From: Wes Patterson [mailto:wes.patterson@us.abb.com]

Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 9:23 PM

To: richardparkerdc@gmail.comCc: Aaron Meyers; Andrew Delaski; ahoffman@publicpower.org; Art Rosenfeld; Robert Berman; Brian Coffey; Bruce R Hirsch; Bruce Smith; 

Drexler; Chuck Simmons; Dan Cohen; Dave Millure; Daniel Young; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Rosenquist; Greg Cou

Hodge; Jim Creevy; Joanna Mauer; John Caskey; John Cymbalsky; jrossetti@mlgw.org; kcoughlin@lbl.gov; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; 

pkumar@publicpower.org; Raymond Polinski; Rob Greeson; Richard Parker; Rick Anderson; Bob Saint; Robin Roy; Scott Beck; Steve Nadel; 

Subject: Re: MV Working Group: Follow‐up to Sept 15/16 Mtg

Hi RichardFYI ‐ the August release contained two different efficiency level definitions

‐ one that is buried in the engineering_results spreadsheets (referred to as "CSL")

ex from the DL1 data tab

‐ a second in the lcc_nia_coresteelsupply pdf (referred to as "Efficiency Levels")

ex.Note: the CSL's in the xls's are more technically sound than those in the pdf ‐ see comments in email on issues.

Which shall we use as the basis of analysis going forward?

ThanksWes
Richard Parker <richardparkerdc@gmail.com>

09/21/2011 06:06 PM

To ahoffman@publicpower.org, pkumar@

Delaski <adelaski@standardsASAP.org>

Brian Coffey <brian.coffey@navigant.co

<bsmith@federalpacific.com>, Caitlin Jo

Bolduc <cabolduc@lbl.gov>, Chuck Sim

Daniel Young <DYoung@energy‐solutio

<Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com>, Gary Fer

<carlos.gaytan@ge.com>, Greg Coulter 

Lass <James.Lass@cleco.com>, "Jeremi

<jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com>

Jim Creevy <Jim.Creevy@nema.org>, Jo

John Cymbalsky <john.cymbalsky@ee.d

<kcoughlin@lbl.gov>, Ken Winder <kwi

Waltner <mwaltner@nrdc.org>, Michae

Ryan <Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com>, Phil Ho

<Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com>, R

<rick.anderson@faypwc.com>, Rob Gre

<bermaneconomics@gmail.com>, Robi

<snadel@aceee.org>, Steve Rosenstock 

<Teckman@nwcouncil.org>, Wes Patte

ccSubject MV Working Group: Follow‐up to Sept 

Dear Colleagues,

A few items to follow‐up for meeting of Sept. 15‐16 which I thought was quite productive.

Ground Rules

Attached for your review are the Ground Rules discussed and approved at our Sept. 15‐16 meeting. After we adjourned one member aske

reasonable so I am re‐opening the comment period for the ground rules to allow further comment, with a request that you do your interna

that we can discuss any proposed modifications online and hopefully finalize the rules either before or at the beginning of the next meetin

seeking changes to the agreement that you deem necessary or helpful.
Clarification of the Sept. 23 "deadline" for comments on the Engineering and LCC/NPV Analysis

At the meeting I asked that Members review the revised Engineering and LCC/PBP/NPV Analysis now posted on the DOE website and subm

respond in a timely way with clarifications, answers and/or further analysis. A question has arisen whether this will act as hard and fast ba

one. It does not mean that additional concerns cannot be raised later. It means that we hope that you will carefully examine the analysis a

sooner) so that Navigant/LBL can respond and we can discuss how best to proceed prior to the next meeting. As a practical matter, the lat

them analytically.

As you consider your comments, please keep in mind that data are limited and resources are limited. This proceeding is already far along a

investigation that entails gathering and analyzing large amounts of new data.

CSLsConcerns were expressed at the meeting about changes in the CSLs and ELs between the April and the August analyses. My understanding 

appear in the August analysis will not be altered going forward.

MiscellaneousI will send along transcript, minutes, and a firm schedule for future meetings as soon as they are available, which I hope will be very soon.

All best,Richard[attachment "15 Mtg.docx" deleted by Wes Patterson/SouthBoston/USTRA/ABB]