Ньюйоркцы были ограблены электрической компанией Constellation Energy на миллионы, но компенсация каждому из пострадавших жителей штата составит примерно четыре доллара. Представители Федерального агентства по регулированию энергетики (FERC) заявили, что Constellation Energy не признает своей вины в мошенничестве, но выплатит 78 миллионов долларов в фонд компенсации клиентам, с которых взыскали за электричество сверх нормы в 2007 […]
Last year, networking giant Cisco Systems worked with one of its contract manufacturers in Malaysia to deploy 1,500 energy and temperature sensors on its manufacturing equipment. These more “intelligent assets” read performance data, giving Cisco a detailed view of energy consumption — one that had not been available before. Last week, at an internal Cisco meeting, the company’s VP of Supply Chain, John Kern, proudly reported that the project had identified ways to cut energy use by approximately 30%, which will likely save $1 million per year. (Disclosure: I was at the meeting as a paid speaker on sustainability strategy.) When Cisco rolls out the sensors globally, these savings will add up. But to me, the most fascinating thing about the whole initiative is the organizational mindset shift it’s creating: a realization about the value of getting smarter about how — and where — operations use energy. As Kern put it, “We always manage costs so closely, but we weren’t really measuring energy — we didn’t know how much we spent! Through digitization initiatives such as this, we now have a way to measure, monitor, and manage energy…this is huge since energy is typically a factory’s largest variable cost.” In many of the most sophisticated companies with top tier operational practices, energy has mostly been treated as a cost line item, watched only by mid-level managers or execs, if at all. This black box approach can’t last. It’s time to move energy into the C-suite so executives can manage this critical component of operational performance in a more strategic way. In addition, with the global climate accords signed now by 175 countries, the world is clearly turning attention to carbon emissions. How a company manages its carbon footprint and approach to energy in general is becoming a top-tier operational issue — and a big deal to regulators, customers, employees, and investors. Insight Center Operations in a Connected World Sponsored by Accenture The technologies and processes that are transforming companies. Some sectors have woken up already. In the tech world, for example, energy is now the largest component of variable costs for running a datacenter. Logically then, many of the companies investing most heavily in renewables are tech giants like Google, Apple, and Facebook. Heavy industry is also diving in, and companies like 3M and Dow have bought many megawatts of renewable energy and found billions of dollars in energy savings. In agriculture, carbon emissions and energy use throughout the value chain are increasingly a core operational issue as well. Every sector should be taking energy this seriously. Even if it’s not a large cost or risk issue in direct operations, it certainly is somewhere else in the value chain. The importance of energy to the global economy, to geopolitics, and to corporate bottom lines — plus the pressing need to tackle carbon emissions to ensure a stable planet and global wellbeing — all combine to make a powerful case for managing energy much more strategically at all levels, from facilities to total operations to strategy. This basic argument, and its repercussions, are laid out in a new strategy guide that I co-authored with PwC’s George Favaloro and Tim Healy, the CEO of EnerNOC, a leader in energy intelligence software. For our paper, Energy Strategy for the C-Suite, we analyzed research and data on energy use at hundreds of companies, and included perspectives from an advisory council that included corporate energy executives and government and academic thought leaders (I also sit on that advisory group). Aside from describing the mega-trends coming to bear on companies — such as climate change; new expectations of increased transparency about business operations; tech breakthroughs like big data and the internet of things; and dramatic shifts in how energy markets work and how to source energy — we identified 15 emerging best practices that can help companies create more value. Here are a few examples of what we recommend in this new framework: Develop a global energy strategy with C-suite and cross-functional accountability. We believe energy could be viewed in many organizations as a “keystone metric” — i.e., a primary indicator that aligns the whole organization around the pursuit of operational excellence. Optimizing energy and slashing carbon can drive overall operational improvements. Set ambitious, science-based goals for energy and carbon. Dozens of leaders, from many sectors have set goals to cut carbon 40 to 100% in line with climate science (Cisco, Disney, Alcoa, Sony, J&J, EMC, and many more). Track energy data at all levels, from the enterprise down to the product, using new tools to understand better how energy connects to overall business performance and metrics (like cost of goods sold). For example, Saint Gobain’s Ohio factory produces 30,000 different products, each with its own energy demands. Much finer energy intelligence data has helped the company understand its true cost per product line. It has adjusted its product prices accordingly, improving margins or just finding a more competitive price point in the marketplace Use advanced financing mechanisms to expand energy project options. In addition to power purchasing agreements (PPAs) for corporate renewables, companies are increasingly able to buy energy as a service, not a product. Consider McCormick & Co, a Fortune 1000 spice manufacturer. When the company needed to replace old air conditioning units, it contracted with Constellation Energy Group to build a brand new chiller plant. Constellation owns the chiller and charges McCormick for cold air, freeing up McCormick’s capital to invest in other operational improvements and the business itself, not in energy infrastructure. In total, energy is one of the largest components of company cost structure, and it’s a complicated operational issue. But it’s rarely seen as something that can provide deeper strategic insight. With new tools in a much more connected world, executive can better manage this most basic of inputs into the economy. Energy is just too important to be managed as a line item.
New York ISO Zone A West day-ahead wholesale power prices have bounced around this March as maintenance and generation outages have increased congestion in the region. This price volatility appears to have spilled onto the prompt-month forward power contract as the spread between West and other New York zones has widened. NYISO Zone A day-ahead prices […] The post Congestion reverses power price trends in New York ISO appeared first on The Barrel Blog.
A new leader will head the US nuclear power industry’s powerful trade group when Marvin Fertel, president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute since 2008, retires at the end of 2016. The nuclear industry, facing escalating economic challenges and rising operating costs, could tap an executive with Exelon, the largest merchant nuclear plant operator, […]
This interview is part of a series on Trailblazing Women role models (Entrepreneurs and Leaders) from around the world and first appeared on Global Invest Her. You have to see what you can be. "Find your passion. School and education is about discovering who you are and what your strengths are. It takes a lifetime of learning to know who you really are and what motivates and inspires you. You have to be able to overcome opposition, both inside and outside your company. Keep learning, find the thing you were made to do and pursue it with all your ability". Lisa Lambert is a vice president of Intel Capital and the managing director of the Software and Services Sector. She also runs Intel Capital's Diversity Fund, with a focus on investing in companies with diverse leadership such as women and underrepresented minorities. This supports Intel's initiative to fund $300 million in programs supporting diversity announced by Intel's CEO at CES in January 2015. Lisa is a voting member of Intel Capital's investment committee. Lisa joined Intel Capital in 1999. Prior to that, she held a Product Marketing Management position with Intel's Desktop Products Group with responsibility for the Pentium II, III processor family. Prior to joining Intel, Lisa worked as a software developer (1989-1992) and in strategic planning, product marketing, and sales (1992-1995) at Owens-Corning. Lisa is on the board of directors (observer) Zend Technologies, Urban Airship, Kaltura, and Fonality and is a director at Brit+Co, Silkroad, and is Founder and Chairman of UPWARD. Lisa has invested in and managed exits from VMware (IPO), Financial Engines (IPO), Kingsoft (IPO), Enjoyor (IPO), Tobesoft (IPO), MySQL (acquired by Sun), DATAllegro (acquired by Microsoft), JBoss (acquired by Red Hat), Accertify (acquired by AMEX), OpenFeint (acquired by Gree), Jajah (acquired by Telefonica), and CPower (acquired by Constellation Energy), among others. Lisa has a MBA from Harvard Business School and a BS/MIS from Pennsylvania State University. Learn more about the Intel Capital Diversity Fund http://www.intelcapital.com and the UPWARD network at http://www.upwardwomen.org and follow Lisa on Twitter @intelcapital and @UPWARDwoman Who is your role model as a leader? I don't have a single role model as a leader. Carol Bartz is a great leader. I admire how she leads, her genuineness about saying what she believes, and her ability to get things done. Sheryl Sandberg is another great role model. She is helping to advance women with her Lean-In Foundation and is leading Facebook's operations as its COO. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are great examples of professionals that strive for excellence and execute with good character. They are all examples of successful leaders who are living proof that results really matter. What is your greatest achievement to date? "From a professional point of view, I am very proud of the larger exit deals I was involved in, particularly investing in VMware prior to its IPO. It was a very comprehensive, visible and important deal." I am also proud of my work on diversity at Intel Capital and in the non-profit I founded, UPWARD. At UPWARD we grew from 30-40 initial members to nearly 2000 senior women leaders through word of mouth. We attracted 18 inbound sponsors and have great members on an international level. "My vision is to grow UPWARD into a global network where senior professional women can get resources and advice to help them get to the next level in their careers." We have launched chapters in San Franciso, Israel, and London and are launching new chapters in Austin, Seattle, and Portland this year and by 2016 we want to double the number of chapters each year moving forward by automating the process (i.e., chapter in a box) and building our team to support our expansion. UPWARD specifically targets women at Director level and above, as it can get harder to advance if you don't network with people at senior levels who can sponsor you, give you advice and leads to help you get to the next level. What has been your biggest challenge as a woman leader? Unconscious bias. For example, the idea that as a woman you are wired a certain way that suggests you can't be a leader or you are put in a certain functional area because people don't think you can handle greater responsibilities. "As a woman leader, you often get 'discounted' before you even start, and the perception is that you don't qualify, that you are sub-par. The way to overcome that is to do an excellent job and be visible at the same time. Men, on the other hand, automatically come in as equals or with a positive impression before they even start." I find the idea that women are not 'good enough' to be senior leaders has been something that has persisted throughout my career and something I have constantly had to overcome. It is a constant battle, and it takes courage. You have to fight your own inclination to give up and not push forward, overcome your own fears and doubts! You also have to do a great job and outperform your peers. You need to believe in yourself and persevere to get what you want. How do you grow people in your organization? I like to give people challenging assignments to stretch them and always set a goal beyond where they are to see what they can do. Do they have the will and energy to put in the effort to excel? Will they raise the bar of their performance or revert to their comfort zone? Everybody has something they can do. You have to find your fit/passion and where you can advance. You can only succeed in a place where you really enjoy what you do, where you have the will to keep pursuing your goals. I also give my team regular feedback, usually immediately, so that they can improve. If you could do 1 thing differently, what would it be? I would have started UPWARD sooner, in my 30's. "As a young woman, I came into my career heads down and was so focused on doing my job. Today, I would advise college graduates to start building their community of colleagues inside and outside their industry from day 1. The latter can help remove barriers for you in the future." There is no longer such a thing as a lifelong employment so you have to build relationships inside and outside of your company, industry and geography from the beginning of your career. There will come a time when you want to move on to a better place. You will hit a ceiling either having to go around certain individuals in your company or go outside your company. Over your career you are developing knowledge on what are your passions and skills and when you have the insight to build your networks early on, it opens up so many chances to do new things or make things easier in your current job. What differences do you notice between men and women's leadership styles? "I don't like to make generalizations, but I notice that women tend to be more participative, engaging, and prudent decision-makers who make resources last longer." They may not be as optimistic or aggressive as men at the beginning, but they do express those traits at the appropriate time. Women also tend to have a more balanced approach, it's in our nature. It's not better, it's just how we are wired. We tend to lead by engaging our teams and with a clear goal in mind. Men tend to be more aggressive leaders and can reap rewards for it. However, that approach can be risky and that's why you need diversity, to help bring different perspectives to the table, and make key decisions to get the best outcome. How would you describe your leadership style? I am a strong, collaborative leader who sets a course, vision and plan to execute it. I like to consider myself a player/coach. I set expectations for my team on how we can achieve that goal and hold everyone (including myself) accountable. I am very structured person. I give specific performance criteria and reward people when they produce great results. I am willing to listen, respond and adapt the plan through inputs from my team. I find you get the best outcomes when the team feels part of the mission and has a voice on how they will execute it. What advice would you give to your younger self? I would tell my younger self freshly graduated from college " expand your network, don't just do your job". I was always a great student, and I would have told myself to have more fun! "I was very work/results oriented even then, so I would tell myself 'relax, enjoy yourself - it's a journey. It's a marathon, not a sprint. Make time for the things you enjoy and the people you love'." What would you like to achieve in the next 5 years? "I would like to have success with the Diversity Fund and have a number of great investments and exits. I would like to see the companies themselves invest in diverse teams and see more inclusion so that we no longer need a diversity fund. Now that many people are investing in diversity, everybody has an opportunity to be successful." On a personal level, I want to see my children grow up, have a great education, play, relax and build great relationships. I would like to see my marriage grow, thrive and mature. I want to continue to contribute to society and see more women in leadership in all fields. It's not 'us' against 'them'. Approximately 30% of the United States is hispanic and black . When they feel embraced and have the opportunities to succeed and achieve their best, the pie gets bigger and we can all have more success. 3 key words to describe yourself? determined focused disciplined For other interviews with Trailblazing Women leaders on Huffington Post Read More Here Follow Anne Ravanona at @anneravanona, and check out other interviews in the Trailblazing women series on Global Invest Her blog Learn more about Global Invest Her www.globalinvesther.com -- 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.
Exelon Corporation (EXC) continues to invest in renewables and natural gas infrastructure
Exelon Corporation (EXC) continues to invest in renewables and natural gas infrastructure.
Exelon Corporation (EXC) invests substantially in infrastructure projects, besides expanding its renewable and fossil fuel generating capacity
TEACH WOMEN NOT TO RAPE! (CONT’D): Ex-Ravens cheerleader Molly Shattuck pleads guilty to rape. “Shattuck, 48, the former wife of former Constellation Energy CEO Mayo A. Shattuck, was accused in November of sexually abusing one of her son’s classmates, including performing oral sex on him in a rented vacation house in Bethany Beach.”
Exelon Corporation's (EXC) unit, Constellation together with PsomasFMG, completed a 6.76 megawatt DC solar generation project for Chaffey Joint Union High School District.
Exelon Corporation (EXC) inked the phase 2 of an energy efficiency agreement with The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
Exelon Corporation's (EXC) subsidiary Constellation Energy Resources, LLC. signed an agreement to acquire seven fueling stations from CNG Fuel, Inc.
Constellation Energy Resources, LLC., a subsidiary of Exelon Corporation (EXC), inked a 25-year competitive electricity supply agreement with the National Aquarium.
Компания "Constellation Energy Nuclear Group" (CENG) предупредила власти штата Нью-Йорк (США) о возможном останове АЭС "R.E.Ginna" в случае срыва переговоров по отпускной цене электроэнергии с её крупнейшим потребителем. АЭС "Р.И.Гинна" (Robert E. Ginna) состоит из одного блока с реактором PWR, введённого в эксплуатацию в 1970 году. Проектная мощность блока 470 МВт(эл.), фактическая 580 МВт(эл.), реакторная установка двухпетлевая по проекту от "Westinghouse". Станция названа в честь ныне покойного исполнительного директора компании "Rochester Gas and Electric Company" Роберта Гинны, выступившего в своё время спонсором строительства АЭС в округе Уэйн штата Нью-Йорк. Здания станции выкрашены в зелёный цвет, что подчёркивает ирландское происхождение Гинны. Компания "Rochester Gas & Electric" (RG&E) остаётся крупнейшим потребителем электроэнергии от АЭС "R.E.Ginna". По иронии судьбы, именно с ней нынешние владельцы станции не могут найти общего языка. читать далее
Nuclear giant Exelon's CEO, Christopher Crane, wants Congress to kill a wind energy tax break, despite the fact the nuclear industry wouldn't be economically viable today without five decades of massive federal subsidies. Corporate executives often tout the benefits of competition in a free-market economic system, but it's striking just how much large corporations don't like it. In fact, some companies will do all they can to squash it, lobbying for favors and subsidies while working to deny them to their competitors. The squabble over a key federal tax break for the wind industry is a case in point. Called the production tax credit (PTC), it has helped quadruple the wind industry's generation capacity over the last five years, and six states now have enough wind turbines to meet more than 15 percent of their annual demand. Unlike most coal, nuclear, and oil and gas subsidies, the PTC -- which has been around only since the mid-1990s -- is not permanent. Congress has to renew it periodically. Last December, Congress let it expire yet again, and lawmakers likely will not restore it until after the November mid-term elections, if at all. The PTC represents roughly $1.2 billion in annual tax savings to the wind industry. Wind's more-established competitors want the PTC dead. ExxonMobil, the Koch brothers and their front groups, for example, want Congress to let it die. Never mind that the oil and gas industry has been receiving an average of $4.86 billion annually in today's dollars in subsidies and tax breaks since 1918. Or the fact that Congress exempted natural gas developers from key provisions of seven major environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. The nuclear power industry doesn't like the wind tax break, either. Its most outspoken critic is Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear plant owner with 23 reactors at 14 plant sites. The Chicago-based utility contends Midwest wind installations are cutting into its profit margins by driving down electricity prices, and it blames the PTC. The company has been lobbying Congress to terminate it, and as I reported earlier this week, it recently launched a front group, Nuclear Matters, to generate public support for keeping all U.S. reactors running. "If the government believes that they're improving the environment by subsidizing wind, they are wrong," Exelon CEO Christopher Crane told the Chicago Tribune in late April. "It is going to shut nuclear plants down." Around the same time, Exelon Senior Executive Vice President William Von Hoene Jr. clarified the company's position. Exelon is not "anti-wind," he told trade reporters, "but anti-subsidy." Anti-subsidy?! The nuclear industry is awash in subsidies. In fact, the industry wouldn't be economically viable without subsidies underwriting every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, according to a 2011 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Altogether, those subsidies have often exceeded the average market price of the power produced. What makes Exelon's opposition to the PTC complicated is it is much more than a nuclear power company. The largest supplier of wholesale power in the country, it gets 55 percent of its electric generation capacity from nuclear, 28 percent from natural gas, 6 percent from hydro, 4 percent from coal, and 3 percent from oil. The remaining 4 percent comes from landfill gas, solar and ... wind. Although wind represents a tiny percentage of Exelon's capacity, it's the 12th largest wind farm owner in the country. It was even on the board of the American Wind Energy Association -- until it got kicked off two years ago for slamming the PTC. No matter. Given that nuclear power and natural gas represent more than 80 percent of its generating capacity, Exelon is against subsidies -- but only for wind and other renewables. Exelon officials don't mention the fact that natural gas is heavily subsidized, and they actually claim with a straight face that nuclear power is not subsidized at all. Scapegoating Wind There's no question that nuclear power's future isn't looking as rosy as it did 10 years ago. Back then, U.S. utilities were banking on a nuclear renaissance. Some proponents were calling for as many as 100 new reactors. Now the industry likely will get at most five built in the next 10 years, and the economic viability of some operating reactors is now in question. "Merchant" plants in deregulated markets, which are not guaranteed an annual profit, are particularly at risk. In any case, four reactors closed last year, and Vermont Yankee's lone reactor will shut down this fall. Investment research firm Morningstar has identified six reactors that may be next in line. And Exelon, which plans to shut down New Jersey's Oyster Creek plant in 2019, is threatening to close some of its Illinois reactors if market conditions don't improve. But how much of the industry's plight is due to the growth of wind power? The website of Exelon's new front group, Nuclear Matters, identifies some of the factors undermining the industry's prospects, including depressed electricity demand, cheap natural gas, an outdated transmission system, and the fact that electricity markets don't provide preferential treatment for low- and carbon-free sources -- which is equally true for wind and other renewables. Exelon executives, however, are most exercised about what the website identifies as "federal and state policies [that] subsidize less reliable electricity sources, distorting competitive markets and causing otherwise economical, clean electric generators to operate at a loss." Joseph Dominguez, an Exelon senior vice president, translated that last bullet point into plain English for the Chicago Tribune in March. "Natural gas prices are impacting nuclear assets, there's no doubt about that," he said. "We would be able to survive that problem -- and survive low demand for electricity -- absent this phenomenon of subsidized wind." Dominguez cited a 2012 Exelon-sponsored study by the Northbridge Group that concluded the PTC encourages wind developers to keep their turbines spinning when electricity demand is low, particularly at night, allowing them to sell power at a loss and drive down the price other generators in the area can charge. In Illinois and other wind-rich regions of the country, there are times when demand is so low, wind, coal and nuclear plant owners have to pay grid operators to take their power. Utilities call it "negative pricing." Exelon claims its entire nuclear fleet experiences negative pricing 14 percent of the time. A March analysis by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), however, documents that negative pricing at Exelon nuclear plants occurs much less frequently and is largely unrelated to wind. Most of the negative pricing, the report found, happened when wind output was extremely low. The more credible culprits, according to AWEA, were local transmission outages and bottlenecks -- which caused more than half of the incidents -- low electricity demand, and Exelon reactors' inability to ramp down when demand drops -- which natural gas and even renewables can do. Steve Clemmer, UCS's director of energy research and analysis, concurs. The Northbridge study "wildly exaggerates wind's contribution to negative pricing," he said, "and completely ignores the fact that Exelon's nuclear plants themselves may be responsible." Even executives at Xcel Energy and NextEra Energy -- which both own nuclear plants -- aren't buying Exelon's argument. "Negative pricing is not driven primarily by wind," Xcel's vice president of policy and strategy, Frank Prager, told Greentech Media in early April. Prager should know. Xcel owns wind farms and two nuclear plants in Minnesota. NextEra Energy CEO James L. Robo, meanwhile, took a swipe at Exelon in a column in the April 7 issue of Roll Call, a political trade publication. "Blaming the wind industry for the challenges in the merchant nuclear business may be politically expedient," he said, "but it will not help any company or technology operate more successfully in a low natural gas price environment." NextEra is the largest U.S. wind and solar developer, but it also owns eight nuclear reactors and a slew of hydro-, gas- and oil-powered generating facilities. The Real Culprits So what's really responsible for nuclear power's economic woes? Besides cheap natural gas, transmission is a key factor, said Mike Jacobs, a UCS energy analyst. "It's a classic supply and demand equation," he explained. "If there were more transmission lines, utilities could dispatch power from places with a glut to where there's higher demand. "It's a problem for both nuclear and wind," he added. "Both contribute to an oversupply at night when demand drops, winds blow stronger, and nuclear plants can't cut their power. Exelon is essentially saying that it's OK for our nuclear plants to generate more power at night, but it's not OK for wind farms." Exelon CEO Chris Crane knows transmission is a big problem. In late April, he told the Chicago Tribune that his company is considering building a $1.6 billion high-voltage transmission line linking its reactors to customers from northern Illinois through Indiana to Ohio. True to form, however, he also made it clear that Exelon doesn't support a proposed 500-mile transmission line, now pending state approval, that would deliver wind-generated electricity from Iowa to Illinois and compete with Exelon's nuclear plants. Jacobs, who used to work at AWEA and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, pointed out that the industry is also hampered by high operating costs and a legacy of neglected safety improvements. "Wind and solar," he said, "are not what's cramping Exelon's style." To be sure, renewables were not a factor in shuttering four reactors last year. The Kewaunee nuclear plant, near Green Bay, had been relicensed in 2011 to run for 20 more years, but the Wisconsin utilities that had been buying its electricity declined to continue, citing the low price of natural gas. The other three reactors -- one at the Crystal River plant in Florida and two at San Onofre in California -- were done in by botched steam generator replacements. Crystal River was facing a $2-billion repair job, while San Onofre's $700-million steam generator replacement system failed in less than two years. It was more than enough to force both utilities to pull the plug. A fifth reactor, Vermont Yankee -- one of the nation's oldest and smallest-- is slated to close later this year. The reason? According to the owner, the plant fell victim to low natural gas prices and the structure of New England's wholesale power market. Note that nobody blamed wind. What Does Exelon Want? To shore up its profits, Exelon has been buying up regulated utilities, which are guaranteed a rate of return by state regulators, unlike the company's deregulated merchant nuclear plants in the Midwest that sell their power on the open market. Its the merchant plants that are in trouble. In 2012, Exelon bought Constellation Energy, which added three dozen power plants in 11 states, including the state-regulated Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, to its portfolio. And just last month, Exelon announced an agreement to buy Potomac Electric Company (Pepco), a regulated utility based in Washington, D.C., that owns electric and gas utilities in New Jersey, Delaware and the nation's capital. If the deal goes through, approximately 65 percent of the Exelon's revenues would come from regulated utilities, and at least one energy business analyst predicts Exelon CEO Crane will eventually try to sell or spin off the company's reactors. Exelon is also pushing its home state of Illinois to provide relief, and asking all states to consider nuclear power's low-carbon benefits when developing policies to comply with the new draft EPA carbon emission rule for existing power plants that was announced on Monday. In response, leading legislators in Illinois, including the speaker of the house, just adopted a resolution calling on federal and state agencies to craft new policies to ensure Exelon's reactors keep running. The resolution asks the Illinois Commerce Commission to produce a report on building more transmission lines to export nuclear-generated electricity to other states and calculate the impact of nuclear plant closures on the state's carbon emissions. That resolution raised some eyebrows among Illinois renewable energy proponents. "Nuclear power is less and less competitive with renewable energy and energy efficiency," the Illinois Environmental Council (IEC) said in a May 27 blog. "When the carbon pollution standards for existing coal plants are introduced..., Illinois' state implementation plan should absolutely prioritize renewable energy and energy efficiency." Given that Exelon has operations in eight states, the company wants a lot more than a resolution in Illinois. Currently 29 states and the District of Columbia have standards that require utilities to increase the share of electricity they generate from renewable sources over time. Illinois, for instance, has a renewable standard of 25 percent by 2025. Crane has proposed that states implement the new EPA carbon emissions rule by adopting a broader "clean energy" standard that would include nuclear power. Crane was likely buoyed by comments the EPA made when it announced its draft rule. "Policies that encourage development of renewable energy capacity and discourage the premature retirement of nuclear capacity," the agency said, "could be useful elements of [carbon dioxide] reduction strategies...." But the EPA rule won't go into effect until sometime next year after a public comment period, and already it has raised hackles among coal state Republicans and Democrats in Congress. In the meantime, expect Exelon to continue its specious campaign against wind energy and remain mum about what's really threatening nuclear power: natural gas. Exelon won't criticize the industry's massive federal subsidies, which have been in place for nearly 100 years, or its environmental law exemptions, even though they both keep gas prices low. After all, why would Exelon call attention to that when the company is in that game, too? Also expect Exelon--and its new front group, Nuclear Matters--to continue go cup in hand to state and federal authorities, all the while insisting that the nuclear industry isn't subsidized at all. As one would expect, Exelon's brazenly dishonest campaign against wind and other renewables has outraged environmentalists and nuclear watchdog groups. But it also has aroused the ire of some of its own industry fraternity members. David Crane, the chief executive of NRG Energy, a conglomerate with coal, gas, nuclear, oil, solar and wind facilities (and no relation to Exelon's Chris Crane), didn't mince words when asked about Exelon's actions by a Chicago Tribune reporter. "The public policy position of Exelon is to oppose subsidies for wind and solar while the company itself purports to be this super-green company and also wants more subsidies for nuclear," he said. "That's just hypocritical." Elliott Negin is the director of news and commentary at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Когда человек выбирает между работой, которая ему нравится, и работой, за которую хорошо платят, он должен помнить, что всегда есть возможность и рыбку съесть, и в воду не лезть. Во втором годовом списке лучших работодателей Америки, составленном PayScale и Business Insider, компании были оценены с точки зрения предлагаемых ими зарплат и условий для личного благополучия. Вот уже второй год подряд биотехнологическая компания из Нью Джерси Celgene Corporation возглавила список лучших работодателей Америки. В действительности, многие компании-лидеры списка связаны с индустрией заботы о здоровье. В прошлом году наблюдался подъем технологической индустрии с типичными для нее топовыми компаниями, такими как Google (второе место) и Yahoo (восьмое место). В этом году технологический сегмент значительно упал в рейтинге: теперь Google — компания № 8 среди других работодателей, а Yahoo находится всего лишь на 17 месте. Компания Microsoft, которая в прошлом году была 14-ой, вообще вышла из списка. При составлении рейтинга компании из Fortune 500 были проранжированы с использованием исследовательской и рыночной баз данных PayScale. Окончательные позиции компаний определялись, исходя из шести критериев: удовлетворенности работой, низкого уровня стресса, высокой гибкости рабочего графика, высокой осмысленности работы, средней заработной платой и дельты по рынку, которая определяется через разницу между финансовым вознаграждением по одной и той же позиции у разных компаний. Поскольку авторы исследования полагают, что зарплата является одним из наиболее важных факторов, они удвоили ее удельный вес в своих расчетах. Компания Ожидаемая зарплата($) Довольны работой Гибкость графика 1 Celgene Corp. 116,000 90.90% 96.80% 2 Biogen Idee 596,100 73.90% 87.00% 3 Celanese Corp. 5103,000 79.30% 85.70% 4 Colgate-Palmolive Co. 5101,000 87.50% 78.60% 5 Anadarko Petroleum Corp. 588,800 82.60% 81.80% 6 PPL Corp. 584,800 80.00% 85.70% 7 Huntsman Corp. 599,400 73.90% 87.00% 8 Google Inc. 5127,000 81.30% 82.80% 9 PG&E Corp. 5108,000 86.80% 68.40% 10 Gilead Sciences Inc. 5105,000 78.00% 68.40% 11 Marathon Petroleum Company, LLC 594,100 92.60% 70.40% 12 Williams Companies Inc. 579,400 81.60% 80.60% 13 Qualcomm Inc. 5113,000 79.60% 92.80% 14 MasterCard Worldwide 5109,000 81.80% 83.90% 15 Bristol-Mysers Squibb Co. 5106,000 77.80% 83.50% 16 NetApp 5118,000 78.80% 94.10% 17 Yahoo Inc. 5125,000 71.50% 90.10% 18 Hershey Foods Corp. 574,500 86.40% 85.70% 19 Blackrock Inc. 5115,000 80.50% 82.10% 20 Amgen Corp. 5107,000 73.50% 77.00% 21 Broadcom Corp. 5125,000 68.30% 85.70% 22 FMC Technologies Inc. 590,400 76.90% 80.60% 23 Dominion Resources Inc. 581,400 79.50% 88.40% 24 Occidental Petroleum Corp. 5106,000 83.30% 68.80% 25 Baxter International Inc. 586,200 78.60% 75.00% 26 Constellation Energy Group Inc. 588,800 68.60% 91.40% 27 NRG Energy Inc. 591,700 76.10% 77.80% 28 Texas Instruments Inc. 5105,000 75.10% 85.40% 29 Chevron Corp. 5113,000 81.00% 75.00% 30 Xcel Energy Inc. 580,600 78.80% 84.80% 31 St. Jude Medical Inc. 584,300 75.30% 74.10% 32 Symantec Corp. 5102,000 71.00% 91.50% 33 FirstEnergy 582,500 83.30% 69.20% 34 AGCO Corp. 580,700 82.40% 75.00% 35 NiSource 580,700 72.00% 79.20% 36 Abbot Laboratories 590,400 75.30% 81.80% 37 Johnson & Johnson 5102,000 73.70% 83.40% 38 Campbell Soup Co. 577,400 75.80% 78.80% 39 NextEra Energy Inc. 590,800 71.40% 70.00% 40 Allergan Inc. 593,400 64.10% 82.50% 41 Mosaic 572,100 82.40% 76.50% 42 Dow Chemical Co. 596,400 78.90% 80.90% 43 Pfizer Inc. 599,100 71.20% 85.30% 44 Fannie Mae Corp. 5106,000 65.20% 83.00% 45 Autoliv Inc. 579,500 75.80% 74.20% 46 eBay Inc. 5114,000 69.40% 85.90% 47 ConocoPhillips Co. 5103,000 73.60% 66.70% 48 Medtronic Inc. 588,500 74.90% 80.60% 49 ExxonMobil Corp. 5104,000 77.00% 73.00% 50 Pacific Life 591,100 60.00% 86.70%
Electricite de France (OTC:ECIFF) says it has finalized a deal with U.S. partner Exelon (EXC -0.4%) that paves the way for the French power company to start withdrawing from its foray into the U.S. nuclear power sector. EDF will delegate to EXC the operational management of the five nuclear reactors owned by their jointly owned energy company Constellation Energy Nuclear Group. Post your comment!
Constellation Energy saw a big move last session on pretty good volume with far more shares changing hands than in a normal session; shares fell over 6% on the day.