President Barack Obama's running mate Joe Biden is fond of saying
"show me your budget, and I'll show you where your priorities are."
Media outlets have already begun picking through the wording of the
president's $3.78 trillion 2014 budget to see what is being prioritized
at a time when seemingly every cent of spending results in overheated
press conferences on Capitol Hill and the threat of some catastrophic
government shut-down.
When you look at just one area of
the budget, massive at it is, it gets a little easier. So let's see
what the budget has to say about energy policy. Here are some
highlights:
The budget provides $28.4 billion in discretionary funds for the Department of Energy (DOE)
— an 8 percent increase about the 2012 enacted level. This is meant to
position the U.S. as a leader in clean energy while boosting energy
security.
The budget proposes for $615 million to promote wind, solar, geothermal and hydrokinetic energy.
The
document calls for a "Race to the Top" program to promote grid
modernization and energy efficiency, which is something Obama mentioned
in his most recent State of the Union. The awards would support
state-level policies that increase energy productivity and modernize the
grid — with the goal of cutting energy waste in half over the next two
decades.
Also in the budget is more than $5 billion —
5.7 percent more than 2012 — for energy sector research and development.
The need to continue R&D even in difficult economic times is
something the present has said repeatedly, so finding it in the budget
is perhaps not unexpected.
About $153 million in research and development funding is proposed for grid modernization, cybersecurity
and energy control systems. Advances in the technologies and tools for
improved clean energy integration onto the grid through an $80 million
coordinated effort within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
Part of this tranche would include $20 million for a new Electricity Systems Hub, which would explore the interface between transmission
and distribution systems in the smart grid context. The budget would
support hardware and modeling R&D to improve the integration of
renewable energy into the distribution grid, distributed generation,
electric vehicles and residential/commercial buildings loads behind the
meter.
About
$575 million will be invested in alternative vehicle technologies,
according to this budget — presumably this goes further than electric
vehicles and charging stations, but likely includes both. There is also
mention of a $2 billion of proposed mandatory funding for an Energy
Security Trust (also mentioned in the State of the Union), intended to
transition cars, trucks and other vehicles off of oil (biofuels,
hydrogen, natural gas and electricity are specifically mentioned).
The
budget provides $735 million for the Office of Nuclear Energy, which
includes funding for small modular reactors. There is also $379 million
for the Advanced Research Projects Agency — Energy, or ARPA-E, which is
the agency that investigates "long game" technologies.
Carbon
capture and storage is mentioned in the budget breakdown, with $421
million for the Fossil Energy Research and Development program,
including an investment of $266 million in fossil energy R&D
primarily dedicated to carbon capture.
The budget
eliminates $4 billion yearly in "unnecessary subsidies to the oil, gas
and coal industries;" restructuring the plutonium disposition program;
cutting low performing programs; and using existing facilities and
infrastructure.
In another energy efficiency measure,
the budget calls for funding of the president's Better Buildings
Initiative, which is meant to help consumers and businesses save money
through energy efficiency.
There is $16 million — up from $10 million — in enhanced energy infrastructure security and energy recovery capabilities.
Separate
from the DOE funding, the Environmental Protection Agency budget is
about $296 million lower than the 2012 level, with the president's
budget allocating the EPA $8.2 billion.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Thursday, November 15, 2012
What will it take to get energy on the agenda?
The elections are over, the White House successfully defended by the incumbent and neither the House nor the Senate changed hands. Now reporters on the Hill and in the White House Press Corps are asking their questions about what will be on the agenda for the next four years.
Those of us in the utility and energy sector are wondering — and I hope we're not the only ones — whether energy policy will have any space at all on that agenda.
If you want to know what will be on the agenda, look at what the winner ran on. President Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney's campaign was mostly about taxes, the economy and the role of government — although there were frequent detours into the realms of foreign policy, education and immigration reform.
Energy, when it was mentioned at all, was colored in extremely broad strokes. National politicians seldom get much more specific than the standard lines about energy independence, and the latest buzz phrase appears to be advocating for an "all of the above" energy strategy.
Talking in broad strokes, though, never seems to produce a broad-based, holistic energy strategy that addresses how we generate, deliver and consume electricity. If we want to address the problems we face in this area, we have to get specific.
A complete energy policy would need to take a stand on what our generation mix would be. Where would we get our power from, beginning with what we have work with in the first place? It would need to address the fact that we still use an energy delivery system that Thomas Edison would recognize, were he alive today. How can we improve on that? Finally, our energy policy would need to make investments in the future — not in a way that attempts to pick winners or losers, but instead makes educated guesses at where we could get the most bang for our buck from promising new research areas.
Those of us in the energy arena already know what we need to do, but our friends (if any) in the political arena would tell us it's a matter of political will and ability. As I said before, if you want to know what will be on the agenda, look at who won, consider how much they won by and remember what they talked about before they won.
In this case, Obama won. Again, and by more than 120 electoral votes and all but one or two of the swing states. And he won without talking about energy frequently or specifically. Apparently he (and voters) felt he didn't need to address that subject in any great depth. When his opponent, Gov. Romney, mentioned energy, it was to express his fondness for coal and nuclear energy, or else to name-check Solyndra. There isn't much sign from exit polls that people who didn't vote for Obama made that choice because he wasn't talking about energy issues.
In all likelihood, this means budget battles and possibly immigration reform will probably take the front seat for the next couple of years as Congress handles the fiscal cliff and Republicans and Democrats attempt to find a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants that everyone can live with. Or maybe I'm being too optimistic. One thing I'm less optimistic of is politicians spending much time on energy.
So what would it take? I'm trying to envision a scenario in which energy becomes the No. 1 issue in American politics and coming up short. We just had a major blackout scenario with Superstorm Sandy and that didn't do it. Neither did the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. Nothing seems to get people talking about energy, even though this is such an exciting time to be talking about it.
As I was working on this blog, I saw a report that White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters, "We would never propose a carbon tax." It wasn't too long ago that a cap-and-trade bill was working its way through Congress — it passed the House before languishing and dying in the Senate. Cap and trade, itself a Republican idea originally, lost its luster in the highly partisan, budget-preoccupied atmosphere of Obama's first term.
Are there still some brief flickers of hope for a dialogue on energy? Well, I thought it was telling that in his election night address in Chicago, President Obama made a pretty direct reference to climate change — no doubt still thinking about the previous week's storm recovery effort along the East Coast. Although few are willing to point to a single storm and say, "This is climate change," it's hard to watch a storm of Sandy's sheer scale unfold without wondering if this kind of weather is here to stay.
In the end, I'm not sure what it will take to get energy back on the agenda. There are plenty of worthy approaches and plenty of policies Congress, the EPA and others could look into, but it feels like the will just isn't there, or else it's gone anemic in the past few years.
Those of us in the utility and energy sector are wondering — and I hope we're not the only ones — whether energy policy will have any space at all on that agenda.
If you want to know what will be on the agenda, look at what the winner ran on. President Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney's campaign was mostly about taxes, the economy and the role of government — although there were frequent detours into the realms of foreign policy, education and immigration reform.
Energy, when it was mentioned at all, was colored in extremely broad strokes. National politicians seldom get much more specific than the standard lines about energy independence, and the latest buzz phrase appears to be advocating for an "all of the above" energy strategy.
Talking in broad strokes, though, never seems to produce a broad-based, holistic energy strategy that addresses how we generate, deliver and consume electricity. If we want to address the problems we face in this area, we have to get specific.
A complete energy policy would need to take a stand on what our generation mix would be. Where would we get our power from, beginning with what we have work with in the first place? It would need to address the fact that we still use an energy delivery system that Thomas Edison would recognize, were he alive today. How can we improve on that? Finally, our energy policy would need to make investments in the future — not in a way that attempts to pick winners or losers, but instead makes educated guesses at where we could get the most bang for our buck from promising new research areas.
Those of us in the energy arena already know what we need to do, but our friends (if any) in the political arena would tell us it's a matter of political will and ability. As I said before, if you want to know what will be on the agenda, look at who won, consider how much they won by and remember what they talked about before they won.
In this case, Obama won. Again, and by more than 120 electoral votes and all but one or two of the swing states. And he won without talking about energy frequently or specifically. Apparently he (and voters) felt he didn't need to address that subject in any great depth. When his opponent, Gov. Romney, mentioned energy, it was to express his fondness for coal and nuclear energy, or else to name-check Solyndra. There isn't much sign from exit polls that people who didn't vote for Obama made that choice because he wasn't talking about energy issues.
In all likelihood, this means budget battles and possibly immigration reform will probably take the front seat for the next couple of years as Congress handles the fiscal cliff and Republicans and Democrats attempt to find a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants that everyone can live with. Or maybe I'm being too optimistic. One thing I'm less optimistic of is politicians spending much time on energy.
So what would it take? I'm trying to envision a scenario in which energy becomes the No. 1 issue in American politics and coming up short. We just had a major blackout scenario with Superstorm Sandy and that didn't do it. Neither did the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. Nothing seems to get people talking about energy, even though this is such an exciting time to be talking about it.
As I was working on this blog, I saw a report that White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters, "We would never propose a carbon tax." It wasn't too long ago that a cap-and-trade bill was working its way through Congress — it passed the House before languishing and dying in the Senate. Cap and trade, itself a Republican idea originally, lost its luster in the highly partisan, budget-preoccupied atmosphere of Obama's first term.
Are there still some brief flickers of hope for a dialogue on energy? Well, I thought it was telling that in his election night address in Chicago, President Obama made a pretty direct reference to climate change — no doubt still thinking about the previous week's storm recovery effort along the East Coast. Although few are willing to point to a single storm and say, "This is climate change," it's hard to watch a storm of Sandy's sheer scale unfold without wondering if this kind of weather is here to stay.
In the end, I'm not sure what it will take to get energy back on the agenda. There are plenty of worthy approaches and plenty of policies Congress, the EPA and others could look into, but it feels like the will just isn't there, or else it's gone anemic in the past few years.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Obama, Romney talk about energy, with energy
President Barack Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney faced off at New York
State's Hofstra University October 17 with polls tightening and each
man eager to make their appeals to the country's remaining undecided
voters still available in the 2012 election's last few weeks.
While the first presidential debate saw little mention of energy as an issue — with Romney briefly mentioning government subsidies to green energy firms, like the bankrupt Solyndra — this debate had the candidates talking energy both frequently and early on in the proceedings.
Last night, a member of the town hall audience broached the topic of energy costs with a question about gas prices and plans to lower them. He said Obama's secretary of Energy, Stephen Chu, has said it is not the policy of the DOE to help lower gas prices, and asked Obama directly if he agreed. Obama responded to this question by talking about the production of oil, coal and natural gas.
The president said that while production of fossil fuels is up, the country must also invest in wind power, solar power and biofuels, as well as make vehicles that burn less gas.
On natural gas, Obama said, "We've got potentially 600,000 jobs and 100 years worth of energy right beneath our feet with natural gas. And we can do it in an environmentally friendly way, but we have got to continue to figure out how we can get efficient energy because that is how we can reduce demand and that is what's going to keep gas prices lower."
Both candidates tried to claim the mantle of an "all of the above" energy policy, which has become a bit of a catchphrase for both parties of late. Obama said Romney's plan is not all-of-the-above because he would let "oil companies write the energy policies."
"So he's got the oil and gas part, but not the clean energy part," Obama said. "China and Germany are making these clean energy investments, and I'm not going to cede those jobs of the future to those countries. I expect those new energy sources to be built right here in the United States."
"I want to make sure we use our oil, our coal, our gas, our nuclear, our renewables. I believe very much in our renewable capabilities. Ethanol, wind, solar will all be an important part of our energy mix," Romney said. "But what we don't need is to have the president keeping us from taking advantage of oil, coal and gas."
Building a coal-fired power plant in specific, Romney said, is nearly impossible to do under current regulations — hinting that this is by the design of Obama's EPA.
Obama countered this charge by saying that as governor of Massachusetts, Romney "took great pride" in shutting down a coal plant.
"You stood in front of a coal plant and pointed at it and said, 'This plant kills,'" Obama said.
According to the Tampa Bay Times' PolitiFact, the plant Obama referred to was the Salem Harbor Power Station, which was then owned by Pacific Gas & Electric. The four-unit coal-burning plant had been ranked as one of the "Filthy Five" plants by an environmental group and as the newly elected governor, Romney decided not to support a plan to grant the plant an extension to comply with emissions rules. At a videotaped press conference, Romney said, "I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant — that plant kills people."
Obama went on to say that his administration invested in "clean coal" technology.
CNN reporter Candy Crowley, who served as moderator, asked whether the price of gas be meaningfully addressed by an American president at all, or are per-gallon prices hovering around $4 the "new normal," Crowley wanted to know.
The subject went back to oil production, where Romney said production on public land had dropped by 14 percent this year, which sparked a testy exchange and back-and-forth denials.
Apparently both men decided that the sure-fire winner was talking about gas prices — with Obama defending his record and talking about production, and Romney in turn saying the strategy hasn't worked because of the price you pay at the pump.
While there was occasional name-checking of wind or solar, this debate's energy talk was almost limited to fossil fuels, though. The energy we feed into the grid by burning fossil fuels wasn't talked about much by either candidate, and nobody said a word about energy infrastructure, grid cybersecurity or the smart grid.
It wasn't too much to hope for either. I have heard this president say the words "smart grid" before, even though many voters might not yet know what it means. Romney, I'm sure, is aware of these technologies too, having helped manage the finances of high-tech companies in his private asset management days.
I wish "energy" in the context of a political debate could occasionally mean something more than "gas prices" though.
It was a town hall style debate, and time was limited however. According to at least one report, Crowley had a question on climate change in her pocket that she never got around to asking. That could have potentially yielded some thought-provoking statements. Maybe if there had been a bit less crosstalk on the floor, she could have gotten to it.
There is still one more debate, but it will primarily concern foreign policy. This debate, then, was probably the last time energy policy could conceivably have been brought up in any great detail — at least with both the president and the governor in the same room.
If you want to know where these candidates stand on energy issues, it looks like you're going to have to do a little digging.
For more on Romney and Obama's respective energy plans, see Jennifer Van Burkleo's story from the September-October issue of Electric Light & Power magazine.
And please, don't forget to vote — Nov. 6, or earlier if your state allows it.
While the first presidential debate saw little mention of energy as an issue — with Romney briefly mentioning government subsidies to green energy firms, like the bankrupt Solyndra — this debate had the candidates talking energy both frequently and early on in the proceedings.
Last night, a member of the town hall audience broached the topic of energy costs with a question about gas prices and plans to lower them. He said Obama's secretary of Energy, Stephen Chu, has said it is not the policy of the DOE to help lower gas prices, and asked Obama directly if he agreed. Obama responded to this question by talking about the production of oil, coal and natural gas.
The president said that while production of fossil fuels is up, the country must also invest in wind power, solar power and biofuels, as well as make vehicles that burn less gas.
On natural gas, Obama said, "We've got potentially 600,000 jobs and 100 years worth of energy right beneath our feet with natural gas. And we can do it in an environmentally friendly way, but we have got to continue to figure out how we can get efficient energy because that is how we can reduce demand and that is what's going to keep gas prices lower."
Both candidates tried to claim the mantle of an "all of the above" energy policy, which has become a bit of a catchphrase for both parties of late. Obama said Romney's plan is not all-of-the-above because he would let "oil companies write the energy policies."
"So he's got the oil and gas part, but not the clean energy part," Obama said. "China and Germany are making these clean energy investments, and I'm not going to cede those jobs of the future to those countries. I expect those new energy sources to be built right here in the United States."
"I want to make sure we use our oil, our coal, our gas, our nuclear, our renewables. I believe very much in our renewable capabilities. Ethanol, wind, solar will all be an important part of our energy mix," Romney said. "But what we don't need is to have the president keeping us from taking advantage of oil, coal and gas."
Building a coal-fired power plant in specific, Romney said, is nearly impossible to do under current regulations — hinting that this is by the design of Obama's EPA.
Obama countered this charge by saying that as governor of Massachusetts, Romney "took great pride" in shutting down a coal plant.
"You stood in front of a coal plant and pointed at it and said, 'This plant kills,'" Obama said.
According to the Tampa Bay Times' PolitiFact, the plant Obama referred to was the Salem Harbor Power Station, which was then owned by Pacific Gas & Electric. The four-unit coal-burning plant had been ranked as one of the "Filthy Five" plants by an environmental group and as the newly elected governor, Romney decided not to support a plan to grant the plant an extension to comply with emissions rules. At a videotaped press conference, Romney said, "I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant — that plant kills people."
Obama went on to say that his administration invested in "clean coal" technology.
CNN reporter Candy Crowley, who served as moderator, asked whether the price of gas be meaningfully addressed by an American president at all, or are per-gallon prices hovering around $4 the "new normal," Crowley wanted to know.
The subject went back to oil production, where Romney said production on public land had dropped by 14 percent this year, which sparked a testy exchange and back-and-forth denials.
Apparently both men decided that the sure-fire winner was talking about gas prices — with Obama defending his record and talking about production, and Romney in turn saying the strategy hasn't worked because of the price you pay at the pump.
While there was occasional name-checking of wind or solar, this debate's energy talk was almost limited to fossil fuels, though. The energy we feed into the grid by burning fossil fuels wasn't talked about much by either candidate, and nobody said a word about energy infrastructure, grid cybersecurity or the smart grid.
It wasn't too much to hope for either. I have heard this president say the words "smart grid" before, even though many voters might not yet know what it means. Romney, I'm sure, is aware of these technologies too, having helped manage the finances of high-tech companies in his private asset management days.
I wish "energy" in the context of a political debate could occasionally mean something more than "gas prices" though.
It was a town hall style debate, and time was limited however. According to at least one report, Crowley had a question on climate change in her pocket that she never got around to asking. That could have potentially yielded some thought-provoking statements. Maybe if there had been a bit less crosstalk on the floor, she could have gotten to it.
There is still one more debate, but it will primarily concern foreign policy. This debate, then, was probably the last time energy policy could conceivably have been brought up in any great detail — at least with both the president and the governor in the same room.
If you want to know where these candidates stand on energy issues, it looks like you're going to have to do a little digging.
For more on Romney and Obama's respective energy plans, see Jennifer Van Burkleo's story from the September-October issue of Electric Light & Power magazine.
And please, don't forget to vote — Nov. 6, or earlier if your state allows it.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Utilities, elections, government and grading the stimulus
With about 80 days left to go, the 2012 presidential election is shaping up to be a question of how much the government can or should get involved with the economy, with business and in people's individual lives. Both President Barack Obama and his challenger Gov. Mitt Romney have their own ideas about the role of government, but in the utility industry people demand results.
One of the biggest things the government did for the power industry since the 2008 election is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. While not always popular with voters, the so-called "stimulus act" allotted a fair chunk of change to the industry, and it's fair to say there are many infrastructure projects that might not have gotten off the ground without that money.
If the utility industry were to give the Recovery Act a three-year report card, it might look something like the points shared with me by Ron Chebra, who is vice president of management and operations consulting with DNV KEMA.
Looking back over the past three years, Chebra said, it's helpful to remember what the point of it all was. The Recovery Act was intended to stabilize state and local government budgets, invest in technological advances, assist those impacted by the recession, boost infrastructure and — most importantly — create jobs and promote recovery.
The Recovery Act included the Smart Grid Investment Grants (SGIG), which were supposed to "accelerate the modernization of the nation's electric transmission and distribution systems and promote investments in smart grid technologies, tools and techniques that increase flexibility, functionality, interoperability, cyber-security, situational awareness and operational efficiency."
In Chebra's analysis, "It is my belief that many energy jobs were created as a result of the stimulus. The greatest areas of positive impact have been in the manufacturing and installation sectors where the rush to build and install millions of smart meters formed a great need for these resources."
But the question that only time can answer is how long will these jobs last? Will they plateaued along with the end of their subsidy, or will they get the ball rolling on something lasting?
"Certainly, with the step change that stimulus created, there seems to be some sluggishness in new U.S. smart meter orders," he writes.
When it comes to helping those affected by the recession and the worldwide credit crunch, the stimulus "definitely" helped spur growth in domestic manufacturing, which had been brought to a near standstill and was at risk of being out-competed by businesses in Europe and China, among others.
Technology innovation, another goal of the act, were accelerated by the flow of money that went into research and development, he said.
"For some time, some of the investments made in the electric infrastructure were directed toward meeting the increasing need for supply; through the initiatives funded by these grants, many of the investments focused on the delivery and demand side," he said.
How to get customers involved and educated when it comes to smart meters has always been a key aspect of smart grid rollouts, and "As we await the tally of realized net benefits of these investments, the trends now show that many of these programs have resulted in greater customer awareness and participation in demand management efforts that will result in sustainable long-term economic benefits."
Some of the bad news that might result from the Department of Energy-funded projects include stumbles in customer engagement. Because of the smart meter rollouts made possible in places like California, there are now grassroots citizens groups advocating against the use of smart meters and their efforts have led to opt-outs.
There's also the problem of utility "haves" and "have-nots." So in the wake of the stimulus, there's now a gap between those whose projects got government funding and those who didn't.
Another problem is the creation of "islands" of automation in the rush to be shovel-ready. These islands now need to be integrated to achieve the benefits anticipated in the business cases, he said.
One of the biggest things the government did for the power industry since the 2008 election is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. While not always popular with voters, the so-called "stimulus act" allotted a fair chunk of change to the industry, and it's fair to say there are many infrastructure projects that might not have gotten off the ground without that money.
If the utility industry were to give the Recovery Act a three-year report card, it might look something like the points shared with me by Ron Chebra, who is vice president of management and operations consulting with DNV KEMA.
Looking back over the past three years, Chebra said, it's helpful to remember what the point of it all was. The Recovery Act was intended to stabilize state and local government budgets, invest in technological advances, assist those impacted by the recession, boost infrastructure and — most importantly — create jobs and promote recovery.
The Recovery Act included the Smart Grid Investment Grants (SGIG), which were supposed to "accelerate the modernization of the nation's electric transmission and distribution systems and promote investments in smart grid technologies, tools and techniques that increase flexibility, functionality, interoperability, cyber-security, situational awareness and operational efficiency."
In Chebra's analysis, "It is my belief that many energy jobs were created as a result of the stimulus. The greatest areas of positive impact have been in the manufacturing and installation sectors where the rush to build and install millions of smart meters formed a great need for these resources."
But the question that only time can answer is how long will these jobs last? Will they plateaued along with the end of their subsidy, or will they get the ball rolling on something lasting?
"Certainly, with the step change that stimulus created, there seems to be some sluggishness in new U.S. smart meter orders," he writes.
When it comes to helping those affected by the recession and the worldwide credit crunch, the stimulus "definitely" helped spur growth in domestic manufacturing, which had been brought to a near standstill and was at risk of being out-competed by businesses in Europe and China, among others.
Technology innovation, another goal of the act, were accelerated by the flow of money that went into research and development, he said.
"For some time, some of the investments made in the electric infrastructure were directed toward meeting the increasing need for supply; through the initiatives funded by these grants, many of the investments focused on the delivery and demand side," he said.
How to get customers involved and educated when it comes to smart meters has always been a key aspect of smart grid rollouts, and "As we await the tally of realized net benefits of these investments, the trends now show that many of these programs have resulted in greater customer awareness and participation in demand management efforts that will result in sustainable long-term economic benefits."
Some of the bad news that might result from the Department of Energy-funded projects include stumbles in customer engagement. Because of the smart meter rollouts made possible in places like California, there are now grassroots citizens groups advocating against the use of smart meters and their efforts have led to opt-outs.
There's also the problem of utility "haves" and "have-nots." So in the wake of the stimulus, there's now a gap between those whose projects got government funding and those who didn't.
Another problem is the creation of "islands" of automation in the rush to be shovel-ready. These islands now need to be integrated to achieve the benefits anticipated in the business cases, he said.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
No, Obama is not paying your utility bills
By Jeff Postelwait
Online Editor
Presidents promise a lot, particularly in an election year, but President Barack Obama is apparently getting credit for delivering on a promise he never made — namely, paying people's utility bills.
Major utilities like PG&E, Westar Energy and SDG&E have posted some announcements in recent days to alert customers of a "nationwide scam." It seems imposter utility workers are going door to door with promises that the president has started a program by which customers can obtain credits to pay for their utility bills. The scammers, as usual, are sniffing around for people's personal information, like Social Security numbers and the like, in the furtherance of other scams.
Obviously, utilities don't want their good names tarnished by some phishing fiasco, so several of them are doing what they can to spread the word that there is no such government program, and that you should always confirm that someone claiming to be a utility worker is legitimate before handing over any personal information.
Also par for the course when it comes to con artists, the main targets appear to be elderly people. The scammers, according to reports, make their contacts door to door, by phone or online and ask for the customer's information. After they get that, they give the customer a fake bank routing number (not unlike the notorious "Nigerian prince" identity theft scams) where the customer can make payments. They are promised credit on that account, but the payment makes its way to the scammer's pockets, and not to any utility company.
So... basically be on your guard, and beware of phony utility workers bearing gifts. It's not a bad idea in an election year to take everything with a larger than usual grain of salt.
Online Editor
Presidents promise a lot, particularly in an election year, but President Barack Obama is apparently getting credit for delivering on a promise he never made — namely, paying people's utility bills.
Major utilities like PG&E, Westar Energy and SDG&E have posted some announcements in recent days to alert customers of a "nationwide scam." It seems imposter utility workers are going door to door with promises that the president has started a program by which customers can obtain credits to pay for their utility bills. The scammers, as usual, are sniffing around for people's personal information, like Social Security numbers and the like, in the furtherance of other scams.
Obviously, utilities don't want their good names tarnished by some phishing fiasco, so several of them are doing what they can to spread the word that there is no such government program, and that you should always confirm that someone claiming to be a utility worker is legitimate before handing over any personal information.
Also par for the course when it comes to con artists, the main targets appear to be elderly people. The scammers, according to reports, make their contacts door to door, by phone or online and ask for the customer's information. After they get that, they give the customer a fake bank routing number (not unlike the notorious "Nigerian prince" identity theft scams) where the customer can make payments. They are promised credit on that account, but the payment makes its way to the scammer's pockets, and not to any utility company.
So... basically be on your guard, and beware of phony utility workers bearing gifts. It's not a bad idea in an election year to take everything with a larger than usual grain of salt.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
What's the Green Button?
By Jeff Postelwait,
Online Editor
The Internet is buzzing this morning as utilities and energy companies gush their support of an industry-led, White House-spurred energy efficiency program called the "Green Button."
I remember posting about the Green Button first when San Diego Gas & Electric shortly before DistribuTECH 2012 came to San Diego. Here's an outside link to SDG&E's version of the Green Button on their customer website.
But now I'm seeing around a dozen different companies, each with their own announcements either of support of or participation in this program.
Itron, Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., PECO, American Electric Power, Reliant Energy, Oracle, Silver Spring Networks, OPower, Efficiency 2.0, Schneider Electric, FirstFuel were just a few I could find as of press time. These are some of the utilities who will make Green Button functionality available to customers, or else provide some kind of logistical support for the effort.
Announcements of supporting utilities and companies are still going out. A few other major participants include Centerpoint Energy, Glendale Power & Light, Pepco Holdings, Southern California Edison, Dominion Virginia Power, Austin Energy, Commonwealth Edison and PG&E. Click here for a full list of companies that are supporting the Green Button.
What these utilities all seem to have in common is they've each had some kind of large smart meter deployment in their histories, which makes me wonder if those meters might be a part of some new, thus-unmentioned functionality for the Green Button program at some point in the future. Or maybe it's just that these companies want to be seen as both "smart" and "green."
Reports are that this initiative is a response to a White House challenge to American utilities to engage and empower consumers to help them save energy and money while also driving innovation in energy efficiency.
In fact, President Barack Obama, currently on a mini-tour of the U.S. to highlight his ideas on energy policy that included a recent stop in Cushing, Oklahoma to talk oil pipelines, will be talking about the Green Button at Ohio State University later today. So clearly this is a program the administration is proud of.
All told, nearly 30 million customers may now live in the footprint of the Green Button. But what does the Green Button do and how can customers use it?
"By clicking a Green Button, residential and commercial utility customers can download detailed energy usage information in a standardized format to manage consumption and costs," or so say the press releases.
For the Department of Energy's part, the federal agency decided to pony up about $8 million in grant funding to spur the development of "apps for energy" that help customers learn more about how much power they use.
This initiative may just be step one in the effort to educate consumers about their energy use, however. As the process evolves a bit and becomes more automated, it could become easier for electric customers to learn about their energy habits.
Even for a guy like me, who spends most of his waking life online, the process looks a bit involved. It looks like customers will have to start up an account with their utility's website if they don't have one already, then download the data to some kind of third-party application. Maybe a more streamlined process could be in the works.
Still, there could be a sign that the initiative could improve in the sheer number of technology types who are crowing about the Green Button. Google, Intel, GE Energy, Verizon and Johnson Controls, have each sent out letters in support of Green Button.
Lending credence to this theory is the White House's official blog, which said, "Companies are already developing Web and smartphone applications and services for businesses and homeowners that can use Green Button data."
So, assuming this gadget garners any measurable interest from people in these utilities' service territory (and actually use the information to cut demand down a bit), we might hear more about this Green Button thing later on. I'll keep an eye out.
Online Editor
The Internet is buzzing this morning as utilities and energy companies gush their support of an industry-led, White House-spurred energy efficiency program called the "Green Button."
I remember posting about the Green Button first when San Diego Gas & Electric shortly before DistribuTECH 2012 came to San Diego. Here's an outside link to SDG&E's version of the Green Button on their customer website.
But now I'm seeing around a dozen different companies, each with their own announcements either of support of or participation in this program.
Itron, Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., PECO, American Electric Power, Reliant Energy, Oracle, Silver Spring Networks, OPower, Efficiency 2.0, Schneider Electric, FirstFuel were just a few I could find as of press time. These are some of the utilities who will make Green Button functionality available to customers, or else provide some kind of logistical support for the effort.
Announcements of supporting utilities and companies are still going out. A few other major participants include Centerpoint Energy, Glendale Power & Light, Pepco Holdings, Southern California Edison, Dominion Virginia Power, Austin Energy, Commonwealth Edison and PG&E. Click here for a full list of companies that are supporting the Green Button.
What these utilities all seem to have in common is they've each had some kind of large smart meter deployment in their histories, which makes me wonder if those meters might be a part of some new, thus-unmentioned functionality for the Green Button program at some point in the future. Or maybe it's just that these companies want to be seen as both "smart" and "green."
Reports are that this initiative is a response to a White House challenge to American utilities to engage and empower consumers to help them save energy and money while also driving innovation in energy efficiency.
In fact, President Barack Obama, currently on a mini-tour of the U.S. to highlight his ideas on energy policy that included a recent stop in Cushing, Oklahoma to talk oil pipelines, will be talking about the Green Button at Ohio State University later today. So clearly this is a program the administration is proud of.
All told, nearly 30 million customers may now live in the footprint of the Green Button. But what does the Green Button do and how can customers use it?
"By clicking a Green Button, residential and commercial utility customers can download detailed energy usage information in a standardized format to manage consumption and costs," or so say the press releases.
For the Department of Energy's part, the federal agency decided to pony up about $8 million in grant funding to spur the development of "apps for energy" that help customers learn more about how much power they use.
This initiative may just be step one in the effort to educate consumers about their energy use, however. As the process evolves a bit and becomes more automated, it could become easier for electric customers to learn about their energy habits.
Even for a guy like me, who spends most of his waking life online, the process looks a bit involved. It looks like customers will have to start up an account with their utility's website if they don't have one already, then download the data to some kind of third-party application. Maybe a more streamlined process could be in the works.
Still, there could be a sign that the initiative could improve in the sheer number of technology types who are crowing about the Green Button. Google, Intel, GE Energy, Verizon and Johnson Controls, have each sent out letters in support of Green Button.
Lending credence to this theory is the White House's official blog, which said, "Companies are already developing Web and smartphone applications and services for businesses and homeowners that can use Green Button data."
So, assuming this gadget garners any measurable interest from people in these utilities' service territory (and actually use the information to cut demand down a bit), we might hear more about this Green Button thing later on. I'll keep an eye out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
