In 1980, during his campaign for the Democratic Party’s nomination for Congress in Silicon Valley, Marc Strassman told San Jose Mercury political reporter Aleta Watson, into whom he had run on the fringes of a demonstration in White Plaza at Stanford University, that the centerpiece of his campaign and of his potential incumbency was to get the federal government to support solar energy production, because doing so would create jobs, help the environment, and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. She laughed in his face.
Outspent $50,000 to $500 in the primary election, Strassman garnered over 22,000 votes, roughly 40% of the total, in districts ranging from East Palo Alto to Atherton, and including Palo Alto and Stanford.
Years later, Strassman ran for Mayor of the non-existent "Valley City," during the 2002 Secession Election in Los Angeles, at which time he campaigned on a platform focused on the accelerated universal deployment of high-speed broadband Internet access and the massive construction of solar generating capacity in the sun-drenched suburb as a way of protecting the environment, creating more jobs in the by-now largely-Hispanic area, and reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
Outspent this time $200,000 to $20 by an incumbent State Assemblymember, he finished eighth in a field of 10, with 4,132 votes. You can watch and listen to the “Solar Valley” candidate talk about the main non-solar focus of his campaign, universal, ubiquitous broadband Internet access, in TechTV’s coverage of that 2002 electoral exercise, below:
Now, hoping that the third time’s the charm, the erstwhile Congressional and mayoral candidate has launched an online campaign to qualify the "California Feed-In Tariff Initiative" for the November, 2008, ballot, in order to accelerate the deployment of solar and other renewable energy sources in California and the western U.S., and thereby create jobs, protect the environment, and reduce dependence on foreign oil and natural gas, and other sources of CO2 emissions.
What the $#%@& is a “feed-in tariff”?
What you’re probably asking yourself right now is: “What’s a feed-in tariff?”
“Currently, Californians with a photovoltaic system that generates electricity in excess of their own consumption, provide it to the utilities for free. Recent experience with California’s electrical system underscores a real need for reliable, zero emission electricity especially at peak usage times within the state’s load centers. The Energy Commission believes that excess solar generation delivered to the grid should be compensated through a feed-in tariff. The price paid for each kWh delivered to the grid should be based on the RPS [Renewable Portfolio Standard (the required level of renewable energy in a jurisdiction, a 15% federal version of which, although included in the House-passed energy bill, was recently jettisoned in the Senate due to a threatened veto by President Bush and opposition from Republicans there)] market price referent that includes a time-of-delivery adjustment. The Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission should work together to establish an appropriate feed-in tariff for excess solar electricity.”
Here, at greater length, is what the CEC said in a document it provided to the low-carbon footprint (most of its in-depth interviews about energy, the environment, and telecommunications are conducted remotely, using the SightSpeed videoconferencing platform), globally-distributed Etopia News Channel on December 14th:
Meeting California’s Renewable Energy Goals Using Feed-In Tariffs
“Feed-in tariffs are fixed, long-term prices that utilities are legally obligated to pay for renewable electricity. To ensure that renewable generation can ‘feed in’ to the grid, utilities are generally also required to interconnect all eligible renewables. Feed-in tariffs are based on the cost of generation plus a reasonable profit, and can be differentiated by technology, facility size, and date of operation.
“Among existing feed-in tariff systems, Germany’s is generally considered the most successful. Renewable generators receive a fixed payment for each kilowatt hour of generation for 20 years. The payments decline over time so that a generator beginning production in 2009 receives a lower payment than one beginning in 2008. The declining payment structure is periodically reviewed and adjusted to account for improved efficiencies from economies of scale and to encourage reduced costs over time. Different tariffs are paid to different technologies based on their cost of generation (plus a reasonable profit margin), their size, the technology used and, in the case of wind, the quality of the wind resource. Other countries offer a feed-in premium on top of the electricity price, or a feed-in premium that varies with the market price.
“Feed-in tariffs provide a number of benefits over the current pricing system that uses the market price referent set by the California Public Utilities Commission. They reduce uncertainty by setting a publicly-known price through a transparent public process that allows generators and utilities to know exactly what will be paid for renewable electricity. This certainty gives investors confidence and helps developers get lower-cost financing, while stimulating investment in California’s renewable energy market. The assurance of a supportive environment for renewables also encourages equipment manufacturers to expand production, which increases manufacturing and jobs.
“Under feed-in tariffs, market price risk is virtually non-existent and profitability depends on a project’s ability to control its costs. Feed-in tariffs are based on actual costs of generation, including the capital costs of building the facility, and can therefore be ratcheted downward as technologies improve and costs go down. For fuel-free technologies like wind and solar, a feed-in tariff puts pressure on technology manufacturers to provide low-cost, reliable systems to developers. In contrast, the market price referent is based largely on the cost of natural gas, which is extremely volatile. In addition, the market price referent tends to rise over time, particularly for projects not expected to begin operating until later years.
“Feed-in tariffs can also reduce the overall cost of meeting California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard. The current solicitation process has high administrative costs, with utilities and generators often negotiating for many months after a generator has been selected through a utility solicitation. A feed-in tariff system would establish a clear process for contract approval, with an up-front price that reflects both the costs and benefits of individual renewable technologies. In many cases, feed-in tariffs for certain renewable technologies in Europe and Canada are less than California’s 2007 market price referents. For example, some feed-in tariffs for wind technologies are as low as 6.2 cents per kilowatthour, while the 2007 market price referent for all renewable technologies ranges from 9.5 to 11.5 cents/kWh depending on the on-line date and contract term. Setting specific prices for specific technologies will help to control the cost of adding renewable generation to California’s portfolio.
“With the elimination of supplemental energy payments, the CPUC will now be making contract-by-contract subsidy decisions on an ad-hoc basis for renewable contracts. Setting an up-front price for renewables would not only eliminate the need for these decisions because the feed-in tariff would account for individual project need, but it also would make the process more transparent since the tariff would be determined through an open and public process. Also, in countries that offer feed-in tariffs, a strong home market has enabled renewable energy markets to show strong growth. This type of market is unlikely to develop from case-by-case decisions to allow above-market RPS contracts to be rolled into utility rates.
“Feed-in tariffs have been highly successful in Europe in increasing renewable generation. California’s RPS was intended to be performance-based, with a certain percentage of electricity generation coming from renewable generators. However, the percentage of renewable generation in California in 2006 was virtually the same as it was in 2002 when the program began (10.9 percent in 2006 versus 11 percent in 2002). Although the amount of renewable energy delivered has increased, it has not kept pace with the state’s increasing electric load. Meanwhile, Germany’s feed-in tariff has increased the percentage of renewable electricity from 6.3 percent in 2000 to 12.5 percent in 2007. As a result, Germany is now examining higher goals of 27 percent by 2020 and 45 percent by 2030.
“A 2005 report by the European Commission on supporting electricity from renewable sources concluded that European Union member states with feed-in tariffs have produced more renewables at lower prices than EU countries with RPS-type programs. A 2006 report on the economics of climate change by Sir Nicholas Stern, head of Britain’s Government Economic Service and former World Bank Chief Economist, also found that feed-in systems resulted in larger deployment of renewables at lower costs than did tradeable quotas.
“California already has what are essentially feed-in tariffs for various renewable technologies and projects. The California Solar Initiative offers fixed, performance-based incentives for photovoltaic installations larger than 100 kilowatts. Utilities are also currently required to offer standard contracts for renewable generation from public water or wastewater facilities, up to a total of 250 megawatts statewide, with the tariff set at the market price referent for the year in which the facilities begin operation. The CPUC has instituted a parallel program for about 230 megawatts that is open to customers other than public water and wastewater agencies. In addition, Southern California Edison offers a set of standard contracts set at the 2006 market price referent for biogas and biomass generators up to 20 MW in size.
“To implement a feed-in tariff system in California, these offers could be expanded to include all renewable technologies of any size. Instead of setting the price at the MPR, the state could undertake an extensive public process to set technology-specific feed-in tariffs based on each technology’s cost of generation, plus a reasonable profit margin, as well as environmental benefits such as greenhouse gas emission reductions. Periodically determining an appropriate cost plus return for generators is already within the traditional scope of work for rate regulators, and would likely be less daunting than basing the renewable market price referent on a long-term gas price forecast. Such a system should be developed in consultation with the California Energy Commission, the California Public Utilities Commission, and the California Independent System Operator, and include all affected stakeholders.”
now for something completely related to the proposed California feed-in tariff
You can watch below a recent (December 6, 2007) remotely-recorded (and hence having a low-carbon foot print) video interview by Mr. Strassman of Peter Meisen, President of the Global Energy Network Institute (GENI), based in San Diego, in which he talks about the EUMENA DESERTEC project to build a network of megawatt CSP (concentrating solar power) solar thermal electricity generating stations to bring electric power, millions of acre-feet of desalinated sea water, jobs, environmental benefits and cash to the land and people of North Africa and the Middle East, while providing for the export of the surplus electric power into the European Union via high-voltage DC cables running under the Mediterranean Sea. One proposal for financing this $10 billion project would involve creating an EU-wide feed-in-tariff, which could expand the process by which Germany, which has already famously instituted such a FIT, has, as reported in the longer CEC statement above, almost doubled its production of renewable electricity from 2000 to 2007.
enlisting the Office of Legislative Counsel‘s help in drafting the CalFIT INIT
The first step in putting the California Feed-In Initiative on the November, 2008, ballot is to ask the Office of Legislative Counsel (OLC) in Sacramento to assign someone to help draft it. A letter asking this agency, which writes legislation for California State Assemblymembers and Senators, as well as for proponents of ballot initiatives, to do this requires, under State law (specifically, Gov. C. § 10243), and. according to that office, “the signatures of 25 electors. Electors are persons who are 18 years of age, United States citizens, and residents of California. They need not be registered voters, although if they are, they obviously qualify.”
Taking full advantage of the low-carbon footprint-enabling “Internet Way” of collecting the required 25 signatures of “electors,” anyone now convinced of the value of at least drafting a California Feed-In Tariff Initiative can access a copy of a letter asking the OLC to assist in the drafting of the CalFIT INIT by clicking here, saving the .jpg image of the letter, printing it, signing it, having similarly-qualified friends, neighbors, co-workers and random strangers sign it, or copies of it, and mailing these pages to CalFIT’s Los Angeles office at 11905 Kling Street, Suite 17, Valley Village, CA 91607.
isn‘t collecting signatures by mail a bit old-fashioned?
This regrettably archaic way of documenting legally-valid personal subscriptions would not be necessary if CalFIT initiator Strassman’s proposed Smart Initiatives Initiative had qualified and been passed into law by voters when it was first introduced, seven years ago, in 2000. Smart Initiatives is a system by which “electors” can digitally affix their legal signatures to proposed ballot initiative petitions online. Unfortunately, the Smart Initiatives Initiative was not at that time able to take advantage of the itself in order to qualify itself for the ballot. Nor could it now.
Smart Initiatives “would have allowed citizens in states where the initiative process was in place to sign such proposed legislation, not in parking lots and malls, but in the comfort and security of their own homes, using the reach and power of the Internet to affix digital signatures to virtual petitions as a way of officially registering their desire to see a substantive change in the laws that govern them put before the people of their state for an up-or-down vote.”
You can still listen to Smart Initiatives instigator Marc Strassman testify in support of his Smart Initiatives plan before former California Assembly Speaker Robert Herzberg’s Speaker‘s Commission on the California Initiative Process on January 22, 2001, two days after the first inauguration of George W. Bush as President of the U.S., by clicking here.
If all that hasn’t been enough to satiate your craving for technopolitical discourse, you can watch a video from 2000 of Mr. Strassman discussing Smart Initiatives and related e-government issues and projects below.
don’t forget to download, sign, and mail the Letter to the Office of Legislative Counsel asking for its help in drafting the California Feed-In Tariff Initiative
Don’t forget to download a copy of the letter asking the Office of Legislative Council to assist in the drafting of the California Feed-In Tariff Initiative (CalFIT) by clicking here, saving the .jpg image of the letter, printing it, signing it, getting others to sign it, and mailing it to CalFIT’s LA Office at 11905 Kling Street, Suite 17, Valley Village, CA 91607.
letter to California’s Office of Legislative Counsel, asked for help drafting the California Feed-In Tariff Initiative
