EGYG

Energy Department Paper No. 6

Energy Efficiency:Optimizationof
Electric Power Distribution
System Losses

July 1982

World Bank Energy Department

 ENERGYEFFICIENCY: OPTIMIZATIONOF

ELECTRIC POWERDISTRIBUTION SYSTEMLOSSES

(Final Report of Research Project No. R633)

Mohan Munasinghe and

Walter Scott (Consultant)
Energy Department

July 1982

Copyright (c) 1982

The World Bank
1818 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20433
U.S.A.

This paper is one of a series issued by the Energy Department for

the information and guidance of Bank staff. The paper may not be
published or quoted as representing the vlews of the Bank Group,
and the Bank Group does not accept responsibility for its accuracy
or completeness.
 ENERGY EFFICIENCY:OPTIMIZATIONOF
ELECTRIC POWER DISTRIBUTIONSYSTEM LOSSES

Abstract

Given the rising costs of energy supply and the high level of loss
in LDC pover systems,the objectivesof this study were to develop pratical
methods for (1) isolatingtechnicallosses in distributonsystems;(2)
evaluatingeconomically, methods of reducingloss levels;and (3) incorporat-
ing the effects of loss analysisinto engineeringcriteriafor design and
operations.

The results indicatethat within realisticlimits,for many dis-

tributonsystems. Loss reductionis far a cheaperalternativethan adding
new generatingand bulk transmissioncapacity. The analysisstressesthat
both kWh and kW (or peak) losses are important,and these should be valued at
the long-runmarginalcost of bulk supply - the range of values used in the
study spans the spectrumfor hydro as well as thermalsystems. It is shown
that economicallyoptimal target loss levels for networksare much lower than
those commonlyused at present. The study also identifiesmethodologiesto
isoloatelosses and optimizeloss levels on an economicbasis. The relevance
of loss analysisin establishingengineeringdesing and operatingcriteria
are discussed.

The findingscan be used to develop specificpractical

loss-reductionprojects. Most power utilitiesalreadyhave loss-reduction
and network rehabilitationprogramswhich could usefullyincorporatethe
economicplanningcriteriacontainedhere. As noted in the study, most such
programsstill use pre-determined(and often rule-of-thumb)target loss
levels,voltage drop, and similarcriteriaas a basis for design. Therefore
the existenceof these programsdoes not guaranteethat appropriateeconomic
criteriaare being used. Utilitiesshould also recognizethe importanceof
separatingtechnicaland non-technicalcauses of losses,and developing
appropriatestrategiesto deal with each component. Identifyingthe causes
of losses is an essential,but not necessarilyobviousifirst step in putting
togetheran effectivepackageof loss reductionmeasures.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

CHAPTER1: INTRODUCTION
ANDSUMMARY 1

1.1 Backgroundand Objectives 1

1.2 S=mmary 5
1,2.1 Models and Methodology 5
1.2.2 PrincipalResults 7

1.3 Conclusionsand Potentialfor Application 10

1.3.1 PrincipalConclusionsand Recommendations 10
1.3.2. Potentialfor Application 10

CHAPTER 2: ECONOMICBASIS FOR OPTIMIZINGLOSSES 17

2.1 EconomicOptimizationof DistributionLosses

2.2 The EconomicValue of kW add kWh Losses 19

CHAPTER 3: CALCULATINGDISTRIBUTIONSYSTEM LOSSES 23

3.1 Primary and SecondarySystems 23

3.2 Substationand DistributionTransformers 23
3.3 Power Factor Correction 29
3.4 SimplifiedProcedure (FirstApproximation) 33

CHAPTER4: OPTIMIZINGDISTRIBUTIONLOSSES 38

4.1 IsolatingTechnicalLosses on Primary Systems 38

4.2 IsolatingTechnicalLosses in DistributionTransformers 40
4.3 IsolatingTechnicalLosses on SecondarySystems 42
4.4 EconomicReductionof Losses 43
4.5 EngineeringDesign Criteria 47
4.6 SpecificationRequirementsand Bid Evaluationfor
DistributionTransformers 48

CHAP?TER5: SUMMARY
OF CASE STUDY RESULTS 49

5.1 PrimaryConductorLoading 51
5.2 Power Factor Control 52
5.3 Distribution Transformers 55
5.4 SecondarySystems 64
5.5 Connections 67
5.6 Literature Search 67

APPENDICES

A EconomicLoss OptimizationModel 69
B ComputerizedAnalytical Models 76
C Case StudyDetails 97
D Basic Loadingand Loss Parameters 124
E Bibliography
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTIONAND SUMMARY

1.1. Backgroundand Objectives

The world-widescarcityof energy resourcesand the increasingcosts of

energy supply have highlightedthe importanceof energy conservationand
eliminationof waste by both proceduresand users of energy. Power system
loss reductionis one of the principalways for achievingthis in the
electricitypower sector.

In the processof deliveringelectricityto consumers,losses are

incurredat the generation,transmissionand distributionstages of a power
system,as shown in Figure 1.1. Generationlosses may be improvedby
improvingthe efficiencyof plant and reducingstation-use,e.g., using new
technologieslike combined-cyclethermalplant, replacingold boilers and
generallyupratingold thermalgenerations,using higher efficiencydesigns
in new hydro installationsor replacingolder turbines,etc. Leaving
generationaside (where acceptablenorms for losses vary accordingto the mix
of plant),recent work indicatesthat averageenergy losses in the power
deliverysystem,i.e., transmissionand distribution,should normallybe
below 10% of gross generation,while economicallyoptimal loss levels may be
as low as 5%. The correspondinglosses in many LDC networks approach20%,
even after allowingfor substantialamountsof theft.

While recognizingthe importanceof continuedimprovementsin the

efficiencyof generationand bulk transmission,this study focusseson the
reductionof both energy and peak power losses in distributionnetworkswhere
up to three fourthsof total system losses occur.

As a rough illustration,if we congidera country like India with

an annual electricityproductionof about 10 gigawatt-hours(GWh) in 1978,
and assume a value of US45 per kWh, then reducinglosses from 20% to 10% (of
generation)would yield an annual saving of US$0.5 billion. We show in this
study that such savingscan often be realizedthrougha rathermodest
expenditurein additionalhardware,to improvethe system.

Two principalreasonsaccount for high existinglevels of

distributionlosses in developingcountries. First, the sellingprice of
electricityhas failed to keep pace with the rapid increasein the costs of
supply in the decade or so followingthe oil crisis of 1973. The consequent
declinein the financialpositionof many LDC power companieshas led to
reduced investmentand systemmaintenance,while low electricityprices have
tend,edto over-stimulatedemand. In general,most utilitieswould prefer to
cut lbackexpenditureson distributionsystems rather than reduce generation
and bulk transmissioninvestmeatsbecausethe resultsof shortagesin the
latter case lead to major power outages that are highly visible,whereas
distributionsystemweaknessesmanifestthemselvesless spectacularlyin
terms of low voltage,high losses,and so on. Investmentsin new generation
projectsare also more attractiveas a visible sign of "progress",whereas
loss reducingnetwork improvementsare considerablyless glamorous.
 -2-

FIGURE 1.1 LOSSES IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF

POWER SYSTEM

(1) (J ) T
Generation

Station use +
(2) ) EHV and HV
transmission losses
_+ nontechnical losses

and Hv
iEHv
TRANSMISSION
3 'ower and energy
(3) (4)5 demands of
%HV consumers

(5)fJ'Mv distributifn losses

nontechnical losses

_Power and energy MV

:(6) (7 demands of DISTRIBUTION
MVconsumers

SLVdistribution losses
(8) and nontechnical losses LV
. ~~~DISTRIBUTION
(9) Power and energy demands
Of LV consumers

Note:
,.power and energy flows
7-losses
E) generation
a transformation
 The second reason for high distribution system Loss levels also
stems from the rapid rise in energy costs, recently. In brief, additional
expenditures on system hardware can bring down system losses. Rules of thumb
for system design, still used by many LDC utilities to tradeoff increased
system investment costs versus reduced losses, implicitly embody relative
costs more appropriate to the mid 1960's than the early 1980's. As a very
rough illustration, let us take the international prices of oil and aLuminum
(or copper) as proxies for the values of energy losses and of system hardware
(e.g., conductors), respectively.

As shown in Figure 1.2, oil prices (in constant terms) have

increased about five-fold between 1965 and 1981, whereas the corresponding
prices of aluminum and copper have remained roughly constant or even
declined. Clearly, an engineer in 1981 should be willing to use a lot more
of conductor to reduce system losses, than he would have in 1965. As shown
later in this study, this means that acceptable overall target loss levels
for the entire distribution network (i.e., excluding bulk transmission but
including the distribution substation) shouLd be less than 5% of generation,
whereas the conventional wisdom has allowed for losses of up to 10% or more.

Accordingly, this study seeks to help the Bank and its borrowers
identify and reduce network losses. It shows that reducing losses is often
more cost effective than building more generation capacity, and will
therefore free scarce domestic resources and foreign exchange.

The specific objectives of this study were to:

(1) identify the areas within a power system where loss optimization
would be most effective, in the context of the developing
countries;.

(2) determine methods for isolating technical losses on an existing

system; 11

(3) develop and test (on the basis of a desk study) a framework for
economically evaluating alternative means of reducing losses on an
existing system and determining the optimal Loss levels;

(4) develop practical methods for including the effects of losses in

estabLishing the engineering criteria used in design and
operations.

The remainder of this chapter contains a summary of the models and

methodology used in the study and its results, followed by the conclusions

1/ We recognize that other types of loss such as theft or unmetered

consumption may also be significant in some systems and should be
reduced. However, these issues are not within the scope of the present
study. Minimizing such unaccounted-for energy may involve steps such as
replacing broken meters, disconnecting and prosecuting customers who
steal electricity, establishing a system of prepayment of bills, using
different individuals to do the meter reading and billing (as an
anti-corruption measure), and so oQ .
 -4-

Figure 1.2. INTERNATIONALPRICES FOR CRUDE OIL, ALUMINUMAND COPPER IN

CONSTANT(1980) US DOLLARS

-\;2~~0

CRUDE OIL

10~~~~~~1

. S~~~~~~~~s00

*-r4

ALUMINUM

1000

AA
-~~~~~~~~~~~~ ccc

COPPER

40cc

I 960 1960 1970 98

and a discussionof the potentialfor applicationof these results in Bank
operationsand the work of LDC power utilities. The basic economicmodel for
optimizingdistributionlosses is described in Chapter II. The method of
calculatingdistributionsystem losses is given in Chapter III. The
methlodology
for combining the various engineeringand economicmodels to
optimizedistributionloss levels is given in Chapter IV, while Chapter V
summarizesthe results of the case studies used to successfullytest the
methodology. A number of technicalannexes providemethodologicaldetails.

1.2 Summary

1.2.1 Models and Methodology

EconomicModel

The economicmodel seeks to maximize the long-rangenet benefits of

electricityconsumption(i.e., the total benefitsminus the total
cost). Since alternativedistributionsystem plans that serve the same
load are compared,the total benefitsof consumptionare the same in
each case. The differencein net benefitsbetween two networks is
therefore the differencein costs. Total costs in each case consist of
the sum of long-runmarginalcosts of bulk supply (from the generation
and transmissionsystem)plus the investmentand operatingcosts of the
distributionnetwork.

Minimizingthese total costs, which is equivalentto maximizingnet

benefits, is achievedby trading off the increasedcosts of the
distributionnetwork against the decreaseddistributionlosses.
kW and kWh losses are valued at the long-runmarginalcost of bulk
supply. The methodologypermits the system planner to add one or more
new componentsto the distributionsystem. A cost-benefittest is
performed to check whether benefit of reduced losses exceeds the
increasedsystem costs. If the test is satisfied,the system
improvementsare acceptedand new changes are attempted. The process
aontinuesuntil the planner feels that all technicallyfeasibleloss
reducingoptions have been tried and acceptedor rejected. This is
consideredto be the optimal system.

All cost-benefitcalculationsare done in real, present discountedvalue

terms over a 20 year period, to capture long-runeffects. Appropriate
shadow prices are used to representthe true economicvalue of scarce
resources. Finally,some correctionsmay be made to total costs of
alternativedistributionsystems,to account for small differencesamong
them in terms of qualityof supply and outage costs to consumers.
 Engineering Analytical Models

The following analytical models translate the physical and electrical

characteristics of a system component into a digital computer model for
calculating demand and energy losses:2 /

'Transformer (station and distribution)

Regulator

Primary System

* Secondary System

Loading Model

The loading model carries out two major functions:

(1) Creates an annual loading model (hourly demands

for entire year) from hourly loads for selected
weeks or from hourly loads for selected months.

(2) Computes load factors, load durations, loss

factors, and loss duration for any block of
demands as defined by hours and dates.

Methodology

Isolating technical losses are accomplished as follows:

(1) Determine load characteristics by seasons and

daily time periods.

(2) Impose those loads on system which is

represented by analytical models (station,
primary, distribution transformer, and
secondary).

(3) Compute technical losses.

Determining the best course of action to economically minimize losses for an

existing system would be done as follows:

(1), (2) and (3) as above.

2/ Preliminary loss calculation may be performed manually with desk

calculators using the same methodology, to identify areas in which loss
reduction would be most effective. However, such calculations can be
carried out only on a sampling basis due to the time required, and the
detailed analysis of a full distribution network involving many feeders
will require computerized methods.
 -7 -

(4) Develop alternative plans to minimize losses over a

selected time frame (say 20 years). Repeat steps
(1), (2) and (3) for each plan and each year.

(5) Use economic model to determine annual values of

losses and system costs and present discounted value
of annual losses and system costs for each plan.

(6) Select most economical plan which minimizes sum of

loss value and system costs. Alternatively, any
system improvement for which the value of loss
reduction exceeds the increase in system cost is
considered desirable.

The methodology for including losses in the decision making process relative
to engineering criteria would be similar to the above process (Steps (1)
through (6)).

I.2.2 Principal Results

The major findings of this project are:

(1) While generation and bulk power transmission losses
can be further improved, distribution loss reduction
should be given high priority because it is a
relatively neglected topic.

(2) Specific areas which economically warrant loss

optimization include:

Sub-transmission systems
(especially 35 kV and below)

Substations where transmission or

sub-transmission voltage levels are
reduced to distribution voltage levels

Primary distribution systems

Distribution transformers

* Secondary systems

(3) The data is generally available to determine the

following parameters for each block of load, either
directly through empirical relationships or from
industry averages.

Peak Demand
Peak Equivalent Hours
Average Loading
Load Factor
Load Duration
Loss Equivalent Hours
Loss Factor
 -8-

(4) The physical and electrical characteristics of a

system (such as resistance, reactance, etc.) which
are required for voltage/loading/loss calculations
are readily available from nameplates, maps, records,
manufacturers or industrial averages.

(5) The procedures and equations for calculating voltage/loading/losses

can be sufficiently simplified to use desk top calculators to
determine areas needing in-depth study.

(6) In-depth calculations of system voltage/loading/

losses involve large masses of data (loading cycles
and system), iterative processing, and economic
evaluation of many alternatives over long time spans
(20 to 30 years). All practical methods to carry
out these studies require the use of computerized
models (loading, system and economical) and analyti-
cal computer programs, which can be implemented on
modern minicomputer systems that are available and
can be readily purchased by most engineering
departments.

(7) The allocation of substation peak demand on a

primary system in proportion to the nameplate
ratings of the distribution transformers or peak
month energy deliveries provides a practical
foundation for computing and monitoring technical
losses.

(8) The allocation of the peak demand of a distribution

transformer on the secondary system in proportion to
consumer energy requirements provides a practical
approximation for computing technical losses.

(9) Distribution Transformer Load Management (TLM) uses

metered consumer energy requirements to monitor
transformer loading. TLM is relatively easy to
establish, eliminates most burn outs, reduces
losses, and generally produces savings at a benefit
to cost ratio of about 15 to 1 ($15 saved per $1 of
cost).

(10) A search of technical references indicates that most

distribution systems are currently designed and
operated mainly on the basis of thermal capabilities
of components and reliability criteria. The value
(usually implicit) assigned to losses is often
rather low, when establishing engineering criteria.

(11) This project indicates that losses should be the

most important consideration in establishing design
(and operating) criteria.
 -9--

(12) Within practical limitations, it is much less costly

to save kilowatts of capacity and kilowatt-hours of
energy by reducing distribution losses than to make
up these losses by building more generation and bulk
transmission facilities (for the cases studied).

(13) Loss evaluation and correction are far too complex

for generalities. However, for the somewhat average
conditions of 50% load factor, 30% loss factor,
demand charges in the range of $130 to $250 per
kilowatt per year, and energy charges from $0.011 to
$0.034 per kilowatt hour (equivalent to long run
marginal supply costs of US44 to 9 per kWh), and a
discount rate of 12%, this project indicates that
economic loadings at peak should be:3 /

Transformers from 80% to 100% of nameplate

rating (with appropriate adjustments for the
specific manufacturing standard used).

Primary main conductors -- from 15% to 25% of

rated thermal capacity, and power factor above
95%.

Secondary conductors -- from 10% to 15% of

capacity (or eliminated entirely).

The above loading limits are well below the criteria

used by most LDC as well as developed country utili-
ties. Given these new loading criteria, it is
anticipated that voltage drop would be small and
line voltage regulators and even substation regula-
tors would not be necessary.

(14) The study indicates that loss reduction on distribu-

tion primary system should include power factor con-
trol with capacitors, reconductoring and new
feeders, switching loads between feeders, and elimi-
nating line voltage regulators (and possibly station
regulators).

(15) Economic loss levels for distribution systems will

vary with load factors, loss factors, and costs.
This project indicates that the economic distribu-
tion loss levels are in the general range of:

3/ The range of US¢4 to 9 per average kWh (in 1981 prices), and the high
discount rate of 12% (based on the opportunity cost of capital) are on
the conservative side. If energy was valued more highly, or if the
discount rate was lower, the conclusions regarding loss reduction given
here would be further reinforced.
 - 10 -

- 3 to 5% of annual energy 4/

- 5 to 8% of power at peak

Economic loss levels for transmission are likely to be in the 2-3%

range (annual energy).

1.3 Conclusions and Potential for Application

1.3.1 Principal Conclusions and Recommendations:

(1) Within practical limitations, loss reduction at

distribution level provides capacity at less cost
than obtaining capacity by the construction of
generation and transmission facilities.

(2) The economical loss level is lower than the level

generally accepted by most utilities. Also, losses
should probably be the dominant item in establishing
design and operating criteria.

(3) Methodologies have been developed in this project to

isolate technical losses and determine economic loss
levels. The implications of these results for
design criteria and for specification of components
are also discussed.

(4) Since the results of the desk study indicate a very

high ratio of benefits to costs for loss reduction,
it is recommended that the general approach to
detect and correct losses be applied in a more
routine and widespread implementation program in the
LDC's that will help to further refine the methodo-
logy.

1.3.2 Potential for Application

The purpose of this section is to provide overall guidance to

engineers in assessing power system loss levels, locating major causes of
losses, and determining the loss reduction measures that are likely to yield
a high benefit to cost ratio.

The first problem is to determine if the loss levels, in a particu-

lar system are within acceptable limits. The demand loss at peak (kW or MW)
is of most concern, because this loss requires investment at all levels of
the system. However, most utilities do not have demand losses available so
those losses must be computed from total energy generated, energy losses and
the peak demand over selected time periods, load factor, and the estimated

4/ The distribution substation, primary system, and distribution

transformer/secondary lines account for about 10%, 55% and 35%
respectively, of this total.
 - 11 -

relationship between load factor and loss factor (See Appendix D for
details).

As a first step the system load factor and energy loss (average and
peak) must be estimated. For completeness, we summarize below, the
well-known expressions that may be used:

Energy Generated (kWh) X 100

Load Factor (%) = Peak Demand (kW) X Hours

Energy Loss X 100

Average Energy Loss (%) Energy Generated

Table 1.1 provides some typical (average) values of the demand loss
multiplier (i.e., ratio of peak period to average loss) for various load
factors. Actual values will depend on.the specific network under study.

Table 1.1

Demand Loss Multiplier Versus Load Factor

Demand Loss
Load Factor Loss Factor Multiplier

30 20.6 1.46
35 24.6 1.42
40 28.8 1.39
45 33,3 1.35
50 38.1 1.31
55 43.1 1.28
60 48.4 1.24

a/ Average of Type A and Type B loading from Table D.3 (Appendix D)

Thus, if a utility provides the following for a selected year:

Peak Demand = 365 MW

Energy Generated 1,278,960 MWh

Energy Loss 217,423 MWh

1,278,960 x 100 = 40%

Load Factor 365 x 8760 Hours

217,423 x 100 17%

Average Energy Loss 21,78,
96

The approximate demand loss at peak may be computed from the

multiplier of Table 1.1: 17% x 1.39 (multiplier) = 23.6%
Table 1.2 provide a measure of guidance for desirable and acceptable maximum
loss levels for various parts of the whole power system (except generation
 - 12 -

station-use which varies from as low as 0.5% for hydro plants to over 5% for
coal-fired steam units). A total system power (kW) loss at peak in the
neighborhood of 12.0% is good, implying that overall loss reduction measures
are not critical and will not produce dramatic gains. However, a reasonable
total loss level does not mean that loss reduction in specific parts of the
system or geographic areas should not be pursued. Power factor correction,
elimination of high impedance power transformers, and distribution
transformer load management, should be investigated for all utilities.

Table 1.3 provides a preliminary checklist of the more important

characteristics associated with losses. The checklist is supplemented with
more detailed comments concerning each item.
 -13 -

Table 1.2. Normal System Demand Losses

EHV TASMISSION
(500-765 kV) SUBTRANSMISSION SECONDAY
NIVTRANSMISSION (69-115 kV) (115-480 V)
GENERATION (230-345 k))
( ~~~~ \ ~~~~DISTRIBUTION/
9 ) 1 i kV)
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(4-35

STEP-UP : N
STATION EHV NV DISTRIBUTION DISTRIBUTION
STATION STATION STATION TRANSFORMER

DEMANDLOSSES
(Z of kW GENERATED)

TARGETLEVEL TO BE TOLERATED
MAXIMUM

SYSTEMCO]MPONENT WITHIN CUMULATIVE WITHIN CUMULATIVE

Step-up Station 0.25% 0.25% 0.50% 0.50%

EHV Transmnission& Station 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.50
HV Transmission & Station 1.25 2.00 2.50 4.00
Sub Transmission 2.00 4.00 4.00 8.00
DistributionStation 0.25 4.25 0.50 8.50
DistributionPrimary 3.00 7.25 5.00 13.50
DistributionTransformer & 1.00 8.25 2.00 15.50
SecondarY

SOURCE: Akuthors'estimates, and W.J. Ross, "New Focus on DistributionLosses,"

Transmission and Distribution,December 1981.
 - 14 -

Table 1.3

PreliminaryChecklistfor Power System Loss Levels

Item Good Fair Excessive

I. Demand loss for the entire Less than 10 to Over

system at peak 10% 15% 15%

II. System power factor (%) 95 to 100 90-95 Below 90

III. Impedanceof Power 6% or 6% to Over

Transformers less 10% 10%

IV. Monitoringthe loading Annual Occasional No

of distribution
transformers

Maximum loadingon Nameplate Up to 125% Over

distributiontransformers Nameplate 125%

V. Primary conductorloading or less or less 40%

VI. SecondarySystem
maximum length

Urban areas 1/4 kM 1/2 kM Over 1/2 kM

Rural areas 1/2 kM 3/4 kM Over 3/4 kM

VII. Standardsand (See commentsfor details)

Specifications

Commentson Table 1.3

I. Loss reductionshould be implementedin the followingsequence:

(1) Power factor correctionto at least 95% by installing

capacitorson primarylines

(2) Replacinghigh impedancepower transformers

(3) Distributiontransformerload management

(4) Reducingprimaryconductorloading

(5) Reducingsecondaryconductorloading

(6) Reducingtransmissionconductorloading
 - 15 -

II. Power factor correction should be accomplished by installing capacitors

on the distribution primary system as near to load centers as practical.

(1) Install fixed banks to provide 100% power factor or slightly

leading power factor during off-peak loading periods.

(2) Install switched banks to correct power factor during peak

loading periods.

III. The following are comments regarding power transformers.

(1) The older tap changing under load transformers were often
manufactured with impedances in the general neighborhood of
15%. These transformers should be removed from service and
either scrapped or held for emergency use only.

(2) Medium impedance transformers should probably be replaced

because of their no-load losses.

IV. Monitoring the loading of distribution transformers is essential to

reduce losses and burnouts. The following are three suggested methods:

(1) The lowest cost and most efficient method is to correlate

consumers with their transformers and compute loading from
energy usage.

(2) Install thermal maxi-meters

(3) Use clamp-on ammeters at peak time

V. Conductor loading may be reduced by:

(1) Switching loads to other feeders

(2) Replacing existing conductors

(3) Adding new feeders and sharing the load

(4) Raising primary system voltages, e.g., 11 kV to 33 kV

VI. 'he values in the table are averages (for 240 Volt systems) and
therefore rather rough. They must be used only as a first check or
warning, because specific figures will depend on load densities which
are highly variable. The accepted methods for correcting overloaded
secondary systems are:

(1) Break the secondary system into smaller segments by adding

distribution transformers

(2) Replace conductors

(3) Add more secondary lines

 - 16 -

VII. Standards and specifications should be examined to determine if they are

directed towards minimizing losses. The more important areas to be
examined are:

(1) Power factor correction targets and locations where capacitors

are to be installed. The most effective locations are on the
primary lines near the load centers.
(2) Specifications for power transformers and distribution
transformers to determine if manufacturers are being informed
as to how kW and kWh losses will be evaluated.

(3) Initial and normal design electrical loading of transformers

and conductors. If thermal capabilities are the basis for
electrical loading, then losses are probably excessive.

(4) Maximum electrical loading of transformers and conductors

before replacement is required.
 - 17 -

CHAPTER 2

ECONOMIC BASIS FOR OPTIMIZING LOSSES

This chapter summarizes the basis for establishing an economically optimal

level of losses in distribution networks. A more detailed model is presented
in Appendix A.

The essence of the optimization model is the trade off between increased
distribution costs and the resultant decrease in the cost of losses. While
system costs are relatively easy to measure in terms of the economic value of
physical inputs like capital, labor and fuels, the value of losses is more
diffEicultto establish. Therefore, after discussing loss optimization, we
establish below how physical losses in a power system may be valued in
economic terms.

2.1 Economic Optimization of Distribution Losses

Consider the electric power distribution system

shown in Figure 2.1. An amount QI of electrical
energy is supplied by the bulk power system of which
an amount L is dissipated as losses and the
remainder QO is delivered to consumers.5 /

The net benefits (NB) of electricity consumption from the social viewpoint is
given by:

NB = TB - SC

Where TB is the total benefit of consumption and SC is the supply cost.

TB depends on the amount of electricity consumed, i.e., TB(Q.). We may break

SC down into two principal components:

SC = BSC + DSC

Where BSC is the bulk supply cost and DSC is the distribution system cost
(investment, O&M, etc.).

We use VQI, the value of input electricity (QI) as a measure of BSC, so

that:

5/ This static analysis is deliberately simplified for clarity of

presentation. This the quantities Ql, Qo and L would actually be
disaggregate (e.g., peak kW; peak, shoulder and off-peak kWh, etc.) and
with each component being valued separately. Similarity, the
calculation would have to be performed in present value terms over a
long period (e.g., 30 years) to allow for the full life cycle of
components and dynamic load growth.

We also ignore quality of supply and outage costs considerations.

All these aspects are incorporated rigorously into the analysis in
Appendix A.
 - 18 -

Figure 2.1 SIMPLIFIED REPRESENTATIONOF LOSSES IN A

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

Input Fran
BulkC Supply System

QI

Distxibution
ihr >Losses
Netwrk L QI Qo

Q0

output to
Custaners
 - 19 -

SC = VQi + DSC
and
NB = TB - VQI - DSC

Suppose we continue to supply QO to consumers but are able to incrementally

recducedistribution losses (L) by improving the network. Therefore, dis-
tribution losses will increase, and therefore VQI will decrease,
because QI = Qo + L and we have just assumed that QO is constant whiLe
L has decreased incrementally. TB is unchanged since QO is the same:

The change in net benefits is given by:

NB = -,6VQI -ADSC = -VL -A6DSC

Where AVL is the change in value of losses which is assumed to be nega-

tive. (Note thatALVL =.nUQI, although VQI is much greater than VL).

In other words:

Increase in Net Benefit = (Decrease in Value of Losses) -

(Increase in Distribution System Costs)

Therefore, net benefits to society would have increased if the reduction

in value of losses exceeds the increase in distribution costs.

Thus, an operational criterion which distribution planners should use is

that loss reduction measures should continue up to the point where a
marginal increment in distribution cost will be exactly counterbalanced
by the decrease in value of losses.

Equivalently, we can argue that net supply cost:

NSC = VL + DSC should be minimized, to maximize NB

These relationships are summarized in Figure 2.2, which shows that VL

increases and DSC falls, as L increases, while the economically optimal
loss level L* occurs when NSC (the sum of VL and DSC), is a minimum.

2.2 The Economic Value of kW and kWh Losses

In the engineering studies that have been done so far, emphasis has been
placed on applying accounting principles to loss evaluations, rather
than economic principles. Although concepts such as present worth of
annual revenue requirements, levelized annual costs, annual costs, and
equivalent investment costs are used, there is no application of
economic theory in the above procedure.6 /

6/ See for example: D. L. Nickel, "Distribution Transformer Loss

Evaluation: Proposed Techniques", IEEE, PES Winter Meeting New York,
February, 1980, and other references in the Bibliography (on the
economic analysis of losses).
 - 20 -

Figure 2.2

OPTIMALECONOMIC
LOSS LEVEL.(L*?

VALUE

< 0-z gV~~~~L

Physical Losses (L)

NOTE: L*- occurs at minimim point of NSC

curve where NSC - VL + DSC.
Alternatively the negative slope (broken

line) of DSC curve is equal to positive slope

:of VL curve at this point.

 - 2].

The principalpoint we make is that both kilowattand kilowatt-hour

distributionlosses at various time periodsshould be valued at the long
run marginalcosts (LRMC) of supply from the bulk supply system.7 / The
valuationof kWh of energy losses does not pose major problems. If
distributionlosses decreaseat any given moment, then the bulk supply
LRMC of energy at differenttimes (e.g., peak, shoulder,off-peakor by
season of the year) provide a measure of the value of kWh lost in the
distributionsystem.

However,when distributionsystem improvementsare made, the greater

change occurs with respectto kW losses during the peak period.
Althoughthe distributionfeeder peaks and the bulk system peak may not
overlap, any reduction in kW losses during the bulk system peak will
lead to a savings in generationand transmission(G&T) capacity. Even
if G&T investmentsare not actuallydeferred,the LRMC of bulk kW supply
may be used as a proxy for the value of kW losses in the distribution
system at the time of the bulk system peak as describedbelow.

Thus, losses and customerloads are indistinguishableas far as bulk

supply system is concerned. If for example,losses do not impose
burdens on bulk capacity,then the incrementalcosts of serving
customerswill also be negligible. Furthermore,in an optimallyplanned
electricitysupply system, there are two conditionsthat must be
satisfied:

a. Optimalprice equals the LRMC of supply;and

b. Optimal incrementalcost of system improvements

equals the cost of outages avoideddue to
improvedreliability.

When losses are reduced,it is equivalentto a reductionin demand.

Thus bulk system capacityadditionsmay be deferredyieldingcost
savings representedby bulk supply LRMC. Alternatively,if the
generationand transmissionexpansioninvestmentscontinuerelatively
unchanged(e.g., due to lumpiness),then the improvedbulk supply
reliabilitywill provide cost savings (due to avertedoutage costs at

7/ In contrast,various previousauthors incorrectlysuggest lower values

for these losses (especiallykW losses). For example,in the article
"Evaluationof the Costs of Losses in Power Systems",by B. F. Johnson,
it is stated that "a demand charge should not be appliedto losses in
economicevaluation". In a similarvein C. J. Baldwin et. al. in their
article "A FurtherLook At Losses",argue that small incrementallosses
should not have a kilowatt or capacity charge, assuming that small loss
reductionswill not affect large bulk capacityinvestments. For details
of how LRMC is estimated,see for example: M. Munasinghe,"Principles
of Modern ElectricityPricing",Proc. IEEE, Vol. 69, March, 1981,
pp.332-348;or M. Munasingheand J. J. Warford,ElectricityPricing,
Johns HopkinsUniversityPress, Baltimore,Maryland,1982.
 - 22 -

the margin)that are equivalentto the marginal savingsthat could have

8/
been realizedfrom deferredG&T investments.

8/ We note that in the first case, the cost savingsaccrue to the power
supplyingcompanywhereas in the second case, the customersgain. Thus
from a social viewpointboth costs savingsare equivalent,whereas from
the power company'sviewpointthe former is more desirable.
 - 23 -

CHAPTER3

CALCULATINGDISTRIBUTIONSYSTEM LOSSES

This sectionprovidesthe generallyacceptedprocedures,assumptionsand

equationsused to calculatevoltage/loading/losses on distributionsystems.
The ,engineerwho has a desk calculatorand wants to determinewhich locations
warrant in-depthstudy will find this presentationto be useful. However,as
mentioned in AppendixD, detailedstudiescan be accomplishedonly with
digital computermodels from the practicalstandpointof the availabilityof
time and engineeringmanpower resources.9/

Figure 3.1 is a very simplifieddistributionsystem consistingof a

distributionsubstation,primary system,distributiontransformerand a
secondarysystem. It will be used to illustratevoltage/loading/loss
calculationsfor these components:

(1) Primary and SecondarySystems

(2) Substationand DistributionTransformer

(3) Power Factor CorrectionWith Capacitors

3.1 Primary and SecondarySystems

A demiandsuch as Load 1 of Figure 3.1 requirespower (voltageand current)to

carry out a task which is measuredas:

Power (Watts)= Voltage (Volts)X Current (Amps) X Cosine 0 IO/

The electricalresistancesof the system componentsbetween the source
(substation)and the load cause voltage drop and losses:

VoltageDrop is a functionof Current (I) and Resistance(R).

Demand Loss is a functionof the square of the Current (I) and

Resistance.

9/ We note, however,that the computersto accomplishthese calculations

are very low cost in comparisonto the accountingcomputersused for
billing. The followingcomputerfacilitiescan be purchasedin the USA
for about $10,000and is adequateto carry out all of the modelingand
analyticalstudiesdescribedin this report: CentralProcessingUnit
(16 Bit), 64 kilo Bytes of Memory, dual double density floppy disk
drives (500 kB each), CRT terminal(24 lines, 80 char.),Printer (180
cps), complete operating system, Fortran IV compiler.

10/ (:osin
X power factor.
 FIgure 3.1

TYPICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMLAYOUT

SUBSTATION

KVS T

t
Rl $ ILD1 + ILD2 + ILSI+ ILS2
LOAD 2
b ~~R2 R3
ILD2

ILD2 ILD1
+ +
ILS2 ILS1 I
RSEC LOAD 1
DT1

ILDI
 - 25 -

Energy Loss is the summation of the Demand Losses (I2 R) over time (Hours).

Computing voltage/loading/losses on a distribution primary system is a

classic "Chicken and Egg" situation (Which comes first?).

The voltage at the substation (KVST) is known but the level erodes due to
resistances as we get further away from the station.

The voltage level at each load point is required to'compute the amount of
current (I) required by each load.

However, the current (I) is dependent upon voltage level (which is not known)
and the line losses are dependent upon the square of that also unknown
current.

All one really knows at the beginning is:

Voltage level at station

Electrical characteristics of lines and equipment

* Approximate demands at load centers

Computing voltage/loading/losses on a primary or secondary system is an

iterative process. For the sake of completeness, we summarize this simple
engineering procedure as follows:

(1) A voltage level at the furthest load (say Load 1) is

assumed.

(2) A current (ILDI) for the load is computed based

upon a fixed demand for non-voltage sensitive
devices such as motors or a variable demand for such
devices as incandescent lamps.

(3) The current (ILDl) is used to compute losses

(ILD1)2 x RSEC in the portion of the system
serving Load 1.

(4) The above is repeated for all loads and all sections
on the feeder with load flow in each section
cumulated and noted.

(5) Now, one begins at the station with the known

voltage (KVST) and computes voltage drops to the
end of the feeder using the loads and losses
computed in the above Steps (1) thru (4).

(6) The voltage level at Load 1 assumed in Step (1) is

compared to the computed voltage level from Step
(5). If they do not match, a new voltage level is
assumed and Steps (1) thru (5) are repeated.
 - 26 -

The above iterativeprocessbecomes very tedious,time consumingand

expensivefor a complex feeder servingseveralhundred load centers.
Manually,an engineermight require40 hours to computevoltage,loadingand
losses for a complex feederwhereas a digital computercan do the
calculationsin seconds.

Divisionof a distritutionprimaryor secondarysystem into loads and line

sectionswill depend upon the configurationof the loads. Figure 3.2
illustratesthe three basic loadingconfigurations:

(A) A concentratedload is the simplestarrangement

(B) Equal loads disbursedevenly on a line may be

replacedby a single total load.

(C) Non-equalloads unevenlydisbursedrequireanalysis

by nodes and sections.

In the real world, most feedersare type (C) and requiremany calculations.

For the simplifiedsystem shown in Figure 3.3 (A):

I = Current in amperes

I kW
kVLL x

KVLL= Line to Line Voltage at the Load

(kilovoltsor 1000's of volts)

KVLL= KVSource- Volts Drop (1000's of volts)

KW Three Phase Load (kilowattsor

1000's of watts)

Volts Drop - I (R Cos 0 + X Sin 0)

I - Current (Amps)

R = Resistance(ohms)

X = Reactance(ohms)

Cos 0 - Power Factor of Load

the voltage drop is for one conductor(line to neutral). The three phase
line-to-linedrop is (3) 1/2 times this value, and the single phase drop is
twice the above value.

The vector diagramof Figure 3.3 (B) shows that the above equationis
approximate,but is sufficientlyaccuratefor all practicalpurposes.
 - 27 -

Figure 3.2
LOADING CONFIGURATION

Line

Sour.ce
Load

(A) Concentrated Load

Source

I Dl x ,, ,

D, = 1/2 Distance for voltage calculations

P1 = 1/3 Distance for loss calculations

(B) Uniformally Distributed Load

SILC D i sti3bt 2 L5oa

(C) Distributed Loads

 - 28 -

Figure 3.3

I
R X

l| 'SOURCE KVLL

Ir- ~~~~~

R X

(A) Simplified System

Calculate Dr=D

CoIRs
Cosa__________
Ix
sin a

Error _ Actual Drc

Vs

(B) Vector Diagram

Note: The error is relativelysmall

 - 29 -

Losses for the simplifiedsystem are computedfrom the followingequation.

Losses (Watts)= I2 R

The above losses are for one conductor,so the total would be 3 times the
above value for 3 phases.

3.-2 Substationand DistributionTransformers

A basic transformeris illustratedin Figure 3.4. The total demand on the

tramsformerconsistsof the core losses and the demands associatedwith the
loads. The total load on the transformercause:

(1) Demand Losses = I2 R

(2) Energy Losses = I2 R over time

(3) Loss of life if loading exceedscapacityover

an extendedperiod of time.

The no-loador core losses (sometimesreferredto as iron losses)and the

resistancesof stationtransformersshould be obtainedfrom the manufacturer
and the nameplateinformation.

The characteristicsof specificdistributiontransformersshould

also be obtainedfrom manufacturersor theirnameplate. For estimating
purposesand to give readersan appropriatebenchmark,Tables 3.1 and 3.2
providetypicalvalues of no-load and total losses at nameplaterating for a
group of the more common sizes of single phase transformersbuilt to U.S.
NationalElectricManufacturerStandards(NEMA).
 - 30 -

Figure 3.4

BASIC TRANSFORMER MODEL

Core Losses Demand (1)

(kW) (kW kVAR)

IC ID

I~ ~~ I
I TOTAL

MODEL I Resistance
I v
o Single Phase
o Three Phase I
o Bank of Transfo=er Reactance
I I

Demand Losses (kW)

Energy Losses (kWH)
Probable Loss of Life (%)

(1) Demand may be:

Single Phase
Three Phase
Mixed Single and Three Phase
 TABLE 3.1
DISTRIUTIc TRANSE1/ IIOSSES
TYPICAL SINGLE PHASE UNITS (60 Hertz)

14400/24949 34500 GRD.Y/

2400/4160Y 4800/8320Y 7200/12470Y G3D.Y 19920*
to to to to to
120/240 VOLTS 120/240 VOLTS 120/240 VOLTS 120/240 VOLTS 120/240 VOLTS
WATIS LLS WATIS IXSS WAI LCGS WAITS L06S WATTS 1L6S

KVA No Load Tbtal No Load Total No Load Tbta1 No Load Tottal No Load Tbtal

5 36 125 36 133 36 138 36 142 - -

10 59 180 59 183 59 184 59 200 59 202

15 76 232 76 242 76 255 76 263 76 290
25 109 380 109 370 109 404 109 420 109 432
37.5 158 495 158 521 158 550 158 565 158 557

50 166 611 166 613 166 671 166 717 166 714
75 274 916 274 918 274 937 274 1024 274 981
100 319 1192 319 1146 319 1200 319 1300 319 1247
167 530 2085 530 2085 530 2085 530 2085 530 2035

240/480 240/480 240/480 240/480 240/480

250 625 2800 625 2800 625 2800 625 2800 625 2800
333 800 3400 800 3400 800 3400 800 3400 800 3400
500 1100 4850 1100 4850 1100 4850 1100 4850 1100 4850

1/ Values are similar for 50 Hertz Units.

 - 32 -

TABLE 3.2

DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERLOSSES

OTHER THAN RATED VOLTAGE

(Typical U.S. Single Phase Units - 60 Hertz)

Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

Rated No-load Load Rated No-load Load
Voltage Loss Loss Voltage Loss Loss

80 0.61 1.56 100 1.00 1.00

81 0.62 1.52 101 1.03 0.98
82 0.64 1.47 102 1.06 0.96

83 0.66 1.45 103 1.08 0.94

84 0.67 1.41 104 1.12 0.93
85 0.69 1.37 108 1.25 0.86

86 0.71 1.36 106 1.18 0.89

87 0.72 1.32 107 1.21 0.88
88 0.74 1.28 108 1.25 0.86

89 0.76 1.25 109 1.28 0.84

90 0.77 1.24 110 1.32 0.83
91 0.79 1.21 111 1.36 0.81

92 0.81 1.18 112 1.39 0.80

93 0.83 1.15 113 1.44 0.79
94 0.85 1.13 114 1.48 0.77

95 0.88 1.11 115 1.52 0.76

96 0.90 1.09 116 1.56 0.75
97 0.92 1.07 117 1.60 0.73

98 0.95 1.04 118 1.65 0.72

99 0.98 1.02 120 1.74 0.70
 - 33 -

The relationshipbetweenLoad Factor and Loss Factor is given by a typical

empiricalrelationshipof the form (see AppendixD for explanation):
2
Loss Factor = 0.15 Load Factor + 0.85 (LoadFactor)

3.3 Power Factor Correction

Power Factor correctionwith capacitorsis one of the principallines of

def'enseagainstdemand and energy losses. The basics of capacitorsused for
power factor correctionwill be discussedusing the system of Figure 3.5.

First and very important--- primary capacitorshave been used for power
factor correctionand voltage regulationfor over 40 years. The economics,
their durabilityand benefitshave been proven time after time by thousands
of utilities. There is no reasonableor logicalreason for refusingto apply
capacitorsto reduce losses.

Many loads, especiallymotors and new types of electronicdevices (such as

speed controllersand investers)have high reactivepower demands. In this
example,we have assumed that the load has laggingpower factor character-
istics:

KilowattDemand (kW) = 1000 kW

KilovarDemand (kVAR) = 1000 kVAR

KilovoltAmperes (kVA) = (10002+ 10002)1/2 = 1414 kVA

Power Factor = 1000 kW 'x 100 = 70.7%

1414 kVA

Per unit current is proportionedto kVA and is 1.414

Without power factor correction,the 1414 kVA of load must be transportedall
through the system from the generatorto the load. The voltage drop and
losses associatedwith transportingthe 1414 kVA of load will be proportional
to the currentand the square of the currentrespectively:

Voltage drop proportionalto the per unit value of

currentor 1.414

Losses proportionalto the square of per unit current

which is (1.414)2or 2.0

The lagging1000 kVAR's of the load can be suppliedby a 1000 kVAR capacitor
bank locatedright at the load center. The resultantload on the system is:

KilowattDemand = 1000 kW

KilovarDemand O kVAR
0

KilovoltAmperes - 1000 kVA

 - 34 -
Figure 3.5
POWER FACTOR CORRECTION
Net Load

1000 kW
1000 kVAR
1.414 Units of Current 1414 kVA
I
s i ~~~~is s
Gbr. 0atio
Transsion Sub- Distribution

(A) No Power Factor Correction

1000 kVAR
Capactor
1.00 Units of Current

Load

Net Load
1000 kW
0 kVAR
1000 kVAR

(B) With 100% Power Factor

 - 35 -

Power Factor 1000 kV x 100 = 100.0%

1000 kVA

Per unit current is proportional to kVA or 1.00

The voltage drop and losses associated with the corrected load is now:

Corrected Load Voltage Drop 1.00 x 100 = 70.7%

1.414

Corrected Load Losses 1.002 x 100 = 50.0%

1.4142

The capacitors reduced voltage drop by 30% and losses 50%. The effect on
voltage drop and losses of correcting power factor may be calculated with the
above equations or estimated from Table 3.3.

TABLE 3.3

EFFECT ON VOLTAGE DROP AND LOSS PARAMETERS

OF CORRECTING POWER FACTOR TO 100%

Per Unit Corrected Level

Kilovolt Amperes (kVA)
Previous Voltage
Power Factor Previous New Drop Losses

50% 1.00 .50 50% 25%

55 1.00 .55 55 30
60 1.00 .60 60 36
65 1.00 .65 65 42
70 1.00 .70 70 49
75 1.00 .75 75 56
80 1.00 .80 80 64
85 1.00 .85 85 72
90 1.00 .90 90 81
95 1.00 .95 95 90

3.4 Simplified Procedure (First Approximation)

It would be possible and highly desirable to develop some tables

and graphs to obtain a rough idea of losses for station transformers, primary
feeders, distribution transformers and secondary systems. These graphs could
be developed using existing analysis programs to generate the basic data.

The conductor graphs could be something like Figure 3.6 with

different figures for the various voltages and phases. The graph would
provide kilowatt peak losses and a second graph (Figure 3.7) could provide
 For One Kilometerof Line
36 - 11000 Volts 3 Phase

/* ~ Various
Conductor
Peak Sizes
Demand
(kW)

Peak Loss (kW)

Figure 3.6. Peak Demand Versus Peak Loss

Load
Peak Factors
Loss
(kW)

Annual EnergyLoss (kM)

Figure 3.7. Peak Loss VersusAnnual Energy Loss

Various
Peak / Transformers
Demand
(kW)

CopperLoss or Peak Loss (k

No Load or Iron Loss (kWh)

Figure 3.8 Peak Demand Versus TransformerLosses
 - 37

energy losses. A group of transformergraphs (Figure3.8) could be developed

to obtain copper losses at peak as well as annual no-load losses. Figure 3.7
can be used to determineannual energy losses due to copper loss.

In addition,a group of benefitto cost tables or graphs could be

developedand issued in the form of a manual. These benefit to cost
guidelineswoufld be somewhatrough because of the simplifyingassumptions
requiredto keep the number of parametersand cases analysedwithin practical
limiits.The options of most interestedwould be:

(1) CorrectingPower Factor

(2) Conductorchange out

(3) StationTransformerChange out

(4) DistributionTransformerChange out

(5) DecentralizingSecondarySystems

The variablesto be parametrizedare:

(1) Costs to install,remove, replace,and purchase

(2) Discountrates

(3) Costs of demand and energy

(4) 0 and M costs

 - 38 -

CHAPTER4

OPTIMIZINGDISTRIBUTIONLOSSES

This chapter providesan overviewof the proposedmethodologiesto carry out

the prime objectivesof this project.

Isolatingtechnicallosses

Reducinglosses to an economiclevel

Incorporatinglosses into the decisionmaking

process relativeto design and operatingcriteria

4.1 IsolatingTechnicalLosses on PrimarySystems

In general,the isolationof technicallosses at the generationand

transmissionlevels is not a problembecause these facilitiesare usually
well metered and well monitored. Similarly,the isolationof technical
losses for a distributionsubstationis rarely a problembecause these are
also well metered and monitored.

The isolationof losses for the remainderof the distributionsystem is more

complex and difficult. Figure 4.1 shows a simplifiedversion of a
distributionsystem. The station transformercould be metered and there may
be meters for each feeder at the stationbus. But that would be no more
meteringuntil the meters at each consumer.

Some utilitiescompare the energy deliveredto their substationsover a

specifiedtime period such as one year with the total energy billed to their
consumersover the same time period. The differencebetwwen the two totals
is consideredto be "AnnualEnergy Losses". For example,a utility might
have recordedthe followingfor a year:

Total Energy Deliveredto Substations 645,000MWH

Total Sales 470,850MWH
Difference(AssumedLosses) 174,150MWH

It appearsthat this utilityhas losses of:

Loss = 174,150x 100 = 27% of Total Deliveredto

645,000 Substation

Loss = 174,150x 100 = 37% of Sales

470,850

There are two major sourcesof error in this commonlyused method for
computinglosses:
 - 39 -
Figure 4.1
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

SUB TRtMISMISSION

STATION TRANSFORMER

STATION BUS

kW
kV-AR

. /~~~~~~~~~~O

Q-

LEGEND
CQ Breakers o
Primary System

A Distribution Transformer
--- Secondary System
Regulator

'~" Capacitor

Consumer Meters
i
Si-Pot oad (kW demand is known
 - 40 -

(1) The differencein energy between stationsand sales

includesenergy used by consumersbut not measured
such as theft, bad meters and mis-readmeters. The
differenceis actually"unaccountedfor" energy.

(2) The stationmeters are probablyall read on the same

day and represent12 months of actual purchased
energy. However,the readingsof consumermeters
are scatteredover a period of time so there is a
lag which tends to distort the analysis. For
example,if consumersare billed on a monthly basis,
differentmeters may be read severalweeks apart.

Even if the above method producesreasonablyaccurateresults,it does not

provideany clues as to "where"the losses are occurring. The Allocation
Method used in this study was developedto determinethe "where"of power
flows on distributionprimary lines and secondarylines and to enable an
engineerto separatetechnicallosses from other "unaccountedfor" energy.
The methodologyis describedbelow and illustratedin Figure 4.2:

(1) Obtain or prepare a map of the distributionsystem

at electricalsingle line level. The map must
include informationon conductors,phasing,
distributiontransformers,capacitors,regulators,
etc.

(2) Obtain the demands (kW and kVAR) of each feeder at

each substationat the time of system peak.

(3) Allocatethe feeder demands to the distribution

transformersin proportionto their rated capacity.

(4) Compute voltage drops and on-peakdemand losses

using the methodologydescribedin Chapter 3.

(5) Compare the allocateddemands plus losses with the

originalsubstationdemand. If they do not compare
favorably(say within 1%), then modify the load to
be allocatedand repeat steps (3), (4) and (5).

(6) The probableenergy losses for each feedermay be

obtainedfrom the loss factorsderivedper the
methodologyof AppendixD.

Note: The above methodologyrequiresiterativeprocessingwhich

may be done manuallybut is best done on a digital computer.

4.2 IsolatingTechnicalLosses in DistributionTransformers

There are two generallyacceptableways to obtain the loads on existing

distributiontransformers:
 - 41 -
LFiure 4.2
DEMTDS
ALLOCATING
(BY FEEDER)

Feeder Demand
at Substation
kW & kVAR

YES ArzySc oat ad?

Suibtract Spot
Loads from
Sitation Demand

Allocate Demand Among

Distribution Transformers
_________ In Proportion to
o Connected kVA
or
o kWH for Peak Month

Compute
Voltage, Losses
and Loading

Is LoadingSame
as
Allocated Dead?

YES N

, ~~~~Modify
Demand
to be Allocated

* (e.g. within a few percent)

 42 -

(1) Measurement--- installationof clamp-onthermal

demand ammeterson selectedtransformersduring the
peak demand season (say 1/3 of the transformerseach
year). Anothermeasurementmethod is to have
linemanuse a ammeter to measure the load (lineman
must be there at time of peak).

(2) Energy Usage by Consumers--- this method,often

called TransformerLoad Managementor TLM, is very
effectiveand for most utilities,the benefit to
cost ratio is approximately15 to 1 ($15 saved per
$1 of cost). TLM is initiatedand operatedin the
followingmanner:

(a) Each consumeris correlatedwith his serving

distributiontransformer.

(b) The energy usage (kWh) for the peak month is

obtained from customerrecordsand totalledfor
each transformer.

(c) The demand on the transformeris computedfrom

the energy and number of customersby class of
servicebased on equationsderived by each
utility. For example,an empiricalrelation-
ship which was derived from a survey of several
U.S. utilitieswas:
2)
kVA Demand = 7.3 + (3.523x kWh) - (0.022x (kWh)
kWH Energy usage for one month

The above equationis a good approximationfor

kWH's within the range of 2000 to 15000
kWH/month. After a demand has been determined
for a transformer,the no-load,load and energy
losses may be computedfrom the methods
detailedin AppendixD.

4.3 IsolatingTechnicalLosses on SecondarySystems

The Europeanstyle distributionsystem is based upon large distribution

transformersfeedingextensivesecondarysystems. A system such as the one
shown in Figure 4.3 might serve from 50 to 200 consumers.

There are two generallyacceptablemethods for determiningthe loadingon a

secondarysystem:

(1) Meter sufficientnumber of points to determine

demandsat the transformer,at the mains, and at
branch points (This is tediousand expensive).
 - 43 -

(2) Expand the TLM (TransformerLoad Management)system

to includethe secondarysystem:

(a) Determinedemand on transformeras describedin

the previousportionof this section.

(b) Allocate the transformerdemand among the

segmentsof the secondarysystem in a manner
similar to the methodologydescribedfor the
primary system and illustratedin Figure 4.2.

(3) Develop the followingand use them to compute

secondarysystem loading:

(a) Coincidencefactorsfor various quantitiesand

classesof consumerssuch as those shown in
Figure 4.4 (A).

(b) Relationshipbetween demands and monthly energy

requirementsby class of consumersuch as those
shown in Figure 4.4 (B).

Note: It is not expectedthat the data of Figure 4.4 (A) and (B)
will be directlyapplicableto World Bank Borrowingnations
because they are based on USA residentialconsumers.
However,they do illustratethe type of data that is needed
and may be useful as a yardstickof comparison.

4.4 EconomicReductionof Losses

Figure 4.5 illustratesthe basic proceduresfor determiningthe economic

levels for all system components. Followingis a brief descriptionof this
procedure:

(1) Select portionof system to be studied:

StationTransformers
Primary
DistributionTransformers
* Secondary

(2) Obtain electricaland physicalcharacteristics of

componentsand form model of system (eithermanually
or on computer).

(3) Select a loading cycle (day,week, month, year,

etc.) and determinethe followingmajor parameters
using the methodologydescribedin AppendixD.

. Peak Demand
. Load Duration
. Load Factor
. Loss Factor
 - 44 -

Figure 4.3
SERVICES
PRIMARY

| _ _ / \ l MAIN I

-A' I *DISTRIBUTION l
| TRANSFORMER |

I \1< ~~~~~~~~~i 1 l .
TYPICAL EUROPEANSTYLE SECONDARYSYSTEM
Voltage is 240/416 Volts (10/30)

NEUTRAL 2a

Service to residential consumers 10 230 Volts

Service to commercial 10/3% 230/400 Volts
 - 45 -

Figure 4.4

1.00

1.00,._.....,,,..

0.70 __- __ __ __.

0.60 __-__ .__ ,. C

B
0.50 .-. , ___
0.40 . . ._ _ _ _ __ __ . _ _

0.30 ------ ______ A

0.20 A. Domestic - Without electric range
0 _3*- B. Domestic - With electric range
C. Domestic - With air conditioning

1. 2 5 10 20 50 100
Nunber of Consuers

(A) Typical Coincidence Factors - Residential Consuaers (US)

20 - - - - -

18 -Constmer kW versus kW-

The slope of the line yields the -

16 Conversion Factor (Kf) used in TLM - - - -

calculations
14 -- II I I-
The (Kf) decreases with the number
12 of degree days in the peak month

10 - - -
8 __

6 --

4
2 _

0 -- I I- - -----
200 400 600 800 1000 2000 3000
kV9
Peak Motnth Cosmption per Ccns=er
(B) Cansurer DemandVersus Energy Usage for Sumner Season (US)
 - 46 -
FiRure 4.5
DETE1INING SYSTEMCOSTS ANDCOSTS OF LOSSES
(TRANSFORMERS,
PRIMARIESAND SECONDARIES)

Select Component
of System

Select Model
Loading the
Characteristics Component

*t Analyze
Losses, Loading,Voltage

YES System Changes

Add or Replace

NO

Economic Analysis

Annual Costs (Investment, O&M and Losses)

Present Worth
 - .47
-

(4) Compute technicallosses using methodologyof

Chapter 3.

. Loss at Peak (Demand)

. Energy Losses

(5) Select a practicalvariety of system changes to

reduce losses.

. Transformers
Replace
Shift Load

. Primaries
Capacitors
Reconductor
New Lines
Switch
Change VoltageLevels

Secondaries
Reconductor(Shift Loads)
Reduce or Eliminate

(6) Determinecosts associatedwith each alternative

Power (demandand energy)
Investment
Labor
Materials
Other
Operationand Maintenance

(7) Carry out an economicevaluationof the alternativesusing the

methodologyof Chapter 2.

4.5 EngineeringDesign Criteria

It is importantthat design criteriareflectthe cost of losses.

This is especiallytrue for the sizing of conductors,normal and emergency
loadingof conductors,and transformers,applicationof regulators,and power
factor control. The generalproceduresfor establishingdesign criteriaare
as follows:

(1) Determineprobablemagnitudesof demandsand loading

patternsfor the various levelsof the system. Use
averagevalues as suggestedin AppendixD if exact
'conditions
are not available.

(2) Determineinstallation,operationand maintenance

costs for the facilitiesbeing evaluatedsuch as
varied sizes of conductors.

(3) Impose load patternsfrom (1) above on the

alternativesizes over a time period such as 20
 - 48 -

years. Compute losses using the methodologiesof

AppendixB and evaluatethese losses per the
methodologiesof AppendixA.

(4) Derive the presentworth of all costs (installation,

operation,maintenance,and losses) for the
alternativesizes and select the size or sizes which
most economicallymeet long range requirements.

The above processcan be accomplishedwith desk calculators,simple computer

programsor full scale computermodels.

4.6 SpecificationRequirementsand Bid Evaluationfor Distribution

Transformers

It is also importantfor the utilitiesto develop specifications

that includeloss criteria,for evaluatingdistributiontransformers.That
is, every request to manufacturersfor distributiontransformerbids should
contain:

(1) The evaluationmethodologyto be used

(2) The loadingparameterswhich will be used in evaluation

Load Factors (by seasons)
Loss Factors (by seasons)
Growth Rates (by seasons)
Time Horizon

(3) Installationand replacementcosts

(4) The capacitycosts by seasons

(5) The energy costs by seasons

(6) The discountrate

The manufacturerscan then direct their design towardsproducingtransformers

with the lowestoverall cost on a presentdiscountedvalue basis over the
transformerlifetime(purchase,installationand maintenancecosts, and value
of losses).

Another alternativeis for the utilityto work directlywith the

manufacturerto determinethe lowest cost design,consideringboth
manufacturingand operatingcosts.

Transformersbids can also be evaluatedon the basis of lowest life cycle

presentvalue of costs (includinglosses). Most of the basics for
establishingdesign specificationsand evaluatingbids are containedin
AppendicesA, B, and D.
 - 49 -

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY OF CASE STUDY RESULTS

This chapter contains a summary of the case study results, with details
provided in Appendix C. Although they are desk studies, the case studies of
this project provide affirmative answers on a preliminary basis to the
following pertinent questions:

Do the proposed methodologies for isolating technical losses

provide reasonable results?

Are the proposed methodologies practical and relatively simple to

apply in the developing country context?

Does loss reduction appear to provide a high level of benefits

relative to costs?

Should losses be a major factor in establishing engineering

criteria for planning, design and operations?

Our most important conclusion is that within practical limitations --- loss
reductions at distribution level provides capacity and energy at far less
cost than obtaining capacity and energy through the construction of new
generation and transmission facilities. The case studies indicate that
utilities can obtain savings up to $15 for every $1 of cost associated with
reducing distribution system losses (primary system, distribution
transformers, secondary system). Therefore losses should be recognized as a
dominant factor in the engineering criteria used in system planning, design
and operation.

As an example Table 5.1 provides an overview of existing common loading

practices for distribution facilities versus the economic loading levels
indicated by the case study results:
 - 50 -

TABLE 5.1

ECONOMICALLY JUSTIFIED DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LOADING LEVELS BASED

ON LOSS OPTIMIZATION VERSUS EXISTING GUIDELINES FOR LOADING

Existing Maximum Loading
Practices (As a % of
nameplate rating or Thermal Limit)
Economic Maximum
Loading Based
On Optimized Losses
(As a % of nameplate rating of
Thermal Limit)

Thermal Reliability*
Item Criteria Criteria

Primary Conductors 100% 50% 15 to 25%

Distribution
Transformerl 180% N.A.** 80 to 100%

Secondary Conductors 100% N.A.** 10 to 15%

* Reserve for emergencies

** Rarely loaded to provide reserve for emergencies

Based on U.S. design, 650 rise transformers. Conventional IEC Standard units (500 C
rise) may be able to take only up to about 125% of thermal limit without drastic
reduction in useful lifetime.
 - 51 -

As the table shows, the case studies indicate the need to make some very
major departures from existing practices, namely that the value of losses
should be the single most important element in establishing engineering
criteria for the planning, design and operation of distribution systems.

It must be recognized that the results of a desk study based on data from
technical sources and from a few developing countries cannot be considered
conclusive enough to develop worldwide guidelines, However, the results of
this study strongly indicates that there is significant and immediate
potential for savings to be realized through loss reduction in LDC's.

5.1 Primary Conductor Loading

A portion of the distribution system of Punjab State, India was used in

evaluating losses on a primary system for a variety of conductor loading
levels. The objectives of this case study were to determine:

(1) The investment costs for various primary systems

serving an area over a 20 year time frame. The
major variation between systems was the maximum
conductor loading permitted.

(2) The cost of losses (demand and energy) associated

with each system.

(3) The ratio of savings through loss reduction to the

cost of reducing those losses.

(4) Probable economic conductor loading limits.

Specifically, case studies were made for the following conditions:

(1) Primary models were studied over a 20 year time

frame with maximum conductor loadings at 100%, 75%,
50% and 25%.

(2) Losses were evaluated for two cost levels:1 1 /

$130/kW/Year and $0.011/kWh

(about US4 4 per average kWh)

$250/kW/Year and $0.037/kWh

(about US¢ 9 per average kWh)

11/ The range of values US¢4 to 9 per average kWh lost is representative of
a wide variety of all hydro, hydro-thermal, and all thermal systems
found in LDC's. Some systems may have higher values of LRMC per kWh but
hardly any would be lower.
 - 52 -

(3) The presentworth of costs was derivedwith the

economicmodel describedin Chapter II, using a
discountrate of 12%.12/

The resultsof this case study is tabulatedin Table 5.2 and shown
graphicallyin Figure 5.1

Table 5.2 shows that for a systemwith maximum conductorloadingof 100% and
the higher value of losses, the presentworth of losses will be $881,600and
the presentworth of future investmentsis $4,900.

If maximum conductorloadingis reducedto 75%, the P.W. of investmentrises

to $15,500 and P.W. of losses reducesto $717,300. The incremental
investmentof $10,600 producesa reductionin losses of $164,300for a
benefitto cost ratio (BCR)of 15.5 to 1 ($15.5 saved per $1 of cost).

Figure 5.1 indicatesthat the breakevenpoint (BCR=1)for maximum conductor

loading is probablyin the general neighborhoodof 15 to 25% --- a
substantiallylower level than loadinglimits based on existingcriteria.

5.2 Power Factor Control

Power factor is controlledby most utilitieswith the aid of capacitors

on the primary system. The basics of using capacitorsto control power
factorhave been presentedin Chapter 3 and the followingis a brief
review:

(1) Many devices,especiallymotors, require "Lagging

kVAR's to operate

(2) The Lagging kVAR's may be suppliedfrom the

generatorswhich requiresthe kVAR's to be
transportedthroughthe entire system (transmission,
sub-transmission,stationsand primaries)
or

The laggingkVAR's may be suppliedfrom capacitors

locatednear the load centers.

Basically,power factor controlreducesdemand which may be evaluatedin

a number of ways:

(1) Reduced losses

(2) Better voltage regulation

(3) Releasedgeneration,transmissionand distributioncapacityto

serve other existingloads.

12/ This long run average discountrate (or opportunitycost of capital) is

on the conservativeside, since it is at the upper end of the scale
appropriateto most LDC's. A lower value would furtherenhance the
argumentsfor and urgency of distributionloss reduction.
 - 53 -

TABLE 5.2

VALUE OF LOSS SAVINGS

BY
REDUCING MAXIMUM CONDUCTOR LOADING
(NO POWER FACTOR CORRECTION)

Maximum Investment ($x1000) Cost of Losses ($x1000) Benefit

Conductor to
Loading(%) Total Incremental 1/ Total Incremental 1/ Cost Ratio 2/

Losses Priced at $250/kW/year and $0.037/kWh

100% $ 4.9 $ - $881.6 $ - -

75% 15.5 10.6 717.3 164.3 15.5

50% 30.8 15.3 554.0 163.3 10.7

25% 104.0 73.2 332.9 221.1 3.0

Losses Priced at $130/kW/year and $0.0114/kWh

10(% $ 4.9 $ - $445.4 $ -

75% 15.5 10.6 362.6 82.8 7.8

510% 30.8 15.3 280.0 82.6 5.4

25% 104.0 73.2 168.2 111.8 1.5

1/ Incremental with respect to next higher level of maximum conductor loading.

2/ Dollars saved for each dollar of investment

(Savings divided by Incremental Investment)
 N
N
15.0-

Figure 5.1
\
$250/kW/yr. INCREMENTALBENEFIT-COSTRATIO FOR SUCCESSIVEREDUCTIONS
* $0.O37/kWJil IN CONDUCTORLOADING

25%

a, 10.0

uz
In K Practical Goal

H kWi/r\
0C 50 $0.0114/kWH\

1.0 _- e'&keven L's__

I I II _
100% (4.6%) 75% (3.5X) 50% (2.9%) 25% 1--8%) 0%
MAXIMUMCONDUCTOR LOADING (LOSS GIVEN IN PARENTRISIS)
 - 55 -

(4) Savings in investment by delaying the need to add facilities to

serve load growth

In this case study, benefits have been evaluated for reducing losses
only. This was accomplished by correcting the power factor from 80% to
95% for the Primary Conductor Loading systems. The system additions
(without capacitors) to maintain conductor loading at 100%, 75%, 50% and
25% were left unchanged. Capacitors were added to those systems over
the 20 years as required to maintain a 95% power factor. Consequently,
capacitor additions are the same for each conductor loading condition.

The benefits between systems vary because the load levels and losses vary
with conductor loading. The maximum benefits from power factor control are
related to the system with 100% maximum loading because there are more losses
to eliminate by reducing kVAR flow.

A surmary of the study is tabulated in Table 5.3 and graphed in Figure 5.2.
For the higher cost of losses and 100% conductor loading, the P.W. of annual
costs of $19,700 in capacitors results in a P.W. savings of losses of
$294.,400.

This situation provides $14.9 of savings for every $1 of cost --- an

excellent benefit to cost ratio.

Even the lowest benefit condition (lowest loss costs and 25% conductor
loading) provides $2.9 in savings for every $1 of annual cost.

It is clear that power factor control via capacitors reduces losses with a
high benefit to cost ratio. It is highly probable that field studies will
confirm that the installation of primary capacitors should be the first step
in a loss reduction program, in most cases.

5.3 Distribution Transformers

A computer program capable of modeling and analyzing distribution

transformers was used to study the effects of various loading patterns
on typical distribution transformers. The transformers used in the
study are standard single phase transformers. The transformer portion
of the study comprised of:

Transformer sizes
5, 10, 25, 50, 100 and 250 kVA

Load levels (% of nameplate)

50, 100, 150, 175, 200, 225, 250, 275

Load Factors (X)

25, 50, 75, 100

Cost of Losses (2 levels)

a) $130/kW/yr. and $0.0114/kWH
 - 56 -

Table5.3

VALUEOF LOSS SAVINGSBY

CORRECTINGPOWERFACTORFROM80% TO 95%
AT VARIOUSMAXIMUMCONDUCTORLOADINGLEVELS

Various Maximum Conductor Loading

P.W. of P.W. Cost of Losses($xO100)

Capacitor *
Annual Benefit
Costs No With to
($x1000) Capacitor Capacitor Savincs Cost Ratio

Losses Priced at and $0.037/kWH

$250/kW/year

100% $ 19.7 $ 881.6 $ 587.2 $ 294.4 14.9

75% 19.7 717.3 477.7 239.6 12.2

50% 19.7 554.0 369.0 185.0 9.4

25% 19.7 332.9 221.7 111.2 5.6

Losses Priced at and $0.0114/kWH

$130/kW/year

100% $ 19.7 $ 445.4 $ 296.7 $ 148.7 7.5

75% 19.7 362.6 241.5 121.1 6.1

50% 19.7 279.8 186.4 93.1 4.7

25% 19.7 168.2 112.0 56.2 2.9

* Dollars saved per dollar invested

(Savings divided by investment)
 Figure 5. 2

15.0

4) BENEFIT TO COST RATIOS

4>
to
0)
CORRECTION OF POWER FACTOR FROM80% TO 95Z

FOR
w ~~~~~$250/kW o
VARIOUS MAXIMUMCONDUCTORLOADINGS LEVELS
w 1$O.037/kWH\

0)

I-

0
u 5.0
° 5. a _ $130/kW
E0i $0.0114/kWl\

r'14

BceeLkeven I-hme

75% (2.5%) 50% (1.9X 25% (2.1%) 0%

(3.1%)
tO0%

MAXTMDMCONDUC¶TOR LOADING (Loss Given in Parenthesis)

 - 58 -

b) S250/kW/yr.and $0.037/kWh
(Approx.US49 per average kWh)

The computermodel was used to derive the no load losses (often referred
to as Iron losses)and load losses (often referredto as Copper losses)
for the above circumstances. The results of these analysisare
tabulatedin Table 5.4 and shown graphicallyin Figure 5.3.

Anual costs with and without the cost of losses were then derived for
each transformerat the various load levels. The results of these
derivationsare shown graphicallyin Figures 5.4 and 5.5 for the two
levels of loss costs.

Next, the existingpracticeof sizing transformersto meet demandsbased on

thermalcapabilitieswas comparedwith sizing transformersbased on economics
(costof losses included). The two sizing techniquesare shown on Figure 5.4
and 5.5 (X's and O's) and tabulatedin Table 5.5.

The study clearly indicatesthat losses must be consideredin the sizing of

transformersto meet specificload levels. In this example,proper sizing at
the higher cost level producesannual savingsof up to 48%.

We must recognizethat detailedengineeringand economicanalysisof

transformerloadingcan be pursuedat a more complex level. This study
providesindicativeresults that could be confirmedby an indepth study,
includingsuch variablesas:

Loading cycles (beforeand during peak)

Ambient temperatures

Completelyself protected(CSP) transformer

Self protected(SP) transformer

Growth rates

Ratio of iron to copper losses

Purchasecosts

Installationcosts

Replacementcosts

Maintenance

Connectionsand voltages

Taps

A more definitivestudy would provide the methodologyand guidelinesrelated

to:
 - 59 -

TABLE 5.4

DISTRIBUTIONTRANSFORMERNO LOAD (IRON)

ANDLOAD(COPPER)LOSSES VERSUS VARIOUSLOAD LEVELS

(For typicalU.S. Single Phase Units)

Transformer No Load Load Losses (kW) at Various Load Levels

Size Loss
(kVA) (kW) 50% 100% 150% 200% 250%

5 0.045 0.037 0.144 0.323 0.572 0.893

10 0.070 0.060 0.237 0.532 0.944 1.473
25 0.130 0.118 0.467 1.048 1.860 2.903
50 0.225 0.204 0.808 1.814 3.222 5.030
100 0.400 0.375 1.491 3.348 5.945 9.283
250 0.925 0.781 3.105 6.972 12.383 19.336
 FiRure 5.3

DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMER
LOAD LOSS (WATTS) PER kW OF DEMAND
60-_DEMAND AS % OF RATING OR SIZE

50

sol

40

14 30

EA

zH 20
(I) E- 0'5 10l5%20
0

0% 50% 100% 150% 200%

DEMAND AS % OF NAMEPLATE RATING
 - 61 -

TABLE 5.5

ANNUALCOSTS AND SAVINGS

LOADINGPRACTICES
PRESENT TRANSFORMER

VERSUS

LOWESTCOST LOADING PRACTICES

Present Lowest Cost

Peak Practice (1) Practice (2) Annual
Demand Savings
(50% L.F.) Size Cost Size Cost
(kVA) (k) ( (S) (2) (kVA) ($) -$ %

Losses at $130/kW/yr. and $0.0114/kWH

5 5 $5 10 $ 75 $ 30 12%
10 5 1S0 10 110 40 27
1S 10 160 25 140 20 13
20 10 220 25 160 60 27
25 25 182 25 182 - -

30 25 210 25 210 - -
35 25 250 50 243 7 3
40 25 300 50 261 39 13
45 25 350 50 280 70 20
50 25 402 50 300 102 25

Losses at $250/kW/yr. and $0.037/kWH

5 5 128 10 111, 17 13%

10 5 263 25 163 100 38
15 10 271 25 200 71 26
20 10 460 25 240 220 48
25 25 295 25 295 - -

30 25 358 50 325 33 9
35 25 437 50 357 80 18
40 25 543 50 392 151 28
45 25 646 50 435 211 33
S0 25 769 50 497 272 35

(1) Transformers loaded to thermal capabilities - Losses Ignored

(2) Includes cost of losses

 Figure 5.4

-ANNUAL COST NO LOSS

$600 ___ _ ANNUAL COSTS INCLUDING LOSSES
PRICED AT $130/kW/yr. and $O.037/kWH

x SIZE BASED ON THERMAL CAPACITY

$500 0 SIZE BASED Otl ECONOMICS

$400

E-o
cn
0

$3-00

$200

$1 0_005kV
I A~~-

1
5 kVA^_jr 10 kVA

0
I I~~~~~~~~~~
0 10 20 30 40

kVA DEMAND (50% LOAD FACTOR)

$60/O ,

- COSTS NO LOSSES
ANNUAL

___________ ANNUALCOSTS INCLUDING LOSSES

$500 PRICED AT $250/kW/yr. and $0.037/kWh

X - SIZE BASED ON THERMALCAPACITY

$400 0 - SIZE BASED ON ECONOMICS

$300

$200

$100 _

/- - 25== kVA
j
5 kVA J 10 kVA

0_I

0 10 20 30 40
kVA DEMAND(50% LOAD FACTOR)
Figure 5.5 - TRANSFORMERCOSTS VERI'US kVA DEMAND
 - 64 -

Purchasing

Initial installationfor specificloadswith an expectedgrowth

rate

Economicreplacementlevels

Best combinationof transformersto meet mixed single and three

phase loads.

This study providespositiveevidencethat the practicesof the past have

littlevalidityunder the circumstancesof today. Furthermore specific
field studiesof distributionsystemsand loadingconditionsare required.
Note on SubstationTransformers

Substationtransformersmay be a significantsource of losses and

should also be analysedin depth. Some of the older transformers,especially
Tap ChangingUnder Load (TCUL),have impedancesin the general range of 15X.
It is highly probablethat these older transformerscan be replacedbased
upon only loss savings,and thereforechangingout such units should be
second in priorityonly to power factor correction.

5.4 SecondarySystems

There are two basic types of secondarysystemsused by utilities:

Centralized(originatedin Europe)which is based upon large

centrallylocateddistributiontransformersand extensivesecondary
systemsservinganywherefrom 10 to 200 consumers.

Decentralized(originatedin North America)which is based upon

small transformersinstalledat or near the load centerswith short
secondarysystems. Each transforemrserves from 1 to 15 consuemrs
dependingupon load density.

Sixty (60) centralizedsecondarysystemsin the Bhikhiwindarea of Punjab

State, India were studied in this phase of the project. Each of these
systemsconsistedof a single large transformerand an extensivesecondary
system servingan entire village.

A computermodel was developedfor each of the centralizedsystems and the

systems were analyzedas to voltage,loadingand losses.

Decentralizedsystems were then developedto serve the 60 villages. These

decentralizedsystemsdisplacedthe single transformersand extensive
secondarieswith 11 kV piimary lines, small transformerslocatedat load
centers and short lengthsof secondarylines.

The resultsof this study are detailedin AppendixC and summarizedin

Table 5.6.
 - 65-

The major differences between the two concepts may be summarized as follows:

The centralized systems transport power to the consumer over low voltage
(240/416 volts) secondary lines.

The decentralized systems transport the power directly to the consumer

or a load center at high voltage (11,000 volts).

A decentralized system generally requires more investment due to the greater

length of primary lines and the use of many small transformers, In this
study, the decentralized system requires $49,940 or 6.1% more investment than
the centralized plan. If losses are ignored, the centralized approach would
be chosen.

Note: In more general applications other constraints may limit the

technical-economic choice of options, e.g., urban areas where underground
systems are mandated for non-economic reasons.

But when losses are considered, the conclusions change significantly:

Item Centralized Decentralized

Losses

On Peak (kW) 300.8 kW 62.6 kW

Reduction - 79.2%

Energy (kWH) 802,800 kWH 178,000 kWH

Reduction - 77.2%

Annual Costs

Investment + 0 & M $110,130 $116,827

Losses at Highest Cost* 104,904 22,236

TOTAL $215,034 $139,063

Saings

Dollars - $ 75,971

% - 35.3%

Benefit/Cost Ratio** 11.3 to I

* $250/kW/yr. and $0.037/kWH

** Annual carrying charges (13.41%) on $49,940 or $6,697 compared to
savings of $75,971
 - 66 -

TABLE 5.6

60 CENTRALIZEDSECONDARY
SYSTEMS

VERSUS

SYSTEMS
SECONDARY
60 DECENTRALIZED
Difference

(Decentralize
Minus
Item . Centralized Decentralized Centralized)

Transformer Statistics

Quantity 60 172 112

Total Capacity kVA 4575 3695 (880)
Average Size kVA 76 22 (54)
Investment $94,550 $159,635 $63,085
Total Demand kW 2445 2187 (258)
Average Demand kW 41 13 (28)
% Loaded % 54 59 9
No Load Loss (Iron) kW 2.0 2.2 0.2
Peak Load Loss
(Copper) kW 14.8 34.4 19.6
Energy Losses mWH 56.4 109.7 53.3

Primary Lines

Total Length kM $47.2 47.2

Investment - $212,400 $212,400

Secondary System

Total Length kM 128.7 89.6 (4.0)

Average per
Transformer kM 2.1 0.5 (1.6)
Investment $726,705 $499,158 ($227,547)
Demand kW 2161 2161 -
Peak Loss kW 284 26 (258)
Percent Demand
Loss % 13.1% 2.2% (11.9)
Energy Loss mwH 746.4 68.3 (678.1)

Total Investment $821,255 $871,193 $ 49,938

Annual Costs

Investment of O&M: $110,130 $116,827 $ 6,697

Cost of Losses at:
$130/kW, $0.0114/kWE $48,256 $10,167 ($38,089)
$250/kW, $0.037/kWH $104,904 $22,236 ($82,668)

Total Annual Costs

Lower Cost of Losses $158,386 $126,994 ($31,392)

Higher Cost of Losses $215,034 $139,063 ($75,971)

 - 67 -

The 6.1% additional cost for the decentralized system provides savings at a
benefit to cost ratio of 11.3 to 1 or $11.3 saved for every $1 of cost.

We note that decentralization will be more difficult in congested

areas--each area will have a least-cost mix of primaries and secondaries.
Thus utility distribution engineers should have the tools and training to
carry out detailed studies that will help them make the right decision.

A study based on a group of systems in one country is not conclusive.

However, the results are clear cut enough to justify further investigation.

5.5 Connections

Connections were not investigated in this study but poor or high

resistance connections cause significant losses at peak. These bad
connections invariably lead to burnouts of lines and equipment resulting
in unnecessary outages. Poor connections may be found anywhere but the
more common reasons are:

(1) Wrong sized connectors -- if too small, they do not provide

sufficient area, or pressure -- if too large they do not grip tight
enough.

(2) Loose blades and pressure plates on blade disconnects, gang

operated switches and cutouts.

(3) Use of bronze connectors on aluminum conductors resulting in

conductor creep and corrosion.

(4) Use of all-aluminum connectors on copper conductors which results

in corrosion and eventual failure of the connection.

(5) Connecting aluminum conductors by simply wrapping the strands of

one conductor around the other. This method works for hard drawn
copper conductors but aluminum strands do not have sufficient
tensile strength. Invariably, the connection becomes loose, causes
losses, begins arcing, and burns down.

Preventing poor connections requires using the right connectors at all

times, the use of compression connectors for aluminum whenever possible,
and monitoring existing connections. The most effective monitoring
devices are infra-red detectors which can be used to pin point any hot
spots on the system.

5.6 Literature Search

One of the initial steps of the project involved a technical literature

search (see Bibliography in Appendix) which yielded the following major
results:

(1) Equations for calculating losses are readily available

 - 68 -

(2) Losses are being considereda significantfactor only in the most

recent articlesdealingwith the planning,design and operationof
distributionfacilities(i.e., within last few years).

(3) Most distributionfacilitiesare being loaded on the basis of:

Thermal capability(melt or damage limit)

Loss of life (such as transformersand regulators)

* Reliability(capacityfor emergencies)

These criteriaresult in loadinglevels such as those in Table 5.1.

 APPENDIX A
-69 - Page 1 of 7

APPENDIX A

ECONOMIC LOSS OPTIMIZATION MODEL

The main focus of this Appendix is to analyze the economic outcome of reducing
losses in the distribution system, by applying the principles of cost benefit
analysis. First, before separating out the distribution network from the
system, the net benefit of consumption supplied by the entire eletric power
systeIais considered.

The electric power system is planned with a time horizon of T periods, each of
duratiLon1 year.

The various terms that enter into an expression for net benefit is next con-
sidered.

The total benefit (TB) of consumption of electricity in any time period 't' is
a function of the total quantity of electricity consumed or demanded Qt in the
absence of outages i.e. it is assumed that the quality of supply is perfect.

then TBt = TBt (Qt )

In practice, the consumer's electricity supply would not be of perfect

quality. Therefore, the quality of supply or the outage costs (OC) to con-
sumers due to voltage and frequency fluctuations, outages, and so on, occurr-
ing in period t must be taken into consideration. Two types of costs occur
due to poor quality of supply - direct cost due to interruption of productive
and leisure activity, equipment and motor burnouts etc.; indirect costs due to
the cost incurred in installing stand-by generators to overcome poor supply
quality of electricity. Thus, these costs primarily depend on the quality of
supply or reliability (R ) in the period t. In addition, the greater the
demand for electricity (k ), the larger will be the outage costs (OC) in the
event of poor quality of supply.

i.e. OCt- OCt (Rt,Qt)

Finally, the total supply costs SC are considered. It consists of invest-

ment costs and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.

The present discounted value of net benefit to society (NB) for the planning
period can be written as

T
NB = [TBt (Qt) - SCt (Rt$Qt) o t (RtPQt)] /(l+r)t
tr o

where r appropriate discount rate

 APPENDIXA
-70- Page 2 of 7

Before attemptingto maximisenet benefit,the variablesin the above expression

must be examined.

The term Q refers to the quantityof electricitydemandedin period t which

is a functionof other variables

t Qt (pt' tp Rt' Zt)

where Pt = price of electricityin period t

Yt income of period t

Rt = quality of supply or level of reliability

Zt = vector of other variables (for e.g. price

of substituteenergy) in period t.
consideringthe other terms in the expression:

Rt is the actual qualityof supply which is dependenton the investments

that are made, and the O&M spent on the systems.

1/
Previouswork has been done to maximizenet benefitby optimizingrelia-
bility throughthe trade-offbetween supply costs (SC ) and outage costs
(OCr). t

Here we attempt to maximize net benefitsby optimizingthe supply cost

term SC , i.e., by minimizingthe technicallosses in the distribution
system. For this purpose the SCt term is broken down into its components.

Total system costs consistsof generationcosts (GSC),transmissioncost (TSC)

and distributionsystem costs (DSC).

SC - GSC + TSC + DSC (1)

Sincewe are focusingon the distributionnetwork,the generation yd trans-

mission systemscosts can be representedby the LRMC of capacity.- LRMC is
definedas the ratio of change of system capacitycosts associatedwith an
incrementaldemand in the long run peak demand function.

1/ See, M. Munasinghe,J. J. Warford, "ElectricityPricing: Theory and

DevelopingCountry Case Studies",World Bank ResearchPublications.
 APPENDIX A
-71 - Page 3 of 7

The expression LRMC = A(capacity costs)/ A(demand)

Is used to calculate the LRMC of bulk supply, i.e. generation as well as

transmission. This gives the costs/unit of power and energy supplied by the
bulk system, and entering the distribution network. For example, if a units
of eneirgyare entering the distribution network then the costs of supply are:
ai.MC.

then equation (1) can be written as:

SC = a .MC + DSC

DSC is composed of investment costs and O&M costs. The technical losses in
the distribution network will be reflected in the a term, since more units
of electricity will enter the distribution system it losses are higher.

The next step involves giving an economic value to the distribution losses.
For this purpose it is necessary to compare the net benefits arising from two
alternative distribution systems. This approach can be extended to the com-
parison of many alternative network configurations.

Consider two distribution networks (1) and (2) in Figure A.1, each supplying
differing amounts of electricity. Let ai be the units of electricity entering
the distribution system 1, and b1 the corresponding units of electricity avail-
able to the consumers. Let 11 be the losses in the system 1.

In the distribution network, since al units are entering, with b units being
demanded and 1 units being lost

1 1 1
The net benefit from the power system can be written as:

T
NB = 2 (TBt - SC - OCt ) /(l+r)t
t=o

For eaclhsystem, the SC term is expanded into its component parts and the net
benefit can be written as:

T
For System 1: NB1 = 2 [(TBit- (alt.MCit DSClt) - OC1 i /(l+r)t
t-o

For System 2: NB [(TB (a MC + DSC ) - OC2 )] /(l+r)

2 -o 2t 2 t' 2t 2t t
t=o
 - 72 - APPENDIX A
Page 4 of 7

Figure A.1
DISTRIBUTION LOSS REPRESENTATION

a, a2

DSC 1 DSC 2

- losses losses
ii 12

i bl - b2

(1) (2)
 APPENDIXA
-73- Page-5of

Now let us make the simplifying assumption that Systems 1 and 2 are two
alternativeways of meeting the same customerload, i.e., blt b2t.

We might imagine that System 1 is an upgradedversionof System 2, where

distributioncosts have been increasedto achieve reducedlosses. Since
TB = TB (bt), it can be assumed that the total benefitsin the two systems
are the same.

i.e. TBI=TB
it 22t

then

T
NB1 - NB2 ' : E lt Ad ) - (at ilt +IDSClt - a2t .MC - DSC2t) -
t-o
(OCit- OCat)J / (l+r)t (3)

In additionit is assumed that the MC s are the same for the two systems.
Since the distributionnetwork is only a small part of a much larger bulk
electric supply system,the differencein marginalcosts for the two networks
at thvislevel will be negligible.

then the above equation(3) can be written as:

NB1 - NB2 [(a2t alt).MC + (DSC2t - DSC Id +

t-o

(OC2 t - OC1) / (l+r)t (4)

Since the amount of electricalunits finallyavailableto the consumersin the

two systems is the same:

b it b 2t

As mentionedearlier,since:

alt blt + lt and

•2t b2t + 1 2t' we can write:

alt -a2t lt 2t
 _ 74 - APPENDIX A
Page 6 of 7

Thus the differencein amount of bulk power suppliedto the two systemscan
be replacedby the differencein losses in the two systems. This expression
is substitutedin equation(4):

T_
1 2 Ilt) .MC + (DSC2 t - DSClt+
-
1. 2
=
r=o(6) [(I2t -

(OC2 t - OC )]/(l+r)

This can be written as:

T
NB 1 - NB2 T (1 2 t MC + MsC 2 t) - (llt.MC + DSCIt) +
t-o
(OC2 t - OClt)/(l+r)t (7)

Let us group and redefine the loss terms together as follows:

NSClt DSCit + VLit (8)

where NSCit Net Supply Cost

and VLit 1 .it.MC

= Value of Losses

Rewritingequation (7) in the differenceform:

-NB - NSC - Aoc (9)

where NB - NB -NB

ANSC -. NSC1 - NSC2 ;

AOC'. 0C1 - C2 i

T T
NSCi
, ' NSC1 /(l+r)t and OCt m o5
t-o t=o
 75 - APPENDIX A
Page 7 of 7

Supposewe assume for the time being that the outage cost term AOC is
negligiblerelativeto .NNSC. 1/ In generalAOC would be a small correc-
tional term in the analysis.

Neglecting OC we can rewrite (8):

ANB - ANSC

In other words NB >NB2 and system 1 providesbetter net benefitsthan system

2, i- the former ias a lower value of net supply costs, i.e., NSC <NSC2.
Alternatively, we can argue that NB will be maximizedwhen NSC is minimized.2/

Thus writing NSC = VL + DSC and taking derivativeswith respect to physical

losses L :

(aNSC/aL) - (aVL/aL) + (CDSC/aL)

The nietsupply costs in the distributionsystem is at a minimum with respect to

losses when:

a NSC/a L = 0

then 3DSC/ aL - -aVL/ aL

This indicates,that to optimizesupply costs in the distributionsystems,the

marginaldistributionsupply costs must be increaseduntil it is exactlyoffset
by thiemarginaldecreasein the value of losses.

This is graphicallydepictedin Figure 2.2 by plottingcosts on the

verticalaxis, and losses measuredin physicalunits on the horizontal
axis. DSC is a downwardsloping curve since, as costs or investments
decrease,the losses incurredin the distributionsystem increases. VL
(value of losses) is an upward slopingcurve since as losses increase,more
units of energy will have to be suppliedby the bulk system to serve the
same final demand. The sum of the two gives the net supply costs (NSC).
The uinimum point of the NSC curve is where the slope of the VL curve -
slope of the DSC curve, assumingnegligibledifferencesin outage costs.

1/ For example,we could considerdistributionsystem improvementsand

loss reductionin systemswhere the supply quality (in terms of out-
ages) is high to begin with.

2/ It must be stressedhere that it is assumed that the quality of supply

and losses of generationand transmissionare maintainedat a constant
level. No attempt is made to optimizeinvestmentor losses in these
higher stages of the electricalsupply system,since this is outside
the scope of this study and considerableengineeringwork has already
been done in this area. This is a partial or localizedoptimization
problem,namely in the distributionnetwork.
 APPENDIX B
- 76- Page 1 of 21

APPENDIX B

COMPUTERIZED ANALYTICAL MODELS

Computerized models of the various power system components (see Figure B.1)
provide the basics for an analysis system to isolate and reduce demand and
energy losses. These models were used to carry out the following major func-
tions of this project.

(1) Establishing methodologies for isolating technical losses on an

existing system from other unmetered demands and energies such
as theft, inaccurate metering and the supplying of unmetered
power to certain classes of consumers.

(2) Establishing methodologies for evaluating alternative means of

reducing losses on an existing system such as power factor
control, reconductoring, and changing voltage levels.

(3) Establishing methodologies for including the effects of

losses on design and operating criteria such as conductor
sizing, use of regulators, initial loading on equipment and
economic replacement levels.

Followinigis an overview of the analytical models used in this project.

Generation
&

Transmission

* Sub-transmission

Station

* Distribution Primary System

* Distribution Transformers

• Secondary Systems

Modeling Objectives

The overall objective in creating a computer model of an electrical system

component is to translate physical and electrical parameters into digital
form. The digital model may then be used to determine probable voltage
drop, losses and fault currents under a variety of simulated normal and
emergency conditions.

In developing models, one must be careful to stay within the limits of

practicality. For example, a transformer model could be developed which
 - 77 - APPENDIX B
Page 2 of 21

Generation X
Losses in this part of the system
are outside the scope of this study.
Also, losses are relatively small
Step-up because:
Trns forzer {>
(1) Original Planning and Design
High Voltage is at a Sophisticated Level
Transnission (2) Continuously Monitored After
Construction
TrTansdissicn
Substation

Sub- * Power Flow Losses (12R)

Transmission

Station Transformer and Regulator

Distribution (1) Copper Losses Proportional to
Substat.ion I Load
(2) Iron Losses are Constant

Distribution * Power Flow Losses (I2p

ori:mary

r Transformer

Distribution
Transfon=r
J (1)
(2)
Copper Losses ProDortional to Load
Iron Losses are Constant

Secondary Power Flow Losses ( 2 R)

System

FigureB.I
LOCATIONOF LOSSES
 APPENDIX B
- 78 - Page 3 of 21

included all the turns, the core and the electrical/magnetic relationship
among these parameters. Such a model would have a high level of accuracy
but would be practically worthless in the real world because the necessary
data is not readily available.

The miodelsused in this project are based upon ones developed specifically for
electrical utilities over the past 15 years. These models provide a high
level of accuracy within the constraints of readily available data from
technlcal journals and manufacturers. Most of these models were used in
previous World Bank R & D Projects.

Generation Models

Generation or power supply models are in universal use by developing countries

to simulate existing and planned power supply systems. These models usually
contain all available power sources such as hydro-generation, fossil genera-
tion, peaking units and purchases.

In general, these models are used to determine the lowest cost mix of
sources to meet forecasted needs. Losses play a very minor role in these
studies. Generation does not fall within the scope of this study.

Note: In some cases, the high cost of losses could be an important factor in
choosing between transmission of power from the central grid versus
isolated generation, to serve rural areas. This is a specialized type
of study which is outside the scope of this project, but should be
pursued when appropriate.

Transmission Models

As with generation, models for simulating transmission systems are often

used by the developing countries. Digital models include load flow, short
circuit and stability. In some cases analog models such as transient network
analyzers are used.

Transmlssion losses as a percent of gross generation including generation

step- are usually about 3 or 4%, and are better monitored (by central dispatch-
ing centers) than distribution losses. Losses at transmission level also
offer scope for improvement but were outside the scope of this project.

Sub-Transmission Models

In general, sub-transmission lines are radial extensions from transmission

statiorns, have voltages in the range of 34,500 through 120,000 volts, and
provide power to distribution sub-stations. Losses for sub-transmission
lines are usually evaluated via load flow techniques during transmission
system studies.

Loading on such lines is usually not excessive and losses are low acceptable
(although not necessarily economically optimal). In addition, these lines
are often monitored by central dispatching centers. While scope for loss
 APPENDIX B
-79- Page 4 of 21

reduction exists, losses on this portion of a system were not evaluated in

great detail in this project.

Primary System Model

The primary system model used in this project was developed over the past 15
years for planning, design and operating studies. The model is in use Oy over
75 utilities who refer to it as Distribution Primary Analysis or DPA. -

Each distribution feeder is divided into line sections and nodes (see Figure
B.2) and then DPA translates the following parameters into a digital data
base:

Physical Electrical

Line Lengths Impedances

Conductors Ampacities
Regulators Demands
Capacitors Power Factor
Transformers
Phasing

Analytical programs use digital maps and the data base to compute voltages,
loading, losses and fault currents for each line section of each feeder. The
programs permit the engineer to vary the following parameters and obtain the
effect on losses:

Voltage Levels . Switching

Load Levels . Loading
3 Power Factor . Phasing
* Conductors

Figure B.3 provides an overview of the primary system model (Data Base), the
data base management programs, and the analytical models used in this study.
The following sample computer printouts provide details concerning the
analysis:

Printout B.1 provides a voltage, loading and loss

analysis of a feeder under the assumption that loading
is balanced on the phases

Printout B.2 (3 pages) provides an analysis by phases

of a feeder

Printout B.3 provides a fault analysis of a feeder

1/ Rural System Engineering Via Computer Models, 1976, IEEE Rural Electric
Conference, C76408-O1A by Walter Scott, Scott & Scott Consultants, Inc.,
St. Louis, Missouri.
 - 80 - APPENDIX B
Page 5 of 21
Figure B.2

PRIMARY SYSTEM MODEL

Substation

i~~~~~~~~~~~~ IT
b~~~~~

Legend

Substation r Capacitor

_ ~ eLine Section ,b Regulator

@ . Node Recloser

Three Phase Fuse

___ Single Phase Distribution

Transformer
 DIGITIZER AND MAPS

DATA BASE

CONIDUCTOR NODE SECTION MAPS EQUIPMENT

ENGINEERING ANALYSES DATA BASE MANAGEMENT

VOLTAGE LOAD ALLOCATION

j LOADING | APS

0,

LOSSES _ EDIT

| FAULT PRINT

POWER FACTOR ICRT LISTI

OQ
0It1I'd

PLOTTING OF SINGLE LINE DIAGRAMS orM

Figure B.3

COMPUThRIZED DISTRTRUTION ENGINEERING SYSTEM

 APPENDIX B
-82 - Page 7 of 21

Figure B.4 is a reduced copy of a single line diagram for the feeder used in
the above examples. The single line diagram was plotted from the DPA data
base with an electrostatic plotter.

It is hoped that the inclusion of the diagrams and printouts will help to
provide a better idea of how distribution planning may be computerized.
 APPENDIXB
-83- Page a of 21

I~~~~~~~
- _

.,'~~~~~~~~~4
I
j ~1
F: ..........
~~~.
S/121

- ,<
 PRINTOUT B. .1

PROGRAM BALVOL
WORL BANK LOSS STUDY
FEEDER I NORThWEST I
VOLTAaE= 12.47KY LINE TO LINE
SECY END LGTH PNASE COND ----- LOAD IN SECTION ----- LOAD THRU SECTION VOLTAGE 120 BASE -- LOSSES --
NODE K FT CONF SIZE CONN KW KVAR AMPS CUST COND KW WVAR AMPS CUST SECT ACCU LEVEL KW KVAR
KVA z DROP DROP

SUBSTATION TOTALS 5982, 4428. 126.0

55 1 3.5 ABC 336 AA 0.0 0. O0 0. 0.0 68.4 5982, 4428. 328. 0. 2.4 2.4 123.6 70.7 141.8
59 5 9.0 ABC 336 AA 1325.0 1014. 701. 55. 0.0 54.7 4712. 3457. 263. 0. 4.9 7.3 118,7 116.3 233.4
60 6 6.0 ABC 4/0 AA 417.0 319. 221. 18. 0.0 7.0 442. 306. 25. 0. 0.4 7.7 118.3 1.1 1.5
61 7 1.8 ABC 2 AA 367.0 281. 194. 16. 0.0 4.5 140. 97 a 0. 0,1 7.8 118.2 0.1 0.0
62 8 4.4 ABC 4/0AA 237.0 181. 125. 10. 0.0 54:0 3398. 2393* 195. 0. 2.2 9.5 116.5 49.0 65.2
64 10 4.8 ABC 2 AA 862.5 660. 457. 38. 0.0 16.0 498. 344. 29. 0. 0.8 10.3 115.7 3.8 1.7
65 11 2.8 AC 2 AA 215.0 164. 114. 14. 0.0 4.0 82. 57. 7. 0. 0.1 10.4 115.6 0.1 0.0
66 12 4.6 ABC 4/0 AA 1062.5 813. 562. 47. 0.0 30.8 1908. 1332. 111. 0. 1.3 10.8 115.2 16.9 22.4 4
67 13 2.1 ABC 2 AA 37.5 29. 20. 2. 0.0 8.6 264, 182. 15. O. 0.2 11.0 115.o 05 0e2
68 14 1.9 ABC 2 AA 300.0 230. 159. 13. 0.0 3.7 115. 79, 7. 0. 0.1 11.1 114.9 0.1 0.0
69 15 1.2 B 2 AA 25,0 19. 13. 3. 0.0 0,9 10. 7. 2. 0. 0.0 11.1 114.9 0.0 0.0
70 16 2.0 ABC 4/0 AA 750.0 574. 397. 34. 0.0 15.0 920, 638. 54. 0. 0.3 11.1 114.9 1.7 2.3
71 17 5.1 DC 2 AA 187.5 143. 99. 13. 0.0 3.5 72. 50. 6. O. 0.2 11.4 114.6 0.1 0.1
72 18 5.0 ABC 4/0 AA 637.5 488. 337. 29. 0.0 4.0 244. 169. 14. 0. 0.2 11.3 114.7 0.3 0.4
63 9 5.7 B 2 AA 150.0 115. 79. 20. 0.0 5.6 58. 40. 10. 0. 0.5 10.0 116.0 0.2 0.1
56 2 7.0 BC 2 AA 475.0 363. 251. 30. 0.0 15.4 339. 233. 28. 0. 1.3 3.7 122.3 3.5 1.6
57 3 5.9 C 2 AA 200.0 153. 106. 25. 0.0 7.1 77. 53. 13. 0. 0.6 4.3 121.7 0.3 0.2
58 4 5.7 AD 2 AA 225.0 172. 119. 14. 0.0 3.9 86. 60. 7. 0. 0.3 2.7 123.3 0.2 0.1
ENDOF FEEDER
TOTALLOSSESONFEEDIER 1 264.9 471.1
FACTOR
USING 0.50Z AS CONVERGENCE
2 ITERATION(S)

to
o Vi
 PRINTOUT B.2 (1 of 3)

PRORAH PHSVOL
WORLDBANKLOSSSTUDY
CEEDER 1 NORTHuEST1
VOLTAGE= 12.47'KV
LINETO LINE
SECT END LOTH PHASE CORD LOAD IN SECTION
--- LOADTHRUSECTION VOLTAGE120 BASE -- LOSSES--
NODE K FT CONF SIZE CONN KU KVAR AHPS CUST COND KU KVAR AMPS CUST SECT ACCULEVEL KW KVAR
KIJA DROP DROP
TOTALSON PHASEA
SUBSTATION 1815. 1335.
PHASEB 2271, 1683. 126.0
PHASEC 1873. 1368.
55 1 3.5 A 336 AA 0.0 O. 0. 0. 0.0 63.2 1815. 1335, 303. 0. 2.2 2.2 123.8 18.9 37.9
0 0.0 0. O. 06 0.0 79.9 2271, 1683. 383. 0. 3.1 3.1 122.9 29.5 59.2
C 0.0 0. O. 0. 0.0 64.9 1873. 1368. 311. 0. 2.0 2.0 124.0 20.0 40.1
59 5 9.0 A 336 AA 416.7 319. 221. 51. 060 55,7 1541. 1121. 267. O 5,3 7.5 118.5 33.4 67.0
0 491.7 376. 260. 61. 0.0 64.8 1766, 1295. 311. 0. 6.3 9.4 116.6 43.7 87.7
C 416.7 319. 221. 51. 0.0 49.2 1383. 1004. 236. 0. 3.7 5.6 120.4 27.1 54.3
60 6 6.0 A 4/0AA 150.0 115. 79. 18. 0.0 6.4 134. 93. 23. 0. 0.4 7.9 118.1 0.3 0.4
B 192.0 147. 102. 24. 0.0 9.7 202. 140. 35. 0. 0.6 10.0116.0 0.6 0.9
C 75.0 57. 40. 9. 0.0 4.9 105. 73. 18. O. 0.1 5.8 120.2 0.2 0,2
61 7 1,8 A 2 AA 100.0 77. 53. 12. 0.0 3.6 38. 26. 7. 0. 0.1 8.0 118.0 0.0 0.0
b 167.0 128. 88. 21. 0.0 6.2 64. 44. 11. O. 0.1 10.2115.8 0.1 0.0
C 100.0 77. 53. 12. 0.0 3.6 38. 26. 6. 0. 0.1 5.8 120.2 0.0 0.0
62 8 4.4 A 4/0 AA 174.5 133. 92. 21. 0.0 52.8 1090. 765. 190. O. 2.2 9.7 116.3 13.0 17.3
B 37.5 29. 20. 5. 0.0 61.3 1244. 876. 221. O 2.7 12.1113.9 16.9 22.6
C 25.0 19. 13, 3. 0.0 50,1 1053. 740. 181. O. 1.8 7.5 118.5 12.2 16.2
64 10 4.8 A 2 AA 287.5 220. 152. 35. 0.0 19.2 198. 136. 35. O. 1.0 10.7115.3 1.5 0.7
9 325.0 249. 172, 40. 0.0 12.3 125. 86, 22. 0. 0.4 12.5113.5 0.6 0.3
C 250.0 191. 132. 31. 0.0 16.7 175. 121. 30. O. 0.9 8.4 117.6 1.2 0.6
65 11 2,8 A 2 AA 112.5 86. 60, 14. 0.0 4,2 43. 30. 8. 0. 0.1 10.9115.1 0.0 0.0
C 102.5 78. 54. 13. 0.0 3.7 39. 27. 7. 0. 0.1 8.5 117.5 0.0 0.0
66 12 4.6 A 4/0AA 358.3 274. 190, 44. 0.0 27.5 565. 394. 99. 0. 1.1 10.8115.2 3.7 5.0
b 333.3 255, 176. 41. 0,0 35.9 721, 504. 129. O. 1.7 13.8112.2 6.1 8.1
C 370.8 284. 196. 46. 0.0 29.7 619. 431. 107. O. 1.2 8.7 117.3 4.5 6.0
67 13 2.1 A 2 AA 37.5 29. 20. 5. 0.0 8.9 91. 63. 16. 0. 0.2 11*0115.0 0.1 0.1
0 0.0 0. O. 0. 0.0 9.5 96. 66. 17, 0. 0.2 14.1111.9 0.2 0.1
C 0.0 0. O. 0. 0.0 7.3 77. 53. 13. 0. 0.1 8.8 117.2 0.1 0.0
68 14 1.9 A 2 AA 100.0 77. 53. 12. 0.0 3.7 38. 26. 7. 0. 0.1 11.1114.9 0.0 0,0
B 100.0 77. 53. 12. 0.0 3.8 38. 26. 7. O. 0.1 14.1111.9 0.0 0.0
C 100.0 77. 53. 12. 0.0 3.7 38. 26. 7. O. 0.1 8.9 117.1 '0.0 0.0
69 15 1.2 B 2 AA 25.0 19. 13. 3. 0.0 1.0 )10. 7. 2. 0. 0. 14. 111.9 0.0 0,0
70 16 2.0 A 4/0AA 250.0 191. 132. 31. 0.0 10.9 223. 155. 39. 0. 0.: 11.:115.0 0.3 0.3
B 250.0 191. 132. 31. 0.0 19,8 396. 275. 71. 0. 0.5 14.3111.7 0.8 1.1
C 250.0 191. 132. 31. 0.0 14.4 300. 208. 52. 0. 0.2 8.9 117.1 0.5 0.6
71 17 5.1 B 2 AA 150.0 115. 79. 18. 0.0 5.8 58. 40. 10. 0. 0.5 14.7111.3 0.2 0,1
C 37.5 29. 20. 5. 0.0 1.4 14. 10. 2. 0. 0.0 8.9 117.1 0.0 0.0
72 18 5.0 A 4/0AA 166.7 128. 88. 21, 0.0 3.1 64. 44. 11. O. 0.1 11.1 114.9 0.1 0.1
B 241.7 185. 128. 30, 0.0 4.6 93. 64, 17. 0. 0.3 14.6111.4 0.1 0.1
C 229.2 175. 121. 28. 0.0 4.2 88, 61. 15. 0. 0.2 9.1 116,9 0.1 0.1
63 9 5,7 9 2 AA 150.0 115. 79. 18. 0.0 5.7 58. 40. 10. 0. 0.5 12.6113.4 0.2 0.1

w
00
I-N

I.-b
 PRINTOUTB. 2 (2 of 3)

PROGRAMPHSVOL
JORLDBANKLOSS STUDY
FEEDER 1 NORTHWEST 1
VOLTAGE= 12.47 KULINE TO LINE
SECT END LUlH PHASE COND LOADIN SECTION-LOAD THRUSECTION- VOLTAGE120 BASE -- LOSSES --
NODE K FT CONF SIZE CONH KU KVAR AMPS CUST COND KU KVAR AMPS CUST SECT ACCULEVEL KU KVAR
KVA X DROP DROP
56 2 7,0 b 2 AA 275.0 210, 146. 34. 0.0 9.8 106. 73. 18. 0. 0.9 4.0 122.0 0.7 0.3
C 200.0 153. 106. 25. 0.0 21.5 233. 160. 39. 0. 1,9 3.9 122.1 3.4 1.5
57 3 5.9 C 2 AA 200.0 153. 106. 25. 0.0 7.1 77, 53. 13. 0. 0.6 4.5 121.5 0.3 0.1 c
58 4 5.7 A 2 AA 125,0 96. 66. 15. 0.0 4.4 48. 33. 8. 0. 0.3 2.5 123.5 0.1 0 I
B 100.0 77. 53. 12. 0.0 3.5 38. 27. 6. 0. 0.2 3.3 122.7 0.1 0.0
ENDOF FEEDER
TOTALLOSSESON PHASEA 71.5 128.9
PHASEB 99,8 180.5
PHASEC 69.6 119.9

I ITERATION(S)USING 0.50X AS CONVERGENCE

FACTOR

OQ'~

1to
Fa1
 PRINTOUTB.2 (3 of 3)

PROGRA
FIHSVOL
UORI-DBANKLOSSSTUDY
NORTHUESTI
FEEDER NUMBER 1
ANDCURRENT
KILOWAITPKILDVAR FLOW
DY
PHASESANDNEUTRAL
SECT KILOWATTS KILOVARS AtiPERES
NO. A 9 C A B C A B C N
55 1814.8 2271.1 1872.5 1335.2 1683.0 1367.5 303.2 383.1 311.5 76.2
59 1540.8 1765.8 1383.4 1120.0 1294.8 1003.7 267.2 311.1 236.3 61.4
60 134.2 201.9 105.4 93.0 140.1 73.0 23.0 35.1 17.7 15.1
61 38.3 63.9 38.3 26.5 44.2 26.5 66 1. . ,
62 1089.7 1244.4 1053.3 764.5 876.1 739.6 18969 2607 186.54 34.1
64 197.6 124.9 175.3 136.4 86.3 121.0 34.5 22.1 30.1 11.0
65 43.1 0.0 39.2 29.8 0.0 27.1 7.5 0.0 6.7 7.2
66 565.3 721.4 618.8 393.7 503.6 431.4 99.2 129.3 106.8 26.9
67 91.0 95.8 76.6 62.9 66.3 53.0 16.0 17.2 13.2 3.1
68 38,3 38,3 38.3 26.5 26.5 26.5 6.7 6.9 6.6 0.1
69 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.7
70 223.5 396.4 300,2 154.8 274.8 208.1 39.2 71.2 51.8 28.0
71 0.0 57.5 14.4 0.0 39,8 9.9 0.0 10.4 2.5 9.4
72 63.8 92.6 87.8 44.2 64 1 60.8 11.2 16.6 15.2 5.0
63 0.0 57.6 0.0 0,0 39.8 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 10,12
56 0.0 105.9 233.2 0.0 73.1 160,5 0.0 17.6 38.6 33.4
57 0.0 0.0 76.8 0.0 0.0 53.1 0.0 0.0 12.8 12.8
58 47.9 38.3 0.0 33.1 26.5 0.0 7.9 6.3 0.0 7.2

I%
to
0
W
 PRINTOUT B.3

PROGRAMFAULT
WORLDBANKLOSS STUDY
NORTHWEST1
FEEDER I
SUBSTATIONVOLTAGE 12.47KY LINETO LINE
SOURCEIMPEDANCES(OHMS)
RI = 0,400 XI = 0.600
RO = 0.000 XO = 0.000
…--CUMULATIVE-------------
NODE PREV MILES POSITIVESEQ. ZEROSEQ. PH-TO-OR PH-TO-PH 3-PH
SECT FROM R X R X MIN* MAX** (AMPS) (AMPS)
WIRE SUB (OH1S) (OHMS) (AMPS)
SOURCE 238. 14976. 8646. 9984.
1 336 AA 0.665 0.62 1.04 0.41 1.98 235. 4935. 5156. 5954.
5 336 AA 2.372 1.18 2.17 1.46 7.06 229. 1798. 2527. 2918.
6 4/0 AA 3.508 1.77 2.95 2.38 10.47 222. 1240. 1810. 2090.
7 2 AA 3.840 2.33 3.21 3,02 11.49 217. 1108. 1573. 1817.
8 4/0 AA 3.201 1.61 2.74 2.13 9.55 224. i354. 1960. 2264. 0
10 2 AA 4.105 3.12 3.43 3.89 12.33 212. 995. 1345. 1552. x
I1 2 AA 4.643 4.01 3.84 4.94 14.00 205. 855. 1123.
12 4/0AA 4.076 2.07 3.35 2,84 12i18 219* 1073. 1584, 1829.
13 2 AA 4.475 2.73 3,65 3.61 13.41 213. 955. 1366. 1577.
14 2 AA 4.830 3.32 3.93 4.31 14.50 209, 868, 1212, 1400.
15 2 AA 4.711 3.13 3.83 4,07 14.15 210, 895.
16 4/0AA 4.457 2.27 3.61 3.14 13.33 216. 984. 1461, 1688.
17 2 AA 5.431 3.89 4.35 5,04 16.35 204. 768. 1069.
18 4/0AA 5,404 2.76 4.27 3.91 16.17 211. 817. 1226, 1416.
9 2 AA 4,278 3.40 3.54 4.23 12.91 210. 946.
2 2 AA 1,987 2.82 2.03 2.99 6.08 218, 1622. 1794.
3 2 AA 3.105 4,68 2,86 5.17 9.58 204. 1024.
4 2 AA 1,739 2.41 1.85 2.50 5.31 221. 1862. 2056.

* INCLUDES30.0OHMSFAULTRESISTANCE
SSUMES0 OHMS FAULTRESISTANCE
A*

OQ 1-
m 3
0
I-H
 APPENDIX B
- 89 - Page 14 of 21

Basic Transformer Model

The basic transformer model was originated during the 1960's and 1970's
in the development of transformer load management systems for electrical
utilities. 1/

Figure B.5 is a simplified diagram of the basic model and Printout B.5
provides a summary of the Model. The electrical characteristics of the trans-
former (high and low side) are represented by a single impedance (resistance
R and reactance X). The load on the transformer and the no load losses (iron
losses) are imposed on the impedance to determine the load losses (copper
losses).

In addition, the model contains the parameters to determine *probable loss

of life* whenever loading exceeds predetermined levels under specific ambient
temperature levels.

The model has the capability to simulate single phase transformers, three
phase transformers, and banked transformers. No load and load losses as
well as "probable loss of life" can be determined for single phase, three
phase or mixed single/three phase loads.

Power Transformer Models

Power transformers are located in the distribution substations and trans-

fer power from the sub-transmission system (say 69,000 volts) to the dis-
tribution primary system (say 12,500 volts).

The standard power transformer may be represented by the basic transformer

model.

A power transformer may have "Tap Changing Under Load" (TCUL) capabilities
which enables the transformer to provide power to the primary system at voltage
levels commensurate with load levels. In general, TCUL transformers provide
power within the range of +10% of nominal voltage (say 12,500 volts + 1,250
volts). Representing a TCUL power transformer requires the special variation
of the basic model shown in Figure B.6.

Regulator Models

A station or line regulator is a voltage varying transformer which is inserted

into the primary system to control voltage levels. Regulators are auto trans-
formers with tap changing under load mechanisms in the general range of +10%.

1/ *Skim the Cream Off Distribution Costs*, electric Light & Power March,
1975, by W.G. Scott, Scott & Scott Consultants, Inc., St. Louis,
Missouri.
 APPENDIXB
-90 - Page 15 of 21
Figure B.5

BASIC TRANSFORMER MODEL

Core Losses Demand (1)

(kW) (kW kVAr)

C ID

XTOTAL

Resistance I

Model Ii I
Model j Reactance
o Single Phase
o Three Phase ,
o Bank of I
Transformers

Demand Losses (kW)

Energy Losses (kWH)
Probable Loss of Life (%)

(1) Demand may be:

Single phase
Three phase
Mixed single and three phase
 PRINTOUT B.5

TRANSFORHER 20 LOADDATA DATA

CALCULATED
TYPE --- D-- ---- PEAK LOADU -------- - -5.000 ------ LOADED-AT-PEAK------- ----
DESCRIPTION UDS PEAKLOADPF 90.000 X LOADEDBEFOREPEAK
RATEDKVA 5.000 CONTINUOUS EQUIVALENT (CONTINUOUSEQUIV.) 60.000
RATEDHI VOLTAGE(KVLL) 12.000 BEFOREPEAKLOAD(KVA) 3.000 CATEGORY(l) 50 I
CONT.EQV.LOADING
----- 480 ----
------
-LO-VOLTAGE--
---RATED DURATION -
OF--C0N.EQV.LOADING(HOURS) --PERCENTLOSS OF-LIFE- -- -----
NOLOADLOSSES(KU) 0.045 AMBIENTTENP.(DEG.C) 30
ZZ (ONOA BASE) 2.700 * TAPSOR STEPS 0
ZR (DNOA bASE) 2.300 VOLTAGEAFTERBOOSTING 100.000
--TAPS (X-------------- -0-o.oo -------- - --- ---- ------ --- ---- -PER-STEP-- - - 0.000
j.j.IgCREA8h/IAP 0.000 A'U~E'~ .0 -
(1 UK \I)
«HASES °*1 iu.
AuJusT[t i:.4U
PRINARYVOLTAGE(X) 100.000 ADJUSTED XX 1.414
ADJUSTED JES NICE
O8ItS 2.0
ADJUSTED8 REACTAN5.CE 135.164
KVALOAD 5.596
KW LOADLOSS 0.144
KVARLOADLOSS 0.0S9
,,. . . . . ..
, .. ., , .. , . , . . ......_.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...

IQ.t
00
fh
Ho
F%V
 APPENDIXB
- 92 - Pagel7 of 21

Figure B.5 is a simplifieddrawing of a voltage regulator. The source takes

power from the station and transmitsto the load at a fixed voltage level by
varying the taps.

For example,let us assume this is a 12,500 volt primary system and we set
the regulatorat 12,500 volts on the load side.

If the source voltage is 11,900 volts, the tap changer would go to the
boost level of 5% and the load side voltage would be 11,900 +-(.05 x 11,900
595) - 12,495 volts.

If the sourcevoltage is greater than 12,500 volts, the regulator taps would
go to a buck positionat the level necessary to provide 12,500 on the load
side.

The tranisformermodel with tap changingunder load facilitiesof Figure B.6

will be used for representingregulators.

Distribution Transformer Models

Distributiontransformersreceive power from the primarysystem at say

12,500 volts and transfersthat power to the secondarysystem at voltages in
the general range of 120 to 480 volts.

The basic transformermodel of Figure B.5 will be used to determinelosses

and loss of life for distributiontransformers.

SecondarySystem Models

Secondarysystems transportthe power from the distributiontransformerto

the consumer. These systemsvary from simple to complexas illustratedin
Figure B.8.

The most simple system consistsof a single servicedrop from the trans-
former to the consumer (Figure B.8 - (1)). Losses for such a system are
usually negligiblealthoughthey can be computedby the method described
herein.

The intermediatesystem shown in Figures B-8 - (2) is based upon installing

small transformersto serve a few consumers (say 2 to 20). The secondaries
are limited in length and losses and are not a major factor. This type of
system originatedin North America and will be found in parts of Latin
America and the Far East.

The compLex or Europeansystem (Figure B.8 - (2) is based upon a large

three phase distributiontransformerconnectedto an extensivethree phase
secondarynetwork. The number of consumers served from such a system will
vary fromi20 to several hundred dependingupon load density and location.
 - 93 - APPENDIX B
Figure B.6 Page 18 of 21
TRANSFORrIER MODEL
WITH
TAP CHANGING UNDER LOAD CAPABILITY

Core Losses Demand (1)

(kW) kW, kVAr

I .

TOTAL

Variable I
Resistance I
acde l ~I Ii I
Model
o Single Phase I
o Three Phase Variable
o Bank of Reactance
Transformers
I~~~~~~ I

Demand Losses (kW)

Energy Losses (kWH)
Probable Loss of Life ( )

(1) Demand may be:

Single phase
Three phase
Mixed single and three phase
 94 - APPENDIX B
Page 19 of 21

Figure B.7

REGULATOR DIAGRMI

Load
Side

Source Windinq Taps

Side Widig ap

,_9,

Tap Changer
+10%

Source Side Load Side

Is Delivered Constant Voltage Based
Isrupplied Voltage on Load Level At The Terminals, By
From Substation The Tap Changer
 APPENDIX B
_ 95 - Page 20 of 21

The complex system in a dynamic growth situation can become a major source
of losses. This is caused by existing consumers increasing their usage and
the indiscriminate addition of new consumers to already loaded systems.

Secondary systems are modeled for the computer using a variation of the
primary system models shown in Figure B.2. The distribution transformer
becomes the substation and the secondaries become the line sections.
 96 - APPENDIXB
Page 1 of 21

FigureB.8

SECONDARY SYSTEM MODELS

(1) Simple system --- transformer and secondary service drop.

Distribution *- ---- consumer

Transformer

Service drop

(2) Intermediate system --- limited secondary system, few

-(NorthAmerican) consumers per transformer.

D.T. , , D.T.

OPEN\
I a' '

Servrice drop Secondary

(3) Complex system --- Extensive three phase secondary system

(European) serving many consumers from one centrally
located transformer.
 APPENDIX C
- 97 - Page 1 of 27

APPENDIX C

CASE STUDY DETAILS

This section of the Appendix provides the details of the following four
scenarios which were investigated in this project:

Primary Conductor Loading

Power Factor Control

Distribution Transformers

Secondary Systems

For esLchof the above, this section contains investment costs, configura-
tion of facilities, losses (kW and kWH), annual costs and present worth of
annual,costs where applicable.

The most pertinent results of the case studies have been presented in Chapter
V and summarized in the Summary and Conclusions. The details of the studies
presented in this section of the Appendix may be used to develop further
results and/or used as a guide to expand the studies into parallel areas.

Primary Conductor Loading

The area served by the Padri feeder out of the Mano Chahal Substation in
the Bhikhiwind Subdividion of Punjab State, India was used in the primary
conductor loading studies. The loads served by this feeder as of mid-1978
were increased annually for 20 years in accordance with growth rates deter-
mined in a previous study (Rural Electrification Engineering Research Project).
 APPENDIX C
-98- Page 2 of 27

TABLE C.1

MODIFICATIONS TO PADRI FEEDER SYSTEM

Kilometers of Reconductoring or New Lines to Meet Varying

Conductor Loadings

Year 100% 75% 50% 25%

REC NEW REC NEW REC NEW REC NEW

1978 - - 1.92 -

1980 - - - - - - 1.00 4.45

1982 - - - - 1.72 - 0.90 -

1984 - - - - 0.80 - 0.10 -

1986 - - 1.72 - - 4.45 0.71 -

1988 - - 1.20 - 0.90 - - 6.40

1990 1.92 - - 4.45 0.10 - 0.91 9.10

1992 - - 0.90 - 0.71 - - -

1994 - 4.45 0.10 - - - 0.70 5.00

1996 1.00 - - - - 6.40 - -

1998 - - - - 0.81 - 2.10 5.40

TOTALS 2.92 4.45 3.92 4.45 5.04 10.95 8.34 30.35

 APPENDIX C
99 - Page 3 of 27

A digital model (see Appendix B) of the feeder was used to compute voltages,
loading, losses and fault currents. Printouts C.1 and C.2 are examples of the
type of analysis used in the study.

The system was modified and/or increased to meet four levels of maximum con-
ductor loading -- 100%, 75% 50% and 25%.

Table C.1 provides a tabulation of modifications and additions which were

required to hold conductor loadings at the various levels.

Table C.2 is a tabulation of the basic primary line costs used to calculate
the cost of improvements.

TABLE C.2

CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR 11 KV PRIMARY

3 Phase, 3 Conductor

Description Cost ($)/kM

New Lines by Conductor Size

13 MM2 $4,500

20 MM2 $5,400
2
25 M $6,450

30 MM2 $6,900

48 MM2 $9,300
Reconductor

To 30 MM2 $4,500

To 48 MM2 $6,600

The system changes shown in Table C.1 were priced out using the costs of
Table C.2 and the present worth of these costs for the 20 years were
derived using the economic models discussed in Appendix A. Table C.3
Provides a summary of the results.
 PRINTOUT C.1
PROGRA11
DALVOL
WORLDBANKLOSSSTUDY
FEEDER 6 PADRI-FEE1DER-6
VOLTAGE
=' 11.00KV-LINE TO LINE
SECT END LGTH PHIASECOND --- LOADIN SECTION …------LOAD THRIUSECTION--- VOLTAGE(PERCENT) LOSSES
- -

NODE 1(11R CONF SIZE COHN KU KVAR AMPS CUST COND KU I(VAR AIPS CUST SECI ACCULEVEL KU K(VAR
KVA Z DRO DROP
SUBSTATION
TOTALS 630. 472. 100.0
-486 450 0.40- ABC 481*1 00-- -0. 0- 0 .0 0.0- 21.0- -630, 472. 41. -0.-'' 0;-
OI 0.1 -99.9 0.9- 0.7
487 451 0.01 ABC 481111 100.0 63, 47, 4. 0.0 21.0 629. 471. 41. 0. 0.0 0.2 99.8 0.0 0.0
488 452 1.30 ABC 4011 0.0 0. 0. 0 00 1.9 566. 424. 37. 0. 0.4 0.6 99.4 2.4 1.9
489 453 0.01 ABC 48111 100.0 63. 47. 4. 0.0 18.9- 564. 422.- 37. 0. 0.0 0.6 99.4 0.0 0.0
-

490' 454 0 40 "ABC--48K1 -0.0 0;O0 0. 0.0 16a.81- SOt;-&-375. 33c 0; 0 i1t0.7 *.99#3--' O0.6'-0.5
491 455 0.60 ABC 13111 50.0 31. 23. 2. 0.40 3.0 31. 23, 2, 0. 0.0 0.7 99.3 0.0 0.0
492 456 0.20 ABC 48101 0,0 0. 0. 0. 0.0 15,7 469. 351, 31. 0. 0.1 0.8 99.2 0.3 0.2 -
-493 457 0.80 ABC 13101 50.0 31. 23. 2. 0.0 3.0 31, 23, 2. 0. 0.0 0.8 99.2 0.0 o0.
494 458 0. 40 - ABC-- 3011 '0;0- 0.- 0.-0.-. 19.5-- 438..28 29.- 0i, Oil-~~9,~. -0.4
495 459 0.80 ABC 13111 50.0 31, 23. 2. 0.0 3.0 31. 23, 2. 0. 0.0 0.9 99.1 0.0 0.0
496 460 0,10 ABC 30111 0.0 0. 0. 0. 0.0 18,1 406. 304. 27. 0. 0.0 0,9 99.1 0.1 0.1
497 461 0.01 ABC 30111 63.0 39. 30. 3. 0.0 18.1 406. 304. 27. 0. 0.0 0.9 99.1 0.0 0.0
498 462 0.10 'ABC --301111 0-0 -0--0-- -0O. -'. -16,4 366.4 274. -24, 0. -a; . 9.- . ,
499 463 0.01 ABC 30H1 100,0 63. 47. 4. 0.0 16.4 366. 274, 24. 0. 0,0 1.00 0.0 0.0
500 464 0,50 ABC 30HN9 0.0 0. 6. 0s 0.0 13.6 304. 227. 20. 0. 0,1 1.1 ;89.9 0.4 0.2
-501 465 0.70 ABC 13111 50.0 31. 23.- 2. 0.0 3.0 31. 23. 2. 0, 0.0 1.1 98.9 0,0._ol 0.0
02-466- 0.20-'ABC 30111 0.0 0. -0.Oo -00 1. 272. 18.
-04. 0.' 0-0 1- 98.9.0Ot 0.1
503 1003 1.20 ABC 13111 0.0 0, 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.0 1.1 90,9 0.0 0.0
510 474 0.40 ABC 30111 0.0 0. 0. 0. 0.0 12.2 272. 204. 18. 0, 0.1 1.2 98.8 0.3 0.1
511 475 0.50 ABC 13111 100.0 271. 203, 18. 0.0 25.8 272. 203. 18, 0. 0.2 1.4 98.6 0.8 0.2
END OFFEEDER.- . ......-.-.... .

TOTALLOSSESONFEEDER 6 6.7 4.5

oQ'

N4
 PRINTOUT C.2

FAULTCURRENTLEVELS

FEEDER 6
SUBSTATIONVOLTAGE 11.00KY LINE TO LINE
FAULT DUTY BUS IHPEDANCES(IOHS)
RI 0.476--X1t--- .734 - - ---- - ---- --
, - --.
RO t 0,358 XO - 0.476
------- --
CUMULATIVE -----
NODE VEY -P? Ok
IITIVE-BED. - EOSEG. I;T0 S - S V ------- . - -

MIRE SUB (OHMS) (OHNS) (AIPS)

BUS- - - 8127 ----- ---- 726----
450 48iH 0.076 0.65 0.88 0.59 1.14 360 5505 5037 5812
451 48HN 8.07a
0.66 0,88 0.60 1.16 360 5461 5032 5783
452 48NHM 0.324 1.23 1.35 1.36 3.32 346 2676 3034 3488
453 48MM -- 3.34 -- 345- 2665--- 3025
0.-326 -1.23 I--135---137 347- --- -- -
454 48NH 0.402 1.41 1.49 1.60 4.00 341 2305 2694 3097
455 13M$ 0.515 2.40 1.72 2.68 5.01 322 1689 1874 2154
456 48hH 0.439 1,49 1.56 1.72 4.33 339 2159 2554 2936
457 13MM 0.591--2.81 -1.87- 3.16- -5.68 315 1480 1637 -------
-1881---- -- -
-----
458 30HN 0.515 1.76 1.71 2.04 5.00 333 1888 2254 2591
459 13H0 0.667 3.07 2.01 3.48 6,35 310 1346 t503 1728
460 30KM 0.534 1,82 i.75 2.12 5.17 332 1831 2189 2516
461 30MH -- 0,536 -- 1.83 1.75 -2.13 -- 5.19 332 1825 2183 - -250--
462 30M1 0.555 1.89 1.79 2.21 5.36 330 1771 2122 2439
463 30MM 0.557 1.90 1.79 2.22 5.37 330 1766 2116 2432
464 30Mh 0.652 2.23 1.98 2.62 6,21 323 1539 1856 2134
465 13KH 0.794 3,38 2,24 3.88 7.39 -304 1195 - 1362-- 1566 - -
466 30h" 0.689 2,36 2.05 2.78 6.54 320 1464 1769 2033
1003 13HH 0.917 4.34 2.50 4.93 8.56 289 991 1104 1269
474 30hK 0.765 2.62 2.20 3.10 7.21 315 1333 1617 1858
475 13HH 0.860 3,44 2.39 4.00 - 9,05 301 1133 1319 1516

* INCLUDES 17.0 OHMS FAULT RESISTANCE

** ASSUMES0 OHhS FAULTRESISTANCE

OQ

CA
 - 102 - APPENDIX C
Page 6 of 27

TABLE C.3

PRESENT WORTH OF SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS

CONDUCTORLOADING STUDY

Present Worth
Description of Costs ($)

Conductor Limited to 100% $ 4,900

Conductor Limited to 75% $ 15,500
Conductor Limited to 50% $ 30,800
Conductor Limited to 25% $104,000

The loss at peak for the various maximum conductor loading levels are shown
in Table C.4 for selected years. These losses at peak (kW) for each year were
converted to peak, should and off-peak demands plus peak, shoulder and off-
peak energy losses. This was accomplished with a computer program which pro-
vided the data in the form of Printout C.3. The demand and energy losses were
then priced out and present worthed by one of the economic analysis models
described in Appendix A (see Printout C.4).

The results of the conductor loading study are summarized in Table C.5.
 TABLEC.4

DEMANDLOSS (kWl AT PEAK

FOR
VARIOtlS CONDUCTORLOADINGS
LOSS AT PEAK PADRI FEEDER AREA AND % OF LOAD

LOAD 100% 75% 50% 25%

YEAR kvW kw loss % kW loss % kW loss % kW loss _

1978 711 22 3.1 22 3.1 22 3.1 15 2.1

1980 858 32 3.7 32 3.7 32 3.7 12 1.4
1982 1033 48 4.6 48 4.6 35 3.4 17 1.6
1984 1231 69 5.6 69 5.6 46 3.7 24 1.9
1986 1478 101 6.8 73 4.9 37 2.,5 34 2.3
1988 1725 141 8.2 92 5.3 49 2.8 38 2.2
1990 2011 132 6.6 73 3.6 68 3.4 48 2.4
1992 2314 191 8.3 93 4.0 90 3.9 66 2.9
1994 2854 158 5.5 126 4.4 126 4.4 70 2.5
1996 3375 179 5.3 175 5.2 151 4.5 75 2.2
1998 3930 246 6.3 241 6.1 160 4.1 104 2.6

AVERAGES 5.8% 4.6% 3.6% 2. 2%

0 V

-4
 PKC SH O.P. PK 51H OeP.
LOSSFACTORSFOR YEAR 1 OF STUDY WINTER 0.62 0.40 0.33 SUMMER 0.50 0.32 0.26
HOURS 905. 1810. 1629. 920. 1840. 1656.
OIFFIRSTANNUALPEA"
PROPORTION 0.83 0.79 0.74 1.00 0.95 0.89

DEMANDLOSSES(KWd) 14.9 13.4 11.9 21,8 19.6 17.1

LOSSFACTORSFOR YEAR 2 OF STUDY WINTER 0,62 0.40 0,33 SUMhER 0.50 0632 0.26
HOURS 905. 1810. 1629. 920. 1840. 1656.
OF FIRSTANNUALPEK..0.
PROPORTION 0.84 0,7 ._1.06-1.01 0.94-
Nt ~~~~~~~~~103849.2
120W.1 7149.t 0? 10. .
DEMANDLOSSES(KW) 185 16.6 14.6 27:0 24.3 21,2

LOSSFACTORSFOR YEAR 3 OF STUDY MINTER 0.62 0.40 0.33 SUNMER 0.50 0,32 0.26
HOURS 905, 1810. 1629. 920. 1840. 1656.
Of FIRSTANAPAK..
PROPORTION 094 .8 0.3 - A2-107 1.00-
FACTORS
LOAD' 77.98 65.65 63.09 69.15 58.21 55.94
ENERGYLOSSES 12307.21.4291.29184.0 14624.016960.010912.0
DEMANDLOSSES(KW) 21.9 19.7 17.3 32.0 28.8 25.2

LOSSFACTORSFOR YEAR 4 OF STUDY MINTER 0.62 0.40 0.33 SUMMHER 0.50 0.32 0.26
HOUiRS 905. 1810. 162?, 920. 1840. 1656.
OF FIRST-ANNUAL-PEAK
PROPORTION .9 094 08V11 1.13 _ 1.06-
LOADFACTORS 77.98 65.65 63.09 69.15 58.21 55.94
ENERGYLOSSES 15304.010864.011480.0 18280.021200.013640.0
DEMANDLOSSES(KU) 27.4 24.6 21.6 40.0 36.0 31.4

LOSSFACTORSFOR YEAR 5 OF STUDY MINTER 0.62 0.40 0.33 SUMMER 0.50 0.32 0.26
HiOURS 905. 1010, 1629. 920. 1840. 1656.
eROPORTIONOF FIR5TANNUALPEAK_- 1,03 1.00 0.94 -- 1,26 1.20 .. 1.12
LOADFACTORS 77.98 65.65 63.09 69.15 58.21 55.94
ENERGYLOSSES 18268.521213.513632.5 21707.525175.016197,5
DEHANDLOSSES(KU) 32.6 29,3 25.7 47.5 42.8 37.3

LOSSFACTORSFOR YEAR 6 OF STUDY MINTER 0.62 0,40 0.33 SUMMER 0650 0.32 0.26
HOtURS 905. 1gl0. 162?. 920, 1840. 1656.
PROPORTION PEAK._-
OF FIRST_ANNUAL 1.12._ __099 __---
-i, _ .- _ Ia34_- 1.27 _-1.19.
LOADFACTORS 77 98 65.65 163.09 69.15 50.21 55.94
ENERGYLOS ES 2192M. 25456.21659.0 26049.030210.019437.0
DEMANDLOSSES(KU) 39.1 35.1 30.8 57.0 51.3 44.8

LOSSFACTORSFOR YEAR 7 OF STUDY MINTER 0.62 0.40 0.33 SUMMER 0.50 0.32 0.26
hiOURS 905. 1010. 1629. 920. 1840. 1656.
A2
PROPORTIONOF FIRST ANNUAL-PEAK..
LOADFACTORS
ENERGYLOSSES
.1 '" 03
7):9'861:619 '61.09
--
26422.030681.419716.9
- - - - A: fs :
'319 1AI
2 5 .24
31395.936411.023426.7 0
DEMANDLOSSES(KU) 47.1 42.3 37,1 68.7 61.8B 54.0 0V
N'

PRINTOUT C.3
 PRINTOUT C.4

SEASONI EMC = 0.050 0.034 0.034

SEASON2 EMC' 0.050 0.034 0.034
SEASOtlI KHC " 125.00
SEASON2 KGC 125.00
R = 0.12
NYR = 20
ENERGYLOSSESBY PRICINGPERIOD KILOWATTLOSSES
VALUEOF VALUEOF DISCOUNTED
OFF PEAK SHOULUER PEAK ENERGYLOSS KU LOSS KU LOSS TOTAL
YEAR I SEASONI 83843 9735.9 6256.6 963,0 149 1868.0
YEAR SEASON2 9962.6 1t554.0 7433.8 1143.7 21.3 2725.0 6699.7 6699.7
YEAR 2 SEASON1 10384.2 12058.2 7749.0 1192.7 18.5 4181*6
YEAR -2 SEASON 2 _4.. 12339.0.- 4310.0__ 201.0- .1il6.527.0 .-. 6100.0- 11509.6 . - 18209.2
YEAR 3 SEASON1 12307.2 14291.2 9184.0 1413.5 21.9 6923.6
YEAR 3 SEASON4. 14624.0 16960.0 10912,0 1678.8 32.0 10100.0 16036.3 34245.5
YEAR 4 SEASONt 15384,0 1706460 11480.0 1766.9 27,4 10351.1
YEAR 4 SEASON 2 12820.0
8.. 2120_.0. 1364Q.Q _2098.6 .- 40.0 _. _15100.0 20866.9 ' 55112.4
YEAR 5 SEASON1 18268.5 21213*5 13632.5 2098.2 32.6 14421.2
YEAR 5 SEASON2 21707.5 25175.0 16197.5 2492.0 47.5 21037.5 25451.8 80564.3
YEAR 6 SEASON1 21922.2 25456.2 16359,0 2517,8 39.1 19305.4
IEAR 6 SEASON 2 26049.0.. 30210.0-. -.19437.0 ... . 2990.4 - 57.0 . 28162.5
..- l0060.1
.3.. 110624.4
--
YEAR 7 SEASON1 26422.0 30681.4 19716.9 3034.6 47.1 25192.1
YEAR 7 SEASON2 31395.9 36411.0 23426,7 3604.3 68.7 36750.0 34745.3 145369.7
YEAR 8 SEASON1 32306.4 3751414 24108.0 3710.5 57,6 32389,9
YEAR 8 SEASON 2 .38388,0 -- 44520.0 - .- 28644, -.. 4407.0 84.0 --
. 47250.0 - - 39697.0 185066,6
YEAR 9 SEASON1 38044.6 45106.6 28987.0 4461,4 69.2 41044.3
YEAR 9 SEASON2 46157.0 53530.0 34441.0 5298.9 101.0 59875.0 44701.6 229768.3
YEAR 10 SEASON1 46152.0 53592.0 34440.0 5300.7 82.3 51326,8 o
YEAR 10 SEASON-2 54840.0 2
63600Q.Q...4092Q.0 . 6295.7 ... . ... 496912. 279459.1
YEARIt SEASOUI 54228.6 62970.A 40467.0 6220.3 96.7 63408,
YEAR1I SEASO 2 6443 70 74730.8 480018 73974 141,0 g280088 54585.6 334045.2
YEAR12 SEASONI 64997.4 75475.4 48503.0 7465.1 115,8 77889.9
YEAR 12 SEASON 2 . 77233,0 - 89570.0. 57629.0 8866.4 169.0 . 113625.0 59750.9 393796.1
YEAR13 SEASON1 50882.6 59085.2 37970.1 5844.0 90.7 89226.4
YEAR 13 SEASON2 60461.1 70119.0 45114.3 6941.0 132.3 130162.5 59593.3 453389.4
YEAR14 SEASON1 61536.0 71456.0 45920.0 7067.6 109,7 102936.4
YEAR14 SEASON2 73120,0. .4000,0 _ 54560.0 8394.2 160.0 .150162.5 61547.2 514936.6
YEAR1t SEASON1 73343.2 85166.6 54730.9 8423.7 130.7 119277,0
YEAR15 SEASON2 87149,9 101071.0 65028.7 10004.9 190,7 174000.0 63781.1 578717.7
YEAR 16 SEASON 1 76920.0 89320.0 57400.0 8834.5 t37.1 136414,5
YEAR 16 SEASON2. 91400.0 .. 106000Q.0 -48200.0 10492.8 200.0. 199000,0.0 64810.0 643527.7
YEAR17 SEASON1 49767.2 57790.0 37137.8 5715,9 88,7 147502M5
YEAR17 SEASON2 59135.8 68582.0 44125,4 6788.0 129.4 215175.0 61200.3 704728.1
YEAR 18 SEASON1 57690.0 66990.0 43050.0 6625.9 102.8 160355,6
YEAR 18 SEASON 2 68550.0 79500.0 51150.0 7869.6 150.0 233925,0 59535.9 . 764264.0
YEARt9 SEASON1 68728.0 79807.4 5128M.9 7893,6 122*5 175668t0
YEAR 19 SEASON2 81665,9 94711.0 60936.7 9375.3 178.7 256262.5 58413.7 822677.7
YEAR 20 SEASON1 94534.7 109774.3 70544,6 10857.6 168.5 196729.9
YEAR 20 SEASON 2 112330.6i 130274.0 - 83817.8 . 12895.6 245.8 286987.5 58920.8 801598.5
TOTALLOSS
DISCOUNTED 881598.500
i, .

o3
 APPENDIXC
Page 10 of 27
- 106 -

TABLE C.5

VALUE OF LOSS SAVINGS

BY
REDUCINGMAXIMUMCONDUCTORLOADING
(NO POWERFACTOR CORRECTION)

Maximum Investment ($xlOOO) Cost of Losses ($xlOOO

Conductor Incre- Benefitto
Loading (%) Total Incremental1/ Total mental 1/ Cost Ratio 2/

Losses Priced at $250/kWand $0.03 kWH

100% $ 4.9 $ - $ 881.6 $ -

75% 15.5 10.6 717.3 164.3 15.5

50% 30.8 15.3 554.0 163.3 10.7

25% 104.0 73.2 332.9 221.1 3.0

Losses Priced at $130 kW and $0.01/kWH

100% $ 4.9 $ - 445.4 $ -

75% 15.5 10.6 362.6 82.8 7.8

50% 30.8 15.3 280.0 82.6 5.4

25% 104.0 73.2 168.2 111.8 1.5

1/ Incrementalwith respect to next higher level of maximum conductor

loading.

2/ Dollars saved for each dollar of investment

(Savingsdividedby IncrementalInvestment)
 - 107 - APPENDIX C
Page 11 of 27

Power Factor Control

Capacitors were used to control power factor to 95% by adding them to the
conducitorstudy cases.

The locations for the capacitors on the feeders were determined with the aid
of the capacitor placement program described in Appendix B (see Printout B.7).
The cost for installing the capacitors are detailed in Table C.6.

TABLE C.6

CAPACITOR BANK COSTS

(INSTALLED)

Size Cost ($)

150 kVAR 3 Phase Bank $1,500

300 kVAR 3 Phase Bank $2,700
450 kVAR 3 Phase Bank $3,000
600 kVAR 3 Phase Bank $3,300
Switches and Controls for Switched Banks $ 900

Losses, the costs of losses, and investments were determined in a similar

manner to the method used for the conductor loading study. The study indicates
that the correction of the power factor from about 80% to approximately 95%
will prcovidea one third reduction in losses.

Correction of the power factor to approximately 95% will require the instal-
lation of capacitors as shown in Table C.7.
 APPENDIX C
Page 12 of 27
- 108 -

TABLE C.7

CAPACITOR INSTALLATIONS

REACTIVE CAPACITORS CAPACITOR

LOAD IN SERVICES NET INSTALLATIONS
Year kVAR (-kVAR) kVAR Number Size

1978 540 0 540 3 150

1980 661 -450 111 -
1982 796 -450 346 2 150
1984 967 -750 217 1 150
1986 1174 -900 274 1 150
1988 1378 -1050 328 2 150
1990 1628 -1350 278 1 150
1992 1925 -1500 425 2 150
1994 2260 -1800 460 3 150
1996 2636 -2250 386 2 150
1998 3125 -2550 575 3 150

The 21 banks of capacitors requires an investment of $31,500. It has been

conservatively assumed that 50% of the banks will require switching to avoid
excessive leading power factor during off-peak conditions which requires
an additional $9,000 of investment. The present worth of the investments and
the residual value of banks at the end of 20 years is $19,700. This amount
was derived with the aid of the economic models described in Appendix A.

The results of the study are summarized in Table C.8 and shown graphically
in Figure C.2 of Chapter V.
 APPENDIX C
- 109 - Page 13 of 27

TABLE C.8

VALUE OF LOSS SAVINGS BY CORRECTING POWER FACTOR TO 95% AT

VARIOUS MAXIMUMCONDUCTORLOADING

P.W. of
Maximum Capacitor P.W. Cost of Losses ($xlOOO) *
Conductor Annual Benefit
Loading Costs No With to
(%) ($xlOOO) Capacitor Capacitor Savings Cost Ratio

Losses Priced at $250/kW/yr. and $0.034 kWH

100% $ 19.7 $ 881.6 $ 587.2 $ 294.4 14.9

75% 19.7 717.3 477.7 239.6 12.2

50% 19.7 554.0 369.0 185.0 9.4

25% 19.7 332.9 221.7 111.2 5.6

Losses Priced at $130 kW/yr. and $0.01/kWH

100% $ 19.7 $ 445.4 $ 296.7 $ 148.7 7.5

75% 19.7 362.6 241.5 121.1 6.1

50% 19.7 279.8 186.4 93.1 4.7

25% 19.7 168.2 112.0 56.2 2.9

* Dollars saved per dollar invested

(Savings divided by Investment)
 APPENDIX C
- 110 - Page 14 of 27

Distribution Transformers

Distribution transformers are available in many sizes, phasing, voltages,

styles and electrical/mechanical characteristics. Some of the variations
include:

Single phase or three phase

Pole mount, pad mount, vault mount

With taps and without taps

No protection

Self protected (Primary Fuse)

Completely Self protected (Fuse plus secondary breakers)

* Dual Primary winding

A group of single phase, pole mounted transformers with the following

characteristics were selected for testing the methodology.

TABLE C.9

TRANSFORMER CHARACTERISTICS

(12.47/7.2 kV PRIMARY)

No Load Total
kVA Loss Loss Price Annual
Rated % R %Z (kW) (kW) $ Cost*

5 2.3 2.7 0.045 0.162 $ 400 $ 57

10 1.9 2.1 0.068 0.26 470 68

25 1.5 1.9 0.13 0.51 680 98

50 1.3 2.3 0.225 0.89 1040 150

100 1.2 2.2 0.4 1.55 1760 253

250 1.0 5.0 0.925 3.7 4125 593

* Annual costs based on 20 years life, capital recovery at 12% plus 1% O&M.

The transformer loading and analysis model described in Appendix B was used to
impose loadings from 50% to 250% on the transformers. Table C.10 is a summary
of the losses for the transformers being studied at various load levels.
 APPENDIX C
- 111 - Page 15 of 27

TABLE C.10

DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMER

NO LOAD (IRON AND LOAD (COPPER) LOSSES

VERSUS

VARIOUS LOAD LEVELS

Transformer No Load Load Losses (kW) at Various Load Levels

Size Loss
(kVA) (kW) 50% 100% 150% 100% 250%

5 0.045 0.037 0.144 0.323 0.572 0.893

10 0.070 0.060 0.237 0.532 0.944 1.473

25 0.130 0.118 0.467 1.048 1.860 2.903

50 0.225 0.204 0.808 1.814 3.222 5.030

100 0.400 0.375 1.491 3.348 5.945 9.283

250 0.925 0.781 3.105 6.972 12.383 19.336

The load losses are also shown graphically in Figure C.1 (Two Pages).
These graphs do show the major differences in load losses between various
sizes. Table C.11 is a comparison of losses for a 10 kW demand.
 Figure C.1 (1 of 2)

3. a

SINGLE PHASE DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMER LOAD

LOSSES FOR VARIOUS DEKANDS

2.0

U) .F
cn
(0
i-
0

kVA /2
1.0 F1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
O kVA

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

0 10 20 30 40

l)emand (kW)
 12.0
Figure C,1 (2 of 2)

10.0 SINGLE PHASE DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS

LOADLOSSES FOR VAIOUS DiMNDS

8.0

En 6020 kVA I-

01 /100 kVA

4.0

2.0
0~5
2-0 kV/,,t1

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

0 100 200 300 400 -

Demand (kW)
 APPENDIX C
- 114 - Page 18 of 27

TABLE C.11

TRANSFORMER LOSSES FOR A 10 kW DEMAND

SIZE LOSSES (kW) %

(kVA) No Load Load Total Difference

5 kVA 0.045 0.572 0.617 100%

10 kVA 0.068 0.237 0.305 49%
25 kVA 0.130 0.080 0.210 34%

The energy losses are derived from the following equations on the assumption
that the Annual Loss Factor is 30%.

Energy Loss = kW No Load x 8760 hours + kW Load Loss x 8760 hours x .30

The energy loss for the 5 kVA transformer of Table C.9 would be

Energy Loss = (0.045 x 8760) + (0.572 x 8760 x .3) - 394 + 1503 - 1897 kWH

The losses for the 10 and 25 kVA transformers were derived in a similar
manner and shown in Table C.12.
 - 115 - APPENDIX C
Page 19 of 27

TABLE C.12

DEMANDAND ENERGYLOSSES FOR VARIOUS TRANSFORMERS

SERVING

10 KW DEMAND WITH A 30% ANNUAL LOSS FACTOR

ENERGY LOSSES
SIZE DEMAND NO LOAD LOAD TOTAL
(kVA) (kW) (kWH) (kWH) (kWH)

5 kVA 0.617 394 1503 1897

10 kVA 0.305 596 623 1219

25 kVA 0.210 1139 210 1349

For a demand charge of $250/kW/year and an energy change of $0.034/kWH,

the cost:of losses for the 5 kVA transformer will be

- (0.617 x $250) + (1897 x $0.034)

Annual Cost of Losses - $154 + $65

- $219

The above procedure was used to derive the costs of Table C.13.
 - 116 - APPENDIX C
Page 20 of 27

TABLE C.13

ANNUALCOSTS FOR VARIOUS TRANSFORMERS

SERVING

A 10 kW DEMAND WITH A 30% ANNUAL LOSS FACTOR

Cost of Losses Investment Total Difference

Size Demand Energy Total Charges Annual In
(LkVA) ($) ($) ($) ($) Cost ($) Percent

5 $154 $ 65 $219 $ 57 $276 100.0

10 76 41 127 68 195 70.6

25 53 46 99 98 197 71.4

The 5 kVA has the thermal capability to serve a 10 kW load under average
loading conditions and many utilities are electing to do so. However, at
the assumed level of costs for losses, a 10 kVA transformer can serve the
10 kW load at 70% of the annual costs of the 5 kVA transformer and a 25 kVA
is certainly a feasible selection if growth is expected.

The above process was used to derive the data in Table C.5 and the graphs of
Figures C.4 and C.5.

The results have been based on a small segment of the many variables
associated with distribution transformers. They are not conclusive but
they certainly point out the need to explore further.
 APPENDIX C
- 117 - Page 21 of 27

Secondary Systems

There are two basic types of secondary systems used by utilities:

centralized (originated in Europe) which is based upon large

centrally located distribution transformers and extensive
secondary systems serving anywhere from 10 to 200 consumers.

Decentralized (originated in North America) which is based

upon small transformers installed at or near the load centers
with abbreviated or no secondary systems. Each transformer
serves from 1 to 15 consumers depending upon load density.

The maLjordifferences between the two concepts are: the centralized systems
transport power to the consumer over low voltage (240/416 volts) secondary
lines whereas, the Decentralized system transports the power directly to the
consumer or central load centers at high voltage (11,000 volts).

A Decentralized system generally requires more investment due to the greater

length of primary lines and the use of many small transformers. If losses are
ignored, and load densities properly accounted for, the centralized System
with its higher secondary voltage appears to be the best choice. However,
losses have become too valuable to ignore and their cost is rapidly offsetting
the economics of scale of the centralized system.

Sixty (60) centralized secondary systems in the Bhikhiwind areas of Punjab

State, India were studied in this phase of the project.

Each of these systems consisted of a single large transformer and an

extensive secondary system serving an entire village.

A computer model was developed for each of the centralized systems and
the systems were analyzed as to voltage, loading and losses.

Decentralized systems were then developed to serve the 60 villages. Each

of these Decentralized systems displaced the single distribution transformer
and its extensive secondaries with 11 kV primary lines, small transformers
located at the load centers and short runs of secondary lines.

One of the 60 centralized system is shown in Figure C-2 a decentralized

system to serve. Those same loads are shown in Figure C-3. The character-
istics of the two systems are summarized in Table C-14. The decentralized
system required more investment but the losses are 83.7% less than the
centrallzed system.
 Figure C. 2

n DISTIRBUTIONTRANSFORMER

( LOADS(KVA)
CONSUMER
SECONDARYSYSTEM (240/416 VOLTS)

PRIMARYSYSTEM (II KV)

'A0

'a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

~- C-)
 FtigureC.3

SMALL DISTIRBUTIONTRANSFORMERS(KVA)

G) CONSUMERLOADS(KVA) 3

SECONDARYSYSTEM(240/416 VOLTS)

PRIPARY SYSTEM(11 KV) \ @

. ' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.~~~~~~~~~

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.
. \\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

__
 APPENDIX C
- 120 - Page 24 of 27

TABLE C.14

CENTRALIZED VERSUS DECENTRALIZED

SECONDARY SYSTEMS

Item Centralized DeCentralized

Transformer Capacity 100 kVA 80 kVA

11 kV Lines - 1.29 kM
Secondary Lines 2.53 kM 1.48 kM
Investment $15,795 $17,169
Demand 44.5 kW 44.5 kW
Loss at Peak 4.3 kW 0.7 kW
Loss Reduction - 83.7%

The basic costs used in study consist of the primary costs detailed
in Table C.2, the installed transformer costs of Table C.15 and the
secondary costs of Table C.16.
 APPENDIX C
- 121 - Page 25 of 27

TABLE C.15

INSTALLED COSTS IN INDIA FOR

THREE PHASE DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS

(INCLUDES POLES AND PLATFORMS)

Costs (1980 US$)

Transformer Size (kVA) Labor Materials Other Total

Three Phase Transformers Mounted on Two Pole Structures

(Cost of Structure is Included)

15 kVA $ 85 $ 725 $ 65 $ 875

25 kVA 85 810 65 960
50 kVA 85 1,015 80 1,180
63 kVA 85 1,435 80 1,600
75 kVA 95 1,635 85 1,815
100 kVA 95 1,740 85 1,920
200 kVA 95 2,960 125 3,180
300 kVA 95 3,705 145 3,945
 APPENDIX C
- 122 - Page 26 of 27

TABLE C.16

Low Tension (LT) Line Costs in India-/

(US$/Kilometer)

US$/kM
Items Labor Materials Other Total

Three Phase LT Lines

Three One
Phase Wires Neutral Wire

13 MM2 13 MM2 $ 810 $3,855 $ 225 $4,890

20 MM2 13 MN2 810 4,815 240 5,865

25 Mz2 13 MM2 810 5,445 255 6,510

30 Mz2 13 MM2 810 6,135 285 7,230

48 MM2 20 MM2 1,020 8,595 345 9,960

Table C.17 provides a summary of the results of Decentralzing the 60 systems.

The study indicates that Decentralizing requires additional investment
($49,938) which results in an additional annual carrying charge of $6,697.
However, the Decentralized system saves from $31,392 to $75,971 in losses
for benefit to cost ratio of between 4.7 to 1 and 11.3 to 1.

1/ Prices supplied by the Rural Electrification Corporation (REC) of India.

 APPENDIXC
- 123 - Page 27 of 27

TABLE C.17

60 CENTRALIZEDSECONDARY
SYSTEMS

VERSUS

SECONDARY
60 DECENTRALIZED SYSTEMS
Difference
DeCentralized
Minus
Item Centralized Decentralized Centralized

Transformer Statistics

Quantity 60 172 112

Total Capacity kVA 4575 3695 (880)
Average Size kVA 76 22 (54)
Investmient $94,550 $159,635 $65,085
Total Demand kW 2445 2187 (258)
Average Demand kW 41 13 (28)
% Loaded % 54 59 9
No Load Loss (Iron) kW 2.o 2.2 0.2
Peak Load Loss
(Copper) kW 14.8 34.4 19.6
Energy Losses mWU 56.4 109.7 53.3
Pr imas ' ines
Total Length kM $47.2 47.2
Investment - $212,400 $212,400
Secondary System

Total Length kM 128.7 89.6 (4.0)

Average per
Transformer kM 2.1 0.5 (1,6)
Investment $726,705 $499,158 ($227,547)
Demand kW 2161 2161
Peak Loss kW 284 26 (258)
Percent Demand
Loss % 13.1% 1.2% (11.9)
Energy Loss MWE 746.4 68.3 (678.1)

Total Investment $821,255 $871,193 $ 49,938

Annual Costs
Investment plus O&M $110,130 $116,827 $ 6,697
Cost of Losses at:
$130/kW, $0.01/kWH $48,256 $10,167 ($38,089)
$250/kW, $0.034/kWH $104,904 $22,236 ($82,668)

Total Annual Costs

Lower Cost of Losses $158,386 $126,994 ($31,392)

Higher. Cost of Losses $215,034 $139,063 ($75,971)
 APPENDIX D
Page 1 of 19
- 124 -

APPENDIX D

BASIC LOADING AND LOSS PARAMETERS

The accuracyand usefulnessof loss studies is directlydependentupon the

quality of the parametersderivedfrom basic loadingdata such as hourly
loads over a specifiedtime period. This sectionprovidesthe basic
definitionsand equationsto derive the followingloading/lossparameters:

Peak Demand

Loading EquivalentHours

Average Demand

Load Factor

Load Duration

Loss Equivalent Hours

* Loss Factor

Table D.1 and Figure D.1 show the hourly loads for a selectedpeak day where
the PeaLkDemand occurredduring the hour from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m.

EquivalentHours equals the number of hours of peak demand which requires

the samiequantityof energy as requiredby the actual demandsover the
specifiedtime period.

EquivalentHours - Total Energy (kWH)

Peak Demand (kW)

For the exampleday:

EquivalentHours - 371 kWH - 12.37 Hours

30 kW
 - 125 - APPENDIX D
Page 2 of 19

TABLE D.1

AVERAGE HOURLY LOADS (KILOWATTS)

PEAK DAY

MORNING AFTERNOON/EVENING

HOUR HOUR
DEMAND DEMAND
FROM TO KILOWATTS FROM TO KILOWATTS

12 AM 1 AM 10 12 PM 1 PM 13
1 AM 2 AM 8 1 PM 2 PM 15
2 AM 3 AM 6 2 PM 3 PM 16
3 AM 4 AM 7 3 PM 4 PM 19

4 AM 5 AM 8 4 PM 5 PM 21
5 AM 6 AM 9 5 PM 6 PM 24
6 AM 7 M 10 6 PM 7 PM 27
7 AM 8 AM 12 7 PM 8 PM 30

8 AM 9 AM 15 8 PM 9 PM 28
9 AM 10 AM 14 9 PM 10 PM 23
10 AM 11 AM 13 10 PM 11 PM 19
11 AM 12 PM 11 11 PM 12 AM 13

TOTAL (KILOWATT HOURS) - 371

3 n
30 ~~~~~~~~~~~~Figure
D.1 APKr
/ PEAK_
AVERAGEHOURLYLOADS

PEAK DAYS
25 - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LOSSES

20

AVERAGE LOAD (51.5% of PEAK) _X

15 -
15.45 kW Z 7

10

MID 2 4 6 8 10 NOON 2 4 6 8 10 MII)

NIGlIT A. M. A. M. NIGII'
IHOURS OF DAY
 APPENDIXD
- 127 - Page 4 of 19

AverageDemand is a constantdemand over the specifiedtime period which

requiresthe same energy as requiredby the actual load over the specified
time period.

Average Demand = Total Energy (kWH)

Total Hours

For the exampleday:

Average Demand = 371 kWH - 15.46 kW

24 Hours

Load Factor (generallyexpressedin percentage)is the ratio of Average

Demand to Peak Demand over a specifiedtime period. Load Factor is also the
ratio of actual energy to the energy requiredif the Peak Demand is on 100%
of the time.

Load Factor may be determinedfrom the followingrelationships:

(1) Average Demand and Peak Demand

Load Factor (%) = AverageDemand (kW) x 100

Peak Demand (KW)

(2) Actual Energy and Energy if Peak is on 100% of the time

Load Factor (%) = Actual Energy (kWH) x 100

Peak Demand (kW) x Total Hours

For the exampleday:

(1) Load Factor 15.46 kW x 100 - 51.5%

30.00 kW

(2) Load Factor = 371 kWH x 100 - 51.5%

30 kW x 24 HR
 APPENDIX D
--128 - Page 5 of 19

Load Duration is the relationship of demands and the duration of the demands
over a specified time period. In Table D.2, the hourly demands have been
sorted in descending order and the following computed:

Frequency - Number of hours of occurrence for each demand

Equal/Exceed = Summation of Frequencies

Percent of Peak Demand (kW) x 100

Peak (kW)

Percent Duration Equal/Exceed x 100

Specified Time

Square of Demands (Demand) x Frequency

The Load Duration parameters for the example have been plotted in Figure D.2
(Percent of Peak Versus Percent Duration).

Losses are a function of the squares of the load current (amps) which is
direcitlyrelated to the squares of the demands. The squares of the demands
for the example day are shown in Table D.2 and graphed in Figure D.3.

Loss E3quivalentHours are the number of hours of peak load which will produce
the same total losses as is produced by the actual loads over a specified
time period.

Loss Equivalent Hours - (Hourly Demand)2

(Peak demand)2

For the example day:

Loss Equivalent Hours 6849 kW HR 7.61 Hours
900 kwh2
 APPENDIX D
Page 6 of 19
- 129-

TABLE D.2

LOAD DURATIONAND LOSS TABLE

PEAK DAY

DEMAND EQUAL/ PERCENT OF PERCENT SQUARES

KILOWATTS FREQUENCY EXCEED PEAK DURATION OF DEMAND

30 1 1 100.0% 4.2% 900

28 1 2 93.3 8.3 784
27 1 3 90.0 12.5 729
24 1 4 80.0 16.7 576
23 1 5 76.6 20.8 529

21 1 6 70.0 25.0 441

19 2 8 63.3 33.3 722
16 1 9 53.3 37.5 256
15 2 11 50.0 45.8 450
14 1 12 46.7 50.0 196

13 3 15 43.3 62.5 507

12 1 16 40.0 66.7 144
11 1 17 36.7 70.8 121
10 2 19 33.3 79.2 200
9 1 20 30.0 83.3 81

8 2 22 26.7 91.7 128

7 1 23 23.3 95.8 49
6 1 24 20.0 100.0 36

6849
100 2

90 -

80 -
LOADDURATIONGRAPH

PEAKDAY
70 -

60 -

50

40

30
0

20 -

10 -

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

PERCENT OF TIME
 Figure D. 3
900

800 -

SQUARES OF HOURLY DEMANDS

700- PEAK DAY

600-

A500-

400-

300- AVERAGE (31.7% of PEAK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - …- - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - -
285 kW 2

200r

100

2 4 6 8 10 NOON 2 4 6 8 10
 APPENDIXD
- 132 - Page 9 of 19

Loss Factor is the percentageof time requiredby the peak load to produce
the same losses as producedby the actual loads over a specifiedtime
period. Loss Factor may be computedfrom the followingrelationships:

(1) Squaresof Average Demand and Peak Demand

Loss Factor (X)- Average Demand (kW) x 100

Peak Demand (kW)2

(2) Squaresof all Actual Demands

and

Squaresof Peak Demand on 100% of the time

2
Loss Factor (%) - (HourlyDemand) x 100
(Peak Demand) x Hours

For the exampleday:

2
(1) Loss Factor = (15.46 kW) x 100 = 31.7%
(30 kW)2

(2) Loss Factor - 6849 kW HR x 100 - 31.7%

(30 kW) x 24 HR

Energy .md Demand Losses

It is importantto analyze not only kWh or energy losses but also kW or

power lossesduring peak periods.

An examinationof the loading for the ExampleDay will provide some basics
about the relationshipbetween energy and demand losses. In the developing
countries,technicalenergy losses of 15% are common so we will assume that
15% of the energy is lost enroute to delivery:

Energy Loss - .15 x 371 - 55.7 kWH

Energy losses representfuel which must be importedby most of the develop-

ing countriesand/or it representsenergywhich could be used by the country
for further development.
 APPENDIXD
- 133 - Page 10 of 19

This energy loss may be divided among the 24 hourly loads in proportionto
the squaresof the demands (6th column of Table D.2). The peak hour would
become responsiblefor:

Peak Hour Loss - (900/6849)x 55.7 - 7.3 kW

The losses associatedwith the other hours have been calculatedin a

similarmanner and posted to Figure D.1.

At peak, the demand loss is 7.3 kW or

Peak Demand Loss (%) (7.3/30)x 100 - 24.3%

Almost 25% of the system's capacity (generation, transmission, and distribu-

tion) is requiredto supply the demand loss at peak. For each percentof
energy loss, this example loading pattern has 1.62% of peak demand loss.

The Loss Factor is always less than or 'equalto the Load Factor because
losses are proportionalto the square of the loads. In the Example,the
Load Factor is 51.5% and the Loss Factor is 31.7%.

The load factor may be calculated from energy requirements(kWH) over a

specified time and the peak load (kW).

Load Factor (%) - Energy (kWH) x 100

(Peak KW x Hours

If hourly loads are known, the loss factor may be calculated as follows:

Loss Factor (%) - (HourlyLoads (kW) x 100

2
(Peak kW) x HRS

However, hourly loads are rarely available so one must depend upon the
probable relationship between Load Factors and Loss Factors as determined
from studies.

Figure D.4 illustrates two extreme loading conditions.

 APPENDIXD
Page 11 of 19
- 134 -

For Load Type A, the demand at any time is either at 100% or 0% full load.
The Load Factor for Load Type A can vary from 0.0% to 100.0%. The Loss
Factor for Load type A is always equal to the Load Factor.

For Load Type B, the load is constant for 23 hours (from 0% to 100% of Full
Load) and 100% of full load for the 24th hour. The Load Factor will vary
from a low of 4.17% (when the constant portion is 0.0%) to a high of 100%.
The Loss Factor equals the Load Factor at the low end (4.17%) and at the
high end (100.0%). Between these values, the Loss Factors and Load
Factors have the relationships shwon in Figure D.5 and Table D.3.
 - 135 - APPENDIX D
Page 12 of 19
Fi&ure D.4
LOADINGEXTREES
100 -

75V
LOAD TYPE A DEMAND
IS 100%
so0 1OR 5 0.%

25

5 10 15 20 24
HOURS

PEAMDMIANDFOR ONE HOUR

100 -

75 __

LOAD TYPE B
50

25-
CONSTANT DEMANDFOR 23 HOURS
(MAY VARY FROM 0% TO 100.0%

5 10 15 20 24
HOURS
 - 136 - APPENDIX D
Page 13 of 19
Figure D.5

RELATIONSHIPBETWEENLOADFACTORSAND LOSS FACTORS

100

to~~8 0.

cJn
0U

q
E. I-/
* TYPE
/ B

<: g t ~~~~~TYPE
A //L

5n = ~
LOADING
X40 ~ LADIN B
TYPE
20 i / / ~~~~~~LOADINIG

20

0 20 40 60 80 100

% LOAD FACTOR
 APPENDIX_D
Page 14 of 19
- 137 -

TABLE D.3

LOAD FACTOR AND LOSS FACTOR RELATIONSHIP

LOSS FACTORS (%)

LOAD
FACTOR TYPE B DISTRIBUTION
(X) LOADING TRANSFORMER FEEDER

0.0% 4.2% 4.2 4.2%

5.0 4.2 4.2 4.2
10.0 4.5 4.7 6.0
20.0 6.8 8.1 10.1
25.0 8.7 10.1 13.0

30.0 11.1 13.0 16.0

35.0 14.1 16.0 19.6
40.0 17.6 19.4 23.2
45.0 21.6 23.8 27.8
50.0 26.1 28.0 32.0

55.0 31.1 33.1 37.0

60.0 36.7 38.2 42.8
65.0 42.8 44.7 48.8
70.0 49.4 51.5 55.0
75.0 56.5 59.1 62.6

80.0 64.2 66.5 70.0

85.0 72.3 75.0 77.0
90.0 81.0 83.9 85.5
95.0 90.3 90.4 90.5
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
 APPENDIX D
- 138 - Page 15 of 19

For all practical purposes, Type A Loading and Type B Loading represent the
two extremes in the relationship between Load Factors and Loss Factors.

For distribution transformers, the relationship between Loss Factors and

Load Factors is expressed with the following empirical relationship

Loss Factor - 0.15 Load Factor + 0.85 (Load Factor)2

This relationship is tabulated in Table D.3 and shown graphically in

Figure D.6.

Distribution feeders, the general relationship between Loss Factors and

Load Factors is tabulated in Table D.3 and shown graphically in Figure D.6
(these relationships are based upon average values for many systems).

Capacity is a valuable commodity so we will explore the relationship between

"Energy Loss over a Specified Time Period' and "Demand Loss at Peak".

The Miniimumdemand loss at peak is associated with Type A Loading (demand

is either 100% or 0% for any given hour). For this type of loading, the
peak demand loss is equal to the energy loss. If energy loss is 15%, then
the demand loss is also 15%.

For all practical purposes, the Maximum demand loss at peak is associated with
Type B Loading (constant demand for all hours but one which is the peak
demand). A computer model was developed for Loading Type B based on the
following:

Cload Constant Loading (0.0 to 100.0)

Peak - 100.0

Load Factor (%) - (Cload x (Hours -1)/(Peak x Hours) x 100

Total Energy - (Clcad x (Hours-I)) + Peak

PCT - Percent Energy Loss

Energy List - (PCT/100.0) * total Energy

DSQ - Demands Squared - ((Hours-1) x Cload ) + Peak

2 2

PSH - Peak Share of Losses - Peak 2/DSQ

Demand Loss at Peak - PSH x Energy Lost

 - 139 - APP D
TDIX
Page 16 of 19
Figure D.6

100

80

60 F
DISTRIBUTION-
$60 q ~~~~FEEDER/

LOAD TYPE A/
40-

DISTRIBUTION
TRANSFORMER

20 LOAD TYPE B

0~

0 20 40 60 80 100

% LOAD FACR
 - 140 - APPENDIX D
Page 17 of 19

The Type B Loading model was used to derive the data detailed in Table D.4
and the graphs of Figure D.7 for a 25 hour loading cycle and an 8760 hour
loading cycle.

Table D.4 or the graphs of Figure D.7 may be used to approximate the per-
cent demand loss at peak when the load factor and energy loss are known.
For the,Example Load (Exhibit D.1), the Load Factor is 51.5% and the
energy loss is 15%. The 15% loss curve of Figure D.7 indicates that the
the maximum peak loss would be 28% and we know that the minimum is 15%.
An average value of (15 + 28)/2 21.5% could be used for studies (The
calculated value was 24.3%).
 APPENDIX D
Page 18 of 19
- 141 -

TABLE D.4

PERCENT DEMAND LOSS AT PEAK

VERSUS
VARIOUS ENERGY LOSS LEVELS

TYPE B LOADING

% DEMAND LOSS AT PEAK FOR

VARIOUS ENERGY LOSS LEVELS
LOAD
FACTOR 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30
(%) (5) (%) (%) (%) (X) (%)

24 HOUR LOADING CYCLE

10 11.1 22.1 33.2 44.2 55.3 66.4

20 14.7 29.5 44.2 59.0 73.7 88.5
30 13.5 27.0 40.0 53.9 67.4 80.9
40 11.4 22.8 34.2 45.5 56.9 68.3
50 9.6 19.2 28.8 38.3 47.9 57.5

60 8.2 16.4 24.5 32.7 40.9 49.1

70 7,1 14.2 21.3 28.4 35.4 42.5
80 6.2 12.5 18.7 24.9 31.2 37.4
90 5.6 11.1 16.7 22.2 27.8 33.3
100 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

8760 HOUR LOADING CYCLE

20 24.9 49.8 74.7 99.6 - -

30 16.6 33.2 49.8 66.5 83.1 99.7

40 12.5 24.9 37.4 49.9 62.3 74.8

50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100 Same as 24 hour cycle

 - 142 -
APPENDIXD
Page 19 of 19
Figure D_7

% DEMAND LOSS AT PEAK

VERSUS
LOAD LEVELS AND VARIOUS ENERGY a=s)S LE~MLS
TYPE B LOADING

100 -
24 HOUR
8760 HOURS

80

60

04

5 40

20

0 20 40 60 80 100

% LOAD FACTOR
 APPENDIX E
Page 1 of 3
- 143-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Economic Analysis of Losses

1. C.J. Baldwin, C.J. Hoffman, P.J. Jeynes; "A Further Look at Cost of
Losses", AIEE Transactions, Part III, Vol. 80, 1961.

2. N.E. Chang; "Generalized Equations on Loss Reductions with Shunt

Capacitors", IEEE, Mid Winter Meeting Jan-Feb, 1972.

3. M. Chen, Y. Ohba, L. Reynolds, W.D. Dickerson; "Losses in Electrical

Power Systems", Electric Power SysFems Research, (1977/78).

4. J.H. Cronin, C.R. Murray, B.G. Sei:Ling;"Transformer Losses and

Effect on Design", Proceedings of the American Power Conference,
Vol. 40, Cal., 1978.

5. P.F. Johnson; "Evaluation of the Cost of Electrical Losses in

Power Systems".

6. G.K. Nass; "Economics of Power System Reliability and Planning"

Johns Hopkins Press, 1979.

7. M. Munasinghe; Economics of Power System Reliability and Planning,

Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1979.

8. M . Munasinghe, "Principles of Modern Electricity Pricing",

Proc. TEEE, March 1981, pp, 332-48.

9. M. Munasinghe and J.J. Warford, Electricity Pricing, Johns Hopkins

University Press, Baltimore, 1982.

10. D.L. Nickel; "Distribution Transformer Loss Evaluation: Load

Characteristics and System Cost Parameters", IEEE, PES Winter
Meeting, New York, Feb, 1980.

11. F.W. Symonds, M.C. Anderson; "The Application of Distribution

Capacitors for Minimized Power and Energy Losses", IEEE, 1979.

12. D.I.H. Sun, W. Abe, R.R. Shoults, P. Eichenberger, D. Farris;

"Calculation of energy Losses in a Distribution System", IEEE,
July/Aug, 1980.

13. D.J. Ward, R.W. Smith; "Economic Transformer Loading - What

Makes Sense with Todays Costs", Pacific Coast Electric
Association Engineering and Operation Conference, March, 1980.
 APPENDIX E
Page 2 of 3
- 144 -

Technical Analysis

1. H.F. Hoebel; "Cost of Electric Distribution Losses", Electric

Light and Power, March 15, 1959.

2. Kenneth W. Klein; "Another Look at Distribution Transformer Loss

Ratios", Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, October 14, 1959.

3. "Distribution System Energy Losses", REA Bulletin 45-4, August 28,

1975.

4. Edward L. Boyd; "Modified Standard Transformers Best Hedge Against

Losses?", Electric Light and Power, May 1980.

5. Harold B. Margolis; "Evaluating Power System Losses", Transmission

and Distribution, June, 1980.

6. D.L. Nickel, H.R. Braunstein; "Evaluating Transformer Loss Evalua-

tion: I & II", Westinghouse Electric Corporation, February, 1980.

7. "General Requirements for Distribution Power and Regulating Trans-

formers", American National Standards Institute Appendix C57.91 (1974).

8. Daniel J. Ward; "Economic Transformer Loading - What Makes Sense with

Today's Cost?", General Electric Company, March 13, 1980.

9. John T. Shincovich; "Distribution System Transformer Loss Evaluation",

Presented at the 31st Annual Power Distribution Conference, October 25,
1978.

10. M.W. Gangel, R.F. Propst; "Distribution Transformer Load Characteristics",

General Electric Company, March 2, 1964.

11. J.H. Cronin, C.R. Murray, B.G. Seiling; "Transformer Losses and
their Effect on Design", Proceedings of the American Power
Conference, 1978.

12. Mo-Shing Chen, Yasuo Ohba, Lindian Reynolds, W. Donald Dickson;

"Losses in Electrical Power System", Electric Power Systems
Research 1 (1977/78) 9-19.

13. P.F. Johnson; "Evaluation of the Cost of Electrical Losses in

Power Systems", Consumers Power Company, April, 1976.

14. C.J. Baldwin, C.H. Hoffman, P.H. Jeynes; "A Further Look at Cost
of Losses", Presented AIEE Fall General Meeting, October 15-20, 1961.

15. D.I.H. Sun, S. Abe, R.R. Shoults, M.S. Chen, P. Eichenberger, D. Farris;
"Calculation of Energy Losses in a Distribution System", Presented at
the IEEE PES Summer Meeting, July 15-20, 1979.
 APPENDIX E
Page 3 of 3
- 14+5-

16. N.E. Chang; "System Data Plus Computer Cuts Power Losses", Electric
Light and Power, August, 1970.

17. F.W. Symonds, M.C. Anderson; "The Application of Distribution

Capacitors for Minimized Power and Energy Losses", University of
Tennessee (FWS), Tennessee Valley Authority (MCA), 1979.

18. Distribution System Losses, Electrical Engineering Handbook,

Tenth Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1969.

19. Eugene F. Gorzelnik: "Motor Efficiency Can Mean Big Savingsl",

Electrical World, November, 1980.

20. "Energy Efficient Electric Motors", U.S. Department of Energy,

:DOE/CS0163 (May 1980).

21. "Voltage Levels on Rural Distribution Systems", REA Bulletin

L69-4, Revised November, 1970.

22. NqelsonE. Chang; "Determination of Primary Feeder Loses",

;Presentedat the IEEE Summer Power Meeting, July 9-14, 1967.

23. Donald Sebesta, C.L. Wagner, D.L. Nickel; "Choose Correct

Transformer-Loss Values", Electrical World, May 15, 1978.

24. Leon K. Kirchmayer; Economic Operation of Power Systems,

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and Chapman & Rall LTD. 1958.

25. J.F. Calvert, T.W. Sze; "A New Approach to Loss Minimization in
Electric Power Systems", Presented at AIEE Fall General Meeting,
October 7-11, 1957.

26. T.W. Sze, J.R. Garnett, J.F. Calvert; "Some Applications of a

New Approach to Loss Minimization in Electrical Utility Systems",
Presented at the AIEE Fall General Meeting, October 26-31, 1958.