Photo: Tesla Owners Club of Australia The lack of a single question on climate change after four consecutive presidential debates is a painful reminder of how little political power climate hawks have really built. But while climate change is not a salient political issue clean energy is. According to polling conducted by Pew clean energy is a potential wedge issue with right leaning constituencies. That's because in places like California Republicans are 5 times more likely to own rooftop solar than their crunchy liberal friends. That's an important political opportunity in an increasingly polarized world. But more exciting than the ability to transcend the political divide is the opportunity to organize a politically potent constituency. With more than one million solar homeowners with 'skin in the game' when it comes to the clean energy transition we have the potential for something the left has never been able to build - the clean energy equivalent of the National Rifle Association (NRA). Take what happened with threats to rooftop solar in California for instance. When the California PUC considered changes to the net energy metering (NEM) policy that enables participation in the clean energy economy Solar City was quick to take action. The company sent email action alerts, much like an advocacy focused NGO might, to its customers asking them to tell the PUC to keep its hands off their solar. That simple act turned passive consumers into solar advocates and was a part of the successful effort to defend NEM in California. This of course is just one isolated example of the ability to organize and activate a solar constituency whose bottom line is directly affected by adverse changes to a clean energy transition. There are many others including the recent efforts to fight the Pepco-Exelon merger in Washington DC that relied on solar cooperatives to act as community advocates. Ultimately, what they have in common is the understanding that the true 'value of rooftop solar' is not in the cost savings or terrawatt hours produced, but in the political constituency it creates. But while the rooftop solar industry has recognized the political force at its fingertips electric vehicle owners are yet to be tapped. The reality is electric vehicles create a much more powerful connection with the clean energy economy than solar ever could. They become an integral part of daily life that taps into a deep-seated cultural connection with cars and the American road. Even better, they are increasingly associated with technological advances that can create powerful loyalty as evidenced by the cult like obsession many have with Tesla. Even better than the deep connection EV owners have with their cars is their sheer numbers. While rooftop solar homeowners are large and growing they are limited to those who own a home. EV owners on the other hand could literally be everybody in the country who already owns a car. While EV sales are small today, they are growing fast and set to leap into the mainstream with the most recent clean energy miracle - the Chevy Bolt. Imagine how powerful an email from General Motors to millions of Chevy Bolt owners would be if tax credits and subsidies were ever removed? But while we do have some early examples of electric vehicle owner organizing (see plug in America), we have yet to aggressively exploit the potential. Which brings us back to our current predicament. While we are rapidly approaching deadlines to decarbonize the world economy dictated by the tipping points in earths' natural systems we are slow peddling our approach to building the power necessary to avoid climate chaos. The reality is that the political institutions that have supported the progressive left in the United States like the Unions have seen their numbers dwindle from one in every three people in the country to less than one in 10. That is not only a threat to our ability to defeat a future Donald Trump, it's a threat to our ability to get climate change on the political agenda period. That's why it's vitally important we build new political constituencies as a part of the clean energy transition. Because the effort to halt climate change doesn't end when we swap out coal plants for solar and wind farms or gas guzzlers for electric vehicles. That is really just the 'low hanging fruit' of the deep decarbonization we need to undertake that will transform everything from the way industry manufactures our world to the way we heat our homes. Because the reality is without a robust political infrastructure created by organizing those who benefit from the transition we can win the clean energy battle but lose the climate war. -- 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.
Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) reported first-quarter fiscal 2017 earnings of 76 cents per share, which comfortably surpassed the Zacks Consensus Estimate of 68 cents.
Exelon Corporation (EXC) is set to release third-quarter 2016 results before the opening bell on Oct 26.
This month, the Obama Administration decided to refrain from bailing out the health insurance industry. In doing so, the U.S. Department of Justice dismissed multimillion-dollar lawsuits from two big healthcare insurers, a move that would've circumvented Congress and was roiling Republicans who were threatening obstructionism and deriding Obama bailouts. The irony of the party politicking isn't lost on anyone. No doubt Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, one of the bigger bailout examples going tax-free after losing nearly one billion dollars of investor money, will keep quiet on Obama's near-bailout of the health insurance industry. But bailouts, like the one recently considered by the Obama Administration, aren't the purview of one political party. Both parties do it freely and frequently, at federal and state levels. The US government is bailing out businesses all the time. In fact, America is not even close to a "free market" because we're picking winners and losers every day, either through direct bailouts, subsidies and tax loopholes, or through an indirect picking up of the pollution or health tab. Energy subsidies, for example, are well over $5.3 trillion globally given that governments are constantly cleaning up after fossil fuel companies. American taxpayers, then, are left bailing out the bad decisions of businesses everywhere. The worst example, of course, is the wholesale bailout of Wall Street, with no criminal repercussions for the CEOs, and their executive leadership, who were complicit in decimating middle America's wealth and derailing our economy. And since the financial industry bailout didn't come with corrective and punitive action, the likelihood of another crash is high since the risky derivatives trading and cashing in on sub-prime loans is back in full swing. How difficult it is to fully enact the big-bank-regulating Dodd-Frank Act, then, thanks to heavy lobbing in our nation's capital by one of the top industries financing Congressional campaigns and preventing stricter safeguards. Wells Fargo's latest fraudulent activity, creating millions of false bank and credit card accounts, is merely the latest example of what little lessons Wall Street learned from its bailout. But other bailouts are equally egregious. Our auto industry has been mismanaging its growth for decades, not remotely keeping pace with greener more efficient auto industries elsewhere. And yet both parties agreed to prop it back up with little parameters for better environmental performance. This is not a sustainable government practice by any economic or environmental measure. The latest industry to get bailed out is the nuclear industry and it's been happening for a few years already. Nuclear is struggling because of cheaper natural gas prices, and even bottom of the barrel oil prices, thanks to rampant fracturing across America and the absence of a carbon tax that would put a more accurate cost on heavy emitting gas, oil and coal. In undermining the nuclear industry, America's fracked gas boom has also decimated drinking water supplies and geological integrity all across the country. From a carbon footprint perspective, this is deeply disconcerting because natural gas is a heavy emitter and shouldn't be considered a bridge fuel for our economy. Just look at the methane leaks across America, the impact is much worse than previously thought. The nuclear bailout, however, is now falling into the same trap that riddled financial industry and auto industry bailout schemes. There's little corrective action that's encouraged, or regulated, and, as a result, the industry is allowed to continue making the same mistakes - all at a significant cost to our economy. Nothing could be more inefficient. The most common nuclear industry bailout typically props up companies operating old plants, which are in desperate need of repair, emitting radioactive waste, leaking toxic material often and containing cooling systems that kill massive amounts of marine life. And it's done with no conditions, using America taxpayer dollars to "save" companies - such as the Fortune 100 Company Exelon with $34 billion in annual revenues - that aren't in need of extra revenue. New York State's nuclear bailout this month is merely the latest example of business getting off scot-free while taxpayers pick up multi-billion-dollar tabs. The state's governor, Andrew Cuomo, is planning to bail out the aging and money-losing Ginna, FitzPatrick and Nine Mile Point nuclear plants, some of America's oldest nuclear plants and owned by Exelon and Entergy, with nearly $8 billion of New Yorkers' hard-earned money (and another $2.8 billion if energy prices fall). New York State's decision was made after Exelon alone spent $430,000 lobbying Albany, the capital, over the past two years. In the same amount of time, Entergy spent $1.7 million lobbying the state. Money talks. These examples are particularly egregious because the taxpayer is not only picking up a nuclear tab but a utilities tab, too, the latter of which is a product of the state's new Clean Energy Standard. The new standard, while meritoriously aiming for an electricity goal of 50 percent renewable energy by 2030, is requiring utilities to obtain renewable energy credits, a cost that's also going to be passed on to the taxpayers. And it's not like these utilities are struggling. New York utilities giant, Con Edison, for example, has $13 billion in annual revenues and $47 billion in assets. They're going to be fine. Neither the nuclear industry nor the utilities industry should be passing on these costs to taxpayers, nor should federal and state governments be picking up the corporate tab, especially when our country's median wages are still stagnating and the income inequality gap is still gaping. These are costs that companies should cover, not citizens. It's time to end the bailouts of big business. For nuclear, if we really want to save it, then state governments, in Albany and elsewhere, should put a price on carbon so that gas, coal and oil show their true cost on society. Until then, no amount of bailing out will stem the flow of cheaper fossil fuels. If this is about jobs, then these billions could be better spent on more reliable renewable industries. If this is about a clean energy future, then figure out next generation nuclear ASAP. But that is not happening with these bailouts. They are a boon for big business while taxpayers are ponying up. Michael Shank, PhD, teaches sustainable development at NYU's Center for Global Affairs. -- 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.
President Barack Obama may be plotting a return to his community organizing roots. When he leaves the White House, Obama wants to create a “platform” to train the next generation of leaders and activists, he said during a town-hall event broadcast on ESPN Tuesday evening.“Most prominently we’re gonna be interested in figuring out how we can develop the next generation of leaders,” Obama told the audience at North Carolina A&T in Greensboro. That means continuing initiatives that he and Michelle Obama started in the White House, like My Brothers Keeper and Let Girls Learn, he said. But it also means “trying to create a platform where young activists … can get trained and learn from each other.”He added, “Michelle and I, I think, If we look back 20 years from now and can say that we helped to contribute to the leadership of the next generation to replace us and to exceed what we've accomplished, we’ll feel pretty good about ourselves.”Obama didn’t elaborate much on what that training might look like. However, during the town hall, Obama repeated his criticism of contemporary protest movements, like the street demonstrations in Ferguson and NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s refusal to stand for the national anthem in opposition to police brutality. He knocked those efforts for calling attention to a problem without proposing a concrete solution.“Awareness is important at the outset,” Obama said. But leaders from the civil rights era, including Martin Luther King Jr. and Rep. John Lewis, “would begin with the protest but then very rapidly engage in the powers that be to say, ‘We will stop protesting when you use this specific thing.’”Earlier on Tuesday, the Obama Foundation – the vehicle for his presidential library in Chicago and other post-presidency activities – named an “Inclusion Council” to help direct the foundation’s strategic initiatives and foster diversity. It’ll be helmed by Melody Spann Cooper, owner of a black-oriented radio station in Chicago, Northern Trust executive Connie Lindsey and Exelon Corporation executive William A. Von Hoene, Jr.Other bold-faced names on the 14-member council include Laura Ricketts, a bundler for Hillary Clinton and co-owner of the Chicago Cubs, and United Airlines executive Brett Hart. Beyond the lofty goals, Obama told the town hall’s host, ESPN Stan Verrett, that he has another dream job in mind once he’s done being president.“I might just take your job at SportsCenter,” Obama said.
Shareholders of energy and power generation company Talen Energy Corporation (TLN) have recently approved the proposed acquisition of the company by Riverstone Holdings LLC, a private investment firm.
Exelon Corporation (EXC) announced that its electric and natural gas subsidiary, PECO, has completed over 1,300 projects that were aimed to boost its natural gas and electricity service.
Today at the White House, we’re hosting the South by South Lawn Festival -- and all day long, we'll be keeping you updated right here on everything #SXSL and how you can use your voice to help make a difference. SXSL is all about celebrating America’s spirit of innovation and bringing together changemakers for a festival of ideas, art, and action. SXSL is a call to action for every American to make a positive mark on their country and a celebration for all the inspiring work we have accomplished. So follow along with us here for highlights and speak up on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram using the hashtag #SXSL no matter where you are. Get the full schedule and follow along here. Getting ready for the day Starbucks brings #Upstanders to @WhiteHouse South by South Lawn Festival https://t.co/broWMU35W3 #SXSL pic.twitter.com/euvyINMy6y— Starbucks News (@Starbucksnews) October 3, 2016 #SXSL to do list:Check out Up Next Lounge✅Txt w/ live college advisor✅Talk to celebs abt college✅#BetterMakeRoom pic.twitter.com/tmk92AiHdx— Better Make Room (@BetterMakeRoom) October 3, 2016 What's @NPRMusic doing with a #TinyDesk at The @WhiteHouse? Stay tuned for a #SXSL reveal! pic.twitter.com/ujFTG2xrdm— NPR Extra (@NPRextra) October 3, 2016 Haciendo los últimos retoques! Obtenga todos los detalles y la programación para #SXSL en https://t.co/GySe8Y7Y2Y. pic.twitter.com/JiFL1MkKTH— La Casa Blanca (@lacasablanca) October 3, 2016 Bringing a little Austin to the South Lawn today. https://t.co/qCXwVI0uLH pic.twitter.com/nTb10I3GHP— President Obama (@POTUS) October 3, 2016 Hard Things are Hard: A Conversation with James Turrell and David Adjaye Interactive Exhibits At Exelon, we have a big to-do list. It starts with clean, reliable energy for our communities. #SXSL pic.twitter.com/NYxvFxgv5a— Exelon Corporation (@Exelon) October 3, 2016 Art is wherever you find it. And @POTUS found some on the @WhiteHouse South Lawn. #SXSL #ParkPeople pic.twitter.com/J3uU9bc9AE— Nathan Sawaya (@NathanSawaya) October 3, 2016 Jazmin Kay is an intern in the Office of Digital Strategy
HBR STAFF Many business leaders are fond of the spurious Peter Drucker quote that “you can’t manage what you can’t measure.” This attractive, apocryphal quote breaks down upon inspection. While effective metrics are essential for focusing attention and achieving results, they can also overpower better sense. Mismeasurement can lead to mismanagement. Most industries cower to a few central metrics, the yardsticks that define the winners and losers. For example, same-store sales or sales per square foot measure success in the retail industry, and various volume measures do it in commodity industries. Metrics tried and proven over years become a guide to what’s important, driving resource allocation. But these metrics can become tyrants. When things change, outmoded metrics can threaten a firm’s survival. Consider the automotive industry. The entire industry obsesses each year, even each week, with reports of unit sales of cars, influencing the behavior of auto producers, suppliers, channel partners, industry analysts, and investors. For years, U.S. automotive manufacturers owned rental car companies in the hopes of maintaining strong unit sales figures by captive fleet purchases (which were also to maintain volume to fulfill their onerous union obligations). In a future dominated by autonomous vehicles and ride-sharing schemes, a typical family might decide to own fewer cars or none at all — meaning lower unit sales, all else equal. And yet the utilization rate of each individual vehicle will likely increase. The resulting higher asset utilization should mean more service and replacement parts requirements, traditionally higher margin businesses than selling the original vehicle. But to thrive in that future, the auto industry will have to get over its obsession with unit sales. Companies in industries facing change have to change their key metrics, often before the new reality is clear. As Carlos Tavares, chair of PSA Peugeot Citroën, explained to me, “Unit sales will remain important, but this shouldn’t be our driver….To be ready, we must experiment and learn as markets change.” Over the past year, I’ve discussed with Tavares and many other business leaders how core metrics impact behavior and performance over the near and long terms. From these conversations and other research and consulting, I’ve come to believe that companies can and must protect themselves from the tyranny of metrics by taking the following four actions on an ongoing basis. Know your metrics and the behaviors they drive. Everyone at your company should understand which metrics drive the business, and what behaviors they encourage. Joe Nigro, CEO of energy company Constellation, told me, “Everyone needs to know how each metric fits into the big picture…why and how we’re measuring something, and how it’s relevant to performance.” (Constellation and its parent company, Exelon, are clients of my firm, Clareo.) Core metrics naturally acquire power in an organization, but people might not be aware of how they can bias decisions. “In-store experience” has long been a core metric for retailers, and for good reason. However, as online commerce rose in importance, traditional retailers were slow to shift focus to online experience metrics. Brands such as Borders Books and Best Buy spent enormous funds and attention on enhancing in-store capabilities. Even when major retailers committed to their online presence, the dominant bricks-and-mortar business requirements circumscribed what their online businesses could do. Walmart entered online retailing relatively early, in January 2000, but the world-leading merchant took perhaps a decade to reconcile the friction between competing “click and brick” metrics. Former Walmart.com CEO Carter Cast recalled to me, “Back in the early 2000s there were many things we wanted to accomplish with our online business but had a hard time doing because of the perception that we’d interfere with the well-oiled efficiency of the physical stores. For example, while we were one of the early companies to develop an ‘order online, pick up in store’ service capability, it took us years to launch because of the fear we’d slow down store operations. I understood the concern of our store operators, but customers were asking for the service.” A key word here is perception. New business models can hurt a company’s existing businesses; however, if they work, they can enhance overall performance. The questions become, what should we measure, and who gets the credit? Even though an “order online, pick up in store” offering might increase same-store sales — a crucial traditional metric — who benefits from the lift, the online business unit or the store? To what extent is online ordering cannibalizing sales from the traditional store? Meanwhile, before a store sees increased sales volume, the new capabilities and resources (e.g., floor space, staff attention) required to fulfill in-store pick-up can impair performance. Who takes the hit? Track metrics at your peripheries. The big threats and opportunities usually come from the periphery of your industry, rather than from your core competitors. They start in other markets, with other customers, or with stealth incursions into the edges of your market. These new entrants often bring new business models, and thus measure performance differently than incumbents. It’s a good idea to pay attention. Against which metrics are they building their businesses? Consider how those metrics relate to your incumbent businesses, or might enable your company to pursue new opportunities. For instance, digital media has evolved rapidly since measuring “eyeballs” during the first dot-com boom of the late 1990s. From click-throughs to conversions, metrics have reflected what has been possible to achieve, and in some cases has defined entire businesses. Meanwhile, most traditional media companies spent far too long addicted to circulation numbers and prime-time ratings. Companies should also learn from innovators in other markets, considering how those metrics might translate to their own businesses. For years, Rackspace built an industry-beating IT hosting business by focusing on customer satisfaction in an industry dominated by competitors obsessed with low costs. Rackspace emphasized different metrics than its competitors and achieved differentiated results. The company’s founders set out to build the “Lexus of hosting,” a radical concept at the time. Measuring customer service and satisfaction in ways similar to a luxury products or hospitality company played a significant role in Rackspace’s success. The company’s experience also emphasizes that metrics can’t afford to be static; the signals at the periphery are always changing. Today Rackspace and all IT-focused companies are being challenged to define their roles in a world dominated by cloud computing models, which is upending metrics across the industry. This didn’t happen overnight. In the late 1990s forerunners to today’s cloud services were known at application service providers, or ASPs. This concept evolved to software as a service, or SaaS models, followed later by cloud computing. While cloud is a more advanced notion, both ASP and SaaS provided foresight to where the industry might trend. Companies paying attention could envision future business models and accordingly shift their success metrics. Those that remained focused on traditional measures are playing catch-up, and some won’t survive. Prioritize metrics that reflect value to customers, rather than simple volume or efficiency. New business models don’t only come from new entrants; sometimes, incumbents introduce new ways to add value and track performance. Properly motivated and led, incumbents can be particularly dangerous, as they already have scale and credibility. For decades aircraft engine manufacturers focused on unit sales. In the 1960s UK manufacturer Bristol Siddeley introduced “power by the hour,” charging for safe, effective operations rather than individual aircraft engines and parts. Bristol’s acquirer, Rolls-Royce, upgraded this approach in the 1980s. The power-by-the-hour metric tracks performance in terms of a company’s value-add for customers, rather than purchase volumes. Bruno Esposito, an industry veteran and entrepreneur, lamented to me, “It took some companies decades to overcome their focus on selling more aircraft engines, even though what airlines wanted was safe, efficient operations and predictability of costs. Power by the hour aligns customers and suppliers. Unit sales don’t.” Many traditional commodity or product-focused industries, such as mining, oil and gas, or chemicals, tend to focus on the volume of product purchased and shipped: tons, barrels, liters, etc. This is an obvious metric, but it biases a company toward decisions that reinforce the commoditization of its own offerings. Focusing on them means that new business concepts — ones that might decrease the volume sold but replace it with value-added services or services that better align customer and supplier incentives — can be easily missed. Metrics that reflect the value companies bring to market provide greater insight into whether they are succeeding at their customer value mission. Note, though, that abstract metrics, such as customer satisfaction, often lack specific insight into what lies behind the results. Customer satisfaction should be an essential metric for every company, but satisfaction metrics require complementary assessments to understand the core value being provided. Experiment with emerging, alternative metrics — and iterate. Once you see new metrics emerging, apply these new metrics to assess your current businesses. You might find ways to modify your business models to remain relevant, or you might find that your current business is on a long, slow slide to oblivion. Most business services enterprises, such as law firms or consultancies, measure some form of “utilization” (e.g., billable hours). Investments in software or automation could hurt billable hours, especially on these firms’ routine, lower-value-added offerings. Instead, introducing metrics that assess a firm’s ability to efficiently resolve client problems, especially in lower-value-added offerings, might support investments that are anathema to the simple billable hours metric. As automation improves, clients will eventually move to solutions best able to serve their needs. Even if a company experiments with a new metric rather than widely implementing it, experimenting early on can keep a firm competitive, as well as help uncover opportunities to improve alignment with technology trends and customer needs. Conquering the tyranny of metrics requires ongoing experimentation and iteration. A one-time assessment is a good start, but it’s not enough. To manage the risks of measurement biases, companies must check and recheck their core metrics. Nigro recommends challenging metrics at least annually, perhaps during a company’s annual budget cycle or strategy development process. Consider not only whether the metrics you’re measuring are still relevant but also whether you can do better. Changing the ways we measure success means changing how we define success. Waiting until the market has already changed means playing catch-up. Given how companies construct themselves around optimizing against their metrics, waiting until market shifts are obvious often means waiting until it’s too late.
Here is the problem they faced. In order for the economics of this deal,other than tax benefits, to work there did not have to be an actual power plant involved. After all, Unicom is getting 77% of the money back in six months and there is an insurance company guaranteeing that they will get more than 100% of the money in a little over thirty years and probably not by coincidence the timing is such that they could defer the back end money with another 1031 deal. So with those contractual guarantees, the power plant Unicom bought from CPS could have been a fourth grade science project coil of copper wire with a magnet that lit a tiny light bulb and the economics would have worked the same. That would have been going too far though, which is why Winston & Strawn wanted Deloitte to do an appraisal to show there was a real $700 million plus power plant there and to project what CPS might or might not do in 30 years.
Декабрь станет точкой невозврата сразу для двух американских атомных станций. Если их владельцы не добьются субсидий от местных законодателей, то они будут закрыты. В июне компания "Exelon" уведомила комиссию по ядерному регулированию США о планах по досрочному закрытию АЭС "Clinton" и АЭС "Quad Cities". Три блока на двух станциях будут...
Декабрь станет точкой невозврата сразу для двух американских атомных станций. Если их владельцы не добьются субсидий от местных законодателей, то они будут закрыты. В июне компания "Exelon" уведомила комиссию по ядерному регулированию США о планах по досрочному закрытию АЭС "Clinton" и АЭС "Quad Cities". 26 комментариев
"Exelon Corp." и "Entergy Corp." договорились о купле-продаже одноблочной АЭС "Фитцпатрик" в штате Нью-Йорк за US$110 млн. По условиям соглашения, "Exelon Generation Co." становится владельцем и эксплуатирующей организацией станции, что позволит "продлить ее работу после января 2017 года". Одновременно с Управлением по энергетике Нью-Йорка достигнута договоренность о передаче "Entergy Corp."...
The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: AstraZeneca, Caterpillar and Exelon
Американская энергетическая корпорация Exelon инвестирует $25 млрд в инфраструктурные и энергетические проекты в США в течение пяти лет, сообщает PRNewswire. «Мы видим большие возможности для заработка в течение ближайших нескольких лет, в то время как Exelon возглавляет волну нововведений в отрасли», — сообщил генеральный директор и президент компании Крис Крейн...
Exelon (EXC) announced a concrete plan for growth and discussed strategies to drive its performance over 2016 to 2020.