I am \IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII I SIIIIIIWI

I Micki; g“ State 310796 3831l
Univ

\ ““th
-‘~§N“‘“““‘*-—_r

III

 

 

 

 

              

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

DECENTRALIZED ENERGY DEVELOPMENT:
THE HAWAII EXPERIENCE 1970-1980

presented by

Michael Patrick Marlow

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D d . Resource
egree in

 

 

Development

7mg Q. BIZ}, mg fig, ,,

Major professor

 

DMC July 1, 1983

 

MSU i: an Affirmatiw Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

MW.- —.—r h_

 

MSU

LIBRARIES

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DECENTRALIZED ENERGY DEVELOPMENT:
THE HAWAII EXPERIENCE 1970-1980

BY

Michael Patrick Marlow

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Resource Development

1983

phi-345?

ABSTRACT
DECENTRALIZED ENERGY DEVELOPMENT:
THE HAWAII EXPERIENCE 1970-1980
By

Michael Patrick Marlow

A multifaced debate over centralized versus decentral-
ized renewable systems will certainly be the major element
in any national renewable energy policy-making. With
diverse renewable energy resources occurring in different
forms and quantities in different parts of the country, the
vulnerability of centralized energy policy control seems
apparent. Typically, Federal organizations and agencies
have developed policy research and analysis that do not
emphasize particular climatic, socio-economic, and natural
resource characteristics of specific regions. A decentral-
ized energy policy implies a heightened planning and pro-
gramming capacity for local communities, states and regions.
However, if communities, states and regions are to become
increasingly reSponsible for energy policy, they will need
not only to develop the necessary technical eXpertise but
also efficient structures to initiate and implement these
policies. _There are few legal precedents and almost no

no organizational precedents in preparing such systems. A

Michael Patrick Marlow

number of obstructions stand in the way of development.
These are listed under the headings of education, financial,
marketing, legal, utility, regulatory, technical, policy and
social. The intent of the study is to develop a model
system to deal with these barriers. The method will be to
analyze Hawaii's alternative energy program and compare it
to several other develOping programs to isolate workable
methods and organizational structures. The results will be
useful to planners and programmers of future local, state or
regional units attempting to develop and implement their own
energy policy. In this study, it was found that a success-
ful program of decentralization most likely would contain
the following components:
a) The education of the public concerning
potential alternatives and the possible means
to develOp them.
b) The organization of committees to involve the
community in problem solving and development

of the resource.

c) The procuring of funds to finance research and
develOpment of the alternatives.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

To Dr. Milton H. Steinmueller, I eXpress my sincere
appreciation for serving as both chairman of my guidance
committee and dissertation supervisor. His patient
cooperation and sympathetic understanding have been an
invaluable stimulus toward the successful completion of my
program.

Appreciation is eXpressed to Drs. Harold B. Stonehouse,
Leighton L. Leighty, Joseph D. Fridgen and Lewis N. Moncrief
for their valuable assistance along the way.

Special thanks goes to my wife, Stacey, who has always
been there with encouragement and support throughout the

pursuit of this degree.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . .

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

IV.

INTRODUCTION . . .

Problem Setting . . . .
Objective . . . .
Limitations of the Study.
Plan of Presentation. .

THE CHANGING ENERGY SITUATION

OF APPROPRIATE LITERATURE
Literature Review . . .

THE HAWAII APPROACH .

Geography and Environment

Hawaii Energy Program .

State Energy Use and Production

Governing Structure . .

Alternative Energy DeveIOpment in

Wind Energy. . . .

Biomass Energy Program
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion

Geothermal Energy. .
Direct Solar Use . .
Conclusions . . . . . .

REVIEW

2 o o o o
m

0 H'
H

o o o o o o 3:. o o o

BARRIERS TO RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

Educational Barriers.
Financial Barriers. .
Marketing Barriers. .

Legal Barriers. . . . .
Utility Barriers. . .
Regulatory Barriers .

iii

Page

A

-<cmn3a

19
27

27
28
31
35
“9
"9
51
55
56
6O
61

63

65
7O

79
86
9O

Page
Chapter

IV. BARRIERS TO RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT, cont'd.

Technical Barriers. . . . s . . . . . . . . . . 96
Policy Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Social Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10A

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . 106
summary 0 O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 106
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Further Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

VI. APPENDIX. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 121

BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INS

iv

Figure

1

\0034

10

ll

12

13

M
15

LIST OF FIGURES

1980 U.S. Energy Consumption By Energy Source
Measured In Quads . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Size and Population Figures For The Eight
Largest Islands of The Hawaiian Chain . . . . .

Sources of Energy, Hawaii Versus the U.S., 1976.

Summary of Electrical Generation and Electricity
Used by Sugar Plantations in Hawaii, 1978. . . .

Summary of Electrical Generation by Public . .
State Organizations Energy Related . . . . . . .
Hawaii State Energy Organization . . . . . . .
Hawaii State Energy Office Structure . . . . . .

Hawaii Center For Science Policy and
Technology Assessment Structure. . . .

Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Structure. .

Other State Agencies With Energy
Responsibility in Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii Energy Conservation Council . . . . . .

Advisory Committee For the State Energy
Functional Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii Geothermal Development Group. . . . .

Hawaii Deep Water Cable Program. . . . .

Page

27
32

3A
36
37

39
40

Al

”3

an
as

A7
A8
59

Figure Page

16 Proposed State Alternative Energy Pyramid. . . . 111
17 Proposed State Level Energy Committees . . . . . 113
18 Proposed County Energy Committee . . . . . . . . 114
19 Proposed Regional Energy Committees. . . . . . . 115
20 Pr0posed Local Energy Committees . . . . . . . . 116

vi

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Problem Setting

Perhaps the most important energy question today
concerns the transition from concentrated, non-renewable
energy sources to more diffuse, sustainable sources and what
the implications of such a transition will be for our future
way of life. Unquestionably in such a change, a vastly
greater decentralization of energy programs is needed from
the federal to regional, state, and local levels of
government. The traditional fossil energies have required a
centralized control. Distribution, international supply
acquisition and extraction controls all necessitate federal
jurisdiction. Some energy sources are necessarily
centralized because of the engineering efficiencies possible
with increased scale; others are inherently dangerous energy
sources which can be permitted widespread growth only under
strict federal control. Additionally, a great deal of
capital is usually required to find the energy source, to
recover it, and to transport it. Local regional groups or
individuals generally do not have the financial ability to
maintain their own supplies. Recently, however, the non-
renewability of supplies, high costs due to shortages, and

potential environmental concerns have directed energy

2
managed by a decentralized control.

With the United States currently relying on fossil
fuels for more than 90 percent of its energy requirements,
change will require major shifts in organization and
procedures. The renewable energy resources are inherently
diverse. They occur in different forms and quantities in
different parts of the country; At all levels from federal
to local, renewable energy planners and programmers will
need to design new organizations and modify existing ones in
ways that will meet the new systemfs developing needs.
Presently there are few legal precedents, and almost no
organizational precedents for regional energy development.
There remain numerous unanswered questions about how
decentralization of this energy decision-making will
proceed. Evaluation of the few embryo programs must occur
in order to isolate the components and structures that
facilitate decentralized energy develOpment. This
information may be used in designing other regional programs
and accelerate the overall ability of the United States to

supply its future energy needs.

Objective
This paper will perform policy research and analysis of
existing programs to identify barriers to regional, state,
and local energy development. The aim is to provide local
authorities the organizational structure to:
1. Establish policies and devise strategies for

replacing dwindling fossil fuels with renewable
resources.

3

2. Promote the incentives that will encourage
alternative energy development.

3. Determine the barriers to and necessities for the
deveIOpment of alternative energies.

A. Formulate strategies that would reduce those
barriers.

The problem involves the elimination of laws,
procedures, perceptions, and practices which prevent
decentralized systems from competing on an equal basis with
conventional forms of energy. Many of the barriers to be
identified do not require (and probably would not be
responsive to) financial incentives. Most are questions of
land-use planning, zoning, and administrative procedure,
rather than of barriers within the energy marketplace.
Those factors dealing with the marketplace, however, must be
considered. Due to the essential nature of energy
requirement, reliance solely upon free market
commercialization may be a luxury the poor cannot afford.
Development must proceed at a rate which may in fact be
faster than the free market would have allowed, but
necessitated by the needs of society. The Domestic Policy
Review of Solar Energy concludes that,

Actions at all levels of government and by large

numbers of individuals and groups will certainly be

required to achieve Significant solar penetration.
In establishing procedures to encourage alternative energy

development, the ability to overcome barriers will receive

 

1U.S. Department of Energy, Renewable Energy
Development: Local Issues and Capabilities. (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1980), p. 1.

 

 

u

the major consideration. If these barriers cannot be
efficiently dealt with, regional, state, and local energy
authorities will be so in name only.

The major barrier to be overcome will be the resistance
of traditional energy supplies and the government officers
in our existing centralized energy network to change. This
is due partially to the considerable investment in
traditional sources. As a result, little information has
been offered by industry or government to prepare the
American public for alternative energy development. If
anything, the effort has been made to downplay the potential
of alternative energies and to maximize estimates of the
time required for meaningful implementation. Consequently,
the first barrier to be overcome will be an educational one.
Cooperation, not only from the general public, but
professional people and/or politicians, community leaders,
and the construction industry (and unions) will be necessary
to make the development a reality.

Other barriers that must be prepared for are:

1. Financial barriers due to economic
impediments;

2. Marketing barriers, including problems with
standards, scales, licensing and consumer
protection;

3. Legal barriers due to the lack of needed
legislation;

4. Utility barriers due to conflicts with energy
companies;

5. Regulatory barriers due to existing
regulations or problems with agencies;

5

6. Technological barriers and areas which need
more research;

7. Policy barriers: including governmental and
utility policies;

8. Social and cultural barriers.

Dealing with these barriers will be a major test for
regional planners. One state, Hawaii, has already
established an alternative energy program. Its experience
in developing organizational structures and identifying
barriers and the responding to these barriers provides
examples that, although locally oriented, are extremely
valuable to anyone making regional energy decisions. Hawaii
has developed a network approach which involved an infra-
structure of people, programs, and governmental agencies
working together to solve problems of alternative energy
conversion. The model that will be developed will be based
upon this approach of meshing the public and private
sectors.

The urgency of this project is evident. Current
fluctuations in the energy situation indicate the need for
the establishment of stable decentralized energy control
structures. Efforts in this direction will be forthcoming
throughout the country as the reality of the situation hits
the general populace. High prices and lack of supply will
encourage public demand for more alternatives and local
control of their energy supply. The organizational

procedures must be established beforehand if a smooth

transition is to result.

6

Limitations of The Study

 

 

Research that directly aids the study is unfortunately
limited. The concept of decentralizing energy management on
a large scale is a recent prOposal and only a few projects
are underway throughout the nation. With most efforts being
at an initial stage of development, detailed reports are
generally incomplete. Technical applications are new and
unproven over the long term. Legal precedents, marketing
strategies, and organizational networks are only beginning
to be established. Social acceptance and participation are
a major question mark. Studies concerning whether the
general public is willing to take a more active role in
providing for their own energy needs are either non-existent
or incomplete. The uncertainty of.these issues creates
obvious difficulties in establishing a decentralized energy
model. However, the existing programs do provide adequate
information to begin establishing the mechanism for
overcoming these problems. In fact, many of the limitations
inhibiting this study are those which the model is designed
to resolve.

The determination of research needs in the
decentralization of energy policy are controlled, to an
extent by local requirements and available resources,
however, enough similarities are present in the many
potential regions across the United States to make a model

system in designing individual programs useful to energy

planners.

7

Plan of Presentation

 

Background information on the changing energy situation
and a review of previous related studies is presented in
Chapter II. The Hawaii approach to alternative energy
deveIOpment is described in Chapter III. Obstacles to
alternative energy develOpment and potential solutions are
presented in Chapter IV. Chapter V provides a summary and
recommendations for decentralized energy development and

suggested further research.

CHAPTER II

THE CHANGING ENERGY SITUATION AND REVIEW
OF APPROPRIATE LITERATURE

U.S. energy consumption is measured in quads, with one

quad being the equivalent of 1,000,000,000,000,ooo Btu's,

(one barrel of oil being equal to SJSInillion Btu's). As

indicated in figure one

, the majority of energy use in the

United States is derived from fossil energies.

1980 U.

Coal

Natural Gas
Domestic Oil
Imported Oil
Nuclear

Other

S. Energy Consumption

15.8
20.5
20.5
15.2

2.9

3.1
78.0

Figure 1.--Department of Energy

quads
quads
quads
quads
quads
quads

Total Quads

The 3.1 quads representing "other" forms of energy

productions include hydroelectric, geothermal, and various

solar methods. EXpanded development within this spectrum is

necessary as more and more strain is placed upon our

traditional sources of energy.

Historically, the United States has increasingly relied
upon oil as its single most important energy source. Oil
provides nearly A5 percent of the nation's present energy
needs. In 1980, the U. S. demand for oil was approximately
6.2 billion barrels, of which A1 percent had to be imported.
This demand marked a substantial decline from the 1979
demand of 6.8 billion barrels, of which AA percent was
imported. Decreasing use has not, however, been matched by
an overall lowering of petroleum costs for the nation. In
actuality, oil costs have increased drastically in the past
ten years. The total U. S. cost has jumped from $14.77
billion in 1972 to su1.u6 billion in 1978,2 following a
general increase in oil use throughout this same period. In
1979, the cost tOpped 60 billion, and in 1980 the figures
show a rise to 80 billion,3 which is almost a 100 percent
increased over the 1978 figure. With the world's potential
oil supply decreasing, an increase in cost is likely to
continue.

The nation's proven reserves of oil are about AO-AS
billion barrels, including reserves on the North Slope of
Alaska. Barring unpredicted future discoveries of large
fields, and with the possible loss of foreign sources, the

supply's predicted lifeSpan is questionable, but likely

 

2U. S. Department of Energy, The Energy Consumer
(Washington, DJL: U. S. Government Printing Office,
February/March 1980), p. 2.

 

31bid.

10

limited. Enhanced recovery, oil shale development, and
gasification of coal all have the potential to temporarily
extend the useful limits of oil. Most experts paint an
ominous picture if unconventional sources should not prove
out. As Earl Hayes, former chief scientist at the U.S.
Bureau of Mines, points out,

There is no longer much argument with the conclusion

that U.S. resources of conventional 3&1 will be

seriously depleted by the year 2000.

Increased costs alone, however, are sufficient to
trigger a turn toward other additional sources of energy.

The only readily available large-scale domestic energy
sources that could even, in principle, reverse the decline
in domestic energy production over the remainder of this
century is coal, which itself faces a variety of technical,
political, and environmental obstacles, making it difficult
to eXpand very rapidly.

In 1977, electric utilities used A79 million tons of

coal, or about 70% of the total U.S. production of 685

million tons, to produce ”7% of the total electric

generation in this country. By 1990, utilities will

most likely be consuming 1,005 million tons of coal per

year to generate “0% of Americals total electric

energy.
With the U.S. having the largest estimated recoverable coal

reserves in the world, the inclination of many energy

eXperts is to significantly increase its role in the

 

u"Energy: Facing Up To The Problem, Getting Down to
Solutions," National Geographic, February 1981, p. 17.

5M. Simmons and P. Craig, Distributed Energy Systems 13
California's Future Interim Report Vol. I Egg I;
IWashington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, May
1978), p. 185.

 

11
nation's energy future. Initially, this would appear to be
a plausible solution to any future energy problems.
However,
To use coal within the framework of the present energy
production, consumption, and distribution system, it
must be converted to a refined fluid or gas.
Conversion of coal to refined fluid fuels, under the
best of conditions, can probably only take place with
efficiencies of 55 to 65%. The capital costs of the
conversion technologies are very high, and 6
environmental constraints are a serious limitation.
The potential volume of coal required in such a scenario is
also a major problem. The state of California alone would
require between one-third and almost one-half of the coal
currently used in the entire United States.7 Projecting
this demand over the entire U.S. raises many serious
questions with regard to the problems of expanding
extraction and resultant environmental impacts. With the
potential shortages in petroleum and the obvious problems in
increased coal use, many communities have begun
investigating the possibility that a combined program of
energy conservation and locally available renewable energy
resources (such as solar, wind, water, and biomass) might
provide a more stable base for the local economy than the
currently utilized fuels. The benefits of such a local
energy self-reliance are numerous. The development of local

resources provides jobs and keeps money in circulation

within the community, and reliance on locally generated

 

6Herman E. Koenig, Running Out of Energy (Extension
Bulletin E1173, Michigan State University Extension Service,
November 1977).

 

7Simmons and Craig, p. 187.

12
energy insulates the community from fuel shortages and
rising prices.

As might have been expected, in the past, major
emphasis was placed upon the centralized technologies, while
near-term technologies for the direct production of heat and
fuel and community-scale applications have not received
adequate support. Through 1978, the Federal government has
provided $12” billion in subsidies and incentives for the
fossil fuel industry while the solar industry has received
less than $1 billion.8 With the overwhelming scientific and
empirical evidence indicating that the industrialized
economies are now in an era of rising real energy costs and
real limits on supply,9 it is likely that a change in
emphasis is forthcoming. The remaining stocks of
nonrenewable energy resources must be used to facilitate the
transition to a renewable energy base. The cost of such a
change will be great and require a major efforts, not only
by the Federal Government, but by regional, state, and local
agencies and organizations across the country. Currently,
the energy industry in most states is one of extreme
concentration of power and supply in the hands of a few

large companies. In California, for example, 95 percent of

 

8801ar Action Incorporated, Citizen's Solar Program:
State Reports 92 Barriers and Strategies 19 Renewable Energy
Development, (Washington, DAL: U.S. Government Printing
Office, October 1978), p. XI.

 

 

9Herman E. Koenig, Industrial Societies IQ Transition:
Th9 Rglg g: The Family Unit, (Prepared for American Home
Economics Association, 71st Annual Meeting, Dallas, Texas,
June 1980).

 

13
all electrical energy is delivered by three public
utilities.10 Pacific Gas and Electric is the largest of
these, employing 2A,580 persons and having revenues of 2.65
billion dollars in 1976.11 Decentralization, in the energy
context, is usually associated with small-scale facilities,
owned and operated by individuals or communities.

The term 'distributed energy systems (DES)' is applied

to those energy systems which use (largely, but not

exclusively) local energy sources to meet local energy
needs. They may vary in size from small solar systems
designed to supplement the hot water needs of a single-
family residence, to a co-generation plant which uses,
for example, wood wastes to provide electricity and
process steam to a paper mill and the local

community.

Although there are serious problems and deficiencies in
the existing centralized energy industries, the alternative
energy sources and technologies have been insufficiently
eXploited in the past. Therefore, it is unlikely that the
future energy systems in the United States will be all

centralized or all decentralized; it is much more likely

that both classes of technology will be required, and ways

must be found to ensure that the two complement one another. 1~

The creation of decentralized arrangements whereby an

effective infra-structure can be developed to aid in the

 

10Council on Energy Resources, Energy Policy 13
California, A Directopy, (Berkeley: University of
California, 1975).

 

11Simmons and Craig, p. 62.

12Arthur D. Little, Distributed Energy Systems: A
priew 93 Related Technology (Washington, DAL: U.S.
Government Printing Offices, November 1979), p. 1-2.

 

1A

introduction of renewable technologies into the present
energy system is paramount.

The United States now consumes about 78 quads of energy
a year, with the majority coming from centralized sources.
The widespread use of solar energy can add diversity and
flexibility to this energy supply, providing insurance
against the effects of shortages in other major energy
systems. In addition, solar systems can sometimes be
matched to end-uses more efficiently than centralized
systems; thus, their use can help reduce energy waste.
Solar energy may hold the potential for supplying a
significant portion of the nation's energy needs in the
future.

A recent report by the Council on Environmental Quality

predicts that one quarter of all U.S. energy could be

supplied by solar technology. The Domestic Policy

Review of Solar Energy estimates that by the year 2000,

solar energy technologies could diSplace between 9.4

and 18.1 quads of energy supplied by other fuels. The

report assumes that publicly funded efforts will

encourage solar energy commercializations, and that

problems relating to the diffusion of solar energy

technologies can be overcome or minimized. 13

In 1978, the residential sector of U.S. society
accounted for about 25 percent of total primary domestic
energy consumption. The energy used directly for heating
and cooling residential buildings was produced from the

following sources: natural gas, 55%; petroleum, 22%;

electricity, 16%; liquified petroleum gas, A%; wood, 2%; and

 

13Barbara Burns, Bert Mason, and Keith Armington, The
Role of Education and Training Programs In The

Commercialization and Diffusion of Solar Ener pTechnologies
TMenlo Park, California: SERI, January 19795, 3.

 

15

coal, 1.0%.1u The Department of Energy estimates that by the
year 2000, solar energy could provide 2.9 quads, or 17
percent of the total residential energy supply.15

However, for solar energy to provide even 2.0 quads,
energy displacement in housing in the year 2000 would
require approximately 47 million active solar thermal
installations, using about 17 billion square feet of
collectors. It is estimated that to achieve this installed
production capacity from the 16 million square feet produced
in 1979 would require a sustained average growth of 35
percent per year for twenty years.16 “The Office of
Technology Assessment has found that on-site solar hot water
systems are economically competitive with electric hot water
systems in most parts of the United States. Solar energy:
1) draws on an inexhaustible source of energy; 2) is widely
available; 3) does not produce significant environmental

problems and; A) will reduce fossil fuel consumption.17

 

1”U.S. Department of Energy, The 1978 National Interim
Energy Conservation Survey, (Washington, D.Ca 1L3.
Government Printing Office, February 1980), p. A1.

 

15U.S. Department of Energy, "Domestic Policy Review of
Solar Energy: ReSponse Memorandum To the Presidentfl'
Renewable Energy DeveIOpment: Local Issues and
Capabilities, (Washington, ILC.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, January 1980), p. 3”.

 

160.8. Department of Energy, Solar Energy Objectives:
Calendar Year 1980, (Washington, ILC.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, April 1980), p. 35.

 

17Randall Feuerstein, Utility Rates and Service
Policies as Potential Barriers To the Market Penetration of
Decentralized Solar Technologies, Menlo Park, California:
SERI, August 1979. p 1.

 

16
With the amount of solar energy falling in the United States
rated at approximately 9,000 trillion kwt per year, the
exploitation of this energy is only limited by need and
desire to do so. A significant potential exists for
expanding the nation's use of solar energy in areas other
than residential use. Renewable energy sources, principally
biomass and hydropower presently contribute about 5.0 quads,
or 6.4 percent, to the American energy supply.18 The goal
of the U.S. biomass program is to provide 2.5 quads a year
by 1985 through increased direct combustion and conversion
into gaseous and alcohol fuels, “.2 quads by 1990, and 7.5
quads by 200019 through developments in terrestrial and
aquatic energy forms and improved biochemical and
thermochemical conversion techniques.

A number of other types of solar power currently
provide smaller amounts of energy production. Wind energy
and solar thermal energy are examples. Presently, solar
thermal provides CL001 quads of energy production per year.
It is eXpected to provide 0.” quads by 1985, and CL9 by
1990.20 The Domestic Policy Review projects that
industrial, agricultural and utility uses could displace 3
quads of conventional fuels by the year 2000. Overall,
solar thermal energy is expected to contribute 5 quads by

the turn of the century. Wind energy systems, in addition,

 

18Doe Solar Energy Objectives, p. 7.
19Ibid., p. 16.

20Doe Solar Energy Objectives, p. 18.

17

are expected to provide .02 quads by 1990 and 1.“ quads by
the year 2000.21

A maximum effort by federal, state, and local
government could increase the contribution of all solar
energy sources, including hydropower, to 20 quads per year,
or 22 percent of the estimated energy need by the year
2000.22 The total national energy consumption for the year
2000 is projected as 95 quads.23 Dr. H. Koenig, of Michigan
State University estimates that, "if solar systems.uare to
be eXpanded to 20 quads by the turn of the century (as some
have proposed) then the required growth rate of the (total)
solar industry is 17.5 percent per year."214

One important consideration in evaluating the effect of
the projected 20 quad production by solar devices is that
this energy is direct (at the point of use). The 78 quad of
centralized sources required by the United States in 1980
actually result in 50 quads of energy delivered to the end
users. The remaining 28 quads were consumed or lost in
production and transmission of the energy supplied.25 Thus,

the twenty quads of solar energy potentially represents an

 

21Ibid., p. 12.
221bid., p. 12.

23Doe Review of Solar Energy Response Memorandum, p.
11-20

2”Herman E. Koenig and Thomas C. Edens, Ener
Economics: Foundations of Energy Policy, (Prepared for the
Second Energy Seminar for Michigan Legislators and Staff,
May 7, 1979), p. 5.

 

25Doe Solar Energy Objectives, p. 8.

18
even greater portion of the nation's energy demand in the
next twenty years. Arthur Little estimates that "if a solar
panel replaces electrical heating, every 100 units of energy
produced by the panels saves 333 units at the power plant.26
About 70 percent of the energy used to produce electricity
is wasted along the way.

Conservation methods and additional renewable energy
sources, such as ocean thermal and geothermal energy
sources, have the potential to make an even greater impact
on the energy demand of the United States by the end of the
century. These sources, along with the conventional solar
devices, are best developed and controlled by decentralized
methods. One of the advantages of decentralized and smaller
scale technologies is that they may be better adapted to
local applications, especially with respect to the efficient
use of energy.

Decentralized sources of energy can be designed and

evaluated with site-specific characteristics in mind,

among them being:

1. balance between and extent of electrical
and thermal requirements;

2. daily and seasonal variations in energy
requirements;

3. local availabilitycfi‘renewable
resources, e.g. sunlight, wind, water
power;

A. projected fuel prices and vulnerability

to sudden changes;
capital availability;

environmental restrictions;
personnel capabilities;

NO‘UW

 

26Solar Action Incorporated, Citizen‘s Solar Program:
State Reports on Barriers and Strategies to Renewable Energy
Development, Washington, DJL: U. S. Government Printing
Office, October 1978), p. V.

 

 

19

8. local utilities-rates, gas pr ssure;
9. reliability of requirements.

Action at all levels.of government and by large numbers
of individuals and groups will certainly be required to
achieve significant development of these decentralized

sources .

Literature Review

 

In researching the topic there is little indication of
extensive work having been accomplished on this problem.
Most references point toward the need for such an effort,
but do not list any completed or on-going projects.

The Domestic Policy Review of Solar Energy28 concluded
that

Actions at all levels of government and by large

numbers of individuals and groups will certainly be

required to achieve significant solar penetration.
This recognition that development beyond federal control
will be necessary for solar power to be significant is a
first step in the decentralization of energy policy making.

The Department of Energy29 agrees that

New inter-governmental organizational models may be
necessary from a local to a regional level, for

 

27Little, p. 1-13.

28U.S. Department of Energy, "Domestic Policy Review of
Solar Energy: Response Memorandum to the President,"
Renewable Energy Development: Local Issues and
Capabilities, (Washington, D.Ca LLS. Government Printing
Office, January 1980), p. 1.

 

29U.S. Department of Energy, Renewable Energy
Deve10pment: Local Issues and Capabilities, (Washington,
D.Cu (LS. Government Printing Office, January 1980), p.
33.

 

2O

financing, education and professional training,
decision-making, etc. These models must be finetuned in
order to identify various barriers and incentives,
established legal precedents, and prepare for the
administration of an effective regulatory structure
before they can be used to facilitate broad
implementation of renewable systems.

The importance of local input was noted by Dick Holt3O
in another Department of Energy publication in which he
stated that,

The information.uindicates that there exists at the
local level throughout the nation a large and growing
capability to contribute significantly to the
transition to renewable energy systems.

As the Citizen's Solar Program31 report states,
Solar is an inherently decentralized technology that
should be nurtured and promoted by all our country's
institutions but not swallowed by existing companies
and bureaucracies. Solar is a relatively simple and
accessible technology that should be kept that way and
not controlled by a few or manipulated for a profit.
Many of the principal arguments in favor of
decentralized energy systems are found in the works of
Schumacher32, Lovins33'3u, and Commoner.i Lovins' criticisms

of the centralized approach to energy control are based

mainly upon environmental effects and acceleration of

 

3ODoe ReSponse Memorandum, p. 3.
31Citizen's Solar Program, p. II.

32E. F. Schumacher, Small Is Beautiful, (New York:
Harper and Row, 1973).

 

33A. B. Lovins, Soft Energy Paths: Toward A Durablg
Peace, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Bollinger Publishing
Company, 1977).

 

3”A. B. Lovins, "Energy Strategies: The Road Not
Taken?" Foreign Affairs, October 1976, p. 65.

21
capital costs. He ignored the political and social
implications of any widespread introduction of alternative
energy technologies, but has developed a comparison of
centralized vs. decentralized gross primary energy use based
on his evaluation of technological potential. This
evaluation led to his belief that decentralization energy
development was superior.
Supporting the decentralized theme, Simmons'35 report
Distributed Energy Systems 13 California's Future states,
There are problems and deficiencies in the existing
centralized energy industries, and there are
alternative energy sources and technologies that may
have been insufficiently eXploited in the past.
He goes on to point out, however, that,
It is not at all clear that the largescale use of
biomass to produce liquid fuels, or solar energy to
generate electricity, will not encounter problems and

organizational structures similar to those of today's

centralized power utilities. (w

Finally, Simmons calls for the evaluation of decentralized

develOpment when he points out,

The social, institutional, and legal implications of
the wideSpread use of distributed energies systems are
not understood and have been greatly understated.

Dr. Herman Koenig, in Industrial Societies i

Transition: The Role pf the Family Unit,36 states,

 

 

Rising real costs of energy and increased dependence on
biologically derived resources will eventually have a
significant impact on human settlements. Rural and

 

3SSimmons, p. 183.

36Herman E. Koenig, Industrial Societies In Transition:

 

The Rplg pf The Family Unit, (Prepared for AmeFican Home
Economics Association, 71st Annual Meeting, Dallas, Texas,
June 1980), p. 3.

22

urban communities will become increasingly dependent
upon the integrated use of forests and other ecological
and physical resourceswind, hydro, solarthermal,

etc., as supplements or partial replacements
nonrenewable materials and energy resources. Since the
technical characteristics of most renewable resources
are very different from conventional fuels, integrated
use of these resources will require new adaptations in
the physical, social, political, and economic structure
of the community.

Perry and Streiter37 agree that,

The evaluation must include not only an examination of

the technical and economic status, but just as

importantly, the nature of the environmental,
political, institutional, legal, regulatory, and
financial barriers that must be overcome before the
technology can be deployed widely enough to make an
important contribution to energy supply.

The major area of distributed energy systems that has
been investigated is the state of technical develOpment,
where the problems are, and the probable direction of future
improvements. A series of such reports have been presented

by the Department of Energy, an example of which is

Distributed Energy Systems: A Agyiew pf Aglated

 

Technologies, by Arthur Little.38

A three year study by Steven Nadis39 described in "An
Optimal Solar Strategy" dealt with

Available and affordable technical measures that
improve energy productivity,

37H. Perry, Multiple Paths For Energy Policy, A

Critique of Lovins' Energy Strategy, (New York: National
Economic Research Association, 1977), p. 12.

38Arthur D. Little, Distributed Energy Systems: A
Review of Related Technologies, (Washington, DAL: U.S.
Government Printing Office, November 1979).

39Steve Nadis, "An Optimal Solar Strategy," Environment
21, November 1979, p. 9.

 

23

and,

.udetermined that a solar power strategy appears to be
technically and economically feasible.

In actual regional planning for decentralized energy
systems, one project approaches the purpose of this study.

In Management 9; Energy/Environmental Systems: Methods and

 

Case Studies, Wesley Foellno focused on more effective
energy management and alternative energy/management futures
at the regional and subnational levels comparing three
regions: the German Democratic Republic, Rhone-Alps in
France, and Wisconsin.

However, in general, Specific planning has been
developed primarily for the county and local level only.

Alan Okagaki and Jim Benson,u1 in their County Energy Plan

 

Guidebook: Creating A Renewable Energy Plan, advocate

 

energy planning being done at the local, rather than
national, level. Their goal is to gather as many local
plans as possible to aggregate these plans into state energy
plans and, in turn, into a national energy plan.

In Energy-Efficient Community Planning: A Guide 19

 

 

Saving Energy and Producing Power AA the Local Level, James

 

 

”OWesley Foell, Management 9; Energy/Environment
Systems: Methods and Case Studies, (New York: Wiley-
Interscience, June 1979).

 

 

”1Alan Okagaki and Jim Benson, County Energy Algp
Guidebook: Creating 2 Renewable Energy Plan, (Fairfax,
Virginia: Institute for Ecological Policies, July 1979).

 

2N

Ridgeway,42

calls for a national energy plan based on the
creation of several hundred public energy districts in the
United States.

The Southwest Border Regional Commission (SWBRC) is an
attempt by four states, (New Mexico, Texas, Nevada, and
California) to pool energy information in the establishment
of an energy program. The major aim of this program is to
develOp and deomonstrate solar technologies that are
applicable to residences of low-income people in the border
areas. Other aims of the program are to train local peOple
in the design, installation, and maintenance of apprOpriate
solar applications and technologies, to stimulate economic
development, and business activity in solar fields, and to
evaluate the individual solar plans for each of the four
states with respect to the border region. This is the first
program of its kind to be conducted on a regional basis.“3

The Department of Energy in 1978 established a
Comprehensive Community Energy Planning Methodology.uu It
is set up as a logical progression of planning activities

consisting of four major parts: The process begins with an

 

ueJames Ridgeway, Energy-Efficient Community Planning:
A G _i__g_e_ To _S_a_y_i_§1__g Energy and Prggucing Power A_1_;_ The Local
Le el, (Emmaus, Pennsylvania: The J. G. Press, November

2
979V.

u3Edward Lumsdaine, Roger Farrer and David Miller,
"Solar Upgrading of Low-Income Housing," Proceeding of the
Western Sun 1980 Solar Update, 1980).

 

u”U.S. Department of Energy, Comprehensive Community
Energy Planning Vol. 13 (Washington, DAL: U.S. Government
Printing Office, November 1979).

 

25
assessment, or audit, of a community‘s energy use patterns.
This is followed by an analysis to determine potential
energy problems and to select objectives. The third major
part is the selection of energy management and conservation
alternatives that will best achieve the previously derived
objectives. Lastly, some considerations concerning planning
for implementation are provided.

Curtis Priest”5 has prepared a report for the FEA that
reviewed federal, state, and local land use law as it
related to energy conservation and summarized land use
energy research. He concluded that short energy-saving land
use patterns entail: 1) More multifamily residences; 2)
More densely populated activity centers to promote transit
use; 3) Rearranging industrial, commercial, and residential
activities to promote the utilization of waste heat.

The legal aspect of alternative energy development is
one of the barriers to decentralization. Hawaii has been
solving this problem through an aggressive program of
legislation. Other attempts at delineating the legal
approaches are set down by Miller”6 in his article, “Legal

Obstacles to Decentralized Solar Energy Technologies, Part I

 

“SCurtis Priest and Kenneth M. Happy, AA Overview and
Critical Evaluation of the Relationship Between Land Use and
Energy Conservation,“(Cambridge, Massachusetts: Technology
and Economics, Inc., 1976).

 

”6Alan S. Miller, "Legal Obstacles To Decentralized
Solar Energy Technologies," Solar Law Reporter, Vol. 1, No.
3, September/October 1979, p. 598.

 

26

and Part II." Miller states that,

While energy problems are usually thought of as being
in the sphere of decision-making by national
authorities, many policies affecting energy supply and

demand lie primarily in the domain of state and local
authorities.

Amory Lovins”7 further stated the position when he wrote

The ends sought are so fine-grained, locally tailored,

dispersed, and small-scale, and the means--the policy

tools--can be chosen, according to practical and

ideological convenience, form such an enormous array of

Bptions, that the choice can fully respect pluralism
Lovins, Soft Energy Path, p. 22.

and voluntarism. Indeed, so diverse are our societies,
and hence the local conditions to which soft path
innovations must adapt, that a centralized management
approach to a soft path simply would not work.

As Simmons states,

The mood is not necessarily one of hostility or
resentment toward the existing order, but rather is
characterized by the conscious exercise of choice in
the use of time, effort, and money in pursuit of an
improved qua&§ty of life and personal self-
sufficiency. ,

Research that directly aids the proposed study is
unfortunately limited. Besides the Hawaii State Energy
Plan,”9 the County of Hawaii Energy Plan,50 and numerous
technology and barrier studies, the majority of information
must come from task force reports, direct contact with local

officials and community leaders, and on-site evaluation of

project development.

 

“BSimmons, p. 30”.

ugState Department of Planning and Economical
Development, State Energy Plan: A State Functional Plan,
(Honolulu, Hawaii, February 1980).

 

50Y. K. Hahn, Energy Self-Sufficiency Plan For County 9:
Hawaii: Energy Demand Pattern and Projections, (Hawaii
Natural Energy Institute, June 1979).

CHAPTER III

THE HAWAIIAN APPROACH

Geography and Environment

 

 

Hawaii refers collectively to all of the 132 islands,
islets, reefs, sandbars, and rock dots that rise above the
surface of the north Pacific Ocean over a 1,600 mile route,
running from the northwest to the southeast. Discounting
the tinier Specks, there are eight major islands in the
Hawaiian chain: Niihau, Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Maui,
Kahoolawe, and Hawaii. All, except Kahoolawe, are
inhabited, with Oahu supporting four-fifths of the state's
entire population.

The following chart lists the size and pOpulation of

the eight largest islands:

 

ISLAND SIZE POPULATION LARGEST CITY
(sq. miles) 1980

Kahoolawe A5 Uninhabited

Niihau 73 200

Lanai 1A0 2,500 Lanai

Molokai 261 5,000 Kaunakakai

Kauai 553 30,000 Lihue

Oahu 608 700,000 Honolulu

Maui 729 60,000 Kahului

Hawaii 4,038 80,000 Hilo

 

Figure 2--State of Hawaii Data Book, 1980
Size and POpulation Figures for the Eight Largest
Islands of The Hawaiian Chain

27

28

There are only four counties in the state, and largest
is the City and County of Honolulu, an official appellation
combining what might have been two bodies into a single
governmental unit. It includes the entire island of Oahu,
with all its smaller communities and, for administrative
purposes, almost all of the long chain of tiny, mostly
uninhabited, islets northwest of Kauai, called the Leeward
Isles.

The other three counties are Kauai (including the
islands of Kauai and Niihau), Maui (Maui, Molokai, Lanai,
and Kahoolawe Islands), and Hawaii (the Big Island). All
four counties are administered under a mayor/council system.

Hawaii is the only American state with just two levels
of local government. There are no separate boards for the

various towns and villages scattered over the islands.

Hawaii Energy Program

Until recently, Hawaii has obtained about 92 percent of
its energy supply from imported petroleum. The remainder
consists of energy supplied from indigenous energy resources
which are utilized to generate electricity; 7 percent from
biomass, and one percent from steam harnessed from
hydrOpower.51 Obviously, any shortage in the U.S. petroleum
supply would drastically effect Hawaii. In addition, the

petroleum imports represent more than $1 billion in payments

 

51State Department of Planning and Economic
Development, State Energy Plan: A State Functional Plan,
(Honolulu, Hawaii, February 1980), p. 8.

 

29
flowing out of the Hawaiian economy every year.52 The
Spiraling cost of imported oil, coupled with the growing
political instability of the major oil producing nations,
have intensified concern over energy issues. Recognizing
the state's extremely vulnerable position, Hawaii in 1978,
initiates a State Functional Plan for energy deveIOpment.

The Hawaii State Plan defines two major energy
objectives:

- Dependable, efficient, and economical State-wide
energy systems capable of supporting the needs of
the peOple, and;

- Increased energy self-sufficiency for Hawaii.53

To accomplish the mandate set forth by the State
Legislature in the Energy Plan, a network approach was
developed involving an infrastructure of people, programs,
and governmental agencies working together to solve problems
of alternative energy conversion with a common goal of
securing the greatest possible rate of utilization. It was
determined in the State plan that the proposed actions
necessary for implementation would be generalized into the

following categories:

1. Provision of economic incentives for conservation
and the development of indigenous energy resources.

2. Research, development, and demonstration of
alternate energy technologies.

3. Regulation.

A. Education.

 

521bid., p. 8.

53State Energy Plan, p. 8.

30

5. Removal of institutional/legal barriers.

6. Policy guidance for facility systems planning.5u

The Hawaii system established a large number of task
forces within each local region and each technical
alternative to identify the barriers and develOp means of
removing them. These task forces consisted of
representatives from state, private industry, and, in many
cases, federal and academic experts. Hawaii's energy
situation is presently at the mercy of outside influences.
Its peOple have no choice but to quickly cut through the
problem.

In making their determinations, the task forces
considered two factors as delineated in the State Energy
Plan:

1. The contribution to the increase in energy security
and stability from alternative actions will be
weighed against the costs to government, the
consumer, and the overall effect on the economy in
order to make wise economic choices for the long-
term, and avoid unjustifiable costs in the near-
term, and;

2. Selection of alternative actions will be based on
the desire to maintain the integrity of Hawa "s
natural resources and environmental quality.

Within the framework of these goals, the committees
have made significant progress towards satisfying the

mandate set forth by the state legislature in the Energy
Plan.

 

5”State Energy Plan, p. 10.

55State Energy Plan, p. 10.

31

The four counties under the State Functional Plan, have
developed independent approaches to energy self-sufficiency.
For example, the County of Hawaii has developed alternative
energy programs in: 1) Solar, which includes active and
passive systems, wind power generation and ocean thermal
energy conversion; 2) Biomass and methanol production; 3)
geothermal and; A) hydroelectric. All of these alternatives
have required extensive restructuring of the energy system
on the island.

The purpose of this chapter will be to examine the
structure of the government organizations and citizen
committees alluded to in the above sections. As part of
this evaluation it is necessary to discuss the energy
picture in Hawaii to best understand reasons for the
composition of the committees and the directions these

groups have pursued.

State Energy Use and Production

 

Hawaii's economic vulnerability is best understood
through data on the origin of petroleum imports.’ Sixty-
three percent of the state's crude oil and petroleum
products supply is shipped directly from foreign sources.
Twenty percent of the remaining supply is shipped from the
mainland, but originates from foreign sources.56 With 92
percent of the state's energy production resulting from

petroleum (149,000 barrels of crude oil and petroleum

 

56State Energy Plan, p. III-15.

 

‘o‘-‘--‘-‘_———

SOURCES OF ENERGY,
HAWAII VERSUS THE U.S., 1976

“-‘v-9-‘-'-v-a—t‘--.f-o-I‘_‘ ‘— -—-——-——‘ “..o‘.“ .1-

 

  
   
  

HAWAII U.S.
1976 1976
Waste- Hydro Electric Hydro Electric Nuclear
Material Power 1% Power 4.1% ‘ Power

7% 2.8%

F“\\

Petroleum

 

 

117.3%
Petroleum 7} Natural Gas
\\ /
\, I/’
\\ ’/_

_._._ ‘

Figure 3--Department of Planning and Economic Development,
State Energy Office. Energy Use 13 Hawaii,
November 1977

 

products daily),57 any oil market dislocations resulting
from political instability on an oil producing nation could
create severe economic impact for Hawaii.

The sources of energy for Hawaii versus the rest of the
United States in 1976 (Figure 3) showed a diSproportionate
use of petroleum use in Hawaii. Clearly, any shortages in

petroleum would have a much greater impact on the Hawaiian

 

57Ibid., p. III-18.

33
economy than on the U.S. mainland economy. A nationwide
twenty-percent cut in petroleum would decrease the
mainland's total energy supply by only 9J5 percent. A
similar twenty percent cut in petroleum supply for Hawaii,
however, would result in an almost full 20 percent energy
shortage, with no readily available substitute sources.
I Biomass is the state's second largest source of energy.
Biomass, wood chips, and macadamia nut shells are combusted
for electricity. Increased use of biomass is presently
making the greatest inroads at replacing petroleum in the
Islands.

In 1978, bagasse and oil-burning in sugar mills
accounted for only two percent of the electricity generated
on Oahu, although it played a more significant role on the
islands of Hawaii (A5 percent), Maui (27.6 percent), and
Kauai (23.2 percent).58 (See Figure A)

Hydropower resources are utilized at 15 sites
throughout the state. The contribution to total energy
supply from hydropower generation is low due to the
seasonality of the resource and the lack of dams.

All the bagasse-burning and the majority of hydro-
electric power plants are privately owned by sugar
plantations. Two hydro-electric plants in Hilo on the
island of Hawaii are owned by public utility. All other

facilities are owned by the private utility companies.

 

58State Energy Plan, p. III-3A.

3A

.22 is: 5 QBESEE p83 .5 8m: €38...on p8 83.8.8 8885 no ERA was;

 

ouunxo cu uoauucoo vmo

anuOH

.huuumaunuu weasa£ can mcuucuocow anon acooouawu vouuomvcn uo=~n> “anau

.uoUCOum cu
.hunuuua may cu aszu uoc oc~ u so." v—oo unoccua .owcosuxo nauuc

.vOuuuuowoc mauoa Aas¢~v

cu subuunu concuu unwam :x=~«o3¢ec

tuna ova accuse novsnucq aloucu
nauufiuu: sud: ovnuu 2321u0u1232¢c

unaccouua uuuuu:0u to: “anon cu

.2uuuuus may sud: acoloxcuuun «asuunuucou can: unoccunov m d u: a; vu>uuuou oacu>ou

 

.uculuuuuoo aooa boson Hanna. “huuauus saw: such» 2221HOu1232c

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

auger .vvvnuu huuouuuuo~o acaouun Oucm mossy
. o~ac-a>< uoz 1 <2
acn.cmc.~ an.no~ co.co ~s.~ -.ca~ an.cnn cco.20n ~c.n~ oo.o~ nu.wmm A<hOh wouzuh<Hm
occ.a ¢~.o on.o c o mo.oc~ oo~.mon.~ us.~n o ow.ao~ fiance tandem
oc~.~ mc.o no.c c o on.om can.omo mw.- o on.nn canouuz
oc~.~ e~.c e—.o o c oo.c- co~.ncn.~ no.mn o nn.cn asao
=2<o
can.com en.- o~.- um.~ c om.nw~ -.o aw e~.wca ~uu09 veaHnH
o o o o 0 <2 <2 <2 o <2 «ccsxsuunz
oo~.-~ oo.n w¢.o mm.o c n~.~c «a oe.n o e~.n< noo=o«2
ococssm
swam
ccm.e- om.m on.“ mm.“ c o¢.~c~ c Nw.w cw mwu m a u:
~=<2
oca.-~ ae.- o~.- o~.o o mo.nm cem.o2n o~.m n~.ea m~.ao deuce vcwuau
adn.c
cem.n no.0 mm.c o o -.- ooo.o~ N¢.o 2~G.e ~m.~ o~uxo~o
ace.no n~.o m~.o c c ~N.0c co~.oe~ ~m.~ w~.¢~ sn.mm nuance:
oo~.nn nc.o nw.c c 0 ae.- co<.o m~.o 02.0 n~.N~ 03:“;
ooo.- oo.c on.n o~.o c ~u.¢~ ooc.sw no.~ n~.m e~.c~ asaxox
H<=<u
sw.ae~ c~.o o ~2.o<~ e~.oo~ cem.chn on.n co.o aa.OmN HmuOH tendon
oom.n~c.~ om.wn o o em.wm oo.a~ oo~.- an.o c e~.no mean
a c o o a oo.e~ oo.mn on.o ao~.o ae.n~ :.u2
ooe.~ co.~ no.2 o c no.m~ can.~N~ aw.“ o “.22 oosuonuaswq
oo~.c~ o~.~ an.n o c oc.e~ coc.nn ne.o H~.c co.o~ ucxocom
OGc o~.o $2.6 o G <2 <2 <2 :oxawnum
occ.noc.~ sm.~c~ o o so.~o~ a~ c on~ 00200202
ooo.cm~ mm.~ .uoum uooou cad:
~u<2<2
svmzoozu £33.: . 22:954.”
A<H0h awash IuouCH 2nvcaum scum umoo Huuoh auuucaac damoaaxouvuz Squaw \D2<Am~
Aocfi x 232v Aoo~x232v ecu x 232v
94cm cum: nmm<2u¢=2 auh<2mzmo

 

 

 

 

onmu .—H<3<: 2H m20~P<h2<Am 2<c=w rm awn: rh~u~¢houdu nz< 2°~h<¢mzuc A<U~2huu4m no >¢<22=m

35

The Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) is the public
utility on Oahu. Two subsidiaries of HECO, the Hawaii
Electric Light Company (HELCO) and the Maui Electric Company
(MECO), operate facilities on the islands of Hawaii and
Maui, respectively. Molokai Electric Company is that
island's only power generator and distributor. (See Figure
5).

The State's electricity generating capacity equalled
1.661é5 megawatts in 1978.59 Eighty-nine percent (1AA7.A
MW) of this was public utility capacity, with the remainder
from private generating capacity. Petroleum-based
facilities comprise 89 percent of the State's generating
capacity. Bagasse and oil burning facilities provide 10
percent of the State's electricity generating capacity. The
remaining one percent is contributed by the fifteen

hydroelectric plants.60

Governing Structure

There are three State Organizations in Hawaii with
major energy roles: The Department of Planning and Economic
Development (DPED), the University of Hawaii, primarily
through its Hawaii Natural Energy Institute (HNEI) at its
Manoa Campus, and the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii
(NELH). The major responsibilities (Figure 6) for energy
involvement in the state are divided among the three

agencies.

 

59State Energy Plan, p. III-32.

501pid., p. III-32.

36

.335 3 cowumumcwo Hmofifiumam mo 55m .23 £889.28 $5980 3.36on §H§11m magma

 

3: m.~ mucomouamu 009:2 um HOumumcmw umzoaouvzn one
ma mucmfla omssm new swans osu um 2uaomamo owuuuoamouvmn “mufiumomo vaHmumca Spam mucmmmummu HmuOu Emumzm o:H«

.2uwauu~w umnu um huwumamu vaHMumcw 32 m.m Hmuou mxu mo
.Hmuou Emumzm mcu cw wonsaoca no: ma cam .ucmuuwehmucfi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nom.qom.e mmm.mom 111 111 oqm.Hoq ooH n.qm ug<aoa zmamwm
enm1ooh.a mua.mom Hmmufia Homage me.omfl mm ~.m¢ panama:
eqo.esfl.m oee.mme Hmspfimmm ammum mHo.H~N he m.mm Haasnnx
.oo UHmaomam Ha<z 1 H=<z
mmo.-m.m mmm.aen 111 111 HH~.omN 00H «m.~oa q<aoa zmemwm
111 111 111 opemm mmm.m o H.H smfimz
mNo.mm oam.o Hommfin Hamman moo.m a m.m maosm1mx
th.ee omo.~ Huang: damage qofi.s Ha m.HH mmaanz
mm OH Hummfin ope%m\flmmman omm.qa m m.m omsam
ham.~mm.~. mna.m~q .Hma\Hm=pfimom.Hmn\cappsa .
mmo\5nmum ona.mm~ gm . e.mm manuamoamx
Hm~.moe mum.m~ Haneammm ammum mmw.m~ mm a.m~ nmxmama
amqu.omgm HH<3<m 1 HH<3<=
. mam.mmq.mn Hmm.~ow.m 111 111 mmo.omm.m sea s.ao~.a uq<aoa zmamwm
mnm.nmm.flm nnm.oom~¢ Hmspamom ammum ~mm.mma.m He c.5as 05mm
55H.o~q.o~ sum.am~.m . Hmmamn .
\Hmsvwmom mcwnuza
mmo\ammum qu.qnw.a as q.~mn swam:
ooo.~mq.m mmm.mmm Hmapamom ammum 0H~.~o~ ma o.owH aaaaocom
.oo .omam z<HH<z<z 1 =m<o
Dams mammm<m 232v Happy 232v
onemzsmzoo mwmmmyp mowwmwmww nwmmmwmmu Aucsoo N. muumsmwm: onH<ooo\mHmmmmzso
gHo gush waHo<m<o amaq<amzH az<qm muses

 

 

 

whoa .HH<3<2 2H mmHHHAHHD UHamDm rm ZOHH<MMZMU A<UHmHUmAm ho wm<223w

 

37

.832 aha Assauuawno 88m 1 San: mo 83m -18 8.5m:

 

 

 

"RfiBSEMZHEE

 

 

 

 

 

mHEfiHfiZE

 

 

 

 

 

HHséfime
m<H
hfimzquEDUSQ

 

 

 

/

 

HZEfiHJMRHH

 

 

 

 

 

 

mdgfimflm

 

ZQEEQHS62

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HfifiHfiyfi
mUfiEfiHA§EEEZ
Hd§2£

 

 

 

 

HH$2£
mo
.fiEMfiEfiZD

 

 

 

mZOHH<NHZ<0mo mH<Hm

 

ZQEEZHbfiEO

 

 

 

 

UZEéZJm
Z§fixflm

 

 

 

 

HZWéHdERHHUdfisfiCM
92¢
UZUEZHmmC QNHH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38

Figure 7 shows the organization of the State's present
energy arrangement. The Director of the Department of
Planning and Economic DeveIOpment has been assigned the
additional role of State Energy Resources Coordinator
(ERG).61 His responsibilities as the ERC include the
comprehensive planning of energy programs and coordinating
the efforts of Federal, State, County, and private agencies
involved in various aspects of energy-related activities,
including deveIOpment of alternate energy sources as well as
energy conservation and management.

Two organizations in DPED are involved in carrying out
energy program activities. They are the Center for Science
Policy and Technology Assessment (CSPTA) and the State Ener-
gy Office (SEO). The SEO provides advice and assistance to
the Energy Resources Coordinator in energy planning and
management. The SEO also is involved in contingency plan-
ning, including plans to locate a portion of the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve in Hawaii, and administering of any fuel
allocation program.

The SEO is responsible for a number of Federally-funded
energy conservation programs. (See Figure 8)

The Center for Science Policy and Technology Assessment
(CSPTA) participates in planning and carries out Special
projects in the areas of science and technology. Its pur-

pose is to maintain contact with researchers and

 

61Hawaiian Law, Sections 196-1 to 196-A, Conservation
And Resources, p. A50.

39

.cRumNHEmB $85 38m “35-1.5 mama

“255326: 3580a can gm mo new—5H3

 

 

mUEEMHdVqufiflmeVMUQfifiigfiwQZ<
modfimnfigfinUmyfifiufifizfiu

 

MUHEKV

.>EHMQHEE
MUMBfimmHfluw

 

 

._

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

snag— $558
I dwzm moEEamBo Humane:
EB .52 a“ Emma. mam _h J__ mag—Ag H.250

 

 

 

 

 

5mm 6% géJ _ 6758 855%
20 ESQ Eomgfi _ _

 

 

LII’1

 

_

 

 

EH;
5%? A

g mam ME mom mozmmsoo
ESQ E833 _

 

 

ZOHH<NHZ<OMO Vommzm MH<Hm

AO

 

STATE ENERGY OFFICE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
SECP1 SSECP2 SCHOOL/ SOLAR TEMPERATURE
HOSPITAL ENERGY RESTRICTION
PROGRAM PROGRAM PROGRAM
HECC3

 

1. State Energy Conservation Program

2. Supplemental State Energy
Conservation Program

3. Hawaii Energy Conservation Council

1

 

 

Figure 8.--Hawaii State Energy Office Structure.

investigators managing science and technology projects
funded totally or in part by DPED. Areas of responsibility
include telecommunications; solid waste; development, demon-
stration, and commercialization of alternate energy sources
in Hawaii; appropriate energy technologies; ocean minerals,
water desalting; marine pharmaceuticals; and other science
resources.

CSPTA is presently involved with numerous energy proj-
ects and activities (Figure 9) that are expected to contri-
bute heavily to Hawaii's goal of energy self-sufficiency.

The National Energy Laboratory of Hawaii has been or-
ganized as a research facility at Ke-ahole Point on the Big
Island of Hawaii. The purpose of NELH is to manage and

operate a research facility for research, development, and

 

l
4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mHfiQfium ugmmmm’w $309289 pom .8302 853m How H380 HHEETE a mag
. , zsmxmm
wUQfiBQUmH
mmag. QUMDHE“ HUEREm HQEHEm “QEMZm
nuuUm MEJOm n25; mmsfimm mafiwmfimmm<
- - .bfi§amfima
mumwfiw ZOHBBmu<fism¥§co HHEHEm
mafiasmmv QHSEQEEH .29m2m .ESMEmQHV LEHHHXELRHH
mean Hdézfi . . ,.d?EMFRMU Hagafi. “nggam .QHRYQZHL .
<Hmmo

HZMmeMmm< VUOAOZSUWH 92¢ WUHAOm muzmHUm mom MMHZMU

A2
scientific and technological investigations. It is admin-
istered by a board (Figure 10) of seven voting members
representing the state, county, and academic interests.62

The Hawaii Natural Energy Institute was established in
197A at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. It was
established to coordinate and undertake the development of
non-polluting natural energy sources for Hawaii. HNEI's
primary role is that of a research organization which
utilizes the resources of the University and the community
in working with the DPED in a shared role of energy
deve10pment. Accordingly, HNEI and DPED staffs work
together through frequent meetings, joint Sponsorship of
workshops and conferences, energy development groups created
for specific projects, technical energy committees and
representation of both organizations on the managing board
of NELH. '

The Research Corporation of the University of Hawaii
(RCUH) serves as contractor or consultant in carrying out a
large number of energy-related studies and development
projects.

Numerous other agencies within the state government
also have energy-related responsibilities. Figure 11 lists
some of the concerns of state agencies. For example, the
Marine Affairs Coordinator's Office plays a major part in

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, and the Office of

 

62Hawaiian Law, Sec. 227-1 to 227—A, Planning and
Economic Development, p. 132.

magnum Hg mo .9830an gum Hmhfimzloa 35me

 

 

43

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

296%sz
mowmmmmm
.mmzwowsa awm<mnm 928 ASSURE
8% 20 mgcmo mmaomfio 28m
zo Hg mmaomfio 1 .
8 22% no 928 20 an. 20 EB
828.8 89285 gap 35% homage
maul Eo 9:. .EB so 2335
F _ H _ F 2 _ 2 L H
g _ Emcee/B
H32: @285 Bag 52528 H33 0568.
so 3:22 B... ES .5322 229.2 .8 nz< ofizfim
E228 mo .EB Hg mag 5% mo .55
2 _ , a _

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_

HH<3<I .mo NrMOHgomeofi wummzm 339.34

.323: 5 fiflfifimcommmm

hwuwam Sufi: mwfiucmw< mumum uwnuo .wanacrflaquSmmo.aficmouh£-tdauu¢:m

cz~zz<AL
um: cz<4 <

 

 

HH<UO>Q<

 

44

 

xmz=mzou

 

  

A<I¢m=h0mc

  
 

 

 

 

      

 

 

 

      

 

 

zo~h<>¢mwzou
>Uzmu<¢uhz~

    

  

ZOHh<AmHUmA
>Uxm2E

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mpuanoxm z_ csz<zm;=¢ .
.>pwm~“0wumm mhz<ga >=m>oom¢ mh_a=< .
a pzmzmwacm zo~e<>xmmzoo yuxmzu puxuzu mm>szmqu
mo uz~uz<z~u ruzmu<xmez~ muk<~ x<~
>HHAHH=
xx. . ona
ona
ruzmwuwmunw zmwnwwummnmw zamm<mwwm =o~H<>¢umzoo zc~e<=q<>m zo~a<>¢mmzou .<>¢umzou
>uzmu<¢mhz~ 4<momomm rozuu<¢mpz~ yozuo<
_ _ _ _ . -55:
mmu~>xum
zeppouaozm muuuzuu< muoxacmux muz<z~u Aozpzoo A<¢mzmo a
zmzamzoo >zop<a=uu¢ q<¢=p<z a \pmuasm >hug<=o a<pzu=zoz uzfipzsooo< zoup<x<p
no muuhmo no .shwo az<g no .ummn no .pmmn -H>zu no monmuo uo.~mma no .pmmn

 

 

onH<>¢mwzou
ruzmo<¢MH2~

zowh<NHAHPD
mhm<3 DHAOw

rozmHUMhmm
UZHDAHDQ

muH>¢mm zenm
IZMHXN ruxmzu

 

  

 

Hzm2m04m>mn
UHKHUMJMO¢G>=

    

  

UZH¥¢<L
VHufiOnzm

   
 

 

 

 

 

 

rwa<mu<
mz~x<x no
uuHmmo

    
   

onmmuzfco
AHH: vugmam

zo~h<hzonmz<¢H
ho .Hmma

 

 

a

 

_
hZNZmOJu>mn
>UMHZM .HA<

KNH<3 ammo

N¢<3< A<¢mzmo

.001... mam-<0 fimommam i wmmz

 

 

wxomzu KH<
nz< xmh<3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmh<¢ kzmzmoaw>mn ZOHF<>xmmzoo IDADUHKKDU mzahqboumu<
>h~dnh= ozHAOOL m<u rozuo<¢MHzH onH<Usam zo mHo<mIH
vwzozoum
ZOHH<>¢mmzoo 22¢ quzz<Am —\ — —
>Uzmo<zmhz~ no .Hmkn
whomn OHH<>¢mmzou onH<>meZOD rashm 92H: ZOHH<>¢mmzoo zo~w<>mumzoo
lean UMHD rozmc<xmth rozmu<¢mth —.mmoz x004n3 >UZHU<KNFZ~ rUZEU<zMHzH

 

=h4<m=
ho .Hmmn

20HH<U=QN

ho .hmma

 

 

wkqmmnmzommmm >cmmzm :FHZ mmauzuu< uF<Hm mmzko

 

45
Environmental Quality Control deals with aspects of energy
recovery.

Acting in an advisory role to the Governor and the
Energy Resource Coordinator, the Hawaii Energy Conservation
Council is responsible for six major committees (Figure 12)
and numerous technical subcommittees.

The initial group responsible for establishment of a
state energy plan is the Advisory Committee for the State
Energy Functional Plan.

Represented on the committee is a cross-section of
state and county government, business, and academic
interests (Figure 13). The goal of the committee is to
provide input of the views and positions of all aspects of
Hawaiian society. The State's position from the initial
stages of an energy plan has been to actively include as
many parts of the community as possible. An example is the
Hawaii Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
which is composed of ten task forces made up of one hundred
scientists, citizens, and energy officials.

Each county in turn has an Energy Self-Sufficiency
Committee which work closely with the various state agencies
and task forces. Also, these committees act as coordinators
and advisors to local community groups dealing with energy
deve10pment.

Figure 111 is an example of one aSpect of energy
deve10pment. The Geothermal DevelOpment Group incorporates
all the federal, state, county, industrial, and private

groups involved in geothermal energy development in the

 

.fifiocnoo nowugmaoo gam— figm: 1&3 «En

 

Edzd
Egm mUHmHm Qz<
.20;an Ea gm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ggm Egg

 

 

manUvm—HUHE E

 

 

 

 

 

 

47

HH<3<= .aqaqozom
..ozH .mmomaommm onHo<m

..mmmm .mmHamAamm mmmmou

 

 

mz<moomm l

onao< weHzpzzoo
agaaozo: .moa<anmooo.
wommzm .mma momomo

 

 

HH<3<m .aosaozom
..mmoo z<mququo
mHqu<z< a

oszz<gm ma<mommoo mo

 

 

DADAOZOI

 

..mHn .zmmx ammmom .3

 

 

HH<3<m .sapuozo:
..oo onaomgm z<HH<3<m
summon wommzm mo .mHa

_ mHmU .m

 

 

HH§§ . 2.5.675:
.mmmso> zmzo: mo
mso<mq .mm>oom <zz<

 

mo wazpoo a waHo
.oanaHam mo .Hmmo
..mHn .<2Hmm am<3o=

 

 

 

 

H<a<x

.mamHa .H<a<u mo
E758 . SEEM—En
onozoom mo monmo
..mHa .<9Hmax mmz<n

 

 

HH<3<m .OAH:

 

HH<3<m .aasqozom

 

.HH<3<m mo wezsoo

 

 

 

 

 

 

.cmHm 3503035 $.85 33m
mfi you $qu gag.-. 2 mama,

 

Hzmzmoqm>mn
onozoom a oszz<qm
mo .emma mo moeommHn
..zmo .xmz<>mem xz<mm

 

 

pgaaozom

.mmomDOmmm A<mpy<z
nz< oz<q mo .emmn
z<zmH<mo .ozo mammom

 

 

 

aanaozom .gompzoo
~9H4<=o q<pzmzzomH>zm
no monmo .moeommHo

oqmzzoo.o nm<=on

 

 

HH<3<m DADAOZOE

mmoH>mmm q<mmzmo a
ozHazsooo< mo .Hmmn
.mmggompmzoo me<am
Hz<m<m=z omnHm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mesaHpmzH wummzm
q<maa<z HH<3<=
moeommHn .zmaw Ab<m

 

 

[

 

qummmzHozm
mo momggoo
z<mn .mmamm zmon

 

 

aomnomm zo~a<o=nm
wommzm .moSszooo
z<omoz zmon

 

 

M agagozom .HH<z<z mo

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mmfizmo <z<oz «mow<= mo MUHmmo ZOHH<Hmomwz<MH
<A< .mmu<z<z .mDm moeummHn quw<z<z mo Hzmzhm<mmo .MHQ .>HZD .oszmmzHozm
noounHm mHmOh mmqmmmmx ZEOH <zonmm<uHm HmoHMowm ho .momm .Domo mmz<n
MH<>Hmm .H:>oo q¢uoa w
”w mmMZHmDm Hzmzzmm>oo szzoo Hzmzzmm>oo ma<Hm HH¢z<mwmo_m9Hmmm>st
f _ I _ _ w - _

 

zame

A¢ZOHHUZDm wummzm MH<Hm mmB mom mmHHHZZOU VmomH>n<

48

$6.5 ugagwm €580 Hafiz: 3H mnnwflm

 

 

 

 

 

 

mzomm<m

mmomaommm

onHo<m

..co m<o=m

. <23 . . .28

onmmszoo =<=ozHAAHa

waqHHD :02»; AAHMMmz

qumam "wmamanzH
_ van.

onmH>Hn wz<mzoo
wngHes emoua a

UHAmDm .omgm HH<3<m

 

 

 

 

.nu:%m ufio>ummmm

mumwcmnuxm
and: .vcoo .omHm
.mmmmm< wouaommm

 

3MH>mm>o

 

A<HZMZZQMH>ZM A<memHomu

 

 

VDDHm

 

HU<MZH A<HUOm A<zmmmhomo

 

 

 

A<HMHmDQZH z< zH mm: HommHn

HH<3<= .<z=m a< mm<m fl

 

_

 

 

 

 

 

 

}

_
EUM<Mmmm

 

 

 

 

 

HH<3<m mo
VHHmmm>HZD mo

macaw EUM<Mmmm
r

 

 

 

 

 

new no monmo

 

 

 

 

MHDHHHmzH
wummzm
A<MDH<Z HH<3<m

 

I.

mMHA DA< w
<z<mo Ham <ZDm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- wz<mzoo
onaaqu<Hommzzoo a<zmmmaomo _ onaomqm
_ - z<HH<2<m
aomwomm _ _
moe<mmzmo n<mmggmz «zpm _4:IIIIIIII, 11‘
_ . mmomnommm .>ma onozoom
HH<3<m q<m=p<z a a oszz<qm
mo wezaoo nz<g mo .emma mo .emma

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.5% A _

 

 

 

yummzm ho Hzm28m<mmo

 

 

 

A<mmnmm

 

 

 

.L

 

gomw HZmSmOAEmQ

  

Agmmfiomu

AHUZDOU UZHH<anmooo
A<zmmmhomw MUZNU<¢MHZH

     

 

 

—;q<mmnmm

 

 

“9
Islands. The organization of this group is typical of the

other alternative energy programs throughout the state.

Alternative Energy Development
in Hawaii

 

At first glance, Hawaii's energy picture might appear
bleak, with its overwhelming dependence upon petroleum.
Fortunately, however, numerous energy producing Options are
available to Hawaii. The state is particularly blessed with
abundant sunshine and wind. There is tremendous potential
in the development of conventional solar water heating,
photovoltic electricity, bioconversion, wind energy
conversion, and ocean energy conversion. Geothermal and
additional hydroelectric deve10pment contribute two more
sources to the list of possible petroleum replacements.

Numerous energy projects are underway throughout the state.

Wind Energy

 

The University of Hawaii's Department of Meterology has
indicated that approximately 600 square miles, or about 10
percent of Hawaii's land area, have prime wind energy
conversion potential. In 1978, the Hawaii Wind Energy
Applications Network (WEAN) was organized by the State
Legislature for investigation of this possibility. A wind
energy applications test center was established and
development goals set. The long-term goal of the WEAN
program is to have a strong, self-sustaining, fully
commercialized wind energy program in Hawaii, providing a

significant level of the electrical and other requirements

50
in the state. A tentative goal has been suggested of 1000
MW of electricity per year by the turn of the century.63

The approach to this deve10pment includes, but is not
limited to, financial support, zoning, and land use
provision to allow wind energy conversion in prime wind
locations, public financing if private funding is
unavailable or too costly, and other incentives.

One key to this network is a close working relationship
with the U.S. Department of Energy Wind Energy Program, the
counties in Hawaii, the utilities, private industry, and the
community.

A solar/wind Energy Coordinating Committee was created
by HNEI in mid-1978 to provide guidance in insolation
utilization and wind energy conversion RD&D programs.
Thirty committee members meet regularly to deal with solar
and wind energy conversion problems. Two wind energy task
groups have been created by the coordinating committee to
provide in-depth technical review to guide the decision-
making process in wind energy conversion. The Solar/Wind
Energy Atlas and Marketing Task Group's basic tasks6u are:

1. To identify and map the primary (17+ mph) and
secondary (14-17 mph) wind areas;

2. Reviewing of regulations of local, state, and
federal agencies;

 

63D. Richard Neill and Patrick Takahashi, A Report On A
Wind Energy Applications Network for Hawaii, (University of

Hawaii: Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, December 1978), p.
2-1.

 

5“Ib1d., p. 2-u.

51

3. Identifying steps to secure permits and determine
government barriers to deve10pment;

H. Developing applications and marketing programs to
identify and remove obstacles to commercialization
of wind energy.

The establishment of this approach has led to the
success of numerous small-scale private wind systems. As a
result of the eXperience and knowledge gained through these
projects, a major wind farm is being developed by Hawaiian
Electric Company (HECO) on the Island of Oahu, with a goal
of 80 megawatts production by the mid-1980's. This
capability would be approximately 8 percent of HECO's
generating capacity and would provide enough power for about
16,000 homes when operating at full capacity. Between 25

and 32 wind machines will be installed.65

Biomass Energy Program

 

Biomass resources have contributed significantly to the
total primary energy supply. For a number of years, sugar
plantations in the Islands have been producing electricity
by burning sugar cane bagasse. For example, in 1978, five
sugar plantations on Hawaii collectively produced 1.1
million tons of bagasse’for boiler fuel. The gross heat
value of 1.1 million tons of bagasse amounted to 8:700 x 10
BTU.66 This provided 88.7 percent of the energy needs for

the plantations. (Some petroleum is mixed with the

 

65Barbara Hastings, "HECO Signs Pact For Wind Energy
System," Honolulu Advertiser, August 15, 1980, p. 1.

66L. K. Hahn, Energy Self-Sufficiency Plan For County
pf Hawaii: Energy Demand Patterns and Projections, (Hawaii
Natural Energy Institute, June 19795, p. 21.

 

52
bagasse.) The excess electricity produced is sold to the
utilities, where it is fed into Hawaii's grid.

The Big Island uses approximately 736 trillion BTU's of
energy in order to generate 1.8 trillion BTU's worth of
electric power. Of this total, 70 percent comes from
petroleum, 28 percent from bagasse, and two percent from
hydrOpower. Less than 30 percent of the amount produced is
consumed by the residential sector, with the remaining
energy being used by the industrial and commercial
sectors.67 All of the other major islands, with the
exception of Oahu, have similar production and use. Oahu
has the major concentration of the state's population, thus
the greatest for energy, yet it lags far behind in biomass
deve10pment. The Hawaii Biomass Program at the Hawaii
Natural Energy Institute has been organized to eXpand
biomass use, not only in the production of electricity but
in the manufacturing of ethanol.

Efforts have been made to identify issues, technical
characteristics, and institutional barriers attendant to
establishment of all on-going systems for storage,
distribution, marketing, and use of ethanol additives to
gasoline in the state. Also, investigation is underway
regarding the feasibility of establishing a state-owned
strategic reserve of ethanol for emergency use as a gasoline

extender in Hawaii.

 

67L“ K. Hahn, Energy Self-Sufficiency Plan for County
pf Hawaii: Energy Demand Patterns and Projections, (Hawaii
Natural Energy Institute, June 1979), p. 3.

 

 

53

Studies by the University of Hawaii have identified a
number of potential sources for the ethanol production.68
Beyond molasses, which is a bi-product in sugar processing,
sweet potatoes, taro, and cocoyams have been identified as
potential sources. Cooperation between the counties,
private industry, and University agriculture specialists is
leading to the solving of production problems.

The goal for the ethanol program is the replacement of
five percent of total energy need by the turn of the
century. The capability exists to provide approximately 21
million gallons of ethanol through utilizing all the
molasses currently produced by the sugar industry.69
Current gasoline consumption is 300 million gallons per
year.70 The Hawaiian Sugar Planter's Association has, for
many years, been estimating the costs of producing ethanol
from molasses. The Association established a task force to
investigate technical problems, logistics, and the
feasibility of constructing a plant for commercial
production.71

It should be noted that wood chips and macadamia nut

shells have been used on a limited basis as boiler fuel.

 

68Evangeline J. Funk and Karen E. Shigematsu, Fuels
From Biomass Technical Report #3, Hawaii Natural Energy
Institute, October 1977).

 

69Donald Murata, Alcohol Production, Technical Report
#5, (Hawaii Natural Energy Institute: Hawaii Biomass For
Fuels Project, April 1978), p. 1.

7OState Energy Plan, p. III-82.

71Ibid.

5M
Expansion in the macadamia nut industry and the abundant
commercial forest land offer promising potential. Both
areas have task groups investigating the potential. The
Department of Land and Natural Resources, Forestry Division,
and private industry have on-going programs to produce
forestry biomass from tree plantations. Another private
firm is constructing a pelletizing facility for bagasse and
wood chips that will increase energy content.72

Biomass is the only indigenous energy resource that can
be used to produce liquid fuel directly, thus it will
continue to be of high significance to Hawaii's future
energy situation.

Hawaii has decided generally to exempt from Public
Utility Commission jurisdiction and regulation those
facilities which produce, transmit, or furnish power derived
primarily from biomass for its internal uses, although
excess power must be purchased by local utilities at rates
to be arbitrated by the Public Utility Commission, if
necessary. The State Legislature eXpressly intended to
assist the sugar industry by allowing it to burn its waste
product, bagasse, in an unrestricted manner.73 By opening
up competition in power production for the sugar industry,

the evolution of bioconversion technology may be hastened.

72State Energy Plan, p. III-80.
73Ib1d., p. III-79.

55
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion

A number of projects relating to ocean thermal energy
conversion are on-going in Hawaii. Due to the nature of the
deve10pment, major assistance from federal agencies is
required, however, the Hawaiian approach has incorporated
significant input from state, county, and private
organizations to aid in development, marketing, and solving
of environmental problems. Many aspects of OTEC have been
tested at the Seacoast Test Facility, which is governed by
the Natural Energy Lab Board. A consortium of private
companies has been encouraged by the State Energy
Coordinator to move ahead with OTEC development.7u Early
construction of a land-based plant designed to produce up to
NO MW of electricity is anticipated at the Keahole Point
site. At the same time, a platform sited plant off the
coast of the Big Island is in the process of being
developed. A projection of 330 MW's of production by the
turn of the century is the goal of state energy planners.75

The work subsequently completed includes an
oceanographic and a socio-economic evaluation of the Keahole
areas pertinent to OTEC. The oceanographic consisted of an
attempt to describe the spatial and temporal changes in

oceanographic conditions in the area and to determine the

 

7”Lockheed Ocean Systems and The Dillingham Corporation
of Honolulu Combined In The Mini-OTEC Project; Global Marine
and TRW are under contract for the Dept. of Energy OTEC-1
Project.

75State Energy Plan, p. 80.

56
environmental impact of an OTEC plant upon this area. The
socio-economic program was concerned with examining the
legal aspects of ocean thermal energy development. The
applicable law, federal interests, legislative eXperience,
licenses and permits, Opposing interests, and site
considerations were also factors taken into consideration.
The existing socio-economic state of the region was
characterized as well, by examining the population, labor
force income and education, electrical demand and possible

impact of a new power source.76

Geothermal Energy
The Hawaii Geothermal Project was organized by the
Research Corporation of the University of Hawaii to locate
and aid in development of geothermal energy resources in the

state.

In 1972, the Hawaii State Legislature allocated
$200,000 for geothermal research, contingent on the
University's also obtaining federal funds, which it
did.77 From the beginning, this has been a cooperative
project, involving the federal, state, and county
governments, the University, the electric utilities,
and the private sector.

In 1973, separate programs were established for

Geophysics, Engineering, and Environmental-Socio-economics.

 

76Karl H. Bathen, An Evaluation of Oceanographic and
Socio- Economic Aspects Of A Nearshore Ocean Thermal Energy

Conversion Plant In Subtropical Hawaiian Water, (University
EfHawaii, April T975).

 

 

 

77Proceedings Of The Seminar On Geothermal Ener
October 18, 1977, (Sponsored by the Department of Research
and Deve10pment, County of Hawaii: Geothermal Research
Council, 1977), p. 3.

 

57
Later, an EXperimental Drilling Program was added.

The HGP Site Selection Committee considered all
geophysical, geological, and geochemical evidence that had
been collected, and selected the Puna District site on the
Big Island as the most promising.78 Development of this
reserve has begun. The initial wellhead generator is
scheduled to become Operational in the Spring/summer Of
1981. Its energy production will be about 3.5 MW Of
electrical power.79

A consortium of organizations called the HGP-A Develop-
ment Group was given the responsibility Of constructing and
Operating this generating plant. It consisted of the Hawaii
Geothermal Project, the Department Of Planning and Economic
Development, and the County of Hawaii. Although not legal
members of the HGP-A consortium, the Hawaii Electric Light
Company and the Hawaiian Electric Company are active parti-
cipants in the program.

EXperts estimate that this geothermal reservoir has a
capacity Of 500 to 5000 Mwe for 100 years.80 with this
being only one Of numerous identified sites throughout the
islands, a tremendous potential exists. DevelOpment Of this
reservoir alone presents many possibilities. The Island of

Hawaii presently consumes an average of 70 MW of electricity

 

79"Geothermal Plant TO Open In June At Puna, Hawaiifl'
Energy Insider, March 30, 1981, p. 2.

80Proceedings pf the Seminar 93 Geothermal Energy
(County Of Hawaii: Geothermal Resources Council, 1977),
p. 6.

 

 

58
annually.81 Power in excess Of this amount could be
diverted to other uses. One possibility is to connect the
major islands in the chain by a submarine power cable.
Another is to use the excess in the processing Of deep sea
mining areas. A program (Figure 15) has been established to
determine the feasibility of a submarine power cable. It
has concerned itself with both the geothermal energy
transmission between islands and the OTEC transmission from
a platform to an island.

Private industry, with federal assistance, has been
exploring the potential Of magnesium extraction Off the
coast Of Hawaii and Maui, looking tO the possibility Of
processing it with the excess power of either geothermal or
ocean thermal energy.

Another use of the excess electricity may be the
production Of hydrogen by the hydrolysis Of water. Hydrogen
is a good, long-term possibility as a synthetic fuel. Its
potential transportation uses adds a new dimension to
Hawaii's goal Of energy self-sufficiency.

The potential environmental impact Of these projects is
an on-going concern Of the Environment Studies Program,
which is a task group formed by the Hawaii Geothermal
Project. Membership consists entirely Of academic
representatives Of the University Of Hawaii. The Botany,
Chemistry, Oceanography, Public Health, Microbiology,
GeOphysics, Water Research, and AnthrOpOlogy Departments

81Seminar on Geothermal Energy, p. 7.

59

 

 

VUOAOMU ho
MHDHHHmzH
HH<3<=

 

 

 

 

 

 

HH<3<m
mo
VHHmmm>HZD

MHDHHHwZH
wummzm
A<MDH<Z
HH<3<m

 

 

 

11

.83me 0.38 Momma ammo. “E11 .3 01.5%..»

 

 

 

HZHZmOAm>mQ
UHZOZOUM w
quzz<Am
mo .Hmmn

 

 

 

wz<mzou OszmmzHuzm
.mmoo UHmHUMAm Emma HH<3<m
z<mUzHAAHQ z<HH<3<m mo .>HZD

 

 

 

 

r

 

_

_

 

_

 

Z<muomm m4m<v mm~<3 mmma HH<3<m

 

60
are represented on the task group.

Public hearings, as required by Chapter 182 and 91 of
the Hawaii Revised Statutes, have been held throughout the
state to consider the proposed rules and regulations
governing geothermal eXploration and the mining and leasing
of government—owned geothermal mineral resources in the
state.

As in all the other areas Of energy deve10pment in
Hawaii, public input is pursued and given considerable
weight in any decisions made by state authorities. The
approach throughout has been Open, with committee positions
and technical information available to the general public.
Most Hawaiian citizens are involved in and aware Of

decisions relating to the energy future of the state.

Direct Solar Use

 

Direct solar energy is the energy that is Obtained by
collecting and/or focusing the sun's rays. Surveys Of solar
radiation in Hawaii indicate that the state registers the
highest average amount of langleys per day in the nation.

At present, the largest use Of solar heat is for residential
solar water heaters. However, as electrical power plants
account for only 20 percent of the energy used in the state,
and only six percent Of this electricity goes to residences,
should every residence in the state convert to solar water

heating, only two percent Of the energy used would be saved.82

 

82George T. Koide and Patrick Takahashi, Wind And Solar
Energy Applications Study, (University of Hawaii, August
1977), p. 48.

 

61
The use of solar power for industrial purposes, however,
Offers a much greater reward. Utilization in greenhouses
and commercial processes such as drying coffee beans are
examples of such application. Presently, the majority of
effort in this area has been the presentation Of information
by state agencies. County and local community groups, how-
ever, have been working closely with private enterprise and
individual homeowners in dealing with problems inherent in
direct solar utilization. A number Of state tax incentives
have been initiated by local groups lobbying the State
Legislature. Local and county land use laws have been
adjusted to encourage solar development. Through the addi-
tion Of industrial use and possible economic development Of
photovoltaic cells, state energy planners are projecting
that direct solar will replace 1“ percent Of the total
energy use Of the Islands. This would be the equivalence Of
950 MW Of electrical power.83 The means of achieving this
goal are tax incentives, consumer education, and local dem-
onstration Of utilization. Each county presently has a
committee which works closely with a state level committee
formed by the University of Hawaii's Natural Energy

Institute.

Conclusions

 

Hawaii has been aggressive in its pursuit of its stated

goal to

 

83State Energy Plan, p. 80.

62

Accelerate research and develOpment Of new energy-

related industries based on wind, solar, ocean, and

underground resources and solid waste;
and to achieve

increased energy self--sufficiency.8)4
The Administration, the Legislature, the business sector,
the academic community, and local government and citizens
have combined forces in a united effort designed to attain
these objectives. The use Of committees and task groups at
all levels.with a free exchange of ideas and an encourage—
ment Of outside input has led to the removal Of barriers
that might have impeded develOpment well into the next
decade. In actual fact, many Of the programs are well ahead
of schedule and preparing to move forward into the marketing
stage. The quick acceptance of these alternatives by the
Hawaiian citizenry has been largely due tO the Open approach
Of handling information and decisions by the developers.
Education of the consumers and those to be directly affected
by any changes brought about by develOpment has been a major
thrust from the inception of the energy self-sufficiency
program. The majority of citizens through town meetings,
have had the Opportunity for input into the decision-making
process Of many Of the projects, resulting in a generally
positive feeling toward the state's ability to solve future
energy problems. The soundness and alacrity Of this course

Of action is verified by the resulting success Of each Of

the demonstration programs.

 

8”State Energy Plan, p. 8.

CHAPTER IV
BARRIERS TO RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

Several renewable energy systems exist today which have
established the technological feasibility for production on
a local or small-scale basis. Introduction Of these systems
into the marketplace is constrained by a variety Of barriers
to the integration Of these alternatives with local existing
conventional energy systems. The identification Of these
constraints is the first step towards the decentralization
Of the local communities' energy system.

Organizational and institutional problems and conflicts
are major considerations in the determination Of ways tO
adapt the current systems. Until quite recently, the
Federal position has been to view Obstacles tO the adoption
Of new energy systems as purely technological. However, as

T. S. Jayadev states in Basic Research Needs and Priorities

 

13 Solar Energy,85

 

Important Obstacles to the adoption Of new energy
systems or expansion Of existing ones will
increasingly be recognized tO be to some degree
political, sociological, economic, institutional,
and environmental in character. In particular, it
is crucial that analysis Of the consumer decision
process be conducted including the effect Of
external factors on consumer decisions, product
attributes, risk and uncertainty, and value and
use Of information.

 

85T. S. Jayadev and D. Roessner, Basic Research
Needs and Priorities lg Solar Energy Vol. 1, (Golden,
Colorado: SERI, January 1980), p. 29.
63

 

 

69

With these considerations in mind, it is necessary to
approach the introduction Of alternative energies into the
existing system with a broad perspective. The resulting
organization Of potential barriers and constraints into nine
major groups is an attempt to address this variety Of
influences. The major groups are:

1. Educational

2. Financial

3. Marketing

A. Legal

5. Utility

6. Regulatory

7. Technological

8. Policy

9. Social

Each major group will be defined, the potential barrier
identified, and possible solutions suggested. The determi-
nation Of which level Of government must resolve the barrier
is reserved for the conclusion of this dissertation. It is
sufficient to say at this point that the barriers exist at
the different levels and must be resolved at those levels.
Neither the Federal Government nor any single entity Of the
state, regional, or local levels is capable Of eliminating
all Of the barriers obstructing alternative energy develop-
ment. Action at all levels.of government and by large
numbers of individuals and groups will certainly be required

to achieve significant alternative energy development.

65
Educational Barriers

Possibly the major hindrances to an expedient
deployment Of alternative energies fall within the realm of
education. Most individuals and corporations are not aware
Of the renewable energy Options that are becoming available
to them. Those that are aware may not have enough
information available tO them to make informed purchase
decisions. Dissemination Of accurate, understandable
information on a large scale is necessary to overcome this
information gap.

Not only do barriers exist in the dissemination Of
energy information to the general public, but programs Of
educating and training the peOple involved in the production
and delivery Of the energy systems are being inhibited. The
decrease in funding of public education has precluded the
adOption of necessary energy training programs in many
states. With exiguous research having been completed in the
area Of work Opportunities within these energy fields,
school administrators faced with dwindling resources have
been slow tO recognize the near-future needs. Thus, the
first impediment to be overcome is the education Of both
legislators who control the financing, and administrators
who have curriculum decision-making powers Of the need for
inclusion of these programs into the educational system.
Once this has been accomplished, the problem Of the
availability Of trained instructors for the programs will
need to be solved. Presently, energy education is handled

(in most cases) by adding one or more courses to a

66
curriculum, or providing short courses and seminars for
practicing professionals. Special curricula, undergraduate,
and graduate programs in alternative energy develOpment are
less frequent. If the decentralization of energy systems is
tO proceed at any significant pace, the increased
develOpment Of educational curriculum in the alternative
energy field is an indisputable need. Additionally, an
evaluation Of the quality Of courses and programs is needed
to determine if they provide the training necessary for the
successful diffusion Of these technologies into the present
energy system. Methods must be devised to define the tech-
nology delivery systems Of the various energy systems and
identify the types Of people who need to be involved in the
education and training programs. These may include in-
stallers, building tradesmen, real estate developers, loan
officers, and utility company planners as part Of one sys-
tem. Also, the policy making systems require consideration
of programs Offered. City planners, architects, and engi-
neers will not only need to be prepared in the technological
aspects, but in the legal, social, and environmental dimen-
sions Of these new develOpments as well. Little will be
accomplished in decentralization Of energy if the policy
makers do not understand the mechanics and ramifications Of
the systems. In general, education and training are needed
for the people involved in administration and legislation,
in the manufacture and assembly, the marketing and communi-

cation, and the delivery and maintenance Of the innovations.

67

Community Colleges and Universities should include in
any alternative energy program three areas Of involvement.
These are:

1. Curriculum Programs

2. Special education events and workshOps

3. Energy extension services
The curriculum programs must provide the technology and
training necessary to incorporate the alternatives on a
large scale. Standards Of course content must be determined
and state certification criterion established in technology,
installation, and codes. Short-term programs need to be
Offered for educators. Each state department Of education
should develOp a comprehensive plan for alternative energy
development from kindergarten through the 12th grade.
Teachers expected to incorporate this program into their
curriculum must have the Opportunity for training in work-
shOps. The Obvious placement of such workshops is within
the Community College-University setting. Other uses of the
workshOp approach might be business and community groups,
building contractors, financial Officers of lending institu-
tions, and legislators.

The extension service aspect will provide an
information clearing house. It may also incorporate student
volunteers in demonstration programs on the campus, and
extension assistance on a community level. Local community
policy makers are in need Of information in dealing with the

incorporation Of these new energy sources. As Simmons

68

 

relates in Distributed Energy Systems 13 California's

 

Future,86

The individual community embarking on the soft
path will face a number Of difficult questions:

1. Which technologies are really available
and are they reliable and cost-effective?

2. Which types of land use in our community
are big energy users or wasters?

3. What effects will conservation efforts
have, and where should we aim our efforts in
conservation: in homes, business, or industries?

A. On what parts Of our program should we
work alone; when is regional cooperation needed?

5. Should we treat energy from the grid as a
scarce resource, i.e., disapprove a regional
shopping center so that we may approve five
thousand homes?

6. If we save, will others waste what we
save, or worse, use it to our community's
disadvantage?

7. What are our particular strengths and
weaknesses in pursuing the soft path, e.gq
climate, types Of uses, sources Of energy?

8. What specific changes should we make in
organization, planning, and regulation to
encourage growth along the soft path?

Answers to these questions lies partly in policy

and politics but in large measure they require

factual information about land use and energy.
The extension service approach provides the mechanisms

for answering these kinds Of questions.

Another mode of providing information lies in the hands

Of citizen groups. The Operation Of local demonstration

services are additional aids in reaching the Objective of

decentralized energy. The major barrier facing these groups

 

86M. Simmons, p. 173.

 

69
is the inability Of Obtaining enough technical and financial
support tO Operate effective programs. Most federal pro-
grams do not like to send quantities of material to local
groups. In fact, eXpert advice on specific conservation and
renewable resource applications is generally available only
through expensive professional consultants. Many areas lack
even this resource. The solving Of these problems will be a
major step towards the dispensing Of information needed by
the general populus to understand alternative energies.

Besides the traditional educational channels, like
schools and libraries, the media is a huge educational tool
that can reach large numbers Of people. Convincing pub-
lishers and producers that energy develOpment rates news
time is a major step towards overcoming the educational gap.
For example, persuading newspapers, radio and television
stations to incorporate a "solar index" into their weather
report which indicates either the amount Of sunlight and
wind received that day, or the amount Of water that could
have been heated that day, or the amount Of money that could
be saved, would be one method. Numerous potentials exist
once the media is convinced Of its role in the presentation
of alternative energy information.

DevelOpment of educational programs, production Of
information materials, support Of citizen group programs,
and the incorporation Of the media in information dissemina-
tion are methods Of overcoming educational barriers. The
levels at which these approaches should be pursued will be

discussed later in this paper.

70
Financial Barriers

Financial barriers rank a close second behind education
in their impact on alternative energy deployment. The ini-
tial expense as compared to standard systems and the long
pay-back period Of the alternative systems presently
obstruct the onset Of large-scale implementation. The first
approach by many is to view this problem as one that must be
solved by the free market system. The possibility Of this
happening in a reasonable period Of time*, however, is
unlikely without government incentives and policy changes.
Markets as they exist are not free or natural, rather they
are biased and influenced by a wide variety of circum-
stances. These include institutional arrangements, poli-
cies, and practices Of both private enterprise and govern-
nment. In addition, as Gerald Brannon asserts,

There are three major problems with free market
energy prices that must be faced:

1. A free market is likely to result in
under investment in research on new technologies.

2. The decision makers are not the energy
developers.

3. Reserves Of energy are not providedafor
periods Of interruptions Of foreign sources.

 

*A reasonable period Of time, in the author's view is
as soon as humanly possible, so as to take into account the
enormous effect Of present energy prices on the poor in this
country. Can we allow the free market to move at its pace
or dO we, out Of conscious need to speed up the process
towards more ineXpensive energy?

87Gerald M. Brannon, Energy Taxes and Subsidies,
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Bollinger Publishing Company,
1974.

71
A free market approach is thus unlikely tO move towards the
use Of new systems of energy without a great deal Of effort
and change.

Although public Opinion appears strongly in favor Of
the use Of alternative energies and energy conservation over
fossil fuels or nuclear energy, this potential public demand
is at least partially thwarted by policies that prevent
prices from reflecting the true marginal costs of fossil
fuels and nuclear energy.88 The subsidizing Of the fossil
fuels with depletion allowances, price ceilings, and the
benefits Of federal assistance and promotion has created an
artificial market with regard to other energy sources.
Through 1978, the fossil fuel industry has $12“ billion in
subsidies and incentives, while the solar industry has re-
ceived less than $1 billion.89 The present higher cost of
alternative equipment is a result Of this lack of effective
competition. Alternative energies are not currently cost
competitive with conventional energies, although many are
approaching Oil-generated electricity. As has been stated,

this disparity in cost is widened by government policies

 

88Energy 12 America's Future: The Choices Before Us,
Edited by Sam H. Schurr, Resources For the Future (Balti-
more, Maryland: John HOpkins University Press, August
1979).

 

89Solar Action Incorporated, Citizen's Solar Program:
State Reports 03 Barriers and Strategies TO Renewable Ener
Development, (Washington, DAL: U.S. GOVEanent Printing
Office, October 1978), p. XI.

 

 

72

that have kept the price Of conventional energy below re-
placement costs. Gradual decontrol Of energy prices will
mitigate this disparity. An effective alternative energy
policy must be geared to achieving cost parity once techni-
cal feasibility is achieved. As long as this continues, the
alternatives will be discriminated against and their market
penetration slowed down. Economic energy conservation and a
rising use Of renewable resources should not be sacrificed
to a short-term illusory policy tO keep prices below cost.
The alternative to this reform is continued distortion in
the market and failure to eXplOit large sources Of potential
energy.

Philip J. Mause views the solution as,

In general, the gap between marginal costs and

current prices may be politically impossible to

close. Instead, a combination Of efforts to

revise rate structure to provide more accurate

price signals to consumers and various regulatory

measures will probably have to be undertaken.

Active utility involvement in energy conservation

and alternative energy supply investments,

appliance efficiency standards, building

standards and mandatory industrial efficiency

standards may all be necessary to ensure that

those conservation investments, which are less 0

costly than new supply, will actually be made.9

With an influx Of adequate financing, increased

production Of alternative hardware should result in a

 

90Philip J. Mause, "Price Regulation and Energy Policy"
in Selected Studies 93 Energy: Background Studies for
Ener : The Next Twenty Years, (Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Bollinger Publishing Company, 1980), p. 182.
lowering of capital cost. However, presently there are few

73
grant programs available to local organizations for projects
which demonstrate solar feasibility in local communities.
Without these examples, few people are willing to invest
their money into a costly system which they do not truly
understand. Banks and lending institutions are even less
likely to invest in systems with only limited track records.
There are no incentives to extend mortgages or Offer loans
to cover the initial cost of these installations. Also,
there are nO standards for renewable energy hardware upon
which consumers, financial institutions, and insurance
companies can base decisions. There is presently no easy
way for the average consumer to compare energy costs of
alternative structures or systems before building or buying.
This results in decisions based upon capital-cost rather
than life-cycle cost.

In addition, land requirements for some renewable
energy systems are large enough that the cost and
availability Of land in particular cases will be an
important element in economic calculations.

Finally, many Of the alternative technologies are
viewed as risky because they are new. This perception is
strengthened by the fact that many renewable applications
have been designed for a specific site, which means that
there may be reliable information for applications
elsewhere. The risk Of a lack Of adaptability to a

different site is a serious concern.

7”

With these types of problems facing the alternative
energy industry, financial institutions have been reluctant
to invest in the new technologies, particularly when the
economic advantages Of the renewables depend on highly
uncertain assumptions about the future cost and supply Of
other energy sources.91

The removal Of barriers involves the elimination Of
laws, procedures, perceptions, and practices which prevent
renewables from competing on an equal basis with
conventional forms Of energy. There are six basic solar
financial incentives which are currently in use and aimed at
lowering the price to the end consumer.

The six market price reduction strategies are:

1. Direct grants;

2. Income Tax rebates;

3. Income Tax credits;

4. Deductions from taxable income;

5. Sales tax exemptions;

6. Subsidized loan programs.92

The wide-Spread perception that financing is
unavailable has generated several loan guarantee programs.
Either directly through utilities and governmental agencies,

or through the existing network of banks andsavings and

 

91U.S. Department of Energy, Spla: Energy Objectives:
Calendar Year 1980, (Washington, ILC.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, April 1980).

 

 

 

92John Ashworth, The Implementation pf State Solar
Incentives: Financial Programs, (Menlo Park, California:
SERI International, February 1979), p. 6.

 

75
loan associations, subsidized loans for solar purchases are
Spreading rapidly. Various utilities have developed pro-
grams for financing energy systems.

Portland General Electric has created a loan

program which forwards 60% Of the system cost to

the solar purchaser as 'upfront' capital with

which to buy a solar system. This sum is then due

on July 1 Of the following year, presumably after

Ehzdpgrggjsgr has recouped his/her 60% through tax

gs.
The Southern California Gas Company has instituted a six
percent loan to be funded through ratepayers' dollars.

Finally, one additional concept in renewable energy.
lending is gaining support and deserves mention. Municipal
Solar Utilities are being established by communities with
funds from the profits of the utility that serves the city
with water, gas, and electricity. The MSU's are Offering
consumer loans for solar development.

Through the Windfall Profits Act of 1980, the federal
tax credit was increased to 110 percent up tO a ceiling Of
$4,000. Numerous states have enacted credits to supplement
the federal incentive. Nationally, over 19 states have
enacted credits of some sort to spur consumer interest in
renewable energy systems.9’4

Subsidizing the cost Of a solar system purchase through

rebates has its problems. Because the rebate is an

 

93Margaret C. Gardel, "Financing Solar Energy For The
Consumer: An Overview Of New Trends" Proceedings Of The
Western Sun 1980 Solar Update Conference, (Washington, DAL:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980), p. 107.

 

9”Gardel, P. 105.

76
after-the-fact reimbursement, the solar purchaser must first
be able to arrange financing in a conventional manner. Even
with the rebate, in many cases the consumer incurs a sub-
stantial debt with payments greater than the anticipated
fuel savings.

Which of these programs, if any, will lead to the
solving of the financial barrier is questionable. The
inclusion Of local innovations will certainly be necessary
if a speedy transition to renewable energies is tO be

accomplished.

Marketing Barriers

Marketing barriers include problems with standards,
scales, licensing, and consumer protection. Most of them
reflect the common issues affecting any young, growing
industry. The lack Of industrial performance standards and
performance data, however, presents the largest problem.
The dilemma of whether set standards may themselves become
barriers to deve10pment rather than incentives is certainly
legitimate. For example:

Performance standards based on thermodynamic

efficiency (energy collected per square foot of

collector surface) instead of overall performances

(energy collected per dollar spent) discriminate

in favor of large corporations which tend to

produce expensive, ‘high efficiency' systems. The

evolving standards-setting program tends to

discriminate against small businesses which cannot
afford the cost Of having their systems tested.

 

95Solar Action, Inc., p. XIV.

77
However, the other side Of the argument has a legitimate
position as well,

Consumers would like to know exactly how much

energy they will save and how long the systems

will last. They also expect some protection

against defects in design or workmanship,

eSpecially when the equipment requires a large

investment and serves an essential purpose, when

the technology is new, and where the manufacturer

is a relatively small company. Standards are

needed for both purposes; they provide information

necessary for product choice, and they provide the

basics for guarantees, whigg are desirable as a

way to promote confidence.

Thus, while standards are generally viewed as an Obstacle to
renewable energy development, they can be used tO promote,
as well as hinder, specific technologies. The establishment
Of a reputation Of being an unreliable or poorly constructed
product could hinder marketing to a much greater degree than
setting reasonable standards would deter the development.

Setting standards involves many technical problems,
such as the type Of tests conducted and how much data
suffices.

Because decentralized systems vary greatly from one
locale to another, the standards need to be adapted to local
requirements. Therefore, the parties reSpOnsible for
setting the standards should come from the communities
involved, and should consist Of representatives Of all

interested parties. The problem with this approach is in

providing the necessary information for correct

96Alan S. Miller, "Legal Obstacles to Decentralized
Solar Energy Technologies," Solar Law Reporter Vol. 1, NO.
3, September/October 1979, p. 598.

78
decision-making. The educational extension and state energy
offices may be one source of such guidance for the local
communities. This consensus approach emphasizing involve-
ment by all affected parties is preferable to government
regulation. The principal legal issue raised about standard
development by local groups is the possibility Of violating
anti-trust laws. The arbitrary or discriminatory withhold-
ing Of a seal or certification Of approval may well violate
the anti-trust laws.

The requirement Of a warranty on parts and labor in the
solar field is an area Of conflict and confusion. A number
of states are considering requiring such warranties.

Because Of the fear that warranties from small firms may not
be collectible, the states are also considering the use of
performance bonds or state-backed insurance policies.97

Warranties and certifications may be most effective
when supported by consumer protection laws designed to
discover and penalize deceptive and fraudulent practices.
Many apprOpriate state and local agencies exist, but the
technical information needed to identify intentional
deception has not been developed. In the absence Of
standards, consumer education may be one Of the most
powerful ways to protect consumers.

Product liability is another area of major concern in
alternative energy marketing. Insurance rates are dependent

upon the product safety practices Of manufacturers and the

97Miller.

79

product liability prevention programs being implemented by
the firms seeking the insurance. Small firms may have
problems meeting the product safety practices required by
insurance companies. Assistance by states insetting
reasonable standards and organizing insurance pool programs
may provide an answer tO this problem. Insurance for the
consumer is another dimension of this question. With the
limited present development Of renewable energy systems,
many insurance companies have not established rate
structures. In doing so, determination will be made as to
whether this activity is abnormally dangerous. Strict
liability will be imposed upon an activity where there is
the existence Of a high degree Of risk and an inability to
eliminate the risk by the exercise Of reasonable care.
Therefore, it will be important for the renewable industries
to show that a high degree Of risk or harm can be avoided by
the exercise of reasonable care.98

There is concern that these problems might frighten
prOSpective manufacturers and especially retailers out Of the
energy market. There is a need to impose a statutory

liability to encourage private industry participation.

Legal Barriers
New products, even when technically practical and

economically competitive, must overcome many Obstacles

 

98Lyne COit, Wind Energy: Legal Issues and
Institutional Barriers (Menlo Park, California: SERI, June
1979).

 

80
before becoming successful. This is true for the renewable
energy technologies. Consumers must be satisfied that
systems are reliable and durable; the rates to be charged
for auxiliary energy must be determined; building code
practices must be settled; and a myriad Of other potential
problems must be overcome.99 Many Of these issues will
arise as legal questions. Building codes, consumer
protection laws, mortgage lending practices, public utility
regulations and patent laws are among the significant legal

technologies.100

L. H. Tribe101 eXpressed the connection when he stated,

It is the law in its commonest manifestation
which, however inadvertently, supplies much Of the
context within which research and develOpment are
encouraged, permitted, or inhibited. And it is
the law which forms a large part Of the framework
through which the fruits Of such scientific and
technical endeavors are disseminated or
suppressed, and in terms Of which the costs and
benefits Of their efforts are distributed. Legal
structures Of rights and reSponsibilities designed
with wholly different ends in mind will thus
influence the evolution and shape the consequences
of science and technology--unless those who
contribute tO the design Of such legal structures
direct their attention to these issues in a timely

way.

In many cases, laws will have to be amended to account

for the special needs Of new energy systems. Even where

 

99Environmental Law Institute, Legal Barriers TO Solar

Heating And Cooling pf Buildings, (Washington, DuCE— (LS.
Government Printing Office, 1978).

 

100M111er.

101L. H. Tribe, Channeling Technology Through Law,
(Chicago: Bracton Press, 1973), p. 98.

81
problems facing solar technology are not caused by regula-
tory requirements, legal solutions to such problems are
often proposed.

Although energy problems are usually thought of as
being in the sphere Of decision-making by national
authorities, many policies affecting the renewable energy
industry are best handled by the state or local governments.
Land use controls, building codes, property and sales taxes
and utility rates are exclusively state/local functions.
These areas of interest represent the major legal barriers to
develOpment and must, therefore, be handled by the state and
local authorities, rather than through the establishment Of
federal directions which would be unable to consider all the
local variations and needs.

An example Of a land use and building code problem is
the requirement Of direct sunlight for some of the renewable
systems. focusing collectors or passive designed homes are
sensitive to shading. Thus, solar access becomes a legal
question. Unless rights to sunlight are established, many
potential users may decide tO forego installation Of
collectors over potential shading problems. Legal means Of
resolving the issue would be of clear benefit. Studies Of
the existence Of the problem in specific locales would help
clarify the need for legal change, while at the same time

alleviate unjustified concerns.102'

 

102George Hayes, Solar Access Law: Protectipg Access
19 Sunlight For Solar Energy Systems, (Environmental Law
Institute, 1979).

82
As it presently stands, there is no automatic or
prescribed "right to light" in the United States. TO
eliminate any doubt, a number Of states have adOpted solar
easement laws which clarify the requirements for eXpress
grants of easements to light for the benefit Of solar
collectors.103 A recent study suggests that proposed solar
access laws be evaluated in terms Of:
1. Protection Of appropriate amounts Of solar access;
2. Clear and fair allocation of costs and benefits;
3. Compatability with other laws and policies;
A. Adequate notice;
Political acceptability;
. Flexibility;

5

6

7. Compensation for loss Of access protection;
8 Ease Of implementation;

9

Protection Of future access.10u

Another approach would be solar zoning. A prototype
solar zoning scheme has been suggested by W. A. Thomas in an
American Bar Foundation Study.105 The proposal suggests
that,

1. Mandatory solar-energy use districts may

be established where conditions are suitable for
use Of cost-effective solar energy systems as the

 

103Stephen B. Johnson, "State Approaches TO Solar
Legislation: A Survey," Solar Law Reporter Vol. 1, NO. 1,
May/June 1979. .

1O”Hayes.

105W. A. Thomas, Overcoming Legal Uncertainties,
Chicago: American Bar Foundation, 2978), p. 20.

 

83

primary energy source in all new or significantly
altered structures.

2. Affirmative solar-energy-use districts
may be established where conditions are suitable
for use of cost-effective solar energy systems but
where mandatory solar energy use would be
impracticable because Of prevailing conditions.

3. The boundaries Of solar-energy-use
districts shall be defined by the local government
after consideration Of topography and vegetation
in the area, height, bulk, and location Of
structures; age and type of structures and present
energy systems in them; extent and character of
actual and proposed development provisions in the
comprehensive plan; economic feasibility Of using
solar energy systems; and other relevant factors.

As in all approaches, zoning plans have their limitations
and are Open to legal challenge.

The control Of vegetation is also a major problem when,
through growth, it begins to shade existing systems. The
proving of a nuisance as a basis for protecting solar access
is questionable.106 However, some states have enacted laws

based upon this contention. As S. F. Kraemer states,107

Declaring a shadow that shades a solar collector a
public nuisance should be within the ambit of
state legislators or local governments. Such an
action would be for the public health, safety, and
general welfare under the police power to
alleviate growing energy shortage, reduce
pollution, and preserve the local economy.

The requirement that planting be limited and surrounding
trees be trimmed when they begin casting a shadow on

existing solar systems is bound to bring court action. In

 

106Alan S. Miller, "Legal Obstacles to decentralized
Solar Energy Technologies; art II, 9.2.1.3.: Law Reporter Vol.
1, NO. 9, November/December 1979).

107$. 1:. Kraetner', .52.}.3: Law, (Colorado Springs,
Colorado: Shepard's, Inc., 1978), p. 117.

 

'row1w"

 

 

 

8L1

defense Of this approach, it is important tO note that

vegetation controls are already imposed to further other

accepted public concerns, such as protection and utility

power lines.

The New Mexico Solar Rights Act108 is the first state

law to declare solar access as a property right tO solar

energy users. The act states:

A.

The Legislature declares that the right tO use
the natural resource Of solar energy is a
property right, the exercise Of which is to be
encouraged, and regulated by the laws Of this
state. Such property rights shall be known as
solar right.

The following concepts shall be applicable to
the regulation Of disputes over the use of
solar energy where practicable:

1) 'beneficia_l_ 933' shall be the basis,
the measure, and the limit Of the solar right,
except as otherwise provided by written
contract. If the amount Of solar energy which
a solar collector user can beneficially use
varies with the season Of the year, then the
extent Of the solar right shall vary likewise;

 

2) 'prior appropriation' In disputes
invol ving solar rights, priority in time shal l
have the better right except that the state
and its political subdivisions may legislate,
or ordain that a solar collector user has a
solar right even though a structure or
building located on neighborhood prOperty
blocks the sunshine from the proposed solar
collector site. Nothing in this paragraph
shall be construed to diminish in any way the
right Of eminent domain Of the state or any of
its political subdivisions or any other entity
that currently has such a right; and,

 

3) 'transferability' Solar rights shall
be freely transferable within the bounds Of
such regulation as the legislature may impose.

 

 

108Solar Rights Act, Ch 169, 1977, New Mexico Laws, New
Mexico Stat. Ann. Sections 70-8-2.

85

The transfer Of solar right shal 1 be recorded

in accordance with Chapter 111, Article 9, NMSA

1978.

C. Unless singular overriding state concerns

occur which significantly affect the health

and welfare Of the citizens Of this state,

permit systems for the use and application Of

solar energy shal l reside with county and

municipal zoning authorities.
The ability Of this law to withstand legal tests may provide
many solutions to the removal Of legal barriers to renewable
energy methods.

Many of the legal questions for solar access are
related to wind generation systems. The blocking Of wind by
structures may present a barrier whose solution requires
similar actions. Also, a frequent impediment tO both solar
and wind develOpment is regulations governing the exterior
appearance Of buildings. These can arise from either
privately created architectural controls or public
ordinances. Limited research on tth type Of ordinance
indicates a substantial degree Of uncertainty concerning the
likelihood Of successful court challenges.109

One approach to overturning the restriction would be to
pass laws on a state level forbidding unreasonable inter-
ference with the use of solar collectors or wind generators,
except in cases Of public safety. In the case Of wind
generation, the lot size might become a safety factor be-

cause Of'the distance a blade could be thrown in the event

Of an accident.

 

109Environmental Law Institute.

86

It should be noted that laws designed to foster the
develOpment of solar energy, if unclear and ambiguous, may
be strangled by the‘resulting web Of administrative rules,
procedures, and interagency conflicts, thereby adding
further difficulties to the already present barriers tO
develOpment of renewable energies.

The reverse side Of the legal concern of Obtaining
right is the protection Of the rights Of developments. A
number of the renewable energies can create a major impact
upon a surrounding area. For example, geothermal and alco-
hOl production may present problems Of noise and Odor, and
ocean thermal energy may cause local weather modification.
All may have aesthetic considerations. It is likely that
legal attacks based upon nuisance and environmental impacts
wil l have tO be confronted. The environmental impact issues
will need to be solved by technology. The non-health
affecting nuisances wil 1 require zoning and local ordinances

that recognize the need for such development.

Utility Barriers

Private, investor-owned, and municipal ly-owned utili-
ties will have a significant impact on the commercialization
of renewable energies. A number of issues have developed
concerning utilities which must be solved by legislative
control. The important questions Of the price utility back—
up to solar systems, the price paid to decentralized units
for excess energy, feed into the electrical grid, discrimi-

natory rate-making against solar-based customers, and

87
regulatory jurisdiction Of the Public Utilities Commission
al 1 must be answered.

The issue Of PUC jurisdiction concerns the propriety
and extent of state regulation Of renewable energy technolo-
gies. The question Of whether a decentralized system which
sells electricity to a utility is in fact a utility itself
is the crux Of the issue. If so, should such systems be
controlled by PUC licensing, a process that involves lengthy
hearings on site selection, rate-making and territorial
jurisdiction? The state Of Hawaii has decided to exempt
from PUC jurisdiction and regulation,

Facilities which produce, transmit, or furnish

power produced primarily from non-fossil sources

for its internal uses, although excess power

must be purchased by local utilities, at rates

to be arbitrated by the PUC if necessary.

California also has shown concern for this issue. A
2978 law111 states that its purpose is to

Ensure that the solar energy industry develOps

in a manner which is competitive and free from

the potential dominance Of regulated electrical

and gas corporations.

The range Of utility involvement with renewable energy
sources is the subject Of intense concern. Many see
decentralization as a means of gaining independence form

large utilities and resist utility involvement. Others

encourage utility participation because Of existing service

11C)Chapter 102, Sec. 1, 1977, Laws Of Hawaii, Hawaii

111Chapter 1102, 1978. Cal Stat., Cal. Pub. Utility
Code Section 2775.5.

88

infra-structures and capital availability. The motivations
of utilities are questioned. Greater profits can be Ob-
tained by providing the energy directly, rather than dis-
persing theluunvledge and the systems on a one time profit
basis. Therefore, are the utilities likely to develop and
market the systems with the same speed and diligence a
private business would? Turning the responsibility over to
utilities while restraining gnfintate enterprise in the red
tape of PUC restrictions is likely to result in a major
barrier to speed development. Encouraging utility coopera-
tion with private enterprise is, however, another story. A
number of states have authorized their PUC's to al low utili-
ties tO invest in alternative energies. Provisions have
been made to eliminate the possibility Of monopolies.

Discriminatory rates for solar customers is a major
barrier to marketing renewable systems. The utilities'
position is that solar demand occur at cold or cloudy
periods when peak generating Iload is greatest, thus requir-
ing increased capacity above lower levels Of fluctuating
demand. Disregarding Ufis.argument, a number of states have
moved towards forbidding discriminatory rates. For example,
Iowa112 has prohibited municipal, corporate, or cOOperative
electric or gas utilities from making 'discriminatory rates
or charges" or otherwise causing "prejudice or disadxtantage"

to a user of renewable energy sources.

_‘ _

112Chapter 1056, 1978 Iowa Act, Iowa Code Section 476.

89

Included in the issue Of rate discrimination is the
buy-back price paid to smal 1 system owners by the utilities.
The provisions of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies
Act113 require non-discriminatory rates for sales to utili-
ties by small systems, including solar systems. Voluntary
guidelines for solar energy and renewable resources have
been issued under the provisions Of the Act by the Depart-

ment.11u

In actual fact, however, the various utilities
appear to have discriminated against renewable system
owners. For example:

Southern California Edison will pay 11 mils (one

mil equals l/1000 dollars) per kilowatt hour peak,

7 mils for mid peak, and about 3 mils for minimum

peak power. These rates correspond to about 33

mils, 22 mils? Sand 10 mils in charges

respectively. 1
Also, many utilities continue to charge higher service rates
for solar customers. Detroit Edison charges $6.50 per month
for these customers, as contrasted to $2.50 per month for
regular service.

The proper role of utilities within decentralized
development, the fair treatment of renewable customers, and
the jurisdiction Of the PUC are issues that must be
resolved. With utilities presently having a monOpOly control

over electrical and gas energy production, a transition to

decentralized systems wil 1 possibly be perceived as a major

 

11316 USCA 824a-3, 1 SUPP- 1979-
1'”u5 FR 12188 (February 22. 1980)-

115Simmons, p. 221.

90
threat and is unlikely tO be made voluntarily by the utility

companies.

Regulatory Barriers

The four areas Of concern that result in regulatory
barriers are:

1. land use patterns and energy consumption;

2. building codes;

3. zoning regulations;

u. interagency policy interpretation.

Each individual jurisdiction develops and administers
its own general land use plan. It sets its own densities
and land uses, approves or disapproves the subdivision Of
land, administers building codes, and sets zoning
restrictions. These important decisions are made by local
government even though frequently the implications have
regional or statewide significance. For example, in the San
Francisco Bay area alone there are 93 cities and nine
counties, plus 25 special districts, regional agencies, or
other governmental agencies with land use powers.116
Although for the most part direct regulations Of land use is
the province Of local government, many levels Of government
are Often involved. As noted in the San Francisco Bay area,
as many as four or even five levels of planning and decision-
making can be superimposed. The Opportunity for problems is

multiplied by this type Of structure. Lovins has developed

 

116Simmons, p. 162.

91
an approach for dealing with barriers created by such

systems. He states,

In order to estimate the potential for wideSpread
utilization Of DETS we must understand more fully
how the employment Of such technologies wil l alter
current land use patterns and the trends that have
been develOping toward new varieties Of land use

develOpment. We must also attempt to identify the

organizational arrangements and administrative
procedures Of the various decision-making groups
that wil 1 be necessary tO accommodate these
distributed energy systems. More specifically, we
will have to consider:

1) designing new linkages between these

groups and the energy industry and equipment
manufacturers-~current non-existent;

2) formulating new standards for ‘ good'
planning design criteria;

3) reevaluating current relationships between
community and regional and state land use
regulatory authorities;
11) reassessing trade-Offs between land usage
for energy support facilities ??0 other needs
(agriculture and recreation).1
This implies that major changes in both the ways we
now choose to use land, and the manner in which its usage is
31 located will be necessary. As such, energy considerations
wil l compete with a broad range Of economic, political,
social, and institutional constraints traditional in govern-
ing the use Of land.

A specific approach to energy-oriented land use plan-

ning designed by Simmons118 is:

117A. B. Lovins, Soft Energy Paths: Toward A Durablg
Peace Cambridge, Massachusetts: 801 linger Publishing
Company, 1977), p. 8”.

118Simmons, p. 179.

92

1) Draw a sample Of areas within a region or
entire state representing cross-sections of urban,
farm, densities, traffic characteristics, climate,
resource, availability, land use, mix Of age of
structures, wealth, etc.

2) Determine and map existing land uses in
detail, using classifications that would be

energy-sensitive. Possible sources include zoning
and land use maps, assessors' records, insurance
information, utility information, and actual
surveys.

3) Determine and map existing energy use
(by land classifications) as tO gross use, peak
and Off—peak periods, end—use demand and quality.
Utility information and surveys would be required.

11) Analyze area plans and commitments to
growth and estimate future energy requirements,

reviewing land use, infrastructure and develOpment
prOposals.

5) Analyze the implications Of energy supply
disruptions. Establish rationing and allocation
schemes, energy conservation programs, and
potential sources for augmenting supply.

6) Determine the energy conservation potential
Of existing and planned uses if changes were made
in the transportation patterns, housing densities,
and the spatial arrangement Of shopping, work,
recreation, and living areas.

7) Analyze the supply potential Of soft
energy sources in area noting the locational and
area requirements and resultant environmental
impacts.

8) Re-evaluate area plans and commitments to
growth in light Of conservation and soft energy
supply possibilities.

9) Evaluate possible economics from regional

entities, i.e., wind, pumped storage, solar,
geothermal.

10) Evaluate local program in light of
regional and state profiles and targets.

11) Prepare area planning package to ensure
ful l consideration of energy in land use
decisions. This might include an element Of the
General Plan, recommended ordinance changes, an

93

environmental impact assessment guide, and a

system for evaluating the energy implications of

the capital improvement plan.

The major step in dealing with land use problems wil 1
be the establishing Of a system Of coordinating the various
levels Of authority. Once accomplished, renewable energy
systems wil l have a greater Opportunity for contributing a
meaningful portion Of the energy supply.

Building codes regulate all aspects Of building
materials and design. Numerous studies Of the building code
process have emphasized its adverse impact on the adoption
of new technologies in buildings.119 Codes are administered
by thousands of independent local code agencies. There are
more than 30,000 building code variations. As a result,
approval of new products is a community-by-community process
inmost situations.120 Despite the existence of at least
five national building code organizations and many statewide
codes, local communities do not always reflect recent
amendments for accommodating new technology. Local groups
wil l have to encourage adoption Of these new measures if
problems with codes are to be overcome. Once solar codes
are developed, it is important that inspectors be trained
and encouraged to enforce compliance. Contractors
and builders must be made aware Of the importance Of

inclusion Of the systems in their construction projects.

 

119Grant Thompson, Building 29 Spy; Energy: Legal and
Regulatory Approaches, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Bol linger
Publishing Company, 1979).

 

12OMiiier, p. 77A.

911
Unfamiliarity with solar technology has created more delays
than code requirements. This delay will diminish as code
Officials and builders get more experience.

In California, existing statewide codes are being
reviewed tO identify sections which might hinder the use of
solar systems. It is also planned to train building
Officials in the use Of the new information to reduce delays
at the local level.121

The changing Of these codes and training Of the
Officials will not be an easy task.

Around these standards have grown a massive

bureaucracy Of interrelated decision makers that

includes the Federal Government, the financial
institutions, including the assessors, and the
appraisers, contractors, home builders, material
suppliers, codes, zoning ordinances, to say

nothing Of the attitudes and values that peOple

have developed. It is the social acceptability Of

an idea and these attitudes that are so imporztéant

and dO become such an impediment tO change.

Local zoning may present serious Obstacles to renewable
energy develOpment. Aethetics, height restrictions,
orientation, density and setback controls may all present
difficulties tO be resolved.

A city with valid aethetic zoning controls must decide

whether harmonious architectural styles are more important

121Robert Odland and Julie Riley, Standards Building
Codes, and Certification Programs For _S____Olar Technology
Applications, (Golden, Colorado: SERI,1979)_.

 

 

122David M. Scott, "The Earth Shelter Experience of
Codes, Ordinances, Financing, Incentives, and Attitudes,"
Proceeding of the Western Sun 1980 So_l_ar _U_pdate,
(Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1980),
p. 73

95
than the use of solar energy. There will be applications
where on-site solar technology fits and others where the
decision is made to control this type Of development. Other
renewable methods may be more acceptable and information
should be made available concerning these choices.

One common type of zoning ordinance that could be an
Obstacle in certain situations is the height restriction
ordinance. However, special exceptions to height restric-
tions are Spires, bel fries, cupolas, antennas, water tanks,
ventilators, chimneys, or other appertures usually required,
to be placed above the roof level and are not intended for
human occupancy. A solar collector would seem to be a type
of appurtenance.123 This may be one method Of sol ving
height restrictions.

Methods of avoiding rigid siting and lot size require-
ments are currently available in many localities. In such
areas, a develOper may apply for a planned-unit development
which al lows greater flexibility in laying out streets and
siting buildings.124

Another method Of handling zoning barriers may be for
the property owner to request a special exception. A
special exception is a statutory provision that al lows an

otherwise unlawful land use, when the specific statutory

 

123Fred Bair, _A_ Model Zoning Ordinance, (Chicago:
American Society Of Planning Officials, 1976).

12”Paul Spivak, Land Use Barriers and Incentives lg 1113
Of Split Energy (Solar Energy Research Institute, August
)

 

Use
1979

96
requirements have not been met.125 From a community's
perspective, the special exception may be preferred to
changing zoning legislation to allow solar devices in all
cases. By placing guidelines on special exceptions for the
use Of solar collectors, a community can fulfill the goals
of its zoning regulations, while al lowing enough flexibility
tO solar collectors regarding exact compliance with those

regulations.126

Technical Barriers

 

The major impediments to technological develOpment Of
the renewable energy sources have been financial. The
Federal Government has not placed a major emphasis with
regards to money, upon the decentralized systems, but rather
has encouraged the develOpment Of large-scale fossil fuel
alternatives. The decentralized funds that have been made
available have gone to large companies for research and
develOpment rather than to local communities and small
companies. The tendency has been for theme large companies
to concentrate their efforts upon large-scale, central ly-
located solar designs because Of their greater potential for
profit. The smal l-scale methods, conservation techniques,
and passive solar designs have received little active support

form either the Federal Government or big business.

 

125Anderson, American Law Of Zoning, 19.01-1932-
126Spivak.

97

These areas of develOpment do not Offer either large
profits or central control and thus are not candidates for
major emphasis. Without prOper funding, the technological
develOpment of systems or approaches must move slowly. The
limitation of research monies halts many projects that would
provide needed information tO aid system develOpment and
creates problems in large-scale dissemination Of informa-
tion. Thus, community-scale applications and low-cost sys-
tems have not received adequate support.

A new system must go through four stages Of develop-
ment:

1) Technology development

2) Engineering development

3) Demonstration

A) Commercialization127
Many of the smal 1 power systems are in the demonstration
stage of the develOpment cycle. The engineering
feasibility Of these systems has been proven and will be
wel 1 established for regular Operating conditions in
the course of the demonstrations. Before these systems can
achieve acceptance in the marketplace, their long—range
performance characteristics must be determined. A system
life of 20 years is considered acceptable form a standpoint

Of users. However, without funding, these demonstrations

 

127U.S. Department Of Energy, _S_<_>_lar, Geothermal,
Electrical And Storage Systems Program Summary Document,
(Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, June
1980).

 

 

98
cannot proceed in any meaningful fashion, thus the barrier
of finances to technological development.

A major problem requiring technological advances is the
structural barrier to retrofits. Many structural and design
characteristics essential to use Of certain solar systems in
residential buildings are not adaptable to many existing
buildings. For example, east or west facing homes,
inadequate weight support or lack Of attic space, small
usable roof areas, or sunlight limitation from tal 1
buildings create problems that wil 1 require new answers.
Approximately 77 percent Of existing residential buildings
will stil 1 be in use in the year 2000.128 A sizable number
will need Special adaptation and design if they are to take
advantage of solar energy.

The individual decentralized energy systems all contain
technological problems that must be removed prior to large-
scale marketing. Large-scale federal and state funding is
necessary to overcome this barrier if solutions are to be
developed in the near future. The large financial require-
ment Of the systems cannot be ignored or placed upon smal 1
businesses and local communities. The work Should be accom-
plished through them, but the funding must come from the
outside.

Policy Barriers
The policy barriers deal with the attitudes and ap-

proaches Of authorities and decision makers who are in

 

128Doe Solar Energy Objectives, p. A3.

99
positions of aiding or hindering alternative energy develop-
ment. Much of the problem stems from federal and state
government. Three typical problems encountered in policy

and decision making are:
1) Inadequate statutory definitions of key terms

2) Unclear delegation Of responsibility to
administrative agencies

3) Lack of a req‘uirement of intergovernmental
coordination 29

As Michael Warren eXplains,

The creation Of adequate definitions before much
eXperience has been gained with solar technology
is not a simple task. Some legislatures have
purposely kept definitions Of solar systems
vague. It is feared that definitions which are
too precise and limited to known technology wil 1
result in twO unwanted outcomes. First, new
technological develOpments would be excluded
from incentives which were tied to outdate defi-
nitions Of solar systems. Second, precise defi-
nitions, outdated or not, would mark the
boundaries of solar energy, thereby hindering

further deve113<bpment and advancement Of solar
technology.

Such definitions cause a lack of the flexibility that solar
laws need in order to be able to keep abreast Of future
designs and uses Of renewable energy systems, especial ly at
this early stage of the industry's development.

The unclear assignment Of role or authority is a major
concern in state governments. In some cases, the spreading

Of authority has created serious problems Of coordination

A AA.-

129M. Warren, "Common Problems In Drafting State Solar
Legislation, Split; Law Reporter Vol. 1, NO. 11,
November/December 1979, p. 159.

130Warren, p. 160.

100
and results in administrative immobility. The establishment
Of a chain of'cxnmnand and specific responsibilities will.
lead to eXpanded develOpment Of alternative energies with a
region.

The need for intergovernmental coordination is Obvious.
Duplication of effort is not only expensive, but also con-
fusing. In many cases, deflhfijions, building codes, stand-
ards, and administrative guidelines vary to such a large
degree from one regnan to another than sma].l businesses
faced with the task Of insuring that their equipment meets
numerous cniteria in numerous regions or states, some of
which conflict, may be unable to eXpand tO the degree neces-
sary for serious implementation Of these renewable systems.
The needed eXpansion will put increasing pressure upon legi-
:slatures to provide for efficient administration Of energy
policy.

Legislation that attempts to deal vdth such an unmense
range Of problems will touch many different departments and
agencies in state government. Thus legislative tools allow-
ing for prOper administration Of renewable energy legisla-
tion become essential to the effectiveness Of the legisla-
tion. The first step will be the identification Of barriers
tO the establishment Of these procedures.

Two major problems are:

1) A "centralize energy" bias Of some policy-
makers.

2) The resistance to public input.

Both wil 1 need to be addressed before meaningful change can

101
result. The "new" energy Options wil 1 require adjustment of
attitudes and inputs from many authorities not normal ly
associated with the system. Out Of necessity, renewable
energy develOpment in many locations has been a grass roots
approach. Thus, the experienced people will come from these
levels in many cases. Acceptance Of their views and
approaches may be difficult for some lawmakers.

Peter Pol lack131 has established four approaches to

administering renewable energies,

1) Initiatives should be analyzed by each
state with an eye toward their compatability with
state politics and political structure. Such
choices as enabling versus mandatory or general
versus specific programs will depend upon local
attitudes and expertise and the level Of energy
saving desired from solar energy uses.

2) Legislation Should be carefully drafted so
as to clearly indicate lines Of administrative
authority and the basis upon which administrative
rulings must be made.

3) Coordination Of state-level bureaucracies
with jurisdiction over land use and energy should
be performed early in the adoption Of a particular
initiative. This is especial ly important in the
transfer Of technical information from the state
to the local level.

A) In order to assist local jurisdiction in
the implementation Of state-level initiatives,
technical information such as design handbooks,
model ordinances and easements, and baseline

energy information should be provided as early as
possible.

Once governmental approach is established, the numerous

policy barriers can be dealt with. These include:

 

131Peter Pollack, The Implementation 9i State 8013!;
Incentives: Land Use P_l_anning TO Ensure SO Olar Access,
(Golden, Colorado: SERI, March 1979 9), . 25.

 

102

1) The large subsidies for fossil fuels which
place renewable energies at an economic
disadvantage.

2) The little support or funding going to
local community groups to develOp
renewable resources.

3) The inadequate installation Of solar
design and equipment in government
buildings for demonstration purposes.

A) Needed incentives such as tax credits and
loan programs for solar equipment.

5) Limited funding Of State Energy
Demonstration and Energy Education
Programs.

6) Incorporation of energy development into
regional and local planning.

7) Building Codes and zoning restrictions
making renewables unfeasible in many
locations.

8) Undue restrictions on small contractors
and dO-it-yourselfers.

9) Misunderstanding Of renewable concepts by
inspection Officials.

10) Non-availability Of funds for energy
conservation program studies.

A final concern must be the restraining Of 11 l
conceived, hasty action. Laws designed to foster
develOpment of renewable energies, if ambiguous or unclear,
may be strangled. by the resulting mass Of administrative

rules, procedures, and interagency conflicts.

Social Barriers

"Energy is a social, not a technological
issue. A basic flow in all energy discussions is

132Solar Action Incorporated, p. 218.

103

that the cultural and social content tends to be
left implicit. Yet the major choices in energy
paths are being made in the context Of different

and Often1§§nflicting social and cultural
systems."

Our present centralized energy system permeates al 1
aspects Of our society and culture. A change to a
decentralized system wil 1 result in many changes in our
society. The pervasive desire to preserve the status quO is
a strong barrier to decentralizing energy. Once citizens
are convinced Of the advantages Of decentralized energy
control, however, many wil I begin participating in
developing the systems. Herman Koenig13u raises a number Of
issues that need to be resolved as this change takes place:

1) What wil l or should be the social and
productive roles of the family unit in the context
of anticipated changes in the physical and social
organization Of human settlements?

2) What are the attitudinal and perception
factors involved in motivating families and
communities tO assume a leadership role in shaping
their future?

3) At what point in the future are specific
components of community and family adaptation
likely to become economically and socially
motivated and to what degree can or should the
timing be influenced by policy incentives and
disincentives?

'4) What are the forms, amounts, and timing
Of public and private investment and disinvestment
required tO support these adaptations and what are
the alternative institutional arrangements for
providing the necessary capital?

 

133Simmons, p. 99.

13uHerman E. Koenig, Industrial Societieslg
Transition: The Rplg pf The Family Uplp, prepared for
American Home Economics Association, 71st Annual Meeting,
Dallas, Texas, June 1980.

 

 

 

101-1
5) TO what extent should the technical
efficiency and physical performance Of future
develOpments in tranSportation, district heating,
deployment Of local renewable resources and other
elements Of community form be tempered by more

subtle social and cultural considerations?

Studies must be completed in a relatively short time
Span. Shifts in employment, real income, and family
security are all impacted by the present energy situation.
Development of new systems will likely result in many new
problems. Approaches tO a smooth transition Of social
expectations and needs is as important as many of the
technical problems facing decentralization of energy. Life-
styles and energy use habits are likely to be changed
dramatically. The people involved must understand the
reasons for such change and the future benefits they wil 1
Obtain. Of all the barrier fields, social barriers are

the least understood and researched and yet in many ways,

the most important.

Conclusions

 

Introduction Of decentralized renewable energy systems
are constrained by a variety Of barriers to the integration
Of these alternatives with local existing conventional
energy systems. The identification Of these constraints is
the first step towards the decentralization of the local
communities' energy systems. The resulting organization Of
potential barriers and constraints into nine major groups is

an attempt to address this variety Of influences. The major

groups are:

105
1. Education
2. Financial

3. Marketing

A. Legal
5. Utility
6. Regulatory

7. Technological

8. Policy

9. Social

Neither the Federal Government nor any single entity Of
the state, regional, or local levels is capable Of eliminat-
ing al 1 Of the barriers obstructing alternative energy de-
‘velOpment. Action at all. levels Of government and by large
numbers of individuals and groups wil I certainly be required

to achieve significant alternative energy develOpment.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

am

The purpose of this dissertation has been to perform
policy research and analysis Of existing programs to ident-
ify barriers to regional, state, and local energy develOp-
ment. The aim in completing the study has been tO provide
local authorities the organizational structure to:

1. Establish policies and devise strategies for

replacing dwindling fossil fuels with renewable

Y‘ESOUY‘CQS .

2. Promote the incentives that will encourage
alternative energy development.

3. Determine the barriers to and necessities for the
develOpment Of renewables.

A. Formulate the strategies that would reduce those
barriers.

The identification Of barriers, and the steps to be
taken to remove them, help create an efficient, effective
program. Therefore, research capability was aimed at deter-
mining how man's decisions and activities either assist or
block proposed development. The comparison Of established
programs in decentralized energy develOpment provided the
mechanism for such a determination. Hawaii's programs sur—
faced. The State Of Hawaii, due tO its present overwhelming
dependence upon petroleum, has recognized the need for the
develOpment Of its indigenous energy sources. While an

106

107
alternative energy program for any region must be unique and
site-Specific, the experience gained in Hawaii may have
positive spinoff to other areas deficient in conventional
energy supplies. Being a state with numerous potential
energy resources and a receptive populus, there has been a
rapid development Of new technologies. The rate and degree
Of development achieved by Hawaii may help provide some
insight to other regions in their attempts to develop their
own resources.

An analysis Of the Hawaiian system, coupled with
methods and approaches from other state and local programs
has led to the following conclusions. A successful program
must begin with three steps:

1. The education Of the public concerning potential
alternatives and the possible means to develOp
them.

2. The organization Of committees to involve the
community in problem solving and develOpment Of the

resources .

3. The procuring Of funds to finance research and
development Of the alternatives.

The education Of the general public requires a great
deal of advance preparation. Universities and Community
Energy Self-Sufficiency Program contributed the major por-
tion of information necessary for this study. The recommen-
dations section Of this chapter contains a model program
which has been designed from information selected from the
Hawaii eXperiences, along with contributions from other

state and local programs.

108
Conclusions

The huge variety Of climatic, economic, and demographic
settings, and the many potential ways Of adapting renewable
energy to local conditions are creating a rich diversity Of
methods from which to choose. In deciding how best to meet
energy demands in a particular setting, it is important that
the decisions take into consideration the differences in
performance, economic attractiveness, and impacts--environ-
mental, social, legal, and political--Of a particular renew-
able energy. Since these considerations can vary
considerably in different settings, the develOpment and
control of these systems must be accomplished in a decen-
tralized fashion. In actual fact, however, few state and
local systems are organized to deal with the problems relat-
ing to alternative energy development. Therefore, the first
step in the decentralization Of energy production must be
the planned establishment Of these systems. Various ap-
proaches have developed across the country to deal with
aSpectS Of the problem, but only a few cases have total
Colleges within the region must determine the available
potential Options, prepare the information specialists, and
train technicians. As the economic Situation changes and
traditional energy costs increase, the mood within a commu-
nity is likely to become receptive to new ideas. Informa-
tion can then be dispersed through homeowners' groups, media
releases, libraries, state agencies, and academic institu-

tions. Community Colleges and Universities should include

109
in their alternative energy program these three areas of
involvement:

1. Curriculum programs.

2. Special educational events and workshOps.

3. Energy extension services.

Initially, short-term programs need to be Offered for
educators, school administrators, and school board members
to convince them of the value Of incorporating alternative
energy information into school curriculimL Other Offerings
Of the short course approach should be for business and
community groups, building contractors, financial Officers
Of lending institutions, and legislators. Once the key
people in the community have been appraised of the feasi-
bility of the local alternatives, implementation of large-
scale efforts to educate the general public can proceed.
The methods used in this education process would be:

1. Development of educational programs.

2. Production Of information materials.

3. Support of citizen programs.

A

. Incorporation Of the media in information
dissemination.

As public awareness and acceptance Of the potential
Options develOps, the next step, that Of organization, can
begin. The organization Of efforts in developing an alter-
native energy program tO compliment the established tradi-

tional energies will require a much greater public

involvement.

110

The devised approach utilizes a pyramid committee sys-
tem. (Figure 16) With the large number of barriers
obstructing implementation plus the variety Of possible alter-
natives, a sizable number of people at all levels will be
required if the system is tO accomplish the goal of exped-
ient alternative energy develOpment. Committees at all
levels of government: state, regional, county, and local,
dealing with the nine barrier issues13u must be organized.

A liaison between levels must established with procedures
developed for an orderly flow Of information.

A State Alternative Energy Coordinator, appointed by
the governor, will be responsible for overseeing the state-
level subcommittees and reporting to the State Energy Com-
mittee. The State Energy Committee Should be composed Of
representatives of the private sector, business and finan-
cial interests, academic and technological segments, govern-
ment figures, and environmental concerns. This wide
Spectrum approach should insure consideration of all sides
of each issue in the develOpment Of a functional plan.

The implementation Of the functional plan through the
removal of barriers at their apprOpriate levels is the
responsibility Of the subcommittees. Each subcommittee
should develop means and methods Of encouraging a wide range
of input from all aspects Of the community. Without this
cooperation and participation from large numbers of the

citizenry, a meaningful contribution from alternative energy

 

13”Education, Marketing, Financial, Legal, Utility,
Regulatory, Technological, Policy, and Social.

lll

 

 

PROPOSED STATE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY PYRAMID]
‘GOVERNOR 1

[STATE ENERGY COMMITTEEJ

 

 

 

 

I STATE ENERGY COORDINATOR l

1

STATE ENERGY SUBCOMMITTEES I

1

COUNTY ENERGY SUBCOMMITTEES J

I

REGIONAL ENERGY SUBCOMMITTEES I

LOCAL ENERGY SUBCOMMITTEES J

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 16 .--PrOposed State Alternative Energy Pyramid.

112
sources is unlikely. The local committees provide the most
appropriate level for the great majority Of interaction. In
the organization of the committees, a mechanism must be
established to transfer information up and down through the
levels to facilitate their inclusion in any planning. Pos-
sibly the serving Of one member of a lower committee on the
next level committee would accomplish such a purpose. With
a free flow Of information, problems and solutions can be
matched at the level Of need.

Once the pyramid is established, numerous public meet-'
ings should be held throughout the system for the release Of
information developed by the committees, to the populace.
Demonstration Centers and Information Clearing-houses are
important aspects Of this approach. If people are tO become
involved, theyrmnu;have easily available, clear information
explaining the alternatives. Misinformation and contradic-
tory facts can only add to the difficulties Of development.
The major goal Of the state level committees will be the
establishment Of procedures that move clear, precise infor-
mation down through the system to the local level.

The model Of alternative energy develOpment presented
in this dissertation delineates a flow Of responsibility
from the state level down into the local communities (Figure
16). Each level contains committees designed to deal with
the constraints and barriers best handled at that level
(Figures 17 thru 20). The components Of the pyramid are
headed by the state governor who appoints a state energy

committee and state energy coordinator. The purpose of the

113

 

 

8003688 @185 H264 33m BmOOOHm11KH 053m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ema

.95 $38 838 Eng 5.88m 53 spam

mBmmfi 88¢. 88m ems 8365 g8

_ . _ - - h H - a A m . 1. -
.598

E E8 mficmmym
88.88 2 E8 8E<Eo88 mag
85% 8% 8m mfiozmoa. m8 988
8% 98% 48258. 82.8 828m 482m
.598 58me 83%
Sam 88 E8 8958 8§8B E58 285
025.55 .205 . 88248 92 858 82828 8%
8% 885 8% 88E 8% 3%
EEE game. 5855 g8 E8 058

 

 

— KOH<ZHCmCOU MUMNZM HH<Hm —

 

 

fl mMMHHHZZOU wummzm Am>md MH<Hm _

 

 

114

 

 

 

 

 

nEZOm
ZGH9SBHEEO
wUfiEfim

 

 

Amadm
afihfl>n<

wumfifiw

.%fifim

3qu 3.85 358 B8¢8m§§ mama

 

 

 

 

UZfléfiJm
mafififim
m>HBS$mmu<

 

 

.55

HPfiDEEMHa<

 

 

mmfikdzfiHv

mUfiEfim
m>HuS$mEu<

 

 

 

 

b

 

MHEEZEHV
ZUfiUNEEM

wbéfio

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmHHHZSOU wwmmzm VHZDOU

 

 

 

115

.mmwqu—Bo Ema 8:3me vomoaoumuuda 95me

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mQZ$HEH

mMHfiG§SO .fiHEU.KfiEM Adubéfififi. mflHfiGfiflD. ZDHU%&EEZH

mflfifiaéflb JZUMH mmwfigfl JflHEU.K&EM .dSbfiEmm .afimeHwéfio
.Kfifim yumflfiw mumafiw wumwfim UZKESM _QHHEZ§5REO
mmun;2Jw mumgaamm mggfifiamm mHQ§fiEEM nzzcflawm JZZCHREH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ _ F w _ _ _
_

— mmmHHHZZOU yummzm Q¢ZOHUMM #

 

 

 

.80qu $55 .303 vmmoaoumgdm 0.53m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

g macaw Em EEC Egg
NB 2% g EZMHUEDm mazmu g
wuxmzm Efim law 75% 20%
EESAEQ 24¢. 5mg Mummzm g

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

117
state energy committee is to establish policy and procedures
in a state energy plan. The subcommittees at the state,
county, regional and local levels are all organized by the
state, county, regional and local levels are all organized
by the state energy coordinator. Each subcommittee level is
organized to deal with all the barrier groups.
Identification of problems and the deve10pment of their
potential solutions is the major goal of each level. A
selection of problems and solutions organized by level and
barrier groups is included in the appendix.

The model presented here is applicable in every region
of the United States and its adaption could accelerate
decentralized alternative energy deve10pment for the nation.

Financing becomes the major hurdle to the development
of local efforts. Two methods have been discussed by
proponents of alternative energy programs:

1. The establishment of a fund from the profits of
utilities and/or a gasoline tax on excess profits.

2. The use of Federal Grant monies.

The use of profits from utilities for energy programs
has been attempted successfully in Palo Alto, California.
Its feasibility in meeting local needs has produced an
enthusiastic constituency of supporters. Taxing of the
excess profits of gasoline sales could offer a source of
funds that would not put an additional burden on the general
public. This method would be likely to receive public
acceptance but would face serious objections from the com-

panies. The second option offers more promise of success.

118

Many Federal agencies offer programs and services which
can be of assistance to individuals, businesses, communi-
ties, state governments, and others interested in utilizing
alternative energy. Some of the programs are especially
designed for renewable energy technologies. Others are
general programs that can be applied to different initia-
tives in energy deve10pment, such as:

1. The use of renewable resources and the conservation
or nonrenewable resources.

2. The needs of local communities and the enhancement
of community self-reliance through the use of
available resources.

3. The use of existing technologies applied to new
situations use.

Federal agencies or programs which have funded energy-
related projects in the past include the:
1. Department of Housing and Urban Development
2. Department of Energy
3. Federal Housing Administration
u. Farmer's Home Administration
5 Economic Development Administration
6. Small Business Administration
7. National Science Foundation
8. DOE Technology Transfer Program
9. Appropriate Technology Small Grants Program
0. Community DevelOpment Block Grant Program
11. Comprehensive Employment and Training Act
12. NBS/DOE Energy-Related Invention Evaluation Program
13. Solar Energy Research Institute

1”. Department of Education

119
15. Community Services Administration

An unsolicited proposal may be submitted to most of the
agencies listed above. Program QEportunity Notices (PON)
may be obtained from the agencies to determine what monies
are available and where. Each PON contains detailed in-
structions for the preparation of proposals.

Hawaii has very effectively used the second method,
relying on Federal grants to finance most of their program
components. Education of the general public in Hawaii is
ongoing and many of these committees are in place. As a
result, the state's alternative energy program is developing
quickly. Whether other states and regions will be able to
match the successes of Hawaii is questionable, but there is

much that can be learned by closely analyzing its progress.

Further Recommendations

There remain numerous unanswered questions about the
deve10pment of alternative energy. In order to establish
workable systems that are applicable to all regions of the
country, further research is necessary. The Hawaii program
offers numerous opportunities to provide such research.
With much of the energy deve10pment being recent many long
range studies are feasible. These include:

a) The social acceptance of geothermal energy as it
develops into a large scale industry.

b) Changes in social attitudes as other energy sources
are develOped on a wide scale.

c) The environmental effect of OTEC deve10pment.

d) The technical problems of large scale wind
generation.

e)

f)

g)

h)

i)

J)

120
A study of OTEC bi-product deve10pment such as
increased fishing potential, manganese processing
and kelp farming.

The acceptance, by the public, of electric cars.

Alternative biomass schemes and their affect on the
sugar cane industry.

The history of change in state law as the energy
program develOps.

The tourist industries acceptance of alternative
energy innovation.

Evaluation of Hawaii's successful approach to
obtaining federal funding of their energy projects.

These are only a few of the possible t0pics. With the

scale and speed of development Hawaii has demonstrated, the

potential for research gain is large. Hawaii may not only

become the nations innovator of alternative energy but also

the research center for such deve10pment.

APPENDIX

EDUCATIONAL

STATE

Barrier

1. Idea that Federal Govern-
will solve any energy

problems that may exist or
arise.

2. Communities lack technical
and financial support from
state.

3. Lack of manpower.

A. No energy extension serv-
ice.

5. No statewide curriculum
development.

6. No effective solar lobby
in most state capitals.

7. The public believes that
solar energy is too dif-
fuse and simplistic to
adequately meet their
energy demand.

8. Statewide demonstration
programs lacking.

121

BARRIERS

1.

8A.

8B.

8C.

Suggested Solutions

 

Educate the public about
their ability to control
their own energy needs
through decentralized
systems.

Set up community commit—
ties with direct contact
with state energy offices.

Fund training programs
at universities for
policymakers.

Set up visible Public
Information Service
Centers throughout the
state.

Fund pilot programs in
the schools.

Establishment of private
organizations from grass
roots groups interested
in renewable energies.

A wideSpread information
release through schools,
newspapers, demonstra-
tion centers.

Funding of community
demonstration programs.

Placement of solar demon-
stration at roadside
rest areas.

Sponsor a traveling van,
set up booths at fairs.

EDUCATIONAL BARRIERS,

122

cont'd.

STATE
Barrier
9. Publications often inac- 9A.
curate and lack detail.
98.
REGIONAL
Barrier
1. Lack of manpower trained 1A.
to manufacture, install,
and maintain solar systems.
18.
2. Coordination and informa- 2.
tion exchange lacking
among existing renewable
energy education and
training programs.
3. Limited interest of admin- 3A.
istrators of school pro-
‘grams to the incorporation
of renewable energy classes.
38.
u. Lack of known usage in re- A.
newable energy field.
5. Lack of renewable energy 5.

knowledge.

Suggested Solutions

 

Fund university programs
to prepare updated,
correct information.

Publish a statewide news-
letter or renewable
energies for the general
public and the press.

Suggested Solutions

Set up training programs
at community colleges.

Organize workshops for
businesses that may be
able to offer these
types of services.

Set up regional coordi-
nation committee and
information exchanges.

Provide information on
feasibility, anployment
needs, area demand to
administrators.

WorkshOps for adminis-
trators on renewable
technology.

Persuade businesses to
incorporate renewable

energies into new con-
struction for ERR.

Sponsor an energy fair.

EDUCATIONAL BARRIERS, cont'd.

COUNTY
Barrier

1. Understanding of alterna-
tives.

2. Consumer concern about
reliability.

3. Lack of land for biomass
production.

A. Inability to reach the
general public with re-
newable information.

LOCAL

 

Barrier

1. Media handling of solar
overly shallow and often
inaccurate.

2. Community groups not aware
of available funds.

3. Community understanding of
renewable energy systems
is incomplete.

2A.

28.

1A.

1B.

3A.

3B.

3C.

Suggested Solutions

 

Establish County Energy
Education Committee.

Release information
about reliability to
newspapers.

Sponsor information
nights.

Establish tax cut
incentive to owners of
land use for biomass.

Incorporate information
centers and demonstra-
tion projects in county
parks.

Suggested Solutions

Solar groups should es-
tablish contact with
editors to develop con-
cern and maintain infor-
mation update system.

Persuade media to incor-
porate a "solar index"
.. .amountcfi‘sunlight
and wind received that
day.

Establish close contact
with state energy
offices.

WorkshOps for community
builders.

Incorporation of energy
education into public
schools.

Demonstration projects.

12”

EDUCATIONAL BARRIERS, cont'd.

LOCAL

Barrier

General public not aware
of the seriousness of
energy situation.

5. Lack of awareness of con-
servation methods.

Inability in obtaining ade-
quate technical and finan-
cial support to operate
effective programs.

Most federal programs do
not like to send quantities
of materials to local
groups.

Expert advice on specific
conservation and renewable
resource applications is
generally available only
through eXpensive profes-
sional consultants.

FINANCIAL

STATE

 

Barrier

1. Perceived price advantage

of fossil fuels.

2. Difficult to obtain lia-

bility insurance coverage.

Suggested Solutions

 

MA. Releases to newspapers.

MB. "Energy Explanation
Night" at local schools.

Establish demonstration
centers.

Local committees working
through state energy
funding committee.

Establish state clearing-
house for local groups
interested in releasing
bulk material.

State provided energy
advisors established as
part of energy plan to
work with local energy
committees.

BARRIERS

Suggested Solutions

Include in calculations
the direct subsidies and
unpaid environmental
costs of fossil fuels.
2A. DevelOp State Insurance
coverage for those expe-
riencing difficulties in
obtaining insurance.

FINANCIAL BARRIERS,

125

cont'd.

STATE

Barrier

Investment tax credit.

Heavy subsidization of
depletable fuels--unfair
advantage.

Tax credits and loan pro-
grams are stalled in the
legislature.

Private mortgage market
not tuned to solar housing.

No financial incentives
for solar.

28.

3A.

3B.

MA.

MB.

5A.

SB.

7A.

7B.

Sgggested Solutions

State insurance commis-
sions to require insur-
ance companies to
provide insurance.

DevelOpment of programs
to encourage financial
backing of renewable
energy sources.

Residential tax credit.

Turn emphasis toward
developmentcfl‘locally-
based, decentralized
energy systems.

Establish state energy
trust fund to financial
research and deve10p-
ment, funded by 2% tax
on liquid fuels.

Develop a Solar Bank
Act.

Refund of sales tax for
solar devices.

Encourage Federal Hous-
ing Authority and the
Farmer's Home Adminis-
tration to change regu-
lations which prohibit
them from making solar
loans or insuring mort-
gages.

Solar Energy Demonstra-
tion Loan Program.

Maximum loan available
to veterans for home
mortgages increased if
home equipped with solar
energy system.

126

FINANCIAL BARRIERS, cont'd.

STATE

 

Barrier

8. Lack of encouragement for
gasohol.

9. Tax rebate on after-the-
fact reimbursement problem
for some buyers to arrange
financing.

REGIONAL
Barrier

1. Lack of funding for inde-
pendent research and devel-
Opment activities not
associated with large
corporations.

2. Lack of regional capabil-
ities in many states.

COUNTY
Barrier

1. Attitudes of private
lenders.

2. Lack of information on

systems adaptability to
area.

3. High interest rate on loans
precludes many interested
potential investors.

BA.

BB.

Suggested Solutions

 

Reduce state tax on
gasohol by 2-3 cents per
gallon.

Fund study of feasibil-
ity of biomass conver-
sion in state.

Arrange a rebate to
companies for units sold
lowering the purchase
price.

Suggested Solutions

 

Organize subcommittee to
Regional Energy Commit-
tee for the purpose of
discriminating state and
federal monies acquired
for this purpose.

Coordinate local commu-
nities in attracting
industrial capabilities
in renewable energies to
the region.

Suggested Solutions

Education of the bankers
through workshops and
publications.

County should gather and
disseminate information
to banks.

Establish special break
in county taxes to en-
courage use.

127
FINANCIAL BARRIERS, cont'd.

LOCAL

Barrier
1. Availability of credit. 1.
2. Undervalued solar homes. 2.
3. Clarity of eligibility 3.

guidelines is essential to
the success of a financial
incentive.

A. No available funds for re- A.
search and begin programs
to encourage conservation
and the use of renewable
resources.

5. Bankers innate conservatism 5.
because of limited track
record for renewable
sources.

6. Initial cost of solar 6.
energy high.

7. Few peOple are willing to 7.
invest their money into a
costly system which they do
not truly understand.

8. No incentives to extend 8.
mortgages or offer loans to
cover the initial cost of
these installations.

9. There is presently no easy 9.
way for the average consu-
mer to compare energy costs
of alternative structures
or systems before building
or buying.

Suggested Solutions

 

Educational programs for
members and officers of
financial institutions
should be developed.

Educate real estate
agents and appraisers of
the value of renewable
energy sources.

Statewide standards de-
termined by a financial
committee.

Encourage state funding
programs.

Provide technical and
performance information
to bankers.

Makeavailableflexible
loans-~pay-back amount
is lower in the begin-
ning and rises later on.

Release accurate infor-
mation and encourage
highly visible demon-
stration.

Encourage participation
in state program of guar-

'anteed loans financed by

fossil fuel taxes.

Release information on
life-cycle cost.

128

MARKETING BARRIERS

STATE

1.

2.

Barrier

Patent Law Procedure.

Standards and Licensing.

High prices due to lack of
mass production.

Lack of consumer protec-
tion.

Lack of solar trade asso-
ciations.

Difficulty and cost of
certifying solar power
systems.

If warranties required by
state, small firms may
not be collectible.

Small firms may have prob-
lems meeting the product
safety practices required
by insurance companies.

MA.

MB.

Suggested Solutions

Set up regulations to
aid the small investor.

Performance standards
should be set on the
basis of overall perform-
ance (energy collected/
dollar spent) and not on
the basis of thermody-
namic efficiency (energy
collected/sq. ft.) of
collector surface.

Temporary financial en-
couragement.

An energy efficiency
label should be devel-
oped and applied to all
buildings so that the
consumer could compare
the energy efficiency of
different structures.

Warranties and certifi—
cations supported by
consumer protection
laws.

Encourage the establish-
ment of trade associa-
tions on a state level.

Establish a certifica-
tion board to simplify
and eXpediate the pro-
cess.

Use of performance bonds
or state-backed insur-
ance policies.

Assistance by states in
setting reasonable
standards and organizing
insurance pool programs.

129

MARKETING BARRIERS, cont'd.

REGIONAL
Barrier
1. Some renewables have
extremely high capital

costs.

2. Public unaware of energy
options.

3. Different renewable energy
sources are more promising
from one region to another.

COUNTY

Barrier

1. Some renewables require
large land usage.

2. Consumer concern about
reliability warranties.

LOCAL
Eagle:

1. Shortage of qualified in-
stallers, manufacturers,
and other distributors.

2. Decentralized systems vary
greatly from one locale to
another.

3. Consumers must be satisfied
that systems are reliable
and durable.

2A.

2B.

3A.

3B.

Suggested Solutions

Provide information of
pay-back period and pro-
jected life—span.

Develop an energy yellow
pages.

Regional study to deter-

mine renewable energy
potentials.

Suggested Solutions

 

Designate areas as energy
park.

Establish standards and
encourage media articles
on different Options.

Write understandable
warranties that are
available for comparison
by the public.

Suggested Solutions

Fund studies documenting
need and work opportuni-
ties.

The parties responsible
for setting the stand-
ards should come from
the communities in-
volved.

A warranty must be re-
quired by state.

Highly visible demon-
strations of systems.

130

LEGAL BARRIERS

STATE

Barrier

Solar access and other sun
rights legislation.

Unresolved questions of who
owns energy resources.

Unresolved question of
whether utilities may own,
sell, lease, finance or
service solar devices for
utility customers.

Important question of
whether a solar-reliant
power system may itself
become a utility subject to
PUC jurisdiction and
control.

Lack of political accepta-
bility.

Privately created architec-
tural controls.

REGIONAL

1.

Barrier

Problems with renewable
energy rights protection.

Suggested Solutions'

Legislative protection
by Solar Rights Act.

State Legislation.

State Legislation.

State Legislation.

Development of grass-
roots organization to
encourage renewable
energy deve10pment.

Pass lawscnma state
level forbidding unrea-
sonable interference
with the use of solar
collectors or wind gen-
erators.

Suggested Solutions

1A. Establishment of mandatory

1B.

solar energy use districts
wherever possible.

Affirmative solar-energy-
use districts where manda-
tory solar energy use would
be impracticable because of
prevailing conditions.

LEGAL BARRIERS, cont'd.

COUNTY
Barrier

1. Procedure of establishing

solar access rights
confused.

2. Transferability of solar

rights in question.

LOCAL
Barrier

1. Solar Rights litigation.

Aesthetic zoning.

Height restriction ordi-
nances.

New construction orienta-
tion problems.

Rigid siting and lot size
requirements.

Restrictive Covenants.

131

1A.

18.

2A.

2B.

6A.

6B.

Suggested Solutions

 

Counties should estab-
lish a permit system for
the use and application
of solar energy.

Set up a recording system
on a county level--estab-
lish by prior apprOpria-
tion.

Suggested Solutions

Devise building codes

and regulations that pro-
tect solar access--solar
easements.

Use rules of prior appro-
priation in solar access
cases.

Develop systems that fit
the code.

Test the law in court
arguing public need.

Special exceptions--
classify with belfries,
antennas, chimneys, etc.

Amend regulations so they
require east-west streets
wherever practical.

Developers may apply for
a planned-unit develop-
ment (PUD).

May be terminated by
agreement.

Court action--Changing
Conditions Doctrine.

132
LEGAL BARRIERS, cont'd.

LOCAL

 

Barrier

7. Vegetation control neces-
sary for solar.

Suggested Solutions

Vegetation controls are
already imposed to fur-
ther other accepted pub-
lic concerns such as,
protection of utility
power lines.

UTILITY BARRIERS

STATE

 

Barrier

1. Discriminatory rate struc-
tures. High rates charged
to co-generation for backup
capacity and low rates
paid for surplus power.

2. Rates discourage conserva-
tion--low with heavier
use.

3. Utilities usually dominate
the state's energy planning
process.

a. Public Utility Commission
Regulations.

5. Many state Public Service
Commissions have not re-
quired utilities to cut
back on the building of new
fossil generating facilities
and vigorously pursue con-
servation.

Suggested Solutions

Rates must be revised to
encourage more renewable
production. Possible
state subsidized
programs to make up the
difference until greater
participation.

Revise rate structure to
reward lower usage of
energy.

Allow'PUC only one
position on State Energy
Board.

Revised to include
consideration of
renewable energy.

Encourage a legislative
directive of renewable
involvement by PUC's.

133
UTILITY BARRIERS, cont'd.

 

 

 

STATE
Barrier Suggested Solutions
6. Prevention of lending of 6. Legislate right of
state credit and billing utilities to become
through monthly payments. involved in‘weatherizing
and conservation
programs.
7. Utilities committed to 7. Require total cost
average cost pricing. calculation to be used
in decision-making.
8. Public utilities not in- 8. Exempt public utilities
terested in solar methods. from the public service
company tax and public
utilities franchise tax
if they produce energy
from local biomass
sources.
REGIONAL
Barrier Suggested Solutions
1. Lack of participation in 1A. Encourage participation
renewable programs. in buying of energy from
private renewable energy
companies.

18. Allow local utilities to
developdecentralized
systems.

2. Lack of cooperation with 2. Make a state requirement
renewables. that utilities provide
an information source of
renewable possibilities
available to customers.
3. Some utilities discourage 3. Require single source
renewables by pessimistic information released
forecasts of renewable throughout the state to
energy feasibilities. be provided by state

energy office.

13M

UTILITY BARRIERS, cont'd.

COUNTY
Barrier

1. Utilities control most
energy decisions in coun-
ties without concern for

local needs.

LOCAL

 

Barrier
1. Resistance by utilities to
generation alternatives
outside their control.

Profit potential of cogen-
eration and other decen-
tralized energy systems is
small or non-existent to
utilities.

1.

2.

Suggested Solutions

 

Counties need to estab-
lish committees to deal
with local problems in a
coordinated way to
counter these decisions
when necessary.

Suggested Solutions

Encourage c00perative
exchanges between
utilities and community-
based organizations.

Encourage the elimina-
tion of existing prohi-
bitions against private
individualsselling
electricity except to
utilities—-deve10pment
of neighborhood or
small—scale electrical
systems.

REGULATORY BARRIERS

STATE
Barrier

Unclear delegation of
responsibility.

Inadequate statutory defi-
nition of key terms.

2A.

2B.

Suggested Solutions

Establish State Energy
Plan.

Establish Statutory Def-
inition Committee.

Incorporate suggestions
into energy legisla-
tion--an Energy Termi-
nology Act.

REGULATORY BARRIERS,

cont'd.

STATE

 

Barrier

Lack of a requirement of
inter-governmental coordi-
nation.

Consumer lending laws.

Many state insulation
standards not strong
enough.

Government Granting pro-
cedures take too much time
and too much paperwork.

State housing laws do not
require investments by
landlords in energy con-
servation.

State grants are biased
toward high efficiency and
high cost systems.

135

5A.

SB.

6A.

68.

7A.

7B.

Suggested Solutions

 

Establish a chain of
authority by appointing
a State Energy Coordina~
tor and use a pyramid
committee system.

Study and incorporate
recommendations of fi-
nancial committee.

Follow National Stan-
dards.

Establish consistent
inclusion of all fac-
tors--building materials
and construction tech-
niques.

Establish clearinghouse
to assist grant applica-
tion.

Simplify terminology and
information requirement.

Establish a tax incen-
tive to landlords and
renters for energy
weatherizing and consere
vation.

Require landlords to
deduct renter's cost of
permanent energy conser-
vation methods from
rent.

Emphasis should be
changed to lower-effi-
ciency systems which are
cheaper and more avail-
able to average person.

REGULATORY BARRIERS,

STATE

Barrier

cont'd.

136

9. Licensing and certification

not consistent throughout

state.

REGIONAL

1.

2. Poor coordination between
various decision-making
groups.

3. Conflict between land used
for energy production and
agriculture.

COUNTY

10

Barrier

Conflicting laws and cri-
teria in surrounding area.

Barrier

Building permits issued by

Building Department of
County.

9.

1A.

1B.

1C.

3.

1.

Suggested Solutions

 

Established a consis-
tency in Licensing Com-
mittee to arbitrate
differences.

Suggested Solutions

 

Committee to remove in-
consistencies.

~Clearinghouse of area

laws to aid local law-
makers in attempts to
comply with region.

Reevaluating,current
relationships between
community and regional
and state land use regu-
latory authorities.

Design new linkages

between these groups and
the energy industry and
equipment manufacturers.

Establish committee to
assess trade-off between
land usage for energy
support facilities and
other needs.

Suggested Solutions

Consideration must be
given to do-it-
yourselfers and small
contractors by simpli-
fying procedure.

137

REGULATORY BARRIERS, cont'd.

STATE
Barrier

2. No established system of

maintaining solar access.

Unclear transfer rights of
solar access.

Unclear and ambiguous local
laws designed to foster the
development of renewable
energies.

LOCAL

 

Barrier
1. Restrictive zoning ordi-
nances.

Building codes make solar,
wind and biomass installa-
tions unfeasible in many
areas.

Encouragement of solar
lacking.

TECHNOLOGICAL

STATE
Barrier

1. Not enough money put into

small companies.

3.

“0

Suggested Solutions

Registration of access
rights to establish
prior apprOpriation.

Established procedure
for transferability by
prior apprOpriation.

Provide a medium for
local ly-staffed study
committee to remove and
clarify such barriers.

Suggested Solutions

Variances and special
exceptions.

Modification of codes to
remove barriers by use
of committee study of
other community systems.

New buildings shall be
constructed in a manner
that permits the
installationcfi‘solar
heating.

BARRIERS

1.

Suggested Solutions

 

Establish Small Business
Bureau for Renewable
Energies.

TECHNOLOGICAL BARRIERS,

STATE
Barrier
2. Small investors have

trouble disseminating
their ideas.

Not enough data on cl
such as, wind speeds,
amounts of sunlight,

Research into biomass
use.

138

cont'd.

imate,

etc.

land

5. Lack of energy storage

technologies.

REGIONAL
Barrier

1. Lack of research into

building materials.

able energy in urban
areas.

Each region has diffe

Safety hazards of renew-

rent

renewable energy require-

ments.

Suggested Solutions

Organization of a State-
operated Agency designed
to assist small inven-
tors through commercial-
ization.

Set up Climate Study
Institute at State Uni-
versity.

Establish Biomass Insti-
tute.

Fund University programs
through State Energy
Project Board.

Suggested Solutions

DevelOp a project using
the Regional Building
Associations, Univer-
sity, and private busi-
ness.

Regional Energy Boards
should compile nation—
wide information from
on-going renewable ener-
gy projects--accident
records, material fail-
ure, problem solutions,
etc., and make informa-
tion available to
public.

Solutions should be
sought at the regional
level with funding from
state and federal.

139

 

TECHNOLOGICAL BARRIERS, cont'd.
COUNTY
Barrier Suggested Solutions
1. Ineffective use of indus- 1. Coordinate industrial
trial waste heat. study by private enter-

prise to deal with prob-
lem.

2. Lack of available land for 2. Include into county

deve10pment of reasonable
energy sources.

energy plan the estab-
lishment of energy
parks-~availablefor
demonstration purposes.

3. Lack of capability to 3. Funding for local in-
research and develOp volvementixntechnologi-
local systems. cal deve10pment.

LOCAL

Barrier Suggested Solutions

1. Many decentralized energy 1.
systems have local re-
quirements and needs.

State funding assistance
of local energy develop-
ment projects.

POLICY BARRIERS

STATE

 

Barrier Suggested Solutions

1.

2.

3.

Lack of receptiveness to
public input.

Government-assisted fuel
bills reduce incentive
to conserve and become a

subsidy to the utilities.

Centralization bias.

3A.

Encourage "grass roots"
participation by funding
local committees.

Money should be ear-
marked instead for wea—
therization of home.

WorkshOps and technical
reports for decision-
makers.

POLICY BARRIERS,

cont'd.

STATE

10.

Barrier

Failure to administer
new solar programs.

Many state solar staffs
are extremely small and
underfunded.

States not requiring
solar to be used in new
public building.

Lack of planning.

Government decision-
making reSponds to spe-
cial interests over the
general welfare.

Lack of assistance in
local jurisdiction over
land use and energy.

Non-availability of
funds for energy conser-
vation program studies.

REGIONAL

1.

Barrier

Different approaches used

throughout area confus-
ing and conflicting.

3B.

10.

Suggested Solutions

Encourage the use of
Centralized Energy only
where decentralized will
not work.

Lobby politicians to
develop new solar pro-
grams and properly fund
existing ones.

Emphasis by increased
funding.

DevelOp a policy that
solar technology will be
considered in all state
deve10pment.

Establish a State Energy
Plan.

Encourage media to pub-
lish all votes on energy
subjects.

Technical information
such as design hand-
books, model ordinances,
and easements and base-
line energy information
should be provided by
the state.

Legislation set aside
portion of state gas tax
for conservation pro-
grams.

Suggested Solutions

Formation of a Regional
Energy Board to evaluate
and coordinate.

POLICY BARRIERS, cont'd.
REGIONAL

Barrier
2. Lack of cOOperation be-

tween local governments
resulting in duplication
of effort.

Distrust between local
governments

COUNTY

10

3.

Barrier

Solar Advisory Boards
dominated by businessmen
and academic--lack suf-
ficient input.

County assessors rating
solar energy units higher
than conventional systems.

Energy development not
incorporated into land
use planning.

1N1

2A.

28.

1A.

1B.

2A.

28.

2C.

Suggested Solutions

Encourage regional gov-
ernments to share in the
implementation of alter-
native energy programs.

Coordination of plans
through Regional Energy
Board.

Coordination of efforts
through Regional Energy
Board.

Suggested Solutions

Encourage membership
from the areas of
society--construction
industry, financial.

Open meeting approach.

Set policy that solar
will not be assessed
higher than conventional
systems.

Assess property using
solar lower than conven-
tional.

Twenty-year exemption
for solar from property
tax.

Encourage this action by
the use of a county
committee designed to
analyze and make sugges-
tions of incorporation.

POLICY BARRIERS,

cont'd.

LOCAL

 

Barrier

Lack of enforcement of
solar building codes by
building inSpectors.

Renewables not included
in zoning plan.

Undue restrictions on do-

it-yourselfers and small
contractors.

Lack of encouraging solar

technology.

Many local governments
do not have programs to
save energy in their own

buildings and operations.

1H2

Suggested Solutions

Educate inspectors in
renewable systems.

Incorporate renewable
energy parks or zones.

Require only that they
meet health and safety
standards.

Changes in licensing,
siting, insulation, aes-
thetic restrictions,
materials and plumbing
to encourage solar tech-
nology.

Institute a city energy
policy.

Local prOperty tax sav-
ing--no greater assess-
ment than what a conven-
tional system would
cost.

SOCIAL BARRIERS

 

6. No encouragement of solar
implementation in private
building.

STATE

Barrier

1.

Job displacement and new
energy employment needs.

18.

1C.

Suggested Solutions

Sponsor training
programs.

Encourage industry to
retrain workers.

Do future need studies.

 

SOCIAL BARRIERS, cont'd.
STATE

Barrier
2. Attitude that the gov-

ernment will take care of
energy problems.

3. Human inertia and the
tendency to follow in-
grained patterns of
thought and behavior is
an important psychologi-
cal barrier.

Diverse value systems
cause different percep-
tions and weighting of
environmental, economic
and social impact.

REGIONAL

Barrier
Diverse values and social
attitudes concerning rec-

reation and travel.

Dependence on auto for
work travel.

Disbelief in any energy
crisis.

COUNTY
Barrier

1. Attitude that energy

crisis not real.

1M3

2A.

2B.

3A.

3B.

1A.

Suggested Solutions

Educate the public of
the options and needs.

Funding of energy
education curriculum for
all levels of education.

Develop a pyramid of
committees from state
level to local to
include opportunity of
input into planning.

Suggested Solutions

Encourage deve10pment of
local recreation op-
tions.

Establish mass transit
systems.

Establish bike paths
connecting all areas of
region.

Educational programs.
Release of accurate in-

formation to local
media.

Suggested Solutions

Release information on
County government energy
use.

SOCIAL BARRIERS, cont'd.

COUNTY

Barrier

2. Unsure of practicability
of renewable energies.

LOCAL
Barrier

1. Fear of changing life-
style.

2. Don't want to take respon-
sibility for own needs.

3. PeOple do not understand
the comparative costs of
present and alternative
energy sources.

A. PeOple are crisis rather
than future oriented.

mu

1B.

2A.

2B.

Suggested Solutions

Establish a county gov-
ernment energy conserva-
tion plan.

Sponsor energy science
fair for county schools.

Incorporate highly vis-
ible renewables into
county-Operated recrea-
tion parks.

Suggested Solutions

Mass release of
information removes
fears of unknown.

Emphasis of economic
aspects of energy
alternatives--life5pan
costs.

Establish a wide-based
community involvement
program.

Release information on
the effects of energy
costs on lifestyle
through schools.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

"A History of Alcohol Fuels," Aware. June 1980.

AIA Research Corporation. Early Use of Solar Energy i3
Buildings: A Study_ of Barriers and Incentives t3
the Widesppead Use of Solar Heating and Cooling“
Systems. Washington, [D.C.: U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1976.

 

 

 

 

Alexander, Charles. "Storm Clouds Over Paradise," Time.
December 15, 1980.

American Society of International Law. Legal, Political,
and Institutional Aspects of OTEC, Workshop
proceedings, January 15-16,1976.

 

 

"Appraising Energy Policy," Aware. July 1980, Reprinted
from EPRI Journal, Electric Power Research
Institute, May 1980.

Armstead, Christopher H. Geothermal Energy. New York:
John Wiley and Son.

 

Armstrong, Marilyn Duffy, and Joe E. Armstrong. Community
Impediments t3 Implementation of Solar Energy.
Menlo Park, California: SERI International, June
1979

 

 

 

 

Ashby, W. Ross. An Introduction t3 Cybernetics. London:
Chapman and Hall, 1956.

 

 

Ashworth, John.‘ The Implementation 9: State Solar
Incentives: Finangial Programs. Menlo Park,
California: SERI International, February 1979.

 

 

A Surygy g: Biomass Gasification Vol. II- -Principles of
Gasification. Menlo Park, California: SERI
International, July 1979.

 

Austin, Carl F. "Technical Overview of Geothermal
Resources," University of Wyoming Land and Water
Law Review, Vol. XIII, No. 1, 1977.

 

 

Bair, Fred. A Model Zoning Ordinance. Chicago: American
Soc1ety of Planning Officials, 1976.

1H5

1116

Balcom, J. Douglas. Pacific regional Solar Heating
Handbook. Department of Energy: U.S. Government
Printing Office, November 1976.

 

Barnea, Joseph. "Geothermal Power," Scientific American,
Vol. 226, January 1972.

 

Bathen, Karl H. An Evaluation 03 Oceanographic and Socio—
Economic Aspgcts 03 a Nearshore Ocean Thermal
Energy Conversion“ Pilot Plant in Subtropical
Hawaiian Water. University of* Hawaii, April 1975.

 

 

Becker, L. J., C. Seligman, and J. M. Dailey. Psychological
Strategies 39 Reduce Energy Consumption Project
Summary Report. Princeton University: New Jersey

Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, June
1979.

 

Bertke, Frank H. "Special Report: Energy and the American
Dream," Aware. August 1980.

Bezdek, Roger. "The Solar Energy/Public Utility Interface,"
Analysis 9; Policy Options for Accelerating
Commercialization 9; Solar Heating and Cooling

Systems. Washington, [LC.: The George Washington
University, 1977.

 

 

Block. Solar Access Study. Florida Solar Energy Center,
April 1978.

 

Bolton, R. S. Management of 3 Geothermal Field. UNESCO

Earth Sciences, 973.

 

 

Booz-Allen and Hamilton, Inc. The Effectiveness g; §_lg_
Energy Incentives at the State and Local Le el.
Washington, IDHC: U. S. Federal Energy
Administration, March 1976.

 

 

Brannon, Gerald M. Energy Taxes and Subsidies. Cambridge,
Mass: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1974.

 

Brion, Dennis J. A Compendium 03 Water Allocation Law in the
Eastern United States. Department of Energy.
U. S. Government Printing Office, June 29, 1979.

 

Brody, Jane E. "Cattails Studied as Energy Source," The New
York Times, September A, 1979, ci.

Bronfam, Benson, et al. Decentralized Solar Energy
Technology Assessment Program: Research Plan.
Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
1979.

 

1N7

Burns, Barbara, Bert Mason, and Keith Armington. The Role
03 Education and Training Programs 13 the C3mmer-
cialization and Diffusion 3f Solar Energy Tech-
pplogies. Menlo Park, California: SERI, January
1979.

 

 

Caznpay, L., G. Mignon, S. Smith, and R. Fassolare. "Solar
Process Heat in Arizona: Economic Incentives and
Policy," The Western Sun 1980 Solar Update coordi-

nated by MCC Assoc., DOE: U.S. Government Print-
ing Office, 1980.

Carlson, Richard; Freedman, David; Scott, Robert. "A Stra-
tegy for a Non-Nuclear Future." Environment.
Vol. 20, No. 6, July/Aug., 1979.

 

Carrol T. Owen; et al. The Planner's Energy Workbook. New
York: Brookhaven National Laboratory, June 1977.

Cheremisinoff, Nicholas P. Gasohol for Energy Production.
Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc.,
1978.

 

Chen, Bill. Geothermal Reservoir and Well Test Analysis: A

Literature Survey. Hilo, Hawaii: University of
Hawaii, 1973.

, et al. "Well Test Results for HGP-A" Geothermal
Resources Council Transactions 31 Part 1, 1978.

 

Commoner, Barry. The Poverty 3f Power. New York: Alfred
A.Kn0pf,1976.

Committee on Alternate Energy Sources for Hawaii of the
State Advisory Task Force on Energy Policy.
Alternative Energy Sources for Hawaii. University
of Hawaii: Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, Feb-
ruary 1975.

Coit, Lynde. Wind Energy: Legal Issues and Institutional
Barriers. ,Menlo Park, California: SERI, June
1979.

Congressional Budget Office. Energy Policy Alternatives:
Budget Issue Paper. Congress of the United
States, Washington, ILC.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, June 1977.

Corso, Ronald A. Federal Licensing 3f Small- Scale
Hydropower Developments. Washington, D. Ca
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, November 1&-
15, 1979.

 

148

Council on Energy Resources, Energy Policy in California: A
Directory. Berkley: University of California,
1975.

 

 

 

Craig, P. Distributed Energy Systems lg California's
Future: Interim Report. Lawrence Berkeley Lab-
oratory/Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, March 1978.

 

 

Current Issues 33 Energy. Edited by Chauncey Staff,
Electric Power Research Institute, Elmsford, N.YJ
Pergaman, May 1979.

Davitian, Harry. The Role 3f Wind Power in Electric
Utilities. Upton, N. Y: Brokhaven National
Laboratory, September 1977.

 

 

Dean, Normal L.and Allen S. Miller. "Plugging Solar Energy
Into the Utility Grid," Environmental Law

Reporter, Vol. 7, 1977.

 

Deju, Raul A., Roshan B. Bhappu, Geroge C. Evans, and
Armando P. Boez. The Environment and its
Resources. New York: Gordon and Breach, Science
Publishers, 1972.

 

Deleon, Peter. Solar Energy Program Evaluation: Ag
Introduction. Menlo Park, California: SERI,
September 1979.

 

Distributed Energy Systems in California' 5 Future: A
Preliminary Report, Vol. 1. Edited by M.
Christensen et al. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Report 6831, 1977-

 

 

Dorf, Richard. Energy Resources and Policy. Reading,
Massachusetts: Addison Wesley Publishing Co.,
1978.

Duane, John W. "World and National Oil and Gas Demand and
Supply," Aware. 1980.

DuMars, Charles T. Federal Conditions 3n Availability 3f
Water For Energy in the Energy-Producing Rocky
Mountain States. Department of Energy: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1979.

 

Eisenstadt, Utton. "Solar Rights and Their Effect on Solar
Heating and CoolingJ' 1§_Natural Resources
Journal 363, 1976.

 

 

 

Energy and Environment: An Intergovernmental Perspective.
Edited by Boyd R. Keenan from the Final Report of
the Ohio River Valley Assembly, October 10- 12,
1977, University of Illinois: Institute of
Government and Public Affairs, January 1978.

1H9

Energy and the Adaption 3f Human Settlements: A Prototype
Process in Genesee County, Michigan. Edited by
Herman E. “Koenig and Lawrence M. Sommers, Michigan
State University: Center for Environmental
Quality, 1980.

 

 

Energy, Economic Growtlgi and the Environment. Paper
presented at a Forum conducted by Resources for
the Future, Inc. in Washington, DAL, April 21-22,
1971. Edited by Sam H. Schurr, Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.

Energy in America's Future: The Choices Before Ag. Edited
by Sam H. Schurr, Resources for the Future,
Baltimore, Maryland: John HOpkins University
Press, August 1979.

 

Energy Sources 9; Print and Non-Print Materials. Edited by
Maureen Crowley. Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.,
1980.

~Energy Extension Service. Energy Tax Credits. Energy
Administration, Michigan Department of Commerce,
January 1979.

 

 

 

Energy Lab Institute. A Case Study Analysis 3f the Legal
. and Institutional Obstacles and Incentives £2,222
DevelOpment 3f the Hydroelectric Power 3f the
Boardman River at Traverse CityL Michigan.“
Concord, New Hampshire: Franklin Pierce Law
Center, May 1980.

 

 

 

 

 

Energy Law Institute. Summary 3f the Midwest Conference 22
Small- Scale Hydropower 12 the Midwest: An Old
Technology Whose Time Has Come. Conference.
November 1u- -15, 1979. Concord, New Hampshire:
Franklin Pierce Law Center, May 1980.

 

Energy Law Institute. Preliminary Analysis 3f Legal
Obstacles and Incentives t3 the Development 3f
Low-Head Hydroelectric Power in the Northeastern
United States. Concord, New Hampshire: Franklin
Pierce Law Center, May 1980.

 

 

 

 

 

ERDA. Solar Program Assessment: Environmental Factors 12
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion. Environmental
and Resource Assessment Branch, Division of Solar
Energy, Washington, ILC.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, March 1977.

 

Energy Policy Project. A Time Ag Choose America' 5 Energy
Future. Of the Ford Foundation. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Bollinger Publishing Company,
1914.

150

 

Energy: The Next Twenty Years. A study group sponsored by
- the Ford Foundation, administered by Resources for
the Future, Hans H. Landsberg, Chairman.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Bollinger Publishing

Company, 197"-

Falicoff, Waqidi; Loide, George; Takahashi, Patrick.
Solar/Wind Handbook for Hawaii: Technical
Applications for Hawaii, the Pacific Basin and
Sites Worldwide with Similar Climatic Conditions.
University of Hawaii, May 1979.

 

 

 

 

 

Farrington, Daniel. Direct Use pf the Sun's Energy. New
York: Ballantine Books, 196M.

 

 

Federal Energy Administration. Proceedings pi the National
Energy Data Workshop. October 30-31, 1973, at
Purdue University, Washington, ILC.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1975.

 

 

 

Federal Energy Administration. Energy Conservation Site
Visit Report: Toward More Effective Ener
Management. Conservation Paper No. 3 ,
Washington, ILC.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, November 15, 1974.

 

 

 

Ferrar, Terry A. Public Policy and Energy Development. Ann
Arbor: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, June 1979.

 

 

Feuerstein, Randall. Utility Rates and Service Policies as
Potential Barriers 39 the Market Penetration 9;
Decentralized Solar Technologies. Menlo Park,
California: SERI, August 1979.

 

 

 

 

Finkel, Asher J. Energy, The Environment, and Human Health.
Acton, Masachusetts: Publishing Sciences Group,
Inc., 197“.

 

Foell, Wesley. Management 2: Energy/Environment Systems:
Methods and Case Studies. New York: Wiley-
Interscience, June 1979.

 

 

 

Fowler, John M. and Kathryn M. Fowler. "Solar Sea Power:
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion." Factsheet.,
National Science Teachers Association, 1977.

 

Funk, Evangeline J. and Karen E. Shigematsun. Fuel From
Biomass: Plant for Fuel. Technical Report No. 3,
University of Hawaii: Hawaii Natural Energy
Institute, October 1977.

 

151

Gardels, Margaret C. Financing Solar Energy for the
Consumer: An Overview 3f New Trends. Proceedings
of the Western SUN 1980 Solar Update Conference
held on Sept. 2n- 26 in Salt Lake city.

Washington, ILC.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1980.

 

 

Gould, George. State Water Law in the West: Implication
for Energy DevelOpment. Washington, ILC.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, January 1979.

 

 

"Governor George R. Ariyoshi of Hawaii Sees Great Future of
OTEC in Hawaii and the Nation," Congressional
Record-Senate S 6774, June 12, 1980.

 

Grabbe, E. M. and R. M. Kamins. Geothermal Development in
the State pf Hawaii. Presented at Federal State
Conference on Geothermal Energy, Oakland, Califor-
nia, March 10, 1976.

 

Gray, T..L and O.BL Gashers. Tidal Power. New York:
Plenum Press, 1972.

 

Grossman, Richard and Gail Daneker. Energy and the Economy,
Boston, Massachusetts: Alyson Publications,
September 1979.

 

Hagel, John III. Alternative Energy Strategies,
Constraints, and Opportunities. New York:
Praeger Publishers, 1976.

Hagen, Arthur W. Thermal En r From the Sea. Park Ridge,
New Jersey: Noyes Data Corporation, 1975.

 

Hahn, L. K. Energy Self-Sufficiency Plan for County 2:
Hawaii: Energy Demand Patterns and Projections.
,University of Hawaii: Hawaii Natural Energy
Institute, June 1979.

 

Harte, John. Energy and the Fate 3f Ecosystems, Report 3f
the Ecosystem Effects Resource Group, Risk/Impact
Panel, Studyrgi Nuclear and Alternative Energy
Systems. National Research Council/National
Academy of Science, 1977.

 

 

Harwood, Corgin Crews. Using Land to Save Energy.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: _Bollinger Publishing
Co., 1977.

 

 

Harrah, Barbara and David. Alternative Sources pf Ener
A Bibliography 23 Solar, Geothermal, Wind, and
Tidal Energy, and Environmental Architecture.
Metuchen, New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.
1975.

 

 

152

Hawaii Biomass Energy Term of Stanford University and the
University of Hawaii. Biomass for Hawaii Sugar
Operations Vol. Al. University of Hawaii: Hawaii
Natural Energy Institute, February 1977.

 

Hayes, Earl T. "Energy Resources Available to the United
States, 1985 to 2000," Science. Vol. 203, January
19. 1979.

Hayes, George. Solar Access Law: Protecting Access 39
Sunlight for Solar Energy Systems. Environmental
Law Institute, 1979.

 

 

"Heating Your Home With Solar Energy," Energy Facts.
Michigan State University: Cooperative Extension
Service, Extension Bulletin E-1162, January 1980.

 

Hemdal, John M. The Energy Center. Environmental Research
Institute of Michigan. Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor
Science Publishers, February 1979.

Hines, N. William. Water Rights Laws Affecting Energy
Development lfl the Central west. Washington,
D.Ca LLS. Government Printing Office, November
1978.

 

 

Hirst, Eric and John R. Armstrong. "Managing State Energy
Conservation Programs: The Minnesota Experiencefl'
Science, Vol. 210, November 1“, 1980.

Hornick, William F. and Gordon Enk. Value Issues 12 Techno;
logy Assessment. Rensselaervile, New Jersey: The
Institute On Man and Science, June 1979.

 

 

Horton, Tom. "Big Island '80: Energy and EXpansion, Crime
and Conflict," Honolulu. July 1980.

 

Hottell, Hoyt C. and Jack B. Howard. New Energy Technology.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute
of Technology Press, 1971.

 

 

Humm, William R. and Edward Selig. Water Availability for
Energy Industries 12 Water-Science Areas: Case
tudies and Analysis. Washington, [LC.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, March 1979.

Interagency Geothermal Coordinating Council. Third Annual
Report: Geothermal Energy-Research Development
and Demonstration Program. Washington, D.CJ
U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1979.

 

153

Interdepartmental Transportation Control Commission. Report
30 the Eight Legislature 3f the State 3f Hawaii,
Regular Session 3f 1975: Relating 30 the
Interdgpartmental Transportation Control
Commission. Honolulu, Hawaii: Office of the
Governor, March 197“.

 

Isaacs, J; P3, et al. "Utilization of the Energy From the
Ocean Waves," Waves and Salinity Gradient
Energy Conversion Workshop Proceedings. ERDA
Report, May 1967.

"Is Wood Use Better Energy-Wide As a Structural Material or
Fuel?" Aware. January 1980.

Jayadevg 'T. S. and D. Roessner. Basic Research Needs and
Priorities In Solar Energy Vol. A; Golden,
Colorado. SERI, January 1930.

 

John Muir Institute. Institutional Constraints pp Alterna-
tive Water For Energy. DOE Reporta LLS. Govern-
ment Printing Office, November 1980.

 

 

Johnson, Stephen B. "State Approaches to Solar Legislation:
A Surveyu" Solar Law Reporter, Vol. 1, No. 1,
May/June 1979.

 

Kamins, R. M. and Du Kornreich. Legal and Public Policy»
. Setting For Geothermal Resource DevelOpment in
Hawaii. University of Hawaii: Hawaii Geothermal
Project, October 19, 1976.

Kamins, R. M. Preliminary Report: Environmental Studies
Program Hawaii Geothermal Project. University of
Hawaii: Hawaii Geothermal Project, October 29,
1975.

 

Keenan, Boyd R. and John A. Wenston. "A Region's Energy and
Environmental Future: Organizational Options, "
Energy and Environment: An Intergovernmental
Perspective. University of'Illinois: Institute
of Government and Public Affairs, January 1978.

 

Kessler, Daniel. "Wind--A Look to the Future," Proceeding
of the Western SUN 1980 S3lar Update in Salt Lake
City on September 2H-26, —1980, Washington, D.Ca
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1980.

Klein, Douglas P. and James P. Kauahikaua. Geoelectric-
Geothermal Exploration 3n Hawaii Island, Prelimi-
nary Results. University of Hawaii: Hawaii Geo-
thermal Project, January 1975.

 

 

15“

Knight, Herbert G. "Legal, Political, and Environmental
ASpects of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion: A
Report on an ASIL/ERDA Study," Ap Energy From the
Oceans, Fact or Fantasy. Edited by Jerome Kohl.
Raleigh, North “Carolina: State University, 1976.

 

Koenig, Herman E. Industrial Societies i3 Transition: The
R3Ae pi the Family_Unit. Prepared for American

Home Economics Association, 71st annual meeting,
Dallas, Texas, June 1980.

 

Koenig, Herman E. Running Out 3f Energy. Extension
Bulletin E1173, Michigan State University
Extension Service, November 1977.

Koide, George. Priorities 3n Solar Energy Projpcts py the
Countyo 3? Hawaii Solar Advisory Group. Advisory
Group Report, January 1978.

 

Koide, George T. and Patrick Takahashi. Wind and Solar

Energy Applications Study. University of Hawaii,
Augustj1977.

 

Laitos, Jan and Randall Feuerstein. "Regulated Utilities
and Solar Eenrgy: A Legal-Economics Analysis of
the Major Issues Affecting the Solar Commerciali-
zation Effort, " 56 University 3f Denver Law
Journal 31, June 1979.

 

 

Landsberg, J..L” et al. 'Energy: The Next Twenty Years,
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Bollinger Publishing
Co., 1977.

"Legal and Regulatory Issues," Analysis 3f Poligy Options
for Accelerating Commercialization 3f S3Aar
Heating and Cooling Systems. Edited by Roger
Bezdek., Washington, DAL: The George Washington
University, 1977.

 

Legal, Political, and Institutional Aspects pi Ocean Thermal
Energy Conversion Workshgp Proceedings.
Washington, TLC: American Society of
International Law, 1976.

 

22

Little, Arthur D. Distributed Energy Systems: A Apyie _i
Related Technologies. Washington, I)WC U.
Government Printing Office, November 1979.

Littler, J. J. "The Oceans As a Source of Electricity,"
Aware. October 1980.

Lodye, Terry J. "The Windmill Case: Facing Up To
' Appropriate Technology," Environmental Affairs.
Toldeo, Ohio: Department of Community
Development, 1978.

 

155

Lovins, A. B. "Energy Strategies: The Road Not Taken?"
Foreign Affairs. October 1976.

Lumsdaine, Edward, Roger Farrer, and David Miller. "Solar
Upgrading of Low-Income Housingfl Proceeding of
.the Western SUN 1980 Solar Update, Salt Lake City,
19800

MacKenna, David W. and Barbara D. Sellers. Municipal Energy
Management: A Comprehensive Approach. University
of Urban Studies, University of Texas at
Arlington, 1978.

 

Marien, Michael. Future Survey Annual 1979, A Guide T3 the
Recent Literature 3f Trends, Forecasts, and Policy
Proposals. Washington, I).C.: World Future
Society, 1979.

 

Mause, Philip J. "Price Regulation and Energy Policy,"
Selected Studies pp Energy: Background Studies
for Energy: The Next Twenty Years. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Bollinger Publishing Company,
1980.

Mayo, Louis H. Legal Institutional Implications 3f Wind
Energy Conversion Systems, (WESC) Washington,
D. C. George Washington University, 1977.

Meeker. Building Codes as Barriers Ag Solar Heating and
Cooling 3f Buildings. Washington, DH(3:

Environmental Law Institute, 1979

 

 

Meinel, Aden and Marjorie Meinel. Power For the People.
Tuscon, Meniel Press, 1970.

 

Menard H.‘William. "Toward A Rational Strategy for Oil
Exploration," Scientific American, Vol. 2H”, No.
1, January 1981.

Michigan Energy Administration. The Michigan Ener Code
Applied to: One and Two Family Dwellings.
Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of
Commerce, March 1980.

Michigan Energy and Resource Research Association. Toward A
Unified Michigan Energy Policy. 1980.

lfliller, A. S. (Dverwhelming Legal Uncertainties About the

Use 3f S3A3r Energy Systems. Chicago: American
Bar Foundation, 1978.

[Willer, Alan S. "Legal Obstacles to Decentralize Solar
Energy Technologies," Solar Law Reporter, Vol. 1,
No. 3, September/October 1979.

156

Miller, Alan S. "Legal Obstacles to Decentralize Solar
Energy Technology; Part II," Solar Law Reporter,
Vol. 1, No. 4, November/December 1979.

 

Miller, Alan S. "Solar Enrgy and Land Use in Colorado," 6
Environmental Law Reporter 539, 1978.

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, Energy-1978.

 

Mitre Corporation. Environmental Data for Energy Technology
Policy Analysis Vol. 1 Summary. DOE Reports:
U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1979.

Moore, J. L.; et a1. Organizing for Comprehensive Community
Energy Management Planning: Some Preliminary
Observations. Columbus, Ohio: Academy for
Contemporary Problems, December 1979.

 

 

 

Moskowitz. Legal Barriers £3 Solar Heating and Cooling 23
Buildings. Environmental Law Institute, 1976.

 

Murata, Donald. Alcohol Production. Technical Report #5.
Hawaii Natural Energy Institute: Hawaii Biomass
for Fuels Project, April 1978.

Nadis, Steve. "An Optimal Solar Strategy," Environment.
November 1979.

 

 

Nanda, Ved P. Selected Legal and Institutional Issues
Related £9 Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC)
Development. Menlo Park, California: SERI, June
1979.

 

National Solar Heating and Cooling Information Center.
Local Government and Solar. Washington, D.Ca
U.S. Government Printing office, 1980.

Neill, D. Richard and Patrick Takahashi. A Report Op A Wind
Energy Applications Network for Hawaii.
University of Hawaii: Hawaii Natural Energy
Institute, December 1978.

 

 

New Dimensions 22 Energy Policy. Edited by Robert Lawrence.
Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, April
1979.

 

Noun, Robert J. Product Liability and Small Wind Energy
Conversion Systems (SWECS): Ag Analysis 9;
Selected Issues and Poligy Alternatives. Menlo
Park, California: SERI, December 1979.

 

Ochs, T. L. "Non-Convecting Solar Ponds," Proceeding of the
Western SUN 1980 Solar Update in Salt Lake.
Washington, ILC.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1980.

157

Odland, Robert. Standard Building Codes and Certification
Program for Solar Technology Applications.
Golden, Colorado: SERI, 1979.

Ohi, James and Charles T. Unseld, et al. Decentralized Energy
Studies. Golden Colorado: SERI, May 1980.

 

Okagaki, Alan and Jim Benson. County Energy Plan Guidebook:
Creating A Renewable Energy Plan. Fiarfax,
Virginia: Institute for Ecological Policies, July
1979.

Perry, H. Multiple Paths for Energy Policy, A Critigue 2f
Lovins Energy Strategy. New York: National
Economic Research Association, 1977.

Pollack, Peter. The Implementation 9: State Solar
Incentives: Land-Use Planning 29 Ensure Solar
Access. Golden, Colorado: SERI, March 1979.

 

 

Pollard, W.(L "Long Range PrOSpects for Solar Derived
Fuels," American Scientist. Vol. 64, No. A, 1976.

Priest, W. Curtis and Kenneth M. Happy. Ag nggyiew
and Critical Evaluation of the Relationships
Between Land Use and Energy Conservation.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Technology and

Economics, Inc., 1976.

 

Pronin, Monica. The Energy Idex '77: A Select Guide to
Energy Documents, Laws, and Statistics.
Environmental Information Center, 1977.

 

 

Proceedings of the Seminar on Geothermal Energy. October
18- -19, 1977, Sponsored by Department of Research
and Development, County of Hawaii: Geothermal
Resources Council, 1977.

 

Protecting Solar Access. Report of the Governor's Special
Study Committee on Solar Rights. Wisconsin's
Office of State Planning and Energy, April 1978.

 

Real Estate Research Corporation. 'The Costs of Sprawl:
Detailed Cost Analysis. Chicago 197A.

 

Reece, Ray. The Sun Betrayed: A Study pf the Copporate
Seizure g_f_ U. S. Solar Energy Development. Boston:
South End Press, October 1979.

Reeves, Mavis Mann. "Intergovernmental Energy and
Environmental Challenges in the Ohio River Valley:
The View from the States," Energy and Environment:
Ag Intergovernmental Perspective. University of
Illinois: Institute of Government and Public
Affairs, January 1978.

 

158

Reinsch, H. 0. "Energy, the Challenge and the Realities,"
Aware. September 1978.

 

 

Reuyl, John S.; et al. Solar Energy in America' 5 Future. A
Preliminary Assessment. Menlo Park, California:
Stanford Research Institute, March 1970.

 

 

Ridgeway, James. Energy-Efficient Community Planning;
Guide Lo Saving Energy and Producing Power 23
Local Level. Emmaus, Pennsylvania. The J. G.
Press, November 1979.

 

A
the

 

 

 

Riley, Julia D. Standardsi Building Codesi and Certifica-
tion Programs for Solar Technology Applications.
Golden, Colorado: SERI, July 1979.

 

 

 

 

Roessner, J. David; et al. ‘ Application of Diffusion
Research Lo Solar Energy Policy Issues. Golden,
Colorado: “SERI, March 1979.

 

 

 

Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion pf Innovations. New York:
The Free Press, 1962.

 

 

Ross, Marc H. "Energy Efficiency: Our Most Underrated
Energy Resource, " The Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, Vol.32, No. 9, November 1976.

 

 

 

Russell, Joe W. Economic Disincentives for Energy
Conservation. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Bollinger Publishing Company, 1979.

 

 

Sawhill, John E. Energy Conservation and Public Policy.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1979.

 

Schroeder, Thomas A., Thomas G. Torlton, and P. Andere
Daniels. A _S_____urv__y__ o_f_‘ Winds _o___n the Islang _g_f_‘
Hawaii. University of Hawaii: Dept. of
Meteorology, 1976.

Schumacher, E. F. Small l3 Beautiful. New York: Harper
and Row, 1973.

 

Schweitzer, Martin. Review of Solar Legal and Institutional

 

Systems. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, April 1980.

 

Scott, David M. "The Earth Shelter Experience of Codes,
Ordinances, Financing, Incentives, and Attitudes,"
Proceeding of the Western SUN 1980 Solar Update in
Salt Lake City, Washington, DAL: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1980.

 

 

 

1S9

Seeley, Dwight; et a1; Solar Energy Legal Bibliography.
Golden, Colorado: SERI, March 1979.

Shama, Avraham and Ken Jacobs. Social Values and Solar

Energy Policy: The Policy Maker and the Advocate.
Golden, Colorado: SERI, July 1980.

Shell Oil Company. "Solar Energy," Shell Reports, February
1978.

Shirley, E.<L and J.1L Apostolas. Energy Requirements for
Transportation Systems. National C00perative
Highway Research Program Report 111, Highway
Administration Office of Environmental Policy,
1979

 

 

Simmons, M. and P. Craig. Distributed Energy Systems in
California‘s Future Interim Report Vol.
DOE Report, Washington, DAL: U.S. Gover
Printing Office, May 1978.

lanai.
nm nt

Solar Action Incorporated. Citizen' 3 Solar Program: State
Reports On Barriers and Strategies 39 Renewable
Energy Development. DOE Report, Washington,
D. C: LJ.S. Government Printing Office, October
1978. . .

 

 

 

"Solar Energy Economics," Institute For Energy Analysis
Newsletter, Fall, 1980.

Solt, S. M. "Cogeneration Becoming More Attractive,"
Electrical World. 191 (6): 119-March 1S, 1978.

Spivale, Paul. Land- Use Barriers and Incentives lg the Use
Lf Solar Energy. Solar Energy Research Institute,
August 1979

Starr, Chauncey. "The Growth of Limits," EPRI Journal,
Electric Power Research Institute, 1979.

 

Statewide TranSportation Council. Report To the Ninth State

LegislatureL Regular Session Lf 1977, Ln Limiting
Tran§portation Units, Honolulu, Hawaii, December

30,1?76.

 

State Department of Planning and Economic Development.
State Energy Plan: A State Functional Plan.
Honolulu, Hawaii, February 1980.

State Department of Planning and Economic Development.

Ethanol/Gasohol for Hawaii. Honolulu, Hawaii,
January 1980.

160

State Department of Planning and Economic DevelOpment.
Environmental Impact Statement for Geothermal
Research Egg Demonstration Facility Utilizing the
HGP-A Well at Punai Hawaii. Honolulu, Hawaii,
January 1978?

 

 

"State Energy Roles and Data Needs," Institute for Energy
Analysis Newsletter. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Oak
Ridge Associated Universities, August 1980.

 

 

Steinhart, John S. Pathway £9 Energy Self-Sufficiency: The
2050 Study. University of Wisconsin Press, July
1979.

 

Study pi Energy Research and Development lg the Private
Sector. St. Louis, Missouri: Industrial Research
Institute Research Corporation, January 1980.

 

 

Surbrook, Truman C. "Wind Power," Energy Factsheet #2.
Extension Bulletin E112. Michigan State _—
University: Cooperative Extension Service,
January 1978.

 

Symposium Papers: Clean Fuels from Biomass, Sewage, Urban
Refusey Agriculture Wastes, Orlando, Florida:
Institute of Gas TechnoIOgy, March 1976.

 

Taubenfield, "Wind Energy: Legal Issues and Legal
Barriers," 31 Southwestern Law Journal 1053, 1977.

 

The Carter Administration. Small Community and Rural
Development Policy. Washington, DAL: U.S.
Government Printing Office, December 20, 1979.

 

"The Wind for Energy," Aware. Issue No. 116, May 1980.

Thomas, W. A. Overcoming Legal Uncertainties. Chicago:
American Bar Foundation, 1978.

 

Thompson, Grant P. Building 23 Save Energy: Legal and
Regulatory Approaches. Cambridge, Mass.:
Bollinger Publishing Company, 1979.

 

 

TranSportation Committee of the Hawaii Energy Conservation
Council. Saving Energy 13 Transportation.
Honolulu, Hawaii: State Energy Office, January
1980.

 

 

Urban Policy and Planning. Energy Conservation Choices for
the City 9: Portland, Oregon. Washington, D.CJ
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977.

 

U.S. Department of Energy. A New Start: The National
Energy Act. Washington, ILC.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, March 1979.

 

 

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

161

Department of Energy. Comprehensive Community Energy
Planning 101.1. Washington,I)dC U.S.

~ul— ~a‘a—a—c.

Government Printing Office, November 1978.

Department of Energy. "Domestic Policy Review of Solar
Energy: Response Memorandum to the President,"
Renewable Energy Develppment: Local Issues and
'Capabilities. Washington, ILC.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, January 1980.

 

Department of Energy. Energy Audit Workbook for
Apartment Buildings. Washington, ILC.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, September 1978.

Department of Energy. Energy Audit Workbook for Office
Buildings. Washington, [LC.: U.S. Government
Printing, September 1979.

 

Department of Energy. Energy Conservation Programs for
Schools, Hospitals, and Buildings Owned By Units
pf Local Government and Public Care Institutions.
Washington, ILC.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, February 1979.

 

Department of Energy. Environmental Development Plan:
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion. August 1979.

Department of Energy. Estimates Lf Energy Non- Resource
Costs: Energy Taxes and Subsidies Analysis
Report. Washington, IDHC: U. S. Government
Printing Office, November 1979.

 

 

Department of Energy. The 1978 National Interim Energy
Conservation Survey. Washington, ILC.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, February 1980.

Department of Energy. Ocean Energy Systems.
Washington, [LC.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1979.

Department of Energy. Ocean thermal Energy Conversion
(OTEC) Power Cycle and Components Plan.
Washington, ILC.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, February 1980.

Department of Energy. Passive Solar Design: A Short
Bibliography for Practitioners. Washington, D. C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1978.

Department of Energy. Proceedings Lf the Western SUN
1980 Solar U date. Washington,I)C U. S.
Government rinting Office, January 1980.

Department of Energy. Renewable Energy Development:
Local Issues and Capabilities. Washington, D.Cu
U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1980.

 

 

 

lJ.S.

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

162

Department of Energy. Renewable Resources: A National
CataApg pg Model Pro‘ects Vol. A; Western Solar
Upilization Network Region. Washington, D.CA
U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1980.

 

 

 

 

 

Department of Energy. Residential Conservation Service
Model Audit. Washington, DAL: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1980.

Department of Energy. Solar Energy: A Status Report.
Washington, ILC.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, June 1980.

 

 

 

Department of Energy. The Energy Consumer.
Washington, ILC.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, February/March 1980.

 

 

Department of Energy. Solar Assessment pf Qp-Site
Solar Energy Technologies. Washington, DAL:
U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1979.

 

Department of Energy. Solar Energy Objectives:
Calendar Year 1980. Washington, DAL: U.S.
Government Printing Office, April 1980.

Department of Energy. Solar Technology Transfef
Program. Washington, ILC.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, April 1978.

 

 

Department of Energy. Solar, Geothermaly Electric and
Storage. Systems Program Summary Document.
Washington, [LC.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, July 1979.

 

Department of Energy. Solar Thermal Power Systems:
Summarnyeport. Washington,[LC.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, June 1980.

Department of Energy. State and Local Programs Multi-
Year Plan 1980-8M. Washington,ILC.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1979.

Department of Housing and Urban Development. A Surygy
'pf‘Passive Solar Building. Washington, D.CJ
U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1979.

Department of Housing and Urban DevelOpment. Sglgg
Status: National Solar Heating and Cooling
Information Center. Washington, ILC.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1980.

Department of Housing and Urban DevelOpment. State
Solar Legislation. Washington, DAL: U.S.
Government Printing Office, January 1979.

163

LLS. National Alcohol Fuels Commission. State Initiatives
Ln Alcohol Fuels: A Stategpy-State Compendium Lf
Laws, Regulations, and Other Activities Involving
Alcohol Fuels. Washington, DH(3: LJ.S. Government
Printing Office, August 1980.

 

Wallace, Cissy. Decentralized Eneggy Studies: Compendium
33 International Studies and Research. Golden,
Colorado: SERI, March 1980.

 

 

Warren, Michael. Problems 12 the Administration 2; State
Solar Legislation. Golden, Colorado: SERI, July
1979.

 

 

 

Weinberg,.Alvin M. "Energy Policy and the Institute for
Energy Analysis-1979," Aware. April 1980.

Weiner, Donald. "Gas and Solar: The End of the Affair?"
Environment. Vol. 20, No. 6, July/August 1979.

Wenk, Edward, "The Physical Resources of the Ocean}'
Scientific America. Vol. 221, No. 3, September
1969.

West, Clarence J. The Utlitzation Lf Sugar Cane Bagasse for
Paper, Board Plastics, and Chemicals.
Technological Report Series No. 8. New York:

Sugar Research Foundation, Inc., February 1952.

 

 

White, Sharon. Santa Clara, California, Community Center:
Commercial Solar Demonstration, Legal
Alternatives, Implications, and Financing 2;
Heating and Cooling, py 3 Municipal Corporation.
Washington, ILC.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, September 1976;

 

White, Sharon, "The Allocation of Sunlight: Solar Rights
and the Prior ApprOpriation Doctrine," ”7
University 9: Colorado Law Review, 1976.

Williams, N. American Planning Law: Land Use and the
Police Power. Chicago: Callaghan, 1975.

 

Wiley. "Private Land Use as Barriers to Solar Developmentfl'
Solar Law Reporter 281, 1979.

 

Wilson, Clark. Energy for‘Survival: The Alternative £2
Extinction. Garden City, New Jersey:
Anchor/Doubleday, 1974.

 

 

Wilson; et al. Legal Alternatives, Implications, and
Financing Lf Solar Heating and Cooling py a
Municipal Copporation. Santa Clara, California,
1976.

 

16M
"Wood, Energy and Forest Management," Aware. January 1980.

Yin, Robert K. Studying the Implementation 9: Publlg
Programs. Golden, Colorado: SERI, January 1980.

Yoshida, Layne. Fuels from Biomass: Plants for Ethanol
Production. Technical Report No. A, Hawaii
Natural Energy Institute: Hawaii Biomass Program,
November 1977.

 

Yudelson, Jerry. "Filthy Lure: New Approaches to Solar
Financing," Proceeding of the Western SUN 1980
Solar Update, Salt Lake City. Washington, DJL:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980.

Zillman, Deeny. "Legal Aspects of Solar Energy
DevelOpment," Arizona State Law Review 25, 39,
1976.

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
1|IWIWWWI”W1W111111111WNW
31293107963831