From: Cohen, Daniel [mailto:Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov] 

Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 11:11 AM 

To: 'Robert Berman' 

Cc: 'Richard Parker'; Jerry Hodge; Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob 

Saint; Bob Smith; Edwards, Brenda; Brian Coffey; Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gaytan; Caskey, John; Charlie 

Drexler; Charlie Stevens; Chris Bolduc; Chris Brown; Clark Silcox; Creevy, Jim; Daniel Young; David 

Flaten; Marchetti, Emily (CONTR); Eric Petersen; Freeman, Jeremiah (CONTR); Gary Fernstrom; Greg 

Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; James Lass; Tiedeman, Jennifer; Jerry Corkran; Jerry Schoen; 

Raba, Jim; Joanna Mauer; Cymbalsky, John; John Rossetti; Katie Coughlin; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. 

Sampat; Matthew Nardotti; Savitz, Maxine (EMAB); Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaron; Michael Hyland; Michael 

Rivest; Millure, Dave; Pamela Costello; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Kumar; 

Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson; Van Buskirk, Robert (CONTR); Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck; 

Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Ted Johnstone; Thomas Petrosino; Tim Ballo; Tom 

Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo; Vijay Tendulkar; Thomas Patzner; Chad Kennedy; Eduardo Robles; 

Dhiru Patel 

Subject: RE: DOE Issuing NOPR for Liquid Immersed Distribution Transformer without any defined or 

trial Efficiency Levels by Feb. 01, 2012 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is the formal name for what DOE calls a NOPR, other agencies call an 

NPRM, and what is informally called a proposed rule. That is the document issued by an agency to 

propose a change to an existing regulation. What you may be thinking of as an optional document is one 

we often issue called a preliminary analysis. In that document, we would present data and analysis of 

possible revised standards without suggesting any particular revision as meeting our statutory criteria. In 

the distribution transformer proceeding, we issued a preliminary analysis in March 2011, and held a 

public meeting on that document in April 2011. 

Note: This e-mail message is intended only for the named recipients. It contains information that may be confidential, privileged, 

attorney work product, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error, are 

not a named recipient, or are not the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to a named recipient, be advised 

that any review, disclosure, use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message or its contents is strictly prohibited. 

Please notify us immediately that you have received this message in error, and delete the message.

From: Robert Berman [mailto:bermaneconomics@gmail.com] 

Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 10:49 AM 

To: Cohen, Daniel 

Cc: 'Richard Parker'; Jerry Hodge; Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob 

Saint; Bob Smith; Edwards, Brenda; Brian Coffey; Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gaytan; Caskey, John; Charlie 

Drexler; Charlie Stevens; Chris Bolduc; Chris Brown; Clark Silcox; Creevy, Jim; Daniel Young; David 

Flaten; Marchetti, Emily (CONTR); Eric Petersen; Freeman, Jeremiah (CONTR); Gary Fernstrom; Greg 

Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; James Lass; Tiedeman, Jennifer; Jerry Corkran; Jerry Schoen; 

Raba, Jim; Joanna Mauer; Cymbalsky, John; John Rossetti; Katie Coughlin; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. 

Sampat; Matthew Nardotti; Savitz, Maxine (EMAB); Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaron; Michael Hyland; Michael 

Rivest; Millure, Dave; Pamela Costello; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Kumar; 

Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Van Buskirk, Robert (CONTR); Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; 

Scott Beck; Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Ted Johnstone; Thomas Petrosino; Tim 

Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo; Vijay Tendulkar; Thomas Patzner; Chad Kennedy; 

Eduardo Robles; Dhiru Patel 

Subject: Re: DOE Issuing NOPR for Liquid Immersed Distribution Transformer without any defined or 

trial Efficiency Levels by Feb. 01, 2012 

Good Morning Dan, 
I'm a little confused about the terminology. Talk in the past had been about a Notice of Proposed 

Rule, presumably followed by a Proposed then Final Rule. Are you saying that the intention is to 

issue a Proposed Rule on 2/1/2012 rather than the (optional) NOPR? 

Regards,

Robert A. Berman, Principal

Berman Economics

www.BermanEconomics.com

1915 Grand Court

Vienna, VA 22182

703‐281‐0490

703‐655‐8398 (cell)

BermanEconomics@gmail.com

On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:16 AM, Cohen, Daniel wrote: 

Jerry et. al, Richard is correct. The Department has an obligation pursuant to a court order to 

issue by February 1, 2012, either a determination that the existing standards do not need to be 

amended or a proposed rule to amend the existing standards. We have every intention of 

meeting that deadline. If we issue a proposed rule on February 1, that proposal would have a 60 

public comment period, including announcing a date and location for a public meeting during the 

comment period. We would then have an obligation under the court's order to issue by October 

1 a final rule responding to comments received. Similar to the 2007 rulemaking, in which 

compliance with those standards was not required until 2010, if we issue a final rule establishing 

new standards on October 1, 2012, there would be a implementation period before compliance 

was required. Whatever we do on February 1 benefits immensely from the hard work, 

information provided and debate that occurred during the negotiated rulemaking process. As 

such, we are incredibly grateful to everyone on this e-mail for their participation in and 

dedication to an open and honest debate. 

Dan 

Note: This e-mail message is intended only for the named recipients. It contains information that 

may be confidential, privileged, attorney work product, or otherwise exempt from disclosure 

under applicable law. If you have received this message in error, are not a named recipient, or 

are not the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to a named recipient, be 

advised that any review, disclosure, use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this 

message or its contents is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately that you have 

received this message in error, and delete the message. 
-----Original Message----- 

From: Richard Parker [mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com] 

Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 6:25 PM 

To: Jerry Hodge 

Cc: Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Bob Smith; 

Edwards, Brenda; Brian Coffey; Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gaytan; Caskey, John; Charlie Drexler; 

Charlie Stevens; Chris Bolduc; Chris Brown; Clark Silcox; Creevy, Jim; Cohen, Daniel; Daniel 

Young; David Flaten; Marchetti, Emily (CONTR); Eric Petersen; Freeman, Jeremiah (CONTR); 

Gary Fernstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; James Lass; Tiedeman, 

Jennifer; Jerry Corkran; Jerry Schoen; Raba, Jim; Joanna Mauer; Cymbalsky, John; John 

Rossetti; Katie Coughlin; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matthew Nardotti; Savitz, Maxine 

(EMAB); Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaron; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; 

Pamela Costello; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Kumar; Rick 

Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Van Buskirk, Robert (CONTR); Robin Roy; Ryan, 

Paul; Scott Beck; Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Ted Johnstone; Thomas 

Petrosino; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo; Vijay Tendulkar; Thomas 

Patzner; Chad Kennedy; Eduardo Robles; Dhiru Patel 

Subject: Re: DOE Issuing NOPR for Liquid Immersed Distribution Transformer without any 

defined or trial Efficiency Levels by Feb. 01, 2012 

Jerry, 

John Cymbalsky or Dan Cohen will correct me if I mis-speak, but it is my understanding that the 

Department is moving forward with the NOPR on schedule, with a decision and analysis 

 considerably enriched by the data and insights yielded by our process, and that the Department 

plans (and is on track) to finalize the rule on schedule as well. 

I will not presume to speak for the department on whether the final efficiency levels will be 

published informally before the October 1, 

2012 deadline for publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. That is rare, in my 

experience, but I do not know the Department's plans or policy on that. 

Hope this is helpful. I'm sure Dan or John will be happy to provide more authoritative 

corroboration or correction in due course. 

All best, 

Richard 

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Jerry Hodge <jhodge@howard-ind.com> wrote: 

Hi Richard and All: 
Are we now at a point in this Transformer Rule Review, where DOE will 

issue an NOPR without any planned, expected or defined threshold 

efficiency levels for Liquid-Immersed Distribution Transformers? Will 

DOE meet this Feb. 01, 

2012 date for issuing the NOPR? Time is about to run out fast. This 

may not be a problem for DOE, but for the transformer manufacturers 

and material suppliers, it leaves us totally in limbo. No one will be 

able to do any planning until the Final Rule is published. No one 

will even start budgeting the capital that may be required if levels 

such as EL-3 or 4 are chosen. Meeting required implementation dates 

may be difficult or impossible. 

Do you think the Final Rule will be published by Oct. 01, 2012? Will 

any of us stakeholders have any idea what efficiency levels will be 

required between now and when the Final Rule is published? 

Any information you can give us on this situation would be appreciated. 

Thanks; 

Jerry 

Jerry Hodge 

Consulting Engineer, E.E., M.S., P.E. 

Retired V.P. & G.M. of Pole Type Transformer & Regulator Div. 

Howard Industries Inc. 

P.O.Box 1588 

Laurel, Ms, 39440 

601 422-1539 Bus. 

484 226-6190 Cell 

-----Original Message----- 

From: Richard Parker [mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com] 

Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 12:51 PM 

To: Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob 

Saint; Bob Smith; Brenda Edwards; Brian Coffey; Caitlin Johnson; 

Carlos Gaytan; Caskey, John; Charlie Drexler; Charlie Stevens; Chris 

Bolduc; Chris Brown; Clark Silcox; Creevy, Jim; Dan Cohen; Daniel 

Young; David Flaten; Emily Marchetti; Eric Petersen; Freeman, 

Jeremiah; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce 

R; James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry Corkran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry 

Schoen; Jim Raba; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Katie 

Coughlin; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matthew Nardotti; Maxine 

Savitz; Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaron; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; 
Millure, Dave; Pamela Costello; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Polinski, 

Raymond; Puesh Kumar; Richard W. Parker; Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson; 

Robert Berman; Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck; 

Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Ted Johnstone; Thomas 

Petrosino; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo; Vijay 

Tendulkar; Thomas Patzner; Chad Kennedy; Eduardo Robles; Dhiru Patel 

Subject: Happy Holidays 

Dear Colleagues, 

Just a quick note to express my appreciation to each of you -- for the 

knowledge, professionalism, hard work and, most of all civility, that 

you all have brought to the negotiating table over the past several 

months as we have wrestled with difficult issues in an effort to reach consensus. 

 Although we did not achieve consensus on liquid immersed, your 

courtesy and professionalism throughout the process was and is a model 

for this town (hear that, Congress?). 

I am confident that your efforts have greatly strengthened the 

Department's analysis and will improve the final rule for liquid 

immersed. I am hopeful that we can reach final consensus on MVDT and 

possibly even on LV early next year. 

Meanwhile, I'd like to reiterate what a pleasure it has been working 

with and getting to know you all. Best wishes for a safe and happy 

holiday season! 

Warm regards, 

Richard Parker