SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: longnshort who wrote (784015)5/9/2014 11:34:58 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1575430
 
Chicago Electricity Rates Rise 21 per cent
..................................................................................................................................................

ComEd customers face big price increases


May 07, 2014 |By Julie Wernau
articles.chicagotribune.com

Just as the Chicago area is getting ready for air conditioning weather, residents can expect to be jolted by higher electric bills.

Starting June 1, Commonwealth Edison customers on average will see monthly bills jump 21 percent, to about $82 a month from about $69 a month.

City residents and others who have switched to competing suppliers won't escape the higher prices because the cost of all electric power is higher.



"The increase that was announced today is something that is going to affect everyone … no matter who you use to supply electricity," said David Kolata, executive director of consumer advocate group Citizens Utility Board, based in Chicago.

Electricity prices are higher because there are currently fewer cheaper players in the market. Coal-powered plants, which used to be less expensive to run, need to make investments to meet more stringent environmental regulations. They either charge higher prices to keep providing power or close down.

As a result, it's not just ComEd customers who will see higher bills. Other suppliers, including the many private firms that compete with ComEd in Illinois' deregulated power market, will charge more, as well.

For example, municipalities that helped switch residents to new suppliers and found bargain deals over the past several years are unlikely to snag similar savings going forward. In Chicago, customers of Integrys, which took over from ComEd as residential supplier, at one point enjoyed a savings of about 3 cents per kilowatt-hour over prices charged by ComEd. Soon the difference will be fractions of a penny per kwh.

Separate from the higher cost of electricity, power customers are expected to see an increase in the second part of each monthly bill, which covers the delivery of power.

All customers of all suppliers would see a jump of about $3 a month in their bills, if state regulators approve a hike in the delivery rate. That increase would go into effect in January on top of the $5.50 extra per month customers saw at the beginning of 2014.

ComEd is asking for the hike in delivery prices because of upgrades it has made to the electrical grid. It charges the delivery fee regardless of which company supplies the power because ComEd, a unit of Chicago-based Exelon Corp., owns the lines that carry electricity into homes and businesses. Its own customers will pay 7.5 cents per kwh for delivery beginning next month, up from 5.5 cents per kwh.

Higher prices for raw electricity aren't coming as a surprise. The industry has known for three years that prices would spike this year because of a 2011 regional capacity auction that set prices for 2014-15.

To ensure enough electricity — plus a reserve — is generated to prevent blackouts, the PJM Interconnection, the agency that procures electricity on behalf of all consumers and manages the electrical grid, conducts an annual "capacity" auction. That auction decides which electricity providers will be paid for committing to run their power plants so the lights stay on.

The PJM chooses the lowest-cost mix of power from electricity operations fueled by coal, nuclear, wind, solar or natural gas, among others. Winners walk away with lucrative "capacity payments," paid by consumers in their electricity bills, as an incentive to invest in plants and keep them running. Losers face the prospect of shutting down.


The 2011 auction came at a time when the operators of coal-fired generating plants were concerned about federal deadlines in 2015 to meet new environmental rules.

The results of the auction suggested that outmoded coal plants either bid high, hoping for capacity payments that would be generous enough to cover the cost of environmental controls, analysts say, or that those coal plant operators didn't bid, which may have skewed the auction in favor of more expensive generators.

Travis Miller, director of utilities research at Chicago-based Morningstar, explained it this way: "You put a bunch of capital into a coal plant to keep it running or you shut it down. If power plants are not properly rewarded for having enough capacity to serve those hottest days, the lights are going to go off. Power producers are not going to invest in the generation that the system needs if they're not able to earn adequate returns."

ComEd disclosed the higher cost for this summer's electricity in a regulatory filing, which disclosed that the cost of power will be 38 percent higher than it is now. Analysts had predicted even higher prices, but PJM said transmission line upgrades, a bevy of new natural gas plants and increases in energy efficiency and other factors helped mitigate the increase.

1 | 2 | Next



To: longnshort who wrote (784015)5/9/2014 12:07:32 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Respond to of 1575430
 
Obama Gave $32 Mil to British Electric Milk Truck Company He Called “The Future of America”



To: longnshort who wrote (784015)5/9/2014 3:47:06 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1575430
 
NBA Hypocrisy: Black NBA Owner Held Black Only Party, Whites Turned Away; NBA Did Nothing

Economic Policy Journal on May 4 2014

<Excerpt>

Debbie Schlussel writes:

In the wake of this week's NBA proposed lifetime ban and $2.5 million fine for Donald Sterling, a longtime reader reminded me that I'd written about another NBA owner, a Black man, who held a party in which Whites were refused entry and turned away. And, yet, the NBA did nothing.

As I've already pointed out, Black racism and bigotry against Whites, Jews, Mormons, and gays is tolerated by the NBA. But a private racist conversation by a White owner is not. And here is an instance of a Black then-NBA owner whose public, deliberate racism was tolerated and ignored. Jay-Z a/k/a Shawn Carter was an owner of the Brooklyn Nets, an NBA Team, from 2003 through mid-April 2013. But, as I noted on this site, in February 2010, Jay-Z held a lavish party at the Merah club in central London, and banned White people from attending. The party, for music industry executives, reporters, and other Jay-Z ass-kissers was for Blacks only. Bouncers were instructed to refuse entry to Whites. Reader Chris reminded me that I'd written about this, and noted.

Wasn't Jay-Z part owner of Brooklyn/New Jersey Nets when he threw that racist party you wrote about? I don't remember any NBA controversy over that. I don't either, but here's a reminder from my 2010 post, " More Obama 'Post-Racialism' Courtesy of Jay-Z":

Jay-Z was caught up in a race row when bouncers at his BRITs after-show party "banned" white people from boozing with the star. Chart legend Jay-Z threw a lavish bash but music industry executives, journalists and revellers were turned away from the roped-off area because of the colour of their skin. Minders were spotted banning clubbers from the private event because they were not "of colour". . . . One clubber said: "The security guards were happy to let in all party-goers apart from the white people. <Snip>

Article



To: longnshort who wrote (784015)5/9/2014 11:03:52 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1575430
 
Progressive Bloggers Are Doing the White House's Job
..............................................................................................................
National Journal ^ | May 9, 2014 | James Oliphant


This administration enjoys an advantage afforded no other: a partisan media that has its back, minute-by-minute.

When Jay Carney was grilled at length by Jonathan Karl of ABC News over an email outlining administration talking points in the wake of the 2012 Benghazi attack, it was not, by the reckoning of many observers, the White House press secretary's finest hour. Carney was alternately defensive and dismissive, arguably fueling a bonfire he was trying to tamp down.

But Carney needn't have worried. He had plenty of backup.

He had The New Republic's Brian Beutler dismissing Benghazi as "nonsense." He had Slate's David Weigel, along with The Washington Post's Plum Line blog, debunking any claim that the new email was a "smoking gun." Media Matters for America labeled Benghazi a "hoax." Salon wrote that the GOP had a "demented Benghazi disease." Daily Kos featured the headline: "Here's Why the GOP Is Fired Up About Benghazi—and Here's Why They're Wrong." The Huffington Post offered "Three Reasons Why Reviving Benghazi Is Stupid—for the GOP."

It's been a familiar pattern since President Obama took office in 2009: When critics attack, the White House can count on a posse of progressive writers to ride to its rescue. Pick an issue, from the Affordable Care Act to Ukraine to the economy to controversies involving the Internal Revenue Service and Benghazi, and you'll find the same voices again and again, on the Web and on Twitter, giving the president cover while savaging the opposition. And typically doing it with sharper tongues and tighter arguments than the White House itself.

While the bond between presidential administrations and friendly opinion-shapers goes back as far as the nation itself, no White House has ever enjoyed the luxury that this one has, in which its arguments and talking points can be advanced on a day-by-day, minute-by-minute basis. No longer must it await the evening news or the morning op-ed page to witness the fruits of its messaging efforts.

Credit the explosion of social media, the fragmentation of news, the erosion of the institutional press. Fortuitously for the president, the modern media landscape not only provides ample space for the expression of pure partisanship, it actively encourages it. Backing your friends and belittling your enemies is a healthy business model, one rewarded by a torrent of clicks, retweets, "likes," and links. "The incentives are to play ball," says one former liberal blogger, "not to speak truth to power. More clicks. More action. Partisanship drives clicks."

The Obama administration had the good fortune to come to power just when the forces undermining the traditional media became truly disruptive, creating a Web-based royalty. And those who came of age, who mastered the new tools, were largely in step with the administration—in many respects mirroring the young Turks in Obama's ranks who used those tools in similar ways to get the president elected.

The new landscape has allowed the White House communications shop do what it does best: Figure out new ways to bypass the mainstream media. It holds off-the-record briefings, sometimes with Obama in the room, for select progressive bloggers from outlets such as TPM and ThinkProgress. (More than once, a National Journal reporter who previously worked at a liberal outlet has been invited as well.)

The outreach to progressive bloggers is part of a multipronged White House media strategy that also involves briefings with the likes of bureau chiefs, prominent columnists, even conservative writers such as Byron York and David Brooks, although certainly with each group, the mileage varies.

Consider: A search of White House records shows Ezra Klein, then with The Washington Post's Wonkblog, visiting more than 25 times since 2009; last week, a Post story detailed the travails of Lesley Clark, a White House reporter for McClatchy who has been to the Oval Office three times in the last three years, and has asked one question directly to Obama in all that time.

The hope, from the White House's perspective, is that progressive media elites sway the mainstream press. "Obviously, all journalists are reading each other on Twitter," says Tim Miller, executive director of the conservative America Rising PAC and a former spokesman for Jon Huntsman. "If you've got very articulate, passionate bloggers on the left who are making arguments why something shouldn't be news, that might have a shaming effect on other journalists who might not want to be mocked or who might be convinced by their arguments."

Certainly, the writers don't always do the Democrats' dirty work. Zaid Jilani, a former blogger for ThinkProgress, an arm of the progressive Center for American Progress, said the White House reacted angrily when he wrote a post critical of the administration's Afghanistan policy. Other progressive writers say they have gotten pushback from Obama aides when they haven't toed the line on issues such as surveillance and immigration.

Still, Jilani worries that some endorse the White House's positions not because they always agree with them, but because they don't want to give the GOP any fodder. "That's a hard thing to separate," he says.

Joan Walsh, an editor-at-large at Salon, brought this tension to a head last year when she slammed Klein for being too critical of the Obamacare rollout and, in essence, giving aid and comfort to the enemy. "On one hand, yes, it's important for Democrats to acknowledge when government screws up, and to fix it," Walsh wrote. "On the other hand, when liberals rush conscientiously to do that, they only encourage the completely unbalanced and unhinged coverage of whatever the problem might be."

Unbalanced. Interesting word for a card-carrying member of the progressive media to use.