DOE/EA-1565

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FOR PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS

FOR DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS

August 2006

U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Building Technologies Program

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards

Washington, DC 20585

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-i

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION

STANDARDS FOR DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-1

2.0 PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-2

3.0 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-4

3.1 No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-4

3.2 Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-5

3.3 Alternative Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-5

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-13

4.1 Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-13

4.2 Air Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-13

4.2.1 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-15

4.2.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-15

4.3 Socioeconomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-17

4.4 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-17

4.5 Energy Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-18

4.6 Noise and Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-18

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-18

5.1 Air Quality/Emissions Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-18

5.1.1 Power Sector Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-18

5.1.2 Discounted Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-28

5.1.3 Fuel-Cycle Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-29

5.2 Wetlands / Endangered and Threatened Species / Cultural Resources . . . . EA-31

5.3 Socioeconomic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-31

5.4 Environmental Justice Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-31

5.5 Energy Consumption Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-32

5.6 Noise and Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-32

5.7 Summary of Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-33

LIST OF TABLES

Table EA.1 Proposed Standard Levels for Liquid-Immersed 

Distribution Transformers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-3

Table EA.2 Proposed Standard Levels for Medium-Voltage, Dry-Type 

Distribution Transformers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-4

Table EA.3 Trial Standard Levels for PC 1 Distribution Transformers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-6

Table EA.4 Trial Standard Levels for PC 2 Distribution Transformers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-7

Table EA.5 Trial Standard Levels for PC 5 Distribution Transformers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-8

Table EA.6 Trial Standard Levels for PC 6 Distribution Transformers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-9

Table EA.7 Trial Standard Levels for PC 7 Distribution Transformers . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-10

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-ii

Table EA.8 Trial Standard Levels for PC 8 Distribution Transformers . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-11

Table EA.9 Trial Standard Levels for PC 9 Distribution Transformers . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-12

Table EA.10 Trial Standard Levels for PC 10 Distribution Transformers . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-13

Table EA.11 Power Sector Emissions for Liquid-Immersed Transformer Trial 

Standard Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-20

Table EA.12 Power Sector Emissions for Liquid-Immersed Transformer Trial 

Standard Levels (continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-21

Table EA.13 Power Sector Emissions for Dry-Type, Medium-Voltage Transformer 

Trial Standard Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-22

Table EA.14 Power Sector Emissions for Dry-Type, Medium-Voltage Transformer 

Trial Standard Levels (continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-23

Table EA.15 Power Sector Emissions for Dry-Type, Low-Voltage Transformer Trial 

Standard Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-24

Table EA.16 Cumulative Power Sector Emissions Impacts for Liquid-Immersed 

Transformers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-25

Table EA.17 Cumulative Power Sector Emissions Impacts for Dry-Type, LowVoltage Transformers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-26

Table EA.18 Cumulative Power Sector Emissions Impacts for Dry-Type, MediumVoltage Transformers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-27

Table EA.19 Discounted Cumulative Emissions Impacts, Liquid-Immersed and DryType, Medium-Voltage Transformers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-29

Table EA.20 Estimated Upstream Emission Factors and Corresponding Percentages of 

Direct Power Plant Combustion Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-30

Table EA.21 Cumulative Energy Savings from Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-32

Table EA.22 Summary of the Analysis Results for Liquid-Immersed Transformers . . . . EA-33

Table EA.23 Summary of the Analysis Results for Dry-Type, LowVoltage Transformers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-34

Table EA.24 Summary of the Analysis Results for Dry-Type, MediumVoltage Transformers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EA-35

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-1

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or Department) prepared this distribution

transformers environmental assessment (EA) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act

of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the regulations of the Council on Environmental

Quality (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), and the DOE’s regulations for compliance with NEPA (10

CFR part 1021). 

Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.) sets

forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part C of title III (42 U.S.C.

6311–6317) establishes an energy-conservation program for “Certain Industrial Equipment” and

includes distribution transformers, the subject of this EA. EPCA states that the Secretary of

Energy shall prescribe testing requirements for those distribution transformers for which the

Secretary makes a determination that energy conservation standards would be technologically

feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. Furthermore,

the Secretary shall prescribe, by rule, energy conservation standards for those distribution

transformers for which the Secretary prescribed testing requirements under the first statement. 

(42 U.S.C. 6317) There are no current mandatory national standards for distribution

transformers in the United States.

On October 22, 1997, the Secretary of Energy issued a determination that “based on its

analysis of the information now available, the Department has determined that energy

conservation standards for transformers appear to be technologically feasible and economically

justified, and are likely to result in significant savings.” 62 FR 54809. The Secretary’s

determination was based, in part, on analyses conducted by the Department of Energy’s Oak

Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). In July 1996, ORNL published a report entitled

Determination Analysis of Energy Conservation Standards for Distribution Transformers,

ORNL-6847,1

 which assessed options for setting energy conservation standards. That report was

based on information from annual sales data, average load data, and surveys of existing and

potential transformer efficiencies obtained from several organizations. 

In September 1997, ORNL published a second report entitled Supplement to the

“Determination Analysis” (ORNL-6847) and Analysis of the NEMA Efficiency Standard for

Distribution Transformers, ORNL-6925.2

 This report assessed the suggested efficiency levels

contained in the then-newly published National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)

Standards Publication No. TP 1-1996, Guide for Determining Energy Efficiency for Distribution

Transformers,

3

 along with the efficiency levels previously considered by the Department in the

determination study. The latest downloadable version of TP 1 is available at the NEMA website: 

http://www.nema.org/stds/tp1.cfm#download. In its supplemental assessment, ORNL used a

more accurate analytical model and better transformer market and loading data developed

following the publication of ORNL-6847. Downloadable versions of both ORNL reports are

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-2

available on the DOE website at: 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/dist_transformers.html

On July 29, 2004, the Department published the advance notice of proposed rulemaking

(ANOPR) and its associated technical support document (TSD).4

 At the ANOPR public meeting

on September 28, 2004, as well as during the formal comment period, the Department invited

stakeholders to comment on the following issues: definition and coverage, product classes

(PCs), engineering analysis inputs, design option combinations, the 0.75 scaling rule, modeling

of transformer load profiles, distribution chain markups, discount rate selection and use, baseline

determination through purchase evaluation formulae, electricity prices, load growth over time,

life-cycle cost (LCC) subgroups, and utility deregulation impacts.

During the ANOPR comment period, which ended on November 9, 2004, stakeholders

submitted comments on the 13 issues listed above as well as on other issues. Since then, the

Department has updated its ANOPR-phase analyses, performed the notice of proposed

rulemaking (NOPR)-phase analyses, selected its proposed standard level, and prepared the

NOPR Federal Register document and the NOPR TSD5

 to document all of its analyses and the

selection of its proposed standard.

The proposed distribution transformer efficiency standard affects customers and

manufacturers of distribution transformers.

2.0 PURPOSE

Energy-efficiency standards for distribution transformers are expected to result in savings

in electrical energy. The metric used to measure the efficiency of distribution transformers is

percent efficiency, which is calculated by taking into account no-load losses (which are constant)

and load losses (which vary by the square of the load) at a specified design load. An increase in

the percent efficiency as measured above indicates that the distribution transformer is more

energy-efficient. Details on the technical analysis of increased efficiency levels are provided in

the TSD that accompanies DOE’s NOPR for the proposed standard.

To analyze improvements in the efficiency of distribution transformers, DOE created six

trial standard levels (TSLs):

TSL 1: The NEMA TP 1 standard level

TSL 2: 1/3 of difference between TP 1 and minimum LCC

TSL 3: 2/3 of difference between TP 1 and minimum LCC

TSL 4: Minimum LCC 

TSL 5: Maximum energy savings with no change in LCC

TSL 6: Maximum energy savings

Of these six TSLs, DOE proposes TSL 2 as the standard level for both liquid-immersed

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
a

 Because the Energy Policy Act of 2005 established energy conservation standards for low-voltage, dry-type

distribution transformers, the Department has removed this type of transformer from the NOPR stage of its analysis. 

EA-3

and medium-voltage, dry-type transformers.a Tables EA.1 and EA.2 summarize the proposed

standard levels for the liquid-immersed and medium-voltage, dry-type transformers.

Table EA.1 Proposed Standard Levels for Liquid-Immersed Distribution Transformers

Single-Phase Proposed Efficiency Level

TSL2

Three-Phase Proposed Efficiency Level

TSL2

kVA

PC 1

Efficiency

(%)

kVA

PC 2

Efficiency

(%)

10 98.40 15 98.36

15 98.56 30 98.62

25 98.73 45 98.76

37.5 98.85 75 98.91

50 98.90 112.5 99.01

75 99.04 150 99.08

100 99.10 225 99.17

167 99.21 300 99.23

250 99.26 500 99.32

333 99.31 750 99.24

500 99.38 1000 99.29

667 99.42 1500 99.36

833 99.45 2000 99.40

2500 99.44

Note: All efficiency values are at 50% of nameplate rated load, determined according to the DOE test procedure. 

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-4

Table EA.2 Proposed Standard Levels for Medium-Voltage, Dry-Type Distribution

Transformers

Single-Phase Proposed Efficiency Level

TSL2

Three-Phase Proposed Efficiency Level

TSL2

kVA

PC5

20-45kV

BIL

(%)

PC7

46-95kV

BIL

(%)

PC9

$96kV

BIL

(%)

kVA

PC6

20-45kV

BIL 

(%)

PC8

46-95kV

BIL 

(%)

PC10

$96kV

BIL 

(%)

15 98.10 97.86 - 15 97.50 97.19 -

25 98.33 98.12 - 30 97.90 97.63 -

37.5 98.49 98.30 - 45 98.10 97.86 -

50 98.60 98.42 - 75 98.33 98.12 -

75 98.73 98.57 98.53 112.5 98.49 98.30 -

100 98.82 98.67 98.63 150 98.60 98.42 -

167 98.96 98.83 98.80 225 98.73 98.57 98.53

250 99.07 98.95 98.91 300 98.82 98.67 98.63

333 99.14 99.03 98.99 500 98.96 98.83 98.80

500 99.22 99.12 99.09 750 99.07 98.95 98.91

667 99.27 99.18 99.15 1000 99.14 99.03 98.99

833 99.31 99.23 99.20 1500 99.22 99.12 99.09

2000 99.27 99.18 99.15

2500 99.31 99.23 99.20

Note: All efficiency values are at 50% of nameplate rated load, determined according to the DOE test procedure. 

3.0 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

The Department analyzed seven alternative standards levels, consisting of the six TSLs

identified in the NOPR and a no-action alternative. As discussed above, DOE’s proposed action

is to propose TSL 2. The seven alternatives are discussed below.

3.1 No-Action Alternative

Under a no-action alternative, DOE would not publish new minimum energy-efficiency

standards for distribution transformers. The Department addresses the no-action alternative in

the TSD, including the regulatory impact analysis (RIA), along with other non-regulatory policy

cases and voluntary incentive programs. The RIA found that the no-action alternative would

result in insufficient reductions in energy consumption as compared to other alternatives,

including DOE’s proposed action.

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-5

3.2 Proposed Action

The Department’s proposed action is to adopt TSL 2 (as identified in Tables EA.1 and

EA.2), which would result in national energy savings, reduced average LCC for consumers, a net

national benefit (i.e., monetary savings to the Nation exceed increased equipment costs to the

Nation), and air-borne emissions reductions. The proposed action would also result in a

reduction in industry net present value, but DOE believes the amount is not significant. In the

NOPR, DOE determined that the benefits of the proposed action outweighed its burdens and that

the action is economically justified. The Department concluded that the proposed action would

save a significant amount of energy and is technologically feasible. The proposed action goes

into effect in the year 2010. Additional details on estimated impacts resulting from the proposed

action and other TSLs are provided in the TSD.

3.3 Alternative Standards

This EA also presents the results of the environmental impacts from five other

distribution transformer TSLs—besides those from DOE’s proposed action (TSL 2). Each TSL

is an alternative action, which DOE compared with the no-action alternative. (In the no-action

alternative, also referred to as the base case, no new amended standards are proposed.) TSL 1 is 

less stringent than DOE’s proposed action (TSL 2), while TSLs 3, 4, 5, and 6 are more stringent

than TSL 2. Each TSL has a unique combination of efficiency levels associated with it. Tables

EA.3 through EA.10 show each TSL, including DOE’s proposed action, by product class.

Some of the critical underlying assumptions of the engineering analysis are the creation

of the design lines, the selection of the representative units (shown in the first column in the

following tables), and the use of the 0.75 scaling rule to extrapolate findings on the

representative unit to other kilovolt-ampere (kVA) ratings within the same design line. The

Department created the design lines to better classify the distribution transformer voltage classes

(basic impulse insulation level (BIL) groupings) and, explicitly, to minimize the error from

scaling. Similarly, the Department subdivided some of the product classes into different design

lines, so the kVA rating of the representative unit would not be scaled more than an order of

magnitude up or down in a given design line. It took both of these steps to mitigate any error

from scaling, and to provide a more robust analytical foundation for the standards. Details

regarding the design lines are found in chapter 5 of the TSD. 

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-6

Table EA.3 Trial Standard Levels for PC 1 Distribution Transformers

Product Class 1 Liquid-Immersed, Medium-Voltage, Single-Phase Transformers

TSL

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Design

Line

kVA Ave.

Base

Case

Eff.

Min.

Base

Case

Eff.

TP 1 1/3 of Diff

between

TP 1 and

Min LCC

2/3 of Diff

between

TP 1 and

Min LCC

Min

LCC

Max Energy

Savings with

No Change

in LCC

Max

Energy

Savings

10 98.42 97.77 98.4 98.40 98.44 98.48 98.69 99.32

15 98.57 97.99 98.6 98.56 98.59 98.63 98.82 99.39

DL2 25 98.74 98.23 98.7 98.73 98.76 98.79 98.96 99.46

37.5 98.86 98.40 98.8 98.85 98.88 98.91 99.06 99.51

DL1 50 98.97 98.56 98.9 98.90 98.90 99.04 99.19 99.59

75 99.04 98.66 99.0 99.04 99.06 99.08 99.21 99.59

100 99.11 98.75 99.0 99.10 99.12 99.14 99.26 99.62

167 99.22 98.90 99.1 99.21 99.23 99.25 99.35 99.66

250 99.24 98.89 99.2 99.26 99.36 99.45 99.69 99.70

333 99.29 98.97 99.2 99.31 99.40 99.49 99.71 99.72

DL3 500 99.36 99.07 99.3 99.38 99.46 99.54 99.74 99.75

667 99.40 99.13 99.4 99.42 99.50 99.57 99.76 99.77

833 99.44 99.18 99.4 99.45 99.52 99.60 99.77 99.78

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-7

Table EA.4 Trial Standard Levels for PC 2 Distribution Transformers

Product Class 2 Liquid-Immersed, Medium-Voltage, Three-Phase Transformers

TSL

0 12 34 5 6

Design

Line

kVA Ave.

Base

Case

Eff.

Min.

Base

Case

Eff,

TP 1 1/3 of Diff

between

TP 1 and

Min LCC

2/3 of Diff

between

TP 1 and

Min LCC

Min

LCC

Max Energy

Savings with

No Change

in LCC

Max

Energy

Savings

15 98.06 97.19 98.1 98.36 98.68 98.68 99.25 99.31

30 98.37 97.64 98.4 98.62 98.89 98.89 99.37 99.42

45 98.53 97.87 98.6 98.76 99.00 99.00 99.43 99.47

75 98.70 98.12 98.7 98.91 99.12 99.12 99.50 99.54

112.5 98.83 98.30 98.8 99.01 99.20 99.20 99.55 99.58

DL4 150 98.91 98.42 98.9 99.08 99.26 99.26 99.58 99.61

225 99.02 98.57 99.0 99.17 99.33 99.33 99.62 99.65

300 99.08 98.67 99.0 99.23 99.38 99.38 99.65 99.67

500 99.19 98.83 99.1 99.32 99.45 99.45 99.69 99.71

750 99.24 98.97 99.2 99.24 99.31 99.37 99.66 99.66

1000 99.29 99.04 99.2 99.29 99.36 99.41 99.68 99.68

DL5 1500 99.36 99.13 99.3 99.36 99.42 99.47 99.71 99.71

2000 99.40 99.19 99.4 99.40 99.46 99.51 99.73 99.73

2500 99.44 99.23 99.4 99.44 99.49 99.53 99.74 99.74

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-8

Table EA.5 Trial Standard Levels for PC 5 Distribution Transformers

Product Class 5 Dry-Type, Medium-Voltage, Single-Phase Transformers (20-45 kV BIL)

TSL

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Design

Line

kVA Ave.

Base

Case

Eff.

Min.

Base

Case

Eff.

TP 1 1/3 of Diff

between TP

1 and Min

LCC

2/3 of Diff

between TP

1 and Min

LCC

Min

LCC

Max Energy

Savings with

No Change

in LCC

Max

Energy

Savings

15 98.02 97.45 97.6 98.10 98.46 98.81 99.05 99.05

25 98.26 97.75 97.9 98.33 98.64 98.95 99.17 99.17

37.5 98.43 97.97 98.1 98.49 98.77 99.05 99.25 99.25

50 98.54 98.11 98.2 98.60 98.86 99.12 99.30 99.30

75 98.68 98.29 98.4 98.73 98.97 99.20 99.37 99.37

DL9 100 98.77 98.41 98.5 98.82 99.04 99.26 99.41 99.41

167 98.92 98.60 98.8 98.96 99.16 99.35 99.48 99.48

250 99.01 98.56 98.9 99.05 99.17 99.27 99.42 99.42

333 99.08 98.66 99.0 99.11 99.23 99.32 99.46 99.46

DL10 500 99.17 98.79 99.1 99.20 99.30 99.39 99.51 99.51

667 99.23 98.87 99.2 99.26 99.35 99.43 99.54 99.54

833 99.27 98.93 99.2 99.30 99.38 99.46 99.57 99.57

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-9

Table EA.6 Trial Standard Levels for PC 6 Distribution Transformers

Product Class 6 Dry-Type, Medium-Voltage, Three-Phase Transformers (20-45 kV BIL)

TSL

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Design

Line

kVA Ave.

Base

Case

Eff.

Min.

Base

Case

Eff.

TP 1 1/3 of Diff

between

TP 1 and

Min LCC

2/3 of Diff

between

TP 1 and

Min LCC

Min

LCC

Max Energy

Savings with

No Change

in LCC

Max Energy

Savings

15 97.40 96.64 96.8 97.50 97.97 98.44 98.75 98.75

30 97.81 97.17 97.3 97.90 98.29 98.68 98.95 98.95

45 98.02 97.45 97.6 98.10 98.46 98.81 99.05 99.05

75 98.26 97.75 97.9 98.33 98.64 98.95 99.17 99.17

112.5 98.43 97.97 98.1 98.49 98.77 99.05 99.25 99.25

150 98.54 98.11 98.2 98.60 98.86 99.12 99.30 99.30

225 98.68 98.29 98.4 98.73 98.97 99.20 99.37 99.37

DL9 300 98.77 98.41 98.6 98.82 99.04 99.26 99.41 99.41

500 98.92 98.60 98.8 98.96 99.16 99.35 99.48 99.48

750 99.01 98.56 98.9 99.05 99.17 99.27 99.42 99.42

1000 99.08 98.66 99.0 99.11 99.23 99.32 99.46 99.46

DL10 1500 99.17 98.79 99.1 99.20 99.30 99.39 99.51 99.51

2000 99.23 98.87 99.2 99.26 99.35 99.43 99.54 99.54

2500 99.27 98.94 99.2 99.30 99.38 99.46 99.57 99.57

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-10

Table EA.7 Trial Standard Levels for PC 7 Distribution Transformers

Product Class 7 Dry-Type, Medium-Voltage, Single-Phase Transformers (46-95 kV BIL)

TSL

0 12 34 5 6

Design

Line

kVA Ave.

Base

Case

Eff.

Min.

Base

Case

Eff.

TP 1 1/3 of Diff

between

TP 1 and

Min LCC

2/3 of Diff

between

TP 1 and

Min LCC

Min

LCC

Max Energy

Savings with

No Change

in LCC

Max

Energy

Savings

15 97.46 96.87 97.6 97.86 98.14 98.41 98.54 98.54

25 97.77 97.24 97.9 98.12 98.36 98.60 98.71 98.71

37.5 97.98 97.51 98.1 98.30 98.52 98.73 98.84 98.84

50 98.12 97.68 98.2 98.42 98.62 98.82 98.92 98.92

75 98.30 97.90 98.4 98.57 98.75 98.94 99.02 99.02

DL11 100 98.42 98.05 98.5 98.67 98.84 99.01 99.09 99.09

167 98.61 98.28 98.8 98.83 98.98 99.13 99.20 99.20

250 99.02 98.58 98.9 98.95 99.08 99.23 99.42 99.42

333 99.09 98.68 99.0 99.03 99.15 99.28 99.46 99.46

DL12 500 99.18 98.81 99.1 99.12 99.23 99.35 99.51 99.51

667 99.24 98.89 99.2 99.18 99.28 99.40 99.54 99.54

833 99.28 98.95 99.2 99.23 99.32 99.43 99.57 99.57

Note: Because the representative units for both of the underlying DLs for PC 7 (DL 11 and DL 12) were 95 kV BIL,

for kVA ratings from 167 through 833, the value in the “TP 1” column is the NEMA TP 1 value for >60 kV BIL.

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-11

Table EA.8 Trial Standard Levels for PC 8 Distribution Transformers

Product Class 8 Dry-Type, Medium-Voltage, Three-Phase Transformers (46-95 kV BIL)

TSL

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Design

Line

kVA Ave.

Base

Case

Eff.

Min.

Base

Case

Eff.

TP 1 1/3 of Diff

between

TP 1 and

Min LCC

2/3 of Diff

between

TP 1 and

Min LCC

Min

LCC

Max Energy

Savings with

No Change

in LCC

Max

Energy

Savings

15 96.66 95.88 96.8 97.19 97.55 97.91 98.08 98.08

30 97.19 96.53 97.3 97.63 97.94 98.24 98.38 98.38

45 97.46 96.87 97.6 97.86 98.14 98.41 98.54 98.54

75 97.77 97.24 97.9 98.12 98.36 98.60 98.71 98.71

112.5 97.98 97.51 98.1 98.30 98.52 98.73 98.84 98.84

150 98.12 97.68 98.2 98.42 98.62 98.82 98.92 98.92

225 98.30 97.90 98.4 98.57 98.75 98.94 99.02 99.02

DL11 300 98.42 98.05 98.5 98.67 98.84 99.01 99.09 99.09

500 98.61 98.28 98.8 98.83 98.98 99.13 99.20 99.20

750 99.02 98.58 98.9 98.95 99.08 99.23 99.42 99.42

1000 99.09 98.68 99.0 99.03 99.15 99.28 99.46 99.46

DL12 1500 99.18 98.81 99.0 99.12 99.23 99.35 99.51 99.51

2000 99.24 98.89 99.2 99.18 99.28 99.40 99.54 99.54

2500 99.28 98.95 99.2 99.23 99.32 99.43 99.57 99.57

Note: Because the representative units for both of the underlying DLs for PC 8 (DL 11 and DL 12) were 95 kV BIL,

for kVA ratings from 300 through 2500, the value in the “TP 1”column is the NEMA TP 1 value for >60 kV BIL.

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-12

Table EA.9 Trial Standard Levels for PC 9 Distribution Transformers

Product Class 9 Dry-Type, Medium-Voltage, Single-Phase Transformers ($96 kV BIL)

TSL

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Design

Line

kVA Ave.

Base

Case

Eff.

Min.

Base

Case

Eff.

TP 1 1/3 of Diff

between

TP 1 and

Min LCC

2/3 of Diff

between

TP 1 and

Min LCC

Min

LCC

Max Energy

Savings with

No Change

in LCC

Max

Energy

Savings

75 98.72 98.22 98.4 98.53 98.79 99.05 99.22 99.22

100 98.81 98.34 98.5 98.63 98.88 99.12 99.28 99.28

167 98.95 98.54 98.7 98.80 99.01 99.22 99.36 99.36

250 99.05 98.68 98.8 98.91 99.11 99.30 99.42 99.42

333 99.12 98.77 98.9 98.99 99.17 99.35 99.46 99.46

500 99.20 98.89 99.0 99.09 99.25 99.41 99.52 99.52

DL13 667 99.26 98.97 99.0 99.15 99.30 99.45 99.55 99.55

833 99.30 99.03 99.1 99.20 99.34 99.48 99.57 99.57

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
a

 The 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 entails some minor code modifications and the model is run

under various policy scenarios that are variations on DOE/EIA assumptions, DOE refers to it as NEMS-BT. NEMSBT was previously called NEMS-BRS.

EA-13

Table EA.10 Trial Standard Levels for PC 10 Distribution Transformers

Product Class 10 Dry-Type, Medium-Voltage, Three-Phase Transformers ($96 kV BIL)

TSL

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Design

Line

kVA Ave.

Base

Case

Eff.

Min.

Base

Case

Eff.

TP 1 1/3 of Diff

between

TP 1 and

Min LCC

2/3 of Diff

between

TP 1 and

Min LCC

Min

LCC

Max Energy

Savings with

No Change

in LCC

Max

Energy

Savings

225 98.72 98.22 98.4 98.53 98.79 99.05 99.22 99.22

300 98.81 98.34 98.5 98.63 98.88 99.12 99.28 99.28

500 98.95 98.54 98.7 98.80 99.01 99.22 99.36 99.36

750 99.05 98.68 98.8 98.91 99.11 99.30 99.42 99.42

1000 99.12 98.78 98.9 98.99 99.17 99.35 99.46 99.46

1500 99.20 98.89 99.0 99.09 99.25 99.41 99.52 99.52

DL13 2000 99.26 98.97 99.0 99.15 99.30 99.45 99.55 99.55

2500 99.30 99.03 99.1 99.20 99.34 99.48 99.57 99.57

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

4.1 Geography

The distribution transformer standard that DOE has proposed (TSL 2) would apply to all

50 States and United States territories. 

4.2 Air Resources

The primary focus of the EA is the effect of proposed efficiency standards on air

resources. For this analysis, the EA used a variant of the DOE Energy Information

Administration (EIA)’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), called NEMS-BT (BT is

DOE’s Building Technologies Program).a

 As described in section 4.2.1 below, the

environmental analysis is similar to the utility impact analysis described in Chapter 13 of the

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-14

TSD.5 Outputs of the environmental analysis are in a format similar to the results of the EIA’s

Annual Energy Outlook 2005 (AEO2005).

6

For each of the energy-efficiency standard levels, DOE calculated total power-sector

emissions based on output from NEMS-BT. The EA considers three pollutants, nitrogen oxides

(NOx), mercury (Hg), and sulfur dioxide (SO2), and one emission, carbon dioxide (CO2). An air

pollutant is any substance in the air that can cause harm to humans or the environment. 

Pollutants may be natural or man-made and may take the form of solid particles, liquid droplets,

or gases. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 list 188 toxic air pollutants that the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to control. The EPA has set national airquality standards for six common pollutants (also referred to as “criteria” pollutants), two of

which are SO2 and NOx. Also, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 gave authority to EPA to

control acidification and to require operators of electric power plants to reduce emissions of SO2

and NOx. In addressing SO2 emissions, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 set an SO2

emissions cap on all power generation, but permitted flexibility among generators through the

use of emissions allowances and tradable permits. This SO2 trading implies that physical

emissions effects of a standard will be zero because emissions will always be at, or near, the

allowed ceiling. Consequently, there is no direct SO2 environmental benefit from electricity

conservation, as long as there is enforcement of the emissions ceiling. But to the extent reduced

power generation demand decreases the demand for and price of emissions allowance permits,

there is an environmentally related economic benefit from standards reducing SO2 emissions

allowance demand. 

Carbon dioxide is of interest because of its classification as a greenhouse gas and its

impact on global climate change. Greenhouse gases—which trap the sun’s radiation inside the

Earth’s atmosphere—either occur naturally in the atmosphere or result from human activities. 

Naturally occuring greenhouse gases include water vapor, CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide,

and ozone. Human activities, however, add to the levels of most of these naturally occurring

gases. For example, CO2 is emitted to the atmosphere when solid waste, fossil fuels (oil, natural

gas, and coal), wood, and wood products are burned. During the past 20 years, about

three-quarters of anthropogenic (i.e., human-made) CO2 emissions resulted from burning fossil

fuels. Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are naturally regulated by numerous processes,

collectively known as the “carbon cycle.” The movement of carbon between the atmosphere and

the land and oceans is dominated by natural processes, such as plant photosynthesis. While

these natural processes can absorb some of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions produced each

year, billions of metric tons are added to the atmosphere annually. The Earth’s positive

imbalance between emissions and absorption results in the continuing growth in greenhouse

gases in the atmosphere, thereby causing surface air temperatures and sub-surface ocean

temperatures to rise. The U.S. CO2 emissions from both energy consumption and industrial

processes account for 84.6 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.7

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-15

4.2.1 Assumptions

The Department conducted the EA as a policy deviation from the typical meteorological

year (TMY) System Load Reference Case, a modified AEO2005 Reference Case, using the same

basic set of assumptions. The emissions characteristics of all electricity-generating plants are

exactly as those used in AEO2005. The TMY System Load Reference Case and alternative

growth scenarios are as described in the utility impact analysis of the TSD (Chapter 13). The

Department derived the environmental impacts of the proposed standard using the same higher

decrement, double-decrement approach described in the utility impact analysis.

As in the utility impact analysis, the Department substituted the default NEMS system

load with a system load that represents weather conditions for a TMY—here referred to as the

TMY system load. As a result, the reference case used to judge the impacts from a proposed

distribution transformer standard is no longer an exact replication of the AEO2005 Reference

Case and is therefore referred to as the TMY System Load Reference Case.

The EA also includes a sensitivity analysis for the proposed standard level, using the

High and Low Economic Growth scenarios of NEMS-BT. As described in Chapter 13 of the

TSD, these scenarios cover a range of macro-economic growth assumptions. 

4.2.2 Methods

CO2. The NEMS-BT tracks CO2 emissions using a detailed CO2 module that features

broad coverage of all sectors and includes interactive effects. Past experience with NEMSgenerated CO2 emissions suggests estimates are somewhat lower than estimates based on simple

average factors. One of the reasons for this divergence is that NEMS tends to predict that

conservation displaces more-efficient generating capacity in the later years of its forecast.

Power Sector NOx and Hg. The NEMS-BT reports the two airborne pollutant emissions

that the Department has considered in past analyses, SO2 and NOx and now also reports Hg

emissions. The NEMS-BT estimates NOx and Hg emissions from power generation by assuming

that the power sector conforms to all pre-2005 legislation and regulations with respect to

monitoring power facility development, retrofitting, and dispatch, including potential

installations of emissions-reducing equipment (i.e., scrubbers). Three recent regulatory actions

proposed by the EPA—regarding (1) regulations and guidelines for best-available retrofit

technology determinations, (2) the reduction of interstate transport of fine particulate matter and

ozone—are tending toward further NOx reductions and has lead to an emissions cap on NOx for

the Eastern United States. 69 FR 25184 (May 5, 2004), 69 FR 32684 (June 10, 2004), and 70 FR

25162 (May 12, 2005), and (3) the recent promulgation of the mercury emissions rule has

resulted in a cap on Hg emissions 70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005). As with SO2 emissions, a cap

on NOx and Hg emissions will possibly result in no physical emissions effects from equipment

efficiency standards, but reduced power generation demand will have the benefit of generating

net emissions allowance credits relative to a base case of no energy conservation standard. The

Department reports NOx and Hg emissions reductions in a future scenario without emissions

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-16

caps. The Department assumes that under emissions cap regulation, the reduction in power

generation demand results in the creation of an equivalent amount of net emissions allowance

credits.

Power Sector SO2. As explained above, accurate simulation of SO2 trading tends to

imply that physical emissions effects will be zero, as long as emissions are at the allowed ceiling. 

Because SO2 has been regulated with emissions caps for more than a decade, and no emissions

reductions are reported from the NEMS-BT forecast model, DOE does not report SO2 results

here. 

Fuel-Cycle Emissions. Fuel-cycle emissions refer to the emissions associated with the

amount of energy used in the upstream production and downstream consumption of electricity,

including energy used at the power plant. Upstream processes include the mining of coal or

extraction of natural gas, physical preparatory and cleaning processes, and transportation to the

power plant. The NEMS-BT does a thorough accounting of emissions at the power plant due to

downstream energy consumption, but does not account for upstream emissions (i.e., emissions

from energy losses during coal and natural gas production). Thus, this EA reports only power

plant emissions.

Interpolation. Because the energy savings from distribution transformer standards are

too small to produce stable power sector results in NEMS-BT, the Department estimated results

for the TSLs using interpolation. To run a simulation in NEMS-BT, the system electricity load

and commercial demand use are reduced annually according to the energy savings estimated by

the national energy savings (NES) Spreadsheet Model (see Chapter 10 of the TSD) for each

TSL. These energy savings increase over time. The magnitude of the energy decrement that

would be required for NEMS-BT to produce stable results out of the range of numerical noise is

greater than the highest standard level under consideration. Therefore, to estimate results for the

TSLs considered here, DOE carried out a series of NEMS-BT runs using higher values for the

input energy savings. These runs established the relationship between the NEMS-BT outputs

(e.g., installed capacity reductions, emissions reductions) and the energy savings inputs. The

Department then obtained results for energy savings corresponding to the TSLs using linear

interpolation. 

The Department then used the estimated reduction in total fuel generation at each TSL, as

determined by interpolation, to determine emissions savings. First, it calculated annual marginal

emissions rates for each of the simulations in each standard level, based on the actual output

from NEMS-BT. Marginal emissions rates incorporate both effects of the standards—the

emissions saved by the reduction in total generation, and the slight change in the emissions

characteristics of the whole power sector that result from the slight change in dispatch and

capacity expansion plan. The net effect on the entire system is very small and, typically, the

overall effect on emissions can be fully attributed to the reduced generation capacity. The

Department could then determine annual marginal emissions rates at the trial standard level from

these rates (at multipliers of the TSL savings), by taking a simple average. 

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-17

Extrapolation. The current time horizon of NEMS-BT is 2025 (modeling a 15-year

period, 2010–2025); however, other parts of the distribution transformer rulemaking analysis

extend to 2038. To address this disparity, the Department developed an adjunct version of the

NEMS model called NEMS-BT2 that is capable, although in limited form, of modeling out to

year 2050. As with the AEO2005 Reference Case in general, the implicit assumption is that the

regulatory environment does not change from the current, known situation during the

extrapolation period. Only changes that have been announced with date-certain introduction are

included in NEMS-BT. The NEMS-BT2 2050 extension model, based on the 2004 version of

NEMS-BT, was developed by OnLocation, Inc., under a subcontract to the Department. 

Extensive code and input file changes were required to allow NEMS-BT2 to run to 2050,

unfortunately rendering it impossible to extend the 2005 version. Therefore, the Department

used the 2005 version of NEMS-BT to conduct the analysis through 2025 and the 2004 NEMSBT2 2050 extension to conduct the analysis from 2026 to 2038. Some assumptions and

adjustments were required to ease the transition from year 2025 to 2026, thereby removing the

inherent differences between these two versions of the model (see Appendix 13A for a detailed

discussion). To emphasize the extrapolated results in tables where they appear, DOE has shaded

them in grey to distinguish them from the TMY System Load Reference Case 2010–2025

NEMS-BT results.

4.3 Socioeconomics

As part of the rulemaking process, DOE evaluated the socioeconomic effect on small

businesses, especially small manufacturers, a subgroup that DOE identified as possibly being

disproportionately affected by a national standard level. Converting from a company’s current

basic product line involves designing, prototyping, testing, and manufacturing a new product. 

These tasks have associated capital investments and product conversion expenses. Small

businesses, because of their limited access to capital and their need to spread product conversion

expenses over smaller production volumes, may be affected more negatively than major

manufacturers by an energy-conservation standard. For these reasons, the Department

specifically evaluated the impacts on small businesses from an energy-conservation standard. 

Chapter 12 of the TSD provides more details on the manufacturer subgroup analysis. 

4.4 Environmental Justice

The Department considered environmental justice, pursuant to the Executive Order

12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations.” The Executive Order requires Federal agencies to assess whether a

proposed Federal action causes any disproportionately high and adverse human health or

environmental effects on low-income or minority populations.

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-18

4.5 Energy Consumption

The Department used a detailed shipments and NES Spreadsheet Model to determine

national energy savings as a result of increases in the minimum efficiency standard. This

spreadsheet model forecasts the national shipments and energy use of distribution transformers

with and without new standards. The shipments and NES analyses are described in detail in

TSD Chapters 9 and 10, respectively.

4.6 Noise and Aesthetics

The Department considered how new energy conservation standards for distribution

transformers may affect the noise and aesthetics of the equipment. To improve the efficiency of

distribution transformers, increased amounts of heavier materials (e.g., steel) may be used that can

enlarge the size of the equipment. The Department reviewed these components and determined if

noise and aesthetics were impacted. 

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

5.1 Air Quality/Emissions Impacts

5.1.1 Power Sector Emissions

The results for the environmental analysis are similar to a complete NEMS run as published

in the AEO2005, and include power sector emissions for NOx, Hg and CO2 in five-year forecast

increments, extrapolated to the year 2038 for a regulatory scenario where none of the three

emissions are subject to regulatory caps. The Department reports the outcome of the analysis for

each TSL as a deviation from the TMY System Load Reference Case. This is also referred to as the

base case. 

As discussed in section 4.2, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 set an SO2 emissions

cap on all power generation, but permitted flexibility among generators through the use of emissions

allowances and tradable permits. Moreover, SO2 trading implies that physical emissions effects of

a standard will be zero because emissions will always be at, or near, the ceiling. Consequently, there

is virtually no physical SO2 environmental benefit from electricity conservation as long as there is

enforcement of the emissions ceiling. Even though there is no physical environmental benefit from

proposed standards, there are potential environmental economic benefits. Given reduced demand

for coal generation, there is reduced demand for SO2 emission allowances and this lowers the

allowance price and traded allowance volume..

NEMS-BT in its forecast implements the SO2 emissions caps, but is not able to estimate

changes in emissions allowance prices or volumes, nor can it calculate emissions cap compliance

investments and expenses. Thus, the Department did not report these quantities. 

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
a

 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 set energy conservation standards for low-voltage, dry-type distribution

transformers at TP 1, which is equivalent to TSL 1.

EA-19

For power sector CO2, Hg and NOx emissions, NEMS-BT calculated emissions impacts

under an un-capped scenario. Since Hg and NOx emissions shall comply with emissions caps in

the future, these emissions estimates correspond to emissions allowances that power producers will

not have to generate in future cap and trade emissions allowance markets. 

Tables EA.11 through EA.15 show annual total power sector CO2, Hg and NOx emissions

for the various distribution transformer TSLs for each superclass. The liquid-immersed and drytype, medium-voltage classes consider six TSLs, while the dry-type, low-voltage superclass focuses

only on TSL 1.a Annual CO2, Hg and NOx emissions reductions are the highest for liquid-immersed

TSL 6 and are the lowest for dry-type, medium-voltage TSL 1. The annual CO2 emissions

reductions are 22.5 million metric tons per annum (Mt/a) in 2025 for liquid-immersed TSL 6, the

strictest standard under consideration. In the same year, NOx emissions reductions are 5.6 kilo

metric tons per annum (kt/a) for the same TSL and Hg emissions are 0.5 metric tons per annum (t/a).

Tables EA.16 through EA.18 show the results for the cumulative emissions reductions through 2025

and 2038 for CO2, Hg and NOx.

The results for the Low and High Economic Growth cases for the proposed standard of each

product class are also shown in Tables EA.16 through EA.18. The differences between the reference

and sensitivity cases are due to changes in the macroeconomic assumptions of NEMS-BT.

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-20 EA-20

NEMS-BT Results Difference from AEO2005 Reference with TMY Sy

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2038 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 

AEO2005 Reference Case with TMY System LoadCO2 (Mt/a)1,3 2,283.0 2,372.0 2,624.0 2,800.0 3,024.0 3,312.0 3,493.0 3,684.0 3,812.0

NOx (kt/a)2,3 4,681.1 3,338.4 3,637.8 3,737.6 3,810.2 3,900.9 3,338.6 3,356.8 3,393.1Hg (t/a)2,3 50.7 52.7 53.7 54.7 54.2 55.6 55.0 55.8 57.8

Trial Standard Level 1 Liquid CO2 (Mt/a) 2,283.0 2,372.0 2,624.0 2,798.1 3,021.0 3,307.9 3,487.6 3,677.1 3,804.3 CO2 (Mt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.9 -3.0 -4.1 -5.4 

NOx (kt/a) 4,681.1 3,338.4 3,637.8 3,736.6 3,809.4 3,899.9 3,337.3 3,355.0 3,391.1 NOx (kt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.0 -0.8 -1.0 -1.4 Hg (t/a) 50.7 52.7 53.7 54.6 54.2 55.5 54.9 55.6 57.5 Hg (t/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 

Trial Standard Level 2 Liquid CO2 (Mt/a) 2,283.0 2,372.0 2,624.0 2,797.4 3,020.0 3,306.5 3,485.7 3,674.6 3,801.6 CO2 (Mt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -2.6 -4.0 -5.5 -7.3 

NOx (kt/a) 4,681.1 3,338.4 3,637.8 3,736.3 3,809.1 3,899.5 3,336.8 3,354.4 3,390.5 NOx (kt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.3 -1.0 -1.4 -1.8 Hg (t/a) 50.7 52.7 53.7 54.6 54.1 55.5 54.9 55.5 57.5 Hg (t/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 

Trial Standard Level 3 Liquid CO2 (Mt/a) 2,283.0 2,372.0 2,624.0 2,796.6 3,018.7 3,304.8 3,483.5 3,671.9 3,798.6 CO2 (Mt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.4 -5.3 -7.2 -9.5 

NOx (kt/a) 4,681.1 3,338.4 3,637.8 3,735.8 3,808.8 3,899.1 3,336.2 3,353.7 3,389.7 NOx (kt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.8 -1.4 -1.8 -2.4 Hg (t/a) 50.7 52.7 53.7 54.6 54.1 55.4 54.8 55.5 57.5 Hg (t/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 

Trial Standard Level 4 Liquid CO2 (Mt/a) 2,283.0 2,372.0 2,624.0 2,796.1 3,018.0 3,303.9 3,482.2 3,670.3 3,796.8 CO2 (Mt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.9 -6.0 -8.1 -10.8 

NOx (kt/a) 4,681.1 3,338.4 3,637.8 3,735.6 3,808.6 3,898.9 3,335.9 3,353.3 3,389.2 NOx (kt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -2.0 -1.5 -2.0 -2.7 Hg (t/a) 50.7 52.7 53.7 54.6 54.1 55.4 54.8 55.5 57.4 Hg (t/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 

Trial Standard Level 5 Liquid CO2 (Mt/a) 2,283.0 2,372.0 2,624.0 2,792.6 3,012.5 3,296.3 3,472.1 3,657.2 3,782.3 CO2 (Mt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -7.4 -11.5 -15.7 -20.9 

NOx (kt/a) 4,681.1 3,338.4 3,637.8 3,733.8 3,807.2 3,897.0 3,333.4 3,350.1 3,385.6 NOx (kt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.8 -3.0 -3.9 -5.2 Hg (t/a) 50.7 52.7 53.7 54.6 54.0 55.2 54.8 55.5 57.4 Hg (t/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.2 

Trial Standard Level 6 Liquid CO2 (Mt/a) 2,283.0 2,372.0 2,624.0 2,789.3 3,007.4 3,289.5 3,463.0 3,645.7 3,769.6 CO2 (Mt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -10.7 -16.6 -22.5 -30.0 

NOx (kt/a) 4,681.1 3,338.4 3,637.8 3,732.1 3,805.9 3,895.2 3,331.1 3,347.2 3,382.4 NOx (kt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -5.5 -4.3 -5.6 -7.5 Hg (t/a) 50.7 52.7 53.6 54.5 53.9 55.1 54.9 55.6 57.6 Hg (t/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -0.5 -0.1 

1Comparable to Table A17 of AEO2005: Electric Generators2Comparable to Table A8 of AEO2005: Emissions3All results in metric tons (t), equivalent to 1.1 short tons

 Ex

Table EA.11 Power Sector Emissions for Liquid-Immersed Transformer Trial Standard Levels

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-21 EA-21

NEMS-BT Results Difference from AEO2005 Reference with 

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2038 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 

AEO2005 High Reference Case with TMY System LoadCO2 (Mt/a)1,3 2,283.0 2,385.0 2,673.0 2,884.0 3,169.0 3,554.0 3,748.2 3,953.2 4,090.5

NOx (kt/a)2,3 4,681.1 3,356.6 3,674.1 3,773.9 3,864.6 3,973.5 3,400.6 3,419.0 3,456.0Hg (t/a)2,3 50.7 52.1 54.7 54.4 55.3 56.6 59.0 59.8 62.0

Liquid Immersed Trial Standard Level 2 High GrowthCO2 (Mt/a) 2,283.0 2,385.0 2,673.0 2,884.0 3,161.8 3,543.9 3,748.2 3,953.2 4,090.5 CO2 (Mt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -7.2 

NOx (kt/a) 4,681.1 3,356.6 3,674.1 3,773.9 3,862.5 3,970.3 3,400.6 3,419.0 3,456.0 NOx (kt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -2.1 Hg (t/a) 50.7 52.1 54.7 54.2 54.8 56.0 58.7 59.3 61.4 Hg (t/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 

AEO2005 Low Reference Case with TMY System LoadCO2 (Mt/a)1,3 2,283.0 2,359.0 2,573.0 2,719.0 2,887.0 3,088.0 3,256.8 3,434.8 3,554.2

NOx (kt/a)2,3 4,681.1 3,320.3 3,583.4 3,683.2 3,755.7 3,828.3 3,276.3 3,294.1 3,329.7Hg (t/a)2,3 50.7 52.5 53.2 54.4 55.6 55.9 51.3 52.0 53.9

Liquid Immersed Trial Standard Level 2 Low GrowthCO2 (Mt/a) 2,283.0 2,359.0 2,573.0 2,716.5 2,883.1 3,082.9 3,256.8 3,434.8 3,554.2 CO2 (Mt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -2.5 -3.9 

NOx (kt/a) 4,681.1 3,320.3 3,583.4 3,681.1 3,753.7 3,825.2 3,276.3 3,294.1 3,329.7 NOx (kt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -2.0 -2.1 Hg (t/a) 50.7 52.5 53.2 54.3 55.6 55.8 51.2 51.8 53.6 Hg (t/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 

1Comparable to Table A17 of AEO2005: Electric Generators2Comparable to Table A8 of AEO2005: Emissions3All results in metric tons (t), equivalent to 1.1 short tons

Table EA.12 Power Sector Emissions for Liquid-Immersed Transformer Trial Standard Levels (continue

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-22 EA-22

NEMS-BT Results Difference from AEO2005 Reference with TMY S

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2038 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 20

AEO2005 Reference Case with TMY System LoadCO2 (Mt/a)1,3 2,283.0 2,372.0 2,624.0 2,800.0 3,024.0 3,312.0 3,493.0 3,684.0 3,812.0

NOx (kt/a)2,3 4,681.1 3,338.4 3,637.8 3,737.6 3,810.2 3,900.9 3,338.6 3,356.8 3,393.1Hg (t/a)2,3 50.7 52.7 53.7 54.7 54.2 55.6 55.0 55.8 57.8

Trial Standard Level 1 MvDry CO2 (Mt/a) 2,283.0 2,372.0 2,624.0 2,799.9 3,023.9 3,311.8 3,492.7 3,683.7 3,811.6 CO2 (Mt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0

NOx (kt/a) 4,681.1 3,338.4 3,637.8 3,737.5 3,810.1 3,900.8 3,338.5 3,356.6 3,392.9 NOx (kt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0Hg (t/a) 50.7 52.7 53.7 54.7 54.2 55.6 55.0 55.7 57.8 Hg (t/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Trial Standard Level 2 MvDry CO2 (Mt/a) 2,283.0 2,372.0 2,624.0 2,799.9 3,023.8 3,311.7 3,492.6 3,683.5 3,811.4 CO2 (Mt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0

NOx (kt/a) 4,681.1 3,338.4 3,637.8 3,737.5 3,810.1 3,900.8 3,338.5 3,356.6 3,392.8 NOx (kt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0Hg (t/a) 50.7 52.7 53.7 54.7 54.2 55.6 55.0 55.7 57.8 Hg (t/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Trial Standard Level 3 MvDry CO2 (Mt/a) 2,283.0 2,372.0 2,624.0 2,799.8 3,023.7 3,311.5 3,492.4 3,683.2 3,811.2 CO2 (Mt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.5 -0

NOx (kt/a) 4,681.1 3,338.4 3,637.8 3,737.4 3,810.1 3,900.7 3,338.4 3,356.5 3,392.7 NOx (kt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 -0.2 -0Hg (t/a) 50.7 52.7 53.7 54.7 54.2 55.6 55.0 55.7 57.8 Hg (t/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Trial Standard Level 4 MvDry CO2 (Mt/a) 2,283.0 2,372.0 2,624.0 2,799.7 3,023.5 3,311.3 3,492.1 3,682.9 3,810.7 CO2 (Mt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.3 -0.5 -0.7 -0

NOx (kt/a) 4,681.1 3,338.4 3,637.8 3,737.4 3,810.0 3,900.6 3,338.3 3,356.3 3,392.5 NOx (kt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 -0.3 -0Hg (t/a) 50.7 52.7 53.7 54.7 54.2 55.6 55.0 55.7 57.8 Hg (t/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Trial Standard Level 5 MvDry CO2 (Mt/a) 2,283.0 2,372.0 2,624.0 2,799.5 3,023.2 3,310.9 3,491.5 3,682.2 3,810.0 CO2 (Mt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -0.8 -1.1 -

NOx (kt/a) 4,681.1 3,338.4 3,637.8 3,737.2 3,810.0 3,900.4 3,338.0 3,356.0 3,392.2 NOx (kt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.4 -0.2 -0.5 -0Hg (t/a) 50.7 52.7 53.7 54.7 54.2 55.6 55.0 55.7 57.8 Hg (t/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Trial Standard Level 6 MvDry CO2 (Mt/a) 2,283.0 2,372.0 2,624.0 2,799.5 3,023.2 3,310.9 3,491.5 3,682.2 3,810.0 CO2 (Mt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -0.8 -1.1 -

NOx (kt/a) 4,681.1 3,338.4 3,637.8 3,737.2 3,810.0 3,900.4 3,338.0 3,356.0 3,392.2 NOx (kt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.4 -0.2 -0.5 -0Hg (t/a) 50.7 52.7 53.7 54.7 54.2 55.6 55.0 55.7 57.8 Hg (t/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

1Comparable to Table A17 of AEO2005: Electric Generators2Comparable to Table A8 of AEO2005: Emissions3All results in metric tons (t), equivalent to 1.1 short tons

Table EA.13 Power Sector Emissions for Dry-Type, Medium-Voltage Transformer Trial Standard Levels

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-23 EA-23

NEMS-BT Results Difference from AEO2005 Reference wi

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2038 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 

AEO2005 High Reference Case with TMY System LoadCO2 (Mt/a)1,3 2,283.0 2,385.0 2,673.0 2,884.0 3,169.0 3,554.0 3,748.2 3,953.2 4,090.5

NOx (kt/a)2,3 4,681.1 3,356.6 3,674.1 3,773.9 3,864.6 3,973.5 3,400.6 3,419.0 3,456.0Hg (t/a)2,3 50.7 52.1 54.7 54.4 55.3 56.6 59.0 59.8 62.0

Dry-Type, Medium-Voltage Trial Standard Level 2 High GrowthCO2 (Mt/a) 2,283.0 2,385.0 2,673.0 2,884.0 3,168.7 3,553.5 3,747.8 3,952.6 4,089.9 CO2 (Mt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.3 

NOx (kt/a) 4,681.1 3,356.6 3,674.1 3,773.9 3,864.5 3,973.3 3,400.4 3,418.8 3,455.7 NOx (kt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 Hg (t/a) 50.7 52.1 54.7 54.4 55.3 56.6 59.0 59.8 62.0 Hg (t/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 AEO2005 Low Reference Case with TMY System LoadCO2 (Mt/a)1,3 2,283.0 2,359.0 2,573.0 2,719.0 2,887.0 3,088.0 3,256.8 3,434.8 3,554.2

NOx (kt/a)2,3 4,681.1 3,320.3 3,583.4 3,683.2 3,755.7 3,828.3 3,276.3 3,294.1 3,329.7Hg (t/a)2,3 50.7 52.5 53.2 54.4 55.6 55.9 51.3 52.0 53.9

Dry-Type, Medium-Voltage Trial Standard Level 2 Low GrowthCO2 (Mt/a) 2,283.0 2,359.0 2,573.0 2,718.9 2,886.8 3,087.8 3,256.4 3,434.3 3,553.6 CO2 (Mt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 

NOx (kt/a) 4,681.1 3,320.3 3,583.4 3,683.1 3,755.6 3,828.2 3,276.2 3,293.9 3,329.5 NOx (kt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 Hg (t/a) 50.7 52.5 53.2 54.4 55.6 55.9 51.3 52.0 53.9 Hg (t/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1Comparable to Table A17 of AEO2005: Electric Generators2Comparable to Table A8 of AEO2005: Emissions3All results in metric tons (t), equivalent to 1.1 short tons

Table EA.14 Power Sector Emissions for Dry-Type, Medium-Voltage Transformer Trial Standard Levels 

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-24 EA-24

NEMS-BT Results Difference from AEO2005 Reference with T

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2038 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 20

AEO2005 Reference Case with TMY System LoadCO2 (Mt/a)1,3 2,283.0 2,372.0 2,624.0 2,800.0 3,024.0 3,312.0 3,493.0 3,684.0 3,812.0

NOx (kt/a)2,3 4,681.1 3,338.4 3,637.8 3,737.6 3,810.2 3,900.9 3,338.6 3,356.8 3,393.1Hg (t/a)2,3 50.7 52.7 53.7 54.7 54.2 55.6 55.0 55.8 57.8

Trial Standard Level 1 LvDry CO2 (Mt/a) 2,283.0 2,372.0 2,624.0 2,791.9 3,010.9 3,293.2 3,468.4 3,653.6 3,778.5 CO2 (Mt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -8.1 -13.1 -18

NOx (kt/a) 4,681.1 3,338.4 3,637.8 3,731.4 3,806.8 3,893.2 3,328.5 3,344.3 3,379.3 NOx (kt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -6.2 -3.4 -7Hg (t/a) 50.7 52.7 53.7 54.6 53.9 55.1 54.6 55.2 57.1 Hg (t/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -0AEO2005 High Reference Case with TMY System LoadCO2 (Mt/a)1,3 2,283.0 2,385.0 2,673.0 2,884.0 3,169.0 3,554.0 3,748.2 3,953.2 4,090.5

NOx (kt/a)2,3 4,681.1 3,356.6 3,674.1 3,773.9 3,864.6 3,973.5 3,400.6 3,419.0 3,456.0Hg (t/a)2,3 50.7 52.1 54.7 54.4 55.3 56.6 59.0 59.8 62.0

Dry-Type, Low-Voltage Trial Standard Level 1 High GrowthCO2 (Mt/a) 2,283.0 2,385.0 2,673.0 2,884.0 3,148.9 3,527.1 3,722.4 3,921.2 4,055.3 CO2 (Mt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -20.1 -26

NOx (kt/a) 4,681.1 3,356.6 3,674.1 3,773.9 3,859.6 3,964.4 3,389.9 3,405.9 3,441.5 NOx (kt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -5.1 -9Hg (t/a) 50.7 52.1 54.7 54.2 54.8 56.0 58.7 59.3 61.3 Hg (t/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.5 -0AEO2005 Low Reference Case with TMY System LoadCO2 (Mt/a)1,3 2,283.0 2,359.0 2,573.0 2,719.0 2,887.0 3,088.0 3,256.8 3,434.8 3,554.2

NOx (kt/a)2,3 4,681.1 3,320.3 3,583.4 3,683.2 3,755.7 3,828.3 3,276.3 3,294.1 3,329.7Hg (t/a)2,3 50.7 52.5 53.2 54.4 55.6 55.9 51.3 52.0 53.9

Dry-Type, Low-Voltage Trial Standard Level 1 Low GrowthCO2 (Mt/a) 2,283.0 2,359.0 2,573.0 2,711.2 2,875.8 3,073.4 3,233.4 3,405.9 3,522.3 CO2 (Mt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -7.8 -11.2 -14

NOx (kt/a) 4,681.1 3,320.3 3,583.4 3,676.9 3,748.8 3,818.5 3,266.7 3,282.2 3,316.6 NOx (kt/a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -6.3 -6.9 -9Hg (t/a) 50.7 52.5 53.2 54.3 55.5 55.7 50.9 51.5 53.1 Hg (t/a) 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0

1Comparable to Table A17 of AEO2005: Electric Generators2Comparable to Table A8 of AEO2005: Emissions3All results in metric tons (t), equivalent to 1.1 short tons

Table EA.15 Power Sector Emissions for Dry-Type, Low-Voltage Transformer Trial Standard Levels

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-25

NEMS-BT Results

Cumulative 

2000-2025

Cumulative 

2000-2038

2000-2025 2000-2038

Trial Standard Level 1 Liquid 

CO2 (Mt/a) -37.9 -117.4

NOx (kt/a) -11.7 -31.7

Hg (t/a) -0.7 -2.9

Trial Standard Level 2 Liquid 

CO2 (Mt/a) -50.7 -158.2

NOx (kt/a) -15.7 -42.7

Hg (t/a) -1.0 -3.5

Trial Standard Level 3 Liquid 

CO2 (Mt/a) -66.5 -205.4

NOx (kt/a) -20.6 -55.5

Hg (t/a) -1.3 -4.1

Trial Standard Level 4 Liquid 

CO2 (Mt/a) -75.2 -232.8

NOx (kt/a) -23.3 -62.8

Hg (t/a) -1.4 -4.5

Trial Standard Level 5 Liquid 

CO2 (Mt/a) -144.8 -451.2

NOx (kt/a) -44.9 -121.7

Hg (t/a) -2.7 -5.8

Trial Standard Level 6 Liquid 

CO2 (Mt/a) -208.7 -647.6

NOx (kt/a) -64.7 -174.8

Hg (t/a) -4.0 -5.9

Liquid Immersed Trial Standard Level 2 High Growth

CO2 (Mt/a) -56.8 -56.8

NOx (kt/a) -20.4 -20.4

Hg (t/a) -1.9 -4.3

Liquid Immersed Trial Standard Level 2 Low Growth

CO2 (Mt/a) -48.7 -48.7

NOx (kt/a) -35.2 -35.2

Hg (t/a) -0.8 -3.0

1

Comparable to Table A17 of AEO2005: Electric Generators

2

Comparable to Table A8 of AEO2005: Emissions

3

All results in metric tons (t), equivalent to 1.1 short tons

Table EA.16 Cumulative Power Sector Emissions Impacts for Liquid-Immersed

Transformers

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-26

NEMS-BT Results

Cumulative 

2000-2025

Cumulative 

2000-2038

Trial Standard Level 1 LvDry 

CO2 (Mt/a) -166.6 -519.6

NOx (kt/a) -69.4 -214.5

Hg (t/a) -3.5 -9.7

Dry-Type, Low-Voltage Trial Standard Level 1 High Growth

CO2 (Mt/a) -158.9 -529.5

NOx (kt/a) -56.1 -208.5

Hg (t/a) -5.1 -11.0

Dry-Type, Low-Voltage Trial Standard Level 1 Low Growth

CO2 (Mt/a) -143.5 -478.8

NOx (kt/a) -106.7 -244.6

Hg (t/a) -2.2 -8.6

1

Comparable to Table A17 of AEO2005: Electric Generators

2

Comparable to Table A8 of AEO2005: Emissions

3

All results in metric tons (t), equivalent to 1.1 short tons

Table EA.17 Cumulative Power Sector Emissions Impacts for Dry-Type, Low-Voltage

Transformers

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-27

NEMS-BT Results

Cumulative 

2000-2025

Cumulative 

2000-2035

2000-2025 2000-2038

Trial Standard Level 1 MvDry 

CO2 (Mt/a) -1.8 -5.6

NOx (kt/a) -0.7 -2.3

Hg (t/a) 0.0 -0.1

Trial Standard Level 2 MvDry 

CO2 (Mt/a) -2.8 -8.9

NOx (kt/a) -1.2 -3.7

Hg (t/a) -0.1 -0.2

Trial Standard Level 3 MvDry 

CO2 (Mt/a) -4.1 -12.8

NOx (kt/a) -1.7 -5.3

Hg (t/a) -0.1 -0.2

Trial Standard Level 4 MvDry 

CO2 (Mt/a) -6.3 -19.5

NOx (kt/a) -2.6 -8.1

Hg (t/a) -0.1 -0.4

Trial Standard Level 5 MvDry 

CO2 (Mt/a) -10.0 -31.2

NOx (kt/a) -4.2 -12.9

Hg (t/a) -0.2 -0.6

Trial Standard Level 6 MvDry 

CO2 (Mt/a) -10.0 -31.2

NOx (kt/a) -4.2 -12.9

Hg (t/a) -0.2 -0.6

Dry-Type, Medium-Voltage Trial Standard Level 2 High Growth

CO2 (Mt/a) -2.7 -9.0

NOx (kt/a) -1.0 -3.6

Hg (t/a) -0.1 -0.2

Dry-Type, Medium-Voltage Trial Standard Level 2 Low Growth

CO2 (Mt/a) -2.5 -8.2

NOx (kt/a) -1.8 -4.2

Hg (t/a) 0.0 -0.1

1

Comparable to Table A17 of AEO2005: Electric Generators

2

Comparable to Table A8 of AEO2005: Emissions

3

All results in metric tons (t), equivalent to 1.1 short tons

Table EA.18 Cumulative Power Sector Emissions Impacts for Dry-Type, Medium-Voltage

Transformers

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-28

5.1.2 Discounted Emissions

In the ANOPR, the Department stated that, for its NOPR analysis, it would calculate

discounted values for future emissions (or reduced emissions allowance demand in a cap and

trade emissions scenario). 69 FR 45376. Accordingly, the Department here presents its results

for discounted emissions of CO2, Hg and NOx. The Department used the same discount rates

that it used in calculating the net present value (NPV)—seven percent and three percent real—to

calculate discounted cumulative emission reductions. As described in Chapter 10, DOE used the

seven-percent and three-percent real discount rates in accordance with the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) guidelines on regulatory analysis.8 Table EA.19 shows the discounted

cumulative emissions impacts for both liquid-immersed and dry-type, medium-voltage

transformers.

 The seven-percent and three-percent real discount rate values are meant to capture the

present value of costs and benefits associated with projects facing an average degree of risk. 

Other discount rates may be more applicable to discount costs and benefits associated with

projects facing different risks and uncertainties. (For example, see Lind et. al 1982.9

) 

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-29

Table EA.19 Discounted Cumulative Emissions Impacts, Liquid-Immersed and Dry-Type,

Medium-Voltage Transformers

Liquid-Immersed Dry-Type, Medium-Voltage

Cumulative

2000-2038

 3% discount

Cumulative

2000-2038

 7% discount

Cumulative

2000-2038

 3% discount

Cumulative

2000-2038

 7% discount

TSL

1

CO2 (Mt) -58.2 -25.3 -2.8 -1.2

NOx (kt) -16.3 -7.5 -1.2 -0.5

Hg (t) -1.37 -0.56 -0.05 -0.02

TSL

2

CO2 (Mt) -78.4 -34.0 -4.4 -1.9

NOx (kt) -21.9 -10.1 -1.8 -0.8

Hg (t) -1.67 -0.69 -0.08 -0.04

TSL

3

CO2 (Mt) -101.9 -44.3 -6.4 -2.8

NOx (kt) -28.6 -13.2 -2.7 -1.2

Hg (t) -2.00 -0.84 -0.12 -0.05

TSL

4

CO2 (Mt) -115.5 -50.1 -9.7 -4.2

NOx (kt) -32.4 -15.0 -4.0 -1.8

Hg (t) -2.20 -0.93 -0.18 -0.08

TSL

5

CO2 (Mt) -223.5 -96.9 -15.5 -6.7

NOx (kt) -62.6 -28.9 -6.5 -2.9

Hg (t) -3.01 -1.38 -0.29 -0.12

TSL

6

CO2 (Mt) -321.1 -139.4 -15.5 -6.7

NOx (kt) -90.0 -41.6 -6.5 -2.9

Hg (t) -3.26 -1.62 -0.29 -0.12

5.1.3 Fuel-Cycle Emissions

As discussed earlier, fuel-cycle emissions refer to the emissions associated with the

amount of fuel used in the upstream production of electricity and downstream consumption of

electricity, including energy used at the power plant. The amount of energy used to perform the

upstream processes, such as natural gas production, is not linked to the downstream consumption

of electricity attributed to natural gas. For this reason, changes in upstream emissions due to

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-30

proposed standards are not counted in NEMS-BT. Although the Department does not report

actual estimates of the effects of standards on upstream emissions, the emissions factors

described here provide the reader with a sense of the possible magnitude of the effects. 

Estimates of upstream emissions for CO2 and NOx are taken from a study in 1993 by

Mark A. DeLuchi (sometimes spelled DeLucci), Ph. D., at Argonne National Laboratory. Dr.

DeLuchi provides estimates of full fuel-cycle emissions factors for CO2, CH4, carbon monoxide

(CO), non-methane organic compounds (NMOC), and NOx from coal and natural gas

production.10 The emission factor for SO2 is taken from the EPA Report AP-42, Compilation of

Air Pollutant Emission Factors.

11 The EPA AP-42 report notes that coal-cleaning is the primary

source for upstream SO2 emissions from coal production, so the emission factor for SO2 reflects

only the coal-cleaning process. Transportation of coal is not addressed in EPA’s study.

Emission factor estimates and corresponding percentages of contributions of upstream

emissions from coal and natural gas production, relative to power plant emissions, are shown in

Table EA.20 for CO2, SO2, and NOx. The percentage relative to power plant emissions provides

a means to estimate upstream emission savings based on the savings from the power plant. The

values shown in Table EA.20 represent emissions from upstream processes as mass (g) per

deliverable energy to end-use consumers, in gigajoules (GJ).

Table EA.20 Estimated Upstream Emission Factors and Corresponding Percentages of

Direct Power Plant Combustion Emissions

Coal Natural Gas

Emission

Factor (g/GJ)

% of Combustion

Emissions

Emission Factor 

(g/GJ)

% of Combustion

Emissions

CO2 8,147 2.7 20,000 11.9

SO2 29.2 0.9 0 0

NOx 41.7 5.8 153 40

Relative to the entire fuel cycle, Dr. DeLuchi estimates that approximately eight percent,

by mass, of emissions from coal production are due to mining, preparation that includes cleaning

the coal, and transportation from the mine to the power plant. Transportation emissions include

emissions from the fuel used by the mode of transportation that moves the coal from the mine to

the power plant. Also, Dr. DeLuchi estimates that approximately 14 percent of emissions from

natural gas production result from upstream processes. In view of Table EA.20, this higher loss

factor in natural gas production, compared to the emissions factor for coal, is likely due to the

higher NOx contribution. In sum, emissions factors relative to power plant emissions are a

relatively small proportion of the energy losses attributable to upstream processes. With the

exception of NOx emissions from natural gas production, upstream emissions are less than 12

percent of power plant emissions.

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
a

 Small Business Administration -http://www.sba.gov/gopher/Financial-Assistance/Defin/defi4.txt (06/24/05)

EA-31

5.2 Wetlands / Endangered and Threatened Species / Cultural Resources

The Department’s proposed action is not site-specific, nor would it impact land

disturbance or use due to distribution transformer placement. Therefore, this action is not

expected to affect the quality of wetlands, or threatened or endangered species. Further, this

action is not expected to impact cultural resources such as historical or archaeological sites. 

5.3 Socioeconomic Impacts 

The Department's analysis has shown that the increase in the first cost of purchasing a

more efficient distribution transformer at the proposed and alternative standard levels is offset by

a reduction in the LCC of owning a more efficient piece of equipment. Although the proposed

and alternative standards increase the first cost, the standard levels result in a decrease in LCC

(due to reduced energy costs) for many consumers. The precise change in LCC varies by

standard level, size, class of transformer, and type of customer. At the proposed standard level,

at least 83.2 percent of consumers realize LCC savings. For a complete discussion of the LCC

impacts on consumers, see Chapter 8 of the TSD

5.4 Environmental Justice Impacts 

According to Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994, “Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” DOE is required

to examine the effect of more stringent energy-efficiency standards on (1) small businesses that

either manufacture or use distribution transformers, (2) manufacturers of niche products related

to distribution transformers, and (3) small businesses operated by disadvantaged or minority

populations.

Regarding users of distribution transformers, small businesses are included as part of the

overall population examined by the Department in the LCC analysis. The results of that analysis

estimated that between 26 and 61 percent of distribution transformer customers would

experience positive economic impacts from the proposed standard. 

Small distribution transformer manufacturing enterprises, as defined by the Small

Business Administration, are those with no more than 750 employees.a

 The Department

identified and interviewed six small manufacturers of distribution transformers, five of which

produce medium-voltage, dry-type transformers and one of which produces liquid-immersed

transformers. Because the liquid-immersed distribution transformer industry largely produces

customized transformers, small businesses can compete because each unique design is produced

in relatively small volumes for a given order. Implementation of an energy conservation

standard would have a relatively minor differential impact on small manufacturers of liquidimmersed distribution transformers. 

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-32

Because of the potential impacts of a standard on manufacturers of the medium-voltage,

dry-type superclass, DOE determined that it cannot certify that the proposed rule (TSL2), if

promulgated, would have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Because DOE cannot certify this, due to the potential impacts on medium-voltage, drytype manufacturers, it prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for this

rulemaking, which can be found in section VI.B of the NOPR. For additional information on

this subject, see also section V.B.2.b of the NOPR and the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA)

in Chapter 12 of the TSD.

The Department did not conduct a separate analysis to assess the impacts of a new

standard on niche product manufacturers because it found no niche products for which the

adoption of a new standard would raise special considerations.

The Department's LCC subgroup analysis (TSD Chapter 11) did not include small or

disadvantaged businesses or populations as a subgroup. However, the Department believes that

there are no disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on small

businesses, minority populations, and low-income populations resulting from more stringent

energy-efficiency standards. Positive impacts, such as decreased air emissions, would be equally

shared among all populations.

The MIA (TSD Chapter 12), and the regulatory impact analysis (published with the TSD)

examined impacts on various business populations. However, the Department received no data

concerning differential impacts on businesses owned by minority or disadvantaged populations. 

The Department requests comment on this issue.

5.5 Energy Consumption Impacts

The proposed standard levels for distribution transformers (TSL 2 for liquid-immersed

and TSL 2 for medium-voltage, dry-type) would result in the national energy savings shown in

Table EA.21. Energy savings for the other five TSLs (TSLs 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6) are also provided.

Table EA.21 Cumulative Energy Savings from Standards

TSL 1

quads

TSL 2

quads

TSL 3

quads

TSL 4

quads

TSL 5

quads

TSL 6

quads

From 2010 to 2038 1.77 2.39 3.15 3.63 6.90 9.77

5.6 Noise and Aesthetics

The proposed action is not likely to affect the sound power levels or sound quality levels

associated with distribution transformers. Transformers have no moving parts but do often emit

a buzz associated with 60-Hz alternating current. The Department’s proposed standard is not

expected to materially affect the noise of transformers. Higher-efficiency transformers tend to

be larger; however, the efficiencies selected by the Department will not result in significant

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-33

changes in transformer size nor in any other aesthetic feature. In sum, the noise and aesthetics of

the more efficient distribution transformers covered under this EA would be virtually no

different from equipment being installed today.

5.7 Summary of Environmental Impacts

Tables EA.22 to EA.24 provide a summary of the analysis results by superclass to aid the

reader in the discussion of the benefits and burdens for the different TSLs as well as the noaction alternative.

Table EA.22 Summary of the Analysis Results for Liquid-Immersed Transformers

No

Action

Trial Standard Level

1

2

(Proposed

Action)

345 6

Cumulative Emission Reductions*

 CO2 Equivalent (Mt) 0.0 117.4 158.2 205.4 232.8 451.2 647.6

 NOx (kt) 0.0 31.7 42.7 55.5 62.8 121.7 174.8

 Hg (t) 0.0 2.9 3.5 4.1 4.5 5.8 5.9

Cumulative Primary Energy Saved

(Quads)* 0.0 1.70 2.28 2.99 3.38 6.51 9.38

Socioeconomic Impacts – All

Consumers

Transformers with positive

LCC (%) based on underlying

DLs 

NA 95.1 to

99.8

83.2 to

98.6

47.2 to

94.8

60.1 to

91.4

33.7 to

56.1

1.1 to

42.8

Payback periods (years), based

on underlying DLs NA 1.4 to

11.4 4.3 to 21.9 8.8 to

36.0

12.0 to

19.8

24.4 to

31.7

26.1 to

66.6

Environmental Justice Impacts None None None None None None None

Wetlands/Endangered and

Threatened Species/Cultural

Resources Impacts

None None None None None None None

Fuel-Cycle (Upstream) Emissions

Impacts None **   **  ** **

Noise and Aesthetics Impacts None None None None None None None

* Cumulative total is over a time period starting in 2010 and ending in 2038.

** DOE does not report actual estimates of the effects of standards on upstream emissions, but section 5.1.2 above

provides a sense of the possible magnitude of effects.

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-34

Table EA.23 Summary of the Analysis Results for Dry-Type, Low-Voltage Transformers 

No Action 

Trial Standard Level

1

Cumulative Emission Reductions*

 CO2 Equivalent (Mt) 0.0 519.6

 NOx (kt) 0.0 214.5

 Hg (t) 0.0 9.7

Cumulative Primary Energy Saved (Quads)* 0.0 6.76

Socioeconomic Impacts – All Consumers

Transformers with positive LCC (%) based on

underlying DLs NA 99.1 to 99.6

Payback periods (years), based on underlying DLs NA 0.8 to 1.8

Environmental Justice Impacts None None

Wetlands/Endangered and Threatened Species/Cultural

Resources Impacts None None

Fuel-Cycle (Upstream) Emissions Impacts None **

Noise and Aesthetics Impacts None None

* Cumulative total is over a time period starting in 2010 and ending in 2038.

** DOE does not report actual estimates of the effects of standards on upstream emissions, but section 5.1.2 above

provides a sense of the possible magnitude of effects.

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-35

Table EA.24 Summary of the Analysis Results for Dry-Type, Medium-Voltage

Transformers 

No

Action 

Trial Standard Level

1

2

(Proposed

Action)

3 4 56

Cumulative Emission Reductions*

 CO2 Equivalent (Mt) 0.0 5.7 9.1 13.1 19.9 31.9 31.9

 NOx (kt) 0.0 2.4 3.7 5.4 8.2 13.2 13.2

 Hg (t) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6

Cumulative Primary Energy Saved

(Quads)* 0.0 0.07 0.11 0.16 0.25 0.39 0.39

Socioeconomic Impacts – All

Consumers

Transformers with positive LCC

(%) based on underlying DLs NA 96.2 to

99.7

94.7 to

98.9

94.2 to

95.6

57.4 to

81.8

24.2 to

65.8

24.3 to

66.8

Payback periods (years), based on

underlying DLs NA 1.5 to 9.7 2.4 to 8.3 5.4 to

10.0

11.8 to

19.5

15.1 to

32.5

14.8 to

32.4

Environmental Justice Impacts None None None None None None None

Wetlands/Endangered and Threatened

Species/Cultural Resources Impacts None None None None None None None

Fuel-Cycle (Upstream) Emissions

Impacts None **   **  ** **

Noise and Aesthetics Impacts None None None None None None None

* Cumulative total is over a time period starting in 2010 and ending in 2038.

** DOE does not report actual estimates of the effects of standards on upstream emissions, but section 5.1.2 above

provides a sense of the possible magnitude of effects.

The Department has proposed energy-efficiency standards for distribution transformers at

TSL 2. The proposed standards would apply to all covered products offered for sale in the

United States and its Territories, with a compliance date of January 1, 2010. The justification for

selecting the proposed action, adopting TSL 2 over the other TSLs considered, is fully explained

in the NOPR. The NOPR is available on the internet at: 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/distribution_transformer

s.html under “NOPR.”

In addition to reducing the secondary energy lost in the distribution transformers

themselves, the proposed standards would save even more energy at the electric power plant

source, where less primary energy (e.g., oil, coal, or natural gas) directly attributable to the

losses from distribution transformers would be burned. Burning less oil, coal, or natural gas

reduces greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants, creating a cleaner environment. 

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-36

In the 28-year period after the new standards become effective, the Nation will save

about 2.39 quadrillion British thermal units (quads) of primary energy. The 2.39 quads are

equivalent to saving twice the combined primary electrical energy consumption in 2001 by all

households in both New York and California. Additionally, these energy savings would

significantly reduce emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with electricity

production, by 158.2 Mt of CO2, 42.7 kt of NOx and 3.5 t of Hg from liquid-immersed TSL 2. 

With cap and trade emissions controls on NOx and Hg, these emissions reductions will manifest

as a reduction of demand for emissions allowances in the corresponding cap and trade emissions

markets. Furthermore, the proposed standards would eliminate the need for construction of

roughly 11 new 400-megawatt (MW) power plants by 2038. 

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-37

REFERENCES

1. Barnes, P. R., J. W. Van Dyke, B. W. McConnell, and S. Das. Determination Analysis of

Energy Conservation Standards for Distribution Transformers. 1996. Oak Ridge

National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, TN. Report No. ORNL-6847. 

2. Barnes, P. R., S. Das, B. W. McConnell, and J. W. Van Dyke. Supplement to the

"Determination Analysis" (ORNL-6847) and Analysis of the NEMA Efficiency Standards

for Distribution Transformers. 1997. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, TN.

Report No. ORNL-6925. 

3. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. NEMA Standards Publication TP 1-1996;

Guide for Determining Energy Efficiency for Distribution Transformers. 1996. National

Electrical Manufacturers Association. Rosslyn, VA. Report No. TP 1-1996. 

4. U.S. Department of Energy-Office of Building Technologies. Technical Support

Document: Energy Conservation Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment:

Electrical Distribution Transformers - ANOPR Version. 2004. U.S. Department of

Energy. Washington, DC. Report No. LBNL-53985.

<http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/dist_trans_tsd_

061404.html>

5. U.S. Department of Energy-Office of Building Technologies. Technical Support

Document: Energy Conservation Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment:

Electrical Distribution Transformers - NOPR Version. 2005. U.S. Department of Energy.

Washington, DC.

<http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/distribution_tra

nsformers.html>

6. U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy

Outlook 2005: With Projections Through 2025. January, 2005. Washington, DC. Report

No. DOE/EIA-0383(2005). <http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html>

7. U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration. Emissions of

Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2003. December, 2004. Washington, DC. Report

No. DOE/EIA-0573(2004). <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/prices.html>

8. U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis. 2003. (Last

accessed March 25, 2005.) This material is available in Docket #86. Contact Ms.

Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program,

Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121,

telephone (202) 586-2945 for more information.

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf>

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92
EA-38

9. Lind, R. C., K. J. Arrow, G. R. Corey, P. Dasgupta, A. K. Sen, T. Stauffer, J. E. Stiglitz,

J. a. Stockfisch, and R. Wilson. Discounting for Time and Risk in Energy Policy. 1982.

Resources for the Future: Washington, D.C. pp. 62-63.

10. DeLuchi, M. A. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from the Use of Transportation Fuels

and Electricity, Volume 2: Appendixes A-S. November, 1993. Argonne National

Laboratory. Argonne, IL. Report No. ANL/ESD/TM-22-Vol.2. 

11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,

AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume 1 - Chapter 3: Stationary Internal Combustion Engines.

(Last accessed July 25, 2005.) This material is available in Docket #86. Contact Ms.

Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program,

Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121,

telephone (202) 586-2945 for more information.

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/index.html>

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 92