From: Phil Hopkinson [mailto:phopkinson@hvolt.com]

Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 4:27 PM

To: Meyers, Aaron

Cc: Simmons, Chuck; Robert Berman; Steve Nadel; Bruce R Hirsch; John Caskey;

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; Trujillo, Antonio; Corkran,

Jerry L; 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; mwaltner@nrdc.org;

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

gbf1@pge.com; ahofmann@publicpower.org; pkumar@publicpower.org; adelaski@standardsASAP.org;

jmauer@standardsasap.org; wes.pa tterson@us.abb.com; chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com;

thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com; charlied@uus.org; Moore, Jack C; Smith, Jennifer; Meyers,

Aaron

Subject: Re: Negotiated Rulemaking

‐ Distribution Transformers Teleconference

Well stated Aaron

Phil

Phil Hopkinson,P.E.

HVolt Inc.

704

‐ 846

‐ 3290

F: 704

‐ 845

‐ 2520

C: 704

‐ 236

‐ 3320

phopkinson@hvolt.com

On Nov 16, 2011, at 14:32, "Meyers, Aaron" < Aaron.Meyers@CooperIndustries.com > wrote:

> Correct me if I’m wrong, but at the last meeting, I thought Katie Coughlin stated that the loading used

in the LBNL analysis was actually a distribution of loading profiles and that the average was closer to 25

or 30% than the 50% load factor upon which the standard is built. This was rather shocking to me, since

all of the efficiency levels ar e referenced to 50% load in the standards. Based on the differences in

efficiency versus loading factor curves (see attached), it is immediately obvious why amorphous core

transformers would have been selected over grain

‐ oriented ones u nder those conditions. However,

consider that at low loading (10%), the amorphous transformer example in the attachment saves 41W

but at 100% load, the M3 transformer SAVES 128W over the amorphous design. It sort of reminds me of

when my grandfather used to drive 20 miles to save 50 cents on a 12

‐ pack of Co ca

‐ Cola (not realizing he

was spending $4.00 in gas to drive there and back). I also believe that the analysis assumes ZERO load

growth over the life of the transformer (transformer life is also a distribution with the average being 30

years, so extending out be yond 60 years in some cases). Considering the growth in the electric vehiclemarket just in the last 5 years, the fact that this is not being taken into account at all is a severe

oversight. NEETRAC predicts a 17

‐ 18% load growth over the next 25 years, yet DOE project 0% over the

next 60? Something isn’t right here. As Chuck points out below, for commer cial and industrial

customers with higher loading levels, the virtual mandate to employ the use of amorphous core

transformers, this is a real concern. When we spoke with various utilities, they indicated that their

larger single

‐ phase and their three

‐ phase transformers were typically running at 50% load. Essentially

ANY load growth from where we are to day will cause amorphous core transformers in those

applications to be less efficient than their amorphous counterparts.

>

> Obviously any model has to be built on a set of assumptions; however, it feels as though nearly all of

the assumptions that were made were done so such as to err on the side of showing economic

justification for raising th e efficiency levels. This may have been an inadvertent effect of trying to

appease those parties who previously brought suit against the DOE for allegedly not going far enough

with the 2010 efficiency levels. Th e compounding of the biased assumptions is what I believe is

responsible for producing results that don’t resonate positively with end

‐ users or those closest to the

industry. In addition to those listed above, below is a list of additional biased assumptions that

compound to yield the results under consideration currently:

>

>

> 1) The estimated cost for pole replacement is low (~$2000). Testimony from utilities was that pole

replacement cost ranges from around $2000 (70% of jobs) to approximately $9500 (30%) of jobs, thus

an average of $4250. The DOE analysis used something in the $2000

‐ $2500 range.

>

> 2) The first analysis included an inaccurate extrapolation of how many poles would need to be

changed out. Since the pole design line was 25kVA, no poles were assumed to be heavy enough to

warrant pole change out. Thus zero was extrapolated across higher kVA’s and no additional cost was

factored in

. This was supposed to be corrected, but the comment was also made during the last

meeting that the analysis for liquid filled hadn’t changed since the first meeting.

>

> 3) The analysis uses a conservative cost of money, most likely a reflection of current depressed

economic conditions. Th e question is whether this assumption will hold true over the analysis period

(30

‐ 60 years)? Due to economic uncertainty among other factors, most companies won’t make

investments that don’t show a payback in 2

‐ 4 years. Using the LCC approach, ANY payback in less than

30 years becomes favorable. As a ta x payer, I do not want to make investments like this. I’m sure that

the advocates will be quick to point out the <10

‐ year payback periods for EL2 and higher, but looking

under the hood, what is driving that is the assumption that all or nearly all of the desig ns selected were

amorphous

‐ core designs. The lowest cost amorphous core design in the OPS analysis essentially

achieves between EL4 & EL5 performance. If we allow pure economics to normalize the prices of

amorphous relative to M3, such that M3 designs are being built, the actual efficiency of EL1 & EL2

designs will be lower in eff iciency than is being reflected in the payback analysis currently. I would

assume that the economics of EL2 would be much closer to those reflected for EL1 in that event.

>

> 4) The analysis assumes an average of either 30

‐ or 32

‐ year tr ansformer life. This is substantially

more than is recognized by the IEEE standards (20.5 years), and more than shown by a recent study

performed by CFE in Mexico which showed average transformer life to be closer to 16 years. By being

able to amortize savings over a longer period of ti me, the LCC is able to show savings that would not

exist under shorter durations.

>> 5) Stray and eddy current losses were not taken into account by OPS software. Stray losses can

typically be anywhere from 3% on smaller, low current transformers, to 20+% on larger, high

‐ current

transformers. Either way, it is most definitely not negligible, and results in transformer designs that are

smaller, lighter, and cheap er than what manufacturers are able to produce in the real world. This was

confirmed by Phil Hopkinson in acquiring real price quotations from both NEMA and non

‐ NEMA

manufacturers for the transformers under consideration. To date, we have no evidence that suggests

that the DOE has sought or obtained any real pri ce quotations from manufacturers to corroborate their

results.

>

> 6) The movement away from purchasing new, high

‐ efficiency transformers to rebuilding older, less

efficient transformers is only accounted for in the shipments analysis, but based on the first

‐ price

economics of buying rebuilt transformers as compared to the subs tantially higher cost associated with

buying transformers of the proposed efficiency levels, I believe that the DOE’s analysis grossly

overestimates the shipments of new transformers. If older copper

‐ wound coils are replaced with

aluminum wound coils, the efficiency of the rebuilt transformer will be even less than the efficiency of

the original tr ansformer being rebuilt, moving even further from achieving the objective of conserving

energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This step backwards is not considered at all in the DOE

analysis.

>

> 7) The current analysis does not consider the effect of omitting network & vault transformers from

the efficie ncy standard as far as the economic or environmental impact analysis are concerned. The

same holds true for high BIL units.

>

> 8) I don’t believe that the present analysis accounts for higher generation costs under peak load

conditions. This essentially makes load losses more costly than no

‐ load losses. However, the push has

been almost excl usively to reduce the no

‐ load losses via amorphous metal endorsement by advocates.

The result is that a few watts are saved during times when generation costs are low and higher watts are

lost during times when generation costs are high. If this were wei ghed more appropriately, the designs

that were chosen in the DOE analysis would likely show significantly longer payback and potentially no

energy savings.

>

> 9) The current analysis disregards the pricing leverage that the higher standard would afford

amorphous producers. If amorphous producers were to price according to their customers’ nex t best

price/performance alternative, amorphous pricing could go up by 50%, yet the price sensitivity analysis

uses bounds that are based on historical swings in an environment where both can compete. This is a

complete and total game changer as previously described in my lions & gazelle analogy.

>

> Unless ever ything plays out perfectly, the American public could quite possibly never see any payback

on raising the efficiency levels. Cooper was prepared to accept moving to EL1 in the spirit of the

negotiation process, but even at that level, we do not believe there is any real economic justi fication.

We strongly urge the subcommittee to step back and listen to their instincts on this vital national

interest.

>

> Best Regards,

> Aaron

>

>

> From: Simmons, Chuck [ mailto:Chuck.Simmons@pgnmail.com ]> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 7:10 AM

> To: 'Phil Hopkinson'; 'Robert Berman'; 'Steve Nadel'

> Cc: 'Bruce R Hirsch'; 'John Caskey'; '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'; Meyers, Aaron; Trujillo, Antonio; Moore, Jack C; Corkran, Jerry L;

'tballo@earthjustice.org'; 'carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com'; 'eduardorobles@eaton.com'; 'Emily (CO NTR)

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'; 'mwaltner@nrdc.org';

'rroy@nrdc.org'; 'robert.saint@nreca.coop'; 'Teckman@nwcouncil.org';

'vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com'; 'gbf1@pge.com'; 'ahofmann@publicpower.org';

'pkumar@publicpower.org'; 'adelaski@standardsASAP.org'; 'jmauer@standardsasap.org';

'wes.patterson@us.abb.com'; 'chad.k ennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com';

'thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com'; 'charlied@uus.org'

> Subject: RE: Negotiated Rulemaking

‐ Distribution Transformers Teleconference

>

> Phil:

>

> Excellent points. Can anyone confirm that the consultants are taking these higher load losses into

account that result from transformers with an amorphous core? I am concerned that use of amorphous

with distribution transform ers that have a high average loading (such as distribution transformers

serving industrial and commercial customers) will result in higher losses than those that may be realized

with silicon grain oriented steel.

>

> This is a major concern for utilities.

>

> Regards,

> Chuck Simmons, P.E.

> Distribution Stan dards

> Progress Energy

> Voice Net: 745

‐ 6033

> Bell: 919

‐ 662

‐ 6033

>

> From: Phil Hopkinson [ mailto:phopkinson@hvolt.com ]

> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 5:31 PM

> To: Robert Berman; Steve Nadel

> Cc: Bruce R Hirsch; John Caskey; 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; 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

>

> Good afternoon Robert and all:

>

> I must disagree fundamentally with the way you have characterized the loss values. At night when the

load is light everywhere then the energy cost is also low and those who have time of day me tering can

attest to it. If the load is as low as 10% then what is left is largely core loss and the generation is only

base generation at very low cost per kWH.

>

> During the day when the load is high the peak generators are all fired up and that is e xpensive energy.

There the winding losses are the big contribution to total transformer losses. Unfortunately when one

has an amorphous transformer that meets the same efficiency as an M3 transformer it has higher

winding losses than the M3. In the modeling that Jerry Corkran and I did we found that the amorphous

transformer had hi gher day time losses than the M3 which looks like it takes away from the enthusiasm

for amorphous cores as a National standard.

>

> The bottom line is that core loss is not as valuable as winding loss on a watt for watt tradeoff.

>

> Best regards,

>

> Phil

>

> Philip J Hopkinson, PE

> President & CEO HVOL T Inc.

> 3704 High Ridge Rd.

> Charlotte, NC 28270

> phopkinson@hvolt.com<mailto:phopkinson@hvolt.com >

> Ph 704

‐ 846

‐ 3290

> Fx 704

‐ 845

‐ 2520

> Cell 704

‐ 236

‐ 3320

> www.hvolt.com<http://www.hvolt.com/ >

>

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

> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 1:23 PM> To: Steve Nadel

> Cc: Bruce R Hirsch; Robert Berman; John Caskey; 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; Phil Hopkinson; 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; mwaltner@nrdc.org ; rroy@nrdc.org ; robert.saint@nreca.coop ;

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

chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com ; 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

>

> Steve,

>

> The statement that "reducing transformer losses primarily affects baseload, not peak" is a bit of an

over simplification. Reducing transformer losses affects both base and peak. The value of the loss at any

point in time is then margi nal cost or system lambda. That is, the value of reducing transformer losses is

the greater of the cost of the next unit that would have been dispatched, but for the reduced load

attributable to the transformer, or the cost of generation from the last unit actually dispatched, but

used less du e to the more efficient transformer. Because generation is brought on line least

‐ cost first,

losses are evaluated in reverse order

‐‐ highest cost first. As Katie Coughlin explained at the last meeting,

this is the way LBNL evaluates benefits. Thus in the early years, the more efficient transformer may

actually save substantially more money than in later years, when the older, hig her cost units have been

retired. I don't believe this benefit is picked up by the LBNL modeling, as it requires more detailed

information

‐‐ at least hourly marginal costs for each power pool.

>

> Regards,

>

> Bob

>

> Rob ert A. Berman, Principal

> Berman Economics

> www.BermanEconomics.com<http ://www.BermanEconomics.com >

> 1915 Grand Court

> Vienna, VA 22182

> 703

‐ 281

‐ 0490

> 703

‐ 655

‐ 8398 (cell)> BermanEconomics@gmail.com<mailt o:BermanEconomics@gmail.com >

>

> On Nov 15, 2011, at 8:57 AM, Steve Nadel wrote:

>

> Two comments. First, some comments have focused on just the market for M3 and amorphous steel.

The two markets are linked

‐‐ we need competition between the two to keep the price of both in check.

We don 't want a standard that strongly favors one over the other. The revised DOE analysis on the mix

between M3 and amorphous at different standard levels should help us to address this. Second,

reducing transformer losses primarily affects baseload, not peak. So talking about cost per kW is

misleading. An efficient transformer is energi zed for more than 8000 hours per year. The average DSM

measure saves for about 3000 hours per year (although there is wide variation). If you want to

compare, you'd need to compare levelized cost per kWh saved over the measure lifetime.

>

> Steve

>

>>>> "Hirsch, Bruce R" < Br uce.R.Hirsch@bge.com<mailto:Bruce.R.Hirsch@bge.com >> 11/15/2011 7:37

AM >>>

> John’s points are well taken. Keep in mind that the DOE numbers indicate a payback at EL4 only if

amorphous steel is used. Thus, to assume that because it can be built using M3 steel, all is well, is totally

untrue. In John’s auto analogy, at least the custom er has a choice of spending the extra money. In our

case, the customer will have no choice.

>

> We all also need to understand that there is not an infinite supply of money to spend on efficiency

improvements. By forcing utilities to spend money on improving transformer e fficiencies, we may very

well be taking money out of other efficiency programs which have a much higher payback than what is

being proposed here. In BGE’s case our package of efficiency programs cost us approximately $139 per

kilowatt saved. What is being proposed here is up to 100 times mo re costly. If BGE pulls back funds from

other efficiency programs to pay the high costs for transformer efficiencies, we would see a significant

decline in efficiency improvements overall.

>

Bruce

>

>

>

> From: Caskey, John [ mailto:Joh_Caskey@nema.org ]

> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 3:14 PM

> To: Robert Berman; Hirsch, Bruce R

> Cc: 'Steve Nadel'; Phil Hopkinson; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com<mailt o:Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com >;

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com<mai lto:jerry.schoen@aksteel.com >; Maxine (EMAB) Savitz;

mhyland@appanet.org<mailto:mhyland@appanet.org >;

Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com<mai lto:Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com >;

maheshsampat@bellsouth.net<mailt o:maheshsampat@bellsouth.net>;tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com<mai

lto:tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com >; dbrender@cda.copper.org<mailto:dbrender@cda.copper.org >;

James.Lass@cleco.com<mailto:James.Lass@cleco.com >;

chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com<ma ilto:chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com >;

frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com<mailt o:frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com >;

ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com<mailt o:ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com >; Aaron Meyers;

Antonio Trujillo; Jack C Moore; Jerry L Corkran;tballo@earthjustice.org<mailt o:tballo@earthjustice.org >;

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com<ma ilto:carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com >;

eduardorobles@eaton.com<mailto:eduardorobles@eaton.com >; Emily (CONTR) Marchetti; Jeremiah

(CONTR) Freeman; Jim Raba; John Cymbalsky;srosenstock@eei.org< mailto:srosenstock@eei.org >;

DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com<mailto:DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com >;

rick.anderson@faypwc.com<mailto:rick.anderson@faypwc.com >;

bsmith@federalpacific.com<mailto:bsmith@federalpacific.com >;

rgreeson@federalpacific.com<mailt o:rgreeson@federalpacific.com >;

carlos.gaytan@ge.com<mailto:carlos.gaytan@ge.com >;

artrosenfeld@gmail.com<mailto:artrosenfeld@gmail.com >;

greg.coulter405@gmail.com<mailto :greg.coulter405@gmail.com>;ned .efbrush@gmail.com<mailto:ned.

efbrush@gmail.com >; Richard Parker; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com<mailto:Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com >;

jhodge@howard.com<mailto:jhodge@howard.com >; Daniel Cohen;

cabolduc@lbl.gov<mailto:cabolduc@lbl.gov >; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov<mailto:gjrosenquist@lbl.gov >;

kcoughlin@lbl.gov<mailto:kcoughlin@lbl.gov >; ScottB@LVMetals.com<mailto:ScottB@LVMetals.com >;

dave.millure@metglas.com<mailto:dave.millure@met glas.com>;kwinder@mleainc.com<mailto:kwinder

@mleainc.com >; jrossetti@mlgw.org<mailto:jrossetti@mlgw.org >;

brian.coffey@navigant.com<mailto:brian.coffey@navigant.com >;

caitlin.johnson@navigant.com<mailto:caitlin.johnson@navigant.com >;

matthew.nardotti@navigant.com<mailto:matthew.nardotti@navigant.com >;

mrivest@navigant.com<mailto:mrivest@navigant.com >;

zhimei.luo@navigant.com<mailto:zhimei.luo@navigant.com >; Creevy,

Jim;mwaltner@nrdc.org< mailto:mwaltner@nrdc.org >; rroy@nrdc.org<mailto:rroy@nrdc.org >;

robert.saint@nreca.coop<ma ilto:robert.saint@nreca.coop >;

Teckman@nwcouncil.org<mailt o:Teckman@nwcouncil.org >;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com<mailt o:vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com >;

gbf1@pge.com<mailto:gbf1@pge.com >;

chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com<mail to:chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com >;

ahofmann@publicpower.org<mailto:ahofmann@public power.org>;pkumar@publicpower.org<mailto:p

kumar@publicpower.org >; adelaski@standardsASAP.org<mailto:adelaski@standardsASAP.org >;

jmauer@standardsasap.org<mailto:jmauer@standardsasap.org >;

wes.patterson@us.abb.com<mailto:wes.patterson@us.abb.com >; chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com<mailto:chad.kennedy@us.schneider

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

‐ electric.com<mailto:thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com >;

charlied@uus.org<mailto:charlied@uus.org >

> Subject: RE: Negotiated Rulemaking

‐ Distribution Transformers Teleconference

>

> Robert

>

> You continue to reference the ABB data presented by Wes Patterson as indicating that since a

transformer was sold at the EL3 or EL4 efficiency level that this level is cost effective. Specifically, you

state “Market sales data, however, is quite re al. In this case it unambiguously says that the transformers

at EL4 are an economically reasonable choice

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

occasions”. This is simply NOT TRUE.

>

> Just because a person buys as Jaguar for $100k that gets 25 mp g in place of a $40k Cadillac that gets

20 mpg; does NOT mean that the $60k delta will ever be “economically reasonable” for the extra 5 mpg.

You seem to be assuming that all of the transformers purchased from ABB that meet the efficiencylevels were purchased for efficiency reasons. This is simply not fact. The fact is that one large

transformer manufacturer was able to produce distribution transformers at EL3 and EL4 using M3 steel.

To my knowledge, Wes did not state the price for these transformers. In addition, just because one

company can produ ce this product doesn’t mean that all transformer manufacturers can make this

product at this level using M3 steel.

>

> My hope is that we can all understand the facts and the analysis results better over the next few

weeks so that we can negotiate a solution that benefits the consu mers, the ratepayers, the

manufacturers, the environment, etc. I plan to stay at the table till the end of the negotiation process.

>

> Regards,

>

> John

>

> John F. Caskey, CEM

> Assistant Vice President, Industry Operations

> National Electrical Manufacturers Assoc. (NEMA)

> 1300 North 17th Stree t

‐ Suite 1752

> Rosslyn, VA 22209

> john.caskey@nema.org<mailto:john.caskey@nema.org >

> 703

‐ 841

‐ 3233 Voice

> 703

‐ 841

‐ 3333 FAX

> 703

‐ 350

‐ 6886 Cell

> 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<mai lto:Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com >;

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com<mai lto:jerry.schoen@aksteel.com >; Maxine (EMAB) Savitz;

mhyland@appanet.org<mailto:mhyland@appanet.org >;

Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com<mailto:Raymon d.Polinski@ATImetals.com>;maheshsampat@bellsou

th.net<mailto:maheshsampat@bellsouth.net >;

tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com<mail to:tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com >;

dbrender@cda.copper.org<mailto:dbrender@cda.copper.org >;

James.Lass@cleco.com<mailto:James.Lass@cleco.com >;

chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com<ma ilto:chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com >;

frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com<mailto:frank. guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com>;ted.johnstone@co

gentpowerinc.com<mailto:ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com >; Aaron Meyers; Antonio Trujillo; Jack

C Moore; Jerry L Corkran; tballo@earthjustice.org<mailt o:tballo@earthjustice.org >;

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com<ma ilto:carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com >;

eduardorobles@eaton.com<mailto:eduardorobles@eaton.com >; Emily (CONTR) Marchetti; Jeremiah

(CONTR) Freeman; Jim Raba; John Cymbalsky; srosenstock@eei.org<ma ilto:srosenstock@eei.org >;

DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com<mailto:DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com >;

rick.anderson@faypwc.com<mailto:rick.anderson@faypwc.com >;

bsmith@federalpacific.com<mailto:bsmith@federalpacific.com >;

rgreeson@federalpacific.com<mailt o:rgreeson@federalpacific.com >;

carlos.gaytan@ge.com<mailto:carlos.gaytan@ge.com >;artrosenfeld@gmail.com<mailto:artrosenfeld@g

mail.com >; greg.coulter405@gmail.com<mail to:greg.coulter405@gmail.com >;ned.efbrush@gmail.com<mailto:ned.efbrush@gmail.com >; Richard Parker;

Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com<mailto:Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com >;

jhodge@howard.com<mailto:jhodge@howard.com >; Daniel Cohen;

cabolduc@lbl.gov<mailto:cabolduc@lbl.gov >; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov<mailto:gjrosenquist@lbl.gov >;

kcoughlin@lbl.gov<mailto:kcoughlin@lbl.gov>;Sc ottB@LVMetals.com<mailto:ScottB@LVMetals.com >;

dave.millure@metglas.com<mai lto:dave.millure@metglas.com >;

kwinder@mleainc.com<mailto:kwinder@mleainc.com >;

jrossetti@mlgw.org<mailto:jrossetti@mlgw.org >;

brian.coffey@navigant.com<mailto:brian.coffey@navigant.com >;

caitlin.johnson@navigant.com<mailto:caitlin.johnson@navigant.com >;

matthew.nardotti@navigant.com<mailto:matthew.nardotti@navigant.com >;

mrivest@navigant.com<mailto:mrivest@navigant.c om>;zhimei.luo@navigant.com<mailto:zhimei.luo@

navigant.com >; Creevy, Jim; Caskey, John; mwaltner@nrdc.org<mailto:mwaltner@nrdc.org >;

rroy@nrdc.org<mailto:rroy@nrdc.org >; robert.saint@nreca.coop<ma ilto:robert.saint@nreca.coop >;

Teckman@nwcouncil.org<mailt o:Teckman@nwcouncil.org >;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com<mailt o:vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com >;

gbf1@pge.com<mailto:gbf1@pge.com>;chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com<mailto:chuck.simmons@pgnmai

l.com >; ahofmann@publicpower.org<mailto:ahofmann@publicpower.org >;

pkumar@publicpower.org<mailto:pkumar@publicpower.org >;

adelaski@standardsASAP.org<mailto:adelaski@standardsASAP.org >;

jmauer@standardsasap.org<mailto:jmauer@standardsasap.org >;

wes.patterson@us.abb.com<mailto:wes.patterson@us.abb.com >; chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com<mailto:chad.kennedy@us.schneider

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

‐ electric.com<mailto:thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com >;

charlied@uus.org<mailto: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 effici ency advocates are not ignoring costs, but 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 effici ency. 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 transfor mers at EL4

are 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 be neficial based both on market

data and LBL analyses, the proponents of greater efficiency indicated 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 nothin g"

attitude. Although I happen 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 honestly 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 ca ses to DOE outside the negotiation 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, Princi pal

> Berman Economics

> www.BermanEconomics.com<http ://www.BermanEconomics.com >

> 1915 Grand Court

> Vienna, VA 22182

> 703

‐ 281

‐ 0490

> 703

‐ 655

‐ 8398 (cell)

> BermanEconomics@gmail.com<mailt o: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 belie ve the American public, especially in these trying 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 the 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 drie d” economic decision but is one that needs 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. If DOE makes the final decision on this, I would expect them to do “due dilige nce” 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 right decision.

>

> Bruce.

>

> From: Stev e Nadel [ mailto:snadel@aceee.org ]< mailto:[mailto:snadel@aceee.org] >

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

> To: Robert Berman; Phil Hopkinson

> Cc: Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com<ma ilto:Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com >;

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com<mai lto:jerry.schoen@aksteel.com >; Maxine (EMAB) Savitz;

mhyland@appanet.org<mailto:mhyland@appanet.org >;Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com<mai lto:Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com >;

maheshsampat@bellsouth.net<mailto:maheshsampat@bellsouth.net >; Hirsch, Bruce R;

tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com<mailto :tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com>;dbrender@cda.copper.org<mailto:dbr

ender@cda.copper.org >; James.Lass@cleco.com<mailt o:James.Lass@cleco.com >;

chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com<ma ilto:chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com >;

frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com<mailt o:frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com >;

ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com<mailt o:ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com >; Aaron Meyers;

Antonio Trujillo; Jack C Moore; Jerry L Corkran;

tballo@earthjustice.org<mailt o:tballo@earthjustice.org >;

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com<ma ilto:carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com >;

eduardorobles@eaton.com<mailto:eduardorobles@eaton.com >; Emily (CONTR) Marchetti; Jeremiah

(CONTR) Freeman; Jim Raba; John Cymbalsky; srosenstock@eei.org<ma ilto:srosenstock@eei.org >;

DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com<mailto:DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com >;

rick.anderson@faypwc.com<mailto:rick.anderson@faypwc.com >;

bsmith@federalpacific.com<mailto:bsmith@federalpacific.com >;

rgreeson@federalpacific.com<mailt o:rgreeson@federalpacific.com >;

carlos.gaytan@ge.com<mailto:carlos.gaytan@ge.com >;

artrosenfeld@gmail.com<mailto:artrosenfeld@gmail.com >;

greg.coulter405@gmail.com<mail to:greg.coulter405@gmail.com >;

ned.efbrush@gmail.com<mailto:ned.efbrush@gmail.com >; Richard Parker;

Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com<mailto:Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com >;

jhodge@howard.com<mailto:jhodge@howard.com >; Daniel Cohen;

cabolduc@lbl.gov<mailto:cabolduc@lbl.gov >; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov<mailto:gjrosenquist@lbl.gov >;

kcoughlin@lbl.gov<mailto:kcoughlin@lbl.gov >; ScottB@LVMetals.com<mailto:ScottB@LVMetals.com >;

dave.millure@metglas.com<mai lto:dave.millure@metglas.com >;

kwinder@mleainc.com<mailto:kwinder@mleainc.co m>;jrossetti@mlgw.org<mailto:jrossetti@mlgw.org

>; brian.coffey@navigant.com<mailto:brian.coffey@navigant.com >;

caitlin.johnson@navigant.com<mailto:caitlin.johnson@navigant.com >;

matthew.nardotti@navigant.com<mailto:matthew.nardotti@navigant.com >;

mrivest@navigant.com<mailto:mrivest@navigant.com >;

zhimei.luo@navigant.com<mailto:zhimei.luo@navigant.com >;

Jim.creevy@nema.org<mailto:Jim.creevy@nema.org >;

john.caskey@nema.org<mailto:john.caskey@nema.or g>;mwaltner@nrdc.org<mailto:mwaltner@nrdc.o

rg >; rroy@nrdc.org<mailto:rroy@nrdc.org >;

robert.saint@nreca.coop<ma ilto:robert.saint@nreca.coop >;

Teckman@nwcouncil.org<mailt o:Teckman@nwcouncil.org >;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com<mailt o:vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com >;

gbf1@pge.com<mailto:gbf1@pge.com >;

chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com<mail to:chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com >;

ahofmann@publicpower.org<mailto:ahofmann@public power.org>;pkumar@publicpower.org<mailto:p

kumar@publicpower.org >; adelaski@standardsASAP.org<mailto:adelaski@standardsASAP.org >;

jmauer@standardsasap.org<mailto:jmauer@standardsasap.org >;

wes.patterson@us.abb.com<mailto:wes.patterson@us.abb.com >; chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com<mailto:chad.kennedy@us.schneider

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

‐ electric.com<mailto:thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com >;

charlied@uus.org<mailto: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 what you want to do? If the answer is no, then let's

start talki ng 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 ground and not rehash old gr ound.

>

> Steve

>

>>>> Phil Hopkinson < phopkinson@hvolt.com<mailto: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. Th e fact is that the cost curve is very steep with M3 and 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 ab out 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 design 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 last 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 market 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<mailto:phopkinson@hvolt.com >

> Ph 704

‐ 846

‐ 3290

> Fx 704

‐ 845

‐ 2520

> Cell 704

‐ 236

‐ 3320

> www.hvolt.com<http://www.hvolt.com/ >

>

> From: Robert Berman

[ mailto:bermaneconomics@gmail.com ]< mailto:[mailto:berman economics@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<mailto:rick.anderson@faypwc.com >;

tballo@earthjustice.org<mailt o:tballo@earthjustice.org >;

ScottB@LVMetals.com<mailto:ScottB@LVMetals.com >;

john.caskey@nema.org<mailto:john.caskey@nema.org >; Cymbalsky, John;

adelaski@standardsASAP.org<mailto:adelaski@stand ardsASAP.org>;Teckman@nwcouncil.org<mailto:T

eckman@nwcouncil.org >; gbf1@pge.com<mailto:gbf1@pge.com >;

carlos.gaytan@ge.com<mailto:carlos.gaytan@ge.com >;

rgreeson@federalpacific.com<mailt o:rgreeson@federalpacific.com >;

bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com<mailto:bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com >;

jhodge@howard.com<mailto:jhodge@howard.com >;

mhyland@appanet.org<mailto:mhyland@appanet.org >;

dave.millure@metglas.com<mai lto:dave.millure@metglas.com >;

snadel@aceee.org<mailto:snadel@aceee.org>;wes.patterson@us.abb.com<mailto:wes.patterson@us.a

bb.com >; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com<ma ilto:Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com >;

Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com<mai lto:Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com >;

artrosenfeld@gmail.com<mailto:artrosenfeld@gmail.com >;

srosenstock@eei.org<ma ilto:srosenstock@eei.org >; rroy@nrdc.org<mailto:rroy@nrdc.org >;

robert.saint@nreca.coop<ma ilto:robert.saint@nreca.coop >;

chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com<mailto:chuck.simmons @pgnmail.com>;kwinder@mleainc.com<mailto:k

winder@mleainc.com >; mwaltner@nrdc.org<mailto:mwaltner@nrdc.org >;

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com<mai lto:jerry.schoen@aksteel.com >;

Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com<mailto:Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com >;

ahofmann@publicpower.org<mailto:ahofmann@publicpower.org >;

pkumar@publicpower.org<mailto:pkumar@publicpower.org >;

bsmith@federalpacific.com<mailto:bsmith@federalpacific.com >;

greg.coulter405@gmail.com<mailto :greg.coulter405@gmail.com>;jma uer@standardsasap.org<mailto:j

mauer@standardsasap.org >; Cohen, Daniel; Meyers, Aaron;

Jim.creevy@nema.org<mailto:Jim.creevy@nema.org >;

jrossetti@mlgw.org<mailto:jrossetti@mlgw.org >; cabolduc@lbl.gov<mailto:cabolduc@lbl.gov >;

kcoughlin@lbl.gov<mailto:kcoughlin@lbl.gov >;

brian.coffey@navigant.com<mailto:brian.coffey@navigant.com >;

mrivest@navigant.com<mailto:mrivest@navigant.com >;

gjrosenquist@lbl.gov<mailto:gjrosenquist@lbl.gov>; caitlin.johnson@navigant.com<mailto:caitlin.johnso

n@navigant.com >; zhimei.luo@navigant.com<mailto:zhimei.luo@navigant.com >; Marchetti, Emily(CONTR); charlied@uus.org<mailto:charlied@uus.org >; DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com<mailto:DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com >;

James.Lass@cleco.com<mailto:James.Lass@cleco.com >;

maheshsampat@bellsouth.net<ma ilto:maheshsampat@bellsouth.net>;matthew.nardotti@navigant.co

m<mailto:matthew.nardotti@navigant.com >; Raba, Jim; Savitz, Maxine (EMAB);

tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com<mail to:tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com >;

chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com<ma ilto:chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com >;

ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com<mailt o:ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com >;

frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com<mailto:frank. guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com>;ned.efbrush@gma

il.com<mailto:ned.efbrush@gmail.com >;

dbrender@cda.copper.org<mailto:dbrender@cda.copper.org >; chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com<mailto:chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com >;

eduardorobles@eaton.com<mailto:eduardorobles@eaton.com >;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com<mailt o:vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com >;

thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com<mailto:thom as.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com>;carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com<mailto: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 capac ity 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 eve n as high 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 where 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<http ://www.BermanEconomics.com >

> 1915 Grand Court

> Vienna, VA 22182

> 703

‐ 281

‐ 0490

> 703

‐ 655

‐ 8398 (cell)

> BermanEconomics@gmail.com<mailt o: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<mailto:phopkinson@hvolt.com >

>

> On Nov 10, 2011, at 18:04, "Corkran, Jerry L"

< Jerry.Corkran@CooperIndustries.com<mailt o: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 the losses or optimizi ng 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 efficien cy levels 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 ev en for loss level 1, the incremental 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 ques tionable that the DOE payback estimates are accurate. A 3% interest rate may be a factor

in the payback calculations.

>

>

> Jerry Corkran

>

>

> From: Richard Parker

[ mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com ]< mailto:[mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com] >

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

> To: Robert Berman

> Cc: Freeman, Jeremiah (CONTR); rick.anderson@faypwc.com<mailto:rick.anderson@faypwc.com >;

tballo@earthjustice.org<mailt o:tballo@earthjustice.org >;

ScottB@LVMetals.com<mailto:ScottB@LVMetals.com >;

john.caskey@nema.org<mailto:john.caskey@nema.org >; Corkran, Jerry L; Cymbalsky, John;

adelaski@standardsASAP.org<mailto:adelaski@stand ardsASAP.org>;Teckman@nwcouncil.org<mailto:T

eckman@nwcouncil.org >; gbf1@pge.com<mailto:gbf1@pge.com >;

carlos.gaytan@ge.com<mailto:carlos.gaytan@ge.com >;rgreeson@federalpacific.com<mailt o:rgreeson@federalpacific.com >;

bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com<mailto:bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com >;

jhodge@howard.com<mailto:jhodge@howard.com >;

mhyland@appanet.org<mailto:mhyland@appanet.org >;

dave.millure@metglas.com<mailto:dave.millure@met glas.com>;snadel@aceee. org<mailto:snadel@ace

ee.org >; wes.patterson@us.abb.com<mailto:wes.patterson@us.abb.com >;

Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com<mai lto:Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com >;

Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com<mai lto:Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com >;

artrosenfeld@gmail.com<mailto:artrosenfeld@gmail.com >;

srosenstock@eei.org<ma ilto:srosenstock@eei.org >; rroy@nrdc.org<mailto:rroy@nrdc.org >;

robert.saint@nreca.coop<mailto:robert.saint@nre ca.coop>;chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com<mailto:chuc

k.simmons@pgnmail.com >; kwinder@mleainc.com<mailto:kwinder@mleainc.com >;

mwaltner@nrdc.org<mailto:mwaltner@nrdc.org >;

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com<mai lto:jerry.schoen@aksteel.com >;

Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com<mailto:Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com >;

ahofmann@publicpower.org<mailto:ahofmann@publicpower.org >;

pkumar@publicpower.org<mailto:pkumar@publicpower.org>;bsmith@federalpacific.com<mailto:bsmit

h@federalpacific.com >; greg.coulter405@gmail.com<mail to:greg.coulter405@gmail.com >;

jmauer@standardsasap.org<mailto:jmauer@standardsasap.org >; Cohen, Daniel; Meyers, Aaron;

Jim.creevy@nema.org<mailto:Jim.creevy@nema.org >;

jrossetti@mlgw.org<mailto:jrossetti@mlgw.org >; cabolduc@lbl.gov<mailto:cabolduc@lbl.gov >;

kcoughlin@lbl.gov<mailto:kcoughlin@lbl.gov>;bria n.coffey@navigant.com<mailto:brian.coffey@naviga

nt.com >; mrivest@navigant.com<mailto:mrivest@navigant.com >;

gjrosenquist@lbl.gov<mailto:gjrosenquist@lbl.gov >;

caitlin.johnson@navigant.com<mailto:caitlin.johnson@navigant.com >;

zhimei.luo@navigant.com<mailto:zhimei.luo@navigant.com >; Marchetti, Emily (CONTR);

charlied@uus.org<mailto:charlied@uus.org >; DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com<mailto:DYoung@energy

‐

solution.com >; James.Lass@cleco.com<mailto:James.Lass@cleco.com >;

maheshsampat@bellsouth.net<mailto:maheshsampat@bellsouth.net >;

phopkinson@hvolt.com<mailt o:phopkinson@hvolt.com >;

matthew.nardotti@navigant.com<mailto:matthew.nardotti@navigant.com >; Raba, Jim; Savitz, Maxine

(EMAB);

tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com<mailto :tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com>;chr is.brown@cogentpowerinc.com<m

ailto:chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com >;

ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com<mailt o:ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com >;

frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com<mailt o:frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com >;

ned.efbrush@gmail.com<mailto:ned.efbrush@gmail.com >;

dbrender@cda.copper.org<mailto:dbrender@cda.copper.org >; chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com<mailto:chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com >;

eduardorobles@eaton.com<mailto:eduardorobles@eaton.com >;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com<mailt o:vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com >;

thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com<mailto:thom as.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com >;

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com<ma ilto: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<mailt o: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 an alysis is the basis for additional, perhaps extensive 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 com ponent of the installation 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. Be rman, Principal

> Berman Economics

> www.BermanEconomics.com<http: //www.BermanEconomics.com/>

> 1915 Grand Court

> Vienna, VA 22182

> 703

‐ 281

‐ 0490<tel:703

‐ 281

‐ 0490>

> 703

‐ 655

‐ 8398<tel:703

‐ 655

‐ 8398> (cell)

> BermanEconomics@gmail.com<mailt o:BermanEconomics@gmail.com>

>

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

>

> Dear Colleagues:

>

> The telcon on the 17th is currently pl anned 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 your very con structive 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<mailt o: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 yesterday's meeting.

Later today further information will be sent regarding th e 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

‐ 4243<tel:202

‐ 431

‐ 4243> (cell)

> 202

‐ 586

‐ 1867<tel:202

‐ 58 6

‐ 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 i nformation

> in this e

‐ mail in any way, delete this e

‐ mail and notify the sender. CEG

‐ IP2

>

>

> <Cooper DOE 2011 M3 Amorphous1031111 (4).pdf>