PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
2
3
SUMMARY
California Public Utilities Commission Jurisdictional Responsibility
4
and Legal Requirements of Protest of Rule 21 Interconnection Standards
5
In keeping with the California Public Utilities Commission Rules of
6
Practice and Procedure Article 2.5 Rule 4, and Article 3 Rule 9-12, the Solar
7
Development Cooperative hereby timely submits for filing our Protest of the
8
(1) Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting New Rule 21 Interconnection Standards filed
9
by the Commissioners on November 2, 2000, (2) Draft Decision Adopting
10
Interconnection Standards mailed by ALJ Cooke on November 20, 2000 (3)
11
Southern California Edison Advice 1495-E on AB918 and (4) 1498-E on
12
Interconnection Standards 00-11-001, (5) San Diego Gas & Electric Advice 1268-E
13
AB918, and (6) 1269-E Interconnection Standards 00-11-001, (7) Pacific Gas and
14
Electric Company Advice 2053-E AB91, and (8) 2056-E Interconnection Standards
15
00-11-001. SDC response to AB918 Advice Letters was delayed due to discovery
16
of an important document revealing major and material defraud of consumers.
17
I.
SDC/Smith provides Notice herein that the interconnection
18
advantage and domination of DG by fossil fuels in Rule 21 unrealistically
19
establishes a statute void of material consideration of the diverse needs and
20
characteristics of the many types of DG technologies. It does not address the
21
reality of consumer protection and education for small to mid-size DG
22
renewables consumers required by state agencies by law. CPUC/CEC/
23
CEOB/Utility proceedings traditionally perpetuate an imbalanced agenda
24
through wrongful suppressive collaboration by these state agencies with fossil fuel
25
associates materially affecting millions of dollars of energy deployment. Rule 21
26
requires revision with plans for immediate consumer notification and restitution
27
to timely and judicially balance the competitive playing field for small to mid-size
2000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch. Founder & CEO Since 1992
4
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
DG renewables up to 1 MWp before final approval of Rule 21 can be legally
2
allowed.
3
II.
On November 22, 2000, SDC first became aware of the California
4
State Photovoltaic Program Consultant Report prepared by the Jet Propulsion
5
Laboratory and published by the California Energy Commission [CEC] March 1978.6
6
This historic document compared with the CEC 1996 Energy Technology Status
7
Report7 establishes the existence of extreme and intentional fraud on the part of
8
the CPUC/CEC/ CEOB/Utilities collaborating with fossil fuel associates in an
9
ongoing pattern that began twenty years ago of illegal administrative collusion
10
to suppress or distort information, cause price fixing, spread propaganda about
11
the market readiness, affordability of building-integrated photovoltaics [BI-PV] and
12
other forms of dishonest industry discouragement resulting in oppressive
13
anticompetitive illegal suppression of needed life-preserving building-integrated
14
photovoltaics [BI-PV] from the mainstream market.
15
Resolution is in material dispute with consumer interests, customer protection, antitrust
16
laws and the United States Constitution where Utilities are for-profit businesses
17
protected by CPUC related proceedings continue to suppress PV and protect oil cartels.
Rule 21 Section 7 Dispute
III. Net Metering and related renewable energy incentives are not being
18
19
appropriately managed with substantial detriment to this already extremely
20
limited point of purchases credit. Lack of consumer education coupled with refusal
21
by the CPUC to address oil cartel oppression of photovoltaics including their
22
refusal to fund consumer education about BI-PV technology even though BP-
23
Amoco has taken over nearly 70% of the BI-PV manufacturing world-wide since
24
their fraudulent takeover of the Solarex Corporation in 1984. This lack of
California State Photovoltaic Program Consultant Report of the California Energy Commission, by Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, March 1978
7
1996 Energy Technology Status Report, published by California Energy Commission
6
2000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch. Founder & CEO Since 1992
5
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
ratepayer notification which could be done through the monthly bills greatly
2
reduces consumer understanding of their DG renewables options. This problem
3
is further compounded by the hostile attitude of Utility attorneys demonstrated
4
throughout this proceeding related to Net Metering calling it freeloading, and the
5
propaganda from the CPUC/ECE and CEOB regarding the affordability and
6
market readiness of BI-PV. Small DG renewables like BI-PV are consumer-owned
7
products and have been told over and over again that deployment can only occur
8
where accurate information is timely provided to a large portion of consumers.
9
AB970 illegally provides incentives favoring fossil fuel and large remote site
10
energy deployment for the SDG&E crisis where customer-owned BI-PV would
11
be the most ideal electricity generation choice to meet related consumer needs.
12
AB918 provides extreme abridgement of legislation where DG gas turbines who
13
sell to the Utility are allowed under the guise of direct access (DA) not to provide
14
this important incentive to their customers where it is already greatly limited to
15
0.1% of a UDC’s output. Further, there has been no material reason provided as
16
to why the CPUC/CEC/CEOB/UDCs cannot increase the size limit for Net
17
Metering to 1MWp.
18
Ruling on SDC/Smith’s Emergency Motion Mandating A Focus on BI-PV and Fuel
19
Cells to Reduce the Impact of the SDG&E Energy Crisis. The Emergency Motion was
20
filed on September 11, 2000 with a request for a 30-day response or Ruling.
21
CPUC has made no response, and the two comments submitted by UDCs did not
22
indicate any material breach would occur with affirmation of this Motion. CPUC
23
wrongfully has even delayed response over the 90-day time limit for regular
24
motions greatly hindering a fair or competitive market opportunity for DG
25
renewables, and especially where the due date for applications to AB970 is December 14,
26
2000. AB970 reduced its size limit to 250 kWp, but there is no reason why it
DG renewables are furthered hindered to the lack of timely
2000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch. Founder & CEO Since 1992
6
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
could not include DG renewables projects from 1 kWp to 1 MWp. The CPUC/
2
CEC/CEOB/UDCs continually take legislation for renewables and feed related
3
funding to the fossil fuel industry on a silver platter in the name of green gas.
4
This must stop! It is a fraudulent an inappropriate use of green legislation.
5
NOTICE
6
(1)
This Notice and Protest is filed by the Solar Development Cooperative in
7
tacit procuration requiring immediate official response or Ruling within ten (10) working
8
days ammending Section 7 Dispute Resolution of Rule 21 to assure parties furthering
9
renewables BI-PV DG technology a choice of HEALTHY and SAFE venues to
10
competitively resolve disputes and intervene on behalf of California ratepayers to reduce
11
the impact of the predicted SDG&E energy shortage Summer 2001 without illegal fossil
12
fuel domination of this process suppressing consumer choice in related incentive
13
programs and the interconnection Priority Protocol Process of Rule 21.
(2)
14
SDC/Smith requires immediate response by the CPUC within ten days
15
in tacit procuration to Section II of the Issues In Protest herein notifying the parties of
16
this proceeding that the CPUC/CEC/CEOB/Utilities and fossil fuel associates8 have
17
Wrongfully Defrauded9 Potential and Actual BI-PV Consumers, the public and the energy
18
Industry for 20 Years regarding the Market Readiness and Affordability of building-
19
integrated photovoltaics. Those not intentionally a party of this negligence should have
20
been aware of the fraudulent information wrongfully published by the
21
CPUC/CEC/CEOB/Utilities and fossil fuel associates in opposition to viable historic data,
22
and should have taken immediate action to document and/or stop such malfeasance.
23
24
(3)
SDC/Smith provides Notice herein that the interconnection advantage and
domination of DG by fossil fuels in Rule 21 unrealistically establishes a statute void of
8
Electric Power Statistics 1997/1998, Energy Information Association, Table 1.
http://www.geocities.com/rulemaking/nonutility.htm
9
Ibid 4
CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025 Phase I and Phase II Evidentiary Hearing Transcripts, SDC/Smith CrossExamination, June and September, 2000
2000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch. Founder & CEO Since 1992
7
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
material consideration of the diverse needs and characteristics of the many types of DG
2
technologies. It does not address the reality of consumer protection and education for
3
small to mid-size DG renewables consumers required by state agencies by law.
4
CPUC/CEC/CEOB/Utility proceedings traditionally perpetuate an imbalanced agenda
5
through wrongful suppressive collaboration by these state agencies with fossil fuel
6
associates materially affecting millions of dollars of energy deployment. Rule 21 requires
7
revision with plans for immediate consumer notification and restitution to timely and
8
judicially balance the competitive playing field for small to mid-size DG renewables up
9
to 1 MWp before final approval of Rule 21 can be legally allowed.
Ruling is required on outstanding SDC Motions in Rulemaking 99-10-025
10
11
and Investigation 00-08-003 unless material reasons for further delay are
12
provided. On September 11, 2000, SDC filed an Emergency Motion Mandating
13
Immediate Deployment Focused on Renewable Technologies of BI-PV and Fuels Cells to
14
Reduce the Impact of the SDG&E Energy Crisis. SDC requested a 30-day time limit
15
for review and Ruling. After nearly 90 days no response has been provided in
16
material breach of CPUC Rules of Procedure.
17
contesting this Motion have been filed that indicates an affirmative Ruling would
18
adversely or materially effect any party of this proceeding. Considering the
19
December 14, 2000 deadline for AB970 applications that are already hindered by
20
fossil fuel domination, if CPUC Ruling or written response is not provided
21
within ten days, by law all recommendations of SDC’s Emergency Motion10
22
regarding AB97011 Program per this Notice will become law by tacit procuration.
No reason(s) for delay or
10
SDC Emergency Motion Mandating Immediate Deployment of BI-PV and Fuel Cells (AB970) to Reduce
Impact of SDG&E Energy Crisis, CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025, Investigation 00-08-003, Sept 11, 2000
http://www.geocities.com/RULEMAKING/EMSMOTGREENTEAM.doc
11
AB 970 Electricity Peak Load Efficiency Grant Funding Program
http://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/index.html#ab970
2000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch. Founder & CEO Since 1992
8
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
This notice filed in tacit procuration requires immediate response to the
2
allegations and recommendations herein providing a written plan for obviating
3
these illegal wrongs within ten (10) days. Where timely response is not provided,
4
by the laws of the State of California such lack of action on the part of the CPUC
5
will establish full agreement with all issues and claims established within this
6
Notice and Protest. CPUC and their agents will be found fully liable to all claims
7
made herein and be held fully responsible for facilitating the recommendations
8
and related programs included and addressed herein.
9
10
2000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch. Founder & CEO Since 1992
9
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
300 kWp BI-PV Rooftop Installed 1984
Georgetown University
Intercultural Center for
Mediation and Peace
A foundation for mediation and peace
needs two-way communications. Ninety percent of
the people who work in this building do not know
it is generating electricity. 99% of the people crossexamined in Phase I and Phase II Evidentiary
Hearings in Rulemaking 99-10-025 had never heard
of this historic project. This demonstration needs
to be registered as a National Landmark. Where is
a return on the dollar when no one knows about it?
1
ISSUES IN PROTEST
2
3
I.
Section 7 Dispute Resolution Requirement for CPUC to have Initial
4
Jurisdiction for Any Complaint is Unconstitutional Pursuant to the
5
14th Amendment of the US Constitution Assuring Equal Protection Under the
6
Law even for a Class of One.
7
A.
8
SDC strongly and totally contests and formally Protests, herein, any
CPUC Jurisdiction Provides Illegal Advantage to Utilities/Oil Cartels
9
administrative Rule or statute that would mandatorily require California Public
10
Utilities Commission initial review of any complaint, dispute or issue regarding
11
Interconnection Standards as is outlined in Section 7 of Rule 21. No such
12
requirement could exist in a truly competitive and democratic market because it
13
is unconstitutional, and highly anticompetitive where Utilities are for-profit.12
12
CPUC Rulemaking 98-12-015 Motion for Discovery Antitrust Abuses of Enron, Amoco & British Petroleum,
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/DISCOVERY.doc
CEC Siting Committee Workshop for DG, December 6, 1999 http://www.energy.ca.gov/realaudio/archive/1999-1208am.ram
http://www.energy.ca.gov/realaudio/archive/1999-12-08pm.ram
CEC Staff Analysis CA Air Resources Board
CEC Global Climate
102000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
10
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
“A person who is not traditionally a member of a protected class or
1
2
group is protected under the laws of US Constitution, even where they are not
3
joined by others, through the provisions of the 14th Amendment “class of one”
4
where one who is treated differently from others in a similar situation with no
5
rational or legal basis for the different treatment. Anyone who claims to have
6
been singled out for adverse, irrational government action may bring a
7
lawsuit based on violations of the Equal Protection Clause “class of one”.
8
Equal protection clause purports to secure every person within the state
9
against “intentional and arbitrary discrimination”.13
Historically, the CPUC/CEC/CEOB/Utility agendas, proceedings, workshops,
10
11
decisions and infusions of capital wrongly favor Utility and oil cartel interests. Mandatory
12
initial review of any dispute or complaint by the CPUC as set forth in Section 7 Dispute
13
Resolution materially abridges the 14th Amendment right to Equal Protection Under the Law for
14
a group or a Class of One. SDC/Smith Protests this requirement on behalf of electricity
15
consumers, and all citizens of the United States of America, the State of California, the very
16
diverse market of energy consumers, various related business interests, fair trade
17
commerce laws and UDC customers with the intent to protect the inherent freedoms of our
18
Nation.14
In support of this official Protest, SDC/Smith directs parties to review our Witness
19
20
Qualifications Statement in Phase II Written Testimony 15 and the Rebuttal16 to SDG&E’s
21
Motion to Strike over 50% of SDC/Smith’s Phase I Written Testimony.17 SDC/Smith’s
13
The American Presidency, Fourteenth Amendment, http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/aae/side/14amend.html
CPUC I.00-08-003 Investigation SDG&E Rate Hikes/Energy Shortage, [No wrongdoing found?]
http://www.geocities.com/RULEMAKING/EMSMOTGREENTEAM.doc
15
Phase II Testimony and Answer to Questions, CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025, Oct 2000
http://www.geocities.com/RULEMAKING/Phase2.doc http://www.geocities.com/RULEMAKING/Phaseiit.doc
16
CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025 SDC/Smith Rebuttal to SDG&E’s Motion to Strike Phase I Written Testimony,
April 30, 2000 http://www.geocities.com/RULEMAKING/Rebuttal.doc
17
CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025, Phase I Written Testimony, http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/PHASEI.doc
14
112000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
11
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
Motion for Discovery18 in Rulemaking 98-12-015 provides further background material to
2
and our historic association with Enron Corporation, Amoco and British Petroleum dba
3
Solarex Corporation suppressing SDC/Smith’s attempts to deploy BI-PV into the
4
mainstream market since 1993.
5
B. CPUC/CEC/CEOB/Utilities historically do not provide guidance, training,
6
resources or non-prejudicial treatment for consumers and small for-profit
7
business intervention in CPUC proceedings resulting in extreme and
8
unconscionable hardship, therefore Section 7 strongly violates the 14th
9
Amendment
Early in 1998, SDC/Smith consulted with BBD/Needham, the agency in charge
10
11
of the CPUC’s consumer education materials announcing customer choice in
12
deregulation. At their suggestion, we attempted to find a decision-maker at the CPUC.
13
We sustained several months of phone tag with Valerie Beck. When we finally talked to
14
her the first week of May 1998, she said she had no idea who to contact at the CPUC
15
related to our goal to include renewable DG technology in the last round of consumer
16
education materials. SDC/Smith immediately made a written complaint with
17
recommendations in a formal letter to Doug Long dated May 15, 1998 and sent follow-
18
up e-mails on May 20, 1998 to Michelle Cooke as Commissioner Duque’s assistant and
19
the Public Advisor’s office.19
CPUC Rulemaking 98-12-015, Solar Development Cooperative’s Motion for Discovery Regarding Antitrust
Abuses of Enron/Amoco/BP Suppressing BI-PV Technology Since Fraudulent Takeover of Solarex Corp in 1984,
California Public Utilities Commission Rulemaking 98-12-015, July 20, 1999
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/DISCOVERY.doc
19
SDC Phase II Brief CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025,
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/PHASEIIBRIEF.doc
18
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/DOUGLONG.doc
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/COOKE.doc
122000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
12
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
Our complaint is and was focused on the barriers perpetuating the lack of self-generation
1
2
building-integrated photovoltaics [BI-PV] technology in the competitive energy market with
3
specific request to formally mitigate the following issues:
(1) lack of consumer education about self-generation technology in the CPUC
4
deregulation consumer education program
5
(2) the oppressive antitrust suppression by Amoco, Enron and British Petroleum
6
7
suppressing building-integrated photovoltaics from the mainstream market since
8
Amoco’s fraudulent takeover of the Solarex Corporation in 198420
SDC/Smith’s initial two-page letter of complaint with attachments specifying the
9
10
advantages of including self-generation renewables technology in the CPUC consumer
11
education materials, and the potential disadvantages of leaving this important DG
12
renewables information out of the customer education materials describing consumer choices in
13
the competitive electricity market.21 SDC/Smith’s complaint was submitted in writing to
14
Doug Long twenty-seven very long, traumatic and difficult months ago.
Two letters, one from Michelle Cooke on May 20, 1998 and the other from Michael
15
16
McNamara Chief of Market Development for the Office of Ratepayer Advocates on May 28,
17
1998 specifically directed SDC/Smith to resolve the issues of our complaint in the proposed
20
Charging Ahead, John Berger, PhD, chapter: Pretty Polly, 1998
Protecting Solar Access: A Guidebook for California Communities, by Martin Jaffe, American Planning
Association, published by the California Energy Commission, March 1980 Contact: 500-80-013
Solar Access: A Local Responsibility, by Joe Sogge published by the California Energy Commission
The Solar Rights Act, 1978 Chapter 1154, 1978 California Statutes, sponsored by Assemblyman Levine
The Solar Control Act, Chapter 1366, 1978 California Statutes, sponsored Assemblyman Imbrecht
The Solar Directory 1974, published by Berkeley Press, University of California at Berkeley
Ibid 4
California State Photovoltaic Program Consultant Report by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory published by
California Energy Commission 1978 http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/
CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025 Solar Development Cooperative’s Motion to Strike Least Cost Statements, July 23,
2000 http://www.geocities.com/RULEMAKING/MOTSTRIKLEASTCOST.htm
21
California Prepares for Blackouts, by Fred Bayles, USA Today, August 1, 2000
http://www.geocities.com/RULEMAKING/BLACKOUTS.htm
132000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
13
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
distributed generation [DG] Rulemaking.22 We had no idea what a Rulemaking was or that
2
it would not officially start for nearly a year. Our complaint to the CPUC has still not been
3
formally addressed or resolved by the CPUC staff or Commissioners who maliciously and
4
knowingly induced SDC/Smith with promise of compensation and dispute resolution
5
through a lengthy, expensive, degrading and abusive Rulemaking proceeding to meet their
6
own special needs for public participants with full knowledge of the dangers and demands
7
therein, and further knowing that they would not formally address the issues of
8
SDC/Smith’s complaint. This malicious fraud represents unconscionable negligence!
9
Solar Development Cooperative raised concerns related to our complaint in
10
consumer protection and renewables hearings at the CEC December 11, 199723 and June 3,
11
199824 and before the CPUC25 on October 12, 1998 with further testimony before the
12
California Energy Commission on December 7, 1998.26
13
Michael McNamara February 199927 because we had not received any information
14
regarding the DG Rulemaking where we were told our complaint would be formally
15
resolved. Mr. McNamara did not answer our e-mail and has not ever spoken with or met
16
with SDC/Smith despite our numerous attempts to contact him. On March 13, 1999,
17
SDC/Smith discovered on the CPUC website a Notice indicating the Opening Comments
18
for the DG Rulemaking were due on March 17, 1999. SDC/Smith filed Opening Comments
We wrote a follow-up letter to
22
SEE APPENDIX B HEREIN
CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025 Phase II Brief, Appendix, page 56
,http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/PHASEIIBRIEF.doc
23
SDC Testimony Before the California Energy Commission For Renewables Program Management With Special
Request to Differentiate Between Demand-site Photovoltaics Consumer Using Building-integrated Photovoltaics
(BI-PV) and Remote-Site Photovoltaics, December 11, 1997
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/CECHEARING.html
24
Testimony before California Energy Commission Consumer Education Trust Fund Hearing, June 3, 1998
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/CECHEARJune3.html
25
California Public Utilities Commission, http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/CPUCOCT12.html
26
Renewables Program Committee Workshop Hearing on Consumer Education Subaccount,
December 7th, 1998 10:00 AM http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/CECDEC7.doc
27
SDC E-mail Letter to Michael McNamara, Dir Market Development, ORA, February 15, 1999
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/MCNAMARA.doc
142000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
14
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
presenting the two major complaints were raised in our letter of May 15, 1998. No formal
2
hearing or resolution of SDC’s complaint,28 nor an avenue to assure timely consumer
3
education and appropriate regulation of oil cartel suppression of BI-PV technology from the
4
mainstream market.
5
There is ongoing evidence in the record of the unnecessary and unconscionable
6
hardship SDC/Smith has been forced to endure to participate in the DG proceedings.
7
Further evidence of hazing and unnecessary abuse will be provided where this process is
8
forced into a Superior Court action against the CPUC/CEC/ CEOB/Utilities and oil cartel
9
associates jointly, wrongfully and illegally favoring fossil fuel deployment in distributed
10
generation29 where DG BI-PV have been market ready and affordable for 20 years.
After 18 months Michelle Cooke as Administrative Law Judge for the DG
11
12
Rulemakings and later the Commission Decision April 2000 claimed the CPUC would not
13
pay SDC/Smith any intervenor compensation because (1) SDC/Smith does not have an electric
14
bill in our name, (2) SDC/Smith is allegedly not representing residential consumers (which we very
15
much are representing), and (3) SDC/Smith might realize some future financial benefit. Non-
16
profit organizations, allegedly representing consumer rights, are regularly paid $100 to
17
$350 an hour for hardship compensation in CPUC proceedings. Many of these individuals are
18
involved in for-profit activities realizing further financial benefits from their intervenor roles,
19
today. On the last day of the Phase II Evidentiary Hearings, ALJ Cooke insisted that
20
SDC/Smith must pay $12,000 for the 2,000-page transcript despite the ongoing record in
CPUC Decisions Rulemaking 98-12-015 and 99-10-025, (1) SDC’s Motion for Discovery
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/DISCOVERY.doc and (2) CPUC Final Decision 98-12-015 Consumer
Education issues, October 25, 1999, (3) April 2000 Commission Decision Denies SDC Intervenor Compensation
http://nic.cpuc.ca.gov/dg-r9910025/index.htm
29
Southern California Edison Ratemaking California Public Utilities Commission proceeding for authority to
establish direct access service fees for competitive and regulated services, filed by SCE, June 23, 1999
http://www.geocities.com/rulemaking/DIRECTACCESA9906040.htm
28
Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters SDG&E 1268-E (U 902-E), PG&E 2053-E (U 39 E) and 1495-E (U 338-E)
Joint Agency Full Panel Hearing, CPUC Rulemaking 98-12-015, June 1, 1999
http://www.energy.ca.gov/realaudio/archive/1999-06-01-am.ram
http://www.energy.ca.gov/realaudio/archive/1999-06-01-pm.ram
152000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
15
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
R.98-12-015 and R.99-10-025 that we did not have the resources to research and prepare the
2
papers for these proceedings. If we had $12,000 to spend, it would be used to educate the
3
public about BI-PV technology, related incentives and CPUC Rulemakings. ALJ Cooke threatened
4
to call the police if SDC/Smith did not agree to pay for the transcript.
5
SDC/Smith told ALJ Cooke, and the transcriptionist manager not to send the transcripts
6
unless they were sent gratis because we would not further jeopardize the credit of SDC for these
7
proceedings, and did not have the money budgeted to purchase them. They sent the transcripts with
8
no notice that they were not charging for them. SDC/Smith immediately sent them back and then
9
wrote a letter to the transcriptionist with a copy to ALJ Cooke, Senator Sher and Governor Davis
10
indicating SDC would not pay for these transcripts, and not to send them back unless there was a
11
letter indicating SDC/Smith would not be charged for them. An E-mail from the transcriptionist
12
came indicating SDC/Smith would not be charged for the transcripts, which were being resent. They
13
arrived three days before the Phase II Brief was due.30 We managed to get our Phase II Brief filed
14
on the due date of October 27, 2000, but everyone else waited until November 13, 2000. Ongoing
15
lack of orientation, guidance and consideration of the extreme hardship small business and
16
individual intervenors face who need to Intervene in CPUC proceedings establishes clear and
17
unreasonable disadvantage making Section 7 of Rule 21 further illegal beyond the 14th Amendment
18
Rights to Equal Protection because it grossly violates antitrust laws as well. UDCs and oil cartels
19
are allegedly for-profit businesses and ongoing request for information establishes further
20
venerability for small business and individuals in inefficient and hostile CPUC proceedings
21
protecting UDCs and oil cartels.31
CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025, SDC/Smith’s Phase II Brief,
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/PHASEIIBRIEF.doc
31
Letter from Ms. Boyd, SCE March 19, 1998 http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/BOYDSCE.gif
Letter from Tom Dossey, Qualifying Facilities, March 9, 2000
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/DOSSEY.gif
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/DOSSEY2.gif
CPUC Rulemaking 98-12-015 SDC/Smith Opening Comments March 17, 1999
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/OPENING_COMMENTS.doc
CPUC Rulemaking 98-12-015 SDC/Smith Response Comments May 17, 1999
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/SDCRESPONSE_COMMENTS.doc
30
162000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
16
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
Nearly two years after ALJ Cooke instructed SDC/Smith to raise the issues of
1
2
antitrust abuse in the DG Rulemakings, she made a Ruling refuting her original
3
directions32 by claiming CPUC does not regulate oil cartels in CPUC proceedings. This is a
4
fraudulent statement not supported by statute, and is easily proven false by viewing the
5
many proceedings at the CPUC which daily regulate oil cartels.33
SDC/Smith was led to believe the DG Rulemaking, a process we were not familiar
6
7
with, was the only avenue to formally resolve our complaints. SDC/Smith could have been
8
involved in the DG Rulemaking and been provided a separate proceeding to expeditiously
9
resolve the formal complaints made in writing to CPUC.
Section 7 Dispute Resolution in the Interim Decision and Draft Decision to Adopt
10
11
the Interconnection Standards and Section G in the UDC’s Advise Letters establishes
12
complete anarchy with extreme and unconstitutional control of the Rule 21
13
interconnection agreements and any related issue in dispute. Demand by CPUC to
14
dictate initial jurisdiction of any complaint or dispute to the satisfaction of the Commission
15
is unethical, unrealistic, unconstitutional and illegal. Utility Distribution Companies are
16
not non-profit service providers. UDC’s are highly competitive for-profit monopoly businesses
17
with the special interests of their stockholders foremost on their agenda as is clearly established
18
throughout the record of Rulemaking 98-12-015 and 99-10-025.34 Consumers and the
19
competitive marketplace must be protected from unreasonable jurisdictional requirements.
“The CPUC shall have initial jurisdiction to interpret, add, delete or modify any
20
21
provision of this Rule or of any agreements entered into between the Electrical
22
Corporation and the Electricity Producer to implement this tariff (‘the implementing
32May
20, 1999 SDC e-mail to Michelle Cooke CPUC staff for Commissioner Duque, and her reply directing
SDC/Smith to raise the antitrust issues of complaint in DG Rulemaking, and emphasizing the CPUC, by law
cannot show favoritism to any energy technology in a competitive market.
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/COOKE.doc
33
California Public Utilities Commission, http://www.cpuc.ca.gov
CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025 Phase I and Phase II Issues Evidentiary Hearings Transcripts, SDC/Smith Cross
Examination, June and September 2000
34
172000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
17
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
agreements’) and to resolve disputes regarding the Electrical Corporation’s performance
2
of its obligations under its electric rules and tariffs, the implementing agreements, and
3
requirements related to the interconnection of the Electricity Producer’s Facilities
4
pursuant to this Rule.”35
5
The record in Rulemaking 98-12-015 and 99-10-025 clearly documents SDC/Smith’s
6
very difficult and potentially tragic experience with the Commission in attempting to
7
mitigate a serious complaint.36 CPUC Staff mislead SDC/Smith and took advantage of this
8
and small company struggling in an extremely suppressed industry. CPUC staff
9
fraudulently induced SDC/Smith to raise antitrust issues against powerful global oil
10
cartels. On April 2, 1999, two weeks after SDC/Smith filed our Opening Comments
11
BP/Amoco made a $28 billion take over of the entire Arco Corporation. Amoco/Enron had
12
used Solarex patents to sue Arco Solar from 1988-199137 claiming patent enfringement. The
13
CPUC either colloborated with BP/Amoco to facilitate this oppression delaying timely
14
consideration of the extreme material issues raised formally before them or they turned
15
tail and ran for some unknown reason. Either way they significantly endangered the
16
health and safety of SDC/Smith as a venerable participant raising a very serious and
17
consequential complaint before the CPUC, and they suppressed states evidence that there
18
was a serious oil cartel takeover problem dramatically slowing the mainstream deployment
19
of BI-PV. In 1978, concerns about oil cartel takeovers by small and large PV manufacturing
20
companies were raised in the California State Photovoltaic Program CEC Consultant Report.38
Interim Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards, Decision 00-11-001 Nov 2, 2000 Sec. 7
http://www.geocities.com/rulemaking/14thAMENDMENT.html
36
Solar Development Cooperative filings for Rulemaking I, CPUC R.98-12-015. Rulemaking II, CPUC 99-10-025,
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/EMSPAPERS.html
37
CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025, SDC Motion for Discovery, July 30, 1999
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/DISCOVERY.doc
38
California State PhotovoltaicProgram, Jet Propulsion Lab, California Energy Commission 1978
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/TABECONTPV1978CEC.doc
35
182000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
18
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
How long will it take before the state is held accountable for perpetuating this oppressive
2
fraud?
The Erin Brokovitch39 story (ca. 1964) was recently made into a motion picture. This
3
4
historic documentary establishes clear and compelling evidence that PUC staff and
5
Commissions traditionally misuse their authority and privilege to illegally delay official
6
review of important complaints, requested adjudication and needed disbursal of
7
information when dealing with venerable individuals and groups.
SDC/Smith contacted the CPUC with a positive intent to collaborate in educating
8
9
10
customers about renewable DG to protect the rights of consumers in deregulation to
own and install a solar electric generator with Net Metering.
The CPUC acts with significant insensitivity to venerable participants and
11
12
complainants. CPUC have been irresponsible in too many instances to allow approval of
13
the extreme and unconscionable hardship, and unreasonable liability in the proposed Rule 21
14
contracts for venerable BI-PV residential and commercial DG consumers up to 1 MWp. There are
15
no contracts for consumer interconnection to the grid to receive electricity for customers up to
16
1MWp. Further attempts by the private for-profit Utilities to gain stranded costs for alleged lost
17
revenue where DG is successfully deployed reveals the extreme oppressive misconceptions y at work
18
within this industry. All of the comments SDC/Smith submitted in the numerous Interconnection
19
Workshops were wrongfully and illegally removed without quasi-legislative due process of law before
20
the Draft Decision was filed.40
39
Erin Brokovitch Story (ca1964), Motion Picture Utility poisoned ground water, which killed people for years until
young single mother started investigation, which resulted in damages. Brokovitch had to have numerous petitions
and a review by a very arrogant and discouraging Utility review board before case could go to court. When a
retired Utility employee attended a town meeting about the groundwater contamination, a document that was
allegedly shredded surfaced to prove Utility staff had been aware of danger for years, but proceeded with plant
anyway making people very sick and killing some.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00003CXFV/qid=975538221/sr=2-2/103-9173722-4127043
40
CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025 Prehearing Conference, December 1, 1999
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/PREHEARING9910025.doc
192000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
19
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
The record for the DG Rulemakings 98-12-015 and 99-10-025; and numerous comments in the
2
Interconnection Workshops indicated a photovoltaic system up to 1 MWp would not cause any surge
3
problems for the grid, but could be venerable to grid surges. The Georgetown University Intercultural
4
Center with a 300 kWp BI-PV41 roof installed in 1984 has no reports of problems where the system has
5
adversely effected the grid or other consumers. UDCs must be held liable for grid damage to PV
6
systems, which do not cause harm to the grid.
7
The lack of expeditious or any resolution to SDC’s written complaints of May 15 and 20th,
8
1998 with ongoing hazing over the past two years, with no pay for the thousands of hours of
9
research, writing, testimony, travel and accommodations coupled with realistic consideration of the
10
recently publicized facts of the Erin Brokovitch Story make it absolutely impossible for SDC/Smith
11
to approve Section 7 Dispute Resolution for Rule 21 demanding complaints by and disputes with
12
venerable DG renewables market participants mandatorily be raised initially before the CPUC,
13
allowing jurisdiction at their whim with the alleged right to consider such matters whenever and
14
however CPUC decides to with or without notifying the party. Such requirement is in gross
15
violation of the 14th Amendment42 guaranteeing Equal Protection Under the Law even for a
16
‘class of one’ and for all Citizens of the United States of America.
17
“No complaint shall be entertained by the Commission, except upon its own
18
motion, as to the reasonableness of any rates or charges of any gas, electrical, water,
CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025 Letter of Concern to Commissioner Bilas, Dec 10, 1999 [No Response!]
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/BILAS.doc
CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025 Systems Planning Workshop, December 15, 1999
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/DCWORKSHOP.doc
CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025 Non-technical Straw Doc Proposal for a Revised Rule 21
“Generating Facility Interconnections” San Francisco, California February 16, 2000
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/NOTESHEARING.doc
CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025, Distribution System Planning and Operations Workshop Report
SDC Writing Assignment Due on February 9, 2000 as Established During Workshop on January 26, 2000
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/SPOCPUC.doc
CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025, CEQA Air Quality Streamlining Workshop, April 11, 2000
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/CEQUA.doc
41
Georgetown University Intercultural Center in Washington, DC 300 kWp BI-PV rooftop
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/GEORGETOWN.html
42
14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, (1868) http://deoxy.org/lib/14th.htm
202000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
20
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
or telephone corporation, unless it be signed by the mayor of the president or
2
chairman of the board of trustees or a majority of the council, commission, or other
3
legislative body of the city or city and county within which the alleged violation
4
occurred, or by not less than 25 actual or prospective consumers or purchasers of
5
such gas, electric, water, or telephone service (See P.U. Code Sec. 1702).”43
6
SDC/Smith’s recommendations in the Interconnection Standards Workshops as
7
referenced and linked herein at Appendix C were accepted into the formal draft document,
8
but all of SDC/Smith’s comments protecting small DG renewables consumers up to 1MWp were
9
omitted from the document before the draft decision was made without due process of law.
10
Due process is not just reserved for oil cartels and Utilities.
The alleged excuse of concensus is not ethical in a quasi-legislative proceeding where
11
12
public have not been properly notified, the majority of the parties are not consumers, and
13
obviously have a majority agenda to perpetuate a monopoly of fossil fuel domination for
14
large remote-site and 1-20 MWp or larger DG in the industry. The meetings are further
15
dominated by Utility staff whose interest is their stockholders not small DG consumers or
16
their constitutional rights. They want their monthly bingo guaranteed from millions of
17
captured customers whose freedoms are being suppressed.
As the only small solar energy business involved throughout this distributed
18
19
generation proceeding, which had no BI-PV manufacturers present in contrast to the
20
eight involved in 1978 CEC Consultant Report, removal of SDC/Smith’s language and
21
issues revising Rule 21 was highly illegal. SDC/Smith was informally barred from the
22
Summer Workshop allegedly because the e-mail announcement bounced back
23
indicating our address was full. Six months later Cris Cooley, the paid for-profit
24
consultant who said he couldn’t contact me called to argue about why he had not
25
contacted SDC about the Summer Workshop. It is obvious in his leaving a somewhat
43
CPUC Rules of Practice and Procedure, http://nic.cpuc.ca.gov/rules/000402_rules-04.htm
212000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
21
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
hostile message on SDC’s voicemail that he could use the phone and might easily have
2
called to let us know about the Summer Interconnections Workshop on Rule 21.
3
Administrative alienation and threats, omission of our comments, unreasonably
4
suppressive and hostile response to our testimony, and our attempts to establish fact in
5
cross-examination, the disappearance of original documents filed before the CPUC, and
6
the lack of formal reasoned consideration of our original complaints and subsequent
7
filings in the proceeding we found ourselves a party to [or elsewhere] was ongoing
8
throughout the DG Rulemakings coupled with berating demands to meet the rigorous
9
schedule of adjudication with no resources. There was ongoing hazing and veiled
10
threats SDC/Smith must conform to CPUC staff agendas and related inconsistent
11
Decisions.
Residential and small to mid-size consumers or a small renewable energy
12
13
business simply cannot afford to participate in such time-consuming, expensive and
14
endless proceedings or activities to resolve disputes. They simply do not have the
15
resources or time to sustain such a difficult mediation environment even with costly
16
legal representation where the CPUC takes twenty-seven months to entertain a straight-
17
forward complaint. SDC/Smith sustained this process to assure we were fully-
18
appraised of the hurdles our DG BI-PV clients/customers could face. We cannot
19
recommend contracting with a UDC after this experience until the extreme liability
20
demands for small to mid-size DG BI-PV and the demand to provide CPUC initial
21
jurisdiction are removed from Rule 21. Present and historic CPUC administration
22
provides extreme favoritism and advantage to CPUC/CEC/CEOB/Utilities and fossil
23
fuel associates’ interests, which fully dictated development of Rule 21 Interconnection
24
Standards.
25
26
27
C.
Documented misrepresentation and coercion by state agencies, Utilities
and oil cartels endangers individual and small businesses in CPUC
proceedings
222000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch. Founder & CEO Since 1992
22
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
Witness Qualification Statement in SDC’s Written Testimony44 for Phase II Issues
1
2
clearly describes the misleading conditions under which SDC/Smith was fraudulently
3
induced to become involved in the Distributed Generation Rulemakings. These staff
4
knew very well from experience the proceeding would be a lengthy expensive process,
5
and thereby negligently and intentionally caused extreme hardship, endangerment,
6
physical harm and trauma to SDC/Smith by staff misrepresentation, ongoing hazing,
7
and lack of orientation or expeditious resolution to our two material complaints. A
8
person could reasonably expect a more responsible and accountable attitude for human
9
life from state agencies.
There is clear and compelling evidence of an ‘orchestrated’ and ongoing campaign
10
11
of official and unreasonable harassment motivated by ‘sheer malice’ demonstrated
12
against SDC/Smith as a representative of a small solar energy business protecting
13
consumer rights is documented throughout the DG Rulemakings that strongly and
14
unnecessarily abridge our constitutional rights. The lack of responsible action on the
15
part of the CPUC to educate the public about the consumer right to choose DG BI-PV in
16
deregulation is for no other reason than self-serving special interests and malice. It is
17
difficult to understand how the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission could review the
18
record of the past two years, including numerous hearings to further gas pipeline
19
agendas, and still claim they find no misconduct by the UDCs45 where people are losing
20
their homes and businesses due to extreme and unnecessary rate hikes padding oil cartel
21
and UDC pockets! Ratepayers will not tolerate this abuse of power.46
The damages to SDC/Smith personally, professionally, physically, and
22
23
economically the past two years are extreme. Responsible progressive government
24
management needs to be put into place. In addition to SDC/Smith’s real and punitive
44
California Public Utilities Commission Rulemaking 99-10-025 Phase II Written Testimony
http://www.geocities.com/RULEMAKING/Phase2.doc
45
CPUC Investigation 00-08-003 of the SDG&E Electricity Crisis with extreme rate hikes, August 2000
46
Davis demands energy refunds, price caps; OC Register, Nov 15, 2000 fp
232000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
23
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
damages, millions of citizens of the State of California have been deprived of their right
2
to know about their DG BI-PV choices in deregulation, and to supportive cooperation
3
facilitating the legislated incentives for renewables DG. Existing and potential BI-PV
4
manufacturers have unnecessarily suffered under the tyranny and threat of abusive oil
5
cartel takeovers. This concern that was formally communicated to
6
CPUC/CEC/CEOB/Utilities by Silicon Material, Inc. in the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
7
Consultant Report published by the CEC in 1978.47 It has not only been ignored by state
8
agencies, but related tyranny and oppression of a competitive photovoltaic marketplace
9
has been furthered by CPUC/CEC/CEOB and UDC propaganda claiming PV is NOT
10
market ready or affordable in recent publications48 when it has been for twenty years
11
according to CEC’s own documents from 1978. These state agencies have continued to
12
limit information to consumers and refuse to provide reliable cooperative service to
13
small up to mid-size DG renewables consumers’ initial inquiry to dispute resoultion.
14
They endanger venerable market participants and charge them with the responsibility to
15
regulate oil cartel and UDC fraud and oppressive mismanagement. SDG&E openly calls
16
Net Metering free-loading in their written testimony and cross-examination. The UDCs
17
have communicated their clear goal not to consider small to mid-size DG Renewables in
18
Systems Planning49 because they do not intend to facilitate a competitive market
19
through consumer education or infrastructure. It is obviously not in their company’s
20
interest. This extreme favoritism of for-profit UDCs violates CPUC code of ethics, the
21
California and National Constitution, and fair commerce laws.
47
California State Photovoltaic Program, California Energy Commission Consultant Report, March 1978, Jet
Propulsion Laboratory Contract 5030-188; Table E-1 Summary of Telephone Contacts w/Eight California Solar
Array Manufacturers, Desirable State Government Actions/Remarks/Silicon Material, Inc./ Concern: Provide R&D
Funds. Low Interest Loans. Gov’t Contracts w/No Interest, Concern: Oil Company Takeover, page E-6
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/TABECONTPV1978CEC.doc
48
1996 Energy Technology Status Report, California Energy Commission,
CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025 Phase II Evidentiary Hearing, Exhibit 134, Distributed PV Systems 28.1
49
Systems Planning and Operations Management Workshops, December 1999 to March 2000
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/RULEMAKINGII.html
242000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
24
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
The organizations that allegedly manage the State of California energy industry have continually
2
demonstrated significant collaboration with oil cartels and Utilities to facilitate major deployment of
3
fossil fuel DG, while illegally, fraudulently and oppressively furthering policies and propaganda to
4
suppress mainstream deployment of building-integrated photovoltaics [BI-PV], and consequently
5
SDC/Smith’s business; thereby causing intentional energy shortages with the intent to wrongfully force
6
taxpayer and ratepayer support of gas pipeline construction.50 Gas pipeline deployment and ongoing
7
fuel costs are not revealed in AB970 incentive comparisons.
The Solar Development Cooperative published our 15-year $4 billion business plan
8
9
in 199451 and shared related information including the need for PV-grade silicon with
10
numerous parties of these government organizations. Our interest in deployment of BI-PV
11
is significant. We have spoken and been published at BI-PV conferences around the
12
world.52 We are the only intervenor in this proceeding whose comments have been
13
published in a national trade magazine.53 Residential consumers with sincere, but limited
14
interest at stake cannot legally be forced through lengthy abusive dead-end CPUC
15
proceedings to have their complaints or disputes with a UDC or oil cartel manufacturer
16
addressed.
Section 7 of CPUC Rule 21 dispute resolution process dramatically and illegally abridges
17
18
the constitutional right to Equal Protection Under the Law even as a ‘class of one’ for millions of
19
venerable ratepayers whose protection is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
50
Annual Energy Outlook 2000, Department of Energy
California Energy Outlook 2000,CEC, Docket # 99-CEO-I and 00-CEO-VOL-II
http://www.energy.ca.gov/energyoutlook/index.html
California Public Utilities Commission, proceedings 1994-2000 http://www.cpuc.ca.gov
51
BI-PV NewsLETTER, Solar Development Cooperative, January 1997
52
Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch. Publications http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/EMSPAPERS.html
53
DG or Not DG, Public Utilities Fortnightly, August 2000, OffPeak, pg 70
http://www.geocities.com/Rulemaking/DGPUREAD.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/Rulemaking/DGPUREADSMALL.jpg
252000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
25
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
II. CPUC/CEC/CEOB/Utilities/Oil Cartels Defrauded BI-PV Consumers 20 Years
SDC/Smith founded our business to assure timely mainstream deployment of quality
2
3
building-integrated photovoltaics supported by a reliable service industry in the United States
4
and global marketplace. We did not pursue our business to get involved in regulating oil
5
cartels or state agencies. The founder is an architect consultant, and our primary
6
interest is in designing solar electric systems that blend beautifully and successfully into
7
the built environment to generate clean electricity with minimal effort, maintenance or
8
undue liability for DG BI-PV system owners. We have been involved in many
9
interesting events the past nine years, globally. In addition to world travel, the two peak
10
moments in the history of our business, which significantly influenced our progress, are:
11
(1) discovery in 1994 of the 300 kWp BI-PV system installed on the roof of the
12
Intercultural Center at Georgetown University in 198454; and (2) discovery November
13
22, 2000 of the California State Photovoltaics Program, California Energy Commission
14
Consultant Report55 prepared by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in March 1978. [Appendix
15
A]
In 1978 there were eight California BI-PV manufacturers.56 Today, all of the
16
17
California BI-PV manufacturers from 1978 do not exist, are well-hidden or have been
18
sued out of business or taken over. Two have disappeared as a result of abusive
19
litigation by Amoco/BP/Enron including Arco Solar57 and Advanced Photovoltaic
20
Systems. A global mail order company for BI-PV founded in the 1970s, Real Goods
21
located in Ukiah, California North of San Francisco is one of the few California PV
54
Georgetown University Intercultural Center 300 kWp BI-PV Rooftop installed 1984 Washington, DC
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/GEORGETOWN.html
55
California State Photovoltaics Program, CEC, Consultant Report by Jet Propulsion Laboratory 1978
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/CALSTATEPVPROGRAM1978.html
56
California State Photovoltaic Program Consultant Report, JPL for CEC, 1978
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/TABECONTPV1978CEC.doc
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/TAE2PV1978CEC.doc
57
Solarex [dba Amoco/Enron] v. Arco Solar, Inc. 121 FRD 163 (1988) Ddel, 805 Fsupp 252 Fed Digest
http://www.e5.org/pages/ccgar499.htm
262000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
26
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
companies left from that era. In February, Real Goods took the domain name of
2
SolarDevelopment to lure naïve consumers to their site and sell them stock in the name of
3
the Solar Development Cooperative58 taking advantage of our years of global marketing
4
and hard work. They could have just added this as a Meta Tag in their RealGoods
5
website, however this is the third time Real Goods and their associates have attempted to
6
put SDC/Smith out of business since 1993. Does Real Goods represent innovation or
7
suppression? Their, not so grassroots oil baron accounting firm Deloitte and Touché, attempted
8
to put SDC/Smith out of business in 1993 a year after we opened. They refused to pay a bill they
9
said in writing to our attorney was legitimate; they just weren’t going to pay us knowing we had
10
related bills outstanding. In 1997, when an activist friend of John Schaffer, the founder of Real
11
Goods, told him SDC was curious about whether there was any connection between Deloitte
12
and Touché, Real Goods, and the lack of competition in the BI-PV industry, globally. John
13
Schaffer began sending degrading and threatening e-mails to SDC/Smith instead of assuring us
14
of any upstanding reasons they may have for using Deloitte and Touché for their accounting
15
firm. We finally copied our request to stop harassing us with obnoxious e-mails to NREL. The
16
e-mails stopped!
It is further curious that April 2, 1999, two weeks after we raised the complaint of
17
18
antitrust abuse in the CPUC DG Rulemaking as commanded by Ms. Cooke and Mr.
19
McNamara in their May 1998 letters; BP/Amoco made a $28 billion takeover of the
20
entire Arco Corporation and most of the Alaskan pipeline. Gas prices soared.
21
Engineers that SDC has been in touch with since the 1997 IEEE PV Specialists
22
Conference in Anaheim indicated the lawsuit between Amoco/Enron dba Solarex and
23
Arco Solar from 1988 to 1991 was very ugly. Money was no issue and settlement was
24
NOT an option! They wanted Arco Solar out of business.
Engineers from United
Real Goods’s fraudulent misuse of the Solar Development Cooperative domain name luring naïve consumers to
their website with our business name to sell stock, February 2000, discovered August 2000
http://www.solardevelopment.com
58
272000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
27
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
Solar [sued 1993-97] and Advanced Photovoltaic Systems [sued 1995-97 and then taken
2
over by BP Solar] that were also sued by Amoco/Enron dba Solarex provided a similar
3
description of tyranny in relation to the lawsuits alleging enfringement Amoco had
4
fraudulently taken control of in 1984. A sales manager with BP/Solar stated March
5
1999 during a workshop training session at the APS Factory they had taken over in
6
Fairfield that BP-Amoco intended to take over as many PV manufacturers as they
7
could. “We don’t like to share!”, he said. BP/Amoco’s board did not approve the Arco
8
Co. merger until March 31, 2000. And yet, the CPUC/CEC/CEOB/Utilities and fossil
9
fuel proponents demand SDC/Smith to believe BP/Amoco would never do anything
10
underhanded, and is furthering, not suppressing a competitive BI-PV industry in the
11
global market. SDC/Smith announced a $4 billion business plan by 2010 in 1994.
12
BP/Amoco is doing $1 B.59
The State of California is allegedly the leader of photovoltaic deployment. Are they
13
14
innovators equally suppressed by oil cartel and Utility monopoly oppression, or are they the
15
oppressor? State agency collusion with fossil fuel market power to suppress BI-PV through
16
oppressive fraud has been obvious throughout the DG Rulemakings.60 In the 1978 California
17
Photovoltaic Program Consultant Report published by the CEC, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a
59
Business and Industry Global Climate Change Strategies Workshop, CEC, December 8, 1999
http://www.energy.ca.gov/realaudio/archive/1999-12-08-am.ram
http://www.energy.ca.gov/global_climate_change/1999-12-08_GCC_TRANSCRIPT.pdf
60
Ratesetting Wickland Pipelines, LLC; Commissioner Assigned: Carl W. Wood on September 13, 1999
ALJ Assigned: William R. Stalder on September 13, 1999
http://www.geocities.com/RULEMAKING/GASPIPEVIOLA9908050.htm
UC-REGULATORY/MARKET STRUCTURE Investigation on the Commission's own motion to consider the costs
and benefits of various promising revisions to regulatory and market structure governing California's natural gas
industry and to report to the California Legislature on the Commission's findings.
http://www.geocities.com/RULEMAKING/GASPUCREGI9907003.htm
Staff Report: Competition and Consumer Protection Perspectives on Electric Power Regulatory Reform, United
States Federal Trade Commission, July 2000; Existing Market Power In Generation
http://www.geocities.com/RULEMAKING/FTCSTAFFREPORT.htm#EXISTING
282000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
28
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
very reputable source of information and a combustion engine and photovoltaics expert,
2
predicted BI-PV would be fifty cents watt by 1986.61
3
Slave labor was abolished in this Nation through significant efforts over a
4
Century ago,62 attempting to reinstate it through fraudulent misrepresentation is highly
5
innappropriate. It is obvious the only interest in having SDC/Smith involved in the
6
hearings was for serving the state requirements alleging fair representation. Despite the
7
energy crisis and energy shortages allegedly due to air conditioning demand,63 and the
8
fact that BI-PV was established as market ready and affordable by the CEC in 1978, the thrust
9
of the DG Rulemakings, Rule 21 and energy deployment by State organizations is fossil
10
fuel natural gas claiming BI-PV is not affordable or market ready.64 These fraudulent claims
11
that were published in CEC’s 1996 Energy Technology Status Report and furthered at the
12
June 1, 1999 Joint Agency Full Panel Hearing by Mr. Kulkarni, and throughout the DG
13
proceedings are fraudulent and self-serving.65
14
at peak air conditioning demand. It is the ideal energy choice to resolve the multifaceted
15
energy crisis in California. The largest importer of US photovoltaics in the world is
16
Germany. 66 These exported products could produce up to twice the daily value of
17
electricity in Southern California as they do in Germany. Where the
18
CPUC/CEC/CEOB/Utilities and their partners in crime keep pushing the fraudulent
19
claim that BI-PV is not affordable or market ready, California consumers will have 90% of
61
BI-PV generates electricity the strongest
Cal State Photovoltaic Program Consultants Report of the CEC, by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory 1978,
5030-188 Figure D-2 LSSA Price Goals/Achievements, page D-4
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/DEPLOYPV1978CEC.doc
62
By the time slavery was abolished in 1865 they had been joined by thousands of other women
http://www.gendergap.com/military/USmil3.htm .
63
California readies for blackouts, by Fred Bayles, USA TODAY, fp
http://www.geocities.com/RULEMAKING/BLACKOUTS.htm
64
CPUC Rulemaking 98-12-015 Joint Agency Full Panel Hearing June 1, 1999
1996 Technology Status Report, California Energy Commission, [Mr. Kulkarni indicated this was the source of his
claim at the Hearing on June 1, 1999 indicating BI-PV was not market ready or affordable!]
65
CPUC DG Proceedings Transcripts, Hearings and Decisions, 1992 to 2000 [R.98-12-015, R.99-10-025]
66
Renewable Energy Annual Report, Table 32, Energy Information Administration 1998
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/data/summary/table32.txt
292000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
29
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
their electricity generated by and dependent on escalating fossil fuel resources by the
2
year 2010. 64% of the electricity consumed in California is already fossil fuels with 46%
3
natural gas and a small, but significant portion of that large amount of electricity is co-
4
generation DG.
The entire DG Rulemaking should have been focused on small to mid-size
5
6
renewables DG to develop a truly competitive marketplace AND INDUSTRY for these
7
important technologies. There are already numerous proceedings directed exclusively
8
and, thereby illegally, to fossil fuel deployment.67 90% of the projects funded under the
9
CEC Rebate offering up to 50% off of a renewables DG system have been photovoltaic
10
projects. BI-PV is popular, practical, clean, easy to install, quiet, recyclable and provides 20 to 50
11
years of electricity where a system is well-maintained. There is a huge luxury home and
12
commercial industry in California that can readily afford and enjoy BI-PV, today! What we
13
cannot afford is oppressive war and tyranny furthering deployment of out-dated
14
destructive energy generation.68
“1. Antitrust Enforcement The FTC has had substantial involvement in the
15
16
electric power industry through the PacifiCorp/Peabody convergence merger (5) and
17
in evaluating the competitive aspects of mergers between natural gas and electric
18
power utilities. (6) The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has taken the lead
19
on most mergers that solely involve electric utilities. (7) In addition to merger
20
matters, the Commission has responsibility to prevent unfair methods of competition,
21
which may be especially acute as the electric power industry moves toward
22
competition.”69
67
Letter from Michelle Cooke, May 20, 1998; CPUC may not show favoritism to technologies.
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/COOKE.doc
68
CEQA Streamlining Air Quality Resources Board, CEC Workshop, April 2000
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/CEQUA.doc
69
Staff Report: Competition and Consumer Protection Perspectives on Electric Power Regulatory Reform, July
2000; US Federal Trade Commission
302000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
30
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
When SDG&E struck 50% of our Phase I Testimony,70 ALJ Cooke allowed the
1
2
entire request to strike the record without one referral to our 49-page Rebuttal.71
3
The information struck included photographs of DG BI-PV technology and
4
discussion of various Phase I Issues including the impacts of pollution furthered by
5
oppressive ownership and control of DG technologies.
6
September 11, 2000 SDC filed Emergency Motion to Mandate Renewables DG
7
to Reduce Impact of SDG&E price hikes and energy shortages that are putting consumers out of
8
their homes and closing their businesses according to testimony at the August 30, 2000
9
hearings72. Despite lack of resources or compensation by the
10
CPUC/CEC/CEOB/Utilities, and significant and unnecessary hardship SDC managed to
11
attend 99% of the hearings and workshops for both DG Rulemakings to attempt to
12
resolve our complaint. From what we have discovered, we could not possibly
13
recommend initial jurisdiction of the CPUC for disputes or complaints if this is what
14
our customers would face as DG consumers. We were involved throughout the two DG
15
Rulemakings despite ongoing harassment, hazing and threats by CPUC and UDC staff,
16
and their fossil fuel associates. These problems are documented in our papers filed
17
within the Rulemakings and related correspondence. Enron and their associates
18
moderated and managed the documents for Rule 21 while Enron was denounced by
19
Amnesty International in the Wall Street Journal73 February 5, 2000 for police abuse
70
CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025 SDC/Smith Phase I Written Testimony, April 11, 2000
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/PHASEI.doc
71
CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025 SDC/Smith Rebuttal to SDG&E’s Motion to Strike SDC’s Phase I Written
Testimony, April 30, 2000 http://www.geocities.com/RULEMAKING/Rebuttal.doc
72
Emergency Motion to Mandate Deployment of DG & Fuel Cells for SDG&E Energy Crisis in Cooperation with
AB970, CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025, Sept 11, 2000
www.geocities.com/Rulemaking/EMSMOTGREENTEAM.doc
73
SDC Response Comments to CEQA Streamlining, CEC Workshop, April 2000
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/CEQUA.doc
312000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
31
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
against protestors of their project in India.74 SDC was strategically barred from Summer
2
Interconnection Workshops finalizing the language for Rule 21.
In light of the new evidence provided by the California State Photovoltaic Program
3
4
a report by the respected Jet Propulsion Laboratory a leader in combustion technology
5
and published by the California Energy Commission in 1978 with excerpts linked herein at
6
Appendix A showing documented concerns about potential oil cartel takeovers
7
expressed by Silicon Material, Inc.;75 SDC/Smith STRONGLY PROTESTS the
8
requirement in the Draft Rule 21 as outlined in the Interim Decision, Draft Decision and
9
SCE’s Advice 1498-E to force consumers to mitigate ANY interconnection complaints or
10
disputes first with the CPUC. Americans cannot afford twenty more years to
11
mainstream BI-PV technology!
12
A competitive energy industry or ratepayers are not to blame for price hikes,
13
corruption, and energy shortages. Make the CPUC/CEC/CEOB/UDC staff and their
14
fossil fuel associates who are mismanaging our energy industry accountable for their
15
actions, today! Deregulation is a healthy initiative where a truly competitive
16
marketplace is phased in by responsible management of the needs for new
17
technology deployment, and thereby proceedings exclusively focused on the
18
legislated agenda of clean renewable energy in deregulation. Ratepayers should not
19
be forced to pay for the market power and fraud being furthered by California state
20
agencies.76
In light of the obvious fraud documented throughout the historic data presented
21
22
herein, and the 28 month delay to resolve our complaints, SDC/Smith requires by tacit
74
Advent of the Headrick Solar-Voltaic DomeTM Power Station, 13th EU PV Solar Energy Conference, October
1995; SDC/Smith applauded India for totally rejecting the 2000 MWp power plant.
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/ADVHS-VDPS95.html
75
Cal State Photovoltaic Program, March 1978, Figure D-2, page D-4
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/DEPLOYPV1978CEC.doc
76
Davis demands energy refunds, price caps; OC Register, Nov 15, 2000 fp
322000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
32
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
procuration the CPUC, CEC, CEOB, and the Utilities submit a response outlining a
2
plan to mitigate their malefescence in the appropriate jurisdiction within ten days of
3
this Notice and Protest to immediately adjudicate this extreme and unconscionable
4
fraud suppressing the life-preserving technology of BI-PV from the mainstream through
5
published propaganda, threat, conspiracy, price fixing and ongoing violation of the
6
CPUC Code of Ethics wherein those accountable may reduce liability and criminal
7
charges in exchange for sorting out and preventing further tragedy for the Citizens of
8
the State of California, the United States and the global citizenry.
9
III.
10
Section 6.3 Net Generation Metering for Renewables Technology
A. Lack of Timely Inclusion of DG Renewables In Consumer Education Campaigns
The Renewable Energy incentives program established under AB1890 clearly
11
12
charges the CPUC with the responsibility to educate the public about distributed and self-
13
generation technology being provided incentives under the CEC buydown program.
14
While the CEC does provide limited consumer education in response to inquiries, the
15
CPUC provided a large consumer education program that did not include one word
16
about DG renewables technologies. CPUC needs to immediately remedy this
17
negligence with notification to all ratepayers within their monthly bill before approving
18
Rule 21 or AB970 incentives to avoid unfair competition and technology favoritism.
19
Further negligence is established in the record where the CPUC/CEC/
20
CEOB/Utilities are depended upon by consumers for technology information in the
21
energy industry, and these state agencies are responsible for consumer education about
22
renewables DG and they actually write and publish documents that fraudulently
23
misrepresent the market ready status and affordability of BI-PV technology.77 Throughout
Phase II Evidentiary Hearing Transcript, Rulemaking 99-10-025; Solar Development Cooperative’s Cross
Examination of Mr. Smith, Southern California Edison; Mr. Biewald, energy expert from Cambridge, Massachusetts
for UCAN, TURN, NRDC; David Townley, New Energy, September 2000 pages 1700, 1704 line 12, 1705 lines 1-28,
1706, 1707 lines 14-28, 1708 lines 1-28, 1709, 1710 lines 1-9, 1732 PV Time of day benefit, 1736, 1737 lines 1-14,
77
332000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
33
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
the Phase II transcript energy experts respond to SDC/Smith cross-examination
2
indicating that BI-PV has been market ready and affordable for a large market for twenty
3
years.78 The negligent fraud published in the 1996 Energy Technology Status Report, and
4
furthered at the Joint Agency Hearing for CPUC Rulemaking 98-12-015 has emphasis added
5
and proven with the discovery of the 1978 California State Photovoltaic Program79 wherein
6
the Jet Propulsion Laboratory indicates BI-PV was market ready in 1978 and would be
7
fifty cents watt by 1986. [Appendix A] Where these experts design, plan and execute deep
8
space missions, it is doubtful that their prediction is erroneous where a competitive BI-PV
9
market is allowed to evolve. We consider the fact that PV is a silicon semiconductor. The past
10
twenty years significant research and advancements in satellite PV and computer silicon whose
11
raw materials are 900% more expensive than PV-grade silicon. It is very curious that
12
related reductions in price for PV have not been realized and that state agencies
13
continue to avoid their responsibility to educate the public about these technologies.
14
States agencies cannot arbitrarily suppress PV.
15
If the these state agencies have a substantial conflict of interest to meet this responsibility,
16
then it needs to be formally documented and such responsibility needs to be transferred to
17
another agency with as much funding and support as fossil fuels are provided by the
18
traditional state agencies to assure a truly competitive marketplace.
19
B. SDC’s Emergency Motion AB970 Reduce SDG&E Energy Crisis: 90 Days No Reply?
20
Sept. 12, 2000, SDC/Smith filed Emergency Motion to Reduce SDG&E Energy Crisis.
21
SDC/Smith formally requested timely response within 30 days to our filing due to the
22
urgency of the need to install BI-PV DG to reduce the impact of the SDG&E energy crisis, and
1757 line 28, 1758 lines 1-28, 1760 lines 1-28, 1761 line 18, 1764 line 25; and other places in the record that are
not specified here.
1996 Energy Technology Status Report, CEC
California Photovoltaic Program Consultant Report, JPL 5030-188 CEC 1978
78
CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025, Phase II Evidentiary Hearings, Cross-Examination by SDC/Smith: Mr. Smith
ORA, Mr. Biewald, Mr. Townley of New Energy, etc. September 2000
79
Cal State Photovoltaics Program, CEC 1978
342000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
34
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
the AB970 program solicitations, which are due December 14, 2000. This Emergency Motion
2
provides important expansion of Net Metering incentives instead of reducing Net Metering like
3
is proposed in fraudulent bills like AB918. We requested low to no interest loans for DG from
4
1kWp to 1MWp, and consumer education about their customer options in DG renewables.
5
This Motion was filed in cooperation with AB970 incentives and the ICE-T program proposed
6
by the Solar Energy Industries Association in August. SDC/Smith literally urged the CalSEIA to
7
become involved in the CPUC Rulemakings on DG. They finally submitted formal input at
8
the January 12, 2000 Systems Planning Workshop at the CPUC corporate offices in San
9
Francisco.
10
SDC/Smith is in full support of CalSEIA contributions and recommendations to the
11
CPUC Rulemaking even though we may have a more commercial perspective, and advance
12
programs and recommendations beyond their non-profit scope of interest. There are
13
numerous gas turbine and Utility interests filing comments and recommendations throughout
14
the DG Rulemakings. SDC/Smith, and finally CalSEIA after a year and one-half are the only
15
two intervenors actively working to protect the rights of consumers to generate their own
16
renewables BI-PV DG electricity.
17
The lack of immediate response to our EMERGENCY MOTION again demonstrates the
18
disrespectful attitude by CPUC staff toward the interests of venerable participants in CPUC
19
proceedings. The Net Metering Utility prejudice documented in Phase I Written Testimony
20
and Cross-Examination calling it free-loading and the numerous proceedings easily facilitated
21
for various special interests again demonstrates favoritism being furthered in CPUC
22
proceedings for Utilities and fossil fuel companies.
23
As is stated in our Summary herein, the CPUC must respond within ten days in tacit
24
procuration or by law the matters of SDC’s Emergency Motion, already 90 days delayed, will become
25
law, and thereby must be facilitated by state agencies and their Utility affiliates.
26
C. Net Metering Needs to Be Expanded to 1MWp and 1% Aggregate Output
352000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
35
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
AB970 incentives for the Innovative Efficiency and Renewables Peak Reduction Program
2
favors large DG deployment with the first size limits at 500 kW per project. The program
3
hearing on October 16, 2000 was recorded, but none of the public comments were included.
4
There was a bit of hostility toward SDC/Smith attempting to sort out who and how these
5
incentives could be used to assist clients wanting to purchase BI-PV systems. This shows,
6
again, that these state agencies are very difficult to influence, and that their programs favor
7
fossil fuel deployment. BI-PV renewables DG is ideal for systems from 1 kWp to 300 kWp.
8
AB970 made a last minute reduction to the size of eligible systems to 250 kWp. Why are they
9
limiting these projects to such large sizes? Further, where these limited incentives are only
10
allowed for large BI-PV systems, it would be reasonable to increase Net Metering incentive
11
eligibility for systems up to 1MWp. Net Metering up to 1MWP would not increase the
12
aggregate output limit, but would allow a larger market with more resources for immediate
13
commercial installations of BI-PV systems. This extreme limiting of BI-PV DG incentives where
14
CPUC has incorporated the changes of AB918 is obviously intentional, uncooperative and illegal in
15
light of the energy crisis we are facing in California. There is no reason that the CPUC could not
16
under their own volition create a separate Net Metering program to compliment the AB970
17
program. There is ongoing flexibility and cooperation with oil cartel and gas deployment
18
interests. Why do the state agencies continually fight the needs of DG renewables
19
deployment? Considering the issues addressed in Sections I and II, it may be wise to revisit
20
the goals set out by Commissionor Lynch which would very much support an additional or
21
expanded Net Metering program for renewables DG that would compliment the AB970
22
incentives. This issue needs to be addressed by citing statutes indicating CPUC cannot
23
establish a Net Metering program of any type proposed.
24
D. Language Guaranteeing Net Metering for Longest Warranty in DG System Omitted
25
26
SDG&E’s attorney Sakarious calls Net Metering freeloading in his Phase I Testimony.
And, what is a request for payment to private UDCs for alleged lost revenues due to successful
362000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
36
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
deployment of DG renewables? Cross-examination testimony attempted to explain that Net
2
Metered systems weren’t paying their own way, while other Utility testimony is urging that
3
they be paid stranded costs for lost revenues where DG is successfully deployed. Considering
4
the limit is 0.1%, it is obvious these large protected monopolies need a huge handicap to succeed
5
in business in competition.
Venerable pioneering consumers financing BI-PV systems rely on Net Metering
6
7
incentives. Their interests should be the priority for state agencies, not UDC stakeholders. Net
8
Metering should be guaranteed by a cooperative Utility for twenty years or for the life of the
9
longest warranty in their system. Where the present 0.1% limit is reached, this savings incentive
10
program, which involves no cash outlay, would amount to seventy-eight cents per customer per
11
year over twenty years. Only $1.5 billion has been paid in photovoltaic research since 1975.
12
That is $60 million a year and includes research for satellite PV technology. According to a
13
recent newsletter,80 $1.5 billion has been spent in the past four years on research for a cure for
14
Parkinson’s disease that has been traced to fossil fuel pollution exposure with numerous cases
15
reported by those in battle in Desert Storm and World War II.
SDC/Smith’s language creating protections for consumers to have Net Metering for the life of
16
17
the longest warranty in their system was wrongfully removed before the Draft Decision without due
18
process of law.81 The comments were submitted with concensus that they would be included. David
19
Townley of New Energy was in charge of writing the document for the Systems Planning
20
workshop and his associate Bruno Galliard; a representative from Enron was in charge of
21
writing documents for the Interconnection Standards Workshops.
Newsworthy Notes, October vol106 and Nov 2000 vol 107, Parkinson’s Resource Organization
www.parkinsonsresource.org copsca@gte.net
81
CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Workshop December 1999 to March, 2000 Non80
technical Straw Doc Proposal for a Revised Rule 21 SDC/Smith’s Revisions to Rule 21
“Generating Facility Interconnections” San Francisco, California February 16, 2000
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/NOTESHEARING.doc
372000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
37
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
When SDC/Smith questioned this administrative oversight due to Mr. Townley claiming BI-
2
PV is dangerous, our inquiry privately and then before the group was met with orchestrated
3
hazing by Valarie Beck, and ongoing by Mr. Townley and his associates.
4
5
AB918 Wrongfully Denies Net Metering to Direct Access ESP Consumers
AB918 taking away the mandated requirement for ESPs to provide Net Metering for
6
DG renewables systems refutes the purpose of the Net Metering program. Any company that
7
is buying and selling electricity to consumers must, by law provide Net Metering as a choice to
8
qualified systems.
9
Such legislative interference on behalf of gas turbine DG ESPs with no response or
10
assistance to increase DG B I-PV to 1MWp to reduce the impact of the energy crisis is highly
11
unethical, unrealistic, unconstitutional, and criminally illegal where the interests of the
12
CPUC/CEC/CEOB and UDCs are obviously not in line with residential or small to mid-size
13
BI-PV DG consumers interconnected to the grid, and especially not those qualified the Net
14
Metering credit. AB918 illegally attempts to escape this incentive.
15
E. Contract Liability Unconscionable Barrier for Residential to Mid-size PV and Fuel Cell
16
Consumers
17
One size doe not fit all! The Interconnection Standards liability is unreasonable and
18
imbalanced for small to mid-size BI-PV renewables DG up to 1MWp.
These customers are
19
actually more venerable than normal electricity consumers interconnected to the grid because
20
they have costly DG systems that could be adversely damaged by the powerful grid system
21
that is not appropriately managed.
22
technicians indicate there is little risk to the grid or other consumers where a BI-PV DG
23
systems is interconnected. BI-PV technology does not surge, and there are no documented
24
cases where a DG BI-PV system has adversely affected the grid.
25
limits UDC liability for damage to a DG BI-PV system is unrealistic and unethical.
26
the contract provision that provides extreme liability to a DG BI-PV system abridges
Throughout the record for the DG Rulemakings,
382000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
The provision in Rule 21 that
Founder & CEO Since 1992
38
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
Further,
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
constitutional rights where any related dispute or complaint must have initial jurisdiction with
2
the CPUC. Such demand by the CPUC is highly unethical, unconstitutional and
3
anticompetitive. It further abridges fair commerce and consumer protection laws.
4
CPUC privilege to initial review was developed to assure reliability of the grid system
5
as it grew over the past 100 years. With mass familiarity with electricity generation and
6
related systems, it is not necessary or legal to provide such privilege to the CPUC, which
7
traditionally protects the private UDC monopoly from its adversaries and competitors. It
8
becomes further unethical to expect such favoritism and privilege where in a competitive
9
diverse market the CPUC-managed generation will continue to decrease unless their role in
10
the industry adapts to the realities of the changes upon the horizon providing numerous
11
diverse DG technology opportunities.
12
Even in rare and extreme cases where people are dying due to UDC negligence like in
13
the Erin Brokovitch story (ca 1964), only through substantial hard work, expense, and good
14
fortune was a party able to gain regulatory assistance to prevail damages for people dying
15
from negligence under the tyranny of an extremely intimidating biased PUC adjudication.
16
How could one ethically expect a homeowner to prevail in defending themselves against
17
allegations by a UDC that their 2kWp system caused millions of dollars of damage on a grid?
18
The liability language is not realistic. It is further a risk where the CPUC refuses to provide
19
any ongoing consumer education about their DG choices and the technological diversity of DG
20
renewables.
21
FINDING OF FACT
22
I.
In a competitive energy industry with distributed generation, these past industry
23
demands of the protected UDC must be given up to a more balanced adjudication of the issues
24
in other venues. Revealing a complaint first before the CPUC provides unfair advantage to an
25
already venerable consumer or small business. The CPUC continually refused to address and
26
respect the reality of the issues we brought before them. They continue to impose further and
392000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
39
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
extreme hardship for individual consumers and small business in this case. The only people
2
who may be able to survive this type of dispute resolution demanding CPUC review before
3
finding an outside source to mitigate, is a large company or oil cartel
Oil cartels and Utilities are most likely to prevail in any initial review before CPUC
4
5
jurisdiction because they have the extreme advantages of familiarity, size and resources
6
compared to an individual consumer or small business. Fossil fuel associates were allowed to
7
dominate and control the writing of the Systems Planning and Interconnection Workshops.
8
Section 7 Dispute Resolution demanding initial CPUC jurisdiction is in violation of the 14th
9
Amendment right to Equal Protection Under the Law.
Unfair competition with an imbalance of input in the CPUC proceeding is further
10
11
established by the CPUC’s intentional lack of consumer and public notification about the far-
12
reaching DG Rulemakings in the television news or newspaper; and with their lack of
13
attention to their legislated responsibility to educate the consumer about DG technologies in
14
the competitive market.
II.
15
CPUC/CEC/CEOB and Utility experts are or should be aware of the 1978
16
California State Photovoltaic Program Consultant Report by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. In such
17
case that they have been aware of this document, they are committing extreme fraud by
18
publishing documents that refute the fact that BI-PV is market ready and affordable. Acro Solar
19
was selling BI-PV at $9 to $11 watt in 1978, and Spectrolab proposed a $1-2 million investment
20
to sell BI-PV at $2 to $5 watt in 1978.82 As SDC/Smith established in cross-examination, the
21
only issue of least cost that state agencies or the UDCs should concern themselves with is the
22
true and actual cost of interconnection as compared to non generating customers unless a
23
company is price fixing or involved in other types of suppressive cost issues. Consumers have a right
24
to buy whatever they want at whatever price they want. Consumers do not want to be forced
25
to be gouged by fossil fuel and Utility monopolies for technologies that are substantially
82
Cal State PV Program Consultant Report, JPL 5030-188, CEC 1978
402000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
40
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
against their values. CPUC/CEC/CEOB wrongfully avoid their responsibility to protect the
2
BI-PV industry from extremely oppressive market power suppressing BI-PV for twenty years!
3
The record shows that CPUC Staff and UDC energy expert witnesses are negligently
4
unprepared to make statements regarding BI-PV technologies due to lack of awareness of their
5
own organization’s historic publications, and the historic 300 kWp project on the Intercultural
6
Center at Georgetown University. ‘Sempra Asks for Permission to Pollute’ was reported the front
7
page of an Oceanside newspaper recently. SDC/Smith provides notice to the CPUC that
8
ratepayers have asked for twenty years for permission not to pollute!
9
comply with this request!
CPUC needs to
10
III. Net Metering and related renewable energy incentives are not being appropriately
11
managed with substantial detriment to this already extremely limited point of purchase credit.
12
Lack of consumer education coupled with refusal by the CPUC to address oil cartel oppression
13
of photovoltaics including their refusal to fund consumer education about BI-PV technology
14
even though BP-Amoco has taken over nearly 70% of the BI-PV manufacturing world-wide
15
since their fraudulent takeover of the Solarex Corporation in 1984. CPUC has wrongfully
16
delayed Ruling on SDC/Smith’s Emergency Motion while incorporating AB918 limiting Net
17
Metering. Net Metering laws must be protected, and AB918 must be annulled. Direct Access
18
ESPs must provide Net Metering to any customer requesting it, by law.
19
20
AB970 becomes a means for streamlining pollution where it is wrongfully focused on
fossil fuel generation of gas turbines.
21
Net Metering size increased up to 1MWp needs to be provided so clean energy can be
22
deployed by large companies where AB970 has a 250 kW limit. These companies can more
23
easily finance their projects and protect their interests than venerable residential consumers
24
wanting to purchase BI-PV DG.
412000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
41
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
CPUC has show in Rulemaking 98-12-015 and 99-10-025 extreme and illegal favoritism
1
2
to further the gas interests of oil cartels with fraudulent suppression of BI-PV technology in
3
violation of CPUC statutes as were quoted by ALJ Cooke in her May 20, 1998 letter to SDC.83
4
REVIEW OF NOTICE IN TACIT PROCURATION
SDC/Smith herein files this Notice and Protest in tacit procuration requiring the CPUC
5
6
make formal and immediate notice within ten working days outlining a plan to notify all
7
California ratepayers about their DG renewable choices and related incentives within 30 days
8
or be actually and materially liable for demonstrating extreme favoritism to remote-site and DG
9
fossil fuel technology, which is primarily deployed by large companies in lieu of ratepayers. 84
10
This negligence has emphasis added with the discovery of the 1978 California State Photovoltaic
11
Program proving the 1996 Energy Technology Status Report fraudulently claims BI-PV is not
12
market ready or affordable.
SDC/Smith demands by tacit procuration that the CEC immediately within 30 days
13
14
notify all ratepayers of the material misrepresentations and discrepancy in their published
15
documents claiming BI-PV DG renewable are not market ready or affordable when they have been
16
market ready and affordable for twenty years according to their 1978 documents and numerous energy
17
experts SDC/Smith cross-examined in Phase II Testimony.
Further, SDC/Smith demands by tacit procuration the CEC submit within ten days a
18
19
strategic plan to publish of an updated Energy Technology Status Report reflecting the real
20
problems with deployment of BI-PV DG. The document must include the issue of oil cartel
21
suppression, as this issue has been a large barrier to market development since the concern
22
surfaced in the 1978 California State Photovoltaic Program.
83
E-mail Letter from Michelle Cooke May 20, 1998 http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/COOKE.doc
Phase II Transcript, Rulemaking 99-10-025; Solar Development Cooperative’s Cross Examination of Mr. Smith,
Southern California Edison; Mr. Wiebald, energy expert from Cambridge, Massachusetts, David Townley, New
Energy, September 2000
84
422000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
42
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
The California State PV Program shows there were more California PV manufacturing
2
companies in 1978 than there are now despite price decreases, a California energy shortage,
3
Earth Day and extreme rate hikes. The CPUC needs to provide a separate proceeding to
4
explore how they will remedy this tragic wrong furthered by the California state agencies
5
suppressing BI-PV for twenty years.
6
CPUC needs to respond within ten days to the Emergency Motion Mandating BI-PV and
7
fuel Cells to reduce the SDG&E Energy Crisis. CPUC Ruling is illegally over the 90 day time
8
limit, and has materially effected related opportunities where SDC requested a reply within 30
9
days. SDC requested an increase of New Metering to 1MWP and a total of 1% aggregate output with
10
low-interest to no-interest loans for DG renewables as was legislated in AB970, as well as an increase in
11
consumer education about DG renewables .
12
CPUC cannot legally allow Direct Access ESPs not to provide Net Metering. AB918
13
shows extreme prejudice and favoritism toward fossil fuel companies wanting to deploy
14
electricity, but not respect legislated incentives in the industry.
Respectfully submitted,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
3535 East Coast Highway #216
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905
scdres@yahoo.com
APPENDIX A
432000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
43
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
2
California State Photovoltaic Program California Energy Commission Consultant Report, by
3
the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, March 1978
4
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/INTERLIBLOAN.doc
5
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/CALSTATEPVPROGRAM1978.html
6
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/COVERPV1978CEC.doc
7
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/JPLPV1978CEC.doc
8
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/TOCPV1978CEC.doc
9
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/APENDPV1978CEC.doc
10
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/FIGSPV1978CEC.doc
11
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/TABPV1978CEC.doc
12
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/APENDIXDPV1978CEC.doc
13
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/DECMGMTANAPV1978CEC.doc
14
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/DEPLOYPV1978CEC.doc
15
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/TAE2PV1978CEC.doc
16
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/TABECONTPV1978CEC.doc
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
442000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
44
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
APPENDIX B
SDC EXHIBIT 3: Letters to and from Doug Long and Michelle Cooke, May 20, 1998
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/DOUGLONG.doc
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/COOKE.doc
SDC EXHIBIT 4: Letter Michael McNamara, May 28, 1998
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/MCNAMARA.gif
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/MCNAMARA2.gif
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/EMSMCNAMARA.gif
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/EMSMORSE.gif
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/MCNAMARA.doc
SDC EXHIBIT #134: Public Policy Institute of California, Statewide Survey
http://www.geocities.com/SolarDevelopment/PPIC.gif
SDC EXHIBIT 6: SDC Industry Matrix Motion to Compel Discovery July 20, 1999 (page 6)
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/DISCOVERY.doc
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
APPENDIX C
CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025 Prehearing Conference, December 1, 1999
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/PREHEARING9910025.doc
CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025 Letter of Concern to Commissioner Bilas, Dec 10, 1999 [No Response!]
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/BILAS.doc
CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025 Systems Planning Workshop, December 15, 1999
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/DCWORKSHOP.doc
CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025 Non-technical Straw Doc Proposal for a Revised Rule 21
“Generating Facility Interconnections” San Francisco, California February 16, 2000
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/NOTESHEARING.doc
CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025, Distribution System Planning and Operations Workshop Report
SDC Writing Assignment Due on February 9, 2000 as Established During Workshop on January 26, 2000
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/SPOCPUC.doc
CPUC Rulemaking 99-10-025, CEQA Air Quality Streamlining Workshop, April 11, 2000
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/CEQUA.doc
Georgetown University Intercultural Center in Washington, DC 300 kWp BI-PV rooftop
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905/GEORGETOWN.html
14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, (1868) http://deoxy.org/lib/14th.htm
38
39
40
41
42
43
CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
452000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
45
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com
PROTEST of the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
California Public Utilities Commission RULEMAKING 99-10-025 Interconnection Standards Rule 21
Interim Decision 00-11-001 Adopting Interconnection Standards Nov. 2, 2000
Draft Decision Adopting Interconnection Standards November 20, 2000
New Electric Rule 21, “Interconnection of Distributed Generation” Nov 17, 2000
Pro Forma Tariff to Implement Net Energy Metering Provisions in
Accordance with Assembly Bill 918 Advice Letters Nov 7, 2000
1
2
Eileen M. Smith representing the Solar Development Cooperative hereby certifies
3
that on this 4th Day of December 2000, the document herein PROTEST AND NOTICE OF
4
THE PROPOSED RULE 21 IN TACIT PROCURATION by the SOLAR DEVELOPMENT
5
COOPERTIVE was served online to the service list for the California Public Utilities
6
Commission [CPUC] Rulemaking 99-10-025, and filed by e-mail as is allowed with the
7
California Energy Commission. The document herein was hand-delivered with an original
8
and four copies for filing with the CPUC Outreach Office in San Francisco on December 5,
9
2000.
Respectfully submitted,
10
11
12
Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
3535 East Coast Highway #216
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
949-862-5826 Extension 1
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905
scdres@yahoo.com
462000 Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder & CEO Since 1992
46
3535 East Coast Highway #216 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-862-5826 Extension 1 http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1905 scdres@yahoo.com