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

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 5:02 PM

To: Richard Parker

Cc: Jerry.Corkran@CooperIndustries.com; Jerry Schoen (jerry.schoen@aksteel.com); Caskey, John; Rob

Greeson (rgreeson@electro-mechanical.com); sco_ choinski@nema.org; Brian Coffey; Dan Cohen; John

Cymbalsky; Raymond Pcolinski (R aymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com)

Subject: RE: DOE Negotiations

Good afternoon Richard and all:

Thank you for clarifying this situation. I think that I should not be representing any stakeholder under

the circumstances. I would ask, however, if there may still be a role to review the negotiating data and

to be certain that it is accurate. Such a position would not requir e me to attend the meetings in person

but to review the data and check for accuracy. I have been alerted that the payback periods for the

various design lines are not consistently changed from the data in the preliminary analysis. Some of the

lines have experienced significant increases in th e payback periods after my work of finding problems

with the OPS Design information. However, other design lines are showing reduced payback periods.

This does not seem reasonable as all of the cost curves got steeper after the errors were resolved. They

all should be showing longer payback periods.

I have no stake in the outcome of the DO E negotiations but both as a support to Navigant and as a

longtime NEMA member, a registered Professional Engineer and an IEEE Fellow, I am most interested in

accurate and truthful data being provided to all of the stakeholders at the meetings. This cou ld be done

remotely but the data needs to be accurate.

I hope this helps,

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: Thursday, September 01, 2011 4:46 PM

To: Phil Hopkinson

Cc: Jerry.Corkran@CooperIndustries.com ; Jerry Schoen ( jerry.schoen@aksteel.com ); Raymond Pcolinski

( Raymond.pcolinski@atimetals.com ); Caskey, John; Rob Greeson ( rgreeson@electro-mechanical.com );

sco_choinski@nema.org ; Brian Coffey ( brian.coffey@navigant.com ); Dan Cohen; John Cymbalsky

Subject: Re: DOE Negotiations



### Hi all,

Thanks, Phil, for bringing this to my attention, as Brian Coffey did as well, earlier this morning.

### As you may know you were nominated for th e negotiating committee by AK Steel for your

expertise, and to represent their interests, and were selected by DOE staff and myself on that

basis. None of us were aware of your prior work for Navigant (DOE's consultant in this

proceeding) when that selection was made. Since receiving this email I have conferred with

DOE staff and we all agree that it would not be appropriate for a person who has worked for the

government (as consultant to Navigant) on this rulemaking to also represent a stakeholder in this

same rulemaking. Therefore, we will ask you to disengage from the committee though you are of

course free to attend the public meetings.

Thank you for your disclosure, which was entirely appropriate. AK Steel is ably represented by

Eric Petersen on the committee so while your expertise will be missed we do not see it as

necessary to add a replacement representative for AK Steel.

Best wishes,

Richard Parker

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Phil Hopkinson < phopkinson@hvolt.com > wrote:

Good morning Gents:

I want to bring you up to speed on the DOE Ne gotiations and my role or lack thereof.

1. Richard Parker is the negotiator and has named me to the negotiating team as a result of a

request by AK Steel.

2. Brian Coffey of Navigant Consulting is my dir ector of consulting activ ity in support of the

DOE.

3. This morning Brian called me to indicate that the DOE does not plan to pay for work by any

of the negotiators and that they will not support my work in the DOE task force. He is actually

in the same unsupported state and will not be in the meetings either.

4. Brian Coffey pointed out that my contract with Navigant is non-exclusive and as such is not

preventing me from representing others but I w ould not be representing the DOE or Navigant.

5. Future work by me for Navigant is likely to be a continuation of general technical expert and

information gatherer as requested.

6. We addressed the aspect of poten tial conflicts of interest and I indicated that as in every

consulting arrangement, I do my best to find the tr uth (like cost versus e fficiency) and report the

facts without bias. We both agreed that such activity would not be a conflict of interest.

### 7. I see several possible paths forward at this point:

a. Disengage from the task force.

b. Remain on the task force as a repres entative of another organization and

attend the meetings.

c. Remain on the task force as a repres entative of another organization but

attend the meetings by telephone only and not attend the meetings in person.

8. I will be glad to assist the negotiations in an y useful way that you may see fit at this point

and am not trying to rattle a tin cup as I have plenty of othe r consulting work but thought it

important to clarify my current status.

9. I have one conflict for the first meeting as I am giving a seminar on Voltage Transients to

Hammond on September 16 th 

### in Toronto. My plan had been to fly to Washington, DC on the

14 th 

### , attend the morning and early afternoon sessions of the taskforce on the 15 th 

### , and then fly to

Toronto on the late afternoon flight on the 15 th 

### to give my seminar. No tickets have been

purchased.

10. I don’t know if either of you have ideas but I would lik e to start working on any travel plans

early enough to avoid expens ive last minute flights.

Thanks for your interest,

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