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

Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 2:20 PM

To: Meyers, Aaron

Cc: Christopher Bolduc; Richard Parker; <rick.anderson@faypwc.com>; <tballo@earthjustice.org>;

<ScottB@lvmetals.com>; <john.caskey@nema.org>; Corkran, Jerry L; <john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov>;

<adelaski@standardsasap.org>; <Teckman@nwcouncil.org>; <gbf1@pge.com>;

<carlos.gaytan@ge.com>; <rgreeson@federalpacific.com>; <bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com>;

<jhodge@howard.com>; <mhyland@appanet.org>; <dave.millure@metglas.com>;

<snadel@aceee.org>; <wes.patterson@us.abb.com>; <Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com>;

<Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com>; <artrosenfeld@gmail.com>; <srosenstock@eei.org>;

<rroy@nrdc.org>; <robert.saint@nreca.coop>; <chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com>;

<BermanEconomics@gmail.com>; <Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov>; <greg.coulter405@gmail.com>;

<Jim.creevy@nema.org>; <ahofmann@publicpower.org>; <pkumar@publicpower.org>;

<jmauer@sta ndardsasap.org>; <jrossetti@mlgw.org>; <Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com>;

<jerry.schoen@aksteel.com>; <bsmith@federalpacific.com>; <mwaltner@nrdc.org>;

<kwinder@mleainc.com>; Brian Coffey; <kcoughlin@lbl.gov>; <brenda.edwards@ee.doe.gov>;

<jeremiah.freeman@ee.doe.gov>; Caitlin Johnson; Zhimei Luo; <emily.marchetti@ee.doe.gov>; Michael

Rivest; <gjrosenquist@lbl.gov>; <charlied@uus.org>; <phopkinson@hvolt.com>;

<James.Lass@cleco.com>; <maheshsampat@bellsouth.net>; <DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com>;

<chad.kennedy@us.schneider

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

<vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com>; <thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com>;

<carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com>; Raba, Jim; Meyers,Aaron

Subject: Re: MV Liquid

‐ immersed LCC and NIA Results

In addition to the pricing scenarios requ ested, it would be most helpful if you could also (1) run some

scenarios based on historic variability, and/or multiples of historic variability; and (2) show the various

scenarios against actual historic relative prices.

Regards,

Robert A. Berman, Principal

Berman Economics

1915 Grand Court

Vienna, VA 22182703.281.0490

703.655.8398 (cell)

Berman.Economics@gmail.com

www.BermanEconomics.com

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 3, 2011, at 11:34 AM, "Meyers, Aaron" < Aaron.Meyers@CooperIndustries.com > wrote:

> Chris,

> As we discussed on the phone last week, regarding the sensitivity

> analysis and specifically how wide to cast the net in terms of

> amorphous cost, I would recommend using the AK Steel presentation as guidance.

> The reason I'm recommending this is because it was based on actual

> analysis rather than just being arbitrarily chosen

. So in considering

> dTSL1, the cost of amorphous is shown to be approximately $2000/ton

> greater for M3 than for amorphous, thus $1/lb would seem appropriate.

> For evaluating dTSL2, M3 has a $5000/ton disadvantage, so $2.50/lb

> would be appropriate. For dTSL3 and beyond, you're going to have to

> extrapolate, but it will not be a small or inconseq uential amount.

>

> Best Regards,

> Aaron

>

> ‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message

‐‐‐‐‐> From: Christopher Bolduc [ mailto:cabolduc@lbl.gov ]

> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 9:23 PM

> To: Richard Parker

> Cc: rick.anderson@faypwc.com ; tballo@earthjustice.org ;

> ScottB@lvmetals.com ; john.caskey@nema.org ; Corkran, Jerry L;

> john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov ; adelaski@standardsasap.org ;

> Teckman@nwcouncil.org ; gbf1@pge.com ; carlos.gaytan@ge.com ;

> rgreeson@federalpacific.com ; bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com ;

> jhodge@howard.com ; mhyland@appanet.org ; dave.millure@metglas.com ;

> snadel@aceee.org ; wes.patterson@us.abb.com ; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com ;

> Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com ; artrosenfeld@gmail.com ;

> srosenstock@eei.org ; rroy@nrdc.org ; robert.saint@nreca.coop ;

> chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com ; BermanEconomics@gmail.com ;

> Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov ; greg.coulter405@gmail.com ;

> Jim.creevy@nema.org ; ahofmann@publicpower.org ; pkumar@publicpower.org ;

> jmauer@standardsasap.org ; Meyers, Aaron; jrossetti@mlgw.org ;

> Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com ; jerry.schoen@aksteel.com ;

> bsmith@federalpacific.com ; mwaltner@nrdc.org ; kwinder@mleainc.com ;

> cabolduc@lbl.gov ; brian.coffey@navigant.com ; kcoughlin@lbl.gov ;

> brenda.edwards@ee.doe.gov ; jeremiah.freeman@ee.doe.gov ;

> caitlin.johnson@navigant.com ; zhimei.luo@navigant.com ;

> emily.marchetti@ee.doe.gov ; mrivest@navigant.com ;

> gjrosenquist@lbl.gov ; charlied@uus.org ; phopkinson@hvolt.com ;

> James.Lass@cleco.com ; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net ;

> DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com ; chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com ;> eduardorobles@eaton.com ; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com ;

> thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com ;

> carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com ; Raba, Jim

> Subject: MV Liquid

‐ immersed LCC and NIA Results

>

> Dear Committee Members,

>

> Please find the draft LCC and NIA results for liquid

‐ immersed

> medium

‐ voltage transformers (design lines 1

‐ 5) attached.

>

> A summary of changes and additional sensitivities will be distributed

> before next week's meeting.

>

> Tha nk you,

> ‐‐ Chris Bolduc

>

> ‐‐‐‐

> Chris Bolduc

> Energy Efficiency Standards Group

> Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National

> Laboratory t. 416

‐ 535

‐ 7546 c. 647

‐ 832

‐ 4021