From: Wes Patterson [mailto:wes.patterson@us.abb.com]  

Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 12:33 PM

To: Rosenstock, Steven

Cc: Aaron Meyers; adelaski@standardsASAP.org; ahofmann@publicpower.org; Antonio Trujillo;

artrosenfeld@gmail.com; Robert Berman; Brian Coffey; bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com;

bsmith@federalpacific.com; cabolduc@lbl.gov; Caitlin Johnson; carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com;

carlos.gaytan@ge.com; chad.kennedy@us.schneider‐electric.com; charlied@uus.org;

chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; Daniel Cohen;

dave.millure@metglas.com; dbrender@cda.copper.org; DYoung@energy‐solution.com;

eduardorobles@eaton.com; Emily (CONTR) Marchetti; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com;

frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com; gbf1@pge.com; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov;

greg.coulter405@gmail.com; Jack C Moore; James.Lass@cleco.com; Jeremiah (CONTR) Freeman; Jerry L

Corkran; jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; jhodge@howard.com; Jim.creevy@nema.org; Jim Raba;

jmauer@standardsasap.org; john.caskey@nema.org; John Cymbalsky; jrossetti@mlgw.org;

kcoughlin@lbl.gov; kwinder@mleainc.com; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net; Matthew Nardotti; Maxine

(EMAB) Savitz; mhyland@appanet.org; Michael Rivest; mwaltner@nrdc.org; ned.efbrush@gmail.com;

Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com; Phil Hopkinson; pkumar@publicpower.org; Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com;

rgreeson@federalpacific.com; Richard Parker; rick.anderson@faypwc.com; robert.saint@nreca.coop;

rroy@nrdc.org; ScottB@LVMetals.com; Steve Nadel; tballo@earthjustice.org; Teckman@nwcouncil.org;

ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com; thomas.patzner@us.schneider‐electric.com;

tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; Zhimei Luo

Subject: RE: Negotiated Rulemaking ‐ Distribution Transformers Teleconference

Hi Steve  

I sometimes think that folks lose the understanding of what we are discussing when we refer to EL's  

From an unrestricted state, for MVLF, the 2010 standard represents  

 small 1‐ph:  a 45% reduction in the 50% load loss watts  

 large 1‐ph:  a 35% reduction  

 3‐ph:  a 35% reduction

See the blue lines in slides #2 and #3 in the attached  

From an unrestricted state, for MVDT, the 2010 standard represents  

 45BIL:  a 15% reduction  

 95BIL:  a 15% reduction  

 >95BIL:  a 35% reduction

See the blue lines in slides #2, #3, and #4  

I think the improvement in the 2010 standard was quite significant and this is why it is now more

challenging to define additional 'significant' savings.  

Best regards  
Wes  

"Rosenstock, Steven"

<SRosenstock@eei.org>  

11/14/2011 10:17 AM  

To "Steve Nadel" <snadel@aceee.org>, "Robert

Berman" <bermaneconomics@gmail.com>, "Phil

Hopkinson" <phopkinson@hvolt.com>  

cc <Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com>,

<jerry.schoen@aksteel.com>, "Maxine (EMAB)

Savitz" <maxinesavitz@aol.com>,

<mhyland@appanet.org>,

"Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com"

<Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com>,

<maheshsampat@bellsouth.net>,

<bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com>,

<tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com>,

<dbrender@cda.copper.org>,

<James.Lass@cleco.com>,

<chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com>,

<frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com>,

<ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com>, "Aaron

Meyers" <Aaron.Meyers@CooperIndustries.com>,

"Antonio Trujillo"

<Antonio.Trujillo@CooperIndustries.com>, "Jack C

Moore" <Jack.Moore@CooperIndustries.com>,

"Jerry L Corkran"

<Jerry.Corkran@CooperIndustries.com>,

<tballo@earthjustice.org>,

<carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com>,

<eduardorobles@eaton.com>, "Emily (CONTR)

Marchetti" <Emily.Marchetti@ee.doe.gov>,

"Jeremiah (CONTR) Freeman"

<Jeremiah.Freeman@ee.doe.gov>, "Jim Raba"

<Jim.Raba@ee.doe.gov>, "John Cymbalsky"

<John.Cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov>, <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"

<richardparkerdc@gmail.com>,

<Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com>, <jhodge@howard.com>,

"Daniel Cohen" <Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov>,

<cabolduc@lbl.gov>, <gjrosenquist@lbl.gov>,
<kcoughlin@lbl.gov>, "ScottB@LVMetals.com"

<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@nema.org>, <john.caskey@nema.org>,

<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"

<adelaski@standardsasap.org>,

<jmauer@standardsasap.org>, Wes

Patterson/SouthBoston/USTRA/ABB@ABB,

<chad.kennedy@us.schneider‐electric.com>,

<thomas.patzner@us.schneider‐electric.com>,

<charlied@uus.org>  

Subject RE: Negotiated Rulemaking ‐ Distribution

Transformers Teleconference

Mr. Nadel,  

   

In terms of the DOE analysis, some of us are still waiting for the other sensitivity analyses before

concluding that DOE has justified higher standards .  For example, I have not seen the analysis of

transformer costs that rise higher than the rate of inflation (which DOE has shown has been the case

since 2003).  Also, many parties do not think that a 24 year payback is “cost effective”.  

   

Also, please refer to the attachment.  Today’s standards that took effect on January 1, 2010, are not

“low”.  In fact, they are significantly higher than the levels that several parties agreed to for 2009 or

even 2013.  The standard that took effect were at level 4.5 for many transformer, well above the Level 2

efficiency that was agreed to.  

   

Also, several parties have indicated that they do not want to sign on to a standard that will likely result

in domestic job losses and more “off‐shoring” of jobs to meet the new standards.  See the following for

examples:  

   

   
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp‐dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090706933.html   

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper‐article/2010/10/04/ge‐closes‐last‐incandescent‐light‐bulb‐plant‐

jobs‐sent‐china  

   

   

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/28/news/companies/whirlpool_jobs/index.htm   

http://business380.com/2011/10/27/whirlpool‐bringing‐160‐jobs‐to‐amana‐closing‐arkansas‐plant/

  Key quotes:  

“Benton Harbor, Mich.‐based Whirlpool announced Thursday that it plans to close its refrigerator plant

in Fort Smith, Ark., in mid‐2012,  due to a decrease in demand for side‐by‐side refrigerators. The closing

will put 884 hourly workers and 90 salaried employees employees out of work.”  

“The Fort Smith facility employed 4,600 people five years ago, but that number has declined in the poor

economy and since Whirlpool opened a refrigerator factory in Mexico. The company said its plant at

Ramos Arizpe, Mexico, will take on side‐by‐side refrigerator production, but will not need to hire new

workers.”  

   

   

So, my question to you is, can’t you be a little flexible, since standards went up so high In 2010?  Can’t

you see that there are risks involved in going even higher?   

   

   

Steve Rosenstock  

Manager, Energy Solutions  

Edison Electric Institute  

srosenstock@eei.org  

202‐508‐5465  

   

   

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

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

To: Robert Berman; Phil Hopkinson

Cc: Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; Maxine (EMAB) Savitz;

mhyland@appanet.org; Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net;

bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com; tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com; dbrender@cda.copper.org;

James.Lass@cleco.com; chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com; frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com;

ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com; Aaron Meyers; 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; Rosenstock, Steven;

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@nema.org; john.caskey@nema.org;

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  

   

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 leave 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 arguments 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 need to

break new ground and not rehash old ground.  

   

Steve

>>> Phil Hopkinson <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.

The 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 about 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

Ph     704‐846‐3290

Fx     704‐845‐2520

Cell   704‐236‐3320

www.hvolt.com  

   

From: Robert Berman [mailto:bermaneconomics@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;

tballo@earthjustice.org; ScottB@LVMetals.com; john.caskey@nema.org; Cymbalsky, John;

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;

kwinder@mleainc.com; mwaltner@nrdc.org; jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com;

ahofmann@publicpower.org; pkumar@publicpower.org; bsmith@federalpacific.com;

greg.coulter405@gmail.com; jmauer@standardsasap.org; Cohen, Daniel; Meyers, Aaron;

Jim.creevy@nema.org; jrossetti@mlgw.org; cabolduc@lbl.gov; kcoughlin@lbl.gov;

brian.coffey@navigant.com; mrivest@navigant.com; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov;

caitlin.johnson@navigant.com; zhimei.luo@navigant.com; Marchetti, Emily (CONTR); charlied@uus.org;

DYoung@energy‐solution.com; James.Lass@cleco.com; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net;

matthew.nardotti@navigant.com; Raba, Jim; Savitz, Maxine (EMAB); tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com;

chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com; ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com;

frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com; ned.efbrush@gmail.com; dbrender@cda.copper.org;

chad.kennedy@us.schneider‐electric.com; eduardorobles@eaton.com;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; thomas.patzner@us.schneider‐electric.com;

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 capacity 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 even 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

1915 Grand Court

Vienna, VA 22182

703‐281‐0490

703‐655‐8398 (cell)

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 Hopkinson,P.E.    

HVolt Inc.  

704‐846‐3290  

F: 704‐845‐2520  

C: 704‐236‐3320  

phopkinson@hvolt.com  

On Nov 10, 2011, at 18:04, "Corkran, Jerry L" <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 optimizing 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 efficiency 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 even 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 questionable 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]

Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 3:23 PM

To: Robert Berman

Cc: Freeman, Jeremiah (CONTR); rick.anderson@faypwc.com; tballo@earthjustice.org;

ScottB@LVMetals.com; john.caskey@nema.org; Corkran, Jerry L; Cymbalsky, John;

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;

kwinder@mleainc.com; mwaltner@nrdc.org; jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com;

ahofmann@publicpower.org; pkumar@publicpower.org; bsmith@federalpacific.com;

greg.coulter405@gmail.com; jmauer@standardsasap.org; Cohen, Daniel; Meyers, Aaron;

Jim.creevy@nema.org; jrossetti@mlgw.org; cabolduc@lbl.gov; kcoughlin@lbl.gov;

brian.coffey@navigant.com; mrivest@navigant.com; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov;

caitlin.johnson@navigant.com; zhimei.luo@navigant.com; Marchetti, Emily (CONTR); charlied@uus.org;

DYoung@energy‐solution.com; James.Lass@cleco.com; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net;

phopkinson@hvolt.com; matthew.nardotti@navigant.com; Raba, Jim; Savitz, Maxine (EMAB);

tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com; chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com; ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com;

frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com; ned.efbrush@gmail.com; dbrender@cda.copper.org;

chad.kennedy@us.schneider‐electric.com; eduardorobles@eaton.com;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; thomas.patzner@us.schneider‐electric.com;

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 <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 analysis 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 component 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. Berman, Principal

Berman Economics

www.BermanEconomics.com

1915 Grand Court

Vienna, VA 22182

703‐281‐0490

703‐655‐8398 (cell)

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 will be revised analysis circulated in advance of both calls per our

discussion 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 clarify 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>

wrote:  

When: Thursday, November 17, 2011 1:00 PM‐5:00 PM (GMT‐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 meeting.

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 Respectfully,  

Jeremiah Freeman  

202‐431‐4243 (cell)  

202‐586‐1867 (office)  

   

   

   

   

   

   

[attachment "Dist Trans 2007 Final Rule EEI Summary.pdf" deleted by Wes

Patterson/SouthBoston/USTRA/ABB]