Reducing Losses in Power Distribution through Improved

Efficiency of Distribution Transformers (EWG 05 2015A)

Analysis of IEC 60076-20 Recommendations in

Selected APEC Economies
18 December 2017 | Bangkok, Thailand
Sommai Phon-Amnuaisuk
International Institute for Energy Conservation
Outline

• Introduction
• IEC Technical Specification 60076-20
• Analysis approach and methodology
• Findings from surveys and analysis
• Conclusions and Recommendations
Introduction
• Project title: Reducing Losses in Power
Distribution through Improved Efficiency of
Distribution Transformers
• Objective:
– To build awareness and capacity of policy makers on
impacts of adopting IEC TS 60076-20 (Energy
Efficiency Technical Specification) in terms of energy
loss and GHG emission reductions
– To come up with key recommendations (in
consultation with key stakeholders) on the next steps
• Timeline: November 2016 – January 2018
IEC Technical Specification 60076-20
• Published in January 2017
– Power Transformers – Part 20: Energy Efficiency
• Provides methods for efficiency and efficiency index
calculation
• Provides two levels of recommendations
– Level 1 is for basic energy performance
– Level 2 is for high energy performance
• Energy performance MAY be specified in one of the
following ways:
– Minimum PEI (Peak Efficiency Index)
– Maximum load losses and maximum no-load losses
– Minimum Efficiency Index at a load factor of 50%
IEC 60076-20 Recommendations -
Observations
Energy Performance Indicator 50Hz DT 60Hz DT
Minimum PEI (Method A)  
Maximum load losses & no-load losses  
Minimum Efficiency Index at a load factor of 50% (Method B)  

• Energy efficiency recommendations for 50Hz and 60Hz DTs not

harmonized
• Any 50Hz DTs meeting max. load losses & no-load losses also meet
minimum PEI and EIB50
• EIB50 recommendations for 60Hz DTs harmonized with DOE 2010
and 2016 regulations
• Details of a loss capitalization method provided
• Additional requirements suggested, e.g., total losses, efficiency at
another load factor and/or power factor
 World Practices on DT Efficiency Survey vs
IEC 60076-20 Recommendations
• Efficiency values based on equations developed from an analysis of
existing world standards and regulations in 2013 for DTs (15 kVA to 3,150
kVA three-phase DTs)
Liquid-Filled, Three-Phase (50Hz) Liquid-Filled, Three-Phase (60Hz)
100.00% 100.00%

99.50% 99.50%
Efficiency at 50% Load Factor (Method A)

Tier 1 Tier 1

Efficiency at 50% Load Factor

Tier 2 Tier 2
99.00% 99.00%
Tier 3 Tier 3
Tier 4
Tier 4
98.50% Tier 5 98.50%
Tier 5
EIA50 -
Level 1 EIB50 -
EIA50 - Level 1
98.00% Level 2 98.00% EIB50 -
Level 2

97.50%
97.50%

kVA Rating kVA Rating

ANALYSIS APPROACH & METHODOLOGY
Estimation of Energy Savings by Energy
Efficient DTs
• Several studies for APEC and ASEAN have been conducted
since 2013
• Previous APEC Study in 2013
– Average load factors were used for estimation of total energy
losses and savings
– DT efficiencies based on EIB50
– Popular kVA ratings were considered in potential efficiency
improvements
• Operational parameters not considered in the previous
analysis:
– Diversity of daily load profiles (load curves) and load factor in
different end-use sector
– Different DT designs at the same energy efficiency index
Diversity of Daily Load Profiles/ Load Factors
Ideal Case Average Average RMS
1

0.8
loading factor loading factor
0.6

0.4
50% 50%
0.2

0
00:00:00 02:00:00 04:00:00 06:00:00 08:00:00 10:00:00 12:00:00 14:00:00 16:00:00 18:00:00 20:00:00 22:00:00 00:00:00

Worst Case
1

0.8

0.6
50% 71%
0.4

0.2

0
00:00:00 02:00:00 04:00:00 06:00:00 08:00:00 10:00:00 12:00:00 14:00:00 16:00:00 18:00:00 20:00:00 22:00:00 00:00:00

Realistic Case
1

0.8

0.6
50% 57%
0.4

0.2

0
00:00:00 02:00:00 04:00:00 06:00:00 08:00:00 10:00:00 12:00:00 14:00:00 16:00:00 18:00:00 20:00:00 22:00:00 00:00:00
Different DT Designs for the same Efficiency
Index
Design No-Load Losses (W) Load Losses (W)
Design A 30 408
Design B 66 264
Design C 96 144

99.30%
99.10%
98.90%
98.70%
Efficiency (%)

98.50%
Design A
98.30%
Design B
98.10%
Design C
97.90%
97.70%
97.50%
Diversity of Daily Load Profiles

Ideal Case Worst Case Realistic Case

1 1 1

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0 0 0
00:00:00 02:00:00 04:00:00 06:00:00 08:00:00 10:00:00 12:00:00 14:00:00 16:00:00 18:00:00 20:00:00 22:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 02:00:00 04:00:00 06:00:00 08:00:00 10:00:00 12:00:00 14:00:00 16:00:00 18:00:00 20:00:00 22:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 02:00:00 04:00:00 06:00:00 08:00:00 10:00:00 12:00:00 14:00:00 16:00:00 18:00:00 20:00:00 22:00:00 00:00:00

6,000
26%-74% Higher
Daily Energy Losses (Wh)

5,000

4,000
9%-24% Higher

3,000

2,000

1,000

-
Ideal Case Worst Case Realistic Case
Design A (NL=30W, LL=408W) 3,102 5,397 3,854
Design B (NL=66W, LL=264W) 3,102 4,587 3,588
Design C (NL=96W, LL=144W) 3,102 3,912 3,367
Source: Estimation by ICA
 Diversity of Loading Factors
3,500
35% Average loading factor

Daily Energy Losses (Wh)

3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500

6,000
50% Average loading factor -
Ideal Case Worst Case Realistic Case
Design A (NL=30W, LL=408W) 1,880 3,004 2,248
Daily Energy Losses (Wh)

5,000 Design B (NL=66W, LL=264W) 2,311 3,039 2,549

4,000 Design C (NL=96W, LL=144W) 2,671 3,067 2,801

3,000

2,000

1,000

-
Ideal Case Worst Case Realistic Case
Design A (NL=30W, LL=408W) 3,102 5,397 3,854
9,000
75% Average loading factor
Design B (NL=66W, LL=264W) 3,102 4,587 3,588
8,000

Daily Energy Losses (Wh)

Design C (NL=96W, LL=144W) 3,102 3,912 3,367 7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
-
Ideal Case Worst Case Realistic Case
Design A (NL=30W, LL=408W) 6,098 6,621 7,790
Design B (NL=66W, LL=264W) 5,041 5,379 6,135
Design C (NL=96W, LL=144W) 4,160 4,344 4,756
Analysis Approach and Methodology
Step A: Compiling Step B: Defining Step C: Defining Step D: Step E: National
DT Data DT Losses/ Analysis Estimating Per- Impact Analysis
Classifications by Efficiency Parameters Unit Annual
kV/KVA Energy Losses

Typical Load Profiles Extrapolation

for Different End-
Use Sectors at the APEC
Baseline 100
90
2 x PG&E DTs for Residential Customers
Baseline Economy Level
Scenario
80
70
60
50
40
30
Scenario - Baseline
MEPS/ Utilities’
20
10
0

Per Unit Annual - IEC 60076-20

Procurements

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Energy Losses - Savings
Annual Load Factor
Energy Demand of PEA
GWh
12,000

11,500
2016

11,000

10,500 2015

10,000 2014

9,500 2013

9,000

8,500

IEC 60076-20 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
IEC 60076-20
Scenario Scenario
DT designs to meet Key Variables:
- Load losses/no Per Unit Annual
efficiency Electricity Tariff
load losses requirements Energy Losses
(current/
- Efficiency at 50%
projection),
load
Emission Factor,
- Peak efficiency
discount rate,
index
service life
Comprehensive Data Required
• Stock of installed DTs classified by kV and kVA
– Popular kVA rating, Expected lifetime of DTs
• Typical load profiles of different end-use sectors, seasonal
variation and load factors
• Average loading factor or average RMS loading
• Current energy performance standards
– National Standards and Utility Procurement Specifications
• Electricity tariff, electricity emission factor
• Data collection activities include:
– Review of secondary resources
– Questionnaire distribution
– Direct interview with utilities
Key Parameters and Assumptions (1)
• Baseline (business-as-usual) scenario
– Energy performance levels based on either the national
MEPS or the utilities’ procurement documents.
• IEC 60076-20 scenario
– Level 1 recommendations are not used due to their less
stringentcies.
– For 50Hz DTs - level 2 energy performance
recommendations on no-load and load losses and EIB50
– For 60 Hz DTs - level 2 energy performance
recommendations on EIB50
– The PEI recommendations referenced as indicators not as
EE options
Key Parameters and Assumptions (2)
• Per unit analysis - characteristics of the most common
kVA rating represent the whole DT population (Utility-
owned, liquid-immersed)
• Focus on three major end-use sectors:
– Residential, Commercial and Industrial (Three sets of daily
load profile)
– Annual average loading factors based either on feedback
from APEC/ASEAN economies or historical energy
consumption statistics
• Maximum loading factor for DTs is 100% (at any time of
the day) – no overloaded!
– Two analysis points – annual average loading factors (per
data collection) & 50% loading factor
Baseline Scenario
Baseline Scenario
Liquid-Immersed DT (50Hz, ≤24 kV, ≤3,150 kVA) Liquid-Immersed DT (60Hz, ≤2,500 kVA)

MEPS or maximum no- MEPS or efficiency index MEPS or efficiency index

load/ load losses requirements @ a specific requirements @ a specific %
requirements of utilities % loading loading

Baseline Model Baseline Model Baseline Model

No-load/load losses With no-load/load losses With no-load/load losses that
that deliver the required deliver the required efficiency
efficiency Index Index

Annual energy loss analysis

Not implemented in
selected economies Flat/Constant Residential Sector Commercial Sector Industrial Sector
Daily Load Profile Daily Load Profile Daily Load Profile Daily Load Profile
(no peak demand) (evening peak (afternoon & evening (multiple peak
demand) peak demand) demand)

% Load Factor Variation

Analysis results per model

Energy Efficiency Scenario
IEC 60076-20 Scenario
Liquid-Immersed DT (50Hz, ≤24 kV, ≤3,150 kVA) Liquid-Immersed DT (60Hz, ≤2,500 kVA)

Scenario IEC LL-50: Scenario IEC EI-50: Scenario IEC EI-60:

- IEC 60076-20, Table 4, - IEC 60076-20, Table 6, - IEC 60076-20, Table 5,
Max no-load losses & EIB50 Level 2 for 50Hz EIB50 Level 2 for 60Hz
load losses Level 2 for
50Hz

Two DT models with

different load vs efficiency Multiple DT models with
curves @ the same EIB50 different load vs efficiency
Level 2 for 50Hz curves @ the same EIB50 Level
2 for 60Hz

Model A Model B Model C Model D Model E Model XX

No-load/load No-load/load No-load/load No-load/load No-load/load No-load/load
losses losses losses losses losses losses
(high total loss) (low total loss) (high total loss) (med total loss) (low total loss)

PEI (%) of each model – for comparison & reporting Annual energy loss analysis

Flat/Constant Residential Sector Commercial Sector Industrial Sector

Daily Load Profile Daily Load Profile Daily Load Profile Daily Load Profile
(no peak demand) (evening peak (afternoon & evening (multiple peak
demand) peak demand) demand)

% Load Factor Variation

Analysis results per model

FINDINGS FROM DATA
COLLECTION/SURVEY
DT Performance Standards in APEC
Data Collection Results
• Sufficient data obtained from the Philippines,
Thailand, USA (only PG&E) and Vietnam
– Vietnam’s national MEPS is based on EI but it is
less stringent than utilities’ requirements –
excluding from the analysis
– 50Hz DTs (Thailand & Vietnam) – max. no-load
and load losses requirement
– 60 Hz DTs (Philippines & USA) – EIB50 (Guideline on
no-load/load losses also available for electric
cooperatives)
Maximum No-Load Losses in Thailand and
Vietnam
Maximum Load Losses in Thailand and
Vietnam
Minimum Efficiency Index (EIB50) – Single-
Phase DT in Philippines and USA
Minimum Efficiency Index (EIB50) – Three-
Phase DT in Philippines and USA
Diversity of Daily Load Profiles and Loading
Factors
Residential Sector Commercial Sector IndustrialSector
Max. Loading Factor: 58% - 84% Max. Loading Factor: 81% - 88% Max. Loading Factor: 48% - 91%
100% 100% 100%
90% 90% 90%
80% 80% 80%
70% 70% 70%
60% 60% 60%
50% 50% 50%
40% 40% 40%
30% 30% 30%
20% 20% 20%
10% 10% 10%
0% 0% 0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

100% 100% 100%

90% 90% 90%
80% 80% 80%
70% 70% 70%
60% 60% 60%
50% 50% 50%
40% 40% 40%
30% 30% 30%
20% 20% 20%
10% 10% 10%
0% 0% 0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

100% 100% 100%

90% 90% 90%
80% 80% 80%
70% 70% 70%
60% 60% 60%
50% 50% 50%
40% 40% 40%
30% 30% 30%
20% 20% 20%
10% 10% 10%
0% 0% 0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
PER UNIT ANALYSIS
Four DTs Designs – 50Hz
Baseline: 3-Phase, 160 kVA DT, PEA, Thailand
100.000%

99.500%
• Baseline: based on existing
99.000% losses requirements
98.500%
Efficiency

98.000% Baseline Model

Design A
97.500%

• IEC 60076-20: based on

Design B
97.000% Design C

96.500%

96.000% level 2 EIB50 for 50Hz

Loading Factor – Design A – max. IEC no-
Baseline: 3-Phase, 250 kVA DT, SPC & HCMC, Vietnam load/load losses
100.000%

99.500%
– Design B - low no-load
99.000% losses and high load losses
98.500%
– Design C – High no-load
Efficiency

98.000% Baseline Model

97.500%
Design A
Design B
losses and low load losses
97.000% Design C

96.500%

96.000%

Loading Factor
Four DTs Designs – 60Hz
Baseline: 1-Phase, 50kVA DT, Philippines
100.000% • Baseline: based on DOE
99.500% 2010 requirements, NEMA
99.000%
TP-1 compliant
Efficiency

Baseline Model

98.500% Design A

• IEC 60076-20: based on

Design B
Design C
98.000%

97.500%
level 2 EIB50 for 60Hz (or
Loading Factor
DOE 2016)
– Design A – Medium no-load
Baseline: 1-Phase, 25 kVA DT, PG&E, USA
99.500%
losses and high load losses
99.300%
99.100%
– Design B - low no-load
98.900% losses and high load losses
98.700%
– Design C – High no-load
Efficiency

98.500% Baseline Model

98.300%
98.100%
Design A
Design B
losses and low load losses
Design C
97.900%
97.700%
97.500%

Loading Factor
Per Unit Analysis – Philippines (1)
Utility Owned DT Population
50,000 2,500
1-Phase, 50 kVA DT selected
40,000
for per unit analysis 2,000
Unit Installed

MVA Installed
30,000 1,500

20,000 3-phase 1,000 3-phase

1-phase 1-phase
10,000 500

- -
≥ - - - - - ≥ - - - - -

kVA Rating kVA Rating

PEI gained = 0.025%-0.38% EIB50 gained = 0.03%

Distribution Transformer 50 kVA, Single-Phase, 60Hz

No-Load Load Total
Efficiency Profile PEI (%) EIB50
Losses (W) Losses (W) Losses (W)
Baseline Model 90 625 715 99.050% 99.08%
Design A 81 631 712 99.095% 99.11%
Design B 23 887 910 99.431% 99.11%
Design C 92 584 676 99.075% 99.11%
Per Unit Analysis – Philippines (2)

Loading factors: 48% to 78%

Typical Loading Factors 50% Loading Factor
400 200

200 100

Per Unit Annual Savings (kWh)

Per Unit Annual Savings (kWh)

0
Flat 0 Flat
Design A Design B Design C
-200 Design A Design B Design C
Residential Residential
-100
Commercial Commercial
-400
Industrial -200 Industrial
-600

-300
-800

-1,000 -400

Savings = 1% to 2% Savings = 4% to 5% Savings = 2% to 3% Savings = 3% to 4%

Savings = -7% to -20% Savings = -1% to -12%
Per Unit Analysis – Thailand
Metropolitan Electricity Authority (MEA) PEI gained = 0.035%-0.145% EIB50 gained = 0.005%

Distribution Transformer 500 kVA, Three Phase, 50Hz, 24kV

No-Load Load Total Losses
Efficiency Profile PEI (%) EIB50
Losses (W) Losses (W) (W)
Baseline Model 670 3,030 3,700 99.430 99.459
Design A 459 3,900 4,359 99.465 99.464
Design B 230 4,913 5,143 99.575 99.464
Design C 918 1,887 2,805 99.474 99.464

Provincial Electricity Authority (PEA) PEI gained = 0.35%-0.52% EIB50 gained = 0.31%

Distribution Transformer 160 kVA, Three-Phase 50Hz, 22kV

No-Load Load Total Losses
Efficiency Profile PEI (%) EIB50
Losses (W) Losses (W) (W)
Baseline Model 360 2,100 2,460 98.913% 98.964%
Design A 189 1,750 1,939 99.280% 99.271%
Design B 95 2,167 2,262 99.434% 99.271%
Design C 378 921 1,299 99.262% 99.271%
Per Unit Analysis – Thailand, MEA

Loading factors: 66%

Typical Loading Factors 50% Loading Factors

3,000 600

2,000 400

Per Unit Annual Savings (kWh)

Per Unit Annual Savings (kWh)

1,000
Flat 200 Flat
0 Residential Residential
Design A Design B Design C 0
-1,000 Commercial Commercial
Design A Design B Design C
Industrial -200 Industrial
-2,000

-3,000 -400

-4,000 -600

Savings = 9% to 13% Savings = 2% to 4%

Savings -1%
Savings = -5% to -9% Savings = -1% to -4%
Savings = -12% to -19%
Per Unit Analysis – Thailand, PEA

Loading factors: 73%

Typical Loading Factors 50% Loading Factor
6,000 2,600

2,500
Per Unit Annual Savings (kWh)

Per Unit Annual Savings (kWh)

5,000
2,400
4,000
Flat Flat
2,300
3,000 Residential Residential
2,200
Commercial Commercial
2,000
Industrial 2,100 Industrial
1,000 2,000

0 1,900
Design A Design B Design C Design A Design B Design C

Savings = 36% to 41% Savings = 29% Savings = 31% to 32%

Savings = 24% to 27%
Savings = 27% to 28%
Savings = 15% to 22%
Per Unit Analysis – USA, PG&E (1)

1-Phase, 25 kVA DT
selected for per unit
analysis

Source: Electric Program Investment Charge (EPIC), PG&E, December 2016

PEI gained = 0.042%-0.385% EIB50 gained = 0.04%

Distribution Transformer 25 kVA, Single-Phase, 60Hz

No-Load Load Total
Efficiency Profile PEI (%) EIB50
Losses (W) Losses (W) Losses (W)
Baseline Model 70 298 368 98.844% 98.91%
Design A 66 293 359 98.886% 98.95%
Design B 18 502 520 99.229% 98.95%
Design C 75 255 330 98.896% 98.95%
Per Unit Analysis – USA, PG&E (2)

Loading factors: 40% to 70%

Typical Loading Factors 50% Loading Factors

200 70

60
100
Per Unit Annual Savings (kWh)

Per Unit Annual Savings (kWh)

50
0
Flat 40 Flat
Design A Design B Design C
-100 Residential 30 Residential

-200 Commercial 20 Commercial

Industrial 10 Industrial
-300
0
-400 Design A Design B Design C
-10

-500 -20

Savings = 3% to 4% Savings = 2% to 8% Savings = 4% Savings = 4%

Savings = -13% to +14% Savings = -1.2% to +0.8%
Per Unit Analysis – Vietnam (1)
Utility Owned Distribution Transformers
20.00%
3-Phase, 250 kVA DT
18.00% selected for per unit
16.00% analysis
14.00%
12.00%
% Share

10.00%
8.00%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
Others
kVA Rating
Source: Market Study for Utility Distribution Transformer - Vietnam, ICA, 2015
PEI gained = 0.115%-0.247% EIB50 gained = 0.1%

Distribution Transformer 250 kVA, Three-Phase, 50Hz, 22kV

No-Load Load Total
Efficiency Profile PEI (%) EIB50
Losses (W) Losses (W) Losses (W)
Baseline Model 340 2,600 2,940 99.247% 99.260%
Design A 270 2,350 2,620 99.362% 99.360%
Design B 135 2,946 3,081 99.494% 99.360%
Design C 540 1,166 1,706 99.365% 99.360%
Per Unit Analysis – Vietnam (2)

Loading factors: 84%-88%

Typical Loading Factors 50% Loading Factors
9,000 1,600
8,000 1,400

Per Unit Annual Savings (kWh)

Per Unit Annual Savings (kWh)

7,000 1,200
6,000
Flat 1,000 Flat
5,000
Residential 800 Residential
4,000
Commercial 600 Commercial
3,000
Industrial 400 Industrial
2,000
1,000 200

0 0
-1,000 Design A Design B Design C Design A Design B Design C

Savings = 38% to 39% Savings = 13% Savings = 16%

Savings = 11%
Savings = 12%
Savings = -2% to -3%
Summary of Potential Energy Savings @ 50%
Loading Factor

35%
30%
25%
20%
15% Design A
10% Design B
5% Design C
0%
-5% Philippines Thailand Thailand USA Vietnam
(MEA) (PEA)
-10%
-15%
PEI vs Annual Energy Losses @ 50% Loading
Factor
1-Phase, 50 kVA DT, 60Hz, Philippines 3-Phase, 160 kVA DT, 50Hz, Thailand (PEA)
4,000 99.500% 14,000 99.500%

3,500 99.400%
99.400% 12,000

Annual Energy Loss (kWh)

Annual Energy Loss (kWh)

99.300%
3,000
99.300% 10,000
Flat 99.200% Flat
2,500
99.200% Residential 8,000 99.100% Residential
2,000
99.100% Commercial 6,000 99.000% Commercial
1,500
Industrial 98.900% Industrial
99.000% 4,000
1,000 98.800% PEI (%)
PEI (%)
500 98.900% 2,000
EIB50 (%) 98.700% EIB50 (%)
0 98.800% 0 98.600%
Baseline Model Design A Design B Design C Baseline Model Design A Design B Design C

1-Phase, 25 kVA DT, 60Hz, USA (PG&E) 3-Phase, 250 kVA DT, 50Hz, Vietnam (SPC & HCMC)
1,320 99.300% 9,000 99.550%
1,300 99.500%
99.200%

Annual Energy Loss (kWh)

Annual Energy Loss (kWh)

1,280 8,500 99.450%

99.100%
1,260 Flat 99.400% Flat
8,000
1,240 99.000% Residential 99.350% Residential
1,220 98.900% Commercial 99.300% Commercial
7,500
1,200 Industrial 99.250% Industrial
98.800%
1,180 PEI (%) 7,000 99.200% PEI (%)
98.700%
1,160 EIB50 (%) 99.150% EIB50 (%)
1,140 98.600% 6,500 99.100%
Baseline Model Design A Design B Design C Baseline Model Design A Design B Design C
NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Key Parameters and Assumptions for
National Impact Analysis
• % share of DT kVA installed in each end-use
sector based on % share of national electricity
consumption
• Growth of annual DT installation based on
historical data
• Daily load profiles, loading factors, annual
installed capacity growth – constant
throughout the analysis period
Replacement of Existing DT Stock
90,000
Projection of DT Stock in Vietnam 2018 - 2017
80,000
70,000
DT Stock (MVA)

60,000
50,000
New Installation
40,000
Replacement
30,000
Baseline Model Stock
20,000
10,000
0

• With an estimated lifetime of 20 years, all existing DT stock

will be replaced by new DTs by 2037
Estimated Annual Energy Savings and GHG
Emission Reduction
EIB50 Level 2 (Design C)
Utility Owned DT
Popular Utility-Owned Annual Energy GHG Emission
Country Installed Capacity
DTs Savings (GWh) Reduction (ktCO2e)
(MVA)
2030 2037 2030 2037
Single-Phase, 60 Hz, 50
Philippines 16,200 * 78 134 39 68
kVA
Three-Phase, 50 Hz,
Thailand 160 kVA (PEA) & 500 47,655 1,394 2,210 795 1,260
kVA (MEA)
Single-Phase, 60 Hz, 25
USA 186,000 ** 652 1,012 402 624
kVA
Three-Phase, 50 Hz,
Vietnam 41,015 1,578 2,503 890 1,412
250 kVA
Note: * Estimated installed capacity of DTs in three distribution utilities (two in Luzon, one large and one small, and one in Mindanao)
** Aggregated capacity of DTs installed in the PG&E system
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions (1)
• IEC 60076-20 high energy performance (level 2) for no-load
and load losses are not necessarily applicable for all utilities
in APEC and ASEAN
– Already less stringent than the procurement specifications of
some utilities (e.g. MEA)
• Diversity of daily load profiles (or load curves) for different
end-uses (e.g., residential, commercial and industrial
applications) results in variations of energy losses in DTs.
– Within 5% range
• Variation of average loading factors has greater impacts on
energy losses than diversity of daily load profiles
• Energy losses of a DT at a specific loading factor cannot be
estimated using PEI.
Conclusions (2)
• EIB50 will be meaningful and more accurate for
determination of energy performance when comparing DTs
at loading factors close to 50%.
– It is virtually impossible to predict uncertainty of EIB50 as it
depends on DT designs (no-load and load loss values).
• No-load and load losses allow for better estimation of the
actual energy losses of DTs under different operating
conditions.
• Most utility load profile data show high loading factor of
more than 50%
– DTs with lower load losses (Design C) are generally more
effective in reducing energy losses than adoption of DTs with
lower no-load losses, higher PEI or higher EIB50 with high load
losses.
General Recommendations
• More stringent energy performance requirements than
level 2 should be included in IEC 60078-20
• More resources in collecting demand data and
understanding typical loading factors in major end-use
sectors needed
– These will assist in determination of the energy
performance parameters for DTs that best reflect the
actual situation.
• With limited data on energy demand profiles, no-load
and load losses requirements for procurement of DTs
should be adopted as estimation of energy losses &
savings will be made easier.
Specific Recommendations for Policy Makers
(Utility & Non-Utility)
• Focusing on common DT ratings
– Implementation of MEPS can focus on specific DT ratings
• Identifying typical load factors for each common rating
• Using IEC 60076-20 as a guide, and selecting the
energy performance criteria that facilitate the impact
assessment and respond to the typical load factors.
– Either no-load/load losses or Efficiency Index @ two
loading factors (e.g. 50% and 100%) recommended
– Use mix of losses, i.e. low no-load losses for light load
ratings and low load losses for high load ratings
QUESTION & ANSWER
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
sphonamnuaisuk@iiec.org