Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

241

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

MEETING of the MV WORKING GROUP

Volume II

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

4301 Wilson Blvd, Rm. C2

Arlington, VA

Tuesday

November 9, 2011

Facilitator:

Richard Parker

University of Connecticut Law School

Host:

Edison Electric Institute

701 Pennsylvania Ave NW

4th

Washington, DC

Floor
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

242

Participants Identified: 

Rick Anderson

Fayetteville Public Works Commission

Tim Ballo

Earth Justice

1625 Massachusetts Avenue

Suite 702

Washington, DC 20036

Scott Beck

Lakeview Metals

Robert Berman

Berman Economics

1915 Orchid Court

Vienna, VA 22187

John Caskey 

Electrical Manufacturers Association

Jerry Corkran

Cooper Power Systems

Greg Coulter

Consultant 

Prolec GE

Jim Creevy 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association

1300 North 17th

Suite 1752

Street

Rosslyn, VA 22209

Andrew DeLaski

ASAP

20 Belgrade Ave, Suite 1

Boston, MA 02131

Tom Eckman

Northwest Power and Conservation Council
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

243

Gary Fernstrom

Pacific Gas & Electric Company

13055 Parkhurst Dr

Oakland, CA 94619

Chuck Foster

Edison Electric Institute

Carlos Gaytan

Prolec GE

Robert Greeson

Federal Pacific Company

Bruce Hirsch

Baltimore Gas and Electric

Gerald Hodge

Howard Industries

PO Box 1586 

Laurel, MS 39441

Alex Hoffman

American Public Power Association

Ted Johnstone

Cogent Power

Rick Lyka

AK Steel

Aaron Meyers

Cooper Power Systems 

Dave Millure

Metglas Incorporated

440 Allied Drive

Conway, SC 29526

Steve Nadel

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

244

Wes Patterson

ABB, Inc.

Thomas Patzner (via telephone)

Schneider Electric

Eric Petersen 

AK Steel

Ray Polinski 

Allegheny Ludlum - ATI

Eduardo Robles

Eaton Corporation

Steven Rosenstock

Edison Electric Institute

701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20004-2696

Robin Roy

Natural Resources Defense Council

1200 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 400

Washington, DC 20005

Paul Ryan

Hitachi Metals America

800 Grand Avenue, Suite AG-6

Carlsbad, CA 92008

Bob Saint 

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

Mahesh P. Sampat

EMS Consulting

1180 Brookview Dr

Athens, GA 30606

Jerry Schoen

AK Steel Corporation

705 Curtis Street

Middletown, OH 45043
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

245

Chuck Simmons

Progress Energy

Bob Smith (via telephone)

Federal Pacific

Jim Rakowski 

Allegheny ATI

Participants from DOE:

John Cymbalsky

DOE

Participants from Navigant/LBL:

Brian Coffey

Navigant

1801 K St. NW

Suite 500

Washington, DC 20006

Mike Rivest

Navigant

Rob Carmichael

Navigant

Matt Nardotti

Navigant Consulting

Chris Bolduc

Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory

1 Cyclotron Rd

Ms 90-4000

Berkeley, CA 94720

Washington, DC 20006

Katie Coughlin

Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

246

AGENDA

 ITEM PAGE

Welcome, Mr. Parker 247

Self-Introductions 247

Continuation of discussion

Next steps 249
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

247

1 9:28 a.m.

3 MR. PARKER: Welcome everybody. Sorry for 

4 the late start. I think a lot of people had some 

5 trouble getting in, but I’m glad everybody’s here and 

6 we will work through medium voltage as quickly as we 

7 can. Why don’t we start with just going around the 

8 table and introduce ourselves for the court reporter. 

9 I understand we don’t have to worry about the mics in 

10 this room. Can people on the phone hear? Do we have 

11 any call-ins? People on the phone hear all right?

2 P R O C E E D I N G S

12 PARTICIPANT: Yes, we can.

13 MR. PARKER: Okay. Good. So this is 

14 Richard Parker, facilitator. Why don’t we go around 

15 the table, and then we’ll go around the wall. 

16 Self-introductions

17 MR. BECK: Scott Beck, Lakeview Metals.

18 MR. CASKEY: John Caskey, National 

19 Electrical Manufacturers Association.

20 MR. ROBLES: Eduardo Robles, Eaton 

21 Corporation.

22 MR. PATTERSON: Wes Patterson, ABB.

23 MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson, Federal Pacific 

24 Transformer.

25 MR. SCHOEN: Jerry Schoen, AK Steel. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

248

1 MR. PETERSEN: Eric Petersen, AK Steel.

2 MR. ROY: Robin Roy, National Resources 

3 Defense Council.

4 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, Earth Justice.

5 MR. DeLASKI: Andrew DeLaski, Appliance 

6 Standards Awareness Project.

7 MR. FERNSTROM: Gary Fernstrom, PG&E 

8 representing Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

9 Southern California Edison, and Semper Utilities.

10 MR. MILLURE: Dave Millure, Metglas.

11 MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest, Navigant 

12 Consulting.

13 MR. JOHNSTONE: Ted Johnstone, Cogent Power.

14 MR. CREEVY: Jim Creevy, National Electrical 

15 Manufacturers Association.

16 MR. PILSBURG: Alex Pilsburg, National 

17 Electrical Manufacturers Association.

18 MR. BRENNER: Dave Brenner ...

19 MR. RUSH: Dave Rush, ...

20 MR. BERMAN: Robert Berman, Berman 

21 Economics.

22 MR. RYAN: Paul Ryan, Hitachi Metals 

23 America.

24 MR. SAMPAT: Mahesh Sampat, EMS Consulting.

25 MR. CARMICHAEL: Rob Carmichael, Navigant 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

249

1 Consulting.

2 MS. COUGHLIN: Katie Coughlin, Lawrence 

3 Berkeley National Lab.

4 MR. BOLDUC: Chris Bolduc, Lawrence Berkeley 

5 National Lab.

6 MR. NARDOTTI: Matt Nardotti, Navigant 

7 Consulting.

8 MR. COFFEY: Brian Coffey, Navigant 

9 Consulting.

10 MR. PARKER: On the phone?

11 MR. PATZNER: Thomas Patzner, Schneider 

12 Electric, but I would like to comment that there is 

13 somebody’s mic on paper being crumpled.

14 MR. PARKER: Might be on the phone, I’m not 

15 sure. Anybody else on the phone?

16 MR. LYKA: Did you get Rick Lyka, AK Steel?

17 MR. PARKER: Hi, Rick. Anybody else? Okay, 

18 why don’t we get started then. As you know, the 

19 medium voltage dry type has been the subject of 

20 intense, very extensive discussions between DOE staff 

21 and stakeholders, and a number of concerns raised with 

22 the data, that Navigant has put really, really major 

23 efforts to take those concerns on board. One of the 

24 virtues of this kind of negotiated process is that it 

25 enables concerns to be extracted and considered. One 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

250

1 of the drawbacks of this particular kind of process in 

2 a tight timeframe is that it makes for a lot of last3 minute analysis, and a lot of last minute flurries, 

4 phone calls, and so forth, and I really appreciate 

5 everybody in this room, particularly our consultants, 

6 who worked many hours to get this analysis together.

7 You’ve just gotten it very recently. It’s 

8 not all completed. There’s still work on DL13, I 

9 understand, but for the major design lines, which are 

10 11 and 12, the analysis is out there, you can look at 

11 it and have it. And so what I thought we would do to 

12 begin with is just turn it over to the Navigant staff 

13 to walk us through what they’ve done and take your 

14 questions, and in particular take your questions about 

15 what they’ve done and make sure that we’re in sync on 

16 that. So we’ll turn it over to you, Mike.

17 Excuse me, for those on the phone, if you’re 

18 not speaking, please mute your phone, otherwise we’ll 

19 mute you on this end and you won’t be able to 

20 participate in the webinar.

21 Analysis by Navigant Staff

22 MR. COFFEY: Okay. I don’t have too much to 

23 present. This is Brian Coffey with Navigant, but just 

24 a quick update on the changes that we’ve made to the 

25 medium voltage dry analysis since the last time that 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

251

1 we met. 

2 We really felt that -- let me get started. 

3 Here are the changes listed. I’ll actually start with 

4 the last bullet. We felt that of all the six lines, 

5 which is our 9, 10, 11, 12, 13A and 13B -- and that’s 

6 a high and low KVA in low BIL, BIL, and the high BIL, 

7 so that’s how we tried to cover that space. We felt 

8 that there was the best agreement with manufacturer 

9 provided data on line 11 and 12 ... BIL. So we focused 

10 on those.

11 Our current plan is to scale those results 

12 to the higher and lower BIL categories. We feel that 

13 this will result in a more accurate and more palatable 

14 set of results. So with that, let me start at the top 

15 and explain what are the specific changes that we’ve 

16 made to this.

17 MR. DeLASKI: So Brian, just to be clear, so 

18 any change that you made --

19 MR. PARKER: If you talk, give your name.

20 MR. DeLASKI: Andrew DeLaski -- you only 

21 made them to design lines 11 and 12.

22 MR. COFFEY: That’s right. 

23 MR. DeLASKI: So the results for the other 

24 that we centered on yesterday, the results for the 

25 other design lines don’t reflect updated engineering?
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

252

1 MR. COFFEY: That’s right.

2 MR. RIVEST: All right, so -- Mike Rivest --

3 the -- we feel that because design lines 11 and 12 are 

4 the bulk of the shipments, that the economic results, 

5 the NIA are ... design lines 11 and 12. Rather than 

6 trying to extrapolate the results from 11 and 12 and 

7 doing the analysis on the other design lines, for the 

8 time being we continue to use the previous engineering 

9 analysis on the other design lines. So I wouldn’t 

10 waste a lot of time on the LCC results for anything 

11 but 11 and 12, and caution you on the NIA rules that 

12 left out -- they still incorporate the engineering for 

13 the other design lines.

14 MR. DeLASKI: Yeah, but I’m seeing that by 

15 shipments, basically DOE’s numbers from the August 

16 analysis, something on the order of ... shipments and in 

17 DL 11 and 12.

18 MR. RIVEST: Right, so the NIA -- yes, so 

19 and that’s why we decided there was still value in 

20 presenting results of the NIA without the updated for 

21 the others, because they were fairly representative.

22 MR. DeLASKI: Well, you’re advice today is 

23 that we should look at -- focus on results for 

24 equipment class DL11 and DL12, and the others we 

25 should probably give relatively little attention to in 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

253

1 the sense that they ... change.

2 MR. RIVEST: Exactly. As Brian described, 

3 you know, six designs that are really all linked 

4 together.

5 MR. DeLASKI: Yeah, I get it.

6 MR. RIVEST: And if we try to do an economic 

7 analysis in isolation, we could end up with a very 

8 palatable set of standards that don’t reflect reality 

9 -- so that’s why we focused on 11 and 12 and then 

10 we’ll look at how the higher and lower BILs need to be 

11 adjusted to ... that specific BIL issue.

12 MR. DeLASKI: I’m looking to Eaton and to 

13 ABB, to the manufacturers, I’m looking for some sense 

14 that it sounds right and see if the approach makes 

15 sense to you guys.

16 MR. PATTERSON: Yeah, there’s even question 

17 about the legitimacy -- the design line 11 and 12, 

18 one’s 300 KVA, one’s a 1500 KVA. There’s a question 

19 about the legitimacy of 300 KVA designs that don’t 

20 match anything we see in the ... it’s way too low. So 

21 the 1500 sits in the middle of what we actually see in 

22 shipments. And the three-quarter scaling rule has 

23 reasonable engineering accuracy, could apply this to 

24 the 1500.

25 MR. RIVEST: The shipment weight and average 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

254

1 MVA ... 11, 12 is 1500 KVA ... and that is the line that 

2 is most representative. 300 KVA unit had more 

3 variation. I think we had more success with the 300 

4 medium BIL than the 300 low BIL. A lot of this stuff 

5 is so fresh off the press I haven’t even had a chance 

6 to digest it myself. And to follow on, I mean I think 

7 one of the key differences when we got the designs 

8 back is noticing that the design options were not 

9 inclusive ... primarily at the lower -- at the baseline, 

10 when in fact ... but it didn’t necessarily change with 

11 more efficient designs. 

12 MR. COFFEY: So, as Mike said, we added a 

13 design which we felt was reflective of what’s very 

14 common at baseline in the market today. We heard from 

15 a number of people, so we felt that we ought to 

16 include that, and that did become our current 

17 baseline.

18 We also noticed that our spread -- we seem 

19 to be moving to M3 and greater designs more quickly 

20 than the manufacturers, and we think that that was 

21 because of our spread in pricing between the M4 and 

22 lower steels, and the M3 and greater steels, was 

23 smaller than that of the manufacturers. So we 

24 adjusted our M4 and below prices down slightly to help 

25 better match with what we saw in the market.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

255

1 We also took the time to revise some labor 

2 estimates, which was another area that we saw we were 

3 a little bit low on. This is all, by the way, coming 

4 from these templates that we sent around, and the 

5 manufacturers, a couple in particular, have been very 

6 generous with their time in helping submit the designs 

7 so that we could do a comparison and try to see where 

8 we made modeling mistakes. So one of those areas was 

9 labor, and we looked at specific categories and made 

10 some adjustments to bring our results in line, or 

11 closer to theirs.

12 We also learned that the substation style 

13 transformers were pretty common in medium voltage dry 

14 space, and those inevitably come with some additional 

15 losses relative to what’s called a “stub out” 

16 colloquially, or a high voltage general purpose type 

17 unit.

18 MR. PATTERSON: Just a small correction. 

19 You said a primary unit substation.

20 MR. PARKER: Give your name.

21 MR. PATTERSON: Wes Patterson. It’s a very 

22 specific type of product where you have high voltage 

23 disconnect switch on one end of the enclosure, and low 

24 voltage circuit breakers at the low end side. So you 

25 have that plus structure to connect the two ends.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

256

1 MR. COFFEY: That’s right, and so we -- of 

2 course these buses and leads bring about extra losses 

3 that are unavoidable and that need to be compensated 

4 for by a larger, more efficient, core. So we added 

5 some plus to these losses to reflect that style of 

6 transformer. 

7 And as I began by saying, we’re going to 

8 scale the design line 11 and 12 results to go the 

9 higher and lower BILs. I can show you a picture. 

10 Here’s an example of design line 12, actually, what 

11 changes we do. They’re not dramatic, but in general 

12 the envelope of the curve shifts downward and a little 

13 bit left. So here’s where we are currently -- I’m 

14 sorry, here’s where we are now -- I’m sorry, here’s 

15 where we are currently --

16 MR. RIVEST: Previously.

17 MR. COFFEY: Previously, and then here’s the 

18 picture as it currently stands.

19 MR. RIVEST: So you’ll notice the yellow 

20 there is the M4 design.

21 PARTICIPANT: The yellow on the left.

22 MR. COFFEY: Yes.

23 PARTICIPANT: The goldish on the right is 

24 something else.

25 MR. COFFEY: Yes.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

257

1 MR. DeLASKI: This is Andrew DeLaski, so 

2 just a question back to the manufacturers. M4 in the 

3 base case, that is consistent with your experience in 

4 the market today?

5 PARTICIPANT: Yes.

6 MR. DeLASKI: Across the board for these 

7 product classes?

8 MR. PARKER: We’re going to have to ask 

9 everybody to speak up, okay, so that the court 

10 reporter and people on the phone can get --

11 MR. GREESON: The question was, was M4 okay 

12 for base case, the answer is in our experience it’s 

13 acceptable to use the base case.

14 MR. COFFEY: And are you using in some cases 

15 lower grades?

16 MR. GREESON: It depends a little bit on the 

17 situation, but not that much. It’s mainly M4 for us 

18 anyway.

19 MR. PATTERSON: Wes Patterson. To meet the 

20 current standard drove us basically starting at M4. 

21 Previous to the current standard, the standard was M6, 

22 with a little bit of M5 for special applications. So 

23 we used to use M6 as a bulk grade of steel, but 

24 current 2010 standard eliminated the use of M6 and 

25 drove the market into M4. Which we all should 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

258

1 understand, it was a significant change in the market. 

2 So today we do use M4 and we use every grade that’s on 

3 that chart except for anything related to a wound core 

4 construction. Wound cores are not practical in medium 

5 voltage dry type product, and it is impractical 

6 because of the size of the core. So our position is 

7 things like SA should be totally eliminated in any 

8 construction type which shows a wound core should be 

9 eliminated. But it’s not practical until the 2500 

10 KVA, 95 BIL transformer, dry type, today in that type 

11 of construction. And to my knowledge, nobody on the 

12 planet Earth has ever sold one commercially.

13 MR. DeLASKI: And again, not -- this is 

14 Andrew again -- not practical for -- tell me why?

15 MR. PATTERSON: The physical size. The 

16 physical size of a medium voltage dry type transformer 

17 is approximately 30 percent of the equivalent graded 

18 liquid filled transformer. Liquid filled transformers 

19 reach their maximum utilization on a wound core 

20 construction right around the 2000, 2500 KVA level, 

21 which is the upper limit. They have their economic 

22 sweet spot, arguably, around 1000 KVA. This 

23 translates to equivalent dry of something like 1300. 

24 But at the 2500 KVA rating, which is another core area 

25 of the market, we’re talking about a liquid equivalent 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

259

1 of 1.3 times 25, which is physically just too large to 

2 produce with today’s processes.

3 So our recommendation is that the wound core 

4 construction be eliminated.

5 MR. DeLASKI: So too large to produce with 

6 today’s processes, so in other words -- another way to 

7 put it is that with --

8 MR. PARKER: Andrew DeLaski.

9 MR. DeLASKI: -- very significant investment 

10 one could do it, it’s not a physical impossibility, 

11 but it’s manufacturing constraints, if I hear what 

12 you’re saying, and it’s also I presume, from the 

13 customer side because --

14 MR. PATTERSON: It’s also constraints on 

15 performance. This market, the medium voltage dry type 

16 market, by and large is a delta wide construction. 

17 The circuitry of the transformer on the primary side 

18 is connected in ..., the secondary side is connected in 

19 ... This thing leverages what’s called a core type 

20 construction, three legs with single U. 

21 In the liquid filled game, we’re looking at 

22 pretty much Y-Y circuitries, where you’re looking at 

23 something that is a five-legged core construction, 

24 which fills the shell-type manufacturer very nicely. 

25 But when you move into the core type construction and 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

260

1 wound core, you have to go to something called an 

2 Evans core. And the Evans core has about a 15 percent 

3 penalty on the utilization of the flux on the top and 

4 bottom U, which makes it again more -- less 

5 economical.

6 So there’s many factors rolled into why 

7 we’re not using wound core today.

8 MR. DeLASKI: This is Andrew again. I guess 

9 I understand all those points, I’m beginning to 

10 understand them, I should say. I just wanted to 

11 distinguish between something that’s not doable versus 

12 not economic.

13 MR. PATTERSON: If you were going to throw 

14 enough money at anything, from an engineering 

15 perspective, anything is doable.

16 MR. DeLASKI: Right. Okay. Thanks.

17 MR. PATTERSON: Because we could wind it out 

18 of gold wire -- gold material for a conductor, cut the 

19 load losses to zero, right, but who’s going to do 

20 this? It’s not practical.

21 MR. FERNSTROM: So, Wes, this is Gary 

22 Fernstrom from PG&E. Just to make sure that I 

23 understand this. For equivalent capacity, the liquid 

24 filled transformer is larger than the dry type?

25 MR. PATTERSON: No, the dry type is much 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

261

1 larger than the liquid.

2 MR. FERNSTROM: Thank you.

3 MR. PATTERSON: Much larger.

4 MR. RIVEST: Can you explain the physics a 

5 little bit for me?

6 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, there’s two main 

7 drivers that drive the physical size of the 

8 transformer. The first one is the cooling media. 

9 Transformers, when they operate, they get hot, they’ve 

10 got to get rid of the losses. The cooling medium on a 

11 liquid filled transformer is the oil. The oil’s a 

12 very good conductor of heat. It absorbs the heat well 

13 and dissipates it well. In the dry type transformer, 

14 the cooling media is air, and air is really an 

15 insulator, not a conductor of heat. So we have 

16 challenges getting air around, which makes the 

17 transformer bigger.

18 Then the other dimension is the dielectric 

19 medium. In a liquid filled transformer, oil again 

20 plays the main dielectric medium between the 

21 electrical conductor part and the ground part, the 

22 core. So you design the clearance from the winding to 

23 the core, which the coil to U clearance, based on the 

24 dielectric properties of the oil. When you do this 

25 with air, air is a considerably poorer dielectric 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

262

1 insulator than oil. So instead of designing for 95 

2 BIL with a clearance of about one inch, we’re 

3 designing clearances of six inches on each end, top 

4 and bottom, so it’s a 10 inch hit, just in the act --

5 you’re making the core ten inches bigger. 

6 And the problem, just so we know, the 

7 problem when we look at a 200 BIL which is covered by 

8 the standard, it’s taking this six inch hit to a 12-

9 inch hit. Twenty-four inches of just dead space for 

10 electrical clearance sitting in a 200 BIL transformer, 

11 which is a lot of core steel. And the standard is 

12 driven mainly by the dynamics of core losses. The 

13 more I drive up the core, the bigger the problem.

14 MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson, Federal Pacific. 

15 Our experience with those higher BILs matches exactly 

16 what you said. The standards as they are now are very 

17 nearly borderline impractical on the high BIL for us. 

18 You can make them but it is extremely difficult. 

19 That’s been our experience.

20 MR. DeLASKI: Because of the size.

21 MR. GREESON: Because of the physical size 

22 of those cores, you’re putting all that extra core 

23 loss in the design and that’s what really matters in 

24 this 50 percent efficiency.

25 MR. DeLASKI: Loading.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

263

1 MR. GREESON: Now the good news is, not me, 

2 it wasn’t made, so even if we ignore that, which was 

3 my suggestion, it’s ... it’s not a big deal, and when 

4 DOE changed the efficiencies the last time it was a 

5 pretty significant increase in efficiency to begin 

6 with, so we’re already pretty much there. Maxed out, 

7 that’s just.

8 MR. RIVEST: I don’t know if Wes wanted to 

9 share this -- his plan of steels. Like for a 1500 KVA 

10 low BIL versus a high BIL, his grade of steel shows 

11 that ...

12 MR. DeLASKI: In the existing standard.

13 MR. RIVEST: You’re pushing -- having to use 

14 more expensive steels to meet the standard. You’re 

15 pushing -- having to use more expensive steels to meet 

16 the standard.

17 MR. DeLASKI: Thank you.

18 Steel Price Sensitivity

19 MR. COFFEY: Okay. Thank you. So, next 

20 steps, we have the steel price sensitivity too on 

21 Sharepoint, so that people can enter in their own 

22 scenarios. Right now we have five scenarios, one’s 

23 the reference case which is 2010 prices. We have our 

24 usual 2008 plus 25 percent, and 2006 minus 25 percent 

25 scenarios for all materials prices. And then we’ve 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

264

1 added, just for core steels now, so they don’t modify 

2 any of the other prices, we have 2008 plus 25 percent, 

3 2006 minus 25 percent, as well as the reference plus 

4 ten percent, and reference minus ten percent. So we 

5 an come up with an infinite number of scenarios that 

6 we’d like to run, but what we were aiming for was 

7 having a small high and a small low, and then a large 

8 high and a large low to try to bound the argument a 

9 little bit.

10 Hopefully you’ll have a chance to open that 

11 up and play around with it a bit.

12 Also the simplified cost plots, some of that 

13 we went over, so those are up there.

14 And then the last thing for us to do that I 

15 started by talking about it, is to establish a scaling 

16 relationship between the 11 and 12 mid-BIL lines and 

17 their higher and lower cases so that the result of the 

18 standard is roughly equivalent to the stringent ...

19 MR. DeLASKI: So there’s already a standard 

20 in place in each of those. Standard lines, and they 

21 have a certain increment built in. We could establish 

22 the TSLs as a percent of losses that would show in the 

23 existing standards, but based on what we’ve seen --

24 we’re on a steeper part of the curve already, so if we 

25 wanted to establish ... and the EL1 which might be ten 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

265

1 percent reduction in losses in the mid-BIL, would 

2 translate into the smaller number ...

3 MR. COFFEY: And so that’s all I have. 

4 Chris, are you planning to talk at all?

5 MR. BOLDUC: Chris Bolduc, LBL. The only 

6 thing that changes in the LCC and NIA results were the 

7 engineering ... that’s it. I’ve also been asked to 

8 outline the ... results between ... last night. So maybe 

9 --

10 MR. PARKER: Chris, maybe you should -- can 

11 you bring them around. We need to have you --

12 MR. DeLASKI: Chris, this is Andrew again. 

13 Just so I can keeping the paper trail straight, you 

14 sent us a medium voltage dry type results on the 

15 weekend, that’s dated -- the version I have is 

November 3rd

MR. BOLDUC: Yeah, November 3

16 , maybe there’s been some changes --

rd

18 MR. DeLASKI: And then you sent around --

19 around midnight last night, a new version, November 

8

17 .

th. So November 8th

21 MR. BOLDUC: That’s right.

20 is the latest version.

22 MR. DeLASKI: And you’re going to tell us 

23 now the differences between the two.

24 MR. BOLDUC: Yes, they’re very slight. 

25 There are no changes to the numbers, there were just 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

266

1 some issues with labels, some that arose. Like I 

2 said, the life cycle cost ... results. In the original 

3 version, the November 5 version, that changed and net 

4 LCC benefit rose.

5 MR. DeLASKI: So what page are you on?

6 MR. BOLDUC: You can pick any LCC design 

7 line. So let’s take a look at page three. 11/05 

8 version, swap those two lines -- just the labels.

9 MR. DeLASKI: Got it. So in other words, 

10 you’ve got 99 percent --

11 MR. PARKER: Andrew DeLaski.

12 MR. DeLASKI: -- you’ve got 99 percent --

13 that increase in LCC, the 99 percent should be the 

14 people who are getting an increase in LCC, as opposed 

15 to --

16 MR. BOLDUC: Exactly. 

17 MR. DeLASKI: People are being impacted by 

18 the standard.

19 MR. BOLDUC: Almost ... people ... yes.

20 MR. DeLASKI: Okay. Got it.

21 MR. PARKER: Do people need to see this 

22 other screen, because we can take a minute to get it 

23 up if people feel it’s necessary.

24 PARTICIPANT: Yeah, let’s do that.

25 MR. DeLASKI: I guess this is only helpful 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

267

1 for those of us who focused on the first analysis. If 

2 people are okay focusing on the second one --

3 MR. PARKER: Just give us a minute.

4 MR. DeLASKI: I can see we have gotten --

5 these labels ...

6 MR. PARKER: So as I understand it so far, 

7 while he’s doing that, the proposal has been put 

8 forward that for at least quasi-technological reasons, 

9 shall we say, very, very strong economic reasons at a 

10 minimum, that amorphous and ZDMH should be removed 

11 from the realm of possibilities for design lines 11 

12 and 12.

13 MR. PATTERSON: No. That’s not what it’s 

14 saying. 

15 MR. PARKER: Just amorphous?

16 MR. PATTERSON: There’s also a design line 

17 that’s used ... construction in dry type ...

18 MR. PARKER: I was getting there. Yeah, but 

19 you were saying -- I thought that you said that 

20 amorphous requires a wound core.

21 MR. PATTERSON: Amorphous does require a 

22 wound.

23 MR. PARKER: So the implication is taking 

24 wound cores off the table is taking amorphous off the 

25 table.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

268

1 MR. PATTERSON: That would be true.

2 MR. DeLASKI: That is Wes’ proposal. We --

3 I understand that from an economic point of view. From 

4 a technological point of view, I don’t think that’s 

5 the case. So it may be, I don’t know what this group 

6 might agree to, but ... the wound should be included in 

7 DOE’s analysis.

8 MR. PARKER: Okay. So, you want the 

9 amorphous round core --

10 MR. DeLASKI: I’m just -- two diverse tracks 

11 of our discussion here are about what we could agree 

12 to as a group, and I’m hearing the arguments on --

13 that this is not something that these guys are going 

14 to agree to ever.

15 MR. PATTERSON: Actually, Andy -- Wes 

16 Patterson -- your comment that it is feasible to do it 

17 is correct, it’s a matter of cost, right. So we can 

18 always go in and say, okay, has the DOE really 

19 analyzed what the cost is going to be to build a 2500 

20 KV, 95 BIL wound core transformer in production? And 

21 I think when you do this, you’re going to find this is 

22 so far out there, it’s like making the conductor out 

23 of gold.

24 MR. DeLASKI: Yeah, I get it. So I think the 

25 economics win out and not the technology.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

269

1 MR. PARKER: So Maxtech would include it 

2 because it’s technologically feasible, but in terms of 

3 economic justification, we’re hearing differently.

4 MR. DeLASKI: But I also don’t want to spend 

5 a lot more time on it because it’s not something that 

6 ultimately is going to be useful for us. 

7 MR. PARKER: Well, we’ve got the slides --

8 MR. DeLASKI: The LCC’s already done, so are 

9 we going to leave that in?

10 MR. PARKER: Chris, do you want to go 

11 through the slide?

12 MR. BOLDUC: Sure. And the other changes 

13 were for designs line 11 and the LCC payback results. 

14 Efficiency level 1 was repeated as efficiency level 7, 

15 there were no efficiency level 7 design lines. And 

16 that’s it.

17 MR. PARKER: Chris, just for the record, for 

18 the transcript and so forth, would you mind just 

19 reading the two sentences so we’ll have them on the 

20 record. I’m just thinking this is part of the record 

21 and the record doesn’t do the slides, so just describe 

22 what the slide is.

23 MR. BOLDUC: Well, the slide shows 

24 increasing LCC as you move up for design line 12. 

25 Design line 12 ... LCC switch to --
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

270

1 MR. PARKER: But then TSL six and seven 

2 really comes below --

3 MR. BOLDUC: It just drops out there. 

4 People ... switch to the core materials for design line 

5 11 and 12. Payback, design line 12 steadily increases 

6 all the way up to max tech.

7 MR. PARKER: ... and going up to about --

8 MR. BOLDUC: Starting at nine years to 27 

9 years. And the core material selection for design 

10 lines 12, it switches over, and the base case M4 is 

11 primarily used for efficiency level one and ... zero 

12 where it stays until efficiency level three where the 

13 model switches over to SA-1.

14 MR. PATTERSON: This is Wes. Wes Patterson. 

15 Stay for a minute on that chart for design line 12. 

16 This goes back to the same issues we had with the DOE 

17 analysis that we discussed yesterday with the medium 

18 voltage liquid filled. On reading this chart, it is 

19 saying that the only way that I can build to 

20 efficiency level one is with HO steel.

21 MR. BOLDUC: No, it’s not. Sorry, Wes, 

22 correction. It’s saying that you can build it with 

23 M5, M4, M3, H0 or SA-1, but the designs that are H0 

24 are the lowest first cost.

25 MR. PATTERSON: But then I would challenge 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

271

1 that because our actual production data shows us a 

2 loss, and EL1, we’re building cheaper units with M4 

3 and M3 than we are with H0.

4 MR. DeLASKI: I’m sorry, Wes, I’m just 

5 trying to catch up here with some of the materials. 

6 This is Andrew. 

7 MR. PATTERSON: All I’m pointing out is that 

8 I think it’s flawed because of the way the analysis is 

9 performed, is misleading with respect to the grades of 

10 steel. This chart is saying that the only way that 

11 you can make an EL1, the least cost way of producing 

12 EL1 is with H0. And our production experience over 

13 the last 12 months have said we actually produce at 

14 EL1 levels with M4 or M3, cheaper that H0. So I bring 

15 it out so that we don’t mislead the group that says 

16 we’ve got to immediately jump for the laser scribe, 

17 that’s not true.

18 MR. DeLASKI: So for you guys, M4 and M3 is 

19 a cheaper alternative at EL1.

20 MR. PATTERSON: At EL1.

21 MR. DeLASKI: And you do all three?

22 MR. PATTERSON: Yeah, we do -- actually we 

23 do everything on that chart except ZDMH and SA-1.

24 MR. DeLASKI: At EL1 -- I mean just in terms 

25 of these products, not EL1.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

272

1 MR. PATTERSON: Not EL1.

2 MR. BOLDUC: Chris Bolduc, sorry, LBL. Just 

3 for clarification. Looking at these charts, it is the 

4 blanks in the chart that indicate that the efficiency 

5 level cannot be met with the material. Zero percent 

6 indicates that the efficiency level can be met, but 

7 the LCC did not choose it.

8 PARTICIPANT: Because of the lowest cost 

9 choice.

10 MR. BOLDUC: Right.

11 MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson, Federal Pacific. 

12 Wes was mentioning the different varieties of steels 

13 they use and they’ve got a fair amount of flexibility 

14 with their design capabilities with that. Federal 

15 Pacific, conversely, is mainly constrained with M4, 

16 some M6 and M3, you know, non-efficient type 

17 transformers. But we have limited experience with the 

18 laser scribe materials and we do acknowledge that the 

19 ruling awareness with us that we’re going to get into 

20 these materials, but we’re looking at these 

21 discussions and ..., given those steels, number one is 

22 it’s a little bit of a supply issue for us, and it’s 

23 an experience issue for us. Our equipment has to be 

24 modified to do it. And so that’s kind of our 

25 perspective. We’re a smaller manufacturer, we just 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

273

1 don’t have as much experience with these type ...

2 MR. DeLASKI: So, Rob, just to follow up, 

3 this is Andrew. So again, looking at that table, 

4 design line 12, for transformers that you’re making 

5 today that are efficiency level one, with that kind of 

6 performance, just what I’m hearing you say is that 

7 you’d be using M3 or M4 because you aren’t using HO.

8 MR. GREESON: That’s correct. And honestly, 

9 you know, a lot of our customers are -- we don’t do a 

10 lot of things beyond the minimum standard. I think 

11 Wes’ customers are more diverse and their requirements 

12 are a little different.

13 MR. PATTERSON: Yeah.

14 MR. GREESON: And so when you see his chart, 

15 you’ll see a lot of dots that are higher efficiency 

16 designs. I haven’t done a chart like that, but I’d 

17 dare say that if I did, all of them would follow the 

18 line, pretty closely.

19 MR. DeLASKI: You’ve got limited sample size 

20 above --

21 MR. GREESON: The market standard a little 

22 bit for us, so not to say that there aren’t some out 

23 there that are more efficient, but most of the time 

24 the specifications are in that direction.

25 MR. PATTERSON: I’d like to also point out 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

274

1 that there is a -- Wes Patterson -- on that chart, 

2 there’s a grade we use that’s not on that chart, 

3 right, because they make a 9 mil and an 11 mil laser 

4 scribe, right, and we’re using both of them, and 

5 they’ve only got one of them up there. So there’s an 

6 H0 and there’s also an H1.

7 MR. DeLASKI: Which one’s the 9 mil, which 

8 one’s the 11 mil?

9 MR. PATTERSON: H1 is the 11 mil, H0 is the 

10 9 mil.

11 MR. BOLDUC: Chris Bolduc, LBL. Just how 

12 readily available is H1?

13 MR. PATTERSON: Very.

14 MR. BOLDUC: It is?

15 MR. PATTERSON: Very.

16 MR. CASKEY: This is John Caskey. So going 

17 back to the wound core issue, Wes, I understood you to 

18 say that basically you recommend excluding wound 

19 cores, is that including design line 11?

20 MR. PATTERSON: Yeah, the 300 KVA. Yeah.

21 MR. CASKEY: So then does that imply that 

22 that SA-1 line down at the bottom for efficiency level 

23 3,4, and 5 has essentially got to be an error?

24 MR. PATTERSON: No, the -- I come back to 

25 Andy’s comment. If you’re doing a theoretical 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

275

1 calculation, right, this is some theoretical

2 calculation that’s performed using the materials and 

3 the design. 

4 MR. CASKEY: But then it could be --

5 MR. PATTERSON: That we can do.

6 MR. CASKEY: Could it be the lowest cost 

7 design?

8 MR. PATTERSON: It’s not ever going to be 

9 the lowest cost. 

10 MR. CASKEY: So that 100 percent in those 

11 cells must be wrong, right?

12 MR. PATTERSON: Yeah, I would make the same 

13 comment, because I can build up to EL4 with CGO, 

14 right, and I don’t build any wound cores. So I’m for 

15 sure building on EL4, I’m building stacked core 

16 designs, with grain-oriented steels at that level. 

17 Not wound core.

18 MR. PARKER: So you’re saying that you could 

19 achieve, theoretically, EL4 with grain-oriented steel 

20 --

21 MR. PATTERSON: Not theoretically. I have 

22 product I ship in the market place at that level. 

23 That’s not a theoretical, that’s a reality.

24 MR. PARKER: So you are shipping EL4 with 

25 conventional steels?
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

276

1 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, it’s a very rare 

2 occurrence, I can tell you, stretching the limits of 

3 what can be done. But it is done.

4 MR. RIVEST: I think the --

5 MR. PARKER: Mike Rivest.

6 MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest, sorry. What I’m 

7 hearing is that we have not fully considered the costs 

8 of building an SA, and if we had, they would not be 

9 the design of choice, and you would be ...

10 MR. CASKEY: This is John Caskey. But to 

11 me, fundamentally, we’re showing from this point sort 

12 of going forward with the life cycle cost analysis, 

13 we’re showing that for design line 11, the efficiency 

14 level 3, 4, 5 and 6, we’re basically concluding that 

15 the analysis is fundamentally flawed because we’re 

16 assuming a cost to produce a transformer, a price of a 

17 transformer that the manufacturer is saying is 

18 virtually impossible, but that’s a foundation on which 

19 the cost-effectiveness is based on and the life cycle 

20 cost analysis and the payback period. It’s all based 

21 on something that’s not going to be accomplished.

22 MR. PATTERSON: Wes Patterson. John, this 

23 comes into the discussion I tried to introduce into 

24 the medium voltage discussion yesterday. The design 

25 space that was selected by the DOE to model this 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

277

1 market -- they had to pick something, okay. So what 

2 they selected is a subset of reality. The fallacy I 

3 see in the analysis is rather than interpreting the 

4 inferred physics from their model, they used the 

5 absolute discrete value at a single point to say that 

6 applies to the entire space. That is not true.

7 If you turn around and you look at the 

8 scatter diagram from the DOE data, then you can 

9 interpolate across the scatter diagram and make the 

10 correct decision. It will show the correct moves.

11 MR. CASKEY: And this is John, and what I’m 

12 just saying is that what has now been assumed in the 

13 analysis going forward must be a large mixture of the 

14 SA-1, unless I’m misunderstanding the analysis, so 

15 you’re looking at that cost or that price for a 

16 transformer, and that’s what driving fundamentally, 

17 the apparent cost-effectiveness of going to design 

18 line 3, 4, 5, or 6.

19 MR. RIVEST: That’s what I said.

20 MR. DeLASKI: Okay. So just to follow up 

21 with Wes. So, I heard you say that yeah, you’ve got -

22 - you are making some transformers, rare occasion, out 

23 there in EL4 using stack core construction with M3, I 

24 presume, or maybe H0.

25 MR. PATTERSON: I’m moving into the laser 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

278

1 scribes.

2 MR. DeLASKI: Okay. So then stepping back 

3 from there, on the materials, at EL3 what are the 

4 materials choices that you see?

5 MR. PATTERSON: I gave you a chart at one of 

6 the meetings where -- are you referring to the liquid 

7 --

8 MR. DeLASKI: The chart, I’ve got it.

9 MR. PATTERSON: There’s a dry one in there.

10 MR. DeLASKI: I have them both.

11 MR. PATTERSON: For the distribution of the 

12 grades.

13 MR. DeLASKI: Thanks for reminding me. We 

14 had less time to study for this.

15 MR. PATTERSON: Yeah, it’s easier to look at 

16 the picture.

17 MR. DeLASKI: You see what I’m struck by is 

18 -- this is Andrew again -- is that this is a similar 

19 discussion to what we had yesterday, is that this 

20 table needs to reflect better the choices that 

21 manufacturers are actually making in the market as 

22 opposed to these choices, because I think John’s point 

23 is right on that --

24 MR. PATTERSON: John’s point is correct, 

25 Andy, but there’s a problem. We’ve got a time 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

279

1 constraint. So we have, you know, the DOE has 

2 invested a large sum over several years to develop 

3 this design space. Now I have a lot of heartburn with 

4 this because it was based on this A/B factor economic 

5 analysis and has nothing to do with efficiency. 

6 Really, has nothing to do with efficiency. You get an 

7 entirely different scatter diagram if you focused on 

8 an efficiency optimization rather than A/B 

9 optimization.

10 Given that, this is it, and it’s a lot of 

11 data. If my numbers are correct, it’s roughly 40,000 

12 design points. And you can use that data.

13 MR. RIVEST: (off mic) I think -- again, 

14 this is Mike Rivest -- I think, when I look at Wes’ 

15 data, there’s one line, right. This ... in our data is 

16 caused by the relative cost ... So I think what Wes is 

17 saying is we should be looking at this trend, and that 

18 there are many more design -- there’s a lot more 

19 design space that allows you to manufacturer ... and 

20 once you’ve added the different grades, we should look 

21 at this tracking. 

22 MR. PATTERSON: That would be my first 

23 response, but even if we leave it in, if we do it 

24 correctly it’ll end up with the same result. Mike, I 

25 totally agree. With the fallacy that I see being done 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

280

1 in some of these reports, somebody take the bottom dot 

2 and said that one dot represents the lowest cost item. 

3 And I can play with my engineering stuff and move 

4 another dot down there.

5 MR. RIVEST: So here, for example, there is 

6 ...

7 MS. COUGHLIN: You know, I was going to say 

8 that it is the lowest price --

9 MR. PATTERSON: It’s the lowest price, but 

10 not necessarily the lowest technology.

11 MR. RIVEST: (Off mic) If you look at EL2 

12 here, what does out -- look at it, there’s a lot of 

13 competitiveness ... But if I were to look at this and 

14 say it should be ... but while you’re here, it’s 100 

15 percent SA. But again, you’ve got a lot of price 

16 parity until you get over here.

17 MR. CASKEY: You’re saying there’s price 

18 parity right here, or you’re saying that’s price 

19 parity -- this is John Caskey -- that that’s price 

20 parity right there?

21 MR. RIVEST: Well, if you ... the numbers, see 

22 there’s --

23 MR. CASKEY: I’m sorry, I --

24 MR. RIVEST: What the model is saying is 

25 it’s 100 percent, and that’s the fallacy -- winner 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

281

1 take all frame of mind here, but in fact there’s a lot 

2 more ... price of steels.

3 MR. DeLASKI: So I think it’s an important -

4 - this is Andrew -- I think it’s important from an 

5 analytic point of view, we don’t need to address this 

6 today, but that these tables that indicate that you’re 

7 using a higher percent H0 at EL1, that’s harmful 

8 information because it’s just not what’s happening. 

9 It ends up undermining our argument as this committee 

10 goes forward, and you’re trying -- you know, people 

11 out there are going to say, you pick everybody by H0, 

12 when in fact, that’s not the case. We’ve got to find 

13 --

14 MR. RIVEST: The table is useful. It’s no 

15 different than the plots --

16 MR. DeLASKI: But it’s being misunderstood, 

17 pretty much misunderstood. I think it’s going to 

18 continue to be misunderstood.

19 MS. COUGHLIN: (off mic) This is Katie, 

20 LBL. The problem with the LCC is, you know, we’re 

21 looking at a -- the assumption is that the purchasers 

22 may buy off those first costs. The LCC doesn’t use 

23 anything but the lowest first cost at each efficiency 

24 level based on ... So really to modify the selection 

25 process in a meaningful way -- and that is something 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

282

1 that, you know, we can -- my understanding is that it 

2 might be more accurate with design lines on the lower 

3 efficiency data ... and use that instead of this cloud 

4 at the higher efficiency levels. We can do that, but 

5 fundamentally the LCC -- you can’t -- it’s just you 

6 have no criteria other than first cost. So if you 

7 wanted to stop doing that, you’d have to achieve 

8 construction ...

9 MR. PARKER: Katie, just so I --

10 MR. PATTERSON: My problem with this data is 

11 this spot right here.

12 MS. COUGHLIN: Yeah, I --

13 MR. PATTERSON: See this spot with no dots -

14 -

15 MS. COUGHLIN: Right.

16 MR. PATTERSON: Okay. In the real world, 

17 that does not exist. There are dots in that space. 

18 PARTICIPANT: But what is creating the dots?

19 MR. PATTERSON: What’s creating the dots in 

20 here is that I am optimizing on some A/B combinations 

21 and not some efficiency level. If I was to turn 

22 around and run this whole dot spectrum on this 

23 efficiency, run my optimization program to optimize on 

24 that efficiency, I fill this thing up with a bunch of 

25 dots in that space.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

283

1 MR. RIVEST: So what you’re saying is -- I’m 

2 going to take your analogy -- what you’re saying is 

3 that improved efficiency in a linear relationship.

4 MR. PATTERSON: Not linear.

5 MR. RIVEST: Well, linear scale. Fill in 

6 this like that is like a constant slope -- it always 

7 costs the same amount --

8 MR. PATTERSON: What I’m saying, Mike, is 

9 that we’re missing data right there.

10 MR. RIVEST: Do you think there’s another 

11 line --

12 MR. PATTERSON: I’m thinking -- see this 

13 line right here where this brownish color is, I’m 

14 saying that there are dots of that thing that are 

15 actually going this way, when I’m optimizing on 

16 efficiency and not optimizing on an A/B combination. 

17 I’m filling up that space with dots from this --

18 MR. PARKER: Just for the people who are the 

19 phone and can’t see your laser pointer, and for the 

20 record, could you just state that in words -- with 

21 words.

22 MR. PATTERSON: Okay. So, between EL3 and 

23 EL4, there is a lower red line which I believe is 

24 probably amorphous, SA. And then there’s a white 

25 space above it. And then I bump into what is probably 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

284

1 a laser scribe material. And if I were to use an 

2 optimization based on efficiency, the laser scribe 

3 material would fill in white points down, moving down 

4 towards that red line. Now it will reach an 

5 asymptotic point where it will shoot off scale. Okay. 

6 But we know we haven’t reached this point at this 

7 level here. If I was to take it out here, I’d say 

8 that this laser scribe is tracking somewheres, you 

9 know, north of the amorphous, but then all of a sudden 

10 it shoots up, and it’s going to shoot up ...

11 MR. PARKER: So what you’re saying then is 

12 that the laser scribe technology can get you to the 

13 right of EL3 and possibly EL4, at prices that are 

14 below those displayed on this chart.

15 MR. PATTERSON: Absolutely. Actually, I 

16 have shipment data for the calculation.

17 MR. PARKER: And you’re also saying that 

18 this chart is wrong in its portrayal of amorphous 

19 prices, that they were actually to build those with 

20 amorphous, those red dots should be much, much higher, 

21 is that correct?

22 MR. PATTERSON: If that cost includes the 

23 capital investment to do this, yes. If that cost that 

24 I’m looking at includes the capital, and I’m not sure 

25 the LCC has the capital investment. This just has the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

285

1 active materials times their dollar per pound.

2 MR. RIVEST: Would you say the trend line 

3 would be about like the SA --

4 MR. PARKER: Mike Rivest.

5 MR. PATTERSON: Mike, I have given you those 

6 -- your scatter plot overlaid on top our scatter plot 

7 on exactly the efficiency versus dollars. 

8 Unfortunately, this is very sensitive material and I 

9 don’t feel comfortable displaying it in a public 

10 forum.

11 MR. RIVEST: (off mic) What I see in the ... 

12 there’s a slope, but it would look more like this.

13 MR. PARKER: It’s a flatter slope.

14 MR. RIVEST: It’s a flatter slope.

15 MR. PATTERSON: Yes.

16 MR. RIVEST: Higher than what you get out of 

17 SA.

18 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, but on log-log paper, 

19 it’s a very flat -- it’s a straight line.

20 MS. COUGHLIN: It’s a power log.

21 MR. PATTERSON: Pardon?

22 MS. COUGHLIN: It’s a power log.

23 MR. PATTERSON: It’s a power log.

24 MR. PARKER: Yes, Mahesh.

25 MR. SAMPAT: Mahesh Sampat, EIS Consulting. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

286

1 And I think that this plot that Wes is describing, if 

2 DOE or Navigant want to replicate it, it’s different 

3 set of A/B than what you’re considering. These are 

4 optimized on efficiency, and when you optimize on 

5 efficiency, the value you get for design, and if you 

6 say which A/B factor, that will be optimum point. It 

7 would be different than what your set is. But I bet 

8 if you play with A/B factor, you will be able to play 

9 a figure up there.

10 MR. RIVEST: When we set up the A/Bs, so we 

11 know that at 50 percent, the A/B factor is ... point. 

12 And -- but we didn’t just take one, we took a large 

13 number of ratios because the idea was the LCCs would 

14 have to push this, so we want to have designs that ...

15 MR. PARKER: Mike Rivest.

16 MR. RIVEST: But it turns out ... so another 

17 option would be to have more optimization around 3:1 

18 or 4:1 ratio than we have now ... maybe up here because 

19 they’re ... (off mic)

20 MR. PARKER: But the take-off might be at a 

21 similar distant point.

22 MR. RIVEST: That’s what -- I don’t know.

23 MR. DeLASKI: You mean a 4:1 ratio up to 

24 $15 dollars --

25 MR. RIVEST: Pushing it hard. I don’t know 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

287

1 what else we could do --

2 MS. COUGHLIN: My understanding is ...

3 (much discussion off mic)

4 MR. PARKER: Okay. Rob, did you want to say 

5 -- Please everybody, give your name -- get in the 

6 habit of giving your name before you speak.

7 MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson, Federal Pacific 

8 Transformers. Regarding the space and -- let me just 

9 tell you my experience from the design standpoint, 

10 when I’m looking at -- when I’ve been doing the work 

11 that I’ve been trying to get design equivalency with 

12 OPS, let’s say I started with EL0 for design line 12 

13 design, 1500 KVA. And that steel for that particular 

14 design was M4, and then I went to EL1, and I say okay, 

15 what am I going to do to make this design happen with 

16 a stacked miter core. Okay, I can stick with M4 or I 

17 can go with M3. It looks like it’s a little bit 

18 better if I go with M3, or M5. So I continue on down 

19 the line and I get to EL2. I’m starting to max out my 

20 induction level -- I’m putting in more an more core 

21 steel. I’m trying to offset that with conductor 

22 losses because I’m pushing the steel so far. And then 

23 I go up one more level and I’m still at M3. Let’s say 

24 I’m at El3 now. Now I’m driving this thing down with 

25 80 degree rise. I’ve got my induction levels down 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

288

1 below 70 kilolines. I’m trying to compensate for bus 

2 losses. Then I try to get up to EL4 or 5 and I may 

3 have skipped 20. Now I’m shifting to copper, because 

4 I can’t even make it at all with M3, and I’m not 

5 switching over to H0 yet. I don’t have a lot of 

6 experience with it. And what happens with what I’ve 

7 seen is I get so far out there, yeah, the designs are 

8 there, but then they just shoot up like a rocket once 

9 you go to copper. So even though the designs are 

10 doable in some instances, I’m not sure that they’re 

11 always cost-effective. So I don’t want --

12 MR. PARKER: So there is a --

13 MR. GREESON: I’m afraid there might be some 

14 confusion on doable and economically justifiable. 

15 They’re there, and I’m wondering if perhaps Wes’ 

16 customers -- and there are a lot of customers out 

17 there that “we want this particular efficiency and we 

18 want copper too.” And we want this size, and we want 

19 that. And it’s K20, and the result then -- or K13, 

20 and the resulting efficiency is really, really low, 

21 and it might be a side-effect of the K factor. I 

22 could be the side-effect that they insisted on wanting 

23 copper. It could be a lot of different things.

24 So, what I plan to show later today is, from 

25 our perspective, is that the economics of it does not 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

289

1 go into the three and four range. Although it’s 

2 possible, it is interesting to me that maybe we build 

3 as many of these designs that are that much more 

4 efficient. I think the advocates would be happy about 

5 that. He’s built a lot of them that are already more 

6 efficient.

7 One more thing. We’re at design level base 

8 zero, we’re talking about. The reality is, the 

9 manufacturers design under that line already, just to 

10 meet the compliance. So when you get a four, or let’s 

11 say for the sake of argument, you’re going to get a 

12 three, you’re already over three, just to meet 

13 compliance. So we need to keep that in mind as well.

14 MR. DeLASKI: Rob, this is Andrew following 

15 up. So what I heard you say is that as you’ve gone 

16 for the modeling on this, back in your -- you’re 

17 looking at EL3 and above is where you start seeing --

18 you just don’t see the cost-effectiveness coming --

19 MR. GREESON: Absolutely.

20 MR. DeLASKI: You can do it from a technical 

21 point of view, but the cost-effectiveness is just not 

22 working out.

23 MR. GREESON: Exactly right.

24 MR. DeLASKI: You say that at EL2 you’re 

25 maxing out your M3, you’re driving it really hard, you 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

290

1 know, but it sounds like you’re doing -- there you see 

2 cost-effectiveness as perhaps penciling out.

3 MR. GREESON: We -- Rob Greeson, Federal 

4 Pacific. These were designs that we had to do for the 

5 study. We don’t have a lot of designs that we’ve 

6 shipped in that ballpark, so we had to do a lot of 

7 extra design work to investigate that. As I said 

8 before, our customers are typically I think more cost9 driven and so but to get in that realm we had to do a 

10 ton of R&D to -- design work to try to investigate the 

11 possibilities, but we did them.

12 MR. DeLASKI: Okay. Thanks a lot.

13 MR. PARKER: So as I understand it, where we 

14 stand is we have, first let me say that we have about 

15 30 minutes left for this meeting, so we need to really 

16 focus on, you know, a path forward, I think. I’m not 

17 sure that it’s --

18 MR. RIVEST: I think I could suggest one, 

19 fairly simple too.

20 MR. PARKER: Mike Rivest.

21 MR. RIVEST: (off mic) Which is sensitivity 

22 relying, take on this thing and see what happens.

23 MR. DeLASKI: Isn’t that what was done? 

24 MR. RIVEST: There is a sensitivity with no 

25 attached materials.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

291

1 MR. PARKER: Okay. Can we display the 

2 sensitivity?

3 MR. DeLASKI: So you want it John, they 

4 already did it. Satisfy your curiosity.

5 (Discussions off mic)

6 MR. DeLASKI: It goes too far the other way.

7 MR. CASKEY: I don’t know what the right 

8 answer is. It seems like there should be a different 

9 price that what this is allowing amorphous to be.

10 MR. DeLASKI: Oh, no. I get the point. I 

11 understand your point.

12 MR. CASKEY: So I don’t know what that delta 

13 is, and at some point --

14 MR. DeLASKI: What I don’t understand is --

15 well, we’re going to go through it, I think, so --

16 (Discussions off mic while setting up)

17 MR. PARKER: Okay. We’re ready to resume.

18 MR. BOLDUC: Chris Bolduc, Lawrence Berkeley 

19 National Lab. Slide on the screen is LCC results for 

20 design line 12 with no ZDMH, zero, or SA-1. For those 

21 on the phone, there’s even very low LCC ratings around 

22 $300 for efficiency level one, and then it begins to 

23 climb through efficiency level four. And then 

24 efficiency levels five through seven are unattainable 

25 without these other materials.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

292

1 MR. PARKER: So what happens if ...

2 MR. BOLDUC: I can’t tell you right now. 

3 Probably somewhere in between.

4 MR. DeLASKI: This is Andrew. That’s -- you 

5 just asked a key question, I think, because I was 

6 trying to puzzle through why, you know, because the 

7 tables we were looking at before --

8 MR. RIVEST: (off mic) It’s probably that 

9 the request came from a manufacturer who wanted to 

10 limit consideration ...

11 MR. BOLDUC: I did it for the medium voltage 

12 liquid immersed --

13 MR. DeLASKI: So if we put H0 back in we’re 

14 going to see some different results.

15 MR. BOLDUC: Oh, yes.

16 MR. DeLASKI: That’s the bottom line. Look 

17 at design line -- I’m back to page 16, where we see 

18 design line 12 -- if I go back to page 16 on the 

19 original analysis, then I see that --

20 MR. BOLDUC: H0 is a major contributor when 

21 it’s available.

22 MR. DeLASKI: Right. What I’m seeing on 

23 that analysis, design line analysis, H0 is the 

24 selected steel, again, we already talked about the 

25 flaws, that that’s flawed -- and then you don’t -- it 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

293

1 would be driving the cost-effectiveness --

2 MR. BOLDUC: At one or two?

3 MR. DeLASKI: Two, yeah, one and two. And I 

4 also heard Wes earlier say that what’s actually 

5 happening is M3 and even M4 are being used. So we 

6 would want to try to capture -- a real cost7 effectiveness -- an accurate cost-effectiveness would 

8 need captures of mix of materials.

9 MR. CYMBALSKY: Are the numbers in the base 

10 case actually --

11 MR. PARKER: John Cymbalsky.

12 MR. CYMBALSKY: Is that data from -- Wes, 

13 are those numbers accurate do you think?

14 MR. RIVEST: Remember Wes and Rob have very 

15 different design ...

16 MR. PATTERSON: From my perspective, ... bulk 

17 of the market --

18 MR. DeLASKI: Seventy percent roughly?

19 MR. PATTERSON: I probably do.

20 MR. CYMBALSKY: Seventy percent. It’s 98 

21 percent.

22 MR. PATTERSON: But John, I gave earlier in 

23 another meeting a model chart showing the grades --

24 MR. RIVEST: My take away here today and 

25 yesterday is because we modeled various discrete 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

294

1 material prices relative to each other, we’re getting 

2 this tumbled graph on this table, which distills too 

3 much value to the plots and understanding what’s going 

4 on. If we were only to be looking at a table like 

5 this that ... produce more variability in pricing 

6 materials to show that things tip over ... that would be 

7 one difference. (off mic) ... Katie, we can do that --

8 giving her a challenge. She likes that.

9 As far as the wound cores, this does not 

10 capture ...

11 MR. CASKEY: This is John Caskey. I had a 

12 question for Wes. I thought you were describing that 

13 amorphous wound cores would be more expensive even 

14 without the capital cost than what’s projected in here 

15 now.

16 MR. PATTERSON: This is true.

17 MR. CASKEY: See, without the capital cost, 

18 the amorphous numbers, I think, are unreasonable --

19 MR. PATTERSON: I don’t know the detail of 

20 the OPS --

21 MR. CASKEY: This is John Caskey again. I 

22 have a question maybe for Katie. So when we get off 

23 into the like design line 11, where we had the 100 

24 percent in the three, four and five -- I mean, I can 

25 sort of ignore it. I know that that just means that 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

295

1 that was the lowest cost design alternative, if you 

2 will. But then when you actually model that line 

3 forward, are you modeling that particular price of 

4 that lowest element, or is there some range around 

5 that plus or minus 20 percent that include other sort 

6 of designs in there? 

7 MS. COUGHLIN: In the model?

8 MR. CASKEY: In the LCC.

9 MS. COUGHLIN: (off mic) Well, the LCC is a 

10 static prediction ... And we have looked at ... designs 

11 and it’s unclear whether that constitutes the best 

12 value ... at the higher efficiency levels ...

13 MR. PARKER: Katie, can you come to the 

14 table, I’m sorry. There’s an extra chair here.

15 MR. CASKEY: This is John again, so it 

16 sounds like, if I understand you correctly, once it 

17 says like for design line 5 or 6 that amorphous seems 

18 to be the right answer, that that produces the lowest 

19 cost, then the majority of the analysis going forward 

20 is using that particular price with a little 

21 variation. It’s not using that price plus 20 percent 

22 variation is it?

23 MS. COUGHLIN: That’s right.

24 MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest. If you look at 

25 the actual shipment data for a year, that will reflect 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

296

1 that over time the relative prices of materials have 

2 changed, so one week one design might be a better 

3 design than the other. And that introduces variation 

4 that is not reproduced right now in the engineering. 

5 It has just one set of prices. So when we collect the 

6 data, we collect the data from multiple manufacturers, 

7 create an average for each steel price and for a 

8 period of time. There’s always variation --

9 variations from the manufacturers, variations over 

10 time are real. And I think that it would be 

11 appropriate to ... 

12 MR. PATTERSON: Mike, just for your 

13 knowledge. Another major driver in this is the 

14 relative change in commodity cost between copper, 

15 aluminum and core steel in the dry market.

16 MR. RIVEST: Sure.

17 MR. PATTERSON: And I don’t know if you have 

18 followed the copper index since the beginning of the 

19 year, but it’s changed dramatically, which means every 

20 design you have up here isn’t worth the paper it’s 

21 written on.

22 MR. DeLASKI: And it will change 

23 dramatically again over --

24 MR. PATTERSON: And it will change again. 

25 So you’ve got to draw a line in the sand somewhere and 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

297

1 say, you know, we’re going to base it on this and see 

2 how it all moves. One recommendation I would have is 

3 you have this report where you’ve taken out the 

4 different grades of steel, but you also took out the 

5 laser scribe material. If that report was done with 

6 the laser scribe, maybe that gives everybody the 

7 information they need.

8 MR. DeLASKI: So maybe I -- and I know we’re 

9 kind of running low on time here, so I think as a way 

10 forward, this is Andrew, as a way forward, what I 

11 would suggest is following that notion that we’d be 

12 comfortable for the committee to focus our -- and I 

13 haven’t talked to my colleagues about the details 

14 here, but I think as a straw man, I would suggest that 

15 we’d be comfortable for the committee to focus on a 

16 sensitivity that takes out ZDMH and SA-1 for our 

17 negotiating purposes.

18 MR. MILLURE: Wes, you’ve got an eco drive 

19 line out, right, which is Evans cores and Lakeview 

20 Metals can make them and others can make them --

21 MR. PATTERSON: And very small KVAs.

22 MR. MILLURE: Thousand?

23 MR. PATTERSON: We haven’t sold a thousand 

24 KVA.

25 MR. MILLURE: But you’re making them?
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

298

1 MR. PATTERSON: I don’t make them if I don’t 

2 sell them. It’s not in stock. Marketing looked at 

3 what engineering said and advertised it, we’re not 

4 getting anybody to buy one because --

5 MR. MILLURE: My point is there is a 

6 commercial amorphous Evans core design -- what is 

7 that, design line 11 or 12 --

8 MR. PATTERSON: I know, I said yes and I 

9 also said that you won’t find it at 2500 KVA or 95 

10 BIL. Never produced anywhere, which is the upper 

11 limit of this space that we’re talking about in 

12 regulation.

13 MR. MILLURE: Okay. Thank you.

14 MR. SMITH: This is Bob Smith, Federal 

15 Pacific. I hope I’m not interrupting anyone. But I 

16 wish the committee would agree with the 

17 recommendations that have been made by Wes and others 

18 that we eliminate the amorphous steel from the 

19 analysis on the medium voltage dries for reasons 

20 stated. Also eliminate the wound cores on the medium 

21 voltage dries, also for the reasons that are stated 

22 and for one additional reason, and that is most of the 

23 dry type transformers, medium voltage, go indoors and 

24 many of these transformers that go indoors are 

25 required to have lower sound levels that are specified 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

299

1 by the IEEE standards. Wound cores are much more 

2 difficult to control as far as sound level is 

3 concerned than all of the step out miters. I think if 

4 the Navigant and LBL folks would eliminate the wound 

5 cores and the amorphous that would make a lot of us 

6 much happier. Thank you.

7 MR. DeLASKI: This is Andrew DeLaski 

8 following up on Bob’s comment. So we’re not 

9 comfortable with saying remove them from the analysis. 

10 We’re comfortable with the committee focusing on the 

11 sensitivity, I think, as a way to move things forward. 

12 I’m just -- again, sensitive to our December -- early 

13 December time frame and our need to focus on a space, 

14 back to Richard’s notion , we’ve got to start getting 

15 the space down to a potential areas of potential 

16 agreement getting to yes. And I just --

17 MR. SMITH: Andrew, my feeling on this is we 

18 are wasting too much time on things that we are never 

19 going to select, and by removing the wound cores and 

20 the amorphous is going to move us ahead much faster 

21 and I think make everybody happier.

22 MR. DeLASKI: Yes, as I think we’ve asked 

23 for the sensitivity with the H0 put back in. With 

24 that put back in and that gives us a basis for the 

25 discussions, and we’re sitting on a standard that’s 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

300

1 going to yield large net present value benefits that 

2 are economic, and we don’t know what those are yet 

3 until we see that sensitivity.

4 MR. CYMBALSKY: Just a point of 

5 clarification. John Cymbalsky, DOE. The maxtech 

6 technology has to be in the analysis and they’ll be in 

7 the analysis, but the economics -- let’s let the 

8 economics speak for themselves here and move forward. 

9 Focus, to negotiate, as Andrew and Wes and others have 

10 said, focus on the sensitivity with H0 put back in.

11 MR. DeLASKI: And so I’m wondering how much 

12 timing perspective here, whether -- you know, our next 

13 meeting is whenever it is, three weeks from now, --

MR. PARKER: 30th

15 MR. DeLASKI: And we’ve basically got three 

16 negotiations going on. I thought we had two, but it 

17 looks like three, because you’ve got these three 

18 different spaces in the market. And I’m wondering 

19 whether it would make sense for this group to have a 

20 call in the interim, once we have that sensitivity, to 

21 go over it, and I think that might be useful for us 

22 to, you know, once we have the sensitivity, to meet 

23 via teleconference, that’ll mean another whole day 

24 meeting --

14 of November.

25 MR. PARKER: I think that’s a very helpful 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

301

1 suggestion.

2 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yeah, we can set up a line.

3 MR. DeLASKI: I would suggest rather than 

4 trying to taking time right now, or whether you want 

5 to do --

6 MR. BOLDUC: I’d like to go a little slower 

7 -- Friday.

8 MR. PARKER: Why don’t we see how the --

9 let’s back up a second. So as I understand it, from 

10 what we’ve captured so far here today, what we’ve 

11 discussed, we are -- there’s a line between paralysis 

12 by analysis and -- on the one hand, and productive 

13 analysis on the other. I gather that there’s a 

14 consensus here that we are sitting on the productive 

15 analysis side of that line. Do people feel that there 

16 are changes to the analysis that can be made and that 

17 need to be made in order to give us a better basis for 

18 decision. 

19 So the changes that I took away are:

20 • First, that there need to be significant 

21 adjustments to the amorphous pricing scenario. 

22 It needs to stay in the scenario for precisely 

23 the reasons that John Cymbalsky just articulated, 

24 but they need to be priced more realistically 

25 based upon conversations with the industry. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

302

1 That’s an engineering data issue, and needs to 

2 happen.

3 • Secondly, there are -- Mike agreed, I think, 

4 agreed to work with Wes and others who wish to 

5 caucus with him on this, the idea of exploring 

6 whether it’s fruitful to use different 

7 optimization scenarios -- A/B versus efficiency. 

8 So those negotiations and discussions can happen.

9 • The third thing that I heard from Mike is it 

10 would be helpful in refining the engineering 

11 analysis to have more perturbation in materials 

12 pricing inputs so that they more faithfully 

13 reflect the way -- the pricing structures that 

14 different firms face, because not every firm 

15 faces the same pricing options. So these are all 

16 changes to the engineering analysis that need to 

17 take place.

18 • Once that’s done, that’s an input to the LCC and 

19 so then I would propose that we would --

20 MR. RIVEST: Richard, let me interrupt you.

21 MR. PARKER: Excuse me?

22 MR. RIVEST: Let me interrupt.

23 MR. PARKER: Yes.

24 MR. RIVEST: The level of effort and time 

25 required to do those varies. A reoptimization (off 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

303

1 mic)

2 MR. PARKER: Okay. 

3 MR. DeLASKI: I heard a little different 

4 too. Something very different. We want to do a 

5 sensitivity with the H0 put back in. That’s much 

6 simpler. That’s it.

7 MR. PATTERSON: That’s all we’re doing.

8 MR. DeLASKI: That’s all -- and then have a 

9 phone call so we can talk about that. Because I 

10 think until we see that, it’s even hard for us to 

11 talk.

12 MR. PARKER: Okay. 

13 MR. DeLASKI: Just for clarification. We’re 

14 saying this is a sensitivity -- I hear the SA-1 --

15 that will be addressed --

16 MR. PARKER: We will need to do that.

17 MR. DeLASKI: -- but it’s not as time 

18 sensitive.

19 MR. RIVEST: We will need to do that.

20 MR. DeLASKI: And there’s much more knotty 

21 issues around that about how you handle capital 

22 costs and how they flow to the market -- that’s 

23 going to need much more --

24 MR. MILLURE: Dave Millure, Metglas. On the 

25 capital costs, we’re got core makers that supply A, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

304

1 B, D, or Evans cores for the dry type market, and 

2 they’ve got an eco guide product line out there that 

3 goes up to --

4 MR. DeLASKI: So that’s what I’m saying --

5 MR. PATTERSON: Dave, we’ve got a 10,000 

6 pound, 45-60 inch window core. Give me a quote on 

7 it.

8 MR. MILLURE: I can do that. I just did for 

9 your German facility. 

10 MR. DeLASKI: It can be done.

11 MR. MILLURE: ABB advertises 104 MPA (ph) 

12 eco file.

13 MR. DeLASKI: We’re not disagreeing. It can 

14 be done. It can be done. 

15 MR. MILLURE: I’m not a stupid company, it’s 

16 commercialized. I can show you this -- I mean they 

17 wouldn’t have done it if there was no chance to win 

18 the market. Maybe they need the higher efficiency 

19 standard to win, I’ll grant you that. Maybe that’s 

20 why -- I know you’ve sold some, but maybe the 

21 efficiency requirements from the market aren’t 

22 bolted up to this product, but it’s out there. You 

23 can’t ignore it.

24 MR. PATTERSON: Dave, frankly, it is sold at 

25 our factory in Korea and our factories in ... But the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

305

1 average MVA that they’re moving, KVA is a 400 KVA, 

2 and the markets in those Asian countries are 

3 typical, average, 400 KVA drives. We’re looking at 

4 a market here where the nominal is 1500 to 2500 KVA. 

5 This is a much bigger challenge than building a 400 

6 KVA. So to move the entire national standard into 

7 that, this becomes extremely --

8 MR. MILLURE: No, I’m not suggesting that. 

9 My only point is it’s not a far-out technology that 

10 needs amorphous to make these design lines.

11 MR. PARKER: Okay. So is as I understand it 

12 then, and I’m glad to be corrected, you are willing 

13 to go forward then with a conference call in which 

14 we have no changes to the engineering analysis but a 

15 sensitivity run with H0 included. Is that correct?

16 MR. DeLASKI: Just to discuss that 

17 sensitivity. 

18 MR. PARKER: Okay. 

19 MR. RIVEST: That would be representative of 

20 the market.

21 MR. PARKER: So there’s not a feeling that 

22 the other issue that was discussed earlier, the 

23 question of these method flips we thought might be 

24 addressed through materials -- perturbating the 

25 material price inputs.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

306

1 MR. RIVEST: Nothing with OPS ...

2 MR. PARKER: The optimization would not be 

3 done.

4 MR. RIVEST: (off mic)

5 MR. PARKER: I was picking up on what you 

6 said earlier when you said you were open to be 

7 persuaded, and so I thought meant that you were -- I 

8 see. Okay. 

9 MR. RIVEST: That’s a bad question, because 

10 it’s useful for us to wait for those perturbations, 

11 those adjustments be made before we talk -- talk 

12 just based on the simple sensitivity without the H0.

13 MR. DeLASKI: Yeah, because you’re going to 

14 have to do the other part anyway. The question is, 

15 I don’t want things to get late -- we need that to 

16 be done. For the meeting, but in the interim, a 

17 phone call to talk about the sensitivity, I think, 

18 would be --

19 MR. PARKER: Is that agreeable? Okay. 

20 MR. RIVEST: You want this on Friday? I can 

21 have the results by Friday.

22 MR. DeLASKI: We want to have time to see 

23 the results before we actually talk about them. If 

24 you can get them out to us on Friday --

25 MR. RIVEST: I didn’t realize it’s a 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

307

1 holiday. I’m out the first two days of next week.

2 MR. DeLASKI: Let’s see it by next Thursday.

3 MR. RIVEST: I can do that.

4 MR. DeLASKI: I’m wide open.

5 (Discussion about date and time for call.)

MR. DeLASKI: One p.m. on the 17th

8 MR. PARKER: I have a conference, 

unfortunately. Are people free on the 16

6 is 

7 proposed. Eastern time. Any objection?

th 9 ? I’m 

10 sorry, John’s not. How about -- I’ll get out of 

11 this conference, that’s fine. So one o’clock on the 

17th

13 MR. DeLASKI: Does that work for you, Bob, 

14 on the phone?

12 . 

15 MR. PARKER: Does that work for people on 

16 the phone?

17 MR. SMITH: It works for me. I would like 

18 to ask one other question. Should we include some 

19 of the other medium voltage dry type manufacturers 

20 to that end who have not really participated in this 

21 exercise, or should they be excluded?

22 MR. DeLASKI: This is Andrew. I’ll just pop 

23 up -- these have all been public meetings, right, 

24 that’s the nature of it. That said, we’ve all come 

25 a certain distance in these meetings and as new 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

308

1 people join in, you’ve got to catch them up, so I 

2 think it’s right that people should be aware of the 

3 meeting, but keep in mind that we’ve got deadlines, 

4 and if we spend a lot of time catching people up, 

5 it’ll make it hard for us to make progress.

6 MR. PARKER: Okay. We’ll send out --

7 MR. DeLASKI: People have been invited, so 

8 we’re not going to exclude anybody.

9 MR. PARKER: It will be an open call and the 

10 entire medium voltage group is on a time track list 

11 which includes a number of people who are not at the 

12 table or even in the room, will be invited to join 

13 the call, and they will be free to join the call if 

14 they choose. It is a public call.

15 So any other business --

16 MR. SMITH: Richard?

17 MR. PARKER: Yes. Yes, on the phone?

18 MR. SMITH: I just said thank you. I think 

19 that is the correct decision. Some of these 

20 manufacturers are not going to have some of the 

21 capabilities, the ones who have have been active and 

22 they may have a little different perspective. But to 

23 Andy’s point, I think they need to be advised to come 

24 to the teleconference prepared, that we will not take 

25 the time to try to bring them up to speed.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

309

1 MR. PARKER: That’s fair.

2 MR. DeLASKI: And some of these guys, I 

3 would just point out, are the members of NEMA. You 

4 know they all aren’t NEMA members, some of them are 

5 represented here by NEMA.

6 MR. CASKEY: Right. This is John Caskey, 

7 and one of my action items from yesterday was to keep 

8 the little guys that are NEMA members, abreast of what 

9 we discussed yesterday and some issues, and I’ll be 

10 happy to do the same with the medium voltage dry type 

11 people who are NEMA members.

12 MR. PARKER: No reference to the big bucks. 

13 Great. Thank you, everybody. I think has been a very 

14 useful and productive discussion, and we’ll adjourn 

15 for today and look forward to reconvening on call next 

Thursday, on the 17th

17 MR. CASKEY: Adjourn as the medium voltage 

18 dry type and --

16 at one o’clock.

19 MR. PARKER: Adjourn as the medium voltage 

20 dry type and reconvene, let’s say at 11:30, as a low 

21 voltage committee.

22 (Whereupon, at 10:59 a.m., the meeting in 

23 the above captioned matter was adjourned.) 

24

25
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

310

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the attached proceedings 

before:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

VOLUME II

In the Matter of:

MEETING OF THE MV WORKING GROUP

Were held as herein appears and that this is the 

original transcript thereof for the file of the 

Department, Commission, Board, Administrative Law Judge 

or the Agency.

Further, I am neither counsel for or related to any 

party to the above proceedings.

 Official Reporter

Wendy Greene 

Dated: November 14, 2011