New legislation introduced for LED Lighting Procurement for City of Cleveland

Submitted by briancummins on Mon, 06/07/2010 - 19:22.

A new ordinance will be introduced this evening to Cleveland City Council that would authorize the Administration to enter into a 10-year requirement contract for LED lighting products.

A PDF version of the new ordinance is attached below.

The new legislation requires that the procurement go through a competitive bidding process but most all of the other terms from the previous ordinance remain the same.

I'll be opposing the ordinance for the same reasons I opposed the previous, namely: 

1)  ten-year contract would not benefit the City of Cleveland in fulfilling our LED lighting needs. The status of LED lighting technology and industry experts opinion indicates that it would be un-wise to enter into such a long-term contract with products and a technology that is changing so rapidly

2)  Bundling and committing to all four products (traffic, street, bulb and tube replacement lighting) The status of LED lighting technology and industry experts opinion indicates that only two (street and traffic light replacements) of the four products listed are recommended for full replacement procurement currently. There are multiple statements from the Department of Energy and other industry sources that warn municipalities and other potential customers of LED lighting that tube and bulb replacement lighting has not been sufficiently tested and proven to be economically sound investments.

3)  Un-substantiated claims that the City's purchasing power can be leveraged to attract 350 jobs in assembly, manufacturing and research and development jobs within 5-years. There have been offers by other companies, in addition to Sunpu-Opto to meet these conditions, but other well known companies in the industry make more modest offers of 100 or so assembly jobs. It should be pointed out that manufacturing employee wages in locations such as China are below $1.00 per hour as compared to rates in the U.S. that average $16.00 - 17.00.

4)  Lack of quality requirements in the new ordinance. Like the old ordinance, there are no specific quality specifications listed in the ordinance. The Administration incorrectly states in the ordinance in Section 1.1. "comply with UL and LM 79 testing prior ro being furnished to the City;". Although there are compliance ratings that need to be achieved for a UL rating (this is for safety), LM 79 is a methodology for testing performance measures and does not require compliance but only provides performance data based on industry standard testing procedures and measurements. 

A more adequate requirement for minimum performance requirements would be Energy Star certification. In terms of Energy Star ratings, the contract would only require the contractor to "develop LED products that meet Energy Star Standards" and to "actively work toward achieving an Energy Standard Rating for those products", but there is never a requirement to use Energy Star rating requirements as quality standards to procure the product and no time-certain requirement to reach Energy Star standards. A company could ostensibly be "actively pursuing" Energy Star ratings and consistently not receiving them for the entire 10-years.

5)  Preference for a process that would require competitive bidding, but for single product procurement beginning with street lights and traffic lights. Tubes and bulb replacement procurement would follow the market availability of tested certified products.

6)  Preference for a process that would utilize our regional Economic Development organizations such as Nortech's Advanced Energy Cluster (as a model); Team Neo, and JumpStart; as well as participation in the Department of Energy's Solid State Street Lighting Consortium. 

I disagree with the Administration's approach to trying to lure jobs to Cleveland from a single company and not seek out existing companies in our region and State that are involved in providing LED products, i.e., General Electric (GE) and Green Mill Global/Fawoo/Fawoo North Tech America. 

Also, it should be pointed out that GE already employs workers in our region in Executive, R&D (Technology, Design & Engineering) and manufacturing jobs; They also have a World headquarters in our region with 700 employees and a $60 million payroll.

 
Brian J. Cummins
Councilman, Ward 14
Cleveland City Council
City Hall, Room 220
601 Lakeside Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114
216-664-4238 office
bcummins[at]clevelandcitycouncil.org
 
ref:
Initial post on previous ordinance:
 
Cleveland City Council set to approve sale of Convention Center to Cuyahoga County on Monday By Mark Gillispie, The Plain Dealer, June 04, 2010
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/06/cleveland_city_council_set_to.html
 
 

 

AttachmentSize
Ord._829-10_-_Mayor_Jackson__Req_K_LEDs.pdf102.15 KB
( categories: )

energy star rating

Submitted by westward on Mon, 06/07/2010 - 22:52.

 Energy star ratings are better than nothing, but not much more. It is a way of making us feel better about consuming energy. We can and should do better. I would not use energy star as a reliable benchmark for future development of a new technology that surpasses DOE guidelines. I do not see the lack of language in this proposal to be a red flag to why this ordinance should not pass.

My allegiance to General Electric is the same as GE's allegiance to the workers on Ohio that lost their decent paying jobs when GE shipped the jobs overseas. Those good paying jobs are now paying that $1/hour in other countries. R&D is still around, but that in no way compensates for the roughly 1,000+ union jobs lost to regular folks. Newer jobs created by GE are by way of taxpayer dollars. 

If a company from China wins the competitive contract, and if they build a LED facility in Cleveland that produces just 100 good paying jobs, and do it without tax abatement or other tax breaks, Cleveland will have gained. If an upcoming local company can do the same, under the same terms, that is even better, though unlikely to happen. Cleveland areas enterprises are used to abatements and subsidy. We can cry about public dollars in terms of contracts to a company, or bleed from abatements and subsidies that are less public.

An interesting article here from global economy.

The Chinese are coming...REDUX...see Trash story

Submitted by lmcshane on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 08:12.

Comment originally posted 6/3/2010

In case you missed it in today's Plain Dealer, here is an insightful analysis by Paul Schroeder:

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/06/chinese_firms_are_coming_how_d.html

Please read and see letter sent out to City of Cleveland residents by Mayor Frank Jackson.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Friend: 

 

Cleveland can be the front-runner in building a sustainable economy that creates jobs and attracts investment by tapping into the growing economic sectors of the 21st century.  To realize our full potential, we need to change how we do business and how we attract economic development.  Therefore, I am moving forward with implementing a new business model for the City of Cleveland .  Rather than rely solely on traditional economic development incentives such as tax abatements, low-interest loans and grants, the City of Cleveland is working to attract business investment and create jobs by leveraging its assets and using its purchasing power. 

 

Our first major project using this new business model is the LED Initiative for Jobs and Economic Sustainability. At the June 7 meeting of Cleveland City Council, legislation was introduced that seeks authority for the City to enter into a requirement contract for LED lighting products that are manufactured in the City of Cleveland at a facility that employs at least 350 people within five years.  The next step will be to enter into a competitive bid process to identify the company that will provide not only the LED lights, but also will meet our economic development requirements and city purchasing requirements.

 

It is an important initiative for our City, our residents, our regional economy, our environment and our future. It represents our new business model, one that I believe can become a powerful tool for transforming the City’s economy.  More information can be found on the Cleveland Now! section of the City’s website (click here). 

 

As we make progress with this project, I look forward to providing you with additional updates.  Thank you for your continued support for the City of Cleveland .

 

Sincerely,

 

Frank G. Jackson

Frank G. Jackson, Mayor

City of Cleveland

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

10/2/2011

Please read Paul Schroeder's editorial above and realize that Frank Jackson is pulling the same stunt again in a "deal" that will destroy the near west side of Cleveland all for Waste Management....trucks will be roaring through the city to burn trash at the proposed Ridge Rd. Incinerator...

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/09/jackson_heading_to_japan_to_vi.html

And where Federal tax dollars are had for the taking ...

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2010/12/forest_city_others_aim_to_turn.html

It is mighty convenient that Frank Jackson is out of the country as his former campaign manager is charged with bribery.  Will other council votes receive the scrutiny deserved?? 

Last year, the city awarded a $1.5 million contract to Princeton Environmental Group, a New Jersey consulting firm that holds U.S. licensing rights to Kinsei's technology. Princeton Environmental is to provide recommendations on the plant design by the end of the year.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/10/pierce_scotts_case_revives_que.html#comments

Jackson

Submitted by Gone Fishin on Thu, 06/10/2010 - 18:51.

Just will not let up on this.,   he is determined,......

Pay out

Submitted by lmcshane on Thu, 06/10/2010 - 19:01.

  Mark my words...some one is getting a pay out on this ridiculous LED "initiative."

definetely a pay out

Submitted by Gone Fishin on Thu, 06/10/2010 - 20:00.

no doubt about it.   a determined pay out- for ten years.

speaking of pay outs, did you see this? and this

 

We might have to call in the National Guards if they don't stop this shit.  This area will not have anything left to steal if someone doesn't stop it.

 

It has to start somewhere

Submitted by westward on Thu, 06/10/2010 - 21:10.

and it is starting with this (the LED bids). Will the bids be geared towards a specific contractor of the Mayor's or the Council's choice? Will they find middle ground? To me, this whole back and forth is what it comes down to. A LED facility is going to happen. The Mayor has his list, some council reps have their, and bids will be taken. The acceptance will happen behind closed doors and then the winner of the public bids will be announced.

Part of a Mayor doing his job is to promote what he thinks is good for the City. If he was not out there with this, then he'd be criticized for not leading.

I do not want to subsidize any more corporations, including local ones, unless they are not for profit and tax exempt. I want LED. I have not seen the proposed bids, probably no one has yet. I want jobs for Cleveland. GE has taken them away in the past. 

I can't depend on a Mayor like Jackson, or council reps who have their special interests, to represent my best interest. It is in everyones interest to look at these processes carefully, and ask questions, and always, vote.

 

 

Lighting the tragedy of the public square

Submitted by Lee Batdorff on Fri, 06/11/2010 - 00:09.

Since saving public $ to light the public space is all our long-term responsibility, perhaps we are due a year of public analysis of the public lighting possibilities and on-going changes in lighting technology. If enough Clevelanders take a lively interest in this we may end up with a truly awsome set of economically and technologically progressive applications to make Cleveland a city of light truly not ignighted by a river fire. (How quant now, a river fire.)