From: Phil Hopkinson [mailto:phopkinson@hvolt.com]

Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 4:21 PM

To: Robert Greeson

Cc: Robert Berman; Hirsch, Bruce R; Steve Nadel; John Caskey; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com;

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; Maxine (EMAB) Savitz; mhyland@appanet.org;

Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net; tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com;

dbrender@cda.copper.org; James.Lass@cleco.com; chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com;

frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com; ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com; AaronMeyers; Antonio

Trujillo; Jack C Moore; Jerry L Corkran; tballo@earthjustice.org; carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com;

eduardorobles@eaton.com; Emily (CO NTR) Marchetti; Jeremiah (CONTR) Freeman; Jim Raba; John

Cymbalsky; srosenstock@eei.org; DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com; rick.anderson@faypwc.com;

bsmith@federalpacific.com; rgreeson@federalpacific.com; carlos.gaytan@ge.com;

artrosenfeld@gmail.com; greg.coulter405@gmail.com; ned.efbrush@gmail.com; Richard Parker;

Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com; jhodge@howard.com; Daniel Cohen; cabolduc@lbl.gov; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov;

kcoughlin@lbl.gov; ScottB@LVMetals.com; dave.millure@metglas.com; kwinder@mleainc.com;

jrossetti@mlgw.org; Brian Coffey; Caitlin Johnson; Matthew Nardotti; Michael Rivest; Zhimei Luo; Jim

Creevy; mwaltner@nrdc.org; rroy@nrdc.org; robert.saint@nreca.coop; Teckman@nwcouncil.org;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; gbf1@pge.com; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com;

ahofmann@ publicpower.org; pkumar@publicpower.org; adelaski@standardsASAP.org;

jmauer@standardsasap.org; wes.patterson@us.abb.com; chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com;

thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com; charlied@uus.org

Subject: Re: Negotiated Rulemaking

‐ Distribution Transformers Teleconference

You are correct!

Phil

Phil Hopkinson,P.E.

HVolt Inc.

704

‐ 846

‐ 3290

F: 704

‐ 845

‐ 2520

C: 704

‐ 236

‐ 3320

phopkinson@hvolt.com

On Nov 16, 2011, at 11:00, "Robert Greeson" < rgreeson@electro

‐ mechanical.com > wrote:

> Robert,

>

> The debate as I understand it is that at higher EL levels, amorphous transformers become more cost

effective. However, the overall losses go up because their load losses are higher. The whole point is

that these watts are not saved, in fact they go higher with the amo rphous designs that appear favorably

in the higher efficiency levels. It’s the law of unintended consequences. Perhaps I am missing the point.

>

> Thanks!

>

>

> Robert S. Greeson

> Engineering Manager, P.E.> Federal Pacific Company

> P.O. Box 8200

> Bristol, Virginia 24203

‐ 8200

> Phone

‐ 276

‐ 645

‐ 8210 | Fax 276

‐ 645

‐ 8956

> Email: rgreeson@federalpacific.com<mailto:rgreeson@federalpacific.com >

>

> The information contained in this message and any attachments is intended only for the use of the

individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential

and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error, you are

prohibite d from copying, distributing, or using the information. Please contact the sender immediately

by return e

‐ mail and completely delete the original message from your system.

>

> <///><

>

> From: Robert Berman [ mailto:bermaneconomics@gmail.com ]

> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 8:28 AM

> To: Hirsch, Bruce R

> Cc: 'Robert Berman'; Phil Hopkinson; Steve Nadel; John Caskey; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com ;

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com ; Maxine (EMAB) Savitz; mhyland@appanet.org ;

Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com ; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net ; tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com ;

dbrender@cda.copper.org ; James.Lass@cleco.com ; chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com ;

frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com ; ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com ; AaronMeyers; Antonio

Trujillo; Jack C Moore; Jerry L Corkran; tballo@earthjustice.org ; carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com ;

eduardorobles@eaton.com ; Emily (CONTR) Marchetti; Jeremiah (CONTR) Freeman; Jim Raba; John

Cymbalsky; srosenstock@eei.org ; DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com ; rick.anderson@faypwc.com ;

bsmith@federalpacific.com ; rgreeson@federalpacific.com ; carlos.gaytan@ge.com ;

artrosenfeld@gmail.com ; greg.coulter405@gmail.com ; ned.efbrush@gmail.com ; Richard Parker;

Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com ; jhodge@howard.com ; Daniel Cohen; cabolduc@lbl.gov ; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov ;

kcoughlin@lbl.gov ; ScottB@LVMetals.com ; dave.millure@metglas.com ; kwinder@mleainc.com ;

jrossetti@mlgw.org ; brian.coffey@navigant.com ; caitlin.johnson@navigant.com ;

matthew.nardotti@navigant.com ; mrivest@navigant.com ; zhimei.luo@navigant.com ; Jim Creevy;

mwaltner@nrdc.org ; rroy@nrdc.org ; robert.saint@nreca.coop ; Teckman@nwcouncil.org ;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com ; gbf1@pge.com ; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com ;

ahofmann@publicpower.org ; pkumar@publicpower.org ; adelaski@standardsASAP.org ;

jmauer@standardsasap.org ; wes.patterson@us.abb.com ; chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com ;

thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com ; charlied@uus.org

> Subject: Re: Negotiated Rulemaking

‐ Distribution Transformers Teleconference

>

> Bruce,

>

> I understand; but at any given point in time, a Watt saved is a Watt saved. It does nat matter where in

the transformer it is saved or if it is saved by a consumer turning off a light. It is one less Wa tt.

Regardless of where the Watt is saved from it has the same value. That value is the cost of the last Watt

produced (not the first, middle or average). If you save enough Watts to take down a generating unit,

you save the money that would have been spent on that uni t. The unit you take down is the highest cost

unit (unless it's a must run). That's the last unit you dispatched. If you don't save that Watt, you charge

your customer for it or, if a loss, you charge it off to losses for ratemaking purposes. If BGE is willing to

bill its TOD cu stomers taking power at peak at the cost of generating from a baseload unit because it'sfor power that they take 24x7 I'll concede your point. If BGE, in it's next rate case, values it's losses at

peak differently depending upon whether they are coil or core losses, I'll concede your point. But has

long as you charge TOD customers and peak load losses based on marginal costs, your argum ent is not

consistent.

>

> I agree 100% with you position on correcting the DOE cost curves. They need to be lowered and

flattened.They are predicting costs that are higher than small quantity open

‐ bid public power sales

reported on the internet.

>

> Regards,

>

> Robert A. Be rman, Principal

> Berman Economics

> www.BermanEconomics.com<http ://www.BermanEconomics.com >

> 1915 Grand Court

> Vienna, VA 22182

> 703

‐ 281

‐ 0490

> 703

‐ 655

‐ 8398 (cell)

> BermanEconomics@gmail.com

>

>

>

>

> On Nov 16, 2011, at 7:58 AM, Hirsch, Bruce R wrote:

>

>

> Robert,

>

> This happens all the time in “time of day” rates. The fact is that it is cheaper to produce electricity at a

core generating station than at the peaking plants. It also is cost effective to keep core statio ns running.

With that said, I think the issue is that you and Phil are looking at this from a different point of view. Phil

is looking at the cost to generate and he is correct. You are looking at the value of avoiding gen eration

altogether and you are also correct.

>

> It is important to understand that our (or DOE’s) decision cannot be made on any one factor. All of the

issues put on the table are important issues that must be factored into the final decision. My main

concern at th is time is that the Advocate’s case is based on the DOE calculated pay back periods that

utilize a projected cost that is much less than that seen by the only manufacturer who has experience

building higher efficiency units with M3 steel. Robert, you have pushed us to consider historic al

experience over models. Thus, I believe we need to step back and look at what the ABB data is really

telling us and correct the DOE calculations as appropriate.

>

> Bruce

>

> From: Robert Berman [ mailto:bermaneconomics@gmail.com ]

> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 7:57 PM

> To: Phil Hopkinson> Cc: Robert Berman; Steve Nadel; Hirsch, Bruce R; John Caskey;

Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com<mai lto:Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com >;

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com<mai lto:jerry.schoen@aksteel.com >; Maxine (EMAB) Savitz;

mhyland@appanet.org<mailto:mhyland@appanet.org >;

Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com<mailto:Raymon d.Polinski@ATImetals.com>;maheshsampat@bellsou

th.net<mailto:maheshsampat@bellsouth.net >;

tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com<mail to:tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com >;

dbrender@cda.copper.org<mailto:dbrender@cda.copper.org >;

James.Lass@cleco.com<mailto:James.Lass@cleco.com >;

chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com<ma ilto:chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com >;

frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com<mailto:frank. guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com>;ted.johnstone@co

gentpowerinc.com<mailto:ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com >; AaronMeyers; Antonio Trujillo; Jack C

Moore; Jerry L Corkran; tballo@earthjustice.org<mail to:tballo@earthjustice.org >;

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com<ma ilto:carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com >;

eduardorobles@eaton.com<mailto:eduardorobles@eaton.com >; Emily (CONTR) Marchetti; Jeremiah

(CONTR) Freeman; Jim Raba; John Cymbalsky; srosenstock@eei.org<ma ilto:srosenstock@eei.org >;

DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com<mailto:DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com >;

rick.anderson@faypwc.com<mailto:rick.anderson@faypwc.com >;

bsmith@federalpacific.com<mailto:bsmith@federalpacific.com >;

rgreeson@federalpacific.com<mailt o:rgreeson@federalpacific.com >;

carlos.gaytan@ge.com<mailto:carlos.gaytan@ge.com >;artrosenfeld@gmail.com<mailto:artrosenfeld@g

mail.com >; greg.coulter405@gmail.com<mail to:greg.coulter405@gmail.com >;

ned.efbrush@gmail.com<mailto:ned.efbrush@gmail.com >; Richard Parker;

Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com<mailto:Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com >;

jhodge@howard.com<mailto:jhodge@howard.com >; Daniel Cohen;

cabolduc@lbl.gov<mailto:cabolduc@lbl.gov >; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov<mailto:gjrosenquist@lbl.gov >;

kcoughlin@lbl.gov<mailto:kcoughlin@lbl.gov>;Sc ottB@LVMetals.com<mailto:ScottB@LVMetals.com >;

dave.millure@metglas.com<mai lto:dave.millure@metglas.com >;

kwinder@mleainc.com<mailto:kwinder@mleainc.com >;

jrossetti@mlgw.org<mailto:jrossetti@mlgw.org >;

brian.coffey@navigant.com<mailto:brian.coffey@navigant.com >;

caitlin.johnson@navigant.com<mailto:caitlin.johnson@navigant.com >;

matthew.nardotti@navigant.com<mailto:matthew.nardotti@navigant.com >;

mrivest@navigant.com<mailto:mrivest@navigant.c om>;zhimei.luo@navigant.com<mailto:zhimei.luo@

navigant.com >; Jim Creevy; mwaltner@nrdc.org<mailto:mwaltner@nrdc.org >;

rroy@nrdc.org<mailto:rroy@nrdc.org >; robert.saint@nreca.coop<ma ilto:robert.saint@nreca.coop >;

Teckman@nwcouncil.org<mailt o:Teckman@nwcouncil.org >;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com<mailt o:vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com >;

gbf1@pge.com<mailto:gbf1@pge.com >;

chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com<mailto:chuck.simmo ns@pgnmail.com>;ahofmann@publicpower.org<ma

ilto:ahofmann@publicpower.org >; pkumar@publicpower.org<mailto:pkumar@publicpower.org >;

adelaski@standardsASAP.org<mailto:adelaski@standardsASAP.org >;

jmauer@standardsasap.org<mailto:jmauer@standardsasap.org >;

wes.patterson@us.abb.com<mailto:wes.patterson@us.abb.com >; chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com<mailto:chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com >; thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com<mailto:thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com >;

charlied@uus.org<mailto:charlied@uus.org >

> Subject: Re: Negotiated Rulemaking

‐ Distribution Transformers Teleconference>

> Sorry that you disagree. A loss is a loss no matter where it comes from. It's the VALUE that changes.

The core loss still exists at peak. Why in the world would you put a lower value on the core loss at peak

just because it ALSO exists at off

‐ peak ti mes as well?

>

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Robert A. Berman, Principal

> Berman Economics

> 1915 Grand Court

> Vienna, VA 22182

> 703.281.0490

> 703.655.8398 (cell)

> Berman.Economics@gmail.com<mailto:Berman.Economics@gmail.com >

> www.BermanEconomics.com<http ://www.BermanEconomics.com >

>

> Sent from my iPhone

>

> On Nov 15, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Phil Hopkinson

< phopkinson@hvolt.com<mailt o:phopkinson@hvolt.com >> wrote:

> Good afternoon Robert and all:

>

> I must disagree fundamentally with the way you have characterized the loss values. At night when the

load is light everywhere then the energy cost is also low and those who have time of day metering can

attest to it. If the load is as low as 10% then wh at is left is largely core loss and the generation is only

base generation at very low cost per kWH.

>

> During the day when the load is high the peak generators are all fired up and that is expensive energy.

There the wi nding losses are the big contribution to total transformer losses. Unfortunately when one

has an amorphous transformer that meets the same efficiency as an M3 transformer it has higher

winding losses than the M3. In the modeling that Jerry Corkran and I did we found that the amorphous

transformer had hi gher day time losses than the M3 which looks like it takes away from the enthusiasm

for amorphous cores as a National standard.

>

> The bottom line is that core loss is not as valuable as winding loss on a watt for watt tradeoff.

>

> Best regards,

>

> Phil

>

> Philip J Hopkinson, PE

> President & CEO HVOL T Inc.

> 3704 High Ridge Rd.

> Charlotte, NC 28270

> phopkinson@hvolt.com<mailto:phopkinson@hvolt.com >

> Ph 704

‐ 846

‐ 3290> Fx 704

‐ 845

‐ 2520

> Cell 704

‐ 236

‐ 3320

> www.hvolt.com<http://www.hvolt.com/ >

>

> From: Robert Berman [ mailto:bermaneconomics@gmail.com ]

> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 1:23 PM

> To: Steve Nadel

> Cc: Bruce R Hirsch; Robert Berman; John Caskey;

Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com<mai lto:Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com >;

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com<mai lto:jerry.schoen@aksteel.com >; Maxine (EMAB) Savitz;

mhyland@appanet.org<mailto:mhyland@appanet.org >;

Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com<mailto:Raymon d.Polinski@ATImetals.com>;maheshsampat@bellsou

th.net<mailto:maheshsampat@bellsouth.net >;

tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com<mail to:tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com >;

dbrender@cda.copper.org<mailto:dbrender@cda.copper.org >;

James.Lass@cleco.com<mailto:James.Lass@cleco.com >;

chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com<ma ilto:chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com >;

frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com<mailto:frank. guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com>;ted.johnstone@co

gentpowerinc.com<mailto:ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com >; Aaron Meyers; Antonio Trujillo; Jack

C Moore; Jerry L Corkran; tballo@earthjustice.org<mailt o:tballo@earthjustice.org >;

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com<ma ilto:carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com >;

eduardorobles@eaton.com<mailto:eduardorobles@eaton.com >; Emily (CONTR) Marchetti; Jeremiah

(CONTR) Freeman; Jim Raba; John Cymbalsky; srosenstock@eei.org<ma ilto:srosenstock@eei.org >;

DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com<mailto:DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com >;

rick.anderson@faypwc.com<mailto:rick.anderson@faypwc.com >;

bsmith@federalpacific.com<mailto:bsmith@federalp acific.com>;rgreeson@federalpacific.com<mailto:r

greeson@federalpacific.com >; carlos.gaytan@ge.com<mai lto:carlos.gaytan@ge.com >;

artrosenfeld@gmail.com<mailto:artrosenfeld@gmail.com >;

greg.coulter405@gmail.com<mail to:greg.coulter405@gmail.com >;

ned.efbrush@gmail.com<mailto:ned.efbrush@gmail.com >; Richard Parker;

Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com<mailto:Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com >;

jhodge@howard.com<mailto:jhodge@howard.com >; Daniel Cohen; Phil Hopkinson;

cabolduc@lbl.gov<mailto:cabolduc@lbl.gov >; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov<mailto:gjrosenquist@lbl.gov >;

kcoughlin@lbl.gov<mailto:kcoughlin@lbl.gov >; ScottB@LVMetals.com<mailto:ScottB@LVMetals.com >;

dave.millure@metglas.com<mai lto:dave.millure@metglas.com >;

kwinder@mleainc.com<mailto:kwinder@mleainc.com >;

jrossetti@mlgw.org<mailto:jrossetti@mlgw.org>;bria n.coffey@navigant.com<mailto:brian.coffey@navi

gant.com >; caitlin.johnson@navigant.com<ma ilto:caitlin.johnson@navigant.com >;

matthew.nardotti@navigant.com<mailto:matthew.nardotti@navigant.com >;

mrivest@navigant.com<mailto:mrivest@navigant.com >;

zhimei.luo@navigant.com<mailto:zhimei.luo@navigant.com >; Jim Creevy;

mwaltner@nrdc.org<mailto:mwaltner@nrdc.org >;

rroy@nrdc.org<mailto:rroy@nrdc.org>;robert.sai nt@nreca.coop<mailto:ro bert.saint@nreca.coop >;

Teckman@nwcouncil.org<mailt o:Teckman@nwcouncil.org >;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com<mailt o:vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com >;

gbf1@pge.com<mailto:gbf1@pge.com >;

chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com<mail to:chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com >;

ahofmann@publicpower.org<mailto:ahofmann@publicpower.org >;pkumar@publicpower.org<mailto:pkumar@publicpowe r.org>;adelaski@standardsASAP.org<mailto:adel

aski@standardsASAP.org >; jmauer@standardsasap.org<mailto:jmauer@standardsasap.org >;

wes.patterson@us.abb.com<mailto:wes.patterson@us.abb.com >; chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com<mailto:chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com >; thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com<mailto:thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com >;

charlied@uus.org<mailto:charlied@uus.org >

> Subject: Re: Negotiated Rulemaking

‐ Distribution Transformers Teleconference

>

> Steve,

>

> The statement that "reducing transformer losses primarily affects baseload, not peak" is a bit of an

over simplification. Reducing transformer losses affects both base and peak. The value of the loss at any

point in time is then margi nal cost or system lambda. That is, the value of reducing transformer losses is

the greater of the cost of the next unit that would have been dispatched, but for the reduced load

attributable to the transformer, or the cost of generation from the last unit actually dispatched, but

used less du e to the more efficient transformer. Because generation is brought on line least

‐ cost first,

losses are evaluated in reverse order

‐‐ highest cost first. As Katie Coughlin explained at the last meeting,

this is the way LBNL evaluates benefits. Thus in the early years, the more efficient transformer may

actually save substantially more money than in later years, when the older, hig her cost units have been

retired. I don't believe this benefit is picked up by the LBNL modeling, as it requires more detailed

information

‐‐ at least hourly marginal costs for each power pool.

>

> Regards,

>

>

>

>

> Bob

>

> Rob ert A. Berman, Principal

> Berman Economics

> www.BermanEconomics.com<http ://www.BermanEconomics.com >

> 1915 Grand Court

> Vienna, VA 22182

> 703

‐ 281

‐ 0490

> 703

‐ 655

‐ 8398 (cell)

> BermanEconomics@gmail.com<mailt o:BermanEconomics@gmail.com >

>

>

>

>

>

>

> On Nov 15, 2011, at 8:57 AM, Steve Nadel wrote:

>

>

>

>> Two comments. First, some comments have focused on just the market for M3 and amorphous steel.

The two markets are linked

‐‐ we need competition between the two to keep the price of both in check.

We don't want a standard that strongly favors one over the other. The revised DOE analysis on the mix

betwee n M3 and amorphous at different standard levels should help us to address this. Second,

reducing transformer losses primarily affects baseload, not peak. So talking about cost per kW is

misleading. An efficient transformer is energized for more than 8000 hours per year. The average DSM

measure saves for about 3000 hours per year (altho ugh there is wide variation). If you want to

compare, you'd need to compare levelized cost per kWh saved over the measure lifetime.

>

> Steve

>

>>>> "Hirsch, Bruce R" < Bruce.R.Hirsch@bge.com<mailto:Bruce.R.Hirsch@bge.com >> 11/15/2011 7:37

AM >>>

> John’s points are well taken. Keep in mind that the DOE numbers indicate a payback at EL4 only if

amorphous steel is used. Thus, to assume that because it can be built using M3 steel, all is well, is totally

untrue. In John’s auto analogy, at least the custom er has a choice of spending the extra money. In our

case, the customer will have no choice.

>

> We all also need to understand that there is not an infinite supply of money to spend on efficiency

improvements. By forcing utilities to spend money on improving transformer e fficiencies, we may very

well be taking money out of other efficiency programs which have a much higher payback than what is

being proposed here. In BGE’s case our package of efficiency programs cost us approximately $139 per

kilowatt saved. What is being proposed here is up to 100 times mo re costly. If BGE pulls back funds from

other efficiency programs to pay the high costs for transformer efficiencies, we would see a significant

decline in efficiency improvements overall.

>

Bruce

>

>

>

> From: Caskey, John [ mailto:Joh_Caskey@nema.org ]

> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 3:14 PM

> To: Robert Berman; Hirsch, Bruce R

> Cc: 'Steve Nadel'; Phil Hopkinson; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com<mailt o:Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com >;

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com<mai lto:jerry.schoen@aksteel.com >; Maxine (EMAB) Savitz;

mhyland@appanet.org<mailto:mhyland@appanet.org >;

Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com<mai lto:Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com >;

maheshsampat@bellsouth.net<mailt o:maheshsampat@bellsouth.net>;tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com<mai

lto:tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com >; dbrender@cda.copper.org<mailto:dbrender@cda.copper.org >;

James.Lass@cleco.com<mailto:James.Lass@cleco.com >;

chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com<ma ilto:chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com >;

frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com<mailt o:frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com >;

ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com<mailt o:ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com >; Aaron Meyers;

Antonio Trujillo; Jack C Moore; Jerry L Corkran;

tballo@earthjustice.org<mailt o:tballo@earthjustice.org >;

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com<ma ilto:carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com >;

eduardorobles@eaton.com<mailto:eduardorobles@eaton.com >; Emily (CONTR) Marchetti; Jeremiah

(CONTR) Freeman; Jim Raba; John Cymbalsky;srosenstock@eei.org< mailto:srosenstock@eei.org >;DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com<mailto:DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com >;

rick.anderson@faypwc.com<mailto:rick.anderson@faypwc.com >;

bsmith@federalpacific.com<mailto:bsmith@federalpacific.com >;

rgreeson@federalpacific.com<mailt o:rgreeson@federalpacific.com >;

carlos.gaytan@ge.com<mailto:carlos.gaytan@ge.com >;

artrosenfeld@gmail.com<mailto:artrosenfeld@gmail.com >;

greg.coulter405@gmail.com<mailto :greg.coulter405@gmail.com>;ned .efbrush@gmail.com<mailto:ned.

efbrush@gmail.com >; Richard Parker; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com<mailto:Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com >;

jhodge@howard.com<mailto:jhodge@howard.com >; Daniel Cohen;

cabolduc@lbl.gov<mailto:cabolduc@lbl.gov >; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov<mailto:gjrosenquist@lbl.gov >;

kcoughlin@lbl.gov<mailto:kcoughlin@lbl.gov >; ScottB@LVMetals.com<mailto:ScottB@LVMetals.com >;

dave.millure@metglas.com<mailto:dave.millure@met glas.com>;kwinder@mleainc.com<mailto:kwinder

@mleainc.com >; jrossetti@mlgw.org<mailto:jrossetti@mlgw.org >;

brian.coffey@navigant.com<mailto:brian.coffey@navigant.com >;

caitlin.johnson@navigant.com<mailto:caitlin.johnson@navigant.com >;

matthew.nardotti@navigant.com<mailto:matthew.nardotti@navigant.com >;

mrivest@navigant.com<mailto:mrivest@navigant.com >;

zhimei.luo@navigant.com<mailto:zhimei.luo@navigant.com >; Creevy,

Jim;mwaltner@nrdc.org< mailto:mwaltner@nrdc.org >; rroy@nrdc.org<mailto:rroy@nrdc.org >;

robert.saint@nreca.coop<ma ilto:robert.saint@nreca.coop >;

Teckman@nwcouncil.org<mailt o:Teckman@nwcouncil.org >;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com<mailt o:vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com >;

gbf1@pge.com<mailto:gbf1@pge.com >;

chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com<mail to:chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com >;

ahofmann@publicpower.org<mailto:ahofmann@public power.org>;pkumar@publicpower.org<mailto:p

kumar@publicpower.org >; adelaski@standardsASAP.org<mailto:adelaski@standardsASAP.org >;

jmauer@standardsasap.org<mailto:jmauer@standardsasap.org >;

wes.patterson@us.abb.com<mailto:wes.patterson@us.abb.com >; chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com<mailto:chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com >; thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com<mailto:thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com >;

charlied@uus.org<mailto:charlied@uus.org >

> Subject: RE: Negotiated Rulemaking

‐ Distribution Transformers Teleconference

>

> Robert

>

> You continue to reference the ABB data presented by Wes Patterson as indicating that since a

transformer was sold at the EL3 or EL4 efficiency level that this level is cost effective. Specifically, you

state “Market sales data, however, is quite re al. In this case it unambiguously says that the transformers

at EL4 are an economically reasonable choice

‐‐ the market has, in fact, selected that choice on multiple

occasions”. This is simply NOT TRUE.

>

> Just because a person buys as Jaguar for $100k that gets 25 mp g in place of a $40k Cadillac that gets

20 mpg; does NOT mean that the $60k delta will ever be “economically reasonable” for the extra 5 mpg.

You seem to be assuming that all of the transformers purchased from ABB that meet the efficiency

levels were purchased for efficiency rea sons. This is simply not fact. The fact is that one large

transformer manufacturer was able to produce distribution transformers at EL3 and EL4 using M3 steel.

To my knowledge, Wes did not state the price for these transformers. In addition, just because onecompany can produce this product doesn’t mean that all transformer manufacturers can make this

product at this level using M3 steel.

>

> My hope is that we can all understand the facts and the analysis results better over the next few

weeks so that we can negotiate a solution that be nefits the consumers, the ratepayers, the

manufacturers, the environment, etc. I plan to stay at the table till the end of the negotiation process.

>

> Regards,

>

> John

>

> John F. Caskey, CEM

> Assistant Vice President, Industry Operations

> National Electrical Manufacturers Assoc. (NEMA)

> 1300 North 17th Stree t

‐ Suite 1752

> Rosslyn, VA 22209

> john.caskey@nema.org<mailto:john.caskey@nema.org >

> 703

‐ 841

‐ 3233 Voice

> 703

‐ 841

‐ 3333 FAX

> 703

‐ 350

‐ 6886 Cell

> From: Robert Berman [ mailto:bermaneconomics@gmail.com ]

> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 1:19 PM

> To: Hirsch, Bruce R

> Cc: 'Steve Nadel'; Robert Berman; Phil Hopkinson;

Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com<mai lto:Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com >;

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com<mai lto:jerry.schoen@aksteel.com >; Maxine (EMAB) Savitz;

mhyland@appanet.org<mailto:mhyland@appanet.org >;

Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com<mailto:Raymon d.Polinski@ATImetals.com>;maheshsampat@bellsou

th.net<mailto:maheshsampat@bellsouth.net >;

tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com<mail to:tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com >;

dbrender@cda.copper.org<mailto:dbrender@cda.copper.org >;

James.Lass@cleco.com<mailto:James.Lass@cleco.com >;

chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com<ma ilto:chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com >;

frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com<mailto:frank. guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com>;ted.johnstone@co

gentpowerinc.com<mailto:ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com >; Aaron Meyers; Antonio Trujillo; Jack

C Moore; Jerry L Corkran; tballo@earthjustice.org<mailt o:tballo@earthjustice.org >;

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com<ma ilto:carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com >;

eduardorobles@eaton.com<mailto:eduardorobles@eaton.com >; Emily (CONTR) Marchetti; Jeremiah

(CONTR) Freeman; Jim Raba; John Cymbalsky; srosenstock@eei.org<ma ilto:srosenstock@eei.org >;

DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com<mailto:DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com >;

rick.anderson@faypwc.com<mailto:rick.anderson@faypwc.com >;

bsmith@federalpacific.com<mailto:bsmith@federalpacific.com >;

rgreeson@federalpacific.com<mailt o:rgreeson@federalpacific.com >;

carlos.gaytan@ge.com<mailto:carlos.gaytan@ge.com >;artrosenfeld@gmail.com<mailto:artrosenfeld@g

mail.com >; greg.coulter405@gmail.com<mail to:greg.coulter405@gmail.com >;

ned.efbrush@gmail.com<mailto:ned.efbrush@gmail.com >; Richard Parker;

Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com<mailto:Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com >;

jhodge@howard.com<mailto:jhodge@howard.com >; Daniel Cohen;cabolduc@lbl.gov<mailto:cabolduc@lbl.gov >; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov<mailto:gjrosenquist@lbl.gov >;

kcoughlin@lbl.gov<mailto:kcoughlin@lbl.gov>;Sc ottB@LVMetals.com<mailto:ScottB@LVMetals.com >;

dave.millure@metglas.com<mai lto:dave.millure@metglas.com >;

kwinder@mleainc.com<mailto:kwinder@mleainc.com >;

jrossetti@mlgw.org<mailto:jrossetti@mlgw.org >;

brian.coffey@navigant.com<mailto:brian.coffey@navigant.com >;

caitlin.johnson@navigant.com<mailto:caitlin.johnson@navigant.com >;

matthew.nardotti@navigant.com<mailto:matthew.nardotti@navigant.com >;

mrivest@navigant.com<mailto:mrivest@navigant.c om>;zhimei.luo@navigant.com<mailto:zhimei.luo@

navigant.com >; Creevy, Jim; Caskey, John; mwaltner@nrdc.org<mailto:mwaltner@nrdc.org >;

rroy@nrdc.org<mailto:rroy@nrdc.org >; robert.saint@nreca.coop<ma ilto:robert.saint@nreca.coop >;

Teckman@nwcouncil.org<mailt o:Teckman@nwcouncil.org >;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com<mailt o:vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com >;

gbf1@pge.com<mailto:gbf1@pge.com>;chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com<mailto:chuck.simmons@pgnmai

l.com >; ahofmann@publicpower.org<mailto:ahofmann@publicpower.org >;

pkumar@publicpower.org<mailto:pkumar@publicpower.org >;

adelaski@standardsASAP.org<mailto:adelaski@standardsASAP.org >;

jmauer@standardsasap.org<mailto:jmauer@standardsasap.org >;

wes.patterson@us.abb.com<mailto:wes.patterson@us.abb.com >; chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com<mailto:chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com>;thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com<mailto:thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com >;

charlied@uus.org<mailto:charlied@uus.org >

> Subject: Re: Negotiated Rulemaking

‐ Distribution Transformers Teleconference

>

> Bruce,

>

> Those upfront transformer costs are compared to the fuel cost savings in the LCC approach. The

discounting process values fuel cost saving in the future at less than the costs incurred today. The

positive LCC means that that the effici ency advocates are not ignoring costs, but comparing them with

benefits and finding that the consumer is better off and will be paying less. One does not, however,

need to rely on the LBL analysis to see this. The ABB sales data shows M3 transformers being delivered

at EL4 effici ency. As a modeler, I am always skeptical of model results

‐‐ people do not live in computers

and certainly not on in some of the back

‐ of

‐ the

‐ envelope calculations that we have seen from others.

Market sales data, however, is quite real. In this case it unambiguously says that the transfor mers at EL4

are an economically reasonable choice

‐‐ the market has, in fact, selected that choice on multiple

occasions.

>

> To the extent that there are dug

‐ in positions, again the evidence does not support that it is the

efficiency advocates that are dug

‐ in. Although EL4 is achievable and be neficial based both on market

data and LBL analyses, the proponents of greater efficiency indicated a willingness to compromise. It is

certain representatives of the industry who have consistently said either no change, or a fractional

change. It is those industry representatives who appear to be advancing the "my position or nothin g"

attitude. Although I happen to agree that substantial movement towards more efficient distribution

systems, I also note that these are incredibly expensive meetings. We have a large number of very

senior people devoting substantial time to the meetings, their preparation and non

‐ trivial travel costs.

These people have other things compe ting for their time. If you and others honestly believe that you

cannot agree to a higher standard, and place no value on regulatory certainty, then let's not waste

additional time and money. Let's just say that we gave it a good shot, cut our losses here, and make ourrespective cases to DOE outside the negotiation process and let DOE make it's own decision. I believe

that they certainly have sufficient information to support their position in a February NOPR. I can't

imagine what else they would need.

>

> Regards,

>

> Robert A. Berman, Principal

> Berman Economics

> www.BermanEconomics .com<http ://www.BermanEconomics.com >

> 1915 Grand Court

> Vienna, VA 22182

> 703

‐ 281

‐ 0490

> 703

‐ 655

‐ 8398 (cell)

> BermanEconomics@gmail.com<mailt o:BermanEconomics@gmail.com >

>

>

>

>

>

>

> On Nov 14, 2011, at 11:49 AM, Hirsch, Bruce R wrote:

>

> Steve,

>

> I am disappointed with your approach to this assignment.

>

> It appears that negotiation to you is defined as agreeing with your position

‐‐‐ or calling it o ff. It is

unfortunate that you believe the American public, especially in these trying economic times, should be

expected to foot the (very large) bill for more efficient transformers when it is still not certain that there

is value in doing so. You have clung to one suspect calculation that indicates the re may be a payback

‐‐‐

in the distant future

‐‐‐ and only if all the assumptions being made pan out. You choose to ignore the

costs, not yet factored in, on US jobs, US businesses and the reliability of supply of an item so

desperately needed for our economy to expand.

>

> This is not a “cut and drie d” economic decision but is one that needs to be taken seriously for the

major impact it could have on the electric supply of the US and the financial position of the American

public. If DOE makes the final decision on this, I would expect the m to do “due diligence” in considering

all the effects there decision would have on US businesses and the US economy.

>

> Let it be known that the Utility Industry has not pulled out of the negotiation process and will continue

to work with DOE to reach the ri ght decision.

>

> Bruce.

>

> From: Steve Nadel [ mailto:snadel@aceee.org ]< mailto:[mailto:snadel@aceee.org] >

> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 2:16 PM

> To: Robert Berman; Phil Hopkinson> Cc: Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com<ma ilto:Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com >;

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com<mai lto:jerry.schoen@aksteel.com >; Maxine (EMAB) Savitz;

mhyland@appanet.org<mailto:mhyland@appanet.org >;

Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com<mai lto:Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com >;

maheshsampat@bellsouth.net<mailto:maheshsampat@bellsouth.net >; Hirsch, Bruce R;

tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com<mailto :tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com>;dbrender@cda.copper.org<mailto:dbr

ender@cda.copper.org >; James.Lass@cleco.com<mailt o:James.Lass@cleco.com >;

chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com<ma ilto:chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com >;

frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com<mailt o:frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com >;

ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com<mailt o:ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com >; Aaron Meyers;

Antonio Trujillo; Jack C Moore; Jerry L Corkran;

tballo@earthjustice.org<mailt o:tballo@earthjustice.org >;

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com<ma ilto:carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com >;

eduardorobles@eaton.com<mailto:eduardorobles@eaton.com >; Emily (CONTR) Marchetti; Jeremiah

(CONTR) Freeman; Jim Raba; John Cymbalsky; srosenstock@eei.org<ma ilto:srosenstock@eei.org >;

DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com<mailto:DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com >;

rick.anderson@faypwc.com<mailto:rick.anderson@faypwc.com >;

bsmith@federalpacific.com<mailto:bsmith@federalpacific.com >;

rgreeson@federalpacific.com<mailt o:rgreeson@federalpacific.com >;

carlos.gaytan@ge.com<mailto:carlos.gaytan@ge.com >;

artrosenfeld@gmail.com<mailto:artrosenfeld@gmail.com >;

greg.coulter405@gmail.com<mail to:greg.coulter405@gmail.com >;

ned.efbrush@gmail.com<mailto:ned.efbrush@gmail.com >; Richard Parker;

Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com<mailto:Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com >;

jhodge@howard.com<mailto:jhodge@howard.com >; Daniel Cohen;

cabolduc@lbl.gov<mailto:cabolduc@lbl.gov >; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov<mailto:gjrosenquist@lbl.gov >;

kcoughlin@lbl.gov<mailto:kcoughlin@lbl.gov >; ScottB@LVMetals.com<mailto:ScottB@LVMetals.com >;

dave.millure@metglas.com<mai lto:dave.millure@metglas.com >;

kwinder@mleainc.com<mailto:kwinder@mleainc.co m>;jrossetti@mlgw.org<mailto:jrossetti@mlgw.org

>; brian.coffey@navigant.com<mailto:brian.coffey@navigant.com >;

caitlin.johnson@navigant.com<mailto:caitlin.johnson@navigant.com >;

matthew.nardotti@navigant.com<mailto:matthew.nardotti@navigant.com >;

mrivest@navigant.com<mailto:mrivest@navigant.com >;

zhimei.luo@navigant.com<mailto:zhimei.luo@navigant.com >;

Jim.creevy@nema.org<mailto:Jim.creevy@nema.org >;

john.caskey@nema.org<mailto:john.caskey@nema.or g>;mwaltner@nrdc.org<mailto:mwaltner@nrdc.o

rg >; rroy@nrdc.org<mailto:rroy@nrdc.org >;

robert.saint@nreca.coop<ma ilto:robert.saint@nreca.coop >;

Teckman@nwcouncil.org<mailt o:Teckman@nwcouncil.org >;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com<mailt o:vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com >;

gbf1@pge.com<mailto:gbf1@pge.com >;

chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com<mail to:chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com >;

ahofmann@publicpower.org<mailto:ahofmann@public power.org>;pkumar@publicpower.org<mailto:p

kumar@publicpower.org >; adelaski@standardsASAP.org<mailto:adelaski@standardsASAP.org >;

jmauer@standardsasap.org<mailto:jmauer@standardsasap.org >;

wes.patterson@us.abb.com<mailto:wes.patterson@us.abb.com >; chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com<mailto:chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com >; thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐electric.com<mailto:thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com >;

charlied@uus.org<mailto:charlied@uus.org >

> Subject: RE: Negotiated Rulemaking

‐ Distribution Transformers Teleconference

>

> Phil,

>

> We're in the middle of negotiations and some of us have made clear that no or little change to the

standard is not acceptable as the DOE analysis justifies higher standards (higher levels are technically

feasible and cost

‐ effective on a life

‐ cycle cost basis). The efficiency groups would rather leav e the

decision to DOE than agree to subpar standards. If you and other participants want to veto any

significant change in the standard, then we might as well save some time, break off negotiations and

just make our respective ar guments to DOE. Is that what you want to do? If the answer is no, then let's

start talking about how to make higher standards acceptable rather than continue to make arguments

about why low standards are needed. We're all busy and if we're going to make progress we nee d to

break new ground and not rehash old ground.

>

> Steve

>

>>>> Phil Hopkinson < phopkinson@hvolt.com<mailto:phopkinson@hvolt.com >> 11/11/2011 1:16 PM

>>>

> Hello Robert and all:

>

> You must not have looked at Jerry Corkran’s message because he found the cost to be $17/watt,

which is pretty close to my number, where both Jerry and I have used M3 core steel to derive the cost

curve. Th e fact is that the cost curve is very steep with M3 and quickly hits the brick wall.

>

> 1. I have checked Carlos Gaytan’s cost curves as well and he is finding about the same relationship

with M3.

> 2. I have checked Wes Patterson’s data as well and he is finding an M3 cost curve ab out the same

as mine.

> 3. I have checked the OPS data with M3 as well and it too is very close to $20/watt.

> a. For example, for design line 1 they show an efficiency at 50% load of 99.08% which translates to

232 watts of loss and sells for $1,960.73.

> b. They show another M3 design with an efficiency of 99.26% which translates to 186 watts of loss

and sells for $2962.11.

> c. The change in selling price is $2,962.11

‐ $1,906.11 or +$1,001.38

> d. The change in watts is 232

‐ 186 or ‐ 46 watts.

> e. The OPS $/watt is therefore, $1,001.38/46 watts or $21.77

> f. Hence we see that all data sources are pointing to cost per watt of ~$20 /watt saved to go from

the current mandatory standard to EL1. I get $30/watt to go to EL2 and $53/watt to go to EL3

> 4. The fact is that M3 is about out of gas and the DOE did a good job in the last rule making.

> 5. The fact also is that a push to anything beyond present does not show economic value and I do

not support it.

> 6. The fact also is that a push to higher efficiencies will kill the new transformer market and open

up the rebuild market, destroying jobs at the new transformer manufacturers and resulting in

transformers of lower efficiency which will cost energy and not save it.

>

> Best regards,>

> Phil

>

> Philip J Hopkinson, PE

> President & CEO HVOLT Inc.

> 3704 High Ridge Rd.

> Charlotte, NC 28270

> phopkinson@hvolt.com<mailto:phopkinson@hvolt.com >

> Ph 704

‐ 846

‐ 3290

> Fx 704

‐ 845

‐ 2520

> Cell 704

‐ 236

‐ 3320

> www.hvolt.com<http://www.hvolt.com/ >

>

> From: Robert Berman

[ mailto:bermaneconomics@gmail.com ]< mailto:[mailto:berman economics@gmail.com] >

> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 11:16 AM

> To: Phil Hopkinson

> Cc: Corkran, Jerry L; Richard Parker; Freeman, Jeremiah (CONTR);

rick.anderson@faypwc.com<mailto:rick.anderson@faypwc.com >;

tballo@earthjustice.org<mailt o:tballo@earthjustice.org >;

ScottB@LVMetals.com<mailto:ScottB@LVMetals.com >;

john.caskey@nema.org<mailto:john.caskey@nema.org >; Cymbalsky, John;

adelaski@standardsASAP.org<mailto:adelaski@stand ardsASAP.org>;Teckman@nwcouncil.org<mailto:T

eckman@nwcouncil.org >; gbf1@pge.com<mailto:gbf1@pge.com >;

carlos.gaytan@ge.com<mailto:carlos.gaytan@ge.com >;

rgreeson@federalpacific.com<mailt o:rgreeson@federalpacific.com >;

bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com<mailto:bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com >;

jhodge@howard.com<mailto:jhodge@howard.com >;

mhyland@appanet.org<mailto:mhyland@appanet.org >;

dave.millure@metglas.com<mai lto:dave.millure@metglas.com >;

snadel@aceee.org<mailto:snadel@aceee.org>;wes.patterson@us.abb.com<mailto:wes.patterson@us.a

bb.com >; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com<ma ilto:Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com >;

Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com<mai lto:Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com >;

artrosenfeld@gmail.com<mailto:artrosenfeld@gmail.com >;

srosenstock@eei.org<ma ilto:srosenstock@eei.org >; rroy@nrdc.org<mailto:rroy@nrdc.org >;

robert.saint@nreca.coop<ma ilto:robert.saint@nreca.coop >;

chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com<mailto:chuck.simmons @pgnmail.com>;kwinder@mleainc.com<mailto:k

winder@mleainc.com >; mwaltner@nrdc.org<mailto:mwaltner@nrdc.org >;

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com<mai lto:jerry.schoen@aksteel.com >;

Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com<mailto:Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com >;

ahofmann@publicpower.org<mailto:ahofmann@publicpower.org >;

pkumar@publicpower.org<mailto:pkumar@publicpower.org >;

bsmith@federalpacific.com<mailto:bsmith@federalpacific.com >;

greg.coulter405@gmail.com<mailto :greg.coulter405@gmail.com>;jma uer@standardsasap.org<mailto:j

mauer@standardsasap.org >; Cohen, Daniel; Meyers, Aaron;

Jim.creevy@nema.org<mailto:Jim.creevy@nema.org >;

jrossetti@mlgw.org<mailto:jrossetti@mlgw.org >; cabolduc@lbl.gov<mailto:cabolduc@lbl.gov >;

kcoughlin@lbl.gov<mailto:kcoughlin@lbl.gov >;brian.coffey@navigant.com<mailto:brian.coffey@navigant.com >;

mrivest@navigant.com<mailto:mrivest@navigant.com >;

gjrosenquist@lbl.gov<mailto:gjrosenquist@lbl.gov>; caitlin.johnson@navigant.com<mailto:caitlin.johnso

n@navigant.com >; zhimei.luo@navigant.com<mailto:zhimei.luo@navigant.com >; Marchetti, Emily

(CONTR); charlied@uus.org<mailto:charlied@uus.org >; DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com<mailto:DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com >;

James.Lass@cleco.com<mailto:James.Lass@cleco.com >;

maheshsampat@bellsouth.net<ma ilto:maheshsampat@bellsouth.net>;matthew.nardotti@navigant.co

m<mailto:matthew.nardotti@navigant.com >; Raba, Jim; Savitz, Maxine (EMAB);

tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com<mail to:tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com >;

chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com<ma ilto:chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com >;

ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com<mailt o:ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com >;

frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com<mailto:frank. guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com>;ned.efbrush@gma

il.com<mailto:ned.efbrush@gmail.com >;

dbrender@cda.copper.org<mailto:dbrender@cda.copper.org >; chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com<mailto:chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com >;

eduardorobles@eaton.com<mailto:eduardorobles@eaton.com >;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com<mailt o:vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com >;

thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com<mailto:thom as.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com>;carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com<mailto:carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com >; Robert Berman;

Trujillo, Antonio; Moore, Jack C

> Subject: Re: Negotiated Rulemaking

‐ Distribution Transformers Teleconference

>

> Even if it were that high (and Mr. Hopkinson is the only one I've seen who has put the number

anywhere near that), the efficiency objective is saving Watt

‐ hours (energy) not Watts (the capac ity to

save energy)

. One Watt saved for 8,760 hours per year for 30 years is 262.8 kWh (not counting leap

years). Even at Mr. Hutchinson's $20, that's just over 7¢ / kWh. If Mr. Hutchinson will examine his

electric bill, as he has reported, he will see that eve n as high as 7¢ it's a good buy, and that assumes we

put a ZERO value on any environmental benefits (which is why DOE agreed to reconsider its 2007 MEPS

in the first place.

>

> Indeed, the cost of losses per Watt (roughly the A factors that OPS has been using ) are no where near

the $20 claimed here. Moreover, as ABB and others have pointed out, the proper approach would have

been to minimize cost subject to efficiency, not A & B, which would have resulted in a lower, flatter

curve to the asymptote. ABB's actual market data

‐‐ physical transformers produced and delivered

‐‐

shows a competitive market for M3 transformers even at EL4 efficiency. You can make all the

hypothetical claims you want to, gentlemen, the market is the real world.

>

> Regards,

>

> Robert A. Berman, Principal

> Berman Economics

> www.BermanEconomics.com<http ://www.BermanEconomics.com >

> 1915 Grand Court

> Vienna, VA 22182

> 703

‐ 281

‐ 0490

> 703

‐ 655

‐ 8398 (cell)

> BermanEconomics@gmail.com<mailt o:BermanEconomics@gmail.com >>

>

>

>

>

>

> On Nov 10, 2011, at 6:53 PM, Phil Hopkinson wrote:

>

> Well stated Jerry

>

> That is also what my analysis and report said. If you restrict to M3 then the cost of EL1 rises to about

$20/watt.

>

> Phil

>

> Phil Hopkin son,P.E.

> HVolt Inc.

> 704

‐ 846

‐ 3290

> F: 704

‐ 845

‐ 2520

> C: 704

‐ 236

‐ 3320

> phopkinson@hvolt.com<mailto:phopkinson@hvolt.com >

>

> On Nov 10, 2011, at 18:04, "Corkran, Jerry L"

< Jerry.Corkran@CooperIndustries.com<mailt o:Jerry.Corkran@CooperIndustries.com >> wrote:

> To Mr. Parker and the DOE working group,

>

> The reason for the request for the incremental cost of the losses is that the current DOE efficiency

levels can be obtained if the design is optimized at about $4 per core watt and $1 per winding watt at

full load. At the DOE 50% kVA rating, this is the same as evaluating the losses or optimizi ng the design at

about $4 per total watts loss.

>

> The present DOE efficiency loss level results in transformer designs about like many utilities were

purchasing their transformers before 2007. The utilities were purchasing the efficien cy levels that were

justified based on the cost of losses. A few utilities were purchasing higher efficiency that the 2007

efficiency rules because of the calculated cost of energy being higher than the $4/$1 loss evaluation.

>

> What came up in the discussion last week was ev en for loss level 1, the incremental cost of losses was

about $17 per watt for the design checked, between the present DOE losses an efficiency level of DEL1.

The added cost of $17 per watt is so much higher than the typical cost of the energy for the utilities, that

it is very ques tionable that the DOE payback estimates are accurate. A 3% interest rate may be a factor

in the payback calculations.

>

>

> Jerry Corkran

>

>

> From: Richard Parker

[ mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com ]< mailto:[mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 3:23 PM

> To: Robert Berman

> Cc: Freeman, Jeremiah (CONTR); rick.anderson@faypwc.com<mailto:rick.anderson@faypwc.com >;

tballo@earthjustice.org<mailt o:tballo@earthjustice.org >;

ScottB@LVMetals.com<mailto:ScottB@LVMetals.com >;

john.caskey@nema.org<mailto:john.caskey@nema.org >; Corkran, Jerry L; Cymbalsky, John;

adelaski@standardsASAP.org<mailto:adelaski@stand ardsASAP.org>;Teckman@nwcouncil.org<mailto:T

eckman@nwcouncil.org >; gbf1@pge.com<mailto:gbf1@pge.com >;

carlos.gaytan@ge.com<mailto:carlos.gaytan@ge.com >;

rgreeson@federalpacific.com<mailt o:rgreeson@federalpacific.com >;

bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com<mailto:bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com >;

jhodge@howard.com<mailto:jhodge@howard.com >;

mhyland@appanet.org<mailto:mhyland@appanet.org >;

dave.millure@metglas.com<mailto:dave.millure@met glas.com>;snadel@aceee. org<mailto:snadel@ace

ee.org >; wes.patterson@us.abb.com<mailto:wes.patterson@us.abb.com >;

Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com<mai lto:Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com >;

Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com<mai lto:Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com >;

artrosenfeld@gmail.com<mailto:artrosenfeld@gmail.com >;

srosenstock@eei.org<ma ilto:srosenstock@eei.org >; rroy@nrdc.org<mailto:rroy@nrdc.org >;

robert.saint@nreca.coop<mailto:robert.saint@nre ca.coop>;chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com<mailto:chuc

k.simmons@pgnmail.com >; kwinder@mleainc.com<mailto:kwinder@mleainc.com >;

mwaltner@nrdc.org<mailto:mwaltner@nrdc.org >;

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com<mai lto:jerry.schoen@aksteel.com >;

Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com<mailto:Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com >;

ahofmann@publicpower.org<mailto:ahofmann@publicpower.org >;

pkumar@publicpower.org<mailto:pkumar@publicpower.org>;bsmith@federalpacific.com<mailto:bsmit

h@federalpacific.com >; greg.coulter405@gmail.com<mail to:greg.coulter405@gmail.com >;

jmauer@standardsasap.org<mailto:jmauer@standardsasap.org >; Cohen, Daniel; Meyers, Aaron;

Jim.creevy@nema.org<mailto:Jim.creevy@nema.org >;

jrossetti@mlgw.org<mailto:jrossetti@mlgw.org >; cabolduc@lbl.gov<mailto:cabolduc@lbl.gov >;

kcoughlin@lbl.gov<mailto:kcoughlin@lbl.gov>;bria n.coffey@navigant.com<mailto:brian.coffey@naviga

nt.com >; mrivest@navigant.com<mailto:mrivest@navigant.com >;

gjrosenquist@lbl.gov<mailto:gjrosenquist@lbl.gov >;

caitlin.johnson@navigant.com<mailto:caitlin.johnson@navigant.com >;

zhimei.luo@navigant.com<mailto:zhimei.luo@navigant.com >; Marchetti, Emily (CONTR);

charlied@uus.org<mailto:charlied@uus.org >; DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com<mailto:DYoung@energy

‐

solution.com >; James.Lass@cleco.com<mailto:James.Lass@cleco.com >;

maheshsampat@bellsouth.net<mailto:maheshsampat@bellsouth.net >;

phopkinson@hvolt.com<mailt o:phopkinson@hvolt.com >;

matthew.nardotti@navigant.com<mailto:matthew.nardotti@navigant.com >; Raba, Jim; Savitz, Maxine

(EMAB);

tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com<mailto :tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com>;chr is.brown@cogentpowerinc.com<m

ailto:chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com >;

ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com<mailt o:ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com >;

frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com<mailt o:frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com >;

ned.efbrush@gmail.com<mailto:ned.efbrush@gmail.com >;

dbrender@cda.copper.org<mailto:dbrender@cda.copper.org >; chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com<mailto:chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com >;eduardorobles@eaton.com<mailto:eduardorobles@eaton.com >;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com<mailt o:vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com >;

thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com<mailto:thom as.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com >;

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com<ma ilto:carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com >

> Subject: Re: Negotiated Rulemaking

‐ Distribution Transformers Teleconference

>

> Robert,

>

> I understand the DOE staff are working on the incremental Watts calculations and will get that out to

group as soon as it's ready.

>

> best wishes,

> Richard

> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Robert Berman

< bermaneco nomics@gmail.com<mailt o:bermaneconomics@gmail.com >> wrote:

> Thank you Richard. That clarification is helpful.

>

> In the liquid

‐ filled meeting we were told that we would receive an analysis of incremental Watts saved

by DL for all ELs, as well as the incremental cost. When will that analysis be available? For many of us,

that an alysis is the basis for additional, perhaps extensive analyses, so it should come with enough lead

time before any additional meetings or teleconferences to that we can give it the required

consideration. It would be most helpful if the incremental cost were provided separately for transformer

and installation, with any pole com ponent of the installation identified.

>

> For the MV Dry and LV Dry meetings, it would be most helpful if you would also circulate an agenda

with objectives, hopefully this week, so that we are able to prepare for those meetings.

>

> Regards,

>

> Robert A. Be rman, Principal

> Berman Economics

> www.BermanEconomics.com<http://www.BermanEconomics.com/ >

> 1915 Grand Court

> Vienna, VA 22182

> 703

‐ 281

‐ 0490< tel:703

‐ 281

‐ 0490 >

> 703

‐ 655

‐ 8398<tel:703

‐ 655

‐ 8398> (cell)

> BermanEconomics@gmail.com<mailt o:BermanEconomics@gmail.com>

>

>

>

>

>

> On Nov 10, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Richard Parker wrote:

>

> Dear Colleagues:

>

> The telcon on the 17th is currently planned for medium

‐ voltage dry

‐ type and the telcon on the 21st is

reserved for low

‐ voltage. There w ill be revised analysis circulated in advance of both calls per ourdiscussion yesterday. Each call has substantial chunks of time allocated, though I hope we won't need

all that time.

>

> It may be prudent to schedule a liquid

‐ filled call at some point as well, but I propose that we hold off

on that for day or so, until we can clarif y when revised analysis for liquid

‐ filled will be ready.

>

> Thanks for your very constructive participation in the meetings over the last two days.

>

> Richard Parker

> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Freeman, Jeremiah (CONTR)

<Jeremiah.Freeman@ee.doe.gov<mailt o:Jeremiah.Freeman@ee.doe.gov>> wrote:

> When: Thursday, November 17, 2011 1:00 PM

‐ 5:00 PM (G MT

‐ 05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

> Where: Webinar and Phone

>

> Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments.

>

> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

>

> Dear Colleagues,

>

> This event is to save the time slot on your calendar based on our discussion at yesterday's meeti ng.

Later today further information will be sent regarding the registration information for our November 17

and November 21 webinars. After registering you will get the link for the webinar and a toll free

number.

>

> Please call with questions or concerns.

>

> Very Respe ctfully,

> Jeremiah Freeman

> 202

‐ 431

‐ 4243<tel:202

‐ 431

‐ 4243> (cell)

> 202

‐ 586

‐ 1867<tel:202

‐ 586

‐ 1867> (office)

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>>>> This e

‐ mail and any attachments are confidential, may contain legal,

> professional or other privileged information, and are intended solely for th e

> addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, do not use the information

> in this e

‐ mail in any way, delete this e

‐ mail and notify the sender. CEG

‐ IP2

>

>

>