John E. Bryson – Bio

2 Comments

1. 

   larry00

   June 1, 2011

   Secretary of Subsidy
   Obama’s Commerce nominee knows all about corporate welfare..

   President Obama nominated John Bryson to head the Commerce Department on Tuesday, praising the Californian as “a business leader who understands what it takes to innovate, create jobs and to persevere through tough times.” That’s one way of describing someone with a talent for scoring government subsidies.

   Mr. Bryson, who had a long tenure running California energy company Edison International, has more recently served as chairman of BrightSource Energy, a startup specializing in solar-thermal power. Founded in 2004, the company has attracted more than $500 million in private funding and has become a renewables darling, with agreements to supply electricity to California utilities PG&E and Southern California Edison.

   That’s the good news. But the company’s SEC filing in April for a $250 million IPO tells a more, er, interesting story.

   The company has posted a string of net losses, totaling $177 million. Much of its $32 million in revenue over the past three years has come not from power generation, but from a contract with Chevron to use its technology to recover . . . not-so-renewable heavy oil. The filing advises investors that BrightSource has “generated substantial net losses and negative operating cash flows since our inception and expect[s] to continue to do so for the foreseeable future.”

   There’s also trouble at its flagship venture, a 3,600-acre solar project in the Mojave desert called Ivanpah. In April, the Bureau of Land Management suspended some construction in the name of “threatened” desert tortoises. The company faces at least two lawsuits from environmental coalitions. Its technology has never been implemented on a “utility-scale” project, it depends on “unproven” equipment necessary to clean the Mojave dust off its solar mirrors, and the project faces potential cost overruns. The Energy Information Agency also lists solar-thermal as the most expensive source of energy on the books—making offshore wind look cheap by comparison.

   Fortunately for BrightSource, its efforts are sustained by an impressive array of federal, state and local subsidies, including a $1.6 billion loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, one of the largest solar guarantees on record. The company notes federal provisions providing solar projects with a 30% investment tax credit through 2016, as well as accelerated depreciations of capital costs for solar entities, among other goodies.

   The risk is that the subsidy spigot could someday be turned off as voters get wise to the high costs, economic inefficiencies and unintended environmental side-effects of renewables. That’s a possibility the filing acknowledges, though it adds brightly that it expects demand to “continue to increase as a result of regulatory policies and incentives put in place to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and improve energy security.” As an example, it points to California legislation requiring retail energy sellers to “derive 33% of the energy they supply from renewable energy sources by 2020.”

   Which brings us back to the President’s praise for Mr. Bryson as an innovator. All technologies—including those connected to renewables—involve risk, and entrepreneurship means taking chances on innovation. But a core conceit of this Administration’s economic policy is that it can achieve better results if government allocates capital to favored companies rather than letting private markets do the job. The results so far have been as underwhelming as the current economic recovery.

   In nominating Mr. Bryson, Mr. Obama has chosen a man who would appear to believe wholeheartedly in this model of politicized investment. Senators might want to ask the nominee whether he represents a vision of “commerce” that bears any relation to what is supposed to happen in a free market.

   Reply
2. 

   larry00

   June 1, 2011

   Natural Resources Defence Council a group of Environmentalists Mr Bryson Co Founded as a young Lawyer !

   Congress Knows Who They Are !
   They held hearings about why the E P A was granting funds to groups who lobby it !
   Seems a taxpayer group took exception to the Taxpayers paying for Lobbyists for Enviornmental Groups !

   Testimony to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
   June 22, 2005
   by: Tom Schatz

   Testimony

   Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the more than one million members and supporters of Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW). We hope that this hearing will shed light on long-standing questions concerning grants that are awarded to nonprofit organizations by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

   CAGW was created 21 years ago after Peter Grace presented to President Ronald Reagan 2,478 findings and recommendations of the Grace Commission (formally known as the President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control). These recommendations provided a blueprint for a more efficient, effective, and smaller government.

   Since 1984, the implementation of Grace Commission recommendations has helped save taxpayers more than $758.7 billion. CAGW is the nation’s largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government

   CAGW is classified as a Section 501(c)(3) organization under the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and has not received any federal money and does not plan to receive any federal funds in the future.

   Mr. Chairman, you aptly described the current EPA grants management system over the past ten years as a “revolving door” of audits from the EPA Inspector General (IG), Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports, Congressional hearings, and new EPA policies. Despite the great lengths a number of people have gone through to create a more accountable, competitive, and flexible system, there are still non-competitive practices and questionable award processes at the EPA.

   In 1998, CAGW released a special report entitled “Phony Philanthropy: How Government Grants are Subverting Missions of Nonprofit Organizations,” which examined EPA grants awarded to nonprofits between January 1, 1995 and January 1, 1997. The report analyzed 105 organizations which received 839 EPA grants. The report detailed the location, IRS status, net assets, total revenue, total amount of government funding and the percentage of total revenue such funding represents, cumulative EPA grants within this two year time period, information about nonprofit goals and lobbying affiliation.

   The report, and our testimony today, is not intended to criticize nonprofits but to review the grant process and offer solutions to improve the system.

   Nonprofits contribute to society by providing assistance, innovation, advocacy, and education through an independent voice. Nonprofits are truly an American institution and should be encouraged to foster and grow.

   However, in our Phony Philanthropy Report, we found that several nonprofit groups, who advocate for specific partisan agendas, were receiving substantial government grants that could assist them in their efforts. For example, the Environmental Defense Fund had received $1.3 million in cumulative EPA grants. Earth Share had received $998,000. The Consumer Federation of American had received $380,000. After the report was released, these organizations continued to receive government grants. The Environmental Defense Fund, now Environmental Defense, received over $3 million additional dollars. Earth Share received an additional $33,000. The Consumer Federation and the Consumer Federation of America Foundation received over $6.5 million combined.

   Taxpayers need to become concerned when a politically active group receives grant money from government sources. While CAGW would certainly be troubled that there may be no formidable barrier to prevent government grant money flowing directly into the lobbying side, this is just part of the problem. Even educational efforts are suspect. For example, while educating the public on the so-called benefits found in Kyoto may please some citizens, it will not please others. All funds are fungible. Government-funded grant money that is used to pay the rent, turn on the lights or promote a fairly innocuous theme such as educating consumers on buying energy efficient appliances or solid waste management is money the organization does not have to privately raise to lobby elected officials on a particular point of view. When government dollars become involved to help advocate a particular agenda, either from the right or the left perspective, all taxpayers should be concerned. The EPA’s needs a better approach to grantee oversight and whether organizations such as those mentioned are spending taxpayer funds efficiently and properly. Frankly, we believe organizations that do any kind of lobbying should not receive government grants.

   In our 1998 report, we also evaluated organizations that receive substantial amounts of their income in government grants. Government co-dependency, a situation where a nonprofit organization receives 50 percent or more of its funding from government sources, is another problem in EPA grants. As a nonprofit becomes more reliant on government support, its mission can shift. For example, instead of asking for funds to find a solution to a problem, their goal can shift to asking for funds to maintain the status quo. In other words, they become trapped in their undertaking, dependent mostly on the government for their existence. In addition, if nonprofits are unable to gain sufficient monetary support from the voluntary, private sector, there is no reason for the government to continue to artificially prop up these groups.

   In our 1998 report, we discovered that the Battelle Memorial Institute had received approximately $1 in EPA cumulative grants. Total government funding was 88 percent of its revenues, according to its 1996 annual report. Today, Battelle’s cumulative EPA funding amounts to $23 million. And, according to Battelle’s most recent available IRS Form 990, 100 percent of its funding comes from the government.

   In 1998, the Tellus Institute had $372,000 in cumulative EPA grants; today that totals stands at $2.2 million. Its reliance on government was 60 percent of its total budget, today it amounts to 73 percent.

   CAGW remains concerned today that organizations, such as those mentioned, receive such a large amount of their funding from the government. Although we realize valuable research can and probably is being conducted by organizations such as these, we also believe that in most cases if the research is worth being conducted, the private sector would certainly be doing it. We think Congress needs to take a closer look at these types of nonprofits to make sure we are not spending tax dollars to simply maintain an organization and that our nation is getting something in return for the investment.

   To their benefit, EPA has policies currently in place to ensure fair and open competition so that the most qualified nonprofits be awarded grants. The EPA has improved its efforts to ensure clarity in announcing grant availability, awarding grants, and overseeing successful implementation of grant policies. In fact, according to Government Accountability Office (GAO), EPA issued oversight policies in 1998, 1999. 2002, and 2005 designed to increase grant monitoring, increase in-depth reviews, and to create annual monitoring plans. In addition, in 2003 the EPA issue its first five-year grants management plan aimed at improving oversight, competition, and EPA personnel skills. In January, 2005, the EPA issued Order # 5700.7, known as the “Results Policy.” This will help the EPA decide whether grantees are actually contributing to the agency’s strategic goals. And in March, 2005, Order # 5700.8, the “Pre-Award Policy,” was issued. This order will create internal controls that will help the agency determine if nonprofits organizations have the administrative and programmatic ability to meet the requirements needed for receiving government funding. However, internal polices, rules and orders are only worth the paper they are written on if they are not followed.

   Your activity has inspired us to take a second look at EPA funding and we will be investigating some of the grants that have been awarded recently. Already some red flags have been raised. For example, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) receives funding from the EPA. According to its web site, the NRDC opposes drilling in ANWR and it encourages visitors to write their senators to support a cap on carbon dioxide emissions. It criticizes the Bush administration and states because the administration caters to industries, America’s health and natural heritage are at risk and the administration “threatens to do more damage to our environmental protections than any other in U.S. history.” The NRDC even asks its members to write their senator to oppose John Bolton’s nomination as U.N. Ambassador.

   The NRDC has received from the EPA a cumulative total of grants amounting to over $6 million. According to the group’s 2003 IRS Form 990, it received $608,000 in government grants. In 2003, they also spent $645,000 to lobby Congress. As we have noted before, most money is fungible.

   Before I close, let me give the EPA a pat on the back. At least their grants are on their web site for everyone to see and evaluate. This is better than many agencies. I would encourage this committee to do whatever it can to get other agencies to provide the transparency demonstrated by the EPA.

   In closing, it is important that each EPA dollar is spent wisely to maximize effectiveness. Awarding grants to nonprofits that have a partisan agenda or who rely entirely on government-funding for their existence present clear conflicts of interest among the government, the private sector, and taxpayers. CAGW believes the grants, if not properly managed, invites a huge waste of tax dollars. In order to experience sustained improvement in protecting human health and the environment, the EPA’s grant management system must continue to evolve into an accountable and competitive process.

   Reply