Venezuela's Chavistas hold massive rally for legislative victory in Caracas

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9qgnsRA02M&ab_channel=TheGrayzone

Guaranteed Profits, Broken Promises

How ComEd and Exelon turned utility regulation on its head




December 6, 2020 Illinois PIRG




https://portside.org/2020-12-06/guaranteed-profits-broken-promises




[moderator: Download the full report HERE.]

Commonwealth Edison (ComEd), Illinois’ largest electric utility, first proposed a large capital program to modernize its grid in 2007. Understanding the substantial costs and potential, if uncertain, benefits of so-called “smart grid” investments, state regulators opted to instead launch an innovative statewide process, seeking to ensure “‘that consumers are the primary beneficiaries’ of the smart grid modernization.”

Before this customer-focused process addressed policymaking details, ComEd went to the Illinois General Assembly to pass the Energy Infrastructure Modernization Act (EIMA) in 2011, which paired capital investments with radical, utility-friendly changes to rate-setting and customer protections. ComEd sold EIMA as necessary to move from a grid whose technology had not changed much in the past 100 years and that functioned mainly to dispatch power from centralized power plants to customers, to a modern smart grid capable of integrating power from smaller, clean energy sources, improving efficiency, and empowering customers with more information and control.

We now know that EIMA was passed, in part, through a corrupt and illegal bribery scheme. In a July deferred prosecution agreement with the United States Attorney fo the Northern District of Illinois, ComEd admitted to perpetrating this scheme in an attempt to influence Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan and win favorable legislation, starting with EIMA.

In the wake of the scandal, ComEd has insisted that the “improper conduct described in the deferred prosecution agreement … does not mean that consumers were harmed by the legislation that was passed in Illinois."

Nine years after EIMA’s passage, the record is clear: EIMA delivered guaranteed, record profits and other benefits to ComEd and its parent company, Exelon Corporation, while leaving ComEd customers and the public with broken promises.

This report examines EIMA; the claims ComEd made to pass it and makes to defend it; its impact on ComEd and Exelon; on its regulator, the Illinois Commerce Commission; and on ComEd customers and the public interest.

In the language of ComEd, EIMA imposed “obligations'' on the utility: $2.6 billion in specified reliability and smart grid investments. In return, EIMA gave the company generous “assurances:” faster and more certain, i.e. guaranteed, revenue and profit with less regulatory oversight through so-called “formula” rate-setting.

ComEd presented these obligations and assurances as a tightly bound, balanced give and take; the company said it “simply can’t make investment without the stability and predictability embodied in the regulatory reform section of the bill.” But the two have little to do with one another. EIMA and its formula built ComEd and Exelon a profit machine entirely out of proportion to the law’s specified investments.

Formula rate setting provided such an advantage over the traditional process that ComEd easily handled its specified investments, deploying smart meters at almost twice the speed as planned, while also increasing profits. This alone demonstrates that EIMA’s assurances were overkill.

But further, formula ratemaking allowed ComEd to add significantly more profits than planned in EIMA; while the specified investments are all but completed, ComEd continues to enjoy formula rates and is planning to spend at even higher levels than it did during the height of its EIMA investment. Since the first formula rate case, ComEd has added more than $5.1 billion, almost twice the amount of specified investments, to its rate base, the value of its assets it will earn a profit off of for years to come.

Not only have formula rates provided ComEd guaranteed, record profits, they have shielded the company’s investments from meaningful scrutiny. The law’s annual rate-setting timeline does not allow time for regulators or other stakeholders to thoroughly examine the company’s filings. Its formula flattens billions of dollars of investment to formula “inputs” taken from one high-level federal form. Not only has this kept the Commission from reviewing all of ComEd’s massive spending but it has reduced the Commission to a rubber stamp. Compared to the more than $5 billion added to ComEd’s rate base through annual formula rate updates, the Commission has disallowed only $23 million. While ComEd spends unprecedented billions, customers bear all the risks that the company wastes money through inefficient or unnecessary spending or that customers would have benefited more from alternative investments.

For customers, the result of the law has been a 37 percent increase in the delivery portion of their bills, without which, because of declines in power supply prices, customer bills would have decreased significantly.

ComEd did not need formula rates to improve reliability after decades of poor performance or to improve service through new technology. Rather, ComEd used promises of achieving adequate service and a sparkling, customer-centered vision of the future to win itself guaranteed profits with less accountability.

ComEd promised customers smart grid-enabled cost savings from increased operational efficiency; rapid advances in clean, distributed energy and energy efficiency; and an exciting new world of information, choice and control. It promised customers a fundamental shift in how they interact with their utility: robust data at their fingertips and a market full of innovative smart meter-enabled products and services to choose from.

It remains an open question whether ComEd is capable of meeting the customer benefit expectations it set. At the same time ComEd leadership was promoting its vision of empowered consumers through its campaign to pass EIMA, then-Exelon Chairman and CEO John Rowe commented “We have looked at most of the elements of smart grid for 20 years and we have never been able to come up with estimates that make it pay.” Rowe further stated that he thought customers would benefit more if, instead of investing in the smart grid, utilities invested in replacing more old cable.

Regardless of whether ComEd oversold the potential benefits of the smart grid, the smart grid does enable direct customer benefits, primarily through energy and cost savings, outcomes that directly threaten Exelon’s revenues. Current Exelon CEO Chris Crane has acknowledged that officials within the company viewed smart meters as representing “value destruction to the generating company.”

Despite large changes to Illinois’ energy laws and the corporate structure of the relevant companies, there remains a fundamental and unaddressed conflict of interest in Exelon’s ownership of ComEd: Exelon’s business interests, generally as a power generator and specifically as an owner of high cost nuclear plants, are at odds with ComEd’s service obligations.

EIMA was carefully drafted so that ComEd could easily avoid delivering on all of its promises, and has notably failed to deliver the promised customer benefits most threatening to Exelon. Instead, ComEd withheld these promised benefits, providing leverage to win even further windfalls for itself and Exelon.

Even the benefits the law has delivered have not been properly analyzed, leaving regulators and the public without the ability to judge whether or not they were “worth” customers paying 37 percent more for delivery service.

EIMA was a radical and unwelcome inversion of traditional utility regulation, which aims to ensure and maximize the public good through the creation of the opportunity for private profit. EIMA, on the other hand, guaranteed ComEd and Exelon’s private profit while failing to adequately ensure the public good.

Plan For Left To Hold Pelosi Accountable. Iran Believes Israel May Strike. Garland In VZ

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctDLm4W-hQs&ab_channel=JamarlThomas

The Supreme Court Wants to Revive a Doctrine That Would Paralyze Biden’s Administration

Even the most basic government functions would grind to a halt.




December 6, 2020 Hannah Mullen and Sejal Singh SLATE




https://portside.org/2020-12-06/supreme-court-wants-revive-doctrine-would-paralyze-bidens-administration




Joe Biden promised us an FDR-sized presidency—starting with bold action to halt the spread of COVID-19, end the worst economic downturn in decades, and stop the climate crisis. Biden could use regulation and executive action to move quickly to decarbonize the economy, cancel student loan debt, and raise wages. But a Biden administration has an even bigger problem than two long-shot special elections in Georgia: the new 6–3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court may soon burn down the federal government’s regulatory powers.

At least five conservative justices have signaled that they are eager to revive the “non-delegation doctrine,” the constitutional principle that Congress can’t give (“delegate”) too much lawmaking power to the executive branch. On paper, the rule requires Congress, when delegating power to an agency, to articulate an “intelligible principle” (like air pollution regulation needed “to protect public health”) to guide the agency’s exercise of that power. But in practice, the nondelegation doctrine is effectively dead. The court has only struck down two statutes on nondelegation grounds—and none since 1935.

Today, most of the government’s work is done through the “administrative state,” the administrative agencies and offices, like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Education, which issue regulations and enforce laws. Congress doesn’t have the capacity to pass laws that nimbly address complex, technical, and ever-changing problems like air pollution, COVID-19 exposure in workplaces, drug testing, and the disposal of nuclear waste. So Congress tasks agencies staffed with scientists and other specialists to craft regulations that directly address those problems. This division of responsibility—Congress legislates policy goals and agencies implement them effectively—is the foundation of functional government.

Take, for example, the Clean Air Act. In 1963, Congress ordered the EPA to regulate air quality standards “at a level that is requisite to protect public health.” Based on that authority, the EPA routinely issues lifesaving regulations limiting lead in the air, air pollutants coming from chemical plants, and, critically, greenhouse gasses. Biden can use the CAA to start tackling the climate crisis on Day One. The dormant nondelegation doctrine is the foundation of thousands of regulations across dozens of agencies, allowing agencies to make technical decisions about, say, hospital reimbursement rates to administer Medicare or wage and hour rules that protect workers from exploitation.

But last year, in a case called Gundy v. United States, four conservative justices announced that they wanted to bring the nondelegation doctrine back to life. Gundy arose out of a national sex offender registry law that explicitly applied to everyone convicted after the law took effect but delegated authority to the Department of Justice to determine when and how it applied to people convicted before the law took effect. Herman Gundy, who was convicted before the registry law took effect, argued that the law violated the nondelegation doctrine. The court upheld the law. But in a dissent joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the court should revive the dormant nondelegation doctrine.* Gorsuch’s dissent argued that Congress may only delegate policymaking power to agencies under three narrow circumstances: to “fill up the details” of a legislative scheme; for executive fact-finding to determine the application of a rule; and to assign nonlegislative responsibilities to the executive and judicial branches. Justice Samuel Alito wrote separately to say he’d like to “reconsider” the nondelegation doctrine—just not in a case about sex offenders’ rights.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wasn’t on the court in time to hear Gundy. But last fall, in a separate opinion, he signaled his support for Gorsuch’s new, revived nondelegation doctrine. That makes five votes for resurrecting the nondelegation doctrine and taking a hatchet to landmark labor, environmental, and consumer protection law—even without Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who, administrative law experts warn, shares the conservative justices’ hostility to the administrative state.

As Justice Elena Kagan pointed out in Gundy if the conservative justices bring back the nondelegation doctrine, “most of Government is unconstitutional.” Exactly how much government would be unconstitutional, though, isn’t clear. What does Gorsuch mean when he writes that Congress may give agencies the power to “fill up the details” of a legislative scheme? What does Kavanaugh’s test—that Congress may not delegate “major policy questions” to agencies—actually forbid in practice? Would Biden’s EPA be permitted to issue regulations about greenhouse gasses or new, dangerous chemicals leaking into our public waters? Congress relies on OSHA experts to set workplace safety standards that are “reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment.” Does that “delegate” too much power to OSHA to act fast to issue COVID-19 safety standards for transportation, grocery stores, and meatpacking workers, as Joe Biden has promised to do? What about the EEOC’s power to interpret anti-discrimination to address workplace dress codes that discriminate against Black women’s natural hair? What about the FDA’s authority under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act to subject “any” tobacco products to federal regulations—is “tobacco products” narrow enough under Gorsuch and Kavanaugh’s tests? Or would an FDA decision to regulate Juul just like cigarettes be a “major policy question” outside agencies’ powers?

The uncertainty alone could give special interests like fossil fuel companies and Juul grounds to sue to stop, or at least hold up, lifesaving regulations issued by the Biden administration. They’re already trying—just last year, e-cigarette company “Big Time Vapes” argued that the FDA’s power to regulate “any” tobacco product violated the nondelegation doctrine. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rejected that challenge. But in its opinion, the 5th Circuit hinted that similar challenges could soon be successful, as the Supreme Court “might well decide—perhaps soon—to reexamine or revive the nondelegation doctrine.” And if that happens, all bets are off.

Such a decision would not only threaten existing regulations. It endangers every piece of future progressive legislation, too. Big, transformative legislative packages, like a Green New Deal or “Medicare for All,” would require a million and one technical decisions that Congress is poorly positioned to make. Biden and Congress can pass legislation phasing the United States toward 100 percent clean energy by 2030—but someone will have to actually sweat the details about which engines can be included in which cars.

Government doesn’t work without the administrative state. But that’s sort of the point. The conservative justices have long been hostile to regulation and executive action. And now they may finally have the votes to bring virtually any regulation to a halt. At least five justices are ready to drop a 1,000-pound anvil on any Biden administration rule that displeases them.

Economic Update: Social Movement Gains in L.A.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw84KHA2cZk&ab_channel=DemocracyAtWork

VENEZUELA’S LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS

By Carlos Ron, Valdai Club.

December 6, 2020




https://popularresistance.org/venezuelas-legislative-elections/



A Defiant Stand Against Neo-Colonialism.

Venezuela wins just by carrying out this election. The legislative process, stalled for years, will return to normal under a plural assembly that truly resembles the country’s current political landscape and positions itself in favour of self-determination and national sovereignty, writes Carlos Ron, Venezuela’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs for North America and President of the Simon Bolivar Institute for Peace and Solidarity Among Peoples.

Latin America has caught the world’s attention as it has become the electoral battleground between progressive movements and the neo-colonial aspirations of the Washington Consensus. In Bolivia, Luis Arce, the candidate from Evo Morales’s Movement Towards Socialism, won the presidential election, reverting the bloody coup that, to the convenience of transnational lithium interests, had forced the indigenous leader out of office only a year before. A week later, neoliberalism’s birthplace became its next burial ground, as Chileans approved a historic referendum to change the Constitution left in place by Augusto Pinochet’s military regime.

On December 6, it will be Venezuelan’s turn to challenge US hegemony by simply holding elections that the White House has been attempting to block for months. The Government and even the moderate opposition are set on defying the US policy which in recent years has mainly promoted failed unconstitutional attempts at regime change.

According to the Constitution, on January 5, 2021, a new National Assembly must take office, ending the mandate of the prior members who did not successfully bid for re-election. Juan Guaidó, who the US has supported as “Interim President”, will no longer be an elected official and can no longer claim Venezuela’s government or, more importantly, its assets. That is why the US refuses to recognize the legitimacy of this election, pressures allies into doing the same, and effectively prevents part of Venezuela’s opposition from participating.

Nonetheless, Venezuelans will carry out the parliamentary elections as an exercise of national sovereignty in the hopes that a new National Assembly can engage in concrete actions to circumvent the blockade and end the dismantling of Venezuela’s productivity.
A Return To Politics

This will be Venezuela’s 25th electoral process in 21 years. The new National Assembly will have an increased number of seats to reflect population growth, from 165 to 277 members. Over 14,000 candidates of all political tendencies will be competing. Out of the 107 political organizations contending the elections, 98 define themselves as opposition, yet they have split with the more extremist sector led by Guaidó by participating in the election, refusing to support unconstitutional attempts to change the government, and by rejecting the illegal US “sanctions” aimed at coercing the Venezuelan President into resigning or propelling the military to overthrow him.

Since winning control of the National Assembly in 2015, the Venezuelan opposition embarked on an extremist plan to oust President Nicolas Maduro. The first item on the Assembly’s agenda was an attempt to initiate legal procedures to remove him from office — a version of lawfare like the one applied to overthrow independent leaders such as Paraguay’s Lugo in 2012 or Brazil’s Rousseff in 2017.<.p>

The failure of this strategy led to more extreme tactics that also failed: violent street demonstrations in 2017, an assassination attempt using drones in 2018, a failed military uprising in 2019 led by the self-proclaimed Guaidó, and even an incursion of mercenaries in 2020. As a result, an ample sector of the opposition distance itself from Guaidó. Some parties even rebelled against their leadership and sued them in order to guarantee their electoral participation.
Maximum Pressure Against Democracy

Despite the pandemic, the Trump Administration has applied its “maximum pressure” campaign against Venezuela. State Department officials spoke of a “Monroe Doctrine 2.0” in reference to the 1823 position against the presence of foreign powers in the American continent. As the US embarks on a new Cold War with China, continues to accuse Russia of interference, and escalates its aggression towards Iran, Venezuela seems like a logical target for a regime change operation. President Maduro’s Venezuela is perceived as an open door for US rivals in the region.

For years now, Venezuela sought to break its dependency on the US and engage with other strategic partners. These alliances helped Venezuela avoid a severe Covid-19 crisis. US “sanctions” and overcompliance in the financial sector prevented companies from selling supplies to Venezuela in fear of retaliation. China, Russia, and Iran, however, are among the countries that provided Venezuela with medicine and protective equipment while also helping to design Venezuela’s response: For example, a March delegation of Chinese experts helped design Venezuela’s Covid-19 response and Russia has included Venezuela in the Sputnik V tests.

In contrast, the US increased its interference in Venezuela’s politics by indicting President Maduro under dubious charges and launching a threatening military operation in the Caribbean. In September, the US Treasury sanctioned Indira Alfonzo, head of the National Electoral Council as well as an opposition leaning rector. Later that month it also issued sanctions to five opposition leaders who agreed to participate in the elections. Many others considering participating were also threatened with visa restrictions. The US actively worked to undermine the election process and prevent other countries from recognizing it. Rather, it demands pre-conditions that include President Maduro stepping down before any elections can take place.

The US questions the same electoral process that in the past elected their allies to the current National Assembly, as well as to other municipal, state and national offices. Furthermore, the long-time opposition leader, Timoteo Zambrano, claims that the current electoral process has even more guarantees for the opposition than ever before. This will be verified by international observers who will accompany the process include experts from organizations such as the Council of Electoral Experts of Latin America (CEELA), now led by a former minister in Colombia’s Alvaro Uribe’s cabinet as well as jurists, religious leaders, and political activists from around the world.
Looking Ahead

Venezuela wins just by carrying out this election. The legislative process, stalled for years, will return to normal under a plural assembly that truly resembles the country’s current political landscape and positions itself in favour of self-determination and national sovereignty. The case against blocking Venezuelan assets in US and European banks -$6 billion — will also fall apart with Guaidó out. The new US Administration will have to decide if it will continue to recognize a non-existent government with no clear or constitutional path to legitimacy or if it will return to real politics and engage the Venezuelan Government.

The new National Assembly will no longer be a platform for politicians to plead for US intervention, rather it can push legislation to overcome the blockade and it can turn into a new space for political dialogue between government and opposition. Challenges will continue, but the US will need to reassess its Monroe Doctrine once again. For Venezuela, and the Latin American progressive movement, however, these elections will be another victory of resistance and resilience.

LOSING JOBLESS BENEFITS IS NOT ONLY STRESSFUL

By Avie Schneider, NPR.

December 6, 2020




https://popularresistance.org/losing-jobless-benefits-is-not-only-stressful/




The coronavirus pandemic has thrown millions of Americans out of work — and over the past nine months, up to 20 million have filed for unemployment. Supplemental federal unemployment benefits of $600 per week — a lifeline for many — expired in July and more are set to go away at the end of the year if Congress doesn’t act.

But beyond the economic consequences, not having that financial safety net can lead to serious health problems for those affected, according to new research. Dr. Seth Berkowitz, a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine who co-authored some of that research, says that in extreme cases, it may even contribute to deaths that are not directly caused by the coronavirus itself.

Among people who saw their income disrupted by the pandemic, those getting unemployment insurance “had much lower risk of food insufficiency, much lower risk of missing housing payments, lower depressive symptoms, lower anxiety to symptoms, were less likely to delay care,” he tells NPR’s Steve Inskeep.

“It’s incredibly disruptive for people,” Berkowitz says. That can be especially true for people with chronic illnesses — diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol — who may no longer be able to afford their medicine, he says.

“All of those get disruptive if you start having to worry about the most basic needs: How do you put food on the table for you and your children? How do you keep a roof over your head if you’re so stressed out and anxious and have a lot of depressive symptoms?” Berkowitz adds.

Another recent study makes the case that evictions are tied to an increase in coronavirus cases and deaths. The authors of the study found that the lifting of eviction moratoriums could have resulted in between 365,200 and 502,200 excess coronavirus cases and between 8,900 and 12,500 excess deaths.

Berkowitz says he hopes the emerging research about the connection between health and pandemic assistance can help convince policymakers about the importance of economic relief such as unemployment benefits.

“Both for ongoing pandemic relief, because I think the economic effects of the pandemic will be with us for a while, but also just for long-term unemployment insurance reform,” Berkowitz says. “People will lose their jobs through no fault of their own all the time. And so unemployment insurance is really an important part of social insurance.”

Can the loss of unemployment insurance kill people?

“I think it’s very likely that if you’re not able to manage your chronic conditions, that if you’re not able to put food on your table, if you’re evicted or forced out of your home, that that could result in worsening health,” Berkowitz says. “And as an extreme, people could die as a result of not having the resources needed to stay healthy and stay alive.”