NOTICE OF INTENT TO CLAIM INTERVENOR COMPENSATION

DUE TO FINANCIAL HARDSHIP IMPOSED BY PROCEEDING

ON SMALL BUILDING-INTEGRATED PHOTOVOLTAICS BUSINESS

SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Intent To Claim Compensation Pursuant § 1804(a)(1) and Rule 76.71

II. SDC’s Unique Role BI-PV Business & DG Consumers In Proceeding Poses Significant Financial Hardship Pursuant to Pub Util Code § 1802(g)

III.  Solar Development Cooperative qualifies for intervenor compensation within each of the three “customer” categories outlined in §1802(b).

IV.  Solar Development Cooperative qualifies pursuant §1802.5 for intervenor hardship compensation where they substantially and uniquely influenced Cal Public Utilities Commission and Cal Energy Commission presentations, workshops and decisions.

V.  Intervenor Compensation For Financial Hardship 50/50 Pay Plan Assures Quality Intervention As Well As Commission Scrutiny In Quasi-Legislative Rulemaking of Newly Competitive Cal Energy Industry as of April 1, 1998 w/Notes On Fee Limits.

VI.  Nature and Extent of SDC/Smith’s Participation Representing Residential and Small to Mid-Size BI-PV DG Consumers In Rulemaking Pursuant to Public Utilities Code §1804(a) (2)(A)(i)

VII.  Itemized Summary Of Expenses Claimed For Intervenor Compensation Rulemaking Research and Presentations With Oral and Written Testimony Pursuant To Cal Public Utilities Code §1802(a) and §1802.5

APPENDIX

A1. SDC Intervention Schedule

A2. 50/50 Intervenor Hardship Compensation Payment Plan

B.  Curriculum Vitae Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch. Founder & CEO

C.  BI-PV Clients and Industry Associates

On this 22nd day of July, comes now, the Solar Development Cooperative [SDC] represented by Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch. in accordance with the Public Utilities Codes §1804(a)(1) and Rule 76.71 with a Notice of Intent to Claim Intervenor Compensation pursuant to November 2, 1999 Administrative Law Judge’s Notice of Prehearing Conference held on December 1, 1999 for this Rulemaking Into The Utility Distribution Company’s [UDC] Role In Distributed or Self-Generation Technology [DG] of Electricity In California’s Deregulated and Competitive Energy Industry with docket numbers as referenced herein.

II. SDC’s Unique Role BI-PV Business & DG Consumers In Proceeding Poses Significant Financial Hardship Pursuant to Public Utilities Code § 1802(g)

(g) "Significant financial hardship" means either that the

customer cannot afford, without undue hardship, to pay the costs of

effective participation, including advocate's fees, expert witness

fees, and other reasonable costs of participation, or that, in the

case of a group or organization, the economic interest of the

individual members of the group or organization is small in

comparison to the costs of effective participation in the proceeding.”

Please refer to the Solar Development Cooperative’s Schedule of Proposed Intervention in Rulemaking 99-10-025 from October 21, 1999 to November, 2000 found at Appendix A1 of this notice. SDC is the only company representing the building industry as a formal respondent in this case. SDC represents residential and small to mid-size commercial consumers as well as existing and potential DG consumers. This was the case in Rulemaking 98-12-015.

SDC’s unique and potentially influential role in the DG Rulemakings was, again, pointed out in the December 15, 1999 Utility Distribution Company Systems Planning and Operations Workshop for R.99-10-025 held at the CPUC headquarters. Valerie Beck indicated there had been no written answers to the questions for the Workshop or other questions formally filed by any one in the building industry throughout the state of California except by the Solar Development Cooperative. Energy industry charts included in the appendix of our Prehearing Conference Comments reveal the extremely limited status of the existing DG industry and the potential for rapid industry growth in the next ten to twenty years. It took less than ten years for computers to become an absolute necessity for many businesses. SDC’s input will assure the DG growth includes mainstream deployment opportunities for building-integrate photovoltaics [BI-PV] as a renewables DG technology. Fossil fuel gas turbine companies presently dominate the DG Rulemaking proceedings.

SDC requests the Commission and CPUC staff be sensitive to, and please respect the venerability and reality of financial hardship brought about by SDC’s unique position as a pioneer representing a new solar electric building material for residential and small to mid-size DG consumers in this proceedings. This DG Rulemaking is one of the many steps to facilitating an energy industry transition to a competitive marketplace. In the traditional non-competitive marketplace customer-owned DG was not allowed to be connected to the grid in most cases. The CPUC is presently limiting small to mid-size DG deployment. SDC wants to assure in this Rulemaking the Commission formally reconsider and increase the CPUC’s self-imposed limitation of 0.1% of a utility’s aggregate output for residential and small to mid-size commercial grid connected net metering. Related issues need to be formally addressed in the Systems Planning and Operations Workshops of this proceedings as well as the California Energy Commission’s Interconnection Standards Workshops. SDC needs to have more resources to “to pay the costs of effective participation, including advocate's fees, expert witness fees, and other reasonable costs of participation”[1] in this Rulemaking.

Valerie Beck responded to our request for more consumer participation and representatives of of endusers like the building industry by proposing a special workshop to be held January 12, 2000. The problem is, realistically who will notify endusers and the building industry of this workshop? While the CPUC has a website many consumers are not aware of it, those who are may not visit it during the holidays, and if they do it is unlikely that most of them would know what distributed generation is. SDC does not have the resources to place ads regarding this Rulemaking and the very demanding timeline makes adequate participation unlikely even with a healthy budget to expend. We suggested a mailing by the CPUC to ratepayers with an informational brochure and questionnaire inserted. These issues both demonstrate the need for SDC’s participation in this proceedings and the unnecessary financial hardship placed upon SDC as a small BI-PV business pioneering a new technology into the mainstream market of a newly competitive energy industry.

III. Solar Development Cooperative qualifies for intervenor compensation within each of the three “customer” categories outlined in Section §1802(b).

“(b) ‘Customer’ means any participant representing consumers, customers, or subscribers of any electrical, gas, telephone, telegraph, or water corporation that is subject to the jurisdiction of the commission; any representative who has been authorized by a customer; or any representative of a group or organization authorized pursuant to its articles of incorporation or bylaws to represent the interests of residential customers, but does not include any state, federal, or local government agency, any publicly owned public utility, or any entity that, in the commission's opinion, was established or formed by a local government entity for the purpose of participating in a commission proceeding.”

The Solar Development Cooperative qualifies for intervenor compensation within each of the three “customer” categories outlined in Section §1802(b). Pursuant to §1802(b)(1), SDC/Smith files this Notice of intent to claim intervenor compensation as a representative of “customers” and as a “customer” who seeks to own and use a BI-PV system to supply electricity for a duplex or four-plex that will serve as a primary residence and home studio/business facility. This project will also serve as a BI-PV DG demonstration for SDC clients interested in BI-PV DG applications. The project is being developed as a DG model for teaching interconnection standards to installation technicians, building inspectors and architects. It will incorporate grid-connection and net metering capabilities. Computerized monitoring will be used to provide Systems Planning and Operations information to manufacturers and the UDC. SDC represents future utility “customers” that will be living in the other three residences of this BI-PV DG demonstration model.

Pursuant to 1802(b)(2), SDC represents Colonel Richard T. Headrick who is a customer of the CPUC and has been a client with SDC since 1994. Due to health complications, he is unable to participate in this rigorous DG Rulemaking and transitional energy industry proceeding. His concern and the concern of other clients prompted SDC’s letter to Doug Long at the CPUC May 15, 1998 about the lack of mention of DG as a consumer choice in CPUC consumer education brochures. Colonel Headrick does not have the resources to fund SDC’s participation in this Rulemaking. Please see client and associate letters found at Appendix C. These letters demonstrate SDC’s important work in BI-PV systems deployment and their association as a customer of Southern California Edison as well as a consumer representative of residential and small to mid-size net-metered DG customers.

SDC/Smith created and represents the Millennium Dome® BI-PV Manufacturing Museum project and have been working with the University of California at Irvine to develop their plans to build this important facility at UCI’s Living Laboratory Research Park. The facility incorporates a prototype of the Solar-Voltaic Dome™ patented by Colonel Headrick in 1986. This is the most efficient architectural configuration of a solar array in the world, today, with a packing density 4.5 times that of traditional PV field systems. Colonel Headrick is a long-time resident of Irvine and a lifetime resident of Southern California. He served in both the Canadian and American Air Force during World War II. The Millennium Dome® project will include three manufacturing lines for BI-PV technology [two existing technologies and a research production line] with a fully integrated walk-through museum open to the public. The idea of integrating a museum within a working factory was discovered in the graceful and award-winning design of the Tillamook Cheese Factory in Tillamook, Oregon by Portland architect Robert Evenson, AIA.

SDC qualifies for intervenor hardship compensation pursuant to §1802(b)(3) as a small business who has published their Mission Statement to facilitate BI-PV DG since 1992:

“Mainstream deployment of quality building-integrated photovoltaics [BI-PV] supported by a reliable service industry in the United States and global marketplace.”

SDC is an organization authorized pursuant to its mission statement to represent the interests of residential and small to mid-size DG customers assuring their right to ready access and reliable service for BI-PV DG technologies. See SDC/Smith’s Curriculum Vitae included at Appendix B with Internet links to the many papers SDC/Smith published on BI-PV DG since 1992. SDC is the only small business respondent representing the construction industry and residential consumers.

IV. Solar Development Cooperative qualifies pursuant §1802.5 for intervenor hardship compensation where they substantially and uniquely influenced California Public Utilities Commission and California Energy Commission presentations, workshops and decisions.

Ҥ1802.5. Participation by a customer that materially supplements,

Complements, or contributes to the presentation of another party,

including the commission staff, may be fully eligible for

compensation if the participation makes a substantial contribution to

a commission order or decision, consistent with Section 1801.3.”

SDC/Smith has attempted to clarify misconceptions about BI-PV DG deployment in this process through complimentary information provided to the Commissions in written and oral comments and testimony as well as consulting with various entities on an informal basis sharing the economic analysis and project information we have developed and collected on BI-PV DG. It is not our goal to oppose Commission’s agenda, but to assure the agenda is well-founded by consideration of all of the issues and facts. We have contributed to Commission and staff needs as follows:

1.  Formally requested in a letter of May 28, 1998 by Michael McNamara, Director of Market Development in the CPUC Office of Ratepayer Advocates to formally raise the issues of lack of consumer education about DG technologies in CPUC deregulation mailers March and April of 1998, and the fraudulent business activities of oil cartels suppressing BI-PV DG renewables technology for fifteen years by joining as a signatory of the ORA’s June 5, 1998 letter requesting the Commission initiate an OIR into the role of the UDC in DG. SDC fully participated in Rulemaking 98-12-015 as the only respondent for residential and small to mid-size DG consumers.

2.  During the June 1, 1999 Full Panel Joint Agency Hearing, we introduced the Commission, staff and Respondents to the historic 300 kWp BI-PV DG system installed on the Intercultural Center at Georgetown University in Washington, DC in 1984 by the founders of Solarex Corporation.

3.  We clarified problems with oil cartel suppression of BI-PV DG technology by introducing facts, dates and caselaw regarding related abuses by Amoco, Enron and British Petroleum including the takeover of Solarex in 1983/84 and litigation by Enron/Amoco against Arco Solar 1988 to 1991.

4.  We introduced the issues of fraud and antitrust by these oil cartels in our Opening Comments for R.98-12-015 March 17, 1999. Less than two weeks later, on April 2, 1999, BP-Amoco attempted a $27 billion dollar merger [takeover] of the entire Arco Corporation. On April 6, 1999, they took over Enron’s portion of the Solarex Corporation. Solarex is the industry’s founding terrestrial solar energy company in the world. That marked the end of a series of takeovers and abusive litigation that has put nearly 70% of the BI-PV DG technology developed by United States tax payer dollars into foreign ownership. Many production lines have been limited or shut down.

5.  While the Commission was hesitant to address these issues, the Federal Trade Commission was quoted on the December 1, 1999 front page of the San Francisco Observer as challenging the BP-Amoco merger with Arco due to an imbalance in market control of the oil industry. There is a fear that this market control would see discount gasoline in California disappear with BP-Amoco in charge of such a large portion of the Alaskan oil reserves. During the attempted merger the first week of April, oil prices rose nearly half of what they were in March from $1.08 to $1.56 a gallon. Transportation energy is nearly 100% fossil fuels. If the gas turbine agenda goes forward which it will be strongly dominate without our input, we predict over 90% of California’s electricity will be generated by fossil fuels by 2010 at an extremely high price.

6.  We again urged the Commission in our Prehearing Conference Comments and Systems Planning Workshop Answers for R.99-10-025 to address the issues of market control and historic suppression of BI-PV technology by Amoco, Enron and BP since the unwelcome takeover of the Solarex Corporation in 1984. This week, we sent an introductory memo to the Federal Trade Commission regarding these issues. We urge the Commission make a formal comment regarding the potential suppression of BI-PV technology and related information with the BP-Amoco takeover of Arco. Oil cartel price fixing of BI-PV influences mainstream deployment forecasts and planning by the UDC in this DG Rulemaking and consequently effects appropriations.