From: Hirsch, Bruce R [mailto:Bruce.R.Hirsch@bge.com]

Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 10:15 AM

To: 'Gaytan Cavazos, Carlos (GE Energy, Non

‐ GE)'; Richard Parker; ahoffman@publicpower.org;

pkumar@publicpower.org; Aaron Meyers; Andrew Delaski; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Brian Coffey; Bruce

Smith; Caitlin Johnson; Charlie Drexler; Chris Bolduc; Chuck Simmons; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; Dave

Millure; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; Gary Fernstrom; Gre g Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; James Lass;

Jeremiah Freeman (CONTR); Jerry Corkran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; Jim Creevy; Joanna Mauer; John

Caskey; John Cymbalsky; jrossetti@mlgw.org; kcoughlin@lbl.gov; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Meg

Waltner; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Paul Ryan; Phil Hopkinson; Raymond Polinski; Rick Anderson;

Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Robin Roy; Scott Beck; Steve Nade l; Steve Rosenstock; Tim Ballo; Tom

Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo

Subject: RE: MV Working Group: Follow

‐ up to Sept 15/16 Mtg

Carlos,

Thanks for this analysis. It really helps to clarify the comparison of materials. Bruce

From: Gaytan Cavazos, Carlos (GE Energy, Non

‐ GE) [ mailto:Carlos.G aytan@ge.com ]

Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 9:57 AM

To: Richard Parker; ahoffman@publicpower.org ; pkumar@publicpower.org ; Aaron Meyers; Andrew

Delaski; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Brian Coffey; Hirsch, Bruce R; Bruce Smith; Caitlin Johnson; Charlie

Drexler; Chris Bolduc; Chuck Simmons; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; Dave Millure;

Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com ; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; James Lass; Jeremiah

Freeman (CONTR); Jerry Corkran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; Jim Creevy; Joanna Mauer; John Caskey;

John Cymbalsky; jrossetti@mlgw.org ; kcoughlin@lbl.gov ; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Meg Waltner;

Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Paul Ryan; Phil Hopkinson; Raymond Polinski; Rick Anderson; Rob

Greeson; Robert Berman; Robin Roy; Scott Beck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Tim Ballo; Tom

Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo

Subject: RE: MV Working Group: Follow

‐ up to Sept 15/16 Mtg

Dear Mr. Parker and Colleagues:

We have con tinued our analysis of the most recently published documents and data, and I wanted to

share with you this updated document that contains the comments I want to make for the consideration

of the Committee.

Best Regards

Carlos Gaytan

Manager of Engineering

Prolec GE

‐ Distribution Transformers

From: Richard Parker [ mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com ]

Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:06 PM

To: ahoffman@publicpower.org ; pkumar@publicpower.org ; Aaron Meyers; Andrew Delaski; Art

Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Brian Coffey; Bruce R Hirsch; Bruce Smith; Caitlin Johnson; Charlie Drexler; Chris

Bolduc; Chuck Simmons; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; Dave Millure; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com ; Gary

Fernstrom; Gaytan Cavazos, Carlos (GE Energy, Non

‐ GE); Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; James Lass;Jeremiah Freeman (CONTR); Jerry Corkran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; Jim Creevy; Joanna Mauer; John

Caskey; John Cymbalsky; jrossetti@mlgw.org ; kcoughlin@lbl.gov ; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Meg

Waltner; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Paul Ryan; Phil Hopkinson; Raymond Polinski; Richard Parker;

Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Robin Roy; Scott Beck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Tim

Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo

Subject: MV Working Group: Follow

‐ up to Sept 15/16 Mt g

Dear Colleagues,

A few items to follow

‐ up for meeting of Sept. 15

‐ 16 which I thought was quite productive.

Ground Rules

Attached for your review are the Ground Rules discussed and approved at our Sept. 15

‐ 16 meeting.

After we adjourned one member asked for more time to allow in

‐ house cou nsel to review the

document. This is reasonable so I am re

‐ opening the comment period for the ground rules to allow

further comment, with a request that you do your internal review and send along any comments by

close of business on Monday, Sept. 26, so that we ca n discuss any proposed modifications online and

hopefully finalize the rules either before or at the beginning of the next meeting. Remember that the

agreement allows modifications so you are never barred from seeking changes to the agreement that

you deem necessary or helpful.

Clarification of the Sept. 23 "de adline" for comments on the Engineering and LCC/NPV Analysis

At the meeting I asked that Members review the revised Engineering and LCC/PBP/NPV Analysis now

posted on the DOE website and submit their comments/questions/critique by Sept. 23 so that

DOE/Navigant/LBL can respond in a timely way with clarifications, answers and/or further analysis. A

question has arisen whether this will act as hard and fast bar to methodological criti ques later on. The

answer is no. The deadline is an informal one. It does not mean that additional concerns cannot be

raised later. It means that we hope that you will carefully examine the analysis and ge t us your

comments and concerns by no later than Sept. 23 (and preferably sooner) so that Navigant/LBL can

respond and we can discuss how best to proceed prior to the next meeting. As a practical matter, the

later your concerns are put on the table the more difficult it will be to accommo date them analytically.

As you consider your comments, please keep in mind that data are limited and resources are limited.

This proceeding is already far along analytically, and Navigant/LBL cannot at this stage undertake an

exhaustive new investigation that entails gathering and analyzing large amounts of new data

.

CSLs

Concerns were expressed at the meeting about changes in the CSLs and ELs between the April and the

August analyses. My understanding is that absent compelling reason to change, which we don't

foresee, the CSL's that appear in the August analysis will not be altered going forward.

Miscellaneous

I will send alo ng transcript, minutes, and a firm schedule for future meetings as soon as they are

available, which I hope will be very soon.

All best,

Richard>>> This e

‐ mail and any attachments are confidential, may contain legal, professional or other privileged

information, and are intended solely for the 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

‐ IP1