November 30th, 2010 Adam Ebner

As reported in Nationwide Deregulated Energy News

In a very competitive marketplace, energy deregulation gives businesses better control of their business electricity costs. Aside from that, there are myriad other benefits and option that their companies would get from a deregulated and competitive energy market – options that were not possible in the past due to high energy expenses and limitations set by the monopolized energy industry.

The deregulation of the many utilities markets gave birth to the emergence of several retail electric providers all competing for subscriptions from both residential and commercial energy users in the state and in energy deregulated cities such as Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, Houston, Dallas and many others. Now given the power to choose, selecting from over 50 retail electricity providers can be a daunting task indeed; with businesses finding themselves at the losing end should they fail to choose the best provider for their needs. This is why businesses should work in partnership with certified electricity brokers to negotiate in their behalf the best electrical rates, payment schemes and other amenities from the various Texas electric companies.

Electricity Brokers:

Your Helping Hand Unlike electricity management at home, businesses have more complex processes and operational needs for electricity that if not managed would find them dealing with extremely high energy costs that would eventually affect their bottom line. Electricity brokers can come into the picture and help businesses find ways on how they can efficiently use Texas electricity and help them minimize their energy costs. These brokers deal and negotiate electrical rates with retail electric providers for the benefit of the business.

No matter what business or industry your company may be in, electricity brokers can provide professional services using up-to-date information of the energy market in a bid to obtain the best commercial electricity deals for the company.

Why Should You Use Electricity Brokers to Shop Electricity?

Businesses may not have the resources available to have an independent study or analysis of the various retail electric providers offering commercial electricity before they switch and commit to the services of one. Aside from this, companies may have to deal with all the other elements in the very complex energy market such as new regulations, changes in fees, penalties, reduction of carbon emissions, etc. Hiring an electricity broker can spare the company from all these, so that all their staff and resources can focus on only one thing – doing business.

Electricity brokers can help companies with their procurement decision, eliminate possible over payments, recover over payments, management of energy consumption, and continuous energy usage analysis. Electricity brokers can uncover and identify areas in the business processes where they can implement significant improvements. These brokers are not in any way tied up with any major retail electric provider, allowing them to give unbiased advice to businesses and help them get the best energy solutions for their companies.

Our Perspective:

Hutchinson Business Solutions (HBS) is an independent energy management company. We represent all the major providers selling deregulated energy in deregulated states. We will do a full analysis of your account and shop your account with our  providers to find the best value and savings for your company.

HBS clients are finding savings from 10% to 20% in the deregulated utility market.

To learn more email george@hbsadvantage.com

Advertisements
Trade group looks to revise “price-to-compare” system that helps customers make informed choices about independent power suppliers
 
By Tom Johnson, January 28 in Energy & Environment |
With residential customers finally switching electricity suppliers, a trade group representing independent power companies is hoping the state revamps billing and other procedures to make it easier for consumers to shop for a cheaper energy.
For the first time since the state broke up its electric monopolies more than a decade ago, residential customers and small commercial operations have some choices about who supplies the power to light their homes and businesses.

Because of a steep drop in natural gas prices and the way the state buys electricity, independent power suppliers have an opportunity to undercut the price that public utilities offer customers.

“The big story on the retail electricity side has been the emergence of residential and small commercial markets,” agreed Jay Kooper, New Jersey state chair of the Retail Energy Suppliers Association, a trade group representing so-called Third-Party Suppliers (TPS).

Falling Prices

Until natural gas prices fell, more than 99 percent of residential customers elected to stay with their incumbent electric utility to buy their power, a fact that generated criticism of the state’s deregulation law. Other power suppliers found it hard to beat the price of the incumbents, in part because fuel costs had been rising and the state mitigated those spikes by buying power in chunks over three years, which tended to moderate those increases.

But when natural gas prices began falling more than a year ago, suppliers could undercut the price offered by the state, with some offering price discounts of up to 15 percent on the supply portion of customers’ bills. Nearly 100,000 customers have switched as of November, according to the most recent data compiled by the state Board of Public Utilities (BPU).

With customers looking around for options, the big question for third-party suppliers is how do they sustain the business, especially if natural gas prices begin rising.

To Kooper, the answer is to revamp the state’s policies in two key areas: how to deal with customers who fall behind in their bills and owe the third-party suppliers money and the so-called price-to-compare, a mechanism set up by the state to help customers shop for new suppliers.

“We need to dive into the nuts and bolts of the retail market to keep it sustainable for the long term,” Kooper said, noting the changes his group is seeking have already been adopted in other states with deregulated energy markets.

Gaining Momentum

Board of Public Utilities President Lee Solomon, who ordered the stakeholder hearings on the issue, said he is trying to take advantage of the momentum created by new suppliers coming into the market and make it easier for them to compete with the incumbents.

Without changes, Kooper said the suppliers will be subject to a “boom and bust” cycle when natural gas prices rise as they most inevitably will. What the suppliers are seeking is a level playing field to compete with the utilities, he said.

Along those lines, the group is advocating requiring the utilities to purchase the suppliers’ account receivables, or unpaid customer bills. Kooper argued such a change would be fair because utilities are already are protected from uncollected bills by a surcharge, which allows them to pay off those bills.

The group is also seeking to establish a uniform price-to-compare system because each of the four utilities uses a different scheme to help customers compare prices, according to Murray Bevan, counsel to the group.

“As retail markets evolve, it’s very important that price-to-compare is as close to an apples-to-apples comparison as possible,” Kooper said. “Without these mechanisms, it makes access to the smaller customers trickier and riskier.”

About Deregulation

January 27, 2011

As presented on PSEG website

Before Deregulation 

Prior to New Jersey’s restructuring, PSE&G was responsible for generating electricity, transmitting the power to all regions of their service territory, distributing the power to the individual homes and businesses, and billing and service issues.  In addition, they were also responsible for all repairs to the electric lines and equipment.

After Deregulation

As a result of the New Jersey Energy Choice Program, the different responsibilities of the utilities were “unbundled” and the power industry was separated into four divisions: generation, transmission, and distribution, and energy services. The generation sector has been deregulated and, as a result, utilities are no longer the sole producers of electricity. The transmission and distribution sectors remain subject to regulation – either by the federal government or the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities.   No matter which electricity supplier you choose, PSE&G will continue to service the transmission and distribution sectors of your electricity.

Competition is allowed between companies to provide power at discounted rates and superb customer service directly to customers. These companies are licensed by the state of New Jersey.  You also have the opportunity to work with an electricity broker or consultant who can compare different offers and provide additional services to help manage your energy spending.

In most cases, PSE&G will continue to send you your utility bill.  So the only thing that changes if you shop for a better rate is that better rate.

Out Perspective

Deregulation has presented a great opportunity for savings in the business sector. If you are a company spending a minimum of $5000 a month on electric and you are not taking advantage of this opportunity, feel free to give us a call and we will present an overview. 856-857-1230

Or, if you would like to know more about deregulation opportunities for your business email george@hbsadvantage.com

HBS has been providing independent deregulated energy management solution to our business clients for over 10 years. We represent all the major deregulated energy providers selling energy in deregulated states.

Visit us on the web www.hutchinsonbusinesssolutions.com

The GOP’s budget proposal is a preposterous, dangerous fantasy.

By Eliot SpitzerPosted Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2011, at 11:34 AM ET

Paul RyanThe time has finally come for both parties to create a federal budget that simultaneously addresses the economy’s structural deficits—tackles the immediate, recession-driven shortfall and still allows us to invest long-term in education, infrastructure, energy, and research and development.

There are basic budget and revenue facts that are not in dispute.

These should factor into every discussion about the budget:

1. Top marginal rates have been generally descending for the past 70 years, from 81 percent in 1940 to 35 percent today.

2. Over the past 30 years, income has grown nearly 300 percent for the top 1 percent, but only 25 percent for middle-income Americans.

3. The percentage of all taxes paid by each income group—including income, payroll, sales, etc.—roughly reflects its total income. In other words, our tax system is barely progressive. Despite the cries of the wealthy for tax relief, they pay only a slightly greater share of taxes than the significantly less wealthy, as a percentage of total income earned.

4. Our annual budget is significantly out of balance:

a. Spending is about $3.8 trillion.
b. Revenue is about $2.5 trillion.
c. This leaves a deficit of about $1.3 trillion.

5. The big buckets of spending are pretty clearly separable:

a. Defense—about $900 billion.
b. Social Security—$730 billion.
c. Medicare—$490 billion.
d. Medicaid—$300 billion.
e. Interest—$250 billion.
f. Nondefense discretionary—$610 billion.

Where do you begin to scale back spending or raise revenue to bring us into long-term balance, while laying a foundation for a competitive economy?

Keep in mind, there are only three things that can be done to close the gap—borrow more, tax more, or spend less. There is a clear consensus that dramatic borrowing will not be acceptable to the markets once we are beyond the immediate recession. The political will to raise taxes, unfortunately, is not there—witness the unfortunate extension of the Bush tax cuts last December. This means that the only real issue becomes which spending will be cut—and by how much?

The Republican answer is simple, and wrong. We got a glimpse of the Republican answer last week, in the Spending Reduction Act issued by the Republican Study Committee—the policy voice of the Republican Party. (Presumably, the response to the president’s State of the Union, to be delivered by Rep. Paul Ryan, the Republican anointed budget whiz and incoming chairman of the House budget committee, will echo this document.)

First off, the RSC proposes to cut only $2.5 trillion over 10 years—not even enough to make up for the additional deficit created by extending the Bush tax cuts.

And where exactly do the Republicans want to cut? Not at all in defense, Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, the biggest drivers of current spending. Moreover, these are the buckets of spending that if not altered will generate larger deficits every year and contribute almost nothing to our future competitiveness.

Instead, they propose that virtually the entirety of the cuts—$2.3 trillion of $2.5 trillion—come from nondefense discretionary spending. That means slashing spending in everything from education to scientific research funding by a whopping 20 percent to 30 percent over the next decade.

This approach is a political punt of the worst form. The Republicans appear to be afraid to make a single tough decision on entitlement spending, defense, or equity issues. They are simply caught in a dogma of “cut where the political cost will be least” and ignore what the impact on the future will be.

Nowhere in the Republican document is there mention of even sensible defense cuts—such as the trillion dollars over a decade suggested by Lawrence Korb, a senior Reagan Defense department official, or any discussion of raising the retirement age for Social Security, or any consideration of raising payroll taxes on the wealthy to keep Social Security solvent into the future.

Nope. The Republican approach to the federal budget continues to be vapid and dangerous for our future.

The moment for President Obama to draw a line in the sand approaches. Whatever disappointment there may have been over the decisions that got us here—the lame-duck tax agreement in particular—this is the moment when budget decisions will set the trajectory for the next decade. He must insist that the obligation to bring greater balance to the federal budget not forsake the education, R&D, and infrastructure investments critical to the future.

Hutchinson Business Solutions (HBS) has been providing deregulated energy management solutions to our business clients for over 10years.

Although we currently do not service the residential markets in deregulated states, I found it prudent to offer some insight to the many residential clients now seeking savings in the deregulated electric market.

Since New Jersey just introduced the opportunity to their residents in the spring of 2010 and Pennsylvania in January 2011, many people have jumped on the band wagon selling electric.

We get several calls daily from our clients asking questions about saving for their home electric.

The first thing that I caution them is to make sure the price that is being presented is fully loaded and contains all the factors that are included to make a price to compare analysis.

Does it include a 7% loss allowance (to deliver 100 kw of electric you must send 107 kw, for there is a 7% line loss in the delivery of the electricity)  

Does it include 7% sales tax. (PA residents 6.46% gross receipt tax)

These factors are included in the PSEG and AC Electric price to compare.

The second thing we caution clients to look for is a fixed price.

Natural gas prices are the lowest they have been in the last 3 to 4 years. Although they have spiked recently due to the winter cold, prices are still very attractive.

Thirty % (30%) of the electric generated in the US is made with natural gas. Because of this, natural gas prices serves as a strong market indicator used for electric market prices.

By choosing a fixed price, you can lock your position for a 1 or 2 year period.

There are many companies offering variable options or 4 month fixed pricing and variable pricing for the remainder of the contract. I do not feel comfortable stating that this presents a good opportunity for savings at this time.

Variable pricing does not lock your position and leaves the pricing upto the whim of the market, therefore this is a more riskier decision at this time.

Proceed with caution and make sure to get all the facts before choosing a deregulated residential electric provider.

Visit us on the web www.hutchinsonbusinesssolutions.com 

David Parkinson – Globe and Mail Update Dec. 31, 2010 5:41PM EST

When Arthur Berman argues that natural gas is destined to have better prices in 2011 than it had in a mediocre 2010, he isn’t talking about technical price charts, or historical correlations, or relative valuations, or even supply-and-demand balances.

No, his view is more down to earth. He’s talking about geology.

“I’m a working petroleum geologist, I’m not a financial analyst,” said Mr. Berman, a prominent Houston-based energy consultant whose controversial views on the North American shale-gas phenomenon have raised eyebrows in the industry. “We probably have a lot less natural gas resource than is commonly believed. “So, what I see is that natural gas prices will not remain depressed. I’m not a price forecaster, but I have every reason to believe that a long position in natural gas [investing] is a smart position.”

The natural gas pricing story has been all about shale gas in 2010, and its fate in 2011 is closely tied to this big wild card, too. Thanks to advances in drilling technology for extracting gas from seams in shale rock, there has been a rapid expansion of drilling in shale plays that were once considered impossible to economically exploit. The resulting boom in production has unleashed substantial new supplies on the North American marketplace, outstripping demand and bloating inventories. Volumes of gas in U.S. storage facilities swelled to record levels last month – 40 per cent higher than they were 10 years ago, almost 20 per cent higher than five years ago – even as gas consumption has rebounded to near pre-recession levels.

That kept natural gas prices low and in decline for most of 2010. Even with the high-demand winter season approaching, prices struggled to stay above $4 (U.S.) per million British thermal units on the New York Mercantile Exchange well into December – their weakest December prices in nearly a decade.

The majority of industry analysts believe the shale-gas boom will continue to keep supplies well above consumption levels in 2011, weighing down natural gas prices. “The fundamentals of oversupply are not likely to change in 2011,” said Peter Tertzakian, chief energy economist at ARC Financial Corp. in Calgary. “Since we expect U.S. natural gas demand growth to come to almost a standstill in 2011 and supply growth to stay in positive territory, the inventory glut remains a concern,” said analyst Dominic Schnider of UBS AG in a recent research note.

But a vocal minority – led by the likes of Mr. Berman and renowned long-time oil and gas forecaster Henry Groppe – believe shale gas may be a bubble that could begin to burst in 2011. They are concerned with both the extremely rapid rates at which production from new shale-gas wells drops off, and the high costs of development and production that suggest to them that producers won’t be willing to keep up the high pace of drilling in shale plays at these unprofitable prices much longer. “[Shale] is a great new resource. I don’t dispute for a moment the size of the resource or its importance,” said Mr. Berman, who, like Mr. Groppe, serves as a consultant to Toronto-based fund management company Middlefield Capital Corp. “What I question is, ultimately, what it will cost to produce the resource.” Mr. Berman’s analysis tells him that North American shale-gas reserves have been exaggerated; that “more than half of the commercial reserves are produced in the first year” of each well; and that the full costs for producing shale gas work out to about $7 per million BTU – far above the current selling price.

He believes companies have been encouraged to aggressively drill U.S. shale plays due to regulations requiring producers to either initiate drilling on their properties or lose them – they want to secure the land. But that won’t continue through 2011, he said. “As I listen to the comments of the executives of the companies that are most active in the shale plays in the U.S., they’re all saying that they’re going to continue to hold the land through the first half of 2011, and then you’re going to see a big decrease in [drilling] rig count,” Mr. Berman said. “They’re smart people; they’re not going to continue to do this beyond the time that they have to.” Instead, he said, companies will redirect their drilling rigs to oil properties, where the cost-to-price equation is much more profitable. That will slow natural gas volumes and change market perception of shale’s potential, he said – and that will push up prices. “It would not surprise me to see the end of 2011 start to see a notable recovery of price,” he said.

Mr. Tertzakian acknowledges that natural gas prices must eventually revert to at least high enough to cover “the marginal costs of producing natural gas in North America,” which he pegs at the $5 to $6 range. However, he doesn’t see that happening in 2011 – and he doesn’t envision a major drop-off in shale drilling or a serious hit to supplies over the next year. “There’s no shortage of gas in the ground. We can debate the technical nuances, but at the end of the day, it takes a certain amount of money to exploit these things – the only restriction is the availability of capital.” He expects some slowdown in natural-gas rig count in the second half of next year could moderate supplies, but that won’t do much to make up for what should continue to be a weak market in the first half – making for another year of 2010-like prices.

“Prices in 2011 will be similar to 2010,” agreed Bill Gwozd, vice-president of gas services at Calgary energy consulting and analysis firm Ziff Energy Group. “That’s not a healthy price for producers – but it’s quite nice for consumers.”

Robert Reich

Fmr. Secretary of Labor; Professor at Berkeley; Author, Aftershock: ‘The Next Economy and America’s Future’

Posted: January 22, 2011 11:18 AM

Whenever you hear a business executive or politician use the term “American competitiveness,” watch your wallet. Few terms in public discourse have gone so directly from obscurity to meaninglessness without any intervening period of coherence.

President Obama just appointed Jeffry Immelt, GE’s CEO, to head his outside panel of economic advisors, replacing Paul Volcker. According to White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, Immelt has “agreed to work through what makes our country more competitive.”

In an opinion piece for the Washington Post announcing his acceptance, Immelt wrote “there is nothing inevitable about America’s declining manufacturing competitiveness if we work together to reverse it.”

But what’s American “competitiveness” and how do you measure it? Here are some different definitions:

  • It’s American exports. Okay, but the easiest way for American companies to increase their exports from the US is for their American-made products to become cheaper internationally. And for them to reduce the price of their American-made stuff they have to cut their costs of production in here. Their biggest cost is their payrolls. So it follows that the simplest way for them to become more “competitive” is to cut their payrolls — either by substituting software and automated machinery for their US workers, or getting (or forcing) their US workers to accept wage and benefit cuts.
  •  

  • It’s net exports. Another way to think about American “competitiveness” is the balance of trade — how much we import from abroad versus how much they import from us. The easiest and most direct way to improve the trade balance is to coax the value of the dollar down relative to foreign currencies (the Fed’s current strategy for flooding the economy with money could have this effect). The result is everything we make becomes cheaper to the rest of the world. But even if other nations were willing to let this happen (doubtful; we’d probably have a currency war instead as they tried to coax down the value of their currencies in response), we’d pay a high price. Everything the rest of the world makes would become more expensive for us.
  •  

  • It’s the profits of American-based companies. In case you haven’t noticed, the profits of American corporations are soaring. That’s largely because sales from their foreign-based operations are booming (especially in China, Brazil, and India). It’s also because they’ve cut their costs of production in the US (see the first item above). American-based companies have become global — making and selling all over the world — so their profitability has little or nothing to do with the number and quality of jobs here in the US. In fact, it may be inversely related.
  •  

  • It’s the number and quality of American jobs. This is my preferred definition, but on this measure we’re doing terribly badly. Most Americans are imprisoned in a terrible trade-off — they can get a job, but only one that pays considerably less than the one they used to have, or they can face unemployment or insecure contract work. The only sure way to improve the quality of jobs over the long term is to build the productivity of American workers and the US overall, which means major investments in education, infrastructure, and basic R&D. But it’s far from clear American corporations and their executives will pay the taxes needed to make these investments. And the only sure way to improve the number of jobs is to give the vast middle and working classes of America sufficient purchasing power to get the economy going again. But here again, it’s far from clear American corporations and their executives will be willing to push for a more progressive tax code, along with wage subsidies, that would put more money into average workers’ pockets.
  •  

 

It’s politically important for President Obama, as for any president, to be available to American business, and to avoid the moniker of being “anti-business.” But the president must not be seduced into believing — and must not allow the public to be similarly seduced into thinking — that the well-being of American business is synonymous with the well-being of Americans.

 

Friday, January 21, 2011

This whole health-care thing isn’t quite working out the way Republicans planned. My guess is that they’ll soon try to change the subject – but I’m afraid they’re already in too deep.

Wednesday’s vote to repeal President Obama’s health insurance reform law was supposed to be a crowning triumph. We heard confident GOP predictions that cowed Democrats would defect in droves, generating unstoppable momentum that forced the Senate to obey “the will of the people” and follow suit. The Democrats’ biggest domestic accomplishment would be in ruins and Obama’s political standing would be damaged, perhaps irreparably.

What actually happened, though, is that the Republican majority managed to win the votes of just three Democrats – all of them Blue Dogs who have been consistent opponents of the reform package anyway. In terms of actual defectors, meaning Democrats who changed sides on the issue, there were none. This is momentum?

The unimpressive vote came at a moment when “the will of the people” on health care is coming into sharper focus. Most polls that offer a simple binary choice – do you like the “Obamacare” law or not – show that the reforms remain narrowly unpopular. Yet a significant fraction of those who are unhappy complain not that the reform law went too far but that it didn’t go far enough. I think of these people as the “public option” crowd.

A recent Associated Press poll found that 41 percent of those surveyed opposed the reform law and 40 percent supported it. But when asked what Congress should do, 43 percent said the law should be modified so that it does more to change the health-care system. Another 19 percent said it should be left as it is.

More troubling for the GOP, the AP poll found that just 26 percent of respondents wanted Congress to repeal the reform law completely. A recent Washington Post poll found support for outright repeal at 18 percent; a Marist poll pegged it at 30 percent.

In other words, what House Republicans just voted to do may be the will of the Tea Party, but it’s not “the will of the people.”

“The test of a first-rate intelligence,” F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote, “is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” By this standard, House Republicans are geniuses. To pass the “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act,” they had to believe that the work of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is both authoritative and worthless.

The CBO, which “scores” the impact of proposed legislation, calculated that the health-reform law will reduce federal deficits by at least $143 billion through 2019. Confronted with the fact that repeal would deepen the nation’s fiscal woes, Republicans simply claimed the CBO estimate to be rubbish. Who cares what the CBO says, anyway?

Er, um, Republicans care, at least when it’s convenient. Delving into the CBO’s analysis, they unearthed a finding that they proclaimed as definitive: The reform law would eliminate 650,000 jobs. Hence “Job-Killing” in the repeal bill’s title.

One problem, though: The CBO analysis contains no such figure. It’s an extrapolation of a rough estimate of an anticipated effect that no reasonable person would describe as “job-killing.” What the budget office actually said is that there are people who would like to withdraw from the workforce – sometimes because of a chronic medical condition – but who feel compelled to continue working so they can keep their health insurance. Once the reforms take effect, these individuals will have new options. That’s where the “lost” jobs supposedly come from.

The exercise in intellectual contortion that was necessary for the House to pass the repeal bill will be an excellent tune-up for what’s supposed to come next. “Repeal and replace” was the promise – get rid of the Democrats’ reform plan and design one of their own. This is going to be fun.

It turns out that voters look forward to the day when no one can be denied insurance coverage because of preexisting conditions. They like the fact that young adults, until they are 26, can be kept on their parents’ policies. They like not having yearly or lifetime limits on benefits. The GOP is going to have to design something that looks a lot like Obamacare.

Meanwhile, Obama’s approval ratings climb higher every week. Somebody change the subject. Quick!

As presented by Public Power (An overview of the deregulated electric in the residential market)

Many of those that are considering switching over are a little confused about what is actually happening.

You are not switching your gas & electric company, you are only switching service providers.

What this means,for example:

If PSEG is your current Gas & Electric Company. They will remain your Utility company. They will still service your home if you have a problem or power outage etc. You will still receive and pay your Bill thru PSEG. What you are doing is simply switching where your Gas and Electric is coming from.  In this case you will be asking PSEG to simply obtain your Gas & Electric from Public Power,LLC instead of their current provider. Currently Public Power per Kilowatt rate is cheaper than PSEG ‘s provider. You can check on your rate by looking at your BILL and looking up the kWh rate.

Then go to  https://ppandu.com/historical_rates.php to check Public Powers’s historical rates for other areas they currently service. Though rates vary from month to month, you will find they have been historically lower then PSEG, Con Ed and many other NY & NJ utility providers.

Actual electric rates for 2009 in January were 11.2 for Public Power and Utility (PP&U), Feb 2010, 9.999*, 11.051*, 11.568*. Jan 2010, 9.999*, 11.051*, 11.568*

PSEG Sept 2010 Average Residential rate is 12.00 per kWh

Currently if you are using under 600 kWh per month you are paying about 11.46 per kWh. If you never exceed that all year then your rate will stay at about 11.46.

 But as soon as you go over 600 Kwh June thru Sept,that part of your bill is jacked up to about 12.34 per kwh. So on average if you are using from 601 kWh and more during the year, the blended average rate is about 12.00 per kwh.  Understand above ONLY reflects the cost of electricity, not the PSEG delivery charges etc. The rates we are concerned with are just the BGS Energy charges, which on your bill is the “Rate to Compare” when you are considering a 3rd party supplier for your electric such as Public Power.

SEE BELOW THE PSEG RATE(TARRIF) Chart (approved June 2010) Note the highlighted rates

PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS

COMPANY           Twenty-Eighth

Revised Sheet No. 67 Superseding     

B.P.U.N.J. No. 14 ELECTRIC                                             Twenty-Seventh Revised Sheet No. 67  

BASIC GENERATION SERVICE – FIXED PRICING (BGS-FP)
ELECTRIC SUPPLY CHARGES 

APPLICABLE TO: 

Default electric supply service for Rate Schedules RS, RSP, RHS, RLM, WH, WHS, HS, BPL, BPL­POF, PSAL, GLP and LPL-Secondary (less than 1,000 kilowatts). 

BGS ENERGY CHARGES: 

Applicable to Rate Schedules RS, RHS, RLM, WH, WHS, HS, BPL, BPL-POF and PSAL           Charges per kilowatthour: 

Rate 

Schedule 

For usage in each of the 

months of 

October through May 

For usage in each of the 

months of 

June through September 

 

    Charges

 

   Charges 

Charges  Including SUT  Charges  Including SUT 
RS –first 600 kWh  11.4627 ¢  12.2651 ¢  11.4356 ¢  12.2361 ¢ 
RS – in excess of 600 kWh  11.4627 ¢  12.2651 ¢  12.3477 ¢  13.2120 ¢ 
RHS – first 600 kWh  9.8139 ¢  10.5009 ¢  10.9809 ¢  11.7496 ¢ 
RHS – in excess of 600 kWh  9.8139 ¢  10.5009 ¢  12.2005 ¢  13.0545 ¢ 
RLM On-Peak  16.1526 ¢  17.2833 ¢  15.6936 ¢  16.7922 ¢ 
RLM Off-Peak  7.4633 ¢  7.9857 ¢  7.8736 ¢  8.4248 ¢ 
WH  9.5068 ¢  10.1723 ¢  10.6903 ¢  11.4386 ¢ 
WHS  7.7482  8.2906 ¢  8.9246 ¢  9.5493 
HS  10.3708 ¢  11.0968 ¢  13.9608 ¢  14.9381 
BPL  7.3379  7.8516 ¢  7.6450 ¢  8.1802 ¢ 
BPL-POF  7.3379 ¢  7.8516 ¢  7.6450 ¢  8.1802 ¢ 
PSAL  7.3379 ¢  7.8516 ¢  7.6450 ¢  8.1802 ¢ 

 

The above Basic Generation Service Energy Charges reflect costs for Energy, Generation Capacity, Transmission, and Ancillary Services (including PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM)  Administrative Charges). The portion of these charges related to Network Integration Transmission Service, including the PJM Seams Elimination Cost Assignment Charges, the PJM Reliability Must Run Charge and PJM Transmission Enhancement Charges may be changed from time to time on the effective date of such change to the PJM rate for these charges as approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 

Kilowatt threshold noted above is based upon the customer’s Peak Load Share of the overall summer peak load assigned to Public Service by the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Office of the Interconnection (PJM). See Section 9.1, Measurement of Electric Service, of the Standard Terms and Conditions of this Tariff. 

Note: Hutchinson Business Solutions has been providing independent deregulated energy management solutions for corporate clients for over 10 years. Although we do not currently provide these services to the residential market, we felt that it is important to make this information available to the general public, since many residential customers are now looking at this opportunity.

Date of Issue: May 20, 2010-Effective: June 1, 2010
Issued by FRANCES I. SUNDHEIM, Vice President and Corporate Rate Counsel
80 Park Plaza, Newark, New Jersey 07102
Filed pursuant to Order of Board of Public Utilities dated March 1, 2010
in Docket No. E009050351

Hu Jintao State Dinner

CHRISTOPHER BODEEN   01/16/11 08:24 PM   AP

BEIJING — Chinese leader Hu Jintao is being feted in Washington this week with a lavish state banquet at the White House and other pomp usually reserved for close friends and allies – all intended to improve the tone of relations between a risen, more assertive and prosperous China and a U.S. superpower in a tenuous economic recovery.

The shaky trust between the United States and China has been eroding recently because of an array of issues – currency policies and trade barriers, nuclear proliferation and North Korea – and both sides seem to recognize the need to recalibrate relations.

The U.S. is one of China’s biggest markets, with $380 billion in annual trade largely in Beijing’s favor. Washington increasingly needs Beijing’s help in managing world troubles, from piracy off Africa to Iran’s nuclear program and reinvigorating the world economy.

Hu sounded a conciliatory tone in a rare interview with U.S. newspapers ahead of his visit, saying the two countries could mutually benefit by finding “common ground” on issues ranging from combatting terrorism and nuclear proliferation to clean energy and infrastructure initiatives.

“There is no denying that there are some differences and sensitive issues between us,” Hu said in written answers to questions submitted by The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal that were published over the weekend. “We both stand to gain from a sound China-U.S. relationship, and lose from confrontation.”

Hu called for more dialogues and exchanges to enhance “practical cooperation,” stressing the need to “abandon the zero-sum Cold War mentality” in U.S.-China relations.

Center for Strategic and International Studies scholar Charles Freeman, a former trade negotiator in the George W. Bush administration, said, “It is absolutely critical for the two sides to be setting a tone that says ‘hang on a second, we are committed to an effective, positive relationship.'”

The state banquet President Barack Obama is hosting will be Hu’s first. In the days before his visit, senior officials from both countries have spoken publicly in favor of better ties.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in a speech Friday that the countries needed to manage their conflicts but their shared interests were so entwined as to constitute entanglement.

“History teaches us that the rise of new powers often ushers in periods of conflict and uncertainty,” Clinton said. “Indeed, on both sides of the Pacific, we do see trepidation about the rise of China and the future of the U.S.-China relationship. We both have much more to gain from cooperation than from conflict.”

Chinese officials have emphasized what they see as common concerns while acknowledging the complexity of the relationship.

“When the relationship is strained we need to bear in mind the larger picture and not allow any individual issue to disrupt our overall cooperation,” Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai said in a speech Friday.

Such maxims, however, don’t apply to issues China defines as its “core interests,” including Taiwan, Tibet and the overarching authority of the Communist Party. That’s a condition Hu’s visit won’t change.

In his interview for the U.S. newspapers, Hu said the two countries should “respect each other’s choice of development path,” an implicit rejection of U.S. criticism of China’s human rights record and other internal affairs.

Hu, whose four-day trip starts Tuesday, is expected to talk up China’s intended peaceful rise in a speech to business leaders and opinion-makers in Washington on Thursday and to highlight the benefits of China’s market and investment when visiting Chicago.

Aware of China’s plummeting image in American opinion, Chinese Foreign Ministry functionaries have in recent weeks been looking for ways to make the usually stiff Hu, and China as a country, appear more human, something akin to reformist patriarch Deng Xiaoping’s donning a 10-gallon hat in Houston in 1979 just after the opening of diplomatic relations.

For the protocol-obsessed Chinese leadership, a highlight of the visit will be Wednesday’s state banquet – an honor denied Hu on his last trip to the White House in 2006. President George W. Bush thought state banquets should be reserved for allies and like-minded powers and instead gave Hu a lunch. Even worse, a member of Falun Gong, the spiritual movement banned by China, disrupted Hu and Bush’s joint appearance, and an announcer incorrectly called China “The Republic of China,” the formal name of democratically ruled Taiwan.

In this visit, no major agreements are expected. Talks over a joint statement ran aground until last-minute negotiations in Beijing last week. But the shared recognition to put things right and the bumpy relations of the last year augur for a better outcome.

The U.S. wants Beijing to move toward faster appreciation of its currency to boost U.S. exports and reduce unemployment. But in his written answers to the U.S. newspapers, Hu did not signal any significant changes in China’s currency policy.

China now holds the world’s largest foreign currency reserves at $2.85 trillion and a major chunk of U.S. government debt. At current rates, economists estimate China will overtake the U.S. as the world’s largest economy within 20 years, possibly by the end of this decade.

Hu said “the current international currency system is the product of the past,” but he did not dispute the U.S. dollar’s role as the global reserve currency. He said it “will be a fairly long process” before the Chinese renminbi can become an international reserve currency.

Beijing has largely rebuffed U.S. appeals for help in reining in bellicose North Korea, curbing Iran’s nuclear program and dismantling of trade barriers. Chinese officials and the nationalistic state-run media have criticized Washington’s renewed attention to Japan, South Korea and Southeast Asia, its arms sales to Taiwan and its continued naval patrols in the Yellow and South China seas as attempts to constrain China’s influence in its backyard.