Sentences with phrase «policy price reduction»

Because insurance companies believe they will save money in the end if you know more about safe driving, they give you discounts whenever you use traffic school You should definitely always consult with your insurance agency before enrolling and signing up to ensure they'll offer a insurance policy price reduction.

Since insurance companies think they'll spend less in the long run if you know all about safe driving, they give discounts whenever you complete defensive driving Ensure that you always consult with your insurance agency before signing up to ensure they are willing to offer a policy price reduction.

Not exact matches

Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those reflected in such forward - looking statements and that should be considered in evaluating our outlook include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) our ability to continue to grow our business and execute our growth strategy, including the timing, execution, and profitability of new and maturing programs; 2) our ability to perform our obligations under our new and maturing commercial, business aircraft, and military development programs, and the related recurring production; 3) our ability to accurately estimate and manage performance, cost, and revenue under our contracts, including our ability to achieve certain cost reductions with respect to the B787 program; 4) margin pressures and the potential for additional forward losses on new and maturing programs; 5) our ability to accommodate, and the cost of accommodating, announced increases in the build rates of certain aircraft; 6) the effect on aircraft demand and build rates of changing customer preferences for business aircraft, including the effect of global economic conditions on the business aircraft market and expanding conflicts or political unrest in the Middle East or Asia; 7) customer cancellations or deferrals as a result of global economic uncertainty or otherwise; 8) the effect of economic conditions in the industries and markets in which we operate in the U.S. and globally and any changes therein, including fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates; 9) the success and timely execution of key milestones such as the receipt of necessary regulatory approvals, including our ability to obtain in a timely fashion any required regulatory or other third party approvals for the consummation of our announced acquisition of Asco, and customer adherence to their announced schedules; 10) our ability to successfully negotiate, or re-negotiate, future pricing under our supply agreements with Boeing and our other customers; 11) our ability to enter into profitable supply arrangements with additional customers; 12) the ability of all parties to satisfy their performance requirements under existing supply contracts with our two major customers, Boeing and Airbus, and other customers, and the risk of nonpayment by such customers; 13) any adverse impact on Boeing's and Airbus» production of aircraft resulting from cancellations, deferrals, or reduced orders by their customers or from labor disputes, domestic or international hostilities, or acts of terrorism; 14) any adverse impact on the demand for air travel or our operations from the outbreak of diseases or epidemic or pandemic outbreaks; 15) our ability to avoid or recover from cyber-based or other security attacks, information technology failures, or other disruptions; 16) returns on pension plan assets and the impact of future discount rate changes on pension obligations; 17) our ability to borrow additional funds or refinance debt, including our ability to obtain the debt to finance the purchase price for our announced acquisition of Asco on favorable terms or at all; 18) competition from commercial aerospace original equipment manufacturers and other aerostructures suppliers; 19) the effect of governmental laws, such as U.S. export control laws and U.S. and foreign anti-bribery laws such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the United Kingdom Bribery Act, and environmental laws and agency regulations, both in the U.S. and abroad; 20) the effect of changes in tax law, such as the effect of The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the «TCJA») that was enacted on December 22, 2017, and changes to the interpretations of or guidance related thereto, and the Company's ability to accurately calculate and estimate the effect of such changes; 21) any reduction in our credit ratings; 22) our dependence on our suppliers, as well as the cost and availability of raw materials and purchased components; 23) our ability to recruit and retain a critical mass of highly - skilled employees and our relationships with the unions representing many of our employees; 24) spending by the U.S. and other governments on defense; 25) the possibility that our cash flows and our credit facility may not be adequate for our additional capital needs or for payment of interest on, and principal of, our indebtedness; 26) our exposure under our revolving credit facility to higher interest payments should interest rates increase substantially; 27) the effectiveness of any interest rate hedging programs; 28) the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting; 29) the outcome or impact of ongoing or future litigation, claims, and regulatory actions; 30) exposure to potential product liability and warranty claims; 31) our ability to effectively assess, manage and integrate acquisitions that we pursue, including our ability to successfully integrate the Asco business and generate synergies and other cost savings; 32) our ability to consummate our announced acquisition of Asco in a timely matter while avoiding any unexpected costs, charges, expenses, adverse changes to business relationships and other business disruptions for ourselves and Asco as a result of the acquisition; 33) our ability to continue selling certain receivables through our supplier financing program; 34) the risks of doing business internationally, including fluctuations in foreign current exchange rates, impositions of tariffs or embargoes, compliance with foreign laws, and domestic and foreign government policies; and 35) our ability to complete the proposed accelerated stock repurchase plan, among other things.

Such risks, uncertainties and other factors include, without limitation: (1) the effect of economic conditions in the industries and markets in which United Technologies and Rockwell Collins operate in the U.S. and globally and any changes therein, including financial market conditions, fluctuations in commodity prices, interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates, levels of end market demand in construction and in both the commercial and defense segments of the aerospace industry, levels of air travel, financial condition of commercial airlines, the impact of weather conditions and natural disasters and the financial condition of our customers and suppliers; (2) challenges in the development, production, delivery, support, performance and realization of the anticipated benefits of advanced technologies and new products and services; (3) the scope, nature, impact or timing of acquisition and divestiture or restructuring activity, including the pending acquisition of Rockwell Collins, including among other things integration of acquired businesses into United Technologies» existing businesses and realization of synergies and opportunities for growth and innovation; (4) future timing and levels of indebtedness, including indebtedness expected to be incurred by United Technologies in connection with the pending Rockwell Collins acquisition, and capital spending and research and development spending, including in connection with the pending Rockwell Collins acquisition; (5) future availability of credit and factors that may affect such availability, including credit market conditions and our capital structure; (6) the timing and scope of future repurchases of United Technologies» common stock, which may be suspended at any time due to various factors, including market conditions and the level of other investing activities and uses of cash, including in connection with the proposed acquisition of Rockwell; (7) delays and disruption in delivery of materials and services from suppliers; (8) company and customer - directed cost reduction efforts and restructuring costs and savings and other consequences thereof; (9) new business and investment opportunities; (10) our ability to realize the intended benefits of organizational changes; (11) the anticipated benefits of diversification and balance of operations across product lines, regions and industries; (12) the outcome of legal proceedings, investigations and other contingencies; (13) pension plan assumptions and future contributions; (14) the impact of the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements and labor disputes; (15) the effect of changes in political conditions in the U.S. and other countries in which United Technologies and Rockwell Collins operate, including the effect of changes in U.S. trade policies or the U.K.'s pending withdrawal from the EU, on general market conditions, global trade policies and currency exchange rates in the near term and beyond; (16) the effect of changes in tax (including U.S. tax reform enacted on December 22, 2017, which is commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017), environmental, regulatory (including among other things import / export) and other laws and regulations in the U.S. and other countries in which United Technologies and Rockwell Collins operate; (17) the ability of United Technologies and Rockwell Collins to receive the required regulatory approvals (and the risk that such approvals may result in the imposition of conditions that could adversely affect the combined company or the expected benefits of the merger) and to satisfy the other conditions to the closing of the pending acquisition on a timely basis or at all; (18) the occurrence of events that may give rise to a right of one or both of United Technologies or Rockwell Collins to terminate the merger agreement, including in circumstances that might require Rockwell Collins to pay a termination fee of $ 695 million to United Technologies or $ 50 million of expense reimbursement; (19) negative effects of the announcement or the completion of the merger on the market price of United Technologies» and / or Rockwell Collins» common stock and / or on their respective financial performance; (20) risks related to Rockwell Collins and United Technologies being restricted in their operation of their businesses while the merger agreement is in effect; (21) risks relating to the value of the United Technologies» shares to be issued in connection with the pending Rockwell acquisition, significant merger costs and / or unknown liabilities; (22) risks associated with third party contracts containing consent and / or other provisions that may be triggered by the Rockwell merger agreement; (23) risks associated with merger - related litigation or appraisal proceedings; and (24) the ability of United Technologies and Rockwell Collins, or the combined company, to retain and hire key personnel.

(T. Rowe Price itself does not report its fund holdings on a monthly basis, and has yet to release its filings for the second quarter ended June, but it likely took similar reductions on Uber stock across its funds, in accordance with its valuation policy.)

If your condition for GHG policy is that you must impose the same price on all sectors of the economy because you want to be cost - effective, that rules out higher prices on some sectors where deep emissions reductions are possible, or lower prices in more politically sensitive areas to ensure you get a policy in place at all.

Or think of the price the Canadian economy is expected to pay for the damage wreaked by climate change after years of oil industry lobbyists opposing serious carbon reduction policies.

Investors have, on balance, concluded that the combination of a shift to very expansionary fiscal policy and major reductions in regulation in sectors ranging from energy to finance to drug pricing will raise demand and reflate the American economy.

Other downstream implications of CCS or other policy will depend on how they affect the relative price of electricity... and more expensive emissions reductions will make electricity more expensive than it needs to be, thereby limiting potential uptake of electrification.

This sensible policy will also include provision for oil price fluctuations when oil is still possessed and the ability to manage the current reduction in revenue easily in such circumstances.

The EU policy of digging up vines to end years of surpluses had lead to a reduction of 269,000 hectares between 2008 and 2011, well above the targeted 175,000 hectares, contributing to a recent rise in prices, Castellucci said.

The Lib Dem policy of introducing road pricing has been rejected, and replaced by reductions and freezes in fuel prices, driven by Rob Halfon.

But he made clear support for the changes would come at the price of increased union influence on Labour policy - to the extent that the party abandons its support of the bulk of the coalition's deficit reduction measures.

The spare parts dealers have suspended their price reduction policy and prices of spare parts have doubled.

Galen Barbose, a research scientist with LBNL's Electricity Markets and Policy Group and the report's lead author, said in a statement that the findings mark the fifth consecutive year of significant price reductions for distributed PV systems in the United States.

Allthough this is only one of several possible offset sources under consideration by policy makers, we find already that, without restrictions on offset eligibility, CORSIA will not incentivise any further emission reductions beyond those that will happen without the scheme and will also not provide price signals that reward previous investments in CDM projects.

Official Amazon policy says that refunds will not be offered in the case of price reductions, nor do they price match.

Some of these risks include: a deterioration in national, regional, and local economies; tenant defaults; local real estate conditions, such as an oversupply of, or a reduction in demand for, rental space; property mismanagement; changes in operating costs and expenses, including increasing insurance costs, energy prices, real estate taxes, and costs of compliance with laws, regulations, and government policies.

Some traders anticipate fewer rate reductions into Treasury prices on speculation policy makers are concerned that lower borrowing costs will stoke inflation.

A functioning market would make this more apparent (e.g., if the market price is equal to the IPCC midpoint scenario), of course, but it appears to me that in the debate motivated by James so far that there is no expectation that emissions reductions policies will have a discernable effect on the climate (as measured by GAT) by 2030 (the terminal point of the bet).

An auctioned cap or a tax with 100 % return of the proceeds to the people is the most practical policy for several reasons: (a) it would begin real carbon reductions quickly; (b) it would be an honest and transparent way of treating the American people; (c) it would attract the broadest attainable political coalition across party lines; (d) it would be administratively simple for both the government and the private sector (with the tax or auctioned permits collected at the first point of sale or import of the carbon - containing fuel); (e) it would be a non-regressive way of introducing the carbon price into the economy; and (f) it would avoid a fiasco such as the special interest feeding frenzy that surrounded the recently failed Boxer - Lieberman - Warner bill in Congress.

A breakdown of the costs revealed that whereas carbon emission reduction policies contributed 16 % of the overall rise in prices, 84 % was due to VAT (an additional # 20), the price of gas (# 290) and the expenses involved in delivering it to homes.

First, and most obvious, no one (least of all Tony Abbott) believes that the government's «Direct Action» policy is a superior alternative to the carbon price, one that will deliver emissions reductions more rapidly and at lower costs.

Belgium, France, and Japan from Seth Dunn, «King Coal's Weakening Grip on Power,» World Watch, September / October 1999, pp. 10 — 19; coal subsidy reduction in Germany from Robin Pomeroy, «EU Ministers Clear German Coal Subsidies,» Reuters, 10 June 2002; DOE, EIA, International Energy Annual 2005 (Washington, DC: June — October 2007), Table E. 4; Craig Whitlock, «German Hard - Coal Production to Cease by 2018,» Washington Post, 30 July 2007; China, Indonesia, and Nigeria subsidy cuts from GTZ Transport Policy Advisory Service, International Fuel Prices 2007 (Eschborn, Germany: April 2007), p. 3.

Policy at the national level must encourage the deployment of clean energy technologies, and include greenhouse gas emission reduction targets (such as those under the Paris Agreement), carbon pricing mechanisms, and investment in energy research, development and demonstration.

In a second analysis, I find that policy interventions can not achieve long - run reductions in energy use without increasing prices, implying that energy efficiency mandates and R&D subsidies have limited potential as tools for climate change mitigation.

Although there has in fact been a fall in power consumption in Australia, due in large part to massive electricity price hikes, largely due to greenhouse - gas emissions reduction policies (some from poor regulation).

The latter part is more original stuff, as I (i) make the case for how China's clean energy push is in fact consistent with its overall economic reform, e.g. Scientific Development, reduction of excess industrial capacity, natural resource price reform, western development, boosting domestic consumption, and Going Out strategy; (ii) describe China's activities in innovation and R&D and its desire to create, not just produce, energy technologies of the 21st century; (iii) address criticisms that China's «indigenous innovation» policies are protectionist in nature by pointing out the myopia of such observations from a US (or EU for that matter) policymakers point of view; (iv) provide thoughts about what the proper U.S. policy response should be.

These measures include emission reduction targets, policies that put an effective price on carbon, energy and transportation policies, financing mechanisms, measures and financing to support adaptation, and corporate disclosure policies.

Carbon pricing instruments are a policy option that a growing number of countries and regions are utilizing to implement new and complement existing national climate and energy policies and to achieve emission reductions.

Stephen Moore, a Heritage Foundation fellow in economics, writes with Kathleen White, a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, in their new book, «Fueling Freedom»: «The rule of thumb is that a 1 - cent reduction in the price of gas at the pump saves consumers $ 1 billion a year.»

The smart response would be to secure the low - and - rising carbon price and then start pushing other emission reduction policies, namely sector - specific regulations, industrial policies focused on capacity building, and large - scale investments in RD&D.

I then made my pitch for a carbon fee - bate policy which would place a carbon price on oil sands and other sources of carbon emissions equivalent to that paid by firms in the EU and which, if implemented worldwide, would allow the world to meet science - based emissions reduction targets.

To get substantial emission reductions, you need policies that reduce demand for fossil fuels: Carbon pricing.

The fossil - fuel support policies that governments use include direct subsidies, intervention in markets in ways that affect costs or prices, assumption of a part of companies» financial risks, tax reductions or exemptions, and under — charging for the use of government — supplied goods, services or assets.

«Among the obvious problems are the failure to cost key policies, the effective abandonment of the 5 % emissions reduction target and bogus assumptions about an economic dividend from the removal of the carbon price.

Even if switching to natural gas in the short term reduces the US carbon footprint somewhat, it is still not sufficient by itself to put the US on an emissions reduction pathway consistent with its ethical obligations without other policy interventions including putting a price on carbon or rapid ramp up of renewable energy.

«It is clear that carbon pricing is a climate - critical policy that will be driving emissions reductions across the Ontario economy,» the paper stated.

While some of the reduction from the big oil companies is probably due to the crash in oil prices that began in 2014, leading to lower activity across the energy industry, all five majors have enacted climate and efficiency policies, as well as anti-pollution measures, the report said.

«New carbon - trading programmes are emerging in China and South Korea, and policy - makers in Europe are taking clear steps to ensure that carbon prices drive future emission reductions,» said Konrad Hanschmidt, head of carbon analysis at Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

In January 2008, the Harvard Law and Policy Review published «Fast, Clean and Cheap,» which argues that the vast price gap between fossil fuels and clean energy sources combines with public resistance to higher energy prices to create a fundamental constraint on the efficacy of carbon pricing to drive emissions reductions everywhere in the world.

In January 2008, the Harvard Law and Policy Review published «Fast, Clean, and Cheap,» which argued that the vast price gap between fossil fuels and clean energy sources combines with public resistance to higher energy prices to create a fundamental constraint on the efficacy of carbon pricing to drive emissions reductions everywhere in the world.

Your assumptions, not taking account discounting rate and the reduction of policy cost given current trend in susbsidies price seem very simplistic don't you think?

the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition (CPLC) and several other high level policy fora, we work with representatives of governments, the private sector, and civil society to promote effective carbon pricing policies that deliver emissions reductions while encouraging innovation and protecting the rights of those afPricing Leadership Coalition (CPLC) and several other high level policy fora, we work with representatives of governments, the private sector, and civil society to promote effective carbon pricing policies that deliver emissions reductions while encouraging innovation and protecting the rights of those afpricing policies that deliver emissions reductions while encouraging innovation and protecting the rights of those affected.

While DECC predict that climate change and energy policies will cause gas prices to go up by 18 % and electricity prices by 33 % by 2020, they estimate (as of July 2010) that because of reductions in energy use «compared to the counterfactual scenario in which climate change and energy policies do not have an impact on energy bills, on average, domestic energy bills will be 1 % higher in 2020.»

As a member of the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition (CPLC) and several other high level policy fora, we work with representatives of governments, the private sector, and civil society to promote effective carbon pricing policies that deliver emissions reductions while encouraging innovation and protecting the rights of those afPricing Leadership Coalition (CPLC) and several other high level policy fora, we work with representatives of governments, the private sector, and civil society to promote effective carbon pricing policies that deliver emissions reductions while encouraging innovation and protecting the rights of those afpricing policies that deliver emissions reductions while encouraging innovation and protecting the rights of those affected.

While DECC predict that climate change and energy policies will cause gas prices to go up by 18 % and electricity prices by 33 % by 2020, they estimate (as of July 2010) that because of reductions in energy use

Putting a price on carbon can be an effective policy to spur innovation, create lasting economic growth, and help the United States achieve its carbon reduction goals.

How buildings are used, in energy terms, is becoming a crucial issue: energy costs are rising; various policy drivers (such as display energy certificates) mean that there is increasing awareness of the environmental impact of the built environment; and the pricing and rationing from the CRC (carbon reduction commitment) will begin to bite over the next few years.

With bundle pricing, you might group two auto insurance policies together for a discount; add more vehicles onto the policy, and you might see a further reduction.