President Bilas
CPUC - Commissioner Neeper	October 12, 1998
505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 4105	Proceeding No: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
San Francisco, CA  94102	ALJ:
(415) 703-2288					

Dear Commissioners:

This e-mail follows the form for NOTICE OF PARTY/NON-PATY STATUS
available at the following webpage:

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/interven98/Appearance%20Form.pdf

RESPONDENT TO REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DUE OCTOBER 12th, 1998 regarding
CONSUMER PROTECTION.  The request is listed at the following webpage:

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/consumer_protection/CPTFRep1.htmCOMMENTS

Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch. 
SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
3535 East Coast Highway
Corona del Mar, CA  92625

TEL:  949-862-5826  e-mail: bi_pv@yahoo.com   FAX: 949-675-2893

APPEARING FOR:  Building-integrated photovoltaic (BI-PV) consumers
(existing and potential) and distributed generation in deregulation.

Statement is specifically directed to our testimony on September 3rd at
the Distributed Roundtable Discussion and the discussion with Bob Lane
and Diane Dienstein on September 4th.  These discussions resulted in a
promise by the Commission to include self-generation in all materials
from the California Energy Commission regarding consumer choice in
deregulation.  Please see related notes and links to our testimony on
the following website:

http://www.oocities.org/Eureka/1905/DEMANDSITECONSUMER.html

Our comments relate to the following issues:

1.  Our letter of May 15th, 1998 requested inclusion of Demand-site
Consumers in final mailing of CPUC educating the consumer about their
choices in deregulation.  Please find a copy of this letter reproduced
on our website at:

http://www.oocities.org/Eureka/1905/SDCLETTER.html

CPUC is not providing information to the consumer to clarify this issue.

2.  Michael McNamara, Director of Market Development in the Office of
Ratepayer Advocates responded by correspondence with a draft of his June
5, 1998 letter to President Bilas requesting an Order instituting
Rulemaking into the Utility Distribution Company's role in Distributed
Generation.  Links to the documents are included on the webpage provided
in item number one, and additional clarification may be found at our
website on page:

http://www.oocities.org/Eureka/1905/DEMANDSITECONSUMER.html

Rulemaking is certainly important in safely facilitating DG technology,
however the issue raised in our letter of May 15th, 1998 is the
legislative responsibility of CPUC to educate the public about all forms
of choice in deregulation, including DG technologies and to assure
consumers are as aware of the choice of self-generation in deregulation
as they are remote-site generation choices.  It must be a balanced
agenda to evolve a truly competitive energy industry.    

3.  The following on-line educational information for consumers does not
include any mention of self-generation or distributed generation.

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/divisions/CSD/ELECTRIC/electric.htm

The following quote taken from the on-line page does not include
self-generation or distributed generation as a consumer choice:

"NEW CONSUMER CHOICES IN ELECTRIC SERVICES
  
How California's Electric Industry Is Changing...

If you are an electricity customer of Pacific Gas & Electric, San Diego
Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, PacifiCorp, Sierra Pacific
Power, Kirkwood Gas & Electric, or Bear Valley Electric,
beginning March 31, 1998, you will have choice in purchasing
electricity. You may purchase electricity from a supplier other than
your utility, or choose to continue purchasing electricity from your
utility. 

There will be no change in the reliability and safety of your electric
service. No matter who you buy electricity from, your utility will
continue to deliver it to your home or business, and the California
Public Utilities Commission will continue to make sure that it is done
safely and reliably."

4.  During my meeting on September 4, 1998 with Bob Lane assistant to
the consumer education Commissioner Jessie Knight, he quoted the Section
392-94 as the Statutes in AB 1890 that demand the CPUC include all kinds
of electricity production in the public information mailers.  We do not
have copy of the statute and so are relying on his statement as the
correct Section.  

5.  An additional issue is that the Consumer Complaints and inquiries do
not have a standard format for submission, discussion (hearing),
resolution and facilitation.  This puts the consumer at the mercy of the
CPUC with no checklist of agenda items to clarify where the process has
gotten off track.  In this case, our letter represented a formal
complaint.  While ORA's response was certainly an important issue for
DG, it did not address the issue of consumer education which our letter
was the intention of our letter.  

Further, it took most of the day on September 4th, to figure out who to
address this complaint to and how to process an official response to our
concern.  Bob Lane indicated our complaint was official.  However, he
spent most of the first half-hour yelling at me insisting I was the only
person in the entire state of California who had ever raised the issue
of DG in Deregulation.  At first he tried to insist DG has nothing to do
with Deregulation which is only concerned with remote-site electricity.
Bob Lane is a member of CADER and has full knowledge of the importance
of DG in Deregulation as well as the tremendous need to educate
consumers.  The first agenda item of this organization is to organize
the resources and people to advocate for the rights of DG consumers, and
especially in Deregulation where all consumer protection input and
access should be equal for all technologies.  The intimidation and
outright lies could be construed as attempts to suppress DG technologies
and show favoritism to a remote-site generation agenda.  This is fraud
and an illegal attempt to influence a competitive electricity
marketplace.  Considering the CEC program providing a 50% rebate for
BI-PV and other government incentives it also obstructs consumer
protection and equal access in government subsidized programs.

Please find further information on our webpage at:

http://www.oocities.org/Eureka/1905/DEMANDSITECONSUMER.html

6.  Due to limited financial resources that are a direct result of the
kinds of suppression and fraud addressed in this paper, we are not able
to provide in person testimony at this time, and have limited time to
submit these comments due to the need to work to support our business
until the CPUC provides the consumer protection needed to effectively
evolve the important DG technologies.  Not only does this effect the
American consumer, our company as an innovator in the industry, but it
also effects American competitiveness and national security.

WE HEREIN FORMALLY DEMAND THE CPUC INCLUDE THE CHOICE OF
SELF-GENERATION  IN ALL DOCUMENTS AND PUBLIC INFORMATION REGARDING
DEREGULATION TO BECOME IN COMPLAINCE WITH AB 1890 STATUTES.  

THERE NEEDS TO BE A COMPLETE PROGRAM OF TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT, CPUC
INDUSTRY MANAGEMENT AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DRAFTED FOR DG.

The August 3rd, 1998 Roundtable on DG focused entirely on defining DG. 
This was already defined by CADER in 1996.  The CPUC needs to utilize
CADER input as an expert witness for DG to evolve effective use of
resources.  There is no need to recreate the definition if it already
exists to make sure CEC, CADER, CPUC and CONSUMER resources are used
efficiently toward constructive and timely integration of DG into the
competitive electricity industry.

Thank you for your consequential awareness of DG issues related to
Public Education and Consumer Protection.  Please forward this e-mail on
the appropriate parties.  We do not have their e-mail addresses.

Sincerely, 

Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.