From: Meyers, Aaron [mailto:Aaron.Meyers@CooperIndustries.com]

Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 12:09 PM

To: Steve Nadel; Bruce R Hirsch; Robert Berman; Jerry Hodge; John Caskey

Cc: Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; Maxine (EMAB) Savitz;

mhyland@appanet.org; Raymond.Polinski@ATIm etals.com; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net;

tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com; dbrender@cda.copper.org; Jame s.Lass@cleco.com;

chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com; frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com;

ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com; Trujillo, Anto nio; Moore, Jack C; Corkran, Jerry L;

tballo@earthjustice.org; carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; eduardorobles@eaton.com; Emily (CONTR)

Marchetti; Jeremiah (CONTR) Freeman; Jim Raba; John Cymbalsky; srosenstock@eei.org;

DYoung@energy-solution.com; rick.anderson@ faypwc.com; bsmith@federalpacific.com;

rgreeson@federalpacific.com; carlos.gay tan@ge.com; artrosenfeld@gmail.com;

greg.coulter405@gmail.com; ned.efbrush@gmail.com; Richard Parker; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com; Daniel

Cohen; Phil Hopkinson; cabolduc@lbl.gov; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov; kcoughlin@lbl.gov;

ScottB@LVMetals.com; dave.millure@metglas.com; kw inder@mleainc.com; jrossetti@mlgw.org; Brian

Coffey; Caitlin Johnson; Matthew Nardotti; Michael Ri vest; Zhimei Luo; Jim Creevy; mwaltner@nrdc.org;

rroy@nrdc.org; robert.saint@nreca.coop; Teckman@ nwcouncil.org; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com;

gbf1@pge.com; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; ahofma nn@publicpower.org; pkumar@publicpower.org;

adelaski@standardsASAP.org; jmauer@stand ardsasap.org; wes.pa tterson@us.abb.com;

chad.kennedy@us.schneider-electric.com; thomas.pat zner@us.schneider-electric.com; charlied@uus.org

Subject: Electric Vehicle Projections

Dear Distribution Transformer Efficiency Subcommittee, et al,

The following link is to an article published by the NEMA Intelligence Portal and provides some insight

into the projected impact of electric vehicles:

http://portal.nema.org/Pages/d ocument.aspx?docId=3156&LoadSour ce=LexisNexis&utm_medium=ema

il&utm_campaign=digest_2011

‐ 11

‐ 17&utm_source=aaron.meyers@cooperindustries.com

Most interestingly, by 2025, one in seven new cars is projected to be a zero

‐ emission or plug

‐ in hybrid

vehicle, and 1.4 million are projected to be on the road in California alone by 2025. I don’t see how we

can ignore the impact of this significant change. Meeting the cha rging needs will dramatically chan ge

the loading assumptions in the current analysis. As someone pointed out at the October meeting, the

reference loading level (50%) is part of the testing standard and is not on the table for negotiating

purposes, so this is just another non

‐ trivial factor that must be considered outs ide of the exi sting

analysis results.

Keep in mind that for two transformers having the same efficiency at 50% load, the amorphous one will

be more efficient at low loading levels whereas the grain

‐ oriented one will be more efficient at higher

loading levels. Looking at Cooper’s data, the ra tio of no

‐ load to lo ad losses at 100% load on a typical

DOE compliant grain

‐ oriented transformer today is 6:1, and on a Cooper amorphous unit it’s about

10:1. To make an analogy, if no

‐ load losses were a slice of pie, the load losses would be the rest of the

entire pie! Lo ad losses are a huge lever and ca nnot be tossed aside as if merely a nuisance! Most of the

discussion thus far has been squarely focused on no

‐ load losses. We need to make sure we aren’t

spending four dollars to save fifty cents.

Best Re gards,

Aaron