DelFest has finalized their 2016 lineup and has revealed its late night schedule, and as per usual, it includes some of the most talented string bands in the scene today. Late night festivities will get underway on Thursday, May 26 with performances from the Infamous Stringdusters featuring Nicki Bluhm and Portland’s finest, Fruition. Heading into the weekend, Yonder Mountain String Band and Horseshoes & Hand Grenades are slated to perform late Friday night, with Greensky Bluegrass and Cabinet spearheading Saturday’s late night spot.To cap it all off, Sunday night will include late night sets from Americana five-piece The HillBenders and the Travelin’ McCourys playing a Sunday Sendoff show with long time friend and collaborator Keller Williams. Late night tickets must be purchased separately from your DelFest tickets. Visit the festival’s website here for more details.Check out the complete 2016 DelFest lineup below:
Dear EarthTalk: What was the BULB Act pertaining to light bulb energy efficiency that just failed to pass in the House of Representatives? –Betsy Edgerton, Columbus, OHThe Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act (H.R. 2417) was a failed attempt in July 2011 by some Republicans in the House to repeal a 2007 law mandating increased efficiency for light bulbs sold anywhere in the U.S. Sponsors of the bill cited the 2007 bulb efficiency requirements—whereby light bulbs must be 25 to 30 percent more efficient by 2014 and then as much as 60 percent more efficient by 2020—as a key example of how government overreaches its authority.“The 2010 elections demonstrated that Americans are fed up with government intrusion,” said Representative Joe Barton, the Texas Republican who proposed the repeal. “The federal government has crept so deep into our lives that federal agencies now determine what kind of light bulbs the American people are allowed to purchase.” It’s ironic that the new standards were put in place by Republican President George W. Bush as part of his Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, a sweeping update of the country’s energy policy. At the time, the bill, including the provisions about light bulb efficiency, enjoyed widespread bi-partisan support.The fact that the BULB Act couldn’t muster enough votes in the Republican-controlled House to pass by the required two-thirds majority shows that even many conservative lawmakers would rather have the country save money and energy than waste it unnecessarily on inefficient lighting. The repeal effort did garner 233 votes, but the 193 opposed were more than enough to override it given House rules.Maryland’s Steny Hoyer, Democratic Whip in the House, derided the sponsors of the repeal attempt for focusing on the wrong priorities in these dire economic times. “By bringing misguided bills like this one to the floor instead of a comprehensive jobs plan, it is clear that House Republicans are still in the dark.”Even the National Electrical Manufacturers Association and General Electric came out against repealing the increased efficiency standards, given the strides industry has made in recent years to roll with the punches and design more efficient bulbs, fixtures and electricity distribution methods.Analysts wonder if the 2007 efficiency requirements will sound the death knell for incandescent bulbs, which have not changed significantly since first invented by Thomas Edison in 1879. While newer, more efficient styles of bulbs—from compact fluorescents (CFLs) to halogens to light-emitting diodes (LEDs) —may be significantly more expensive than their incandescent counterparts (by as much as a factor of 50! ), consumers will likely make up the difference and then some over the long term as energy savings accrue. The Department of Energy estimates that the switchover to newer, more efficient bulbs will save American households upwards of $50 per year by 2015, or some $6 billion in the aggregate. 1 2
The study used the WM Common Investment Fund universe – with total assets of £4bn (€4.7bn) as at 31 December 2012 – as a proxy.The results show that even a small over-distribution or under-distribution can have a significant effect on the real value of a portfolio over 20 years.With 2% taken out of the portfolio above the 3% sustainable level, its value would be reduced by 33% over the period.Conversely, under-spending by 2% per annum would add nearly 50% to the real value of the portfolio after 20 years.By reviewing all 10 and 25-year periods over the last 113 years, Newton found that holding more in equities increases the overall probability of maintaining the purchasing power of invested capital, albeit at the cost of greater volatility in the short term.However, even over 25-year cycles, no combination of asset allocation and withdrawal rate gave an implied 100% probability of maintaining the real purchasing power of capital.Over a 10-year horizon, there was a one-in-five chance even an all-equity portfolio distributing just 2% per annum would have failed to protect the real value of an average charity’s capital.The research also finds that charities can significantly reduce the volatility of their income by adopting a ‘smoothing’ withdrawal policy.This sets annual spending as a percentage of the average of several years’ (say five) portfolio values, rather than just operating according to a year-by-year framework.To ensure a sustainable distribution rate, the report suggests a number of practical approaches trustees should consider: The judicious use of spending reviews to bring spending back towards a sustainable 3% levelSpending income, but not capital, and investing for greater levels of capital growthManaging the downside in investment returns by actively managed strategiesUsing a formula to smooth withdrawalsAndrew Pitt, head of charities at Newton, said: “The current financial backdrop is increasingly challenging the assumptions investors make about future returns. The key question for charity trustees is: what is a reasonable level of annual withdrawal to take from a portfolio without depreciating its long-term value?“Our research shows what constitutes a sustainable rate of withdrawal for a charity to make from its investment portfolio. The most important implication of our analysis is that charity trustees should address this topic as part of the regular review of their portfolio.”The report can be downloaded here. UK charities spending more than 3% of the value of their long-term investment portfolios each year face a significant risk of eroding the real value of their capital, according to a report.While many charities are withdrawing 4% of their capital every year – in the belief that investment returns will maintain the purchasing power of their remaining endowment – the report says this may be unsustainable if the real value of capital is to be preserved.“Sustainable Portfolio ‘Withdrawal Rates’ for Charities”, from Newton Investment Management, suggests the typical portfolio operated by UK charities, made up of 60% equities and 40% bonds, has generated a long-term return of just 3%.Withdrawing 4% a year will therefore reduce the real value of a portfolio by one-sixth over 20 years.
The playoff picture is starting to shape up which means a number of things, depending on where your team sits in the standings.It ultimately boils down to three main ideologies at the trade deadline: buying, selling or sitting. Teams looking to extend their season past 82 games are typically the ones shopping for one or two key pieces to prolong their Stanley Cup run. Where do they look for these pieces? From the sellers — the ones on the outside looking in and booking vacations for mid-April. These teams can still benefit from this relationship by securing future draft picks or dumping unwise contracts on other teams. Then there are those who sit idly by while the others do their bidding. MORE: Top 10 trade candidates coming out of the NHL All-Star breakIt’s likely every team is involved in conversations one way or another but not every team will make a move. This might be because a team feels comfortable with the guys they have in the building or, in the case of a struggling team, they want to hold onto their best pieces for the future even though other teams are asking for them.Players in the last year of their contracts are usually hot commodities as “rentals” for the playoffs before getting the opportunity to test free agency in the offseason. However it shakes out, there are usually a few big names on the move late in the season. Here’s everything you need to know ahead of the 2020 NHL trade deadline:When is the 2020 NHL trade deadline?Date: Monday, Feb. 24.Time: 3 p.m. ETThe 2020 NHL trade window officially closes at 3 p.m. ET on Monday, Feb. 24. This means that all calls proposing trades between teams must be approved by this time in order for the trade to go through. However, trade calls may occur between teams and the league office after the deadline but NHL officials need to be made aware of the details of the trade prior to 3 p.m.MORE: Five forwards who could move teams by the NHL trade deadlineWho are the top targets at the NHL trade deadline?There are a number of names being tossed around ahead of the deadline, but none more so than New York Rangers forward Chris Kreider. From Boston to Colorado, there are reports of as many as eight teams who have the 2020 All-Star in their sights. He is one of those potential rental players in the last year of his contract. Another Ranger player reportedly gauging interest is backup goaltender Alexandar Georgiev. The 23-year-old has appeared in 24 games this season with 22 starts and a 12-10-1 record. He has a 30-27-6 career record since coming to the NHL from Liiga’s TPS in Finland in 2017.Detroit Red Wings defenseman Trevor Daley reportedly wants out as his team sits at rock bottom of the standings.Other names include Ottawa Senators forward Jean-Gabriel Pageau, Montreal Canadiens forward Ilya Kovalchuk and New Jersey Devils defenseman Sami Vatanen.Latest NHL trade rumors and newsIlya Kovalchuk trade grades: Capitals add offensive weapon from MontrealBrenden Dillon trade grades: Capitals add defensive depth as Sharks begin anewTyler Toffoli trade grade: Vancouver Canucks pay hefty price for offensive threat Do Flames still need top-six forward after recent offensive outburst?New Jersey Devils, once thought of as contenders, move forward with rebuildBlake Coleman trade grades: Lightning gain depth, Devils add top prospect Nolan FooteIs Sami Vatanen the most valuable Devils trade chip?Montreal Canadiens must decide whether to go all-in or fold with Ilya Kovalchuk, others at NHL trade deadlineMaple Leafs looking to strengthen defense before NHL trade deadlineChris Kreider, Kasperi Kapanen and the 10 players most likely to be moved at NHL trade deadlineCalgary Flames look to bolster defensive depth and scoring at NHL trade deadlineOttawa Senators should steer clear of full-sale strategy at NHL trade deadline, retain Jean-Gabriel PageauFirmly in win-now mode, Pittsburgh Penguins gamble big on Jason ZuckerWill Winnipeg Jets make big splash to replace Dustin Byfuglien? Could Edmonton Oilers be in on Chris Kreider sweepstakes?Could Vancouver Canucks add Tyler Toffoli or Wayne Simmonds at NHL trade deadline?Los Angeles Kings should go all in, trade Alec Martinez and Tyler ToffoliToronto Maple Leafs trade grade: Much-needed goaltending, grit come over from Los Angeles KingsToronto Maple Leafs acquire Jack Campbell, Kyle Clifford from Los Angeles KingsCanadiens, Ducks and the teams that could weaponize their cap space at the deadlineBruins, Hurricanes interested in San Jose Sharks’ Brenden DillonFive forwards who could move teams by the trade deadlineJean-Gabriel Pageau, Chris Kreider and the top 10 trade candidates coming out of the NHL All-Star breakPittsburgh Penguins reportedly remain interested in Minnesota Wild’s Jason ZuckerDetroit Red Wings’ Trevor Daley reportedly desires move to playoff contenderFive potential landing spots for New York Rangers forward Chris KreiderBoston Bruins seek New York Rangers’ Chris Kreider as top deadline targetToronto Maple Leafs have reportedly inquired about New York Rangers goaltender Alexandar Georgiev