Santa Cruz Green Watch

Gold Rush of Subsidies in Clean Energy

noreply@blogger.com (santa cruz green watch) — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:51:00 +0000

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)

Biogas + China-US cooperation - post in China Focus

noreply@blogger.com (santa cruz green watch) — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 23:29:00 +0000

Here my latest post I submitted in UC Berkeley's China Focus:

BIOGAS

Jim Rothstein

While Chinese manufacturers frequently express desire for greater access to Western technology, Western companies say they worry about the IP implications. One common suggestion is for China and the US to jointly develop new IP, especially in alternative energy or emerging technologies. The logic goes something like this: US excels in R&D, while China can implement projects quickly and for lower cost. The result then is faster RD&D (research, development and demonstration and ultimately commercialization) then either could do alone - and we all benefit.

One candidate for this approach is joint project between a large commercial dairy in rural Jinshan, near Shanghai, and a consortium of start-up Utah companies with strong ties to academic research. Although the agreement, called the Jinshan Clean Energy Project, is wrapped in much political language promising jobs and ecological benefits - which will need to be evaluated - the 3 phase project calls for joint investment to recover biogas from animal manure and to develop the commercial processes to convert it into a syngas and ultimately diesel fuel.

Normally, anaerobic digestion, a natural process using bacteria without oxygen, is used to convert relatively small amounts of household/small farm animal/plant waste into a slurry and biogas (a mixture of methane, CO2, H2S, water) for cooking or electricity generation. However, as China (and much of the developing world) joins the developed world's fondness for high per capita consumption of animal protein, especially in the form of beef or dairy, animal processing becomes centralized with the associated environmental and waste concerns.

The Jinshan project is one of several technical efforts, in China (GE and Shenyang, GE and Henan) and elsewhere, to scale and industrialize anaerobic digestion to work at a commercial, rather than household, level. So this project seeks to create large quantities of biogas (in a 3-4 story tower) from the dairy, purify it and then, with novel catalysts/technologies developed by universities and licensed to 4 Utah companies known as Utah Clean Energy Alliance, covert it to a syngas and finally liquid diesel fuel, tweaking a well-known Fisher-Tropsch process.

Jinshan District will provide $1 million dollars in funding, to be matched by NSF. If successful, commercial manufacturing will be done in China. The four Utah companies are: Cosmas (catalysts), Andigen (the AD chamber), Anaerobic Technologies (purification), Ceramatec (syngas equipment)

Toward Community Solar?

noreply@blogger.com (santa cruz green watch) — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 21:58:00 +0000

California may be moving toward simplifying community ownership and benefits from a PV solar power. Netmetering works great if PV is on your own roof and you sell the excess power to the grid. The next step, virtual netmetering, allows the financial benefits of power sales to be shared by several, such as by reducing tenants's utility bills; i.e. netmetering across several meters.

But what about sharing the benefits from sales of PV on the ground? Or sales of power from PV on someone else's roof - a church or community center (because your own roof is under a tree or otherwise unusable)?

California Senate bill (CA SB 843 , here, good article )
if enacted, would open up a new range of options to finance and benefit from PV solar in a neighborhood or community - even if the PV is not on your property.

Beyond Corn Ethanol: Bioproducts from 'Garbage'

noreply@blogger.com (santa cruz green watch) — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 21:12:00 +0000

Though algae has great promise to secrete oils or be biomass itself, algae always seems to about “five years away,” according to Dr. William J. Orts of USDA’s agriculture research service in Albany, CA who spoke at UC Davis Energy Institute this past week.

Seemingly to prove his point, one of the large oil companies has been running a TV advertisement, featurng a middle-aged researcher:

“It is was 1975 and my professor at Berkeley asked if I wanted to change the world. I said sure. And he said, ‘Let's grow some algae’.”

Dr Orts talk, “Agriculturally Derived Biofuels and Bioproducts: Going Beyond Corn Ethanol” began with corn ethanol summary: Though it is in production now, enjoys a $0.51 per gallon subsidy and “we know how to do it,”   it suffers from several drawbacks, including a bad carbon footprint when all the fertilizer use and transportation is factored in. Ethanol is also corrosive, so can not be put into pipelines, and there is not enough of it to make a real dent in US demand for transportation fuels.

Much research is now focused on second generation biofuels. Energy crops are “very hot now”, he said, for example switchgrass.    Dr. Orts outlined the basic line of attack on cellulosic biomass (think: harder to degrade corn or rice stalks, not the corn) by pointing out that we should learn from anything that ‘eats wood’, from fungus to cows.

Like algae, it is not so easy.   Whereas corn starch breaks down with just 2-3 enzymes, heavy cellulosic materials can need 16. The goal for many researchers is finding the right “3-in-1” kind of sauce with the right genetic-modified material and optimized enzymes to seek out and attack the chemical and biological weaknesses of cellulose.

But Dr. Ortis then turned to one of his favorite approaches which can work now: garbage. Garbage, or municipal solid waste ( MSW), is about 40% cellulosic.    MSW - the waste, plastic bottles and all - can be sorted, ‘cooked’ in the right environment (temperature, enzymes, etc) to yield biofuel (ethanol) or biogas (ex: natural gas) or even paper for paper plates. (There are hopes of this new bioproducts industry will even replace petroleum in the manufacture of man-made fibers, polymers or even the medicines that we have become so used to. )

The city of Salinas is planning   a project with uses pre-treatment and sorting MSW.   The equipment then “cooks” it and creates ethanol.   It avoids the landfills completely. And, it can be done now.

Announcement:
http://calendar.ucdavis.edu/event_detail.lasso?eventID=11730

China’s Farm Waste to Energy Programs

noreply@blogger.com (santa cruz green watch) — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 12:45:00 +0000

As part of an ambitious farm waste-to-energy program, the Chinese government provides rural households with an anaerobic digester as a way to provide inexpensive cooking biogas and heat while also removing farm animal and human waste, according to Dr. Xiujin Li of Beijing University of Chemical Technology, who visited UC Davis today with a Chinese delegation.

China began a program for anaerobic digesters in 1975, but many suffered leaks and were of poor quality and were phased out.    Today, some 35 MM of these rural digesters many made from newer durable materials now exist, up from 10 MM in 2000. Many are the size of a couple of refrigerators and buried underground on a farm. The price is $400, beyond reach of most Chinese farmers but paid for under the government program. Dr. Li mentioned that Americans have asked him where to purchase.

In larger Chinese communities or larger farms, such as a commercial chicken farm, the Chinese government has offered since 2005 a second program for much larger anaerobic digesters to convert the waste into biogas, fuel for electricity or natural gas for vehicle fuel. The government provides just over $700 MM annually for the equipment and the maintenance of these larger, more complex biodigesters, in which Dr. Li said support is “only a phone call away.”    Local governments must then commit an equal amount of the funding. [update: Here is an excellent video by Amy Zeng about biogas production in Kunming]

China also a problem with dry, crop residue.   Annually, China produces 700 MM tons of dry rice, wheat, corn waste (the stalks), half of which is burned in open fields.   This dry waste has a high lignocelluloisic component, making it difficult to biodigrade.   Dr. Li described several university research efforts in China to improve the biogas yields and reduce the time to produce. One promising approach is pre-treating with sodium hydroxide, other research effort range from fungus to various reactor designs.

What works in the lab, of course, may not work in the fields. This is true everywhere, but it is particularly important to realize that in a developing country, like China, development is uneven.   The best features of a modern society can often be juxtaposed with the face of a poor, less developed society.   In other words, Dr. Li stressed technologies used in anaerobic digestors must not only be low capital, cost-effective but also reliable and must scale easily.

Still, some lingering questions remain, do the small biodigesters leak and contaminate underground water?   Who decides which villages and farmers have access to the government’s financial programs?

One way answer is to encourage collaboration with foreign scientists and this was just one purpose of Dr. Li visit, who had obtained his Ph.D from UC Davis.

(Remark: Dr. Li’s talk was about biogas. China limits the use of food crops for ethanol, but is working with jatropha )

Additional information:

http://www.methanetomarkets.org/expo_china07/docs/postexpo/ag_li.pdf

http://www.physorg.com/news131028348.html
http://www.pciaonline.org/beijing-university-chemical-technology-buct

Biogas in developing countries background

"For All the Tea in China" - a book review

noreply@blogger.com (santa cruz green watch) — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 23:41:00 +0000

For All the Tea in China

How England Stole the World's Favorite Drink and Changed History

by Sarah Rose

In 1839, the local Chinese government in Guangzhou (Canton) seized opium and destroyed it. The consequences - Opium Wars, foreign treaty ports, the eventual fall of a dynasty - are in some ways still being played out, for example how China handles international criticism.

Though the life and times of one astonishingly resourceful Scottish botanist, Sarah Rose has written a delightful short, "popular history" which chronicles just one of those many consequences: the international trade in tea. By disguising himself as a Chinese official - or Mandarin - and traveling to areas well off limits to foreigners, Robert Fortune, a quite man with little formal education or opportunity in Britain, came to learn more about Chinese methods of tea cultivation and preparation - not to mention China's flora and geography - then had been known in the West before.

In the process of relaying his story, Rose teaches a bit about travel in rural China, English gardens, the notions of face and guanxi, British trade as well as crucial Chinese history just after the First Opium War (1841) leading up to the Taiping Rebellion But what keeps us turning page is a an adventure story based on her subject's own writings and the extensive records kept by the East India Company, which we can recognize today as multi-national corporation. Rose keeps us in suspense through wise jumps in time, though once or twice this can also confuse, and she adds conversation to the bones of the story, though surely no one can be certain exactly what was said on the top of mist-filled mountain. Of course, that is not the point. Nonetheless, a rough map of Fortune's travels, trade routes and a diagram of tea plant would make things easier.

Why did the British develop a taste for black tea when Chinese drink green tea? The answer is as telling about then as it is about today.

[The reviewer lived in Fuzhou in 2003 where WuYi Mountain is revered. He was also told if he wanted to learn about modern China, the place to start was Taiping Rebellion that began during Fortune's stay: "The Chinese seldom stand up, but when they do there is real trouble."]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lin_Zexu (try to halt opium)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanjing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzhou

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tai_Ping_Rebellion

The Long March To Renminbi Convertibility

noreply@blogger.com (santa cruz green watch) — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 22:16:00 +0000

Although I keep my rmb under the mattress, waiting for appreciation, I am aware international financial markets require more activity than this kind of buy-and-hold strategy. Here's an update from the Financial Times on recent developments in rmb convertibility.

The Long March To Renminbi Convertibility

China continues quietly to take steps toward convertibility of the renminbi, writes David Pilling of the Financial Times. In a first, for example, McDonald's issued a small, 200 MM rmb denominated debt ($29 MM) in Hong Kong.

For the most part holders of trade-related rmb have little opportunity to invest, i.e. foreign firms holding the rmb must either exchange the currency or put it into low interest banking accounts. Pilling summarizes recent Beijing efforts to allow trade settlements in rmb (2009), offshore banks to exchange rmb among themselves (July) and now allow offshore banks to invest in China's interbank bond market . Hong Kong expects to play a key role any markets in offshore rmb, similar to the way London maintains markets for overseas US dollars, Eurodollars.

However, Beijing's motivation for these still small steps is unclear. Pilling explains it could seen as an effort toward establishing the rmb as an alternative reserve currency to US dollars, a way to remove currency middleman in China-centric trade, or a more humble effort to stimulate China's nascent domestic debt market, where bonds seldom trade and are usually held to maturity without risk or 'price discovery.' Most agree Bejing is far from comfortable with a fully convertible rmb in which capital can flow in or out of China in an instant.

Read more about the renminbi convertibility

California - Comment to the FPPC

noreply@blogger.com (santa cruz green watch) — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:45:00 +0000

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 - Letter submitted to Sacramento Bee

noreply@blogger.com (santa cruz green watch) — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 23:33:00 +0000

I submitted this letter to the editor (Sacramento Bee; 200 word limit).

To the Editor:

Tom Knudson of the Bee has done a good job reporting free trips to China legislators and regulators, paid by private, non-profit money (Sacramento Bee, 7/26/09 , http://www.sacbee.com/2009/07/26/2056375/energy-firms-help-pay-for-state.html; Public Eye, July 7, 2010; http://blogs.sacbee.com/the-public-eye/2010/07/by-law-corporations-are-forbidden.html).

But there is more.

Out of public view, State regulators continue to play an active role in brokering a 500 MW solar (PV) deal in California between two Chinese companies, proposing a California exhibition hall in China, selecting China projects and industrial alliances, and hiding their own role with the non-profit that has been involved in numerous activities, including paying for Linda Adams to visit China.

Charged with implementing the 'landmark', 'subnational' energy agreement between California and Jiangsu Province, one of China's industrial powerhouses, our State regulators should be working - transparently - toward wise energy policies that leverage the best of California's leadership, resources and innovation together with China's ability to drive down market prices by low-cost manufacturing. benefit both countries.

Instead, State agencies, response to questions asked nicely or formally with answers so muddled and misleading - if at all - that it is easier to find out about California's activities from Chinese websites (which have the photographs!) We keep hearing that China is not transparent. Maybe it time to enforce our own transparency laws - the public's right to know, so well stated in the Bee's July 4 editorial about the Freedom of Information Act.

China Tops US in Energy Use - IEA

noreply@blogger.com (santa cruz green watch) — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 04:59:00 +0000

China became the world's largest consumer of energy, passing the US in 2009, according to calculations done by the International Energy Agency

The Chinese National Energy Administration (link) disputed the calculation, asserting the calculations are in error, and though China may become the largest producer, it is not the largest user. The Paris-based IEA stands by its data.

The IEA estimates that in 2009 China used 2.252 billion tons of oil equivalent, a measure of the total energy used - from oil, coal, renewables and all energy sources - while the US used 4% less. However, on a per capita basis, the average American still uses far more energy than the average Chinese.

In response to a question asked at an energy policy seminar in Sacramento, Lynn Price, a senior researcher at the China Energy Group at Lawrence Berkeley Lab said, "It does not matter whether China passed the US this year or last year or next year but that China's energy use is growing extremely rapidly."

Indeed, in 2000 China's energy use was only half that of the US. But in the last decade, the US energy use grew slowly, declining since 2008, while China energy use has continued to grow rapidly and now matches the US.

Even if the exact timing is not important, the significance may be a harbinger. The US passed the UK in energy use 100 years ago and went on to become the leading economic power of the 20th century.

China's rapid increase in energy use has already had ramifications in world energy markets, diplomacy and seemingly mundane issues like the positioning of international pipelines.

Yet China may not welcome the scruntiny and possible responsiblies of being the leading energy consumer. The IEA has often complained about the ambiguity in Chinese energy data. China, for its part, prefers to emphasize its energy efficiency or green energy policies.

Whatever the issue at the moment, a natural question might be, given China's voracious and growing energy appetite, just how high can its energy use go?

In the next 15 years, China may expand its energy production by an amount equal to half of what the US consumes today. China may eventually have a fifth of the world's population, but consume a quarter of the world's energy

As much as China works to be green and energy-efficient, including higher auto fuel efficiency standards than in the US, its citizens also want to have simple modern conveniences, which means more energy.

July 18, 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720504575376712353150310.html

July 21, 2010 (China disputes IEA)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720504575378243321158992.html

July 4, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/business/global/05warmside.html

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

noreply@blogger.com (santa cruz green watch) — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:16:00 +0000

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

California Letter - To My Chinese Friends (June 27)

noreply@blogger.com (santa cruz green watch) — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 20:44:00 +0000

6/27/10

To My Friends in China & Beyond:

I am in Sacramento, where the temperature is now 86 F (30 C) and may reach 101 F (38 C) today.

However, it is dry heat, not humid heat - not like China, or the eastern half the US. So it is hot, but the shade is more comfortable; evenings cool down; sleeping is ok and not too many bugs. Sacramento is in between the sea (San Francisco) and the mountains where gold was found (Sierra Nevada). The sky is almost always blue and sunny, and the land is very flat and good for agriculture. This is northern portion of California's Central Valley and the location of the State capital. Here the buses are always air-conditioned in summer but the price is dear: 9 rmb. (But almost everyone drives their car.)

I visited an elementary school in Sacramento that will start teaching half in English and half in Chinese, beginning in kindergarten. The school has a Chinese teacher, but there are starting to be more programs in the US which teach Chinese. I think it is good.

I read a long article about increasing trade between China and Russia's Siberia. Historically, Russia has always wanted ports that are open in winter (one reason why Dalian was so important), but now there is more talk about Russian raw materials (iron, wood, oil) going to China and, in return, Chinese manufactured goods heading west by rail through Siberia to Europe. In 2012, Russian oil will go to China by a new pipeline (1 MM barrels of oil each day; about what California uses EACH day). This will free up freight trains to carry commodities and manufactured goods. (I remember discussions in Chongqing about a rail line going north to Russia that enable China's interior to export goods. Anyone know more?)

When Americans think about Siberia or Manchuria - which unfortunately we seldom do - we think about vast, desolate, cold lands with political prisoners. Because of border disputes between China and Russia, there was little development or relatively little Chinese trade with Russia (ok, maybe not in Shenyang). This may be changing in a bit way.

Westerner newspapers are full of information about Chinese strikes at large foreign factories. (Honda, Toyota) The results seem to be slightly better wages and working conditions for the millions of young migrants who come for a better life. I heard even the KFC in Shenyang gave the workers a bit more money. Do you hear about this? I don't think Chinese companies treat workers very well and it will take time to change.

Hope everyone is well.

Jim

California and China - CPRA Update

noreply@blogger.com (santa cruz green watch) — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:36:00 +0000

6/19/10

Jiangsu-California MOU Update

As I posted before, California and Jiangsu Province signed a landmark, subnational agreement on energy cooperation in October 2009 (MOU, here, here, here), Since then, California has quietly initiated a range of activities, bodies, work plans. At least 2 Calfornia delegations have visited China and in April there was California-Shenzen conference. Nanjing University and UCSB have begun cooperation on efforts to effect community energy reductions. NRDC will do a building/DSM study in Jiangsu.

Although the Calfornia governor's legal office has blocked release of all documents related to the MOU (also here), some of the pieces can be put together through information obtained from various State agencies via CPRA requests, the California Public Records Act. Early on, Susan Kennedy, of the Governor's Office, and Dian Grueneich of CPUC, acknowledged knowledge of the MOU and activities but did not returned repeated phone calls or emails.

CalEPA and CARB have dragged their feet for months, including accusations of defamation, but did release limited information on June 8 in response to an April CPRA request. They have not explained omissions or responded to subsequent emails to obtain the remainder. They also redacted a document while I was looking at it, which said in part "I don't think I can put him off much longer", a reference to me.

Similarly the Energy Commission and CPUC have released limited information, but only under the CPRA.

Below is a brief summary of some of the California-China activities. The original goals of the MOU are quite good: to work together on policies, technologies, standards that would lower GHG and energy. Some of projects (NRDC, UCSB) seem quite encouraging. As information beomes clearer on the State's polcies I will update and post on this DOE energy wiki.

Besides the State of California, several non-profit organizations play active, but poorly understood roles in California-China relations: Ex: CFEE, iCET, ecolinx.

CFEE's Study trips abroad are reported by Tom Knudson of the Sacramento Bee. (7/26/2009). Ecolinx.org is a foundation of Margaret Kim, China Program Director for CalEPA.

The reason for California state government's acute sensitivity to an energy and environmental MOU is not known. The situation at this moment is to obtain missing information from CalEPA,CARB. I think preferable the State of Government disclose all of its China efforts and include public participation; unfortunately, it has chosen this route.

Caution: Much of the following information has been obtained by CPRA, and I have reason to believe that the State of California is withholding key information which may shed additional facts and interpretations to this information. However, what I write I have physical paper to back up or credible second or third-party websites to support. Nor is this a complete list of activities.

Clarification is needed.

October 2009

-California-Jiangsu MOU signed

-Calfornia Regulatory & Legislative Delegation visits China and Jiangsu, includes Jeffrey Bryon (CEC) and Michael Peevey (CPUC), California business leaders, legislators. Trip paid by CFEE, includes:
John Perez $7,847 gift
Bonnie Lowenthal $8037 gift
Carol Liu, $7469 gift
Curren Price, $8259 gift

November 2009

-UCSB and Nanjing University researchers report on opportunties (under MOU) for coordinated, joint research. (Based on visit to Suzhou Industrial Park and Nanjing on October 28-30, 2009)

December 2009

-CalEPA, NRDC, WRI meet in Copenhagen to discuss MOU implementation

-Chinese delegations visit CEC (several each year)

Februrary 24, 2010

-C3 (and earlier?) organized by CalEPA, meets privately at Energy Foundation in SF. [I was not allowed to attend, listen or obtain information.] Sponsors?

March 2010

Following verbal request to CARB and Mary Nichols, Margret Kim, China Program Director, released minimal C3 information, accused me of 'defamation.' Neither she nor Mary Nichols return emails seeking additional C3 or MOU information, or the role of Ms. Kim's non-profit ecolinx.org.

April, 2010 (CalEPA omits April information from CPRA request; many questions)

-California Delegation visits China, led by Linda Adams, CalEPA, and James Boyd, CEC.

includes at least these 3 distinct conferences

-members of California delegation - unknown;

-other activities in China - unknown;

-who pays - mostly unknown;

-objectives, outcomes - unknown

-process by which CalEPA approves these activities is unknown, not public

April 16-18, 2010 - "2010 International Low-Carbon Development Forum - Shenzen - California", including "deliverables": [from CPRA response]

-"California-Shenzhen PKU Energy Efficiency Research Centers" [established by State of California, University of California (Davis) and Shenzhen City.]

-"California-China Clean Tech Initiative (C3) hub in Southern [sic] China" (State of California is 'partner')

- Low Carbon Sister City relationship between Shenzhen city and Sacramento, California

- "US-China Low-Carbon Industries Alliance (UCLCIA) formed, includes the State of California,

-Shenzhen signs C3, R20?

-Keynotes include:

Dan Sperling, UCD, CARB

Michael Siminovitch, UCD

Linda Adams, CalEPA

Nancy Skinner, California Legislator [Rep Skinner's office said she did not visit China; emails and phone calls were not returned]

-April 19 - 20, 2010 - "energy and clean transportation conference and strategy meetings" (UC Davis - Institute of Transportation Studies), CalEPA requests Boyd attend (Shanghai, Chongming Island - ZEV), payment by UC Davis. MOU pending?

-April 21 - 23, 2010 - study tour, Jiangsu & Beijing, solar PV, manufacturing, joint venture discussions. CalEPA requests Boyd attend, paid by iCET

May 2010

- DSM Management and Building Efficiency Study/Analysis Agreement (paid by NRDC)

(NRDC & Jiangsu Research Institute of Building Science Co, Ltd & State Grid DSM Instruction Center) to be completed by 12/2010 - thanks to Barbara Finamore of NRDC who provided this.

-(DRAFT) California-Jiangsu Climate and GreenTech Cooperation Project, Jan, 2010 - Dec, 2011

(2 year workplan - details coming - CPRA - CalEPA)

-MOU Steering Committee formed (1 member ?? - James Boyd)

June 2010

Bren School, UCSB and Nanjing U. begin cooperation

(also CPRA info)

===

Organizations mentioned in this article (partial)

CFEE

C3 (invitation), C3 (ecolinx)

NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council - US NGO)

JRIBS

Bren School of the Environment, UCSB also: http://www.bren.ucsb.edu/

Links mentioned in this article (partial)

Open energy wiki, (The Open Energy Information initiative (OpenEI) is a platform to connect the world’s energy data. Run by US Dept of Energy; public)

http://en.openei.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://en.openei.org/wiki/Jiangsu-California_MOU

NRDC DSM

Sacramento - English Word for Someone Who Speaks Only 1 Language?

noreply@blogger.com (santa cruz green watch) — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:04:00 +0000

Sacramento public schools are about to offer "Chinese immersion," instruction in Chinese from day 1, in Kindergarten, at its Elder Creek Elementary School. Next year two more Sacramento schools will offer "Chinese immersion." It is a modeled on a successful program in San Francisco.

When I started school - (no hints when) - schools were named for Presidents, we had rabbits and one choice for language of instruction. A foreign language was for high school.

But times change. Ask Mark Pinto, Applied Materials CTO who started his young children on Chinese and then took them and his company's solar R&D manufacturing center to Xi'an, China. And we all know that young children pick up languages with ease while most of us struggle. [age 3-11 is the best time.]

Though the Sacramento program starts with about 80% Chinese (the rest English), it slowly starts to shift toward 50-50 Chinese-English by the 6th grade. It is not a choice of somehow choosing one language over the other; children can learn both.

The community around Elder Creek is has a large number of immigrants: Vietnamese, Hmong, Chinese, Russian, Hispanic. The school aims for about half the students in the 'Chinese Immersion' program to be native Chinese speakers and half native English.

The school hopes to form a relationship with a school in Beijing.

In China, a school offering free instruction in 2 languages would soon have parents from the entire province surround it. [Chinese don't like to queue.] Multilingual education is really something new here; I wish I had it.

The Sacramento program is also about globalization in the best sense. When I first went to China, I met a young New Zealand couple who were sending their daughter to a regular Chinese school. The little girl was like any other happy, well-adjusted child - and a world citizen. When I asked the blond-haired, blue-eyed lady where was her home, she thought for a moment, smiled and said, "China." It meant she had one foot firmly in each culture (Chinese/New Zealand) and was already light-years ahead of me.

But again, there is a joke in China. "What is the English word for someone who can speak 3 languages? Trilingual. And 2 languages? Bilingual. And the English word for someone who only speaks one? American."

[More information about the Chinese Immersion Program: call the school principal Mary DeSplinter, 916-277-5978, during working hours. School has good popcorn, too.]

California Energy - Game Change?

noreply@blogger.com (santa cruz green watch) — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 00:53:00 +0000

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 - the 1960s and 1/2 day of gasoline

noreply@blogger.com (santa cruz green watch) — Sun, 30 May 2010 20:18:00 +0000

Growing up in the 1960s, certain radio headlines seem to remain engrained in my pre-mp3, auditory memory: Wayne Morse, James Meredith, murders of civil rights workers, Diem, Medicare (yes, Medicare).

I understood neither the context nor parental answers ("He wants to go to school"), but I am certain the hourly news and daily repetition on classical WQXR (hey, I didn't have choice) created a permanent mental image not unlike an image etched into an old CRT monitor.

Recently, other distant names have surfaced: permafrost and Alaska pipeline, Torrey Canyon and a very far-away place with beautiful birds and beaches called Santa Barbara.

It was a long, long time ago, so long ago that only aging sailors had tatoos. But I remember.

Rather than complain about the relative guilt of BP, George W Bush, Obama or our addiction to oil, I want to do a calculation - something useful to get a feeling about how much oil has spilled into the Gulf.

For example, if all of the spilled oil had been gasoline, how many gallons would every California car get? Let's try.

How Much Oil Has Spilled in the Gulf?

BP said 1,000 then 5,000 bbls a day. After BP released a short video, NPR started reporting that scientists thought it was 20 -80,000 bbls per day.

Let's assume oil is flowing at a rate of 20,000 bbls each day. There are 42 gallons of oil in a barrel and it has been spilling for 40 days. If you multiple this out, it is about 34 MM gallons of crude oil.

Since the explosion on April 20, 2010, today's papers say about 18-40 MM gallons oil have spilled, so I in the right ball park. Let's split the difference the assume the real number is 29 MM gallons of crude oil have spilled into the Gulf.

Ok, 29 MM gallons of oil sounds like a lot. 17% of Louisiana jobs are related to oil. If you are a Louisiana Brown Pelican, it is an awful lot of oil! But what does 29 MM gallons mean to us?

Crude Oil to Gasoline?

A gallon of gasoline is not the same as a gallon of oil. Both are mixtures of all kinds of chemicals and hydrocarbons.

Gasoline sold in California has about 100 different molecules.

But let's assume each gallon of crude oil results in 1/2 gallon of gasoline, give or take. This is a "guesstimate."

So the 29 MM gallons of oil in Gulf, comes down to about 15 MM gallons of gasoline.

15 MM gallons of gasoline

Ok, we are get close. Now California consumed 360 MM barrels of gasoline for transportation in 2008, i.e. all of us in California collectively consume 1 MM barrels gasoline EACH DAY (360/365) for our cars. This is 42 MM gallons of gasoline each day in California.

Here we are then: the total amount of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico would power every California car (yours and mine) for less than 1/2 day (15/42)! Morning rush hour, barely!

May 30, "Plans for the Worst" New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/31/us/31spill.html?ref=global-home

WQXR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WQXR

Louisiana & Energy, the Pelican State
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana#Energy

California - 360 MM Barrels Gasoline, Transportation (2008)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/hf.jsp?incfile=sep_fuel/html/fuel_mg.html

Permafrost and Alaska Pipeline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Pipeline#Conservation_objections

1962 James Meredith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Meredith

1967 Torrey Canyon Disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrey_Canyon

1969 Santa Barbara Oil Spill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Santa_Barbara_oil_spill

California Energy Commission - CCS (Carbon Capture & Sequestration)

noreply@blogger.com (santa cruz green watch) — Tue, 25 May 2010 19:52:00 +0000

[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

noreply@blogger.com (santa cruz green watch) — Tue, 25 May 2010 19:47:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (santa cruz green watch) — Wed, 19 May 2010 22:52:00 +0000

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.

UC Davis - Energy for the Future Initiative & Nature's Secret Sauce

noreply@blogger.com (santa cruz green watch) — Wed, 19 May 2010 02:39:00 +0000

Coaxing plants to yield automobile fuel not may have been nature's original plan.

At last Friday's Energy for the Future Symposium at UC Davis, ten young faculty members presented a snapshot of their investigations into basic chemical, biological, physical mechanisms that may someday yield breakthroughs in rapidly developing fields of biofuels, higher efficiency solar panels, fuel cells, batteries.

Straight Answers from Smart People

How young? All were hired since 2005 under the Energy for the Future Initiative and none appeared to need coffee to function. Their talks were focused, precise, driven by careful questions about the science and data. They were genuinely excited about peering over the edge in their fields, and unafraid to probe and then give honest, mature assessments, an increasing rarity in our world.

They run "labs", which means people: postdocs, graduate students and undergraduates. They are must seek collaborators; find funding; publish. And they teach, worry about tenure, get their lives in order.

Difficult science

And they must think.

Nature does not yield secrets easily. For example, the actual chemical and biological steps in Photosynthesis are quite a bit more than what I learned long ago ( sunlight + nutrients + CO2 = plants and O2). They are asking clear questions about the underlying subtle, complicated processes, i.e. they are trying to convince nature to give a hint or two about each ingredient of a very 'secret sauce'. (Here is an excellent paper Professor Jeoh gave me to read.)

But understanding nature's 'secret sauce' isn't good enough. Nature didn't have automobile fuel or solar fluids in mind. The nature of their work appears to be, to this layperson, to understand the basic processes and then use modern tools and knowledge (catalysts, DNA, enzymes, bacteria, modern materials) to improve: make processes work faster, more efficiently, cheaper; or substitute new a new process.

Only Part of the Equation

As difficult as this is , basic research is only part of the whole problem. Quantum mechanics was understood by the 1920s and 1930s, but lasers, computers and twitter took took decades longer to emerge.

We don't have this kind of time with energy. Just some of hurdles:

First, these researchers are doing this in the lab, someone else will then need to figure out how to make billions of gallons of the stuff at price or enough batteries to hold ample energy when the 'sun doesn't sunshine' at price we are willing to pay.

Second, I am not sure how well legislators or regulators really understand the state-of-the-art. But they must make many of the funding decisions, set GHG targets now. It is not just what "stakeholders" wish.

And ultimately, there is the public, who must accept the conclusions of these scientists.

Why Not ...?

I am sure UC Davis and every other university would like to have hired 20, not just 10 for an Energy Initiative. And whatever each new faculty costs, it is a bargin. The US is lucky that we can pick the best from almost anywhere in the world. So Why Not?

I also thought each young faculty member should be allowed to add one question to California's written driving test.

But Davis is quite close to Sacramento. I am hesitant to take people away from important work - the researchers, I mean. Perhaps UC Davis could offer seminars to legislators and regulators. But this would be with one condition: "attendees" would be allowed only to ask sharp, science or data-driven questions (i.e. end with a question mark).

The young researchers would tell them the truth; or clarify what is known from what is not yet known.

UC Davis - Energy Institute
http://ei.ucdavis.edu/

Symposium May 14 - link
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://ei.ucdavis.edu/local_resources/Symposium%2520Notice.pdf

Biomass Overview
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B6bttjROtnvNMmU5ZTExMDktNmJlMy00NmZhLWJiN2EtNmU5NDIwZWU1ZjA5&hl=en

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

noreply@blogger.com (santa cruz green watch) — Wed, 12 May 2010 20:58:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (santa cruz green watch) — Wed, 12 May 2010 19:39:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (santa cruz green watch) — Fri, 07 May 2010 20:15:00 +0000

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

California Energy Commission - Decertify a Refrigerator?

noreply@blogger.com (santa cruz green watch) — Mon, 03 May 2010 21:11:00 +0000

The California Energy Commission (i.e. California) is famous for setting appliance energy standards which result in decreased energy consumption (and electric bills) in ho-hum things like refrigerators, TVs, washers, lighting.

Numerous studies have shown efficiency is the cheapest and fastest way to lower our electric bills, energy consumption and GHG emissions. In fact, as much as 20% or more GHG reductions are possible through building efficiency (Efficiency Drive Could Cut Energy Use 23% by 2020, Study Finds - http://nyti.ms/cUIbEp). It can mean not building more power plants.

Even China has been influenced by California's work, especially the China Energy Group at LBL. This color coding on every Chinese appliance makes it easy, without knowing Chinese. [When looking for a new apartment in China, I used the refrigerator label to gauge how stingy the apartment owner might turn out to be. I didn't know the work had been done in California.]

Of course, in the real world standards, promises, labels are worthless if not verified. This includes California appliance standards.

So I was particularly interested in an "informal" public proceeding to decertify an appliance , held by the CEC's Efficiency Committee on Monday, April 26, 2010. The sole item was to consider decertifing two commercial refrigerators made by Turbo Air, a Korean manufacturer with facilities in Seoul and Qingdao, China.

No ruling has been issued yet, but the hearing raised a few flags which illustrates some of the issues CEC faces in enforcement.

The proceeding details did not appear overly complicated. Two of the 5 CEC Commissioners form the Efficiency Committee and both were present. The CEC staff, the manufacturer, and a test company provided the background. The refrigerators in question had been 'certified' and placed into a CEC database in 2002 (search for Turbo Air) based solely on information provided by the manufacturer against standards in place at the time.

Under questioning, Turbo Air said the energy data had come from a test lab, and it had paid for the test. But the staff had noted that the manufacturer had actually sent slightly different versions of the data to 4 different regulatory bodies (Energy Star, for example), an apparent flag.

Turbo Air explained that in response to competitive pressures they had made a manufacturing change in February 2008. At the time, they felt this was 'immaterial' to energy consumption (replacing 2 internal fans, with a larger single fan) and did not notify the CEC. It turns out that this simple change affected the temperature of the condenser and therefore the overall energy consumption. According to staff, however, any manufacturing change - even red to blue door - needs to be reported to CEC, a 2nd flag.

In April 2009, the CEC received an email complaint, which I could not find on the website, from a private group (Consortium for Energy & Efficiency http://www.cee1.org/; curiously CEC itself is a member.) CEC then asked its contracted test lab, BR Laboratories, to purchase a unit and test its energy use. (Manufacturer pays if a violation, CEC pays if not). Indeed the test lab, following accepted procedures, found violations, based on two units. To my surprise, both the manufacturer and the CEC are customers of the same lab! (a third flag)

So at time of this proceeding, 1 year after the complaint, 2 years since the manufacturing change, the manufacturer is still selling the unit! (A fourth flag; sources told me the industry norm is that manufacturers usually voluntarily immediately stop selling a unit, then fix or recertify it.)

Commissioners asked several questions, many addressed to staff about when model number must be changed and a unit recertified.

But what about the four flags?
-no notification of manufacturing change
-4 versions of data
-the same lab hired by both CEC and manufacturer
-still selling the unit and listed on CEC website (based on 8 year old data?)

An member of the public was allowed to speak and asked questions of both the CEC, the Staff, the manufacturer.

-Who has the burden to maintain the continuing accuracy of the CEC database?
(I didn't catch the CEC's answer, and Commissioner Byron did not seem it was relevant to today's activity; I had the impression the people of California are somehow responsible; sources later told me that in practice competitors usually rat on each other.)

-How many units have sold since February 2008?
(Again, Commissioner Byron felt this was not very relevant and did not need to be answered. However, sources later told me later that when a regulatory agency brings a case to the State's Attorney General this can be the first question the AG will ask. It is unclear if CEC has any penalty process or whether it is based on units sold.)

-Since the equipment was manufactured in Seoul, Korea and Qingdao, China, the individual wanted to know if this model met Chinese standards.
(But even I can see it is not relevant.)

Several sources noted that CEC has a limited experience and limited tools with enforcement. Although we agree, as the Chinese say, that the tiger should hide the claws, we do want to know know the tiger has claws and the tiger is watching.

- CEC Consumer site http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/ ==

California and China - Rail

noreply@blogger.com (santa cruz green watch) — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 23:47:00 +0000

Again, I can write no better than this NY Times article:

China Again Hopes to Drive U.S. Rail Construction - http://nyti.ms/cybQGY

But wish to note:

-China is offering to help build and help finance California's High Speed Rail
-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California has closely followed progress in the discussions with China and expects to visit China later this year
-China is opening 1200 miles of high speed rail (this year!)
-China to spend $300 B next 3 years on rail; US to spend $5 B (next 5 years)
-Beijing to Shanghai will take about 4 hours (2011-2012); the same distance in the US (NY to Chicago) takes 18 hours.
-GE is a partner with China Ministry of Railroads.