Common Sense and Comity

Site moved

2007-12-31T20:22:00.001-09:00

To start off the new year fresh, this blog has moved to http://gotsense.wordpress.com. Thanks for reading. And as coal for power goes, the journey isn't over quite yet.

Local Sustainability Efforts

2007-12-12T07:12:00.000-09:00

Suzy Fenner, a Fairbanks resident, has taken up the mission to put together a grassroots effort to encourage sustainability. You can read about the nascent efforts at scanfairbanks.blogspot.com. I'd been encouraging the development of a clearinghouse of efforts locally and statewide so that we all can communicate and coordinate better. One good source for that has been the Northern Alaska Environmental Center page on global warming, which has a number of good links.

Consider the Source

2007-11-17T14:16:00.000-09:00

I see that some haven't given up casting seeds of doubt on working for mitigation of climate change causes and consequences. Resource Development Council board member Paula Easley's "Sky is not Falling" editorial is a case in point. She grabs at discredited or irrelevant straws to argue that global warming isn't any fault of ours and, anyway, we will benefit from warmer weather, so get ready. One might think her "facts" sound reasonable unless you know her sources are industry sponsored and/or cherry-picked, and her snide comments about various respected folks that disagree with her. In the same 11/17/07 Newsminer was an article on how the IPCC, a pretty broad group of internationally renown scientists, just released their 4th report on climate change www.ipcc.ch , even more convinced of the need to take action to both mitigate and adapt.

The Resource Development Council has a partisan agenda, representing the legacy extraction industries which look for the short term buck. Alaska, with all our resources, are a part of their world view. Ms. Easley lambastes those for grassroots lobbying for action to address climate change, but not the resource industries who have spent billions lobbying to have it their way. Exxon Valdez settlement delays, millions in feel-good TV, radio, print, and mail out ads? Legislator/congressional payoffs anyone? While some industries may be starting to see the light of preserving our environment for the future, apparently the RDC through Ms. Easley, has yet to get the word.

MEA cancels coal plant idea

2007-11-10T17:48:00.000-09:00

Reading the Nov. 10, 2007 ADN, MEA (Matanuska Electric Association) announced it is canceling efforts to build a large coal plant in Matsu. They do have issues with not having any of their own generation, but this idea seemed ill advised.

It was reported that MEA will stop pushing this coal plant idea due to poor economics. This seems like face saving. What should be apparent is that, forward looking, there will be less economic incentive to burning coal with CO2 emissions factored in. A wise decision, for whatever the stated rationale.

If those proponents for coal are so gung-ho, why haven't they worked to buy power from the AIDEA-GVEA-Usibelli experimental coal plant in Healy that cost the state and feds nearly $400 million? Of course, that's only a 50 mw plant.

Long term decisions need to be made with carbon footprint considerations. We're all on the same planet (some more than others) and share a common future with climate change mitigation and adaptation. Coal might be plentiful, but about the most destructive form of non-renewable energy in terms of CO2 and toxic emissions.

Seems like a natural gas bridging solution for just in-state use would allow us about 500 years of stability. What's the big push to export?

That being said, I hope someday MEA will get be able to be less political and confrontational in its approach to getting things done. They may feel besieged, but maybe there is a reason.

Changing Our Resource Culture

2007-10-24T21:53:00.000-08:00

I don't know everyone can walk and chew gum at the same time, but we are in the position of having to change our culture toward the resources we consume or waste. At the same time, we need to start taking obvious and radical actions to reduce our carbon footprint.

Weighty, heavy task. We are continuing to be told the consequences of failing to act. Besides the IPCC, who co-won the Nobel Prize for Peace along with Al Gore, every day we see new impacts of climate change. I heard today that the climate change models were too safe in estimating the CO2 carrying capacity of the warming
oceans. The data shows that in earlier times, similar ocean warming caused mass extinctions. We have an early entry with the polar bear.

I was talking with Alaska Lt. Governor Sean Parnell yesterday evening following a presentation he gave, exhorting UAF students to get active in helping impacted communities like Shishmareff (ocean storms eating away the town) or Hooper Bay (burgeoning landfill). I pointed out that his examples are all attributable to our failure to account for the after-cost of using resources, without those costs being built into the original purchase. What to do with the leftovers after one is finished consuming the part we are interested in? Leftover from burning fossil fuel for heat - CO2 and more. Leftover from that package of Dove bars - plastic and paper. He saw the point, but then said - boy, those are big problems. How are we going to deal with that?

Hello? If we can't our government leaders willing to take the longer view toward species/biome/habitat stabilization/survival, it's pretty hard for the ordinary citizen. A fundamental shift in how we value goods and services is required. Non-egoist economic behavior usually manifests itself after a disaster, such as Katrina, or the recent wildfires in southern California. The longer we wait, the more disasters, the more cost to societies.

One of the comments of the Nobel Committee in awarding the Peace Prize to those who were urging climate change mitigation is that, to stabilize the climate would preserve peace, as opposed to war and conflict over diminishing resources.

We've known many of the things we need to do to be more intelligent and efficient about the resources we use, what is available to us in the form of non-carbon emitting resources for the energy we do use. We've known for decades. And to be fair, we are making some changes, but the time grows shorter as we discuss the more fundamental changes. Even with newer technologies, the old legacy constituencies still keep us from actively recognizing and taking radical actions to change our behavior.

This brings me back to my first point - changing the culture. My view is that, in general, culture can only change from perceived risks and costs. The U.S. is more self-centered, thus more resistant to change. We don't have a culture of commune-ism, such as Europe has. And we certainly don't value self-sacrifice. As the leading resource consumer and carbon contributor, we have so much we can do.

Politicians don't yet feel strongly they have the mandate for that fundamental restructuring of resource economics to cover our kids' butts. We are still tinkering with mini-projects, suggesting "clean" alternatives such as nuclear (oops, Mommy, I left the plutonium in the oven). Some of the states are starting to get it. Alaska, who holds a fortune in resources, still is pretty tentative, preferring to be powerless in the face of change, just willing to adapt, seeing little opportunity or showing the will thus far to mount the bully pulpit as those like Amory Lovins, Al Gore, Bill McKibben, and James Hansen have been doing for decades.

If action only happens after a whack to the head, then please let me help. Whack, whack, whack?

Oh, and for those who don't believe climate change is causing all these extreme weather changes? By denying it, you are saying we have no control over it, thus can't change it and we'll just have to bear the high cost to our societies to adapt.

And if you don't believe that man can change the climate, there are still obvious and rational economic reasons to not consume non-renewable fossil fuels so inefficiently. As I told Sen. Stevens some years ago when I asked him to get behind an increase in CAFE standards, let's get the biggest bang for the gallon we can. There isn't a need to madly export every last drop out of the North Slope of oil or gas as fast as possible? How about giving it the full value? It makes alternative non-polluting energy so much more attractive.

A fundamental change in how we value our resources is needed. Lots of good ideas are out there. Action is what is needed, as fast as we can. As it is, we've done a good job of committing our societies to increased costs of weather damages. Any idea how much it will cost to move southern Florida?

I hesitate to be too cynical with so many positive opportunities for changing that culture and our actions, but climate change inaction just impacted the Doomsday Clock. We were the generation that was going to save the world. Now I have to tell MY kids, "you've got a big job, sorry for the mess."

It's Been a While

2007-09-21T22:47:00.000-08:00

It's been a while since I've posted. Not that I've lost interest in things, but the summer was typically busy and actually quite pleasant sans mosquitoes and yellow-jackets. Fall is now in fall-swing. Some nice evenings of aurora and the colors.... A nice photoblog to give you an idea of what I mean.

A short off-year local election is coming up soon. A neighbor of ours has been running most actively for FNSB Assembly. She's been quite active, but doesn't follow through on neighborly commitments, like cleaning up her junkyard, dealing with a drainage clearing mess on the road which was in her bailiwick. And I guess I also happen to disagree 100% with her platforms of "get the government out of our lives, no taxes." I'll be supporting Kelly Brown, who seems to have a better appreciation for where Fairbanks is now.

I expect to soon have more to say about the University of Alaska's commitment on reducing its carbon footprint and sustainability this fall. I've been actively trying to get some action going to follow up on all the speeches and other verbal commitments.

Utility Plans need full environmental considerations

2007-06-02T12:32:00.000-08:00

Electrical utility plans need to have a full accounting for environmental costs, especially considering the challenges of CO2, climate change and the costs we will bear in the future for having changed so much of our environment.

Matanuska Electric Association is now going out to members to ask about siting for a coal fired power plant, justified by a new state prison to be built. This was recently reported in the Anchorage Daily News. There are a number of members who believe a coal plant has environmental concerns that have not been taken into account. The CH2M Hill Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) commissioned by MEA is not available to the members, so they have no way to review it. I'm happy that GVEA hasn't been so secretive with their IRP and having it available to members for review can lead to a better report. Members don't charge for their input.

In a recent study commissioned by the University of Alaska Fairbanks to look at meeting future power needs, they also came out with a recommendation to build (another) coal fired power plant on campus. Having access to the report helped point out that the economic analysis didn't include any carbon cost analysis, no substantive consideration of alternatives and a near-total wash on further conservation/demand side reductions. You can download the Utility Development Plan at the bottom of the linked page in 3 different sections.

When GVEA performed an Integrated Resource Plan in order to justify the experimental coal plant in Healy in the 1990s, the study found that conservation would cost 1.5 - 2 cents/kwh vs. 3.5 -4.5 cents for a new plant. What the MEA IRP found is anyone's guess. The irony of UAF's plan to add a coal plant is that a coal plant is either on full time or it isn't. There is no load balancing one can do without hours or days for starting a plant. If one builds a 20 mw plant, the most efficient use of that plant is to use 20 mw, not less. This is actually a disincentive for conservation.

I also notice that Governor Palin just awarded Usibelli Coal an award for exporting large quantities of coal to Korea. Rewarding a company for exporting a product that creates pollution that alters our environment? This is the same governor who just created a sub-cabinet level group to find ways that the state can reduce its "contribution" toward climate change.

With all the recent ramp up in discussion over climate change and the added CO2 that coal puts out, it seems like the discussion and research being performed demonstrating all the hazards aren't being translated into action.

Mike Gravel as a democratic candidates for President

2007-04-28T23:05:00.000-08:00

Not sure how many folks watched the April 25, 2007 democratic candidate presidential debate. I was most entertained by former 2 term U.S. Senator from Alaska Mike Gravel, who didn't hold back at all. Kind of like Al Sharpton was in the 2004 Presidential race, but less humorous. Here's a video of Gravel's comments from that debate. Wow.

Alaska State House rejects climate change mitigation opportunity

2007-04-28T20:08:00.000-08:00

The State of Alaska Executive Administration seems to be beginning to take climate change seriously with its creation of a sub-cabinet level group to recommend ways to reduce carbon emissions.

This goal is what House Concurrent Resolution 56 asked the governor to do, only the Legislature passed this resolution in 1989. There has been no action taken on this during the past 18 years. At the time, I had proposed a blue ribbon commission, but HCR 56 is what it turned into.

The Alaska House of Representatives no longer seems concerned about reducing climate change when they have a chance. Reggie Joule's Alaska Climate Impact Assessment Commission thus far refuses to do more than talk about the impacts and how to deal with the impacts from such things as coastal communities flooding, changing patterns of game, forest fires, pest infestation, permafrost and polar ice caps melting. They don't actually want to recommend anything to prevent these things from happening.

And last week, the House passed HB 229 to provide up to $2.6 billion in tax free bonds to transport coal to the Kenai for gasification, while defeating an amendment by Rep. Les Gara to insure that this increased coal burning would be at least no more harmful than the alternatives. Interestingly, the text of HB 299 justifies these bonds on the basis of being for an essential public and governmental purpose.

The final bill passed unanimously. And so onward to the Senate for its consideration.

Some legislators argue it wasn't the right vehicle to do something on climate change, but there's always some reason. Let's just get started. The longer we wait, the more it will cost to mitigate, with implications only starting to be considered.. Even China is starting to act. Of course they did sign the Kyoto Accord, not like us.

And to follow it up, a number of lawmakers and the governor are opposing listing the polar bear as endangered, as the polar bear habitat on the sea ice is diminishing. They are afraid it would slow oil and gas development, but so grasp at the false assertion that the science doesn't demonstrate the iconic bears and a candidate for the state quarter aren't at risk. Another assertion is that the Endangered Species Act is the wrong vehicle to address climate change. Folks, we need to use whatever tools we have - you've provided no other. And as if we don't get enough bad national press from hunting wolves ....

Years from now, the younger generations will be asking "What WERE they thinking?".

IPCC report out

2007-04-06T21:26:00.000-08:00

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) just completed the Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change entitled: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. This international conglomeration of governments and esteemed scientists from around the world continue to document why the world needs to get off its collective butt to mitigate climate change. If we don't, the cost of adapting is going to be much greater and disruptive to societies.

The next two reports, due out later this year, will start to address the harder issues: policy to actually do something. It's about time.

EPA can regulate CO2 emissions

2007-04-02T18:02:00.000-08:00

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the EPA does have the authority to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, particularly for cars. The EPA and some states had argued they had no business doing so. This sets the stage for the U.S. to begin to reduce our CO2 emissions, a contributor to climate change, but probably not until Bush's presidency (the long nightmare) is over.

In the meantime, this Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will be issuing the second report on climate change. This one is specific toward discussing the impacts from climate change.
James McCarthy, a renown oceanographer and house master of Phorzheimer House at Harvard University, was quoted as saying the more extreme impacts probably wouldn't happen, as we would get a handle on the problems - we're not that stupid. Your opinion?

Alaska taking step forward or backwards in civil rights

2007-04-01T18:04:00.000-08:00

Alaskans go to the polls April 3 to vote in an expensive one issue advisory vote regarding benefits for those partners and dependents that are not the traditional married one man-one woman vote.

I want to thank Reps. John Coghill and Mike Kelly for their hard work and willingness to spend a paltry $1.2 million of state funds for the important task of asking all Alaskans if they want to enshrine bigotry against those “unconventional couples” in the Alaska Constitution, denying those couples and dependents from receiving health and other benefits of gainful employment.

Their efforts have brought many of all stripes together to oppose this vote on April 3 and I’ve appreciated the diversity and chance to get together with good folks.

To be honest, I never really paid much attention to their marital status — we were just people. My wife and I have been "conventionally" married for 30 years, but I feel as threatened by the proposed constitutional amendment as if we were (horrors) "unconventional". I always thought a constitution was to give rights, not take them away.

There is an irony in Rep. Kelly being so eager to deny rights to those who don’t think like him. As one who plays Irish music, I sometimes sing about the discrimination Irish immigrants faced in America — "No Irish Need Apply". How ready some are to deny others those same rights they had to fight for.

Years later, we will look upon this as we did women’s and civil rights — what were we thinking? I hope a resounding “no” vote from the people will put an end to this.

Here's a link to HJR 9 - the current legislative language for the proposed constitutional amendment. It's actually quite a bit different than the April 3 ballot language. Here's where to keep track of its progress.

I also wrote a blog entry back in December on this issue.

Some articles and opinions

April 1, 2007
Letters to the Editor
Rep. Mike Doogan opinion article
Anchorage Daily News article
Anchorage Daily News opinion

March 31, 2007
News article in the Daily Newsminer
Another news article about the legislative proposal itself, which the proponents aren't even waiting to see what the advisory vote says.
News article on Rep. Kelly trying to sway the vote, using his legislative office. Interesting that the governor didn't feel comfortable telling Alaskans how to vote, but Kelly does. His opinion article April 1 says essentially what was in the letter, which you can view here.
Letters to the Editor

March 29, 2007
Letters to the Editor
More Letters to the Editor

March 28, 2007
Letters to the Editor

March 27, 2007
Letters to the Editor

March 26, 2007
Opinion by Mary Bishop
Letters to the Editor

March 25, 2007
Opinion by Jean Laurencelle
Letters to the Editor

March 24, 2007
Letters to the Editor

March 23, 2007
Letters to the Editor

March 21, 2007
Letters to the Editor

March 20, 2007
Dermot Cole idea on banning divorce
Coghill's opinion AGAIN, for what it is worth. He feels so threatened. I'm not sure that those unconventional couples realized what power they have.

March 18, 2007
Katherine Gouyton opinion
Coghill's opinion

Alaskans are capable of adapting

2007-02-18T05:32:00.000-09:00

A friend recently posted the following and I thought I would share it. I've recently been in eastern Massachussetts during a Nor'easter (dropping 4"-8" of snow) that scared everyone so much, they closed all the schools for 1-2 days.
Even Burger King closed. The driving conditions weren't very bad, as there was more snowplowing equipment than cars on the roads. The next day, front-end loaders, pickup plows, bobcats and the like were hard at work clearing all the parking lots and business approachs.

There were a lot of cars frozen in place where street parked. A couple days later in Boston, residents were chipping their way out. My rental car, admittedly not up to my 4WD standards at home, had to get pushed out of metered street parking twice and I helped others get out. Kind of like City of Fairbanks streets after a snow and a trial warm spell simulating breakup.

So here goes.

60 above zero:
Arizonians turn on the heat.
People in Alaska plant gardens.

50 above zero:
Californians shiver uncontrollably.
People in Fairbanks sunbathe.

40 above zero:
Italian & English cars won't start.
People in Alaska drive with the windows down.

32 above zero:
Distilled water freezes.
The water in Anchorage gets thicker.

20 above zero:
Floridians don coats, thermal underwear, gloves, wool hats.
People in Alaska throw on a flannel shirt.

15 above zero:
New York landlords finally turn up the heat.
People in Alaska have the last cookout before it gets cold.

Zero:
People in Miami all die.
People in Alaska close the windows.

10 below zero:
Californians fly away to Mexico.
People in Alaska get out their winter coats.

25 below zero:
Hollywood disintegrates.
The Girl Scouts in Alaska are selling cookies door to door.

40 below zero:
Washington DC runs out of hot air.
People in Alaska let the dogs sleep indoors.

100 below zero:
Santa Claus abandons the North Pole.
Alaskan drivers get upset because they can't start the Mini-Van.

460 below zero:
ALL atomic motion stops (absolute zero on the Kelvin scale.)
People in Alaska start saying..."Cold 'nuff fer ya?"

500 below zero:
Hell freezes over.
Alaska public schools will open 2 hours late.

Caifornia - leader in energy conservation models

2007-02-18T05:05:00.000-09:00

One wouldn't think California could be a model for energy conservation. Yet, over the past few decades, they have continually looked to reduce their consumption of energy in ways that other states bypass. Here's a recent article that details some of their efforts.

It seems that a combination of price and regulatory changes have been the most effective. We have certainly been experiencing the price effect, but in Alaska and most other states, not much has happened on the regulatory side.

Long AND short term of course, reducing consumption is a win-win for the consumers and inhabitants of this planet. It doesn't take much to accomplish effect changes over time, but the longer we wait, the cost of not making those changes could bankrupt us. But I don't need to preach as much as the policymakers need to take significant action.

Women's Tennis Tops Tie Tongues

2007-01-24T21:28:00.000-09:00

It takes a different set of linguistic skills to keep up with current women's professional tennis. Serena is the apparently rare exception. Excerpted from a recent article.

"Serena overcame Shahar Peer ... to next play Nicole Vaidisova who beat Lucie Safarova. Vaidisova was the highest rank after Safarova upsent Amelie Mauresmo and Peer ousted Svetlana Kuznetsova, though Vaidisova lost to Kutznetsova at the last French Open. ... Williams' win over Nadia Petrova ... 4th round win over Jelena Jankovic. Pockets of Israeli fans cheered Pee [sic]. Maria Sharapova downed Vera Zvonareva and will play Ana Chakvetadze. Kim Clijsters will play Martina Hingis.

Try saying the previous paragraph fast several times over.

Ethanol is the answer?

2007-01-23T13:12:00.000-09:00

With the talk that the energy component of the State of the Union will be highlighting making more ethanol, there is little discussion to address that, while ethanol might be a way to reduce our oil consumption, it has a lower efficiency (less miles/gallon) than gasoline and more importantly, depending upon the fuel source and location, costs more to make. Shouldn't we also consider the impact of diverting a lot of food source options away from food, which impacts the costs of those foods. Seems like the discussion over ethanol needs to be more refined and targeted. An article in the Washington Post starts to address this. The more fundamental answer is to reduce the demand, whether by efficiency or technology.

"Nucular" Power

2007-01-22T06:28:00.001-09:00

With the State of the Union coming soon, the buzz is that Geroge Bush will talk about enhancing "nucular" power as a means of combating global warming and increasing our energy independence.

Nuclear power has been given some incredibly large incentives in the last few congresses under the Republicans. I ran across an article that explains a lot more than I could.

The push for nuclear energy is compelling except for the fact that accidents are extremely deadly and that we don't have safe places to put spent fuel that remains radioactive for thousands of years. It takes hubris to think we could be smart enough or know enough about what the future holds for a section of the earththat far ahead. That hasn't stopped them from trying.

A story more close to home is a plan hatched by Toshiba to put a sodium based nuclear reactor in Galena Alaska, a mostly native village and formerly a forward Air Force base housing a handful of fighter jets. What I find particularly interesting is that this reactor can't be licensed to be installed in Japan, home country of Toshiba, so they suggest it for the Indians of rural Alaska? Smallpox infested blankets anyone?

I'd be more inclined to support fusion over fission, as that would leave us without the nasty radioactive byproducts. We haven't figured out how to do this yet, but the sun has. Maybe we could spend a large portion of our nuclear subsidies to subsidize solar energy? Hello? Is anyone there?

Alaska on the wrong side of climate change

2007-01-05T19:50:00.000-09:00

The state of Alaska is on the wrong side of climate change. We are both heavily favored for major impacts, but the State of Alaska has also taken the wrong side in a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court. The case has been argued before the court, with a decision due by June 2007. Justice Anthony Kennedy appears to be the swing vote.

One report out of the Anchorage Daily News recently spoke of the irony of the State of Alaska opposing the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gasses at the same time as our state is most vulnerable from the impacts of those gases in our atmosphere. Gov. Palin is looking toward guidance from the Alaska Climate Impact Assessment Commission. In a companion article in the Fairbanks Daily News Miner, a longer version of the ADN article (not available on line) quoted Tim Beninendi, staffer to Rep. Samuels, chair of this commission, as saying that the commission wouldn’t address any suggestions of CO2 reduction, only the impacts from doing nothing about the cause.

This limited approach is inefficient, costly, and ill-advised. Since prevention is usually more cost effective than treatment, why not expend some effort toward reducing the things that are creating the negative impacts? It doesn’t serve Alaskans to have the Governor look at only one means of addressing this important issue.

Sometimes logic and common sense seems to baffle those who live in a political environment.

State House Rep. Mike Kelly goes off the deep end

2007-01-01T12:31:00.000-09:00

I find myself deeply disappointed with my State House Representative Mike Kelly. I have always offered him respect even though I disagree with him and he likewise, but in his Dec. 29 Community Perspective, Mike Kelly has gone off the deep end in his righteousness to deny others the same benefits that he receives from his government.

In his grinch-like Community Perspective, Kelly spews hateful animosity in offering benefits to those who live in monogamous relationships not meeting with his approval, despite the Alaska Supreme Court instructing the Legislature and state government otherwise six months ago. That’s right, despite his protestations of not enough time to deal with this legally, he and the other majority members of the Legislature deliberately refused to comply by the ruling of our state’s highest court even after an expensive special session. He doesn’t agree with the Supreme Court, so he suggests we find ways to get rid of the objectionable justices.

Rep. Kelly seems to assume that anyone not in agreement with his view of private relationships is morally corrupt and, like Rep. Coghill, is willing to make this a major effort as a legislator. There was a time when the name Kelly would engender a response "No Irish Need Apply". I want to think our state has a large enough tent for diversity and humanity to rise above such discrimination in the eyes of the beholder.

I’d also offer that we WANT people to have health care. It’s better for them, their employers, private enterprise and society. I’d offer that we WANT people to be in stable relationships. I won’t legislate against them after climbing into their bedrooms to see if their private behavior meets with my approval.

Whether to deny those benefits or not will be voted on by Alaskans this coming April in a constitutional amendment, which I will oppose. I think of a constitution as providing rights, not taking them away. I want ALL our state employees to share in the basic benefits of employment. As long as they continue to offer their good services to our state, they deserve no less.

I appreciate the responses from Rich Seifert in his Community Perspective Dec. 30, the Newsminer's editorial the same day. There was also a short article on the front page.

Intelligent Design

2006-12-26T20:57:00.000-09:00

Nope, not what you were thinking I might be writing about.

Some of you know I was the telecommunications manager for a large company in Fairbanks. While we had many departments, we went from needing 3-4 operators to an automated attendant system incorporated into the phone system. With over 700 extensions

Any system has to have a goal of getting people through their system to where they need to go as quickly as possible as often, it is through an 800 number and more importantly, because it is good for the customer. Yet many systems seem designed to wear out the caller until they give up.

The University of Alaska Anchorage Computer Support Department auto-attendant, which gets funding to provide students, staff, and faculty with support, manages to violate several of the common rules. First, it takes one over a minute before they give you the choices. Even in November, they tell you in advance about their summer hours. Secondly, once they get to the options, you have to wait until all the options are listed before hearing the option to speak to a representative. Once you select that option, you then go into a queue that tell you which caller in line you are. When I called, I started out as caller #6 and eventually ended up as THE caller. The final coup was to then send me to voice mail to leave a message.

When I mentioned this poor design to the Chief Information Officer, he cc'd an email to the manager in charge, saying I had a bad experience and told him to get in touch with me. Not exactly what I'd call a single bad experience, just poor design. Of course, I never heard from that manager, despite his boss' direction.

I also submitted a customer service report through their website, but never heard back. The whole reason I called them was to get a contact in their networking group, because there was no directory listing for that individual that worked. Interesting when the department responsible for creating that directory doesn't even have a functional directory for its own staff.

Another example might be hiding behind FAQ's and not allowing even direct emails to request customer assistance. I was investigating Google Checkout, their competitive effort to eBay. Google, one of the richest companies on the internet, practices this customer obfucation pretty thoroughly. They won't reply to direct emails to support@google.com or customersupport@google.com (or any variety of these). They send you a reply to go to their "contact us" on their website. Nothing one can easily find allows you to get anything other than a canned answer to your problem. If you can find a way to submit a problem to them, the reply tells you how much they value your opinion, but because they get so much correspondence, they probably won't reply. They say they design their system or make changes based upon customer input. Who are they talking to? Any customer who would trust their credit card and bank account number to a company with whom one has absolutely no ability to contact in case of a problem would be nuts. I'm not the only one to notice this as in this
Infoworld article or in this blog. There is an irony in rightfully slagging Google Checkout, when they are now the owners of my blog hosting site AND I used google.com to find sources for this section of my blog.

Amazon merely hides behind email, though does have a toll free number for customer support that is advertised by common folks on non-Amazon sites.

In a voice mail system, the first rule is to always allow a 0 to get to a live human being. Keep your message short. It is a waste of everyone's time to say "please listen carefully as our options have changed to improve service". And, as UAA violates, don't put your troubleshooting tips in the body of the main greeting. Also, don't bury your options more than 3 deep.

There are more obvious design rules, but this is for starters.

It seems as companies use technology to hide behind when dealing with customers. Some probably figure if they can wear a customer down, the customer will give up. That may appear to be a less costly option, but keep it up and that company will lose its customers. Dell found that out when outsourcing the help desk to India. While they might speak perfect English, I could only understand every 5th word and I consider myself very sensitive to accents. The Indian call centers also had a way of very courteously telling you only their canned responses, not actually in solving the particular problem. As a result of lots of negative attention to crappy customer service, some of their call centers were brought back to the U.S.

Of course, if there are so many problems with a company's service that they can't afford to hire enough live operators, they probably are doing something wrong in the quality of their product or core service they are marketing.

Sometimes what it takes to get attention of a company is to search the web for the corporate officers, try to figure out their emails if not obvious and email them. I've been successful with Fedex, Alaska Communications Systems, and Earthlink doing this. Dell was a total waste of my time, though I got a call from a corporate flack who refused to put anything in writing or get back to me on a problem. Even his recommendation for a certified letter to their legal office resulted in no response.

I'm sure others have had experienced similar experiences, but when the CEO actually notices, then it might make some difference. Are there any companies that DO a good job at customer service with technology? I'd like to hear.

Tuna in a Can

2006-12-26T20:37:00.000-09:00

Has anyone wondered why a can of tuna is more like a half-can of water or oil and a half-can of tuna mush? The can still advertises tuna IN water or oil. I can't even count on making two sandwiches with a single can, even if I add lots of extra stuff, like mayo, onions, relish, celery, etc.

Of course, you can buy solid albacore for 3x times the price, but you give yourself 3 times the mercury as well. Such a deal.

GVEA vote results

2006-12-11T23:55:00.000-09:00

It seems like a long effort on my part, but it is time to re-evaluate and move forward.

Here are the vote results for the two ballot issues submitted to members:

* * * * * * * *

For transferring assets to the GVEA G&T
Yes 2653 41%
No 3878 59%

Vote fails. GVEA G&T assets remain with GVEA.

* * * * * * * *

For allowing all but board member and spouses to participate in GVEA alternative energy programs (e.g. SNAP)

Yes 4304 66.4%
No 2180 33.6%

Vote passes. All but board members and spouses may now participate.

* * * * * * * *
Check out the more detailed vote tally

See http://gvea.blogspot.com for comment on this or further GVEA issues.

GVEA second to last posting

2006-12-10T23:22:00.000-09:00

The GVEA website now includes links to the GVEA G&T, under board of directors. We'll see how long it stays there.

After announcing results of the vote Mon. night of the G&T proposal vote, I would like to move GVEA discussions over to a separate blog http://gvea.blogspot.com so we can work to get two way communications between the GVEA organization, board and membership.

It will also allow this blog to get back to other things without being buried in GVEA issues. There is life after GVEA (:-).

GVEA G&T Articles of Incorporation and the smell test

2006-12-07T20:42:00.000-09:00

Listening in on KFAR radio today to board members Dan Osborne and Tom Delong discuss the G&T proposal, one caller requested GVEA to post the G&T Articles of Incorporation. I had already done so, extracted from GVEA G&T's larger RCA filing back in June 2006. A list of documentation was also posted. Sorry they didn't mention it on the radio show as I think I've presented a pretty complete picture of the proposal with links to all sides of the issue.

As far as the radio show, it went on for 1.5 hours. Everyone appeared to have their chance to present their points more than once and got a number of callers to prompt the occasional spirited exchange.

I did hear an official word that 5369 ballots had been turned in as of Wed. 5 pm. Anybody wanting to come down and observe the ballot counting process should know it will be started next Mon. Dec 11, 2006 6 pm in either the GVEA Board Room (space willing) or the Training Room on the 2nd floor of the Operations Bldg. behind the administrative bldg. at GVEA offices on Illinois St. My understanding is that MAC members will be doing the counting.

I've learned a lot during this G&T affair, but one easy recommendation to GVEA is to separate the ballot collectors from the staff who are charged with advocating on one side of the issue, in this case the P.R. folks. Not that I believe any ballot stuffing is going on, but, as Government Affairs Director Tom Irwin might say, "It doesn't meet the smell test".

Turn in those ballots

2006-12-05T22:59:00.000-09:00

I went down to GVEA to turn in my ballot in person a couple days ago. Jokingly I was asked if I wanted to share how I voted. Let them guess.

Besides the full page Newsminer ads, GVEA also produced 15 second radio and TV spots. Very basic, just the big $30 million figure flying across the screen, with any of 4 board members telling you to vote so they could save you money. Kind of reminds me of sale advertisements, where you have to spend to save. Pretty dishonest presentation IMHO, even given the limitation of 15 seconds.

So I hope everyone that will has turned in a ballot. The last time they can be turned in (received by GVEA) is 5 pm next Monday, Dec. 11, 2006.