Summary of the First Meeting of the 

Working Group on Liquid-Immersed 

 and Medium Voltage Dry-Type Distribution Transformers 

of the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Advisory Committee 

September 15-16, 2011 

Richard W. Parker, Facilitator 

Note: This meeting summary has been prepared for the convenience of the Working Group. It has 

not been approved by the Working Group and should not be construed or taken to represent the official 

position of the Working Group or any member as to what transpired at the meeting. 

 The Working Group on Liquid-Immersed and Medium Voltage Dry-Type Distribution Transformers 

(“MV Group”) held its first meeting on Sept. 15-16 in DOE Conference Room 8E-089. A list of 

attendees is attached as Annex A. 

 The meeting began at 9:00 am with introductions, followed by a briefing by Mr. Charles Gordon of 

the DOE General Counsel’s office on the charge of the MV Group pursuant to the rules of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA). He explained that the Medium-Voltage Transformer Working Group 

is a sub-group of the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Advisory Committee (ERAC). While the 

ERAC is not a rubber stamp for any Working Group consensus, the ERAC certainly will take account of 

the expertise and interests assembled in the room, as well as the delegation of authority to this group to 

develop consensus recommendations on transformer efficiency standards, and would call an ad hoc 

meeting if necessary to review the Working Group’s recommendations in time to meet statutory 

deadlines. It was also explained that under the FACA rules a member of the full ERAC committee needs 

to be present either physically or electronically at each Working Group meeting, and Mr. Art Rosenfeld 

was introduced as a member of the ERAC. He announced that he or his alternate would attend Working 

Group meetings for the ERAC. 

 Mr. Parker then described the process of a negotiated rulemaking and the desired output of the 

process: a Term Sheet setting forth the basic terms of a proposed rule. Mr. Parker proposed an Agenda 

for the meeting (Annex B) which was adopted. 

 Mr. Cohen of the DOE General Counsel’s Office explained that the parties to the Ninth Circuit 

litigation on the distribution transformer standards had agreed to ask the court for additional time to allow 

the negotiated rulemaking process to proceed, and that the parties are optimistic that the court would grant 

a request by the parties to that litigation to postpone the court-ordered deadline for a DOE Notice of 

Proposed Rule-making (NOPR) from Oct. 1, 2011 to February 1, 2012. 

 Discussion then turned to a review of the draft Ground Rules circulated at the beginning of the 

meeting. The first issue was what would constitute consensus, remembering that the Department of 

Energy had committed to propose any rule or elements of a rule supported by a group consensus. After 

some discussion, it was agreed that consensus would be defined as “the unanimous concurrence of all 

parties to the negotiations present and voting. Concurrence will be assumed absent overt dissent, 

evidenced by a negative vote. Abstention shall not be construed as a negative vote.” 

 The next issue concerned the obligations of the parties in respect of any consensus thus reached. 

After some discussion, the parties elected to refrain from committing to actively support any consensus 

recommendation, but did agree to forego actions that would undermine the final adoption to any 

consensus position, and to refrain from taking positions in any forum that are materially inconsistent with 

the group consensus, for a period of one year. 
2

 With regard to DOE’s obligations, there was discussion about what would happen if the group was 

able to reach consensus on standards for some but not all covered products. It was agreed that the DOE 

would reflect any consensus on such standards in its NOPR. Specifically, the Ground Rules were 

amended to stipulate that “DOE agrees to use the written statement and any recommended standards as 

the basis for a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to the maximum extent possible consistent with the 

Agency's legal obligations.” The provisions resulting from all this discussion regarding Parties’ 

commitments are reflected in Art. 4 of the Final Ground Rules. 

 After further discussion the Ground Rules set forth in Annex C hereto were adopted.1

 

 Discussion then turned to timetable for further meetings and the parties provisionally agreed on the 

schedule of meetings set forth in Annex D. 

 Presentation of the DOE engineering analysis began in the afternoon. Mr. Cymbalsky opened by 

explaining the Department’s “walk down” approach to energy efficiency standard setting under its statute. 

It begins with the maximum efficiency that is technologically achievable for each equipment class (“Max 

Tech”) and then evaluates an array of options of declining efficiency in search of the standard that is 

“technologically feasible and economically justified.” He explained that economic justification requires 

considering such factors as national energy savings, consumer impact, manufacturing impact, technology 

uncertainty, etc. 

Presentation by Mr. Coffey of Engineering Analysis Results

 Mr. Coffey of Navigant Consulting then presented DOE’s approach to the Engineering Analysis 

being developed in support of the negotiated rulemaking process. He began by explaining that since there 

is a huge variety of different designs in the market DOE divides the universe of covered transformers into 

10 Equipment Classes and 14 Design Lines and then analyzes a “representative unit” within each Design 

Line. DOE examines a series of design option combinations for each representative unit. 

 Then DOE calculates cost inputs for building each design option, drawing on materials prices, labor 

costs and markups derived from manufacturer inputs. Optimized Program Services (OPS) then draws on 

this information to derive the optimum design based on over 500 combinations of A & B values, 

reflecting the present value of future core and winding losses, respectively, in the marketplace. After 

running all the A&B combinations, and removing designs below the current minimum efficiency level, 

DOE was left with roughly 2,500 unique designs for each of the 14 representative units, not including 

additional sensitivity cases. DOE then plots the selling prices and temperature-corrected efficiencies of 

the various designs as the output of the engineering analysis, which then serves as an input for the LifeCycle Cost (LCC) and National Impacts Analysis (NIA) performed by Lawrence Berkeley National Lab 

(LBL) under contract to DOE. 

 Mr. Coffey also explained the relationship among different efficiency levels and the terminology used 

to describe them. He noted that Candidate Standard Levels (CSLs) are efficiency levels that range from 

the current standard of efficiency (CSL 0) to Max Tech. They are chosen to divide that range into more 

 

1 In response to a committee member’s request after the meeting, Mr. Parker offered to consider re-opening the 

ground rules for proposed modifications in the event that legal counsel at any Member’s organization were to 

identify objections or concerns with the rules that were not raised at the September meeting. However, no such 

concerns were advanced in any subsequent meeting, so the Ground Rules remain in place as adopted at the 

September meeting. 
3

or less equal increments, with some adjustments made to reflect technologically significant inflection 

points. He noted that CSLs become ELs in the NOPR analysis. TSLs, by contrast, are aggregates of 

CSLs that correspond to policy-significant criteria, such as max tech, lowest life cycle cost, etc. TSLs 

may be defined by the working group to reflect key points of reference for analysis and possible decision. 

 DOE (or in this case the Negotiating Working Group) then chooses from among these TSLs an 

efficiency level to propose for the representative unit associated with each Design Line, and the 

department then applies the appropriate scaling rule to adapt that standard to other KVA sizes in the same 

equipment class. 

 During the presentation of the Engineering Analysis certain concerns were raised. One participant 

observed that the representative unit chosen by DOE for certain liquid immersed transformers reflected a 

single BIL that did not reflect the full range of BILs for that design line in the market place. Specifically, 

higher BIL units are less efficient than low BIL units of the same KVA rating. Moreover, the price 

increment required to increase efficiency by a given amount is higher for a high BIL transformer than for 

a low one. And the discrepancies are greater than any 3% bandwidth of equivalence. 

 Further concerns were raised with the conflation of pole-mounted and pad-mounted transformers in 

the liquid-immersed transformer equipment classes (such that a single efficiency standard would be 

applied to both) and with the inclusion of network and vault transformers, which some parties maintained 

face unique design constraints, within an equipment class that also includes transformers not subject to 

such constraints. 

 Mr. Cohen pointed out that the law allows DOE to create equipment sub-classes but only on the basis 

of unique physical or performance characteristic, not on the basis of the identity of the purchaser or the 

use to which the covered product is put, and there was a discussion about whether network/vault 

transformers could meet this requirement. 

 Concerns also were raised about the variability of materials prices and uncertainty of future prices. 

Mr. Coffey replied that DOE had used 2010 prices as the intermediate base case, with sensitivity analysis 

that explores the impact of varying prices from the low level reached in 2006 to the historically high 

levels attained in 2008. However, concerns were advanced that raising efficiency standards might move 

the market towards amorphous metal or high-B steel to an unprecedented degree, which might raise the 

prices of those materials by considerably more than would be accounted for by historic data. Others 

questioned whether it is true that capacity increases necessarily imply price increases. 

 Concerns also were expressed about the variability of the CSLs, which tended to confuse company 

analyses, and a preference was expressed for keeping them constant going forward. 

 One industry participant raised the concern that the Engineering Analysis did not explore the option 

of not changing the standard at all, to which Mr. Coffey replied that the no-change option is the base case 

to which various standards options are compared, and the base case is fully analyzed in the report. 

 Mr. Cohen, Asst. General Counsel at DOE further explained that the Department’s enabling statute 

calls for a “walk-down” decision process under which the department begins with the highest efficiency 

level that is technologically feasible and determines whether that “max tech” efficiency level is 

“economically justified” based on the factors set forth in the statute. If not, then the department may 

consider progressively weaker standards until a standard is reached that is economically justified. 

 Whereupon after a few concluding remarks the meeting adjourned for the day. 
4

September 16 

 The meeting opened with a reminder to participants that the meeting was public and everything said 

and all exhibits displayed in the meeting are on the public record. However, DOE and its consultants, 

including the facilitator, are bound by nondisclosure agreements which require them to respect the 

confidentiality of documents or information conveyed to the privately and clearly designated as 

confidential. Participants were reminded of the importance of clearly marking any information for which 

confidentiality is requested. 

 One member raised the issue of compliance dates, and asked whether the law governing this 

rulemaking allowed for variation in compliance dates according to Equipment Class. Mr. Cohen of the 

DOE General Counsel’s office agreed to inquire and furnish an answer either prior to or at the next 

meeting. Mr. Cohen pointed out that the issue of whether there is authority to “phase in” standards over 

time had also arisen in prior rulemakings on other products, with varying results that depended on the 

specific statutory language in question. 

 One member of the advocacy community also expressed interest in seeing a separate analysis for pole 

and pad transformers, as suggested by industry representatives. With regard to the BIL issue, he opined 

that the question of whether a different standard is warranted turned on whether the price increment 

associated with a given unit of efficiency increase would be different for different BIL-rated transformers. 

Presentation by Ms. Coughlin of Life‐Cycle Cost and National Impact Assessment

 After this discussion, Ms. Coughlin of LBNL reviewed the methodology used to develop the Life 

Cycle Cost (LCC) analysis and National Impact Assessment (NIA). 

 She explained that the goal of the LCC is to simulate a large number of installations (roughly 10,000) 

of transformers for each Design Line, based upon the characteristics of the representative unit specified in 

the Engineering Analysis. This is done by defining a number of characteristics of each installation – those 

associated with the owner of the transformer, with the transformer load, and with the characteristics of the 

transformer itself. Once the owner and loading characteristics are defined, they don’t change under 

different standard-level scenarios. Only the transformer design characteristics change. 

 The owner characteristics include geographic location (which affects electricity prices), whether or 

not the owner is an evaluator (meaning that they apply some valuation to load and no-load losses and 

calculate total owning cost over time, as opposed to buying simply on the basis of lowest first cost), 

electricity prices, discount rate, etc. 

 Ms. Coughlin observed that the assumption in the preliminary analysis was that 75 percent of liquid 

immersed owner evaluate, whereas only 10 percent of low-voltage transformer purchases do so. 

One transformer manufacturer representative observed that he did not believe that anywhere near 75 % 

percent of his customers evaluate. Other industry representatives agreed that the proportion of evaluators 

was in practice far smaller than 75%, and that responses to survey questions posed by DOE consultants 

might not accurately reflect actual buying behavior. 

 Ms. Coughlin concurred that the interview responses in the DOE database did not constitute a 

rigorous statistical sample, and that actual evaluation rates in the field might be much lower. 
5

 Ms. Coughlin continued by observing that her team had made a number of changes to the April 

analysis assumptions about owner characteristics based on comments received – including separating 

commercial from industrial buildings, adjusting the methodology for handling transformer loads, updating 

electricity price data – but that “none of these things end up having enormous impact.” 

 Ms. Coughlin then addressed the analysis of loading factors. No-load losses are easy to model: a 

constant hourly rate given by design parameters multiplied by the number of hours in a year. Load losses, 

however, require further information about the shape of the load on the transformer over time as 

correlated with the variation of electricity prices over time. For liquid-immersed transformers principally 

owned by utilities the load shape is determined on an hourly basis, whereas for MVDT transformers 

installed in buildings the load-price variation is analyzed on monthly data. 

 An industry representative observed that DOE used 2008 energy prices as the basis for its projections 

of energy prices, but that the run up of gas prices in 2008 caused electricity prices in that year to be 

abnormally high while the growth of renewables would cause the wholesale price of electricity in some 

regions to approach zero at certain times. Ms. Coughlin explained, in reply, that DOE did not use 2008 

prices to predict absolute prices, but merely to establish the shape of the load loss valuation curve. The 

central value of that curve was based on absolute price projections derived from AEO forecasts. 

 

 In response to a question about load-factor assumptions, Ms. Coughlin noted that the updated LCC 

analysis assumed a median “RMS” load of 45% but that the model assumed a distribution of loads around 

that median. One industry member observed that this value squared with his impression of actual load 

factors. Another thought it might be too high in that many utilities and coops are reporting much lower 

average load factors. A third opined it might be too low given the expected growth of electric cars. 

 The extensive discussion about the various assumptions/parameters built into the LCC analysis 

prompted the facilitator to inquire whether it would be possible to prepare a “cheat sheet” of key 

assumptions and parameters. The response was that this would be very long. However, DOE offered to 

provide updated TSD chapters before the next meeting along with a short summary of key changes made 

to the analysis in response to public comments to date. 

 

 The next question posed was why LBNL based their LCC analysis on a cloud of designs, some of 

which were clearly interior to the price-efficiency frontier, rather than basing it solely on points along the 

frontier. The answer was there are two reasons for doing so: first, to reflect that fact that engineering 

optimizing software is an imperfect predictor of actual market behavior (so a random fluctuation of up to 

15% was allowed in purchase prices); and second, to reflect the fact that some purchasers may quite 

rationally choose a design that is more expensive than the cheapest design at any efficiency level because 

their A and B factors may not correspond exactly to the assumed A and B factors around which the design 

is optimized in the engineering analysis. Mr. Coffey noted that if the model is modified to greatly reduce 

the number of evaluators, this will have the effect of substantially reducing the scatter in the plots. 

 Several industry members opined that as a matter of logic the LNBL staff should use only the points 

on the highest efficiency curve to generate their LCC. However, another industry member pointed out 

that the reason scatterplots display multiple points reflecting a range of prices at any given level of 

efficiency is that they assume that buyers and sellers are basing purchase decisions on total owning cost 

evaluations and optimizing around a range of A&B factors and loading profiles. 

 Several industry members worried that the model assumed infinite variability in the choice of design 

parameters and materials. However, Mr. Coffey responded that, in fact, the Engineering Analysis was 

constrained to use widely-available wire gauges. 

 
6

 One transformer manufacture representative observed that the .75 scaling factor does not work very 

well at the more extreme ends of the kVA spectrum. Mr. Rivest noted that for outlying kVA classes that 

have very little sales volume, it may not have a large impact on energy savings if they are given a break 

from the standard. 

 The facilitator noted the scaling issue raises a broader point: that participants need to come forward 

quickly with any concerns with the analysis, and communicate those concerns/requests to the appropriate 

analysts on the DOE team. 

 Ms. Coughlin then reviewed the chart showing the estimated LCC savings at various efficiency levels 

as probabilistic distributions, with boxes spanning the 25-75 % range, and bars extending from 5% to 

95%. 

 Having completed the discussion of the LCC analysis she moved on to National Impacts Analysis. 

She explained that once the LCC savings for each design line are calculated, the various design lines are 

grouped into three main bins: low-voltage, medium-voltage dry type, and liquid-immersed,2

 and losses 

for each are calculated by scaling off the representative units, using actual data where available, and 

relying on the .75 scaling law only where data is not available. 

 Ms. Coughlin concluded her presentation by explaining the process for generating Total Energy 

Savings, net benefit, and operating cost savings, shipments. Downstream from that the DOE calculates 

emissions reductions and benefits, including social cost of carbon, etc. 

 The LCC/NIA analysis produces both a set of numbers and a set of criteria that might be used to 

generate TSLs (e.g. maximum Life Cycle Cost savings or max net present value) that can be used as 

salient points of analysis in discussion of which efficiency level to choose. The TSLs are inputs into 

NIA, and one job for the working group is to define the TSLs of interest. 

 Some industry participants expressed concern that some of the higher efficiency levels could only be 

achieved with amorphous cores, and that a wholesale shift to amorphous cores would have very 

significant manufacturing impacts. Committee members asked whether a manufacturing impact analysis 

(MIA) was going to be prepared for the talks. The reply was that such analysis is analytically 

“downstream” from the LCC and NIA analysis and is normally done for the NOPR but that it might be 

possible to run the MIA might be run for the negotiating group if desired (p. 48). 

 With that Ms. Coughlin’s presentation ended and discussion turned to the choice of TSLs. 

Discussion of choice of Trial Standard Levels (TSLs)   

 Discussion began by referencing a Department of Energy powerpoint slide supplied by Mr. 

Cymbalksy which reviewed options for choosing and defining TSLs. He noted that TSLs are defined for 

Equipment Classes. Each TSL consists of the Candidate Standard Level (CSL) from each equipment 

class that meets a specified criterion. The criteria include: 

 Most energy efficient level (max tech – statutorily required reference point) 

 Efficiency level with the greatest national energy savings that provide consumer savings 

 Efficiency level with greatest life-cycle cost savings 

 

2 One participant noted that there are actually 10 Equipment Classes. Ms. Coughlin responded that for NIA 

purposes the design lines are grouped into the three large categories mentioned above.
7

 Efficiency levels with noteworthy technologies 

 Efficiency levels that fill in large gaps between candidate standard levels 

Although the “max tech” TSL is statutorily required the others are open to discussion by the group. One 

group member representing the public interest community expressed a preference for not diverging far 

from the criteria the Department would use absent this group coming to agreement. He said that the Max 

LCC savings (the third TSL above) is another important TSL, as is the maximum efficiency which is 

attainable using metals other than amorphous metal or ZDMH (which might be analyzed under the 

“Noteworthy Technologies” heading). 

 A question arose about the amortization period for “Life-Cycle Cost” and it was explained that LCC 

refers to Life-Cycle Cost over the life of the transformer. 

After further discussion, there was unanimous consent to adopt the first three TSLs listed above on a 

non-exclusive basis. Discussion then turned to choosing additional TSLs for analysis. 

Lowest Incremental Cost. One industry representative urged adoption of a “lowest incremental cost to 

manufacturers” TSL. Other participants responded that the lowest incremental cost would be zero cost, 

with no change, which is the baseline scenario. So the proposal was amended to call for a “lowest 

incremental cost above the baseline” criterion. Another participant suggested modifying this to reflect 

the point at marginal net benefits are at a maximum. 

Competitiveness TSL. In response to concerns that, depending on the level adopted, mandating higher 

efficiency standards might drive conventional silicon steel-makers out of the market, a public interest 

advocate expressed an interest in finding the efficiency levels that are “cost-effective but [can be 

achieved] short of a sole source supplier.” 

 Participants explored various way to define a technological breakpoint as well as economic inflection 

points. An industry participant noted that one might define an efficiency level at which conventional 

steels would never be chosen, but that a step back [to the left ] of that line is a region in which an 

amorphous metal manufacturer could essentially control price because conventional steels though 

technologically feasible are commercially uncompetitive. There was strong agreement among transformer 

manufacturer representativeness in the group that they wanted an efficiency level that preserved their 

ability to use different types of steels. The question was how to define that point. 

 One industry participant urged adoption of a “band of equivalence” criterion, which would examine 

efficiency levels at which different grades of core steels can be made into transformers at a price within, 

say, 10 percent of each other. 

 A steel-maker participant suggested a “relative worth” analysis which would examine the size and 

relative prices of a transformer built to an efficiency specification from one metal or another, so as to 

define the point at which transformers made with different metals are price competitive such that no 

particular steel supplier(s) could control the price for the core material of those transformers. 

 One public interest participant suggested examining a TSL in relation to the capacity of the current 

amorphous metal supplier to the U.S. market to supply that market. However, the representative of that 

supplier indicated that his company is committed to supplying the U.S. market and is fully prepared to 

add capacity to meet additional demand for amorphous metal resulting from any standard. 

An industry participant suggested having Navigant staff consult with industry participants and define the 

point where silicon steel and amorphous metal compete. This participant noted, however, that in the 
8

current analysis the modeled transition from silicon steel to amorphous was very sudden and swift, raising 

questions about the reliability of the model. Another industry participant opined that prices of silicon 

steel appeared over-stated and amorphous prices under-stated in the engineering analysis. 

 Ultimately, it was decided to charge a working group with the task of proposing a competitiveness 

TSL criterion that would be workable in the analysis. 

    Next Steps  

 

 Mr. Parker emphasized the importance of moving swiftly to finalize the analysis as a basis for 

negotiations. He noted that DOE staff would circulate short memos summarizing the principal changes in 

the Engineering and LCC/NIA analysis along with updated TSD chapters by September 23, and he asked 

industry participants to submit all concerns with the existing analysis to DOE staff no later than Sept. 30. 

 He proposed that the parties endeavor to reach consensus on analysis and specific criteria for TSLs 

prior to or at the next meeting on Oct. 12. 
9

Annex A 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

+ + + + + 

EFFICIENCIES AND RENEWABLES 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

+ + + + + 

LIQUID-IMMERSED AND MEDIUM VOLTAGE 

DRY-TYPE DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS 

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING WORKING GROUP 

+ + + + + 

PUBLIC MEETING 

+ + + + + 

THURSDAY, 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 

 The Working Group met in Room 8E089, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C., at 

9:00 a.m., Richard Parker, Facilitator, presiding. 

FACILITATOR: 

RICHARD PARKER, University of Connecticut Law School 

MEMBERS PRESENT: 

RICHARD ANDERSON, Manager of Electrical 

 Engineering, Fayetteville Public Works 

 Commission 

TIM BALLO, ESQ., Earthjustice 

SCOTT BECK, Product Engineering Manager, 

 Lakeview Metals 

JOHN CASKEY, Assistant Vice President of 

 Industry Operations, National 

 Electrical Manufacturers Association 

JERRY CORKRAN, Staff Engineer, Cooper Power 

 Systems 

MEMBERS PRESENT (Continued): 

JOHN CYMBALSKY, Supervisory Operations 

 Research Analyst, U.S. Department of 

 Energy 

ANDREW DeLASKI, Executive Director, 
10

 Appliance Standards Awareness Project 

THOMAS ECKMAN, Manager, Northwest Power and 

 Conservation Council 

CARLOS GAYTAN, Manager of Engineering, 

 Prolec GE 

ROBERT GREESON, Senior Electrical Design 

 Engineer, Federal Pacific Company 

GERALD HODGE, Consulting Engineer, Howard 

 Industries 

MICHAEL HYLAND, Senior Vice President, 

 American Public Power Association 

DAVID MILLURE, Senior Vice President, 

 Metglas, Inc. 

WES PATTERSON, Vice President of Technology, 

 ABB, Inc. 

ERIC PETERSON, Director of Customer Services 

 and Research, AK Steel Corporation 

RAY POLINSKI, General Manager of Grain- 

 Oriented Electrical Steels, ATI- 

 Allegheny Ludlum 

ART ROSENFELD, Ph.D., Lawrence Berkeley 

 National Laboratory 

STEVE ROSENSTOCK, Manager of Energy 

 Solutions, Edison Electric Institute 

ROBIN ROY, Director, National Resources 

 Defense Council 

ROBERT SAINT, Principal Transmission and 

 Distribution Engineering, National 

 Rural Electric Cooperative Association 

CHUCK SIMMONS, Senior Engineer, Progress 

 Energy 

ALSO PRESENT: 

ROBERT BERMAN, Berman Economics 

DAVID FLATENFLATEN, Xcel Energy (via telephone) 

BRIAN COFFEY, Consultant, Navigant 

 Consulting 

PATRICIA CORKRAN 

KATIE COUGHLIN, Lead Analyst, Lawrence 

 Berkeley National Laboratory 

GREG COULTER, Prolec GE 

JIM CREEVY, Director of Government 

 Relations, National Electrical 

 Manufacturers Association 

CHARLIE DREXLER, Kentucky Association of 

 Electric Co-ops 

CHUCK FOSTER, Edison Electric Institute 

JEREMIAH FREEMAN, Energy Analyst, New West 

 Technologies 

PHIL HOPKINSON, HVOLT, Inc. 
11

ZHIMEI LUO, Consultant, Navigant Consulting 

BENJAMIN LONGSTRETH, ESQ., National 

 Resources Defense Council 

KEVIN LOOBY, President, Lakeview Metals 

AARON MEYERS, Cooper Power Systems 

 (via telephone) 

EMILY MARCHETTI, Program Support Specialist, 

 Energetics Incorporated 

MATTHEW NARDOTTI, Navigant Consulting 

TOM PETROSINO, Consultant, Prolec GE 

MIKE RIVEST, Managing Director, Navigant 

 Consulting 

JOHN ROSSETTI, Memphis Light, Gas, and Water 

 (via telephone) 

PAUL RYAN, Hitachi Metals America 

MAHESH SAMPAT, EMS Consulting 

JERRY SCHOEN, Principal Engineer, Product 

 Research and Applications Engineering, 

 AK Steel Corporation 

MEG WALTNER, Energy Efficiency Advocate, 

 Natural Resources Defense Council 

KENNETH WINDER, Manager of Engineering, Moon 

 Lake Electric Association 

DANIEL YOUNG, Consultant, Pacific Gas & 

 Electric 

STAFF PRESENT: 

BRENDA EDWARDS, Program Support Specialist, 

 U.S. Department of Energy 

DAN COHEN, ESQ., U.S. Department of Energy 

WAYNE GORDON, ESQ., U.S. Department of 

 Energy 
12

ANNEX B 

MV Working Group 

Draft Agenda 

(exact schedule may vary, depending on 

rate of progress through agenda items) 

Sept. 15 

9:00 – Noon 

Introductions 

 Agenda 

 Ground rules for Committee (see Attachment) 

 Discussion of schedule and location of meetings 

Noon – 2:00 

Lunch Break 

2:00 - 5:00 

Overview of Navigant/LBL Analysis 

Identification of key issues and sub-issues, data needs and capabilities 

Sept. 16 

9:00 - Noon 

Identification of key issues, data needs and capabilities (cont’d) 

Discussion of order of discussion and schedule for decision on issues 

Noon – 2:00 

 Lunch Break 

2:00 – 3:30 

 Meeting wrap up 

3:30 Adjourn 
13

Annex C 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

LIQUID-IMMERSED AND MEDIUM VOLTATE DRY-TYPE 

DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS 

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING WORKING GROUP 

GROUNDRULES 

1. Goal of the Liquid-Immersed and Medium Voltage Dry-Type Negotiated Rulemaking Working 

Group (“Committee”) 

The goal of the Committee is to reach consensus on a recommended set of energy efficiency 

standards for liquid-immersed and medium-voltage dry-type distribution transformers. 

2. Participants 

a. Interests Represented. Any interest that would be significantly affected by the rule may be 

represented in the negotiations. 

b. Parties to the Negotiations. The Committee consists of those individuals whom the Secretary 

appoints, as nominated by the affected interests. Each organization or interest caucus that is directly 

represented on the Committee shall be deemed a party to the negotiations. 

c. Committee Members. Each committee member appointed by the Secretary agrees to serve until 

the dissolution of the Committee unless that member becomes unable to serve, resigns, or ceases to 

maintain the representational requirements. 

d. Alternates for Committee Members. Each party to the negotiations may designate an alternate 

Committee Member. Alternates may substitute for Committee Members in the event the Member 

cannot attend a session of the Committee. Only Committee Members may vote on any consensus 

recommendation, and any alternate casting a vote shall do so on behalf of the Committee Member, 

and not as a representative of their own organization’s interest, if different. 

e. Additional Interests. Additional organizational interests may join the Committee after 

negotiations have begun only with the concurrence of the Committee. 

f. Attendance and Participation at Meetings. 

 (1) Attendance. Each Committee Member agrees to make a good faith effort to attend every 

session of the Negotiating Committee. Attendance and voting may be by telephone or other 

electronic means. In addition, the Committee Member's alternate agrees to make a good faith 
14

effort to attend all Committee meetings and to represent the interest at any meeting that the 

Member is unable to attend. 

 

(2) Participation. Only Committee Members or their alternates have the privilege of sitting at the 

negotiating table and of speaking from the floor during the negotiations without Committee 

approval, except: 

(a) any Committee Member may call upon another individual to elaborate on a relevant point, 

(b) Committee Counsel may raise and address appropriate points, and 

(c) any person attending the Committee meetings may address the Committee if time permits 

or file statements with the Committee. 

g. Constituents' Interests. Committee Members are expected to represent the concerns of their 

interest group to ensure that any agreement developed by the Committee is acceptable to the 

organization or caucus which the Committee Member represents. 

3. Decisionmaking 

a. Consensus. The Committee will operate by consensus which, for these purposes, means the 

unanimous concurrence of all parties to the negotiations present and voting. Concurrence will be 

assumed absent overt dissent, evidenced by a negative vote. Abstention shall not be construed as a 

negative vote. All agreements reached during the negotiations are tentative and may be made by the 

Members present at the meeting or their Alternates who attend a meeting in their stead until the 

Committee reaches an agreement that is binding on the parties. 

 b. Workgroups. 

 (1) Workgroups may be formed to address specific issues and to develop information for, 

advise, and make recommendations to the Committee. Although each party may designate a 

member of each workgroup, the membership of each workgroup should consist of no more than 

fifteen people. Other individuals who the Committee believes would enhance the functioning of 

a workgroup or representatives of interests that would be significantly affected by the topics 

addressed by the workgroup but which are not otherwise represented on the Negotiating 

Committee may also serve on that workgroup. Not all organizations or interest caucuses 

represented on the Negotiating Committee need to participate in each workgroup. 

 (2) The Department of Energy (DOE) will provide appropriate support for the Committee and 

the Workgroups, including a senior economist, senior technical staff, clerical support, and so 

forth. 

 (3) Workgroups are not authorized to make decisions for the Committee as a whole. 

Decisions to forward a report of a workgroup to the Negotiating Committee shall be made with 

the concurrence of all workgroup members who are present at the meeting where the decision is 

made. 
15

(4) Workgroup meetings will be held between the full sessions and will be scheduled in the 

same location and time whenever possible. All Committee Members will be notified of all 

workgroup meetings. 

 

c. Discontinue if Unproductive. The Committee may discontinue negotiations at any time if they 

do not appear productive. 

d. Deadline for Negotiations. Negotiations will terminate by close of business December 22, 

2011 unless the Committee decides to extend the deadline. Every reasonable effort shall be made to 

conclude negotiations and report a consensus Term Sheet to the DOE by December 16, 2011. 

 

4. Agreement 

a. Term Sheet and supporting analysis. Any agreement reached by the Committee on 

recommended standards for some or all covered products will take the form of a written statement 

that will be signed by all parties to the negotiations. For purposes of this Agreement, the term 

“standard” or “rule” shall be deemed to include any determination that a revision of the standard is 

unnecessary for some or all covered products. It is anticipated that the agreement will include a 

written statement that includes (a) a Term Sheet outlining the significant terms of the Proposed Rule 

and (b) supporting analysis as needed to explain and justify the agreed terms from a legal, engineering 

and economic perspective. DOE staff will be responsible for translating this Term Sheet and 

analysis, into the language of a proposed rule, its supporting preamble, a Regulatory Impact Analysis, 

and all other appropriate materials necessary for the publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

b. Statement as Basis for NOPR. DOE agrees to use the written statement and any recommended 

standards as the basis for a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to the maximum extent possible 

consistent with the Agency's legal obligations. 

c. No Negative Comments. Each party agrees not to file negative comments on the proposed 

standard or its preamble to the extent they have the same substance and effect as the Term Sheet. 

d. Response to Public Comments. DOE will consider all relevant comments submitted 

concerning the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and will make such modifications in the proposed 

standard and its preamble as are necessary when issuing a final standard. 

e. No Adverse Action and Support. Each party agrees not to take any action to inhibit the 

adoption of the recommended proposed standard [NOPR] as a final standard to the extent the final 

standard and its preamble have the same substance and effect as the Term Sheet. 

f. No Challenge. Each party agrees not to take a position materially inconsistent with the standard 

or determination in court or in any other forum to the extent that the final standard or determination 

and its preamble have the same substance and effect as the Term Sheet, for a period of 1 year from 

effective date of rule or rulemaking determination. 

5. Facilitator 

A neutral facilitator will work with all the parties to ensure that the process runs smoothly. The facilitator 

serves at the will of the Committee. 

 
16

6. Meetings 

a. FACA, NRA, and DOE Policy. The negotiations will be conducted under the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA), the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 (NRA), and the Department of 

Energy’s Negotiated Rulemaking Policy. 

 

b. Open Meetings. Negotiating sessions will be announced in the Federal Register prior to the 

meeting and will be open to the public. 

c. Meeting Summaries. The proceedings will not be electronically recorded, but summaries of 

Committee meetings will be prepared by the facilitator for the convenience of the Committee. Such 

meeting summaries shall not be approved by the Committee and shall not be construed or taken to 

represent the official position of the Committee or any Member as to what transpired at Committee 

meetings. In the absence of consensus, parties shall not be bound by positions taken or accepted 

during these negotiations. No photographs may be taken during meetings without the approval of the 

Committee. 

7. Future Amendments 

Committee Members may propose modifications to this document, with due consideration given such 

proposals. 
17

ANNEX D 

Provisional Meeting Schedule 

September 15-16

MV: Thursday, September 15 – Friday, September 16 (DOE Forrestal) 

LV: Wednesday, September 28 (DOE Forrestal) 

October 12-14

MV: Wednesday, October 12 – Thursday, October 13 (confirmed NRECA Meeting Space) 

LV: Thursday, October 13 – Friday, October 14 (confirmed NRECA Meeting Space) 

November 8-9

MV: Tuesday, November 8 – Wednesday, November 9 (Place TBD) 

LV: Wednesday, November 9 – Thursday, November 10 (Place TBD) 

November 30 – December 2

MV: Wednesday, November 30 – Thursday, December 1 (confirmed APPA Space) 

LV: Thursday, December 1 (confirmed APPA Space) 

LV: Wednesday, December 2 (DOE Forrestal) 

December (TENTATIVE; FURTHER DISCUSSION NEEDED)

MV and LV: Wednesday, December 14 – Thursday, December 16 

 

EXTRA DAYS WITH DOE RESERVED SPACE AVAILABLE

October 18-19 – Room 8E-089 

November 21-23 – Room 8E-089 

December 1-2 – Room 8E-089 

December 20-22 and 27-29 – Room 8E-089