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

Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 1:01 PM

To: Phil Hopkinson

Cc: Richard Parker; 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; Gayta n 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; Raymond Polinski;

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

Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo; sco_choinski@nema.org; Greg Coulter

(greg.coulter@hotmail.com

Subject: Re: MV Working Group: Follow

‐ up to Sept 15/16 Mtg

All,

It's important to focus on the purpose of the MEPS is to economically save energy. Reducing en ergy

losses in transformers will make the transformer more expensive. The LCC analysis that LBL does is a

commonly accepted way to compare the increased initial costs with the energy savings benefits over the

life of the transformer. Mr. Hopkinson's attempt to point only to the initial incremental cost and

consider only the ini tial Incremental $/Watt is inappropriate and designed to make investments that are

clearly in the public interest seem non

‐ economic. He considers neither the cost spread over the kWh

that would not have to be generated over the life of the investment, nor does he consider the worth of

the Watt saved

‐‐ the comparison to the fuel (and environmental) cost avoided by the small incremental

transformer cost. We would encourage LBL to calculate the $/kWh saved over the life of the transformer

(for each increment to efficiency) and the fuel cost savings over that same period (both in $/kWh and in

total, to com pare with the incremental transformer cost.) Additionally, calculation of total tons of

carbon not produced (the reduction in the carbon foot print) would also be of interest to some

members of the sub

‐ committee.

The HVolt analysis of 9/24/2011 also appears to call the OPS model into questio n. The HVolt amorphous

(SA1) transformer designs differs dramatically from OPS results for 150 kVa and 1500 kVa (see

"Alternate Amorphous" on pages 15 & 18 of the HVolt 9/24/2011 email paper). To assure myself of the

efficacy of the OPS results, I asked the Metglas transformer design engineer to use his well

‐

tested com mercial design model for the 150kVa and 1500 kVa design and compare them to the results

by OPS and HVolt

. In both cases, the Metglas and OPS results are very close; but the HVolt analysis

results in substantially heavier units at much higher cost.

In the case of the 150 kVa unit, the HVo lt analysis reports a weight more than twice that of either OPS or

Metglas, and a cost of 3X that of the OPS and Metglas. In the case of the 1500 kVa unit, the HVolt results

are 2X the result found by both OPS and Me tglas for both weight and cost.

From this I conclude that (1) the OPS results are accurate and that there is some anomaly in the HVolt

designs.A=15.00 150 kVA OPS H

‐ Volt Metglas A=15.00 1500kVA OPS H

‐ Volt Metglas

B=8.00 Eff at

55C 99.61 99.61 99.59 B=5.50 Eff at

55C 99.69 99.67 99.71

NLL 155 114 141 NLL 616 675 537

LL 603 762 765 LL 7190 7212 7000

Wt 2601 5729 2572 Wt 10499 19013 10491

Matl SA1 SA1 SA1 Matl SA1 SA1 SA1

Core Wt 1026 986 1011 Core Wt 4044 6120 3857

HV

‐ LV Cu

‐ Cu Cu

‐ Cu Cu

‐ Cu HV

‐ LV Cu

‐ Cu Cu

‐ Al Cu

‐ Cu

LV Wt 223 725 190 LV Wt 1383 985 1267

HV Wt 335 941 333 HV Wt 1904 3472 2158

Cost 5536 15311 5227 Cost 25747 45438 26806

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 Sep 24, 2011, at 9:28 PM, Phil Hopkinson wrote:

Good evening Richard and all:

Several of my colleagues have sent me new information that better identifies the cost of a watt saved.

Using EIA data, they have found excellent references that show Electric Utility wholesale prices of

energy for co ntracts as late as September of 2011 at $40

‐ $50/megawatt hour ($0.045/kWH). They have

also shown the prices of energy to Industrial customers at $67/megawatt hour $0.067/kWH).

Using this latest data, I have revised the first year value for utility transformers as $0.045/kWH *8.76

khrs/yr.

= $0.39/watt per year.

This value ti mes the president worth factor for an inflation series (30 years, 3% inflation, and 7% cost of

money)

= 17.0284*$0.39/watt

= $6.71/watt.I have done the same for Industrial and Commercial Transformers. The worth of a watt saved for such

transformers is $9.91/watt.

The writeup and the several spreadsheets in the report are updated with these values. This should hald

the negotiators to better see the apparent economic value of the various decisions.

Best regards,

Phil

Philip J Hopk inson, 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: Phil Hopkinson

Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 5:21 PM

To: 'Richard Parker'; 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; 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

Good afternoon Ri chard and all:

Attached, you will find an analysis of design options versus efficiency that I have prepared at the request

of a number of the stakeholders. This should help all members of the negotiating team to better

understand the cost implications of the various efficiency considerations. Please let me know if there is

a need to be present to exp lain the contents during the deliberations.

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: 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 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

<HVOLT DOE Analysis 092411.doc.pdf>