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

**Fac ilitator**  **:**

Richard Parker University of Connecticut Law School

**Host :** 

Edison Electric Institute 701 Pennsylvania Ave NW 4 th Washington, DC FloorExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 242

**Participants Identified:**

Rick Anderson Fayetteville Public Works Commission

Tim Ballo Earth Justice 162 5 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 Consul tant Prolec GE

Jim Creevy National Electrical Manufacturers Association 1300 North 17 th Suite 1752 Street

Rosslyn, VA 22209

Andrew DeLaski
ASAP 20 Belgrade Ave, Suite 1 Boston, MA 02131

Tom Eckman Northwest Power and Conservation CouncilExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 243

Gary Fernst rom 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 f or an Energy

- Efficient EconomyExecutive 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 Pe nnsylvania 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 Rura l Electric Cooperative Association

Mahesh P. Sampat EMS Consulting 1180 Brookview Dr Athens, GA 30606

Jerry Schoen AK Steel Corporation 705 Curtis Street Middletown, OH 45043Executive 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

Ch ris Bolduc Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory 1 Cyclotron Rd Ms 90

- 4000 Berkeley, CA 94720 Washington, DC 20006

Katie Coughlin Lawrence Berkley National LaboratoryExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 246

**AGENDA**

**ITEM PAGE** 

Welcome, Mr. Parker 247

Self

- Introduct ions 24 7

Continuation of discussion Next steps 249Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 247

9: 28 a.m. 1

MR. PARKER: Welcome everybody. Sorry for 3

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

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

we wil l work through medium voltage as quickly as we 6

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

table and introduce ourselves for the court reporter. 8

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

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

any call

- ins? People on the phone hear all right? 11 P R O C E E D I N G S

2

PARTICIPANT: Yes, we can. 12

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

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

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

**Self**

**- introductions**  16

MR. BEC K: Scott Beck, Lakeview Metals. 17

MR. CASKEY: John Caskey, National 18

Electrical Manufacturers Association. 19

MR. ROBLES: Eduardo Robles, Eaton 20

Corporation. 21

MR. PATTERSON: Wes Patterson, ABB. 22

MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson, Federal Pacific 23

Transformer. 24

MR. SCHOEN: Jerry Schoen, AK Steel. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 248

MR. PETERSEN: Eric Petersen, AK Steel. 1

MR. ROY: Robin Roy, National Resources 2

Defense Council. 3

MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, Earth Justice. 4

MR. DeLASKI: Andrew DeLaski, Appliance 5

Standards Awareness Project. 6

M R. FERNSTROM: Gary Fernstrom, PG&E 7

representing Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 8

Southern California Edison, and Semper Utilities. 9

MR. MILLURE: Dave Millure, Metglas. 10

MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest, Navigant 11

Consulting. 12

MR. JOHNSTONE: Ted Johnstone, Co gent Power. 13

MR. CREEVY: Jim Creevy, National Electrical 14

Manufacturers Association. 15

MR. PILSBURG: Alex Pilsburg, National 16

Electrical Manufacturers Association. 17

MR. BRENNER: Dave Brenner ... 18

MR. RUSH: Dave Rush, ... 19

MR. BERMAN: Robert Berman, Berm an 20

Economics. 21

MR. RYAN: Paul Ryan, Hitachi Metals 22

America. 23

MR. SAMPAT: Mahesh Sampat, EMS Consulting. 24

MR. CARMICHAEL: Rob Carmichael, Navigant 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 249

Consulting. 1

MS. COUGHLIN: Katie Coughlin, Lawrence 2

Berkeley National Lab. 3

MR. BOLDUC: Chris Bolduc , Lawrence Berkeley 4

National Lab. 5

MR. NARDOTTI: Matt Nardotti, Navigant 6

Consulting. 7

MR. COFFEY: Brian Coffey, Navigant 8

Consulting. 9

MR. PARKER: On the phone? 10

MR. PATZNER: Thomas Patzner, Schneider 11

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

somebody’s mic on paper being crumpled. 13

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

sure. Anybody else on the phone? 15

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

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

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

medium voltage dry type has been the subject of 19

intense, very extensive discussions between DOE staff 20

and stakeholders, and a number of concerns raised with 21

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

efforts to take those concerns on bo ard. One of the 23

virtues of this kind of negotiated process is that it 24

enables concerns to be extracted and considered. One 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 250

of the drawbacks of this particular kind of process in 1

a tight timeframe is that it makes for a lot of last

2

minute analysis, and a lot of last minute flurries, 3

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

everybody in this room, particularly our consultants, 5

who worked many hours to get this analysis together. 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

questions, and in particular take your questions about 14

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

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

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

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

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

participate in the webinar. 20

**Analysis by Navigant Staff** 21

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

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

a quick update on t he changes that we’ve made to the 24

medium voltage dry analysis since the last time that 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 251

we met. 1

We really felt that

-- let me get started. 2

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

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

which is our 9, 10, 11, 12, 13A and 13B

-- and that’s 5

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

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

that there was the best agreement with manufacturer 8

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

on those. 10

Our current plan is to scale those results 11

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

this will result in a more accurate and more palatable 13

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

and explain what are the specif ic changes that we’ve 15

made to this. 16

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

any change that you made

-- 18

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

MR. DeLASKI: Andrew DeLaski

-- you only 20

made them to design lines 11 and 12. 21

MR. COFFEY: That’s right. 22

MR. DeLASKI: So the results for the other 23

that we centered on yesterday, the results for the 24

other design lines don’t reflect updated engineering? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 252

MR. COFFEY: That’s right. 1

MR. RIVEST: All right, so

-- Mike Rivest

-- 2

the

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

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

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

trying to extrapolate the results from 11 and 12 and 6

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

time bei ng we continue to use the previous engineering 8

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

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

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

left out

-- they still incorporate the engineering fo r 12

the other design lines. 13

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

shipments, basically DOE’s numbers from the August 15

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

DL 11 and 12. 17

MR. RIVEST: Right, so the NIA

-- yes, so 18

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

presenting results of the NIA without the updated for 20

the others, because they were fairly representative. 21

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

that we should look at

-- focus on results for 23

equipment class DL11 and DL 12, and the others we 24

should probably give relatively little attention to in 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 253

the sense that they ... change. 1

MR. RIVEST: Exactly. As Brian described, 2

you know, six designs that are really all linked 3

together. 4

MR. DeLASKI: Yeah, I get it. 5

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

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

palatable set of standards that don’t reflect reality 8

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

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

adjusted to ... that specific BIL issue. 11

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

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

that it sounds right and see if the approach makes 14

sense to you guys. 15

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

about the legit imacy

-- the design line 11 and 12, 17

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

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

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

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

shipment s. And the three

- quarter scaling rule has 22

reasonable engineering accuracy, could apply this to 23

the 1500. 24

MR. RIVEST: The shipment weight and average 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 254

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

is most representative. 300 KVA unit had more 2

var iation. I think we had more success with the 300 3

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

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

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

one of the key differences when we got the designs 7

back is noticing that the design options were not 8

inclusive ... primarily at the lower

-- at the baseline, 9

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

more efficient designs. 11

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

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

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

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

include that, and that did become our current 16

baseline. 17

We also noticed that our spread

-- we seem 18

to be moving to M3 an d greater designs more quickly 19

than the manufacturers, and we think that that was 20

because of our spread in pricing between the M4 and 21

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

smaller than that of the manufacturers. So we 23

adjusted our M4 and below prices down slightly to help 24

better match with what we saw in the market. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 255

We also took the time to revise some labor 1

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

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

from these templates that we sent around, and the 4

manufacturers, a couple in particular, have been very 5

generous with their time in helping submit the designs 6

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

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

labor, and we look ed at specific categories and made 9

some adjustments to bring our results in line, or 10

closer to theirs. 11

We also learned that the substation style 12

transformers were pretty common in medium voltage dry 13

space, and those inevitably come with some additional 14

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

colloquially, or a high voltage general purpose type 16

unit. 17

MR. PATTERSON: Just a small correction. 18

You said a primary unit substation. 19

MR. PARKER: Give your name. 20

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

specific type of product where you have high voltage 22

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

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

have that plus structure to connect the two ends. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 256

MR. COFFEY: That’s right, and so we

-- of 1

course these buses and leads bring about extra losses 2

that are unavoidable and that need to be compensated 3

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

some plus to these losses to reflect that style of 5

transformer. 6

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

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

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

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

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

the envelope of the curve shifts downward and a little 12

bit left. So here’s where we are currently

-- I’m 13

sorry, here’s where we are now

-- I’m sorry, here’s 14

where we are currently

-- 15

MR. RIVEST: Previously. 16

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

picture as it currently stands

. 18

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

there is the M4 design. 20

PARTICIPANT: The yellow on the left. 21

MR. COFFEY: Yes. 22

PARTICIPANT: The goldish on the right is 23

something else. 24

MR. COFFEY: Yes. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 257

MR. DeLASKI: This is Andrew DeLaski, so 1

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

base case, that is consistent with your experience in 3

the market today? 4

PARTICIPANT: Yes. 5

MR. DeLASKI: Across the board for these 6

product classes? 7

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

everybody t o speak up, okay, so that the court 9

reporter and people on the phone can get

-- 10

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

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

acceptable to use the base case. 13

MR. COFFEY: And are you using in some case s 14

lower grades? 15

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

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

anyway. 18

MR. PATTERSON: Wes Patterson. To meet the 19

current standard drove us basically starting at M4. 20

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

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

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

current 2010 standard eliminated the use of M6 and 24

drove the market into M4. Which we all should 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 258

understand, it was a significant c hange in the market. 1

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

that chart except for anything related to a wound core 3

construction. Wound cores are not practical in medium 4

voltage dry type product, and it is impractical 5

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

things like SA should be totally eliminated in any 7

construction type which shows a wound core should be 8

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

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

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

planet Earth has ever sold one commercially. 12

MR. DeLASKI: And again, not

-- this is 13

Andrew again

-- not practical for

-- tell me why? 14

MR. PATTERSON: The physical size. The 15

physical size of a medium voltage dry t ype transformer 16

is approximately 30 percent of the equivalent graded 17

liquid filled transformer. Liquid filled transformers 18

reach their maximum utilization on a wound core 19

construction right around the 2000, 2500 KVA level, 20

which is the upper limit. They have their economic 21

sweet spot, arguably, around 1000 KVA. This 22

translates to equivalent dry of something like 1300. 23

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

of the market, we’re talking about a liquid equivalent 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 259

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

produce with today’s processes. 2

So our recommendation is that the wound core 3

construction be eliminated. 4

MR. DeLASKI: So too large to produce with 5

today’s processes, so in other words

-- another way to 6

put it is that with

- - 7

MR. PARKER: Andrew DeLaski. 8

MR. DeLASKI:

-- very significant investment 9

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

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

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

customer side because

-- 13

MR. PATTERSON: It’s also constraints on 14

performance. This market, the medium voltage dry type 15

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

The circuitry of the transformer on the primary side 17

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

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

construction, three legs with single U. 20

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

pretty much Y

- Y circuitries, where you’re looking at 22

something that is a five

- legged core construction, 23

which fills the shell

- type manufacturer very nicely. 24

But when you move into the core type construction and 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 260

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

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

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

b ottom U, which makes it again more

-- less 4

economical. 5

So there’s many factors rolled into why 6

we’re not using wound core today. 7

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

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

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

distinguish between something that’s not doable versus 11

not economic. 12

MR. PATTERSON: If you were going to throw 13

enough money at anything, from an engineering 14

perspective, anything is doable. 15

MR. DeLASKI: Right. Okay. Thanks. 16

MR. PATTERSON: Because we could wind it out 17

of gold wire

-- gold material for a conductor, cut the 18

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

this? It’s not practical. 20

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

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

understand this. For equivalent capacity, the liquid 23

filled transformer is larger than the dry type? 24

MR. PATTERSON: No, the dry type is much 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 261

larger than the liquid. 1

MR. FERNSTROM: Thank you. 2

MR. PATTERSON: Much larger. 3

MR. RIVEST: Can you explain the physics a 4

little bit for me? 5

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

drivers that drive the physical size of the 7

transformer. The first one is the cooling media. 8

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

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

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

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

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

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

insulator, not a c onductor of heat. So we have 15

challenges getting air around, which makes the 16

transformer bigger. 17

Then the other dimension is the dielectric 18

medium. In a liquid filled transformer, oil again 19

plays the main dielectric medium between the 20

electrical conduct or part and the ground part, the 21

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

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

dielectric properties of the oil. When you do this 24

with air, air is a considerably poorer dielectric 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 262

insulator th an oil. So instead of designing for 95 1

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

designing clearances of six inches on each end, top 3

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

-- 4

you’re making the core ten inches bigger. 5

And the problem, j ust so we know, the 6

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

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

- 8

inch hit. Twenty

- four inches of just dead space for 9

electrical clearance sitting in a 200 BIL transformer, 10

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

driven mainly by the dynamics of core losses. The 12

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

MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson, Federal Pacific. 14

Our experience with those higher BILs matches exactly 15

what you said. The stand ards as they are now are very 16

nearly borderline impractical on the high BIL for us. 17

You can make them but it is extremely difficult. 18

That’s been our experience. 19

MR. DeLASKI: Because of the size. 20

MR. GREESON: Because of the physical size 21

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

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

this 50 percent efficiency. 24

MR. DeLASKI: Loading. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 263

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

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

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

DOE changed the efficiencies the last time it was a 4

pretty significant increase in efficiency to begin 5

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

that’s just. 7

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

share this

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

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

that ... 11

MR. DeLASKI: In the existing standard. 12

MR. RIVEST: You’re pushing

-- having to use 13

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

p ushing

-- having to use more expensive steels to meet 15

the standard. 16

MR. DeLASKI: Thank you. 17

**Steel Price Sensitivity** 18

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

steps, we have the steel price sensitivity too on 20

Sharepoint, so that people can enter in thei r own 21

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

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

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

scenarios for all materials prices. And then we’ve 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 264

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

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

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

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

an come up with an infinite number of scenarios that 5

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

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

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

little bit. 9

Hopefully you’ll have a chance to open that 10

up and play around with it a bit. 11

Also the simplified cost plots, some of that 12

we went over, so those are up there. 13

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

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

relationship between the 11 and 12 mid

- BIL lines and 16

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

standard is roughly equivalent to the stringent ... 18

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

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

have a certain increment built in. We could establish 21

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

existing standards, but based on what we’ve seen

-- 23

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

wanted to establish ... and the EL1 which might be ten 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 265

percent reduction in losses in the mid

- BIL, would 1

translate into the smaller number ... 2

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

Chris, are you planning to talk at all? 4

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

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

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

outline the ... results betwee n ... last night. So maybe 8

-- 9

MR. PARKER: Chris, maybe you should

-- can 10

you bring them around. We need to have you

-- 11

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

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

sent us a medium voltage dry type re sults on the 14

weekend, that’s dated

-- the version I have is 15

November 3 rd

MR. BOLDUC: Yeah, November 3 , maybe there’s been some changes

-- 16

rd

MR. DeLASKI: And then you sent around

-- 18

around midnight last night, a new version, November 19

8 . 17

th . So Novembe r 8 th

MR. BOLDUC: That’s right. 21 is the latest version. 20

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

now the differences between the two. 23

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

There are no changes to the numbers, there were just 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 266

some issues with label s, some that arose. Like I 1

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

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

LCC benefit rose. 4

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

MR. BOLDUC: You can pick any LCC design 6

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

version, swap those two lines

-- just the labels. 8

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

you’ve got 99 percent

-- 10

MR. PARKER: Andrew DeLaski. 11

MR. DeLASKI:

-- you’ve got 99 percent

-- 12

that increase in LCC, the 99 p ercent should be the 13

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

to

-- 15

MR. BOLDUC: Exactly. 16

MR. DeLASKI: People are being impacted by 17

the standard. 18

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

MR. DeLASKI: Okay. Got it. 20

MR. PARKER: Do peo ple need to see this 21

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

up if people feel it’s necessary. 23

PARTICIPANT: Yeah, let’s do that. 24

MR. DeLASKI: I guess this is only helpful 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 267

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

people are okay focusing on the second one

-- 2

MR. PARKER: Just give us a minute. 3

MR. DeLASKI: I can see we have gotten

-- 4

these labels ... 5

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

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

forward that for at least quas i

- technological reasons, 8

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

minimum, that amorphous and ZDMH should be removed 10

from the realm of possibilities for design lines 11 11

and 12. 12

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

saying. 14

MR. PARKER : Just amorphous? 15

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

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

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

you were saying

-- I thought that you said that 19

amorphous requires a wound core. 20

MR. PATTERSON: Amorp hous does require a 21

wound. 22

MR. PARKER: So the implication is taking 23

wound cores off the table is taking amorphous off the 24

table. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 268

MR. PATTERSON: That would be true. 1

MR. DeLASKI: That is Wes’ proposal. We

-- 2

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

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

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

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

DOE’s analysis. 7

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

amorphous round core

-- 9

MR. DeLASKI: I’m just

-- two diverse tracks 10

of our discussion here are about what we could agree 11

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

-- 12

that this is not something that these guys are going 13

to agree to ever. 14

MR. PATTERSON: Actually, Andy

-- Wes 15

Patterson

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

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

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

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

KV, 95 BIL wound core transformer in produc tion? And 20

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

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

of gold. 23

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

economics win out and not the technology. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 269

MR. PARKER: So Maxtech would include it 1

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

economic justification, we’re hearing differently. 3

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

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

ultimately is going to be useful for us. 6

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

-- 7

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

we going to leave that in? 9

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

through the slide? 11

MR. BOLDUC: Sure. And the other changes 12

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

Efficiency level 1 was repeated as efficiency level 7, 14

there were no efficiency level 7 design lines. And 15

that’s it. 16

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

the transcript and so forth, would you mind just 18

reading the two sentenc es so we’ll have them on the 19

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

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

what the slide is. 22

MR. BOLDUC: Well, the slide shows 23

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

Design line 12 ... LCC switch to

-- 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 270

MR. PARKER: But then TSL six and seven 1

really comes below

-- 2

MR. BOLDUC: It just drops out there. 3

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

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

all the way up to max tech. 6

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

-- 7

MR. BOLDUC: Starting at nine years to 27 8

years. And the core material selection for design 9

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

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

where it stays until efficiency level three where the 12

model switches over to SA

- 1. 13

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

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

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

analysis that we discuss ed yesterday with the medium 17

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

saying that the only way that I can build to 19

efficiency level one is with HO steel. 20

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

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

M5, M4, M3, H0 or SA

- 1, but the designs that are H0 23

are the lowest first cost. 24

MR. PATTERSON: But then I would challenge 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 271

that because our actual production data shows us a 1

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

and M3 than we are with H 0. 3

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

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

This is Andrew. 6

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

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

performed, is misleading with respect to the grades of 9

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

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

EL1 is with H0. And our production experience over 12

the last 12 months have said we actually produce at 13

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

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

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

that’s not true. 17

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

a cheaper alternative at EL1. 19

MR. PATTERSON: At EL1. 20

MR. De LASKI: And you do all three? 21

MR. PATTERSON: Yeah, we do

-- actually we 22

do everything on that chart except ZDMH and SA

- 1. 23

MR. DeLASKI: At EL1

-- I mean just in terms 24

of these products, not EL1. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 272

MR. PATTERSON: Not EL1. 1

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

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

blanks in the chart that indicate that the efficiency 4

level cannot be met with the material. Zero percent 5

indicates that the efficiency level can be met, but 6

the LCC did not choose i t. 7

PARTICIPANT: Because of the lowest cost 8

choice. 9

MR. BOLDUC: Right. 10

MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson, Federal Pacific. 11

Wes was mentioning the different varieties of steels 12

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

with their design capabili ties with that. Federal 14

Pacific, conversely, is mainly constrained with M4, 15

some M6 and M3, you know, non

- efficient type 16

transformers. But we have limited experience with the 17

laser scribe materials and we do acknowledge that the 18

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

these materials, but we’re looking at these 20

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

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

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

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

perspective. We’re a smaller manufacturer, we just 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 273

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

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

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

design line 12, for transformers that y ou’re making 4

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

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

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

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

you know, a lot of our customers are

-- we don’t do a 9

lot of things beyond the minimum standard. I think 10

Wes’ customers are more diverse and their requirements 11

are a little different. 12

MR. PATTERSON: Yeah. 13

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

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

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

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

line, pretty closely. 18

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

above

-- 20

MR. GREESON: The market standard a little 21

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

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

the specifications are in that direction. 24

MR. PATTERSON: I’d like to also point out 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 274

that there is a

-- Wes Patterson

-- on that chart, 1

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

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

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

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

H0 and there’s also an H1. 6

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

one’s the 11 mil? 8

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

9 mil. 10

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

readily available is H1? 12

MR. PATTERSON: Very. 13

MR. BOLDUC: It is? 14

MR. PATTERSON: Very. 15

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

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

say that basically you recommend excluding wound 18

cores, is that including design line 11? 19

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

MR. CASKEY: So then does that imply that 21

that SA

- 1 line down at the b ottom for efficiency level 22

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

MR. PATTERSON: No, the

-- I come back to 24

Andy’s comment. If you’re doing a theoretical 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 275

calculation, right, this is some theoretical 1

calculation that’s performed using the materia ls and 2

the design. 3

MR. CASKEY: But then it could be

-- 4

MR. PATTERSON: That we can do. 5

MR. CASKEY: Could it be the lowest cost 6

design? 7

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

the lowest cost. 9

MR. CASKEY: So that 100 percent in those 10

cell s must be wrong, right? 11

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

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

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

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

designs, with grain

- oriented steels at that level. 16

Not wound core. 17

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

achieve, theoretically, EL4 with grain

- oriented steel 19

-- 20

MR. PATTERSON: Not theoretically. I have 21

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

That’s not a theoretic al, that’s a reality. 23

MR. PARKER: So you are shipping EL4 with 24

conventional steels? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 276

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

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

what can be done. But it is done. 3

MR. RIVEST: I think the

-- 4

MR. PARKE R: Mike Rivest. 5

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

hearing is that we have not fully considered the costs 7

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

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

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

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

of going forward with the life cycle cost analysis, 12

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

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

the analysis is fundamentally flawed because we’re 15

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

transformer that the manufacturer is saying is 17

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

the cost

- effectiveness is based on and the life cycle 19

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

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

MR. PATTERSON: Wes Patterson. John, this 22

comes into the discussion I tried to introduce into 23

the medium voltage discussion yesterday. The design 24

space that was selected by the DOE to mod el this 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 277

market

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

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

see in the analysis is rather than interpreting the 3

inferred physics from their model, they used the 4

absolute discrete value at a single point to say that 5

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

If you turn around and you look at the 7

scatter diagram from the DOE data, then you can 8

interpolate across the scatter diagram and make the 9

correct decision. It will show the correct moves. 10

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

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

analysis going forward must be a large mixture of the 13

SA

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

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

transfo rmer, and that’s what driving fundamentally, 16

the apparent cost

- effectiveness of going to design 17

line 3, 4, 5, or 6. 18

MR. RIVEST: That’s what I said. 19

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

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

- 21

- you a re making some transformers, rare occasion, out 22

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

presume, or maybe H0. 24

MR. PATTERSON: I’m moving into the laser 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 278

scribes. 1

MR. DeLASKI: Okay. So then stepping back 2

from there, on the materials, at E L3 what are the 3

materials choices that you see? 4

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

the meetings where

-- are you referring to the liquid 6

-- 7

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

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

MR. DeLASKI: I have them both. 10

MR. PATTERSON: For the distribution of the 11

grades. 12

MR. DeLASKI: Thanks for reminding me. We 13

had less time to study for this. 14

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

the picture. 16

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

-- this is Andrew again

-- is that this is a similar 18

discussion to what we had yesterday, is that this 19

table needs to reflect better the choices that 20

manufacturers are actually making in the market as 21

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

is right on that

-- 23

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

Andy, but there’s a problem. We’ve got a time 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 279

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

invested a large sum over several years to develop 2

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

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

analysis and has nothing to do with efficiency. 5

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

entirely different scatter diagram if you focused on 7

an efficiency optimization rather than A /B 8

optimization. 9

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

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

design points. And you can use that data. 12

MR. RIVEST: (off mic) I think

-- again, 13

this is Mike Rivest

-- I think, when I look at Wes’ 14

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

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

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

there are many more design

-- there’s a lot more 18

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

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

at this tracking. 21

MR. PATTERSON: That would be my first 22

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

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

totally agree. With the fallac y that I see being done 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 280

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

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

And I can play with my engineering stuff and move 3

another dot down there. 4

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

... 6

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

that it is the lowest price

-- 8

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

not necessarily the lowest technology. 10

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

here, what does out

-- look at it, there’s a lot of 12

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

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

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

parity until you get over here. 16

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

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

parity

-- this is John Caskey

-- that that’s price 19

parity right there? 20

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

there’s

-- 22

MR. CASKEY: I’m sorry, I

-- 23

MR. RIVEST: What the model is saying is 24

it’s 100 percent, and that’ s the fallacy

-- winner 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 281

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

more ... price of steels. 2

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

- 3

- this is Andrew

-- I think it’s important from an 4

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

to day, but that these tables that indicate that you’re 6

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

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

It ends up undermining our argument as this committee 9

goes forward, and you’re trying

-- you know, pe ople 10

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

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

-- 13

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

different than the plots

-- 15

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

pretty much misunders tood. I think it’s going to 17

continue to be misunderstood. 18

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

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

looking at a

-- the assumption is that the purchasers 21

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

anything but the lowest first cost at each efficiency 23

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

process in a meaningful way

-- and that is something 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 282

that, you know, we can

-- my understanding is that it 1

might be more accurate with design lines on the lower 2

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

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

fundamentally the LCC

-- you can’t

-- it’s just you 5

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

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

construction ... 8

MR. PARKER: Katie, just so I

-- 9

MR. PATTERSON: My problem with this data is 10

this spot right here. 11

MS. COUGHLIN: Yeah, I

-- 12

MR. PATTERSON: See this spot with no dots

- 13

- 14

MS. COUGHLIN: Right. 15

MR. PATTERSON: O kay. In the real world, 16

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

PARTICIPANT: But what is creating the dots? 18

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

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

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

around and run this whole dot spectrum on this 22

efficiency, run my optimization program to optimize on 23

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

dots in that space. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 283

MR. RIVEST: So what you’re saying is

-- I’m 1

going to take y our analogy

-- what you’re saying is 2

that improved efficiency in a linear relationship. 3

MR. PATTERSON: Not linear. 4

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

this like that is like a constant slope

-- it always 6

costs the same amount

-- 7

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

that we’re missing data right there. 9

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

line

-- 11

MR. PATTERSON: I’m thinking

-- see this 12

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

saying that there are dots of that thing that are 14

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

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

I’m filling up that space with dots from this

-- 17

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

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

re cord, could you just state that in words

-- with 20

words. 21

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

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

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

space above it. And then I bump into what is probably 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 284

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

optimization based on efficiency, the laser scribe 2

material would fill in white points down, moving down 3

towards that red line. Now it will reach an 4

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

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

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

that this laser scribe is tracking somewheres, you 8

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

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

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

that the laser scribe technology can get you to the 12

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

below those displayed on this chart. 14

MR. PATTERSON: Absolutely. Actually, I 15

have shipment data for the calculat ion. 16

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

this chart is wrong in its portrayal of amorphous 18

prices, that they were actually to build those with 19

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

is that correct? 21

MR. PATTERSON: If that cost inc ludes the 22

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

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

the LCC has the capital investment. This just has the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 285

active materials times their dollar per pound. 1

MR. RIVEST: Would you say the t rend line 2

would be about like the SA

-- 3

MR. PARKER: Mike Rivest. 4

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

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

on exactly the efficiency versus dollars. 7

Unfortunately, this is very sensitive materi al and I 8

don’t feel comfortable displaying it in a public 9

forum. 10

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

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

MR. PARKER: It’s a flatter slope. 13

MR. RIVEST: It’s a flatter slope. 14

MR. PATTERSON: Yes. 15

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

SA. 17

MR. PATTERSON: Yes, but on log

- log paper, 18

it’s a very flat

-- it’s a straight line. 19

MS. COUGHLIN: It’s a power log. 20

MR. PATTERSON: Pardon? 21

MS. COUGHLIN: It’s a power log. 22

MR. PATTERSON: It’s a power log. 23

MR. PARKER: Yes, Mahesh. 24

MR. SAMPAT: Mahesh Sampat, EIS Consulting. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 286

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

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

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

opt imized on efficiency, and when you optimize on 4

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

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

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

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

a figure up there. 9

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

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

And

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

number of ratios because the idea was the LCCs would 13

have to push this, so we wan t to have designs that ... 14

MR. PARKER: Mike Rivest. 15

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

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

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

they’re ... (off mic) 19

MR. PARKER: But the take

- of f might be at a 20

similar distant point. 21

MR. RIVEST: That’s what

-- I don’t know. 22

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

$15 dollars

-- 24

MR. RIVEST: Pushing it hard. I don’t know 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 287

what else we could do

-- 1

MS. COUGHLIN: My understanding is ... 2

( much discussion off mic) 3

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

-- Please everybody, give your name

-- get in the 5

habit of giving your name before you speak. 6

MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson, Federal Pacific 7

Transformers. Regarding the space and

-- let me just 8

tell you my experience from the design standpoint, 9

when I’m looking at

-- when I’ve been doing the work 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

induction level

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

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

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

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

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

80 degree rise. I’ve got my induction levels down 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 288

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

always cost

- effective. So I don’t want

-- 11

MR. PARKER: So there is a

-- 12

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

confusion on doable and economically justifiable. 14

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

customers

-- and there are a lot of customers out 16

there that “we want this particular efficiency and we 17

want copper too.” And we want thi s size, and we want 18

that. And it’s K20, and the result then

-- or K13, 19

and the resulting efficiency is really, really low, 20

and it might be a side

- effect of the K factor. I 21

could be the side

- effect that they insisted on wanting 22

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

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

our perspective, is that the economics of it does not 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 2 89

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

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

as many of these designs that a re that much more 3

efficient. I think the advocates would be happy about 4

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

efficient. 6

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

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

manufacturers design und er that line already, just to 9

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

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

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

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

MR. DeLASKI: Ro b, this is Andrew following 14

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

for the modeling on this, back in your

-- you’re 16

looking at EL3 and above is where you start seeing

-- 17

you just don’t see the cost

- effectiveness coming

-- 18

MR. GREESON: Absol utely. 19

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

point of view, but the cost

- effectiveness is just not 21

working out. 22

MR. GREESON: Exactly right. 23

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

maxing out your M3, you’re driving it really hard, you 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 290

know, but it sounds like you’re doing

-- there you see 1

cost

- effectiveness as perhaps penciling out. 2

MR. GREESON: We

-- Rob Greeson, Federal 3

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

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

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

extra design work to investigate that. As I said 7

before, our customers are typically I think more cost

8

driven and so but to get in that realm we had to do a 9

ton of R&D to

-- design work to try to investigate the 10

possib ilities, but we did them. 11

MR. DeLASKI: Okay. Thanks a lot. 12

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

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

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

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

sure that it’s

-- 17

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

fairly simple too. 19

MR. PARKER: Mike Rivest. 20

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

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

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

MR. RIVEST: There is a sensitivity with no 24

attached materials. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 291

MR. PARKER: Okay. Can we display the 1

sensitivity? 2

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

already did it. Satisfy your curiosity. 4

(Discussions off mic) 5

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

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

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

price that what this is allowing amorphous to be. 9

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

understand your point. 11

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

is, and at some point

-- 13

MR. DeLASKI: What I don’t understand is

-- 14

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

-- 15

(Discussions off mic while setting up) 16

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

MR. BOLDUC: Chris Bolduc, Lawrence Berkeley 18

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

design line 12 with no ZDMH, zero, or SA

- 1. For those 20

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

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

climb through efficiency level four. And then 23

efficiency levels five through seven are unattainable 24

without these other materials. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 292

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

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

Probably somewhere in between. 3

MR. DeLASKI: Th is is Andrew. That’s

-- you 4

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

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

tables we were looking at before

-- 7

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

the request came from a manufacturer who want ed to 9

limit consideration ... 10

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

liquid immersed

-- 12

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

going to see some different results. 14

MR. BOLDUC: Oh, yes. 15

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

at design line

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

design line 12

-- if I go back to page 16 on the 18

original analysis, then I see that

-- 19

MR. BOLDUC: H0 is a major contributor when 20

it’s available. 21

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

that analysis, design line analysis, H0 is the 23

selected steel, again, we already talked about the 24

flaws, that that’s flawed

-- and then you don’t

-- it 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 293

would be driving the cost

- effectiveness

-- 1

MR. BOLDUC: At one or two? 2

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

also heard Wes earlier say that what’s actually 4

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

would want to try to capture

-- a real cost

6

effectiveness

-- an accurate cost

- effectiveness would 7

need captures of mix of materials. 8

MR. CYMBALSKY: Are the num bers in the base 9

case actually

-- 10

MR. PARKER: John Cymbalsky. 11

MR. CYMBALSKY: Is that data from

-- Wes, 12

are those numbers accurate do you think? 13

MR. RIVEST: Remember Wes and Rob have very 14

different design ... 15

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

of the market

-- 17

MR. DeLASKI: Seventy percent roughly? 18

MR. PATTERSON: I probably do. 19

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

percent. 21

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

another meeting a model chart showing the grades

-- 23

MR. RIV EST: My take away here today and 24

yesterday is because we modeled various discrete 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 294

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

this tumbled graph on this table, which distills too 2

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

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

this that ... produce more variability in pricing 5

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

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

-- 7

giving her a challenge. She likes that. 8

As far as the w ound cores, this does not 9

capture ... 10

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

question for Wes. I thought you were describing that 12

amorphous wound cores would be more expensive even 13

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

now. 15

MR. PATT ERSON: This is true. 16

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

the amorphous numbers, I think, are unreasonable

-- 18

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

the OPS

-- 20

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

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

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

percent in the three, four and five

-- I mean, I can 24

sort of ignore it. I know that that just means that 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 295

that was the lowest cost design alternative, if you 1

will. But then when you ac tually model that line 2

forward, are you modeling that particular price of 3

that lowest element, or is there some range around 4

that plus or minus 20 percent that include other sort 5

of designs in there? 6

MS. COUGHLIN: In the model? 7

MR. CASKEY: In the L CC. 8

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

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

and it’s unclear whether that constitutes the best 11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cost, then the majority of the analysis going forward 19

is using that particular price with a little 20

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

variation is it? 22

MS. COUGHLIN: That’s right. 23

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

the actual shipment data for a year, that will reflect 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 296

that over time the relative prices of materials have 1

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

design than the other. And that introduces variation 3

that is not reproduced right now in the engineering. 4

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

data, we collect the data from multiple manufacturers, 6

create an average for each steel price and for a 7

period of time. There’s always variation

-- 8

variations from the manufacturers, variations over 9

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

appropriate to ... 11

MR. PATTERSON: Mike, just for your 12

knowledge. Another major driver in this is the 13

relative change in commodity cost between copper, 14

aluminum and core steel in the dry market. 15

MR. RIVEST: Sure. 16

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

followed the copper index since the beginning of the 18

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

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

written on. 21

MR. DeLASKI: And it will change 22

dramatically again over

-- 23

MR. PATTERSON: And it will change again. 24

So you’ve got to draw a line in the sand somewhere and 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 297

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

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

you have this report where you’ve taken out t he 3

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

laser scribe material. If that report was done with 5

the laser scribe, maybe that gives everybody the 6

information they need. 7

MR. DeLASKI: So maybe I

-- and I know we’re 8

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

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

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

comfortable for the committee to focus our

-- and I 12

haven’t talked to my colleagues about the details 13

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

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

sensitivity that takes out ZDMH and SA

- 1 for our 16

negotiating purposes. 17

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

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

Metals c an make them and others can make them

-- 20

MR. PATTERSON: And very small KVAs. 21

MR. MILLURE: Thousand? 22

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

KVA. 24

MR. MILLURE: But you’re making them? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 298

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

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

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

getting anybody to buy one because

-- 4

MR. MILLURE: My point is there is a 5

commercial amorphous Evans core design

-- what is 6

that, design line 11 or 12

-- 7

MR. PA TTERSON: I know, I said yes and I 8

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

BIL. Never produced anywhere, which is the upper 10

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

regulation. 12

MR. MILLURE: Okay. Thank you. 13

MR. SMITH: This is Bob Smith, Federal 14

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

wish the committee would agree with the 16

recommendations that have been made by Wes and others 17

that we eliminate the amorphous steel from the 18

analysis on the medium voltage dries for reason s 19

stated. Also eliminate the wound cores on the medium 20

voltage dries, also for the reasons that are stated 21

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

dry type transformers, medium voltage, go indoors and 23

many of these transformers that go indo ors are 24

required to have lower sound levels that are specified 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 299

by the IEEE standards. Wound cores are much more 1

difficult to control as far as sound level is 2

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

the Navigant and LBL folks would eliminate the wound 4

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

much happier. Thank you. 6

MR. DeLASKI: This is Andrew DeLaski 7

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

comfortable with saying remove them from the analysis. 9

We’re comfortable with the committee focusing on the 10

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

I’m just

-- again, sensitive to our December

-- early 12

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

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

the space do wn to a potential areas of potential 15

agreement getting to yes. And I just

-- 16

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

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

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

the amorphous is going to move us ahead much faster 20

and I think make everybody happier. 21

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

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

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

discussions, and we’re sitting on a standard that’s 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 300

going to yield large net present value benefits that 1

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

until we see that sensitivity. 3

MR. CYMBALSKY: Just a point of 4

clarification. John Cymbalsky, DOE. The maxtech 5

technology has to be in the an alysis and they’ll be in 6

the analysis, but the economics

-- let’s let the 7

economics speak for themselves here and move forward. 8

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

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

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

timing perspective here, whether

-- you know, our next 12

meeting is whenever it is, three weeks from now,

-- 13

MR. PARKER: 30 th

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

via teleconference, that’ll mean another whole day 23

meeting

-- 24 of November. 14

MR. PARKER: I think that’s a very helpful 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 301

suggestion. 1

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

MR. DeLASKI: I would s uggest rather than 3

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

to do

-- 5

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

-- Friday. 7

MR. PARKER: Why don’t we see how the

-- 8

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

what we’ve captured s o far here today, what we’ve 10

discussed, we are

-- there’s a line between paralysis 11

by analysis and

-- on the one hand, and productive 12

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

consensus here that we are sitting on the productive 14

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

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

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

decision. 18

So the changes that I took away are: 19

**•** First, that there need to be significant 20

adjustments to the am orphous pricing scenario. 21

It needs to stay in the scenario for precisely 22

the reasons that John Cymbalsky just articulated, 23

but they need to be priced more realistically 24

based upon conversations with the industry. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 302

That’s an engineering data issue, and nee ds to 1

happen. 2

**•** Secondly, there are

-- Mike agreed, I think, 3

agreed to work with Wes and others who wish to 4

caucus with him on this, the idea of exploring 5

whether it’s fruitful to use different 6

optimization scenarios

-- A/B versus efficiency. 7

So those nego tiations and discussions can happen. 8

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

would be helpful in refining the engineering 10

analysis to have more perturbation in materials 11

pricing inputs so that they more faithfully 12

reflect the way

-- the pricing struc tures that 13

different firms face, because not every firm 14

faces the same pricing options. So these are all 15

changes to the engineering analysis that need to 16

take place. 17

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

so then I would propose that we would

-- 19

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

MR. PARKER: Excuse me? 21

MR. RIVEST: Let me interrupt. 22

MR. PARKER: Yes. 23

MR. RIVEST: The level of effort and time 24

required to do those varies. A reoptimization (off 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 303

mic) 1

MR. PARKER: Okay. 2

MR. DeLASKI: I heard a little different 3

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

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

simpler. That’s it. 6

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

MR. DeLASKI: That’s all

-- and then have a 8

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

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

talk. 11

MR. PARKER: Okay. 12

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

saying this is a sensitivity

-- I hear the SA

- 1

-- 14

that will be addressed

-- 15

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

MR. DeLASKI:

-- but it’s not as time 17

sensitive. 18

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

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

issues around that about how you handle capital 21

costs and how they flow to the market

-- that’ s 22

going to need much more

-- 23

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

capital costs, we’re got core makers that supply A, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 304

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

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

goes up to

-- 3

MR. DeLAS KI: So that’s what I’m saying

-- 4

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

pound, 45

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

it. 7

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

your German facility. 9

MR. DeLASKI: It can be done. 10

MR. MILLURE: ABB ad vertises 104 MPA (ph) 11

eco file. 12

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

be done. It can be done. 14

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

commercialized. I can show you this

-- I mean they 16

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

the market. Maybe they need the higher efficiency 18

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

why

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

efficiency requirements from the market aren’t 21

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

can’t ignore it. 23

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

our factory in Korea and our factories in ... But the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 305

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

and the markets in those Asian countries are 2

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

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

This is a much bigger challenge than building a 400 5

KVA. So to move the entire national standard into 6

that, this becomes extremely

-- 7

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

My only point is i t’s not a far

- out technology that 9

needs amorphous to make these design lines. 10

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

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

to go forward then with a conference call in which 13

we have no changes to the en gineering analysis but a 14

sensitivity run with H0 included. Is that correct? 15

MR. DeLASKI: Just to discuss that 16

sensitivity. 17

MR. PARKER: Okay. 18

MR. RIVEST: That would be representative of 19

the market. 20

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

t he other issue that was discussed earlier, the 22

question of these method flips we thought might be 23

addressed through materials

-- perturbating the 24

material price inputs. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 306

MR. RIVEST: Nothing with OPS ... 1

MR. PARKER: The optimization would not be 2

done. 3

MR. RIVEST: (off mic) 4

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

said earlier when you said you were open to be 6

persuaded, and so I thought meant that you were

-- I 7

see. Okay. 8

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

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

those adjustments be made before we talk

-- talk 11

just based on the simple sen si tivity without the H0. 12

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

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

I don’t want things to get late

- - we need that to 15

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

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

would be

-- 18

MR. PARKER: Is that agreeable? Okay. 19

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

have the results by Friday. 21

MR. De LASKI: We want to have time to see 22

the results before we actually talk about them. If 23

you can get them out to us on Friday

-- 24

MR. RIVEST: I didn’t realize it’s a 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 307

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

MR. DeLASKI: Let’s see it by next T hursday. 2

MR. RIVEST: I can do that. 3

MR. DeLASKI: I’m wide open. 4

(Discussion about date and time for call.) 5

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

MR. PARKER: I have a conference, 8

unfortunately. Are peop le free on the 16 is 6

proposed. Eastern time. Any objection? 7

th ? I’m 9

sorry, John’s not. How about

-- I’ll get out of 10

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

17 th

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

on the phone? 14 . 12

MR. PARKER: Does that work for people on 15

the phone? 16

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

to ask one other question. Should we include some 18

of the other medium voltage dry type manufacturers 19

to that end who have not really participated in this 20

exercise, or should they be excluded? 21

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

up

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

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

a certain distance in these meetings and as new 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 308

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

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

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

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

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

MR. PARKER: Okay. We’ll send out

-- 6

MR. DeLASKI: People have been invited, so 7

we’re not going to exclude anybody. 8

MR. PARKER: It will be an open call and the 9

entire medium voltage group is on a time track list 10

which includes a number of people who are not at the 11

table or even in the room, will be invited to join 12

the call, and they will be free to join the call if 13

they choose. It is a public call. 14

So any other business

-- 15

MR. SMITH: Richard? 16

MR. PARKER: Yes. Yes, on the phone? 17

MR. SMITH: I just said thank you. I think 18

that is the correct decision. Some of these 19

manufactu rers are not going to have some of the 20

capabilities, the ones who have have been active and 21

they may have a little different perspective. But to 22

Andy’s point, I think they need to be advised to come 23

to the teleconference prepared, that we will not take 24

th e time to try to bring them up to speed. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 309

MR. PARKER: That’s fair. 1

MR. DeLASKI: And some of these guys, I 2

would just point out, are the members of NEMA. You 3

know they all aren’t NEMA members, some of them are 4

represented here by NEMA. 5

MR. CASKEY: Right. This is John Caskey, 6

and one of my action items from yesterday was to keep 7

the little guys that are NEMA members, abreast of what 8

we discussed yesterday and some issues, and I’ll be 9

happy to do the same with the medium voltage dry type 10

people who a re NEMA members. 11

MR. PARKER: No reference to the big bucks. 12

Great. Thank you, everybody. I think has been a very 13

useful and productive discussion, and we’ll adjourn 14

for today and look forward to reconvening on call next 15

Thursday, on the 17 th

MR. CASKEY: Adjourn as the medium voltage 17

dry type and

-- 18 at one o ’clock. 16

MR. PARKER: Adjourn as the medium voltage 19

dry type and reconvene, let’s say at 11:30, as a low 20

voltage committee. 21

(Whereupon, at 10:59 a .m., the meet ing in 22

the above captioned matte r was adjourned .) 23

24

25Executive 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