• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании1874
      • Показать ещё
      Разное535
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы119
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации15
      • Показать ещё
      Сферы1
      Люди27
      • Показать ещё
      Издания14
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели18
      • Показать ещё
      Формат4
American Electric
31 декабря 2016, 04:45

Vermont utility confirms system breach by Russians

Evidence of Russian hacking has been detected in a Vermont utility system, the Washington Post reported Friday, citing U.S. officials.The report says a code associated with a Russian hacking operation referred to as "Grizzley Steppe" by the Obama administration was found to have penetrated the U.S. electricity grid.U.S. officials, including at least one senior administration official, told the Post that the Russians did not disrupt the operation of the Vermont utility. The intent may have been to determine whether the hack could have disrupted operations or managed to enter the grid, according to the report. Though the specific utility in Vermont was not identified by U.S. officials, Vermont's only main utilities are Green Mountain Power and Burlington Electric.The breach could signal a vulnerability within the American electrical grid, which is regularly monitored by security officials for potential threats.

27 декабря 2016, 13:02

Trump's new economic math

Trump proved adept during the campaign at defining his opponents and could attempt to do the same on the economy if he shows limited success on his benchmarks.

12 декабря 2016, 23:11

FACT SHEET: Release of the Joint United States-Canada Electric Grid Security and Resilience Strategy

Today, The White House and the Government of Canada released the Joint United States-Canada Electric Grid Security and Resilience Strategy (Strategy) fulfilling the commitment made in March in their joint statement on Climate, Energy, and Arctic Leadership to "develop a joint U.S.-Canadian strategy for strengthening the security and resilience of the North American electricity grid,” including “against the growing threat from cyberattacks and climate change impacts.”  The Strategy describes joint goals and objectives to address the vulnerabilities of the two countries’ respective and shared electric grid infrastructure as a matter of energy security and national security. The North American electric grid is one large, complex, interconnected machine. The Strategy relies on the existing strong bilateral collaboration between the United States and Canada and reflects a joint commitment and a shared approach to risk management for the electric grid. It also articulates a common vision of a future electric grid that depends on effective and expanded collaboration among those who own, operate, protect, and rely on it. Because the electric grid is vital to the functioning of modern society and dependent on other infrastructure for its function, the United States and Canada developed the Strategy under the shared principle that security and resilience require increased collaboration and shared approaches to risk management. The Strategy envisions a secure and resilient electric grid that is able to withstand hazards and recover efficiently from disruptions. In pursuit of this goal, the Strategy describes joint approaches to protect today’s electric grid, manage contingencies by enhancing response and recovery capabilities, and cultivate a more secure and resilient future electric grid. Three strategic goals underpin the effort to strengthen the security and resilience of the electric grid: Protect Today’s Electric Grid and Enhance Preparedness: A secure and resilient electric grid that protects system assets and critical functions and is able to withstand and recover rapidly from disruptions is a priority for the governments of both the United States and Canada. Manage Contingencies and Enhance Response and Recovery Efforts: The Strategy sets out a shared approach for enhancing continuity and response capabilities, supporting mutual aid arrangements such as cyber mutual assistance across a diverse set of stakeholders, understanding interdependencies, and expanding available tools for recovery and rebuilding.  Build a More Secure and Resilient Future Electric Grid: The United States and Canada are working to build a more secure and resilient electric grid that is responsive to a variety of threats, hazards, and vulnerabilities, including increased threats from climate change. To achieve this, the electric grid will need to be more flexible and agile, with an architecture into which new technologies may be readily incorporated. The Strategy will be implemented in accordance with separate U.S. and Canadian Action Plans, each detailing specific steps and milestones for achieving the Strategy’s goals within each nation.  The National Electric Grid Security and Resilience Action Plan may be found here. These documents are intended to guide future activity within areas of Federal jurisdiction, with full respect for the jurisdictional authorities of both countries. Implementation will occur in consultation with state and provincial governments, regulators, and utilities, where applicable, and will require the sustained, coordinated, and complementary efforts of individuals and groups from both countries, including private sector partners, policy makers, and the public. The work of both the United States and Canada to strengthen the security and resilience of the electric grid is essential to support all of us who depend on this critical asset.

12 декабря 2016, 17:01

Donald Trump's Science Fiction

President-elect Donald Trump has been twisting the facts in ways beyond what even George Orwell envisioned in his dystopian novel 1984. When PolitiFact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning truth squad sponsored by the Tampa Bay Times, analyzed more than 300 assertions by Trump since he announced his presidential bid, it found that roughly 70 percent were mostly or completely false while another 15 percent were half-truths. Only 15 percent of his comments were deemed mostly or completely true. Little wonder CNN political commentator and Trump apologist Scottie Nell Hughes recently declared on NPR's Diane Rehm Show that if enough people believe a lie, it's true -- at least for them. "There's no such thing ... anymore as facts," she said. As someone who works for a science advocacy organization, I take issue with Hughes' contention we're living in a post-fact world, especially when it comes to science and its implications. Trump has espoused a number of scientifically unfounded positions with serious consequences for public health and the environment, including the thoroughly debunked claim that childhood vaccines cause autism. But let's start by examining some of his most flagrant lies about climate change, fossil fuels and renewable energy, as well as his policy prescriptions based on those lies. Trump's Mind Opens and Shuts on Climate Change By now, everyone who's been paying attention knows that Trump once tweeted that climate change a "hoax" created by the Chinese. When asked about it on Fox & Friends in January, however, Trump insisted he was joking, and he told The New York Times in his first on-the-record media interview after the election that he has "an open mind to it" and thinks "there is some connectivity" between human activity and climate change. Trump's "open mind" comment was widely reported. What wasn't widely reported is he also told the Times there is widespread disagreement among scientists about whether climate change is actually occurring. There isn't. "It's one issue that's interesting because there are few things where there's more division than climate change," Trump said. "...You know, you can make lots of cases for different views... It's a very complex subject. I'm not sure anybody is ever going to really know." Just yesterday, during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Trump repeated his assertion that "nobody really knows" if climate change is real. "I'm still open-minded," he told host Chris Wallace. "Nobody really knows. Look, I'm somebody that gets it, and nobody really knows." But Trump doesn't get it. Climate scientists have known about global warming for decades, and the overwhelming majority of them agree that human activity -- primarily the burning of fossil fuels -- is driving up world temperatures. Trump's 'Clean Coal' Fantasy During the second "town hall" presidential debate in early October, an audience member asked Trump and Hillary Clinton how they would meet the country's energy needs while "remaining environmentally friendly and minimizing job loss for fossil power plant workers." It was the closest the two came to fielding a question during the debates related to climate change. Trump's answer was a pure fabrication. After taking a swipe at the Obama administration for putting energy "under siege," he declared: "We need much more than wind and solar... There is a thing called clean coal. Coal will last for a thousand years in this country." In fact, "clean coal" technology, which is supposed to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, doesn't currently exist. It has never been demonstrated to work economically on a commercial scale, and no operating U.S. coal power plants use it. And a number of high-profile "clean coal" pilot projects, dogged by cost overruns and scheduling delays, have failed. The claim that the United States has a thousand-year supply of coal is also a Trumparian exaggeration. According to a 2007 National Research Council report, there is likely enough coal at current production levels to last somewhere between 100 and 250 years. During his presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly vowed to revive the coal industry. "Let me tell you," he proclaimed last March, "the miners in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, which was so great to me last week and Ohio and all over, they're going to start to work again, believe me." Market realities, however, stand in the way of that ever happening. The demand for coal is bound to continue to wane due to the proliferation of cheap natural gas, increased competition from renewables, and energy efficiency programs. As recently as 2008, coal generated about 50 percent of U.S. electricity. Now its share is just 30 percent. Employment in the coal industry, meanwhile, has dropped steadily since it peaked at more than 250,000 in 1980, largely due to automation. It now hovers around 50,000. You could fit them all into Yankee Stadium. Contradicting the claim he has an "open mind" about climate change, Trump has promised to withdraw the Clean Power Plan, the new federal power plant carbon emissions rule. Doing so might stop some coal job losses, but electric utilities have already begun switching to natural gas and renewables. Last year they shuttered 94 coal-fired power plants and this year at least 40 more will likely be closed by the end of this month. At the same time Trump has promised to bring back coal jobs, he also has pledged to promote natural gas. More than a few energy experts have pointed out that those are incompatible objectives. Resuscitating the coal industry also conflicts with Trump's professed goal of protecting the environment. "Clean air is vitally important," he told the Times staff a few weeks ago. "Clean water, crystal clean water is vitally important." If Trump really believes that, why would he want to revive coal? Besides the fact that coal-fired power plants account for roughly a quarter of total U.S. carbon emissions, they also are a leading industrial source of such "traditional" toxic pollutants as mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, which have been linked to a host of diseases, as well as premature death. All told, coal's estimated "life-cycle" cost in the United States -- including its impact on miners, public health, the environment and the climate -- is $345 billion annually, according to a 2011 Harvard Medical School study. Trump Blows Hot Air About Wind Trump lost his battle against a wind farm off the coast of his Scottish golf course, but he's continuing his crusade here at home. During his marathon interview with the Times, Trump said "the wind is a very deceiving thing" and then proceeded to make a number of deceptive statements of his own. "First of all," Trump said, "we don't make the windmills in the United States. They're made in Germany and Japan." Wrong. Currently more than 21,000 American workers are making turbines and parts at more than 500 factories across the country, according to the American Wind Energy Association. Another 67,000 work in the industry installing and maintaining wind farms. Although two European firms, Vestas Wind Systems and Siemens, employ thousands of workers in a half-dozen states, the nation's top turbine manufacturer is an American company -- good old General Electric. The U.S. solar industry, meanwhile, boasts more than 200,000 workers, according to the Solar Foundation. All told, the wind and solar industries now provide more than 288,000 jobs, nearly six times more than the coal industry. Trump's next complaint? "The windmills," he claimed, "are devastating to the bird population, O.K." No, not O.K. In fact, birds have much bigger problems than wind turbines. Besides habitat degradation and destruction, the top human-built environmental threat to our feathered friends are buildings. As many as 970 million birds crash into them annually, according to a June 2013 study in the Wilson Journal of Ornithology. Other studies, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), estimate that every year as many as 175 million birds die by flying into power lines, which electrocute tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands more; 72 million are poisoned by misapplied pesticides; some 6.8 million perish by hitting cell and radio towers; and as many as 1 million birds die in oil and gas industry fluid waste pits. Conversely, a September 2014 study in the journal Plos One estimates that wind turbines kill from 214,000 to 368,000 birds annually. In other words, real estate is the main culprit, and the oil and gas industry kills three to five times more birds than wind turbines. Trump's contrived case against wind power has prompted him to call for ending its federal subsidies. "I've been saying the same thing for years about you know, the wind industry," he told the Times. "I wouldn't want to subsidize it." Yes, the wind industry gets a federal subsidy. Called the production tax credit (PTC), it has been instrumental in leveling the playing field between wind and fossil fuels and invaluable for financing new projects, helping make wind one of the fastest growing electricity sources in the country. Since the mid-1990s, Congress has typically granted the wind industry the PTC on a short-term basis and then wavered over renewing it. Last year, the government gave the industry $2.2 billion in tax breaks, but the PTC will begin to decline next year and phase out in 2020. By contrast, the oil and gas industry has been feeding at the federal trough for nearly a century. On average, the industry has received $4.86 billion in permanent tax breaks and subsidies in today's dollars every year since 1918, according to a 2011 study by DBL Investors, a venture capital firm. Wind and other renewable energy technologies, meanwhile, averaged only $370 million a year in subsidies between 1994 and 2009. The 2009 stimulus package did provide $21 billion for renewables, but that support barely began to balance the scales that have tilted toward nuclear power for more than 50 years, oil and gas for 98 years, and coal for more than two centuries. How Much Damage Can Trump Do? Not only will it be next to impossible for Trump to magically bring back coal jobs, there are also trends in both the private and public sector that he and his entourage will have a difficult time stopping. Just after the election, more than 350 U.S companies and investment firms, including DuPont, Intel, Mars, Nike and Starbucks, sent a letter urging Trump, President Obama and Congress to honor the Paris climate agreement, which has been endorsed by 194 countries. "Failure to build a low-carbon economy puts American prosperity at risk," the companies said in a joint letter. "But the right action now will create jobs and boost U.S. competitiveness." More recently, executives from the oil, electric utility, transportation, technology and retail industries told The Wall Street Journal that their companies are still committed to cutting carbon emissions, regardless of the election results. They cited a number of reasons, including the availability of cheaper natural gas and wind power, as well as pressure from investors, activists and state regulators. "Part of our plan to invest in renewables is to diversify our generation portfolio," an American Electric Power Co. spokesperson explained. "All of those investments don't change with a change in administration. It's a long-term strategy." State governments are also stepping up efforts to address climate change. The Massachusetts Legislature, for example, passed an energy bill in July ensuring that nearly 40 percent of the state's electricity will come from renewables by 2030. Not to be outdone, a day later the New York Public Service Commission approved Gov. Andrew Cuomo's plan to obtain 50 percent of the state's electricity from renewables by 2030. And in August, the California Legislature passed a bill requiring the state to reduce its carbon emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. As Trump would say, this is a big league deal. Nearly 20 percent of the U.S. population -- 65 million people -- live in those three states, and their combined gross domestic product of $4.25 trillion last year would rank them fourth among the world's nations, just after Japan. No doubt their ambitious climate goals will spur major investments in renewable energy and other clean technologies, create new job opportunities, and dramatically cut carbon emissions. At the federal level, meanwhile, the process the Environmental Protection Agency follows to establish new regulations or kill existing ones will make it difficult to dismantle the Obama administration's climate legacy. And if any Trumparians try to make an end run around standard procedures, science, environmental and public health groups most certainly will take them to court. The scientific community has already announced it is watching closely. At the end of November, more than 2,300 scientists -- including 22 Nobel Prize winners -- signed an open letter calling on the incoming Trump administration and Congress to respect "scientific integrity and independence." The letter, organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, ended with an explicit warning. "We will continue to champion efforts that strengthen the role of science in policymaking," it concluded, "and stand ready to hold accountable any who might seek to undermine it." Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

07 декабря 2016, 20:29

Без заголовка

  • 0

President-elect Donald Trump has been twisting the facts in ways beyond what even George Orwell envisioned in his dystopian novel 1984. When PolitiFact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning truth squad sponsored by the Tampa Bay Times, analyzed more than 300 assertions by Trump since he announced his presidential bid, it found that roughly 70 percent were mostly or completely false while another 15 percent were half-truths. Only 15 percent of his comments were deemed mostly or completely true. Little wonder CNN political commentator and Trump apologist Scottie Nell Hughes recently declared on NPR's Diane Rehm Show that if enough people believe a lie, it's true -- at least for them. "There's no such thing ... anymore as facts," she said. As someone who works for a science advocacy organization, I take issue with Hughes' contention we're living in a post-fact world, especially when it comes to science and its implications. Trump has espoused a number of scientifically unfounded positions with serious consequences for public health and the environment, including the thoroughly debunked claim that childhood vaccines cause autism. But let's start by examining some of his most flagrant lies about climate change, fossil fuels and renewable energy, as well as his policy prescriptions based on those lies. Trump's Mind Opens and Shuts on Climate Change By now, everyone who's been paying attention knows that Trump once tweeted that climate change a "hoax" created by the Chinese. When asked about it on Fox & Friends in January, however, Trump insisted he was joking, and he told The New York Times in his first on-the-record media interview after the election that he has "an open mind to it" and thinks "there is some connectivity" between human activity and climate change. Trump's "open mind" comment was widely reported. What wasn't widely reported is he also told the Times there is widespread disagreement among scientists about whether climate change is actually occurring. There isn't. "It's one issue that's interesting because there are few things where there's more division than climate change," Trump said. "...You know, you can make lots of cases for different views.... It's a very complex subject. I'm not sure anybody is ever going to really know." Just yesterday, during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Trump repeated his assertion that "nobody really knows" if climate change is real. "I'm still open-minded," he told host Chris Wallace. "Nobody really knows. Look, I'm somebody that gets it, and nobody really knows." But Trump doesn't get it. Climate scientists have known about global warming for decades, and the overwhelming majority of them agree that human activity -- primarily the burning of fossil fuels -- is driving up world temperatures. Trump's 'Clean Coal' Fantasy During the second "town hall" presidential debate in early October, an audience member asked Trump and Hillary Clinton how they would meet the country's energy needs while "remaining environmentally friendly and minimizing job loss for fossil power plant workers." It was the closest the two came to fielding a question during the debates related to climate change. Trump's answer was a pure fabrication. After taking a swipe at the Obama administration for putting energy "under siege," he declared: "We need much more than wind and solar.... There is a thing called clean coal. Coal will last for a thousand years in this country." In fact, "clean coal" technology, which is supposed to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, doesn't currently exist. It has never been demonstrated to work economically on a commercial scale, and no operating U.S. coal power plants use it. And a number of high-profile "clean coal" pilot projects, dogged by cost overruns and scheduling delays, have failed. The claim that the United States has a thousand-year supply of coal is also a Trumparian exaggeration. According to a 2007 National Research Council report, there is likely enough coal at current production levels to last somewhere between 100 and 250 years. During his presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly vowed to revive the coal industry. "Let me tell you," he proclaimed last March, "the miners in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, which was so great to me last week and Ohio and all over, they're going to start to work again, believe me." Market realities, however, stand in the way of that ever happening. The demand for coal is bound to continue to wane due to the proliferation of cheap natural gas, increased competition from renewables, and energy efficiency programs. As recently as 2008, coal generated about 50 percent of U.S. electricity. Now its share is just 30 percent. Employment in the coal industry, meanwhile, has dropped steadily since it peaked at more than 250,000 in 1980, largely due to automation. It now hovers around 50,000. You could fit them all into Yankee Stadium. Contradicting the claim he has an "open mind" about climate change, Trump has promised to withdraw the Clean Power Plan, the new federal power plant carbon emissions rule. Doing so might stop some coal job losses, but electric utilities have already begun switching to natural gas and renewables. Last year they shuttered 94 coal-fired power plants and this year at least 40 more will likely be closed by the end of this month. At the same time Trump has promised to bring back coal jobs, he also has pledged to promote natural gas. More than a few energy experts have pointed out that those are incompatible objectives. Resuscitating the coal industry also conflicts with Trump's professed goal of protecting the environment. "Clean air is vitally important," he told the Times staff a few weeks ago. "Clean water, crystal clean water is vitally important." If Trump really believes that, why would he want to revive coal? Besides the fact that coal-fired power plants account for roughly a quarter of total U.S. carbon emissions, they also are a leading industrial source of such "traditional" toxic pollutants as mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, which have been linked to a host of diseases, as well as premature death. All told, coal's estimated "life-cycle" cost in the United States -- including its impact on miners, public health, the environment and the climate -- is $345 billion annually, according to a 2011 Harvard Medical School study. Trump Blows Hot Air About Wind Trump lost his battle against a wind farm off the coast of his Scottish golf course, but he's continuing his crusade here at home. During his marathon interview with the Times, Trump said "the wind is a very deceiving thing" and then proceeded to make a number of deceptive statements of his own. "First of all," Trump said, "we don't make the windmills in the United States. They're made in Germany and Japan." Wrong. Currently more than 21,000 American workers are making turbines and parts at more than 500 factories across the country, according to the American Wind Energy Association. Another 67,000 work in the industry installing and maintaining wind farms. Although two European firms, Vestas Wind Systems and Siemens, employ thousands of workers in a half-dozen states, the nation's top turbine manufacturer is an American company -- good old General Electric. The U.S. solar industry, meanwhile, boasts more than 200,000 workers, according to the Solar Foundation. All told, the wind and solar industries now provide more than 288,000 jobs, nearly six times more than the coal industry. Trump's next complaint? "The windmills," he claimed, "are devastating to the bird population, O.K." No, not O.K. In fact, birds have much bigger problems than wind turbines. Besides habitat degradation and destruction, the top human-built environmental threat to our feathered friends are buildings. As many as 970 million birds crash into them annually, according to a June 2013 study in the Wilson Journal of Ornithology. Other studies, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), estimate that every year as many as 175 million birds die by flying into power lines, which electrocute tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands more; 72 million are poisoned by misapplied pesticides; some 6.8 million perish by hitting cell and radio towers; and as many as 1 million birds die in oil and gas industry fluid waste pits. Conversely, a September 2014 study in the journal Plos One estimates that wind turbines kill from 214,000 to 368,000 birds annually. In other words, real estate is the main culprit, and the oil and gas industry kills three to five times more birds than wind turbines. Trump's contrived case against wind power has prompted him to call for ending its federal subsidies. "I've been saying the same thing for years about you know, the wind industry," he told the Times. "I wouldn't want to subsidize it." Yes, the wind industry gets a federal subsidy. Called the production tax credit (PTC), it has been instrumental in leveling the playing field between wind and fossil fuels and invaluable for financing new projects, helping make wind one of the fastest growing electricity sources in the country. Since the mid-1990s, Congress has typically granted the wind industry the PTC on a short-term basis and then wavered over renewing it. Last year, the government gave the industry $2.2 billion in tax breaks, but the PTC will begin to decline next year and phase out in 2020. By contrast, the oil and gas industry has been feeding at the federal trough for nearly a century. On average, the industry has received $4.86 billion in permanent tax breaks and subsidies in today's dollars every year since 1918, according to a 2011 study by DBL Investors, a venture capital firm. Wind and other renewable energy technologies, meanwhile, averaged only $370 million a year in subsidies between 1994 and 2009. The 2009 stimulus package did provide $21 billion for renewables, but that support barely began to balance the scales that have tilted toward nuclear power for more than 50 years, oil and gas for 98 years, and coal for more than two centuries. How Much Damage Can Trump Do? Not only will it be next to impossible for Trump to magically bring back coal jobs, there are also trends in both the private and public sector that he and his entourage will have a difficult time stopping. Just after the election, more than 350 U.S companies and investment firms, including DuPont, Intel, Mars, Nike and Starbucks, sent a letter urging Trump, President Obama and Congress to honor the Paris climate agreement, which has been endorsed by 194 countries. "Failure to build a low-carbon economy puts American prosperity at risk," the companies said in a joint letter. "But the right action now will create jobs and boost U.S. competitiveness." More recently, executives from the oil, electric utility, transportation, technology and retail industries told The Wall Street Journal that their companies are still committed to cutting carbon emissions, regardless of the election results. They cited a number of reasons, including the availability of cheaper natural gas and wind power, as well as pressure from investors, activists and state regulators. "Part of our plan to invest in renewables is to diversify our generation portfolio," an American Electric Power Co. spokesperson explained. "All of those investments don't change with a change in administration. It's a long-term strategy." State governments are also stepping up efforts to address climate change. The Massachusetts Legislature, for example, passed an energy bill in July ensuring that nearly 40 percent of the state's electricity will come from renewables by 2030. Not to be outdone, a day later the New York Public Service Commission approved Gov. Andrew Cuomo's plan to obtain 50 percent of the state's electricity from renewables by 2030. And in August, the California Legislature passed a bill requiring the state to reduce its carbon emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. As Trump would say, this is a big league deal. Nearly 20 percent of the U.S. population -- 65 million people -- live in those three states, and their combined gross domestic product of $4.25 trillion last year would rank them fourth among the world's nations, just after Japan. No doubt their ambitious climate goals will spur major investments in renewable energy and other clean technologies, create new job opportunities, and dramatically cut carbon emissions. At the federal level, meanwhile, the process the Environmental Protection Agency follows to establish new regulations or kill existing ones will make it difficult to dismantle the Obama administration's climate legacy. And if any Trumparians try to make an end run around standard procedures, science, environmental and public health groups most certainly will take them to court. The scientific community has already announced it is watching closely. At the end of November, more than 2,300 scientists -- including 22 Nobel Prize winners -- signed an open letter calling on the incoming Trump administration and Congress to respect "scientific integrity and independence." The letter, organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, ended with an explicit warning. "We will continue to champion efforts that strengthen the role of science in policymaking," it concluded, "and stand ready to hold accountable any who might seek to undermine it." Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
29 ноября 2016, 16:58

American Electric Unit Files Plea for Extending Security Plan

AEP Ohio, an affiliate of American Electric Power Company, Inc. (AEP), has submitted a plea with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio for extending the current Electric Security Plan

Выбор редакции
Выбор редакции
08 ноября 2016, 17:30

The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: Cross Country, Quanta Services, SJW, Ruth's Hospitality Group and Cheesecake Factory

The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: Cross Country, Quanta Services, SJW, Ruth's Hospitality Group and Cheesecake Factory

07 ноября 2016, 16:26

5 Stocks to Buy as Election Heads for Close Finish

Trump may yet have a slim chance of entering the White House.

04 ноября 2016, 22:51

PG&E Corp (PCG) Q3 Earnings & Revenues Miss Estimates

PG&E Corp (PCG) lagged Q3 Earnings and Revenue Estimates

03 ноября 2016, 15:24

Quanta Services' (PWR) Q3 Earnings Meet, Revenues Lag

Quanta Services (PWR) adjusted earnings came in at 51 cents per share, in line with the Zacks Consensus Estimate.

02 ноября 2016, 23:21

3 Construction Stocks Set to Trump Earnings

With an improving economy, encouraging job numbers and affordable mortgage rates, home building should gain further steam going forward.

02 ноября 2016, 16:52

Engineering Stocks Earnings Reports on Nov 3: FLR, PWR, WLDN

Watch out for the earnings reports of these engineering stocks on Nov 3: Fluor (FLR), Quanta Services (PWR), Willdan Group (WLDN).

02 ноября 2016, 16:08

Eversource (ES) Tops Q3 Earnings & Revenue Estimates

Eversource Energy's (ES) third-quarter 2016 operating earnings of 83 cents per share beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate by 3.8%.

01 ноября 2016, 15:56

American Electric (AEP) Q3 Earnings Top; Tweaks EPS View

American Electric (AEP) reported third-quarter 2016 operating earnings of $1.30 per share, beating the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.21 by 7.4%

01 ноября 2016, 15:03

American Electric (AEP) Tops Q3 Earnings & Sales Estimates

American Electric Power (AEP) reported third-quarter 2016 operating earnings of $1.30 per share, comfortably beating the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.21 per share.

01 ноября 2016, 10:40

Акции, которые не боятся кризисов. США

Мы продолжаем серию обзоров о компаниях, которые слабо реагируют на рыночные катаклизмы и устойчиво “делают своё дело”, платя дивиденды и повышая котировки. Сегодня речь пойдет про американские компании.Ключевой мерой независимости цены акции от общеэкономического климата является коэффициент Beta (β). Он показывает, насколько её цена коррелирует с ценами большинства акций на рынке или с поведением общерыночных фондовых индексов типа S&P 500 или Russell 3000.Рисковые инвесторы, которые умеют предсказывать поведение рынка, предпочитают волатильные акции с большими β>1. Но для большинства не слишком профессиональных инвесторов удобны активы с β~0, так как из них легко собрать так называемый бета-нейтральный портфель, способный давать стабильный постоянный прирост порядка 10% годовых, не реагируя на кризисы.В этом обзоре мы расскажем об американских акциях с малыми β. Причём таких, которые не просто независимы от рынка, но показывают стабильный многолетний рост. Мы расскажем об акциях, которые сильнее всего подорожали за 10 лет при соблюдении следующих дополнительных условий.Коэффициент Beta (β) лежит в диапазоне от –0.3 до 0.3. Иными словами, котировки компании почти не зависят от общего поведения рынка.Капитализация не ниже $300M. Это значит, что компания довольно крупна. В среднем, такие компании надёжнее.Коэффициент P/E лежит в диапазоне от 3 до 30. Это значит, что компания не переоценена, она не является пузырём, и на каждый вложенный в неё доллар приходится немалая прибыль. Но при этом, компания и не слишком недооценена (что могло бы говорить о её близости к банкротству).Компания выплачивает дивиденды не ниже 3% в год. Поскольку бета-нейтральные портфели обычно интересуют долгосрочных консервативных инвесторов, дивиденды здесь тоже имеют значение.Изменение котировок за 5 лет положительно. Это условие позволяет в первом приближении утверждать, что рост котировок стабилен: они выросли и на 10-летнем, и на 5-летнем горизонтах.Интересно, что в США по таким критериям у нас получился совсем другой набор компаний, нежели в Европе. В европейский обзор в основном попали компании с капитализациями порядка $1B, и большинство из них — операторы недвижимости. В американский обзор попали, в основном, огромные компании с капитализациями от $10B, и почти все они — энергетические. Обычно наши обзоры состоят из 7 компаний. Сегодня, как исключение, мы расширили перечень до 8 компаний, чтобы в него вошла знаменитая Consolidated Edison (основанная ещё в XIX веке и включённая в престижный индекс S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats).Все данные приведены в долларах США. Буква “B” означает миллиарды, “M” – миллионы.Первое место. Star Gas Partners, LPТикер: SGUБиржа: NYSEКапитализация: $553MОборот: $1.7BP/E: 30Beta: 0.10Дивиденды за год: 4.2%Изменение котировок за год: +10%Изменение котировок за 5 лет: +97%Изменение котировок за 10 лет: +321%Изменение прибыли за 5 лет: +6%Изменение оборота за 5 лет: +7%Энергетическая компания среднего размера. Торгует энергоносителями (бензином, дизельным топливом, маслом) и оборудованием для домашнего отопления и кондиционирования. Общее число клиентов (физические и юридические лица) — порядка 500 000.На рисунке. Логотип Star Gas — чуть ли не единственная графическая информация, которую можно найти в интернете о компании.На графике. Котировки компании в 2.5 раза обвалились во время кризиса 2008 года, но уже в 2010 году восстановили позиции. Дальнейший рост котировок нельзя назвать стабильным, но в итоге за 10 лет компания подорожала вчетверо. Дивиденды компания платит с 2009 года, в основном — 4 раза в год.Оценка инвестиционной привлекательности. Star Gas Partners обладает средней инвестиционной привлекательностью. У компании во всём обзоре самые высокие показатели роста котировок и дивидендов. Но у неё одновременно и самый высокий P/E. Возможно, эти акции несколько переоценены, и их цена в ближайшем будущем просядет.Второе место. WEC Energy Group (Wisconsin Energy Corporation)Тикер: WECБиржа: NYSEКапитализация: $20BОборот: $5.9BP/E: 22Beta: 0.08Дивиденды за год: 3.1%Изменение котировок за год: +25%Изменение котировок за 5 лет: +98%Изменение котировок за 10 лет: +192%Изменение прибыли за 5 лет: +7%Изменение оборота за 5 лет: +7%Крупный производитель электроэнергии и поставщик газа, основанный в 1896 году. Работает, преимущественно, в штатах Висконсин (штат основания компании), Иллинойс, Миннесота и Мичиган. Общее число клиентов — 4.4 миллиона. Компания самостоятельно проектирует и строит электростанции, инвестирует в различную промышленную недвижимость, участвует в общих вопросах градостроительства.  На фото. Электростанция WEC в штате Висконсин.На графике. У этой компании очень стабильный рост котировок. Они почти “не заметили” кризиса 2008 года, а с 2009 постоянно растут (исключение — просадка в 2015 году, которая была быстро отыграна). Дивиденды компания стабильно платит 4 раза в год, хотя иногда бывало и по 5 выплат.Оценка инвестиционной привлекательности. WEC обладает средней инвестиционной привлекательностью. Как и у Star Gas Partners, у неё отличный многолетний рост котировок и стабильные дивиденды. Но количественные показатели дивидендов и роста ниже. С другой стороны, у WEC есть преимущества перед Star Gas Partners — более низкий P/E и более стабильный рост котировок.Третье место. DTE EnergyТикер: DTEБиржа: NYSEКапитализация: $17BОборот: $10BP/E: 23Beta: 0.26Дивиденды за год: 3.2%Изменение котировок за год: +23%Изменение котировок за 5 лет: +96%Изменение котировок за 10 лет: +135%Изменение прибыли за 5 лет: +3%Изменение оборота за 5 лет: +4%Крупная энергетическая компания из города Детройт (штат Мичиган), производитель электрической энергии и поставщик газа. Генерирует порядка 13 гигаватт электроэнергии. Большинство её электростанций работают на традиционных тепловых источниках, но порядка 9% энергии вырабатывается атомными электростанциями. В недавние годы компания стала уделять больше внимания альтернативным источникам энергии. В данный момент она строит одну из крупнейших в США солнечных электростанций на реке Миссисиппи.На фото. Электростанция DTE в Детройте.На графике. Котировки компании просели в 2 раза во время кризиса 2008 года, но затем вышли в очень стабильный рост, напоминающий рост котировок WEC. Дивиденды компания также стабильно платит 4 раза в год.Оценка инвестиционной привлекательности. DTE обладает средней инвестиционной привлекательностью. О ней можно сказать примерно то же, что и о WEC.Четвёртое место. Xcel EnergyТикер: XELБиржа: NYSEКапитализация: $22BОборот: $11BP/E: 20Beta: 0.13Дивиденды за год: 3.2%Изменение котировок за год: +25%Изменение котировок за 5 лет: +72%Изменение котировок за 10 лет: +105%Изменение прибыли за 5 лет: +6%Изменение оборота за 5 лет: +1%Крупный производитель электроэнергии. Владеет 13 тепловыми электростанциями мощностью 7.7 гигаватт, 27 небольшими гидроэлектростанциями мощностью 500 мегаватт и рядом альтернативных комплексов. Пока что альтернативные источники энергии дают небольшую часть общей выработки энергии, но компания активно развивает их — особенно, ветровые.На фото. Плакат Xcel Energy с ветровыми электростанциями.На графике. Котировки Xcel относительно слабо просели во время кризиса 2008 года, после чего вышли в стабильный рост. Картина этого роста вновь напоминает таковую у DTE и WEC, только провал 2015 года выражен слабее. Дивиденды компания тоже платит 4 раза в год, и размер их почти совпадает с DTE.Оценка инвестиционной привлекательности. Xcel Energy обладает умеренно высокой инвестиционной привлекательностью. О ней можно сказать примерно то же, что и о WEC и DTE, но у неё более низкий P/E, что даёт больше шансов на продолжение роста и отсутствие просадок котировок в ближайшем будущем.Пятое место. Dominion ResourcesТикер: DБиржа: NYSEКапитализация: $47BОборот: $12BP/E: 24Beta: 0.20Дивиденды за год: 3.6%Изменение котировок за год: +11%Изменение котировок за 5 лет: +52%Изменение котировок за 10 лет: +99%Изменение прибыли за 5 лет: -9%Изменение оборота за 5 лет: -5%Крупный производитель электроэнергии и поставщик газа в Вирджинии, Северной Каролине и ряде других штатов. Суммарная мощность электростанций компании — 27 гигаватт, причём 41% из них приходится на атомные электростанции. Также компания владеет газохранилищами общим объёмом 34 кубических километра, среди которых — рекордное в стране хранилище объёмом 27 кубических километров. В собственности компании также находится порядка 10000 километров линий электропередач и 23000 километров трубопроводов.На фото. Газовое хранилище Dominion в штате МиннесотаНа графике. Котировки компании умеренно отреагировали на кризис 2008 года. Они восстановили докризисные позиции в 2011 году, после чего продолжили рост. Исторический рекорд котировок был поставлен в 2015 году, после чего рост приостановился. Дивиденды компания платит стабильно 4 раза в год.Оценка инвестиционной привлекательности. На фоне других компаний обзора Dominion Resources обладает невысокой высокой инвестиционной привлекательностью. Её котировки прекратили рост, прибыли за 5 лет немного упали, P/E умеренно велик.Шестое место. SCANAТикер: SCGБиржа: NYSEКапитализация: $11BОборот: $4.4BP/E: 20Beta: 0.25Дивиденды за год: 3.0%Изменение котировок за год: +41%Изменение котировок за 5 лет: +86%Изменение котировок за 10 лет: +85%Изменение прибыли за 5 лет: +15%Изменение оборота за 5 лет: -1%Производитель электроэнергии и поставщик газа в штатах Южная Каролина, Джорджия, Северная Каролина. Владеет несколькими электростанциями разного типа (включая 1 атомную) общей мощностью 5.8 гигаватт. Общее число потребителей электричества и газа — более миллиона.На рисунке. Логотип SCANA.На графике. Котировки компании мягко отреагировали на кризис 2008 года, хотя и докризисный рекорд преодолели лишь в 2011 году. С тех пор продолжается отличный положительный тренд котировок, хотя в 2015 году была (как и у некоторых других компаний обзора) временная просадка. Дивиденды компания платит стабильно 4 раза в год.Оценка инвестиционной привлекательности. SCANA обладает умеренно высокой инвестиционной привлекательностью. От большинства других компаний обзора её выгодно отличают невысокий P/E и самый высокий 5-летний рост прибыли.Седьмое место. American Electric PowerТикер: AEPБиржа: NYSEКапитализация: $32BОборот: $16BP/E: 19Beta: 0.24Дивиденды за год: 3.4%Изменение котировок за год: +20%Изменение котировок за 5 лет: +75%Изменение котировок за 10 лет: +81%Изменение прибыли за 5 лет: +8%Изменение оборота за 5 лет: +3%Одна из крупнейших в стране электрических компаний, основанная в 1906 году. Владеет электростанциями общей мощностью 38 гигаватт и электросетями длиной 68000 км. Общее число потребителей — порядка 5 миллионов в 11 штатах. Большая часть энергии вырабатывается тепловыми электростанциями. Компании принадлежит лишь одна атомная станция, производящая 6% общей мощности. В недавние годы компания интенсивно развивает солнечную энергетику.На фото. Электростанция Mountaineer компании American Electric Power.На графике. Котировки компании просели в 2 раза во время кризиса 2008 года, после чего медленно восстанавливали позиции. Рекорд 2007 года был преодолён лишь в 2013 году. Но в недавние годы у компании налицо отличный положительный тренд котировок. Дивиденды компания платит стабильно 4 раза в год. Лишь в 2010 году была пропущена одна выплата.Оценка инвестиционной привлекательности. American Electric Power обладает умеренно высокой инвестиционной привлекательностью. У неё самый низкий в обзоре P/E, а остальные показатели сравнимы с таковыми у большинства компаний обзора.Восьмое место. Consolidated EdisonТикер: EDБиржа: NYSEКапитализация: $24BОборот: $13BP/E: 20Beta: 0.02Дивиденды за год: 3.4%Изменение котировок за год: +19%Изменение котировок за 5 лет: +37%Изменение котировок за 10 лет: +69%Изменение прибыли за 5 лет: +4%Изменение оборота за 5 лет: -1%Одна из старейших и известнейших американских компаний. Была основана в 1823 году под первоначальным названием New York Gas Light Company. Сегодня предоставляет услуги в первую очередь на рынке электроэнергии, но работает и с такими энергоносителями как газ и пар. Входит в престижный индекс S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats благодаря особой стабильности выплат дивидендов: уже 40 лет они не только исправно выплачиваются, но и постоянно растут (в абсолютном исчислении).На фото. Машинный зал одной из нью-йоркских электростанций Consolidated Edison в конце XIX века.На графике. Компания довольно мягко перенесла кризис 2008 года. В 2011 году её котировки побили рекорд 2007 года. Общий тренд котировок положителен, но рост менее стабилен, чем у большинства компаний обзора.Оценка инвестиционной привлекательности. Consolidated Edison обладает умеренно высокой инвестиционной привлекательностью. Её минус — самые плохие в обзоре показатели роста котировок. Но зато у неё относительно небольшой P/E и самые стабильные в обзоре дивиденды. Само нахождение в индексе S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats добавляет этим акциям престижа и почвы под ногами.