American Electric Power - 10-Q quarterly report FY

[X] QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

OR

[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

 

 

 

 

This report made by AEP and its Registrant Subsidiaries contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Although AEP and each of its Registrant Subsidiaries believe that their expectations are based on reasonable assumptions, any such statements may be influenced by factors that could cause actual outcomes and results to be materially different from those projected. Among the factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements are:

 

Our significant regulatory activity progressed with the following major developments:

Our near-term additional activity includes:

Market prices for coal, natural gas and oil continued increasing in the first quarter of 2006. These increasing fuel costs result from increasing worldwide demand, supply interruptions and uncertainty, anticipation and ultimate promulgation of clean air rules, transportation constraints and other market factors. We manage price and performance risk through a portfolio of contracts of varying durations and other fuel procurement and management activities. Fuel recovery mechanisms exist for about 55% of our fuel costs in our various jurisdictions. Additionally, about 25% of our fuel is used for off-system sales where prices for our power should allow us to recover our cost of fuel. Accordingly, we should recover approximately 80% of fuel cost increases. The remaining 20% of our fuel costs relate primarily to Ohio customers, where fuel is a fixed component of costs included in our rates, but we do not have an active fuel cost recovery adjustment mechanism. Such percentages are subject to change over time based on fuel cost impacts and changes to the recovery adjustment mechanisms at jurisdictions in our individual operating companies. In Indiana, our fuel recovery mechanism is temporarily capped, subject to preestablished escalators, at a fixed rate through June 2007. As a consequence of the cap, we currently expect under recoveries during 2006 and under-recovered $4 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2006. In West Virginia, we received permission to begin deferral accounting for over- or under-recovery of fuel and related costs effective July 1, 2006. In addition, our Ohio companies increased their generation rates in 2006, as previously approved by the PUCO in our Rate Stabilization Plans. While these items should help to offset some of the negative impact on our gross margins, we expect an additional eleven to thirteen percent increase in coal costs in 2006.

 

Our principal operating business segments and their major activities were:

Our consolidated Income Before Discontinued Operations for the three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005 were as follows (Earnings and Weighted Average Basic Shares Outstanding in millions):

Income Before Discontinued Operations in 2006 increased $24 million compared to 2005 due to increased utility operations revenue primarily related to rate increases in our Ohio jurisdiction as approved by the PUCO in CSPCo’s and OPCo’s Rate Stabilization Plans (RSP).

Our results of operations are discussed below according to our operating segments.

 

Our Utility Operations include primarily regulated revenues with direct and variable offsetting expenses and net reported commodity trading operations. We believe that a discussion of the results from our Utility Operations segment on a gross margin basis is most appropriate. Gross margins represent utility operating revenues less the related direct cost of fuel, including consumption of chemicals and emissions allowances, and purchased power.

 

Cooling degree days and heating degree days are metrics commonly used in the utility industry as a measure of the impact of weather on results of operations. Cooling degree days and heating degree days in our service territory for the quarters ended March 31, 2006 and 2005 were as follows:

Income Before Discontinued Operations from our Investments - Other segment increased from $5 million in 2005 to $16 million in 2006. The increase was primarily due to favorable barging activity at AEP MEMCO LLC due to strong demand and a tight supply of barges which increased the barge fees. Additionally, the first quarter of 2006 operating conditions for our barging operations improved from 2005 when severe ice and flooding caused increased operating costs.

The parent company’s loss decreased $12 million from 2005 primarily due to lower interest expense related to the redemption of $550 million senior unsecured notes in April 2005 and increased affiliated interest income related to favorable results from the corporate borrowing program.

 

The $1 million Loss Before Discontinued Operations compares with $10 million of income recorded for 2005. Prior year results included one month of HPL’s operations due to the sale of HPL in January 2005. Current year results primarily relate to gas contracts that were not sold with the gas pipeline and storage assets.

The increase in income tax expense of $17 million between the first quarter of 2006 and first quarter of 2005 is primarily due to an increase in pretax book income and changes in certain book/tax differences accounted for on a flow-through basis.

We measure our financial condition by the strength of our balance sheet and the liquidity provided by our cash flows.

Our common equity increased primarily due to earnings exceeding the amount of dividends paid in 2006. As a consequence of the capital changes during 2006, we improved our ratio of total debt to total capital from 57.2% to 56.7%.

The FASB’s current pension and postretirement benefit accounting project could have a major negative impact on our debt to capital ratio in future years. The potential change could require the recognition of an additional minimum liability for fully-funded pension and postretirement benefit plans, thereby eliminating on the balance sheet the SFAS 87 and SFAS 106 deferral and amortization of net actuarial gains and losses. If adopted, this could require recognition of a significant net of tax accumulated other comprehensive income reduction to common equity. We cannot predict the ultimate effects of the final rule or its effective date.

 

Liquidity, or access to cash, is an important factor in determining our financial stability. We are committed to maintaining adequate liquidity.

 

In April 2006, we amended the terms and increased the size of our credit facilities from $2.7 billion to $3 billion on terms more economically favorable than the previous agreements.  The amended facilities are structured as two $1.5 billion credit facilities, with an option in each to issue up to $200 million as letters of credit, expiring separately in March 2010 and April 2011. We also terminated an existing $200 million letter of credit facility. If the amendments had occurred prior to March 31, 2006 our Net Available Liquidity would have been $3,030 million.

Our revolving credit agreements contain certain covenants and require us to maintain our percentage of debt to total capitalization at a level that does not exceed 67.5%. The method for calculating our outstanding debt and other capital is contractually defined. At March 31, 2006, this contractually-defined percentage was 53.6%. Nonperformance of these covenants could result in an event of default under these credit agreements. At March 31, 2006, we complied with all of the covenants contained in these credit agreements. In addition, the acceleration of our payment obligations, or the obligations of certain of our subsidiaries, prior to maturity under any other agreement or instrument relating to debt outstanding in excess of $50 million would cause an event of default under these credit agreements and permit the lenders to declare the outstanding amounts payable.

We do not believe that our rights under the amended facilities would be affected by a material adverse change.

Under a regulatory order, our utility subsidiaries cannot incur additional indebtedness if the issuer’s common equity would constitute less than 30% (25% for TCC) of its capital. In addition, this order restricts the utility subsidiaries from issuing long-term debt unless that debt will be rated investment grade by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization. At March 31, 2006, all utility subsidiaries were in compliance with this order.

Utility Money Pool borrowings and external borrowings may not exceed amounts authorized by regulatory orders. At March 31, 2006, our utility subsidiaries had not exceeded those authorized limits.

 

AEP’s ratings have not been adjusted by any rating agency during 2006 and AEP is currently on a stable outlook by the rating agencies. Our current credit ratings are as follows:

If we or any of our rated subsidiaries receive an upgrade from any of the rating agencies listed above, our borrowing costs could decrease. If we receive a downgrade in our credit ratings by one of the rating agencies listed above, our borrowing costs could increase and access to borrowed funds could be negatively affected.

Our cash flows are a major factor in managing and maintaining our liquidity strength.

 

Net Cash Flows Used For Investing Activities were $757 million in 2006 primarily due to Construction Expenditures. Construction Expenditures increased due to our environmental investment plan.

During 2006, we purchased $2.5 billion of investments and received $2.4 billion of proceeds from the sales of securities. During 2005, we purchased $1.3 billion of investments and received $1.4 billion of proceeds from the sales of securities. We purchase auction rate securities and variable rate demand notes with cash available for short-term investments. These amounts also include purchases and sales within our nuclear trusts.

Net Cash Flows From Investing Activities were $842 million in 2005 primarily due to the proceeds from the sale of HPL. During 2005, we sold HPL and used a portion of the proceeds from the sale to repurchase common stock. Our Construction Expenditures of $434 million included environmental, transmission and distribution investment.

We forecast $2.9 billion of Construction Expenditures for the remainder of 2006. Estimated construction expenditures are subject to periodic review and modification and may vary based on the ongoing effects of regulatory constraints, environmental regulations, business opportunities, market volatility, economic trends, and the ability to access capital. These construction expenditures will be funded through results of operations and financing activities.

Net Cash Flows From Financing Activities in 2006 were $42 million. During the first quarter of 2006, we issued $50 million of obligations relating to pollution control bonds and increased our short-term commercial paper outstanding. See Note 12 for a complete discussion of long-term debt issuances and retirements. The Other amount of $54 million in the above table primarily consists of $68 million received from a coal supplier related to a long-term coal purchase contract amended in March 2006.

Net Cash Flows Used For Financing Activities in 2005 were $568 million. During the first quarter of 2005, we repurchased common stock using a portion of the proceeds from the sale of HPL. In addition, our subsidiaries retired $66 million of cumulative preferred stock, which is reflected in the Other amount in the above table.

In April 2006, APCo issued $500 million of debt consisting of $250 million of 5.55% notes due 2011 and $250 million of 6.375% notes due 2036. Also in April, OPCo issued obligations relating to auction rate pollution control bonds in the amount of $65 million. The new bonds bear variable interest at a 28-day auction rate. The proceeds from this issuance will contribute to our investment in environmental equipment.

Under a limited set of circumstances we enter into off-balance sheet arrangements to accelerate cash collections, reduce operational expenses and spread risk of loss to third parties. Our current guidelines restrict the use of off-balance sheet financing entities or structures to traditional operating lease arrangements and sales of customer accounts receivable that we enter in the normal course of business. Our off-balance sheet arrangements have not changed significantly from year-end. For complete information on each of these off-balance sheet arrangements see the “Off-balance Sheet Arrangements” section of “Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations” in the 2005 Annual Report.

A summary of our contractual obligations is included in our 2005 Annual Report and has not changed significantly from year-end other than the debt issuances and retirements discussed in “Cash Flow” “Financing Activities” above.

As part of the purchase and sale agreement related to the sale of our Texas REPs in 2002, we retained the right to share in earnings from the two REPs above a threshold amount through 2006 if the Texas retail market developed increased earnings opportunities. In March of 2006, we received a $70 million payment for our share in earnings for 2005. The payment for 2006 is contingent on Centrica’s future operating results, is capped at $20 million and, to the extent payable, will be paid in the first quarter of 2007. See “Texas REPs” section of Note 8.

 

We continue to be involved in various matters described in the “Significant Factors” section of Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations in our 2005 Annual Report. The 2005 Annual Report should be read in conjunction with this report in order to understand significant factors without material changes in status since the issuance of our 2005 Annual Report, but may have a material impact on our future results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

The PUCT issued an order in TCC’s True-up Proceeding in February 2006, which determined that TCC’s true-up regulatory asset was $1.475 billion, which included carrying costs through September 2005. TCC filed an application in March 2006 requesting to securitize $1.8 billion of net stranded generation plant costs and related carrying costs to September 1, 2006. The $1.8 billion does not include TCC’s other true-up items, which are partially offsetting in nature. These obligations total $491 million and would be payable through a CTC over a period determined by the PUCT. Intervenors and the PUCT staff filed testimony in April 2006. Hearings are scheduled for May. It is possible that the PUCT could reduce the securitization amount by all or some portion of the negative other true-up items. If that occurs, a negative impact on the timing of cash flows could result. Cash flows from securitization would be adversely impacted if the PUCT reduces TCC’s computation of the amount to be securitized in the securitization proceeding.

The PUCT has not addressed the allocation of stranded costs to TCC’s wholesale jurisdiction. TCC estimates the amount allocated to wholesale to be less than $1 million, while intervenors and PUCT staff filed testimony recommending that $77 million of stranded costs be allocated to TCC’s wholesale jurisdiction. TCC cannot predict the ultimate amount the PUCT will allocate to the wholesale jurisdiction that TCC will not be able to securitize or recover.

Consistent with certain prior securitization determinations, the PUCT may deduct the cost-of-money benefit of accumulated deferred federal income taxes (ADFIT) from the securitization request. Then, the future cost-of-money benefit would be transferred to a separate regulatory asset recoverable in normal delivery rates outside of the securitization process, which would affect the timing of cash recovery. We estimate the total cost-of-money benefit to be $328 million, which TCC plans to include in its estimated CTC request. Intervenors filed testimony recommending an increase in this amount, along with the retrospective ADFIT amounts, by as much as $175 million.

In addition, the intervenors raised three issues totaling $138 million that were addressed by the PUCT in prior proceedings - the appropriate interest rate for both stranded cost and deferred fuel and the treatment of excess earnings refunds. Other issues raised by the intervenors dealt with the amounts to be securitized versus refunded to customers through the CTC, customer class allocation issues and debt defeasance strategies.

The difference between the recorded securitizable true-up regulatory asset of $1.5 billion at March 31, 2006 and our securitization request of $1.8 billion is detailed in the table below:

The principal components of the CTC rate reduction are an over-recovered fuel balance, the retail clawback and the ADFIT benefit related to TCC’s stranded generation cost, offset by a positive wholesale capacity auction true-up regulatory asset balance. TCC will incur carrying costs on the net negative other true-up regulatory liability balances until fully refunded. TCC anticipates filing to implement a negative CTC (as a rate reduction) for its net other true-up items in the second quarter of 2006.

The difference between the components of TCC’s recorded net regulatory liabilities - other true-up items as of March 31, 2006 and the amount expected to be requested in the CTC proceeding are detailed below:

If we determine in future securitization and CTC proceedings that it is probable TCC cannot recover a portion of its recorded net true-up regulatory asset and we are able to estimate the amount of such nonrecovery, we would record a provision for such amount which could have an adverse effect on future results of operations, cash flows and possibly financial condition. TCC intends to pursue rehearing and appeals to vigorously seek relief as necessary in both federal and state court where it believes the PUCT’s rulings are contrary to the Texas Restructuring Legislation, PUCT rulemakings and federal law. It is expected that the cities and other intervenors will also pursue vigorously court appeals to further reduce TCC’s true-up recoveries. Although TCC believes it has meritorious arguments, management cannot predict the ultimate outcome of any future proceedings, requested rehearings or court appeals. If the municipal customers and other intervenors succeed in their expected appeals, it could have a material adverse effect on future results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

In the ordinary course of business, we and our subsidiaries are involved in employment, commercial, environmental and regulatory litigation. Since it is difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings, we cannot state what the eventual outcome of these proceedings will be, or what the timing of the amount of any loss, fine or penalty may be. Management does, however, assess the probability of loss for such contingencies and accrues a liability for cases that have a probable likelihood of loss and the loss amount can be estimated. For details on our pending litigation and regulatory proceedings see Note 4 - Rate Matters, Note 6 - Customer Choice and Industry Restructuring, Note 7 - Commitments and Contingencies and the “Litigation” section of “Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations” in the 2005 Annual Report. Additionally, see Note 3 - Rate Matters, Note 4 - Customer Choice and Industry Restructuring and Note 5 - Commitments and Contingencies included herein. An adverse result in these proceedings has the potential to materially affect the results of operations, cash flows and financial condition of AEP and its subsidiaries.

See discussion of the Environmental Litigation within the “Environmental Matters” section of “Significant Factors.”

 

We have committed to substantial capital investments and additional operational costs to comply with new environmental control requirements. The sources of these requirements include:

In addition, we are engaged in litigation with respect to certain environmental matters, have been notified of potential responsibility for the clean-up of contaminated sites, and incur costs for disposal of spent nuclear fuel and future decommissioning of our nuclear units. All of these matters are discussed in the “Environmental Matters” section of “Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations” in the 2005 Annual Report.

The CAA establishes a comprehensive program to protect and improve the nation’s air quality, and control mobile and stationary sources of air emissions. The major CAA programs affecting our power plants are briefly described below. Many of these programs are implemented and administered by the states, which can impose additional or more stringent requirements.

Each state identifies those areas within its boundaries that meet the NAAQS (attainment areas) and those that do not (nonattainment areas). Each state must then develop a state implementation plan (SIP) to bring nonattainment areas into compliance with the NAAQS and maintain good air quality in attainment areas. All SIPs are then submitted to the Federal EPA for approval. If a state fails to develop adequate plans, the Federal EPA must develop and implement a plan. In addition, as the Federal EPA reviews the NAAQS, the attainment status of areas can change, and states may be required to develop new SIPs. The Federal EPA recently proposed a new PM NAAQS and is conducting periodic reviews for additional criteria pollutants.

As discussed in the 2005 Annual Report, the CAIR and CAMR programs described above will require us to make significant additional investments, some of which are estimable. However, many of the rules described above are the subject of reconsideration by the Federal EPA, have been challenged in the courts and have not yet been incorporated into SIPs. As a result, these rules may be further modified. Our estimates disclosed in the 2005 Annual Report, are subject to significant uncertainties, and will be affected by any changes in the outcome of several interrelated variables and assumptions, including: the timing of implementation, required levels of reductions, methods for allocation of allowances and our selected compliance alternatives. In short, we cannot estimate our compliance costs with certainty.

We will seek recovery of expenditures for pollution control technologies, replacement or additional generation and associated operating costs from customers through our regulated rates (in regulated jurisdictions). We should be able to recover these expenditures through market prices in deregulated jurisdictions. If not, those costs could adversely affect future results of operations, cash flows and possibly financial condition.

 

Under the CAA, if a plant undertakes a major modification that directly results in an emissions increase, permitting requirements might be triggered and the plant may be required to install additional pollution control technology. This requirement does not apply to activities such as routine maintenance, replacement of degraded equipment or failed components or other repairs needed for the reliable, safe and efficient operation of the plant.

Courts that considered whether the activities at issue in these cases are routine maintenance, repair, or replacement, and therefore are excluded from NSR, reached different conclusions. Similarly, courts that considered whether the activities at issue increased emissions from the power plants reached different results. Appeals on these and other issues have been filed in certain appellate courts, including a petition to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in one case. The Federal EPA issued a final rule that would exclude activities similar to those challenged in these cases from NSR as “routine replacements.” In March 2006, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision vacating the rule and the Federal EPA filed a petition for rehearing in that case. The Federal EPA also recently proposed a rule that would define “emissions increases” in a way that most of the challenged activities would be excluded from NSR.

We are unable to estimate the loss or range of loss related to any contingent liability we might have for civil penalties under the CAA proceedings. We are also unable to predict the timing of resolution of these matters due to the number of alleged violations and the significant number of issues yet to be determined by the court. If we do not prevail, we believe we can recover any capital and operating costs of additional pollution control equipment that may be required through regulated rates and market prices for electricity. If we are unable to recover such costs or if material penalties are imposed, it would adversely affect future results of operations, cash flows and possibly financial condition.

We perform environmental reviews and audits on a regular basis for the purpose of identifying, evaluating and addressing environmental concerns and issues. In addition to the matters discussed above, we are managing other environmental concerns that we do not believe are material or potentially material at this time. If they become significant or if any new matters arise that we believe could be material, they could have a material adverse effect on future results of operations, cash flows and possibly financial condition.

See the “Critical Accounting Estimates” section of “Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations” in the 2005 Annual Report for a discussion of the estimates and judgments required for regulatory accounting, revenue recognition, the valuation of long-lived assets, the accounting for pension and other postretirement benefits and the impact of new accounting pronouncements.

Beginning in 2006, we adopted SFAS No. 123 (revised 2004) Share-Based Payment, on a modified prospective basis, resulting in an insignificant favorable cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle. Including stock-based compensation expense related to employee stock options and other share based awards, the trend in our quarter-over-quarter net income and earnings per share is not materially different. As of March 31, 2006, we have $46 million of total unrecognized compensation cost related to unvested share-based compensation arrangements. Our unrecognized compensation cost will be recognized over a weighted-average period of 1.67 years. See Note 2 - New Accounting Pronouncements in our Condensed Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion.

As a major power producer and marketer of wholesale electricity, coal and emission allowances, our Utility Operations segment is exposed to certain market risks. These risks include commodity price risk, interest rate risk and credit risk.  In addition, because we procure some services and materials in our energy business from foreign suppliers we have foreign currency risk.  They represent the risk of loss that may impact us due to changes in the underlying market prices or rates.

Our Investment - Gas Operations segment holds forward gas contracts that were not sold with the gas pipeline and storage assets. These contracts are primarily financial derivatives, along with some physical contracts, which will gradually liquidate and completely expire in 2011. Our risk objective and outcomes to-date keep these positions risk neutral through maturity.

We employ risk management contracts including physical forward purchase and sale contracts, exchange futures and options, over-the-counter options, swaps and other derivative contracts to offset price risk where appropriate. We engage in risk management of electricity, gas, coal, and emissions and to a lesser degree other commodities associated with our energy business. As a result, we are subject to price risk. The amount of risk taken is controlled by risk management operations and our Chief Risk Officer and risk management staff. When risk management activities exceed certain predetermined limits, the positions are modified or hedged to reduce the risk to be within the limits unless specifically approved by the Risk Executive Committee.

We have policies and procedures that allow us to identify, assess, and manage market risk exposures in our day-to-day operations. Our risk policies are reviewed with our Board of Directors and approved by our Risk Executive Committee. Our Chief Risk Officer administers our risk policies and procedures. The Risk Executive Committee establishes risk limits, approves risk policies, and assigns responsibilities regarding the oversight and management of risk and monitors risk levels. Members of this committee receive various daily, weekly and/or monthly reports regarding compliance with policies, limits and procedures. Our committee meets monthly and consists of the Chief Risk Officer, senior executives, and other senior financial and operating managers.

We actively participate in the Committee of Chief Risk Officers (CCRO) to develop standard disclosures for risk management activities around risk management contracts. The CCRO is composed of the chief risk officers of major electricity and gas companies in the United States. The CCRO adopted disclosure standards for risk management contracts to improve clarity, understanding and consistency of information reported. Implementation of the disclosures is voluntary. We support the work of the CCRO and have embraced the disclosure standards applicable to our business activities. The following tables provide information on our risk management activities.

The following two tables summarize the various mark-to-market (MTM) positions included in our condensed balance sheet as of March 31, 2006 and the reasons for changes in our total MTM value included in our condensed balance sheet as compared to December 31, 2005.

 

 

 

The following table presents:

 

The determination of the point at which a market is no longer liquid for placing it in the Modeled category in the preceding table varies by market. The following table reports an estimate of the maximum tenors (contract maturities) of the liquid portion of each energy market.

We are exposed to market fluctuations in energy commodity prices impacting our power and remaining gas operations. We monitor these risks on our future operations and may employ various commodity instruments and cash flow hedges to mitigate the impact of these fluctuations on the future cash flows from assets. We do not hedge all commodity price risk.

We employ the use of interest rate derivative transactions to manage interest rate risk related to existing variable rate debt and to manage interest rate exposure on anticipated borrowings of fixed-rate debt. We do not hedge all interest rate exposure.

 

The following table provides the detail on designated, effective cash flow hedges included in AOCI on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets and the reasons for changes in cash flow hedges from December 31, 2005 to March 31, 2006. The following table also indicates what portion of designated, effective hedges are expected to be reclassified into net income in the next 12 months. Only contracts designated as effective cash flow hedges are recorded in AOCI. Therefore, economic hedge contracts that are not designated as effective cash flow hedges are marked-to-market and are included in the previous risk management tables.

We limit credit risk in our marketing and trading activities by assessing creditworthiness of potential counterparties before entering into transactions with them and continuing to evaluate their creditworthiness after transactions have been initiated. Only after an entity has met our internal credit rating criteria will we extend unsecured credit. We use Moody’s Investors Service, Standard & Poor’s and qualitative and quantitative data to assess the financial health of counterparties on an ongoing basis. We use our analysis, in conjunction with the rating agencies’ information, to determine appropriate risk parameters. We also require cash deposits, letters of credit and parental/affiliate guarantees as security from counterparties depending upon credit quality in our normal course of business.

We have risk management contracts with numerous counterparties. Since open risk management contracts are valued based on changes in market prices of the related commodities, our exposures change daily. As of March 31, 2006, our credit exposure net of credit collateral to sub investment grade counterparties was approximately 3.13%, expressed in terms of net MTM assets and net receivables. As of March 31, 2006, the following table approximates our counterparty credit quality and exposure based on netting across commodities, instruments and legal entities where applicable (in millions, except number of counterparties):

 

This table provides information on operating measures regarding the proportion of output of our generation facilities (based on economic availability projections) economically hedged, including both contracts designated as cash flow hedges under SFAS 133 and contracts not designated as cash flow hedges. This information is forward-looking and provided on a prospective basis through December 31, 2008. Please note that this table is a point-in-time estimate, subject to changes in market conditions and our decisions on how to manage operations and risk. “Estimated Plant Output Hedged” represents the portion of MWHs of future generation/production, taking into consideration scheduled plant outages, for which we have sales commitments or estimated requirement obligations to customers.

We use a risk measurement model, which calculates Value at Risk (VaR) to measure our commodity price risk in the risk management portfolio. The VaR is based on the variance-covariance method using historical prices to estimate volatilities and correlations and assumes a 95% confidence level and a one-day holding period. Based on this VaR analysis, at March 31, 2006, a near term typical change in commodity prices is not expected to have a material effect on our results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

The following table shows the end, high, average, and low market risk as measured by VaR for the periods indicated:

We utilize a VaR model to measure interest rate market risk exposure. The interest rate VaR model is based on a Monte Carlo simulation with a 95% confidence level and a one-year holding period. The volatilities and correlations were based on three years of daily prices. The risk of potential loss in fair value attributable to our exposure to interest rates, primarily related to long-term debt with fixed interest rates, was $531 million at March 31, 2006 and $615 million at December 31, 2005. We would not expect to liquidate our entire debt portfolio in a one-year holding period. Therefore, a near term change in interest rates should not materially affect our results of operations, cash flows or financial position.