Potentials & Impacts of Energy-Efficient DTs

Strategies for development and diffusion of

Energy Efficient DistributionTransformers

January 2006 - June 2008

2

Fleet

 

  

 

Fleet EU-27 

Market EU-27 

pcs MVA pcs MVA

Distribution sector oil*   

< 400 kVA 73% 34% 66% 26%

≥ 400 kVA & ≤ 630 kVA 23% 48% 27% 45%

> 630 kVA 3% 17% 7% 29%

Total distribution sector3 676 315

79% 910 515

66%85 486

61%27 336

48%

industry oil   

< 400 kVA 62% 20% 62% 20%

≥ 400 kVA & ≤ 630 kVA 23% 27% 22% 28%

> 630 kVA 16% 52% 16% 52%

Total industry oil801 840

17%329 569

24%38 011

27%15 452

27%

industry dry   

< 400 kVA 23% 9% 16% 4%

≥ 400 kVA & ≤ 630 kVA 40% 28% 34% 20%

> 630 kVA 38% 63% 50% 76%

Total industry dry 174 017

4%143 904

10%16 132

12%14 478

25%

4 652 172 1 383 988 139 628 57 266* dry type transformer utility population is estimated at marginal low level (~ 1% of utility fleet)

3

Fleet detailedDistribution transformer EU27 + Norway distribution sector population

70,0 80,0

7,0

57,2

432,8

69,1

8,0

209,2

80,0

726,0

150,0

56,4 58,3

360,0

10,3 3,5 7,8 2,2

74,9

123,9

237,6

66,0

124,8

11,0 23,5

683,7

36,8 30,2

338

248 248 248

344

312

248

369

248

192

166

299

116

248 248 248 248 247

320306

172

248 253 248 248234

248 248

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

AT BE CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL NO PL PT SE SI SK UK BG RO

Uti

litie

s -

fle

et

in t

ho

us

an

d u

nit

s

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

av

era

ge

ra

tin

g k

VA

Utility population thousand pcs

Utility - Average rating (size) kVA

4

Losses EU27

utility oil ΣPo fleet 15973 ΣPo market 348

  ΣPk fleet 6000 ΣPk market 172

ΣPkfleet / ΣPtotal 27,3% ΣPkmark/ ΣPtotal 33,0%

industry oil ΣPo fleet 5544 ΣPo market 264

  ΣPk fleet 2167 ΣPk market 95

  ΣPkfleet / ΣPtotal 28,1% ΣPkmark/ ΣPtotal 26,5%

industry dry ΣPo fleet 2589 ΣPo market 269

  ΣPk fleet 1129 ΣPk market 120

  ΣPkfleet / ΣPtotal 30,4% ΣPkmark/ ΣPtotal 30,9%

 Ptotal 33402 Ptotal 1269

5

Losses detailed

Distribution sector distribution transformers losses - EU27 + Norway

70 14111

91

1124

9717

458

118

1400

16368 78

471

22 8 16 6

222 204 18597

277

22 46

682

410 462306

3627

293

1646

425

4079

619

391

2026

595

852

1172

399

769

3631

60 49

220 18143 63 223 79 22 59 18 69 144

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

AT BE CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL NO PL PT SE SI SK UK BG RO

Utility - No load losses GWh

Utility - Load losses GWh

Utility - Total losses GWh

6

Operating efficiency

Efficiency of distribution sector transformer population and market

98,38%98,43%

98,73%

98,43%

98,77%

98,40%

98,75%

98,06%

98,51%

98,72%

98,33%

98,05%

97,84%

98,47%98,40%

98,16%

98,78%

98,17%

98,36%

98,87%

98,37% 98,35%

98,81%

98,66%98,69%

98,77%

99,11%

99,04%

98,65%

98,82%

98,96%

98,68%

98,40%

98,95%

98,30%

98,58%

98,83%

98,73%

98,60%

98,89%

98,71%

98,57%

99,09%

98,56%98,53%

98,70%

99,08%

98,91%98,95%

98,38%98,38%

97,50%

98,10%

98,77%98,77%

98,46%

98,79%

98,36%

97,50%

97,70%

97,90%

98,10%

98,30%

98,50%

98,70%

98,90%

99,10%

99,30%

EU25 AT BE CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL NO PL PT SE SI SK UK BG RO

Utility population - Efficiency %

Utility market - Efficiency %

7

Rated losses referred to AC’ (CoCk)

Proportions of rated losses against AC' (HD428) / CoCk (EN50464)

121%

132%130%

144%

109%108%103%

96%

82%

97%101%

95%

103%

90%

95% 94% 94%90%

78%

132%138%

140%

155%152%

109%

115%

106%

111%

106%

152% 152%

110%

155%152%

100%

115%

100%

112%

100%

111%

75%

100%

125%

150%

175%

100 400 630 1 000 2 500kVA rating

Utility fleet Po Utility fleet Pk Utility market Po Utility market Pk

Industry oil fleet Po Industry oil fleet Pk Industry oil market Po Industry oil market Pk

8

Poland - No load losses relative Po/Bo (~C'-15%, HD 428)

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

1965 1970-1985 1986-1990 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005

Years100 160 250 400 630 Average

Czech - No load losses relative Po/Bo (~C'-15%, HD 428)

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

1950 1955 1960 1965 1966 1970 1973 1975 1980 1985 1990 1993 Years

100 kVA

160 kVA

250 kVA

400 kVA

630 kVA

average Po

No load losses / age

9

Load losses / agePoland - Load losses relative, Pk/Ck (A, HD 428)

0,80

0,90

1,00

1,10

1,20

1,30

1,40

1,50

1965 1970-1985 1986-1990 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005

Years100 160 250 400 630 Average

Czech - Load losses relative, Pk/Ck (A, HD 428)

0,80

1,00

1,20

1,40

1,60

1,80

2,00

1950 1955 1960 1965 1966 1970 1973 1975 1980 1985 1990 1993 Years

100 kVA

160 kVA

250 kVA

400 kVA

630 kVA

average Pk

10

Age/ ratingPoland - age / population / rating

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

>30 20-29 15-19 10-14 5-9 1-4

Age [years]63 100 160 250 400 630

Poland - age / population all ratings (weighted) summary

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

>30 20-29 15-19 10-14 5-9 1-4Age [years]

11

Extra losses

The SEEDT calculation indicates level to total distribution transformers losses in EU-27 at level of about 33,5 TWh. This calculation has however completely ignored two aspects:

Extra losses due to reactive power losses in distribution transformers which have influence on active power losses in the network

Extra losses due to harmonics (voltage and current distortion)

12

Technical conclusion European distribution transformer fleet and market is dominated by traditional technologies.

These technologies have certain limits but enable substantial losses reduction when compared to average transformer market efficiency level.

Within the technology thus far developed there are sufficient measures to produce cost efficient transformers which have both no-load and load losses by about 30% lower than EU average level AC’ according to HD 428. Transformer manufacturers may now very dynamically shape transformer designs to accommodate life cycle optimum cost.

We are a little bit sceptical about superconducting technology in distribution transformers. These should be rather simple and robust machines requiring minimum maintenance, diagnostic etc. We are not convinced that efficiency gains justify price user has to pay for this technology and probably additional installation & maintenance. We are however impressed by overall development of this technology, which in case of larger transformers may very well and very soon become very attractive solution.

NEXT – Amorphous transformers

13

Total technical potentials in 2004

What part of potential can be realised by 2025? 4 energy efficiency scenarios by SEEDT project

21.973

7.7113.718

12.606

4.769

1.165

0

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

30.000

35.000

40.000

Electricity distributioncompanies

Industry-oil Industry-dry

GW

h/y

ear

Electricity losses Saving potential

„Static“ potential (BAT): Electricity distribution

companies: 57.4 % Industry - oil: 61.8 % Industry - dry: 31.3 % Total: 55.5%

(18.5 TWh/year)

14

Important assumptions for calculating electricity saving potentials until 2025 Baselines for electricity system development:

PRIMES-Trends (2006): 3,886 TWh/year final electricity demand in 2025

PRIMES-EERES (2006): 2,877 TWh/year final electricity demand in 2025

Baseline for investment in transformers until 2025: 2004 market behaviour: frozen efficiency Replacing the oldest (worst) DTs first

15

Age distribution of transformer losses of electricity distribution companies in EU-25, increasingly

13,90% 21,46%

27,23% 34,84%

43,26%

52,98%

64,04%

75,24%

87,37%

2,29% 5,45% 9,71%

21,85% 30,25%

38,94% 47,87%

58,07%

69,99%

83,74%

8,09% 3,48%

15,24%

1,48% 3,57% 6,38% 10,03% 14,68%

20,98% 29,14%

39,20%

51,27%

65,39%

81,69%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1945- 1949

1950- 1954

1955- 1959

1960- 1964

1965- 1969

1970- 1974

1975- 1979

1980- 1984

1985- 1989

1990- 1994

1995- 1999

2000- 2004

Σ Po increasingly

Σ Pk increasingly

Population increasingly

16

Potentials - distribution companies

Savings distribution companies GWh

AoBo 05 T AoBo 10 T

AoBo 05 EAoBo 10 E

AMBk 05 T

AMBk 10 TAMBk 05 E

AMBk 10 E

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 MAX

17

Potentials - industryIndustry oil savings GWh

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 MAX

AoBk 05

AoBk 10

AoBo 05

AoBo 10

AMBk+05

AMBk+10

AMBk 05

AMBk 10

Dry savings GWh

HD538 T 10

HD538 E 10

[-10%] T 10

[-20%] T 05

[-20%] T 10

[-20%] E 05

[-20%/-40%] T 05

[-20%/-40%] T 10[-20%/-40%] E 05

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025=MAX

18

Economic impact of scenarios Economic impact on electricity distribution

companies strongly depends on regulatory scheme (and interest rate)

Recent price developments have led to amorphous transformers being more competitive

Results crucially depend on assumptions about transformer price relations, interest rate, assumed lifetimes and expected price developments (steel, copper, electricity)

19

Environmental impact of scenarios in 2025 in EU-27 (Mio t CO2eq./year)Baseline: Frozen efficiency (2004 market losses)

Policies and measures leading to first savings in 2010

General development of electricity system

Scenario 1oil: AoBk / dry: HD 538

Scenario 2oil: AoAk / dry: HD538 LL ./. 10%,NLL ./. 10%

Scenario 3oil: Ao./.49%

Bk+8% / dry: HD538 LL ./. 20%,NLL ./. 20%

Scenario 4oil: Ao./.49%

Bk / dry: HD538 LL ./. 10%

NLL ./. 40%

PRIMES Trends

1.9 2.3 3.4 3.7

PRIMES EE/RES

1.5 1.7 2.5 2.7

20

Conclusions Static technical electricity saving potential in 2004: 18.5 TWh/year

(55.5 % of current DTs’ energy losses of 33.4 TWh/year) Highest relative potentials in industry-oil, highest absolute

potentials in electricity distribution companies Electricity saving potentials until 2025 between 5.2 and 12.5

TWh/year in 2025, depending on scenario chosen and on general development of electricity system

CO2 reduction potentials until 2025 between 1.5 and 3.7 Mio t CO2eq.

Potentials are economical, but calculations extremely sensitive to assumptions / price developments (electricity, steel, copper)

Economic impact on electricity distribution companies largely depends on regulatory scheme

Economic impact on industry and commerce largely depends on assumptions with regard to electricity prices and interest rate chosen

21

Different market actors face different barriers and obstacles

Large electricity distribution companies Large industry Small and medium electricity distribution companies Small and medium industry and commerce Engineering firms, ESCOs, energy consultants,

planners Transformer manufacturers (and their suppliers)

22

Po

licy-

mix

pro

po

sed

by

SE

ED

T

23

Regulation of electricity distribution companies Reporting on losses / benchmarking (e.g. by using

labelling scheme) -> largest potentials first Deviations from loss target could be rewarded / penalised Incentive scheme should allow sufficient payback period

for investment Maybe specific energy efficiency investment budget

outside the cap At least existing disincentives should be removed AND

direct financial or fiscal incentives during transition period as long as incentives are not included in the regulation scheme

Specific proposals for Spain and Germany

24

Regulation of electricity distribution companies - Chances for implementation?

How to convince the regulator(s) who concentrate(s) on other issues at the moment?

How to set it on the agenda of CEER / ERGEG? Real chance for implementation? Chance if addressing network losses and

distribution system optimisation in a more general way?

25

R&D and AMDT pilot projects Increased interest at least by

ENDESA (and EDF) into pilot projects with amorphous distribution transformers (AMDT)

European AMDT pilot project with support from European Commission (-> Strategic Energy Technology Plan; European Investment Bank?)

R&D support: From efficient grid components like distribution transformers to efficient distribution systems

Source: Endesa (Test of 10 amorphous distribution transformers in Mallorca in 2008)

26

Information, motivation, advice programmes etc.Buyers and users information: Inclusion into general energy advice programmes and

sector-specific energy concepts Inclusion into general information, communication and

qualification on energy efficiency Inclusion into information and marketing by

manufacturers and ESCOs SEEDT TLCalc calculation tool for buyers

27

Labelling- Proposal 1 – a no-load losses label (named NLL label)

o This label is based on no-load losses only.o A complementary symbol, +, 0 or -, indicating the level of load losses. A DT labeled B+ will

have lower load losses (more efficient) than one labeled B-.

- Proposal 2 – a label based on a simplified combination of no load and load losses at 40% load

o This label is based on a combination of no load and load losses, at 40% loading i.e. NLL+0,16LL

- Proposal 3 – a label based on top efficiency across full spectrum of loading integral

o Total Losses = No Load Losses + 1/3 Load Losses, The rationale of this formula is

2BxASxP whereP – net power S – rated powerx – loading (expressed as ratio of rated power)A – no load lossesB – load lossesThe integral of net power from x=0 to x=1 will be the following

331

1

0

221)(max BxAxSxdxxP

o concluding, the sum of efficiencies for the whole variety of loadings from 0 to 1 can be expressed as NLL + 1/3 LL formula

28

Labelling

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

2250

2500

2750

3000

3250

3500

3750

4000

4250

4500

4750

5000

5250

5500

5750

6000

6250

6500

6750

7000

7250

7500

7750

8000

8250

8500

200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950

NLL [W]

LL [W

]

B C D E F Ak Bk Ck Dk AMDT SH15 AMDT Super high eff AoBk

Ak

Bk

Ck

Dk

Amorphous SH 15 series

CoBk

Amorphous super high efficient

CoCk

Labelling - proposal 2 400 kVA

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

2250

2500

2750

3000

3250

3500

3750

4000

4250

4500

4750

5000

5250

5500

5750

6000

6250

6500

6750

200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950

NLL [W]

LL [W

]

B C D E F Ak Bk Ck Dk AMDT SH15 AMDT Super high eff

Ak

Bk

Ck

Dk

Amorphous SH 15 series

CoBk

Amorphous super high efficient

CoCk

Labelling - proposal 3 400 kVA

29

Labelling - comparisonEN 50464

HD 428 or techspeak Proposal 1 Proposal 2 Proposal 3

"AMDTAk" B+/B0 B B"AMDTBk" C-AMDT B0 B B"AMDTCk" A-AMDT B- B C/D"AMDTDk" B- B/C E

AoAk C0 C B

AoBk CC'-30% C0 C/D C

AoCk C- D/E EAoDk C- F GBoAk D0 C/D CBoBk D0 D DBoCk D0 E EBoDk D- F/G GCoAk E+ D CCoBk CC' E0 E DCoCk AC' E0 F FCoDk BC' E0 G GDoAk F+/G+ E DDoBk CB' F+/G+ F EDoCk AB' F0/G0 F/G FDoDk BB' F0/G0 G GEoAk G+ F EEoBk CA' G+ G FEoCk AA' G+ G GEoDk BA' G0 G G

30

Labelling (A, B, C etc) through integration of losses from 0% to 100% loading

Labelling - Currently preferred proposal

The value of the integral classifies the DT

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Tota

l los

ses

(W)

Loading

Total losses = No-load losses + Load losses*Loading^2

Bk Co

Dk Eo

1

int o k0

1P P( L ) dL P P

3

31

Labelling through integration of losses: Proposed classification similar to appliances

Co: Class of no load losses as per EN 50464

Bk: Class of load losses as per EN 50464

CoBk = CC’ of HD 428

32

Efficiency standards Will Europe catch up with the US and Japan?

97,50%

98,00%

98,50%

99,00%

99,50%

100,00%

15 25 30 45 50 75 100 112,5 150 160 200 225 250 300 400 500 630 750 1000 1500 1600 2000 2500

kVA

NEMA TP-1 [60 Hz] USA, Canada Japan top runner [50 Hz, 40 % load] HD 428 BA'

USA DoE USA min.TOC SH15 Series Amorphous

EU25 fleet EU25 market

33

Mandatory efficiency standard European DT manufacturers are not interested in a voluntary

agreement A mandatory EU-27 minimum efficiency standard will remove

the worst DTs from the market Only feasible if, at the same time (!), regulation of electricity

distribution companies removes any disincentives It can be designed in several ways (preferred standard in

bold, if no labelling will be introduced): maximum allowable no load and load losses (CoCk), or minimum efficiency at particular loading, or just removing the worst labelling classes from the market

34

Mandatory standard

LCC €

0

2500

5000

7500

10000

12500

15000

17500

20000

22500

25000

27500

30000

32500

35000

37500

40000

42500

45000

47500

AMDT AoAk AoBk AoCk AoDk BoAk BoBk BoCk BoDk CoAk CoBk CoCk CoDk DoAk DoBk DoCk DoDk EoAk EoBk EoCk EoDk

100

160

250

400

630

1000

35

Barriers towards implementing the proposed policies and measures Ambitious policy instruments proposed Low replacement rate of distribution transformers (long lifetime) Low energy saving potentials compared to some other energy

efficiency technology No complete lifecycle analysis yet: not yet fully ready for

“implementing measures” on EU level Not much interest by European manufacturers and distribution

companies yet Continuously changing regulatory schemes: Any planning and

calculation of investment possible? Any interest or acceptance by regulators / CEER / ERGEG expectable?

Political differences between EU Member States more severe than differences between states in US (difficult for setting a standard)

36

Conclusions Economic impact on electricity distribution companies largely

depends on regulatory scheme -> separate financial or fiscal incentives might be needed for transition period

Barriers and obstacles different between market actors => Bundle of policy instruments needed on EU and national level

Several barriers towards implementation of proposed policies Some chances for implementing policy instruments:

Next steps of changes in (national) regulatory schemes EU Action Plan on Energy Efficiency: Measures to reduce grid losses in

2008? EuP Directive: if combined with other transformers (> 200,000 pcs/year) New CO2 reduction targets published in EU package of 23 Jan 2008

Promotion of AMDT pilot projects can increase competition in the market for energy-efficient transformers

37Source: SEEDT (2007)

CountryNo load losses

[W]Cenelec HD428.1

EN 50464-1EN 50464-1Standard

Denmark 398 C' - 35% A0 - 7% A0 [430 W]Germany 500 C' - 18% B0 - 4%Sweden 510 C' - 16% B0 - 2%Norway 550 C' - 10% B0 + 6%Czech Republic 610 C' C0China 610 C' C0Finland 612 C' C0Slovaquia 630 C' + 3% C0 + 3%Italy 750 C' + 23% D0Spain (A-B’) (2008) 750 C’ + 23% D0Rumania 930 C' + 52% E0Greece 930 C' + 52% E0United Kingdom 930 C' + 52% E0France 930 C' + 52% E0Spain (A-A’) (until 2007) 930 C' + 52% E0Poland 946 C' + 56% E0 + 17%

No-load losses range

B0 [520 W]

D0 [750 W]

C0 [610 W]

E0 [930 W]

1ª s

pee

dWORLWIDE STANDARDS: No-load Losses Levels

Reference Values (400 kVA 3 - 50 Hz Distribution Transformer)

38

Pilot Project: EFFITRAFO ENDESA (January 2008)AMDT 400 kVA – 15.400/420 V - 3 - 50 Hz

Pot. nom.

[kVA] AMDT manufacturer Hitachi

100 75 76

160 100 108

250 140 150

400 200 213

630 320 305

1000 450 414

Po [W] Reference Values

39

TECHNOLOGY FUNDAMENTALS: Evolution of the CGO Steel Technology

CGO: Cold-rolled grain oriented silicon steels HiB: High permeability grain oriented silicon steels

Thickness

40

Amorphous (0,025 mm)

Core losses [W/kg]

B [T]

Laser (0,23 mm)

HiB (0,23 mm)

HiB (0,30 mm)

CGO (0,30 mm)

Thickness

TECHNOLOGY FUNDAMENTALS: Core losses versus Induction

41

CGO TechnologyCGO Technology AMDT TechnologyAMDT Technology

TECHNOLOGY FUNDAMENTALS: Atomic structure

Crystalline Amorphous

•Ordered structure magneto crystalline anisotropy

•Polycrystalline structure higher coercivity

•Random structure lack of crystalline anisotropy

•Absence of phase boundaries lower coercivity

These features do not help for easier magnetization and

demagnetization.

These features lead to faster flux reversal.

SOLID with LIQUID ESTRUCTURE

42

Amorphous Metals exhibit: Easier magnetization (low coercivity and high permeability). Lower magnetic loss (low coercivity, high permeability and high resistivity). Faster flux reversal (as a result of low magnetic loss). Versatile magnetic properties resulting from post-fabrication. Heat-treatments and a wide range of adjustable chemical compositions.

TECHNOLOGY FUNDAMENTALS: Magnetic Properties (I)

CGO TechnologyCGO Technology

AMDT TechnologyAMDT Technology

43

TECHNOLOGY FUNDAMENTALS: Noise Levels

Dynamic vibration due to magnetostriction

The noise level of HB1 amorphous alloy is significantly lower than SA1 alloy (≈

10 dB)

The operating induction can be increased by 0.1÷0.15T using HB1 alloy.

Distribution Transformer can be downsized by about 10% with HB1

Source: Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials (ELSEVIER), Hasegawa (2005)

44

TECHNOLOGY FUNDAMENTALS: Thermal properties

Heat Spectrum Radiated

Grain Oriented Silicon Steel Core Amorphous Metal Core

AMDT AMDT TechnologyTechnology

CGO CGO TechnologyTechnology

45

PRODUCTION PROCESS: Amorphous Distribution Transformers

Refrigeration process to obtain amorphous structure(106 oC/s required rate for molten-metal cooling)

Sheet (0,018 – 0,023 mm)

MELT SPINNING PROCESS

Steel Cooling Treatment Flow Chart

Melting furnace

Reservoir

Nozzle In-line process control

In-line winding

Casting roll

46

Line Diagram Core Making

PRODUCTION PROCESS: Amorphous Distribution Transformers

47

Line Diagram Core Coil Assembly

PRODUCTION PROCESS: Amorphous Distribution Transformers

Non automated process (“human time” involved)

Ribbon groups overlapped.

Groups staggered to space overlaps across joint.

Joint is opened up for core/coil assembly and then re-laced.

Joint can be opened and closed multiple times.

One piece core allows for easy assembly.Easy REPAIRING process

48

Open questions Do distribution transformers deserve attention from

energy efficiency point of view? Have distribution transformer efficiency received

sufficient policy and measures support (EU and country level)?

Measures; voluntary or mandatory, standard or label other

Policy instruments; EU Action Plan, EuP, Carbon, other?