Posts

Renewable Energy Annual 1997, Volume I

/0 Comments/in , /by

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/renewable.energy.annual/rea97/contents.html

Renewable Energy Annual 1997
Volume I DOE/EIA-0603(97/1)

October 1997
Energy Information Administration
Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585

Contacts

Questions regarding specific information in the report should be directed as follows:

Renewable Data Overview:
Fred Mayes (202/426-1166, fred.mayes@eia.doe.gov)

Biomass Energy:
Robert Lowe (202/426-1171, robert.lowe@eia.doe.gov)

Municipal Solid Waste:
John Carlin (202/426-1146, john.carlin@eia.doe.gov)
Geothermal Energy:
Jim Disbrow (202/426-1185, jim.disbrow@eia.doe.gov)

Wind Energy:
Louise Guey-Lee (202/426-1143, louise.guey-lee@eia.doe.gov)

Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic:
Peter Holihan (202/426-1147 james.holihan@eia.doe.gov).

Preface
This report, the Renewable Energy Annual 1997, Volume 1, is the third in a series of annual reports published by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) to provide current information on renewable energy. In doing so, this report provides detailed explanations of summary renewable energy information originally published in EIA’s Annual Energy Review 1996, released in July 1997. It also constitutes an annual update of renewable energy data presented in the Renewable Energy Annual 1996.

The publication of this report marks a change in the publication format of the Renewable Energy Annual. The prior two issues contained both renewable data and analytical material. This year, EIA has split the Renewable Energy Annual into two volumes in order to make data available more quickly. Volume 1 includes renewable energy consumption, capacity, and generation data, along with brief descriptive text. It also includes a chapter on solar (thermal and photovoltaic) manufacturing activity, and an appendix on the direct uses of geothermal energy. It is expected that a later version of this report will include a feature article titled, “A View of the Forest Products Industry From a Wood Energy Perspective.” The Renewable Energy Annual 1997, Volume 2, a topical issues analysis report, is scheduled to be published in Spring 1998.

This report covers the following energy sources: biomass, geothermal, wind, and solar. While hydropower is a renewable energy resource, it is also regarded as a conventional energy source because it has furnished a significant amount of electricity for more than a century. Therefore, this report discusses hydropower as it contributes to total renewable energy consumption but does not address hydropower as an individual energy source. Also, EIA collects data only on terrestrial systems. Satellite and military applications are not included in this report. See Appendix A, “EIA Renewable Energy Data Sources,” and Appendix B, “Renewable Data Limitations,” for more detail.

PCAST Report – Energy R&D in 21st Century

/0 Comments/in , /by

Federal Energy R&D in the 21st Century

The famous “PCAST” report is now available in hard copy and on-line.

This presidential panel, operating under the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the White House, reviewed all federal government energy R&D, in the context of restructuring and declining industry R&D budgets.

It concludes that R&D can accomplish a lot to reduce the cost of supply, increase productivity and support diversification of export. The recommendations emphasize efficiency, renewables, and public education.

Hardcopies can be obtained directly from OSTP
–contact N. Kelly by email at kellyn@nrel.gov, or fax 202-651-7502

The entire report is online at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/Energy/

The first part of the executive summary, and the cover letter to the President are included here:

——————————————-
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT ON
FEDERAL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
CHALLENGES OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

PRESIDENT’S COMMITTEE OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
PANEL ON ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

NOVEMBER 1997

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (introduction)
The United States faces major energy-related challenges as it enters the twenty-first century. Our economic well-being depends on reliable, affordable supplies of energy. Our environmental well-being—from improving urban air quality to abating the risk of global warming —requires a mix of energy sources that emits less carbon dioxide and other pollutants than today’ mix does. Our national security requires secure supplies of oil or alternatives to it, as well as prevention of nuclear proliferation. And for reasons of economy, environment, security, and stature as a world power alike, the United States must maintain its leadership in the science and technology of energy supply and use.

All of these energy-related challenges to the well-being of this country are made more acute by what is happening elsewhere in the world. The combination of population growth and economic development in Asia, Africa, and Latin America is driving a rapid expansion of world energy use, which is beginning to augment significantly the worldwide emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion, increasing pressures on world oil supplies, and exacerbating nuclear proliferation concerns. Means must be found to meet the economic aspirations and associated energy needs of all the world’s people while protecting the environment and preserving peace, stability, and opportunity.

Improvements in energy technologies, attainable through energy research and development, are the key to the capacity of the United States to address—and to help the rest of the world address —these challenges.

Many of the energy R&D programs of the Federal government, which are primarily conducted by the Department of Energy (DOE), have been well focused and effective within the limits of available funding. But these programs, taken as a whole, are not commensurate in scope and scale with the energy challenges and opportunities the twenty-first century will present. (This judgment takes into account the contributions to energy R&D that can reasonably be expected to be made by the private sector under market conditions similar to today’s.) The inadequacy of curren energy R&D is especially acute in relation to the challenge of responding prudently and cost-effectively to the risk of global climatic change from society’s greenhuse-gas emissions, of which the most important is carbon dioxide from combustion of fossil fuels. Much of the new R&D needed to respond to this challenge would also be responsive to the other challenges.
SYNOPSIS OF MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS

To close the gap between the current energy R&D program and the one that the challenges require, the Panel recommends strengthening the DOE applied energy-technology R&D portfolio by increasing funding for four of its major elements (energy end-use efficiency, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, and renewable energy technologies) and restructuring part of the fifth (fossil fuel technologies). We also recommend better coordination between the Department’s applied energy-technology programs and the fundamental research carried out in the program on Basic Energy Sciences; increased Department efforts in integrated analysis of its entire energy R&D portfolio and the leverage the portfolio offers against the energy challenges of the next century; targeted efforts to improve the prospects of commercialization of the fruits of publicly funded energy R&D in specific areas; increased attention to certain international aspects of energy R&D; and changes in the prominence given to energy R&D in relation to the Department’s other missions, coupled with changes in how this R&D is managed.

—————————————-
PRESIDENT’S COMMITTEE OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20502

November 4, 1997

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

PCAST endorses the report’s findings that this country’s economic prosperity, environmental quality, national security, and world leadership in science and technology all require improving our energy technologies, and that an enhanced national R&D effort is needed to provide these improvements. The inadequacy of current energy R&D is especially acute in relation to the challenge of responding responsibly and cost-effectively to the risk of global climatic change from society’s greenhouse gas emissions, in particular, carbon dioxide from combustion of fossil fuels.

PCAST recommends focusing the government’s energy R&D on projects where high potential payoffs for society as a whole justify bigger R&D investments than industry would be likely to make on the basis of expected private returns and where modest government investments can effectively complement, leverage, or catalyze work in the private sector.

The report recommends an increase, over a five-year period, of $1 billion in the Department of Energy’s annual budget for applied energy-technology R&D. The largest shares of such an increase would go to R&D in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, but nuclear fusion and fission would also receive increases. The composition of the R&D supported on advanced fossil-fuel technologies would change in favor of longer-term opportunities, including fuel cells and carbon-sequestration technologies, but the overall spending level for fossil-fuel technologies would stay roughly constant in real terms.

The proposed total for FY 2003 would return the DOE’s real level of effort in applied energy-technology R&D in that year to about where it was in FY 1991 and FY 1992. In constant dollars, the average real growth rate would be 8.3 percent per year.

PCAST respectfully urges that you increase your efforts to communicate clearly to the public the importance of energy and energy R&D to the nation’s future, and PCAST recommends that you clearly designate the Secretary of Energy as the national leader and coordinator for developing and carrying out the national energy strategy.

The report also makes recommendations for improving the Department of Energy’s management of its energy R&D portfolio, including the naming of a single individual with responsibility for the whole portfolio and reporting directly to the Secretary.

The energy R&D portfolio PCAST proposes will be of crucial importance in meeting that challenge. Many of the energy-technologies that will help with the problem of climate change, moreover, will also help address other energy-related challenges, including reducing dependence on imported oil, diversifying the U.S. domestic fuel- and electricity-supply systems, expanding U.S. exports of energy technologies, reducing air and water pollution, and reducing the cost, safety and security risks of nuclear energy systems around the world.

Sincerely,

John H. Gibbons
Co-Chairman
President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology

cc: Vice President Al Gore

Energy Effic. Buildings Software Survey

/0 Comments/in , /by

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

The note includes pointers to several resources for Efficient Buildings:

-> Energy Efficient Building Assoc.

-> US DOE’ Software “Tools Directory”

-> Building Environmental Science & Technology
Bion Howard, Principal bhoward2@sprynet.com

EEBA Computer Software Survey Completed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions from the EEBA software survey are fairly simple.

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

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

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

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

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

Sources: More information on energy design analysis computer software can be found at the US DOE’ Software “Tools Directory”
Information on EEBA: 501[c.]3 non-profit organization
Contact: Bion Howard, Principal, Building Environmental Science & Technology
bhoward2@sprynet.com

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

/0 Comments/in , /by

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

————————————————–

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

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

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/cleanup/

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

Radiation Site Cleanup Regulation HomePage

Welcome to the EPA Radiation Site Cleanup Rule HomePage.

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

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

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

———————————————

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

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/cleanup/BBS_tbl.htm#marssim

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

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

DOE Reliability TF PAPER

/0 Comments/in , /by

Just received from Paul Carrier, Task Force Staff Director:

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

(Also available in Word format on request)

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

Dear Dr. Massey:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Dr. Philip Sharp
Chairman,
Task Force on Electric System Reliability

Enclosure

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

MAINTAINING BULK-POWER RELIABILITY THROUGH USE OF A SELF-REGULATING ORGANIZATION: POSITION PAPER

November 6, 1997

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

1. BACKGROUND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. SRRO APPLICATION TO NERC AND THE FERC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CURC Technology Conference

/0 Comments/in , /by

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

———————————-
CONTENTS:
– 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.

———————————————————-
AGENDA

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
President

———————————————————-
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)

SUMMARY–
PUBLIC INTEREST PROGRAMS UNDER CALIF. UTILITY RESTRUCTURING

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

Efficiency
— 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. http://www.cbee.org/

Renewables
— 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). http://www.energy.ca.gov/energy/renewables/

PIER
— 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.

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

—————————————————
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. http://eande.lbl.gov/ciee/ciee_homepage.html

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. http://www.nthfund.com

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: http://www.energy.ca.gov/CADER/ Lack of widely accepted grid interconnection standards seen as big obstacle, and lengthy customized review procedures. Customer benefits may not overlap with distribution grid benefits.

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

——————
– AB1890 Implementation
Brief overview–summarized above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second DOE study on Greenhouse Gases

/0 Comments/in , /by

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

———————
| This is separate from the “5-Lab Study” released in September
| (see UFTO Note Sept 10)
| “Scenarios of U. S. Carbon Reductions Potential Impacts of Energy-
| Efficient and Low-Carbon Technologies by 2010 and Beyond”
| Full text available in pdf Acrobat at
| http://www.ornl.gov/ORNL/Energy_Eff/CON444/
| Copies available on request from Tonia Edwards, 423-241-5961
——————–

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

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

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

Principal contact for the study at DOE is:
Robert San Martin
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
202-586-9277 fax 202-586-9260
robert.sanmartin@hq.doe.gov

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

Energy Stg Assoc Meeting next week

/0 Comments/in , /by

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.

Sincerely,

ENERGY STORAGE ASSOCIATION
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”

GUEST SPEAKERS:
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

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

ENERGY STORAGE ASSOCIATION
4733 Bethesda Avenue, Suite 608
Bethesda, MD 20814

Tel: (301) 951-3223 Fax: (301) 951-3235
Email: bhighsmi@switch.smart.net

** Check out our website at: www.energystorage.org **

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:
Title
Organization:
Address:
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)

TOTAL FEE ENCLOSED : $
*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):

Fees Payable to : ENERGY STORAGE ASSOCIATION*
Please return completed copy and fees by Nov. 10h to:
ENERGY STORAGE ASSOCIATION
4733 Bethesda Avenue, Suite 608
Bethesda, MD 20814

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

ENERGY STORAGE ASSOCIATION
TEL: (301) 951-3223
FAX: (301) 951-3235
E-MAIL: bhighsmi@switch.smart.net