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; Jennife r Tiedeman; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; Jim Raba; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Ke n Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matthew Nardotti; Maxine Savitz; Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaron; Michae l Hyland; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; Pamela Costello; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Polinski, Ra ymond; Puesh Kumar; Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ry an, 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 av erage of the squared lo ad, 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 averag e load is relative to the peak load. For the transformer analysis we also need to know what is the peak load rela tive to the transformer capacity. In the LCC, this "peak load fact or" 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 load ing, relative to transfor mer capacity, for the transformer population.

Initially the Department's estimates for the popu lation-average RMS loading were taken from the previous rulemaking. For the current rulemaking, th e utility reprsentatives on the committee have provided us with data on transformer loads, pr imarily for single-phase, smaller capacity units

connected to residential loads. Based on th eir input, our current assumptions are: - for smaller capacity transformers the average RMS is about 32% - for smaller capacity transformers in low popul ation 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; Ar is Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Bob Smith; Brenda Edwards; Brian Coffey; Caitlin Johnson; Carl os Gaytan; Caskey, John; Charlie Drexler; Charlie
Stevens; Chris Bolduc; Chris Brown; Clark Silcox; Cr eevy, 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; Je rry 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 Ri vest; 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 stat es that the NES are "relat ive to a base-case scenario of no standard." I'm interpreting this as m eaning 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 an alysis is "double counting" the energy savings which have already been impl emented 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 us ing 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.