Strong Corporate Influence in Energy-Efficiency Research at UC Davis

This week UC Davis announced that the Chevron Corporation has given UC Davis $2.5 million to create a permanent leadership position for the campus's Energy Efficiency Center.

According to a January 13, 2009 release from the University:

"The person appointed to the Chevron Chair in Energy Efficiency will direct the center, which was established in 2006. The world's first university center of excellence in energy efficiency, its primary objective is to speed the transfer of energy-saving products and services into the homes, businesses and lives of Californians.

The new Chevron gift brings the center's funding total to more than $7.5 million. The center's start-up funding of $1 million came from the California Clean Energy Fund, a public benefit corporation dedicated to making equity investments in clean energy companies. UC Davis matched the CalCEF grant with $1.3 million in operating and research funds, faculty time, and office and laboratory space. Other key funders include Pacific Gas and Electric Corp., Edison International, Sempra Energy, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Goldman Sachs."

Speaking today at an event announcing the new Chevron gift, UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef said: "Chevron's endowment will ensure long-term strategic leadership for the Energy Efficiency Center. By bridging long-term research with real-world applications, the director will guide the center in its goal of commercializing groundbreaking technologies, powering economic progress and helping to conserve resources."

The campus will conduct a national search for the person to hold the Chevron Chair, who will expand the impact of the center's research programs through interdisciplinary collaboration, education, outreach and commercialization of technologies. He or she also will continue developing strong links with state and federal government, as well as with international programs.

"Advancing energy efficiency, which is the cheapest, cleanest and most abundant form of new energy, is critical to the challenge of meeting the world's growing energy needs," said John McDonald, Chevron vice president and chief technology officer.

"California has been a pacesetter in energy efficiency, so it's fitting that one of the state's leading universities and California's largest company should partner on the next generation of energy efficiency."

The endowment for the Chevron Chair complements Chevron's ongoing support for UC Davis, which includes a $500,000 gift in 2008 for the Energy Efficiency Center and a $25 million biofuels research collaboration begun in 2006 to develop technology to convert nonfood agricultural waste into next-generation transportation fuels.

Sounds good right? The university getting millions of money from a large variety of huge corporations to fund research on energy-efficiency. One question that immediately arose was a seeming contradiction in a company like Chevron, that makes the bulk of its money selling oil, funding research for energy efficiency, a rising new field that would eventually imperil oil sales.

Indeed, as the background on the press stated:

"Chevron explores for, produces and transports crude oil and natural gas; refines, markets and distributes transportation fuels and other energy products; manufactures and sells petrochemical products; generates power and produces geothermal energy; provides energy efficiency solutions; and develops the energy resources of the future, including biofuels and other renewables."

The Vanguard spoke with Ben Finkelor of the Energy Efficiency Center. He strongly defended the contribution. First he explained that Chevron has created a separate endowment specifically to support energy efficiency. He believes that Chevron and other large companies have as much to gain by energy efficiency as any one else.

He also suggested that such donations have never come with any strings attached. They have never been told what to do by Chevron or any other company. This is simply a new market for the future.

While Ben Finkelor certainly gave an impassioned defense of the reliance on corporate funding for academic research, there still seems to be glaring contradictions in such policies. After all the development of fuel efficient technologies would seem to inherently need to focus on the reduction of the use of oil companies. Is this simply a way for Chevron to earn positive process? Is there a hope that they can somehow make these research centers beholden to their interests among many corporate interests? Or is it as Ben Finkelor suggests, a matter that Chevron has a separate wing devoted to the development of new fuels and fuel efficiency?

It is hard to know for certain. It will be interesting to see who is eventually hired as Chair as the result of this gift. However, one does have to question companies particularly like PG&E and Edison pumping money into fuel efficiency programs.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Heystek Holds Staff Accountable for Completion of Projects

During budget discussions this past Tuesday, Councilmember Lamar Heystek pressed on the timeline for a number of projects.

"The reason why I am asking is because I noticed on attachment A that staff is deferring funding pending this report, but I believe that since we're making these budget recommendations it would behoove us to put money where our mouths are for the next year's budget, so when it comes time to make motions I will be motioning to appropriate an amount to cover design."

Heystek brought up the issue of the solar panels at community pool. He asked for the timeline of replacement or removal of that entity.

In 2004, twenty-four years after the project was built, Tim Townsend, a mechanical engineer specializing in solar power, went before the Davis City Council and informed them that in fact, the solar panels do not work and have never worked. Despite this fact, this is a signature project of the city with pictures of them have regularly featured on city literature touting Davis's "greenness" and commitment to the environment.

The following is from the minutes of the March 16, 2004 City Council meeting:

"Tim Townsend questioned the usefulness of the city’s largest solar panel at Community Park pool. He alleged that the solar panel does not work and has never worked. He reported that he has spoken to city staff and has not received a satisfactory response other than a statement that it would be too costly to remove. He stated solar panels should be a matter of civic pride and everyone that visits Community Park is lead to believe that the panels actually work. He asked that Council consider removing the panels"

It was only at this point that Bob Weir began to study the problem. At the November 29, 2004 City Council Meeting Weir and Donna Silva, Parks and Community Services Director came back with a Capital Improvement Program to replace the non-functioning solar hot-water heating system at Community Park. This was projected to cost $41,000 in addition to over $100,000 (in 1980 dollars) spent on the initial project.

This issue came up again on Tuesday when Heystek asked for a progress report for repairs and restoration. Bob Weir told the council this past Tuesday that plans were proceeding. He said:

"The next step is basically a cost estimate, that is what it would take to refurbish this facility essentially as is."

This represents a fundamental failure, not of this council, but rather of previous councils to hold vendors accountable for their work and projects. The city spent considerable money in 1980 for something that has never worked. The city now is going to have to consider spending more money because of their failure to ensure that the project worked to begin with.

Heystek would press the issue later with his motions that attempt to hold staff accountable for their projects.

"I want to signal the council's commitment to the city that we are putting our money where our mouths are regarding design of the facility [Walnut Park pool], whatever it is, whatever the project total is, whatever is being projecting by staff. And I just think that having participated in a joint meeting with the council as a member of the park commission and having the council given previous direction to get some facility built. [He reads from the minutes of that meeting...]. It's now over two years later and I would like to be able to locate at least 10 percent of the project total and some sort of funding mechanism, and I think that the park impact fees is the most appropriate source."

Heystek asked for the council to bring back some sort of recommendation to finish it.

Saylor's response was basically that we are working on it and that these things take time. Heystek did not get a second for his proposal.

There is a consistent pattern in this city that projects that are approved either do not get completed properly or get completed on time. This problem is due to lack of oversight and scrutiny. Another problem is the problem with the surface of the road on Covell between Sycamore and Anderson. The road is warped, it was never completed properly and it has been warped for over 10 years. No one held the construction people accountable for their work product.

Throughout this discussion Heystek pressed staff for timelines and assurances that projects approved by council would be completed in a timely fashion. The council majority was not interested in pressing these issues. And moreover, at times Saylor and Souza, both of whom sit on the subcommittee, acted as apologists for staff. Davis residents have paid real money into many of these uncompleted or poorly completed projects. They have also poured money into projects that have fallen into disrepair. It was refreshing to see Councilmember Heystek press for these projects.

What is interesting is that fiscally responsible Don Saylor, who earlier on Tuesday opposed annexation of West Village based on fiscal considerations, does not have the same fervor for fiscal responsibility in this regard. Indeed he continually apologized for staff and acted on their behalf. This does not seem an appropriate role of a councilmember who should be holding staff to the motions and regulations passed by council and if things do not follow the trajectory laid out by council, should ensure that they get back on track.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Talk is Cheap, We Need Real Environmentalism

It was interesting reading the Davis Enterprise on Thursday evening about the City Council's overtures toward a greener and more energy efficient city. And let me be clear, this absolutely should be a priority.

Outlined on Wednesday evening at a joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting were a number of seemingly strong and bold initiatives including stronger green policies for redevelopment projects and Stephen Souza's "pre-written green manifesto ranging from cleaner air and water to environmentally sound "carpet systems" and avoiding "migratory bird collisions."

As I say, all of this sounds good, but perhaps we ought to review a little track record of the City of Davis in this area.

One of the signature projects of a "green" Davis in the last 25 plus years was the 1980 construction of a solar panel heating complex in the Davis Community Park.

In 2004, twenty-four years after the project was built, Tim Townsend, a mechanical engineer specializing in solar power, went before the Davis City Council and informed them that in fact, the solar panels do not work and have never worked. The following is from the minutes of the March 16, 2004 City Council meeting:

"Tim Townsend questioned the usefulness of the city’s largest solar panel at Community Park pool. He alleged that the solar panel does not work and has never worked. He reported that he has spoken to city staff and has not received a satisfactory response other than a statement that it would be too costly to remove. He stated solar panels should be a matter of civic pride and everyone that visits Community Park is lead to believe that the panels actually work. He asked that Council consider removing the panels"

It was only at this point that Bob Weir began to study the problem. At the November 29, 2004 City Council Meeting Weir and Donna Silva, Parks and Community Services Director came back with a Capital Improvement Program to replace the non-functioning solar hot-water heating system at Community Park. This was projected to cost $41,000 in addition to over $100,000 (in 1980 dollars) spent on the initial project.

That report reads:

"Over time the system had several significant operational problems that facilities personnel were never able to overcome. Basically there were problems with the temperature control of the facility as well as repeated problems with leaking connections. For these reasons, many years ago, the system was taken out of service and a conventional water heating system was installed for the pool."

Of course, what this report did not mention was the initial cost of the solar panel project nor does it mention that this project was often included on city brochures advertising the City of Davis as the progressive and environmentally friendly mecca.

I harken back to this failed project of years past, because in many ways the current proposals represent a continuation of those types of follies. The biggest example is putting the new Target in a LEED certified building.

From Thursday's Davis Enterprise:

"The city's Natural Resources Commission is expected to receive a report based on the nonprofit Build it Green program, a points system that tracks green and sustainable features built into a home.

Build it Green's cousin, the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, is a voluntary national standard for high-performance, sustainable buildings. It has focused mostly on commercial buildings, such as the Target slated to be built on Second Street near Mace Boulevard. The LEED standards also will be considered for implementation."

The problem with the "green manifesto" is the same problem as exists with a LEED cerfied Target Building--you are doing window dressing environmentalism to cover up for city planning policies that at the whole are unstainable into the future and inherently environmentally unfriendly. Who cares if we place a Target in a LEED Building if we contribute to the carbon footprint that Target is leaving on this earth? Who cares if we are going to build with new and greener standards if we continue to grow and develop in inefficient and non-sustainable manners. If our future growth leads to the degredation of environmental resources such as water that we will have to siphon out of the Sacramento River.

The Council majority of Souza-Saylor-Asmundson are the people who bring us a LEED-cerfitied Target building and were the same people who brought us the Covell Village development project that would have put a huge strain on existing resources including water, that will increasingly be a huge issue. And yet they want us to believe they are environmentalists? Why because they can certify buildings as they build on open space, drain wetlands, and develop farm land? Because not one of them acknowledged that Covell Village would have been a mistake? That even last year, Asmundson running for reelection claimed that the problem with Covell Village was their failure to explain it properly to the voters?

If Davis wants to be a green city by actual behavior rather than by visible but overall unuseful means, then we need to start planning a city that will be environmentally responsible and not just in our own backyards, but also at the regional and a global level and none of these policies seem geared toward that realization.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting