City officials had the legal right to keep talks quiet with
ClearSpot Energy for nearly 10 months over a proposed solar farm at
the wastewater plant, but doing so ran contrary against two
fundamental principles of government
– openness and fair competition.
Informal talks began with ClearSpot Energy in March or April
when the company approached the city, as confirmed by City Manager
Clint Quilter on Monday.
City officials had the legal right to keep talks quiet with ClearSpot Energy for nearly 10 months over a proposed solar farm at the wastewater plant, but doing so ran contrary against two fundamental principles of government – openness and fair competition.
Informal talks began with ClearSpot Energy in March or April when the company approached the city, as confirmed by City Manager Clint Quilter on Monday.
City council members first formally considered the proposal during closed-session talks in July, and then again in August. From there, five months went by without a peep or mention on a meeting agenda before the first public explanation of the agreement in early January, two weeks before its approval.
Throughout that process, Quilter and Councilman Doug Emerson carried on talks with ClearSpot and eventually, informally with two other potential suitors who realized the city officials had been trying to push forward an exclusive, lucrative agreement with the Atherton start-up, led by Rosendin Electric.
City leaders did everything they could to keep the negotiations with ClearSpot quiet with one-line, vague notices published in the closed-session meeting agendas last summer, and absolutely no public efforts to reach out for other possible partners with potential to provide the same service, perhaps with a more significant savings.
Emerson, Quilter and ClearSpot will point to a severely dysfunctional state law that allows the city and other jurisdictions to negotiate exclusively over such leases with alternative energy companies when there is no up-front cost to the local government.
There may be no cost on paper, because ClearSpot in the agreement is funding the capital and operational expenses while providing energy back to Hollister at a discount, but there is a potential lost savings by not at least allowing other solar providers a chance to present their ideas.
Why is seeking a potentially larger savings with a different private company any less important than vying for the lowest possible costs on a bridge replacement or street overlay?
Just because state lawmakers failed to foresee the whitewashing effect the provision has had at the local level on the two fundamental, crucially important foundations of government – allowing open competition and reasonable public dialogue – it doesn’t mean city officials had to abuse their legal right and trust ClearSpot’s word that nobody else could do it better and with the same or better savings.
Council members, led by Emerson, accepted the pitch from ClearSpot representatives that officials should go with them because they came up with the idea before anyone else here, because they have enough financial clout to do the job right, because the state says it’s OK, and because time is of the essence.
At least now it is, going on a year after ClearSpot first approached the city about the idea.
ClearSpot isn’t to blame for successfully lobbying city officials with a sales pitch focused on two primary objectives – making it a communitywide project with solar energy provided by the company to several local jurisdictions and the idea that it had to get done fast before state and federal tax incentives expire. ClearSpot’s investors have no motive for competition because being noncompetitive is what the state law expressly promotes.
Council members – not including Councilman Ray Friend, who had a conflict and did not take part in the discussion or vote – are to blame.
They had the leverage and gave it away. ClearSpot did not invent the idea, which is irrelevant when it comes to protecting taxpayer dollars; nor will the company be the last to move forward on such a public-private partnership involving solar or other types of alternative energy, as the arrangements are destined to become increasingly common.
Council members handed over their leverage without soliciting or seriously considering other companies. The state law, flawed as it may be, does not require a secretive process. City leaders, regardless, inexplicably decided to follow one.
It may be too late for Hollister, but other community leaders have a chance to learn from council members’ mistakes by stepping on the brake pedals, by allowing the public’s involvement in the process, by giving other solar companies the same opportunity that city council members gift-wrapped for ClearSpot.
ClearSpot has acknowledged having talks with local school districts, local water districts and the county about possibly using the jail down the line. If those organizations’ leaders believe in open government, in fair competition, they will see what Hollister did wrong and remember whose interests they represent, which fundamental rights they vowed to uphold.
