11 Temmuz 2012 Çarşamba
The Seeds Of Coal's Revival May Be Found In 32% Decline In PA Shale Drilling
[Ljava.lang.String;@487cba9e
10 Temmuz 2012 Salı
Insider Report: Joe Paterno Fought Penn State's Attempts to Discipline Players
.lang.String;@72be684a
Franklin & Marshall Women's Lacrosse Coaches' Press Release re: Hazing Incident
.lang.String;@59f117e0
9 Temmuz 2012 Pazartesi
Insider Report: Joe Paterno Fought Penn State's Attempts to Discipline Players
To contact us Click HERE
Did Joe Paterno Oppose Penn State's Efforts to Discipline Football Players?
Click Here for interesting report from ESPN that, to me, is at once unsurprising and damning. It details a recent Wall Street Journal piece based in large part upon discussions with former PSU student disciplinarian Vicky Triponey, who also released a 2005 e-mail she had written to then-PSU President Granham Spanier.
Here is an excerpt from the 2005 e-mail:
"[Coach Paterno] is insistent he knows best how to discipline his players ... and their status as a student when they commit violations of our standards should NOT be our concern ... and I think he was saying we should treat football players different from other students in this regard."
"Coach Paterno would rather we NOT inform the public when a football player is found responsible for committing a serious violation of the law and/or our student code, despite any moral or legal obligation to do so."
Ms. Triponey, who resigned from PSU in 2007, held that e-mail for 6 years. I am reminded of the Italian proverb, La vendetta è un piatto che si serve freddo ("Revenge is a dish best served cold").
Click Here for interesting report from ESPN that, to me, is at once unsurprising and damning. It details a recent Wall Street Journal piece based in large part upon discussions with former PSU student disciplinarian Vicky Triponey, who also released a 2005 e-mail she had written to then-PSU President Granham Spanier.
Here is an excerpt from the 2005 e-mail:
 |
| I'll Handle This, Vicky |
"Coach Paterno would rather we NOT inform the public when a football player is found responsible for committing a serious violation of the law and/or our student code, despite any moral or legal obligation to do so."
Ms. Triponey, who resigned from PSU in 2007, held that e-mail for 6 years. I am reminded of the Italian proverb, La vendetta è un piatto che si serve freddo ("Revenge is a dish best served cold").
SEVERANCE PAY, SETTLEMENTS AND PENNSYLVANIA'S NEW UNEMPLOYMENT LAW
To contact us Click HERE
HOW DOES SEVERANCE PAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHT TO UNEMPLOYMENT UNDER PENNSYLVANIA’S NEW UNEMPLOYMENT LAW?
It is important to understand that, under the old Pennsylvania Unemployment law, there was not a “set off” for severance pay. Hence, if you entered into a severance agreement prior to January 1, 2012, the new law does not apply to you. Otherwise, it does.
The new Act has no effect at all on persons receiving less than $18,000 in severance pay. But, what happens if one is entitled to receive more than $18,000 in severance pay? As I currently understand it, of you are entitled to severance pay in excess of $18,000, there is an offset assigned to each weekly benefit to which you would otherwise be entitled. How is the offset calculated?
I believe they are taking the amount of severance IN EXCESS of $18,000 as a starting point, and then denying unemployment benefits until that excess payment has been received by a Claimant.
Example:
You are entitled to receive $573 per week in unemployment benefits. You are going to receive $20,092 in severance. Unemployment takes the $2,092 excess, and assigns $573 of it per week to your unemployment entitlement. Thus, under this scenario, you would not receive any unemployment payment for the first 4 weeks of your eligibility (i.e. $573 x 4 = $2,092).
WHAT IS SEVERANCE PAY UNDER PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT LAW?
Pennsylvania’s amended Unemployment law defines “Severance Pay” as “one or more payments made by an employer to an employee on account of separation from the service of the employer, regardless of whether the employer is legally bound by contract, statute or otherwise to make such payments.” Severance pay does not include payments for pension, retirement, or accrued leave, or payments of supplemental unemployment benefits.
A common question certain to arise going forward is as follows: What is a severance payment?
Clearly, if you receive an offer of severance at the time of your termination pursuant to a written company policy or standard practice, that would qualify as a severance payment.
DO SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS FOR A WRONGFUL DISCHARGE OR DISCRIMINATION CLAIM AFFECT YOUR RIGHT TO PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS?
Pennsylvania’s Unemployment statute states as follows in this regard (emphasis added by me):any person who has received or employer who has made a back wage payment pursuant to an award of a labor relations board arbitrator or the like without deduction for unemployment compensation benefits received during the period to which such wages are allocated shall notify the department immediately of the receipt or payment of such back wage award. The recipient of such back wage award, made without deduction for unemployment compensation benefits received during the period, shall be liable to pay into the Unemployment Compensation Fund an amount equal to the amount of such unemployment compensation benefits received.
Thus, one could easily argue that, unless the settlement amount was awarded by a tribunal of some sort (as opposed to via voluntary settlement), one’s entitlement to unemployment is in no way affected by a voluntary settlement.
Hence, prior to the enactment of the new severance provision, it did not matter how such settlements were characterized (i.e. as severance versus simply as settlement proceeds). Now, it does.
WILL I LOSE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS IF I ACCEPT A SETTLEMENT THAT IS DEEMED A SEVERANCE PAYMENT BY MY FORMER EMPLOYER?
So, I can foresee employers attempting to characterize payments of settlement proceeds as severance, simply to get out from under any responsibility for unemployment compensation benefits.
Don’t let this happen to you! Under employment law principles, unemployment compensation benefits cannot be “counted against” your lost wages, and therefore cannot be used to reduce the value of your claim for lost wages. Allowing your former employer to characterize a settlement payment as “severance” will, as a practical matter, have the effect of reducing your settlement by the amount of unemployment benefits you have/will receive(d), which is contrary to all employment law principles.
Have additional questions about Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation law? Click Here for answers to your most FAQs.Have questions about any aspect of employment law under state and federal statutes? Click Here for our answers to your FAQs.Thank you for checking in on our Blog, and I wish you the very best. John A. Gallagher, Esquire
It is important to understand that, under the old Pennsylvania Unemployment law, there was not a “set off” for severance pay. Hence, if you entered into a severance agreement prior to January 1, 2012, the new law does not apply to you. Otherwise, it does. The new Act has no effect at all on persons receiving less than $18,000 in severance pay. But, what happens if one is entitled to receive more than $18,000 in severance pay? As I currently understand it, of you are entitled to severance pay in excess of $18,000, there is an offset assigned to each weekly benefit to which you would otherwise be entitled. How is the offset calculated?
I believe they are taking the amount of severance IN EXCESS of $18,000 as a starting point, and then denying unemployment benefits until that excess payment has been received by a Claimant.
Example:
You are entitled to receive $573 per week in unemployment benefits. You are going to receive $20,092 in severance. Unemployment takes the $2,092 excess, and assigns $573 of it per week to your unemployment entitlement. Thus, under this scenario, you would not receive any unemployment payment for the first 4 weeks of your eligibility (i.e. $573 x 4 = $2,092).
WHAT IS SEVERANCE PAY UNDER PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT LAW?
 |
| True Severance = Voluntary Payment |
A common question certain to arise going forward is as follows: What is a severance payment?
Clearly, if you receive an offer of severance at the time of your termination pursuant to a written company policy or standard practice, that would qualify as a severance payment.
DO SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS FOR A WRONGFUL DISCHARGE OR DISCRIMINATION CLAIM AFFECT YOUR RIGHT TO PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS?
Pennsylvania’s Unemployment statute states as follows in this regard (emphasis added by me):any person who has received or employer who has made a back wage payment pursuant to an award of a labor relations board arbitrator or the like without deduction for unemployment compensation benefits received during the period to which such wages are allocated shall notify the department immediately of the receipt or payment of such back wage award. The recipient of such back wage award, made without deduction for unemployment compensation benefits received during the period, shall be liable to pay into the Unemployment Compensation Fund an amount equal to the amount of such unemployment compensation benefits received.
 |
| Anything but a Jury Trial - We'll settle! |
Hence, prior to the enactment of the new severance provision, it did not matter how such settlements were characterized (i.e. as severance versus simply as settlement proceeds). Now, it does.
WILL I LOSE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS IF I ACCEPT A SETTLEMENT THAT IS DEEMED A SEVERANCE PAYMENT BY MY FORMER EMPLOYER?
So, I can foresee employers attempting to characterize payments of settlement proceeds as severance, simply to get out from under any responsibility for unemployment compensation benefits.
Don’t let this happen to you! Under employment law principles, unemployment compensation benefits cannot be “counted against” your lost wages, and therefore cannot be used to reduce the value of your claim for lost wages. Allowing your former employer to characterize a settlement payment as “severance” will, as a practical matter, have the effect of reducing your settlement by the amount of unemployment benefits you have/will receive(d), which is contrary to all employment law principles.
Have additional questions about Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation law? Click Here for answers to your most FAQs.Have questions about any aspect of employment law under state and federal statutes? Click Here for our answers to your FAQs.Thank you for checking in on our Blog, and I wish you the very best. John A. Gallagher, Esquire
What is My Base Year Under Pennsylvania's Unemployment Law?
To contact us Click HERE
How Long Do I Have to Work For a Company to Get Unemployment in Pennsylvania?
At least 13 weeks, and maybe more depending upon how much you earn each week. Allow me to explain via a relatively common hypothetical.
Assume that you worked for a Company X for 3 years at a salary of $40,000 until your employment ended on January 1, 2012.
On April 1, 2012, you find a new job with Company Y paying you w-2 wages in the amount of $500 per week. Unfortunately, Company Y lets you go as part of a lay off on June 30, 2012 (i.e. 12 weeks after you started with Company Y).
You then apply for unemployment in connection with your involuntary lay off from Company Y.
Under this scenario, and based upon the way your Base Year of earnings is calculated, you have not earned enoungh from Company Y to entitle you to unemployment benefits, because it did not pay you any wages during your Base Year (which, as discussed below, is the last 3 quarters of 2011, and first quarter of 2011, during which time you did not work for Company Y).
How Does Pennsylvania Unemployment Calculate My Base Year of Wages?
Your Base Year is the first 4 of the last 5 quarters that immediately preceded the date of your separation from your most recent employment. In this scenario, your most recent job ended June 30, 2012 so, in calculating your Base Year earnings, one skips your most recent quarter of earnings (i.e. do not take into account any of your earnings from Company Y, all of which were made during the second quarter of 2012 - i.e. in the most recent of the 5 quarters immediatly preceding your claim). So, if you had not during the last 5 quarters worked for anyone other than Company Y, then you did not earn enough to qualify for unemployment.
However, you did work for another employer during the relevant time operiod - Company X. Therefore, even though Company Y may not be charged for your benefits, you may still be eligible for benefits chargeable to Company X or from the unemployment common fund.
Click Here to find out more about how this may work.
Additional questions about how Pennsylvania unemployment works? Click Here to jump to our soup to nuts answers to your FAQs.
At least 13 weeks, and maybe more depending upon how much you earn each week. Allow me to explain via a relatively common hypothetical.
Assume that you worked for a Company X for 3 years at a salary of $40,000 until your employment ended on January 1, 2012.
On April 1, 2012, you find a new job with Company Y paying you w-2 wages in the amount of $500 per week. Unfortunately, Company Y lets you go as part of a lay off on June 30, 2012 (i.e. 12 weeks after you started with Company Y).
You then apply for unemployment in connection with your involuntary lay off from Company Y.
Under this scenario, and based upon the way your Base Year of earnings is calculated, you have not earned enoungh from Company Y to entitle you to unemployment benefits, because it did not pay you any wages during your Base Year (which, as discussed below, is the last 3 quarters of 2011, and first quarter of 2011, during which time you did not work for Company Y).
How Does Pennsylvania Unemployment Calculate My Base Year of Wages?
Your Base Year is the first 4 of the last 5 quarters that immediately preceded the date of your separation from your most recent employment. In this scenario, your most recent job ended June 30, 2012 so, in calculating your Base Year earnings, one skips your most recent quarter of earnings (i.e. do not take into account any of your earnings from Company Y, all of which were made during the second quarter of 2012 - i.e. in the most recent of the 5 quarters immediatly preceding your claim). So, if you had not during the last 5 quarters worked for anyone other than Company Y, then you did not earn enough to qualify for unemployment.
However, you did work for another employer during the relevant time operiod - Company X. Therefore, even though Company Y may not be charged for your benefits, you may still be eligible for benefits chargeable to Company X or from the unemployment common fund.
Click Here to find out more about how this may work.
Additional questions about how Pennsylvania unemployment works? Click Here to jump to our soup to nuts answers to your FAQs.
Franklin & Marshall Women's Lacrosse Coaches' Press Release re: Hazing Incident
To contact us Click HERE
Lauren Paul Fired; Caitlin Powderly and Lidia Sanza Placed on Indefinite Leave in F & M Lacrosse Scandal
John A. Gallagher, Esquire has been retained to represent these coaches. Here is a Press Release on behalf of the coaches:
Neither F &M woman’s lacrosse Head Coach Lauren Paul, nor her Assistant Coaches, Caitlin Powderly and Lidia Sanza, had knowledge of or involvement in the March 11, 2011 incident giving rise to their present circumstances, and do not condone hazing in any form. If they had known that hazing occurred in March 2011, if it occurred, they would have taken corrective action.
The facts of this matter are important for the public to understand.
In early February 2012, Coach Paul made cuts from her team in the ordinary course. Soon after, the parents of one of the cut players registered a complaint about a student-led event in March 2011, eleven months prior. This incident, about which no details have been released to Ms. Paul or her assistants, has since been categorized as “hazing.” It is unknown whether the parents in question made any sort of threats to the college.
After hearing of the March 2011 event in mid-February 2012, the administration took virtually no steps to investigate same until April 6th, 2012. It is unknown what action the complaining parents, or their lawyer, took during this period of inactivity.
F&M thereafter began an “investigation” wherein the student-athletes were instructed not to speak with their parents, and told they did not need to seek representation of any kind. This investigation was procedurally flawed in many significant respects.
Although F & M fired Ms. Paul, placed her assistants on leave of absence (a particularly curious decision where Ms. Sanza is concerned, since she wasn’t even coaching F & M in March 2011) and suspended 11 student athletes from the team on April 17, the investigation was on that date still ongoing.
It appears that F & M elected to release news of these sanctions to the public on April 18, 2012. It is unknown if this release was made solely at the election of F & M, or to satisfy the demands of third-parties. The initial press releases were accompanied by statements from F & M that sought to blame Ms. Paul, and her assistants, for the March 2011 events.
The college acknowledged in writing that, as of Friday, April 20, 2012, the investigation was still ongoing. Why F & M chose to fire Ms. Paul, and to zealously publish the news of such firing, while its investigation was still ongoing, is a matter that only F & M and its lawyers can answer.
Earlier this week, and having completed its investigation, F & M decided to invite the 11 suspended players back on to the team. None of the suspended players were suspended or expelled from the college. Interestingly, the suspended players have rejected the college’s invitation to rejoin the team.
Ms. Paul understands that F & M takes its Student Code of Conduct very seriously, and that it enforces same vigorously when students have engaged in violations that threaten the mental or physical safety of its students. The decision to reinstate the suspended players, coupled with the absence of any meaningful student discipline being pursued or carried out, particularly when viewed through the prism of F & M’s stated principles where student well-being is concerned, clearly suggest that whatever occurred in March 2011 did not constitute “hazing.”
Ms. Paul's goal moving forward is to have a fulfilling and rewarding career. Ms. Powderly and Ms. Sanza share that ideal. While the coaches believe the actions taken against them were rash and wholly unwarranted, they understand that F & M, having published the reports concerning same, is unlikely to change its mind at this time. Consequently, they are presently considering their vocational and legal options.
Join the Petition Seeking Reinstatement of Coach Lauren Paul
There is a strong grass roots campaign advocating the rescission of the termination of Ms. Paul, and her reinstatement as F & M Head Coach. Please Click Here to sign a Petition supporting this important cause in the name of what is just and right.
Footnote: The remaining members of the F & M lacrosse team elected on Friday April 27 not to play in the Centennial Conference tournament, thereby foregoing a near surefire NCAAA tournament bid for the 10th ranked Diplomats. These student athletes are a credit to themselves, their parents and families, and to Coach Paul and her staff.
John A. Gallagher, Esquire has been retained to represent these coaches. Here is a Press Release on behalf of the coaches:Neither F &M woman’s lacrosse Head Coach Lauren Paul, nor her Assistant Coaches, Caitlin Powderly and Lidia Sanza, had knowledge of or involvement in the March 11, 2011 incident giving rise to their present circumstances, and do not condone hazing in any form. If they had known that hazing occurred in March 2011, if it occurred, they would have taken corrective action.
The facts of this matter are important for the public to understand.
In early February 2012, Coach Paul made cuts from her team in the ordinary course. Soon after, the parents of one of the cut players registered a complaint about a student-led event in March 2011, eleven months prior. This incident, about which no details have been released to Ms. Paul or her assistants, has since been categorized as “hazing.” It is unknown whether the parents in question made any sort of threats to the college.
After hearing of the March 2011 event in mid-February 2012, the administration took virtually no steps to investigate same until April 6th, 2012. It is unknown what action the complaining parents, or their lawyer, took during this period of inactivity.
F&M thereafter began an “investigation” wherein the student-athletes were instructed not to speak with their parents, and told they did not need to seek representation of any kind. This investigation was procedurally flawed in many significant respects.
Although F & M fired Ms. Paul, placed her assistants on leave of absence (a particularly curious decision where Ms. Sanza is concerned, since she wasn’t even coaching F & M in March 2011) and suspended 11 student athletes from the team on April 17, the investigation was on that date still ongoing.
It appears that F & M elected to release news of these sanctions to the public on April 18, 2012. It is unknown if this release was made solely at the election of F & M, or to satisfy the demands of third-parties. The initial press releases were accompanied by statements from F & M that sought to blame Ms. Paul, and her assistants, for the March 2011 events.
The college acknowledged in writing that, as of Friday, April 20, 2012, the investigation was still ongoing. Why F & M chose to fire Ms. Paul, and to zealously publish the news of such firing, while its investigation was still ongoing, is a matter that only F & M and its lawyers can answer.
Earlier this week, and having completed its investigation, F & M decided to invite the 11 suspended players back on to the team. None of the suspended players were suspended or expelled from the college. Interestingly, the suspended players have rejected the college’s invitation to rejoin the team.
Ms. Paul understands that F & M takes its Student Code of Conduct very seriously, and that it enforces same vigorously when students have engaged in violations that threaten the mental or physical safety of its students. The decision to reinstate the suspended players, coupled with the absence of any meaningful student discipline being pursued or carried out, particularly when viewed through the prism of F & M’s stated principles where student well-being is concerned, clearly suggest that whatever occurred in March 2011 did not constitute “hazing.”
Ms. Paul's goal moving forward is to have a fulfilling and rewarding career. Ms. Powderly and Ms. Sanza share that ideal. While the coaches believe the actions taken against them were rash and wholly unwarranted, they understand that F & M, having published the reports concerning same, is unlikely to change its mind at this time. Consequently, they are presently considering their vocational and legal options.
8 Temmuz 2012 Pazar
Energy Hogs & Dieters: Ranking The States By Per Capita Energy Consumption
To contact us Click HERE
Are Floridians energy hogs or dieters? How about Iowans? Or Arizonans? Ranking the states by per capita energy consumption produces a few surprises.
Floridians and Arizonans are among the 10 states with the lowest per capita energy consumption, while Iowans are among the top energy gulpers. Residents of Wyoming and Rhode Island rank as the biggest and smallest consumers of energy respectively, according to the latest EIA data.
www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_sum/html/pdf/rank_use_per_cap.pdf.
Indeed the typical resident of Wyoming uses more than 5 times as much energy as a resident of Rhode Island. One consequence of heavy energy use is added vulnerability to periodic energy price shocks. But what factors explain the huge disparity in the per capita energy consumption of those states using the most and least energy.
Plainly, one variable affecting energy consumption heavily is simple distance between places like work and home. Another factor is the availability of public transportation. New Yorkers rank second in using the least energy and the excellent public transportation in New York likely drives its ranking.
Weather, building codes, energy efficiency programs run by utilities also impact energy consumption and a state's ranking.
Here are the ten states whose residents use the most energy on a per capita basis:
1. Wyoming; 2. Alaska; 3. Louisiana; 4. North Dakota; 5. Iowa; 6. Texas; 7. South Dakota; 8. Nebraska; 9. Kentucky; 10. Indiana.
The ten states whose resident use the least energy are:
1. Rhode Island; 2. New York; 3. Hawaii; 4. California; 5. Connecticut; 6. Massachusetts; 7. Arizona; 8. New Hampshire; 9. Florida; 10. Vermont.
Pennsylvania is more sipper than gulper of energy, ranking 33rd on states that use the most energy and 17th on rankings for states that use the least.
Floridians and Arizonans are among the 10 states with the lowest per capita energy consumption, while Iowans are among the top energy gulpers. Residents of Wyoming and Rhode Island rank as the biggest and smallest consumers of energy respectively, according to the latest EIA data.
www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_sum/html/pdf/rank_use_per_cap.pdf.
Indeed the typical resident of Wyoming uses more than 5 times as much energy as a resident of Rhode Island. One consequence of heavy energy use is added vulnerability to periodic energy price shocks. But what factors explain the huge disparity in the per capita energy consumption of those states using the most and least energy.
Plainly, one variable affecting energy consumption heavily is simple distance between places like work and home. Another factor is the availability of public transportation. New Yorkers rank second in using the least energy and the excellent public transportation in New York likely drives its ranking.
Weather, building codes, energy efficiency programs run by utilities also impact energy consumption and a state's ranking.
Here are the ten states whose residents use the most energy on a per capita basis:
1. Wyoming; 2. Alaska; 3. Louisiana; 4. North Dakota; 5. Iowa; 6. Texas; 7. South Dakota; 8. Nebraska; 9. Kentucky; 10. Indiana.
The ten states whose resident use the least energy are:
1. Rhode Island; 2. New York; 3. Hawaii; 4. California; 5. Connecticut; 6. Massachusetts; 7. Arizona; 8. New Hampshire; 9. Florida; 10. Vermont.
Pennsylvania is more sipper than gulper of energy, ranking 33rd on states that use the most energy and 17th on rankings for states that use the least.
Insider Report: Joe Paterno Fought Penn State's Attempts to Discipline Players
To contact us Click HERE
Did Joe Paterno Oppose Penn State's Efforts to Discipline Football Players?
Click Here for interesting report from ESPN that, to me, is at once unsurprising and damning. It details a recent Wall Street Journal piece based in large part upon discussions with former PSU student disciplinarian Vicky Triponey, who also released a 2005 e-mail she had written to then-PSU President Granham Spanier.
Here is an excerpt from the 2005 e-mail:
"[Coach Paterno] is insistent he knows best how to discipline his players ... and their status as a student when they commit violations of our standards should NOT be our concern ... and I think he was saying we should treat football players different from other students in this regard."
"Coach Paterno would rather we NOT inform the public when a football player is found responsible for committing a serious violation of the law and/or our student code, despite any moral or legal obligation to do so."
Ms. Triponey, who resigned from PSU in 2007, held that e-mail for 6 years. I am reminded of the Italian proverb, La vendetta è un piatto che si serve freddo ("Revenge is a dish best served cold").
Click Here for interesting report from ESPN that, to me, is at once unsurprising and damning. It details a recent Wall Street Journal piece based in large part upon discussions with former PSU student disciplinarian Vicky Triponey, who also released a 2005 e-mail she had written to then-PSU President Granham Spanier.
Here is an excerpt from the 2005 e-mail:
|
| I'll Handle This, Vicky |
"Coach Paterno would rather we NOT inform the public when a football player is found responsible for committing a serious violation of the law and/or our student code, despite any moral or legal obligation to do so."
Ms. Triponey, who resigned from PSU in 2007, held that e-mail for 6 years. I am reminded of the Italian proverb, La vendetta è un piatto che si serve freddo ("Revenge is a dish best served cold").
SEVERANCE PAY, SETTLEMENTS AND PENNSYLVANIA'S NEW UNEMPLOYMENT LAW
To contact us Click HERE
HOW DOES SEVERANCE PAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHT TO UNEMPLOYMENT UNDER PENNSYLVANIA’S NEW UNEMPLOYMENT LAW?
It is important to understand that, under the old Pennsylvania Unemployment law, there was not a “set off” for severance pay. Hence, if you entered into a severance agreement prior to January 1, 2012, the new law does not apply to you. Otherwise, it does.
The new Act has no effect at all on persons receiving less than $18,000 in severance pay. But, what happens if one is entitled to receive more than $18,000 in severance pay? As I currently understand it, of you are entitled to severance pay in excess of $18,000, there is an offset assigned to each weekly benefit to which you would otherwise be entitled. How is the offset calculated?
I believe they are taking the amount of severance IN EXCESS of $18,000 as a starting point, and then denying unemployment benefits until that excess payment has been received by a Claimant.
Example:
You are entitled to receive $573 per week in unemployment benefits. You are going to receive $20,092 in severance. Unemployment takes the $2,092 excess, and assigns $573 of it per week to your unemployment entitlement. Thus, under this scenario, you would not receive any unemployment payment for the first 4 weeks of your eligibility (i.e. $573 x 4 = $2,092).
WHAT IS SEVERANCE PAY UNDER PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT LAW?
Pennsylvania’s amended Unemployment law defines “Severance Pay” as “one or more payments made by an employer to an employee on account of separation from the service of the employer, regardless of whether the employer is legally bound by contract, statute or otherwise to make such payments.” Severance pay does not include payments for pension, retirement, or accrued leave, or payments of supplemental unemployment benefits.
A common question certain to arise going forward is as follows: What is a severance payment?
Clearly, if you receive an offer of severance at the time of your termination pursuant to a written company policy or standard practice, that would qualify as a severance payment.
DO SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS FOR A WRONGFUL DISCHARGE OR DISCRIMINATION CLAIM AFFECT YOUR RIGHT TO PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS?
Pennsylvania’s Unemployment statute states as follows in this regard (emphasis added by me):any person who has received or employer who has made a back wage payment pursuant to an award of a labor relations board arbitrator or the like without deduction for unemployment compensation benefits received during the period to which such wages are allocated shall notify the department immediately of the receipt or payment of such back wage award. The recipient of such back wage award, made without deduction for unemployment compensation benefits received during the period, shall be liable to pay into the Unemployment Compensation Fund an amount equal to the amount of such unemployment compensation benefits received.
Thus, one could easily argue that, unless the settlement amount was awarded by a tribunal of some sort (as opposed to via voluntary settlement), one’s entitlement to unemployment is in no way affected by a voluntary settlement.
Hence, prior to the enactment of the new severance provision, it did not matter how such settlements were characterized (i.e. as severance versus simply as settlement proceeds). Now, it does.
WILL I LOSE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS IF I ACCEPT A SETTLEMENT THAT IS DEEMED A SEVERANCE PAYMENT BY MY FORMER EMPLOYER?
So, I can foresee employers attempting to characterize payments of settlement proceeds as severance, simply to get out from under any responsibility for unemployment compensation benefits.
Don’t let this happen to you! Under employment law principles, unemployment compensation benefits cannot be “counted against” your lost wages, and therefore cannot be used to reduce the value of your claim for lost wages. Allowing your former employer to characterize a settlement payment as “severance” will, as a practical matter, have the effect of reducing your settlement by the amount of unemployment benefits you have/will receive(d), which is contrary to all employment law principles.
Have additional questions about Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation law? Click Here for answers to your most FAQs.Have questions about any aspect of employment law under state and federal statutes? Click Here for our answers to your FAQs.Thank you for checking in on our Blog, and I wish you the very best. John A. Gallagher, Esquire
It is important to understand that, under the old Pennsylvania Unemployment law, there was not a “set off” for severance pay. Hence, if you entered into a severance agreement prior to January 1, 2012, the new law does not apply to you. Otherwise, it does. The new Act has no effect at all on persons receiving less than $18,000 in severance pay. But, what happens if one is entitled to receive more than $18,000 in severance pay? As I currently understand it, of you are entitled to severance pay in excess of $18,000, there is an offset assigned to each weekly benefit to which you would otherwise be entitled. How is the offset calculated?
I believe they are taking the amount of severance IN EXCESS of $18,000 as a starting point, and then denying unemployment benefits until that excess payment has been received by a Claimant.
Example:
You are entitled to receive $573 per week in unemployment benefits. You are going to receive $20,092 in severance. Unemployment takes the $2,092 excess, and assigns $573 of it per week to your unemployment entitlement. Thus, under this scenario, you would not receive any unemployment payment for the first 4 weeks of your eligibility (i.e. $573 x 4 = $2,092).
WHAT IS SEVERANCE PAY UNDER PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT LAW?
|
| True Severance = Voluntary Payment |
A common question certain to arise going forward is as follows: What is a severance payment?
Clearly, if you receive an offer of severance at the time of your termination pursuant to a written company policy or standard practice, that would qualify as a severance payment.
DO SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS FOR A WRONGFUL DISCHARGE OR DISCRIMINATION CLAIM AFFECT YOUR RIGHT TO PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS?
Pennsylvania’s Unemployment statute states as follows in this regard (emphasis added by me):any person who has received or employer who has made a back wage payment pursuant to an award of a labor relations board arbitrator or the like without deduction for unemployment compensation benefits received during the period to which such wages are allocated shall notify the department immediately of the receipt or payment of such back wage award. The recipient of such back wage award, made without deduction for unemployment compensation benefits received during the period, shall be liable to pay into the Unemployment Compensation Fund an amount equal to the amount of such unemployment compensation benefits received.
|
| Anything but a Jury Trial - We'll settle! |
Hence, prior to the enactment of the new severance provision, it did not matter how such settlements were characterized (i.e. as severance versus simply as settlement proceeds). Now, it does.
WILL I LOSE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS IF I ACCEPT A SETTLEMENT THAT IS DEEMED A SEVERANCE PAYMENT BY MY FORMER EMPLOYER?
So, I can foresee employers attempting to characterize payments of settlement proceeds as severance, simply to get out from under any responsibility for unemployment compensation benefits.
Don’t let this happen to you! Under employment law principles, unemployment compensation benefits cannot be “counted against” your lost wages, and therefore cannot be used to reduce the value of your claim for lost wages. Allowing your former employer to characterize a settlement payment as “severance” will, as a practical matter, have the effect of reducing your settlement by the amount of unemployment benefits you have/will receive(d), which is contrary to all employment law principles.
Have additional questions about Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation law? Click Here for answers to your most FAQs.Have questions about any aspect of employment law under state and federal statutes? Click Here for our answers to your FAQs.Thank you for checking in on our Blog, and I wish you the very best. John A. Gallagher, Esquire
What is My Base Year Under Pennsylvania's Unemployment Law?
To contact us Click HERE
How Long Do I Have to Work For a Company to Get Unemployment in Pennsylvania?
At least 13 weeks, and maybe more depending upon how much you earn each week. Allow me to explain via a relatively common hypothetical.
Assume that you worked for a Company X for 3 years at a salary of $40,000 until your employment ended on January 1, 2012.
On April 1, 2012, you find a new job with Company Y paying you w-2 wages in the amount of $500 per week. Unfortunately, Company Y lets you go as part of a lay off on June 30, 2012 (i.e. 12 weeks after you started with Company Y).
You then apply for unemployment in connection with your involuntary lay off from Company Y.
Under this scenario, and based upon the way your Base Year of earnings is calculated, you have not earned enoungh from Company Y to entitle you to unemployment benefits, because it did not pay you any wages during your Base Year (which, as discussed below, is the last 3 quarters of 2011, and first quarter of 2011, during which time you did not work for Company Y).
How Does Pennsylvania Unemployment Calculate My Base Year of Wages?
Your Base Year is the first 4 of the last 5 quarters that immediately preceded the date of your separation from your most recent employment. In this scenario, your most recent job ended June 30, 2012 so, in calculating your Base Year earnings, one skips your most recent quarter of earnings (i.e. do not take into account any of your earnings from Company Y, all of which were made during the second quarter of 2012 - i.e. in the most recent of the 5 quarters immediatly preceding your claim). So, if you had not during the last 5 quarters worked for anyone other than Company Y, then you did not earn enough to qualify for unemployment.
However, you did work for another employer during the relevant time operiod - Company X. Therefore, even though Company Y may not be charged for your benefits, you may still be eligible for benefits chargeable to Company X or from the unemployment common fund.
Click Here to find out more about how this may work.
Additional questions about how Pennsylvania unemployment works? Click Here to jump to our soup to nuts answers to your FAQs.
At least 13 weeks, and maybe more depending upon how much you earn each week. Allow me to explain via a relatively common hypothetical.
Assume that you worked for a Company X for 3 years at a salary of $40,000 until your employment ended on January 1, 2012.
On April 1, 2012, you find a new job with Company Y paying you w-2 wages in the amount of $500 per week. Unfortunately, Company Y lets you go as part of a lay off on June 30, 2012 (i.e. 12 weeks after you started with Company Y).
You then apply for unemployment in connection with your involuntary lay off from Company Y.
Under this scenario, and based upon the way your Base Year of earnings is calculated, you have not earned enoungh from Company Y to entitle you to unemployment benefits, because it did not pay you any wages during your Base Year (which, as discussed below, is the last 3 quarters of 2011, and first quarter of 2011, during which time you did not work for Company Y).
How Does Pennsylvania Unemployment Calculate My Base Year of Wages?
Your Base Year is the first 4 of the last 5 quarters that immediately preceded the date of your separation from your most recent employment. In this scenario, your most recent job ended June 30, 2012 so, in calculating your Base Year earnings, one skips your most recent quarter of earnings (i.e. do not take into account any of your earnings from Company Y, all of which were made during the second quarter of 2012 - i.e. in the most recent of the 5 quarters immediatly preceding your claim). So, if you had not during the last 5 quarters worked for anyone other than Company Y, then you did not earn enough to qualify for unemployment.
However, you did work for another employer during the relevant time operiod - Company X. Therefore, even though Company Y may not be charged for your benefits, you may still be eligible for benefits chargeable to Company X or from the unemployment common fund.
Click Here to find out more about how this may work.
Additional questions about how Pennsylvania unemployment works? Click Here to jump to our soup to nuts answers to your FAQs.
Franklin & Marshall Women's Lacrosse Coaches' Press Release re: Hazing Incident
To contact us Click HERE
Lauren Paul Fired; Caitlin Powderly and Lidia Sanza Placed on Indefinite Leave in F & M Lacrosse Scandal
John A. Gallagher, Esquire has been retained to represent these coaches. Here is a Press Release on behalf of the coaches:
Neither F &M woman’s lacrosse Head Coach Lauren Paul, nor her Assistant Coaches, Caitlin Powderly and Lidia Sanza, had knowledge of or involvement in the March 11, 2011 incident giving rise to their present circumstances, and do not condone hazing in any form. If they had known that hazing occurred in March 2011, if it occurred, they would have taken corrective action.
The facts of this matter are important for the public to understand.
In early February 2012, Coach Paul made cuts from her team in the ordinary course. Soon after, the parents of one of the cut players registered a complaint about a student-led event in March 2011, eleven months prior. This incident, about which no details have been released to Ms. Paul or her assistants, has since been categorized as “hazing.” It is unknown whether the parents in question made any sort of threats to the college.
After hearing of the March 2011 event in mid-February 2012, the administration took virtually no steps to investigate same until April 6th, 2012. It is unknown what action the complaining parents, or their lawyer, took during this period of inactivity.
F&M thereafter began an “investigation” wherein the student-athletes were instructed not to speak with their parents, and told they did not need to seek representation of any kind. This investigation was procedurally flawed in many significant respects.
Although F & M fired Ms. Paul, placed her assistants on leave of absence (a particularly curious decision where Ms. Sanza is concerned, since she wasn’t even coaching F & M in March 2011) and suspended 11 student athletes from the team on April 17, the investigation was on that date still ongoing.
It appears that F & M elected to release news of these sanctions to the public on April 18, 2012. It is unknown if this release was made solely at the election of F & M, or to satisfy the demands of third-parties. The initial press releases were accompanied by statements from F & M that sought to blame Ms. Paul, and her assistants, for the March 2011 events.
The college acknowledged in writing that, as of Friday, April 20, 2012, the investigation was still ongoing. Why F & M chose to fire Ms. Paul, and to zealously publish the news of such firing, while its investigation was still ongoing, is a matter that only F & M and its lawyers can answer.
Earlier this week, and having completed its investigation, F & M decided to invite the 11 suspended players back on to the team. None of the suspended players were suspended or expelled from the college. Interestingly, the suspended players have rejected the college’s invitation to rejoin the team.
Ms. Paul understands that F & M takes its Student Code of Conduct very seriously, and that it enforces same vigorously when students have engaged in violations that threaten the mental or physical safety of its students. The decision to reinstate the suspended players, coupled with the absence of any meaningful student discipline being pursued or carried out, particularly when viewed through the prism of F & M’s stated principles where student well-being is concerned, clearly suggest that whatever occurred in March 2011 did not constitute “hazing.”
Ms. Paul's goal moving forward is to have a fulfilling and rewarding career. Ms. Powderly and Ms. Sanza share that ideal. While the coaches believe the actions taken against them were rash and wholly unwarranted, they understand that F & M, having published the reports concerning same, is unlikely to change its mind at this time. Consequently, they are presently considering their vocational and legal options.
Join the Petition Seeking Reinstatement of Coach Lauren Paul
There is a strong grass roots campaign advocating the rescission of the termination of Ms. Paul, and her reinstatement as F & M Head Coach. Please Click Here to sign a Petition supporting this important cause in the name of what is just and right.
Footnote: The remaining members of the F & M lacrosse team elected on Friday April 27 not to play in the Centennial Conference tournament, thereby foregoing a near surefire NCAAA tournament bid for the 10th ranked Diplomats. These student athletes are a credit to themselves, their parents and families, and to Coach Paul and her staff.
John A. Gallagher, Esquire has been retained to represent these coaches. Here is a Press Release on behalf of the coaches:Neither F &M woman’s lacrosse Head Coach Lauren Paul, nor her Assistant Coaches, Caitlin Powderly and Lidia Sanza, had knowledge of or involvement in the March 11, 2011 incident giving rise to their present circumstances, and do not condone hazing in any form. If they had known that hazing occurred in March 2011, if it occurred, they would have taken corrective action.
The facts of this matter are important for the public to understand.
In early February 2012, Coach Paul made cuts from her team in the ordinary course. Soon after, the parents of one of the cut players registered a complaint about a student-led event in March 2011, eleven months prior. This incident, about which no details have been released to Ms. Paul or her assistants, has since been categorized as “hazing.” It is unknown whether the parents in question made any sort of threats to the college.
After hearing of the March 2011 event in mid-February 2012, the administration took virtually no steps to investigate same until April 6th, 2012. It is unknown what action the complaining parents, or their lawyer, took during this period of inactivity.
F&M thereafter began an “investigation” wherein the student-athletes were instructed not to speak with their parents, and told they did not need to seek representation of any kind. This investigation was procedurally flawed in many significant respects.
Although F & M fired Ms. Paul, placed her assistants on leave of absence (a particularly curious decision where Ms. Sanza is concerned, since she wasn’t even coaching F & M in March 2011) and suspended 11 student athletes from the team on April 17, the investigation was on that date still ongoing.
It appears that F & M elected to release news of these sanctions to the public on April 18, 2012. It is unknown if this release was made solely at the election of F & M, or to satisfy the demands of third-parties. The initial press releases were accompanied by statements from F & M that sought to blame Ms. Paul, and her assistants, for the March 2011 events.
The college acknowledged in writing that, as of Friday, April 20, 2012, the investigation was still ongoing. Why F & M chose to fire Ms. Paul, and to zealously publish the news of such firing, while its investigation was still ongoing, is a matter that only F & M and its lawyers can answer.
Earlier this week, and having completed its investigation, F & M decided to invite the 11 suspended players back on to the team. None of the suspended players were suspended or expelled from the college. Interestingly, the suspended players have rejected the college’s invitation to rejoin the team.
Ms. Paul understands that F & M takes its Student Code of Conduct very seriously, and that it enforces same vigorously when students have engaged in violations that threaten the mental or physical safety of its students. The decision to reinstate the suspended players, coupled with the absence of any meaningful student discipline being pursued or carried out, particularly when viewed through the prism of F & M’s stated principles where student well-being is concerned, clearly suggest that whatever occurred in March 2011 did not constitute “hazing.”
Ms. Paul's goal moving forward is to have a fulfilling and rewarding career. Ms. Powderly and Ms. Sanza share that ideal. While the coaches believe the actions taken against them were rash and wholly unwarranted, they understand that F & M, having published the reports concerning same, is unlikely to change its mind at this time. Consequently, they are presently considering their vocational and legal options.
7 Temmuz 2012 Cumartesi
Powering America: The Top 5 Energy Producing States Deserve A Thank You
To contact us Click HERE
Pennsylvania is moving up the energy production rankings.
Based on the latest available data, the five top energy producing states in order are: Texas, Wyoming, West Virginia, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania. www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_prod/pdf/P5.pdf. That ranking is based upon 2010 data for coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, and renewable energy production.
When 2011 data is collected, Pennsylvania will jump over Louisiana and West Virginia to become
the third biggest energy producer, because of a huge increase in natural gas production that took place in the Commonwealth last year. Among the states, Pennsylvania will soon rank second for nuclear production, third for natural gas, and fourth for coal.
At the other end of the energy production spectrum sits 5 states that produce the least energy. They are Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, and Nevada. States that produce little energy rely on energy imports from states that produce a great deal to keep their economies and communities functioning. The interstate commerce of energy is a vital daily exercise all across our land.
Jobs are a major product of that commerce and energy production. The 5 biggest energy producing states all have unemployment rates below the national average, but the same cannot be said about the 5 states producing the least energy. Rhode Island and Nevada are among the 5 states with the highest unemployment rates, though Vermont enjoys a low rate of unemployment.
Hosting energy production has economic benefits for energy producing states as well as challenges. Wind farms, nuclear plants, gas production, coal mining, solar systems, biofuels all trigger controversy and sometimes intense opposition to their development because every energy source impacts the environment to some degree.
While battles to stop wind farms or gas production continue, no American stops using energy. Every American should use energy wisely and be thankful for the energy that comes from America's top 5 energy producing states.
Based on the latest available data, the five top energy producing states in order are: Texas, Wyoming, West Virginia, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania. www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_prod/pdf/P5.pdf. That ranking is based upon 2010 data for coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, and renewable energy production.
When 2011 data is collected, Pennsylvania will jump over Louisiana and West Virginia to become
the third biggest energy producer, because of a huge increase in natural gas production that took place in the Commonwealth last year. Among the states, Pennsylvania will soon rank second for nuclear production, third for natural gas, and fourth for coal.
At the other end of the energy production spectrum sits 5 states that produce the least energy. They are Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, and Nevada. States that produce little energy rely on energy imports from states that produce a great deal to keep their economies and communities functioning. The interstate commerce of energy is a vital daily exercise all across our land.
Jobs are a major product of that commerce and energy production. The 5 biggest energy producing states all have unemployment rates below the national average, but the same cannot be said about the 5 states producing the least energy. Rhode Island and Nevada are among the 5 states with the highest unemployment rates, though Vermont enjoys a low rate of unemployment.
Hosting energy production has economic benefits for energy producing states as well as challenges. Wind farms, nuclear plants, gas production, coal mining, solar systems, biofuels all trigger controversy and sometimes intense opposition to their development because every energy source impacts the environment to some degree.
While battles to stop wind farms or gas production continue, no American stops using energy. Every American should use energy wisely and be thankful for the energy that comes from America's top 5 energy producing states.
Insider Report: Joe Paterno Fought Penn State's Attempts to Discipline Players
To contact us Click HERE
Did Joe Paterno Oppose Penn State's Efforts to Discipline Football Players?
Click Here for interesting report from ESPN that, to me, is at once unsurprising and damning. It details a recent Wall Street Journal piece based in large part upon discussions with former PSU student disciplinarian Vicky Triponey, who also released a 2005 e-mail she had written to then-PSU President Granham Spanier.
Here is an excerpt from the 2005 e-mail:
"[Coach Paterno] is insistent he knows best how to discipline his players ... and their status as a student when they commit violations of our standards should NOT be our concern ... and I think he was saying we should treat football players different from other students in this regard."
"Coach Paterno would rather we NOT inform the public when a football player is found responsible for committing a serious violation of the law and/or our student code, despite any moral or legal obligation to do so."
Ms. Triponey, who resigned from PSU in 2007, held that e-mail for 6 years. I am reminded of the Italian proverb, La vendetta è un piatto che si serve freddo ("Revenge is a dish best served cold").
Click Here for interesting report from ESPN that, to me, is at once unsurprising and damning. It details a recent Wall Street Journal piece based in large part upon discussions with former PSU student disciplinarian Vicky Triponey, who also released a 2005 e-mail she had written to then-PSU President Granham Spanier.
Here is an excerpt from the 2005 e-mail:
|
| I'll Handle This, Vicky |
"Coach Paterno would rather we NOT inform the public when a football player is found responsible for committing a serious violation of the law and/or our student code, despite any moral or legal obligation to do so."
Ms. Triponey, who resigned from PSU in 2007, held that e-mail for 6 years. I am reminded of the Italian proverb, La vendetta è un piatto che si serve freddo ("Revenge is a dish best served cold").
SEVERANCE PAY, SETTLEMENTS AND PENNSYLVANIA'S NEW UNEMPLOYMENT LAW
To contact us Click HERE
HOW DOES SEVERANCE PAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHT TO UNEMPLOYMENT UNDER PENNSYLVANIA’S NEW UNEMPLOYMENT LAW?
It is important to understand that, under the old Pennsylvania Unemployment law, there was not a “set off” for severance pay. Hence, if you entered into a severance agreement prior to January 1, 2012, the new law does not apply to you. Otherwise, it does.
The new Act has no effect at all on persons receiving less than $18,000 in severance pay. But, what happens if one is entitled to receive more than $18,000 in severance pay? As I currently understand it, of you are entitled to severance pay in excess of $18,000, there is an offset assigned to each weekly benefit to which you would otherwise be entitled. How is the offset calculated?
I believe they are taking the amount of severance IN EXCESS of $18,000 as a starting point, and then denying unemployment benefits until that excess payment has been received by a Claimant.
Example:
You are entitled to receive $573 per week in unemployment benefits. You are going to receive $20,092 in severance. Unemployment takes the $2,092 excess, and assigns $573 of it per week to your unemployment entitlement. Thus, under this scenario, you would not receive any unemployment payment for the first 4 weeks of your eligibility (i.e. $573 x 4 = $2,092).
WHAT IS SEVERANCE PAY UNDER PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT LAW?
Pennsylvania’s amended Unemployment law defines “Severance Pay” as “one or more payments made by an employer to an employee on account of separation from the service of the employer, regardless of whether the employer is legally bound by contract, statute or otherwise to make such payments.” Severance pay does not include payments for pension, retirement, or accrued leave, or payments of supplemental unemployment benefits.
A common question certain to arise going forward is as follows: What is a severance payment?
Clearly, if you receive an offer of severance at the time of your termination pursuant to a written company policy or standard practice, that would qualify as a severance payment.
DO SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS FOR A WRONGFUL DISCHARGE OR DISCRIMINATION CLAIM AFFECT YOUR RIGHT TO PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS?
Pennsylvania’s Unemployment statute states as follows in this regard (emphasis added by me):any person who has received or employer who has made a back wage payment pursuant to an award of a labor relations board arbitrator or the like without deduction for unemployment compensation benefits received during the period to which such wages are allocated shall notify the department immediately of the receipt or payment of such back wage award. The recipient of such back wage award, made without deduction for unemployment compensation benefits received during the period, shall be liable to pay into the Unemployment Compensation Fund an amount equal to the amount of such unemployment compensation benefits received.
Thus, one could easily argue that, unless the settlement amount was awarded by a tribunal of some sort (as opposed to via voluntary settlement), one’s entitlement to unemployment is in no way affected by a voluntary settlement.
Hence, prior to the enactment of the new severance provision, it did not matter how such settlements were characterized (i.e. as severance versus simply as settlement proceeds). Now, it does.
WILL I LOSE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS IF I ACCEPT A SETTLEMENT THAT IS DEEMED A SEVERANCE PAYMENT BY MY FORMER EMPLOYER?
So, I can foresee employers attempting to characterize payments of settlement proceeds as severance, simply to get out from under any responsibility for unemployment compensation benefits.
Don’t let this happen to you! Under employment law principles, unemployment compensation benefits cannot be “counted against” your lost wages, and therefore cannot be used to reduce the value of your claim for lost wages. Allowing your former employer to characterize a settlement payment as “severance” will, as a practical matter, have the effect of reducing your settlement by the amount of unemployment benefits you have/will receive(d), which is contrary to all employment law principles.
Have additional questions about Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation law? Click Here for answers to your most FAQs.Have questions about any aspect of employment law under state and federal statutes? Click Here for our answers to your FAQs.Thank you for checking in on our Blog, and I wish you the very best. John A. Gallagher, Esquire
It is important to understand that, under the old Pennsylvania Unemployment law, there was not a “set off” for severance pay. Hence, if you entered into a severance agreement prior to January 1, 2012, the new law does not apply to you. Otherwise, it does. The new Act has no effect at all on persons receiving less than $18,000 in severance pay. But, what happens if one is entitled to receive more than $18,000 in severance pay? As I currently understand it, of you are entitled to severance pay in excess of $18,000, there is an offset assigned to each weekly benefit to which you would otherwise be entitled. How is the offset calculated?
I believe they are taking the amount of severance IN EXCESS of $18,000 as a starting point, and then denying unemployment benefits until that excess payment has been received by a Claimant.
Example:
You are entitled to receive $573 per week in unemployment benefits. You are going to receive $20,092 in severance. Unemployment takes the $2,092 excess, and assigns $573 of it per week to your unemployment entitlement. Thus, under this scenario, you would not receive any unemployment payment for the first 4 weeks of your eligibility (i.e. $573 x 4 = $2,092).
WHAT IS SEVERANCE PAY UNDER PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT LAW?
|
| True Severance = Voluntary Payment |
A common question certain to arise going forward is as follows: What is a severance payment?
Clearly, if you receive an offer of severance at the time of your termination pursuant to a written company policy or standard practice, that would qualify as a severance payment.
DO SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS FOR A WRONGFUL DISCHARGE OR DISCRIMINATION CLAIM AFFECT YOUR RIGHT TO PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS?
Pennsylvania’s Unemployment statute states as follows in this regard (emphasis added by me):any person who has received or employer who has made a back wage payment pursuant to an award of a labor relations board arbitrator or the like without deduction for unemployment compensation benefits received during the period to which such wages are allocated shall notify the department immediately of the receipt or payment of such back wage award. The recipient of such back wage award, made without deduction for unemployment compensation benefits received during the period, shall be liable to pay into the Unemployment Compensation Fund an amount equal to the amount of such unemployment compensation benefits received.
|
| Anything but a Jury Trial - We'll settle! |
Hence, prior to the enactment of the new severance provision, it did not matter how such settlements were characterized (i.e. as severance versus simply as settlement proceeds). Now, it does.
WILL I LOSE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS IF I ACCEPT A SETTLEMENT THAT IS DEEMED A SEVERANCE PAYMENT BY MY FORMER EMPLOYER?
So, I can foresee employers attempting to characterize payments of settlement proceeds as severance, simply to get out from under any responsibility for unemployment compensation benefits.
Don’t let this happen to you! Under employment law principles, unemployment compensation benefits cannot be “counted against” your lost wages, and therefore cannot be used to reduce the value of your claim for lost wages. Allowing your former employer to characterize a settlement payment as “severance” will, as a practical matter, have the effect of reducing your settlement by the amount of unemployment benefits you have/will receive(d), which is contrary to all employment law principles.
Have additional questions about Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation law? Click Here for answers to your most FAQs.Have questions about any aspect of employment law under state and federal statutes? Click Here for our answers to your FAQs.Thank you for checking in on our Blog, and I wish you the very best. John A. Gallagher, Esquire
What is My Base Year Under Pennsylvania's Unemployment Law?
To contact us Click HERE
How Long Do I Have to Work For a Company to Get Unemployment in Pennsylvania?
At least 13 weeks, and maybe more depending upon how much you earn each week. Allow me to explain via a relatively common hypothetical.
Assume that you worked for a Company X for 3 years at a salary of $40,000 until your employment ended on January 1, 2012.
On April 1, 2012, you find a new job with Company Y paying you w-2 wages in the amount of $500 per week. Unfortunately, Company Y lets you go as part of a lay off on June 30, 2012 (i.e. 12 weeks after you started with Company Y).
You then apply for unemployment in connection with your involuntary lay off from Company Y.
Under this scenario, and based upon the way your Base Year of earnings is calculated, you have not earned enoungh from Company Y to entitle you to unemployment benefits, because it did not pay you any wages during your Base Year (which, as discussed below, is the last 3 quarters of 2011, and first quarter of 2011, during which time you did not work for Company Y).
How Does Pennsylvania Unemployment Calculate My Base Year of Wages?
Your Base Year is the first 4 of the last 5 quarters that immediately preceded the date of your separation from your most recent employment. In this scenario, your most recent job ended June 30, 2012 so, in calculating your Base Year earnings, one skips your most recent quarter of earnings (i.e. do not take into account any of your earnings from Company Y, all of which were made during the second quarter of 2012 - i.e. in the most recent of the 5 quarters immediatly preceding your claim). So, if you had not during the last 5 quarters worked for anyone other than Company Y, then you did not earn enough to qualify for unemployment.
However, you did work for another employer during the relevant time operiod - Company X. Therefore, even though Company Y may not be charged for your benefits, you may still be eligible for benefits chargeable to Company X or from the unemployment common fund.
Click Here to find out more about how this may work.
Additional questions about how Pennsylvania unemployment works? Click Here to jump to our soup to nuts answers to your FAQs.
At least 13 weeks, and maybe more depending upon how much you earn each week. Allow me to explain via a relatively common hypothetical.
Assume that you worked for a Company X for 3 years at a salary of $40,000 until your employment ended on January 1, 2012.
On April 1, 2012, you find a new job with Company Y paying you w-2 wages in the amount of $500 per week. Unfortunately, Company Y lets you go as part of a lay off on June 30, 2012 (i.e. 12 weeks after you started with Company Y).
You then apply for unemployment in connection with your involuntary lay off from Company Y.
Under this scenario, and based upon the way your Base Year of earnings is calculated, you have not earned enoungh from Company Y to entitle you to unemployment benefits, because it did not pay you any wages during your Base Year (which, as discussed below, is the last 3 quarters of 2011, and first quarter of 2011, during which time you did not work for Company Y).
How Does Pennsylvania Unemployment Calculate My Base Year of Wages?
Your Base Year is the first 4 of the last 5 quarters that immediately preceded the date of your separation from your most recent employment. In this scenario, your most recent job ended June 30, 2012 so, in calculating your Base Year earnings, one skips your most recent quarter of earnings (i.e. do not take into account any of your earnings from Company Y, all of which were made during the second quarter of 2012 - i.e. in the most recent of the 5 quarters immediatly preceding your claim). So, if you had not during the last 5 quarters worked for anyone other than Company Y, then you did not earn enough to qualify for unemployment.
However, you did work for another employer during the relevant time operiod - Company X. Therefore, even though Company Y may not be charged for your benefits, you may still be eligible for benefits chargeable to Company X or from the unemployment common fund.
Click Here to find out more about how this may work.
Additional questions about how Pennsylvania unemployment works? Click Here to jump to our soup to nuts answers to your FAQs.
Franklin & Marshall Women's Lacrosse Coaches' Press Release re: Hazing Incident
To contact us Click HERE
Lauren Paul Fired; Caitlin Powderly and Lidia Sanza Placed on Indefinite Leave in F & M Lacrosse Scandal
John A. Gallagher, Esquire has been retained to represent these coaches. Here is a Press Release on behalf of the coaches:
Neither F &M woman’s lacrosse Head Coach Lauren Paul, nor her Assistant Coaches, Caitlin Powderly and Lidia Sanza, had knowledge of or involvement in the March 11, 2011 incident giving rise to their present circumstances, and do not condone hazing in any form. If they had known that hazing occurred in March 2011, if it occurred, they would have taken corrective action.
The facts of this matter are important for the public to understand.
In early February 2012, Coach Paul made cuts from her team in the ordinary course. Soon after, the parents of one of the cut players registered a complaint about a student-led event in March 2011, eleven months prior. This incident, about which no details have been released to Ms. Paul or her assistants, has since been categorized as “hazing.” It is unknown whether the parents in question made any sort of threats to the college.
After hearing of the March 2011 event in mid-February 2012, the administration took virtually no steps to investigate same until April 6th, 2012. It is unknown what action the complaining parents, or their lawyer, took during this period of inactivity.
F&M thereafter began an “investigation” wherein the student-athletes were instructed not to speak with their parents, and told they did not need to seek representation of any kind. This investigation was procedurally flawed in many significant respects.
Although F & M fired Ms. Paul, placed her assistants on leave of absence (a particularly curious decision where Ms. Sanza is concerned, since she wasn’t even coaching F & M in March 2011) and suspended 11 student athletes from the team on April 17, the investigation was on that date still ongoing.
It appears that F & M elected to release news of these sanctions to the public on April 18, 2012. It is unknown if this release was made solely at the election of F & M, or to satisfy the demands of third-parties. The initial press releases were accompanied by statements from F & M that sought to blame Ms. Paul, and her assistants, for the March 2011 events.
The college acknowledged in writing that, as of Friday, April 20, 2012, the investigation was still ongoing. Why F & M chose to fire Ms. Paul, and to zealously publish the news of such firing, while its investigation was still ongoing, is a matter that only F & M and its lawyers can answer.
Earlier this week, and having completed its investigation, F & M decided to invite the 11 suspended players back on to the team. None of the suspended players were suspended or expelled from the college. Interestingly, the suspended players have rejected the college’s invitation to rejoin the team.
Ms. Paul understands that F & M takes its Student Code of Conduct very seriously, and that it enforces same vigorously when students have engaged in violations that threaten the mental or physical safety of its students. The decision to reinstate the suspended players, coupled with the absence of any meaningful student discipline being pursued or carried out, particularly when viewed through the prism of F & M’s stated principles where student well-being is concerned, clearly suggest that whatever occurred in March 2011 did not constitute “hazing.”
Ms. Paul's goal moving forward is to have a fulfilling and rewarding career. Ms. Powderly and Ms. Sanza share that ideal. While the coaches believe the actions taken against them were rash and wholly unwarranted, they understand that F & M, having published the reports concerning same, is unlikely to change its mind at this time. Consequently, they are presently considering their vocational and legal options.
Join the Petition Seeking Reinstatement of Coach Lauren Paul
There is a strong grass roots campaign advocating the rescission of the termination of Ms. Paul, and her reinstatement as F & M Head Coach. Please Click Here to sign a Petition supporting this important cause in the name of what is just and right.
Footnote: The remaining members of the F & M lacrosse team elected on Friday April 27 not to play in the Centennial Conference tournament, thereby foregoing a near surefire NCAAA tournament bid for the 10th ranked Diplomats. These student athletes are a credit to themselves, their parents and families, and to Coach Paul and her staff.
John A. Gallagher, Esquire has been retained to represent these coaches. Here is a Press Release on behalf of the coaches:Neither F &M woman’s lacrosse Head Coach Lauren Paul, nor her Assistant Coaches, Caitlin Powderly and Lidia Sanza, had knowledge of or involvement in the March 11, 2011 incident giving rise to their present circumstances, and do not condone hazing in any form. If they had known that hazing occurred in March 2011, if it occurred, they would have taken corrective action.
The facts of this matter are important for the public to understand.
In early February 2012, Coach Paul made cuts from her team in the ordinary course. Soon after, the parents of one of the cut players registered a complaint about a student-led event in March 2011, eleven months prior. This incident, about which no details have been released to Ms. Paul or her assistants, has since been categorized as “hazing.” It is unknown whether the parents in question made any sort of threats to the college.
After hearing of the March 2011 event in mid-February 2012, the administration took virtually no steps to investigate same until April 6th, 2012. It is unknown what action the complaining parents, or their lawyer, took during this period of inactivity.
F&M thereafter began an “investigation” wherein the student-athletes were instructed not to speak with their parents, and told they did not need to seek representation of any kind. This investigation was procedurally flawed in many significant respects.
Although F & M fired Ms. Paul, placed her assistants on leave of absence (a particularly curious decision where Ms. Sanza is concerned, since she wasn’t even coaching F & M in March 2011) and suspended 11 student athletes from the team on April 17, the investigation was on that date still ongoing.
It appears that F & M elected to release news of these sanctions to the public on April 18, 2012. It is unknown if this release was made solely at the election of F & M, or to satisfy the demands of third-parties. The initial press releases were accompanied by statements from F & M that sought to blame Ms. Paul, and her assistants, for the March 2011 events.
The college acknowledged in writing that, as of Friday, April 20, 2012, the investigation was still ongoing. Why F & M chose to fire Ms. Paul, and to zealously publish the news of such firing, while its investigation was still ongoing, is a matter that only F & M and its lawyers can answer.
Earlier this week, and having completed its investigation, F & M decided to invite the 11 suspended players back on to the team. None of the suspended players were suspended or expelled from the college. Interestingly, the suspended players have rejected the college’s invitation to rejoin the team.
Ms. Paul understands that F & M takes its Student Code of Conduct very seriously, and that it enforces same vigorously when students have engaged in violations that threaten the mental or physical safety of its students. The decision to reinstate the suspended players, coupled with the absence of any meaningful student discipline being pursued or carried out, particularly when viewed through the prism of F & M’s stated principles where student well-being is concerned, clearly suggest that whatever occurred in March 2011 did not constitute “hazing.”
Ms. Paul's goal moving forward is to have a fulfilling and rewarding career. Ms. Powderly and Ms. Sanza share that ideal. While the coaches believe the actions taken against them were rash and wholly unwarranted, they understand that F & M, having published the reports concerning same, is unlikely to change its mind at this time. Consequently, they are presently considering their vocational and legal options.
5 Temmuz 2012 Perşembe
Shale Gas Causes First Quarter 2012 US Carbon Emissions To Plummet Again
To contact us Click HERE
For US energy-related carbon emissions, fuel switching to gas is back to the future. After the first quarter, the USA's 2012 emissions are falling sharply again and may drop to 1990 levels, or just slightly above that important milestone, according to data in EIA's latest Monthy Energy Review.
eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec12_3.pdf.
America's energy related carbon emissions fell about 7.5%, during the first three months of 2012 compared to the same period of 2011. And first quarter 2012 emissions are approximately 8.5% lower than emissions in the first quarter of 2010.
Total energy carbon emissions were 5,473 million tons in 2011 and last year fell below the 1996 mark of 5,501 million tons.
The first quarter 2012 reduction of 7.5% makes it possible that this year emissions will fall back essentially to the 1990 level of 5,039 million tons. That is shockingly good news.
The 1990 level of carbon emissions is an important measuring stick, as it is often used as a critical data point for judging progress in reducing a nation's carbon emissions.
Why are US carbon emissions plummeting back to 1990 levels?
First and foremost are sharp reductions from electric power production, as a result of fuel switching from coal to gas, rising renewable energy production, and increasing efficiency. Yet, the shale gas revolution, and the low-priced gas that it has made a reality, is the key driver of falling carbon emissions, especially in the last 12 months.
As of April, gas tied coal at 32% of the electric power generation market, nearly ending coal's 100 year reign on top of electricity markets. Let's remember the speed and extent of gas's rise and coal's drop: coal had 52% of the market in 2000 and 48% in 2008.
Apart from power production, reductions of carbon emissions from the transportation sector since 2007 are pushing down US Carbon emissions. First quarter 2012 transportation emissions declined by about 0.6%, compared to the same period in 2011. Rising fuel efficiency and some switching to lower carbon fuels are the main causes of falling transportation emissions.
The bottom line is that America's carbon emissions may drop back close to 1990 levels this year. That result would have been thought impossible, even at the end of 2011.
But the shale gas revolution makes a reality many things recently thought impossible. It was thought impossible to slash carbon US carbon emissions back to 1990 levels by 2012. It was thought impossible to massively, quickly cut carbon emissions and, at the same time, have lower energy bills.
Shale gas production has slashed carbon emissions and saved consumers more than $100 billion per year. Truly astonishing!
eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec12_3.pdf.
America's energy related carbon emissions fell about 7.5%, during the first three months of 2012 compared to the same period of 2011. And first quarter 2012 emissions are approximately 8.5% lower than emissions in the first quarter of 2010.
Total energy carbon emissions were 5,473 million tons in 2011 and last year fell below the 1996 mark of 5,501 million tons.
The first quarter 2012 reduction of 7.5% makes it possible that this year emissions will fall back essentially to the 1990 level of 5,039 million tons. That is shockingly good news.
The 1990 level of carbon emissions is an important measuring stick, as it is often used as a critical data point for judging progress in reducing a nation's carbon emissions.
Why are US carbon emissions plummeting back to 1990 levels?
First and foremost are sharp reductions from electric power production, as a result of fuel switching from coal to gas, rising renewable energy production, and increasing efficiency. Yet, the shale gas revolution, and the low-priced gas that it has made a reality, is the key driver of falling carbon emissions, especially in the last 12 months.
As of April, gas tied coal at 32% of the electric power generation market, nearly ending coal's 100 year reign on top of electricity markets. Let's remember the speed and extent of gas's rise and coal's drop: coal had 52% of the market in 2000 and 48% in 2008.
Apart from power production, reductions of carbon emissions from the transportation sector since 2007 are pushing down US Carbon emissions. First quarter 2012 transportation emissions declined by about 0.6%, compared to the same period in 2011. Rising fuel efficiency and some switching to lower carbon fuels are the main causes of falling transportation emissions.
The bottom line is that America's carbon emissions may drop back close to 1990 levels this year. That result would have been thought impossible, even at the end of 2011.
But the shale gas revolution makes a reality many things recently thought impossible. It was thought impossible to slash carbon US carbon emissions back to 1990 levels by 2012. It was thought impossible to massively, quickly cut carbon emissions and, at the same time, have lower energy bills.
Shale gas production has slashed carbon emissions and saved consumers more than $100 billion per year. Truly astonishing!
Wind Generation Jumps 29% in First Quarter 2012: Now 4% Of America's Electricity
To contact us Click HERE
George W. Bush set the goal of 20% of America's electricity coming from wind power, and America reached the 4% mark in the first quarter of 2012, when wind power produced 38.4 billion kilowatt-hours of the 960.7 billion total. www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_5.pdf. In short, America is 20% of the way toward President Bush's 20% wind goal.
While new construction of wind power for 2013 is being crippled by Congressional inaction to extend the production tax credit that expires at the end of 2012, recently completed wind farms coming on line are boosting sharply the amount of electricity generated by wind farms.
In fact, the latest EIA data shows that wind generation rose 29% in the first quarter of 2012, compared to same period in 2011. www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_5.pdf.
For the whole of 2012, wind is on course to produce about 150 billion kilowatt-hours, a big jump over the 119 billion kilowatt-hours wind generated in 2011. Assuming a residential account uses 10,000 kilowatt-hours per year, wind will produce enough electricity to supply 15 million homes this year.
While new construction of wind power for 2013 is being crippled by Congressional inaction to extend the production tax credit that expires at the end of 2012, recently completed wind farms coming on line are boosting sharply the amount of electricity generated by wind farms.
In fact, the latest EIA data shows that wind generation rose 29% in the first quarter of 2012, compared to same period in 2011. www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_5.pdf.
For the whole of 2012, wind is on course to produce about 150 billion kilowatt-hours, a big jump over the 119 billion kilowatt-hours wind generated in 2011. Assuming a residential account uses 10,000 kilowatt-hours per year, wind will produce enough electricity to supply 15 million homes this year.
Gulpers & Sippers: Ranking Gas, Coal, Nukes, Wind By Gallons Per Kilowatt-hour
To contact us Click HERE
In more areas around the USA and world, water is becoming a constraint on development. That is increasingly true for power generation too. Indeed, water is joining the capital and fuel costs of a new power plant, as critical variables in deciding what type of power plant to build in various locations.
As with capital costs and fuel costs, power generation technologies vary greatly on how much water they need to operate, whether measured at the power plant or over the lifecycle of the fuel used to make electricity.
According to a new report, natural gas powered electricity requires 1.5 gallons per kilowatt-hour; nuclear power 2.9 gallons per kwh; and coal-fired generation 7.1 gallons per kwh.
www.rivernetwork.org/sites/default/files/BurningOurRivers_0.pdf
By contrast to gas, coal, and nuclear, wind and solar photovoltaic require tiny amounts of water. Solar thermal plants, however, are more water intensive.
As with capital costs and fuel costs, power generation technologies vary greatly on how much water they need to operate, whether measured at the power plant or over the lifecycle of the fuel used to make electricity.
According to a new report, natural gas powered electricity requires 1.5 gallons per kilowatt-hour; nuclear power 2.9 gallons per kwh; and coal-fired generation 7.1 gallons per kwh.
www.rivernetwork.org/sites/default/files/BurningOurRivers_0.pdf
By contrast to gas, coal, and nuclear, wind and solar photovoltaic require tiny amounts of water. Solar thermal plants, however, are more water intensive.
US Coal Consumption Drops 17% But Coal Exports Booming In 1st Quarter
To contact us Click HERE
The combination of warm weather that depressed electricity demand and massive switching to natural gas created the perfect storm for coal consumption in the USA, during the first quarter. Coal consumption dropped about 17% and reached the lowest level since 1988, according to EIA data.
www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/.
While US coal consumption fell sharply, US coal exports had another exceptionally strong quarter, rising when compared to the first quarter of 2011, that was itself a quarter of high exports. Though exports are a bright spot for US coal, about 90% of coal is consumed by power plants, and the fierce competition with gas has depressed US coal consumption.
What is the future of coal around the world and in the US?
Outside the USA, the shale gas revolution is not a reality so far, and natural gas is 3 to 6 times the price it is in North America. And so coal does not face around the world the same intense competition from gas, as it does in America. Indeed, coal globally enjoyed its best year in 2011, when it provided more of the world's total energy than it had since 1969. Its prospects look good as long as the shale gas revolution remains restricted to North America.
Within the USA, coal consumption will rise from its record low level with rising gas prices and fall with falling gas prices. $2.75 per thousand cubic feet is one tipping point price for coal-gas substitution. Most analysts project gas prices rising over the next 2 years and that will likely allow coal to recapture some lost market share.
But how much generation market share coal will recapture in the next year or two is uncertain and depends greatly on the extent of gas price increases.
www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/.
While US coal consumption fell sharply, US coal exports had another exceptionally strong quarter, rising when compared to the first quarter of 2011, that was itself a quarter of high exports. Though exports are a bright spot for US coal, about 90% of coal is consumed by power plants, and the fierce competition with gas has depressed US coal consumption.
What is the future of coal around the world and in the US?
Outside the USA, the shale gas revolution is not a reality so far, and natural gas is 3 to 6 times the price it is in North America. And so coal does not face around the world the same intense competition from gas, as it does in America. Indeed, coal globally enjoyed its best year in 2011, when it provided more of the world's total energy than it had since 1969. Its prospects look good as long as the shale gas revolution remains restricted to North America.
Within the USA, coal consumption will rise from its record low level with rising gas prices and fall with falling gas prices. $2.75 per thousand cubic feet is one tipping point price for coal-gas substitution. Most analysts project gas prices rising over the next 2 years and that will likely allow coal to recapture some lost market share.
But how much generation market share coal will recapture in the next year or two is uncertain and depends greatly on the extent of gas price increases.
Storm Proofing Electric Grid Requires Doubling Electricity Bills: Would That Be Worth It?
To contact us Click HERE
The massive outages in sweltering heat have triggered criticism of electric distribution utilities and another round of questioning why electric lines are not buried under ground. The single biggest reason why electric customers lose service is weather caused damage to distribution lines. Ice storms, wind damage, tree limbs falling all cause havoc with electricity service and can require days and even weeks to repair service to all customers.
No doubt burying all or most distribution or transmission lines would improve reliability of the electric service, but such improvement would require a doubling of electric bills. The typical residential electric bill would jump from about 11 cents per kilowatt-hour to 20 cents or more per kilowatt-hour.
Indeed, following a massive storm in 2003, the North Carolina Public Utility Commission studied the possibility of burying electric lines and concluded it would raise electric bills by 125% and require $41 billion of investment and decades of work.
A typical residential customer in the US pays today an electric bill between $100 to $120 per month and so monthly bills would skyrocket to $200 to $240 or more to storm proof the electric grid. Would that investment be worth it?
A lot of people dealing with 100 degree heat without electricity would say, "Yes, absolutely." But $1,200 more for electricity would hit hard the pocketbooks of most families.
Moreover, a doubling of grid electric bills would turbocharge investment in solar, CHP, and other on-site generation technologies. The grid today faces real competition and cannot price itself out of the market.
Finally, utility regulators must always vigilantly monitor the capital budgets of electric distribution utilities to make sure that they are investing appropriately in grid reliability. The electric distribution utilities remain state-sanctioned monopolies everywhere in America, and their rates and the use of ratepayer money are typically regulated by government officials appointed for that purpose.
Since electric distribution customers have no choice or competition to protect them, utility regulators must provide smart, thorough oversight. It is a critical and difficult function that requires judgment about how much to charge ratepayers to make the grid ever more reliable. To date, regulators and utilities have judged that most customers have not been willing to double their electric bills in order to storm proof the grid.
No doubt burying all or most distribution or transmission lines would improve reliability of the electric service, but such improvement would require a doubling of electric bills. The typical residential electric bill would jump from about 11 cents per kilowatt-hour to 20 cents or more per kilowatt-hour.
Indeed, following a massive storm in 2003, the North Carolina Public Utility Commission studied the possibility of burying electric lines and concluded it would raise electric bills by 125% and require $41 billion of investment and decades of work.
A typical residential customer in the US pays today an electric bill between $100 to $120 per month and so monthly bills would skyrocket to $200 to $240 or more to storm proof the electric grid. Would that investment be worth it?
A lot of people dealing with 100 degree heat without electricity would say, "Yes, absolutely." But $1,200 more for electricity would hit hard the pocketbooks of most families.
Moreover, a doubling of grid electric bills would turbocharge investment in solar, CHP, and other on-site generation technologies. The grid today faces real competition and cannot price itself out of the market.
Finally, utility regulators must always vigilantly monitor the capital budgets of electric distribution utilities to make sure that they are investing appropriately in grid reliability. The electric distribution utilities remain state-sanctioned monopolies everywhere in America, and their rates and the use of ratepayer money are typically regulated by government officials appointed for that purpose.
Since electric distribution customers have no choice or competition to protect them, utility regulators must provide smart, thorough oversight. It is a critical and difficult function that requires judgment about how much to charge ratepayers to make the grid ever more reliable. To date, regulators and utilities have judged that most customers have not been willing to double their electric bills in order to storm proof the grid.
Kaydol:
Yorumlar (Atom)