proposal sent to the treasury- economic policy and bond division, and USDA today, copied IEA ....
ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY- PLANS FOR COMPLIANCE:
The International Energy Agency, has released details of a report commissioned in 2005 by the G-8 that is being delivered during June 2008.
The IEA report is about the global needs for energy, tracking supply and demand growth, pollution response, and drawing the evidence into their international economic impacts. They open their mathematical programs to any researcher that means to examine each contributing factor and reconcile the statistical findings. A cursory glance through their forecasting indicates the US Department of Energy’s EIA (Energy Information Authority) findings based upon actual receipts from utilities of all kinds, including comprehensive legislative reviews (credits, mandates, etc) as far back as 1974, including toggles to show whether each piece has become effective or is only legislated. For a view of the complexity and comprehensive nature of the calculations of just one country, the UK, see: http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/media/F/0/Chapter_9_Identifying_the_Costs_of_Mitigation.pdf
The IEA publishes one book for each of the 27 OECD member nations annually, and multiple books on available data from the remaining non-OECD nations. Their State of the World addresses conservation of certain natural resources, specifically healthy air quality and renewable energy products. That data: http://www.iea.org/textbase/pm/?mode=pm
The opening line of the 27 page ‘executive summary’ states the position clearly:
quote:The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change presents very serious global risks, and it demands an urgent global response.
It continues through the procedures, and concludes:
quote:…The benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the costs.
These findings are not new. Our White House’s own environmental report (reference: attachment #2) was released four years late and only under Court Order.
The IEA report ran multiple projections. One view of the data (attachment #3, note slide 8) displays a 2% energy demand growth rate per annum in spite of efficiency and energy advances that subtract from the total energy demand.
The bottom line optimistic cost for a long-term solution (which was to cut current GHG in half, not merely returning GHG to pre-2004 measures) was achievable by expending $45 Trillion US dollars by 2050. The entire US GDP was $13.8 trillion in 2006. These expenditures must occur in the next 40 years, between 2010 and 2050 (most cost effective plans show larger initial investment). We were oil shocked in 1973 and have wasted 30 years. The $45 T investment is 1.1% of the total world projected GDP over that projected period of time. Could this amount be too much for a country in a deep recession or could it be leveraged? Where will Sub-Investment Grade sovereign nations find their share of ‘progressive’ best priced capital ($27 Trillion) in the solution?
Consider how these amounts would not need be paid with tax dollars or federal program allocations. What prevents progressive “tax-free” solutions? Financial engineering has posited solutions, like 3 tiers of Central Banks. Tier one Investment Grade sovereign nations, Tier two Sub-Investment Grade nations, and Tier 3 Default Grade. What metrics establish “residence times” for each tier?
The need for universal full development capital access in successful use is predominantly a European Finance (refer: attachment #4, slide 13) carryover of the Marshall Plan. It did not take 100 years to rebuild Germany and Italy. Note that progressive mechanisms, termed Risk Sharing Finance Facilities, have financed renewable energy projects, and did so utilizing Sub-Investment grade collateral, not taxes or municipal credit. All regions of the world require more than one national interest rate with controls on arbitrage. When pooled CDS options are available globally the needs of the planet to save our people and promote a viable means to finance clean energy without tax dollars and without federal program funds goes nowhere without “open access” to capital.
The solution to ‘open access’ REPO finance, as described in attachment #5.
REPO finance has a distinct advantage over any other form of liquidity injection into a recessive economy since it does not finance today’s liquidity on debts to be paid out later. Collateral placed in custody at the Central Bank, which issues a cash credit that must be reconciled on per capita standards of living that actually allow emerging markets to emerge in a predictable time scale. REPO is a null transaction (value in for value out) that results in, potentially, huge amounts of liquidity injected into a tri-tiered group of economies. This is the only real solution-recipe for our severely recessed economies that are starved for capital otherwise they would have experienced Marshall Plan results.
Note the following advantages:
quote:REPO enhances the liquidity of bond and equity markets, reduces costs for issuers of capital, and allows free market access in order to hedge commodity transactions with greater efficiency. Given its size and importance, it is not surprising that REPO has such a low profile. There is little discussion of it in the financial press. REPO reflects the simple and straightforward nature of the instruments. Capital bartered or exchanged for collateral in all 3 tiers with structured terms is a modified Marshall Plan. REPO works because of its simplicity; the sale/barter/exchange of securities coupled with an express written agreement to repurchase them at a future date and if need be hedged with an EFP (exchange for physical delivery) of the underlying commodity. The environmental crisis cannot be marginalized by “monetary policy” that reflects capital inadequacy when it should be driven by adopting an acceptable standard of living with global COLA driven by poverty metrics.
Guidelines for progressive monetary policy:
• bank dealers are able to finance long bond and equity positions at a lower interest cost if they REPO out the assets; equally they are able to cover short positions…
• greater market liquidity lowers the cost of raising funds for capital market borrowers; free markets allow non-discriminatory ‘open access’ and forming trade alliances equates to credit enhancement over time
• G-3 central bank audits use REPO in their open market operations in order to reconcile all cross tier SDRs reallocations or enable Paris Club style pool offsets and reconciliations of global trade; a 98% global poverty level indicate that “free markets” are under performing in all 3 tiers.
• REPO reduces counterparty risk in money market borrowing and lending schemes, because of the security offered by the collateral given in the loan; Sub-Investment grade collateral equates to Sub-Investment grade currency. Dynamic hedging with mark to market re-pricing provides metrics for adjusting liquidity otherwise recognize that time and time again trading band interventions have failed to trigger “time is of the essence” solutions
• investors have an added investment options when placing funds cross border, if and only if underlying commodities are treated as investment grade assets for margining purposes and global supply and demand transactions are accurately quoted on the national exchanges referencing OTC speculative non-delivery or Exchange Traded commercial EFP delivery contracts; vetting full disclosure of every transaction (computers) rather than selected transactions assures all investors of proper “open access” information.
• institutional investors and other long-term holders of securities or securitized commodities are able to enhance their returns by making their inventories available for REPO trading. Larger trading volumes equate to better pricing and information sharing
What kind of initial collateral baskets are most efficient at creating advantages? The RSFF example demonstrates, one spectrum and commodity ratings are preferred for the following reasons, again from the REPO document:
quote:Note that the investment bank that is entering into a basket reverse REPO has applied a margin or haircut to each security class, depending on what credit rating that security class is assigned. The following margin levels can be assumed for haircut levels in the “open access” marketplace:
AAA to AA 2.0% A 3.5% BBB 5% Sub-investment grade 10%
Q: What halts $5 T worth of environmental investments via these mechanisms today?
A: Lack of understanding that oil, corn, water, and clean air are all commodities that require credit ratings based upon supply and demand of the product and not on the commercial enterprise that engages in that trade. Exxon/Mobil has no better or worse crude oil than 200 investors that own a stripper well.
Under our current recessive prone monetary policy, individual investors with commodity assets may not individually approach the treasury window without a banker, broker or government program representative, and that is a monetary policy of restricted access to the capital markets.
That overwhelming stigma on the use of the Treasury Window is due to the fact that banks must, when holding in custody collateral assets for a cash-credit, become subject to a new set of accounting standards that allow for periodic reconciling of all clients commodity inventories, those that are transported, those that are delivered and those that are warehoused. Open books and records of loans turned down and Sub-Investment grade transactions by the FDIC/CFTC, and the public allows investors to monitor bank liquidity. Transparency would tend to draw notice to a problem if the banks are currently employing non-transparent practices in order to avoid contagions of defaults in a recessive economy when a policy shift could trigger liquidity and dampen supply/demand imbalances. Commercial Banks would have to face a hard truth: that they do not have sufficient liquidity to meet even secure finance needs. Were this not so, decades of financial disasters would not face trading band interventions that appear to be to symptomatic of “too little too late.”
The primary difference between the Asian economies today and the American economy of tomorrow is that the Asian banking system allows access for secured finance at their treasury window, and our policy will hold that access hostage to a select number of ring fence dealers who constrain rather than alleviate the free market pressures. That is the primary reason that we are in recession, and they will entirely capture world trade if the practice is not changed.
When prime was hovering around 3% what retail investor wouldn’t rewrite their 24% credit card debt at 3%, would Tier 3 capital access equal 12% or 24%? Default pools sustain 24% rates that is the self-fulfilling prophecy of current monetary policy. So if every country developed rates per regional analysis rather than continuing the failed one-size-fits-all mentality, would all 3 tiers become buoyant at some point in time? Can sector relief guarantee the existence of “progressive” fiscal policy driven by metrics that sooner or later have to get it right? With that understanding, would any emerging market not emerge after 50 years? Only a global Marshall Plan can work if leadership acts.
Q: Can we successfully finance environmental compliance with our current obsolete monetary policy and discriminatory access by 2050?
A: Not likely, the record is poor. The USDA administrates one of the primary programs for rural renewable energy finance and energy efficiency upgrades. Federally from 2001 to 2007 the USDA financed only $670,000,000, which, over six years, is roughly the requirement of one year of compliance with the environmental goals set by the IEA. Clearly, $45 T of renewable or alternative energy sector optimistically-priced meaningful solution to a global emergency, is wanting. This monetary policy will never allow us to realize the timely benefits of contributing our portion of the required $45 T, (reference: USDA figures attachment #6 slide 30) which at a minimum is no less than 25% since that is amount of global energy we consume. That imbalance will wreak consequences. The USDA RUS electrical program by its own admission operates within draconian fiscal restrictions of congressional allocations that must be vastly expanded, need elasticity and agility to meet changing needs while also inflating in size to dwarf our defense budget, in order to provide for the “war on the looming environmental crisis”.
Q: What are the options?
1. Business as Usual (BAU)- Allowing the American economy to continue to prevent renewable energy investment while facing an aging infrastructure that fails to remediate traffic flow problems due to 1) illiquidity and 2) under-funded state and federal programs.
The consequences (Sterns):
quote:Climate change may initially have small positive effects for a few developed countries, but is likely to be very damaging for the much higher temperature increases expected by mid- to late-century under BAU scenarios.
In higher latitude regions, such as Canada, Russia and Scandinavia, climate change may lead to net benefits for temperature increases of 2 or 3°C…. and will keep rising if the world continues to warm.
• A 5 or 10% increase in hurricane wind speed, linked to rising sea temperatures, is predicted approximately to double annual damage costs, in the USA….
• Heat waves like that experienced in 2003 in Europe, when 35,000 people died and agricultural losses reached $15 billion, will be commonplace by the middle of the century…
Integrated assessment models provide a tool for estimating the total impact on the economy; our estimates suggest that this is likely to be higher than previously suggested.
2. Bolster the programs, taking the long view that what hurts the US economy today will, as the writers of the environmental report assert, bear the same long-term return on investment. So is wrecking the US economy better than wrecking the global long-term picture of prosperity via destruction of our natural resources? This proposal has been advancing with steady support, and policy shifts are anticipated to become law if the Democrats take the White House in 2008. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2008/2008-06-06-10.asp
3. Fund compliance via non-tax dollar program allocations by allowing non-discriminatory ‘open access’ to the treasury window or TAF via REPO and RSFF liquidity structures, enabling secured transactions that are “null” to the tax payer while injecting liquidity into the economy via the open access.
Our proposal posited that solution in order to finance ten ZESC facilities ($50 Million/plant) with sub-investment grade collateral held in custody at the Federal Finance Bank. That vehicle is an implicit counterparty with the USDA acting as the interim construction loan facilitator only, or as a permanent finance dNPV hedged/REPO investor. That concept has a total future environmental value of at least $ 500 MM in new renewable, clean energy facilities that will comply with the IEA’s goals to save our environment.
We have approached to date more than 15 commercial banks in the last two years, with the net result that no commercial financial institution will incur the oversight or access depositors’ funds to underwrite their share of the $45 T price tag. None would take Mr. A’s assets to the window in a secure finance transaction and incur additional investigation into their practices while struggling to perform in our severely recessed economy. Our government programs have no such concerns and should perform their function of counterparty in order to prevent the general taxation of the American people as dramatic and even exorbitant expansion of their programs would require. Non~Tax IRS-compliant solutions should be the government’s Frontline Commitment in the war on environmental liability prior to any increase in spending of tax dollars.
The USDA has access to the Discount Window and the Treasury Auction Facility, they are able to price the US denominated sovereign bearer bonds haircuts, just like the EIB. They can monetize any Derivative Contract underlain with a sub-investment grade collateral without accessing any USDA program funds allocations via OCC letter ruling # 1051. They can in conformance with the “Emissions Credit” derivatives contract previously provided to Robin Meigel (USDA Finance) attempt a phased-in compliance solution borne on the backs of the polluters and not the taxpayers. In as much as dNPV permanent finance could employ a Standby Letter of Credit exposure only at the USDA, which would not involve actual USDA program fund allocations, the USDA’s participation would be limited to origination of the interim-construction loan until a commercial or permanent Take Out finance structure required a commercial decision. _____ has expressed interest.
The ZESC facilities employ a Zero Emissions Sanitary Combustion design by incorporating Los Alamos National Laboratory’s Non Thermal Plasma Processing technology. Dr. Rosocha, former lead plasma researcher and President of Applied Physics Consulting, has affirmed that the US EPA emissions profile of these facilities are projected to meet or exceed the remediation goals set by the IEA, (ref: attachment #7). The IEA’s $45 T figure included the retro-fitting of all existing coal and gas fired power generation facilities estimated at $1.5 Billion each for carbon sequestration, which costs would be greatly reduced if ZESC technology were substituted at these facilities. ZESC technologist, COB Creations, has posited a four level financing plan for Municipal (conduit finance), Commercial (industrial finance), retro-fitting of existing facilities (using Carbon Credits as a form of repayment guarantee) and International (export CCC backed CDM finance) for trade deficit reconciliation. The overall effect of any one technology achieving early capability and reducing the total monetary burden required to return to the world an environmental premium is hard to quantify but must certainly be supposed to be positive if $45 T is reduced by a significant degree.
It is our recommendation that all federal government programs immediately adhere to environmental liability prevention policies by providing open access at the FFB for structured REPO purposes and to acquire interim/construction finance of any and all ZESC facilities or retro-fit improvements of rural electrical coops so that we may address the documented environmental emergency prior to our Congress allocating US tax dollars that our people clearly cannot afford, given the record COLA implications that we warranted from the recent shock of gasoline prices. Our environmental emergency provides opportunity to remediate the environment while righting and strengthening the American economy.
I think I agree with you. I'm not sure what you mean by "expansionary"- if you mean expanding taxes, or expanding government programs, or more regulations.. I couldn't agree more. But if you mean you don't want to expand investment-- I have to say I think you're crazy.
We don't want taxes, or more gov programs, which is why we proposed the REPO. It is a null transaction, economically, except that there will be money all over the place (IN the country, IN renewable energy and efficiency upgrades) which is different from right now, but no inflation and no coupon due on debt, like our current stimulus package (which was stupid, George, stupid).
It is posted in the other forum. I don't know how it got over here, but it is in both places.
Brad Morris, Chief of Staff, Congressman Childers and House Energy and Global Warming Committee: --- Here is your requested written Explanation of Need:
The US needs to fund their share of $45 Trillion worth of clean renewable energy sources and technologies if they expect to deliver clean power by 2050 (ref: IEA attachment, UK Ex Sum)
Our global Marshall Plan is the real challenge
1) Each ZESC facility costs approximately $ 50 Million, which is out of the average community bank's abilities to fund with local depository monies from mom and pop workers and businesses 2) We are not fossil fuel or nuclear powered and so the regional utility does not sponsor us we are their competition and we are a threat to business as usual. 3) The Zero Emissions results both achieved and projected by Dr. Rosocha have never been approached by any other technology in this capital equipment range, which results were from the most respected "combustion experts" in the nation- Los Alamos National Laboratory (Rosocha attachment).
Most renewable energy projects have a tax credit monetization structure (ref: TCM attachment from Ernst & Young) which conduits the REPI, REPC, and CREBs investment benefits through to the facility investors hand in hand with the profits that motivate the Investors to risk capital.
Our recessive economy has dried up most of the equity capital going back as far as the dot com market collapse. This is where COB got started by trying to raise investor money under a Rule 506 private offering. Mark Alexander analyzed all of the existing "leading edge" technologies including cellulosic ethanol, MSW gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma incineration. That was their original approach to Holly Springs 4 years ago. Two years ago, COB assembled the ZESC combination from multiple IP contributors, including LANL.
In the interim time period IFFG offered to invest under the ISDA Master Agreement with a right of collateral substitution. The plan was to use their Sub-Investment Grade Zero Coupon Bond portfolio with a current surrender value of more than $90 Million and a total maturity value of $430 Million by 2022, for building the ZESC facility in Holly Springs. This "cookie cutter" approach would underwrite the "risk phase" of interim construction financing. The technology would prove itself twice over-----
a) When the MSW samples were ground up and test burned to create a profile of the exhaust gases so that the application of this technology could be certified by the US EPA under a University sanctioned environmental testing procedure administrated by environmental consulting engineering firm of O'Brien & Gere. b) When the plant was up and running and the integrated technologies enabled the monitoring of 200 Mwh of electricity going through the switchgear and into the transmission grid.
Mark offered Commercial Banks, the State of MS (Mississippi Development Bank), and the USDA this "cookie cutter" approach over the last 2 years and that is: 1-2 year interim construction finance 10-30 year permanent finance using dNPV (discounted net present value of future flow of cash sales of electricity) (ref: Tristone energy lender surveys and USDA Kenergy deal) This approach would enable any local political subdivision, solid waste authority or municipality owning or operating a landfill and willing to contribute their MSW plus 10-15 acres of abutting and adjoining property to make one of the following four choices:
Political subdivision participation and partial ownership of the renewable energy plant (NMTC or State Program funds); plus they would retain their tipping fee income; they would train their public works department to operate the plant for a yearly income of @ $1.2 mm or Allow for COB Creations, LLC to generate a commercial/industrial owned facility where at most they would have the tipping fee income and the plant operatorship income RECs contract and hedged discounted electricity futures Upgrades, retrofit, or refurbish their existing rural coop from a dirty coal fired steam turbine technology to a low level CO2 facility and reduce or eliminate the Dioxins and Furans as well as environmental impact all of the other known carcinogens incorporate a tested MSW/coal blend Create an international export facility or create a micronized (table-salt-sized) multi-fuel option for sale to generate income for any political subdivision under #1, which has access to rail, or water transport facilities under a Development Zone authority.
Please understand that unlike every other power plant in the USA this concept is financially sound because our bottom line is 35% better off to begin with since we do not pay for our fuel. What other power plant can make such a claim? That is why the terms are "too good to believe" so understand that most local communities employ Civil Engineers that do not have the expertise to advise them on their decisions when it comes to environmental choices. They look to the State EPA for guidance.
Compound that situation by the fact that 99% of the local economic development offices only know about "plain vanilla" finance. These are IRBs (Industrial Revenue Bonds). When you start talking about CREBs, REPI and REPC you lose them. When you make things complicated they just prefer to say no. Understand then that the IRS has ruled that recycling more than 35% of the waste stream no longer is allowed. They will rescind all of the tax free status of the local investors who bought the IRBs who must then suffer a loss because once you go over 35% the MSW is no longer considered waste it is considered by the IRS as a for profit recycling enterprise. Most local, municipal, and regional solid waste authorities are unaware of this situation (ref: tax opinion).
COB Creations, LLC had to solve all of the problems in order to cobble together the financing proposal that would appeal to all 4 categories of projects listed above. The Federal Finance Bank at the USDA portal exists solely to fund rural electrical power projects and CCC electrical export programs. The bank may receive value (assets) and remit cash advanced against electrical futures contracts (derivatives) pursuant to OCC letter ruling # 1051. This is known as a REPO. This is the primary way that liquidity is injected into our economy--- funding actual economic development without creating permanent debt. This function is necessary, indeed critical to our nations economic well being, so whenever large projects are created, having value added, we somehow must create the dollars necessary to pay for that new economic development they have to come from somewhere and should be produced on a one for one basis, or in other words, our supply of dollars are supposed to represent the future value of our products and services.
If the Federal Reserve Bank or the Federal Finance Bank do not work properly, if the REPO mechanism is not triggered by the commercial banks then the demand on available liquidity dries up all sources of new money. When commodity shocks such as gas prices inflate that demand such a situation does not correspond to creating more capital under the current monetary policy so more pressure is put on our inadequate monetary supply. Third world countries do not have the means to make fiscal policy that can address these global market contagions. It is critical to the health of our economy that the Federal Reserve Discount Window and TAF operate effectively. That process has stopped when the banks 'panic" and that is always felt first from the bottom to the top. Recognize that at the time the 7th largest company in the world ENRON could not access capital so what did that condition portend to everyone else farther down the chain? That occurred when Bush took office. So when the commercial banks ceased underwriting economic development transactions, no significant new products or services can be produced or developed without access to capital, meaning that the commercial banks are limited to financing projects from customer deposits only and the customer has less to deposit because of the gasoline price shock and that fiscal policy spirals out of control. 100 new ZESC plants would require $5 B in new capital. This then is not a renewable versus fossil fuel problem at all it is a capital inadequacy problem.
The REPI, REPC, and CREBs (AMT Form 1040 relief) IRS incentives do not come from Exxon/Mobil or Conoco/Phillip those tax amenities come directly through the Congress to the Investor from the IRS regardless of how the US handles the books. Reality exceeds perception.
Banks have several choices in finance.
Fund small projects with depositors' money. (numerous school and hospital solar cell and wind projects would draw down significant bank liquidity) This is the limit of reported deals (tombstones) reported by Bank of America the self proclaimed largest renewable energy Bank on the globe. No commercial/industrial or retrofits are listed on their PDF (ref attachment). They report $ 20 B in allocations but that does not equate to expenditures.
Fund large projects by REPO via Discount Window or TAF (OCC letter ruling 1051 allows, CFTC allows, US SEC allows exempt securities) When commercial Banks do not have sufficient capital and couple that with the fact that they view the Discount Window as stigma, "Houston we have a problem." Most commercial Banks do not have a forex desk, a derivatives desk or a energy lending desk affiliated with Renewable Energy finance and so they do not routinely make dNPV energy lending an every day experience like their house loans, car loans, and boat loans. Regions Bank in Mississippi looked at the Tristone Survey we provided them, upon which they are listed, and did not know who to contact inside their own banking system that administrated or evaluated their suite of energy loans.
Access the Capital Markets (domestic or foreign) for originating creative debt products
(this is referred to as "securitizing the transaction") the investment grade Buyers of the electricity are blue chip utilities like TVA (federal purchase requirement) or Progress Energy (RPS under EPAct2005) or blue chip corporate (Monsanto under wholesale transmission grid ERCOT or WECC, etc) and finally the rural utility coops local 5000 to 15000 retail customers = credit rating of power purchase contract or best price wholesale agreement = investment grade underlier... So, the investment banking arm of the banks sell the debt paper in the institutional markets and fund the project (but liquidity indicates market is contracting) current terms by Jefferies 12% interest rate as opposed to USDA RUS 2.5% interest rate (ref: HUD study of eco development benefit to rural community to not send foreign oil money abroad!) (to raise this capital often will require an equity kicker to investment banker for creating pool of assets for Interim/Construction or Permanent/Take Out that roll over deal after deal) (Jefferies's Take Out offer- is global Asian market where there is a surplus of US Dollars- this is why "much of America is owned by China" $500 B per month from Walmart to COSCO)
So as per the EIB (European Investment Bank) RSFF (Risk Sharing Finance Facility) they recognize the need to allow "open access" to Sub-Investment grade collateral so they can accept Mark Alexander's assets in a collateral basket along with the RECs derivatives contract (see attached- copy of email with attachment to R Meigel USDA) and if the EURO market can do so then so can the FRB or FFB (ref: FRB margin table US dollar denominated foreign sovereign bonds) because, as advertised, it already will.
The Feds accept the collateral, discount it, and put a cash credit into the bank's account, and the project is funded without any exposure for the bank or the USDA issues a SLC (standby letter of credit) and if and only if our project proves itself is the Take-Out Permanent finance able to access USDA program funds otherwise we access the Jefferies commercial credit facility which we are working on to develop... Recognized Funding Commitment Levels: Best Efforts All or Nothing Guaranteed
To put it in a nutshell, banks are only offering Best Efforts because use of their access to the Fed Discount Window is really not an option for them. The TAF has been of late the true "open access" portal but CAR requirements still tie the ring fence dealers and the current practices of preferring to make a credit card loan at 24% rather than a business loan at 9%. Add to this, the fact that the projects draw down large amounts of liquidity so in our opinion, the banks' natural preference for a poor economy is self-fulfilling. The banks prefer our economy to have as little liquidity within as possible in order to continue to earn high unsecured credit card interest due to lack of customers' available funds. Adding liquidity, especially a kind not incurring later debt as the recent stimulus package did, is not in bankers' interests.
Last, there are other exotic choices but these are rare i.e. sub-investment grade collateral equates to sub-investment grade currency.
Based on 15 commercial Bank's refusal to fund with depositor's money, and refusal to provide anything but best efforts underwriting in the capital markets until after the facility is built (Take Out and the risk factor is zero "you may get funded") otherwise the USDA is the lender of last resort----
We can use the access that of a hybrid Federal Programs (B&I, Rural Development 9006, and Rural RUS) through the FFB as a fail safe to meet America's obligation by 2050 for CO2 emissions if that monetary policy is adopted by the FED as a solution to the GHG emergency and our economic recession.
We can go to a foreign nation and open their treasury services under the CCC technology export programs for international fuel sales or plant sales that will balance trade and reduce our trade deficit.
All foreign nations maintain accounts with our country's FRB and this would open international finance (giving the foreigners the ability to access US dollars) all American products and technology with international export trade finance and open a path for renewable innovation and advancement in America and around the globe to meet the $45 Trillion demand to fix the environment and earn our country "goodwill" around the globe.
Finance History of ZESC Facility in question--Mayor Deberry's Holly Springs, MS
------- I am including this not only because it is important to understand the financial structural options as they have developed in your home state, but also because others copied on this email were part of the House Energy and Global Warming Committee Forum in the last two days. In their testimonies we noticed numerous inaccuracies or at least, numerous assumptions that must be examined or the failure of that committee's goals is assured---------
ZESC facilities could utilize $25 Million in financing via the program max for the USDA B&I program (we've already had a reasonable meeting of the minds with USDA B&I people Kieferle and Smith in Washington) however one must find a Lender.
First problem, Traditional Lenders have little motivation to do guaranteed financing because the B&I is only a guarantee program... it does not make capital available so, the local commercial Bank has to come up with the actual money, the USDA only "wraps" the debt paper with the AAA guarantee based upon the collateral (plant and equipment) that the bank must accept and underwrite. So we have come full circle to the problem at the commercial banks, which are struggling to find liquidity these days.
Second, if banks do come up with $ 50 Million dollars, the guarantee placed upon it makes the interest they can ask for very low, and banks wish to make lots of interest, not a little. Of the many banks that I have contacted to date on behalf of the Mayor the overwhelming response was that they weren't going to invest anything in MS because there IS no real economic development going on there, why would they want a slice of almost nothing at a super-reduced interest rate from the poorest economy in all 50 states?
Next possible Lender: The state of MS MDB (Mississippi Development Bank) who repeatedly refused to provide Mayor Deberry with any customary conduit financial services, including performing any loan administration only, or extending them credit upon the state tax reserves other than a "taxable IRB" that does not appeal to the Investor and runs afoul of the IRS recycling limit on MSW when our facility will recycle 100% into scrap sales or electricity sales.
The USDA consider the MDB- Mississippi Development Bank- a "non-traditional" lender, which is perfectly acceptable to the USDA, but MDB refuses to perform for the Mayor.
The MDB told Mayor DeBerry that they "have no credit, no money, and no ability to finance anything" (while simultaneously cooperating and assisting with billions of fossil fuel-sponsored projects during 2007, some on the public credit and with all revenues inuring to the private Industry.)
When we provided MDB with their own SEC records on the matters they refused to talk with the Mayor any further.
Furthermore, the MDA – the Mississippi Development Authority-- has refused to forward the usual tax incentives for any incoming economic development. Our contention is that after hundreds of communications to those state agencies and no visible work product, the state finance office is operating in a condition of governmental force majeure J.
CREBs questions- the debt markets could be put together with CREBs. Clean Renewable Energy Bonds- As Mark mentioned on the phone, there is no regulation at all over CREBs allocations once they are made. As very few banks will "own up" to any projects with them, we suspect that regional utilities form LLCs for wind and solar and utilize the CREBs to pay themselves for renewable projects.
Bank of America, the self proclaimed "largest renewable energy financier" could only admit to small CREBs use, and only in municipal finance projects, not industry (the purpose of CREBs was to make it possible for new technologists to get financing, not government to put out more old obsolete technology).
As CREBs do not have any recent "allocation" (the latest bill that would have created more was just voted down) the only entity to talk to about them is the Treasury legal division, where hibernating IRS tax credit programs go. According to that Treasury General Counsel, the CREBs have no internal IRS controls to police their use or final disposition. They are supposed to be recycled if not used in 5 years. While the legislation was written that they must be re-allocated, there was nothing provided for determining if those original allocations actually resulted in financing. No one polices this question at all. While we offered that our independent searches revealed that some CREBs had been returned as projects found insurmountable obstacles, the vast majority have not been returned, but by my investigation, many projects have not been financed, either.
Only at year five does the Treasury have any ability to even consider if a CREBs allocation has expired, but no manpower is ever assigned to the question as stated to me by the IRS Treasury General Counsel. He realized there was an extraordinary loophole but there was nothing he could do.
CREBs in MS--- an entirely different question. Mayor Deberry has strongly pursued CREBs (they will certainly be coming again soon, and Mayor wants first dibs) and NMTCs (new market tax credits, for which his location is in prime eligibility).
The usual course of federally controlled allocations is that the state offices apply to administrate them, usually the state finance office.
However, what might not be appreciated in Washington, is that states do this….. at their own speed…… when they are good and ready….. and maybe ….never. In the state of New Mexico, the NM Finance Authority, the equivalent of the MDA, has received $ 70 Million in NMTC allocation…. two years ago… and has not yet accomplished any authority or structure to distribute out those funds. What congress does to help our economy is undone as fast as government mismanagement and other forces can undo it. And in our experience, no state has performed a more perfect embargo against economic development and clean energy investment of every kind than Utah.
In MS, Bill Barry of the MDB/MBFC has received $ 20 Million NMTCs, which would help Mayor Deberry finance a portion (confirmed for me by the treasury) of the plant, but he refuses to acknowledge that or allocate to the mayor.
Neither NM nor MS has allocated even $1 dollar worth of CREBs.
So the options explored to that date (12-07) were: $ 25 Million B&I (the local Banks refused the guarantee interest rates, MDA refused Mark's offer to buy the debt and also open any conduit finance services for Holly Springs) $ 25 Million CREBs (MS had never heard of them, before we told them in December 2007 now due to our teaching they are actively seeking them but will probably not allocate them to the Mayor without intervention) -OR- $ 20 Million+ NMTCs (which Bill Barry already has, but has earmarked for other projects) $ 50 Million facility in which Holly Springs provides 50% working capital (actually borrowing their equity from Mark upon his collateral posted at the USDA via the FFB) so that Holly Springs becomes a significant owner in a facility funded without a single tax dollar.
From that revenue source, Holly Springs could then function with little, if any, taxation of the people. Of course this wrecks the tax-and-spend political concept of both parties, which is combined with fossil fuel politics, explains our 2-year ordeal.
The efficiency certifications on our power generators is so far above the other technologies that have already been financed by the MDA that, if we are direct competition, we will prevail. Regional monopolies that pay for coal cannot compete long term against free MSW (IRS compliant) so they assert political pressure on State agencies for tacit arrangements. While previously alluded to, the fact that MS has financed other, conventional, regular (low) efficiency technologies very recently is a critical factor in their refusals to date.
The MDA takes the short view that we will not have greater electrical supply demand with our growing population and the crying need to clean up the carcinogens (Dioxins and Furans) from the coal fired plants so we have to build more nuclear and coal fired "Widget Factories" here at home.
However, if we had abundant clean energy, why wouldn't Americans have a growing manufacturing base here rather than abroad? One of the primary attractions of China is that they are continually building new coal plants--- and manufacturers are assured of cheap power, but not clean power (not their concern), unlike here in America.
On a more serious note, as the MDA finances conventional fossil fuel projects today (and this is not just MS, this is rife in the US) on the public credit, this sets the precedent that no innovative or advanced or more efficient technologies will be allowed to emerge and this is the current USDA obstacle as well. "No innovation" and we have proposed a work around solution to that problem, which they don't want to hear.
In MS, when the MS-tax-payer-financed conventional plants are slapped with a new Best Available Control Technology of BACT requirement, and the ZESC facility demonstrated a new "best"--- how on earth would the MDA/MDB explain to the tax payers of Mississippi that they must now finance a retro-fit on a plant that produces electricity at a significantly lower efficiency?
When the above happens, the public is bound to want to know why they should pay for such a thing, and that would be the point at which it would be revealed that they must do it or find themselves on the hook for defaulted debt paper on a facility shut down by the environmental office for non-compliance with new pollution prevention standards. The State MDA truly has nothing to say "no" to… which is why they refuse to acknowledge Mayor DeBerry, a sitting Mayor for the people of Holly Springs and have tried to tell the investor to go away. They, and all state finance offices in general, are in a catch-22 to suppress new pollution control and efficiency advances or innovation of any real merit.
LAST OPTION for AMERICAN FINANCE:
The USDA Rural Utility Service- The Electrical program was established more than 50 years ago, featuring what are called "no interest" loans for rural locations, which Holly Springs certainly qualifies for. Early 2008 our proposal on two tracks had gone up the chain to the Southern Director of the RUS Electrical Staff, Robert Ellinger. He set up a phone call with IFFG (that was Mark Alexander and Michael McCall, whom you've met) and his own staff, Georg Schultz (engineering) and myself. We had already determined that Holly Springs qualified as rural utility, so the major sticking point would be the innovative technology. The USDA interprets its own regulations in such a was as the regulations specify that innovative technology must be commercial but leaves that a bit open to interpretation. This is my recollection of the phone call (I'm paraphrasing for speed)
Bob E- Well, the Problem is, our regulations are very strict and old. We cannot finance any innovation because we cannot know for sure if it will work as advertised and that could lead to a default. Mark A- Ok, well, why don't you let us underwrite it? We'll put up our collateral assets, finance it, build it, and prove it then you can get comfortable watching it for some time, say 6 months and then, when you are assured it works as planned, THEN you can initiate the take-out finance? Bob E- Well, that might work. Georg- The only caveat is that the reliability-score on the equipment needs to indicate that the equipment will last longer than the term of the debt, say ten years? Mark A- Ten years would be no problem. Michael M- Georg, what kind of reliability score do you want, on a component level or a systems level? Georg- System-wide would be OK. Mark A- And if there is any piece that you can't get comfortable with, then we'll finance that without USDA program funds (sic Jefferies take-out). The rest is common generating or waste handling equipment---- MRFs, grinders, and switchgears. It's clear from the documentation that the USDA mixes and matches their programs. Bob E- Agreed. You build it, provide the system-reliability-score to out-last the debt, and we'll audit the facility within 6 months and then if it passes offer the take-out.
We felt we had a receptive meeting of the minds and favorable outlook.
The next day we were referred to Robin Meigel, the FFB liaison for USDA finance. Robin suggested that in order to administrate any loan the USDA would need additional staff, so we offered to engage a third party financial consultant (Big 4 firm) and a third party environmental engineer O'Brien & Gere. We subsequently provided USDA with e-mails from both.
Robin indicated that we should consult the NRECA, about retro-fits of rural coops that have only 500-10000 customer base. One of the advantages of a ZESC is that it is multi-fuel capable- combustion of MSW/coal blends, which would likely significantly reduce emissions.
Shortly thereafter, Georg wrote that he couldn't accept the innovation in the technology. Mark wrote back that that was fine, we weren't asking the USDA electrical program to pay for that part, and secondly, the pollution equipment was not part of the power generation system anyway so it would not be subject to Take Out by the RUS electrical program.
Georg responded that he couldn't finance innovation. Mark again stated that we weren't asking for that, in fact, emphasized that we wouldn't consider their finance of that intellectual property in order, to avoid any lien, claim or encumbrance on the patents that would or might effect another facility in another state.
We asked Robin M for the FFB contact information. She refused, saying we had to satisfy the electrical program requirements. We sent her the OCC letter ruling and the derivatives contract and the assets accretion spreadsheets, upon which she will not further comment. This is exactly how any fed program, banker or broker can approach the Window.
Finally, I wrote a communication to Bob Ellinger asking how we were supposed to interpret his initial favorable response, and that following No, when nothing had changed (we suppose they had discussed the emissions advances that were working a competitive hardship on the NRECA, but that is speculation… I have formed that opinion because of a conversation I had with the NRECA in between—they are NOT interested in any remediation technology and most certainly will not facilitate any test burns of the coals through our system to be US EPA certified by a third party environmental engineering firm, O'Brien & Gere).
I asked Bob how he had thought we were going to access the FFB, and why, if he had not though to use that access, had he sent us on to Robin Meigel, and who she was thinking was going to administrate that credit facility which was the reason she was requesting third party oversight?
Bob responded that we had to get through engineering first, or Georg Schultz, who had written that USDA can't underwrite innovation. I sent a diagram of the power generation equipment, the equipment from the same supplier that the US gov has $ 500 Million dollar defense contracts with, and asked for Georg to please point where on the picture of the power generation equipment he could find the pollution control equipment? (of course it's not there).
It did not help that we carefully elaborated to both the USDA and the NRECA our plan to provide technology for coal burning facilities, using carbon credits that they will be eligible for, in order to pay for the retrofits. So what do we need Childers to do? What is the best use of his time and power, on behalf of renewable energy future of America, and the people of Holly Springs?
Walk into the USDA and the US Treasury and state our case. You are on solid footing at every level, but there is a final, damning and compelling reason why this action is the only path forward: ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY We have contacted AIG, or the leader in power-plant industrial insurance and liabilities issues. They have been provided the NTP results from Dr. Rosocha and they are taking this deadly seriously.
Republicans and Democrats and bankers and poor public officials will have no control, none whatsoever, when the insurance companies have the tested results on coal. AIG has indicated is fully aware that the EPA has very quietly concurred that the dioxins and furans from our coal facilities are undeniably carcinogenic, which studies are supporting the current North Carolina Attorney General in suing TVA for damages that no judge will shield TVA from.
We are asking you to act, bring together the parties upon this Marshall Plan and kick out the mental obstacles that are preventing parties from using their own abilities in multiple levels of what we ironically call "our" government, and get it done before the Insurance Companies take it entirely out of the hands of both parties.
Please feel free to contact me or the rest of the team with any questions,
Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
An open letter to politicians and public servants on June 16, 2008:
We Stand at the Crossroads:
Today we stand at a crossroads in multiple concerns- energy, environmental, and economic problems. We contemplate military answers.
There is discussion visible to the public that would suggest that government is keenly aware of the above problems and searching for answers.
This is refuted by our two-year history of attempting to make the legislated solutions work. They do not work. They refuse to work. They are doing all to block real advanced in energy, injections of liquidity into our economy, and environmental remediation that costs the tax-payer nothing.
Please kindly see the report requested by Congressman Childers. On this, you will find that we copied the Baker Institute and many others who have recently paneled for the House Energy and Global Warming Committee. Our information directly refuted their testimonies.
Our answer is a Marshall Plan:
A Marshall Plan is REPO finance, which is an abbreviation of “repurchase agreement”. It is a mechanism in which allows for a “null transaction” or “secured finance” meaning that it creates liquidity (cash) when assets are pledged at the Federal Reserve Window. Kindly understand that this is not a liquidity injection that creates later, separate debt, as the recent stimulus package did. It is “assets in, for money out” …a null transaction. This is exactly how all the government programs (which require collateral -most of them), and banks and brokers gain the cash for projects without taxes or accessing program allocations and without depositors’ funds. It is sound economic development because the best new projects, which may bring significant advances, cost too much for taxpayers, and the banks have very low cash on hand at this time and always do in a recessive economy.
The “repurchase” portion of the name comes from the ability of the debt investor- the party that put up the collateral of value, to pull the collateral back out after the project is up and producing the revenue stream (in other words, the investor alone underwrites the risk phase of the project) and substitute the collateral and allow buy-out with other debt participants.
Only government programs, banks and brokers have access to our Federal Reserve. No one else may contact this entity, even investors.
Problem 1: It is not in the banks and brokers’ best interest to allow investment at the window because a poor economy is a high-interest environment. Loans are made, today, at higher interest rates.
Problem 2: Government believes that it is not in government’s best interest to allow investment in advanced energy, efficiency, or significant pollution remediation technologies (such as would be required to answer our 45 Trillion dollar deficit as outlined by the IEA in June 2008) because government itself has previously colluded with energy industries that operate at lower efficiency, greater pollution and create less energy. In fact, they regularly finance industry’s projects on the public credit. If any innovative, advanced project were to out-perform a neighboring low efficiency, polluting project that was financed on the public credit (almost all of them) the public itself would be “on the hook” for the retro-fits required to keep it competitive and to meet new, better, environmental standards necessitated by BACT- or the requirement that all polluting facilities meet Best Available Control Technology. Reasonably, the people would also discover what the state and federal finance programs have been “up to.” In spite of our suggestion to pay for the retrofits using the Carbon Credits for which the polluting technologies would then be eligible (called Tax Credit Monetization Financing) the government at every level has determined to refuse access to the Treasury Window to finance advances that threaten the status quo it has already underwritten, to our nation’s environmental, economic, and energy-supply detriment.
Please consider our Nation’s needs, and contact Congressman Childers today and express willingness to stand with him as he fights for one location’s ZESC facility. Congressman Childers is a new face and needs support to win this. Winning this tug-of-war wins all the rest; we need our advances for economic development--- by letting investors place assets directly into the treasury without the interface of those who have reasons to prevent wealth in America, and for the environment---- which needs great projects, many investors, multiple competing technologies to meet the challenge prior to great detriment to our irreplaceable natural resources as outlined by the IEA, and energy supply--- which has been artificially repressed and is thus a high priced cost to all Americans.
If our nation would allow Equal Access to Capital for those with assets (this is, by the way, the Asian difference; the reason that their economy is booming and ours is dying), there would be no reason for investors to place factories in China, no need to repress the construction of power facilities that make no pollution when financed without public money, and no need to tax the people generally as a new day of Government Gaining Revenues Through Partnerships with Industry (not merely government used as a personal purse by industry) can dawn for us all; there would be no reason to go to war again.
It is my assertion that those who repress these advances have engaged wrong solutions.
Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 6:24 PM To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "GIELEN Dolf, IEA/ETO" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, johndworth <johnDWorth@gmail.com>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, "Meigel, Robin - Washington, DC" <Robin.Meigel@wdc.usda.gov>, "Ellinger, Robert - Washington, DC" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Shultz, Georg - Washington, DC" <Georg.Shultz@wdc.usda.gov>, email@example.com Cc: com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
To Brad Morris,
I forgot a few critical attachments for the previous zip file, provided to me by Bank of America.
Please understand that we have presented to Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Citibank, CoBank, Zion's Bank, Wachovia Bank, Bank of Oklahoma, GE Capital, Smith Barney, Stearns Bank, Home First Federal Bank, Bank of Texas, Regions, Commerce Bank, Vanguard Bank, Bank (and Banc) of America and smaller regional banks.
They were each memorable in their own way. Wachovia, for instance, stated that the VZ collateral had no value, until we pointed out to them that their own PIMCO fund's largest asset class was heavily invested in VZ paper. Do high oil prices have merit to investors? Were they were advising that their depositors hold valuable oil backed foreign sovereign paper but that they themselves, would not? Quite a bit of hypocrisy in those disclosures. Brad, please consider for a moment how many power plants unlike our transaction have no security pledged, no repayment guarantees, and no free fuel yet were financed around the globe last year by exactly the banks that we contacted?
What privilege license is extended, or should be extended, to a bank that fails to serve the local community from which they take deposits if all they really offer are 24% credit card interest rates? What percentage of their loan portfolios are invested in high-interest unsecured credit card loans, or on the other hand, secured loans such as mortgages, boat loans, and car loans? How much of their lending portfolio do mom & pop businesses generate?
Please take note of Bank of America's PR announcement they have the largest allocation for Renewables- $20 Billion (ref attachment one). That PR campaign infers that they are ready to finance renewable energy advances (ref attachment two) but in fact they are reneging on their "best efforts" underwriting commitments (ref attachment three). Banc of America's, Lawrence Tonamura, Ray Fox and Heather King attended our teleconference with more than 30 government officials and from MS to New Mexico on March 15, 2007. They vowed to perform. It took more than two months to get a commitment letter out of Bank of America, which was followed by a subsequent Commitment-Cancellation Letter (ref attachments four and five).
Their 2008 powerpoint provided by their renewable finance advertising states their goals, on page three and four.
And on slide five we see their services described:
Lending •We provide lending, advice and market creation to help commercial clients finance the use and production of new products, services and technologies. Investments •We invest in businesses and technologies that address climate change. Products and Services •Bank of America is developing new financial products and services for customers who consider the environmental impact of their purchasing decisions and want to offset or minimize their carbon emissions.
In practice, the building shown on page six appears to be their largest investment made to date, a $1+ billion dollar investment in themselves. Consider disclosing that most of our public utilities form LLCs for solar and wind projects in order that they may also pay themselves CREBs, REPI, and REPC and launch an aggressive PR campaign contrary to their current claims that they are going to be "taxed by renewable." Will polluters pay or the taxpayers? Looking into the $1.2 Billion of congressionally allocated CREBs infers that if the "largest renewable energy bank" admitted to financing only $1.5 Million CREBs to mostly to state or regional government entities, then where did the $20 Billion commitment go? Where did the rest of the fully allocated CREBs go if only 1% was successfully financed by the "largest renewable financier"? Neal Skiver, of their renewable team, was aware of no other BOA successes. In fact, each and every renewable projects listed involved a partner similar to "Chevron" which is really more evidence of funding their own self-dealings for their preferred customers. BOA appears to have been misleading the public about their Renewable Finance commitment with their PR campaign for years.
Refer to the 2006 presentation page Six:
n Government n Local/Municipal Governments n Municipal Utilities n State Agencies n Federal Government n Public Education n K-12 Public Schools n Community Colleges n State Colleges and Universities n Institutions (Not-For-Profit 501c3) n Private Colleges and Universities n Cultural Facilities n Scientific/Research Facilities n Healthcare (Not-For-Profit and For-Profit) n Hospitals & Medical Centers n Long-term Care Facilities n Medical Office Buildings
************THEN CONCENTRATE ON THE DISCLOSURES LISTED FOR THE NEXT HEADING***************** · n Commercial/Industrial
There are zero projects listed?
Admitting the Congressional impact on the commercial banking system which discloses what in fact they have attained from a private industry versus big business versus government project fundings are laid side by side and that says what about "open access" to capital for renewable?
So perhaps most bankers, just as BOA reps in the last attachment, refuse to return phone calls or answer emails, refuse to talk to investors, and refused to discuss their 2008 powerpoint, while stating to the public PR claims that BOA or big oil is eager to "invest" in Greenhouse Gas Reduction technologies? I have formed the opinion that our commercial banks and others have no true intention of financing or funding commercial/industrial renewable energy transactions for the health and safety of ordinary Americans. Banks prefer to generate loans ------in my opinion and in this order ------1) another 24% credit card loan 2) a big business loan 3) then a mortgage 4) then a car loan 5) then a boat loan and finally 6) a mom and pop business loan. They would say "Oil companies need more places to drill, more tax incentives and more access to the taxpayers coffers" and but Private Renewable Projects willing bear the brunt (risk) of progressive change will get what…. ? …when?
According to the BOA track record and the powerpoint and our conversations with them and many others, Renewable Projects shall be given attention according to the minimum amount of municipal conduit mechanisms; this is what our commercial Banking systems in America are demonstrating.
The current commercial monetary policy is in effect colluding with regional monopolies to prevent the emergence of competing technologies. By default they are instituting a commercial banking policy of maintaining zero liquidity for private renewable energy finance.
As brokerages, insurance, and banking are now combined under Graham-Leach-Bliley, two of the three possible access points to liquidity injections into our economy are for all intents and purposes closed to renewable financing not sponsored by fossils or nuclear. No new money is available for new, advanced energy solutions as "mom and pop" deposits can not sustain such banking commitments especially during our recession.
The banks have the access to the treasury, which they choose not to use, but they also may serve whom they wish. Banks, I suppose, may act in favor of their big clients over new ones every day of the week. We're really only griping about the false advertising, pretensions and games with credits intended for renewables. We also dislike the manipulation of the public via news-releases that have little to do with reality.
Government on the other hand has an entirely different obligation to the people who formed it, feed it, and to whom it must answer.
Whenever State Governments conduit federal program money realizes –as it sometimes does- that since they do not print money then they can not currently fund their own programs (infrastructure condition restrictions), Federal Government finance, as through the USDA, is all that is left. Taxpayer demand exceeds supply. As we demonstrated from the record in your home state, the critical question of the day is "Shall state finance be progressive, patriotic and for creating "open access" US Treasury options or shall it be for maintaining the status quo (so that we are not discovered complicit with Industry)?" As far as Holly Springs is concerned, when Mayor Deberry called on Congressman Childers to represent his people in Washington and open the last access, the Federal, to the Treasury's door, one answer or the other will be Congressman's Childers own legacy.
We believe that Childers will be progressive and patriotic!
A question for the parties of Baker Institute, the Commerce Department, Rice University and the Sierra Club copied on this email--- Because of the stolid front presented against a no-loss and no-risk situation (REPO) we presented, what are the reasonable hopes for achieving this projected investment in technologies that may not enjoy investor participation if you want to meet or exceed the goals set by the House Energy and Global Warming Committee?
A question for the rest---- Who will enjoy "open access" equivalent to $45 Trillion if the remediation goals set by the IEA was bona fide? Will this be our Treasury, or must transactions go through the perhaps more capable and agile European Central Bank, instead? Why? Is the European Central Bank a better system than ours at recognizing the "open access" needs of environmental solutions? Do they have more banking capabilities, than our own? Why have we, after 2 years with an investor, experienced nothing but total stonewalling by our potential counterparties which same counterparties (banks, brokers, state finance agencies and federal programs) enjoy open access to the needed capital supply (available upon presentation of an investor's assets and a derivatives contract, per OCC 1051)? What does this say about our true ability to respond -V- true wish to respond to our recession, energy crisis, and pollution problems with a monetary solution that will address a $45 T requirement?
The operative question is: Is there a working REPO credit facility at the Fed Window with or without the USDA or has all open access been politically manipulated….. and Will a lone Congressman demand performance on behalf of his own, the people of Holly Springs?
Brad, if you have any lingering doubts or questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |