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

Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 10:51 PM 

To: Andrew Delaski; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Smith; Brian Coffey; Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Siqueiros; Caskey, 

John; Chad Kennedy; Chris Bolduc; Chris Brown; Creevy, Jim; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; Eduardo 

Robles; Edwards, Brenda; Eric Peterson; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Rosenquist; Jennifer 

Tiedeman; Jerry Schoen; Jim Raba; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; Katie Coughlin; Matthew Nardotti; 

Maxine Savitz; Meg Waltner; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; Phil Harter; Polinski, Raymond; Richard W. 

Parker; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck; Steve 

Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Ted Johnstone; Thomas Patzner; Thomas Petrosino; Tim Ballo; Vijay 

Tendulkar; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo 

Subject: Leisure Reading -- if you like dense plots 

Dear high-powered (but low voltage) colleagues, 

The attached simplified price curves supplied by Navigant for LV are quite useful graphically 

and I encourage you to look them over (some could not find it on sharepoint but they are there 

and I am attaching them here for ease of reference for those who may still be having difficulty 

with sharepoint). 

The charts and plot setups included with these charts are also quite useful (particularly for those 

of us with color issues implicated by scatterdot plots) in clearly illustrating and explaining the 

conundrum we grappled with in the LV meeting today (perfectly flat price-efficiency curves 

through several ELs particularly in DL 7 resulting in seemingly high energy savings from EL 1. 

As we discovered (but these docs illustrate graphically and numerically) the anomaly results 

from the computer's selection of designs that actually achieve EL 2, 3, and sometimes EL4 levels 

of efficiency when, hypothetically, only EL 1 is mandated. The paradox is particularly acute, as 

Mike Rivest noted, for DL7. The realism of this scenario (and the likelihood of achieving 1 

Quad of saving from an EL1 standard) obviously turns on the probability of manufacturers 

voluntarily selecting designs that achieve EL 2, 3, 4 in practice when, hypothetically, only EL 1 

is mandated. That in turn implicates the issue of whether the price-efficiency curves are really as 

flat as the model suggests. 

Another virtue of looking over the plot setup spreadsheets is that it gives you the precise prices 

and price increments estimated for each design. Here, I took the liberty of adding a column G in 

the plot setups for DL 7 and 8. Column G displays the price increment for each EL over the next 

lower EL for each metal. I also bolded the lowest priced row for each EL among all the designs 

-- the bolds include those designs that are a priced within about 10 percent of the lowest-cost 

design for each EL. 

 

For those conversant with the (rather cryptic) codes in the plot setup, the setups should yield 

other design details such as whether the designs are butt-lapped, mitred, etc. Rob Carmichael's 

very helpful MIA memo covers this ground in prose at a slightly higher level of generality. 

So I commend these simplified curves and support plot setup worksheeps to your attention, if 

you haven't discovered them already, but only after you've gotten a good night's sleep, and 
breakfast and gotten through the sports pages. 

All best, 

Richard