California Energy - Game Change?

The massive Gulf oilspill was a called a "Game Changer" by Catherine Reheis-Boyd, of the Western States Petroleum Association, an oil industry group, at a recent Climate One - Commonwealth Club event on May 21, 2010.

Four panelists and a moderator spoke on a wide range of energy policies and technologies.  They were

-(DM) Dan Miller, Managing Director, Roda Group

-(CRB) Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President, Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA)

-(MB) Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Sierra Club 

-(JB) Jim Boyd, Vice Chair, California Energy Commission (CEC) [Mr. Boyd and Ms. Reheis-Boyd are related by marriage.]

-(MOD) Greg Dalton, Moderator

Although Michael Brune (Sierra Club) and Catherine Reheis-Boyd (WSPA) disagreed on many things, both did agreed this oilspill is  "Game Changing."   At least as interesting  were the nuanced policy differences between Jim Boyd (CEC) and Michael Brune (Sierra)

The full audio is here plus some video clips.  Climate One website is here.

A few summaries by topic:

Off-Shore Drilling

JB: Did support off-shore drilling; now is cautious; but seems to like new slant technology oil drilling which would generate State revenues, including funds for education.

MB: Wants permanent off-shore drilling ban.

Plan to move away from oil

JB:  "our most optimistic projections show that we are going to be using petroleum for a long, long time."  And added it be nice if all domestically produced, but not realistic.

MB: We will use oil as long as we allow ourselves to use oil.   Instead, he suggested immediately create policies - policies to electrify transportation (rail, cars), switch heavy trucks to natural gas, green the grid.  

Electric Vehicles

JB - Likes PHEV (ARB opposed?), likes Chevy Volt, says he wanted 40 mpg in 2003

MB - electrify transportation, beginning with fleets (like postal service)

California ZEV policy

JB - Was instituted on his 'watch.'  Battery technology disappointed. Favors PHEV.  [California pioneered ZEV regulations; but withdrew and car companies removed models.  It may now be making a comeback at ARB.]

Biofuels

JB - insufficient but likes; hydrogen is in the future 

MB - environmental concerns about water use and full life cycle GHG emissions

DM - With right rules and investment, can be done by 2015.

[CEC was criticized at recent Biofuels workshop]

Canadian Coal Tar Sands

JB -  Better we use it then send it to China  because we will get air pollution back because of their unregulated use.

[Mr. Boyd led a Calfornia delegation to China in April to discuss low-carbon economy, solar, ZEV, policy, etc.]

MB - Global problem, need global leadership

Natural Gas - fossil source

JB - cleanest fossil fuel, wants Combined Cycle (heat & power), use as bridging fuel; concerns about shale gas

MB - natural gas industry must be cleaner; increase regulatory standards for drilling and production

On energy policy

JB - Target #1 in California is building -not just home - efficiency

MB - Wants goals and use criteria: fastest, cleanest, cheapest, quickest

On electricity generation for the grid

JB - defers to MB

MB - No new coal; retire old coal plants; loading order is (1) energy-efficiency (2) small scale distributed generation (solar, wind, etc.) (3) large scale solar/wind (4) if necessary, large Natural Gas 

[CEC has a policy of supporting CCS]

Investment

MB - $1 Trillion will be invested in the energy in next 10 years.  How to apportion it?

Nuclear

JB - against for waste, cost 

MB - nuclear comes in last on his criteria (fastest, cleanest, cheapest) - so no nukes

DM - nukes vs. coal - which is worse?

I think the game change is presence of Michael Brune.  He seems to have clear objectives.

Climate One at the CommonWealth Club

http://www.climate-one.org/

http://www.climate-one.org/node/343 (all details)

-mp3

http://audio.commonwealthclub.org/audio/podcast/cc_20100518_cl1_drillingpanel.mp3

-video

http://www.climate-one.org/video/clean-gasoline

Michael Brune  - his plans (video interview with KQED)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyqLukx5nFM

Michael Brune - Changing the Game (his blog)

http://sierraclub.typepad.com/michaelbrune/2010/05/changing-the-game.html

Michael Brune - Natural Gas regulation - read the comments, too

http://www.sierraclub.org/ed/memos/

California Energy Commission - CCS (Carbon Capture & Sequestration)

[Note:  This is first post on a complex, technological ambitious  - and controversial -  effort called Carbon Capture & Sequestration.  Errors are my own.  My purpose is not to spread more misinformation.]

At its May 19, 2010  business meeting (blog post), the California Energy Commission (CEC) approved continued funding for WESTCARB, a Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS)  project managed by CEC and one of several regional, DOE-funded projects to evaluate CCS.  

Commissioner Byron said that Calfornia should be a leader in this technology, as it is in energy-efficiency.

CCS means capturing carbon (actually CO2) from power plant  or industrial plant processes and  injecting the carbon dioxide underground for indefinite storage in  aquifers, old mines or oil fields. (here or here ).   The injection of CO2 is well known, and frequently used in oil industry to extract a bit more oil from aging wells. (Enhnaced Oil Recovery - EOR).   The Sequestration is part of the unknown: Will CO2 stay underground and not leak; who is responsible?  But another  challenging part is the large scale separation of CO2 from the gaseous stew when fossil fuel (with its sulfur and impurities) are combusted, as in coal or natural gas plants, industrial processes, etc.

At this meeting CEC approved a $4MM contract for WESTCARB to build upon Phase II (a small test injection is scheduled for later this year) and begin Phase III, a larger test facility.  Note, the amount of CO2 to be tested (1MM tons) is still small compared to the billions of tons of CO2 produced annually by US industry.

WESTCARB includes 7 states & British Columbia (international, but no China), and over 80 partners.  From WESTCARB's promotional materals:  "Sequestration allows ... continuing use of today's fossil fuel reserves, thereby 'buying time' ...."

Phase I (2004 -2005)

"....Phase I CCS research evaluated regional opportunities and potential barriers to implementation of the technology."

Phase II (a 5 year effort)

"....to perform three geological sequestration field validation pilots at which CO2 injection will take place—two in California’s Central Valley and one in northern Arizona. Phase II research also includes detailed site-characterization pilots—one on coal-bed methane and saline formations near a coal-fired power plant in Centralia, Washington, and the other on saline formations and oil fields near Bakersfield, California."

Phase III (a 10 year effort) will be inject CO2  from a commercial power plant or oil refinery as a field test.

California CCS Review Panel

California has a CCS Review Panel to the advise the CEC, CPUC, ARB and other agencies about specific CCS policies  and  the significant legal/regulatory framework.   It had its first public meeing on April 22, 2010;  the next one is this week: June 2, 2010.   I don't want to miss "Association of Irritated Residents" presentation, listed on the agenda.

At the April meeting, the Panel was clear that CCS is no "magic bullet."   But the discussion soon turned to regulatory and legal issues (who has underground CO2 storage rights?) , i.e. an implicit assumption that the technology, much not yet created, will be will invented, reliable and done in time.   

The panel was very concerned about public acceptance of CCS and avoid things like "not in my backyard."

[I think science should drive policy, not lawyers, so I don't get a vote.  I've been meaning to spend more time with this presentation because it is an assessment of state-of-the-art and how much further we need to go.   In English, author seems to be saying CCS isn't ready for prime time yet, but he does outline possible paths. ]

A California Example

Aside from WESTCARB trials, a company called Hydrogen Energy is proposing an ambitious project to combust a discharged residue of oil refineries (oil coke) to produce electricity, H2  and very pure CO2.   This CO2 will then be transported and injected into old oil wells to try to recover additional crude oil.  It is clean, ambitious and expensive.  Pure CO2 is valuable to the oil industry.  Note,  ARRA funding is at stake, too, in this siting - adding to the pressure on regulators like CEC.

But Why Caifornia?

This was asked at the April 22 Panel meeting. Unfortunatly, I missed the answer.  California has little coal, so using CCS for coal-fired power plants has limited applicability in California.   [However, much California electricity is produced by 'dirty' out-of-state coal-fired plants.]   California does have significant geological formations, esp. in the Central Valley, which might be useful for Sequestration.  And California does have SB 1368 will requires new coal-fired plants be as clean as natural gas fired plants  (500 g CO2 released, for each MW-hour of energy produced.)

CCS - has opponents

However, as all seem to acknowledge, CCS is hardly a proven technology.  Here is recent NYTimes article cautioning on use of more public money for CO2.   This particular  letter:  caught my attention, although the author appears to be pro-nuclear and doesn't mention energy-efficiency.  I, too, am concerned about use of public money for industry.

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 Handleman
Indianapolis, May 14, 2010

California CCS Review Panel - June 2, 2010 Meeting

http://www.energy.ca.gov/mobile/m_details.php?eID=1029

CEC May 19, 2010  - Blog Post

http://greensc.blogspot.com/2010/05/california-energy-commission-jobs.html

Hydrogen Energy Siting

http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/hydrogen_energy/

WESTCARB 

http://westcarb.org/

WESTCARB - Phase II

http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/environmental/project_summaries/PS_WESTCARB_Geologic_PhaseII.PDF (2007)

'It allows society to reduce the carbon intensity of the economy while continuing use of economical fossil fuels, thereby “buying time” to develop and construct affordable non-CO2-emitting energy systems.'

WESTCARB - Phase III

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/08/rcsp/factsheets/22-WESTCARB_Large%2520Volume%2520Sequestration%2520Test_PhIII.pdf

NYTimes Letters

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/opinion/l21carbon.html

http://jefferson.stldems.com/portal/default.asp

TUESDAY, October 27th

Avrom Handleman

A RATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM

Avrom Handleman, inventor, peace activist, entrepreneur, consultant, MIT grad., and former President of the JTDC, will present "A Rational Energy Program" at the October meeting. Ave will propose his "long-range program to get energy while putting Americans to work". 

NYTimes Op-Ed

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/opinion/13bryce.html?scp=1&sq=a%20bad%20bet%20on%20carbon&st=cse,

MIT's Sequestration Page

http://sequestration.mit.edu/

California Energy Commission - Jobs, Retrofits, CSS, Tomatoes, PHEV & Smart Grid

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?

[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.

-$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 Handleman

Indianapolis, May 14, 2010

Committees, Committees ...

How many unique committees of 2 can you form from a pool of  5 Commissioners?

  

CEC has 11 Committees!

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/opinion/l21carbon.html

NYTimes Article

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/opinion/13bryce.html?scp=1&sq=a%20bad%20bet%20on%20carbon&st=cse,

CEC - May 19 Agenda

http://www.energy.ca.gov/business_meetings/2010_agendas/agenda_2010-05-19.html

CEC - Committees

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.energy.ca.gov/commissioners/COMMITTEES.PDF

CEC - $314.5 (MM) ARRA? programs

http://www.energy.ca.gov/recovery/index.html

CEC - ARRA contracts

http://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/recovery.html

NOPA (Notice of Possible Award)

http://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/index.html#nopa

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.

California Energy Commission - Last $21 MM EECBG/ARRA Grants, Calls For Data Analysis

Today, the California Energy Commission awarded the final $21 MM batch of ARRA funded block grants to over 100 communities across California. The 5 Commissions also discussed the need for analysis of the program, known as Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Awards (EECBG), in terms of GHG reductions, energy savings, jobs created, money leveraged to California etc.

Lighting, Retrofits and more

Most of the grant summaries use words like "retrofit lighting", "replace ... with LED's", "replace streetlights."   Several include new HVAC, pumps, motors or control systems. A few use use old-fashioned insulation or simple techniques that are both energy-efficient and financially efficient ("bang for the buck")

For example, the City of Yountville will use its $25,000 for old-fashioned building insulation, as well motion sensors, and the popular upgrades to HVAC, LED exit signs and streetlights.

I was very glad to see the 'cool roofs', tankless water heaters and "misers" on vending machines (healthy chips, I trust), PC power load management software among the more capital-intensive features of the $2.3 MM grant to San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. (It also won a separate $1.7 MM grant.)

It isn't immediately clear to me whether how capital-intensive projects compare to behavioral or best practices changes, in terms of kw-h savings per ARRA dollar.

But the most innovative appeared to come from Alameda County which will leverage funding from multiple sources, including $784,000 from the CEC, in an effort to improve "health and safety" issues in its housing stock, as well as retrofit roofs and join a PACE, municipal financing program for energy-efficiency home improvements.

Praise for the CEC Staff

With these EECBG grants, Commissioners normally vote approval as a whole and do not discuss individual awards, unless specifically identified as unique agenda item. 

However, today they did formally praise the Staff, most by name, in the year-long process of preparing ARRA grants.

Public praise, certainly welcome, should augment career training/advancement, sufficiently diverse projects, fair compensation and the wise management that all make it is easier to hire and retain professionals. I trust the CEC is a forward thinking boss.  The CEC staff are among the 'first responders' ('incubators'?) of the energy transition that the US must go through. I hope they will be able to share their insights with the public.

Attention to Detail

Legal Council reported on possible litigation from a grant applicant whose disqualified proposal arrived at 5:32 pm, on a 5:00 pm deadline. Ouch, $20 MM gone.

And one Commissioner was very careful to write down the full grant amount one application.

I do hope this level of care extends to verifying the need for $2500 computers or $300 per diem expenditures awarded and maximum 'profit' awards to non-profits under the various CEC grants.  In this painful era of cuts, maximum money should flow first to government, second to private or non-profit sector for management of public services and initiatives.

Calls for Data and Analysis

Toward the end Commissioners did discuss, but not vote, on an effort to collect data to tabulate the amount of energy, GHG reductions, jobs and other benefits. 

Commissioner Eggert suggesting asking a University to 'crunch numbers' on a pro-bono basis, but I hope this can be done in a transparent way and subject to reasonable rules to maintain independence.

Let's look to thoughtful resolution on a CEC agenda soon.

In closing, I would like to add a few of my suggestions on this. Financial integrity is, of course, crucial. But once this is established, the awards under this ARRA/EECBG grants will yield an enormous amount of data on technologies, products, vendors, PACE programs, policy decisions.

In short, what works, what doesn't, how to management energy infrastructure projects?   I trust the grants include provisions to report this back to CEC/ARRA.

-jobs, of course, is number 1 - how many? kind? how sustainable?
-leverage, for each dollar of CEC money, how much other money is brought to Calif ( 2:1, 10:1, 100:1?)
-to save 1 kw-h, how much CEC staff time? how much real cost?
-compare PACE programs
-vendor/technology/products data
-capital-intensity and kw-h saved?
-behavioral change and kw-h saved?
-overhead costs, for every dollar of funding, how much goes to project vs. overhead -best practices? best of the breed?
-data on infrastructure, Where should we invest first? How best to manage?
-did ARRA work?
-where to improve?

Schwarzenegger's Office - Blocks Release of California-Jiangsu MOU Energy Documents

Earlier this week, Govenor Arnold  Schwarzenegger's office refused to release any documents related to a "first-of-its-kind" subnational energy agreement between California and Jiangsu Province in China.

The October 2009 California-Jiangsu agreement (or Memorandum of Understanding or MOU) calls for several regulatory California regulatory agencies (Cal EPA, ARB, CEC, CPUC), on behalf of California, to cooperate with their Jiangsu counterparts in several areas of  energy efficiency, policy, energy standards, reducing GHG emissions, technology, etc.  

Jiangsu Province is immediately adjacent to Shanghai and has emerged as a industrial giant, including laptop, semiconductor and now solar manufacturing.   GE, for example, recently announced it is developing a smart grid demonstration center in Jiangsu.   Numerous State officials and several private groups related to energy cooperation have traveled to Jiangsu, China before and since the MOU was signed.

Invoking the California Public Records Act (CPRA)

The request to the Governor's  Office used the California Public Records Act, which is intended to allow the public access to public records to ensure government is functioning properly.  The CPRA does allow certain public records to be withheld (or 'exempt') but this limitation is not absolute:  the State  may voluntarily release certain public records even if there is an allowable exception.   However, the act is very clear that disclosure is preferred option and the burden is on the Government.  (Some records like social security numbers or home address are naturally private and were not requested.  The state's business is what should be public.)

However, the Governor's Office refused to voluntarily release any documents.   This has raised a few eyebrows in Sacramento.

The CPUC was used only after face-to-face and follow-up requests to Susan Kennedy (Governor's Chief of Staff), Dian Grueneich (CPUC), CEC Board, Mary Nichols and the ARB Board and ARB China's Director all went nowhere.   

CPRA requests have filed with Cal/EPA, ARB, CEC, CPUC for information about the MOU, visits to China, China to California, and the Cal/EPA group called C3, among others.

Additional Information

-California-Jiangsu MOU (October 2, 2009)
http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/13456

-CPRA denial from the Governor's Office
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B6bttjROtnvNM2Q3ZmYxOGItNzQwMy00OGNiLThiOTEtM2NjODVjMWM2MzA4&hl=en

My letter to Governor's Attorney, Daniel Maguire, who then promised to review the matter

==

May 12, 2010

re: CPRA denial - California-Jiangsu MOU (October, 2009)

Dear Ms. Cummins:

I would appreciate if you pass this to Mr. Maguire since I do not have his email address.

I have received your May 10, 2010 denial to my PRA request.

Per this denial, you have located relevant documents, claim all are exempt and will waive the exemption from disclosure for any record.  

As you are aware,  CPRA favors public release unless non-disclosure "clearly outweighs" disclosure.  This is about an MOU for cooperation with a province in China; not national security.   Several California officials have traveled to China to discuss the issues covered by or related to this agreement.

Please release all non-exempt portions of all records.   As always, if not, please provide specific reasons why non-disclosure outweighs the Act's preference for public disclosure.  "Deliberative process" is not sufficient.

You may also wish to contact Susan Kennedy, who spoke with me March 9, 2010, and promised to check the MOU and provide information.  I am certain she can clarify and answer all my questions.

In any event, I would appreciate full disclosure by May 26, 2010.

Separately, I have filed a second CPRA notice to Cal EPA for records.   

In this correspondence, I am referring to YOUR records.

Email is preferred for all correspondence.

Thank you.

Jim Rothstein

==

California Energy Commission - What's There Not to Like?

What's Not to Like?

Almost weekly the California Energy Commission gives away money, as part of its regular business meetings.  Today, $43 MM was awarded as grants or loans to cities, school districts, ports and university researchers across California for retrofits, alterative fuel job training and other energy projects.  (Less frequently new power plants are licensed, but not today.)

To get a flavor of the wide scope of projects awarded funding, here is a sampling:

- County of Marin got two hits, a $1.4 MM loan to upgrade county HVAC, insulation and lighting to reduce energy use and GHG emissions.  The County also received CEC approval to set building energy standards higher than California's own 2008 Builing Energy Efficiency Standards.

-Somis Union Elementary School District received a $254k loan to update lighting and put solar on the roof.  (Hopefully they can sell the energy when school is out.)

- UCSD received $1.3 MM to study 'black carbon' on snow which decreases snow's reflectivity, absorbs heat and increases melting, with possible signicant consequences for our snow pack and global warming.

- City of Del Ray Oaks received the smallest grant ($15,811) to retrofit lighting and install energy-efficient windows.

- $16.5 MM, the biggest grant, went to the California Rural Housing Municipal Finance Authority to establish a revolving loan program for low-to-moderate income, rural homeowners.  (A PACE financing program?)

- $6 MM went for job training in areas of alternative/renewable fuels and vechicles, to California Employment Training Panel



All the agenda items are here (http://www.energy.ca.gov/business_meetings/2010_agendas/agenda_2010-05-05.html) but I could not find the backup documentation for the projects.  There is also an mp3 file for the meeting.

The actual process at a CEC Business meeting is quick and clean, at least for the half dozen or so I have attended.   A CEC staff member gives a project summary, often with someone from the applicant organization, and the Commissioners vote 'aye' with few questions or much discussion.  The actual funding comes from a variety of sources, including ARRA or California money, many projects have several have matching funds. I've never heard a 'nay', anyone speaking in opposition, or much difficult questioning.  "What's there to not like?" one of the commissioners said about one project.

In all fairness, many of these projects have been percolating upwards for some time, so presumably issues or problems have been sorted out long before reaching a very public meeting.

But this raises a few questions about process, policy, patterns that are difficult for the public or those uninvolved to discern.    A few examples to illustrate:

-How does the public become involved much earlier in the process?

-What methodology does CEC use in reviewing funding requests?  And is there a "score" for each project?

-What are the specific policies of the CEC?   (For example, induction lighting vs. LED; CNG trucks vs. the latest diesel, using biodiesel fuels; full funding vs. requiring matching funds; 1-time projects vs. infrastructure planning, etc.)

-Which projects didn't make it for funding and why?

These were only intended as examples, but I am also aware that one problem the ver limited staff time in Sacramento and at local agencies.  Also, ARRA funding is new and short-term.   There is clear tension between "get the money out" and the niceties of a measured, consistent, balanced program to achieve society's and CEC's broader energy goals. (efficiency first, but parking light efficiency without a plan to reduce VMT?)


-So I must ask:   What are the CEC's checks and balances?  (both policy implementation as well as financial)  Who is watching?

Yet, another issue is 'transparency.'  Everything is supposed to be 'transparent',  but is it?  For example, we must be on guard for limitations of the "public-private partnerships," where the curtain can come down on 'transparency.' Most CEC is funding done though public agencies, which can  in turn 'partner' with a third-party.   But, to illustrate just one problem,  I saw first hand the County of Santa Cruz walk away from a state agency contract, unable (unwilling?) to answer questions and directing the questioner to its private 'partner.'    (http://greensc.blogspot.com/2009/11/santa-cruz-board-of-supervisors-0.html ) [And that same private organization recently won an even bigger role with the CEC!]

CEC has a very good reputation, and certainly its staff does work very hard, with abundant accumulated experience.   Greater public participation in the process, data review and overall understanding would only help.




CEC - May 5, 2010 Agenda (meeting available as mp3)
http://www.energy.ca.gov/business_meetings/2010_agendas/agenda_2010-05-05.html

(I could not find the backup documentation - 5/6/10)


CEC - Previous Commission Meetings
http://www.energy.ca.gov/business_meetings/index.html