From: Phil Hopkinson [mailto:phopkinson@hvolt.com] 

Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 5:29 PM 

To: Jerry.Corkran@CooperIndustries.com; Meyers, Aaron (Aaron.Meyers@CooperIndustries.com); 

Trujillo, Antonio; Rob Greeson (rgreeson@electro-mechanical.com); Robert Smith (bob.smith@electromechanical.com); Raymond Polinski (Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com); Jerry Schoen 

(jerry.schoen@aksteel.com); Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; Brian Coffey; Rosenstock, Steven 

Cc: Gaytan Cavazos, Carlos (GE Infra, Energy, Non-GE); greg.coulter405@gmail.com; Caskey, John; 

sco_choinski@nema.org; Patterson, Wesley 

Subject: FW: IEEE DOE material for Tuesday afternoon meeting 

Good afternoon all:

This material from Carlos and Greg is particularly useful in telling the story that needs to be told.  We

could take any one of the design lines to tell the story.  It is my understanding that Carlos and Greg have

used the OPS data to plot the curves.  That is fine since we are talking slope of the curve.

Suppose we were to take the Design Line 1 plot on page 4.  Here the various core material options are

separated so that we can see how far anyone of them can go.  If we keep the efficiency to EL1 or below

then M3 can compete.  However if we go to EL2 then M3 is out of the picture and we get a 100%

conversion to amorphous.  Hence, the only way to determine an economical base for M3 is to find the

efficiency where the transformer selling price with M3 is at or below that for amorphous.   For this

example it would seem that this point occurs at EL1.  At that point, both amorphous and M3 would

seem to be equally attractive and the market share for each type of material would potentially be evenly

divided.  

This same story could be told for anyone of the design line option in their presentation.  

I have also attached my report, wherein I calculate the $/watt cost to move from one level of efficiency

to the next.  If we are to find a level of efficiency in which M3 can compete then it must satisfy two

relationships:

1. The transformer selling price of the M3 design cannot be higher than the amorphous selling

price at that same efficiency.

2. The S/watt cost to the end user of the transformer cannot exceed the value per watt saved.

In my report, I show:

1. The Value of a watt saved as $6.71 for the US Utilities.

2. The cost to the end user to go from EL0 to EL1 as $20/watt saved.

I have also attached a report written by Jerry Corkran and I where we show efficiency vs. loading for M3

vs. amorphous when both are designed to meet the same efficiency at 50% load.

The combined findings from my report,  that from Carlos and Greg, and the M3 vs amorphous report is

the following:

1. There is no economic justification to go from EL0 to EL1 because the cost or $20/watt exceeds

the value of $6.71/watt.

2. M3 actually crosses the $6.71 / watt value point at a around efficiency level 0.2, well below EL1.
3. Amorphous transformers have a flatter cost curve than M3 but the efficiency must exceed that

for EL1 in order to get to that plateau.

4. The efficiency where amorphous and M3 have about the same cost to the end customer is EL1,

where at 50% load they have the same efficiency and the same cost.

5. Unless there are other economic factors to consider we have to conclude that the DOE did a

very excellent job in setting the current mandatory standard and there is not anything apparent

that calls for changes.

This is the story that I believe we need to tell.  I could send this to the entire DOE team or make up a

couple of power point slides to emphasize depending on how we get to submit it.

By copy to all, your thoughts?

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: Gaytan Cavazos, Carlos (GE Energy, Non-GE) [mailto:Carlos.Gaytan@ge.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 3:48 PM 

To: Phil Hopkinson 

Subject: RE: IEEE DOE material for Tuesday afternoon meeting 

Phil,

I just noted that the file I sent you has one small formatting issue on the scatter plot with all the DOE

design points, and I just fixed it on this revised file, in case you are planning to post this on the website.

The issue was related with the box showing all the material combinations, which did not show

amorphous unintendedly.

Thanks

Carlos

From: Phil Hopkinson [mailto:phopkinson@hvolt.com] 

Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 10:59 AM 

To: Gaytan Cavazos, Carlos (GE Energy, Non-GE); Greg Coulter; invitations@linkedin.com; 

sjmcnelly@ieee.org; brian.coffey@navigant.com; Caskey, John; Jerry.Corkran@CooperIndustries.com; 

Meyers, Aaron; Creevy, Jim; jim.raba@ee.doe.gov; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; 

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com; Chuckj@ieee.org

Cc: sco_choinski@nema.org

Subject: RE: IEEE DOE material for Tuesday afternoon meeting 
Many thanks Carlos:

I will do it.  Have a good trip to Boston.

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: Gaytan Cavazos, Carlos (GE Energy, Non-GE) [mailto:Carlos.Gaytan@ge.com] 

Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 11:43 AM 

To: Phil Hopkinson; Greg Coulter; invitations@linkedin.com; sjmcnelly@ieee.org; 

brian.coffey@navigant.com; Caskey, John; Jerry.Corkran@CooperIndustries.com; Meyers, Aaron; Creevy, 

Jim; jim.raba@ee.doe.gov; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; 

Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com; Chuckj@ieee.org

Cc: sco_choinski@nema.org

Subject: RE: IEEE DOE material for Tuesday afternoon meeting 

Phil,

We are in agreement with posting our report on the website.  

As you indicated on your message, I would also like to have the opportunity on this meeting to present a

few slides containing an extract of our report, that provides an explanation of why we believe this

simplified cost/efficiency charts approach is recommended. I believe this will be beneficial for the

people in attendance for a clear understanding of the points we intended to make in our report.

I am planning to bring the charts with me so that you can have them in your computer for this meeting.  

Thanks

Carlos

From: Phil Hopkinson [mailto:phopkinson@hvolt.com] 

Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 2:56 PM 

To: Gaytan Cavazos, Carlos (GE Energy, Non-GE); Greg Coulter; Gaytan Cavazos, Carlos (GE Energy, 

Non-GE); Steve Shull (LinkedIn Invitations) (invitations@linkedin.com); Sue Mcnelly 

(sjmcnelly@ieee.org); Brian Coffey (brian.coffey@navigant.com); Caskey, John; 

Jerry.Corkran@CooperIndustries.com; Meyers, Aaron; Creevy, Jim; Jim Raba (jim.raba@ee.doe.gov); 

Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; Jerry Schoen (jerry.schoen@aksteel.com); Raymond Polinski 

(Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com); Chuck Johnson (Chuckj@ieee.org) 

Cc: sco_choinski@nema.org

Subject: IEEE DOE material for Tuesday afternoon meeting 
Good afternoon all:

Attached, you will find the material that I plan to present at my Tuesday afternoon meeting on DOE

Energy Efficiency.  Brian Coffey will be at this meeting and I would like people to meet him and allow

him the opportunity to stand up and talk about the negotiating process.  Here are my requests:

1. By copy to Sue McNelly, please post at my site within the Distribution Transformers

Subcommittee website under the DOE Energy Efficiency taskforce.

2. By copy to Brian Coffey, you are certainly welcome to present any materials that you may wish

to discuss or just be there to be introduced and to take questions from the floor.  Matt Hartley

did that at the last meeting and the group enjoyed meeting him and asking him questions.

3. By copy to Carlos Gaytan and Greg Coulter, you have a good report that shows transformer cost

as a function of steel grades.  I have a copy and believe that it is quite good and if you are willing

I would have Sue post it.  Please let me know.

4. By copy to Wes Patterson, you have several good reports that show transformer selling prices

versus efficiency levels.  You also address BIL levels.  You had not finished breaking out M3

designs when we were at the last meeting but I suspect it is now available.  Please let me know

of anything that you would be comfortable to post and I will send it in.

5. By copy to Eric Petersen and Jerry Schoen, you had a very good treatment of the Global

magnetic steel market that is a great education tool for the industry if you are comfortable to

have it displayed.  Please let me know if you wish to have it posted.

I anticipate that the bulk of this meeting will be spent discussing the negotiation process and there will

not be too much time for presentations but a few key slides may be useful if any of you want to use

them.

For those who are attending the meeting, I look forward to seeing you in Boston.

Safe travels.

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