1{2 "document_id": "lb_hotpotqa_72a769d6d0fd1c5c90974e60ab97e88e6853b9115a7fb85e",3 "family": "public_hotpotqa",4 "split": "test",5 "text": "Passage 1:\nNorth American Light and Power Company\nThe North American Light and Power Company was a utility holding company formed in South Bend, Indiana and run since 1916 by its president, Clement Studebaker, Jr., of the family famous for the Studebaker automobiles. The utility company remained a major subsidiary of the North American Company, until that conglomerate's 1940s breakup by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).\n\nHistory\nClement Studebaker, Jr. (1871–1932) was born the son of Clement Studebaker (1831–1901), the carriage and automobile manufacturer of South Bend, Indiana.In 1911, the company founded by the Studebaker brothers joined forces with Everitt-Metzker-Flanders Company of Detroit to form the Studebaker Corporation. In one of his several executive positions, Clement Studebaker, Jr. served as Vice President of the E-M-F Company.By 1916 Clement Studebaker, Jr. had formed the publicly traded North American Light and Power Company, and issued stock, with certificates printed by the American Banknote Company.Clement Studebaker, Jr. also served as President and Chairman of the Board of the Illinois Power and Light Company (and of its subsidiary, the Illinois Traction Company), the South Bend Watch Company, and as Treasurer of the Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad.\n\nNorth American Company\nNorth American Company had once been one of the original stocks in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.North American Light and Power remained under the ownership of North American Company for the next decade after Clement's death, as a major subsidiary holding company of other lines. \nBy 1940, North American Company had become a US$2.3 billion holding company heading up a pyramid of by then 80 companies. It controlled ten major direct subsidiaries in eight of which it owned at least 79%. North American Light and Power Company was by then one of the three major holding companies among the ten direct subsidiaries.North American Company was broken up by the SEC, following the United States Supreme Court decision of April 1, 1946.\nPassage 2:\nSouthern Company\nSouthern Company is an American gas and electric utility holding company based in the southern United States. It is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, with executive offices also located in Birmingham, Alabama. The company is the second largest utility company in the U.S. in terms of customer base, as of 2021. Through its subsidiaries it serves 9 million gas and electric utility customers in 6 states. Southern Company's regulated regional electric utilities serve a 120,000-square-mile (310,000 km2) territory with 27,000 miles (43,000 km) of distribution lines.\n\nOverview\nSouthern Company is one of the largest energy providers in the United States and is ranked 126th on the Fortune 500 listing of the largest U.S. corporations. The company has approximately 31,300 employees. It has more than 500,000 shareholders (NYSE: SO) and has been traded since September 30, 1949.\nSouthern Company subsidiaries are operating or developing renewable: solar, wind, and biomass facilities across the U.S., as well as the first new nuclear units in the U.S. in 30 years at Plant Vogtle near Augusta, Georgia.\nSouthern Company's three retail operating companies—Alabama Power, Georgia Power, and Mississippi Power—serve 120,000 square miles (310,000 km2) in three states. Southern Power serves wholesale electricity customers across the U.S. Southern Company Gas serves utility customers in seven states.\nSouthern Company owns the following companies:\n\nAlabama Power - operating company, based in Birmingham, Alabama. Serves the southern two-thirds of Alabama.\nGeorgia Power - operating company, based in Atlanta. Serves all of Georgia, except for mostly rural counties.\nMississippi Power - operating company, based in Gulfport, Mississippi. Serves the Mississippi Gulf Coast.\nSouthern Company Services (originally named Southern Services, Inc.) - Birmingham, Alabama - Common Services\nSouthern Linc - cellular telephone provider - Atlanta, Georgia\nSouthern Nuclear - engineering and operations for nuclear power plants - Birmingham, Alabama. (Southern Company is the majority owner and operator of the Farley, Hatch, and Vogtle nuclear power plants.)\nSouthern Company Generation - fossil fuels and hydro operations - Birmingham, Alabama.\nSouthern Power - wholesale power generation - Birmingham, Alabama.\nSouthern Telecom - wholesale fiber optic communications and data services - Atlanta, Georgia.\nSouthern Company Gas - serves gas utility customers and operates natural gas pipelines - Atlanta, Georgia.\nPowerSecure - distributed infrastructure technologies - Wake Forest, North Carolina.\nAtlanta Gas Light - provides natural gas delivery service to more than 1.6 million customers in Georgia.\nChattanooga Gas - provides retail natural gas sales and transportation services to approximately 66,000 customers in Hamilton and Bradley counties in southeast Tennessee.\nNicor Gas - Provider of natural gas throughout northern Illinois.\nVirginia Natural Gas - Provider of Natural Gas in southeastern Virginia.\nSequent Energy Management - optimizes natural gas assets and effectively utilize transportation and storage services.\nSouthern Wholesale Energy - markets the retail operating companies' surplus generating capacity to the wholesale market.\nSouthern Company Transmission - conducts transmission business in accordance with the Southern Companies Open Access Transmission Tariff approved by FERC.Prior to 2019, Southern Company also owned Gulf Power, an electric utility based in Pensacola, Florida that serves most of the Florida Panhandle. An agreement was reached in May 2018 to sell Gulf Power to rival utility company NextEra Energy. The sale was completed on January 1, 2019. Gulf Power would become the Northwest Florida division of Florida Power & Light (FPL) in 2021, with the Gulf Power name retired in favor of FPL in 2022.\n\nHistory\nSouthern Company can be traced back to 1924, when Southeastern Power & Light was formed as a holding company for Alabama Traction, Light and Power (formed 1906), the immediate forerunner of Alabama Power. Later that year, it formed Mississippi Power as a subsidiary, with Gulf Power following in 1925. In 1926, it merged with Georgia Power (formed 1902). In 1930, Southeastern Power & Light merged into the Commonwealth & Southern Corporation. The new system included five Northern companies and six Southern companies. However, in the late 1940s Commonwealth & Southern was dissolved to meet the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. Four of Commonwealth & Southern's Deep South operating companies—Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, and Mississippi Power—were deemed to be an integrated system and thus were allowed to remain under common ownership. A new holding company, Southern Company, was incorporated in Delaware on November 9, 1945. It commenced operation in 1949, and moved to Georgia in 1950. In 1954–55, the company was involved in the Dixon-Yates contract with the Atomic Energy Commission, and the associated political controversy.In 1981, Southern Company became the first electric utility holding company in 46 years to diversify its operations by forming an unregulated subsidiary. In January 1982, Southern Energy, Inc., began official operations as a global energy company, growing to serve 10 countries on four continents. On April 2, 2001, Southern Company completed the spinoff of Southern Energy as Mirant Corporation.\nAnother Southern Company subsidiary—Southern Nuclear—began providing services in 1991 to the system's nuclear power plants.\nIn 1996, Southern Communications Services began providing digital wireless communications services to Southern Company's subsidiaries and also began marketing these services to the public within the Southeast as Southern Linc. Southern Telecom, a telecommunications subsidiary of Southern Company, was founded in 1997. Southern Telecom provides colocation and dark fiber optic lines to network businesses.On January 9, 2001, Southern Company received final approval from the Securities and Exchange Commission to form Southern Power, a subsidiary to own, manage and finance wholesale generating assets in the Southeast. The new subsidiary targets wholesale customers.\nOn July 19, 2002, Southern Company Gas received certification from the Georgia Public Service Commission to enter the retail gas market. After nearly four years of operations, the company was sold and customers transferred to Cobb EMC's newly formed affiliate, Gas South.\nIn 2011, Southern Company and Turner Renewable Energy purchased a 30 MW solar project from First Solar. Located in Cimarron, New Mexico, it began generating electricity in 2011.In June 2012, the Nacogdoches Generating Facility began its commercial operation. The facility is a 115 MW biomass-fueled electric generating plant, located near Sacul in Nacogdoches County, Texas.\nIn 2016, Southern Company acquired PowerSecure, a distributed energy infrastructure technologies company, and AGL Resources (which was renamed Southern Company Gas). As a result of the AGL Resources merger, Southern Company doubled its customer base, expanded its footprint and broadened the scope of its business by increasing its natural gas presence.\n\nPlant Vogtle\nSouthern Company subsidiaries operate hydroelectric, gas, coal, and nuclear generation sources to generate approximately 200 terawatt-hours of electricity. In 2009, coal represented 57 percent of the company's output, followed by nuclear (23%) and natural gas (16%). Renewable hydroelectric power represented 4 percent of Southern's generation. Coal-based generation dropped significantly in 2009 from an average of 70% between 2005 and 2008. As of 2017 Coal-based generation had dropped to 30%.In June 2010, the United States Department of Energy awarded an $8.3 billion loan guarantee to facilitate the construction of two new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle, near Augusta, Georgia. A Southern Company subsidiary, Georgia Power, owns 45.7% of the current 2,430 MW facility, with co-owners Oglethorpe Power (30%) Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (22.7%) and the City of Dalton (1.6%). The plant is operated by Georgia Power. The $14 billion construction project is scheduled to be completed by 2022 and would double the plant's capacity.The construction of two 1,154 MW reactors has been hailed by Energy Secretary Steven Chu as \"the first new nuclear power plant to break ground in decades\". It is expected to create up to 3,500 jobs during the construction phase, and 800 once operational. However, in March 2017 Westinghouse Electric Company, who were building the plant, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy because of $9 billion of losses from its two U.S. nuclear construction projects. The U.S. government had given $8.3 billion of loan guarantees on the financing of the four nuclear reactors being built in the U.S., and it is expected a way forward to completing the plant can be agreed.\n\nPlant Ratcliffe\nIn September 2013 the EPA introduced new provisions regarding output of carbon emissions in new power facilities. The proposed emission limit for new energy sources will be 1,100lbs of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour of electricity. Preemptively recognizing the need for these changes, Southern Company broke ground on its 21st-century clean coal facility in June 2010. Southern's subsidiary, Mississippi Power will operate the plant. The Kemper County Energy Facility, or Kemper Project, takes advantage of the abundant lignite, or poor quality coal, available in Mississippi. Additionally, it employs Transport Gasifier (TRIG) technology. TRIG technology is built on the idea of dry-feed, non-slag gasifiers, which operate at lower temperatures than other coal gasifiers. This dry-feed is crushed, heated, and circulated in the gasifier, producing a flammable synthetic gas, syngas. Syngas can generate electricity with fewer emissions. Of course, other byproducts are produced, like ammonia and sulphuric acid. These particular products are sold for commercial use.The EPA considers the Kemper Coal Project and other planned facilities like it, to be a lifeline for the coal industry in the wake of the new climate change plan. Between 2010 and 2014, approximately 150 coal plants were shut down.As of April 2014, the US Department of Energy had invested $270m in this project. Southern Company, and its subsidiary, Mississippi Power anticipate that the Kemper Coal Plant will generate enough energy to serve more than 187,000 customers. Upon opening, the Kemper Coal Project is expected to be capable of stripping out at least 65% of the carbon dioxide, significantly exceeding the EPA's proposed requirement of 40%.\n\nPartnerships\nSouthern Company works with the US Department of Energy on a variety of projects including transmission and distribution of infrastructure and smart grid initiatives, environmental research programs, and nuclear generation. One of the more significant joint efforts, the DOE's National Carbon Capture Center, is managed by Southern Company and represents national efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal-based power generation. At this location, Southern Company has been working with scientists and technology developers from government, industry, and universities who are creating the next generation of carbon capture technologies.Along with the DOE, Southern Company has been working with KBR, another technology partner, to perfect its TRIG advanced coal gasification technology. This process of breaking down \"dirty coal\", or lignite, into its chemical components is not only cleaner, but it is also less expensive and more reliable. This technology is currently being implemented at Southern Company's Kemper County power plant, one of the few new coal facilities working to keep the US coal industry alive. This new facility will be built on a lignite seam, is expected to strip out two-thirds of carbon dioxide emissions, leaving emissions at about the same level as natural gas. The Kemper Coal Plant is expected to fall well under new regulations implemented by the EPA, which limits coal plants to 1,100lbs of carbon dioxide emissions per megawatt hour of electricity.In an effort to make this technology more attainable, Southern Company has partnered with China's Shenhua Group to collaborate on further research, development, and deployment of clean coal technologies in the US, China, and around the world. This partnership with Shenhua, who is currently expected to add more than 400,000 megawatts of coal-fired capacity by 2035, could lead to wide deployment of TRIG-equipped power plants across Asia. TRIG technology has the potential to not only assist China with their growing carbon issue, but also enable the country to tap into their own low quality coal.In 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy granted Southern Company a $165 million Smart Grid Investment Grant to implement a smart grid and to make the grid more reliable. Through matching funds and other investments, the company spent $363 million on the initiative, which it completed in 2014. The upgraded smart grid allows Southern Company the ability to monitor and control its electric infrastructure in real time and respond to problems.\n\nFinancial data\nCarbon footprint\nSouthern Company reported Total CO2e emissions (Direct + Indirect) for the twelve months ending 31 December 2020 at 75,300 Kt (-13,100 /-14.8% y-o-y) and aims to reach net zero emissions by 2050.\n\nPolitical donations\nIn May 2018, it was reported that Southern Company had donated $1 million to America First Policies, a pro-Donald Trump advocacy group.\n\nControversies\nEnvironmental impact\nSouthern Company is the third-largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, emitting 86,244,286 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2019.In 2005, the company announced it would open a Mercury Research Center at Plant Crist Pensacola, Florida, hoping to find new ways to reduce mercury emissions.On April 25, 2006, Alabama Power, a subsidiary of Southern Company, agreed to pay $200M to settle allegations that its coal-fired James H. Miller, Jr. Plant near West Jefferson, Alabama emitted harmful amounts of SO2 and NOx.In response to growing public and financial community interest, the company has enacted assorted environmental measures. Southern Company participates in Renew Our Rivers, a volunteer program to remove debris from rivers and other waterways throughout the Southeast, which claims over 11 million pounds of trash removed or recycled in Renew Our Rivers events. The company also manages and operates the National Carbon Capture Center, a focal point of the US Department of Energy's efforts to develop carbon capture and greenhouse gas reduction technologies, under which various projects to test geologic sequestration are in progress at Plant Gorgas in Alabama, Plant Daniel in Mississippi and other company sites. However, critics have argued that CCS seldom works and prolongs the life of fossil fuels.\n\nClimate change denial\nSouthern Company has a long history of funding climate change denial and has been a \"driving force behind climate disinformation,\" sponsoring campaigns in opposition to climate science, against limiting greenhouse gas emissions, and slowing the transition to renewable energy sources.Between 1993 and 2004 Southern Company paid over $62 million to organizations that spread disinformation about climate change. The utility paid for advertising claiming that climate change was not real and made payments to public relations companies, industry groups, law firms and thinktanks to dispute the scientific consensus for climate change and attack legislative solutions. The utility paid $20 million to the trade group Edison Electric Institute, which creates media campaigns to attack proponents of global warming. In the 1990s, Southern Company and the Center for Energy and Economic Development hosted energy workshops broadcast to schoolteachers through the company's satellite network to promote pro-coal messages about climate change and the environment.\n\nKemper Project controversies\nIn February 2015, the Mississippi Supreme Court ordered Southern Company's subsidiary Mississippi Power to restore $377 million to South Mississippi ratepayers for rate increases related to the Kemper Project, a \"clean\" coal plant. These fees were derived from Mississippi's Baseload Act, allowing Mississippi Power to charge ratepayers for powerplants under construction.\nIn May 2016, Southern Company and its subsidiary Mississippi Power announced they were being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission related to overruns at the Kemper Project. The project had been repeatedly delayed and costs increased from $2.88 billion to $6.58 billion. In recorded conversations, at least six engineers from the Kemper Project claimed that delays, cost overruns, safety violations, and shoddy work, were in part due to mismanagement or fraud.\nIn June 2016, Mississippi Power was sued by Treetop Midstream Services over the cancellation of a contract to receive carbon dioxide from the Kemper Project as part of the carbon capture and storage design. Treetop had contracted to buy carbon dioxide from the Kemper plant and had built a pipeline in preparation to receive the gas. Treetop alleged Mississippi Power had fraudulently and \"intentionally misrepresenting and concealing the start date\" for the Kemper Project, though Mississippi Power stated the suit was without merit.\nThe company was also found to have unlawfully fired a whistle-blower who had criticized alleged false statements by company management.\n\nVogtle nuclear power plant\nIn June 2021, Georgia Power, a subsidiary of Southern Company, was scrutinized by the Georgia Public Service Commission over the lengthy delays and ballooning costs of its new Vogtle nuclear plant in Burke County, Georgia.\n\nWillie Soon\nIn February 2015, it was revealed that climate change denier Willie Soon had been paid by Southern Company and several other fossil fuel interest groups. Over the course of 14 years, Soon received a total of $1.25m from Southern Company, Exxon Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace show. At $410,000, Southern Company was the largest donor. The scientist described his studies to fossil fuel executives as \"deliverables\", and permitted anonymous pre-publication reviews. Soon advanced the widely discredited theory that changes in solar activity are to blame for climate change, and called into question the severity and extent of climate change in all his studies, never revealing his backers.\n\nSee also\nJacob Horton\nList of United States electric companies\nElectric utility\n\nNotes\nExternal links\nBusiness data for Southern Company: \nDOE guarantee press info\nPR Newswire release\nSouthern Company Media Room\nOfficial website\nForbes Global 2000 Biggest Companies Utility Industry\nPassage 3:\nTECO Energy\nTECO Energy Inc. is an energy-related holding company based in Tampa, Florida, and a subsidiary of Emera Incorporated. TECO Energy has several subsidiaries: Tampa Electric, which provides electricity to the Tampa Bay Area and parts of Central Florida; Peoples Gas Company, which provides natural gas throughout Florida; and TECO Services, which provides IT, HR, legal, facilities, and other services to current and former TECO subsidiaries. Previously the company was in the S&P 500 before it became private due its acquisition by Emera.\nTECO Energy businesses include New Mexico Gas Company. TECO's three utilities serve a total of 1.6 million customers in Florida and New Mexico. In 2012, TECO exited its business in Guatemala.\n\nHistory\nTampa Electric began in 1899 to manage electric trolley systems in the city of Tampa. On September 4, 2015, Emera, a utility holding company based in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, announced the pending acquisition of TECO Energy. That purchase closed on July 1, 2016, and TECO Energy, Inc. became a wholly owned subsidiary of Emera, Inc.\n\nEnvironmental record\nResearchers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst in 2006 identified TECO Energy as the 37th-largest corporate producer of air pollution in the United States in 2002, with roughly 11 million pounds of toxic chemicals released annually into the air. Major pollutants indicated by the study included hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, chromium compounds, arsenic compounds, and nickel compounds.In 2000, TECO Energy was fined $3.5 million for making changes to emissions producing facilities without installing new updated pollution controls. This led to the switch from coal to natural gas in one of its plants by 2004 and optimization of pollution controls in another. These changes were enacted to drastically cut emissions, notably sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions.On July 6, 2019 People’s Gas a Division of Tampa Electric Company, caused an explosion of a shopping center in Plantation, Florida known as the Market on University because People’s Gas failed to close and lock a gas line after a customer request dating back to December 2018. The failure to close and lock the gas line is a violation of Federal law and Florida law. Peoples/TECO claims that a computer program cancelled the shutoff order unbeknownst to the utility. TECO/Peoples hid the claimed computer error from state investigators. The computer error caused hundreds of gas line shutoff orders to be cancelled system wide. TECO/Peoples also blame the owner of the shopping center for not capping the gas line when the tenant removed a gas pizza oven. Over 60 lawsuits were filed in response to the explosion many of which remain pending.\nIn 2017, TECO had an explosion at its Big Bend power plant near Tampa, Florida killing 5 workers who were performing a dangerous procedure water jetting molten slag in a coal fired furnace. The workers were killed because an explosion occurred. TECO experienced the same type of accident 10 years prior and developed a policy to prevent future accidents but failed to train workers on the safety policy. In May 2022, TECO pleaded guilty to violating an OSHA safety regulation requiring a meeting to ensure workers are properly trained that would have prevented the deaths of the 5 workers. In August 2022 TECO was sentenced to a $500,000 fine and 3 years of probation. TECO admitted that it willfully violated an OSHA safety regulation as part of its guilty plea. \nOn September 28, 2017, TECO announced it was adding 600 MW of solar to its electricity-producing portfolio.\n\nSee also\nList of power stations in Florida\nTECO Line Streetcar (No longer operated by TECO)\nTampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Coal Co.\nPassage 4:\nXcel Energy\nXcel Energy Inc. is a U.S. regulated electric utility and natural gas delivery company based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, serving more than 3.7 million electric customers and 2.1 million natural gas customers across parts of eight states (Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas and New Mexico). It consists of four operating subsidiaries: Northern States Power-Minnesota, Northern States Power-Wisconsin, Public Service Company of Colorado, and Southwestern Public Service Co.In December 2018, Xcel Energy announced it would deliver 100 percent clean, carbon-free electricity by 2050, with an 80 percent carbon reduction by 2035 (from 2005 levels). This makes Xcel the first major US utility to set such a goal.\n\nHistory\nXcel Energy was built on three companies: Minneapolis-based Northern States Power Company (NSP), Denver-based Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo), and Amarillo-based Southwestern Public Service (SPS). Southwestern Public Service Co. (SPS) dates its origins to 1904 and the Pecos Valley in New Mexico when Maynard Gunsell received an electricity franchise for the city of Roswell, New Mexico and its 2,000 residents. The financial strain of creating this new enterprise soon overwhelmed him and he sold the franchise to W.H. Gillenwater, who named his utility the Roswell Electric Light Co. He later sold the company to an investment firm in Cleveland, Ohio, which already owned the Roswell Gas Co.Northern States Power Company's timeline begins with the organization of the Washington County Light & Power Co. in 1909. When H. M. Byllesby began building his utility holding company across the Northwestern region of the US, he renamed it the Consumers Power Co. in 1910 and which was renamed the Northern States Power Co. in 1916. While the bulk of NSP's territory grew across central and southern Minnesota (starting from the Twin Cities), it acquired territory in North Dakota (centering on Fargo, Grand Forks, and Minot) and extended southwest into South Dakota (centering on Sioux Falls). NSP's system also extended east into Wisconsin, but because of utility ownership laws in that state, it was operated as an entity separate from the rest of the company.\nPublic Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) was formed in 1923 to provide an electric generating station for the Denver area. By 1924, it had acquired most of the electric companies in northern and central Colorado. Originally a subsidiary of Cities Service Company, it became an independent autonomous operation in November 1943. By this time, it served 80 percent of Colorado's gas and electricity needs. As demand for energy continued to grow, so did PSCo. Eventually, the company merged with SPS to form New Century Energies (NCE) in 1995.Northern States Power and Wisconsin Energy Corporation had planned to merge into a new outfit that was to be called Primergy - but in 1997, the merger fell through because of the time it was taking to gain the required approvals from state and federal agencies. After the failed Primergy merger, NSP (both the Minnesota and Wisconsin companies) merged with New Century Energies to form Xcel Energy. In 2005, Xcel sold Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power to Black Hills Corporation. Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power had been a subsidiary of PSCo since the 1920s, and had become an operating company of NCE after the merger with SPS.\nIn December 2018, Xcel Energy became the first major US utility to pledge to go carbon-free, aiming for 80% carbon reduction by 2030, and 100% reduction by 2050.Utility industry magazine Utility Dive awarded Xcel Energy its 2018 \"Utility of the Year\" award for its plans for add 12 wind farms, its project with Google to develop new ways for customers to personalize energy management, and its plan to retire 50 percent of its coal-powered capacity by 2026 (and replacing it with a combination of renewable energy, efficiency, and natural gas).On May 20, 2019, Xcel Energy announced its intent to close all of its remaining coal-fired plants in Minnesota by 2030 while compensating by increasing solar production capacity by 1,400%. It also declared its plans to continue operating its Monticello nuclear plant near Monticello, Minnesota until at least 2040.On March 16, 2023, Xcel Energy announced that a significant unplanned release of radioactive water from its Monticello nuclear power plant took place on November 21, 2022, which was reported only to state and federal authorities but was concealed from the public until now. Xcel estimated the leak to be 400 thousand gallons of contaminated water containing radioactive tritium. The leak occurred in a water pipe that runs between two buildings.\n\nGeneration portfolio\nAcross Xcel Energy's eight-state service area, 49% of the power provided in 2021 came from carbon-free sources: biomass, hydroelectric and nuclear plants, solar panels and wind turbines.Xcel Energy currently has 13 coal plants with a capacity of 7,697 MW. Seven of those plants are operated in Colorado. Xcel Energy owns and operates three wind farms. In October 2011, Xcel Energy set a world record for electricity from wind power, with an hourly penetration of 55.6% of production from wind.Xcel Energy generates over 500 megawatts of hydroelectric power from 27 plants in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Colorado. This accounts for only four percent of their electricity generation. They also purchase large amounts of hydro-generated electricity from Manitoba Hydro.\n\nBiomass electricity comes from organic fuel sources. Xcel Energy has contracts for about 110 megawatts of electricity from biomass generators. Two in northern Minnesota are fueled by forest harvest residue, such as treetops and limbs. A third facility, brought on line in 2007 in western Minnesota, generates power using turkey litter.Xcel Energy's Bay Front plant in Ashland, Wisconsin, is a three-unit generating station that has become a model for the creative use of fuels: coal, waste wood, railroad ties, discarded tires, natural gas, and petroleum coke. Two of the three Bay Front operating units already use biomass as their primary fuel. Xcel Energy recently proposed a plan to install biomass gasification technology at Bay Front. The waste-to-energy facilities use waste that would otherwise end up in landfills. The Wisconsin waste-to-energy plant burns wood waste in combination with refuse-derived fuel (RDF).Xcel Energy owns and operates two nuclear power plants: \n\nMonticello Nuclear Generating Plant near Monticello, Minnesota\nPrairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant near Red Wing, Minnesotaand stores the spent fuel from these nuclear plants on site in independent spent fuel storage installations. (ISFSIs).\n\nSystem information and transmission\nXcel Energy operates the fourth largest transmission system in the United States, spanning 10 states. In 2011, Xcel Energy's transmission system was worth $3.3 billion.The transmission system is operated on a non-discriminatory basis under the open access requirements of the Federal Government. This means that all wholesale buyers and sellers of electricity can use the transmission system under the same terms and conditions used to serve Xcel Energy's own retail customers. The transmission lines are utilized to carry 115,000 volts, 230,000 volts, and 345,000 volts. There is also a 500,000 volt transmission line that runs from the Dorsey Substation outside of Winnipeg, Manitoba in Canada to the Chisago Substation located in Chisago County just north of St. Paul, Minnesota.\n\nGrid security\nIn 2017, Xcel Energy partnered with the Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center to create a new \"threat information sharing community\" intended to share cyber and physical security intelligence with the energy sector. The new community is called the Energy Analytic Security Exchange (EASE). It is run by the FS-ISAC Sector Services team; FS-ISAC is an organization that gathers cyber and physical risk intelligence for the financial services industry. Additionally, the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) manages the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center, which is another resource that the energy sector uses to gather threat intelligence.\n\nAdvanced Grid in Colorado\nIn 2016, Xcel Energy announced the Advanced Grid Intelligence and Security (AGIS) initiative, a long-term effort related to power reliability, distributed generation, and information sharing with customers. Through the initiative, Xcel would build an \"intelligent grid\" in Colorado in order to improve grid security. The company filed a request for permission with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission for the program, which would cost $500 million.\n\nPrograms\nSince 1998, Xcel Energy's Windsource program has allowed customers to designate that part or all of their electricity comes from a renewable energy source. In 2015, about 96,000 people were enrolled in Windsource. In 2011, more than 2.3 million electric and 261,800 natural gas customers took part in Xcel Energy's energy efficiency programs for homes and businesses.Xcel Energy also offers customers incentives to install solar panels. At the end of 2011, more than 10,600 photovoltaic systems had been installed, with a capacity of about 121 megawatts (DC). In early 2011, Xcel Energy suspended the solar rebate program before reaching a settlement a month later with representatives of solar power companies to restore the solar incentive program until it is fully reviewed by the Public Utilities Commission.\n\nControversies\nOn August 1, 2002, Xcel Energy Inc. was sued because of engaging in \"round-trip\" energy trades that provided no economic benefit for the company, and because the company lacked the necessary internal controls to adequately monitor the trading of its power. Xcel paid $80,000,000 in a settlement.The Cabin Creek Fire occurred on October 2, 2007, at Xcel Energy's Hydropower Generation plant in Georgetown, Colorado. On June 1, 2011, Federal prosecutors opened their charges that Xcel Energy was criminally liable for the deaths of the five RPI workers. On June 28, the jury found Xcel Energy not guilty. On December 19, 2011, RPI Coating pleaded guilty to workplace safety violations and paid $1.55 million in a cash settlement. The company took responsibility for the deaths of five workers and the injuries to three. The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board conducted an investigation of the incident. Its report can be found on the CSB website. It is considered one of the worst unmitigated incidents to occur in a permit-required confined space.The parent company to Xcel Energy, and later Xcel Energy itself have operated the Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant since 1973. Over that time, nuclear waste produced by the power plant has been stored adjacent to the Prairie Island Indian Community. The homes of some members of the community are within 600 yards of the nuclear waste containment site and, sitting within the banks of the Mississippi River, the island is very vulnerable to seasonal flooding. While in 1991, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission capped the storage of nuclear waste on the island to 17 casks, the legislature has since permitted this number to increase. Environmentalists and members of the Prairie Island Indian Community have been working since 1994 to have this nuclear waste transported away from their reservation due to the combined risk of the temporary design of the storage facility, unpredictable flooding and single evacuation road in the event nuclear waste is released from containment.\n\nSee also\nPlant X, Lamb County, Texas\nPassage 5:\nElectric Bond and Share Company\nThe Electric Bond and Share Company (Ebasco) was a United States electric utility holding company organized by General Electric. It was forced to divest its holding companies and reorganize due to the passage of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. Following the passage of the Act, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) selected the largest of the U.S. holding companies, Ebasco to be the test case of the law before the U.S. Supreme Court. The court case known as Securities and Exchange Commission v. Electric Bond and Share company was settled in favor of the SEC on March 28, 1938. It took twenty-five years of legal action by the SEC to break up Ebasco and the other major U.S. electric holding companies until they conformed with the 1935 act. It was allowed to retain control of its foreign electric power holding company known as the American & Foreign Power Company (A&FP). After its reorganization, it became an investment company, but soon turned into a major designer and engineer of both fossil fuel and nuclear power electric generation facilities. Its involvement in the 1983 financial collapse of the Washington Public Power Supply System's five nuclear reactors led to Ebasco's demise because of the suspension of nuclear power orders and lawsuits that included numerous asbestos claims. The U.S. nuclear industry stopped all construction of new facilities following the 1979 nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island, going into decline because of radiation safety concerns and major construction cost overruns.\n\nHistory\nThe Electric Bond and Share Group was organized in 1905 as a holding company for electric utility company securities by General Electric using its employees' retirement investment fund. Morgan used his control of General Electric and his position as the country's most powerful financier to set in motion a plan to monopolize the entire country's electric industry via the Electric Bond and Share Group. Until his death in 1913, Morgan was opposed to any form of government regulation. His firing of Samuel Insull resulted with Insull moving to Chicago, where he organized the second-largest holding company in the country, the Middle West Utilities Company or what is known today as Exelon. Insull would actively promote the idea of a regulated monopoly because of the high cost of electrical infrastructure. About the same time as Teddy Roosevelt's trust busting campaign against Morgan, Rockefeller and other elites was gaining national attention, the National Civic Federation (NCF) was formed. It carried out extensive investigations and debates among prominent business men and organized labor over the issue of public vs. private ownership of electric power. Insull's public support for regulation helped popularize NCF's model legislation that quickly spread nationwide after the state of New York adopted its own variation. Morgan's son J. P. Morgan Jr. carried on with the House of Morgan, including his father's goal of a national electric monopoly but was up against the reformist progressive era.\nBy 1925, General Electric's Electric Bond & Share Group was the largest owner of U.S. and foreign electric companies holding over 10% of the country's companies as subsidiaries organized into five major holding companies. General Electric made a purely symbolic gesture to reduce growing public anger by divesting control of the company leaving Morgan still in financial control. The Commonwealth & Southern Corporation, which owned several utility operating companies in the Midwest and the South, some of which became part of the Southern Company, and the reorganized Electric Bond And Share Company (EBASCo) were both part of J. P Morgan's syndicate via his J.P. Morgan & Co. In 1926, its headquarters in New York City had over 1,000 employees, and controlled companies in 33 states worth $1.25 billion.As public concern continued to mount by ratepayers of private electric power companies, the Federal Trade Commission carried out extensive investigations between 1928 and 1935. The commission's 48,000-page report included entire volumes for each of the country's major utility companies. The FTC valued EBASCo and its five holding companies at $3.5 billion, along with major investments in dozens of other major U.S. companies. Within the five main holding companies were 121 U.S. subsidiaries, along with a foreign holding company that operated in 16 countries and had 70 subsidies.\nBecause he was a strong proponent of public power, Franklin D. Roosevelt used the collapse of Samuel Insull's Middle West Utilities electric empire in June 1932 as one of his most important election campaign issues. The failed assassination attempt on his life in February 1933 later became part of U.S. Marine Corps General Smedley Butler's claim of a Business Plot against Roosevelt by J. P. Morgan. On Roosevelt's first day in office, following his inauguration, he ordered the closure of the nation's banks, known as the bank holiday of 1933. In a joint session of the House and Senate, he pushed through the Emergency Banking Act along with Executive Order 6102 that blocked the hoarding of gold and stopped the major New York banks from taking gold supplies out of the country. Roosevelt then selected Ferdinand Pecora to investigate Morgan and the country's other major banks. Both Pecora and the Federal Trade Commission investigations exposed the fact that the electric industry was the most capital intensive industry. The May 24th, 1933 Pecora hearings rocked the country, focusing on J.P. Morgan and his financial empire, whose top lieutenants paid no taxes. In his 1939 book Wall Street Under Oath: The Story of Our Modern Money Changers, Ferdinand Pecora stated that \"Undoubtedly, this small group of highly placed financiers, controlling the very springs of economic activity, holds more real power than any similar group in the United States.\"The 1933 Pecora Commission hearings identified the National City Company, known today as Citibank, as the location where Morgan conducted EBASCo's investment operations, which played a prominent role in the passage of the Glass–Steagall legislation. The Pecaro investigation along with the findings from the seven-year Federal Trade Commission investigation into electric holding companies nationwide led to the passage of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. which some historians say was \"the fiercest congressional battle in history.\" Following the act's passage, Ebasco sued the United States government claiming it was unconstitutional, but lost the case before the Supreme Court in 1938. Wendell Willkie, who was the president of one of J.P. Morgan and Ebasco's biggest investments, known as the Southern Company, ran against Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1940 presidential race, but lost.\n\nEBASCo, known on Wall Street as (EBS) was included in the Dow Jones Utility Average from 1938 to 1947.\n\nSecurities and Exchange Commission breakup of EBASCo\nFollowing the passage of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) oversaw the closure, re-organization or divestment of EBASCo's holding companies except for its American & Foreign Power Co., making annual reports on its monumental legal breakup case between 1936 and 1961. The act was used to break up the country's electric industry into regions confined by state boundaries so that state agencies could properly regulate each company. Each year, the SEC reported on the compliance status of the industry. As of 1949, 210 holding companies affecting 918 of the country's electric companies had come under the SEC's legal jurisdiction and procedures, with 46 holding companies still active. In its 1949 annual report, the SEC documented the history of their order for EBASCo to break up its five major holding companies' combined assets worth $3.5 billion.\nIn 1940, congressional investigations of brokerage firms, insurance companies and their relationship to the electric industry exposed that Middle South Utilities, the Southern Group and Ebasco were all financed by Morgan Stanley, with Wall Street having financial influence over nearly 80% of the country's electric industry.\nFollowing the passage of the 1935 Act, Ebasco went into the U.S. court system in an attempt overturn the act but failed (see external links for major court cases). Ebasco was then required to register its holding companies and comply with SEC orders. On August 23, 1941, its holding company known as the National Power & Light Co. was ordered to break up its 27 subsidiaries. On March 22, 1949, the SEC signed off on the final breakup of National that included major holdings in Pennsylvania PPL Corporation, the Carolinas and Alabama (see subsidiary list).\nOn August 22, 1942, the SEC ordered the breakup of Ebasco's holding companies known as American Power & Light Corp. that included 35 subsidiaries and the Electric Power & Light Corporation with its 24 subsidiaries. American appealed the ruling but lost before the U.S. Supreme Court on November 25, 1946. As of 1949, all but one of American's subsidiaries were in compliance. Electric Power and its sub-holding company United Gas Corporation finally agreed to its breakup on March 2, 1949. Electric Power was then re-organized as Middle South Utilities Inc. and is known today as Entergy.\nIn 1939, proceedings before the SEC were initiated to break up EBASCo's American Gas & Electric Company. On December 28, 1945, the agency agreed to allow it to retain control of its central region of subsidiaries in Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, if it let go of its companies in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. In 1946, it attempted to acquire the Continental Gas & Electric Corp. but was denied. American Gas & Electric Company was finally spun off in 1958 to become American Electric Power (AEP).\nAs part of a national campaign to deregulate the electric industry, the Bush administration and Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that repealed the 1935 Public Utility Holding Company Act.\n\nEBASCo holding companies prior to 1935\nThe following EBASCo holding companies, which includes some of its subsidiaries came under enforcement by the Securities and Exchange Commission with the passage of the Public Utilities Holding Company Act of 1935.\n\nAmerican Gas & Electric Company\nIncorporated in 1906, and controlled by EBASCo., American Gas & Electric Company was finally spun off in 1958 and became American Electric Power. AEP currently serves over 5 million electricity customers in eleven states. It is currently the 6th largest gas & electric company in the United States. Check the reference here for a recent list of AEP's subsidiaries.\nAppalachian Electric Power Co. - Known today as Appalachian Power\nOhio Power Co. - Known today as AEP Ohio\nIndiana & Michigan Electric Co. - known today as Indiana Michigan Power\nThe Scranton Electric Co. was sold to PPL Corporation in 1956\nAtlantic City Elec. Co. - Is currently a subsidiary of Exelon\nKy. & W. Va. Power Co. - known today as Kentucky Power\nWheeling Electric Co. - is currently a subsidiary of AEP\nIndiana General Service Co.\nKingsport Utilities, Inc. - known today as Kingsport Power Company\n\nAmerican Power & Light Company\nAmerican Power & Light had over 35 subsidiaries prior to 1935. In 1942, the Securities and Exchange Commission ordered the holding company to be broken up, which was completed by 1951. Many of these companies are still in existence today. \n\nCitizens Power & Light Co., Council Bluffs, Iowa.\nCentral Arizona Light & Power Co., Phoenix, Arizona, merged with Arizona Edison in 1952 to form Arizona Public Service\nFlorida Power & Light Co., Miami, Florida. It is a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources\nFort Worth Power & Light Co., Fort Worth, Texas. Became part of TU Electric in 1984.\nHelena Gas & Electric Co., Helena, Montana.\nKansas Gas & Electric Co., general office, Wichita, Kansas, merged with Kansas Power and Light of Topeka in 1992 to form Westar Energy\nMinnesota Power & Light Co., general office, Duluth, Minnesota.\nMissoula Public Service Co., Missoula, Montana, acquired by Montana Power Company in 1929\nMontana Power Company, Butte, Montana. is still operating today.\nNebraska Power Co., Omaha, Nebraska.\nNorthern Power Co., Superior, Wisconsin.\nNorthwestern Electric Co., Portland, Oregon.\nPacific Power & Light Co., Portland, Oregon. is known today as PacifiCorp and owned by Berkshire Hathaway Energy.\nPortland Gas & Coke Co., Portland, Oregon.\nSt. Augustine Co., St. Augustine, Florida.\nSuperior Water, Light & Power Co., Superior, Wisconsin.\nTexas Electric Service Co., Dallas, Texas. Became part of TU Electric in 1984.\nTexas Power & Light Co., Dallas, Texas. Became part of TU Electric in 1984.\nTexas Public Utilities Corp., Dallas, Texas. Became part of TU Electric.\nWashington Water Power Co. (The), group, Spokane, Washington is known today as Avista.\n\nElectric Power & Light Corporation\nIncorporated in 1925 as a holding company for various Electric Bond & Shares Co. subsidiaries. The SEC ordered it sold off, a process that was completed in 1949, when it was renamed as Mid South Utilities, Inc. Today, it is known as Entergy.\n\nArkansas Power & Light Co., Little Rock, Arkansas.\nDallas Power & Light Cd. Dallas, Texas.\nIdaho Power Co., Boise, Idaho.\nLouisiana Gas & Fuel Co., Shreveport, Louisiana.\nLouisiana Power & Light Co., New Orleans, Louisiana.\nMississippi Central Power Co., Jackson, Mississippi.\nMississippi Power & Light Co., Jackson, Mississippi.\nNevada Power Co., Boise, Idaho.\nNew Orleans Public Service Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana.\nSalmon River Power & Light Co., Boise, Idaho.\nUtah Light & Traction Co., Salt Lake City, Utah.\nUtah Power & Light Co., Salt Lake City, Utah.\nWestern Colorado Power Co., Durango, Colorado.\n\nNational Power & Light Company\nIncorporated 1925 as new holding company for various Electric Bond & Shares Co. subsidiaries. As part of the SEC's order, National Power was combined with Lehigh Power Securities with most of its other companies broken up. Today, National Power is known today as PPL Corporation\n\nBirmingham Electric Co., Birmingham, Alabama.\nCarolina Power & Light Co., Raleigh, North Carolina\nHolston River Electric Corporation, Rogersville, Tennessee.\nHouston Lighting & Power Co., Houston, Texas.\nKnoxville Power & Light Co., Knoxville, Tennessee.\nMemphis Power & Light Co., Memphis, Tennessee.\nSouth Texas Utilities Co., Houston, Texas.\nTennessee Public Service Co., Newport, Tennessee.\nWest Tennessee Power & Light Co., Jackson, Tennessee.\n\nLehigh Power Securities Corporation\nThe Lehigh Power Securities Company was merged with EBASCo's National Power & Light Company.\n\nPennsylvania Power & Light Co., Allentown, Pennsylvania. - PPL Corporation today.\nLancaster Group, Edison Electric Co., Lancaster, Pennsylvania.\nTransit Group, Lehigh Valley Transit Co., Allentown, Pennsylvania.\n\nAmerican & Foreign Power Company\nFollowing the failed merger negotiations with Canada's Royal Securities Corporation, American & Foreign Power Co. was created as a wholly owned EBASCo holding company in 1923 that had the goal of owning electric companies worldwide. With its agenda of enforcing patents, General Electric (GE) had been buying up electric stocks worldwide, but also started taking control of companies via its equipment sales and other services formerly performed by its holding company, the Electric Bond and Share Group. In 1917, Electric Bond and Share Group's first major foreign electric acquisition, at the request of the U.S. government, to take control of electric production for two cities near the Panama Canal as a counter strategy against nearby German interests. In 1920, Electric Bond obtained control of Guatemalan electric facilities that the U.S. government had seized from Germany during the war. This was followed in 1922 by a dramatic burst of purchasing across central and South America that was followed the next year by the formation of the American & Foreign Power Company.\nIn 1925, GE would dispose of its Ebasco stocks because of negative public opinion, however GE's chairman continued to sit on American & Foreign Power's board of directors while its founding president Sydney Z. Mitchell also stayed as president. In 1929 American & Foreign Power claimed to have worldwide assets of $750 million. By 1931 the holding company was supplying power to just under 1,000 communities around the world. Following the passage of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, Ebasco was allowed to retain control of American & Foreign Power Company as the law only applied to U.S. based electric utility companies.\nElectric development in Cuba is of unique historic concern. Following the Spanish–American War in 1898 the country was forced into an exclusive relationship with the United States. The U. S. allowed Cuba to be independent, but required it to operate under the Platt Amendment of 1901, turning it into an exclusive U.S. plantation colony with its sugar exports only allowed to be marketed in the U.S. Business interests deployed a combination of Scientific racism and Scientific management practices that left the country exclusively in the hands of American companies.\nIt started in 1922 with GE's representative, Henry Catlin purchasing General Gerardo Machado's electric company and then donating $500,000 to the general's successful bid to become Cuba's president in 1924. GE would spend $100 million to purchase control of Cuba's entire electric infrastructure. This led to 40 years of societal stresses, years of military dictatorships, the infamous U.S. Mafia operations in Havana and the Cuban Revolution which allowed Cuba to nationalize American & Foreign Power's control of the country's electric utilities.\nAmerican & Foreign Power Company also had operations in the following countries:\n\nArgentina - 100 different electric companies\nBrazil\nCanada - British Columbia Power Corporation\nChile - all major electric utilities \nChina - 1929 Shanghai Power Company purchased for $32 million\nColombia\nCosta Rica\nCuba - Cuba Electric Co. taken public by Cuba in 1960\nEcuador\nGuatemala\nIndia\nItaly - Italian Superpower Corporation\nJapan - Two Companies\nMexico\nPanama - 1917 purchased two companies at the request of the U.S. around the Panama Canal\nVenezuela\n\nDixon-Yates Affair\nWith the election of President Eisenhower in 1952 as the first republican to hold office in 20 years, a major policy shift called \"no new starts\" began. All federal water and power projects that had been closely tied to local, state or federal ownership were ended. The scale of this policy shift was exposed with the Dixon-Yates affair, identifying the plan's source as the Pacific Gas & Electric Company. PG&E was known for getting conservative politicians to kill all funding to the massive Central Valley Project's grid, forcing the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to rely on the company to deliver the electricity. As a result, cooperatives in communities across northern California that were set up to get the low cost surplus power collapsed.\nIn 1954, President Eisenhower ordered the Atomic Energy Commission to buy 600,000 kilowatts of electricity for its Oak Ridge National Laboratory from two private electric companies rather than purchase power from the Tennessee Valley Authority in what is known as the Dixon-Yates contract. The attempt to bypass TVA's public power system next door to Oak Ridge stirred a national scandal following the testimony of James D Stietenroth, who was the secretary-treasurer of Mississippi Power Company who said that Middle South Utilities was still dominated by Ebasco Services. Stietenroth was fired the next day. Following the release of a secret report by industry insiders meant only for the president's eyes, Eisenhower was forced to cancel the contract on July 11, 1955.\nIn 1961, after 26 years of legal cases, Electric Bond and Share had complied with the SEC's orders and was no longer listed as an electric power holding company. In 1967, Electric Bond and Share merged with its former holding company, the American & Foreign Power Co. and was renamed Ebasco Industries the following year. Ebasco Industries held onto Ebasco Services Inc. as a subsidiary.\n\nEbasco Services\nOn November 27, 1935, the Electric Bond & Share Company setup Ebasco Services to manage its holding company empire, the day after the SEC filed a lawsuit ordering the company to register as a holding company as required by the passage of the Public Utility Company Holding Company Act. According to the asbestos legal case of FENICLE v. BOISE CASCADE COMPANY, Boise Cascade purchased control of Ebasco Industries and its subsidiary Ebasco Services in 1969. The Plaintiff's suit was countered by a legal maneuver called Piercing the corporate veil. In 1973 Halliburton purchased Ebasco Services from Boise Cascade, but the Justice Department reversed the sale over concerns that it gave Halliburton control over too much of the industry's engineering expertise.By the mid-1970s, Ebasco had stepped beyond its 1961 filing with the SEC, claiming its intention of becoming an investment company. It was now actively involved with the construction of nuclear and fossil fuel power facilities. In 1976, according to Encyclopedia.com a Texas oil company named Ensearch acquired Ebasco. Ensearch was originally known as Texas Power & Light Co. and had been one of Ebasco's original subsidiaries prior to 1935, that is now TXU Energy. By 1980, EBASCO had three divisions: A/E Ebasco Services, Ebasco Environmental, which provided environmental services, and Ebasco Engineering and Construction. On November 16, 1982, according to a filing made with the Texas Secretary of state, Ebasco Engineering and Construction filed as a foreign for-profit company. Ebasco Environmental was sold to Foster Wheeler, Inc., becoming Foster Wheeler Environmental.\nEbasco had become one of the major US architect-engineers, coordinating the design of many nuclear power plants both in the US and abroad. On May 22, 1956, Ebasco's subsidiary, American & Foreign Power Co. announced plans to build two nuclear power facilities in Latin America, very likely in Cuba since they held 100% of the country's electric production. Other major nuclear construction plans included the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (units 1, 2 and 6). It also had the original contract to design and build the Bataan Nuclear station in the Philippines, but was replaced by Westinghouse. Ebasco's involvement with the financial collapse of the Washington Public Power Supply System's (WPPSS) massive five nuclear reactors led to a lawsuit against the company in 1992 over asbestos contamination.Raytheon acquired Ebasco in 1994 and was known as Raytheon Ebasco Overseas Ltd. At this time, Ebasco was known to have subsidiaries in 11 foreign countries. The Raytheon subsidiary, Raytheon Engineers & Constructors that owned Ebasco Services was later sold to Morrison Knudsen Corporation where the combined company was named the Washington Group International, Inc., a firm with more than $5 billion in annual revenues and a backlog of some $6.6 billion, marking it one of the largest in the engineering and construction industry at that time with more than 38,000 employees at work in more than 40 countries. Washington Group International, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2001. At the time of the filing, there were four known Ebasco entities involved in the bankruptcy that included the Delaware-based Ebasco International Corporation. The Washington Group's headquarters were at the World Trade Center in 2001. Ebasco had been at the WTC since 1980 and at one point was its largest tenant with over 2,000 employees, leasing over 600,000 sq. ft. There were less than 20 employees of the 180 still at the World Trade Center on 911. In 2007 Washington Group was purchased by URS Corporation, which was purchased by AECOM in 2014 that is now one of the largest engineering firms in the world.\nFollowing the 2007 takeover of TXU Corp., which included plans to construct two new next generation nuclear power stations at Commanche Peak, the company eventually ran into further financial difficulties and filed for bankruptcy in 2014. On February 27, 2018, Energy Futures Holdings (EFH), formerly known as TXU Corp., which was one of Ebasco's pre-1935 subsidiaries came out of bankruptcy reorganization as TXU Energy. EFH had a subsidiary known as EEC Holdings which owned Ebasco Canada Ltd. that was incorporated in Delaware. Ebasco Canada was shut down on April 29, 2014, as part of the EFH bankruptcy process.According to a 2015 Sun Sentinel news story, Ebasco's American and Foreign Power Company is owned by another company - Office Depot. The article says that when Boise Cascade sold off Ebasco Services to Raytheon, it held onto American & Foreign Power Co.'s foreign investments. Boise Cascade purchased OfficeMax and took its name in 2003. According to the article, OfficeMax was then purchased by Office Depot in 2013, and was proposing to merge with Staples in 2015. One of the subsidiaries of American & Foreign Power Co. was the former Cuban Power Co. that has filed a $267.5 million claim against Cuba with the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission that still has thousands of investors holding stock in the nationalized company. The Office Depot and Staples merger was abandoned in 2016 after a judge blocked the plan.In 2016, The Indian subsidiary Raytheon Ebasco Overseas Ltd. appeared in an Indian court over Tax problems.Meanwhile, the Dutch registered CT Corporation is listing itself as the agent for Ebasco in 43 states and the District of Columbia.\nSee Boise Cascade v. United States for more background on the activities of Ebasco Industries.In addition, The law firm of Reid and Priest used to be part of the army of lawyers that failed to stop Ebasco from being dismantled. It became part of Reid, Priest and Thelen LLP which also just dissolved.\nToday there is a company Named Ebasco Trading Co. listed in Dubai. Its unknown what its relationship is to the original company.\nSee Ebasco Services for its whistle-blowing problems. See External links for a list of major legal cases Ebasco has been involved in. Note that this list is no where exhaustive since the company was constantly caught up in legal cases against its own employees, insurance companies and regulatory oversight agencies nationwide.\nThe Public Utilities Holding Company Act of 1935 was repealed by the Energy Policy Act of 2005\nPassage 6:\nSpire Inc\nSpire Inc. (NYSE: SR) is a regional public utility holding company based in St. Louis, Missouri, providing natural gas service through its regulated core utility operations while engaging in non-regulated activities that provide business opportunities. Its primary subsidiary Laclede Gas Company is the largest natural gas distribution utility in Missouri, serving approximately 631,000 residential, commercial and industrial customers in the City of St. Louis and ten counties in eastern Missouri. Its corporate headquarters is located in the 700 Market building in downtown St. Louis.\nOn April 29, 2016, the company began trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol SR. It had previously been known as the Laclede Group, trading under the symbol LG.\n\nHistory\nLaclede Gas Company was one of the original 12 industrial companies that made up the Dow Jones Industrial Average but was removed in 1899. On December 7, 2009, executives from The Laclede Group visited the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) to ring the closing bell and commemorate the company’s 120th anniversary of trading on the exchange. The Company first listed its stock on November 14, 1889, making it the 8th-oldest listed stock on the NYSE.\nOn February 1, 2012, Laclede hired its first female CEO, Suzanne Sitherwood. Sitherwood earned a bachelor of science degree in industrial engineering technology from the Southern College of Technology and an MBA from Brenau University.In 2013, The Laclede Group acquired Missouri Gas Energy from Southern Union Company, expanding their Missouri holdings to include Kansas City.\nIn 2014 Laclede acquired Alabama Gas Corporation (Alagasco), which serves the Greater Birmingham, East Lauderdale County, Gadsden, Jasper, Anniston-Oxford, Greater Tuscaloosa, Greater Montgomery, Opelika-Auburn, Tuskegee, Selma, and many Black Belt communities as Spire Alabama Inc.\nOn April 28, 2016, The Laclede Group shareholders approved renaming the company to Spire. Later in 2016, Spire acquired Energy South, Inc from Sempra U.S. Gas & Power, the parent company of Mobile Gas and Willmut Gas. Mobile Gas operates in Mobile, Alabama as Spire Gulf Coast Inc. while Willmut gas operates in Hattiesburg, Mississippi as Spire Mississippi Inc..\n\nSee also\nLaclede Gas Company - Subsidiary of the Laclede Group\nLaclede Gas Building\nPassage 7:\nNorth American Company\nThe North American Company was a holding company incorporated in New Jersey on June 14, 1890, and controlled by Henry Villard, to succeed to the assets and property of the Oregon and Transcontinental Company. It owned public utilities and public transport companies and was broken up in 1946, largely to comply with the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935.\nIts headquarters were at 60 Broadway in Manhattan.\n\nHoldings\nIn 1889 New Jersey passed legislation to facilitate the control of other companies by another corporation with a goal of encouraging trusts to convert into holding companies and relocate to that state. To take advantage of these expanded corporate powers, in 1890 Oregon and Transcontinental, which was an Oregon corporation, re-incorporated as a holding company in New Jersey and became the North American Company.By 1940, North American was a US$2.3 billion holding company directly and indirectly heading up 80 companies. It controlled ten major direct subsidiaries in eight of which it owned at least 79%. Three of the ten were major holding companies:\nUnion Electric Company of St. Louis, Missouri\nWashington Railway and Electric Company\nNorth American Light and Power CompanyFour of the ten direct subsidiaries were operating companies:\n\nCleveland Electric Illuminating Company\nPacific Gas and Electric\nDetroit Edison Company\nWisconsin Electric Power CompanyThe remaining three of the ten direct subsidiaries were:\n\nNorth American Utility Securities Corporation\nWest Kentucky Coal Company\n60 Broadway Building CorporationAt various times during its existence, North American also owned substantial interests in these other companies as well:\n\nThe Milwaukee Electric Railway and Light Company: Formed in 1896 as a subsidiary of the North American Company. By 1929, it operated within North American Company along with Wisconsin Electric Power Company, which became the consolidated name of the two operating companies in 1938. It now belongs to Wisconsin Energy Corporation (NYSE: WEC)\nCapital Transit: Formed on December 1, 1933, in Washington, D.C. from merger of Washington Railway, Capital Traction, and Washington Rapid Transit. North American owned it through its holding company subsidiary, Washington Railway and Electric Company, which in turn was the holding company for the merged lines, owning 50% of Capital Transit.\nPotomac Electric Power Company\nCincinnati Gas & Electric Company\nUnion Light, Heat and Power of Covington, Kentucky\nNorthern Natural Gas Company\nButte Electric and Power Company\nLaclede Gas Company\nEdison Securities Corporation\nWired Radio, Inc. (Muzak)\nNorth American Edison Company\nSt. Louis United Railways Company\n\nHistory\nThe Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 passed with the intent of breaking up interstate electric holding companies by limiting company operations to a single state, thus subjecting them to effective state regulation. The North American Company fought the legislation in court, and the company was not broken up by the Securities and Exchange Commission until their loss before the Supreme court in North American Co. v. SEC on April 1, 1946.\n\nDow Jones Industrial Average\nNorth American's stock was one of the twelve component stocks of the May 1896 original Dow Jones Industrial Average, but it was replaced later that same year. In 1928, when the number of stocks comprising the DJIA was increased to 30, North American was re-added to the list but was replaced again in 1930. The two periods when it was a component were:\n\nMay 26, 1896 – August 26, 1896, replaced by U. S. Cordage\nOctober 1, 1928 – January 29, 1930, replaced by Johns-Manville\n\nSee also\nJohn I. Beggs (former director)\nClement Studebaker Jr. (chairman of North American Light and Power Co)\nPassage 8:\nAlfred A. Marcus\nAlfred Allen Marcus (born 1950) is an American author and the Edson Spencer Professor of Strategy and Technology Leadership at the Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota and the Technological Leadership Institute. He has worked as a consultant with companies such as 3M, Corning Inc., Xcel Energy, Medtronic, General Mills, and IBM and has also taught as a visiting professor at Technion, INCAE, BI Norwegian Business School, Fordham University, and MIT.\n\nEnvironmental and energy policy career\nMarcus was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and grew up in the Squirrel Hill neighborhood. He attended the University of Chicago for his bachelor's and master's degrees, before finishing his PhD in political science at Harvard University under James Q. Wilson. Outside academy, he has worked on environmental and energy policy analysis during the Carter and Reagan years at the Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers in Seattle, Washington. There he conducted and participated in studies on the commercialization of alternative energy technologies and new energy saving technologies.\nFollowing the Three Mile Island nuclear power incident, he also became involved in the work carried out by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the organization and management of nuclear power plants. Marcus has written many academic articles relating to organizational safety in publications like the Academy of Management Journal, the Strategic Management Journal, and Organization Science.\n\nPublished works\nHis work focuses primarily on the relationship between public policy, the environment, and American business and his books include: \n\nPromise and Performance: Choosing and Implementing an Environmental Policy (1980) - Praeger. ISBN 0-313-207070\nThe Adversary Economy (1984) - Praeger. ISBN 0-899-300553\nManaging Environmental Issues: A Casebook (1992) - Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-135-638917\nControversial Issues in Energy Policy (1992) - SAGE Publications. ISBN 0-803-939701\nReinventing Environmental Regulation: Lessons from Project XL (2002) -Routledge. ISBN 1-891-853090\nStrategic Foresight - A New Look at Scenarios (2010). - Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0-230-611729\nInnovations in Sustainability (2015) - Cambridge University Press. ISBN 1-107-42111X\n\nSelected bibliography\nSee also\nPaul Shrivastava\nPassage 9:\nNorth American Co. v. SEC\nNorth American Co. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 327 U.S. 686 (1946), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) order under the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) directing a public utility holding company to divest its securities of all companies except for one electric company did not violate the Commerce Clause or the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.\n\nBackground\nPUHCA was one of a number of trust-busting and securities regulation initiatives that were enacted in response to the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and ensuing Great Depression, including the collapse of Samuel Insull's public utility holding companies. By 1932, the eight largest utility holding companies controlled 73 percent of the investor-owned electric industry. Their complex, highly leveraged, corporate structures were very difficult for individual states to regulate. PUHCA required electric company holding companies to register with the SEC, and authorized the SEC to limit a holding company to a single integrated electric system through the divestiture of its other public utility and unrelated companies.\nThe North American Company, formed in 1890, was a holding company in a system that by 1940 contained 80 companies operating in seventeen states and the District of Columbia. These included the Union Electric Company, which operated an electric system around St. Louis, Missouri, and subsidiaries in Illinois and Iowa, the Washington Railway and Electric Company, and the North American Light and Power Company with systems in Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, and Iowa and its subsidiaries Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Pacific Gas and Electric, and Detroit Edison Company. In addition, North American also owned an investment trust company and West Kentucky Coal Company. Together the various electric systems served more than 3,000,000 customers in a service territory of 165,000 square miles.\nNorth American initially challenged the constitutionality of PUHCA and requested an injunction against its enforcement, but the Supreme Court in Landis v. North American Co., held that the case was premature and that North American should register and then litigate the constitutionality of PUHCA after the SEC conducted its proceeding. North American then registered in 1937 as a holding company with the SEC, reserving its right to challenge the validity of the remaining portions of PUHCA. After initiating an administrative proceeding, the SEC issued an order requiring divestiture of North American's securities in companies other than the Union Electric Company. North American appealed, but in 1943 the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the order. Arguing that ownership of securities was not interstate commerce within the meaning of the Commerce Clause and that the divestiture ordered by the SEC was a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment, North American appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.\n\nOpinion\nThe opinion by Justice Murphy first concluded that North American was engaged in interstate commerce and through its substantial stock ownership dominated its subsidiaries. The opinion then noted that North American's argument that PUHCA's divestiture provision was invalid because ownership of securities was not commerce had been previously rejected by the Court in the anti-trust case of Northern Securities Co. v. United States. Under its authority under the Commerce Clause, Congress could regulate to protect the freedom of interstate commerce using any means that were lawful and not prohibited by the Constitution. Under Northern Securities, Congress could deal with and affect the ownership of securities to protect the freedom of commerce, which it did in fashioning the divestiture remedy in PUHCA.\nLastly, the Court dismissed the takings argument, noting that Congress had weighed the benefit to shareholders of efficient, common management of diversified companies against the actual and potential harm to the public, investors, and consumers from the use of pooled investments, and determined that the economic advantages of a holding company atop an unintegrated, sprawling electric system were not commensurate with the resulting economic disadvantages. In addition, it was not clear that there would be a loss necessary for a takings claim under the Fifth Amendment. PUHCA does not require the dumping or forced liquidation of the securities on the market for cash, so the stock of the companies ordered divested could be distributed to the shareholders or sold under a plan that protects shareholder rights. The Court determined that it could not conclude that North American shareholders were disadvantaged by the operation of the divestiture provision of PUHCA.\nJustices Reed, Douglas and Jackson did not participate in the consideration of the case. Although Chief Justice Stone had initially recused himself for a disclosed reason, but when he discovered that his disqualification plus those of the other justices would result in the lack of a quorum, he reversed his position.\n\nSubsequent events\nPUHCA was repealed by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 effective February 8, 2006.\n\nSee also\nList of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 327",6 "char_len": 76962,7 "document_hash": "6683e65560d431e5f7d7fbb24c3789e2c2a448a021b1a5ae6847cb22f3f26547",8 "questions": [9 {10 "question_id": "q00",11 "qtype": "hotpotqa",12 "question": "Which utility holding company did Alfred A. Marcus work as a consultant?"13 }14 ]15}