Strategies

for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers

Project report
prepared by: Frangiskos Topalis, NTUA (coordinator) Wolfgang Irrek, Wuppertal Institute Roman Targosz, Polish Cooper Promotion Centre with contributions from: Anne Rialhe, AERE Juan Frau, Endesa Janusz Sobota, AREVA Andrzej Baginski, LZE Jacques-Olivier Budin, ADEME Marieke Reijalt, FAST Theni Oikonomou, THELCON Project website: http://seedt.ntua.gr/ July 2008

Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) - EIE-05-056 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 2 3 Summary....................................................................................................................................................... 4 The distribution transformers in Europe................................................................................................... 7 Energy losses in distribution transformers .............................................................................................. 10 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4 No-load losses .................................................................................................................................... 10 Load losses ......................................................................................................................................... 11 Evolution in rated losses .................................................................................................................... 11 Non traditional solutions for reducing losses..................................................................................... 13

Energy losses in distribution transformers in Europe ............................................................................ 14 4.1 4.2 4.3 The losses ........................................................................................................................................... 14 The efficiency of DTs.......................................................................................................................... 15 Energy saving potential – time perspective........................................................................................ 18

5

Proposed energy efficiency policies and measures .................................................................................. 20 5.1 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.5.1 5.5.2 5.5.3 5.5.4 5.5.5 5.5.6 5.6 5.7 5.8 Overview............................................................................................................................................. 20 Regulation of electricity distribution companies................................................................................ 23 Treatment of network losses in the current national regulatory schemes....................................... 23 Elements proposed for regulatory schemes in general ................................................................... 25 Incentives from obligations or certificate schemes ............................................................................ 26 Other financial or fiscal incentives .................................................................................................... 27 Labelling ............................................................................................................................................ 29 From improvement of the nameplate to a specific energy-efficiency label.................................... 29 What information should a label contain? ..................................................................................... 30 Who will be the addressee of a label and how shall it be addressed? ............................................ 31 Other requirement - The evolution of the label in the future ......................................................... 31 Application to distribution transformers ........................................................................................ 32 Three alternative proposals for a label for distribution transformers............................................. 33 Energy efficiency standard................................................................................................................. 37 Information, motivation and qualification ......................................................................................... 41 Energy advice programmes................................................................................................................ 42

Page 2 of 57

Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) - EIE-05-056
5.9 5.10 5.11 6 Toolkit for buyers ............................................................................................................................... 43 Co-operative procurement and Green procurement .......................................................................... 44 Support to R&D and pilot or demonstration projects ........................................................................ 46

The impact of the proposed policy packages ........................................................................................... 47 6.1 6.2 Overview on policy packages for the different market actors ............................................................ 47 Economic and environmental impact of the proposed policies and measures ................................... 48

7 8

Conclusions and recommendations .......................................................................................................... 52 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................... 54

Page 3 of 57

Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) - EIE-05-056

1 SUMMARY Using energy in an efficient manner is regarded as the most effective and economic contribution to the EU’s key drivers of energy policy: Reduction in EU’s dependency on foreign primary energy sources, development of a sustainable energy supply and economic growth. As the negative impact of current energy production, transport and distribution and consumption on climate change are reaching critical levels, technology that is commercially available to increase energy efficiency should be implemented as fast as possible. European electricity distribution networks include about 4,5 million distribution transformers owned by electricity distribution companies, industry and commerce. They convert electrical energy supplied at medium voltage level (typically from 10 kV to maximum 36 kV) to electrical energy at voltage levels most appropriate for residential, commercial and partly industrial loads. The European distribution transformer fleet is still dominated by traditional technology, averaging an operating efficiency in Europe of 98,38% and totalling electricity losses equal to 33,4 TWh/year in EU-27 in 2004. If all existing distribution transformers in EU-27 were replaced by the most energy-efficient ones available today, 55,5% of these electricity losses (i.e. about 18,5 TWh/year) could be reduced. If current replacement rates are taken into account, up to 11,6 TWh electricity per year could be saved compared to business-as-usual market behaviour within 15 years. A large part of these electricity saving potentials is economical from the perspective of the whole economy and from the perspective of industry and commerce. Since the different market actors face different barriers and obstacles, these economic potentials have not been realised yet. A differentiated policy-mix is needed to adequately address the different barriers and obstacles. Even if the EU has produced an impressive number of energy policy measures on energy efficiency and CO2 reductions over the last ten years, an integrated framework to accelerate the use of energy-efficient distribution transformers and to support a respective high quality European industry sector does not exist. In contrast, electricity distribution grid losses are often neglected when talking about increasing energy efficiency. The SEEDT project team proposes the following main elements of an appropriate policy-mix:

Page 4 of 57

Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) - EIE-05-056

Changes in the regulatory schemes (introducing incentives and removing existing disincentives) to increase energy-efficiency of distribution transformers in electricity distribution companies. Due to the current regulatory framework in most of the EU-27 countries, only part of the electricity savings potential of energy-efficient distribution transformers is economically attractive for an electricity distribution company. Therefore, existing disincentives in regulatory schemes should be removed, reporting on transformers and distribution losses should be strengthened, and additional incentives should be introduced. For a transition period, as long as regulation schemes are not improved respectively, or as an additional incentive to invest into energy-efficient distribution transformers, energy-efficient distribution transformers might be included into existing white certificate schemes or should receive separate financial or fiscal support. A bundle of "soft" measures to particularly address those market actors who lack of information and knowledge or who tend to follow traditional purchasing routines which do not lead to least-cost solutions. These market actors are particularly small and medium industry and commerce, but also some smaller electricity distribution companies, engineering firms, ESCOs, energy consultants and planners. The bundle of “soft” measures should consist of:

The SEEDT project team proposes a labelling scheme in order to harmonise and visualise the information to electricity distribution companies, industry and engineering firms (ESCO’s) on energy efficiency specifications of distribution transformers, thereby further developing the EN50464 and HD538 loss classes’ schemes. SEEDT thereby prefers a simplified combined no-load and load losses label. Until a unified European label is introduced, SEEDT recommends that current nameplates on transformers include a clear and consistent indication of the loss category according to the current norm, as well as the specific losses as measured during the testing procedure. Information campaigns and training of buyers are especially needed in small and medium sized industries. In addition, national, regional and local energy advice programmes should include energy-efficient distribution transformers as cross-sectoral technology. In order to allow transformer users to compare financial, electrical and environmental parameters of different distribution transformers, the SEEDT project developed an interactive tool kit, the Transformer Losses Calculator, TLCalc. The Calculator is available for download and interactive online use at the SEEDT website (http://seedt.ntua.gr). Stimulation of co-operative procurement of energy-efficient transformers by electricity distribution companies or other buyers is another instrument to facilitate increased use of energy-efficient transformers. Joint purchase could reduce investment costs and introduce new transformer technology into the European market.

Page 5 of 57

The Strategic Energy Technology Plan could ensure that energy-efficient distribution transformer manufacturers and larger buyers could become part of the European Industrial Initiatives that address grid issues. A balanced policy-mix of “hard” and “soft” measures. Further analysis of the full life cycle and environmental impact of the used materials combined with improved data collection and consideration of system integration into “smart grids” could enhance insight in the contribution of the use of energy-efficient transformers to an efficient European electricity distribution system.EIE-05-056  A European mandatory standard would effectively contribute to realising the saving potentials by addressing the same market actors as the bundle of "soft" measures. The framework of the Ecodesign Directive allows taking transformers as a product group for which implementing measures setting a mandatory standard and a labelling scheme could be designed during the working period 2009-2011 as proposed by the European Commission. in which adaptation of national regulatory frameworks is the most crucial element. but probably larger companies will particularly be prepared to make use of respective R&D support provided. All market actors can implement demonstration or pilot projects together with manufacturers (and their suppliers). However. Standards and labels for energy-efficient distribution transformers are successfully used in other parts of the world as Australia. if the policies and measures proposed by the SEEDT project were broadly implemented from 2010 onwards using transformer technology that is already available today and at current replacement rates. Japan. could make a cost-effective contribution to EU’s key policy objectives. A European mandatory standard would help Europe to catch up with the developments in North America and in Asia. Page 6 of 57 . China. and – from 2010 onwards – the USA. Mexico.  Up to about 10 TWh electricity savings could be realised per year by 2025 and compared to BAU market behaviour. Canada. a mandatory standard makes it necessary that the regulation of electricity distribution acknowledges the higher investment costs needed for the more efficient distribution transformers.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) .

EIE-05-056 2 THE DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS IN EUROPE Distribution transformers are devices which transform electrical energy supplied at medium voltage level (typically from 10 kV to maximum 36 kV) to electrical energy at voltage levels most appropriate for residential.6 million units (Table 1). The number of privately owned dry type transformers is estimated at less than 200 thousand units but the average rating is more than double of oil private fleet i. Almost half of the nonhousehold and non-services sector’s electricity low voltage consumption is supplied through transformers owned by electricity distribution companies (utilities) and the remaining part are privately owned (usually referred to as industrial) distribution transformers. is estimated at about 3% of existing stock of units. 2. The overall population of EU-27 utility distribution transformers is estimated at 3. and the pressure from re-regulation on the unbundled electricity distribution companies in the different countries. Important determinants of market development are the change in electricity consumption.e.7 million units. the development of electricity and material prices. The annual market new investments and replacement. In industry. The population of distribution transformers in Europe is about 4. Population of privately owned (usually referred to as industrial) oil filled distribution transformers installed in EU-27 is estimated at 800 thousand units with 400 kVA average transformer rating.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . A utility summary on EU-27 countries plus Norway is presented in Fig. Distribution transformers operated and owned by electricity distribution companies are responsible for supplying about 70% of low voltage electricity to final users and represent about 80% of distribution transformers stock (Fig. commercial and partly industrial loads. the increase in decentralised generation. Page 7 of 57 . Industry 41% Houshold and services 56% Transport 3% Fig. The transport sector is dominated by railways which do not operate traditional distribution transformers (usually 3 kV or higher). 1 Division of final electricity consumption by sector (Eurostat 2004). about 50% of devices and systems are supplied from medium voltage level. slightly more than 800 kVA. Practically almost all electricity to household and commercial sectors is distributed by electricity distribution companies. 1). Both the number of installed transformers and their average rating is given.

2 116 150.8 248 248 248 248 248 248 247 248 248 248 234 248 248250 400 192 166 360.4 58.9 124.0 80.5 36. 2: Population and average rating of EU-27 and Norway utility distribution transformers.2 69.6 209.8 66.EIE-05-056 Table 1: European distribution transformer populations & newly installed units (annual market – 2004). Fig.2 70.0 11. The newly purchased units are bigger in size.0 8.Average rating (size) kVA 400 700 338 344 312 350 Utilities .0 123.0 80. utility.8 30.0 74.5 7.9 10.0 172 200 300 237.8 2.3 3. All three sectors. 3 presents the transformer size (ratings) in kVA relative distribution in population.0 683.1 56. industry oil filled and industry dry type are covered. pcs < 400 kVA 2688143 ≥ 400 kVA & ≤ 630 kVA 860802 > 630 kVA 127369 Total distribution oil 3676315 < 400 kVA 493497 ≥ 400 kVA & ≤ 630 kVA 180847 > 630 kVA 127497 Total industry oil 801840 < 400 kVA 39447 ≥ 400 kVA & ≤ 630 kVA 68885 > 630 kVA 65685 Total industry dry 174017 4652172 Fleet EU-27 % MVA 73 312936 23 440831 3 156749 79 910515 62 66272 23 90484 16 172813 17 329569 23 12752 40 40977 38 90174 4 143904 1383988 % 34 48 17 66 20 27 52 24 9 28 63 10 pcs 56122 23370 5993 85486 23501 8458 6051 38011 2628 5476 8028 16132 139628 Market EU-27 % MVA 66 7014 27 12354 7 7968 61 27336 62 3144 22 4251 16 8058 27 15452 16 533 34 2940 50 11005 12 14478 57266 % 26 45 29 48 20 28 52 27 4 20 76 25 Distribution sector oil* Industry oil Industry dry Total * dry type transformer distribution sector population is estimated at marginally low level (~1% of utility fleet) More than two thirds are units of rated power below 400 kVA (practically up to 250 kVA and few percent 315 kVA units).3 50 0 AT BE CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL NO PL PT SE SI SK UK BG RO 0 Fig. Distribution transformer EU27 + Norway distribution sector population Utility population thousand pcs 800 369 726.7 320 299 306 Utility .2 150 200 100 100 57.fleet in thousand units 600 300 253 500 248 248 248 432. It is visible that utilities operate lower ratings especially in rural areas while industry and particularly dry type transformers have much higher ratings in average. Page 8 of 57 average rating kVA . The low power rated category accounts for less than 50% of newly installed transformers.0 23.0 7.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) .

Page 9 of 57 .0% 20 25 30 40 50 63 100 160 250 400 630 630* 1000 1600 2500 kVA rating Fig.0% 10.0% industry oil population % industry dry population % 20.0% 15.0% utility population % 25.EIE-05-056 30. 3: Ratings distribution across populations (* short circuit impedance of 6%).0% 5.0% 0.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) .

proper cut.5% to 99. 4).EIE-05-056 3 ENERGY LOSSES IN DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS Distribution transformers are very efficient electrical machines reaching maximum efficiency at the level of 97. Hysteresis losses can be reduced by selecting low core losses material. They include dielectric loss. Operating efficiency is smaller because transformers do not operate at maximum efficiency all the time (Fig. This maximum efficiency point is at the point where load losses proportional to square of transformer load are equal to the no load losses which are constant and appear all the time when the transformer is energized (usually between 40% and 50% loading). fabrication and assembling techniques reduced unit losses from 3 W/kg to less than 1 W/kg in traditional technologies. while eddy currents by reducing lamination thickness.4%. The dominant no-load loss is core loss. with techniques to refine the domains of the iron crystals. During last fifty years the improving technology of transformer sheets rolling. and core loss.1 No-load losses No-load losses are those losses required in the excitation of the transformer load losses. Core losses are dependent upon the excitation voltage and may increase sharply if the rated voltage of the transformer is exceeded. conductor loss due to excitation and circulating currents. which is associated with the time-varying nature of the magnetizing force and results from hysteresis and eddy currents in the core materials. % efficiency No load losses Load losses Efficiency Page 10 of 57 . 100 75 50 25 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 load as % of rated size Fig.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . 3. 4: Losses and efficiency vs. loading level. There is also some inverse dependence on core temperature.

by reducing the total length of the winding conductor. 3.3 Evolution in rated losses For the last decades significant technological challenge in reduction of no load losses have been observed. In the past this proportion was even higher reaching 80% share of no load losses in total losses. This proportion was however not even across Europe. situation might have been reversed. Observing the case of Poland. Page 11 of 57 . Load losses can be reduced by selecting lower-resistivity materials (such as copper) for the windings. which are constant and always present. core clamps. Clearly.2 Load losses Unlike no-load losses. Eddy currents are controlled by subdividing the conductor into strands and insulating the conductor strands and by conductor shape and orientation. and by using a conductor with a larger cross-sectional area. Loss due to circulating currents in parallel windings and parallel winding strands. In some countries or regions.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . Fig. this involves a combination of material and geometric options that also depend upon the core dimensions. When comparing these losses with levels at the middle of the last century. and other parts. applying gradually improved better grades of magnetic steel. because of changing load characteristics. load losses vary with the square of the load current carried by the transformer and include:    Resistive heating losses in the windings due to both load and eddy currents. For distribution transformers.EIE-05-056 3. Stray loss due to leakage fluxes in the windings. They still account for about two thirds of total losses in distribution transformers. technology of cut. decreasing laminations thickness led to reduction of these losses by factor of more than two during last 40 years. the major source of load losses is the I2R losses in the windings. the factor would be close to three. 5 presents this development.

30 1.20 1.0 1965 1970-1985 1986-1990 Rated 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 100 160 250 400 630 Average Fig. HD 428) 1. Pk/Ck (A. Load losses relative. HD 428) 3. In case of load losses reduction.10 1.00 0.ratio of actual loss related to Ck class of EN50464 (A of HD 428) loss.0 2.40 1.EIE-05-056 No load losses relative Po/Bo (~C'-15%. Page 12 of 57 .0 1. the evolution of improvements is less spectacular.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . This might indicate that users pay more attention to reduction of no load losses (and accept higher load losses in order to keep the transformer investment costs stable) which still account for usually more than two thirds of overall losses in transformers.50 1. 6 presents again case of Poland. 5: Decrease in no load losses in distribution transformers based on case of Poland – ratio of actual loss related to Bo class of EN50464 (~C' -15% of HD 428) loss. Last five years show up that rated load losses have gone up quite significantly. Fig.5 3.5 1.80 1965 1970-1985 1986-1990 1991-1995 Years 1996-2000 2001-2005 100 160 250 400 630 Average Fig. 6: Decrease in load losses in distribution transformers based on case of Poland .5 2.90 0.

These and other ideas are still in very early R&D stage or simply not practical and not ready for massive deployment. This technology originally developed by METGLAS in the past was more appropriate for single phase and rather small size transformers because of technological difficulties in core assembly.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . Older designs saturated at lower flux. There are other solutions to increase transformer efficiency even further like replacing existing conductor material with silver which is the best electrical conductor or new insulation materials which enhance heat transfer. China's Institute of Electrical Engineering has lately demonstrated a three-phase. Page 13 of 57 . 630kVA distribution transformer with voltage ratio of 10kV to 400V. It utilizes an amorphous alloy core to further reduce electrical losses over that achieved by the superconductor wires alone. It is expected that more mature designs will achieve efficiencies as high as 99.065W/kg Superconducting transformer uses high temperature superconduting materials (HTS) which need to be cooled to the temperature of about minus 200C. No load losses can be reduced by additional 70% to 80% compared to best silicon steel reaching levels of 0. approximately 75% of conventional core flux density that resulted in bigger transformer sizes.4 Non traditional solutions for reducing losses Amorphous cores are relatively new technology widely used in Japan but also in other Asia regions and in smaller scale in North America.EIE-05-056 3. The saturation level has been increased and together with other technological improvements amorphous cores can now be applicable for three phase units at any size of distribution transformer.3%. Efficiency gain is huge.9%. The total energy efficiency of this first device was 98. Prototypes and single applications for non distribution business are nothing new. Amorphous metal materials have high electrical resistivity and very little or no magnetic domain definition.

27 TWh/year by the SEEDT project team. A conservative estimate is that all these extra losses (due to reactive power loss and harmonics) are at least 5 TWh/year (or 15% of calculated total of no-load and load losses) yearly for all electricity distribution companies’ and private distribution transformers.1% ΣPo fleet 2589 ΣPk fleet 1129 ΣPk fleet / ΣP total 30. However.9% P total 1269 ca. the calculated losses are substantially less. 38412 Transformer Market EU-27 GWh/year ΣPo market 348 ΣPk market 172 ΣPk market / Σ Ptotal 33.g.4% P total 33402 ca. Transformers purchased by electricity distribution companies account for more than 500 GWh/year of energy losses in the EU-27.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . their overall running efficiency remains at similar level as industry operates higher ratings transformers which are more efficient in general. total losses of distribution transformers in EU-27 might sum up to about 38 TWh/year. No-load losses account for more than 70% of total losses (ΣPk/ΣP ratios). Page 14 of 57 .0% ΣPo market 264 ΣPk market 95 ΣPk market / Σ Ptotal 26.EIE-05-056 4 ENERGY LOSSES IN DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS IN EUROPE 4. Compared to previous studies. and additionally industrial transformers are loaded higher than electricity distribution companies’ transformers. 190 P total ca. 1.3% ΣPo fleet 5544 ΣPk fleet 2167 ΣPk fleet / ΣPtotal 28. Transformer Fleet EU-27 GWh/year ΣPo fleet 15973 ΣPk fleet 6000 ΣPk fleet / ΣP total 27. compared to the Prophet Paper where the whole European losses in distribution transformers are estimated at 55 TWh/year. This by the SEEDT project team has been based on much more differentiated data from different EU Member States than any other study before. Table 2 presents the EU-27 losses in distribution transformers divided into three sectors. Although transformers in electricity distribution companies have rather lower rated losses than industrial. 1459 Distribution companies oil Industry oil Industry dry Total + Reactive power & harmonic losses Total Total losses in newly (annually) purchased transformers are estimated at 1. Therefore.5% ΣPo market 269 ΣPk market 120 ΣPk market / Σ Ptotal 30.46 TWh/year roughly including reactive power and harmonic losses. e. Both existing population and new annually sold units (market) are specified separately. 5010 P total ca. the calculation of 33 TWh/year of the SEEDT project team neglects losses due to reactive power losses and harmonic losses in transformers. Table 2: Losses in distribution transformers in EU-27.1 The losses The overall losses in EU-25 distribution transformers are estimated at almost 33 TWh/year.

EU-27 and Norway.No load losses GWh 4500 4079 4000 3627 3500 3631 Utility . To date.2 The efficiency of DTs Next figures present EU-27 plus Norway countries details on losses (with load and noload losses division) and running efficiency (both existing fleet and newly purchased units) of distribution transformers in electricity distribution companies across EU-27. Page 15 of 57 .Load losses GWh Utility . lightly loaded transformers. 7 present EU-27 countries details on utility distribution transformers losses (with load and no load losses division). It leads to general conclusion about focus on reduction of no-load losses especially for small. The proportion of no-load losses to load losses is close to ratio of 3 (Fig. 7: Breakdown of distribution sector distribution transformer losses. Transformer types with low losses have not penetrated the EU market. 8 presents EU-27 countries details on operating efficiency of utility distribution transformers (both existing fleet and efficiency).EU27 + Norway Utility . Distribution sector distribution transformers losses . There are no mandatory standards or other measures effectively supporting use of energy efficient distribution transformers although this is the case in other countries where non-efficient transformers has been phased out after the application of mandatory standards. Fig.38% (Fig. distribution transformers’ operating efficiency in Europe is 98. Fig. on average.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) .Total losses GWh 3000 2500 2026 2000 1646 1500 1124 1000 619 500 410 70 0 AT BE CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL NO PL PT SE SI SK UK BG RO 462 141 43 11 306 91 293 97 63 17 118 458 425 163 391 68 471 223 78 79 22 22 8 59 16 18 6 595 399 222 204 185 97 277 69 22 144 46 852 1400 1172 769 682 220 60 181 49 Fig. 7) while the average EU-27 countries operating efficiency is 93.38%. The European distribution transformer fleet and market is still dominated by traditional technology. 8).EIE-05-056 4.

50% 98. peak load is 0.05% 97.70% 98.50% EU25 AT BE 98.95% 98.10% 97.77% 98. Other hypothesis is that distribution companies are “helping” the system redundancy reserving some capacity for potential extra load in case of emergency.04% 98.60% 98.89% 98.77% 99.56% 98.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) .2.  Clearly. A comparison of the market situation in electricity distribution companies and industry/commerce does not lead to very clear trends.70% 98.69% Utility population .10% 98.90% 98.58% 98.79% 98. larger units are specified with lower rated losses.09% 99. For comparison.73% 98.95% 98. In very general.51% 98.40% 98.46% 98.5%).77% 98.57% 98.36% 98.71% 98. as already explained transformer loading has very strong impact on transformer efficiency. time of peak load is 0.53% 98.30% 98.65% 98. Other observations are that electricity distribution companies in different countries have different approaches of taking into account losses when buying a transformer.7%.40% 98.96% 98. These losses are referred (as percentage) to AC' losses mix (according to HD428 standard) or CkCo (new EN50464 standard) for most typical ratings.77% 98.84% 97.73% 98.90% 97.38% 98.72% 98.38% 98. 8: Running efficiency of EU-27 utility distribution transformers (fleet and market). EU-27 average loading of distribution transformers in electricity distribution companies is 18.83% 98.06% 98.66% 98.81% 98.82% 98.30% 99.16% 98.EIE-05-056 Efficiency of distribution sector transformer population and market 99.08% 98. Fig. but partly they just follow traditional purchasing habits.43% 98.33% 98.78% 98. 9 presents the level of rated no-load and load losses of distribution transformers in oil type transformers (distribution sector and private). EU27 industry transformers are average loaded at 37.91% 98.75% 98.17% 98. Another reason could be that users avoid too highly loading of those transformers that are in poor technical conditions (e. in Poland efficiency is lower than average because of excessive number of transformers (average load of 14.37% 98.87% 98.43% 98.47% 98. moist insulation). e.50% CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL NO PL PT SE SI SK UK BG RO Fig.9%.Efficiency % Utility market .70% 97.40% 98. This trend is even more distinctly visible in case of load losses.36% 98. In some countries. The analysis of the existing market situation and purchasing procedures leads to the conclusion that still a lot can be done to reduce existing level of both no-load and load losses. However due to higher loading and larger units of industry and commerce population.36 and time of peak loss is 0. We can speculate that some of these transformers are not actually energized and have been withdrawn from operation but still remain in inventories. the operating efficiencies remain at similar level.35% 98.g. It is visible that private transformers have higher rated Page 16 of 57 . However two observations are worth to be mentioned:  Distribution companies generally pay more attention to reduction of losses in transformers than industry.30% 98.Efficiency % 99. Transformer manufacturers therefore have to adapt their sales strategies according to these different approaches.10% 98.68% 98. Part of them apply rational (life-cycle cost) considerations.11% 99.53.g.38% 98.

630 kVA and 1600 kVA have been selected.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . 100 kVA. Utility fleet Po Industry oil fleet Po Industry dry fleet Po Utility fleet Pk Industry oil fleet Pk Industry dry fleet Pk Utility market Po Industry oil market Po Industry dry market Po Utility market Pk Industry oil market Pk Industry dry market Pk 160% 155% 150% 145% 140% 135% 130% 125% 120% 115% 110% 105% 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 100 400 rating kVA 630 1 600 Fig. 9: Average ratios of rated losses to standard losses in EU-27. The effort to reduce rated losses is more visible in case of larger transformers while for smaller ratings the additional effort to minimize no-load losses is noticeable. 10 presents the level of rated no load and load losses of distribution transformers in all three sectors. Proportions of rated losses against AC' (HD428) / CoCk (EN50464) 175% Utility fleet Po Industry oil fleet Po 152% Utility fleet Pk Industry oil fleet Pk 152% Utility market Po Industry oil market Po 155% 155% 144% Utility market Pk Industry oil market Pk 152% 152% 150% 138% 132% 132% 130% 140% 125% 121% 115% 115% 111% 109% 100% 108% 101% 94% 103% 95% 94% 110% 106% 100% 103% 96% 90% 90% 82% 78% 111% 112% 109% 106% 100% 100% 97% 95% 75% 100 400 630 kVA rating 1 000 2 500 Fig. 10: Comparison of rated load and load losses compared to AC'/CkCo level for three sectors. Fig. Page 17 of 57 .EIE-05-056 losses. These losses are referred (as percentage) to AC' losses mix (according to HD428 [2] standard) or CkCo (new EN50464 standard) and to HD 538 equivalent standard for dry type transformers standard losses. 400 kVA. Four typical ratings. The EU average rated losses of distribution transformer population are between BA' and AA' levels (HD 428) while newly purchased transformers in average have losses slightly below AC' level.

Observing the cases of Poland and Czech Republic with former Czechoslovakia. CC' as per HD 428 is equivalent to BkC0 as per EN 50464. only few utilities use this type of transformer. In case of load losses reduction.5% 99. situation might have been reversed. No-load losses still account for about two thirds of total losses in distribution transformers. However. 11: Comparison of international standards. because of changing load characteristics. In the past this proportion was even higher reaching 80% share of no-load losses in total losses. In some countries or regions. applying gradually improved better grades of magnetic steel. Can HD 428 BA' HD 428 CC'' Japan top runner [50 Hz. Last five years show up that rated load losses have gone up quite significantly. technology of cut.0% NEMA TP-1 [60 Hz] USA. Again cases of the same countries (Poland and Czech Republic) are considered.0% 98. 4. It is obvious that there is a considerable energy saving potential in distribution transformers. 5 16 20 22 25 30 40 50 75 10 15 63 10 15 16 20 11 25 00 00 00 Fig.5% 98. the evolution of improvements is less spectacular. Also. while others choose less efficient types (AC'. When comparing these losses with levels at the middle of the last century.3 Energy saving potential – time perspective For the last decades significant technological challenge in reduction of no load losses have been observed.0% 99. 11 that the most efficient transformer CC' as per HD 428 that is used in EU falls below the limits of the Japanese mandatory standard and hardly above the standard of USA and Canada. 100.5% 15 30 45 50 75 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 00 00 2. This proportion was however not even across Europe. 40 % load] HD 428 AA' HD 428 CAmdt 97. the factor would be close to 3. decreasing laminations thickness led to reduction of these losses by factor of more than 2 during last 40 years.EIE-05-056 It is shown in Fig.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . AA' HD 428 is equivalent to CkE0 EN 50464 and BA' HD 428 equivalent to DkE0 EN 50464. This might indicate that users pay more attention to reduction of no-load losses (and accept Page 18 of 57 . AA' or even worse AB') while the tertiary and industrial sector buys even the least efficient units (BA').

Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) .04% 58.69% 27. This is clear now that for example replacing 10% of oldest (and presumably based on the model. Similarly oldest 20% of population replacement will retract population responsible for almost 35% of total no-load losses and about 30% of total load losses.EIE-05-056 higher load losses in order to keep the transformer investment costs stable) which still account for usually more than two thirds of overall losses in transformers. an age–losses model was built. 12: Age distribution of utility EU 27 transformer losses.99% 65.2% of load losses.5% of total no-load losses and 15. Actually 2% yearly increase in MVA capacity and slightly progressive rate of replacement for aging transformers have been assumed. 11 sums up percentages increasingly.07% 52.20% 51.23% 21.14% 20.24% 69.90% 9. Page 19 of 57 . Fig. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 21.46% Σ Po increasingly Σ Pk increasingly Population increasingly 64.57% 1.71% 8. least efficient) part of population will turn into replacement of units responsible for 21.09% 3.87% 34.39% 81.03% 2.37% 83.98% 47.85% 29.29% 6. Although the model is based basically on two formerly Easter European countries.25% 43. the level of technical losses as well as age characteristics correspond well to EU averages.84% 30. Based on these two countries and additional age profile of transformers in Poland.45% 10.98% 15. increasingly. Furthermore population age distribution in Poland was only used for cross checking of population older than 30 years.68% 19451949 19501954 19551959 19601964 19651969 19701974 19751979 19801984 19851989 19901994 19951999 20002004 Fig.48% 14.27% 87.48% 5.38% 3.24% 13. it reflects the true situation in EU-27 as these countries have good transformer manufacturing tradition.26% 38.94% 39.74% 75.

Furthermore. 3. Voluntary or mandatory minimum energy efficiency standard Standards help to avoid that the least efficient transformers will be bought. dynamic standards will give a signal to suppliers in which direction the Page 20 of 57 . Finally. 4. in countries. 2. Therefore. the regulation scheme will have the largest impact on the decision of electricity distribution companies to buy or not to buy energyefficient distribution transformers. 5. A labelling scheme could direct their attention to the more efficient transformers.EIE-05-056 5 PROPOSED ENERGY EFFICIENCY POLICIES AND MEASURES 5. Other financial or fiscal incentives While the regulatory mechanism decides about the electricity distribution company’s profitability of investing in energy-efficient distribution transformers. the regulatory mechanisms in place do not give any incentives or even provide disincentives to purchase of energyefficient distribution transformers by electricity distribution companies. Incentives from obligations or certificate schemes In addition to the regulatory scheme in place. which might lead to a break-even of some energy-efficient transformers that otherwise would not be bought. it can be learnt. specific financial or fiscal incentives might give an incentive to industry and commerce to switch to the more efficient pieces.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . the following list of policy instruments that might be applicable to foster energy efficiency of distribution transformers. From the analysis in the previous chapters. Regulatory mechanisms Income and investment of electricity distribution companies is mainly restricted by regulation due to the fact that distribution grids are in most cases natural monopolies. it might support suppliers in selling the more energy-efficient transformers. has been developed: 1. in most cases. that.1 Overview Based on what can be learnt from the analysis of the existing European framework of national policies and measures and of the barriers and obstacles the different market actors are facing. these obligation or certificate schemes might be used to generate extra contribution margin from investing in energy-efficient distribution transformers. in which obligations for energy companies exist to increase energy efficiency and to supply energy savings. Labelling Small and medium electricity distribution companies and companies in industry and commerce often do not pay enough attention to the efficiency and to the life cycle costs of distribution transformers.

The following figures give an idea how these policies and measures might address the different market actors to overcome the existing barriers and obstacles in the market. or companies in industry or the electricity distribution bundling their purchasing volumes together can influence the supply and the development and introduction of even more energy-efficient distribution transformer types. 9. and before proposing “ideal” or at least “good” policy packages for the different market actors out of the list of policy instruments above. which often are the more energy-efficient ones.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . Support to R&D and pilot or demonstration projects This kind of support might be needed to generally lead to further technical improvements and to ease the introduction of more energy-efficient transformer types. Page 21 of 57 . that particularly several small or medium companies in all sectors (industry and commerce and electricity distribution) often do not base their investment decision on sound life cycle cost calculations. suppliers and their clients in industry and commerce as well as planners it can be learnt. Information and motivation A lack of information and motivation to deal with the subject can be identified particularly in small or medium companies in the electricity distribution sector and in industry and commerce.EIE-05-056 market will develop.g. these policy instruments and how they could be designed will be analyzed in more detail in the following subchapters. Against this background. 10. Tool-kits might help them to identify more cost-effective solutions. Co-operative procurement Large buyers e. if such a scheme is introduced. 8. 6. just a transformer type is bought which has been always bought in the past (stable purchasing habit). Tool-kits for buyers From the discussions with electricity distribution companies. Energy advice and audits Initial energy advice and audit schemes in place or to be introduced to generally support industry and commerce should include the subject of electricity distribution transformers. Policies and measures could be designed to overcome this barrier. An information campaign will also be needed to inform about a labelling scheme. Sometimes. A mandatory standard has to be taken into account in the regulatory schemes. large electricity distribution companies. 7.

. Fig. e. using amorphous transformers Suppliers develop distribution transformers with increased energy efficiency or bring energyefficient products which already exist in other countries into the European market Indicators Success and Fail Factors • Budget for European research and development projects • Budget for national research and development projects • Convincing analysis of net benefits of energyefficient distribution transformers • Stakeholders show interest in R&D projects in this field • Number of research and development projects National regulation scheme with regard to R&D projects Targeted information Regulation guidelines / regulation scheme Further policy instruments needed Users test distribution transformers with increased energy efficiency • Motivation of suppliers of distribution transformers to develop new products • Willingness of (foreign) manufacturers of amorphous transformers to enter the market • Motivation of users of distribution transformers to test new products • Development of prices for raw materials Successful development and test can lead to broader implementation . 14: Policy model for the distribution transformer market – Regulation. R&D) Information and motivation campaign. Page 22 of 57 . energy effiiciency obligations / certificates. regulation.g..Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . Relationship with other Instruments General European policy with regard to the electricity distribution sector Cause-Impact Relationship European Commission agrees with CEER through ERGEG on regulatory practices to reduce distribution transformer losses Indicators Success and Fail Factors • Published guideline • European and International debate • Convincing analysis of net benefits of change in regulation General national policy with regard to the electricity distribution sector (e.EIE-05-056 Relationship with other Instruments General European R&D policy with regard to the electricity and the transformer production sector General national R&D policy with regard to the electricity and the transformer production sector Targeted information Cause-Impact Relationship European Commission gives R&D support to energy-efficient distribution transformer development and pilot projects Member States give R&D support to national demonstration projects.. 13: Policy model for the distribution transformer market – R&D policy. labelling Successful demonstration projects Member States abolish disincentives and include incentives to energyefficient distribution transformers into their (incentive) regulation schemes Electricity distribution companies demand energy-efficient transformers Manufacturers sell more energy-efficient distribution transformers • Change in regulation scheme implemented through law and ordinance • European and national debate • Convincing analysis of net benefits of change in regulation • Number of orders of energy-efficient distribution transformers • Rationality of companies’ calculation schemes • Size of incentive • Price of raw materials • Capacities and competences of manufacturers and their suppliers • Availability of raw materials • Number of sales of energy-efficient distribution transformers Fig.g.

and set incentives to energy audits and to purchase of energy-efficient equipment by industry and commerce Indicators Success and Fail Factors • Published standard • Labelling directive • No sales of worst efficient distrubtion transformers after implementation of standard • European and International debate • Convincing analysis of net benefits of standard and labelling General national policy with regard to information about labelling General national policy with regard to energy efficiency in industry and commerce • Range of campaign • Number of downloads of tool-kits • Number of co-operative procurement projects • Number of incentives given • European and national debate • Convincing analysis of net benefits of campaigns and incentives • Design of campaigns and support programmes Qualification and training of consultants. The following options can be observed in practice:  No limits set for inclusion of loss costs in tariffs  In several countries. encourage co-operative procurement. electricity Distribution System Operators (DSO) have to document and report network losses to the national regulatory authorities. In these countries. loss costs are outside the cap.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . 5.2 5. motivation. planners. there are no limits set for inclusion of loss costs in tariffs at all: France. network losses are treated differently in the different regulatory schemes. planners Certification of ESCOs Tariff system for planners Other information. Besides reporting on losses. which is a real disincentive to investment in energy efficiency.2.EIE-05-056 Relationship with other Instruments General European policy with regard to standards and labelling Ecodesign Directive process General European policy with regard to energy efficiency Cause-Impact Relationship European Commission includes transformers in implementation of Ecodesign Directive or proposes a separate Directive for a mandatory standard and labelling of distribution transformers European information campaign Member States run information and motivation campaigns (including toolkits for buyers. However. ESCOs recommend energyefficient transformers Increased demand for energy-efficient transformers • Number of downloads of relevant information • Number of trainings attended • Number of orders of energy-efficient distribution transformers • Convincing promotion of net benefits of energyefficient transformers • Rationality of companies’ calculation schemes • Size of incentives • Price of raw materials • Capacities and competences of manufacturers and their suppliers • Availability of raw materials Manufacturers sell more energy-efficient distribution transformers • Number of sales of energy-efficient distribution transformers Fig.1 Regulation of electricity distribution companies Treatment of network losses in the current national regulatory schemes In general. Germany (but requirement to tender for price of energy to cover energy losses) and Norway. Poland. motivation. the degree of detailedness of reporting required differs between countries. incentives addressing industry and commerce Regulation of electricity distribution companies Successful demonstration projects Energy consultants. information about labelling). 15: Policy model for the distribution transformer market – information. Page 23 of 57 . standards and labelling. financial incentives.

 In Germany.  In Estonia. maximum values for amount and/or price to limit network losses exist.  If companies in Austria.  Importance of the length of the regulatory period or how long cost savings can be retained by the electricity distribution company  The Spanish example shows: a real obstacle for utilities to install efficient equipment will be if cost savings can not be retained after the regulatory period but have to be transmitted to the customers.EIE-05-056  Grid losses within general caps  In few countries. next period 7%).  Specific incentives within regulation scheme  Real incentives were only found in Great Britain. the distribution network operator (DNO) is penalized or rewarded by £48/MWh (in 2004/05 prices). but has not applied them yet in the current regulation scheme. This reduces the economic lifecycle of transformers from 40 years to 4 in the case of Spain. where the price controls includes an incentive on losses. they have to cover resulting additional costs from their profit margin. Hungary. However. In Austria companies higher procurement costs for transformers leading to lower losses can be approved in the regulatory process. the national regulatory authority has benchmarks for network losses at its disposal. the regulatory authority reduces the annually acknowledged amount of losses from one regulatory period to the next (current period 8%. For every kWh by which losses exceed or are lower than a target rate. Page 24 of 57 .Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) .  Maximum values for inclusion of loss costs in tariffs  In some countries.  Austria and Sweden calculate additionally individual maximum values for the amount of loss energy for each company. costs for exceeding losses have to be paid for by each company itself. Estonia and Sweden exceed the given limits. not all network losses can be influenced by the electricity distribution company. grid losses are subject to the general price cap: Denmark. and Lithuania.

such conflicts can also occur between Capex and losses where firms may prefer to invest in conventional transformers rather than energy-efficient ones in order to reduce expenditures. e. or EN 50464 and HD 538 respectively.2 Elements proposed for regulatory schemes in general Based on this analysis. For example.  Based on this reporting. they often ignore the Page 25 of 57 . it will not be fully clear yet if the eight years in Italy are sufficient. existing disincentives towards investment in energy-efficient distribution transformers should be removed. A sufficient payback period for the investment in energy efficiency is needed.2. operating efficiency. this can be viewed also as a conflict between short-term and long-term efficiency requirements. in these countries.  However..Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . In principle. other financial incentives to buy energy-efficient distribution transformers with least life cycle costs should be set within the regulatory scheme. comparable way. for describing the efficiency of transformers. and prices for loss energy in a unique. As the experience from UK shows. Furthermore. it could be considered to include specific energy losses as a parameter into existing schemes that compare the economic efficiency of distribution companies and that reward or penalise those companies that behave better or worse than market average. the SEEDT project recommends the following elements for the regulation of electricity distribution companies:  Electricity distribution companies in Europe should regularly report on distribution network losses.  Deviations from a loss target (benchmark) set should be rewarded or penalised like it is done in Great Britain. Other possibilities are specific energy-efficiency investment budgets or bonuses. capital efficiency. 2007) that longer regulatory periods can reduce uncertainty with regard to long-term incentives and retain their benefits. it should be noted that incentives to reduce transformer losses might face conflicting incentives on. and quality of supply. not in every country such an incentive scheme is feasible politically or in practice. at least. the regulator allows a 2% higher interest rate above weighted average costs of capital (WACC) for the first eight years of an investment into energy-efficient transformers of the category BoAk or better. number and size and losses of distribution transformers. While regulatory schemes are usually focusing the short-term perspective. There is an argue (Jamasb and Pollitt.EIE-05-056 5. in the regulation period 2008-2011. In this context. In these countries.  If there is no scheme with benchmarks for energy losses. For example. a high number of distribution companies will lead to extensive transaction costs if individual loss targets or investment rebates are given. In any case. although they alone might not be sufficient to fully incentivise investments in innovations with even longer payback periods. For example. in Italy. the labelling classes proposed could be used.g. a national and European benchmarking system should be developed. Such incentives should not be limited to one regulatory period only.

e.g.g. implementation of changes in regulatory regimes has to be adapted to the countryspecific starting-point. UK. due to investment in energy efficiency.g. might lead to long-term efficiency improvements (Jamasb & Pollitt. to which extent a Community-wide White Certificate Scheme shall be introduced. complementing the emissions trading scheme and possible green certificate schemes. not only single incentives or disincentives and their short-term impact. but the whole regulatory scheme has to be considered when redesigning it to reduce transformer losses in order to reduce life cycle costs of distribution transformers. 2007 based on OFGEM 2003). Therefore. Such obligation schemes might be applied.EIE-05-056 fact that higher short-term costs. France. Flanders). The Commission’s Action Plan on Energy Efficiency even proposes to assess in 2008. schemes exist that oblige market actors (in particular. energy distribution or supply companies) to achieve defined energy savings at their customers’ sites or homes. financial and institutional barriers play a role. Since the regulatory schemes currently in place differ from one country to another. Characteristics determining the success of this measure are (AID-EE 2006):  Is the target clearly set beyond business-as-usual?  Is measurement and verification of savings possible at low cost. with tradable permits for certified energy savings. These obligations can sometimes be traded as it is the case in UK. Italy. by standardization of energy saving measures?  Is the cost-recovery mechanism (energy companies’ costs passed to end-users) clear and transparent?  Are there penalties in case of non-compliance?  Are penalties set at such a level that target achievement is stimulated?  Are financial incentives needed to stimulate end-users to implement EE measures?  Is the market for tradable certificates transparent and reliable?  Is there undesired overlap with other instruments? Page 26 of 57 .Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . or white certificate schemes exist like in France or Italy.  knowledge. e.3 Incentives from obligations or certificate schemes In several countries (e. when  aiming at energy savings in large end-user groups which are difficult to address. 5.

it should be allowed to  offset part of an energy saving obligation a distribution company has by the implementation of energy-efficient distribution transformers beyond businessas-usual in its own premises.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . laws might change: The French Regulator (CRECommission de Ré gulation de l’Electricité ) is thinking about including energy-efficient distribution transformers as a possibility for white certificates.4 Other financial or fiscal incentives If it is not possible to remove disincentives and include substantial incentives into the regulation schemes as it is proposed in Chapter 5. Such financial (rebates. The ministry argued that the white certificate scheme would just focus on end-use energy efficiency. financial (rebates or cheap credits) or fiscal (deduction from taxes) incentives could be a temporary option to be included into a policy package aimed at overcoming the already described barriers and obstacles which Page 27 of 57 . The Italian ministry has recently refused the inclusion of such possibilities into the existing white certificate scheme. With regard to other customer groups. a third possibility should be allowed not depending on the regulatory scheme: Electricity distribution or supply companies obliged to generate savings should receive certificates for installing energy-efficient distribution transformers beyond business-as-usual at the sites of industrial or commercial customers as long as the sites / equipment is not subject to the emissions trading scheme. other financial or fiscal incentives to electricity distribution companies have to be installed in order to offset disincentives from the regulatory scheme. or other (unilateral) domestic offset projects implementing energy-efficient distribution transformers that might be allowed to offset emissions of installations obliged by the emissions trading scheme. in the current White Certificate and obligation schemes. not on energy efficiency of the distribution system. it could be thought about allowing “cross-JI” projects between different European Member States on energy-efficient distribution transformers. subsidies) or fiscal (deduction from taxes) incentives would be a temporary measure until the existing disincentives were removed and incentives were internalised within the regulatory scheme. In order to avoid double incentives. in those countries where energy saving obligations or white certificate systems exist.2 or to implement the alternative incentives described in the previous subchapter. this is not possible. the options to include energy-efficient distribution transformer measures into such certificate or obligation schemes should only be allowed if the regulatory scheme is insufficient. However. Until now.EIE-05-056 If it is not possible to remove disincentives and include substantial incentives into the regulation schemes as it is proposed in Chapter 5. which hinder the implementation of least-cost optimal solutions. However. or to  give certificates to energy supply companies obliged to generate savings for installing energy-efficient distribution transformers beyond business-as-usual at the sites of distribution companies. 5.2. Furthermore.

Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . too. because they signal that it will be worth to invest in this efficient technology. qualification and training in order to pave the way from attracting customers and gaining their interest into the subject to demand for and implementation of energy-efficient transformers. and therefore addressed by such comprehensive programmes. they need to be accompanied by information.EIE-05-056 hinder the implementation of least-cost optimal solutions in industry and commerce. and being involved in planning and/or implementation should be well-informed about the financial or fiscal incentives. ESCOs. that financial or fiscal incentive programmes are effective and efficient to attract attention from the target groups. Page 28 of 57 . ESCOs should be allowed to receive the incentive if they own the transformer. The experience from other fields of application shows. Moreover. giving advice to industry and commerce. However. energy consultants and planners.

1 Labelling From improvement of the nameplate to a specific energy-efficiency label Buyers of distribution transformers usually already receive detailed technical specifications from their suppliers. in order to increase transparency.EIE-05-056 5.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . the label does not have to be a mandatory one from the beginning. namely the loss category according to the current norm as well as the losses as measured during the testing procedure. Therefore. Energy-efficiency labels are informative (and sometimes mandatory) labels affixed to manufactured products to shortly indicate the product's energy performance (usually in the form of energy use. a very obvious classification of the performance of the product. there should be a requirement to state non-load and load losses on every nameplate of any transformer sold in Europe. It permits visible comparison between the different possible energy losses. the information on rating plates (nameplates) and specifications given in catalogues and on request differ between suppliers and countries. Of course. Furthermore.5 5. A label would be one more piece of information more. an energy efficiency labelling of distribution transformers is suggested here. but it can be of help to the others. However. and non-load and load losses are not always stated on the nameplates. Like in the circulator industry. this will be less useful for the more skilled energy companies or industries. this data on the nameplates is not easily visible. or energy cost). Page 29 of 57 . because it allows a visual comparison. However. it will constitute an encouragement for the manufacturers to propose and produce more energyefficient transformers. but could be a voluntary label when it starts. efficiency.5. these labels give the buyers and consultants to buyers a quick information to make informed purchases. Therefore.

At this stage of the discussion. but also electricity distribution companies) and their consultants and planners who lack of information and knowledge. the information on the energy-efficiency of the product should be on the very usage of the product:  It is generally expressed for one unity of service and not for the product in its totality. designed for a given product. the brand name and the model. commerce. It is necessary to define typical use of products (categories of product. added by the rated power. which is the first element defining a distribution transformer  One part related to the energy efficiency of the product. if possible representative of the most current usage of the product.5. small utilities base their choice on EDF requirements. it should be asked: “Which information is important to buyers of distribution transformers?” The answer depends on the skills of the buyers. The existing European Union labels give other product-specific information than energy-efficiency-related information that seems to be useful to compare different products of the same usage.EIE-05-056 This is particularly relevant to small and medium enterprises (industry.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . noise level is information that is often indicated. For instance. but should help the buyer. So the question that could be addressed is: “Which other information may be important for small utilities?” One point to take care is to avoid repeating information given on other documents already produced and given to the buyers. so that exactly the same usage is compared.2 What information should a label contain? An energy efficiency label. if the introduction of the labelling scheme is accompanied by an information and qualification campaign informing about energy-efficient distribution transformers and qualifying buyers and their assistants to choose least-cost optimal solutions. including the name of the manufacturer. Page 30 of 57 . This is not mandatory. with the label. with:  Information on the energy-efficiency performance of the product  Information on the product itself to allow comparison with other products that fulfils the same usage (or the same service). 5. should contain at least two parts:  One part to identify the transformer model type. because they do not have the internal skills to test distribution transformers.  The information should be given for a defined usage. only the products with the same usage. But it has to be concluded that the label should also give the information on the service realized by the product. For example in France. for instance per size) and to compare. In general.

among the other criteria of choice. 5. that is to say class B than A. consultants. labelling will be more useful to small distribution companies and small industry and commerce than the big ones. small and medium industry and commerce  Engineering firms. where the size of the door can define the size of the transformer.4 Other requirement . where noise is a critical problem and for distribution transformers to be put in shelter. height and wheelbase in mm). However. Of course. Noise and size are important parameters. width. at least for utilities operating in urban area. for the point of view of energy.5. ESCOs. which is not the case for noise level. in the catalogue.3 Who will be the addressee of a label and how shall it be addressed? The label should address:  Electricity distribution companies  Large. It will be a concise help.  the size (approximate length.  the weight (total or separately total and oil weight) of the distribution transformer. Size and weight are parameters that are not changing during the lifetime of the label. because the other information is usually sufficiently included in other documents or even on the nameplate.EIE-05-056 As an option the following parameters might be added to the label:  the sound power level Lwa in dBa. not easy to understand for the general public.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . Page 31 of 57 . The label has to be addressed in documents buyers are susceptible to look before deciding to buy. the label proposed here concentrates on the energy aspects only. This leads to a complex situation.5. the products rapidly reached the most efficient classes of the energy label. Contrary to what was stated by manufacturers when the domestic appliances labels were designed. 5. It will have a side effect. Today. and in the technical information. the fridges show two more classes: A+ and A++. General rule about how to address the label is to put it on the sales place. as all the labels show: it will push the manufacturers to produce more efficient distribution transformers. Noise level has to be measured at the same load than the energy efficiency.The evolution of the label in the future The future evolution of the distribution transformers' performances and how these new performances will be indicated on the label have to be anticipated today.

160. maybe together with a scheme for regular dynamisation of labelling. 63. In order to simplify the understanding. In the context of the ECODESIGN directive process a new naming of labelling classes. load and no load losses respectively and the coefficient. 400. designing one empty class and one class only available for the most efficient NEMA motors (only manufactured in the USA).  a secondary (low-voltage) winding with a highest voltage for equipment not exceeding 1. 50. 1600. Based on EN 50464 the coefficient could be 0. 1000. the kVA capacity is the element that defines the usage of the transformer. shows. 500.500 kVA intended for operation in three-phase distribution networks. 1250. The process will cover transformers from 20 kVA to 2. In particular. 630.1 kV. 30. 100. 250. Alternatively losses for U ≤ 24 kV and for U = 36 kV can be specified separately. However the new EN 50464-1 standard introduces higher level of losses for transformers having 36 kV (high) rated voltage level. 5. 800. if necessary.8 for load losses and 0. a scheme for "automatic" regular dynamisation of labelling scheme is urgently needed as the discussion about A++.6 kV to 36 kV.5 Application to distribution transformers For distribution transformers. 315. Some capacities may be grouped. it is proposed to keep the different ranges of capacities existing today for the distribution transformers performances. The simplified solution to take this effect into account could be to use certain coefficient (multiplier) which would bring 36kV losses level to 24 kV losses level. might be introduced in Europe. A+++ etc. the lower and the bigger. for indoor or outdoor continuous service.5. Majority of distribution transformer fleet is included within this group. proposing some empty class/es.EIE-05-056 The harmonization in progress with IEC for the different motors classification has taken into account the future evolution of motors. 2000 and 2500 kVA. the “old” HD428 standard has only specified losses for transformers of (primary – high voltage winding) rated voltage up to 24 kV. natural cooling. Therefore. that is to say 20. However. Page 32 of 57 .6 for no load losses. immersed in mineral oil. 25. These transformers naturally are designed at higher rated losses to maintain manufacturing cost at reasonable level.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . In case the non standardized kVA value the non-load losses and load losses values should be calculated from the linear interpolation of two neighbouring kVA values. with two windings:  a primary (high-voltage) winding with a highest voltage for equipment from 3. existing proposals like the open-end labelling have not yet been finally discussed or decided on. The design of the distribution transformer label has to anticipate this technologies’ improvement. 50 Hz. 40. a label should be defined for the different capacities of distribution transformers. The meaning of this coefficient is that equivalent load or no load losses at 24 kV are product of nameplate losses at rated 36 kV.

two levels of losses for 4% and 6% are specified. the efficiency of the distribution transformer. However.5% in terms of volume i. The label has to give an information on the ratio of the output (in kVA) to the input (in kVA) i.02-00 and can bring very limited energy saving potential compared to oil immersed transformers. it is proposed to set zero tolerance limit for load losses and no load losses. they are included in American standards. this saving potential is not always economical. additional transaction costs of manufacturers will be negligible.e. For distribution transformers. For 630 kVA capacity.700 to 137. labels for other products like the above mentioned refrigerators or washing machines only contain one letter. They are already reasonably efficient.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . Load losses and no load losses tests should be carried out according to CENELEC EN 60076-1 Power transformers Part 1: General. the loading of the transformer has to be known or assumed.000). divided in load losses and non-load losses (see below. Transformers below 50 kVA are not analysed in EU standards. For the calculation of load losses. Short circuit impedance for specified losses is defined according to EN 50464.802. It has to be replaced by losses. comparing to Canadian dry type transformers minimum efficiency standard C. e.6 Three alternative proposals for a label for distribution transformers According to current norms. the loss category of a transformer is indicated by two letters representing the category for non-load losses and the category for load losses respectively. as no manufacturer and no utility are using this information. energy consumption is unfortunately not the right information to give. Furthermore.g. the different proposals). This practically means that load losses and no load losses are specified for short circuit impedance of 4% for kVA values below 630 kVA and 6% for values above 630 kVA. Page 33 of 57 .EIE-05-056 The European inventory study of distribution transformers and the life cycle cost calculations have leads to the conclusion that labelling for dry type transformers is of much less importance. on the contrary.5. However. number of units (15. Losses will be expressed in W. First of all they account for about 25% of EU-25 newly purchased distribution transformers in terms of capacity (14 out of 56 GVA) but only for 11. unlikely the situation when 15% of losses tolerance for load losses and no load losses and 10% tolerance for total losses was admitted or like in EN 50464 where the tolerance limits are to be settled in agreement between purchaser and manufacturer.e. If the labelling procedures are in line or included into existing testing standards. The considered load losses are at 75°C. 5.

three alternative indications were discussed:  one letter. three different proposals for a label were developed. it was tried to find a one letter solution. in order to keep the label simply and by looking at the main target group of a label.”0” will mean in this case the 12 to 20 interval. which is industry and commerce (and small electricity distribution companies). since every solution has its advantages and disadvantages.e. if this does not specify rated values of load losses and no load losses. One letter label is simple.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . They are shortly discussed in the following. So.  Page 34 of 57 . The reason of such an indication is that no load distribution transformer losses are responsible for 73% of European Union utilities losses and 71. who are not as skilled in distribution transformers as people from (larger) electricity distribution companies. The one letter label should use a mix of nonload and load losses at certain load factor or over the whole range of possible load factors.5% of non utilities losses in distribution transformers.9% and 35. Proposal 1 – a no-load losses label (named NLL label)   This label is focused on no-load losses.  two letters. Furthermore.5% of loading. indicating the level of load losses could be added. in case of A and B classes the “+” will indicate LL/NLL ratio of less than 12.EIE-05-056 In the course of the SEEDT project. Except for class A and B “0” will mean the value of LL/NLL ratio between 8 and 12 equivalent to maximum efficiency between 28. However. "0" or "-". technical people can feel that this information will not be accurate enough. A distribution transformers labelled B+ will have lower load losses (it will be more efficient) than one labelled B-. or. first. "+". of amorphous transformers. typically low loaded transformers).  one letter plus an additional indication (as "+". with risks of misunderstanding. easy to understand. (more suitable for locations where loading is typically higher). A complementary symbol. “+” will indicate the transformer of LL/NLL below 6. However. a two letters label is more difficult to interpret. "0" or "-") or a numeric value. while “-“ will indicate the ratio of more than 20. A two letters label might look more precise. The ratio of LL/NLL will be much higher here than for classes C and further down. which reaches maximum efficiency at loading above about 40%. Nevertheless. “-“ will indicate the transformer of LL/NLL ratio above 10 equivalent to maximum efficiency below 32% of loading (i. The reference of no load losses for class A and B will be this. especially for people from industry and commerce.

efficiency in international standards is calculated at 50% loading.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) .88·Co < NLL ≤ 1. Total Losses = No Load Losses + Load Losses for a loading of 40% i.75 < P(40%) / REF ≤ 0.05 < P(40%) / REF ≤ 1.42·Bk) Empty class today A P(40%) / REF ≤ 0.45·Co B 0.00·Co E 1. The no-load losses label No load losses NLL Letter Ref EN 50464 Co Empty class today A NLL ≤ 0.72·Co C 0. in brackets.25·Co G Symbol + 0 - LL/NLL < 12 12 ≤ LL/NLL < 20 LL/NLL  20 LL/NLL < 6 6 ≤ LL/NLL < 10 LL/NLL 10  Alternatively.88·Co D 0.EIE-05-056 Table 3: Labelling classes in label proposal 1. This label can be based on a very simple formula. 40% loading is more practical as it is closer to typical Page 35 of 57 . However.42 which means the formula: Label = NLL + 0.95 D 0.20 G Co: Class of no load losses as per EN 50464 Bk: Class of load losses as per EN 50464 CoBk = CC’ of HD 428 Letter  Most often.  Proposal 2 – a label based on a simplified combination of no load and load losses (named simplified NLL+LL label)  This label is based on a combination of no load and load losses. one letter symbol can be assisted by a number.00·Co < NLL ≤ 1.42·LL) / (Co+0. the loading at which efficiency is maximum (load and no load losses are equal). TL = NLL + LL · 0.72·Co < NLL ≤ 0.75 B 0. The simplified label Total losses at 40% loading to reference P(40%) / REF = (NLL+0.85 < P(40%) / REF ≤ 0.05 E 1.16 · LL Table 4: Labelling classes in label proposal 2.95 < P(40%) / REF ≤ 1. representing in %.85 C 0.25·Co F NLL > 1. at 40% loading. which has been used already in Japanese top runner scheme.45·Co < NLL ≤ 0.20 F P(40%) / REF > 1. For instance B(20) or B(40).e. Operating transformer at this loading is usually close to maximum efficiency of traditional (not amorphous) transformers.

92 0. e.333·Bk) Empty class today Pint / REFint ≤ 0. for 25%.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . B: load losses The integral of net power from x=0 to x=1 will be the following: Pint   P(x)dx  1 Sx 2  Ax  1 Bx 3 2 3 0 1  concluding the sum of efficiencies for the whole variety of loadings from 0 to 1 can be expressed as: Label  NLL  1 LL 3 Table 5: Labelling classes in label proposal 3.EIE-05-056 average loading in EU27 (19%). 75% and 100% loading like it has been done for the label of circulators by Bidstrup et al. S: rated power.82 0. 40% is a reference value in Japanese Top runner scheme and represents loading at which the efficiency of a transformer is most often close to its highest level (load and no load losses are equal).02 < Pint / REFint ≤ 1.22 Pint / REFint > 1.  Proposal 3 – a label based on a precise combination of no load and load losses (named precise NL+LL label)  This consideration leads to the 3rd proposal referring to the whole variety of possible loadings. instead of just referring to one loading. x: loading (expressed as ratio of rated power). while at the same time ending up with a simple formula including NLL and LL.02 1.  Alternatively. it could be thought about referring to a weighted average of combinations of different loadings.12 1. 50%.82 < Pint / REFint ≤ 0.g..22 Page 36 of 57 .12 < Pint / REFint ≤ 1. The formula suggested is the following: Total Losses = No Load Losses + 1/3 Load Losses The rationale of this formula is the following: Net power (after deduction of losses) would be: P = Sx . A: no load losses.Bx2 where P: net power.92 < Pint / REFint ≤ 1.333·LL) / (Co+0. Letter A B C D E F G Labelling through integration Integral of losses to reference Pint / REFint = (NLL+0.A .

will not be effective enough to patronise such an idea. However. In theory. EN 50464 Ao-50%Ak Ao-50%Bk Ao-50%Ck Ao-50%Dk AoAk AoBk AoCk AoDk BoAk BoBk BoCk BoDk CoAk CoBk CoCk CoDk DoAk DoBk DoCk DoDk EoAk EoBk EoCk EoDk Proposal 1 B+/B0 B0 BBC0 C0 CCD0 D0 D0 DE+ E0 E0 E0 F+/G+ F+/G+ F0/G0 F0/G0 G+ G+ G+ G0 Proposal 2 B B B B/C C C/D D/E F C/D D E F/G D E F G E F F/G G F G G G Proposal 3 B B C/D* E B C E G C D E G C D F G D E F G E F G G "X/Y" ("C/D" etc. a voluntary standard / agreement will not function in practice. if any. and single manufacturers. Cotrel as representative of transformers manufacturers has not developed such a voluntary agreement. Table 6 presents a summary of all proposals. Table 6: Summary of all label classifications proposed and comparison with existing classification in EU norms EN 50464 and HD428. As already described. 5. The label classification of all existing loss classes is presented. industry and commerce and their consultants and Page 37 of 57 . The idea to introduce a mandatory EU-27 minimum energy efficiency standard for distribution transformers is reasonable in so far as it removes the worst efficient transformers from the market and thus eases (narrows) the choice particularly of those buyers that do not use sophisticated calculation tools to identify the least-cost transformer solution for them.) means that the losses mix is close to boarder between label C and D (for some kVA it may be C for other D).EIE-05-056  It is visible that proposal 2 compared to proposal 3 is less sensitive to load losses – the variation of labels across one level of no-load losses is smaller. many small and medium enterprises in the electricity sector. it would work as a kind of agreement of transformer manufacturers who commit to gradually transform the market of distribution transformers into more efficient units.6 Energy efficiency standard In Europe.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) .

on which this proposal of minimum efficiency mandatory standard is based. It allows for certain flexibility in selections of mix of load and no load losses and thus loading adjustment. It also gives more flexibility in setting mandatory or labelling proposals.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) .EIE-05-056 planners follow traditional procurement routines without questioning the costeffectiveness and efficiency of the transformers they choose. Technical conditions. specifications and requirements are described in the section on labelling. at this stage. but should allow buyers. Furthermore. Now. Such a mandatory standard can be designed in one of the following ways:   maximum allowable no load and load losses. or minimum efficiency at particular loading. Maximum allowable losses standard would have the main drawback of lack of flexibility in selecting the optimum mix of losses. Such proposals are reasonable but at later stage. least-cost optimal solutions should be aimed at. The mandatory standard should be ambitious. The labelling proposal presented in previous chapter comes here with a rescue. that there is a demand for new efficient loss categories and a minimum efficiency standard and / or labelling scheme. because of competition reasons. from the societal perspective. The SEEDT team has kept away from any proposal for dry type transformers. From manufacturing perspective it should be avoided to set standard levels that would require products to be constructed of a single. The product line of amorphous dry type transformers exists and gives similar no-load losses reduction opportunities as for oil transformers. the standard should not apply to transformers of electricity distribution companies only (which could escape the standard by selling transformers to their customers or third parties). While a mandatory standard can improve the average efficiency of transformers in the market in principal. The new EN50464 norm has changed European situation in oil-immersed distribution transformer classification. it is also advisable to suggest to CENELEC. CENELEC TC 14 Committee has received a mandate to amend HD 538 standard for dry type transformers. but to all distribution transformers (MV> 1kV<36 kV. LV<1 kV) entering EU-27 market or are sold in the EU-27 market (direct sales and imports). However. manufacturers and their suppliers to adapt to it without too severe negative impacts. Furthermore such scheme will make it possible to steadily eliminate from the market least efficient classes. In particular. A mandatory standard can only be introduced if the national regulation of electricity distribution companies acknowledges the higher investment costs needed for more energy-efficient transformers. Of course it is possible to define it for different sizes and loading but these in turn are also different across Europe and from site to site. particularly when CENELEC proposes new more efficient loss classes for dry transformers. it has to be carefully designed in a feasible way. proprietary design or material. Page 38 of 57 .

50% loading is most often referred to in international standards. On the other hand. today’s class F as defined in the chapter on labelling should be eliminated from the market. If such a standard will be introduced. Those stakeholders are against such a standard. As frequency affects losses (load losses are approximately the same but no load losses increase with a power of 1. However trying to make such comparison the conclusion will be that new “10 CFR Part 431 Energy Conservation Program for Commercial Equipment: Distribution Transformers Energy Conservation Standards. the standardised loading should be set possibly low (e. This could be agreed voluntarily. many stakeholders argue that it will not be politically feasible to set an ambitious energy efficiency standard for distribution transformers. It includes liquid immersed transformers (both single-phase and three-phase) and medium voltage dry type transformers. The 40% loading which represents the practical value of optimum efficiency for manufactured units as a kind of average value would be kind of compromise (also referred to.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . It is proposed to set the mandatory standard in such a way that only transformers better than G class as defined in the chapter on labelling are allowed to be sold or imported in Europe at very nearest future. It has a lot of international references and enables flexibility in selection of loss mix. In next future (after 3-6 years with the first phase of a mandatory standard having eliminated class G from the market).EIE-05-056 This proposal of a minimum efficiency standard is not very demanding at all as explained in the last two paragraphs of this section. or the EU Commission could introduce it as a mandatory requirement. The drawback is the standardised loading which is usually different for small and large units or urban and rural ones. It might be even possible to set more ambitious energy efficiency standards.g. the standard set as efficiency level would also be a practical solution. 2010. energy saving could be obtained by always selecting the A series of EN 50464-1 when purchasing new transformers (and never the other higher loss standard series of EN 50464-1). For example. either by means of conventional materials or by means of amorphous core material. close to AoAk losses level. 30% close to EU average) to reflect actual loading conditions. American 60Hz system losses can not be compared directly to European 50Hz losses. With regard to this new ambitious scheme. higher one to eddy current core losses). The standard has been prepared after extensive analysis taking account also life cycle costing of transformers. a few more comments on the new US rule should follow here: It will apply starting from January 1. The final standard for liquid transformers is set in about one third between previous US NEMA TP 1 standard and efficiency resulted from minimum life cycle cost analysis. G class labels’ loss classes of any of the three labelling proposals include only the highest possible losses of HD428 or EN 50464 standards (B or Dk and A' or Eo) mixed with high or moderate losses of the second category (except for proposal 1 which eliminates all A' or Eo class). Then it becomes the task of the transformer manufacturers to reduce the losses accordingly at the lowest possible cost. in Japanese scheme). The second option to set a standard. lower value applies to hysteresis losses. Simply no-load losses in Europe will be lower for the same transformer operating at 60 Hz frequency. If this scheme is going to be favourised. Page 39 of 57 . extremely demanding if Europe would like to follow new US scheme i. the efficiencies would be classified.3 to 2. However.e.

53 0. It just excludes the worst technologies with regard to energy losses from the market. The control of the implementation of the mandatory standard will probably as difficult as the control of the implementation of the labelling scheme as described before.160285 Transformer lifetime is still maintained conservative as under current practice transformers are operated over long periods exceeding 40 years. Distribution transformers in US cannot be directly compared to European fleet also due to different network topology.2% for liquid transformers and 6. especially the one in combination with Co no-load loss Page 40 of 57 . at the same time. the proposal is to set up maximum allowable loss classes. SEEDT has run several calculations of Life Cycle Cost which help to set standard limits. Directly following the ambitious US standard could mean that not always the least-cost option with regard to life cycle cost would be chosen in European following usual European calculation assumptions. which. will usually have higher life cycle costs than other options. As described above.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . Many European calculation examples use 7% interest rate and some just even 10 years “economic” lifetime. American analysis has been checked for sensitivity at two rates. Lifetime as US rule is set at 32 years. 16) would be to set maximum allowable level of losses at the level of Co for no-load losses (excluding Do and Eo levels). Similarly as in the labelling proposal. For the first run of calculations.6% for dry type medium voltage transformers. Discount rate of 5% is close to the rate usually suggested by electricity and gas regulators for network operators. Appropriate information requirements and possibilities for the respective public authorities to join tests run by buyers or to run tests by themselves (for a small sample of transformers) have to be set. the assumptions were set as follows: Transformer lifetime . Peak load. with regard to noise level of transformer). It should be noted that two parameters which have very strong influence on capitalization formula have been set up at levels fairly favourable for cost of losses differently than in many calculations referring European conditions.. Electricity price of 85€/MWh is average EU electricity price for medium to large size industrial customer. 3.peak load βs increase yearly τs 35 0. As far as load losses are concerned Dk values.Years Rate of return (discount rate) Electricity price €/MWh βs . reference has been kept to EN50464 loss classes.g.0% and 7. The proposal of a minimum efficiency standard presented here will give maximum possibility to choose a least-cost option depending on the specific situation of the respective buyer (e. The conclusion from this chart (Fig.05 85 0.0% and finally uses value of 4. however general conclusion can be made that new standard is very highly demanding. its increase and time of peak loss result from previous SEEDT calculations.01 0.EIE-05-056 Final Rule” is equivalent roughly to lowest possible losses mix AoAk of new European EN50464 standard. These parameters are: interest rate (or discount rate as referred to US terminology) and transformer lifetime.

are usually not. CENELEC TC14 Committee has recently started a process of HD538 standard update – evolution as done for HD428.g. It is recommended to wait for work results of this group to help in better referencing of proposed standard for dry type transformer. These measures have to be welllinked to the customer type within the target group.7 Information.EIE-05-056 (but also with Bo and even Ao.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . e. While electricity distribution companies seem to be more or less well-informed about the different types and benefits and costs of energy-efficient distribution transformers. Furthermore. motivation and qualification As already indicated in the previous subchapters. Page 41 of 57 E oB k Eo Ck Eo Dk . For dry type transformers the economic optimum of today is at reduction of both noload and load losses by 10% in relation to HD 538 level. 16: Life cycle cost for six transformer kVA values. Information programmes are also needed to inform about the labelling system proposed in Chapter 5. financial incentives or voluntary agreements (cf. (small and medium) industrial and commercial customers. 5. who seldom have to buy transformers.. AID-EE 2006). Further reduction of losses increase “cost / losses reduction” ratio by roughly factor of 3. information. education and training activities could address consultants and planners of industrial and commercial customers. marked by circles) indicate that maximum allowable load losses should be limited at level Ck (level Dk to be excluded). and clearly linked to other instruments like. information. motivation and knowledge transfer by education and training are important instruments in case there are knowledge barriers of a medium to large target group. This reduction costs about 8% of incremental cost between HD 538 and HD 538-10% NLL +LL. 47500 45000 42500 40000 37500 35000 32500 30000 27500 25000 22500 20000 17500 15000 12500 10000 7500 5000 2500 0 LCC € 100 160 250 400 630 1000 AM DT Co Ck Do Ck Do Dk Eo Ak Co Dk Do Ak Do Bk Ao Ck Ao Dk B oA k Co Ak Co Bk Ao Ak Ao B k Bo Bk Bo Ck Bo Dk Fig.5.

Information and motivation should be task of national and regional governments.8 Energy advice programmes In several countries. Furthermore. For example.  Users information  about maintenance  about development of regular preventive maintenance  to disseminate best practices for users. conferences. and give advice how to identify least-cost solutions looking at minimising lifecycle costs. and according to its efficiency  to disseminate best practices  to create buyers clubs for collective purchases (co-operative procurement). They often particularly promote energy-efficient cross-sectoral technologies in small and medium enterprises (SME) that are not subject to the EU emissions trading Page 42 of 57 . and to overcome the problem that energy issues do not belong to the core activities of these firms. initial energy advice services or audits for industrial and/or commercial customers are supported by national or regional schemes in order to overcome information and knowledge barriers. as part of information and qualification activities. it can be differentiated between buyers’ information and users’ information needed:  Buyers information  to lead the choice of transformers according to the size needed (avoiding oversizing).EIE-05-056 In general. promotion events. campaigns (labelling campaigns) and newsletters by national or local / regional energy agencies or similar actors  communication means of existing networks of ESCOs or consultants. It is important to use already existing channels and to include the information into existing information and motivation means addressing the target groups. 5. this could be:  qualification programmes. newsletters)  websites on energy efficiency  software tools  existing industry sector-specific energy efficiency concepts  existing textbooks covering energy efficiency of industry and commerce. manufacturers themselves could increasingly inform their customers about advantages of energy-efficient distribution transformers.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . with regard to informational measures. industry or commerce (meetings.

energy price)  Environmental data (CO2 emissions cost. g. The required data are the following:  Technical data (rated power.. purchase cost  Economic data (rate of interest. The result is a side-by-side presentation of calculations of each transformer. It is important that such schemes giving advice or identifying cost-effective. Energy-efficient distribution transformers should be included in the list of cross-sectoral technologies addressed in the course of such energy advice or audit programmes. extra and stray losses) Page 43 of 57 . Calculation tools applied by the target groups themselves or their energy consultants or planners could be an important help in this context. no load losses. calculation period. stray losses. The comparison is achieved after calculations using financial. energy advice and audits should include such identification of cost saving solutions. extra losses. industry and commerce. TLCalc (Transformer Losses Calculator) is an interactive tool developed by SEEDT. CO2 emissions per kWh)  Loading data  Harmonic profile The calculation results include:  Energy losses for the defined calculation period (load losses.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) .ntua. It can be downloaded or used online. or energy performance contracting schemes). buyers and others to see the benefits of a low losses distribution transformer compared with other old or normal-to-high losses transformer. TLCalc can be found on SEEDT website (http://seedt. Furthermore. 5. e. The TLCalc tool indents to help distribution transformer users. The aim of this tool is to compare two distribution transformers regarding both economical and environmental point of view.gr) at the main menu.9 Toolkit for buyers The information and qualification described previously. electrical and environmental parameters. financial incentives. load losses. should include information about how to identify least-cost optimal solutions adequate for the needs of the respective target groups in electricity distribution. energy-efficient solutions and calculating their expected benefits and costs are welllinked to further policies and measures fostering the implementation of energy efficiency measures (like. no load losses.EIE-05-056 scheme.

Page 44 of 57 . Typical circumstances in which to apply this instrument are (AID-EE 2006):  When there are sufficient possibilities to bundle large buyers of energy efficiency technologies  When there is a limited number of market actors supplying energy efficiency technologies  When potentials for further development and market transformation of new technologies are large enough. no load losses.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . 5. additional losses.10 Co-operative procurement and Green procurement Co-operative procurement programmes can play a significant role in encouraging the uptake of energy-efficient products (IEA 2006).EIE-05-056  Annual cost of losses (load & no load)  CO2 emissions  Capitalized costs (cost of load losses. 17: The main screen of TLCalc. total cost. pay back period) Fig.

co-operative procurement could be a way to canvass potential buyers of energy-efficient distribution transformers to determine their criteria for choosing a transformer regarding performance. e. energy efficiency and price. This is in spite of their increasing advantages with regard to energy efficiency and possible net cost savings. promotion of cooperative procurement should start there. since main buyers are electricity distribution companies. This might initiate further development in this field. This could force manufacturers to optimise their offers with regard to the costs of energy-efficient products. Co-operative procurement could lead to a significant order size of amorphous transformers entering the European market. and having addressed. automation of sawmill plants). co-operative procurement could play a twofold role and should therefore be supported by respective national or regional activities:  Until today and in contrast to other countries and regions of the world. carried out from 1999 to 2002. In addition. if one or more suppliers that can meet the criteria set by a consortium of buyers know that buyers are prepared to purchase their output of energy-efficient distribution transformers.EIE-05-056 Characteristics determining the success of this measure are (AID-EE 2006):  Is the programme management qualified and engaged?  Can the buyers and suppliers group be motivated in principle?  Is the buyers group involved in the programme set up?  Is the buyers group sufficiently sized?  Are the results of the programme well documented to facilitate market deployment?  Is the programme well tuned with other policies (energy efficiency standards. Page 45 of 57 . retail chains or within an industry sector. too.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . research & development)? With regard to distribution transformers. labelling. they proceed with manufacturing these products. However. amorphous transformers do not play any role in Europe yet. Co-operations of buyers could be installed among (small and medium) electricity distribution companies that often already co-operate with each other in other fields of procurement. (also IEA 2006 for a description of the impact of a Swedish Technology Procurement Programme.g. maybe also among ESCOs. and thus make a change in the market.  Co-operative procurement could lead to a larger order size of energy-efficient conventional transformers (with cold grain oriented steel technology). In particular.

 the larger space needed for installing respective production lines of same capacity. Different manufacturers may also conclude differently. and might change the market situation of manufacturers. financial support to pilot or demonstration projects with amorphous transformers could be a way to overcoming existing barriers and obstacles towards testing this technology. such test will also help to better evaluate to which extent problems of noise and size of AMDT are still a problem today in practice.  uncertainties about future price developments for raw materials and electricity. the introduction of amorphous technology into the European market and further dissemination of this energy-efficient technology could be the consequence. Therefore.EIE-05-056 5. in turn.11 Support to R&D and pilot or demonstration projects It might be too early to conclude whether amorphous core material will represent the most economical solution to the design of distribution transformers in future. the analysis of the existing situation in the different Member States has shown that any switch to AMDT is difficult for a buyer in Europe.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . and European manufacturers have difficulties in switching their production towards amorphous transformers due to:  initial investment costs of the production line. There is no market for AMDT in Europe yet. and how such possible problems can be solved where this is needed. This. If tests are successful. if electricity distribution companies start buying amorphous transformers from abroad and test their implementation from technical and economic perspective. this will allow bettering evaluate the use of amorphous cores in Europe. Moreover. Page 46 of 57 . However. and. might also move the market for CGO technology towards more efficient units. However.

These market actors are directly addressed by R&D funding.  All market actors can implement demonstration or pilot projects together with manufacturers (and their suppliers). and might make use of available information and toolkits in their marketing activities. Page 47 of 57 . but probably larger companies will particularly be prepared to make use of respective R&D support provided.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) .1 Overview on policy packages for the different market actors The following table gives an overview on the policies and measures proposed for the different market actors:  With regard to electricity distribution companies. Only few larger companies in industry and in the electricity sector will need such information and qualification.  Clearly visible information required on the nameplate of a transformer. The control of the implementation of a mandatory standard or labelling scheme might be a bit difficult. energy consultants and planners. information.EIE-05-056 6 THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED POLICY PACKAGES 6. These are particularly small and medium industry and commerce. but also some smaller electricity distribution companies. A mandatory standard makes it necessary that the regulation of electricity distribution acknowledges the higher investment costs needed for the more efficient distribution transformers. ESCOs. Other financial or fiscal incentives are alternative measures for the transition phase to an adequate regulatory regime. motivation and qualification. a mandatory standard and labelling scheme. removing disincentives and including incentives in regulatory schemes should be the main activity to increase energy-efficiency of distribution transformers in this field. the inclusion in energy advice and audit programmes as well as the provision of a toolkit for buyers particularly address those market actors who lack of information and knowledge or who tend to follow traditional purchasing routines which do not lead to least-cost solutions. engineering firms. Appropriate information requirements and possibilities for the respective public authorities to join tests run by buyers or to run tests by themselves (for a small sample of transformers) have to be set.  Manufacturers and their suppliers will have to comply with mandatory standards and the labelling scheme required.

The total technical potential for energy saving is nearly 18. pilot / demonstration projects X X X X (X) X . qualification Co-operative procurement (X) (X) Market actor Mandatory standard Other financial or fiscal incentives Inclusion into energy advice / audit programmes Regulation Larger electricity distribution companies Large industry Smaller electricity distribution companies Small and medium industry and commerce Engineering firms. However.EIE-05-056 Table 7: Overview on policies and measures for the different market actors.2 Economic and environmental impact of the proposed policies and measures In the whole European energy efficiency policy-mix that currently exists.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . Actually this is a static potential because it is not possible to replace the existing fleet at once. planners Transformer manufacturers (and their suppliers) X (X) Labelling (X) (X) if not regulation (X) if not regulation (X) (X) if not regulation X (X) Toolkit for buyers X (X) (X) (X) X (X) if not regulation (X) X X X (X) X X X X X X (X) X X (X) X Service provider X (X) Compliance required Can include it in marketing bold = main focus within policy mix for this market actor brackets = only partly relevant for this market actor. substantial electricity saving potentials could be realised just by using technology already available today and by assuming normal lifetimes and thus normal transformer replacement. Page 48 of 57 R&D. reduced by 40% and load losses as per HD 538-1. There are also no European standards or labels for distribution transformers yet. or just addressing small part within this target group 6. distribution transformers are not addressed yet. Incentives from obligations or certificate schemes Information. motivation. if the policy-mix proposed by the SEEDT project was implemented. energy consultants. ESCOs.5 TWh/year if all liquid-filled transformers were replaced by units with AoBk losses mix and the dry-type ones were replaced by units with no-load losses as per HD 538. reduced by 10%.

 3rd scenario: Replacement of the liquid-filled transformers by units with Ao noload losses reduced by 49% and with Bk load losses increased by 8%. and 30 years for dry-type transformers in industry.000 20. The drytype ones are replaced by units with losses as per HD 538-1.165 3.  4th scenario: Replacement of the liquid-filled transformers by units with Ao noload losses reduced by 49% and with Bk load losses.711 1.000 35.718 Industry-dry 12. 25 years for oil-immersed transformers in industry and tertiary sector. Page 49 of 57 . It was thereby assumed that transformers were replaced by more efficient ones at the end of their lifetime (no pull-forward effect. The dry-type ones are replaced by units with no-load losses as per HD 538-1.EIE-05-056 40. reduced by 10%. reduced by 20%. More realistic is to keep the existing fleet and start using more efficient types of transformers for replacement of the ones that reached the end of their life and also for the installation of new transformers that are needed for the extension of the networks or due to the increase of the demand.973 4. 18: Static/technical energy saving potential in 2008.769 7.2025.e.000 30. Lifetimes assumed have been 40 years for (oil-immersed) transformers of electricity distribution companies. The values of losses of the proposed types have been considered with reference to the energy classification of the standards EN50464-1 for liquid-filled transformers and HD 538-1 for dry-type transformers:  1st scenario: Replacement of the liquid-filled transformers by AoBk units as per EN50464-1 and of the dry-type ones by units with losses as per HD 538-1.  2nd scenario: Replacement of the liquid-filled transformers by AoAk units as per EN50464-1 and of the dry-type ones by units with losses as per HD 538-1. 4 scenarios have been developed.000 15. reduced by 40% and load losses as per HD 538-1. The basis of these scenarios is the replacement of the existing transformers by the more efficient units that are available in the EU market and globally. no increased replacement rates). The calculations were run for a possible implementation of policies and measures in the years 2010 .000 5. reduced by 10%.000 GWh/year 25.000 0 Electricity distribution companies Electricity losses Industry-oil 21.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . i.606 Saving potential Fig. For the calculation of the energy saving potential.000 10.

and there are some limits with regard to their installation in existing transformer stations.915 Scenario 4 11.438 5. In total. The 2 baseline scenarios are:  PRIMES-TRENDS: Business-as-usual development of the European electricity system with further increase in electricity demand. General development of electricity system PRIMES Trends PRIMES EE/RES Scenario 1 6.  PRIMES EE/RES: Development of the European electricity system with strong increase in energy efficiency and renewable energies Both baseline scenarios assume 2004 market behaviour with regard to transformer procurement. General development of electricity system PRIMES Trends PRIMES EE/RES Scenario 1 1.2025). they are not always competitive from an economic perspective. The 8 combinations are shown in the following tables.4 Scenario 4 3. scenario 3 and 4.5 2.167 5. and. Table 9: Environmental impact in 2025 (Mtones CO2/year) in EU-27. Table 8: Energy efficiency potentials 2025 (GWh/year) in EU-27.631 8. if every time a distribution transformer is replaced or a new distribution transformer is needed. an energy-efficient one will be bought.2 2.163 The respective reduction in CO2 emissions in the year 2025 may exceed 3 million tons per year. a supportive regulatory framework is most important. this would mean to save in electricity distribution companies about: Page 50 of 57 . Nearly half of total potential electricity savings could come from electricity distribution companies. While their introduction and diffusion into the European market would lead to the highest gains with regard to energy savings and GHG emission reductions. The calculations show that nearly 12 TWh/y could be saved until the year 2025. The tables present the potentials that can be realized at the end of a fifteen years period (2010 . Therefore.2 1.015 Scenario 2 7. depending on the selected scenario (Table 8).EIE-05-056 All calculations have been made for 4 different energy efficiency scenarios compared to 2 baseline scenarios.7 1. if the general development of the electricity system followed the PRIMES-Trends (PRIMESEE/RES) scenario. can only be realised with amorphous transformers. that will lead to the highest energy savings and emission reduction.761 Scenario 3 10.7 Scenario 3 3.7 It should be noted that with the technology available today.5 Scenario 2 2.569 7.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . Further measures like information and education could accompany the implementation of incentives and removal of disincentives in the current regulation schemes. depending on the type of transformer (Table 9).

up to about 300 million Euro costs could be saved per year by 2025 by realising energy efficiency potentials of distribution transformers.ntua. The largest absolute electricity saving potentials in electricity distribution companies seem to be in France and UK.700 GWh/year (7. More detailed information on the different results. Furthermore.  8.600 GWh/year (6. changes in the regulatory schemes are most urgent and should particularly be implemented in these countries.400 GWh/year (2.gr/). Page 51 of 57 . followed by Spain.118 GWh/year by 2025 with constant replacement rates). the net economic benefits of investing in energy-efficient distribution transformers are the highest because of the higher electricity prices these mostly small and medium enterprises have to take into account.EIE-05-056  4.000 GWh/year) by 2050 with normal replacement rate and extrapolation of the development 2010-2025 to 2025-2050.600 GWh/year) electricity in 2025 compared to Businessas-usual development with no change in replacement rates.  11. Electricity saving potentials of this target group are nearly as high as in electricity distribution companies in PRIMES-Trends scenario. Italy and Germany. Therefore. The second important target group for policies and measures should be actors that influence the decision processes on purchase of oil-immersed transformers in industry and commerce.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . in total. and higher than in electricity distribution companies in PRIMES-EE/RES scenario (up to 4.5 million t CO2eq GHG emissions could be reduced by 2025. depending on the energy efficiency scenario. methodology and assumptions of the calculations can be found in the respective SEEDT report deliverable that is available from at the SEEDT website (http://seedt.800 GWh/year) electricity in 2025 with all existing transformers being replaced. Moreover. up to 3. In total.

These policies and measures should be bundled in an appropriate policy-mix.  A bundle of "soft" measures such as: o the requirement for clearly visible nameplate information. sales and purchase of energy-efficient distribution transformers. These market actors face different barriers and obstacles with regard to the development. and investment by. Therefore. The SEEDT project proposes:  Changes in the regulatory schemes are needed to remove disincentives and provide incentives to increase the use of energy-efficiency of distribution transformers by electricity distribution companies.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . The income of. different policies and measures are needed. Therefore. Page 52 of 57 . the regulatory mechanisms currently in place do not give any incentives and may even provide a disincentive to the purchase of energyefficient distribution transformers by electricity distribution companies. Until changes are made to these regulatory regimes. as well as the engineering firms. but also some smaller electricity distribution companies. additional fiscal or financial incentives will be needed to offset the current disincentives. in order to adequately address and overcome these barriers and obstacles and to realise the existing energy efficiency potentials in this field. energy consultants and planners. the regulation scheme will have a large impact on the investment decisions of electricity distribution companies. planning. They currently do not receive any support to realise energy-efficient targets. energy service companies and consultants who advise to them in the planning and tendering phases of procurement. o a labelling scheme. o the inclusion in energy advice and audit programmes and o the provision of a toolkit for buyers would particularly address those market actors who lack information and knowledge or who tend to follow traditional purchasing routines that do not lead to least-cost solutions. engineering firms. including whether or not to buy energy-efficient distribution transformers. In most European Member States. electricity distribution companies is mainly controlled by regulation due to the fact that distribution grids are in most cases natural monopolies. This particularly affects small and medium industry and commerce. energy service companies.EIE-05-056 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The main types of market actors having a direct influence on the decision to purchase a distribution transformer are electricity distribution companies and end users in industry and commerce.

Therefore. the electricity saving potentials of distribution transformers seem to be small. In total. As long as disincentives remain and positive incentives are missing. Since. up to about 10 TWh electricity savings could be realised. changes in the regulatory schemes are most urgent and should be implemented particularly in these countries. additional financial or fiscal incentives for electricity distribution companies should be introduced. but larger companies. Compared to saving potentials in other areas. particularly if it is economical. if avoided external costs were included. by 2025. and if general development of the electricity system followed European trend scenarios. would benefit from increased availability of R&D support. The calculations clearly show that changes in the regulatory schemes are most important to realise the existing saving potentials and to enable investments in transformers with the lowest lifecycle costs. energy-efficient transformers are economical. the economic results would be even more favourable for energy-efficient distribution transformers. particularly. it is recommended that the policies and measures proposed in this report are implemented.EIE-05-056  A European mandatory standard would effectively contribute to realising the saving potentials by addressing the same market actors as the bundle of "soft" measures.  All market actors can implement demonstration or pilot projects together with manufacturers (and their suppliers). Page 53 of 57 . A mandatory standard makes it necessary that the regulation of electricity distribution acknowledges the higher investment costs needed for the more efficient distribution transformers and would help Europe to catch up with the developments in the US and in Asia. Italy and Germany. Nevertheless. very roughly estimated. if the policies and measures proposed in this report were broadly implemented. every contribution to climate change mitigation and energy security is necessary. followed by Spain. The largest absolute electricity saving potentials in electricity distribution companies seem to be in France and UK. These potentials can be realised with technology already available today. in many cases. or if electricity prices increase compared to the assumptions taken in the presented work. In particular. per year.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) .

Yearly cost of losses in distribution transformer. The potential for global energy savings from high efficiency distribution transformers. International Copper Association. European Environment Agency. University of Oxford. 1992 with later changes. Wuppertal Institute. Statistical data of the Hungarian power system. EN50464-1. et al. S. Thomas. Irrek. Boardman. Energy saving in industrial distribution transformers. The cost of capitalized transformer – compromise between transformer producer and user. CENELEC. 2006 Review. H-1011.org/ http://epp.. Rt. 2004. Lechtenböhmer.. ECEEE 2005 Summer Study Proceedings. I. Climate change and a European low-carbon energy system. R. Goulden reports. European Transformer Markets. European Cooper Institute. 139 . Kazimierz ’04. Pinkiewicz. Energy Policies of IEA Countries. http://iea. December 2001.org/ AID-EE.eurelectric. Boonekamp. S. Environmental Change Unit.. et al. OECD/International Energy Agency.europa. February 2005. Spałek. Report No. European Copper Institute (2000): Energy-efficient distribution transformers – Utility Initiatives CENELEC. Copenhagen. D. Characterization of European transformer populations and the scope for energy savings. evaluation and design of energy efficiency policies. Edition of the Hans Böckler Foundation 169. Dziura. HD-428 S1.eurostat.. Report on behalf of WWF European Policy Office. Three phase oil immersed distribution transformers 50 Hz. 2000.. Conference “Transformer”. Energy and Environment Programme. May 2002.. The Western European Market for Distribution Transformers. 1997. P. KEMA. Paris. 1/2005. Guidelines for the monitoring. W. et al.EIE-05-056 8 BIBLIOGRAPHY [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] Targosz... (2006): Der EnergieSparFonds für Deutschland. J. International Cooper Association. Magyar Villamos Mûvek. p. February 2002. 2005: Matrices of interaction between policy measures on household energy efficiency in EU countries. B. Three phase oil immersed distribution transformers 50 Hz. Duesseldorf . et al. Conference “Transformator 2006”. Page 54 of 57 . Part 1.150. 2005. IEA. 2005: Target 2020: Policies and measures to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions in the EU.ec. 2006. et al.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) .eu/ http://public. Frost & Sullivan. ECI. Wuppertal.

2003: Interaction in EU climate policy. Perrels. Part III of the EU-SAVE project “DSM Pilot Actions.aidee. WI [Wuppertal Institute]. Bunse. Düsseldorf. Milano..org/documents.. Wuppertal Institute. Lund/Wuppertal.. Final report to DG Research under the fifth framework programme Interaction in EU climate policy..). 2006: [Guidelines for the monitoring. 20 November 2006. Germany. Sorrell. N. Brussels. Reports prepared within the framework of the AID-EE project. Simões.C. The potential and reserves of various energy sources. BNetzA [Bundesnetzagentur] (2008): Konzept zur Verlustenergie. Wien. Energy savings: What Works & Who Delivers? June 2005. Untersuchungen im Auftrag des Umweltbundesamtes. Bonn. Seixas. Irrek. 2004: Politikszenarien für den Klimaschutz. Thomas. Entwurf vom 08.. S. Download at: www. Belrin.. technologies furthering self-reliance and the impact of policy decisions.. SPRU. Report by Working Group 13 in Europump. S. M. Wuppertal Institut. European Commission. Ziesing. 2007: Aktivitäten der Energiewirtschaft zur Förderung der Energieeffizienz auf der Nachfrageseite in liberalisierten Strom. Paper developed in the course of the AID-EE project. P. 125-133. Thomas. Wuppertal. 2006: Options and potentials for energy end-use efficiency and energy services. MWMTV NRW [Ministerium für Wirtschaft und Mittelstand. and Huppes.. 2003: Energy efficiency programmes and services in the liberalised EU energy markets: good practice and supporting policy. Paris: European Council for an Energy-efficient Economy. et al.. (2003): Classification of circulators. Februar 2008.... Final report on behalf of E. 2005: Exploring policy space: Interactions between policy instruments on household energy efficiency. et al. Matthes. Wuppertal. 2006: The Vision Scenario for the European Union.. Presentation of Cesi Ricerca – TTD at the first Italian SEEDT workshop. C. AID-EE.. DSM Bidding. In ECEEE 2005 Summer Study Proceedings Volumes 1-3. L. S. 2006: European energy and transport: Scenarios on energy efficiency and renewables. P.EIE-05-056 [22] Lechtenböhmer. Brussels. Milano.. Öko-Institut. et al. C. W. S. Background document.. A. Mantzos. Study on behalf of the European Parliament. S. J. Technologie und Verkehr des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen]. Beschaffung und Ermittlung von [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] Page 55 of 57 .Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . et al. Bidstrup. The case of domestic cold appliances in Germany. Barthel.-J. Politecnico di Milano. F. Berti. 2006: Security of Energy Supply.. Capros. Markewitz. Dissertation an der Freien Universität Berlin. R. and Austria. (2006): Confronto degli impatti ambientali di transformatori di distribuzione a nucleo tradizionale ed amorfo attraverso l’uso della metodologia LCA. a joint project in Italy.und Gasmärkten europäischer Staaten: Kriteriengestützter Vergleich der politischen Rahmenbedingungen. Frankfurt/Main.. Wuppertal. Mandelieu. H. Summary.ON AG. Jülich. and Removal of DSM Disincentives From Price Regulation”. G. evaluation and design of energy efficiency policies]. France. Project sponsored by Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament. pp. Langfristszenarien und Handlungsempfehlungen ab 2012 (Politikszenarien III). Michelsen. (eds. 2005: A tangled web: assessing overlaps between energy and environmental policy instruments in place along electricity systems. Energieverwertungsagentur (2000): Price regulation and removal of DSM disincentives in monopoly segments of restructured electricity markets.. IP/A/ITRE/ST/2006-3.

(2001): The “Multiple Driver Cap Scheme” as basis of a slim incentive regulation of network operators in the liberalised electricity market. Athens. Jamasb. W. U. Murry Ellis Dialogue Consultants Ltd (2003): Minimum Energy Performance Standards for Distribution Transformers. M. Energy Policy 35. Bonn. EPTA. Frau. 7-9 Leprich. 1/2005. Brenda Boardman et al. J. S. ECU [Energy and Environment Programme. 4. European Commission (2008): Working document on possible Ecodesign requirements for general lighting equipment ("Domestic lighting part 1. J. M. Pinkiewicz.ARVO). I. Transforming the UK Cold Market. Pollitt.. [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] Page 56 of 57 . University of Oxford] (1997): DECADE. ENTR/06/026. Gutierrez. prepared for the Australian Greenhouse Office. Milano. Zeitschrift für Energiewirtschaft 25. EEA Report No. Frau. Copenhagen. 19th International Conference on Electricity Distribution (CIRED). PE International. NTUA (2007): Study for the first working plan of the Ecodesign directive. Irrek. 25. et al (2004): Yearly Cost of losses in distribution transformer.. 12 June 2008. Vienna.. 21-24 May 2007. Brussels. Brussels. Kurth. European Commission (1999): The scope for energy saving in the EU through the use of energyefficient electricity distribution transformers. Bonn. Leprich. (2008): Energy efficiency in Spain: Regulation and distribution transformers. 109/03. Transformer Conference paper.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . Paper 0141. U.. J. (2008): Letter of 08 January 2008 to the parliamentary undersecretary of state in the Federal Ministry for Environment. London. Environmental Change Unit. confidential draft from 6 February 2007. (2007): Energy-efficient distribution transformers in Spain: New trends.. September 2003. Prepared by Cambridge Economic Policy Associates (CEPA) for Ofgem. Presentation at the second Italian SEEDT workshop. (2007): Incentive regulation of electricity distribution networks: Lessons of experience from Britain. (2007): Ist die Anreizregulierung zu kurz gesprungen? DowJones Energy Weekly. Federal Net Agency (2007): Decree of incentive regulation of power supply network (Decree of incentive regulation . Thomas. T. including incandescent bulbs"). Session 5. A dynamic labelling scheme is necessary for promoting continuous improvement of the energy performance of home appliances. 6162-6187. EEA [European Environment Agency](2005): Climate change and a European low-carbon energy system. 231-241. Kazimierz ’04. Research Committee [The Research Committee for Total Energy – The Energy Conservation Standards Working Group: The Sub-Committee for Judgement Criteria for Transformers] (2002): Summary of Final Criteria.EIE-05-056 [37] CECED [European Committee of Domestic Equipment Manufacturers](2007): Beyond A. Michael Müller. 1997. OFGEM [The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets] (2003): Background study on the use of benchmarking to assess efficiency for the 2005 distribution price control. Report for tender no. Oxford. Mark Ellis & Associates (2000): Analysis of Potential for Minimum Energy Performance Standards for Distribution Transformers.

Wuppertal. Energieverwertungsagentur (2000): Price regulation and removal of DSM disincentives in monopoly segments of restructured electricity markets. Wuppertal. DSM Bidding. and Austria. Abridged report with financial support of the European commission. SPRU. Final report to DG Research under the fifth framework programme Interaction in EU climate policy. S.. Sorrell. Wuppertal. G. Simões. Barthel. Summary. United States Department of Energy (2000): Framework Document for Distribution Transformer Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking. M. and Huppes. Price regulation and removal of DSM disincentives in monopoly segments of restructured electricity markets. Part III of the EU-SAVE project “DSM Pilot Actions. Final report on behalf of E. Irrek. S. W. Dissertation an der Freien Universität Berlin. Wien. A. J. Seixas. Bunse. Wuppertal Institute/ASEW (Hrsg. Technologie und Verkehr des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen.Raw Materials Report.ntua. (2006): Options and potentials for energy end-use efficiency and energy services. DSM Bidding. Thomas. (2001): Suggestion for Reduction of the Second Standby Power “Non-load Loss”. suggestions of the Wuppertal Institute. 29 – 45. (2003): Energy efficiency programmes and services in the liberalized EU energy markets: good practice and supporting policy. a joint project in Italy. S.. Background document. Minerals & Energy . Part III of the EU-SAVE project “DSM Pilot Actions. Wuppertal Institute. and Austria. Technology and Transport of the country of North Rhine Westphalia]. and Removal of DSM Disincentives From Price Regulation”. (2007): Aktivitäten der Energiewirtschaft zur Förderung der Energieeffizienz auf der Nachfrageseite in liberalisierten Strom. Düsseldorf. Energy savings: What Works & Who Delivers? June 2005.: ENTR/06/026..) (2003): Energy efficiency in the liberalized electricity and gas market. et al. Wuppertal Institute. Energieverwer-tungsagentur (2000).und Gasmärkten europäischer Staaten: Kriterien-gestützter Vergleich der politischen Rahmenbedingungen. and Removal of DSM Disincentives from Price Regulation”. 2007. Politecnico di Milano. S. Wuppertal Institute (2003): Promotion of energy efficiency by regulation of the German electricity and gas industry. Ministerium für Wirtschaft und Mittelstand. Frankfurt/Main Thomas. [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] Page 57 of 57 . C. 125-133. (2003): Interaction in EU climate policy. 23:1. S. pp. Düsseldorf. Bringezu. Germany. published on Nov. How Energy companies and other participants are able to support energy consumers in saving energy and how politics can promote this. Wuppertal. (2008): Mapping of Environmental Performance of International Raw Material Production Flows: a Comparative Case Study for the Copper Industry of Chile and Germany.Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers (SEEDT) . Mandelieu. Germany. Politecnico di Milano. Paris: European Council for an Energy-efficient Economy. Directorate-General Energy and Transport.. SAVE program. Brüssels. Wien. Estrada. Milano. In ECEEE 2005 Summer Study Proceedings Volumes 1-3. (2005): A tangled web: assessing overlaps between energy and environmental policy instruments in place along electricity systems. Milano. and al. Wuppertal Institut. E. Wuppertal. T&D Europe (2008): Position paper on study for preparing the first Working Plan of the EcoDesign Directive Report for tender No. 22nd.. France.EIE-05-056 [55] Schüller. SEEDT [Strategies for development and diffusion of Energy-efficient Distribution Transformers]: Information to a current project in the EU-program “Intelligent Energy Europe”: http://seedt.gr/ Shibata. a joint project in Italy. MWMTV North-Rhine/Westphalia [Ministry for Economics and medium-sized businesses. M..ON AG. Wuppertal Institute.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful