Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch. - Founder and CEO of SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE is available for PRESS CONFERENCE to answer questions related to the status of demand-site consumer services from distribution utilities, the BI-PV industry, the Million Solar-Rooftops By 2010 Program, restructuring of the energy industry, our new BI-PV PEP USA Program and the Solar Development Cooperative.

NEWS INDEX FOR AUGUST 1998:

1. August's Newsletter is dedicated to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the California Energy Commission (CEC) as pioneers in restructuring the electricity generation industry. The California Energy Commission was created to facilitate nuclear energy contracts that found the normal avenues of the CPUC decision-making too slow to meet the competitive needs of the industry. Presently, it has a variety of functions including the $540 million dollar Renewables Technology Program that was created from the philosophy of competition and environmental protection within Assembly Bill 1890.

   August 3rd, I attended the CPUC Roundtable at their headquarters on Van Ness in San Francisco where Commissioner Neeper hosted the discussion they presented on the Utility Distribution Company's role in Distributed Generation that was initiated by my letters and requests to please include self-generation in the education mailers and all documents initiated from the CPUC mentioning consumer choice in the restructured energy industry. It is a mystery as to how the California Energy Commission (CEC) can offer and fairly facilitate a four-year $54 million dollar deployment program for installing grid-connected systems when the rules and standards for grid interface and industry monitoring of manufacturing warranties, design and installation of BI-PV systems are not in place. The program is very small considering the total Renewables Technology Program is $540 million and we have a national Million Solar Rooftop 1998-2010 Program. The primary focus of the Roundtable discussion was to define what Distributed Generation is. It appears the Rulemaking process may take some time, and should not be used to delay the inclusion of self-generation as a consumer choice in the restructured energy industry.

   The next morning I sat in on another Roundtable discussion on Energy Efficiency. It was quite interesting. There is significantly more moneys in this program than there is for Distributed generation. There was some discussion as to whether DG was actually an energy efficiency technology. It appears Distributed Generation does not at this time have an official place within the CPUC system, and thereby despite the fact that they guarantee cooperative grid connection and net metering; it is still a unclear as to which department will enforce these consumer rights and by what rules and standards.

   During a meeting that afternoon with Bob Lane, Jessie Knight's assistant, I was yelled at severely for not understanding that Distributed Generation had nothing to do with deregulation and in assuring me it was not their responsibility to include self-generation in CPUC documents and consumer education mailers. It took a little persuasion and request from Commissioner Knight to hold down the voice level before I could clarify the fact that the research and advocacy I have provided on behalf of self-generation and especially building-integrated photovoltaics has not been compensated to-date, and that I certainly was not there to be yelled at, but to clarify the issues at hand. I ask him where in the statutes of Assembly Bill 1890 and Senate Bill 90 did it indicate that the deregulation was only to be focused on remote site generation. Mr. Lane immediately turned to Section 392-394 of AB 1890 and began reading. This was the turning point in our conversation. This Section of legislature clearly indicates that competition is the primary basis of deregulation and that all forms of electricity generation should be included in those efforts supporting and facilitating a competitive industry. Mr. Lane indicated the Commission's facilitative language does not include distributed generation or self-generation of electricity and is entirely focused on developing competition within the arena of remote-site generation. He indicated in reading through he statute that, yes, self-generation should have been included in some capacity within the deregulation activities. He said there were numerous environmental groups involved in the decisions regarding the development of their deregulation activities and none of them had once mentioned the issue of distributed generation as a concern in deregulation. I indicated I found this hard to believe, and he indicated I was the only person in the entire state of California that had ever complained regarding CPUC's exclusion of distributed generation in the mailers and the entire deregulation facilitative materials. He said, however, that my complaint is fully justified by AB1890 statute according to Section 392-394 guaranteeing a competitive electricity marketplace, and that self-generation should be included in the wording of all documents coming from the CPUC that includes any mention of consumer choice in the deregulated marketplace. The remainder of the discussion was about how long it would take to begin to generate additional educational materials to consumers clarifying self-generation is a viable choice in deregulation. He at first indicated they did not have any money to evolve further educational materials to consumers to clarify this issue. Then he said it would take six months to generate such a document. The lack of rules that should be in place to facilitate distributed generation and the delay in assuring consumers self-generation is a viable choice in the deregulated marketplace effects the business interests of those of us who were fully prepared for the appropriate response with self-generation completely integrated into the CPUC deregulation materials and related education mailers.

   I would welcome comments from others interested in this topic, and certainly encourage letters to the CPUC expressing your concern about the exclusion of self-generation in their initial public education activities. In closing, Mr. Lane provided some information about how cost was an issue to consider for photovoltaics as a choice in self-generation. Certainly, there are several important issues for consumers to consider in choice of electricity generation, but self-generation is a viable alternative that needs to be fully supported by the CPUC to assure consumers who do choose to create clean demand-site electricity are protected by regulation within the CPUC reducing the risk along with the costs of photovoltaics. Where the electricity industry is competitive by statute, we must consider the consumer's right to choice be fully supported no matter what the price of the generation system. While price has been the undercurrent theme of remote-site generation competition and their costs of industry deployment of renewables technology are being imposed onto the consumer, it is clear with the popularity of Mercedes, Jaguars, Cadilacs and Town Cars that in many cases the consumer has other factors that are more important to them than the bottom-line cost of their purchases.

   It is my belief that consumers who choose to continue to use fuels providing pollution, hazard or damage to the environment be charged a penalty that would pay for the deployment costs of renewables technology in both remote site and distributed generation. Thereby, consumers would be encouraged to pursue their interests in renewables technology and energy producers would be discouraged from clinging to fossil, nuclear and large hydro fuels. This would benefit the entire energy industry and the environment. There is no law that says consumers and society must support the out-dated bad habits of primary energy producers, and they should have every encouragement to evolve more benign electricity production and consumption habits. We are dramatic competition with other nations to evolve photovoltaics. The published document of the Million Solar Rooftops In The European Community states: "Photovoltaics (PV) is a high technology with strong export potential in a very competitive global market and fierce competition with Japan and the USA.

2. Applied Photovoltaics - Short Course:
   We are participating in this on-line international course being offered by the University of New South Wales. The course is being held from August 17 to September 4th. The course has been extremely rewarding with participants from all over the world involved in our on-line discussion of a variety of issues from the extremely technical characteristics of photovoltaic cell development to the parameters of design and industry regulation. In fact, one of the most stirring discussions was regarding the issue of rulemaking. There is some concern from some of the PV scientists in Australia that strict rulemaking would stifle innovation within the industry. I certainly can understand this concern, however without basic rulemaking the innovations will never reach the mainstream marketplace where they are needed and can be appreciated. Visit this course to find out more about the Photovoltaics Special Research Centre at the University of New South Wales.

3. "BP set to buy AMOCO for $47.9 Billion Dollars" Orange County News August 12, 1998
   "The main strength of British Petroleum, they said, is in the business of looking for and finding oil reserves. But, the company is weak in refining the oil into proucts and chemicals and distributing it to consumers, at which Amoco excels."
   
   Enron-Amoco took over Solarex from its founder Dr. Lindmeyer in the 1980s. Solarex, British Petroleum Solar and Siemens are the largest solar companies in the world. When Solarex was taken over by Enron-Amoco, they immediately initiated a four-year lawsuit against ARCO Solar -one of the most innovative companies in the United States, and put them out of business. They were the first company to open a 1MWp power plant in the world. ARCO's patents went to Siemens Corporation. What will the merger of British Petroleum and Amoco mean to the future photovoltaics industry? Is the United States threatened with the loss of one of their largest PV manufacturing companies? Executives at Solarex claim there is no market for PV in the United States despite the strong consumer polls indicating it is their preferred choice of electricity. Enron is not advertising their Solarex products to the public in deregulation nor are they informing the public about the incentives available from the California Energy Commission. While they have the strongest warranties in the industry, they are not promoting their viable technologies to the American public. Cold calls to their distributors for home systems are met with discouragement -ie: Jim Trotter of SES in my own experience. Siemens Solar have closed their home design system and the cost of their PV training unit for certification has skyrocketed from $300 five years ago to over $1,500 dollars. How will the United States remain competitive with these kinds of activities going on? How will we meet the Million Solar Rooftops In USA 1997-2010 Program? When will American consumers be provided ready access to BI-PV products, cooperative grid connection and equal consideration by the Public Utilities Commission in deregulation?

4. THE INTERNATIONAL RACE IS ON FOR PHOTOVOLTAICS
   An Average Of 2 Kilowatt Peak Per Roof Costing $5 Watt = $20 Billion Of Global Building-integrated Photovoltaics 1998-2010
   

   MILLION SOLAR ROOFTOPS IN USA 1997-2010

   
   
   MILLION SOLAR ROOFTOPS PROGRAM BY 2010 FOR EUROPEAN COMMISSION - Plan To Install 500,000 EC & 500,000 3rd World

   "Photovoltaics (PV) is a high technology with strong export potential in a very competitive global market and fierce competition with Japan and the USA. There is a very motivated PV industry in Europe which should be supported in its effort to bring domestic and export markets off the ground. Besides the leading European oil and other big companies, many SMEs are active in the field. There is much scope for their number to increase and for large numbers of jobs to be created."

   High School Energy Debate

   One Million Solar Rooftops In USA 1997-2010 Program

   20,000 PROJECTS IN EVERY STATE IN TWELVE YEARS
   1,667 Projects A Year In Each State
   83,333 Total Projects A Year
   With Average Systems Of 2 Kilowatt Peak Costing $5 Watt
   TOTAL OF $10 BILLION DOLLARS OF SOLAR ROOFTOP COMMERCE 1997-2010
   2,000 Megawatts of Renewable and Sustainable Clean Electricity
   Average of 10 Watts Per SF Demands 200 Million SF PV Surface

5. 1998 Solar Winter Gala - We Welcome Volunteers & Prizes To Make This Event Really Special This Year.

   ENTER THE 1998 ORANGE COUNTY SOLAR WINTER GALA ALL SCHOOLS POSTER CONTEST

   High School Energy Debate

6. THE SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE IS IN THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZING AN
   INTERNATIONAL BI-PV DESIGN COMPETITION FOR ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS

7. TEN WINNING DESIGNS TO BE PUBLISHED IN BOOK:

   A DOMES DAY BOOK FOR THE NEW MILLENIUM
   HEADRICK SOLAR-VOLTAIC DOME(R)POWER STATION

   A PATTERN BOOK FOR ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS

   
   

   
   August's Featured Building-Integrated Photovoltaics
   United Kingdom Commercial Building With PV Cladding