2013 WATER INDUSTRY INSURANCE AND RISK BENCHMARKING REPORT. Global Infrastructure Practice

Transcription

1 2013 WATER INDUSTRY INSURANCE AND RISK BENCHMARKING REPORT Global Infrastructure Practice

2 CONTENTS 3 Introduction 4 Survey Methodology 5 Total Cost of Risk 10 Insurance Program Benchmarks 14 Trends in Water Risks 18 Conclusion 18 About Marsh 2

3 INTRODUCTION Marsh is pleased to present the 2013 Water Industry Insurance and Risk Benchmarking report. This report is produced by Marsh and provides a range of comparative tools to assist water companies with benchmarking the effectiveness of their own risk financing and related risk management programs. Risk permeates every aspect of water company operations. Implementation of new technologies and asset upgrades are required around the world to replace ageing systems, and to manage the risks of a variable climate. These conditions deliver uncertainty in relation to future water harvesting and supply, as well as extreme weather events that test the capabilities of the industry s ageing infrastructure. Regulators and water companies are well aware, however, of economic conditions constraining the ability of customers to absorb the costs of updating water technology and infrastructure, despite community expectations to uphold integrity of water supply and quality. While these challenges can vary year-upon-year, they are underpinned by risks relating to asset management and water contamination, which the industry has consistently identified as its top two areas of risk in all of our studies over the past decade. In the last 12 months, we have seen an increase in some measures of the industry s total cost of risk (TCOR), reflecting firmer insurance market conditions, an increase in self-insured losses, and the influence of a broader survey base. Around the world, the benchmark of TCOR per megalitre (TCOR/ML) of water delivered to customers in 2013 was US$20. As in past years, there is significant variation in the insurance limits that water companies purchase around the world. A range of insurance parameters is explored in these pages, and these parameters are all influenced by different operating and legal environments, as well as local insurance market conditions. We trust readers will find this benchmarking report to be of value in assessing current approaches to insurance and risk management in the water industry. 3

4 SURVEY METHODOLOGY The study is based on a survey of 31 water clients spanning five regions, including Australia (14), United States (3), United Kingdom (4), Europe (7), and Central and South America (3). Some regions are not represented in all benchmarks. Those responding to this survey are involved in a number of different operations within the sector: 29 of the companies supply water, 25 are involved in the treatment of sewerage and associated services, 15 operate major dams, and three provide water through irrigation systems. Some results have been influenced by the year-on-year variation in participants of this study. FIGURE 1: NUMBER OF REGIONS REPRESENTED IN WATER INDUSTRY SURVEY Australia United States United Kingdom Europe Central/South America Please note that unless indicated, all values have been recorded in US dollars. All currencies converted to US$ for comparative purposes have used exchange rates effective 26 March 2013 of: GBP 1 = US$ PLN 1 = US$ EUR 1 = US$ OMR 1 = US$ Some Australian statistics have been represented in A$ given current exchange rates are close to parity. Europe for the purpose of this survey is a broad region including companies from Slovakia, Poland, France, Turkey, and Oman of the Middle East. Central and South America includes companies from Puerto Rico and Argentina. 4

5 TOTAL COST OF RISK TCOR is a widely used benchmark for measuring the performance of an organisation s risk management and insurance program. The data provided by each participant in our benchmarking survey has been used to determine the TCOR. The TCOR is calculated based on the insurable risk and includes the following components: Insurance premiums for general insurances, excluding workers compensation (premiums exclude taxes and statutory charges). Insurance premiums for workers compensation (premiums exclude taxes and statutory charges). Retained/uninsured losses for the specified insurances. Risk management/insurance department administrative budgets. Costs for outside services, including broker fees, outside consulting and actuarial fees, and risk management information systems. Less the sum of insurance and claims recoveries and any insurance fund surpluses (decreasing the TCOR). The cost of workers compensation is relevant in some regions and not others. It is therefore not included in the base measure of TCOR; however, it is shown as an additional component of TCOR throughout this section of the report. THE TCOR MEASURED AS A PERCENTAGE OF INSURED ASSETS HAS INCREASED BY 10% THIS YEAR TO 0.23%. Rather than drawing comparisons of TCOR in dollar terms, Marsh s methodology analyses the median ratios of TCOR as a proportion of: Revenue (TCOR/revenue). Insured assets (TCOR/assets). As a cost per megalitre of water supplied (TCOR/ML). 5

6 TCOR ratios allow direct comparisons of TCOR, regardless of company size and provide a basis to compare reasons why a company s TCOR may vary in relation to others. Some examples of causes for such variations include: Corporations such as water retailers that can generate higher revenue than others may score lower TCOR/ revenue ratios. Corporations that have higher deductibles may have lower ratios but assume higher risk volatility. Corporations that have more focused risk management may have more employees in their insurance and risk management department and may therefore have a higher TCOR ratio. Dam owners will have significantly higher asset bases and tend to have lower TCOR/asset ratios. In analysing these results, we have considered: Trends in the above three TCOR ratios over time. Geographical comparisons. Components that make up TCOR. TOTAL COST OF RISK SURVEY RESULTS The median ratios derived from the study in various regions and around the world are summarised in Figure 2. The Global TCOR benchmarks in 2013 are 0.82% of revenue and 0.23% of insured assets. FIGURE 2: TOTAL COST OF RISK BENCHMARKS ACROSS REGIONS TCOR/ REVENUE (%) TCOR/ ASSETS (%) TCOR/ML ($) Minimum Median Global Median Australia Median UK Median Europe Median US Maximum OVER TIME

7 TOTAL COST OF RISK AS A PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE Over the past six years, we have seen a general decline in the TCOR; however, this year s global median TCOR has increased from 0.35% to 0.82% of revenue. While this is significantly higher than the 2012 survey results, around two-thirds of our participants are new to the survey this year with different cost bases. A number of new survey participants have lower revenue bases and therefore higher TCOR/revenue ratios, which has affected the global benchmark. The result remains lower than for the period, reflecting softer market conditions over the intervening years. FIGURE 3: AVERAGE TOTAL COST OF RISK AS A PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE (%) TOTAL COST OF RISK PER ML OF WATER SUPPLIED The median TCOR/ML of water delivered to customers decreased in 2013 by around 10% to US$20. In part, this may be due to the breaking of drought conditions in regions such as Australia, resulting in higher water volumes and a lower ratio. FIGURE 5: AVERAGE TOTAL COST OF RISK PER ML OF WATER SUPPLIED (US$) TOTAL COST OF RISK AS A PERCENTAGE OF INSURED ASSETS The TCOR measured as a percentage of insured assets has increased by 10% this year to 0.23%. FIGURE 4: AVERAGE TOTAL COST OF RISK AS A PERCENTAGE OF INSURED ASSETS (%)

8 REGIONAL COMPARISONS Figures 6, 8, and 10 compare median TCOR ratios within each region, while Figures 7, 9, and 11 measure workers compensation premium costs as an additional component of TCOR. The TCOR ratios show a large variation between the regions, reflecting differing insurance markets, legal (claims) environments, and operating conditions. The UK is the best performing region in 2013, despite having a high TCOR in dollar terms. High asset bases and revenues in this region deliver the lowest TCOR ratios FIGURE 6: TCOR/REVENUE BENCHMARKS (%) compared with assets and revenues (0.12% and 0.63%, respectively). The UK is followed by Europe (0.2% and 0.48%), Australia (0.21% and 0.82%), and the US (0.35% and 2.99%). The US participants had low revenues, so their TCOR/revenue ratios are generally higher. Based on water volumes, however, the UK and US perform equally well, with a common median of US$18/ML. The Australian results were higher at A$27/ML. FIGURE 7: TCOR/REVENUE BENCHMARKS INC. WORKERS COMPENSATION (%) Minimum Median Global Median Australia Median UK Median Europe Median US Maximum Shaded portion of stacked bar represents workers compensation costs FIGURE 8: TCOR/ASSETS BENCHMARKS (%) FIGURE 9: TCOR/ASSETS BENCHMARKS INC. WORKERS COMPENSATION (%) Minimum Median Global Median Australia Median UK Median Europe Median US Maximum Shaded portion of stacked bar represents workers compensation costs 8

9 FIGURE 10: TCOR/ML WATER BENCHMARKS (US$) FIGURE 11: TCOR/ML WATER BENCHMARKS INC. WORKERS COMPENSATION (US$) Minimum Median Global Median Australia Median UK Median Europe Median US Maximum Shaded portion of stacked bar represents workers compensation costs COMPONENT SPLIT OF TOTAL COST OF RISK The components of TCOR around the globe are fairly consistent over time, with the ratios reflected comparable with studies over the last five years. Premiums account for the largest portion (60%) of TCOR, or 72% if workers compensation premiums are included. Retained claims costs net of recoveries account for 16%, although this has increased over the last few years, possibly reflecting weather events affecting the industry in many regions. Internal management and external advisory costs make up 8% and 4% of costs respectively. FIGURE 12: COMPONENTS OF TOTAL COST OF RISKS AS A PERCENTAGE OF INSURED ASSETS (%) General premiums Workers compensation premiums Net retained claims Internal costs Outside services 9

10 INSURANCE PROGRAM BENCHMARKS Within this section, we provide a number of benchmarks of key classes of insurance based on the companies surveyed. PUBLIC AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY Benchmarks for limits of liability, deductibles, and premium ratings in each region and across the globe are outlined in Figure 13. FIGURE 13: PUBLIC AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY BENCHMARKS LIMIT US$ DEDUCTIBLE US$ PREMIUM PER US$ MILLION OF LIMIT PREMIUM PER $1,000 REVENUE Minimum 310, Median Australia 600,000, , Median UK 228,222, ,111 6, Median Europe 14,347,880 1,088 4, Median CaSAm 100,000,000 50,000 9, Median US 21,000,000 25,000 10, Median Global 228,222,000 76,074 1, Maximum 1,000,000,000 50,000 80, The global median limit of liability for this class of insurance is US$228 million. This has remained steady over the past five years, consistent with the 2008 benchmark of US$231 million (adjusted for exchange rate movements). Consistent with past years, Australian water companies purchase limits significantly higher than in other parts of the world (US$582 million, or A$600 million for Australia versus US$228 million elsewhere). In addition to the exposures they carry within the legal environment, the premium rates enjoyed in this territory makes such limits significantly more affordable than elsewhere. Again, this result is consistent with the benchmark five years ago of A$608 million. The benchmark deductibles are more consistent across the globe, ranging from US$1,088 to US$114,111, with a global benchmark of US$76,074. Limits are relatively cheap in Australia at US$350 per million (pm); other territories pay multiples of this with European territories paying more than US$4,000 pm, the UK nearly US$7,000 pm, Central and South America more than US$9,000 pm, and more than US$10,000 pm in the US. The most common insurers used by water companies include AIG/Chartis, QBE, AEGIS, ACE, AXA, Liberty, Allianz, and Zurich. FIGURE 14: LIABILITY LIMITS (US$ MILLIONS) 1, Minimum Median UK Median CaSA Median Global Median Europe Maximum Median Australia Median US 10

11 DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY Benchmark limits of liability for directors and officers (D&O) liability insurance across the various regions are compared in Figure 15. FIGURE 15: DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY (US$ MILLIONS) Minimum Median Australia Median US Median Global Median UK Maximum UK companies generally purchase the highest limit of US$57 million (or 50 million), followed by Australia at US$23.8 million (or A$24.5 million), which is close to the global median of US$23.7 million. This is lower than in past years, when D&O limits benchmarked around US$50 million. Deductibles for this class are generally low or even zero, with a global median of US$5,000. Premium benchmarks for this class were similar in native currencies. Rates of A$956 pm apply in Australia (down from A$1,092 pm in 2012), US$1,450 pm in the US, and 953 pm in the UK. Common insurers around the world for D&O liability insurance coverage include QBE London, ACE, Chartis, Allianz, Zurich, Liberty, AXA, and Arch. THE GLOBAL MEDIAN LIMIT OF LIABILITY FOR PUBLIC AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY INSURANCE IS US$228 MILLION. 11

12 PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY Benchmark limits of liability for professional indemnity (PI) across the various regions are compared in Figure 16. FIGURE 16: PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY LIMITS (US$ MILLIONS) Minimum Median Australia Median US Median Global Median UK The global median of US$17.6 million has increased from US$15 million in 2012, largely as a result of limits within the Australian group increasing from A$20 million to A$50 million. UK companies tend to purchase limits of 5 million and US companies US$3.5 million. Deductibles for PI ranged in our survey from US$50 to US$1 million, with a median of US$10,000. Common insurers around the world for PI coverage include QBE, AEGIS, and Chartis. BUSINESS INTERRUPTION The majority of respondents reported that business interruption insurance is packaged as part of their general property insurance placement. The survey results indicated that only 30% of respondents purchase extra expense or increased cost of working coverage, while 40% of respondents have some form of revenue coverage, either on a full declaration or first-loss limit. The remaining 30% do not have any business interruption cover. PROPERTY AND DAMS Coverage for dams and general property tended to be in separate policies for most respondents. The potential catastrophic exposure associated with dam failure continues to drive higher limits and deductibles for dam policies, compared with general property policies in Australia. The global median limit for property remains unchanged from 2012 at US$150 million. Some policies in Central and South America are written to full value and have not been included in Figure 17; however, the median in that region is in the order of US$5 billion with a maximum in excess of that figure. FIGURE 17: PROPERTY AND DAM LIMITS (US$ MILLIONS) Minimum Median Australia Median Europe Median Global Median UK Median US For each benchmark, Property is shown as the darker left column, and Dams represented by lighted shaded columns on the right. Deductibles are consistent between property and dams based on combined policies in the UK, with a benchmark of US$152,000 or 100,000. In Australia, deductibles on dam placements have a median of A$1.9 million versus general property deductibles of A$10,000. Premium rates vary between a low of 0.017% and 0.07%, with a global median of % for general property and 0.032% for dams. Global property markets include FM Global, Chubb, ACE, Allianz, QBE, and AIG. Dam insurers include AIG, FM Global, Allianz, and ACE. 12

13 CONSTRUCTION RISKS AND CONTRACTING Our focus for this class is the material damage element or contract works. Some respondents in certain territories include this cover as part of their general property policy, which provides a higher limit than generally needed under specific policies. FIGURE 18: CONSTRUCTION INSURANCE BENCHMARKS LIMIT US$ DEDUCTIBLE US$ PREMIUM RATE (%) Minimum 560,071 2, Median Australia 15,000,000 25, Median US 500,000,000 37,500 Median Global 15,000,000 25, Maximum 500,000, , In response to questions about how water companies structure their contracts: 75% of the survey respondents outsource infrastructure renewals and maintenance; however, around two-thirds of the group remain actively involved in this activity. Around two-thirds of the survey respondents purchase a principal controlled insurance program for contract works insurance; however, this was limited to Australia, the US, and Slovakia, with most of Europe and the UK not choosing this method. Contracting conditions and associated insurance requirements imposed on contractors are subject to local factors and conditions such as insurance availability, competition, and operating environment. Limits required to be provided by contractors for general liability and professional indemnity are reflected in Figure 19. FIGURE 19: CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM GENERAL LIABILITY LIMIT REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED BY CONTRACTORS US$ MINIMUM PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY LIMIT REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED BY CONTRACTORS US$ Minimum 155,415 1,000,000 Median Australia 10,000,000 7,500,000 Median US 3,000,000 1,000,000 Median Global 10,000,000 5,000,000 Maximum 20,000,000 20,000,000 CRIME There was significant variation in limits purchased for crime insurance, from a low of US$104 up to US$100 million. Generally, UK water companies purchased the higher limits with a median of US$15.2 million, exceeding the global median of US$2 million, and the Australian median of A$2 million with lower limits purchased elsewhere. Deductibles are also higher in the UK benchmarking at US$151,148 ( 100,000) and US$10,000 or less in other territories. FIGURE 20: CRIME INSURANCE BENCHMARKS LIMIT US$ DEDUCTIBLE US$ Minimum Median Australia 2,000,000 10,000 Median UK 15,214, ,148 Median US 250,000 2,750 Median Global 2,000,000 10,000 Maximum 100,000, ,370 WORKERS COMPENSATION Workers compensation premiums account for 12% of TCOR or 17% of premiums, which has increased from 11% of premium in Limits and deductibles are subject to local and, in most cases, compulsory, legislated, or statutory conditions. The UK responses demonstrated a common approach of purchasing limits of 50 million. MOTOR VEHICLE THIRD PARTY LIABILITY Of the 24 responses to this section, most companies purchase full comprehensive motor/auto cover, with three entities (12.5%) buying third party only cover. Limits for auto liability or motor vehicle third party liability vary significantly between the various regions, with Australia and the UK purchasing higher limits than in Europe or the US. The median deductibles range from US$311 in Europe, US$500 in the US, US$571 in the UK, and up to A$1,000 in Australia. Premiums for third party only policies yield a significant saving with the median rate of US$125 per vehicle compared with US$279 per vehicle for comprehensive coverage. 13

14 TRENDS IN WATER RISKS Based on analysis of survey responses, this section of the report provides details of: The most critical risk exposures faced by the water industry and how these have changed over time. Drivers behind the top risks. Trends in risk management initiatives undertaken within the industry in the past 12 months. The approach to insuring exposures specific to the water industry. MAJOR WATER INDUSTRY RISK EXPOSURES The following exposures were most commonly identified by our survey participants as being major exposures to their organisation in They are compared with the most common responses from prior years. The risks are listed in decreasing order of commonality with the failure of water assets remaining as the top industry risk in FIGURE 21: TOP 10 INDUSTRY RISKS TOP 10 RISKS 2013 TOP 10 RISKS 2007 TOP 10 RISKS 2005 Failure of water assets Failure of water assets Failure of water assets Malicious contamination (water) Loss of customer / community satisfaction Sabotage / terrorism Accidental contaminated water supply / water quality Inadequate financial management Failure of sewage asset Drought / diminishing water supplies Failure of assets to meet standards Strategic planning Accidental contaminated water supply / water quality Water availability Drought / diminishing water supplies Failure of sewage asset Other regulatory / governance issues Inadequate financial management Change in government policy Retention of staff Flooding and other natural disasters Contamination of water supply Environmental discharges (eg. Sewer overflows) Flooding and other natural disasters Failure of sewage asset Personnel / HR strategy Climate change Failure of key management systems Wholesaler system failure Other regulatory / governance issues As risk profiling within the water industry has matured over the history of our study, a stable risk profile has emerged. Failure of water assets and contamination of water supplies continue to be the top two risks. This is not surprising given the vital importance of clean and available drinking water to communities no matter where they are, and the implications and likely outcry if quality or supply were to fail. The top risks in the water industry continue to be closely interrelated. Asset management (both water and sewerage assets) and water (both quality and availability) risks remain ranked as the highest risk categories in the water industry. This in part reflects a focus on organisations key mission: in some locations ageing infrastructure and in all cases the risk of failure driven by underlying obligations, regulations, and community expectations. The above themes were complemented this year by the increased profile of certain risks, including: Sabotage/Terrorism and Malicious Contamination (Water): This shift would appear to be driven by increasing concern across the Americas, Middle East, and parts of Europe as part of the global heightened awareness of security risks and exposures. Loss of Customer/Community Satisfaction: This risk would appear to be driven by shifting expectations across many communities. In some instances this is due to communities increased awareness and empowerment, and for some organisations it is the challenge of seeking to deliver services in challenging financial circumstances. Inadequate Financial Management: This shift would appear to be driven by the wider global economic downturn, reduced access to capital and funds (especially from governments), and the increasing cost of doing business. Strategic Planning: This risk has a higher rating across the Americas and Europe and may reflect the enormity of the challenges faced by organisations in these continents. The challenge is arriving at a suitable strategy aligned to the financial constraints and factoring in the implications of getting it wrong. 14

15 Interestingly, flooding and other natural disasters fell just outside the top 10 risks, along with regulatory related risks. This may in part reflect participant changes and risk mitigation measures undertaken since the last survey. TOP RISK CATEGORIES AND RISK RADAR By grouping risk responses together in risk categories we are able to plot a risk radar, which provides further insight into the risks of most concern to the water industry. In 2013 these are: Water (as a product). Asset management. Water supply. Network security. Stakeholders. Financial. Strategy. Regulatory. Natural hazards. Climate change. Systems. Liability. Personnel. Environmental. The significant change in 2013 is the emergence (on the risk radar) of network security, stakeholder, financial, and strategy related risks. Water as a product, its asset management, and its supply remain the common peak areas of risk. FAILURE OF WATER ASSETS AND CONTAMINATION OF WATER SUPPLIES CONTINUE TO BE THE TOP TWO RISKS. 15

16 FIGURE 22: WATER INDUSTRY RISKS RADAR Externally Driven FINANCIAL RISKS Financial Regulatory Strategy STRATEGIC RISKS Climate Change Internally Driven Larger circles represent higher ranked risks Stakeholders Natural Hazards Systems Personnel Network Security Water Supply HAZARD RISKS Environmental Asset Management Water (as a product) Liability OPERATIONAL RISKS DRIVERS OF TOP RISKS The survey participants provided views on the drivers of risk across their organisations. The primary drivers appear to relate the achievement of each organisation s primary mission and, in doing so, ensuring both the public and their own workforce remained safe, that regulation was not breached, and the organisation s reputation and intrinsic value to its community was maintained. These primary drivers were supported by secondary and tertiary drivers, which were more specific and also appear to be linked or related to the primary drivers. These included water quality and public health obligations, provision of services that meet community expectations within financial constraints, asset failures and environmental implications, and regulatory relationship and pressures. RISK MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES UNDERTAKEN/IMPLEMENTED DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS Although risk management initiatives in the water industry are subject to local trends and conditions, there is an increasing focus on the following activities: Management systems, including achievement of certification to recognised ISO management systems and continued enhancement of organisations risk management practices and systems. A shift to the better recognition and management of opportunity risk; that is, the management of uncertainty that has a positive impact on objectives. Ongoing and regular reviews of organisations risk profiles and associated mitigation action plans. Improved capital allocation and works planning through the stronger consideration of risk. 16

17 Introduction and ongoing development and delivery of emergency and disaster management plans, training, and exercises. Infrastructure changes, including decommissioning of assets and improved management of decommissioned assets. Enhancing security at key locations and relocation of moveable plant to reduce theft and damage. Greater involvement of internal audit with a stronger alignment to risk. USE OF CAPTIVES AS A RISK FINANCING TOOL Of the 34 water companies participating in our survey, three use a captive insurer, primarily for specific placements and not across all insurance lines. INSURANCE FOR INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC ASSETS AND EXPOSURES The water industry is faced with a number of unique exposures, such as underground pipe and sewer networks and water stocks. Notwithstanding the value of such assets, the geographical spread and low exposure have historically resulted in most water companies electing to self-insure. Although the performance of these essential assets is highly regulated, the validity of self-insuring industry exposures should be reviewed regularly and benchmarking continues to be a useful tool for this purpose. The extent to which water industry exposures are insured in the various regions is largely consistent with prior years studies, apart from machinery breakdown, which is now more widely insured. In recent years, more insurance products have emerged for cyber risks, environmental impairment, extortion, and water contamination, but the number of water companies purchasing such protection remains below 50%. FIGURE 23: WATER INDUSTRY RISKS (%) Cyber risks Business interruption Environmental impairment Extortion Water contamination (accidental) Water contamination (malicious) Machinery breakdown Water (as stock) Dams Underground pipelines Insured Median Global 17

18 CONCLUSION ABOUT MARSH Following six years of generally declining costs, in 2013 we have seen a slight increase in some measures of the water industry s TCOR. Managing premium costs is paramount in efforts to contain TCOR, and currently the UK is the best performing region, followed by Europe, Australia, and the US. However, the US and UK performed equally well based on water volumes. Asset management and water contamination risks continue to be the dominant threats faced by water companies across the world, but new risks are emerging, particularly risks associated with terrorism and sabotage, community expectations, strategy, and financial performance. Cyber risks, environmental impairment, extortion, and water contamination are also on the rise, although most water companies have yet to turn to insurance to meet these growing threats. Companies are aware of the need to implement robust mitigation strategies and insurance solutions, which is why benchmarking statistics, such as those contained within this report, can prove invaluable when determining and applying industry best practice. However, due to local factors the insurance strategies of companies seeking to transfer these risks to the insurance market differ greatly from region to region. We trust readers have found this study useful in aiding their benchmarking of risk, insurance, and the total cost of managing risk within their own organisations. Marsh is a global leader in insurance broking and risk management. We help clients succeed by defining, designing, and delivering innovative industry-specific solutions that help them effectively manage risk. We have approximately 26,000 colleagues working together to serve clients in more than 100 countries. Marsh is a wholly owned subsidiary of Marsh & McLennan Companies (NYSE: MMC), a global team of professional services companies offering clients advice and solutions in the areas of risk, strategy, and human capital. With more than 53,000 employees worldwide and annual revenue exceeding $11 billion, Marsh & McLennan Companies is also the parent company of Guy Carpenter, a global leader in providing risk and reinsurance intermediary services; Mercer, a global leader in talent, health, retirement, and investment consulting; and Oliver Wyman, a global leader in management consulting. Follow Marsh on 18

19 ABOUT MARSH S POWER AND UTILITIES PRACTICE Marsh is the globally acknowledged market leader in the provision of insurance and risk management services to the international power and utilities sector. Our global client base encompasses the whole spectrum of power and utilities, including water and waste water management which, together with vertically integrated nationalised industries, transmission and distribution companies, independent power projects (IPP), combined heat and power (CHP) projects, combined power and desalination projects, and nuclear, gas, and renewable energy companies, are a focus of specialisation at Marsh. Our industry practice approach allows us to build a unique knowledge of the particular needs of power and utilities companies and to tailor our services and solutions accordingly. Services are delivered through a long-established international network of centres of excellence and in-country industry specialists, many of whom have formerly worked in the utility sector. These dedicated resources span all relevant disciplines including client servicing, insurance broking, risk engineering, and risk management for insurable and non-insurable risk, and offer clients dynamic risk assessment, deep market relationships, and bespoke consulting services. Through our market relationships, industry knowledge, and program-design capabilities, Marsh and Marsh & McLennan Companies have an unrivalled ability to assist power and utilities companies in ensuring the optimum combination of risk retention, risk control, and risk transfer. ABOUT MARSH S GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRACTICE Marsh s Global Infrastructure Practice provides clients with access to the full range of risk-based, analytical, and transactional support services available from the Marsh & McLennan Companies group, including risk advisory and insurance transactional services; commercial/market, operations, and capital planning organisation; economics and regulation consulting; human capital; and investment analysis. MARSH IS THE GLOBALLY ACKNOWLEDGED MARKET LEADER IN THE PROVISION OF INSURANCE AND RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO THE INTERNATIONAL POWER AND UTILITIES SECTOR. 19

20 marsh.com.au For more information, please contact Simon Gaunt Managing Principal Power & Utilities Sabrina Baker Marsh Knowledge Manager Infrastructure Power Practice sabrina.baker@marsh.com Disclaimer: The information contained herein is based on sources we believe reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy. The information contained in this publication provides only a general overview of subjects covered, is not intended to be taken as advice regarding any individual situation, and should not be relied upon as such. Statements concerning legal matters should be understood to be general observations based solely on our experience as insurance brokers and risk consultants and should not be relied upon as legal advice, which we are not authorised to provide. Insureds should consult their own qualified insurance and/or legal advisors regarding specific coverage and other issues. CATS 12/0042 In the United Kingdom, Marsh Ltd is authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority for insurance mediation activities only. Copyright 2013 Marsh Ltd. All rights reserved. Printed on 100% post consumer waste recycled paper