CEE Industry Partners Meeting St. Louis, MO Distribution Transformers: Charting a Course to Achieve

1
CEE Industry Partners MeetingSt. Louis, MO
Distribution Transformers Charting a Course to
Achieve Additional Energy Savings

• Ted Jones
• Sr. Industrial Program Manager
• Wednesday, September 26, 2007

2
Todays Agenda

• Background on CEE Distribution Transformers
  Initiative
• Overview of CEE Subcommittee Findings
• Program Perspective
• BPA
• Discussion/Next Steps

3
Which Distribution Transformers?
4
CEEs CI High-Efficiency Distribution
Transformer Initiative

• Launched in 1998, serves as a platform for
  programs to build demand for more efficient
  transformers in the commercial and industrial
  sector.
• The initiative consists of four key components
• A voluntary low voltage transformer efficiency
  performance specification
• Guidelines for using cost-of-ownership methods in
  transformer purchases
• Awareness building
• Incentives (where possible)
• Energy Star began labeling low-voltage
  transformers soon afterwards.

5
CEEs CI High-Efficiency Distribution
Transformer Initiative

• For the commodity type, low-voltage market, the
  Initiatives strategy is to create a clear
  definition of efficiency (equivalent to NEMA TP
  1) and to promote the value in specifying
  equipment meeting this definition.
• Since the medium voltage equipment is provided on
  a build-to-order basis, emphasis is placed on
  education regarding the opportunity and method
  for cost-of-ownership evaluation rather than
  promoting the NEMA specification.

6
Background

• The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005)
  established federal minimum standards for
  low-voltage, dry-type distribution transformers
  which went into effect on January 1, 2007.
• New standards are equivalent to the NEMA
  specifications supported by CEE and ENERGY STAR
  on a voluntary basis since 1998.
• During the last few months of 2006 and early in
  2007, a CEE subcommittee met to explore the
  development of specifications for dry-type, low
  voltage transformers based on the analysis
  developed by DOE during a transformer rulemaking
  process.

7
Subcommittee Review of DOE Analysis

• DOE analyzed several designs which were modeled
  to represent the full range of products on the
  transformer market. Three of the design lines
  represent the types of transformers addressed in
  CEEs CI Distribution Transformers Initiative,
  including
• Design Line 6 - Single-phase, Low-Voltage,
  Dry-type Units from 15 to 333kVA. The
  representative unit for this design line 25kVA
• Design Line 7 - Three-phase, Low-Voltage,
  Dry-type Units from 15 to 150kVA. The
  representative unit for this design line 75kVA.
• Design Line 8 - Three-phase, Low-Voltage,
  Dry-type Units from 225 to 1000kVA. The
  representative unit for this design line 300kVA.

8
Technology

• Transformers consist of two primary components
• a core constructed of specialized steel,
• windings typically constructed of copper or
  aluminum.
• The composition of the core determines the
  no-load losses. These losses are relatively
  unchanged with the load of the transformer.

• Given that most transformers are lightly loaded
  most of the time (35 percent or less), core and
  construction techniques factor more heavily with
  unit efficiency because they influence no-load
  losses.

9
Transformer Loading
10
Opportunities for Savings

• Because of the relatively low loading of this
  class of transformers, the most direct way to
  reduce losses is by reducing core losses. This
  can be accomplished by
• Better construction techniques such as stacked
  buttlap (most common, less efficient) to stacked
  full miter joints (less common, more efficient).
• Thinner laminations of higher quality more
  expensive steel.

11
DOE Assessment of Savings

• A computer analysis using over 4,000 combinations
  of design and materials yielded a scatter plot of
  efficiency versus predicted price (DOE, 2005,
  page 5-56). For Design Line 7, the analysis
  shows many combinations can exceed the current
  TP-1 specification of 98 with most advanced
  designs falling between 98 and 99 efficiency.

12
(No Transcript)
13
DOE Candidate Standard Levels

• For each representative unit, DOE calculated both
  life-cycle cost (LCC) and LCC savings from a
  base-case scenario. DOE then selected six
  candidate standard levels for review that
  correspond to the following
• NEMA TP 1-2002
• 1/3 of the efficiency difference between TP 1 and
  the minimum LCC scenario
• 2/3 of the efficiency difference between TP 1 and
  the minimum LCC scenario
• the minimum LCC scenario
• maximum energy savings with no change in LCC
• maximum technologically feasible level

14
Subcommittee Assessment

• The CEE sub-committee
• Examined the DOE candidate standard levels and
  the LCC performance data for each of the three
  representative units (design lines 6, 7, 8)
  relevant to the CEE Initiative
• Extrapolated those values to the other KVA sizes
  included under the CEE Initiative
• Investigated the availability of distribution
  transformers with energy performance above the
  new federal minimum standard (NEMA TP 1, DOE
  Level 1) to see how they compared to the higher
  candidate standard levels identified by DOE.

15
Subcommittee Findings

• Review of catalogs found highest efficiency
  products meeting coming very close to DOE Level
  2.
• Moderate savings can be achieved at relatively
  low cost with some instances at no incremental
  cost .
• It was noted that three kVA ratings represent
  nearly 70 of the three phase market and 80 of
  the single phase market.

16
Est. Annual Energy Savings Compared to the
Current Standard for Three Phase Transformers
(kWh)
17
Est. Annual Energy Savings Compared to the
Current Standard for Single Phase Transformers
(kWh)
18
Conclusions

• Lack of transformers on the market today with
  energy performance exceeding the current federal
  minimum standard is preventing customers from
  benefiting from the savings potential
  demonstrated by DOE
• By working together through the CEE Distribution
  Transformers Initiative could efficiency programs
  could play role in bringing these products to
  market.
• CEE should continue the Initiatives fundamental
  strategy to support demand for more efficient
  transformers.

19
Next Steps

• Subcommittee recommended adopting the DOE Level 2
  specification as the new CEE level of
  performance.
• This approach would provide a consistent
  definition for all market actors and reward the
  manufacturers that have products exceeding
  current federal minimum standards. Products at
  this level of performance are currently available
  at low or no incremental cost and would become
  more available in the market over time with
  program support.
• Consider DOE Level 4 as a stretch goal.
• The DOE analysis demonstrates that
  super-efficient distribution transformers meeting
  DOE Level 4 are feasible technologically and
  economically justified but would require
  significant investment on the part of
  manufacturers to bring them to market. The
  subcommittee recommended program support for DOE
  Level 4 efficiency levels and advised getting
  manufacturer input on the opportunity to bring
  these products to market.

20
Discussion
21
Member Perspective

• Nelly Leap, BPA