> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
Enhanced Energy Efficiency of
Underground Cables
Brent Richardson, Member, IEEE and Ram Ramachandran, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—Utilities can increase their energy efficiency and
improve environmental quality by making a simple choice of
which underground (UG) cables they employ in their
transmission and distribution (T&D) systems. Underground
cables, as well as many other T&D assets are most effectively
evaluated on a life cycle cost basis. It can be estimated that losses
associated with UG cables comprise over one third of their total
life cycle cost. Dielectric losses, one of the two types of electric
losses associated with UG cables, can vary widely based solely on
the type of insulation used. While smaller than the inherent
losses associated with the impedance of the metallic conductor,
dielectric losses are present whenever the cables are energized
and monetary losses can be substantial over the life of today’s
modern cable designs which are projected to last a minimum of
40 years. Cables insulated with tree retardant cross linked
polyethylene (TR-XLPE) insulation have dramatically lower
dielectric losses than cables insulated with ethylene propylene
rubber (EPR). Energy efficiency, cost savings and reduced
carbon emissions can all result from using TR-XLPE for a
utilities’ UG cable infrastructure.
Index Terms—Power cables, compounds, TR-XLPE, energy
efficiency, dielectric losses, cable specifications.
I. INTRODUCTION
Extruded polymeric medium voltage (MV) power cables
were introduced in North America in the late 1960’s. For
many years, little to no attention was given the dielectric
losses associated with these cables. Many in the industry
regarded these losses as too small to calculate or consider
when evaluating the overall performance of the T&D system.
As the industry has progressed and the understanding that the
largest single consumer of electricity is the T&D system itself,
there is increasing attention given to reducing system losses
which in turn can also reduce the production of green house
gases linked to global warming.
Insulated power cables have two types of losses, load
dependent losses and non-load dependent losses. Companies
such as American Superconductor and Southwire have made
advancements in technology to address the current dependent
losses of metallic conductors in cables, the I2R losses. These
advancements have demonstrated the capability to minimize
these losses when the conductor temperature is reduced to
near 0o K. However, the technologies require significant
multiples of capital compared to traditional technologies.
Other sources of load dependent losses are shield or sheath
losses. Since current dependent losses are a function of the
conductor elements of the cable, they are common for cables
978-1-4244-6547-7/10/$26.00 © 2010 IEEE
1
having the same conductor, irrespective of the insulation.
Non-load dependent (dielectric) losses can be thought of in
the same light as core losses in transformers. Dielectric
losses are due to the flow of charging current in the insulation,
and are present any time there is voltage on the cable because
some resistive component of current flows through any type
of insulation. Whenever a cable is energized these losses
result in heat and lost energy that could generate revenue for
the utility. If the source of the energy is coal, green houses
gases are being generated for no value to man.
II. OVERVIEW OF INSULATION MATERIALS
A. TR-XLPE
The cross linked polyethylene insulation used today for MV
cables is significantly cleaner than the XLPE introduced in the
mid 1960’s and has been modified to inhibit the growth of
water trees, thus allowing for increased reliability of
distribution cables. Union Carbide (now Dow Wire & Cable)
first introduced TR-XLPE to the market in 1983. Tree
retardant XLPE (TR-XLPE) insulation is now the standard for
MV XLPE cables. TR-XLPE is a pure, simple unfilled
polymer compound composed of greater than 96%
polyethylene, the rest composed of the cross-linking (cure)
agents, anti-oxidants and an effective water tree retardant
additive. It is extra clean, and shipped in a natural pellet form.
Cables made with TR-XLPE are made with true triple head
extrusion process employing dry nitrogen cure, producing
clean interfaces. This results in higher aged electrical strength
and tougher, more deformation resistant cables.
B. EPR
EPR is a highly filled material made of complex mixtures
that can contain more than a dozen ingredients. Due to the
filled nature of the material and inherent color due to the
additives, contaminants cannot be seen easily. Most
manufacturers of EPR based cables use a two plus one
extrusion which can result in more interfacial stress risers.
Many also use steam cure process for cross linking EPR
cables. EPR cables have inherently lower electrical strength
and the insulation, while more flexible, is much softer. There
are multiple formulations of EPR in the North American
market that basically fit into two categories; semi-crystalline
and amorphous. The semi-crystalline EPR is based on
ethylene-propylene diene terpolymer (EPDM) with some
crystallinity It contains approximately 5% polyethylene with
filler levels of 30-35 parts per hundred (pph). Amorphous
EPR is based on an ethylene-propylene copolymer with very
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 2

little crystallinity and is typically shipped in strip form. This

formulation may contain filler levels of 45 pph or higher. In Insulation Conductor Temperature (O C)
general, the use of additives tends to increase the dissipation 25 oC 45 oC 90 oC
factor of the insulation. ε Tan δ ε Tan δ ε Tan δ
Dow 2.3 0.04 2.3 0.05 2.3 0.085
III. DIELECTRIC LOSSES Endurance
B4202
A. Calculation EPR A 3 0.15 3 0.2 3 0.3
EPR B 3 0.27 3 0.33 3 0.47
The following formula is used to calculate dielectric losses EPR C 3 1.5 3 3.0 3 6.5
in a shielded power cable at a given temperature.
Table 1: Values of Dielectric Constant and Power Factor at
Wd=2πfCV2 tan δ (Equation 1) Different Operating Temperatures

Where: IV. TYPICAL UTILITY EXAMPLES

Wd = dielectric loss per conductor meter of cable
(watts/meter) Using Equation 1 and the data in Table 1, the dielectric losses
f = operating frequency in hertz for a typical utility system can be calculated. Furthermore,
C = capacitance (farad/meter) these losses can be converted to monetary losses over the life
V = phase to ground voltage across the insulation (volts) of the cable.
tan δ = dissipation factor (power factor) of the insulation
(radians) A. Example 1

The formula for the capacitance of a single conductor, Medium utility ABC has 10,500 conductor miles of #2 25 kV
insulated, shielded power cable is given by the following conductor in their URD system and 1500 conductor miles of
formula: 750 MCM 25 kV feeder cables. We can assume an average
operating temperature of 45 oC for both cable types.
C = 2πεoεR (Equation 2)
ln D/d The resulting losses equal:

Where: Dow Endurance B4202 = 984,127 kWhr

εo = permittivity of free space (8.854 x 10-12 farad/meter) EPR A = 5,134,545 kWhr
εR = dielectric constant of the insulation EPR B = 8,477,999 kWhr
D = diameter over the insulation (mm) EPR C = 77,078,774 kWhr
d = diameter under the insulation (mm)
The numbers above reflect a nearly 80:1 difference between
One can see in equation 1 that dielectric loss increases with Dow Endurance B4202 and EPR C. Simply using a MV cable
increased dielectric constant of the insulation, increased insulation that is more energy efficient could result in a
insulation dissipation factor and the square of the operating savings of over 76 MWhr., enough energy to serve the needs
of 6 average houses for one year. Even for the best EPR,
voltage.
there is greater than a 5:1 difference.
B. Dissipation Factor
To convert these losses to monetary figures, the following
assumptions were made:
The filled EPR insulations are inherently lossier than the
unfilled TR-XLPE as indicated by their higher power factor.
Energy Cost =$0.09/kWhr
The power factor of filled EPR formulations also increase
Demand Cost=$100/KW
significantly with temperature while the power factor of Dow
Discount rate = 9%
Endurance B4202 is relatively stable over the range of normal
Expected cable life= 40 years
cable operating temperatures. Utilities operate UG cables
over a range of temperatures. Today, with the desire to
The losses translate to the graph shown below in demand
extract the maximum value from utility assets, UG cables are
losses, cost of energy losses and the net present value over the
asked to support higher loads than ever before thus increasing
life of the cable for energy and demand losses for the
typical operating temperatures. The dissipation factor and
respective insulation types.
dielectric constant of Dow Endurance B4202 and three
commercial EPR materials used in medium voltage power
application are listed in Table 1. [1]
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 3

C. Example 3
$100,000,000

$10,000,000 Cost of demand

losses/yr Small utility RST has 7500 conductor miles of #1/0 15 kV
$1,000,000 Cost of energy losses/yr conductor in their URD system and 800 conductor miles of
$100,000 1000 MCM 15 kV feeder cables. If we assume an average
$10,000
NPV of dielectric losses operating temperature of 45 oC for both cable types.
$1,000
The resulting losses equal:
e

C
A

B
nc

R
ra

EP

EP

EP
Dow Endurance B4202 = 42,399 kWhr
du
En

EPR A = 5,134,545 kWhr

w
Do

EPR B = 8,477,999 kWhr

EPR C = 77,078,774 kWhr
Figure 1-Monetary Impact of Example 1
Using the same assumptions as in Example 1 to convert these
1) Impact of Temperature losses to monetary figures results in the following:

The impact of temperature, i.e. cable loading, cannot be

$10,000,000
overlooked. If the feeder cables in Example 1 are allowed to
run heavily loaded and we assume 90 oC for their operation $1,000,000
Cost of demand losses/yr
only, the losses increase: $100,000 Cost of energy losses/yr
NPV of dielectric losses
$10,000
Dow Endurance B4202 = 1,160,287 kWhr
$1,000
EPR A = 5,791,063 kWhr
EPR B = 9,391,125 kWhr

C
B
e

R
nc

EP

EP

EP
ra
EPR C = 99,996,315 kWhr w
En
du
Do

B. Example 2 Insulation Type

Large utility XYZ has 14,500 conductor miles of #1/0 35 kV

conductor in their URD system and 4500 conductor miles of Figure 3-Monetary Impact of Example 3
500 MCM 35 kV feeder cables. We can assume an average
operating temperature of 45 oC for both cable types. V. CARBON FOOTPRINT
In the third quarter of 2009, the US Congress is still in
The resulting losses equal: discussion over the concept of taxes on released green houses
gases. The CO2 emissions associated with the dielectric losses
Dow Endurance B4202 = 2,788,059 kWhr from MV cables will vary depending on the generation mix
EPR A = 5,134,545 kWhr for each utility. Coal fired generation produces 2,300 lbs. of
EPR B = 8,477,999 kWhr CO2 per MWhr. [2] For calculation purposes, we have
EPR C = 77,078,774 kWhr assumed a mixed generation portfolio with an average output
of 770 Kg/MWhr of CO2. While the cost of these
Using the same assumptions as above to convert these losses unnecessary emissions is unknown at this time, one can
to monetary figures results in the following: approximate the value of these emissions using the current
rate employed in Europe of $25 per metric ton of emissions.
$1,000,000,000
The resulting energy loss per year, volume of CO2 emitted,
$100,000,000
and net present value of the CO2 emissions over the life of the
$10,000,000
Cost of demand losses/yr cable are shown in the following table.
Cost of energy losses/yr
$1,000,000
$100,000
NPV of dielectric losses Insulation Energy loss CO2 emitted NPV of CO2
$10,000
type per year per year emissions
(MWhr.) (MT/yr.) over the life
of the cable
A

C
B
R
e

R
nc

EP

EP

EP

Example 1
ra
du
En

Dow 480 758 $203,797

w
Do

Insulation Type
Endurance
EPR A 5,135 3,954 $1,063,258
Figure 2-Monetary Impact of Example 2 EPR B 8,472 6,523 $1,754,374
EPR C 77,019 59,304 $15,948,860
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 4

Example 2 2. Conversely, use of EPRs with their attendant higher

Dow 2788 2147 $577,349 dielectric losses means that the cable would have to last longer
Endurance than TR-XLPE to compensate by postponing replacement
EPR A 14,546 11,200 $3,012,255 expenses.
EPR B 24,001 18,482 $4,970,221
EPR C 218,195 168,011 $45,183,828 3. Surprisingly, there seems to be some use of EPR insulations
Example 3 for high voltage (typically 69-138 kV in North America)
Dow 43 33 $8,780 underground cables. A quick analysis should reveal that
Endurance strictly from the value of the dielectric losses and the resultant
EPR A 221 171 $45,809 impact of carbon footprint, this may not be the optimum
EPR B 365 281 $75,584 choice for utilities.
EPR C 3,318 2,555 $687,126
VIII. CONCLUSION
Table 2-Carbon Footprint Impact of Losses
Electrical losses play a major component in the total owning
VI. LIFE CYCLE COSTS cost of MV UG cables for utilities. For many years, the
dielectric losses portion of the total losses has been considered
insignificant. As the issues of global warming and carbon
When utilities evaluate the purchase of medium voltage (MV)
taxes have forged their way to the forefront, dielectric losses
UG cables they should examine the total life cycle costs and
are worth another look. MV cables using TR-XLPE
not just up-front first costs. Perhaps surprisingly, the total
insulation can provide as much as an 80:1 advantage over
losses associated with a cable, depending on the type of cable
some forms of EPR based insulations. When the NPV of the
used, can be the single greatest component of cost. As seen in
dielectric losses over the life of a cable are considered in
Figure 2, even when using TR-XLPE based cables, 34% of
addition to the initial purchase price, utilities can fairly and
the net present value over the life of a cable can be consumed
completely evaluate the total cost of the asset and make more
by losses. While the percentage of dielectric losses is small
effective purchasing decisions. They can also rest assured they
when compared to load based losses, they can still be a factor
are operating as efficiently as possible, with respect to this
as shown in this paper.
asset, and are reducing their environmental impact while
enhancing their corporate image.

Lifetime Costs - Energy Cable ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Initial Cable Cost
Energy 11% THE AUTHORS THAN K THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY FOR
losses
PERMISSION TO PRESENT THIS PAPER AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE
34%
STRONG SUPPORT OF MANY OF THEIR COLLEAGUES AT DOW
WIRE AND CABLE

REFERENCES
[1] Szaniszlo, S., “Reviewing Twenty Years of Proven
Installation Performance”, Technical Report, Aug. 2003, p. 48
Replacement Cost [2] IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, Nov./Dec. 2008 p. 40
costs 38% [3] Penrice, J., “Navigating the Downturn, Value Creation
17% Strategies for the Wire & Cable Industry”, CRU conference,
June 2009
Figure 4: Components of the Life Cycle Cost of a MV Cable
[3]
Brent Richardson is the North American End Use Marketing Manager
for the Dow Wire & Cable business. Prior to joining
Dow in May of 2007, Brent worked for nearly 25
VII. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS years for Duke Energy in Charlotte, NC. His
experience included many components of the utility
1. While standard XLPE is not used in North American utility business including Field Engineering, Distribution
distribution systems, it is still used in other global regions. Standards and Marketing. He received a BSEE from
TR-XLPE has a slightly higher dissipation factor than TR- Virginia Tech in 1985 and is a registered PE in NC
XLPE (due to the additive). However, the increased cable life and SC and is also a member of IEEE.
of TR-XLPE and the attendant life cycle cost improvements
will more than compensate for this difference.
Ram Ramachandran is the Global Director of
End Use Marketing for the Dow Wire and Cable
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 5

business. He holds undergraduate degrees in

Chemistry and Metallurgical Engineering from
India and a MS in Materials Science from
Columbia University, New York and an MBA
from SUNY, Buffalo. His role and focus is to
understand the critical needs and issues of cable
end users such as electric utilities to help drive
Dow product development and offer solutions and
support.
He is a Senior Member of IEEE, CIGRE and is the current Chair of A14D,
Power Cable Standards Group of the Insulated Conductors Committee of
IEEE. He holds 8 patents and has authored more than 20 papers.