Karen Beagle had already complied with all the local Troy, Ohio, environmental regulations her small electronics business faced when along came the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with orders to scrap her existing septic system and replace it with an expensive and unnecessary sewer hookup.
Brad Muller's Charlotte, N.C., pipe and foundry companies are ensnared by the federal rule book, too, forced to spend millions of dollars each year complying with environmental regulations.
These are just two of America's millions of small and independent businesses that daily suffer new and unexpected burdens handed them by an increasingly aggressive federal bureaucracy flexing its regulatory muscle far beyond the original intent of Congress.
In the current economic climate, small businesses can no longer create the jobs and economic growth that once kept the nation's economy above water.
And hopes for a recovery of those opportunities are rapidly moving farther out of reach as President Obama ramps up the federal bureaucracy's rule-making machine.
The National Federation of Independent Business will not stand idly by while this government threatens innovators like Karen and Brad. We're fighting back with a new campaign -- Small Businesses for Sensible Regulations -- that will alert the nation to this growing danger and demand corrective action by Obama. We'll point out barriers and muster support to restrain officials who sidestep the laws as written.
Since 2005, pending federal regulations classified as "major" or "economically significant" (costing our economy more than $100 million) have soared 60 percent.
And of the more than 4,200 new regulations federal bureaucrats under Obama currently have ready to roll out, 845 have been identified as policy changes that will negatively impact small businesses.
It costs the average small business more than $10,500 per employee to comply with federal regulations alone. Last year, that represented a $1.75 trillion drag on our economy, contributing to slower growth and greater unemployment.
Washington regulators, unlike small businesses, have little concern whether private-sector enterprises have the financial resources or trained staffs necessary to deal with their growing mountain of restrictions and requirements. Just complying with federal environmental regulations costs small businesses 364 percent more than it does their larger counterparts.
Does EPA worry about the nation's 9.2 percent unemployment rate or the spiraling debt? Obviously not. It's pushing to nearly double the strength of permissible dust standards for family farms and other workplaces.
And the agency proposes to dramatically tighten the ozone threshold -- which was lowered just three years ago -- that could throw 90 percent of the nation, including pristine Yellowstone National Park, out of federal compliance and jeopardize 7.3 million jobs.
Nor does anyone at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration apparently care how Main Street or its employees are suffering. OSHA's Injury and Illness Prevention Program forces small businesses to grapple with an extensive paperwork process to identify all potential safety and health threats, however small.
And these are just two federal agencies. There are lots of others.
Karen Beagle, Brad Muller and millions of small-business owners like them can be key job creators for the United States. But forcing them to wade through the Code of Federal Regulations, currently 150,000 pages long and growing daily, guarantees that their entrepreneurial skills, innovative energy and hard-earned dollars will not be used to put America back on track and back to work.
America needs to see and hear the growing danger of a federal government dead set on printing new regulations as fast as it is printing money to hide the national debt.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/08/new-regs-are-flying-washingtons-printing-presses-money
Monday, August 15, 2011
Liberals standing athwart history, yelling 'Stop!'
For years, conservatives were said to be "standing athwart history, yelling 'Stop!' " But a federal judge's ruling Friday points to the new reality that those who are now seeking to stop history -- or at least the development of new energy technologies -- are liberals, led by President Obama. Judge Nancy Freudenthal ruled against Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and regulations implemented by two agencies within his department. The regulations -- designed to slow down energy development -- came from the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Attorneys for the government argued that the Western Energy Alliance, an energy industry advocacy group that filed the suit, failed to show the regulations caused hardship such as added costs or unnecessary delays.
Freudenthal disagreed, saying "Western Energy has demonstrated through its members recognizable injury. Those injuries are supported by the administrative record." As a result, regulations issued in 2005 under President George W. Bush that were supplanted by the Obama rules are back in force. The Bush regulations were designed to speed up federal reviews of applications to explore and develop hundreds of millions of acres of federally owned lands in Western states believed to hold vast untapped quantities of oil and natural gas. Developing such resources could reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil and reduce costs for American consumers.
But global-warming-obsessed liberals don't want Americans to have access to cheaper oil and natural gas, and they are determined to use federal laws and regulations wherever possible to force us to use "clean" energy sources such as wind, solar and biomass. Unfortunately, it will take as long as three decades, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, for the alternative energy forms to be able to replace oil and natural gas. And the liberals' plans for getting there from here -- epitomized by the regulations skewered Friday in federal court -- will, according to Obama, "necessarily cause energy prices to skyrocket."
Meanwhile, the U.S. energy industry continues its remarkable record of finding and producing domestic oil and natural gas resources in more efficient and environmentally safe ways. Natural gas, which was growing more expensive due to declining supplies only a few years ago, has experienced an extraordinary revival in this country, thanks to hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") to get at supplies trapped in shale thousands of feet below the surface. Water and tiny amounts of chemicals are injected into shale formations, allowing the oil and natural gas to be extracted.
Horizontal drilling of multiple wells from one site minimizes the physical impact on the surface environment, and, because fracking is done thousands of feet below the water table, without risk to drinking water. Not one confirmed example of groundwater contamination linked to fracking has been found, according to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson. So why is Obama's Department of Energy moving forward with new regulations to "ensure the protection of public health and the environment?" Because Obama and the liberals are yelling "Stop!"
http://washingtonexaminer.com:80/opinion/2011/08/liberals-standing-athwart-history-yelling-stop
Freudenthal disagreed, saying "Western Energy has demonstrated through its members recognizable injury. Those injuries are supported by the administrative record." As a result, regulations issued in 2005 under President George W. Bush that were supplanted by the Obama rules are back in force. The Bush regulations were designed to speed up federal reviews of applications to explore and develop hundreds of millions of acres of federally owned lands in Western states believed to hold vast untapped quantities of oil and natural gas. Developing such resources could reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil and reduce costs for American consumers.
But global-warming-obsessed liberals don't want Americans to have access to cheaper oil and natural gas, and they are determined to use federal laws and regulations wherever possible to force us to use "clean" energy sources such as wind, solar and biomass. Unfortunately, it will take as long as three decades, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, for the alternative energy forms to be able to replace oil and natural gas. And the liberals' plans for getting there from here -- epitomized by the regulations skewered Friday in federal court -- will, according to Obama, "necessarily cause energy prices to skyrocket."
Meanwhile, the U.S. energy industry continues its remarkable record of finding and producing domestic oil and natural gas resources in more efficient and environmentally safe ways. Natural gas, which was growing more expensive due to declining supplies only a few years ago, has experienced an extraordinary revival in this country, thanks to hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") to get at supplies trapped in shale thousands of feet below the surface. Water and tiny amounts of chemicals are injected into shale formations, allowing the oil and natural gas to be extracted.
Horizontal drilling of multiple wells from one site minimizes the physical impact on the surface environment, and, because fracking is done thousands of feet below the water table, without risk to drinking water. Not one confirmed example of groundwater contamination linked to fracking has been found, according to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson. So why is Obama's Department of Energy moving forward with new regulations to "ensure the protection of public health and the environment?" Because Obama and the liberals are yelling "Stop!"
http://washingtonexaminer.com:80/opinion/2011/08/liberals-standing-athwart-history-yelling-stop
Thursday, August 11, 2011
As the World Melts
What you don't know could cost you thousands of dollars a year.
An increasing number of scientists and policy professionals have declared public policies to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are based on uncertain science.
Yet, national and global policies are being promoted to reduce emissions and the result could be trillions in misspent funds.
The most likely outcomes of the debate can be found in this article...
To read the entire article, click HERE
An increasing number of scientists and policy professionals have declared public policies to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are based on uncertain science.
Yet, national and global policies are being promoted to reduce emissions and the result could be trillions in misspent funds.
The most likely outcomes of the debate can be found in this article...
To read the entire article, click HERE
EPA’s Bay Czar: ‘We Will Win This One’
BALTIMORE (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay restoration strategy can stand up to court challenges by farm and development groups, the agency’s senior bay adviser said Tuesday.
“If you want to challenge the bay restoration effort, that’s fine. Because we’ve got the science, we’ve got the modeling, we’ve got the legal backing. We will win this one,” EPA adviser Jeff Corbin said. “The tricky part is going to be where is the money going to come from.”
Corbin appeared at a panel discussion Tuesday at a national ecosystem restoration conference in Baltimore.
The federal agency developed the strategy in response to a presidential order after decades of state-led efforts failed to restore the waterway. In addition to the court challenges, Virginia’s governor has questioned the cost of the effort. Virginia has estimated it could have to pay as much as $8 billion through 2025.
The strategy calls for sharp cuts in pollutants such as nitrogen and phosphorous — which come from sources such as power plants, sewage and fertilizer running off lawns and farms — as well as sediment running off roads, farms, construction sites and developments. The pollutants spur oxygen-robbing algae blooms once they reach the bay.
While predicting eventual victory in the courts, Corbin said the new strategy has brought the issue to a crossroads, and more money will be needed to ensure success.
“If we’re not going to get it done, the difference is now we’re going to have to admit we’re not going to get it done,” Corbin said, adding later: “I don’t think anybody is willing to do that.”
The EPA adviser appeared at the panel discussion along with Robert Summers, secretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment; Will Baker, president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation; and Ann Pesiri Swanson, executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, which advises state legislators in Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania on bay issues.
Summers agreed more money was needed, saying a doubling of the state’s “flush fee” — which pays for septic tank upgrades that keep algae bloom-spurring nitrogen from the bay — is needed. But he couldn’t say if the fee increase would be sought.
Baker, whose foundation sued the EPA and forced a court settlement over the slow pace of restoration efforts, said opponents wrongfully argue the effort will wreak economic havoc.
Referring to the “pollution diet” proposed by the EPA, Baker said the states in the bay watershed have been “gluttonous,” but the opposite is not starvation.
“It’s just eating wisely,” he said.
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2011/08/02/epas-bay-czar-we-will-win-this-one/
“If you want to challenge the bay restoration effort, that’s fine. Because we’ve got the science, we’ve got the modeling, we’ve got the legal backing. We will win this one,” EPA adviser Jeff Corbin said. “The tricky part is going to be where is the money going to come from.”
Corbin appeared at a panel discussion Tuesday at a national ecosystem restoration conference in Baltimore.
The federal agency developed the strategy in response to a presidential order after decades of state-led efforts failed to restore the waterway. In addition to the court challenges, Virginia’s governor has questioned the cost of the effort. Virginia has estimated it could have to pay as much as $8 billion through 2025.
The strategy calls for sharp cuts in pollutants such as nitrogen and phosphorous — which come from sources such as power plants, sewage and fertilizer running off lawns and farms — as well as sediment running off roads, farms, construction sites and developments. The pollutants spur oxygen-robbing algae blooms once they reach the bay.
While predicting eventual victory in the courts, Corbin said the new strategy has brought the issue to a crossroads, and more money will be needed to ensure success.
“If we’re not going to get it done, the difference is now we’re going to have to admit we’re not going to get it done,” Corbin said, adding later: “I don’t think anybody is willing to do that.”
The EPA adviser appeared at the panel discussion along with Robert Summers, secretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment; Will Baker, president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation; and Ann Pesiri Swanson, executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, which advises state legislators in Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania on bay issues.
Summers agreed more money was needed, saying a doubling of the state’s “flush fee” — which pays for septic tank upgrades that keep algae bloom-spurring nitrogen from the bay — is needed. But he couldn’t say if the fee increase would be sought.
Baker, whose foundation sued the EPA and forced a court settlement over the slow pace of restoration efforts, said opponents wrongfully argue the effort will wreak economic havoc.
Referring to the “pollution diet” proposed by the EPA, Baker said the states in the bay watershed have been “gluttonous,” but the opposite is not starvation.
“It’s just eating wisely,” he said.
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2011/08/02/epas-bay-czar-we-will-win-this-one/
O'Malley septic plan is crucial for the Chesapeake Bay
This author reveals the real agenda if you read between the lines. The controllers don't want us to have the option of living on larger lots in the country.
Imagine if one of our major automakers proposed a model line of gas-wasting, air-fouling vehicles that used 60-year-old technology. Unthinkable, of course. Yet it's little different than what homebuilders and developers propose when they plan most new rural subdivisions.
Their outdated model lineup combines sprawl development — a hugely wasteful use of land — with septic tanks, the highest-polluting form of waste treatment, largely unimproved for more than half a century.
Proposals to change this — most lately, Gov. Martin O'Malley's attempt to ban most development on septic tanks — are met with predictable cries from builders and land speculators. Housing will become unaffordable, the economy will crash, development will scream to a halt, they say. Their cries remind us of the auto industry's doomsaying as it fought seat belts, airbags, higher mileage standards and pollution controls.
We're unused to thinking of development as a technology, but it is. Sprawl, the building on large lots outside areas planned for more compact growth, is bound to septic tanks. You don't have one without the other. Septic tanks won't work on small lots because they need space to filter sewage. Public sewer doesn't serve spread-out development because it's too expensive to run lines.
A septic tank — a concrete tank buried somewhere in the yard, into which your toilets flush — is probably what you have if you aren't hooked up to public sewage. Created to replace outhouses and cesspools, septic tanks remove bacteria from wastewater by settling out solids and percolating the water through underground drainage fields.
Unlike a modern sewage treatment plant, septic tanks were never designed to remove nitrogen, the Chesapeake Bay's biggest pollutant. Indeed, they facilitate the water-soluble nutrient's passage into groundwater and thence into streams, rivers and the Chesapeake.
How much nitrogen a septic tank emits compared with a sewage treatment plant depends on its location; but it can be from four to 10 times as much, according to water quality regulators. A newer, more expensive type of septic tank can cut nitrogen in half but still cannot match what a treatment plant can remove. Only Maryland requires these new tanks, and then only within 1,000 feet of tidal waters.
Septic tanks are the source of about 6 percent of the nitrogen that pollutes the estuary. This may not sound like a lot until you look at the huge pollution reductions every state in the bay watershed must make.
But Governor O'Malley's plan goes beyond controlling nitrogen.
The governor recognized that nearly a third of the quarter-million or so new households projected for Maryland by 2020 is likely to be on septic tanks. His proposal — no development of five or more homes that isn't hooked to a sewage treatment plant — would push this growth toward planned areas. It would do more to rein in sprawl than decades of talking about "Smart Growth."
The adverse impacts of sprawl go far beyond water quality. They include loss of farms, forests and wetlands; more air pollution from longer commutes; and higher taxes from added costs of school buses, utilities, fire, police and roads.
None of this has overcome development interests, which are sometimes augmented by farmers wishing to maximize their options to cash out. Perhaps Mr. O'Malley's drawing a clear link between bad land use and bad waste management can succeed where reciting sprawl's litany of problems has failed. Farmers and other landowners, who want to carve out a handful of lots for their children or for income, would still be allowed a few under the governor's proposal.
There would be adjustments and short-term pain for developers, whose industry makes up about a fifth of Maryland's economy; but think of the adjustments sprawl development and water pollution force on the fifth of Maryland's economy that comes from farming and fishing.
Pennsylvania and Virginia have more rural poor than Maryland, whose poor are largely urban, so septic restrictions might be somewhat different there.
What the three major bay states share is a substantial shortfall in the plans they have submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to reduce pollution from septic tanks.
One irony that should not derail the Maryland proposal, but must be dealt with, is that septic tanks do not let the polluting phosphorus in human waste enter the bay, because it binds to soil in the ground. To the extent that development switches to sewer from septic, sewage treatment plants will have to remove more phosphorus, or reducing one bay pollutant could increase another.
Maryland's legislature will study the governor's proposal this summer. We hope it doesn't get watered down, because it provides a rare opportunity to improve two of the bay's most glaring problems at once: excessive nitrogen and sprawl development.
Tom Horton covered the Chesapeake Bay for 33 years for The Baltimore Sun and is the author of six books about the Chesapeake. He is currently a freelance writer. This article is distributed by Bay Journal News Service.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-septic-20110808,0,7241182.story
Imagine if one of our major automakers proposed a model line of gas-wasting, air-fouling vehicles that used 60-year-old technology. Unthinkable, of course. Yet it's little different than what homebuilders and developers propose when they plan most new rural subdivisions.
Their outdated model lineup combines sprawl development — a hugely wasteful use of land — with septic tanks, the highest-polluting form of waste treatment, largely unimproved for more than half a century.
Proposals to change this — most lately, Gov. Martin O'Malley's attempt to ban most development on septic tanks — are met with predictable cries from builders and land speculators. Housing will become unaffordable, the economy will crash, development will scream to a halt, they say. Their cries remind us of the auto industry's doomsaying as it fought seat belts, airbags, higher mileage standards and pollution controls.
We're unused to thinking of development as a technology, but it is. Sprawl, the building on large lots outside areas planned for more compact growth, is bound to septic tanks. You don't have one without the other. Septic tanks won't work on small lots because they need space to filter sewage. Public sewer doesn't serve spread-out development because it's too expensive to run lines.
A septic tank — a concrete tank buried somewhere in the yard, into which your toilets flush — is probably what you have if you aren't hooked up to public sewage. Created to replace outhouses and cesspools, septic tanks remove bacteria from wastewater by settling out solids and percolating the water through underground drainage fields.
Unlike a modern sewage treatment plant, septic tanks were never designed to remove nitrogen, the Chesapeake Bay's biggest pollutant. Indeed, they facilitate the water-soluble nutrient's passage into groundwater and thence into streams, rivers and the Chesapeake.
How much nitrogen a septic tank emits compared with a sewage treatment plant depends on its location; but it can be from four to 10 times as much, according to water quality regulators. A newer, more expensive type of septic tank can cut nitrogen in half but still cannot match what a treatment plant can remove. Only Maryland requires these new tanks, and then only within 1,000 feet of tidal waters.
Septic tanks are the source of about 6 percent of the nitrogen that pollutes the estuary. This may not sound like a lot until you look at the huge pollution reductions every state in the bay watershed must make.
But Governor O'Malley's plan goes beyond controlling nitrogen.
The governor recognized that nearly a third of the quarter-million or so new households projected for Maryland by 2020 is likely to be on septic tanks. His proposal — no development of five or more homes that isn't hooked to a sewage treatment plant — would push this growth toward planned areas. It would do more to rein in sprawl than decades of talking about "Smart Growth."
The adverse impacts of sprawl go far beyond water quality. They include loss of farms, forests and wetlands; more air pollution from longer commutes; and higher taxes from added costs of school buses, utilities, fire, police and roads.
None of this has overcome development interests, which are sometimes augmented by farmers wishing to maximize their options to cash out. Perhaps Mr. O'Malley's drawing a clear link between bad land use and bad waste management can succeed where reciting sprawl's litany of problems has failed. Farmers and other landowners, who want to carve out a handful of lots for their children or for income, would still be allowed a few under the governor's proposal.
There would be adjustments and short-term pain for developers, whose industry makes up about a fifth of Maryland's economy; but think of the adjustments sprawl development and water pollution force on the fifth of Maryland's economy that comes from farming and fishing.
Pennsylvania and Virginia have more rural poor than Maryland, whose poor are largely urban, so septic restrictions might be somewhat different there.
What the three major bay states share is a substantial shortfall in the plans they have submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to reduce pollution from septic tanks.
One irony that should not derail the Maryland proposal, but must be dealt with, is that septic tanks do not let the polluting phosphorus in human waste enter the bay, because it binds to soil in the ground. To the extent that development switches to sewer from septic, sewage treatment plants will have to remove more phosphorus, or reducing one bay pollutant could increase another.
Maryland's legislature will study the governor's proposal this summer. We hope it doesn't get watered down, because it provides a rare opportunity to improve two of the bay's most glaring problems at once: excessive nitrogen and sprawl development.
Tom Horton covered the Chesapeake Bay for 33 years for The Baltimore Sun and is the author of six books about the Chesapeake. He is currently a freelance writer. This article is distributed by Bay Journal News Service.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-septic-20110808,0,7241182.story
No Chance of Default, US Can Print Money: Greenspan
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan on Sunday ruled out the chance of a US default following S&P's decision to downgrade America's credit rating.
"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default" said Greenspan on NBC's Meet the Press
"What I think the S&P thing did was to hit a nerve that there's something basically bad going on, and it's hit the self-esteem of the United States, the psyche" said Greenspan
Austan Goolsbee, the chairman of the White House's council of economic advisors, hit out at S&P on the same show, insisting the credit ratings agency had got its math wrong.
"Well, the basic case is they made a $2 trillion math error and forgot to check their work," he said. "So rating agencies that didn't make a $2 trillion math error reaffirmed the AAA status. You saw Warren Buffet say that, if they had a AAAA, he would put U.S. Treasurys in AAAA status."
Following the decision to downgrade America's credit rating, the head of sovereign ratings at S&P, David Beers, said the Obama administrations analysis of the move was a complete "misrepresentation."
Beers will join CNBC's special program on the debt crisis at 8 pm Sunday.
Greenspan said the current sense of crisis that has unnerved investors is about the euro zone, not the US.
'The United States was actually doing relatively well, sluggish but going forward until Italy ran into trouble," he said. "That destabilized the European system, and the crisis re-emerged. Europe is very critical to the United States in the sense not only do we have a fourth of our exports there, but more importantly, significant proportion of the foreign affiliate profits, in fact half of U.S. corporations, are in Europe."
"When Italy showed signs of significant weakness in selling its bonds—the yield is now over 6 percent, which is an unsustainable level—it created a massive problem within Europe because Italy is a very large country, cannot be easily bailed out and, indeed, cannot be bailed out," Greenspan added.
http://m.cnbc.com/us_news/44051683/2
"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default" said Greenspan on NBC's Meet the Press
"What I think the S&P thing did was to hit a nerve that there's something basically bad going on, and it's hit the self-esteem of the United States, the psyche" said Greenspan
Austan Goolsbee, the chairman of the White House's council of economic advisors, hit out at S&P on the same show, insisting the credit ratings agency had got its math wrong.
"Well, the basic case is they made a $2 trillion math error and forgot to check their work," he said. "So rating agencies that didn't make a $2 trillion math error reaffirmed the AAA status. You saw Warren Buffet say that, if they had a AAAA, he would put U.S. Treasurys in AAAA status."
Following the decision to downgrade America's credit rating, the head of sovereign ratings at S&P, David Beers, said the Obama administrations analysis of the move was a complete "misrepresentation."
Beers will join CNBC's special program on the debt crisis at 8 pm Sunday.
Greenspan said the current sense of crisis that has unnerved investors is about the euro zone, not the US.
'The United States was actually doing relatively well, sluggish but going forward until Italy ran into trouble," he said. "That destabilized the European system, and the crisis re-emerged. Europe is very critical to the United States in the sense not only do we have a fourth of our exports there, but more importantly, significant proportion of the foreign affiliate profits, in fact half of U.S. corporations, are in Europe."
"When Italy showed signs of significant weakness in selling its bonds—the yield is now over 6 percent, which is an unsustainable level—it created a massive problem within Europe because Italy is a very large country, cannot be easily bailed out and, indeed, cannot be bailed out," Greenspan added.
http://m.cnbc.com/us_news/44051683/2
Monday, August 1, 2011
Energy-saving plan angers BGE customers as AC goes out
Baltimore Gas and Electric stood by its PeakRewards program Saturday, even as participating customers' tempers continued to flare after thousands of air conditioning units were turned off for hours as part of the energy-saving program during the intense heat of the day before.
The extreme heat triggered the first "emergency event" in the four-year history of the program, and the effects were different from what customers had come to expect — many wondered why they couldn't override the shutdown. Without air conditioning for up to 10 hours, many customers' homes reached 90 degrees and higher. In the past, air conditioning has only been turned off for a few hours at a time.
Customers had trouble getting through to BGE's customer service line and were confused when online records said that the air conditioning had been turned back on, even though it had not.
About 1,700 of the 350,000 people enrolled in the program have dropped out or reduced their enrollment level, said BGE executive Mark D. Case, who is in charge of PeakRewards. The situation on Friday was unique, he said, because PJM Interconnection, the regional electricity grid operator, called for the long period of "cycling" — turning off select appliances for periods of time.
The communication problems were caused by overburdened call centers and an overloaded cellular network, Case said. The company's radio signals used to remotely control cooling units were jammed from the high volume of requests earlier in the day to turn units back on, he said, and the company is working to improve call center availability and radio signal transmission.
Power needs to be restored gradually, said BGE spokesman Rob Gould, which also caused some customers to experience a delay in having their cooling reactivated.
Case said the company may begin allowing emergency overrides for all users. When PJM declares an emergency, only people with health-related concerns can request an override. In non-emergency situations, any enrollee can request that their cooling units be turned back on if it gets too hot in their home.
BGE is also trying to avoid using the system for the next week, despite the heat, he said.
Customers complained en masse Friday — on social networking sites, over the phone and by email — about the company's energy-saving program. Many people thought that the program was misrepresented in promotional materials.
"I felt they really took advantage of customers who signed up for this plan. Nobody ever had any idea — me for one — that they could really shut down our cooling for an entire day," said Lisa Larcher, a 47-year-old mother who lives in Gambrills with her husband, two daughters and two cats. "It could have been dangerous."
Some customers, searching for any information about the extended outage, checked their PeakRewards accounts online Friday night and found records indicating that their cooling systems had already been returned to service, even as they saw from the thermostat on the wall that air was not circulating.
Jeff Andrade of Odenton said his cycling on Friday was "double the outage of any previous cycle." Although the end time he saw online was 6:46 p.m., his air conditioning did not start up until 8 p.m.
BGE spokeswoman Linda J. Foy said the company is investigating records discrepancies, but she denied that there were problems with PeakRewards.
The program is meant to save energy and money by allowing BGE to turn off certain heating and air conditioning units for brief periods when demand is the highest. Most participants are in Baltimore County — roughly a third — followed by Anne Arundel, according to the company's website.
In return, customers get cash credits on their bills: $50, $75 or $100 each year depending upon the percentage of time they agree to give up control. The amounts are doubled during the first year of participation. The grid operator, PJM, pays BGE for reducing electricity use during peak times,Case said, and 100 percent of that money is passed onto customers through credits.
Larcher's air conditioning was off for nearly six hours Friday, and the temperature in her upstairs level had topped 90 degrees, when she said she'd had enough, calling BGE to drop out of the program that evening.
"It was scary," she said, "not being able to control your environment." By Saturday, she vowed to never go back.
Westminster resident Christopher Miccio, whose air was off for nearly nine hours Friday, said that a customer service phone operator at BGE represented to him prior to enrolling in the program that normally cooling is only turned off for several hours, about 4, in the midafternoon. After Friday, however, he went to look at the company's written materials online and found a "very different," less specific, characterization of the PeakRewards program.
Case said that it is possible that phone customer service representatives may had said that the cycling is normally only a few hours, but that the written materials are not as limiting.
BGE officials Case and Foy said that all of their promotional materials written so as not to be too precise in its presentation of how the program operates because the company cannot predict how weather is going to affect electricity demands. Instead, the PeakRewards materials rely on "generalizations," Foy said, describing "typical" cycling events.
"We have represented the program fairly," Case said. "For example, we describe in detail 'What does cycling mean? What does 50 percent mean? What does 100 percent mean?' We explain the difference between and emergency event and a non-emergency event."
The Maryland Public Service Commission received a handful of complaints about the length of BGE's air conditioner cycling on Friday, said spokeswoman Regina L. Davis, but regulatory panel did not believe the utility had done anything wrong. The commission will address the complaints it received, she said, and will continue to monitor how the program is working.
"It's a voluntary program," she said. "Everything is spelled out in the agreement."
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-07-23/news/bs-md-bge-peak-rewards-20110723_1_bge-customers-energy-saving-program-energy-saving-plan
The extreme heat triggered the first "emergency event" in the four-year history of the program, and the effects were different from what customers had come to expect — many wondered why they couldn't override the shutdown. Without air conditioning for up to 10 hours, many customers' homes reached 90 degrees and higher. In the past, air conditioning has only been turned off for a few hours at a time.
Customers had trouble getting through to BGE's customer service line and were confused when online records said that the air conditioning had been turned back on, even though it had not.
About 1,700 of the 350,000 people enrolled in the program have dropped out or reduced their enrollment level, said BGE executive Mark D. Case, who is in charge of PeakRewards. The situation on Friday was unique, he said, because PJM Interconnection, the regional electricity grid operator, called for the long period of "cycling" — turning off select appliances for periods of time.
The communication problems were caused by overburdened call centers and an overloaded cellular network, Case said. The company's radio signals used to remotely control cooling units were jammed from the high volume of requests earlier in the day to turn units back on, he said, and the company is working to improve call center availability and radio signal transmission.
Power needs to be restored gradually, said BGE spokesman Rob Gould, which also caused some customers to experience a delay in having their cooling reactivated.
Case said the company may begin allowing emergency overrides for all users. When PJM declares an emergency, only people with health-related concerns can request an override. In non-emergency situations, any enrollee can request that their cooling units be turned back on if it gets too hot in their home.
BGE is also trying to avoid using the system for the next week, despite the heat, he said.
Customers complained en masse Friday — on social networking sites, over the phone and by email — about the company's energy-saving program. Many people thought that the program was misrepresented in promotional materials.
"I felt they really took advantage of customers who signed up for this plan. Nobody ever had any idea — me for one — that they could really shut down our cooling for an entire day," said Lisa Larcher, a 47-year-old mother who lives in Gambrills with her husband, two daughters and two cats. "It could have been dangerous."
Some customers, searching for any information about the extended outage, checked their PeakRewards accounts online Friday night and found records indicating that their cooling systems had already been returned to service, even as they saw from the thermostat on the wall that air was not circulating.
Jeff Andrade of Odenton said his cycling on Friday was "double the outage of any previous cycle." Although the end time he saw online was 6:46 p.m., his air conditioning did not start up until 8 p.m.
BGE spokeswoman Linda J. Foy said the company is investigating records discrepancies, but she denied that there were problems with PeakRewards.
The program is meant to save energy and money by allowing BGE to turn off certain heating and air conditioning units for brief periods when demand is the highest. Most participants are in Baltimore County — roughly a third — followed by Anne Arundel, according to the company's website.
In return, customers get cash credits on their bills: $50, $75 or $100 each year depending upon the percentage of time they agree to give up control. The amounts are doubled during the first year of participation. The grid operator, PJM, pays BGE for reducing electricity use during peak times,Case said, and 100 percent of that money is passed onto customers through credits.
Larcher's air conditioning was off for nearly six hours Friday, and the temperature in her upstairs level had topped 90 degrees, when she said she'd had enough, calling BGE to drop out of the program that evening.
"It was scary," she said, "not being able to control your environment." By Saturday, she vowed to never go back.
Westminster resident Christopher Miccio, whose air was off for nearly nine hours Friday, said that a customer service phone operator at BGE represented to him prior to enrolling in the program that normally cooling is only turned off for several hours, about 4, in the midafternoon. After Friday, however, he went to look at the company's written materials online and found a "very different," less specific, characterization of the PeakRewards program.
Case said that it is possible that phone customer service representatives may had said that the cycling is normally only a few hours, but that the written materials are not as limiting.
BGE officials Case and Foy said that all of their promotional materials written so as not to be too precise in its presentation of how the program operates because the company cannot predict how weather is going to affect electricity demands. Instead, the PeakRewards materials rely on "generalizations," Foy said, describing "typical" cycling events.
"We have represented the program fairly," Case said. "For example, we describe in detail 'What does cycling mean? What does 50 percent mean? What does 100 percent mean?' We explain the difference between and emergency event and a non-emergency event."
The Maryland Public Service Commission received a handful of complaints about the length of BGE's air conditioner cycling on Friday, said spokeswoman Regina L. Davis, but regulatory panel did not believe the utility had done anything wrong. The commission will address the complaints it received, she said, and will continue to monitor how the program is working.
"It's a voluntary program," she said. "Everything is spelled out in the agreement."
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-07-23/news/bs-md-bge-peak-rewards-20110723_1_bge-customers-energy-saving-program-energy-saving-plan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)