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” should be 

defined by ground rules. It needs to be unanimous according to the MV 

group. 

‐ Caskey asks, “Who has the right to speak?” He thinks that committee 

members should be able to speak first, but non‐members can chime 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 presentation: 

‐ Markup: Greeson asks if the cloud of points include markup. Nardotti 

confirms yes – the charts plot MSP against efficiency 

‐

‐ Scrap Factor: Tendulkan asks if scrap factor includes wire. Nardotti confirms 

yes – scrap includes everything 

‐

‐ Rep Units: Patzner asks why the suggestion for new rep units and 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. Patzner would 

like the LV timeline to be separate from that of the liquid/MV timeline. We 

should do additional analyses and push back the LV schedule. Cymbalsky 

asks if Patzner has quantitative support for scaling adjustments, 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). Patzner thinks that DL6 should be removed 

(due to its low volumes, <10% of total units). Greeson thinks that if we don’t 

have time to add rep units, we would need to separately evaluate 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 standard, and 

asks if TP should be included in our negotiations.  
‐   

‐ Design options: Greeson comments that, if you push the standards too high, 

you’ll have limited design options 

‐   

‐ Application: Parker questions if there is legal authority and practicality 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 asks if any 

of the technical discussions regarding weaknesses in our analysis for 

MV/liquid transformers are also addressed for LV transformers, if 

applicable? Nardotti states that all comments are taken into account 

‐   

‐ Technical working group: Parker suggests the formation of a technical 

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 does not favor any particular parties. 

Issues raised during LBNL’s LCC analysis presentation: 

‐ Slope of the cost efficiency curve: 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 prices 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 make sense that units from CSL 0 to CSL 4 can be 

bought for essentially the same price. However, Millure also did an analysis 

which resulted in a similar flat curve. Delaski explains that this may be a 

plausible situation considering that purchasers will probably not pay more 

for higher efficiency.   

‐   

‐ Building energy use: Caskey asks if we assume that the median loading 

changes in time due to expected energy savings. Coughlin replies no. 

Cymbalsky notes that we should look at EIA and AEO stats for energy use – 

building energy use may not actually be decreasing.  

‐   

‐ Sensitivity analyses: In response to several requests for sensitivity analyses, 

Coughlin notes that several appendices in the TSD with sensitivity 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 predicts that the 

market is going to turn towards non‐covered products which are cheaper. 

Coughlin states that we try to model product switching if there is any.  

‐

‐ Source energy savings: Rosenstock requests a sensitivity analysis for source 

energy savings. Coughlin states that, although this may be technically 

possible using NEMS, there is a process issue because DOE normally uses 

AEO numbers for sensitivities 

TSL Selection 

‐ TSL with several steel options: Greeson suggests having a TSL that allows a 

distribution of potential silicone steel options – a level at which 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 domestic suppliers. 

Peterson also states that we cannot 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 have a TSL that represents some percentage 

savings for the end user 

‐   

‐ TSL that considers competitiveness: Delaski suggests a TSL that has the 

highest energy savings with multiple competitive suppliers. As an analysis 

point, Delaski suggests that we should map weight against efficiency and 

select a weight differential that reaches a certain threshold. 

‐   

‐ TSL with lowest incremental cost: Rosenstock suggests a TSL that represents 

lowest total incremental equipment cost 

‐   

‐ TSL with employment considerations: Rosenstock suggests a TSL that would 

have minimum domestic job impact. However, Cymbalsky notes that the 

employment analysis would be performed at the end of the MIA, which is 

completed after TSL selection. 

‐   

‐ Conversion costs: Delaski notes the importance of accounting for 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 “competitive” core material suppliers

‐ Some aspect of annual electricity bill savings 

‐ Gap fillers