CURC Annual Conf. 11/98

California Utility Research Council
Annual Technology Conference
November 2-4, 1998
Costa Mesa CA

Background Information —————–

——- Who is CURC? ——-
CURC (California Utility Research Council) was established by the California Legislature (Public Utilities Code, Sections 9201-9203) in 1984 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. [Recently, a new category of “Associate Member” was created, and includes CIEE, CMUA, EPRI, GRI, LADWP and SMUD.]
Website —-

——- Restructuring and Public Interest R&D ——-
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 Federal Agencies.

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 Federal Agencies.

——- Purpose ——
– To help attendees better understand how all of the energy RD&D pieces fit together in a restructured environment.
– To provide participants with an overview of technology trends and energy RD&D collaboration activities which benefit California.
– A first hand look at how the California PIER (Public Interest Energy Research), Renewables, and Energy Efficiency programs are being implemented.
– Opportunities to network directly with peers and funding agencies.

Highlights from the Conference

– Keynote : “California’s Electric Restructuring: a Stunning but Secret Success”
Phil Romero, Chief Economist, Office of the Governor, outlined how rapidly the transformation of California’s electric industry has proceeded and the significant benefits already being realized. He summarized the “deal” struck between all players on stranded assets and rates (recently upheld by the defeat of Proposition 9), and replied to some of the criticisms — there are consumer choice, numerous competitors, and longer term benefits of a renewed generation base, new energy services, and the chance for California to be a winner in world energy service markets.
One surprise was the high price paid in auctions of the fossil power plants. On average, they have sold for 2.5 times more than anticipated. The CEC had expected a “fire” sale. Book value seems to be irrelevant–the underlying issue seems to be the cost to rebuild at a greenfield sight.
California needs to prepare for a population that is expected to double within the next 25 years.

– Keynote: Telecomm RD&D Transition
Peter Magill, Bell Labs reviewed what happened to Bell Labs as AT&T was broken up in the 1980’s, and how the R&D evolved. Under the regulated monopoly, R&D was decoupled from the needs of the business. Interest and dollars dipped and work became much more targeted under the local operating companies and long distance provider. Now Lucent, the new owner of Bell Labs, dedicates 1% of revenues to an agile and strategic research program, and regards it as critical to their success. He noted the complex array of technologies and markets that are converging now in the telecomm industry, and outlined the opportunities for energy utilities to play. In particular, they have no legacy networks to overcome, and have the chance to leapfrog technologically, avoiding a “me-too” approach.

— National R&D Needs and Programs

– EPRI – an overview of EPRI’s continuing process of providing more options, and exploring new ways of providing services.

– GRI – FY 1999 R&D Plan is on their website ( GRI has just done a major reorganization with business units focused on customer segments, and offering staff services on a competitive basis. GRI’s traditional funding mechanisms are disappearing, so they are looking at new business models.

– Livermore and Idaho National Labs – representatives presented overviews of their programs. LLNL sees their advanced computing for weapons modeling as a capability that can make contributions in energy, and expect hydrogen to play a major role in the future. INEEL offers capabilities in environmental management and systems integration, and Lockheed Martin has strong incentives to work with industry and commercialize technology under its management contract.

— California Utility R&D Perspective

1998 is the last year of ratepayer funded research by electric utilities in California, as the transition proceeds (with the CEC public interest programs–see below). Corporate R&D departments have been disbanded, and the function decentralized completely into separate business units, for each to pursue according to their own priorities. Human and financial resources are declining dramatically, and there is little or no coordination among departments.

PG&E – In 1999, R&D funding will come from foreign utilities, the CEC PIER program, co-funding, and department operating funds. R&D must compete with maintenance projects for funding, and is expected to be about 1/4 of 1998 levels. Current programs of interest include: Information technology, Environmental impacts and compliance, Real time data for customer decisions, Life extension, Pipeline rehabilitation, Fitness for service–better utilization of assets, and Underground construction activities. Needs include: Reducing the time to bring technologies to the field, Producing products in a shorter timeframe, Looking to others for fundamental research. PG&E expressed concern over loss of in-house expertise. There is a need to collaborate and work with other utilities/research organizations toward reaching common goals.

San Diego Gas & Electric – R&D funding is now focused on technology development and application for core business. A four to five year time horizon for a new product is too long. Programs must focus on the near term – one to two years. SDG&E has interest in programs that increase system reliability, improves performance, and minimizes service.

So Cal Edison – In 1997, SCE spent $30 million in R&D related activities. The 1998 budget was $1.5 million. It has disbanded its research department. Research activities are being conducted by the business units and Edison Technology Solutions, which is a new unregulated unit competing for R&D funding, notably the CEC PIER program. With strong affiliate transaction restrictions in effect, ETS and SCE must keep very separate, and carefully handle any contacts between them.

Sacramento Municipal Utility District – Unlike the IOUs, SMUD’s R&D programs are stable. They are spending 3.7% of their revenues on R&D. SMUD is interested in photovoltaics for parking lots and rooftops and renewable programs. SMUD’s R&D funds are committed, but they welcome collaborations. They will use their funds, others will have to use their funds. Current areas of interest include: landfill gas, fuel cells, microturbines, and wind.

All the utilities represented at this meeting are looking for third party funding—federal, state, partnering arrangements. Utilities can supply test beds for new products and systems, and are interested in collaborative research.


— Environmental R&D

California EPA – is a family of regulatory bodies, including the Air Resources and Water Resources Boards. The Innovative Clean Air Technology Program (ICAT) has been set up to help new technologies thru the “valley of death” by providing funding, guidance, and certification for new technologies trying to become commercial.

South Coast Air Quality Management District – In So. Calif, 88% of NOx and two-thirds of VOC emissions from mobile sources. The SCAQM spends nearly $5 Million per year to advance new technology solutions to air quality–priorities include fuel cells, electric/hybrid vehicles, and stationery VOC source reduction. They look for cost-sharing, and will accept unsolicited sole-source proposals.

CEC Environmental R&D – The CEC has its own role in supporting energy related environmental R&D focused on improved siting and regulatory decisionmaking. Topics include upper atmosphere NOx transport modeling, avian mortality and wind turbines, and power plant water sources.


CEC – Public Interest Energy Research (PIER)

(Extensive information is available at

Questions regarding PIER should be directed to Mike Batham
of the Commission’s Energy Development Division at:

PIER is for “public interest” not for regulated utility or competitive research, though it is recognized that the boundary is fuzzy.

Stage I is nearly complete, and Stage II is about to start.

In Stage I, three 1998 solicitations have been completed, with 83 projects approved for funding totaling $53 million through June 1999 (FY).
– One-time Transition Project Funding, for up to one year to continue ongoing (ratepayer-funded) public interest energy RD&D projects
– 1st General Solicitation funding, for projects in Environmental, Advanced Generation and Renewable Research
– 2nd General Solicitation funding, in End Use Efficiency and Strategic Research

UFTO has an electronic version of the complete listing of these projects that was handed out at the conference. It is available on the UFTO website, or on request. Send an email to

Other accomplishments include establishment of the “Small Grants” program ( $2.5 Million for grants up to $75K each for concept development–announcement due soon, with grants early in ’99). Also, membership in seven EPRI targets has been approved ($1.5 Million).

PIER has a14 member Policy Advisory Council with representation of industry, universities, government and environmental groups.

Stage II Funding is organized around six Program Areas, with a staff team for each area. The team leaders, which in some cases are interim at this time, are listed in the respective program area.

– Industrial/Agricultural/Water — John Sugar, 916-654-4563
– Residential and Commercial Buildings — Nancy Jenkins, 916-654-4739
– Energy-Related Environmental Research — Bob Eller, 916-654-4930
– Environmentally-Preferred Adv. Gen. — Mike Batham, 916-654-4548
– Renewables — George Simons, 916-654-4659
– Strategic — Tom Tanton, 916-654-4930

Each team has compiled a list of high-level issues, based on input from focus groups, the Policy Advisory Council, and the Commissioners. These draft issues are still a work-in-progress as the teams proceed with the next steps: (1) identification of program goals and objectives; (2) prioritization of technical issues corresponding to the high-level issues; and (3) funding options and strategies. (Note: The complete document is available online and as an Acrobat pdf file).

CEC claims it has “streamlined” the contracting process. The Commissioner admitted that the contracts offered previously were difficult to accept. A team has recently reviewed and modified the terms and conditions (T&C’s). The T&C’s now used are in the best interests of the program—not the State’s. Modifications will be very difficult to get in the next solicitation. It was strongly recommended that the T&Cs be reviewed before preparing a bid, and be ready to accept them if selected for an award.

The next solicitation opportunity is tentatively scheduled to be released late winter (likely in February). A series of solicitations will address clearly defined target areas. There is no policy in place for reviewing, approving, or handling unsolicited proposals, and they are distinctly not encouraged. Would-be applicants probably would do well to contact CEC program staff informally to explore their ideas.

Criteria include: eligible organizations, public interest benefits in California, technical merit, credible team and schedule, policy fit — scores by independent evaluators are weighted, added and ranked. Matching funds can be zero if benefits are 100% public–must increase in proportion to non-public benefits.

NOTE: A proposal does not have to be submitted by a California company, nor does it have to be performed in California. There is no “favorable weighting” for California companies in the PIER program. The program, however, must clearly benefit California rate payers. The program requires matching funds. There will be a PIER workshop in January or February.


The Other Public Benefit Programs

There are two other major “public benefit” programs that were established under AB1890 restructuring that represent a much larger $ resource than PIER — Renewable Technology, and Energy Efficiency. Presentations and discussions explored how these programs bridge to or overlap with PIER.

— Renewable Technology Program (

AB1890 provided for $540 Million ( of the “Public Good Charge” to be collected from the IOUs) to support existing, new and emerging technologies, and SB90 codified recommended allocation and distribution mechanisms. Basically, there are four separate “accounts” (existing, emerging and new technologies, and consumer-side), all of which provide some form of “buy-down” for renewable generation, with no participation in any form of RD&D. The purpose is to encourage the renewables industry to accept and promote new renewable technology.

— Energy Efficiency (

The Calif. Board for Energy Efficiency (CBEE) is a Board established by the CPUC to administer these funds–roughly 10 times the budget for PIER. Under “standard performance contracts, payments are made for measurable energy savings achieved by installation of specific energy-efficiency projects. Savings must be measured and installations verified under standardized program rules. There are also “market transformation” programs providing commercial downstream incentives, LED traffic signal standards, commercial surveys, and a demonstration programs for a premium efficiency relocatable classroom. Nearly 1/3 of the funds will go towards residential programs, e.g. contractor training and labeling programs. Contact Mark Thayer, 619-594-5510

— Bridging PIER (R&D) and the Renewables/Efficiency Programs
California Institute for Energy Efficiency
(CIEE plans, funds and manages a statewide energy R&D program)

CIEE outlined some their own programs, and offered ideas to bridge the gaps between R&D and these two programs. PIER can’t support demonstrations unless they “add to the knowledge”, and the CBEE needs more latitude for emerging technology. PIER needs to awareness of market needs. There is a need to prove cost effectiveness to market participants, etc.

An important element for bridging the gap is the multi-year program strategy that enables orderly transitions from R&D to demos to commercial use. Multi year projects should have advisory committees, direct involvement by market representatives, and deliberate plans for disseminating results in appropriate venues. CIEE also recommends that research be done directly on market processes themselves–barriers, incentives and decisionmaking.
Contact: Jim Cole, CIEE Director, 510-486-5380,


Calif. Trade and Commerce Agency, Office of Strategic Technology (OST)
Pasadena CA

Steve Jarvis, 626-568-9437,
Richard Keeler, ” ”

This agency provides resources, support, funding and access to various state and federal programs to help California companies to be successful and compete globally. OST partners with other organizations that seek to help the formation of partnerships and enable industry to move forward. A total investment 5 year investment approaching $1 Billion has been realized, leveraging funds from federal, state and private sources.

Companies seeking help must meet strict criteria as businesses (i.e. not just technology), much as venture capital investors require.

OST programs include the Calif Technology Investment Partnership, Regional Technology Alliances, Calif. Manufacturing Technology Program, Calif. Information Infrastructure, and NSF Research Centers.


Other agenda items included:

A series of presentations of a sample of PIER funded research projects:
– Waste water and agricultural technology demonstrations
– Monitoring and Diagnostic system for Commercial Buildings
– Global Climate Change–scenarios and analysis
– Low emission Gas Turbine Combustor for Distributed Gen.
– Photovoltaic system implementation

Customer view of RD&D Needs
– Calif. Manufacturers Assoc.
(want certain end in 2002 of ratepayer funded R&D)
(suggest a number of energy conservation items for work til then)
– Applicant Design of Gas and Electric Distribution systems
(evolving to include private ownership and O&M, with many
resulting legal, regulatory and technical issues)

Panel Discussion on Improving Collaborative RD&D Processes

Past Successes of CEC and IOU research (under the old framework)

CURC Annual Technology Conf.

Here’s an advance notice just received about this years (2nd) annual CURC conference. I plan to attend on behalf of UFTO.

If you’re interested in receiving later announcements and information, I suggest you send an email to Mary Beth Salter at SCE (tel 626-815-7217) and ask her to add you to the email distribution list.
| ** UFTO ** Edward Beardsworth ** Consultant
| 951 Lincoln Ave. tel 650-328-5670
| Palo Alto CA 94301-3041 fax 650-328-5675

California Electric and Natural Gas Research
Annual Technology Exchange Conference

November 2-4, 1998

Doubletree Hotel near Orange County Airport (714-540-7000)

1. Exchange information on RD&D Projects
2. Identify opportunities for joint funding of RD&D Projects
3. Prevent duplicative RD&D
4. Promote consistency between RD&D programs and State energy policy

a. Identifying RD&D needs and current programs from Local, State, and National perspectives
b. Improving the RD&D Process and Achievement of Benefits
c. Special Keynote Address, Visit to National Fuel Cell Center, and Social at
Edison Field of Anaheim

Sponsor: California Utility Research Council (CURC)
– Members are CPUC, CEC, PG&E, SCE, SDG&E, SoCalGas
– In association with CIEE, CMUA, EPRI,GRI, LADWP, SMUD

– Early hotel registration available directly with Doubletree at $99/day.
Conference starts at 10:00 AM on 11/2/98.
– Conference registration details and forms are in-process
– Contact Mary Beth Salter at SCE 626- 815-7217,
or email for further details

For some fun scary summer reading:
Have a look at the current (August) issue of WIRED Magazine. In a big story on Y2K (page 122), it tells about computer experts who are convinced that civilization as we know it will stop, mostly due to the complete failure of the power grid, for many months or even longer. Some of them have turned into full fledged survivalists, setting up compounds in remote locations.

How serious do you think the threat is?

FINAL CADER Report Available

Forwarding note just received a few minutes ago.

Subject: FINAL CADER Report Available
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:05:04 -0700

FINAL CADER REPORT Now Available! High Quality, perfect bound edition. The 400 page report, a documentation of the work of the California Alliance for Distributed Energy Resources (CADER) and a compilation of the papers presented at the September 1997 CADER Conference is available. Please send a $10 check or money order (per copy) along with your return address to CADER, 770 L Street, Suite 810, Sacramento, CA, 95814. Make the check or money order out to CADER. Charge Card numbers will not be accepted. Upon receipt of payment, your report will be mailed via first class. Orders are being handled by Vanessa; she can be reached at 916-329-9180. The Energy Commission is not handling any orders.

Active members of CADER, that is those who served on committees, and the co-chairs, will receive one copy free. These will be mailed during the week of April 20.


Here’s a portion of an UFTO note from July 15, 1997:

** CADER – California Alliance for Distributed Energy Resources

CADER is an alliance of public and private organizations formed in 1996 to identify and develop specific solutions to the deployment of Distributed Resources. Initially set up with the help of the California Energy Commission, it is a self-managed organization.

Mission Statement: A consortium of manufacturers, users, energy service companies, engineering firms, utilities, power providers, research organizations, regulators, financial institutions, and others committed to facilitating the successful entry of clean, energy efficient Distributed Resources into a competitive electricity energy market.

CADER CONFERENCE SEPT 15-17, 1997, San Diego CA

CADER will host a three day conference to explore economically and environmentally viable alternatives to grid-based power systems. Key energy industry experts from across the country will assemble at this first-of-its-kind meeting to debate how distributed resources figure into the rapidly changing electricity marketplace.

The conference, entitled “Distributed Resources: Addressing the Challenges”, will take place September 15 through 17, 1997 at the Catamaran Resort Hotel, 3999 Mission Blvd., San Diego, California 92109. Hotel reservations are available by calling the hotel directly at 619-488-1081 or 800-288-0770.

The San Diego conference will highlight the latest technology developments such as photovoltaic solar systems, fuel cells, storage technologies such as flywheels and batteries, and advanced gas turbines. In addition to site visits and technical sessions, conference participants will discuss an array of environmental, regulatory and market-related issues.

Speakers invited to the CADER Conference include: Governor Pete Wilson; Congressman Dan Schaefer; California Senator Steve Peace; Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute; Federico F. Pena, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy; and David Freeman, Trustee, ISO/PX.

Conference technical sessions will focus on the following areas:

Energy policy
Incentives and market rules
Legal, institutional and regulatory issues
Siting and environmental regulatory streamlining
Land use planning and computer tools
Manufacturer/technology issues

The conference builds on the success of CADER’s pioneering efforts to ensure the economic competitiveness of Distributed Resources and will focus on how distributed generation systems can provide local distribution utilities, end-users, independent power providers and energy service providers with another generation choice, improved power quality and more reliable service.

Contact Connie Bruins, California Energy Commission
(916) 654-4545

Complete details and extensive documentation, and details about the conference, are available on the website

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.

Energy Stg Assoc Meeting next week

We’ve just gotten late word of this meeting. Some of you are active in the ESA, but many are not. I will attend.

Energy Storage Association Fall Meeting
The Value of Energy Storage in a Restructured Utility Market
Sacramento, California
November 18 -19, 1997

Dear ESA Supporter:

Our upcoming Fall meeting in Sacramento is shaping up to be our most exciting to date. Our meeting location represents the seat of change for the largest transformation in the US electricity industry. It further represents a location for new opportunities in our emerging energy storage industry.

Our agenda includes presentations that will be informative for both new and long-standing members. Invited speakers will present the following:

– Emerging California Energy R&D Focus in 1998 Responsive to Assembly Bill 1890 (AB 1890)
– Green Power Markets in California
– International Renewable Energy Markets and the Need for Energy Storage
– Emerging New Energy Storage Products
– DOE/Sandia Solicitation for Renewable/Storage Projects
– Remote Areas Power Supplies International Project (RAPSI)
– Ongoing Program and Project Status
– New Products and Services from the ESA

The ESA continues to improve its products, structure, and organizational agenda. We are attracting new members, participating with DOE on common interests, and working with our board to define our agenda and strengthen our organization. Please consider board membership (contact Abbas Akhil, our nomination committee chairman) to help shape the future of our organization. At a minimum, please share your thoughts and ideas with our chairman, a board member, or myself.

Please contact our office if we can answer any questions regarding out upcoming meeting. I look forward to greeting you in Sacramento.


Jonathan W. Hurwitch
Executive Director


Energy Storage Association Fall Meeting 1997
Preliminary Agenda of Invited Speakers
Monday November 17
ESA Board Meeting 12:00 noon – 6:00 pm
Tuesday November 18

Feature Forum
Denise Zurn, Chairwoman 8:30 am – 10:45

Key Note Speaker
Dr. David A. Rohy, Vice Chairman, California Energy Commission
California’s Commitment to Maintaining Research and Development in a Restructured Electricity Market

Jan Hamrin, Director, Center for Resource Solutions
California Utility Restructuring and Emerging Green Power Solutions

Hank Zaininger, Power Technologies, Inc.
Independent System Operator Reliability Study

Peter Lowenthal, US Export Council for Renewable Energy/Solar
Energy Industries Association
International and Domestic Markets for Renewables/Storage (includes the latest on the Million Solar Roofs Initiative)

Anthony Price, National Power
Energy Storage in the Competitive Market in the UK

Don Osbourne, SMUD
Pioneer Program and Photovoltaic Manufacturing Initiative
Tuesday November 18

Technology Forum
Richard Schweinberg, Chairman 11:00 am – 12:30 pm

Mike Stern, Utility Power Group
UPG Renewable/Storage Projects

Mike Davis, Golden Genesis Company
Electricworks™ PV/Battery Village Power Systems

Doug Danley, Orion Power
Apex Power Systems

Gene Weaver, International Computer Power
Dynamic Energy Storage Systems

Technology Forum (continued) 1:45 pm – 3:00 pm

J. Roberts, S.F. Gyro Dynamics, Incorporated
Lee McLane, Precise Power Corporation
Brad Walter, Piller, Incorporated
Robert Hall, Holec, Incorporated
John Comstock, Power Systems and Controls
Stacy Uzick, Lucent Technologies

ESA Business and Products 3:15 pm – 4:45 pm

Board Summary / Board Elections – Phil Symons, ESA Chairman
ESA Business Plan ’98 – Jon Hurwitch, ESA Executive Director
ESA Products – Jon Hurwitch / Brian Highsmith, ESA Coordinator

ESA Dinner 6:00 pm – 8:00 pm

“Opportunities for Industry in the US Department of Energy /
Sandia National Laboratories Renewable Storage (RGS) Project”

Dr. Christine Platt, Program Manager, Energy Storage Systems, US Department of Energy
Mr. Paul Butler, Program Manager, Energy Storage Systems, Sandia National Laboratories

Wednesday November 19

Storage 2000: A Government/Industry Partnership to Break Market Barriers
Phil Symons / Jon Hurwitch, Moderators 8:30 am – 10:15am

Utilities – Richard Schweinberg / Denise Zurn
Manufacturers – Robert Flemming / George Hunt
Research – Paul Butler / Steve Eckroad

Market Analysis Forum 10:30 am – 12:00 pm

Dr. Jerome Cole, ILZRO
Remote Area Power Supplies International (RAPSI) Project

Abbas Akhil, Sandia National Laboratories
Metlakatla Alaska Workshop & EESAT International Conference

Pramod Kulkarni, California Electric Commission
Value of Storage in California

Shiva Swaminathan, SENTECH, Inc.
Assessment of Power Quality Opportunities for Storage in the US

Project Status Forum 1:30 pm – 4:30 pm

Jeff Corbett, Virginia Power
DOE Sponsored Transportable Battery Energy Storage System

Rao Thallam, Salt River Project
EPRI Sponsored Transportable Battery Energy Storage System

Don Sostrum , Power Engineers
Alaska/Golden Valley Railbelt Battery Energy Storage Project

George Hunt, GNB Technologies
Metlakatla Pioneer Battery Energy Storage System

Paula Taylor, Energetics, Inc.
Virtual Energy Storage and Generation Systems

Sam Edwards, Naval Surface Warfare Center
Status of Department of Defense Renewable/Storage Projects


Reservations and Accommodations:
Sheraton Rancho Cordova Hotel Sacramento
11211 Point East Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95742
1-800-851-2400 (in CA) or 1-800-325-3535 (outside CA)
*Please mention ESA when making hotel reservations.
Block cut-off date is Nov. 3, 1997

Please complete the attached form and return with appropriate fees by Nov. 10th to:

4733 Bethesda Avenue, Suite 608
Bethesda, MD 20814

Tel: (301) 951-3223 Fax: (301) 951-3235

** Check out our website at: **

Airport: Sacramento Metro Airport Attire: Business Casual
Shuttle: Super Shuttle, $12 each way. Optional Tours: Thurs. 11/20

US Department of Energy and Energy Storage Association to Host Renewable Generation Storage (RGS) and Storage 2000 (St2K) Dialogue at Fall ESA Meeting

Two sessions are planned at the Fall 1997 ESA meeting to further discuss government industry partnership projects and ideas to break market barriers for energy storage technologies. The first is a dinner to discuss the forthcoming RGS project and solicitation to be released by the DOE Energy Storage Systems Program in Spring 1997. The second is a panel session on the Storage 2000 initiative to discuss the concept and specific ideas on what this initiative could be.

What is Storage 2000? The initiative was proposed and endorsed by the ESA at its initial meeting in 1996 as a flagship project with its objective to stimulate and accelerate technology development for emerging markets (development of integrated technologies and the installation of energy storage into transmission, distribution, and customer service) for energy storage with a goal of 200 MW worth of project commitments by the end of 2000.

Storage 2000 was proposed as a joint US Department of Energy/industry initiative to deploy 200 MW of energy storage. The program was to emphasize supporting business venture development to develop and sustain the markets for these technologies as the US restructures its utility industry from a regulated to a competitive industry. The ESA proclaimed a need for this commercialization initiative to accelerate emerging markets by building volume, creating a manufacturing infrastructure, buying-down early risk into new markets, and validating the benefits of new applications. Applications for energy storage in this initiative would include:

Renewable energy/storage projects that would validate the benefits of grid-connected wind and/or photovoltaic systems

Customer service projects that will validate the use of energy storage to provide improved productivity through power quality, peak shaving, outage protection, and demand-side management premium services.

Since 1996, ESA members and staff have continued a dialogue with DOE to develop the political and programmatic concepts for Storage 2000. Creation of an Industry User’s Group for DOE has supported this effort. The programmatic plans put forth by DOE combined with the industry voice of the ESA has resulted in increased budget support for the DOE Energy Storage program. This increase includes support for the Storage 2000 concept and DOE is asking the “industry voice” of the ESA to make recommendations on the directions of this technology demonstration and validation initiative. The session at the ESA meeting is to define the mutual interests of both industry and government and move forward on a program that can open up commercial market opportunities for the technology.

What is RGS?
The Renewable Generation and Storage (RGS) project is being viewed as the first project under the Storage 2000 umbrella aimed at technology improvements to validate the benefits of integrated wind and/or photovoltaic systems. This multi-year project includes the design, development, and testing of a prototype integrated renewable/hybrid system consisting of a matched PV array, inverter, and energy storage system integrated and user-ready for the customer. DOE anticipates operating the prototype in stand-alone mode in a test bed located at customer sites. Partners will be selected through a formal solicitation process with contract(s) awarded late 1988. Preliminary input for the photovoltaics community was received at a session of the IEEE PV specialists Conference. DOE is urging your attendance and participation at the ESA meeting as they seek input from the energy storage community prior to the final release of the solicitation.

Plan to attend these sessions to express your opinions to DOE officials regarding the need, objectives, and plans for these projects. ESA your participation in these meetings to meet potential strategic partners and competitors for the upcoming solicitations and to further your efforts to commercialize energy storage into new and expanding markets.

___ Mr. ___ Ms. ___ Dr.
Last Name: First Name: Name for Badge:
City: State: Zip:
Telephone: Fax: E-mail
Date of Arrival: Date of Departure:
___ Meeting Registration…………….$250.00

NON-ESA Member
___ Meeting Registration…………….$1000.00
___ ESA Invited Speaker/Participant……$250.00
___ Sponsored Registration……………$250.00
Sponsor’s Name:
Optional Tours: ___ SMUD ___ Sacramento Airport

___ Energy Storage Dinner…………………….No charge
(Buffet Dinner and Speakers, Tuesday, 11/18/97)

*If you have any special needs (dietary, physical, etc.,) please
contact the ESA staff, at the number below, for assistance.
Will you be traveling with a guest/family? ___ yes ___ no
How Many? Guest Name(s):

Please return completed copy and fees by Nov. 10h to:
4733 Bethesda Avenue, Suite 608
Bethesda, MD 20814

* Acceptable forms of payment: Personal or Company Check, Money
Order, Cash. Sorry, No Credit Cards accepted.

TEL: (301) 951-3223
FAX: (301) 951-3235

Residential Indirect-Direct Evaporative Cooling (IDAC)

This summary was prepared by Roof Science, which also developed the radiative cooling system for commercial buildings (UFTO Note July 11, 1997)

UFTO Note -Residential Indirect-Direct Evaporative Cooling (IDAC)

Natural Cooling for the Home
Davis Energy Group has developed an indirect-direct evaporative cooling system for residential use that can meet 100% of a home’s cooling requirements in dry climates, while consuming only 15% to 40% of the energy consumed by conventional systems. Unlike other indirect-direct evaporative cooling systems, IDAC (Indirect/Direct Air Conditioning) operates with only one variable speed motor and fan, making it more efficient. Other benefits include:

+ Measured EER of 26 to 56
+ Low installed cost
+ No CFCs
+ Low maintenance costs
+ Lower outside noise levels
+ Uses all fresh air
+ Low water consumption

IDAC can be installed without ducts. Room distribution can be provided by venting air through ceiling-mounted dampers into the attic. This approach keeps the attic cool. The system produces healthy household humidity in the 50% to 70% range. Refrigerated air conditioners dry air down to as low as 22% relative humidity, contributing to health problems. Standard evaporative coolers have the opposite problem, producing an uncomfortably high humidity.

Currently, there are approximately 30 IDAC units in operation. Partially funded by the California Energy Commission, the development of IDAC has been substantially completed, patents have issued, and the technology is ready for large scale application. IDAC is being manufactured by Cooltech Industries, Inc. of Sacramento.

The Market
An independent survey commissioned by the California Energy Commission indicates that there are approximately four million residential space coolers in California, with another seven million homes having no form of cooling at all. The market for IDAC includes existing homes not now conditioned, new construction, and the retrofit market. In addition, Utah, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and West Texas have climates hospitable to IDAC. In particular, “Green” communities, multi-family housing and government housing facilities are preferred markets for IDAC. Due to its low power use, IDAC is also suitable for off-grid applications. Unit sales of 10,000 are projected for the year 2000, well under 2% of the residential space cooing market.

Only one company is known to have a similar product, Adobe Air, Inc. The Adobe “Master Cool” includes two fans and motors and therefore consumes considerably more energy. Other IDAC benefits versus Master Cool include full variable speed operation, intelligent control of water use, and a small 22”x23” footprint as opposed to Master Cool’s 42”x47” footprint. The Opportunity The company is projecting profitability within two to three years, and is seeking investment and business partners.

Mark Berman or Richard Bourne
Davis Energy Group, Davis CA

Green Power Retail Marketing in California

Green Power Retail Marketing in California
August 25, 1997

Dr. John Schaefer, a good friend and professional colleague of mine, has long experience in the utility industry and in renewable energy in particular. Some of you may know him from his time at EPRI.

As you know, January 1, 1998 will mark the opening of the California retail market, and John has established a new company, Clean Power Works (CPW), to be an “Energy Service Provider”, marketing “green” electric power.

The note attached below was prepared by John, who is interested in collaboration with and consulting for utilities elsewhere. I thought CPW and John could provide a useful window into the workings of the green power market as it is evolving in California. CPW might conceivably offer a foothold in green power and an opportunity for a learning experience (not unlike the education U.S. utilities are getting in the UK, though obviously on a vastly smaller scale).

Feel free to contact CPW directly.

(Note: I have no business relationship with CPW nor has any been discussed, though the possibility at some point in the future is not precluded. EB)

Clean Power Works at a Glance

Clean Power Works (CPW) is initiating a program to sell pollution-free, renewable (wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, biomass and biogas) electricity to customers who are willing to pay a few cents extra per kilowatt-hour. Residential electricity sales in California are approximately $7 billion, and CPW intends to capture $36 million of this market by 2003. Greater penetration is possible if supplies expand rapidly enough.

Selling renewable electricity is a new business because until now electricity customers have had no choice; electricity has always been supplied by conventional electric utilities operating as regulated monopolies. As of 1998, restructuring in California and soon in other states will offer customers the opportunity to choose their preferred electricity supplier, in the same way that telephone customers now choose long distance telephone service. Electricity will be delivered physically through the existing grid, for which the distributing utility will charge its cost of service. For CPW’s expected market in California, monthly electric bills will be 10 to 20 dollars higher than they would be with polluting sources.

When offered an informed choice, evidence shows that many customers will switch away from polluting sources. For more than ten years, customers have shown in survey after survey that a majority prefers and is willing to pay extra for electricity that does not pollute. This fraction ranges as high as 70 per cent, depending on which survey and where it was taken. In successful small scale green pricing programs, three utilities (Detroit Edison, SMUD and Traverse City) with programs like CPW’s have had more willing buyers than the utilities had capacity to serve them.

CPW will contract with the most economic of the renewable electricity sources, add a margin to cover costs and profits, and sell electricity aggressively to customer segments with a known interest in environmental issues.

Clean Power Works has immediate access to tens of thousands of such customers who have already demonstrated by their buying habits their preference for environmentally friendly sources. Beginning with those customers and intense sales efforts in areas where response is expected to be most positive, CPW expects to attain a strong market position by the end of 1998.

The tumultuous 1997 deregulation experience in California demonstrates that lessons must be learned by participating but that they need not be costly or risky. CPW has concluded that the pollution-free or “green” market can be more effectively and profitably served in cooperation with utilities than in competition with them. As a result, Clean Power Works seeks both consulting opportunities and collaboration with utilities in other states, where deregulation lessons can be applied with less risk.

CPW was incorporated as a California C corporation in 1997. Its founders are:
— John Schaefer, a Ph. D. engineer with 20 years experience
in utilities and renewable energy R&D; and
— David Katz, founder of Alternative Energy Engineering, one of
California’s largest suppliers of renewable energy products.

P. O. Box 1225, Santa Cruz, California, 95061 . 408-471-9337 fax: 408-471 9336.

Web site at