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

Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 9:51 PM

To: Robert Berman

Cc: Christopher Bolduc; Richard Parker; rick.anderson@faypwc.com; tballo@earthjustice.org;

ScottB@lvmetals.com; john.caskey@nema.org; jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com;

john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; adelaski@standardsasap.org; Teckman@nwcouncil.org; gbf1@pge.com;

carlos.gaytan@ge.com; rgreeson@federalpacific.com; bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com; jhodge@howard.com;

mhyland@appanet.org; dave.millure@metglas.com; snadel@aceee.org; wes.patterson@us.abb.com;

Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com; artrosenfeld@gmail.com;

srosenstock@eei.org; rroy@nrdc.org; robert.saint@nreca.coop; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com;

Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; greg.coulter405@gmail.com; Jim.creevy@nema.org;

ahofmann@publicpower.org; pkumar@publicpower.org; jmauer@standardsasap.org;

Aaron.Meyers@cooperindustries.com; jrossetti@mlgw.org; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com;

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; bsmith@federalpacific.com; mwaltner@nrdc.org; kwinder@mleainc.com;

Brian Coffey; kcoughlin@lbl.gov; brenda.edwards@ee.doe.gov; jeremiah.freeman@ee.doe.gov; Caitlin

Johnson; Zhimei Luo; emily.marchetti@ee.doe.gov; Michael Rivest; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov;

charlied@uus.org; James.Lass@cleco.com; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net; DYoung@energy‐

solution.com; chad.kennedy@us.schneider‐electric.com; eduardorobles@eaton.com;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; thomas.patzner@us.schneider‐electric.com;

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; Raba, Jim; Ned Brush (Ned.efbrush@gmail.com); Dave Brender

(dbrender@cda.copper.org); Charlie Drexler (charlied@uus.org); sco_choinski@nema.org; Clark Silcox

(cla_silcox@nema.org)

Subject: RE: MV LCC and PBP Sensitivity Results: Materials Exclusion, ZDMH, H0, and SA1

Good evening all:

I have been updated on today’s meeting and find the direction to be not yet logical.  My numbers say

that it takes around $20/watt to go from the current mandatory standard for liquid filled transformers

to EL1 while the value of a watt saved is only $6.71/watt on an M3 base.  At the same time it takes

$30/watt to go from EL1 to EL2 for the same value of $6.71 /watt saved on an M3 base.  Granted, the

cost curve is less steep if you decide to get rid of M3 and move to an amorphous base but that was not

the agreement in the meeting I attended.

How can anyone cost justify moving higher than the current mandatory standard and why would anyone

volunteer to do it for a minimum national standard?  You, the negotiators are supposed to be looking

out for the well‐being of the American Public and the rhetoric that was passed back and forth today

suggests that economics do not matter and that M3 does not matter.
My recommendation is to hold right at the current standard until someone can cost‐justify anything

greater.  My conclusion after studying the numbers is that the DOE did a great job the first time around.

For the medium voltage dry transformers the cost to get to EL1 is somewhat less but if you use a 10‐15

year amortization base instead of a 30 year base then higher efficiencies for medium voltage dry

transformers is not cost justified either.

For both the liquid and dry, I believe that my data is accurate and can be trusted as it is traceable to real

manufacturers, both big and small.  My recommended actions will help the country to get stronger.  

Higher efficiencies will hurt the US market for new distribution transformers and bring on a strong

rebuild market along with lower efficiencies.

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: Phil Hopkinson  

Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 7:53 PM

To: 'Robert Berman'

Cc: Christopher Bolduc; Richard Parker; rick.anderson@faypwc.com; tballo@earthjustice.org;

ScottB@lvmetals.com; john.caskey@nema.org; jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com;

john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; adelaski@standardsasap.org; Teckman@nwcouncil.org; gbf1@pge.com;
carlos.gaytan@ge.com; rgreeson@federalpacific.com; bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com; jhodge@howard.com;

mhyland@appanet.org; dave.millure@metglas.com; snadel@aceee.org; wes.patterson@us.abb.com;

Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com; artrosenfeld@gmail.com;

srosenstock@eei.org; rroy@nrdc.org; robert.saint@nreca.coop; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com;

Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; greg.coulter405@gmail.com; Jim.creevy@nema.org;

ahofmann@publicpower.org; pkumar@publicpower.org; jmauer@standardsasap.org;

Aaron.Meyers@cooperindustries.com; jrossetti@mlgw.org; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com;

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; bsmith@federalpacific.com; mwaltner@nrdc.org; kwinder@mleainc.com;

brian.coffey@navigant.com; kcoughlin@lbl.gov; brenda.edwards@ee.doe.gov;

jeremiah.freeman@ee.doe.gov; caitlin.johnson@navigant.com; zhimei.luo@navigant.com;

emily.marchetti@ee.doe.gov; mrivest@navigant.com; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov; charlied@uus.org;

James.Lass@cleco.com; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net; DYoung@energy‐solution.com;

chad.kennedy@us.schneider‐electric.com; eduardorobles@eaton.com;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; thomas.patzner@us.schneider‐electric.com;

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; Raba, Jim

Subject: RE: MV LCC and PBP Sensitivity Results: Materials Exclusion, ZDMH, H0, and SA1

Good evening Robert and all:

My report was created with the help of multiple manufacturers running designs which I averaged.  I then

extracted differences in prices and divided the prices by the watts saved (at 50% RMS equivalent load) in

incrementally moving from EL0 to EL1 to EL2...to the points where we could go no further with M3.  At

the current prices of M3, copper, aluminum, oil, etc. it did not appear that higher efficiencies can be cost

justified in most cases.

It is true that SA1 has a flatter cost curve than M3 but if you are going to have an efficiency document

that M3 can meet then you need to do the kind of runs that Chris Bolduc just completed where you

restrict the steels to M3 to find out where it hits the brick wall.  SA1 can certainly go higher in efficiency

but if you do the cost versus efficiency calculations with SA1 in the mix then you will not be able to see

the brick wall intercept.   

Chris did it right when he ran the designs excluding ZDMH, HO, and SA1.

For key assumptions I have some thoughts:
1. When considering Utility transformers I do not have a problem with the assumptions of 30 years

amortization, 3% inflation and 7% cost of money.

2. When considering the Industrial and Commercial transformers, I recommend that the time

period be brought back to no longer than 10‐15 years along with the same 3% inflation and 7%

cost of money.  This more nearly matches the way business decisions are made in the US

economy today.  Investment dollars are always tight and must compete with other deserving

projects.  The shorter time period is realistic.

I hope that this helps and wish you all the best with the negotiations.

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: Sunday, November 06, 2011 7:29 PM

To: Phil Hopkinson

Cc: Christopher Bolduc; Richard Parker; rick.anderson@faypwc.com; tballo@earthjustice.org;

ScottB@lvmetals.com; john.caskey@nema.org; jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com;

john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; adelaski@standardsasap.org; Teckman@nwcouncil.org; gbf1@pge.com;

carlos.gaytan@ge.com; rgreeson@federalpacific.com; bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com; jhodge@howard.com;

mhyland@appanet.org; dave.millure@metglas.com; snadel@aceee.org; wes.patterson@us.abb.com;

Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com; artrosenfeld@gmail.com;
srosenstock@eei.org; rroy@nrdc.org; robert.saint@nreca.coop; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com;

BermanEconomics@gmail.com; Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; greg.coulter405@gmail.com;

Jim.creevy@nema.org; ahofmann@publicpower.org; pkumar@publicpower.org;

jmauer@standardsasap.org; Aaron.Meyers@cooperindustries.com; jrossetti@mlgw.org;

Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com; jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; bsmith@federalpacific.com; mwaltner@nrdc.org;

kwinder@mleainc.com; brian.coffey@navigant.com; kcoughlin@lbl.gov; brenda.edwards@ee.doe.gov;

jeremiah.freeman@ee.doe.gov; caitlin.johnson@navigant.com; zhimei.luo@navigant.com;

emily.marchetti@ee.doe.gov; mrivest@navigant.com; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov; charlied@uus.org;

James.Lass@cleco.com; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net; DYoung@energy‐solution.com;

chad.kennedy@us.schneider‐electric.com; eduardorobles@eaton.com;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; thomas.patzner@us.schneider‐electric.com;

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; Raba, Jim

Subject: Re: MV LCC and PBP Sensitivity Results: Materials Exclusion, ZDMH, H0, and SA1

Per my earlier email (and Wes's response): These runs simply show that M3 is priced at an EL0 efficiency

and has to be repriced to show better LCCs an be competitive at higher efficiencies. At some point M3

hits an asymptote where it becomes an actually efficiency issue; but that's probably closer to EL5+

rather than EL0.1. The cost/efficiency curves for ZDMH, HO and SA1 are simply flatter. Our objective is

to locate the technical asymptote for M3, where it can compete but at a lower price consistent with its

performance properties relative to other materials, not to set a standard that acts as a price support for

M3.

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 Nov 6, 2011, at 6:14 PM, Phil Hopkinson wrote:
Good afternoon Chris and all:

I commend your work to run these design lines excluding ZDMH and HO and SA1 to test the sensitivity.

Under this scenario you are coming much closer to the relationships that I found for the manufacturers

that I had run designs using M3.  There is not much room for higher efficiencies on an M3 base which

just speaks to the thorough job that the DOE did in the last rule making.  If you have not already done

so, I would recommend that you explore options between the current mandatory standard and EL1,

perhaps in 1/10th steps from EL0, EL0.1, EL 0.2, etc...to EL1.0.

It is not clear to me whether there will be future DOE revisits to explore Distribution Transformer Energy

Efficiency but as higher performing core materials become more widely available then there may be

better opportunities for efficiency increases than is now apparent with an M3 base.

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

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Christopher Bolduc [mailto:cabolduc@lbl.gov]  

Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 1:37 PM

To: Richard Parker

Cc: rick.anderson@faypwc.com; tballo@earthjustice.org; ScottB@lvmetals.com;

john.caskey@nema.org; jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com; john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov;

adelaski@standardsasap.org; Teckman@nwcouncil.org; gbf1@pge.com; carlos.gaytan@ge.com;

rgreeson@federalpacific.com; bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com; jhodge@howard.com; mhyland@appanet.org;

dave.millure@metglas.com; snadel@aceee.org; wes.patterson@us.abb.com;

Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com; artrosenfeld@gmail.com;

srosenstock@eei.org; rroy@nrdc.org; robert.saint@nreca.coop; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com;

BermanEconomics@gmail.com; Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; greg.coulter405@gmail.com;

Jim.creevy@nema.org; ahofmann@publicpower.org; pkumar@publicpower.org;

jmauer@standardsasap.org; Aaron.Meyers@cooperindustries.com; jrossetti@mlgw.org;

Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com; jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; bsmith@federalpacific.com; mwaltner@nrdc.org;
kwinder@mleainc.com; cabolduc@lbl.gov; brian.coffey@navigant.com; kcoughlin@lbl.gov;

brenda.edwards@ee.doe.gov; jeremiah.freeman@ee.doe.gov; caitlin.johnson@navigant.com;

zhimei.luo@navigant.com; emily.marchetti@ee.doe.gov; mrivest@navigant.com; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov;

charlied@uus.org; Phil Hopkinson; James.Lass@cleco.com; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net;

DYoung@energy‐solution.com; chad.kennedy@us.schneider‐electric.com; eduardorobles@eaton.com;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; thomas.patzner@us.schneider‐electric.com;

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; Raba, Jim

Subject: MV LCC and PBP Sensitivity Results: Materials Exclusion, ZDMH, H0, and SA1

Dear Committee Members,

Please find draft LCC and PBP sensitivity results for both liquid‐immersed and dry‐type medium voltage

transformers (design lines 1‐5, 9 ‐13B) attached. The sensitivity excludes ZDMH, H0 and SA1 as core

materials from sample of designs options.

Thank you,

‐ Chris

On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Christopher Bolduc <cabolduc@lbl.gov> wrote:

Dear Committee Members,

Please find the draft LCC and NIA results for dry‐type medium‐voltage  

transformers (design lines 9 ‐ 13B) attached.

Thanks you,

‐ Chris

‐‐‐‐ 

Chris Bolduc

Energy Efficiency Standards Group

Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National  

Laboratory t. 416‐535‐7546 c. 647‐832‐4021
‐‐  

‐‐‐‐ 

Chris Bolduc

Energy Efficiency Standards Group

Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory t. 416‐535‐7546 c.

647‐832‐4021

<DT‐MV‐DryType Results‐ Max M2 ‐ 110511.pdf><DT‐MV‐LiquidImmersed Results‐ Max M2 ‐

110511.pdf>