From: Hirsch, Bruce R [mailto:Bruce.R.Hirsch@bge.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 11:12 AM 

To: 'Millure, Dave'; Kenneth Winder; Rosenstock, Steven 

Cc: Richard Parker; Corkran, Jerry L; Caitlin Johnson; rick.anderson@faypwc.com; 

tballo@earthjustice.org; ScottB@lvmetals.com; john.caskey@nema.org; john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; 

adelaski@standardsasap.org; Teckman@nwcouncil.org; gbf1@pge.com; carlos.gaytan@ge.com; 

rgreeson@federalpacific.com; mhyland@appanet.org; snadel@aceee.org; wes.patterson@us.abb.com; 

Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com; rroy@nrdc.org; robert.saint@nreca.coop; 

chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; mark.stoering@xcelenergy.com; cabolduc@lbl.gov; kcoughlin@lbl.gov; 

Brian Coffey; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov; Michael Rivest; Jerry Hodge; jrossetti@mlgw.org; 

Jim.creevy@nema.org; Meyers, Aaron; Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; jmauer@standardsasap.org; 

greg.coulter405@gmail.com; bsmith@federalpacific.com; pkumar@publicpower.org; Trujillo, Antonio; Phil 

Hopkinson; ahofmann@publicpower.org; BermanEconomics@gmail.com; Ryan, Paul; 

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; mwaltner@nrdc.org; chad.kennedy@us.schneider-electric.com; 

eduardorobles@eaton.com; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; 

thomas.patzner@us.schneider-electric.com; Marusinec, Richard M; Schneider, Jeffrey A; Loomans, 

Michael T; Poole, Raymond L; Moore, Jack C; Smith, Jennifer 

Subject: RE: Distribution Transformers Committee requested areas for the DOE to Investigate before 

final rules are selected. 

Dave,

Hopefully Kenneth will get back to you with your request for more details.  

My understanding was that his comments on transformer failures are based solely on the experienced

failure rates of amorphous core transformers vs. silicon steel core units. He evidently has a number of

the amorphous core units installed on his system giving him a good opportunity to compare failure

rates. We understand that this conclusion is valid only if the entire population has seen the same service

experiences. It is great, however, that we have some experience to guide us.  

As for pole issues, weight is indeed a concern for utilities. In the Baltimore area, we find our poles

heavily loaded with facilities from other utilities (phone, cable TV , etc.) thus any change in weight of the

transformer being replaced may cause us to have to increase the pole size to handle the load. As you

can imagine this drives up the cost tremendously for our customers.  

Equally important is the size of the transformer. We are bound by strict clearance requirements for

safety reasons and as such often find ourselves having to increase height of the pole to meet those

requirements. This is especially a problem in areas where other utilities are on our poles and will only

getting worse with the push to allow antennas on our poles.  

I will try to get some information on the number of required pole change‐outs since the July 1, 2010 law

went into effect due to transformer weight and/or size (excluding increases in the kVA rating). Maybe

some of the other utilities on this distribution list have some numbers they can share.  

                                                                                                                                                                Bruce

From: Millure, Dave [mailto:Dave.Millure@metglas.com] 

Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 12:19 PM 

To: Kenneth Winder; Rosenstock, Steven 

Cc: Richard Parker; Corkran, Jerry L; Caitlin Johnson; rick.anderson@faypwc.com; 
tballo@earthjustice.org; ScottB@lvmetals.com; john.caskey@nema.org; john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; 

adelaski@standardsasap.org; Teckman@nwcouncil.org; gbf1@pge.com; carlos.gaytan@ge.com; 

rgreeson@federalpacific.com; Hirsch, Bruce R; mhyland@appanet.org; snadel@aceee.org; 

wes.patterson@us.abb.com; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com; 

rroy@nrdc.org; robert.saint@nreca.coop; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; mark.stoering@xcelenergy.com; 

cabolduc@lbl.gov; kcoughlin@lbl.gov; Brian Coffey; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov; Michael Rivest; Jerry Hodge; 

jrossetti@mlgw.org; Jim.creevy@nema.org; Meyers, Aaron; Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; 

jmauer@standardsasap.org; greg.coulter405@gmail.com; bsmith@federalpacific.com; 

pkumar@publicpower.org; Trujillo, Antonio; Phil Hopkinson; ahofmann@publicpower.org; 

BermanEconomics@gmail.com; Ryan, Paul; jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; mwaltner@nrdc.org; 

chad.kennedy@us.schneider-electric.com; eduardorobles@eaton.com; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; 

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; thomas.patzner@us.schneider-electric.com; Marusinec, Richard M; 

Schneider, Jeffrey A; Loomans, Michael T; Poole, Raymond L; Moore, Jack C; Smith, Jennifer 

Subject: RE: Distribution Transformers Committee requested areas for the DOE to Investigate before 

final rules are selected. 

Dear Mr. Winder

Comments about the effects of transformer loading on a distribution pole:  We look forward to

seeing the basis for your statements below concerning pole loading.

Comments about Amorphous core transformers: As for your brief comments that attempt to cast

doubt on durability of amorphous‐core transformers, please be advised that there are over 2 million

amorphous distribution transformers installed worldwide and popularity is increasing.   I assume that

you are saying that you have test data before installation and identically‐measured test data on the

same units  after some time in service or in storage.  Your claims are counter to our experience, and I

believe that if you are to make such claims about higher “failure” rates, it is incumbent upon Moon Lake

Electric to disclose those data and we look forward to seeing them.  Amorphous cores have been tested

in both field tests and in accelerated aging tests and the conclusion is that core loss will not increase

over the lifetime of any transformer with the accelerated aging predicting no core loss increase for

hundreds of years.  Again, we look forward to seeing details of your analysis including a comparable

“steel‐core” analysis and a definition of what you term as “failure.”

Best regards

Dave Millure

Metglas Inc. (most likely provider of the amorphous metal for your 1,700 amorphous transformers)

From: Kenneth Winder [mailto:kwinder@mleainc.com] 

Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 7:36 PM 

To: Rosenstock, Steven 

Cc: Richard Parker; Corkran, Jerry L; Caitlin Johnson; rick.anderson@faypwc.com; 

tballo@earthjustice.org; ScottB@lvmetals.com; john.caskey@nema.org; john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; 

adelaski@standardsasap.org; Teckman@nwcouncil.org; gbf1@pge.com; carlos.gaytan@ge.com; 

rgreeson@federalpacific.com; bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com; mhyland@appanet.org; Millure, Dave; 

snadel@aceee.org; wes.patterson@us.abb.com; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; 

Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com; rroy@nrdc.org; robert.saint@nreca.coop; 

chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; mark.stoering@xcelenergy.com; cabolduc@lbl.gov; kcoughlin@lbl.gov; 

Brian Coffey; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov; Michael Rivest; Jerry Hodge; jrossetti@mlgw.org; 
Jim.creevy@nema.org; Meyers, Aaron; Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; jmauer@standardsasap.org; 

greg.coulter405@gmail.com; bsmith@federalpacific.com; pkumar@publicpower.org; Trujillo, Antonio; Phil 

Hopkinson; ahofmann@publicpower.org; BermanEconomics@gmail.com; Ryan, Paul; 

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; mwaltner@nrdc.org; chad.kennedy@us.schneider-electric.com; 

eduardorobles@eaton.com; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; 

thomas.patzner@us.schneider-electric.com; Marusinec, Richard M; Schneider, Jeffrey A; Loomans, 

Michael T; Poole, Raymond L; Moore, Jack C; Smith, Jennifer 

Subject: Re: Distribution Transformers Committee requested areas for the DOE to Investigate before 

final rules are selected. 

On 9/22/2011 5:11 PM, Kenneth Winder wrote: 

Mr. Parker and others, 

Below are comments for the modeling, studies and considerations to help in this negotiated 

Rulemaking process. 

Comments about the effects of transformer loading on a distribution pole: A statement of 

record was made in the September Rulemaking Committee meeting that vertical weight on a pole 

(from a transformer) can be ignored. 

I believe this is incorrect and have found some engineering data and calculations concerning the 

effects of the application of transformers as a transverse and vertical load on a pole. It sets forth 

the calculation methods of the forces involved and eventually arrives at allowable loads that can 

be attached to a distribution pole of various heights and classes. The work shown and 

conclusions reached in that paper need to be modified to represent an amorphous core 

transformer since that type of transformer is larger physically and is offset further from the pole 

than the calculations found, they need to be recalculated for the amorphous transformer 

application. 

I believe this information should become part of the public record. I need to look further into 

any copyright on the information before it can be sent to the group. 

Comments about Amorphous core transformers: We have reviewed the failure of pole-mounted 

amorphous core transformers over a twenty year period for our utility. We purchased over 1,700 

of them during the early to mid-1990's. We have looked at the amorphous transformers 

purchased compared to those that are still in service (includes those that are on the warehouse 

docks and in the field). We have tried to similarly compare the same for steel-core transformers. 

Failure rates appear to differ significantly (higher for Amorphous core units). Is this represented 

properly in the DOE/Navigant model? 

Kenneth A. Winder 

Moon Lake Electric Assn., Inc. 
EXPORT COMPLIANCE NOTICE: This email and any attachments may contain technical data 

subject to U.S export restrictions under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) or 

the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). Export or transfer of this technical data and/or 

related information to any foreign person(s) or entity(ies), either within the U.S. or outside of the 

U.S., may require advance export authorization by the appropriate U.S. Government agency 

prior to export or transfer. In addition, technical data may not be exported or transferred to 

certain countries or specified designated nationals identified by U.S. embargo controls without 

prior export authorization. By accepting this email and any attachments, all recipients confirm 

that they understand and will comply with all applicable ITAR, EAR and embargo compliance 

requirements. 

>>> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential, may contain legal, professional or other 

privileged information, and are intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended 

recipient, do not use the information in this e-mail in any way, delete this e-mail and notify the 

sender. CEG-IP1