Two recent NYT articles stirred up my thoughts about community-owned distributed generation:
(1)"A Gold Rush of Subsidies in Clean Energy"
Role of subsidies on ROI?
One example described is NRG Energy 's ( quick overview here) 250 MW California Solar Farm:
-$1.6 Billion -cost vs. $1.4 Billion in subsidies (ranging from property tax exemption, to ITC credits, to above market electricity price)
-ROI for equity investors: 25% (company says 'mid-teens'), for low-risk, 25-year investment
-PPA with PG&E (detals private but Booz Allen prepared estimate)
Can 100kW projects get this ROI?
(2) "A Town Creates Its Own Department Store"
A small NY town has a 'community store'
(for-profit, 600 shareholders @$100 per share, cap 100 shares, uses
'intrastate' securities filing), why not community power?
(Note: Unlike 'crowd-sourced', 0% financing or customer-subscriber/solar garden models, this project has diverse, local ownership model)
Showing posts with label CPUC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CPUC. Show all posts
Monday, November 14, 2011
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
California - Comment to the FPPC
August 10, 2010
Dear Chairman and Commissioners:
(Again, I will file a complaint - separate from today.)
Fair Political Practices Commission
428 J Street, Suite 800
Sacramento, CA 95814
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
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, March 15, 2010
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
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.
-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.
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
-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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
