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.

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.