Thanks for your email and the opportunity to comment on the story.
As discussed, we have provided responses to your questions below. I also thought it might be helpful to direct you to
the data sheet for the ES5, the latest evolution of Bloom’s technology. http://www.bloomenergy.com/fuel-cell/es5data-sheet/
Let me know if you have any other questions or are open to further discussion.
•
•
•

•
•

Bloom’s emissions are clearly lower than grid emissions in California, and confirmed by the Commission’s own
analysis, which is public record.
The Staff Proposal released in November 2015 is not an adopted policy position by the PUC, but simply part of
the input process.
The Staff Proposal comparing Bloom’s prior products to future emissions goals for the grid is speculative and
fundamentally flawed by failing to factor the performance of our latest technology, which has significantly
improved from the past generations upon which the report is based. Even Itron, the consulting firm which the
staff relied upon acknowledged the report should be updated before assessments are made.
Bloom has engaged with the PUC to provide the correct inputs to address the inaccuracies of the Staff
Proposal. On the merits of the correct performance facts, we fully expect that Bloom will continue to be an
eligible and beneficial technology within the SGIP program.
We are proud of the very rapid progression of our technology on performance and cost effectiveness enabling us
to positively impact the state’s progressively more ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals.