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

Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 10:25 AM

To: Robert Berman

Cc: Richard Parker; ahoffman@publicpower.org; pk umar@publicpower.org; Aaron Meyers; Andrew

Delaski; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Brian Coffey; Bruce R Hirsch; Bruce Smith; Caitlin Johnson; Charlie

Drexler; Chris Bolduc; Chuck Simmons; Da n Cohen; Daniel Young; Dave Millure;

Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; Gary Fernstrom; Gaytan Ca vazos Carlos (GE Energy, Non-GE); Greg Coulter;

Greg Rosenquist; James Lass; Jeremiah Freeman (C ONTR); Jerry Corkran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen;

Jim Creevy; Joanna Mauer; John Caskey; John Cymbal sky; jrossetti@mlgw.org; kcoughlin@lbl.gov; Ken

Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Meg Waltner; Michael H yland; Michael Rivest; Paul Ryan; Raymond Polinski;

Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robin Roy; Scott Be ck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Tim Ballo; Tom

Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo; sco_choinski@ne ma.org; Greg Coulter (greg.coulter@hotmail.com

Subject: RE: MV Working Group: Follow-up to Sept 15/16 Mtg

Good evening all from Melbourne:

I have looked again at the designs from the manufacturers and do not find problems with them.

Remember that the manufacturers submitted designs with M3 core materials except for amorphous at

the very highest efficiency. The weights of the various manufacturers were reasonably close and

considerably heavier than OPS1. No details were provided in OPS2 to compare.

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: Thursday, October 20, 2011 1:01 PM

To: Phil Hopkinson

Cc: Richard Parker; ahoffman@publicpower.org ; pkumar@publicpower.org ; Aaron Meyers; Andrew

Delaski; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Brian Coffey; Bruce R Hirsch; Bruce Smith; Caitlin Johnson; Charlie

Drexler; Chris Bolduc; Chuck Simmons; Da n Cohen; Daniel Young; Dave Millure;

Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com ; Gary Fernstrom; Gaytan Cavazos Carlos (GE Energy, Non-GE); Greg Coulter;

Greg Rosenquist; James Lass; Jeremiah Freeman (C ONTR); Jerry Corkran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen;

Jim Creevy; Joanna Mauer; John Caskey; John Cymbalsky; jrossetti@mlgw.org ; kcoughlin@lbl.gov ; Ken

Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Meg Waltner; Michael H yland; Michael Rivest; Paul Ryan; Raymond Polinski;

Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Robin Roy; Scott Beck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock;

Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo; sco_choinski@nema.org ; Greg Coulter

( greg.coulter@hotmail.com

Subject: Re: MV Working Group: Follow-up to Sept 15/16 Mtg

### All,

It's important to focus on the purpose of the MEPS is to economically save energy. Reducing energy losses in

transformers will make the transformer more expensive. The LCC analysis that LBL does is a commonly

accepted way to compare the increased initial costs with the energy savings benefits over the life of the

transformer. Mr. Hopkinson's attempt to point only to the initial incremental cost and consider only the

initial Incremental $/Watt is inappropriate and designed to make investments that are clearly in the public

interest seem non

‐ economic. He considers neither the cost spread over the kWh that would not have to be

generated over the life of the investment, nor does he consider the worth of the Watt saved

‐‐ the

comparison to the fuel (and environmental) cost avoided by the small incremental transformer cost. We

would encourage LBL to calculate the $/kWh saved over the life of the transformer (for each increment to

efficiency) and the fuel cost savings over that same period (both in $/kWh and in total, to compare with the

incremental transformer cost.) Additionally, calculation of total tons of carbon not produced (the reduction

in the carbon foot print) would also be of interest to some members of the sub

‐ committee.

The HVolt analysis of 9/24/2011 also appears to call the OPS model into question. The HVolt amorphous (SA1)

transformer designs differs dramatically from OPS resu lts for 150 kVa and 1500 kVa (see "Alternate Amorphous" on

pages 15 & 18 of the HVolt 9/24/2011 email paper). To assure myself of the effi cacy of the OPS results, I asked the

Metglas transformer design engineer to use his well-tes ted commercial design model for the 150kVa and 1500 kVa

design and compare them to the result s by OPS and HVolt . In both cases, t he Metglas and OPS results are very

close; but the HVolt analysis results in subs tantially heavier units at much higher cost.

In the case of the 150 kVa unit, the HVolt analysis reports a weight more than twice that of either OPS or Metglas,

and a cost of 3X that of t he OPS and Metglas. In the case of the 1500 kV a unit, the HVolt results are 2X the result

found by both OPS and Metglas for both weight and cost.

From this I conclude that (1) the OPS results are accura te and that there is some anomaly in the HVolt designs.

A=15.00 150

kVA OPS H-Volt Metglas A=15.00 1500kVA OPS H-Volt Metglas

B=8.00 Eff at

55C 99 .61 99.61 99.59 B=5.50 Eff at

55C 99.69 99.67 99.71

NLL 155 114 141 NLL 616 675 537

LL 603 762 765 LL 7190 7212 7000

Wt 2601 5729 2572 Wt 10499 19013 10491

Matl SA1 SA1 SA1 Matl SA1 SA1 SA1

Core Wt 1026 986 1011 Core Wt 4044 6120 3857

HV-LV Cu-Cu Cu-Cu Cu-Cu HV-LV Cu-Cu Cu-Al Cu-Cu

LV Wt 223 725 190 LV Wt 1383 985 1267

HV Wt 335 941 333 HV Wt 1904 3472 2158

Cost 5536 15311 5227 Cost 25747 45438 26806



### 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 Sep 24, 2011, at 9:28 PM, Phil Hopkinson wrote:

Good evening Richard and all:

Several of my colleagues have sent me new information that better identifies the cost of a watt saved.

Using EIA data, they have found excellent references that show Electric Utility wholesale prices of

energy for contracts as late as September of 2011 at $40

‐ $50/megawatt hour ($0.045/kWH). They have

also shown the prices of energy to Industrial customers at $67/megawatt hour $0.067/kWH).

Using this latest data, I have revised the first year value for utility transformers as $0.045/kWH *8.76

khrs/yr.

= $0.39/watt per year.

This value times the president worth factor for an inflation series (30 years, 3% inflation, and 7% cost of

money)

= 17.0284*$0.39/watt

= $6.71/watt.

I have done the same for Industrial and Commercial Transformers. The worth of a watt saved for such

transformers is $9.91/watt.

The writeup and the several spreadsheets in the report are updated with these values. This should hald

the negotiators to better see the apparent economic value of the various decisions.

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.comFrom: Phil Hopkinson

Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 5:21 PM

To: 'Richard Parker'; ahoffman@publicpower.org ; pkumar@publicpower.org ; Aaron Meyers; Andrew

Delaski; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Brian Coffey; Bruce R Hirsch; Bruce Smith; Caitlin Johnson; Charlie

Drexler; Chris Bolduc; Chuck Simmons ; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; Dave

Millure; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com ; Gary Fernstrom; Gaytan Cavazos Carlos (GE Energy, Non-GE); Greg

Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; James Lass; Jeremiah Fr eeman (CONTR); Jerry Corkran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry

Schoen; Jim Creevy; Joanna Mauer; John Caskey; John

Cymbalsky; jrossetti@mlgw.org ; kcoughlin@lbl.gov ; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Meg Waltner;

Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Paul Ryan; Raymon d Polinski; Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert

Berman; Robin Roy; Scott Beck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson;

Zhimei Luo

Subject: RE: MV Working Group: Follow-up to Sept 15/16 Mtg

Good afternoon Richard and all:

Attached, you will find an analysis of design options versus efficiency that I have prepared at the request

of a number of the stakeholders. This should help all members of the negotiating team to better

understand the cost implications of the various efficiency considerations. Please let me know if there is

a need to be present to explain the contents during the deliberations.

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: Richard Parker [ mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com ]

Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:06 PM

To: ahoffman@publicpower.org ; pkumar@publicpower.org ; Aaron Meyers; Andrew Delaski; Art

Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Brian Coffey; Bruce R Hirsch; Bruce Smith; Caitlin Johnson; Charlie Drexler; Chris

Bolduc; Chuck Simmons; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; Dave Millure; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com ; Gary

Fernstrom; Gaytan Cavazos Carlos (GE Energy, Non- GE); Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; James Lass;

Jeremiah Freeman (CONTR); Jerry Corkran; Jerry Ho dge; Jerry Schoen; Jim Creevy; Joanna Mauer; John

Caskey; John Cymbalsky; jrossetti@mlgw.org ; kcoughlin@lbl.gov ; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Meg

Waltner; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Paul Ryan ; Phil Hopkinson; Raymond Polinski; Richard Parker;

Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Robin Roy; Scott Beck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock;

Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo

Subject: MV Working Group: Follow-up to Sept 15/16 Mtg



### Dear Colleagues,

A few items to follow-up for meeting of Se pt. 15-16 which I thought was quite productive.

### Ground Rules

Attached for your review are the Ground Rule s discussed and approve d at our Sept. 15-16

meeting. After we adjourned one member aske d for more time to allo w in-house counsel to

review the document. This is reasonable so I am re-opening the comment period for the ground

rules to allow further comment, with a request that you do your internal review and send along

any comments by close of business on Monday, Se pt. 26, so that we can discuss any proposed

modifications online and hopefully fi nalize the rules either before or at the beginning of the next

meeting. Remember that the agreement allows modifications so you are never barred from

seeking changes to the agreement that you deem necessary or helpful.

Clarification of the Sept. 23 "deadline" for comments on the Engineering and LCC/NPV

Analysis

At the meeting I asked that Members review the revised Engineer ing and LCC/PBP/NPV

Analysis now posted on the DOE website and su bmit their comments/questions/critique by Sept.

23 so that DOE/Navigant/LBL can respond in a tim ely way with clarificat ions, answers and/or

further analysis. A question has arisen whet her this will act as hard and fast bar to

methodological critiques later on. The answer is no. The deadline is an informal one. It does

not mean that additional concerns cannot be raised later. It means that we hope that you will

carefully examine the analysis and get us your co mments and concerns by no later than Sept. 23

(and preferably sooner) so that Navigant/LBL can respond and we can discuss how best to

proceed prior to the next meeting. As a practic al matter, the later your concerns are put on the

table the more difficult it will be to accommodate them analytically.

As you consider your comments, please keep in mind that data are limited and resources are

limited. This proceeding is alrea dy far along analytically, and Navigant/LBL cannot at this stage

undertake an exhaustive new inve stigation that entails gatheri ng and analyzing large amounts of

new data.

CSLs

Concerns were expressed at the meeting about changes in the CSLs and ELs between the April

and the August analyses. My understanding is that absent compelling reason to change, which

we don't foresee, the CSL's that appear in the A ugust analysis will not be altered going forward.

Miscellaneous

I will send along transcript, minutes, and a firm schedule for future meetings as soon as they are

available, which I hope will be very soon.

All best,

Richard



### <HVOLT DOE Analysis 092411.doc.pdf>