Subject: CF program on transportation?
From: Amitabh Desai <[email-masked]>
To: Bruce Lindsey <[email-masked]>, Laura Graham <[email-masked]>, Doug Band - PC <[email-masked]>, Justin Cooper - PC <[email-masked]>, John Podesta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:51:37 -0500

Following up on recent emails, below is a proposal from the CCI transportation guy that we at CF take on a green transportation program. The cost for six months would be $250,000. That seems high, but the idea itself makes some sense, and I'd welcome your feedback on the extent to which we want to explore this. We probably could achieve a lot via a CF/CGI program on green transportation, beyond what's possible via the C40.

The second piece below are his reflections on the overall CCI - C40 relationship.

Hope this is helpful,
Ami

Prospectus for a Transportation Technologies Incubator

Stephen H. Crolius, Director, Transportation Program, Clinton Climate Initiative

November 7, 2011

The Platform

Over the last three years the Transportation Technologies Program (TTP) of the Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI) has built significant momentum in the realm of carbon-neutral transportation technologies.  This momentum has developed within the context of practical projects in C40 cities and is manifest in undertakings that include, among others, the Latin American Hybrid/Electric Bus Test Program, the C40 Electric Vehicle Network, the School Bus of the Future Project, and the Ammonia Port Vehicle Project.

For most of this time, the TTP has been staffed with a single full-time staff member – the author of this prospectus.  The Program Director has had substantial, indispensable assistance from a core group of approximately six City Directors (and an ever-changing roster of interns), but theconception and launching of the Program’s projects has been the work of a single individual. What this fact demonstrates is the power that lies in the combination of four core elements:

•
The Clinton name and the access and good will it generates within relevant communities in the public-, private-, and NGO sectors
•
The original CCI strategy of forming tactical alliances among players with shared interests and bringing the players together to implement tangible, impactful, and inspiring projects
•
A thesis underlying each of TTP’s work streams that integrates elements of science, business, and public policy in an original and action-oriented manner
•
Analytic discipline and business sensibility that brings a hard edge to all of TTP’srelationships and undertakings and helps ensure that the projects are viable and robust in the real world

Working synergistically, the four elements have created a set of intellectual and relationship assets that is unique in the world and uniquely effective as a basis for positive change.

For all undertakings that aspire to address the climate change crisis, it is fair to ask if they have a realistic hope of making a measurable impact – or are they so small and the crisis so large that they are doomed to ineffectuality?  Accumulating experience indicates that the TTP is constituted in such a way that its impact can be commensurate with the challenge.  The key is the Program’s identification of a small set of fuels and propulsion technologies (and a larger set of companies behind them) that have the potential to dramatically reduce the carbon footprint of the globaltransportation sector -- and identification of pathways for step-by-step implementation.

The Platform Is Burning

TTP and the new C40-CCI organization do not have a viable fit going forward.  On the one hand,the Program has matured to the point where project venues and partners beyond the C40 cities should be considered – although in the ideal scenario, projects in the C40 cities would continue as an important aspect of the Program’s work.  On the other hand, C40 leadership intends to pursue an agenda that is focused on city policies and is avowedly uninterested in promoting the use of new technologies.

If current trends are allowed to run their course, the TTP will be gradually decommissioned in the first half of 2012.  The equity and momentum that the Clinton Foundation has built up in sustainable transportation technologies will evaporate.  Even worse, the alliances of like-minded parties from business, technical institutions, and government will lose an important convener and/or ally and will see their cause materially set back.

The Proposal

The current proposal is intended to place the TTP on a new institutional footing that will allow it to realize its potential.  The central idea is to move the TTP back under the umbrella of the WJCF.  To some degree this would reconstitute the status quo ante, but there would be two major differences.  The first would in the relationship with the C40 cities.  The second would be in themethod of funding.

In the first regard, the TTP would become a “non-exclusive” partner of the C40 cities.  The non-exclusivity, naturally, would go both ways, i.e., the cities could work with any partners of their choosing and the TTP would have a similar range of options.  This approach could accommodate the two extreme scenarios (all of TTP’s work being conducted in C40 cities or none of it) and allow a viable equilibrium to be discovered somewhere in the middle.  One thing that would not change would be the Program’s rootedness in physical places and its cultivation of partnerships with the political jurisdictions that administer those places.

The key premise in the area of funding is that the TTP has established a track record over the lastthree years that may make it an attractive standalone funding target.  The transportation technologies space is not crowded with NGOs, yet, as noted above, the potential for effective action is significant.  The Program’s annual budget is currently around $250,000 (including a properly accounted share of the City Directors who put time into it).  The argument to prospective funders would be that the modest annual investment associated with, say, doubling this budget,would allow the TTP to operate with disproportionately more effectiveness and to make an important and steadily expanding difference in the world.

The specific action proposed by this prospectus is for the Clinton Foundation to fund a six-month “incubation” period during which new funding can be secured for the Program.  During this time, the Program Director would take the lead in identifying and cultivating potential funding sources.  The Program Director would be supported and guided by the Foundation’s Development staff, but would serve as the “face of the Program” to the donor community.  While there is every reason to expect this effort to culminate in the commitment of one or more funding streams, there is no guarantee that that will be the case.  It should be noted that no one would be worse off in the event of failure than if the process of decommissioning the Program is allowed to proceed.

What is Achievable in 2012?

The TTP’s agenda in 2012 is focused on four programs, each of which is poised to deliver substantial, notable accomplishments before the end of the year.

Our Latin American Hybrid Test Bus Program became the Hybrid/Electric Test Bus Program(H/EBTP) in 2011 with the addition of a strong focus on the emerging category of plug-in and pure-electric buses.  The goal in 2012 will be to complement the electric-bus test results that will come from the H/EBTP with one or more demonstration projects.  These projects will be set up to illuminate the investment and operating costs profiles of the different system architectures that are possible with electric buses.  In addition to the Program’s current Latin American participants, exploratory conversations have occurred in London, Los Angeles, and Hong Kong.  The Inter-American Development Bank has expressed interest in funding additional electric-bus work in Latin America.

The C40 Electric Vehicle Network was in large measure put on the back burner in 2011 by the C40’s integrated planning process.  However, considerable groundwork was laid for two significant initiatives in 2012.  The first is the EV Value Project, which will collect, organize, and disseminate data that relates to the value proposition of electric cars (and which will aspirationally establish the superiority of that value proposition relative to that of conventional cars).  This effort will be undertaken in partnership with other major public-sector and NGOplayers in the EV space including the U.S. Department of Energy, the International Energy Agency, and the Rocky Mountain Institute. The current goal is to be in position to publicly announce this initiative at a major EV conference that will take place in Los Angeles in May.

The second EV initiative will focus on a promising concept for delivery of EV charging services.  It will integrate technical, business, and financing dimensions in an approach that could prove uniquely effective in meeting the needs of drivers, utilities, and investors.  Prospective partners that include Nissan, General Electric, and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) have expressed interest in the initiative.  It is anticipated that ground could be broken on a demonstration site before the end of 2012.

The third program of particular interest in 2012 is the School Bus of the Future. The current plan is to seek funding for the repowering of New York City school buses from an active program at the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) in the second quarter of 2012.  The program (and the foundation we have laid) is structured in such a way that the odds of receiving funding are higher than those that pertained in 2011 when an application we filed with the EPA was not funded.  We also intend to work with NYSERDA and other parties on the development of a market mechanism for the trading of renewable methane.

The final major focus for 2012 will be our emerging New Fuels Program.  Results from our initial efforts in 2011 have been encouraging and will give us considerable momentum heading into the New Year.  We have an application for funding of a $5 million ammonia fuel demonstration project (the “Ammonia Port Vehicle Project”) pending before the California Energy Commission(CEC) already, and encouraging signals coming from the sponsors of other funding programs at the CEC and California Air Resources Board.  In addition, inquiries are pending relative to a potential dimethyl ether (DME) projects in Southern California and at the Port of Rotterdam.  Parties involved in these undertakings include Volvo, Delphi, TNT (the Dutch global logistics company), and numerous smaller technology companies.

​*​*​*

This proposal is offered in the belief that it represents a solution that could be attractive to each of the stakeholders associated with the TTP.  The C40 cities would retain access to the TTP and would likely be the Program’s preferred partners.  The WJCF would be able to see through an initiative in which considerable resources have already been invested.  The Program’s staff and partners would be able to accomplish their goal of making a significant contribution in the fight to reduce transportation-driven GHG emissions.

The Clinton Foundation in the Climate Space: The Case for Organizational Realignment
Stephen H. Crolius, Director, Transportation Program, Clinton Climate Initiative
December 16, 2011

The following thoughts come from a CCI staff member who has not been privy to the innumerable discussions and decisions over the last two years that have brought the Clinton Foundation to its current suite of climate-related activities.  It is always easy to have opinions about how thingsshould be when one is unencumbered by the circumstances that have shaped the way things are.  This reality notwithstanding, my hope is that the perspective of a long-tenured individual “in the trenches” may have value to the Foundation’s decision-makers.
Over the last six years the Foundation has established itself as a notable player in the climate space.  While tangible achievements may be seen as few and small relative to the resources invested, a strong foundation for future accomplishment has been laid in the form of subject-matter expertise, relationships, and, undeniably, a growing résumé of successful experience.  As the Foundation prepares to enter its seventh year in the space, the prospects for an acceleration of progress hang in the balance.  On its current trajectory, it is not clear that the Foundation is poised to build rapidly and effectively on its hard-won foundation.  However, with significant but not heroic adjustment to organizational configuration, the Foundation could break into a cycle of substantial and accelerating progress.
The Foundation’s current climate-focused platform consists of five organizational elements:

·         The “CCI Cities” organization, consisting of the Buildings, Outdoor Lighting, Waste, Transportation, and Climate Positive Programs

·         The C40, an entity that is independent of the Foundation but which is currently the institutional proprietor of CCI Cities

·         The CCI Clean Energy team

·         The CCI Forestry team

·         The Clinton Global Initiative’s Climate Program
In addition, at least two “incubator” efforts are underway that may result in the establishment of more organizational entities.
There is nothing inherently wrong with having a multiplicity of organizational elements in a space as complex and dynamic as that of climate change.   However, it appears that this particular set of elements did not come into being as the result of a conscious strategic plan.  Rather, they seem to be the product of a series of incremental decisions borne of exigent circumstances.  Not surprisingly, the resulting configuration shows signs of dissynergy; the elements are apparently a whole that is less than the sum of its parts.
Revisitation of the organizational configuration with an eye to enhanced future performance should arguably take account of three strategic premises:

1.       The original CCI strategy is a powerful formulation that is already the basis for some success and is, by design, geared to produce an expanding impact with the passage of time

2.       The C40 has historically been unable to thrive because of its relationship with CCI, and should now be launched as a force in its own right in the climate space

3.       Latent synergies between CGI and CCI (and possibly between CGI and the C40) could add a significant new dimension to the work of all three entities
If a new configuration is built upon these premises, the Foundation could achieve its potential as an essential and unique force in the fight against climate change.   Hand in glove with this development, the Foundation could become a top-priority target for donors active in the climate space.
Since CCI’s core strategy bears considerable weight in this formulation, it is appropriate to articulate its key points, at least as far as I understand them.   (I hope that the value of my perspective is enhanced by my everyday experience of seeing the strategy at work, productively, in the real world.)  The animating principles can be seen as follows:

·         There are constructs in the world – technologies, business models, public policies, financing schemes, etc.  –  that could be both effective as expedients in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and viable as agents of displacement for problematic current practices . . . if they could be brought to sufficient scale or prominence . . . but that aren’t being taken up because of inertial forces (e.g., lack of access to capital, hostility from entrenched interests, crowding in the marketplace of ideas)

·         The Foundation, by virtue of its principal’s unrivalled combination of intellect, credibility, prominence, and good will, is ideally positioned to sift through the constructs and identify those with the strongest potential to move from emergent idea to beneficial mainstream practice . . . and to bring stakeholders with various forms of shared interest together around the task of nurturing and promoting them

·         Through the Foundation’s own efforts and those of committed partners, initial islands of success can be created in the form of projects with tangible, measurable impacts

·         Still through the Foundation’s own efforts, the initial successes can be propagated in other venues with the effect of bringing the construct into the view of many players and demonstrating the case for its widespread adoption

·         At that point, the Foundation would find its efforts multiplied by others in the world who will be emboldened to invest in the still-emergent construct on the strength of its track record of initial success . . . whereupon the conditions will have been created – such as market demand, competitive costing, and supportive public-sector policies – that will allow the emergent to become the mainstream

·         Finally, constructs in discrete areas will converge and become mutually reinforcing . . . and a comprehensive regime of climate-friendly measures can take root
The next question is what organizational configuration will best serve this strategy and the other two strategic premises above.  The experience of the last six months provides strong evidence that the approach of subordinating CCI Cities to the C40 is not the answer.  The new leadership of the C40 has the difficult task of creating a sense of shared identity and common purpose on the part of several dozen large, complex entities for whom “shared identity” and “common purpose” are not native concepts.  The C40 leadership will need to focus intently on members’ expressed interests or risk losing those members’ commitment to the enterprise – with dire existential consequences.  In this regard, CCI is a distraction and irritant.  It’s true that CCI brings substantive goals and methods to the undertaking but, since the members have plenty of ideas and activities themselves, this contribution is not helpful.  The C40 leadership, while diligently pursuing the only path they have to organizational success, will, unintentionally but unavoidably, leach away CCI’s effectiveness in pursuing its core strategy.
For its part, CCI faces an analogous challenge.  The core strategy is a demanding one.  The group will only succeed by dedicating itself to the strategy and following it in directions that may not align substantively or geopolitically with the C40.
Yet, both organizations have been and can remain strengthened by the relationship between them.  The right answer may be the obvious one: a committed but non-exclusive relationship that is based on joint undertakings that are freely entered into by the two entities.  What this could mean in practical, organizational terms might be as follows:

·         A C40 posture based on city directors on the ground in C40 cities (with appropriate centralized support resources and regional management)

·         A CCI posture that reunites the Cities and non-Cities units and is organized around programmatic focuses with corresponding staff resources, including regional deployment of project managers

·         A “free market” process of project development, wherein city officials, C40 staff, and CCI staff interact to conceive, propose, evaluate, commit to, and implement joint undertakings, all with the presumption that doing so is an important but not exclusive method of pursuing the parties’ respective climate agendas

·         Consultative but ultimately independent governance for the C40 and CCI, including in the realm of fund-raising
These ideas are certainly not definitive and would no doubt benefit from stakeholder scrutiny and refinement.  They do seem, however, to be a much more likely path to success than the current trajectory.  It may be worth pointing out that moving in the indicated direction need not involve a major disruption in the relationship between the Clinton Foundation and Mayor Bloomberg and the Bloomberg Philanthropies.
The final strategic premise relates to CGI.  I am not well enough informed about CGI to present a detailed vision, but it seems that the same principles of collaborative independence should apply.  The core CGI strategy has shown itself to be highly effective at achieving the organization’s articulated goals.  Nothing in a reconfiguration should be allowed to distract from or undermine this strategy.  At the same time, the potential for synergies with both CCI and the C40 is clear enough to warrant serious reexamination of the proposition that inter-organizational cooperation is structurally or strategically impossible.  From this vantage point, the possibilities that could emerge from active engagement appear both vast and exciting.  Not least among the impacts, of course, could be a proposition to donors that is head and shoulders more compelling than any other in the climate space.
I appreciate the opportunity to present these thoughts and would happily to discuss them in whole or in part with interested parties.