Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 204

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

**MEETING of the MV WORKING GROUP** 

Volume I I

American Public Power Association

1875 Connecticut Ave., NW 12 th Washington, D.C. 20009 Floor

Thurs day
Dec em ber 1 , 201 1

**Facilitator :** 

Richard Parker University of Connecticut Law School

**Host :** 

American Public Power Association 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW 12 th Washington, D.C. 20009 FloorExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 205

**Participants Identified:**

Gene Andert
R E A Magnet Wire

Rick Anderso n Fayetteville Public Works Commission

Tim Ballo Earth Justice 1625 Massachusetts Avenue Suite 702 Washington, DC 20036

S cott Beck Lakeview Metals

Robert Berman Berman Economics 1915 Orchid Court Vienna, VA 22187

Chris Brown Cogent Power

John Caskey National Electrical Manufacturers Association

Greg Coulter Consultant Prolec GE

Jim Creevy National Electrical Manufacturers Association 1300 North 17 th Suite 1752 Street

Rosslyn, VA 22209

Andrew deLaski
ASAP 20 Belgrade Ave, Suite 1 Boston, MA 02131

Marianne DiMascio American Standards Awareness ProjectExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 206

Tom Eckman Northwest Power and Conservation Council

Gary Fernstrom Pacific Gas & Electric Company 13055 Parkhurst Dr Oakland, CA 94619

Chuck Foster Edison Electric Institute

Carlos Gaytan Prolec G E

Robert Greeson Federal Pacific Company

Bruce Hirsch Baltimore Gas and Electric , EEI

Gerald Hodge Howard Industries PO Box 1586 Laurel, MS 39441

Phil Hopkinson HVolt, Inc.

Michael Hyland American Public Power Association

Dave Millure Metglas Incorp orated 440 Allied Drive Conway, SC 29526

Steve Nadel American Council for an Energy

- Efficient Economy

Wes Patterson ABB, Inc.

Eric Petersen AK SteelExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 207

Ray Polinski Allegheny Ludlum

- ATI

James Rakowski ATI Allegheny Ludlum

Steven Rosenstock Edison El ectric Institute 701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004

- 2696

Robin Roy Natural Resources Defense Council 1200 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005

Paul Ryan Hitachi Metals America 800 Grand Avenue, Suite AG

- 6 Carlsbad, CA 92008

B ob Saint National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

Mahesh P. Sampat EMS Consulting 1180 Brookview Dr Athens, GA 30606

Jerry Schoen AK Steel Corporation 705 Curtis Street Middletown, OH 45043

Mike Shannon RSA Magnet Wire

Chuck Simmons Progress En ergy

Jim Rakowski Allegheny ATIExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 208

Antonio Trujillo Cooper Power Systems

Ken neth Winder
NRECA

**Participants from DOE:**

Sarah Butler (via webinar)

Dan Cohen (via webinar) General Counsel

John Cymbalsky

**Participants from Navigant**  **/LBL :** 

Mike Rivest
Na vigant

Matt Nardotti Navigant Consulting

Chris Bolduc Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory Berkeley, CA 94720

Katie Coughlin Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory

Art Rosenfeld (via phone)
LBL

**Webinar Attendees**

Jerry Allen Metglas, Inc.

Pam Costell o Navigant ConsultingExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 209

Charles Drexler Ky. Assoc. of Electric Coops. Brian Kaja General Electric

Richard Lyke AK Steel

Dhiru Patel Hammond Power Solutions Inc.

Tom Petrosino TRP Consulting

John Rosetti Memphis Light Gas and Water

Jeff Schneider Coope r Power Systems

T homas Patzner Schneider Electric

Bob Smith Federal Pacific

Luo Zhimei Navigant ConsultingExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 210

**AGENDA**

**ITEM PAGE** 

Welcome, Mr. Parker 211

Self

- Introductions 211

Discussion of the Medium Voltage Dry T ype Transformer Market 218

Final Discussion and Straw Poll 260

Proposal for Next Step 264Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 211

9:1 0 a.m. 1

MR. PARKER: Welcome everyone for day two 3

of the medium voltage standard discussions

. We had 4

yesterday ... repor t ... a candid and constructive 5

exchange of views. It was a tough day. It was 6

also, by the way, the first day we actually got 7

proposals from everybody. I do not propose to 8

languish on ... to turn immediately to medium voltage 9

dry type discussions. I unders tand there have been 10

some conversations outside so proposals may be 11

advanced, so I think the best way to get the 12

proposals and discuss and

-- discuss it briefly, and 13

then instead of trying to do it as a plenary group, 14

think about breaking down into subgrou ps and 15

caucuses and so forth, to talk about what problems 16

we have, if any, in this case to resolve. 17 P R O C E E D I N G S

2

Before we get started, let’s go around the 18

table and introduce ourselves. If you’re on the 19

phone, please mute your phones so you don’t get

-- 20

use your ph ones until you give your name and 21

affiliation. Let’s start around the table and then 22

go to the audience, and then the webinar folks. 23

**Self**

**- introductions**  24

MR. PARKER: I’m Richard Parker
, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 212

facilitator , University of Connecticut law school. 1

MR. HYLAND: Mike Hyland, American Public 2

Power

. 3

MR. SIMMONS: I’m Chuck Simmons, Progress 4

Energy and EEI

. 5

MR. SAINT: Bob Saint, NRECA. 6

MR. HIRSCH: Bruce Hirsch, Baltimore Gas 7

and Electric with EEI contingent

. 8

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, E dison 9

Elect ric Institute. 10

MR. CASKEY: John Caskey, NEMA. 11

MR. ANDERSON: Rick Anderson, Fayetteville 12

P ublic W orks C ommission , APPA. 13

MR. POLINSKI: Ray Polinski, ATI Allegheny 14

Ludlum. 15

MR. PETERSEN: Eric Petersen with AK 16

Steel. 17

MR. PATTERSON: Wes Patterson , ABB. 18

MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson, Federal Pacific 19

Transformer. 20

MR. DeLASKI: Andrew DeLaski, Appliance 21

Standards Awareness Project. 22

MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel, American Council 23

for an Energy

- Efficient Economy. 24

MR. MILLURE: Dave Millure, Metglas. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 213

M R. HODGE: Gerry Hodge from Howard 1

Industry. 2

MR. COULTER: Greg Coulter, consultant for 3

Prolec GE. 4

MR. GAYTAN: I’m Carlos Gaytan, Prolec GE. 5

MR. FERNSTROM: Gary Fernstrom, PG&E 6

representing PG&E, SCE and Semper Utilities, as well 7

as west coast pe rspective. 8

MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman, Northwest Power 9

and Conservation Council. 10

MR. CO R KRAN: Jerry Co r kran, Cooper Power 11

Systems

. 12

MR. BECK: Scott Beck, Lakeview Metals. 13

MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, Earth Justice. 14

MR. ROY: Robin Roy, Natural Resou rces 15

Defense Council. 16

MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest, Navigant 17

Consulting. 18

MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky, DOE. 19

MR. BOLDUC: Chris Bolduc, Lawrence 20

Berkley National Labs. 21

MS. COUGHLIN: Katie Coughlin, Lawrence 22

Berkley National Lab s

. 23

MS. DiMASCIO: M arianne DiMascio, 24

A ppliance Standards Awareness Project. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 214

MR. NARDOTTI: Matt Nardotti, Navigant. 1

MR. SAMPAT: Mahesh Sampat, EMS 2

Consulting. 3
MR. BROWN: Chris Brown, Cogent Power. 4

MR. ANDERT: Gene Andert, Rea Magnet Wire 5

Company. 6

MR. SHANNON: Mike Shannon, Rea Magnet 7

Wire Company. 8

MR. SCHOEN: Jerry Schoen, AK Steel. 9

MR. RYAN: Paul Ryan, Hitachi Metglass. 10

MR. TRUJILLO: I’m Antonio Trujillo from 11

Cooper Power Systems. 12

MR. WINDER: Ken Winder, NRECA. 13

MR. MEYERS: Aaron Meyers, Coop er Power 14

Systems

. 15

MR. RUSH: Ned Rush, consultant. 16

MR. CARMICHAEL: Rob Carmichael, Navigant. 17
MR. COFFEY: Brian Coffey, Navigant 18

Consulting. 19

(inaudible) 20

MR. TENDULKAR: Vijay Tendulkar, Onyx 21

Power. 22

MR. BERMAN: Robert Berman, Berman 23

Economic s. 24

( inaudible ) 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 215

MR. CREEVY: Jim Creevy, NEMA

. 1

MR. RAKOWSKI: J im Rakowski, ATI Allegheny 2

Ludlum. 3

MR. FOSTER: Chuck Foster, counsel for 4

EEI. 5

MR. HOPKINSON: Phil Hopkinson, last, 6

HVolt, Inc. 7

MR. PARKER: Okay. On the phone? 8

MR. ALLEN: J erry Allen, Metglas. 9
(introductions on phone not clear) 10

MR. FINE: Greg Fine (ph), AK Steel. 11

MR. PETROSINO: Tom Petrosino, Prolec GE. 12

MR. PATZNER: Tom Patzner, Schneider 13

Electric. 14

MR. DREXLER: Charl ie Drexler , Kentucky

. 15

Assoc iation of Electric Coops

. 16

MR. PARKER: Anyone else on the phone? 17

MR. ROSETTI: John Rosetti
, Memphis Light 18

Gas and Water

. 19

MR. SMITH: Bob Smith, Federal Pacific. 20

MR. PARKER: Anybody else on the phone? 21

Okay. Thank you. And thanks again to Mike Hyland 22

and the Amer ican Public Power Association for 23

hosting us today. I hope you all got some sleep 24

last night. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 216

So we’re going to tackle medium voltage 1

dry types. I know that for various reasons we have 2

in this committee a number of participants who don’t 3

have a direc t stake in this, the utilities, and may 4

or may not want to sit in on all of this. I spoke 5

with ... get this idea to work and he assured me that 6

it would. Basically, for those people

-- everybody 7

here ... process and for those people who do not wish 8

to sit in on this because they or their organization 9

don’t have a problem to raise, they are perfectly 10

willing, and in fact encouraged to sit

-- abstain at 11

the end and take a break. It you don’t want to sit 12

in on the discussions you can go wherever you like 13

and at the end, at the vote, just cast an abstention 14

or no vote, if that’s your choice. 15

On the other hand, if you wish to 16

participate, you’re obviously on the committee, and 17

you’re more than welcome to participate. But I 18

don’t want people around the table bec ause they’re 19

on this committee and there’s nothing in our rules 20

that require that they

-- that’s your choice. 21

So, with that in mind, please let’s turn 22

to the discussion of the medium voltage dry type 23

transformer market. And we’ll start with proposals 24

an d then have a brief discussion about the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 217

proposals. Steve, you have a question. 1

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. 2

Just real quick, just trying to look at the 3

presentations that were done by Navigant that were 4

distributed. The ones I have are dat ed November 6, 5

November 8 th , and November 28 th . I’m sorry Steve 6

Rosenstock, EEI. In terms of the dry type the most 7

recent ones I have would be November 6, 2011, 8

November 8, 2011, and then one that was e

- mailed or 9

I got on the Sharepoint was November 28, 2011. I 10

can read the titles if you want. November 28 th

MR. BOLDUC: Chris Bolduc, LBL. The most 15

recent engineering data is in the No vember 28 was 11

default scenarios, exclusion scenarios. Again, just 12

from my review, are those three presentations that 13

they have? 14

th

MR. ROSENSTOCK: I didn’t print it out. 19 16

version. That you should use as your reference. 17

And you can look at eleven

-- from 11/15 version. 18

MR. BOLDUC: Okay. And that was presented 20

in the Webinar. So please use that for the 2010 21

prices

. 22

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Thank you very much. 23

MR. PARKER: Any other questions about the 24

analysis? People have had it, have had a chance to 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 218

look at it. Who would like to present the proposals 1

first? 2

MR. GREESON: Would it be possible for the 3

NEMA members t o have a brief discussion before we 4

present this proposal? 5

MR. PARKER: Absolutely. 6

MR. GREESON: Maybe ten minutes. 7

MR. PARKER: Absolutely. Let’s recess for 8

ten minutes. Ten, 15 minutes? Let’s say 15, give 9

you time. Coffee and refreshments out there for 10

those of you who just arrived. We’ll meet back in 11

15 minutes. 12

(Whereupon, at 9:20 a.m., the meeting was 13

off the record for a 31

- minute period to allow for 14

caucusing.) 15

MR. PARKER: Take your seats please. We 16

are now ready for the proposals. 17

**Discussion of the Medium Voltage Dry Type** 18

**Transformer Market** 19

MR. CASKEY: This is John Caskey from NEMA 20

and I’m not sure we’re 100 percent ready but we’re 21

getting close. First of all, I apologize for the 22

delay, certainly on behalf of NEMA, everything that 23

we do needs to be like consensus perspective from 24

our own membership, which is sometimes difficult to 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 219

obtain because we do have a diversity of 1

manufacturers and other issues within our own 2

membership. 3

MR. PARKER: I can’t believe attaining 4

consens us can be hard. 5

MR. CASKEY: Yes, consensus can be 6

difficult. But I apologize again for the delay. 7

Yesterday, I think it was yesterday, that we gave 8

our proposal relative to liquid filled, and I gave 9

sort of a spiel on why we really appreciate the 10

oppo rtunity to thank DOE and the members who are 11

here, and I basically ditto on all that stuff. 12

The other thing that I focused on was the 13

three basic principles that we’ve talked about as 14

really

-- we want to, you know, number one was we 15

were willing to go higher, we supported going higher 16

with energy efficiency standards, provided that they 17

were cost

- effective. 18

The second bullet was related to the 19

substitution of materials. We wanted to make sure 20

that whatever we decided as a group basically 21

there’s a variety of steels to meet that requirement 22

as well as a variety of manufacturers and steel 23

suppliers that could meet those requirements, as 24

well as if there’s some flexibility of design to go 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 220

from copper to steel or aluminum or whatever the 1

case may be, b ut some sort of flexibility in the 2

designs across the manufacturers So that was 3

another thing. 4

And then the other thing was the impact on 5

the small manufactur ers. 6

So basically where we’re at NEMA with 7

regard to the medium voltage dry type is one, to b e 8

honest with you, we have more discomfort with the 9

Navigant and LBL analysis than in some of the other 10

areas. So fundamentally we have not been able to 11

get to a good point where we can say, gee, we’re 12

close enough or we’re in the right ball park. And I 13

think Wes has done a lot of work trying to explain 14

that and basically, fundamentally, the slip of the 15

curve data points between what we, as manufacturers 16

have, and what Navigant is showing, is different and 17

I think Wes has been trying to work to get that 18

r esolved. And Mike has been very helpful and I 19

think, open, in trying to figure out what that 20

tipping point might be. As of today, I don’t think 21

we’ve resolved what that difference might be. So we 22

feel less sort of comfortable with the cost

23

effectiveness answers. 24

So with that, we have gone back and looked 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 221

at the logics ... and things like that as far as that 1

is factored into our analysis. But all that said, 2

the bottom line is that what we’re proposing really 3

comes from where we think there is still rea sonable 4

substitution of steels and a competitive market and 5

beyond these numbers that I’m giving you, we feel 6

that the market sort of breaks down and we don’t 7

have a good open, competitive market. 8

So the numbers that I have in front of me 9

here is: 10

**•** For DL

- 9 , we’re proposing 1.5 11

**•** For DL

- 10, we’re proposing 2.0 12

**•** For DL

- 11, we’re proposing 2.0 13

**•** For DL

- 12, we’re proposing 3.0 14

I think the DL

- 11 and 12, at least, 15

correlate to what the advocates have 16

recommended so far, as I understand it. 17

**•** For DL

- 13, we’re basica lly

- I think we prefer 18

to be unchanged from the 2010 rule, but in 19

reality what we’re trying to pave off of is the 20

DL

- 12, and we don’t know the number in front of 21

me here, but what we want to do is allow for 22

DL

- 13, which is basically the high BILs, to 23

have ten percent more losses than the 24

equivalent of DL

- 12. We just don’t know 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 222

exactly what that number is, and we’ll work 1

with the other members at the table to try to 2

figure out exactly what that is. 3

MR. PARKER: Ten percent more losses than 4

DL

- 12, you’re saying? 5

MR. CASKEY: Than DL

- 12, and the 6

equivalent of DL

- 12. So basically, some relief for 7

the high BILs. We’re saying that’s ten percent 8

relief, if you will. 9

The other sort of exception or point that 10

we want to raise deals with the single

- phase, an d 11

it’s sort of

-- well, we’ve said all along that 12

there’s this

-- it’s not a strict, normalized 13

relationship between a single

- phase and a three

14

phase transformer. It’s more difficult to produce 15

the one than the other. So what we’re saying is for 16

single

- p hase that we need less loss reductions than 17

the equivalent three

- phase, and that, again, we need 18

to come up with some sort of multiplication factor, 19

however we don’t know what that is yet, but we’re 20

happy to work with people around the table to get 21

concurr ence on that. 22

So basically I think what we’re saying is 23

we support pretty much what the advocates had 24

proposed so far with the exception of some sort of 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 223

special treatment for the high BILs, and some sort 1

of special treatment for the single

- phase. 2

MR. P ARKER: Great. Thank you. L et me 3

note also that, just looking at the shipments data 4

that I have

-- and this is for 2009, but hopefully 5

it is indicative, that I got from the TSD, DL

- 9 is a 6

very small category, as is DL

- 10. And

-- like 23, 7

257 megavolts ( ph) compared to thousands for the 8

others. DL

- 13 is also

-- I mean DL

- 13 is also

-- 9

well, it’s significant, but it’s still not very 10

large. So 11 and 12 is really where the action is 11

in terms of shipments. Comments? Questions? 12

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Quick q uestion. Steve 13

Rosenstock, EEI. Was 13 divided into A and B? 14

Again, I don’t know if that makes a impact on the 15

votes or not. 16

MR. PARKER: Yes. 17

MR. ROSENSTOCK: I just wanted to know if 18

that had any effect on

-- 19

MR. PARKER: Do we have a mic over there? 20

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Oh, okay. I’m sorry. 21

Steve Rosenstock, Edison Electric Institute. My 22

only follow

- up question was, for DL

- 13, there was an 23

A and B category, so I didn’t know if that had any 24

impact on the proposal, if they were separate 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 224

numbers or issues, just as clarification. 1

MR. CASKEY: This is John Caskey, NEMA. 2

Basically where there were two categories, once you 3

go to the DL

- 12 level and sort of back off of that, 4

essentially, and I don’t know what that number is. 5

MR. DeLASKI: Can you explain that, John? 6

DL

- 12 level

-- 7

MR. PARKER: Sorry, give your name, 8

Andrew. 9

MR. DeLASKI: Andrew DeLaski. For DL

- 13, 10

you want to

-- just say it again. 11

MR. CASKEY: To be honest with you, I 12

cannot explain it very well. What we are looking 13

for

-- I wish I could, but the facts are the facts. 14

So basically, what we’re looking for is ten percent 15

more loss than what’s available in the DL

- 12 16

category. So we need to go through and look at the 17

watt loss in the DL

- 12 category, and then that’s a 18

DL

- 3 leve l, and then basically allow for ten percent 19

more losses in that calculation. I’ll be happy to 20

turn the microphone over to Wes to see if he can 21

make more sense out of it. 22

MR. DeLASKI: Let me just try something, 23

let me

-- so I have a DL

- 12, at an EL

- 3, m y 24

calculation shows the reduction in losses is 30.7 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 225

percent. So then what would it be for the DL

- 13? 1

MR. PATTERSON: It would be roughly point 2

nine times 30, ninety percent of the 30. Ten 3

percent less. 4

MR. DeLASKI: Twenty

- seven reduction in 5

losses f or DL

- 13 is the proposal? 6

MR. PATTERSON: Yes. It should be a ten 7

percent differential. 8

MR. DeLASKI: Which is

-- okay. 9

MR. PATTERSON: Somewhere between the two 10

and three. Wes Patterson. As a clarifying 11

statement. The existing standard pretty mu ch set 12

their loss level at the 95 BIL ratings, and the 95 13

BIL ratings is the large sweet spot of the market. 14

The 125 BILs, the higher BILs, are essentially three 15

to four percent higher in losses in the existing 16

standard. I’m not sure how the three to fiv e 17

percent was arrived at, but technically, these 18

numbers should be at least ten percent more losses 19

because of the increased ... required to drive that 20

transformer. It’s making the core much larger. 21

MR. RIVEST: This is Mike Rivest. I can 22

confirm that a baseline design line like the G 23

transformer is having to use more advanced steels to 24

meet the standard that ... 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 226

MR. DeLASKI: Right, so I’m looking at EL 1

to come out to some

-- I’m looking at EL, take 13B, 2

which I think is the main one here, and I’m seei ng 3

EL

- 3 is 27.1 percent loss reduction. Is that what 4

you’re seeing? 5

MR. GREESON: This is Rob Greeson, Federal 6

Pacific. What percent efficiency is that? 7

MR. DeLASKI: This is just our chart,

-- 8

MR. GREESON: 13A or 13B? 9

MR. DeLASKI: 13A was 98.9 2, 13B was 99.0, 10

EL

- 3. 11

MR. GREESON: EL

- 2 by my numbers is 23.6 12

reduction ... (not at mic) ... want to look at it in 13

terms of the EL

-- 14

MR. SMITH: Richard, good morning. This 15

is Bob Smith of Federal Pacific. I would like to 16

offer a comment on the sin gle

- phase transformers 17

that John mentioned, if I may? 18

MR. PARKER: Can you hold on just one 19

second so we can finish this conversation that was 20

going on here. 21

MR. SMITH: Okay. That would be great. 22

MR. PARKER: Thank you. We’ll get right 23

back to you

. 24

MR. DeLASKI: So on 13B, at what EL? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 227

MR. GREESON: At EL

- 3, I had 27.1 percent. 1

MR. GREESON: Okay. I have 27 percent, 2

and that 27 percent represents 6200 watts losses. 3

Okay. So we’re proposal then is 6200 watts times 4

1.1, which is 6820. 5

MR. D eLASKI: Okay. Got it. 6

MR. PARKER: Okay. Bob, did you want to 7

comment? 8

MR. SMITH: Yes. Thank you, Richard. On 9

the single

- phase medium voltage dry type 10

transformers, many of those are used by electric 11

utilities in high rise downtown condominium an d 12

office buildings. We need to be very careful about 13

raising the efficiency of the single

- phase 14

transformers for these applications. We call them 15

high

- rise transformers because they need to go up 16

and down elevators, and in some cases they have to 17

be take n apart because of their weight and size. 18

These transformers have one very common attribute, 19

and that is they have to be operated at a very low 20

sound level. And regardless of which core steel we 21

use, whether it’s M4, or M3 or whatever, the way we 22

get low sound is to lower the induction level of the 23

transformer core. And as we do that, it makes the 24

product larger. So I just encourage us to be very 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 228

careful about what efficiency we pick for the 1

single

- phase because it will have the same impact on 2

the elect ric utilities as the increased size for the 3

network transformers. 4

MR. PARKER: Thank you, Bob. Wes. 5

MR. PATTERSON: On the single

- phase units, 6

I don’t believe we discussed the actual level. In 7

the existing standard, the efficiency of a three

8

phase KV A, let’s use an arbitrary number

-- 9

MR. PARKER: Get closer to the mic, Wes. 10

MR. PATTERSON: In a three

- phase 11

transformer, let’s use an arbitrary number. Let’s 12

say for 100 KVA three

- phase, there’s a standard that 13

is the existing standard says that 100 KVA single

14

phase will have the same efficiency. We’re indexed 15

to be exactly the same. This is incorrect. 16

Technically, with a dry

- type transformer, 17

the losses in the single

- phase transformer will be 18

33 percent more because I have this extra amount of 19

core steel in its construction. And this extra loss 20

should be accounted for in the standard. So our 21

proposal would be that for single

- phase, whatever 22

the standard is set for three

- phase, the losses be 23

increased 30 percent for the single

- phase equivalent 24

KVA. So on a 100 KVA three

- phase transformer, if it 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 229

had 100 watts loss, then for 100 KVA single

- phase 1

transformer, I would have 130 watts loss. That 2

would be our proposal. 3

MR. DeLASKI: I’m looking to the 4

consultants. We went through this last time ar ound
, 5

I used DLEs (ph) one to the other, is that similar 6

to the first scaling the Department used in the 7

past? 8

MR. PATTERSON: No. 9

MR. DeLASKI: It’s not? 10

MR. PATTERSON: No. This is Wes. What 11

was used in the past was an assumption that the 12

efficie ncies had to be equal to prevent 13

circumvention from a single

- phase circuit to a 14

three

- phase circuit. Given the size of these units, 15

recognizing Bob’s comment, most of them are used in 16

buildings like this. There’s not enough room to put 17

three single

- phase units as an option. It’s 18

physically impossible. So they won’t be 19

circumvented by trying to substitute three single

20

phase for a single three

- phase. 21

MR. SAMPAT: Mahesh Sampat. Remember the 22

standards, it’s not ... single

- phase ... at the same 23

efficiency. It’s connecting a single

- phase at 300 24

KVA would have the same efficiency. Correct me if 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 230

I’m wrong. 1

MR. PATTERSON: No, I agree with that 2

also. Our proposal is there’s 30 percent 3

differential for the same KVAs. 4

MR. SAMPAT: Okay. So I think that’s wh at 5

-- 6

MR. PATTERSON: Whatever the end resulting 7

numbers are, we need this 30 percent differential. 8

MR. SAMPAT: Right. On the same KVA 9

basis. 10

MR. PATTERSON: On the same KVA basis. 11

MR. DeLASKI: So let me just comment that 12

the way I see the numbe rs and sales, the single

13

phase is one percent. 14

MR. PATTERSON: Yeah, that’s about right. 15

It’s small. 16

MR. DeLASKI: One percent of the total 17

sales of the medium voltage transformers are single

18

phase. 19

MR. PATTERSON: It’s less than small. 20

It’s at lea st less than five. 21

MR. DeLASKI: So taking that into account, 22

you know, this is not what we need to spend a lot of 23

time on. 24

MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson, Federal 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 231

Pacific. Given Bob’s comments, though, of high rise 1

and weight, Bob, I guess you’re listenin g to this, I 2

know

-- 3

MR. SMITH: I try to listen. I hope you 4

guys could get closer to the microphone. 5

PARTICIPANT: (on phone) I wish you guys 6

could get closer to the microphone also. 7

MR. GREESON: What I was going to propose 8

is, being a smaller se gment of the market, rather 9

than

-- and we’re concerned about the weight, could 10

we just agree to leave the single

- phase unchanged at 11

this point and not have to go through the process of 12

arguing what multiplier to use and given the 13

uncertainties about the w eights of the transformer, 14

and its market share, I think it might expediate the 15

process a little bit. 16

MR. DeLASKI: This is Andrew to follow up. 17

The proposal from NEMA, as I understand it, was 18

losses be increased by 30 percent for equivalent 19

KVA. 20

MR . PATTERSON: For the three

- phase. 21

MR. DeLASKI: Low losses equals lower 22

efficiency. And have you guys calculated what kind 23

of change that is, to the EL level? 24

MR. PATTERSON: No, I haven’t. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 232

MR. DeLASKI: So how close is that to no 1

change, Rob, I gu ess is my question. 2

MR. GREESON: I don’t know. 3

MR. DeLASKI: You don’t know. All right. 4

So

-- and we’re not going to go backwards, 5

obviously. We’re not allowed to go backwards. The 6

standard increase has to be positive. 7

(Discussion off mic) 8

MR. PATTERSON: So we could change our 9

proposal to be

-- change our proposal to be either 10

no change or supports the 30 percent differential. 11

MR. DeLASKI: To my way of thinking, I 12

think some increase does make sense, so that we are 13

minimizing the risk of th e loophole that was a 14

concern the last time around, that would be my 15

inclination. 16

MR. PARKER: Do we have any other 17

clarifying questions? 18

MR. POLINSKI: Ray Polinski, ATI 19

Allegheny. Yeah, I just wanted to respond to John 20

and NEMA’s proposal, and I wan t to make a few 21

comments

-- I’m speaking here from ATI Allegheny 22

Ludlum perspective. I can’t say I’m speaking for AK 23

as well

-- Eric will speak for AK. 24

But first off, as far as this whole medium 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 233

voltage dry, we spent so much time on the liquid 1

tweakin g the model and working with things, you 2

know, became

-- personally became very comfortable 3

with the analysis. It wasn’t perfect, but, you 4

know, in blending industry and the model and working 5

through it, kind of said, hey, the conclusions were 6

very close. We really have not spent a lot of time 7

on this. 8

But, you know, my position, dating back to 9

our group’s conference call on November 17 th , we had 10

a conference call on the medium voltage dry, my 11

position has been that the workhorse for this 12

product today, the workhorse for wound core and for 13

liquid filled is M3. The workhorse grade for this 14

market is M4. And so in my view, M4 was a grade 15

that needed to remain competitive to insure there 16

was adequate supply and no shortage of supply. 17

Again, that’s been m y position from that conference 18

call on November 17 th

Now the problem that I’m having is that if 20

you look at the Navigant data, where M4 remains 21

competitive is kind of a EL

- 1, kind of across the 22

board. Mostly we’re talking about the design lines 23

11 and 12 where the majority of the volume exists. 24

Now, when I break out

-- we haven’t had a chance to 25 . 19Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 234

have a debate or discussion about this level, but 1

Wes’ data, again, you know, Wes assures me that 2

these levels here that NEMA is proposing, M4 is 3

competitive. But it’s a big difference from his 4

data to the Navigant data. 5

And I talked with Rob Greeson a little 6

bit, who’s another significant player in this 7

market, and Rob , the last time I talked with Rob he 8

wasn’t sure

-- well, I don’t know maybe it’s more M 3 9

-- M3 I just don’t think would go through. But 10

these transformers which have a lot of labor 11

involved with stacking laminations, as I say, M4, 12

.27 millimeter thick materials have been the 13

workhorse

. 14

So I’m just trying to frame

-- I would 15

love

-- if Wes ’ data is correct, then I would love 16

to get in line with the NEMA recommendations. But 17

right now, based on the 2010 Navigant engineering 18

analysis data, I’m kind of stuck more to the EL

- 1, 19

consistent with M4 continuing to be a competitive 20

grade, which is

- - for this medium voltage dry. So 21

just wanted to go on record with that. 22

MR. PARKER: Thank you. Eric. 23

MR. PETERSEN: I want to ask a clarifying 24

question. On the NEMA proposal

-- Eric Petersen, AK 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 235

Steel. You mentioned that you were setting the 1

effi ciency levels you established based upon 2

availability of supply. What grades of steel are 3

you considering are available in supply? Let’s just 4

say in design lines 11 and 12. Are you trying to 5

provide availability of H

- 0s and H

- 1s? Of M3s? 6

M2s? M4s? W hat is the supply basis that you 7

believe to be available. 8

MR. CASKEY: Wes can answer. 9

MR. PATTERSON: Wes Patterson, ABB. Eric, 10

what we would see is predominantly M4 and H

- 0 and H

11

1, and some M3. As Ray noted, challenge with M3 is 12

the thickness of t he steel, right? And the thinner 13

you make the steel, the more labor you put into it. 14

But from capabilities, we could use M3, we could use 15

M2. We’ll definitely end up with M4. You will 16

definitely end up with the laser scribe products. 17

MR. PETERSEN: I f I can just respond, 18

then. AK Steel is in a unique position here within 19

-- as we start talking about the M4s versus the H

- 0s 20

and H

- 1s, that representing the steel industry, we 21

certainly agree with efficiency levels that allow 22

for M4. And I think some of the challenges is we’re 23

really outrunning the headlights, so to speak, of 24

the DOE data, struggling to understand whether or 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 236

not what the DOE’s got is really representative of 1

what the transformer manufacturers really provide. 2

So we’re going to have to le an largely upon what the 3

transformer manufacturers are stating is available. 4

But we are fully in support of a efficiency level 5

that would result in M4 being available as that is 6

something that there would be a

-- plenty of supply 7

for the transformer manuf acturers, it’s in their 8

best interest. My concern would certainly be, 9

though, that if the efficiency levels that are 10

provided result in the use of H

- 0 type products, AK 11

Steel is the only domestic supplier within the 12

states associated with a high V (ph) pr oducts, so 13

our concern would be that if you’re pushing 14

efficiency levels that place us as the only 15

supplier, you’re essentially giving us

-- I don’t 16

want to call it a monopoly position, but you’re 17

essentially giving us the point of supply, and I 18

would chal lenge transformer manufacturers that 19

that’s the best interest of the industry. 20

MR. PARKER: So you object to this? 21

MR. PETERSEN: What I’m saying is 22

unfortunately I can’t tell

-- you know, I’m 23

dependent upon the transformer manufacturers here 24

associate d with what they can do. If they’re 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 237

confident that this gives them an M4 in both DL 1

scenarios, I’m comfortable with it. If, however, it 2

puts them just at H

- 0 and H

- 1, my concern is, I’m 3

your only supplier, and I just question whether 4

that’s the best inte rest for the industry. 5

MR. PATTERSON: Wes Patterson. Eric, the 6

-- I presented or distributed a presentation showing 7

the core steel grade distributions that are 8

currently used at different energy efficiency levels 9

and this standard was set at those leve ls. 10

MR. PARKER: Wes, could you speak right 11

into the mic? Please. 12

MR. PATTERSON: And the presentation I 13

gave at this EL

- 3 level, shows that the dominant 14

steel today is M4, and we do use some laser

- scribed 15

in that production space. But from an engine ering, 16

technical perspective, I can flip

- flop back and 17

forth between the laser

- scribe and the M4, and it is 18

solely driven by the relevant price of the two 19

materials. So M4 will stay as an option to be used, 20

as long as its price is competitive with laser

21

s cribe. If that price differential shifts, then for 22

sure we will move all our production over to laser. 23

MR. PETERSEN: Can you comment on design 24

line 11? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 238

MR. PATTERSON: Same. 1

MR. PETERSEN: Same look? 2

MR. PATTERSON: Yes. 3

MR. PETERSEN: Okay. 4

MR. PATTERSON: The only difference 5

between 11 and 12 is the KVA rating. 6

MR. PETERSEN: Okay. So, again, Eric 7

Petersen, AK Steel. Since this is a unified 8

transformer manufacturer’s position, and if all of 9

them are in agreement here, that M4 is a prod uct 10

that will be dominant, that satisfies my concern 11

that they’re not moving to a situation that I’m the 12

only supplier of it, and in my opinion it would make 13

good sense and I would support it. 14

MR. SMITH: Bob Smith, Federal Pacific. 15

What thing to rememb er about the dry type 16

transformers is that for the most part, we are not 17

going into a market that is evaluating core losses 18

and load losses. So the need for very low loss core 19

steel is going to be much less for the medium 20

voltage dries than it will be for the medium voltage 21

liquids. And I think that’s one of the reasons that 22

you’ll find that the M4 will be more predominantly 23

used. 24

MR. PARKER: Rob? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 239

MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson, Federal 1

Pacific. I issued, and it’s on the record, I issued 2

on Sharepoint, w hat my estimates were, the breakdown 3

would be. They didn’t totally match up with what 4

Wes came out, I just want to be clear as far as my 5

information is, we don’t have the level of 6

experience that ABB does at the higher grades of 7

steel. I give a lot of w eight to what he’s saying. 8

When you look at my numbers, you have to understand 9

we haven’t had as much experience because, you know, 10

you can just ask me, without talking to Wes, and 11

with the level of experience we’ve got, I would have 12

said we would probabl y use some M4, and maybe shift 13

it a little more towards the M3. Wes is very 14

adamant, tells me hey, you can do it with M4 and had 15

some discussions, did this little presentation, and 16

it was really

-- this wasn’t an easy thing for me to 17

come up with, I had t o kind of make a lot of 18

estimations, so I guess what the bottom line is, I 19

believe that you can probably do it with M4, I just 20

haven’t

-- the paper that I submitted may not say 21

that, but I believe that given what Wes has said, 22

some discussions I’ve had sin ce, that there will be 23

competing core steels. 24

But my initial analysis kind of looked 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 240

like it was leaning towards the M3. M3 is a more 1

efficient steel and you can leverage it a little bit 2

better, but it’s awfully

-- with the market swings 3

and how things work in the market with price, so 4

there’s a lot of variables. 5

MR. PATTERSON: This is Wes again. One 6

more comment on this. I do have the

-- Mike’s 7

position that I buy steel from both of our CGO 8

suppliers, and they both know exactly what my 9

purchase rec ords are. And they also know exactly 10

what factories they go into. So internally they can 11

check the records. The only thing they don’t know 12

is the volume of my production that meets the 13

efficiency level, and the volume of my yearly 14

production that meets an EL

- 3 is roughly 20 percent. 15

MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson, Federal 16

Pacific. Even if I decided to buy only M3, he still 17

buys a lot of M4. He buys a lot more than I could. 18

MR. POLINSKI: Ray Polinski, ATI 19

Allegheny. And again, just as I’ve been consist ent 20

on the liquid filled as well as from this 21

standpoint, I just feel it’s consistent with the DOE 22

practices and the process that the data that I

-- 23

that is validated, that I think the DOE has to make 24

their decision based on, it’s the Navigant and DOE 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 241

data , and so I just present the crossover points on 1

the data

-- that has been at EL

- 1 for M4. Now if 2

there

-- some work needs to be done, and I don’t 3

want to

-- I’d love to have data that support

-- 4

that’s more consistent with Wes’ data that I could 5

then, you know, say to my management team, hey, this 6

is the data, M4 is in the game, and yes, I can agree 7

to this level. But, you know, without that

-- so I 8

don‘t know

-- I don’t want to delay the process, but 9

if we can get some more clarity from

-- on the data, 10

t hen some of the plots change according, other than 11

that, I have to be

-- because I am consistent with 12

the liquid filled, I have to vote based on the 13

Navigant, LBL data. 14

MR. PARKER: Okay. Thank you, Ray. 15

Andrew. 16

MR. DeLASKI: Ray, I appreciate that 17

c omment and I appreciate your striving for 18

consistency. I

-- let me just say that what we 19

agree to in this conversation does not commit you to 20

anything else, in my view. I’m not going to say, 21

Ray, over there you said okay because

-- and what 22

you said here somehow ties your hands in liquid 23

immersed. I wouldn’t hold you to that, what you’re 24

holding yourself to. Each discussion is an 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 242

independent discussion. I know it affects your 1

business. Each of them affects your business , but I 2

think we should have com e to ... here, independent, 3

not for a

-- create some decisionables

-- some 4

decisionable by year, somehow has to be applied in 5

either low voltage, low voltage dry or liquid 6

immersed. I just want to be careful that we don’t

- 7

- if we do that kind of thinking, I’m afraid we’re 8

going to tie ourselves up in knots and really 9

prevent ourselves from getting to yes. 10

MR. POLINSKI: Ray Polinski, ATI 11

Allegheny. Thanks, Andrew, for the comments. And 12

my only

-- my point is that I thought, you know, 13

from my viewpoint, my opinion, is that all the back 14

and forth, and all the files and e

- mails and then 15

trees we’ve killed with all the paper on this 16

project, is that the

-- it’s been good. The 17

Navigant model and the industry model has gotten 18

close enough together that every one said, you know, 19

for all practical purposes, the conclusions were 20

very similar. And we just haven’t

-- I don’t 21

believe we’ve done anything to tweak the dry type 22

model, and so that’s my problem, is that we’re just, 23

you know, just a little bit like ... wh ere you have 24

these two data sets that are wildly different 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 243

conclusions or whatever, and I’m just having a hard 1

time deciding which one to take as gospel. So 2

that’s where I’m kind of stuck. 3

MR. PARKER: Andrew. 4

MR. DeLASKI: And I guess I think, Ray, 5

t he difference

-- a bit of difference, I think, in 6

this situation is that here you have the 7

manufacturers making a proposal as a whole, and that 8

puts us in a little different spot than we are with 9

the other discussion. I think the market data, in 10

this case I think we have market data that is 11

inconsistent with the Navigant data, and that we can 12

use

-- I suspect that with additional conversations 13

that Mike’s data will change. I think running out 14

of time is our problem, so

-- for negotiated 15

outcomes. So ther e could be contested outcomes and, 16

you know, that’s another

-- then they’ll go where 17

they’re going to go in contested outcomes. But I 18

think it’s sort of a paralysis by analysis risk that 19

we face, and that the market data speaks loudly. 20

We should consi der both as opposed to 21

saying the Bible or the iron

- clad rule of Mike’s 22

plots. Because I think if we retire some of Mike’s 23

plots ... we’ve got to be careful about that. 24

MR. PARKER: So, Andr e w, did you want to 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 244

respond now to the NEMA proposal or should we take a 1

break

-- 2

MR. CASKEY: Can we let Vijay, as another 3

manufacturer

-- 4

MR. PARKER: Yes, absolutely. Vijay, I 5

didn’t see your hand, I’m sorry. Go ahead, please. 6

MR. TENDULKAR: This is Vijay Tendulkar 7

from Onyx Power. We make two medium volta ge 8

transformers, we’re not a big manufacturer. And the 9

problem is all these materials we’re trying to use, 10

M4 and laser material, if you wanted to use the 11

whole variety of those materials, you have to have 12

fully mitered construction. And as a small 13

manuf acturer we’d have to put out a lot of money to 14

get that ... and to get the efficiency requirements. 15

The second part is that there are 16

manufacturers around here that are really qualified 17

and sophisticated in their attempts to make use of 18

the various materi als and other things. We tried to 19

use it and we had problems. And none of these 20

transformers, we have found out, that they have 21

tested very well when at room temperature, but at 22

the high temperature the core losses went up. That 23

is not expressed in any data in any of this 24

discussions here. The core losses went up 25 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 245

percent. That is really a ... of the transformer. At 1

room temperature, the core losses are correct, what 2

we calculated. I don’t know if anybody tested this, 3

and I don’t know how we small ma nufacturers can get 4

all this technology immediately to meet the new 5

efficiency requirements. 6

PARTICIPANT: (on phone) Can you get a 7

little closer to the mic, I can’t hear a thing. 8

MR. PARKER: Okay. Let’s ask everybody to 9

wait until you have the mic in your hands and hold 10

it up to your mouth so ... and speak your piece. 11

Okay, John. 12

MR. CASKEY: John Caskey, NEMA. Can we 13

get a clarification on technology relative to this 14

work. As I understand this, the mic is amplified in 15

the room, but it’s not tran slated to the 16

speakerphone, is that correct, and that these little 17

things on the table are what’s connected to the 18

speakerphone? 19

MR. HYLAND: Let me explain. This is Mike 20

at APPA. The little microphones that are on the 21

table are for her, and her alone, for the record. 22

This microphone, this star contraption, there with 23

those two coming off of it, are the phone that 24

they’re listening to on line. The microphone is 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 246

only for internal and is not tied to anything. 1

MR. CASKEY: Okay. So when we have sort 2

o f speakers, if you will, we need them to get close 3

to one of these devices in order for them to pick it 4

up. 5

MR. HYLAND: Yes. 6

MR. CASKEY: Okay. So I don’t

-- 7

MR. HYLAND: Every time they use the 8

microphone, it should be loud enough to pick it up, 9

i f they speak loud, like I do. 10

MR. CASKEY: I’m loudly without the 11

microphone. 12

MR. DeLASKI: So this is Andrew. We

-- 13

there’s a significant amount of work put into this. 14

We made our proposal at our phone call, I guess two 15

weeks ago, before Thanksgivin g, and for design line 16

11 and design line 12. The NEMA proposal matches 17

our proposal for those two design lines, so we think 18

that

-- we really appreciate that NEMA matches our 19

proposal. Those two design lines represent, as we 20

understand from the DOE data , something on the order 21

of 60 percent of sales

-- that’s from the DOE data. 22

So it is a majority of data with regard to sales. 23

So we have agreement with NEMA on those categories. 24

The other categories, we don’t have a DOE 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 247

analysis that has been complete d

-- or a completed 1

LCC analysis, but what I understand from the 2

description that was presented to us by NEMA and the 3

manufacturers is that they’ve done the analysis, 4

they’ve done the translation to these other 5

technologies. For example, for design line 1 3, 6

which is the next largest category, by far, design 7

line 13 being approximately, oh, call it 30 percent 8

of the market, they’re proposing a break, the ten 9

percent more losses than design line 12. So 10

something of a break, of a lower standard that 11

proposed for the same transformers

-- same size 12

transformers covered by design line 12. And I might 13

corroborate that engineering difference. So based 14

on that, we’re comfortable with the NEMA proposal as 15

it has been made. 16

MR. PARKER: Thank you, Andrew. If I c an 17

just clarify one thing. Design lines 11 and 12 18

currently are both grouped under equipment class 19

eight, and the proposal is two different ELs for 20

those. I take it that one way to get there on your 21

proposal would be just to propose creating a 22

separate e quipment class for 11 and 12? 23

MR. DeLASKI: No, I don’t think we need a 24

new equipment class because there’s a whole range of 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 248

KVAs, so you have to scale

-- you have to scale from 1

the design line across the range of KVAs. Keep the 2

equipment classes the sa me. I think what we would 3

do with this, we’d have to do the absolute values, a 4

table of KVAs for something that we look to, the 5

consultants could develop in its recommendation. 6

DOE and their consultants have a table based on 7

these decisions, these recomm endations. We all have 8

to view it and make sure it makes sense. 9

MR. PATEL: This is Dhiru Patel from 10

Hammond . May I comment? 11

MR. PARKER: Excuse me, Andrew, were you 12

finished? 13

MR. DeLASKI: Yeah. 14

MR. PATEL: Hello? 15

MR. PARKER: Yes, go ahead pl ease. 16

MR. PATEL: This is Dhiru Patel from 17

Hammond Power Solutions. Regarding the scaling, we 18

at Hammond, we did ... designs for the design line 19

that is given by

-- as a proposal. And then we 20

started looking at these smaller ratings because 21

smaller thin gs are typically the bore issues, so on 22

the design line ... KVA and 95 KVA and we checked that 23

and then ... to 225, 75, and smaller to 15 for 95 24

KVA. And we do the scaling that ... efficiency and we 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 249

tried to ... KVA and smaller, we are finding very, 1

very diffic ult to improve on the level that the 2

current DOE regulations. And the reason being, ... 3

smaller, the core becomes smaller but the clearance 4

to the core and the ... fan, because it is ... by the 5

BIL level and the voltage drop of the winding. 6

So what happens is on the smaller units, 7

the core is much larger proportioned than the coils, 8

and you have to achieve that efficiency by 9

incrementing the core. Now you have a small core, 10

the ... also is smaller and there’s a higher effect on 11

the ... KVA. And that also will help in the 12

improvement in the efficiency. So until the scaling 13

factor is known, that what kind of efficiency will 14

be proposed for smaller KVA, it is very difficult to 15

even comment. Because I know from 15 to 35 KVA, the 16

slightest improvement on the curre nt level is almost 17

impossible with the steel going from M6 to M3 ... 18

We considered the ... etched, but with a 19

very small space, it’s very, very difficult. Any 20

comments from anybody else? 21

MR. PARKER: Okay. Vijay, if you can come 22

and stand next to the sta r mic so people on the 23

phone maybe can hear you? Speak into that mic. 24

MR. TENDULKAR: This is Vijay Tendulkar, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 250

Onyx Power. I looked at our numbers, we are going 1

to reduce our losses by 35 percent, and we have done 2

some calculations in our company, and I don’t think 3

we can make any of those losses by 35 percent lower 4

than that. Maybe we can go somewhere around 15 5

percent or something improvement, but not 30 6

percent. Thirty percent will be impossible for us 7

with our current technology and the equipments we 8

have, we’d be very hard pressed to do that. I don’t 9

think we will meet it. We’ll have to get out of 10

this distribution transformer market completely. 11

MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest , Navigant. Just 12

to clarify. Are you

-- 13

MR. PATEL: I can’t hear

-- muc h louder. 14

MR. RIVEST: This is Mike Rivest. 15

Clarifying question. Are you in all segments of 16

this market, or are you only in some of the 17

representative units. 18

MR. TENDULKAR: Medium voltage dry types. 19

MR. RIVEST: Are you in all BIL and all 20

KVA rang es as well? 21

MR. TENDULKAR: Up to 95 KVA BIL, about 25 22

KVA. 23

MR. RIVEST: So

-- okay. 24

MR. PARKER: And this is not your data 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 251

set, these are all

-- 1

MR. TENDULKAR: These are separate 2

distribution transformers. 3

MR. PARKER: Steve, did you

-- 4

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Are you taking more 5

comments or

-- 6

MR. PARKER: Yes. 7

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Who was first? 8

MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson, Federal Pacific 9

Transformer. 10

MR. PARKER: Rob, can you come over here 11

again to the mic. 12

MR. GREESON: From Hammond’s disc ussion of 13

scaling factor, I’ve run into the same issue. I 14

haven’t looked at it in quite the detail it sounds 15

like he did, but from the work that I did, when you 16

get into those smaller KVAs, you do have those 17

problems. It’s harder to meet those efficienci es. 18

There may very well be a problem on the lower end 19

KVAs. The work that I did, I concentrated on the 20

300 and the 1500, but you know, you’ve got a lot of 21

KVA sizes that are covered below 300 KVA. I don’t 22

think it’s unreasonable to expect that maybe the 23

scaling factor is somewhat higher than what your 24

efficiencies

-- they might be tapered down a little 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 252

bit on those lower KVAs. But from the advocates’ 1

standpoint, I don’t think the MVA shipments from 2

those lower KVAs are an issue. In the last meeting, 3

I think we even talked about making

-- leaving some 4

of those KVAs alone

. 5

MR. PARKER: Do we have any data on what 6

the shipments are for the 15 to 30 KVAs? 7

MR. GREESON: There might be

-- I think 8

that might be an issue. He’s right about the 9

construction factor and the proportionality of the 10

core, of the losses to the overall losses. It 11

increases and because

-- it’s the nature of the 12

design. 13

MR. DeLASKI: This is Andrew. I, again, 14

our focus is on energy savings. A nd my 15

recollection, as Rob points out, that we have had 16

this conversation in earlier meetings. The extent 17

of that conversation, we’ve been around this, and we 18

agree that

-- I think, Mike, from talking to you and 19

talking to Wes, how do you scale down, and that 20

there are these edge effects, or call them ... effects 21

of some sort, that you can’t use this scale. So I 22

guess we look to you, to work with you guys, to 23

figure out how to do that scaling, and come back 24

with the table and then react to that. In 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 253

principle, we’re agreeing that you have to

-- there 1

would be some need to address the smallest

-- the 2

smallest products

-- not with the same factor, 3

right. 4

MR. GREESON: I think we agree, then. 5

MR. DeLASKI: Yes, I think we agree. 6

MR. PARKER: Steve Rosenstock. 7

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstoc k. I 8

appreciate the presentations and I’m looking at the 9

analysis that’s stated in November 28, 2011, the 10

most recent analysis for the medium voltage dry type 11

transformers. I’m looking at slide five, design 12

line 11, LCC default results, which is all the 13

materials, all metals. At level two, what I’m 14

seeing here is a 58.75 percent of ... net increase in 15

life cycle cost, 41 percent

-- 41.25 percent on the 16

savings of LCC, and mean and median LCC savings for 17

EL

- 2 at design line 11, default results, .... That’s 18

sl ide five. That’s the slide. That’s correct. 19

So, looking at the economic justification, 20

I do have some concerns with that one. 21

Looking at design line 12 on the next 22

slide, the

-- in terms of LCC savings for design 23

lines one and two both have 90 pe rcent of 24

transformers have net LCC savings. Design line two 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 254

has higher mean LCC savings than design line three 1

median savings. 2

Then when I scroll down to the payback 3

numbers on slide seven, design line 11, I’m looking 4

at the payback periods and for de sign line two, a 5

mean payback period of 26.9 years, median of 20.2 6

years. Much higher than what’s with EL

- 1. And then 7

on design line 12, 15 years for design line three, 8

nine years for two, six years for one. And then of 9

course you have the median and th e average ones as 10

well. 11

So I appreciate

-- and then there’s a 12

metals and transformer

-- so I like the fact that 13

the parties are coming together, but I’m worried 14

about some of the economic impacts of some of the 15

these levels. So I don’t know if we’re goi ng to do 16

a series of straw votes. I would not mind seeing

-- 17

at least allowing us to vote on levels one, and two 18

for design line 11, and one, two, and three for 19

design line 12. I’m not making any comments on 20

nine, ten, and 13. 21

We do have some economic analysis for 22

nine, ten, and 13

-- I remember. I do have that 23

presentation

-- don’t use that any more? Okay. I’m 24

sorry. But there must have been some printed 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 255

analysis, so I’m just using November 28 th

MR. PARKER: Okay. A couple more brief 5

comments, then I do think we should break for a few 6

minutes to let people talk. 7 , so I just 1

wanted to, just from the analysis that was 2

published, just wanted to point some of those out 3

for people. Thank you very much. 4

MR. POLINSKI: Ray Polinski, ATI 8

Allegheny. An drew, you had mentioned previously, 9

though, in a comment that consistency amongst what 10

we do for this one

-- this dry type medium voltage 11

maybe doesn’t apply to the dry

-- I mean the medium 12

voltage liquid filled. And so, anyhow, just from a 13

consistency st andpoint, I hear what you’re saying. 14

You’re saying, hey, the manufacturers, the 15

transformer producers, you know, they’re making a 16

recommendation and they don’t want to put themselves 17

into a non

- competitive situation when it comes to M4 18

and core steel and things of that nature. And I hear 19

some other comments. 20

So I’m kind of

-- I kind of initially had 21

said that an EL

- 1 across the board. And so 22

consistent with that movement in that direction, I 23

think I could probably move to an EL one and a half, 24

still not to where the group is, and

-- but a little 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 256

bit on the same vein though, I would ask that you, 1

and your group, would listen to the manufacturers on 2

the liquid filled medium voltage as well. I mean, 3

they’ve spoken, and you

-- you’re asking me to put a 4

lot of weight on what they’re saying. I’m asking 5

you and your group to put some weight on their 6

recommendations on the medium voltage liquid filled 7

as well. Thank you. 8

MR. PARKER: Andrew. 9

MR. DeLASKI: I’m going to talk liquid 10

filled off line with you, Ray. Let’s have this 11

conversation off line. For this one, yeah, Steve, 12

we noticed some of the same changes to the LCC that 13

-- the latest. So, we’re a little puzzled by them, 14

frankly, because what happened relative to the last 15

analysis that we used as th e basis for our 16

conversation on the phone call, is that the LCC got 17

worse for design line 11, and it got better for 18

design line 12. So they moved in opposite 19

directions based on using the 2011 steel prices 20

instead of using the 2010 steel prices. So here we 21

are back to steel prices again. 22

And as I understand it, what’s primarily 23

driving it is base case, because steel prices went 24

down to base case by 30 percent of their ... And you 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 257

just have a different shape to the curve. So this 1

is the 2011 data. The 2010 data is what we based 2

our recommendation on last time. We didn’t have the 3

benefit of this data at the time. I suspect, you 4

know, from some of the comments made by the 5

Department or the consultants earlier, that in the 6

final analysis some sort of av eraging of these 7

prices is going to be necessary and you’re going to 8

end up with results that are not what we’re looking 9

at right here. But it is the proposal. We have the 10

LCC

-- it makes it hard to convert, so

-- yes, 11

doesn’t it. 12

So again, we based our recommendation on 13

the last LCC 2010 prices. If you do an averaging, 14

you’re going to come out

-- a five year moving 15

average, I don’t know if that’s a right number or 16

not, but you’re going to come up with something. 17

That was what we used in 2007. Even another result, 18

I’m comfortable with the manufacturers’ proposal in 19

this case. 20

MR. PARKER: We also have to remember that 21

we’re comparing apples and oranges in the LCC. 22

We’re comparing a computer model and an optimization 23

model done by analysts who are outside the industry 24

to results that we have

-- 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 258

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. I 1

appreciate that. Again, I was looking at this 2

because I heard yesterday, I hope I’m not mistaken, 3

that DOE wanted to use 2011 data for their decision

4

making. 5

M R. DeLASKI: Yeah, and

-- 6

MR. ROSENSTOCK: That’s what I heard, 7

that’s why I’m looking at this

-- this one here 8

today. That’s why. 9

MR. PARKER: Let’s take a short break and 10

reconvene in 15 or 20 minutes. 11

(Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the meeting was 12

of f the record for a 32 minute period, until 11:42 13

a.m.) 14

MR. PARKER: So we have 45 minutes before 15

our scheduled break at 12:30. At 12:30 we will 16

adjourn, approximately, and those that are coming 17

back for the low voltage talks will have an hour and 18

a ha lf for lunch

-- the low voltage talks at two, 19

here. 20

On medium voltage, I think we’ve had a 21

very, very positive and very constructive 22

discussion. I appreciate the hard work on 23

everybody’s part that has joined in this. We have 24

proposals on the table. We have discussed them. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 259

What I’d like to do now is basically direct a straw 1

poll on each of the proposals that have been put 2

forward. 3

Let’s see just where

-- again, this is not 4

a permanent thing. This is not the final

-- the 5

final say. This is just

-- 6

MR. ROSENFELD: Richard, this is Art 7

Rosenfeld. I simply can’t hear you. 8

MR. PARKER: Oh, sorry. This is not the

- 9

- this is not intended as the final word on this. 10

I’ve heard from stakeholders around the table that 11

there are still are some concerns about the current 12

DOE analysis, and there is a sense, I think, on all 13

sides, that the DOE analysis can be refined, based 14

upon input from people here, to come into more align 15

with what we’re hearing from the source of that 16

analysis anyway, which is the tran sformer 17

manufacturers and steel people about what is 18

possible. 19

I also want to emphasize that the 2011 LCC 20

results that you’ve got were not optimized designs, 21

and they were done by an optimization process

-- 22

excuse me

-- a selection process by consultants who 23

are not in the actual industry themselves, so I 24

think wherever there is a conflict between a theory 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 260

and the reality, the reality should prevail. The 1

question is, can we come up with an analysis that 2

reflects that, and I feel pretty confident that we 3

can. 4

At the same time, I know that people came 5

with a certain understanding, certain instructions 6

from their management, and they need to go back to 7

their management and get further authorization 8

before they can move from that. 9

**Final Discussion and Str aw Poll**  10

So, with that in mind, what I’d like to do 11

is starting off with the NEMA proposal, let’s have a 12

show of hands for that. If we could, before we 13

vote, if John Caskey could just in a nutshell, 14

review the proposal one last time so it’s up in 15

everybo dy’s mind, we will hear that and then we will 16

conduct our straw poll. 17

MR. CASKEY: Okay. This is John Caskey, 18

NEMA. I think what I’ve got here is: 19

**•** For design line 9, we’re recommending EL 1.5 20

**•** For design line 10, EL 2.0 21

**•** For design line 11, 2.0 22

**•** For desi gn line 12, 3.0 23

**•** For design line 13, we’re going to work and try 24

and resolve that issue, but for the higher 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 261

BILs, we want basically ten percent more losses 1

allowed than under the DL

- 12. We’re not sure 2

how that relates to an EL level yet. We need 3

to work o n that. 4

MR. PARKER: When you say “higher BILs” do 5

you have a

-- 6

MR. CASKEY: Above 95. 7

MR. PARKER: Above 95. Thank you. 8

MR. CASKEY: So the things that we still 9

need to work on is what I just said about the higher 10

BILs, the single

- phase issue th at is not a direct 11

calculation from

-- or a simple normalization from 12

three

- phase to a single

- phase. We need to provide 13

for the fact that it is more difficult to produce 14

one than the other. And the third area that

-- I 15

think everybody agreed to work on t hat

-- and the 16

third area deals with the smaller KVAs, and 17

particularly in the 15

-- below 300 KVA and look at 18

trying to make sure that we adjust for that because 19

the manufacturers reported that it’s

-- in some 20

areas it’s more difficult to go beyond the EL

- 1. So 21

those are the

-- 22

MR. PARKER: Below 300 KVA is the 23

threshold? 24

MR. CASKEY: Yes. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 262

MR. PARKER: Okay. Any other clarifying 1

question before we go on and vote? 2

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Quick process? Steve 3

Rosenstock, EEI. Are we going to vote on all the 4

design lines as one package, is that the idea, or 5

separate design lines? 6

MR. PARKER: Why don’t we vote on them as 7

a package, I think that would be much simpler, thank 8

you. All in favor? (Counting.) Twelve. Opposed? 9

(Counting) Seven. Abstain? One. 10

MR. CYMBALSKY: Two. I’ll abstain for 11

Art. 12

MR. PARKER: Okay. Two abstain. So, 13

seven no’s, twelve in favor, two abstain. Okay. So 14

I think what we should do, both for medium voltage 15

and for liquid immersed is move forward. 16

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Can we take another straw 17

vote here? 18

MR. PARKER: What’s that? 19

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Can we take other votes 20

here? 21

PARTICIPANT: Two more proposals. 22

MR. PARKER: Yes, sorry, sorry, sorry. 23

Yes. Please. Steve, do you have any proposals. 24

MR. ROSENSTOC K: Well, I

-- Steve 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 263

Rosenstock, EEI. There are two proposals. One for 1

EL

- 1 across the board, and then EL

- 1.5 across the 2

board. That’s what I heard earlier. 3

MR. PARKER: Okay. Ray, would you like to 4

state your proposal? 5

MR. POLINSKI: Ray Polinski, ATI 6

Allegheny. And as I said, for now I’d just like to 7

vote on the first proposal that I went out there, 8

which was EL

- 1 across the board for design lines 9

nine through 13. 10

MR. PARKER: Okay. Thank you. Since we 11

only had two proposals, I had sort of a ssumed that 12

the results of holding a straw poll on the second 13

would be the inverse of the first, but I’m perfectly 14

happy to go through the exercise. 15

MR. PARKER: Okay, Steve? 16

MR. ROSENSTOCK: I’d like to take a straw 17

vote on EL

- 1.5 across the board. 18

MR. PARKER: All in favor? 19

PARTICIPANTS: One point five. 20

MR. PARKER: One point five across the 21

board. All in favor? (Counting.) Seven. Okay. 22

All opposed? Vijay, you’re not on the committee 23

still. (Counting.) Seven. Abstain s ? (Counting .) 24

Eight

. Eight, I keep forgetting Art. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 264

Thank you. Any other proposals? Okay. 1

One of the shortcomings of straw polls is that, or 2

any kind of polls, or any kind of polling process is 3

that they don’t register an intensity of preference, 4

and I do get a sense that there is a lot more 5

flexibility around the table in the medium voltage 6

dry than in the liquid immersed. But I also get a 7

sense that there’s still some flexibility in the 8

liquid on the decision that we had last night after 9

the meeting

-- 10

(Di scussions off mic) 11

**Proposal for Next Step** 12

MR. PARKER: So, what I would propose is 13

that moving forward first we recognize that we are 14

out of time in terms of meetings. We have spent a 15

great deal of time getting the analysis to date, and 16

defined, and get ting to understand it better, and 17

that process continues. I think we can actually 18

enter the phase where plenary meetings are less 19

useful than smaller group meetings, caucuses, that 20

we can do by telephone conference calls, and over 21

the next few weeks, hope fully couple of weeks, as 22

people talk to each other and reflect on their 23

positions and the data continues to emerge and 24

evolve, and the analysis evolves, I am hopeful that 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 265

we can bridge some of the differences, both in 1

liquid immersed and medium voltage th at we’ve 2

encountered so far. 3

And so I think that that might be a useful 4

way to proceed. We have had a good experience so 5

far in this group with telephone conference calls in 6

both the medium voltage and low voltage space

-- 7

calls

-- those were producti ve calls. I suggest we 8

move forward if we don’t have meeting space reserved 9

that we can be physically present. So that’s what I 10

would propose to do. If you all

-- I think we need 11

to

-- we’re all curious about, you know, where DOE 12

is in this process and , you know, I think we’re 13

going to need to explore what

-- where people

-- 14

where stakeholders are, including the Department at 15

this stage, in a ... way, an exploratory way, and hear 16

from everybody about what they can give, what they 17

can’t give, and what pro gress we can make, if any. 18

So, I would propose that we move forward 19

in that way in the next couple of weeks, and then 20

take stock of where we are. Eric. 21

MR. PETERSEN: Eric Petersen, AK Steel. I 22

don’t know if you want me to say this or not, 23

Richard, I ’ll just throw it out. But we have had a 24

change in our position at AK Steel as to how we 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 266

voted yesterday, would you like me to bring that to 1

the table, or you just want to deal with it on the 2

individual basis, considering where everything is 3

at. Obviously , one vote wouldn’t make a change in 4

consensus, but

-- if you’d like me to speak to it, I 5

can tell you how our vote would change from 6

yesterday. 7

MR. PARKER: That would be very helpful. 8

Go ahead. 9

MR. PETERSEN: Okay. Yesterday, we voted 10

that

-- 11

MR . ROSENFELD: Richard, one point

-- this 12

is Art Rosenfeld. I just understood my phone was on 13

mute and I abstained on all three votes, and 14

particularly since nobody could hear me, but just 15

for the record, I abstained. 16

MR. PARKER: Thank you, Art. I thin k John 17

anticipated your position and entered your position 18

on your behalf. 19

MR. ROSENFELD: Thank you. Sorry I messed 20

up. I’ll shut up again. 21

MR. PARKER: Talk whenever you feel like 22

it, Art. You’re most welcomed. Go ahead. 23

MR. PETERSEN: Eric Pet ersen, AK Steel. 24

I’d like to comment that as we had some discussion 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 267

last night in regards to our position and how we 1

voted yesterday. If we were to vote again today, we 2

would change our position, versus on how we voted 3

yesterday, and I think the key that we see is we are 4

interested in identifying an efficiency level at 5

which grain

- oriented electrical steel has an 6

opportunity to compete against amorphous metal, and 7

that there is plenty of opportunity for supply for 8

the transformer manufacturers. That’s th e key point 9

that we are looking for. 10

In trying to find exactly how far we can 11

go, we are very confident that there absolutely is a 12

cliff that you could result into a essentially 13

monopoly position of amorphous metal. So our 14

concern is understanding how f ar you can go until 15

you hit that cliff. Our modeling capability cannot 16

get us there, so we are going to be dependent upon 17

those people that are the experts, that being the 18

transformer manufacturers. The transformer 19

manufacturers, as we communicate with t hem, have 20

communicated to me that they are interested in that 21

same goal, in providing a business model that 22

insures that they have a competitive supply base 23

which insures that steel has an opportunity to 24

produce. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 268

While we recognize that the DOE/Navigant 1

modeling has some issues, this model of liquid 2

immersed is certainly better than what we just 3

talked about because of the efforts that have been 4

made on the transformer manufacturers part. I want 5

to thank the transformer manufacturers for spending 6

that am ount of time. So, in our perspective in 7

trying to understand where we can go, we’re going to 8

depend upon our customers, the ones that are the 9

experts, the transformer manufacturers are the ones 10

that can define, amidst all this modeling, all these 11

technica l issues, where they can build a transformer 12

that insures that there is a good supply amongst the 13

product base. 14

So with that in mind, we would change our 15

vote from what we provided yesterday to move to the 16

NEMA vote, which was the one, zero, one, one, one, 17

recognizing that again, as I stated, they’re the 18

experts, and I think it also provides us an 19

opportunity to improve. It’s not a step backwards. 20

It is a step forward, and also puts a

-- what I 21

call, mitigated safeguard in regards to this 22

refurbishmen t issue. 23

It’s been commented numerous times. I 24

think it has been justified as a question. I agree 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 269

that it has not been justified as an actual reality 1

of where it’s going to go, but it certainly a 2

question, and moving to the NEMA level will allow an 3

o pportunity to increase, provide a stable supply, 4

and not go so far that you have to be concerned 5

whether or not you’re going to, for lack of a better 6

analogy, release the lion and then determine are you 7

going to go find the gun or some way of dealing with 8

it. 9

We have not been able to define that there 10

is a clear methodology of dealing with a means of 11

regulating a refurbishment industry. Without that 12

in place, recognizing the significant diminishment 13

it could handle, I would strongly recommend that we 14

t ake NEMA’s recommendation as it gives time, then, 15

for efforts to be made, of handling a regulatory 16

mechanism by which you can insure that refurbishment 17

does not diminish the efficiency standards and 18

benefits we would gain from a level that is well 19

beyond N EMA’s standard. 20

So that’s the position that we have come 21

to in regards to where we would go. 22

MR. PARKER: Thank you, Eric. Any other 23

comments on this

-- any other comments on the straw 24

poll we took yesterday? Okay, does the premise that 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 270

I have sugges ted make sense to the group with regard 1

to the liquid immersed, first? And secondly with 2

regard to medium voltage dry type? Steve. 3

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. I 4

think what you’re saying does make sense, but if 5

there’s going to be off

- line conversations, to use ... 6

word, let’s just say we’re shifting to e

- mail 7

traffic. I think it would help if, you know, 8

because I think people want to continue the 9

conversation

-- if we could get some guidance in 10

terms of when we decide on some numbers, would it be 11

fair to DOE and the analysts if they have to retype 12

all the numbers based on, say, a negotiated number

- 13

- what would be a fair deadline to get them, say

-- 14

why not just ask for

-- okay, if DOE has to publish 15

something by February 1 st

MR. PARKER: Well, that’s a fair question. 21

I think the best way to an swer that is to recount a 22

conversation that I had with Phil Harter last night, 23

who I’ve been consulting regularly throughout this 24

process, and who invented the concept of negotiated 25 , what’s our real deadline 16

in terms of

-- if you’re going to get numbers here 17

to be fair to the analysts and to DOE in terms of 18

writing up something? In my mind, that would be 19

helpful to all parties. 20Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 271

rulemaking and has done any number of these in the 1

past, ending up success ful. But I said, Phil, we 2

seem to be pretty stuck on liquid immersed. He 3

said, well, how long has it been since you

-- since 4

everybody was at the table and took the first straw 5

poll? And I told him, 30 minutes. So we had taken 6

a long time to get where we are, but we have not 7

yet, you know, I think reached a point where 8

reasonable people would say we can’t make any 9

further progress. In fact, I think based upon the 10

discussions of last night and this morning, we are 11

far from that point. So that’s my prop osed 12

continuing the dialogue. 13

Now, in terms of timing, February 1 st is 14

rapidly approaching. In order for the OMB to get 15

their product reviewed and advanced, they would need 16

something by January 1 st at the latest , as I 17

understand. And the question is, w hat do you do 18

given those time frames? One possibility that I 19

have discussed with Dan Cohen who was on the 20

webinar, is the idea of the Department publishing a 21

NOPR on schedule that would contain all the stuff 22

that a NOPR normally contains, and all of the

-- all 23

the elements of the standard one would need, but 24

would contain, basically, brackets for those areas 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 272

that we have decided, and that we’re saying we will 1

propose these levels, we’re taking comment on them, 2

but we haven’t taken a firm position. 3

Thi s doesn’t mean that the Department will 4

state informally, off

- line, which way they’re 5

leaning. Individuals at the Department won’t, but 6

in terms of the NOPR, it doesn’t have to be a 7

proposed rule. As a professor of administrative 8

law, very familiar with the APA, as is Dan Cohen, 9

we’ve had this discussion. Everyone is comfortable. 10

What the APA calls for is a Notice of Proposed 11

Rulemaking. The idea that you actually fill in a 12

draft rule and file that is a matter of custom. It 13

is not a matter of law. It ’s not required. And so 14

the NOPR can be a document which leaves open blanks 15

which this body will fill. 16

Now, that said, there does still need to 17

be a deadline. Because what is not flexible is the 18

October 1 date for a final rule, and there has to be 19

time for public notice and comment before then. So 20

we can have a protracted process, and will have a 21

protracted process if this drags on into the spring. 22

At the same time, we don’t have to be like deer in 23

the headlights with regard to the February 1 st 24

deadlin e. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 273

That’s my understanding from the 1

Department. John, is that acceptable with the DOE 2

perspective? John is saying yes. So this also 3

raises the question from the standpoint of the 4

advocates in the corner of the deadline, so Andrew 5

has his hand in the a ir, and I will call Andrew to 6

respond to that. 7

MR. DeLASKI: It’s a novel concept. 8

(Laughter.) And I’m not questioning it in terms of 9

law. I know that ... has sometimes proposed rules 10

with multiple options, but restricting blanks 11

strikes me as being out side the scope of Department 12

practice in past years. So I’m concerned about this 13

notion of just blanks. Now options

-- 14

MR. PARKER: No, no. I’m sorry. I did 15

not mean

-- when I said brackets, I didn’t meet to 16

populate those brackets with blanks, I mea nt to 17

populate them with multiple options, yes. 18

MR. DeLASKI: And I see scaling as well, 19

so I think this is something that we’re going to 20

take under consideration. The Department issues a 21

proposed rule, an opportunity for public comment on 22

that proposed rule. The problem with one, we’re not 23

the whole world at this table. There are other 24

comments or proposals, and there’s a schedule and a 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 274

timeframe for that in the process that’s as 1

important as well. So we’ll take it under 2

consideration, but it’s not s omething we’re prepared 3

to sign off on as a process question, I think, 4

sitting here today. It’s new

-- it’s a brand new 5

idea. 6

MR. PARKER: Tim, did you want to comment? 7

MR. BALLO: Sure, the idea of brackets

-- 8

I guess I don’t see the harm in proposin g a standard 9

that reflects the Department’s actual thinking at 10

this point, and then the door is always open to 11

modify that, you know, in the future, based on the 12

comments received . So I don’t see why this NOPR 13

would have to be different from regular pract ice. 14

Also, at least with regard to the low 15

voltage dries, the APA is not the only criteria that 16

applies. There’s the six year provision in APCA 17

(ph) provides that the Department must issue a 18

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including new 19

proposed standa rds. So I think at least for the low 20

voltage dries, you do have to propose something 21

specific. 22

As far as the court case and

-- 23

MR. PARKER: Tim, the low voltage dries is 24

not even subject to the law suit, so

-- 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 275

MR. BALLO: Yeah, but

-- anyway. AS fa r 1

as the February 1 st

If others see things differently, I’m 10

ready to discuss the possibility of further 11

extension. I can’t say that I would agree for it. 12 deadline, I think our interest is

2

primarily in getting something out as a proposal, 3

and I don’t see that as a roadblock to any consensus 4

process that would develop, or joint comments that 5

would endorse something that all or most of th e 6

parties involved agree on. I don’t think that a 7

proposed rule would foreclose adoption of a final 8

rule reflective of what we could agree on. 9

MR. PARKER: I’m not sure that we have to 13

decide here today what the deadline is, or how a 14

February 1 st

Another option would be for the Department 20

just to issue their NOPR with the brackets filled 21

in. It has the effect of heavily entrenching 22

positions, but i t is a notice and it is subject to 23

further comment, and it can be changed. So it 24

doesn’t lock anybody in. So that would be another 25 NOPR would be worded. I’m not sure it’s 15

our interest to try to micromanage the future that 16

way. I offered that as an option, as a sort of 17

worst case option, should that become necessary, and 18

should it be deemed desirable. 19Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 276

option. And I don’t think we necessarily have to, 1

today, choose between those options. 2

The point that I was simply tryi ng to make 3

was that there are a variety of ways that we could 4

handle the February 1 st

MR. DeLASKI: Just to follow on. I mean 7

the parties to the suit are

-- or at least so me of 8

the leads to the suit

-- the parties to the suit are 9

around the table, so it strikes me that if there is 10

a consensus that emerges between now and hopefully 11

relatively soon, the sooner the better

-- but if a 12

consensus emerges, then I think flexibility along 13

the dates could be more likely. So the two things 14

are linked. It isn’t like we’re talking about ... the 15

law suit is not ... outside this room. So if we’re 16

not making progress, then I think the interest in 17

extending the deadline is

-- goes away. We’v e got 18

to keep on for further process. 19 deadline that would allow us

5

to continue our talks beyond today. That was my

-- 6

MR. PARKER: And Andrew points to a third 20

option, which is that if we are making progress, and 21

if there is a view that more time would be 22

necessary, that an option would be to go to the 23

court and provide another 30 d ays or whatever he 24

thinks is appropriate, based on what it is the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 277

process ... up there. So we have not one but three 1

different ways of handling

-- of answering Steve 2

Rosenstock’s concern. 3

MR. CYMBALSKY: Hi, John Cymbalsky, DOE. 4

I just want to

-- what Ri chard mentioned is an 5

option and no decision on how the NOPR will be 6

written has been made at this time. It’s just an 7

option that’s been used in other agencies. Andrew 8

is correct, we, as far as I know, have never used 9

sort of pure all the TSL levels. We haven’t picked 10

one yet. We haven’t done that before. It’s been 11

done in other agencies, as far as I am aware. No 12

final decision by the Department has been made on 13

how we’re going to write the NOPR at this time. 14

MR. PARKER: Any other comments on that? 15

So is there agreement to keep talking in good faith, 16

and not just talking, but negotiating and moving in 17

a somewhat different format, but hopefully with a 18

clear purpose and still with ex... timeframe? All in 19

favor? Opposed? Well, we’ve reached consensus on 20

one thing. Great. With that, you all deserve 21

lunch. Let’s break at 12:15. 22

For the people who are leaving us today, 23

thank you so much for your involvement in this 24

process, and it’s been a very, very helpful and 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 278

productive journey. We still have a ways to go, but 1

I’m hopeful that with good faith and hard work, we 2

can get there. 3

MR. BALLO: Richard, I would just ask, 4

would folks find it helpful to tentatively schedule 5

another call in a couple of weeks to check in on ... 6

MR. PARKER: That might be a good idea. 7

I’m not sure that

-- I guess my instinct was to sort 8

of let’s caucus and let’s talk to people 9

individually and see how things are going and at 10

what speed. Calls may be set much more easily than 11

me

-- 12

MR. BALLO: Around the holidays

-- 13

MR. PARKER: That may be true. I’m open 14

to the idea of scheduling a call if people want to 15

do that. You’re talking about a plenary call now, 16

right? For the entire group? Anybody have a 17

calendar with them? 18

(Discussion off mic) 19

MR. PARKER: Great. Let’s see. What 20

about eleven o’clock on the 14 th

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Yes? 23 ? I’ll just throw a 21

number out at random. 22

MR. PARKER: What’s that? 24

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Are you asking for yes 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 279

votes for that time period? 1

MR. PARKER: Eleven o’clock on the 14 th

MR. CASKEY: I can’t

-- 4 , 2

yes. All in favor. 3

MR. PARKER: Anybody can’t make that? You 5

cannot make that. John, can you propose an 6

alternative? 7

MR. CYMBALSKY: I’m looking for my

-- 8

MR. PARKER: No, I’m looking to John 9

Caskey, sorry. He said he couldn’t make it. 10

MR. CASKEY: That’s two weeks from 11

yesterday? 12

MR. PARKER: Right. Again, I think we 13

should approach this with the idea that this is 14

notional, the time, because I think what’s more 15

important is to

-- is to stage a plenary call at a 16

ti me when we really, you know, are at a stage where 17

people may have come together in their minds with 18

small group meetings. So I had some reservations 19

about locking us into a time, but I can see the 20

attraction on the other hand, to try to keep the 21

train mov ing. 22

PARTICIPANT: A place holder. 23

MR. PARKER: Yeah. John Caskey, did you 24

have a

-- is there another time on the 14 th or is the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 280

whole day

-- 1

MR. CASKEY: The whole day is out. And 2

even for the 15 th

MR. PARKER: Okay. 6 , I’ve got other like management 3

meetings, but I don’t have the agenda yet to know 4

what time I would need to be in them. 5

MR. CASKEY: But Jim can fill in for me. 7

Jim is my substitute if for some reason I can’t make 8

it. Jim Creevy. 9

MR. DeLASKI: I would suggest to go to the 10

fo llowing week, on Monday or Tuesday. 11

MR. PETERSEN: Eric. 12

MR. PETERSEN: I guess my point is we 13

talked about Wednesday through Friday months ago as 14

tentative, and I’ve got those dates available. I 15

guess my recommendation would be to go with those 16

three days as we identified those some time ago. 17

Either one of them, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday 18

is good by me. 19

MR. DeLASKI: I’m out Thursday, Friday. 20

Not out, I’ve got other commitments. 21

MR. PARKER: What about Wednesday

-- I’m 22

sorry my calendar is no t on here

-- what date is 23

Wednesday? 24

PARTICIPANT: Fourteenth. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 281

MR. CASKEY: I can’t do it. Jim, can you 1

cover for me? 2

MR. PARKER: Okay. So Jim can join us on 3

the 14 th , then? Okay. Time. Eleven o’clock goes 4

into the lunch hour and it might go a little more 5

than an hour, shall we say ten o’clock on the 14 th

MR. DeLASKI: Yes, west coasters

-- so one 7

o’clock? One o’clock on the 14 ? 6

th

MR. DeLASKI: I can’t do that. 9 . 8

(General discussion on time.) 10

MR. PARKER: Okay. Eleven to one on the 11

14 th

MR. SMITH: Richard, Bob Smith, Federal 13

Pacific. Before we adjourn, may I ask you a 14

question? 15 . 12

MR. PARKER: Sure. 16

MR. SMITH: You made an interesting 17

comment a while back, stating that while the votes 18

for the medium voltage dry type were somewhat 19

s imilar that we saw in the medium voltage liquid 20

meeting, that the intention of the DOE of trying to 21

come together was much closer with the medium 22

voltage dry types. And I am wondering if it would 23

be possible for you or another appropriate person to 24

visit with the people who voted no and ask them 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 282

under what conditions would they change their vote 1

to a yes. That those conditions may be better 2

information from Navigant. It may be that M4 has to 3

be a viable steel for all of the efficiency levels, 4

but if you or the appropriate person could do that 5

with those that are voting no, I think that would 6

help us get our issues resolved much quicker. 7

MR. PARKER: Thank you, Bob, that’s why 8

they gave me the small bucks. Yes, I plan to do 9

that. 10

MR. SMITH: That woul d be great. If you 11

could share with the rest of us that are supporting 12

the NEMA proposal, that would be terrific. 13

MR. PARKER: Thanks, Bob. Anything else 14

before we adjourn? For those leaving us, bon 15

voyage, and thanks. For those rejoining us for low 16

voltage, in the afternoon, we’ll reconvene here at 17

two. Enjoy your lunch. 18

(Whereupon, at 12 : 18 p.m., the meet ing in 19

the above captioned matter was adjourned .) 20

21

22

23

24

25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 283

**REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE**

This is to certify that the attached proceedings

before:

**U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY**

In the Matter of:

**MEETING of the**  **MV WORKING GROUP** 

Were held as herein appears and that this is the

original transcript thereof for the file of the

Department, Commission, Board, Administrative Law

Judge or the Agency.

Further, I am neither counsel for or related to

any party to the above proceedings.

Official Reporter 

### Wendy Greene

Dated: December 6, 2011