From: Simmons, Chuck [mailto:Chuck.Simmons@pgnmail.com]

Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 2:44 PM

To: 'Robert Berman'; 'Hirsch, Bruce R'

Cc: 'Steve Nadel'; 'Phil Hopkinson'; 'Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com'; 'jerry.schoen@aksteel.com'; 'Maxine

(EMAB) Savitz'; 'mhyland@appanet.org'; 'Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com';

'maheshsampat@bellsouth.net'; 'tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com'; 'dbrender@cda.copper.org';

'James.Lass@cleco.com'; 'chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com'; 'frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com';

'ted.johnstone@cog entpowerinc.com'; 'Aaron Meyers'; 'Antonio Trujillo'; 'Jack C Moore'; 'Jerry L

Corkran'; 'tballo@earthjustice.org'; 'carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com'; 'eduardorobles@eaton.com'; 'Emily

(CONTR) Marchetti'; 'Jere miah (CONTR) Freeman'; 'Jim Raba'; 'John Cymbalsky'; 'srosenstock@eei.org';

'DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com'; 'rick.anderson@faypwc.com'; 'bsmith@federalpacific.com';

'rgreeson@federalpacific.com'; 'carlos.gaytan@ge.com'; 'artrosenfeld@gmail.com';

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

'jhodge@howard.com'; 'Daniel Cohen'; 'cabolduc@lbl.gov'; 'gjrosenquist@lbl.gov'; 'kcoughlin@lbl.gov';

'ScottB@LVMetals.com'; 'dave.millure@metglas.com'; 'kwinder@mleainc.com'; 'jrossetti@mlgw.org';

Brian Coffey; Caitlin Johnson; Matthew Nardotti; Michael Rivest; Zhimei Luo; 'Jim.creevy@nema.org';

'john.caskey@nema.org'; 'mwaltner@nrdc.org'; 'rroy@nrdc.org'; 'robert.saint@nreca.coop';

'Teckman@nwcouncil.org'; 'vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com'; 'gbf1@pge.com';

'ahofmann@publicpower.org'; 'pku mar@publicpower.org'; 'adelaski@standardsASAP.org';

'jmauer@standardsasap.org'; 'wes.patterson@us.abb.com'; 'chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com';

'thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com'; 'charlied@uus.org'

Subject: RE: Negotiated Rulemaking

‐ Distribution Transformers Teleconference

Robert:

The perspective of Users is that the first

‐ time, up

‐ front costs of (slightly) more efficient distribution

transformers will result in consumers paying much more for electric service. Even though the “model”

predicts some typ e of LCC savings over extremely long periods of time, I am very doubtful that the

American public will ever realize any of these savings. The current efficiency requirements that the DOE

implemented on 1/1/2010 already force very efficient transformers (as Steve Rosenstock’s email to

Steve Nadel of earlier today showed, the DOE required signifi cantly higher efficiencies in the Final Ruling

than the NOPR indicated). Squeezing a few more Watts at a significantly higher transformer cost does

not make any sense.

As far as the ABB data, you need to consider that this data is from one vendor that controls a part of th e

overall market. If all distribution transformer vendors had to supply transformers with an EL4 efficiency

in an environment similar to that of 2004

‐ 2007, then we will most assuredly run out of product unless

we can repair enough older transformers to fill the need. Core steel was being ra tioned during 2004

‐

2007 because of the severe demand for transformers (large, medium, small and distribution class

transformers all rely on M3 grade core steel to a large extent

– and will do so even more if the efficiency

levels are increased). We, as Users, had a hard time purchasing enough distribution transformers to fill

our customer’s needs during the 2004

‐ 2007 time period. Anyone that tries to make the rationale that

just be cause ABB made transformers with M3 core steel that met the EL4 efficiency level and therefore,

all distribution transformers should be required to do the same isn’t getting the “big picture”. If all

transformer manufacturers have to use M2, M3 and/or amorphous core steel to meet an EL4 effi ciency

level, the reliability of the US electric system is going to go right into the dirt.We as Users want to reach some type of consensus on whether any change in efficiency levels are

necessary, and if so, what should they be. However, we have to represent our customers who we are

charged with providing reliable and reasonably priced electric service and efficiency levels of EL4 will not

allow us to do so.

Regards,

Chuck Simmons, P.E.

Distribution Standards

Progress Energy

Voice Net: 745

‐ 6033

Bell: 919

‐ 662

‐ 6033

From: Robert Berman [ mailto:bermaneconomics@gmail.com ]

Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 1:19 PM

To: Hirsch, Bruce R

Cc: 'Steve Nadel'; Robert Berman; Phil Hopkinson; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com ;

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com ; Maxine (EMAB) Savitz; mhyland@appanet.org ;

Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com ; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net ; tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com ;

dbrender@cda.copper.org ; James.Lass@cleco.com ; chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com ;

frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com ; ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com ; Aaron Meyers; Antonio

Trujillo; Jack C Moore; Jerry L Corkran; 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.gaytan@ge.com ;

artrosenfeld@gmail.com ; greg.coulter405@gmail.com ; ned.efbrush@gmail.com ; Richard Parker;

Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com ; jhodge@howard.com ; Daniel Cohen; cabolduc@lbl.gov ; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov ;

kcoughlin@lbl.gov ; ScottB@LVMetals.com ; dave.millure@metglas.com ; kwinder@mleainc.com ;

jrossetti@mlgw.org ; brian.coffey@navigant.com ; caitlin.johnson@navigant.com ;

matthew.nardotti@navigant.com ; mrivest@navigant.com ; zhimei.luo@navigant.com ;

Jim.creevy@nema.org ; john.caskey@nema.org ; mwaltner@nrdc.org ; rroy@nrdc.org ;

robert.saint@nreca.coop ; Teckman@nwcouncil.org ; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com ; gbf1@pge.com ;

Simmons, Chuck; ahofmann@publicpower.org ; pkumar@publicpower.org ;

adelaski@standardsASAP.org ; jmauer@standardsasap.org ; wes.patterson@us.abb.com ;

chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com ; thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com ;

charlied@uus.org

Subject: Re: Negotiated Rulemaking

‐ Distribution Transformers Teleconference

Bruce,

Those upfront transformer costs are compared to the fuel cost savings in the LCC approach. The

discounting process values fuel cost saving in the future at less than the costs incurred today. The

positive LCC means that that the efficiency advocates are not ignoring costs, bu t comparing them with

benefits and finding that the consumer is better off and will be paying less. One does not, however,

need to rely on the LBL analysis to see this. The ABB sales data shows M3 transformers being delivered

at EL4 efficiency. As a modeler, I am always skeptical of model results

‐‐ people do not live in computers

and certainly not on in some of the back

‐ of

‐ the

‐ envelope calculations that we have seen from others.

Market sales data, however, is quite real. In this case it unambiguously says that the transformers at EL4are an economically reasonable choice

‐‐ the market has, in fact, selected that choice on multiple

occasions.

To the extent that there are dug

‐ in positions, again the evidence does not support that it is the

efficiency advocates that are dug

‐ in. Although EL4 is achievable and beneficial based both on market

data and LBL analyses, the proponents of greater efficiency indi cated a willingness to compromise. It is

certain representatives of the industry who have consistently said either no change, or a fractional

change. It is those industry representatives who appear to be advancing the "my position or nothing"

attitude. Although I happ en to agree that substantial movement towards more efficient distribution

systems, I also note that these are incredibly expensive meetings. We have a large number of very

senior people devoting substantial time to the meetings, their preparation and non

‐ trivial travel costs.

These people have other things competing for their time. If you and others hon estly believe that you

cannot agree to a higher standard, and place no value on regulatory certainty, then let's not waste

additional time and money. Let's just say that we gave it a good shot, cut our losses here, and make our

respective cases to DOE outside the ne gotiation process and let DOE make it's own decision. I believe

that they certainly have sufficient information to support their position in a February NOPR. I can't

imagine what else they would need.

Regards,

Robert A. Berman, Principal

Berman Economics

www.BermanEconomics.com

1915 Grand Court

Vienna, VA 22182

703

‐ 281

‐ 0490

703

‐ 655

‐ 8398 (cell)

BermanEconomics@gmail.com

On Nov 14, 2011, at 11:49 AM, Hirsch, Bruce R wrote:

Steve,

I am disappointed with your approach to this assignment.

It appears that negotiation to you is defined as agreeing with your position

‐‐‐ or calling it off. It is

unfortunate that you believe the American public, especially in these tryin g economic times, should be

expected to foot the (very large) bill for more efficient transformers when it is still not certain that there

is value in doing so. You have clung to one suspect calculation that indicates there may be a payback

‐‐‐

in the distant future

‐‐‐ and only if all th e assumptions being made pan out. You choose to ignore the

costs, not yet factored in, on US jobs, US businesses and the reliability of supply of an item so

desperately needed for our economy to expand.

This is not a “cut and dried” economic decision but is one that need s to be taken seriously for the major

impact it could have on the electric supply of the US and the financial position of the American public. IfDOE makes the final decision on this, I would expect them to do “due diligence” in considering all the

effects there decision would have on US businesses and the US economy.

Let it be known that the Utility Industry has not pulled out of the negotiation process and will continue

to work with DOE to reach the ri ght decision.

Bruce.

From: Steve Nadel [ mailto:snadel@aceee.org ]

Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 2:16 PM

To: Robert Berman; Phil Hopkinson

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

Savitz; mhyland@appanet.org ; Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com ; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net ;

Hirsch, Bruce

R; tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com ; dbrender@cda.copper.org ; James.Lass@cleco.com ; chris.brown@cogent

powerinc.com ; frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com ; ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com ; Aaron

Meyers; Antonio Trujillo; Jack C Moore; Jerry L

Corkran; 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 ; c

arlos.gaytan@ge.com ; artrosenfeld@gmail.com ; greg.coulter405@gmail.com ; ned.efbrush@gmail.com ;

Richard Parker; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com ; jhodge@howard.com ; Daniel

Cohen; cabolduc@lbl.gov ; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov ; kcoughlin@lbl.gov ; ScottB@LVMetals.com ; dave.millur

e@metglas.com ; kwinder@mleainc.com ; jrossetti@mlgw.org ; brian.coffey@navigant.com ; caitlin.johnso

n@navigant.com ; matthew.nardotti@navigant.com ; mrivest@navigant.com ; zhimei.luo@navigant.com ;

Jim.creevy@nema.org ; john.caskey@nema.org ; mwaltner@nrdc.org ; rroy@nrdc.org ; robert.saint@nrec

a.coop ; Teckman@nwcouncil.org ; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com ; gbf1@pge.com ; chuck.simmons@p

gnmail.com ; ahofmann@publicpower.org ; pkumar@publicpower.org ; adelaski@standardsASAP.org ; jma

uer@standardsasap.org ; wes.patterson@us.abb.com ; chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐

electric.com ; thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com ; charlied@uus.org

Subject: RE: Negotiated Rulemaking

‐ Distribution Transformers Teleconference

Phil,

We're in the middle of negotiations and some of us have made clear that no or little change to the

standard is not acceptable as the DOE analysis justifies higher standards (higher levels are technically

feasible and cost

‐ effective on a life

‐ cycle cost basis). The efficiency groups would rather leav e the

decision to DOE than agree to subpar standards. If you and other participants want to veto any

significant change in the standard, then we might as well save some time, break off negotiations and

just make our respective arguments to DOE. Is that wh at you want to do? If the answer is no, then let's

start talking about how to make higher standards acceptable rather than continue to make arguments

about why low standards are needed. We're all busy and if we're going to make progress we need to

break new gr ound and not rehash old ground.

Steve

>>> Phil Hopkinson < phopkinson@hvolt.com > 11/11/2011 1:16 PM >>>Hello Robert and all:

You must not have looked at Jerry Corkran’s message because he found the cost to be $17/watt, which

is pretty close to my number, where both Jerry and I have used M3 core steel to derive the cost curve.

The fact is that the cost curve is very steep with M3 an d quickly hits the brick wall.

1. I have checked Carlos Gaytan’s cost curves as well and he is finding about the same relationship

with M3.

2. I have checked Wes Patterson’s data as well and he is finding an M3 cost curve about the same as

mine.

3. I have checked the OPS data with M3 as well and it too is very close to $20/watt.

a. For example, for design line 1 they show an efficiency at 50% load of 99.08% which translates to

232 watts of loss and sells for $1,960.73.

b. They show another M3 desig n with an efficiency of 99.26% which translates to 186 watts of loss

and sells for $2962.11.

c. The change in selling price is $2,962.11

‐ $1,906.11 or +$1,001.38

d. The change in watts is 232

‐ 186 or ‐ 46 watts.

e. The OPS $/watt is therefore, $1,001.38/46 watts or $21.77

f. Hence we see that all data sources are pointing to cost per watt of ~$20 /watt saved to go from

the current mandatory standard to EL1. I get $30/watt to go to EL2 and $53/watt to go to EL3

4. The fact is that M3 is about out of gas and the DOE did a good job in the la st rule making.

5. The fact also is that a push to anything beyond present does not show economic value and I do not

support it.

6. The fact also is that a push to higher efficiencies will kill the new transformer mar ket and open up

the rebuild market, destroying jobs at the new transformer manufacturers and resulting in transformers

of lower efficiency which will cost energy and not save it.

Best regards,

Phil

Philip J Hopkinson, PE

President & CEO HVOLT Inc.

3704 High Ridge Rd.

Charlotte, NC 28270

phopkinson@hvolt.com

Ph 704

‐ 846

‐ 3290

Fx 704

‐ 845

‐ 2520

Cell 704

‐ 236

‐ 3320

www.hvolt.com

From: Robert Berman [ mailto:bermaneconomics@gmail.com ]

Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 11:16 AM

To: Phil Hopkinson

Cc: Corkran, Jerry L; Richard Parker; Freeman, Jeremiah

(CONTR); rick.anderson@faypwc.com ; tballo@earthjustice.org ; ScottB@LVMetals.com ; john.caskey@ne

ma.org ; Cymbalsky,

John; adelaski@standardsASAP.org ; Teckman@nwcouncil.org ; gbf1@pge.com ; carlos.gaytan@ge.com ; rgreeson@federalpacific.com ; bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com ; jhodge@howard.com ; mhyland@appanet.org ; d

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

Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com ; artrosenfeld@gmail.com ; srosenstock@eei.org ; rroy@nrdc.org ; rob

ert.saint@nreca.coop ; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com ; kwinder@mleainc.com ; mwaltner@nrdc.org ; jerry

.schoen@aksteel.com ; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com ; ahofmann@publicpower.org ; pkumar@publicpower.org

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

Meyers,

Aaron; Jim.creevy@nema.org ; jrossetti@mlgw.org ; cabolduc@lbl.gov ; kcoughlin@lbl.gov ; brian.coffey@

navigant.com ; mrivest@navigant.com ; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov ; caitlin.johnson@navigant.com ; zhimei.luo

@navigant.com ; Marchetti, Emily (CONTR); charlied@uus.org ; DYoung@energy

‐

solution.com ; James.Lass@cleco.com ; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net ; matthew.nardotti@navigant.com ;

Raba, Jim; Savitz, Maxine

(EMAB); tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com ; chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com ; ted.johnstone@cogentpoweri

nc.com ; frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com ; ned.efbrush@gmail.com ; dbrender@cda.copper.org ; cha

d.kennedy@us.schneider

‐

electric.com ; eduardorobles@eaton.com ; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com ; thomas.patzner@us.schnei

der

‐ electric.com ; carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com ; Robert Berman; Trujillo, Antonio; Moore, Jack C

Subject: Re: Negotiated Rulemaking

‐ Distribution Transformers Teleconference

Even if it were that high (and Mr. Hopkinson is the only one I've seen who has put the number anywhere

near that), the efficiency objective is saving Watt

‐ hours (energy) not Watts (the capacity to save energy )

. One Watt saved for 8,760 hours per year for 30 years is 262.8 kWh (not counting leap years). Even at

Mr. Hutchinson's $20, that's just over 7¢ / kWh. If Mr. Hutchinson will examine his electric bill, as he has

reported, he will see that even as hi gh as 7¢ it's a good buy, and that assumes we put a ZERO value on

any environmental benefits (which is why DOE agreed to reconsider its 2007 MEPS in the first place.

Indeed, the cost of losses per Watt (roughly the A factors that OPS has been using) are no wh ere near

the $20 claimed here. Moreover, as ABB and others have pointed out, the proper approach would have

been to minimize cost subject to efficiency, not A & B, which would have resulted in a lower, flatter

curve to the asymptote. ABB's actual market data

‐‐ physical transformers produced and delivered

‐‐

shows a competitive market for M3 transformers even at EL4 efficiency. You can make all the

hypothetical claims you want to, gentlemen, the market is the real world

.

Regards,

Robert A. Berman, Principal

Berman Economics

www.BermanEconomics.com

1915 Grand Court

Vienna, VA 22182

703

‐ 281

‐ 0490

703

‐ 655

‐ 8398 (cell)

BermanEconomics@gmail.com

On Nov 10, 2011, at 6:53 PM, Phil Hopkinson wrote:Well stated Jerry

That is also what my analysis and report said. If you restrict to M3 then the cost of EL1 rises to about

$20/watt.

Phil

Phil Hopkinson,P.E.

HVolt Inc.

704

‐ 846

‐ 3290

F: 704

‐ 845

‐ 2520

C: 704

‐ 236

‐ 3320

phopkinson@hvolt.com

On Nov 10, 2011, at 18:04, "Corkran, Jerry L" < Jerry.Corkran@CooperIndustries.com > wrote:

To Mr. Parker and the DOE working group,

The reason for the request for the incremental cost of the losses is that the current DOE efficiency levels

can be obtained if the design is optimized at about $4 per core watt and $1 per winding watt at full

load. At the DOE 50% kVA rating, this is the same as evaluating th e losses or optimizing the design at

about $4 per total watts loss.

The present DOE efficiency loss level results in transformer designs about like many utilities were

purchasing their transformers before 2007. The utilities were purchasing the efficiency leve ls that were

justified based on the cost of losses. A few utilities were purchasing higher efficiency that the 2007

efficiency rules because of the calculated cost of energy being higher than the $4/$1 loss evaluation.

What came up in the discussion last week was even for loss level 1, the incr emental cost of losses was

about $17 per watt for the design checked, between the present DOE losses an efficiency level of DEL1.

The added cost of $17 per watt is so much higher than the typical cost of the energy for the utilities,

that it is very questionable that the DOE payback esti mates are accurate. A 3% interest rate may be a

factor in the payback calculations.

Jerry Corkran

From: Richard Parker [ mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com ]

Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 3:23 PM

To: Robert Berman

Cc: Freeman, Jeremiah

(CONTR); rick.anderson@faypwc.com ; tballo@earthjustice.org ; ScottB@LVMetals.com ; john.caskey@ne

ma.org ; Corkran, Jerry L; Cymbalsky,

John; adelaski@standardsASAP.org ; Teckman@nwcouncil.org ; gbf1@pge.com ; carlos.gaytan@ge.com ; r

greeson@federalpacific.com ; bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com ; jhodge@howard.com ; mhyland@appanet.org ; d

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

Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com ; artrosenfeld@gmail.com ; srosenstock@eei.org ; rroy@nrdc.org ; rob

ert.saint@nreca.coop ; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com ; kwinder@mleainc.com ; mwaltner@nrdc.org ; jerry.schoen@aksteel.com ; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com ; ahofmann@publicpower.org ; pkumar@publicpower.org

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

Meyers,

Aaron; Jim.creevy@nema.org ; jrossetti@mlgw.org ; cabolduc@lbl.gov ; kcoughlin@lbl.gov ; brian.coffey@

navigant.com ; mrivest@navigant.com ; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov ; caitlin.johnson@navigant.com ; zhimei.luo

@navigant.com ; Marchetti, Emily (CONTR); charlied@uus.org ; DYoung@energy

‐

solution.com ; James.Lass@cleco.com ; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net ; phopkinson@hvolt.com ; matthe

w.nardotti@navigant.com ; Raba, Jim; Savitz, Maxine

(EMAB); tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com ; chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com ; ted.johnstone@cogentpoweri

nc.com ; frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com ; ned.efbrush@gmail.com ; dbrender@cda.copper.org ; ch

ad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐

electric.com ; eduardorobles@eaton.com ; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com ; thomas.patzner@us.schnei

der

‐ electric.com ; carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com

Subject: Re: Negotiated Rulemaking

‐ Distribution Transformers Teleconference

Robert,

I understand the DOE staff are working on the incremental Watts calculations and will get that out to

group as soon as it's ready.

best wishes,

Richard

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Robert Berman < bermaneconomics@gmail.com > wrote:

Thank you Richard. That clarification is helpful.

In the liquid

‐ filled meeting we were told that we would receive an analysis of incremental Watts saved

by DL for all ELs, as well as the incremental cost. When will that analysis be available? For many of us,

that analysis is the basis for additional, perhaps e xtensive analyses, so it should come with enough lead

time before any additional meetings or teleconferences to that we can give it the required

consideration. It would be most helpful if the incremental cost were provided separately for transformer

and installation, with any pole component of the ins tallation identified.

For the MV Dry and LV Dry meetings, it would be most helpful if you would also circulate an agenda with

objectives, hopefully this week, so that we are able to prepare for those meetings.

Regards,

Robert A. Berman, Principal

Berman Economics

www.BermanEconomics.com

1915 Grand Court

Vienna, VA 22182

703

‐ 281

‐ 0490

703

‐ 655

‐ 8398 (cell)

BermanEconomics@gmail.com

On Nov 10, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Richard Parker wrote:Dear Colleagues:

The telcon on the 17th is currently planned for medium

‐ voltage dry

‐ type and the telcon on the 21st is

reserved for low

‐ voltage. There will be revised analysis circulated in advance of both calls per our

discussion yesterday. Each call has substantial chunks of time allocated, though I hope we won't need

all that ti me.

It may be prudent to schedule a liquid

‐ filled call at some point as well, but I propose that we hold off on

that for day or so, until we can clarify when revised analysis for liquid

‐ filled will be ready.

Thanks for yo ur very constructive participation in the meetings over the last two days.

Richard Parker

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Freeman, Jeremiah (CONTR) < Jeremiah.Freeman@ee.doe.gov >

wrote:

When: Thursday, November 17, 2011 1:00 PM

‐ 5:00 PM (GMT

‐ 05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

Where: Webinar and Phone

Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Dear Colleagues,

This event is to save the time slot on your calendar based on our discussion at ye sterday's meeting.

Later today further information will be sent regarding the registration information for our November 17

and November 21 webinars. After registering you will get the link for the webinar and a toll free

number.

Please call with questions or concerns.

Very Respectfully,

Jeremiah Freeman

202

‐ 431

‐ 424 3 (cell)

202

‐ 586

‐ 1867 (office)

>>> 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 noti fy the sender. CEG

‐ IP2