Energy Efficiency and Alternatives News/Articles

Referendum process subverted by wealthy energy moguls

Charles Langley — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:36:42 -0700

UCAN In the Media

Referendum process now being used by wealthy

Union Tribune: July 27, 2008, Dean Calbreath

When California's reform-minded Gov. Hiram Johnson launched the
referendum process in 1911, his idea was to give common citizens more
of a voice in setting state policy.

If citizens couldn't afford to hire lobbyists in
Sacramento, at least they could band together in petition drives to put
their proposals onto the ballot. Or so the argument went.

But thanks to the mounting cost of statewide
political campaigns, the referendum process has increasingly become a
vehicle for wealthy individuals or major corporations to sidestep the
legislative process and push for pet projects that sometimes provide
hidden benefits for the authors.

And so, on the ballot this November, one of the
richest men in the world is backing an initiative aimed at getting
drivers in the state to shift away from gasoline to other fuels,
notably natural gas.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the chief proponent
of the idea is the nation's largest supplier of transportation-related
natural gas: T. Boone Pickens, a multibillionaire who ranks as the
world's 369th-richest person.

Pickens, 80, once a wheeler-dealer in the oil
market, more recently has been focusing on wind power and natural gas,
and he hopes the state and nation will do the same.

Warning that the United States is too dependent
on foreign oil, he has been taking out TV commercials and lobbying
politicians to shift away from petroleum to wind-powered electricity
and natural gas-powered vehicles.

Nationwide, his Pickens Plan would push the
federal government to help private industry build a $1.2 trillion
network of windmills – similar to windmills he already is building in
Texas – to provide electricity.

Using wind power instead of natural gas for
electricity, he says, would allow drivers to start fueling their cars
with natural gas – similar to that sold by his Clean Energy Fuels Corp.
in California – rather than gasoline.

“I want a federal mandate that any new vehicles
should go on natural gas,” Pickens said during a question-and-answer
meeting with The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board,
attended by editors and reporters from the newsroom. The board
regularly invites newsmakers to discuss current events.

In California, Pickens is behind the campaign
for Proposition 10, which would provide subsidies for alternative fuels
– with a strong tilt toward natural gas.

The literature for Prop. 10 says it is backed by
“a coalition of renewable energy and alternative fuel companies.” But
the only known contributor to this “coalition” is Clean Energy Fuels
Corp. – formerly known as Pickens Fuels Corp. – which has kicked in
$3.25 million to support the proposal.

The bill would authorize $5 billion in
state-funded bonds to support research and development projects in
alternative energy as well as rebates to vehicles using alternative
fuels.

According to the state fiscal analysis office,
Proposition 10 would cost taxpayers roughly $325 million per year for
the next 30 years to finance the bonds, as well as $10 million a year
over the next decade for administrative costs.

Critics note that Proposition 10 promotes
natural gas over gasoline-electric hybrids, a cleaner and cheaper
technology that is already making inroads into the marketplace.
Proposition 10 would offer up to $50,000 in rebates to vehicles fueled
by natural gas, but far less to hybrids.

Judy Dugan, an energy specialist with Consumer
Watchdog in Santa Monica, said the only hybrid that meets the
qualifications specified by the referendum is the Toyota Prius, which
could gain a $2,000 rebate. Rebates for natural gas cars, Dugan said,
would start at $10,000.

“On the basis of market distortion alone, this
is crazy,” Dugan said. “There's already a federal subsidy for natural
gas vehicles, which Pickens is lobbying to be continued through 2018.”

Michael Shames, who heads San Diego's Utilities
Consumers' Action Network, adds that a shift to natural gas would be
“problematic in a lot of ways.” Shames, who once owned several
natural-gas vehicles, said few mechanics know how to fix natural-gas
engines and few filling stations offer natural gas.

On the other hand, a government-mandated,
taxpayer-supported shift to natural gas would undoubtedly bring needed
business to Clean Energy Fuels Corp.

Clean Energy is a relatively small company, with
about 170 stations in the United States and Canada servicing 14,000
vehicles, mostly trucks and buses. Its revenue last year was $118
million, less than 4 percent of Pickens' net worth. The company lost $9
million last year, compared with a $78 million loss the year before.

Clean Energy's shareholders apparently believe
that government mandates could help. Since Pickens started promoting
his energy plan this month, the company's stock price – which had been
slumping since May – has jumped more than 20 percent to $12.88.

“His stock has risen by $100 million,” Dugan
said. “That's more than twice the amount he's spending on his ads (for
the Pickens Plan).”

Pickens isn't the only multibillionaire with an energy plan on the ballot.

Also on the ballot this November is Proposition
7, a proposal almost wholly backed by Arizona multibillionaire Peter
Sperling, ranked by Forbes magazine as the 799th-richest person in the world.

Sperling has no apparent vested interest in the
proposal. His wealth comes from his connection to Phoenix University,
founded by his multibillionaire father John Sperling. His proposition,
which requires the state to get 50 percent of its power from renewable
sources, has won endorsements from a couple of environmental activists,
such as the chairs of the Rainforest Action Network and the Oceanic
Society.

But a number of major environmental groups,
including the National Resources Defense Council and the California
League of Conservation Voters, have joined with the state's largest
utilities – Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and
Sempra Energy – to oppose the proposition.

The critics complain that the proposal is
seriously flawed, especially because it locks the state into existing
technologies and requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to alter
it. Nobody has done a study to see if it is feasible to conduct such a
dramatic shift to renewables.

Shames, who opposes Proposition 7, said both
propositions share the same flaw: Because they only depend on one
person – whether Pickens or Sperling – they lack the vetting that would
come from having input of a wider variety of sources.

“A well-intentioned individual with an excessive
amount of money doesn't necessarily have the capacity to present a
comprehensive policy initiative on a complex topic,” he said. “That
takes a broader cross-section of the public.”

That's an idea that Hiram Johnson would undoubtedly agree with.

Dean Calbreath: (619) 293-1891; dean.calbreath @ uniontrib.com

Billionaire oilman urges nation to embrace wind and natural gas alternatives

Laura Impastato — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:27:10 -0700

UCAN In the Media

Pickens pitches plans to shift U.S. away from oil

Wind and natural gas are priorities on list

By Dean Calbreath

UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

July 25, 2008

Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens became one of the world's richest people by drilling for petroleum.

But these days, he's spearheading a multimillion-dollar push to wean the nation from oil and onto wind power and natural gas.

In the past week, Pickens has talked with the Democratic and Republican leadership on Capitol Hill to gather support for his two main proposals: a $1.2 trillion plan to generate much of the nation's electricity through a chain of windmills and a federal mandate to shift Americans away from gasoline-fueled cars and into vehicles fueled by natural gas.

At the same time, Pickens' Clean Energy Fuels Corp. – the country's largest supplier of natural gas for vehicles – is spending $3.25 million on Proposition 10 on the November ballot in California, which would provide rebates of up to $50,000 for natural-gas powered vehicles and lesser rebates for hybrids.

The 80-year-old Pickens presents his campaign behind Proposition 10 and his national initiative, known as the Pickens Plan, as an altruistic drive to make the nation less dependent on imported oil.

The nation imports $700 billion in foreign oil per year, which Pickens describes as the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world. He said he fears that if the United States remains so dependent on foreign oil, it will be at the mercy of the oil-rich nations of the Middle East and other foreign powers.

“This is an emergency,” he said yesterday. “This is like a war. The national economy is at risk here.”

Pickens' comments were made during a question-and-answer meeting with The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board, attended by editors and reporters from the newsroom. The board regularly invites newsmakers to discuss current events.

Pickens' proposals are getting support from across the political spectrum, ranging from environmentalists to Wall Street energy investors.

“To put it plainly, T. Boone Pickens is out to save America,” said Carl Pope of the Sierra Club.

Bruce Zaro, chief technical strategist with Delta Global Advisors, an investment research group in Huntington Beach, said Pickens' plan “makes a lot of sense. With the price of oil recently running up to nearly $150 per barrel, it really behooves us to diversify away from it.”

But Pickens has his critics as well.

Consumer advocates say that he is putting his money into alternative energy sources that he already has a financial interest in – wind and natural gas – while giving the back seat to energy sources that could be more environmentally friendly, such as solar power and hybrid cars.

“I don't doubt his patriotic ideals, but a few things about his plan are worrisome,” said Judy Dugan, energy specialist with the liberal-leaning Consumers Watch in Santa Monica. “Natural gas is not a bad idea for public transit or big truck fleets, but if it's done the way he wants, it would crowd out other technologies such as plug-in hybrid cars and new biofuels. Instead, it would favor technologies that are being developed by a company run by T. Boone Pickens.”

Steven Milloy, a scholar with the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., accuses Pickens of overstating the threat of foreign oil to gain tax benefits and government help that would benefit his business interests.

“Pickens gives the impression that imported oil is scary because it all comes from the unstable Mideast,” Milloy said, noting that Pickens' TV ads use images of U.S. troops fighting in Iraq.

In contrast, Milloy said, only 16 percent of the oil that this country imports comes from the Middle East. Most imports come from friendly nations such as Mexico and Canada, the two biggest foreign suppliers of oil to the United States.

Pickens made his fortune selling oil, rising from his one-time career as an oil wildcatter to one of the richest people in the United States. Forbes magazine estimates his net worth of $3 billion, although Pickens has recently said it is closer to $4 billion.

Pickens presides over BP Capital, a hedge fund that has invested heavily in energy companies, and Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (formerly the Pickens Fuel Corp.), a publicly traded company that generated $118 million in revenue by selling natural gas to truck and bus fleets. With the help of federal tax credits and a state-funded power line, he is also building a windmill center in Texas, which can produce up to 4,000 megawatts of electricity, or nearly twice as much the nuclear power plant at San Onofre.

The Pickens Plan proposes building a vast array of windmills in a corridor stretching from Texas to North Dakota. The cost of the windmills, estimated at $1 trillion, would be borne by private investors. But under his plan, the federal government would need to provide land and tax breaks, as well as build a $200 billion network of power lines to transport the electricity.

“The big problem with wind is transmission,” said Michael Shames, who heads San Diego's Utility Consumers' Action Network.

San Diego Gas & Electric's Sunrise Powerlink, a proposed 150-mile power line from Imperial County to San Diego, has been debated for several years with no resolution. Pickens' proposal would entail thousands of miles of power lines. He envisions the government using the power of eminent domain to seize at least some of the land needed for the power network.

Shames, one of the leading voices against Sunrise, said that even though wind is an important renewable energy source, solar energy could be produced closer to major population centers – particularly in the Sun Belt – without the need for a new network of interstate power lines.

Pickens' proposal makes little mention of solar energy.

“I haven't priced out solar,” Pickens said. “I know a little about wind and a lot about oil and gas, but nothing about solar.”

Today, Pickens plans to discuss his plan and Proposition 10 with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Although he lives in Texas, Pickens has contributed heavily to Schwarzenegger's campaigns and political causes, including $72,300 to his gubernatorial runs and the recall of his predecessor, Gray Davis. This year, Pickens has given $100,000 to a redistricting referendum backed by the governor.

Pickens has a history of backing Republican causes and contributed heavily to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against John Kerry during the 2004 presidential race. But he said his current drive is apolitical.

“I've broken off from the Republicans,” he said. “This year, I've watched as the candidates of both parties have struggled with the energy question. They didn't seem to understand it and didn't have any kind of solution that I agreed with. I feel like I know more about the energy business than anybody else does.”

Dean Calbreath: (619) 293-1891; dean.calbreath [at] uniontrib [dot] com

SDG&E begins installation of new smart meter technology

Laura Impastato — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:47:29 -0700

UCAN In the Media

SDG&E launches 'first wave' of high-tech energy monitors

By Bruce V. Bigelow

UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

July 18, 2008

Mario Mendoza began his shift at 9 a.m. Wednesday, and two hours later, the San Diego Gas & Electric service technician had completed 10 “smart meter” installations at houses along Tierrasanta's Fino Drive.

So far, so good. Only 2.3 million installations to go.

In what utility officials call “the first wave of deployment,” SDG&E began installing digital, wireless smart meters this week for about 3,500 customers in Tierrasanta. The new meters track each customer's electricity and gas usage throughout the day, and automatically transmit data at regular intervals to a computerized information center at SDG&E.

The smart meters are expected to do far more than merely eliminate the need for meter readers. By most accounts, the technology represents the biggest advance in monitoring energy consumption since 1888, when the electromechanical meter was invented.

By tracking energy use on an hourly basis, or every 15 minutes for commercial customers, SDG&E officials say they can better manage overall demand, improve energy conservation, pinpoint gas leaks and immediately identify the scope of electric power outages.

The technology also will make it possible – eventually – for customers to monitor their own gas and electricity use and to reduce their consumption to avoid higher utility rates.

“What we envision are pricing programs that are 'carrot-based,' ” so that customers can save money, said Chris Baker, SDG&E's vice president for information technology.

Customers someday will use an online account to control their home appliances and adjust their thermostats, but the necessary infrastructure for such demand-response programs is not yet available.

“We not only support the deployment of smart meters but have actively encouraged SDG&E to do it,” said San Diego consumer advocate Michael Shames, who heads the Utility Consumers' Action Network.

“In 2006, UCAN co-funded a study by San Diego-based SAIC on the potential savings achievable by smart meters, and we believe that a 10 percent reduction is entirely feasible,” Shames added.

As the smart meters are deployed, SDG&E expects to realize cost savings of roughly $78 million from operational efficiencies.

The utility currently has 230 meter readers, although SDG&E spokeswoman Stephanie Donovan said no layoffs are expected to result from the smart meters' deployment. The work-force reduction will instead come through attrition, and training and workshops will help meter readers transition to new jobs within the company.

“From a cost/benefit, economic-analysis standpoint, we'll see net benefits of about $200 million over the life of the project,” Donovan added.

After evaluating the initial installation in Tierrasanta, including the data generated by the smart meters for the rest of this year, SDG&E plans to begin full-scale deployment in early 2009.

The utility intends to replace all 1.4 million electric meters in its service area and modify 900,000 gas meters by installing add-on wireless modules.

The program, approved in 2007 by the California Public Utilities Commission, is expected to take 2½ years to complete and cost $572 million.

In Tierrasanta, SDG&E plans to replace 3,000 electric-utility meters with smart meters and install wireless modules to 2,000 natural-gas meters, giving wireless communications capabilities to the existing gas meters.

The electric smart meters include 900-megahertz, wireless mesh networking technology, which provides two-way data communications between each meter and SDG&E's data center.

Although the smart meter and its software are proprietary, SDG&E officials say the system is based on an “open architecture” design so that other hardware and technologies can be connected to provide additional information.

Each smart meter also includes “ZigBee” technology, a low-power wireless standard intended to serve as the gateway to a customer's ZigBee-enabled home area network and ZigBee-equipped appliances connected to it.

While ZigBee technology is not widely available today, the emerging technology eventually would allow customers to access an online account where they would be able to monitor their electricity use. Customers also could use their online account to adjust their home thermostat from work or turn off their swimming-pool pump during a period of peak electricity demand.

“It's all about customers' choices,” SDG&E's Baker said. “There will be in-home energy management systems for our customers. They'll get a rebate to reduce their energy consumption, based on pricing (intended) to change their behavior – if they choose to do so.”

Bruce Bigelow: (619) 293-1314; bruce.bigelow [at] uniontrib [dot] com

Physicist, 82, leads the way on energy efficiency

Laura Impastato — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:20:54 -0700

UCAN In the Media

Efficiency seen as way to brighter future

Refrigerator improvements pointed to as example of where savings can be made

By DAVE DOWNEY - North County Times Staff Writer

Sunday, July 13, 2008

While utilities constantly are searching for new sources of energy and stringing wires, there is an octogenarian scientist in Sacramento who has been laser focused for nearly a generation on another strategy for ensuring enough electricity to light homes: using power efficiently.

Art Rosenfeld, the 82-year-old physicist and California energy commissioner who has been called the "father of energy efficiency," has been spending the better part of 3 1/2 decades figuring out ways to stretch existing power supplies.

And Rosenfeld said there is a potential to save much more.

He estimated that over the next decade or so, energy experts will figure out how to reduce electric use in the typical home by up to 50 percent.

Rosenfeld isn't talking about ditching any glitzy, newfangled electronic gadgets. He's talking about saving energy by simply doing things better ---- more efficiently.

"I think the trend will be toward making much more energy-efficient houses," he said in a telephone interview last week.

Energy efficiency comes up in the debate over San Diego Gas & Electric Co.'s proposed $1.5 billion Sunrise Powerlink high-voltage transmission line.

That project's 500-kilovolt and 230-kilovolt wires would run from El Centro to Carmel Valley through Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, Santa Ysabel, Ramona and Rancho Penasquitos.

Conservationists and community activists who oppose it say there are ways to curb the ever-rising demand for power and eliminate the need for a power line. Utility officials counter that efficiency programs can help offset growing electricity use to a degree, but not enough to negate the need for the line.

Michael Shames, executive director for the advocacy group Utility Consumers' Action Network in San Diego, which opposes Sunrise, disagrees.

"Efficiency is critical, largely because it is the quickest and least expensive means of providing for our energy needs," he said last week. "If we are able to squeeze the waste out of our electrical system, then we don't need to add new, costly generation resources."

While utility officials contend major new sources of electricity are required, they say efficiency figures prominently in their long-term regional energy strategy.

"Energy efficiency is the least expensive and most environmentally friendly resource available and is a very high priority for us," said Rachel Laing, a spokeswoman for SDG&E.

While state regulators sort over the debate and the California Public Utilities Commission prepares to issue a decision on the project's fate by the end of this year, one thing is clear: Past efficiency initiatives have greatly reduced the need for more power.

The best such example in the home is the refrigerator.

Older models, with their hot motors and thin doors that never stayed shut, used to be massive energy hogs.

But following a generation of improvements in design, Rosenfeld said, the icebox now uses about one-fourth as much power as it did during the 1973 oil embargo.

And that's despite the fact newer models are bigger than the old ones.

The size of electricity savings is comparable to some of the nation's largest sources of energy.

Rosenfeld said that through refrigerator design standards, the country now saves, every year, the equivalent of the output of 80 power plants that generate 500 megawatts each. That's the size of SDG&E's Palomar Energy Center in Escondido.

Put another way, Rosenfeld said, the value of the electricity saved is twice the value of the power produced by the nation's hydroelectric projects.

"Refrigerator improvements are twice as important as all the dams in the United States put together," he said.

Rosenfeld said significant energy savings also have been realized by making household appliances more efficient, by better insulating homes and by improving cooling and heating systems.

While refrigerators use one-quarter of the power that they did in the early 1970s, central air conditioning units use half, he said.

More recently, he said, Californians have been saving energy by replacing the incandescent bulbs in their light fixtures with compact fluorescent bulbs.

"The state is pretty much being saturated with compact fluorescent lamps," he said, although some don't like their tendency to brighten slowly.

"People will complain, but we are fighting a huge global warming risk and we are going to have to make some adjustments," Rosenfeld said.

Rosenfeld started making adjustments back in 1973, when the OPEC oil embargo was in full swing and long lines of cars were building at gas stations.

It dawned on him that by turning off the lights in his office at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories over the weekend, he could save 4 gallons of gas.

He also is credited for starting a California campaign to use energy more efficiently, by demanding tougher standards for the way builders construct homes and the way manufacturers make appliances.

And, 35 years later, the state's consumers, despite all the new gadgets and big-screen televisions, are using about the same amount of electricity per person ---- about 7,000 kilowatt-hours a year.

During the same period, per capita use nationwide has risen from 8,000 kilowatt-hours a year to about 12,000 kilowatt-hours.

Rosenfeld estimated that the savings from doing things more efficiently amounts to about 15 percent of the total electricity Californians use in a year.

"I think what Art Rosenfeld has done is absolutely outstanding," said Bill Powers, a San Diego engineer and activist who opposes the Sunrise line. "California was right to focus on energy efficiency."

Contact staff writer Dave Downey at (760) 745-6611, Ext. 2623, or ddowney [at] nctimes [dot] com.

How Michael Shames installed Solar Power and declared independence from SDG&E in 48 hours.

Charles Langley — Tue, 06 May 2008 21:45:57 -0700

UCAN In the Media

Watch Video

Sun Power: Michael Shames Switches To Solar
Note from UCAN: visit our new PV Web page with a great selection of "how to" tools, vendor quotes, and shopping tips

On May 6th, KFMB-TV ran a very nice story chronicling our installation of photovoltaic (solar cells) on our Mission Valley home. The video is cute -- I recommend you view it. Here's a text version of the story that ran that day:

More and more Americans are considering solar energy to power their homes as a way of saving money and saving the environment. One of San Diego's best-known consumer advocates is making the switch to solar. From flicking the light switch to turning on the microwave to surfing television channels, Michael Shames is now powering his entire home from sunlight.

"Hey, this is the time I get to tell SDG&E that I'm not interested in it anymore. I'm not paying anything, not paying a dime. It's pretty good," Shames said.

The executive director of the non-profit consumer advocate group UCAN, or Utility Consumers Action Network, says he and his wife were paying $800 a year for electricity - an expense that is now eliminated.

"We're not paying for the cost of the sun, at least not yet. No one's figured that one out," Shames said.

It's a shift in power that News 8 began documenting in February, when the Shames' selected a contractor, Real Goods Carlson, to install their new solar energy system. The next step was taking a bird's eye view of the project, which could cost up to $25,000. It was discounted dramatically by government rebates and tax credits.

"We were essentially able to cut the price of this installation in half, so this $25,000 investment actually turned out costing us close to $12,000," Shames said.

Last month installation got underway and was completed in under two days. The solar panels, attached to the rooftop by a series of brackets, have a lifespan of up to 50 years, according to Shames. They capture the sun's energy and feed it to a solar inverter located in the garage. Depending on how much solar energy is generated and how much electric energy is consumed, the Shames' are actually able to donate unused energy back to the power grid. Even on a cloudy day, the solar cells are able to capture enough light to make the meter run backwards.Despite the thousands of dollars this system set the Shames' back, they say the investment is worth it. From increasing the resale value of their home to insuring against future rate hikes, Shames estimates he'll recoup the investment in about 10 years' time.

"This is probably the most financially attractive remodel you can do on your house, appreciating the value of your house, as well as increasing the quality of your life. And by the way, you're not polluting," Shames said.

There's also another factor driving their switch to solar: his family also plans to buy batter-powered electric cars next year, energized for free by the sun's rays. "When you factor in the fact that our car may end up being charged by these solar cells, suddenly we're looking at a very lucrative investment for us", he said. "Plus, its also a long term investment in the future of the planet".

But that's not the end of the story. My PV system is running really well (thanks for asking). Even though it is rated to produce only 394 kwhrs per month, it is currently generating at a rate of closer to 500 kwhrs each month and that's during the "May gray" season where the coastal clouds are obscuring the sun for most of the day! Pretty impressive.

SDG&E says new rates should boost use here

Sandy Young — Mon, 05 May 2008 10:25:51 -0700

UCAN In the Media

SDG&E says new rates should boost use here
By Bruce V. Bigelow, staff writer
The San Diego Union-Tribune

May 4, 2008

The California Solar Initiative provides rebates to homeowners, businesses and nonprofit organizations that install rooftop solar panels, also known as photovoltaic systems.
Now a progress report reveals that fogbound homeowners in San Francisco and Northern California are rushing to "Go solar" at a much higher rate than residents in sunny San Diego and the rest of Southern California.

The difference is practically like night and day.

Solar proponents offer a variety of explanations for the difference, but most agree that utility and government support have been stronger for installing rooftop solar systems in Northern California.

But that could change in San Diego.

San Diego Gas & Electric Co. officials and clean-energy advocates say new optional electricity rates that took effect last week are expected to help energize local participation in the statewide solar program.

The California Solar Initiative was intended to spread the benefits of clean energy and fundamentally alter the industry's economies of scale by spending $3.4 billion over 10 years to subsidize solar installations. The program provides rebates to homeowners, businesses and nonprofit organizations that install rooftop solar panels, also known as photovoltaic systems.

Yet most of the residential applications for solar rebates during the first 15 months came from Pacific Gas & Electric's service area, according to the progress report prepared by the California Public Utilities Commission.

Of the 8,786 applications that homeowners filed for solar installations on existing homes, 6,247 came from PG&E's service area. In contrast, 697 residential applications came from San Diego Gas & Electric territory over the same period.

When adjusted for SDG&E's smaller customer base, the application rate among PG&E homeowners is almost 2.5 times the pace in San Diego.

"PG&E really does stand out in that they really do have a lot more residential applications," said Molly Tirpak Sterkel, who supervises the solar initiative for the commission's energy division. "But I would say just because Northern California is surging forward does not mean that San Diego is lagging behind."

The numbers for new homes are even more lopsided, according to data collected by the California Energy Commission from January 2007 through April 2008.

Of the 3,981 applications submitted for new homes that include rooftop solar panels as a standard feature, 3,521 came from PG&E's territory.

In contrast, the commission counted 121 solar rebate applications for new homes in SDG&E's service area - despite San Diego's famously mild climate and a lower latitude that translates to about 10 percent more radiant solar energy than in Northern California.

Of California's three major utilities, SDG&E has been the most intransigent in terms of encouraging development of local solar systems, said Michael Shames, executive director of San Diego's Utility Consumers' Action Network.

The difference between SDG&E's attitude toward solar and PG&E's "is like night and day, which is striking since we have a lot more sun than any other area of the state," Shames said.

SDG&E officials dismiss such criticism, saying the utility is committed to developing solar and other renewable energy sources, notably in the Imperial Valley as part of its controversial Sunrise Powerlink project.

Sterkel and other solar proponents say there are many facets to the initiative and San Diego compares more favorably in other measures of the progress so far.

Residential installations account for only part of California's effort to subsidize enough solar installations to generate 3,000 megawatts of electricity by 2017 - enough capacity at peak output to match six modern natural-gas-fired power plants.

More than half of the total is expected to come from "nonresidential" solar installations, which include industrial and commercial buildings as well as schools and nonprofits.

San Diego's applications for nonresidential solar installations under the initiative are more proportionately "on par" with SoCal Edison and PG&E, said Andrew McAllister of San Diego's California Center for Sustainable Energy. The nonprofit center in Kearny Mesa administers the solar incentive program in SDG&E's territory.

Such applications represent about 20 megawatts of solar-generated electricity, or about 17 percent of the 10-year goal for San Diego, according to the commission's progress report.

That is proportional to the rate of nonresidential applications in the 10-year goals set for PG&E and SoCal Edison, which have far more industrial customers than SDG&E. Together PG&E and SoCal Edison represent about 61 percent of California's statewide load for electrical power.

SDG&E, on the other hand, accounts for 7 percent of the statewide power load. The San Diego utility's 1.4 million customers include 1.2 million residential meters.

Still, the disparity between solar fervor in Northern and Southern California has become a topic of discussion in the state's halls of government, said state Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego.

"People who know both ends of the state, so to speak, say that Northern Californians - and especially people in the San Francisco area - are embracing green energy and the California Solar Initiative at a much higher rate," Kehoe said.

Experts say the biggest reason is that PG&E's electric rate structure has been much more "solar friendly" than either SDG&E's or SoCal Edison's - at least until SDG&E implemented new optional rates for solar customers.

"The rate structures make a big difference - probably the biggest difference," said Sue Kateley of the California Solar Energy Industries Association.

"Your rate structures were not what I would consider solar friendly at the time the initiative started," Kateley said. "It wasn't that anyone made them intentionally solar unfriendly. We were all on the frontier when the solar initiative started. It's just that we look at rates differently now."

Officials of several San Diego school districts acquired a deeper respect for the nuances of SDG&E's electric rates after installing solar systems.

Unlike residential utility customers, who are billed for the electricity they use, there are two parts to the electric bill that SDG&E usually sends to schools and other nonresidential customers.

One part of the nonresidential bill is based on electricity "time of use" - how much power is used and when. The most-expensive charges are imposed during the peak period of energy demand, from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m., with lower charges set for semi-peak or off-peak hours.

But another major part of the nonresidential bill is based on the fixed costs of SDG&E's power grid, and it depends on the customer's maximum power demand over the previous year. This "demand" charge represents how much standby power-generating capacity the utility must be ready to deliver to each of its biggest customers.

The schools that installed solar power systems could offset the "time of use" charges during the day when they are generating their own electricity, but they were surprised by the size of SDG&E's demand charges.

"The new tariff should be better," said McAllister at the California Center for Sustainable Energy, which began working on the problem with a number of school districts last year.

Under a new nonresidential tariff, solar customers have the option of choosing a different billing rate that charges more for the time-of-use energy drawn from the power grid and substantially reduces the fixed-cost demand charges.

SDG&E analyzed the utility bills at 30 schools equipped with solar systems in San Diego, and it concluded that savings under the new optional rate would range from 10 percent to 66 percent, said SDG&E spokeswoman Denise King.

Other nonresidential solar customers also should be able to offset their higher time-of-use charges, depending on the size of their solar-power systems, said Joe Velasquez, SDG&E's director of commercial and industrial services.

SDG&E also implemented a similar optional rate for residential solar customers that likewise imposes higher charges for energy used during peak demand periods, King said.

"Solar can be a good option for our customers," King said. "The key is to know that we are available to help our customers understand the new rate so they can make an informed decision about the best size of solar installation for their home or business."

Bruce Bigelow: (619) 293-1314; bruce.bigelow @ uniontrib.com

Big Brother to control thermostats in homes

Charles Langley — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:51:19 -0800

UCAN News

UCAN Editor's Note: Brad Fikes of the North County Times broke this story on January 7, 2008. See his story at California Energy Commission wants to give government control over your thermostat during "emergency events"

CALIFORNIA SCHEMIN'

Big Brother to control thermostats in homes?

Proposed mandate would grant utility companies unlimited remote access to regulate temperatures

Posted: January 11, 2008 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling © 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

Add thermostats to the list of private property the government would like to regulate as the state of California looks to require that residents install remotely monitored temperature controls in their homes next year.

The government is seeking to limit rolling blackouts and free up electric and natural gas resources by mandating that every new heating and cooling system include a "non-removable" FM receiver. The thermostat is also capable of controlling other appliances in the house, such as electric water heaters, refrigerators, pool pumps, computers and lights in response to signals from utility companies. If contractors and residents refuse to comply with the mandate, their building permits will be denied.

The proposal, set to be considered by the commission Jan. 30, requires each thermostat to be equipped with a radio communication device to send "price signals" and automatically adjust temperature up or down 4 degrees for cooling and heating, as California's public and private utility organizations deem necessary.

Claudia Chandler, assistant executive director for the California Energy Commission, told WND the new systems would be highly beneficial to residents.

"From the Energy Commission's perspective, all we're doing is ensuring that this new technology is included in new homes instead of the older programmable technology," she said.

The Programmable Communication Thermostat, or PCT, will allow power authorities to control home temperatures while denying consumers ability to override settings during "emergency events." Nowhere in the proposal does it clarify what type of situation would qualify as an "emergency," but Chandler offered her own explanation: "An emergency is when the utilities need to implement rolling blackouts and drop load in order to be able to meet their supplies because the integrity of the grid is being jeopardized."

She claims residents will be able to manually override controls in all cases, but the 2008 Building Efficiency Standards (Page 64), known as Title 24, specifically states: "The PCT shall not allow customer changes to thermostat settings during emergency events."

Michael Shames, executive director of California's Utility Consumers' Action Network, told WND he believes the idea of a chip consumers are unable to override is not feasible. While he considers the technology to be a positive development, he said denying consumers control over their own appliances is a highly problematic concept.

"The implications of this language are far-reaching and Orwellian," he said. "For the government and utility company to say, 'We're going to control the devices in your house, and you have no choice in that matter,' that's where the line is drawn. That sentence must be removed."

Additionally, no provisional exceptions for people with health conditions worsened by excessive temperatures are mentioned in the current proposal; however, the Energy Commission spokeswoman said existing supply problems are more worrisome to Californians with health issues than the projected solution.

"I actually was more concerned in the 2001 electricity crisis that folks on critical medical devices like respirators, kidney dialysis machines and things like that were going through rolling blackouts," Chandler said. "That's a very challenging thing to face. Moving somebody's temperature up by a few degrees really seems mild by comparison."

Jim Gunshinan, managing editor of Home Energy, based in Berkley, Calif., told WND the changes would also provide consumers with an option to control thermostats via the Internet.

"That means someone can turn on the air conditioning before they leave work for home and have the house comfortable when they walk in the door. Or if they forgot before leaving home for a ski trip, they can remotely lower the thermostat at home and save money."

Gunshinan claims the new system is needed because it will be more beneficial to the environment than building new energy facilities for the state.

"Since utilities have old, inefficient and dirty power plants on reserve to use during peak demand hours, dropping demand will mean less use of these dirty power plants and less pollution."

Some critics say California authorities will be incapable of enforcing compliance if homeowners and renters bootleg heating and cooling systems from other states, block radio reception with inexpensive FM transmitters or simply install window air conditioning units and space heaters, a bypass method that could use more energy than traditional units.

Concerned California residents expressed outrage with the proposal in several online postings:

"I hate this state. Why don't we just fly a communist flag while we are at it? We are planning a move out of state. I'm done."

"This is insane. Please, everyone reading this, take action. Write your representatives, call the RINO governor, call your local radio programs and, lastly, write letters to the editors of your local papers. Dear God, just when I thought California couldn't get much worse!"

Other opponents of the state proposal expressed concern that its mandatory nature is a sign of increasing "Big Brother" government control.

The California Energy Commission Docket [at] energy [dot] state [dot] ca [dot] us until the proposed adoption date, Jan. 30. Written responses must indicate "Docket No. 07-BTSD-1." Members of the California Energy Commission are appointed by the governor. Concerned individuals can also contact California state legislators.

UCAN's case against SDG&E's rate hike demand now published

Charles Langley — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:24:43 -0700

UCAN News

UCAN's argument against SDG&E's proposed $1.4 billion rate hike

Today, UCAN's Executive Director, Michael Shames, made public 366 pages of expert testimony protesting SDG&E's demand for a $1.4 billion rate increase during the next six years. UCAN's auditors have meticulously documented egregious abuses of the budget setting process.

For a quick overview, readers may examine the first 40 pages of this intensively researched document by clicking on the image at right.

Key findings include:

1) San Diego ratepayers have been overcharged for seven years.

Since 2000, SDG&E electric rates have climbed to the second highest in the nation and the highest in the Western United States. Only the ratepayers of New York City's ConEd electric monopoly pay more.

2) SDG&E profits have skyrocketed.

Since the year 2000, SDG&E has experienced profit increases of more than 80% in some years.

3) SDG&E customer service has declined.

Customer service and customer satisfaction has declined at SDG&E. An alarming 50% of all SDG&E customers think rates are unreasonably high. In addition, SDG&E's reliance on complicated and annoying voice-activated phone answering systems has resulted in numerous complaints. The Labor Day blackouts reveal that SDG&E's maintenance of its local power lines has also been lacking.

4) SDG&E has gamed the rate setting process.

SDG&E has withheld vital documents proving that rates should be reduced. SDG&E misled the Commission by withholding its secret "Utility of the Future" cost-cutting plans that justify rate decreases. It has double-counted costs and over-stated expenses in virtually every department examined by UCAN. In one of the worst displays of double-counting, SDG&E intentionally underestimated the savings from new advanced meters that do not require meter-readers, and then demanded additional safety training for non-existent employees to read the meters that make the employees obsolete.

Attachment	Size
UCAN_opening_brief_Sempra_SDGE_General Rate Case.pdf	1.75 MB

California PUC releases ambitious energy efficiency plan that could make major utility companies obsolete

brandon — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:57:37 -0700

UCAN In the Media

State wants new homes off grid

By: Dave Downey - Staff Writer
North County Times September 18, 2007

By 2020, all new California houses could supply their own electricity

State regulators Monday proposed an aggressive statewide energy strategy that would push developers to build homes and shopping centers so efficient they would require no electricity or natural gas from California's major utilities.

While the proposal by California Public Utilities Commission officials would not require builders to meet deadlines, it would set a goal of building only so-called "zero net energy" homes by 2020 and only stores that require no outside energy by 2030.

The idea would be to design houses and commercial buildings to use little electricity and natural gas in the first place and to get whatever energy they use from on-site sources such as rooftop solar panels.

A building industry representative expressed doubts about whether it is a realistic goal, while a prominent consumer advocate suggested it is achievable.

In unveiling the proposed decision, Commissioner Dian M. Grueneich and administrative law Judge Kim Malcolm wrote: "This decision institutes a comprehensive, long-term energy efficiency strategy to achieve our ultimate goal ---- making energy efficiency a way of life."

The Public Utilities Commission is scheduled to take up the proposal Oct. 18.

Paul Tryon, chief executive officer for the San Diego County Building Industry Association, said in a telephone interview that, while having 100 percent self-sufficient homes may be an admirable goal, it also may not be practical.

"It's a pretty assertive goal that will require an evolution in technology," Tryon said.

According to San Diego Gas & Electric Co., about 1.3 percent of the region's supply comes from rooftop panels, and the share is expected to reach 4 percent by 2015.

He said much progress has been made in the campaign to make buildings more efficient. New homes, for example, use 70 percent less energy than same-size houses built just 15 years ago, he said.

"California has led the country in being sort of friendly in its consumption of energy, with both new homes and new commercial buildings," Tryon said. "But this will require quite a stretch to get to the next level."

Scott Anders, director of the University of San Diego's Energy Policy Initiatives Center, said the goal is achievable, but significant obstacles will have to be overcome.

"The biggest challenge is air conditioning," Anders said, noting much of the state's growth is taking place in inland regions such as Riverside County and eastern San Diego County that swelter in summer.

"The goal is going to be difficult because most of the new houses are going to be built in the hotter climates," he said.

Still, Anders said, he lives in a nearly self-sufficient home in the inland community of Lakeside that he rebuilt following the 2003 Cedar fire.

"We did an energy-efficient design. It's nothing out of the ordinary, really," he said. "And then we have a (solar) photovoltaic system." So far, he said, the home is requiring zero electricity from the power grid.

The solar panels, however, were expensive, Anders said, adding that it remains to be seen whether the housing market in this costly region can support the expense of panels on every roof.

San Diego consumer advocate Michael Shames, executive director of Utility Consumers' Action Network, said by e-mail that he believes the proposed goal is "certainly" achievable.

"Most estimates suggest that solar will be considerably less expensive by 2020," Shames said. "With the advent of plug-in cars and lower photovoltaic prices, there's little reason why any new home shouldn't be a zero-net energy structure. Most customers will be able to produce most of the power they need, with the utility infrastructure serving more of a back-up function for new homes."

The commission's proposal would apply only to regions of the state served by California's major investor-owned utilities, such as San Diego Gas & Electric Co., which serves San Diego County and southern Orange County, and Southern California Edison, which serves Riverside County and the Los Angeles area.

Utility officials said they needed to study the proposal before commenting about its details.

"This is a little unusual," said Gil Alexander, a Southern California Edison spokesman.

Rachel Laing, a San Diego Gas & Electric spokeswoman, said: "It's in line with our general philosophy that energy efficiency is the first and most important pillar of our long-range planning."

Report from the Sunrise Transmission Project Hearings (day 1)

michael — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:03:31 -0700

UCAN News

The first day of hearings were spent by a morning of "opening arguments" by the various parties in this case. The afternoon involved the cross examination of James Avery, senior vice-president for electric transmission at SDG&E.

The opening statements were a recapitulation of the parties' position. SDG&E provided a handout recounting the "benefits" of Sunrise. But embedded in the handout were some of the more damning elements of Sunrise. SDG&E touted Sunrise reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But then I pointed out and Commissioner Grueneich seized on the fact that SDG&E's modeling for Sunrise shows that the Southwest could import an additional 1000 MW (8000 gwhrs) of coal power if Sunrise is built. While SDG&E might not buy coal power (but they didn't deny it), SDG&E conceded that Sunrise could facilitate more coal power being brought into the Southwest.

The handout also listed all of the renewable resources in the Southwest. Amazingly, the list was bereft of geothermal power (as none is in the CAISO queue). It had only wind and solar. And most of that wind did not require Sunrise. Only 1400 of the 7144MW listed in the handout were located in the Imperial Valley and required Sunrise for importation. Again, the Commissioner focused in on that handout and asked questions about whether Sunrise is necessary.

The cross-examination of James Avery resulted in a couple of bombs. One big one was in response to my questioning about the cost of Sunrise. SDG&E claims the cost is $1.3 billion. Avery admitted that the project might be more expensive and that if there were overruns, the costs would be approved (or denied) by FERC, not the CPUC. In other words, there was very little that the CPUC could do if the project turned out to be more expensive than SDG&E has projected.

-Michael