Did I write about this already? It does not look like it. Shame, as I have been doing a bunch of FISMA writing and this article has been floating in my head for a while now. Better late than never, as they might say in NERC.

US Representative James Langevin, chair of the House Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity and Science and Technology, said he had “little confidence” that the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) has fully addressed a vulnerability code-named Aurora, in which electric utilities generators and other equipment comes to a grinding halt.

“I still do not get the sense that we are addressing cybersecurity with the seriousness that it deserves,” Langevin said, according to this report from IDG News Service. “I think we could search far and wide and not find a more disorganized, ineffective response to an issue of national security of this import. If NERC doesn’t start getting serious about national security, it may be time to find a new electric reliability organization.”

Yeah, go Langevin. While I can appreciate the concerns of some who say keep the whole thing offline forever, the reality is that the network is here to stay and there are real cost benefits to remote access, control and reporting. The trick is providing a secure solution, rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

The Washington Post story on the state of Iraqi oil has an interesting pair of paragraphs:

A higher-profile role for Western companies in Iraq’s oil industry is likely to revive speculation that the Iraq war was motivated by a desire to tap into reserves that were controlled by foreigners until the 1960s, when the industry was nationalized. The belief is widespread in the Arab world.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Thursday said the U.S. government played no role in securing the deals. She called the impending contracts a sign that security gains are attracting foreign investment in Iraq.

If I read that correctly, Rice is speaking out of both sides of her mouth at the same time. Impressive. US security gains are attracting deals, while deals are not attracted by US security gains. In other words, better security is not required for developments that require better security, and therefore better security should be given credit while it has nothing to do with progress. Good luck easing concerns with that reasoning. She should have just said “the U.S. government played no role in security gains”.

Reuters reports on a novel concept — adopting a measure of consumption that people could easily understand for fuel:

When presented with a series of car choices in which fuel efficiency was defined in miles per gallon, the students could not easily identify the choice that would result in the greatest gains in fuel efficiency, he said.

People had a much easier time when fuel efficiency was expressed in gallons per 100 miles. In that case, a car that gets 18 miles per gallon uses 5.5 gallons of gas per 100 miles, and a car that gets 28 miles per gallon uses just 3.6 gallons per 100 miles. With gasoline prices over $4 a gallon, that’s a difference of about $8 per 100 miles.

“If we just turn everything around, you can see where are the large savings in gallons of gas,” Larrick said in a telephone interview. The idea is not new. Many other countries, especially in Europe, already use a standard that compares gas used per trip.

Uh-oh. Does he realize that comparing the US to Europe is likely to create discontent among those in America who refuse to acknowledge progress can happen anywhere else in the world?

To translate miles per gallon into gallons per 10,000, Larrick said people can simply divide 10,000 by miles per gallon. Cars with the highest miles per gallon are always the most fuel efficient, he said. It is when people are trying to replace a car that they may be misled.

That’s how he became interested in this problem.

“We were trying to decide whether to get rid of a minivan and go for a station wagon versus getting rid of a sedan and going for a really high-mileage hybrid car,” Larrick said.

“We realized in the end we were better off trading in the minivan and only gaining 10 miles per gallon then we would be trying to swap out the sedan for a highly efficient car.”

Excellent article. The fact that it highlights a real measure instead of searching for the most effective marketing campaign or the creation of feelings about better consumption…it’s practically un-American.

Ha ha ha. This is a funny (or perhaps sad, but I’ll go with funny for now) commentary on Senator McCain’s position on energy reform. The Wall Street Journal blog exposes a serious concern for voters:

As McCain was talking about his energy plans, a protester in the audience at Missouri State University yelled out that McCain had accepted a half million dollars this year from “big oil.”

“That’s more than any other senator!” he yelled. “How can you be trusted?”

After the event, McCain was asked in a news conference if that were true, though the questioner mistakenly quoted the protestor as saying McCain took in a half billion dollars.

“I don’t know what he’s talking about. So I can’t respond,” he said.

Indeed, McCain does lead all other senators, and all others who ran for president, in contributions from the oil and gas industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics’ analysis of federal data in the 2007-08 election cycle. McCain collected $724,000 through May.

This is more than double the amount his competitor has collected. It is little surprise that the energy industry lobbies candidates and pays heavily for government protection. The problem is McCain claims to be ignorant of his relationship with oil, and yet is aggressively calling for expanded drilling. When it comes to security, pro-BigOil policies usually mean bad news for America, so I expect a candidate to take a stand on energy reform that puts oil in perspective. This news shows McCain could decide to undermine his own country for personal financial gain.

Updated to add (June 20, 2008), an article by US News has California Republican Governor explaining the issue nicely:

“We are in this situation because of our dependence on traditional petroleum-based oil,” Schwarzenegger said. “The direction our nation needs to go in, and where California is already headed, is toward greater innovation in new technologies and new fuel choices for consumers. That is the way we will ultimately reduce fuel costs and also protect our environment.”

Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has also declared his opposition to lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling.

Kudos to Schwarzenegger for being so clear on this issue and advising how to manage the risks from a more balanced perspective.