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

Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 9:18 AM 

To: Robert Berman 

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

Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Bruce Smith; Caitlin 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 

Hi Bob and all: 

You might want to start thinking about what A factor makes sense to you. 

I doubt that there will be much support for anything over $5 or $6 per watt as there is not much 

business being conducted for such values today. 

Best regards, 

Phil 

Phil Hopkinson,P.E. 

HVolt Inc. 

704-846-3290 

F: 704-845-2520 

C: 704-236-3320 

phopkinson@hvolt.com

On Oct 11, 2011, at 9:09, "Robert Berman" <bermaneconomics@gmail.com> wrote: 

What you suggest about the A factor being not entirely forward looking makes some sense, 

conceptionally. It should reflect the higher short-run marginal energy cost as well. I suppose, as 

a first approximation, you could just take the inverse of the dispatch order and fill the 8760 hours 

with high cost plants, based on prior usage. That would give you a weighted average. A factors 

would certainly be higher. Good idea for advising utilities. Think you can sell them? 

Couldn't do anything with it here, though, or anything directly to do with TOC as the enabling 

legislation doesn't work that way. We could cobble together some sort of a higher-cost A factor, 

based also on the above, then design the transformer that would minimize TOC for that A factor 

and some typical residential load factor. See what efficiency that would yield, and make that the 

MEPS. I think I could buy into that. 
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 11, 2011, at 8:15 AM, Phil Hopkinson wrote: 

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, impedance voltage 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 factor 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 the Negotiating

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; Brian Coffey; Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris 

Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Bruce Smith; Caitlin 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 the 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 does fine on an "average" load. You've really 

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

and probably something with time-of-day and demand 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 have 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 transmission 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 example of why rolled-in rates 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 accounting department that sends the bills. Duke has 

a lot of coal and nuclear power that 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 costs. 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 order. It's all system lambda at one point or another. None of this 

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

capacity and energy will be, long term (probably a combined cycle 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 nameplate 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; 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 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 engineering designs, I am concerned about a number of the assumptions 

made regarding electricity utility system economics as well as the 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.