Elementary Transimpedance Photodiode Amplifier Design

Aug 27, 2012

The purpose of this article is to describe a simple design approach for a phododiode amplifier using the transimpedance circuit. The intent is to provide a simplified approach without explaining the equations used. The reader is assumed familiar with basic op-amp circuits.

For complete details and discussion on the full equations and more complex designs, examples and measurements on real circuits, see Transimpedance Amplifiers .

The Basic Transimpedance Circuit:

The simplest possible photodiode transimpedance amplifier circuit is shown below. It is a current to voltage converter. The photodiode is represented as an ideal current source Ip which has infinite impedance. The photocurrent is a reverse current which under any significant load would tend to forward bias the photodiode. However, the transimpedance amplifier configuration presents a "virtual ground" to the photodiode providing effectively an extremely small load to the photodiode which minimizes any forward bias developed across the photodiode terminals caused by photocurrent. This is achieved through the active feedback network of Rf. The orientation of the photodiode P and N terminals are shown for the corresponding direction of the current source Ip. In this orientation, the output voltage of the op-amp will be positive with photocurrent flowing from the op-amp output through Rf and through the photodiode. [Note that since the photocurrent is always a reverse current, an AC frequency response implies a DC optical illumination level with a superimposed AC optical modulation. However the AC modulation level need not be a "small signal" level]. The transimpedance is defined as the frequency-dependent ratio of output voltage to the current source or Vo(f)/Ip. The feedback network consists of a single gain-determining resistance Rf. In this very simplified model, the feedback fraction is 100% (or equivalently the noise gain is unity) and the transimpedance 3db bandwidth is simply the unity-gain frequency of the op-amp or the op-amp GBW product. The frequency response is flat from DC to the 3db bandwidth frequency and rolls-off beyond that point at a rate of 20 dB/decade. This elementary model is useful for very low frequency considerations:

However, real transimpedance circuits are more complicated due to the capacitance Ci between the op-amp inverting input and ground. A more realistic and useful model for a transimpedance photodiode amplifier is shown below. Ci is the total capacitance at the inverting input, including the op-amp capacitances (typically between 5 pF and 15 pF), photodiode capacitance (varies widely, depending mainly on the size of the photodiode and if any reverse bias is applied, between 1pF and 1000pF) and any stray circuit capacitances (typically between 0.5 - 2 pF). As the frequency increases, this capacitance shunts the feedback signal more. This means that the feedback signal will be less than 100% (or the noise gain will be greater than unity) and it will depend on frequency. Rf in combination with the input capacitance Ci therefore forms a complex voltage divider in the feedback network and this will lower the transimpedance bandwidth. Furthermore, the input capacitance Ci introduces a phase shift in the feedback-signal which tends to move the circuit towards an unstable condition of positive feedback. To stabilize against instability and potential oscillation problems, a shunt capacitance Cf is usually required. Cf is the total feedback capacitance across the feedback resistor and includes stray capacitance (typically 0.3 - 1pF) and any capacitance added to ensure circuit stability. Generally lower Ci results in improved performance:

For simplicity, the circuit above does not show the components needed to reverse bias the photodiode, if necessary, which is often used to reduce input capacitance Ci and improve speed and lower noise. A typical simple "bias insertion" method isolates the power supply from the transimpedance circuit.
Also, it is assumed that the total input resistance at the inverting input to ground is very high and can be ignored. For very large area photodiodes, the Ri contribution from the photodiode will become important. References listed above discuss its inclusion.

How Much Bandwidth?

Probably the most basic design parameter is bandwidth (speed). We will assume that frequencies from DC up to some maximum frequency F3db must be handled by the circuit. We will assume that the photodiode is intrinsically fast enough that it only affects overall circuit bandwidth through its capacitance which is lumped into Ci. In many cases, the best overall compromise between circuit bandwidth and circuit stability is the "Butterworth" maximally flat frequency response design with the two basic design equations:

This is the value of F3db provided that the Cf value is chosen by the design equation. The value of Cf determines circuit stability and depends on GBW, Rf and Ci. The equation for Cf is approximate and assumes that Cf<Ci which is usually true. Furthermore, under certain conditions (very low Rf, Ci or GBW) it may not be possible to achieve the "maximally flat" response condition (see Note On Special Conditions below). In any case, a calculator provided below can be used for any combination of circuit parameters and displays the exact results and can be used to determine the amount (if any) of Cf required to obtain a stable circuit.

Another way of viewing bandwidth is asking what must the GBW product of the op-amp be, given Rf and Ci, to attain a required transimpedance f3db? Assuming as is often the case that Ci>>Cf, the equation above for F3db, for the maximally flat response case, can be inverted and written as:

where Fz is the zero frequency 1/(2πRfCi). It is seen that:

A common design approach starts with a requirement for a certain voltage output level from the transimpedance circuit in the pass-band. Assume we have a specific op-amp with GBW and capacitance, and a photodiode with known capacitance:

(1) Assuming that the incident optical power Pin on the photodiode is known, the photocurrent Ip and thus the output voltage Vout can be determined from the photodiode responsivity Resp(λ) specification:

The required output voltage level will therefore determine the required feedback resistance Rf, that is the transimpedance gain.
(Although the photodiode responsivity is optical-wavelength dependent, for basic design work an approximate responsivity of 0.5A/W can be used, a typical value for Si photodiodes in the visible region.)

(2) Using this Rf value and GBW and Ci, calculate the Cf value from the design equation above. Alternatively, use the calculator provided below.

(3) Calculate the F3db circuit bandwidth using the design equation above (or calculator below) to determine if there is sufficient bandwidth with the gain (Rf) requirements.

(4) If the circuit bandwidth is too low, explore alternate results using other GBW or Ci. If the circuit bandwidth is much higher than needed, consider using an op-amp with lower GBW or increase Cf to force a lower bandwidth (which won't however be a "maximally flat" design). From noise considerations, an op-amp with just sufficient bandwidth is the best choice. A calculator below assists with rapid design variations.

Collect More Light:

The typical design scenario above was based on a known optical power Pin received by the photodiode. For low-level applications, it is always best to maximize Pin by collecting as much incident optical power as possible, through simple lensing for example. This "optical gain" is essentially noise free. For photodiode receivers using fairly monochromatic LED sources, simple lenses are perfectly adequate.

The noise voltage at the output of the transimpedance amplifier often tends to be dominated by the contribution from the op-amp noise voltage which experiences noise gain peaking, an effect that is characteristic of transimpedance circuits. The total output voltage noise consists of the op-amp voltage noise en, noise from the op-amp current noise in flowing through Rf and thermal noise from Rf. The total output voltage noise will limit the minimum detectable optical signal power. The calculator below accurately computes the output noise contributions from each component and the RMS total integrated noise voltage over the full circuit bandwidth.

With Vtotal being the total output noise voltage, the minimum detectable optical signal power is:

and the signal-to-noise ratio for a given received optical power Pin is:

Transimpedance Calculator:

The script calculator below determines the exact F3db transimpedance bandwidth, Q value and output noise voltages in μV for the basic transimpedance circuit. To use, enter the op-amp GBW, and the op-amp noise spectral density values en and in. Then enter the component values for Rf, Cf and Ci and click Get Parameters. Note the required units for each input field. If the required Cf value is to be determined, start with a low typical stray value of 0.3pF. If the resultant Q value is < =1.0 then the circuit will be stable with reasonably good phase margin (typically >45degrees) and no additional Cf need be added. However, if the Q value is greater than 1, corresponding to a circuit with significant overshoot in time and peaking in frequency, then feedback stability will likely be a problem. In that case, three special buttons are provided which assist in calculating an optimum Cf value. These three buttons target the three common design targets for Q with Q=1 being roughly the maximum Q value which will have sufficient phase margin to produce a stable design. The Butterworth maximally flat response design corresponds to Q = 1/√2. However, depending on the values of GBW, Rf and Ci, it may NOT be possible to achieve Q values greater than 0.5. The overall best design targets which are stable but do not waste op-amp bandwidth have Q in the range 0.5 to 1.0. Parameters are defined below. The noise values calculated are total noise, integrated over all frequency. (A more detailed calculator is available):

Transimpedance Amplifier Calculator
  GBW (MHz):      en (nV/√Hz):      in (pA/√Hz):
  Rf (k):      Cf (pF):      Ci (pF):
  F3db (Hz):   Q:   F0 (Hz):
  Ven (uV):   Vth (uV):   Vin(uV):

The calculator above does not include shot noise from the photodiode dark current (if reverse biased) or shot noise from the signal photocurrent. The shot noise spectral current density in A/√(Hz) for photo or dark current I is given by:

which in convenient units is:

These shot noise contributions experience exactly the same transimpedance transfer function gain as the op-amp noise current density in above. The equations can be used to quickly determine if these photodiode shot noise contributions are significant.

Note on Special Conditions:
Depending on the component values of Rf, Ci and GBW, a solution for Cf for underdamped responses, such as the maximally flat condition Q=1/√2 or the popular Q=1.0 case may not be possible. This may occur for small values of Rf or Ci or GBW. (However, a Cf solution for the critically damped case Q = 0.5 will always be possible). For the "maximally flat" case with Q = 1/√2, a Cf solution will only be possible under this condition:

For the common case with Q = 1.0, a Cf solution will only be possible under this condition:

In both cases, this means that the zero frequency of the noise gain (or equivalently the pole frequency of the feedback factor β(f)) must be comparable to or less the op-amp GBW for a Cf solutions with these Q values to exist. This condition will NOT be satisfied if the zero and pole frequencies of the noise-gain are considerably higher than the op-amp GBW. In that case, the transimpedance F3db bandwidth will simply be controlled by the op-amp open-loop rolloff and F3db will be comparable to the op-amp GBW. Under this condition, the circuit will typically have a Q value < 0.5 with Cf set to zero (or some nominally small stray value such as 0.3 pF) and there will be negligible noise-gain peaking in the pass-band of the transimpedance response. The circuit will have considerable phase margin and will be stable so that no compensation capacitance Cf will be required. Of course Cf could be added to reduce F3db and total output noise.

Calculator Parameters


Common menu bar links

Facts and Figures

Features and Highlights

Yoho National Park

Elk crossing the Kicking Horse River in Yoho National Park
A place of awe and wonder.
These are the western slopes of the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Towering rockwalls, spectacular waterfalls and soaring peaks earn the park its name; Yoho is a Cree expression of awe and wonder. Here in the shadow of the Great Divide are the secrets of ancient ocean life, the power of ice and water, and the stories of plants and animals that continue to evolve today.

Member of the Virtual Museum of Canada - Discover the Burgess Shale


• Sweden's news in English

The Swedish Teacher

If you want the answers, you just have to ask!

Posts Tagged ‘bisats’

More about “ordföljd”

Wednesday, September 8th, 2010

Hej igen!

2. When do I use inverted word order?

3. What on earth do I do with the ”particle” in the “particle verbs?

Jag ska arbeta imorgon.

(I will work tomorrow.)

Jag ska inte arbeta imorgon.

Jag ska bara arbeta imorgon.

Jag ska tyvärr arbeta imorgon.

Jag har inte gjort läxan.

(I have not done my homework.)

Varför har du inte gjort läxan?

(Why have you not done your homework?)

Har du inte gjort läxan?

(Have you not done your homework?)

Jag tycker om kaffe.

(I like coffee.)

Jag tycker inte om läxor.

(I do not like homework.)

Jag kom inte ihåg att vi hade läxa.

(I did not remember that we had homework.)

Jag känner henne inte.

(I don’t know her.)

Jag känner inte henne.

(I don’t know her.)

The stress/melody in this sentence is something like this:

Jag känner inte henne.

Henne känner jag inte.

(Her I don’t know.)

The stress/melody in this sentence is:

Henne känner jag inte.

Jag känner inte henne.

Jag känner INTE henne!!!! :( :(

- Känner du Lena?

- Nej, jag känner henne inte.

- Träffar du Anders någon gång?

- Nej, jag träffar honom aldrig.

- Läser du tidningen på morgonen?

- Ja, det gör jag alltid.

subjunction – subject – sentence adv. – verb  – verb - particle -object – place – time

Compare that to huvudsats:

Jag ska kanske hälsa på farmor i helgen.

(Maybe I will visit my grandmother this weekend.)

Sara säger att hon kanske ska hälsa på farmor i helgen.

Sara säger att hon inte ska hälsa på farmor i helgen.

Jag ska inte gå på festen eftersom jag inte mår bra.

So, first there is a huvudsats:

Jag ska inte gå på festen.

Then comes the bisats:

eftersom jag inte mår bra.

Eftersom jag inte mår bra ska jag inte gå på festen.

Jag                                                          ska          -            inte    gå      på festen

eftersom jag inte mår bra      ska         jag       inte    gå      på festen

In this case the huvudsats is:

Jag tror

and the subordinated clauses (bisats) are:

att Erik köpte den

så att grannarna inte kunde höra

att han bakade något gott

starter/base  -  verb – subject – sentence adv. – verb – object – place – time

Jag                                    åker             till Malmö           på lördag.

starter (subject)          verb            place                           time

På lördag                      åker           jag              till Malmö.

starter (time)                verb            subject       place

Jag                                    köpte           den här boken.

starter (subject)          verb               object

Den här boken           köpte               jag.

starter (object)               verb                  subject

We can break it down to see the structure more clearly:

Nästan direkt efter att hon hade tagit sin universitetsexamen

fick       Eva          sitt drömjobb.

verb       subject    object

Til next time! :)

Sara the Swedish Teacher

Report abuse »

Word order part 2

Thursday, March 25th, 2010

Hej alla!

Are you ready for the more complicated part of word order? I hope so, because today we will look into how to construct some subordinated clauses -  “bisats”.

Do you remember that a “huvudsats” (main clause) is the independent clause? It can be a question, a statement or a command. It can be very short as in “Jag äter.” or quite long as in “På sommaren äter jag alltid glass i parken.” Do you also remember the different parts of the main clause and their functions? If not, let me refresh your memory:

subject  - Who is doing something?

verb/action - What is happening?

object - Who/what is affected by the action?

place - Where is the action taking place?

time - When is it happening?

sentence adverbial - The little word that changes the meaning of the  sentence.

Alright, now we need to understand what a “bisats” really is. Personally I think the English term “subordinated clause” is a more clear description, since a “bisats” is a subordinated part of the “huvudsats”. The “bisats” can for example be the object or time in the main clause. Let me show you what I mean. First we can take a look an example when the object is the subordinated clause:

Lars vill veta när bussen går.

(Lars wants to know when the bus is leaving.)

Let me break the sentence down for you:

Who wants to know something? Lars does. So “Lars” is the subject.

What is happening? Lars wants to know something. So “vill veta” is the action/the verbs.

What does Lars want to know? He wants to know when the bus is leaving. Therefore “när bussen går” is the object of the sentence. You can easily identify the object of the sentence by asking “what+subject+verb”.

The object in this sentence is not just a single word, it is a separate clause – a subject and a verb (bussen + går). But it is not a independent clause, if someone said only “när bussen går” we wouldn’t understand, because it is just half a sentence – a subordinated clause.

One more example:

Lisa säger att hon har ont i magen.

(Lisa says that she has a stomach ache.)

What is the object (the subordinated clause) here? That’s right – “att hon har ont i magen”.

Now a couple of examples when the time is the subordinated clause:

Jag läser tidningen medan jag äter frukost.

(I read the newspaper while I’m having breakfast.)

What is happening? Someone is reading (läser). Who is reading?  – “Jag” What am I reading? The newspaper (tidningen). And finally, when am I reading? While I’m having breakfast (medan jag äter frukost). “medan jag äter frukost” – that’s our subordinated clause.

Anna fick ett jobb när hon hade tagit examen.

(Anna got hired when she had graduated.)

Here “Anna” is the subject, “fick” is the action, “ett jobb” is the object and “när hon hade tagit examen” is the time and at the same time a subordinated clause.

Alright, now I’m going to upset you. We are going to ad sentence adverbials, the little words that change the meaning of the sentence, to the subordinated clause. And it will not end up in the same place as in a main clause. You might remember that the main clause construction looked like this:

Hon åker kanske till Stockholm i morgon.

subject + verb + sentence adverbial + object + place + time

Now let me turn that sentence into a subordinated or indirect clause:

Hon säger att hon kanske åker till Stockholm i morgon.

(She says that she maybe goes to Stockholm tomorrow.)

As you can see, in the subordinated clause, the sentence adverbial (in this case “kanske”) is placed before the verb and we get the following structure:

subject + verb

+ subjunction

+ subject + sentence adverbial + verb + place + time

The good news here  is that the subordinated clause is more similar to how a sentence would be costructed in English. The hard part when you are speaking Swedish out there, is to keep track of main clauses and subordinated clauses. The best way to do that is to learn the subjunctions, but that I will save for another post.

Sara the Swedish Teacher

Report abuse »

Blog updates

12 February

Editor’s blog, February 12th (The Local Sweden) »

"Hi readers, Sweden’s most southern city, Malmo, hasn’t had the easiest start to the year, grabbing global…" READ »

9 February

PSD Media


Petroglyph secerts will be revealed

-A +A
“Petroglyphs of the Middle Fork of the American River,” featuring images of petroglyphs recorded by archaeologists working near the American River, is the subject of a presentation by Tahoe National Forest Archaeologist Nolan Smith. The free lecture, presented by Placer County Museums, begins at 1 p.m. Saturday, Oct. 30, on the second floor of the Bernhard Museum Winery, 291 Auburn Folsom Road, in Auburn. Petroglyphs are the patterns of lines and images carved into stone. Unlike pictographs, which are images drawn or painted onto a rock’s surface, petroglyphs are created by removing part of the rock itself. Who created them? Why were they created? What do they mean? Nolan will share his knowledge and insights about petroglyphs during the presentation. For more information, call (530) 889-6500.


6. Major Issues

6.1 Nature of Costs to Serve Standby Customers

As a matter of policy, most parties agree that standby rates should be cost-based. PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E believe that most of the costs associated with providing T&D services are fixed and recommend that these costs be recovered through fixed charges. SCE testimony notes that "in designing rates for distributed generation customers, similar to other customers, it should be recognized that there are some distribution costs that do not vary with the volume of customer usage delivered through the utility's T&D system and these costs cannot be avoided when customers install distributed generation. Standby rates should ensure that distributed generation customers pay these unavoidable costs, but are given appropriate credits in their standby demand charges in recognition of their reduced demands on the distribution circuits resulting from their deployment of distributed generation." (SCE: Ex. 71, p. 6.)

SCE also states that "it is beyond dispute that a portion of distribution costs is fixed in nature", and that the costs of certain distribution assets do not vary depending on usage. (SCE Opening Brief-Phase 2, p. 22.) For example, SCE states that the cost of maintaining a meter or pole does not vary depending on how much energy a particular customer uses. It is these types of costs that SCE argues should be recovered according to cost causation principles whereby each customer pays a fixed charge to recover the costs incurred on its behalf. Other costs, such as for transformers, do vary depending on usage and their recovery through variable, usage-based charges would be appropriate. (SCE Opening Brief-Phase 2, p. 22.)

TURN disagrees, and points out that there are some costs associated with providing T&D service that are not fixed and that do vary with usage. TURN points to the testimony of SCE witness Jazayeri where he states that costs that are kilowatt-demand related vary with customer usage as support for its position. (TURN Opening Brief-Phase 2, p. 24, citing RT 1290.) TURN takes the position that fixed charges are not consistent with cost causation on the distribution system over the long term. Capstone, et al. maintains that distribution costs vary with customer usage. (Capstone, et al. Opening Brief-Phase 2, p. 10.)

6.2 Types of Standby Service

When a customer installs an onsite generator, the customer may chose to interconnect that generator to the grid. Today, all interconnected generators that do not qualify for net metering or other exemptions, whether serving as a primary or backup power source, must pay standby charges as a function of interconnecting with the grid. However, customers frequently use their onsite generators for different purposes and desire different levels of service. Today, utilities offer three general types of standby service: supplemental, backup, and maintenance.

CAC/EPUC request that the distributed generation customer be able to elect and adjust its reservation capacity for various standby services. CAC/EPUC recommend that the tariff include a reasonable, but not excessively punitive, monetary penalty for exceeding the elected reservation capacity. CAC/EPUC is opposed to contract capacity ratchets such as those in PG&E's Schedule S.

PG&E's Schedule S allows new distributed generation customers to elect their reservation capacity. However, if the customer's demand exceeds the contracted capacity in any billing month, that demand level becomes the new reservation capacity for 36 months. PG&E states that the 36-month ratchet provision is necessary to allow the utility to make necessary planning adjustments to meet the increased standby demand level. Under SDG&E's Schedule S, the contract demand level is determined by customer's Generation agreement. If the customer takes service in excess of its contract demand in any billing month, the increased demand shall become the new contract demand for a 12-month period. Under SCE's Schedule S, the level of standby demand is the lower of the nameplate capacity of the customer's alternate power source, or SCE's estimate of the customer's peak demand.

Supplemental power is supplied by the utility to a customer whose onsite source of generation does not regularly supply all the power necessary at their premises. Currently, supplemental power is priced according to the customer's otherwise applicable tariff, but under a separate tariff. Customers take supplemental power when the installed capacity of their onsite generator does not supply their full load. For example, a customer whose demand is 4 MW who installs a 3 MW generator would have a supplemental power load of 1 MW.15 Likewise a customer whose generator serves as a backup power source and thus the customer normally relies on the utility for power is a supplemental power customer. By its nature, the utility must plan to serve supplemental power loads. The utilities recommend that supplemental power be priced according to the customer's otherwise applicable tariff rate. CAC/EPUC concur with this recommendation.

Backup service is supplied by the utility in lieu of generation normally provided by the customer's onsite generation facilities during periods of unscheduled outages. Backup service is available instantaneously and effectively requires the utility to reserve capacity to serve the backup load at all times. The utility must plan to serve the load of backup customers. In some respects, backup service is similar to supplemental service.

Currently the energy charges on PG&E's Schedule S are differentiated by peak, partial-peak, and off-peak periods and summer and winter seasons. When a customer's distributed generation unit suffers an unscheduled outage, the customer pays for backup power based on the time and season when the outage occurs. For customers with unscheduled outages, SCE backup charges are based on the otherwise applicable tariff, except that instead of the otherwise applicable tariff's peak demand charge, backup customers under Schedule S pay the standby demand charge. SDG&E's Schedule S is used primarily by QFs in combination with the otherwise applicable tariff, such as Schedule AL-TOU. The tariff combination provides reduced demand charges for backup and maintenance service compared to demand charges the customer would otherwise pay on the otherwise applicable tariff. SDG&E emphasizes that Schedule AV-1, not Schedule S, is the tariff applicable to distributed generation installations.

Maintenance service is scheduled by the customer with the utility to replace onsite generation when the customer's generating facilities are scheduled to be out of service. Unlike backup service, maintenance service is scheduled with the utility at times of low load and thus does not require the utility to build or reserve capacity to serve it.

PG&E does not offer an additional reduction or incentive for customers to schedule maintenance with the utility beyond the time differentiated backup schedule. Customers taking backup service under PG&E's Schedule S can schedule maintenance during the lower cost periods. Once a customer whose otherwise applicable tariff includes a time-related demand charge has been on SCE's Schedule S for six months, the added demand created by scheduled maintenance may be ignored for purposes of determining the standby demand charge. The customer continues to be responsible for the generation reservation charge from Schedule S as well as all applicable charges from the otherwise applicable tariff. This exclusion applies to one outage per year, as long as the outage is scheduled with SCE. All other charges continue to apply. When a customer on SDG&E's Schedule S schedules a maintenance shut down of its generating facility, the on-peak demand charges on its otherwise applicable tariff are waived up to the contracted standby level.

CAC/EPUC request that separate incentives be offered for maintenance service or scheduled outages that would be credited against the standard backup standby rates to lower the customer's total cost. PG&E and SCE state that they already offer separate, lower-cost options for maintenance power since maintenance power can be scheduled over weekends and during the winter season when the volumetric components of the rate are significantly lower. They do not believe any further incentive for scheduled maintenance is necessary or required.

6.3 Diversity and Reliability

Transmission and distribution costs associated with standby service are related to two key factors: the overall level of diversity among individual customer loads on the system, and the reliability of the customer's generating facility. The level of diversity among individual loads defines the total amount of load placed on the system by a combination of users. The parties all agree with the basic premise that diversity levels represent a statistical assumption that a certain percentage of standby load will be utilizing transmission and distribution service at a particular time. All but one of the parties taking a position on standby issues either supports or is not opposed to the concept of taking diversity into account when establishing standby rates at transmission and distribution voltages. The only party to dispute the applicability of diversity factors to standby customer load is the CA ISO.

SCE states that its proposed post-transition standby rate structure fairly accounts for diversity. SCE agrees that reliable distributed generation will place less demand on the system, and supports applying a diversity factor adjustment based on system-wide averages. SCE's current diversity factors are estimated using a sample of large standby customers with generation metering taking service on Schedule S. The generators owned by the sample customers are relatively large and are expected to be more reliable than smaller generators, resulting in a more diversified back-up load.

PG&E also states that the diversity of standby load is relevant, but argues that it is relevant only to the extent that it results in real savings to the utility. PG&E recommends that each utility separately calculate a diversity factor for customers taking standby service at transmission and distribution levels. That factor should reflect the extent to which generation diversity permits the utility to avoid building system upgrades. In addition, PG&E requests that the Commission find that its current diversity factor requires adjustment.

PG&E's experience at the transmission level demonstrates that the diversity of generation supply at transmission level and the networked nature of the transmission system can permit the utility to avoid building some capacity that would otherwise be needed. However, radial distribution lines operate quite differently than networked transmission lines, and, in PG&E's opinion, the small quantity of distributed generation on the distribution lines does not support a distribution level diversity discount at this time. PG&E agrees that at some point, after enough distributed generation units are installed and operating on a radial distribution line, distributed generation units could provide a level of reliability sufficient to allow the utility to avoid building new distribution capacity.

SDG&E is not opposed to standby rates that reflect diversity and reliability factors. SDG&E agrees that diversity exists on a networked system, such as the transmission system, because power can flow in multiple directions. However, due to the radial design of the distribution system, SDG&E argues it is impossible for units on one circuit to provide diversity to a different circuit. SDG&E contends that until there are multiple distributed generation units on any given distribution circuit, it is inappropriate to assume any diversity value from distributed generation for that distribution circuit.

SDG&E provided the following example. Assume there are two distributed generation units on a utility's distribution system and each distributed generation unit is located on a different distribution circuit. If one unit is never off and the other is never on, it makes no sense to average the two outage rates and assume there is a 50% likelihood that both units would be online. SDG&E argues that, in this example, the outage rate of one unit is irrelevant to the outage rate of the other unit. (SDG&E Reply Brief-Phase 2, p. 14.)

Sierra agrees that it may be appropriate to apply a diversity factor to lower the costs associated with serving standby customers, since not all standby customers will require backup at the same time. However, Sierra emphasizes that diversity factors should only be applied where there will be cost savings for the utility, such as a reduction in the amount of capacity need to provide backup service.

ORA, TURN, CAC/EPUC, Capstone, et al., Enron, FEA, State Consumers, and Aglet all maintain that reliability and diversity are important characteristics of distributed generation that should be reflected in standby rates. As additional distributed generation units are located on the transmission or distribution system, the diversity of these units will lead to a lower amount of additional standby capacity needed to serve standby loads. These parties suggest that greater diversity of the load of the individual distributed generation facilities should be reflected in lower standby rates.

FEA argues that existing standby rates do not adequately reflect the outage characteristics and range of reliability of generation facilities. FEA suggests that one method to reflect varying degrees of diversity and reliability is to apply an on-going standby reservation charge that reflects costs at a level similar to costs imposed on the system by distributed generation with a high degree of reliability. FEA observes that this methodology has been considered primarily in the context of transmission and generation requirements, but could also be applied to standby distribution service. To reflect lower levels of reliability, higher amounts would be charged for actual standby usage when outages occur. For example, a standby reservation charge might reflect costs associated with a 5% outage rate, provide an ongoing revenue contribution, and provide standby at a minimum level. If a distributed generation facility has an outage rate greater than 5%, increasing amounts of standby usage charges would be levied based on actual use on a per kWh basis. FEA does not propose a specific method to have these characteristics reflected in rates; instead, FEA requests that the Commission institute a separate proceeding to consider the design of standby rates.

ORA takes the position that the utilities should base standby charges on the full cost of serving firm loads, but should not assume that they must be able to serve 100% of standby loads at any particular time. ORA states that, currently, for purposes of evaluating distribution system requirements, the utilities assume that distributed generation or self-generation units are not operating during the peak hour. ORA believes that the utilities' approach to distribution planning may overstate standby capacity requirements and lead to unnecessary investments in distribution facilities in certain instances because it ignores the low probability of multiple outages of self-generation units. ORA contends that while the utility may be justified in assuming that a single distributed generation unit will be out of service during the peak hour and installing standby capacity to serve that unit, there is only a small probability that multiple distributed generation unit outages will occur simultaneously. ORA suggests that the utility need only build to cover the capacity of the largest distributed generation unit in each Distribution Planning Area (DPA).

PG&E criticizes ORA's proposal as having the potential to substantially impair distribution reliability. PG&E states that its distribution system is operated through approximately 200 DPAs containing over 3,000 circuits. Each circuit contains many individual distribution lines. Unlike the transmission system, which is networked, most of the distribution system is radial in nature. According to PG&E, if there are 20 distributed generation units in a DPA, each on a separate radial circuit, the utility will need to build enough distribution capacity to meet the load of every one of the generators taking standby service, not just the largest one. Capacity on the radial line serving the largest unit in the DPA will not help meet load on other radial lines in the DPA.

Indeed, PG&E argues that even when there are two distributed generation units on the same circuit, the utility will need to build enough capacity to meet the load of each. PG&E uses the following example. Assume the utility has a radial line with 4 MW of load not served by distributed generation, and two 1 MW load customers, each served by a 1 MW distributed generation unit. Absent clear proof that both plants will never be out at the same time, PG&E argues the utility will need to build enough capacity to serve the entire 6 MW.

CAC/EPUC remind us that the statistical probability that different individual customers in the standby class will require standby service at the same time (the coincident peak) may be estimated. Using this estimate, the utility needs only to plan for that level of coincident peak demand. CAC/EPUC request that the Commission reaffirm in this decision the principle of assessing charges to standby customers on the basis of the coincident peak of the class.

PG&E believes that CAC/EPUC's basic premise is flawed because there is not one "coincident peak" associated with the distribution system. PG&E contends that the "distribution system" is not one system, but the sum of over 200 different distribution planning areas, comprised of over 3000 circuits. Many of these areas do not have coincident peaks that coincide with each other, or with the system peak. However, even if they did, PG&E argues that it would be irrelevant, since the existence of a generator on a north coast circuit would have no impact on distribution costs in the central valley, even if the two happened to peak at precisely the same time.

Like ORA, CAC/EPUC, Enron, and FEA, TURN disagrees with the utilities' claim that they must plan and reserve capacity to serve 100 percent of the standby load. TURN believes that the diversity of standby load must be incorporated into the design of standby rates. TURN suggests that utilities' concerns regarding the need to know with certainty that a distributed generation unit will be operating at times of peak demand can be remedied if customers provide physical assurance. TURN also suggests that customers taking standby service have their distribution tariffs adjusted based on the reliability of the distributed generation unit. TURN suggests that such reliability adjustments could be done on a technology-specific or project specific basis.

CCSF suggests that PG&E's analogy of a fire department's need to have equipment beyond that needed to fight just one fire at a time is an accurate comparison to the situation of standby service. (CCSF Reply Brief-Phase 2, p. 2.) CCSF states that it is true that a fire department must plan for the possibility that two or more fires will occur simultaneously, but the fire department does not need a fire truck to standby for every building that might catch fire. Just as the fire department must plan for, PG&E must undertake similar planning activities and plan for the probability that a distributed generation outage will contribute to the occurrence of costs on the distribution system.

CAC/EPUC points out that historically, standby rates in California have accounted for the diversity of the standby class. CAC/EPUC state that the utilities do not dispute the need to account for diversity in the standby rate, the only disagreement is quantitative, i.e., the level of diversity for each individual utility at the transmission and distribution level.

6.4 Should Distribution Costs be Recovered through Fixed or Variable Charges?

The parties have diametrically opposite views as to whether distribution costs to serve standby customers should be recovered through fixed or usage-based rates. The utilities contend that a reservation charge is necessary to compensate the utility for the fixed, ongoing cost of reserving capacity on the T&D system whether or not this service is used. The utilities argue that reservation charges should reflect the fact that a portion of the system is being held available to provide this service.

TURN, ORA, FEA, Capstone, et al., State Consumers, and Enron all propose that the Commission adopt usage-based charges. TURN states that fixed reservation charges to recover distribution costs will discourage the use of distributed generation, stating that the presence of large fixed costs will deter acquisition of distributed generation even when such use would be economically efficient. TURN recommend usage-based, volumetric charges to provide an incentive to reduce usage. ORA also disagrees with the utilities' position, and argues that reservation charges can be a barrier to an economically viable distributed generation market if those charges are unreasonably high. Capstone, et al. is concerned that tariffs insensitive to changes in customer usage will foreclose customer opportunities to reduce their bills by changing their behavior or usage patterns. Capstone, et al. maintains that since distribution costs vary with customer usage, usage-based pricing is the fairest and most efficient way for utilities to recover both fixed and variable costs associated with distributed generation and to reflect the costs of expansion.

Both Capstone, et al. and FEA suggest that shifting away from fixed-type charges that are insensitive to usage toward usage-based charges encourages demand-responsive behavior, and need not compromise the objective of cost-based charges. FEA also asserts usage-sensitive standby charges will facilitate the development of distributed generation by charging rates more consistent with the cost of providing service.

State Consumers propose three standard tariff options: usage only, usage and reservation fee, and reservation fee only. State Consumers also propose contracts for tailored standby rates between the utilities and their customers. Enron proposes two options: reservation fee only, and usage only rates. These parties did not provide any additional details regarding how these rates should be structured. Enron and State Consumers also propose options for backup standby service that recovers some distribution revenue from reservation charges and some from usage charges. The utilities oppose the optional rates described because they argue they do not provide accurate price signals to customers.

ORA and FEA support time-of-use demand charges that reflect the cost of providing service during various times of day or seasons. ORA notes that the utilities have designed current TOU definitions to be compatible with daily and seasonal variability of energy and generation costs. ORA suggests that the Commission should consider changing current time of use definitions to be more compatible with distribution systems costs. PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E all oppose TOU on the basis that there is no direct link between TOU usage shifts and distribution facility cost savings, and the system average TOU rates cannot capture the wide variation in peak load times in various distribution planning areas.

Currently, the energy charges associated with the otherwise applicable rate schedules used by the utilities in conjunction with their standby tariffs do not include commodity charges. SCE's and SDG&E's "energy charges" recover transmission, distribution, public purpose and other nonbypassable charges on a per kWh basis, but do not actually include energy commodity charges. PG&E's "energy charges" also recover transmission, distribution, public purpose and other nonbypassable charges, however, PG&E's Schedule S, when used as a stand-alone tariff by those customers whose distributed generation units do not exceed their load, also contains energy commodity charges.

FEA points out that standby service requires the use of generation, transmission and distribution facilities. On an unbundled rate basis, FEA presumes that the generation component will be contracted for in the marketplace, the transmission component will be contained in FERC-approved rates, and that the distribution component will be included in the rates approved by this Commission.

6.5 Should Standby Rates Reflect Embedded or Incremental Costs?

The parties have differing views as to whether distribution costs to serve standby customers should reflect embedded or incremental costs.

SDG&E states that a standby charge that reflects the incremental cost of distribution assets to provide service to distributed generation is inappropriate because it fails to address the full cost of providing service to the whole customer. (SDG&E: Ex. 72, Appendix A, p. 3.) SCE states that "charges for standby service should be based on the marginal cost of serving standby customers scaled to the utility's revenue requirement, consistent with retail rate design for other services provided by the regulated utility. Current standby rates are based on the marginal cost of providing T&D services to retail rate groups, which include both full service and standby customers. (SCE: Ex. 71, p. 19.) PG&E states that to the extent possible, standby charges for distribution should be based on the same marginal cost-based ratemaking consideration used for all other retail rate classes. (PG&E: Ex. 73, p. 14 )

FEA believes that if embedded costs are used to develop full requirements rates, embedded costs should be used to develop standby rates. Similarly, if marginal costs are used for the full requirements rates, marginal costs should be used to develop standby rates. Aglet's position is that standby charges should recover fixed and variable costs of providing standby service. Aglet supports determination of standby charges based on embedded, not incremental costs of service, consistent with the manner in which rates are calculated for other distribution services. State Consumers take a different position and recommend adopting incremental marginal cost pricing and cost causation allocation methods for each component of standby charges.

State Consumers support area-specific marginal cost pricing for standby rates. Capstone and NRDC join State Consumers in recommending that standby prices be linked to the utility's individual distribution system planning areas to reflect area-specific investment rather than system-wide investment. According to these parties, standby customers require minimal distribution system additions and would induce no additional costs in a DPA that is uncongested.

FEA does not support standby rates reflecting geographic distinctions unless the same methodology is used to determine rates for full requirements customers. The utilities do not support area-specific standby rates under any circumstances. PG&E asserts that while localized distribution rates might send more accurate price signals for customers, it cannot rely on price incentives alone to ensure adequate capacity is available to serve load. PG&E and SDG&E prefer individual contracts with physical assurance provisions to localized rates. SCE cautions against a piecemeal introduction of localized rates. All utilities claim that averaging utility rates across a service territory fairly spreads the costs of system improvements to all customers.

6.6 Transmission Charges/Gross Load Metering

ORA recommends that standby customers have the option of taking service at either distribution or transmission voltages, as they do today, with appropriately differentiated cost-based rates for each service.

State Consumers urge the Commission to advocate before FERC for marginal cost pricing for the transmission component of standby rates. Use of marginal cost-based transmission charges would accommodate transmission-related discounts where distributed generation can reduce line losses and help meet local reliability needs through provision of reactive power and voltage support. Discounted standby rates would serve as a proxy until the ISO either implements competitive procurement or pays distributed generation providers on a contractual basis for ancillary services.

State Consumers and CAC/EPUC support further unbundling of the transmission component of standby service. Both oppose the ISO's proposed policy to meter the gross loads of distributed generation customers and charge the ISO Grid Management (GMC) and Transmission Access Charges (TAC) for gross load even if the load is partially or entirely met by on-site distributed generation. State Consumers assert that only costs associated with a distributed generation customer's load taking energy from the grid should be reflected in standby rates. State Consumers assert that the Commission should enforce the mandate of Pub. Util. Code § 372(f) to "undertake all necessary efforts to revise, mitigate, or eliminate the policy or action of the ISO that unreasonably discourages cogeneration or self-generation." State Consumers assert that the ISO's gross load metering policy is exactly the type of "unreasonably discouraging" policy or action that § 372(f) was designed to address. State Consumers urge the Commission to file a position at FERC protesting the ISO's gross metering proposal

6.7 Interruptible or Non-Firm Standby Rates

Non-firm standby service would interrupt distribution service to customers during periods when load on the associated distribution circuit is constrained. Enron, CAC/EPUC, Capstone, et al., ORA, FEA, and TURN all propose that non-firm options be offered for backup standby service. None of these parties evaluated any of the current interruptible standby options offered by the utilities. Nor did any party offer specific recommendations for designing this type of option.

ORA indicates the utilities should have no responsibility to include non-firm standby demands in the forecasted peak loads of their resource plans. ORA states that customers would have to accept energy delivery on an interruptible or as-available basis, and in return, the utilities could eliminate reservation charges for non-firm service.

Both PG&E and SDG&E currently offer varying types of non-firm standby services. SDG&E is willing to continue its interruptible program; PG&E has proposed to eliminate the non-firm option in its pending GRC application, since non-firm programs have typically related to provision of generation service. PG&E indicates that non-firm service options for distribution service would be possible provided the discount accurately reflects cost savings and PG&E could rely on the customer's curtailment.

PG&E's current non-firm standby service is contained within its standby tariff. Customers who choose non-firm standby service under Schedule S must have at least 500kW of average peak-period on-site load, participate in PG&E's emergency curtailment program, maintain a communication channel from the customer's facility to a PG&E control center, and be subject to pre-emergency and emergency curtailments each year. Customers who do not curtail upon request are subject to a penalty over and above the regular charges. PG&E provides bill reduction credits for curtailment during on-peak and partial peak periods, and an additional credit for customers who participate in the Under Frequency Relay program.

SDG&E offers two interruptible standby services. The first service is offered primarily through its Schedule AV-1, a general service, time-of-use tariff most commonly selected as the otherwise applicable tariff by distributed generation customers on Schedule S-Standby tariff. Schedule AV-1 allows customers with or without on-site generation to choose whether or not to shed peak load in response to an electronic signal notification by the utility. The utility typically signals customers when SDG&E's system load reaches peak levels, or when either the utility or the ISO calls a Stage 2 or Stage 3 emergency. The customer may choose to pay higher peak prices or curtail load. SDG&E states that customers achieve bill savings on AV-1 as a result of lower prices in all periods other than the signaled peak, and the fact that there is no on-peak demand charge associated with Schedule A-V1.

SDG&E's second interruptible standby option is offered through Schedule S-I Standby Service-Interruptible. This tariff allows customers with total load over 500 kW to avoid the minimum charge provision of their applicable tariff, Schedule AL-TOU, and the costs associated with the peak load being curtailed. Curiously, SDG&E's current Schedule AL-TOU does not have a minimum charge rate component, so it appears the benefit of the waived minimum charge in Schedule S-I is already conferred in Schedule AL-TOU. SDG&E requires a customer on Schedule S-I to install a circuit breaker with remote control capability for the utility to disconnect interruptible load during periods of curtailment. Customers on Schedule S-I receive a thirty-minute notification prior to interruption, and must drop load during interruption periods. There are currently no customers taking service under Schedule S-I.

SCE recommends that the Commission reject proposals for non-firm or interruptible standby rates. SCE states that the majority of distribution costs are fixed and are not avoided when the customer provides the utility with the right to curtail its load at the time of a shortage of distribution capacity. Moreover, SCE states that, due to the limited number of participating customers on each circuit, the utility would need to have physical assurance that these customers will not impose backup load on the distribution circuit at the time it peaks. Traditional penalties such as high "excess energy" charges will not be sufficient to ensure the reliability of the distribution system.

PG&E also opposes any future requirement to provide non-firm standby and states that future non-firm service options for distribution would only be possible provided that the discount accurately reflected the cost savings and that PG&E could rely on the customer's curtailment. PG&E argues that price incentives, by themselves, do not provide the assurances required to ensure sufficient capacity is available to serve the load. In addition, PG&E states that it is unaware of how the physical details of the hypothetical non-firm standby service would work, or what the physical steps would cost. The facilities necessary to make sure that the load never draws on the utility during peak hours have not yet been designed or tested.

6.8 Valuation

R.99-10-025 questioned whether a valuation methodology should be established to assign value for potential distribution benefits of distributed generation. In Phase 1 of this proceeding, parties submitted testimony on the concept of a valuation system, and whether such a system is needed.

Several parties submitted Phase 1 and Phase 2 testimony that supports recognizing certain benefits provided by distributed generation users to the distribution system. Potential benefits listed by parties include extended distribution equipment life, deferral of distribution capacity upgrades, increased supplies of reactive power and lower energy supply costs for non-generating ratepayers. In Phase 2, TURN, ORA, Joint Parties and State Consumers proposed methods to reflect these potential benefits, which included standby rate credit mechanisms and other standby rate designs, such as time-of-use rates and locational or geographic-specific pricing.

TURN did not propose a specific methodology to quantify distributed generation benefits. In general, TURN urges the Commission to direct the utilities to design standby rates that recognize distributed generation's economic benefits to encourage deployment that will produce cost savings for both utilities and customers. TURN supports a standby rate structure where customers with less reliable generators pay a higher amount for more frequent use of the distribution system. TURN further supports the concept of time-of-use standby rates that provide incentives for customers to operate distributed generation in a manner consistent with peak demand in the local distribution system.

ORA supports credits to reflect specific localized benefits of distributed generation. Joint Parties supports locational standby rate riders or credits to reflect distribution cost savings due to distributed generation installed in a given geographic area. Joint Parties indicates that the form contracts proposed by SDG&E could serve as a starting point for this approach.

SDG&E's Form Contract proposal was presented in Phase 2 as a methodology to value distributed generation benefits to the distribution system. SDG&E proposes to provide credits when distributed generation is installed to meet SDG&E's criteria: right location, right time, right size, and with physical assurance such that SDG&E is able to avoid a distribution capacity addition for at least one year. SDG&E states that since its current standby rates apply only to QFs and not distributed generation, the credits would apply to the distributed generation customer's on-peak demand charges from Schedule AV-1.

15 The 3 MW load normally served by onsite generation would take backup standby service.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext PageGo To First Page


Close to Home: Awakening teen learning potential

A recent article by Press Democrat reporter Kerry Benefield ("Sonoma County students, educators debate later start to high school days," Sept. 5) discussed the effect fatigue and lack of sleep can have on a student's learning potential.

For example, according to brain scientists, there are certain periods during the school day when students learn more efficiently. A student's circadian rhythms — biological clocks that regulate periods of sleepiness and wakefulness — regulate when a student has the highest ability to focus and absorb new material.

Interestingly, cognitive rhythms are about the same for preadolescents and adults, but for adolescents, a group most susceptible to disrupted sleep patterns, this cognitive rhythm occurs one hour later.

Most teachers are acutely aware that 8 a.m. to noon is a high learning period, when students' circadian rhythms are considered best for learning. However, the weakest time for learning potential is from noon to 4 p.m. From 4 p.m. and later, student circadian rhythms regroup and move back to high points of learning potential.

Unfortunately, there is a Catch-22 to all of this, and that has to do with rapid eye movement, or REM, sleep. Students should be allowed to experience six REM periods over the course of nine hours of sleep. Therefore, the adolescent would have to go to bed at 10 p.m. and get up at 7 a.m. to satisfy the need for six REM cycles.

The selling point is that with each REM cycle, we have greater capacity for memory consolidation. In short, what your student learned during the day has a greater chance of being encoded or stored into long-term memory during REM sleep cycles.

Moreover, memory consolidation occurs more easily when the brain is not preoccupied with external stimuli, which occurs during REM sleep and which also supports your student's circadian rhythms. This may explain why people who review important information before going to sleep are likely to remember that information the next day on a test.

Our major dilemma? We cannot expect students to simply retire to bed early. According to medical researchers, the adolescents' late sleep cycles are part of the maturation of the endocrine system. From the onset of puberty until the late teen years, the brain chemical melatonin, which is responsible for sleepiness, is secreted from about 11 p.m. until around 8 a.m., nine hours later.

This secretion is based on human circadian rhythms and is fixed. In other words, typical students are not able to fall asleep much before 11 p.m., and their brains will remain in sleep mode until about 8 a.m., regardless of what time they go to bed.

The Catch-22 is that many high school classes with early start times will cause students to rise earlier to get to school.

Data from a research study at a major metropolitan public school showed that there was a significant reduction in school dropout rates, less depression and less drug use, accompanied by higher grades, when students' REM sleep and circadian rhythms were addressed.

For starters, we need to look more closely at academic classes that occur during the peak and down periods. The second suggestion is that schools, especially high schools, should start later to support both circadian rhythms and REM sleep patterns as demonstrated by scientific research studies.


E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial

A group of aliens visit earth and one of them is lost and left behind stranded on this planet. The alien is found by a 10 year old boy, Elliot. Soon the two begin to communicate, and start a different kind of friendship in which E.T. learns about life on earth and Elliot learns about some new values for the true meaning of friendship. E.T. wants to go home, but if Elliot helps him, he'll lose a friend...


Yisrael Beytenu Platform Elections 2006

Published on

Published in: Education
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Yisrael Beytenu Platform Elections 2006

  1. 1. PLATFORM SUMMARY: During the sessions of the 17th Knesset, Yisrael Beytenu will promote the following ideas and laws. With your vote, we can accomplish our goals! 1. Constitution, Government and Judicial Reform i. Accepting a constitution ii. Establishing a constitutional court iii. Become a Presidential Republic iv. Create strict separation of powers as well as checks and balances v. Raise the voter-threshold to 5% to decrease the number of Knesset factions and contribute to the stability of the Knesset vi. Representative election of Supremecourt justices vii. Allowing absentee ballots to increase Jewish participation in national elections 2. Security and Public Order i. Territory exchanges to restrict confronta between the Jewish and Arab tion nationalities ii. To annex populated and strategic areas of Yehuda and Shomron such as Ariel, Barkan, Givat Ze’ev, Gush Etzion, Maale Adumim, The Jordan Valley and others. iii. To move the border so as to include densely populated Arab territories of Israel in the Palestinian Authority. iv. JERUSALEM will remain the eternal and undivided capital of Israel v. An integral part of the exchange plan must be the acceptance of a new citizenship plan which includes: - Upon reaching a certain age, each Israeli will have to pledge allegiance to the state, its anthem, emblem and flag. - As well, each citizen will have to commit to serving Israel in its army or a parallel national service. - Those who refuse either of the above commitments will receive limited citizenship, which will negate their right to vote or be elected. vi. Increase and consolidate the budget for Israel advocacy abroad, particularly in Eastern European and for Soviet countries. vii. To raise the fight against crime to a national priority viii. Increase Police personnel and technology ix. A new test and raised requirements for police, especially investigators
  2. 2. x. To uphold the recommendation of the solicitor general to publicize complaints of police brutality and excessive force as well as by the Police Investigation Bureau (of the justice department). xi. To ensure that the police are used to strictly enforce the law and maintain public order 3. Economics i. To break up the monopolies and virtual monopolies which are impeding progress in the Israeli economy. ii. To privatize government controlled industries of energy, water resources, transportation and media iii. To use privatization as a catalyst to improve small and medium sized businesses iv. Using revenue from privatization for social welfare purposes v. Create a smoother bureaucratic process for approving projects deemed to be of national importance vi. Begin work on the Med-Dead Canal to create jobs, new sources of energy and new sources of water for the Negev vii. Back to work legislation to discourage strikes in vital industries viii. Work disputes to be fairly settled through binding, third-party arbitration ix. Consolidation of long term assistance to small and medium sized businesses x. Assistance through loans, tax deferments and bid invitations xi. Special business assistance for new immigrants, similar to those offered in the Haredi and Arab sectors xii. Special tax incentives for strategically located business (Jerusalem, Galil and Negev) xiii. Giving larger and more grants for scientific research xiv. Reduction of bureaucracy for receipt of government benefits xv. Expanded funding for joint international scientific research 4. Social Welfare i. Long term rental social housing for those meeting social criteria for housing assistance ii. Mortgage assistance for the elderly and single-parent families in need iii. A reduction on medication costs from 50% to 70% for retirees living on national insurance payments iv. Cancellation of VAT for prescription drugs – The state should not benefit from the sicknesses of its citizens v. Expansion of the kindergarten system, as well as subsidies so that the school day can be as long as the work day, allowing young couples and single parents to hold normal jobs vi. Daily availability of public transportation vii. Scholarship assistance for single-parent families viii. Greater transparency of the National Insurance Institute as well as stricter laws of operation and case-worker – client relations
  3. 3. ix. Ensure that government officesare staffed with employees who speak immigrant languages fluently for Israelis not fluent in Hebrew x. Forms and Health Service directions should be available in different languages for Israelis not fluent in Hebrew xi. Changing the pension law to allow a proper pension for immigrants who arrive close to the age of retirement xii. Allow for lower-income workers to receive income assistance regardless of income – the government should not discourage working xiii. Remove the restrictions on travel abroad for people on income assistance xiv. Remove the restrictions on car ownership for people on income assistance xv. Special assistance for people who were in ghettoes or concentration camps as well as people who served as volunteers or home-front soldiers in WWII xvi. Government unemployment insurance for self-employed and small business owners xvii. To make violation of employee rights a serious crime, especially in security or cleaning businesses 5. Education, Culture and Sport i. A comprehensive education reform as developed by education professionals, including: - Education vouchers to allow parents to choose the school for their children - Pre-school abilities testing centers - Financing for individual instruction for gifted children - Greater ministry oversight of teacher quality and familiarity with lesson material as well as student results - Governmental support for new teaching methods such as that of the “Mofet” schools - Higher requirements for teachers such as Masters degrees in education, and pay commensurate to their professionalism and education ii. Higher requirements for teachers as well as the ability for parents to choose schools will create greater competition and allow school systems to expand to the peripheral communities iii. The priority of the ministry of education should be to test the standards of schools using modern criteria and provide this information to parents iv. Lower the cost of University and colleges v. Student loans with payments deferred to after completing school and finding a job vi. Merit scholarships vii. Open new universities viii. Raise the status of colleges to equal international standards for degrees, particularly in education ix. Allow for cultural grants for artists and writers who perform or write in their native languages x. Greater percentage of budget dedicated to cultural activity xi. Further protection for historical structures xii. Creation of a museum dedicated to Jewish participation in WWII xiii. Creation of a museum dedicated to Aliyah
  4. 4. xiv. Creation of a governmental council for sport and physical fitness xv. Expansion of sports clubs and networks is a major factor in combating drug use xvi. Tax credits for sponsors of youth sports clubs and physical activity programs xvii. Cancellation of the TV tax xviii. Severing media from government interests 6. Environmental Protection i. Completion of the law formulated by Yisrael Beytenuto restrict the placement of cellular antennae and other irradiative devices ii. To pass a clean air law 7. Civic Equality and Ending Discrimination Against Immigrants i. Passing a civil marriage and divorce law ii. Law against employment discrimination against immigrants iii. Anti-discrimination laws for non-Jewish immigrants as well


Volunteer Referral Form

UCSC staff connects students, staff, and faculty to the city of Chicago through volunteer experiences. During one-on-one conversations, we learn more about each prospective volunteer's interests and then identify organizations that can benefit from his or her unique talents and skills. We hope that people leave the conversation not only with a list of exciting opportunities, but also with a better sense of how they can contribute to this dynamic city.

Please fill out the form below and Jingru, UCSC Intern for Service Match (Volunteer Referral), will get back to you soon.

UChicago email address preferred
If applicable
(e.g., education, housing, LGBTQ, arts, culture, etc.)
(e.g., specific community/neighborhood or part of Chicago)
(e.g., youth, elderly, specific ethnicities, etc.)
(e.g., direct service, advocacy, clerical, research, tutoring, etc.)