From: Steve Nadel [mailto:snadel@aceee.org]  

Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 11:36 AM

To: Bruce R Hirsch

Cc: Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; mhyland@appanet.org;

Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net; James.Lass@cleco.com; Aaron

Meyers; Antonio Trujillo; Jerry L Corkran; Richard M Marusinec; tballo@earthjustice.org;

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; eduardorobles@eaton.com; brenda.edwards@ee.doe.gov;

emily.marchetti@ee.doe.gov; jeremiah.freeman@ee.doe.gov; Jim Raba; john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov;

srosenstock@eei.org; DYoung@energy‐solution.com; rick.anderson@faypwc.com;

bsmith@federalpacific.com; rgreeson@federalpacific.com; carlos.gaytan@ge.com;

artrosenfeld@gmail.com; BermanEconomics@gmail.com; greg.coulter405@gmail.com; Richard Parker;

Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com; jhodge@howard.com; Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; Phil Hopkinson;

ChristopherBolduc; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov; kcoughlin@lbl.gov; ScottB@lvmetals.com;

dave.millure@metglas.com; kwinder@mleainc.com; jrossetti@mlgw.org; Brian Coffey; Caitlin Johnson;

Michael Rivest; Zhimei Luo; Jim.creevy@nema.org; john.caskey@nema.org; mwaltner@nrdc.org;

rroy@nrdc.org; robert.saint@nreca.coop; Teckman@nwcouncil.org; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com;

gbf1@pge.com; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; ahofmann@publicpower.org;

pkumar@publicpower.org; adelaski@standardsasap.org; jmauer@standardsasap.org;

wes.patterson@us.abb.com; chad.kennedy@us.schneider‐electric.com; thomas.patzner@us.schneider‐

electric.com; charlied@uus.org

Subject: RE: MV Liquid‐immersed LCC and NIA Results

Bruce,

  

Your points are well taken.  We'll be prepared to address your points when we meet next week, making

reference to the analyses DOE just provided.

  

Steve

>>> "Hirsch, Bruce R" <Bruce.R.Hirsch@bge.com> 11/3/2011 11:20 AM >>>

Steve,

Thanks for your candid response and making sure we all understand that we are at a point where the

“rubber needs to hit the road”. I would like to add that we also need to keep in mind that this exercise is

a negotiating process. Negotiations means that all involved need to be open minded and willing to listen

and consider all the issues.  
In order to make an educated decision, we need to understand all the costs and all the benefits of

moving to each efficiency level. I have heard quite a bit from the steel Industry and transformer

manufacturers on the problems higher efficiency levels will cause. I have heard users discuss the issues

heavier and larger transformers cause. But, I have yet to hear any details from the “efficiency groups”

documenting the benefits that are expected.   

The Team needs to know the projected  benefits the “efficiency groups” believe will be realized. This

needs to be provided for each proposed level much like was done on the cost side by the steel industry

and transformer manufacturers.  We also need to understand the details of how those benefits were

calculated (i.e. assumptions and methodology). Until we get this information, we will be hard pressed to

justify the large cost increases associated with making a change.  

Our decision will affect the cost of electricity for the American public. I believe it is our responsibility to

be able to justify any cost increase we send their way.  

                                                                                                                                                                               

    Bruce   

              

From: Steve Nadel [mailto:snadel@aceee.org]  

Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 7:32 AM

To: Jerry L Corkran; Richard Parker; Phil Hopkinson; ChristopherBolduc

Cc: Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; mhyland@appanet.org;

Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net; Hirsch, Bruce R;

James.Lass@cleco.com; Aaron Meyers; Antonio Trujillo; Richard M Marusinec; tballo@earthjustice.org;

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; eduardorobles@eaton.com; brenda.edwards@ee.doe.gov;

emily.marchetti@ee.doe.gov; jeremiah.freeman@ee.doe.gov; Jim Raba; john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov;

srosenstock@eei.org; DYoung@energy‐solution.com; rick.anderson@faypwc.com;

bsmith@federalpacific.com; rgreeson@federalpacific.com; carlos.gaytan@ge.com;

artrosenfeld@gmail.com; BermanEconomics@gmail.com; greg.coulter405@gmail.com;

Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com; jhodge@howard.com; Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov;

kcoughlin@lbl.gov; ScottB@lvmetals.com; dave.millure@metglas.com; kwinder@mleainc.com;

jrossetti@mlgw.org; brian.coffey@navigant.com; caitlin.johnson@navigant.com;

mrivest@navigant.com; zhimei.luo@navigant.com; Jim.creevy@nema.org; john.caskey@nema.org;

mwaltner@nrdc.org; rroy@nrdc.org; robert.saint@nreca.coop; Teckman@nwcouncil.org;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; gbf1@pge.com; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com;

ahofmann@publicpower.org; pkumar@publicpower.org; adelaski@standardsasap.org;

jmauer@standardsasap.org; wes.patterson@us.abb.com; chad.kennedy@us.schneider‐electric.com;

thomas.patzner@us.schneider‐electric.com; charlied@uus.org

Subject: RE: MV Liquid‐immersed LCC and NIA Results
This next meeting is where the rubber meets the road ‐‐ can we compromise and reach agreement or do

we agree to disagree and leave the decision to DOE?  At the last meeting Phil and some others argued to

use M3 as the basis, but this was not the agreement of the group.  Efficiency groups believe that

amorphous needs to be fully and fairly analyzed.  The discussion at the last meeting, as I recall, focused

on an intermediate level in which amorphous may have the lowest LCC, but that an M3 transformer

could also meet.

  

Also, regarding an efficiency level 0.5, there's a near‐zero chance that efficiency groups would agree to

such a level, so if DOE/LBL/Navigant have limited time, they should focus on levels that might be the

basis of an agreement, not one group or another's pipedream.

  

I suggest that everyone think long and hard about these issues before next week to see if we can break

out of established positions or just need to agree to disagree.

  

Steve

>>> Phil Hopkinson <phopkinson@hvolt.com> 11/2/2011 11:57 PM >>>

It also ignores the desire to stay on an M3 base and appears to have unreasonably low cost of money as

well as inaccurately low cost per watt saved when moving from design efficiency 1 to 2, 2 to 3 etc.  This

is because you did not stay on an M3 base for such transitions.  At the last meeting you agreed to use

M3 as the basis.  When you do that the cost curve is very steep and each efficiency beyond the present

gets progressively steeper.

Your data shows the first efficiency as relatively expensive and each succeeding one to be considerably

less expensive.  If you really remained on M3 then you would not obtain such results.

I recommend that you redo the analysis with an M3 only base as was agreed at the meeting.  My report

does that and I believe that it is accurate.

Best regards,

Phil

Philip J Hopkinson, PE

President & CEO HVOLT Inc.

3704 High Ridge Rd.
Charlotte, NC 28270

phopkinson@hvolt.com

Ph     704‐846‐3290

Fx     704‐845‐2520

Cell   704‐236‐3320

www.hvolt.com

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Corkran, Jerry L [mailto:Jerry.Corkran@CooperIndustries.com]  

Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 11:44 PM

To: Christopher Bolduc; Richard Parker

Cc: rick.anderson@faypwc.com; tballo@earthjustice.org; ScottB@lvmetals.com;

john.caskey@nema.org; john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; adelaski@standardsasap.org;

Teckman@nwcouncil.org; gbf1@pge.com; carlos.gaytan@ge.com; rgreeson@federalpacific.com;

bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com; jhodge@howard.com; mhyland@appanet.org; dave.millure@metglas.com;

snadel@aceee.org; wes.patterson@us.abb.com; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com;

Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com; artrosenfeld@gmail.com; srosenstock@eei.org; rroy@nrdc.org;

robert.saint@nreca.coop; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; BermanEconomics@gmail.com;

Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; greg.coulter405@gmail.com; Jim.creevy@nema.org;

ahofmann@publicpower.org; pkumar@publicpower.org; jmauer@standardsasap.org; Meyers, Aaron;

jrossetti@mlgw.org; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com; jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; bsmith@federalpacific.com;

mwaltner@nrdc.org; kwinder@mleainc.com; brian.coffey@navigant.com; kcoughlin@lbl.gov;

brenda.edwards@ee.doe.gov; jeremiah.freeman@ee.doe.gov; caitlin.johnson@navigant.com;

zhimei.luo@navigant.com; emily.marchetti@ee.doe.gov; mrivest@navigant.com; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov;

charlied@uus.org; Phil Hopkinson; James.Lass@cleco.com; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net;

DYoung@energy‐solution.com; chad.kennedy@us.schneider‐electric.com; eduardorobles@eaton.com;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; thomas.patzner@us.schneider‐electric.com;

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; Raba, Jim; Trujillo, Antonio; Marusinec, Richard M

Subject: RE: MV Liquid‐immersed LCC and NIA Results

Christopher and Richard,

The attachment lacks the intermediate efficiency level between the base level and level 1 which based

on my understanding of what was discussed at the last meeting was requested and agreed on by the

group to be added.  Are the 0.5 efficiency level designs being made and when will they be supplied to

the working group?

Regards,

  Jerry Corkran

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Christopher Bolduc [mailto:cabolduc@lbl.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 10:23 PM

To: Richard Parker

Cc: rick.anderson@faypwc.com; tballo@earthjustice.org; ScottB@lvmetals.com;

john.caskey@nema.org; Corkran, Jerry L; john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; adelaski@standardsasap.org;

Teckman@nwcouncil.org; gbf1@pge.com; carlos.gaytan@ge.com; rgreeson@federalpacific.com;

bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com; jhodge@howard.com; mhyland@appanet.org; dave.millure@metglas.com;

snadel@aceee.org; wes.patterson@us.abb.com; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com;

Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com; artrosenfeld@gmail.com; srosenstock@eei.org; rroy@nrdc.org;

robert.saint@nreca.coop; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; BermanEconomics@gmail.com;

Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; greg.coulter405@gmail.com; Jim.creevy@nema.org;

ahofmann@publicpower.org; pkumar@publicpower.org; jmauer@standardsasap.org; Meyers, Aaron;

jrossetti@mlgw.org; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com; jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; bsmith@federalpacific.com;

mwaltner@nrdc.org; kwinder@mleainc.com; cabolduc@lbl.gov; brian.coffey@navigant.com;

kcoughlin@lbl.gov; brenda.edwards@ee.doe.gov; jeremiah.freeman@ee.doe.gov;

caitlin.johnson@navigant.com; zhimei.luo@navigant.com; emily.marchetti@ee.doe.gov;

mrivest@navigant.com; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov; charlied@uus.org; phopkinson@hvolt.com;

James.Lass@cleco.com; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net; DYoung@energy‐solution.com;

chad.kennedy@us.schneider‐electric.com; eduardorobles@eaton.com;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; thomas.patzner@us.schneider‐electric.com;

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; Raba, Jim

Subject: MV Liquid‐immersed LCC and NIA Results

Dear Committee Members,

Please find the draft LCC and NIA results for liquid‐immersed medium‐voltage transformers (design lines

1 ‐ 5) attached.

A summary of changes and additional sensitivities will be distributed before next week's meeting.

Thank you,

‐‐ Chris Bolduc

‐‐‐‐

Chris Bolduc

Energy Efficiency Standards Group

Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory t. 416‐535‐7546 c.

647‐832‐4021

>>> This e‐mail and any attachments are confidential, may contain legal,

professional or other privileged information, and are intended solely for the

addressee.  If you are not the intended recipient, do not use the information

in this e‐mail in any way, delete this e‐mail and notify the sender. CEG‐IP2