Los Angeles, CA, United States
Los Angeles, CA, United States

Entergy Corp. is an integrated energy company engaged primarily in electric power production and retail distribution operations in the Deep South of the United States. It is headquartered in the Central Business District of New Orleans, Louisiana. Wikipedia.

Time filter

Source Type

News Article | April 24, 2017
Site: www.marketwired.com

NORCROSS, GA--(Marketwired - April 24, 2017) - Comverge, Inc., the leading provider of cloud-based demand response and energy efficiency solutions for electric utilities, today announced a new contract with Entergy Arkansas to deploy a bring your own device (BYOD) demand response pilot. Comverge will aggregate consumer-purchased Wi-Fi-enabled smart thermostats to evaluate a potential new demand response resource for Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

News Article | May 4, 2017
Site: www.forbes.com

If the petroleum industry continues to fight subsidies for nuclear power, the nuclear industry will go after petroleum-industry tax breaks, the president of the Nuclear Energy Institute said Tuesday. "They might say, oh don’t subsidize this, but let me tell you, you open up the books and you might not call it a subsidy but I tell you there’s a lot of tax breaks that the American Petroleum Institute gets," said Maria Korsnick, president and CEO of NEI, the leading nuclear industry lobbying group. "If in fact that’s the playing field that we’re going to be set with, then you’re going to hear more about comparisons of subsidies vs. tax breaks in order to get all the information, if you will, out on the table." When people compare nuclear subsidies to petroleum tax breaks, Korsnick suggested, nuclear will fare well. "I would rather argue about the facts in terms of what value is being brought to the marketplace and what’s the value to the consumer as opposed to battling back and forth relative to this." The American Petroleum Institute, the largest lobbying group for oil and gas companies like ExxonMobile and Chevron, has lobbied against legislative efforts in several states to save aging nuclear plants that are struggling to compete against cheap natural gas and, in some places, cheap renewable energy. In Ohio, for example API Ohio Executive Director Chris Zeigler sent a message to state legislators: “Abundant natural gas has provided Ohio consumers with reliable and affordable energy and created countless jobs throughout the state without government subsidies,” Zeigler said. “Instead of subsidizing nuclear power companies, we should let the markets work to protect consumers." API accused the nuclear industry of misleading consumers about the consequences of closing nuclear plants, arguing that natural gas would continue to lower emissions even if two Ohio plants close. The nuclear industry has won support in New York and Illinois, with Exelon and Entergy benefitting. Lest those victories set a trend, the oil industry is raising objections in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut. "Both of these were important in those states but they were also important to us in that they set a precedent," Korsnick said. "I think what you're seeing right now in the opposition is what happens when you’re successful—so we were successful in New York and we were successful in Illinois and I think now some folks are taking a look at that and saying wait a minute." Korsnick made the remarks at the end of a press conference in which nuclear interests argued again for their technology's relevance in the context of climate change, calling anew for policy changes to lower the cost, speed the deployment, and improve the oversight of new reactors. They released a report by the Global Nexus Initiative (GNI), a partnership between NEI and the Partnership for Global Security, a nuclear security think tank. "Based on our first two years of work, GNI has confirmed that it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to meet the goal of the Paris Agreement on climate change to limit temperature increases and decarbonize the global energy sector without a significant contribution from nuclear power," the report says. History of U.S. energy consumption by source[/caption] By Jeff McMahon, based in Chicago. Follow Jeff McMahon on Facebook, Google Plus, Twitter, or email him here.

News Article | November 4, 2016
Site: www.theenergycollective.com

Energy companies are shutting down their nuclear power plants and resorting to other forms of production. This is primarily due to the lack of funding and cheaper alternatives such as oil. With shale production continuing to ramp up production and incidentally lowering oil prices, nuclear facilities are no longer considered cost effective. It’s upsetting to contemplate the idea of nuclear power failing in the United States, especially when other countries’ governments, including those of Russia and China, are still fully financially backing the energy source. The post, Why Renewables Can’t Do It Without Nuclear Power, was first published on OilPrice.com. The costs pertinent to nuclear power plants are astounding. Plants cost billions of dollars to construct and then millions more based on required resources, overhead, and proper waste disposal. Bloomberg reports that the cost to build a nuclear reactor could be more than five times the cost to build a gas-fired reactor. With fossil fuels appearing so attractive, it’s hard to argue with the current shift. This raises the question of what could happen if oil supply recedes again or if OPEC successfully cuts production. By shutting our doors on these decade old reactors, we could be restricting our options in the future all the more so. The first nuclear power plant was created in 1954, back when it made sense to invest in an exciting new field. Today, however, nuclear power is considered too old of an idea to receive such heavy investments. Investors believe that by now, reactors should be able to stand by themselves without funding. As of 2013, nuclear energy only received 7 percent of subsidies from the government, the lowest of all energy subsidies. New York State is continuing to spend $500 million a year on subsidies, something other states are no longer offering. Governor Cuomo’s goal is to maintain a level of 50 percent reliance on renewables in New York. He believes power plants are the key to the success because it preserves the jobs of plant workers. Related: Confident Saudis To Lift Oil Prices To Asia For December Carlyle Group predicts that if power plants don’t receive more funding then they could be permanently closed. The group is heavily invested in renewable energy, explaining their concern for the shrinking industry. Holders of nuclear energy will likely begin to experience a downward trend in their share value. Carlyle is thoroughly diversified however and will surely remain flat. Exelon Corp and Entergy Corp are in the process of shutting down several of their reactors. Exelon noted their third quarter earnings dropped 22 percent, likely from the two Illinois plants that cost them $800 million in the past seven years. Speculators should be on the watch for when the company begins closing the plants sometime in the middle of next year. Entergy is in just as much trouble having finalized plans to close the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant last year. The plans will be implemented in 2017. When a country relies on multiple sources of power like wind, nuclear or gas, prices tend to remain steady. With the retirement of nuclear reactors, volatility in the power sector will likely increase. Investors should consider buying options on power futures for the mid to long term.

It’s been a busy year for Silver Spring Networks, the smart meter networking company that’s seeking to expand its software-as-a-service and internet-of-things business lines. On Tuesday, the company reported fourth-quarter and fiscal year 2016 earnings showed these lines of business are growing, even as large-scale advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) deployments continue to drive its bottom line. CEO Mike Bell noted a couple of last year’s milestones during Tuesday’s conference call. The company hit record bookings this year, with huge projects like its 5.2-million-meter deployment with Con Edison, a 2.8-million-customer rollout with Entergy, and a 600,000-meter rollout with Pacific Power. Silver Spring generated $20.7 million in operating cash flows for the year, and finished the year with more than 25.5 million cumulative network endpoints delivered, up from 22.9 million endpoints at the end of 2015. The company’s backlog stood at $1.165 billion at the end of the year, up more than 50 percent from $770 million as of the end of 2015. Even so, Silver Spring’s 2016 didn’t shine compared to 2015 when measured in GAAP accounting terms. Revenues were down to $311 million, compared to $489 million in the previous year, for a 2016 loss of $21.6 million, compared to a profit of $79.9 million in the previous year. Cost of revenue last year was $37.8 million, or 57.1 percent, compared to $97.9 million or 49.1 percent in 2015, and operating expenses were $41.9 million, compared to $35.6 million in 2015. Silver Spring’s non-GAAP figures, which it says better represent its financials with utility contracts that tend to see a long lag between delivery and revenues, painted a rosier picture. Its 2016 billings, equivalent to “amounts invoiced for products for which ownership…has transferred or services that have been provided to the customer, and for which payment is expected to be made in accordance with normal payment terms,” stood at $294.6 million, up 4 percent from the previous year. Cost of billings in 2016 was $39.0 million or 50.2 percent, versus $39.6 million or 52.9 percent in the previous year, and non-GAAP operating expenses were $35.3 million, versus $27.4 million in the previous year. Silver Spring was also prompted by SEC guidance to change some of its non-GAAP metrics compared to previous years, as it laid out in a presentation earlier this month. Silver Spring shares rose to a year-to-date high of $14.04 in late Tuesday trading, Looking at specific lines of business, interim CFO Kenneth Gianella noted that 2016 product billings, representing the company's core AMI business, rose only 2 percent year-over-year to reach $189.3 million. But 2016 service billings of $105.3 million were up 9 percent from the previous year, and managed service and SaaS billings were $60.5 million, up 16 percent year-over-year. And while international business still represents less than one-fifth of Silver Spring’s billings, that figure was up 20 percent year-over-year. Silver Spring also chose Tuesday to announce a big expansion to its work with AEP Ohio, which recently won regulator approval for a multifaceted smart grid deployment that includes smart meters for about 900,000 customers across its territory, up from about 110,000 in its first phase. That project is set to start in mid-2017. On the international front, Silver Spring also announced an expansion of its long-running work with CESC Limited of India to about 237,000 homes and businesses in the cities of Kota and Bharatpur. That’s up from the 25,000 homes first announced in late 2015, and includes 10 years of providing SSN’s Operations Optimizer through a SaaS model, with deployment set to start in the first quarter. Another new international customer is Dubai Electricity and Water Authority, which will deploy the company’s IOT network canopy across the Emirate of Dubai to connect energy and water, as well as “additional services in the future” for the 700,000-customer utility. Existing customers like Brazil’s CPFL and Baltimore Gas & Electric also expanded their use of Silver Spring’s wireless network for distribution automation, Bell noted. Moving beyond the grid and into the world of connected things, Bell highlighted how Silver Spring’s Gen5 platform, which offers throughput speeds of 2.4 megabits per second and a tenfold increase in processing power compared to previous iterations of its technology, is supporting “a range of new IOT applications, through our utility customer footprint, or through our Starfish network-as-a-service offering.” The company announced some new projects at last month’s DistribuTech conference, including a big smart streetlight rollout with existing utility partner Oklahoma Gas & Electric, updates on its smart campus development with IOT partner Ameresco, and progress on citywide IOT networks in U.K. cities, including Bristol and Glasgow. Silver Spring and U.S.-based competitor Itron have been working for years on expanding the use cases for their smart meter networks, and more recently, pushing into non-utility settings such as streetlights and smart cities. “We have a number of development projects, proof-of-concepts and pilot programs in various stages, including water, environmental monitoring, distributed energy, and other utility applications,” Bell said. At the same time, “We continue to see additional opportunity to expand our smart grid footprint in the U.S.,” he said. About half of the 150 million endpoints in the U.S. have been contracted for AMI deployments to date, with Silver Spring winning about 36 percent of them. That leaves about half the country as potential customers, including utilities that deployed last-generation automated meter reading technologies about a decade ago, which will “soon be up for refresh,” he said. Looking ahead, Gianella said Silver Spring’s 2017 outlook includes GAAP revenue of approximately $400 million to $420 million, and non-GAAP billings of approximately $300 million to $320 million. That projection is based on expectations of “double-digit growth of our managed services and SaaS business,” along with several new AMI, street light and DA awards, and “contribution from IOT and new vertical initiatives.”

News Article | February 15, 2017
Site: www.marketwired.com

PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA--(Marketwired - February 14, 2017) - Paladin Energy Ltd ("Paladin" or "the Company") ( : PDN) (TSX: PDN) announces the release of its condensed consolidated interim financial report for the half-year reporting period ended 31 December 2016. The condensed consolidated financial report is appended to this News Release. References below to 2016 and 2015 are to the equivalent six months ended 31 December 2016 and 2015 respectively. (References below to 2016 and 2015 are to the equivalent six months ended 31 December 2016 and 2015 respectively). The Company's 12 month moving average Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate5 (LTIFR) decreased to 1.9 as compared to 2.5 at the end of the last quarter. The 12 month moving average LTIFR for the previous year was 2.10. The Company achieved 910 Lost Time Injury (LTI) free days at the Kayelekera Mine (KM) for ~1.6 Million man hours. Two LTI's were reported during the six months: a process operator sustained an injury to the right ankle descending a fixed ladder and a maintenance tradesman injured a shoulder while using a drill. LHM produced 2.500Mlb U O for the six months ended 31 December 2016, up 7% from the previous year (2015: 2.342Mlb U O ). The unit C1 cost of production for the six months decreased by 39% from US$26.50/lb in 2015 to US$16.25/lb in 2016 primarily due to strong operating performance and the impact of the US$168.9M write-down of LHM's ore stockpiles that occurred at 30 June 2016. Activities at site focused on water treatment, discharge and monitoring. Sales revenue for 2016 decreased by 46% from US$101.3M in 2015 to US$55.2M in 2016, as a result of a 36% decrease in realised sales price and a 15% decrease in sales volume. The average realised uranium sales price for 2016 was US$25.96/lb U O (2015: US$40.54/lb U O ), compared to the TradeTech weekly spot price average for the period of US$22.63/lb U O . Gross loss for the period decreased by 175% from a gross profit of US$23.7M in 2015 to a gross loss of US$17.7M in 2016 due to a 36% decrease in realised sales price, a 15% decrease in sales volume, and an impairment of inventory of US$22.3M (2015: US$Nil), which was partially offset by a 35% decrease in cost of sales. Impairments of inventory of US$22.3M were recognised in 2016 (2015: US$Nil) Impairments comprise of a US$16.2M impairment of LHM ore stockpiles, US$2.9M impairment of LHM product-in-circuit due to the write-off of the build-up of solubilised uranium present in the interstitial water in TSF3 and a US$3.2M impairment of finished goods due to low uranium prices. The impairment of LHM ore stockpiles resulted from a change in LHM's life of mine plan and lower forecast uranium prices. Net loss after tax attributable to members of the Parent for 2016 of US$46.0M (2015: Net loss US$24.2M). Underlying EBITDA has deteriorated by US$11.3M for the period from an underlying EBITDA of US$17.0M for 2015 to US$5.7M for 2016. The Group's principal source of liquidity as at 31 December 2016, was cash of US$26.7M (30 June 2016: US$59.2M). Any cash available to be invested is held with Australian banks with a minimum AA- Standard & Poor's credit rating over a range of maturities. Of this, US$20.9M is held in US dollars. Cash outflow from operating activities was US$40.9M in 2016 (2015: outflow US$2.9M), primarily due to payments to suppliers and employees of US$76.5M and net interest paid of US$14.0M, which were partially offset by receipts from customers of US$50.0M. Cash outflow from investing activities for 2016 was US$1.3M (2015: US$5.3M): Cash inflow from financing activities was US$9.6M in 2016 (2015: outflow US$38.0M), was attributable to the drawdown of US$20M under the LHM secured Revolving Credit Facility, which was partially offset by a US$10.4M distribution to CNNC by way of repayment of intercompany loans owing by LHM that have been assigned to CNNC. At 31 December 2016, the Group's cash and cash equivalents were US$26.7M, which was within the guidance range previously provided of US$20M to US$30M. The documents comprising the condensed consolidated interim financial report for the half-year reporting period ended 31 December 2016, including Management Discussion and Analysis, Financial Statements and Certifications will be filed with the Company's other documents on Sedar (sedar.com) and on the Company's website (paladinenergy.com.au). The TradeTech weekly spot price average for 2016 was US$22.63/lb, a fall of 38% compared to the weekly spot average for 2015 average of US$36.26. TradeTech's end-November spot price of US$17.75/lb was the lowest level observed since May 2004. Uranium spot prices increased in late-December 2016 and, following KazAtomProm's announcement of a 10% cut in planned 2017 uranium production, improved further in early January 2017. The spot price currently stands around US$26.50/lb. Increased term market activity has been seen since December 2016 and improved demand levels are expected to continue into 2017. Mixed signals continue to be seen in the US market. The election of Donald Trump to the US Presidency is anticipated to be positive for nuclear power and the approval of the Future Energy Jobs Bill in Illinois in December 2016 will allow Exelon's Clinton and Quad Cities nuclear power plants to continue operating. On the other hand, the past 2 months have seen early closure announcements for Entergy's Palisades and Indian Point facilities and speculation that First Energy Corp could try to sell or close the Davis-Besse plant. In the UK, January saw the award of further contracts for the construction of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant. French contractor Bouygues SA will work with UK builder Laing O'Rourke on a US$1.8Bn contract to construct the buildings that will house the two reactors. Meanwhile, EdF anticipates French nuclear availability to return to normal levels in early 2017 as 11 out of the 12 reactors offline for safety evaluation are expected to return to service. Kyushu's Sendai 1 was returned to service in December 2016 after completing its first periodic inspection since re-start in August 2015. Sendai 2 was taken out of service for periodic inspection in December and is expected to be back online in late-February 2017. Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority cleared Kyushu's Genkai 1 & 2 reactors for restart and also approved a life extension for Kansai's Mihama 3 in late-2016. The Genkai reactors are targeted to return to service during 2017. Paladin believes a uranium industry turnaround is imminent. However, given the current low pricing environment, its current strategies are focused on optimising actions to maximise cash flow whilst also prudently enacting capital management actions. Paladin's strategies are aimed at maximising shareholder value through the uranium price downturn whilst remaining positioned for a future normalisation of the uranium market and price. Key elements of the Company's strategy include: LHM's adjusted Life of Mine plan (LOM) was implemented in November 2016, which involves reducing mining material movement combined with processing plant feed coming from stockpiled low and medium grade ores. The revised mine plan effectively shifts higher-grade ore processing into later years when uranium prices are expected to be higher. The FY2017 average feed grade will be reduced into the range of 550ppm to 570ppm vs our previous internal Company budget of 700ppm. The impact of the change will reduce finished U O production by up to 1.0Mlb to 1.5Mlb per year for each of the next two years. However, the requirement for less movement of mined material on site during the period reduces cash operating costs by well in excess of any lost revenue. Using Paladin's internal assumptions the initiative will generate approximately US$40M of cumulative incremental operating cash flow for FY2017 and FY2018. Key relevant guidance items for the quarter to 31 March 2017 include: Due to the successful first half to 31 December 2016, Paladin has revised certain items in its guidance for the full-year to 30 June 2017, including: Other full-year guidance items to remain unchanged at this time. However, 'all in' cash expenditure guidance may be subsequently revised downwards depending on the progress of the Proposed Restructure and update to the Company's internal financial forecast subsequently. The news release includes non-GAAP performance measures: C1 cost of production, EBITDA, non-cash costs as well as other income and expenses. The Company believes that, in addition to the conventional measures prepared in accordance with GAAP, the Company and certain investors use this information to evaluate the Company's performance and ability to generate cash flow. The additional information provided herein should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with GAAP. The information in this announcement that relates to minerals exploration and mineral resources is based on information compiled by David Princep BSc, P.Geo FAusIMM (CP) who has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity that he is undertaking to qualify as Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC Code). and as a Qualified Person as defined in NI 43-101. Mr Princep is a full-time employee of Paladin Energy Ltd. Mr. Princep consents to the inclusion of the information in this announcement in the form and context in which it appears. Conference Call and Investor Update is scheduled for 07:30 Perth & Hong Kong, Wednesday 15 February 2017; 23:30 London, Tuesday 14 February 2017 and 18:30 Toronto, Tuesday 14 February 2017. Details are included in a separate news release dated 3 February 2017. The documents comprising the Conference Call and Investor Update will be filed with the Company's other documents on Sedar (sedar.com) and on the Company's website (paladinenergy.com.au). 1 LHM production volumes and unit C1 cost of production include an adjustment to in-circuit inventory relating to leached uranium within process circuit. 2 C1 cost of production = cost of production excluding product distribution costs, sales royalties and depreciation and amortisation before adjustment for impairment. C1 cost, which is non-IFRS information, is a widely used 'industry standard' term. 3 EBITDA = The Company's Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation and Amortisation (EBITDA) represents profit before finance costs, taxation, depreciation and amortisation, impairments, foreign exchange gains/losses, restructure costs and other income. EBITDA, which is non-IFRS information, is a widely used 'industry standard' term. 4 Underlying All-In Cash Expenditure = total cash cost of production plus non-production costs, capital expenditure, KM care & maintenance expenses, corporate costs, exploration costs and debt servicing costs and mandatory repayments, excluding one-off restructuring and non-recurring costs. Underlying All-In Cash Expenditure, which is a non-IFRS measure, is widely used in the mining industry as a benchmark to reflect operating performance. 5 All frequency rates are per million personnel hours.

News Article | December 16, 2016
Site: www.marketwired.com

LITTLE ROCK, AR--(Marketwired - December 16, 2016) - On Dec. 7, America commemorated the 75th anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Nine days later, an organization in Little Rock, Ark., will likewise celebrate 75 years of existence. On Dec. 16, 1941, in support of the American war effort, 11 electric utilities agreed to pool their resources to keep power flowing to Jones Mill -- an aluminum production facility outside Malvern, Ark. President Franklin Roosevelt's wartime goal to produce 50,000 airplanes per year had created the need for huge quantities of aluminum, and Jones Mill's operation would require 120 megawatts of power -- exceeding its home state's installed capacity of 100 MW at the time. From the utilities' partnership, Southwest Power Pool (SPP) was formed, and the new organization was successful in pooling power to support the plant. After the war, SPP continued as a leader providing safe, reliable power to U.S. homes. SPP today is a regional transmission organization (RTO): a not-for-profit, federally regulated service organization that ensures the reliable operation of a portion of the nation's power grid on behalf of its member companies, with more than 50,000 MW in capacity. SPP describes itself as the air-traffic controller of the power grid. Air-traffic controllers do not own the airports in which they operate or the planes they direct but are responsible for ensuring air travelers depart, fly and land safely. Similarly, SPP does not own the power stations it directs or the transmission lines across which electricity flows in its footprint, but it partners with generators, transmission owners, municipalities, power marketers, state and federal agencies, electric cooperatives and others to ensure the cost-effective and reliable delivery of power across a 14-state region. Though SPP works at the wholesale level and thus doesn't directly serve end users and ratepayers, it does benefit them. A recent study conducted by SPP and validated by the Brattle Group showed transmission investments in the SPP region had, on average, a benefit-to-cost ratio of 3.5-to-1. That means every dollar spent to build or upgrade transmission lines throughout SPP's region will ultimately produce $3.50 in electricity production cost savings and other benefits. In addition to planning transmission infrastructure, SPP facilitates the sale and purchase of electricity through its Integrated Marketplace, a wholesale electric market. SPP's marketplace launched in 2014 and has since reduced the cost of electricity in the organization's region by more than $1 billion. These and other services provide net benefits to SPP's members in excess of $1.4 billion annually at an overall benefit-to-cost ratio of more than 10-to-1. For the typical end-use customer using 1,000 kWh per month that means $68 of benefits a year at the cost of just 62 cents monthly. Or, put another way, without the services SPP provides its members, a ratepayer's $100 electric bill would be $105.65. Throughout its 75 years, SPP has evolved and grown from an affiliation of 11 companies with a common goal in 1941 to an organization employing about 600 professionals in support of nearly 100 member companies across a region spanning from the Canadian border in the north to Louisiana in the south and from southeastern Missouri to northwestern Montana. SPP attributes its legacy of success to the strength of its stakeholder relationships. In the foreword to a book published this year chronicling SPP's history, its President and CEO Nick Brown said, "Reliability is job one for SPP. We exist to help our members keep the lights on, today and in the future. We do so not through hard work, innovation or efficiency, though each is a necessary component of our success. For SPP, reliability is accomplished through strong, healthy relationships with those we serve." Because of the strength of those relationships, its legacy of success and deliberate focus on continuous improvement and building consensus among its members, SPP has every reason to think its future is just as bright as its history. Southwest Power Pool, Inc. manages the electric grid and wholesale energy market for the central United States. As a regional transmission organization, the nonprofit corporation is mandated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to ensure reliable supplies of power, adequate transmission infrastructure and competitive wholesale electricity prices. Southwest Power Pool and its diverse group of member companies coordinate the flow of electricity across 60,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines spanning 14 states. The company is headquartered in Little Rock, Ark. Learn more at www.spp.org. Acciona Wind Energy USA, LLC; American Electric Power (AEP Oklahoma Transmission Company, Inc.; AEP Southwestern Transmission Company, Inc.; Public Service Company of Oklahoma, Southwestern Electric Power Company); Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation; Basin Electric Power Cooperative; Board of Public Utilities of Kansas City, Kansas; Boston Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC; Calpine Energy Services, L.P.; Cargill Power Markets LLC; Central Power Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Cielo Wind Services, Inc.; City of Coffeyville; City of Independence, Missouri; City Utilities of Springfield; Clarksdale Public Utilities Commission; Cleco Power, LLC; Corn Belt Power Cooperative; CPV Renewable Energy Company, LLC; Dogwood Energy, LLC; DTE Energy Trading, Inc.; Duke Energy Transmission Holding Company, LLC; Duke-American Transmission Company, LLC; Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc.; East River Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.; East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.; EDP Renewables North America LLC; El Paso Marketing Company, LLC; Enel Green Power North America, Inc.; Entergy Asset Management; Entergy Services, Inc.; Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Flat Ridge 2 Wind Energy, LLC; Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC; Grand River Dam Authority; Harlan Municipal Utilities; Heartland Consumers Power District; Hunt Transmission Services, LLC; ITC Great Plains, LLC; Kansas City Power & Light Company (KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company); Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.; Kansas Municipal Energy Agency; Kansas Power Pool (KPP); Lafayette Utilities System; Lea County Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Lincoln Electric System; Louisiana Energy and Power Authority; Luminant Energy Company, LLC; Mid-Kansas Electric Company, LLC; Midwest Energy, Inc.; Midwest Gen, LLC; Missouri Joint Municipal EUC; Missouri River Energy Services; Mountrail-Williams Electric Cooperative; Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska; Nebraska Public Power District, NextEra Energy Resources, LLC; NextEra Energy Transmission, LLC; Noble Americas Gas & Power Corp; Northeast Nebraska Public Power District; Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Northwest Iowa Power Cooperative; NorthWestern Energy; NRG Power Marketing, LLC; OGE Transmission, LLC; Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company; Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority; Omaha Public Power District, Plains and Eastern Clean Line LLC; Prairie Wind Transmission, LLC; Public Service Commission of Yazoo City; Public Service Company of Oklahoma; Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative; Shell Energy North America (US), L.P.; South Central MCN, LLC; Southwestern Electric Power Company; Southwestern Power Administration; Sunflower Electric Power Corporation; Tenaska Power Services Co.; Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc.; The Central Nebraska Public Power & Irrigation District; The Empire District Electric Company; Transource Energy, LLC; Transource Missouri, LLC; Tri-County Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.; Westar Energy, Inc. (Kansas Gas and Electric Company); Western Area Power Administration - Upper Great Plains Region; Western Farmers Electric Cooperative; Williams Power Company, Inc.; Xcel Energy (Southwestern Public Service Company, Xcel Energy Southwest Transmission Company, LLC); XO Energy SW, LP.

News Article | February 21, 2017
Site: www.businesswire.com

SAN JOSE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Silver Spring Networks, Inc. (NYSE: SSNI) today announced preliminary financial results for its fourth quarter and full year ended December 31, 2016. Fourth Quarter Financial Highlights (all comparisons made are against the prior year period, unless otherwise stated): “ We enter 2017 in a strong position, with solid fourth quarter results and several new international awards. In 2016, we achieved record bookings, with major awards from Con Edison, Entergy and Pacific Power, generated over $20.7 million in operating cash flow for the year, and finished the year with more than 25.5 million cumulative network endpoints delivered,” said Mike Bell, President and Chief Executive Officer. “ We are focused on ramping production of our Gen5 platform for our major upcoming deployments, driving international growth, and expanding our platform to additional smart utility applications and new vertical markets within the broader Internet of Important Things™ opportunity.” Business Highlights (through February 21, 2017, unless otherwise stated): Full Year 2016 Results (all comparisons made are against the prior year period, unless otherwise stated) Silver Spring Networks will host a conference call today at 2:00 pm PT (5:00 pm ET) to review its results for the fourth quarter and full year ended December 31, 2016 and its outlook for the future. During the course of this call, Silver Spring Networks may also disclose material developments affecting its business and/or financial performance. Listeners may access the conference call live at 877-407-0832 (U.S.) or 201-689-8433 (International) or via webcast at http://ir.ssni.com. A dial-in replay of the conference call will be available until April 11, 2017 and can be accessed at 877-660-6853 (domestic) or 201-612-7415 (international) passcode 13653868. An audio webcast replay of the conference call will be available for one year at http://ir.ssni.com. Silver Spring Networks enables the Internet of Important Things™ by reliably and securely connecting things that matter. Cities, utilities, and companies on five continents use the company’s cost-effective, high-performance IoT network and data platform to operate more efficiently, get greener, and enable innovative services that can improve the lives of millions of people. With more than 25.5 million devices delivered, Silver Spring Networks provides a proven standards-based platform safeguarded with military grade security. Silver Spring Networks’ customers include Baltimore Gas & Electric, CitiPower & Powercor, ComEd, Consolidated Edison, CPS Energy, Florida Power & Light, Pacific Gas & Electric, Pepco Holdings, and Singapore Power. Silver Spring Networks has also deployed networks in Smart Cities including Copenhagen, Glasgow, Paris, Providence, and Stockholm. To learn more, visit www.ssni.com. Non-GAAP and Other Financial Metrics Silver Spring Networks supplements the results of operations presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, with certain non-GAAP metrics. Silver Spring Networks manages its business, makes planning decisions, evaluates its performance and allocates resources by assessing non-GAAP and other financial metrics such as billings, cost of billings, non-GAAP operating expense, and total backlog. Silver Spring Networks believes that these non-GAAP and other financial metrics, when taken together with the corresponding GAAP financial measures, offer valuable supplemental information regarding the performance of its business, and will help investors better understand the sales volumes and profitability trends, as well as the cash flow characteristics, of its business. The non-GAAP metrics should not be considered in isolation from, are not a substitute for, and do not purport to be an alternative to, revenue, cost of revenue, operating expense, or any other performance measure derived in accordance with GAAP. Silver Spring Networks may consider whether other significant non-recurring items that arise in the future should also be excluded in calculating the non-GAAP financial measures it uses. Billings represents amounts invoiced for products for which ownership, typically evidenced by title and risk of loss, has transferred or services that have been provided to the customer, and for which payment is expected to be made in accordance with normal payment terms. Billings excludes amounts for undelivered products, services to be performed in the future, and amounts paid or payable to customers. Billings are initially recorded as deferred revenue and are then recognized as revenue when all revenue recognition criteria has been met under Silver Spring Networks’ accounting policies as described in Silver Spring Networks’ filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Silver Spring Networks reconciles revenue to billings by adding revenue to the change in deferred revenue in a given period. Cost of billings represents the cost associated with products and services that have been delivered to the customer, excluding stock-based compensation, amortization of intangibles and acquisition-related charges. Cost of product shipments for which revenue is not recognized in the period incurred is recorded as deferred cost of revenue. Deferred cost of revenue is expensed in the statement of operations as cost of revenue when the corresponding revenue is recognized. Costs related to services are expensed in the period incurred. Silver Spring Networks reconciles cost of revenue to cost of billings by adding cost of revenue and the change in deferred cost of revenue, less stock-based compensation, amortization of intangibles and acquisition-related charges, included in cost of revenue in a given period. Non-GAAP operating expense consists of research and development, sales and marketing, and general and administrative expenses, excluding amortization and impairment of intangible assets, stock-based compensation, acquisition-related charges, restructuring and legal settlements. Total backlog represents future product and service billings that Silver Spring Networks expects to generate pursuant to contracts entered into with its utility customers and meter manufacturers. Total backlog includes order backlog, which represents future billings for open purchase orders and other firm commitments. This press release contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. These forward-looking statements include statements regarding the momentum in Silver Spring Networks’ business; future growth and market opportunity; the scope and timing of future deployments; expected benefits from our products; future investment; future innovation; customer and market activity; and future financial results. Statements including words such as "anticipate", "believe", "estimate" or "expect" and statements in the future tense are forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are preliminary estimates and expectations based on current information and are subject to business and economic risks and uncertainties that could cause actual events or actual future results to differ materially from the expectations set forth in the forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause results to differ materially from the statements herein include: timing around customer decisions and deployment pace; receipt by our customers of required regulatory approvals; dependence on a limited number of customers and key suppliers; general economic risks; specific economic risks in different geographies and among different industries; failure to maintain or increase renewals and increase business from existing customers; uncertainties around continued success in sales growth and market share gains; the expansion of our target markets, including the IoT market; lengthy sales cycles with no assurances that a prospective customer will select Silver Spring Networks’ products and services; amounts included in backlog may not result in billings or revenue; adverse publicity about, or consumer or political opposition to, the smart grid; security breaches involving smart grid products or services; the ability to integrate technology into third-party devices and Silver Spring Networks’ relationship with third-party manufacturers; execution and customer adoption risks related to new product introductions and innovation, including our fifth generation networking platform and products; the ability to attract and retain personnel, including members of Silver Spring Networks’ management team; changes in strategy; technological changes that make Silver Spring Networks’ products and services less competitive; competition, particularly from larger companies with more resources than Silver Spring; international business uncertainties; the ability to acquire and integrate other businesses; and other risk factors set forth from time to time in Silver Spring Networks’ filings with the SEC, copies of which are available free of charge at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. All forward-looking statements in this press release reflect Silver Spring’s expectations as of February 21, 2017. Silver Spring undertakes no obligation, and expressly disclaims any obligation, to update any forward-looking statements in this press release in light of new information or future events. In addition, the preliminary financial results set forth in this press release are estimates based on information currently available to Silver Spring. 1 For this and future earnings reports, Silver Spring Networks will no longer report certain non-GAAP financial metrics, including gross profit on billings, gross margin on billings, and non-GAAP operating income (loss). Silver Spring Networks will continue to report billings, cost of billings, and non-GAAP operating expense. Silver Spring Networks will also provide additional GAAP measures used internally by management to adjust GAAP measures in order to assess its business performance, which can also be used by investors to derive metrics comparable to previously reported non-GAAP metrics. For more information, please refer to the conference call Silver Spring Networks hosted on February 13, 2017, a replay of which is available on our website at http://ir.ssni.com.

News Article | April 19, 2016
Site: www.greentechmedia.com

The map below displays the states where general rate cases are under consideration across the U.S. Scroll over an individual state to reveal which investor-owned utility (or utilities) are currently participating in a rate case in that state. A rate case is a formal public process conducted by regulators to determine if a utility’s base rates are just and reasonable. During this process, regulators review and ultimately decide how much (if any) additional revenue a utility may raise through its rates, and how the utility’s existing rate structure and tariffs may be revised. Through the rate-case process, dozens of U.S. utilities have proposed changes that would alter the economics of customer-sited distributed generation (DG), as well as energy efficiency and energy conservation. Such proposals include: Fourteen utilities filed rate cases in Q1 2016. Of those utilities, 11 proposed raising their fixed charge for residential customers (Figure 1). Notably, five utilities proposed raising their fixed charge for residential by 50% or more. In Colorado, Xcel Energy actually proposed reducing its residential fixed charge and instead imposing a new five-tiered “grid use charge” that varies by a customer’s average monthly kilowatt-hour consumption. Most residential customers would pay an additional $7 to $14 per month as a result of this proposal. Of the five rate cases decided in Q1 2016, state regulators did not approve any increase in fixed charges for residential customers in three cases, thereby maintaining the existing charges for those utilities. However, Indiana regulators allowed IP&L to raise its charge by 55 percent, while the Arkansas Public Service Commission approved a 21 percent increase for Entergy (Figures 2 & 3). IP&L’s increase is the second-highest increase approved (by percentage) of all rate cases initiated since July 2014. Notably, in other rate cases, state regulators have rarely allowed increases greater than 25 percent, with around half of all rate cases resulting in no increase since July 2014. In partnership with EQ Research, GTM Squared brings you a series of visualizations that map, graph and chart issues important to the clean energy industry across the U.S. These visualizations will be updated quarterly and serve as an up-to-date resource for Squared members.

News Article | November 1, 2016
Site: www.theenergycollective.com

The Fort Calhoun Nuclear Generating Station, located near Omaha, Nebraska, shut down on Monday, October 24, after the Omaha Public Power District voted in June to retire the plant, citing economic reasons as the main cause. With a capacity of 478 megawatts (MW), Fort Calhoun was the smallest active nuclear power plant in the United States at the time of its retirement. Following the retirement of Fort Calhoun, the United States has 99 commercially operating reactors at 62 nuclear power plants. As of August 2016, nuclear power provided 26% of Nebraska’s electricity generation. Fort Calhoun was one of two operating plants in the state; the other, Cooper Nuclear Station, has a capacity of 764 MW. Based on data reported to EIA, 420 MW of electricity generating capacity is expected to be added in Nebraska in 2016 and 2017, with wind and natural gas accounting for the new generation. The closure of Fort Calhoun marks the fifth nuclear retirement over the past five years, following the retirements of Crystal River, Kewaunee, and San Onofre in 2013 and Vermont Yankee in 2014. Several other nuclear plants have announced plans to retire in the near future. Exelon has announced the planned retirement of its Clinton plant in central Illinois by June 2017, followed by its Quad Cities plant in northwestern Illinois by June 2018 and its Oyster Creek plant in eastern New Jersey in 2019. Entergy Corporation has announced plans to retire its Pilgrim plant in eastern Massachusetts by June 2019. Each of these announced retirements comes nearly a decade or more before the scheduled license expirations of these plants. Additionally, Pacific Gas and Electric announced that it will not seek license extensions for its Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant north of Los Angeles, California. Diablo Canyon’s two units will be retired by the time their current licenses expire in 2024 and 2025. Six additional operating units, with a combined capacity of more than 5,600 MW, have licenses that expire before 2035. Five of these units have filed for license extensions. As plant owners make the decision to retire nuclear plants, utilities must replace lost nuclear capacity with generation from other sources or import more electricity from neighboring states or countries. After the retirement of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station outside Los Angeles, California, natural gas-fired generation increased to offset lost nuclear generation and, at the time, relatively low hydroelectric generation. Natural gas made up most of the new generation in Florida as well, with a slight increase in coal generation after the shutdown of Crystal River. In Wisconsin, the bulk of Kewaunee’s generation was replaced by coal-fired generation. In Vermont, Vermont Yankee’s generation was replaced by increased electricity imports from Canada and surrounding states.

NEW ORLEANS, Feb. 15, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- Entergy Corporation (NYSE: ETR) reported a fourth quarter 2016 loss of $(9.88) per share on an as-reported basis and earnings of 31 cents per share on an operational basis. For the full year, the company reported a loss of $(3.26) per share on an...

Loading Entergy collaborators
Loading Entergy collaborators