8. Dissidents in American Politics: Shareholder Capitalists vs Academic Oligarchists

---

"Dissidents" are people who actively challenge established doctrine, policy, or institutions. This post is the eighth in a series of 10 posts regarding the confusing "revolutions" of the 2016 Presidential Election.

---

Shareholder Capitalists and Academic Oligarchists together make up a group all others can despise called "The Establishment." Shareholder Capitalists manipulate our economy and Academic Oligarchists control key facets of our national government including monetary policy.

Whenever Academic Oligarchists determine that shareholder capitalism is not sufficiently benefiting the common good, the two groups can get into conflict. Whenever Shareholder Capitalists determine Academic Oligarchists are standing in the way of  "beneficial" economic change,  the two groups can get into conflict

In the middle of those conflicts are Congress and state legislatures led by people who are normally not automatic members of the Academic Oligarchy nor true Shareholder Capitalists.

The conflicts traditionally have been fought within the framework of political parties, elections, and legislative bodies that rely upon negotiations and compromise.

But, as previously discussed, during the past 30 years within the United States some wealthy Shareholder Capitalists, having become a subgroup of dissidents themselves, using the State Policy Network have successfully bypassed the norms of the process by investing large sums of money in Congressional and legislative candidates and in the news media.The Koch brothers are the best known example.

This is not unusual in the U.S. Henry Ford was probably the most notorious because of his active support of the rise of Hitler. "I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration,"  said Adolph Hitler in 1931. It is the extreme extension of the corporate view that people are unimportant.

This change has allowed Shareholder Capitalists to operate with far fewer restrictions from Academic Oligarchists. During the past 30 years, many Academic Oligarchists have become complacent permitting the undoing of changes made earlier in the 20th Century to avoid an Authoritarian Revolution.

In the process, they've allowed the word compromise to become despised. The fact that an effective democratic republic can only work if the players can find a middle ground on complicated issues is lost, or that fact specifically has been suppressed.

You only had to look at the candidates in this year's primary (or in the Brexit vote) to find examples of Romantic Populist and the Mythical Reactionary movements opposing the developments of the past 30 years.

What Romantic Populist and Mythical Reactionary dissidents typically don't understand is that Shareholder Capitalists need and use strong central governments (which they don't want to try to manage on a day-to-day basis):

• to assure a stable currency, with minimal restrictions on how that government-created commodity is used;
• to defend and facilitate the existence of corporations;
• to protect property rights including everything from real estate ownership to patents;
• to maintain borders safely open to trade; and
• to provide and protect transportation infrastructure such as roads, ports, and airports.

To accomplish corporate goals successful Shareholder Capitalists don't hold political office as their power is found in corporate environment based upon a lifetime of focus on work.

Academic Oligarchists assure this framework for them, arguing only over the details based upon perceived impacts of monetary policy on the rest of us. Without the reasonable support of Congress and the state legislatures along with the concurrence of the majority of the Supreme Court, Academic Oligarchists are at a major disadvantage. Unless of course they use military force in an Authoritarian Revolution.

A true peaceful total revolution by populists or reactionaries is a mythical, romantic fantasy which is exactly what our founding fathers intended.

Some peaceful policy successes by Romantic Populists and Mythical Reactionaries have been accomplished. Within the American Congress and the state legislatures, both Romantic Populists and Mythical Reactionaries occasionally win some policy battles through legislation.

Then the Shareholder Capitalists adapt to (or sometimes thwart) those policies by working with the Academic Oligarchists to fine tune how the new rules are administered and/or by allowing detail variations where Shareholder Capitalists control state governments

As a group neither Academic Oligarchists nor Shareholder Capitalists embrace a particular "ideology". Neither is rigidly "left" or "right", "liberal" or "conservative" because those labels have no real world meaning beyond political spin. Most understand that if you get caught up in an ideological myth, you are inside a bubble that prevents your meaningful participation in the world. They let the rest of us argue over ideology.

Let's take a look at some examples of  issues of  concern to 21st Century Americans because they have contributed to the Economic Collapse and which Academic Oligarchists and Shareholder Capitalists have struggled with.

Example #1 - Housing Costs

That 2016 housing costs are the source of voter anger in the U.S. is a no brainer.

Most Americans Think the Housing Crisis Never Ended written in 2016 tells us:

    The Great Recession rewrote the American dream. Millions of Americans who thought they’d captured the flag instead got swallowed up by a national mortgage-foreclosure crisis. Many of those former homeowners are now renters, competing in ever-more concentrated job markets for ever-scarcer affordable housing.

So perhaps it comes as no surprise that most Americans say that the housing crisis never ended. In fact, one in five Americans say that the worst is yet to come....

In a 2008 article in the Village Voice we were told:

    Perhaps the only domestic issue George Bush and Bill Clinton were in complete agreement about was maximizing home ownership, each trying to lay claim to a record percentage of homeowners, and both describing their efforts as a boon to blacks and Hispanics. HUD, Fannie, and Freddie were their instruments, and, as is now apparent, the more unsavory the means, the greater the growth. But, as Paul Krugman noted in the Times recently, "homeownership isn't for everyone," adding that as many as 10 million of the new buyers are stuck now with negative home equity—meaning that with falling house prices, their mortgages exceed the value of their homes. So many others have gone through foreclosure that there's been a net loss in home ownership since 1998.

We have, of course, been deluged with news stories, books and movies about the whole mortgage scam that created The Great Recession. Articles such as Home Insecurity 2013: Foreclosures and housing in Ohio indicated the situation in a "swing" state:

    Ohio foreclosures are at crisis levels, with more than 70,000 new foreclosures filed in 2012. This was about the same as in 2011 when the state experienced 71,556 foreclosures. What began as mostly an urban problem in the mid-1990s later erupted into a statewide epidemic. Levels have been, for the past three years, below the peak level of 89,000 in 2009. Despite these recent declines, last year’s rates were still two times higher than they had been a decade before in every Ohio county. The high foreclosure numbers persist despite national, state, and local efforts to stem new filings.
    Foreclosures represent a major and ongoing blow against families’ main source of savings and against stability. This report analyzes the new foreclosure filings statistics in Ohio along with some of the latest developments in foreclosure prevention efforts. To add context to the foreclosure numbers, the report provides updates on mortgage defaults and negative equity. It ends with recommendations to better assist individuals, families and communities in becoming more stable.

While the number foreclosures have declined since then, a new problem has developed as explained in The financial pain of middle- and low-income renters:

    Even as home prices continue to recover from the last decade's housing collapse, there's another crisis developing: sky-high rent burdens.
    About 11.4 million American households are paying more than half of their incomes to afford their rent, a record high, according to a new report from Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies. Rent burdens are especially widespread in moderate-income households in the 10 most expensive housing markets, where the report notes that three-quarters of renters earning less than $45,000 pay more than 30 percent of their income on housing.
    Younger Americans are also struggling with a decline in real incomes, with 25 to 34 year olds coping with an 18 percent slump in real incomes, which has added to the difficulties of saving for a down payment.
    With homeownership declining, the rental market is where the housing market is shining. More than 36 percent of U.S. households were renters last year, the highest share in five decades.
    "Rental demand has risen across all age groups, income levels, and household types, with large increases among older renters and families with children," the report noted.
    That's also prompted a rise in households who are cost-burdened, or paying more than 30 percent of their incomes to their landlords. About 21.3 million American households are now considered cost-burdened, an increase of 3.6 million from 2008.

The anger of many Mythical Reactionaries supporting Trump begins with the disappointment brought about  by George Bush and Bill Clinton advocating maximizing home ownership (part of the ownership society Bush talked about which dates back to Margaret Thatcher's administration in the United Kingdom).

It also is of serious concern to the Romantic Populist Millennials whose concerns range from never being able to buy a home to high rents leading to articles like The American housing crisis threatening to put us all on the streets which emphasizes action taken by the Administration of New York Mayor and Academic Oligarchist Bill de Blasio (alma mater Columbia):

    On Monday, New York City took a dramatic step that highlights just how out of control rental housing costs have become in the Big Apple and in many cities nationwide. For the first time, New York froze rents for one-year leases on a million rent-stabilized apartments.
    “Today’s decision means relief,” Mayor Bill de Blasio told reporters. “We know tenants have been forced to make painful choices that pitted ever-rising rent against necessities like groceries, child care and medical bills.”
    Landlords balked and criticized City Hall, calling the move an “unconscionable, politically driven decision.” But Rent Board chair Rachel Godsil was having none of it. Her staff had found that landlord incomes had grown for nine years in a row, including by 3.4 percent last year, while costs only grew by 0.5 percent. In contrast, a majority of most stabilized renters faced continuing income stagnation.

Some, but not all, landlords are Shareholder Capitalists and this is an example of conflict with Academic Oligarchists.

But the fact is that in many regions, particularly in California, Academic Oligarchists have supported policies that create housing shortages. The reasons are complex and include popular environmental rationales.

They rationales are, of course, part of a sales pitch hiding economic impacts by diverting attention, much like gay marriage as an issue diverts attention.

This drives up the cost of housing as thoroughly explained by the California Legislative Analyst in a 2015 report California’s High Housing Costs: Causes and Consequences. Yet, Mythical Reactionaries and Romantic Populists for different reasons are going to find it difficult to support the recommendation of the California Legislative Analyst:

    We advise the Legislature to change policies to facilitate significantly more private home and apartment building in California’s coastal urban areas. Though the exact number of new housing units California needs to build is uncertain, the general magnitude is enormous. On top of the 100,000 to 140,000 housing units California is expected to build each year, the state probably would have to build as many as 100,000 additional units annually—almost exclusively in its coastal communities—to seriously mitigate its problems with housing affordability. Facilitating additional housing of this magnitude will be extremely difficult. It could place strains on the state’s infrastructure and natural resources and alter the prized character of California’s coastal communities. It also would require the state to make changes to a broad range of policies that affect housing supply directly or indirectly—including policies that have been fundamental tenets of California government for many years.

Those "fundamental tenets" - mostly environmentalism - curiously had the side effect of creating a housing shortage inflating the value of existing homes to the benefit of homeowners who then also apply additional pressure on California's Academic Oligarchists.

To date no possible compromise has been achieved, though the recent termination of the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission, Academic Oligarchist Charles Lester (Columbia), was attributed in part to pressure from "some of the state's most powerful lobbyists, representing some of the state's wealthiest people and corporations" or Shareholder Capitalists.

Example #2 - Student Loans

If housing costs are a 21st Century issue, student loan programs began in the 1950's, as explained in Wikipedia:

    U.S. Government-backed student loans were first offered in the 1950s under the National Defense Education Act (NDEA), and were only available to select categories of students, such as those studying toward engineering, science, or education degrees. The student loan program, along with other parts of the Act, which subsidized college professor training, was established in response to the Soviet Union's launch of the Sputnik satellite, and a widespread perception that the United States was falling behind in science and technology, in the middle of the Cold War. Student loans were extended more broadly in the 1960s under the Higher Education Act of 1965, with the goal of encouraging greater social mobility and equality of opportunity.

In 1987, President Ronald Reagan's Secretary of Education William Bennett raised the issue underlying expanding student debt in a New York Times Opinion Piece titled Our Greedy Colleges. A Harvard Law graduate and automatic Academic Oligarchist, Bennett is  ignored by the public and considered a conservative by those who like to use meaningless labels.

At the time Bennett wrote his opinion piece the Reagan Administration was trying to minimize the future impact of the student debt problem by creating Income Contingent Loans which would permit repayment schedules to be tailored to a student's income.

As Bennett explained it in the context of a time when graduates would likely get good jobs: "A graduate's payments would never have to exceed 15 percent of his adjusted gross income, and he could have as long as necessary to repay."

But Bennett was angry at what he was seeing and wrote:

    Many of our colleges are at it again. As they have done annually for the past six years, they have begun to unveil tuition increases that far outstrip the inflation rate. Next year, tuition is expected to rise 6 percent to 8 percent - even though inflation during 1986 was about 1.8 percent.
    ...Since 1982, money available through Federal student aid programs has increased every single year. Overall, Federal outlays for student aid are up 57 percent since 1980. Since 1980, inflation has been just 26 percent....
    If anything, increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions, confident that Federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase. In 1978, subsidies became available to a greatly expanded number of students. In 1980, college tuitions began rising year after year at a rate that exceeded inflation. Federal student aid policies do not cause college price inflation, but there is little doubt that they help make it possible.
    At the same time that higher education has been cutting a bigger piece of the Federal pie, it has also received huge infusions of cash from state governments, from corporations, from foundations and from loyal alumni. The total increase in higher education spending from all these non-Federal sources is staggering. Spending for higher education now consumes about 40 percent of all money spent in America for education.
    It is by no means clear that the performance of many of our colleges and universities justifies this level of expenditure. As I said on the occasion of Harvard's 350th anniversary, too many students fail to receive the education they deserve at our nation's universities. The real problem is not lack of money but failure of vision. 

While Bennett and other members of the Reagan Administration in the context of the time attempted to make the impact of the student loan program less onerous, Bennett was attempting to get future Academic Oligarchists and Congress to deal with the underlying problem - greedy colleges and universities which he felt were not offering a good product and were beginning to look a lot like institutions operated by Shareholder Capitalists.

It is more than ironic that by the 21st Century Shareholder Capitalists, including Donald Trump, were actually running colleges for profit. And, of course, by the 21st Century students from all types of colleges and universities were saddled with high debt while the number of employment opportunities for new graduates that were typical from 1950-1990 declined.

The Bernie Sanders Romantic Populist movement used student debt as one of its key issues but presented the solution as "free tuition" for everyone. This is, of course, consistent with the delusional nature of the movement. As explained by a federal pamphlet on student loans:

    You may use the money you receive only to pay for education expenses at the school that awarded your loan. Education expenses include school charges such as tuition; room and board; fees; books; supplies; equipment; dependent childcare expenses; transportation; and rental or purchase of a personal computer.

This would, of course, pay for costs calculated like this from a California university's website:

Click on image to see a larger version!

When I say that the "free tuition" for everyone as being presented is a delusional solution, it is because as you can see from this website without tuition a four year program still would cost about $80,000.Having the government fund tuition at California's state colleges would cover an additional $20,000.

(Vermont, on the other hand, has its state colleges charge students double that because Bernie and his fellow false-Progressive Vermonters won't subsidize college like California taxpayers do. Or maybe because there are a number of private colleges such as the one Bernie's wife ran.)

Sure, it would help to have free tuition. But it wouldn't come close to keeping students out of debt. That the  Sanders Romantic Populists aren't well enough informed to understand this reinforces William Bennett's comment: "It is by no means clear that the performance of many of our colleges and universities justifies this level of expenditure."

Still, the Shareholder Capitalists and Academic Oligarchists together have failed to devise a compromise to minimize this debt problem.

Further, the Shareholder Capitalists - particularly the tech sector innovators - are the ones demanding this additional education/training. Many have been hiring immigrants from Asia rather than funding adequate education.

This has resulted in the political backlash from both Romantic Populists saddled with the debt and Mythical Reactionaries objecting to immigration.

Example #3 - Net Neutrality

It is still possible for the Academic Oligarchists to devise solutions to problems even with resistance from Shareholder Capitalists, particularly when the latter group is divided on an issue.

No one thought about the internet in ideological terms when it was being developed in the framework of the Department of Defense and cooperating universities - both stable institutional environments mostly controlled by Academic Oligarchists.

Then the internet was broadly implemented by Shareholder Capitalists in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Following broad implementation, however, America was confronted with a populist uprising over net neutrality with Shareholder Capitalists disagreeing with each other because of contrary interest - internet service providers versus web site operators. In this case Academic Oligarchists devised the adaptation.

Academic Oligarchists this past year set some operational rules within a framework of encouraging the profitable consolidation of internet service providers by Shareholder Capitalists and the profitable operation of popular web sites by new Shareholder Capitalists. It also assures a mix of Shareholder Capitalist beneficiaries such as cloud service providers ranging from the venerable IBM to Jeff Bezos' Amazon.

This is a good example of adaptation by Academic Oligarchists and Shareholder Capitalists. But it is also an example of how what is a public utility - in terms of a historical understanding of that term - typically heavily regulated to achieve egalitarian economic goals, can become something else just by administrative actions of Academic Oligarchists. It was necessary because of gridlock in Congress.

The rules will avoid any continuing threat of revolution from tech Romantic Populists, who were focused not on rates charged to American families, but on making sure the entertainment website corporations didn't get reduced speeds or have to pay "fast lane" charges to the internet service corporations.

The issue of net neutrality appears to have been resolved by a policy decision from a government bureaucracy - the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). In the process,  two automatic Academic Oligarchists - Jessica Rosenworcel,  Wellesley, for neutrality regulation (see How Jessica Rosenworcel Is Shaping Our Digital Future) and Ajit Pai, Harvard and University of Chicago, against neutrality regulation (see - Net neutrality's chief critic)  - played key roles in the debate.

The net neutrality policy approved by a 3-2 Commission vote orders what tech nerd Romantic Populists believe is beneficial true net neutrality. (The policy might be reviewed by the Supreme Court though they may pass on taking up the appeal of the appeals court decision approving the new policy written by Appellate Court Judges Sri Srinivasan, Stanford, and David Tatel, University of Chicago.) Within this discussion, the FCC has assured all Shareholder Capitalists that it will not get involved in their routine setting of rates for internet activity.

The sad fact is, of the three examples, the first two matter in people's lives but the Academic Oligarchists failed miserably. Even Net Neutrality will not assure internet affordability nor universal high speed internet for ordinary folks.

In 2016 it appears we have reached a point that the Academic Oligarchists and Shareholder Capitalists may face a serious revolution.

OUR WEBSITE

Originally Posted in the Redwood Guardian

The Latest Round in the California Water Issue

While generally not doing anything meaningful about the budget crisis, the Legislature and the Governor worked closely to put what may become a very unpopular water bond measure before the voters.

While we're all waiting for the opportunity to vote on the matter, a "discussion" continues which illustrates why the water "debate" is becoming another matter on the list of things California voters are disgusted about.

In what appears to be a reasonable approach in the debate over Delta water, the National Academy of Sciences appointed a panel to review rules adopted by federal wildlife agencies to protect endangered Delta fish species. This was requested by Senator Diane Feinstein.

At the simplest (or simpleton) level, the problem has been portrayed as a battle between hard working American farmers (who are an endangered species themselves) and liberal environmentalists who care more about smelt than people.

This review lays out clearly the kind of players involved on the agriculture side. Feinstein acted in response to a letter from Stewart Resnick, owner of Paramount Farms. To quote from the Paramount Farms web site: "Paramount Farms is the largest grower and processor of almonds and pistachios in the world." In fact, its processing facilities occupy more acres than what one might think of as "a farm." Again, from their web site:

Ah yes, as Ma and Pa Paramount, their eight kids, and their trusty farmhand Jethro struggle to keep the family farm....

In fact, this is a political arena battle between large corporate farmers and large corporate real estate developers on one side against the interests of California's remaining fisherman who are in truth the only small businessmen and women who have a survival stake in the battle (yes, the Delta wildlife have a survival stake also, but can't vote) joined by those who value the Delta ecosystem - the environmental community and federal wildlife agencies.

According to the Sacramento Bee, this review will cost American taxpayers $1.5 million and it will be the third such review, as the Bee notes: "Two separate independent science panels have affirmed the importance of fall flows for Delta smelt." Will the third review be enough?

Senator Diane Feinstein, the Senior Senator from California and a Democrat, is the epitome of the American survivalist politician dependent on large corporations and whose conservative politics look and smell like dead fish.

OUR WEBSITE

Originally Posted in the Redwood Guardian

FERC Ponders Allowing Public Input, Environmental Review of Proposal for Electrical Generators in Whale Route

It was one year ago that my article entitled "Limited Time Only - Act now to own your piece of the ocean off the Mendocino Coast" (posted below) was published. This week the alliance of Northern California coast commercial and recreational fishing associations known as Fishermen Interested in Safe Hydrokinetics (FISH) has announced that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is extending its time to consider the FISH committee request for public participation and environmental analysis in developing federal licensing regulations for nascent wave energy generation projects.

In other words, FERC has to think about whether and how it would allow public participation and environmental analysis before issuing permits allowing PG&E and Chevron to place electrical generators and a grid in the Gray Whale Migration Route. More than 200 hydrokinetic projects have been proposed across the United States as a solution to environmental issues. Two wave energy projects are currently proposed for the coast off Mendocino County and one in Humboldt County, in one of the most flourishng marine areas on the West Coast. Seven are off the Oregon coast, including Lincoln County

Offshore from Mendocino County PG&E's proposal covers 68 square miles. Chevron's proposal is for a premilinary study. If implemented the proposals would require significant exclusion zones and would be located along the Gray Whale migration route. (See map above)

The City and County of San Francisco filed an initial statement in opposition to FERC even processing these applications because of lack of staff . In it's statement, the San Francisco argued:

    While specifically not referring to this application, San Francisco believes the risk of sparking a 'gold rush' by ill prepared applicants with ill-conceived projects is too high and the drain on Commission resources in reviewing such applications would be too great.

But the process has moved on.

As in all such complex regulatory processes, before the potentially effected public could wrap its collective head around the meaning of the proposals, FERC established rules regarding the process which essentially precluded public involvement in the process. As one writer noted:

    This pejorative May 21, 2008 FERC ruling rejects requests of FISH, Fort Bragg, Mendocino County and local stakeholders’ to rehear their right to participate in this wave energy development project. It is noted since onset of the Mendocino wave energy agenda, FERC and PG&E continue to swiftly move toward their goals while intentionally blocking all local, public participation. As wave energy development projects on the U.S. coasts progress, Americans are discovering that FERC’s convoluted wave energy licensing process is ill-defined, biased and discriminates against public participation.

As I noted in my article a year ago: "If you...want to get in on the action, you'd better hurry as FERC is likely to fast track these applications to approval before...when a new President takes office."

What the County of Mendocino, the City of Fort Bragg, the Recreational Fishing Alliance, and Lincoln County, Oregon discovered is that FERC really didn't plan to hear from them. So they've joined the FISH Committee’s request for a rehearing of FERC's policies. According to a report by Recreational Fishing Alliance West Coast Region Director:

    Potential negative impacts on marine life from wave buoys include electromagnetic pollution and interference with migratory finfish, whale entanglements and altering the bottom structure of the seabeds. Turbine devices submerged in rivers, bays and estuaries could entrain juvenile fish.
    "We take this issue very seriously and, if necessary, intend to vigorously pursue our legal options," said John Innes, board member of the North Coast Fishing Association. "We are not opposed to renewable energy, we only want to make sure we know what the impacts will be to fish and other marine life before we sign off on these projects. Considering that wave energy is in its infancy, it is extremely important to have proper controls and regulations in place to prevent non-recoverable detrimental effects on our ocean environment."

If you are concerned, its better late then never to get involved.

OUR WEBSITE

Originally Posted in the Redwood Guardian

Limited Time Only Act now to own your piece of the Pacific Ocean off the Mendocino Coast

Yes, folks, act now! Your friends at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will give you piece of the Pacific Ocean. All you have to do is file an application to reserve your piece of the ocean. Chevron and PG&E have filed applications creating potential rights that constitute a claim over the ocean surface, similar to staking a mining claim. If they "mine" these "claims," the necessary structures would occupy the surface to the exclusion of others, including whales.

The California Energy Commission web site has some information on wave energy leading one to believe that this State Commission might be involved.  But Bob Aldrich of the California Energy Commission's Media and Public Communications Office stated: "We do not have any “experts” to speak of on wave energy at the Commission. I wrote the page, which was created based on information from a number of places." He also reflected a naive view: "You may also need Coastal Commission approval for such a wave energy device.

In fact, the filings are with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the people who allowed California to be ripped off by energy companies a few years ago. Thus the claims are likely to be outside the regulatory scope of State of California agencies such as the Coastal Commission. Legal challenges would inevitably end up in the Bush Supreme Court which has already established its sympathies against state regulation.

PG&E is seeking to have two 40-megawatt wave farms up and running off the state's north coasts within a few years, according to documents it has filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC.

The Mendocino County wave farm will be located off Fort Bragg in open ocean a half mile to 4.5 miles offshore. A 68-square-mile area will be assessed. PG&E essentially will turn the zone into a wave-energy testing ground, spending up to $3 million to try out various technologies from up to four manufacturers. "A number of different device concepts are being pursued by independent device manufacturers, and there is no industry consensus at this time on the optimal energy conversion technology," PG&E execs wrote in an application for a preliminary permit for the project. "The initial ... devices to be used will be selected from device manufacturers who have sufficiently mature technologies available for deployment."

On July 2, Chevron California Renewable Energy, Inc. filed a preliminary permit application with the FERC. The Town of Mendocino would be dead center in the claim area, although wave energy plants are not normally visible from shore. It would avoid the Van Damme State Marine Area. The large study area is framed in order to locate a smaller project area. That larger area is a rectangle that runs from three miles offshore to less than a mile from shore, from Point Cabrillo to a spot halfway between the mouth of Little River and Albion.

Like PG&E, Chevron plans to evaluate alternative designs and locations of wave energy conversion devices.

"These devices would be combined in arrays for demonstration scale or commercial scale power production," Chevron said in a July 5 letter to local government agencies.

Wave energy technology is moving from the idea stage to the practical at breakneck speed.

Chevron's proposal is nearly identical to PG&E's, including a competition among manufacturers and technologies, which could make the Mendocino Coast the world's leading spot for wave energy research, at least as the world stands now. Wave energy plants proposed all over the world generally come with a single technology.

PG&E is in preliminary discussions with Ocean Power Technologies of New Jersey, the U.K's Ocean Power Delivery and Ireland's Finavera Renewables. While wave energy technologies vary, they essentially involve a device that floats on the ocean's surface and that harnesses the power produced by the surf to drive a turbine that generates greenhouse gas-free electricity. PG&E will deploy multiple wave-energy devices in an array moored to the ocean's floor and connected to the shore by a transmission cable.

Chevron, however, has picked a company and a technology to start with The Pelamis which resembles a chain of bobbing giant redwood trees or wriggling giant sea serpents. Waves jostle the links between Pelamis sections, pushing hydraulic rams to provide the energy.

Chevron estimates the power range from a tiny 2 megawatts to 60 megawatts, about twice as much as needed to power the entire coast. The PG&E plan hopes for 40 megawatts.

Chevron is making substantial investments in alternative energy. Although the Chevron company has California in its name, all the mailing addresses are in Houston, Texas.

Chevron would connect the power via undersea cable to an unnamed PG&E substation. Chevron promises public meetings and "extensive public process."

On August 14, 2006, Roger Bedard, Ocean Energy Leader, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), gave a presentation to the Fort Bragg City Council about the benefits of wave energy which, according to minutes of the meeting, included the following points:

• Wave energy is clean with no pollution or emission of greenhouse gases.
• It is a sustainable and renewable source with high power density and creates working class jobs.
• This new technology, with proper maintenance, will be one of the most benign energy-producing technologies around.
• He described three of the dozens of different types wave energy devices made today.
• Fort Bragg is considered a possible site for wave energy because it has the infrastructure: an outflow pipe from the former mill site with an easement; a PG&E substation nearby on Walnut
Street; and a harbor with machine shops and docks that could possibly provide device deployment.
• Other fishing communities have formed a port liaison project where engineers and scientists get together with fishermen and crabbers and come up with a solution for the greater good.
• National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reimburses fishermen for their time spent on the project.
• Hal LaFlash, Director Renewable Energy Policy & Planning, PG&E, stated that PG&E is working toward 20% renewable energy by 2010.

The minutes of that meeting show some signs of discussion:

The following was noted in response to question from the public:
• The effect of tsunamis is very small as the devices are located about three miles offshore.
• The Coast Guard, which must approve installation of the plant, has rules about beacons,
transponders and lights. Wave machines are also indicated on their charts.
• Wave energy devices are modular and installed in small increments. If there are no unforeseen effects, another modular can be installed.
• Typically waves that reach the shore are reduced by 10%.
• Ocean Beach was not a viable site because it would have been very costly to upgrade power from the west side of San Francisco to the east.
• Three California communities – Morro Bay, Eureka, and Fort Bragg will be considered as potential sites September 20, by PG&E, the California Energy Commission, and the Public Energy Commission.
• It costs $100 million to $150 million to build a plant which employs about 30 people full time. Independent developers invest in wave energy plants.
• Government subsidizes the first plants to get the market going. Production tax credits are offered.
• There is no history on how long units last because the technology is so new; however, they are designed to last 20 years.
• The mooring is similar to mooring a ship with anchors, clump weights, and cables.
• LaFlash added that PG&E has an open solicitation for renewable energy.
• The on-shore facility might be at PG&E’s Walnut Street site depending on voltage.

The following was noted by Council during discussion of this item:
• Councilmember Melo suggested that research be done on the Fort Bragg Local Coastal Plan, in particular Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area restrictions. The easement for the wastewater treatment plant goes out 600’. He believes that outfall was blasted into the bedrock, not buried in sediments. He stated that he supports finding out more about this.
• Councilmember Hammerstrom said that he appreciates the depths of answers from Bedard and the fact that he also admits when he does not know the answer. He asked if the site could be relocated from time to time to distribute its effects. Bedard replied that it could be done, but there would be cost impacts. It would have to be a really good reason to move it.

The President and CEO EPRI is Steven R. Specker, a PhD in nuclear engineering, whose primary work background was with General Electric's nuclear power division. The company's Strategic Vision is described on its web site as follows:

The Electricity Technology Roadmap initiative began in 1997. Although spearheaded by EPRI, over 200 organizations contributed to the framing of this vision and the development of an initial report in 1999. It was organized around five Destinations that are critical milestones on the path toward achieving a sustainable global energy economy by 2050. The five Destinations are:
(1) Strengthening the Power Delivery Infrastructure
(2) Enabling the Digital Society
(3) Boosting Economic Productivity and Prosperity
(4) Resolving the Energy/Environment Conflict
(5) Managing the Global Sustainability Challenge

One of its related reports is entitled Limiting Challenges Report #12: Ecological Asset Management which in its Preface contains the following paragraphs:

Eco-asset management harnesses market forces to preserve, enhance, restore, and create the natural capital life itself depends upon. In this report, eco-asset management is described within the context of the societal objectives defined by the Electricity Technology Roadmap, a collaborative exploration of the future of the global electricity enterprise. Eco-asset management is characterized as a market-based approach with promise for maximizing the productivity of natural resources to promote economic vitality, protect environmental and public health, improve the human condition, and accelerate global progress toward a sustainable future.

For companies in the energy, agriculture, mining, timber, real estate, land management, and other resource-based sectors, eco-asset management oilers significant opportunities for increasing revenues, reducing compliance costs, eliminating liabilities, and managing risks. Improving environmental quality, protecting public health, and demonstrating corporate citizenship represent additional—and substantial—benefits. For government agencies and other stakeholders, market-based approaches promise solutions for achieving environmental goals more efficiently and at lower cost, as well as for addressing complex challenges such as climate change, water shortages, and biodiversity loss.

The Institution of Engineering and Technology, a British research organization, noted the following about wave energy in a "fact file" publication entitled Environmental Effects of Electricity Generation: Renewable Sources:

Wave Energy

There are, basically, two types of wave energy device. The first utilises the essentially up and down movement of the sea’s surface and is usually located well away from a shore-line where the average power of some 50kW per metre of wave front. The other type utilises the action of the waves on the sea-shore. Clearly, which of these devices is used has a considerable effect on the type of environmental impact of wave technology.

Off-shore devices have received the most attention in the UK and will therefore be considered first. As wave energy devices extract energy from motion, the water surface behind the device is essentially calm. There is, therefore, a reduction in the sea’s action on the seashore, and hence an effect on its ecology. How effective this change is depends on how far offshore the device is moored and how long it is. The devices themselves could be a navigation hazard, particularly if they broke their anchors. Seals and predatory sea birds may also be attracted to the devices. Although the actual method of energy extraction, the conversion of this energy into electricity, and its subsequent transmission to population centres have not been agreed, it is already clear that the cabling ashore and the siting of transmission facilities, in what would generally be areas of high scenic value, would cause the greatest environmental concern about potential wave energy exploitation. The impact of transmission facilities is, in fact, common to many types of renewable energy sources.

What hasn't been discussed is that the Mendocino County proposals would place electrical generation and transmission facilities electromagnetic fields in or near the Pacific Coast whale migration routes. It would likely take a decade after full installation to know the real effects.

Are we really ready to do this? If you are and want to get in on the action, you'd better hurry as FERC is likely to fast track these applications to approval before 2009 when a new President takes office.

OUR WEBSITE

Originally Posted in the Redwood Guardian