Thank y'all all for being here today for our first Task Force meeting in the new year. And I want to go and ask my co-chairmen if they have anything that they would like to say. Yeah, first of all, good evening and welcome. We're reading in my tradition in Judaism now the story of the splitting of the red scene how the Israelites went through. And it's interesting because there is a story in Idrash that relates to all of us. When the Israelites were standing at the edge of the red sea and it wasn't opening, a man named Naqshom started to walk into the water and the water did not part. He walked up to his hip and it did not part. He walked up to his chest and it did not part. But he kept going with belief and faith and when it ended up right under his nose, when he thought he would drown, the sea parted and the Israelites were able to go through. I say this because at times it would seem that we too as a society are looking in front of us and not seeing a clear path of how to get through. We're looking at us and we're facing a huge task here. And some people are saying, oh, you won't be able to do it how you can be able to help solve this problem. But I look back towards my faith tradition. I look back towards a story that's saying if we keep believing not only in our mission and in our task, but in each and every one of us together as individuals, as a community, as friends and as a task force, I believe that together we will be able to make the sea of inequity split. So all of us, both in Fort Worth and around, will be able to walk through as equal partners. So I thank you for being part. I can't follow that. I'm just going to follow it. Did I okay that? Thank you all for being here. You know, right now we've had a lot of community conversations over the last quarter of last year, but we still have some more to do. But our committee work is getting ready to get started. And some communities have already met and some will be meeting shortly. So, you know, we're listening and learning and now we're going to do our due diligence and start looking at what we need to do to make our recommendations. So at this time I want to go to line three for approval of minutes. Because everyone had a chance to read the minutes. Got a motion? Second. All in favor? Aye. Now, the next thing is discussion about the redistricting process. As you all know, we talked a little bit about this at our last meeting. And we have had some other conversations, the co-chairs. We've also had a meeting with the mayor. One of the things that we're going to look at doing is we will be putting forth a recommendation for the pre-counsel meeting on May 1st. There's some research that we still need to do in looking at what other cities have done. Austin was one of the examples utilized at our last meetings, but we have found out that there are some other cities that have done some similar work in what they've done to redistricting putting citizen committees together and so forth. So we do want to do a little bit more research so that the recommendation that we put forward would encompass some of those best practices utilized so that we can also try to see what fits your footwork. I do want to ask Charles, since he was at the meeting with us and with the mayor last week, if he'd like to contribute any comments to that. I think it was a good meeting. I think she was actually more up to speed on the Austin approach than I knew going in. At the meeting, we found out that the city secretary has done some research on these other cities that have maybe not gone as fully independent as the Austin model, but kind of a hybrid between an independent commission and the city council. So we want to take a look at those and then come back and maybe make a recommendation. Bob Ray, Rabbi Bloom, do you have anything that you'd like to add? I do. What was the purpose of even talking to the mayor about this? We just wanted to brief her that we will be looking to make a recommendation on the redistricting process that we would like for the city maybe to take with the next We've got two new council seats that we'll be coming up. I think they take seat 23. And so we want to be able to be proactive in looking at what processes can we do differently so that we can maybe have better representation. You mean with the whole city council? No. Just a minute. Corey, and I know where you're going because that was one of my main questions when we had a suggestion to meet with the mayor about this. The purpose was not for the mayor to tell us what she wanted. She expected what we ought to do. And as I said in our previous meeting with the committee chairs a few minutes ago, our job on this task force and the committees, your job is not to anticipate what somebody may or may not want and decide that we should or should not do something. We should do what we think ought to be done for this city. Now, whether or not the mayor and the city council accepted, it's on them and we can still lobby for what we think is right. But as I think we said at the very beginning, we do not want the mayor or the city council telling this group what we ought to do except bring them recommendations. And I think that was made clear at this meeting the other day. Very clear. And she already expected us to have some recommendations. There was nothing that was a surprise to her at all. Any questions? Next thing on the agenda is an update on public engagement. Michelle and Estrus? Ladies first. Okay. We had our first of our additional meetings which were calling continuing the conversation. We had Thursday night. It was a lower turnout than I had hoped for. And Arturo was there so he could speak to the evening. But even though it was a small group, I believe that the conversation was very good and that the people who attended seemed to get a lot out of it and were actually saying that they were going to tell others about it. So I've been passing around. We're doing everything we can think of to spread the word. But if you all could help and I know I sent an email, if there's anything that you all can do to help spread the word, it would be most appreciated. And so this is just a little sheet on some ways that each one of the task force members can help us when it comes to telling people about the meetings and encouraging people to come and participate in the process. So we have our next meeting on Thursday. I have flyers outside. We've sent copies of the flyer to all of our community centers and all of our libraries so they'll have them out for residents that happen to come in. We also are doing a lot of electronically pushing. And for those of you on Facebook, I would encourage you to like the page. The more likes and the more shares the higher our visibility gets on Facebook. So that all helps and we're actually something we rarely do in the city. We're actually doing paid boosts on Facebook so that more people will see it. We did that for the first meeting. The first meeting was going to be predominantly in Spanish. And so we actually did a target Facebook promotion for people who are dominant Spanish-speaking adults living in Fort Worth and we reached about 1200 people through that paid post. But still had some challenges in getting some people to attend. So I'm open to any suggestions and ideas you all might have on how we can spread the word. Right here. Can you guys get those posted? Now that we're going to the neighborhoods and the community centers and to the next store. I know you guys do on that. They are on next door. Okay. I haven't seen mine on there yet. But I've actively been in the next store. And another thing as task force members, a lot of you guys are in some private neighborhood community groups. So you guys can be sharing these events in there as well. Because I know that you have to actually be a member of some of those private groups to actually share information into those. Especially those neighborhood and enjoying groups. Yeah, we share it on Facebook. The city has Facebook, Twitter and next door accounts. And so we're sharing it that way electronically. We also do it in a community engagement newsletter that goes to all neighborhood leaders every week. And the meetings are in there. We've attacked the meetings on Facebook for the location. So it will show up on those libraries and community center Facebook pages if anybody goes for information on those pages. So hopefully we'll reach some new people. I know it popped up on my face for three times today. And to compliment Michelle's update, we said from the beginning that this is about listening. And so these series are designed a little differently in a very significant way in response to feedback that you gave about the structure. So these are one and done. Well, not well, that didn't sound exactly right. They're one time structure. They will keep talking, but these conversations aren't part of a series. They're still two hours out of respect of people's busy schedules. We open it up. We started with some basic core structured questions and there's ample space for them to add whatever other points perspective questions they might have. And this is shifting more so toward ideas for solutions, recommendations for solutions, getting their voice in that direction. These are small groups, a little bit larger small groups and more of a modified town hall meeting. So each of the groups will have opportunities to engage and report out to all the others. They won't be tasked with writing down the feedback. We'll have city staff that will be capturing that high level feedback to bring to the next level. So these have been streamlined without compromising the voice of. And I just want to say too that I need to show an email. Small size, I mean, while we want as many people as possible to come. If we have great conversations with eight people and we get that feedback, I'm satisfied. The fact that we have 14 of these conversations going on, plus we're going to have another town hall meeting, it shows that what we're doing, what we're still going to do, we're going to reach out to this community. And what you said we ought to do is change more city-wide. So that's happening with these 14 other conversations. And if we get three or more together in my name, not my name, but somebody else, it's all good. I'm satisfied with that if we're getting good response. Quality versus quantity. Also the city-wide town hall meeting, we have put in a request with TCC for their for their facility. Because that was the recommendation from the task force for location. We gave them an option of some dates in March and we're still waiting to hear back from them. It goes to a central scheduling location and they just have not gotten back with this yet. But as soon as I have that information, I'll send that out to everybody. And this will be the south campus break. Yes. Any questions? Is there another meeting that's directed towards Hispanic? We can. There's going to be a meeting in Diamond Hill. We talked about maybe using the Diamond Hill as another opportunity to do a big outreach. So what we did is the facilitator that we had at that meeting was able to facilitate in Spanish or English. So I can get with the extras to see if we can have that same capability at the Diamond Hill meeting. Richard Gonzalez. And we have four others in addition to Richard that are able to do Spanish. Good. Any other comments? Okay. Committee reports. We're moving along. Criminal Justice. Todd. Yes. The Criminal Justice Committee, we had the opportunity to meet last week. I think we had it was our first meeting. We had a lot of good conversation, a lot of good ideas to move forward. Some of the issues I think we're going to be focusing on moving forward. And this is not a complete list, but initial issues that we kind of identified early on is the officer training regarding the cultural diversity and the leadership. Police interaction with at-risk youth, the field training of new officers and how that's made up and the officer's experience, gender, race, and other makeup of those field training officers. Community engagement, which we consist of, how the police department is interacting with the community, the makeup of various police advisory committees and other four work PDs, citizen committees, and also exploring the creation of a citizen review form is something that's one of the issues that we're going to be trying to address. And also looking at and identifying the officer's disciplinary process and guidelines. Some of the subject matter experts that we find on meeting with are the Deputy Chief over Training Division, the Procedural Justice Trainer, and various law enforcement, eight officers with a four work PD. We've even thrown out the possibility of having our own individual community conversations in various communities to kind of gauge and see what communities feel about their neighborhood policing, their police officers, or their interaction with police officers. We've requested data breaking down their arrests by division, by types of arrests, by ethnicity, by gender, and by age of bone and records. We went back to request additional information to extrapolate the arrests of juveniles and the type of arrests and traffic statistics as well. And Corey Walters, feel free if I'm missing anything. Corey may have something. I don't think you missed a thing. We have our next meeting planned for February 12th where Chief Krause is going to be providing us additional information that we've requested to review. And we have our hands full, but we know that we're going to be able to get it done and hopefully bring back something to the committee that we feel that the City Council and the City would like. Thank you, John. And if I may add some things that we hope to come up with that may be something that we could put into action pretty soon rather than later. Good. Good. Charles, thank you for that development. Yes. We had our initial meeting last Wednesday. In addition to three other committee members, we were also joined by Salton Cole, who's the Chairman of the Board Metropolitan Black Chamber of Commerce. I had reached out to D. James, the President of the Black Chamber and John Hernandez, although I didn't give John very much time. But he is interested in being involved. Also, I spoke to Reginald Gates, who's the TCC now, but his background is such that he would be a great resource for our committee. Of course, Robert was there providing great expertise. I wanted, what I told the committee I was looking for, what I thought our purpose was to be able to make some meaningful recommendations to the City Council regarding improved policies or practices related to expanding economic opportunities for disadvantaged businesses and communities in Fort Worth. And that the scope of what we were looking at was looking at our economic incentives for incentives for policies with a whole range of tax abatement statistics and everything. And also our Minority Business Intergrime Program, any changes in policies or practices there. We're able to get some good up to the minute information from Robert on changes that have already been made, some changes that were being looked at. And we'll have to wait for the minutes to come out, but we actually have some recommendations come up that we think are actionable pretty quickly that hopefully at our next meeting, which will be the 31st next week, that we can get the committee to go on record and endorse them. So I think we're off to a good start. Let me know if John Jacinto in his office would also be a good person to run on. Okay. Okay. All right. Education Bob and Robert. Bob. He's looking at you, Bob. So Robert and I have met. We have started to meet with subject matter experts. We've met with Erica Beltran from Leadership ISD, who is on the State Board of Education. We've got a meeting set up with Sherry Green, chief of equity, and excellence with Portland ISD. And we have our first full committee meeting date set, which we will share with our fellow committee members here in a moment on Friday the 2nd of February. I think right now our objective is to listen to our subject matter experts, ask a lot of questions, get from them as much of their expertise and research as we can before we formulate a plan of action. I think ultimately it's about what can we do as far as recommendations to make sure that there are equal opportunities for our students across the board regardless of where they live and sit. Any questions? Health. We have already had our first meeting and very productive meeting, and in that we had a collective conversation and really just discussed where we would start with the whole topic of health because it was pretty broad. So we determined that we would just look at access to health and we were talking about reaching the basic healthcare transportation, but even after this committee meeting we might rethink that a little bit. I'll share with the committee about that later. But access to healthy and nutritious foods and access to parks and recreation. So when we look at health we did have lots of reports on the disparities and the percentages of obesity rates and certain zip codes. So we didn't want to get necessarily overwhelmed with that because we already had that data. In fact, you know, why do those numbers look like that? And we kind of narrowed it down through conversation. There was access. So that's where we're going to place our focus. We have the reports and we do have some publications and websites and databases that we will refer to. And we've also identified our subject matter experts of who we'll be interviewing. Again, I mentioned we did have our first meeting. We before last, and we have our next meeting on Thursday and Ann Sawyer Caldwell will be there for the first interview of our SMEs. Thank you, Ms. Yolanda. Any questions? All right. How's it, Katie? I mentioned a lot there also to step in. Any time during this report we've had two meetings of our committee. We have identified many, many experts that getting arms around the huge topic of housing has been a challenge. We have heard a report on the assessment of affordable housing. Affordable housing is the issue that embraced that out of the many community meetings that and implications lead into one another. And how can you incentivize developers around the affordable housing in our housing market like we have right now? A self-market plan. They don't need to pay attention to all this. They don't need help. And how do you spread the goodies of economic development throughout all classes of people in the city? I mean, it rises in time. It brings all those. But it certainly does put people in housing equally. We heard a report because several people had mentioned it to us. So we thought we'd find out about the tiny houses idea that is being flooded out. And in fact, it's being done. They're spending eight million dollars on the development of tiny houses in Dallas. So we've heard about the pros and cons of that. Which are many. Putting a small house in an urban environment raises a whole lot of issues. Not the least of which is if you put them in a little village together, or you're just recreating segregation when we have homeless people. So the more we learn, the more we know we don't know. So we're continuing to bring in the housing experts. We have another need to schedule the event date, which I don't have in my head at the moment. But we'll be meeting two times a month, at least as we go forward. Because right now we're just learning. And learning about how state laws impact what cities can do as the state legislature increasingly tries to control what cities are able to do and not do. So it's becoming increasingly clear to me, if not other committee members, that our suggestions will impact not only policy suggestions on the city level, but at the state level as well. And ethically, I don't know how we're doing that. So we're looking at dealing with the state county and city level. I suspect. Do you have anything you want to add to this? I wasn't able to attend the last meeting. The first meeting, I think Katie summed up, it's a big issue. And it's where do you start, but at the same time, a lot of it does boil down to the accessibility of affordable housing. And I'm not just from what a lot of folks think of, but a recent college grad, being able to find somewhere to live. Working families being able to find somewhere to live that's convenient to work. And then where does that work? Take them. Do they have to be dependent on cars? And if something happens to their cars, so it's that whole ripple effected. So it's where do you start and stop? I think that looking at things a little differently than we've looked at before, I think is one of the things that is really going to push us. Because we have zoning laws and master plans and all those kinds of things. So how does all that work together? And then you don't also have the kind of stigma, the kind of backyard, you know, if you bring something new on the table. And the housing connection report that we heard at this last meeting was very useful too. And their work in helping people navigate financial institutions and learning what subsidies might be available for them, particularly for people that are in like the 50 to 60% of the poverty level that are paying enough rent in an apartment nowadays that they can move into a house if they can navigate. And people who had never owned a home before, whose family never owned a home, getting them into a house for the first time, discovering other issues of having a proved-up deed for a family that has inhabited a home generation after generation after generation and trying to track that clear deed back so that if they have an opportunity to sell it or need to apply for a subsidy, can they prove they own that home? Even though their great-grandmother owned that home and then their grandmother and then their mother, there are whole levels of those issues. And I think that sometimes, Charles, maybe the housing committee and the economic development committee might meet together because, I mean, we could meet together with all of you, frankly, particularly transportation. But I'm thinking economic development, maybe as we get further down the road, it might be useful for our groups to meet together. I agree. Awesome. Remind me to tell you about a problem called Mount Pleasant afterwards. Okay. Any questions of housing? Transportation? You know, you must not hear. Do we have somebody that can give this report? We do. You were all picking up the rest of the second. So actually, you can have to get to issues because I think I can remember a couple of them. But we met last Tuesday at the city, which is an important point because the city council meeting was canceled, but we were cracking in there so that we had some good drama. We mainly heard, of course, from the transportation authority. And, you know, I have listened to transportation speeches. Several of us have, you know, for many years, but we got more details in this small group than we have for years. And I think the main thing we heard was the flexibility and the fact that they have been given and charged with being more flexible on how they talk to employers, how they seek answers, how they work with some of our smaller cities that actually, you know, the T goes through to get to, you know, Ridgemore and offering them a different way to fund some of that. In the past, if they had gone to their city council, they would have just said, no, we cannot pay pass and tax. But if you said, can we pay for, you know, what do you call them? Shelters. Shelters and other things and signage and all that, it has a whole different sound to it and they've been able to do that. And was it river oaks that took them off on that? There also, there was a lot of conversation about increased access and, of course, safety. And I think everybody hit them up on better mileage and signage. And that's actually what they changed in their budget for this year was some of those kinds of things that we talked about. You know, and now putting on the workforce hat, you know, one of the things that we talked about, of course, was, you know, all the jobs being in alliance and yet it stops, it actually stops at our career center and TCC, but I can't get them with employers out there. We talked about maybe working with Uber and Lyft and seeing some ways that I know others have when the bus isn't there or there are other ways that we can get transportation to those in need. With all these different ideas and solutions, one of the things that first started out with, okay, we need the city to help us promote some of these things. And in the end, we talked about that there needs to be a whole education campaign that would be much more comprehensive than just putting it on the city's back. You know, you need some more lunch and learn, some real opportunities for people to learn different ways to access the transportation authority. And that was one of the issues we actually put out. Y'all remember what the others were? Do you have your notes? I found mine. She covered it. We'll probably trigger your brains a little bit. Kate Beck was really good about getting this. Arturo was really good about how does it all tie back to the race of culture passports and Kate was really good at getting this and trying to zone us in. So we are focusing on funding opportunities and what does that look like? You mentioned the different structures and models with the different partner cities as you look at the piece map and where the gaps are, the service and things, but also where ways to approach those other smaller municipalities to get more buy-in that then spreads some of the wealth around and can increase overall service. Education and awareness, we talked a lot about that because so many of us, you know, like myself, we didn't grow up taking public transportation. So yes, when I go to New York City or Washington D.C. or other cities, you have to navigate it, but here you can get away from having to do it. So as a way to increase ridership and demand through education, and then we also wanted to talk, again, kind of as Katie was mentioning, overlaying with maybe Charles was screwed around the new economic development plan and strategy and the key areas there to make sure that there's some good overlap. We talked about how Charles's presentation and a few meetings back, overlaid education, poverty, race, and all those things. So not reinventing the wheel, but how are these things also overlaid with those so that we can drive our recommendations along those lines? Jeff Davis has his group, Tarrant. He was mentioned as a transit alliance. He may be wanted to get in touch because I know they're going to be partnering with TTC and TTC on education outreach and enhancing community's awareness. He's on our list, too. I attended that meeting last week at TCU that was Tarrant Transit Alliance. And so it was interesting, several city council members attended former bar chamber commerce folks were there. So the attempt of this group, because I understand it, is to create kind of a coalition of advocacy entities to push for transit improvements. And, you know, my training is you always try to figure out where the money's kind of coming from. So the transportation authority has a great plan. Nobody's funded. And that's kind of where they're at. So the advocacy push is to let's find the money, let's develop the strategies to implement this. But it does, I think, so many of what elements there relate to us, the transit-dependent population, the equity and access and all that stuff. So I think having a robust, equitable transportation system is vital. That's obviously why we have a committee that's focused on that as well. So just something to be much loved into what. Right. I'm glad you attended that. I had a meeting with Jeff, but I got sick and had to cancel it. So we're very scheduling now, so. And we're working on our next meeting. Our office is coordinating with the city to see if we can have them in our office that it looks easier than the actual city hall. Get it out, though. Get it out. Understand. Okay. Any questions on transit? I just wanted to apologize for calling Jeff or Yolanda. I realized Yolanda's name was right in my eyes. I'm sorry. It's been a long day. I'm sorry. It's the first day. I'm honored to call people if you want to. Intentionally. Anyway. Don't worry. Don't worry. Don't worry. As you've heard, there's still a lot of work that needs to be done. And as y'all are aware, we were tasked to make a recommendation in August of this year. When we spoke with the mayor last week, we did talk to her about coming up, coming to pre-counsel in May 1st, as I mentioned earlier, and also giving them a preliminary of where we're at and some of the things that we've discovered, but some of the things that we may still need to investigate before we can really come out with some recommendations. So we did ask her also that we may ask for some extra time where maybe we go on until the end of the year instead of in August, based on where we're at come April. So we will keep y'all informed of that, but it's also going to be based on all the research that we get between now and April. But we will be making a preliminary presentation to them on May 1st, that will also include the redistricting issue. So that will be there as well. So just to let y'all know where we're at and what we're thinking. Because there is a lot to cover, as you've all heard, all the different committees and things that they're going to be researching and so forth. We just want to make sure that we do our due diligence to get it right the first time. As you'll note, our future meetings are on Monday, February the 19th year. You all have meetings in between. And I will say Angie and Michelle have been very great about sending us the calendar invites of all the meetings that are going on. So if you can attend them, great. If you can't, at least you know that they're happening. Okay. And cultures, do you have any thoughts on this? I'd just like to say, it's obvious that you're already working hard and that the real work is going to happen in these committees. So we're looking forward to seeing what you come up with in terms of recommendations. And for all the people who are wondering, is this thing really happening? Is it really working? I think we can put out the work, yes. It is working. We don't know how well it's going to work if we actually come up with recommendations. But I'm very pleased with what we are. As one who was doubtful, even cynical at this whole prospect, I'm feeling pretty good right now, based on the work that I've heard that you're already doing. So I'm proud of this. And I do want to say thank you to Bob Ray and to Michelle and Angie, I think, for helping us write that op-ed piece that we all distributed to you all. And you saw that it was in the paper as well. So please help me thank them for writing that. No, I was going to thank him as well, because I think he was going to thank himself. Oh, the others, but it was a beautiful piece. And I just wanted to, not only second to say thank you, but I just want to remind ourselves, we have a large task force. We have subcommittees. But in essence, the most important committee is the committee of one, the committee of ourselves. Because if we live what we're trying to bring about, then we can be a task force every moment we meet someone else. And if we're able to be a task force every time we meet someone else, then maybe that person will become a task force person themselves. Because it's not really what we preach, it's how we live. And if we can do that, if we can leave here, living what we're preaching, I have no doubt that any person we meet will eventually go in the same direction. Well, with that, again, I just want to say thank you all for being here. This is our first meeting of the year for many others to come and follow. And we appreciate your time and commitment. And on that object piece, I will let you know that we will be setting up a meeting to meet with editorial board so that we can keep them in the loop of what we are doing in our process and what status we have. And we'll be looking at that probably sometime in April. But thank you all again and we're adjourned.


of Hawaii, where Hawaii comes together to walk towards a clean, renewable, and just energy future. I am your host, Raya Salter. I'm an energy attorney, clean energy advocate, and community outreach specialist. I'm also the principal attorney of Imagine Power LLC. Today we're going to take a look at important energy and utility news from Hawaii, around the country, and the rest of the world, as reported in the last week. First let's take a look at some recent developments in clean energy and clean energy policy in the islands. As reported by Dwayne Shimogawa of Pacific Business News, Hawaii's troubled $150 million clean energy loan program doles out just 35 loans. A struggling $150 million clean energy loan program only doled out 35 loans, totaling nearly $2 million as of the end of last year, according to the program's quarterly report released this week. The Green Infrastructure Loan Program, which is also known as the Green Energy Market Securitization, or GEMS program, aims to address financing barriers to increase the installation of renewable energy projects to meet the state's clean energy goals. As of December 31st, however, the program, which started several years ago, has only funded 33 residential solar energy loans and two commercial solar energy loans. It received a total of 269 applications as of that date, with a total of only 35 funded. However, things may be looking up with the new executive director, Gwen Yamamoto-Lau, and renewed interest in the program. The GEMS program, which has suffered from several challenges, including going head-to-head against conventional local lenders, has seen some recent renewed interest, with $109 million in the pipeline to be loaned for projects in such areas as consumer efficiency, commercial efficiency, nonprofit renewable, small business renewable, and community solar. So I think this is an extremely important development. We finally got that the report is now in on what has been the results of what is a huge investment of $150 million for the GEMS program. It's also, I think, something that's very active at the legislature. I think there are a lot of innovative ideas as to what to do with those funds, their ideas about doing energy efficiency projects. There's an idea to use some of the funds for on-bill financing projects. Some would like to see support for community renewable projects. And I think that it's very important that this fund get used in a way in line with its original goals. I also think that it's very important that it focus on the low-to-moderate income market of customers in Hawaii, and it is used in a way that can have enduring energy benefits that also help reduce energy costs for low-income people here. And it's important for a couple of reasons, but I think that the legislature will be motivated to see something happen here because there's been a lot of, a lot of folks have had egg on their face as $150 million was raised and has not been spent. So let's hope that we get some good decisions for the GEMS program, coming out of the PUC, of the Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority, and the legislature this year. And if we could go ahead and scroll down to the next story. Also as reported by Joanne Shimogawa, yesterday, regulators award Virginia, or awarding a Virginia firm $700,000 for reaching Hawaii energy efficiency goals. Hawaii regulators have approved a $700,000 performance award to Virginia-based LIDOS engineering for achieving energy efficiency goals set by regulators in 2015, according to public documents. LIDOS engineering runs the state's rate payer-funded energy conservation and energy efficiency program called Hawaii Energy, which serves Oahu, Maui, the Big Island, Lanai, and Molokai. This week, the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission, which oversees the program, said Hawaii Energy met and exceeded energy efficiency benchmarks for the program's 2015 fiscal year, which ran from July 1st, 2015 through June 30th, 2016. Hawaii Energy offers cash rebates and other incentives to residents and businesses to help offset the cost of energy-efficient equipment and has helped save residents and businesses nearly $1 billion over the last six years. This is super important for the state, as I've said many times before, and as I think is very well known in the energy community. Energy efficiency is by far the most just, least cost, and really the best way to start in terms of saving energy, and there's a tremendous potential in Hawaii for energy efficiency. It is, I think, congratulations to LIDOS and congratulations to Hawaii Energy for making their goals, saving money, and apparently earning an incentive payment. I hope that more and more folks here embrace energy efficiency measures and programs that will enhance energy efficiency. So congratulations to Hawaii Energy. Moving along, as reported by Frank Hendorka of PV Magazine on February 2nd, two projects have risen from the dead here in Hawaii. These projects were both presumed dead after Sun Edison went belly up here in the islands, but they have been revived by NRG Energy, which bought them for pennies on the dollar. After picking 1.5 gigawatt of solar and wind, flesh off the decaying bones of a bankrupt Sun Edison for pennies on the dollar, NRG Energy is now making two of those grid-scale projects on the Hawaiian island of Oahu pay off. Yesterday, the company signed its first power purchase agreement with Hawaiian Electric for the power from the combined 60.6 megawatt of the Lena Kuhana and the Waipio Solar Plants. These are NRG's first projects in the state. A third Oahu project, the 49 megawatt Kaua Leola Solar Facility, is still awaiting a final PPA, but both sides have said that deal will eventually get done. All three projects are targeted to come online in 2019. The PPAs must still be approved by the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission. So this is interesting news. I think that the bankruptcy of that prominent solar energy company, really it was a message in a lot of ways. Part of it is what happens when private industry is responsible for or has a role in important power projects, and then private industry is unable to deliver. That's sort of something to think about as we walk forward in terms of business models for our utility here. We have our current HECO, which folks complain about, but for the most part keeps the power on for everybody. We have cooperatives, and then I think we're going to need to have a bigger role for the private market. But what happens when the private market plays and fails? So that's one thing I wanted to comment on. But it sounds good that these projects are going to, or we'll see, but if they're going to go forward, and we will pick up the pieces where that prominent bankruptcy left us off. Moving along, also as reported in Utility Dive, this time Thomas Walton on February 2nd, Hawaii's cooperative utility is shooting for 70% renewables by 2030. Now, Kauai is moving quickly to raise the amount of renewable generation on the island, and its efforts are succeeding. As recently as 2011, more than 90% of the island's power came from fossil fuel sources. But last January, on four occasions, KIUC obtained 90% or more of its electricity from renewables. KIUC's president and CEO, David Bissell, said in a statement that the transition speed is truly remarkable. Other parts of the KIUC plan include continuing to address the strategic implications of climate change, obtaining long-term incidental federal and state permits that set requirements for conservation of endangered bird species, and continuing to invest in clean energy technology. Bissell said, the more aggressive renewables targets come as the Solar City Tesla project is expected online in the next weeks, raising the utility's generation to 44% renewables. The project will include a 52-megawatt-hour energy storage system produced by Tesla and a 13-megawatt solar array developed by Solar City. This is really interesting and exciting, and I think it is part of it as a story of how we can't always predict what's going to happen with technology. We can spend a lot of money, we can plan, but innovation, be it technological innovation or innovation from the workers themselves or a renewed political commitment can really drive renewables forward. And I think we've got an exciting example of this happening in Kauai. And so it also, I think, is really exciting because we've just got the new merger of Tesla and Solar City. Tesla, I think, has been particularly aggressive and excited about its work on islands and driving islands to be 100% renewable. We reported two weeks ago on a North Carolina island that was going 100% renewable with Tesla. Solar City has also been hard at work working in American Samoa. So now we've got the combination of two powerhouses, Tesla and Solar City, battery and rooftop solar and other technologies coming together. I think this could have important implications for islands in Hawaii, important implications for islands in the Pacific, and other islands from around the world. So this is definitely an exciting thing. We'll see what happens in Kauai and very interested to see what moves forward with Tesla Solar City as well. Moving along, as reported by Robert Walton of Utility Dive just this morning, a new study has found that high rooftop solar penetrations can shift costs to non-solar customers. A new study from the Lawrence Berkeley Lab is a mixed bag, giving clean energy advocates plenty of support for expanded solar inefficiency. But a central premise confirms what some utilities have long been seeing, that in areas with significant solar penetration, customers without panels can wind up subsidizing delivery costs. In general, there is so little rooftop solar in the United States that the issue is insignificant in most regions. But for states or utilities with particularly high distributed solar penetration levels, retail electricity price effects may be more significant, but depend critically on the value of solar and underlying rate structures the report found. For states and utilities with exceptionally high distributed solar penetration levels, the effects on retail electricity prices could begin to approach the same scale as other important drivers it reads. That has been the driving rationale behind many net metering battles. Amongst the most high profile, Arizona regulators voted last year to eliminate retail rate net metering and replace it with a reduced compensation mechanism over worries about cross subsidization. Only four utilities, all in Hawaii, have solar penetration rates near 10% of electricity sales. Three other states are projected to reach this mark by 2030, the researchers found. So assuming a value of solar ranging from 50% to 150% of the utility's cost of service, this level of distributed solar would yield between a 5% decrease and a 5% increase in retail electricity prices, under NEM, with purely volumetric rates, the report found. So this is extremely significant that LBNL would make such a finding. First of all, Lawrence Berkeley National Labs, nationally and internationally respected researchers on these topics, and no enemy to clean energy. I think what this report basically says is Hawaii. It is true. Net metering tariffs coupled with the rest of the population having volumetric rates shift the cost, shift utilities costs to the non-participating or non-solar customers. This has been a massive issue here and around the country. Are the folks, many who are mostly wealthy, who are putting on rooftop solar and have the means to put on rooftop solar and have the ability to control their property, their home owners, to put on rooftop solar, are the rest of us customers subsidizing those choices through our current rate structures? I think this is something that clean energy advocates have. I think certainly when I was with the Natural Resources Defense Council, we wanted to see the most transparency in terms of what really are the utilities costs, what really is the value of solar. Are we maximizing the power of solar to be more valuable by putting it on the place in the grid where it can add benefit because perhaps there is an increased demand at a certain time? So I think it really is a bombshell for Hawaii to have a study like this that actually is saying, the decision that was made in 2015, I believe, to roll back the traditional net metering program has some support from a study like this. However, I think the other big piece of the picture is the study was done based on volumetric rates or based on the rates that we have now. These are conversations that are alive at the commission here in Hawaii. What should the value of solar and other distributed energy resources be? What should the rate and tariff structures look like? Should it be time of use? How should we structure those rates? So I think the implications of this study are far-reaching for more than one reason, the first, at least being that there may very well be a distribution of money from the wealthy to the poor, from the people who own solar to those who don't. And yet here, again, we have an opportunity to structure our tariffs to hopefully make them as just as they can possibly be. So this is one study. I'm not trying to say it's in any way dispositive, but LBNL is a powerhouse. And that is not insignificant. So thank you. We're going to go to a break. And I'll be back in a minute with more energy and utility news on Power Up Hawaii. So all this hacking has become a major topic. I'm Andrew, the security guy. Join me on Hibachi Talk and learn a little bit more about it. I have my friend Gordo and my puppet buddy Angus. Check us out on Fridays at 1 o'clock on Think Tech Hawaii. OK, we want to tell you about Hawaii, the state of clean energy which plays every Wednesday from 4 to 4.30. Ray Starling and me, we co-host that show. Dean Nishina is here. He's from the Consumer Advocate. We just had a show. We like the show. We had a good time on the show. What do you think, Ray? We're going to have Dean back because there's so much going on at the Consumer Advocate's office. And there's so much yet to be done to get to our 100% renewable energy goals. What do you think, Dean? Did you have a good time? I did have a good time. And I think this is a good opportunity for consumers to learn more because it'll be really helpful in terms of moving forward with our transition to clean energy. From your ellipse to God's ears, thanks, Ray. Thanks, Dean. Watch us 4 o'clock every Wednesday. You'll see. Welcome back to Power Up Hawaii, where Hawaii comes together for a clean, just, and renewable energy future. We're talking about news and clean and renewable energy in Hawaii, the mainland, and across the world. So now we're going to move on to some national and global clean energy news. So as reported by Robert Dvorak of Wind Power Development on February 3, a new report says that electric vehicle sales climbed 37% in 2016. After some concern over slowing EV sales in 2015, consumers last year appeared to show they are ready to embrace electric transportation options. According to Inside EVs, sales of electric vehicles were up 37% over 2015. And by even a greater amount in the second half, a stark increase after sales declined 5% from 2014 to 2015. They say that the strength was partly driven by a record setting December when sales reached 24,785. Interesting to see that at least according to this particular industry group, electric vehicle sales are healthy and on the rise. This is particularly important here as we look at the backdrop of what's happening at the legislature. We're looking at potentially adopting a 100% renewable transportation goal in Hawaii, one that could be very exciting. But of course, it's very different from a renewable energy goal. Renewable energy goal is something that the state can actually regulate and enforce because the state has regulatory power over the utilities here, or yes, most of the utilities here. This means 100% renewable transportation. That's talking to you and me. That's saying you and I need to move forward and get cars that are not powered by fossil fuel. So that is a very tricky situation. That means that we need to have electric vehicles available. We need to have the related infrastructure be plentiful and available. And until that happens, it's hard to see how we can reach or enforce a 100% renewable transportation goal. I know many people who are struggling to remain in the cars that they have now. So yet it is an extremely positive thing to go for. So it looks like EV sales are on the rise and hopefully we also will be moving towards more EVs and more EV infrastructure and less fossil fuels in our cars. Now, as reported yesterday by Stephanie Speer of EcoWatch, there's been a huge win for renewables in Maryland as lawmakers overrode the governor's veto. Lawmakers in the Maryland Senate voted 32 to 13 Thursday to expand the state's renewable energy target, restoring the Clean Energy Jobs Act, and overriding Republican Governor Larry Hogan's veto of the measure in May of last year. The bill is now in effect. The bill increases requirements to use energy sources like wind and solar power to 25% by 2020, increased from 20% by 2022. The renewable portfolio standard, according to the Maryland Climate Coalition, will result in an additional 250 megawatts of solar energy in the state and more than 1,000 megawatts of additional renewable energy in the region. This is, I think, interesting. One thing is I, and we are researching news stories to figure out what to present for you on this program. I can't tell you enough how as different states throughout the country reach towards 100% renewable energy goals. In each case, Hawaii, with our 100% energy goal, is mentioned, sort of in that context, like this state is going for 50, New York, this state is leading by going for 100 Hawaii. So while what is truly significant, of course, is what happens under the hood in terms of how we get there, how affordably do we get there, how just is our result in terms of clean energy for all citizens. I think it's just important to note that we still lead the way with our 100% renewable energy targets. So moving ahead, as reported by Clean Technia and the Natural Resources Defense Council, Kaviat, the author of the story with my colleague at the Natural Resources Defense Council, U.S. clean energy jobs surpass fossil fuel jobs by five to one. The recently published Department of Energy 2017 U.S. Energy and Employment Report shows that clean electricity jobs are no doubt the engine that drives America's energy economy, outstripping the number of paychecks provided by the fossil fuel industry by at least five to one. While that doesn't mean fossil fuel generation is gone, it certainly means that if you are a politician looking for ways to grow jobs for the long term in your community, clean energy is the path to take. All told, nearly one million Americans are working near or full-time in the energy efficiency, solar, wind, and alternative vehicle sectors. This is almost five times the current employment in the fossil fuel electric industry, which includes coal, gas, and oil workers. And if you add in those who only work part-time, such as a construction worker who doesn't spend all of his or her work hours installing energy efficiency components like high efficiency windows, the number jumps to nearly three million Americans working in part or in whole for the energy efficiency, solar, wind, and alternative vehicle sectors. That's 14 times the current employment in the fossil fuel industry. This is extremely significant. I thank my colleague, Laura Ettenson at NRDC for putting that information and providing context for it as well. I wanna talk a little bit about what these numbers mean and I think it's just another reason why I hope that clean energy, I think many people hope that clean energy does not become a partisan issue. There are tremendous opportunities for jobs and health in the clean energy sector in this country and clean energy should be supported and should be allowed to thrive. Is it also extremely important and significant that folks who may be employed in the fossil fuel industry, in particular those who are structurally, for lack of a better term to say employed in the fossil fuel industry, are empowered to also have means to increase their own careers and jobs and lives is extremely important. I'm someone who's a Pennsylvania native. We fully understand the implications for coal workers, coal miners, and other folks in Pennsylvania, in Virginia, throughout Appalachia. These are folks who have relied on these jobs for a very long time. So I think that it is extremely important for hopefully our politicians to help figure out how economic opportunities can be granted to those who live in regions who have relied on fossil fuel jobs without ignoring the fact that clean energy jobs are really taking off and are becoming even more significant than fossil fuel jobs. So this is, it's a political issue. I also think it's a justice issue and I'll add that it's not clean energy per se that has killed coal or any type of war on coal. What has killed coal has been cheap natural gas prices. So it's important that we understand, I think, that fossil fuels are phasing out for more reason than one. It's bad for the environment and increasingly bad for our economy. So let's just hope that, be it clean or fossil, that we can see the whole picture of how we can move forward best economically for our country and also our climate. And actually I'll juxtapose this with another news story that in New England, having closed a nuclear plant, they've actually seen a spike in greenhouse gas emissions. So whether or not we should have nuclear power, which has, of course, potential risks is another just very important debate and we will continue to talk about that and other important issues of power and energy in Hawaii and globally on PowerUp Hawaii. Thank you so much. I have enjoyed bringing you the news this week. Mahalo and aloha.


Launched high above the clouds and filtering atmosphere on February 14, 1980, the Solar Maximum Observatory is a source of very detailed information about the Sun. For the first nine months of the planned two-year mission, the satellite collected spectacular new data. Hundreds of scientists gathered at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland and had ground observatories around the world to study the Sun and solar flares. Scientists made numerous discoveries and raised many new questions about the Sun. Then, in late 1980, three fuses failed in the Attitude Control Subsystem module. This meant that the satellite could no longer point precisely at the observation areas on the Sun. Fortunately, Solar Max was the first of a new breed of satellites built of standardized components and designed to be repaired in space. The faulty Attitude Control module is one of the three replaceable box-like units that control power, command functions, and the positioning of the satellite. These units are part of the Multimission Modular Spacecraft, or MMS, which makes up the lower portion of the Solar Max satellite. The upper portion, the observatory, contains seven different instruments for solar research. However, a considerable amount of planning and preparation had to be accomplished before that repair could occur. The Solar Maximum Repair Mission in 1984 chalked up a number of space flight firsts. These successes were possible because of some of the unique management approaches and decisions made back in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Certainly, there must be some very interesting management lessons learned from the MMS and Solar Max experience. I'm Dutch von Erntree on behalf of the NASA Program and Project Management Training and Development Initiative. Now let's go to Goddard Space Flight Center and get some insight on the MMS from Frank Sepulina, the project manager for the MMS. Thanks for joining us. Sepi, what were some of the more dominant management challenges that allowed for the development of the modular spacecraft? Well, Dutch, the most dominant challenge was the desire to try to fly more science at less cost. In the period of the late 60s, inflation was beginning to skyrocket. The Apollo program was coming down, phasing down. Along with it, the budgets were dropping off. And yet, from a scientific taste or desire or flavor, we were getting many, many good new missions to fly and searching desperately to find the dollars as an agency to fly those new scientific missions. And that was really the challenge that we as a center try to step up to since we are a scientific space flight center. Well, how can you answer a question like that? Well, when I think back, I'm amazed at how it came out. But in fact, the aspects of answering it took four years of very, very hard work and an intense team of experienced scientists and engineers. The Den Center director in 1970 formalized such a team and challenged them basically to look at what are the elements of spacecraft cost and how could we, in fact, reduce those costs. That team concentrated on looking at the spacecrafts of the 1960s, the 150 to 180 some-odd spacecrafts that NASA had designed, built and launched in that decade. And they focused not so much with the design characteristics of the spacecrafts but rather with the design characteristics as how they related to cost and the cost aspects. And then finally, with that database, we went to private industry and we did some rather significant economic studies focusing on design parameters as a function of cost. Well, what were some of the findings of those studies? Well, Dutch, there were four major findings of the studies. The first one, not so surprising, said that in the period of the 60s we did not have any significant commonality of spacecrafts. The second findings said that even though we had point design spacecrafts within those spacecrafts were, in fact, a lot of common boxes, black boxes, equipment. And the third finding, which was probably the most significant from a cost containment point of view was the fact that almost the vast majority of the spacecraft developments we were spending anywhere from 33% to 60% of the total program cost in the integration and test phase of the spacecraft. That in itself highlighted something that perhaps we could deal with from a new spacecraft architecture, new spacecraft design. And in effect, it really said we were spending a lot of time reinventing the spacecraft wheels when, in fact, the only thing that was changing was the outside architecture of the spacecraft. The last point was the point that kind of gave us credence for a multi-mission capability and that is that for most of those 150 to 180 missions many of those could be synthesized into four different performance categories. And if somehow we could design a spacecraft that could meet the performance requirements of those four categories, we had the essence of the system which would not necessitate, so to speak, reinventing the spacecraft for those four types of missions. But what were some of the programmatic issues in the environment that allowed for the acceptance of the modular spacecraft concept? I guess that could be summarized by one word, that word was skepticism. There was a tremendous amount of skepticism. Although people saw our economic studies, saw the cost benefits that emulated from those studies the most significant problem that we had was what we were proposing was a revolutionary spacecraft. And in proposing a revolutionary spacecraft, there's always this fear that, A, it may not work technically once it's put in orbit, the risk is very high. And the second point is the fact that in the development process it may not be feasible to contain the cost growth. They run into new technological problems that had never been faced before. So we had to focus over that four or five year period in dealing with our critics in attempting to answer those four major problems, those questions of cost containment, of skepticism, of performance, of risk assessment, risk management. Well, Seppy, what was the influence of Apollo and Shuttle on your program at that time? I think we can best answer that question if we walk up now to the Shuttle Bay trainer and take a look at our latest MMS spacecraft that's been delivered from the production line. Now that we're up here, Dutch, I think I can better explain the impact and the influences of both the Apollo and the Shuttle program had on our spacecraft architecture. Perhaps the most single critical dilemma that was posed to us in the early 70s was the dilemma of having to deal with how to shuttle eyes and make our spacecraft systems serviceable. One of the most fundamental problems that we had was that all our economic studies were showing, study after study after study, the advantages from a cost control point of view and from a serviceability point of view of repairing, servicing, changing out payloads on orbit for these spacecrafts. By the same token, the experience factor that the agency had had on the Apollo program was the very high cost of man rating equipment. And our customers view this as basically a very serious cost control problem. And we had to hit this problem very hard and we had to hit it hard, head on and deal with it on a point by point basis. What we did basically was to rely very heavily on a very significant series of economic studies that dealt not so much with serviceability, but with how to build a lower cost, better architecture, multi-mission type of spacecraft system. And what we did with our customers was convince them that whether we serviced on orbit or not, whether we launched on a shuttle or launched on a conventional launch vehicle and our spacecraft was architecture to fly either way, fly on a Delta, fly on a Titan or even or fly on a shuttle. Regardless of the method of launch, regardless of whether one considered serviceability or not, the architecture of the spacecraft was such that its economies were significantly lower by virtue of the fact that we in fact did make it modular and easy to assemble and test on the ground. And therefore, because we reduced that integration and test timeline, we were able to save some 30 to 40 percent of a typical program cost by negating the need for, first of all, redeveloping of the spacecraft and then shortening a typical spacecraft's integration and test time with the observatory instruments. And that was the fundamental approach by which we hit this problem. And eventually, I think that particular approach did persist and we were finally able to convince our customers that that was the better way to go. Well, Sepe, what were some of the aspects of those economic studies? Well, there were eight economic studies run during the 1970 to 1975 period. And the majority of the economic studies dealt with the level of spacecraft modularity from an economic point of view, from a lower cost possible point of view. We dealt with trying to understand the economic implication of making an entire spacecraft modular and throw awayable or replaceable at the spacecraft level. The next level down was at the subsystem level. And then we looked at the individual component modularity that is making individual components removable and replaceable. The most significant economic study of all, that is when I say significant, I mean that had the most impact and influence with our potential customers, was the Aerospace Corporation study that dealt not with servicing, but with the economic benefits associated with having a standard modular spacecraft that could accommodate four or five different sets of missions without redevelopment and that could be assembled by virtue of its modularity on the ground significantly faster and therefore less expensive. That study highlighted the key that our customers were really looking for, the potential of a 30 to 40% savings for each of the specific missions that would use a so-called standard or common spacecraft buzz. Well, what were some of the conclusions of those studies? The conclusions, especially the Aerospace conclusion, led our customers to forget about the, sort of speak, the risks associated with servicing. They sort of put servicing requirements out of their mind and it was very nice for them to say we won't do anything to preclude servicing but by the same token we won't have to spend any money at making a system serviceable because modularity and rapid ground integration and test breeds ease of servicing on orbit. And I think of all the conclusions that one could draw, that was the one that really put the message across to our customers and everybody could, sort of speak, be the Maytag, could watch the Maytag repairman leaning on his washing machine and should the day ever arise that we did have to conduct an emergency repair maintenance, the system could in fact be compatible to do it. Was it really difficult selling upper management? Well, I guess I would have to say yes since it took us five years to do that. I think that in looking back in the process of trying to convince upper management we had to deal with some very specific questions and convince the upper management at NASA headquarters that this plunge was worth their investment and was worth taking a risk to do. And the way we did that was first of all find that first willing customer, that first program who by either necessity or by cost constraints was willing to join with us and that program happened to be the SolarMax mission spacecraft program. The process by which we sold them on the approach was first of all we convinced them that we could launch on any launch vehicle that we did not have to wait for the shuttle. We could launch on a Delta or a Titan. And the next process was the process of convincing that program office that we could manage the technological risk by virtue of the amount of breadboarding and technology testing we were doing here on the ground that got it over this five year period. The last aspect had to do with our convincing Noel Hinners that from a SolarMax observatory point of view, from an agency point of view, from a futuristic thinking that on orbit servicing down the pike, a modular spacecraft up front, a more economical approach for not just the SolarMax mission but for Landsat missions and future UARS missions and so on, that a common spacecraft that could take care of four or five different types of mission constraints, requirements and configurations would be best for the agency. And Noel Hinners had the wisdom to step up to that and said, yes, we will take the plunge. We will go with this process. We're fortunate to have with us today Dr. Noel Hinners, the Associate Deputy Administrator of NASA, and Dr. Anthony Calio, the Vice President for Management and Operations at the Planning Research Corporation. In October of 1976, Dr. Hinners, the Goddard team working a new breed of spacecraft called the Multimission Modular Spacecraft, came to NASA headquarters to see if they can get a decision to use the SolarMax mission with the MMS spacecraft. What were some of the factors that you had to consider in making that decision? That's when the Goddard folks came down to headquarters talking about the MMS approach. Right off the bat, it was more than just the SolarMax mission. They do realize that it had a potential for lots of missions and in fact that was one of the benefits being advertised for the MMS approach, that you use the same basic design for many missions. I'll come back to that. We had though at the time something called the Low Cost Systems Office under the Chief Engineer Walt Williams at that time. They did the basic economic studies of the MMS and concluded that if you were to do just one, you wouldn't really reap the benefits of it, but that if you could buy a block of four or five spacecraft, that's when you'd really see the return on the investment. Now, we realize that the intangibles were going to save money also, not just the acquisition, but the common design, common components, despairing philosophy and the fact that the modular approach, the serviceability, would let you do the testing on the ground in a lot easier way than typically from the inside out. But then we came up against our friends over at OMB, the Office of Management and Budget. They understood the concept and said, fine, we'll let you go ahead with the SolarMax mission and the MMS, but we're not going to approve a block by a five spacecraft. Their argument was that we didn't have mission approval for the other four spacecraft. Even though we could say we know things are coming downstream, we typically get a new mission approved every year, that didn't wash with them. So they approved it only for the SolarMax mission at that time and Landsat just had to wait until this time came. And the Landsat subject brings us to you, Dr. Calio. At the time you were working with Dr. Hinners on this project, but we're not yet the Associate Administrator for Earth Applications, the office that would later have responsibility for that spacecraft. Now, what were some of the considerations that you had to make in this decision, in that time frame? October 76, I believe one of the problems that was going on was another budget issue. Even though all of us trained by NASA know the importance of balancing performance costs and schedule, Landsat was having a difficult time with the Office of Management and Budget because the project was not approved the way it was originally proposed by NASA that it was to carry two instruments, a multispectral scanner, which was the old instrument, and a new thematic mapper. It was believed at that point in time that if it was an experimental program that the thematic mapper was the only instrument that was needed and the multispectral scanner was not needed. The project was in the throes of being redefined between NASA and the Office of Management and Budget. So it was unclear what the spacecraft design would be. Secondly, if we had to go to such a design for any spacecraft, whether it was a space science or an application spacecraft, it would have to be dual compatible because if it were to fly on the shuttle ultimately, it would also have to, in the early years, fly on an expendable launch vehicle. And then finally, for those who were interested in polar orbits, we would have to fly out of the western test range so that it would have to be compatibility with that facility. So this presented a number of uncertainties for a whole series, then, of spacecraft that were being considered at that period of time. Well, in summary, considering that whole timeframe from 76 on to when solar and mags flew, what kind of lessons learned can you share with the current and new managers within NASA? Well, the Goddard team back in 77, as they have been in the past and continue to be, had great ideas. And the idea of the multi-mission spacecraft was a very creative one. And the second part of it was they were very persistent with that whole notion of getting the multi-mission spacecraft flown. I was not a supporter at the time. And it turned out through their bright ideas and their persistence or tenacity, persevered. And we got to see in the 1984 timeframe through the recovery of the Solar Max mission and its retrofitting and placing it back into service that the concept that they had, a good concept, well thought out, well engineered with the persistence of that team is leading the way for the future to the space station and to the shuttle. So it was a good idea and with good ideas staying with it, I think is an important point for NASA engineers to consider. Well, Dr. Hinters, what kind of summary lessons learned would you like to pass on to the new managers? I think there are a number there. Tony touched on several of them. Clearly having a solid technical product to sell has to be number one. Without that, forget it. Then once you get past that, you've got to have a salesman. And I'll put it that way. You're out there in the field. You've got to come in and convince a range of people here at headquarters and organizations. First you've got the program office. I say the program office. That's your first customer. But then on something like the MMS, which went across many program offices, you had to touch base with many and get people to understand that there was a payoff coming together on something like the MMS. Then you had to work the controller's office. You had to work the low-cost systems office. And you had to get over and work OMB. So you've got to understand when you're out in the field that you can't go to one point headquarters, but you've got to play across the board and aggregate the support for what you're trying to do. Tony mentioned being tenacious. In this project, I think you've seen almost the ultimate. Tenacious, yes, a leader. And in SEPI, we've got that. SEPI is a bulldog. I can still feel the teeth marks up here in the neck. He doesn't let go. SEPI so believed that what he was doing was right. After spending a while with him, he just fell in and said, yeah, he's right. The other thing he did, of course, and his team was that they produced. They promised a certain product on a schedule, and they brought it in. And we're seeing that now through the rest of the program. Even though we started with just Solar Max, it did get used for Landsat. It became used on the upper hemisphere research satellite. There are components of it, modules on it on the gamma ray observatory, and there are pieces of it in the space telescope. And it really has formed the basis for a lot of our thinking on the polar platform for the space station. There's one last thing. The Goddard management at the time gave SEPI a lot of leeway in the project. They believed in it and said, go to it. So it was an environment which encouraged that innovation. And that's something we've got to be sure we keep up so that these bright ideas can surface in the system, get through and get solved. Thank you very much, Dr. Hinners and Dr. Callio. I'm sure that the NASA workforce, and especially the young NASA managers, have a better appreciation for how management decisions are made at the associate administrator level. Thank you very much. And now let's go to Goddard Space Flight Center and see the multi-mission modular spacecraft. Well, Savvy, what was the impact of the failure of the Solar Max spacecraft on your program? Well, looking back in time, I feel that the impact of Solar Max failure, in fact the fine-pointing failure of the attitude control subsystem, represented both a tragedy and a triumph. A tragedy in the sense that we launched the spacecraft with two years of observation objectives, and after the first year we lost our fine-pointing. We had all these solar physicists and ground-based observatories all over the world making simultaneous observations with the Solar Max physicist here at Goddard to uncover some of the big secrets of solar flare theory. When we lost fine-pointing, we lost much of that capability. And I think that was certainly an adversity. On the other hand, by virtue of the fact that we had designed the spacecraft which in fact was serviceable on orbit since we had built this flight support system to go up and take care of that problem, and since we had the desire as an agency to basically put our faith in the transportation system which we said could do repair and should do repair of satellites in orbit, we put all those aspects together just doing, going forward, represented a confidence, represented an objective for the agency of meeting its goal, of understanding where the development of resources and what their intention was in the first place and bringing all elements of the agency together, the land-space flight, transportation element, the scientist, the observatory builders, bringing them all together and doing a very successful repair mission represented a significant triumph. And all that one has to do is look at what happened in the next 12 months after the successful Solar Max repair mission. First of all, we did, retrieved two spacecrafts, West Star and Palapa, which are going to be relaunched. Next, we repaired Syncom 4 and put it up into orbit into its operational regime where it's working fine to this day. Solar Max, which was repaired in 1984, is working fine and still collecting very valuable scientific data and in fact, for the last four and a half to five years has been operating fine and being able to collect some significant scientific data as the solar cycle is going back up. And I think you put all those aspects together, it represented this triumph aspect as well as the adversity aspect. Was that looking back to 1970 when your challenge was to get more science for less cost? What advice can you give your new project managers and what have you learned? Well, I think in terms of what have we learned and what the accomplishments have been, looking back and looking first of all here at UARS which represents the sixth or seventh production spacecraft common to several different missions and even more importantly the fact that this particular ACS subsystem was the one that flew for four years on Solar Max was brought back from space and refurbished at 25 to 30% of the cost of a new spacecraft and now will be flying again on a spacecraft almost three times more complicated and expensive. I think that that basically is indicative of the fact that we have accomplished the goal of reducing cost of future missions by virtue of our being able to build and serve as common modular spacecrafts on the ground and relaunch and maintain some form of a standard spacecraft production base and I think that I feel very good about that accomplishment. I think as far as the lessons learned for future project managers the most fundamental reality today is that the cost pressures of the 80s and the 90s are even more severe than the cost pressures of the 70s and for a project manager to effectively be able to cost manage and schedule manage a program he's got to be dogmatically pragmatic he's got to make hard decisions on trade-offs between cost and performance and schedule and those trade-offs have to be made in a rather timely fashion today much more so I believe than they were in the period of the 70s. I think that by the same token that project manager today has to be an astute philosophical leader he cannot be afraid of basically grabbing the cutting edge of technology in any given area whether it be in the scientific instrument area or in the spacecraft performance area and moving ahead with that technology without fear he's got to be determined he's got to be an astute philosophical leader and he's got to bring his team along with him in order to make true progress in this space arena. Project management is really a bottom-line art form of leading a group of technical and business people into accomplishing a common goal and that the success that a project manager can have is directly dependent on what I call the three P's of project management persistence, patience and people dedication. Project managers got to have that goal he's got to have a fervent desire and demonstrate that fervent desire of accomplishing that goal and finally Dutch the most important point of all is that a project manager cannot succeed unless he can inspire his team of technical and business experts to follow him and that's what project management I think is all about. Well Sepe thank you very much for your help and your guidance and wisdom and on behalf of the NASA program and project management training and development initiative I want to thank you and your Goddard team and the NASA headquarters team for making this training film possible. Well Dutch thank you very much I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was a real pleasure. I did too. Thank you. You have just seen a NASA pilot video program prepared as part of the program and project management training and development initiative. This video series is intended to be a vehicle through which former and present NASA managers can share their experiences with other employees especially those interested in management. The video programs in this series focus on the exchange of approaches and the informal communication of various NASA project management styles. The video programs are geared to gathering and sharing the individual and team experiences and lessons learned from the managers of past NASA projects. Hopefully these experiences will be useful to the future cadre of managers. Each program in the series will document one project in an educational format containing a brief history or summary of the project followed by a discussion on how these people managed and overcame their program obstacles. The audience will be introduced to different real-life project scenarios and through the videos will better understand why certain management approaches were selected and why some styles have been more successful than others. Each program will discuss detailed information about the project's objectives and history as told by the project managers themselves. The audience for this series is the NASA program and project management workforce especially the new less experienced managers who may not be familiar with the details of past projects. This program will bring together NASA's seasoned professionals and capture many of their projects in brief visual learning sessions which will be made available to a broad audience. We hope this series will aid in the development of a corporate memory that will benefit both current and future generations of NASA personnel. Thanks for listening and be sure to watch for the next video program in this series.


Now, this accelerator driven systems or it is called accelerator driven subcritical reactor systems, they are of great importance to whole world in general and to India in particular. System was discussed briefly in lecture number 9, here I will give more details. Now, if you take the use of right now there are three main sources of energy, one is coal, other is oil and third one is gas. These are the three resources, results known at this moment and it is estimated that the coal will last only about 250 years, oil about 50 years and gas over 65 to 70 years in this range. That means we have to find a new source of energy because when these all three sources they are finished then there will be problem. So, use of solar and wind is picking up right now and of course nuclear power appears to be inevitable options as future energy source because that will be a safe as well as cheaper than the other ones. Of course, now solar energy cost is coming down. However, in this case disposal of nuclear waste in any reactor these radioactive nuclei are formed and they are called nuclear waste. One is plutonium, neptunium, amrysium and curium and that is an important issue in harnessing the energy from the critical reactor, they are more formed in the critical reactor. So, if we can find a system where these nuclear waste nuclei are not formed or they are made use of in some way or the other then the system will be acceptable to everybody. Now, in a conventional system how it works conventional reactor system normally we use uranium 235 and a thermal neutron interacts with it and that breaks into two nuclei plus because of fission process and in this process an energy of about 180 MBV to about 0.2 GeV is released and that is what is used for generation of electricity. Now, the problem comes here that uranium has several isotopes and only one of them for example uranium 235 has only 0.7 percent and which is fissile. So, uranium 235 percent is only 0.7 percent which and this uranium 35 is fissile. So, that means this fission can take place only with the uranium 235 while if you take that uranium 238 which is 99.3 percent roughly which is a fertile material and it is not a fissile material. So, it cannot be used for energy production in conventional reactors. So, this basically becomes a waste actually it has to be taken care of not only that not only these ones but even several minor actinides are produced as I mentioned in the earlier in this case and that minor actinides are produced with heavier isotopes of uranium like 238 and neutrons are absorbed not only minor actinides but also fission products are produced. So, they are some of them are listed here and their life half-lives are also mentioned and you can see that it will take a lot of time for them to reduce to other two safe elements or other two safe isotopes. In the case of this reaction in fission several fission products also are formed and they are also radioactive and there they are they have to be taken care of. For example, some of them are mentioned here Estonium cesium iodine. So, in conventional nuclear reactor taking care of nuclear waste which consists of minor actinides and fission products is a problem and that is why not many people are happy about it. So, to solve this problem in November 1993 Professor Carlo Rubia then Director General of Sun Geneva proposed a system which he called Thermal Neutron Energy Amplifier system based on Thorium cycle. So far we were using uranium cycle now he is proposing Thorium cycle and why it is very important to us that you will see in the next few slides. So, he proposed that you can use Thorium cycle for the energy production and that is called ADS why it is very important to India this can be seen here that although we have not much of uranium but we have highest amount of Thorium available in India and this is you can see here that India is having highest amount of Thorium and this is the latest report this is in thousands of tons. So, you can see almost like 1 million tons of that and these are the references for them. So, roughly almost like 16 to 17 percent of world's Thorium is in India and that is a very good quality. So, if we can use Thorium in our reactors then that is estimated that our fuel problem will be solved almost for 500 to 600 years. So, this is a very good and I think India should really work on it and then the system which why proposed by professor Carlo Rubia is called accelerator driven subcritical reactor system. Why it is important to have subcritical reactor because in conventional reactors producing power due to criticality safety issues are involved. While if it is subcritical then that problem will not come and it will be inherently safe. So, what he proposed was that you have a subcritical reactor and the external neutrons which are required they will be coming from outside and they are generated by the accelerator system. So, it is a new kind of fission reactor where nuclear power let us say just for example 500 to 1000 megawatt electrical can be generated in a neutron multiplying core and k effective here is less than 1. That means it is subcritical. So, this if k effective k effective is less than 1 it is subcritical if it is equal to 1 it is critical it is critical here it is subcritical and if it is more than 1 then it is supercritical. Now, this will be inherently safe if k effective is less than 1 k effective is shown here that means the production of neutrons is less than the absorption plus leakage. So, that means it will never become critical. Now, if it does not become critical then power generation will not take place. So, how to make it critical that means you have to provide extra neutrons from outside and that makes it critical, but now the control will become on the system which you are using from outside and that is what is ADS. So, the external neutrons come from the accelerator part. So, accelerator has to be driven by external neutron source. This is very important and that is what is done by the accelerator. So, neutron source requirement for ADS is given here. So, let us take one GEV a proton beam interactive with the heavy nuclei produces about 25 to 30 neutrons. Now, it is not a fission reaction it is a spallation reaction. So, each proton will generate about 25 to 30 and why it has to be about one GEV you will see next in the next slide. So, suppose for the sake of calculations you take 10 milli ampere beam current or 10 milli ampere one GEV becomes 10 megawatt. So, that is a beam power. So, this reaction can yield about 10 power 18 neutrons per second because each proton is creating 25 to 30 neutrons and these neutrons per second you will see here can generate the nuclear power of 500 to 1000 megawatt. So, if you take fission energy liberated in a neutron multiplying core k now it is a subcritical core then it is given by this formula 180 mvb is the energy released in each fission reaction. So, if you take k effective less than 1 and but of the order of 0.95 to 0.98 then the thermal fission power in the range of this would require driving neutron source of that and this is already there you have seen it can be generated there. So, that means with this one GEV proton beam of 10 milli ampere you can generate a nuclear power of about 1000 megawatt from where the 30 25 to 30 neutrons per proton comes it comes from here based on the calculations as well the experiment. So, you can see this figure where the number of neutrons generated per proton in a normalized manner as a function of proton energy you can see that around one GEV this is one GEV is about it saturates and it is around 25 to 30 in that range with other this is on the lead target but if you have other target it can be slightly more or less. So, you can see the on the average in a spallation process when the one at one GEV proton beam interacts with a heavy target like lead or bismuth then it will it will generate about 25 to 30 neutrons of course having a full spectrum. So, you have to moderate it and if you have that and these calculations were done at Fermilab and I have taken from this figure from invited talk given by Chanseh Khan Mishra in the impact 2005. Now in BRC also initiated this program as I said that for India it is absolutely of great importance to have an ideas program and there this is the accelerator of you can see here it will go about one GEV one GEV 30 milliampere in that proton beam will fall on a spallation target for the region to take away the heat it will be a liquid target. So, this is a spallation target here the spallation target and neutrons are produced and it is surrounded by a core of thorium and where the energy will be generated. So, you can see that detailed studies have been done on high current accelerator spallation target and reactor system and this program has started here. So, this accelerator will be developed at BRC in three phases first one will be 20 MBV low energy high intensity proton accelerator, second will be up to 200 MBV and at 200 MBV itself you can you can have a demo ADS for physics studies. However, the power can be generated with the one GEV accelerator. So, you can see that here this even the smallest this 20 MBV labor consists of several components and I am happy to tell you that this has been is almost about to be commissioned. However, this is this development of one GEV 30 milliampere current accelerator is difficult because higher currents there will be a lot of processes formed like is very difficult to contain that beam because of the space charge effect repulsive accelerator repulsive space charge effects and also the because of beam halo problems. But those problems can be solved and we are going ahead with that. Now, you can see here that why 30 I am talking about 30 milliampere so far and how that 30 milliampere comes whether can we reduce that because getting accelerators of that energy and the current are difficult as of now there is no high current accelerator operating in CW mode. So, you can see if you calculate that power thermal power generated using this current can see that for 1000 megawatt you need about 30 milliampere if you have k effective of 0.95. However, if you have 0.98 then it reduces to about 10 milliampere current. Similarly, if you want to generate in power of 3000 megawatts thermal then you need about 90 milliampere current with k effective of 0.95. But if you go to 98.98 then it reduces to about 30 milliampere current. So, if you want to have this kind of power generation which will be almost like about 1000 megawatt electrical then you need at least 30 milliampere currents. So, this comes from this formula for the power thermal power and the parameters which have been taken into account is that proton energy is 1 GV and number of newtons per proton is 25 and fission. In fission we are taken that there will be each fission there will be 2.5 newtons produced and we know that it is in the range of 2.2 to 3 newtons are produced per fission. To give you some numbers for reactors that is converting into electrical power with 40 percent efficiency to 280 megawatt. Then how it will be useful using aquarium you can take that this consists of three sub components which Karl Ruvia gave actually this is what he gave. You have an accelerator let us say it is about 1 GV 30 milliampere then it will be 30 milliampere 1 GV will be 30 megawatt and accelerator efficiency is about 50 percent you can call it. So, that means whatever power you are giving as input beam energy will be power will be about 50 percent of that. So, you have an accelerator where you are feeding about 60 megawatt power. So, you get 30 megawatt here and this is what you want the corresponding. So, when this beam falls on a target heavy target and that gives you about 25 times gain roughly that is because you are getting the. So, if you have 30 megawatt and roughly 20 gain you will get 600 megawatt that goes into the reactor and which has a conversion factor of about 40 percent from thermal to electrical. So, you get about 240 megawatt of electrical power out of that 60 will go to the accelerator and this system and 180 megawatt can be can go to grid. So, you will see that initially you have to feed power from outside later on it becomes like a self-sufficient independent system where power is generated and you can whole system can be given power from this and extra power. For example, in this case about 180 megawatt power is available to the grid. So, after sometime it becomes a self-sustainable system. Now also giving that what is the physics behind it and if it is a subcritical system you can see that multiplying multiplication in the subcritical reactor is given by this and the gain is given by this. This is for the subcritical system and if you take a typical value of G naught which is about in the range of 2.1 to 2.4 then you can see that K effective for 0.9 the gain will be 20 and for K effective 0.97 it will be 70 and so on and then the K effective 0.997 which is close to the critical one and which we should avoid then it will be 700. So, that means even little bit of fluctuation in parameters can make it unsafe. So, we should not use K effective of the order of 0.997. However, in this case which we are considering we are considering 1g proton energy on the lead target producing about 20 neutrons. We have seen it 20 to 30 in that range mid grid. So, typically let us say 40 percent of these neutrons will create fission reaction will have fission reaction that means out of these 8 neutrons will generate fission and each fission roughly gives about 0.2 GeV energy 180 MVV. So, roughly I am taking it about 0.2 then it will give it will generate 1.8 GeV. So, that means we started with a 1 GeV proton and it is giving energy of about 1.6 GeV. So, we have to keep these parameters in mind. So, with this order of magnitude calculation. So, with K effective of 0.98 the multiplication which becomes about 50 with all the parameters put in and it produces about 80 GeV energy. So, 1.6 into 50 becomes 80 GeV. So, the energy multiplication effectively in a subcritical reactor system based on the 1 GeV accelerator becomes about 80. Now, the beam power was 30 megawatt here and it is multiplied by 80. So, you can see that ADS power which is giving is about 2410 megawatt. So, this is order of magnitude these will exact calculations will involve the lot of other parameters. The biggest advantage of this is reduction in the minor actinides and see for example, for us it is very important to use thorium because it is a high abundance and it is the it is available in India in Plenty. So, therefore, at particularly it is 3 to 4 times abundant than the uranium right now all our reactors are using uranium and it is 3 to 4 times available. So, that means we have a lot of better fuel performance characteristics which are listed here you can see higher melting point, better thermal conductivity this is very important parameter and lower fission gas release. But most important is this parameter which is comparison of minor actinides produced in this thorium uranium cycle is that is much less as compared to this this cycle which is used in many reactors and that is shown here in this slide that the minor actinides production in thorium based cycle is you can relative values you can see here for example, in this one you can see that naptonium 237 which was produced in uranium fuels the uranium plutonium cycle 4.6 here it is only 0.06 is much less. Similarly, emerycium which was 4 here is minus 7 so it is almost like 0 and so therefore and these were the minor actinides which were responsible for that naptonium, emerycium, chemerium so these are the and these are not even produced so these are some of the very big advantage that means your problem of waste management is automatically solved. So, safety is taken care of that means the ADS systems are inherently safe because the reactor is subcritical, minor actinides are not produced and India it is abundantly available so this has tremendous advantage for all. So, thank you very much for this so this is the end of this course and I wish you good luck.