Technical Study Report

Energy Efficient
Transformers
This report was produced under the project entitled “Supporting Action
on Climate Change through a Network of National Climate Change Focal
Points in South-east Asia” (SEAN-CC) implemented by UNEP and funded by
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Government of Finland.

Dec 2011

Energy Efficient Transformers

Contents
Section 1: Introduction 2
1.1 Type of Transformers 2
1.2 Substation Transformers 2
1.3 Distribution Transformers 7
1.4 Energy Savings Outlook 8

Section 2: Describe the Proposed Technology 11

2.1 Transformer Efficiency 12
2.2 Transformer Losses 12
2.3 Traditional Technologies 13
2.4 Cost Economics 16

Section 3: Requirements of the Technology 20

Intervention
3.1 New Technology Awareness and Acceptance 21
3.2 Contribution to Energy Efficiency and Global Warming Goals 22
3.3 Characterization of the Utility Market 22
3.4 National/International Policies and Initiatives 23
3.5 Potential Mechanisms for Change 24
3.6 International Perspective 24

Section 4: Analysis, Recommendations and 31

Action Plans
4.1 Use of High-efficiency Transformers 32
4.2 Amorphous Transformers 37
4.3 Running Cool for Lower Energy Costs 42
4.4 Projected Energy Savings Using Metglas AMDTs 42
4.5 Superconducting Transformers 43

Section 5: Follow-up to the Technology 45

5.1 Research & Development 46

5.2 Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers Trends 47
5.3 Some of the Short Term and Long Term Measures Taken by BEE 53
5.4 Policies & Regulations 52

Energy Efficient Transformers

Section 1

Energy Efficient Transformers 1

 Section 1

Introduction
Before invention of transformers, in initial days of electrical industry, power was distributed as direct
current at low voltage. The voltage drop in lines limited the use of electricity to only urban areas where
consumers were served with distribution circuits of small length. All the electrical equipment had to be
designed for the same voltage. Development of the first transformer around 1885 dramatically changed
transmission and distribution systems. The alternating current (AC) power generated at a low voltage
could be stepped up for the transmission purpose to higher voltage and lower current, reducing voltage
drops and transmission losses. Use of transformers made it possible to transmit the power economically
hundreds of kilometers away from the generating station. Step-down transformers then reduced the
voltage at the receiving stations for distribution of power at various standardized voltage levels for its
use by the consumers. Transformers have made AC systems quite flexible because the various parts and
equipment of the power system can be operated at economical voltage levels by use of transformers
with suitable voltage rating. The voltage levels are different in different countries depending upon their
system design. Transformers can be broadly classified, depending upon their application as given below.

1.1 Types of Transformers

1.1.1 Power Transformers

ANSI/IEEE defines a transformer as a static

electrical device, involving no continuously
moving parts, used in electric power systems to
transfer power between circuits through the use
of electromagnetic induction. The term power
transformer is used to refer to those transformers
used between the generator and the distribution
circuits, and these are usually rated at 500 KVA
and above. Power systems typically consist of a
large number of generation locations, distribution Fig. 1.1.1 Power Transformer

points, and interconnections within the system or

with nearby systems, such as a neighboring utility.
The complexity of the system leads to a variety
of transmission and distribution voltages. Power
transformers must be used at each of these points
where there is a transition between voltage levels.

Energy Efficient Transformers 2


1.1.2 Distribution Transformers
In 1886, George Westinghouse built the first
long-distance alternating-current electric lighting
system in Great Barrington, MA. The power
source was a 25-hp steam engine driving an
alternator with an output of 500 V and 12 A. In
the middle of town, 4000 ft away, transformers
were used to reduce the voltage to serve light
bulbs located in nearby stores and offices (Powel,
1997).
Any transformer that takes voltage from a
primary distribution circuit and “steps down”
or reduces it to a secondary distribution circuit
or a consumer’s service circuit is a distribution
transformer. Although many industry standards
tend to limit this definition by KVA rating (e.g.,
5 to 500 KVA), distribution transformers can
have lower ratings and can have ratings of 5000
KVA or even higher, so the use of KVA ratings
to define transformer types is being discouraged
(IEEE, 2002b).
Fig. 1.1.2 Three-Phase Distribution Transformer
Fig. 1.1.3 Quadrature booster set (300 MVA, 50 Hz,
400􀁳12*1.25%/115􀁳12*1.45˚ kV).
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 1
1.1.3 Phase-Shifting Transformers
The necessity to control the power flow rose
early in the history of the development of
electrical power systems. When high-voltage
grids were superimposed on local systems,
parallel-connected systems or transmission lines
of different voltage levels became standard.
Nowadays large high-voltage power grids are
connected to increase the reliability of the
electrical power supply and to allow exchange
of electrical power over large distances.
Complications, attributed to several factors such
as variation in power generation output and/or
power demand, can arise and have to be dealt
with to avoid potentially catastrophic system
disturbances. Additional tools in the form of
phase-shifting transformers (PSTs) are available
to control the power flow to stabilize the grids.
These may be justified to maintain the required
quality of the electrical power supply.
1.1.4 Rectifier Transformers
Power electronic circuits can convert alternating
current (ac) to direct current (dc). These are called
rectifier circuits. Power electronic circuits can also
convert direct current to alternating current. These
are called inverter circuits. Both of these circuits
are considered to be converters. A transformer that
has one of its windings connected to one of these
circuits, as a dedicated transformer, is a converter
transformer, or rectifier transformer. IEC
standards refer to these transformers as converter
transformers, while IEEE standards refer to these
transformers as rectifier transformers. Because
it is IEEE practice to refer to these transformers
as rectifier transformers, that same term is
used throughout this discussion. Transformers
connected to circuits with a variety of loads,
but which may contain some electronic circuits
that produce harmonics, are not considered to
be rectifier transformers. However, they may
have harmonic heating effects similar to rectifier
transformers. Those transformers are covered
under IEEE.
3

Recommended Practice for Establishing
Transformer Capability when Supplying Non-
Sinusoidal Load Currents, ANSI/IEEE C57.110.
Fig. 1.1.4 A 12-pulse Circuit 31 5450-kVA, 4160-V delta primary to
2080-V delta and wye secondaries, cast coil transformer in case.
1.1.5 Dry-Type Transformers
A dry-type transformer is one in which the
insulating medium surrounding the winding
assembly is a gas or dry compound. Basically, any
transformer can be constructed as “dry” as long as
the ratings, most especially the voltage and KVA,
can be economically accommodated without the
use of insulating oil or other liquid media. This
section covers single- and three-phase, ventilated,
non-ventilated, and sealed dry type transformers
with voltage in excess of 600 V in the highest-
voltage winding.
Fig. 1.1.5 Cast Resin Dry Type Transformer
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 1
Many perceptions of dry-type transformers
are associated with the class of design by
virtue of the range of ratings or end-use
applications commonly associated with
that form of construction Of course, the
fundamental principles are no different from
those encountered in liquid-immersed designs,
as discussed in other chapters. Considerations
involving harmonics are especially notable in this
regard.
Consequently, this chapter is brief, expounding
only on those topics that are particularly relevant
for a transformer because it is “dry.”
1.1.6 Instrument Transformers
Instrument transformers are primarily used to
provide isolation between the main primary
circuit and the secondary control and measuring
devices. This isolation is achieved by magnetically
coupling the two circuits. In addition to isolation,
levels in magnitude are reduced to safer levels.
Instrument transformers are divided into two
categories: voltage transformers (VT) and current
transformers (CT). The primary winding of the
VT is connected in parallel with the monitored
circuit, while the primary winding of the CT
is connected in series. The secondary windings
proportionally transform the primary levels to
typical values of 120 V and 5 A. Monitoring
devices such as watt-meters, power-factor meters,
voltmeters, ammeters, and relays are often
connected to the secondary circuits.
4
 Section 1

(a) (b)

Fig. 1.1.6 (a) 69-kV single-bushing VT,(b) High-voltage wound-type CT in combination steel tank, oil, and porcelain construction.

Energy Efficient Transformers 5


1.1.7 Step-Voltage Regulators
Distribution systems must be designed in such
a way that voltage magnitudes always remain
within a specified range as required by standards.
This is accomplished through the use of voltage-
control equipment and effective system design.
Regulating power transformers (load-tap-
changing transformers, or LTCs), three-phase
step-voltage regulators, single-phase step-voltage
regulators, and Auto-Boosters are typical
transformer-type equipment used to improve the
voltage “profile” of a power system.
Fig. 1.1.7 Single Phase Auto Booster Four-Step Voltage
Regulator
Single-phase step-voltage regulators maintain a
constant voltage by on-load voltage regulation
wherever the voltage magnitude is beyond
specified upper and lower limits. A common
practice among utilities is to stay within preferred
voltage levels and ranges of variation as set forth
by ANSI 84.1, Voltage Rating for Electric Power
Systems and Equipment.
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 1
1.1.8 Constant-Voltage Transformers
Constant-voltage transformers (CVT) have
been used for many years, primarily as a noise-
isolation device. Recently, they have found value
when applied as a voltage-sag protection device
for industrial and commercial facilities. The
industrial use of constant-voltage transformers
(also called CVTs and ferroresonant transformers)
goes back to the early 1940s. Joseph G. Sola,
a German-born engineer, discovered the CVT
technology [1,2] based on a single transformer
rather than an arrangement of transformers,
separate filters, and capacitors. This innovation
provides several important advantages: its
inherent robustness (CVT consists of just three
or four windings and a high-reliability capacitor),
its imperviousness to continuous short circuits
(whether it is turned on into a short circuit or
from full load), and its capability to maintain
output-voltage stabilization on a cycle-to-cycle
basis for significantly large overvoltages and
undervoltages.
Primary
Section of
the Core
Primary
Winding
Magnetic
Shunt
Air Gap
Secondary
Winding
Resonating
Resonant
Winding
Capacitor
Secondary
Section of
the Core
Fig. 1.1.8 Components of a typical constant-voltage transformer.
6

Industrial
Substation Transformer
Commercial
Fig. 1.2 Electrical Distribution System
1.2 Substation Transformers
A substation is a high-voltage electric facility. It is
used to switch generators, equipment and circuits
or lines in and out of system. A Substation is also
used to change AC voltages from one level to
another, or change alternating current to direct
current or direct current to alternating current.
There are small substations and large one. The
small substation are little more than a transformer
and relate switches, while the large one has
several transformers an dozens of switches and
equipment.
There are generally four types of substation, but
some substations there are a combination of two
or more types.
Substation Transformer Types
• Step-Up Transmission Substations
• Step-Down Transmission Substation
• Distribution Substation
• Underground Distribution Substation
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 1
Agricultural
Resident
Distribution
Transformer
1.3 Distribution Transformers
Distribution transformers: Using distribution
transformers, the primary feeder voltage is
reduced to actual utilization voltage (~415 or 460
V) for domestic/ industrial use. A great variety of
transformers fall into this category due to many
different arrangements and connections. Load
on these transformers varies widely, and they are
often overloaded. A lower value of no-load loss is
desirable to improve all-day efficiency. Hence, the
no-load loss is usually capitalized with a high rate
at the tendering stage. Since very little supervision
is possible, users expect the least maintenance
on these transformers. The cost of supplying
losses and reactive power is highest for these
transformers.
7

1.4 Energy Savings Outlook
Transformers typically can be expected to operate
20-30 years or more, so buying a unit based only
on its initial cost is uneconomical and foolish.
Transformer life-cycle cost (also called “total
cost of ownership”) takes into account not only
the initial transformer cost but also the cost to
operate and maintain the transformer over its
life. This requires that the total owning cost
(TCO) be calculated over the life span of the
transformer. With this method, it is now possible
to calculate the real economic choice between
competing models. (This same method can be
used to calculate the most economical total cost
of ownership of any long-lived device and to
compare competing models on the same basis.)
The TCO method not only includes the value of
purchase price and future losses but also allows
the user to adjust for tax rates, cost of borrowing
money, different energy rates, etc.
1.4.1 Why focus on distribution
transformers?
Energy losses throughout the world’s electrical
distribution networks amount to 1 279 TWh.
They vary from country to country between
3.7% and 26.7% of the electricity use,
which implies that there is a large potential
for improvement. After lines, distribution
transformers are the second largest loss-
making component in electricity networks.
Transformers are relatively easy to replace,
certainly in comparison with lines or cables,
and their efficiency can fairly easily be classified,
labeled and standardized. Moreover, modern
technology exists to reduce losses by up to 80%.
The worldwide electricity savings potential of
switching to high efficiency transformers is
estimated to be at least 200 TWh, equivalent to
the Benelux electricity consumption. This savings
potential is not only technically advantageous,
but also brings economic and environmental
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 1
benefits. Taking the full life cycle cost into
account, selecting high efficiency transformers
is normally an economically sound investment
decision despite their higher purchase price. As
a result, high efficiency transformers yield a net
economic gain for global society. A reduction
of energy consumption is also an important
advantage for the world’s environment { not least
because of the resulting reduction in greenhouse
gas emissions.
With this savings potential available, seven of
the largest economies in the world have been
taking actions to improve transformer efficiency:
Australia, China, Europe, Japan, Canada and the
USA. They have set up programs { mandatory
or voluntary { based on minimum standards or
efficiency labels. Up to now, the programs in
Australia, China, India and Japan are the most
advanced.
1.4.2 Network Losses
Losses of the electricity network world-wide
can be estimated at 1 279 TWh, or 9.2% of
electricity use. While some level of losses is
inevitable, tables 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 show a variation
in losses from less than 4% to more than 20%.
This variation cannot be explained alone by
size of country, size of the electricity system or
population.
Network losses in certain countries have
decreased steadily over the past decades. The data
shows that there remains a large potential for
improvement. Network losses are important for
several reasons. They represent a global economic
loss of US$ 61 billion, adding unnecessarily to
the cost of electricity. Especially in developing
countries, losses use scarce generating capacity.
Over 700 million tons of greenhouse gas
emissions can be associated with these losses.
Table 1.4.3 shows an indicative breakdown of
transmission and distribution losses, based on a
limited number of case studies:
8
 Section 1

Typically, a third of losses occur in transformers,
and two thirds in the rest of the system.
Approximately 70% of losses occur in the
distribution system. There is a very high potential
for high efficiency distribution transformers, as a
technology to improve network losses. There are
several good reasons for such a focus:
• Distribution transformers represent the 2nd
largest loss component in the network
• Replacing transformers is easier than changing
cables or lines
• Transformers have a large potential for loss
reduction. Technologies exist to reduce losses
by up to 80%.

Country Electricity use Network losses Network losses

(TWh) (TWh) (%)
Europe 3 046 222
Western Europe 2 540 185 7.3
Former Soviet Union 1135 133 11.7
North America 4 293 305 7.1
Latin America 721 131
18.3
Brazil 336 61
Asia 3 913 381
Japan 964 98 9.1
Aus, NZ 219 21 9.5
China 1 312 94 7.2
India 497 133 26.7
Africa / ME 826 83 10.0
Total 13 934 1 279 9.2
Table 1.4.1: Estimated network losses in the world
* Leonardo Energy Transformers – Leonardo-energy.org

Energy Efficient Transformers 9

 Section 1

Country 1980 1990 1999 2000

Finland 6.2 4.8 3.6 3.7
Netherlands 4.7 4.2 4.2 4.2
Belgium 6.5 6.0 5.5 4.8
Germany 5.3 5.2 5.0 5.1
Italy 10.4 7.5 7.1 7.0
Denmark 9.3 8.8 5.9 7.1
United States 10.5 10.5 7.1 7.1
Switzerland 9.1 7.0 7.5 7.4
France 6.9 9.0 8.0 7.8
Austria 7.9 6.9 7.9 7.8
Sweden 9.8 7.6 8.4 9.1
Australia 11.6 8.4 9.2 9.1
United Kingdom 9.2 8.9 9.2 9.4
Portugal 13.3 9.8 10.0 9.4
Norway 9.5 7.1 8.2 9.8
Ireland 12.8 10.9 9.6 9.9
Canada 10.6 8.2 9.2 9.9
Spain 11.1 11.1 11.2 10.6
New Zealand 14.4 13.3 13.1 11.5
Average 9.5 9.1 7.5 7.5
European Union 7.9 7.3 7.3 7.3
Table 1.4.2: Transmission and distribution losses in selected countries
* Leonardo Energy Transformers – Leonardo-energy.org

% of total Trans former Lin es Other

Case T D T D
USA - example 1 4.0 16.2 32.3 10.5 2.0
USA - example 2 2.2 36.5 45.5 43.0 7.8
Australia - example 2.0 40.0 20.0 38.0

UK - example 1 8.0 24.0 21.0 15.0

UK - example 2 10.0 32.0 45.0 43.0 2.0
Market assessment 10.0 35.0 15.0 19.0 2
Average 6.0 30.6 35.0 41.6 2.8
Table 1.4.3: Breakdown of Transmission (T) & Distribution (D) losses
* Leonardo Energy Transformers – Leonardo-energy.org

Energy Efficient Transformers 10

Section 2

Energy Efficient Transformers 11


DESCRIBE THE PROPOSED TECHNOLOGY
2.1 Transformer Efficiency
The efficiency of a transformer, like any other
device, is defined as the ratio of useful output
power to input power.
The percentage efficiency of a transformer is
in the range of 95 to 99%. For large power
transformers with low loss designs, the efficiency
can be as high as 99.7%.
There is a possibility of error if the efficiency is
determined from the measured values of output
and input powers, as the wattmeter readings may
have an error of about 1%. Hence, it is a more
accurate approach if the efficiency is determined
using the measured values of losses by the open
circuit and short circuit tests.
Although the load power factor has some effect
on the mutual flux and hence the core loss, the
effect is insignificant, allowing us to assume that
the core loss is constant at all the load conditions.
Although the efficiency of a transformer is given
by the ratio of output power to input power,
there are some specific applications of transformer
in which its performance cannot be judged only
by this efficiency. Distribution transformers, for
example, supply a load which varies over a wide
range throughout the day. For such transformers,
the parameter all-day efficiency is of more
relevance. The output and losses are computed
for a period of 24 hours using the load cycle.
No-load losses are constant (independent of
load); hence it is important to design distribution
transformers with a lower value of no-load losses
so that a higher value of all day energy efficiency
is achieved.
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 2
2.2 Transformer Losses
There are three different types of losses:
• No-load loss (also called iron loss or core loss):
Caused by the hysteresis and eddy currents in
the core. It is present whenever the transformer
is connected, and independent of the load. It
represents a constant, and therefore significant,
energy drain.
• Load loss (or copper loss or short circuit loss):
Caused by the resistive losses in the windings
and leads, and by eddy currents in the
structural steelwork and the windings. It varies
with the square of the load current.
• Cooling loss (only in transformers with fan
cooling): Caused by the energy consumption
of a fan. The bigger the other losses, the more
cooling is needed and the higher the cooling
loss. These losses can be avoided if operational
temperature is kept low by different loss
reduction measures.
2.2.1. Transformer Losses Standards
There are European specifications for power
systems transformers, which set standards for
performance, including power losses. These have
consolidated earlier national standards, and are
compatible with International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC) world standards. They have
been developed by the European Committee for
Electrotechnical Standardisation (CENELEC), in
consultation with UNIPEDE.
The distribution transformer standards applicable
within EU are all documented. Non-utility
outdoor distribution transformers are superficially
very similar to utility transformers, but the
specifications and sizes may be different. For
example, many European railways are supplied
at 15kV, 162/3Hz, single phase. Mining
transformers are often flameproof.
12

Distribution transformers with conventional
oil cooling and installed on indoor sites, for
example the basement of a large commercial
building, are considered to pose a possible
fire risk. They are required by the building
regulations in many EU countries either to use
non-flammable coolants, or to be dry-type,
without coolants. Polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), the principal coolant used in the past,
have been linked with the production of highly
toxic chlorine compounds, mainly dioxins, at
high temperatures. Non-toxic coolants are now
available, and cast resin clad transformers offer an
alternative to dry-type construction. Reliability
is reported to be the main factor influencing the
way in which distribution transformers are chosen
by consulting engineers and non-utility sector
customers. Their installations are relatively small
in scale, and unlike utility networks may have
only limited back-up in the case of transformer
failure.
2.3 Traditional Technologies
2.3.1 Distribution Transformer
Technology
1) Design Concepts
Transformer design is extremely specialized, and
requires a capable and experienced design team.
Transformers are manufactured against specific
customer invitations to tender, taking into
account the following basic parameters:
• flux density (or induction), a measure of
the loading of the iron core. Each magnetic
steel has its typical inherent core loss, directly
related to its flux density. Once above the
saturation induction of the steel, the flux
will leave the core and no-load losses are no
longer under control. Maximum flux density
should therefore be limited to well below
this saturation point. Energy-efficiency can
be improved by selecting better performing,
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 2
lower core loss steels, or by reducing flux
density in a specific core by increasing the
core size
• current density in the copper windings.
Increasing conductor cross-section reduces
the current density. This will improve energy
efficiency, but also result in higher cost.
Because copper losses are dependent on the
loading of the transformer, it is necessary to
consider how the unit is to be installed and
used in practice
• iron/copper balance. The balance between
the relative quantities of iron and copper
in the core and windings. A “copper-rich”
unit has a high efficiency across a wide range
of load currents. An “iron-rich” unit has a
lower initial cost price, and may be more
economical when transformers are expected to
be lightly loaded.
These basic considerations must then be
combined with a wide range of other factors,
to enable a competitive tender to be submitted
to the customer. Copper and iron prices are
continually changing, and this can affect the
balance between the two materials.
A variety of proprietary steels are available for
building the core, and the techniques to be used
for the construction of the transformer core,
windings, insulation and housing need to be
decided. Alternative materials, such as aluminum
coils or pre-formed copper windings, could be
considered. The energy efficiency of a distribution
transformer, in terms of losses, is usually specified
by the customer.
a) Transformer Steels
The energy efficiency of distribution
transformers is fundamentally dependent
on the type of steel used for building the
transformer core. Please see Fig 9. More
specialized steels, particularly suitable for
13

distribution and larger transformers, have
developed in a number of stages.
Thin hot-rolled steel sheet, with a silicon
content of about 3%, became the basic
material for fabricating electromagnetic
cores in about 1900. Individual sheets were
separated by insulating layers to combine low
hysteresis losses with high resistivity. Cold
rolling and more sophisticated insulation
techniques were progressively developed.
Grain-oriented silicon steels, in which the
magnetic properties of transformer steels are
improved by rolling and annealing, to align
the orientation of the grains, became available
in the mid-1950s. Various processing and
coating techniques, combined with a reduced
silicon content, were incorporated into high
permeability grain-oriented steels, about 10
years later. During the 1980s, techniques were
introduced for domain refinement, reducing
domain width by mechanical processes,
principally laser-etching.
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 2
b) Grain-oriented Steels
Conventional grain-orientated (CGO) steels
are rolled from silicon- iron slabstock, and
coated on both sides with a thin layer of
oxide insulating material to reduce eddy-
currents. They are supplied in Europe in
about 10 standard thickness. The European
standard, EN10107, reflects the international
IEC 60404 standard, and describes a range
of gauges from 0.23-0.50mm (previously
M3-M7, a nomenclature which is recognized
world-wide). CGO steels remain the standard
raw material for distribution transformer
manufacture in Europe. They are estimated
to account for over 70% of the total steel
consumption in distribution transformer
production, estimated at about 100,000 tons
per year. Demand is still very much skewed
to the thicker gauges. Thinner gauge CGO
and other more sophisticated raw materials are
considerably more expensive, reflecting higher
capital investment and technology levels,
as well as additional processing steps. Core
production costs are also higher.
14

High permeability steels are manufactured
to the same European Standard as CGO,
and are available in about five gauges ranging
from 0.23-0.30mm. They account for about
20% of total consumption in transformer
manufacture.
c) Conductor
The conductor materials for winding the coils
of distribution transformers are supplied in
the form of wire, narrow strip or sheet. They
have not experienced the same significant step
changes in recent years as core steels. The main
developments have been: the availability of
copper and aluminum wire-rod produced by
continuous casting and rolling (CCR) processes,
combined with mechanized handling techniques.
This has enabled semi-fabricators to offer wire
and strip in much longer lengths than was
previously possible, increasing transformer
reliability. The welded or brazed joints in strip,
which were inevitable in rod produced from
wire-bar, created weak points in the finished coils
l both copper and aluminum are now available in
wide sheet and foil form with high dimensional
tolerances. Sheet has extensively replaced strip for
the LV windings of distribution transformers.
d) Other Materials
Developments have also taken place in the other
components used in distribution transformer
manufacture. The most significant are the
development of flame-proof coolants to replace
PCBs, and the use of cast resin encapsulation
as an alternative to dry construction in non-
liquid cooled transformers. More sophisticated
insulating papers and boards, including synthetic
and self-bonding papers, are also available.
2) Coil Winding and Assembly
The processes of winding the conductor coils
and then fitting them onto the assembled core
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 2
are labor-intensive, and require skilled workers.
Again the performance and energy efficiency of
a distribution transformer greatly depends on
these steps. Mechanized winding, under operator
control, is increasingly used for producing
coils based upon copper wire, wide strip and
aluminum foil.
The main types of coil which are now used in
distribution transformers are:
• spiral sheet windings, using wide copper
strip or aluminum foil. A relatively recent
development, used in place of helical coils for
the LV windings of distribution transformers,
particularly where there are only a small
number of turns required in the coil
• multilayer coils for HV windings. The
complete winding is a single unit, wound in
wire, consisting of several layers and a number
of turns per layer.
• disc coils, particularly for the HV windings of
dry-type transformers. A number of radially
wound discs produced from a single length
of conductor, separated from one another by
insulating spacers.
2.4 Cost Economics
2.4.1 Distribution Transformer
Standards
Most of the characteristics of distribution
transformers are specified in national or
international product standards. The application
of standards can be legally required, or by specific
reference in the purchase contract.
Generally, the purpose of standards is to facilitate
the exchange of products in both home and
overseas markets, and to improve product quality,
health, safety and the environment. International
standards are also of importance in reducing trade
barriers. For distribution transformers purchased
in the European Union, three levels of standards
are applicable:
15
 Section 2

• world-wide standards (ISO, IEC, ANSI) Among the many international standards for
• European standards and regulations (EN, HD) distribution transformers, two main European
• national standards (e.g. BSI, NF, DIN, NEN, Harmonization Documents specify energy
UNE, OTEL). efficiency levels:

European Harmonization Documents are • HD428: Three-phase oil-immersed

initiated if there is a need for a European
standard. The draft HD is a compilation of the
different national standards on the subject. The
HD is finalized by eliminating as many national
differences as possible.
When a harmonization document (HD) has
been issued, conflicting national standards have
to be withdrawn within a specified period of
time, or modified to be compatible with the HD.
Usually, the HD is the predecessor of an European
standard (EN), which must be adopted as a
national standard in the EU member countries.
Thus, purchase orders which refer to national
standards are compatible with European standards
(EN) and/or harmonization documents (HD).
distribution transformers 50Hz, from 50 to
2,500kVA with highest voltage for equipment
not exceeding 36kV
• HD538: Three-phase dry-type distribution
transformers 50Hz, from 100 to 2,500kVA,
with highest voltage for equipment not
exceeding 36 kV.
A separate HD is under consideration for pole-
mounted transformers. In the next Section, the
efficiency limits defined in these standards are
discussed. The standards however leave considerable
freedom for local deviations in energy efficiency,
which implies that energy loss levels may (and do)
still vary across European countries and even in
other countries. (Please see Table 2.4.1)

Country /Region Standard Subject

USA • Guide for Determining Energy Efficiency Efficiency standards and TOC
for Distribution Transformers (TP1- formula
1996). National Electrical Manufacturers
Association. 1996.
• Standard Test Method for Measuring the
Energy Consumption of Distribution
Transformers (TP2-1998).
• National Electrical Manufacturers
Association. 1998.
• Power transformers - Application guide,
60076-8, IEC:1997
International Design, calculation aspects
including measurement of
losses
Europe Cenelec 1992, Harmonization documents Efficiency standards and
HD 428, HD538 oil and dry type cost capitalization formula
transformers
Variety of country standards defining efficiency levels; MEPS in Australia, Canada,
China, Japan, Mexico, proposed in India and New Zealand, non mandatory in Europe
Table 2.4.1: Main transformer efficiency standards
* Leonardo Energy Transformers – Leonardo-energy.org

Energy Efficient Transformers 16


2.4.2 Life-cycle Costing
Most company structures separate the purchasing
function from operations. This results in a
situation where the purchase of a transformer is
often based on the delivery price only. In most
cases however, transformers with the lowest
purchase price are also the ones with the highest
losses. Since transformers have a long life span,
these extra losses can add up to a considerable
amount, exceeding the initial price by several
times.
When comparing two different types of
transformers, one should take into account the
total cost during the lifespan of the transformer,
in other words, the ‘Total Cost of Ownership’
(TCO).
TCO consists of several components: purchase
price, installation cost, value of the energy
losses and maintenance costs over its life,
and decommissioning costs. Except for PCB
cooled transformers, the last two elements are
relatively insensitive to the type and design of the
transformer, and are consequently seldom taken
into account. Purchase price and energy losses are
the two key factors. When different technologies
are compared, e.g. dry-type or oil-immersed,
installation costs can be considerably different,
and should be taken into account.
To evaluate the total cost of losses, their Net
Present Value at the moment of purchase needs
to be calculated, to put them into the same
perspective as the purchase price. This is done
by calculating the Total Capitalized Cost of the
losses, TCCloss, calculated from the estimated
average cost per kWh (C), the cost of capital (r)
and the life time of the transformer in years (n),
where Eloss was defined.
Eloss[kW] = (P0 + Pk * I2 ) * 8760
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 2
In which:
• P0 is the no-load loss [kW]
• Pk is the load loss [kW]
• I is the rms-average load of the transformer2
• 8760 is the number of hours in a year
TCCloss = Eloss * C * (1 + r)n - 1 / r * (1 + r)n
While the load profile over time and the future
price evolution of energy is not known exactly,
the use of trend line values can give good
estimates of the total cost of the losses.
2.4.3 Economic analysis of loss
reduction
The energy efficiencies of distribution
transformers range from around 94% for a small
A-A’ transformer, to more than 99% for an
amorphous-core distribution transformer with
HD 428 C-level losses (‘C-AMDT’), the most
efficient type available.
On average, the loss in a distribution transformer
is around 1.5 { 2.0% of the energy transferred.
Considering that transformers are working
continuously, significant losses can build up. By
choosing the right technology, these losses can be
reduced by up to 80%.
As the tables below show, the pay-back period for
investing in high efficiency transformers is relatively
short, certainly regarding their long life span (25 -
30 years). Please see Table 2.4.1 and 2.4.2.
1. Changing an industrial 1600 KVA transformer
from a A-A’ type to a C-C’ type will pay back in
1.4 years. The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) for
investments in efficient transformers is consistently
above 10% and sometimes as high as 70%.
2. Considering the low risk of the investment, this
should make efficient transformers attractive to
both industrial companies and grid operators. But
17
 Section 2

in the case of grid operators, there is at present no only factor, as they have to be covered by the grid
incentive to invest. Loss reduction then remains the operators, as is the case in most countries.

Energy saved IRR (% -25

Efficiency class Efficiency (%) Payback
(kWh / year) years)
A-A’ 94.71 996 - -
C-C’ 96.46 2 277 5.0 20
A-AMDT 98.71 2 310 7.7 12
C-AMDT 98.77 - 8.6 11
Table 2.4.2: Energy saving & return for a high efficiency 100 kVA transformer
* Leonardo Energy Transformers – Leonardo-energy.org

Energy saved IRR (% -25

Efficiency class Efficiency (%) Payback
(kWh / year) years)
A-A’ 98.04 3 143 - -
C-C’ 98.64 6 833 2.8 36
A-AMDT 99.35 7 085 5.7 17
C-AMDT 99.40 - 6.6 15
Table 2.4.3: Energy saving & return for a high efficiency 1600 kVA transformer
* Leonardo Energy Transformers – Leonardo-energy.org

2.4.4 Externalities
As shown in the previous section, a higher
efficiency benefits the owner of the transformer,
reducing TCO. On a larger scale, those cost
savings are beneficial for the whole economy,
enabling the lower cost of production to result in
lower tariffs to customers.
Each kWh also has an external cost, i.e. the
environmental and health costs to society that
are not fully reflected in the price of electricity.
These externalities originate from the various
types of emissions resulting from the combustion
of fossil fuel. Apart from CO2, the main
offenders are SO2 and NOx which contribute
to the acidification of the environment. These
pollutants have long range transborder effects
and have therefore become a major concern for
most European countries. From table 2.4.3, the
average external cost for the world’s generation
mix can be estimated at 5 US Cents / kWh3. A
saving of 200 TWh/year represents, in monetary
equivalent, a reduction of 10 billion US$ in
environmental cost.
2.4.5 Non-technical losses
Distribution losses are calculated as the difference
between electricity paid by clients and energy
supplied by a medium voltage transformer to the
distribution network. Losses can be technical, or
non-technical. Non-technical losses can be:
• Electricity theft
• Invoicing errors
• Bankruptcies of clients
• Measurement errors
Electricity theft is a social problem, and hard
to solve, since it addresses a large portion of

Energy Efficient Transformers 18

 Section 2

the population in certain countries. It is not care should be taken in interpreting loss figures to
the subject of this paper, which addresses distinguish between technical and non-technical
technological solutions to increase efficiency. But losses.

External Cost Part of generation Contribution

Fuel
US$ / kWh % US$ / kWh
Coal 8.3 39 3.2
Oil 11.6 8 0.9
Gas 3.8 17 0.6
Nuclear 1.0 17 0.2
Hydro 0.3 17 0.1
Renewable 0.3 – 2.9 2 0.0
Total 100 5.0

Table 2.4.4: The external cost of electricity for the world generation mix, based on 63 studies
* Leonardo Energy Transformers – Leonardo-energy.org

Energy Efficient Transformers 19

Section 3

Energy Efficient Transformers 20


Requirements of the Technology
Intervention
3.1 New Technology Awareness
and Acceptance
3.1.1 New Developments in
Transformer Materials
1) Domain Refined Steels
A further reduction of losses is achieved by
domain limitation. Domain refined steels are
produced mainly by proprietary laser etching
processes. Together with grain-oriented steel,
they offer material with specific losses ranging
from about 0.85-1.75W/kg at 1.7T/50Hz for
distribution transformer manufacture.
Commercially available domain-refined steel
is typically 0.23mm thick. Together with
amorphous iron, see below, it has a market share
in Europe for transformer manufacture of about
10%.
2) Amorphous Iron
Distribution transformers built with amorphous
iron cores can have more than 70% reduction in
no-load losses compared to the best conventional
designs. There is only one known producer
world-wide of amorphous iron material suitable
for distribution transformer manufacture.
Amorphous iron became commercially available
in the early 1980s. It is reported to have been
used in the construction of several hundred
thousand distribution transformers in the US,
Japan, India and China. European experience of
manufacturing and installing amorphous iron
distribution transformers in the EU has been
very limited. This is partly due to network design
characteristics which differ from US and Japanese
practice. However a very large (1,600kVA)
amorphous iron three-phase distribution
transformer has recently been built and installed
in the EU.
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 3
3.1.2. Future Developments
Research and development on magnetic steels
is vigorously pursued world-wide. The licensing
of new processes has been extremely prevalent
in this sector for many years. Distribution
transformers appear to represent a poor return
on recent development effort, with the possible
exception of amorphous iron, because of the
competitive nature of the market. However new
magnetic steel developments also benefit from
other applications, notably electric motors and
small transformers.
Future emphasis on energy efficiency and
environmental impact could change this picture.
Among areas of interest are:
• the ending of certain patents on amorphous
iron processes, which could encourage other
producers to enter the market
• the adoption of the design of amorphous iron
transformers to European practice (i.e. use
a three legged Evans-core design for Dy-
connected transformers, resulting in reduced
length, cost and noise)
• mechanical or thermal processes other than
laser etching for domain limitation
• the use of thinner steels. Magnetic steels with
gauges as low as 0.05mm are being offered
in narrow strip for small transformers and
coils. For larger transformers 0.18mm steel
is available, but both raw material and core
fabrication costs rise very rapidly as the gauge
is reduced.
3.1.3 Superconducting Transformers
A number of superconducting distribution
transformers have been built. One company
has developed a nitrogen-cooled 630kVA high
temperature superconductor (HTS) transformer,
which was installed in the Swiss electricity
21

supply network in 1997. This is a single-phase
transformer, and considerable engineering
problems are reported in producing three-phase
versions.
It is widely agreed that superconductivity will
always remain much more expensive for power
distribution transformers than conventional
technology. The most promising areas appear
to be in specialist applications, particularly
traction transformers, where increasingly large
transformers are required for train motors in
railway networks.
3.1.4 Technology Sources
Power systems transformers are very specialized
products, and R&D activities outside the major
transformer manufacturing companies are
limited. Even here most effort is centered on
practical product development, together with the
testing and evaluation of new materials. Only
a few distribution transformer manufacturers
in Europe have significant fundamental R&D
capabilities dedicated to transformer research.
Much of the recent work on the steels used
in distribution transformers has originated
from Japan and the United States, although
European companies have a world reputation
for the steels and non-ferrous alloys used in
smaller transformers. Some of the technology for
adding value to conductors and coils, such as the
continuous cold rolling of narrow strip, has also
been imported. However there are a number of
centers of excellence in Europe, with a capability
for R&D and demonstration of distribution
transformers or component materials. Many
European universities have a capability in
magnetic materials within their electrical
engineering or materials departments.
3.2 Contribution to Energy
Efficiency and Global Warming
Goals
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 3
Emissions data suggested by the International
Institute for Energy Conservation (IIEC) for
Europe is 0.4kg CO2/kWh. Electrical energy
savings of 22.3TWh will provide emissions
savings of 8.9 million tons of CO2. The
European Union is committed to a reduction of
8 per cent on 1990 levels (266 million tons) by
2008-2012.
The potential savings from energy-efficient
distrubution transformers could reach 7.3 TWh.
This is approximately over 1% of the European
commitment.
To put the overall potential saving of 22.3TWh
into perspective, this is equivalent to the annual
energy use of over 5.1 million homes or the
electricity produced by three of the largest coal
burning power stations in Europe.
Distribution transformers have not yet been the
focus of energy saving measures and could, if
developed, contribute significantly to European
targets for reduction.
3.3 Characterization of the Utility
Market
Utility markets account for approximately
half the installed transformer capacity in
Europe. Throughout Europe, the purchasing of
transformers seems to be reasonably standardized,
with the utilities having open tender practices
in line with European Purchasing Directives.
In almost all cases, losses (iron and copper) are
factored into the specification, with minimum
standards in line with internationally accepted
standards. However, the specifications in
each country differ in relation to the load
characteristics (rural/urban), the network being
served or the requirements for low noise emission
(e.g. in German urban areas).
22

Selection of the supplier is usually made on the
“first cost” principle, i.e. the supplier providing
the lowest cost offer that meets the specification
wins the business. Few exceptions are made where
a supplier offers a more efficient transformer
(i.e. lower life-time cost), but at a slightly higher
price. The one exception to this is the Nordic
countries, where the efficiency of the transformer
in specific applications is given a high priority,
with the specification giving the efficiency of the
transformer a very high rating.
In almost all EU countries, first cost is the driving
principle. Where the utility is state owned,
limitations on capital expenditure are paramount
to assist in meeting the ever tightening
budgets brought about by the strict monetary
requirements associated with the Û. Where the
utility is in private ownership, the availability of
capital for efficient transformer purchases always
competes against more attractive (i.e. quicker
payback) investments that can be made by the
utility in other areas. In both cases, the lack of
interest in efficient transformers is compounded
by the electricity suppliers’ inability to pass the
cost of any losses on to the consumer, hence
removing any incentive to overall system, and
consequentially transformer, performance.
3.4 National/International Policies
and Initiatives
Across Europe, transformers are manufactured to
individual national standards. These are broadly
compatible with the European specification,
Harmonization Document 428. This in turn
is based on the International Electro-technical
Commission World Standard IEC60076.
Through this harmonization of standards, a
mechanism is in place for communicating and
enforcing more rigorous requirements for energy
efficiency. However at present, compliance with
HD428 is purely voluntary. For this mechanism
to be effective in increasing the overall level
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 3
of transformer efficiency across Europe, the
specification would have to be formally adopted
by CENELEC as a standard and compliance (via
the provisions of any national standard) would
have to be compulsory.
Despite this apparent standardization, national
standards can vary significantly. Each country
has its own specific issues related to distribution
system strength, capacity considerations, etc.
Other differences result from variations in
particular circumstances within countries. In
France, the majority of generation is by nuclear
power station. The marginal cost of generation is
therefore very low and the environmental impact
is negligible because emissions are minimal.
French utilities are therefore under no pressure to
purchase energy-efficient transformers and lowest
first cost transformers are specified as standard.
In Germany, where many transformers are based
in the centre of residential areas, there are very
stringent noise regulations. There are also often
size restrictions.
Harmonizing the East/West supply systems and
standardizing the equipment are also causing
problems.
The situation is further confused with the
regulators in each country setting varying goals
for the utility companies. In almost all cases,
continuity of supply is the key factor. However,
variations on other priorities are profuse and
cover cost of electricity to the customer, voltage
tolerances, safety, noise, overall environmental
impact of the system, etc.
There appears to be little overall attempt
to encourage the uptake of energy-efficient
transformers by any national government or
regulator. In the UK, the regulator includes an
efficiency incentive in the pricing formula for
supply, but this is marginal compared with other
23

considerations. The following example describes
how one electricity supply company assessed the
value of fitting amorphous core transformers into
its network.
3.5 National/International Policies
and Initiatives
Across Europe, transformers are manufactured to
individual national standards. These are broadly
compatible with the European specification,
Harmonization Document 428. This in turn
is based on the International Electro-technical
Commission World Standard IEC60076.
Through this harmonization of standards, a
mechanism is in place for communicating and
enforcing more rigorous requirements for energy
efficiency. However at present, compliance with
HD428 is purely voluntary. For this mechanism
to be effective in increasing the overall level
of transformer efficiency across Europe, the
specification would have to be formally adopted
by CENELEC as a standard and compliance (via
the provisions of any national standard) would
have to be compulsory.
Despite this apparent standardization, national
standards can vary significantly. Each country
has its own specific issues related to distribution
system strength, capacity considerations, etc.
Other differences result from variations in
particular circumstances within countries. In
France, the majority of generation is by nuclear
power station. The marginal cost of generation is
therefore very low and the environmental impact
is negligible because emissions are minimal.
French utilities are therefore under no pressure to
purchase energy-efficient transformers and lowest
first cost transformers are specified as standard.
In Germany, where many transformers are based
in the centre of residential areas, there are very
stringent noise regulations. There are also often
size restrictions.
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 3
Harmonizing the East/West supply systems and
standardizing the equipment are also causing
problems.
The situation is further confused with the
regulators in each country setting varying goals
for the utility companies. In almost all cases,
continuity of supply is the key factor. However,
variations on other priorities are profuse and
cover cost of electricity to the customer, voltage
tolerances, safety, noise, overall environmental
impact of the system, etc.
There appears to be little overall attempt
to encourage the uptake of energy-efficient
transformers by any national government or
regulator. In the UK, the regulator includes an
efficiency incentive in the pricing formula for
supply, but this is marginal compared with other
considerations.
3.6 Potential Mechanisms for Change
There appears to be several potential mechanisms
that could change the buying behavior of
transformer purchasers. Each potential
mechanism is briefly examined below.
3.6.1 No Change Scenario
It is possible that no action at the EU level will be
required, as national governments begin to realize
the implications of international commitments
on CO2 and act at national level to improve the
efficiency of transformers purchased. However,
realistically this is unlikely to occur, due to the
long term nature of savings from transformers
and the complex nature of specification and the
purchasing cycle. National governments are much
more likely to concentrate on simpler targets, e.g.
improvements in the performance of domestic
appliances, etc.
24

3.6.2 Enforceable Minimum Standards
Discussions have already taken place between
EC DGXVII, COTREL and EURELECTRIC
to discuss the possibility of voluntary agreements
or a European Directive to initiate reduced
losses from distribution transformers through a
minimum standard.
A minimum standard of sorts already exists in
the Harmonization Document 428 (standard
for three-phase oil immersed distribution
transformers, 50 Hz, from 50kVA to 2500 kVA
with highest voltage for equipment not exceeding
36kVA). This standard could be made more
prescriptive and specify improved minimum
losses for all types of transformer.
Such a standard could then be made mandatory
through an EU Directive.
Unfortunately, such an approach is likely to be
strongly resisted at national level, due to the
specific needs of each national distribution system
and local political considerations. Further, the
imposition of overall standards for efficiency
higher than those already in force would cause
problem s, due to the variations in demand
profiles from the various end use applications, e.g.
rural/urban uses.
An alternative approach would be for the EU
to place obligatory requirements on national
regulators to include efficiency as one of their
key elements when forming regulatory policy. It
is unlikely that such an approach would work as,
without specific guidelines, regulators are likely
to simply pay lip-service to the issue. Further, the
preparation of specific guidelines may impose
on the principles of subsidiarity and would be
difficult to draft in any case.
3.6.3 Financial Incentives
The major cause of purchases of “less efficient”
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 3
transformers is the requirement of many
purchasers for the lowest first cost. If some
financial mechanism could be introduced,
that would make the purchase of efficient
transformers more attractive, it is likely to have a
major impact on the marketplace. Such financial
incentives appear to fall into three categories:
If a mechanism was in place to define efficient
transformers (e.g. transformer labels described
below), it would be possible to offer rebates
on purchases of higher efficiency units, hence
lowering the purchase cost differential between
the more and less efficient units.
Unfortunately, the rebate would be extremely
expensive, given the number of transformers
purchased across the EU annually. Further, such a
scheme could only be sustained for a short period
and following withdrawal, the marketplace would
almost certainly revert to the original situation
with no lasting market transformation.
Changing national taxation systems to make
the capitalization of transformers more
attractive, e.g. shortening the allowable assets
write- off period, is likely to have a major
impact on the purchases made by utility buyers
(other buyers are unlikely to purchase enough
transformers for this to have any significant
impact relative to other considerations). However,
this would have to be made a national issue,
as the EU is specifically excluded from direct
interference with national taxation issues. As
such, it is unlikely that individual member states
would adopt such a policy, due to the complex
requirements in drafting the required legislation
and policing claims under the system. Increasing
responsibility for cost of losses. Obviously,
financial costs associated with losses from
transformers owned by end users are already
borne by the end user. However, losses accruing
from transformers owned by utilities are currently
almost universally transferred to the end user as
part of the cost of electricity.
25

This situation is difficult to change where the
utility is state owned. However, where the utility
is privatized, there is an opportunity to use this
“cost of losses” as an incentive to improve the
system. At present, if the utility improves the
efficiency of the system, then the amount of “cost
of losses” is adjusted accordingly, hence the utility
makes little improvement in profit.
A realignment of the pricing structure , to allow
a fixed amount of “cost for losses” to be passed
to the consumer, with the savings from any
reduction in losses split between the consumer
and the utility (say on a 50:50 basis), would
improve the business case for examining lifetime
costing. Such a system would allow investments
in efficient transformers to be more competitive
against other demands on the capital budgets
of the utilities. However, this is again a national
issue, with the individual pricing regimes coming
under the control of the national regulators.
3.6.4 Liberalization
The costs and profits of network companies
in a liberalized electricity market are in most
countries limited by regulation or regulated
tariffs. This may inhibit investments in energy
efficiency measures, for instance high efficiency
transformers. The risk is that companies are more
focused on short term cost savings and fail to
invest in systems that would save more in the
long run.
If the correct regulatory framework is developed,
investments in improving the efficiency of a
network can also be stimulated under market
regulation. The following is a short description of
the 4 main barriers and possible remedies.
1. Most models of regulation rely on a partial
redistribution of savings to consumers.
This discourages companies from making
investments for efficiency improvements, since
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 3
cost reduction from the investment are shared
with the consumers.
• Allow some carryover of measurable
efficiency gains, so that investing in energy
efficiency becomes more attractive for the
network companies.
2. Capital-intensive investments are very sensitive
to future changes, e.g. in the regulatory regime.
This discourages investments in efficiency
improvements.
• Give special incentives to promote capital-
intensive energy efficiency measures. Create
a stable, long term system of regulation.
3. The regulatory framework tends to concentrate
on cost savings in the short term.
These do not encourage companies to take the
life cycle costs of equipment into
account.
4. Energy losses are calculated without
consideration of external costs.
• Take the true cost of network losses into
account.
3.6.5 Labelling system
Lack of knowledge is a significant barrier to the
purchase of energy- efficient transformers. This is
particularly true of large energy users, where there
is a desire to use efficient transformers, but not
the technical ability to specify them effectively.
A labeling system that indicated the efficiency of
transformers under specific load profiles would
assist this group considerably, and is likely to
cause a significant movement in the market.
While there are obvious difficulties in creating
a labeling system for transformers, given the
variability of losses depending upon application,
it is possible to develop a labeling system that
provides the user with appropriate guidance in
26

most instances. Such a system is currently under
development for electric motors, a product with
similar difficulties in efficiency definition.
The introduction of a labeling system also
provides a framework from which future
minimum standards may be derived (if deemed
appropriate). The framework could also be used
for financial incentives, should they be required at
a national level.
3.6.5 Labelling system
Lack of knowledge is a significant barrier to the
purchase of energy- efficient transformers. This is
particularly true of large energy users, where there
is a desire to use efficient transformers, but not
the technical ability to specify them effectively.
A labeling system that indicated the efficiency of
transformers under specific load profiles would
assist this group considerably, and is likely to
cause a significant movement in the market.
While there are obvious difficulties in creating
a labeling system for transformers, given the
variability of losses depending upon application,
it is possible to develop a labeling system that
provides the user with appropriate guidance in
most instances. Such a system is currently under
development for electric motors, a product with
similar difficulties in efficiency definition.
The introduction of a labeling system also
provides a framework from which future
minimum standards may be derived (if deemed
appropriate). The framework could also be used
for financial incentives, should they be required at
a national level.
3.6.6 Voluntary schemes
Voluntary schemes do not have the disadvantages
of a mandatory minimum standard.
The targets can often be set at a more ambitious
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 3
level and reviewing them is less diffcult
and less time consuming. Consequently, it is a
much more °exible system.
The main difficulty to overcome in voluntary
programs is reaching a reasonable degree of
participation often taking a few years.
The goal of a voluntary program should be to
make the incentives and the image so important
that it becomes difficult for companies to ignore.
High image value, a meaningful brand presence,
and a strong policy context for instance make the
Japanese ‘Toprunner’ program a good example of
an effective scheme.
3.7 International Perspective
3.7.1 US and Canada
The US DOE is in the process of implementing
a test standard for distribution transformers,
following a report from Oak Ridge that
supports a DOE determination that minimum
performance requirements for distribution
transformers can be justified.
Following on from the test standard, formal analysis
and legislation will be implemented. The standard
is not expected to be issued until after 2000.
The transformer industry opposes the prospect
of a mandatory minimum and would prefer a
voluntary standard (NEMA TP1).
The Oak Ridge study concluded that the TP1
levels of energy efficiency do not meet the DOE
criteria. A US ‘Energy Star’ program which
provides energy efficiency labeling, currently
promotes the TP1 levels of energy efficiency.
Canada is in the midst of consultation to
implement mandatory levels equivalent to
TP1, with a view to revising them once the US
legislation has been implemented.
27

3.7.2 China
Shanghai Zhixin Electrical Industry Co Ltd.
have been developing a relationship with GE
under a license agreement to produce amorphous
core transformers since June 1997. The contract
was signed in February 1998. Currently they
are importing most of the components and
assembling them in Shanghai. A core winding
machine has been purchased, to be installed in
mid-July 1999.
Average transformer size is 400kVA. Shanghai
Urban Power Distribution Bureau have installed
116 sets of amorphous core transformers, saved
770,000kWh power per year, worth about
27,900,000 RMB (Û3.2 million).
Information from the company identifies the
no load losses as 20% of those in a conventional
transformer. The incremental cost is 30% over
that of a conventional transformer. They have
a target to reduce this to 20% when more
components are manufactured in China.
Currently the estimated payback is 2.5 years.
Transformer sales in China are estimated to be
350,000 per year.
The company has a production target of 2,000/
year, which will rise to 3,000/year, and can see
no technical barriers to more transformers being
manufactured in China if the market can be
stimulated. The main barrier to uptake is the
increased cost over the conventional product.
3.7.3 Australia and New Zealand
The Australian program for energy efficiency in
distribution transformers, executed by the National
Appliance and Equipment Energy Efficiency
Committee (NAEEEC), works on two levels.
First, there is the Minimum Energy Performance
Standard (MEPS), a regulation that bans
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 3
transformers which do not meet minimum
efficiency levels. The standards are defined for
oil-filled distribution transformers between 10
and 2 500 KVA and for dry-type distribution
transformers between 15 and 2 500 KVA, both
at 50% load. The MEPS are mandated by
legislation, effective 1 October 2004. Under the
stimulus of the National Greenhouse Strategy
and thanks to the strong will of the parties
involved, the creation of the MEPS passed
smoothly. The field study to define the scope was
started in 2000, with the minimum standards
written in 2002.
The second track, currently under development,
is the creation of further energy efficiency
performance standards resulting in a scheme for
voluntary ‘high efficiency’ labeling.
New Zealand follows the Australian regulation
for distribution transformers.
3.7.4 Europe
CENELEC has defined efficiency standards for
distribution transformers in the range from 50
to 2500 KVA. HD428 stipulates A, B and C
categories for load and no-load losses. HD538
advises a maximum for the load and no-load
losses of dry type transformers. The efficiency
ranges defined by these standards are relatively
wide. The minimum efficiency in the highest
category (CC’) is still far below the efficiency
of the best in class and far below the ‘5-star’
transformer defined by the Indian Bureau of
Energy Efficiency. CENELEC is currently
defining new efficiency categories with lower
losses.
In 1999, a Thermie project of the European
Union assessed the total energy losses in
distribution transformers. The savings potential
in the 15 countries of the EU was estimated to be
22 TWh.
28
 Section 3

A mandatory minimum efficiency standard The minimum standard is not based on the
for distribution transformers is not expected average efficiency level of products currently
to be introduced in the near future. This is available, but on the highest efficiency level
disappointing, given the availability of world- achievable. However, the program does not
class transformer technology in Europe. impose this level immediately, but sets a target
date by which this efficiency level must be
3.7.5 India reached. A manufacturer’s product range must,
In India, the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) on average, meet the requirement. It is not
has developed a 5-star classification scheme for applied to individual products.
distribution transformers in the range from
25 to 200 KVA. The scheme is a co-operative 3.7.7 Mexico
venture between public and private organizations
As in Australia, the Mexican standard includes
that issues rules and recommendations under
voluntary and mandatory elements. The Normas
the statutory powers vested with it. The 5-star
Oficiales Mexicanas (NOM) define minimum
program stipulates a lower and a higher limit for
efficiency performance standards for transformers
the total losses in transformers, at 50% load. The
in the range from 5 to 500 KVA, and a
scheme recommends replacing transformers with
compulsory test procedure for determining this
higher star rated units. The 5-star unit represents
performance. For each power category, maximum
world class technology, while 3-stars is recom-
load and no-load losses are imposed.
mended as a minimum, and already followed by
many utilities. India historically has a rather poor
performance in transformer energy efficiency, but
this 5-star program could become an important
driver for change.

3.7.6 Japan
In Japan, transformers are a part of the
‘Toprunner Program’ which either defines the
efficiency for various categories of a product
type, or uses a formula to calculate minimum
efficiency. This program, which covers 18
different categories of appliances, has some
major differences compared to other minimum
efficiency performance programs.

Energy Efficient Transformers 29

Section 4

Energy Efficient Transformers 30


Analysis, Recommendations, and
Action Plans
4.1 Use of High-efficiency
Transformers
4.1.1 Achievable Loss Levels
The HD428 C-C’ loss level for oil-filled
distribution transformers may, as mentioned
before, be regarded as providing a high practical
standard of energy efficiency for a distribution
transformer.
There is no internationally agreed definition of
an “energy-efficient” transformer. It is proposed
to use the term “energy-efficient” transformer for
the following transformers:
l oil-filled transformers: range C-C’ (HD428.1)
and D-E’ (HD428.3)
l dry-type transformers up to and including
24kV: 20% lower than specified in HD538.1.
HD538 mentions one list of preferred values,
but explicitly allows the possibility for national
standards to specify a second series with load
and/or no-load losses at least 15% lower. Some
transformer manufacturers offer dry-type
transformers in normal and low-loss versions
l dry-type transformers 36kV: 20% better than
specified in HD538.2, analogous to the previous
category.
An important reason for choosing the values
suggested above is the fact that these levels are
entirely feasible within the current “state of the
art” of nearly all transformer manufacturers. In
the remainder of this report, the class of energy-
efficient transformers is often referred to as C-C’,
as the oil-filled transformers form the majority of
the transformers, and, among these, units up to
24kV are the most numerous.
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 4
An alternative way of defining “energy-efficient
transformers” would be to by considering the
energy-efficiency levels of the transformers
sold on the market. This is be analogous to the
concept of the US “energy star” transformer
program.
Here transformers with energy efficiency equal
to or above that of the most efficient 35% being
currently sold meet the requirement for Energy
Star rating.
Another way to define “energy-efficient
transformers” would be the application of special
windings, advanced steels or amorphous iron. An
argument against this definition is that there are
a number of practical considerations involved in
deciding on the optimum choice of transformer
for installation into a network.
Moreover, the energy loss level is the key
performance indicator of each transformer design
with respect to energy efficiency and would
consequently the fairest benchmark.
As expected, the loss level of “energy-efficient
transformers” as defined above does not represent
the maximum efficiency which is technically
possible. Both load and no-load losses may be
reduced significantly.
Load losses may be reduced beyond the levels
mentioned above by following technical design
measures:
• increasing the conductor section of the
transformer windings, which reduces
conductor resistance and thus load losses. To
a lesser extent, the application of ribbon or
sheet conductors also contributes to reducing
load losses. The disadvantage of increasing the
31

conductor section is the higher investment
cost. Another disadvantage is the larger size
of the transformer, which may exceed the
maximum sizes specified by the purchaser.
This is partially offset by the reduction of heat
production in the transformer, which lowers
the need for cooling.
• application of superconductor material for
the windings, eliminating load losses. This
technology is not yet mature and still very
expensive. The main application will lie in
larger transformers.
Another drawback of superconducting
transformers is the inability to withstand short-
circuit currents of the level that are common
in medium-voltage networks. These problems
need to be solved before the superconducting
transformer will become a viable option.
No-load losses may be reduced beyond the levels
mentioned above by following technical design
measures:
• increasing the core section, which reduces the
magnetic field in the transformer core and thus
the no-load losses. However, this results in
higher investment cost. Another disadvantage
is the larger size of the transformer, which may
exceed the maximum sizes specified by the
purchaser.
• application of high-grade modern transformer
core steel. It should be noted that the C-C’
level can be reached without applying laser-
etched transformer steel, the latter being
regularly used in large transformers.
• reduction of the thickness of the core
laminations.
• application of amorphous core material. The
saving potential with respect to no-load losses
is high, as shown in the table below, where the
amorphous transformer is compared to the
conventional types according to HD428.
Energy-efficient transformers are generally
regarded by European customers as technically
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 4
sound but uneconomic. The number of
extremely energy-efficient transformers (beyond
the C-C’ level) operating in Europe is quite low,
compared with the United States. We estimate
that about 200 amorphous distribution iron
transformers have so far been installed, many
of which are very small, and probably a slightly
larger number using laser-etched domain-refined
steel. The amorphous iron installations we have
identified are as follows:
• yearly peak load: the highest load of the
transformer as a percentage of its rated power.
This load is only present for a small part of the
year.
• running time: the ratio of energy transmitted
during a year [kWh] and the yearly peak load
[kW] - physically, this figure indicates how
much time it would take to transmit the yearly
energy at a power equal to the yearly peak
load. A low value indicates strong fluctuations
of the load, a high value a relatively constant
load. The average transformer load is the yearly
peak load, multiplied by the running time over
8760 hours.
• loss time: the ratio of the yearly energy loss
[kWh] and the maximum losses occurring in
a year [kW] - this figure indicates how much
time it would take for the transformer to lose
the yearly energy loss when loaded at the
maximum load occurring in the year.
The data above result into the following data for
an A-A’ and a CC’ transformer with an “average”
load profile as indicated above:
The no-load (iron) losses account for 95% of the
yearly losses in the case of a 100kVA transformer,
and 66% of the no-load losses in a 1,600kVA
transformer.
For very lightly loaded transformers, the
efficiency falls rapidly. There are several reasons
why some transformers are so lightly loaded.
Often a limited number of transformer types
32

used by a utility (advantages of lower stock) is
the cause, or allowing for a load increase. Usually,
the distribution network is dimensioned with
certain expectations of load growth, in order to
postpone upgrading of the infrastructure as long
as possible. A final factor is the usual technical
practice to apply safety margins to electrical
equipment. This is good for the load losses, but
increases the no-load losses.
The extremely low loads encountered at some
transformers seem to suggest the need for smaller
distribution transformer sizes, or cores with
extremely low losses.
Although the figures used are based on empirical
rules validated by measurements, there is a wide
spread in the average transformer loading and the
running time. Although some utilities keep track
of the maximum loads of transformers, there are
no representative transformer load data available
for the European Union.
4.1.2 Deviations from the standard loss
values
Apart from the efficiency class and the load
profile, many other factors may influence trans-
former losses:
• medium-voltage (MV) network voltage -
the core (iron) losses are dependent on the
network voltage. A higher network voltage
leads to higher core (iron) losses. For instance,
5% increase of the network voltage may cause
10-20% higher core losses, depending on the
type of core material and the design of the
transformer.
The loss levels of individual transformers are,
therefore, always specified for a defined network
voltage. For an individual transformer the effect
can easily be measured. In an electrical network,
the voltage at each substation varies according to
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 4
the electrical distance to the feeding point and the
load situation. A special case is the gradual change
(between 1989 and 2004) of the network voltage
within Europe from 220V or 240V to 230V as
defined in IEC60038. In some cases, the increase
from 220V to 230V is realized by increasing the
voltage level in the medium-voltage network,
which leads to increased losses in the distribution
transformers.
On the other hand, the decrease from 240V to
230V may be achieved by decreasing the voltage
level in the medium-voltage network, which leads
to lower losses in the distribution transformers
• Operating temperature of the transformer.
Conductor losses slightly increase with the
operating temperature of the transformer.
• The loss levels of individual transformers
are, therefore, always specified for a defined
operating temperature
• Production deviations of the transformer.
This is a quality assurance aspect, which will
normally not yield large deviations from the
contracted loss values
• Ageing of the transformer. Older transformers
may deteriorate in several modes, one of
which is a loss increase. Normally, this effect is
neglected. There are, however, some concerns
about ageing of amorphous cores
- Poor power quality. The presence of non-linear
loads in the network will lead to harmonic
current components in the transformer.
These harmonic currents tend to heat the
transformer, but normally the transformer design
allows for some harmonic contents of the load
current. Normally, this effect is not taken into
account, except in industrial or comparable
installations with many distorting loads.
Accounting for these factors for a network
would require a detailed knowledge of operating
conditions, Usually, efficiency class and
33

transformer loading are the two dominant factors,
the other factors are not taken into account when
assessing transformer losses.
4.1.3 Loss Evaluation
A transformer purchaser aims to buy the cheapest
transformer, i.e. with the lowest total cost of
Ownership, which complies with the require-
ments for a given application. The total cost of
ownership of a transformer consists of several
components, including purchase price, the value
of energy losses, maintenance and repair costs
over the lifetime, and decommissioning cost.
The purchase price and the energy losses are the
two key factors for comparison of the different
transformers. Installation, maintenance, repair
and decommission costs are seldom taken into
account for choosing between transformers as
they are relatively insensitive to transformer
design.
In cases where transformers of different
technologies are compared, e.g. dry-type and oil-
immersed, installation costs (e.g. fire protection,
oil containment provisions) will be considerably
different and do need to be taken into account.
When comparing two transformers with different
purchase prices and/or different losses, one must
take into account that the purchase price is paid
at the moment of purchase, while the cost of
losses come into effect during the lifetime of the
transformer.
Usually the costs are converted to the moment
of purchase by assigning capital values. When
transformers are compared with respect to energy
losses, the process is called loss evaluation.
In the basic process of loss evaluation, three
transformer figures are needed:
• purchase price
• load loss
• no-load loss
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 4
For the specified load loss of a transformer, the
purchaser can assign a cost figure per kW of loss
representing the capitalized value (net present
value) of the load losses over the lifetime of the
transformer or a shorter time scale e.g. 5 or 10
years. This cost figure is based on the expected
transformer load over time, the average cost
per kWh and the interest rate chosen by the
purchaser.
Similarly, for the no-load loss of a transformer,
the purchaser can assign a cost figure per kW of
no-load loss representing the capitalized value of
the no-load losses. This cost figure is also based
on the average cost per kWh and the interest rate
chosen by the purchaser.
As nearly all transformers are connected to the
grid for 100% of the time, and the no-load losses
are independent on the load, the load curve is not
relevant. The average cost per kWh will tend to
be lower than for the load losses, as the latter will
tend to coincide with peak loads, at which time
energy is very expensive.
Since different transformer users have different
operating costs and cost of capital assumptions,
the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), mentioned
section 2.4.2, is distinct for every user. Thus,
TCO of a transformer can be further simplified
and expressed as the sum of the purchase price
(Ct), the cost of no-load losses and the cost of the
load losses, or as a formula:
TCO = Ct + A x Po + B x Pk
where A represents the assigned cost of no-load
losses per watt, Po the value of the no-load losses
per watt, B the assigned cost of load losses per
watt and Pk the value of the load losses per watt.
This formula can also be found in the HD428
and HD538.
It is obvious that there is a significant discrepancy
34

between the cheapest transformer at purchase and
the cheapest transformer in the long term. Even
the expensive amorphous transformer may be the
cheapest option.
The formula is simple, but the choice of the
factors A and B is very complicated. Medium-
size and large utilities use standard values for loss
evaluation, based on average values for energy
cost and loads.
Usually, the loss evaluation figures A and B are
submitted to the transformer manufacturers in
the request for quotation. They can in turn start
the complicated process of transformer design, to
obtain a transformer design which performs best
using the same formula. The result of this open
process should be the cheapest transformer, i.e.
with the lowest total owning cost, optimized for a
given application.
Drawbacks of this process are its extreme
complexity and the uncertainty of the purchaser
with the exact load profiles of the transformers
and energy prices in the future. Tariff structures
are very complex.
For large transformers, above a few MVA, the
cost of losses are so high, that transformers are
custom-built, tailored to the loss evaluation
figures specified in the request for quotation for a
specific project.
For distribution transformers, often bought
by large batches, the process is undertaken
infrequently, e.g. once every 5 years. This yields
an optimum transformer design, which is then
kept for several years until energy prices or load
profiles have changed dramatically.
In fact, the loss levels established in HD428,
HD538 and national standards reflect established
practice of preferred designs with respect to loss
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 4
evaluation values. It is then usual to select one
category e.g. C-C’ as the most appropriate, and
omit the tedious evaluation process by purchasing
the cheapest C-C’ compliant transformer.
It can be concluded that the efficiency of
transformers purchased is, directly or indirectly,
controlled by the choice of loss evaluation figures:
- if high loss evaluation figures A and B are used,
energy-efficient transformers tend to be favored.
A and/or B will be higher if a value is assigned
to energy saving, an allowance is made for taxes
on usage of natural resources. A low interest rate
will yield high A and B values, by valuing future
energy savings to a greater extent
• low loss evaluation figures A and B, the result
of a high rate of return required, lead to cheap
but relatively inefficient transformers
• merely evaluating the purchase price will lead
to the cheapest transformers being chosen,
which may be very inefficient. This policy
corresponds to A and B equal to zero, and
is regularly found with turn-key contracting
firms or the project departments of utilities
that are concerned only with direct project
costs. The chosen values for A and B are
also the key factor in the application of new
technologies.
35

4.2 Amorphous Transformers
More than ever, electric utilities and industries
today are searching for technologies that will
reduce their operating costs and improve
energy savings throughout their systems.
New transmission and distribution (T&D)
technologies are now available to help utilities
meet these goals.
With a new generation of Metglas amorphous
metal distribution transformers (AMDTs) -- with
up to 80% lower core loss than conventional
transformers -- Metglas, Inc. is helping utilities
worldwide to achieve their efficiency objectives.
When you consider that 10% of all electricity
generated by utilities is lost in the transmission
& distribution process, the potential savings
through reductions in core loss can be significant.
Ultra-efficient transformer cores made with
Metglas amorphous metal alloy make lower core
losses possible. Amorphous metal distribution
transformers are key to improving utility
economics and enhancing energy conservation
efforts worldwide.
Melting Furnace
Reservoir
Nozzle
Casting Roll
* Hitachi Metals Website
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 4
In 1975, Allied Signal developed the planar-flow
casting method for the production of amorphous
alloy ribbon in continuous lengths. In this
propriety manufacturing process, molten alloy is
cooled at a rate of 1,000,000 deg C per second.
This rapid solidification enables the finished alloy
to retain is amorphous atomic structure.
4.2.1 Amorphous Core Transformers -
History
1967 – Produced the first amorphous metal
suitable for transformer application as a magnetic
material.
1975 – Allied Signal (USA) developed the
planar-flow casting method for the production
of amorphous metal ribbons in commercial
quantities.
1980 – First amorphous metal core transformer
was produced.
1985 – 1000 units of 25 kva pole-type and 25
units of 25 kva padmounted transformers were
installed in the United States.
1998 – Over 1.3 million amorphous core
transformers have been installed worldwide.
In-line In-line
Winding
Process
Control
36

4.2.2 Amorphous Core Transformers-
Characteristics
• 60 to 70 percent lower No-Load Losses
compared to silicon steel transformers
• Approximately 60% lower exciting current
4.2.3 Application is exactly the same as
Silicon steel core DT’s
• Extreme load variation
• Low load factor
• High harmonic content loads
• Protection of the environment
4.2.4 Amorphous Metal Transformer
Purchases on a Total Owning Cost Basis
One method of illustrating how Amorphous
Metal Distribution Transformers (AMDTs)
provide economic savings is by evaluating
on a Total Owning Cost (TOC) basis. TOC
encompasses both the initial cost of the
transformer, plus the future cost of the energy
AMDT vs. CRGO
Cost Savings of
losses over the life of the equipment. The essence
of transformer loss evaluation is to recognize
that there is a cost of losses associated with the
distribution transformer purchase decision that
is just as important as the initial price. A user
who saves on the initial purchase price of the
transformer may in fact be losing money by not
properly considering the value of the energy losses
over the transformer’s active life.
Price Price
No load Load loss
loss cost cost
Load loss
cost
No load TOC
loss cost benefit
SiFe DTs AMDTs
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 4
TOC = Initial Purchase Price + Cost of Future
Energy Losses This chart illustrates that despite
a higher initial cost, the use of AMDTs results
in overall financial savings for utilities over the
life of the transformer, compared with the use of
conventional silicon steel core transformers.
4.2.5 Setting the Standard for Low
Cost Solutions
Amorphous Metal Distribution Transformers often
provide the lowest price method for distribution
under the new United States Department of Energy
efficiency regulation.
Department of Energy Title 10 CFR Part 431
Energy Conservation Program for Commercial
Equipment: Distribution Transformers Energy
Conservation Standards: Final Rule
CRGO Metglas
1.00
0.95
Transformer
0.90
0.85
0.80
50 kVA 1Ø 300 kVA 1Ø
Department of Energy assumes 50% transformer
load factor. At lower load factors, AMDT’s are
also more efficient.
CRGO Cost from DOE Core Steel Analysis
2005 - App 3A
37
 Section 4

4.2.6 Evaluating Industrial Transformer TYPICAL TRANSFORMER CORE

Efficiency CONFIGURATIONS

Industrial Transformer Purchases on a Simple

Payback Basis Industrial and commercial
customers who own their transformers and
pay for electricity on a per unit basis can easily
calculate the operating cost of their transformers
and thus, determine how long it takes to recover
the price premium associated with the purchase
of higher-efficiency transformers. Since the Typical Single Phase-core Type
payback period for AMDTs is relatively short,
the simple payback method provides a good
approximation.

Transformer Price Premium

Payback (years)=
Annual Energy Cost Savings

Annual Energy Cost Savings=

[No Load Loss (W) + Load Loss (Averge Load)2]x8760 Typical Single Phase-shell Type
1000

5
Payback Period (Years)

US$ 0.10 k/Wh

US$ 0.075 k/WH
4

1 Typical Three Phase-5 Leg

0 10 20 30 40
AMDT Price Premium (% Base Cost)

* Data from Hitachi Metals website

A simple payback calculation demonstrates that

for a wide range of price premiums - the energy
savings result in a relatively short payback period
for AMDTs.

Energy Efficient Transformers 38

 Section 4

DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

Standard Ribbon width (nominal)

3 sizes available (call for custom widths): 142 mm 170 mm 213 mm

A = Window heigh 180 mm* A * 600 mm

(in 10 mm increments
B = Window width 80 mm * B * 250 mm
(in 5 mm increments)
C = Build C = 25 mm
D = Ribbon width plus
4 mm edge cover
E = Joint build E = C*1.25 (nominal)
R = Corner radius R = 6.4 ± 1.5 mm
Weight Limits Minimum: 30 kg
Maxiumm: 225 kg
Outer Circumference < 2.5 m
Limit

SAMPLE CORE DESIGN & CALCULATIONS

Joint laps are illustrative only.

Number and spacing of joints will vary.

Energy Efficient Transformers 39

 Section 4

GUARANTEED PROPERTIES
mm Inches
Ribbon Width 142 5.6
A = Window Height 203 + 3/-0 7.99 + 0.13/-0
B = Window Width 102 + 3/-0 4.02 + 0.13/-0
C = Core Build 76.0 Maximum 2.99 Maximum
D = Core + Cover Width 146.0 Maximum 5.75 Maximum
R = Window Radius 6.4 ±1.5 0.25 ±0.6
Maximum Build at Joint 95.0 mm 3.74 inches
Minimum Core Net Area 90.7 cm2 14.05 in2
TEST CONDITIONS
Frequency 50 Hz 60 Hz
Test Voltage per Turn 2.62 3.14
Maximum Core Loss 11 Watts 13 Watts
Maximum Exciting Power 112 VA 129 VA
Measurements taken without oil impregnation at nominal 1.3 Tesla and ambient temperature.
TYPICAL PROPERTIES
Invoice Weight 56 kg 123 lbs
Material: Metglas® transformer core alloy SA1
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR ESTIMATING CORE WEIGHT
Density in g/cc: 7.20
Lamination factor: 84%
A B C
D (-4 mm) cm
cm cm cm
Sample Core Dimension 20.3 10.2 7.6 14.2
Core Weight (estimated) = (Lam. factor) x (Density) x [(2 x A x C x D) + (2 x B x C x D) + (3.14 x C2
x D)]/1000 = 55 kg.
*Use this formula only for checking weight to ensure your design is within weight limits.
(30 kg min., 225 kg max.). Also, be sure to check that outer perimeter is below 2.5 m.
* Data from Hitachi Metals Website

Energy Efficient Transformers 40

 Section 4

4.3 Running Cool for Lower Energy accommodate longterm growth in demand for
Costs power.

Today, hundreds of utilities are benefiting from

the use of Amorphous Metal Distribution
Transformers(AMDT’s) in their power
distribution systems. Many more utilities can
benefit from a strategic program of replacing
conventional distribution transformers with
AMDT’s. This could result in annual energy
savings of approximately 27 terawatt-hours
(TWh) of core losses in the U.S.A. alone.
These savings enable utilities to cost-effectively
4.4 Projected Energy Savings Using
Metglas AMDTs
In the year 2004, it was estimated that total
energy savings for the regions listed would
amount to 81(TWh) of core loss reduction per
year, or the equivalent of US $6.1 billion dollars
annually. The reduction in the production of
CO2, a major contributor to global warming,
would be 51 million tons yearly.

Region/ Electricity Distribution Distribution Potential Potential

Country Consumption Transformer Transformer Annual Annual
2004 Core Losses Core Losses Savings Savings
(TWh)1 2004 Year 2000 with with
(TWh)2 (TWh) AMDTs AMDTs**
Year 2004 Year 2004
(TWh)3 (in millions,
US$)
USA 3974 33.8 27.0 2027 16.6
EU25 2982 25.3 20.3 1521 10.5
China 2080 17.7 14.1 1061 12.3
Japan 974 8.3 6.6 497 3.5
Russia 882 7.5 6.0 450 4.2
India 631 5.4 4.3 322 3.8
Brazil 381 3.2 2.6 194 0.2
1
EnergyInformation Agency-International Energy Outlook 2004
2
SEEDT Report EIE-05-056 and Metglas estimates
3
Based on Metglas experience
4
$0.075/kwhr Energy costs
5
Based on percentage and efficiency of thermal generation

“... new transformer core designs are emerging that use amorphous metal instead of
the traditional silicon steel. These amorphous core transformers … offer up to 80
percent lower core losses than conventional transformers”.

~ The Office of Energy Efficiency Natural Resources Canada

* Data from Hitachi Metals Website

Energy Efficient Transformers 41


4.5 Superconducting Transformers
4.5.1 Overview
Transformers represent one of the oldest and
most mature elements in a power transmission
and distribution network. From the point of
electricity generation at a power plant, where
extremely high voltages are needed to “push” large
amounts of power into the grid, to the end user
of electricity in a home or office, where typical
appliances operate at much lower voltages (100-
200 volts), transformers are needed to effect volt-
age conversions. At each conversion point, energy
is lost, primarily in the form of wasted heat from
changing electrical and magnetic fields in the
copper (coil), iron (core), tank, and supporting
structure. Even when the transformer is “idling,”
so-called “no-load losses” (NLL) are generated
in the core. Research over the last 50 years has
succeeded in reducing NLL by a factor of three
while increasing core costs by a factor of two.
Recent substitution in distribution transformers
(ratings below about 100 kVA) of amorphous
metals for silicon iron core material has reduced
NLL further, but this material has not been used
in the cores of power transformers (ratings greater
than 500 kVA). When a transformer is under a
loaded condition, Joule heating (I2R losses) of
the copper coil adds considerably to the amount
of lost energy. In spite of the fact that today’s
utility power transformer loses less than 1% of
its total rating in wasted energy, any energy saved
within this one percent represents a tremendous
potential savings over the expected lifetime of the
transformer.
In a conventional power transformer, load losses
(LL) represent approximately 80% of total
losses. Of this load loss, 80% are I2R losses.
The remaining 20% consists of stray and eddy
current losses. To date, efforts to reduce load
losses have been directed toward the latter.
Unlike copper and aluminum, superconductors
present no resistance to the flow of dc electricity,
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 4
with the consequence that I2R losses become
essentially zero, thereby creating the potential
for a dramatic reduction in overall losses. In
ac operation, the superconductor in an HTS
transformer experiences a type of eddy current
loss: both the heat produced by this loss
(although extremely small in comparison to the
energy lost in conventional materials) and heat
conducted into the lower temperature regions
of the superconducting transformer need to be
removed through refrigeration. Even with the
added cost of refrigeration, HTS transformers in
the 10 MVA and higher range are projected to
be substantially more efficient and less expensive
than their conventional counterparts.
Motivation for developing superconducting
transformers is not based solely on economic
considerations of lowering total owning costs
(initial capital cost + capitalized cost of load and
no-load losses over the transformer’s effective
life). With limited new siting availability in
urban areas, the anticipated 2% annual growth
in power demand means that existing sites
must be uprated with higher power capabilities.
Many existing sites are indoors or adjacent
to buildings, which restricts the use of most
oil-filled transformers. The inherent dangers
of oil-filled devices are totally eliminated by
application of superconducting technology where
the only coolant required is benign (nitrogen as
opposed to oil). Consequently, superconducting
transformers operating either with a refrigerated
coil or one cooled with liquid nitrogen pose no
fire hazards and no threat to the environment
comparable to that posed by leaks of flammable
oils and toxic chemicals such as PCBs.
Serious interest in superconducting transformers
began in the early 1960s as reliable low
temperature superconductors based on Nb-Ti
and Nb3Sn became available. Analysis of the
feasibility of such LTS transformers concluded
42

that the high refrigeration loads required to
keep the LTS materials at 4.2 K made the LTS
transformers uneconomical. A major reduction
in refrigeration costs and/or the discovery of
materials that superconduct at much higher
temperatures would be required to improve the
economic attractiveness of these electric power
applications. In the mid-1970s Westinghouse
conducted an exhaustive design study of a
1,000 MVA, 550/22 kV generator step-up
unit; it found that current transfer, overcurrent
operation, and protection remained persistent
problems.
Since 1980, development of LTS transformers
has been conducted primarily by ABB and
GEC-Alsthom in Europe and by various
utilities, industries, and universities in Japan.
Advances in production of long-length ultrafine
multifilamentary Nb-Ti conductor and high
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 4
resistivity Cu-Ni matrix materials have assisted
in the reduction of ac losses. Feasibility of weight
reduction and higher efficiencies has been
demonstrated on smaller devices with ratings
smaller than 100 kVA: single-phase 80 kVA
(Alsthom), 30 kVA (Toshiba), and a three-phase
40 kVA (Osaka University). Larger units have
also been constructed and tested successfully. A
single-phase 330 kVA transformer built by ABB
included provisions for fault-current limiting
and quench protection. Kansai Electric Power
Company reported the development of an
LTS transformer utilizing Nb3Sn conductor.
One phase of this three-phase 2,000 kVA unit
operated at 1,379 kVA without quenching and
transferred fault current to parallel coils under
quench condition.
43
Section 5

Energy Efficient Transformers 44


Follow-up to the technology
5.1 Research & Development
5.1.1 Modern Transformer Design
Transformers are at the heart of electrical
transmission and distribution systems, and as
competition increases within the energy sector, so
does the pressure on transformer manufacturing
industry to improve reliability and reduce costs of
transformers.
The power transformer concept was conceived
and developed in the late 1800s and since then,
the basic concept of transformer has remained
the same. However, design and construction
techniques have improved to increase both -
the overall efficiency and cost effectiveness of
manufactured units.
5.1.2 Why Modern Transformer Design
With superior expertise in designing coupled
with extensive R&D efforts, modern transform-
ers are much smaller in size, lower in cost, and are
able to promise a remarkable increase in efficiency
and reduce lost energy.
Especially for countries like the US, modern
transformer design can play a significant role in
reduction of energy loss. The U.S. has only 4%
of the worlds population but produces 25% of
its greenhouse gases. The country has over 9,200
electricity generating units much of them old,
needing replacement and thus largely inefficient.
Since 1982, growth in peak demand for electricity
in the U.S. has exceeded transmission growth by
almost 25% each year, even while a majority of
the energy transformers in the country continue
to waste away large amounts of energy.
Better transformer design and the use of superior
grade electrical steel can drastically reduce no-load
loss, one of the prime components of loss in an
energy transformer. No-load loss can be further
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 5
reduced in some cases if conventional electrical
steel can be replaced with amorphous metal.
5.1.3 Types of Transformer Design
Transformer life expectancy is based on a number
of factors, the most important being the quality
of its insulation system. Two things that damage
transformer insulation are moisture and excessive
heat. Addressing these two factors, modern
transformer designs are developed to preserve
overall insulation quality of the transformer.
Some of these designs include open style, sealed
tank, conservator style, and automatic gas
pressure.
• Open Style Design
• Sealed Tank Design
• Conservator Type Design
• Automatic Gas Pressure Design
5.1.4 Trends in Modern Transformer
Design
With the cost of energy increasing and pres-
sure mounting to reduce transformer losses,
attention is on modern transformer design that
incorporates technology to lower energy losses
in transformers. Most transformers are inher-
ently efficient when they function at 100% load.
However, 100% load is an ideal situation, and
many transformers need to function at far lower
loading. As transformer loading changes so does
its efficiency. Low loss transformers with modern
designs are said to be 30-50% more energy ef-
ficient and their losses are designed to be 30%
less at 35% loading.
Modern transformer design is governed by
industry trends that make these transformers
stand out for their numerous energy and cost
saving advantages.
45

5.1.5 Incorporating air bag in
expansion tank
Newer transformer designs with conservator tanks
incorporate an air bag in the expansion tank,
which virtually eliminates moisture egress from
oil contact with the outside atmosphere.
5.1.6 Artificial Intelligence techniques
in transformer design
Numerous transformer design tools have been
developed also such as artificial intelligence (AI)
techniques in combination with finite element
method (FEM). Today, AI is widely used for
modeling nonlinear and large-scale systems,
especially when explicit mathematical models are
difficult to obtain or completely lacking. Moreo-
ver, AI is computationally efficient in solving hard
optimization problems. On the other hand, FEM
is particularly capable of dealing with complex
geometries, and also yields stable and accurate
solutions.
5.1.7 Innovative insulation material
Thermal deterioration of transformer insulation
material reduces dielectric strength and reduces
its ability to withstand short-circuit events.
Innovative hybrid high-temperature insulation
however can improve insulation temperature
tolerance, improve winding mechanical strength,
and reduce costs of maintaining and replacing
transformers. Hybrid insulation consists of
using layers of aramid papers and cellulose
papers. Additional global design modifications
include reducing the number of cooling ducts
between layers and reinforcing the frame of the
transformer to improve short-circuit withstand
strength. Higher reliability and longer life
anticipated by hybrid-insulation manufactured
transformers results in cost savings to the utility.
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 5
5.1.8 Non-Linear (K-Factor)
Distribution Transformers
The use of electronic equipment has continued to
grow in both offices and industrial plants. Offices
now include computers, fax machines, copier,
printers, cash registers, UPS’s and solid-state
ballasts. They all contribute to the distortion
of the current waveform and the generation
of Harmonics. The K-Factor transformer are
designed to tolerate the harmonic distortion
associated with these loads.
5.1.9 Benefits of Modern Transformer
Design
There is a gradual and increasing preference
towards modern transformer design not just due
to legal requirement but simply because these
transformers have a higher energy efficiency and
soon pay for themselves. Benefits of modern
transformer design include:
• Longer transformer life
• Reduced cost of energy due to reduced wastage
• Reduced Greenhouse Gas emissions
• More efficient use of energy; higher
production with lower energy use
5.2 Energy Efficient Distribution
Transformer Trends
Electricity is one of the most vital infrastructure
inputs for economic development of a country.
The demand for electricity in India is enormous
and is growing steadily. This growth has been
slower than country’s economic growth. To
balance this demand and supply of electricity, it
is the time for electric utilities to go for energy
efficient electrical equipment for huge savings as
this would be utilized for future needs.
The Ministry of Power has outlined its mission
for 11th Five Year Plan – “Power For All: 2012”.
In the next 5 years, India will require 66,000
MW of new generation capacity with matching
46
 Section 5

investments in transmission and distribution
networks. For every 1 MW of new capacity
that comes up, about 7 – 8 MVA transformers
(approximately) are used across Generation,
Transmission and Distribution segments.
This implies a demand of about 5,00,000
MVA of transformers unfolding over next 5
years, resulting in an annual demand of about
100,000 MVA, which would mean that there
would be approximately a demand for 2.25
Million Transformer units (approx. 30% for
distribution) of average rating of 63 kVA. Besides
fresh demand, some replacement demand of
15,000MVA (approximately) will also be coming
up, as transformers usually have a life of 20 – 30
years.
The 10th Five Year Plan originally envisaged
41,100 MW, re-revised finally to about
30,500 MW and has ended at 23,450 MW.
Simultaneously, with the worsening power
scenario and acute power shortage, the Indian
Economy cannot sustain the growth momentum
but has to look for aggressively augmenting
power supply.
The strategy developed to make power available
to all by 2012 includes promotion of energy
efficient products and its conservation in the
country, which is found to be the least cost
option to augment the gap between demand and
supply.

Case: Typical loss Ordinary Energy Efficient Transformer

comparison of a 63kVA Conventional
Distribution Transformer Transformer
63KVA – Distribution
Transformer
3 star 5 star
Max. Total Losses at 50%
490 380 280
loading (watts)
Max. Total Losses at 100%
1415 1250 1100
loading (watts)
Difference in power 1415 – 1250 = 165 (3 star)
savings at 100% loading 1415 – 1100 = 315 (5 star)
(watts)
* Board of Energy Efficiency - India

Energy Efficient Transformers 47


Nearly 185 to 354 MW (considering 50% of
2.25 Million transformers) of capacity creation
through energy efficiency in the distribution
sector alone is required in our country and this
can be achieved only through employing Energy
Efficient Distribution Transformers by our
Electrical Utilities as transformer is the heart of
any electrical distribution system.
The Distribution Reforms were identified as
the key area to bring about the efficiency and
improve financial health of the power sector.
Power utilities improve efficiency of their
distribution systems by reducing losses. Industrial
and commercial users of electricity also improve
the efficiency of their electrical distribution
systems by reducing losses. The distribution
transformer supplies power to all the power
consuming items and remains energized for 24
hours. Being supply equipment, it does not, by
itself, consume any power. But the process of
transformation involves certain inherent losses
especially in the core, having to run continuously
for all the 24 hours of the day and 365 days of
the year. Hence, the need to turn the attention to
low loss designs and latest technologies in quality
of core material to promote energy efficiency. In
this context “amorphous metal core” material
offers great advantage, as no load losses are less.
The scope for improving the efficiency of
distribution transformers can arise in a number
of ways. Higher performance raw materials,
particularly special steels for building transformer
cores, are continually being developed.
Advancement in the core material, amorphous
iron, produced by cooling molten metal alloy
very rapidly, has become available and is getting
wide acceptance in many utilities in India and
across the globe. Losses in the core are less than
30% as compared to those of conventional steel
cores. The size of the transformers being installed
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 5
in the network, and the way in which they are
loaded, can also increase savings. Transformers
are at maximum efficiency when approximately
50% loaded.
In India, T & D losses are high, in the range of
20-23 percent. The Ministry of Power says that
aggregate technical and commercial (AT & C)
losses are around 50% - and losses are even higher
than this in some of the states.
The main reason for exceptional high losses in
the Indian network lies at the distribution levels.
Hence, the use of energy efficient equipments for
the utilities is very much essential for reduction
of losses, which implies for savings in electrical
energy for its growing demand.
Over many years there has been a lack of
investment in essential improvements to
the electricity system, with only lowest cost
incremental investments being undertaken.
With this kind of purchasing system, especially
for transformer at distribution sectors of
State Electricity Boards in India, it would be
unmanageable for them to meet the electricity
demand of the economic growth.
Many electrical utilities have obligations to
‘operate an economic and efficient system’, but
therein lies a conflict. ‘Economic’ suggests low
capital cost transformers, which are not the most
efficient, whereas ‘Efficient’ transformers come at
higher prices.
Transformer manufacturers are aware of the
commercial pressures on customers not to apply
loss capitalization strictly and have to respond
to these, particularly in a competitive market. A
common ploy is to tempt the customer with a
low cost / high loss alternative offer. Total Cost
of Ownership (TCO)(see Section 4.1.3), takes
into account not only the initial transformer
48

cost but also the cost to operate and maintain
the transformer over its life. This requires that
the TCO be calculated over the life span of the
transformer. With this method, it is now possible
to calculate the real economic choice between
competing models.
Thus TCO method provides the Electrical
utilities an effective way to evaluate various
transformer initial purchase prices and cost of
losses. The goal is to choose a transformer that
meets specifications and simultaneously has the
lowest TCO.
Even though the more-efficient transformer
costs more initially, its lower operating cost saves
money over its life.
Considering the vast potential of energy savings
and benefits of energy efficiency, the Bureau
of Energy Efficiency (BEE), has come up with
reasonable solutions for strengthening and
up gradation of the transformers used in the
distribution system.
5.3 Some of the Short Term and
Long Term Measures Taken by BEE
• Bureau of Energy Efficiency(BEE)
operationalized complete pilot phase
of programme for energy efficiency in
government building and prepare action plan
for wider dissemination and implementation.
• Standards and Labeling (S&L) Programme
has been identified as one of the key activities
for energy efficiency improvements. The S&L
program ensures that only energy efficient
equipment would be available for purchasers.
Some of the electrical products to be covered
under S&L program are: Agricultural pump
sets, Distribution Transformers, Motors,
Lighting products, refrigerators, etc.
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 5
Energy – efficiency labels are informative labels
fixed to manufactured products, which describe
the product’s energy performance (usually in
the form of energy use, efficiency, or energy
cost) and rate the product on a comparative
scale so that consumers can make appropriate
decisions while purchasing electrical equipments.
Energy-efficiency Standards are procedures and
regulations that prescribe minimum efficiency
performance standards of the manufactured
products.
BEE has taken lead role to network with and
ensure participation of stakeholders such
as industry associations, R&D institutions,
manufacturers, Bureau of Indian Standards, etc.
at all stages in the entire process.
• Facilitate and assist manufacturers to
develop testing procedures and protocols
for determining energy performance, label
setting, fixing of standards, and enforcement
mechanisms.
• Encourage manufacturers to improve energy
efficiency of equipments and appliances at
the manufacturing stage. Promote integration
of efficient technology in manufacturing of
equipment and appliances.
• Stimulate market transformation and promote
energy efficient equipment and appliances.
The benefits of the approach and activities would
be the following:
• Manufacture of energy efficient equipments
and appliances.
• Enabling consumers to exercise considered
choice based on energy consumption at the
time of purchase.
• Reduction of energy consumption in
equipments and appliances of common use.
With this, some of the electrical equipment
manufacturers are fixing tie – up with
distribution utilities to penetrate into the pool of
49
 Section 5

promoting energy efficient equipments.
To exemplify the above statement, there has been
a tie-up between CFL maker and distribution
utility which entail distribution to domestic
consumers for using less energy than other
ordinary products (such as incandescent bulbs),
saving their money on utility bills and helps in
protecting the environment over the life of each
CFL and draw carbon credits.
BEE has recently approved the ‘star labeling’
for Distribution Transformers – The highest
loss segment is defined as star 1 and lowest loss
segment is defined as star 5.
The existing IS 1180 (part 1) specification losses
are the base case with star 1.
This demonstrates that the Centre is encouraging
the electrical equipment manufacturers to come
up with energy efficient products for their fullest
utilization in energy savings.
5.3.1 Selection of better material for
energy efficient transformer
In selecting the material for core, we say that
amorphous metal core outflanks in reducing
the no-load losses. This can summate immense
economic savings to the electric utilities since
they are one of the highest energy efficient
transformers rated so far.

A typical comparison is shown below which

depicts the decrease by installation of energy CRGO (in AMDT (in Reduction in
efficient low loss amorphous metal core watts) watts) Losses
transformers. Rating (Three Phase)
25 kVA 100 32 68%
50 kVA 160 58 64%
100 kVA 260 85 67%
200 kVA 470 115 75%
* Board of Energy Efficiency - India

Energy Efficient Transformers 50


5.4 Policies and Regulations
5.4.1 NEMA Standards TP1 Program
The NEMA Premium Efficiency Transformer
Program will help utilities, commercial buildings,
and industrial plants incorporate super high-
efficiency electrical transformers into their
operations. NEMA originally set the standard
for the efficiency of various types of distribution
transformers with the publication of NEMA TP
1-2002 Guide for Determining Energy Efficiency
for Distribution Transformers, which was later
adopted by the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) as the national energy-efficiency rule for
low-voltage dry-type distribution transformers.
The new NEMA Premium Efficiency
Transformer designation requires 30 percent
fewer losses than existing DOE regulations (10
CFR 431) for low-voltage dry-type distribution
transformers.
The transformers covered under the new program
are typically used in commercial and industrial
applications. However, some electric utilities
are considering the NEMA program for their
commercial and industrial energy-efficiency
rebate programs. The adoption of this program
will not only reduce energy consumption, but
will also significantly reduce carbon dioxide
emissions. The new transformers, built to
NEMA premium standards, have the potential
to eliminate the need for a new coal power plant
over the next five years. Actual efficiencies for
these new premium transformers range from 98
percent to more than 99 percent, depending on
the size of the transformer.
For the complete publication of NEMA
TP1 – 2002, Guide for Energy Efficiency of
Distribution Transformers, please see attachment.
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 5
5.4.2 Energy Star Transformer Program
5.4.2.1 What Is The Energy Star
Transformer Program?
The ENERGY STAR Transformer Program is
a voluntary, EPA-sponsored effort to recognize
electric utilities that make a commitment
to purchasing high-efficiency distribution
transformers. The program requirements for
utility members are simple.
PARTNERS AGREE TO:
Perform economic analysis of total transformer-
owning costs — including the purchase price
and the cost of energy losses — using a standard
industry methodology; and Buy transformers
that meet EPA’s ENERGY STAR guidelines only
when they are cost-effective.
WHY ENERGY STAR TRANSFORMERS?
Distribution transformers are one of the most
widely used elements of America’s electric
distribution systems. Transformers convert
electricity from the high voltage levels on utility
transmission systems to voltages that can be
used in businesses and homes. Over 40 million
distribution transformers are currently in service
on electric utility distribution systems, and
utilities nationwide purchase more than one
million new units annually. Transformers are a
crucial link in the utility industry’s efforts to bring
American consumers safe, reliable, and cost-
effective electricity.
One of the most striking features of transformers
is their dependability and long service lives. On
average, transformers remain in service for over
30 years, during which time they perform their
vital function reliably and with little degradation
in service quality. Amazingly enough, many
transformers operate at efficiency levels that often
exceed 98 percent.
51

JOIN THE ENERGY STAR TRANSFORMER
PROGRAM
The ENERGY STAR Transformer Program is
a voluntary energy efficiency program designed
to encourage utilities to purchase and install
high-efficiency, cost-effective transformers
on their distribution systems. The Program
promotes the best practices in the utility industry
and recognizes those utilities that have made a
commitment to high efficiency transformers.
The ENERGY STAR Transformer Program
is one of the action steps in the U.S. Climate
Change Action Plan (CCAP). The CCAP calls
for voluntary, profitable actions that will help the
United States reduce its greenhouse gas emissions
to 1990 levels by the year 2000.
Like other programs in the Action Plan, the
ENERGY STAR Transformer Program relies on
the ingenuity and technical know-how of U.S.
industries to both improve the economy and
protect the environment.
In addition, the ENERGY STAR Transformer
Program is listed as one of the options in the
Climate Challenge Program. Climate Challenge
is a joint effort of the Department of Energy
(DOE) and the U.S. electric utility industry to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Hundreds of
utilities have joined the Program and are actively
developing plans to cost-effectively achieve their
emission reductions.
* Sources of Information
1. Leonardo Energy Transformers – Leonardo-energy.org
2. Hitachi Metals Website
3. Energy Efficiency in Transmission & Distribution – European Commission
4. Electric Power Transformer Engineering by James Harlow
Energy Efficient Transformers
Section 5
5.4.2.2 Energy Star Transformer Program
Benefits
As a Partner in the ENERGY STAR Transformer
Program, your company will have access to
valuable communication, public recognition, and
technical resources provided by EPA.
5.4.2.3 Public Recognition
A critical element of EPA’s voluntary pollution
prevention program is the highly visible
recognition of our Partners’ environmental
efforts. As part of the ENERGY STAR
Transformer Program commitment, your
company can use the ENERGY STAR
Transformer logo SM in reports and press
releases to inform your customers about your
environmental success. In addition, EPA is
committed to developing prototype materials
designed to recognize participants’ commitments
to the environment and to build public and
regulatory support for their efforts.
5.4.2.4 Technical Tools
A second critical component of the ENERGY
STAR Transformer Program is the technical
assistance and resources provided to Partners to
increase the profitability of their high-efficiency
transformer purchases. The following represent a
sampling of tools available from EPA.
For a complete copy of the Energy Star Program
Brochure, please see attachment.
52