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

Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 11:56 AM 

To: Phil Hopkinson 

Cc: Jerry.Corkran@CooperIndustries.com; Jerry Schoen (jerry.schoen@aksteel.com); Caskey, John; Rob 

Greeson (rgreeson@electro-mechanical.com); sco_choinski@nema.org; Brian Coffey; Dan Cohen; John 

Cymbalsky; Raymond Pcolinski (Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com) 

Subject: Clarification 

Thanks, Phil, for your note. We welcome your expertise and will value your informal 

contributions as we go along. 

I should also correct the record on two points. AK Steel did disclose that Phil has done work for 

DOE-Navigant on this rulemaking in their nomination letter. The parenthetical mention on page 

2 did not make it into the nomination list prepared for the selection process on the basis of the 

comments and so was overlooked. But it was there. Also, Eric Petersen called this morning to 

clarify that AK Steel did not mean to nominate Phil as an AK Steel representative but simply as a 

a respected transformer industry expert and consultant. I appreciate the clarifications. I wanted 

to pass them along. They do not change the basic position that a government consultant should 

not serve on a stakeholder committee, but again, Phil's contributions as an expert will always be 

welcome. 

Look forward to seeing everyone on the 15th. 

All best, 

Richard Parker 

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Phil Hopkinson <phopkinson@hvolt.com> wrote: 

Good afternoon Richard and all:

Thank you for clarifying this situation. I think that I should not be representing any stakeholder under the 

circumstances. I would ask, however, if there may still be a role to review the negotiating data and to be 

certain that it is accurate. Such a position would not require me to attend the meetings in person but to 

review the data and check for accuracy. I have been alerted that the payback periods for the various 

design lines are not consistently changed from the data in the preliminary analysis. Some of the lines 

have experienced significant increases in the payback periods after my work of finding problems with the 

OPS Design information. However, other design lines are showing reduced payback periods. This does 

not seem reasonable as all of the cost curves got steeper after the errors were resolved. They all should be 

showing longer payback periods.

I have no stake in the outcome of the DOE negotiations but both as a support to Navigant and as a 

longtime NEMA member, a registered Professional Engineer and an IEEE Fellow, I am most interested in 

accurate and truthful data being provided to all of the stakeholders at the meetings. This could be done 

remotely but the data needs to be accurate.
I hope this helps,

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

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 4:46 PM 

To: Phil Hopkinson 

Cc: Jerry.Corkran@CooperIndustries.com; Jerry Schoen (jerry.schoen@aksteel.com); Raymond Pcolinski 

(Raymond.pcolinski@atimetals.com); Caskey, John; Rob Greeson (rgreeson@electro-mechanical.com); 

sco_choinski@nema.org; Brian Coffey (brian.coffey@navigant.com); Dan Cohen; John Cymbalsky 

Subject: Re: DOE Negotiations

 

Hi all, 

Thanks, Phil, for bringing this to my attention, as Brian Coffey did as well, earlier this morning. 

As you may know you were nominated for the negotiating committee by AK Steel for your 

expertise, and to represent their interests, and were selected by DOE staff and myself on that 

basis. None of us were aware of your prior work for Navigant (DOE's consultant in this 

proceeding) when that selection was made. Since receiving this email I have conferred with 

DOE staff and we all agree that it would not be appropriate for a person who has worked for the 

government (as consultant to Navigant) on this rulemaking to also represent a stakeholder in this 

same rulemaking. Therefore, we will ask you to disengage from the committee though you are of 

course free to attend the public meetings. 

Thank you for your disclosure, which was entirely appropriate. AK Steel is ably represented by 

Eric Petersen on the committee so while your expertise will be missed we do not see it as 

necessary to add a replacement representative for AK Steel. 
Best wishes, 

Richard Parker 

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Phil Hopkinson <phopkinson@hvolt.com> wrote: 

Good morning Gents: 

 

I want to bring you up to speed on the DOE Negotiations and my role or lack thereof. 

 

1. Richard Parker is the negotiator and has named me to the negotiating team as a result of a 

request by AK Steel. 

2. Brian Coffey of Navigant Consulting is my director of consulting activity in support of the 

DOE. 

3. This morning Brian called me to indicate that the DOE does not plan to pay for work by any 

of the negotiators and that they will not support my work in the DOE task force. He is actually 

in the same unsupported state and will not be in the meetings either. 

4. Brian Coffey pointed out that my contract with Navigant is non-exclusive and as such is not 

preventing me from representing others but I would not be representing the DOE or Navigant. 

5. Future work by me for Navigant is likely to be a continuation of general technical expert and 

information gatherer as requested. 

6. We addressed the aspect of potential conflicts of interest and I indicated that as in every 

consulting arrangement, I do my best to find the truth (like cost versus efficiency) and report the 

facts without bias. We both agreed that such activity would not be a conflict of interest. 

7. I see several possible paths forward at this point: 

a. Disengage from the task force. 

b. Remain on the task force as a representative of another organization and 

attend the meetings. 

c. Remain on the task force as a representative of another organization but 

attend the meetings by telephone only and not attend the meetings in person. 

8. I will be glad to assist the negotiations in any useful way that you may see fit at this point 

and am not trying to rattle a tin cup as I have plenty of other consulting work but thought it 

important to clarify my current status. 
9. I have one conflict for the first meeting as I am giving a seminar on Voltage Transients to 

Hammond on September 16th in Toronto. My plan had been to fly to Washington, DC on the 

14th, attend the morning and early afternoon sessions of the taskforce on the 15th, and then fly to 

Toronto on the late afternoon flight on the 15th to give my seminar. No tickets have been 

purchased. 

10. I don’t know if either of you have ideas but I would like to start working on any travel plans 

early enough to avoid expensive last minute flights. 

 

Thanks for your interest, 

 

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