California - Comment to the FPPC

August 10, 2010

Fair Political Practices Commission
428 J Street, Suite 800
Sacramento, CA 95814

via fax: 916-322-6440

re: Agenda Item #1, August 12, 2010

Dear Chairman and Commissioners:

I will be brief.  This is not on the agenda and I will be happy to return again when it is.

My name is Jim Rothstein; I have no affiliation.  I came to Sacramento 5 months ago because California and Jiangsu Province, China signed an excellent energy cooperation agreement (MOU) in October 2009.   I came because I was eager to observe and perhaps participate as a citizen in its implementation.   (I lived in China for 6 years.)  

For my efforts - on my dime, I basically got nothing:  not a 'yes',  not a 'no', just a kind of undefinable, muddled 'mush'.

I  then did the natural thing:  I began to scratch; I began to use some of the available tools available to the public  - some of which you provide.   

This is why I am here today.

Some of what I found - using FPPC tools and other tools (CPRA) - include:

(Note: I will file a detailed complaint with FPPC Enforcement.  This is not my purpose today.)

• Meetings and numerous state-organized groups, some raising money and others drafting implementation or policy, that I could not attend or join.     I found evasive answers ('You can call it a program, or a policy initiative.') when I asked about open meeting laws.

• Private groups paying for official trips to China, some 'mission critical', for regulators, legislators - together with investment bankers, California business people.     Lots of taxi receipts - but no one could tell me where they were going or meeting.   No one could verify the 'mission critical' guarantees were actually met.  And, Form 700 merely disclose a US 501(c)3 with a Beijing address, completely obscuring whether or not the payment originated from a  US or foreign entity.  It is a secret even who joined on these trips!

• The same 501(c)3 then seems to have regular, private access to regulators and legislators.  The group can even help pay for Energy Commissioner James  Boyd, requested by Linda Adams of CalEPA - per public records, to travel to China to help close a ('mission critical' ?) business deal between two Chinese companies.  Then the same NGO can bring one of the Chinese state-owned  companies to Sacramento!   But to see the photograph, however, you have to visit a Chinese website.   So much for any prior beliefs you may have had about transparency.
  
• And I found State agencies who miss no opportunity to delay, obscure, confuse, ignore, even belittle.   I found agencies so determined not to any release anything that might add to a growing list of doubts, dots and questions - or worse, inform the public - that laws appear to be negotiable.  

(Again, I will file a complaint - separate from today.)

The reason I am here today is that I found the tools you provide inadequate to answer the most basic of questions:   What is the role of these NGOs in implementing the California-Jiangsu MOU?   (Or, the original way:   What is the status of MOU implementation?  Or: Why are there so many other seemingly unrelated activities going on?)

"Disclosure" is not the same thing as comprehension or  allowing public oversight. 

Unfortunately, with your tools, I have found that a summer associate - not yet a lawyer - can easily outmaneuver me.   And it is not just me -  I sure you have noted that the Sacramento Bee's articles about China travel do not cover all the China trips, all the 501(c)3 or all the questions about the subsequent role these groups play in Sacramento - or who is behind them.

I urge to you cut off the private funding of trips and make the rules clear, easy and fair.   And, if a private group - after paying its fair share of taxes - feels it has extra money to donate to the State then please do allow them, but the  State must select the best use - in a transparent process, which  exceeds Form 801 or Governor's vague 'mission critical' requirement .   

And always verify.

I am happy to discuss any item in detail.

Thank you for your time.

Jim Rothstein

jimrothstein@gmail.com

831-824-4304

California/EPA - "Please refrain" - California Public Records Act

CalEPA and ARB continue to avoid releasing public records related to China.   They rarely claim specific exemption, but find other ways to prevent the disclosure that we are all entitled to see.  This is my response to recent request to "refrain" and my reasons.

[Update:  Visited CalEPA/ARB, no "files available" - no Form 700s, no documents since last inspection on June 8, 2010. Full list.]

July 7, 2010

Dear Mr. Llerandi , Mr. Koyasko, Ms. Barron:

cc: Clerk of the ARB Board (to supplement June request)

Your  advice of July 6, 2010 is inappropriate:

"We advise that you please refrain from further PRA requests until the multiple requests that you have thus far submitted are answered so as to avoid future issues."

The reason is that you - Cal/EPA, ARB, C3 ( plus various entities created for China projects)  - are not complying with California Public Records Act.

Moreover, you continue to hold discussions and meetings regarding China without public participation or disclosure - for example May private discussions and meetings with iCET and a Chinese company that wants to put a 500 MW solar farm in California.

And you have shown bad faith:  Mr. Koyasako's email to Judy Stoulil, marked "Confidential" and "High" importance "I don't think I can put him off much longer."  (You took it back and I asked you not to destroy the paper.)


I do not appreciate your unilateral attempts to weaken or circumvent a very important law.

Trust, but Verify

At the last ARB Board meeting, Ms. Nichols spoke about 'trust, but verify' philosophy.   Today, I will be at CalEPA/ARB after lunch also to  'verify,' as is the public's right - even responsibility - under the CPRA.

As you know, the CPRA is based on the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which was lauded in a July 4th Sacramento Bee editorial.

CPRA is but one way for the public to understand its government. As I have explained before, I know 3 ways for the public to gain an understanding of State government's multiple efforts with China, including  the California-Jiangsu MOU:

(a) open, public, transparent government with public participation
(b) have public officials keep the public readily informed
(c) the California Public Records Act

I vote for (a).  But the public was excluded from discussions with CalEPA's C3 : California-China Clean Tech Initiative, and the development of the Working Plan for the Jiangsu-California MOU, as two examples.

I also tried (b) by personally asking Susan Kennedy (Govenor's Office), Dian Grueneich (CPUC), Margret Kim (ARB) for information in early March, plus the ARB Board and Energy Commission - but got few replies.

So your agencies have left the public with (c) as the only option.   This was your choice.

Under CPRA,  like the FOIA, the burden is on you - the agency, as it is even in recent, effective laws in India, which provides stiff fines to those for failure to comply.
"Promptly"

The CPRA calls upon you to "promptly" make public records available.  In previous emails you asserted, more than once, a right to delay.  But you gave no reply when I asked for a court case or rule.

In Mr. Koyasakao's June   23, 2010 email, which I pointed out issues and inconsistencies, especially about iCET and April California delegations to China, he neither replied nor released records.   


Bottom line: an accumulating a set of data which  illustrate you are using a variety of ways merely to delay.

More Questions

As long as you continue to operate without public participation and transparency, the public can issue CPRA requests.  As long as private groups like iCET can pay for regulators to travel to China and participate in business matters affecting California (and Linda Adams can ask regulators to travel, and the Governor's office approve such travel), the public can file CPRA requests.  And, as long as you fail to answer concerns - such as June Koyasako letter - you will only get more requests.

Of course, your agencies could  decide on option (a) and always operate transparently and thus mitigate some of the imperative for CPRA, though we always will need to verify.. 


Otherwise, I see no such restraint on the public to "refrain" under the law - especially as new developments occur, even if each request creates a 'burden' and mutliple requests create multiple 'burdens' for you. 


And yet, you do have a simple and quick remedy for your burdens:  release all the records now. Done.

If you do not agree, use the courts to show your self-imposed 'burdens' are of higher importance than the public's right to know and to know 'promptly.'  


However, even Ms. Kim  - one of the people at the center of the State's work in China - believes in open government  

"... it was not until I actually got involved in China, that I really got to realize the true value and appreciate our open government system."

I will  inspect the records after lunch today.  I reject your attempts to weaken CPRA and your efforts to create delay.

Thank you.

Jim Rothstein

Schwarzenegger's Office - Continues to Block Release of China Documents

In a previous post, I outlined efforts to obtain information about an energy cooperation agreement California signed with Jiangsu Province on October 3, 2009.  

The Governor's office refused to release any documents, except its original press release.

After  I asked about the CPRA (California Public Request Act) philosophy favoring public disclosure over non-disclosure, I received this May 17, 2010 reply  "public disclosure does clearly favor nondisclosure in this case"

Why a secret?

Of course, I do not know.   There are several private groups with indirect or direct ties to California, China and this MOU.  C3, for example, was started by CalEPA  under this MOU, but seems to operate privately. (CPRA request is pending.) Other private groups claim involvement with the MOU, but the State has refused to release information.

Last year, the The Sacramento Bee wrote about one such private group, CFEE.net, which pays for regulators and legislators to take overseas trips.  
Because California businesses join on these private trips, there is potential for conflict-of-interests, according to the Bee article.

CFEE.net (California Foundation on Energy and the Environment) turned up in a recent CPRA request of the California Public Utilities Commission. CFEE paid for A "Legislative and Regulatory Delegation" to China last fall, some two weeks after the MOU was signed.  Two CPUC members participated, asserting benefits to California.  The CPUC referred questions to CFEE for more information about the trip.

In private communications, CFEE.net  denied any knowledge of the California-Jiangsu MOU.   However, the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council)  is represented on its Board and the same NRDC was also one of the champions of the California-Jiangsu MOU.

I hope the State will shed light on these and other MOUs that the State has signed with China or elsewhere.  People such as Susan Kennedy (Gov Chief of Staff), Dian Grueneich (CPUC) promised to reply with information, but did not.  I have asked the ARB, CEC and gotten nowhere (CPRA requests have been filed.)

If "public-private partnerships" are to be believed, the public has a right to know.

Sacramento and Energy - A Citizen Visits

Last week, I had my first glimpse of Sacramento and how the regulatory, legislative process works.

Here's the short version of my experience, plus a few comments.

Tuesday at UC-Davis
-Rosenfeld Symposium, or more descriptive "California Rock Stars Discuss Our Energy Future"

The word 'awesome', as in inspiring awe, fits.   Billed as a Symposium in honor physicist Art Rosenfeld, the father of energy efficiency in California and the world, this event was a who's who of scientists, smart regulators, leaders in California; some of the best of the best.

As expected, I hung on every word from scientists I knew Dan Kammen (hubs, universities too  convservative, everthing!?), Mark Levine (China - appliance standards have saved equivalent of another 3 Gorges Dam) , Rich Muller (Physics for Presidents - showed ICCP errors which would not be tolerated in a grad student) and many people I didn't know before: Dan Sperling (2 Billion Cars), David Goldstein ("continuous improvement", free market best?) and, of course, Art Rosenfeld, happily pointing out whose roofs in Washington, DC are cool (white) and whose are not; and several others.  [I hope their will be a video plus speaker's slides.]

Something I did not appreciate when I studied physics is how much honest insight these people offer in so few words but with backing of data.

Dian Grueniech, of the CPUC, known as a dynamo and who with Art Rosenfeld has visited and studied China and India, stressed long-term planning, investment in efficiency, CalSpree and the need for changing behavior, and made a clear call for new thinking.  I liked that.

Dan Adler, California Clean Energy Fund,  spoke of need for science-based policy and offered some reasons why VC investment in energy-efficiency has been insufficient, despite the clear benefit.  Insightful.

But Susan Kennedy, chief-of-staff for the governor, gave a thoughtful and forceful speech, again stressing urgent need for comprehensive policy, followed by action.   Only afterwards I learned she is master of bad press, i.e.  she gets things done - including Policy, I hope.

My favorite politician, Nancy Skinner, Berkeley's assemblywomen, spoke and so did several other scientists, regulators - almost all with some important, relevant, insightful idea and data.   I appreciated the high information content.   Of course, we must always watch that actions follow words.

Some of the things I came away with are need for 'energy hubs', data, policy, tough standards do work, and of course some of the many achievements of Art Rosenfeld.  In his honor, energy savings that reduce the need for 1 new coal fired power plant (~ 500 MW) will be called 1 Rosenfeld.   And, "Rosenfeld's Law" is that for the past 150 years, energy intensity has been reduced approximately 1% per year - but now we  need to do better.

Wednesday, I was at California Energy Commission

CEC - meeting

I arrived 17 minutes late and it was over.   Fortunately, the court reporter played back the audio for me - a fuel-cell grant to UC-Irvine and others.  I will arrive on time next time; the opportunity to hear, learn and ask questions about the future is just too great to miss.

I did attend a CEC workshop re: Contracting with CEC/PIER for Disabled Veterans, and learned quite a bit  from Michael Gravely and Philip Misemer about what exactly PIER research is about -  the nuts and bolts - from new combustion chambers to smart grid software to buoys to capture ocean waves.

Unfortunately, I failed in another of my objectives - to understand how CEC responds when a local government  asks for ARRA grant that appears to lack policy (ex: when 'highest priority' is to install LED lights (good) in a parking garage (bad!)) 

Thursday, I was at California EPA/Air Resources Board

-SB 375 (land use and transportation)
Bill Blackburn and Doug ito of ARB spent an hour with me and illumunated a bit of the process to a greenhorn; the occasional divide between state and various local air boards; the process for SB 375 and their plans to draft GHG targets by June 2010.  Policy into action is not easy.   Under SB 375, local governments are going to need to formulate policy - and this is a process we must all engage in.

ARB - 375

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm

-China and California
Another failure for me.

Despite California's numerous MOUs, official visits to China and a pressing need to engage with China, I was disappointed with my meeting with Margaret Kim, director of China Program, who steered me away from C3, the MOUs and other energy/policy activities between California and China and its provinces.

Perhaps this is really all my fault: Ms. Kim may be speaking on behalf of ecolinx.org, a private group, i.e. none of business, which she founded, while  I thought we were discussing China and State of California (i.e. you and me).  Ecolinx, which didn't come up in the hour long conversation, does appear to do very relevant energy things between China  and California that I thought the State was doing ( trips, cooperation, Steering Committees, Guangdong MOU (note who funds), JIangsu MOU (6 months later and ?) and now C3, part of the Jiangsu MOU - at least it was the week before).


There is a need here for transparency, urgency, inclusiveness and true engagement with China from California ARB and Secretary Linda Adams - not more China visits or presentations with titles referencing 'public participation'!

I plan to blog in more detail about our engagement with China.   I lived in China 5+ years and think Americans can learn much from China about a low-carbon economy (fresh, sun-dried clothes anyone? Or, air-conditioned buses in March in Santa Cruz.)

Climate Action Team

Staying in tune with tardiness, I missed the first 45 minutes.   But I did hear a good presentation about health concerns from climate change.  The speaker proposed using VMT as a rough indication of how California is progressing on goals of health and mitigating climate change and had interesting geographical data.

Climate Action Team Meeting
(http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/calendar/events/index.php?com=detail&eID=418&year=2010&month=3)

Report: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/meetings/2010-03-11_meeting/2010-03-11_CAT_Strategy_Listings.pdf

Again, the opportunity to hear, question and meet experts is too great to pass up.

Afterward, I spoke briefly with James Boyd of CEC, who in just a few sentences explained a lot of why things are the way they are - difficulties of coordinating state and local governments when implementing policy; the CEC's work.  I appreciate his straight, informed answers.  There may be wisdom in Sacramento.

Friday was  furlough day, and Sacramento turns into a ghost town.
Doug Grandy, publisher of California Onsite Generation and veteran staff, generously spent over an hour explaining how Sacramento works, how bills get passed and who controls what.

Cory Jasperson was working and we spoke  about energy policy.  I hope he will focus on comprehensive energy policy legislation.  (And ignore industry when it lobbies for things like fake butter on popcorn, an incident he described to me.)

So, what to do now?

Read these reports
-CPUC strategic plan
-CEC recommendations ( 2020 - net zero homes, renewable portfolio, accelerated permitting of RE, biomass and air pollution, combined heat/power)
-ARB goals for the year (cap & trade, passenger vehicles, RPS, efficiency, low-carbon fuel, SB375)

Find out who is doing:
-China
-Energy Hubs
-Policy and its implementation

Sacramento works from an invisible agenda.  If you ask about X and the focus is on Y, you will get a lot stares.  

I saw a number of hard-working, thinking people in Sacramento at CEC, CPUC, and ARB and beyond.   Some really do work for us, but we have a responsibility to be check and to help.  I want to thank everyone who gave me time, explained things and to Mr. Rosenfeld, who seems to have really started something.

And so I have decided to spend a few more weeks in Sacramento.

"Cool Cars" - coming soon to California - Part 2

With "Cool Cars" window glazing 15-day comment period completed and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) staff now finalizing proposed regulations for car window glazing (http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cool-cars/cool-cars.htm), this a good time to overview briefly the ARB regulatory process. The ealier "Cool Cars" post is here.

The regulatory process is the intersection of science, goals, industry, government and us - the public. Ultimately, what interests me are questions like:

- Why is California considered a leader in energy, automobile emissions, reducing GHG?

- What can we do insure this continues?

- Is the science being used to achieve maximum effect?

As always, the 'devil is in the details.' ARB's regulatory process seems straight foward. Roughly, after initial notice the ARB has 1 year to complete a 45-day comment period (plus public hearing), then modify the proposed regulation and finally allow a 15-day comment period before preparing final regulations. All of these are transparent process which allow public participation and comments.

Cool Cars is now at this final stage, preparing final regulations, in a timeline that officially began in May 2009, but was actually informally in public discussion before that. Cool Cars is one the ARB's Early Actions, under AB32.

To actually come into effect, a California regulation must go through two more steps. The California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) has 30 days to check the rule. The California Secretary of State then prints the regulation in Code of Regulations and the rule goes into effect 1 year later. All of this is governed by the California Procedures Act. (More info here:

-http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/coolcars09/coolcars09.htm -http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/how-to-participate.pdf)

The ARB group studying "Cool Cars" is headed by Dr. Marijke Bekken, who has been helpful in answering questions and pointing me in the right direction.

Of course, the primary responsibility of ARB is to regulate. But I can not help puzzle over what roles the following play:

• teach (or inform) us of the latest science and options
• focus our attention on problems requiring a solution
• provide a more independent complement to legislative process, i.e. political

Overview of the regulatory agency process and how to participate:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/decisions.htm

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/how-to-participate.pdf

"Cool Cars" - coming soon to California

California cars are a step closer to running 'cooler' (and use less fuel) with plans to have automobile windows transmit less then 40% of the sun's energy (including visible, UV and infrared), thereby reducing interior temperatures on hot, sunny days and the air conditioning load. [By law, automobile windshields must transmit 70% or more of visible light.]

The California Air Resources Board (CARB, a division of California EPA) estimates this measure will remove almost 1 million tonnes of CO2 per year by 2020. The measure (09-41) approved last June 25, 2009 is now in a 15-day comment period on the draft regulation (i.e. the proposed law) which is expected to be phased-in with 2012 cars and fully functional by 2016.

With solar energy of roughly 600 watts falling on each square meter, we all know how hot the interior of a parked car be. The measure should reduce the temperature by more than 10 degrees (Fahrenheit) 2016 model year cars.

Under AB32, CARB is responsible for determining policies to achieve AB32 (reducing GHG to 1990 levels by 2020). A list of CARB's plans, by economic sector, is here; "Cool Cars" is under Transportation.

CARB issued a Scoping Plan in December 2008 and in addition identified numerous "discrete early action greenhouse gas reduction measures” - the lowest hanging fruit (more details). An example of "discrete early action" is ruling on do-it-yourself mobile air conditioning fluids, which took effect this past January 1.

What's not in "Cool Cars"?

Regulations, as I am learning, seem a bit like old-fashioned pin-ball machines. Ideas come and go, dates change and the actual path, like the pinball, can not be predicted.

The measure started as "Cool Paints", meaning the use of special paint coatings to increase the reflection of solar energy. Perhaps we'll see that in the future. For now, you can still buy a black car.


How to Participate http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/decisions.htm

Current Draft of Cool Cars
draft regulation

FAQs
http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/coolcarsfaq.pdf

ARB|CC|Cool-Cars

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cool-cars/cool-cars.htm

Other thoughts on regulations
http://envsissue.blogspot.com/2009/11/californias-cool-cars.html