Fletcher Allen receives high marks in MVP reportMVP Healthcare has recently released the results of a healthcare quality report that has shown that Fletcher Allen Health Care equals or surpasses, in most categories, other academic medical centers in MVP’s region. MVP is an HMO that covers upstate New York and parts of New England. It covers 60,000 Vermonters.The report shows that Fletcher Allen met high standards for nursing, surgery, physician staffing and communication with doctors outside the hospital. But the Burlington hospital finished below a some hospitals, including Albany Medical Center and Dartmough-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, NH, in overall patient satisfaction, which was attributed to some extent to the inconveniences caused by the construction.AHC and DHMC also received generally high marks in the report.MVP Health Care members can now see how other MVP members have rated themajor hospitals in the health insurer’s network as part ofhospital-specific MVP Hospital Quality Profiles available through the MVPWeb site (www.mvphealthcare.com(link is external)). MVP has produced profiles for the 24hospitals in its 100-hospital network that treat the majority of itsmembers.MVP asked members to rate their experience with these hospitals on overallsatisfaction with the quality care they received, their satisfaction withthe nursing care they received and if they received any services in errorduring their hospital stays.The Hospital Quality Profiles were prepared in cooperation with thehospitals and also include information about whether or not the hospitalshave in place, or are planning to begin, programs designed to improve thequality of patient care such as computer physician order entry, and havingphysicians certified in critical care medicine on staff as specialists.The profiles also include information about how well the hospitalscommunicate back to members’ Primary Care Physicians following inpatienthospital stays and emergency room visits.By viewing the reports, members can also determine the number ofprocedures the hospitals performed in three areas: heart bypass surgery,abdominal aneurysm repair and heart balloon angioplasty.MVP began profiling the hospitals two years ago as part of its effort toimprove the quality of hospital care its members receive.”We profiled hospitals on member satisfaction and on indicators that havebeen identified as critical to high-quality hospital care by nationalexperts including the Leap Frog Group,” said Jerry Salkowe, M.D., MVP’svice president for clinical quality improvement. “Our goal is to improvethe quality of hospital care our members receive and highlight the effortsthat hospitals in our network are making to improve quality and enhancepatient safety,” he said.The Leap Frog Group is a national coalition comprised of employers andhealth care organizations whose goal is to improve the quality of hospitalcare.”We based our profiles on the Leap Frog initiatives including suchmeasures as computer physician order entry which reduces the likelihood ofhospital prescription errors by eliminating the use of paperprescriptions, because measures such as these have been proven to improvepatient safety and reduce medical errors in hospitals,” Salkowe said.The Vermont and New Hampshire hospitals MVP produced quality profiles for are:VERMONT–BenningtonSouthwestern Vermont Medical Center–BurlingtonFletcher Allen Health Care–RutlandRutland Regional Medical CenterNEW HAMPSHIRE–LebanonDartmouth Hitchock Medical Center
Source: MORRISVILLE, Vt., Oct. 21, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Union Bankshares, Inc (Nasdaq:UNB) today announced net income for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 of $1.44 million or $0.32 per share compared to $1.17 million or $0.26 per share for the same period in 2008. Net Income year to date was $3.95 million or $0.88 per share for 2009 compared to $3.76 million or $0.84 per share for 2008.Total Assets have grown $20.9 million, or 4.9%, to $443.9 million at September 30, 2009 from $423.1 million at September 30, 2008 while total deposits have grown $20.8 million, or 6.0%, to $369.4 million at September 30, 2009 from $348.6 million at September 30, 2008.Loan demand from new customers and refinancings continue to be strong with total loans growing to $351.9 million as of September 30, 2009 from $343.3 million, an increase of 2.4%, or $8.6 million, from the same time last year despite originating and selling $59.1 million residential mortgage loans to the secondary market over the last 12 months. The drop in the Prime Rate from the beginning of 2008 at 7.25% to 3.25% by the end of 2008, where it remains today, has driven the refinancing boom for residential and commercial mortgage customers. The impact of the prime rate drop on variable rate loans and new lower fixed rate loans have more than offset the increase in loan income due to volume growth with interest and fees on loans year to date at $16.3 million for 2009 versus $17.0 million for 2008. The growth in loans has been supported by deposit growth. Net interest income increased $157 thousand, or 3.6%, for the quarter over 2008 and $316 thousand, or 2.4%, year over year. The provision for possible loan losses increased $60 thousand from $185 thousand for 2008 to $245 thousand for 2009 mainly due to the growth in the loan portfolio as past due loans decreased from both September 30, 2008 and December 31, 2008.Expense related to FDIC insurance coverage was $566 thousand for 2009, of which $191 thousand was the special emergency assessment, compared to $37 thousand for 2008. The expense for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 was $101 thousand compared to $14 thousand for 2008 with the increase between years attributable to deposit growth as well as higher “regular” assessment rates.A quarterly cash dividend of $.25 per share was declared on October 21, 2009 to shareholders of record October 31, 2009, payable November 12, 2009.Union Bankshares, Inc., with headquarters in Morrisville, Vermont is the bank holding company parent of Union Bank, which offers deposit, loan, trust and commercial banking services throughout northern Vermont and in northwestern New Hampshire. As of September 30, 2009, the Company operated 13 banking offices and 28 ATM facilities in Vermont as well as a banking office and ATM in Littleton, New Hampshire.Statements made in this press release that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. Investors are cautioned that all forward-looking statements necessarily involve risks and uncertainties, and many factors could cause actual results and events to differ materially from those contemplated in the forward-looking statements. For further information, please refer to the Company’s reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission at www.sec.gov(link is external).
Northfield Savings Bank,During 2010 Northfield Savings Bank will donate more than $165,000 to fight hunger in Vermont. To help Vermonters who need short-term emergency food relief, Northfield Savings Bank donates to the Vermont Foodbank, Chittenden Emergency Food Shelf, and several other food pantries. To help build long-term solutions for a hunger-free Vermont, the NSB Foundation continues its partnership with the Vermont Campaign to End Childhood Hunger.Northfield Savings Bank was founded in Northfield, Vermont in 1867 by a schoolmaster and haberdasher who believed a local community bank was needed. More than 143 years later, the Bank continues this community-minded tradition, and has grown to become Vermont’s second largest bank headquartered in the State. Also known for its role as a corporate citizen, Northfield Savings Bank proudly donates 10% of profits to Vermont community organizations, which is expected to total more than $400,000 in 2010. Northfield Savings Bank operates 13 branches throughout central Vermont and Chittenden County. Member FDIC. www.nsbvt.com(link is external).Photo Caption: (left to right) Marissa Parisi, Executive Director of Vermont Campaign to End Childhood Hunger; Tom Pelletier, President and CEO of Northfield Savings Bank; Maisie Howard, Vermont Campaign to End Childhood Hunger; Anne Gould, NSB Foundation Board member.Source: Northfield Savings Bank. November 19, 2010 (Northfield, VT) –
The Rutland County Community Advisory Board (RCCAB) ofBlue Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont (BCBSVT) announced today the releaseof its Worksite Wellness Grants for 2011. The grants, available tobusinesses in Rutland County, will range from $250 – $750 per site,according to program scope and need. The grant applications are due onMarch 22, 2011.To request an application or to get more information, please contact MeganPeek at (802) 764-4858 or by email at email@example.com(link sends e-mail)The organizations will be selected based on the strength of their grantapplications ‘ with a focus on the potential improvement of employeehealth, as well as the level of innovation, creativity, intended impact andevaluation plan. All of the organizations will report their programoutcomes to the RCCAB.The Rutland County Community Advisory Board, which is supported by BCBSVT,was formed to identify health needs in the area and address those needsthrough programs, events and activities and is dedicated to supportingworksite wellness in the region. The Board consists of community leaderswith an interest in health education and promotion. The Board developedthe grants program in an effort to encourage health improvement throughemployer-based initiatives.Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont is the state’s oldest and largestprivate health insurer, providing coverage for about 150,000 Vermonters.It employs over 350 Vermonters at its headquarters in Berlin and branchoffice in South Burlington and offers group and individual health plans toVermonters. More information about Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Vermontis available on the Internet at www.bcbsvt.com(link is external). Blue Cross and Blue Shieldof Vermont is an independent corporation operating under a license with theBlue Cross and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent BlueCross and Blue Shield Plans.
UVM Foundation Board of DirectorsEugene W. Kalkin ’50 (Chair)Bernardsville, NJJohn A. Hilton, Jr. ’68 (Vice Chair)New York, NYRichard Ader ’63New York, NYMax G. Ansbacher ’57New York, NYJohn Bramley (ex officio)Colchester, VTRobert P. Brennan, Jr. ’83Chappaqua, NYRichard Bundy (ex officio)South Burlington, VTDaniel A. Burack ’55Harrison, NYBrooks Buxton ’56Jericho, VTRobert F. Cioffi ’90 (ex officio)New Canaan, CTMichele Resnick Cohen ’72New York, NYSteven Grossman ’61New York, NYZachary Gund ’93Concord, MASteve N. Ifshin ’58New York, NYJames R. Keller ’72Gig Harbor, WATed Madden ’92 (ex officio)Wellesley, MADon McCree ’83Rye, NYPamela Gillman McDermott ’73Hingham, MAKaren Nystrom Meyer ’70Colchester, VTMildred A. Reardon, MD ‘67Williston, VTWilliam F. Ruprecht ’80Greenwich, CTScott S. Segal ’77Charleston, WVWilliam G. Shean ’79Winchester, MAUVM Foundation Leadership CouncilRichard Ader ’63New York, NYMax G. Ansbacher ’57New York, NYJames Betts ‘69, MD’73Alameda, CalilforniaJohn Bramley Colchester, VTRobert P. Brennan, Jr. ’83Chappaqua, New YorkRichard BundySouth Burlington, VTDaniel A. Burack ’55Harrison, NYJ. Brooks Buxton ’56Jericho, VTMichael Carpenter P’09Greenwich, CTRobert F. Cioffi ’90New Canaan, CTMichele Cohen ’72New York, NYJohn Frank ‘79Greenwich, CTSteven Grossman ’61New York, NYGrant Gund ‘91Weston, MAZachary Gund ’93Concord, MAMary Ellen Guzewicz ‘73Westport, CTJohn A. Hilton ’68New York, NYStephen N. Ifshin ’58New York, NYEugene W. Kalkin ’50Bernardsville, NJJoan KalkinBernardsville, NJJames R. Keller ’72Gig Harbor, WADr. Samuel LabowStowe, VTVictor Livingstone ‘87South Hamilton, MATed Madden ’92Wellesley Hills, MADonald H. McCree, III ’83Rye, NYPamela G. McDermott ’73Hingham, MAKaren N. Meyer ’70Colchester, VTWolfgang MiederWilliston, VTJulie Simon Munro ‘86Larkspur, CAJeff Newton ‘79Concord, MAJacqueline Noonan MD’54Lexington, KYMildred A. Reardon MD’67Williston, VTWilliam F. Ruprecht ’80Greenwich, CTScott S. Segal ’77Charleston, WVWilliam G. Shean ’79Winchester, MAJack S. Silver ‘64New York, NYDavid Spector ‘56New York, NYJohn Tampas ‘51, MD ‘54Colchester, VTKenneth Wormser ‘78Demarest, NJCharles Zabriskie ‘53Wellesley Hills, MA University of Vermont,The University of Vermont began a new chapter in its fundraising history January 1, 2012, with the formal start of the University of Vermont and State Agricultural Foundation, Inc.The foundation was incorporated in March 2011 and has since been engaged in organizing its administrative and governance structure. The purpose of the UVM Foundation is to secure and manage private support for UVM. It will devote itself to raising financial support for the academic and related priorities of the university, including gifts that will build a supplemental endowment.”This alliance has broad implications for the financial health of the University, and its impact will be felt throughout the institution,” said UVM Interim President John Bramley. “With the establishment of the University of Vermont Foundation, UVM has signaled its intent to become more engaged in the broader scope of American philanthropy.”As the primary and preferred recipient for charitable gifts that benefit the university, the UVM Foundation is an independent organization governed by its own Board of Directors, , and assisted in its work by a volunteer Foundation Leadership Council comprised of major donors. Foundation responsibilities include identifying and nurturing relationships with potential donors and other friends of UVM; soliciting cash, securities, real and intellectual property and other private resources; and acknowledging and stewarding gifts in accordance with donor intent.”We couldn’t be more pleased with the way the UVM Foundation has come together in the last year,” said UVM Foundation President and CEO Richard Bundy, who came to Vermont from the Iowa State University Foundation. “With an outstanding Board of Directors and Foundation Leadership Council in place, capable and experienced fundraising staff, and a strong and expanding base of engaged donors, we’re eager to take the university to a new level of philanthropic support.”With the official launch, the 75 staff who were formerly members of the university’s Office of Development and Alumni Relations (DAR) became employees of the UVM Foundation, and DAR has been eliminated from the UVM administrative organization. The UVM Alumni Association will continue to operate its various programs and initiatives as an integral part of the overall UVM Foundation.UVM had its fourth consecutive year of growth in private giving in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010, and set a new record for fundraising receipts with more than $29 million raised in support of UVM people, programs, and facilities.
FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrint分享Dave Roberts for Vox:Two recent items from the news are likely to add fuel to the Peabody-hating fire.Item 1: Peabody is heading into bankruptcy, workers are getting screwed, and executives are profitingThis week, Peabody signaled that it is likely to file for bankruptcy.It’s not a huge surprise; the company has not been doing well. After a peak share price of $1,079 in 2011 (during the heady market for metallurgical coal), its stock has fallen, and fallen, and fallen, all the way to $2.19 a share.Naturally, Peabody has been laying off lots of workers — more than 20 percent of its global workforce between 2012 and 2015.But that’s not all it’s been doing.You see, Peabody made promises to its US workers. In exchange for doing the dangerous, unhealthy work of mining coal, they would have pensions and health benefits for life.But those obligations are expensive, especially with employees’ propensity to develop black lung. Peabody needed a way to get them off the books.So in 2007, Peabody created a new entity, Patriot Coal. Reporter Alec MacGillis tells the story in the New Republic:[Peabody] transferred to [Patriot] 13 percent of its coal reserves. It also transferred to it about 40 percent of its health care liabilities—the obligations for 8,400 former Peabody employees. A year later, Patriot Coal was loaded up with even more liabilities when it acquired Magnum Coal, an offshoot of the country’s second-largest mining company, Arch Coal. This left Patriot with responsibility for another 2,300 retirees, and, by last year, total liabilities of $1.37 billion.Eventually Patriot Coal was larded up with more than $3 billion in liabilities from Peabody and Arch, representing 22,000 miners, retirees, and spouses.“Oddly, for a 5-year-old company,” labor journalist Mike Elk wrote, “Patriot wound up with nearly three times as many retirees as active employees, more than 90 percent of whom never worked for the company.”Can you guess what happened next?Yup, Patriot Coal filed for bankruptcy in 2012. And it wasted no time asking a bankruptcy judge to let it jettison all those health care liabilities. (The judge said yes, just as she said yes two weeks prior when Patriot asked for permission to pay their executives almost $7 million in “retention bonuses.”)Patriot had no loyalty to these retirees, of course. For the most part, they’d never even worked for Patriot. According to a 2013 story in the Wall Street Journal, “90 percent of retirees listed as Patriot’s obligation today never worked for Patriot, but were once employed by Peabody or Arch.”What about Peabody? Doesn’t it have any loyalty to the workers who gave it so much of their lives? The Wall Street Journal asked:A spokesman for Peabody, the nation’s largest coal company by production, said Peabody has lived up to its obligations. “This is a matter solely between the union and Patriot Coal,” the spokesman said.Damn, that’s cold.(The coal employee pension funds have since sued Peabody and Arch, accusing them of designing Patriot to fail as a way of escaping their obligations.)Ditching its obligations to workers — “restructuring,” in the antiseptic language of corporate law — didn’t save Patriot. It filed for bankruptcy again in 2015. Its efforts to escape its liabilities are ongoing.Dumping liabilities onto Patriot didn’t save Peabody either, which is now on the verge of going under itself. It currently has hundreds of millions in unfunded liabilities, which are likely to be jettisoned in some future deal between a corporate restructuring lawyer and a bankruptcy judge.But have no fear! The Peabody executives who oversaw all those mergers and big bets on metallurgical coal — and the subsequent destruction of virtually all the company’s value — are in no danger. In fact, they’re doing great.This 2015 report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis reveals that the top five Peabody executives pulled down about $27 million in compensation in 2011, when the stock was at its peak.In 2014, after the company’s stockholders had lost $16 billion in value, thousands of workers had been laid off and Peabody was headed for bankruptcy, they pulled down about … $25 million.To atone for his sins, the compensation of Boyce, the CEO, was reduced from $10 million in 2011 to $11 million in 2014.(The, er, disjunct between corporate performance and executive compensation is a familiar tale in US coal these days.)So that’s the first item regarding Peabody’s enduring status as the Worst. Now here’s the second.Item 2: Peabody has been heavily subsidized by federal taxpayersTurns out US taxpayers are helping to pay for all this.According to a new report from Greenpeace, based on Department of Interior data obtained via FOIA, Peabody relies heavily on coal mined from federal land. In fact, the three biggest US coal companies all rely heavily on it.coal corporate welfare(Greenpeace)Here’s the thing about coal on federal land: For decades, the US public has been letting coal companies mine it for dirt cheap, well beneath market rates. Over time that adds up to a lot of foregone revenue.In his 2014 piece on coal leasing, Brad Plumer wrote about a study by Tom Sanzillo of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis that “argued that the federal government had foregone as much as $28.9 billion in revenue over the past 30 years by getting below-market value for its coal in these non-competitive auctions.”And that’s to say nothing of the social costs imposed by the coal thus mined. Consider this statistic from a previous Greenpeace report:A ton of publicly owned coal leased during the Obama administration will, on average, cause damages estimated at between $22 and $237, using the federal government’s social cost of carbon estimates — yet the average price per ton for those coal leases was only $1.03.This amounts to the American people subsidizing their own suffering.How your taxes ended up enriching coal executives who are betraying their workers Peabody, at Taxpayer Expense, Pays Out Millions in Executive Bonuses
Solar facility begins operating at closed coal plant in Ontario FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrint分享Mining.com:The former Nanticoke Generating Station site, located on the northern shore of Lake Erie, has been transformed into a 44-megawatt clean energy facility that hosts 192,431 solar panels across 260 acres.The project has just been completed by PCL Construction, a company that was commissioned to design, engineer and build it, as well as supply the photovoltaic solar panels and racking system. Behind the idea and funding are Ontario Power Generation, the Six Nations of the Grand River Development Corporation and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.The opening of the solar facility coincides with the one-year anniversary of the demolition of the Nanticoke 650-feet smokestacks. It has also been almost five years since the station burned its last piece of coal.In its heyday, the Nanticoke Generating Station was the largest coal-fired plant in North America, providing 15% of Ontario’s electricity. After serving the province for more than 40 years, it stopped using coal as fuel in 2013. Two years later, the site was safely closed while the switchyards, operated by Hydro One Networks, remain in operation as a significant hub for the electricity grid in the southwestern part of the region.Since 2014, Ontario Power Generation stopped using coal to generate electricity in Canada’s most populous province, a move that resulted in the equivalent of taking 7 million cars off the road.More: Former coal-fired power plant in Ontario becomes solar facility
FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrint分享The Guardian:Australian insurance giant Suncorp will no longer insure new thermal coal mines and power plants, and will not underwrite any existing thermal coal projects after 2025.This is the latest in a series of pledges by banks and financial services companies that they will not support projects that mine or burn coal used for electricity generation, in line with the goals of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Activists said Suncorp’s announcement meant there were now no Australian insurers willing to underwrite new thermal coal developments.Suncorp, which owns insurance brands AAMI and GIO, made headlines in February when it announced its half-year profit had slumped 45%, mainly because of extreme weather events in Sydney and Queensland. Its then chief executive, Michael Cameron, called on the government to make it compulsory for Australian businesses to adopt climate change action plans to prepare for natural disasters.In a statement on Friday, the $17bn company said climate change posed a financial and strategic risk but was also an opportunity. It said it had applied a shadow carbon price, assuming greenhouse gas emissions have a cost, to its investment decisions since 2017 and had recently expanded that across all its operations.“The practical outcome of this is that we have materially reduced our investment in fossil fuels, including thermal coal,” an official said. “We will seek to increase exposure to businesses that have a positive environmental impact, including renewable energy generation and technology.”Suncorp’s competitor QBE said in March it would no longer insure new thermal coal projects and would stop underwriting existing operations from 2030.More: Insurance giant Suncorp says it will no longer cover new thermal coal projects Australian insurer Suncorp to stop underwriting new coal mines, coal-fired generation
Coal expansion in Turkey hits headwinds, 70GW canceled or delayed since 2009 FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrint分享Platts:Turkey’s plans to expand its thermal coal-fired power plant fleet have largely fallen by the wayside as the country grapples with a combination of economic and social headwinds, clouding what otherwise would have been one of the Atlantic market’s few bright spots for demand.An estimated 70 GW of planned capacity has either been cancelled or indefinitely postponed since 2009, leaving the country with 85 operating coal-fired power plants and a total operating capacity of 19 GW, according to a review of the Turkish government data and web sources. An additional 33 GW is under various stages of planning, with only 2 GW under construction.“There are quite a number of projects that will never see daylight,” a Turkish utility source said. “The ones that will burn imported hard coals are definitely dead due to diminishing availability of soft loans and Turkey’s strong policy for decreasing the current account deficit.”President Recep Erdogan’s strategy to shift utility purchases away from imported thermal coal toward domestic lignite, due to the impact energy imports are having on Turkey’s balance of trade, had been expected to fuel domestic plant construction near lignite mines, the utility source said. But the policy appears to have ground to a halt, as proposed lignite projects have been halted by strong environmentalist opposition.“With Turkey’s economy likely to contract in CY 19 and grow only slightly in CY 20, electricity demand and coal imports should continue to be limited,” Platts Analytics said.Joe Aldina at Platts Analytics said: “Some slowing in Turkey’s imports was more or less the consensus view for 2019. But there was a longer-term expectation that Turkey would be one of the few bright spots for coal demand growth in the Atlantic Basin and a number of coal sellers, particularly from the US, were looking to Turkey as an outlet for production as European imports slow (and domestic US coal demand falls). New tariffs on US coal implemented this year dash the short-term hopes of sending more US coal to Turkey, but there was still the hope that Turkey could be a longer-term partner for US suppliers.”More: Turkish coal-fired plant expansion stalls, with 70 GW shelved since 2009
FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrint分享Argus Media:Spanish utility Viesgo has requested the closure of its 570MW Los Barrios coal-fired plant, the biggest of the three coal units that were still expected to continue operating in mainland Spain after 2022.The decision comes just four months after the company told Argus it planned to keep Los Barrios operational, suggesting the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on Spanish coal-fired power demand may have contributed to the change in strategy. Viesgo said it could not determine an estimated closure date for the plant as the process was subject to several administrative procedures and authorisations.Data from Spanish power grid operator REE show that coal-fired generation in the southwest province of Cadiz — where Los Barrios is the sole coal generator — reached minus 4.78GWh in the first five months of this year, which means the unit consumed more electricity than it produced during the period. This compares with a generation of 493GWh — or a 136MW hourly average — in January-May 2019.Coal-fired generation in May reached only 245GWh, or 330MW, in mainland Spain, down by 28.6pc year on year and a new record low. The volume represented just 1.4pc of the energy mix, also a historical minimum share.Viesgo’s decision means that Portuguese utility EDP’s 562MW Abono 2 and 346MW Soto de Ribera 3 are the only coal-fired plants that would continue operating in mainland Spain. EDP told Argus last month that it has been considering plans to shut down Soto de Ribera 3 by 2022, which means Abono 2 might become the sole coal unit in the peninsular system in the near future.A total of 15 of the existing 25 coal-fired units in mainland Spain are expected to close by 30 June this year, ahead of stricter EU-wide industrial emissions standards coming into force on 1 July. These units have a combined capacity of 4.87GW, more than half of the total 9.21GW. Another 2.5GW — Spanish utility Endesa’s 1.1GW Litoral de Almeria and 1.4GW As Pontes — could close by the end of 2021.[Juan Weik]More: Spain’s Viesgo U-turns and now plans to shut coal plant Another coal plant in Spain headed for retirement