This article is excerpted from "Premium-Efficiency Motors and Transformers", a CD-ROM available from

CDA by calling 888/480-MOTR, or through the Publications List.

Transformer losses are produced by the electrical current flowing in the coils and the magnetic field
alternating in the core. The losses associated with the coils are called the load losses, while the losses
produced in the core are called no-load losses.
What Are Load Losses?
Load losses vary according to the loading on the transformer. They include heat losses and eddy currents in
the primary and secondary conductors of the transformer.
Heat losses, or I
2
R losses, in the winding materials contribute the largest part of the load losses. They are
created by resistance of the conductor to the flow of current or electrons. The electron motion causes the
conductor molecules to move and produce friction and heat. The energy generated by this motion can be
calculated using the formula:
Watts = (volts)(amperes) or VI.
According to Ohms law, V=RI, or the voltage drop across a resistor equals the amount of resistance in the
resistor, R, multiplied by the current, I, flowing in the resistor. Hence, heat losses equal (I)(RI) or I
2
R.
Transformer designers cannot change I, or the current portion of the I
2
R losses, which are determined by the
load requirements. They can only change the resistance or R part of the I
2
R by using a material that has a
low resistance per cross-sectional area without adding significantly to the cost of the transformer. Most
transformer designers have found copper the best conductor considering the weight, size, cost and
resistance of the conductor. Designers can also reduce the resistance of the conductor by increasing the
cross-sectional area of the conductor.
What Are No-load Losses?
No-load losses are caused by the magnetizing current needed to energize the core of the transformer, and
do not vary according to the loading on the transformer. They are constant and occur 24 hours a day, 365
days a year, regardless of the load, hence the term no-load losses. They can be categorized into five
components: hysteresis losses in the core laminations, eddy current losses in the core laminations, I
2
R
losses due to no-load current, stray eddy current losses in core clamps, bolts and other core components,
and dielectric losses. Hysteresis losses and eddy current losses contribute over 99% of the no-load losses,
while stray eddy current, dielectric losses, and I
2
R losses due to no-load current are small and consequently
often neglected. Thinner lamination of the core steel reduces eddy current losses.
The biggest contributor to no-load losses is hysteresis losses. Hysteresis losses come from the molecules in
the core laminations resisting being magnetized and demagnetized by the alternating magnetic field. This
resistance by the molecules causes friction that results in heat. The Greek word, hysteresis, means "to lag"
and refers to the fact that the magnetic flux lags behind the magnetic force. Choice of size and type of core
material reduces hysteresis losses.
Values of Transformer Losses (A and B Values)
The values of transformer losses are important to the purchaser of a transformer who wants to select the
most cost-effective transformer for their application. The use of A and B factors is a method followed by
most electric utilities and many large industrial customers to capitalize the future value of no-load losses
(which relate to the cost to supply system capacity) and load losses (which relate to the cost of incremental
energy). Put another way, A values provide an estimate of the equivalent present cost of future no-load
losses, while B values provide an estimate of the equivalent present cost of future load losses. Most utilities
regularly update their avoided cost of capacity and energy (typically on an annual basis), and use A and
B values when specifying a transformer. Most smaller end users typically use life-cycle -cost evaluation
methods, discussed in another article on this web site.
When evaluating various transformer designs, the assumed value of transformer losses (A and B values) will
contribute to determining the efficiency of transformer to be purchased. Assuming a high value for
transformer losses will generally result in purchase of a more efficient unit; assuming a lower value of losses
will result in purchase of a less efficient unit. What value of losses should be assumed?
The total owning cost (TOC) method provides 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
TOC formula:
TOC = NLL x A + LL x B + C
Where,
TOC = capitalized total owning cost,
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),
C = the initial cost of the transformer including transportation, sales tax, and other costs to prepare it for service.
What Is the A Value?
The A value is an estimate of the present value of future capital cost (nonload- dependent) items at a given
point in time. It can vary over time as utilities re-evaluate their costs on a periodic basis. (In other words, the
A value is the answer to the question, what is a watt of no-load loss over the life of the transformer worth
to me today?) Even if there is no load, there is capital that is devoted to fixed capacity to generate, transmit
and distribute electricity, which contribute to the A value. The loading that may change daily on the
transformer does not affect the no-load loss value. It is calculated using the following formula:
A = [SC + (EC x 8760)] x 0.001 / [FC]
= Cost of No-Load Loss in $/watt
Where,
SC = Annual Cost of System Capacity in $/kW-year (SC is the levelized annual cost of generation, transmission
and primary distribution capacity required to supply one watt of load to the distribution transformer coincident with
the peak load).
EC = Energy Cost (EC is the levelized annual cost per kWh of fuel, including inflation, escalation, and any other
fuel related components of operation or maintenance costs that are proportional to the energy output of the
generating units).
8,760 = hours per year
FC = Fixed Charge on capital per year (FC is the levelized annual revenue required to carry and repay the
transformer investment obligation and pay related taxes, all expressed as a per-unit quantity of the original).
0.001 = conversion from kilowatts to watts.
What Is the B Value?
Similar to the way the A value is determined, the B value is an estimate of the present value of future
variable, or load-dependent, cost items at a given point in time. (In other words, the B value is the answer
to the question, what is a watt of load loss over the life of the transformer worth to me today?) The B
value can also change over time as utilities revaluate their costs on a periodic basis, but once determined, it
is a constant value for a given transformer purchase. The cost of load losses, or B value, is calculated
using the following formula:
B = [(SC x RF) + (EC x 8,760 x LF)] (PL)
2
(0.001) / (FC)
= Cost of Load Loss Cost $/watt
Where,
RF = Peak Loss Responsibility Factor (RF is the composite responsibility factor that reduces the system capacity
requirements for load losses since the peak transformer losses do not necessarily occur at peak time).
LF = Annual Loss Factor (LF is the ratio of the annual average load loss to the peak value of the load loss in the
transformer).
PL = Uniform Equivalent Annual Peak Load (PL is the levelized peak load per year over the life of the transformer.
Transformer life cycle is defined as the useful life of the asset and is usually assumed to be 30-35 years).
Specifying A and B Values
For custom-designed transformers, manufacturers optimize the design of the unit to the specified A and B
values resulting in a transformer designed to the lowest total owning cost, rather than one designed for
cheapest first cost.
In situations where A and B values have not been determined (or the enduser does not utilize or specify
them), such as occur in commercial or small industrial applications, the suggested technique to maximize
transformer efficiency is to obtain the no-load and full-load loss values of a specific transformer, in watts.
This method is discussed in the article Transformer Life-Cycle Cost, elsewhere on this web site.
Proper Transformer Sizing and Copper Windings Mean Lowest Total
Owning Cost, Fastest Payback
Transformers are used in virtually every commercial and industrial building, from the service transformer
reducing the distribution voltage to a more usable voltage for the building, to step-down transformers serving
individual floors, to small transformers for individual apparatus or functions. Typically a transformer is a long-
lived device that can be in service for decades.
Over such a long life span, the operating cost of a transformer can greatly exceed the initial price, so
selection of the right transformer for economic performance involves looking at proper size (capacity) and
efficiency.
And efficiency means looking at both the core steel and the winding material.
Transformer Losses
In the simplest terms, there are two components to transformer losses: core losses (also called no-load
losses); and coil losses (called load losses).
The core losses originate in the steel core of the transformer, caused by the magnetizing current needed to
energize the core. They are constant, irrespective of the load on the transformer (thus the name no-load).
They continue to waste energy as long as the transformer is energized. No-load losses do, however, vary
with the size (kVA) of the transformer, and the core steel selected; hence the emphasis on proper sizing.
The coil losses (load losses) originate in the primary and secondary coils of the transformer, and are a result
of the resistance of the winding material. That's where selection of copper windings can make a difference in
losses.
Proper Sizing
Transformers are sometimes placed into a speculative setting in advance of occupancy, so the engineer
does not necessarily know the load that will be placed on the unit. As the installer is often not the party
paying the electric bill, there can be a tendency to oversize the transformer capacity relative to the load it will
actually see. Since the no-load loss is a function of the kVA capacity of the transformer, careful selection of
the transformer capacity closer to the intended task will ensure lowest core loss.
Energy Star (TP-1) Transformers May Not be Efficient Enough
The Energy Star label is applied to transformers that meet a certain minimal standard for efficiency known
as NEMA TP-1 (NEMA stands for the National Electrical Manufacturers Association.) The full name of the
standard is "Guide for Determining Energy Efficiency for Distribution Transformers"
1
or "NEMA Standards
Publication TP-1-1996." It is intended to promote the manufacture and use of energy efficient transformers
by establishing minimum efficiency standards, albeit with certain assumptions built-in. It contains a simplified
method for evaluating the first cost of transformers along with the costs of core and load losses. It also
presents tables of minimum transformer efficiencies based on kVA size, voltages, and liquid or dry-type.
Unfortunately, there is nothing especially efficient nor cutting-edge about transformers that meet TP-1. Yes,
they are an improvement over so-called "standard" transformers, still made and sold widely, and they are
conditionally required in certain states for new construction. However, many transformers are available from
various manufacturers that exceed the efficiency levels of TP-1, and may provide a fast payback of their
purchase price.
The efficiency standards in NEMA TP-1 are based on certain assumptions that may result in the selection of
less-than-optimally efficient transformers. One key assumption is that low voltage (600-volt class) dry-type
(typical commercial or industrial) transformers are loaded at 35 per cent of their nameplate rating. For
medium voltage and liquid-filled transformers the assumed loading is 50% of nameplate rating. Another
underlying part of the economic rational for the standard is an assumed electricity cost of 6 cents per kWh.
Both these assumptions may be too low for industrial and commercial users, who often can more accurately
predict their load requirements, or who may be paying more than 6 cents per kWh, particularly at peak
times. In fact, recommended loading for economic sizing of a transformer is typically around 75% of
nameplate (35% load, if constant, means the transformer is oversized and wasting core loss as well as well
as higher purchase price.)
The table below, provided by Olsun Electrics, compares a "standard efficiency" 75 kVA transformer to an
aluminum-wound TP-1 model, a copper-wound TP-1 model, and a "premium efficiency" copper-wound unit,
at various loading levels. As the table shows, choosing a more efficient, copper-wound transformer that
exceeds the minimal efficiencies of TP-1 (and Energy Star) can pay back its price premium in as little as one
year.
Noteworthy is the fact that the TP-1 (Energy Star) efficiency, copper-wound unit, loaded at 75% of its
nameplate capacity (column 7), saves over $88 per year compared to an aluminum-wound TP-1 model
(column 6), but costs only $85 more initially. At only 50% loading, the copper TP-1 unit (column 11) saves
about $50 per year compared to the same aluminum unit (column 10). No-load loss (core) is reduced from
350 to 320 watts because the greater conductivity of copper windings allows a smaller core to be used, so
energy continues to be saved even at light loading levels.
For even greater savings, the premium efficiency, copper-wound unit saves over $401 per year at 75%
loading (column 8), compared to the aluminum TP-1 model (column 6), and costs only $1235 additional. In
fact, over a 20-year life (neglecting the time value of money), the total owning cost of the premium efficiency,
copper-wound model is $12,399.60 compared to $25,447.00 for the standard efficiency model. The 20-year
total ownership cost to buy and operate the premium efficiency transformer is less than one-half the cost of
the standard model.
Payback time comparison for 75kVA Dry-Type transformers
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Standard
(Aluminum)
TP-1
(Aluminum)
TP-1
(Copper)
Premium
(Copper)
Standard
(Aluminum)
TP-1
(Aluminum)
TP-1
(Copper)
Premium
(Copper)
100 100 100 100 75 75 75 75 % of name
plate load
Core loss
(w)
Conductor
loss (w)
Total loss
(w)
Efficiency
(%)
375
2829
3204
95.9
350
1874
2224
97.12
320
1670
1990
97.42
190
993
1183
98.45
375
1591
1966
96.62
350
1054
1404
97.56
320
940
1260
97.81
190
559
749
98.69
Transformer
cost ($)
1336 1979 2064 3214 1336 1979 2064 3214
Additional
cost
compared
with
standard
unit ($)
643 728 1878 643 728 1878
Energy
cost/year
($)
1964.69 1363.76 1220.27 725.42 1205.55 860.93 772.63 459.29
Annual
energy cost
saving
compared
with
standard
unit ($)
600.94 744.42 1239.28 344.62 432.92 746.26
Payback 1.07 0.98 1.52 1.87 1.68 2.52
(9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)
Standard
(Aluminum)
TP-1
(Aluminum)
TP-1
(Copper)
Premium
(Copper)
Standard
(Aluminum)
TP-1
(Aluminum)
TP-1
(Copper)
Premium
(Copper)
50 50 50 50 35 35 35 35
% of name
plate load
Core loss
(w)
Conductor
loss (w)
Total loss
(w)
Efficiency
(%)
375
707
1082
97.19
350
469
819
97.86
320
418
738
98.07
190
248
438
98.84
375
1591
1966
96.62
350
176
526
98.04
320
157
477
98.04
190
113
303
98.86
Transformer
cost ($)
1336 1979 2064 3214 1336 1979 2064 3214
Additional
cost
compared
with
standard
unit ($)
643 728 1878 643 728 1878
Energy
cost/year
($)
663.48 502.21 452.54 268.58 1205.55 322.54 292.50 185.80
Annual
energy cost
saving
compared
with
standard
unit ($)
161.27 210.94 394.90 69.90 99.95 206.65
Payback
period (yrs)
3.99 3.45 4.76 9.20 7.28 9.09
Courtesy: Olsun Electrics, Richmond, IL.
Notes:
1. Standard and Aluminum TP-1 units are 150C rise, copper TP-1 unit is 115C rise, Premium unit is 80 C rise.
2. Loss values at 100%, 75% and 50% nameplate load are at reference temperature.
3. Loss values at 35% nameplate load are at 75C in accordance with TP-1.
4. Energy cost assumed to be $0.07/kWh.
Specifying to Minimize Owning Cost
Whenever possible, always compare competing transformer models by asking for the load and no-load
losses, in watts, and look at the total cost of ownership. If possible, perform life cycle cost analysis
(discussed elsewhere on this Web site). Remember that no-load losses are constant whenever the
transformer is energized. Specifying copper windings can minimize both the load loss and the no-load loss,
by allowing for a smaller core. If the load is known or can be predicted, choose a transformer that will be
loaded to about 75% of its nameplate rating. Oversizing the unit increases the no-load losses, as well as the
purchase price, unnecessarily.
If the actual losses in watts are not available, and you are seeking the transformer with the lowest losses,
choose a transformer with 80 C rise, core of grade M 6 steel or better, and copper windings. Specifying a
lower temperature rise transformer results in a unit with higher overload capability. For example, an 80C
rise dry-type unit using 220C insulation, has 70C reserve capacity. This allows the 80C unit to operate
with an overload capability of 15-30% without affecting the transformer life expectancy. Also, a cooler
running transformer means a more reliable unit, and more up-time.
Overcoming Transformer Losses
By Philip J.A. Ling, P.E., Powersmiths Corp.
Aug 29, 2003 12:00 PM
A more efficient transformer can pay for itself many
times over during its 25-year lifespan
The transformer plays a key role in an electrical
systems efficiency and power quality, yet 95% of
buying decisions are based solely on first cost. Buying
based on life cycle cost would save literally hundreds of
thousands of dollars in operating losses over the
installed life for transformers in a typical facility. In fact,
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 60 to 80 billion kWh
annually can be attributed to transformer losses. These losses cost end-users $3 to $4 billion, and
can tie up nine days of U.S.
generating capacity annually.
When feeding the increasingly
electronic nature of connected
equipment, distortion of the voltage
waveform can reduce the operating
reliability of both the electrical
system and the connected
equipment. Users can lower energy
rates and avoid high transformer
losses by investing in energy-
efficient transformers. This article
compares the efficiency of different
transformer types including low
temperature rise, Energy Star, K-
rated, as well as new transformers
that are designed to minimize life
cycle cost.
Underestimating loss data.
Electronic equipment and other nonlinear loads now make up most of the load on transformers in
many facilities. Even in the average office, many individuals plug in mostly computers, printers,
scanners, and other electronics to 120V receptacles. The load profile of electronic equipmentfrom
the computer in the office to the variable speed drive in the factorydrives both additional losses
and unwanted distortion, according to IEEE Standard 519-1992. Since transformer manufacturers
test only under ideal (linear) conditions, as called for in present construction standards, a
substantial gap exists between published loss data and actual losses incurred after installation (Fig.
1). In fact, test results published in a 1996 IEEE Transaction paper documented an almost tripling of
transformer losses when feeding 60kW of computer load rather than linear load.
Transformers have two major components that drive losses: the core and the coils. The typical core
is an assembly of laminated steel. Core losses are mostly related to magnetizing or energizing the
core. These losses, also known as no-load losses, are present the entire time the transformer is
powered on, regardless of whether theres any load or not.
Core losses are roughly constant from no-load to full-load when feeding linear loads. They represent
a continuous cost, 24/7, for the 25- to 40-year life of the transformer. A common 75kVA
commercial transformer has about 400W in no-load losses. At $.10/kWh, this represents a
continuous cost of $350/yr or $14,000 over a 40-year life, eclipsing the purchase cost many times
over. And remember, this is just the cost for powering the unit. The cost of powering the load itself
far exceeds this cost.
The coil losses, commonly referred
to as load losses, are associated with
feeding power to the connected load.
For linear loads, these losses are
predominately I2R losses. In other
words, load losses increase by the
square of current from no-load to
full-load, driven by the resistance of
the coil. Fig. 2 shows a graphical
representation of how transformer
losses increase with loading.
Since a wide variety of transformers
serve different purposes, actual
losses incurred in the field will vary
substantially from one installation to
another. Load level varies widely,
with some installations running very heavily loaded and others more lightly loaded. This difference
substantially affects actual losses incurred.
To calculate the cost of these losses, one must refer to the billing structure of the electric utility.
This varies across the country and may involve kWh, kW peak demand, and kVA charges. Taking an
example from Fig. 2, at 60% load the transformer has about 1,500W of losses. If the user is being
billed only on kilowatt-hour consumption at a rate of $.10/kWh, the operating cost would be 1.5kW
x $.10/kWh, which equals $.15/hr or roughly $1,300/yearthe same order of magnitude as the
purchase price of the transformer. Although some utilities charge by kVA or kW, most charge a
combination of a kWh rate and a peak demand charge. Additional distribution or environmental
costs are also common surcharges included in electrical bills, so be sure to look beyond the cost per
kWh.
Comparing transformer losses. Only a limited amount of field data is available on transformer
losses due to the high cost of gathering detailed data from a reasonable number of individual
transformers. Faced with this lack of comprehensive field data, the remaining graphs in this article
represent our years of field experience with a combination of published efficiency data under linear
and nonlinear load conditions and independent testing, as well as before/after field measurements
to build a series of representative loss curves for different transformers as accurately as possible
with the data available.
Standard transformerThe standard transformer is built to deliver its nameplate kVA rating under
linear load only and is UL Listed on this basis. As it has the lowest purchase price on the market, it
represents the majority of transformer purchases made across the country. When feeding electronic
equipment, substantial derating is requiredon the order of 50% or moreto prevent overheating
and premature failure, according to IEEE Standard 1100-1992. Along with its high operating cost,
other factors include a substantial loss in capacity and distortion of the voltage to connected
equipment.
Low temperature rise transformerTransformers with a low operating temperature rise have often
been purchased with energy savings in mind, as published full load losses are substantially lower
than those of many other transformers. These transformers are traditionally available in either 80C
or 115C operating temperature rise, as opposed to the standard 150C rise that represents the
majority of low-voltage, 3-phase, dry-type transformer sales.
The low temperature rise transformer is designed to run cooler than a standard transformer when
fully loaded. To meet this objective, manufacturers typically use a larger core and winding set,
resulting in higher no-load losses (more core), but lower load losses (more coil). Since total losses
are the sum of both core and coil losses, the low rise transformer will have higher losses than other
transformers at low load levels where core losses predominate, but lower losses when heavily
loaded, since coil losses predominate
at high load levels.
From Fig. 3, its evident that at less
than 60% load, it actually costs
more to operate the 80C rise
transformer than the standard 150C
rise transformer. Depending on the
size and manufacturer, the break-
even point can be as high as 80%.
Since many transformers are loaded
to less than 50% capacity, use of an
80C rise transformer is often a
commitment to higher energy
coststhe exact opposite of what
was intended. Another limitation with
the low temperature rise transformer
is that its UL Listing applies when
feeding linear loads only.
Energy Star transformer In 1998, the EPA included a high-efficiency transformer program under
the Energy Star banner. For a reference document, the EPA settled on NEMA TP-1 Guide for
Determining Energy Efficiency for Distribution Transformers. The NEMA TP-1 standard establishes
required efficiencies at 35% load for low-voltage, dry-type transformers, and at 50% load for liquid-
filled and medium-voltage, dry-type transformers. In a bid to move the first-cost driven market to
higher efficiency transformers, several states including New York, California, Minnesota, and
Massachusetts, adopted NEMA TP-1
into law.
However, NEMA TP-1/ENERGY STAR
transformer efficiencies reference
test data under linear load
conditions. This results in published
efficiencies that are much higher
than experienced in the real world
due to the additional losses
associated with the widespread use
of electronic equipment. Ironically,
transformers feeding harmonic-rich
loads are exempt from meeting
NEMA TP-1 benchmark efficiencies.
Like the standard transformer, the
Energy Star transformer is built to
deliver its nameplate kVA rating
under linear load and is UL Listed on
this basis. And like standard
transformers, Energy Star transformers exhibit increased losses, loss of capacity, and increased
voltage distortion when feeding electronic equipment. The Energy Star-compliant transformer is
more efficient than the standard transformer as shown in Fig. 4 (linear loading).
K-rated transformerUnlike standard transformers, which are designed to feed linear loads only
and lose capacity when feeding nonlinear loads, K-rated transformers are designed to feed nonlinear
loads with harmonic content up to their nameplate rating. The UL Listing is maintained as long as
the load profile has a K-factor lower than the K-rating of the transformer. Industry standard ratings
include K4, K13, and K20, with K4 and K13 being the most frequently specified. A higher K-rating
represents the capability to withstand higher harmonic content.
K-rating is a heat survival rating, not
a treatment of associated power
quality issues like voltage distortion,
and efficiency isnt typically
discussed. Surviving the extra heat
means using more core and coil
material, and sometimes use of
different construction techniques.
Depending on the manufacturers
design, harmonic losses may be
reduced to varying degrees.
Ironically, even though the
designated use of the K-rated
transformer is to feed nonlinear load,
manufacturers publish their loss data
under linear load conditions.
The need for commissioning.
When energy savings are driving part or all of the justification for selecting a particular transformer,
its important that these savings are indeed present once the transformer is installed. This means
commissioning the transformer for energy performance after installation. In fact, some rebate
programs and other life cycle-oriented programs like Leadership in Efficiency and Environmental
Design call for ongoing product commissioning.
As electronic equipment has become more integrated into our daily lives, transformer losses have
added a substantial hidden energy cost to the overall operating costs of many buildings. If properly
applied, energy-efficient transformers can help deliver substantial energy savings and power quality
improvements.
Ling is vice president technology of Powersmiths Corp. in Irving, Texas.
Sidebar: Pay Me Now or Pay Me Later
Electric utilities have traditionally purchased their distribution transformers based on life cycle
costing, or total cost of ownership (TCO), where the cost of losses is factored into the buying
processas they understand the cost of ongoing operating losses. As a result, the trend in this
market segment is the use of higher efficiency transformers.
The opposite trend is in place in the commercial/industrial world, where the standard low voltage
step-down transformer is widely considered a commodity. The only perceived differentiator is
upfront cost, or purchase price, since the lowest first cost wins.
Commercial transformer specifications rarely set a minimum efficiency requirement. As you would
expect, building a less efficient transformer is cheaper than building a more efficient one, so a
typical low-first-cost transformer will have a low upfront cost but substantially higher operating
cost. And the lifetime cost of the operating losses far exceeds the purchase cost.
The typical buying process makes the situation worse. Traditionally, the consulting engineer
specifies a generic transformer, and a contractor purchases it from a wholesaler. The contractor
typically focuses on first cost since the winning bidder is based on providing the lowest bid. The end
user, who pays the electricity bill for the next 40 years, is neither involved in the selection process
nor educated about the true operating cost of the unit or the potential savings from using a more
efficient unit. As a result, the fight is over first cost, which for the transformer is on the order of 4%
of the life cycle cost. In the end, the end user is stuck with high operating cost, the other 96% of
the life cycle cost.