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

Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 6:07 AM 

To: Meyers, Aaron 

Cc: Katie Coughlin; Chris Bolduc; Richard Parker; Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art 

Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Bob Smith; Brenda Edwards; Brian Coffey; Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gaytan; Caskey, 

John; Charlie Drexler; Charlie Stevens; Chris Brown; Clark Silcox; Creevy, Jim; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; 

David Flaten; Emily Marchetti; Eric Peterson; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg 

Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Corkran, Jerry L; Jerry Hodge; Jerry 

Schoen; Jim Raba; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; 

Matthew Nardotti; Maxine Savitz; Meg Waltner; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; Pamela 

Costello; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Kumar; Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson; 

Robert Berman; Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck; Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel; 

Steve Rosenstock; Ted Johnstone; Thomas Petrosino; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei 

Luo; Miller.Michael-R 

Subject: Re: MVLI LCC & NIA - Loading Information 

Aaron, 

My understanding is that the distribution of loads used by LBNL is a national distribution. As 

such, the distribution would include loads for the customers in Wisconsin and Michigan's upper 

peninsula, but would not mirror those loads. As the standard is a national standard, it would be 

inappropriate to base the standard on the load in a single area. Accordingly, it does not seem that 

a national impact analysis based based on the loads in a relatively small, isolated area would 

provide useful information. 

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 Dec 12, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Meyers, Aaron wrote: 

Dear Chris,
At the last liquid‐immersed distribution transformer working group meeting, we were chatting about

the loading assumptions that were built into the LCC model.  You had commented that there was very

little actual loading information from which to build the model, especially as it pertains to commercial &

industrial as well as larger kVA single‐ and three‐phase units (larger single phase pole mount units are

often ganged to provide three phase service), so the loading information that was available was scaled

across everything.  You had stated that you would appreciate any actual loading information that I could

provide.

Below I’ve pasted the loading information provided by We Energies.  We Energies serves over 1 million

customers in Wisconsin and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.  The data is quite recent and therefore, should

be relevant.

These values are more in line with the information that other utilities had provided during verbal

interviews.  Armed with this information, how difficult would it be to run life‐cycle cost and national

impact analysis with these loading levels instead of the 25‐30% load distributions used previously?

Thanks and Best Regards,

Aaron

From: Miller.Michael-R [mailto:Michael-R.Miller@we-energies.com] 

Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 12:55 PM 

To: Meyers, Aaron 

Cc: Corkran, Jerry L; Zell, Russell 

Subject: RE: Load Factors for DOE evaluation

 

Aaron,

In 2008 we established new A and B factors. At that time we relooked at our load factors in 

order to determine the most accurate A and B factors we could. We used customer data from our 

metering group as well as our company design practices to establish these factors and they are as 

follows:

1-phase 3-phase

42% loaded 55% loaded

If there are further questions on these please let me know.

Mike Miller