From: Katie Coughlin [mailto:kcoughlin@lbl.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 2:05 PM 

To: Corkran, Jerry L 

Cc: Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; 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 Bolduc; Chris Brown; Clark Silcox; Creevy, Jim; Dan Cohen; 

Daniel Young; David Flaten; Emily Marchetti; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg 

Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; Jim Raba; 

Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matthew Nardotti; 

Maxine Savitz; Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaron; 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; Trujillo, Antonio 

Subject: Re: NES savings in NIA: "relative to a base-case scenario of no standard" 

Hello all, 

Load losses are calculated based on the annual average of the squared load, i.e. the RMS. The 

LCC analysis sums the results from a sample population of 10,000 transformers, each of which is 

loaded differently, so we work with a distribution of RMS loadings. 

The shape of this distribution is approximately triangular. The shape of the distribution was 

developed based on an analysis of hourly building loads for several hundred commercial, 

residential and industrial buildings. 

The building load data can give us the average load is relative to the peak load. For the 

transformer analysis we also need to know what is the peak load relative to the transformer 

capacity. In the LCC, this "peak load factor" is also chosen from a distribution. 

Uncertainty about how transformers are sized relative to their peak loads is handled by defining 

an additional parameter that scales the entire RMS load distribution up or down. The value of 

this parameter determines the average RMS loading, relative to transformer capacity, for the 

transformer population. 

Initially the Department's estimates for the population-average RMS loading were taken from the 

previous rulemaking. For the current rulemaking, the utility reprsentatives on the committee have 

provided us with data on transformer loads, primarily for single-phase, smaller capacity units 

connected to residential loads. Based on their input, our current assumptions are: 

- for smaller capacity transformers the average RMS is about 32% 

- for smaller capacity transformers in low population density areas the average RMS is 25% 

These assumptions apply to design lines 1 and 2. Note that these design lines also serve small 

commercial and multi-family loads, but we do not have data on average loading for those 

customer classes. 

For the larger capacity transformers and 3-phase transformers, the loading is currently set to 

about 40% population-average RMS. We also do a sensitivity with the RMS load set equal to 
50%. We do not currently have data for the larger capacity range. 

regards, 

Katie 

 

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Corkran, Jerry L <Jerry.Corkran@cooperindustries.com> 

wrote: 

Katie – Could you explain what is the percentage of rated nameplate load level or levels used in the

payback calculations and is it an RMS or an average loading?  Where did the load levels used come

from?  Are there references available to support the load levels used?

Thanks,

                Jerry Corkran

From: Katie Coughlin [mailto:kcoughlin@lbl.gov] 

Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:04 PM 

To: Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com

Cc: 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 Bolduc; Chris Brown; Clark Silcox; Creevy, Jim; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; David Flaten; 

Emily Marchetti; 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; Meyers, Aaron; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; Pam 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 

Subject: Re: NES savings in NIA: "relative to a base-case scenario of no standard"

 

Hello all, 

The "no standard" phrase in the document should more correctly read "no modification to the 

2007 standard". 

The base case for the national impacts analysis is the EL0 level with the 2007 standard in force. 

Sorry for the confusion, 

Katie 

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:19 PM, <Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com> wrote: 
Mr Parker, 

Please find attached a page from Chapter 10, National Impact Analysis from the 

September 2011 analysis that states that the NES are "relative to a base-case scenario 

of no standard." I'm interpreting this as meaning that the savings calculated are against 

the "affected stock", or the transformers that are currently in the field rather than the 

savings that are already to be gained as a result of the 2007 ruling, or EL0. 

If my interpretation of this is correct, the current NES analysis is "double counting" the 

energy savings which have already been implemented by the 2007 rule. Since we are 

comparing LCC and Payback against EL0, shouldn't the NES analysis be relative to the 

current EL0 standard rather than using a scenario of "no standard"? 

Regards, 

Eric Petersen 

Director Customer Technical Services and Research 

AK Steel Corporation 

Confidentiality Notice 

This message is intended exclusively for the individual or 

entity to which it is addressed and may contain privileged, 

proprietary, or otherwise private information. 

If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized 

to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or 

any part of it. If you have received this message in error, 

please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete 

all copies of the message.