tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7120986296441856296.comments2022-05-19T04:37:18.645-07:00Leighton K. ChongLeighton K. Chonghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01467979492404421025noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7120986296441856296.post-58266057577173340562013-01-27T08:32:03.517-08:002013-01-27T08:32:03.517-08:00Thank you for your comment. Due to the pre-commer...Thank you for your comment. Due to the pre-commercial nature of the ocean research needed, and the non-profit nature of hosting intl cooperative research on the PIOS research platform, we foresee that the primary underwriter of PIOS would be private philanthropy. Governmental agencies may be secondary contributors, but would likely be limited by budget deficits, politics, conflicts of interest, technology export and/or national security restrictions. Research institutions would be expected to fund any sponsored research they propose to undertake on PIOS. Private philanthropic funding has been a primary support in many areas of scientific research, medical research, human welfare, education and other charitable purposes, and we hope would support our proposed benefit-for-humanity policy of IP sharing.Leighton K. Chonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01467979492404421025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7120986296441856296.post-67300362661930058812013-01-26T11:49:32.925-08:002013-01-26T11:49:32.925-08:00Thanks for the interesting post. Who(m) does BRH ...Thanks for the interesting post. Who(m) does BRH envision as the major underwriter(s) of PIOS?Eric Hahnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03348228299989844005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7120986296441856296.post-74029459065193206892011-01-06T22:21:45.191-08:002011-01-06T22:21:45.191-08:00My readers may find the following recent news item...My readers may find the following recent news item (01/07/11) from Greg Aharonian's PatNews of interest:<br /><br />HOW CHINA CUTS DEALS TO ACQUIRE FOREIGN TECHNOLOGIES<br /><br />The Chinese web site sina.com.cn recently had an interview with Chinese rail engineers with regards to the high-speed rail systems being built in the country. Part of the interview describes how they require the foreign companies to give their technology to joint ventures. In this case, the first free rail vehicles were first made and assembled in <br />the foreign country, then the parts made in the foreign country but vehicle assembled in China, with the eventual goal of 75% of components ultimately being manufactured in China and assembled in China.<br /><br />A rough Google translation of the article can be had by typing:<br /><br />http://news.sina.com.cn/c/sd/2010-12-31/150421742110.shtml<br /><br />into the Google translate box. Here are some excerpts from the translation:<br /><br /> Ministry of Railways have faced a tough choice - being completely open to use the world's most advanced technology, or behind closed doors continue to make use of [Chinese] innovation.<br /><br /> Finally, the State decided to open the door to the most advanced technologies as the starting point of our study.<br /><br /> But .., "The project is driven by our economy, not pulling up their economies."<br /><br /> They came to a preliminary conclusion: we can use the technology of Japan, France and Germany, but the technical system of any one country can not be copied, requiring different degrees of use of each country's technology.<br /><br /> In 2006 ... the basic idea is to use the world's best proven technologies, but to make them transfer core technologies, to ensure that local manufacturing of 75%, the key level designated for technology transfer to domestic manufacturers.<br /><br /> [For one contract for moving vehicles] the first three vehicle motor cars were assembled by Siemens; after the introduction, the next three cars were assembled by [Chinese companies]; later 3 Chinese companies began producing parts locally, a step towards a local manufacturing rate of 75%<br /><br /> [For another contract for railway vehicles] the first three assembled in Japan for complete delivery, another six in the form of parts shipped to China for assembly, the remaining 51 vehicles will be through technology transfer, built by a Chinese company, with some use of high-tech imported components.<br /><br /> China's approach is to decompose high-speed rail technology, by introducing different technologies from different countries, so as not to be completely dependent on one company or country.<br /><br /> Siemens has to spread out the final terms of the deal - the technology is from Siemens Research Institute - 40 years of technology, more than 220 patents, and ... that straightforward transfer of such technology would cause their stock price to be greatly affected.<br /><br /> The Ministry of Railway's negotiations with foreign investors is very clear as to what technology the other party may transfer, which must be retained and which transferred, so there is not, as some foreign media have said, theft of the technology by China. These companies agreed to cooperate because of the profitability of the deal - it's business - there is no theft.<br /><br />There is a lot more in the article - very interesting insight. I can say this as well - one thing China will never want to import is any of our politicians, whom only seem interested in innovating with regards<br />to partisan betrayals of the taxpayers.Leighton K. Chonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01467979492404421025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7120986296441856296.post-1696340216786231632011-01-03T02:24:18.313-08:002011-01-03T02:24:18.313-08:00Thank you for this post. Lots of good information ...Thank you for this post. Lots of good information not covered by books or other articles on patents.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03295450364251245028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7120986296441856296.post-44397865215868274182010-11-19T17:44:04.327-08:002010-11-19T17:44:04.327-08:00Hi Johnson:
Thanks for your comments on my IP-Bas...Hi Johnson:<br /><br />Thanks for your comments on my IP-Based Tech Transfer Model.<br /> <br />The most useful part of my Model is that there is nothing to breach and nothing to enforce between the Chinese JV company and the U.S. company. The U.S. company would transfer the China patent filing rights on execution of the agreement for a small payment or even for nothing (FREE) because there is little it can do to profitably enforce a Chinese patent in China anyway. If the U.S. company is transferring a lot of engineering data initially, then an initial payment will be required before the transfer is made. The Chinese patent filing rights is assigned to the Chinese JV partner to incentivize them to invest in engineering, manufacturing and selling the product domestically. The Chinese JV company can enforce their Chinese patent against Chinese competitors in China to the extent they can manage their own domestic legal system. No royalties on China sales would be required to be paid to the U.S. company because the profit is the incentive for the Chinese JV company to invest in the product and there is little the U.S. company can do to audit China sales and repatriate profits anyway. <br /> <br />The U.S. company benefits by contracting for export supply of the product at the proven "China price" for profitable sales in the U.S. and other strong IPR countries. The Chinese JV partner presumably would still make a profit in supplying the product at the wholesale supply price for export. The U.S. company's sales exclusivity is enforced by enforcement of strong IPR rights in the most profitable markets such as U.S., Japan, Europe, etc. The Chinese company would have a difficult time trying to circumvent this in strong IPR legal systems.<br /> <br />I agree going through Hong Kong or Singapore is preferable if the target Chinese JV company has a subsidiary or affiliate there.Leighton K. Chonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01467979492404421025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7120986296441856296.post-19676888056717394872010-11-19T14:59:40.363-08:002010-11-19T14:59:40.363-08:00Nov 19 2010 12:41pm
Dear Leighton:
I think we ne...Nov 19 2010 12:41pm<br /><br />Dear Leighton:<br /><br />I think we need to pay attention to whatever "model" we are planing to use must deal with people, legal environment and enforcement issues.<br /><br />Some of the Companies the American firm use to handle their technology products such as Apple I-pad/I-Phone are handled through the Taiwan firm Foxconn who employed more than 400,000 employee in China has tight internal control to ensure no leak of technical information/data.<br /><br />When you are at the larger cities such as Shanghai, Beijing and Shenzhen, the general IP-Based Tech Transfer Model might be able to hold up in the court of law in the event of a breach. But once you are outside of the few major cities in China, not sure the same standard will apply in the Court of Law.<br /><br />I think for a smaller firm (not the Itel type), best to consider using your IP-Based Tech Transfer Model in Hong Kong and Singapore. It has continued to puzzle me "why" American like to dive into China when using Hong Kong and Singapore as the launch pad is almost like going from Hawaii to San Francisco or New York. <br /><br />When you work with the Hong Kong or Singapore firms who have been doing business in China for a long time, you are using 1) their experiences that they learnt for the past few decades and 2) the legal system there are similar to those in the United States, the British Common Law.<br /><br />The United States Commercial Service has just signed an agreement with the Hong Kong Government http://www.hkchcc.org/biz-hongkong.htmjohnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15608978699758494226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7120986296441856296.post-77536480553179097042009-08-28T01:28:05.390-07:002009-08-28T01:28:05.390-07:00Nice job, Leighton! I hope the tech community can ...Nice job, Leighton! I hope the tech community can keep it's eyes and minds open to other approaches. Many feel that 221 has been a great success while others feel it's been a dismal failure. I'd like to see everyone looking forward to a model that (a) we can all agree on and that (b) has proven itself either here or elsewhere as a viable model.Peter Kayhttp://www.flatearthventures.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7120986296441856296.post-915840137779552012009-06-15T14:54:11.947-07:002009-06-15T14:54:11.947-07:00Hey Leighton,
I don't have any green tech ide...Hey Leighton,<br /><br />I don't have any green tech ideas running around my head, but I'm glad you're running this contest!Shawn Drosthttp://shawndrost.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7120986296441856296.post-43911870198303079252009-06-14T11:08:33.566-07:002009-06-14T11:08:33.566-07:00Apropos repetition in a patent, I work as a Japane...Apropos repetition in a patent, I work as a Japanese-to-English patent translator and make my profit from seemingly egregious repetition. IP folks, please continue to be redundant.David Govetthttp://www.japatent.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7120986296441856296.post-54723834444962435782009-05-15T09:55:00.000-07:002009-05-15T09:55:00.000-07:00As an added bonus for the 3 winners chosen in the ...As an added bonus for the 3 winners chosen in the Invention Contest, I will perform a FREE patent search on your invention and provide you with my opinion on its patentability (a $1500 value). I posted this bonus offer on the TechHui website with the Contest blog and was pleased to see that it generated a good deal of interest.Leighton K. Chongnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7120986296441856296.post-82180593164755494932009-04-07T01:07:00.000-07:002009-04-07T01:07:00.000-07:00Great concept and ideal for establishment in Hawai...Great concept and ideal for establishment in Hawaii as the hub between East and West.Pat Takahashihttp://planetearthandhumanity.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7120986296441856296.post-39573668593072674382009-03-18T20:17:00.000-07:002009-03-18T20:17:00.000-07:00Did everyone read in this morning's Advertiser the...Did everyone read in this morning's Advertiser the article about SuperFerry having to shutdown operations and leave the State because of a Supreme Court ruling that they must spend millions and months of effort preparing an EIS as proclaimed by their NIMBY opponents? Need I remind readers what $300 million in investment in SuperFerry going down the tubes does to the State's image as a place to do business? The NIMBY problem is a significant to economic progress in our Islands, as it is throughout the world. Oh, and need I point out that not a single whale suffered a brush with the SuperFerry in all the time that it was operating "illegally"?<BR/><BR/>Lucky you live Hawaii, eh???Leighton K. Chonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01467979492404421025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7120986296441856296.post-89736020174739823472009-02-18T12:19:00.000-08:002009-02-18T12:19:00.000-08:00A respondent offered the following comments:"...A respondent offered the following comments:<BR/><BR/>"I think the grantor's right to sublicense the technology to whomever it liked in the state would as a practical matter lead many patent holders to forego grant applications in Hawaii because they would not have the ability to choose with whom they do business. People choose business partners partly on the basis of whether a potential collaboration is likely to lead to disputes. Parties who work together to develop a patented technology may create intellectual property in the course of that collaboration that is itself patentable. Sorting out how to divvy up intellectual property rights in such a situation is complex and could strain the relationship even among parties who have a history of collaboration and trust."<BR/> <BR/>My response: <BR/> <BR/>Nothing would change for joint R&D relationships receiving research funds from a grantor agency under my proposal. Parties will still choose who they want to do joint R&D with on the basis of trust. The U.S. patent system requires that the real inventors be named correctly in a patent application, so parties will still need to determine who invented what in naming the correct inventors on a patent application.<BR/> <BR/>Patent applications are published at 18 months from filing, and patents in this field currently take about 2-3 years to go through examination, Patent Office approval, and issuance. So a collaboration for joint R&D on an invention would not be made known to others until the 18-month publication date from filing. And if any patent is issued, it would not be until 2-3 years after filing.<BR/> <BR/>The only change under my proposal is that if and when a patent issues to the joint R&D venture, they will not be able to stop other parties from making and selling that RE product in Hawaii, since other grantee parties would be licensed to access the technology in Hawaii by the grantor agency. This is exactly what I intend. The point is to get RE inventions used and deployed widely in Hawaii without the threat of patent infringement law suits gumming everybody up. Since they cannot stop others, the recourse of the R&D venture is to sell their own patented product in Hawaii as quickly and as widely as possible. They stand to make more profit this way anyway, than suing people and trying to extract license royalties from them. They can still attempt to license the patent on the Mainland, which is a 300X market.<BR/> <BR/>In general, companies in Hawaii stand a better chance of making a profit from a new product by being the first to attract customers to buy the product rather than trying to extract license fees from other companies that want to sell a similar product. This is true because the costs of trying to legally enforce patent rights against one or more small companies in Hawaii's small market can far outweigh the amount of license fees that can be extracted.Leighton K. Chonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01467979492404421025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7120986296441856296.post-85422683239011157072009-02-08T19:12:00.000-08:002009-02-08T19:12:00.000-08:00More than 15 years ago, returning from a trip to T...More than 15 years ago, returning from a trip to Tahiti, where the French had established a total system PV center, with DC applicances, etc., and observing the devastation that Iniki had caused on Kauai, I made a half-hearted attempt to discuss forming a PV company to supply a PV package (including appliances) for new homes. These were the pre Act 221/215 days when electricity prices were not yet that high and grid connection was a challenge. The dissuading factor was that, at a projected cost of 25 cents/kWh, PV was still too expensive. Of course, oil prices sunk to a historic low--even below 1972 in current dollars--in 1998, so the company would probably have gone bankrupt. <BR/><BR/>The price of PV power, interestingly enough, has not changed that much today, but with those other advantages you cited, this should be a real opportunity for entrepreneurs. It would particularly help if the State Legislature can authorize paying residential producers feeding to the grid twice the cost of what they have to pay (Germany still edicts more than 50 cents/kWh, and they are now #1 in the world in PV). <BR/><BR/>Home wind energy of course should almost never be attempted because wind profiles are poor where people live. On the other hand, utility scale wind farms at acceptable sites are today the only renewable electricity option reasonably competitive with fossil/nuclear power. <BR/><BR/>Otherwise, as oil costs will zoom up in five years, the life cycle cost of solar for home applications in Hawaii should be worth the investment today. Looks like an opportunity for Hoku. I'll send Dustin to your blog.<BR/><BR/>Aloha.<BR/><BR/>Pat TakahashiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7120986296441856296.post-66797406493233399602009-02-02T23:42:00.000-08:002009-02-02T23:42:00.000-08:00Interesting idea. Here's where Hawaii's tiny marke...Interesting idea. Here's where Hawaii's tiny market size becomes an asset in being patent-free. There's essentially little revenue loss, yet companies don't forgo any benefits of the patent process. "I'm not Leighton Chong" but I like the idea!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7120986296441856296.post-31421271452499811092009-02-02T16:37:00.000-08:002009-02-02T16:37:00.000-08:00Leighton: Thank you for providing such great "out ...Leighton: Thank you for providing such great "out of the box thinking" on an important subject. There are loose analogies in Free Trade Zones and Special Economic Zones, the most famous of which is Shenzen, China now a city of 10 Million people up from the small village it was before that designation by Deng Xiaoping.<BR/>Since Hawaii is such a small piece of the country's and world's economic pie, it would provide inventors the advantage of getting their technology and its efficacy demonstrated without significant loss of revenue. Such "loss" would be counterbalanced by the potential for hughly significant gain from having their invention proved in practice. Hawaii's remarkably defined geographic boundries would minimize "drift" out of the zone that would otherwise be likely if the zone were just a designated part of the U.S. mainland.<BR/>Dan BentDan Benthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13359403307222212420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7120986296441856296.post-31937515905491913402009-02-02T14:27:00.000-08:002009-02-02T14:27:00.000-08:00A respondent asked whether making Hawaii a "patent...A respondent asked whether making Hawaii a "patent-free zone" would discourage companies from doing RE research here? My response is as follows:<BR/><BR/>My suggestion is that only Hawaii be made a patent-free zone for RE technologies. Companies are free to obtain patents and license them throughout the rest of the U.S. and in foreign countries (if they obtain parallel foreign patents), to keep their investors happy. <BR/><BR/>In practicality, the amount of licensing revenues a patent owner can derive from other users in the State would probably be tiny to non-existent. Our GDP is 1/3000 of U.S. GDP. Past patent litigation efforts undertaken against infringers in Hawaii such as by Aquasearch (microalgae) and Hawaii International Seafood (frozen smoke treatment of fish) have resulted in those companies being nearly bankrupted by legal fees which dwarfed any license revenues they might legitimately have been entitled to. <BR/> <BR/>If a company originated an RE technology that proved to be unique, it would likely derive the lion's share of its revenues by selling those systems throughout the State. Thus, in a reverse manner, not being able to enforce their patents against competitors in the State would motivate those patent owners to sell as fast and as many systems as they could in Hawaii, which would benefit them as well as the State. This is exactly the argument made by economist Michele Boldrin in "Against Intellectual Monopoly", published by University of Washington Press.Leighton K. Chonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01467979492404421025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7120986296441856296.post-69223143766475465542009-02-02T14:11:00.000-08:002009-02-02T14:11:00.000-08:00Yes, sorry about the quirky Blogspot Comment funct...Yes, sorry about the quirky Blogspot Comment function. Others have complained that it occasionally does not work. I've found that if you resubmit, eventually the system accepts it within one or two tries. Make sure to copy the text before you submit, so you can paste it back in if it does not work.<BR/><BR/>To answer your question, I know of no other state that has implemented a patent-free zone for a particular industry. Implementing such a policy as mandatory under State law would probably encounter problems of constitutional conflict with Federal law (pre-emption). However, there are many examples of IP pooling or joint management in private cooperative research agreements. This is why I suggest that a cooperative research agency such as HREDV should be able to implement such a policy without legislation.Leighton K. Chonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01467979492404421025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7120986296441856296.post-62335789575996299082009-02-02T13:55:00.000-08:002009-02-02T13:55:00.000-08:00I think Jay Fidell's article was a bit unclear on ...I think Jay Fidell's article was a bit unclear on this point. My understanding is that HECO's Net Metering Program approved by the PUC has allowed small PV systems of less than 50 KW capacity to essentially sell power into the grid at the full retail rate price to the customer (the meter is essentially run backwards). Producers of large systems (say, over 1 MW) typically must negotiate the purchase price with HECO in a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). It would only be those mid-range systems larger than 50 KW but not large enough to negotiate a separate PPA with HECO which would have their net metering payback capped at 50 KW. Going forward, the net metering cap has recently been raised to 100 KW. And when the PUC approves a Feed-In Tariff structure after public hearings this Spring, the mid-size producers would be paid whatever rate tariff that has been set.Leighton K. Chonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01467979492404421025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7120986296441856296.post-23904937746822115112009-02-02T13:52:00.000-08:002009-02-02T13:52:00.000-08:00Well, still going through hoops to comment, so let...Well, still going through hoops to comment, so let's see if this one works. Anyway, interesting point. Does any other state or nation have something similar?WHERE ARE WE? WHERE WILL WE GO?https://www.blogger.com/profile/14935710257177137758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7120986296441856296.post-10139785543261162622009-02-02T13:39:00.000-08:002009-02-02T13:39:00.000-08:00For this circumstance, greed is more appropriate. ...For this circumstance, greed is more appropriate. Here, I always thought net metering meant at least getting back what you contributed. Do you know if Fidell is right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7120986296441856296.post-70198663594269937442009-02-02T09:47:00.000-08:002009-02-02T09:47:00.000-08:00Is that "greed" or "grid"? Either one raises an a...Is that "greed" or "grid"? Either one raises an apt point!<BR/><BR/>Regarding Germany's electric power system, HECO has noted that the majority of Germany's baseload power (other than nuclear) comes from Scandanavian sources of hydropower, which although renewable is nevertheless "firm" baseload capacity. Also, the German grid is a mesh type system connected to many "firm" sources, and therefore can accomodate high levels of feed-in intermittent power like solar PV arrays. <BR/><BR/>It thus seems that the generous subsidies Germany offers for installation of home solar PV systems is really a form of local economic stimulus for consumer-level contribution into a grid system that can readily accommodate high levels of intermittent power sources.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7120986296441856296.post-77408391766954114782009-02-01T21:26:00.000-08:002009-02-01T21:26:00.000-08:00Great post. Jay Fidell today indicated that resid...Great post. Jay Fidell today indicated that residential PV owners essentially pay for the interface with HECO and get nothing back for feeding solar electricity into the greed. That needs to be adjusted. For several years now, Germany has mandated that home PV systems get more than 50 cents/kWh for their contribution. Germany is now #1 in PV.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7120986296441856296.post-88459360710381564742009-02-01T10:24:00.000-08:002009-02-01T10:24:00.000-08:00Jim Dator asked the question whether the Metered B...Jim Dator asked the question whether the Metered Benefit Sharing proposal is feasible if Hawaii’s utility company HECO gets out of electric power generation and becomes a power management company instead, as has been indicated in some articles in the press. Here is my response:<BR/><BR/>My impression is that HECO does not expect to get out of electric power generation "entirely", or even mostly by 2030. HECO has publicly targeted to have at least 40% of electric power transmitted through its grid in 2030 come from renewable energy sources, whether its own or from independent power producers (IPPs). My impression is that HECO expects perhaps half (20%) of the RE total to come from its own sources, and the majority of the other half to come from IPPs of over 1MW capacity. HECO is now wrestling with the issue of whether the IPPs should be required to have their own on-site storage for intermittent power generation, or whether HECO should build additional electric storage capacity for the IPPs into the grid and ratebase the costs.<BR/><BR/>As for individual home or small business ("rooftop") cogeneration under 1 MW, my impression is that HECO does not expect it to be a significant part of the total baseload power mix by 2030. This is because not only is rooftop power intermittent, but also the amount of power that individuals will choose to sell back into the grid is totally discretionary, i.e., a personal choice whether to use most of the power for themselves or sell it to HECO at discounted feed-in tariff rates. <BR/><BR/>The cap on feeding-in individual cogenerated power has recently been raised by the PUC to 2% in relation to total baseload. It may be raised higher in future years if a financing vehicle is put together to make it easier for individuals to have individual arrays installed. Rooftop power is still disproportionately expensive to install, about $3,000 per KW versus $500 per KW of utility power, so it cannot be paid back from feed-in tariffs unless enormous subsidies are provided and/or long-term debt financing is arranged. <BR/><BR/>Even if sufficient subsidies and financing are put together, I think HECO expects that most individuals will probably use the rooftop power themselves (to displace usage from HECO at 31 cents/KW) rather than sell it into the grid at discounted feed-in rates. In the unlikely event that a lot of rooftop power is sold into the grid, once the feed-in total reaches 5% the rooftop intermittency can have negative impacts on the stability of the grid, and HECO will have to decide whether to accommodate it by adding expensive electric storage capacity to the grid. If it does, the costs will be ratebased into electric rates anyway.<BR/><BR/>So, bottom line, I would guess that HECO's view is that 95% of its electric baseload capacity in 2030 is still expected to come from HECO and IPP power generation, and any rooftop generation may be offset by ratebased storage costs. So the Metered Benefit Sharing model to offer discounted electric rates to host communities for siting RE facilities for 40% of the baseload total would still makes sense. <BR/><BR/>BTW, in the 2007 PUC hearings on the Community Benefits Package for Waianae proposed by HECO for siting the Campbell Industrial Park biodiesel plant, the amount of discount offered was 8% of electric rates, i.e., about 2.5 cents on 31 cents/KW. Assuming HECO's cost of generating or IPP purchasing is in the 15 cents to 20 cents/KW range, this would represent a benefit sharing of about 20% of net profit.Leighton K. Chonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01467979492404421025noreply@blogger.com