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 Gayt an; 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 Fe rnstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry Cork ran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; Jim Raba; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Katie Coug hlin; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matthew Nardotti; Maxine Savitz; Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaro n; 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 va n 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: Update d results for liquid immersed and MVDT

Colleagues,

Attached for your review and discussion at to morrow's meeting are th e updated Engineering, LCC and NIA results for the liquid immersed a nd 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 recen tly. As I understand it, the program was inadvertently set to start counting energy savi ng and operations cost be nefits 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 proce ss, 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 analys is on essentially no noti ce and I apologize for
that. I know stakeholders will want to see the ne w analysis and results before deciding whether to proceed as planned in putting forward propos als 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 addr essing and, if we can, cl arifying 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 cas e" issues that need to be addressed -- network/vaults and BIL scaling -- that have to be sett led in any case.

Then break for lunch during which time stakeholde rs 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