Random Grants? Another more heretical question is whether or not such small grants might not just as effectively and more cheaply be given out at random! One recalls Hazel Henderson's explanation in "The Entropy State" (Planning Review, May 1974) of how rising managerial "transaction costs," such as the costs of technical evaluation, peer review and OAT bureaucracy and overhead in the AET program, are not only "unproductive" but can, in this case, actually reduce the number of grant awards made, as "administrative costs" eat into available grant money. For, if one could show that the percentage of ultimately "successful" (i.e. beneficial to our society and large minorities of our citizenry) projects produced via random grants is the same as or greater than the "success" percent we get after the numerous and expensive review filters, and the costs of running them, then it's time to put the bureaucrats (and paid evaluators like myself) out of work, and use the new funds that formerly were "transaction costs" to increase the number and amount of grants it is possible to make. The question now is, have we the wisdom to make the comparison? Local Management Necessary The DOE-AET program will be expanding to other regions of America as 1978 progresses and, hopefully, consistent with greater attention to local and regional differences emphasized by Bob Beattie, DOE's Acting Administrator for Conservation and Solar Applications, "Appropriate technology is locally oriented. The kind of technology that is appropriate for one region may be entirely unsuitable for another region," the programs will be run from federal and state offices as close as possible to the region concerned. This also greatly enhances the potential for public feedback to keep the program on course, consistent with both the a.t. ideal of "local control" and the Congress' directives requiring public participation in government agency program design and implementation. This means, for example, that it is incorrect to manage the Pacific Northwest's AET program from San Francisco when it could be done in the Northwest, through DOE's Seattle office, or through the DOE Special Projects Office in Richland. It's obviously easier for a wet Seattleite, a rain-drenched Portlander or a dry Richlander to be attuned to the Pacific Northwest's local bio-climate differences, perspectives vitally important for many appropriate energy technologies, than for a faraway and sunny San Franciscan to attempt to gain such an awareness. One can only hope that ultimately such programs will be coordinated on a county, or at least a state, level. Finally, remember that the AET program is only one small step in the transition we all face, and that, just as energy is not life's only concern, so also we must lobby for such programs within other federal, state and county government agencies. HUD should be told it's time to start an "appropriate shelter technology" program emphasizing such areas as owner-building, including that all-American, communitybuilding tradition of "barn-raising," the use of recycled building materials, and home-built compost toilets (in conjunction with EPA). The EPA should begin an "appropriate waste technology" program focussing on land treatment of sewage, compost toilets and source-separation/home collection of recyclable urban and suburban waste. The Dept. of Agriculture should initiate "appropriate agriculture technology" programs in natural pesticides-herbicides-fertilizers, small-scale farming, water-saving irrigation, direct marketing and community woodlots. Or, maybe we should just forget about all these government programs and simply tell 'em not to hinder us as we do-it-ourselves. I can't really say which way it should go. But the vote here is 10 to 1 in favor of doing it. -Lee Johnson February/March 1978 RAIN Page 13 NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS ON THE APPROPRIATE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY GRANTS PROGRAM From California O.A.T. 1. Of the proposals received, approximately 65 percent were from metropolitan areas or larger towns. The remaining 3 5 percent were from smaller towns or rural areas of the state. Proposals were received in a representative distribution from all parts of the state. 2. Projects oriented toward demonstration or construction or production of energy-conserving equipment or materials comprise approximately 72 percent of the total. Education and media programs and concept evaluation and other software account for the remaining 28 percent. 3. ·we estimate that DOE will provide California with approximately $200,000. The average proposal request was for slightly more than $20,000. Based on internal discussions, it is likely that we will be able to actually fund no more than 20 proposals out of the 842 submitted (2.3 percent). 4. The money available to California from DOE is 1.2 percent of the total dollars requested by California applicants. 5. Our technical consultants estimate that a minimum of 10 percent of the proposals,are technically competent, innovative and deserving of immediate financial support. We believe that 85-100 of the proposals will merit funding. As mentioned above, however, current DOE funding allows support of only a very limited number of the worthwhile proposals. This is unfortunate in light of potential foregone opportunities for employment, product development and energy conservation in the state, not to mention the obvious underutilization of our creative resources and public interest. 6. In this first round alone, there is demonstrable evidence that this program could justifiably offer financial support in the range of $2 million without departing from the recommendations of our panel of expert reviewers. 7. Distribution ofAmount of Funding Requested a. Less than $10,000 38 percent b. $10,000 to $25,000 33 percent c. Greater than $25,000 30 percent SOURCE OF PROPOSALS Proposals Received Percent of Total Individuals 360 44.5 Partnership 13 1.6 Small Business 257 31.8 Schools (K-12) 6 0.7 College/University 33 4.1 Non-Profit Corporation 83 10.3 Community Organization 14 1.7 Local Government 34 4.2 State Agency 1 0.1 Indian Tribe 2 0.2 Other 6 0.7 TOTAL* 809 100.0 *Total equals proposals remaining after Lawrence Berkeley Lab prescreening. Note: In many cases, the line between nonprofit corporations and community organizatins is hard to define. Source: OAT (12/9/77) continued next page
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz