Canadian Transit Assume Tank CUTRIC Chooses Inaccuracy, Irrelevancy, & Assault

Join each day information updates from CleanTechnica on electronic mail. Or comply with us on Google Information!

---

Over the previous three weeks, I’ve been assessing varied features of the Canadian City Transit Analysis and Innovation Consortium’s (CUTRIC) positions, analysis, and publications on transit bus decarbonization. I’ve printed ten articles straight about CUTRIC’s materials and stories, or carefully associated and with critical implications for his or her claims that each hydrogen and renewable pure fuel are a part of the decarbonization combine.

The articles cite EU Joint Analysis Committee hydrogen funding annual standing stories that present hydrogen autos and refueling stations haven’t achieved any efficiency, reliability, guarantee, or fiscal targets regardless of 25 years of EU funding, and federal funding simply since 2016 of €1.2 billion. The articles cite US Division of Power stories on hydrogen refueling and bus fleets in that state displaying that hydrogen refueling is out of service 20% extra of the time than it’s refueling autos and that hydrogen bus upkeep prices 50% greater than diesel buses, and double that of battery electrical buses. It cites Metropolis of London transit findings that hydrogen buses couldn’t obtain full protection of anticipated routes whereas battery electrical buses might with easy addition of en route charging. The articles cite US Division of Power printed empirical information on the prices of delivering hydrogen to refueling stations.

One article dealt explicitly with renewable pure fuel, which three dues-paying members of CUTRIC, pure fuel distributors, are pushing laborious for, with one of many corporations, Enbridge, having an worker on the Board of Administrators of CUTRIC. That article cited public Enbridge information to point out that after 13 years of selling and creating renewable pure fuel, it represented 1% of Enbridge’s utility distribution quantity and 0.02% of its transmission of pure fuel, together with for export as LNG. It cited the Worldwide Council on Clear Transportation’s Fugitive Emissions of Unburnt Methane from Engines (FUMES) research and Shell’s public statements that the largest supply of high-global-warming-potential methane was from their methane-burning engines. It cited World Carbon Venture’s methane price range for anthropogenic biomethane emissions, the quantity capturable as renewable pure fuel. It cited peer reviewed analysis into the excessive leaking charges of anaerobic biodigesters.

One article assembled an entire set of hydrogen bus trials which have been tried over the previous 20 years. Overwhelmingly, the hydrogen buses had been deserted after the trial and the transit companies dedicated to 100% battery- and overhead tram-buses. All trials had been referenced again to stories from the transit companies or credible press websites. There are extra deserted hydrogen bus fleets than hydrogen bus fleets in operation as we speak.

One of many main articles assessing the $9 billion price ticket Brampton report I co-authored with Michael Raynor, Harvard PhD of enterprise administration, previously a managing director of sustainability and thought management with Deloitte, and writer and co-author of 4 books on technique and innovation, together with The Innovator’s Answer with Clayton Christensen. Our skilled evaluation of the Brampton report, with our overlapping and international experience in sustainability, transportation, technique, and consulting, discovered $1.5 billion in swings favoring a battery-electric-only fleet, dwarfing the $10 million distinction CUTRIC’s report claimed was materials:

• $1.1 billion for modeling that pushed hydrogen bus acquisition out up to now in time that discounting attributable to inflation decreased their prices by 40%
• $200 million further for grey hydrogen prices which can be consistent with actual world actuals for trucked in hydrogen
• $100 million much less for alternative of batteries in battery-electric buses as batteries in actual world fleets are lasting for much longer than projected and prices within the 2030s will drop considerably
• $25 million further in prices for hydrogen gas cell replacements as they’re lasting solely 3 years in actual world fleets
• $25 million further for carbon pricing for grey hydrogen which was completely excluded from the associated fee case by CUTRIC
• $10 million further for hydrogen storage and refueling services as CUTRIC had low-balled that price primarily based on international information, ignoring the prices of the hydrogen liquification parts they’d included.

All of that is to say that the 25,000 phrases or so printed over the previous three weeks had been nerdy, fact-based, and referenced credible sources.

After one of many first articles was printed, CUTRIC employed a PR company to handle the fallout. That’s truly an affordable selection, in the event that they rent the precise company for the precise causes. CUTRIC’s $9 billion price ticket report for the town of Brampton, which advisable a blended fleet of hydrogen and battery electrical buses, is so flawed that it’s an existential disaster for the group. If they’d accepted and internalized their failure and employed a PR company to information them to the suitable response, they might have handled the state of affairs appropriately and have an opportunity to be a helpful a part of the transit decarbonization in North America. A great PR company would have helped them try this.

I used to be made conscious of the hiring of the PR company as a result of a consultant emailed CleanTechnica to inform them and me that they might be responding. As a result of my motivations are first to make sure that Canada’s transit companies don’t waste money and time on the useless finish of hydrogen or renewable pure fuel buses, however as a substitute give attention to speedy deployment of battery electrical buses, and secondly to help CUTRIC to change into a helpful company, I supplied some steerage in a LinkedIn publish to CUTRIC’s Board of administrators.

An open letter to the Board of the Canadian City Transit Analysis and Innovation Consortium (CUTRIC-CRITUC).

As a delicate notice, CUTRIC is dealing with an existential risk attributable to its deeply flawed and indefensible report for the Metropolis of Brampton. This isn’t an issue with the messengers, it’s an issue inside CUTRIC. This requires Board consideration and settlement to the response.

Andrew S. at Discuss Store knowledgeable me and CleanTechnica that CUTRIC can be responding to my deep dives into the group’s stories on hydrogen for transit. Transparency in a disaster is the precise impulse.

The Brampton report is indefensible. Michael Raynor and I’ve recognized a possible swing within the vary of $1.5 billion over six completely different classes of issues in favor of a battery electric-only bus fleet. The CUTRIC report for Brampton advisable a blended hydrogen-electric fleet primarily based on a variance of solely $0.01 billion in a $9 billion estimate. The smallest of the swings we recognized had been that large.

Between us, Michael and I are specialists on sustainability, transportation decarbonization, strategic state of affairs growth and enterprise casing with international expertise and publications.

The report was fully silent on any confidence ranges within the estimates of the three eventualities, a disqualifying flaw when the distinction between eventualities was 0.1%. The report ignored the complexity of a fleet with three completely different applied sciences. The report overstated battery electrical prices and understated hydrogen systemic prices, primarily based on international empirical information which I supplied clear references for within the assessments.

The report ignored carbon avoidance advantages and prices. It didn’t worth carbon emissions associated to grey hydrogen or hydrogen generally beneath Canada’s carbon worth or social worth of carbon, when emissions are substantial. It didn’t do a cost-benefit evaluation, however solely a price evaluation.

Most problematically, it pushed all hydrogen buses up to now out in time that the annual 3.5% low cost fee eliminated 40% of their excessive prices.

CUTRIC has two decisions.

Choice 1: It may possibly attempt to defend the report, nit selecting at a number of the factors I’ve printed to solid doubt on the evaluation. That may be completely cheap if the report had been flawed and we had been attempting to triangulate on actuality. However the swing is $1.5 billion in favor of battery electrical solely and nit selecting isn’t going to eradicate that.

Choice 2: CUTRIC can deal with the Brampton report as a serious failure of its course of and governance. It may possibly settle for duty for it. It may possibly admit it didn’t ship good eventualities and recommendation to Brampton. It may possibly promise to make amends. It may possibly assert that it’s fixing governance and inside processes to keep away from making errors like this sooner or later. It may possibly comply with by and ship on these commitments.

The second choice is the proper one. CUTRIC is not any McKinsey, Deloitte or Roland Berger, consultancies for rent with a broad portfolio. They will downplay such a occasion. CUTRIC can’t.

I tagged all Board members and requested that they ensured different Board members noticed it, as all weren’t energetic on LinkedIn. I additionally supplied three extra detailed feedback offering particular suggestions on how they need to reshape their group transferring ahead.

1/3 On governance.

Having a fossil gas enterprise growth govt from Enbridge on the Board seems to be unhealthy, no matter anything. After they tried to have interaction on LinkedIn, they insisted on deflecting to renewable pure fuel relatively than take care of something of substance from the evaluation of the Brampton hydrogen research, Mississauga pilot or different pertinent points.

Having a gas cell vendor on the Board is deeply questionable whenever you don’t have a battery vendor on the Board. Ballard has misplaced $1.3 billion since 2001, a mean of $55 million a yr, by no means turning a revenue. They exist due to mindless trials like Mississauga’s and thrive on potential future income from unhealthy research just like the Brampton one.

Having three well-funded pure fuel distributors as members raises questions concerning how a lot cash they’re offering and wherein methods.

Keep away from even the looks of impropriety, is a standard manner of claiming this. CUTRIC isn’t.

I like to recommend having a frank debate about Board illustration. I like to recommend a frank debate about ring-fencing members with clear agendas, like Ballard, Fortis and Enbridge, to make sure that they’re restricted to fundamental membership dues.

2/3

On modeling.

CUTRIC has a mannequin, RoutΣ.i™. That it’s a mannequin, that it’s on model 3, that it has a bizarre mathematical sum image in it and is trademarked doesn’t make it proper. It simply means it’s a mannequin that’s been iterated, branded and trademarked.

I like to recommend that each one members of the Board and all pertinent workers of CUTRIC who haven’t performed so learn Erica Thompson‘s Escape from Mannequin Land: How Mathematical Fashions Can Lead Us Astray and What We Can Do About It, then think twice about and talk about at size the implications.

Within the e book, Thompson explores how mathematical fashions are more and more used to make choices in areas like finance, local weather coverage, and public well being, however highlights the constraints and dangers concerned when these fashions are taken too actually.

RoutΣ.i™ is a mannequin. As statistician George Field is usually quoted as saying, all fashions are improper, however some are helpful. RoutΣ.i™ could also be helpful in some circumstances, however per the outcomes from the Brampton research, it’s manner outdoors of that zone when used for the $9 billion report.

Unbiased judgement is required in software of RoutΣ.i™. This was insufficiently utilized within the $9 billion Brampton eventualities and report. The Board wants to repair this.

3/3

On technique.

Richard Rumelt’s Good Technique Dangerous Technique is the most effective e book on technique written. I say this as a very long time enterprise and know-how strategist with a worldwide profession who has learn virtually each e book on the topic.

All good methods have a kernel, per Rumelt. First diagnose the state of affairs. What is actually occurring right here? Be brutally trustworthy about actuality.

Second, set up a clarifying and simplifying coverage about actuality that permits the state of affairs to be turned to realize and challenges prevented.

Third, create self-reinforcing motion plans that align with each the fact and the coverage.

CUTRIC has failed on this. As a substitute of accepting empirical actuality — hydrogen for transit buses has failed globally for many years, is just not enhancing, isn’t delivering local weather wins and battery electrical is superior in each important manner — CUTRIC is avoiding the laborious actuality that hydrogen isn’t a viable answer. Additional, it’s avoiding the laborious actuality that CNG and RNG aren’t viable options.

The right coverage is that battery electrical buses are the precise reply and CUTRIC will focus its consideration on addressing the comparatively minor problems with overcoming operational and monetary challenges with them. CUTRIC fails on that.

Over the previous three weeks, I’ve had temporary interactions on LinkedIn with the Board member from Enbridge and the Board member from perpetual cash loser Ballard Energy. They couldn’t restrain themselves. As famous, the Enbridge consultant refused to speak in regards to the credibility-destroying, $1.5 billion off report for Brampton, however needed solely to speak about renewable pure fuel. I supplied my commonplace reply, not realizing who they had been initially, which was that renewable pure fuel was a critical local weather change drawback that wanted to be addressed, required as an industrial feedstock to decarbonize issues like methanol, and a rounding error in terms of transportation fuels. They tried insisting that I present them credible research, so the 4,400 phrase article on renewable pure fuel being precisely what I mentioned it was is a response to that.

The Ballard advertising govt who’s on Ballard’s Board tried to defend Ballard and gas cell transportation sooner or later. Another person created a pretend LinkedIn profile, claiming to be a Deloitte sustainable transportation advisor primarily based in Vancouver, however had zero instructional historical past, profession historical past or remark historical past outdoors of their try to defend hydrogen fleet failures, and weren’t findable outdoors of that one pretend account on LinkedIn. My assumption is that it was a really weak and amateurish effort by Ballard, who’re primarily based within the Vancouver space. Once I pointed this out in response to their remark, they deleted the pretend LinkedIn profile and the remark.

However, lastly, CUTRIC supplied an official response. Did they take my rigorously thought-about steerage on reply? Did they take care of the clear, numerically laid out $1.5 billion swing for battery-electric just for Brampton with referenced, numerically laid out justifications for why their report and state of affairs modeling was acceptable.

Sadly, no. The precise response? Listed here are some direct quotes:

•  “Ideology, offended rants and id politics”
• “offended on-line postings on LinkedIn”
• “one-sided approaches”
• “a slew of on-line hatefulness”
• “harmful slender mindedness”
• “makes an attempt at customized defamation and character assassination”

They do, in fact, establish me by title on this response, whereas I used to be cautious in my articles to not level fingers at people by title, simply roles and organizations.

There’s extra to CUTRIC’s response, posted as an article on LinkedIn entitled Setting the File Straight on the Strategic Position of Hydrogen in Canada’s Transit Future, printed beneath the profile of Dr. Josipa Petrunic, founder, president and CEO of CUTRIC on November eighth.

The arm-waving phrases “holistic view,” “vacuous arguments,” “energy of the human thoughts,” “broader framework of whole price of possession,” and extra seem within the response. At no level are any of them quantified in fact, and when the swing is $1.5 billion on a $9 billion state of affairs evaluation that claims to be a complete price of possession state of affairs, they’re meaningless.

The response does assert that “not even renewable pure fuel – is the best answer in all circumstances all the time,” when the printed 4,400 phrase piece destroying the premise of pure fuel as a scalable, low-carbon bus gas makes it clear that it’s by no means the answer any of the time.

Various time is spent speaking about battery-electric bus failures generally, with out offering any references.

I urge readers to learn Petrunic’s response. It’s a case research in how not to reply to the PR catastrophe that CUTRIC created for itself. I had this dialog with a recovering PR skilled in Brussels a few weeks in the past once I was there talking at a e book launch on European transmission technique and international aggressive with different audio system, together with a European member of parliament and the Belgian power minister. They agreed the steerage I’d supplied CUTRIC was textbook, and we mentioned the Tylenol tampering incidents of the early Eighties and the notice excellent response by the then CEO to instantly order a recall. Their response to CUTRIC’s response? SMDH, or shaking my damned head.

It’s comprehensible that Petrunic can be defensive of the mannequin which she created and has overseen three iterations of. It’s comprehensible that she can be defensive of CUTRIC. Nevertheless, that’s irrelevant to good governance of a transit assume tank and good outcomes from its stories and research.

CUTRIC has chosen its path, and sadly it’s the improper one. They’ve chosen to defend the indefensible and double down on inclusiveness of non-starter options corresponding to hydrogen and renewable pure fuel. Their modeling competence for scenario-based assessments corresponding to Brampton is clearly missing, and so they additionally clearly aren’t going to repair that. Their assumptions associated to present and future prices of each hydrogen and battery-electric buses are merely improper, and so they aren’t going to repair them.

For the foreseeable future, they should be thought-about to be a non-credible supplier of knowledge and assessments of transit. World specialists and thought leaders corresponding to David Cebon, the founder and director of the Centre for Sustainable Street Freight, professor of mechanical engineering and street knowledgeable at Cambridge, host of an annual, international convention for the previous decade associated to street transportation decarbonization, and founding member of the Hydrogen Science Coalition, agrees and has mentioned so publicly.

As a notice to paying members of CUTRIC and to Board members, it’s best to rethink your affiliation with the group. It’s not aligned with empirical actuality, is giving unhealthy steerage to transit companies, and when the hydrogen buses inevitably fail to ship dependable, cost-efficient, low-carbon service, CUTRIC shall be blamed within the ensuing finger pointing. No less than sufficient of CUTRIC’s governance is aligned with these unhealthy decisions to allow the formal response, so it’s unlikely that in case you are appalled by the state of affairs — as you need to be — that it is possible for you to to maneuver CUTRIC to an efficient place. There are different methods you’ll be able to serve efficient decarbonization of transit in Canada.

Till CUTRIC involves grips with its governance issues, course of failures and modeling incompetence, it ought to be ignored.