### The attached document, issued on May 29, 2012, provides a supplemental analysis to be

addressed during the public meeting concerning the DOE’s notice of proposed rulemaking: Energy Conservation Standards for Distribution Transformers, a rulemaking action issued by the DOE. Though it is not intended or expected, should any discrepancy occur between the Notice o f

P ublic Meeting and Supplemental Analysis and the document herein, the Federal Register publi cation controls, including any documents or analysis to which it refers. This document is being made available solely as a means to facilitate the public's access to this document.1

- A

- i 

### APPENDIX 1

- A. SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTAL POST -N OTICE OF PROPOSED

RULEMAKING ANALYSES FOR DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS

TABLE OF CO NTENTS

1- A.1 INTRODUCTION

................................................................................................. 1-A-1

1- A.2 BACKGROUND

................................................................................................... 1-A-2

1- A.3 REVISED EQUIPMENT CL ASSES

.................................................................... 1-A-3

1-A.3.1 Summary of Design Line Coverage ....................................................................... 1-A-5

1-A.3.2 Proposed Equipment Class 1A and 2A for Pad-mounted Distribution

Transformers

.......................................................................................................... 1-A-6

1-A.3.3 Proposed Equipment Class 1B and 2B for Pole-mounted Distribution

Transformers

.......................................................................................................... 1-A-7

1-A.3.4 Potential Equipment Class 2C for Network/Vault Distribution Transformers ...... 1-A-8

1-A.3.5 Potential Equipment Class 2D for Distribution Transformers with ≥ 200 kV

BIL

......................................................................................................................... 1-A-9

1- A.4 REVISED TRIAL STANDA RD LEVELS

........................................................... 1-A-9

1- A.5 ADDITIONAL LIFE

- CYCLE COST AND PAYBA CK PERIOD RESULTS

.. 1-A- 10

1-A.5.6 Design Line 1 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results

............................... 1-A-11

1-A.5.7 Design Line 2 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results

............................... 1-A-12

1-A.5.8 Design Line 3 Lif e- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results

............................... 1-A-13

1-A.5.9 Design Line 4 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results

............................... 1-A-14

1- A.5.10 Design Line 5 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results

............................... 1-A-15

1- A.6 ADDITIONAL NATIONAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS RESULTS

...................... 1-A-16

1-A.6.11 Summary National Impact Analysis Results

....................................................... 1-A-17

1-A.6.12 Summary National Impact Analysis Results for Single

- phase Liquid

immersed Distribution Transformers

................................................................... 1-A-17

1-A.6.13 Summary National Impact Analysis Results for Three

- phase Liquid

- immersed

Distribution Transformers .................................................................................... 1-A-19

1- A.7 REQUEST FOR COMMENT

............................................................................. 1-A- 20

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 -A.3.1 Equipment Classes for Liquid- immersed Distribution Transformers

Presented in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ...................................... 1-A-5

Table 1 -A.5.1 Potential Equipment Class 1A and 2A for Pad-mounted Distribution

Transformers .............................................................................................. 1-A-6

Table 1 -A.6.1 Potential Equipment Class 1B for single -phase pole mounted

distribution transformers ............................................................................ 1-A-7

Table 1 -A.6.2 Summary of Weight for Pole-mounted Design Lines by Efficiency Level (lbs) .................................................................................................. 1-A-8

Table 1 -A.6.3 Summary of Relative Weight Changes from the Base Case for Pole

mounted Design- lines by Efficiency Level (%) ......................................... 1-A-81

- A

- ii 

### Table 1 -A.9.1 Notice of ProposedRulemaking Trial Standard Levels for LiquidImmersed Distribution Transformers ....................................................... 1-A- 10

Table 1 -A.9.2 Notice of Public Meeting Trial Standard Level for Liquid

- immersed

Distribution Transformers ........................................................................ 1-A- 10

Table 1

- A.10.1 Summary Life

- Cycle Cost Results for Design Line 1 Representative

Unit .......................................................................................................... 1-A-11

Table 1

- A.10.2 Summary Payback Period Results for Design Line 1 Representative

Unit .......................................................................................................... 1-A-12

Table 1

- A.10.3 Summary Life

- Cycle Cost Results for Design Line 2 Representative

Unit .......................................................................................................... 1-A-12

Table 1

- A.10.4 Summary Payback Period Results for Design Line 2 Representative

Unit .......................................................................................................... 1-A-13

Table 1

- A.10.5 Summary Life

- Cycle Cost Results for Design Line 3 Representative

Unit .......................................................................................................... 1-A-13

Table 1

- A.10.6 Summary Payback Period Results for Design Line 3 Representative

Unit .......................................................................................................... 1-A-14

Table 1

- A.10.7 Summary Life

- Cycle Cost Results for Design Line 4 Representative

Unit .......................................................................................................... 1-A-14

Table 1

- A.10.8 Summary Payback Period Results for Design Line 4 Representative

Unit .......................................................................................................... 1-A-15

Table 1

- A.10.9 Summary Life

- Cycle Cost Results for Design Line 5 Representative

Unit .......................................................................................................... 1-A-15

Table 1

- A.10.10 Summary Payback Period Results for Design Line 5 Representative

Unit .......................................................................................................... 1-A-16

Table 1 -A.12.1 National Impact Analysis Results for Liquid

- immersed Transformers ... 1-A-17

Table 1 -A.13.1 Results for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Equipment Class 1 ............ 1-A-17

Table 1 -A.13.2 Results for Notice of Public Meeting Equipment Class 1A

– Pad

mounted Distribution Transformers ......................................................... 1-A-18

Table 1 -A.13.3 Results for Notice of Pubic Meeting Equipment Class 1B – Polemounted Distribution Transformer .......................................................... 1-A-18

Table 1 -A.14.1 Results for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Equipment Class 2 ............ 1-A-19

Table 1 -A.14.2 Results for Notice of Public Meeting Equipment Class 2B

– Pad

mounted Transformers ............................................................................. 1-A-19

Table 1 -A.14.3 Results for Notice of Public Meeting Equipment Class 2B – Polemounted Distribution Transformers ......................................................... 1-A- 20

Table 1 -A.15.1 Estimated Shipments of Liquid -Immersed, Medium- Voltage Transformers, 2009 .................................................................................. 1-A- 20

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 -A.4.1 Liquid- Immersed Design Lines and Representative Units ........................ 1-A-61

- A

- 1 

### APPENDIX 1

- A. SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTAL POST -N OTICE OF PROPOSED

RULEMAKING ANALYSES FOR DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS

1- A.1 INTRODUCTION

Sec tion 6295(o)(2)(A) of 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to set forth energy conservation standards that are technologically feasible and economically justified, and would achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency. This chapter provides a description of the analysis performed following DOE’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) of February10, 2011. a



### http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/distribution_transforme

rs.html This supplementary analysis builds upon of DOE’s NOPR analysis, available on the Distribution Transformers rulemaking webpage:

. DOE announced the availability of this analysis in its notice of public meeting issued May 29, 2012.

In the NOPR and at the public meeting of February 23, 2012, DOE asked for comment on whether certain types of liquid- immersed distribution transformers that are currently part of the same equipment classes warranted separation into distinct equipment classes. Fo r ex ample, poleand pad- mounted transformers are in the same equipment class and DOE asked for comment on whether they would be more appropriately evaluated as separate equipment classes.

A number of interested parties submitted written comment s supporting an approach that separated pole- and pad -mounted liquid- immersed distribution transformers into separate equipment classes. Furthermore, many interested parties also urged DOE to consider separate equipment classes for network and vault distribution transf ormers, as well as those with basic impulse level ( BIL ) ratings above 200 kV.

In light of these comments, DOE decided to supplement its NOPR analysis to include

several new t rial standard l evels (TSLs) , which consider additional standards scenarios that represent the separate equipment classes that were supported by comments from several interested parties. The new TSLs, lettered “A” through “C

, ” contain separate standards for pole

and pad-mounted distribution transformers, and also incorporate the separation of network- and

vault- based distribution transformers and distribution transformers with BIL ratings 200 kV and above into separate equipment classes. The new TSLs relate only to liquid

- immersed distribution

transformers. No modifications have been made to the dry- type distribution transformers analysis for the purposes of this notice and the public meeting of June 20, 2012.

Furthermore, DOE used these TSLs to supplement certain NOPR analyses, including the

l ife

- cycle cost and p ayback period a nalysis and provide interested parties with a perspective on

a 77 FR 7282.1

- A

- 2 

### how separate equipment classes may alter the analytical results presented with the NOPR . This information, as well as the analytical tools from the NOPR, is available on DOE’s distribution

transf ormer rulemaking website, located at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/distribution_transforme

rs.html

.

1- A.2 BAC KGROUND

Since 1997, when DOE initiated the rulemaking process for distribution transformers, DOE has conducted numerous, rigorous analyses, while maintaining a robust public involvement process. For example, as outlined in the February 10, 2011, NOPR, beyo nd utilizing notice and comment rulemaking, DOE has held many public meeting and webinars. DOE has extensively

documented these efforts on its website at:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/distribution_tra

nsformers.html

.

In addition, DOE engaged a broad array of interested parties in negotiations of its proposed standards for the energy efficiency of distributi on transformers through establishment

of a subcommittee under the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Advisory Committee (ERAC), in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act . 77 FR 7792 -7793. The subcommittee negotiated about three types of

distribution transformers: low -voltage dry-type; medium-voltage dry-type; and medium-voltage liquid

- immersed. While there was a consensus on medium- voltage dry -type distribution transformers, for the other two types, there was no consensus, though considerable data was generated during these discussions for use in the current supplemental analyses. Of these three, however, this TSD focuses upon and medium-voltage liquid- immersed distribution transformers,

as further detailed below. b



### Based on the negotiation process and additional public comment, DOE issued its NOPR. In the NOPR DOE presented analysis based on a certain equipment class structure, in which liquid -immersed distribution transformers were distinguished only by their phase count and kVA rating. The new equipment class structure further distinguishes these transformers by tank type, with separate consideration for liquid-immersed distribution transformers with tanks designed for network use or mounting on pads, poles, or in vaults.

DOE received numerous comments regarding the NOPR. Of importance to the current supplemental analysis was DOE’s question number 12 regarding whether “separate equipment classes (EC) are warranted for pole -mounted, pad-mounted or other types of liquid- immer sed

b Transcripts of the subcommittee meetings, the names of the participants, and all data and materials presented at the subcommittee meetings are available at the DOE website at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/ distribution_transformers.html

.1

- A

- 3 

### transformers.” 77 FR at 7378. A coalition of interested parties (Advocates) c 

### i n their NOPR

comments of 4/10/12

, implied that DOE should consider: ( 1 ) separate EC s for pad- and polemounted equipment at EL 1.5 (pads) and EL 0.5 (pol es ) ( Id . at p. 13); and (2) urged DOE to

examine a new trial standard level (TSL) 3.5, which would “correspond to efficiency level (EL)

1.5” for all medium

- voltage liquid

- immersed (MVLI) transformer classes (Id. at p. 9)

. Furthermore, Advocates joined these issues by stating “if DOE were to set a standard at the levels we suggest (modified TSL 4)” (e.g., a new TSL 3.5) “then we would be open to establishing a separate class product class for pole -mounted transformers” ( Id . at p. 13). Other interested parties, including the Edison Electric Institute and National Electrical Manufacturers Association, support the concept of creating new ECs for polls and pads, but do not want resolution of this issue to delay issuance of the final rule beyond the 10/01/12 deadline. In addition their support is contingent on their ability to “evaluate” the proposal. d



### Following publication of the NOPR , DOE began analyzing the comments, including those raised by the Advocates and others. In light of these comments taken as a whole, DOE

presents a supplemental analysis and is providing additional time for notice and comment on the

issues discussed in this TSD.

1- A.3 REVISED EQUIPMENT CL ASSES

DOE divides covered equipment into classes by: (a) the type of energy used; (b) the capacity; or (c) any performance

- related features that affect consumer utility or efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) Different energy efficiency standards may apply to different equipment classes. In this document DOE presents an expansion of the 10 equipment classes in the NOPR analysis to 14 equipment classes and increase in the TSLs considered in the NOPR from 7 to 10, as explained in detail in section 1-A.4 below . First, this supplemental analysis expands the equipment classes by dividing the population of distribution transformers according to:

a) Type of transformer insulation - liquid -immersed or dry-type, b) Number of phases - single or three, c) Voltage class

- low or medium (fo r dry -type units only), d) Basic impulse insulation (BIL) level (for medium-voltage, dry- type and liquid

- immersed and units only) and e) Tank type: pad, pole, network/vault (for liquid-immersed units only).

DOE understands that distribution transformers may be manufactured with a wide variety of tank types, depending on the specific requirements of their purchasers. The tanks provide different utility to the consumer in the form of protection and containment, and also affect the

c The individual members of this coalition include American Council for an Energy

- Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), Nati o nal Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Northwest Power Conservation Council (NPCC). Docket c omment No 186

d EEI sought to review such ELs for technical and economic feasibility and questioned whether this could be better accomplished in a new rulemaking

. NEMA said that if DOE decides to raise the levels higher, the notion of separate

classes “will need to be studied and evaluated.”1

- A

- 4 

### ability of a distribution transformer to be made more efficient. For these reasons, DOE is considering establishing equipment classes by tank type.

“Pole -mounted” transformers e 

### are designed for mounting on vertical poles and out of easy reach. Relative to other distribution transformer types, pole- mounted transformers are required to be compact and lightweight to be safely mounted by their poles. They most often have round tanks. Furthermore, three-phase pole mounted units are ordinar ily constructed by triplexing three, single

- phase cores. For this reason, DOE believes it is appropriate for a three

phase pole- mounted transformer to receive the same standard as that of a single -phase polemounted transformer of one third of its kVA rati ng.

“Pad -mounted” transformers f 

### are designed for mounting on (e.g.) concrete pads. Though they may have added levels of protection to prevent tampering or electrical shock, pad-mounted transformers have fewer of the size and weight concerns that pole -mou nted transformers experience and, therefore, see lower incremental costs for added efficiency.

“Network g 

### ” and “Vault” transformers are designed for use in vaults and for occasional submerged operation which requires that they be built to a much higher level of ruggedness and durability. Furthermore, compactness is of utmost importance because the vaults themselves arefrequently in dense urban environments where expanding a vault to accommodate a larger, moreefficient unit could be done only at great cost that would far outweigh any savings in operating

cost.

Equipment classes are discussed in greater detail in chapter 3, section 3.4 of the NOPR

TSD.

Second, regarding TSLs, the newly presented TSLs provide for different stringency

levels for above- men tioned tank types, so that a standard may pursue maximum energy savings where it is economically justified to do so without risk of harming the utility of certain equipment types.

DOE presented analysis for liquid- immersed distribution transformer equipm ent classes for the NOPR and NOPR public meeting, these equipment classes separated the liquid- immersed design

- space by transformer service type, either single or thre e- phase (Table 1 -A.3.1 ). DOE requested and received comment on further refinements of the liquid

- immersed design space. Based on these comment DOE proposes to modify the existing liquid- immersed equipment classes to separate pole and pad mounted distribution transformers and to include additional equipment classes for network/vault, and distri bution transformers with greater than 200 kV

BIL. h

e Perhaps as specified in IEEE standard C57.12. 20

f Perhaps as specified in IEEE standards C57.12.38 and C57.12.34

g Perhaps as specified in IEEE standard C57.12.40 Perhaps as specified in IEEE standards C57.12.23 or C57.12.24

h Basic Impulse Level1

- A

- 5 

### Table 1 -A.3.1 Equipment Classes for Liquid

- immersed Distribution Transformers Presented in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

EC DL Type of Distribution

Transformer kVA Range Representative Unit for this Engineering D esign Line

1 1 Liquid

- immersed, single

- phase, rectangular tank 10 –167 50 kVA, 65 **°** C, single

- phase, 60Hz, 14400V primary, 240/120V secondary, rectangular tank, 95kV BIL

2 Liquid

- immersed, single -phase, round

tank 10 –167 25 kVA, 65 **°** C, single

- phase, 60Hz, 14400V primary, 120/240V secondary, round tank,

125 kV BIL

3 Liquid

- immersed, single

- phase 250 –833 500 kVA, 65 **°** C, single- phase, 60Hz, 14400V primary, 277V secondary, 150kV BIL

2 4 Liquid- immersed,

three

- phase 15– 500 150 kVA, 65 **°** C, three

- phase, 60Hz, 12470Y/7200V primary, 208Y/120V secondary, 95kV BIL

5 Liquid- immersed,

three

- phase 750

– 2500 1500 kVA, 65 **°** C, three- phase, 60Hz, 24940GrdY/14400V primary, 480Y/277V secondary, 125 kV BIL

1-A.3.1 Summary of Design Line Coverage

The following two figures summarize the coverage of each of the liquid- immersed design lines in relation to the various equipment classes and kVA ratings. Note that these figures are similar to those presented in the NOPR, but reflect new possibilities wit h respect to structuring equipment classes. The abbreviation DL stands for design line, and the row in the table where the phrase “Rep Unit” appears indicates the kVA rating of the representative unit from that design line. The representative unit is the k VA rating that DOE analyzed in the engineering and LCC analyses. For example, DL1 stands for design line 1, spanning from 10 to 833 kVA liquid -type, single

- phase. The label “Rep Unit” appears in row 50 kVA, indicating that the 50 kVA is the representative unit for DL1. Similarly, the representative unit for DL2 is the 25 kVA unit.

There are five liquid

- immersed transformer design lines, three single -phase and two

three -phase, as shown in Figure 1 -A.4.1 . To capture any design differences between a single

phase pole and a pad-mounted transformer, DOE analyzed units in both DL1, and DL2 and DL3, spanning the same kVA ratings (10 kVA to 833 kVA).1

- A

- 6 

### Figure 1 -A.3.2 Liquid

- Immersed Design Lines and Representative

Units



### 1-A.3.2 Proposed Equipment Class 1A and 2A for Pad- mounted Distribution

Transformers

Classes 1A and 2A respectively correspond to single - and three-phase pad -mounted liquid

- immersed distribution transformers. Representative units remain unchanged from the NOPR, with a 50 kVA single

- phase unit and both 150 and 1500 kVA three -phase units in design lines 1, 4, and 5.

Table 1 -A.3.2 Potential Equipment Class 1A and 2A for Pad- mounted Distribution

Transformers

EC DL Type of Distribution

Transformer kVA Range Representative Unit for this Engineering Design Line

1A 1 Liquid

- immersed, single

- phase, pad mount

, rectangular tank 10 –833 50 kVA, 65 **°** C, single- phase, 60Hz, 14400V primary, 240/120V secondary, rectangular tank, 95kV BIL

2A 4 Liquid- immersed, three

phase, pad-mount 15– 500 150 kVA, 65 **°** C, three- phase, 60Hz, 12470Y/7200V primary, 208Y/120V secondary, 95kV BIL

5 Liquid- immersed, three

phase, pad-mount 750

– 2500 1500 kVA, 65 **°** C, three- phase, 60Hz, 24940GrdY/14400V primary, 480Y/277V secondary, 125 kV BIL Equipment Class

1A Equipment Class

1B

kVA Pad Mount Pole Mount

10

15

25

37.5

50

75

100

167

250

333

500

667

833 Liquid-immersed, Single-phaseDL 1DL 2DL 3 Rep Unit Rep Unit Rep Unit Equipment Class

2A Equipment Class 2B

kVA Pad Mount Pole Mount

15

20

45

75

112.5

150

225

300

500

750

1000

1500

2000

2500 Liquid-immersed, Three-phaseDL 4DL 5Scaledfrom DL2Scaledfrom DL3 Rep Unit Rep Unit

Rep Unit Rep Unit1

- A

- 7 

### Pad -mounted transformers represent a significant portion of liquid- immersed transformer shipments. DOE estimates that approximately 30 percent of single phase, and 95 percent of three phase shipments by capacity as pad -mounted transformers.

DOE analyzed EC 1A and 2A at a new EL of 1.5.

1-A.3.3 Proposed Equipment Class 1B and 2B for Pole

- mounted Distribution

Transformers

Classes 1B and 2B correspond to single- and three-phase pole-mounted liquid- immersed distribution transformers. Representative units remain unchanged from the NOPR, with 25 and 500 kVA single -phase units in design lines 2 and 3. Although no representative unit exists for

three -phase pole-mounted transformers, DOE understands that three- phase pole -mounted units are typi cally built by triplexing three single -phase units and, therefore, plans to set a standard for these units equal to that of the single-phase unit of one third the capacity.

Table 1 -A.3.3 Potential Equipment Class 1B for single

- phase pole mounted distribution

transformers

EC DL Type of Distribution

Transformer kVA Range Representative Unit for this Engineering Design Line

1B 2 Liquid

- immersed, single

- phase, pole

mount , round tank 10 –167 25 kVA, 65 **°** C, single

- phase, 60Hz, 14400V primary, 120/240V secondary, round tank,

125 kV BIL

3 Liquid

- immersed, single

- phase, pole

mount , round tank 250 –833 500 kVA, 65 **°** C, single- phase, 60Hz, 14400V primary, 277V secondary, 150kV BIL

Pole-mounted transformers represent a significant portion of liquid- immersed transformer shipments. DOE estimates that approximately 70 percent of single phase, and 5 percent of three phase shipments by capacity as pole-mounted transformers.

DOE recognizes that for utilities, as the primary purchaser of pole -mounted transformers,

there is co ncern about increases in transformer size and weight and. Utility stakeholders have maintained during the negotiations, and in written comment that increases to weight and volume disproportionately increase the installation cost for pole-mounted transforme rs and in extreme cases necessitating that a utility replace existing poles with a new stronger pole to support the weight of the new heavier transformer. To address these concerns DOE has estimated additional installation costs associated with pole replac ement, this methodology is described in chapter 6, section 6.3.1of the NOPR TSD. This methodology has been maintained for design line 3, with adjustment for the larger and heavier design line 3 described in section 2.2 of this document.

Table 1 -A.6.2 shows the average weight increase for single-phase pole-mounted

distribution transformers.1

- A

- 8 

### Table 1 -A.3.4 Summary of Weight for Pole- mounted Design Lines by Efficiency Level (lbs) Efficiency Level

Base 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

DL 2 min 463 467 480 540 558 601 692 799 663

avg 473 487 522 544 561 602 697 799 664

max 545 535 625 582 586 606 748 799 699

DL 3 min 2653 2802 2343 2802 2937 2985 3149 3773 4832

avg 2812 2984 2932 2905 2979 3020 3177 3827 4864

max 3218 3370 3285 3192 3144 3212 3269 3985 4950

Table 1 -A.3.5 Summary of Relative Weight Changes from the Base Case for Polemounted Design

- lines by Efficiency Level (%)
Efficiency Level

Base 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

DL 2 min 0.0 0.9 3.8 16.5 20.5 29.7 49.4 72.6 43.2

avg 0.0 2.9 10.2 14.9 18.5 27.1 47.2 68.9 40.3

max 0.0 -1.9 14.7 6.8 7.6 11.2 37.3 46.7 28.4

DL 3 min 0.0 5.6

- 11.7 5.6 10.7 12.5 18.7 42.2 82.1

avg 0.0 6.1 4.2 3.3 5.9 7.4 13.0 36.1 73.0

max 0.0 4.7 2.1

- 0.8

- 2.3

- 0.2 1.6 23.8 53.8

DOE analyzed EC 1A and 2A at a new EL of 0 .5.

1-A.3.4 Potential Equipment Class 2C for Network/Vault Distribution Transformers

DOE received many comments indicating stakeholder s’ support of the work done by the negotiating committee on th is topic. This work includes both the definition of the new equipment

class and recommends that due to potential size increases with increased efficiency, the standard for this new equipment class remain at level of the 2007 Final Rule

. DOE estimates network and vault transformers to make up roughly 5 percent of sales by capacity of distribution transformers.

The definition outlined in the NOPR:1

- A

- 9 

### i. A “network transformer” is one–
(i) designed for use in a vault,
(ii) designed for occasional submerged operation in water,
(iii) designed to feed a system of variable capacity system of interconnected

secondaries, and
(iv) built per the requirements of IEEE C57.12.40

. ii. A “vault -type” transformer is one–
(i) designed for use in a vault,
(ii) designed for occasional submerged operation in water, and
(iii) built per the requirements of IEEE C57.12.23 or IEEE C57.12.24,
respectively.

1-A.3.5 Potential Equipment Class 2D for Distribution T ransformers with ≥ 200 kV BIL

In the 2007 final rule, DOE established equipment classes for medium -voltage, dry- type (MVDT) transformers using basic impulse insulation level (BIL) rating, a measure of resistance to very high voltages resulting from (e.g.) lightning strikes. Although certain consumers derive utility from tran sformers of greater BIL rating, it is costlier (and in some cases impossible) to build transformers of greater BIL rating to given efficiency levels. Because liquid

- immersed transformers are less affected performance

- wise by BIL rating than are MVDT transf ormers, DOE did not previously separate them by BIL rating. However, as higher standards are considered, BIL may start to become a more important consideration for even liquid- immersed

units.

Several interested parties commented that in many cases, units built to the highest BIL rating ordinarily used in DOE’s scope of coverage (200 kV) are difficult to construct even to current standard levels. Further increases could cause these units to become expensive to a degree that far outweighs any potential savings from reduced losses.

For this reason, DOE is considering establishing a separate equipment class for liquidimmersed transformers of BIL rating 200 kV and above.

1- A.4 REVISED TRIAL STANDARD LEVEL S

DOE presented analysis for liquid- immersed distribution t ransformers for a series of trial standard levels (TSLs) in the NOPR and at the NOPR public meeting. The current TSL composition for liquid- immersed transformers is shown below in Table 1 -A.9.1 . These TSL are described in detail in the chapter 10 of the NO PR TSD.1

- A

- 10 

### Table 1 -A.4.1 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Trial Standard Levels for LiquidImmersed Distribution Transformers

EC DL Trial Standard Levels by Efficiency Level

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 TSL 7

1 1 EL 1 EL 1 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 6

1 2 Base EL 1 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 6

1 3 EL 1 EL 1 EL 2 EL 4 EL 3 EL 5 EL 7

2 4 EL 1 EL 1 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 7

2 5 EL 1 EL 1 EL 2 EL 4 EL 3 EL 5 EL 6

DOE received comment in the NOPR from the Advocates requesting that their final negotiating position from the negotiation committee be analyzed. Their final position was stated

as efficiency level (EL) 2 [Advocates 186 pg 9] for all liquid- immersed equipment classes. DOE analyzed EL 3 as their final position in the NOPR, this is represented by TSL C In addition, DOE

is p resenting two TSLs to examine potential energy savings below EL 2.

Table 1 -A.4.2 Notice of Public Meeting Trial Standard Level for Liquid

- immersed

Distribution Transformers

EC DL Phases Type Trial Standard Levels by Efficiency

Level

A B C

1A 1 1 pad EL 1 EL 1.5 EL 2

1B 2 1 pole EL 0.5 EL 0.5 EL 2

1B 3 1 pole EL 1 EL 1 EL 2

2A 4 3 pad EL 1 EL 1.5 EL 2

2A 5 3 pad EL 1 EL 1.5 EL 2

2B

- 3 pole scaled scaled scaled

2C

- 3 network/vault EL 0 EL 0 EL 0

2D

- 3 ≥ 200 kV BIL EL 0 EL 0 EL 0

1- A.5 ADDITIONAL LIFE

- CYCLE COST AND PAYBA CK PERIOD RESULTS

The analytical results presented here are based on the NOPR LCC spreadsheet tools

available from the DOE website. i 

### These spreadsheets were prepared with a “custom” efficiency input that was added so end- users could examine the impacts of efficiencies other th an those

p resented by DOE. For this analysis DOE used this feature to examine the impacts of the new efficiency levels.

i http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/distribution_transformers.html1

- A

- 11 

### To address the pole replacement costs for DL3 DOE used the same methodology that was used for DL2. For DL 3 the following inputs were changed to better approximate the costs associated with installing a larger capacity, 500 kVA transformers. For DL3 DOE used RSMeans 2011 to estimate the range of installation costs to include the use of a heavier crane, and additional crew. The estimated range of installation costs associated with pole replacement for a 500 kVA transformer is between $5877 and $793 5. DOE also adjusted the weight change-out threshold by scaling the 150 pounds use for DL2 with the 0.75 scaling rule to 1418 pounds for

DL3. The changes to the design line 3 spreadsheet tool have been made available from the DOE

website j



### .

1-A.5.6 Design Line 1 Life -Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results

Table 1 -A.5.1 Summary Life- Cycle Cost Results for Design Line 1 Representative Unit
Efficiency Level

1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6
Efficiency (%) 99.16 99.19 99.22 99.25 99.31 99.42 99.50

Transformers with Net Increase in LCC (%) 57.94 36.30 4.77 4.77 8.00 13.63 55.36

Transformers with No Impact on LCC (%) 0.23 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00

Transformers with Net LCC Savings (%) 41.83 63.60 95.00 95.00 92.00 86.37 44.64

Mean LCC Savings ($) 36 305 641 641 532 629 50

Median LCC Savings ($) -64 44 650 650 540 563

- 104

j http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/distribution_transformers.html1

- A

- 12 

### Table 1 -A.5.2 Summary Payback Period Results for Design Line 1 Representative Unit
Efficiency Level

1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6
Mean Payback (Years) 32.2 21.1 8.2 8.2 10.4 12.0 19.9
Median Payback (Years) 20.2 17.9 7.9 7.9 10.0 11.5 19.2 Transformers having Well Defined Payback (%) 85.02 89.40 99.77 99.77 99.89 99.99 99.95

Transformers having Undefined Payback (%) 14.98 10.60 0.23 0.23 0.11 0.01 0.05

Mean Retail Cost ($) 2,244 2,240 2,446 2,446 2,549 2,802 3,333

Mean Installation Costs ($) 2,230 2,229 2,271 2,271 2,344 2,415 2,606 Mean Operating Costs ($) 209 218 156 156 153 132 126 Mean Incremental First Cost ($) 327 327 569 569 746 1,070 1,792 Mean Operating Cost Savings ($) 18 21 71 71 74 95 100

Payback of Average

Transformer 18.2 15.8 8.0 8.0 10.1 11.2 17.8



### 1-A.5.7 Design Line 2 Life -Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results

Table 1 -A.5.3 Summary Life- Cycle Cost Results for Design Line 2 Representative Unit
Efficiency Level

0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Efficiency (%) 98.95 99.00 99.07 99.11 99.18 99.31 99.41 99.46

Transformers with Net LCC Cost (%) 42.80 14.23 9.82 11.20 15.75 58.18 80.16 86.51

Transformers with No Change in LCC (%) 3.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Transformers with Net LCC Benefit (%) 53.50 85.77 90.18 88.80 84.25 41.82 19.84 13.49

Mean LCC Savings ($) 54 309 338 300 250 -445 -736 -599 Median LCC Savings ($)

- 558 322 341 308 262

- 91

- 390

- 5351

- A

- 13 

### Table 1 -A.5.4 Summary Payback Period Results for Design Line 2 Representative Unit
Efficiency Level

0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Mean Payback (Years) 18.3 10.0 9.7 11.3 13.4 27.9 32.7 30.3

Median Payback (Years) 6.47 6.9 8.0 9.5 11.5 18.7 24.3 26.3 Transformers having Well Defined Payback (%) 72.00 98.55 99.93 99.71 99.83 99.75 99.77 99.90

Transformers having Undefined Payback (%) 28.00 1.45 0.07 0.29 0.17 0.25 0.23 0.10

Mean Retail Cost ($) 1,281 1,437 1,480 1,530 1,598 1,846 2,052 2,577
Mean Installation Costs ($) 1635 1722 1761 1790 1859 2500 2678 2093
Mean Operating Costs ($) 146 101 95 93 89 79 75 71

Mean Incremental First Cost ($) 140 235 317 396 533 1,422 1,807 1,746

Mean Operating Cost Savings ($) 66 34 40 41 46 55 60 64

Payback of Average

Transformer 2.1 7.0 8.0 9.6 11.7 25.8 30.2 27.4



### 1-A.5.8 Design Line 3 Life -Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results

Table 1 -A.5.5 Summary Life- Cycle Cost Results for Design Line 3 Representative Unit
Efficiency Level

0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Efficiency (%) 99.50 99.48 99.51 99.54 99.57 99.61 99.69 99.73

Transformers with Net Increase in LCC (%) 13.44 16.07 11.86 5.35 3.87 3.65 7.37 24.82

Transformers with No Impact on LCC (%) 0.35 0.35 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Transformers with Net LCC Savings (%) 86.21 83.58 87.84 94.65 96.13 96.35 92.63 75.18

Mean LCC Savings ($) 2777 2370 3809 5218 5586 6576 6924 4294 Median LCC Savings ($) 3421 1751 3652 5269 5607 6631 6587 34211

- A

- 14 

### Table 1 -A.5.6 Summary Payback Period Results for Design Line 3 Representative Unit
Efficiency Level

0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Mean Payback (Years) 8.2 9.2 6.7 5.6 5.4 6.0 9.4 15.2
Median Payback (Years) 6.4 6.1 4.0 4.6 4.7 5.2 8.1 13.3

Transformers having Well Defined Payback () 97.14 95.56 97.38 99.89 99.98 100.00 99.94 99.74 Transformers having Undefined Payback () 2.86 4.44 2.62 0.11 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.26 Mean Retail Cost ($) 7,698 8,546 8,944 9,534 9,679 10,280 12,500 15,917

Mean Installation Costs ($) 4,234 4,334 4,311 4,370 4,402 4,523 4,996 5,732 Mean Operating Costs ($) 1,422 1,222 1,104 984 957 872 724 656

Mean Incremental First Cost ($) 1,184 948 1,323 1,972 2,149 2,871 5,564 9,717 Mean Operating Cost Savings ($) 1,161 200 318 438 465 550 698 766 Payback of Average

Transformer 1.0 4.7 4.2 4.5 4.6 5.2 8.0 12.7



### 1-A.5.9 Design Line 4 Life -Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results

Table 1 -A.5.7 Summary Life- Cycle Cost Results for Design Line 4 Representative Unit
Efficiency Level

1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7 Efficiency (%) 99.16 99.19 99.22 99.25 99.31 99.42 99.50 99.60

Transformers with Net LCC Cost (%) 5.95 12.62 1.91 1.91 1.86 1.82 4.87 31.10

Transformers with No Change in LCC (%) 0.58 0.62 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.17 0.00 0.00

Transformers with Net LCC

Benefit (%) 93.47 86.76 97.51 97.51 97.56 98.01 95.13 63.87

Mean LCC Savings ($) 862 857 3356.0 3356.0 3362.3 3437.2 3193 1274 Median LCC Savings ($) 670 577 3418.7 3418.7 3423.6 3489.8 3054 9561

- A

- 15 

### Table 1 -A.5.8 Summary Payback Period Results for Design Line 4 Representative Unit
Efficiency Level

1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7
Mean Payback (Years) 6.6 9.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.6 8.2 15.1
Median Payback (Years) 5.0 7.2 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.3 7.9 14.6 Transformers having Well Defined Payback (%) 99.37 99.38% 99.27 99.27 99.33 99.81 99.94 94.96 Transformers having Undefined Payback (%) 0.63 0.62% 0.73 0.73 0.67 0.19 0.06 0.01 Mean Retail Cost ($) 5,894 5,892 6,443 6,443 6,451 6,536 7,615 10,601 Mean Installation Costs ($) 4,090 4,095 4,184 4,184 4,183 4,223 4,584 4,709 Mean Operating Costs ($) 668 420 483 483 482 471 400 334

Mean Incremental First Cost ($) 438 440 1,081 1,081 1,088 1,214 2,653 5,763 Mean Operating Cost Savings ($) 76 74 261 261 262 274 344 414 Payback of Average

Transformer 5.7 6.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.4 7.7 13.9



### 1-A.5.10 Design Line 5 Life -Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results

Table 1 -A.5.9 Summary Life- Cycle Cost Results for Design Line 5 Representative Unit
Efficiency Level

1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 Efficiency (%) 99.48 99.50 99.51 99.54 99.57 99.61 99.69

Transformers with Net Increase in LCC (%) 19.05 16.99 13.15 10.41 7.77 7.88 39.92

Transformers with No Impact on LCC (%) 0.39 0.28 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Transformers with Net LCC Savings (%) 80.56 82.73 86.76 89.58 92.23 92.12 60.08

Mean LCC Savings ($) 7787 9010 10288 11395 12513 12746 3626 Median LCC Savings ($) 8300 9649 10741 11658 12666 12838 30831

- A

- 16 

### Table 1 -A.5.10 Summary Payback Period Results for Design Line 5 Representative Unit
Efficiency Level

1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6
Mean Payback (Years) 7.0 7.3 6.5 7.8 7.8 9.7 18.7
Median Payback (Years) 4.0 4.1 4.2 5.7 6.3 8.3 16.9 Transformers having Well Defined Payback (%) 91.63 89.93 96.04 98.89 99.82 99.97 100.00

Transformers having Undefined Payback (%) 8.37 10.07 3.96 1.11 0.18 0.03 0.00

Mean Retail Cost ($) 28,574 25,391 29,040 30,872 31,980 35,448 56,798
Mean Installation Costs ($) 8,551 8,438 8,631 8,875 9,030 9,498 9,834
Mean Operating Costs ($) 3,407 4,414 3,259 3,105 2,994 2,802 2,185
Mean Incremental First Cost ($) 3,296 3,721 3,842 5,918 7,181 11,116 32,803 Mean Operating Cost Savings ($) 718 3,434 866 1,020 1,131 1,323 1,940

Payback of Average

Transformer 4.6 1.1 4.4 5.8 6.3 8.4 16.9



### 1- A.6 ADDITIONAL NATIONAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS RES ULTS

The national impacts analysis results present here we estimated using the NOPR spreadsheet tool available from the DOE website. k

k 

### To disaggregate the impacts for pad - and pole-mounted transformers from the equipment classes presented in the NOPR DOE associated the fraction of savings with the volume of capacity shipment for each of the new proposed equipment cl asses.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/distribution_transformers.html1

- A

- 17 

### 1-A.6.11 Summary National Impact Analysis Results

Table 1 -A.6.1 National Impact Analysis Results for Liquid- immersed Transformers

NOPR Trial Standard Level NOPM Trial

Standard Level

Base 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C
Transformer Shipments

2015

- 2044 (Billion KVA) 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.94 1.94 1.94 1.91 1.95 1.95 1.95

Equipment Cost ($Billions) 32.28

- 1.26

- 2.51

- 2.61

- 4.26

- 4.48

- 6.32

- 19.88

- 1.57

- 2.00

- 3.72
Operating Cost (Savings in TSLs) ($Billions) 23.26 2.01 4.03 4.33 7.22 7.13 8.08 11.64 2.50 3.21 6.71

Cumulative Source Savings 2044 (Quads) 0.36 0.74 0.82 1.44 1.42 1.70 2.70 0.45 0.60 1.30

Net Present Value at 3% Discount Rate ($Billions) 3.66 7.39 8.24 14.21 13.48 13.17

- 1.11 4.66 6.04 13.51

Net Present Value at 7% Discount Rate ($Billions) 0.75 1.51 1.73 2.96 2.65 1.76

- 8.25 0.93 1.21 2.99



### 1-A.6.12 Summary National Impact Analysis Results for Single- phase Liquid

- immersed

Distribution Transformers

Table 1 -A.6.2 Results for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Equipment Class 1

NOPR Trial Standard Level NOPM Trial

Standard Level

Base 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C
Transformer Shipments

2015

- 2044 (Billion KVA) 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.79 0.80 0.80 0.80

Equipment Cost ($Billions) 22.36

- 0.52

- 1.78

- 1.79

- 2.61

- 3.03

- 4.05

- 12.11

- 0.84

- 1.13

- 2.60

Operating Cost (Savings in TSLs) ($Billions) 11.37 0.34 2.36 2.38 3.76 3.89 4.23 5.84 0.78 1.23 3.69

Cumulative Source Savings 2044 (Quads) 0.09 0.47 0.47 0.75 0.80 0.90 1.37 0.18 0.27 0.75

Net Present Value at

3% Discount Rate ($Billions) 0.13 3.87 3.93 6.64 6.28 5.51

- 4.64 0.94 1.78 6.44

Net Present Value at

7% Discount Rate ($Billions) - 0.19 0.58 0.60 1.15 0.85 0.19

- 6.27

- 0.06 0.10 1.091

- A

- 18 

### Table 1 -A.6.3 Results for Notice of Public Meeting Equipment Class 1A

– Pad

- mounted

Distribution Transformers

Trial Standard Level NOPM Trial

Standard Level

Base 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C Transformer Shipments

2015

- 2044 (Billion KVA) 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24

Equipment Cost ($Billions) 6.71

- 0.16

- 0.53

- 0.54

- 0.78

- 0.91 -1.21 -3.63

- 0.25

- 0.34

- 0.78

Operating Cost (Savings in TSLs) ($Billions) 3.41 0.10 0.71 0.72 1.13 1.17 1.27 1.75 0.23 0.37 1.11

Cumulative Source Savings 2044 (Quads) 0.03 0.14 0.14 0.23 0.24 0.27 0.41 0.05 0.08 0.22

Net Present Value at 3% Discount Rate ($Billions) 0.04 1.16 1.18 1.99 1.88 1.65 -1.39 0.28 0.53 1.93

Net Present Value at 7% Discount Rate ($Billions) - 0.06 0.17 0.18 0.34 0.26 0.06 -1.88

- 0.02 0.03 0.33



### Table 1 -A.6.4 Results for Notice of Pubic Meeting Equipment Class 1B

– Pole

- mounted

Distribution Transformer

Trial Standard Level NOPM Trial

Standard Level

Base 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C Transformer Shipments

2015

- 2044 (Billion KVA) 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.56 0.56 0.56

Equipment Cost ($Billions) 15.65

- 0.37 -1.25 -1.25 -1.83 -2.12 -2.83 -8.48

- 0.59

- 0.79 -1.82

Operating Cost (Savings in TSLs) ($Billions) 7.96 0.24 1.65 1.67 2.63 2.72 2.96 4.09 0.55 0.86 2.58

Cumulative Source Savings 2044 (Quads) 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.53 0.56 0.63 0.96 0.13 0.19 0.52

Net Present Value at 3% Discount Rate ($Billions) 0.09 2.71 2.75 4.65 4.40 3.85 -3.25 0.66 1.24 4.51

Net Present Value at 7% Discount Rate ($Billions) - 0.13 0.41 0.42 0.80 0.60 0.13 -4.39

- 0.04 0.07 0.771

- A

- 19 

### 1-A.6.13 Summary National Impact Analysis Results for Three- phase Liquid

- immersed

Distribution Transformers

Table 1 -A.6.5 Results for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Equipment Class 2

NOPR Trial Standard Level NOPM Trial

Standard Level

Base 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C Transformer Shipments

2015

- 2044 (Billion KVA) 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.14 1.13 1.15 1.15 1.15

Equipment Cost ($Billions) 9.92

- 0.73

- 0.73

- 0.82 -1.65 -1.45 -2.27 -7.78

- 0.73

- 0.87 -1.12

Operating Cost (Savings in TSLs) ($Billions) 11.88 1.67 1.67 1.95 3.46 3.25 3.84 5.80 1.72 1.98 3.01

Cumulative Source Savings 2044 (Quads) 0.27 0.27 0.35 0.69 0.63 0.80 1.33 0.27 0.33 0.55

Net Present Value at 3% Discount Rate ($Billions) 3.53 3.53 4.31 7.57 7.21 7.66 3.53 3.71 4.26 7.07

Net Present Value at 7% Discount Rate ($Billions) 0.94 0.94 1.13 1.82 1.80 1.57 -1.98 0.99 1.11 1.90



### Table 1 -A.6.6 Results for Notice of Public Meeting Equipment Class 2B

– Pad

- mounted

Transformers

Trial Standard Level NOPM Trial

Standard Level

Base 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C Transformer Shipments

2015

- 2044 (Billion KVA) 1.10 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.07 1.09 1.09 1.09

Equipment Cost ($Billions) 9.42

- 0.70

- 0.70

- 0.78 -1.57 -1.38 -2.16 -7.39

- 0.70

- 0.83

- 1.06

Operating Cost (Savings in TSLs) ($Billions) 11.29 1.58 1.58 1.85 3.29 3.08 3.65 5.51 1.64 1.88 2.86

Cumulative Source Savings 2044 (Quads) 0.26 0.26 0.33 0.65 0.60 0.76 1.26 0.26 0.31 0.53

Net Present Value at 3% Discount Rate ($Billions) 3.35 3.35 4.10 7.19 6.85 7.28 3.35 3.53 4.05 6.72

Net Present Value at 7% Discount Rate ($Billions) 0.89 0.89 1.07 1.72 1.71 1.49 -1.88 0.94 1.05 1.801

- A

- 20 

### Table 1 -A.6.7 Results for Notice of Public Meeting Equipment Class 2B

– Pole mounted Distribution Transformers

Trial Standard Level NOPM Trial

Standard Level

Base 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C Transformer Shipments

2015

- 2044 (Billion KVA) 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06

Equipment Cost ($Billions) 0.50

- 0.04

- 0.04

- 0.04

- 0.08

- 0.07

- 0.11

- 0.39

- 0.04

- 0.04

- 0.06

Operating Cost (Savings in TSLs) ($Billions) 0.59 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.17 0.16 0.19 0.29 0.09 0.10 0.15

Cumulative Source Savings 2044 (Quads) 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.03

Net Present Value at 3% Discount Rate ($Billions) 0.18 0.18 0.22 0.38 0.36 0.38 0.18 0.19 0.21 0.35

Net Present Value at 7% Discount Rate ($Billions) 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.08

- 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.09



### 1- A.7 REQUEST FOR COMMENT

1. DOE requests comment on the new equipment class definitions.

2. DOE requests data on distribution transformer shipments for each of the p resented equipment classes by kVA rating

. similar to the data presented in Table 9.3.2 of the NOPR TSD, presented here for reference.

Table 1 -A.7.1 Estimated Shipments of Liquid

- Immersed , Medium -Voltage

Transformer s, 2009
Single

- Phase Three

- Phase Capacity kVA Units Shipped Capacity kVA Units Shipped

10 58,090 15

– 15 169,083 30

– 25 243,583 45 1,438

37.5 41,755 75 3,753

50 119,455 112.5 790

75 26,338 150 7,426

100 18,679 225 1,969

167 4,357 300 7,340

250 1,905 500 6,650

333 238 750 3,502

500 238 1,000 3,171

667 5 1,500 2,941

833

– 2,000 2,497

– 2,500 2,2601

- A

- 21 

### 3. DOE requests comment on the appropriate efficiency levels for network/vault and ≥200 kV BIL equipment classes.

4. DOE request from utilities pole replacement costs by transformer capacity

.