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; Ca itlin 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; Free man, Jeremiah (CONTR); Gary Fernstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; James La ss; 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 th at document, we would present data and analysis of possible revised standards without suggesting any partic ular 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 reci pients. It contains information that may be confidential, privileged, attorney work product, or otherwise ex empt 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 responsib le for delivering this message to a named recipient, be advise d that any review, disclosure, use, disseminat ion, distribution, or reproduction of this message or its contents is strictly proh ibited. Please notify us immediately that you have receiv ed 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; Ca itlin 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; Free man, Jeremiah (CONTR); Gary Fernstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; James La ss; 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 Bu skirk, Robert (CONTR); Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul;
Scott Beck; Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel; Steve Ro senstock; 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 Fina l Rule. Are you saying that the intention is to issue a Proposed Rule on 2/1/2012 ra ther 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 obligati on 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 existin g standards. We have every intention of meeting that deadline. If we issue a proposed ru le on February 1, that proposal would have a 60 public comment period, including announcing a date and location for a pub lic meeting during the comment period. We would then have an obliga tion under the court's order to issue by October 1 a final rule responding to comments receiv ed. 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 rule making 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 na med recipients. It cont ains 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 res ponsible for delivering this messa ge to a named recipient, be advised that any review, disclosure, use, di ssemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message or its contents is strictly prohibite d. 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 Mara ntan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Bob Smith; Edwards, Brenda; Brian Coffey; Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gaytan; Caskey, John; Charlie Drexler; Charlie Stevens; Chris Bolduc; Chris Brown; Cl ark Silcox; Creevy, Jim; Cohen, Daniel; Daniel Young; David Flaten; Marchetti, Emily (CONTR); Eric Petersen; Freeman, Jeremiah (CONTR); Gary Fernstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenqui st; 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; Ma tthew Nardotti; Savitz, Maxine (EMAB); Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaron; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; Pamela Costello; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkins on; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Kumar; Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Van Buskirk, Robert (CONTR); Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck; Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nade l; Steve Rosenstock; Ted Johnstone; Thomas Petrosino; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patters on; Zhimei Luo; Vijay Tendulkar; Thomas Patzner; Chad Kennedy; E duardo Robles; Dhiru Patel Subject: Re: DOE Issuing NOPR for Liquid Immersed Distribu tion 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 be fore 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 Depa rtment'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 correc tion 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 fo r the transformer manufacturers and material suppliers, it leaves us totally in limbo. No one will be able to do any planning until the Fina l Rule is published. No one will even start budgeting th e capital that may be required if levels

such as EL-3 or 4 are chosen. M eeting 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 Marche tti; Eric Petersen; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Cou lter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry Corkran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; Jim Raba; Joanna Mauer; J ohn Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Katie Coughlin; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sa mpat; 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 Ro senstock; Ted Johnstone; Thomas Petrosino; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo; Vijay Tendulkar; Thomas Patzner; Chad Ke nnedy; Eduardo Robles; Dhiru Patel Subject: Happy Holidays

Dear Colleagues,

Just a quick note to express my appr eciation to each of you -- for the knowledge, professionalism, hard work and, most of all civility, that you all have brought to the negotiati ng 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