Sentences with phrase «reduction plan required»

«A big part of our debt reduction plan required us to actively move money into savings throughout the month,» she said.

The comptroller also alleged that, because a substantial portion of Health + Hospitals» revenue actions in its deficit reduction plan requires federal and state approvals, the city would probably have to increase its subsidy by $ 200 million in fiscal year 2017.

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.

[105] On January 8, 2008, to address ongoing structural budget issues, Governor Corzine proposed a four - part proposal including an overall reduction in spending, a constitutional amendment to require more voter approval for state borrowing, an executive order prohibiting the use of one - time revenues to balance the budget and a controversial plan to raise some $ 38 billion by leasing the Garden State Parkway, the New Jersey Turnpike, and other toll roads for at least 75 years to a new public benefit corporation that could sell bonds secured by future tolls, which it would be allowed to raise by 50 % plus inflation every four years beginning in 2010.

Toward that goal, Tesla Motors said that it has made substantial reductions in the required costs to launch the production of the Model 3 next year, with Musk telling analysts that the current plan will not require the company to raise extra capital for the upcoming high - volume electric vehicle.

Though some of the reduction can be attributed to the impact of having two major market downturns during this period, we also have seen that some plan sponsors have not been willing or able to contribute the actuarially determined required contributions that could help to bridge the funding gap.

Slaughter's proposal, the «Trade Deficit Reduction Act,» would require the White House to identify the countries with which America has the worst trading deficits and develop plans to address them.

Deficit reduction does not require the Gilded - Age, socially backward policies that the Ryan plan embodies.

WASHINGTON (CNN)- President Barack Obama will propose ideas for how the special congressional committee created by the recent debt ceiling deal can reach a deficit reduction plan that exceeds the required $ 1.5 trillion total, a White House spokesman said Wednesday.

Carnegie Mellon University researchers have calculated that the U.S. can meet — or even beat — the near - term carbon dioxide emission reductions required by the United Nations Paris Agreement, despite the Trump Administration's withdrawal of the Clean Power Plan (CPP).

The numerous rules will address issues such as how countries will track and report their emissions and have them verified, all in a transparent way; how countries will be required to communicate their future emissions - reduction plans as well as their pledges for funding adaptation efforts; and if and how market mechanisms, such as emissions trading between countries, will be applied to national targets.

Tierney doesn't expect EPA to ask for more cuts from the power sector, although she thinks the White House is assuming that states will end up overshooting their required reductions once they start implementing their plans in 2020.

But it was halted by the Supreme Court last year — well before states would have been required to write plans to comply and years before actual reductions were mandated.

The 146 plans include all developed nations and three quarters of developing countries under the UNFCCC, covering 86 % of global greenhouse gas emissions — almost four times the level of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, the world's first international emission reduction treaty that required emissions cuts from industrialized countries.

The legislation, which had overwhelming bipartisan support in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, requires the president to detail how the administration will implement the $ 1.2 trillion in sequestration cuts to domestic and defense programs scheduled for the start of 2013 if Congress is unable to agree on another deficit - reduction plan before the end of the year.

The plan also counts on finding about $ 5 million in reductions to health insurance premium costs, which could include requiring employees to cover some of the cost.

Charter Schools are subject to AHERA's requirements and are required to designate a person to inspect for asbestos - containing building materials and prepare management plans that make recommendations for the reduction of asbestos hazards.

Debt reduction requires a solid debt reduction plan, but it also requires a lot of attitude, a lot of got - to, and a lot of moving - forward.

PS I believe Tony Brown's article points out with a specific example the folly of implementing carbon reduction plans before we even know a) if they will work or b) if they are even required or beneficial if they did work.

While such a plan is technically possible, emissions reductions that drastic would almost certainly require a willing Congress at the president's disposal — most notably to put a price on carbon that motivates the private sector — and even then, it's still an open question of whether full decarbonization by 2050 is possible given the heroic social and political change it would require at the same time.

The «Clean Power Plan» requires a 32 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions (from 2005) by 2030 in the electric power sector.

This year: Submit a meaningful QELRO that would require a 40 % reduction by 2020; produce a low carbon development plan; tell us when gross emissions will peak; listen to the voices of progressive business leaders and agricultural scientists who can help us get there, rather than the usual head - in - the - sand lobby groups; and get a new attitude.

Maryland's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act of 2009 requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 25 percent by 2020 and directs the Maryland Department of the Environment to develop a plan to accomplish that goal.

Accordingly, she said, the revised state plan does not require the power company to install selective catalytic reduction equipment (SCR), considered industry's gold standard for cutting NOx from plants» exhaust.

«The evidence of history is that the sizes of the targets are less damaging than the plans required to achieve them... These emission reduction plans will lay down blueprints for achieving sector targets and such plans create winners and losers.

Requires each metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) and state to develop surface transportation - related GHG emission reduction targets, as well as strategies to meet such targets.

(Sec. 144) Requires: (1) each load - serving entity or state to determine and publish peak demand reduction goals for any load - serving entity that has an applicable baseline in excess of 250 megawatts; (2) the Secretary to develop a system and rules for measurement and verification of demand reductions; (3) such goals to provide that such entities will reduce or mitigate peak demand by a minimum percentage amount from the applicable baseline to a lower peak demand during 2012 and 2015; (4) such goals to provide that the minimum percentage reductions established as peak demand reduction goals shall be the maximum reductions that are realistically achievable with an aggressive effort to deploy Smart Grid and peak demand reduction technologies and methods; and (5) each load - serving entity to prepare a peak demand reduction plan that demonstrates its ability to meet applicable goals.

Requires such assessment to examine the contribution to emission reductions attributable to improvements in vehicle efficiency, GHG performance of transportation fuels, increased efficiency in utilizing transportation systems, and the effects of local and state planning.

Requires the President, if the NAS report finds that emission reduction targets are not on schedule or that global actions will not maintain safe global average surface temperature and atmospheric GHG concentration thresholds, to submit a plan by July 1, 2015, to Congress identifying domestic and international actions that will achieve necessary additional GHG reductions.

It is also worth to point out that this overarching Plan is designed to encompass previously released sub-sector industry energy plans such as Solar Power (Feb 2012)-LRB--RRB-, Coal Power (Mar 2012), Wind Power (Sept 2012) and Emission Reduction & Energy Savings (Aug 2012), which themselves, given the increasingly complexity and size of China's energy sub-sectors required stronger coordination across various government departments.

-- Not later than 1 year after the promulgation of the final regulations required under section 841 of the Clean Air Act, each metropolitan planning organization shall develop surface transportation - related greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, as well as strategies to meet such targets, as part of the transportation planning process under this section.

-- Not later than 1 year after the promulgation of the final regulations required under section 841 of the Clean Air Act, each State shall develop surface transportation - related greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, as well as strategies to meet such targets, as part of the transportation planning process under this section.

The plaintiffs, once again as they are in some of these other climate change cases are seeking some pretty sweeping, both declarations of their rights under the Constitution and how those rights are being infringed by both what the state of Alaska is doing and not doing, but they're also asking for a science - based plan of attack or a plan of how to deal with climate change through reducing greenhouse gas emissions based on what the science requires and that's something on the order of eight percent per year reduction in emissions plus an accounting of the emissions that the state is responsible for, and how fast they're being reduced.

The plan would require improved efficiency and emissions rate reductions across the entire electricity industry.

The EF, in turn, is used by EPA to justify all its climate regulations, including its ultra-expensive so - called «Clean Power Plan» (CPP -RCB- requiring that many coal plants be replaced with wind and solar - generated electric power at huge expense to ratepayers in terms of outlays and reductions in reliability as well as to taxpayers for government subsidies.

To help ensure these goals are met and greenhouse gas emission reductions are realized, large utilities will be required to develop and submit Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs).

The plan is likely to allow each state to create its own plan to meet required reductions.

Plans include independent evaluations of financed activities including verification of emission reductions, seek to achieve significant CO2 reductions over the shortest time frame, require proof of additionality taking into consideration existing laws like I - 937, and shall provide sufficient funding to mitigate increases in electric and natural gas costs from the carbon tax for qualifying low - income households.

With well - designed policies and careful planning and coordination, Illinois could greatly enhance its clean energy resources, cost - effectively comply with the emissions reductions required by the Clean Power Plan, and reap important economic and public health benefits.

Leading the utility response, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) wrote that the rule's interim goal, which forces states to achieve much of the reductions before 2020, does not allow them time «to develop, plan, design, and complete the infrastructure required.»

Commit to reorienting the planning system so that sustainable development rather than simply economic development is at its heart, requiring all major development plans and planning applications to show how they will contribute to carbon reduction targets.

With well - designed policies and careful planning and coordination, all states across the country could greatly enhance their clean energy resources, affordably comply with the emissions reductions required by the Clean Power Plan, and reap important economic and public health benefits.

Senate Bill 375 requires regional planning agencies to create land use plans that demonstrably meet emissions reduction targets.

That legislation, known as the Future Energy Jobs Act, will help achieve a 56 percent reduction in greenhouse - gas pollution from the power sector, almost twice what is required for the state under the Clean Power Plan.

Business groups appealed to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to scrap the plan, saying it goes beyond what's allowed by law and requires fossil - fuel plants to seek reductions from other sources, like getting customers to curb their power demand.

Increasingly, project tenders ask for evidence of the bidder's commitment to carbon reduction or even explicitly require an offsetting plan.

I showed in detail that these two proxy plans posted by SA, the Spross - quoted plan [1] and the Ceres Clean Trillion plan [2], offered about a 1 % reduction in emissions annually for decades, more than an order of magnitude less than that required to avoid the climate Apocalypse!

As two of many examples, I showed in detail that the two proxy plans posted by SA, the Spross - quoted plan [1] and the Ceres Clean Trillion plan [2], offered about a 1 % reduction in emissions annually for decades, more than an order of magnitude less than that required to avoid the climate Apocalypse!

To stay even near the ~ 1.1 C ceiling that Hansen suggests, the strongest fossil demand reduction is required, far more than the 10 % Anderson requires for 2 C. My Plan describes the elements of how this could be done; I show the numbers that are required; no one else does!