Energy Effic. Buildings Software Survey

This email was broadcast to several email lists by the Energy Efficient Building Assoc. (EEBA) last Wednesday. It reports on the results of a user survey of building energy software, such as DOE-2.1 and ENERGY-10.

The note includes pointers to several resources for Efficient Buildings:

-> Energy Efficient Building Assoc.

-> US DOE’ Software “Tools Directory”

-> Building Environmental Science & Technology
Bion Howard, Principal

EEBA Computer Software Survey Completed

By: Bion Howard 10/97 (originally published in EEBA Journal)

Using the EEBA “open” e-mail server, EEBA associate staff solicited comments on energy efficiency design analysis and ratings software. A preliminary report has been compiled from over 40 responses sent back via the EEBA list, and other sources.

Findings from this unscientific fact-finding survey, sent to a total of 1,100 email addresses across three major list-servers (EEBA-L, Greenbuilding, and AESP-Net ) designers, engineers, architects and builders widely disagree on the usability and reliability of currently available computer tools on the market or available from the Department of Energy and other government sources. Several general themes emerge from the survey results:

1. energy design analysis software must be made easier to use; while
2. also being able to produce very accurate and detailed outputs suitable for sharing with clients;
3. it should have a graphical interface, rather than large tabular data screens;
4. the program code should be well validated preferably with peer-reviewed papers available on the results of verification / validation efforts;
5. outputs should include recognition of major energy efficiency standards and model codes compliance;
6. users should be able to access extensive help-screens, and all the data base entries for editing costs, weather inputs, economics parameters; and
7. software engineers should not forget about the large base of Macintosh users in the energy and architectural field when creating new programs.
8. execution speed of the programs should be quick without great sacrifice in accuracy of results, and
9. the ability to share data with AutoCAD was also mentioned by some respondents as an important attribute.

Building types on which analysis was focused by users were evenly split between residential and commercial and about 2/3 of the respondents indicated they performed both commercial and residential work. Also, nearly half of respondents indicated they used software for “energy ratings” and for demonstrating “code compliance.” Other answers included R&D assessments, weatherization assessment, and utility program evaluation.

Surprisingly less frequent were responses indicating use of software for HVAC system sizing. However, this may be mitigated by the fact the question did not exclude HVAC sizing from the “commercial” or the “residential” category. In fact there were several comments in the responses that software for energy design should be improved specifically to do a better job sizing equipment and distribution systems in a “whole building” context. This approach would permit changes in envelope design, passive solar and daylighting, ventilation strategies, and other modifications to the “loads” side of the equation to be rapidly digested to prepare revised equipment and distribution system sizing data.

Responders reported US Department of Energy’s “DOE-2.1” program was most widely used, followed by (in order of frequency) HOT-2000, MicroPAS / CALPAS, ENERGY-10, ASEAM, MEC-Check and Aec-REM. However, due to the small relative response there is no statistical significance associated with these responses (Note: EEBA does not yet officially endorse any computer programs for evaluating energy efficiency, but is currently considering doing so).

Most persons indicated they have been using computer software for energy analysis for over three years, with many responding that they have been using software for energy design analysis for over five years. Five responders indicated they have been using software for over 15 years ‹ so the population surveyed appeared to be fairly representative of both newer and veteran users. Also, five responded they had been using software energy design analysis tools less than three years.

Conclusions from the EEBA software survey are fairly simple.

– Users seem eager to have more functionality and whole buildings analysis capability embedded into energy design software.

– Many users have considerable experience over many years with such software, yet while DOE-2.1 was mentioned as the most frequently used program, there was no single software package that received high praise.

– There were some positive comments about the new NREL-PSIC program “Designing Low Energy Buildings” ENERGY-10 by respondents (ENERGY-10 is still under development and Version 1.2 is expected to be released in early 1998).

– Another new software package ‹ the Wright Soft “Suite” ‹ of energy analysis programs including the Wright-J program (computer version of ACCA’s Manual J cited in the EEBA Criteria) was not checked by any respondent.

EEBA will be continuing to look into the broad array of energy design software to help its members focus in on the top products providing best results. But from my experience as a user of most of the programs mentioned in this article ‹ some since 1978 ‹ it is most vital to become very familiar with whatever software you use, so errors can be avoided and so that limitations to the results are understood (all programs are limited compared to the “real world” they try to model).

Sources: More information on energy design analysis computer software can be found at the US DOE’ Software “Tools Directory”
Information on EEBA: 501[c.]3 non-profit organization
Contact: Bion Howard, Principal, Building Environmental Science & Technology

7th Intl Conf on Cold Fusion

7th International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-7)
April 19 – 24, 1998
Vancouver Trade & Conventional Centre
Vancouver, Canada

The study of low energy induced nuclear reactions in solids has continued to mature, and many new and compelling scientific findings are becoming known. ICCF-7 provides a unique international forum for direct interaction among top scientists in the field. The quality and diversity of on-going research and commercial implications make ICCF-7 an important event that should not be missed.

ICCF-7 Secretariat
391-B Chipeta Way
Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 USA

Phone (801) 583-2000 Fax (801) 583-6245


Rotating Chairperson for ICCF-7:
Mr. F. Jaeger (USA)
Honorary Co-Chairpersons Emeritus:
Dr. Martin Fleischmann (UK), Dr. Stanley Pons (France)

Committee Members:
Prof. T. Bressani (Italy), Prof. G. Preparata (Italy), Prof. H. Ikegami (Japan), Prof. N. Samsonenko (Russia), Mr. R. Machacek (Canada), Prof. C. Sanchez (Spain), Dr. M. McKubre (USA), Dr. F. Scaramuzzi (Italy), Mr. K. Namba (Japan), Dr. M. Srinivasan (India), Prof. M. Okamoto (Japan), Prof. X.Z. Li (China)

Scientific Chairman: Prof. G. Miley – Univ. of Illinois
Organizing Chairman: Mr. Fred Jaeger – ENECO

Prof. P. Hagelstein – M.I.T., Prof. R. Oriani – Univ. of Minnesota, Prof Y. Kim – Purdue , Dr. T. Passell – EPRI, Dr. Y. Kucherov – ENECO, Mr. R. Machacek – Ontario Hydro, Dr. Carol Storms – Los Alamos (retired), Dr. E. Storms – Los Alamos (retired), Dr. D. Nagel – Naval Research Lab, Dr. F. Tanzella – SRI

Sep 26, 1997 — Official call for one-page abstracts.
Nov 1, 1997 — Deadline for abstracts & registration for presenters.
Jan 1, 1998 — Conference fee increases to $500 USD.
Jan 15, 1998 — Final notification of oral or poster status.
Jan 30, 1998 — Final amendments for abstracts to be published
in ICCF-7 Program Manual and website.
Apr 19, 1998 — Deadline for final papers for inclusion in the
ICCF-7 Proceedings (distributed – Summer ’98)
Apr 19-24th — Vancouver, Canada


08:30 – 09:10 — Invited presentation of the day’s topic.
09:10 – 09:30 — Follow-up discussion and questions.
09:30 – 09:55 — Oral presentation #1 *
09:55 – 10:20 — Morning break
10:20 – 10:45 — Oral presentation #2
10:45 – 11:10 — Oral presentation #3
11:10 – 11:35 — Oral presentation #4
11:35 – 12:00 — Oral presentation #5

12:00 – 13:30 — Lunch

13:30 – 15:00 — 15-20 oral previews of poster presenters (3-5 min/ea)
15:00 – 15:30 — Afternoon break
15:30 – 17:30 — Poster presentations

19:30 – 20:30 — Evening workshops; three nights

* Regular oral presentations will be 20 minutes followed with a 5 minute question and answer period. All oral presenters in the morning will also host a poster follow-up session in afternoon.
November 24, 1997

Significant attention has been drawn to harmful effects that growing fossil fuel emissions have on the environment. Clearly, non-polluting alternative energy sources must be developed to maintain ecological balances and to sustain economic growth.

“Cold Fusion”, a new area of energy research, has the potential to provide economical, clean energy for the next century. The field has steadily evolved to its present form as the study of low energy induced nuclear reactions in solids. It has grown into a diversified, international area of research involving hundreds of scientists from many highly respected laboratories.

An International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF) is held every 18 months to present laboratory results and to exchange ideas for the advancement of scientific knowledge for this promising new field. The 7th international conference, ICCF-7, will be held in Vancouver, Canada next April 19th-24th.

We are seeking financial support from your organization for the ICCF-7 scholarship fund. Conference organizers want to ensure the presentation of the broadest possible peer-reviewed work, regardless of the financial ability of the presenting researcher. Every $5,000 of financial sponsorship will cover basic local expenses and fees for up to five research scientists at ICCF-7. Scholarship recipients can often obtain the balance of travel expenses from their institutes once they have early assurance that their basic local expenses are covered under our cost-sharing scholarship program.

Please let me know if your organization is willing to help fund the ICCF-7 scholarship program for presenting scientists. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, Fred Jaeger, Organizing Chairman

Multi-Agency Radiation Site Survey and Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)

An old friend of mine works at the NRC, and mentioned this draft report that he’d been involved in. Note the principal websites cited at EPA and NRC for additional information.


Multi-Agency Radiation Site Survey and Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)

MARSSIM will provide guidance for planning, conducting, evaluating and documenting environmental radiological surveys for demonstrating compliance with dose-based regulations.

Office of Radiation & Indoor Air
Radiation Protection Division
Cleanup Regulation HomePage

Radiation Site Cleanup Regulation HomePage

Welcome to the EPA Radiation Site Cleanup Rule HomePage.

The Office of Radiation and Indoor Air is developing standards for cleaning up radioactively contaminated sites. This HomePage provides related documents and information that have been made available to the public during the course of the standards development process.

The HomePage also includes other documents and information that apply to radiation site cleanups. For example, the HomePage includes information on the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM), a multi-agency survey and compliance demonstration document.

This HomePage will be updated periodically as the rule development process continues.


The following link has a comprehensive list of EPA Radiation Site Cleanup Rule and MARSSIM files available for viewing and downloading.

Multi-Agency Radiation Site Survey and Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)

MARSSIM will provide guidance for planning, conducting, evaluating and documenting environmental radiological surveys for demonstrating compliance with dose-based regulations. The MARSSIM, when finalized, will be a multi-agency consensus information document. MARSSIM has been developed collaboratively over the past three years by four Federal agencies having authority for control of radioactive material; DoD, DOE, EPA, and NRC. The draft manual is being prepared by a multi-agency technical working group composed of representatives from DoD, DOE, EPA, and NRC.

Ancillary Services – new ORNL report

In a continuing series on utility industry restructuring, Oak Ridge has just released a new report on Ancillary Services:

“Creating Competitive Markets for Ancillary Services,” ORNL/CON-448,
Eric Hirst and Brendan Kirby, October 1997

FERC has recognized the importance of ancillary services for bulk-power reliability and support of commercial transactions on interconnected transmission systems, and Order 888 includes a pro forma tariff for six key ancillary services. To date most tariffs that have been filed have prices these services on the basis of traditional cost-of-service (embedded) costs. Because most of these services are provided by generating units, however, it should be possible to create competitive markets for them. Recent proposals for ISOs call for such markets, but lack the details on how these markets would be structured and operated.

This report describes a spreadsheet model that simulates markets for sevsen services: losses, regulation, spinning reserve, supplemental reserve, load following, energy imbalance, and voltage support. The work demonstrates the likely complexity of markets for energy and ancillary services, arising because the markets are highly interdependent. Costs and prices will vary considerably as functions of system load and current spot price of energy. Also, embedded cost prices bear little relationship to costs and prices that would actually occur in competitive markets. (Capital costs which figure so prominently in embedded costs would be largely irrelevant, and opportunity costs ignored in cost of service analysis can dominate the prices of some ancillary services at times.)

Copies of this report and others listed below can be obtained from Ethel Schorn, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, PO Box 2008, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6206, e-mail, or fax 423-576-8745.
Eric Hirst, who is always interested in discussing industry issues, can be reached at 423-574-6304,

Here is a partial list of recent ORNL publications, including several earlier ones on Ancillary Services:

L. Baxter, E. Hirst, and S. Hadley 1997, Transition-Cost Issues for a Restructuring U.S. Electricity Industry, ORNL/CON-440, March.

E. Hirst, and B. Kirby 1997, Ancillary-Service Details: Dynamic Scheduling, ORNL/CON-438, January.

E. Hirst 1996, “Bulk-Power Reliability: More Than Apple Pie and Motherhood,” The Electricity Journal 9(10), December.

E. Hirst 1996, Ancillary-Service Details: Regulation, Load Following, and Generator Response, ORNL/CON-433, September.

E. Hirst, S. Hadley, and L. Baxter 1996, Factors that Affect Electric-Utility Stranded Commitments, ORNL/CON-432, July.

L. Baxter, S. Hadley, and E. Hirst 1996, Strategies to Address Transition Costs in the Electricity Industry, ORNL/CON-431, July.

B. Kirby and E. Hirst 1996, Ancillary-Service Costs for 12 U.S. Electric Utilities, ORNL/CON-427, March.

B. Tonn and M. Schweitzer 1996, Public Policy Responsibilities in a Restructured Electric Industry: Analysis of Values, Objectives, and Approaches, ORNL/CON-428, March.

S. W. Hadley 1996, ORFIN: An Electric Utility Financial and Production Simulator, ORNL/CON-430, March.

E. Hirst and B. Kirby 1996, Electric-Power Ancillary Services, ORNL/CON-426, February.

DOE Reliability TF PAPER

Just received from Paul Carrier, Task Force Staff Director:

Attached is a copy of the Paper on “Maintaining Bulk-Power Reliability Through Use of a Self-Regulating Reliability Organization” approved by the Secretary’s Task Force on Electric System Reliability at it November 6 meeting. Also attached is a letter from Dr. Philip Sharp, Task Force Chairman, transmitting the Paper to the Chair of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board.

(Also available in Word format on request)

Dr. Walter Massey
Chairman, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board
c/o Morehouse College
830 Westview Drive, S.W.
Atlanta Georgia 30314

Dear Dr. Massey:

The Task Force on Electric System Reliability of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board is writing to provide you with our Task Force Paper entitled Maintaining Bulk-Power Reliability Through Use of a Self-Regulating Organization. This Paper was approved by the Task Force members at our November 6, 1997 meeting.

This Paper expands on the recommendation in our earlier Interim Report that federal legislation clarify the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s authority to approve and oversee the operations of a private standard-setting, electric-reliability organization.

The Task Force anticipates preparing additional papers on a variety of electric-reliability topics over the next nine months, leading to a final report.

The Task Force appreciates the opportunity to provide the Department with this Paper and respectfully submits the recommendations therein.


Dr. Philip Sharp
Task Force on Electric System Reliability


cc: Federico Peña
Elizabeth Moler
Secretary of Energy Advisory Board
Task Force on Electric-System Reliability


November 6, 1997

In its Interim Report, the Task Force recommended that federal legislation clarify the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) authority to approve and oversee the operations of an electric-reliability organization. This paper provides Task Force recommendations concerning the relationship between the FERC and a single, international, self-regulating reliability organization (SRRO) , such as a significantly reformed North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) with a representative membership and governance system, to assure reliability of the bulk-power system.


Historically, NERC, the regional reliability councils, and individual utilities have managed reliability through a system of peer-reviewed standards coupled with voluntary cooperation and adherence to reliability rules. In that system, costs associated with maintaining reliability could be recovered through rates, and peer pressure and reciprocal treatment of costs were generally sufficient to keep utilities in compliance. Also, NERC, as an international organization, includes members from all countries sharing use of the interconnected transmission grid. Under this system, a set of effective reliability rules was developed and implemented.

The Task Force believes the system is clearly unsustainable in the increasingly decentralized and competitive U.S. electricity industry. Voluntary cooperation is unlikely to be sufficient because of the dramatic increase in the number of bulk-power transactions, the increased diversity of interests among participants, the growing unbundling (deintegration) of the electricity industry, the focus on price, and the lack of appropriate incentives for those entities contributing to reliability.

Most participants in and observers of the electricity industry agree that the voluntary system must be replaced with one that requires compliance with enforceable, non-discriminatory reliability rules applicable to all entities participating in the electricity market. This requires federal legislative authority.

NERC’s Board of Trustees agreed in principle in January 1997 to require adherence to NERC rules and procedures. This new system attempts to feature: measurable performance standards, the requirement that all participants in bulk-power systems meet these standards, enforcement of these standards, and penalties for failure to comply with these standards. The detailed refinement of the standards and implementation of these principles is a work in progress.

Questions remain whether NERC has the authority to require industry participants to abide by the new rules and procedures in the absence of legislation. It is not clear whether the FERC has sufficient statutory authority to enforce NERC rules. The FERC has issued several orders requiring parties to abide by the NERC standards and parties have assented to the requirements. However, the use of FERC’s conditioning authority to enforce NERC standards has not yet been challenged. Others question whether the FERC should enforce these rules in light of concerns over NERC’s governance and decision-making procedures.

In response to these concerns, the Task Force suggests that the U.S. Congress adopt legislation to clarify such authorities and enable the FERC to approve a national self-regulating organization to establish electric reliability standards similar to the National Association of Security Dealers (NASD) in the securities industry. Under federal law, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has authority to delegate significant regulatory authority to a number of private, member-owned and operated organizations in the securities industry. The SEC has authorized several self regulating organizations (SROs) under the statutory framework.

The experience in the securities industry has been relatively successful in this regard. Self regulation under a legal framework established by Congress, and administered and enforced by a duly appointed federal agency, has certain advantages over government regulation in terms of lower costs to the taxpayer, administrative efficiency and technical expertise in developing and enforcing technical standards, and greater compliance by the regulated firms (because they helped develop the regulations). On the other hand, without careful oversight from the government, SROs might not fully consider the perspectives of the general public and focus too narrowly on the interests of the industry being regulated, especially on issues that involve policy elements rather than technical issues.

SROs have been challenged in the courts and have been found to be legal, but only if properly structured. For example, the SEC Act was found to be a constitutional delegation because:
– The SEC has the power, according to reasonably fixed statutory standards, to approve or disapprove rules; and
– The SEC must make an independent decision on violations and penalties.


Federal legislation should grant more explicit statutory authority to the FERC to approve and oversee an electric industry SRRO having responsibility for bulk-power reliability standards.

As the industry organization currently responsible for electric reliability, most of the members of the Task Force believe that the NERC and its regional reliability councils will evolve into an entity that could fill the role of the SRRO. Most believe the NERC has already initiated many of the changes that will be required for it to be the SRRO. However, we note that this will not occur automatically. In order to qualify as the SRRO, a reformed NERC will have to meet all of the requirements of legislation and the FERC with respect to governance and processes.

The SRRO would provide the technical expertise on how best to maintain high levels of bulk-power reliability. The FERC would have regulatory oversight to ensure compliance with and ultimately resolve disputes over any SRRO mandatory reliability standards. The SRRO would produce mandatory standards applicable to all participants in the domestic and international bulk-power system. The FERC would either confirm SRRO mandatory standards or deny them and refer them back to the SRRO with comments requesting revision and resubmittal of the standards.

The SRRO would develop measurable performance standards. These mandatory standards would replace the voluntary requirements that NERC has previously relied on. Importantly, however, NERC must expedite the development and implementation of measurable standards in an open process that includes full and fair representation of all stakeholders and market participants. The Task Force recognizes that many non-utility participants have significant concerns about membership and representation and believe that NERC and the regional reliability councils must immediately open their membership to balanced representation of all stakeholders and market participants.

Legislation should provide for the following:
FERC review and approval of a proposal for an electric industry SRRO;
FERC implementation of mandatory reliability standards for the nation through rulemakings in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act;
FERC jurisdiction for reliability over the bulk-power system including those portions owned or operated by federal, cooperative, and municipal utilities and all other entities participating in the electricity market;
FERC review and approval of all SRRO mandatory standards including specified incentives and penalties for compliance;
FERC ability to require the SRRO to develop, modify, or replace standards when necessary;
Mandatory application of reliability standards to all entities using or operating the bulk-power system;
SRRO enforcement of mandatory standards, including imposition of penalties or fines, subject to FERC review;
FERC authority to expedite or temporarily waive procedures when necessary to address an ongoing or imminent reliability problem;
When requested by the SRRO or on its own initiative (e.g., in an emergency situation or stemming from a complaint), FERC review of any SRRO governance or process issues, standards, or SRRO enforcement action; and
Sufficient resources for the FERC to administer its new responsibilities including the authority to levy necessary fees on the industry and access industry computer models, data and transmission experts.

When considering an application for the SRRO, the FERC would give notice of the application and provide an opportunity for public comment in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act. Particular consideration would be given to SRRO governance, processes, and funding. The SRRO must assure a fair governance process that cannot be dominated by any single industry sector. The FERC would review the application to ensure that the SRRO would function in a manner consistent with the public interest and national reliability policy.

Likewise, when reviewing SRRO mandatory reliability standards, the FERC would issue a notice of proposed rulemaking based on the standard and provide an opportunity for public comment. FERC approval of a standard would require a finding that the standard was fairly developed, is cost effective, and is consistent with the public interest and national reliability policy.

In recognition of the international nature of the interconnected transmission grid, the Task Force has taken the position that mandatory electric reliability standards must be developed by the SRRO and approved by the FERC in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act. Standard development needs to be done by a single entity that can represent all countries using the interconnected transmission grid. Also, SRRO development of the mandatory standards would avoid the imposition of federally developed standards on those portions of the interconnected transmission grid located in Canada and Mexico. Currently, the Canadian government and electric industry is represented in NERC and it will be necessary to include both Canadian and Mexican representation in the SRRO. The interests of the United States would be protected by enabling the FERC to require the SRRO to develop or modify standards as necessary. It would be incumbent upon the SRRO to develop mandatory standards that are acceptable to all three countries.

Ontario Gets Full Retail Competition by 2000

For those of you interested interested in Ontario Hydro.

The Ontario Government today released its long awaited White Paper which puts a timetable on electricity restructuring: full retail access by the year 2000. Ontario Hydro is being broken up! A press release, summary, and full copy of the paper are on

As indicated in the recent UFTO reports on Ontario Hydro Technologies, the R&D group just went thru another downsizing, and surely doesn’t know where it’ll end up. (Uncertain times may make OHT an opportune place to do business with?)

CURC Technology Conference

I attended this conference last week, and here is a brief account of what transpired there. Let me know if you want additional information on any part of it.

California Utility Research Council Technology Exchange Conf.

November 3-5, 1997
Hyatt Regency La Jolla, San Diego, CA

– Background and Final Agenda
– Conference Highlights – Summary of Presentations

<<< Background and Final Agenda >>>>

— Who is CURC?
CURC (California Utility Research Council) was established by the California Legislature in 1981 to:
• Promote consistency of utility RD&D programs with state energy policy
• Prevent unnecessary duplication of research efforts
• Encourage the free exchange of information related to utility RD&D projects, where appropriate
• Identify opportunities for research coordination between energy utilities and for joint funding of RD&D projects of benefit to California ratepayers

CURC Board includes representatives from the CPUC, CEC, PG&E, SDG&E, SCE, and SoCalGas.

— Background
Restructuring of the electric and natural gas industries is having a dramatic effect on the energy RD&D landscape in California. Previously, most of this work was funded by ratepayers and managed by the four largest investor-owned California utilities: PG&E, SCE, SDG&E, and SoCalGas. Supplemental funding for California RD&D interests was provided by GRI, EPRI, and DOE.

Restructuring is providing new opportunities for collaboration of energy RD&D efforts. Recent California legislation (AB1890) has made available $62.5 million per year for public interest energy RD&D to be managed by the California Energy Commission (CEC). Utilities will continue to fund ratepayer RD&D activities, although on a lesser scale. It is also expected that there will be an increasing interest in shareholder-funded technologies by energy companies seeking a competitive advantage. Finally, restructuring will have a direct effect on programs offered by EPRI, GRI, and perhaps even DOE.

— Purpose The 1997 CURC Technology Exchange Conference will help attendees better understand how all of the energy RD&D pieces will fit together in a restructured environment. The conference will also provide participants with an overview of technology trends and energy RD&D collaboration activities which benefit California. Attendees will get a first hand look at how the California PIER (Public Interest Energy Research) program will be implemented. Just as important, individuals will have an opportunity to network directly with peers and funding agencies.


Tuesday, November 4
8:30AM- Opening Remarks-Frank A. Spasaro (CURC Chair)

9:00- California Public-Interest Energy Research
(PIER Program Evolution, Overview of Objectives, Strategic Plan)

David L. Rohy, Commissioner, California Energy Commission
Kip Lipper, Chief of Staff to Calif Senator Byron Sher
John White, Center for Energy Efficiency & Renewables

10:00AM- California Utility RD&D Programs
(Program Focus, Technology Trends, Collaboration Opportunities)

Frank Spasaro, Southern California Gas
Jim Reilly, Southern California Edison
Mike Watanabi, Pacific Gas & Electric
Kurt Kammerer, San Diego Gas & Electric
Bud Beebe, Sacramento Municipal Utility District

2:00 PM- Other California Energy RD&D Programs
(Program Focus, Technology Trends, Collaboration Opportunities)

Jim Cole, California Institute for Energy Efficiency
John White, Center for Energy Efficiency & Renewable Technologies
Andris Abele, So Calif Air Quality Management District

3:15PM- Private Investment RD&D Opportunities
Maurice Gunderson, Nth Technologies
John Burns, Scripps Consulting Group
Paul Pechersky, SAIC

5:00-8:00 PM-Reception, Poster Sessions

Wednesday, November 5

8:30AM- Keynote Presentation:
Mark Bernstein, Office of Science & Technology Policy, Office of the

9:30 AM- National Energy RD&D Funding Agencies
(RD&D Program Highlights, Technology Trends, Collaboration Opportunities)

Renee Guild, Elec. Power Research Institute
Bill Burnett, Gas Research Institute
William Noel, U.S. Department of Energy
Joan Woodward, Sandia Lab
Robert Schock, L Livermore National Lab

11:00 AM- The Customer Perspective

Mike Carliner, NAHB
Carl Weinberg, Weinberg & Associates
Richard Sperberg, On-Site Energy
Ron Ishii, Technology Committee Chairman, CADER
Richard Brent, Solar Turbine Systems

2:00 PM-PIER Program Implementation Status


CURC Conference Highlights (prepared by UFTO)


AB 1890 and SB90 have laid a path for “public interest” programs, but
it’s not straight. It’s been a tumultuous process so far, and there
are still many issues to resolve.

There are 3 distinct pots of money to be collected from ratepayers as
part of the competition transition charge (CTC-includes stranded
asset financing) for public interest benefit programs, to be spent
over the next 5 years:

Public Interest R&D (PIER) — $252 million
Renewables — $540 million — production credits, not grants or development funding
Efficiency — $872 million — “market transformation”

Each one has its own separate administration and governance, and all three are a “work in progress” even as the programs swing into effect, with “transition plans” to bridge the big differences between the past and the future. The roles that California utilities will play in each program are yet to be determined, in the transition and over time.

It’s quite a complicated story–don’t hold me to the exact details. A great deal of information is available on the CEC (Calif. Energy Commission) website:

— Overseen by a ruling Board appointed by the CPUC (Calif Board for Energy Effic–CBEE), which will exist for only four years. The Board will select administrators. This was planned for October 97, but it didn’t happen. Utilities will do the administration for the next 8 months, as an interim arrangement. Administrators will deliver services through competitive contracting with “service providers”, e.g. ESCOs. The purpose is to stimulate the private sector ESCO industry to be up and vigorous and successful by the end of the four years.

— CEC will run this program, with funds collected from IOU ratepayers. (Public utilities are to raise a corresponding amount separately.) Through production credits and rebates, the goal is to facilitate development and encourage consumer driven self-sustaining market-based growth in implementation of renewables. The money is allocated into categories of existing, emerging and new technology, with different bidding processes for each. Funds are further allocated to various technology areas (wind, biomass, solar, etc.). QF’s under fixed contract and utility owned facilities are not eligible (unless divested and not covered under CTC).

— Mission is cleaner safer energy supply. To develop science and technology not provided by the private sector. Five subject areas are: efficiency, environment, renewables, advanced generation, and strategic research. The CEC is dealing with the Legislature about what administrative processes and reporting are necessary for appropriate stewardship of the funds.

Transition project funding proposals from utilities, CIEE and EPRI are currently being reviewed. (A complete list of proposals and initial evaluation scores were published November 5 and appear on the CEC website). These awards will be decided in Jan ’98, at the same time as proposals are due for the 1st general solicitation, which will be issued in December.

The CURC CONFERENCE provided a wide ranging set of presentations:

– California Program Evolution (Legislature, CEC, etc.)
– California Utilities R&D Programs
– Other CA Energy R&D Programs
– Private Investment R&D
– National R&D
– Customer Perspective
– AB1890 Implementation
– Keynote 1 – Karl Rabago, Environ Def. Fund
– Keynote 2 – Mark Bernstein, OSTP, Exec. Office of the President

– California Program Evolution (Legislature, CEC, etc.)

Overview of the history, rationale, goals and current status (see above, and websites)

“R&D is a blind date with knowledge” D. Rohy, CEC Commissioner

– California Utilities R&D Programs

Each of the IOUs and SMUD presented their programs and response under restructuring. SDGE and SCE plan a vigorous continuing program in public interest, utility and competitive R&D. Competitive R&D is shareholder funded, to create shareholder value. PG&E, having distributed and decentralized (or “destroyed” – one speaker suggested picking any “d-word”.), its R&D programs, appeared less ready to take part. SMUD talked about their sustainable/renewable commitment.

(Resolution may be nearing on a definition of “utility” R&D — i.e. included in wires charge rates. General idea is that the regulated “wires” business — all that would remain of the old utility — would have R&D needs not covered under the other two categories. However no-one seemed to have any idea what it would include, and budgets are apparently non-existent.)

(Also, the Calif ISO was to have set aside a budget for transmission- related R&D, but that’s fallen through the cracks as the ISO struggles with much more urgent matters of getting ready for operation on January 1.)

– Other CA Energy R&D Programs

The Calif Institute for Energy Efficiency (CIEE) presented its program and strategy, and described the LBL/CIEE air-duct leak sealing technology as an example of how collaboration can work. Originally funded by utilities, their continued existence was in doubt. They’ve submitted proposals to CEC for projects in ’98, and to be a “Center of Excellence” in ’99.

So. Coast Air Quality Mgt District runs a technology program funded by DMV funds, grants, and fines. They also offer opportunities for collaboration. Andris Abele, 909-396-3250.

– Private Investment R&D

Nth Power, a new VC fund specializing in strategic utility technology, described the difference between old and new utilities and how competition requires differentiation of products and services. Venture Capital is emerging as a tool to make these available, but not to everyone.

Scripps Consulting does earlier stage deals, providing funding and vital management support to startups and help in structuring ventures with big companies. John Burns, 619-546-4708
” Blessed are the dealmakers, for they shall feast on the bread of the less-quick.”

SAIC — Infotech Opportunities in the New Electricity Market. They handle much of the IT work at some major utilities. Outlined key success factors in IT partnerships. Paul Perchersky 562-463-8939

Frank Wessel, UC Irvine research physicist, described a completely new concept for fusion power generation, based on energetic particle beam injection into a toroidal magnetic field. He is looking for funding sources.

– National R&D

EPRI – outlined objectives, and criteria for a successful partnership, implicitly positioning EPRI as highly qualified to manage some of the PIER program.
GRI – on brink of major restructuring, with “dispersed benefit” program, maybe with public funding, and “targeted” programs, with flexible funding options and focused product development.
DOE – outline of the several technology “office” programs in Energy Efficiency, i.e. Utilities (renewables), Transportation, and Industry.
Sandia – introduction to the Lab’s industry collaborations and extensive programs in energy
LLNL – ditto

– Customer Perspective

> NAHB – did a customer preference survey indicating that customers are less interested in energy matters than one might like to think, a point of view that NAHB has apparently been pushing for some time. Carl Weinberg – former head of R&D at PG&E – outlined consumer rationale and reasons why there are “only three ways to go” are high efficeincy conversion of clean fuels, renewables, and energy efficiency.

> On-Site Energy – a “traditional” ESCO for 10 years, sees definitions blurring, as ESCOs evolve from energy efficiency providers to total service providers. Find customers fixated on price to such an extent that they have to portray savings from reduced consumption in terms of an equivalent lower price.

> CADER – Overview of Calif Alliance Distrib Energy Resources. (See UFTO Note July 15) Their big conference was held on Sept 15-17, and a draft report was distributed then. Final report to be issued in next month or two (Will be sent to all members. Check website for further information: Lack of widely accepted grid interconnection standards seen as big obstacle, and lengthy customized review procedures. Customer benefits may not overlap with distribution grid benefits.

Solar Turbine – Market research indicates that buying criteria for adv. turbines different in the US, compared with elsewhere in the world, with emphasis on first cost and reliability. Growing attention to emissions and efficiency, and “reliability availability maintainability-for the duration” (RAM-D).

– AB1890 Implementation
Brief overview–summarized above.

– Keynote 1 – Karl Rabago, Environ Defense Fund
Very lively presentation, describing the new drivers (environmentalism, telecomm, demand growth, etc.) and contrasting conventional industry ideas with the “new view”. Notes the “cost” and “willingness-to-pay” view of renewables misses the significant revenue opportunity available through premiun pricing. Also noted that technologies are successful when they “disappear” (e.g. motors, computers in appliances). New organizations are networks not heirarchies. Growth of the “no-asset” utility. Need constant innovation, creative destruction.

(Quote attributed to a leading environmentalist:
“Using nuclear power to reduce greenhouse gases is like
using crack cocaine to give up smoking cigarettes.” )

– Keynote 2 – Mark Bernstein, OSTP, Exec. Office of the President
Discussed recently released PCAST report on Energy R&D recommendations. Review of all government energy R&D and interviews with 80 utility R&D managers (Any UFTO companies?). Energy R&D can reduce supply cost, increase productivity, and diversify exports trade. Recommend increased emphasis on efficiency and renewables. Relegate fusion to long term basic science. Maintain existing nuclear fleet and capability for non-proliferation. Advanced fossil. Public education.

President’s Climate Change Proposal – binding targets by 2008 to 1990 levels. $5 billion in tax cuts and R&D. Developing country participation. Work with industry.

Near term: credits for action, tax cuts, R&D, consultations, encourage efficient products, federal procurement of new technology to set example, electric restructuring legislation (incentives for carbon emission reduction), etc.

Technology strategy–advances needed to reduce emissions, technology exists to do it, also need improvements, breakthroughs can come later. Need to be innovative–e.g. to get 21st century buildings, could set up “regulation-free zones”. Industry look to fuel cells, microturbines, efficient motors. USDA to do more on biofuels.

Second DOE study on Greenhouse Gases

DOE is preparing another major study on greenhouse gases for release by the end of Novermber, called “Technology Opportunities to Reduce U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions”, also known as the “11-Lab Study”.

| This is separate from the “5-Lab Study” released in September
| (see UFTO Note Sept 10)
| “Scenarios of U. S. Carbon Reductions Potential Impacts of Energy-
| Efficient and Low-Carbon Technologies by 2010 and Beyond”
| Full text available in pdf Acrobat at
| Copies available on request from Tonia Edwards, 423-241-5961

The work began in June 96 following Clinton’s speech to the U.N. Each of the 11 labs that worked on the study took the lead on a specific technology area, such as efficiency in buildings, efficiency in transportation, fossil power generation, nuclear, renewables, cross-cutting areas, basic research, and carbon sequestration. It was a bottom-up effort, looking in depth at the technology itself. There was no analytical modelling of the overall energy system or economy.

NREL and ORNL were the lead labs for the effort, with direction and involvement at the lab director level.

The report concludes that science and technology can do a lot, but that appropriate policies and funding are needed for commercialization. Appendices detail 50 separate technology categories, with order-of-magnitude range estimates of carbon emission reductions to the year 2030 and beyond.

Principal contact for the study at DOE is:
Robert San Martin
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
202-586-9277 fax 202-586-9260

Request for copies can go to his office, once the report is released.