Summary of the Teleconference of the Working Group on Low-Voltage Dry-Type Distribution Transformers of the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Advisory Committee November 21, 2011

Richard W. Parker, Facilitator

Note: This teleconference summary has been prepared for the conven ience of the Working Group. It has not been approved by the Working Group and sh ould not be construed or taken to represent the official position of the Working Group or any me mber as to what transpired on the call.

The Working Group on Low-Voltage Dry-Type Di stribution Transformers (“LV Group”) held a meeting by teleconference at 2:00 pm on Nov. 21, 2011.

DOE consultants presented revised Engineering, LCC and NIA Analysis. Call-in participants found the analytical results broadly credible and in keeping with their own information (though some participants noted that they saw more design options than shown in the scatterplots, at lower cost and induction levels). Overall, the participants accepte d the Engineering Analysis and LCC as a basis for negotiations (with one exception noted below). They al so agreed that refurbishment in response to higher costs is most likely not a significant concern in this market, though there is some potential for

refurbishment in the DL 8 market. However, it was thought that very few transformers in these markets are replacement transformers.

However, one industry participant observed that for sm aller transformers in DL7, there is a risk that buyers/manufacturers would respond to an increase in prices from higher standards by switching to encapsulated designs which are statutorily exempt. This risk was thought to be particularly acute in the 15 and 30 kVA range, diminishing thereafter. A range of upper bounds for this range were discussed but none was agreed at the meeting.

The Advocates then presented their proposal, wh ich they indicated was based on the current DOE analysis that excluded amorphous and ZDMH steels. They noted that although LV transformers are not subject to a court-ordered deadline, they are subject to mandatory “look back” review every 6 years, that they are due for review now, and that DOE was therefore prudent in conducting that review now.

Looking at the DOE analysis they noted that EL 5 seems to be the cost-justified standards level for both DL 7 and DL8, and also yielded the highest NPV. They indicated a willingness to consider a differential standard for the lower kVA ranges of DL 7 (certainly 15 and 30 kVA) in order to avoid possible circumvention problems, but wanted more information on the upper bound of that range.

Industry participants noted that beyond the circumvention problem, a major concern is the impact of any higher standard on small manufacturers. It was said that a mitering machine costs around $1.5 million. They also noted that step-lap designs are more feasible at higher kVA and that there are fewer small manufacturers in the DL8 (higher kVA) market.

Participants agreed to look to the DOE manuf acturing analysis to shed light on manufacturing impacts of higher standards (and in particular the e fficiency level at which capital conversion is required to install mitering equipment for each DL).

With that the call concluded.