The sale of 99% stake in the 92 megawatt-peaks (MWp) IS-42 solar project to Falck Renewables S.p.A is expected to expand Canadian Solar's (CSIQ) footprint in the United States.
Valmont (VMI) reported earnings 30 days ago. What's next for the stock? We take a look at earnings estimates for some clues.
Valmont (VMI) posted better-than-expected earnings and revenues in first-quarter 2017.
Benjamin Wallace-Wells, New YorkerIn a congressional special election in suburban Atlanta last night, Jon Ossoff, a thirty-year-old Democrat, won far more votes than any Republican challenger, but not quite enough to avoid a runoff with a former Georgia secretary of state named Karen Handel. The progressive energy of the first months of the Trump Administration had gathered behind Ossoff, and his campaign raised more than eight million dollars, an astonishing amount, much of it in small donations from around the country. Some of the progressive enthusiasm had to do with the sense of possibility—prosperous Southern...
The rollback of the Clean Power Plan would benefit companies relying on dirty fuel like coal while it is expected to hit the clean energy space.
Why The Anti-Trump Progressive Mobilization Could Mark A Major Inflection Point In American Political History
It is entirely possible that Donald Trump’s election may indeed mark a significant inflection point in American political history – but not because it spawns a rebirth of white supremacy or the authoritarian right; quite the contrary. I have been involved in progressive political organizing for 50 years – beginning in the late 1960s. There was an enormous amount of progressive energy, enthusiasm and passion generated during the Civil Rights movement and the mobilizations aimed at stopping the Viet Nam War. But the level of progressive mobilization generated by Donald Trump’s victory surpasses the 1960s and ‘70s or any other time in the last half-century. Millions of ordinary Americans – many of whom have never been engaged in political activity of any kind – have joined the “resistance.” They have begun to attend town hall meetings, or participated in the amazing Women’s March following the Trump Inauguration, or they were part of the explosive response to Trump’s immigration policies and his refugee ban. In fact, as far as I know, the Women’s March was the largest one-day series of nation-wide protests in American history. The emergence of new grassroots-led organizations like Indivisible, the Town Hall Project, and the Women’s March have already transformed the political landscape. And the memberships of grassroots progressive organizations like MoveOn, Planned Parenthood, Organizing for Action (OFA), People For the American Way, and many others have all exploded. When you attend town meetings or progressive political events – or just talk to your neighbors – the universal question is: “What can I do – how can I become involved to stop Trump and his policies?” And already, we’ve seen evidence that the new level of political mobilization washes over very directly into electoral politics. In the Delaware special legislative election where the GOP and Democrats were fighting over a swing seat to determine control of the legislature, the Democrat won going away because turnout far surpassed expectation. Political observers are watching the Georgia special election to replace former Congressman – now Trump Health and Human Services Secretary – Tom Price. Donald Trump won the election in the district by only 1 percent ― a seat that Price won handily last fall. It is entirely possible that a massive special election turnout generated by the new level of progressive mobilization may carry Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff to victory. That would send shivers down the Republican Party’s collective spine and could presage a Democratic takeover of the House next year. Some people think that the current level of energy and engagement may fade with time – and they may be right. But as anyone who has done political organizing knows, it’s much easier to get people fired up about things someone is trying to take away from them than about things to which they aspire. Once people have something, they don’t want to give it up. At the same time, if you give newly energized people a taste of success, they are much more prone to deepen their engagement. Ironically then, on the one hand the more successful Trump and his forces are at taking away our health care insurance, public television, school lunches or the rights of the immigrant community, the more angry and fired up people will be. On the other hand, the more progressives are successful at stopping Trump from achieving his declared goals of taking these and other things away, the more that success itself will inspire people to fight on. This is not at all to say that the new level of progressive mobilization will inevitably continue. If progressives were to allow Trump to truly consolidate power, limit the rights of free speech and assembly, further suppress the right to vote, eviscerate the judiciary, pack the Supreme Court with Trump rubber stamps like his nominee Neil Gorsuch – or blunder into a truly devastating war ― that could change the picture. But unless Trump is truly able to make himself into an American Putin, the Trump victory and the new level of political mobilization it has inspired present progressives with an historic political opportunity to catapult the country into a truly progressive direction that allows us to break through the gridlock ― and political and economic constraints of the last 30 years. Increased progressive voter turnout massively changes the equation at every level of government. In addition, many voters who supported Obama, and then supported Trump in 2016 have already begun – gradually – to realize they were conned. Many of those most negatively impacted by repeal of the Affordable Care Act, for example, would be the older, rural, white working class voters upon which Trump most heavily depended for his surprise win last November. And just last week, an iconic article appeared in The Huffington Post quoting a Trump voter saying that she didn’t know he would cut her Meals on Wheels program. “I was under the influence that he was going to help us,” she said. If in 2018 Democrats take back the House and begin to retake the Governors’ mansions and legislatures upon which redistricting depends in 2020; if in 2020 itself we oust Trump and replace him with an inspiring populist progressive bent on building an economy that works for everyone – not just CEO’s and the wealthiest; and if the new level of progressive engagement allows us to simultaneously take back the Senate and make further inroads at the state and local level: if all of those things happen, America could make more social and economic progress over the next decade than we have made in the last half-century – all compliments of the progressive mobilization precipitated by the election of Donald Trump. But to realize that possibility, progressives must do everything we can to nurture and encourage that mobilization. Here are some of the rules of engagement: Do everything we can to provide people with useful, strategically valuable things to do. People will not be “burned out.” They want more to do, not less. We must provide them with the times, dates and places of town hall meetings and demonstrations; engage them in voter registration operations, creating press events, and – next year – the critical task of turning out the vote. Continue to avoid the kind of sectarian, circular firing squads and hand wringing that often accompany major defeats like the Trump victory. The most inspiring thing about the tone of the new progressive movement is its clear understanding that Benjamin Franklin was right: we must all hang together or we will all hang separately. Relentlessly take on Trump and the Republicans. Most Americans support progressive values – on economic issues, social issues, and international issues. We need to self-confidently stand up for those progressive values and never give in to those who say we should “compromise” or cut our losses. In spite of their November election victory, the right wing in America is on the defensive. They’re in the same place as the dog that caught the bus. For eight years they have been free to criticize Democrats at every turn because they did not have responsibility for actually governing. Now they own it all. And they have to show they can govern. But instead they are in disarray. When you have them on the run, that’s the time to chase them, not the time to settle down and act like we have to negotiate with Trump because he is the “new normal.”Those newly mobilized progressive activists expect us to go to war to defend our values. Progressives will win if we listen to our mothers, who tell us to stand up straight. Celebrate our victories, but never try to claim that a defeat – or some minor modification in a horrible right wing policy ― is a victory. Victory is stopping them from achieving their agenda. Victory would be stopping them from eliminating the ACA – or making them take months to achieve their goal. Victory is stopping the Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination cold. Victory in the short run is driving Trump and the GOP approval rating through the floor. Victory is living to fight another day and preparing for real game-changing wins in 2018 and 2020. Don’t be afraid to make it completely clear at all times that any victory that we achieve while the GOP controls the House, Senate, and White House is only a holding action until we can take back the reins of government in 2018 and 2020. One thing many “non-political” Americans learned in no uncertain terms last fall is that elections have consequences. Another is that we can’t count on the conventional wisdom to be right, we can’t count on other people to do it for us – everyone has to take personal responsibility for creating the society we want. No one can ever again sit out an election. We must all get involved in electoral politics. Once we take back the reins of government, our first priority must be raising the wages of ordinary working people. That means we must end the era of growing income inequality and reduce the share of national income that goes to the top 1%. America’s gross domestic product per capita increased 48% over the last 30 years, but the wages of ordinary people flat-lined. That’s because those increases all went to the top 1%. Our failure to adequately address that fact created the fertile ground in which Trumpism flourished. We must never fail to address this fundamental question again. Finally, while people are much easier to mobilize to prevent someone from taking something away rather than achieving something to which they aspire – they also most be inspired. They must have hope for the future. Hopelessness and fear are the enemies of empowerment and mobilization. Inspiration and hope are the catalysts that light the fire. Inspiration requires that someone believe that they are part of something larger than themselves – but that they themselves can play a personal, instrumental role in achieving the larger goal. We must remember that in fighting against the forces of darkness, we must always offer the sure belief that a bright, exciting future is possible – that it is sometimes darkest right before the dawn. Dr. King was right, the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice. But it is our hands that will make it so. Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com. He is a partner in Democracy Partners. Follow him on Twitter @rbcreamer. -- 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.
ATLANTA — South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Jaime Harrison is exiting the race for Democratic National Committee chair and throwing his support to former Labor Secretary Tom Perez, the second major shakeup of the party leadership race within a week.The deal, finalized as the party’s voting members arrive here for Saturday’s election, cements Perez’s place as the likely front-runner in his tight race against Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison. Ellison won the backing of New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Raymond Buckley, another former candidate, over the weekend.Harrison’s endorsement likely puts Perez closer to the needed tally of roughly 224 votes, given Harrison’s estimated support of 20-30 party members, according to Democrats familiar with the whip counts.“In a former job, I whipped votes for House Democrats. I know what a path to victory looks like. Despite strong performances at the debate and DNC regional forums, the votes are simply not there for me to secure victory on Saturday. But this election is not about the individuals in the race; it is about unifying and rebuilding our Democratic Party. Therefore, today, I am ending my campaign for DNC Chair, but I am more confident than ever that our Party will come back strong. I am confident because I have seen tremendous progressive energy all across our country and the commitment of State Party leaders to channel this energy into winning elections. I am confident because of the amazing Democratic talent running for various positions at the DNC, including a field of stellar candidates for DNC Chair,” said Harrison, in a note out to party members alerting them to the move. "In particular, I am confident because we have a candidate for DNC Chair who can unite the Democratic Party behind the goal of enacting progressive change, a candidate who can take the fight to Donald Trump and rebuild our Party infrastructure, and a candidate whom I, as a voting member of the DNC, am proud to support: Tom Perez."“Jaime's commitment to the party is like no other and I'm proud to have his support as we both work together to invest in state parties, turnaround the DNC, and get back to winning. Over the last year, from campaigning for Democrats in South Carolina to running our own campaigns for Chair, Jaime and I have grown close through our shared commitment to turning our party around through organizing and communicating our values of inclusion and opportunity,” added Perez in a statement. "If elected chair, I will work with Jaime and others who are running for chair to bring our party together because it will take every one of us to unite a party that is suffering from a crisis of confidence and relevance."The race, which has raged for months, is coming to a head at the DNC winter meeting this weekend. In the final run-up to the vote, the field has slimmed to the two likely front-runners, Perez and Ellison, plus South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Idaho Democratic Party Executive Director Sally Boynton Brown and a handful of others. Widely read as a redux of the Hillary Clinton versus Bernie Sanders primary due to Ellison’s support of Sanders and Perez’s role as a Clinton surrogate, the relatively civil race has gotten chippy in the final days, with a back-and-forth over the vote counts being circulated by the campaigns.Harrison has increasingly been seen as a potentially important dealmaker due to his level of support and his standing as neither a Clinton nor Sanders loyalist. Democrats are looking to avoid a messy vote that could stretch into multiple rounds of balloting if no one reaches a simple majority of the present voters.
Democratic Rep. Cheri Bustos is ruling out a run for governor of Illinois, as her party looks to take on multimillionaire Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner in 2018. Bustos, a former journalist and three-term member of Congress who represents the northwestern corner of Illinois, would have faced a huge funding challenge, with Rauner already giving his own campaign $50 million for his reelection run and several wealthy Democrats eyeing the race. Bustos acknowledged the fundraising hurdles but said in an interview Monday that her new leadership position in the House Democratic Caucus was also a key factor in deciding not to run. “As much of anything, it’s based on the fact that I was just elected to the House Democratic leadership,” she told POLITICO. “I think it’s a big responsibility and I serve as a voice for the folks in the heartland who feel that they’ve been left behind.”Bustos had been viewed as an attractive statewide candidate. For one, no other woman has filed or has publicly shown serious interest in a gubernatorial run. For another, Bustos had potential to draw Democratic votes from outside the Chicago area, where Republicans tend to be more competitive. But Illinois Democratic insiders for weeks had doubted Bustos would enter the fray, with much of the momentum behind a big-money candidate who could compete against Rauner or an outsider who could rally progressive energy in the party. Democrat Chris Kennedy, a wealthy Illinois businessman and nephew to former President John F. Kennedy, jumped in the race earlier this month. Billionaire businessman J.B. Pritzker, brother to former Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, is also considering a bid.Three candidates have already filed for the Democratic gubernatorial primary, and that is even before billionaire Pritzker makes a final decision. Several Democratic legislators, including state Sens. Daniel Biss, Andy Manar and Kwame Raoul have also shown interest in the office. However, Rauner in December deposited $50 million into his campaign account, making clear the contest will not only be a brawl, but necessitate large sums of cash to compete. Bustos is one of three Democrats running the messaging arm for the House Democratic Caucus this Congress, known as the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee. While a lower-rung leadership position, it is viewed by ambitious House Democrats as a launching point for when the current longtime regime, led by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), retires. Bustos is also the only member in the House Democratic leadership ranks to hail from the Midwest, where Democrats struggled mightily with Rust Belt voters during the election. Protecting Bustos' seat without her could have been a challenge for Democrats next year, after President Donald Trump carried the district in 2016. “I want to make that as we’re sitting around looking at policy and messaging…that we have an understanding of how we talk with people in the heartland,” Bustos said. Bustos said she spent Presidents Day making calls to Illinois Democrats letting them know her decision, starting with Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who ruled out his own bid for the governor’s mansion in the fall. Her second call was to Durbin’s wife, Loretta, a longtime lobbyist in the state. Bustos said she’s not ready to endorse a candidate in the governor’s race — she expects to weigh in on that in a month or so — but that didn’t stop her from hitting Rauner. “It is an absolute disaster, I can’t even call it leadership, under his tenure,” she said.Bustos’ decision not to run comes in the midst of an intense, bitter financial crisis in Illinois. The state has gone nearly two years without an operating budget, as Rauner and the Democratic-controlled Legislature has been locked in partisan fighting. That has left courts in control of prioritizing payments, leaving many of the state’s social service agencies in financial free-fall. The next governor will not only have to sort that out, but must also contend with the worst funded pension system in the nation and a more than $11 billion bill backlog.
Progressive groups will mount a multi-phase effort against President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, targeting specific Democratic and GOP senators and preparing a broader assault on Republicans to pressure them against blowing up the filibuster — even as some Senate Democrats pledged Monday to block Trump’s pick.Leaders of key groups have been meeting privately to coordinate strategy for the past month, and have already begun to talk protest plans in senators’ home states and at the Supreme Court in Washington, with early conversations about fundraising and advertising underway.They are still outraged by the Republican blockade of Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland last year but are trying to cast their own opposition as different — particularly as Trump already has issued a series of executive orders that have prompted court challenges nationwide.Foremost is Trump’s far-reaching and controversial executive order to ban immigrants from several predominantly Muslim nations, a directive sure to be a focus in the coming Supreme Court fight.“There is now an urgency to oppose anyone who won’t be a powerful check on the Supreme Court against the executive branch excesses and impulses,” said Nan Aron, founder and president of the Alliance for Justice. “I would predict that there will be a huge outcry if the nominee cannot demonstrate that he or she could be independent and serve as the check on presidential power.”On the Democratic side, progressives are zeroing in on red-state Democrats like West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp. Among Republicans, they’re looking at Arizona’s Jeff Flake and Nevada’s Dean Heller, who are both up for reelection in 2018, and the moderate Susan Collins of Maine.And while conservative forces are already putting the finishing touches on a $10 million ad blitz targeting red-state Senate Democrats who will come under enormous pressure to back Trump’s nominee, People for the American Way is readying a television ad campaign of its own as a counterbalance.“There will be resources available to make the case,” said Marge Baker, the group’s executive vice president. “This is a fight that we’re going to be in, in an absolutely serious way.”The advocates contend they have both the progressive energy to pressure Democrats to hold the line, and enough of a buffer in a Democratic caucus of 48 members to lose several while still being able to block a nominee.“There is a lot of energy in the progressive space to say, ‘This seat was stolen from a Democratic president, period. It was grand larceny,’” said Brad Woodhouse, president of Americans United for Change. “Democrats in the Senate, and progressives and liberals who care about the unprecedented nature of that theft by Republicans, shouldn’t roll over for Donald Trump and his Supreme Court pick.”Along the way, they’re hoping to drive a major wedge between Republicans in the Senate, many of whom are wary of blowing up the filibuster completely, and Trump, who’s made clear that’s what he wants if Democrats don’t confirm his nominee.“I don’t advocate taking the same approach that GOPers took to Garland (in refusing meetings, hearings and votes),” said one former Obama White House official. “I’d advocate for close, intense scrutiny at every stage of the process — which I think will eventually lead just about every Dem to oppose the nominee and likely at least some GOPers.”For months, groups such as the Alliance for Justice and People for the American Way have done extensive research on the nearly two dozen judicial candidates whom Trump named during his campaign, with special focus recently on names that have popped up more frequently — such as Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Thomas Hardiman and 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Neil Gorsuch, two jurists reportedly at the top of the pack.The pro-abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America has also been distributing its own research on where potential nominees stand.A broad array of liberal groups, including People for the American Way, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Alliance for Justice Action Campaign, and Center for American Progress Action Fund, have organized a protest for Tuesday night at the steps of the Supreme Court against Trump’s nominee, who’ll be announced earlier that evening.Senate Democrats — who are also waging a political fight over Trump’s executive orders and Cabinet nominees — for the most part have tried to reserve judgment until the president actually unveils his pick. Democrats have been insisting on a so-called mainstream nominee, although Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has conceded that he believes Trump won’t pick such a candidate.Still, Democrats are almost sure to face a massive level of pressure from the base to hold the line against Trump’s pick.“They need to fight like hell and do all they can to confirm only someone who is fair and an independent judge who can serve as a check to this president,” said Ellen Buchman, executive vice president for field and communications at the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights.Though the advocacy groups insist they are not simply trying to go tit for tat over the obstruction of Garland, there’s little doubt that the lingering frustration over how Obama’s final nominee was treated has permeated thinking among many Democrats.“That’s how we see this,” one Democratic senator said of the Garland blockade. “The anger, we feel it in our stomach.”Whenever the Supreme Court fight begins in earnest, Democrats won’t be hungry for help from the outside.The Constitutional Responsibility Project, organized by former Obama aides last year to push for Garland’s confirmation, will be reconstituted at the offices of SKDKnickerbocker, with Sheila O’Connell, most recently Chris Van Hollen’s 2016 Senate campaign manager, coming on board.The opposition-research group American Bridge is preparing a full-research, rapid-response and video-tracking operation to “expose the nominee as too conservative and out of step with mainstream Americans,” said Kevin McAlister, a spokesman for the group.And End Citizens United, a political action committee that advocates for campaign finance reform, is readying a national grass-roots campaign that will push its 3 million members to flood senators with calls, emails and petitions, as well as a digital advocacy effort, spokesman Adam Bozzi said.All that is to counter the expected assault and pressure from conservatives, who backed the Senate GOP’s nearly yearlong blockade of Garland but now expect Democrats to fall in line.Schumer “said it’s hard for him to imagine a nominee … from President Trump who Senate Democrats could support,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Monday. “We don’t even have one yet. I hope we can get past that and get down to our serious work.”
The inauguration isn't the only mass gathering in Washington this weekend. In response to the swearing-in of the new president, thousands upon thousands of Americans are flocking to the nation's capital to give voice to their views and their values -- many of which are in conflict with the incoming administration. I salute everyone who is taking to the streets for these marches, to speak their mind about the direction their country should take -- there is no greater expression or exercise of our rights in a free society. Some of the labor movement's finest hours were at events like these. Our nation is great precisely because it encourages this kind of demonstration. The question is: Now what? After everyone has gotten back on the bus, how do we continue to apply pressure and generate heat? If these marches were nothing more than a one-off, then we have wasted an opportunity. With all the challenges facing our country, the progressive movement needs to build a sturdy and sustainable infrastructure from the bottom up, one that is capable of galvanizing people to take action locally. That's when politicians in Washington -- and in your state or community -- take notice and respond. What does this mean exactly? It means greater involvement in schools, workplaces and civic groups. It means rallying neighbors, for example, to save a health clinic that could close because of budget cuts. It means building coalitions to protect children and seniors, to reduce inequality and expand opportunity. It also means organizing workers, helping them achieve greater bargaining power and growing the ranks of labor unions. This engagement can take many forms -- local marches, like many also taking place in cities and states nationwide this weekend, are an important movement-building tool. President-elect Trump ran on a promise to directly address the very real economic anxieties of working people. Now, it's time to make sure he keeps his word. Early signs are that he will govern on behalf of the 1 percent and corporate special interests, and on the backs of people struggling just to pay the bills. A tax cut for the wealthy is in the works. The Affordable Care Act is in jeopardy. National right-to-work is a real possibility. The hard work of holding the Trump administration to account has to happen in Akron, Dubuque and Kalamazoo; in Tucson, Greensboro and Tallahassee. A series of crowd events in Washington, D.C. won't provide a magic bullet; they have to be the launch, not the culmination. We have to harness the tremendous progressive energy in these marches, bringing it back to our hometowns to build power and make change. If you're marching this weekend, make sure when you go home that you talk to your family and neighbors and start building a groundswell. Carry a sign on Saturday, but organize and mobilize on Monday. We need more than catharsis; we need community action. -- 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.
Argentine Foreign Minister Susana Malcorra stated that her country would be willing to engage in a joint fossil fuels exploration project with Britain near the disputed Falklands Islands. In remarks to what The Guardian published on Thursday, Argentina’s top diplomat under President Mauricio Macri said any energy ventures with Britain would be a “sensible thing to discuss and could make sense.” Doing so would be part of a change in rhetoric from the less diplomatic exchanges under Macri’s predecessor, Cristina Fernandez…
U.S. crude inventories collapsed by 12 million barrels this week, marking the largest inventory draw since January 1999, according to analysis of this week’s American Petroleum Institute inventory report by ZeroHedge. Brent oil prices had hovered around $47.92 before the API figures became public Wednesday afternoon, which caused the price to spike above $48.54 a barrel within five minutes of the release. Also, barrel prices for West Texas Intermediate jumped to $46.14 from $45.48 after the weekly numbers were released. Tomorrow’s Energy…
The world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, Norway’s US$870-billion oil fund, said that it excludes, effective Wednesday, Duke Energy Corp (NYSE:DUK) and three subsidiaries from its investment universe on the grounds that the companies have caused severe environmental damage. Central bank Norges Bank, which oversees the Government Pension Fund Global, said that along with Duke Energy Corp, its wholly-owned subsidiaries Duke Energy Carolinas LLC, Duke Energy Progress LLC, and Progress Energy Inc have all been excluded. The fund’s…
WASHINGTON ― While the coal lobby is often blamed for a lot of Washington’s foot-dragging on addressing climate change, two major coal industry groups may be losing some of their clout. A new report from the environmental group Climate Investigations Center looks at recent losses in the membership of two major coal lobbies: the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) and the National Mining Association. ACCCE was once a significant player in Washington, allowing major coal companies to lobby under the banner of their self-proclaimed cleanliness. The group’s ads were everywhere when it seemed like Congress might pass legislation addressing climate change, and it spent nearly $40 million in 2008 alone. (It also got some bad press in 2009 when an ACCCE subcontractor was caught sending fake letters to House members opposing the climate bill.) The group’s controversial tactics and climate change position pushed some coalition members away. Major utilities Progress Energy and Duke Energy and the French manufacturer Alstom left at the end of 2009. But the coalition has soldiered on, dutifully blasting out statements against any and all executive action the Obama administration has taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. While the more recent departures have gone unnoticed, they’ve been pretty significant. The Midwestern power companies Ameren and DTE Energy both quietly left ACCCE, the report notes. And Arch Coal, which filed for bankruptcy in January, is also no longer listed as a member on ACCCE’s website, nor is Consol Energy. Consol spokesman Brian Aiello said the company’s affiliate, CNX Coal Resources, now handles all relationships with coal trade associations ― and while it is a member of the National Mining Association, it is not involved in ACCCE. Those companies were once some of the biggest funders of ACCCE. According to a Greenwire report from November 2009, Arch and Consol each gave the coalition $5 million in 2008. Duke gave $2 million, while DTE, Ameren and Progress gave $1 million each. The National Mining Association has also had some big departures. The carmaker Volvo made a public split last December, calling the group’s position on policies to address climate change “quite crazy.” And the report confirms that one of the world’s largest mining companies, Anglo American, has left ― which the company attributed to both budgeting issues and its decision to move away from mining coal. The bank Wells Fargo and insurance company Zurich have also left the association. Chevron confirmed it has been out of the mining association since 2014, which spokeswoman Melissa Ritchie said coincided with the closure of Chevron’s Questa Mine. The company “no longer has active coal or mineral mining operations,” she said. The Western utility PacifiCorp also confirmed to The Huffington Post that it is no longer active in the organization. To be sure, there are still some major companies involved in ACCCE ― Southern Company, Caterpillar and Peabody Energy among them. And the National Mining Association still has dozens of members. But spending was down at both organizations last year. Bloomberg reported earlier this year that ACCCE spent 51 percent less money on lobbying in 2015 than in 2014. But ACCCE’s lobbying and political spending was already pretty low in 2014, as the new report notes ― just $1.8 million, down from a high of $11.9 million in 2011. The National Mining Association spent $4.8 million on lobbying in 2015, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, down from nearly $5.9 million in 2014 ― though its lobbying spending has been relatively consistent in the longer term. Joe Smyth, a researcher with the Climate Investigations Center, said the shift likely reflects the fact that coal groups have maintained positions on climate policies that are out of step with other major businesses, and that the coal industry overall is on the downturn. “So the coal mining industry and its lobbying efforts are increasingly isolated ― that’s why these companies are leaving coal lobby groups like the National Mining Association and ACCCE,” Smyth said. Neither ACCCE nor the National Mining Association responded to a request for comment. -- 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.