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 

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 appropriate 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 standards that can help provide differentiation.

C57.12.20 1ph and 3ph Overhead (poles)

C57.12.38 1ph Padmount

C57.12.34 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 Networks. 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 during the meeting when I discussed the Networks. So I 

think we should try to include them. 

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

For those who might not have these standards - 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 grounding switch and/or network protector, 

what would be the reason for purchasing the transformer without those features installed? Is it an issue of physically 

getting the unit into the vault with that equipment installed? And in cases where this equipment 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 transformer tank, though it does not require a secondary network 

protector (just a secondary throat suitable for connecting to a network 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, this 

category seems to be potentially the most problematic 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 recommended leaving all of these special categories 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 the 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 transformers – accounts for about 5% of the liquid-immersed market 

by capacity shipped. Have others 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.com'; '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, respectively, 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 include a primary grounding switch and/or protector as an 

integral part of the network transformer, so any definition that states such would be incorrect, in my opinion. 

In the IEEE C57.12.80 (IEEE Standard Terminology for Power and Distribution Transformers), 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 definitions. I would like to offer the following: 

Network Transformer: A transformer designed for use in a vault to fee 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 close-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 opinion because the construction can vary depending on where 

customers locate the primary and 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, submersion will not lead to corrosion of the tank or other external metal parts, b) 
requirement for a high, fire-point fluid in lieu of mineral 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 systems 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 removed from consideration of any further efficiency requirements. 

The current DOE efficiency requirements for these type transformers 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 spend that kind of money on transformers 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 teleconference 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 - Distribution Transformers Teleconference---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 with maximum tank dimensions of 'X' for a kVA rating of 'Y'," it creates an 

incentive for a manufacturer to shift to physically smaller, low efficiency, low cost transformers that qualify as vault 
transformers because of their 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 - Distribution Transformers Teleconference---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 established 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 - Distribution Transformers Teleconference---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 different types of transformers we need 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 network/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 definition 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 are 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 entirety 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 - Distribution Transformers Teleconference---Networks 

Thanks 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, Vaults, 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-filled market = 50,366 MVA 

- ABB estimate of Networks market = 2,400 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 4051 

10/24/2011 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.schneider-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 PM 

 To 

 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 group. 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 product 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/footprint. And this would not meet vault size restrictions. 

3) Then about the 3rd question . Can you suggest / 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 Level compared to a "Total Losses value" because it gives me 

more flexibility with core versus coil design options with 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 separate 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@federalpacific.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.Tiedeman@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.schneider-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 replicability -- 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 view 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 with 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 Services)" <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 representatives (Carlos Gaytan, Greg 

Coulter) that Networks is becoming 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 - Distribution 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

202-508-5465 

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

Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 11:38 AM 

To: Rosenstock, Steven 

Subject: RE: Negotiated Rulemaking - Distribution Transformers Teleconference---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 information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from 
disclosure under applicable law. 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.schneider-electric.com; carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com

Subject: RE: Negotiated Rulemaking - Distribution Transformers Teleconference 

Mr. Freeman, 

Thanks. Just to be clear, the November 17 date would apply 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.schneider-electric.com; carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com

Subject: RE: Negotiated Rulemaking - Distribution 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 Efficiency 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.schneider-electric.com; carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com

Subject: RE: Negotiated Rulemaking - Distribution 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'; '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'; Rosenstock, 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.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'; 

Freeman, Jeremiah (CONTR); '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.schneider-electric.com'; 'carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com' 

Subject: Negotiated Rulemaking - Distribution 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 <robert.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 <Eric.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 <Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.gov <mailto:Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.gov> >, Jerry Hodge 

<jhodge@howard.com <mailto:jhodge@howard.com> >, Jerry Schoen <jerry.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@cooperindustries.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 <rgreeson@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" <SRosenstock@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.Marusinec@cooperindustries.com> >, "Corkran, 

Jerry L" <Jerry.Corkran@cooperindustries.com <mailto:Jerry.Corkran@cooperindustries.com> > 

 

Subject: 

 RE: MV Transformers Material Price Sensitivity Analysis 

 

Members 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 Distribution Book of Network Transformers. This standard, IEEE C57.12.40 published 

in 2000, may no longer be active; but it comprehensively explains 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 Making 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@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 information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from 

disclosure under applicable law. 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 addressee. 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 viruses. The Public Works Commission of the City of Fayetteville, NC, accepts 

no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this communication.