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

Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 8:16 AM

To: Robert Berman

Cc: Richard Parker; Caskey, John; Brian Coffey; Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art

Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Bruce Smith; Caitlin Johnson; Ca rlos Gaytan; Charlie Drexler; Charlie Stevens; Chris

Bolduc; Silcox, Clark; Creevy, Jim; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; Eric Peterson; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary

Fernstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry

Corkran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rosse tti; Katie Coughlin; Ken

Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matt Miller; Matthew Nard otti; Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaron; Michael Hyland;

Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; Phil Harter; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Kumar; Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson;

Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Be ck; Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock;

Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo; (rjstahara@centralmoloneyinc.com); Ali Ghafourian

(aghafourian@ermco-eci.com); Ned Brush (Ned.efbrush@gmail.com); Dave Brender

(dbrender@cda.copper.org); jay. ballard@schneider-electric.com; Kenneth.Harden@schneiderelectric.com; Tom Patzner (thomas.patzner@ us.schneider-electric.com); Steve Nizinski

Subject: RE: Distribution Transformer Loading and other Analyses

Good morning Robert and all:

I have been delighted with your responses and it clearly shows you are interested and involved. You are

correct that average does not mean too much but it is an easy calculation for the FERC as well as

individual utilities. However, peak load does matter and has impact on generation, total system

capacity, imp edance volta ge drops and regulation, and proper sizing of equipment. Peak demand is

available to the utilities on a substation by substation basis but not really on any individual transformer

as you have indicated. However, utility purchases to a Total Owning Cost formula are probably quite

meaningful. That is where the A fa ctor should really be the present worth of a watt saved over the

amortization period. The B factor adjusts RMS equivalent load to the watts that are present for the load

to be served. Utility A and B factors may be the most credible information available to th e Ne gotiating

Team to substantiate the RMS equivalent load for the next rule making, since they roll in expected

normal loads and adjust the calculation for an economical capability at peak load.

All the best,

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: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 12:30 AM

To: Phil Hopkinson

Cc: Robert Berman; Richard Parker; Caskey, John; Bria n Coffey; Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris

Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Bruce Smith; Cait lin Johnson; Carlos Gaytan; Charlie Drexler; Charlie

Stevens; Chris Bolduc; Silcox, Clark; Creevy, Jim; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; Eric Peterson; Freeman,Jeremiah; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; James Lass; Jennifer

Tiedeman; Jerry Corkran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen ; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti;

Katie Coughlin; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matt Miller; Matthew Nardotti; Meg Waltner; Meyers,

Aaron; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; Phil Harter; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Kumar; Rick

Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck; Simmons, Chuck; Steve

Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo;

( rjstahara@centralmoloneyinc.com ); Ali Ghafourian ( aghafourian@ermco-eci.com ); Ned Brush

( Ned.efbrush@gmail.com ); Dave Brender ( dbrender@cda.copper.org ); jay.ballard@schneiderelectric.com ; Kenneth.Harden@schneider-electric.com ; Tom Patzner ( thomas.patzner@us.schneiderelectric.com ); Steve Nizinski

Subject: Re: Distribution Transformer Loading and other Analyses



### I'm not sure what you're trying to do with your load calculation. 3.65kW would put you at a

100% / average load. As I'm sure you can imagine th e number of statisticians that drowned in an

average of 2 feet of water (because they fell into the 500 foot part) -- as you note that your

generator can't handle your house, even though it doe s fine on an "average" load. You've really

got to have at least a demand meter if you want any idea of what your aver age load factor is --

and probably something with time-of-day and dema nd if you want an RMS load. I doubt if Duke

as done any such studies of its residential class that you could use. The California utilities do

much more measuring; but many eastern PUCs ha ve avoided that because they're concerned it's

the first step to residential time-of-day rates, which the West seems to like but the East doesn't.

Still, your individual load isn't particularly relevant to the transformer outside your house --

unless those 4500 square feet are way out in the country. And even so, your load factor would

still have tanked when the kids left.

I'm also not sure what you're trying to do with the FERC data. The only peak data Duke reports

is the 12-month coincident peak on the transm ission system. I don't see how that will give you

anything useful even on NCP at secondary.

Your Duke retail rate of 9.5¢ / kWh is a great ex ample of why rolled-in ra tes aren't good for loss

valuation -- long-term or short-term. 9.5¢ may be your cost, it's not Duke's. The energy that

Duke saves is the highest cost at generation -- replacement at the margin. That 9.5¢ has to cover

your meter, the transmission system and the accoun ting department that sends the bills. Duke has

a lot of coal and nuclear power th at costs them less than 2¢ / kWh; but when they have to bring

their old Lincoln plant on line it costs them nearly 13¢ / kWh, to say nothing of the whopping

32¢ / kWh that that old Lee plant co sts. If their system was more efficient, its not hard to guess

which plant(s) they'd decide not to dispatch ; and your 9.5¢ would drop as a result of pulling

those oldies out of the dispatch or der. It's all system lambda at one point or another. None of this

has anything to do with the their A fact or, though, which is all about what their next increment to

capacity and energy will be, long term (probably a combined cycl e gas turbine), and the (then)

30 year forecast of those fuel prices.

See you Wednesday.



### 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 Oct 10, 2011, at 6:21 PM, Phil Hopkinson wrote:

Interesting comments Robert and all:

I look forward to seeing you all on Wednesday. Some trivia that may be of interest to you is my own

home where I have recorded all kWH use and costs for the last 19 years. My home has the following

characteristics:

1. 4500 square feet.

2. All electric

3. (3) heat pumps

4. (2) electric water heaters

5. The normal compliment of appliances and lighting.

6. During the colder years when my kids were home my total kWH of use was 36,000

7. Currently as empty nesters we are closer to 32000 kWH

8. I am on Duke Power’s system where the current average price of electricity to my home is 9.5

cents/kWH.

9. My simple average load today is 32000/8760 hours or 3.65 kW.

10. By my calculations below, my summer RMS equivalent load is 7.7 kVA

11. My winter RMS equivalent load is 8.2 kVA

12. My cold load pickup that would occur after a storm is 40 kVA



### <image003.png>

This loading pattern will be different in different parts of the country but probably of similar shape for a

good many homes. RMS equivalent use is most influenced by the size and duration of the peak loads.

For the US as a whole, the FERC 1 report shows a simple average of >20% of na meplate load. It certainly

makes sense that the RMS equivalent will be considerably higher.I have an 8 kVA generator which can handle peaks of 12 kVA but it cannot anywhere near power all of

my house and yet if the average were my only concern there would be no problem at all.

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: Monday, October 10, 2011 2:40 PM

To: Richard Parker

Cc: Phil Hopkinson; Caskey, John; Brian Coffey; Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art

Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Bruce Smith; Caitlin Johnson; Ca rlos Gaytan; Charlie Drexler; Charlie Stevens; Chris

Bolduc; Silcox, Clark; Creevy, Jim; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; Eric Peterson; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary

Fernstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry

Corkran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rosse tti; Katie Coughlin; Ken

Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matt Miller; Matthew Nard otti; Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaron; Michael Hyland;

Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; Phil Harter; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Kumar; Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson;

Robert Berman; Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck; Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel;

Steve Rosenstock; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo;

( rjstahara@centralmoloneyinc.com ); Ali Ghafourian ( aghafourian@ermco-eci.com ); Ned Brush

( Ned.efbrush@gmail.com ); Dave Brender ( dbrender@cda.copper.org ); jay.ballard@schneiderelectric.com ; Kenneth.Harden@schneider-electric.com ; Tom Patzner ( thomas.patzner@us.schneiderelectric.com ); Steve Nizinski

Subject: Re: Distribution Transformer Loading and other Analyses



### Richard,

I have carefully reviewed the HVOLT analysis . Although I am not an engineer, and will not

comment on particular engineeri ng designs, I am concerned about a number of the assumptions

made regarding electricity utility system economics as well as th e transformer prices. The latter

appear at odds with published market data and appear to misquote the DOE PTSD. As the

analytical conclusions appear to be riven by the assumptions, it is important to put the

assumptions in their proper context. Attached are my detailed comments.