From: Robert Greeson [mailto:rgreeson@electro-mechanical.com]

Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 10:55 AM

To: Brian Coffey; 'Rob Greeson'; thom as.patzner@schneider-electric.com;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com

Cc: Matthew Nardotti; 'Chris Bolduc '; 'Richard Parker'; Bob Smith

Subject: RE: LV Negotiating Group Technical Subcommittee



### Brian,

The committee was formed to look at LVDT only but we may want to extend it to

MVDT’s as well. I think the liquid manufacture rs are satisfied with their costs but I could

be wrong.

There are two different potent ial problems here. (1) is design accuracy and (2) is

pricing accuracy.

The first problem will be hard to pinpoint as there are many different designs that will

yield the same outcome. However, provided we are looking at lowest first cost, they

should be relatively similar or at leas t similar from a cost standpoint.

The second problem is pricing accuracy. More cost detail is probably needed.

Therefore, I recommend using a Template t hat the NEMA member manufacturers which

I have attached.

Adding the following additional items could be of use from the st andpoint of dry-types.

1. Primary Conductor $

2. Secondary Conductor $

3. Total Winding Insulation $

4. Total Winding $

5. Core Steel $

6. Core and Coil Parts $ (includes insu lation, clamps, terminals, buss, phase

barriers, insulators etc)

7. Enclosure $

8. Total Labor and Overhead $

9. Total Cost $

NOTE – We at Federal are assuming standard close coupled unit substations for pricing

as these are the most common c onfigurations for the dry-types.

(There might be some other cost s related to liquid not shown here if we do any work in

this area)

Total Material Cost = (4) + (5) + (6) + (7)

Total Cost = Total Material Cost + (8)

### If we then show our predicted pr icing, the mark-ups would be available for examination.

This is quite a bit of work to be done but some data is better than none. I would like

other’s comments on this.

Let me also say, that I have been working directly with OPS on some of this as well and

I hope to be able to identify

I am assuming you want us to use the material costs

Robert S. Greeson

Engineering Manager, P.E.

Federal Pacific Company

P.O. Box 8200

Bristol, Virginia 24203-8200

Phone - 276-645-8210 | Fax 276-645-8956

Email: rgreeson@federalpacific.com

The information contained in this message and any attachments is intended only for the use of th e individual or entity to which it is addressed,

and may contain information that is privile ged, confidential and exempt from disclosu re under applicable law. If you have recei ved this message

in error, you are prohibited from copying, distributing, or using the information. Pl ease contact the sender immediately by ret urn e-mail and

completely delete the original message from your system.

<///><

From: Brian Coffey [ mailto:brian.coffey@navigant.com ]

Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 5:04 PM

To: Rob Greeson; thomas.patzner@schneider-electric.com ; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com

Cc: Matthew Nardotti; Chris Bolduc; Richard Parker

Subject: LV Negotiating Group Technical Subcommittee

Rob, Thomas, Vijay,

I was not able to attend last Wednesday’s LV Negotiation Committee meeting, unfortunately, but

learned of the establishment of a LV Technical Committee convened to look specifically at the

engineering analysis. First, are there others that I ought to be including? Second, what steps did you

have in min d for us to begin working? I will start by including a template I sent to the MV Committee

members this afternoon that could be used to facilitate an bidirectional exchange of engineering data.I believe we have standing nondisclosure agreements with Federal and Schneider, Rob and Thomas.

Vijay, I would be happy to set one up if you wished to provide confidential engineering data to Navigant.

I’ll copy/paste my email to the MV group below.

Best,

Brian

MV Committee Members,

Several of the group have proposed tha t DOE facilitate a bidirectional exchange of engineering data.

Attached is one kind of template that could be used to compare the ways in which different parties can

achieve certain efficiency levels. DOE would populate the spreadsheet with detailed design information

for the least cost transformers able to achieve the draft efficiency le vels using different steels.

Data provided to DOE could then be compared to the DOE designs and differences explained. Because

this data would likely be considered confidential, Navigant is willing to enter into nondisclosure

agreements with any party submitting such data. This process would first be us ed to verify the

engineering analysis of the current representative units and could be expanded to analyze scaling

relationships.

We welcome comments and specific suggestions of how this process could be implemented.

Best,

Brian Coffey

______________________________________________________________ Brian Coffey | Senior Consultant | Energy | Navigant Consulting, Inc.

1801 K Street NW | Suite 500 | Washington, DC 20006

+1.202.481.7521 Office

This communication is from Navigant Consulting Inc. E-mail text or attachments may contain information

which is confidential and may also be privileged. Th is communication is for the exclusive use of the

intended recipient(s). If you have received this communica tion in error, please return it with the title

"received in error" to NCISecurity@navigant.com , and then delete the email and destroy any copies of it.

In addition, this communication is subject to, and incorporates by reference, additional disclaimers found

in Navigant Consulting's "Email Disclaimer" section at www.Navigant.com

.

Navigant Consulting, Inc.

Company Registration Number: UK Ltd. 3641719

Registered in Delaware, USA

Registered Office Address: 30 South Wacker Drive, Suit e 3400, Chicago, Illinois 60606