From: Corkran, Jerry L [mailto:Jerry.Corkran@CooperIndustries.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:15 AM 

To: Katie Coughlin; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com 

Cc: Richard Parker; 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; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; 

James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; Jim Raba; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; 

John Rossetti; 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; 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; Trujillo, Antonio 

Subject: RE: NES savings in NIA: "relative to a base-case scenario of no standard" 

Katie – Could you explain what is the percentage of rated nameplate load level or levels used in the

payback calculations and is it an RMS or an average loading?  Where did the load levels used come

from?  Are there references available to support the load levels used?

Thanks,

                Jerry Corkran

From: Katie Coughlin [mailto:kcoughlin@lbl.gov] 

Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:04 PM 

To: Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com

Cc: Richard Parker; 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; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; 

James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Corkran, Jerry L; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; Jim Raba; Joanna Mauer; 

John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matthew Nardotti; Maxine Savitz; Meg 

Waltner; Meyers, Aaron; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; Pam Costello; Phil Harter; Phil 

Hopkinson; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Kumar; 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: Re: NES savings in NIA: "relative to a base-case scenario of no standard" 

Hello all, 

The "no standard" phrase in the document should more correctly read "no modification to the 

2007 standard". 

The base case for the national impacts analysis is the EL0 level with the 2007 standard in force. 

Sorry for the confusion, 

Katie 

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:19 PM, <Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com> wrote: 

Mr Parker, 
Please find attached a page from Chapter 10, National Impact Analysis from the 

September 2011 analysis that states that the NES are "relative to a base-case scenario 

of no standard." I'm interpreting this as meaning that the savings calculated are against 

the "affected stock", or the transformers that are currently in the field rather than the 

savings that are already to be gained as a result of the 2007 ruling, or EL0. 

If my interpretation of this is correct, the current NES analysis is "double counting" the 

energy savings which have already been implemented by the 2007 rule. Since we are 

comparing LCC and Payback against EL0, shouldn't the NES analysis be relative to the 

current EL0 standard rather than using a scenario of "no standard"? 

Regards, 

Eric Petersen 

Director Customer Technical Services and Research 

AK Steel Corporation 

Confidentiality Notice 

This message is intended exclusively for the individual or 

entity to which it is addressed and may contain privileged, 

proprietary, or otherwise private information. 

If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized 

to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or 

any part of it. If you have received this message in error, 

please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete 

all copies of the message.