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

Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 11:03 PM 

To: Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Bob Smith; Brenda 

Edwards; Brian Coffey; Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gaytan; Caskey, John; Charlie Drexler; Charlie Stevens; 

Chris Bolduc; Chris Brown; Clark Silcox; Creevy, Jim; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; David Flaten; Emily 

Marchetti; Eric Peterson; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, 

Bruce R; James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry Corkran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; Jim Raba; Joanna 

Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Katie Coughlin; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matthew 

Nardotti; Maxine Savitz; Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaron; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; 

Pamela Costello; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Kumar; Richard W. Parker; Rick 

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

Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Ted Johnstone; Thomas Petrosino; Tim Ballo; Tom 

Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo 

Subject: MV Transformer Reg-Neg 11/30 Mtg: Updated results for liquid immersed and MVDT 

Colleagues, 

Attached for your review and discussion at tomorrow's meeting are the updated Engineering, 

LCC and NIA results for the liquid immersed and medium voltage dry type design lines and 

equipment classes. They have been updated to incorporate 2011 materials prices, and to correct 

a bug in the LCC program discovered very recently. As I understand it, the program was 

inadvertently set to start counting energy saving and operations cost benefits before the 2016 

effective date, thereby overstating benefits in prior LCC/NIA runs. The attached analysis 

corrects that error. The error occurred only in liquid immersed lines analysis, not in MVDT or 

LVDT. These sorts of things happen to all of us, particularly in rushed conditions such as our 

analysts have faced throughout this process, and I know we all appreciate LBNL's 

professionalism and integrity in catching, disclosing and correcting this problem as soon as they 

discovered it. 

Fact remains that you are getting revised analysis on essentially no notice and I apologize for 

that. I know stakeholders will want to see the new analysis and results before deciding whether 

to proceed as planned in putting forward proposals for negotiation. If APPA can work copying 

miracles we MAY be able to get you paper copies in the morning, but that will be a tall order. 

As you see in the draft agenda, I am proposing that we do quick walk-through of the revised 

analysis for liquid immersed, then work on addressing and, if we can, clarifying a few areas of 

chronic confusion and concern (e.g., $/W vs. LCC) that have had some of us talking past each 

other in past meetings. Then work on clarifying the "special case" issues that need to be 

addressed -- network/vaults and BIL scaling -- that have to be settled in any case. 

Then break for lunch during which time stakeholders can caucus and decide how they would like 

to proceed in the afternoon. We are improvising a bit here, but I thought this might be a useful 

way to proceed under the circumstances. I am open to other ideas on how to proceed. 

See you tomorrow. 

All best, 

Richard Parker 

Facilitator