Summer Internship Report - Mansoor

University of Petroleum & Energy Studies
Summer Internship Report On
Impact of Revised Distribution Transformer Standard on Transmission

& Distribution Losses
Under the Guidance of

Mr. Saurabh Diddi (Energy Economist)
Bureau of Energy Efficiency
Submitted by
Mansoor Alam Khan Chowdhury
Roll No 28,
Batch 2013-15 MBA (POWER MANAGEMENT)
University of Petroleum & Energy Studies
UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES

Impact of Revised Distribution Transformer Standard on Transmission & Distribution Losses
CERTIFICATE
UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGYSTUDIES Page I

DECLARATION
I, Mansoor Alam Khan Chowdhury, Roll no. R130213028, Class of 2013-15 of the MBA (Power
Management) of the UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM & ENERGY STUDIES, DEHRADUN
hereby declare that the Summer Training Report entitled:
“Impact of Revised Distribution Transformer Standard on Transmission & Distribution

Losses”
Is an original work and the same has not been submitted to any institute for the award of
any other degree.
Project In charge Signature of Candidate

(Faculty)
Countersigned Director/Principal of the Institute
UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGYSTUDIES Page II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The projects done by me under this internship program wouldn't have been completed, if not for the
active help and guidance of various people.
I express my sincere thanks to Mr. Saurabh Diddi (Energy Economist), BEE for giving me a great
opportunity to work in such a dynamic organization and for guiding me in all stages of the project. I am
thankful to Mr. Ashish, BEE for his guidance and support. I have a deep sense of gratitude and respect
for the entire staff of BEE for sharing their knowledge and for assisting me.
I would like to thank my Project In-charge Mr. Binod Kumar, Lecturer UPES, Dehradun for his support
and guidance throughout the course of summer internship.
A special thanks to Mr. Anil Kumar, HOD (UPES), for his guidance throughout my summer internship
and all faculty members for arranging my internship at Bureau of Energy Efficiency and being a
constant source of motivation and guidance throughout the course of my internship.
Mansoor Alam Khan Chowdhury
MBA (Power Management)
UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGYSTUDIES Page III

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1 Anticipated Power Supply Position in the Country during 2013-14

Table 2 Case: Typical loss comparison of a 63kVA Distribution Transformer
Table 3 Comparison between CRGO & AMDT
Table 4 A 3 phase, 250 kVA Transformer was tested under non-harmonic and harmonic conditions and
the values noted down are as follows:
Table 5 Losses in Electrical Distribution Equipment
Table 6 Maximum Permissible Transformer Loss Levels for the INDIAN BEE Star Classification.
Table 7 A Comparison of Efficiencies Calculated from the Indian BEE- 3-Star Level with European
Efficiencies from the HD 428 Loss levels
Table 8 Total Electrical consumption and network losses region wise
Table 9 Energy saving potential and greenhouse gas mitigation from transformer loss reduction
Table 10 compares power efficiency levels of Japanese Top Runner with the European and Indian levels
Table 11 Comparison of the Proposed New MEPS Power Efficiency Levels for Liquid-immersed Three
Phase Transformers with those used/proposed in Other Countries.
Fig 1 -Transformer losses as a percentage of loads

Fig 2 -A typical power distribution flowchart is shown below
Fig 3- Typical cascade efficiency profile from generation to 11 – 33 kV user industry
UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGYSTUDIES Page IV

ABBREVIATIONS
ARR Annual Revenue Requirement

AT&C Aggregate Technical & Commercial Losses
CAGR Compounded Annual Growth Rate
CEA Central Electricity Authority
CPSU Central Public Sector Undertakings
DFA Distribution Franchisee Agreement
Discom Distribution Company
DGVCL Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited
DMS Distribution Management System
DPR Detailed Project Report
DSM Demand Side Management
DTR Distribution Transformer
EA 2003 Electricity Act 2003
ERC Electricity Regulatory
FY Financial Year
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GIS Geographical Information System
kWh kilowatt hours
MIS Management Information System
MkWh Million kilowatt hours
MSEDCL Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company
MYT Multi-Year Tariff
O&M Operation & Maintenance
PAT Profit After Tax
PFC Power Finance Corporation of India Limited
PGVCL Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited
PPP Public Private Partnership
R-APDRP Restructured Accelerated Power Development &
RGGVY Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana
SEBs State Electricity Boards
SERC State Electricity Regulatory Commission
SLDC State Load Dispatch Centre
SOP Standards of Performance
T&D Transmission & Distribution Loss
UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGYSTUDIES Page V

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Electricity is the fulcrum of economic development in any country. India has installed power generation
capacity of 248 GW as on MAY 31, 2014, which is about 154 times the installed capacity in 1947 (1362
MW). Electricity generation growth has been steadily improving year after year, and in the year 2013-
14, the total electricity generation was about 876.8 billion units of energy with a growth of around 8%
over the previous year. During the XII plan, the power sector made considerable progress with a
capacity addition of approximately 58 GW which was significantly more than the capacity
commissioned in the previous plans. Such an improvement in performance was possible mainly because
of strong private sector participation.
However, India still faces the challenge of poor reliability and quality of electricity, leading to
occasional blackouts. Even as availability of power has increased substantially with significant
investments on the supply side, the demand has consistently outstripped supply.
Distribution and Retail Supply is the most critical link in the electricity market, which interfaces with
the end-customers and provides revenue for the entire value chain. It owes to the fact of sustenance of
other elements in the sector such as generation, transmission, equipment manufacturing; which depends
on its operational performance and commercial viability. However, despite of its critical importance,
generation segment has always been on the agenda of the government, in light of high energy deficit,
necessitating need of huge capacity addition. Lack of focus has resulted in poor operational and
financial performance of the sector, thereby creating greater need of sector transformation, with high
calls for private participation in terms of Private Franchising, Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) and
Equipment Suppliers. As a result, tremendous opportunities lie on fore in the sector, for various
stakeholders. The weakest part of the power sector remains distribution, which is incurring large losses.
AT&C losses are reported to be around 24 percent. This leads to high financial losses. The constant
losses of State Electricity Boards have created a debt trap.
UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGYSTUDIES Page VI

The estimated total loss run up by the SEBs has been pegged at Rs 2.4 lakh Crores. These are likely to
rise to even higher levels because of the increasing share of short-term purchase of power at high prices
and losses have been funded largely by short-term loans from banks/financial institutions, and Discom’s
with their weak financial position seem incapable of repaying these loans.
The report will develop a better understanding of the reasons for continued under-performance of the
sector on key dimensions. This report aimed at identifying successful state's utilities and learning from
their experience. More specifically, the review will examine the implementation of reforms, current
operational and financial scenario of states and risk profiling of these states on the basis of these
performances.
UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGYSTUDIES Page VII

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE ........................................................................................................................... I
DECLARATION ....................................................................................................................... II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .......................................................................................................... III
LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES ................................................................................................... IV
ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................... V
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... VI
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
1.1 POWER DISTRIBUTION SECTOR-SNAPSHOT ............................................................................. 1
1.2 OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT .................................................................................................... 2
1.3 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT ........................................................................................................... 2
1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROJECT ............................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION TO THE ORGANISATION............................................................. 3
2.1 ABOUT THE ORGANISATION .................................................................................................... 3
2.2 BEE SCHEMES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5
CHAPTER 3: REVIEW OF EXISTING LITERATURE & RESEARCH METHODOLOGY………………………..9
3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9
3.2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………………………………………..10
CHAPTER 4: TRANSFORMERS……………………………………………………………………………………………….11
4.1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11
4.2 LOSSES IN TRANSFORMERS………………………………………………………………………………………………..13
4.3 IMPROVING EFFICIENCY…………………………………………………………………………………………………….14
4.4 TYPES OF TRANSFORMERS…………………………………………………………………………………………………20
4.5 ENERGY EFFICIENT DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS…………………………………………………………..23
4.6 MEASURES TAKEN BY BUREAU OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY…………………………………………………….26
CHAPTER 5: FACTS AND ANALYSIS…………………………………………………………………………..31
5.1 OVERALL SCENARIO………………………………………………………………………………………………….31
5.2 FINDINGS…………………………………………………………………………………………………......................35
5.3 NEW CORE MATERIALS AND DESIGN…………………………………………………………………….41
5.3 PROBLEMS FACED BY TRANSFORMER MANUFACTURERS……………………………….49
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................…...51
REFERENCES
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 POWER DISTRIBUTION SECTOR-SNAPSHOT
Distribution and retail supply is the most important cog in the power sector value chain which interfaces
with end customers and provides revenue for the entire value chain. Indian electricity distribution caters
to nearly 200 million consumers with a connected load of about 400 GW that places the country among
the largest electricity consumer bases in the world. The consumers are served by around 73 distribution
utilities - 13 electricity departments, 17 private distribution companies, 40 corporatized distribution
companies and 3 State Electricity Boards. Sustenance of other elements in the sector like generation,
transmission, equipment manufacturing is dependent on the commercial performance and financial
viability of the distribution sector in India. Over the past 15-16 years, a number of states have worked to
improve the commercial performance of their state utilities, unbundling state entities, creating
independent regulatory systems, and putting in place measures to control losses and theft. However,
progress has been difficult, and slower than envisaged
"India's power sector is a leaking bucket; the holes deliberately crafted and the leaks carefully collected
as economic rents by various stakeholders that control the system. The logical thing to do would be to
fix the bucket rather than to persistently emphasize shortages of power and forever make exaggerated
estimates of future demands for power. Most initiatives in the power sector (IPPs and mega power
projects) are nothing but ways of pouring more water into the bucket so that the consistency and
quantity of leaks are assured..."
Twenty years after reforms were introduced in the Indian electricity sector, the above remark still holds
good. The 'bucket' in the above remark is the Indian electricity distribution sector, which consumes no
matter how much is generated, without adequately compensating the producers of electricity for the
same. Recently, Planning Commission had appointed a High Level Panel headed by Shri V.K. Shunglu,
former Comptroller &Auditor General in July, 2010 to look into the financial problems of State
Electricity Boards and to identify corrective steps. The terms of reference of this Committee included
reviewing the accounts of State Electricity Boards and State Distribution Companies as on March, 2010
and to project their losses by 2017, reviewing the electricity tariff and also examining the role of the
UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES Page 1
State Governments, Electricity Regulatory Commissions and Distribution Companies, assessing system
improvement measures accomplished in distribution of power etc. and finally, to recommend a plan of
action to achieve financial viability in distribution of power by 2017. The Shunglu Committee presented
its Report to the Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission on 15 December, 2011.It is time that we look
at the underlying problems of this sector and constructively work towards removing the bottlenecks to
make it more efficient and customer oriented.
1.2 OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT:
• To analyze Transmission & Distribution Losses due to Distribution transformer

• To analyze the impact of revised distribution transformer standards.
1.3 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT:
The scope of this project includes the following:
• This project covers standards directed by BEE of distribution transformers and its impact
• To study the various regulations and policies implemented by the state from time to time.
• To assess comparatively, the operational and financial performance of various SEBs
1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROJECT:
There have been huge financial losses incurring to the state SEBs in the recent years. Reduction of
AT&C losses remains a major problem in almost every state. It is also very important that the state
actually implements various policies and different regulations from time to time. This study helps us to
locate the various drawbacks of state utilities, their operational and financial performance and a
comparison among the state utilities finally shows where the utilities of the states stand upon.

CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION TO THE ORGANISATION
2.1 ABOUT THE ORGANISATION (BUREAU OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY):
The Bureau of Energy Efficiency is an agency of the Government of India, under the
Ministry of Power created in March 2002 under the provisions of the nation's 2001
Energy Conservation Act. The agency's function is to develop programs which will
increase the conservation and efficient use of energy in India. The government has
proposed to make it mandatory for all appliances in India to have ratings by the BEE
starting in January 2010.The mission of Bureau of Energy Efficiency is to
"institutionalize" energy efficiency services, enable delivery mechanisms in the country
and provide leadership to energy efficiency in all sectors of the country. The primary
objective would be to reduce energy intensity in the economy.
The broad objectives of BEE are as under:

• To exert leadership and provide policy recommendation and direction to national energy
conservation and efficiency efforts and programs.
• To coordinate energy efficiency and conservation policies and programs and take it to the
stakeholders
• To establish systems and procedures to measure, monitor and verify energy efficiency results in
individual sectors as well as at a macro level.
• To leverage multi-lateral and bi-lateral and private sector support in implementation of Energy
Conservation Act and efficient use of energy and its conservation programs.
• To demonstrate delivery of energy efficiency services as mandated in the EC bill through
private-public partnerships.
• To interpret, plan and manage energy conservation programs as envisaged in the Energy
Conservation Act.
• Objectives Provide a policy recommendation and direction to national energy conservation
activities

• Coordinate policies and programmes on efficient use of energy with shareholders

• Establish systems and procedures to verify, measure and monitor Energy Efficiency (EE)
improvements
• Leverage multilateral, bilateral and private sector support to implement the EC Act 2001
• Demonstrate EE delivery systems through public-private partnerships
Additional Information
Formation: March 1, 2002; 12 years ago

Type: Autonomous Government Agency
Legal: status Constituted by Energy Conservation Act, 2001.
Purpose: Development of policies and strategies, with an emphasis on self-regulation and market
principles under the Energy Conservation Act, 2001.
Headquarters: SEWA Bhavan
Location: R.K.Puram, New Delhi - 110066
Region served: India
Official language: Hindi, English
Parent organization: Ministry of Power
Website: beeindia.in

2.2 BEE SCHEMES
A. Bachat Lamp Yojana
The Objective of the Bachat Lamp Yojana (BLY) scheme is to provide Energy Efficient Compact
Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) at the same cost i.e. Rs.15, as of Incandescent Bulbs. The cost differential
would be made up by project implementer through carbon credits earned which could be traded in the
International market under Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of Kyoto Protocol. The BEE
coordinates the Small-Scale Programme of Activities (SSC-PoA) and supports the project
implementer(s) in implementing the CDM Programme Activities (CPAs) in India through collaboration
with Electricity Distribution Companies (DISCOMs). The scheme after implementation results in
reducing GHG emissions (CO2) from power plants connected to the grid The BLY CDM Programme of
Activities (PoA) is registered with UNFCCC on 29th April 2010. Till date, 50 small scales BLY projects
from various parts of India have been included in this registered umbrella framework and 44 projects
have been implemented. As a result, about 29 million CFLs have been distributed during XI plan period.
The Bachat Lamp Yojana PoA is a scheme developed by BEE to promote energy efficient lighting in
India. There are no mandatory requirements in India requiring the use of energy efficient CFL at the
household level. All the key players under the scheme like the BEE and participating implementer(s),
DISCOMs and households are voluntarily taking part under this scheme.
An Avoided Generation Capacity of 415 MW has been achieved by the CFL distribution during XI plan
which is verified by third party. The Monitoring and Verification process of the BLY PoA has
commenced for issuance of CERs for the completed projects.

B. Standards and Labeling
This is one of the major thrust areas of BEE. A key objective of this scheme is to provide the consumer
an informed choice about the energy saving and thereby cost saving potential of the relevant marketed
product. The S&L scheme was launched on a voluntary basis for Air conditioners, Refrigerators, TFLs
and Distribution Transformers.
The Scheme targets display of energy performance labels on high energy end use equipments &
appliances and lays down minimum energy performance standards.
Select appliances for labeling

Mandatory Scheme
Frost Free Refrigerator
TFL (Trouble free lighting)
Air conditioner
Distribution transformer
Voluntary Scheme
Direct Cool Refrigerator
General Purpose Industrial Motors
Monoset Pumps
Openwell Pump Sets
Submersible Pump Sets
Ceiling Fans
Stationary Storage Type Water Heaters
Color Televisions
Washing Machine

Government of India (Bureau of Energy Efficiency, Ministry of Power) introduced the Standards and
Labeling Program in May 2006. Under this program the manufacturers are required to place a label
showing how much electricity the appliance will consumer under certain conditions.
The program is currently running for refrigerators, air conditioners, televisions, geysers, tube lights and
fans among the household appliances. The scheme is mandatory for some of the appliances while
voluntary for others. However, once we have decided to save electricity and reduce our bills, it becomes
mandatory for us to look at wherever these labels are what they tell.
The labels have been designed after a great deal of research. The labels contain a number of items. The
highlight though is the ‘STARS’. More is the stars more efficient is the appliance. There are two kinds
of labels – big label and smaller label. For ceiling fans, tube lights, computers/laptops and televisions the
smaller labels are used while for refrigerators, air conditioners, geysers and washing machine the big
label is used. Some of sample labels are shown below:

C. Energy Conservation Building Code ECBC

The Energy Conservation Building Code (ECBC) was launched in May 2007 by the Hon'ble Minister of
Power, and is presently in vogue on voluntary basis. The ECBC sets minimum energy standards for new
commercial buildings having a connected load of 100 kW or contract demand of 120 kVA. BEE is
promoting the implementation of energy efficiency measures in existing buildings through Energy
Service Companies (ESCOs) which provide an innovative business model through which the energy-
saving potential in existing building can be captured and the risk faced by building owner can also be
addressed.
D. ADSMs
The scheme targets replacement of inefficient pump sets. The replacement of inefficient equipments will
result in energy and cost saving. In order to accelerate DSM measures in agriculture sector, BEE has
initiated on Ag. DSM, programme in which pump set efficiency upgradation would be carried out
through Public-Private partnership mode.
E. MDSMs
The scheme targets replacement of equipment in street lighting. Municipalities are spending large
amount of their revenue on purchasing energy for providing local public services such as street lighting
and water supply. Energy efficiency in municipal water supply system can save water and energy while
reducing cost and improve service
F. SMEs
BEE in consultation with Designated State Agencies has initiated diagnostic studies in 25 high energy
consuming small and medium enterprise clusters to stimulate energy efficiency measures. It has
developed cluster specific energy efficiency manuals/booklets, and other documents to enhance energy
conservation in SMEs.
NMEE, PAT, CDM Under construction

CHAPTER 3: REVIEW OF EXISTINGLITERATURE & RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
NATIONAL ELECTRICITY POLICY:

The Act provides for a robust regulatory framework for distribution licensees to safeguard consumer
interests. It also creates a competitive framework for the distribution business, offering options to
consumers, through the concepts of open access and multiple licensees in the same area of supply.
Multi-Year Tariff (MYT) framework is an important structural incentive to minimize risks for utilities
and consumers, promote efficiency and rapid reduction of system losses. It would serve public interest
through economic efficiency and improved service quality. A time-bound programme should be drawn
up by the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (SERC) for segregation of technical and
commercial losses through energy audits resort to cherry picking by demanding unreasonable
connection charges from consumers.
The Act mandates supply of electricity through a correct meter within a stipulated period. The Authority
should develop regulations as required under Section 55 of the Act within three months. The Act
requires all consumers to be metered within two years. SCADA and data management systems are
useful for efficient working of Distribution Systems. High Voltage Distribution System is an effective
method for reduction of technical losses, prevention of theft, improved voltage profile and better
consumer service. It should be promoted to reduce LT/HT ratios keeping in view the techno economic
considerations.
OTHER LITERATURES
Distribution Transformers: Proposal to Increase MEPS Levels
In 2000 the then National Appliance and Equipment Energy Efficiency Committee of Australian
Commonwealth, state and territory government officials initiated the development of Regulations to
mandate Minimum Efficiency Performance Standards (MEPS) for electricity distribution transformers.
This was part of the National Appliance and Equipment Energy Efficiency Program (now the Equipment
Energy Efficiency Program)) run under the auspices of the Ministerial Council on Energy of Australian
and New Zealand Energy Ministers. As an outcome of this work an Australian Standard was issued in
2003. This Australian Standard specified minimum permissible power efficiency levels for liquid-

insulated and dry-type electrical distribution transformers with ratings in the range 10 – 2500 kVA and
with primary voltage in the range 11 – 22 kV.
The Regulations associated with the MEPS requirements mandated that no transformers covered by
MEPS could be sold in Australia unless they complied with the MEPS. The MEPS requirements applied
to both imported and Australian-made units. Compliance with MEPS for transformers came into force
on 1 April 2004.
The overarching objective of both the previous MEPS and the proposed new MEPS is to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions related to energy losses from electricity distribution transformers below what
they are otherwise projected to be, in a manner that is in the community’s best interests. The more
specific aim of the MEPS program is to reduce energy losses associated with transformer operation in
the electricity distribution system. Overall network losses in the electrical transmission and distribution
systems used to supply power to consumers can be as much as 6-9% of the total power generated by
large power stations. Transformers in the distribution networks, make up about 30-40% of the total
network loss. The original MEPS stated that the efficiency levels specified would remain in force for
four years and that they would then be reviewed in accordance with international trends in efficiency
levels and would be made more stringent if international best practice indicated such change was
achievable. Specifically, the original Standard gave a set of “high efficiency” levels that were not
mandatory but were desirable levels. The review process of the original levels is now underway and this
report has been prepared to discuss the change of mandatory MEPS levels to those “high efficiency”
levels.
3.2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.2.1 FILTERING OF DATA
Two way filtering has been applied one is for parameters and other is for states. This has been done to
provide more insights into the report.
3.2.1 (A) FILTERING OF PARAMETERS
To carry out the extensive research, all parameters identified are classified into three categories-
elementary parameters, moderate parameters and crucial parameters.
3.2.1 (B) FILTERING OF STATES
Filtering of states has been done on the basis of anticipated power supply position in FY-14.From
filtering, distribution utilities of top contributing states have been taken for report which constitute

majorly for the total requirement of power in country. However some distribution companies are not a
part of this report due to unavailability of their financial statements.
Table 1: Anticipated Power Supply Position in the Country during 2013-14
Anticipated Power Supply Position in the Country during
2013-14
State/UT Requirement(KWh)
Maharashtra 118455
Andhra Pradesh 109293
Tamil Nadu 99765
Uttar Pradesh 97785
Gujarat 76808
Karnataka 75947
Rajasthan 59770
Madhya Pradesh 59431
Punjab 50850
West Bengal 48489
Haryana 44700
Orissa 27130
Delhi 26910
Kerala 22384
Chhattisgarh 21410
DVC 19605
Jammu & Kashmir 16240
Bihar 15268
Uttarakhand 12455
Himachal Pradesh 9425
Jharkhand 8609
Assam 7031
D.N. Haveli 5315
Goa 3219
Puducherry 2451
Daman & Diu 2115
Meghalaya 1905
Chandigarh 1750
Tripura 1216
Arunachal Pradesh 655
Manipur 596
Nagaland 591
Sikkim 1 531
Mizoram 430

CHAPTER 4: TRANSFORMERS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Transformers are static electrical devices that are used in electrical power systems to transfer electrical
power between circuits through the use of electromagnetic induction. Transformers convert electrical
energy from one voltage level to another. They are an essential part of the electricity network. After
generation in power stations, electrical energy needs to be transported to the areas where it is consumed.
This transport is more efficient at higher voltage, which is why power generated at 10-30 kV is
converted by transformers into typical voltages of 220 kV up to 400 kV, or even higher.
Since the majority of electrical installations operate at lower voltages, the high voltage needs to be
converted back close to the point of use. The first step down is transformation to 33-150 kV. It is often
the level at which power is supplied to major industrial customers. Distribution companies then
transform power further down to the consumer mains voltage. Transformers can be grouped into four
broad categories according to their high voltage winding and their function in the network:
• Large power
• Medium power
• Medium voltage distribution; and
• Low voltage distribution.
Transformers with their highest voltage above 36kV are generally referred to as large power
transformers or medium power transformers, depending on the voltage. These transformers are often
used in the transmission of electricity. Medium power transformers are generally considered as those
with power ratings greater than 2500 kVA and less than or equal to 60 MVA three phase with voltage
ratings > 36 kV to = 230 kV. Large power transformers are generally viewed as those with base self-
cooled power ratings exceeding 60 MVA and always including all high voltage ratings of 230 kV as
well as all extra high voltage (EHV) ratings of 245 kV or more. Large power transformers can be found
at generating power stations and electrical substations to convert electrical power to high voltages for
transmission and then back down again at the other end to a medium power transformer for transferring
power to a sub-transmission circuit. From medium power transformers, the voltage is further reduced by
medium voltage distribution transformers into circuits where the electricity is distributed to end users.
The Transformers installed in the distribution circuit of electricity networks servicing residential areas

and commercial and industrial customers are named as distribution transformers. Distribution
transformers (DT’s) are mostly involved in stepping voltage down.
As per Leonardo Energy – Transformers report, 2005, the global transmission and distribution network
losses will lead to global economic loss of more than $61 billion annually and annual greenhouse gas
emissions of more than 700 million tonnes. In general, it is estimated that one third of network losses
occur in transformers, and of these transformer losses, 70 per cent occur in distribution transformers.
The report estimates that total electricity lost on utility networks around the world in 2005 was
approximately 1,279 TWh, and of that, distribution transformers consumed 298.4 TWh.
High efficiency transformers create economic benefits for society in addition to the reduced greenhouse
gas emissions, improved reliability and potentially longer service life if lower temperature rises are
experienced through the energy-efficiency improvements. With these benefits in mind, many countries
has taken policy initiatives to establish mandatory and voluntary programmes to conserve energy and to
help the domestic markets by adopting energy-efficient transformers.
4.2 LOSSES IN TRANSFORMERS

The losses are categorized into following three types:
No-load loss (also called iron loss or core loss): Caused by the hysteresis and eddy currents in the core.
It is present whenever the transformer is connected, and independent of the load. It represents a constant,
and therefore significant, energy drain.
Load loss (or copper loss or short circuit loss): Caused by the resistive losses in the windings and
leads, and by eddy currents in the structural steelwork and the windings. It varies with the square of the
load current.
Cooling loss (only in transformers with fan cooling): Caused by the energy consumption of a fan. The
bigger the other losses, the more cooling is needed and the higher the cooling loss. These losses can be
avoided if operational temperature is kept low by different loss reduction measures.

An estimation of the total energy loss can be calculated from:

Eloss [kW] = (P0+Pk*I2)*8760
where
P0 is the no-load loss [kW].
Pk is the load loss [kW].
I is the rms-average load of the transformer.
8,760 is the number of hours in a year.
Transformer losses as a percentage of load is given in the Figure 1
Figure 1.12 Transformer loss vs %Load
Why Transformer Rating In kVA, Not in KW?
Cu (Copper) loss of a transformer depends on current and Iron loss on voltage. Hence, total transformer
loss depends on volt-ampere (VA) and not on phase angle between voltage and current i.e. it is

independent of load power factor. That is why rating of transformer is in kVA and not in KW (Kilo
watt)
In Simple words,
There are two types of losses in a transformer;
1. Copper Losses
2. Iron Losses or Core Losses or Insulation Losses
Copper losses (I²R) depends on Current which passing through transformer winding while Iron Losses
or Core Losses or Insulation Losses depends on Voltage.
That’s why the rating of Transformer in kVA, Not in kW.
4.3 IMPROVING EFFICIENCY

Improving efficiency at manufacturers end is to reduce losses in transformers during the design and
focus is mainly in two elements: core and windings. Transformer design is complex, with many of the
characteristics of distribution transformers specified in national or international standards.
The no-load losses can be reduced by selecting a high performance steel for the core. Next to the choice
of the steel, the way in which distribution transformer cores are designed, cut, fabricated and assembled,
plays an important role in energy efficiency. Increasing the size of the core reduces the density of the
magnetic field, and in this way improves energy efficiency.
Load losses are proportional to the square of the load current, so one should always consider how the
unit will be loaded over time. Load losses can be reduced by increasing the cross section of the
windings. This reduces the current density and consequently the loss, although at a higher construction
cost.
The process of winding the conductor coils and then fitting them into the assembled core has a very
large influence on the energy efficiency of a transformer. It is a labour-intensive process that requires
skilled workers.
A. Transformer replacements
Transformer replacement before failure can be motivated by several reasons. These include
environmental and fire safety regulations, changes in the load or the voltage level, an increased risk of
failure due to transformer ageing, or the aim to improve the energy efficiency.
Distribution transformers rarely catch the attention of the Operation and Maintenance department. They
do not have any moving parts. They do what they have to do, day after day, year after year, with a
remarkably high level of energy efficiency and reliability. Transformers provide an almost constant
quality of service. Their decrease in energy efficiency and reliability is at a very slow rate and generally
remains unnoticed. Until, that is, they fail and have to be replaced.
Possible reasons for replacements
• To improve energy efficiency
• To improve the reliability of supply
• Because of a change in load profile
• Because of a change in voltage level
• To comply with environmental and fire safety regulations.
A transformer failure occurs when the quality of the internal insulation system fails and a short-circuit
results. The electrical insulation of transformer windings consists of a particular type of paper, immersed
in oil. The physical properties of this paper are largely dependent on the degree of polymerization of its
molecules, which degrades over time, albeit very slowly and not always at the same pace. An insulation
failure typically happens when this degree of polymerization of the insulating paper drops below a
threshold value. In such cases, the paper becomes brittle and the breakdown voltage is reduced. A surge
in the voltage level, caused by a lightning strike or a fault on the line, can be enough to cause an internal
arc. In the worst case, an internal arc can occur without an external trigger.
In theory, distribution transformers don’t have an age limit. If they are constructed, operated, and
maintained well, the insulation paper can preserve its quality for a very long time. However, even newly
purchased transformers can fail when circumstances are bad. Consequently, if you want to replace a
transformer before it fails, age is a poor criterion to use in selecting the most opportune moment.
If reliability is the only criterion, a rewinding or other type of thorough repair action can be a good
alternative to an entire replacement of the transformer. This is especially the case for relatively new
transformers for which maintenance measurements have shown that risk of failure has risen substantially
above the average. However, in the sense of economic and environmental best practice, other criteria
should be considered as well. Energy efficiency is the most important of these considerations.
The life cycle cost has to be calculated considering financial point of view, taking into account the cost
of energy losses, failure risk and maintenance into account, as well as the investment cost and the
residual value of the transformer at the moment of retirement.
An accurate estimation of the load losses is critical in this assessment. This requires a good prediction of
the loading pattern. A sound evaluation of the risk of failure, depending on the ageing state of the

transformer, is also crucial. This will require the correct interpretation of maintenance measurements.
The replacement issue mainly comes down to the question whether the energy efficiency can be
improved sufficiently to reduce the life-cycle cost of the transformer. As the cost of the energy losses
mount up to a multiple of the investment cost of the transformer, a minor energy efficiency gain can
already be enough to justify replacement.
B. Standards & Regulations
The transformer converts power from one system voltage to another & for a distribution transformer,
this voltage relationship, or voltage ratio, is determined by the ratio of the number of turns on the high
voltage winding to the number of turns on the low voltage winding. As the alternating current in the
high voltage winding changes polarity 50 or 60 times a second (i.e. frequency in “Hertz”), it induces a
current in the low voltage winding that is proportional to the voltage of the high voltage winding divided
by the turns ratio. As the transformer works, it incurs power (and hence energy) losses in the high
voltage winding, the low voltage winding, the core steel and in the surrounding transformer tank or
housing and fittings. These losses in the surrounding tank/ housing and fittings are called stray losses.
The magnitude of the total losses of the transformer relative to the power throughput determines its
efficiency.
There are many aspects of a distribution transformer that can be measured through the test methods as
per the national or international standards adopted by different countries. Hence the need is felt to
harmonise the test Standards.
Testing standards support all product standards and labeling programmes because they are the means by
which product energy performance is measured and compared. Harmonization of energy performance
test procedures is a means of facilitating technology diffusion and trade objectives. Harmonized test
methods can encourage trade, conformity assessment, comparison of performance levels, technology
transfer and the accelerated adoption of best practice policy. For example if energy efficiencies are to
used internationally in performance schemes and if transformers are to be imported/exported, it is
necessary to specify the measurement accuracies (or uncertainty levels) of test methods to ensure that
the manufacturer, the user and the Energy Regulator all get the same result when testing energy
efficiencies of transformers. Both governments and manufacturers stand to gain from the harmonization
of testing methods.

Benefits to governments include:

• Lower development costs for preparing a test method;
• Comparative test results for products sold domestically and in neighboring economies;
• The ability to transpose and adapt analyses from other markets to determine appropriate
domestic efficiency requirements;
• Adopting minimum performance thresholds and applying them as a starting point in a domestic
regulatory programme;
• Adopting a common set of upper thresholds that can be used for market pull programmes such as
labeling and incentive schemes; and
• Faster and less expensive testing – for compliance and other purposes – as harmonized testing
creates a larger choice of laboratories who can conduct product tests.
For manufacturers, having one harmonized test method with specified measurement uncertainties used
by markets around the world will reduce their testing costs associated with demonstrating regulatory
and/or product labeling compliance. The manufacturers need only conduct one test and the result would
be universally accepted by these markets as being accurate and representative of the performance of
their product. A harmonized test method also enables them to look ahead to longer-term rewards for
innovation around advanced product designs that will be more energy efficient and have lower life-cycle
costs for consumers. Having a consistent test method enables countries to establish a common set of
efficiency thresholds that would not only be broad enough to encompass all current market
circumstances but which also include aspirational efficiency thresholds as pointers for future market
development.
The promotion of more energy efficient transformers is supported by a number of policy instruments
and programmes around the world. Examples of these policy instruments include:
• Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS)
• Voluntary or mandatory product labeling
• Financial incentives, subsidies and tax breaks
• Communication and outreach materials
• Tools including on-line calculators

• On-site metering and audits

• Technical support and advice on procurement
• Support for R&D and demonstration projects
Of these policy instruments, minimum energy performance standards (MEPS) are one of the most
powerful tools, as they require that entire markets shift to higher levels of efficiency. When combined
with supporting policies including financial incentives and communications programmes, and with
monitoring, verification and enforcement activities to ensure regulatory compliance, MEPS will change
markets and ensure the realization of national benefits from cost-effective energy savings.
C. Standards & Regulation: Global Scenario

The most widely used test method today for measuring distribution transformers is based on the
International Electro technical Commission (IEC) 60076 series of test standards, which are continually
updated by the various committees and subcommittees working on these standards.
There are two major standards bodies that set testing specifications for distribution transformers – they
are the IEC and the IEEE. For the measurement of losses, most countries and economies active on
distribution transformers use a test standard based on IEC 60076. In some cases, there are slight (local)
modifications that have been made due to specific or unique requirements, however for the most part,
the standards are consistent and based on IEC 60076. The countries and economies reviewed that have
standards referencing or based on IEC 60076 are: Australia, Brazil, China, Europe, India, Israel, Japan,
Korea, Mexico, New Zealand and Vietnam. The United States and Canada, on the other hand, rely on
test standards that are based on IEEE. The US uses a test standard that was developed by the Department
of Energy (DOE) and the National Institute of Standards and Testing (NIST) in close consultation with
manufacturers and other stakeholders. The US test standard is largely based on IEEE standards. The
Canadian standard references the voluntary industry association standard NEMA4 TP 2-2005 as their
test standard, which is also based on the IEEE test methodology.
The procedures for the measurement of losses of a distribution transformer are given in 60076-1. This is
true of both liquid-filled and dry-type transformers. For dry-type transformers, the applicable standard is
60076-11, however in sections 15 (Measurement of Winding Resistance), 17 (Measurement of short-
circuit impedance and load loss: routine test), and 18 (Measurement of no-load loss and current: routine
test), all of these sections cross-reference parts of IEC 60076-1.Thus, in addition to all the sections

which specify the general requirements for tests, the two key sections from IEC 60076-1 that are the
focus of quantifying the energy performance metric for distribution transformers: IEC 60076-1 Section
11.4 for measurement of load loss IEC 60076-1 Section 11.5 for measurement of no-load loss.
D. Standards & Regulation: Indian Scenario
In India the test method today for measuring distribution transformers is based on the International
Electro technical Commission (IEC) 60076 series of test standards, As India is harmonized with IEC
60076, Both Parts(Part 1 & Part -2) of IS cross-reference a series of Indian Standards (IS) based around
the IEC 60076 standard.
On 5 January 2010, India adopted a mandatory labelling scheme for specific types of liquid-filled,
naturally air-cooled, three-phase distribution transformers. These are the units referred to under Indian
Standard IS 1180 (part I) and cover power ratings up to and including 200 kVA. More specifically, the
standard ratings covered under the energy labelling scheme are 16, 25, 63, 100, 160 and 200 kVA.
The testing code and procedure for the distribution transformers would be as per the Indian Standard
(IS) 1180 (part 1): 1989 with all amendments to date. The Energy label/star system constitutes a useful
tool for differentiating between models at the same rating. It is important to note that in a notification
dated 20 August 2010, the Central Electricity Authority (CEA) of India issued a requirement that all
utilities in India must procure at least a 3 star distribution transformer. Hence the transformer purchase
orders issues by the utilities prescribe minimum 3 star distribution transformers.
This scope of coverage in India is currently under review by the Bureau of Indian Standards and the
Bureau of Energy Efficiency. Most likely the revision of the national distribution transformer standard
(BIS standard) extends the scope of coverage beyond 200 kVA and up to and including 2500 kVA and
33 kilovolts. This extension of the scope would bring India’s coverage more in line with other major
economies such as Australia, China and the United States.

4.4 TYPES OF TRANSFORMERS:-
1) Power Transformer
2) Distribution Transformer
3) Auto Transformer " Tap changer "
4) Instrument Transformer
5) Isolating Transformer
Power Transformer: Used in transmission network with high voltages as step up & step down
transformer. The rating of this type always up to 200 MVA. High voltages are (33, 66,110,220,400KV).
Distribution Transformer: Used in distribution network with low voltages and a rating less than 200
MVA, Low voltages are (11, 6.6, 3.3KV, 400,220V).
Auto Transformer "Tap changer": Has only one winding, the secondary voltage can be obtained by
tapping off at any convenient point.
Its applications are:
** Starter (in three phase induction motors)
** Booster (raise voltage in Ac feeders)
** Speed controller or voltage regulator (changing fan speed by changing input voltage)
Instrument Transformer: Used in measuring, with protective relays & control circuit,
It has two types (voltage transformer, current Transformer)
Isolating Transformer: Used to isolate or decoupled two different circuits with 1:1 ratio.
Difference between Power Transformer and Distribution Transformer

Power transformers are used in transmission network of higher voltages for step-up and step
down application (400 kV, 200 kV, 110 kV, 66 kV, 33kV) and are generally rated above
200MVA.
Distribution transformers are used for lower voltage distribution networks as a means to end user
connectivity. (11kV, 6.6 kV, 3.3 kV, 440V, 230V) and are generally rated less than 200 MVA.

Transformer Size / Insulation Level:

Power transformer is used for the transmission purpose at heavy load, high voltage greater than
33 KV & 100% efficiency. It also having a big in size as compare to distribution transformer, it
used in generating station and Transmission substation .high insulation level.
The distribution transformer is used for the distribution of electrical energy at low voltage as less
than 33KV in industrial purpose and 440v-220v in domestic purpose. It work at low efficiency at
50-70%, small size, easy in installation, having low magnetic losses & it is not always fully
loaded.
Iron Losses and Copper Losses

Power Transformers are used in Transmission network so they do not directly connect to the
consumers, so load fluctuations are very less. These are loaded fully during 24 hr.’s a day, so Cu
losses & Fe losses takes place throughout day the specific weight i.e. (iron weight)/(cu weight) is
very less. The average loads are nearer to full loaded or full load and these are designed in such a
way that maximum efficiency at full load condition. These are independent of time so in
calculating the efficiency only power basis is enough. Power Transformers are used in
Distribution Network so directly connected to the consumer so load fluctuations are very high.
these are not loaded fully at all time so iron losses takes place 24hr a day and cu losses takes
place based on load cycle. the specific weight is more i.e. (iron weight)/(cu weight).average
loads are about only 75% of full load and these are designed in such a way that max efficiency
occurs at 75% of full load. As these are time dependent the all-day efficiency is defined in order
to calculate the efficiency. Power transformers are used for transmission as a step up devices so
that the I2r loss can be minimized for a given power flow. These transformers are designed to
utilize the core to maximum and will operate very much near to the knee point of B-H curve
(slightly above the knee point value).This brings down the mass of the core enormously.
Naturally these transformers have the matched iron losses and copper losses at peak load (i.e. the
maximum efficiency point where both the losses match).

Distribution transformers obviously cannot be designed like this. Hence the all-day-efficiency
comes into picture while designing it. It depends on the typical load cycle for which it has to
supply. Definitely Core design will be done to take care of peak load and as well as all-day-
efficiency. It is a bargain between these two points. Power transformer generally operated at full
load. Hence, it is designed such that copper losses are minimal. However, a distribution
transformer is always online and operated at loads less than full load for most of time. Hence, it
is designed such that core losses are minimal.
In Power Transformer the flux density is higher than the distribution transformer.
Maximum Efficiency
The main difference between power and distribution transformer is distribution transformer is designed
for maximum efficiency at 60% to 70% load as normally doesn’t operate at full load all the time. Its load
depends on distribution demand. Whereas power transformer is designed for maximum efficiency at
100% load as it always runs at 100% load being near to generating station.
Distribution Transformer is used at the distribution level where voltages tend to be lower .The secondary
voltage is almost always the voltage delivered to the end consumer. Because of voltage drop limitations,
it is usually not possible to deliver that secondary voltage over great distances.
As a result, most distribution systems tend to involve many ‘clusters’ of loads fed from distribution
transformers, and this in turn means that the thermal rating of distribution transformers doesn’t have to
be very high to support the loads that they have to serve.
All day efficiency = (Output in KWhr) / (Input in KWhr) in 24 hrs which is always less than power
efficiency.
One third of network losses occur in transformers, and of these transformer losses, 70 per cent occur in
distribution transformers
4.5 ENERGY EFFICIENT DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS

Electricity is one of the most vital infrastructure inputs for economic development of a country. The
demand for electricity in India is enormous and is growing steadily. This growth has been slower than
country’s economic growth. To balance this demand and supply of electricity, it is the time for electric
utilities to go for energy efficient electrical equipment for huge savings as this would be utilized for
future needs.
The Ministry of Power has outlined its mission for 11th Five Year Plan – “Power for All: 2012”. In the
next 5 years, India will require 66,000 MW of new generation capacity with matching investments in
transmission and distribution networks. For every 1 MW of new capacity that comes up, about 7 – 8
MVA transformers (approximately) are used across Generation, Transmission and Distribution
segments. This implies a demand of about 5,00,000 MVA of transformers unfolding over next 5 years,
resulting in an annual demand of about 100,000 MVA, which would mean that there would be
approximately a demand for 2.25 Million Transformer units (approx. 30% for distribution) of average
rating of 63 kVA. Besides fresh demand, some replacement demand of 15,000MVA (approximately)
will also be coming up, as transformers usually have a life of 20 – 30 years.
The 10th Five Year Plan originally envisaged 41,100 MW, re-revised finally to about 30,500 MW and
has ended at 23,450 MW. Simultaneously, with the worsening power scenario and acute power shortage,
the Indian Economy cannot sustain the growth momentum but has to look for aggressively augmenting
power supply.
The strategy developed to make power available to all by 2012 includes promotion of energy efficient
products and its conservation in the country, which is found to be the least cost option to augment the
gap between demand and supply.

Table 2 Case: Typical loss comparison of a 63kVA Distribution Transformer
Nearly 185 to 354 MW (considering 50% of 2.25 Million transformers) of capacity creation through
energy efficiency in the distribution sector alone is required in our country and this can be achieved only
through employing Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers by our Electrical Utilities as transformer
is the heart of any electrical distribution system.
The Distribution Reforms were identified as the key area to bring about the efficiency and improve
financial health of the power sector.
Power utilities improve efficiency of their distribution systems by reducing losses. Industrial and
commercial users of electricity also improve the efficiency of their electrical distribution systems by
reducing losses. The distribution transformer supplies power to all the power consuming items and
remains energized for 24 hours. Being supply equipment, it does not, by itself, consume any power. But
the process of transformation involves certain inherent losses especially in the core, having to run
continuously for all the 24 hours of the day and 365 days of the year. Hence we need to turn our
attention to low loss designs and latest technologies in quality of core material to promote energy
efficiency. In this context “amorphous metal core” material offers great advantage, as no load losses are
less.
The scope for improving the efficiency of distribution transformers can arise in a number of ways.
Higher performance raw materials, particularly special steels for building transformer cores, are

continually being developed. Advancement in the core material, amorphous iron, produced by cooling
molten metal alloy very rapidly, has become available and is getting wide acceptance in many utilities in
India and across the globe. Losses in the core are less than 30% as compared to those of conventional
steel cores. The size of the transformers being installed in the network, and the way in which they are
loaded, can also increase savings. Transformers are at maximum efficiency when approximately 50%
loaded.
T & D losses in India are high, in the range of 20-23 percent. The Ministry of Power says that aggregate
technical and commercial (AT & C) losses are around 50% - and losses are even higher than this in
some of the states.
The main reason for exceptional high losses in the Indian network lies at the distribution levels. Hence,
the use of energy efficient equipments for the utilities is very much essential for reduction of losses,
which implies for savings in electrical energy for its growing demand.
Over many years there has been a lack of investment in essential improvements to the electricity system,
with only lowest cost incremental investments being undertaken. With this kind of purchasing system,
especially for transformer at distribution sectors of State Electricity Boards in India, it would be
unmanageable for them to meet the electricity demand of our economic growth.
Many electrical utilities have obligations to ‘operate an economic and efficient system’, but therein lies a
conflict. ‘Economic’ suggests low capital cost transformers, which are not the most efficient, whereas
‘Efficient’ transformers come at higher prices.
Transformer manufacturers are aware of the commercial pressures on customers not to apply loss
capitalization strictly and have to respond to these, particularly in a competitive market. A common ploy
is to tempt the customer with a low cost / high loss alternative offer.
Total Owing Cost takes into account not only the initial transformer cost but also the cost to operate and
maintain the transformer over its life. This requires that the total owing cost (TOC) be calculated over
the life span of the transformer. With this method, it is now possible to calculate the real economic
choice between competing models.

The TOC method not only includes the value of purchase price and future losses but also allows the user
to adjust for tax rates cost of borrowing money, different energy rates, etc.
TOC = C + NLL x A + LL x B
Where,
TOC = capitalized total owing cost,
C = the initial cost of the transformer including transportation, sales tax and other costs to prepare it for
service.
NLL = no – load loss in watts,
A = capitalized cost per rated watt of NLL (A value)
LL = load loss in watts at the transformer’s rated load
B = capitalized cost per rated watt of LL (B value)
Thus Total Owing Cost (TOC) method provides the Electrical utilities an effective way to evaluate
various transformer initial purchase prices and cost of losses. The goal is to choose a transformer that
meets specifications and simultaneously has the lowest TOC. The A and B values include the cost of no-
load and load losses in the above TOC formula.
Even though the more-efficient transformer costs more initially, its lower operating cost saves money
over its life. Considering the vast potential of energy savings and benefits of energy efficiency, Bureau
of Energy Efficiency has come up with reasonable solutions for strengthening and up gradation of the
transformers used in the distribution system.
4.6 MEASURES TAKEN BY BUREAU OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Some of the short term and long term measures taken by BEE
• Bureau of Energy Efficiency operationalized complete pilot phase of programme for energy
efficiency in government building and prepare action plan for wider dissemination and
implementation.
• Standards and Labeling (S&L) Programme has been identified as one of the key activities for
energy efficiency improvements. The S&L program ensures that only energy efficient equipment
would be available for purchasers. Some of the electrical products to be covered under S&L
program are: Agricultural pump sets, Distribution Transformers, Motors, Lighting products,
refrigerators, etc.

Energy – efficiency labels are informative labels fixed to manufactured products, which describe the
product’s energy performance (usually in the form of energy use, efficiency, or energy cost) and rate the
product on a comparative scale so that consumers can make appropriate decisions while purchasing
electrical equipments. Energy-efficiency Standards are procedures and regulations that prescribe
minimum efficiency performance standards of the manufactured products.
BEE has taken lead role to network with and ensure participation of stakeholders such as industry
associations, R&D institutions, manufacturers, Bureau of Indian Standards, etc. at all stages in the entire
process.
Facilitate and assist manufacturers to develop testing procedures and protocols for determining
energy performance, label setting, fixing of standards, and enforcement mechanisms.
Encourage manufacturers to improve energy efficiency of equipments and appliances at the
manufacturing stage. Promote integration of efficient technology in manufacturing of equipment
and appliances.
Stimulate market transformation and promote energy efficient equipment and appliances.
The benefits of the approach and activities would be the following:

• Manufacture of energy efficient equipments and appliances.
• Enabling consumers to exercise considered choice based on energy consumption at the time of
purchase.
• Reduction of energy consumption in equipments and appliances of common use.
With this, some of the electrical equipment manufacturers are fixing tie – up with distribution utilities to
penetrate into the pool of promoting energy efficient equipments.
To exemplify the above statement, there has been a tie-up between CFL maker and distribution utility
which entail distribution to domestic consumers for using less energy than other ordinary products (such
as incandescent bulbs), saving their money on utility bills and helps in protecting the environment over
the life of each CFL and draw carbon credits.
The project has already been kick-started in Haryana and Andhra Pradesh, where the distribution
utilities have tied-up with CFL manufacturer, Osram, under a CDM-based scheme. (As per State
Government officials – published in The Hindu Business Line dated 21.06.2007)

BEE has recently approved the ‘star labeling’ for Distribution Transformers – The highest loss segment
is defined as star 1 and lowest loss segment is defined as star 5.
The existing IS 1180 (part 1) specification losses are the base case with star 1.
This demonstrates that the Centre is encouraging the electrical equipment manufacturers to come up
with energy efficient products for their fullest utilization in energy savings.
Selection of better material for energy efficient transformer

In selecting the material for core, we say that amorphous metal core outflanks in reducing the no-load
losses. This can summate immense economic savings to the electric utilities since they are one of the
highest energy efficient transformers rated so far.
Table 3- Comparison between CRGO & AMDT
A typical comparison is shown below which CRGO (in AMDT (in Reduction
depicts the decrease by installation of energy watts) watts) in Losses
efficient low loss amorphous metal core
transformers. Rating (Three Phase)
25 kVA 100 32 68%
50 kVA 160 58 64%
100 kVA 260 85 67%
200 kVA 470 115 75%
Source- The above losses are indicative based on some design (Vijai Electricals Ltd).
Losses reduction due to non-linear loading (i.e. harmonic distortion): Use of best quality core material
like Amorphous Magnetic alloy offers great advantage not only at fundamental frequency but, the
advantage increase manifold as the distortion in both load current and supply voltage increases. There is
increase in total loss and decrease in efficiency with higher distortions, but this phenomenon is affecting
this core material much less as compared to Transformer with poor quality core.

Table 4- A 3 phase, 250 kVA Transformer was tested under non-harmonic and harmonic conditions and
the values noted down are as follows:
Without Harmonic Distortion Losses AMDT CRGO

Hysteresis (A) 99 155
Eddy Current (B) 33 311
Total Core Loss (C) = (A+B) 132 466
Coil Loss (D) 966 1084
Loading 55% 58%
Total Loss (C + D) 1098 1550
Thus, it is very evident form above tables that AMDTs (Amorphous Metal Distribution Transformers)
are no doubt superior and offer a better technology at our disposal.
Rapid growth in large regional economies such as China and India has elevated human prosperity.
However, unless ultimately decoupled from fossil-fuel use, such growth also threatens to exacerbate the
climate challenge. Increased attention is however now being focused on the savings which Energy–
Efficiency Transformers could make on a national scale and their potential contribution to meeting
internationally agreed goals for reducing global warming. As for the environmental benefits, the high-
efficiency transformer will contribute in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the
consumption of fossil fuel necessary to accommodate excessive transformer losses.
Thus, improving efficiency of distribution transformers is very much in need for our country to balance
the demand and supply of electricity by 2014 and in coming years, resulting in huge savings to the
utility, by chopping the running cost of the transformer
India has mandatory labelling scheme that applies to certain liquid-filled distribution transformers. The
labelling scheme has a series of maximum losses at 50% and 100% of rated load, and a corresponding
number of stars that relate to those maximum losses. The kVA ratings are based on the IEC system and
the electrical grid in India already operates at 50Hz. The only issue that remains for normalizing these
labelling levels for comparison is to convert the maximum losses at 50% of rated load into percentage
efficiency at 50%.

CHAPTER 5: FACTS AND ANALYSIS
5.1 OVERALL SCENARIO

XII Plan period: Growth of the transformer industry would be linked squarely to the quantum of
investment that India commits to the power T&D sector. Traditionally, power T&D has been a grossly
neglected area. In an ideal situation, every rupee spent in creating power generation facilities has to be
matched by an equal amount in setting up power T&D infrastructure. This ratio of 1:1 has never been
honored in India. Experts feel that at best investment in T&D has been 50 per cent of that in power
generation, as against the desirable 100 per cent. The ensuing XII Plan period (April 2012 to March
2017) is expected to be radically different from its predecessors. According to government estimates,
India is expected to see an investment of 13 trillion in the XII Plan. This will be equally distributed—for
the first time ever—between generation and T&D. This by itself is the biggest growth driver for the
transformer industry. The transmission sector is likely to see investment of 2.5 trillion in the XII Plan
period with 4 trillion going towards power distribution projects. The demand for transformers can be
gauged from the fact that 15 per cent of the total cost of a typical transmission projects goes towards
transformers.
Hence, the business opportunity size for transformers coming purely from transmission projects is
37,500 crores in the XII Plan period. This translates into an addressable market of 7,500 crores per year.
The demand for transformers can also be viewed from another angle. The traditional thumb rule has
been that every mw of new power generation capacity needs 7 MVA of transformation capacity. In the
XII Plan period, India is expected to witness aggregate new power generation capacity of 75,000 mw.
This would need transformation capacity of 525,000 MVA during the entire Plan period, or 105,000
MVA per year. Independently, the power ministry has estimated that in the entire XII Plan period,
around 150,000 MVA of new transformation capacity would be installed at the 220kV level alone. The
rule of 7 MVA per mw was true at a time when India's transmission infrastructure was largely of the
220kV type with sporadic instances of 400kV lines. Now, India has progressed to even 765kV lines and
therefore, as some transformer manufacturers point out, the standard transformation metric in the
coming years, would be around 11 MVA per mw of new power generation capacity.

Fig 2 -A typical power distribution flowchart is shown below:
The power source to end user energy efficiency link is a key factor, which influences the energy input at
the source of supply. If we consider the electricity flow from generation to the user in terms of cascade
energy efficiency, typical cascade efficiency profile from generation to 11 – 33 kV user industry will be
as below:

Fig 3- Typical cascade efficiency profile from generation to 11 – 33 kV user industry
Efficiency ranges 28 – 35 % with respect to size of thermal plant, age of plant and
capacity utilization
Step-up to 400 / 800 kV to enable EHV transmission Envisaged max. Losses

0.5 % or efficiency of 99.5 %
EHV transmission and substations at 400 kV / 800 kV Envisaged maximum

losses 1.0 % or efficiency of 99 %
HV transmission & Substations for 220 / 400 kV. Envisaged maximum losses
2.5 % or efficiency of 97.5 %
Sub-transmission at 66 / 132 kV. Envisaged maximum losses 4 % or efficiency

of 96 %
Step-down to a level of 11 / 33 kV. Envisaged losses 0.5 % or efficiency of

99.5 %
Distribution is final link to end user at 11 / 33 kV.Envisaged losses maximum 5

% of efficiency of 95 %
Cascade efficiency from Generation to end user

= η1 x η2 x η3 x η4 x η5 x η6 x η7
Source: BEE
The cascade efficiency in the T&D system from output of the power plant to the end use is
87% (i.e. 0.995 x 0.99 x 0.975 x 0.96 x 0.995 x 0.95 = 87%)

In system distribution loss optimization, the various options available include:

• Relocating transformers and sub-stations near to load centers
• Re-routing and re-conducting such feeders and lines where the losses / voltage drops are higher.
• Power factor improvement by incorporating capacitors at load end.
• Optimum loading of transformers in the system.
• Opting for lower resistance All Aluminum Alloy Conductors (AAAC) in place of conventional Aluminum
Cored Steel Reinforced (ACSR) lines
• Minimizing losses due to weak links in distribution network such as jumpers, loose contacts, old brittle
conductors.
Table 5- Losses in Electrical Distribution Equipment
Source-Bureau of Energy Efficiency

5.2 FINDINGS:
In India the Bureau of Energy Efficiency of the Ministry of Power has developed a star classification
system for transformers, ranging from one to five stars, with five stars representing international best
practice. The aim is to have three stars as a minimum efficiency standard and this requirement is being
adhered to by many supply utilities. Power efficiencies relating to the star classes are not specified.
Instead maximum permissible loss levels are specified. Only liquid-immersed transformers are
considered. The Indian power efficiencies derived from the five star allowable losses are very high level
by comparison with international practice. It is possible that some allowable tolerance may be included
in the allowable loss levels.
Table 6-Maximum Permissible Transformer Loss Levels for the INDIAN BEE Star Classification.
Source-BEE

Table 7 A Comparison of Efficiencies Calculated from the Indian BEE- 3-Star Level with European
Efficiencies from the HD 428 Loss levels
Table 7 includes the Indian efficiency levels calculated for the three star loss figures with a comparison
with the European levels, including the proposed prEN5064-1 levels. The three star levels given above
are only the mid-range levels with the 5 star efficiencies obviously being still higher. The Indian power
efficiencies specified appear to be to be too high to be achievable if the loss values given are correct. It
is possible that some allowable tolerance may be included in the loss levels stated in the BEE figures
given in Table 6. In some other countries, a tolerance of 10% is sometimes allowed on the loss figures.
The Ministry of Power is aiming to have 3 stars as a minimum efficiency standard and this is being
adhered to by many supply utilities. The actual power efficiencies relating to the star classes are not
specified. Instead the maximum permissible loss levels are specified, as in the European HD 428 and
528 documents. The load levels corresponding to each star class are given in Table 17 below. As can be
seen the range of ratings is rather limited by comparison with other Standards, with 200 kVA as the
maximum level for three phase liquid-filled transformers.

The permissible loss figures given do not break the losses down into no-load and load loss, although this
is calculable given that total losses are given at two load levels. The Indian document covers only liquid-
filled transformers and thus should be compared with the C-C’ levels of HD 428. Such a comparison is
given in Table 7.
Table 8- Total Electrical consumption and network losses region wise
Source-IEA
Star Rated Transformers are energy efficient transformers started as a “Green Campaign”. These are
transformers that carry standard specifications as per Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE). The referred
Indian Standard are IS1180 (part 1) Outdoor type three-phase distribution transformers upto and
including 200kVa, 11kV – specification, IS2026 (part 2). The standard ratings covered under this pilot
energy labelling scheme is 16, 25, 63, 100, 160 and 200kVa and non-standard ratings from 16 to
200kVa.

The salient feature of the star rating transformer is the fact that only total losses are specified, both at
50% loading and at 100% loading, so that the manufacturer may use his design expertise and optimum
materials to achieve the given losses. Individual loss figures (no load loss and load loss) are not
specified.
The details of different star levels are mentioned in the STANDARD TECHNICAL DATA TABLE.
• Ratings: Three Phase CRGO - Upto 200 kVA
• Applicable Standards: IS REC, CEA, CBIP, IEC, Etc.
• Cooling: ONAN
• Insulating Fluid: Mineral Oil to specification
• Frequency: 50 Hz
• Primary voltage: Upto 11000 V
• Secondary Voltage: 433 V
• Winding material: Copper/Aluminum
• Temperature Rise: 35 C / 40 C
Source-Uttam Bharat

For a 1000 kVA transformer with 1 star efficiency level of 99.27% and with a daily load cycle
consisting of the following:
• 8 hours at full load unity PF,
• 6 hours at 50% load unity PF,
• 6 hours at 25% load unity PF and
• 4 hours at no load,
The daily energy efficiency is 99.07% and the energy loss per day is 117 kWh.
For the same transformer rating with the new proposed power efficiency level of 99.37% and the same
load cycle, the energy efficiency is increased to 99.24% and the energy loss per day is reduced to 101
kWh.
Thus, the daily energy saving is 16 kWh, which is 5.8 MWh per annum for this load pattern,
corresponding to about 6 tonnes of CO2-e greenhouse gas emissions avoided per annum or 180 tonnes of
CO2-e over the expected 30 year life of the one transformer.
It is expected these higher efficiencies can be achieved at modest cost relative to the benefit to the
community.
These factors, discussed in more detail below, include:
• Better use of traditional materials to achieve energy savings
• Better computer-aided design of transformers to improve efficiency
• Availability of new core materials and new core designs
• Improved operational application of transformers
• Consideration of total life cost as opposed to simple initial purchase cost of transformers
• The effect of increasing harmonic levels in modern loads and in the grid supply
• Achievement of an increased life of transformers by lower operating temperatures with more
efficient transformers
The above factors indicate that there is still scope for improvement in transformer efficiency levels.
They also indicate that modern operational loads with harmonics content that are being supplied by
distribution transformers will be such as to increase transformer losses. In combining these two
considerations it is obviously necessary to have new and higher minimum levels for transformers to
constrain transformer losses at a level consistent with the requirements of global warming.

Better use of traditional core and winding materials

Core construction and materials
Modern core materials comprising laser-scribed cold-rolled grain-oriented silicon steel have been
developed and improved substantially to give low core losses but recent history shows that there is still
some scope for improvement in core loss reduction. In stacked core designs using laminated steel sheets,
recent developments in the design and production of the joints has reduced core loss by improving
magnetic field continuity at the sheet edges in the yoke sections.
Reducing lamination thickness will reduce losses by reducing eddy current loss by virtue of an increase
in the electrical resistance with the smaller lamination cross section.
However current lamination thickness is generally considered to be about as low as is consistent with
good manufacturing practice for production of stacked layer cores. An increase in the overall core cross-
section would reduce magnetic flux density in the core and thus reduce core loss. This would be at the
cost of increased size, weight and cost, however. It would also increase load loss because longer lengths
of conductor would be required for the same number of turns and this would increase winding resistance
and thus load loss.
Winding conductors
Copper and aluminum are the only two winding materials used in transformers: there are no other
winding materials that are able to be used as efficiently and economically. It is not considered that there
are any significant material improvements available here.
The use of larger winding conductor cross-sections to reduce winding resistance and hence load loss is a
possible option for improvement. However larger cross-section conductors will also have the undesired
effect of increasing eddy current losses when harmonic currents are present in the windings with non-
linear loads. They will also add to the weight and cost. Lower temperature operation and the attendant
lower winding resistance would reduce load loss, but would mean lower power capacity for the same
size transformer unit.
In general, there is some scope here for reduction of losses but this would require increased weight and
increased cost of the transformers. However if the transformer is considered from a total life cost
analysis viewpoint, the total transformer cost including loss amortisation over the lifetime (about 35
years) will be reduced with lower load losses.

Better Design Procedures

The use of modern computer-based field analysis techniques in transformer design has led to very
significant improvements in the optimization of core, winding and insulation design and configuration.
It is likely that such improvements will continue, assisting in the increase of efficiency levels and
reduction of losses, though the improvements will be gradual.
Areas that may allow some improvement in losses are in the reduction of stray losses in the tank and
other metal components, for example by better magnetic screening and use of aluminum for structural
parts.
5.3 NEW CORE MATERIALS AND DESIGN

Amorphous metal core material
While modern standard grain-oriented silicon steel does give low loss and this loss has been reduced
substantially over the years by improvements in treatment, such as cold-rolling and laser-scribing, future
improvements in standard silicon steel losses, while achievable are not likely to give any significant step
decrease in loss: any improvements in losses in traditional core steel will be relatively modest.
However, amorphous magnetic metal used for transformer cores does give the possibility of a step
change in core loss reduction compared to standard core steel materials. Amorphous core metal has a
much higher electrical resistance than standard transformer steel and thus eddy current loss is
considerably reduced by comparison.
In addition, the method of production of the amorphous metal provides the manufactured material as a
very thin continuous strip with a thickness which is much less than that of the standard silicon steel
lamination used in traditional cores. The combination of a thin strip form of amorphous material and the
very high electrical resistance gives reduction of eddy current loss to about 40% of that in standard steel
laminations. There is thus a step decrease in the no load losses possible when using amorphous metal
cores.
Amorphous material use does have disadvantages for manufacturing cores however. The final strip
product form is a very brittle and relatively narrow continuous strip that is very difficult to cut down into
sections that can be used for stackable laminations, such as used traditionally in cores. There have been
attempts to produce amorphous metal laminations for stackable cores but the general conclusion is that
they are not viable for manufacture at this stage.

Instead, amorphous metal cores have to be manufactured as “wound cores” where the core is constructed
from a single continuous strip of amorphous metal wound as a coaxial hollow cylinder. While this can
be done easily for small capacity transformers, it is difficult to do for larger transformers and for three
phase transformers where the three phases are traditionally wound on separate limb sections of a three or
five limb magnetic core structure. Thus, the use of amorphous metal cores is best adapted to small rating
single phase transformers. To this end they are used extensively in locations where single phase
transformers are a large portion of the distribution transformer population. However improvements in
manufacture are increasing the size of amorphous cores.
Another drawback of amorphous metal cores is that the peak magnetic field intensity that is useable in
amorphous cores is lower than in steel cores (about 1.0 Tesla versus about 1.55 Tesla in steel cores) and
this is a further limitation in that a larger cross section core is required for the same power and voltage
rating and this adds to weight and size. It also increases load loss because of the longer winding
conductors needed with the large cores. However the magnetic field limitation is a manageable problem
and does not preclude the use of such materials.
Amorphous cores have been used extensively in the USA, India and Japan for low power rating single
phase transformers. It is estimated that there are 330,000 amorphous core distribution transformers in
use in Japan.
Amorphous metal cores are seriously considered for energy efficient applications in some countries,
particularly Japan, and thus they will have some future in use in larger rating distribution transformers.
If it is possible to increase the rating of such transformers then they may become viable in Australia
where the typical distribution transformer ratings are larger than in general use in Japan and India and in
the US.
The Hexaformer
In recent years there has been an innovation patented which changes the way in which transformer cores
are constructed. This innovation is claimed to give reduced core losses. The innovation is the so-called
“Hexaformer”. It changes the core design configuration of a three phase transformer to give a
symmetrical structure in which all of the three phase limbs have the same magnetic circuit parameters,
with the same overall field configuration for each phase. This is not the normal case in standard three
phase cores as at least one of the phase cores has a slightly different magnetic circuit compared to the
other two and this means a slight difference in characteristics, including the losses.

The Hexaformer design gives an equilateral symmetric core structure with every phase being identical in
terms of the core design. While the advantages of symmetric core design have been known for a long
time, manufacturing problems have prevented their implementation. The patented innovation provides
manufacturing capability and Hexaformer transformers are now available on the market.
However at this early stage of the development the advantages are not known and no details of
improvement of core loss have been given. Thus it is, at this stage, an uncertain factor in terms of losses.
However given the problems of core construction the Hexaformer would require major investment in
manufacturing infrastructure.
Optimization of energy efficiency

As noted in Section 4 the most important consideration for transformers, when savings of greenhouse
gas emissions are concerned, is the energy efficiency rather than the power efficiency of the transformer
operation. While the power efficiency is the best method of specifying the instantaneous energy transfer
efficiency of the transformer, it is the loading pattern of the transformer that is necessary to calculate the
overall energy efficiency over a specified period of time.
In the case of transformers this energy efficiency is skewed by the continual presence of no-load losses
so that the transformer represents an energy drain on the system when unloaded and when loaded at light
loads (below about 15%) the efficiency is very poor. Hence the loading of the transformer is a necessary
consideration in terms of its energy performance. In operation with electrical supply utilities the
transformer is generally lightly loaded most of the time with only small periods of loading at levels even
approaching full load. The average loading levels are relatively low for utility transformers, being about
25-30% in most systems. This means that energy loss is not optimized in such situations. The load
patterns of distribution transformers with their wide diversity of load types (domestic, commercial,
industrial, rural) are very difficult to model in terms of energy savings. However there are energy
savings possible if it can be done.
The US Department of Energy, through the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, expended large efforts in
analyzing operational loading pattern to determine the environmental impact of transformer energy
conservation on the greenhouse gas emissions problem. Using such data, the operation can be analyzed
and predicted and some operational efficiency gains are possible.

Total life costing of transformers

The loading pattern for industry transformers is much easier to model given the quite specific loads, in
terms of load type and duration, which they control in general. In addition to easier load modeling,
industrial transformers also have higher average loads than utility transformers and so energy savings
are potentially higher. On the negative side, they do not always have the same quality of maintenance
procedures such as those used by utilities where long and reliable equipment life is a paramount
consideration. In industry, also, overloading is more likely to occur with the attendant reduction of
efficiency that the higher load losses cause.
Improper loading and/or rating selection will affect efficiency and will also adversely affect total life
costs of the transformers and this must be used in the choice of transformers instead of just the initial
cost.
Impact of Harmonics on Transformer Losses

In recent years there have been very substantial changes in the way in which electrical energy is
controlled, used and generated. These changes have had and will have an increasing impact on
transformer losses. The changes have been driven by the rapid development of solid state power
electronic applications in both the utilization of electrical energy and in its generation. Some common
examples are the “switch-mode power supplies” that are now used to replace small power transformers
in all modern personal computers and television sets. Power electronic units are also used extensively
for motor speed control in modern air conditioner units, in compact fluorescents and in lighting control.
In general the extensive use of power electronics has resulted in a proliferation of “non-linear loads”
being supplied by transformers and has also allowed the increased connection to the distribution grid
system of “inverter-driven” outputs derived from renewable energy sources (such as photovoltaics and
wind generators) in distributed (embedded) generation schemes. Both of these applications have already
created and will cause increasing problems for distribution transformers. The end result is that the
techniques used by power electronics to control electrical; energy generate high frequency harmonics in
the main 50 Hz power frequency current and/or voltage. These harmonics will increase losses in
transformers and thus reduce their efficiencies.

There is thus a significant case to be put for making distribution transformers as energy efficient as is
possible so that they can cope with such increased loss from power electronics use. While there are
regulations imposed to limit such harmonics, they do not apply to loads, and in some cases even
harmonics within the regulations will increase transformer loss and thus they must be a major
consideration in the future.
Non-linear loads
A non-linear load is, in very simple terms, one where the load voltage and current are not always
proportional to each other. The result of this is that the current waveform is distorted from the sinusoidal
shape of the applied voltage. One inescapable feature of a non-linear load is that it will generate higher
frequency harmonic content in the current taken by the load from a transformer. Figure 7 shows a typical
example of a non-linear load with a very distorted 60 Hz current waveform that has generated significant
harmonic components [3rd (180 Hz), 5th (300 Hz) 7th (420 Hz) and 9th (540 Hz)] as can be seen by the
bar graph of harmonic content.
As outlined in a previous section, these high frequency harmonics in the load current will increase the
load losses by generating eddy currents in the windings. These are due to both self-winding generation
(the skin effect) and induced effects from other windings (the proximity effect). If the harmonics are not
able to be filtered then their effect can only be minimized by using supply transformers with as low a
load loss as possible.
Figure 7
Current Waveform and Harmonic Content Generated by a Non-linear Load
With a 60Hz Sinusoidal Voltage Application.

Increased life of transformers

The lifetime of transformers is determined, in the absence of other failure mechanisms, by the lifetime of
the electrical insulation in the transformer. That insulation is mainly organic in its chemical nature
(being composed of mineral oil, impregnated paper, cellulose materials, etc.) and the stability of such
materials is very susceptible to the operational temperature. Thus, operating temperature must be very
closely specified and controlled in operation. If the maximum temperature is exceeded for any length of
time, the insulation lifetime may be reduced from the nominal level. Any overloading of the transformer,
either through simply exceeding the nameplate rating or due to inadequate de-rating if harmonics are
present will raise the insulation temperature above its permissible level and will reduce the life of the
transformer.
Reduction of losses by improved transformer efficiency will thus extend life of transformers and is an
additional justification for the introduction of new high efficiency levels for transformers.
Table 9 Energy saving potential and greenhouse gas mitigation from transformer loss reduction
In India and other countries, such as Japan, the European Union do not specify power efficiency but
instead specify maximum levels of power losses for the particular transformer ratings at full load. The
transformer losses are tested and must fall within the maximum loss limits laid down in Standards. It is a
simple matter to translate the power losses of the transformer into power efficiency levels by scaling the
specified full load losses to 50% load.

There is no major difference in the two approaches and they are easily convertible into the other form.
Ultimately, the energy efficiency of overall energy use in a specified period of time is the main
consideration for greenhouse purposes. Determination of this energy use over a period of time from the
efficiency or losses requires knowledge of the loading of the transformer and its variation over that
period. The losses and efficiency vary with loading of the transformer.
The major problem occurs in the determination of the loading levels of the transformer as this must be
known to calculate the total energy loss over a period and hence to determine the energy efficiency of
the transformer.
Table 10 compares power efficiency levels, calculated from the Japanese Top Runner loss formulae for
liquid-insulated three phase transformers, with the European and Indian levels. It should be noted that
there is a major program of application of amorphous metal core use in transformers in Japan so that the
Japanese efficiency figures should be considered as being based on amorphous cores and thus the
comparison is most valid with the European C-AMDT efficiency values.

Table 10- compares power efficiency levels of Japanese Top Runner with the European and Indian
levels
Table 11- Comparison of the Proposed New MEPS Power Efficiency Levels for Liquid-immersed Three
Phase Transformers with those used/proposed in Other Countries.
Comparison of the Proposed New MEPS Power Efficiency Levels for Liquid-immersed Three Phase
Transformers with those used/proposed in Other Countries.
USA Benchmark figures in Column 2 are the MAX-TECH levels of the DOE

5.3 PROBLEMS FACED BY TRANSFORMER MANUFACTURERS

The vast and diversity fraternity of domestic transformer manufacturers is represented by its apex body
Indian Transformer Manufacturers' Association (ITMA). Although the association is very upbeat about
prospects of the transformer industry, it has strived to draw government's attention to the genuine
problems faced by its members. In an exclusive interaction with Electrical Monitor, ITMA shared some
of the most pressing problems that transformer manufacturers are coping with. Much of the woes
revolve around procurement policies and inconsistency in tendering procedures of government-owned
power utilities-the biggest transformer purchasers. Here is a gist of the problems faced.
1. Different power utilities stipulate different criteria of sales turnover for registration of vendors.
Due to this, quality-conscious but small suppliers end up in getting disqualified. ITMA feels that
CVC guidelines should be followed uniformly, and fresh entrants should be encouraged by
reserving 20 per cent contract quantity in their favour.
2. Power utilities and Discom’s tend to specify minor changes even if the transformer to be sourced
is of BEE star rating. This leads to unnecessary type-testing of prototypes in order to receive
star-labeling. ITMA feels that utilities should uniformly follow one set of specifications certified
by a competitive body like BEE, for instance.
3. Utilities tend to place orders on L1 fully aware that the price quoted by the lowest bidder is not
viable. This results in manufacturers resorting to use of inferior material and hence end up
supplying substandard products. ITMA feels that utilities should devise realistic procurement
policies and should not blindly select L1 bidders.
4. ITMA also feels that utilities tend to change technical and commercial specifications even after
opening of the tender. This can have a big impact on the selected bidder. ITMA suggests that
alteration of terms should be avoided but if inevitable, utilities could go in for fresh short-term
bids.

5. Sometimes utilities stipulate that manufacturers would be blacklisted if the equipment fails
during testing. This practice should be stopped and it could lead to closure of units and stifling of
enterprise.
6. ITMA has observed that after transformers are dispatched, the procurer (power utility) is
sometimes found to carry out tests unilaterally. False results are reported to manufacturers and
they are debarred for future orders. ITMA strongly protests against such unilateral testing and its
adverse consequences on suppliers.

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION
The proposed regulations to increase mandatory efficiency performance standards for distribution
transformers affect:
• transformer manufacturers;
• importers of transformers for use in India; and
• owners of the transformers who are primarily:
o owners of the public electrical distribution system; and
o private owners of distribution transformers in the manufacturing, commercial, mining and
processing sectors.
In the main, the incentives for these parties to adopt higher efficiency transformers are weak.
Distribution businesses that make transformer purchase decisions do not benefit directly from improved
efficiency and the electricity network regulator has declined to implement explicit incentives for them to
do so. In the case of general industry the focus on minimizing up-front costs as a risk management
measure is understandable. In the case of wind farms, the case for high efficiency transformers is
strengthened by the high cost that this energy source incurs in meeting mandated renewable energy
targets. A mandatory efficiency requirement overcomes these weak incentives in a way that does not
disadvantage one supplier over another.
Implementing efficiency will have the following effects:

• lifetime costs of distribution transformers will be reduced when capital and energy costs are taken into
account;
• transformers used in private industry and in private wind farms, although faced with somewhat
different incentives and cost conditions, are similarly likely to reduce their lifetime costs;
• taking business and regulatory overheads into account the benefits will outweigh costs, with a
benefit/cost ratio of about 1.1 without taking emissions into account, and of the order of 2, if the cost of
emissions is included;

• there should be no negative impact on product quality and function;

• There should be no significant negative impacts on manufacturers and suppliers as potential issues
have been recognized and removed;
• Significant additional benefits will be gained from reducing greenhouse gas emissions, although this
component of benefit is not strictly required to justify the proposal.
A carbon price will certainly tend to encourage greater efficiency but does not in itself address the weak
market incentives for efficiency when transformer purchase decisions are made.

REFERENCES
1. M Ellis & Associates:
Analysis of Potential for Minimum Energy Performance Standards for Distribution Transformers
2 . R Targosz (ed.)
The Potential for Global Energy Savings from High Efficiency Distribution Transformers.
European Copper Institute/Leonardo ENERGY
3. esaa Electricity Gas Australia 2012 : Annual Report
Energy Supply Association of Australia. Melbourne Australia.
4. H De Keulenaer, D Chapman & S Fassbinder
The Scope for Energy Saving in the EU Through the Use of Energy-Efficient Electricity Distribution
Transformers
5. US Dept. of Energy: Office of Energy efficiency and Renewable Energy
Energy Conservation Program for Commercial Equipment: Distribution Transformers Energy
Conservation Standards; Proposed Rule.
10 FR Part 431 Federal Register Vol. 71. No. 150
6. Canadian Standards Association

Minimum Efficiency Values for Liquid-filled Distribution Transformers
CSA Standard C802.1-00
7. Canadian Standards Association
Minimum Efficiency Values for Dry-Type Transformers CSA Standard C802.2-00
8. National Electrical Manufacturers Association
Guide for Determining the Energy Efficiency for Distribution Transformers NEMA Standards
Publication TP 1
9. National Electrical manufacturers Association
Standard Test method for Measuring the Energy Conservation of Distribution Transformers
NEMA Standards Publication TP 2
10. US Dept. of Energy: Office of Energy efficiency and Renewable Energy

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Distribution Transformers; Final Rule.
10 CFR Part 431Federal Register Vol. 71. No. 81
11. Standards Australia
Power Transformers; Part 7: Loading Guide for Oil-Immersed Power Transformers
12. IEEE Standard
IEEE Guide for Loading Mineral-Oil Immersed power Transformers rated in Excess of 100 MVA
13. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Navigant Consulting
Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment:
electrical Distribution Transformers – ANOPR version.
US Department of Energy report No. LBNL-53985
14. P Barnes, J Van Dyke, B McConnell and S Das
Determination Analysis of Energy Conservation Standards for Distribution Transformers
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN. Report No. ORNL-6847
15. P Barnes, S Das, B McConnell and J Van Dyke.
Supplement to the “Determination Analysis” (ORNL-6847) and Analysis of the NEMA Efficiency
Standards for Distribution Transformers
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN. Report No. ORNL-6925
16. US Department of Energy
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Distribution Transformers
DOE Report No. DOE/EA-1565
17. US Department of Energy
Framework Document for Distribution Transformer Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking: Draft
for Public Comment.
18. R Targosz
SEEDT – Energy efficient distribution transformers. Seminar presentation February 2011.
Available from Leonardo ENERGY; www.leonardo-energy.org
19 N Anglani, A Baggini & F Bua
for PROPHET – Promotion Partnership for High Efficiency Transformers
An outlook on the TOC of MV/LV industrial distribution transformers in Europe
Copper Association: TEAMT session
20 CENELEC Harmonisation Document

Three Phase oil-immersed Distribution Transformers 50 Hz, from 50 to 2500 kVA with Highest Voltage
for Equipment not Exceeding 36 kV.

Summer Internship Report - Mansoor

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Summer Internship Report - Mansoor

Загружено:

Авторское право:

University of Petroleum & Energy Studies

Summer Internship Report On

Impact of Revised Distribution Transformer Standard on Transmission

Under the Guidance of

Mansoor Alam Khan Chowdhury

Batch 2013-15 MBA (POWER MANAGEMENT)

University of Petroleum & Energy Studies

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGYSTUDIES Page I

“Impact of Revised Distribution Transformer Standard on Transmission & Distribution

Project In charge Signature of Candidate

Countersigned Director/Principal of the Institute

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGYSTUDIES Page II

Mansoor Alam Khan Chowdhury

MBA (Power Management)

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGYSTUDIES Page III

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1 Anticipated Power Supply Position in the Country during 2013-14

Fig 1 -Transformer losses as a percentage of loads

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGYSTUDIES Page IV

ARR Annual Revenue Requirement

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGYSTUDIES Page V

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGYSTUDIES Page VI

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGYSTUDIES Page VII

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................…...51

1.1 POWER DISTRIBUTION SECTOR-SNAPSHOT

1.2 OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT:

• To analyze Transmission & Distribution Losses due to Distribution transformer

1.3 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT:

The scope of this project includes the following:

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROJECT:

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES Page 2

CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION TO THE ORGANISATION

2.1 ABOUT THE ORGANISATION (BUREAU OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY):

The broad objectives of BEE are as under:

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES Page 3

• Coordinate policies and programmes on efficient use of energy with shareholders

Formation: March 1, 2002; 12 years ago

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES Page 4

2.2 BEE SCHEMES

A. Bachat Lamp Yojana

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES Page 5

B. Standards and Labeling

Select appliances for labeling

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES Page 6

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES Page 7

C. Energy Conservation Building Code ECBC

NMEE, PAT, CDM Under construction

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES Page 8

CHAPTER 3: REVIEW OF EXISTINGLITERATURE & RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW

NATIONAL ELECTRICITY POLICY:

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES Page 9

3.2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES Page 10

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES Page 11

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES Page 12

4.2 LOSSES IN TRANSFORMERS

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES Page 13

An estimation of the total energy loss can be calculated from:

Transformer losses as a percentage of load is given in the Figure 1

Figure 1.12 Transformer loss vs %Load

Why Transformer Rating In kVA, Not in KW?

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES Page 14

That’s why the rating of Transformer in kVA, Not in kW.

4.3 IMPROVING EFFICIENCY