Memorandum

Date: December 23, 2011

To: John Cymbalsky

Dan Cohen

From: Richard Parker

Facilitator

Subject: Transformer Reg-Neg Status Report

This memo briefly overviews the status of the negotiated rulemaking on energy efficiency standards for 

medium- and low-voltage distribution transformers at year’s end. 

Medium-voltage Liquid-Filled

No consensus, but near-unanimous industry (though not advocate) support for the NEMA proposal of 

EL1 for DLs 1, 3, 4, 5 with no change for DL2. Advocates proposed EL3 across the board but signalled 

that they would go lower in response to industry movement upward. 

There was informal consensus on special treatment for networks and vaults due to space constraints, with 

no increase in standards for such transformers. There was also strong support around the table, though no 

formal vote, on a recommendation to DOE to consider asserting jurisdiction over refurbishing operations 

that involve the refurbisher taking title to the transformer – a form of transaction that utilities favor 

because it allows them to capitalize the re-furbished transformer in their rate base.

Although we did not reach consensus, I hope and expect that the process yielded useful information that 

will improve the NOPR and final rule, while offering a useful indication of industry’s bottom line.

Medium-Voltage Dry Type

We reached formal consensus on EL2 for Design Line 12, with appropriate scaling adjustments off that 

anchor point for other design lines and kVA ratings in the MVDT space. We are very close to agreement 

on those adjustments.

Unfortunately, with holidays upon us, it is not possible to finish that business before year’s end, but 

NEMA believes it can caucus with its members the first week in January, so that we could have a final, 

formal vote on a consensus recommendation for MVDT on January 9th or 10th, depending on schedules. 

Low-Voltage Dry Type

The parties failed to reach agreement on our last scheduled conference call on Dec. 20. NEMA’s last 

written offer called for EL 2 for DL 7 and 8 (with no change for EL 6), whereas advocates demanded EL 

4. 

On the call, Tom Patzner, who had authored the NEMA position, indicated that his prior proposal had 

selected EL2 to reflect the NEMA premium whereas for DL 7 the NEMA premium efficiency level is 

actually EL 3. So he amended his proposal to EL 3 for DL 7 and EL 2 for DL 8, with special treatment 

for 15 kva and 750-1000 kva sub-classes.1

 1 My notes indicate that NEMA may have informally accepted that position, but Caitlin Johson at Navigant is 

reviewing the recording of the phone call to confirm. In any case, my sense has been that NEMA will support going 

 
2

However, the advocates have said that is not enough, since the LCC savings are positive and rising at 

higher efficiency levels and the manufacturing impacts of moving to a higher level seem minor.

After the call, Schneider Electric expressed disappointment with the outcome of the call. Tom Patzner of 

Scheider Electric indicated that he thought that the industry offer could and should be improved. After 

consulting his engineers, he believes that the transformer industry can achieve EL 4 for DL 7 and EL 3.5 

for DL 8 with either M4, M3 or H0/H1 with a variety of designs, thereby meeting the essential decisional 

criterion that we have informally applied throughout our talks: the energy efficiency level that maximizes 

life-cycle cost savings with a competitive mix of steels. 

Since then, Patzner and I have consulted with Hammond Power, Eaton, Federal Pacific, and GE. These 

firms, with Schneider, control the lion’s share of the LV transformer market in the United States. 

Although we have not yet heard formally from GE, the remaining firms have informally indicated that 

they generally agree with Schneider and generally endorse his approach, though Hammond would prefer 

EL 3, instead of 3.5, for the 750-1000 KVA portion of DL8 (which accounts for a very small volume of 

shipments).

John Caskey of NEMA, though aware of the revised draft proposal, remains concerned with the possible 

impact on small manufacturers and in any case needs more time to consult with his membership. Due to 

the holiday season, that cannot happen until early January, but he again offered to provide a firm NEMA 

response by the end of the first week of January.

In short, the industry may be able and willing to sweeten its offer, yielding a committee consensus for a 

substantial additional cost savings for consumers and energy savings for the nation. 

It is my judgment that it would be desirable to give this process a bit more time to unfold. I understand 

you have deadlines to meet and that you will be sending your draft NOPR to OMB within a few days. I 

also understand that you are keeping OMB up to speed on our negotiating process. I hope that whatever is 

sent will not foreclose or pre-judge the outcome of our negotiations on the MVDT and LVDT lines, 

which are not complete but hold significant promise. If we are able to reach final agreement in early 

January, and you need more time to amend the NOPR to reflect that agreement, the advocates have 

assured me that they will be happy to approach the court with a motion from them requesting the 

necessary time. 

Please let me know if this approach is inconsistent with your understanding or if it raises any questions or 

concerns. 

Cc:

Jim Raba

Maxine Savitz

Art Rosenfeld

 

to NEMA premium for all of LVDT, except for the very small 15 kva sub-class where a more lenient standard is 

needed.