I wanted to make one more post on these very, very, very bad Smart Meter/deregulated home energy rates by taking a closer look at how 1% Wall Street global corporations recruit the very citizens that should be fighting these infrastructure policies. The same was done these few decades in dismantling all citizen protections, public justice, and now we are seeing what will be complete control of a global energy grid by a 1% that sees WE THE PEOPLE as WE THE HUMAN CAPITAL.
Rahm Emanuel in Chicago is Wall Street and of course is doing the same there as Baltimore. Please take time to look at what organizations are tied to winning hearts and minds of citizens ------FAITH IN PLACE----was created to push these global green corporation policies. So this global faith organization focuses on getting church/synogues/mosques involved in what they are calling GREEN AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY.
Faith in Place empowers Illinois people of all faiths to be leaders in caring for the Earth, providing resources to educate, connect, and advocate for healthier communities.
Since 1999, Faith in Place has worked with over 1,000 houses of worship throughout Illinois to protect our common land, water, and air. With outreach staff working across the state and offices located in Chicago, Lake County, and Central Illinois, Faith in Place inspires faithful people to care for the Earth through our four program areas: Energy & Climate Change, Sustainable Food & Land Use, Water Preservation, and Advocacy.
The American people are educated and know these Wall Street characters-----if a Rahm Emanuel is pushing these policies----we all know it will end badly for WE THE PEOPLE.
FAR-RIGHT 1% WALL STREET GLOBAL CORPORATE NEO-LIBERALS----DO NOT WORK FOR PUBLIC INTEREST----ONLY MAXIMIZED CORPORATE AND WEALTH PROFITS ACCUMULATING WEALTH ANY WAY THEY CAN
Smart Grid for a Smart Chicago
Learn how Smart Grid + Retrofit Chicago can save you money and improve our communities
"We're modernizing Chicago's electric infrastructure and building a Smart Grid that will bring significant economic opportunity for the City, adding jobs and creating new facilities that will train Chicagoans to contribute to Chicago's growing green economy and help Chicago families save money on electricity."
- Mayor Rahm Emanuel.
Chicago residents will be among the first electricity customers in Illinois to receive smart meters in homes and businesses as part of a new smart grid initiative to modernize our aging electricity infrastructure. By 2018, ComEd will install more than four million smart meters to help accelerate customer savings. To date in February 2016, over 950,000 smart meters have been installed in the Chicago area – all Chicago residents are expected to have meters installed by the end 2017.
Smart meters are a key component of smart grid, which improves reliability, provides better service and gives customers greater control over their electric bills. A smart grid and programs like Retrofit Chicago provide families and businesses with more options to save energy and money.
The City of Chicago supports next-generation smart grid technology for smart city infrastructure. New infrastructure investments lay the foundation for long-term economic growth and improved quality of life for citizens. A smart grid will provide residents with better electric service, while supporting environmental sustainability and healthier communities with less energy waste. A smart grid will make Chicago a smarter, more resilient City with innovation and job creation for a brighter future.
- Benefits of Smart Grid
- Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
- Your meter installation: What you need to know
- Smart Grid + Retrofit Chicago
- Smart Meters + Online Tools
- Smart Meters + Pricing Programs
- Smart Meters + Smart Thermostats
- Additional Resources
Investing in a modernized smart grid in Chicago will help residents receive more reliable, affordable, and sustainable electricity.
- More reliable electricity delivery with fewer power outages and quicker restoration of electricity after outages
- Improved safety and security with a better prepared system to respond to emergencies such as severe weather and security threats
- More efficient transmission of electricity with data intelligence for smarter matching of supply to demand
- Operational savings-including no more estimated billing and no more meter readers-that will be fully passed on to ComEd customers.
- Money saving opportunities with new pricing options such as ComEd's Peak-Time Savings and ComEd's Hourly Pricing program.
- More control over your energy use with improved access to your energy usage information
- Less energy waste (it costs more to produce energy during the peak hours of the day, typically between 2 p.m. and 7 p.m). Reduction in peak time use with smart grid will help lower electricity rates -- shift your use to save money..
- Lower operating costs with increased efficiency will create savings on electric bills
- Empowered consumers who can reduce energy use when costs to people and the environment are high
- Reduced peak time demand, which will lessen the need to build new power plants and keep electricity costs low
- Increased opportunity for clean, renewable energy systems and electric vehicles, to be integrated with increased grid flexibility
- Opportunity for customer-owned power generation systems, including renewable energy systems in local communities -- such as solar panels on homes and schools
- Job creation and jobs training in the growing smart grid industry
- Innovation and development of new products and services for consumers to more easily manage their energy, such as smart appliances and thermostats
- More efficient electricity delivery and use will promote a healthy and resilient Chicago
- Improved infrastructure will help Chicago maintain its global competitiveness
What is a Smart Grid?
'Smart grid' is the modernization of the electric power infrastructure here in Chicago, across the US and around the world. The 100-year old electricity grid network will now be improved with smart technology, money-saving pricing options, and empowered consumers. Smart grid can refer to many parts of grid modernization including the application of new information technology, such as smart meters. Smart electricity pricing options, new consumer products, and consumer engagement also make up the Smart Grid.
Smart grid will transform how people use and pay for power by giving consumers more power over their energy use - which means more opportunities to save money. Grid modernization will also help Chicago become more resilient in the face of severe weather, with fewer power outages and more reliable service.
What will Smart Grid cost and who is paying for it?
The cost to each ComEd customer for all smart grid improvements is about $3 per month. In addition to the reduction in ComEd's operational costs that are passed on to customers, you can more than offset the cost of smart grid improvements by taking advantage of online energy-management tools and by enrolling in optional pricing programs.
What is a Smart Meter?
A smart meter is a digital electric meter that securely sends electricity usage information to the utility company. This helps eliminate estimated bills and the need for a meter reader to visit your home. With two-way communication, smart meters will give you access to more information on your electricity usage, so you can make better decisions about how and when to use electricity. ComEd will install the smart meter in the same location as your existing meter.
Are Smart Meters safe?
Yes, smart meters use a low-power wireless radio to communicate electricity usage information to the utility company. When smart meters are transmitting, they emit low levels of "Radio Frequency," or RF, that are comparable to, and oftentimes weaker than, other common household items, including baby monitors, radios, and TVs.
Will Smart Meters give the utility control over my electric usage?
No, the smart grid is about giving customers - not the utility company --more control over their electric bills. Smart meters do not transmit personal identification information about customers, and they can't identify - or control - the appliances you're using. Plus, state law mandates that utilities, their contractors or agents, and any third party cannot sell a customer's personal information, such as name, address, telephone number, and data about electricity usage (Citizens Utility Board).
How can Smart Meters save money?
Electricity costs can change from day to day, hour to hour, and even minute to minute. When more people are using electricity during 'peak times' (often between 2 pm and 7 pm), the cost of electricity can be higher.Today, most Chicago residents are unaware of this because most of us pay a flat rate for each kilowatt-hour of electricity used, no matter the time of day. This system increases the chance that residents will pay more for electricity, since we tend to use more electricity during expensive times and do not react to the price differences. Smart meters give Chicagoans the opportunity to sign up for pricing programs including Peak-Time Savings and Hourly Pricing, which reward customers who reduce their electricity usage when costs and demand are high. Smart meters also eliminate the need for ComEd to estimate your electricity usage because smart meters will automatically send meter readings to the utility company. And with a smart meter, consumers will have access to more to their electricity usage information 24/7, and more information means more control over costs.
Your meter installation: What you need to know:
- You will be notified by ComEd when installations are scheduled for your area
- A uniformed meter installer from ComEd, with appropriate identification, will perform the installation at no additional cost to you
- Be sure there is nothing blocking access to the existing meter
Smart Meters + Pricing Programs
Ed offers Hourly Pricing and Peak Time Savings programs. Customers can enroll in both programs for additional savings.
ComEd’s Peak Time Savings Program
allows you to earn a credit on your electric bill for voluntarily using less electricity during Peak Time Savings Hours. There’s no cost to enroll and no penalty if you don’t participate in any Peak Time Savings Hours. You can learn more and enroll in the program by visiting the Peak Time Savings Program website.
(formally known as Residential Real-Time Pricing or RRTP) lets customers pay the hourly, market price of electricity. For this program, the price you pay may vary from hour to hour based on wholesale market prices.
Participants have access to hourly prices of electricity, and will receive high price notifications and alerts in addition to other useful information. Individual cost savings are not guaranteed and will vary month to month based on weather, market conditions, and usage habits. However, the more participants avoid using electricity when hourly prices are high, the more they can potentially save with Hourly Pricing.
Since the Hourly Pricing program began, participants have saved an average of more than 15% on electricity supply as compared with what they would have paid with ComEd's fixed price rate. By enrolling and simply lowering your use during high price times, you can start saving money. You do have to have a smart meter already installed or have another temporary meter installed that can measure hourly electricity usage. There is a small monthly fee of $0.39 on your utility bill to participate and you do have to enroll in the program for 12 consecutive months.
You can learn more and enroll in the program by visiting the Hourly Pricing Program website or calling 888-202-7787.
Smart Meters + Smart Thermostats
One way for Chicago residents to leverage their smart meters is to install a smart thermostat in their home. A smart thermostat gives you the ability to control the temperature of your home or building remotely from any internet enabled device. The device adapts to your lifestyle and helps you save money and energy. You can take advantage of current rebates and learn more on the Retrofit Chicago FAQ page.
Smart Grid + Renewable Energy
The Smart Grid allows for better integration of renewable energy sources into the electricity grid. Smart Grid improvements include better energy storage, more control over distribution, and smart meter installation. These improvements give grid operators to adapt to power demand quickly when wind or solar power production decreases. Energy storage allows the Smart Grid to absorb excess wind and solar power when it isn't needed, then to release that energy when the wind and solar power production decreases. The Smart Grid will also make it easier to shift power to places where it is most needed more efficiently.
Questions? Please email email@example.com or call 311.
For additional energy saving tips please visit the following resources:
Citizens Utility Board
Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
United State Department of Energy
For additional resources on Smart Grid, please visit:
ComEDElevate EnergyFaith in PlaceCitizens Utility BoardSmart Power Illinois
The Smart Grid Program at the City of Chicago is proudly supported by the Illinois Science and Energy Innovation Foundation
This is a very good indication of the scope of SMART CITY. We are sold on the idea of electric cars as the green policy but SMART CITY goals are about self-propelled vehicles moving citizens inside global corporate campuses----a small percentage of citizens will be able to afford personal electric vehicles. UBER of course becomes 'call a self-propelled car' ----
We see here as well-----E-education, E- health care, E-government. We have discussed what telemedicine, remote microchip medicine may look like and again the small percentage of global citizens who will be able to afford the latest biotech/biolage medical treatments. The infrastructure for E -university/corporate K-12 will be tied to these same global corporate campuses not our communities.
STAKEHOLDERS have for decades meant SHAREHOLDERS AND CORPORATIONS----of course with IPO listings coming to an end those shareholders are that global 1% and their 2%. Indeed, all this SMART CITY infrastructure is tied to global wealth and power......look at the global maps to see what world cities are already tied to these policies and you will see the ONE WORLD NETWORK OF CITY STATES.
All of this market potential as we are told all our Federal agencies, programs, public trusts are going broke----when we cannot afford to keep public schools, public universities, public recreation and community centers open. We cannot afford to replace our water, waste, or have a functioning city hall with staffed public employees that serve WE THE PEOPLE-----but we have plenty of trillions for rebuilding these global corporate structures because----
THESE FEW DECADES OF MASSIVE CORPORATE FRAUDS AND GLOBAL WALL STREET FRAUDS HAVE MOVED ALL US PUBLIC WEALTH TO THE TOP 1% AND THEIR 2%-----THESE ARE THOSE STAKEHOLDERS IN ONE WORLD SMART CITIES.
GLOBAL TIER 1 STAKEHOLDERS ONLY.
Remember, today's rural citizens will see the Greater Baltimore expand into surrounding counties with global corporate campuses and global factories miles in diameter. The intent is to move ( create density) rural citizens into what will be global corporate campus housing so rural areas are going to be left to decline and depopulate. The temporary transit as global corporate campuses are built these few decades is to move middle/working class, and poor out to these surrounding counties while development in city centers----almost all being global corporate campus and infrastructure support----WE THE PEOPLE will see our ability to afford access to vital and basic services and infrastructure lost----and we will be made to feel it a necessity to live on global corporate campuses and global factories to eat, live, receive energy/water, be schooled-----that is what they are calling SUSTAINABILITY, EFFICIENCY, CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES. Meanwhile, those global corporate campuses and global factories will consume MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF ENERGY----THE OPPOSITE OF CONSERVATION--WITH MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF POLLUTION.
Smart Cities - From Concept to Reality
Frost & SullivanFollow
Published on Nov 18, 2013
This briefing will delve into the issues, challenges, and success factors that
Published in: Technology, Business
Smart Cities - From Concept to Reality
- 1. Smart Cities – From Concept to Reality An intrinsic union of connectivity, sustainability and profitability Presented by: Konkana Khaund Industry Manager Energy and Environment Nov 20, 2013
- 2. Today’s Presenter Konkana Khaund Industry Manager, Energy & Environment • Over 15 years of industry experience; 7 years with Frost & Sullivan’s in Energy & Environment Practice • Multiple publications in the building technologies and services industry, including energy efficiency, smart buildings, smart cities, connected homes and related service sectors • Leadership of consulting engagements with global tier 1 players • Involved with many of the world’s leading building technologies and services firms in an advisory capacity
- 3. Focus Points • What drives smart cities • Key trends in urbanization • Market prospects for smart city segments • The smart city value proposition • Business models of the smart city concept • Key takeaways
- 4. What Drives Smart Cities Global Challenges prompting the need for Smart Cities Connectivity and Information Sharing Resource Management Monitoring and Diagnostics Logistics and Transportation Cross-impact of Diverse Issues Green Supply Chain Management Energy Crisis Scalable and Agile Urban Environments Sustainability with Social Responsibility Low Emission Future Environmental Protection and Security Source: Frost & Sullivan
- 5. Urbanization Trends will Impact Smart City Development Needs from emerging deurbanized cities and corridors will create new challenges and opportunities 1950s Urbanization 2020s: Branded Cities Western Hemisphere will face an increasing trend of deurbanization Creation of the historic center and districts 2000s Suburbanization Urban sprawl, first highways and ring road 2015s Network City Third suburban area and cities along the highways created, ring road overblown by urban sprawl •Emerging urban layouts will have a tremendous impact on smart city development in the future Ring road motorway, living areas growing outside the ring road as seen in London
- 6. Over 40 Global Cities to be SMART Cities in 2020: More than 50% of smart cities of 2025 will be from Europe and North America. Amsterdam London Boulder Tianjin GIFT San Francisco Göteborg Reykjavik Montreal Vancouver Seattle Portland Treasure Island Coyote Springs Arcosanti Clonburris Songdo Copenhagen St Davids Toronto Stockholm Hammarby Sjöstad Oslo Freiburg Dongtan Paris Destiny Changsha Barcelona Khajuraho Babcock Ranch Meixi Lake Pune Singapore City Kochi Bogota Waitakere, N.Z. Curitiba Cape Town Moreland, Australia Cities built from scratch Existing eco cities Existing eco megacities Masdar
- 7. Components that Define a Smart City
- 8. The Smart City Parameters
- 9. Smart City Dynamics
- 10. Smart Cities and Industry Integration Smart Buildings: At least 50% of buildings will be green and intelligent, built with building integrated photovoltaics (BIPV); 20% of the buildings will be net zero energy buildings. Smart Technology: Intelligent communications systems connecting home, office, iPhone and car on a single wireless IT platform. Smart Infrastructure: Multimodal transport hubs providing air, rail, road connectivity to other megacities. Megatrends in parallel industries will influence core smart city components and present opportunities for participants Smart Energy: About 20% of the energy produced in a city will be renewable (wind, solar). Smart Grid: Infrastructure to enable real-time monitoring of power flow and provide energy surplus back to the grid. Satellite Towns: The main city center will merge with several satellite towns to form one megacity. Smart Cars: At least 10% of cars will be electric, with free fast-charging stations every half mile. Source: Google Images
- 11. The Smart City Value Proposition Revenue Opportunities
- 12. Smart Convergence Facilitating the smart city value proposition
- 13. Smart Buildings Facilitating the smart city value proposition Source: Frost & Sullivan
- 14. Roles for Smart City Players
- 15. Smart City Business Models The city as the customer
- 16. Key Takeaways
- 17. What are the implications? • Collaborative project approaches • Convergence of competition • Big data management • New business models Recommendations Open Models Shared Services Consortia Building Digital Infrastructure Funding Mechanisms
We outed the public transit development in Baltimore's downtown as a give-away to one of those global tier 1 players----calling the transportation around our Harbor area A MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT HUB. That had global UBER, UnderArmour as our water taxi, global VEOLA TRANSPORTATION as our taxis, shuttles, college and city buses.
We talked about rail as part of that MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT----and that of course has CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----or in Maryland, EHRLICH/O'MALLEY/HOGAN-----or in Baltimore City, O'MALLEY/DIXON/RAWLINGS-BLAKE-----continuing these same development plans. We are told it would be a waste to change course----OH, REALLY????? WASTE TO WHOM????
Stopping and reversing these ONE WORLD SMART CITY developments is not a waste----it is easy peasy to do---and there is plenty of revenue to rebuild each Baltimore community with its own small business economy, with small manufacturing, and infrastructure that supported all this FIRST-----while global corporations can pay to build their own global structures around WE THE PEOPLE infrastructure....
THIS IS WHAT CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS AND SOCIAL DEMOCRATS WANT----WE SIMPLY NEED TO GET RID OF WALL STREET GLOBAL CORPORATE TRIBUNAL RULE PLAYERS.
Multimodal transport hubs providing air, rail, road connectivity to other megacities.
We talked about BUSH/HOPKINS NEO-CON LARRY HOGAN and his installation of what is this same global transit plan----his state commuter buses---owned and operated by a global corporation as well. Maryland has somehow not had the revenue to fund a real public MTA state commuter structure as other states have---but it can find the revenue now.
'Companies using commuter buses, which some see as a symbol of unwelcome gentrification in San Francisco, will end up paying the city around $1.5 million over the next 18 months as part of a pilot program, Mayor Ed Lee said'.
Here in Maryland citizens are actually lead to believe these statewide commuter buses are about strengthening our MTA-----giving citizens more choices in public transit and moving around the state -----while these commuter buses are tied to global corporate campus movement of workers------and as we see here-----in GOOGLEVILLE formerly San Fran-----Google is being permitted and allowed to make that transition of a public bus stop to a private one----while telling angry citizens Google is simply SHARING with the public our public transit infrastructure.
'Opponents have said the buses crowd municipal bus stops and remove potential customers from cash-strapped public transportation systems, including regional rail services'.
Technology News | Mon Jan 6, 2014 | 8:23pm EST
Google, other big companies to pay to use San Francisco bus stops
A bus driver, with workers from the technology industry, looks on from his bus as it is blocked during a protest against rising costs of living in San Francisco December 20, 2013. REUTERS/Beck Diefenbach
By Sarah McBride | SAN FRANCISCO
Google Inc and other big technology companies that rely on private commuter buses to ferry workers around will now pay the city of San Francisco fees to use city bus stops, the city announced at a news conference on Monday.
Companies using commuter buses, which some see as a symbol of unwelcome gentrification in San Francisco, will end up paying the city around $1.5 million over the next 18 months as part of a pilot program, Mayor Ed Lee said.
The program will institute a permit system for the private commuter buses, which carry an estimated 45,000 workers daily between their homes in San Francisco and dozens of technology companies based in Silicon Valley, south of the city.
The commuter buses will be limited to 200 specific public bus stops, out of 2,500 in the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency system, the city said. The vehicles will have to operate under guidelines such as yielding to Muni buses, pulling to the front of the bus zone to make more room for other buses, and avoiding steep and narrow streets.
"Shuttles are here to stay," Lee said. "They've got to be coordinated and better aligned with our municipal system."
The plan, will go before the SMTA's board for a vote later this month, was created with input from the tech companies that offer the shuttle services to their employees, city officials said. They include Microsoft Corp Apple Inc and others.
"We see this pilot program as a good first step," said Veronica Bell, manager for public policy and government affairs for Google, at the news conference. In early December, Google was the target of the first of a handful of protests against the technology buses. Protests against an Apple bus and another Google bus followed.
The fees will be calculated based on a company's usage of SFMTA bus stops, which SFMTA Director of Transportation Ed Reiskin said would result in charges of around $1 per stop per day. That creates fees averaging about $100,000 per company that uses the buses, or about $1.5 million total for the city.
The fees will cover the SFMTA's cost of running the pilot program, as well as some investment to upgrade selected stops. Improvements might include better signs or bigger shelters, Reiskin said.
City rules forbid the city from collecting more than the cost of providing the service, officials said.
The buses have become among the most visible symbols of what some complain is the technology-driven gentrification of San Francisco, with young, well-paid tech workers forcing out less affluent residents. In addition, critics say some city policies, including tax breaks, are too generous to the technology industry.
But San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener said blaming technology workers for city problems was the wrong approach.
"We need to stop politicizing peoples' ability to get to work," he said at the news conference. "We need to stop stereotyping and scapegoating and demonizing people who work in the tech sector."
IT'S NOT THE PEOPLE ITS THE POLICIES----CITIZENS WANT TO DO MORE WITH PUBLIC TRANSIT THAN GO TO WORK.
Eviction Free San Francisco, one of the groups that has protested against the buses, said the tech industry must help the city retain its diversity, culture and affordability.
"We are prepared to demand more of City Hall if it appears that Mayor Lee's plan is not realistically aggressive enough to address the concerns of poor, working, and middle-class San Franciscans," said Eviction Free San Francisco organizer Jennifer Cust in a statement.
Commuter-bus advocates have said the buses ease traffic on already clogged highways as workers give up driving to ride the buses, which usually have plush seats and Wi-Fi.
Opponents have said the buses crowd municipal bus stops and remove potential customers from cash-strapped public transportation systems, including regional rail services.
Protests, which have involved demonstrators surrounding buses and stopping them from moving for stretches of around 30 minutes, started only last month. But city officials said they have been working with tech companies on policy recommendations for about a year.
Our national interstate highways and state roads have always been built and funded by public revenue with public works departments. All of this creates FREE ROADS AND small BRIDGES----any that are tied to outsourcing remain tied to high tolls forever-----we have the CHESAPEAKE BAY BRIDGE TUNNEL-----as such----paid for over and over and over---but because it is PARTNERSHIP-----simply meaning privatized citizens are linked to tolling and fees forever.
This is of course what a CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA and Congress plan to do with that ever-waiting national infrastructure bill and of course here is MARYLAND MOVING FORWARD WITH PRIVATIZED ROADS AND BRIDGES .
'While advocates claim that the private sector can operate these toll roads more efficiently, the major appeal of these moves is to solve short-term budget crunches. But before getting too excited about the magical powers of private firms, experts warn that there are potential pitfalls to these arrangements. For one, as Robert Puentes of Brookings noted in a recent paper (pdf), these are complicated multi-decade financial arrangements. And “many states,” he notes, “lack the technical capacity and expertise to consider such deals and fully protect the public interest.” '
Much of the current road and bridge construction is already tied to state bonds-----a collapsing municipal bond market will PRIVATIZE those projects all over the state. Baltimore is even worse as it rebuilds its roads, bridges, and tunnels to meet the demands of a GLOBAL PORT OF BALTIMORE ----WHERE MUCH OF THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION WILL BE NEW....AND PRIVATIZED---AND TOLLED.
It is so frustrating to watch citizens in Baltimore and Maryland being told----well, that Transportation Trust that was the public revenue for building all those roads and bridges was misappropriated---OH, WELL----it will be better to pay again a global corporation we all know will fleece these projects with fraud and corruption.
'sometimes appear more receptive to paying for roads via tolls, where it’s obvious what the money’s going toward, than via gas taxes'.
More states privatizing their infrastructure. Are they making a mistake?
By Brad Plumer April 1, 2012
Is this the future of transportation? (Joe Raymond/Associated Press)Maryland is the latest state looking to join the fray. At the moment, its legislature is mulling a bill that would encourage the government to seek out private companies to build, operate, and maintain the state’s roads, bridges, and public buildings. Virginia adopted this approach nearly a decade ago. And a growing number of states — from California to Florida — have been bringing in private capital to bankroll their transportation needs. But is privatizing infrastructure really such a good idea?
There are two main ways for a state to bring in private money for transportation. The first is to sell off assets that have already been built. This is what Indiana did in 2006, under Governor Mitch Daniels, when it leased its 157-mile Indiana East-West Toll Road to an international consortium of investors for $3.8 billion. The private companies have agreed to operate and maintain the roads for 75 years. In return, they get to hike the road’s tolls each year — by either 2 percent, the inflation rate, or the increase in GDP, whichever is higher.
While advocates claim that the private sector can operate these toll roads more efficiently, the major appeal of these moves is to solve short-term budget crunches. Essentially, state officials are giving up a source of revenue that’s spread out over a number of years — in Indiana’s case, tolls — and receiving a lump of cash upfront. “You might get less money overall, but you get it upfront, so that officials can go build the things they want to build,” explains Joshua Schank, the president of the Eno Center for Transportation. What’s more, the private firms are the ones that take the heat for raising fees and tolls, instead of nervous politicians.
Yet these sales can be controversial. The deals are frequently complicated and it can be difficult to assess how good a bargain the states are actually getting. Daniels has called the Indiana Toll Road transaction “the best deal since Manhattan was sold for beads.” Yet residents are still discovering surprises in the 600-page agreement — as when Indiana had to reimburse the operators for lost revenue after waiving tolls for safety reasons during a 2008 flood.
The other way to privatize infrastructure is to have a private firm take charge of building a road, bridge, or transit system from the start. From a global perspective, this isn’t a radical idea. Countries like France, Spain, and Australia have long harnessed these public-private partnerships to build their highways and rail lines. “Compared to other countries, we’re way behind on this,” says Schank. (Indeed, that’s why the large firms that handle these public-private contracts are often European — foreign companies have all the expertise.)
Here’s how this setup would work. Say a state wants to build or upgrade a highway. Various private companies will bid for the project, and the winning bidder has to raise enough money from outside investors to design, operate, build, and maintain the highway for a fixed number of years. The firm is allowed to recoup its costs through tolls and the like over that span. Because the private company is on the hook for the whole thing, it has an incentive to keep costs as low as possible and finish the road on time.
“The idea here,” says Robert Poole of the Reason Foundation, “is that the government is only commissioning projects where the private sector is willing to put its skin in the game.”
There’s some evidence that privately operated infrastructure projects can get built more quickly — and for less money — than projects wholly overseen by the government. One 2007 study (pdf) from Allen Consulting and the University of Melbourne looked at 54 large infrastructure projects in Australia and found that the privately financed ones had smaller cost overruns and were more likely to be finished on schedule than those financed through traditional public-sector methods.
Virginia, for one, has found that such partnerships can offer a way to get around funding logjams. For years, the Virginia Department of Transportation has wanted to relieve congestion on the I-495 Capital Beltway. But the state’s preferred plan involved adding two carpools in each direction on the most congested portions — at an unpalatable cost of $3 billion. Then, in 2004, the state was approached (pdf) by two companies, Fluor and TransUrban, that offered to raise private funds to add two high-occupancy toll lanes in each direction, and do it in a sleeker way that wouldn’t require as much widening of the Beltway. In the end, Fluor-TransUrban is planning to do it for a mere $1.4 billion, and the electronic toll system is set to begin later this year.
“No bureaucratic provision was a problem for them,” Ron Kirby, transportation director for the Washington Area Council of Governments, noted of Fluor in a recent issue of Public Works Financing. “It was ‘Tell me the issue and I’ll figure out a way to solve it.’”
But before getting too excited about the magical powers of private firms, experts warn that there are potential pitfalls to these arrangements. For one, as Robert Puentes of Brookings noted in a recent paper (pdf), these are complicated multi-decade financial arrangements. And “many states,” he notes, “lack the technical capacity and expertise to consider such deals and fully protect the public interest.” For another, the deals need to be structured wisely — in Maryland, for instance, Republicans have warned that certain provisions in the pending Senate bill could allow the government to circumvent the competitive bidding process. (The bill itself does, however, create several layers of review.)
Moreover, a road that’s privately owned for 75 years has the potential to conflict with other public-policy goals. For instance, as a recent GAO report (pdf) found, four of the five privately-funded toll road projects in the last 15 years included non-compete clauses that prevented the government from building nearby roads. As Tim Lee notes, “real-world privatization schemes are often explicitly protectionist.” So what if a state, say, later decides that it wants to build a rail network that competes with the private road? All sorts of complications could arise.
Plus, privatization can’t work everywhere. “It’s not a universal tool,” says Jonathan Peters, a professor of finance at the College of State Island who has studied these partnerships. There are plenty of roads in states like Montana, for starters, that don’t pay for themselves and would be unappealing to private investors. There are ways around this — Madrid, for one, built its subway system by offering formula-based subsidies to private firms, which still bore the risk of a shortfall in rider demand — but it’s trickier. Few transportation experts think we can fill our multi-trillion-dollar infrastructure shortfall with private money alone.
Still, as many states find themselves scrounging under sofas for cash, privatization may prove increasingly appealing. And drivers, at least, sometimes appear more receptive to paying for roads via tolls, where it’s obvious what the money’s going toward, than via gas taxes. “The lack of revenue,” says Peters, “is really forcing people to consider these options more seriously.”
We in Baltimore know about HIDDEN clauses and such-----that is where community development around global corporate campuses are disguised as helping existing communities when it simply builds the infrastructure around that campus-----nothing community intended.
This is indeed what Baltimore and other US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones will see with NEW ROADS----or rebuilding of existing highways----they will place clauses PROTECTING from citizens trying to build roads around a tolled highway ---now, a public highway sees alternate routes as GOOD-----THINK ABOUT RELIEVING CONGESTION-----while these privatized roads will see a backup as money in the bank.
THIS IS WHY THE 2016 ELECTION FRAUD IS CRITICAL BECAUSE ALL THIS GOVERNMENT FUNDING---ALL THESE BOND DEFAULT REVENUE TIED TO COLLAPSED BOND MARKET WILL BE CONTROLLED BY 1% WALL STREET GLOBAL CORPORATIONS IF WE ALLOW THESE CANDIDATES TO STEAL ELECTIONS TIME AFTER TIME.
'In a 2007 article called “Roads to Riches: Why investors are clamoring to take over America’s highways, bridges and airports — and why the public should be nervous,” Business Week noted that “[i]nfrastructure is ultra-low-risk because competition is limited by a host of forces that make it difficult to build, say, a rival toll road. With captive customers, the cash flows are virtually guaranteed.”'
'Many costs of these partnerships can be hidden (such as high fees or poor service). In Denver, the private consortium that operates the Northwest Parkway has a clause in its 99-year contract that prohibits any public road improvements near their toll road because they “might hurt the parkway financially” by providing an alternative route for drivers'.
The Impacts of Privatizing the Turnpike
By Dave Anderson
Boulder Weekly, July 18, 2013
“We are privatizing ourselves into one disaster after another,” veteran journalist Ted Koppel said recently on NPR. “We’ve privatized a lot of what our military is doing. We’ve privatized a lot of what our intelligence agencies are doing. We’ve privatized our very prison system in many parts of the country. We’re privatizing the health system within those prisons. And it’s not working well.”
The privateers have an army of contractors, consultants, think tanks (with the Reason Foundation in the lead) and lobbyists. In particular, they see the country’s huge aging transportation infrastructure as a great money-making opportunity. Our roads and bridges are crumbling, and traffic congestion is widespread. The federal highway trust fund is running out of money.
In a 2007 article called “Roads to Riches: Why investors are clamoring to take over America’s highways, bridges and airports — and why the public should be nervous,” Business Week noted that “[i]nfrastructure is ultra-low-risk because competition is limited by a host of forces that make it difficult to build, say, a rival toll road. With captive customers, the cash flows are virtually guaranteed.”
A few months ago, the Colorado Department of Transportation reached a 50-year deal with a private consortium to handle the improvement, maintenance and operation of U.S. 36.
This is a “public-private partnership,” or P3, which is a concept pushed by an infrastructure-industrial complex composed of global construction corporations, investment banks, private-equity firms and elite law firms organized as vertically integrated consortiums. The influential American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has pushed “model legislation” for P3s in statehouses across the nation.
The U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), a consumer advocacy group, issued a report in 2009 entitled “Private Roads, Public Costs,” which said that P3s can result in governments ceding substantial control over regional transportation policy to companies accountable only to their shareholders, and not to the public.
Phineas Baxandall, a senior analyst for tax and budget policy with PIRG and author of the report, considers the U.S. 36 plan a “mixed bag.”
“There are a lot of positive things about this project,” he said, “but the private financing is essentially just a high-priced loan. Instead of raising more of their own public revenue to finance the road, the state will make larger annual payments to the private road builders.”
The consortium’s financial adviser is Goldman Sachs, the big Wall Street investment bank. Mother Jones, in a 2007 exposé on highway privatization, revealed that Goldman simultaneously has lobbied governments to privatize highways, advised them as they structure the deals and bought a piece of the action.
Other Wall Street firms — Morgan Stanley, the Carlyle Group, Citigroup and many others — have also “fallen in love” (in Business Week’s words) with P3s.
Elliott Sclar, director of the Center for Sustainable Urban Development at Columbia University, is concerned about this new craze. In a 2009 paper, he drew parallels between the way bankers and investors are bundling P3s and the way they handled mortgages just a few years ago. He even wonders if P3s have become the “new sub-prime.”
“If sub-prime is no longer the magic elixir that produces money, what’s beginning to happen is the public-private partnership is becoming that, and nobody is looking closely at them,” he says. “The problem becomes, in a stagnating economy, when there aren’t very many private opportunities to get return on investment, the last thing left standing is the public stream of revenues. And that’s what they’re going after.”
In the midst of the financial crisis in 2008, in an address to the National Council for Public-Private Partnerships, the chairman of a major finance company said, “Desperate government is our best customer. There will be a lot of desperate governments out there.”
Many costs of these partnerships can be hidden (such as high fees or poor service). In Denver, the private consortium that operates the Northwest Parkway has a clause in its 99-year contract that prohibits any public road improvements near their toll road because they “might hurt the parkway financially” by providing an alternative route for drivers.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. But there is a common good.
The last area of Baltimore City infrastructure development this time around----the left-leaning policy of PUBLIC BANKING. Social Democrats for decades have tried to expand on the FDR public works program that built Federal structures some of which were public banks. The Bank of North Dakota was one of those and today it is raking in more than Wall Street because-----as with everything else a global corporation controls the revenue in that bank----the oil industry.
PLEASE THINK ABOUT THIS------THIS PUBLIC BANKING ORGANIZATION CAME ON THE SCENE AFTER THE 2008 ECONOMIC CRASH AND SAYS GOOD THINGS.
This is what we need to consider in what goals are being pushed in what has been a very left-leaning issue of public banks. Now, I have watched this issue-----there is a ONE WORLD PUBLIC BANK movement globally and it is tied to global organizations that tend to be partnered with the global 1%. In this article PUBLIC BANKING uses the same model----North Dakota----which has a public bank because the OIL INDUSTRY LITERALLY OWNS NORTH DAKOTA and is behind this public state bank. What I am seeing in foreign economic zone nations overseas is this same ONE WORLD PUBLIC BANKING that looks very much like this goal supported by the UN---by the POPE as we see below---
Joshua Harris is indeed a 1% Wall Street global corporate Obama neo-liberal----as I look globally at International Economic Zones overseas I am seeing this PUBLIC BANKING issue and here is the WORLD BANK saying it needs to modify its mission----calling for becoming a global public bank----a global credit union for the good of the people---because that's the only way the WORLD BANK will bring ONE WORLD ONE BANK to all Foreign Economic Zones. These public banking stances are the opposite of one another-----and HARRIS as connected as any to all Baltimore's Wall Street Baltimore Development 'labor and justice organizations' is team ONE WORLD.
'The Vatican has called for the establishment of a “global public authority” and “central world bank” to preside over all financial institutions.
The Document “Toward Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of a Global Public Authority” was released by the Vatican’s Justice and Peace Department on Oct. 24.
The document called for the creation of a “supranational authority” that would have “universal jurisdiction” to guide economic policies. It goes on to lament the wealth disparity among various nations'.
Public Banking Tops Baltimore Mayoral Candidate’s Groundbreaking Platform
A Baltimore mayoral candidate may have the most on-point application of public banking we’ve seen in the whole economic democracy movement.
By Matt Stannard for the Public Banking Institute.
There’s a special place in my heart for Baltimore, where I’ve visited many times, and where some of my closest friends live. And several weeks ago I had the chance to interview Joshua Harris, a mayoral candidate who, ever since winning the first straw poll in the race, has had the city’s ossified Democratic Party on the run. Shortly after our interview, Harris and colleagues put forward an agenda for city revitalization that includes public banking.
Harris’s policy platform for Baltimore, “Banking for a Baltimore Undivided: Confronting Race and Class to Increase Opportunity and Equity for People and Neighborhoods,” includes public banking, property tax reduction, and community benefit agreements.
My administration will rely upon participatory governance where residents make decisions on community investment, development, education and safety. Rather than massive tax breaks and crony capitalism for out-of-town corporations that take Baltimore’s wealth out of the city, we seek to empower locally-owned businesses that invest in our city, provide living wage jobs and build community wealth. Instead of relying upon the same Wall Street banks that have practiced redlining and refused to provide financing for mortgages or small businesses in black neighborhoods, we will move the economic power to a public Baltimore City Bank that will serve the public interest and provide capital to local community banks and credit unions. The people of Baltimore will set the mission of the bank and make decisions about its spending priorities right here in our city – not in New York skyscrapers.
In this video interview, Harris gives an incredibly detailed, and incredibly contextual description of what a public bank can do for the people of Baltimore–those who may experience economic insecurity, who have struggled against the structural poverty, racism, and even the prison-industrial complex that has alienated the lives of tens of millions of Americans.
. . . public banking, essentially, takes the concept of traditional banks and brings it into the government sector. We want to, of course, keep the efficiency and the customer service base and have it run by professionals. But knowing that banks get wealthy off of your money and my money from being there, they take it and they make investments. Our city has a $3 billion operating budget. We currently have $90 million sitting in our rainy day fund that’s in a bank that is using it to make investments. Imagine if Baltimore City owned and controlled that bank, and was reaping the benefits of those investments . . . if we had it all in a bank that was only controlled by Baltimore City, we could leverage that to generate more wealth, which in turn would provide opportunities for . . . micro business loans at a small interest rate [businesses] more likely to hire an individual who may have a criminal background . . . someone who’s from the community, knowing that Baltimore City is a place where we had previous administrations that locked up more than 100,000 African-American men in four years who are now looking for work . . . we want to use this bank, and all of the interest that we are able to collect and revenue we are able to generate we want to put towards housing development, restoring the 40,000-plus vacants that we have in our city, then that’s what the citizens decide and that’s what we’ll put that money to use for.
This is the Bank of North Dakota model coming to life, but in the context and history and spirit Baltimore. It underscores that the benefits of a public bank, while sometimes different in shape, are universal in terms of basic promise.
And of course there will be naysayers repeating big banks’ talking points, but their arguments are both ill-informed and, in the face of what private banks have done to Baltimore, actually pretty damn distasteful. After all, Wall Street has robbed, extracted, overcharged, and red-lined the people of Baltimore. Private financiers’ serial dishonesty has torn thousands of B’more homeowners from their homes and made businesses board up.
Harris could be on to something big here. His campaign would probably appreciate any support they could get, including spreading the word by sharing this post. The important thing here is the recognition of how economic insecurity and alienation–from lack of investment to housing, from bank corruption to worker disenfranchisement–create a material backdrop for racism and poverty, and how a public bank directly addresses this backdrop, removing a root cause of material alienation in the city. It may be the most on-point revolutionary application of public banking we’ve seen in the public banking movement.
OH, REALLY?????? REVOLUTIONARY? JOSHUA HARRIS?
Creating structures for the GLOBAL PUBLIC GOOD-----a vision of the bank as a global credit union. If we look at Baltimore as a US city deemed Foreign Economic Zone----existing in that ONE WORLD Foreign Economic Zone structure----then a BALTIMORE PUBLIC BANK would not be public----it would be part of that WORLD BANK PUBLIC GOOD STRUCTURE. Believe me, the WORLD BANK has no intention of doing public good---but it does want all banking under one global umbrella. This is being pushed in African nations, Asian nations----
IT IS NOT REAL LOCAL PUBLIC BANKING.
All of this WORLD BANK AS PUBLIC GOOD BANK FOR THE 21ST CENTURY-----is coming from all the global NGO organizations we know are partnered with the global 1% and Foreign Economic Zones.
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE RESTRUCTURING BY THE WORLD BANK SIMPLY MOVES WHAT WAS FEDERAL FUNDING TO THE WORLD BANK FROM NATIONS---TO THAT OF CITY STATE FUNDING COMING TO A GLOBAL PUBLIC BANK. DO WE STILL CALL IT THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND?
'The multilateral development banking model, first introduced 70 years ago at Bretton Woods, has proven to be remarkably durable. The innovation at the time, embodied in the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), was to capitalize a multilateral institution with public funds from shareholder governments, so that the “bank” could leverage those funds through private borrowing and lend the proceeds to member countries for “development” purposes'.
The Future of the World Bank
The World Bank is the world’s largest development institution and a leading source of funds, ideas, and expertise for development. This initiative, now closed, offered new insights about what the World Bank is — and ought to be — and gave practical suggestions for making the World Bank more effective, accountable, and legitimate in a rapidly changing global economy. This work continues with the September 2015 launch of CGD's High Level Panel on the Future of Multilateral Development Banking. Photo: World Bank / cc
The World Bank has long been the biggest development institution in the world. To retain its relevance in the 21st century, however, it must adapt to new and powerful global economic currents. CGD’s Future of the World Bank initiative offered insights and recommendations to help the Bank continue its leading role on the international development stage. This work continues with the September 2015 launch of CGD's High Level Panel on the Future of Multilateral Development Banking.
CGD work focused on practical suggestions for improving the World Bank. The Center’s recommendations, which ranged from suggesting that the bank should use more of its considerable technical and financial resources to address global public good challenges to calling for a restoration of the founders’ original vision of the bank as a global credit union, aimed to help the bank achieve its official goal of alleviating poverty. CGD President Nancy Birdsall, who was formerly the head of the bank’s policy research department, has written and spoken extensively on these issues and the closely related question of the bank’s role in addressing climate change.
Here is the Public Bank of North Dakota. No doubt way back when it was created as part of the FDR social democracy projects it did service local farmers et al-----today ND is global oil and global oil controls this 'public bank'. Here in Maryland we have a Maryland Employees Credit Union and a Baltimore Employees Credit Union and both send funds heavily to Wall Street Baltimore Development Enterprise Zone global corporate campus development. These are considered MARYLAND PUBLIC BANKING----
ONE WORLD ONE BALTIMORE as a Foreign Economic Zone tied globally to all other International Economic Zones are partnered with WORLD BANK---IMF---UNITED NATIONS ----since they are moving from national sovereignty to CITY STATES as global Foreign Economic Zones----they will sell this idea of a Baltimore Public Bank-----
Shale Boom Helps North Dakota Bank Earn Returns Goldman Would EnvyU.S.’s Lone State-Owned Bank Is Beneficiary of Fracking
Chester Dawson Wall Street Journal
Updated Nov. 16, 2014 6:48 p.m. ET
BISMARCK, N.D.—It is more profitable than Goldman Sachs Group Inc., has a better credit rating than J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and hasn’t seen profit growth drop since 2003.
Meet Bank of North Dakota, the U.S.’s lone state-owned bank, which has one branch, no automated teller machines and not a single investment banker.
The reason for its success? As the sole repository of the state of North Dakota’s revenue, the bank has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of the boom in Bakken shale-oil production from hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. In fact, the bank played a crucial part in kick-starting the oil frenzy in the state in 2008 amid the financial crisis.
When other banks around the U.S. were curtailing lending and increasing reserves, Bank of North Dakota helped smaller banks in the state ride out the crisis by providing them with letters of credit, loan sales and bank stock. Since then, its total assets have more than doubled, to $6.9 billion last year from $2.8 billion in 2007. By contrast, assets of the much bigger Bank of America Corp. have grown much more slowly, to $2.1 trillion from $1.7 trillion in that period.
Much of that growth has been fueled by surging deposits of mineral-rights royalty payments and taxes stemming from North Dakota’s leap from the country’s sixth-largest oil producer to its second largest over the past five years. The bank taps those coffers to extend loans for new businesses, infrastructure such as hospitals and purchases of new homes, all of which have seen increased demand as oil workers flock to the state.
Set up in 1919 under a socialist-oriented government that represented farmers frustrated with out-of-state commodity and railroad owners, the bank treads a fine line between the private and public sectors in what today is a solidly Republican state. It traditionally extends credit, or invests directly, in areas other lenders shun, such as rural housing loans.
The bank’s mission is promoting economic development, not competing with private banks. “We’re a state agency and profit maximization isn’t what drives us,” President Eric Hardmeyer said. At the same time, he said “it’s important to me that we show a respectable bottom line” to taxpayers, noting that the bank historically has returned profits to the state’s coffers.
Its profit, which hit $94 million last year, has grown by double-digit percentages annually since 2010. Return on equity, a measure of profitability, is 18.56%, about 70% higher than those at Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan. To be sure, Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan are much larger institutions with more complex balance sheets.
North Dakotans can open a personal account at the bank’s only branch in downtown Bismarck, the state capital. But the bank offers few of the perks offered by traditional lenders and says retail banking accounts for just 2%-3% of its business. The bank’s focus is providing loans to students and extending credit to companies in North Dakota, often in partnership with smaller community banks.
Bank of North Dakota also acts as a clearinghouse for interbank transactions in the state by settling checks and distributing coins and currency. “We get compared to a little, mini Federal Reserve” on the prairie, said Mr. Hardmeyer, who has led the bank for nearly 14 years.
For years, Bank of North Dakota paid exactly $30 million annually back into the state’s general budgetary fund. But with North Dakota’s coffers flush with oil revenue, the legislature hasn’t requested the payments from the bank since 2010. Its loan book has expanded, but not fast enough to keep up with deposits and retained earnings.
It recently started offering mortgages to individuals in the most underserved corners of the state. But Mr. Hardmeyer dismisses any notion the bank could run into trouble with deadbeat borrowers. “We know our customers,” he said. “You’ve got to understand the conservative nature of this state. Nobody here is really interested in making subprime loans.”
Five years ago, Bank of North Dakota lent about 90% of its deposits, but that ratio shrank to around 60% in 2013.
Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services last month reaffirmed its double-A-minus rating of the bank, whose deposits are guaranteed by the state of North Dakota. That is above the rating for both Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan and among U.S. financial institutions, second only to the Federal Home Loan Banks, rated double-A-plus.
Lawmakers in a few other states such as Colorado and Maryland have advanced proposals to emulate Bank of North Dakota and set up state-owned lenders in recent years, so far without success. “Last year was a peak in terms of introducing these bills,” said Mathew Street, deputy general counsel at the American Bankers Association. “However many bills have been introduced, none have passed since 1919,” he said.
North Dakota officials hesitate to tout the bank as a model. “We think it’s worked well for us, but only because we’re very careful about how we use it,” said North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple.
Not all of Bank of North Dakota’s initiatives have succeeded. One misfire in the early 2000s involved financing “Wooly Boys,” a film starring Peter Fonda and Kris Kristofferson. The movie, about a sheep rancher’s family, was a box-office flop. The bank, which had hoped to spark a tourism boom similar to that in South Dakota after the release of the Kevin Costner hit “Dances with Wolves,” wrote off the loss.