Posts

Calif. Interconnection Workshop Dec 6

/0 Comments/in , /by

Just received this note a few minutes ago from Jairam Gopal, the head of CADER.

It appears that California is gearing up to follow in the footsteps of Texas and New York, and do something about interconnection requirements.
————————————————————–

Subject:  Hello everyone:
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 10:21:22 -0800
From:  “Jairam Gopal” <Jgopal@energy.state.ca.us>

Hello everyone:
Please see the CEC Web site at:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/distgen/notices/index.html

for the following posted documents:

1) CEC’s Nov. 3 Order Instituting Investigation on Interconnection issues.
2) Siting Committee’s notice of first interconnection workshop to be  held on December 6.

As you are aware, this OII follows the CPUC Decision of the earlier proceeding on Distributed Generation and Distributed Competition.

The CEC will lead the proceedings on Interconnection Issues and will kick off the process with the above mentioned workshop on December 6, 1999. If you are on the service list of the earlier CPUC proceeding, you should receive a hard copy of the Notice by mail.

Jairam
Chair, CADER
_______________________
Jairam Gopal
(916) 654-4880  (tel)
(916) 654-4753 (fax)
e-mail:   jgopal@energy.state.ca.us

CADER/DPCA Symposium on Distributed Resources

/0 Comments/in , /by

[I’ll be attending the DOE Distributed Power Program Review and Planning Meeting in Washington next Monday September 27, followed by the IEEE working group session.]

San Diego Sept 13-14

(see program/agenda at http://www.cader.org)

The meeting was very well attended, exceeding expectations, with roughly 400 registered. It included keynotes by notables (Larry Papay of Bechtel, Dan Reicher, Ass’t Secty, EE/DOE, and David Rohy, Calif Energy Commissioner) and two days of parallel sessions on “Policy”, “Technologies” and “Markets”. It was impossible to be in 3 places at once, however the 2″ thick binder provided copies of the vugraphs from most of the presentations.

A dominant theme: it is not a matter if, or even when, but only of how fast, distributed generation will be deployed on a major scale. In fact, DG is already here, and has been for a long time, in various forms and applications. If it truly is a “disruptive technology”, then we can expect it to lurk below the surface, serving in various niche applications, until a crossover occurs and it emerges an a major scale.

The biggest issue seems to be interconnection with the grid. Advocates see utilities as putting up strong resistance. One speaker, Edan Prabhu, explained it terms of distribution departments, at the low end of the totem pole in utilities, trying to protect themselves and their “turf” from this dangerous invasion of “their” system. He explained how the good guys meet the “nice guys”–DG advocates vs. the well-meaning protectors of the system.

There was considerable muttering in the back of the room as speakers from the California utilities claimed to be doing all they can. Repeatedly, we see instances where utilities can handle interconnections just fine, when they want to. In other situations, however, they seen as throwing up roadblocks and delays. Ironically, utilities are entirely comfortable with large motors, which feed back fault current when voltage disappears, but this same issue is seen as a huge problem for DG.

As Dan Reicher explained in his comments, nine states have now gone ahead to establish some kind of interconnection standards for small scale generation, while the long term answer is to have one new national standard. The IEEE work under Dick DeBlasio is key to this, and DOE also supports the development of advanced hardware and software for interconnection.

———–
There was a very good summary of the remarkable events in Texas, where a process has moved with unprecedented speed to cut through the confusion and arrive at an interim set of workable policies. The proposed rules are available online:
http://www.puc.state.tx.us/rules/rulemake/21220/21220.cfm

A hearing is scheduled for October 25. The presentation was given by Nat Treadway, a former PUC analyst, who is now on his own. 713-669-9701, treadway@alumni.princeton.edu
———–
New York state has a similar initiative for small DG (under 300 KVA). A commission staff proposal was issued in July, however timing of a decision is uncertain. Comments were due by September 20. http://www.dps.state.ny.us/distgen.htm
————
In California, the PUC took longer than expected to announce a decision on a staff recommendation to split their rulemaking proceeding into two parts — Distribution Competition, and DG Implementation Issues. A draft decision to do this was finally announced Sept 21, and is now available online (2 documents) at:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/distgen/docs.htm
————
The California ISO presented an interesting comparison of technical requirements for large generators on the system with what might be needed for DG. Generators need to have sophisticated communications and control capabilities that the ISO can monitor and talk to directly. The ISO is implementing the “ANALOPE” system to do some of this over the internet (there is a strong need to certify bids and contracts–i.e. failsafe digital signatures). Once this is established, it may pave the way for the use of internet technology to communicate with DG’s and enable them to participate in the California energy and ancillary services markets.
(Contact: David Hawkins 916-351-4465 dhawkins@caiso.com)
http://www.caiso.com/pubinfo/info-security/index.html
http://www.caiso.com/pubinfo/info-security/projects/analope/faq.html
————
The Technology sessions featured presentations by makers of microturbines, fuel cells, reciprocating engines, dish stirling, storage, and renewables. Discussions on “Markets” ranged from the “sleeping giant” of international electric demand, to combined heat and power and the use of smart technology to capture market value. Selected items may be featured in future UFTO Notes.

T Line Sag Mitigator Gets Funding; Partner Wanted

/0 Comments/in , /by

Recall this UFTO Note?
————-

Subject: UFTO Note – Sagging Line Mitigator
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999

This unique device would replace or work with standard insulated hangers on power transmission towers, to counteract the effect of temperature on the sagging of overhead transmission lines. This allows increased line ampacity (load current capacity) of existing lines during curtailed summer months, reduced tower heights, and/or increased tower spacing. This device will significantly reduce the risk of forest fires and outages caused by sagging lines, increase the efficiency of energy transfer, delay the need for additional line capacity, and delay the construction of new lines.
————–
The developers now have substantial funding from the Calif Energy Commission to proceed with development, and they are looking for a host utility to be involved.

They’re proposing that a utility would provide the electrical engineering person(s) they need for the development team. They would cover part of salary and incremental costs. A “recruitment” notice appears below. Other business arrangements are also certainly possible. The important thing for them is to get industry expertise, and for the utility, early access to a possibly very significant transmission system innovation.

—————————-
In my own discussions about this with some utility folks, the value of this device hasn’t been immediately obvious, so I asked the company about it. Here is their reply:

Question: How often is sag an important limitation?

Answer: Some lines are designed w/sag limits and some w/temperature limits (which again relate back together!). Also, there are lines for which winter loads (cold) are an issue (lack of sag – high tension). Our device would keep sag practically constant and hence will help these conditions. Benefits of such a device which keeps line profile constant are numerous and not all of them are obvious. In our contacts with transmission line experts, we have generally received favorable reposnse, however, I have also noticed that the benefits of the device may not be obvious to some. That, I believe, maybe because they consider load curtailment as part of design. However, from a designer/planner point of view, slim would make it possbile to increase those ampacities, which would lead to significant benefits.

SLiM can also solve a multitude of temperature related issues with these lines, including mitigation of fatigue loading/failures and reduction of high tensile loads during cold ice storms.
———————

Material Integrity Solutions, Inc., specializes in mechanical and structural analysis and design of complex components for a number of industries including power generation, gas transmission, electronics, and manufacturing. The company is seeking partnerships and expertise in conductor and transmission system design, for development of the SLiM device.

Experience Requirements

Applicants must have excellent knowledge, expertise, and experience, as demonstrated by minimum of 5 years of utility transmission design and/or construction, in:

– Electrical and electromagnetic analysis/design of overhead transmission systems
– Design and analysis, technical and economic, of overhead transmission
systems including conductors, insulators, and towers
– Computer modeling of overhead transmission components for simulating
their electromagnetic behavior particularly in evaluation of their corona performance
– Materials used in and their behavior for overhead transmission systems
– Issues related to maintenance and integrity of overhead transmission systems
– Familiarity with Codes and Standards and knowledge of technical
committees applicable to transmission lines
– A minimum of B.S. degree in electrical engineering or equivalent
and excellent written communication skills are required.

The position is for a 1-2 year involvement in a multi-disciplinary team whose goal is to design, test, fabricate and market a new line of patented components for electrical transmission lines. The individual will be a key member of our team and will bring the expertise delineated above to the project and contribute to the successful implementation of this design. Therefore, the applicant must be highly motivated and self-directed, a hard worker, a fast learner, and a team player. The actual work will be performed at both our offices and applicant’s organization offices.

Contact: Dr. Manuchehr Shirmodhamadi
Material Integrity Solutions, Inc., Berkeley, CA
510-594-0300 mshir@misolution.com
http://www.misolution.com

CPUC OIR–Deregulate Elec. Distribution???

/0 Comments/in , /by

**(note proposal below, and let me know of your interest)***

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is about to embark on what may become the most far-reaching restructuring process to date. Motivated in large part by the advent of distributed resources (small generation and storage technologies) and the California Alliance for Distributed Energy Resources (CADER), the CPUC will evaluate over the next 12 months the rules for the distribution systems of the future.

Topics will include the role of wires companies, true retail access, whether the wires should remain a monopoly, and whether distribution companies can own or operate distributed generation and storage. The results could dramatically alter some of the most important aspects of AB1890, define the distributed technology market rules in California, and influence similar discussions now heating up in other states and on the federal level.

At its regular meeting on Dec 17, the CPUC issued an “OIR”:

R.98-12-015, “Order Instituting Rulemaking to Consider
Commission Reforms in the Structure and Regulatory Framework
Governing Electricity Distribution Service”

The full text is available online:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/981217_orders.htm
(in HTML, Word, or PDF format)

>>> The Summary and Rulemaking Questions are attached below. <<<<<

****************************************
*******”OIR Watch Proposal”***********
****************************************

Obviously, utilities in California will be heavily involved (they’re named as respondents). The rest of the country will probably want to pay close attention to this entire discussion, as lengthy and voluminous as it is likely to be.

Distributed Utility Associates (founding members of CADER and a leading consultant in distributed resources) is considering a plan to prepare concise monthly reviews of the CPUC Distribution System Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR), and to interpret its progress, direction and interpreting its importance.

The rulemaking’s implications could include new definitions of distribution companies, new business opportunities or exclusions for wires companies, needs for new or revised energy technologies and set the pace of distributed resources market entry.

In addition, a final synopsis on the resulting rulemaking and its implications on the electric utility industry could be issued at the conclusion of the twelve to fifteen month process. This would be offered as a subscription package.

Pricing is to be determined, probably in the range of $5,000, assuming a sufficient number of subscribers. UFTO Client Companies would be eligible to subscribe at a substantial discount.

Please let me know how this idea strikes you, and what your level of interest might be.

****************************************
****************************************
ORDER INSTITUTING RULEMAKING

Summary
By this order, we open a rulemaking proceeding to consider whether the Commission should pursue reforms in the structure and regulatory framework governing electricity distribution service. The purpose of this proceeding is to gather additional information to assist us in framing proposals to the Legislature and our stakeholders for whatever reforms may be necessary in light of current developments in California’s electric industry.

This rulemaking will provide the opportunity for the Commission to begin consulting with the Legislature and collaborating with the Administration, interested stakeholders, and other state/local agencies who may have jurisdiction or interest in electric distribution and generation issues. In particular, we believe that our consideration of issues focusing on distributed generation and/or distribution competition will benefit from a collaborative effort among the Commission, the California Energy Commission (CEC), and the California Electricity Oversight Board (EOB). This process will allow us to work with these parties to identify the range of issues on distributed generation and distribution competition, and their interrelationships; explore whether we should undertake a focused analysis of distributed generation or a more comprehensive consideration of distribution competition issues; and determine those issues we can address more narrowly and more expeditiously. At the end of this process, we anticipate issuing a proposal that reflects our coordination with the CEC and the EOB, outlining the specific steps we will undertake, in cooperation with the Legislature, in addressing the issues and considering proposed changes in our regulatory policies and rules.

We solicit comments and proposals regarding the scope and substance of issues that need to be addressed, possible policy options, and the procedural steps that the Commission could pursue in adopting and implementing needed reforms that are consistent with the state’s goals and objectives in electric restructuring. We invite responses to our questions in Appendix A of this rulemaking. Respondents shall and interested parties may file opening comments on or before March 17, 1999, and reply comments on or before May 17, 1999. Given the collaborative efforts we intend to undertake with the CEC and the EOB in this proceeding, respondents and interested parties should also provide copies of their comments to these two agencies. We intend to consider a proposal from the Assigned Commissioner in the summer of 1999.

APPENDIX A

Rulemaking Questions

From a policy perspective, does consideration of DG necessarily require a broader, more comprehensive look at distribution competition and the role of the UDC?

Where has competition, as it relates to distribution, emerged or not emerged in California? Has there been growth in irrigation, municipal, and other public utility districts in the existing service areas of the UDCs? What has been the market penetration of DG, self-generation, and T&D substitutes in California?

Is there a need for further reforms in the structure and regulatory framework governing electricity distribution service, in light of current market developments described in your response to Q2 above? If so, what are they? What is the UDC’s ultimate role in this restructured energy market?

How would competition in distribution service be effected? Please give specific examples or scenarios manifesting competition in distribution facilities and/or services. What is the Commission’s role and the roles of other state/local agencies?

How would the integrity, reliability, safety, and efficiency of the T&D system be affected by a more competitive electric distribution and/or DG market? Please provide policy options.

What are the regulatory jurisdictional effects, if any, of allowing more competition in distribution and/or DG? Please provide policy options.

Provide an assessment of the possible environmental impacts of increased competition in distribution and/or DG. Please provide policy options.

Provide an assessment of the possible social, economic, and labor impacts, including implications for public purpose programs (i.e., energy efficiency and low-income programs), of increased competition in distribution and/or DG. Please provide policy options.

What are the ratemaking consequences of introducing or encouraging more competition in distribution and/or DG? Please provide policy options.

Describe the potential costs of promoting competition in distribution and/or DG? What are the potential stranded costs? What are the benefits? How should the potential costs and benefits be analyzed and quantified?

Does competition in electric distribution service have implications on the delivery infrastructure for natural gas? Please describe any such interrelationship and the resulting impacts on customer benefits, the environment, and regulatory structure?

What procedural steps should be pursued? Should there be a more focused analysis of DG issues, or a more comprehensive consideration of issues surrounding distribution competition? Are there issues which are more appropriately considered in workshops, full panel hearings, and/or other procedural forums?

Microturbine Test Programs

/0 Comments/in , /by

Edison Technology Solutions is offering a subscription program to test microturbines. It will involve actual testing on a uniform basis of up to 8 “pre-commercial” and commercial units from different manufacturers. Two units will commence testing early in January.

Subscribers will have timely access to detailed test data and analyses of performance and interconnection issues. While some of this information may eventually become available elsewhere, subscribers will not only receive timely information, but will gain access to technology briefings, operations assessments, and lessons-learned. It will be important to have such information before beginning any kind of commercial installations.

EPRI is cofunding this work (along with CEC and DOE), and will receive general test results under this arrangement. ETS’ program, however includes additional detailed analyses and reports, summarized conclusions, and presentations throughout the testing program that will not be available through other sources.

Contact: Jaime Medina, 626-815-0516, jmedina@edisontec.com
http://www.edisontec.com

—————————

In ’99, EPRI is continuing a microturbine field test program (which began in 1996 with the testing of Capstone early prototype units at Northern States Power and Southern California Edison). Participating host utilities will test one or more microturbines at either laboratory or actual end-user sites. The program will cover all available vendor products (e.g., Capstone, Elliott, Allied-Signal, NREC) and provide information on unit performance as well as interconnection, siting and permitting issues. The data from all of the tests will be shared within the group of host companies. Members of either of the two EPRI DR targets can use tailored collaboration money. Nonmembers can also participate by co-funding. Participants will participate in a user’s group where they will share experiences and insights obtained from operating their units with others in the program.

Contact: Doug Herman, 650-855-1057, dherman@epri.com

Additional information on EPRI’s $5 million/yr DR program (2 targets), including the microturbine tests, can be found at http://www.epri.com/gg/newgen/disgen/index.html
—————————

CURC Annual Conf. 11/98

/0 Comments/in , /by

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 —- http://www.curc.org

——- 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 (www.gri.org). 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 http://www.energy.ca.gov/research

Questions regarding PIER should be directed to Mike Batham
of the Commission’s Energy Development Division at:
916-654-4548, MBatham@energy.state.ca.us

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 pierprojects@ufto.com
*************************

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 (www.energy.ca.gov/renewables)

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 (www.cbee.org)

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 http://eetd.lbl.gov/CIEE/
(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, jwcole@lbl.gov

——————————————-

Calif. Trade and Commerce Agency, Office of Strategic Technology (OST)
Pasadena CA http://goldstrike.net

Steve Jarvis, 626-568-9437, sjarvis@goldstrike.com
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)
—————————————–

FINAL CADER Report Available

/0 Comments/in , /by

Forwarding note just received a few minutes ago.

Subject: FINAL CADER Report Available
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:05:04 -0700
From: ERIC WONG
To: edbeards@ufto.com

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 cbruins@energy.state.ca.us

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

http://www.energy.ca.gov/CADER/

Energy Storage Assoc. Meeting

/0 Comments/in , /by

Energy Storage Association (ESA) Fall Meeting
“The Value of Energy Storage in a Restructured Utility Market”
Sacramento, CA
November 18 -19, 1997

((An UFTO Note on Nov 10 gave the original agenda for this meeting.))

*** –> SPECIAL OFFER <– ***

This one time, the ESA is offering to send a free copy of the full proceedings to prospective members, together with their membership solicitation package. Membership in ESA is a good way to stay in touch with developments in utility storage, and a year’s company membership is only $1500.

To request the package and proceedings of the November meeting, contact (please tell them UFTO sent you):

ENERGY STORAGE ASSOCIATION
TEL: (301) 951-3223
FAX: (301) 951-3235

E-MAIL: John Hurwitch, Executive Director, jwitch@switch.smart.net
——————————-

–> MEETING HIGHLIGHTS

(more details on request–and in the Proceedings)

–> Overview of the Market:
The goal of ESA and the DOE Utility Storage program is to build market volume for storage systems. Utilities are proving to be a very tough market for battery storage, despite a strong benefit/cost story. One hypothesis is that the benefits are scattered among different stakeholders (even within a utility), with no single part being big enough by itself. Nobody is in a position to put it together, and restructuring is making the situation even worse, as the walls go up inside utilities. Also, utilities say they have no money, and want the first cost to be very low, regardless of life-cycle considerations. Meanwhile, big needs are looming, especially on transmission systems, but nobody seems to own the problem or is in a position to make the investment.

Vendors are offering turnkey systems for various applications and markets, but there are very few orders, and those are mostly for very special situations, e.g. in Alaska (remarkable success stories). Vendors are getting very discouraged, and may be close to throwing in the towel.

Is the problem with the Technology? Marketing? Or do utilities “just not get it?” Or, are the proponents wrong in their view that storage is an idea whose time is overdue, and that it’s largely a matter of “education”? In 1996, DOE and Sandia visited with over two dozen utilities to try to understand the industry’s views on storage. Results were recently published: “Report on the Energy Storage Systems Program Executive Meetings Project” SAND 97-2700, November 97. However, more dialogue with the utility industry is still needed, to get to the bottom of these questions.

The ESA has proposed a flagship project called “Storage 2000,” as a joint program with DOE to stimulate and accelerate development, with a goal of 200 MW of project commitments by the year 2000. Applications are to include renewable, distributed, generation/transmission (ancillary services), and customer systems.

–> Energy Storage in the UK
The closer storage is to the customer, the better. Anthony Price, of National Power, UK, compared batteries to warehouses for “just in time” distribution, where it’s well known that you put storage only in one place in the system, close to the customer. He showed an analysis of the bulk market hourly price over time. Even with big differences between on and off peak wholesale prices, you can’t win by buying off-peak and selling on-peak. Not only are there roundtrip (storage) losses, but you’re also fighting the spread (sell at the bid price, buy at ask). What you’d be selling is capacity, and there’s currently an excess.

The farther down the distribution chain you are, more distribution costs are built into the price of goods, so storage has more value. However, whoever owns the storage controls that value. “If the customer owns the storage, then the rates are wrong”.

–> Uninterruptible Power and Power Quality
While utility storage isn’t moving, UPS and P/Q applications are a very strong market (a lesson there somewhere?). There are still issues, however. Though vendors have products, there’s often insufficient understanding of what a “disturbance” really is. For example, they may design for a 3 phase symmetrical fault, which rarely occurs. Phase shifts and waveforms need particular attention. Too often, products need to be redesigned in the field.

There are several interesting systems using steel flywheels: – International Computer Power — steel flywheel in a 100 kVA motor genset to provide ridethrough, successfully demonstrated for two years at a Hewlett Packard site, dramatically reducing diesel backup starts. – Holic Power Protection — 100’s installed worldwide. Diesel generator and flywheel combination where the flywheel dynamically adjusts itself to maintain constant generator speed. 1250 kVA unit runs about $1.1 million. Without the diesel, it can provide short term ride through. – Active Power, Austin TX, has been issuing press releases lately. Modular pancake unit provides 400kW for 5 sec, for short discharge P/Q applications.

In “new” technology (composite) flywheels, Beacon Power presented their plug-replacement for batteries in UPS systems. The 1 kW, 2kWh unit goes directly on the DC bus. Beacon is a joint venture between SatCon and Duquesne. They expect to be in production by the end of ’98, with beta tests in mid year.
–> Renewables and Storage
Solar and Wind energy systems need storage, particularly in remote/village power applications. The opportunities are huge, particularly to supply the 2 billion people in the world with no electricity, and to displace diesel fuel consumption. A number of programs are trying to come up with reliable modular integrated systems (hybrids with diesel, solar or wind, and batteries). Batteries are often blamed as the weak link in renewable energy systems (right along with inverters), but the blame may be misplaced–often the wrong type of battery is installed by local people.

The President’s “Million Solar Roof” initiative is beginning to be felt, though this may not necessarily imply much use of storage. SMUD has a huge commitment to renewables, and are just now beginning to consider the potential benefits of storage in that context.

The first major project under Storage 2000 is to be the “Renewable Generation and Storage ” (RGS) project. Partners will be selected by formal solicitation process in 1998 for design, development and testing of a prototype integrated system with a PV array, inverter and storage, ready for customer use. International opportunities exist for “Remote Area Power Systems” or mini-grid systems. Funding is available, and local governments are motivated, e.g. in Latin America. The Solar Energy Industry Association has information. ( http://www.seia.org ).

–> Texas Energy Storage Technology Institute (ESTI)
This is a coordinated research program involving all the universities in Texas, funded in part by the Texas Energy Coordinating Council, a state agency. ESTI is doing work in capacitors, batteries, and particularly high performance flywheel systems for railroad applications. DOT and DARPA funding support the Advanced Locomotive Propulsion System, which includes a 3 MW Allied Signal gas turbo-alternator, and the University-developed 167 kwh flywheel for braking and acceleration. The idea is to provide an alternative to electrification of railroad right of way. ESTI wants to encourage synergies between stationary and mobile storage systems. Contact John Price, 512-471-4496, 512-232-1888 (direct), j.price@mail.utexas.edu, http:/www.utexas.edu/research/cem

–> Key Note Speaker

Separately, Pramod Kulkarni of the CEC outlined the priorities for storage in California, seen as a “strategic” area under the public benefit R&D program.