Ira Krepchin for the Cutter Information Corp. 1997
Technologies for Distributed Power Generation
One primary concern I would ask the Commission to consider as they contemplate the Education Fund is the fact that $480 million of the $540 million dollar Renewables Technology Program resources were allocated for remote-site deployment of renewables technology. It has been stated by many authoritative sources that renewable energy technologies are most effective on small-scale demand-site generation applications. Yet, it appears that less than 12% of the Renewables Technology Program funding was allocated to demand-site consumer technology applications or distributed generation. I was not formally involved in the decision-making process to determine that funding allocation, however I would compel a guiding conscience as you determine how the limited Consumer Education Trust Fund is appropriated. Please consider with me for a moment what results might have evolved (and could for other states) if $250 million had been allocated for remote-site renewables technology with $20 million for consumer/industry education, and $250 million had been spent on demand-site consumer-owned or utility-leased renewables technology for distributed generation with $20 million on related consumer/industry education using a 50/50 approach.
Being Proactively Responsive To New Needs As CEC Efforts Actually Change The Industry
It is of primary importance to responsively adapt to the rapidly changing opportunities within the energy industry, many of which are actually being facilitated by the CEC amid the wave of industry restructuring.
Determining Appropriate Groups To Target For In-depth Consumer Education
In the decision of where and how to spend the existing $5.4 million dollar consumer education fund, we must focus on those technologies and consumer groups with limited resources for consumer education due to the lack of a previously existing industry focus, where related renewables technology will most likely need substantial consumer education services and most importantly we must train the service industry that will provide ongoing education to the consumer as a part of their profession. We must consider what consumer audiences will take the least effort and resources to constructively educate, and determine how their knowledge will expand. Consider the potential impact of each consumer audience. When educated, how will they potentially impact a total consumer audience. Focus on types of energy consumers instead of geographic areas.
Building-integrated Photovoltaics for Primary Energy Producers in USA 1997
Primary Energy Producers in the United States consumed 36% of the total electricity consumed in the US in 1994. The last two years, I have spoken at the 59th & 60th American Power Conference sponsored by the Illinois Institute of Technology. My papers are published in the respective proceedings of this conference for 1997 and 1998. Although, there is a significant interest in renewables technology in this group, I have found a tremendous hiatus in technical understanding of the advancements in renewables technology among these energy specialists. Typical comments include: "Oh yes, I remember photovoltaics, wasn’t it a type of solar generator used in the 70s?" "PV uses the sun to heat water to create electricity, right?" "PV -that industry died out in the early eighties." "Solar energy is far too expensive for consumer markets -it will never payoff." When I share with these professionals advances in BI-PV renewables technology, the reduction in price and demonstration projects installed around the world, the questions and comments change. "How much does a BI-PV system cost, now?" "Is it possible to install building-integrated photovoltaics (BI-PV) on our office or warehouse structures?" "Could I use BI-PV to offset purchase of energy from other companies during down-time of our coal-fired generator?"
Please consider that your most ardent consumers of renewables technology are potentially Primary Energy Producers. It would cost less than a million dollars to put together a comprehensive state-wide consumer education program for primary energy producers in cooperation with associated industry and government programs. Primary Energy Producers in the USA can and will pay to have energy audits and renewable technology demonstrations to assist them in meeting new overhead costs and responsibilities as they adapt to a competitive marketplace and the dynamics of industry restructuring. They not only want to expand their portfolios, control their own consumer destinies, but they want to align themselves with evolving technologies.
I developed a half-day consumer education workshop for the American Power Conference this year: Building-Integrated Photovoltaics for Primary Energy Producers in the United States of America (BI-PV PEP USA). We plan to expand our workshop to a full-day in 1999 with a possible FEMP energy audit demonstration, actual technology demonstrations, existing projects review and a mini-exhibit of products. I provided a sample of a table exhibit for the Commission at the hearing on June 3rd. The CEC could be an important presenter in our next workshop April, 1999 as we educate a variety of Primary Energy Producers about the Renewables Technology Program -its strengths and its weaknesses. CEC involvement in this conference would provide an initiative for Commissioners and other participants to analyze and communicate their position in the restructuring process. The goal is to encourage everyone to direct their efforts most effectively.
Primary Energy Producers As Consumer Group May Facilitate UDC Cooperation
In my paper BI-PV PEP USA referenced above that was written for the 60th American Power Conference this year describes my experience in consumer research. When I called Southern California Edison in February to find out how, and how long it would take my clients to hook up a BI-PV system in Corona del Mar and Irvine, California. The bottom-line response from Greg Berlin V.P. of Energy Efficiency in the CEO’s office was that as far as he knew SCE only connected PV systems to the grid that were internally initiated. He was not aware of the $540 million dollar Renewables Technology Program of the CEC. I was talking to SCE’s distribution branch -not SCE’s energy generation companies. I finally decided to call Vince Schwent at the CEC office. I was referred to the CEO's office by an irate lady from EarthSource® Edison who insisted Edison had nothing to do with them. I had been referred to that office by a man at SCE who first indicated I should call Solar II in the Mojave Desert to get my BI-PV systems hooked-up. When I finally convinced him this had nothing to do with the remote-site solar power plant, he referred me to Earth Source® to ask how to get my BI-PV systems hooked to the utility company grid. My phone bill was very high that week from SCE calls. A long-distance stipend for new renewable technology consumers may be an appropriate education program for the fund -especially for demand-site consumer technology. SCE followed-up with letters of apology and a copy of their net metering contracts copies of which are available in the appendix.
We had better make sure the industry is trained and educated before we frustrate thousands of consumers who become very irritated when they find a UDC that is not only unresponsive, but totally without a clue as to consumer rights and needs in the competitive energy industry. My goal in negotiations with SCE was to be able to call the regular hook-up number for electricity and find a service person who could immediately connect me to the person who could and would facilitate grid-connection, a net metering contract and advise me on installation of my client's BI-PV systems. Tom Dossey at SCE indicated this would be accomplished by May 1st of this year after negotiations with CPUC were settled. Please see the attached letter. He indicated Liz McDannels was in charge of the phone center training. Thus far, I have not gotten an operator at SCE -or at any electricity connection office in the nation who knows these terms or where to send related consumers. I continue to call and inquire. When I have time, I educate the phone receptionist about these terms, and refer them on within SCE to Tom Dossey or Liz McDannels with my name for reference.
Primary Energy Producers are an important target audience with solid business resources to solicit educational presentations about the Renewables Technology Program. In using this group as your first target for consumer education, you will bring cohesion to the energy industry that will in turn be more ready and able to serve a public consumer audience the renewable technologies they request. A coal-plant generator-owner who has problems getting their backup BI-PV system grid-connected will be in their element as they solve this problem in short order. As Primary Energy Producers become educated about renewables technology that can offset down times and expand their generation portfolios, the Utility Distribution Company (UDC) will become more educated and responsive to demand-site consumer renewable technology needs working with this familiar group of clients that access the grid all the time. Neither Primary Energy Producer consumers or public consumers are going to call 100 people or tolerate being referred for three days to find out where to hook up their BI-PV system. Primary Energy Producers as a consumer group could facilitate UDC cooperation, and thereby increase consumer education opportunities and service across the industry increasing consumer confidence in, and use of renewables technology.
The majority of demand-site consumer technology use will be initiated by the consumer in a truly competitive marketplace, not utility-driven. Consumers will purchase BI-PV systems in a design studio or retail showroom, not from a utility. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) must educate the public on who and where to contact the right people at the UDC to get their systems connected and facilitate a net metering contract. Equally as important, the CPUC must assure training and regulation for the UDC to establish industry knowledge expertise in responding to distributed generation consumers for hook-up and a variety of possible service situations that not only effect the consumer, but the safety of Utility Distribution Company wires and technician staff.
Office Of Ratepayer Advocates for the California Public Utilities Commission
The day before the hearing on June 3rd, I received a letter from Mr. McNamara, Chief of Market Development in the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) for the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The letter was in response to my many letters (see letters in appendix) indicating my concern for the lack of mention of demand-site consumer technology in the CPUC mailers to consumers. These materials were allegedly mailed to consumers to explain consumer choice in the new competitive energy industry. CPUC’s entire focus for consumer education was remote site energy. Renewables technology for distributed generation is ripe for deployment.
McNamara included with his letter to me a letter to President Bilas requesting an Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) into the Utility Distribution Company’s (UDC) role in distributed generation (DG) with a request for consumers to join as cosigner to his letter. A Statement with Questions and Term Definitions were also included. The CEC might provide 1-800 # assistance for consumers about opportunities to be directly involved in CPUC and other industry decisions effecting renewables technology. The ORA welcomes letters from consumers stating they want to be docketed as cosigners of this letter and Statement. They may contact people to testify. These documents were docketed in the June 3rd hearing by CEC staff, and are available on the homepage of my website at: http://www.oocities.org/Eureka/1905.
The consumer education program proposed by the first group who presented in the hearing on June 3rd was entirely focused on spending $5.3 million of the $5.4 million on remote site generation and merchandising of green energy. Their main goal is a broadcast ad to switch. As I indicated in my opening comment, consumers have been bombarded with a multitude of advertisements compelling them to switch to all sorts of energy choices since the competitive industry became official on April 1st. The Green-e list only provides the names of remote-site Energy Service Provider companies. Referral to this service is already funded and available to consumers at the CEC hotline. I would compel the Commission to utilize their resources on developing consumer education activities focused on specific types of consumer groups that will educate the industry and assure those consumers who do choose green are served by a quality and knowledgeable energy industry.
Consumer education brochures distributed to all California consumers revealing a balanced agenda for renewables technology opportunities in both demand-site and remote-site generation with information and photographs of examples will do more for the consumer than a thousand switch ads, and cost a lot less. Whatever resources are allocated for television should be used for a film documentary educating consumers and students about renewable technologies, how rapidly they are advancing and how to purchase and install them or where one can find information on the technologies being used by remote-site Green companies. Sell the video to educational outlets and in mainstream bookstores to recoup the costs, and generate more consumer education fund resources. Due to the limited consumer education resources available, all forms of education must have some component of expanding consumer education value either in actually generating revenue or through trained industry professionals who serve the consumer everyday. In this light, I would question the ethics of using certain products for the Buydown -like Solarex without getting a commitment from their parent company to generate advertising of their demand-site technologies along with other ads.
To provide information and ideas more specifically responding to Commission concerns regarding the use of the Consumer Education Fund, I have included an itemized summary in answer to your questions provide in the hearing agenda following this executive summary of comments.
Thank you for your consequential attention to these important matters.
Respectfully yours,
Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO
Attachments:
Itemized Answer To Questions In Attachment A of Commission Hearing Agenda - Page 1
Answers Page 2
Answers Page 3
3535 East Coast Highway, Corona del Mar, CA 92625
bi_pv@yahoo.com -- 714-862-5826
http://www.oocities.org/Eureka/1905
Solar Photovoltaics In Swedish Commercial Structure