One thing liberals and conservatives agree on

We're often told how far apart the red states and blue states are. Aside from the obvious stalemates and squabbles in Washington, conservative and liberal Americans watch different TV shows, eat different foods, drive different cars and listen to different music. But there is one thing lefties and right-wingers seem to agree on: Using less energy is a good thing.

Because when you inform an American about exactly how much energy they are consuming, it doesn't matter whether they voted for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. Either way, they want to use less electricity.

Given the news stories about compact fluorescents vs. incandescent light bulbs or hybrid cars vs. sport utility vehicles, this might come as a surprise. However the evidence — as gathered by Opower — backs it up.

The survey examined the energy use habits of customers across party lines (conservative, liberal and unaffiliated) from several regions of the country. The differences between political ideologies and geographical locations were quite close. All saved energy, and it didn't much matter how they were affiliated politically.

In the Mountain West region, liberals saved a little more than others, but only by a single percentage point. In the Northeast and Southeast, conservatives saved a little more than the liberals or the unaffiliated. So, in the end, people will save energy when they participate in programs that inform them of their electricity use, but the exact percentages can vary a bit from place to place.

There is, however, a "backfire" effect the surveyors noticed that is exclusive to conservative users. It seems that when a customer learns they are using less energy than average, the liberal-minded customer will continue doing what they are doing. The conservative-leaning one, however, will sometimes increase their energy use — perhaps feeling they're off the hook. This behavior was not observed in liberals or the unaffiliated.

The reason for this backfire effect was not fully explained by the analysis, but it appears that providing detailed information on energy use to customers who are already energy efficient is still well worth it. The more information people have, the more behavioral changes they will make in the interest of using less energy.

When it comes to trying to encourage customers to make positive behavioral changes on energy use, tech firms and energy companies can leave politics out of the equation. This is good news because making human beings of any ideological bent change their behaviors is already difficult enough.

It's (trade) war between the U.S. and China

By Jeff Postelwait
Online Editor

Things are heating up again between the U.S. and China, and this time the trouble has to do with international trade and the equipment used to capture solar energy. For several years now, U.S. energy companies have complained they can't compete with the "flood" of cheap solar energy gear that's coming from China and flooding the U.S. and world markets. Companies facing financial troubles or bankruptcy, like Solyndra for one, are looking for a scapegoat, and many of them are pointing at China.

In response, the U.S. Department of Commerce is launching an investigation into these practices. This "anti-dumping" investigation led Commerce to explore the option of levying duty fees, or tariffs, against the Chinese-made solar goods. Just last year, China sold more than $3.1 billion worth of solar cells and panels in the U.S., so it's easy to see why it's referred to as a "dump." While nothing is final yet, Chinese firms are hopping mad, some American firms are pointedly silent, and trade groups with interests worldwide just want everyone to get along.

This isn't the first time Commerce has threatened to impose such tariffs, or indeed carried them out. There were tariffs taken out against Chinese electric blankets, of all things, not too long ago. But protectionism is always controversial, and in today's global economy it's not always easy to know if one country's tariffs might not also harm companies within that same country's borders. Some American energy companies that use Chinese-made solar parts might stand to lose profits if they have to buy them at higher margins, for example.

If the tariffs go through, Chinese companies will be left to either raise their prices in hopes of turning a (now lowered) profit, or else move their manufacturing centers outside of China to dodge the tariffs. Some companies that might be subject to future tariffs could be poised to do so. Suntech Power Holdings, for example, which could face tariffs as high as 31.2 percent, has regional headquarters in Switzerland and the U.S. as well as China, and could conceivably shift operations to those or other countries. Mexico and Taiwan are two spots that Suntech, and other companies like it, might consider.

Suntech, perhaps predictably, says it opposes any barriers to trade at any point along the solar power supply chain. But what are American companies saying? As I write this, they're mostly pretty quiet, and I'd assume happy. But there are signs I might be assuming wrong.

Whether an energy company in America is smiling or frowning about these potential tariffs depends greatly upon where they sit on the solar supply chain. The guys who shape steel and silicon into panels might be happy, but the folks who actually slap the finished panels onto rooftops, for example, might be less so.

We should also not forget that there are other firms in other countries who'd like to do business making solar farms in the U.S. Companies based in Germany, Spain and elsewhere are feeling the squeeze as China has tightened its grip on the U.S. market these past few years. They might also stand to benefit from tariffs, perhaps. Assuming they are pointed squarely at Chinese firms, that is.

The U.S., for its part, claims that all it wants to do is level the playing field. But can it really be level at this point? By now everyone understands the problems that China, also known as "The World's Factory," can cause the rest of the world with their massive workforce and low labor costs. They have the power and willingness to produce goods and ship them to market at costs few other countries can match.

Still, there is the little matter of international trade laws. While I am by no means an expert on those, I assume the U.S. Commerce Department is. So I will be watching what comes out of their offices in the coming weeks, as I'm sure the Chinese will as well. It should be interesting. Stay tuned for more.

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.

Is former utility bigwig Bryson too green for commerce?

In what has been branded by conservatives as a move to push alternative energy over traditional resources, President Obama has named former Edison International CEO John Bryson to run the Commerce Department (replacing Gary Locke, who may be moving to an ambassadorship in China).

Obama touted Bryson as “a business leader who understands what it takes to innovate, to create jobs, and to persevere through tough times” and “a fierce proponent of alternative energy.”

While Bryson did work for solar company BrightSource Energy these last few months, that’s not the scope of his power resume. He’s no lightweight when it comes to the hard-hitting, gritty, rather conservative power business. He helmed Edison during the serious California energy crisis that claimed utilities with lesser navigation skills like Pacific Gas and Electric, which was forced into bankruptcy trying to weather the same crisis.

Business groups and California officials applauded the Bryson nomination, but some congressmen, including Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, have threatened to stall the nomination until they can get a look at trade agreements the White House is negotiating. Additionally, some of the seriously conservative sects of Congress are a little concerned that Bryson is too green (in values, not in experience). Bryson has been an advocate of solar energy and plug-in vehicles and recently advised a task force on climate change for the state of California.

Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma has announced that he will fight the nomination because Bryson helped found the Natural Resources Defense Council, which he labeled a “radical environmental organization.” (Bryson was among a group of young lawyers who helped establish the organization in the early 1970s.) Inhofe is not a proponent of climate change theory, believing it to be a hoax, and has a pattern of opposing environmental groups, causes and promotions. So, that particular opposition was to be expected.

Is Bryson green? Absolutely. Is that a bad thing? No, I don’t think so. The man did help create a large environmental movement. He does push initiatives that he believes in, and that does include a lot of alternative energy. But, the bottom line is this: Bryson knows power. And, you don’t bump up exports and increase those commerce numbers without knowing how to make, ship, control and tackle the energy side of the equation.

Sure, Bryson graduated from Yale and founded the Natural Resources Defense Council. He also joined Edison International in 1984 and took over the company in 1990, just a couple of years before industry headlines trumpeted deregulation woes and financial drama for most California utilities. He retired from the position in 2008 having helped that company regain footing in a business environment that was financially toxic.

It seems a smart combination for Obama’s alternative energy agenda: Bryson’s both the man who knows the industry and the man who believes in the cause. He has the passion and knows the path to get there. It’s a very solid call for the Administration’s goals to make us, as a country, leaner and greener.

The fact that not everyone agrees with those goals is just another day in D.C., really.