From: Wes Patterson [mailto:wes.patterson@us.abb.com]  

Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 7:18 AM

To: brian.kaja@ge.com

Cc: Aaron.Meyers@cooperindustries.com; adelaski@standardsasap.org; ahofmann@publicpower.org;

Aris Marantan; artrosenfeld@gmail.com; august.esch@gmail.com; BermanEconomics@gmail.com;

Brian Coffey; bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com; bsmith@federalpacific.com; cabolduc@lbl.gov; Caitlin Johnson;

carlos.gaytan@ge.com; carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; chad.kennedy@us.schneider‐electric.com;

charlied@uus.org; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; clark.silcox@nema.org; cstephens@neea.org;

Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; dave.millure@metglas.com; DYoung@energy‐solution.com;

eduardorobles@eaton.com; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; gbf1@pge.com; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov;

greg.coulter405@gmail.com; James.Lass@cleco.com; Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.gov;

Jeremiah.Freeman@ee.doe.gov; jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com; jerry.schoen@aksteel.com;

jhodge@howard‐ind.com; Jim.creevy@nema.org; Jim.Raba@ee.doe.gov; jmauer@standardsasap.org;

john.caskey@nema.org; john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; jrossetti@mlgw.org; kcoughlin@lbl.gov;

kwinder@mleainc.com; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net; mark.stoering@xcelenergy.com; Matthew

Nardotti; maxinesavitz@aol.com; mhyland@appanet.org; Michael Rivest; mwaltner@nrdc.org;

Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com; phil@pjharter.com; phopkinson@hvolt.com; pkumar@publicpower.org;

Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com; rgreeson@federalpacific.com; richardparkerdc@gmail.com;

rick.anderson@faypwc.com; robert.saint@nreca.coop; robert.vanbuskirk@ee.doe.gov; rroy@nrdc.org;

ScottB@lvmetals.com; snadel@aceee.org; srosenstock@eei.org; tballo@earthjustice.org;

Teckman@nwcouncil.org; thomas.patzner@us.schneider‐electric.com;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; Zhimei Luo

Subject: RE: Network Working Group for DOE Negotiated Rulemaking

Hi Brian  

Thank you for the valuable feedback.  

I took the liberty to cc the Committee for their consideration.  

Best regards  

Wes  

"Kaja, Brian (GE Energy Services)"

<brian.kaja@ge.com>  

10/21/2011 05:32 PM  

To Wes Patterson/SouthBoston/USTRA/ABB@ABB  

cc "Gaytan Cavazos, Carlos (GE Energy, Non‐GE)"

<Carlos.Gaytan@ge.com>,

<greg.coulter405@gmail.com>,

<richardparkerdc@gmail.com>,
<rick.anderson@faypwc.com>,

<Aaron.Meyers@CooperIndustries.com>  

Subject RE: Network Working Group for DOE Negotiated

Rulemaking

Hello Wes,  

   

Thanks for letting me participate in the Network Working group.  By and large, I agree with your

recommendations to the committee about Networks & Vaults, and how they should be handled

separately in comparison to the other design types included with Liquid‐Immersed distribution

transformers.  

   

Further Comments towards Questions...  

1)      I think the description of the Network product could be taken from the “Scope” section of

ANSI/IEEE C57.12.40 ... basically ... “three‐phase, 60‐Hz, liquid‐immersed, self‐cooled, network  

transformers with a primary grounding switch. These transformers are rated 2500 kVA and below with

high voltages 34 500GrdY/19 920 volts and below. These transformers are generally used for step‐down

purposes from underground primary cables and supply a secondary network system through network

protectors. These transformers are typically installed below ground level.”  

2)      I have no data showing any different than what you have provided.  Looks great.  I did do a study of

our Key Customers versus Network Spec 12.40 on limiting dimensions.  Most have tighter limits than

ANSI/IEEE.  And the majority of our designs are at the available limits.  Therefore, it would be very

challenging for raising levels any further as this increases the size of the overall unit/footprint.  And this

would not meet vault size restrictions.  

3)      Then about the 3rd question ... Can you suggest / recommend an alternative way a separate

regulation for Networks/Vaults could be written? ... I am open to hear how the Negotiated Rulemaking

discusses this, but I think it better to have an Efficiency Table dedicated to Networks versus the

suggested approach of “50% total load losses for Networks and Vaults be no more than  XX% higher

than the standard.  The XX% would depend on the final standard for other transformers.” ...  

a.       Personally, I rather design to a %Efficiency Level compared to a “Total Losses value” because it

gives me more flexibility with core versus coil design options with different combinations of No‐Load

and Load Losses.  These combinations may have higher or lower total losses between them, but all meet

the same minimum %Efficiency.  That is more common approach to design.  

b.      We could propose a similar approach as you gave, but in terms of %Efficiency ... “XX% Lower

Efficiency than the standard.  The XX% would depend on the final %Efficiency standard for other

transformers.”  

   
   

I appreciate all the productive comments yourself & others have made in helping the committee

understand the unique (limiting) application of Network transformers.  I have not been able to attend all

the teleconferences ... roughly half of them.  Please continue to keep me informed & I will try to assist as

best as I am able.  

   

Thanks ................. Brian  

Brian Kaja  

Core & Coil Design Engineer  

GE Energy  

Transmission & Distribution  

T 318 683 5259  

F 318 683 5315  

E brian.kaja@ge.com  

7000 W. Bert Kouns Industrial Loop  

Shreveport, LA 71129  

General Electric Company  

GE imagination at work  

From: wes.patterson@us.abb.com [mailto:wes.patterson@us.abb.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 7:26 AM

To: Kaja, Brian (GE Energy Services)

Cc: Gaytan Cavazos, Carlos (GE Energy, Non‐GE); greg.coulter405@gmail.com; Green, Michael S (GE

Energy Services); richardparkerdc@gmail.com; rick.anderson@faypwc.com;

Aaron.Meyers@CooperIndustries.com

Subject: Re: Network Working Group for DOE Negotiated Rulemaking  

   

Hi Brian  

Thank you for the offer to assist.  

See note from Richard below.  

I have already made a recommendation that these products (Networks and Vaults) be treated

separately.  

Richard indicated they would need a description of the products that can clearly separate them from

other transformer ‐ preferable as brief as possible.    

Can you provide a suggestion?  

Can you provide supporting data as to why they should be treated separately?  

I forwarded to the Committee the attached which shows for our Network production we have basically

maxed out the leverage of quality grade core steels to meet the current efficiency standard.  As I see it
any increase in the current efficiency level will result in increase the unit's footprint.  

Richard is requesting guidance on how this might be handled.    

To keep the standard as simple as possible I would recommend that, rather than defining separate

tables of efficiency levels, we merely state that the 50% total load losses for Networks and Vaults be no

more than  XX% higher than the standard.  The XX% would depend on the final standard for other

transformers.  

Can you suggest / recommend an alternative way a separate regulation for Networks/Vaults could be

written?  

Best regards  

Wes  

‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded by Wes Patterson/SouthBoston/USTRA/ABB on 10/18/2011 08:03 AM ‐‐‐‐‐  

Richard Parker

<richardparkerdc@gmail.com>
10/17/2011 02:17 PM   To Wes Patterson/SouthBoston/USTRA/ABB@ABB  

cc Aaron.Meyers@cooperindustries.com,

adelaski@standardsasap.org, ahofmann@publicpower.org,

amarantan@navigant.com, artrosenfeld@gmail.com,

august.esch@gmail.com, BermanEconomics@gmail.com,

brian.coffey@navigant.com, bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com,

bsmith@federalpacific.com, cabolduc@lbl.gov,

Caitlin.Johnson@navigant.com, carlos.gaytan@ge.com,

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com, chad.kennedy@us.schneider‐

electric.com, charlied@uss.org, chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com,

Cla_Silcox@nema.org, cstephens@neea.org,

Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov, dave.millure@metglas.com,

DYoung@energy‐solution.com, eduardorobles@eaton.com,

Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com, gbf1@pge.com,

gjrosenquist@lbl.gov, greg.coulter405@gmail.com,

James.Lass@cleco.com, Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.com,

Jeremiah.Freeman@ee.doe.gov,

jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com,

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com, jhodge@howard‐ind.com,

Jim.creevy@nema.org, Jim.Raba@ee.doe.gov,

jmauer@standardsasap.org, Joh_Caskey@nema.org,

john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov, jrossetti@mlgw.org,

kcoughlin@lbl.gov, kwinder@mleainc.com,

maheshsampat@bellsouth.net,

mark.stoering@xcelenergy.com,

matthew.nardotti@navigant.com, mhyland@appanet.org,

mrivest@navigant.com, mwaltner@nrdc.org,

Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com, phil@pjharter.com,

phopkinson@hvolt.com, pkumar@publicpower.org,

Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com,

rgreeson@federalpacific.com, rick.anderson@faypwc.com,

robert.saint@nreca.coop, rroy@nrdc.org,

ScottB@lvmetals.com, snadel@aceee.org,

srosenstock@eei.org, tballo@earthjustice.org,

Teckman@nwcouncil.org, thomas.patzner@us.schneider‐

electric.com, vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com,

zhimei.luo@navigant.com  

Subject Re: DOE DL2 Proposed Modification

   
Hi Wes, Aaron and others,

My recollection ‐‐ due warning, it is that of a layman ‐‐ is that two workgroups were formed for the MV

work group.  One devoted to general issues of data quality and replicability ‐‐ for design parameters of

rep units and question of whether rep units are sufficiently representative.  A second to deal specifically

vault and network transformers, and to make recommendations on whether they should be treated as

separate sub‐category and if so how.  

My further recollection, which seems to have been corroborated by Wes's reply, is that for liquid‐

immersed there was reasonable concurrence with the view that while the rep units chosen might not

perfectly reflect dominant market shares, they could be used (with the adjustments of the sort Wes

describes herein) as a basis for extrapolating cost‐efficiency estimates for units covering the market in

that DL category.  If so, then the chief charge of this data sub‐group might be to confirm Wes's analysis

and deal with any other data‐quality‐related concerns raised by Rob Greeson/Federal Pacific at our prior

meeting.

Hope this helps.  Let me know if there are further questions.

All best,

Richard

"Kaja, Brian (GE Energy

Services)"

<brian.kaja@ge.com>  

10/13/2011 08:19 PM  

To Wes Patterson/SouthBoston/USTRA/ABB@ABB  

cc <richardparkerdc@gmail.com>, "Gaytan Cavazos, Carlos (GE Energy,

Non‐GE)" <Carlos.Gaytan@ge.com>, <greg.coulter405@gmail.com>,

"Green, Michael S (GE Energy Services)" <MichaelS.Green@ge.com>  

Subject Network Working Group for DOE Negotiated Rulemaking

   
Hello Mr. Wes Patterson,

I understand from my GE/Prolec representatives (Carlos Gaytan, Greg

Coulter) that Networks is becoming a subclass of LF DT's for these

negotiations, and has a Network working group starting.  I think this is

a good idea based on the greater restrictions Networks have with vault

sizes, and other Network coordination topics.  And the specialized

difficulties Networks will have to go to higher efficiencies.  They

recommended I get ahold of you, and offer my assistance to join this

working group.  I agree.

Please provide me the responsibilities you believe I might have for this

group, and I will see how I can incorporate this into my daily

commitments.

Thanks ..................... Brian

Brian Kaja

Core & Coil Design Engineer

GE Energy

Transmission & Distribution

T 318 683 5259

F 318 683 5315

E brian.kaja@ge.com

7000 W. Bert Kouns Industrial Loop

Shreveport, LA 71129

General Electric Company

GE imagination at work