Electricity Pricing to U.S. Manufacturing Plants, 1963-2000

We develop a large customer-level database to study electricity pricing to U.S. manufacturing plants from 1963 to 2000. We document tremendous dispersion in price per kWh, trace that dispersion to quantity discounts and spatial differentials, estimate the role of cost factors in quantity discounts, and test whether marginal price schedules conform to marginal cost and Ramsey pricing conditions. Our cost analysis and pricing tests rely on a novel empirical approach that exploits utility-level differences in the customer size distribution to estimate how supply costs vary with purchase quantity. The results reveal that annual supply costs per kWh fall by more than half in moving from smaller to bigger purchasers, providing a clear cost-based rationale for quantity discounts. Before the mid 1970s, marginal price and marginal cost schedules are nearly identical, in line with efficient pricing. In later years, marginal supply costs exceed marginal prices for smaller manufacturing customers by 10% or more. In contrast to a clear role for cost factors, our evidence provides no support for a standard Ramsey-pricing interpretation of quantity discounts. Spatial dispersion in retail electricity prices among states, counties and utility service territories is large and rises over time for smaller purchasers.

The Grizzly, January 27, 1989

Constructium Ursini • Ad Hoc Hoists Honor • New GPA: 2.25 or Dive! • Letter: Green Shirt Makes Reed Red • Fair Not Just for Freshmen • Security Shacks in Reimert • Beverly Oehlert Named to Pottstown Board of Directors • Final Red and Gold Day • Hoopsters Stunning in Second • Lady Bears Go For Title • U.C. Hockey Bids Boyd Bon Voyage • A \u27bears Recover from Fla. • Dryfoos, Knauer Newest Dirs. • Bailey Bandies With Bush • Grim Gripes: Wismer Hard to Swallow • Quintet Jazzes Up First Forum • Greenstein to Performhttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1226/thumbnail.jp

Disambiguation of Social Polarization Concepts and Measures

ABSTRACT This article distinguishes nine senses of polarization and provides formal measures for each one to refine the methodology used to describe polarization in distributions of attitudes. Each distinct concept is explained through a definition, formal measures, examples, and references. We then apply these measures to GSS data regarding political views, opinions on abortion, and religiosity—topics described as revealing social polarization. Previous breakdowns of polarization include domain-specific assumptions and focus on a subset of the distribution’s features. This has conflated multiple, independent features of attitude distributions. The current work aims to extract the distinct senses of polarization and demonstrate that by becoming clearer on these distinctions we can better focus our efforts on substantive issues in social phenomena

The Grizzly, September 28, 1989

Berman Art Center Ready to Roll • New Forum Frontier to be Forged • Letter: Granite Windows Grosses Grad • Stern Happy at Ursinus • Bear Pack Run: Join Us! • Bush Wacked at Drug Dialog • Security New Park Patrol • Wellness Days! • Crutcher Leads Lady Bears to Win • Ursinus Nipped by WMC • Soccer: So-So • V-ball: Optimistic View • Athletes of the Week • Hallinger Competes on Wheels • Calliope Blast from Pasthttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1242/thumbnail.jp

Understanding Polarization: Meaning, Measures, and Model Evaluation

Polarization is a topic of intense interest among social scientists, but there is significant disagreement regarding the character of the phenomenon and little understanding of underlying mechanics. A first problem, we argue, is that polarization appears in the literature as not one concept but many. In the first part of the article, we distinguish nine phenomena that may be considered polarization, with suggestions of appropriate measures for each. In the second part of the article, we apply this analysis to evaluate the types of polarization generated by the three major families of computational models proposing specific mechanisms of opinion polarization

Scientific Networks on Data Landscapes: Question Difficulty, Epistemic Success, and Convergence

A scientific community can be modeled as a collection of epistemic agents attempting to answer questions, in part by communicating about their hypotheses and results. We can treat the pathways of scientific communication as a network. When we do, it becomes clear that the interaction between the structure of the network and the nature of the question under investigation affects epistemic desiderata, including accuracy and speed to community consensus. Here we build on previous work, both our own and others’, in order to get a firmer grasp on precisely which features of scientific communities interact with which features of scientific questions in order to influence epistemic outcomes. Here we introduce a measure on the landscape meant to capture some aspects of the difficulty of answering an empirical question. We then investigate both how different communication networks affect whether the community finds the best answer and the time it takes for the community to reach consensus on an answer. We measure these two epistemic desiderata on a continuum of networks sampled from the Watts-Strogatz spectrum. It turns out that finding the best answer and reaching consensus exhibit radically different patterns. The time it takes for a community to reach a consensus in these models roughly tracks mean path length in the network. Whether a scientific community finds the best answer, on the other hand, tracks neither mean path length nor clustering coefficient

The Grizzly, April 16, 1991

Alcohol Policy Changes Discussed • Reimert Fire Breaks Up Sorority Rush: Deliberate or Accidental Still Unknown • Faculty Evaluates Frat Pledges Performance • Economics Conference Held • U.S.G.A. Minutes • Conflict and Creativity: ProTheatre Does it Again • Is Rock and Roll Really Dead? • REM: Out of Time • The Cider House Rules, Revisited • Religious Significance of David • Plaza Suite in Wismer • Jack Spinella Named New Basketball Coach • Men\u27s Track Falls to Hopkins • Men\u27s Lax Goes 1 and 1 This Week • Women Run Over Muhlenberg • Softball Splits • Golf Below Par • Student Input on Alcohol Policy Inadequate • Schafer Demands Opinion • Hold on to Your Key Money? • Letters: Apathy Dialog Proposed; Sorry, Harley; Thanks, Judd!; Weakly not Weekly • The Cutting Edge of Surgery • Electron Microscope to be Purchased With Kresge Grant • Help for Chronic Fatigue Sufferershttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1276/thumbnail.jp

Faculty Convocation

Program listing performers and works performe

The Grizzly, September 8, 1989

Hudson Gets $ Flowing • Earth Day Seed Planted • French Studies Papa\u27s Notes • Lopez Lures Listeners • Kruse Spot to Dawleys House • Presidential Candidates • Victory at GB Classic • Captains Lead Attack • Gros Sets Goals • Quest Continues • V-ball: Ichiban! • Coaches Added • Optimistic Lady Bears Start Season • Beaches No Bumshttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1239/thumbnail.jp