From: Corkran, Jerry L [mailto:Jerry.Corkran@CooperIndustries.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 7:46 PM 

To: Rosenstock, Steven; Phil Hopkinson; Edwin Brush; Robert Berman; Meyers, Aaron 

Cc: Bob Smith; Caskey, John; Brian Coffey; Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art 

Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; 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 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; Nadel, Steve; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes 

Patterson; Zhimei Luo; rjstahara@centralmoloneyinc.com; Ali Ghafourian; Dave Brender; 

jay.ballard@schneider-electric.com; Kenneth.Harden@schneider-electric.com; Tom Patzner; Steve 

Nizinski; Richard Parker; Marusinec, Richard M; Trujillo, Antonio 

Subject: RE: Distribution Transformer Loading and other Analyses 

As mentioned before on the plus side, add in the added load for electric plug in cars.  This new demand

for power could greatly increase residential loads and change the whole picture.     

Jerry Corkran

From: Rosenstock, Steven [mailto:SRosenstock@eei.org] 

Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 6:21 PM 

To: Phil Hopkinson; Edwin Brush; Robert Berman 

Cc: Bob Smith; Caskey, John; Brian Coffey; Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art 

Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; 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; Corkran, Jerry L; 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; Nadel, Steve; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; 

Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo; rjstahara@centralmoloneyinc.com; Ali Ghafourian; Dave Brender; 

jay.ballard@schneider-electric.com; Kenneth.Harden@schneider-electric.com; Tom Patzner; Steve 

Nizinski; Richard Parker 

Subject: RE: Distribution Transformer Loading and other Analyses 

But you also have to account for the appliance energy efficiency standards, Energy Star Program, and increasingly 

stringent building codes which will reduce electric usage at the same homes and buildings. 

Examples: 

1970's refrigerator: about 1700 kWh 

New refrigerator: about 500 kWh 

1980's central air conditioner: about 7.0 - 8.0 SEER 

New central air conditioner: 13.0 SEER 

Energy Star central air conditioner: 14.5+ SEER and 12.0+ EER 

1990's residential central heat pump: 6.8 HSPF 

2006 and after heat pump: 7.7 HSPF 

Energy Star heat pump: 8.2 HSPF for split systems (8.0 for package systems) 
Steve Rosenstock 

EEI 

-----Original Message----- 

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

Sent: Tue 10/11/2011 8:36 AM 

To: Edwin Brush; Robert Berman 

Cc: Bob Smith; Caskey, John; Brian Coffey; Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob 

Saint; 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; 

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

rjstahara@centralmoloneyinc.com; Ali Ghafourian; Dave Brender; jay.ballard@schneider-electric.com; 

Kenneth.Harden@schneider-electric.com; Tom Patzner; Steve Nizinski; Richard Parker 

Subject: RE: Distribution Transformer Loading and other Analyses 

Excellent comments Ned: 

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 <http://www.hvolt.com/> 

From: Edwin Brush [mailto:ned.efbrush@gmail.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 8:31 AM 

To: Robert Berman; Phil Hopkinson 

Cc: Bob Smith; Caskey, John; Brian Coffey; Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob 

Saint; 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; Dave Brender; jay.ballard@schneider-electric.com; 

Kenneth.Harden@schneider-electric.com; Tom Patzner; Steve Nizinski; Richard Parker 

Subject: Re: Distribution Transformer Loading and other Analyses 
Phil, Bob, et al, 

Loading levels are important, and most of this discussion appears to concentrate on current loading. 

The transformers that would/will be included in minimum efficiency standards will be installed and have a life in 

service of 30 to perhaps 40 years in the future, or longer. 

Future loading appears quite important for consideration and thoughtful inclusion in minimum required efficiencies. 

Current loading and loading patterns can be a baseline, and further energy efficiency gains among commercial, 

industrial and residential customers would be a factor in reducing their loading. HOWEVER, average residential 

loading since the 1950's has increased in recent years (one citing of DoE data has over twice the average 

consumption per household) - consider the current additional existing appliances, activities, penetration of central air 

conditioning, etc., compared to earlier decades. 

There are also current incentives and projections for large increases in numbers of electric and rechargeable electric 

vehicles for the future, as well as trends to time-of-day electricity pricing by utilities. (That could provide strong 

incentives to utilize the low rates proposed for late night hours). 

As late night usage grows, transformers have a heavier load at night - less opportunity to cool from perhaps the 

heavy daytime load from summer air conditioning, and probable higher rms load? -- consider the new system 

loading, not previously existing, from late-night vehicle recharging. 

My suggestion is to consider both current and historical loading and loading patterns, and FUTURE potential 

loading patterns. 

Then include "right-sizing" for transformers where applications permit. Right-sizing can reduce core losses (those 

continuous losses) - consider the 45 kva vs. 75 kva dry transformer, using the same grain-oriented steel, or 

amorphous; then, reduce conductor resistance appropriately to achieve higher overall transformer energy efficiency. 

Future loading for new transformer production may be significantly higher than current loading (while they are inservice for the next decades). 

Best regards, 

NED 
Dr. Edwin F. Brush, Jr. 

BBF & Associates, Consultants 

PS: Appliances currently available have delayed start, that can shift operating to late night further increasing late 

night loading; however, that is shifting load, where intent is to smooth loading patterns - and is not "new" loading 

such as the cited above electric and rechargeable electric vehicles being introduced and promoted. In addition, I have 

electric hot-water (at 5,000KW/year - my Boston price is $0.22 ! - how much higher might it be in future?) - time of 

day pricing could lead many to use late night loading, and, if that KW pricing is low enough, perhaps to have 

electric hot water heating increase in market penetration in future years?? (using even more KW's per household) 

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Robert Berman <bermaneconomics@gmail.com> wrote: 

Thanks for you response, Bob. 

I don't take issue with any analysis of how a transformer manages a load, or the technical aspects of how a 

transformer is designed to manage that load. The nature of that load, though, I accept as a given. In the LV meeting 

at the end of September, I was surprised to learn that the LV dry load was a low as it was. Couldn't imagine why 

anyone would deliberately oversize a transformer so inefficiently. A near-by engineer simply said "fire codes" and 

that immediately made sense. I was also directed to ASHRAE and related K-12 studies that assessed the likelihood 

of further falling loads due to increased efforts for energy conservation, and the need, for safety reasons, to maintain 

the capability for a full load on every outlet. I view that load as a reality -- a fact of life -- something as an analyst I 

cannot choose to disregard. I also see the load for measurement of efficiency, for manufacturer compliance 

purposes, as a separate and separable question. Although my own predilection is that the load for measurement 

"ought" to be the "real" load, I'm certainly prepared to hear arguments for doing otherwise; recognizing that they are 

not the same. What I am unwilling to accept is an argument that asserts a reality based on the regulatory 

measurement decision. That's at best backwards. Indeed, I would insist that the impact evaluation be done at the real 

load; possibly even considering some alternative measurement points on cost and efficiency given the real load. 
As far as a payback period is concerned, my own preference is for an incremental rate of return given my orientation 

to economics. However, since one is simply the reciprocal of the other, I have no objection if someone is more 

comfortable having gone to a different school. Some recognition of the cost of money, productivity of capital, and 

business risk is absolutely necessary, whether a hospital or cookie factory. The question, then, is the appropriate 

hurdle rate (or payback period) for the investment. In the case of energy conservation, a 3-year payback period 

seems inappropriate. That would correspond to a 33% return on investment, and is consistent with substantially 

higher costs of capital than we see in the current economy, and substantially greater risks than is present in an 

energy savings investment, whose only real private risk is a substantial fall in energy prices. Moreover, there are 

public benefits (e.g., environmental costs, impact on energy prices, etc) that is a fundamental part of the reason for 

Federal intervention in the market in this case. Those considerations would obviate for a criteria that may be 

different from the one some companies may use in their private, more risky investments. At this point, I would not 

recommend a particular PBP, but support one based on an appropriate assessment of the additional risk to consumer, 

with appropriate recognition for the additional, social return. 

With respect to an "economically justifiable" investment: generally speaking, it is one consistent with the 

opportunity costs -- with what you give up in order to have it. Similar to the reason for a hurdle rate, it is what a 

purchaser give up in order to have it (or not have it). If users (electricity consumes) made the investment decision, 

and there were no third-party benefits or costs, the decision would be rather straight forward. Energy Star appliances 

are a great example. The consumer looks at the difference in cost and efficiency, evaluates the efficiency at current 

energy prices, and decides whether it's a good buy.Nothing like that is available here: the consumer does not get to 

direct the utility's purchase, and there are other, non-market costs. The situation was beautifully illustrated by a 

conversation I had with the transformer purchasing manager at a major IOU. I pointed out that the energy savings 

associated with the incremental cost of an efficient transformer in a particular situation resulted in a return on 

investment of more than 80% annually (PBP= about 15 months), based on current energy prices alone. He agreed, 

but properly noted that his company and stockholders did not get it. Except for a very small return on the 

incremental investment, it all went to the ratepayer. And that doesn't even begin to address the environmental and 

other social costs. That's the reason for the Federal action. Cookie factories can figure out how to run their 

businesses w/o any Federal help or direction. 

Hope that helps. Look forward to seeing you Wednesday. 

Regards, 

Robert A. Berman, Principal 

Berman Economics 

www.BermanEconomics.com <http://www.bermaneconomics.com/> 

1915 Grand Court 

Vienna, VA 22182 

703-281-0490 

703-655-8398 (cell) 

BermanEconomics@gmail.com

On Oct 10, 2011, at 4:51 PM, Bob Smith wrote: 
Dear Robert: 

Phil's paper utilizes a lot of good and diverse loading situations. I believe his analysis is going to be as accurate as 

we'll find anywhere. Tom Paztner wrote an interesting follow-up (attached) to his comments during the last 

meeting. His comments started me thinking about another source for loading on 600 volt dry transformers. That 

source, which has not been fully utilized, includes the many consulting engineers (Fluor, Black & Veatch, Kiewit, 

Burns & McDonald, O'Neal, CH2MHill, etc.) that are specifying the power ratings of the LV Drys based on their 

connected loads. I'd encourage those doing the technical loading analysis for this committee to utilize this source. 

Phil's data; however, may still be much more valuable, because it is empirical by measurements actually made at 

installations. 

Robert, in the area of economics I would value greatly your listing of attributes that fall into the category of 

"economically justifiable". For instance, in the attached note that I sent last week I expressed great concern that the 

"A" and "B" values were not appropriate for our ICI customers. What do you think? How do you feel about the 

appropriate payback period for an incremental investment by a hospital, paper mill, or a tire plant? I would greatly 

value your input on these subjects. For I am also searching for the right answer to the equipment efficiency 

question, whether it be a gasoline engine, steam turbine or a transformer. 

Going back for a moment on your concern for the loading on transformers, I think I can say with almost perfect 

accuracy, that if we establish efficiency levels another 1⁄2 percentage point higher for the Low Voltage 

Transformers, the consultants and end users, as they are faced with substantially increased pricing, will definitely 

start buying smaller size KVA ratings with the effect that the loading as a percentage of nameplate rating will 

exceed the assumed 35% that we are now using. For the sake of energy conservation I don't think this is a good 

outcome. 

Sincerely, 

Bob Smith, PE 

Product Manager 

Federal Pacific 

601 Old Airport Road 

Bristol, VA 24201 

TEL: (276) 645-8836 <tel:%28276%29%20645-8836> 

FAX: (276) 645-8212 <tel:%28276%29%20645-8212> 

CELL: (276) 591-6143 <tel:%28276%29%20591-6143> 
Email: bsmith@federalpacific.com <mailto:bsmith@federalpacific.com> 

The information contained in this message and any attachments is intended only for the use of the individual or 

entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from 

disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error, you are prohibited from copying, 

distributing, or using the information. Please contact the sender immediately by return e-mail and completely delete 

the original message from your system. 

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@schneider-electric.com; 

Kenneth.Harden@schneider-electric.com; Tom Patzner (thomas.patzner@us.schneider-electric.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. 

<Patzner.doc><October 6.doc>