 |
|
|
|||||
On the campaign trail, President Donald Trump made multiple promises to lower energy prices and electricity bills for Americans, but 100 days into his second term, energy prices are upand expected to keep increasing. Experts say Trumps energy policieslike inhibiting renewables, canceling federal energy assistance programs, and enacting widespread tariffsare to blame. Under my administration, we will be slashing energy and electricity prices by half within 12 months, at a maximum 18 months, Trump said in August. Energy is going to bring us back. That means were going down and getting gasoline below $2 a gallon, bring down the price of everything from electricity rates to groceries, he said in September. (Though at times he did hedge: If it doesnt work out, he also said in August, youll say, oh well, I voted for him and he still got it down a lot.) At the 100-day mark, though, average gas and electricity prices are up, some Americans have already seen their energy bills increase, and theres potential for much more harm, says Charles Harper, senior policy lead for the power sector at Evergreen Action. Average prices are upand Trump policies will raise them more Trump recently claimed that gas prices dipped below $2 a gallon in some states, but thats not true. The national average price of gas is currently $3.17 a gallon, 5 cents higher than a month agoand tariffs are set to spike gas prices soon. U.S. refineries make gasoline from crude oil, which is produced here but also importedpredominantly from Canada and Mexico. The U.S. imports about 4 million barrels of Canadian oil per day. (We also import what’s called “finished motor gasoline” from other countries, primarily Canada.) Average electricity prices are also up, to $0.181 per kilowatt per the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Thats a slight uptick from both January and February, and the highest price on record. Though Trump ran on a platform of energy dominance and unlocking American energy, Harper notes, he hypocritically has tried to kill some forms of energy that are the lowest cost. Wind and solar are the cheapest forms of electricity to build, and also the fastest to deploy. Yet Trump has taken aim at these energy sources, suspending funding for clean energy projects and issuing orders to stop projects already underway, including for an offshore wind farm that would power more than 500,000 New York homes. In a list of energy resources he says we need to increase, Trump specifically excluded wind, solar, and battery power. Trump cut low-income energy assistance In the first 100 days of Trumps second term, low-income Americans, in particular, have been hit with extra energy charges because of his actions. When Trump paused funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, as part of his Unleashing American Energy executive order, that affected the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which helps more than 6 million low-income households across the country cover their energy bills. Without those funds, about 2,000 low-income households in Alabama saw an immediate $100 added to their utility bills, in just one example. By April, states were missing out on about $400 million in LIHEAP funding that had yet to be distributed by the federal government. Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have fired LIHEAPs staff as they try to kill the program entirely. Thats expected to raise energy bills for millions of Americans, meaning low-income households will be less able to pay those bills, or less likely to adequately heat and cool their homes. Previous cuts to LIHEAP have seen these effects play out. In 2023, Congress cut $2 billion from LIHEAPs budget, and utility debt increased by 8.4% over the next year; 22% of households also kept their homes at unsafe temperatures in 2024, compared to 19.8% the year prior. Tariffs will keep increasing gas and electricity costs Trumps tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada arent only affecting consumer goods; theyll also raise energy prices. Just how much depends on where you live, but Midwest states are expected to be hit the hardest. Trump enacted a 10% tariff on Canadian energy imports and 25% on Mexican energy imports, which could raise gas prices by as much as 50 cents per gallon for people in the Midwest, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. Canada and Mexico supply more than 71% of crude oil to U.S. refineries across the country (nearly 60% of all U.S. crude oil imports come from Canada alone). Canada has also threatened retaliatory tariffs, including a 25% surcharge on electricity sold to Michigan, Minnesota, and New York. Tariffs on steel and aluminum could also make new grid infrastructure and energy projects more expensive. Trumps push for fossil fuels may backfire Much of Trumps campaign promises and early term actions aim to increase fossil fuel production. But that wont necessarily help energy prices or U.S. households energy billsor even fossil fuel companies themselves. Trump has said he wants to bring back retired coal plants, but those plants closed because they were no longer economically viable. Putting them back online would be an expensive undertaking that would also increase electricity prices once theyre up and running. Trump has also looked to increase exports of liquified natural gas (LNG), and has approved licenses for new LNG projects. But increasing LNG exports actually increases domestic energy prices. Because that natural gas is being sold abroad, it makes it subject to global price fluctuations, and means exports aren’t addressing local demand. (When Russia invaded Ukraine, for example, European countries bought more LNG from the U.S., sending prices skyrocketing for Louisiana residents.) Thanks to rampant tax breaks, LNG projects can also cost local communities millions of dollars. Trumps actions have further increased uncertainty for fossil fuel companies. He has aimed to boost fossil fuel production by fast-tracking the approval process for new projects, and has said he wants oil prices to drop to $50 a barrelbut that price is considered too low to be profitable. Oil and gas companies arent clamoring to drill both because they dont want to overproduce and flood the market, and because fears of a recession are causing uncertainty about the future. This Drill, baby, drill agenda his administration has been pushing is not bearing out in practice, Harper says. Many oil and gas companies benefit from a lower supply of energy and corresponding higher prices because they have higher profit margins on every barrel of oil that they sell, and they are really resistant to increasing production. Oil and natural gas, including LNG exports, are both global markets that are subject to the whims of other countries and global demands, Harper adds. That means its impossible to isolate America from global price volatility. Clean energy could be a different story, because it’s generated domesticallybut as previously noted, Trump is hampering clean energy projects rather than pursuing them. All of these actions will only continue to raise energy prices for Americans, Harper saysand, he notes, theyre also all self-inflicted wounds done by the new administration.
Category:
E-Commerce
In recent years, the FDA has approved dozens of gene and cell therapies that can potentially cure rare diseases like sickle cell disease and spinal muscular atrophy. But many patients still can’t access these treatments because insurers have refused to cover them. That reluctance is understandable, unfortunately. Widespread use of these multimillion-dollar therapies would bankrupt many health insurers. But the solution isn’t to deny lifesaving drugs to patients. Rather, it is to deploy creative financing solutions that deliver these therapies to sick Americans without collapsing the insurance system. The sickle cell dilemma Consider, for instance, the dilemma posed by sickle cell disease. About 100,000 Americans suffer from the condition, in which a genetic defect causes red blood cells to become crescent-shaped and impede circulation, leading to severe pain and shortened lifespans. Two therapies approved by the FDA show great promise, but are each priced above $2 million, reflecting the decades of research and development costs required to bring them to market and the relatively small patient population. Shockingly, $2 million may not be out of line, given the number of lives to be saved and the years of suffering to be averted, not to mention the improvements in workforce productivity for patients and their caregivers, and cost-avoidance of chronic disease management for sickle cell disease in the future. Curing the condition once and for all could actually save money in the long run, compared to managing the disease year after year and only slowing, not stopping, the patient’s decline. Even the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, which argues that many pharmaceuticals are wildly overpriced, has concluded that these treatments would “achieve common thresholds for cost-effectiveness” at a price exceeding $2 million. Yet few insurers can afford the up-front cost of these cutting-edge therapies. Commercial insurance companies would similarly struggle to afford the treatments for dozens or hundreds of patients in their risk pools state by state. Simply put, the health insurance system was designed to pay for statins and surgeries, not miracle cures with seven-figure price tags. The mortgage model Giving patients widespread access to these cures will require going outside the traditional insurance system, and facilitating partnerships between manufacturers, payers, and financial institutions, including banks and private equity. For example, right now, sickle cell chronic disease-and pain-management for just one patient can cost upwards of $50,000 per year. For Medicaid, which covers about 50% of U.S. sickle cell patients, these costs could add up to $2.5 billion annually. But if banks partnered with Medicaid, they could finance sickle cell gene therapies in bulk for a discount, say $1.7 million, then Medicaid would amortize the loan over several decades, the same as mortgaging a multimillion-dollar house. At a federally subsidized interest rate of 1%, Medicaid would pay $50,000 per patient per year over 40 years. In other words, the government would effectively pay the same annual price for gene therapies that cure patients up-front as it currently spends just to manage the condition in perpetuity. But after 40 years, Medicaid would have paid off the loan. Banks get a safe, government-backed investment; manufacturers are paid quickly and can scale production; and patients enjoy decades of good health. Outcomes-based contracts The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is embarking on a voluntary program between the makers of sickle cell gene therapies and state Medicaid offices to expand access, but it is limited to contracts that take the states off the hook if a treatment doesn’t work as intended. So-called outcomes-based contracts are rife with complexities and are unlikely to lead to widespread access for sickle cell patients. Similarly, employer-sponsored health plans’ coverage of gene therapies is erratic. If private equity partnered with these health plans at publicly traded companies, the up-front cost of paying for treatment in working-age populations could be amortized over time, predictably increasing the value of the company’s shares. Consider that healthier employees lead to gains in top-line productivity and fewer chronic conditions in a company’s risk pool that could potentially lower premiums. This means a greater return for private equity, one that makes their large up-front investment worthwhile. Everyone wins Traditional insurance simply wasn’t designed for a 21st-century world where we have the tools to completely cure diseases by altering patients’ genetic code. But with regulators’ permission, financial institutions could introduce tools that reduce the long-term costs of chronic conditions, improve public health, and generate predictable financial gains.
Category:
E-Commerce
For the first time in more than 20 years, Amazons logo got a touch-up. In fact, all of its logos got a touch-up. The small but subtle changes are part of a company-wide brand system refinement, bringing together more than 50 Amazon sub-brands across categories like pharmacy, groceries, and on-demand streaming under a single brand umbrella. Typography was key to making it all work.A pair of bespoke fonts, Amazon Logo Sans and Ember Modern, tie Amazon products and services together with a unified brand voice that has flexibility for different contexts. This is a brand thats everywhere, from cardboard boxes to music to prescriptions, and needed to adapt to convey boldness and excitement in use cases like entertainment, but trustworthiness in its healthcare divisions.[Image: Amazon]Koto Studio, the creative agency that worked on the brand system and refresh, started the endeavor by thinking of Amazons master brand logo as a type specimen, not just a mark. (Though they did plump up its arrow to give it a deeper smile.) The team refined the letterforms in the logo, which eventually became the foundation for a font.The biggest challenge was the sheer scale, Koto New York executive creative director Arthur Foliard tells Fast Company of the Amazon brand refresh. Amazons brand had become visually fragmented. Every product or service seemed to have its own logo. It was a sea of arrows with no clear system or structure.Under the new brand system, the Amazon family of sub-brands, house brands, and core services, from Amazon Basics to Amazon Kids, now have a unified logo system set in the new proprietary Amazon Logo Sans.[Image: Amazon]Ember Modern is a new version of the typeface Amazon originally designed for Kindle screen. Koto updated it with characters for 366 languages and seven weights so it can be used globally in instances like high-impact headlines or for text-heavy, long-form reading. Its a typeface designed for versatility.They also updated the companys color palette to standardize its main brand color, Smile Orange; tweak its blue to a more saturated, digital-friendly shade; and give each sub-brand its own bright, expressive color scheme. Amazon Fresh, its grocery delivery business, uses shades of green to communicate freshness, while Amazon One Medical, its primary care provider, uses a turquoise green reminiscent of scrubs.Historically, Amazon teams moved fast, spinning up businesses and logos on the fly to meet customer demand, Foliard says. That agility was great, but it sometimes led to brand fragmentation. [Image: Amazon]Going forward, the agency left the company with an automated [amazon]:name command to generate future consistent logos instantly, plus a full logo architecture to define what needs a logo and what doesnt.With its new brand system and font book, Amazon is better positioned to express its brand and sub-brands across a growing number of categories. If Alexa is the audible voice of Amazon the brand, Amazon Logo Sans and Ember Modern are the brands voice in print.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||