From: Wes Patterson [mailto:wes.patterson@us.abb.com] 

Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 2:17 PM 

To: Brian Coffey 

Cc: Bob Smith; Christopher Bolduc; Eric Petersen; John Cymbalsky; Matthew Nardotti; Michael Rivest; 

Rob Greeson; Richard Parker 

Subject: Re: MVDT Scaling 

Hi Brian 

Some minor editorial suggestions to the doc file 

Basically I think we should go with the levels you have defined. 

Reduction in watts relative to 2010 standard - looks ok 

 1ph - no change = 2010 standard 

 3ph - core market down 20% 

reduction trails off as KVA decreases 

 there is a problem with the 15 & 25 KVA, 3ph watts in that they are too low (see the ppt). But this 

is because they are at the losses of the current standard so I do not see any way to address it.

Understatement of losses due to inaccuracy of scaling rule - ok 
 small KVAs still understated but this is because they are fixed by the 2010 standard 

 but the error has been reduced everywhere

 

1ph watts versus 3ph watts - ok - better 

 ideally should be 130% but this cannot be reached and still maintain current efficiency standard 

on the 1ph products.
 

1ph watts relative to 95BIL watts - ok 

 no change - same as 2010 standard

 

3ph watts relative to 95BIL watts 
 45BIL - no change in relation - ok 

 >95BIL - ok - was +4% now 10-14% higher

 

 

Most of the units >95BIL are also >1000KVA. Thus these watts are effectively 13% greater than the 

equivalent 95BIL. 

And these >95BIL ratings represent a 15% reduction in losses as compared to a 22% reduction at 95BIL 

rating. 

While not ideal we increase the risk of circumvention by reducing the further. 

And even at this level we have a potential issue here - say if someone orders a 15kv unit at 96BIL. 

Perhaps a way to address would be to add verbiage to the standard such that "the BIL Grouping shall be 

consistent with the standard BIL as specified in C57.12.01-xxxx Table 5" 

May recommendation is we stay with this. 

For your reference material - these files have the calc for the above. 

Best regards (and Merry Christmas) Wes 
Brian Coffey <brian.coffey@navigant.com>

12/21/2011 03:27 PM 

To John Cymbalsky <john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov>, Richard Parker 

<richardparkerdc@gmail.com>, Wes 

Patterson/SouthBoston/USTRA/ABB@ABB, Rob Greeson 

<rgreeson@federalpacific.com>, Bob Smith <bsmith@federalpacific.com>, 

Eric Petersen <Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com> cc Michael Rivest <mrivest@navigant.com>, Christopher Bolduc 

<cabolduc@lbl.gov>, Matthew Nardotti <matthew.nardotti@navigant.com>

Subject MVDT Scaling

Team, 

 

I’ve attached a draft write‐up of the last Friday’s MVDT scaling discussion, as I’ve remembered it. Once we have

reviewed and edited this draft, we can distribute to the committee at‐large. Have I omitted any email addresses

from the call? 

 

Best, 

 

Brian

This communication is from Navigant Consulting Inc. E-mail text or attachments may contain information 

which is confidential and may also be privileged. This communication is for the exclusive use of the 

intended recipient(s). If you have received this communication in error, please return it with the title 

"received in error" to NCISecurity@navigant.com, and then delete the email and destroy any copies of it. 

In addition, this communication is subject to, and incorporates by reference, additional disclaimers found 

in Navigant Consulting's "Email Disclaimer" section at www.Navigant.com. 

Navigant Consulting, Inc. 

Company Registration Number: UK Ltd. 3641719 

Registered in Delaware, USA 

Registered Office Address: 30 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3400, Chicago, Illinois 60606