|
|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
| |||||||||
Consolidated Edison 10-Q 2005 Documents found in this filing:Table of ContentsForm 10-Q
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Indicate by check mark whether each Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months, and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No ¨ (See Filing Format on next page)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
As of the close of business on October 31, 2005 Con Edison had outstanding 244,960,349 Common Shares ($.10 par value). Con Edison owns all of the outstanding common equity of Con Edison of New York.
1
Table of ContentsFiling Format
This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q is a combined report being filed separately by two different registrants: Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Edison) and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison of New York). Con Edison of New York is a subsidiary of Con Edison and, as such, the information in this report about Con Edison of New York also applies to Con Edison. As used in this report, the term the Companies refers to each of the two separate registrants: Con Edison and Con Edison of New York. However, Con Edison of New York makes no representation as to the information contained in this report relating to Con Edison or the subsidiaries of Con Edison other than itself.
2
Table of ContentsTABLE OF CONTENTS
3
Table of Contents
The following is a glossary of abbreviations or acronyms that may be used in this report:
4
Table of Contents
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (UNAUDITED)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
5
Table of ContentsConsolidated Edison, Inc.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (UNAUDITED)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
6
Table of Contents
CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENT (UNAUDITED)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
7
Table of Contents
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (UNAUDITED)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
8
Table of Contents
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF COMMON SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY FOR THE THREE AND NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 AND 2004 (UNAUDITED)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
9
Table of Contents
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS (UNAUDITED)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
10
Table of ContentsConsolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (UNAUDITED)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
11
Table of ContentsConsolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (UNAUDITED)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
12
Table of ContentsConsolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENT (UNAUDITED)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
13
Table of ContentsConsolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (UNAUDITED)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
14
Table of ContentsConsolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF COMMON SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY FOR THE THREE AND NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 AND 2004 (UNAUDITED)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
15
Table of ContentsConsolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS (UNAUDITED)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
16
Table of ContentsNOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED)
General These combined notes accompany and form an integral part of the separate interim consolidated financial statements of two separate registrants: Consolidated Edison, Inc. and its subsidiaries (Con Edison); and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and its subsidiaries (Con Edison of New York). Con Edison of New York is a subsidiary of Con Edison and as such its financial condition and results of operations and cash flows, which are presented separately in the Con Edison of New York interim consolidated financial statements, are also consolidated, along with those of Con Edisons other utility subsidiary, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (O&R) and Con Edisons unregulated subsidiaries (discussed below), in Con Edisons interim consolidated financial statements. The term the Utilities is used in these notes to refer to Con Edison of New York and O&R. As used in these notes, the term the Companies refers to Con Edison and Con Edison of New York and, except as otherwise noted, the information in these combined notes relates to each of the Companies.
The separate interim consolidated financial statements of each of the Companies are unaudited but, in the opinion of their respective managements, reflect all adjustments (which include only normally recurring adjustments) necessary for a fair presentation of the results for the interim periods presented. The Companies separate interim consolidated financial statements should be read together with their separate audited financial statements (including the combined notes thereto) included in Item 8 of their combined Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Form 10-K) and their separate unaudited financial statements (including the combined notes thereto) included in Part I, Item 1 of their combined Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 (the First Quarter Form 10-Q) and June 30, 2005 (the Second Quarter Form 10-Q). Certain prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation. Results for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of results for the entire fiscal year.
Con Edison has two regulated utility subsidiaries: Con Edison of New York and O&R. Con Edison of New York provides electric service to approximately 3.2 million customers and gas service to over 1 million customers in New York City and Westchester County. The company also provides steam service in parts of Manhattan. O&R, along with its regulated utility subsidiaries, provides electric service to approximately 0.3 million customers in southeastern New York and adjacent areas of northern New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania and gas service to over 0.1 million customers in southeastern New York and adjacent areas of eastern Pennsylvania. Con Edison has the following unregulated energy subsidiaries: Consolidated Edison Solutions, Inc. (Con Edison Solutions), a retail energy services company that sells electricity to delivery customers of utilities, including Con Edison of New York and O&R, and also offers energy-related services; Consolidated Edison Energy, Inc. (Con
17
Table of ContentsNOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) CONTINUED
Edison Energy), a wholesale energy supply company; and Consolidated Edison Development, Inc. (Con Edison Development), a company that owns and operates generating plants and participates in other infrastructure projects.
In December 2004, after a comprehensive strategic review, Con Edison determined to sell Con Edison Communications, LLC (Con Edison Communications). See Note N.
Note A - Earnings per Common Share Reference is made to Earnings per Common Share in Note A to the financial statements included in Item 8 of the Form 10-K. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005 and 2004, Con Edisons basic and diluted EPS are calculated as follows:
The computation of diluted earnings per share excludes 0.9 million and 7.8 million Con Edison common shares for the three months ended September 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively, and 0.9 million and 7.7 million common shares for the nine months ended September 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively, because the exercise prices of the related underlying options were greater than the average daily closing market price of the common shares during the respective periods.
18
Table of ContentsNOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) CONTINUED
Note B - Stock-Based Compensation Reference is made to Stock-Based Compensation in Note A to the financial statements in Item 8 of the Form 10-K. The following table illustrates the effect on net income and earnings per share for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively, if the Companies had applied the fair value recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation, for purposes of recognizing compensation expense for employee stock-based arrangements:
Note C - Regulatory Matters Reference is made to Accounting Policies in Note A and Rate and Restructuring Agreements in Note B to the financial statements in Item 8 of the Form 10-K and Note C to the financial statements in Part I, Item 1 of the First Quarter Form 10-Q and Second Quarter Form 10-Q.
19
Table of ContentsNOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) CONTINUED
Regulatory Assets and Liabilities Regulatory assets and liabilities at September 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004 were comprised of the following items:
20
Table of ContentsNOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) CONTINUED
Net electric deferrals represents the remaining unamortized balance of certain regulatory assets and liabilities of Con Edison of New York that were combined effective April 1, 2005 and are being amortized to income over the period April 2005 through March 2008, in accordance with the electric rate plan discussed in Note C to the financial statements in Part I, Item I of the First Quarter Form 10-Q.
In May 2005, Con Edison of New York completed the sale of certain properties located on First Avenue in Manhattan. Net proceeds from the sale received at closing totaled $534 million, resulting in a pre-tax gain on the sale of $256 million. In accordance with the Public Service Commission (PSC) order approving the sale of the properties, the company has deferred the net gain for the benefit of customers. The net after-tax gain on the sale, including additional expenses to be incurred, is estimated at $114 million. There may be additional proceeds in the event of certain zoning or other developments.
In November 2005, Con Edison of New York filed a request with the PSC for a net increase in rates it charges for steam service, effective October 1, 2006, of $68 million (9.6 percent). The filing reflects a return on common equity of 11 percent and a common equity ratio of 49 percent of capitalization. The filing includes a proposal for a three-year rate plan, with additional increases effective October 1, 2007 and 2008 of $15 million and $12 million, respectively. The filing proposes continuation of the current steam rate plan provisions with respect to recovery from customers of the cost of fuel and purchased steam and environmental remediation expenses and the reconciliation of actual expenses allocable to steam to the amounts reflected in rates for pension and other post-employment benefit costs, property taxes and interference costs.
Note D - Short-Term Borrowing and Credit Agreements For information about the Companies commercial paper programs and revolving credit agreements, see Note D to the financial statements in Part I, Item 1 of the First Quarter 10-Q. At September 30, 2005, Con Edison had $224 million of commercial paper outstanding of which $122 million was outstanding under Con Edison of New Yorks program. The weighted average interest rate for the nine-month period was 3.13 percent and 2.95 percent for Con Edison and Con Edison of New York, respectively. At September 30, 2005, no loans were outstanding under any of the credit agreements and $248 million of letters of credit were outstanding.
21
Table of ContentsNOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) CONTINUED
Note E - Environmental Matters Superfund Sites Hazardous substances, such as asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and coal tar, have been used or generated in the course of operations of the Utilities and their predecessors and are present at sites and in facilities and equipment they currently or previously owned, including sites at which gas was manufactured or stored.
The Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 and similar state statutes (Superfund) impose joint and several liability, regardless of fault, upon generators of hazardous substances for investigation and remediation costs (which include costs of demolition, removal, disposal, storage, replacement, containment and monitoring) and environmental damages. Liability under these laws can be material and may be imposed for contamination from past acts, even though such past acts may have been lawful at the time they occurred. The sites, at which the Utilities have been asserted to have liability under these laws, including their manufactured gas plant sites, are referred to herein as Superfund Sites.
For Superfund Sites where there are other potentially responsible parties and the Utilities are not managing the site investigation and remediation, the accrued liability represents an estimate of the amount the Utilities will need to pay to discharge their related obligations. For Superfund Sites (including the manufactured gas plant sites) for which one of the Utilities is managing the investigation and remediation, the accrued liability represents an estimate of the undiscounted cost to investigate the sites and, for sites that have been investigated in whole or in part, the cost to remediate the sites. Remediation costs are estimated in light of the information available, applicable remediation standards and experience with similar sites.
For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005, Con Edison of New York incurred approximately $12 million and $25 million, respectively, for environmental remediation costs. Insurance recoveries were $2 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2005, all of which reduced related regulatory assets. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2004, Con Edison of New York incurred approximately $21 million and $36 million, respectively, for environmental remediation costs. Insurance recoveries of $15 million were received by Con Edison of New York during the nine months ended September 30, 2004, $14 million of which reduced related regulatory assets, with the remainder credited to expense.
22
Table of ContentsNOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) CONTINUED
The accrued liabilities and regulatory assets related to Superfund Sites for the Companies at September 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004 were as follows:
Most of the accrued Superfund Site liability relates to sites that have been investigated, in whole or in part. As investigations progress on these and other sites, the Companies expect that additional liability will be accrued, the amount of which is not presently determinable but may be material. Under their current rate agreements, the Utilities are permitted to recover or defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) certain site investigation and remediation costs.
In 2002, Con Edison of New York estimated that for its manufactured gas plant sites, many of which had not been investigated, its aggregate undiscounted potential liability for the investigation and remediation of coal tar and/or other manufactured gas plant-related environmental contaminants could range from approximately $65 million to $1.1 billion. In 2004, O&R estimated that for its manufactured gas plant sites, each of which has been investigated, the aggregate undiscounted potential liability for the remediation of such contaminants could range from approximately $31 million to $87 million. These estimates were based on the assumption that there is contamination at each of the sites and additional assumptions regarding the extent of contamination and the type and extent of remediation that may be required. Actual experience may be materially different.
Asbestos Proceedings Suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts against the Utilities and many other defendants, wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities. The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts specified in the remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars; however, the Companies believe that these amounts are greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims. In 2004, Con Edison of New York estimated that its aggregate undiscounted potential liability for these suits and
23
Table of ContentsNOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) CONTINUED
additional suits that may be brought over the next 15 years is $25 million. The estimate was based upon a combination of modeling, historical data analysis and risk factor assessment. Actual experience may be materially different.
In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or are claiming workers compensation benefits based on alleged disability from exposure to asbestos. Under its current rate agreements, Con Edison of New York is permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) liabilities incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers compensation claims.
The accrued liability for asbestos suits and workers compensation proceedings (including those related to asbestos exposure) and the amounts deferred as regulatory assets for the Companies at September 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004 were as follows:
Note F - Northeast Utilities Litigation In March 2001, Con Edison commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the District Court), entitled Consolidated Edison, Inc. v. Northeast Utilities (the First Federal Proceeding), seeking a declaratory judgment that Northeast Utilities has failed to meet certain conditions precedent to Con Edisons obligation to complete its acquisition of Northeast Utilities pursuant to their agreement and plan of merger, dated as of October 13, 1999, as amended and restated as of January 11, 2000 (the merger agreement). In May 2001, Con Edison amended its complaint. As amended, Con Edisons complaint seeks, among other things, recovery of damages sustained by it as a result of the material breach of the merger agreement by Northeast Utilities, and the District Courts declaration that under the merger agreement Con Edison has no further or continuing obligations to Northeast Utilities and Northeast Utilities has no further or continuing rights against Con Edison.
In June 2001, Northeast Utilities withdrew the separate action it commenced in March 2001 in the same court and filed as a counter-claim in the First Federal Proceeding its claim that Con Edison materially breached the merger agreement and that, as a result, Northeast Utilities and its shareholders have suffered substantial damages, including the difference between the consideration to be paid to Northeast Utilities shareholders pursuant to the merger agreement and the market value of Northeast
24
Table of ContentsNOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) CONTINUED
Utilities common stock (the so-called lost premium claim), expenditures in connection with regulatory approvals and lost business opportunities. Pursuant to the merger agreement, Con Edison agreed to acquire Northeast Utilities for $26.00 per share (an estimated aggregate of not more than $3.9 billion) plus $0.0034 per share for each day after August 5, 2000 through the day prior to the completion of the transaction, payable 50 percent in cash and 50 percent in stock.
In March 2003, the District Court ruled on certain motions filed by Con Edison and Northeast Utilities in the First Federal Proceeding. The District Court ruled that Con Edisons claim against Northeast Utilities for hundreds of millions of dollars for breach of the merger agreement, as well as Con Edisons claim that Northeast Utilities underwent a material adverse change, will go to trial. The District Court also dismissed Con Edisons fraud and misrepresentation claims. In addition, the District Court ruled that Northeast Utilities shareholders were intended third-party beneficiaries of the merger agreement and the alleged $1.2 billion lost premium claim against Con Edison would go to trial.
In May 2003, a lawsuit by a purported class of Northeast Utilities shareholders, entitled Rimkoski, et al. v. Consolidated Edison, Inc., was filed in New York County Supreme Court (the State Proceeding) alleging breach of the merger agreement. The complaint defined the putative class as holders of Northeast Utilities common stock on March 5, 2001, and alleged that the class members were intended third party beneficiaries of the merger agreement. The complaint sought damages believed to be substantially duplicative of those sought by Northeast Utilities on behalf of its shareholders in the First Federal Proceeding. In December 2003, the District Court granted Rimkoskis motion to intervene in the First Federal Proceeding and, in February 2004, the State Proceeding was dismissed without prejudice. In January 2004, Rimkoski filed a motion in the First Federal Proceeding to certify his action as a class action on behalf of all holders of Northeast Utilities common stock on March 5, 2001 and to appoint Rimkoski as class representative. The motion is pending.
In May 2004, the District Court ruled that the Northeast Utilities shareholders who may pursue the lost premium claim against Con Edison are the holders of Northeast Utilities common stock on March 5, 2001 and the District Court therefore dismissed Northeast Utilities lost premium claim. The District Court certified its ruling regarding the lost premium claim for interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the Court of Appeals), and in June 2004 Northeast Utilities filed its motion for leave to appeal the issue to the Court of Appeals. The District Court further certified for interlocutory appeal its March 2003 determination that Northeast Utilities shareholders are intended third-party beneficiaries under the merger agreement, and in June 2004 Con Edison filed its motion for leave to appeal the issue to the Court of Appeals. In October 2004, the
25
Table of ContentsNOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) CONTINUED
Court of Appeals granted both Con Edisons motion and Northeast Utilities motion. In October 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Courts March 2003 ruling that Northeast Utilities shareholders were intended third-party beneficiaries of the merger agreement, and held that Northeast Utilities shareholders therefore could not sue Con Edison for the claimed lost premium. Also, in October 2005, Northeast Utilities and Rimkowski each filed petitions for rehearing of that Court of Appeals decision.
In May 2004, the District Court dismissed the lawsuit that was commenced in October 2003 by a purported class of Northeast Utilities shareholders, entitled Siegel et al. v. Consolidated Edison, Inc. (the Second Federal Proceeding). The Second Federal Proceeding had sought unspecified injunctive relief and damages believed to be substantially duplicative of the damages sought from Con Edison in the First Federal Proceeding. A motion by the plaintiffs in the Second Federal Proceeding to intervene in the First Federal Proceeding is pending.
Con Edison believes that Northeast Utilities materially breached the merger agreement, and that Con Edison did not materially breach the merger agreement. Con Edison believes it was not obligated to acquire Northeast Utilities because Northeast Utilities did not meet the merger agreements conditions that Northeast Utilities perform all of its obligations under the merger agreement. Those obligations include the obligation that it carry on its businesses in the ordinary course consistent with past practice; that the representations and warranties made by it in the merger agreement were true and correct when made and remain true and correct; and that there be no material adverse change with respect to Northeast Utilities.
Con Edison is unable to predict whether or not any Northeast Utilities related lawsuits or other actions will have a material adverse effect on Con Edisons financial position, results of operations or liquidity.
Note G - Other Material Contingencies Lease In/Lease Out Transactions As part of a broad initiative, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is reviewing certain categories of transactions. Among these are transactions in which a taxpayer leases property and then immediately subleases it back to the lessor (termed Lease In/Lease Out, or LILO transactions). In 1997 and 1999, Con Edison Development entered into two LILO transactions, involving gas distribution and electric generating facilities in the Netherlands, with a total investment of $259 million. The transactions were financed with $93 million of equity and $166 million of non-recourse, long-term debt secured by the underlying assets. In accordance with SFAS No. 13, Accounting for Leases, Con Edison is accounting for the two LILO transactions as leveraged leases. Accordingly, the companys investment in these leases, net of non-recourse debt, is carried as a single amount in Con Edisons
26
Table of ContentsNOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) CONTINUED
consolidated balance sheet and income is recognized pursuant to a method that incorporates a level rate of return for those years when net investment in the lease is positive, based upon the after-tax cash flows projected at the inception of the leveraged leases. At September 30, 2005, and December 31, 2004, the companys investment in these leveraged leases ($223 million and $215 million, respectively) net of deferred tax liabilities ($182 million and $165 million, respectively), amounted to $41 million and $50 million, respectively. The estimated tax savings from the two LILO transactions through September 30, 2005, in the aggregate, was $132 million. On audit of Con Edisons tax return for 1997, the IRS disallowed the tax losses in connection with the 1997 LILO transaction.
Con Edison believes that its LILOs have been correctly reported. Con Edison intends to pay the $0.4 million income tax deficiency asserted by the IRS for the tax year 1997 with respect to the 1997 LILO transaction, and commence litigation in federal court to obtain a refund of this tax payment.
In July 2005, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued a proposed FASB Staff Position (FSP) No. FAS 13-a, Accounting for a Change or Projected Change in the Timing of Cash Flows Relating to Income Taxes Generated by a Leveraged Lease Transaction. The proposed FSP would require the expected timing of income tax cash flows generated by Con Edisons LILO transactions to be reviewed at least annually. If the expected timing of the cash flows is revised, the rate of return and the allocation of income would be recalculated from the inception of the LILO transactions. Additionally, if a revision of an important assumption requires a recalculation of a leveraged lease and changes its characteristics such that it would not qualify as a leveraged lease, the lease should be reclassified as a direct financing lease on a prospective basis at the date the change in assumption occurs. If the companys tax position with respect to the LILO transactions were to be revised, the company could be required to recalculate the accounting effect of the LILO transactions, which could result in a charge to earnings that could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations.
Timing of Deduction of Construction-Related Costs In August 2005, the IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2005-53 with respect to when federal income tax deductions can be taken for certain construction-related costs. The Companies used the simplified service cost method (SSCM) to determine the extent to which these costs could be deducted in 2002, 2003 and 2004, and as a result reduced their current tax expense (for Con Edison, by $289 million of which $264 million is attributable to Con Edison of New York). Under Revenue Ruling 2005-53, the Companies may be required to repay, with interest, a portion of their past SSCM tax benefits and to capitalize and depreciate over a period of years costs they previously deducted under SSCM. The interest could range from zero to approximately $35 million. Repayment of the SSCM tax benefits would not otherwise affect the Utilities results of operations because deferred taxes have been
27
Table of ContentsNOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) CONTINUED
previously provided for the related temporary differences between the SSCM deductions taken for federal income tax purposes and the corresponding amounts charged to expense for financial reporting purposes.
Collection Agent Termination In April 2004, Con Edison of New York terminated arrangements with a collection agent, which also processed payments for other large corporations and governmental agencies. The New York State Banking Department suspended the license of the collection agent, and the collection agent consented to an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding commenced against it by a group of its unsecured creditors. The collection agent has not forwarded to the company an estimated $21 million of payments it received from the companys customers. The company is continuing to review the matter and the possible recovery of these payments from the bankrupts estate, insurance or other sources. In April 2004, the company reflected the possible loss of these payments on its balance sheet and recorded an offsetting regulatory asset. The company has filed a petition with the PSC in connection with this matter.
Lower Manhattan Restoration Con Edison of New York estimates that its costs for emergency response to the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center, and for resulting temporary and subsequent permanent restoration of electric, gas and steam transmission and distribution facilities damaged in the attack will total $430 million, net of insurance payments. Most of the costs, which are capital in nature, have already been incurred. At September 30, 2005, the company has received reimbursement for $169 million of these costs ($76 million under insurance policies and $93 million from the federal government). The company expects to receive additional funds from insurance policies and federal reimbursement. At September 30, 2005, the company had incurred capital costs of $197 million and, pursuant to a petition it filed with the PSC in 2001, deferred $131 million, including interest, as a regulatory asset; these amounts are net of reimbursements to that date. The company expects the PSC to permit recovery from customers of the costs, net of any federal reimbursement, insurance payments and tax savings.
Suits brought on behalf of several thousand plaintiffs alleged to have been working at the World Trade Center site following the attack are pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against numerous parties, including the City of New York, Con Edison and Con Edison of New York. The suits generally seek unspecified amounts of damages allegedly resulting from exposure to hazardous substances in connection with emergency response and restoration activities at the site. The Companies believe that their activities were prudent and in compliance with applicable laws. Neither of the Companies, however, is able to predict whether or not any proceedings or other actions relating to the activities will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.
28
Table of ContentsNOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) CONTINUED
Based upon New York Citys announced plans for improvement projects in lower Manhattan, including a transportation hub, the company anticipates that over the next five to ten years it may incur up to $250 million in incremental interference costs in lower Manhattan. The companys rate plans include provisions for the recovery of interference costs.
Generating Assets Sold To Mirant In June 1999, O&R completed the sale of all of its generating assets to affiliates of Mirant Corporation (formerly Southern Energy, Inc.) and the two-thirds interest in the Bowline Point generating facility owned by Con Edison of New York. The total gross proceeds from the sale amounted to $476 million ($343 million attributable to O&R and $133 million attributable to Con Edison of New York). In 2003, Mirant and most of its subsidiaries filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
The Utilities have entered into an agreement with Mirant, its affiliated debtors and debtors in possession, and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for Mirant Corporation tolling the running of any statute of limitations with respect to any claim Mirant, its affiliated debtors or debtors in possession, or the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for Mirant Corporation may have against the Utilities. Mirant has indicated that it is considering a lawsuit against the Utilities in which it may seek to claim that some portion of what was paid in 1999 to purchase the generating assets exceeded the fair value of the assets.
Mirant has also indicated that it may pursue claims against O&R for compensation for certain system reliability services it alleges it provided to O&R since November 1999, as well as claims related to certain of the former O&R facilities. The Utilities believe that these purported claims are without merit and would vigorously defend against them if they are pursued by Mirant.
In addition, Mirant has indicated in its Amended Plan of Reorganization that under certain circumstances it would retire its Lovett generating units in 2007 and 2008. O&R is in the process of upgrading its transmission and distribution system to meet anticipated load growth, and believes that by 2007 it would be able to meet existing transmission reliability criteria in the event that the Lovett units were shut down.
The Companies are unable to predict whether or not any Mirant related lawsuits or other actions will have a material adverse effect on their financial position, results of operations or liquidity.
29
Table of ContentsNOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) CONTINUED
Note H - Guarantees Con Edison and its subsidiaries enter into various agreements providing financial or performance assurance primarily to third parties on behalf of their subsidiaries. In addition, a Con Edison Development subsidiary has issued guarantees on behalf of entities in which it has an equity interest. Maximum amounts guaranteed by Con Edison totaled $1.2 billion and $989 million at September 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004, respectively.
A summary by type and term, of Con Edisons total guarantees at September 30, 2005 is as follows:
For a description of guarantee types, see Note S to the financial statements in Item 8 of the Form 10-K.
30
Table of ContentsNOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) CONTINUED
Note I - Financial Information By Business Segment Reference is made to Note O to the financial statements in Item 8 of Form 10-K.
The financial data for the business segments are as follows:
31
Table of ContentsNOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) CONTINUED
Note J - Pension Benefits Reference is made to Note E to the financial statements in Item 8 of the Form 10-K.
Net Periodic Benefit Cost The components of the Companies net periodic benefit costs for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005 and 2004 were as follows:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||