LV Meeting Notes Sept. 28, 2011

Introductions and explanation of the negotiations process Discussion on ground rules:

‐ Parker begins by asking, “What is a consensus?” “Consensus” sho uld be defined by ground rules. It nee ds to be unanimous according to the MV group.

‐ Caskey asks, “Who has the right to speak?” He thinks that commi ttee members should be able to speak first, but non‐members can chim e in afterwards. Caskey also asks when summaries will be available, and Parker responds “within 1 week.”

‐ Groundrules are unanimously adopted. Issues raised during the Navigant engineering analysis presenta tion:

‐ Markup: Greeson asks if the cloud of points include markup. Nar dotti confirms yes – the charts pl ot MSP against efficiency

‐

‐ Scrap Factor: Tendulkan asks if scrap factor includes wire. Nar dotti confirms yes – scrap includes everything

‐

‐ Rep Units: Patzner asks why the suggestion for new rep units an d revised scaling factors that was brought up in the preliminary analysis meeting has not been implemented in Navigant’s analysis. Nardotti responds by noting the time constraints faced with the original NOPR deadline. Pat zner would like the LV timeline to be separ ate from that of the liquid/MV timeline. We should do additional analyses an d push back the LV schedule. Cy mbalsky asks if Patzner has quantitative support for scaling adjustment s, and Patzner replies yes. Patzner also suggests that we do selected analyses for certain CSLs after the TSLs have been selected (in order to reduce the amount of additional analysis required). P atzner thinks that DL6 should b e removed (due to its low volumes, <10% of total units). Greeson thinks t hat if we don’t have time to add rep units, we would need to separately evaluat e the units that can’t be accurately scaled. Patzner suggests that, if you do a bell curve of all shipments, the rep unit should be the peak.

‐

‐ Temp correction: Patzner states that OPS needs to determine the theoretical temp rise. The correction factor is based on a full‐load rise, so different losses and efficiencies will result if the correction factor is wrong. Tendulkan also expresses concern that the temp rise calculations are inaccurate. Rosenstock notes that Patzner’s comment is more about the TP, not the stan dard, and asks if TP should be inclu ded in our negotiations.‐

‐ Design options: Greeson comments that, if you push the standard s too high, you’ll have limited design options

‐

‐ Application: Parker questions if there is legal authority and p racticality in addressing application. Coughlin notes that the LCC does not use TP loads, so application is addressed

‐

‐ Symmetric cores: Bolduc confirms that symmetric cores were not modeled in the LCC. Berman suggests that not including symmetric cores will create an upward bias.

‐

‐ Shared weaknesses between the MV/liquid and LV groups: Caskey a sks if any of the technical discussions regarding weaknesses in our analys is for MV/liquid transformers are also addressed for LV transformers, if applicable? Nardotti states that all comments are taken into ac count

‐

‐ Technical working group: Parker s uggests the formation of a tec hnical working group with Navigant
Break for Lunch Wayne Gordon, legal advisor for the parent committee, comes to speak. One important statement that he makes is that we want to make sure we have a broad‐ based, transparent process that d oes not favor any particular p arties. Issues raised during LBNL’s LCC analysis presentation:

‐ Slope of the cost efficiency cur ve: The OPS clouds for DL7 may be inaccurate. According to Greeson’s analysis, there was a 60‐70% increase in prices from CSL 0 to CSL 2 and >100% in pric es from CSL 2 to CSL 3. However , the prices don’t seem to increase with an increase in efficiency according to the clouds. Caskey notes that it doesn’t mak e sense that units from CSL 0 t o CSL 4 can be bought for essentially the same price. However, Millure also di d an analysis which resulted in a similar flat curve. Delaski explains that t his may be a plausible situation considering that purchasers will probably n ot pay more for higher efficiency.

‐

‐ Building energy use: Caskey asks if we assume that the median l oading changes in time due to expected energy savings. Coughlin replies no. Cymbalsky notes that we should l ook at EIA and AEO stats for en ergy use – building ene rgy use may not actually be decreasing.

‐

‐ Sensitivity analyses: In response to several requests for sensi tivity analyses, Coughlin notes that several appendices in the TSD with sensitiv ity analyses can be referenced. Bolduc confirms that sensitivities have been run and results are available in chapter 8.Issues raised during LBNL’s NIA analysis presentation:

‐ Out of scope products: For the 15‐30kVA products, Patzner predi cts that the market is going to turn towards non‐covered products which are cheaper. Coughlin states that we try to m odel product switching if there is any.

‐

‐ Source energy savings: Rosenstoc k requests a sensitivity analys is for source energy savings. Coughlin states that, although this may be tech nically possible using NEMS, there is a process issue because DOE norma lly uses AEO numbers for sensitivities

TSL Selection

‐ TSL with several steel options: Greeson suggests having a TSL t hat allows a distribution of potential silico ne steel options – a level at w hich there is the highest efficiency with a selection of steel options, as in the MV/liquid group

‐

‐ Steel supply: Peterson states that our decision should include consideration of all suppliers around the world, not just the two main domest ic suppliers. Peterson also states that we ca nnot produce only M3 – we would have to have a portfolio of products that follows a bellcurve.

‐

‐ TSL that considers electricity savings: Berman suggests having a TSL that considers kilowatts saved and impact on a building’s electric bill. Patzner agrees, stating that we should h ave a TSL that represents some percentage savings for the end user

‐

‐ TSL that considers competitivene ss: Delaski suggests a TSL that has the highest energy savings with multiple competitive suppliers. As an analysis point, Delaski suggest s that we should map weight against effic iency and select a weight differential tha t reaches a certain threshold.

‐

‐ TSL with lowest incremental cost : Rosenstock suggests a TSL tha t represents lowest total incremental equipment cost

‐

‐ TSL with employment consideratio ns: Rosenstock suggests a TSL t hat would have minimum domestic job impact. However, Cymbalsky notes that the employment analysi s would be performed at the end of the MIA, w hich is completed after TSL selection.

‐

‐ Conversion costs: Delaski notes the importance of accounting fo r conversion costs. Patzner is concerned that additional square footage may need to be added to his facilities.

‐TSLs  Selected:

‐ Max tech

‐ Max NPV

‐ Max NES with positive LCC savings

‐ Baseline

‐ Highest NES with multiple core material suppliers

‐ Highest NES with multiple “compe titive” core material suppliers

‐ Some aspect of annual electricity bill savings

‐ Gap fillers