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

Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 3:29 PM

To: Oehlmann, Kevin

Cc: Kaja, Brian (GE Energy Services); bsmith@federal pacific.com; Cooke, Charmaine D; Weisenfeld, Neil; ahofmann@publicpower.org; Brian Coffey; bruce. r.hirsch@bge.com; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; mhyland@appanet.org; richardparkerdc@gmail.com; rick.anderson@faypwc.com; snadel@aceee.org; srosenstock@eei.org; tballo@earthjustice.org Subject: RE: FW: Negotiated Rulemaking - Distribution Transformers Teleconference---Networks

Very helpful - thanks Kevin

Best regards

Wes

"Oehlmann, Kevin" < OehlmannKe@coned.com >

11/30/2011 03:07 PM To Wes Patterson/SouthBoston/USTRA/ABB@ABB,

< bsmith@federalpacific.com >, "Kaja, Brian (GE Energy Services)"

< brian.kaja@ge.com >

cc "Weisenfeld, Neil" < WEISENFELDN@coned.com >, "Cooke, Charmaine

D" < COOKEC@coned.com > Subject RE: FW: Negotiated Rulemaking - Distribution Transformers

Teleconference---Networks

All

– attached is a document that conEdison previously shared with GE Shreveport.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if we can help more.

_________________________________________________________________________

____ Kevin Oehlmann, P.E. | conEdison, inc. | Distribution Engineering | 4 Irving Place 1206 | 646.210.3557

From: Weisenfeld, Neil

Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 2:31 PM

To: Oehlmann, Kevin Subject: Fw: FW: Negotiated Rulemaking - Distributi on Transformers Teleconference---Networks

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Device

From : Cooke, Charmaine D

Sent : Wednesday, November 30, 2011 01:28 PM

To : Weisenfeld, Neil

Cc : Schimmenti, Robert; Cooke, Charmaine D Subject : FW: FW: Negotiated Rulemaking - Distributi on Transformers Teleconference---NetworksNeil,

I believe that these are the documents that Bob is referring to.

Charmaine

From: Bob Smith [ mailto:bsmith@federalpacific.com ]

Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 11:05 AM

To: Cooke, Charmaine D

Cc: 'Wes Patterson' Subject: FW: FW: Negotiated Rulemaking - Distributi on Transformers Teleconference---Networks

From: Bob Smith [mailto:bsmith@federalpacific.com]

Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 11:02 AM

To: 'cooke@coned.com'

Cc: 'Wes Patterson'; 'Robert Greeson' Subject: FW: FW: Negotiated Rulemaking - Distributi on Transformers Teleconference---Networks

Dear Charmaine:

Listed below is some background information of which I believe Con. Ed. is aware regarding the possibility of DOE
raising the efficiency levels of Distribution Transformers again. At this moment there is a group formed to

establish a Negotiated Rule Making Committee to recommend to the DOE what, if any, efficiency requirements

should be modified by DOE

. I have attached a listing of members of this committee. DOE is not bound by this

committee’s recommendations; but we expect they will follow them closely.

At this very moment I am working with Wes Patterson of ABB to get Network Transformers EXEMPT from any
additional efficiency requirements, because going to higher efficiencies will increase the size of the Network

transformers.

Con. Ed. probably has already directed comments to the DOE regarding the hardship you would experience to have

to deal with larger Network Transformers. If you’ve made this type of appeal to the DOE, it would be great to send

a copy of this to Wes and me. If you have not indi cated the impact of larger Network Transformers on operations

and increased costs for Con. Ed., could you take a moment and send those comments to Wes and me. On Wednesday of this week in Washington Wes will summarize comments from utilities to try to get our committee to

agree to exem pt submersible transformers from higher efficiency requirements.

So far the in our meetings members of the Advocate Group have proposed going up to 3 higher efficiency levels

above the present 2010 level. The manufacturers have countered with going up to 1 level.

The attached standard that applies to Networks is IEEE C57.12.40, so you can ignore the others if you wish.

Please let me know how you would like to proceed on this issue.

Thank you,

Bob Smith, PEProduct Manager

Federal Pacific 601 Old Airport Road Bristol, VA 24201

TEL: (276) 645-8836

FAX: (276) 645-8956
CELL: (276) 591-6143

Email: bsmith@federalpacific.com

The information contained in this message and any attachments is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain informa tion that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable la w. If you have received this message in error, you are prohibited from copying, distributing, or using the information. Please contact the sender immediately by return e-mail and completely delete the original message from your system.

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

Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 3:31 PM

To: Timothy Ballo

Cc: ahofmann@publicpower.org ; brian.kaja@ge.com ; bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com ; bsmith@federalpacific.com ; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com ; richardparkerdc@gmail.com ; rick.anderson@faypwc.com ; snadel@aceee.org ; srosenstock@eei.org ; brian.coffey@navigant.com Subject: RE: FW: Negotiated Rulemaking - Distribution Transformers Teleconference---Networks

Hi Tim

I have also gotten some input from Al Trout (PPI Engineering Manager).

His comments:

====================================== On Submersibles I think pointing to the appropriat e product standard gives sufficient definition. C57.12.23 1ph Submersibles C57.12.24 3ph Submersibles C57.12.40 3ph Networks Each of these standards also specifies dimensional limitations. Even with current efficiency levels we struggle to meet dimensional constraints for 100kV and larger 1ph

submersibles. Usually have to resort to expensive Cu windings when Cu is not otherwise warranted.

Here are the rest of the MVLF product st andards that can help provide differentiation. C57.12.20 1ph and 3ph Overhead (poles) C57.12.38 1ph PadmountC57.12.34 3ph Padmount (Brian Coffey has an old, obsolete std) C57.12.36 1ph and 3ph Substation



### ================== =============

As Al notes they have they same issue as the Netw orks. Brian Kaja (GE) has also communicated this.

Underground and Submersibles are the same thing. Brian stated that GE calls them Commercial Subsurface Transformers (CSTs)

My recollection is that these were discussed duri ng the meeting when I discussed the Networks. So I think we should try to include them.

As for the market size, they we re included in ABB's estimate of 5% of the MVLF Market by MVA.

For those who might not have these standar ds - here are copies of the ones I have Underground, 1ph, <=167KVA there is a 2009 version Underground, 3ph, <-2500KVA there is a 2009 version

Networks+Vaults latest version Transformer Terminology there is a 2010 version

Best regards

Wes

Timothy Ballo

< tballo@earthjustice.org >

11/16/2011 02:06 PM To "'Simmons, Chuck'" < Chuck.Simmons@pgnmail.com >

cc "'Rosenstock, Steven'" < SRosenstock@eei.org >, Wes Patterson/SouthBoston/USTRA/ABB@ABB, "'rick.anderson@faypwc.com'" < rick.anderson@faypwc.com >, "'ahofmann@publicpower.org'" <'ahofmann@publicpower.org'>, "'brian.kaja@ge.com'" <'brian.kaja@ge.com'>, "'bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com'" <'bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com'>, "'bsmith@federalpacific.com'" <'bsmith@federalpacific.com'>, "'richardparkerdc@gmail.com'" <'richardparkerdc@gmail.com'>, "'snadel@aceee.org'" < snadel@aceee.org > Subject RE: FW: Negotiated Rulemaking - Distribution Transformers Teleconference---Networks

Chuck (and others),

Regarding the network transformers that do not include an integral primary grou nding switch and/or network protector, what would be the reason for purchasing the transformer withou t those features installed? Is it an issue of physically getting the unit into the vault with that equipment installed? And in cases where this equipm ent is not installed, is it typically purchased from the same manufacturer, such that it could be packaged together?

I don’t yet have a copy of the 2006 version of C57.12.40, but it looks like the 2000 version does require a primary disconnect and grounding switch be welded to the transfor mer tank, though it does not require a secondary network protector (just a secondary throat suitable for connecting to a networ k protector). That points to the need to identify the particular version of C57.12.40, if the definition is going to incorporate the IEEE standard by reference.

I’m looking forward to others weighing in on the vault transformer definition, as based on the emails so far, thiscategory seems to be poten tially the most problemati c in terms of creating a loophole in the standards.

Also, regarding the efficiency standards that should apply to these transformers, my understanding is that most of those who have weighed in so far have recomm ended leaving all of these special cate gories at the 2010 levels, and I’d likely agree to that as part of a the whole package of standards we are negotiating – provided we can get the definitions tight. But one of the tasks of this work group is also to identify th e percentage of the market that is at stake, and it would be helpful to get some confirmation on that point. Wes’s earlier email suggested the networks market – which I assume includes networks, vaults, subway and submersible transforme rs – accounts for about 5% of the liquid-immersed market by capacity shipped. Have ot hers been able to corroborate that estimate? I’m not asking to see sensitive data, I just want to make sure we’re dealing with about 5% and not 10 or 15.

Thanks.

-Tim

From: Simmons, Chuck [mailto:Chuck.Simmons@pgnmail.com]

Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 2:39 PM

To: Timothy Ballo

Cc: 'Rosenstock, Steven'; 'Wes Patterson'; 'rick. anderson@faypwc.com'; 'ahofmann@publicpower.org'; 'brian.kaja@ge.com'; 'bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com'; 'bsmith@federalpacific.com'; 'richardparkerdc@gmail.co m'; 'snadel@aceee.org' Subject: RE: FW: Negotiated Rulemaking - Distribution Transformers Teleconference---Networks

Tim:

I do feel that network and vault type transformers need to have special consideration such that their overall dimensions do not increase by any future DOE ruling(s). Network and Vault-Type transformers that follow the

conventions of the IEEE C57.12.40 and C57.12.24 requirements, re spectively, are somewhat more expensive than similar kVA sized padmount or pole type transformers. Progress Energy pays approximately 183% more for network transformers and 88% for vault type transformers than an equal kVA / voltage rated transformer of the standard padmount type (I used a 500kVA, 22860GrdY/13200-480Y/277 Volt padmount transformer as the base reference and compared to similarly rated 500kVA network and vault type transformers).

The dimensional restraints not only result from the vault that the transformers are eventually located in, but also due to the areas that the transformer has to be moved through to get to the final vault site.

I would like to caution that not all network transformers in clude a primary grounding switch and/or protector as an integral part of the network transformer, so any definition th at states such would be incorrect, in my opinion.

In the IEEE C57.12.80 (IEEE Standard Terminology for Power and Distribution Transfor mers), a network transformer is defined per the following:

In this same document, a vault-type transformer is defined as:I think that the definitions arrived at for use in DOE consideration should be a mixture of the previously referenced

IEEE standards and the above stated defin itions. I would like to offer the following:

Network Transformer : A transformer designed for use in a vault to fe e a variable capacity system of interconnected secondaries that is built per the requirements of IEEE C57. 12.40. Network transformers may, or may not, have a primary grounding switch and/or protector as an integral part of the transformer.

Vault-Type Transformer : A transformer designed for occasional submerged operation in water that is built per the requirements of IEEE C57.12.24.

The definition above for Network Transformers is pretty cl ose-ended in my opinion, as the C57.12.40 standard lists maximum dimensions (at least for mineral-oil filled units), construction and other requirements such that it will be extremely unlikely that any circumvention of the DOE intent would occur. The configuration of the network transformer is pretty standard across the board, unlike vault-type transformers . I would like to receive input from other Users who have more of these transformers on their systems.

Vault-Type Transformers aren’t as clear-cut in my opini on because the construction ca n vary depending on where customers locate the primary an d secondary terminals. Progress Energy has our vault-type transformers configured like a padmount transformer except we don’t get a compartment for the primary and secondary terminals. Other utilities have the primary and secondary terminals located on the cover of the transformer as the C57.12.24 standard indicates in Figure 1 which is also where the maximum dimensions are given. To have the C57.12.24 standard cover all possible configurations would require that more information be included in the standards which will not happen before the end of this year – unlike our part will. Also, Progress Energy like some other utilities have additional requirements for vault-type transformers such as; a) requirement for 304L stainless steel construction externally such that partial, or full, su bmersion will not lead to corrosion of the tank or other external metal parts, b) requirement for a high, fire-point fluid in lieu of minera l oil such that the probability of a transformer fire are lessened, c) requirement for internal primary fusing of the transformers that could force the tank to be bigger than if there was no internal fusing, and d) requirement for a delta -wye switch on the primary of the transformer to facilitate the ability to use these transformers on two different syst ems that our company operates (this also can lead to a larger tank due to the switch being located inside of the tank).

My recommendation is that; 1) We come to agreement on how network and vault-type transformers are defined, and 2) Have network and vault-type transformers remove d from consideration of any further efficiency requirements.

The current DOE efficiency re quirements for these type tr ansformers are already at a high level, in my opinion (98.91% for 75kVA and higher efficiency levels for higher kVA rated designs). The volume of these units is very small as there are very few places where Users want to sp end that kind of money on tr ansformers where a standard padmount transformer is much less expensive. I’m not aware of any dimensional problems that Users are having

with the dimensions of networks and vaults that result from the DOE Final Ruling implemented in 2010. If the decision is made to include these units in any future efficiency changes, then considerable attention will be required to ensure that whatever designs are arrived at can actually fit into the existing vaults that Users have to provide

service to.

I’ve attached some dimensional requirements from the Progress Energy specifications for network (first 3 pages) and vault-type (last page) transformers.

Hopefully, we can arrange a teleconfer ence soon to discuss all of this.Regards, Chuck Simmons, P.E.

Distribution Standards Progress Energy

Voice Net: 745-6033

Bell: 919-662-6033

-----Original Message----- From: Timothy Ballo [ mailto:tballo@earthjustice.org ]

Sent: Fri 11/11/2011 5:40 PM To: 'Rick Anderson'; 'Wes Patterson'; 'Simmons, Chuck' Cc: 'ahofmann@publicpower.org'; 'brian.kaja@ge.com'; 'bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com'; 'bsmith@federalpacific.com'; 'richardparkerdc@gmail.com'; Nadel, Steve; Rosenstock, Steven Subject: RE: FW: Negotiated Rulemaking - Distribu tion Transformers Tel econference- --Networks

Rick,

I agree that physical size is a real world constraint for these transformers. And I don 't object to including size parameters in addition to other criteria in establishing a DOE definition for network, vault, subway, or submersible transformers, though I'm not sure they are necessary for our purposes here and I'd prefer to keep the definitions as short as possible.

But I would have a concern with using physical size as the sole criterion to define any of these transformers for purposes of DOE's regulations. If DOE applies a weaker efficiency requirement to whatever the Department's regulations define as, for example, a "vault transformer," and if that DOE definition says only that "vault

transformers are those transformers w ith maximum tank dimensions of 'X' for a kVA rating of 'Y'," it creates an incentive for a manufacturer to shift to physically smaller, lo w efficiency, low cost transfor mers that qualify as vault

transformers because of thei r small size. That would undermine the energy savings I'm hoping we can get from

these standards.

Maybe my concern about what manufacturers would do is unrealistic, but if it is I'd need to know why.

-Tim

From: Rick Anderson [ mailto:rick.anderson@faypwc.com ] Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 2:15 PM To: Timothy Ballo; 'Wes Patterson'; 'Simmons, Chuck'

Cc: ahofmann@publicpower.org ; brian.kaja@ge.com ; bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com ; bsmith@federalpacific.com ; richardparkerdc@gmail.com ; snadel@aceee.org ; srosenstock@eei.org Subject: RE: FW: Negotiated Rulemaking - Distribu tion Transformers Tel econference- --Networks

Tim,Next week I'll look at the definitions in ANSI C57. However, generally speaking, these transformers are used in Vaults and we need to be cognizant of the physical size of existing vaults. It's not easy to make a vault larger so I think ANSI is cognizant of past standards when they estab lished the dimensions used today. Right of way can get to be very expensive.

My intuition says to use the ANSI definition so no one tries to somehow circumvent the process.

Rick Anderson, PE

Manager of Electrical Engineering

Fayetteville PWC

PO Box 1089

Fayetteville, North Carolina 28302

Office: (910) 223-4517

Cell: (910) 263-5058

FAX: (910) 323-2990

From: Timothy Ballo [ mailto:tballo@earthjustice.org ] Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 1:01 PM To: 'Wes Patterson'; 'Simmons, Chuck' Cc: 'ahofmann@publicpower.org'; 'brian.kaja@ge.com'; 'bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com'; 'bsmith@federalpacific.com'; 'richardparkerdc@gmail.com'; Rick Anderson; 'snadel@aceee.org'; 'srosenstock@eei.org' Subject: RE: FW: Negotiated Rulemaking - Distribu tion Transformers Tel econference- --Networks

All,

Since DOE's standards apply to the manufacturers of transformers and not to the utilities that buy and install them, in coming up with definitions for di fferent types of transformers we n eed to focus on what components or characteristics of the transformer distinguish it from the typical pole and pad-mount designs. In particular, the definitions need to incorporate those features of a netw ork/vault/subway/submersible transformer that make the unit unsuitable or uneconomical for use in other applications.The use of ANSI/IEEE C57.12.40 to define network transformers appears workable, but the ANSI definition contains some ambiguities. In a couple of places the defin ition refers to conditions that are not absolute and that seem more directed to the installation of the transformer than to how it is equipped.

First, the definition says, "These transformers are generally used for step-down purposes from underground primary

cables."

Second, it also says, "These transformers ar e typically installed below ground level."

Would it make sense to omit these conditions, so that the definition reads as follows?

Network transformer means a three-phase, 60-Hz, liquid-immersed, self-cooled transformer equipped with a primary grounding switch and network protectors, rated 2500 kVA and below with high voltages 34 500GrdY/19 920 volts

and below.

If there are reasons to retain the ANSI language in its entir ety of which I'm ignorant, please let me know. I don't see a particular danger in incorporating the full ANSI definition. It just seemed to contain more than it needed to.

Not having a background in this equipment, I may be missing something else that distinguishes network

transformers.

Happy to discuss further.

-Tim

From: Wes Patterson [ mailto:wes.patterson@us.abb.com ] Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 9:08 AM To: Simmons, Chuck

Cc: ahofmann@publicpower.org ; brian.kaja@ge.com ; bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com ; bsmith@federalpacific.com ; richardparkerdc@gmail.com ; rick.anderson@faypwc.com ; snadel@aceee.org ; srosenstock@eei.org ; Timothy Ballo Subject: Re: FW: Negotiated Rulemaking - Distribu tion Transformers Tel econference- --NetworksThanks Chuck - most appreciated

From my notes I see the working group members to be:

· Chuck Simmons Chuck.Simmons@pgnmail.com

· Rick Anderson rick.anderson@faypwc.com

· Bruce Hirsch bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com

· Bob Smith bsmith@federalpacific.com

· Tim Ballo tballo@earthjustice.org

· Steve Nadel to nominate someone

· Steve Rosenstack to nominate someone

· Alex Hofmann to nominate someone

· Brian Kaja brian.kaja@ge.com

Brian Kaja (GE) has already provided input to the committee on this topic and I have included him. See his email of

Oct 21st below.

As I see it we should include: Networks, Va ults, Subway and Submersible transformers Members - do you agree?

During the meeting Richard noted (3) main areas to be resolved

1. How to define the equipment class to prevent circumvention - members: your thoughts please

2. What is the market size of the equipment class - DOE estimate of Liquid-f illed market = 50,366 MVA - ABB estimate of Networks market = 2,4 00 MVA ( ~4.8% of the Liquid-filled market) - members: can you provide your estimates of the market size?

3. How could the standard be written - my suggestion: should be same as the 2010 Standard - no change - members: your thoughts please

Best regards

Wes

----- Forwarded by Wes Patterson/SouthBoston/USTRA/ABB on 11/11/2011 08:18 AM -----

Wes Patterson/SouthBoston/USTRA/ABB Phone: +1 919 829 4364 , Mobile: +1 919 272 405110/24/2011 07:18 AM

To

"Kaja, Brian (GE Energy Services)" < brian.kaja@ge.com >@ABB_USSMTP

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.schneiderelectric.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@howardind.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@navigant.com

, maxinesavitz@aol.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

, 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.sc hneider-electric.com

, vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com

, zhimei.luo@navigant.com

Subject

RE: Network Working Group for DOE Negotiated RulemakingLink

< Notes://MAIL01.US.ABB.COM/852563FB004E7E0E/379BD6231DCAE42B412567D6005555F1/39247256883

A820A8525793000765FE1 >

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 PMTo

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 gr oup. 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 pro duct 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/footp rint. And this would not meet vault size restrictions. 3) Then about the 3rd question . Can you sugges t / 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 Le vel compared to a "Total Losses value" because it gives me more flexibility with core versus coil design options w ith 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 sepa rate 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 < mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com > >

10/17/2011 02:17 PM

To

Wes Patterson/SouthBoston/USTRA/ABB@ABB

cc

Aaron.Meyers@cooperindustries.com < mailto:Aaron.Meyers@cooperindustries.com > , adelaski@standardsasap.org < mailto:adelaski@standardsasap.org > , ahofmann@publicpower.org

< mailto:ahofmann@publicpower.org > , amarantan@navigant.com < mailto:amarantan@navigant.com > , artrosenfeld@gmail.com < mailto:artrosenfeld@gmail.com > , august.esch@gmail.com

< mailto:august.esch@gmail.com > , BermanEconomics@gmail.com < mailto:BermanEconomics@gmail.com > , brian.coffey@navigant.com < mailto:brian.coffey@navigant.com > , bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com

< mailto:bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com > , bsmith@federalpacific.com < mailto:bsmith@fed eralpacific.com > , cabolduc@lbl.gov < mailto:cabolduc@lbl.gov > , Caitlin.Johnson@navigant.com

< mailto:Caitlin.Johnson@navigant.com > , carlos.gaytan@ge.com < mailto:carlos.gaytan@ge.com > , carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com < mailto:carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com > , chad.kennedy@us.schneider-electric.com

< mailto:chad.kennedy@us.schneider-electric.com > , charlied@uss.org < mailto:charlied@uss.org > , chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com < mailto:chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com > , Cla_Silcox@nema.org

< mailto:Cla_Silcox@nema.org > , cstephens@neea.org < mailto:cstephens@neea.org > , Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov

< mailto:Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov > , dave.millure@metglas.com < mailto:dave.millure@metglas.com > , DYoung@energy-solution.com < mailto:DYoung@energy-solution.com > , eduardorobles@eaton.com

< mailto:eduardorobles@eaton.com > , Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com < mailto:Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com > , gbf1@pge.com < mailto:gbf1@pge.com > , gjrosenquist@lbl.gov < mailto:gjrosenquist@lbl.gov > , greg.coulter405@gmail.com < mailto:greg.coulter405@gmail.com > , James.Lass@cleco.com

< mailto:James.Lass@cleco.com > , Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.com < mailto:Jennifer.Ti edeman@hq.doe.com > , Jeremiah.Freeman@ee.doe.gov < mailto:Jeremiah.Freeman@ee.doe.gov > , jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com

< mailto:jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com > , jerry.schoen@aksteel.com < mailto:jerry.schoen@aksteel.com > , jhodge@howard-ind.com < mailto:jhodge@howard-ind.com > , Jim.creevy@nema.org

< mailto:Jim.creevy@nema.org > , Jim.Raba@ee.doe.gov < mailto:Jim.Raba@ee.doe.gov > , jmauer@standardsasap.org < mailto:jmauer@standardsasap.org > , Joh_Caskey@nema.org

< mailto:Joh_Caskey@nema.org > , john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov < mailto:john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov > , jrossetti@mlgw.org < mailto:jrossetti@mlgw.org > , kcoughlin@lbl.gov < mailto:kcoughlin@lbl.gov > , kwinder@mleainc.com < mailto:kwinder@mleainc.com > , maheshsampat@bellsouth.net

< mailto:maheshsampat@bellsouth.net > , mark.stoering@xcelenergy.com < mailto:mark.stoering@xcelenergy.com >

, matthew.nardotti@navigant.com < mailto:matthew.nardotti@navigant.com > , mhyland@appanet.org

< mailto:mhyland@appanet.org > , mrivest@navigant.com < mailto:mrivest@navigant.com > , mwaltner@nrdc.org

< mailto:mwaltner@nrdc.org > , Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com < mailto:Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com > , phil@pjharter.com

< mailto:phil@pjharter.com > , phopkinson@hvolt.com < mailto:phopkinson@hvolt.com > , pkumar@publicpower.org < mailto:pkumar@publicpower.org > , Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com

< mailto:Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com > , rgreeson@federalpacific.com < mailto:rgreeson@federalpacific.com >

, rick.anderson@faypwc.com < mailto:rick.anderson@faypwc.com > , robert.saint@nreca.coop

< mailto:robert. saint@nreca.coop > , rroy@nrdc.org < mailto:rroy@nrdc.org > , ScottB@lvmetals.com

< mailto:ScottB@lvmetals.com > , snadel@aceee.org < mailto:snadel@aceee.org > , srosenstock@eei.org

< mailto:srosenstock@eei.org > , tballo@earthjustice.org < mailto:tballo@earthjustice.org > , Teckman@nwcouncil.org < mailto:Teckman@nwcouncil.org > , thomas.patzner@us.sc hneider-electric.com

< mailto:thomas.patzner@us. schneider-electric.com > , vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com< mailto:vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com > , zhimei.luo@navigant.com < mailto: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 replicab ility -- 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 vi ew 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 wi th 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 Serv ices)" <brian.kaja@ge.com < mailto:brian.kaja@ge.com > >

10/13/2011 08:19 PM

To

Wes Patterson/SouthBoston/USTRA/ABB@ABB

cc

<richardparkerdc@gmail.com < mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com > >, "Gaytan Cavazos, Carlos (GE Energy, Non-GE)" <Carlos.Gaytan@ge.com < mailto:Carlos.Gaytan@ge.com > >, <greg.coulter405@gmail.com

< mailto:greg.coulter405@gmail.com > >, "Green, Michael S (GE Energy Services)" <MichaelS.Green@ge.com

< mailto:MichaelS.Green@ge.com > >Subject

Network Working Group for DOE Negotiated Rulemaking

Hello Mr. Wes Patterson,

I understand from my GE/Prolec repr esentatives (Carlos Gaytan, Greg Coulter) that Networks is becomi ng 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 < mailto:brian.kaja@ge.com > 7000 W. Bert Kouns Industrial Loop Shreveport, LA 71129

General Electric Company GE imagination at work

"Simmons, Chuck" < Chuck.Simmons@pgnmail.com >11/10/2011 01:10 PM

To

Wes Patterson/SouthBoston/USTRA/ABB@ABB

cc

Subject

FW: Negotiated Rulemaking - Distribution Transformers Teleconference---Networks

Wes:

I would like to volunteer to be a part of the group investigating network and vault type transformer definitions, and other considerations. I will try to put some things together for everyone to consider. If you could provide the group with everyone who is a part, I will try to send something out.

Also, Mr. Smith has provided some information in the attached email that may be of interest to everyone.

Regards, Chuck Simmons, P.E.

Distribution Standards Progress Energy

Phone: 919-662-6033

From: Rosenstock, Steven [ mailto:SRosenstock@eei.org ] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 11:48 AM To: Simmons, Chuck; bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com ; James.Lass@cleco.com ; Flaten, David L; William.Armstrong@centerpointenergy.com ; Gary Fernstrom; Chuck Foster; kwinder@mleainc.com ; robert.saint@nreca.coop ; ahofmann@publicpower.org ; Mike Hyland; jrossetti@mlgw.org ; rick.anderson@faypwc.com Subject: FW: Negotiated Rulemaking - Distributio n Transformers Teleconference---Networks

See below. Your thoughts? I don't know if they would accept an exemption, but I think most parties would be OK having the transformers as a stand-alone product category.

Steve Rosenstock Manager, Energy Solutions

Edison Electric Institute srosenstock@eei.org

202-508-5465From: Bob Smith [ mailto:bsmith@federalpacific.com ] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 11:38 AM To: Rosenstock, Steven Subject: RE: Negotiated Rulemaking - Distributio n Transformers Teleco nference---Networks

Steve:

Did you get a copy of this email. It's pretty clear that the ANSI/IEEE standards LIMIT the dimensions of network transformers; & I don't see how the DOE can go against this standard with higher efficiency requirements that cause

the networks to exceed the dimensions in C57.12.40 .

I urge you to petition for the networks to be exempt from all DOE minimum efficiency requirements (including those that went into effect in 2010) without further discussion. Con Ed, PEPCO, COM Ed and PG&E would all have kitty cats, if they knew what was happening to the dimensions of the network transformers.

Good luck.

Bob Smith, PE Product Manager

Federal Pacific 601 Old Airport Road Bristol, VA 24201

TEL: (276) 645-8836 FAX: (276) 645-8956 CELL: (276) 591-6143

Email: bsmith@federalpacific.com

The information contained in this message and any attachments is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain informa tion that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable la w. If you have received this message in error, you are prohibited from copying, distributing, or using the information. Please contact the sender immediately by return e-mail and completely delete the original message from your system.

From: Rosenstock, Steven [ mailto:SRosenstock@eei.org ] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 10:28 AM To: Freeman, Jeremiah (CONTR); rick.anderson@faypwc.com ; tballo@earthjustice.org ; ScottB@LVMetals.com ; john.caskey@nema.org ; jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com ; Cymbalsky, John; adelaski@standardsASAP.org ; Teckman@nwcouncil.org ; gbf1@pge.com ; carlos.gaytan@ge.com ; rgreeson@federalpacific.com ; bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com ; jhodge@howard.com ; mhyland@appanet.org ; dave.millure@metglas.com ; snadel@aceee.org ; wes.patterson@us.abb.com ; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com ; Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com ; artrosenfeld@gmail.com ; rroy@nrdc.org ; robert.saint @nreca.coop ; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com ; kwinder@mleainc.com ; mwaltner@nrdc.org ; jerry.schoen@aksteel.com ; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com ;BermanEconomics@gmail.com ; ahofmann@publicpower.org ; pkumar@publicpower.org ; bsmith@federalpacific.com ; greg.coulter405@gmail.com ; jmauer@standardsasap.org ; Cohen, Daniel; Aaron.Meyers@CooperIndustries.com ; Jim.creevy@nema.org ; jrossetti@mlgw.org ; cabolduc@lbl.gov ; kcoughlin@lbl.gov ; brian.coffey@navigant.com ; richardparkerdc@gmail.com ; mrivest@navigant.com ; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov ; caitlin.johnson@navigant.com ; zhimei.luo@navigant.com ; Marchetti, Emily (CONTR); charlied@uus.org ; DYoung@energy-solution.com ; James.Lass@cleco.com ; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net ; phopkinson@hvolt.com ; matthew.nardotti@navigant.com ; Raba, Jim; Savitz, Maxine (EMAB); tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com ; chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com ; ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com ; frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com ; ned.efbrush@gmail.com ; dbrender@cda.copper.org ; chad.kennedy@us.schneider-electric.com ; eduardorobles@eaton.com ; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com ; thomas.patzner@us.sc hneider-electric.com ; carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com Subject: RE: Negotiated Rulemaking - Dist ribution Transformers Teleconference

Mr. Freeman,

Thanks. Just to be clear, the November 17 date would appl y to MV liquid filled and dry type, or just MV dry type?

As I recall, during the November 8 meeting, there was no discussion of webinar dates for liquid filled units. How

were these dates and times chosen?

Steve Rosenstock Manager, Energy Solutions

Edison Electric Institute srosenstock@eei.org

202-508-5465

From: Freeman, Jeremiah (CONTR) [ mailto:Jeremiah.Freeman@ee.doe.gov ] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 10:15 AM To: Rosenstock, Steven; rick.anderson@faypwc.com ; tballo@earthjustice.org ; ScottB@LVMetals.com ; john.caskey@nema.org ; jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com ; Cymbalsky, John; adelaski@standardsASAP.org ; Teckman@nwcouncil.org ; gbf1@pge.com ; carlos.gaytan@ge.com ; rgreeson@federalpacific.com ; bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com ; jhodge@howard.com ; mhyland@appanet.org ; dave.millure@metglas.com ; Nadel, Steve; wes.patterson@us.abb.com ; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com ; Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com ; artrosenfeld@gmail.com ; rroy@nrdc.org ; robert.saint @nreca.coop ; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com ; kwinder@mleainc.com ; mwaltner@nrdc.org ; jerry.schoen@aksteel.com ; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com ; BermanEconomics@gmail.com ; ahofmann@publicpower.org ; pkumar@publicpower.org ; bsmith@federalpacific.com ; greg.coulter405@gmail.com ; jmauer@standardsasap.org ; Cohen, Daniel; Aaron.Meyers@CooperIndustries.com ; Jim.creevy@nema.org ; jrossetti@mlgw.org ; cabolduc@lbl.gov ; kcoughlin@lbl.gov ; brian.coffey@navigant.com ; richardparkerdc@gmail.com ; mrivest@navigant.com ; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov ; caitlin.johnson@navigant.com ; zhimei.luo@navigant.com ; Marchetti, Emily (CONTR); charlied@uus.org ; DYoung@energy-solution.com ; James.Lass@cleco.com ; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net ; phopkinson@hvolt.com ; matthew.nardotti@navigant.com ; Raba, Jim; Savitz, Maxine (EMAB); tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com ; chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com ; ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com ; frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com ; ned.efbrush@gmail.com ; dbrender@cda.copper.org ; chad.kennedy@us.schneider-electric.com ; eduardorobles@eaton.com ; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com ; thomas.patzner@us.sc hneider-electric.com ; carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com Subject: RE: Negotiated Rulemaking - Dist ribution Transformers Teleconference

Steven et al., I was told that the November 17th meeting applies to the MV Working Group and that the November 21st webinar applies to the LV Working Group. I sent both to everyone so they could choose whether or not they would like to attend, I apologize for any confusion.

Very Respectfully,Jeremiah Freeman New West Technologies, LLC

In support of: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficien cy and Renewable Energy

Office: 202-586-1867

Cell: 202-431-4243

Alternative mail: jfreeman@nwttech.com

From: Rosenstock, Steven [ mailto:SRosenstock@eei.org ] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 10:13 AM To: Freeman, Jeremiah (CONTR); rick.anderson@faypwc.com ; tballo@earthjustice.org ; ScottB@LVMetals.com ; john.caskey@nema.org ; jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com ; Cymbalsky, John; adelaski@standardsASAP.org ; Teckman@nwcouncil.org ; gbf1@pge.com ; carlos.gaytan@ge.com ; rgreeson@federalpacific.com ; bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com ; jhodge@howard.com ; mhyland@appanet.org ; dave.millure@metglas.com ; snadel@aceee.org ; wes.patterson@us.abb.com ; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com ; Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com ; artrosenfeld@gmail.com ; rroy@nrdc.org ; robert.saint @nreca.coop ; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com ; kwinder@mleainc.com ; mwaltner@nrdc.org ; jerry.schoen@aksteel.com ; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com ; BermanEconomics@gmail.com ; ahofmann@publicpower.org ; pkumar@publicpower.org ; bsmith@federalpacific.com ; greg.coulter405@gmail.com ; jmauer@standardsasap.org ; Cohen, Daniel; Aaron.Meyers@CooperIndustries.com ; Jim.creevy@nema.org ; jrossetti@mlgw.org ; cabolduc@lbl.gov ; kcoughlin@lbl.gov ; brian.coffey@navigant.com ; richardparkerdc@gmail.com ; mrivest@navigant.com ; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov ; caitlin.johnson@navigant.com ; zhimei.luo@navigant.com ; Marchetti, Emily (CONTR); charlied@uus.org ; DYoung@energy-solution.com ; James.Lass@cleco.com ; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net ; phopkinson@hvolt.com ; matthew.nardotti@navigant.com ; Raba, Jim; Savitz, Maxine (EMAB); tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com ; chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com ; ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com ; frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com ; ned.efbrush@gmail.com ; dbrender@cda.copper.org ; chad.kennedy@us.schneider-electric.com ; eduardorobles@eaton.com ; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com ; thomas.patzner@us.sc hneider-electric.com ; carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com Subject: RE: Negotiated Rulemaking - Dist ribution Transformers Teleconference

Is this for liquid filled and MV dry type or for low voltage dry type?

Steve Rosenstock

Manager, Energy Solutions

Edison Electric Institute

srosenstock@eei.org

202-508-5465

-----Original Appointment----- From: Freeman, Jeremiah (CONTR) [ mailto:Jeremiah.Freeman@ee.doe.gov ] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 10:05 AM To: 'rick.anderson@faypwc.com'; 'tba llo@earthjustice.org'; 'ScottB@LVMet als.com'; 'john.caskey@nema.org'; 'jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com'; Cymbalsky, John; 'adelaski@standardsASAP.org'; 'Teckman@nwcouncil.org'; 'gbf1@pg e.com'; 'carlos.gaytan@ge.com'; 'rgreeson@federalpacific.com'; 'bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com'; 'jhodge@howard.com'; 'mhyland@appanet.org'; 'dave.millure@metglas.com'; Nadel, Steve; 'wes.patterson@us. abb.com'; 'Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com'; 'Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com'; 'artrosenfeld@gmail.com'; Rose nstock, Steven; 'rroy@nrdc.org'; 'robert.saint@nreca.coop'; 'chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com'; 'kwinder@mleainc.com'; 'mwaltner@nrdc.org'; 'jerry.schoen@aksteel.com'; 'Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com'; 'BermanEconomics@gmail.com'; 'ahofmann@publicpower.org';'pkumar@publicpower.org'; 'bsmith@federalpacific.com'; 'greg.coulter405@gmail.com'; 'jmauer@standardsasap.org'; Cohen, Daniel; 'Aaron.M eyers@CooperIndustries.com'; 'Jim.creevy@nema.org'; 'jrossetti@mlgw.org'; 'cabolduc@lbl.gov'; 'kcough lin@lbl.gov'; 'brian.coffey@navigant.com'; 'richardparkerdc@gmail.com'; 'mrivest@navigant.com'; 'g jrosenquist@lbl.gov'; 'caitlin.johnson@navigant.com'; Freeman, Jeremiah (CONTR); 'zhimei.luo@navigant.c om'; Marchetti, Emily (CONTR); 'charlied@uus.org'; 'DYoung@energy-solution.com'; 'James.Lass@ cleco.com'; 'maheshsampat@bellsouth.net'; 'phopkinson@hvolt.com'; 'matthew.nardotti@navigant .com'; Raba, Jim; Savitz, Maxine (EMAB); 'tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com'; 'chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com'; 'ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com'; 'frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com'; 'ned.efbrush@gmail.com'; 'dbrender@cda.copper.org'; 'chad.kennedy@us.schneider-electric.com'; 'eduardorobles@eaton.com'; 'vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com'; 'thomas.patzner@us.schneider-electric.com'; 'carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com' Subject: Negotiated Rulemaking - Dist ribution Transformers Teleconference When: Thursday, November 17, 2011 1:00 PM-5:00 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

Where: Webinar and Phone

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 the 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 (cell)

202-586-1867 (office)

----- Message from Bob Smith <bsmith@federalpacific.com < mailto:bsmith@federalpacific.com > > on Tue, 8 Nov

2011 18:19:16 -0500 -----

To:

Richard Parker <richardparkerdc@gmail.com < mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com > >

cc:

Alex Hofmann <ahofmann@publicpower.org < mailto:ahofmann@publicpower.org > >, Andrew Delaski<adelaski@standardsasap.org < mailto:adelaski@standardsasap.org > >, Aris Marantan <amarantan@navigant.com

< mailto:amarantan@navigant.com > >, Art Rosenfeld <artrosenfeld@gmail.com < mailto:artrosenfeld@gmail.com > >, Bob Saint <rober t.saint@nreca.coop < mailto:robert.saint@nreca.coop > >, Brian Coffey <brian.coffey@navigant.com < mailto:brian.coffey@navigant.com > >, Caitlin Johnson <Caitlin.Johnson@navigant.com < mailto:Caitlin.Johnson@navigant.com > >, Carlos Gaytan <carlos.gaytan@ge.com < mailto:carlos.gaytan@ge.com > >, "Caskey, John" <john.caskey@nema.org

< mailto:john.caskey@nema.org > >, charlie drexler <charlied@uus.org < mailto:charlied@uus.org > >, Charlie Stevens <cstephens@neea.org < mailto:cstephens@neea.org > >, Chris Bolduc <cabolduc@lbl.gov

< mailto:cabolduc@lbl.gov > >, Chris Brown <chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com

< mailto:chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com > >, Clark Silcox <clark.silcox@nema.org

< mailto:clark.silcox@nema.org > >, "Creevy, Jim" <Jim.Creevy@nema.org < mailto:Jim.Creevy@nema.org > >, Dan Cohen <daniel.cohen@hq.doe.gov < mailto:daniel.cohen@hq.doe.gov > >, Daniel Young <DYoung@energysolution.com < mailto:DYoung@energy-solution.com > >, David Flaten <david.l.flaten@xcel.energy.com

< mailto:david.l.flaten@xcel.energy.com > >, Eric Peterson <Eri c.Petersen@aksteel.com

< mailto:Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com > >, "Freeman, Jeremiah" <Jeremiah.Freeman@ee.doe.gov

< mailto:Jeremiah.Freeman@ee.doe.gov > >, Gary Fernstrom <gbf1@pge.com < mailto:gbf1@pge.com > >, Greg Coulter <greg.coulter405@gmail.com < mailto:greg.coulter405@gmail.com > >, Greg Rosenquist <GJRosenquist@lbl.gov < mailto:GJRosenquist@lbl.gov > >, "Hirsch, Bruce R" <bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com

< mailto:bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com > >, James Lass <James.Lass@cleco.com < mailto:James.Lass@cleco.com > >,
Jennifer Tiedeman <Jenni fer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.gov < mailto:Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.gov > >, Jerry Hodge <jhodge@howard.com < mailto:jhodge@howard.com > >, Jerry Schoen <jer ry.schoen@aksteel.com

< mailto:jerry.schoen@aksteel.com > >, Jim Raba <Jim.Raba@ee.doe.gov < mailto:Jim.Raba@ee.doe.gov > >, Joanna Mauer <jmauer@standardsasap.org < mailto:jmauer@standardsasap.org > >, John Cymbalsky <john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov < mailto:john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov > >, John Rossetti <jrossetti@mlgw.org

< mailto:jrossetti@mlgw.org > >, Katie Coughlin <kcoughlin@lbl.gov < mailto:kcoughlin@lbl.gov > >, Ken Winder

<kwinder@mleainc.com < mailto:kwinder@mleainc.com > >, "Mahesh P. Sampat" <maheshsampat@bellsouth.net

< mailto:maheshsampat@bellsouth.net > >, Matthew Nardotti <matthew.nardotti@navigant.com

< mailto:matthew.nardotti@navigant.com > >, Maxine Savitz <maxinesavitz@aol.com

< mailto:maxinesavitz@aol.com > >, Meg Waltner <mwaltner@nrdc.org < mailto:mwaltner@nrdc.org > >, "Meyers, Aaron" <Aaron.Meyers@cooperindustries.com < mailto:Aaron.Meyers@co operindustries.com > >, Michael Hyland <mhyland@appanet.org < mailto:mhyland@appanet.org > >, Michael Rivest <mrivest@navigant.com

< mailto:mrivest@navigant.com > >, "Millure, Dave" <dave.millure@metglas.com

< mailto:dave.millure@metglas.com > >, Phil Harter <phil@pjharter.com < mailto:phil@pjharter.com > >, Phil Hopkinson <phopkinson@hvolt.com < mailto:phopkinson@hvolt.com > >, "Polinski, Raymond" <Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com < mailto:Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com > >, Puesh Kumar <pkumar@publicpower.org < mailto:pkumar@publicpower.org > >, Rick Anderson <rick.anderson@faypwc.com

< mailto:rick.anderson@faypwc.com > >, Rob Greeson <rgrees on@federalpacific.com

< mailto:rgreeson@federalpacific.com > >, Robert Berman <bermaneconomics@gmail.com

< mailto:bermaneconomics@gmail.com > >, Robert van Buskirk <Robert.VanBuskirk@ee.doe.gov

< mailto:Robert.VanBuskirk@ee.doe.gov > >, Robin Roy <rroy@nrdc.org < mailto:rroy@nrdc.org > >, "Ryan, Paul" <Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com < mailto:Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com > >, Scott Beck <ScottB@lvmetals.com

< mailto:ScottB@lvmetals.com > >, "Simmons, Chuck" <Chuck.Simmons@pgnmail.com

< mailto:Chuck.Simmons@pgnmail.com > >, "Nadel, Steve" <snadel@aceee.org < mailto:snadel@aceee.org > >, "Rosenstock, Steven" <S Rosenstock@eei.org < mailto:SRosenstock@eei.org > >, Thomas Petrosino <tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com < mailto:tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com > >, Tim Ballo <tballo@earthjustice.org

< mailto:tballo@earthjustice.org > >, Tom Eckman <Teckman@nwcouncil.org < mailto:Teckman@nwcouncil.org > >, Wes Patterson <wes.patterson@us.abb.com < mailto:wes.patterson@us.abb.com > >, Zhimei Luo <zhimei.luo@navigant.com < mailto:zhimei.luo@navigant.com > >, "Trujillo, Antonio" <Antonio.Trujillo@cooperindustries.com < mailto:Antonio.Trujillo@cooperindustries.com > >, "Marusinec, Richard M" <Richard.Marusinec@cooperindustries.com < mailto:Richard.Marusin ec@cooperindustries.com > >, "Corkran, Jerry L" <Jerry.Corkran @cooperindustries.com < mailto:Jerry.Corkran@cooperindustries.com > >

Subject:

RE: MV Transformers Material Price Sensitivity AnalysisMembers of the Rule Making Committee:

I am sending the attachment with an excerpt of the IEEE Standards for Network Transformers and some pictures from the old Westinghouse Distributio n Book of Network Transformers. Th is standard, IEEE C5 7.12.40 published in 2000, may no longer be active; but it comprehensively e xplains the requirements for network transformers. I call you attention to one of the pages in this standard that expressly states the maximum allowable tank dimensions for this type of vault transformer. I trust that our Rule Ma king Committee will respect the requirements of this standard

as the network transformer is the most critical distribution transformer used by electric utilities. It is too expensive to be substituted for any other standard type distribution transformer.

I hope this helps.

Regards,

Bob Smith, PE Product Manager

Federal Pacific 601 Old Airport Road Bristol, VA 24201

TEL: (276) 645-8836 FAX: (276) 645-8956 CELL: (276) 591-6143

Email: bsmith@federalpacific.com < mailto:bsmith@fed eralpacific.com >

The information contained in this message and any attachments is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain informa tion that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable la w. If you have received this message in error, you are prohibited from copying, distributing, or using the information. Please contact the sender immediately by return e-mail and completely delete the original message from your system.

The information contained in this communication (including any attachment) is privileged and confidential

information that is intended for the sole use of the ad dressee. Access to this communication by anyone else is

unauthorized. If the reader is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply and notify us of this error and delete this message . Finally, the recipient should check this communication and any attachments for the presence of viru ses. The Public Works Commission of the City of Fayetteville, NC, accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this communication.