In Obama Administration a Green Economy Means Lobbyist Interests Get Rich

Anyone familiar with the political connections of VC firm Kleiner Perkins, reasonably assumes that if they go after federal stimulus funds, they will likely get what they want. As we've seen with Fisker Automotive and Silver Spring Networks, Kleiner firms now have won over $1Bil from the Department of Energy or roughly the size of what others have reported to be Kleiner's entire investment in CleanTech. (can anyone say "break even?") But, before you conclude that Kleiner only needs to show up to win these funds, take a note of caution: it turns out that Kleiner Perkins is not the only politically connected CleanTech firm with it's hand out for DOE funds. That's right, even if Kleiner Perkins companies in some cases do not have to compete in a market to win these DOE funds, Kleiner Perkins the VC firm will have to compete for President Obama's money. I'm sorry, I mean Tax Payer Money! (how could I screw that up?)

Competitor #1 to Kleiner's complete domination of DOE stimulus funding: another VC firm called the US Renewable Energy Group. These are the guys that partnered with Cielo Wind Power and The Communist Party of China, I mean bankers in China, to put together a Texas Wind project. It might succeed because have a look at the team trying to pull home the funds (well, tax credits anyway). The US-Reg team reads like a Barak Obama grade school soccer team roster. "Kick it over here, Barak!" Does anyone formerly in politics do anything but seek federal funding any more? Depends on what Dick Cheney is up to these days I guess.

Before the Obama US Reg good ole boys get too celebratory though, they still face steep obstacles...not so much on the merit of their technology or program (a throwback to a market system we used to have) but rather on political momentum. First of all, they have Senator Charles Schumer on their back complaining about their prospects. Senator Schumer has received campaign contributions from Kleiner's John Doerr (to name at least one). So Schumer is upset but not enough to necessarily ding Fisker Automotive for having an investment from an Arab Company on their financial sheets. (google prior blogs about that or search SEC records--you won't find it in a newspaper).

Cathy Zoi & Al Gore

Assume for the moment that Schumer settles down and US-Reg has a fighting chance. Probably not going to happen even in that case because, Al Gore's former Alliance for Climate CEO, Cathy Zoi is the Department of Energy's treasurer of $20Bil in stimulus funds. That's with a B not an M, US-Reg.

Kleiner's John Doerr and the rest of Barak Obama's "outside" Economic Advisors

If you are Al Gore, you don't even have to lobby the DOE to get a buck or two. Why would you? Crazy talk. But the idiots over at the Wall Street Journal asked Gore about this any way. Let me summarize: Gore, did you lobby anyone in the administration for DOE funds? Nope. Ok, good enough. So, it's silly because everyone knows Gore's connections are so tight he doesn't need to lobby. In fact, even when Gore is lobbying for DOE funds it's not even really lobbying really. At least, that's what it seems like considering the recently released White House Visitor's log.

Kleiner's Gore has visited the White House 4 times in 2009 including one visit with Kate Brandt, who is a special assistant to Energy Czar, Carol Browner. Browner made the news recently when she announced several million dollars in DOE funding would go to Kleiner Perkins investment Silver Spring Networks for a project in Browner's home state (see beginning of article). So, you see, US-Reg and Al Gore fans, there's a bit of a but not much of a contest here. And that's good, because there might not even be a problem around which a competition can be organized if the new revelations around the supposedly better understood causes of global warming being tossed around now...causes which include less impact by CO2.

Carol Browner

In case any other Kleiner competitors are out there wondering about their prospects due to doubts raised by this article, there's additional information to show just how tight this little political team is today. I'm going to quote at length from a US News & World report interview of John Doerr:

Has the recession affected what you do?

The answer is profoundly. Were it not for the policies in the stimulus bill, America would be out of the energy business. The capital markets to fund new solar—the capital markets are terrible. What has happened is Congress has said, "We want to see this kind of work funded."

How so?

More secure Department of Energy loan guarantees. There is funding for R&D. I am very optimistic.

Are you optimistic about the long-run?

There has never been a time to be more optimistic than right now. Obama has put together the dream team to work on energy and energy policy. I'm really privileged to be on the outside advising them. If you look at the team, they've got Cathy Zoi [DOE assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy], they've got Matt Rogers [a former McKinsey executive and now senior adviser to Energy Secretary Steven Chu]. He's creating four investment banks within the Department of Energy—here's $80 billion we want to invest really wisely. There's Carol Browner in the White House. We've got leadership in Congress that understands these matters—Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi. This is an A-Team.

You were tapped for the p resident's economic advisory board back in February. What has your role been?

I think this president has said he is not interested in being trapped inside the echo chamber of Washington, D.C. [Our goal] is to provide outside advice directly to him about what we can do to get our economy going. He's juggling a lot of balls at once. I think he's going to achieve his agenda. I think he's going to make sure this isn't a jobless recovery. I am an American, a grateful kid from St. Louis, and I think we've all got a responsibility to the generations to come to ensure that America is a leader for the planet.

Which brings me back to batteries. Regardlesss of whether or not the Earth is warming and it's caused by humans, the United States needs better energy storage to kick the foreign oil habit. Unproven electric vehicle programs aren't going to get us there. Only better batteries. Yawn.

Photos are linked to original sources.


Note: many people who read an article like this ask, "How much does that cost?" If you're really truly cynical and you discount all human effort outside of pure money changing hands (which is incalculable unless you go by lobbyist fees), then the figure for $1bil in funding may be around $2Mil. At least, that's how one might read the Wall Street Journal's numbers. I'm not cynical like you though.

GO EESTOR!!!

EEStor's Carl Nelson Flexes Muscles

EEStor's 80 Yr Old Carl Nelson after a recent workout. (accuracy of photo not guaranteed)

Thanks to an alert tavern owner in Thailand known only as Mark, we learned yesterday that EEStor's principle co-inventor, Carl Nelson, former colleague of MIT's Arthur Von Hippel, is busy battling away with the United States Patent & Trademark office for EEStor's claims. In a letter dated November 6, 2009, Nelson continues to press for the EEStor discovery of "a primary particle having an unexpectedly high relevative permittivity with low variance within the temperature range of -55C and 125C and having desirable breakdown voltage above and beyond what those idiots like Y_Po and EE-Tom think it should be." Elsewhere, Nelson states that the "primary particles of composition modified barium titanate [have a] dielectric constant of greater than 33,000 and high break down voltagae of greater than 6000V. Or in other words, plenty of power to kick any other capacitor's ass. Bring it."

In a rare follow up interview, Nelson reflected on EEStor's relative strength and power in relation to all other would be competitors, "as far as energy storage is concerned, it's us vs a bunch of puny 12yr old boys. We will dominate the world with our genuinely ULTRA capacitors and enjoy life feasting on our victory." (editor's note: accuracy of quote similar to photo).

So, there you have it. Carl Nelson, getting a bit feisty and flexing his muscles. What else would you expect the co-inventor of the 21st century's greatest technological wonder?

Note: the photo and silly quotes are not real.

Is Al Gore lying to Charlie Rose about Energy Storage?

Charlie Rose is a sort of journalist well known for his interviews of interesting people. He recently interviewed Al Gore on November 4, 2009. This is interesting to eestorians because Charlie Rose is a limited partner at Kleiner Perkins. That means he gives his money to Kleiner partners who then invest it in companies like EEStor. As we know from SEC records, Kleiner invested $3mil in EEStor. Based on the valuation of Zenn Motor Company and Dick Weir's statement that KPCB owns "twenty something percent" of EEStor, that $3Mil is now worth $300Mil even before EEStor has revealed 3rd party validation of their claims. That is a 100X return on investment and if you own shares in a Kleiner fund, you may have access to information about investments that show that much progress. Based on how Kleiner loves to tout it's success, it's very likely you do have access to that information, if you are an investor like Charlie Rose. Naturally, any time you talk with one of the key partners, you might want to inquire how your dollars are performing with that stupendous return they keep mentioning when asking you for further investment in new funds. (can you imagine looking at the EEStor returns to date and having Kleiner report something like 'Oh, that? You won't have access to any of it. We made such a silly mistake there. Every time

I'm asked about that, I wish I could find a bag for my head.' Yeah right!)

Enter the interview with Al Gore.

As you see in the above youtube video, Al Gore starts pontificating about solar technology and then abruptly turns to the "extremely important" topic of energy storage. Rose then inquires not about where we are in terms of energy storage development but rather, oddly, about "where are we in terms of dramatic developments in battery capacity?" Such wording makes one want to ask Charlie Rose the same question. Also, notice specifically, how Rose's eyes glare into Gore when he asks the question much as they do when Rose is sipping coffee in his lovely garden on weekend mornings while he thumbs through his financial statements which document what makes his lavish lifestyle possible. (emphasis mine--focus on the glare of truth on Rose's face, almost like if laser beams were x-raying Gore to see what brand of underwear he has on or if it

it made of hemp).

Gore's response is not quick because he is likely hearing the echo of John Doerr saying, "if we bring you on, you can't spill the beans, man." The pace of his voice slows initially--happy he

caught himself.... exactly like someone keeping a secret. Then, we have unusual body gyrations similar to shifting in one's chair. Gore's eyes shift in several directions (note: Gore is a southpaw). It's difficult to interpret all of these movements because what Gore is hiding, in terms of his EEStor knowledge, is not easily drawn out by the question Rose asked. Had it been a more direct question, we might be able to more easily make sense of Gore's shiftiness.

Here's what we do know. KPCB only has one interesting investment in energy storage--that is EEStor. Gore specifically mentions non lithium chemistries. Any genius out there want to show me a non-lithium chemistry that beats lithium? No? Class dismissed then. Conclusion: Al Gore was not fully truthful when he answered Charlie Rose because he knows EEStor is en route. Outside of politics, we sometimes refer to that as lying. Whether or not we can politely call it lying may best be answered by Charlie Rose. Charlie? Charlie? .......Charles! Come to! Stop drooling on your financial statements.

Note: this posting is dedicated to one of my favorite readers who happens to be a family member and who asked me to write more articles such as the one on EEStor's Carl Nelson.

Don't forget to send a tweet to @algore on twitter.

NASA Says No Sale

As previously reported here, NASA internal discussions seemed to indicate that at one point they had acquired EEStor technology. According to follow up correspondence today between a FOIA administrator and Mr. Ambrose, NASA did not ever purchase EEStor technology as Ambrose seemed to indicate in his released email.

The NASA information on EEStor is still under investigation and it would appear that there is definitely more to learn. For example, the six SBIR proposals EEStor supposedly submitted in 2002. Proposals, I can't seem to find in the online NASA database.

Lockheed Ad in Scientific American

Pick up a copy of the November 2009 Scientific American. It has an interesting set of articles about wind, solar and water power source systems. Somewhat interesting was the full page add that Lockheed Martin has on page 3 where they go into detail comparing their new mission as an energy company to the Apollo space mission, a program Lockheed was heavily involved with at the time. They talk about "energy security" as the goal and list energy storage as one of the means.

To my knowledge, Lockheed has no special connection to energy storage other than EEStor Inc., despite what any occasional Lockheed employed lithium researcher might tell you. Sure, Lockheed runs Sandia Labs, but no one is going to make the claim that any lithium ion solution Lockheed is directly working with will provide the means to energy security. No one with a brain that is.

NASA: Do They Own EEStor Tech or Something Else?

So, as predicted, yesterday's NASA revelations have been dissected by few thousand EEstory addicts and the consensus appears to be, what else, extreme uncertainty. :-) While these several thousands continue to orbit around the truth, let's summarize the current mission status. Doubters believe the key correspondence includes reference to generic ultracapacitors as having been purchased while others looking at the context of the discussion, point out that EEStor is the topic of interest in the thread...and want to believe, as I did, that NASA may be in possession of at least some components. I'll accept the plausibility of the doubts registered in discussion and simply say, we await NASA for more answers on this.

In the meantime, there is still very intersting new information in this FOIA. Additional specs, EESU sizes. And probably the most important revelation is that EEStor claimed in writing to NASA that their underlying technology was already "completely" developed, tested and certified. I dont know how many times I have to say it---ALL of the evidence gathered to date means EEStor can only be a scam or real. Anyone who looks at the scam theory with any depth, rejects it. Ergo, EEStor is real.

NASA Purchases EEStor Technology: EEStor Expands Claims for 8X Improvement of EESU.

NASA released a treasure trove of EEStor documentation today including revelations that they have already purchased EEStor Technology. According to internal documents obtained from a recent FOIA request, at least one NASA official has indicated making a purchase of EEStor technology for testing purposes. In the January 16, 2009 email, NASA researcher Robert Ambrose is responding to an internal query about EEstor and writes:

"We have been studying them for use in our regenerative braking scheme, where they need high specific power, but don't need a large total energy. We purchased some and will build them into a flywheel test that we do for all our servo drive systems. "

Ambrose was unavailable for comment due to a meeting he is attending in the Netherlands.

The apparent purchase of EEStor technology would be the first publicly known transaction for the technology to date. Included emails from other officials express doubts which were filtered to Ambrose because of his apparent knowledge of EEStor.

The documents released today by NASA also contain a presentation from EEStor where they claim their future generations of EESU will have two to eight times more energy density than their first generation technology. Thus, the much discussed 52kWh EESU could go as high as 416kWh or in other words, the 300 mile Electric Vehicle range could become 2400 miles.

The presentation also includes a slide comparing EEStor specifications to those of lithium battery maker A123 Systems.

This release of new information about EEStor comes on the heals of a bit of dissappointment surrounding whether or not EEStor successfully completed component and/or UL testing. Without a public announcement, many followers have been starving for net new news (NNN).

As with most EEStor stories, you can be certain a predictable hysterical debate will ensue on TheEEStory.com, the official site for hysterical EEStor debate.

Former Tesla Executive Says 'FBI Should be Chasing EEStor'

Although I'm sure he was probably joking...somewhat....Daryl Siry, former CMO of Tesla Motors recently answered a tweet I sent him with some not so subtle thoughts about EEStor.

After Siry's recent Wired Article on EEStor in which he highlighted EEStor's theoretical value of $1.5Bil (based on Zenn Motor Company's current market valuation, I sent him the following tweet:


EEStor is worth either $0 or much much more than $1.5Bil. DOE should be chasing them before Tesla or Fisker.

To which Siry responded:

more like the FBI should be chasing them


It's been reported elsewhere that Tesla & EEstor have held talks. So, if you are a skeptic, read a lot into Siry's tweet. If you are a believer, brush it off as an offhanded joke. But either way, it illustrates that nothing is as it seems when it comes to the EEStory.

BTW, I was serious about the obvious point that EEStor's work is much, much more important than Fisker's or Tesla's. The DOpEs should not be passively sitting idle with regard to EEStor. Rather, they should be actively trying to engage them. After all, how long will Tesla and/or Fisker survive if EEStor/Zenn decide not to sell them EESU's?


Note: I first learned about EEStor from a Wired article 2 years ago.


Image Source: Triplepundit.com

EEStor Dream Dinner Guests to Assemble for Electric Car Panel

Imagine you could have dinner with anyone related to EEStor (but outside of EEStor & Zenn) and engage in a riveting discussion about EEStor. Who would you pick and why? How about William Ford Jr., who has held discussions with Ian Clifford of Zenn Motor Company? Or, what about Jennifer Granholm, the governor of Michigan who recently supported Zenn Motor Company's DOE application for a facility to be built in Michigan. Or how about Kleiner Perkins' Ray Lane, whose name is listed as the primary point of contact on SEC documents related to EEStor ownership?

I don't know about you but that would be appetizing conversation for sure. Add to that a representative from the Edison Electrical Institute, which would call to mind the last debacle of electric cars due to an intentionally set battery factory fire, and you'd have the makings of one fascinating discussion.

Well, you won't be having these people over for dinner any time soon, I'm afraid to say. (yes, wake up). But! You can catch these persons of interest Oct 19 & 21 at the 2009 The Business of Plugging In conference at the opening session.

If you attend this event and allow these fine individual to escape without discussing EEStor, you are a fool. Let me help you formulate the first question for Ray Lane:

1) Ray, according to filed lobbyist records of Fabiani & Company, Kleiner Perkins companies Fisker, Fortu and V Vehicle have all had lobbying performed on their behalf. Is there some reason why EEStor is not also represented?

Small World

Cathy Zoi & Al Gore

This is not a well researched article. It has almost no underlying fact checking. It doesn't have a central organizing principle or unifying theory. Just a set of related questions. It's being written only partially as a public service to anyone hoping the Obama administration lives up to it's goal to be the most transparent administration ever. It's written by someone who simply wants the United States to recognize the need we have for better batteries and to prioritize around that fundamental fact.

Point Number 1: The Wall Street Journal recently wrote an article highlighting the fact that Fisker Automotive received some funds from the Department of Energy and is backed by Kleiner Perkins with whom Al Gore works. Presumably, what makes this news above and beyond other similar announcements is that Gore is on the Kleiner team. Certainly, there is a story there about potentially deserving firms not receiving funds and sorting out the details of selection criteria, etc. But, honestly, I don't see that one having legs unless someone is going to lay out a substantiated theory about deliberate fraud on the part of DOE. That'll never happen. In the meantime, it's news primarily because Gore is involved. Agreed?

Point Number 2: The article does mention that Kleiner Perkins partners donate significantly to political campaigns. $2Mil recently. That's a good fact to report since it launches a set of related questions. What I can't figure out is why the article didn't address them directly. Here are the related questions:

1) Did Al Gore personally lobby the Dept of Energy on behalf of Fisker? (Not a problem at all provided the DOE selection criteria is easy to understand, explain and apply)

2) Has Al Gore had any contact with Cathy Zoi since she was appointed over the program that awarded funds to Fisker? (after all, she was Gore's first CEO for the Alliance for Climate Change Protection. Anyone home at the Wall Street Journal? )

3) Of the companies who have received DOE funds, what percentage have made campaign donations and to whom? Also, how much has been spent on lobbying by the winners vs the losers? (Everyone has a right to lobby congress and donate to elections. It's a fundamental aspect of participating in the political process. It's an opportunity every individual in this country enjoys. But, the question is, are procedures in place to ensure this participation in our Democracy does not afford less deserving projects with federal financing advantages? Not a pot shot at anyone--just a relevant question any ordinary tax payer may contemplate)

4) What exactly is the criteria DOE is following to provide funds to a foreign firm like Fisker? (We have no doubt that Fisker employs a great group of individuals of the highest character and caliber. They have great ideas, great designs and a rosy future. But, on what basis were they selected? Surely, the DOE staffs competent, fair and insightful staff. Laying out how they conduct their work is to their advantage.)

5) Does the DOE only look to provide funds to firms who seek them? Is anyone at the DOE proactively going out and looking at firms who have not submitted applications to learn whether or not they could be encouraged to gain some advantages with federal funding? (hint hint: EEStor).

6) What sort of lobbying does Kleiner Perkins perform? Does John Doerr's role on President Obama's Economic Advisory Board constitute lobbying?

Point Number 3: Let's dissect this last question a bit because maybe lobbying isn't the proper word. According to the white house press release from Feb 6, 2009, one of the functions of the Advisory Board is to:

"meet regularly and provide advice directly to the President on the programs to jump-start economic growth and facilitate economic stability. "

That is interesting because according to the Department of Energy website, Cathy Zoi's role includes the following:

"Ms. Zoi oversees EERE's $16.8 billion in funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. EERE is responsible for education, conservation, regulation, and efficient use of our nation's energy resources, including federal energy management, building codes, appliance standards, vehicle technologies, and the ENERGY STAR® program. EERE works to strengthen the United States' energy security, environmental quality, and economic vitality through public-private partnerships.

In her role as Assistant Secretary, Ms. Zoi manages the U.S. Department of Energy's $2.1 billion applied science, research, development, and deployment portfolio, which promotes marketplace integration of renewable and environmentally sound energy technologies."

Do you see the issue here? It seems we have one of those innocent and accidental situations where a group of loosely or tightly connected individuals comes together in a configuration that can only lead honest, hard working people to wonder. This wondering, if conducted unfairly, has no place in the constructive advancement of this country. So, let's put some fairness on the table.

In life, Cathy Zoi is an accomplished winner. She's devoted herself to important topics, ie, energy. Her list of accomplishments is a mile long and Obama was very fortunate to have her join the DOE. Indeed the whole country is fortunate someone of her caliber would mix with the historically unaccomplished federal government. Additionally, these energy issues for which Zoi is on the front line affect me deeply as an individual since I'm a staunch advocate of cleaner fuels and energy independence for this country. I salute Zoi.

Secondly, Al Gore is, to say the least, a politically interesting character in our time. His campaign for climate control is admirable even to those who do not agree with his evidence or conclusions. He's shown passion for his goals and I count myself as one of those who felt An Inconvenient Truth really humanized Gore and made him an endearing figure.

How can you criticize John Doerr? For what? For being a successful businessman whose personal activities rightly bring him in contact with political figures? I mean come on. He's made clear that his passion for climate change is not about money but in keeping a promise to his children and future generations to act now in the event climate change will make the earth uninhabitable for humanity. I'm sure even he would agree that as far as being a spokesperson for cleantech and renewable energy, his conflicts of interest run deep. No issue there.

So, what's my beef with all of this? Why even write any of the above? It's about means versus ends. Luxury sedans such as Fisker's or Tesla's or even GM-Volt's for that matter are secondary technologies whose impact is limited by the lack of a key, enabling technology that makes them viable: batteries! Energy Storage! Nothing Fisker or any automaker can do changes the fundamental importance of energy storage as a catalyst for economic change in our country. The lack of energy storage is what is preventing the adoption of electric vehicles. The lack of energy storage is preventing the adoption of renewable energy sources like wind and solar. It's preventing our grid from being efficient, thus, requiring power plants to produce twice as much energy as we actually need (and all the pollution that goes with that). It's the most important issue in all of renewable energy.

When you wake up to that reality and begin asking questions like, "how can we accelerate the delivery of better energy storage? Who can bring it to us the fastest?" and then you then start to wading into the available technologies such as lead acid, lithium ion, lithium from Bolivia, lithium from China, etc, you quickly arrive at a crossroads. The crossroads is this blog that you are now reading and a fundamental question sticks out: What is EEStor Inc.? How does it relate to all of the above? What is being done to advance EEStor?

Honestly, I don't care if Fisker and Tesla or even EEStor competitors A123 Systems or Johnson Controls have received federal funds or even if they gained advantage of available funds via political connections. What gets me is the distinct lack of attention to the more fundamental energy storage problem. And yes, here's where I take everyone to task:

Is Al Gore out there talking about better batteries or mentioning EEStor?

Is John Doerr out there talking about better batteries or mentioning EEStor?

Is Cathy Zoi or Steven Chu out there talking about better batteries or proactively contacting EEStor?

Is anyone anywhere talking about better batteries? President Obama, for example?

Robert J. Stevens at Lockheed Martin seems to know what is going on. Congressman John Carter seems to know what is going on. Senator Carl Levin and the Michigan political establishment would appear to know what is going on. Need I even suggest that Kleiner Perkins doesn't know what is going on? Why can't everyone know what's going on? Most especially, why can't the Department of Energy know what is going on? Is EEStor IT or not? If it is, let's acknowledge it and move on. If it is not, let's acknowledge it and move on. The stakes are too high to keep rearranging deck chairs or dipping one's hands in the various cookie jars.

I'll end this article with two things. One, as I've mentioned before, like Kleiner Perkins, I have an investment in EEStor via owning shares of Zenn Motor Company. Secondly,

MUHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAAHAAHA!

Ford's 1914 Electric Car

running on batteries by Thomas Edison!

UPDATE: Last but not least, it's only fair that I lump EEStor into the mix partially. After all, if I'm criticizing these public figures for not saying/doing more about EEStor, it only makes sense that I include EEStor. Wait a second, I guess I have to criticize everyone then except for me for not talking about EEStor as much as I talk about it. That's really arrogant and pompous of me. I apologize. :-)