Dept. of Energy’s Cathy Zoi: Still Flouting the Law, Still Stonewalling the Investigation (PJM Exclusive)
From Tuesday’s Energy & Environment Daily story, “Lawmaker ownership in BP, Transocean, Halliburton stirs controversy” (subscription required):
At least two dozen lawmakers own investments in the three companies tied to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill as Congress investigates the disaster and considers reforms.
“This is a serious conflict of interest,” said Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, a watchdog group. “Only Congress exempts [itself] from this type of conflict of interest.
“They should not be making decisions that affect their own personal well-being,” Holman added.
Documents obtained from the Department of Energy and elsewhere appear to present a prima facie case of a senior Obama administration official, Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Cathy Zoi, participating substantially in decisions impacting companies in which she is heavily invested. This flouts ethics requirements and would be a violation of U.S. criminal law.
The Department of Energy has yet to provide additional requested documents regarding Zoi. Even more troubling, the designated ethics officer has so far refused to even acknowledge the request for records she is required by law to provide the public.
Ms. Zoi’s conflicts of interest have been reported previously at PJM. I also note her conflicts and involvement in questionable Obama administration activities in Chapter 3 of my new book (Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America). That chapter is titled “Van Jones Was No Accident: The Obama Administration’s Radical ‘Green’ Activists.”
In the financial disclosure filed by Zoi (former CEO of Al Gore’s pressure group Alliance for Climate Protection), Ms. Zoi attests that she and her husband have divested themselves of numerous utility and other energy-related company stock, for the obvious ethical and appearance problems of holding such assets while serving as a senior official in the Department of Energy.
Yet, as I have learned through independent sources, Ms. Zoi is not recusing herself broadly as would seem to be required. She remains deeply involved in developing and implementing policies that directly impact the interests of companies in which she and her husband maintain large holdings.
The Freedom Foundation of Minnesota has also kindly directed me to Zoi’s direct advocacy supporting one of these companies. This comes in the rather inescapable form of testimony to Congress, where she championed a major new program that would directly benefit the company for which her husband works — “green window” vendor Serious Materials. The Zois maintained ownership of 120,000 shares in Serious Materials — previously obscure, but now an administration favorite — as well as stock options.
In her financial disclosure, however, Zoi vowed to recuse herself from “[participating] personally and substantially in any particular matter that has a direct and predictable effect on the financial interest” on Serious Materials or the Swiss “smart meter” producer Landis+Gyr, without obtaining a waiver first.
This is as a condition of her employment with the Obama administration, but also to be in compliance with the criminal code.
Although the DoE’s ethics officer has still not responded, through other means I have obtained documents indicating Ms. Zoi has not recused herself from relevant policies. I await DoE’s documents on the matter.
Zoi’s congressional testimony, however, seems to make that point moot. In her testimony, Zoi advocates appropriation of millions of taxpayer dollars to schemes from which Serious Materials benefits both directly and indirectly. A major component of “green retrofitting” is replacing a building’s windows, which is Serious Materials’ business. In a posting on their website, Serious Materials specifically praises the “stimulus” bill and its largess, something promoted with equal zeal by Zoi in her testimony.
In fact, Zoi specifically calls out her role and her office’s efforts:
I consider it an honor to lead the administration’s efforts to advance and deploy energy efficiency and renewable energy solutions at this historic time.
…
As you know, one of the best opportunities for energy efficiency is right in our own homes. Home energy retrofits can be a win-win-win. Consumers can win by cutting their utility bills and saving money, while getting a healthier, more comfortable living space for their families. Communities, employers, and employees can win by creating good jobs in the retrofit industry and at manufacturers that produce energy efficiency products, spurring the local economy and putting people back to work. …
CONCLUSION
Retrofitting millions of American homes may truly transform energy consumption throughout the Nation. It may also put people to work in good, domestic jobs while saving Americans money and enabling significant contributions toward GHG emissions reduction targets.
Other sections of her testimony, titled “DEPARTMENTAL RETROFIT SUPPORT” and “CURRENT PROPOSALS,” tout other such wealth transfers that will directly and indirectly benefit Serious Materials through the Homestar program proposal — a proposal in which Zoi was given a driving role.
The legal prohibition against Zoi violating her vow of recusal, 18 U.S.C. § 208 “Acts affecting a personal financial interest,” states in pertinent part:
(a) Except as permitted by subsection (b) hereof, whoever, being an officer or employee of the executive branch of the United States Government … participates personally and substantially as a Government officer or employee, through decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or otherwise, in a judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter in which, to his knowledge, he, his spouse, minor child, general partner, organization in which he is serving as officer, director, trustee, general partner or employee, or any person or organization with whom he is negotiating or has any arrangement concerning prospective employment, has a financial interest –
Shall be subject to the penalties set forth in section 216 of this title.
The breadth of the prohibition reveals the statutory intent to ensure that even the remotest possible conflict is avoided by responsible officials, as do those stiff penalties for violating that provision. Under 18 U.S.C. § 216 “Penalties and injunctions,” the statute states:
(a) The punishment for an offense under section 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, or 209 of this title is the following:
(1) Whoever engages in the conduct constituting the offense shall be imprisoned for not more than one year or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both.
(2) Whoever willfully engages in the conduct constituting the offense shall be imprisoned for not more than five years or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both.
(b) The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who engages in conduct constituting an offense under section 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, or 209 of this title and, upon proof of such conduct by a preponderance of the evidence, such person shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 for each violation or the amount of compensation which the person received or offered for the prohibited conduct, whichever amount is greater. The imposition of a civil penalty under this subsection does not preclude any other criminal or civil statutory, common law, or administrative remedy, which is available by law to the United States or any other person.
(c) If the Attorney General has reason to believe that a person is engaging in conduct constituting an offense under section 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, or 209 of this title, the Attorney General may petition an appropriate United States district court for an order prohibiting that person from engaging in such conduct. The court may issue an order prohibiting that person from engaging in such conduct if the court finds that the conduct constitutes such an offense. The filing of a petition under this section does not preclude any other remedy which is available by law to the United States or any other person.
Regarding public access to any such waivers it provides, the DoE’s ethics officer has an obligation under 18 U.S.C. §208d and the Ethics in Government Act:
(d) (1) Upon request, a copy of any determination granting an exemption under subsection (b)(1) or (b)(3) shall be made available to the public by the agency granting the exemption pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 105 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.
My original request to that officer pursuant to this obligation, dated May 11, 2010, sought “copies of all relevant applications and determinations submitted by and/or provided to or denied Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Cathy Zoi.”
My May 14, 2010, FOIA request to the DoE sought:
1) Schedules, calendars and logs produced by or for Assistant Secretary Cathy Zoi;
2) Notes produced by Cathy Zoi;
3) Email, letters, and/or other communications sent or received by Cathy Zoi (including attachments) which reference, cite, allude or relate to:
a) “smart meters” or “smart metering”
b) Landis & Gyr
c) Serious Materials
d) Alliance for Climate Protection
e) Repower America
f) Climate Protection Action Fund
g) Spain
h) “green jobs”,
i) “ethics,” “recuse,” “recusal,” or
j) “FOIA” or the Freedom of Information Act; and
4) Travel records pertaining to Cathy Zoi.
DoE has yet to provide the documents under FOIA. More troubling, the designated ethics officer has also failed to even acknowledge my request for Zoi’s waivers requested and/or granted, or a followup reminding her of the request and her responsibilities under the Ethics in Government Act.
When we receive responsive documents, however DoE ultimately forces us to obtain them, they will shed light on the gravity of Ms. Zoi’s Serious Materials conflict and that arising out of her ownership of $500,000 in “founders shares” in Landis+Gyr on top of between $15,000 and $50,000 in ordinary shares.
For now, we await DoE compliance with the FOI Act, the Ethics in Government Act, and otherwise — as with the attorney general, now that we are publicizing this matter — 18 U.S.C, the criminal title of the United States Code.
I want to thank the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota for also directing me to certain information that I am owed but still have not been provided by DoE’s designated ethics officer.
“A major component of “green retrofitting” is replacing a building’s windows, which is Serious Materials’ business.”
Who knew Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson, written in 1946, was so prescient? Here is an excerpt about the broken window fallacy. http://freedomkeys.com/window.htm
excellent work…please maintain the same vigilance regardless who occupies the White house, it is imperative that this nonsense stop, every WH has these individuals that believe they can break the law, and unfortunately do so.
Another good article to post would be the recent decision to allow Futures trading on Movie Receipts…the CFTC recently approved the trading of Cinematic movie receipts which boggles the mind.
Will somebody, SOMEBODY, out there please tell me what the Department of Engergy does? It was created about 31 years ago under the Carter Administration to find alternate forms of energy. Since then, we’ve spent billions of dollars EACH YEAR on this Federal department and what do we have to show for it? I’m not seeing the cheap and powerful electric cars, the efficient and cost-effective solar panels, and the windmill technology that was supposed to solve all of our problems. So what are they doing??? What do they have to show for 31 years of trying to find alternate forms of energy?
Fire, them, ALL! Get rid of the entire department and let the private sector try to find a cost-efficient alternative to oil. If it’s out there, it will be discovered because whoever discovers it will make a fortune. And, if we don’t find it, invest in forms of energy we already have, such as nuclear energy or clean coal technology, which seems to be making at least some progress (certainly more progress than solar panels noboday wants).
Europe has probably the highest concentration of nuclear power plants in the world when compared to the actual population. I thought the Europeans were the original supporters of “Green” technology? If nuclear power is good for them, why isn’t it good for us? Please tell me what the Department of Energy does?
You have Way Too Much common sense. This is bureacracy we’re talking about.
Good question, Libertyship46. How would we do a cost-benefit analysis of the DOE? It was created to promote alternative energy technologies, more than 30 years ago. It certainly has cost a lot of of tax payer money. What are the benefits? Out of all the technologies that were supposed to spring out of its presumed good works, wind energy is about the only that became useful, but only in a very few areas where the wind is blowing hard enough to make the investment justifiable, and it produces a tiny fraction of our national energy needs, and it comes in bursts, depending on the vagaries of the wind, which have no particular reason to correlate with the bursts of electrical energy demand.
If we had economically viable means of high capacity energy storage, the unpredictability of wind energy could be mitigated, but we don’t, and we are not anywhere near the accomplishment such a convenience. Biofuels? Ethanol from corn is the only one that has been developed, and not because it is economically viable (it is not), but because it is government subsidized, which comes to the wrong side of the ledger, as far as cost-benefit analysis of the DOE goes. Another fumbled attempt of the DOE was the solar hot water fiasco (remember Florida in the 70s?). The government was offering all kinds of subsidies to all kinds of entreprises of doubtful technical capability and ethical sense, so the solar heating industry was plagued with a large number of bad actors, which gave the technology a bad reputation. In this particular case, the zeal of the DOE was in fact working against the technology, instead of promoting it! So we do have some useful solar hot water installations around, but not as many as we could if the reputation of the technology had not been torpedoed by mindless government intervention.
Why are petroleum derivatives so successful, economically? Because they address the most difficult of all issues in energy technology: Energy storage! The average car fuel tank capacity is around 15 gallons. At 6 pounds per gallon, that’s about 90 pounds of fuel, and that’s enough to propel the car for 400 miles or so. Nothing comes close! Try to store the same amount of energy with batteries? 90 pounds of weight does not even gets you started, and if, God forbids, you should consider the price (how dare you being such a cheapskate?), you will come to appreciate the wonders of petroleum derivatives. 90 pounds of fuel for 400 miles of personal transportation, how can you beat this with any high tech? You just can’t!
Oil is energy storage by serendipity. A few millions years ago, solar energy made plant growth possible, and the oil resulting from its buried rotting is available today, when we need it, and at a cost much lower than that of any comparable (capacity-wise) solar collection technology available today. The storage problem (over millions of years, how’s that, for long term storage?) was solved for us. All we have to do is find it, drill, and collect it! Have we lost our appreciation for divine providence?
Ms. Zoi and her acolytes are only trying to milk us for our gullibility regarding the utopia of “green” energy, which is only an abstract contrivance in relation to the present technological horizon. What can we do to stop them in their tracks? Simple: vote!
I agree with all of your points but one, the origin of oil. Oil is NOT a ‘fossil fuel’. It is a product of natural processes deep in the earth. The Soviets arrived at this conclusion more than fifty years ago based on research and logical thinking. Think about it. How did plants and dinosaurs end up thousands of feet under an ocean floor that is itself thousands of feet below the surface? Our oil reserves are contantly being replenished. Earth will never run out of oil. Both Big Oil and Big Green have vested interests in maintaining the idea that oil and gas are fossil based and finite in quantity. No, the problem is not lack of oil , but lack of political will to recover it. As long as Marxist Luddites are setting energy policy, the US will be hostage to hostile foreign interests.
Fairbanks99,
On the origin of oil, I acknowledge the merit of the “mineral” (as opposed to “organic”) theory of deep carbon, and hydrocarbons. In fact, we do know that volcanoes emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, and we also know that diamond formation requires very high pressures, so the idea of mineral carbon is quite reasonable.
At this time, the organic theory of deep carbon, and compounds thereof, is widely accepted, whereas the mineral theory is widely disputed. The deep burial of organic carbon relies on the assumption of great geological upheavals (and commensurate downheavals?). Similarly, it is widely accepted that there is no significant oil to be found beyond a depth of 25,000 feet, whereas the hypothesis of mineral carbon would clearly allow for it.
This is unfair, since there is no positive proof of either hypothesis. Perhaps some day we will drill well below 20,000 feet, and find vast reserves, thus confounding the pessimists in general, and those of the green persuasion in particular. This brings up the chicken-and-egg question of the origin of plants, because the plants, necessary for the formation of organically generated oil, could not have grown without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the first place, which gives one extra point to the mineral carbon idea. Perhaps we should not underestimate the importance of Carbon, ranking 6 on the periodic table.
So I guess I was one of the pessimists by basing my musings on deep carbon of organic origin. I should not have, considering that optimism is one of my pre-existing conditions.
Most of DoE’s budget has historically been for nuclear weapon design, production, and maintenance.
It also includes what was once the Federal Power Commission (now Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) and a new-ish function, the Energy Information Agency.
They spend WAY too little on developing new nuclear energy technologies and WAY too much on boondoogles like SmartGrid and green generation (wind and solar).
“Most of DoE’s budget has historically been for nuclear weapon design, production, and maintenance.” Shouldn’t that be in under the Pentagon and in the Pentagon’s budget? If they are, I hope they’re working on an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) missile. At least that could be useful to us in a pinch.
Like most Departments in the federal government it is designed to be a sinkhole for taxpayer dollars. Don’t worry about how much money they waste. It is their intentions that matter. They are trying their best. Unfortunately their best is at best pitiful.
Rules are for the little people.
Didn’t you mean “small people.”
What’s the statute of limitations on these laws, since it’s pretty obvious we will have to wait for a Republican administration before any of these crimes can be investigated.
Does anyone in the Obama administration respect and follow any of our laws? I am not calling for any kind of violence, but I think we have reached a point that we can not vote them out of office. It is really hardly tell who is a Democrat or who is a Republican. Now we have to fear our own government because they are surely not looking for our countries best interests. They sure are looking out for their own interest. What are we going to do the next time trouble breaks out in the world? America will not be there to help solve the problem because we lack manufacturing capacity and will not use our own natural resources, no fuel for our ships, planes and tanks. You know they use to say that flag [colors] would not run. Things have surely changed not only do our colors run but we bow to the rest of the world except for our allies, them we screw. What good is power if it is known that you will not use your power to stop the wrongs of the world. America is PCing its self right out of existence because we owe some money after all the help and money we have spent around the world. Who is going to help America? Nobody this is when the world will rip the flesh off our bones.
The short answer to the question posed in your first sentence: no.
I second the esteemed Mr. Bowman’s response: NO. Given the course the monsters – yes, monsters – in the White House set and the pedigree of their ideas, there is only one way this can end.
Shirley you wouldn’t deny this poor woman her riches, would you, you evil capitalist you? After all, she has hit the jackpot: a plum job with the Obama administration. Everything she’s doing is perfectly legal, just ask Blago. It’s the Chicago-on-the-Potomac Way.
The American people are a mere afterthought.
Be careful Mr. Horner, this is the Chicago Machine you’re going up against. I hope all your taxes are paid, your returns might just show up in Hillary’s office. I’m sure Holder will get to the bottom of this.
Cathy (“Where’s da money ?”) Zoi, climate Czarina Carole (“I love communism”) Browner, EPA head Lisa (“Climategate revelations change nothing”) Jackson and energy secretary Steven (“paint your roofs white”) Chu hardly inspire anything remotely resembling confidence in the handling of the oil gusher catastrophe.
Nor does Barack…
Shouting through one of those godawful horns
and
Punching holes in walls
Many Obama supporters claim that the President is not responsible for the Gulf oil spill and that is true. However it should be obvious, and I hope Republicans are listening, that when Obama announced last March the opening up of new offshore drilling it was done without any due diligence. A thorough safety review of existing offshore platforms should have been done prior to the Presidents announcement. That review would have brought the problems on the BP rig to light and corrective procedures could have been taken. Once again the lack of managerial experience and the concept that any idea the President has is, ipso facto, a good idea , has caused the greatest environmental disaster in US history. Should BP be held accountable? Of course. Should the President be held accountable for not protecting the public? The answer is just as obvious.
Can other people also send requests for this information to the DoE?
The Republicans have let crimes by members of previous administratioons slide for a hundred years That they expect toflout the law is not surprising.
And people accuse Øbama of being anti-Capitalist!
Don’t be ridiculous!
He can Bankrupt America AND make himself (& friends) ungodly rich!
So, shouldn’t most of the members of the House and Senate (and their staffs), Presidents Bush and Obama, Ben Bernanke et al be prosecuted for the real estate, bank, and other bailouts rescuing themselves from their own malinvestments? Or how about the 2008 (?)tax loophole that exempts forgiven debt on home lones from income taxation? For over two years now, Washington politicians have blatantly violated law after law to mitigate their own investment losses, or to pass them on to taxpayers, and no court yet has done anything to stop them. I wouldn’t be surprized to learn that many members of our various judiciaries are also benefitting from the bailouts.
Washington has become a totally criminal culture.
We have become a lawless nation devoid of respect, decorum and role models. Success has become getting ahead at the expense of others, lies, theft, lack of responsibility and treachery. What examples we have as “representatives of the people”. At 60, I have witnessed the demise of our Nation. I am beginning to think it may truly be too late.
And where is the MSM on this? If I thought it would do any good, I’d send it to every lib newspaper.
Leftists do not prosecute their own, because they have a different standard of right and wrong. If you are ideologically pure, support the cause, then they do not care what you do outside of that. See Chappaquitic for an example.
Do Pubbies also fail to prosecute? Only as regards to executive branch. If you allow that, then each change of administration would become a witch hunt. If that were the case, administrations would resort to any method to remain in power. ANY method.
And now we hear that Obama is sending something around $8 Billion in loans to Brazil for their deep water drilling. Can anybody explain the logic here?
Whether its a Democrat or a Republican, if they are in violation of the law, they need to be held to account. One of our problems is, when we have people with technical expertise, they have a conflict of interest in their employment by the federal government. When we have academic types in such positions, they lack the functional abilities to effectively deal with what most of us call everyday problems. Hence we have academic experts who cannot solve the Gulf oil spill problem, but we also have technical experts who cannot do so either.
On conflicts, unless someone appointed to a position has any moral fiber, they will find a way around restrictions. So far, it seems to me we have an administration full of people who have no moral character. The “green industry” will one day be recognized as just as despicable as the oil, natural gas, & coal industries are portrayed today. especially once many realize mush of the GHG assertions that have been made, cannot be supported by actual facts. Temperature readings are missing & cannot be recovered, temperature data used to determine surface temperatures, has been “manipulated” or adjusted, to reflect readings according to theory & not fact.
The “green industry” plants in our government are currently directing national policies & their plans are for themselves & their buddies to personally profit at the expense of average citizens, the world over. The list of supposed environmental disasters Gore warns all about that have now been shown to be false, grows every day. Yet the media who seem to be complicit in any & every liberal lie, have said little on the subject. I know one day it will all be exposed. Until then, those exposing such despicable tactics will face retribution. I suspect Mr. Horner, author of this article has already & expects even more.
We are being had, big time. Too bad we cannot find any to trust. Too bad we have so many in the federal government who have no character.
In Ontario, Canada, where the Liberal government is strongly supportive of ‘green’ energy, the situation has become even more bizarre. The Ontario Provincial Police are now showing up at the doors of people who have dared to question the viability of wind energy. Apparently, if you peacefully exercise your right to free speech, you are now known as a ‘resister’. Sad day for democracy.
http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/opp-calling-us-resisters-phone-calls-visits-background-checks-on-wco-members/
Dear sir:
Charles Zoi, the father of Cathy Zoi, the former DOE assistant secretary, rearended my car and refused to pay for my injuries. Instead, he used Cathy Zoi’s position and sent the police on me as though I was a terrorist so I would give up trying to sue him. He threatened me during the negotiations.
http://www.charleszoibrokemyback.com/
Sincerely,
Adam Malik
Pretty great post. I simply stumbled upon your blog and wished to say that I have truly loved surfing around your weblog posts. After all I will be subscribing to your rss feed and I hope you write once more soon!