from the world's big
What are municipal utilities and why are they suddenly popular?
Can changing who delivers your electricity to you solve a slew of problems?
- Cities and movements across the country are considering running their own electric utilities.
- These operations, known as municipal utilities, are already widespread and have a respectable track record.
- Representatives of the campaigns to implement municipal control see this as a path to a green, democratic future.
If you're reading this, then you use electricity. This is hardly a surprise, as modern life would be all but impossible without it. Electricity keeps the lights on, makes our meals, gets us to work, runs our machines, and keeps us alive when we're seriously ill. However, despite the centrality of electricity in our society, many people have no idea as to how the electric system works.
Recently, several movements have been launched in some of the most populated areas of the country to change our electric system in a way that proponents claim would make it safer, greener, more effective, and provide more public benefits than it is now. They argue that all it would take is a change of ownership.
Who sells you your electricity?
Selling electricity isn't like selling apples in a stall; you can't easily have two electric utilities offering the same service to the same geographic area. Even if you could, it would be terribly inefficient; each company would have to have its own expensive infrastructure hooked up to every house- only one of which would be making any money. Because of this, the electricity market is often said to be a "natural monopoly," a case where various factors make it more sensible to have one provider of a product than multiple ones.
This is why most places in the United States, to make things more efficient, strike a deal with a privately owned, for-profit, electric company. That company will be assured of a monopoly in the area in exchange for certain contractual obligations and regulatory oversight.However, despite the American penchant for capitalism, there are other commonly used models for the distribution of electricity which remove the profit element. One common in rural areas is the use of not-for-profit cooperatives, which are owned by and operated for the benefit of their customers. Another, which is currently getting a fair amount of attention, is municipal ownership.
(Electric) Power to the people?
Municipal or community utilities are utilities that are owned and operated by the local government or another state body to provide a service to the public. It is common to see these in different parts of the country providing many services; among them electricity, water, gas, internet, telephone services, and garbage removal.
This isn't a new idea; Los Angeles has had a publicly owned electric utility for over one hundred years. It also isn't a fringe one, one in seven Americans are served by such a utility at the time of writing. However, as debates over our energy future take on ever-increasing importance and concerns over corporate power in American life come to the forefront, the idea is taking on a new life.
The American Public Power Association (APPA), the trade association for community-owned electric utilities, lays out the case for public power in straightforward terms. On their stats and facts page, they explain how "Not for profit, community-owned, locally controlled" utilities provide better service at lower rates than privately owned utilities while also providing revenue for their communities.
Examples of well-run municipal electric utilities that offer a clear alternative to the typical model abound. In Omaha, Nebraska, a state which is entirely powered by cooperatives and municipal utilities, voters elect the members of the utility board of directors. Meetings of the board are open to the public and televised. Each year, a portion of the profits made are given back to the city to be spent at the discretion of the city council.
In Austin, Texas, the city utility uses a progressive rate structure that charges more per kilowatt-hour to customers who use large amounts of electricity. The principle being that lower-income customers are going to save money while the better off, with larger houses and more stuff to power, pay more.
There is also the question of making the electric system green. According to the APPA, publicly owned electric providers are making the switch to carbon-free sources at a faster rate than privately owned ones.
The current municipalization movement.
At the time of writing, there are movements all over the country to municipalize the electric grid. Cities like Boston, New York, San Francisco, and Chicago all have serious campaigns underway to put the electric system in public hands. In California, the recent wildfires caused in part by Pacific Gas and Electric have given an even broader scope to the idea of public ownership with favorable reviews of the idea appearing in the media.
The idea isn't limited to major cities either. Decorah, Iowa -population 8,000- tried to municipalize its energy system as well. A handful of votes settled the resolution to study the subject.
I spoke with the leaders of several of these campaigns to find out why they support community-owned utilities and why they are working to make some of the largest cities in America take over their electric gird.
Eric Ruud, co-chair of East Bay Democratic Socialists of America Energy Democracy & Green New Deal working group, explained that for him the issue is one of who the utility is working for:
"In a for-profit system, decisions about how to generate and transmit energy are made by wealthy executives whose highest purpose is to make sure investors get more money back than what they put in. At a basic level they do that by charging us as much as they can while investing as little as they can get away with. Not only is this fundamentally unfair and undemocratic -- the imperative to produce constant profit flow also caused PG&E's under-investment in infrastructure that sparked 1500 wildfires in the last six years alone. The transmission tower that caused the deadly Camp Fire in Paradise last year was started by a malfunction in a transmission tower that was over 100 years old!
Under public and worker ownership, our health, safety, and quality of life become the utility company's top priorities, and we can actually create democratic structures for management to ensure that decisions are being made by the people who will be most impacted by them. It also allows for new funding models that can accelerate our transition to a safe and renewable grid, while reducing the burden on people who are already paying too much."
Joel Zook, Energy Planner for the Winneshiek Energy District and board member of Decorah Power, expressed a similar sentiment:
"Publicly owned utilities are owned, and controlled by their customers. An investor-owned utility will always need to place the interests of its shareholders above all else. Some utilities do a better job than others at balancing shareholder and ratepayer needs, so the tension between the two is less. But ultimately, I don't think that a for-profit company should have a monopoly on providing an essential service to captive customers. There's benefit in having the ability to talk to real people that make decisions regarding the energy that comes to your home or business."
Matthew Cason, Campaign Co-Coordinator for Democratize ComEd in Chicago, added that the question of who owns the grid ties back into several other issues:
"Power is at the root of many of the problems facing us today. The question of who owns that power will dictate what kind of society we choose to build as we solve those problems. For example, in the case of climate change, public ownership of utilities will enable a fundamental restructuring of the utility industry that is driven by a public process. With the necessary decarbonization ahead of us, we have a unique opportunity to rewrite how we generate and distribute electricity. While not necessary at the top of mind for many Americans, this system is incredibly important. That we decarbonize is as important as how we decarbonize. Public power will enable us to provide revenue to fund decarbonization and climate change adaptation, ensure system-wide resiliency, reduce long-term systemic costs, and ensure a just transition for all communities. The issue of ownership also impacts a number of other, less dramatic, but nonetheless important issues such as urban planning, affordability, and more."
There are many ways to organize an electric system. Privately owned utilities are just one of many viable options in the United States. The current interest in municipalization brings another model to the forefront of public attention. Given the variety of issues it intersects with and offers potential solutions to, the model is worthy of our consideration.
Andy Samberg and Cristin Milioti get stuck in an infinite wedding time loop.
- Two wedding guests discover they're trapped in an infinite time loop, waking up in Palm Springs over and over and over.
- As the reality of their situation sets in, Nyles and Sarah decide to enjoy the repetitive awakenings.
- The film is perfectly timed for a world sheltering at home during a pandemic.
Richard Feynman once asked a silly question. Two MIT students just answered it.
Here's a fun experiment to try. Go to your pantry and see if you have a box of spaghetti. If you do, take out a noodle. Grab both ends of it and bend it until it breaks in half. How many pieces did it break into? If you got two large pieces and at least one small piece you're not alone.
But science loves a good challenge<p>The mystery remained unsolved until 2005, when French scientists <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~audoly/" target="_blank">Basile Audoly</a> and <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~neukirch/" target="_blank">Sebastien Neukirch </a>won an <a href="https://www.improbable.com/ig/" target="_blank">Ig Nobel Prize</a>, an award given to scientists for real work which is of a less serious nature than the discoveries that win Nobel prizes, for finally determining why this happens. <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/spaghetti/audoly_neukirch_fragmentation.pdf" target="_blank">Their paper describing the effect is wonderfully funny to read</a>, as it takes such a banal issue so seriously. </p><p>They demonstrated that when a rod is bent past a certain point, such as when spaghetti is snapped in half by bending it at the ends, a "snapback effect" is created. This causes energy to reverberate from the initial break to other parts of the rod, often leading to a second break elsewhere.</p><p>While this settled the issue of <em>why </em>spaghetti noodles break into three or more pieces, it didn't establish if they always had to break this way. The question of if the snapback could be regulated remained unsettled.</p>
Physicists, being themselves, immediately wanted to try and break pasta into two pieces using this info<p><a href="https://roheiss.wordpress.com/fun/" target="_blank">Ronald Heisser</a> and <a href="https://math.mit.edu/directory/profile.php?pid=1787" target="_blank">Vishal Patil</a>, two graduate students currently at Cornell and MIT respectively, read about Feynman's night of noodle snapping in class and were inspired to try and find what could be done to make sure the pasta always broke in two.</p><p><a href="http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-mathematicians-solve-age-old-spaghetti-mystery-0813" target="_blank">By placing the noodles in a special machine</a> built for the task and recording the bending with a high-powered camera, the young scientists were able to observe in extreme detail exactly what each change in their snapping method did to the pasta. After breaking more than 500 noodles, they found the solution.</p>
The apparatus the MIT researchers built specifically for the task of snapping hundreds of spaghetti sticks.
(Courtesy of the researchers)
What possible application could this have?<p>The snapback effect is not limited to uncooked pasta noodles and can be applied to rods of all sorts. The discovery of how to cleanly break them in two could be applied to future engineering projects.</p><p>Likewise, knowing how things fragment and fail is always handy to know when you're trying to build things. Carbon Nanotubes, <a href="https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/carbon-nanotube-space-elevator" target="_self">super strong cylinders often hailed as the building material of the future</a>, are also rods which can be better understood thanks to this odd experiment.</p><p>Sometimes big discoveries can be inspired by silly questions. If it hadn't been for Richard Feynman bending noodles seventy years ago, we wouldn't know what we know now about how energy is dispersed through rods and how to control their fracturing. While not all silly questions will lead to such a significant discovery, they can all help us learn.</p>
The multifaceted cerebellum is large — it's just tightly folded.
- A powerful MRI combined with modeling software results in a totally new view of the human cerebellum.
- The so-called 'little brain' is nearly 80% the size of the cerebral cortex when it's unfolded.
- This part of the brain is associated with a lot of things, and a new virtual map is suitably chaotic and complex.
Just under our brain's cortex and close to our brain stem sits the cerebellum, also known as the "little brain." It's an organ many animals have, and we're still learning what it does in humans. It's long been thought to be involved in sensory input and motor control, but recent studies suggests it also plays a role in a lot of other things, including emotion, thought, and pain. After all, about half of the brain's neurons reside there. But it's so small. Except it's not, according to a new study from San Diego State University (SDSU) published in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences).
A neural crêpe
A new imaging study led by psychology professor and cognitive neuroscientist Martin Sereno of the SDSU MRI Imaging Center reveals that the cerebellum is actually an intricately folded organ that has a surface area equal in size to 78 percent of the cerebral cortex. Sereno, a pioneer in MRI brain imaging, collaborated with other experts from the U.K., Canada, and the Netherlands.
So what does it look like? Unfolded, the cerebellum is reminiscent of a crêpe, according to Sereno, about four inches wide and three feet long.
The team didn't physically unfold a cerebellum in their research. Instead, they worked with brain scans from a 9.4 Tesla MRI machine, and virtually unfolded and mapped the organ. Custom software was developed for the project, based on the open-source FreeSurfer app developed by Sereno and others. Their model allowed the scientists to unpack the virtual cerebellum down to each individual fold, or "folia."
Study's cross-sections of a folded cerebellum
Image source: Sereno, et al.
A complicated map
Sereno tells SDSU NewsCenter that "Until now we only had crude models of what it looked like. We now have a complete map or surface representation of the cerebellum, much like cities, counties, and states."
That map is a bit surprising, too, in that regions associated with different functions are scattered across the organ in peculiar ways, unlike the cortex where it's all pretty orderly. "You get a little chunk of the lip, next to a chunk of the shoulder or face, like jumbled puzzle pieces," says Sereno. This may have to do with the fact that when the cerebellum is folded, its elements line up differently than they do when the organ is unfolded.
It seems the folded structure of the cerebellum is a configuration that facilitates access to information coming from places all over the body. Sereno says, "Now that we have the first high resolution base map of the human cerebellum, there are many possibilities for researchers to start filling in what is certain to be a complex quilt of inputs, from many different parts of the cerebral cortex in more detail than ever before."
This makes sense if the cerebellum is involved in highly complex, advanced cognitive functions, such as handling language or performing abstract reasoning as scientists suspect. "When you think of the cognition required to write a scientific paper or explain a concept," says Sereno, "you have to pull in information from many different sources. And that's just how the cerebellum is set up."
Bigger and bigger
The study also suggests that the large size of their virtual human cerebellum is likely to be related to the sheer number of tasks with which the organ is involved in the complex human brain. The macaque cerebellum that the team analyzed, for example, amounts to just 30 percent the size of the animal's cortex.
"The fact that [the cerebellum] has such a large surface area speaks to the evolution of distinctively human behaviors and cognition," says Sereno. "It has expanded so much that the folding patterns are very complex."
As the study says, "Rather than coordinating sensory signals to execute expert physical movements, parts of the cerebellum may have been extended in humans to help coordinate fictive 'conceptual movements,' such as rapidly mentally rearranging a movement plan — or, in the fullness of time, perhaps even a mathematical equation."
Sereno concludes, "The 'little brain' is quite the jack of all trades. Mapping the cerebellum will be an interesting new frontier for the next decade."
What happens if we consider welfare programs as investments?
- A recently published study suggests that some welfare programs more than pay for themselves.
- It is one of the first major reviews of welfare programs to measure so many by a single metric.
- The findings will likely inform future welfare reform and encourage debate on how to grade success.
Welfare as an investment<p>The <a href="https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/hendren/files/welfare_vnber.pdf" target="_blank">study</a>, carried out by Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser of Harvard University, reviews 133 welfare programs through a single lens. The authors measured these programs' "Marginal Value of Public Funds" (MVPF), which is defined as the ratio of the recipients' willingness to pay for a program over its cost.</p><p>A program with an MVPF of one provides precisely as much in net benefits as it costs to deliver those benefits. For an illustration, imagine a program that hands someone a dollar. If getting that dollar doesn't alter their behavior, then the MVPF of that program is one. If it discourages them from working, then the program's cost goes up, as the program causes government tax revenues to fall in addition to costing money upfront. The MVPF goes below one in this case. <br> <br> Lastly, it is possible that getting the dollar causes the recipient to further their education and get a job that pays more taxes in the future, lowering the cost of the program in the long run and raising the MVPF. The value ratio can even hit infinity when a program fully "pays for itself."</p><p> While these are only a few examples, many others exist, and they do work to show you that a high MVPF means that a program "pays for itself," a value of one indicates a program "breaks even," and a value below one shows a program costs more money than the direct cost of the benefits would suggest.</p> After determining the programs' costs using existing literature and the willingness to pay through statistical analysis, 133 programs focusing on social insurance, education and job training, tax and cash transfers, and in-kind transfers were analyzed. The results show that some programs turn a "profit" for the government, mainly when they are focused on children:
This figure shows the MVPF for a variety of polices alongside the typical age of the beneficiaries. Clearly, programs targeted at children have a higher payoff.
Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser<p>Programs like child health services and K-12 education spending have infinite MVPF values. The authors argue this is because the programs allow children to live healthier, more productive lives and earn more money, which enables them to pay more taxes later. Programs like the preschool initiatives examined don't manage to do this as well and have a lower "profit" rate despite having decent MVPF ratios.</p><p>On the other hand, things like tuition deductions for older adults don't make back the money they cost. This is likely for several reasons, not the least of which is that there is less time for the benefactor to pay the government back in taxes. Disability insurance was likewise "unprofitable," as those collecting it have a reduced need to work and pay less back in taxes. </p>