Down
to the final days of the nation’s current spending plan, with negotiations over
a new one at a standstill, nearly half of small business owners are in favor of
shutting the government down, according to a new poll.
Researchers
at Pepperdine University’s Graziadio School of Business and Management
conducted the survey, which found that 48 percent of business owners support at
least a temporary government shutdown, compared to 42 percent who say
policymakers should hurry up and strike a deal. Of the poll’s 1,387
respondents, more than 90 percent own businesses with no more than 200 workers.
Half
of respondents said they could get behind a shutdown for up to a month, and
nearly a third would support shuttering the government for up to three months.
Beyond
that, three in four business owners worry their firms would start to be affected
by the closure, and nearly all believe the economy would start to suffer. Among
employers with less than $5 million in annual revenue, 41 percent said a
shutdown of more three months would force them to pull back on their hiring
plans.
Meanwhile,
on what has become one of the more critical questions for some elected
officials — which party would be at fault — business owners spread the blame
around evenly, with 28 percent of employers saying they would fault Democrats
and 27 percent pointing fingers at Republicans. Forty-three percent would blame
the two parties equally, according to the poll.
At
the root of the current stalemate are disputes over issues like the federal debt ceiling, tax increases and, most
importantly, funding for the health care reform law, known as Obamacare. House
Republicans have threatened to shoot down any agreement that continues to
finance the health care overhaul, while Senate Democrats refuse to take up any
measure that would impede rollout of the legislation.
If
the two parties cannot find common ground by the end of the day Monday, most
federal government operations will come to a halt.
And
while some employers clearly support that move, others say it could have a devastating
impact on their companies.
“A
shutdown would immediately suspend approval of Small Business Administration
loan guarantees, and you can imagine the disruption and potentially fatal
impact that could have on start-up businesses,” Betsy Burton, a bookstore owner
in Salt Lake City, Utah, told On Small Business. “This is a particularly
critical issue in the last quarter of the year when we must pay for inventory
we’ve acquired for the holiday season.”
Burton
called the threat of a shutdown a potential “disaster, one we might not
survive.”
Frank
Knapp, president of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce, says
Burton’s company is not alone. On Main Street, he explained, employers rely on business from
both the government and its employees.
“The
possibility of nearly 3 million federal workers including military being told
to either stay home or work with delayed pay will cause severe problems for
many small businesses in large and small communities across the country,” Knapp
said.
“If
Congress wants to hurt our small businesses, shutting down the government will
do it,” he added.
On the eve of the rollout of the Health Insurance
Marketplace that will allow individuals and small business owners to easily
shop for insurance plans, WIS-TV is presenting a one-hour
special program on the Affordable Care Act.This live program from Columbia starts tonight at 7PM and will be about providing
information and experts answering questions about the Marketplace and Obamacare
in general.
If you want to have a question asked on the program, go to
the WIS-TV
website and send it via email or social media.
I will be one of the information providers on the program and
will be joined by representatives of the S.C. Hospital Association, Nexsen Pruet,
an independent insurance agency and the Eau Claire Cooperative Health Centers.
This
week, Goldman Sachs expanded its “10,000 Small Businesses” initiative, to help
entrepreneurs create jobs and economic opportunity by providing them with
greater access to education, financial capital and business support
services. The program will now be offered to small businesses nationally,
enabling small business owners from across the country to participate in the
program. Small business owners in all 50 states can now apply to “10,000 Small
Businesses,” and accepted small business owners will receive intensive training
and advice from business experts and peers.
The
“10,000 Small Businesses” program offers qualified business owners the
opportunity to create a customized growth plan that includes financial
management, people management, negotiations and marketing.
It
also provides one-on-one business counseling and a network of support from
other small business owners as well as leaders in the business world.
Across
the United States, more than 1,600 small business owners have participated in
the program. The education component maintains a 99-percent graduation
rate, and just six months after graduation, 63 percent have reported increasing
their revenues and 47percent have reported creating net new jobs.
Previously,
the program had been open to businesses in 15 markets across the United States,
including New Orleans.
So
far, 206 small business owners have participated in the program in New
Orleans. The program has helped 37 small business owners secure $8.5
million in loans through Hope Enterprise Corporation.
The
“10,000 Small Businesses” initiative works closely with several, community
partners in New Orleans, including Delgado Community College, Hope Enterprise
Corporation, The Urban League of Greater New Orleans, The Louisiana Small
Business Development Center, The Idea Village and The City of New Orleans.
One
of the small business owners who participated in the “10,000 Small Businesses”
initiative in New Orleans is Angelica Rivera, the co-owner of Colmex
Construction, a family-owned contractor for residential and commercial
construction and renovation. Angelica formed Colmex Construction with her
husband in 2008. In 2011 she joined “10,000 Small Businesses” at Delgado
Community College in New Orleans to improve her company’s cash flow and learn
ways to pursue capital more effectively. Since then, Angelica reports
that Colmex has added 16 new jobs and increased revenues more than 400 percent.
Click here to learn more
about the “10,000 Small Businesses” initiative.
If
you have any questions or feedback about this, please contact Ami Sanchez at Ami_Sanchez@sbc.senate.gov on
my staff.
Three years ago
today, the Small Business Jobs Act became law. As Chair of the
Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, I am proud to
have led this bipartisan effort to help America’s small business
recover from The Great Recession.
The Small Business
Jobs Act added billions of dollars of lending and investment to
America’s entrepreneurs and provided $12 billion in tax relief to
small businesses from coast to coast.
(Press Conference in support of the Small Business Jobs Act, Sept. 2010) -Watch video-
When I took over as
Chair of this Committee in January 2009, our country was facing the
worst economic recession since the Great Depression. The U.S.
economy lost 818,000 jobs that month alone. From September 2008
through the end of 2009, the Great Recession wiped out 7 million
American jobs.
In the face of
tightening credit markets and insufficient resources to assist them,
small businesses were struggling to keep their doors open; and the
primary agency responsible for assisting them was itself struggling
to keep up with demand after suffering significant budget cuts in the
previous years.
The Small Business
Jobs Act got small businesses in Louisiana, and across the nation,
the help they need, ensuring they maintained their historic role as
job creators and innovators spurring economic recovery.
Since the passage
of the Small Business Jobs Act:
--The Small Business
Administration (SBA) supported approximately $60 billion in lending
over the past two years, which were the two highest SBA lending years
on record.
--SBA has refinanced
2,424 small business commercial mortgages, totaling almost $2.3
billion in volume through the 504 commercial mortgage refinance
program. This helped contribute to the highest 504 lending year
of all time which supported over $15 billion in small business
lending.
---SBA successfully
rolled out the first round of State Trade and Export Promotion (STEP)
grants in September 2011 to 47 states and four territories, totaling
$30 million. STEP grants maximize the federal-state-local
resources to help small businesses export so they can grow their
business and create jobs. The STEP program assisted more than
2,000 small businesses begin exporting or increase their current
export success.
A United Nations climate science panel has concluded there’s at least a 95 percent chance human activities are the main driver of global warming over the last six decades.
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia,” states Friday’s report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
“Human influence has been detected in warming of the
atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions
in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate
extremes,” the report finds. “It is extremely likely that human influence has
been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
Five days until we are supposed to be able to shop
in the new Health Insurance Marketplace.While some states running their own Marketplaces might be having some
difficulties in being ready, the Feds who are running the South Carolina
Marketplace insist that on October 1st the doors of the online site
will be open for business.
Stories are coming out now about what South
Carolinians will find when they start shopping (here
and here).If you are still confused after reading about
what will take place, you aren’t alone.
I strongly urge individuals and small business
owners not to try go through this process without guidance.In every premium of every policy on the
Marketplace is a commission to pay to insurance agents and brokers.If you don’t use these insurance
professionals to help you in the Marketplace, your premiums still are the
same.So if you are already paying for
professional help, use it.
One private South Carolina insurance broker that has
received much attention as a good source of assistance in the Marketplace is
HealthAviator.com (here
and here).
Not only can insurance agents and
brokers provide you with professional assistance at no cost to you in shopping
and enrolling in the Marketplace, they also can do what no other facilitator can
do….actually recommend the best plan for you.Only licensed insurance agents and brokers are legally allowed to make
such a recommendation.
But not all insurance agents and brokers are alike.What you want is an agent or broker who is
licensed with all four insurance companies in the Marketplace.There are agents and brokers who art tied to
a specific insurance company so they might be biased in their recommendations
(i.e. they won’t make a commission if they don’t recommend a policy from their
own insurance company).
So get yourself some unbiased professional
assistance by getting an insurance agent/broker who is licensed with all the
Marketplace carriers.HealthAviator.com
is certainly one that is putting a lot of emphasis on working to properly
enroll people in the Marketplace with professional recommendations.But there are others out there also.
Bottom line…get professional insurance agent/broker
assistance and really make the Health Insurance Marketplace work for you.
Franchise owners descended on Capitol Hill
last week to lobby for a modification in the Affordable Care Act. Their
complaint is that under ObamaCare, starting in 2015, businesses with 50 or more
full-time employees will either have to offer their workers affordable health
insurance or pay a penalty fee under the law’s shared responsibility mandate.
But there’s an easy solution that answers
their concerns and at the same helps address one of the biggest threats to
success for ObamaCare.
While my business organization favored no mandate for businesses to offer
health insurance -- or alternatively that businesses with fewer than 100
employees should be exempted under such a provision -- we did support the
overall healthcare reform effort and ultimately the final version of ObamaCare.
The health insurance affordability crisis demanded Congressional action. Plus,
by exempting small businesses with fewer than 50 employees from the requirement
of shared responsibility, approximately 96 percent of all businesses across the
nation are under no obligation to offer health insurance to their employees.
Specifically what the members of the International Franchise Association (IFA)
are asking Congress to do now is change the law so that only employees working
at least 40 hours a week are counted toward that 50 full-time employee mark.
The law now counts employees working at least 30 hours a week as full-time
employees.
These business owners, primarily in hospitality and retail, say that they will
cut the hours of their workers to stay under the present 30-hour per week
rule. The result, they say, would be employees making less money and
still not receiving health insurance.
But that’s not completely true. These low-income workers with reduced hours
almost assuredly would receive health insurance if their states expanded
Medicaid as provide for under ObamaCare.
The primary purpose of the Affordable Care Act was to get affordable health
insurance for almost every citizen. The shared responsibility mandate was
simply a way to get the big business community to help with the cost.
Unfortunately, now the larger issue that threatens the success of the
healthcare reform is the refusal of at least 21 states to expand Medicaid.
Without this expansion almost five million of the mostly working, low-income
people in these states will still be uninsured and continue to drive up the
cost of health insurance for people with coverage due to cost-shifting. This
“hidden tax” on every health insurance policy to pay for the uncompensated care
for the uninsured adds about $1000 to every family policy per year according to
the actuarial firm of Millikan, Inc.
A compromise is in order that will give these franchisees the relief they are
looking for and address the Medicaid expansion problem.
Congress and the president should consider changing the definition of a
full-time employee to at least 40 hours per week but only in states that expand
Medicaid up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Since logic and
common sense were rejected by the states that refused to expand Medicaid, maybe
pressure by the IFA business members will be more effective. The result
could be a win-win-win—businesses, low-income workers and insurance
policyholders.
Knapp is the president of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of
Commerce and the co-chair of the American Sustainable Business Council Action
Fund.
Seven
times either I or the SC Small Business Chamber has intervened in rate hearings
for SCE&G and Duke Energy.Seven
times the public was told that these power companies had to have every penny of
their rate hike proposal or their world would come to an end.Seven times their rate increases have been
cut by about 50% or more by the SC Public Service Commission.Seven times SCE&G and Duke continued to
rack up big earnings after the rate cases were over.
Just
last December we settled with SCE&G for a 1.38% rate hike compared to the 6.6% it asked
for.This month we settled with Duke which
had originally asked for a 15.1% overall electric rate increase (14% for small
businesses) but in the end was satisfied with a 8.16% overall rate hike (3.42%
for small businesses).
This
is the background you need to know when utility companies scream that new EPA
rules on limiting carbon pollution from coal plants (which account for 40% of
our carbon emissions in this country) will cause rates to skyrocket.The track record shows that you simply can’t
believe them.
Below
is a story today in The
Hill in which I make this point.
The Hill September 23, 2013
Emissions
regulations are central battle in Obama climate agenda
By Julian Hattem and Ben Goad
If the Obama administration's proposed
limits on greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants become law, they would
represent the first major victory for the president on his second-term climate
plan. But opponents are not ready to roll over.
The Enivronmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposal
has reignited a bitter fight over the consequence of the proposed regulations
on businesses, with coal country and business groups warning that the
announcement will be a death knell for the energy resource and have
trickle-down effects throughout the economy.
“The facts are plain and simple: coal
provides the greatest share of electricity we use,” said Sen. Joe Manchin,
Democrat of West Virginia. “If these regulations go into effect, American jobs
will be lost, electricity prices will soar and economic uncertainty will grow.”
Together with an upcoming proposal to cap
emissions from power plants already in existence, Friday’s proposal from the
EPA amounts to the centerpiece of the White House’s second-term climate agenda
and a major effort to control releases of the primary greenhouse gas.
Power plants are the largest source of
carbon emissions, accounting for about 40 percent of the nation’s discharges,
but currently they are allowed to spew the gas without limit.
The proposal on future facilities sets
caps for the amount of the greenhouse gas that new coal and natural gas plants
will be able to send into the atmosphere. The draft rules also call for new
coal plants, which emit more carbon than natural gas-fired facilities, to use a
carbon capture and storage technology that opponents believe is too expensive
and still not yet proven to work as planned.
Requiring that technology could amount to
a de facto ban on new coal facilities, they have worried, and could hurt small
companies disproportionately.
“It is clear that small facilities with
sparse capital reserves will be the most impacted by stringent [greenhouse gas]
standards,” the conservative American Action Forum concluded in a report issued
Friday. “Even though they contribute less than one percent of U.S. emissions,
small entities will face the same regulatory hurdles that large utilities
encounter.”
Other businesses, however, counter that
the realities of climate change present far worse threats to portions of the
private sector than do the proposed regulations. Along the coast of South
Carolina, businesses fear rising sea levels that could decimate the state’s
retail and tourism industries, said Frank Knapp, president and CEO of the South
Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce.
Knapp rejected claims by industry groups
who say the regulations will necessarily raise energy costs for American
households.
“The sky is always falling for those
guys,” Knapp said. “They simply try to scare the public, and guess what? The
next quarter, they’re still making profits – double-digit profits. It’s
obscene.”
The White House is comparing its
regulatory effort and the opposition it has stirred to Obama’s first-term focus
on developing new fuel economy standards for cars and trucks, the second
largest source of American carbon emissions.
“We saw a lot of the same naysayers who
said that this would be really bad for the auto industry,” Josh Earnest, a
White House spokesman, said on Friday. “But over the course of time in which
those rules took effect, we have seen the auto industry strengthen
significantly in terms of creating jobs and putting forward better products and
improving sales and revenue.”
The administration is predicting that
requiring the carbon capture technology will lead to new advancements, making
it cheaper and easier to employ.
The power plant rules are the
administration’s most prominent environmental and safety regulations of Obama’s
second term to date, but they are hardly the only ones.
In recent weeks, the administration has
issued proposals to certify that the EPA has the authority to regulate streams,
estuaries and smaller bodies of water, and to curb cancer-causing dust that can
occur at construction sites.
Coming down the pike are final rules
limiting pollution from automobiles, upcoming yearly limits for the amount of
biofuel that refiners must blend with conventional gasoline and new standards
for smog.
Yet time is growing short for the Obama’s
second term regulatory agenda, with the clock already ticking on the
president’s time in office.
“It’s important to move quickly, both to
finish it in this administration and because we need to end the unlimited
dumping of carbon pollution from the existing fleet of coal plants, which are
the biggest source of carbon pollution in the country,” Dave Hawkins, head of
the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate program, said.
The EPA has laid out a schedule of
deadlines meant to ensure its goals are accomplished. Pollution standards for
existing plants, for instance, are due to be proposed next June and finalized
the following year.
“To do what is on his agenda is definitely
within the realm of the practical,” said Abigail Dillen, vice president of
litigation for climate and energy for EarthJustice.
Regulators certainly aren’t wasting any time.
As it unveiled the proposal on Friday, the EPA announced that it would begin
outreach on the second set of rules, for currently operational plants, which
are sure to face greater opposition.
“We’re beginning the discussion, and as we
go through that discussion lots of ideas will come forward about sensible and
cost-effective ways to reduce carbon from the existing fleet,” an EPA official
said.
Critics of the power plant initiative
worry about the dynamic it will create, especially for other industries.
“This rule sets a dangerous
precedent that EPA will soon extend to other sectors, including refineries,”
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the chairman of the House Science Committee, said
in a statement on Friday. “It is just the latest example of the President’s
all-of-the-above rhetoric not matching his administration’s actions.”
Ross Eisenberg, the vice president of
energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturing,
shared Smith’s concern about other sources of greenhouse gases that the EPA
might decide to regulate. “It’s chemicals, it’s natural gas distribution
systems, it’s iron and steel, metal manufacturing, food distribution,”
Eisenberg said. “We’re expecting the decisions and the precedent that’s being
set here, in terms of what they can and can’t mandate, what data they need to
set this rule, to matter for those follow-on regulations.”
A
handful of U.S. utilities have discovered they can save money by encouraging
small rooftop solar projects—the same projects utility industry leaders have
insisted were too expensive and unreliable to be practical.
The
Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) in New
York, for instance, is paying developers to build solar panels on top of
buildings in tiny towns that are experiencing population booms but don't
have enough electric grid infrastructure to bring in the electricity they need.
The pilot initiative will allow the utility to avoid spending more than $80
million to build new transmission lines and grid equipment.
"It's
actually cost-effective to add renewables" this way, said Michael
Deering, LIPA's vice president of environmental affairs.
In that piece I refer to a New York City skyscraper
owned by Iran but through shell companies.Below is the conclusion of that part of the story.
---------------------------------------
CNNMoney
September 17, 2013
U.S. to seize
Manhattan skyscraper secretly owned by Iran
By James O'Toole
The U.S. government is set to seize a Manhattan skyscraper
that prosecutors say is secretly owned and controlled by the Iranian
government. The
36-story tower is located on Fifth Avenue in the heart of New York City,
adjacent to Rockefeller Center, and is home to a number of corporate tenants.
Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, said Tuesday that the seizure
and sale of the property would be the government's largest-ever
terrorism-related forfeiture.
A federal
judge authorized the seizure in a ruling this week, finding that the building's
owners had violated federal money laundering laws and sanctions
against Iran.
The
building was constructed in the 1970's by a non-profit organization operated by
the Shah of Iran, who was overthrown at the end of that decade. Today, the
property is 60% owned by that organization, now called the Alavi Foundation,
and 40% owned by Assa Corporation.
Prosecutors
say Assa Corporation is a front for a bank owned and controlled by the Iranian
government, which also is alleged to control the Alavi Foundation. The
co-owners have allegedly been transferring rental income back to Tehran.
Bharara
said the government would use proceeds from the pending seizure to compensate
the families of victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorism.
The Alavi
Foundation said it planned to appeal the ruling.
"We
have reviewed the decision and disagree with the court's analysis of the facts
and the law," the organization said in a statement. "The Foundation
was ready for trial and is disappointed that it did not have the opportunity to
rebut the Government evidence before a jury."
A lawyer
for Assa Corporation did not respond to requests for comment.
Prosecutors
originally filed a complaint in 2008 seeking forfeiture only of Assa
Corporation's stake, though the complaint was later revised to include the
Alavi Foundation's assets as well.
The foundation's
former president pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in 2009 for
destroying documents being sought under a grand jury subpoena concerning
Alavi's ties to Bank Melli, the Iranian state-owned bank. The Fifth Avenue
building has been operating in recent years under a court-appointed monitor.
Many of the readers have visited Charleston’s Market, just a
couple blocks from the harbor, where my business is located. Tourism is
our lifeblood as it is for our city. So when our low-lying area of
Charleston is flooded from heavy rain and tourists think twice before wading
through more than a foot of water to shop, I’m concerned and very worried about
even worse flooding problems in the future.
Charleston, like all of South Carolina’s coastal tourism
communities, is significantly threatened by rising sea levels due to climate
change. While my business today can survive the minor flooding, the next
generation of small businesses and those through the end of this century will
not survive even if sea levels only rise two to three feet, which most scientists
accept. If seas rise by six feet by the end of the century, the upper end of
today’s predictions, the businesses here in Charleston’s Market will be under
four feet of water at high tide. I put a piece of blue tape pretty high up on
my front door to show where the waters could rise.
This is obviously upsetting to me.
Just as disappointing is what I’m seeing out of Congress to try to reduce the
impacts of climate change--pretty much nothing. But it’s even worse than
that. Some of our elected officials have helped stifle and block action on
climate change in Congress. Then, they’ve tried to take away money so federal
agencies can’t even work on climate as if ignoring the biggest environmental
challenge we face will make it go away.
The House Subcommittee on Energy and Power is holding a
hearing on climate change on the 18th but unfortunately its agenda appears to
be focusing on how much the government has, in their view, overspent to study
climate change, to try to prepare for its impacts and to lessen possible
hardships on businesses like mine.
One of the things members of this committee are complaining about is the
government using a cost benefit estimate called “social cost of carbon”, when
proposing regulations on carbon pollution. I’m not sure why this is
controversial since the House has passed numerous bills calling for
cost-benefit analysis aimed at federal pollution standards.
Maybe this “social cost of carbon” should more appropriately be called the
“real cost of carbon.” It’s just a way of estimating how much families and
businesses are paying, or will pay, for damages caused by carbon pollution.
Carbon pollution drives climate change. It’s fueling extreme weather and
raising sea levels. These are real costs that small businesses like mine and
those to come will pay if we don’t address climate change.
The social cost of carbon puts a price tag on that damage and it also shows the
benefits we can get from federal standards that cut carbon pollution. So, for
example, it can help show the benefit of keeping a business like mine open.
Certainly no one can argue that there isn’t an economic value to keeping small
businesses, the backbone of our economy, open for business.
I am participating in an effort led by the South Carolina Small Business
Chamber of Commerce to call the rising seas problem to the attention of my
customers. About half of the small businesses contacted in vulnerable
coastal communities in my state have put up signage on the issue and even blue
tape to show where the high tide is expected to be by 2100.
Most small business owners across the county understand that something needs to
be done to address climate change that is causing extreme weather conditions
and rising seas. The reason is, when we get hit by major weather disasters,
many small businesses can’t recover. Our profit margins are such that we get
knocked out completely. One-third of small businesses nationally report they’ve
been affected by extreme weather and according to a poll by the American
Sustainable Business Council 63 percent of small business owners support EPA
efforts to limit carbon pollution from power plants.
While some in Congress focus on how much it will cost to address climate
change, they’re looking at the wrong numbers. Better to examine how much it’s
already costing our communities and our economy. Better to explore how much
more it will cost the longer we stick our heads in the sand of our beaches that
will be washed away. They could start by looking at the blue tape on my
door.
Bridges is co-owner of the Palmetto Hammock & Resort
Shoppe, Charleston, South Carolina.
The media often asks me if the state of South
Carolina has had its business recruitment harmed by the massive hacking of almost
every personal and business tax return from our Department of Revenue.My answer is that as long as out-of-state
corporations feel that Governor Haley and her cabinet have fixed the problem
going forward then the situation shouldn’t an issue unless…..
And here is the big caveat to my answer.If big businesses think that the Department
of Revenue hacking reflects an underlying issue with our state government’s
competence or refusal to proactively solve problems, then there might be some
concern by those businesses we are trying to recruit.Corporations don’t necessarily like to invest
in a state failing to be a good steward of the public’s money or generally not
pursuing an agenda to improve the lives of its citizens.
That is the real embarrassment about Brooke Mostellar’s
comment last night as she was introduced as South Carolina’s representative in
the Miss America Pageant.
“I’m from the
state where 20 percent of our homes are mobile because that’s how we roll,” she
told an international TV audience.
The
Twitter world lit up with mostly negative reactions to Mostellar’s comment.
Embarrassing? Yes.Inappropriate?Yes. Turned the judges off?Yes.
But what was the
probable reaction by any prospective corporate executive who might have watched
the program and will certainly read about it?
I’m afraid that
the message that came through loud and clear was that not only do we have a
low-income state where the best housing too many of our citizens can afford is
a mobile home…but we’re dog gone proud of that.
That message
reinforces the other negative national news stories about South Carolina.Our state government can’t be trusted to
guard corporate financial documentation.Our state government fails to protect our children from contracting TB.Our state government refuses to accept
federal dollars to provide healthcare to hundreds of thousands of our
low-income residents.Etc., etc. etc.
Having a lot of
poor residents is one thing as long as we’re taking positive steps to change
the situation.That is marginally
acceptable.
But being proud
of having too many poor citizens and having no serious plan to improve their
opportunity to have a better quality of life reflects a government out-of-touch
with the best interests of its citizens.That is not a good long-term business environment in which to invest.
The South Carolina Public Service Commission has
approved the settlement reached between the South Carolina Small Business
Chamber of Commerce, Duke Energy, SC Office of Regulatory Staff and other
intervenors in Duke’s recent rate hike request.
Duke’s small business customers will now see a 2.29
percent increase the first year and 1.13 percent the second year for an overall
increase of only 3.42 percent.
Below is a story form GSA Business. -----------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy’s $118.6 million rate
increase approved by the South Carolina Public Service Commission will
raise rates by 3.42% over two years for small businesses, down from the 14%
first proposed by the utility.
Overall, the PSC approved an average
6.42% increase for businesses, 7.34% for industrial customers and 10.16% for
residential customers.
Frank Knapp, president and CEO of
the S.C. Small
Business Chamber of Commerce, has described the negotiated agreement
as a “very good result for small businesses in the Duke
service area.”
Overall, the PSC-approved settlement
that increases electricity rates for about 540,000 households and businesses in
South Carolina rate case reduces Duke’s original $220 million rate request by
almost half. The approved agreement also reduces Duke’s proposed 11.25% return
on common equity — the maximum profit margin — to 10.2%.
The utility’s request for its third
increase in three years prompted howls of opposition at a series of public
hearings. About 1,700 people registered with the PSC as opponents.
Before the PSC’s July 31 hearings on
the rate request, the Charlotte, N.C.-based utility reached a settlement
agreement with the state’s utility watchdog agency, the S.C. Office of Regulatory Staff, and a lineup of
intervenors that included the small business chamber’s leader.
Overall, instead of an average
increase of 15.1% that was first proposed to generate another $220 million
annually, starting Wednesday customers will pay an average of 5.53% the first
year and 2.63% more starting in September 2014.
In addition to the rate increase,
the PSC directed Duke Energy to use $3.5 million at shareholder expense to
provide $2.5 million for public-assistance programs, manufacturing
competitiveness grants, economic development and/or education-workforce
training programs. Another $1 million will be allocated by the utility through
the Office of Regulatory Staff to support senior outreach and public education
initiatives.
Duke Energy said the increase is
needed to pay for facility upgrades. Ryan Mosier, a spokesman for the utility,
has said the agreement “achieves a balance between the concerns for our
customers and the need to recover the investments we’ve made in the system.
+(124x76).jpg)
