To get a glimpse at the range of activities of California Energy Commission, the regular business meetings are a good place to start. At the May 19, 2010 meeting, about $58 MM were awarded in grants, loans and contracts to an interesting set of green jobs programs, energy retrofits, PHEV and Smart Grid studies, and even new way to process tomatoes.
All agenda items here:
A few highlights:
-$19 MM contract - to retrofit the kind of refrigerators found in grocery stores (commercial retail refrigeration) and train people to do do the retrofits, In conjunction with the State's California Conservation Corps
-$3 MM contract with UC Davis - to examine the issues related to Electric Vehicles and the Smart Grid. What if we all want to charge our cars at 7 pm?
-$3 MM contract with UC Davis - to examine the issues related to Electric Vehicles and the Smart Grid. What if we all want to charge our cars at 7 pm?
[Ex: "We re gravely concerned...[that electric cars] will drive up our need for peak power," CPUC Commissioner Grueneich recently said]
-$2 MM grant to the Gas Technology Institute (industry group?) - "To help design future energy efficiency [commercial] appliances", according to CEC's Valerie Hall - things like commerical ovens, cooking, woks. Sounds good, but can't industry finance this?
-$400K grant for a Frito Lay Plant - a pilot demonstration of direct steam generation, using solar thermal. Again, sounds good to support a new industrial process which claims to reduce energy, GHG use. But again can't industry finance? Frito Lay apparently also gave CEC an award, a year so back. Unfortunately, the agendas list only project summaries and do not link to the full information the Commissioners and Staff have. I just hope taxpayers are not funding greasy potato chips, even if the underlying industrial technology is cleaner. Here are a few links I did find:
-2009 - page 50 - https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-500-2009-069/CEC-500-2009-069.PDF
-2004 - potato chips - https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/iaw/presentations/FIER_LOWE.PDF
-$400K grant - carrots! - to demonstrate a technology which energy and cost-efficiently extract some of the remaining lipids (fats for fuel?) and nutrients from fruits and vegetables after they have been juiced.
-$400K grant - carrots! - to demonstrate a technology which energy and cost-efficiently extract some of the remaining lipids (fats for fuel?) and nutrients from fruits and vegetables after they have been juiced.
-$2.5 MM loan @ 3% - for Hayward to put a 1 MW PV system at its water pollution facility. Alas, Hayward will forgo a 1% rate because it is far cheaper to purchase the the solar panels overseas. (Can't somehow combine CEC awards and build the panels here?)
However, some of the discussions during the meeting raised a few good questions.
"Move the Needle" on the Rosenfeld Effect
After the $11 MM contract for a Bay Area home energy retrofits was approved, Commissioner Byon made a timely comment: we need to "move the needle" forward with the promise of energy-efficiency (the famous Rosenfeld Effect that energy efficiency is the cheapest and easiest way to avoid more power plants; usually stated that California's per capital energy use has been flat - because of efficiency - while the rest of the US has grown.)
Commissioner Byron added we need to "quantify results," and the consenus appeared to agreed that we need to 'change the slope.'
Yes, let's see the data.
"I love data" and Oversight
CEC's Ms. Chandler, speaking for CEC managment, promised Commissioner Eggert a t-shirt with "I love data." Sounds good to me.
However, with so much money already awarded through ARRA and other programs, we hope this is not an after thought. As I have written before, ARRA has been working with CEC staff on the financial oversight (public information?) and it is wise to substantiate claims made in proposals and be sure that public money go to the public good. Numerous awards are "passed through" to contractors or "public-private partnerships," whose agenda may not quite be what ours is.
But back to energy, the CEC needs to be sure to take full advantage of the data that will stream back about effectiveness and maturity of the various programs, technologies, vendors, funding mechanism and so on that will be integral to future policy. Mr. Eggert made no follow-up to his comment a week ago about asking a University to do an indepedent, rigorous analysis pro-bono.
Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS)
Among the awards was approval of DOE-supported WESTCARB, a large regional (several states & British Columbia - but not China?) effort to test feasibility of CCS. CEC manages and co-funds WESTCARB.
Commission Byron remarked "California wants to be a leader in CCS as well as in energy-efficiency." Indeed, CEC approved a $4MM contract to build upon Phase II (a small test CO2 injection is scheduled for later this year) and Phase III, a larger test facility, will begin.
However, CCS is hardly a proven, or non-controversial technology, which even WESTCARB admits is "buying time" to continue using fossil fuel.
I will post more on CEC activities and CCS in the coming week.
But here is a recent letter to the NYTimes about public financing of CCS, although the author appears to be pro-nuclear and doesn't mention energy-efficiency.
To the Editor:Robert Bryce’s opposition to financing carbon sequestration development is right on point. Tax dollars should be devoted exclusively to financing research and development on clean energy. If “clean coal,” including sequestration, is a sound approach, the mining and fossil fuel industries should be able to finance their own research and development after more than a century of support from us taxpayers.Renewables as far as possible and closed-cycle nuclear need our help until they are on a pay-as-you-go basis.We need a new leader of the Department of Energy whose head is not turned from scientific and economic fact by political expediency. We have Congress for that.Avrom HandlemanIndianapolis, May 14, 2010
Committees, Committees ...
How many unique committees of 2 can you form from a pool of 5 Commissioners?
Several references were made to these Committees, statements like this or that was approved or vetted by a certain Committee.
I certainly aware of the Siting Committee, now grappling with a number of large solar desert projects with possible ARRA funds. And I know of the Efficiency Committee for its work on decertifying a refrigerator and its work on low-carbon fuels, but I could not find meeting references to some of the Committees referred to here, where project decisions, apparently, seem to be taking place. Is it public?
Public Process
I have heard that "Not all committee meetings are public, it depends on what the purpose is. " Hmmm.
And CEC awards are publicly announced by NOPA (Notice of Proposed Award). For example, here is one for the organization that will help
Measurement, Verification, Evaluation and Reporting, which was later approved at a CEC Business Meeting.
However, for many items on the May 19th agenda, I could not find a NOPA announcement; nor a Commttee meeting.
So I have a bit more to learn about the process and when the public can be involved in its review.
I know from experience and the advice of many more seasoned hands that business meetings are not place for debate issues.
(By my count, 10 unique committees of 2 can be formed from 5 Commissioners, meaning 2 Committees must have the same members but cover different topics.)
NYTimes Letters
NYTimes Article
CEC - May 19 Agenda
CEC - Committees
CEC - $314.5 (MM) ARRA? programs
CEC - ARRA contracts
NOPA (Notice of Possible Award)
Effort in New York to document the cost savings from energy retrofits:
ReplyDeleteShowing the Benefits of ‘Green’ Retrofits - http://nyti.ms/a7mwgK