# To: D

Distri b

Ener g

Subj e

Dear

This a by th e objec t

to th e
It is m will p o
all int e

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

A D OE Stakeho

b ution Trans fo

g y Efficiency D

e ct: DOE DE L

Stakeholder:

a nalysis of th e

e interest of a

t ive is to pro v

e end users a s

m y suspect th a

o st a word ve

e rested parti e

. Introducti o . Objective s . Scope

. A ssumpti o
. Present W . Summary

a. Si n b. Si n c. S m
d. L a
e. M e . Target effi c . Conclusio n
. Discussio n
0 . Recomme

A

. Introdu c

In 2007, I w
to addres s Departme n
A very lar g Meetings.

manufact u analyzed a
IEEE Tran

Transform Proposals

.

A commo n designs a r lders for

o rmer
D eterminatio n

L Analysis

e DOE Distri b

a number of S

v ide unfiltere d

s a function o

a t a multiplici t rsion on my I

e s to access.

o n

s

o ns
W orth Value o f

of results of a

n gle Phase P

n gle Phase P

m all Three P h

a rge Three P h

e dium Voltag

c iencies bas e

n s

n
ndations

c tion

w as elected t

s Stakeholde r

n t Of Energy

g e task force

This task fo r

u rers, users a

a nd reported a sformers Co m ers Subcom m

.

n concern tha

r e so difficult t n

b ution Transf o S takeholders w
d accurate an a

o f various effi c

t y of stakeho l

EEE Transfo

The followin

f a watt save d

a nalysis

P ads

P oles

h ase Pads

h ase Pads e Dry Types

e d on econo m

o be Chairm a

r s’ concerns a (DOE) regul a

now meets r e

r ce now has a
nd other inte r

a t each meet

m mittee’s sit e

m ittee, Task F

t has been e x

t o achieve wi t o rmer Energ y

w ho have re q

a lysis and re c

c iencies high e ders may fin d

rmers Comm g topics will b

d in an inflati o

m ics

a n of an IEE E

a nd issues wi t

a tions for Dist

e gularly at ea c

a bout 100 m e

r ested partie s ing with min u

e at www.tran

F orce for Rev

x pressed by t

t h conventio n 3704

Char Sept e
Ph

Fx

Cell phop

www

y Efficiency p u

q uested that I

c ommendati o

e r than the r e
d this analysi s ittee DOE E n
b e addressed

o nary econo m

E Transforme r

t h current an d

t ribution Tran s
ch of the IEE

e mbers and i s

s . Data is re g

u tes and pres e

sformersco m iew of DOE E

t he manufact u

n al materials t High Ridge R lotte, NC 28 2

e mber 24, 20

704-846- 3

704-845- 2

704-236- 3

p kinson@hvol

.hvolt.com

u blications w a provide insi g

o ns based on

e quired efficie

s and report t

n ergy Efficien

d :

m y

r s Committe e
d proposed c h

s former Ene r
E Transform e

s composed o

g ularly accum

e ntations po s

m mittee.org

, D

E nergy Effici e

u rers that ce r

t hat no build a R d

2 70

11

3 290

2 520

3 320

t.com

a s prompted

g ht. My

selling price s ncy of 2010.

t o be useful. cy website f o

e Task Force

h anges to th e

r gy Efficiency

e rs Committe

o f

ulated,

s ted on the

D istribution

e ncy

r tain propose d

a ble



# 1 s

I

o r

e

.
e

d

# 2 combinations of materials can be found by their exhaustive search computer programs that are designed to consider all combinations of materials and flux and current densities. Therefore, it has been their contention that there must be a problem in the DOE analytictools that produced the DOE efficiency levels. The manufacturers, both NEMA and NonNEMA have asked me to get involved to try to understand where the problems were

rooted.

In 2010, I was retained by Navigant Consulting with to assist their activities with Market Analysis and Design verification. This gave me a good opportunity to examine some of the design data that had been collected by thei r consultant, Optimized Program Services.

The OPS design data base is immense and has been collected over an extended period of years. It is not possible to determine accuracy of the OPS data by looking at the computed selling prices versus efficiencies si nce there a large quantity of variables that are involved in the computations. The only pr actical way to examine the data is to take selected ratings and produce new designs by sufficient numbers of manufacturers, both small and large, who are in the industry and to compare the results of their computations

with those of OPS.

In comparing designs, I have developed a comprehensive spreadsheet that displays more than 30 parameters including DOE efficiencies, Selling prices, material types, weights, costs, sizes and performance inform ation in sufficient detail to be credible. Individual manufacturer inputs are not displa yed but the averages of their designs are placed side by side with the OPS derived data. This data comparison has allowed a determination of likely errors in OPS but more importantly has allowed the determination of incremental costs to the end user of higher proposed efficiencies as well as the watts saved at the RMS equivalent lad of 50% of nameplate. This should be an accurate depiction of the incremental dollars/per watt for each incremental efficiency level under consideration and lead to a quick determination of potential energy savings for the respective efficiency increments under consideration.

My close working relationship with the Navigant team, members of OPS, the core steel manufacturers, makers of conductors, various user groups and the many manufacturers

both NEMA and Non-NEMA have allowed th is report to take on accuracy and significance for the stakeholders who will be tr ying to select future energy efficiency levels based on reality and economic justification.

I am not a stakeholder but will gladly participate where needed to be sure that the findings in this report are understood by t hose who will be selecting the next round of energy efficiencies for Medium Voltage Distri bution Transformers. Regardless of the efficiency levels that are selected and of any predisposed positions of any of the stakeholders, this attempt to display factual information should prove useful to the team.

B. Objectives:

1. Determine Cost-Based Selling Prices for select Design Lines by the transformer

manufacturers versus DOE efficiencies when constrained to use M3 Core Steel, Aluminum Primary Conductors and Aluminum Secondary Conductors. These materials were selected to be sure that buildable designs with the most abundant low cost materials would be a part of the analysis. 2. Compare the manufacturers’ costs and selling prices versus the OPS Generated Designs.

3. Determine causes of cost differences of the manufacturers versus OPS 4. Determine the present worth of a watt saved. 5. Provide Guidance and recommendations to the DOE Energy Efficiency Stakeholders.

# 3 C. Scope

1. Single Phase Pad mounted Transformers in Design Line 1 represented by the 50 kVA rating at 14,400 volts primary and 240/120 Volt Secondary

2. Single Phase Pole Type Transformers in Design Line 2 represented by the 25 kVA rating at 14,400 volts primary and 120/240 Volt Secondary

3. Small (0-500 kVA) Three Phase Pad mo unted Transformers in Design Line 4 represented by the 150 kVA rating with a 14,400 volt primary and a 208 Y/120 volt secondary.

4. Large Three Phase Pads from 750 kVA -2,500 kVA, in Design Line 5 represented by the 1500 kVA rating with a 24,940 GrY /14,400 volt Primary and a 480 Y/277 Volt Secondary.

5. Medium Voltage Dry Type Transformers from 750 kVA to 2,500 kVA from Design Line 12 represented by the 1,500 kVA rating with a 12,470 GrY /7,200 Volt Primary and a 480 Y/277 Volt Secondary.

D. Assumptions

1. Manufacturers participating in the su mmary of designs were selected to be sure that small as well as large manufacturers were included, both NEMA and Non-NEMA members, representative of the industry. 2. Material prices in the manufacturer-produced designs are at 2011 values. 3. Baseline manufacturer material costs and selling prices were developed starting with relationships for designs close to 2010 minimum efficiencies. 4. Selling prices for higher efficiencies were derived from the relationship of a constant Selling price to material basis. 5. Selling prices were developed to reflect the selling price to the end user of each type of transformer. 6. M3 core material and aluminum conductor were generally used to determine the upper limits of efficiency that a manufacturer could be requested to

achieve. This constraint does not prevent a manufacturer from choosing a better core material or from using copper conductor bur rather assures that the maximum flexibility in design options are available to the industry. 7. The average selling prices of the parti cipating manufacturers were used as the basis for determining the incremental impact on selling price that the end user would see for each proposed increase in efficiency. 8. An assumed economic life of 30 year s was applied to determine the present

worth value of a watt saved.

9. Present worth values for watts sav ed are determined assuming 3% rate of inflation, 7% cost of funds, virtually no load growth, and a 30 year economic

life. 10. Incremental Transformer Selling Prices / Incremental watts saved are the incremental costs of such incremental change in efficiency. 11. Any incremental increases in selling prices for any of the proposed new efficiencies that are less than the present worth value of a watt saved are worthy of consideration. 12. Any incremental increases in selling prices for any of the proposed new efficiencies that are more costly t han the value of a watt saved are not economically justifiable and do not pass the economics test.

.

# 4 E. Present Worth Value of a watt saved in an inflationary economy:

One watt for all 8760 hours per calendar years will consume 8.76 kwh. The cost of operating that watt of loss is quite differe nt depending on the nature of the user. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has s uggested that the averag e cost of energy at retail in the United States is about $0.12/kWH in 2009. They also show wholesale cost at between $0.04 to $0.05andkWH and Industri al power cost averaging $0.067/kWH for contracts as recently as September of 2011. Clearly the cost of power varies considerably across the country but the re sidential average of $0.12/kWH is reasonable and is the average rate that each household pays to their electric company. The cost to the types of users of interest in this report are as follows:

1. Electric Utilities costs for generation, transmission and distribution down to the

distribution transformer are assumed to be equal to the wholesale price of power and are valued at $0.045/kWH. Hence, on a yearly basis, one watt of power for all 8,760 hours per year will cost the utility $0.045/kWH *8.76 kHrs/yr = $0.394/watt. (1) 2. Industrial and large Commercial us ers costs for power are identified as $0.067/kwh. Here the annual cost of a watt = $0.067/kWH *8.76 =$0.587/watt. (2)

. Another interesting consideration is the relationship between three groups of power
users; the electric utilities themselves, co mmercial and industrial users and residential Users. Electric Utilities with their own generating plants have the lowest delivered cost of energy and may average out at $0.08/kWH. Commercial and Industrial users with their own transformers may average out at $0.10/kWH after demand and usage charges are added in. Now we must address the type of user of the transformer. A few years
back, it could be said that 35% of the el ectric power was consumed by residential consumers and 65% by commercial or industrial users. However, the most important first

consideration is for who owns the transformers and pays t he bills. The following is my best estimate of ownership:

1. Single Phase Pad mounted Transformers, signified by Design Line 1 are almost 100% owned by Electric Utilities. 2. Single Phase Poles, signified by Design Line 2 are almost 100% Electric Utilities 3. Small Three Phase Pads, signified by Design Line 4 (150 kVA representing 0-500 kVA) are about 75% owned by Electric Utilities and the remaining 25% by

Commercial or Industrial Users. 4. Large Three Phase transformers signified by Design Line 5 (1500 kVA representing 750 kVA-2500 kVA) are 50% owned by Co mmercial and Industrial users. 5. Medium Voltage Dry Type Transformers are nearly 100% owned by Commercial or

Industrial Users.

For both types of transformers the desire is that they be amortized over a 30 year period. There is considerable uncertainty about economics between now and 30 years out but reasonable assumptions would be the following:

1. The rate of annual inflation will average 3%/year.

2. The cost of borrowed mone y will average out at 7%/year. 3. Load growth is low and perhaps at 0%

In order to determine the present worth value of a watt saved over a 30 year period, we must use the present worth of an inflation series as:

# 5 USPWF = (((1+i)^n-(1+r)^n*(1+g)^2n)/(1+i)^ n) *( 1/((1+i)-(1+r)*(1+g)^2) (3)

Here:

USPWF = the Uniform Series Present Worth Factor (4)

I = the interest rate in per unit = 0.07 ` (5)

a = the inflation rate in per unit =0.03 (6)

g = the per unit load growth rate per year = 0 (7)

n = the number of years = 30 (8)

From these relationships, USPWF =17.0284 (9)

Now with the annual cost of energy and the Uniform Series Present Worth Factor, we can compute the present worth value of a wa tt saved for either type of user as:

1. For Utility transformers =$0.394/watt y ear * 17.03 year value = $6.71/watt. (10) 2. For Commercial/Industrial =$0.587/watt * 17.0284 year value =$9.91/watt (11)

These relationships define the present worth of one watt of energy saved in the as-purchased transformer when measured at the RMS equivalent load that will be applied to the transformer. Since the RMS equivalent load is defined as 50% of nameplate load then the total watts consumed by the transformer are approximately 100% of the core loss and 25% of the full load loss. Other factors may be added to change the calcul ations and in fact the variables of inflation, cost of money, and years of economic life can ea sily be adjusted if more appropriate relationships are found by the team.

The purchase relationship in such transformers where A is the value of core loss and B is the

value of load loss will be as follows:

1. For Utility owned transformers: a. A = value of Core Loss = $6.71/watt. (12) b. B = value of Load Loss = $6.71/4 = $1.68/watt (13)

2. For Commercial or Industrial transformers a. A = value of Core Loss = $9.91/watt (14) b. B = value of Load Loss = $9.91/4 = $2.48/watt (15)

Discussion of this derivation

.

This is a reasonable starting point for considerat ion of design options. However other values of losses may also have relevance attributed to the following:

1. Geographical differences in the country will have a large bearing on the cost of electricity, with some being significantly lower than the assumption and some higher. 2. Inflation rates. High inflation will result in a higher value of a watt saved while low

inflation will reduce the value.

# 6 3. Load growth rate. No appreciable load growth was assumed since that has been the trend for the last decade. However, if plug-in electric vehicles or other high energy use devices are planned then the expression in equat ion (5) may need to be revisited. We assume that a transformer has 50% RMS equivalent load on it as a start. A 1% load growth would add 35% more load and bring the RMS equivalent up from 50% of nameplate to nearly 70% of nameplate over its expected 30 year life. 4. Economic life of 30 years. This is longer t han the IEEE insulation life presumption of 20.5 years but is consistent with the US Electr ic Utility ownership experience. Longer time considerations than 30 years will generally increase the value of a watt saved while shorter economic life will bring it down. 5. An overall value of watt saved sensitivity analysis may be worthy of exploration by the

stakeholders and should be mathematica lly possible using equation (5).

F. Summary Of Results

# 7 Design Line 1 Single Phase Pads The figure below shows the re sults of the cost study for Design Line 1 Single Phase Pads:

Figure 1a shows the summary of Selling Prices versus Efficiency for Design Line 1 Design Line Design Line 1 Single Phase Padmounted Transformer

kVA 50 kVA


# Selling Prices, Costs, and Efficiencies as seen by the Manufacturers in 2011 with M3, Al, Al

DOE Efficiency Level DEL 0 DEL 1 DEL 2 DEL 3 DEL 4 DEL 5

% Efficiency at 50% Load 99.08 99.16 99.22 99.25 99.31 99.5

Incremental Efficiency 0.08 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.19

Watts saved 20 15 7.5 15 47.5

Selling Price 1,800.00 $ 2,200.00 $ 2,650.00 $ 3,050.00 $

Incremental Selling Price 400.00 $ 450.00 $ 400.00 $

Incremental $/Watt Cost to End User 20.00 $ 30.00 $ 53.33 $



# Selling Prices, Costs, and Efficiencies by the DOE (OPS 1) in Preliminary Analysis with M3, Al, Al

DOE Efficiency Level DEL 0 DEL 1 DEL 2 DEL 3 DEL 4 DEL 5

% Efficiency at 50% Load 99.08 99.16 99.22 99.25 99.31 99.5

Incremental Efficiency 0.08 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.19

Watts saved 20 15 7.5 15 47.5

Selling Price 1,817.00 $ 2,036.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,650.00 $

Incremental Selling Price 219.00 $ 364.00 $ 250.00 $

Incremental $/Watt Cost to End User 10.95 $ 24.27 $ 33.33 $



# Selling Prices, Costs, and Efficiencies as seen by OPS 2 (DOE September) M3 Steel, Al, Al

DOE Efficiency Level DEL 0 DEL 1 DEL 2 DEL 3 DEL 4 DEL 5

% Efficiency at 50% Load 99.08 99.16 99.22 99.25 99.31 99.5

Incremental Efficiency 0.08 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.19

Watts saved 20 15 7.5 15 47.5

Selling Price 1,971.00 $ 2,178.00 $ 2,714.00 $

Incremental Selling Price 207.00 $ 536.00 $

Incremental $/Watt Cost to End User 10.35 $ 35.73 $



# OPS2 Data with ZDMH Materials

DOE Efficiency Level DEL 0 DEL 1 DEL 2 DEL 3 DEL 4 DEL 5

% Efficiency at 50% Load 99.08 99.15 99.22 99.25 99.31 99.5

Incremental Efficiency 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.19

Watts saved 17.5 17.5 7.5 15 47.5

Selling Price 1,997.00 $ 2,192.00 $ 2,485.00 $ 2,836.00 $

Incremental Selling Price 195.00 $ 293.00 $ 351.00 $

Incremental $/Watt Cost to End User 11.14 $ 16.74 $ 46.80 $

Present Worth of Watt saved $6.71 $6.71 $6.71 $6.71 $6.71 14,400 Volts:208Y/120

# Figu r

Figu r e 1b shows

e 1c below s the summar y

i. M is th e

versus
ii. 01 is t h
March,

iii. 02 is t h

A nalys i

iv. Z is th e
A nalys i

s hows the d e

i. T

m
ii. T

v
iii. M

r e y of Selling P

e Manufactur

DOE Efficie n
h e OPS Gen e

2011, using

h e OPS Gen e
i s from Augu s

e OPS Gener a
i s from Augu s

e sign summ a

T he Manufac t

m anufacturer s
T he OPS des i

v intage.

M 3, Al, A l we r

e quired high e P rices versu

ers’ Average

n cy Level, usi n

e rated data fr o

M3, Al, Al.

e rated data fr o

s t 31, 2011, u

a ted data fro m

s t 31, 2011, u

a ry data as f o

t urers’ data is

s ’ data.

i gns were fro m

r e intended t o

e r performing u s Efficiency

Selling Price ng M3, Al, Al

.
o m the DOE P

o m the DOE r

u sing M2, Al, A

m the DOE r e

u sing ZDMH,

f ollows:

s the average s

m the OPS 1

o be compare

steels and / o for Design L

e s to the end C

. P reliminary A

r eissued Eng

A l.

e issued Engi n Al, Al and or

s of all of the

Preliminary A

d but some d

o r copper co n L ine 1

C ustomer

A nalysis in

ineering

n eering Copper.

submitted

A nalysis

d esigns

n ductors



# 8

# 9 Figure 1c shows Design Line 1 Comparisons between Manufacturers and OPS 1.

Conclusions for Design Line 1, represented by 50 kVA Single Phase Pad with primary Coil Voltage 14,400 (2 bushing) and low voltage 240 / 120 Volts:

i. Manufacturers had higher material costs than OPS1.

ii. Oil Gallons in OPS1 were in error and under-calculated. iii. Total Weights of transformers in OPS 1 were under-calculated and

in error.

iv. Tank cost in OPS1 was under-calculated.

v. All other material in OPS 1 was under-calculated. vi. Manufacturers’ selling prices for ba se case were at market levels. vii. Manufacturers’ selling prices to material cost were kept constant at

base case ratios. viii. OPS2 is OPS1 revised. However revisions are not explained.

ix. OPS2 data is extracted from t he engineering analysis from August
31 with M3, Al, Al the base case. x. A ZDMH alternative by OPS2 is shown that shows the calculated data by OPS (August 31) for a ZDMH alternative. xi. Cost/watt saved Design Efficiency levels lower than the present worth values/watt are worthy of consideration as they return investment in less than 30 years. xii. Cost/watt saved Design Efficien cy levels greater than the present

worth values/watt are not economical unless there are other

considerations. Design Line 1: 50 kVA Single Phase Pad

Parameter OPS MFG AVG Parameter OPS MFG AVG Parameter OPS MFG AVG

Efficiency at 50% load @55C 99.08 99.10 Efficiency at 50% load @55C 99.16 99.17 Efficiency at 50% load @55C 99.26 99.26

Selling Price 1,817.05 $ 1,884.34 $ Selling Price 2,036.37 $ 2,298.05 $ Selling Price 2,709.32 $ 3,311.51 $

Core Loss @20 C 97.9 92.8 Core Loss 109.5 92.0 Core Loss 108.8 91.7

Load Loss at full load @ 85C 584.2 586.7 Load Lo ss at ful l load 445.8 512.1 Load Loss at full load 306.8 414.7

Total Weight, lbs. 684.0 900.3 Total Weight, lbs. 626.0 1004.7 Total Weight, lbs. 883.0 1116.2

Core Material M3 M3 Core Material ZDMH M3 Core Material M3 M3

Core Weight, Lbs 258.5 243.5 Core Weight, Lbs. 232.3 264.4 Core Weight, Lbs. 333.0 282.9

Low Voltage Material Al AL Low Voltage Material CU AL Low Voltage Material AL CU

High Vo ltage Ma terial Al AL High Voltage Material CU AL High Voltage Material CU CU

LV Weight, Lbs. 37.6 41.1 LV Weight, Lbs. 48.98 58.658 LV Weight, Lbs. 58 95.7

HV Weight, Lbs. 40 38.9 HV Weight, Lbs. 52.64 49.240 HV Weight, Lbs. 124 85.4

Gallons of oil 21.9 41.3 Gallons of oil 15.79 46.285 Gallons of oil 24.65 48.0

Primary Insulation, Lbs. 4.28 7.7 Primary Insulation, Lbs. 2.55 7.593 Primary Insulation, Lbs. 4. 31 8. 7

Secondary insulation, Lbs. 1.52 2.0 Secondary insulation, Lbs. 1.06 1.990 Secondary insulation, Lbs. 1.94 2.2

Core Material Cost, $ 484.63 $ 473.12 $ Core Material Cost, $ 476.22 $ 536.53 $ Core Material Cost, $ 624.38 $ 550.46 $

LV Material Cost, $ 58.88 $ 71.60 $ LV Material Cost, $ 208.32 $ 191.62 $ LV Material Cost, $ 90.36 $ 420.53 $

HV Ma t erial Cost, $ 145.98 $ 124.48 $ HV Material Cost, $ 207.58 $ 208.03 $ HV Material Cost, $ 539.05 $ 541.84 $

Primary Insulation Cost, $ 6.49 $ 16.00 $ Primary Insulation Cost, $ 3.86 $ 15.44 $ Primary Insulation Cost, $ 6.54 $ 17.08 $

Secondary Insulation Cost, $ 2.75 $ 4.29 $ Secondary Insulation Cost, $ 1.60 $ 3. 39 $ Secondary Insulation Cost, $ 2.94 $ 3.12 $

Oil Cost, $ 73.21 $ 138.68 $ Oil Cost, $ 52.92 $ 154.04 $ Oil Cost, $ 82.60 $ 147.24 $

Tank Cost, $ 142.74 $ 235.91 $ Tank Cost, $ 139.13 $ 266.76 $ Tank Cost, $ 142.74 $ 264.25 $

All Other Material 67.11 $ 104.12 $ All Other Material 69.00 $ 104. 02 $ All Other Material 72.85 $ 104.12 $

Core and Coil Cost, $ 698.73 $ 689.49 $ Core and Coil Cost, $ 897.58 $ 956.01 $ Core and Coil Cost, $ 1,263.27 $ 1,585.62 $

Tank

, Oil, & Other Cost, $ 283.06 $ 423.01 $ Tank

, Oil, & Other Cost, $ 261.05 $ 469.61 $ Tank

, O il, & Ot her Cost, $ 298.19 $ 460.69 $

Total Material Cost 981.79 $ 1,133.10 $ Total Material Cost 1,158.63 $ 1,430.07 $ Total Material Cost 1,561.46 $ 1,951.41 $

Tank Width 35.0 34.3 Tank Width 35.0 35.1 Tank Width 35.0 34.3

Tank Depth 35.0 35.3 Tank Depth 32.0 36.5 Tank Depth 35.0 36.9

Tank Height 24.0 25.8 Tank Height 24.0 26.3 Tank Height 24.0 26.3

A factor 6.50 $ 6.50 $ A fa ctor 9.00 $ 9.00 $ A factor 15.00 $ 15.00 $

B factor 1.20 $ 1.20 $ B factor 2.72 $ 2.72 $ B factor 5.50 $ 5.50 $

Total Owning Cost 3,154.46 $ 3,191.65 $ 4,234.34 $ 4,518.60 $ 6,028.72 $ 6,967.13 $

Note : All other material includes core clamp, bushings, decals, leads, pallets, shipping materials, scrap, unapplied matrerials an d st andard accessories



## Core Watts/lB 0.379 0.381 Core Watts/lB 0.471 0.348 Core Watts/lB 0.327 0.324

50 kVA Design Line 1, design option ID1: 14.4 kV: 240/120 V 50 kVA Design Line 1, design option ID3; 14.4 kV: 240/120 V 50 kVA Design Line 1, design option CSL2 14.4 kV:240/120 V

# 10 Design Line 2 Single Phase Poles

Figure 2a shows the summary of Selling Prices versus Efficiency for Design Line 2 Design Line Design Line 2 Single Phase Pole Mounted Transformer

kVA 25 kVA


# Selling Prices, Costs, and Efficiencies as seen by the Manufacturers in 2011 with M3

DOE Efficiency Level DEL 0 DEL 1 DEL 2 DEL 3 DEL 4 DEL 5

% Efficiency at 50% Load 98.9 99.00 99.06 99.13 99.18 99.46

Incremental Efficiency 0.1 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.28

Watts saved 12.5 7.5 8.75 6.25 35

Selling Price 1,031.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,815.00 $

Incremental Selling Price 169.00 $ 200.00 $ 415.00 $

Incremental $/Watt Cost to End User 13.52 $ 26.67 $ 47.43 $



# Selling Prices, Costs, and Efficiencies as seen by the DOE (OPS 1) in Preliminary Analysis

DOE Efficiency Level DEL 0 DEL 1 DEL 2 DEL 3 DEL 4 DEL 5

% Efficiency at 50% Load 98.9 99.00 99.06 99.13 99.18 99.46

Incremental Efficiency 0.1 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.28

Watts saved 12.5 7.5 8.75 6.25 35

Selling Price 1,213.77 $ 1,566.00 $ 1,650.00 $ 1,706.00 $

Incremental Selling Price 352.23 $ 84.00 $ 56.00 $

Incremental $/Watt Cost to End User 28.18 $ 11.20 $ 6.40 $



# Selling Prices, Costs, and Efficiencies as seen by OPS 2 in DOE September Analysis

DOE Efficiency Level DEL 0 DEL 1 DEL 2 DEL 3 DEL 4 DEL 5

% Efficiency at 50% Load 98.9 99.00 99.06 99.13 99.18 99.46

Incremental Efficiency 0.1 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.28

Watts saved 12.5 7.5 8.75 6.25 35

Selling Price 1,334.00 $ 1,582.00 $ 1,759.00 $

Incremental Selling Price 248.00 $ 177.00 $

Incremental $/Watt Cost to End User 19.84 $ 23.60 $



# OPS2 with ZDMH

DOE Efficiency Level DEL 0 DEL 1 DEL 2 DEL 3 DEL 4 DEL 5

% Efficiency at 50% Load 98.9 99.00 99.06 99.13 99.18 99.46

Incremental Efficiency 0.1 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.28

Watts saved 12.5 7.5 8.75 6.25 35

Selling Price 997.00 $ 1,100.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,400.00 $

Incremental Selling Price 103.00 $ 100.00 $ 200.00 $

Incremental $/Watt Cost to End User 8.24 $ 13.33 $ 22.86 $

Present Worth of Watt saved $6.71 $11.93 $11.93 $11.93 $11.93 14,400 Volts:208Y/120

# Figu r e 2b shows the summar y

v. M is th e

versus
vi. 01 is t h
March,

vii. 02 is t h

A nalys i

viii. Z is th e
A nalys i y of Selling P

e Manufactur

DOE Efficie n
h e OPS Gen e

2011, using

h e OPS Gen e
i s from Augu s

e OPS Gener a
i s from Augu s P rices versu

ers’ Average

n cy Level, usi n

e rated data fr o

M3, Al, Al.

e rated data fr o

s t 31, 2011, u

a ted data fro m

s t 31, 2011, u u s Efficiency

Selling Price ng M3, Al, Al

.
o m the DOE P

o m the DOE r

u sing M2, Al, A

m the DOE r e

u sing ZDMH, for Design L

e s to the end C

. P reliminary A

r eissued Eng

A l.

e issued Engi n Al, Al and or



# 1 L ine 2

C ustomer

A nalysis in

ineering

n eering Copper.



# 1 1

# 12 Figure 2c shows Design Line 2 Comparisons between Manufacturers and OPS 1.

Conclusions for Design Line 2, represented by 25 kVA Single Phase Poles with primary Coil Voltage 14,400 (2 bushing) and low voltage 120 / 240 Volts:

xiii. Manufacturers had higher commodity costs than OPS1 but lower

total costs in most cases.

xiv. Oil Gallons in OPS1 were not in error for any of the round tank designs. xv. Total Weights of transformers in OPS 1 were under-calculated and

in error. xvi. Tank cost in OPS1 was generally over-calculated.

xvii. All other material in OPS 1 was close to actual. xviii. Manufacturers’ selling prices for base case were at market levels. xix. Manufacturers’ selling prices to material cost were kept constant at

base case ratios. xx. OPS2 is OPS1 revised. However revisions are not explained. xxi. OPS2 data is extracted from the engineering analysis from August
31 with M3, Al, Al the base case. xxii. A ZDMH alternative by OPS2 is shown that shows the calculated data by OPS (August 31) for a ZDMH alternative. xxiii. Cost/watt saved Design Efficiency levels lower than the present worth values/watt are worthy of consideration as they return investment in less than 30 years. xxiv. Cost/watt saved Design Efficiency levels greater than the present

worth values/watt are not economical unless there are other

considerations. Design Line 2: 25 kVA Single Phase Pole

Parameter OPS MFG AVG Parameter OPS MFG AVG Parameter OPS MFG AVG

Efficiency at 50% load @55C 98.92 98.90 Efficiency at 50% load @55C 99.02 99.06 Efficiency at 50% load @55C 99.13 99.13

Selling Price 1,213.77 $ 1,031.85 $ Selling Price 1,566.93 $ 1,291.94 $ Selling Price 1,706.06 $ 1,815.26 $

Core Loss @20 C 7 4

. 2 64.9 Core Loss 78.9 59.4 Core Loss 60.9 61.2

Load Loss at full load @ 85C 249.4 323.7 Load Loss at full load 175.7 255.3 Load Lo ss at fu ll load 190.3 205.9

Total Weight, lbs. 437.0 424.6 Total Weight, lbs. 625.2 495.6 Total Weight, lbs. 512.2 638.0

Core Material ZDMH M3 Core Material M3 M3 Core Material ZDMH M3

Core Weight, Lbs 190.6 167.9 Core Weight, Lbs. 278.9 192.8 Core Weight, Lbs. 205.8 216.0

Low Voltage Material Al AL Low Voltage Material AL AL Low Voltage Material CU AL

High Voltage Material Al AL High Voltage Material AL AL High Voltage Material CU CU

LV Weight, Lbs. 19.0 26.0 LV We ight, L bs. 29.5 31.5 LV Weight, Lbs. 49.4 69.6

HV Weight, Lbs. 20.2 25.5 HV Weight, Lbs. 30.4 47.1 HV Weight, Lbs. 53.4 62.8

Gallons of oil 18.0 13.7 Gallons of oil 24.2 16.0 Gallons of oil 16.9 21.8

Primary Insulation, Lbs. 3.8 6.0 Primary Insulation, Lbs. 4.5 6.3 Primary Insulation, Lbs. 3.4 6.2

Secondary insulation, Lbs. 1.5 1.8 Secondary insulation, Lbs. 1.8 2.0 Secondary insulation, Lbs. 1.33 2.7

Core Material Cost, $ 3 9 0

. 6 9 $ 199.43 $ Core Material Cost, $ 5 2 2

. 8 4 $ 431.85 $ Core Material Cost, $ 4 2 1

. 9 3 $ 439.36 $

LV Material Cost, $ 29.80 $ 31.69 $ LV Material Cost, $ 46.13 $ 49.83 $ LV Material Cost, $ 2 0 8

. 6 7 $ 276.39 $

HV Material Cost, $ 73.69 $ 44.45 $ HV Material Cost, $ 1 1 0

. 7 3 $ 221.63 $ HV Material Cost, $ 2 1 0

. 6 1 $ 340.22 $

Primary Insulation Cost, $ 5

. 7 1 $ 11.03 $ Pr i mary Insulation Cost, $ 6

. 8 6 $ 13.31 $ Primary Insulation Cost, $ 5

. 0 9 $ 13.67 $

Secondary Insulation Cost, $ 2

. 3 0 $ 2.67 $ Secondary Insulation Cost, $ 2

. 6 8 $ 3.61 $ Secondary Insulation Cost, $ 2

. 0 1 $ 5.05 $

Oil Cost, $ 62.78 $ 43.62 $ Oil Cost, $ 91.09 $ 72.98 $ Oil Cost, $ 61.76 $ 93.50 $

Tank Cost, $ 72.81 $ 68.25 $ Tank Co st, $ 7 2.56 $ 75.25 $ Tank Cost, $ 72.56 $ 75.25 $

All Other Material 38.60 $ 50.25 $ All Other Material 40.59 $ 50.25 $ All Other Material 42.00 $ 50.25 $

Core and Coil Cost, $ 5 0 2

. 1 9 $ 456.68 $ Core and Coil Cost, $ 6 8 9

. 2 5 $ 711.67 $ Core and Coil Cost, $ 8 4 8

. 3 1 $ 1,147.48 $

Tank

, Oil, & Other Co st, $ 1 7 4

. 1 9 $ 104.05 $ Tank

, Oil, & Other Cost, $ 2 0 4

. 2 4 $ 119.63 $ Tank

, Oil, & Other Cost, $ 1 7 6

. 3 2 $ 139.51 $

Total Material Cost 676.38 $ 550.78 $ Total Material Cost 893.49 $ 777.29 $ Total Material Cost 1,024.63 $ 1,166.16 $

Tank Diameter, in 19 16.8 Tank Diameter, in 22 17.6 Tank Diameter, in 19.0 18.3

Tank Height 24 24.9 Tank Height 25 26.9 Tank He ight 2 3.00 27.4

A factor 4.00 $ 4.00 $ A factor 13.00 $ 13.00 $ A factor 15.00 $ 15

B factor 2.40 $ 2.40 $ B factor 6.00 $ 6.00 $ B factor 5.50 $ 5.5

TOC 2,109.35 $ 2,068.23 $ TOC 3,647.10 $ 3,595.44 $ TOC 3,665.78 $ 3,866.08 $

Note : All other material includes core clamp, bushings, decals, leads, pallets, shipping materials, scrap, unapplied matrerials and standard a ccessories



## Core Watts/lB 0.389 0.386 Core Watts/lB 0.283 0.308 Core Watts/lB 0.296 0.283

25 kVA Design Line 2, design option ID1: 14.4 kV: 120/240 V 25 kVA Design Line 2, design option CSL1: 14.4 kV 120/240 V 25 kVA Design Line 2, design option CSL2: 14.4 kV: 120/240 V

# 13 Design Line 4 Small Three Phase Pads

Figure 3a shows the summary of Selling Prices versus Efficiency for Design Line 4 Design Line Design Line 4 S m a l l Three Phase Padmounted Transformer

kVA 150 kVA


# Selling Prices, Costs, and Efficiencies as seen by the Manufacturers in 2011 with M3

DOE Efficiency Level DEL 0 DEL 1 DEL 2 DEL 3 DEL 4 DEL 5

% Efficiency at 50% Load 99.08 99.16 99.22 99.25 99.31 99.42

Incremental Efficiency 0.08 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.11

Watts saved 60 45 22.5 45 82.5

Selling Price 6,200.00 $ 6,700.00 $ 7,300.00 $ 7,610.00 $ 9,900.00 $ 23,813.00 $

Incremental Selling Price 500.00 $ 600.00 $ 310.00 $ 2,290.00 $ 13,913.00 $

Incremental $/Watt Cost to End User 8.33 $ 13.33 $ 13.78 $ 50.89 $ 168.64 $



# Selling Prices, Costs, and Efficiencies by the DOE (OPS 1) in Preliminary Analysis with M3

DOE Efficiency Level DEL 0 DEL 1 DEL 2 DEL 3 DEL 4 DEL 5

% Efficiency at 50% Load 99.08 99.16 99.22 99.25 99.31 99.42

Incremental Efficiency 0.08 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.11

Watts saved 60 45 22.5 45 82.5

Selling Price 4,861.00 $ 5,507.00 $ 6,628.00 $ 6,700.00 $ 7,100.00 $ 7,600.00 $

Incremental Selling Price 646.00 $ 1,121.00 $ 72.00 $ 400.00 $ 500.00 $

Incremental $/Watt Cost to End User 10.77 $ 24.91 $ 3.20 $ 8.89 $ 6.06 $



# Selling Prices, Costs, and Efficiencies as seen by OPS 2 (DOE September) M3 Steel

DOE Efficiency Level DEL 0 DEL 1 DEL 2 DEL 3 DEL 4 DEL 5

% Efficiency at 50% Load 99.08 99.16 99.22 99.25 99.31 99.42

Incremental Efficiency 0.08 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.11

Watts saved 60 45 22.5 45 82.5

Selling Price 5,395.00 $ 6,426.00 $ 7,955.00 $

Incremental Selling Price 1,031.00 $ 1,529.00 $

Incremental $/Watt Cost to End User 17.18 $ 33.98 $

‐ $

‐ $

‐ $



# OPS2 with ZDMH

DOE Efficiency Level DEL 0 DEL 1 DEL 2 DEL 3 DEL 4 DEL 5

% Efficiency at 50% Load 99.08 99.16 99.22 99.25 99.31 99.42

Incremental Efficiency 0.08 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.11

Watts saved 60 45 22.5 45 82.5

Selling Price 5,395.00 $ 5,897.00 $ 6,700.00 $ 7,100.00 $ 8,200.00 $ 23,813.00 $

Incremental Selling Price 502.00 $ 803.00 $ 400.00 $ 1,100.00 $ 15,613.00 $

Incremental $/Watt Cost to End User 8.37 $ 17.84 $ 17.78 $ 24.44 $ 189.25 $

Present Worth of Wa tt s aved $6.71 $6.71 $6.71 $6.71 $6.71 14,400 Volts:208Y/120

# Figu r e 3b shows the summar y

ix. M is th e

versus
x. 01 is t h
March,

xi. 02 is t h

A nalys i

xii. Z is th e
A nalys i y of Selling P

e Manufactur

DOE Efficie n
h e OPS Gen e

2011, using

h e OPS Gen e
i s from Augu s

e OPS Gener a
i s from Augu s P rices versu

ers’ Average

n cy Level, usi n

e rated data fr o

M3, Al, Al.

e rated data fr o

s t 31, 2011, u

a ted data fro m

s t 31, 2011, u u s Efficiency

Selling Price ng M3, Al, Al

.
o m the DOE P

o m the DOE r

u sing M2, Al, A

m the DOE r e

u sing ZDMH, for Design L

e s to the end C

. P reliminary A

r eissued Eng

A l.

e issued Engi n Al, Al and or



# 1 L ine 4

C ustomer

A nalysis in

ineering

n eering Copper.



# 1 4

# 15 Figure 3c shows Design Line 4 Comparisons between Manufacturers and OPS 1.

Conclusions for Design Line 4, represented by 150 kVA Three Phase Pad with primary Voltage 12,470 GrY / 7,200 and low voltage 208 Y / 120 Volts:

xxv. Manufacturers had higher material costs than OPS1.

xxvi. Oil Gallons in OPS1 were in error and under-calculated. xxvii. Total Weights of transformers in OPS 1 were under-calculated and

in error.

xxviii. Tank cost in OPS1 was under-c alculated.

xxix. All other material in OPS 1 was under-calculated. xxx. Manufacturers’ selling pr ices for base case were at market levels. xxxi. Manufacturers’ selling prices to mate rial cost were kept constant at

base case ratios. xxxii. OPS2 is OPS1 revised. However revisions are not explained.

xxxiii. OPS2 data is extracted from t he engineering analysis from August
31 with M3, Al, Al the base case. xxxiv. A ZDMH alternative by OPS2 is shown that shows the calculated data by OPS (August 31) for a ZDMH alternative. xxxv. Cost/watt saved Design Efficiency levels lower than the present worth values/watt are worthy of consideration as they return investment in less than 30 years. xxxvi. Cost/watt saved Design Efficiency levels greater than the present

worth values/watt are not economical unless there are other

considerations. Design Line 4 Small kVA Three Phase Pads

150 kVA Design Line 4 12470Y/7200: 208Y/120 V 150 kVA Design Line 4 12470Y/7200: 208Y/120 V 150 kVA Design Line 4 12470Y/7200: 208Y/120 V 150 kVA Design Line 4 12470Y/7200: 208Y/120 V Alternate

Parameter OPS MFG AVG Parameter OPS MFG AVG Parameter OPS MFG AVG Parameter OPS MFG AVG Amorphous

Efficiency at 50% load @55C 99.08 99.10 Efficiency at 50% load @55C 99.16 99.20 Efficiency at 50% load @55C 99.21 99.25 Efficiency at 50% load @55C 99.61 99.40 99.61

S e lling Price 4,861.16 $ 6,425.47 $ Selling Price 5,507.48 $ 7,115.30 $ Selling Price 6,628.00 $ 7,609.74 $ Selling Price 8,643.95 $ 21,622.55 $ 23,813.75 $

Core Loss @20 C 363.33 299.8 Core Loss 337.99 271.7 Core Loss 397.06 254.7 Core Loss 155.08 240.0 114.0

Load Loss at full load @ 85C 1410.60 1597.0 Load Loss at full load 1298.42 1417.3 Load Loss at full load 877.36 1325.0 Load Lo ss at fu ll load 602.94 883.7 762.0

Total Weight, lbs. 1,743 2712.7 Total Weight, lbs. 1,934 3089.0 Total Weight, lbs. 2,300 3178.0 Total Weight, lbs. 2,601 4653.3 5729.0

Core Material M3 M3 Core Material M3 M3 Core Material M3 M3 Core Material SA1 M3 SA1

Core Weight, Lbs 631 566.1 Core Weight, Lbs. 749 729.0 Core Weight, Lbs. 903 738.2 Core Weight, Lbs. 1,026 1047.7 986.0

Low Voltage Material AL AL Lo w Vo ltage Material AL AL Low Voltage Material AL AL Low Voltage Material CU CU Cu

High Voltage Material CU AL High Voltage Material CU AL High Voltage Material CU AL High Voltage Material CU CU Cu

LV Weight, Lbs. 60 104.5 LV Weight, Lbs. 73 123.390 LV Weight, Lbs. 90 137.5 LV Weight, Lbs. 223 413.2 725.0

HV Weight, Lbs. 233 120.9 HV Weight, Lbs. 271 176.750 HV Weight, Lb s. 359 188.4 HV Weight, Lbs. 335 705.4 941.0

Gallons of oil 41.79 130.0 Gallons of oil 44.64 142.733 Gallons of oil 52.54 148.4 Gallons of oil 60.66 171.0 225.0

Primary Insulation, Lbs. 6.30 15.6 Primary Insulation, Lbs. 7.01 18.775 Primary Insulation, Lbs. 7.69 20.0 Primary Insulation, Lbs. 7.75 15.6 30.0

Secondary insulation, Lbs. 6.82 14.4 Secondary insulation, Lbs. 8.05 14.500 Secondary insulation, Lbs. 7.17 16.1 Secondary insulation, Lbs. 7.73 12.3 22.0

Core Material Cost, $ 118 3. 24 979.34 $ Core Material Cost, $ 1404.67 1,158.15 $ Core Material Cost, $ 1693.37 1,339.33 $ Core Material Cost, $ 2441.90 1,926.01 $ 2,169.20 $

LV Material Cost, $ 95.23 185.69 $ LV Material Cost, $ 114.67 218.89 $ LV Material Cost, $ 142.16 250.07 $ LV Material Cost, $ 943.33 1,907.03 $ 3,346.10 $

HV Material Cost, $ 920.02 294.30 $ HV Ma terial Co st, $ 1067.53 422.42 $ HV Material Cost, $ 1413.92 441.26 $ HV Material Cost, $ 1321.14 4,016.17 $ 5,357.47 $

Primary Insulation Cost, $ 9.55 20.71 $ Primary Insulation Cost, $ 10.62 25.28 $ Primary Insulation Cost, $ 11.65 26.57 $ Primary Insulation Cost, $ 11.74 20.49 $ 50.00 $

Secondary Insulation Cost, $ 10.34 18.72 $ Secondary Insulation Cost, $ 12.20 18. 77 $ Se condary Insulation Cost, $ 10.86 20.43 $ Secondary Insulation Cost, $ 11.72 15.71 $ 30.00 $

Oil Cost, $ 140.02 549.19 $ Oil Cost, $ 149.58 603.49 $ Oil Cost, $ 176.04 643.16 $ Oil Cost, $ 203.26 723.95 $ 952.57 $

Tank Cost, $ 387.37 629.90 $ Tank Cost, $ 387.37 646.20 $ Tank Cost, $ 406.27 654.48 $ Tank Cost, $ 409.43 753.81 $ 6 51. 00 $

All Other Material 144.4 665.70 $ All Other Material 148.56 671.12 $ All Other Material 155.1 652.20 $ All Other Material 193.69 1,183.49 $ 2,754.37 $

Core and Coil Cost, $ 2,218.37 $ 1,485.61 $ Core and Coil Cost, $ 2,609.70 $ 1,828.82 $ Core and Coil Cost, $ 3,271.97 $ 2,061.99 $ Core and Coil Cost, $ 4,729.83 $ 7, 8 85.42 $ 10,952.77 $

Tank

, Oil, & Other Cost, $ 671.74 $ 1,844.79 $ Tank

, Oil, & Other Cost, $ 685.52 $ 1,920.82 $ Tank

, Oil, & Other Cost, $ 737.44 $ 1,949.83 $ Tank

, Oil, & Other Cost, $ 806.38 $ 2,661.26 $ 4,357.94 $

Total Material Cost 2,890.11 $ 3,330.40 $ Total Material Cost 3, 2 95.22 $ 3,749.64 $ Total Material Cost 4,009.40 $ 4,011.82 $ Total Material Cost 5,536.22 $ 10,546.68 $ 15,310.71 $

Tank Width 57 45.0 Tank Width 57 45.7 Tank Width 61 46.7 Tank Width 65 51.0 54.0

Tank Depth 46 27.0 Tank Depth 46 27.3 Tank Depth 50 27.7 Tank Depth 47 30.7 24.0

Tank Height 50 44.8 Tank Height 50 46.1 Tank Height 50 46.4 Tank Height 50 46.8 48.5

A factor $4.00 4.00 $ A factor 13. 00 $ 13. 00 $ A factor $16.00 16.00 $ A factor $15.00 15.00 $ 15.00 $

B factor 2 2.00 $ B factor 4.00 $ 4.00 $ B factor 7.5 7.50 $ B factor 8 8.00 $ 8.00 $

Total Owning Cost 9,135.67 $ 10,818.67 $ Total Owning Cost 15,095.03 $ 16,316.30 $ Total Owning Cost 19,561.20 $ 21,621.90 $ Total Owning Cost 15,793.61 $ 32,291.88 $ 31,619.75 $

Note : Al l ot her material includes core clamp, bushings, decals, leads, pallets, shipping materials, scrap, unapplied matrerials and standard accessories

Core Watts/lB 0.576 0.530 Core Watts/lB 0.451 0.373 Core Watts/lB 0.440 0.345 Core Watts/lB 0.151 0.229 0.116

# 16 Design Line 5 Large Three Phase Transformers

Figure 4a shows the summary of Selling Prices versus Efficiency for Design Line 5 Design Line Design Line 5 L a r g e Three Phase Transformers

kVA 1500 kVA


# Selling Prices, Costs, and Efficiencies as seen by the Manufacturers in 2011 with M3

DOE Efficiency Level DEL 0 DEL 1 DEL 2 DEL 3 DEL 4 DEL 5

% Efficiency at 50% Load 99.42 99.48 99.51 99.54 99.57 99.61

Incremental Efficiency 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04

Watts saved 450 225 225 225 300

Selling Price 24,000.00 $ 32,000.00 $ 37,000.00 $ 42,300.00 $ 53,000.00 $ 87,863.00 $

Incremental Selling Price 8,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,300.00 $ 10,700.00 $ 34,863.00 $

Incremental $/Watt Cost to End User 17.78 $ 22.22 $ 23.56 $ 47.56 $ 116.21 $



# Selling Prices, Costs, and Efficiencies as seen by the DOE (OPS 1) in Preliminary Analysis

DOE Efficiency Level DEL 0 DEL 1 DEL 2 DEL 3 DEL 4 DEL 5

% Efficiency at 50% Load 99.42 99.48 99.51 99.54 99.57 99.61

Incremental Efficiency 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04

Watts saved 450 225 225 225 300

Selling Price 22,947.00 $ 27,500.00 $ 29,500.00 $ 32,000.00 $ 34,000.00 $ 37,000.00 $

Incremental Selling Price 4,553.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $

Incremental $/Watt Cost to End User 10.12 $ 8.89 $ 11.11 $ 8.89 $ 10.00 $



# Selling Prices, Costs, and Efficiencies as seen by OPS 2 in DOE September Analysis

DOE Efficiency Level DEL 0 DEL 1 DEL 2 DEL 3 DEL 4 DEL 5

% Efficiency at 50% Load 99.42 99.48 99.51 99.54 99.57 99.61

Incremental Efficiency 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04

Watts saved 450 225 225 225 300

Selling Price 24,853.00 $ 31,269.00 $ 33,653.00 $

Incremental Selling Price 6,416.00 $ 2,384.00 $

‐ $

Incremental $/Watt Cost to End User 14.26 $ 10.60 $

‐ $

‐ $

‐ $



# OPS2 with ZDMH

DOE Efficiency Level DEL 0 DEL 1 DEL 2 DEL 3 DEL 4 DEL 5

% Efficiency at 50% Load 99.42 99.48 99.51 99.54 99.57 99.61

Incremental Efficiency 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04

Watts saved 450 225 225 225 300

Selling Price 24,926.00 $ 28,354.00 $ 30,684.00 $ 37,915.00 $

Incremental Selling Price 3,428.00 $ 2,330.00 $ 7,231.00 $

‐ $

Incremental $/Watt Cost to End User 7.62 $ 10.36 $ 32.14 $

‐ $

‐ $

Present Worth of Watt saved $8.31 $8.31 $8.31 $8.31 $8.31 24,940 GRY/14,400: 480 Y/277

# Figu r e 4b shows the summar y

xiii. M is th e

versus
xiv. 01 is t h
March,

xv. 02 is t h

A nalys i

xvi. Z is th e
A nalys i y of Selling P

e Manufactur

DOE Efficie n
h e OPS Gen e

2011, using

h e OPS Gen e
i s from Augu s

e OPS Gener a
i s from Augu s P rices versu

ers’ Average

n cy Level, usi n

e rated data fr o

M3, Al, Al.

e rated data fr o

s t 31, 2011, u

a ted data fro m

s t 31, 2011, u u s Efficiency

Selling Price ng M3, Al, Al

.
o m the DOE P

o m the DOE r

u sing M2, Al, A

m the DOE r e

u sing ZDMH, for Design L

e s to the end C

. P reliminary A

r eissued Eng

A l.

e issued Engi n Al, Al and or



# 1 L ine 5

C ustomer

A nalysis in

ineering

n eering Copper.



# 1 7

# 18 Figure 4c shows Design Line 5 Comparisons between Manufacturers and OPS 1.

Conclusions For Design Line 5, represented by 1500 kVA Three Phase Pad with primary Voltage 24,9400 GrY / 14,400 and low voltage 480 Y / 277 Volts:

xxxvii. Manufacturers had higher material costs than OPS1.

xxxviii. Oil Gallons in OPS1 were in error and under-calculated. xxxix. Total Weights of transformers in OPS 1 were under-calculated and

in error.

xl. Tank cost in OPS1 was under-calculated.

xli. All other material in OPS 1 was under-calculated. xlii. Manufacturers’ selling prices for base case were at market levels. xliii. Manufacturers’ selling prices to material cost were kept constant at

base case ratios. xliv. OPS2 is OPS1 revised. However revisions are not explained.

xlv. OPS2 data is extracted from t he engineering analysis from August
31 with M3, Al, Al the base case. xlvi. A ZDMH alternative by OPS2 is shown that shows the calculated data by OPS (August 31) for a ZDMH alternative. xlvii. Cost/watt saved Design Efficiency levels lower than the present worth values/watt are worthy of consideration as they return investment in less than 30 years. xlviii. Cost/watt saved Design Effici ency levels greater than the present

worth values/watt are not economical unless there are other

considerations.

Design Line 5 Large Three Phase Pads

1500 kVA Design Line 5 24940 GRY/14400: 480Y/277 1500 kVA Design Line 5 24940 GRY/14400: 480Y/277 1500 kVA Design Line 5 24940 GRY/14400: 480Y/277 Alternate

Parameter OPS MFG AVG Parameter OPS MFG AVG Parameter OPS MFG AVG Amorphous

Efficiency at 50% load @55C 99.42 99.45 Efficiency at 50% load @55C 99.54 99.54 Efficiency at 50% load @55C 99.69 99.62 99.67

Selling Price 22,946.76 $ 26,027.79 $ Selling Price 32,354.04 $ 42,285.32 $ Selling Price 42,045.06 $ 87, 862.79 $ 76,479.77 $

Core Loss @20 C 2147.36 1868.1 Core Loss 1867.59 1494.5 Core Loss 616.18 1345.2 675.0

Load Loss at full load @ 85C 8257.03 9752.3 Load Loss at full load 5969.99 8403.0 Load Loss at full load 7189.91 6159.4 7212.0

Total Weight, lbs. 8,583 11335.3 Total Weight, lbs. 8,917 13301.3 Total Weight, lbs. 10,499 20647.2 19013.0

Core Material M3 M3 Core Material ZDMH M3 Co r e Material SA1 M3 SA1

Core Weight, Lbs 3,829 3532.5 Core Weight, Lbs. 3,300 4354.9 Core Weight, Lbs. 4,044 6167.0 6120.0

Low Voltage Material AL AL Low Voltage Material CU AL Low Voltage Material CU CU Al

High Voltage Material AL AL High Voltage Material CU AL High Voltage Material CU CU Cu

LV Weight, Lbs. 579 421.3 LV Weight, Lbs. 1,184 726.300 LV Weight, Lbs. 1,383 1904.8 985.0

HV We ight, Lb s. 894 781.5 HV Weight, Lbs. 1,632 1207.210 HV Weight, Lbs. 1,904 3273.7 3472.0

Gallons of oil 241.43 431.7 Gallons of oil 196.89 457.667 Gallons of oil 248.00 496.3 608.0

Primary Insulation, Lbs. 83.03 99.8 Primary Insulation, Lbs. 54.30 105.390 Primary Insulation, Lbs. 75.29 118.2 80.0

Secondary insulation, Lbs. 43.07 65.6 Secondary insulation, Lbs. 27.19 78.095 Secondary insulation, Lbs. 44.55 80.5 40.0

Core Material Cost, $ 7,179.94 $ 6,128.79 $ Co re Material Cost, $ 6,764.28 $ 8,958.46 $ Core Material Cost, $ 9,623.91 $ 13,098.33 $ 13,464.00 $

LV Material Cost, $ 915.49 $ 748.86 $ LV Material Cost, $ 4,998.85 $ 2,516.44 $ LV Material Cost, $ 5,842.69 $ 10,998.44 $ 5,687.45 $

HV Material Cost, $ 3,261.51 $ 1,877.55 $ HV Material Cost, $ 6,433.62 $ 4,480.76 $ HV Ma terial Co st, $ 7,508.95 $ 18,041.28 $ 19,134.21 $

Primary Insulation Cost, $ 125.79 $ 131.60 $ Primary Insulation Cost, $ 82.26 $ 139.08 $ Primary Insulation Cost, $ 114.07 $ 225.51 $ 130.00 $

Secondary Insulation Cost, $ 65.25 $ 84.44 $ Secondary Insulation Cost, $ 41.19 $ 101.04 $ Secondary Insulation Cost, $ 67.50 $ 105.08 $ 80.00 $

Oil Cost, $ 857. 92 $ 1,827.52 $ Oil Cost, $ 694.03 $ 1,938.11 $ Oil Cost, $ 857.15 $ 2,093.98 $ 2,565.08 $

Tank Cost, $ 934.31 $ 1,666.05 $ Tank Cost, $ 906.02 $ 1,627.52 $ Tank Cost, $ 1,043.83 $ 1,602.88 $ 1,357.00 $

All Other Material 455.48 $ 1,355.17 $ All Other Material 519.10 $ 1,608.19 $ All Other Material 688.84 $ 2,318.75 $ 3, 019.91 $

Core and Coil Cost, $ 11,547.98 $ 8,899.23 $ Core and Coil Cost, $ 18,320.19 $ 16,115.73 $ Core and Coil Cost, $ 23,157.12 $ 42,358.44 $ 38,495.66 $

Tank

, Oil, & Other Cost, $ 2,247.71 $ 4,848.74 $ Tank

, Oil, & Other Cost, $ 2,119.15 $ 5,173.82 $ Tank

, Oil, & Other Cost, $ 2, 589. 82 $ 6,015.61 $ 6,941.99 $

Total Material Cost 13,795.68 $ 13,747.97 $ Total Material Cost 20,439.34 $ 21,289.55 $ Total Material Cost 25,746.94 $ 48,374.05 $ 45,437.65 $

Tank Width 86 65.8 Tank Width 86 68.8 Tank Width 86 80.9 80.0

Tank Depth 69 40.5 Tank Depth 67 42.0 Tank Depth 67 49.6 36.0

Tank Height 70 64.1 Tank Height 70 64.1 Tank Height 70 70.5 69.5

A factor $6.50 6.50 $ A fa ctor $13.00 13.00 $ A factor $15.00 15.00 $ 15.00 $

B factor 3.6 3.60 $ B factor 6.5 6.50 $ B factor 5.5 5.50 $ 5.50 $

Total Owning Cost 66,629.89 $ 73,279.05 $ Total Owning Cost 95,437.63 $ 116,332.88 $ Total Owning Cost 90,832.26 $ 141,918.15 $ 126,270.77 $

Note : All other material includes core clamp, bushings, decals, leads, pallets, shipping materials, sc r ap, unapplied matrerials and standard accessories



### Core Watts/lB 0.561 0.529 Core Watts/lB 0.566 0.343 Core Watts/lB 0.152 0.218 0.110

# 19 Design Line 12 Medium Voltage Dry Transformers

Figure 5a shows the summary of Selling Prices versus Efficiency for Design Line 12 Design Line Design Line 12 Three Phase Medium Voltage Dry Type

kVA 1500 kVA 12,470: 480Y/277 Volts


# Selling Prices, Costs, and Efficiencies as seen by the Manufacturers in 2011 with M3

DOE Efficiency Level DEL 0 DEL 1 DEL 2 DEL 3 DEL 4 DEL 5

% Efficiency at 50% Load 99.12 99.22 99.3 99.39

Incremental Efficiency 0.095 0.085 0.09

Watts saved 712.5 637.5 675

Selling Price 37,000.00 $ 42,000.00 $ 49,000.00 $ 61,229.00 $

Incremental Selling Price 5,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 12,229.00 $

Incremental $/Watt Cost to End User 7.02 $ 10.98 $ 18.12 $



# Selling Prices, Costs, and Efficiencies as seen by the DOE (OPS 1) in Preliminary Analysis

DOE Efficiency Level DEL 0 DEL 1 DEL 2 DEL 3 DEL 4 DEL 5

% Efficiency at 50% Load 99.12 99.22 99.3 99.39

Incremental Efficiency 0.095 0.085 0.09

Watts saved 712.5 637.5 675

Selling Price 35,242.00 $ 36,500.00 $ 37,486.00 $ 43,373.00 $

Incremental Selling Price 1,258.00 $ 986.00 $ 5,887.00 $

Incremental $/Watt Cost to End User 1.77 $ 1.55 $ 8.72 $



# Selling Prices, Costs, and Efficiencies as seen by OPS 2 in DOE September Analysis

DOE Efficiency Level DEL 0 DEL 1 DEL 2 DEL 3 DEL 4 DEL 5

% Efficiency at 50% Load 99.12 99.22 99.3 99.39 99.46

Incremental Efficiency 0.095 0.085 0.09 0.07

Watts saved 712.5 637.5 675 525

Selling Price 36,822.00 $ 39,723.00 $ 39,952.00 $ 46,456.00 $ 50,019.00 $

Incremental Selling Price 2,901.00 $ 229.00 $ 6,504.00 $ 3,563.00 $

Incremental $/Watt Cost to End User 4.07 $ 0.36 $ 9.64 $ 6.79 $



# OPS2 with HO Hi B

DOE Efficiency Level DEL 0 DEL 1 DEL 2 DEL 3 DEL 4 DEL 5

% Efficiency at 50% Load 99.12 99.22 99.3 99.39 99.46

Incremental Efficiency 0.095 0.085 0.09 0.07

Watts saved 712.5 637.5 675 525

Selling Price 33,544.00 $ 36,716.00 $ 39,040.00 $ 43,040.00 $ 46,670.00 $

Incremental Selling Price 3,172.00 $ 2,324.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 3,630.00 $

Incremental $/Watt Cost to End User 4.45 $ 3.65 $ 5.93 $ 6.91 $

Present Worth of Watt saved $9.91 $9.91 $9.91 $9.91 $9.91

# Figu r e 5b shows

x the summar y

xvii. M is th e

versus

x viii. 01 is t h
March,

xix. 02 is t h

A nalys i

xx. Z is th e
A nalys i y of Selling P

e Manufactur

DOE Efficie n
h e OPS Gen e

2011, using

h e OPS Gen e
i s from Augu s

e OPS Gener a
i s from Augu s P rices versu

ers’ Average

n cy Level, usi n

e rated data fr o

M3, Al, Al.

e rated data fr o

s t 31, 2011, u

a ted data fro m

s t 31, 2011, u u s Efficiency

Selling Price ng M3, Al, Al

.
o m the DOE P

o m the DOE r

u sing M2, Al, A

m the DOE r e

u sing ZDMH, for Design L

e s to the end C

. P reliminary A

r eissued Eng

A l.

e issued Engi n Al, Al and or



# 2 L ine 12

C ustomer

A nalysis in

ineering

n eering Copper.



# 2 0

# 21 Figure 5c shows Design Line 12 Comparisons between Manufacturers and OPS 1.

Conclusions for Design Line 12, represented by 1500 kVA Three Phase Medium Voltage Dry with primary Voltage 12,470 and low voltage 480 Y / 277 Volts:

xlix. Manufacturers had higher material costs than OPS1. l. Core weight in OPS1 was in error and under-calculated. li. Total Weights of transformers in OPS 1 were under-calculated and

in error.

lii. Cabinet cost in OPS1 was over-calculated.

liii. All other material in OPS 1 was over-calculated. liv. Manufacturers’ selling prices for ba se case were at market levels. lv. Manufacturers’ selling prices to material cost were kept constant at

base case ratios. lvi. OPS2 is OPS1 revised. However revisions are not explained.

lvii. OPS2 data is extracted from t he engineering analysis from August
31 with M3, Al, Al the base case. lviii. A Hi B (HO) alternative by OPS2 is shown that shows the calculated data by OPS (August 31) for a Hi B alternative. lix. Cost/watt saved Design Efficiency levels lower than the present worth values/watt are worthy of consideration as they return investment in less than 30 years. lx. Cost/watt saved Design Efficien cy levels greater than the present

worth values/watt are not economical unless there are other

considerations. Design Line 12 Medium Voltage Dry

M3, AL, AL, 12470: 480Y/277 95 kV BIL, with taps M3, AL, AL, 12470: 480Y/277 95 kV BIL, with taps M3, AL, AL, 12470: 480Y/277 95 kV BIL, with taps

Parameter OPS MFG AVG Parameter OPS MFG AVG Parameter OPS MFG AVG

Efficiency at 50% load @75C 99.12 99.135 Efficiency at 50% load @75C 99.3 99.3085 Efficiency at 50% load @75C 99.39 99.3975

Selling Price 35,242.12 $ 37,234.95 $ Selling P rice 37, 486.98 $ 49,644.54 $ Selling Price 43,373.01 $ 61,228.80 $

Core Loss @20 C 2616.21 3755 Core Loss 2725.35 2961 Core Loss 2935.98 2481.5

Load Loss at full load @ 85C 20002.95 12142.5 Load Loss at full load 11868.27 10449 Load Loss at full load 7370.75 9446.5

Total Weight, lbs. 7,829 8763 Total Weight, lbs. 8,534 10869 Total Weight, lbs. 10,190 11711.5

Core Material M3 M4 Core Material M3 M3 Core Material M3 M3

Core Weight, Lb s 5 ,720 5996 Core Weight, Lbs. 6,002 7406.5 Core Weight, Lbs. 6,960 7933.5

Low Voltage Material AL AL Low Voltage Material AL AL Low Voltage Material AL AL

High Voltage Material AL AL High Voltage Material AL AL High Voltage Material AL AL

LV Weight, Lbs. 302 434 LV Weight, Lbs. 443 578.5 LV Weight, Lbs. 655 668.5

HV Weight, Lbs. 508 567 HV Weight, Lbs. 761 880.5 HV Weight, Lbs. 1,134 973

Gallons of impregnation 31.79 25 Ga l lons of impregnation 33.09 25 Gallons of impregnation 39.83 25

Primary Insulation, Lbs. 0.00 135 Primary Insulation, Lbs. 0.00 192 Primary Insulation, Lbs. 0.00 192

Secondary insulation, Lbs. 132.34 127 Secondary insulation, Lbs. 132.31 225 Secondary insulation, Lbs. 142.93 225

Core Material Cost, $ 10,724.76 $ 8,080.00 $ Core Material Cost, $ 11,254.65 $ 11,598.00 $ Core Material Cost, $ 13,050.04 $ 15,068.00 $

LV Material Cost, $ 4 7 3

. 0 1 $ 831.50 $ LV Material Cost, $ 6 9 2

. 7 1 $ 1,103.50 $ LV Material Cost, $ 1

, 0 2 5

. 6 5 $ 1,283.50 $

HV Material Cost, $ 1

, 1 1 0

. 0 0 $ 1,608.00 $ HV Material Cost, $ 1

, 6 6 3

. 1 7 $ 2,343.50 $ HV Material Cost, $ 2

, 4 7 8

. 0 8 $ 2,533.50 $

Primary Insulation Cost, $

‐ $ 789.00 $ Primary Insulation Cost, $

‐ $ 850.00 $ Primary Insulation Cost, $

‐ $ 850.00 $

Secondary Insulation Cost, $ 3,242.39 $ 1 ,814.00 $ Secondary Insulation Cost, $ 3,241.60 $ 1,973.50 $ Secondary Insulation Cost, $ 3,501.86 $ 2,166.00 $

Cabinet Cost, $ 8 1 0

. 2 5 $ 780.00 $ Cabinet Cost, $ 8 1 5

. 3 6 $ 780.00 $ Cabinet Cost, $ 8 4 2

. 2 0 $ 820.00 $

All Other Material 4,499.67 $ 1,181.00 $ All Other Material 4,740.96 $ 1,462.00 $ All Other Material 5,466.61 $ 1,496.50 $

Core and Coil Cost, $ 15,550.15 $ 13,122.50 $ Co re and Coil Cost, $ 16,852.13 $ 17,868.50 $ Core and Coil Cost, $ 20,055.62 $ 21,901.00 $

Cabinet & Other Cost, $ 5

, 3 0 9

. 9 2 $ 1,961.00 $ Cabinet & Other Cost, $ 5

, 5 5 6

. 3 2 $ 2,242.00 $ Cabinet & Other Cost, $ 6

, 3 0 8

. 8 1 $ 2,316.50 $

Total Material Cost 20,860.07 $ 15,083.50 $ Total Material Cost 22,408.45 $ 20,110.50 $ Total Material Cost 26,364.43 $ 24,217.50 $

Ta nk Width 90 99 Tank Width 89 99 Tank Width 95 107

Tank Depth 43 56 Tank Depth 45 56 Tank Depth 47 58

Tank Height 90 98 Tank Height 90 98 Tank Height 90 105

A factor $0.75 0.75 $ A factor 9.00 $ 9.00 $ A factor 16.00 $ 16.00 $

B factor 0.2 0.20 $ B factor 0.56 $ 0.56 $ B factor 4.00 $ 4.00 $

Total Owning Cost 41,204.87 $ 42,479.70 $ Total Owning Cost 68,661.33 $ 82,144.98 $ To t al Owning Cost 119,831.64 $ 138,718.80 $

Note : All other material includes core clamp, bushings, decals, leads, pallets, shipping materials, scrap, unapplied matrerials and standard accessories 1500 kVA 3

‐ phase Vented Dry Design Line 12 1500 kVA 3

‐ phase Vented Dry Design Line 12 1500 kVA 3

‐ phase Vented Dry Design Line 12

# 22 G. Thoughts on OPS

1. OPS is a calculation tool which has a mu ltiplicity of design algorithms imbedded to calculate performance and cost as a function of the many variables that influence the design. The manufacturers optimizing programs are constantly being recalibrated with bills of material that are compared with actual financial results such that their accuracy is normally quite good. I have used OPS software an d can say that it is capable of correctly optimizing the design as long as it is proper ly calibrated. The calibration requires accurate portrayal of:

a. Available materials, both applied and unapplied and their costs
b. Labor content, both direct and indirect and their costs c. Manufacturing overhead including energy costs, supervision, scrap (natural and errors) and rework d. Inventory carrying costs e. Engineering f. Selling g. Advertising

h. Administration
i. Taxes, etc.

2. It is difficult to accumulate a model t hat accurately captures all elements and the programmers of OPS need a lot of information that is not normally available to truly represent the industry. 3. Even if the information is basically avail able, each product line needs to be accurately modeled in strict accordance to the relevant industry standards to get a complete embodiment of the full costs that are mandatory. 4. The analysis that I have completed with the help of the manufacturers is based on a

combination of 2011 standard s and current 2011 costs. 5. The OPS data has been accumulated in more than one time period. OPS1 information was published in the DOE Preliminary Analysis of March 2011. It was intended to reflect

material costs at 2010 levels but there turned out to be some limitations in the accuracy

of such costs. 6. After manufacturing designs were com pared for liquid filled transformers (Dry transformers came later), errors were detected and OPS 2 was created to repair the errors and bring material costs up to 2011 levels. 7. No feedback was given to OPS about the Dry Type Transformer Designs and it appears that OPS2 and OPS1 for dry types are show ing the same selling prices, suggesting few changes were made to the computer program. 8. Selling prices for the base efficiency levels should truly be at mark et since those are the efficiencies in the market today. Howeve r, OPS1 appeared to be different and usually lower than the averages supplied to HVOL T Inc. by the manufacturers. These

differences are attributed to the dat a base that was available to OPS.

# 23 9. The Manufacturer data shown in the plots was accumulated with the presumption that M3

core steel and aluminum conductors were run in order to reflect the interests of the US Domestic Magnetic Steel makers. 10. OPS1 designs were selected to compare to the Manufacturers data that also contained

M3 core steel and aluminum conductor. 11. OPS2 designs were selected from the A ugust 31 DOE Engineering Analysis that also

contained M3 core steel and aluminum conductors. 12. OPS2 with Hi B core steel (ZDMH for wound cores and HO for stacked cores) was compared against OPS2 with M3 to show that if the M3 constraint was not applied that other designs may be theoretically more economical at a given efficiency and shown on the plots.

13. The manufacturers hit the brick wall wher e no designs could be found with conventional materials (M3 core steel, Copper LV and Copp er HV) at 99.40% for Design Line 4 and at 99.62% for Design Line 5 and different for the other product lines. This upper limit of efficiency was tested for each of the product lines. 14. Hi BIL and Dual Voltage designs were created but not shown in this analysis that showed the brick wall to be much closer to the pres ent minimum efficiency. More analysis may

be desired in this area in the future. 15. In both Design Lines 4 and 5, only amorphous core material would be able to move further than the brick wall to the highest e fficiency requested for the study (99.61% for Design Line 4 and 99.69% for Design Line 5). However, two other considerations make amorphous not necessarily the best choice. If loading turns out to be greater than the assumed 50% RMS equivalent load then higher winding losses in the amorphous design would quickly eat up the benefits. Amorphous metal also has higher magnetostriction,
audible sound, and more intense vibration than silicon iron. Many cases already are apparent where splinters of amorphous metal have been pumped into the windings and have resulted in catastrophic fa ilures. Hence, reliability is a factor that must be assessed

as worse than silicon. 16. Accuracy of OPS for some of the design lines still needs to be tested. For example, each of the 3-phase designs submitted by the manufacturers appears to be considerably heavier than OPS has shown with more than 1000 pounds difference and in some cases up to double or 10,000 pounds. This error is extremely significant. 17. The gallons of oil were understated by OPS for liquid filled pad mounted transformers but were repaired for OPS2. 18. Dry Type designs for OPS2 do not appear to be appreciably different than OPS1. In all
fairness, we did not have feedback for the OPS personnel on the Medium Voltage Dry transformers prior to our design review and they may have been unaware of any errors.

19. One limitation of OPS that becomes increasi ngly apparent at high efficiencies is the lack of precision for core clamps, leads, busse s, and stray and eddy losses. These items require larger cores and coils to compensate for their otherwise reduction of efficiencies in both liquid and dry transformers.

The bottom line of the comparison is that OPS has projected a considerably easier job of moving to higher efficiencies than the manufacturers when using M3 core steel as well as real manufacturer-based cost data. It is also most likely that any program and design errors have been present in the previous rulemaking which acc ounts for the difficulties expressed by many manufacturers to find buildable designs at upper efficiencies.

A logical question is why this steep cost curve outcome is occurring fo r 3-Phase Liquid Filled Transformers when the present standard from the 2007 NOPR and effective January 1, 2010 is presented as meeting <TSL3 for kVA ratings up to 500 kVA while single phase transformers in the lower kVA range up to 167 kVA were required to meet >TSL4. Factually, the 3-Phase transformers were also at the original equivalent TSL 4 as well when the 3-Phase core loss adjustment of 1.3 times the single phase equivalent was included to account for 3 rd 

# harmonic core

losses in the wound cores.

# 24 H. Overall Conclusions and Recommendations

This report should provide the st akeholders with an accurate picture of manufacturer’s cost as a function of DOE efficiency and should be a useful tool for the negotiators to determine the efficiency levels that best meet the National and DOE objectives with real buildable options.

High BIL and Dual Voltage Designs have been prepar ed but time constraints prevented me from adding them to this report. However, in both ca ses, they reach the limitat ions of core materials and conductors at a little over DEL1 and may want to be examined by the team in a future publication.

Sincerely,



# Philip J Hopkinson

Philip J Hopkinson, PE President and CEO, HVOLT Inc.