Talk:Exelon Pavilions

Template

Should {{Engineering}} be added to this page?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My "undo" edit

I undid an edit back to my version since it added a link to a dab pg and incorrectly called the "References" section as "Notes". -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ref fix and other questions

• Current Ref 20 (Exelon Corp Press Reslease on North Pavilions getting a Silver LEED rating) is a dead link - it is not archived on the Wayback Machine or WebCite. I found this Chicago press release Millennium Park's North Exelon Pavilions Receive a "LEED Silver" Rating. Would this work as a replacement? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Seems sufficient to me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I used it. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• I also note there is no ref connecting the pavilions to the Montgomery Ward height restrictions, only this None of the Pavilions is more than three stories in height. which has no ref (but there are refs that give the heights). I looked at all of the refs for the height restrictions that were available online and did not see any mention of the Exelon Pavilions. I worry this would be an issue at FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • That does not surprise me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I rewrote it so that I think it flows a bit better. I worry that there is too much material on the backgroun of the height restrictions. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• I do not care for the locator maps in the two infoboxes. The dots are not quite in the right place in either map, and of course, there should be two dots (as there are two pavilions), not one. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I removed the map from the south pavilions box and am trying to make a template showing all four dots on one map. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

More images

I think we need one more image. Here are the unused ones I could find

• 
  (l to r) Theater, NE pavilion, Cycle center (cropped)
• 
  (l to r) NE pavilion, roof of Theater
• 
  (l to r) Theater, NW pavilion (cropped)
• 
  (l to r) SE, Lurie Garden, SW pavilion, bridgeway (cropped)

What do others think? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the 4th one is the most useful in adding context to the Pavilions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I cropped the first one now too. Is that any better? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I agree and used the 4th image in the article, but had to reorganize the article so it had a section it fit in. I like the new structure of the article better - it eliminates some repetiton it had before (design started in 2001, construction started in 2004, etc.) was all in there twice (one for North and once for South). Do you like it? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Very decent pictures indeed. 12.41.255.10 (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Height restrictions and so on

Following up on Wehwalt's questions at FAC, if it helps: There is one source that claims the limit is effectively 40 feet. (Cartiere, Cameron (2008). The Practice of Public Art. New York: Routledge. p. 141.). Regarding the buildings, some of the older buildings (like the Art Institute) were allowed under less restrictive covenants and because Montgomery Ward chose not to challenge them. The more modern buildings (and expansions to the Art Institute) have been allowed because they were deemed necessary (more precisely non unnecessary) to the purpose of the park. There is an excellent discussion of the legal history here.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• My goodness, those are both amazingly helpful and something neither Tony nor I found despite lots of looking. I am fairly busy IRL right now, but will add this to the article in the next 12 hours or so. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, I added something - hope it reads OK. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've read all the Grant Park decisions very carefully and can't find any reference to a 40-foot height limit or de minimis exemption. Since the entire Background section seemed to exist primarily to lead to the unsupported conclusion that the pavilions don't violate the Ward decisions, I've deleted it. Dennis McClendon (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, following WP:Bold, revert, discuss, you were Bold and deleted the section, I have reverted and we can discuss. Please note that the claims are sourced to other works than the explicit Ward decisions (have you read Flanagan, p. 141, and/or Gilfoyle, p. 181?) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I have. Guilfoyle's book is largely an oral history, and tiptoes around the rather deliberate "don't ask-don't tell" process by which the Millennium Park structures were simply put in the park. The page 181 reference apparently is to a caption saying that earlier proposals "were rejected because their height violated the so-called Montgomery Ward height restrictions." What's left unsaid in that is that the height restriction is, in fact, ground level according to the Ward decisions. The Flanagan essay doesn't cite any source for the mysterious 40-foot claim. The Ward decisions established that property owners on the west side of Michigan Avenue have an easement for light and air across the surface of the park, and that this easement would be disturbed by any building above ground level. A 1952 decision determined that the emergency exits from the Grant Park Garage were de minimis exceptions.Dennis McClendon (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reply. I will try to explain how the section came to be written. As a Featured article, one of the requirements is that the article be comprehensive in its coverage of the topic - see WP:WIAFA, so there has to be background information in the article. Also, this is one of a series of articles on Millennium Park and its various features, all of which also have a Background section. It is also the case that Wikipedia articles have to be based on reliable published sources, and Original research is not allowed - so the article has to use the sources that can be found. There is then the problem that the Ward restrictions in general mean that no buildings can be erected in Grant Park (including Millennium Park), but MP has several buildings that clearly exist - how did this happen? Some are classified as art, or built mostly underground. I know the original Petrillo Bandshell was exempted as the plan was to disassemble it each year and re-erect it (not that that ever happened). I did not know about the emergency exits getting a de minimis exemption.
  • Every article can be improved - I do not think deleting the section is an improvement, but would be glad to hear any suggestions you have for sources to add or how to change the wording to be more accurate. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The buildings exist in spite of the restrictions in the Ward cases because no one ever sued to stop them. There weren't yet any condo owners on Michigan Avenue, and the property owners there were for the most part grateful for the Millennium Park improvements, and (unlike Ward a century earlier) in no mood to fight with the city. The Buckingham Fountain pavilions built in the 90s had already set the precedent of "just build them and see what happens." I agree that there should be a well-researched article or description of the legal restrictions on buildings in Grant Park. I'd like to put that together since I have all the original decisions, but it seems to me it should be in the main Grant Park article or possibly a standalone entry. It seemed quite extraneous for this entry to go into the lengthy background on building restrictions just to (falsely) conclude that the pavilions don't violate them. In fact, it seemed like "protesting too much." The entry already reads a lot like a press release, and that's why I thought cutting the entire section was the best option. One idea for wording in this article might be to replace the entire section with something like "The pavilions, like other Millennium Park structures, may violate the Grant Park building restrictions, but adjacent property owners did not attempt to prevent their construction." And then we'd create an entry called Grant Park building restrictions Dennis McClendon (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
      • When this was being considered for Featured Article, more information on the height restrictions was requested and we added what we could find - see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Exelon Pavilions/archive1. As a FA, this has to be based on reliable published sources (see WP:V and WP:RS), so what are your sources? Also per WP:Summary style, if the information is removed here, then that is done if and only if there is a more detailed article with the same info already in existence, and a summary is still left behind. Please note that I am fine with tweaking the existing text - making it clearer that the original Montgomery Ward restrictions apply to any building in Grant Park, adding the de minimis exemptions for the parking garage structures, even adding that no lawsuits over Millennium Psrk and the Ward restrictions were ever filed / brought (although I know of no source for this). I also think that the Background section could make it clearer that MP was to be funded by the revenue from the parking garage below it, and the Exelon Pavilions are the main access points for that garage. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • As for sources, the various published court decisions through the years are pretty clear. I can only think of a few secondary sources that summarize those for laymen, and most of them are documents prepared by civic groups that were not commercially published. I don't know exactly how to prove a negative (that no lawsuits were filed over the Millennium Park structures). I don't have the background you have of being asked for this information as part of the FA process, but just encountering it as a reader it seemed very strange to have so much detail about a building's right to exist in an entry that should primarily be about the architecture and the building itself. That's why I thought it might be best to remove the extensive discussion of Grant Park building restrictions to a specialized entry, instead of having it appear in every Millennium Park entry. Dennis McClendon (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I've again removed the utterly superfluous Background section, because it exists solely to prove something that is demonstrably untrue: that buildings under 40 feet or something are not forbidden by the Montgomery Ward decisions. They clearly are, but that decision is not self-enforcing; some land owner on the west side of Michigan has to sue to enforce the injunction. The first time I deleted this section, I was told that the Ward decisions themselves were not sufficient authority for this proposition, as they were somehow "original research." Now there's a recent law review article examining the cases in detail, which should put to rest this "40-foot" nonsense. https://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v105/n4/1417/LR105n4Kearney.pdf Dennis McClendon (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought we had previously settled on leaving this in. I support its retention.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the great legal review Dennis McClendon! It will take a while for me to read it, but it seems to be just what we have needed. The last paragraph of the Background section will need to be rewritten (and perhaps some of the other Ward material tweaked), but I do not think the whole section is superfluous (the history of Grant Park and Millennium Park, plus a better history /explanation of the Ward restrictions will help the average reader understand the pavilions. A quick search of the legal review shows many mentions of Millennium Park and at least one mention of the Exelon Pavilion(s). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I can certainly edit the Background section to be legally correct, but my feeling is that will only illuminate how superfluous the section is. We wouldn't include a whole paragraph about the Northwest Ordinance or the Treaty of Greenville in this article to prove that the park was properly under control of the United States. The Ward case restrictions are accurately summarized in the main Grant Park article. This article only need say "The pavilions would probably not be permitted under the restrictions imposed on buildings in this part of Grant Park by the Montgomery Ward cases and subsequent lawsuits, but they were never challenged." ````

Many articles have Background sections (including pretty much all the articles on Millennium Park). This section was OK with the reviewers at FAC and I would like to see clear consensus oin this talk page to remove the whole section before taking it out of the article. I am in favor of keeping a modified Background section.

The legal review article you so kindly linked to gives a lot more information on the Ward restrictions on Grant Park and how Millennium Park came to be built despite these restriction - even mentioning the city getting the OK of abutting property owners near MP (but not all abutting property owners of Grant Park), filing a test case by someone whose property did not abut GP (which was dismissed), and points out how laches would almost certainly allow MP to stay now, even if someone did file a suit against it. The article also mentions "Exelon Pavilion" (sic) specifically as a building, and as such as something likely not allowed in Grant Park under the Ward restrictions.

I think it would help to add a sentence or two about underground parking to the Background section, since 3/4 of the pavilions are parking garage exits. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

After FA

I am calling it a night, but there are still a few unresolved issues from the FAC.

• Excessive bolding in the lead - Tony, what do you think?
  • Personal preference is to bold all alternative names.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Since the bolding follows the MOS and you prefer it, I am OK with that. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
      • On further thought, I removed the bold from the "North Exelon Pavilions" and "South Exelon Pavilions" in the lead. It seemd reasonable to have just the article name and the names of the four individual pavilions bolded in the lead (5 bold terms, not 7). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Fixing the captions - I know you used to be able to add notes to images, but this seems to not be working now.
  • I have attempted to fix the caption of File:South Pavilions, Lurie Garden, New AIC Wing.jpg .--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I am of the opinion that only the south pavilions are visible in File:2005-10-13 2880x1920 chicago above millennium park.jpg. I think the current caption misrepresents the image in this regard. It should say something like "Aerial view of Millennium Park, with the North Exelon Pavilions at the bottom edge (out of view) and the South Exelon Pavilions near the top (the two structures on the eastern (left) half of the park on the near side of the street).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Your caption tweak works for me, thanks. At the bottom edge of the photo from the Aon building you can see the white fabric roof of the Harris Theater terrace. On either side of this the top parts of the roof of each of the North pavilions are visible - they are barely there, but a portion of each is visible. You used to be able to add comments to an area of a photo, so I thought if I could do that, it would help, but it is not available on Commons now, or working for images I have already added such notes to. My thought was if the image could annotated, we could just note that in the caption. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I changed the caption of the aerial view of the whole park to just "Aerial view of Millennium Park in 2005; north is at the bottom." Until Sept. 22, 2010, images on Commons could be annotated, but the feature had a bug and was turned off. Assuming the problem is resolved, I then plan to annotate the image (you draw rectangles on the image and when the cursor is over that area, it shows a label). Perhaps the caption could then say something like "Aerial view of Millennium Park in 2005; click on image for a labeled version." A workaround for now would be to make a labeled image, perhaps similar to File:Ricketts Glen Lakes 1939 labels.PNG, and link to that in a caption. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Possible ovelrinking.
  • I am an overlinker. My opinion is no good on this. I think all marginal links should be retained and am always contested. Do what you feel is best.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I need to sit down and read this carefully. I do not think that it is seriously overlinked, but will see. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I have gone through an removed a few more links (mostly repetition of the Art Institure link). I tend to err on the side of overlinking too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I will reread the FAC and add more as needed here tomorrow - thanks especailly to Tony and to all the reviewers, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I believe all of the outstanding issues from the FAC have been addressed now - I will send out thank spam, but if anyone has other comments or ideas, please raise them here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Seriously?

• A multi-million dollar structure to produce enough energy to power 14 Energy Star houses, I mean, really... 14?

This is the featured article? Seriously? No wonder why most people don't care about solar energy.--200.95.129.67 (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. There are a total of four structures and they could have generated zero energy. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This does not seem to be good value, at that rate it will take about 3000 years before the investment breaks even. QuentinUK (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Should this be included?

I just removed this from the lead, right after ref 1 (these make enough electricity for 14 Energy Star houses). The statement was added while it was on the Main Page.

"or $2,380 of electricity per year at current Illinois electricity prices."

The ref http://www.eia.doe.gov/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html is a reliable source, but just gives average prices for electricty by state. The problem is that you have to add the total electricty production of the north and south pavilions (16,000 plus 3,840 kilowatt-hours), then do the math to find out how much their output would have sold for in Illinois in 2010. This seems like original research to me, and even if it is allowed, this is based on 2010 figures and so needs a date (and will quickly become outdated). Is this worth including? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

References

Hi,

Point taken about it becoming outdated, which can be improved by putting 2010 prices rather than current. As for original research I considered this before inclusion.... The question is what constitutes original research? You could (and in every-day usage probably would) call googling or looking something up in a book research but that extreme clearly isn't what's meant in the context of wiki OR. But is adding and multiplying original research? Well if basic arithmetic of undisputed facts counts as OR then converting for example a length given in a source in imperial and quoting both metric and imperial would be OR. That would be a nonsense. The conversion should be performed correctly and the length should be right. Wikipedia isn't there to peer review new work on complicated topics it would take editors too long to verify but in this case you or 99% of wikipedians can check the maths quickly and easily.

The reason I care whether it is included or not is that, I believe, it is likely to improve most readers understanding of the subject of the article. I don't have any idea how much electricity 14 Energy Star houses use (i did try to find out). But I do, like most people, have at least a vague idea of my electricity bill and the article tells me what the buildings cost.

BTW here's the maths in full:

16,000 + 3,840 = 19840kWh (this figure is quoted elsewhere in the article anyway)

19840 * 0.1186 $/kWh = $2353.024

IanOfNorwich (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I added it to the "Reception and recognition" section where the total output in kilowatt-hours is given. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for returning it to the article. However, I would like to see it back in the lead of the article. I realise that the lead can tend to get too big but, as I suggested above, giving the value of electricity produced gives the reader a better understanding of just how much it produces compared to '14 Energy star houses'. Perhaps it could be used instead; although, personally, I'd be content to retain both. Quoting it as a monetary value also allows easy comparison with the cost of the buildings.

IanOfNorwich (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I added it to the lead, with the reference (since the lead has refs here). Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

While doing the math, has anyone botherd to work out that the "14 houses" can only use on average 0.16kWh per hour ? That's a house running on the equivilent of one 100 watt old-style bulb plus one 60 watt. Has Chicago published an exagerated claim ? And does this use of analogy distort the average reader's concept of how much electricity (or how little) we are actually talking about ? --Rwberndt (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I get the average house using a total of 3.84 KWh per day. My utility company gives average KWh used per day and my residence used at best 18 KWh per day in the past year (or about 4.7 times as much electricity). I also tried looking up how much electricity an Energy Star house is supposed to use and could not find a figure - appliances yes, a whole house no. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked the article so the lead has the KWh and value of the electricity, and the 14 homes claim is only in the body of the article, and is now attributed to the City of Chicago. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice. That reads more encyclopedic in contrast to the sensationalistic prior text.--Rwberndt (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the issue and improving the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Exelon Pavilions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705235955/http://www.artic.edu/aic/modern_wing/press_room/nbfs.pdf to http://www.artic.edu/aic/modern_wing/press_room/nbfs.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Converts cleaned and MBtu removed

I edited the article to change some of the {{convert}} templates. Following is a record of the old and new converts, and the results they display.

Converts in article as at 28 December 2016

{{convert|19840|kWh|MBtu|0}}	19,840 kilowatt-hours (67,697 MBtu)
{{convert|40|ft}}	40 feet (12 m)
{{convert|50|ft|adj=on}}	50-foot (15 m)
{{convert|139|ft|m|adj=on}}	139-foot (42 m)
{{convert|16000|kWh|MBtu|0|lk=on}}	16,000 kilowatt-hours (54,594 MBtu)
{{convert|6100|sqft|m2|1}}	6,100 square feet (566.7 m2)
{{convert|9|ft|m|1|adj=on}}	9-foot (2.7 m)
{{convert|4100|sqft|m2|1}}	4,100 square feet (380.9 m2)
{{convert|550|sqft|m2|adj=on}}	550-square-foot (51 m2)
{{convert|750|sqft|m2|1}}	750 square feet (69.7 m2)
{{convert|3840|kWh|MBtu|1}}	3,840 kilowatt-hours (13,102.6 MBtu)
{{convert|19840|kWh|MBtu|0}}	19,840 kilowatt-hours (67,697 MBtu)

Converts in article after edit 23 January 2017

{{convert|19840|kWh}}	19,840 kilowatt-hours (71,400 MJ)
{{convert|40|ft}}	40 feet (12 m)
{{convert|50|ft|adj=on}}	50-foot (15 m)
{{convert|139|ft|m|adj=on}}	139-foot (42 m)
{{convert|16000|kWh|lk=on}}	16,000 kilowatt-hours (58,000 MJ)
{{convert|6100|sqft|m2}}	6,100 square feet (570 m2)
{{convert|9|ft|m|adj=on}}	9-foot (2.7 m)
{{convert|4100|sqft|m2}}	4,100 square feet (380 m2)
{{convert|550|sqft|m2|adj=on}}	550-square-foot (51 m2)
{{convert|750|sqft|m2}}	750 square feet (70 m2)
{{convert|3840|kWh}}	3,840 kilowatt-hours (13,800 MJ)
{{convert|19840|kWh}}	19,840 kilowatt-hours (71,400 MJ)

I removed the precision numbers such as |1 because they did not give helpful results, but the main reason for the edit was to remove the MBtu unit because it will be removed from convert per this discussion. Apparently MBtu is ambiguous and means million BTU in some contexts and thousand BTU in others. Johnuniq (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Exelon Pavilions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612215349/http://millenniumpark.org/documents/finalguide.pdf to http://www.millenniumpark.org/documents/finalguide.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101011214303/http://www.ashrae.org/docLib/20080507_sustainability_Jalayerian.pdf to http://www.ashrae.org/docLib/20080507_sustainability_Jalayerian.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706002146/http://www.pewclimate.org/companies_leading_the_way_belc/company_profiles/exelon/energy_solutions.cfm to http://www.pewclimate.org/companies_leading_the_way_belc/company_profiles/exelon/energy_solutions.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)