Anonymously contributed:
The President's budget for 2012 includes a request for at least $71.4M for the UC pension fund for LLNL and LANL retirees, before the LLC's. It is in the Nonproliferation part of the NNSA budget request - a strange place to put it, but I have not found any more elsewhere yet. Has anyone heard about this request from the UC side?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days
-
LGBT intolerance problem at Sandia? I was just checking glassdoor.com and noticed several comments suggesting intolerance to LGBT at Sandia...
-
So what do the NNSA labs do under the the 2nd Trump administration ? What are the odds we will have a test?
-
So did you SSVSP and why? Give details.
8 comments:
And the President's budget request for the LLC's current TCP1 pension shortfalls? What about that one?
Oh, I forgot. The DOE's promise of "substantially equivalent" is now null and void.
This contribution is the minimum required by the UC/DOE agreement. It is about 1/7th of the smoothed under funded figure. This information is usually in UC and UCRP annual reports thourgh June 30th of each year and published after accouting review in Nov or Dec. It is alot more infomation than LANS and LLNS publish about pensions.
9:55 pm: 'And the President's budget request for the LLC's ...'
Check pages 15-16 of the NNSA budget. There is money there (but none for LLNS, because it doesn't need it yet).
On the same page you can see where your raises went.
How about a link . . .
Could someone provide the link to this information? Thank you.
Here is a link the NNSA budget submission
http://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nnsa/inlinefiles/FY%202012%20NNSA%20Congressional%20Budget%20Submission_0.pdf
Unfortunately it is 562 pages long and the relevant paragraph is on page 354. Here it is copied below
University of California Pension Payments and
Contractor Pension Cost 0 0 71,448
Includes funding for contractor pension payments, primarily for the University of California, and
expected shortfalls from contractor supported defined benefit pensions. Unlike contractor pension
payments at NNSA sites, collected through labor rates and paid by the M&O contractor, the
University of California payment is a direct federal payment remaining from the transition of the
LANL and LLNL sites to private contractors.
Here is what I found on pages 57 and 467 of the 2010 NNSA congressional budget request (link below). The budget indicates $64.2M in the weapons element and $57.8M in the naval nuclear reactor element. That totals $122.0M, keep in mind that would be distributed amongst many agencies.
Here is some wording:
The requested funding will be used in part to reimburse the costs of DOE contractor contributions to defined-benefit (DB) pension plans as required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA), as amended by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA), and consistent with Departmental direction. The PPA amended ERISA to require accelerated funding of DB pension plans so that the
plans become 100 percent funded in 2011. Most contractors that manage and operate DOE’s
laboratories, weapons plants, and execute environmental clean-up projects at various government owned sites and facilities are contractually required assume sponsorship of any existing contractor DB pension plans for incumbent employees who work and retire from these sites and facilities.
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/10budget/Content/Volumes/Volume1.pdf
Does anyone know why the 2010 budget request for the pensions of $122M was eventually cut or not approved and why there was apparently nothing requested 2011? Does anyone care?
Post a Comment