Professional Portfolio and Selected Work Samples

Matthew I. Slavin, Ph.D.

ØStrategy and Policy Documents and White Papers

ØTechnical Research Studies and Reports

ØRegulatory Communications and Filings

ØMarketing and Advocacy Communications

ØJournal and Newspaper Articles and Book Chapters

 Monday, January 7, 2019
$2 | VOL. 256, No. 315
It’s time for a $1 trillion national
infrastructure bank
As the new year begins, Congress
should place high on its order of
business enactment of a 10-year, $1
trillion national infrastructure act.
It should provide investment capi-
tal to renew, rebuild and harden the
nation’s transportation, water and
wastewater, energy and other crit-
ical infrastructure. The $1 trillion
should be made available each year
in tranches of $100 billion.
The need is clear and present, as
delineated in the American Society
of Civil Engineers’ (ASCE) most re-
cent national infrastructure report
card. It gave the nation’s infra-
structure a grade of D – one grade
removed from failure. Among the
most pressing needs it named:
• $2 trillion for surface transpor-
tation, including highways, roads
and bridges (only an estimated $942
billion funding is available, leaving
a gap greater than $1 trillion)
• $105 billion for water and
wastewater infrastructure
• $177 billion for electric trans-
mission and distribution infra-
structure
• $200 billion for airports and
marine ports, rail networks, inland
waterways and dams
• $102 billion for public parks
and recreation infrastructure
All told, ASCE has identified a
shortfall of more than $2 trillion for
investment in national infrastruc-
ture assets through 2025. This is
more than 40 percent of the $4.5
trillion that needs to be invested
through mid-next decade.
There’s no shortage of ideas.
Industry groups, labor interests,
politicians, universities and think
tanks have all weighed in. To be
most effective, a forward-looking
The Daily Journal of Commerce
CURRENTS OF CHANGE
Matt Slavin
national infrastructure program
should heed the following:
First, and most importantly,
smart infrastructure policy requires
that highest-value investments be
prioritized, with projects being
evaluated on a case-by-case basis
while eschewing the next shiny ob-
ject. A national infrastructure bank
should be organized along lines
similar to the Federal Reserve, with
regional banks weighing proposals
and making investment decisions
under the aegis of a central board
composed of congressionally
confirmed officials. Organizing
along the decentralized lines of the
Fed will allow confluence with eco-
nomic realities on the ground while
helping insulate it against political
hijacking of investment decisions.
Capital raised through sale of
private activity bonds by regional
banks would be used to issue loans
during each appropriations cycle
for projects located within a bank’s
geographic region. The regional
or district banks would collect
repayment of the principal and
interest to be recycled to make new
loans in the manner of a revolving
loan fund. Over time the banks
would become self-sustainable.
The treasury, via the infrastructure
Contents copyrighted 2019 by Daily Journal of Commerce. All rights reserved.
bank, would insure the bonds
against default to optimize low-
cost financing.
Infrastructure bank investments
should require matching funds,
a baseline requirement being a
20 percent match, as is generally
required for federal transit projects,
for example.
Investment criteria needs to
acknowledge the different levels of
government by which our infra-
structure is built, financed and
operated as well as that much of
our infrastructure is provided by
private business. Steadily grow-
ing in popularity, public-private
partnerships should be encouraged
by according private activity bonds
the same tax advantage accorded
publicly financed infrastructure
bonds when projects are under-
taken under the aegis of a regional
infrastructure bank.
High-value projects for which
loan repayment is difficult could
be placed on a sliding scale or
loans made forgivable, effectively
converting them into grants, while
smaller projects could be aggre-
gated to achieve the best financing
terms.
Projects should be prioritized
based on objective scoring method-
Portland, Oregon
ology that weighs favorably invest-
ments that will reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and build resilience
in the face of extreme weather
events like drought, hurricanes,
flooding and rising sea levels.
Priority should likewise be given
to projects that are smart-grid en-
abled and that harden the nation’s
infrastructure against cyberattack.
Allocation of the money to fund
the infrastructure bank will require
courage by Congress. It will likely
need to reallocate money autho-
rized elsewhere along with debt
issuance and/or tax increases,
including raising and indexing the
federal gas tax, which hasn’t been
raised in 25 years.
ASCE estimates that failure to
make needed infrastructure invest-
ments will reduce national GDP
by $3.9 trillion and cost the nation
2.5 million jobs over the 10-year
period while McKinsey estimates
raising U.S. infrastructure spend-
ing by 1 percent of GDP would add
1.5 million jobs to the economy.
Creating a national infrastruc-
ture bank won’t totally solve the
nation’s infrastructure investment
deficit. But it will go a long way
toward repositioning the nation
to effectively compete in the
modern economy while meeting
the public’s need for healthy, safe,
accessible and reliable public
infrastructure. An infrastructure
bank is exactly the type of national
endeavor that all of us should be
able to agree on.
Matt Slavin founded M.I. Slavin to provide
consulting in project management, strategic
planning, research and communications. Contact
him at 503-619-5601 or matt@mislavin.com.
 2 Feature
Where the
Wind Blows
and Sun Shines:
A Comparative Analysis
of State Renewal Energy By Matthew Slavin, Ph.D.
Standards
America’s state governments are at
the forefront of efforts to expand
the nation’s supply of renewable energy.
Renewable energy standards (RES)
comprise the cornerstone of these
initiatives. RES is by far the most widely
used mechanism by states to expand
renewable energy production and
NORTH AMERICA
consumption. Fully 29 states have
adopted some form of a mandatory RES.
RES is also in place in the District of
Columbia. And Vermont has a goal that
so far has been voluntary, but which may
become mandatory by 2013.
RENEWABLE ENERGY WORLD
What follows is an assessment of
how different states have structured
their RES programs, what similarities
they share and what differentiates them.
Renewable energy standards are complex
instruments and this assessment is not
intended to be exhaustive. It focuses
on five selected examples of state RES
initiatives to highlight key features upon
which these programs are founded. States
use a number of different names for
their RES programs including renewable
energy portfolios. For simplicity, all will be
referred to as renewable energy stan-
dards. A primer on how RES is supposed
to work offers a useful point of departure.
How Renewable Energy
Standards Work
State RES programs share a basic com-
mon thread. They place a mandatory
obligation on electric utilities to generate
a specified percentage of the electricity
they sell to their consumers from renew-
able energy technologies. The underlying
concept is that RES will foster competi-
tion, efficiency and innovation to create
a market that expands renewable energy
generation and drives economies of scale
that lower the cost of renewable produc-
tion such that it is competitive with
conventional fossil fuel generation.
RES mandates vary from state to state.
Each state has designed its RES to account
for a range of state-specific conditions and
policy priorities. These include available
wind, solar and other renewable energy
potential in a state; reducing greenhouse
gas emissions and mitigating other
environmental externalities associated
with fossil fuels; and lowering electricity
costs to consumers. Other goals include
diversifying the energy mix to protect
against potential fuel interruptions and
attracting wind and solar farms, product
manufacturers and research and devel-
opment facilities to promote economic
development and job creation.
Every state with RES includes pho-
 Feature 3

Mandatory Renewable Energy Standards, 2010 Table 1

State Year* Goal** Compliance

Arizona 2006 15% by 2025; distributed 30% of annual requirement IOUs, co-ops
California 2002 20% by 2010; 33% by 2020 IOUs; munis must self-implement
Colorado 2004 IOUs 30% by 2020; 10% by 2020 for munis/co-ops IOUs; munis/co-ops w/40k customers
Connecticut 1998 27% by 2020; technology minimums IOUs, munis
Delaware 2005 20% by 2020 IOUs, munis, co-ops
D.C. 2005 20% by 2020 PEPCO, only serving utility
Hawaii 2001 40% by 2020; up from 205 in 2004 IOUs (Hawaiian Electric)
Illinois 2007 25% by 2025; 75% of requirement from wind 4 IOUs w/+100k customers and CES
Iowa 1983 105 MW IOUs
Kansas 2009 20% by 2020 IOUs, some co-ops
Maine 1999 40% by 2017; 10% for new resources All competitive electricity providers
Maryland 2004 20% by 2022; tiered, tier 1 most, tier 2 hydro IOUs, munis, co-ops
Massachusetts 1997 15 % by 2020, additional 1% per year afterward IOUs
Michigan 2008 10% by 2015 + for Detroit Edison and Consumers Energy IOUs, munis, co-ops
Minnesota 2007 30% by 2020 for Xcel; 25% by 2025 for others IOUs, munis, power districts, co-ops
Missouri 2008 15% by 2021 IOUs
Montana 2005 15% by 2015 IOUs only, others to show good faith
Nevada 1997 25% by 2015; 5-6% of requirement from solar IOUs
New Hampshire 2007 23.8% by 2025 IOUs, co-ops
New Jersey 1999 22.5% by 2021 includes 5.3 GW solar requirement IOUs
New Mexico 2007 IOUs 20% by 2020; Co-ops 10% by 2020 IOUs, Co-ops
New York 2004 30% by 2015 IOUs; LIPO and NYPA cooperating
North Carolina 2007 IOUs 12.5% by 2021; 10% by 2018 for munis/co-ops IOUs, munis, co-ops
Ohio 2009 25% by 2025, includes clean coal and advanced nuclear IOUs
Oregon 2007 Large utilities 25%, small utilities 5-10% by 2025 IOUs, munis, public districts, co-ops
Pennsylvania 2004 By Tier, 8-10%, includes waste coal and coal gas IOUs
Rhode Island 2004 16% by 2020 IOU (Narragansett Electric)
Texas 2005 5,880 MW by 2015; 10,000 MW by 2025 IOUs
Vermont*** 2005 20% by 2017 All retail utilities
Washington 2006 15% by 2020 IOUs, munis, districts, co-ops 25k cust.
Wisconsin 1999 10% by 2015, varies by utility IOUs, munis, co-ops
NORTH AMERICA

*Year signifies when RES first enacted. This may differ from the year RES went into effect.
**Goal is final year target based upon latest revisions to state RES. Many states include requirement
for wholesale suppliers in addition to distribution utilities.
*** Vermont’s SPEED program is voluntary. If the Public Service Commission determines in 2012 that
RENEWABLE ENERGY WORLD

utilities are lagging, the requirement becomes mandatory in January 2013

Qualifying Resources:
All States: PV, wind, hydro, biomass, landfill gas, biofuels.
Other resources include anaerobic digestion, fuel cells, geothermal, municipal waste, hydropower,
ocean thermal, wave, tidal, solar space, solar thermal, solar water, distributed generation,
cogeneration.

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy (DSIRE) as of April 2, 2010.
__ - ..=;-........,,;;i-';"=....:;- ,_.••

--'-===- ,,--
A MEDIA GENERAL NEWSPAPER FINAL-N
IN RICH. COM
"".,., - - •..: .., •." -:-;"r --;--

GLOBAL WARMING

Virginia Has Options.to Address Climate Change

BY MATTHEW SLAVIN bates and other incentives that encourage house- pricing to households. putting in place electric rate
and JASON ZELLER holds to install low-flow showerheads and front-load- schedules that encourage consumers to shift tasks
ing washing machines. After home heating, water such as dish and clotheswashing, which for many do
ARLINGTON heating is the second largest source of home energy not need to be done at any particular time oUhe day,

C
limate change has emerged as an increasing consumption. Low-flow showerheads and front-Ioad- to off-peak hours, accompanied by technology that al-
concern of the American people. So says an ingwashers use less hot water, reducing energy con- lows home computers to monitor energy use in real
October 2007 public opinion poll by CNNI sumption. They also lower overall water usage, im- time, a product of energy efficiency inspired business
Opinion Research Corp., which found that 66 percent portant in a state where, according to the National market innovation.
of Americans believe that the United States should Drought Mitigation Center, 86 of 95 counties are ex-
do what it can to combat global warming. periencing severe to extreme drought conditions. THE GREATEST potential for energy savings and
Virginia took an important step to meet this chal- An example of the potential these types of initia- reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is to be found
lenge earlier this year when the General Assembly tives hold can be found in California, where the Cali- in the transportation sector_Virginia could follow the
set a goal of a la-percent reduction in electricity con- fornia Public Utilities Commission recently approved example of Washington State, which since 1991 has
sumption statewide by 2022 from 2006 levels. Utili- $2.2 billion in what are called utility rate credits Lo required urban-area companies employing more than
ties regulated by the State Corporation Commission expand these and other programs aimed at conserv- 100 to reduce the number of measurable employee
(SCC) are responding by seeking SCC approval to ing energy and expanding renewable energy rush-hour automobile commute trips. Employers do
implement programs that include educating consum- generation.. so by offering incentives - free bus and rail passes,
ers on the value of conserving energy, selling energy- computerized ride matching, shuttles, and work-at·
saving compact fluorescent lighting at discounted TIME OF USE Pricing (TaU) is another approach home opportunities, to name a few .
prices, free home and business energy audits, and Virginia could benefit from. TaU provides an eco- While the Washington program is mandatory, Vir-
buying surplus on-site power generation from private nomic incentive to consumers to shift their energy ginia could achieve the same effect by offering tax in-
industries for resale to other customers. use to off-peak periods and thereby reduce the need centive& to participating companies. In addition to
The General Assembly's action is commendable. for new electrical generating resources. States in the addressing global wanning, this offers the added ben-
The goal of limiting Virginia's contribution to global Pacific Northwest have long used TaU pricing to en- efits of lowering reliance upon imported oil and help-
warming can further benefit from the experiences of courage industrial manufacturers to shift production ing to reduce traffic congestion, perhaps the most in-
other states in reducing energy consumption. Partic- from heavy electricity demand periods to off-peak tractable problem facing Northern Virginia today.
ularly in the western IJ.S., states have'a history of act- times by charging industry a lower cost per kilowatt With a new General Assembly to convene in Rich-
ing aggressively to save energy dating back two dec· hour during non-peak than peak periods. Major com- mond mJanuary 2008, the tiine is right to put into
ades or more. . panies with names like Boeing and Alcoa responded place these and other practices that can combat
Among the steps that Virginia should consider are by scheduling production at airframe manufacturing global wanning and in the process help mitigate traf·
the following, presented in ascending order with re- plants and aluminum smelters to take advantage of fie congestion, bolster energy security, and enhance
gard to greatest energy savings potentia) and com- these cost savings. By lowering business operating economic competitiveness.
plexity of putting them into practice. costs, TOU offers the added benefit of enhancing the
economic competitiveness of these companies. • Matthew Slavin. president olSlavln Consulting Group. has had a
20·year career in energy planning and urban and regional
THE GENERAL Assembly could request the SCC More recently, states as diverse as Oregon, Ari· development. Jason Zeller is assistant chief counsei With the California
tQJ; . . .. . re ates to offer financial reo zona, and Wisconsin have transferred time of use Public Utiltties Commission.
,.' '''.\'
Monday, November 5, 2018
$2 | VOL. 256, No. 289
Preparation for electrification of transportation
It might be a stretch to refer to
the electrification of transportation
as a holy grail, but only slightly.
The Edison Electric Institute,
the electric utility industry’s main
trade group, calls electrification of
transportation (EOT) the indus-
try’s biggest opportunity. It’s not
hard to see why. Bloomberg New
Energy Finance projects that by
2040, annual global electricity
consumption from electric vehi-
cles could rise 3,000-fold, from six
terawatt hours to 1,800 terawatt
hours. Market research firm Frost
& Sullivan projects electric vehicle
(EV) prices will achieve parity with
internal combustion vehicle prices
by 2025, when 8 percent of new
vehicles registered will be electric,
up from 1.4 percent now.
The technology sector is on
board, seeing EOT as a miss-
ing link in creating “Internet of
Things” smart city connectivity.
Environmentalists see EOT as a key
to reducing globally warming fossil
fuel emissions. Wall Street insiders
are eyeing traditionally stodgy
electric utility equities and stocks
of makers of transformers and
other electric system components
needed for EOT as long-term buys.
State governments will play a
leading role in forging the EOT
ecosystem because their public
utility commissions regulate elec-
tric utilities that own and operate
the electric distribution lines,
substations and associated infra-
structure upon which EV charging
depends. (Investor-owned utilities
are regulated by PUCs; public-
ly-owned utilities are regulated by
governing boards of directors usu-
ally composed of elected officials.)
Some utilities also own nonregu-
lated companies that operate the
approximately 16,000 street-level
EV charging stations installed
throughout the U.S. That number
that will grow exponentially.
The Daily Journal of Commerce
CURRENTS OF CHANGE
Matt Slavin
Optimizing EOT raises a number
of issues. These include:
• identifying and quantifying
potential benefits and risks EOT
presents for electric utilities,
their residential, commercial and
industrial customers and soci-
ety in general, including climate
resilience;
• identifying the infrastructure
investments needed to build out
the EOT ecosystem;
• determining how the invest-
ment costs should be apportioned
between utilities and nonregulat-
ed competitors, government and
consumers;
• determining whether EOT
infrastructure costs should be re-
covered from ratepayers as a whole
or only those who directly use EV
charging; and
• discussing how financial
and regulatory incentives can be
used to accelerate development
of the EOT ecosystem, including
in underserved urban areas and
nonmetropolitan areas that may
not see early EV adoption.
In this context, several issues
are paramount.
When forging EOT policy, it’s
important to take a big picture
view. Most states are divided into
utility service areas, but the big-
gest gains won’t be achieved until
seamless connectivity of EOT in-
frastructure can be established not
only within service areas but also
between service areas both within
Contents copyrighted 2018 by Daily Journal of Commerce. All rights reserved.
states and between states to allow
for substantial mobility. A patch-
work system in which EVs can be
charged in one service area but not
in adjoining areas will substantial-
ly sub-optimize the benefits that
EOT can otherwise bestow.
Next is the need to recognize
that optimization of EOT will
require massive investments in
modernization of electric trans-
mission and distribution grids.
They must be strengthened so
they can support the substantial-
ly higher loads implied by EOT
and more seamlessly balance the
nation’s growing renewable energy
generation portfolio. Advanced
grid architecture that integrates
into the bulk power system, cus-
tomer-owned distributed energy
resources, smart metering systems
and storage technology such as
battery storage and power to gas
technologies will be needed.
Public support needs to be
built, and will require effective
media awareness campaigns to
explain the benefits of EOT. As EVs
gain parity with internal com-
bustion vehicles, EOT should be
presented as offering consumers
new mobility choices with lower
lifetime costs and environmental
benefits. There’s a particular need
to emphasize the benefits of EOT
for non-adopters – consumers who
choose for whatever reason not to
buy electric vehicles. Showing how
all customers can benefit through
Portland, Oregon
lower bills when utility-fixed costs
for generation, transmission and
distribution are spread across
more kilowatt-hours needed for
EOT optimization can be a persua-
sive message.
As with many challenges that
lie at the intersection of govern-
ment and business, forming a task
force to make recommendations
on EOT policy, regulation, finance
and messaging is a good idea. The
core of such a task force should
be drawn from utilities, automak-
ers, regulatory authorities and
other state and local government
stakeholders, EOT ecosystem trade
allies, and not-for-profit public
interest advocates. Involvement
should be geographically diverse
with the aim of getting broad-
based buy-in.
A good place to start is with
lessons from states that have
established reputations as early
adopters. Among these are: Ha-
waii, Maryland, California, Illinois,
Ohio, Minnesota and Washington.
The latter has created a $10 million
fund to make matching grants to
local governments or public and
private electrical utilities for pilot-
ing approaches to EOT.
At more than $1.4 trillion, trans-
portation ranks only behind health
care, housing and food as a major
sector contributing to U.S. gross
domestic product. It will take years
before the full benefits of EOT will
be realized, and there’s a lot of
unpredictability ahead. Those that
get early starts in addressing the
issues will best position them-
selves as early beneficiaries of
what may be one of history’s great-
est economic transformations.
Matt Slavin in 2018 founded M.I. Slavin to
provide consulting in project management,
strategic planning, research and communica-
tions. Contact him at 503-619-5601 or matt@
mislavin.com.
Monday, May 6, 2019
$2 | VOL. 257, No. 50
Attention turns to geoengineering
to address climate change
Communities relying on beach
restoration to fend off erosion
due to rising sea levels are facing
a crisis. The globe is facing a
shortage of sand, The Economist
has reported.
After water, sand is the sec-
ond-most consumed resource
globally. With projections that
the world will have 43 megaci-
ties with more than 10 million
inhabitants by 2030, demand
for sand to build roads as well
as make concrete and glass and
other accoutrements of urban life
has risen inexorably as the world
rapidly urbanizes.
Sand seems like a low-tech
solution in a world increasingly
likely to look to technology to
address climate change. That is
the message that came out of a
March meeting in Nairobi that
considered a proposal to have the
U.N. Environmental Programme
study geoengineering to combat
climate change. The proposal was
killed due to opposition by the
United States and Saudi Arabia
with backing from the hydrocar-
bons industry.
Pricing carbon emissions
and electrification of energy
are the two most direct paths
to decarbonization. But car-
bon pricing and electrification
may not be enough to forestall
overshoot – a 1.5-degree Celsius
rise in global average tem-
perature above pre-industrial
levels at which point climate
change’s most catastrophic dis-
ruptions would be triggered.
Hence, there is rising interest
in geoengineering.
Geoengineering is an umbrella
term that involves manipulating
The Daily Journal of Commerce
CURRENTS OF CHANGE
Matt Slavin
the Earth’s natural processes to
attenuate either the build-up of
atmospheric carbon dioxide or its
effects. The proposal rejected in
March would have had the U.N.
Environmental Programme study
two approaches: carbon dioxide
removal (CDR) and solar radia-
tion management (SRM).
The most technologically
mature CDR process is bioenergy
with carbon capture and storage
(BECCS). It involves burning bio-
mass to generate electricity and
scrubbing the resulting emissions
to separate carbon and store it
underground in large geological
formations that can contain the
gas for at least a long time if not
for eternity. Burning biomass and
capturing and storing the emis-
sions produces negative carbon
dioxide emissions because the
feedstock is sourced from wood
and other materials derived from
plants that absorb carbon dioxide
(Unlike coal-carbon capture and
storage, since coal doesn’t absorb
carbon dioxide).
BECCS has been tested and
works. It’s also expensive, energy
intensive, and practical mainly in
areas where there are proximal
geologic structures to store the
carbon. Scaling up BECCS to deal
Contents copyrighted 2019 by Daily Journal of Commerce. All rights reserved.
with overshoot on a global level
would take time, and it’s unclear
if enough land is available to
grow enough biomass to enable
BWCCS to make a difference.
SRM solutions are based on
conceptual models and have
yet to be tested in practice. One
approach called stratospheric
aerosol injection (SAI) would
seek to cool the earth’s surface by
pumping gases into the strato-
sphere to reflect some of the sun’s
heat. Simulations suggest it could
be effective; however, it would
be difficult to scale to global pro-
portions, and doing it in just one
country could trigger catastroph-
ic weather events in another.
Another SRM approach, ma-
rine cloud brightening (MCB),
would involve spraying sea salt
into marine clouds to reflect
sunlight. Simulations suggest it
would work at a regional level,
although with the potential for
disruptions (albeit more localized
than those associated with SAI). A
third approach would use chem-
icals for cirrus cloud thinning
(CCT), reducing the clouds’ heat
trapping effect and allowing more
long-wave radiation to escape
into space, cooling the earth’s
surface.
Portland, Oregon
The practicability of geoen-
gineering to remediate climate
overshoot remains to be de-
termined. Less uncertain are
the catastrophic consequences
that failure to effectively tackle
climate change portends. Such
events are of the sort of floods,
hurricanes and wildfires we’ve
seen over the past two years in
Puerto Rico, North Carolina, Cal-
ifornia, Nebraska and throughout
the Midwest, and along the Gulf
Coast. According to the Nation-
al Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration – NOAA – the cost
of these extreme weather events
exceeds $150 billion, not count-
ing the costs of Midwest flooding,
yet to be totaled.
A recent CBS poll showed the
American people to be awaken-
ing to the need to act on climate
change. In that poll, 62 percent
of people agreed climate change
is due to human activity and
79 percent agreed that impacts
are serious now or will be in the
future. And 59 percent said yes,
humanity can do something to
stop climate change.
This message has not gotten
through to the powers that be
in Washington who in March
shot down the proposal to study
geoengineering. At this point, the
stakes are too high to not at least
investigate whether geoengi-
neering can be harnessed to help
remediate climate overshoot.
This message needs to be driven
home.
Matt Slavin founded M.I. Slavin to provide con-
sulting in project management, strategic plan-
ning, research and communications. Contact
him at 503-619-5601 or matt@mislavin.com.
 2 Transmission
No Grid,
No Gain:
Untangling the
Transmission
Tie-up By Matthew I. Slavin, Sustaingrüp, and Jason J. Zeller,
California Public Utilities Commission
Great strides have been made in
enacting state renewable energy
standards (RES) in the United States,
which significantly affect the urgency of
developing new renewable energy
facilities. Also called Renewable Portfolio
Standards and Alternative Energy
Portfolio Standards, over 30 states have
adopted RES mandates. These initiatives
are paving a path toward a more econom-
ically and environmentally sustainable
and secure energy future for America.
Success to date notwithstanding, one
NORTH AMERICA
primary hurdle facing renewable develop-
ers stems from limitations to the existing
transmission grid. Simply put, efforts to
integrate renewable generation into the
U.S. energy mix have frequently been sty-
mied by the lack of available transmission
RENEWABLE ENERGY WORLD
facilities. For example, the Midwest has
been colloquially called the “Saudi Arabia
of wind” because of tremendous wind
resources in the Great Plains. However,
this most windswept region of the nation
tends to be overwhelmingly rural and
lacks the transmission facilities that
would allow wind generated electrons to
be transmitted to major urban markets
such as Chicago, St. Louis and Kansas City.
Nevada has the highest solar
energy potential in the nation. The U.S.
Department of Energy calculates that 100
square miles of Nevada land could supply
all U.S. electricity needs with current
commercial efficiency rates. However
as Nevada Economic Development
Commission Executive Director Mike
Skaggs has noted, development of
Nevada’s ample solar energy resource is
hindered by the fact that a “significant
portion of the area feasible for renewable
energy generation is not currently con-
nected to adequate transmission technol-
ogy.” Nevada’s transmission challenges are
not atypical.
How bad is the transmission tie
up? A white paper jointly issued by the
American Wind Energy Association
(AWEA) and the Solar Energy Industries
Association (SEAI) estimated that in 2009
up to 300,000 MW of wind projects faced
potential deployment delays due to an

inability to connect to the grid. For utility-
scale solar in California alone, the figure
was estimated at 13,000 MW.
Transforming the nation’s existing
transmission system so that it can accom-
modate the needs of renewable developers
is a significant challenge. For clean energy,
it’s clearly a case of no grid, no gain.
Tied in a Knot
That transmission access for utility-scale
renewable energy is tied in a knot is not
surprising given that America’s electricity
transmission system is a legacy of a period
in which large vertically integrated utilities
planned, developed, owned and financed
generation. The system grew up within the
regulatory framework of state public utility
commissions that approved transmission
system planning and financing. Often,
generation was located near urban areas
where demand is concentrated. Coal plants
could be near rail lines in out-of-the-way
places like the Four Corners Region of
Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico.
Transmission lines were built to move coal-
fired generation to load centers. However,
unlike footloose coal plants (which can
receive coal from remote sources via rail)
wind and solar must be farmed where the
wind blows and sun shines. And many of
these renewable sites are located where
existing lines are either absent, undersized
or already over-subscribed.
Within this legacy framework, transmis-
sion system planning evolved along state
lines, governed by laws requiring state
public utility commissions to use a lowest-
cost-to-consumer test when approving
transmission improvements. The Energy
Policy Act of 2005 sought to broaden
system planning to a regional basis by
enabling groups of three or more states to
form regional transmission organizations
(RTO). However, the nation’s grid remains a
patchwork with some transmission capac-
ity collaboratively planned and managed
by RTOs while elsewhere, grid ownership
remains the province of individual utilities
that range in size from small rural coopera-
tives to large multi-state systems such as
Pacificorp and Southern Co.
The obstacles posed by this patchwork
can be seen at the California-Nevada
border, where the transmission net-
work operated by California’s RTO (the
Independent System Operator) ties into
a system still regulated exclusively by
Nevada. By law, Nevada regulators cannot
consider the impacts of investments in the
state transmission system upon California’s
access to sun, wind and geothermal energy
farmed in the Silver State. The inability of
these two key players to uniformly plan and
manage transmission impairs the ability
of the California to draw upon Nevada’s
renewable energy resources to meet its RPS
target of acquiring 33 percent of its electric-
ity from renewable resources by 2020.
Then there is the issue of finance. While
procedures vary, grid interconnection
procedures in general require a renew-
able energy project developer to apply for
a queue position for system impact and
facilities studies, sign interconnection
agreements and then pay for new transmis-
sion capacity or system upgrades necessary
to carry the full generation output to mar-
ket, even if needed upgrades are network
improvements.
Within this context, two problems stand
out. First, prior to wholesale electric power
market deregulation, utilities planning new
generation could act with the assurance
that their costs for building new generation
would eventually be rate based by their
respective public utility commissions.
However, wholesale market deregulation
gave rise to independent project develop-
ment, meaning that renewable energy
developers must incur not only the up-front
cost of financing new renewable generat-
ing plant planning and construction, but
also the up-front cost of financing new
transmission capacity. This was true even
though it may take from three to five years
or more from project inception to energy
production for the developer to begin
collecting revenues. As with other form of
construction, delays in starting a renewable
generation project can add to its cost.
Second, the current system encourages
free-ridership, which encourages project
developers to try to avoid upfront network-
wide grid improvement costs. Such
jockeying may account for the proliferation
of so-called “phantom projects,” which,
although entered into the queue, are never
built. The relatively low $100,000 cost typi-
cal for entering the queue may contribute
Transmission 3
Transforming the
nation’s existing
transmission system
so that it can
accommodate the
needs of renewable
developers is a
significant challenge.
to such maneuvering. The effect of such
phantom projects, however, can be to delay
and raise costs for more feasible green
energy projects.
Reflecting upon the grid connection
conundrum, AWEA and SEIA concluded
“Our nation’s obsolete patchwork of an elec-
tric grid, while adequate for the era in which
it was designed…have failed to keep up with
significant changes in the structure of the
electric industry.” The question is, what can
be done to pave a pathway to getting the
nation’s green energy assets onto the grid in
a timely and cost-effective manner?
Getting Green Energy on the Grid
In October 2009, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR),
kicking off a broad stakeholder initiative
aimed at easing integration of renew-
ables into the grid. A good place to start
is with a proposal by AWEA and SEPA
to develop a system of “National Green
Power Superhighways.” The proposal aims
to build a network of new transmissions
lines capable of moving up to 5,000 MW
of power from rural solar and wind energy
NORTH AMERICA
farms to load centers in large urban areas
in the Southwest, Midwest and along the
eastern seaboard. Implicit are changes in
the way new transmission for utility scale
renewable energy is planned and permitted
and how costs are allocated. A regulatory
RENEWABLE ENERGY WORLD
system to govern new large transmission
facilities needed to expand the nation’s
clean energy portfolio would only apply to
new interstate high-voltage transmission
and renewable energy feeder lines. In the
balance of this article we look at what a
new approach to ensuring adequate grid
 YOUR SOURCE FOR NATURAL GAS VEHICLE MARKETS, TECHNOLOGY AND POLICY
MARCH 04, 2015
IN THIS ISSUE
LNG tax equalization bill approved by
Senate Finance Committee ……...….1
Texas NGV incentives generating
millions in economic output,
thousands of jobs…………………....1
Scoping LNG fleet deployment at
Oregon’s Fred Meyer stores…….......3
BUS STOP
Houston’s METRO negotiates sole
source fuel contract for 200 CNG
buses ………………………………..4
POLICY FOCUS
Bill introduced to lower sales tax on
NGVs in California ……………...…5
Latest updates on NGV bills in current
state legislative sessions …………....5
COMMENTARY
Should you convert to natural gas
vehicles now that oil is cheap?…...…8
NEWS BRIEFS
Recap of all the NGV news of the past
two weeks……...………………....…9
BY THE NUMBERS
NGV Benchmarking: Station Counts,
Price Spread Charts………….…….11
PLUS: Funding, RFPs, Events
___________________________________________________________________________
LEADING NEWS
LNG tax equalization bill approved
by Senate Finance Committee
The U.S. Senate Finance Committee has
approved S 344, a measure designed to
eliminate the federal excise tax penalty
imposed on LNG when sold as a transportation
fuel in the U.S. Sponsored by Sens. Michael
Bennet (D-Colo.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.),
the measure is modeled on a companion bill
introduced in the House of Representatives by
Reps. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) and Rep.
John Larsen (D-Connecticut), HR 905, the
LNG Excise Tax Equalization Act of 2015.
Federal Excise Tax on NatGas and Petroleum
Fuels
Now With
Change
LNG/DGE $0.413 $0.243
Diesel/Gal $0.243 $0.243
CNG/GGE $0.183 $0.183
Gasoline/Gal $0.183 $0.183
Currently, the federal government taxes LNG
based on the volume of fuel sold, measured in
gallons. The federal excise tax on diesel is also
assessed volumetrically. Both fuels are taxed
by the federal government at a rate of 24.3
cents per gallon sold. But because LNG has
lower energy content than diesel – It takes 1.7
gallons of LNG to produce the same amount of
energy as a gallon of diesel fuel – current
federal law results in a gallon of LNG being
taxed at an effective rate 70 percent higher than
that at which a gallon of diesel is taxed.
Enacted into law, S 344 and/or HR 2202 would
revise the federal excise tax on LNG so that it
is levied on the basis of LNG’s energy content,
at a rate of 24.3 cents per energy equivalent of
a gallon of diesel, equalizing the excise tax on
LNG with that of diesel. Federal law already
taxes CNG on an energy content basis, at a rate
of 18.3 cents per the energy equivalent of a
gallon of gasoline. So the bills would also
harmonize the way the federal government
taxes LNG with the way it taxes CNG, in terms
of energy equivalency.
(continued on Page 2 )
© 2014 AFV Intelligence LLC. All rights reserved.
Texas NGV incentives generate
almost $500 million in economic
output, support 3,000 jobs by
2018
The growing number of NatGas fueling
stations being built is allowing the industry to
get a better hand on the economic impacts of
deploying NGVs, developing NGV
infrastructure, and the incentives that state
governments offer to help underwrite NatGas
fueling station development and fleet
deployments of NGVs.
A case in point is a study recently completed
by the Institute for Economic Development at
the University of Texas at San Antonio
(UTSA). The study examined the economic
impact of fleet deployment and NatGas fueling
station incentives offered under three programs
administered by the Texas Department of
Environmental Quality (TCEQ). The Institute
concluded that $52.9 million in grants awarded
by the three TCEQ incentive programs
generated $79.1 million in gross state products
and supported 927 full-time jobs in Texas in
2014. According to the analysis, the incentive
programs are generating significantly rising
economic and job impacts on a year-over-year
basis (see table page 2).
The three TCEQ incentive programs are the
Clean Transportation Triangle (CTT) Program,
the Alternative Fueling Facilities Program
(AFFP) and the Texas Natural Gas Vehicle
Program (TNGVP), and the analysis focused
on investments in NGV infrastructure and fleet
deployment in counties in the Texas Clean
Transportation Triangle. This region
encompasses the most heavily populated parts
of Texas adjoining the major road networks
that connect the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex,
San Antonio, and Houston metropolitan areas
(see map page 3).
(continued on Page 2 )
STRATEGIC PLANNING

Repurposed Coal Plant Sites

Empower and Revive
Communities
by Gregory C. Staple and Matthew I. Slavin

Coal plants be gone. Power plant repurposing projects around the nation As new rules to protect
highlight the compelling case for redevelopment and use of cleaner energy.
These projects also offer points of reference for policy makers, public manag- public health spur
ers, business leaders, and community stakeholders to retire power plants in the closure of some
their localities by fostering enterprises focused on clean energy.
150 coal-fired power
Industry analysts predict that environmental and economic factors,
including new federal regulations, will lead to the retirement of dozens of plants, creative site
aging coal-fired power plants in the coming decade. Many old generating redevelopment projects
plants occupy strategic locations in urban areas, often with access to valuable
waterfront. These sites present tremendous opportunities for new civic and
generate civic pride and
private uses such as riverfront housing, shops, and offices, as well as museums, business rather than
parks, and other community amenities. dirty power.
Useful examples for redeveloping early 20th century power plant sites
include an impressive large-scale redevelopment of the Seaholm Power Plant
in Austin and the grand vision for redeveloping Station B in Sacramento
by 2013. The Homan Square Power House in Chicago achieved a powerful
fusion of mission and design. The redeveloped Pennsylvania Railroad Pow-
erhouse in Queens, New York, and the Station L Power Plant in Portland,

THE PUBLIC MANAGER | SPRING 2012 43

Queens Waterfront at The PowerHouse Condominiums
The PowerHouse Condominiums were built on the site of a Queens New
York plant that supplied steam to electrify the Long Island and Pennsylva-
nia railroads.
Photo: CGS Developers
Rivertown
The Wharf at Rivertown is along the Delaware River outside Philadelphia
and utilizes some of the building of the old Chester Power Station.
Photo: The Wharf at Rivertown
developers also can take advantage of smaller opportuni-
ties to reduce costs.
Where a project includes a museum, power plant
equipment not sold for scrap metal can be reused for
exhibits. In fact, every detail is fair game: as part of the
Lucky Strike redevelopment, Odell Associates reused
as a wall an original door; during the building phase
at Chester Power Station, creative construction teams
reused cranes and the existing switchgear.
46 WWW.THEPUBLICMANAGER.ORG
PowerHouse Condominiums
The PowerHouse Condominum is a Queens building structured to evoke
the old chimneys of a power plant that for decades electrified the Long
Island and Pennsylvania railroad.
Photo: CGS Developers, The PowerHouse Condominiums
Powerhouse Science Center Sacramento
In 2013 Pacific Gas & Electric Station B is slated to re-open as the
Powerhouse Science Center in Sacramento, California.
Photo: Andrew Frolows/Powerhouse Museum
Community Involvement and
Implications
In many communities, aging coal-fired generating sta-
tions are part of local history and development. These
plants have played a role in the surrounding economy;
projects to redevelop and repurpose them should
support community goals by delivering civic value,
increasing local government revenues, and fostering job
growth. For example, at the renovated Ottawa Power
1Ht. VHt.I.1VN1AN. I Ut.!>UAY, VI. I vt;;t.t-< t!.f, t!.UUY -
LEEDS RETROFITS

Putting the green in

stimulus greenbacks
ongress is under increas- despite the fact that theoverwhehning

C ing pressure to approve a majority of commercial buildings that

second economic stimulus will be standing in the U.S. in 2030
package. The American Re- up to 95 percent were built prior to
covery and Reinvestment Act that LEED's inception in 1998.
President Barack Obama signed in UsingStimulus2.0fimdstoencour-
February is credited by economists age LEED retrofits ofprivately owned
on both the left and right as having existing commercial buildings would
averted an economic downturn that generate jobs, especially in the hard-
could have rivaled the Great Depres- hit construction sector, which ac-
sion. counts for at least 1 million of the 7.5
Despite that effort, the employ- million-plus jobs that have been lost
ment situation remains dismal. in since the onset of the downturn.
few places more so than in Oregon. Furthermore, as The Oregonian has
!'Jationwide, there are .six MATT SLAVIN recer:tly reported, three of
Job seekers for every Job four Jobs created or saved
available,thehighestfig- IN MY to date as a result of fed-
ure recorded since record 0 PINION eral stimulus spending in
keeping began in 1948. In Oregon have been gov-
Oregon, where the jobless rate re- ernment jobs. Loan guarantees for
mains above 11 percent, the figure LEEDretrofitsofexistingcommercial
is 10 to 1. buildings would help extend job re-
Imminent action on a second stim- covery to private labor markets where
ulus bill is unlikely, given record fed- the overwhelmingmiljority of U.S. job
eral deficits, unfinished health care seekers are to be found.
business and with much of the origi- There are 4.9 million existing com-
nal stimulus funding yet to be spent. mercial buildings in the country. and
Still, with job anxiety soaring and con- they contain 71.6 billion square feet
gressional elections due' next year. the of space. These consume more than
president and his congressional allies 30 percent of the nation's energy sup-
are pondering what fonn Stimulus 2.0 ply and are responsible for one·third
might take. of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. A
One approach to consider is using LEED retrofit can reduce a building's
federal fimds to provide loan guaran- energy consumption by as much as 50
tees to bring existing privately owned percent and its greenhouse gas emis-
commercial buildings in the U.S. up to sions by up to 70 percent.
LEED green building standards. LEED's A lot would have to be worked out
success in raising the bar in commer- to meaningfully incorporate federal
cial building can be seen nowhere so loan guarantees for LEED retrofit of
clearly as in Portland. The Rose City is private buildings into any Stimulus
home to more LEED-certified build· 2.0. But a stimulus that encourages
ings per capita than any other city in and provides funding for these ret-
America. By the same measure, the rofits would help the nation address
LEED focus to date has been upon three of its most pressing challenges
newly constructed buildings, the sort of in economic recovery and job cre-
towers that populate the Pearl District ation, the fight against global warm-
and South Waterfront. Existing build- ing and bolstering our energy security,
ings have received much less atten- and it would put some real green into
tion. According to the Cascadia Region federal stimulus greenbacks.
Green Building Council, only 10 per- •
cent ofLEED certifications in Portland Matt Slavin is president ofPortland-based
have been for existing buildings. This is Sustainability Consulting Group.
The Federal Energy Subsidy Scorecard: How Renewable... http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2 ...

Sign-In or Create a Free Account

Search RenewableEnergyWorld.com h .. '/11.

News 810g Podcast Video Finance Companies Products Jobs Events Magazines Expo About

Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower

PreVious Article Next Article

4 Ratings - Sign-In To Rat!! This Artide

Posted on November 3, 2009 by Mallhew SlBVtn, PhD

The Federal Energy Subsidy Scorecard: How Renewables

Stack Up
In a speech at the United Nations and afterward at the G-20 summit meeting in September, President OOOma
called for elimination of government subsidies for greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting fossil fuels. Said the President "I
will work with my colleagues at the G20 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies so that we can beller address our climate
challenge."

The President's pronouncement, the essential role solar and wind energy have to play in the fight against global
warming, the critique that renewables are overly reliant upon govemment assistance and congressional debate
over a national cap and trade energy and climate bill make this a good time to take stock of how renewables stack
up in terms of federal energy subsidies. A short primer on the different types of federal energy subsidies at work
Article Tools provides a useful point of departure.

Types of Federal Energy Subsidies

Email This Story

Share ThiS Story Federal energy subsidies come in many different shapes and sizes. However they can be broadly divided into
three main categories.
Add 10 Bookmarl<s
Tax credits constitute the largest source of federal assistance to the energy sector. According to a 2006 study
Pr1nter Fnendly Version prepared by Washington D.C. consulting group Services Inc (MISI), tax credits
11 Comments accounted for an estimated 45 percent of all federal energy support between 1950 and 2003. An analysis by the
Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts put this number at 65 percent for 2006. Tax treatment also comprises one of
the earliest ways by which the federal government subsidized energy development and production, dating to 1917.
Artlde Tool Sponsor when income tax credits were established to encourage oil drilling.

Investment and production tax credits for solar, wind, and geothermal energy fall into this category as do tax
incentives for ethanol and other biofuels. So does the oil depletion allowance, established by the Revenue Act of
1926 that allows downstream fossil fuel producers to make deductions from their gross income and the Foreign
Tax Credit, the largest single energy subsidy, which allows U.S. oil and gas companies to claim a credit against
revenues derived from overseas production that would be taxed at a higher rate if produced domestically

Another type of subsidy encompasses direct cash grants, loan guarantees and similar targeted disbursements.
These accounted for about 20 percent of federal energy support from 1950 through 2003 and 29 percent in 2006.
The renewable energy cash grants authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) ,fall
into this category.

Also included is federal spending that began in the 1930s to construct the Columbia-Snake River and Tennessee
Valley hydroelectric systems and the $1 billion authorized under ARRA for FutureGen, the coal-carbon
sequestration pilot project slated for construction in Illinois with uncertain prospects for success.

A third subsidy platform revolves around regUlation: creating a regulatory climate that encourages energy
investment. Regulatory subsidies are as old as tax incentives, dating to 1917 when the U.S. Fuel Administration
moved to ensure sufficient oil to fuel America's entry into World War I by creating a petroleum quasf.cartel that
boosted oil prices and profits only six years after the breakup of Standard Oil. Shortly thereafter the oil industry
formed the American Petroleum Institute to lobby for additional federal largess.

Some critics argue that regulation should not be characterized as a subsidy. However, a key feature of government
subsidies is that they influence investment behavior by lowering risk or by raising demand, and in this, regulatory
provisions playa substantial role. The $10 billion cap federal law imposes upon corporate liability for a commercial
nuclear generating accident is an example of a regulatory subsidy. This cap insulates the nuclear energy industry

1 of 5 4/30/10 4:28 PM
Getting to a National Renewable Energy Standard I Renewable Energy World Page 2 of 6

. . . PrevIous Article Nell1 Article ..

3 Ratings - SigrJ-ln To Rate This ArtIcle

Sepl.mbol< 2009

Getting to a National Renewable Energy Standard

by Matthew I. Slavin, PhD.

Renewable energy executives are rolling up their sleeves for what promises to be a contentious batlle this fall to
gain Senate approval of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, including establishment of a mandatory
national renewable energy standard (RPS).

How difficult will the batlle be? The House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey energy and climate bill
by the slimmest ot margins. with 219 votes in favor and 212 against. The House bill provides for 20 percent of the
nation's electricity supply to come from renewables by 2020, with energy efficiency improvements allowed to
account for a quarter of this. Although a recent Washington-Post-ABC news polt shows fully 91 percent of survey
respondents support expanded wind and solar generation, the bill reported out of the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee (ENR) in July set the 2020 RPS at only15 percent. According to the Nallonal Renewable
Artiele Tools Enetgy Laboralory (NREL), this standard will deliver no more new renewable capacity than what is likely to come to
market in the absence of a federal RPS.

email This Story
D Sham This Slory
Add 10 Bookmarks
Printer Fnendlv VerSIon
A _ Tool
The renewables industry would like to see the federal RPS at 25 perCent in 2020, with a 10 percent requirement
beginning in 2012, as opposed to the 6 percent in the House bill and 4 percent in the Senate ENR version.
According to Roby Roberts, Senior Vice President for External Communications at Vestas, strategy for
strengthening the renewable standard will focus upon the 3 principles of climate, jobs and security, or planet,
prosperity and protection. Here are some suggestions to sharpen the point.
Planet
Cap-and-trade is the centerpiece of the bill the Senate will consider, and renewable energy advocates are keenly
aware of the tie between global warming and RPS. The Amellcan Wind Energy hsoclatlon (AWEA) forcefully
argues that "wind power is a powertul climate solution, ready to deliver emissions reductions that are large in scale
and effective immediately" while the Solar Energy Induslrles AssOCiation (SEIA) points to the need for a "carbon
constraint optimized for solar deployment" so that solar energy can provide a 'clean-energy wedge' in reducing
green house gas emissions.

Sticking to the need to limit carbon emissions as a path to a stronger RPS is a necessity. While the cost of new
renewable capacity continues to come down, it is still higher than conventional coal generation. Short of a carbon
tax or adoption of the type of feed-in tariff described by Dan Martin In AenewableEnergyWorlr;l com. cap and trade
offers the best avenue to forcing a price on coal generation that reflects its environmental externalities and levels
the playing field for renewables.

Geothermal Energy Association Executive Director Karl Gawell sees a scenario in which climate and energy might
be broken into two separate bills if the going over cap and trade gets too tough in the Senate. Possibly, but
according to Congressman Earl Blumenauer, Vice-Chair of the House Committee on Energy Independence and
Global Warming "Climate change is the glue that holds the Waxman-Markey bill together. The whole is greater than
the sum of its parts."

Breaking the bill apart could further estrange the renewable industry's environmentalist allies whose support for the
legislation is already frayed due to the decision 10 give away rather Ihan auction carbon credits. Industry strategists
should keep this in mind that at a time when "rally round the rotor" unity is needed, and environmentalists have a
key role to play in organizing rallies 10 counler the Astroturt campaign against Waxman-Markey being underwritten
by the American Petroleum Insillute.

Prosperity

Opponents are basing their campaign on jobs and cost. They have an opening here. The Post-ABC poll shows that
support tor the energy and climate bill drops from 58 to 29 percent if household electricity costs rise from $10 to
$25 per month.

Opponents cite studies that show that cap-and-trade will result in job loss, that the energy and climate bill will cost
the average American household as much as $1,900 per year and lower gross domestic product. Climate and
energy advocates will counter these, starting with the Pew Center on Global Climate Change study shOWing that
modernizing our energy sector will create 1.7 million new jobs and the 2008 report by Navigant Consulting Group
projecting that an expanding solar energy sector could employ 440,000 and lead to the creation of an additional
750,000 jobs in 2016. Analyses by the Congressional Budget Office and Environmental Protection Agency puts
household costs in the much more likely range of $140-$175 per year than the numbers put forth by opponents.
RENEWABLE
ENERGY This said. conflicting assumptions make it hard for most people to sort through competing economic studies.
W-RLD Affention should be paid to pUlling a human face on the renewable energy jobs story. Recount the tale of Cllppel"
Windpo.....er. which in 2005 took over a former printing press manufacturing plant in Cedar Rapids, Iowa that had
Mvtllnse ).'Im uS been closed for four years and began producing wind turbine blades with employment growing to 400 in 2008. And
highlight Sola,Wnrld's acquisition of a former 480,000 square foot Komatsu manufacturing plant in Hillsboro,
Oregon where 1I1e company produces solar cells with employment that may reach as high as 1,000.

Attention should also be directed towards tying European-based renewable energy firms more closely to the
domestic U.S. market. For example, Spain's lbertlrola won 5 of the 10 renewable energy cash grants totaling $500
million that were announced during the first week of September and authorized under the ARRA recovery act. At a
time when economic insecurity is stirring protectionist instincts, following Toyota's example by making a
commitment to increase the share of domestically produced components that go into renewables technology sold in
America would be a good step.

Protection

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/new slarti cl e12009109I getti ng-to-a-nation a1-fen ... 3/1812010

The Federal Energy Subsidy Scorecard: How Renewable... http://www.renewableenergyworld.comlrea/news/article/2 ...

from the financial risk of a catastrophic accident. Absent this, sufficient capital could not be attracted to build
nuclear plant Ethanol additive requirements likewise constitute a regulatory subsidy, as will a federal renewable
energy standard (RPS) when one comes into effect

Cap and trade would place a steadily declining ceiling on GHG emissions, allowing power plants, refineries, and
other large tndustrial emitters to trade allowances that give them nexibility in meeting GHG reduction targets and
provide capital to fund development of new low carbon technologies. It seeks to price fossil fuels at a level that
renects the externalized cost of their GHG emissions upon the environment. This approach combines a regulatory
and a market-based mechanism to promote climate friendly technologies and create increased demand for clean
renewable energy.

How Do Subsidies for Renewables Rank?

Evaluating federal energy subsidies is something akin to alchemy. The myriad of ways in which they are funded,
managed, and monitored, and year-to-year changes in legislation and budgets make an exact accounting difficult.
This said, the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) completed a study for the period 2002 through 2008 in
conjunction with the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars which, coupled with the MISI study,
illuminates how federal energy subsidies affect renew abies and other competing fuels.

These studies connnm conventional wisdom that fossil fuels have been the primary beneficiary of federal energy
subsidies. Oil and gas garnered 60 percent of an estimated total of $725 billion in federal assistanoe between 1950
and 2003, with oil alone taking 46% of the total. Coal took 13 percent. Next was hydroelectric at 11 percent and
nuclear at 9 percent. not counting the liability cap sl!bsidy which is an implicit avoided cost and impossible to
quantify. At the back of the pack are wind, solar, geothermal. and bio-fuels, recipients of only 6 percent of total
energy sector spending during this period.

Given the recent vintage of renewable technologies, use of a 1950 baseline for breaking down how federal energy
subsidies have been parceled out may not paint a fair picture. However, the more recent 2002 - 2008 period
continues to show fossil fuels as dominant. According to ELI, subsidies to fossil fuels totaled $72 billion, with most
going to oil and then gas.

Support for coal-carbon capture and storage received $2.3 billion of this total. Fossil fuels took almost two-and-
a-half times more in subsidies than renewables, which received $29 billion. Furthermore of this $29 billion, $16.8
billion went to com-based ethanol whose climate friendly credentials are increasingly open to question.

Only $12.2 billion. or 16.6 percent of what fossil fuels received went for wind, solar, geothermal. hydropower, and
non-corn based biofuels and biomass. This is better than in preceding years but much less than what is needed in
the face of global warming, a point understated by ELI Senior Attorney John Pendergrass when he introduced the
Advertise wilh us ELI study's results by saying "These figures raise the pressing Q.uestion of whether scarce govemment funds might
'be bette·r allocated to move the United States towards a low-carbon economy."
Featured Total JOIn Tolal Acce,;s MarkehngRejoinder to the Rap Against Subsidies for Renewables
Access Partners
Critics argue that renewable energy technologies cannot compete on price with fossil fuels without public
subsidies. It's true to date that renewables' return per dollar of federal assistance remains higher than for fossil
fuels. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), federal subsidies for conventional coal
generated electricity production in 2007 equaled $0.44/MWh (megawatt-hour). The equivalent figure for wind was
$23.37 and for solar, $24.34 per MWh.

But these critics miss the mark. Commercial scale federal subsidies for renewables are less than twenty years old,
dating to production tax credits enacted under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to bolster national energy security in
the aftenmath of the first Gulf War. Furthermore, production tax credits for renewable energy have been subject to
on again, off again congressional approval. This contrasts with fossil fuel subsidies, recipients of largely continuous
and predictable subsidies since 1917.

Nor are the costs of subsidies for renewables out of line with other emerging and evolving clean energy
technologies. For example, federal subsidies for refined coal technology that removes moisture and certain
pollutants from sub-bituminous and lignite in 2007 equaled $2981/MWh. If refined coal and FutureGen are any
indication, yet untested clean-coal carbon sequestration will require vast federal expenditures on a scale probably
surpassing what has been directed to wind and solar.

Renewables do not export environmental externalities such as drinking water contamination stemming from coal
mining in West Virginia and other states, as recently reported in the New York Times. There is no need for a liability
cap with wind and solar of the sort needed to fuel investment in commercial nuclear generation.

The reality is that federal subsidies for renewables have played an important role in generating economies of scale
and investment capital for improved technology that have driven down the cost of photovoltaic solar energy by 50
percent to about $3 per watt in the past decade and dropped the cost of wind generated electricity to as low as 4
cents/kWh per in some areas today. These costs wilt only decline further as the market for renewables grows and
technology improves.

Former longtime Saudi oil minister Sheik Zaki Yamani once famously said "the Stone Age did not end for lack of
stone, and the oil age will end long before the world runs out of oil". Now would be a good time for critics of
renewable energy subsidies to get the rocks out and for the U.S. to put in place long tenm federal subsidies that will
provide the stable and predictable investment climate needed to accelerate America's transition to a modern and
clean renewable energy economy.

The information and views expressed in Ihis article are those of the author and nol necessarily those of
RenewableEnergyWortd.com or the companies thaI advertise on ils Web site and other publications.

2 of 5 4/30/104:28 PM
 • --_._--_.
"',,'--
--')-J"-:l-~P-~'~-II·,,:~\:-~..,..iiV-i' -',j
I~RUM
f'-,"

. , -f' =t,,' J k ~ l

Tuition rise can aid PSU role 'in econonlic development

Ur MATI'IEW I. SLAVIN t1r.wiJl~ boa11llu the sales roo 1/1.This wkes nllallciers lu L1iverseleurllillg expcrlcllce rlt't:t1l"d tu truill a llct.ib;·:
1J.'ly for CApilal equipl/IPlI1 ar'luisilions, lJ1ana~ers 10 labor furce caj'1ble of atlJuslill~ III Ihe ("angi!l~ "'''i 'J ,..'
The ~uvemor's utTIce has reculllllJelldedU,al ~ortJalld dJrccl an efficienl produclion process and marketing ex- work. It IIIUSI traiu Ihe lUanagers alld elll",prclleurs,
Slate UIlho6rsily l~ denied 8 S pereenl IUluun u.crease perts 10 Dlake a, COl/lpany a brand name, These rOrC(!f; econumisls anll public admini,lraturs neellL'tI \u pru·.
Call1ornia's "Silicon Valley," where the microchip
f'L,<:ulllllle/lde<! fur Ihe Ulliversily uf Oregun und Or~gon was piunccred, provides L1le best example, The area can,
do not assemble haphalar11y bUI as the (esul! 01 an mute l'Cunumic growth baSl.'I1 un pu~\ic,privale partner,
JI;lIe UnJvcrsil)'. AJSQ I-eWllllllcmh:1l arc appfopnaUVIlS IDotiluUonaJ syslem Illal brin~s lugether 1IIi111) well,edu· sldps. TedulicaJ re5CLIfch J1rugr.aHls lIIust tit! !!:<I':llItll-tl
linues nul only a3 the lIation's foremusl cenler of elec,
"r 16 IIIYliulI each fur UO "lid OSU lu l>e use<! ill eslab- mtl'll and ",Ienll'll people, alld dirL'Cled toward fostering tbe trallsler 01 IL'ChnuluKY
lronics illduslry research and develupment but also as a
lishillg t'IlLlUWIIII!IIU: uoly JJ million is rL'<.oIllJIICUI.Jt.'1..J fur The ont! major faclor COJllmOl1 to all uf the nation's 10 th~ privale scclor wllt~re in.lluvalivt! lticas lIIay bl'
celller of elL'Clronks pnxJuctiun and assembly, (nnuva,
1'5U, '111e~ rIXulnlllellu.JUulIS suggeSI lilLIe, awareness uf . irulUvalioli cenlers is Ule l<.>c.atioll uf a l1ear~y major Ulli· al,plied i1l1dmarkeIL'Il and jubs created,
lion alJowl'll Silicon Valley ecunomies tu grow even as
lilt" rvll:' PurLlalllJ Sl~ll' musl play ill rustenng gro~Ul.ln versily where rhe skills 311d lalellt so Ileccssary to tJlC
Ihe resl of Ille nalion suITert'tl Ihrough the r<>cessioll of This elTurl lakes fllOllry 10 hire facullY, lJurl:has~
the stale's CCUllUlllY al a LiIllL' when U1t~ avowt."iJ pnunly econolwc deytluplll~111 prOCC.iliS ma)' u.e l1uriurctl. A sus-
Ihe early I~. equipmenl 31".1 SUl'lJ0rl research. Yel 'he ~lJVerllur's
uf slal(! is l"COIH ..IlIlit' develupmellt. tainable economic develuplllent elTort in, Oregun re-
• Sc<ulld, suslnincd ceulwlIlie develovrnelll f1!qwrC6 uellial of IIH.' auL1iliulI~J luitiull fuuds will (usl lIll' ulIi·
quires similar ~ucaliul1aJ SUpvurl. l'urlJamJ SI:lIe lIJust
I\JIIIlJut:h JUlIeh hallj IJeclI made u( Ille "Oret;UII COllie-- Ihal Individuals lJOS5eS5 Ule ability now 10 adoI'I to 8n playa leading role in this effurt, '
vcrslly a lIlillilllllltl ur
52.5 milliun a year.
h"rk," ~Iuwlh illlhe ,Iale's L":UIIUlIIY hasu/lly p~aU~IL'tI illcreasin~ly cUllIplex wurk plaCt', As Ihe pace of illnov., Why PSU~ J1islurv demunslraleS 1I1al L'CUlIUlllic devel- The guvel'llur's rL'Cumlnelidaliolls say Ih"1 L1le addi·
llll' ~l'lIl'I'~1 l"l:ullUlllic eXJ.l~Hl5lUn pn;vallJIIg lIatioliwllle. lion qaickens, yesterdoy's IYIII.t IIIWiI l>e able tu n>ad opmenl h.BJlpeos ill urlJall areas wIH~n~ Uw talcllt, risk lIullal fUlldillg vroviL1ed Oregull and Or~guu Slate l~
Thn1: is IHI ~wlfallll-c O.al LJ,c St:ltc S ~UIIUIllY wUl .fare lechnlcal word, processing munua),. The electronics tapllal. enl~preneurs and I/Ianagers lIen'ssary lu the USL'tI lu ,,,..ollll1le "illstituLiullal excellellce." wltile I'SU's
well III Ihr ileAl dUWIIIUfll, Our prusjJ<.'Cls fur ,ustau~e<! eJJl(illeer lIIusl a<lapl \0 semlconducter technolulO' thai tl.!chllolo£')' Ir-pnsrcr process conVl'ft:e. luilJu'u cap is b.as-etl un alII ostensive dCjilc lu ~uarall'
l"CUIIUIUiC' growth can only l>t! cnhancl"'tJ lJy auJdressulg changes almost daily, 11lls reqwres an ongoing eHort 10 lIistory. d'elTlolulrates how i'1I10\·aliulls such as tL"t! access to hlgher educatiun (ur luw·incume (>t."Uvle. If
Ihe Ihre'll IlIgre<!iellls 10 allY sucnssful kllg,lenll ""(l- train and retrain our labor force, IIltchanlzelLiarm eqlliplllenl. new' fertilizers, lIIanllfac, adL'ljuale arcess is the issue, a luitiun waiver sysleln lur
1I11111kdGveluplllenl slrale~y: • Third, susl3ined economic develupment re<luires lurin~ ladll.lies and inallae'!lIlent techniques r"ive luw,illl'Ome siudentsis a much lIIure 10giCilI al'l"'oacli.
• Finl, ~usl;dllcd eculIuJJlic develuJ.Hllent r:Ctjuires Ihe building of lmlitutional linkages lhat bring t"l:elher radialed fro'ni cities tu fuslei' eculIUlllic ~rpwll, in sur· The reculUlUcnllaliul1s the guvl!rllur·s
by ullict:
illllo .•'alh.m. IJrw\lCI illJ1uvatlull is thl! furce ~hUl.d l"Co- the innuvative taJent, ruk caplLal, entrepreneurs Will ad· rounding ~glOll'S, Innuvations al PSU likewise Call help 3JJ1UUJ11 to u su~gesliull PSU J.lursue "i,L<itituriulIaJ
Ulal
IlUIIlit' l:ruwl1l. As aulOlllaliofl illl.:re~sillgir donllnates millislralors needed 10 transfer i.nnuvative lechnologie.s
prl,JuetivlI. firllls vruducilig vroducts
4

other porn of lhe Slale Wh05~ economics remain heavily eAcellence" wilh less zeal Ih8n practiced elsewltere,
Il,JuSlri:d flCW frulII research tu productioll and 10 lIIanage the develur-
~11"t.: I~S5 t:~siJ)' lured (rum illllu'.:atiull (cnters uy the JU(!III proc~ss.
dependenl
<>conulllies,
on eltractive aClivilies lu diversify their Doing so t:aJlluJes willi the slale's alJilily lu fuster sus·
.J::: :I;"'~, ••:1 u( Iv·•.•·""';J~t.' aJlcruath'l.' locatiuns, talnet!, IUllg,lerm ,cunu'llic ~rowlh, The guvrnlUr
An elalllple a~ain is Ule Silicon Valier, Ihe success of The e!Torl al Portland Slaif mUsI build UII Ihe schuul's should l1ule lilis am..l chal1~e these rct:UlIIllIl.'UualiuIlS.
------------------- which is largelj' atlribulable IU a lechnulogy tra/lsfer established sl~ngLlls Ihe capacHy necessary tu snpport Portland Siale shuuld be gran led a luiliuu illcrease
:".,;~,~~:- / :)j".i;l lJ( 'vvrrllH'cst Pvn/dlld ;s a PII.D. prucess in which new ideas developed by faculty and suslained economic lIevelopmenl. Ii mUsl pruvide clluivalelll lo thal pruvidetl its siSler universilies alltl
.·"f,.:"J"it' ,;; ~r'"'CJ;J sIUJit!$ ill J'iJrrJ~1I1J St:.Jlt' University. studClJ15 .11 Stanfurd Univershy were moved frum lhe upgraded general educallon pro~rarlls lu fosl~r Ihe share ellually ill tile divlsion uf allY enduwlIlenl rUllus.

u.s. research ." 'I

funds misapplied
Scientific research monies sil"lIdillg sluud al S3J billioll, This nscaJ year. iI's $6J
billioll, Add ill Ihe I/Iulley supplied bj' IlIduSlry, a,,,1 Ull'
currelll 1\&0 IOlal fur Ihe U,S, is 1II0re UWII U:J5 billion.
funneled into military uses Mureuver,
run lar ah.ad
Americ;J1I H&.D spelldillg
of ,'apall's,
has consislellUy
In 1982. Ihe l:,S, ~ovL'fIImeni
Jnd illdu5lry lu~elln~r spent $00 ~ilJiun 'Ill lit. II, while
J~pall SpL'1I1 12; billiull. Since IhL'/I, th,' ,lallalll'~L' havt
flul" fI.e pu'''ir 1~'lIelll~ uf sL'il'lIlisIS alld lheir SIL'ppI'IJ ul' lheir rale IIf illcrease, ~Ulthl' Ullilf:tl ~I;'t~s Ls
l'iell\ls, iI'S e~~}' lu ~el lI,e illipressiull Ihat Ihe Ulliletl slililaLlar aheatl of Japan. Dy'similar aJlluunls, it's al:lO
1~leS isl,'l si".!lldin~ enuugh on scientific research, and aloeilll uf all uf WeSlern Europe pUllul:elher.
Iial lIIall)' ur the naliull's L'CulhJlnic woes anse frolll Ihe Why, Ihell, so mallY COIllIJlainls. like Ihe aile raisL~
hunliJ.I\, , recelllly by Armand Hammer, chairman uf Ihl' presl·
Th~ fat:'I is. hvw~vt.'r. tllal we're .svcntl1ug ullprcct:'· dent's Cam.:~r Pallcl7 lie nOled thai runding is GO $pa~
Ulal ollly on~ uf (our IIICrituriuus cancer resean:1I pro- scientific resean::h -- lIew fUlll..lalllcllliJl kno ••••. ll:d~t!' - Il:Jve t:fUWII. arc illsullkielll fur ~UIJ~H1jJ1l: mllllY r,U\,c'
killed SUlIlSUII n::h~an.:h.far IIIUI~. IIldl"t.-tl .. Ihan allY uf
pusals arllliuJr gelS 1II0lley, Illdustry, lIIeJflwhUl'. is rat· Ihal is mostly PIUdUCl'tl ill lliliver,ily latmr31uries, /Jul 5cil~,,{iSIS wilh good ideas, U"ivcrsilie_s have Ut.'C11plc;r
'III"i"dllSIl ial LU/lllJClitul~, U"I We'l e S'JCII~III~ lI/uch uf
, ill dUII.b wa}S, Javishjllg vast SUIIIS un IlIlellL'clllally t1ing a tin cup lur It'l.lera1 assislance lu sel up n'~eafCb even though il CUlIlIlIJlltlS Ilw lJigge51 l!ud~~1 IUf 11&11, ill~ willi Wil.'JhillglUlI (Uf years rUf Ill/fils lu relJuild ul,

lid L"fU/lVllli"alJ)' ~rid goals, wildt Jlrunmill~ elldeJYurs culI~oflia, 10 compete wilh Japan's cuulllerllarlS lor IIIUn: Ulall S,IO lJilliuli this year, Ihe I'eliiaguil uevuJes a lele lalxllaluries, bUI 'here's IIU reueraJ 1J1U1Il'y rOf '
rL'II.glt-clL'tl, , sharing Ihe costs ul research, lIIere tJOO milliull lU lI11ivC/Si1r science, purpose, A"d fL'tIeral fUllds lur 1I1Itlill~ heller wa'
CUIHllIlJlI IliisslalCIlI~lIt5 OIl/out SlJen~ll1~ UI) rcsl'~,.ch tn reseanh ecullumics, lhe big dilferellce bel ween Ihe That iUuounlS IU "~ IreL' ride" Ull civiliallsuppurled lrath elementary &:IlId hi~h sl'llUul SciCII((~ (I'

'!luld r"~idly [,., laid 10 reSI if "1Il'1I11U1I were paid 10 Ulliled Siaies and ils cumpelilurs is Ihal 'we spelld 70 science, says Erich lillich, direclur of Ihe N;aliollal Sci, reillai" in shurt supply, ~vell as a s"u"lag~ uf sr'
asily a,ailabl. illforillation, l\e~earLh stHusII~S frum percelll 01 guverillnellt H&D fUllds on military research, en~e Foundalion, which is hard press~d II; lullill ils alld ell~illeers shapes lIP ill Ih. rUluillg d,,,,';11'"
II.' ullil.:iJI s(:urch.I:-c~r. the N~uulla~ SclelU;c fouwJa- while Ihey slX'nd very lillJe, rt'SptJnsilJiJlUes U( sU,Jpurtillt: ;IGHll"lIir scielltt', Tile lIuluriuus lavishlle.'s ulld wa,ldulllL's,
UII. shuw llJul lUt<JII\JII~ricaJl tXVCJldHurc:s un I ~~arch Th', ClllilL'<.l Stales is ah ••• d of Jap,," ill all the impor· Uloch and OUH~r~UVerlllllelll n:scarch aUll.iillisfl'iJlurS i{&V Sp,,"tUJI~ - lur elalll"le, l.Si_1J ",illioll
lid dev.luplnelll have ~ruwn ra~idly, evell dunng Ihe lanl H&U numbers excepl aile, whicll happens 10 be ~a\'e ur~ed a re.allucaliull 01 IL'Llera! 11&/1 hinds IU pro- Stealth Lw-JIIIOt:>f Ulaf Olaf 1I(''''~r S-l"C S'2'l"viu: .. '
JI'I,"'c,lIy It'uKal Heagall years, III 1981. federal H&O lIuil~ crucial: percentage ur ~rt.JS5 1I3lionai pruduet kJV!£' science In the uuiver:;ities. 31111 esveciall)' lu OilS ill UJly' c1rcuIIISI~lllce. NafivlluJ sl'("uril~"
,1l'vull't.I tll civilian research. It's 1.9 lJcrcl!1l1 fur thr UlliL· Glll"lJ\lrag-e links tx!IW~l'11 a(;llh:'lIlic alltJ illt.!,~slriJI re. cited as till' juslificUlilll1. Out ill till: 11;11·
Monday, August 5, 2019
$2 | VOL. 258, No. 37
Bioscience is moving the economic needle in Oregon
A new kid on the block is
carving out space in the Ore-
gon economy’s pecking order.
Bioscience is a diverse array
of establishments spanning
industry, education and health
care entities. It can be sorted
into agricultural feedstock and
industrial bioscience, drugs
and pharmaceuticals, med-
ical devices and equipment,
research, testing and medical
labs, and bioscience-related
distribution. The latter is cat-
egorized as delivery of phar-
maceuticals, medical devices
and agricultural bioscience
products that often require
specialized technologies
including cold storage and
regulated product monitoring,
for example.
An economic impact report
released earlier this year
showed Oregon’s 800-plus bio-
science establishments to have
contributed $6.5 billion to the
state’s economy in 2017, with
$3.9 billion in exports. These
establishments supported
more than 47,000 jobs directly
and indirectly. A 2018 report
from the Biotechnology Inno-
vation Organization, the na-
tional trade association, shows
Oregon having particular
specializations in agricultural
and pharmaceutical products
and research and testing.
Major league players are
here, including Lilly, Genen-
tech and Amgen. But about half
of the state’s establishments
have four or fewer employees,
and bioscience establish-
ments can be found in each
of Oregon’s counties. This is
according to Liisa Bozinovic,
who relocated from California
to Oregon earlier this year to
The Daily Journal of Commerce
CURRENTS OF CHANGE
Matt Slavin
become the Oregon Bioscience
Association’s (OBA) executive
director.
Signs of confidence are read-
ily found. One is $363 million
in basic bioscience research
funding obtained by Oregon
hospitals and universities.
Then there’s two adja-
cent buildings to be built in
Portland’s Central Eastside
Industrial District. Dubbed the
NIR Center, for New Industri-
al Revolution, it will provide
347,000 gross square feet of
space – including bio-safety
level 2 wet lab space. Bozinovic
says these are the first facilities
designed specifically to cater to
bioscience needs to be built in
Oregon exclusively with private
money.
“It will help remedy one of
the biggest barriers to growth
of Oregon’s bioscience sector,
which is the lack of lab space,”
she said.
Construction of the NIR Cen-
ter will follow renovation of a
three-story warehouse to create
a fourth floor. That building,
also in the Central Eastside
Industrial District, is named
the Eastside Innovation Hub.
Summit Development Group is
the developer of both proj-
ects. Of the Hub’s 40,000 gross
square feet, 18,000 will be oc-
cupied by Lake Oswego-based
Revelar Health. Led by Presi-
dent/CEO Chris Marsh, Revelar
produces an exhalent device
that measures aldehydes in a
person’s breath. Aldehydes are
© 2019 by Daily Journal of Commerce. All rights reserved.
a product of cell damage, and
measuring them can indicate
the presence of diseased cells.
The plan is for the NIR Cen-
ter to house graduates of the
Oregon Bioscience Incubator.
Operated by the nonprofit Ore-
gon Translational Research and
Development Institute (OTRA-
DI), the OTRADI incubator
opened its doors in 2007 in the
South Waterfront District.
Many key players wear multi-
ple hats. Take immunotherapist
Dr. Bernie Fox who, with his
son Bernard Fox III, founded
UbiVac. They are developing
drugs to enable immune sys-
tem cells to recognize and at-
tack different types of cancers.
Current drugs don’t work in
people whose immune systems
do not recognize different
types of cancers. Perfected, the
market for these types of drugs
is in the billions of dollars. As
for other hats, the elder Fox
holds an endowed chair in
cancer research at Providence
Cancer Center and also teaches
at OHSU.
Many bioscience products
are regulated by the FDA and
other federal agencies while
the patents’ underlying innova-
tions are often litigated in state
and federal courts, making
engagement with government a
core priority for OBA.
“Regulations with the best of
intentions can have unintend-
ed consequences that obstruct
the innovation and production
cycle,” Bozinovic said, adding
“intellectual property protec-
tion is a top priority.”
Access to capital is another
priority.
“It’s about money, for aca-
demic and training programs
Portland, Oregon
and to incentivize outside in-
vestment in startups and early
stage companies,” said Nancy
Lime, an OBA board member
and senior vice president at
device and diagnostics compa-
ny Sedia Biosciences. This fall,
OBA will hold its first Legisla-
tive Academy – a day and a half
of briefings, forums and visits
to company worksites to edu-
cate lawmakers on what it takes
to continue to grow the state’s
biosciences sector.
One more thought: diseases
that proliferate in warm cli-
mates will become much more
widespread due to climate
change. Those include malaria
as well as dengue fever, Zika,
chikungunya and West Nile
virus – and North America
won’t be exempt. By the same
measure, warmer weather will
unleash diseases that destroy
crops.
CDP, formerly the Carbon
Disclosure Project, has report-
ed that executives at big phar-
ma companies expect huge
demand for medicines to deal
with the climate-induced pro-
liferation of disease. Linking
Oregon’s reputation as a leader
in the fight against climate
change to its growth in biosci-
ence could serve as another
area where Oregon bioscience
could produce both economic
gains and better human health
in a hotter future.
There’s a lot happening with
bioscience in Oregon. Let’s
keep moving the needle.
Matt Slavin founded M.I. Slavin to provide
consulting in project management, stra-
tegic planning, research and communi-
cations. Contact him at 503-619-5601 or
matt@mislavin.com.