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

Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:06 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 Mtg 

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 counsel 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 can 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 "deadline" 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 critiques 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 get 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 accommodate 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 along 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