With the addition of Dan Kammen, our review panel is now complete. Dr. Kammen is a professor in the Energy and Resources Group, Professor of Public Policy in the Goldman School of Public Policy and Professor of Nuclear Engineering in the Department of Nuclear Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. He is also the founding Director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory.
We decided to include three reviewers in our panel rather than the originally proposed four. The reasons for the change are the following:
- We wanted to more non-TerraPass affiliated members than TerraPass affiliated.
- An odd number seems better for tie-breaking.
- Three experts is plenty. The only reason we chose four in the first place is because we didn’t want TerraPass-affiliated members to hold a majority. We solved that problem by only having one TerraPass-affiliated member on the panel.
I should note that “TerraPass-affiliated” refers to someone who holds a seat on our technical advisory board. No one on the panel is a TerraPass employee.
We’ve also put together a process for completing the review. This is subject to change, but I don’t expect major revisions. Feedback welcome. The process itself and the complete list of panel members is on our project review web site.
- TerraPass will present a Project Review Document to the panel for consideration.
- The document will lay out all of the gathered data as well as our interpretation, organized as a series of additionality tests.
- The document will also include our own Recommendation, which is an assessment of the additionality and proper baseline of the Tontitown project as well as any corrective action we think appropriate.
- These questions will be made public, and our answers to them will be included as an addendum to the original report.
- Where appropriate, annotated corrections will also be made to the original report.
- The Determination can also include suggested actions if the panel would like to make recommendations that TerraPass should consider but not view as binding.
- The Determination should limit itself in scope to issues directly raised by the Tontitown project. E.g., questions over the additionality of Green-e certified RECs would be out-of-scope for the review process.
- Members of the panel are invited to publish any dissenting views on the final Determination. These dissenting views won’t be part of the Determination, but they will be made part of the public record.