Central Vermont Public Service Corporation – Consolidated Earnings Release (dollars in thousands, except per share amounts) Three Months Ended Twelve Months Ended December 31 December 31Condensed income statement 2009 2008 2009 2008 ———- ———- ———- ———-Operating revenues: Retail sales $ 71,997 $ 71,732 $ 277,529 $ 283,073 Resale sales 13,027 8,211 54,279 48,641 Provision for rate refund (561) (234) (1,689) (296) Other 2,490 2,975 11,979 10,744 ———- ———- ———- ———-Total operating revenues 86,953 82,684 342,098 342,162 ———- ———- ———- ———-Operating expenses: Purchased power – affiliates and other 40,091 41,132 157,982 165,451 Other operating expenses 44,084 42,059 160,195 153,403 Income tax expense 492 (947) 5,033 4,878 ———- ———- ———- ———-Total operating expense 84,667 82,244 323,210 323,732 ———- ———- ———- ———-Utility operating income 2,286 440 18,888 18,430 ———- ———- ———- ———-Other income: Equity in earnings of affiliates 4,276 4,022 17,472 16,264 Other, net 3 13 1,511 (879) Income tax expense (1,632) (1,512) (5,640) (5,862) ———- ———- ———- ———- Total other income 2,647 2,523 13,343 9,523 ———- ———- ———- ———-Interest expense 2,753 2,968 11,482 11,568 ———- ———- ———- ———-Net income 2,180 (5) 20,749 16,385Dividends declared on preferred stock 92 92 368 368 ———- ———- ———- ———-Earnings available for common stock $ 2,088 $ (97) $ 20,381 $ 16,017 ========== ========== ========== ==========Per common share dataEarnings per share of common stock – basic $ 0.18 $ (0.01) $ 1.75 $ 1.53Earnings per share of common stock – diluted $ 0.18 $ (0.01) $ 1.74 $ 1.52Average shares of common stock outstanding – basic 11,697,392 10,863,926 11,660,170 10,458,220Average shares of common stock outstanding – diluted 11,764,277 10,863,926 11,705,518 10,536,131Dividends declared per share of common stock $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.92 $ 0.92Dividends paid per share of common stock $ 0.23 $ 0.23 $ 0.92 $ 0.92Supplemental financial statement dataBalance sheet Investments in affiliates $ 129,733 $ 102,232 Total assets $ 632,152 $ 626,126 Notes Payable (reclassified to long-term debt) $ 0 $ 10,800 Common stock equity $ 231,423 $ 219,479 Long-term debt (excluding current portions) $ 201,611 $ 167,500Cash FlowsCash and cash equivalents at beginning of period $ 6,722 $ 3,803 Cash provided by operating activities 42,042 28,400 Cash used for investing activities (52,931) (40,498) Cash provided by financing activities 6,236 15,017 ———- ———- Cash and cash equivalents at end of period $ 2,069 $ 6,722 ========== ========== Refer to our annual 2009 Form 10-K for additional information.Source: RUTLAND, VT — (Marketwire) — 03/15/10 — CentralVermont Public Service (NYSE: CV) 2009 results compared to 2008Operating revenues decreased $0.1 million year-over-year, including a $5.5 million decrease in retail revenues, an increase of $1.4 million in the provision for rate refunds, partially offset by a $1.2 million increase in other operating revenues, and a $5.6 million increase in resale revenue. The decrease in retail revenues resulted from lower average usage resulting from the sluggish economy, energy conservation, and the loss of three commercial and industrial customers due to plant closures, partially offset by higher average unit prices due to customer usage mix. The provision for rate refund is related to the 2009 deferrals of over-collection of power, production and transmission costs as required by the power cost adjustment clause within our alternative regulation plan. The over-collection of power costs is being returned to retail customers through the second quarter of 2010. Other operating revenues increased primarily due to increased sales of transmission rights and renewable energy credits and increased wholesale rates. Resale revenues increased due to higher volumes of excess power available for resale, partially offset by lower average market prices.Purchased power expense decreased $7.5 million, primarily due to a $9.7 million reduction of short-term power purchases and a $3.9 million decrease in purchases from Independent Power Producers. These reductions were partially offset by an increase in other power costs of $6.1 million. This was primarily due to higher output at the Vermont Yankee plant in 2009 and because there were no refueling outages at the Vermont Yankee or Millstone III plants in 2009. Other operating expenses increased $6.8 million, primarily due to a $5.7 million increase in transmission expenses due to higher rates and higher costs from Vermont Transco LLC (“Transco”) for its capital projects, offset by higher NOATT reimbursements. Other increased costs included higher regulatory amortizations of $2.2 million, primarily related to the recovery of 2008 major storm costs, higher depreciation expense of $1.3 million, higher property taxes of $1.3 million and higher reserves for uncollectible accounts of $0.5 million. These higher costs were partially offset by a $3.8 million decrease in maintenance expenses, primarily due to lower service restoration costs. There were several major storms in 2008, but just one major storm in 2009.Equity in earnings of affiliates increased $1.2 million, principally due to the $3.1 million investment that we made in Transco in December 2008, and other accumulated adjustments. Other income, net increased $2.4 million, largely due to an increase in the cash surrender value of variable life insurance policies held in trust to fund a supplemental employee retirement plan.Fourth quarter 2009 results compared to 2008Fourth quarter operating revenues increased $4.3 million for many of the same reasons described above.Purchased power expense decreased $1 million for the same reasons described above. Short-term purchases decreased $5.9 million, partially offset by an increase in other purchases of $4.8 million.Other operating expenses increased $2 million, including a $2.4 million increase in transmission expenses, and for many of the same reasons described above. These higher costs were partially offset by lower maintenance costs for the same reasons described above.Equity in earnings of affiliates increased $0.3 million for the same reasons described above.2008 Common Stock IssuanceEarnings per share for 2009 reflect the impact of the November 2008 common stock issuance. On November 24, 2008, CV issued 1,190,000 shares, resulting in net proceeds of approximately $21.3 million. The net proceeds of the offering were used for general corporate purposes, including the repayment of debt, capital expenditures, investments in Transco and working capital requirements. The common stock issuance decreased per-diluted-share earnings by 18 cents in 2009. There was no significant impact to per-diluted-share earnings for the fourth quarter of 2009.2010 Financial GuidanceCV anticipates annual 2010 earnings to be in the range of $1.55 to $1.70 per diluted share. As part of the alternative regulation plan base rate filing approved by the Vermont Public Service Board, the company’s allowed rate of return for 2010 will be 9.59 percent, down from 9.77 percent for 2009.WebcastCV will host an earnings teleconference and webcast on March 15, 2010, beginning at 2 p.m. EDT. At that time, CV President and CEO Robert Young and CV Chief Financial Officer Pamela Keefe will discuss the company’s financial results, as well as progress made toward achieving the company’s long-term strategy.Interested parties may listen to the conference call live on the Internet by selecting the “CVPS Q4 2009 Earnings Call” link on the “Investor Relations” section of the company’s website at www.cvps.com(link is external). An audio archive of the call will be available later that day at the same location or by dialing 1-877-660-6853 within the U.S. or internationally by dialing 1-201-612-7415 and entering Account 286 and Conference ID 341962.About CVCV is Vermont’s largest electric utility, serving approximately 159,000 customers statewide. CV’s non-regulated subsidiary, Catamount Resources Corporation, sells and rents electric water heaters through a subsidiary, SmartEnergy Water Heating Services.Form 10-KOn Monday, March 15, 2010, the company filed its annual 2009 Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission. A copy of that report is available on our web site, www.cvps.com(link is external), under the “Investor Relations” section. Please refer to it for additional information regarding our condensed consolidated financial statements, results of operations, capital resources and liquidity. Central Vermont Public Service (NYSE: CV) reported consolidated earnings of $20.4 million, or $1.74 per diluted share of common stock, for the 12 months of 2009, compared to $16 million, or $1.52 per diluted share of common stock, for the same period in 2008.CV reported fourth-quarter 2009 consolidated earnings of $2.1 million, or 18 cents per diluted share of common stock, compared to a loss of $0.1 million, or 1 cent per diluted share of common stock, for the same period last year.”Perhaps most significant, Moody’s Investors Service rated the company at investment grade in the fourth quarter, markedly improving our borrowing capability,” President Bob Young said. “These ratings will allow CVPS to borrow short-term capital at lower rates than we could otherwise expect to receive, and will reduce or eliminate collateral requirements in many power purchase and power sales contracts, so this expands our options as we look to secure new power supply in the future.”We also plan to continue to make significant capital investments in our company and Vermont’s transmission system through Transco, providing customers with good reliability and investors with a solid return,” Young said.Financial Highlights– 2009 earnings of $20.4 million, or $1.74 per diluted share, 22 cents higher than 2008 — $0.1 million decrease in operating revenue — $7.5 million decrease in purchased power expense — $6.8 million increase in other operating expenses — $1.2 million increase in equity in earnings of affiliates — $2.4 million increase in other income, net– Fourth-quarter earnings of $2.1 million, or 18 cents per diluted share, 19 cents higher than 2008 — $4.3 million increase in operating revenue — $1.0 million decrease in purchased power expense — $2.0 million increase in other operating expenses — $0.3 million increase in equity in earnings of affiliates– Earnings for 2010 are forecasted to be in the range of $1.55 to $1.70 per diluted share Forward-Looking StatementsStatements contained in this press release that are not historical fact are forward-looking statements intended to qualify for the safe-harbors from the liability established by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Statements made that are not historical facts are forward-looking and, accordingly, involve estimates, assumptions, risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements. Actual results will depend, among other things, upon the actions of regulators, performance of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, effects of and changes in weather and economic conditions, volatility in wholesale electric markets, volatility in the financial markets, and our ability to maintain our current credit ratings. These and other risk factors are detailed in CV’s Securities and Exchange Commission filings. CV cannot predict the outcome of any of these matters; accordingly, there can be no assurance that such indicated results will be realized. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements that speak only as of the date of this press release. CV does not undertake any obligation to publicly release any revision to these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this press release. Reconciliation of Earnings Per Diluted Share Twelve Months Fourth Quarter 2009 vs. 2008 2009 vs. 2008 ————– ————–2008 Earnings per diluted share $ 1.52 $ (0.01)Year-over-Year Effects on Earnings: Lower purchased power expense 0.42 0.06 Higher equity in earnings of affiliates 0.09 0.02 Higher operating revenues 0.00 0.25 Higher transmission expense (0.32) (0.14) Common stock issuance (Nov. 2008) – 1,190,000 additional shares (0.18) 0.00 (Higher) lower other operating expenses (0.02) 0.01 Other (mostly variable life insurance) 0.23 (0.01) ————– ————–2009 Earnings per diluted share $ 1.74 $ 0.18 ============== ==============(a) The additional shares from the November 2008 stock issuance were excluded from the 11,764,277 average shares of common stock – diluted for the fourth quarter and the 11,705,518 average shares of common stock – diluted for the twelve months, for the purposes of computing the individual EPS variances shown above in order to provide comparable information for 2009 vs. 2008.
The document is part of Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s overhaul of homeland security strategy, according to an Associated Press (AP) report. It said Brown ordered the drafting of a list of threats shortly after he replaced Tony Blair in June 2007, arguing that previously classified assessments should be made public. See also: Calling itself “a first attempt to inform the public more fully of the types of risks that we face,” the report invites readers to provide feedback for consideration in future updates. The report is described as “an assessment of the most significant emergencies which the United Kingdom and its citizens could face over the next five years,” including accidents, natural events, and malicious attacks. The National Risk Register, prepared by Britain’s Cabinet Office, depicts pandemic flu as the biggest threat in terms of potential impact on the country, well above such risks as terrorist attacks, coastal flooding, and major industrial accidents. It says a pandemic could infect as much as half of the British population and kill as many as 750,000. Noting that 228,000 Britons died in the flu pandemic of 1918-19, the document says that history, scientific evidence, and modeling suggest that up to half the UK population could contract the flu and between 50,000 and 750,000 people could die of it. Previous government assessments also have mentioned the possibility of 750,000 deaths, the AP story said. “Experts agree that there is a high probability of another influenza pandemic occurring, but it is impossible to forecast its exact timing or the precise nature of its impact,” the report states. Aug 8, 2008 (CIDRAP News) A new report from the British government ranks pandemic influenza very high on the list of major security threats to the United Kingdom. The government also has “advanced supply agreements” to buy enough doses of pandemic-specific vaccine for the whole population, if needed, but delivery of the first doses would not start until 4 to 6 months after the emergence of the pandemic, according to the report. Full text of report “Normal life is likely to face wider social and economic disruption, significant threats to the continuity of essential services, lower production levels, shortages and distribution difficulties,” the document states. The document also discusses the threat of other new and emerging infectious diseases. It says the risk that a major new disease will arise in or spread to Britain is low. However, the emergence of a flu pandemic or other widespread infectious disease abroad could cause some of the 12 million British nationals living abroad to return home, which would have “a short term but significant impact” on the areas where they settle. The Register is intended to help people improve their own preparedness for the various threats. It lists further information resources, discusses business continuity planning, and offers suggestions for individual, family, or community-based preparations. The 52-page report portrays a pandemic as somewhat less likely than terrorist attacks on transport and crowded places but just slightly less likely than severe weather. The report does not suggest a numeric probability for any given event, but it portrays the comparative likelihood and impacts of various threats on a graph. Although the report does not rank threats in order of overall seriousness, a spokeswoman for the Cabinet Office said it does indicate that a pandemic is considered the most pressing concern, the AP reported. British Cabinet Office page with introductory information and links to the reporthttp://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/reports/national_risk_register.aspx Concerning preparations, it says the government has stockpiled enough oseltamivir (Tamiflu) to treat up to 25% of the population. “This should be sufficient to treat all those who fall ill in a pandemic of similar proportions to those that occurred in the 20th century,” it states.
The Corner 17 June 2016Family First Comment: No surprises. But the media may not report this one! Perhaps you could take the study and show the school nurse A new study by a pair of Notre Dame economists received some media attention this week. It found that school districts that instituted condom distribution programs in the early 1990s saw significant increases in the teen-fertility rate. This study fills an important gap in the existing research on contraceptive programs. There has been a considerable amount of academic research on Long Acting Reversible Contraceptives (LARCs) and oral contraceptives. However, there has been almost no academic research on high-school condom-distribution programs.The study is very rigorous. The authors identified 22 school districts in twelve states that launched condom-distribution programs during the 1990s. Some of these school districts are among the largest in the country including New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Overall, the study analyzes teen-fertility data from 396 high-population counties over a span of 19 years. A range of demographic and economic factors are held constant. It finds that if 100 percent of high-school students attended a school with a condom-distribution program, the teen-fertility rate would increase anywhere from 10 to 12 percent. Furthermore, this finding was fairly consistent across school districts with condom-distribution programs.The researchers were unable to determine how exactly the condom-distribution program increased teen-fertility rates. There is a possibility that these programs reduced the usage of oral contraceptives which tend to be more reliable. There is a possibility that after condom-distribution programs were instituted, there was less emphasis on programs encouraging teens to delay sexual activity. Finally, there is a possibility that condom-distribution programs resulted in more teen sexual activity. Interestingly, the study finds sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) increased in counties with condom-distribution programs. While this provides evidence that condom-distribution programs encouraged sexual risk taking — the authors warn that this finding has to be interpreted cautiously.Thus study has received some coverage from some mainstream-media outlets such as Vox and Slate. However, their spin is that condom-distribution programs need to be coupled with either counseling programs or sex-education curricula in order to be effective. The study does find that counseling programs result in reductions in the teen-fertility rate. However, most of the regressions find these reductions fail to offset the increase in teen fertility associated with the condom-distribution program.Overall, the study adds to an impressive body of research which shows that efforts to encourage contraceptive use either through mandates, subsidies, or distribution are ineffective at best or counterproductive at worst. In many countries, increases in contraception use are correlated with increase in the abortion rate. Additionally, this study is very similar to a recent University of Michigan study which showed that increases in the price of oral contraceptives on college campuses resulted in less sexual activity among college-age women. Unfortunately, such research typically receives scant attention from the mainstream media.http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/436798/condom-distribution-programs-1990s-increased-teen-fertility-rateREAD MORE: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2794728Keep up with family issues in NZ. Receive our weekly emails direct to your Inbox.
Warriors coach Steve Kerr explains what Lakers lose by firing Luke Walton Let’s face it, the Warriors are favored to win the NBA Finals this year, and it makes sense.After all, Golden State has made it to the championship four years in a row, and it’s won three of those times. Players and fans alike have racked their brains for the past few seasons, asking themselves what could dethrone a team that’s not only maintained an amazing core group, but continued to get better.Things could get interesting this year though. So here are 11 reasons to root for someone other than Golden State. Related News NBA playoffs 2019: Western Conference first-round previews, predictions 1. Someone could stop the Warriors’ three-peatThe Warriors have won the last two NBA championships and have a chance to make it three straight in 2019. If they do so, they’ll become the fourth franchise in NBA history to accomplish the feat.Los Angeles did it once in Minneapolis, MN, before doing it again after moving to California. Boston won an unmatchable eight straight during its prime years in the early 60’s. Lastly, the Bulls were able to three-peat twice under the leadership of the legendary Michael Jordan.Golden State has been dominant in recent memory, but a loss this year could keep its current group from ascending to the pinnacle of basketball.Frankly, people are getting tired of the same storyline in the postseason. But not everyone is rooting against the reigning champs.2. Defeat could spark a Golden State breakupThere’s been plenty of speculation about whether this is the last season the Warriors can keep Kevin Durant, Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson and Draymond Green together.Rumors are swirling Durant wants to move to New York to begin a new journey, since he’s already won back-to-back MVP awards in the NBA Finals.Like Durant, Thompson could likely be looking to get a big payday with a max contract after the season.Tempers flared between Green and Durant early in the season, which added more fuel to the fire. And if that’s not enough drama for you, add DeMarcus Cousins into the mix.Many question why any player would want to leave such an ideal situation, but imploding on the biggest stage might just send players separate ways. That could make the league a lot more interesting moving forward.3. You can’t root against LeBron JamesJames won’t be in the playoffs for the first time in nearly a decade. His eight-year streak has been snapped, as the Lakers failed to make the postseason.The Cleveland native went from homegrown superstar, to supervillain, to hometown hero and back to villain, and many grew to favor the exciting youngsters from Oakland, CA over time.But now Golden State is the seasoned veteran everyone wants to beat.James took a risk and received some criticism for his move to Los Angeles, and it didn’t pan out.Since you can’t root against James, why not root on an up-and-comer to uproot the juggernaut that is the Warriors?4. There are plenty of other interesting storiesThe Warriors have risen from mediocrity to greatness, but other teams have stories to tell as well.Squads like the Giannis Antetokounmpo-led Bucks and Swiss army knife Nuggets are climbing the ranks to challenge the champs.”The Process” could be nearing completion in Philadelphia and the Celtics are trying to figure out how to gel at the right time.The list goes on and on. So there are plenty of surprising stories to follow on the road to the Larry O’Brien Trophy.5. Root for the future of basketballThe playoffs are where rising stars can really make names for themselves.We saw it when Donovan Mitchell upset the Thunder last year, and when Jayson Tatum rose to another level of production en route to the Eastern Conference finals.Kevin Durant and Stephen Curry are on the wrong side of 30, and the rest of Golden State’s starters are getting there.The Warriors’ stars will undoubtedly remain at the top for a while, but wouldn’t you like to see what comes after them?6. The resurgence of the Eastern ConferenceFor the first time in a while, multiple teams in the Eastern Conference have a shot at winning an NBA championship.Only three Eastern Conference teams that weren’t led by LeBron James have won the NBA Finals in the last 20 years. Staggering isn’t it?Everyone raves about how dominant the West is, but it’s time to flip the script.7. Bandwagon followingHaving stars and winning games draws fans, and the Warriors are good at both.Not every Golden State fan has only been around for four years, but quite a few have been.If you’re a fan from an opposing team, it’s probably frustrating to see casual viewers become superfans in the blink of an eye.So hopefully an upset can hold off their bragging rights for some time.8. Golden State is jumping shipWarriors fans are everywhere, but the most loyal are probably in Oakland.Since their current location is not the most appealing, Golden State is taking its talents to San Francisco next season, which is about an hour down the road.It might not be crazy inconvenient for supporters in Oakland, but it’s a change nonetheless.Even if you’re not a Golden State Fan, you’d probably be upset if your home team left the city that built it up.9. The ring chasersThe team with the best shot at winning it all usually doesn’t land the top free agents, but Golden State has changed that.When Kevin Durant joined the Warriors, the power in the NBA shifted tremendously. He knew he’d probably missed his one shot to beat them, so he joined them, and it panned out.The 2014 MVP now has two rings and could get his third NBA Finals MVP this summer, but he’s not the only one to ride Golden State’s wave of success.Many were furious when the Warriors landed DeMarcus Cousins as a free agent, giving them five All-Star caliber players. But even role players get flack for considering joining up.Nick Young and David West are just a few examples of ringless players that achieved their goals by joining Golden State.Players want rings, but how they get there rub some the wrong way.10. Draymond GreenGreen has been hailed as one of basketball’s most talented defenders, but also has become one of the NBA’s top villains.The 6-7 utilityman is physical, but has taken heat for some questionable plays in the past, including a swipe to the groin of LeBron James during the 2016 NBA Finals.Few play the game with as much passion as Green, but he’s built a reputation that’s earned him some disdain from multiple fanbases.Nevertheless, Draymond will be Draymond, and spectators will have to deal with it.11. Just to see a new team get the gloryYour team may not be in the playoffs, and that’s ok.If they are, they might not get out of the first round, and that’s just fine too. But you’d probably prefer to see some parity in the NBA than watch Golden State win again.Any team that wins this much is bound to draw hate, but competition is good for the sport.Supporters of teams in the lottery might not watch because they assume the Warriors will win it all again. But sports are about randomness and unpredictability, and the league hasn’t had much of that lately.