<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.5626" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 bgColor=#ffffff leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7>
<DIV>Hello Pat,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I don't know how natural gas for transportation fits into the picture, but
NG distribution is prioritized for residential use over utility
electric generation so that people can heat their homes and cook. Even if
there was an unlimited supply of NG, the existing pipe distribution network is
constrained which is why a giant LNG harbor is being built in Mexico to
supply SoCal makes economic sense to some people. I think it should be
relatively easy to reduce NG consumption through conservation and
efficiency in the US by 10%. Solar water offsetting electric water heating makes
sense now for many existing homes. It won't be long before solar water heating
will be required on all new construction in California and then spread to other
states. If you promise to live long enough to see it happen, I'll try to stick
around too.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Joel Davidson</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=SOLARPRO@aol.com href="mailto:SOLARPRO@aol.com">SOLARPRO@aol.com</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=nickvida@eesolar.com
href="mailto:nickvida@eesolar.com">nickvida@eesolar.com</A> ; <A
title=re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
href="mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org">re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, October 05, 2008 3:02
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [RE-wrenches] California
solar intiatives</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT id=role_document face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>10 is a tough one... good business for Pickens. But I think he has
made the connection on Wind v N Gas v Gasoline. Natural Gas is A
real solution for moving us away from imports (especially from
global hot spots). Changing over the fuel system is not very difficult or
costly and it would certainly be much cleaner burning than using
gasoline. But, we do not have enough NG to consider this as even an
interim option, hence his push for wind to open up supplies of natural
gas. I do not see why the push for solar water
heating would not also be part of his effort - I guess he cannot figure out a
way to make that work for him. </DIV>
<DIV>If every single NG water heater in the US went 50% solar, how much extra
NG would this country have?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Patrick Redgate</DIV>
<DIV>AMECO Solar</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 10/5/2008 2:24:52 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
nickvida@eesolar.com writes:</DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>On
prop 10,<BR><BR>yes you may feel whatever way you would like about Pickens.
Seeing how<BR>much windy land he owns in texas and that he owns clean energy
natural gas<BR>stations makes it a bit insipid that he is trying to use the
government to<BR>increase his infrastructure. But as a tradesman, if you
dont think natural<BR>gas is a important way to run your fleet of heavy
vehicles now and in the<BR>future, then i dont understand that. You can run
CNG right now, in fact I<BR>do and have for years. It is effective and lower
emissions (isnt that part<BR>of what your business is? environmentalism?) I
have seen one work van that<BR>runs on batteries in europe that has a low
range and a long charge time.<BR>The reality of our business and all the
other tradesman is driving up to<BR>200 miles a day and driving around
often. You can do what you are doing<BR>now, (buying gas until the battery
van comes out never joel?), run a<BR>neighborhood business, or use natural
gas. And if you do already, then you<BR>welcome an increase in the
infrastructure and can only hope they will use<BR>garbage and cow poop to
reach increasing demand instead of imports. And of<BR>course, when the sales
fleet and customers are all going around in EVs,<BR>you are right Joel, this
state will have officially pulled its head out of<BR>its natural
pocket.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>> Hello Jay,<BR>><BR>> CalSEIA (and I)
am opposed to Prop 7 because, among other things, it would<BR>> exclude
renewable projects that are 30MW or less from counting toward the<BR>>
State's Renewable Portfolio Standard. If Prop 7 becomes law, it will<BR>>
adversely impact the developing markets for distributed solar
technologies<BR>> that are located close to load centers and reduce
market opportunities for<BR>> many solar companies throughout California.
Ensuring that <30MW systems<BR>> can<BR>> be counted toward RPS
goals is very important to expanding the use of<BR>> solar<BR>> in
California. The Prop 7 people seem well-intentioned and probably got<BR>>
their >30 MW language from the distinction between small and large
hydro<BR>> (large hydro is bad ecology). I am not a "small is beautiful"
hardliner<BR>> because some big problems require big solutions. I think
that the world<BR>> needs both small and large scale PV. We need Jay's PV
and PG&E's 800 MW PV<BR>> too.<BR>><BR>> Prop 10 is another
story. The Los Angeles Times editorialized against Prop<BR>> 10 on
September 19, saying, "Spending bond money on something as<BR>>
intangible<BR>> as privately owned vehicles is a terrible idea unless
there is a clear<BR>> public benefit." The Santa Monica Mirror said,
"Self-serving Prop. 10<BR>> sounds<BR>> good, should lose."
See<BR>>
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_10_(2008)
T.<BR>> Boone Pickens will definitely benefit from his Prop 10. I think
he is<BR>> smart<BR>> enough to figure out a market-driven way to sell
and fuel more natural gas<BR>> vehicles. I also think that one of Prop
10's supporters, the California<BR>> Air<BR>> Resources Board, failed
in their duty to the public when the caved to the<BR>> automobile and
fossil fuel industries and killed the electric vehicle<BR>> mandate. Take
fossil fuels out of Prop 10 and I might be in favor of it,<BR>>
but<BR>> I am against burdening the next generation with another $10
billion debt<BR>> for<BR>> a transitional technology like slightly
cleaner vehicles. Let's make the<BR>> great leap forward and end our
addiction to fossil fuels asap.<BR>><BR>> Joel
Davidson<BR>><BR>> ----- Original Message -----<BR>> From: "jay
peltz" <jay@asis.com><BR>> To: "RE-wrenches"
<re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org><BR>> Sent: Sunday, October 05,
2008 12:00 PM<BR>> Subject: [RE-wrenches] California solar
intiatives<BR>><BR>><BR>>> Hi All in
California.<BR>>><BR>>> What seems to be the best way to go on
the two intiatives #7 and #10.<BR>>><BR>>> Thanks,<BR>>>
jay<BR>>><BR>>> peltz power<BR>>>
<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV><FONT style="FONT: 10pt ARIAL, SAN-SERIF; COLOR: black">
<HR style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px">
New <B>MapQuest Local</B> shows what's happening at your destination. Dining,
Movies, Events, News & more. <A
title=http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001
href="http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001" target=_blank>Try it
out</A>!</FONT></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>List sponsored by
Home Power magazine<BR><BR>List Address:
RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org<BR><BR>Options &
settings:<BR>http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org<BR><BR>List-Archive:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org<BR><BR>List
rules & etiquette:<BR>www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm<BR><BR>Check out
participant
bios:<BR>www.members.re-wrenches.org<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>