; (2) those that help calculate the unit energy consumption; and (3) the site

- to

source conversion factor, which enables the calculation of source energy consumption from site

energy use. The specific NES model inputs are :

1. s ize scaling of losses and costs

, 2. m apping of LCC design line data to equipment classes

, 3. r oot mean square loading

, 4. l oad growth

, 5. a ffected stock

, 6. e ffective date of standard

, 7. u nit energy consumption

, and

8. e lectricity site

- to

- source conversion

.

Each input is d escribed further below.

10.2.2.1 Size Scaling of Losses and Costs

Transformers are produced over a broad range of capacities, only a few of which are modeled explicitly in this analysis. The modeled designs are referred to as representative units. Any given equipment type includes 2

- 4 representative units at different ca pacity, or kVA values. DOE used a scaling relationship, or equation, to project the economic results from a given transformer design line to similar transformers of different sizes. This relationship is a key element in adjusting losses and costs from a re presentative transformer in the LCC to the

distribution of transformer sizes incorporated in the calculation of NES and subject to potential

standards

. The Department uses the 0.75 scaling rule to scale the cost and efficiency results for

the modeled kVA values to the full capacity range for each type , the 0.75 scaling rule is discussed in greater detail in chapter 5 . This rule assumes that both the physical and cost characteristics are determined by the quantity of material required to build the transform er, and is approximately true. In practice, if the kVA

- range over which cost and efficiency data are to be scaled is large, the 0.75 rule is less accurate. This manifests as kinks or angles in the curve of efficiency as a function of capacity for a given e quipment type.

The Department has implemented a correction to the 0.75 scaling rule to produce smoother curves of efficiency vs. capacity. This correction adjusts the value of the exponent (the

0.75 of the scaling rule) so that the curve extrapolates cor rectly between any two representative units. Mathematically, the efficiency of a transformer is equal to the ratio :dt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- 7 Eff = Load ( Load + Losses ) �

Where:

Eff = transformer efficiency

Load = the load on the transformer

Losses = the transformer’s combined no

- load and load losses.

Load is proportional to capacity kVA , and if the 0.75 scaling rule is valid, losses are proportional to ( kVA ) 0.75 . This expression can thus be written as,

Eff = 1 ( 1 + Constant × ( kVA )

− 0

. 25 ) �

Defining the loss fun ction as

Losses = 1 Eff

− 1 �

,

Losses = Constant × ( kVA )

− 0

. 25

For two representative units labeled 1 and 2,

Log � Losses 1
Losses 2 �

= − 0

. 25 Log � kVA 1 kVA 2 �

The validity of the 0.75 scaling rule can thus be tested by evaluating the ratio,

x = − Log � Losses 1 Losses 2 � �

Log � kVA 1 kVA 2 � �

The Department uses the exponent x calculated through the above equation, instead of the

value

- 0.25 implied by the scaling rule, to interpolate the efficiency between any tw o representative units. The Department uses the unmodified scaling rule to extrapolate efficiency values to capacities below the minimum representative unit, or above the maximum representative unit.

The Department calculated an adjustment factor using t he exponent x to account for the fact that the representative design line unit used in the engineering analysis is not the “average”

size for the set of transformers that the design line represents. This adjustment factor is given by the following equation

.dt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- 8 AdjFactor = ∑ [ S h ip i × Cap i 1 + X i ] / ( Cap DL 1 + X × ∑ S h ip i i )

W here :

AdjFactor = the adjustment factor that

, when multiplied by the design line losses or

costs, gives the shipment

- weighted losses or costs per transformer ; Ship i = t he shipments in the i

- th size category ; Cap i = the rated capacity of the transformers in the i

- th size category ; and Cap DL = the rated capacity of the representative unit of the design line.

DOE also used the shipment

- weighted average size of transformers represented by a particular design line to calculate the average loss per capacity ( AvgLossPerCap DL ), as described by :

AvgLossPerCap DL = LossPerCap DL × AdjFactor × Cap DL / Cap avg .

W here :

LossPerCap DL = t he loss, or cost per unit capacity, for the design line unit from the LCC analysis, and Cap avg = the shipment

- weighted average size of transformers represented by a particular design line.

After the losses and costs from the LCC were adjusted to represent the correct size distribution, they needed a further adjustment to represent the appropriate equipment classes, as

described in the following section.

10.2.2.2 Mapping Design Line Data to Equipment Classes

The calculations of NES and NPV use the LCC calc ulations (chapter 8) as the source of most input data. DOE performed the LCC calculations by design line, whereas any standard w ill be promulgated by equipment class. As a first step, therefore, the NES calculation aggregates the LCC design line data into equipment classes. DOE used t h is aggregation method to prepare for estimating economic impact s by equipment class.

To represent the range of designs in some equipment classes, DOE often analyzed several design lines per equipment class. For example

, equipment class 1 (single

- phase, medium

voltage, liquid

- immersed transformers) is represented by three design lines, and equipment class 2 (three

- phase, medium

- voltage, liquid

- immersed transformers) is represented by two design lines. DOE did not specifica lly examine single

- phase, medium

- voltage

, dry

- type design lines. For single

- phase equipment classes 5 , 7

, and 9, DOE used factors for the appropriate three

- phase design lines divided by three. Table 10.2.1 presents the mapping of design line (DL) to equipm ent class ( E C).dt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- 9 Table 10.2.1 Mapping of Design Line to Equipment Class

Equipment Class BIL*

kV Capacity

kVA Mapping

1 Liquid

- immersed, medium

- voltage, single

- phase Any 10

– 833 DL1 + DL2 + DL3

2 Liquid

- immersed, medium

- voltage, three

- phase Any 15

– 2,500 DL4 + DL5

3 Dry

- type, low

- voltage, single

- phase ≤ 10 15

– 333 DL6

4 Dry

- type, low

- voltage, three

- phase ≤ 10 15

– 1,000 DL7+DL8

5 Dry

- type, medium

- voltage, single

- phase 20

– 45 15

– 833 (DL9 + DL10)/3

6 Dry

- type, medium

- voltage, three

- phase 20

– 45 15

- 2,500 DL9 + DL10

7 Dry

- type, medium

- voltage, single

- phase 46

– 95 15

– 833 (DL11 + DL12)/3

8 Dry

- type, medium

- voltage, three

- phase 46

– 95 15

– 2,500 DL11 + DL12

9 Dry

- type, medium

- voltage, single

- phase > 95 75

– 833 (DL13A + DL13B)/3

10 Dry

- type, medium

- voltage, three

- phase > 95 225

– 2,500 DL13A + DL13B

* BIL = basic impulse insulation level in kilovolts (kV).

To aggregate losses from more than one design line , DOE applied the average of shipments weighted by capacity of the per

- kilovolt

- ampere (kVA) transformer characteristics

from the economic analysis of the design lines to the estimated capacity shipped for each equipment class. DOE’s contractor 1,2 provided the capacity shipped for each design line (and

each equipment class)

. T he LCC analysis provided the economic results for each design line, and DOE used the scaling method described in section 10.2.2.1 to estimate the scaled cost and loss estimates for each size category r epresented by each design line. The following e quation provides the average loss per unit capacity for an equipment class ( AvgLossPerCap E C ) as derived from the average loss per unit capacity for a design line

. The equation sums those design lines

that cons titute a n equipment class.

AvgLossPerCap EC = ∑ [ AvgLossPerCap DL × MS DL ] DL ∑ MS DL DL �

.

W here :

AvgLossPerCap DL = the average loss per unit capacity for the design line, and

MS DL = the design line’s market share by capacity

.

The AvgLossPerCap E C represents the average loss per unit capacity of the transformer

load. N o further adjustment is needed f or no

- load losses . F or load losses, however, the losses at

rated load must be converted to losses at actual loading. R oot mean squa re ( RMS ) loading is a key factor used in estimating load losses at actual loading. The following section describes the RMS loading input to the NES

.dt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- 10 10.2.2.3 Mapping Draft Efficiency Level to Draft Trial Standard Level

The Department co nducted the LCC analysis for up to seven alternate efficiency levels, i.e., draft efficiency levels ( dEL s), for each representative unit in the 1 4 design lines. The Department selected the dEL efficiency levels for each design line by applying a set of common

economic criteria to intermediate LCC analyses as discussed in c hapter 5 , resulting in unique sets

of dEL efficiencies for each design line. It mapped these LCC analysis results to draft trial

standard levels ( dTSL s) for the 10 product classes.

For liquid

- immersed and me dium

- voltage dry

- type (MVDT) transformers DOE selected

five dTSL s. For dTSL s 1 through 4 DOE directly mapped dTSL s to their corresponding dEL for

small er capacity design lines ; while larger capacity design lines were mapped to next higher dEL

th a n their sm aller capacity counterparts

. Max

- tech is mapped to dTSL 5

. For low

- voltage dry

type (LVDT) design lines DOE selected six dTSL s. Similar to the liquid

- immersed and MVDT

, small er capacity LVDT design lines dTSL s were mapped to the ir corresponding ly higher dEL s for dTSL s 1, 3, 4 and 5 ; while larger capacity design lines were mapped to next higher dEL than their smaller capacity counterparts.

. The dEL s that represent NEMA’s voluntary efficiency

standard NEMA Premium were mapped to dTSL 2 and max

- tech was mapp ed to dTSL 6.

Table 10.2.2 Mapping of Draft Efficiency Levels to Draft Trial Standard Levels for Liquid

- Immersed Transformers
Design Line dTSL 1 dTSL 2 dTSL 3 dTSL 4 dTSL 5

1 Liquid

- Immersed, 50kVA, single

- phase dEL 1 dEL 2 dEL 3 dEL 4 dEL 7

2 Liquid

- Immersed, 25kVA, single

- phase dEL 1 dEL 2 dEL 3 dEL 4 dEL 7

3 Liquid

- Immersed, 500kVA, single

- phase dEL 2 dEL 3 dEL 4 dEL 5 dEL 7

4 Liquid

- Immersed, 150kVA, three

- phase dEL 1 dEL 2 dEL 3 dEL 4 dEL 7

5 Liquid

- Immersed, 1500kVA, three

- phase dEL 2 dEL 3 dEL 4 dEL 5 dEL 7

Table 10.2.3 Mapping of Draft Efficiency Levels to Draft Trial Standard Levels for

Low

- Voltage Dry

- Type Transformers
Design Line dTSL 1 dTSL 2 * dTSL 3 dTSL 4 dTSL 5 dTSL6

6 LVDT, 25kVA, single

- phase dEL 2 dEL 3 * dEL 3 dEL 4 dEL 5 dEL 7

7 LVDT, 75kVA, three

- phase dEL 2 dEL 3 * dEL 3 dEL 4 dEL 5 dEL 7

8 LVDT, 300kVA, three

- phase dEL 3 dEL 2 * dEL 4 dEL 5 dEL 6 dEL 7

*NEMA Premiumdt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- 11 Table 10.2.4 Mapping of Draft Efficiency Levels to Draft Trial Standard Levels for

Medium

- Voltage Dry

- Type Transformers
Design Line dTSL 1 dTSL 2 dTSL 3 dTSL 4 dTSL 5

9 MVDT, 300kVA, three

- phase, 45kV BIL dEL 1 dEL 2 dEL 3 dEL 4 dEL 7

10 MVDT, 1500kVA, three

- phase, 45kV BIL dEL 2 dEL 3 dEL 4 dEL 5 dEL 7

11 MVDT, 300kVA, three

- phase, 95kV BIL dEL 1 dEL 2 dEL 3 dEL 4 dEL 7

12 MVDT, 1500kVA, three

- phase, 95kV BIL dEL 2 dEL 3 dEL 4 dEL 5 dEL 7

13A MVDT, 300kVA, three

- phase, 125kV BIL dEL 1 dEL 2 dEL 3 dEL 4 dEL 7

13B MVDT, 2000kVA, three

- phase, 125kV BIL dEL 2 dEL 3 dEL 4 dEL 5 dEL 7

10.2.2.4 Root Mean Square Load

Energy losses in transformers follow the RMS load, not the arithmetic average load. DOE

calculated the RMS load as the RMS of the transformer load divided by the transformer rated capacity, then multiplied by the power factor. (As explained in c hapter 6, although DOE’s analy tical method can derive results for varying power factors, for the analysis presented here DOE set the power factor to a value of one.) DOE used the average national RMS load for each design line as calculated for the LCC analysis. Th o se values range from 26.2 percent to 41.9

percent for the various design lines.

10.2.2.5 Load Growth

The load growth is the fraction by which the load increase s after a transformer i s installed. DOE investigated load growth as a sensitivity. Load growth occurs when new equipment, new appliances, or additional activities increase the energy loads on the circuits served by distribution transformers. Load growth increas es the load losses relative to th os e estimated to have occurred during the first year of i nstallation

.

DOE calculated the fractional load growth from an estimated rate that it used as an input to the LCC analysis. There is a maximum load growth, LGRMax , which DOE set at 50 percent for liquid

- immersed transformers. The 50

- percent value represents the approximate amount of growth in load that can occur without overloading the transform er beyond a reasonable point. When overloading occur s
, DOE assumed that the transformer would be installed in a new

location where the initial peak loading would be the same as when originally installed. 7 See Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) Std C57.91

- 1995 8 for details on permissible overloading of mineral

- oil

- immersed transformers. Because IEEE does not report

data on permissible overloading of dry

- type units, DOE used the same values for both liquid

immersed and dry

- type trans formers. The age a t which a transformer load switches back to initial peak load is given by the following equation.

age Max = ln ( 1 + LGRMax )
l n ( 1 + LGR )

. �dt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- 12 W here :

age Max = the maximum age of the transformer after which time the load switches back to initial peak load (years), and

LGR = the annual load growth rate (%).

Thus, the equation for the load growth as a function of the age of the transformer is:

LGrwth(age) = (1 − LGR) (age) − 1

for age < age Max , and

LGr wth(age) = (1 − LGR) (age −ageMax) − 1

for age >= age Max

.

W here :

LGrwth (age) = the fractional load growth, and

age = the age of the transformer (years).

DOE then used the load growth to adjust the estimate of RMS load for the affected stock. The mathematical equation for this adjustment is:

LAdjust ( y ) = � � [ Stock ( y
, age ) × ( 1 + LGrwt h ( age ) ) 2 ] y

− Std

_ year

age = 1 / Aff

_ Stock ( y )

,

where LAdjust(y) is the load adjustment factor in year y . All other variables were defined for previous equations. DOE a pplied a load adjustment factor to RMS loading to incorporate load growth into the unit energy consumption, as described in section 10.2.2.7

.

10.2.2.6 Affected Stock

The affected stock

, an output of the shipments model ( c hapter 9) , is a key input for the NES and NPV calculations. The affected stock represents that p art of the transformer stock that

would be impacted by a standard. It consists of those transformers purchased in or after the year

the standard takes effect, as described by the following equation

.

Af f Stock ( y ) = S h ip ( y ) + ∑ Stock ( age ) y

− St d year

age = 1 .

W here :

Aff_Stock(y) = stock of affected transformers of all vintages that are operational in

year y ,dt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- 13 Ship(y) = shipment of new transformers in year y , Std_year = year the standard becomes effective, and Stock(age) = age in years of the stock of transformers.

10.2.2.7 Unit Energy Consumption

One of the final quantities DOE calculated to estimate the NES was the unit energy consumption for affected stock. The unit energy consumption multiplied by the capacity shipped

and the site

- to

- source conversion factor equals the annual site energy consumption from which

DOE derived total NES.

Annual unit energy consumption (UEC(y)) for affected stock is the annual energy consumption per unit capacity for transformers shipped after the effective date of a standard. DOE calculated the losses per transformer as the sum of no

- load losses plus load losses. It

calculated the load losses as the rated load loss times the square of the RMS load , adjusted for load growth. Average energy consumed per unit capacity for affected stock varies from year to

year because of load growth effects. The annual unit energy consumption for affected stock of

distribution transformers is given by the following equation

.

UEC(y) = E NL + E LL × [RMS × LAdjust(y)] 2

.

W here :

E NL = rated no

- load losses per kVA capacity,

E

LL = rated load losses per kVA capacity,

RMS = root mean square, and

LA djust(y) = load adjustment factor for year y

.

After DOE defined the unit energy consumption for affected stock, only one more input was necessary to complete the NES calculation: the site

- to

- source conversion factor.

10.2.2.8 Site

- to

- Source Electricity Conversion

The site

- to

- source conversion factor for electricity is the factor by which site energy (in

kilowatt

- hours [ kWh ] ) is multiplied to obtain primary (source) energy (in quadrillion British

thermal units [ quads ])

. Because the NES estimates the change in energy use of the resource (e.g.,

at the power plant), this conversion factor is necessary to account for losses in gene ration, transmission, and distribution. After calculating energy consumption at the site of use

— the

installed transformer

— DOE multiplied the site energy consumption by the conversion factor to obtain primary energy consumption, expressed in quads. This con version permitted comparison across (source) fuels by taking into account the heat content of various fuels and the efficiency of

various energy conversion processes. The annual conversion factor s are the U nited States

average s for generating electricity f or both peak and base load s

. DOE used average heat rates corresponding to base load for no

- load losses (or core losses)

, and average heat rates corresponding to peak load for load losses (or coil losses). It used different rates because load

losses are higher during transformer peak loads

, wh ereas no

- load losses occur at all times. DOEdt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- 14 develop ed conversion factors using a variant of the NEMS 5 called NEMS

- BT. b Table 10.2.3 presents the average annual conversion factors DOE used.

Table 10.2.5 Average Site

- to

- Source Conversion Factors for No

- Load Losses and Load

Losses

Year No

- Load Losses Load Losses

2015 1.890 2.443

2016 1.888 2.446

2017 1.885 2.444

2018 1.883 2.443

2019 1.883 2.444

2020 1.886 2.446

2021 1.896 2.452

2022 1.900 2.450

2023 1.907 2.447

2024 1.915 2.448

2025 1.915 2.439

2026 1.916 2.425

2027 1.920 2.414

2028 1.921 2.395

2029 1.920 2.377

2030 1.919 2.355

2031 1.920 2.345

2032 1.920 2.330

2033 1.919 2.308

2034 1.920 2.294

2035 1.923 2.289

2036

– 2045 1.923 2.289

The conversion factors change over time to account for the changes in electricity

generating sources. The NES spreadsheet model includes the conversion factors for each year of

the projection. DOE and stakeholders can examine the effects of alternative assumptions by revising th e conversion factors in the NES spreadsheet

.

The conversion of site energy savings to source energy savings and the summation of

energy sav ings throughout the forecast period complete the calculations needed to estimate the NES. The next section (section 10.3) describes the technical details of the NPV calculation.

S ection 10.4 presents the NES and NPV results from the NIA spreadsheet model

.

b DOE/EIA approves use of the name NEMS to describe only an official version of the model without any modification to code or data. Because this analysis entailed some minor code modifications and the model is run under policy scenarios that are variations on DOE/EIA assumptions, the name NEMS

- BT refers to the model as used here (BT is DOE’s Building Technologies Program, under whose aegis this work was performed).dt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- 15 10.3 NET PRESENT VALUE

DOE us ed a national net present value ( NPV ) accounting component in the NIA spreadsheet to estimate the national financial impact on c ustom ers from the imposition of potential energy efficiency standards. DOE combined the output of the shipments model with energy savings and financial data from the LCC analysis to calculate an annual stream of costs and benefits resulting from draft trial standard level s ( dTSL s ) for distribution transformers. It

discounted this time series to 2010 and su mmed the result for 2016

– 2104 (the year the last unit shipped in 2045 retires from service) , yielding the national NPV.

10.3.1 Overview

The NPV is the present value of the incremental economic impact of a dTSL . Like the NES, the NPV calculation start ed with transformer shipments and stocks, estimates of which are

outputs of the shipments model. DOE then obtained estimates of transformer first costs, losses, and average marginal electricity costs from the LCC analysis. It calculated the costs of

transfor mer purchases and installation, then the corresponding operating costs for both a base

case and a standards case

, by applying marginal prices to the energy ( both energy and electricity system capacity) used by the stock of transformers for each year. I n th e standards case, more expensive, but more efficient

, transformers gradually replace less efficient unit s . Thus, the operating cost per unit capacity for the stock of transformers gradually decreases in the standards

case relative to the base case, while e quipment costs increase.

DOE us ed a simple national average discount factor to discount purchases, expenses, and operating costs for transformers. The discount factor converts a future expense or benefit to a present value. The difference in present value of all expenses and benefits between the base

- case and standards scenario represent s the impact on national NPV. DOE calculated the NPV impact

f

or transformers purchased during the forecast period ( between the effective date of the standard

and 210 4 , inclusive ) . Mathematically, NPV is the value in the present of a time series of costs

and savings, described by the equation:

NPV = PVS

– PVC

.

W here :

PVS = the present value of electricity savings , and

PVC = the present value of equipment costs including installation.

PVS and PVC are determined according to the following three equations

.

PVS = ∑ � OC Base Cap � ( y ) × OC Std Cap � ( y ) � × Af f Stock ( y ) × Discoun t Factor ( y )

. 2104
y = Std

_ yeardt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- 16 Where :

OC Base /Cap(y) = operating cost in year y per unit capacity of transformer for the base case, Aff_Stock(y) = stock of transformers of all vintages that are operational in year

y , y = the year (from effective date of the standard to the year when units purchased in 2045 retire [ in 210 4 ] ), and Discount Factor(y) = discount factor for year y , defined in the next equation.

Discount Factor ( y ) = 1 ( 1 + Discount Rate ) ( y

− reference year ) �

W here:

reference year = 2016 , and

discount rate = the discount rate, as described in section 10.3.2.7

.

PVC is determined as follows.

PVC = � � FC std Cap � ( y )

− FC Base Cap � ( y ) � 2104

Std

_ year × S h ip ( y ) × DiscountFactor ( y )

.

W here :

FC Std

/Cap (y) = first cost of the tra nsformer per unit of capacity for a dEL Std in year

y ( f irst cost i s described in section 10.3.2.1 ); Std_year = the year the standard come s into effect, and Ship (y) = shipments of transformers in year y for the standards case.

DOE calculated NPV using its projections of national expenditures for distribution transformers, including purchase price (equipment and installation price) and operating costs (electricity and maintenance costs). It calculated costs and savings as the difference between a

d TSL and a base case lacking national standards. It discounted future costs and savings to the

present (2010 $ )

. DOE calculated a discount factor from the discount rate and the number of years between the year to which the sum is being discounted ( 20 10 ) and the year in which the costs and savings occur. The NPV is the sum over time ( 2016

– 210 4 ) of the discounted net financial savings.

The following sections describe inputs to the NPV calculation that are not described

elsewhere

.dt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- 17 10.3.2 Inputs

I nputs to t he NPV model include cost inputs, inputs important for detailing electricity capacity costs, and several of the inputs used by the NES calculation. This section provides details on those inputs that were not described for the NES or shipments models. The specific inputs for the NPV are :

1. f irst cost

, 2. o perating cost

, 3. p eak responsibility factor

, 4. i nitial peak load

, 5. scalar for e lectricity price forecast

, 6. m arginal electricity costs

, and

7. d iscount rate

.

Each input is described in detail below.

10.3.2.1 First Cost

The first cost includes all the initial costs incurred with the installation of a distribution transformer. DOE expresses first cost in terms of cost per unit capacity. Specifically, it defines the first cost of acquiring a transformer with the following equation

.

FC/C ap = (P + Install)/Cap

.

W here :

FC = first cost ; Cap = rated capacity of the transformer ;
P = price of the transformer including shipping

, and taxes ; and

Install = installation cost of the transformer.

T he above values we re obtained from the LCC calculation as the averages for individual design lines. DOE convert ed the first cost of a representative design to an estimated average first

cost for a distribution of sizes within a particular equipment class. The adjustment incorporates the 0.75 scaling rule and the mapping of design line to equipment class discussed in sections

10.2.2.1 and 10.2.2.2. C osts are expressed in units of 20 10 $ per kVA of rated transformer capacity. Ta ble 10.3.1 show s the resulting mean first costs per kVA for distribution transformers by dEL and e quipment class.dt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- 18 Table 10.3.1 First Cost c

Equipment Class of Distribution Transformers by Draft Trial Standard Level

and Equipment Class (2010$/kVA)

Base dTSL

1 dTSL

2 dTSL

3 dTSL

4 dTSL

5 dTSL

6

Liquid

- immersed, medium

- voltage, single

- phase 101.58 112.68 116.08 115.92 117.97 154.76

Liquid

- immersed, medium

- voltage, three

- phase 28.33 32.61 34.56 33.61 34.13 49.71

Dry

- type, low

- voltage, single

- phase 67.25 52.67 51.16 53.36 55.88 90.81 142.08

Dry

- type, low

- voltage, three

- phase 49.79 33.48 31.60 35.17 33.57 66.40 102.82

Dry

- type, medium

- voltage, single

- phase 35.39 28.67 29.93 32.64 30.83 73.31

Dry

- type, medium

- voltage, three

- phase 28.71 28.97 33.38 34.51 35.93 55.17

Dry

- type, medium

- voltage, single

- phase 44.97 37.02 38.23 41.71 38.62 89.48

Dry

- type, medium

- voltage, three

- phase 32.85 33.53 36.33 41.05 42.57 62.55

Dry

- type, medium

- voltage, single

- phase 44.45 39.74 40.08 42.83 51.44 127.59

Dry

- type, medium

- voltage, three

- phase 34.39 35.54 37.54 41.04 44.92 71.55

10.3.2.2 Operating Cost s

Transformer operating cost s are the annual cost of transformer losses. Operating costs are a complex, yet essential, part of calculating the national economic impact of a standard . DOE

used distinct costs to calculate the value of various types of losses and peak capacity savings.

Poten tial load growth also requires a n adjustment factor. Peak loading, peak load coincidence, and average loading require additional factors to characterize load losses. Finally, DOE used a

scalar for the electricity price forecast to characterize future trend s in electricity prices consistent

with the EIA’s AEO20 10 forecast

. 4

I n calculating transformer operating costs

, DOE assumed zero incremental maintenance

cost s . It us ed the following formula to capture the diversity of factors that can affect annual operating costs

.

OC/Cap = EPFS(y) × (E NL × (NLLMCC + 8760 × NLLMEC) + E LL × (LAdjust(y)) 2

× (PRF × PL2 × LLMCC + 876 0 × RMS2 × LLMEC))/Cap

.

W here :

OC = the operating cost, Cap = the rated capacity of the transformer, EPFS(y) = the scalar for the electricity price forecast for year y , E

NL = the no

- load losses at rated load,

NLLMCC = the marginal cost of capacity for no

- load loss es
,

c First c ost includes installation cost.dt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- 19 NLLMEC = the marginal cost of energy for no

- load loss es
, E

LL = the load losses at rated load, LAdjust(y) = the load growth adjustment factor in year y , PRF = the peak responsibility factor,

PL = the initial peak load,

LLMCC = the marginal cost of capacity for load loss es
, RMS = the root mean square loading of the transformer, and

LLMEC = the marginal cost of energy for load loss es

.

DOE expressed the operating costs in 20 10 $ per kVA of rated capacity. As when calculating the NES (sections 10.2.2.1 and 10.2.2.2), DOE also us ed an adjustment factor to
scale to E NL and E LL in order to convert fr om design line data to equipment class estimates.

10.3.2.3 Peak Responsibility Factor

The transformer peak responsibility factor (PRF) is the fraction of the transformer peak

load that is coincident with the system peak, calculated by taking the square of the rati o of the

transformer load at the ti me of the customer peak load to the transformer peak load. In combination with the initial peak load, the PRF is necessary for estimating impacts on capacity

costs of transformer load losses. DOE used the average PRF from the hourly and the monthly

load analys e s for liquid

- immersed and dry

- type transformers, respectively, as reported in the LCC analysis. Table 10.3.2 presents the PRFs used in the analysis of the 10 equipment classes (EC s )

.

Table 10.3.2 Peak Responsibility Factors by Equipment Class

EC 1 EC 2 EC 3 EC 4 EC 5 EC 6 EC 7 EC 8 EC 9 EC 10

PRF 0.43 0.62 0.23 0.23 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48

10.3.2.4 Initial Peak Load

The initial peak load is the annual per

- unit peak load on the transformer during the first year of operation. This factor, in combination with the PRF, is necessary for calculating impacts

on capacity cost s from transformer load losses. The initial peak load is estimated as a percentage of the rated peak load of the transformer. The IEEE (2001) 7 defines a similar

, but different

, measure of peak transformer load called an “Equivalent Annual Peak Load” that accounts for changes in peak load during the life of the transformer. Rather than use the equivalent annual peak load, DOE used a distribution to characterize a range of initial peak loads. Chapter 6, sections 6.2.3.3 and 6.3.3.3, further descri be DOE’s method. Table 10.3.3 present s the initial peak loads used in the NPV analysis for the 10 equipment classes.dt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- 20 Table 10.3.3 Initial Peak Loading by Equipment Class

EC 1 EC 2 EC 3 EC 4 EC 5 EC 6 EC 7 EC 8 EC 9 EC 10

Initial Peak Load 0.88 0.88 0.80 0.79 0.85 0.85 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.80

10.3.2.5 Scalar for Electricity Price Forecast s

The scalar for forecasting electricity price s converts current electricity costs into

forecasted costs for 2010 through 2104. The scalar is the ratio of the unit cost of electricity in real dollars in a given year to the real cost of electricity in 20 10 . DOE used forecasts from

AEO20 1 1 4 to obtain the scalar for electricity price forecast s . For the period beyond 20 3 5, DOE extrapolate d the scalar based on the EIA real dollar price trend f or 20 25

– 20 3 5.

10.3.2.6 Marginal Electricity Costs

DOE needed to characterize f our distinct marginal electricity costs in order to calculate the operating costs of transformers and the financial impact of potential efficiency standards. The four marginal costs are: the marginal capacity cost for no

- load loss es
, (t he marginal capacity cost

for load loss es
, the marginal energy cost for no

- load loss es , and the marginal energy cost for load

loss es

. A n electricity system has both energy costs and capacity costs. Depending on the shape of a particular load, the average value of capacity costs may differ from those of energy costs.

Because no

- load losses and load losses have distinct load s hapes, and because different

customers experience different load shapes, costs vary both by loss type and by the equipment

class of a transformer. DOE therefore used distinct marginal energy and capacity costs for no

load losses and load losses for each tr ansformer equipment class. No transformer size scaling is necessary for the marginal costs, although DOE needed to map design line s to equipment class es (as described in section 10.2.2.2 ) to convert the design line output from the LCC to equipment

class in formation for calculating the NPV. DOE calculated capacity costs in units of

20 10 $/kilowatt ( kW ) /year, and energy costs in units of 20 10 $/kWh. Table 10.3. 4 summarizes the four marginal costs for the 10 equipment classes

.

Table 10.3.4 Marginal Energy and Capacity Costs by Equipment Class

Marginal Energy Cost by Equipment Class $/kWh

EC 1 EC 2 EC 3 EC 4 EC 5 EC 6 EC 7 EC 8 EC 9 EC 10

NLL 0.067 0.049 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060

LL 0.073 0.054 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 Marginal Capacity Cost by Equipment Class $/kW/year

EC 1 EC 2 EC 3 EC 4 EC 5 EC 6 EC 7 EC 8 EC 9 EC 10

NLL 498.59 498.59 142.62 142.62 142.62 142.62 142.62 142.62 142.62 142.62

LL 197.66 197.66 104.25 104.68 104.25 104.25 104.25 104.25 104.25 104.25

10.3.2.7 Discount Rate

The discount rate , which is the final input to the NPV calculation

, expresses the time value of money. DOE used real discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent , as established by the Office of Management and Budget guidelines on regulatory an alysis. 9 The discount rates DOE

used in the LCC differ from those used in the NPV calculations, in that the NPV discount ratesdt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- 21 rep resent the societal rate of return on capital, whereas LCC discount rates reflect the owner cost of capital and the financial environment of electric utilities and commercial and industrial

entities.

10.3.2.8 Projection of Future Product Pri ces

For reasons discuss ed in chapter 8 (Section 8.2.1.1), DOE used a constant price assumption for the default forecast in the NIA. In order to investigate the impact of different product price forecasts on the consumer net present value (NPV) for the considered dTSL s for

medium electric motors, DOE also considered two alternative price trends. Both of these trends are based on a power

- law fit on the deflated producer price index for e lectric p ower and s pecialty

t ransformer m anufacturing . Details on how these alternative price trends were developed are in

a ppendix 10B , which also presents the results of the sensitivity analysis.

10.4 RESULTS

The following sections summarize the results of the NES and NPV calculations performed for the NIA

.

10.4.1 Na tional Energy Savings and Net Present Value f or Draft Trial Standard Levels

Table 10.4.1 presents the NES and NPV results from the spreadsheet model for dTSL s 1

– 5 for medium

- voltage liquid

- immersed and dry

- type transformers and dTSL s 1

– 6 for low

voltage dry

- type transformers

. It should be reiterated that the NES spreadsheet model use s discrete point values rather than a distribution of values for all inputs.dt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- 22 Table 10.4.1 Resu lts of Calculating Cumulative National Energy Savings ( 2016

– 2045 ) and Net Present Value ( 2016

– 2104 )

Discount

Rate (%) Draft Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5 6

Liquid

- Immersed

Cumulative Source Savings 2044 (Quads) 0.70 1.03 1.16 1.47 2.43

Net Present Value (B 2010$) 3 3.29 5.48 8.00 11.32

- 0.11

7

- 0.33

- 0.13 0.76 1.47

- 7.49

Low

- Voltage Dry

- Type

Cumulative Source Savings 2044 (Quads) 1.15 1.22 1.23 1.49 0.94 1.54

Net Present Value (B 2010$) 3 16.23 17.56 16.43 19.30 2.94

- 3.91

7 6.26 6.81 6.21 7.22

- 0.19

- 4.79

Medium

- Voltage Dry

- Type

Cumulative Source Savings 2044 (Quads) 0.20 0.26 0.31 0.37 0.41

Net Present Value (B 2010$) 3 1.55 1.77 1.74 2.08

- 0.14

7 0.48 0.48 0.37 0.44

- 0.76

*B2010 = billion dollars in 2010 value.

10.4.1.2 Results for Liquid

- Immersed Transformers

Figure 10.4.1 illustrates the typical pattern of source energy savings and costs resulting from standards for liquid

- immersed transformers. The figure shows the nature of net savings for

all six dTSL s relative to the base case. The figure also shows the NPV at both a 3

- percent and a

7

- percent discount rate. In this figure, the dTSL s are ordered from lowest to highest energy savings.dt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- 23 Figure 10.4.1 Liquid

- Immersed Distribution Transformers: Impacts of Standards on National Energy Savings

and Net Present Value

Figure 10.4.1 shows that , although the savings in ene rgy (quads) are greatest at dTSL s 5 (max tech) , the associated financial savings decrease dramatically at either the 3 percent or 7

percen t discount rate. A t a discount rate of 3 percent, the NPV of cumulative source savings for liquid

- immersed transformers are highest at dTSL 4. At a discount rate of 7 percent, the NPV is highest at dTSL 4

.

10.4.1.3 Results for Low

- Voltage Dry

- Type Transformers

Figure 10.4.2 shows the pattern of source energy savings and costs resulting from potential standards for low

- voltage dry

- type transformers. T he figure shows the nature of net savings for the s ix dTSL s relative to the base case. The figure also shows the N PV at both a 3

- percent and a 7

- percent discount rate. - 10.0 - 5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

1 2 3 4 5Net Present Value (Billion US$)Cumulative Source Energy Savings (Quads)

Trial Standard Levels Cumulative Source Energy Savings and NPV for Liquid

- Immersed Units

Cumulative Source Savings 2045 (Quads) Net Present Value at 3% Discount Rate ($Billions)

Net Present Value at 7% Discount Rate ($Billions)dt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- 24 Figure 10.4.2 Low

- Voltage Dry

- Type Distribution Transformers: Impacts of Standards on National Energy Savings

and Net Present Value

Figure 10.4.2 shows that , although the cumulative savings in energy (quads) ar e highest

under dTSL s 4 and 6 , the associated financial savings decrease dramatically at either discount

rate. The reduction of cumulative energy savings at dTSL 5 can be attributed to higher than expected load losse s . The efficiency level dTSL 5 represents a complete the shift from grain oriented steels to amorphous steel for transformer cores for low

- voltage dry

- type transformers. The high efficiency of amorphous steel enables transformers to meet dTSL 5 with lower efficiency winding materials , it is the influence of these inefficient windings that increase the

load

- losses and reduce the overall cumulative source savings. A t a discount rate of 3 percent, the NPV of cumulative source savings for dry

- type transformers are highest under dTSL 4 . At a discount rate of 7 percent, the savings are highest under dTSL 4

.

10.4.1.4 Results for Medium

- Voltage Dry

- Type Transformers

Figure 10.4. 3 illustrates the typical pattern of source energy savings and costs resulting

from standards for medium

- voltage dry

- type tra nsformers. The figure shows the nature of net savings for all five dTSL s relative to the base case. The figure also shows the NPV at both a 3

- percent and a 7

- percent discount rate. In this figure, the dTSL s are ordered from lowest to highest energy savings

. - 10.0 - 5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

1 2 3 4 5 6Net Present Value (Billion US$)Cumulative Source Energy Savings (Quads)

Trial Standard Levels Cumulative Source Energy Savings and NPV for Low

- Voltage Dry

- Type Units

Cumulative Source Savings 2045 (Quads) Net Present Value at 3% Discount Rate ($Billions)

Net Present Value at 7% Discount Rate ($Billions)dt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- 25 Figure 10.4.3 Medium

- Voltage Dry

- Type Distribution Transformers: Impacts of Standards on National Energy Savings and Net Present Value

Figure 10.4. 3 shows that, although the savings in ene rgy (quads) are greatest at dTSL s 5 (max tech) , the associated financial savings decrease dramatically at either the 3 percent or 7 percent discount rate. At a discount rate of 3 percent, the NPV of cumulative source savings for

medium

- voltage dry

- type transformers are highest at dTSL 4. At a discount rate of 7 percent, the

NPV is highest at dTSL 4

. - 1.0 - 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

1 2 3 4 5Net Present Value (Billion US$)Cumulative Source Energy Savings (Quads)

Trial Standard Levels Cumulative Source Energy Savings and NPV for Medium

- Voltage Dry

- Type Units

Cumulative Source Savings 2045 (Quads) Net Present Value at 3% Discount Rate ($Billions)

Net Present Value at 7% Discount Rate ($Billions)dt_nopr_tsd_chp10

- 092211 DRAFT

10

- 26 REFERENCES

1. Hopkinson, P. & Puri, J. Distribution Transformer Market Shipment Estimates for 2001

. (HVOLT Consultants Inc.: Washington DC, 2003).

2. Hopkinson, P. & Puri, J. Distribution Transformer Market Shipment Estimates for 2009

. (HVOLT Consultants Inc.: Washington DC, 2010).

3. U.S Department of Commerce

- Bureau of Economic Analysis Industry Economic Accounts Information Guide. Annual industry accounts: gross domestic product (GDP) by industry

. (2010).

4. U.S. Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook 2011, With Projections to

2036 . (U.S. Department of Energy: Washington DC, 2011).

5. U.S. Department of Energy

- Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Review 2009,

C

hapter 8: Electricity, Table 8.9 Electricity End Use, 1949

- 2009 . (U.S. Department of Energy: Washington DC, 2010).

6. Energy Information Administration

- Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting The National Energy Modeling System (NEMS): An Overview

. (U.S. Department of Energy: Washington DC, 2009).

7. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) Draft Guide for Distribution Transfomer Loss Evaluation . (IEEE: 2001).

8. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) Guide for Loadin g Mineral Oil

Immersed Transformers . (Transformer Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society: 1995).

9. U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A

- 4: Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit

- Cost Analysis of Federal Programs . (2003).