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

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

To: Robert Berman 

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; 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 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; Raymond Polinski; 

Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson; 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 

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; 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 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; 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 results 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 efficacy of the OPS results, I asked the 

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

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

close; but the HVolt analysis results in substantially 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 the OPS and Metglas. In the case of the 1500 kVa 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 accurate 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.com
From: 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 Freeman (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; Raymond 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 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; 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 Sept. 15-16 which I thought was quite productive. 
Ground Rules

Attached for your review are the Ground Rules discussed and approved at our Sept. 15-16 

meeting. After we adjourned one member asked for more time to allow 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, Sept. 26, so that we can discuss any proposed 

modifications online and hopefully finalize 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 Engineering and LCC/PBP/NPV 

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

23 so that DOE/Navigant/LBL can respond in a timely way with clarifications, answers and/or 

further analysis. A question has arisen whether 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 comments 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 practical 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 already far along analytically, and Navigant/LBL cannot at this stage 

undertake an exhaustive new investigation that entails gathering 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 August 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>