Quick recap: for eight (of nine) of the specific, physical mechanisms in the ECM are meaningless¹. However, there is a possibility that the last mechanism - the charging of comets - somehow breathes meaning into the mechanisms for the formation and maintenance of the cometary coma, jets, and filaments.

The charging of comets.

This mechanism is succinctly described in the second bullet of the ECM, on page 5: "Comets follow their elongated paths within a weak electrical field centered on the Sun. In approaching the Sun, a charge imbalance develops between the nucleus and the higher voltage and charge density near the Sun", and elaborated on p6 "The comet spends most of its time far from the Sun, where the plasma voltage is low relative to the Sun. In remote regions, the comet moves slowly and its charge easily comes into balance with its surroundings. But as the comet falls toward the Sun, it begins to move at a furious speed through regions of increasing voltage. The comet's charge, developed in deep space, responds to the new environment by increasing internal electric polarization", p16 "The Sun's radial electric field is weak but constant with distance in interplanetary space. In a constant radial electric field, the voltage decreases linearly with distance. A comet on an elongated orbit spends most of its time far from the Sun and acquires a charge in balance with the voltage at that distance. But when a comet speeds inward for a quick spin around the Sun, the voltage of the comet becomes increasingly out of balance with that nearer the Sun", and p 18 "The long-period comets spend a longer time in a region of lower plasma potential than the short-period comets. Consequently, their voltage difference on their approach to the Sun will be higher".

There is also an external reference for this mechanism: "In the 1960s, engineer Ralph Juergens [...] proposed that the Sun is a glow discharge, the center of an electric field extending to the heliopause. "

In a nutshell, a comet's motion through the Sun's weak, constant radial electric (or electrical, the document uses both words) field causes the charging of the comet. The external reference at least admits the possibility that this mechanism may not be as meaningless as the other eight examined so far. Further, to the extent that at least some of the other mechanisms require an electric (or electrical) field, at least one aspect of them may not be meaningless¹.

Assume, for now, that sufficient consistency between the electric (or electrical) field in the ECM and in Juergens' proposal can be demonstrated. Would there then be sufficient meaning for an unbiased, objective reader to conclude there is at least the basis for a legitimate, scientific idea presented in the 21 page PDF?

Unfortunately not.

Why? Because the mechanism is poorly quantified. On the plus side, the use of terms such as "radial" (centred on the Sun), "constant with distance", "decreases linearly with distance" nails things down to within a constant (or several constants, or zero points); in the middle is the nature of comets' orbits (though see below); on the negative side, the relationship between a comet's speed (relative to the Sun, in a radial direction?), how fast it "comes into balance with its surroundings", and the charge it acquires at any point in its orbit is not described. By implication, a comet's charge imbalance is lessened by an aspect of one or more of the other mechanisms (electric(al) arc discharge, (other) plasma discharge, electrostatic cleaning), but whether there are other mechanisms, what the relative importance of these three is, and how any vary with any other factor (speed, radial distance, comet size, comet composition, ...) is not even hinted at.

At first glance, it would seem that the nature of comets' orbits should be well-constrained; we might assume they're just Keplerian. However, that would an unwarranted assumption. Not only does the document not say anything about the orbits (except in very vague terms), but the ECM is about charged bodies moving in an electric field!

So, the only sound conclusion is that this mechanism is so poorly characterised as to be essentially meaningless ... unless, of course, Juergens' proposal nails it down².

Next: perhaps the ECM mechanisms are meaningless; what about the predictions (p10)? And can we say anything more about the ECM by virtue of the fact that it is a poster at an IEEE meeting?

¹ Remember that here I am examining only the ECM as presented on page 5 (and p16) of the PDF, and references to it, sans the bit about origins. So, for example, the reference to Alfvén's ideas on CMEs is beyond scope.

² Note that we would have to go looking for that proposal; the PDF doesn't tell us where to find it!