Vermont’s Green Mountain Power files for rate increase of 4.84 percent

first_imgGreen Mountain Power today asked the Vermont Public Service Board to authorize a 4.84 percent rate adjustment to go into effect on October 1, 2009, as part of its alternative regulation plan. The increase is primarily due to factors that affect all utilities in the region, such as the costs of reliability upgrades to the New England transmission grid.”We continue to work hard to reduce every single controllable expense on behalf of our customers,” said Mary Powell, Green Mountain Power President and Chief Executive Officer. “In fact, less than half a percent of the rate increase is due to changes in Green Mountain Power’s operating costs that are under our direct control. During these challenging economic times, we know that any change in rates will be difficult for our customers, and in response we have taken extra steps to keep this increase as low as possible, including keeping payroll costs flat and cutting other operating expenses.”Green Mountain Power already operates very efficiently, with the most customers served per employee of any utility in the state, and meets or exceeds very high customer service standards, such as how quickly customers’ calls are answered and the reliability of the electric service.To ensure system-wide reliability, every state pays a pro-rated share of all regional transmission reliability projects, based on its percentage of the total New England electric load. Vermont’s four percent cost share requirement for the significant investments in the transmission infrastructure New England has made to meet reliability requirements contributes to this rate request. Other states, in turn, invest proportionately in Vermont transmission reliability upgrades.Green Mountain Power’s overall average rates are the lowest of the large utilities in New England and Vermont’s five largest utilities, based on the most recent data available. The rate advantage is due in large part to long term contracts with Vermont Yankee and Hydro Quebec, which make up three-quarters of the Company’s power supply, and to the rest of New England’s heavy use of fossil fuels, which are more volatile in cost.”We will continue to focus our efforts on delivering the most cost effective power to our customers,” said Ms. Powell. “And as we work to replace expiring electric energy contracts, we are seeking the most cost competitive and reliable sources that are also low in carbon emissions and other air pollutants.”As is the case with many companies, Green Mountain Power has been affected financially by the recession. And because utilities need to borrow large amounts of money to maintain their generation facilities, distribution system and other infrastructure to serve customers, they need to be financially stable or risk higher borrowing charges that ultimately get passed on in higher rates.”Customers benefit by Green Mountain Power maintaining financial stability,” said Ms. Powell. “Financial markets react unfavorably when a utility’s ability to earn a return on investment is greatly reduced. They see this as a risk and charge more for lending money. This, in turn, increases costs to customers.”Green Mountain Power has operated under an alternative regulation plan since January 2007, which streamlines regulation while retaining appropriate regulatory review. It has been effective in significantly reducing regulatory costs while offering positive risk assurances to credit rating agencies.If the full rate request is approved, the monthly bill for an average residential customer using 600 kilowatt-hours would increase by $4.32, from $89.29 to $93.61.About Green Mountain PowerGreen Mountain Power ( is external)) transmits, distributes and sells electricity and utility construction services in the State of Vermont in a service territory with approximately one quarter of Vermont’s population. It serves more than 200,000 people and businesses.Source: GMP. COLCHESTER, VT–(Marketwire – July 31, 2009) –last_img read more

LCP raises alarm about ‘rigidity’ in DB funding code proposals

first_imgAdditional investment de-risking would mean it could take longer to fill the deficit in question, in turn meaning a longer period during which an employer insolvency could leave members short of full benefits.Potentially forcing companies that may already be struggling to make extra contributions, meanwhile, could further weaken their position and again increase the chance that the sponsor collapses before the scheme was fully funded.LCP’s concerns have to do with the way TPR has proposed to measure the acceptability of a bespoke valuation using “fast track” principles and parameters.“Bespoke” and “fast track” are the two ‘tracks’ schemes would have to choose from to report to the regulator based on what it has set out so far for consultation.TPR is consulting on the new funding code in two steps, the first being about the principles it is proposing should underpin valuations and how these could be applied in practice. The second consultation is due to be on an actual draft code.   “There is a real risk that these new requirements could force too many schemes into a one-size-fits-all mould”Jon Forsyth, partner at LCP In its report, LCP said fast track parameters should not be used as a rigid benchmark for bespoke valuations. Instead, the bespoke approach should be based on integrated risk management including covenant, “supported by modelling as required”, that considered the balance of risks being taken by all parties.LCP also has concerns about other aspects of TPR’s proposal, such as an expectation that investment returns be benchmarked against the return on Gilts, and the lack of a special framework for open schemes.LCP partner Jon Forsyth said: “The DB pension universe is incredibly diverse, and there is a real risk that these new requirements could force too many schemes into a one-size-fits-all mould.”He added: “Whilst it is understandable that TPR wants to press trustees to reduce risk and employers to fill pension deficits as quickly as possible, our modelling suggests that if this is over-done then in some cases it could actually reduce member security.”TPR has previously said it envisaged the majority of DB plans would qualify for a fast track approach. Today it issued the following response to LCP’s report:“We want to hear views from stakeholders on how we can set clearer expectations with regards to DB funding. Our proposed principles build on the importance of trustees setting a long-term objective and putting a realistic plan in place to get there.“There is good evidence that schemes which have managed their risks well, and have built in sufficient resilience in their long-term funding strategy, are likely to have fared better as market conditions have worsened. Integrated risk management is needed now more than ever.”“After the consultation closes on 2 September, we will consider the responses, prevailing market conditions, where schemes currently are and undertake an impact assessment to inform the setting of the proposed Fast Track parameters. We will subsequently consult on the funding code itself.”In May TPR issued a strong rebuttal of calls for it to revise or abandon its planned new funding code. This was following suggestions by Sir Steve Webb, a former UK pensions minister and now a partner at LCP, who had questioned the appropriateness of the regulator’s proposals in light of the coronavirus pandemic and the need to support economic recovery.Webb told IPE that in today’s report, LCP was recognising that a regulator’s instinct would be to try to get pensions paid as quickly as possible, but saying it was important to give due weight to sponsor covenant as “the other side of the coin”.“The report does say there isn’t a simple answer,” he added. “It’s saying you can’t be one-dimensional about this.”Looking for IPE’s latest magazine? Read the digital edition here. The UK regulator’s proposals for a new defined benefit (DB) funding code could in some cases lead to worse outcomes for scheme members, sponsors and the Pension Protection Fund, LCP has said in a report seeking to encourage industry discussion and responses to the regulator’s consultation.In the consultancy’s eyes, the regime outlined by The Pensions Regulator so far threatens to be too rigid in important aspects, with insufficient consideration being given to the risk of a company becoming insolvent.“We are concerned that the consultation document appears to be focussed on investment de-risking and setting higher funding targets, independent of the interaction with covenant and the impact on expected member outcomes,” said LCP in its report.It argues that requiring more caution on investment or increasing demands for short-term contributions could have potentially damaging effects on schemes and employers.last_img read more

Dugarry: Griezmann needs to sort things out with Messi

first_img read also:Barcelona coach denies humiliating Griezmann “It is true that Lionel Messi could make him a few more passes, but sincerely it does not shock me. “Griezmann loses balls, he doesn’t play well. Griezmann has only to go to Messi to have them solve their problem.” FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmail分享 Durgarry believes Griezmann’s woes over his first season with Barca is due to the lack of a connection with captain Messi. He told RMC: “He has lost confidence, his performance is not good.Advertisement Former Barcelona striker, Christophe Dugarry, has urged Antoine Griezmann to sort out his differences with Lionel Messi. Promoted ContentLorem ipsum dolor sit amet Lorem ipsum dolor sit ametLorem ipsum dolor sit amet Lorem ipsum dolor sit ametLorem ipsum dolor sit amet Lorem ipsum dolor sit ametLorem ipsum dolor sit amet Lorem ipsum dolor sit ametLorem ipsum dolor sit amet Lorem ipsum dolor sit ametLorem ipsum dolor sit amet Lorem ipsum dolor sit ametLorem ipsum dolor sit amet Lorem ipsum dolor sit ametLorem ipsum dolor sit amet Lorem ipsum dolor sit ametLorem ipsum dolor sit amet Lorem ipsum dolor sit ametLorem ipsum dolor sit amet Lorem ipsum dolor sit ametLorem ipsum dolor sit amet Lorem ipsum dolor sit ametLorem ipsum dolor sit amet Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet Loading… last_img read more

Virgil van Dijk wins UEFA Men’s Player of the Year award

first_imgJury members picked their top three players, with the first receiving five points, the second three and the third one. Coaches were not allowed to vote for players from their own team.Van Dijk testimonials“You could write a book about Virgil van Dijk’s strengths and abilities. He is still young, but he’s so mature.”Jürgen Klopp, Liverpool manager“The ‘Swagger Don’. Virgil is suave on and off the pitch. He makes everything look easy, doesn’t he? When you’ve got him behind you, you’ve got that feeling of security. He’s been an absolute rock all season.”Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, Liverpool midfielder“He embodies the full picture of a defender: his radiance, the way he captains the group, his presence on the pitch, and also now the prizes – the Champions League was fantastic. He can be an example to anyone who wants to aspire to be the best.”Ronald Koeman, Netherlands coach Source: Liverpool defender Virgil van Dijk has been named UEFA Men’s Player of the Year for 2018/19.The Dutch international beat off competition from three-time UEFA Men’s Player of the Year Cristiano Ronaldo and two-time winner Lionel Messi. The 28-year-old centre-back received the trophy on stage in Monaco during the UEFA Champions League group stage draw.The top ten1 Virgil van Dijk (Liverpool & Netherlands) – 305 points2 Lionel Messi (Barcelona & Argentina) – 207 points3 Cristiano Ronaldo (Juventus & Portugal) – 74 points5 Sadio Mané (Liverpool & Senegal) – 51 points6 Mohamed Salah (Liverpool & Egypt) – 49 points7 Eden Hazard (Chelsea/Real Madrid & Belgium) – 38 points8 Matthijs de Ligt (Ajax/Juventus & Netherlands) – 27 points8 Frenkie de Jong (Ajax/Barcelona & Netherlands) – 27 points10 Raheem Sterling (Manchester City & England) – 12 pointsWhy did Van Dijk win the vote?Following Liverpool’s 2018 final defeat by Real Madrid, Van Dijk had every reason for nerves ahead of the 2019 decider, but his concentration did not waver. He shut out the opposition and was named man of the match as his side edged out Tottenham Hotspur in Madrid.Fearless since arriving from Southampton in January 2018, Van Dijk kept more clean sheets than any defender in Europe’s top five leagues in 2018/19. While Liverpool fell narrowly short in the Premier League, his solid presence (and occasional goal scoring efforts) provided the platform for a sixth European Cup.Season in numbers Roll of honourcenter_img 2018/19 – Virgil van Dijk (Liverpool & Netherlands)2017/18 ─ Luka Modrić (Real Madrid & Croatia)2016/17 ─ Cristiano Ronaldo (Real Madrid & Portugal)2015/16 ─ Cristiano Ronaldo (Real Madrid & Portugal)2014/15 ─ Lionel Messi (Barcelona & Argentina)2013/14 ─ Cristiano Ronaldo (Real Madrid & Portugal)2012/13 ─ Franck Ribéry (Bayern & France)2011/12 ─ Andrés Iniesta (Barcelona & Spain)2010/11 ─ Lionel Messi (Barcelona & Argentina) Honours: UEFA Champions League winner, UEFA Nations League runner-up, English Premier League runner-up, PFA Players’ Player of the Year.UEFA Champions LeagueAppearances: 12Goals: 2Assists: 2Domestic leagueAppearances: 38Goals: 4Assists: 2How Van Dijk was chosenThe jury comprised the 80 coaches of the clubs that participated in the group stages of the 2018/19 UEFA Champions League (32) and UEFA Europa League (48), along with 55 journalists selected by the European Sports Media (ESM) group, one from each of UEFA’s member associations.last_img read more