UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
x Annual Report Pursuant To Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2007
OR
¨ Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
For the transition period from to
1-14514
1-1217
Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Consolidated Edison, Inc.,
Common Shares ($.10 par value)
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.,
$5 Cumulative Preferred Stock, without par value
Cumulative Preferred Stock, 4.65% Series C ($100 par value)
Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
Cumulative Preferred Stock, 4.65% Series D ($100 par value)
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
Con Edison, Inc. (Con Edison)
Con Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison of New York)
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.
Con Edison
Con Edison of New York
Indicate by check mark whether the 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 (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. x
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “accelerated filer,” “large accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).
The aggregate market value of the common equity of Con Edison held by non-affiliates of Con Edison, as of June 30, 2007, was approximately $11.7 billion.
As of January 31, 2008, Con Edison had outstanding 272,139,105 Common Shares ($.10 par value).
All of the outstanding common equity of Con Edison of New York is held by Con Edison.
Documents Incorporated By Reference
Portions of Con Edison’s definitive proxy statement and Con Edison of New York’s definitive information statement, for their respective Annual Meetings of Stockholders to be held on May 19, 2008, to be filed with the Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A and Regulation 14C, respectively, not later than 120 days after December 31, 2007, are incorporated in Part III of this report.
Filing Format
This Annual Report on Form 10-K 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 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.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Glossary of Terms
PART I
ITEM 1.
ITEM 1A.
ITEM 1B.
ITEM 2.
Properties
O&R
ITEM 3.
Legal Proceedings
ITEM 4.
Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
Executive Officers of the Registrant
PART II
ITEM 5.
Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Mattersand Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
ITEM 6.
Selected Financial Data
ITEM 7.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
ITEM 7A.
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
ITEM 8.
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
ITEM 9.
Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure
ITEM 9A.
Controls and Procedures
ITEM 9A(T).
ITEM 9B.
Other Information
PART III
ITEM 10.
Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance
ITEM 11.
Executive Compensation
ITEM 12.
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters
ITEM 13.
Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence
ITEM 14.
Principal Accounting Fees and Services
PART IV
ITEM 15.
Exhibits and Financial Statement SchedulesSignatures
3
The following is a glossary of frequently used abbreviations or acronyms that are found in the Companies’ SEC reports:
Con Edison Companies
Con Edison Communications
Con Edison Development
Con Edison Energy
Con Edison Solutions
Pike
RECO
The Companies
The Utilities
Regulatory and State Agencies
ALJs
DEC
EPA
FERC
IRS
ISO-NE
NJBPU
NJDEP
NYAG
NYISO
NYPA
NYSERDA
NYSRC
PJM
PSC
PPUC
SEC
Other
ABO
APB
AFDC
CO2
COSO
DIG
District Court
dths
EITF
EMF
ERRP
FASB
FIN
Fitch
FSP
GHG
kV
4
kWh
LILO
LTIP
MD&A
mdths
MGP Sites
mmlbs
Moody’s
MVA
MW
MWH
Net T&D Revenues
NUGs
OCI
PCBs
PPA
PRP
S&P
SFAS
SO2
SSCM
Superfund
VaR
VIE
5
Incorporation By Reference
Available Information
Corporate Overview
Operating Segments
Competitive Energy Businesses
Regulation
Competition
Capital Requirements and Financing
State Anti-takeover Law
Employees
of New York
9
Electric Operations
Gas Operations
Steam Operations
Environmental Matters
Operating
Statistics
14
6
Incorporation by Reference
Information in other Items of this report as to which reference is made in this Item 1 is hereby incorporated by reference in this Item 1. The use of terms such as “see” or “refer to” shall be deemed to incorporate into this Item 1 the information to which such reference is made.
Con Edison and Con Edison of New York file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy or information statements and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The public may read and copy any materials that the companies file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Room 1580 Washington, D.C. 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The SEC maintains an Internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers (including Con Edison and Con Edison of New York) that file electronically with the SEC. The address of that site ishttp://www.sec.gov.
This information the Companies file with the SEC is also available free of charge on or through the Investor Information section of their websites as soon as reasonably practicable after the reports are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. Con Edison’s internet website is at: http://www.conedison.com; and Con Edison of New York’s is at:http://www.coned.com.
The Investor Information section of Con Edison’s website also includes the company’s code of ethics (and amendments or waivers of the code for executive officers or directors), corporate governance guidelines and the charters of the following committees of the company’s Board of Directors: Audit Committee, Management Development and Compensation Committee, and Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee. This information is available in print to any shareholder who requests it. Requests should be directed to: Corporate Secretary, Consolidated Edison, Inc., 4 Irving Place, New York, NY 10003.
Information on the Companies’ websites is not incorporated herein.
Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Edison), incorporated in New York State in 1997, owns all of the outstanding common stock of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison of New York) and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (O&R). Con Edison of New York and O&R, which are regulated utilities, are referred to in this report as the “Utilities.” As used in this report, the term the “Companies” refers to Con Edison and Con Edison of New York. Con Edison has no significant business operations other than those of the Utilities and Con Edison’s competitive energy businesses. See “Corporate Overview” in Item 7.
Con Edison’s principal business segments are Con Edison of New York’s regulated electric, gas and steam utility segments, O&R’s regulated electric and gas utility segments and Con Edison’s competitive energy businesses. For a discussion of operating revenues and operating income for each segment, see “Results of Operations” in Item 7. For additional segment information see Note N to the financial statements in Item 8.
For information about Con Edison of New York, see below in this Item 1.
O&R, a subsidiary of Con Edison, has two wholly-owned utility subsidiaries, Rockland Electric Company (RECO), a New Jersey corporation, and Pike County Light & Power Company (Pike), a Pennsylvania corporation.
O&R and its utility subsidiaries provide electric service in southeastern New York and in adjacent areas of northern New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania, an approximately 1,350 square mile service area. They also provide gas service in southeastern New York and adjacent areas of eastern Pennsylvania. O&R’s business is subject to regulation by the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC), the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU), the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PPUC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Changes in regulation or legislation applicable to O&R could have a material adverse effect on the company’s financial position, results of operations or liquidity. O&R’s principal business segments are its regulated electric and gas utility businesses. In 2007, electric and gas operating revenues were 71 percent and 29 percent, respectively, of its operating revenues. See “O&R Operating Statistics” below.
Con Edison pursues competitive energy opportunities through three wholly owned subsidiaries: Consolidated Edison Development, Inc. (Con Edison Development), Consolidated Edison Energy, Inc. (Con Edison Energy) and Consolidated Edison Solutions, Inc. (Con Edison Solutions).
Con Edison Development owns, leases or operates energy and infrastructure projects, principally in the United States. Substantially all of its electric generation facilities are located in New England and the PJM Interconnection (PJM) markets. See Item 2 for information about the company’s generating capacity. In December 2007, Con Edison Development and its subsidiary, CED/SCS Newington, LLC, agreed to sell their ownership interests in power generating projects with an aggregate capacity
7
of approximately 1,706 megawatts. See Note U to the financial statements in Item 8. Con Edison Development sells capacity and energy in wholesale markets administered by independent system operators in New England, New York and PJM. The company also sells capacity and energy to other utilities through its affiliate Con Edison Energy by participating in auctions for basic generation service or other wholesale supply transactions. These markets have developed significantly as states have opened their wholesale markets to competition.
Con Edison Development has investments in two “Lease In/ Lease Out” (LILO) transactions—see Note J to the financial statements in Item 8. These leases involve gas distribution and electric generating facilities in the Netherlands. Additionally, Con Edison Development has invested in tax-advantaged leases under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code. See “Affordable Housing Program” in Note H to the financial statements in Item 8.
Con Edison Energy markets the electric production of Con Edison Development’s generation facilities and manages the fuel supply for those facilities. It also supplies electricity to wholesale customers, procures electricity for Con Edison Solutions, and offers plant optimization services to generation facilities in the northeastern United States.
Con Edison Solutions was reported by KEMA consulting in August 2007, as the ninth largest non-residential retail electricity provider in the United States. The company primarily sells electricity to industrial and large commercial customers and also to residential customers in the northeastern United States. At December 31, 2007, it served approximately 48,300 customers, not including approximately 176,000 served under two aggregation agreements in Massachusetts. Con Edison Solutions sold 12.2 million MWHs of electricity in 2007, a 15 percent increase over 2006 volumes.
Con Edison Solutions seeks to serve customers in utility service territories that encourage retail competition through transparent pricing, purchase of receivables or utility-sponsored customer acquisition programs. The company currently sells electricity in the service territories of 35 utilities in the states of New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Texas, as well as the District of Columbia.
Total peak load at the end of 2007 was 3,400 MWs. Most of the sales volumes were contracted by customers in New York, with essentially all of the remainder in New England and the Mid-Atlantic States. Con Edison Solutions entered the retail electricity supply market in Texas in 2006 and Illinois in 2007 but volumes remain small.
Con Edison Solutions offers the choice of green power to customers. In 2007 it sold approximately 130,000 MWHs of green power, ending the year with almost 13,000 customers. Green power is a term used by electricity suppliers to describe electricity produced from renewable energy sources, including wind, hydro and solar.
Con Edison Solutions also provides energy-efficiency services to government and commercial customers. The services include the design and installation of lighting retrofits, high-efficiency heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment and other energy saving technologies. The company is compensated based primarily on the increased energy efficiency of installed equipment over a multi-year period. Con Edison Solutions has won competitive solicitations for energy savings contracts with the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense and a shared energy savings contract with the United States Postal Service.
The competitive energy businesses’ generating capacity owned or leased, sales and customers were as follows:
Generating capacity (MW)
Generation sold (MWH)
Wholesale electricity sales (MWH)
Retail electric volumes sold (MWH)
Industrial and large commercial
Mass market
The Utilities are subject to extensive federal and state regulation, including by state utility commissions and the FERC. Con Edison, itself, is not subject to such regulation except to the extent that the rules or orders of these agencies impose restrictions on relationships between Con Edison and the Utilities. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation has been granted authority by the FERC to set bulk system reliability standards and impose penalties upon utilities for violations of those standards. See “Regulation” in the discussion below of Con Edison of New York’s business in this Item 1.
8
Con Edison has been and is expected to continue to be impacted by legislative and regulatory developments. The Utilities are subject to extensive regulation in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Changes in regulation or legislation applicable to Con Edison’s subsidiaries could have a material adverse effect on the Companies. See “Regulatory Matters” in Item 7.
See “Competition,” below in the discussion of the businesses of Con Edison of New York in this Item 1. The competitive energy businesses participate in competitive energy supply and services businesses that are subject to different risks than those found in the businesses of the Utilities.
For information about Con Edison’s capital requirements, financing and securities ratings, see “Liquidity and Capital Resources—Capital Resources” and “Capital Requirements” and “Financial and Commodity Market Risks” in Item 7.
State Anti-Takeover Law
New York State law provides that a “domestic corporation,” such as Con Edison, may not consummate a merger, consolidation or similar transaction with the beneficial owner of a 20 percent or greater voting stock interest in the corporation, or with an affiliate of the owner, for five years after the acquisition of the voting stock interest, unless the transaction or the acquisition of the voting stock interest was approved by the corporation’s board of directors prior to the acquisition of the voting stock interest. After the expiration of the five-year period, the transaction may be consummated only pursuant to a stringent “fair price” formula or with the approval of a majority of the disinterested stockholders.
Con Edison has no employees other than those of Con Edison of New York, O&R and Con Edison’s competitive energy businesses (which at December 31, 2007 had 13,877, 1,051 and 286, employees, respectively). The collective bargaining agreements covering most of the employees of Con Edison of New York and O&R expire in June 2008 and June 2009, respectively.
Con Edison of New York, incorporated in New York State in 1884, is a subsidiary of Con Edison and has no significant subsidiaries of its own. Con Edison of New York provides electric service in all of New York City (except part of Queens) and most of Westchester County, an approximately 660 square mile service area with a population of more than nine million. It also provides gas service in Manhattan, the Bronx and parts of Queens and Westchester, and steam service in parts of Manhattan.
Con Edison of New York’s principal business segments are its regulated electric, gas and steam businesses. In 2007, electric, gas and steam operating revenues were 75 percent, 18 percent and 7 percent, respectively, of its operating revenues. For a discussion of the company’s operating revenues and operating income for each segment, see “Results of Operations” in Item 7. For additional information about the segments, see Note N to the financial statements in Item 8.
Electric Sales. Electric operating revenues were $7.4 billion in 2007 or 75 percent of Con Edison of New York’s operating revenues. The percentages were 76 and 75 percent, respectively, in the two preceding years. In 2007, 43 percent of the electricity delivered by Con Edison of New York in its service area was sold by the company to its full-service customers, 37 percent was sold by other suppliers, including Con Edison Solutions, a competitive energy business of Con Edison, to Con Edison of New York’s customers under its electric retail access program and the balance was delivered to the state and municipal customers of the New York Power Authority (NYPA) and the economic development customers of municipal electric agencies. The company charges its cost for the electricity it sells to full-service customers, and it charges all customers in its service area for the delivery of electricity.
For additional information about electricity sales, see “Con Edison of New York Operating Statistics,” below, and “Results of Operations” in Item 7.
Electric Peak Demand. The electric peak demand in Con Edison of New York’s service area occurs during the summer air conditioning season. The 2007 service area peak demand, which occurred on August 8, 2007, was 12,807 thousand kilowatts (MW). The 2007 peak demand included an estimated 6,004 MW for Con Edison of New York’s full-service customers, 4,817 MW for customers participating in its electric retail access program and 1,986 MW for NYPA’s customers and municipal electric agency customers. The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) did not invoke demand reduction programs on August 8, 2007, as it had on peak demand days in 2006 and 2005. “Design weather” for the electric system is a standard to which the actual peak demand is adjusted for evaluation and planning purposes. Since the majority of demand reduction programs are invoked only in specific circumstances, design conditions do not include these programs’ potential impact. However, the Con Edison of New York forecasted peak demand at design conditions does include the impact of permanent demand reduction programs. The company estimates that, under design weather conditions, the 2008 service area peak demand will be 13,775 MW, including an estimated 6,430 MW for its full-service customers, 5,375 MW for its electric retail
access customers and 1,970 MW for NYPA’s customers and municipal electric agency customers.
Electric Supply. Most of the electricity sold by Con Edison of New York to its customers in 2007 was purchased under firm power contracts or through the wholesale electricity market administered by the NYISO.
The company plans to meet its continuing obligation to supply electricity to its customers with electric energy purchased under contracts with non-utility generators (NUGs) or others, purchased through the NYISO’s wholesale electricity or generated from its electric generating facilities.
For additional information about electric power purchases, see “Electric Power Requirements” in Item 7 and “Recoverable Energy Costs” in Note A to the financial statements in Item 8.
For information about the company’s contracts with NUGs for approximately 3,576 MW of electric generating capacity, see Note I to the financial statements in Item 8.
For information about the company’s current 704 MW of electric generating capacity, see Item 2.
In 2002, the Governor of New York set a goal of having 25 percent of the electricity used in New York provided by renewable resources by 2013. In September 2004, the PSC issued an order, which provides that by 2013, 23.5 percent of the State’s energy needs would come from large renewable facilities such as wind, hydro, and biomass, 1 percent would come from green marketing efforts, and the remaining 0.5 percent is expected to come from on-site generation, limited to solar, fuel cells, and wind farms less than 300 kW in size. The PSC agreed with the Utilities that the responsibility for procuring the new renewable resources would rest with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), and not the Utilities. NYSERDA is expected to enter into long-term agreements with developers that will pay renewable premiums to finance the construction of renewable projects. The renewable premiums plus NYSERDA’s administrative fee are financed through a volumetric wires charge imposed on the delivery customers of each of the state’s utilities. Pursuant to the PSC order, Con Edison and Con Edison of New York billed customers renewable portfolio standard surcharges of $23 million and $21 million in 2007, respectively, and $12 million and $11 million in 2006, respectively. These surcharges may increase as NYSERDA increases its renewables commitments.
New York Independent System Operator. The NYISO is a not-for-profit organization that controls and operates most of the electric transmission facilities in New York State, including those of Con Edison of New York, as an integrated system and administers wholesale markets for electricity in New York State. Pursuant to a requirement that is set annually by the New York State Reliability Council (NYSRC), the NYISO requires that entities supplying electricity to customers in New York State have generating capacity (either owned or contracted for) in an amount above the expected peak demand for their customers. NYSRC set the margin at 16.5 percent for the 2007/2008 capability year and, subject to approval by the appropriate regulatory agency at 15.0 percent for the 2008/2009 capability year, which begins May 1, 2008. In addition, the NYISO has determined that entities that serve customers in New York City must have enough New York City-located capacity to cover a substantial percentage of their New York City customer peak demands. Con Edison of New York met the requirements applicable to it in 2007 and expects to meet them in 2008. As transmission owners participating in the NYISO, the Utilities may be required to construct projects that result from the NYISO’s FERC-approved planning process.
Gas Sales. Gas operating revenues in 2007 were $1.8 billion or 18 percent of Con Edison of New York’s operating revenues. The percentages were 17 and 18 percent in the two preceding years. In 2007, 32 percent of the gas delivered by the company in its service area was sold by the company to its full-service (firm and interruptible) customers and 68 percent was sold by other suppliers. For additional information about gas sales, see “Con Edison of New York Operating Statistics,” below, and “Results of Operations” in Item 7.
Gas Requirements and Peak Demand. Firm demand for gas in Con Edison of New York’s service area peaks during the winter heating season. The “design criteria” for the company’s gas system assume severe weather conditions, which have not occurred since the 1933-34 winter. Under these criteria, the company estimated that its requirements to deliver gas to firm customers during the November 2007/March 2008 winter heating season would amount to 97,000 mdths (including 55,000 mdths to its firm sales customers and 42,000 mdths to its firm transportation customers). Through January 14, 2008, the company’s peak throughput day in this heating season occurred on January 2, 2008, when it delivered 1,176 mdths of gas (including 564 mdths to its firm and interruptible sales customers, 77 mdths to NYPA, 375 mdths to its transportation customers and 160 mdths for use by the company in generating electricity and steam).
Under its design criteria, the company projects that for the November 2008/March 2009 winter heating season, its requirements for firm gas customers will amount to 98,000 mdths (including 55,700 mdths to firm sales customers and 42,300 mdths to firm transportation customers) and that the peak day requirements for these customers will amount to 1,332 mdths. The company expects to be able to meet these requirements.
10
Gas Supply. Con Edison of New York and O&R have established a combined gas supply and capacity portfolio. The combined portfolio is administered by, and related management services are provided by, Con Edison of New York (for itself and as agent for O&R) and costs are allocated between the Utilities in accordance with provisions approved by the PSC. See Note R to the financial statements in Item 8.
Charges from suppliers for the firm purchase of gas, which are based on formulas or indexes or are subject to negotiation, are generally designed to approximate market prices. The contracts are for various terms extending to 2012. The Utilities have contracts with interstate pipeline companies for the purchase of firm transportation and storage services. Charges under these contracts are approved by the FERC. The contracts are for various terms extending to 2023. The Utilities are required to pay certain charges under the supply, transportation and storage contracts whether or not the contracted capacity is actually used. These fixed charges amounted to approximately $199 million in 2007, including $166 million for Con Edison of New York. See “Liquidity and Capital Resources—Contractual Obligations” in Item 7. In addition, the Utilities purchase gas on the spot market and have interruptible gas transportation contracts. See “Recoverable Energy Costs” in Note A to the financial statements in Item 8.
Steam Sales. Con Edison of New York sells steam in Manhattan south of 96th Street, mostly to large office buildings, apartment houses and hospitals. In 2007, steam operating revenues were $686 million or 7 percent of the company’s operating revenues. The percentages were 7 percent in the two preceding years.
For additional information about Con Edison of New York’s steam operations, see “Regulatory Matters” and “Results of Operations” in Item 7, the discussion of Con Edison of New York’s steam facilities in Item 2 and “Con Edison of New York Operating Statistics,” below.
Steam Peak Demand and Capacity. Demand for steam in Con Edison of New York’s service area peaks during the winter heating season. The one-hour peak demand during the winter of 2007/2008 (through January 31, 2008) occurred on January 3, 2008 when the demand reached 8.4 million pounds (mmlbs) per hour. The company’s estimate for the winter of 2008/2009 peak demand of its steam customers is 10.6 mmlbs per hour under design criteria, which assume severe weather.
On December 31, 2007, the steam system had the capability of delivering approximately 13.1 mmlbs of steam per hour and Con Edison of New York estimates that the system will have the capability to deliver this capacity in the 2008/2009 winter.
Steam Supply. Fifty-one percent of the steam sold by Con Edison of New York in 2007 was produced in the company’s steam-only generating stations; 34 percent was produced in the company’s steam/electric generating stations, where it is first used to generate electricity; and 15 percent was purchased from others. See Item 2 for a discussion of Con Edison of New York’s steam facilities.
The PSC regulates, among other things, Con Edison of New York’s electric, gas and steam rates, the siting of its transmission lines and the issuance of its securities. Certain activities of the company are subject to the jurisdiction of the FERC. In addition, various matters relating to the construction and operation of the company’s facilities are subject to regulation by other governmental agencies. Changes in regulation or legislation applicable to the company could have a material adverse effect on the company. For additional information, including information about the company’s electric, gas and steam rates, see “Regulatory Matters” in Item 7.
The PSC from time to time conducts “generic” proceedings to consider issues relating to all electric and gas utilities operating in New York State. Pending proceedings include those relating to utilities exiting the business of selling electric energy and gas at retail (including an examination of utilities’ provider of last resort responsibility, the implementation of energy efficiency programs and consumer protections) and addressing any rate disincentives to the promotion of energy efficiency and distributed generation. The company typically is an active participant in such proceedings. The company does not expect that the pending generic proceedings will have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operation or liquidity.
Con Edison of New York is primarily a “wires and pipes” energy delivery company that:
See “Rate Agreements” in Note B and “Recoverable Energy Costs” in Note A to the financial statements in Item 8.
Competition from suppliers of oil and other sources of energy, including distributed generation (such as fuel cells and micro-turbines) may provide alternatives for Con Edison of New York delivery customers. The company does not consider it
11
reasonably likely that another company would be authorized to provide utility delivery service where the company already provides service. Any such other company would need to obtain PSC consent, satisfy applicable local requirements and install facilities to provide the service. A new company would also be subject to extensive ongoing regulation by the PSC.
For information about Con Edison of New York’s capital requirements, financing and securities ratings, see “Liquidity and Capital Resources—Capital Resources” and “Capital Requirements” and “Financial and Commodity Market Risks” in Item 7.
Hazardous substances, such as asbestos, polychlorinated biphenals (PCBs) and coal tar, have been used or generated in the course of operations of Con Edison of New York and its 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. See “Asbestos” and “Superfund” in the discussion of Con Edison of New York’s legal proceedings in Item 3 and Note G to the financial statements in Item 8.
Con Edison of New York’s capital expenditures for environmental protection facilities and related studies were $79 million in 2007 and are estimated to be $160 million in 2008.
Toxic Substances Control Act. Virtually all electric utilities, including Con Edison of New York, own equipment containing PCBs. PCBs are regulated under the Federal Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
Water Quality. Certain governmental authorities are investigating contamination in the Hudson River and the New York Harbor. These waters run through portions of Con Edison of New York’s service area. Governmental authorities could require entities that released hazardous substances that contaminated these waters to bear the cost of investigation and remediation, which could be substantial.
Climate Change. As indicated in 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide are very likely changing the world’s climate.
Based on the most recent data (2006) published by the federal Department of Energy, Con Edison estimates that its greenhouse gas emissions constitute approximately 0.1 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. Con Edison’s emissions of greenhouse gases during the past five years (expressed in terms of millions of tons of carbon dioxide equivalent) were:
7.0
The increase in greenhouse gas emissions in 2007, as compared to 2006, reflects primarily increased steam production by Con Edison of New York during colder than normal winter weather and increased electric generation at the Con Edison Development generating projects (which are being sold—see Note U to the financial statements in Item 8). Con Edison of New York significantly reduced its greenhouse gas emissions following 2005 when it replaced old generating facilities with its East River Repowering Project. The project, which consists of gas-fueled, combined-cycle combustion turbines, comprises almost 42 percent of the company’s 704 MW of electric generating capacity, based on 2007 summer ratings.
The Companies are working to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Con Edison of New York minimizes greenhouse gas emissions from its generating plants through the use of oil and gas fuels and cogeneration technologies that reduce emissions per unit of energy output. Also, it has participated for several years in voluntary initiatives with the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce its methane and sulfur hexafluoride emissions. The Utilities reduce methane emissions from the operation of their gas distribution systems through pipe maintenance and replacement programs, by operating system components at lower pressure, and by introducing new technologies. The Utilities reduce emissions of sulfur hexafluoride, which is used for arc suppression in substation circuit breakers and switches, by using improved technologies to locate and repair leaks, and by replacing older equipment. The Utilities also reduce greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency programs for customers.
Beginning in 2009, both Con Edison of New York and Con Edison Development will be subject to carbon dioxide emissions regulations being established under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The initiative is a cooperative effort by Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states which will first cap and then reduce
12
carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the generation of electricity to a level ten percent below current emissions by 2019. Under this program, affected electric generators will be required to obtain emission allowances to cover their carbon dioxide emissions, which will be available primarily through auctions administered by participating states or a secondary market. New York’s proposed schedule is for auctions to begin in 2008 for portions of the 2009 and 2010 allowances.
Several bills have been introduced in Congress that would limit greenhouse gas emissions. Also, New York State has announced a goal to reduce forecast energy usage 15 percent from the levels predicted for 2015, and New York City is aiming to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2030.
The cost to comply with legislation, regulations or initiatives limiting the company’s greenhouse gas emissions could be substantial.
Operating Statistics
The following tables contain operating statistics for Con Edison of New York and O&R.
13
ELECTRIC ENERGY (MWH)
Generated
Purchased from others
Total Generated and Purchased
Less: Used by company
Distribution losses and other variances
Net Generated and Purchased
Electric Energy Sold
Residential
Commercial and industrial
Railroads and railways
Public authorities
Con Edison of New York full service customers
Off-System Sales
Total Electric Energy Sold
Electric Energy Delivered
Con Edison of New York full service Customers
Delivery service for retail access Customers
Delivery service to NYPA customers and others
Delivery service for municipal agencies
Total Deliveries in Franchise Area
Average Annual KWH Use per Residential Customer(a)
Average Revenue per KWH Sold (Cents)
Residential(a)
Commercial and Industrial(a)
Operating Statistics – Continued
GAS (DTH)
Purchased
Storage — net change
Used as boiler fuel at Electric andSteam Stations
Gas Purchased for Resale
Less: Gas used by the company
Off-System Sales, NYPA and other variances
Distribution losses
Total Gas Purchased for ConEdison of New York Customers
Gas Sold
Firm Sales
General
Total Firm Sales
Interruptible Sales
Total Gas Sold to Con Edison ofNew York Customers
Transportation of customer-owned gas
Firm transportation
Total Sales and Transportation
Average Revenue per DTH Sold
Steam Sold (Mlb)
Average Revenue per Mlb Sold
Customers – Average for Year
Electric
Gas
Steam
15
Total Purchased
Distribution losses and other(a)
Net Purchased
Total deliveries to O&R customers
Delivery service for retail access customers
Total Deliveries In Franchise Area
Average Annual KWH Use Per Residential Customer
Average Revenue Per KWH Sold (Cents)
Commercial and Industrial
16
Storage – net change
Gas Purchased For Resale
Total Gas Purchased For O&R Customers
Total Gas Sold To O&R Customers
Interruptible transportation
Sales for resale
Sales to electric generating stations
Average Revenue Per DTH Sold
Customers – Average For Year
17
For information about the risk factors of Con Edison, see “Risk Factors” in Item 7 (which information is incorporated herein by reference).
For information about the risk factors of Con Edison of New York, see “Risk Factors” in Item 7 (which information is incorporated herein by reference).
None.
Con Edison has no significant properties other than those of the Utilities and its competitive energy businesses.
For information about the capitalized cost of the Companies’ utility plant, net of accumulated depreciation, see “Plant and Depreciation” in Note A to the financial statements in Item 8 (which information is incorporated herein by reference).
Electric Facilities
Generating Facilities. Con Edison of New York’s electric generating facilities consist of plants located in New York City with an aggregate capacity of 704 MW based on 2007 summer ratings. The company expects to have sufficient amounts of gas and fuel oil available in 2008 for use in these facilities. This includes the company’s East River Repowering Project, which commenced commercial operations in April 2005 and is currently supplying electric capacity of 295 MW based on a 2007 summer rating.
Transmission Facilities. Under terms of the NYISO Tariff, Con Edison of New York’s transmission facilities are operated under the jurisdiction of the NYISO, except specific underground bulk power facilities which are located predominantly within New York City. See “Electric Operations—Electric Supply” in Item 1 (which information is incorporated herein by reference). At December 31, 2007, Con Edison of New York’s transmission system had 428 miles of overhead circuits operating at 138, 230, 345 and 500 kV and 663 miles of underground circuits operating at 138 and 345 kV. There are 267 miles of radial subtransmission circuits operating at 69 kV and above. The company’s 38 transmission substations supplied by circuits operated at 69kV and above. The company’s transmission facilities are located in New York City and Westchester, Orange, Rockland, Putnam and Dutchess counties in New York State.
Con Edison of New York has transmission interconnections with Niagara Mohawk, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, O&R, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation, Connecticut Light and Power Company, Long Island Power Authority, NYPA and Public Service Electric and Gas Company.
Distribution Facilities. Con Edison of New York owns 58 area distribution substations and various distribution facilities located throughout New York City and Westchester County. At December 31, 2007, the company’s distribution system had a transformer capacity of 27,674 MVA, with 36,448 miles of overhead distribution lines and 94,055 miles of underground distribution lines.
Gas Facilities
Natural gas is delivered by pipeline to Con Edison of New York at various points in its service territory and is distributed to customers by the company through an estimated 4,314 miles of mains and 382,286 service lines. The company owns a natural gas liquefaction facility and storage tank at its Astoria property in Queens, New York. The plant can store approximately 1,000 mdths of which a maximum of about 250 mdths can be withdrawn per day. The company has about 1,230 mdths of additional natural gas storage capacity at a field in upstate New York, owned and operated by Honeoye Storage Corporation, a corporation 28.8 percent owned by Con Edison of New York.
Steam Facilities
Con Edison of New York generates steam at one steam/electric generating station and five steam-only generating stations and distributes steam to its customers through approximately 105 miles of transmission, distribution, and service piping. Con Edison of New York also has an energy sales agreement for steam and electricity with Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration Partners.
Electric Transmission and Distribution Facilities
O&R and its utility subsidiaries, RECO and Pike, own, in whole or in part, transmission and distribution facilities which include 593 circuit miles of transmission lines, 14 transmission substations, 62 distribution substations, 99,489 in-service line transformers, 3,643 pole miles of overhead distribution lines and 1,569 miles of underground distribution lines. O&R’s transmission system is part of the NYISO system except that portions of RECO’s system are located within the transmission area controlled by the Pennsylvania-Jersey-Maryland Independent System Operator.
O&R and Pike own their gas distribution systems, which include 1,838 miles of mains. In addition, O&R owns and maintains a gas transmission system, which includes 77 miles of mains.
18
Con Edison Development, a subsidiary of Con Edison owns or leases interests in 1,739 MW of capacity in electric generating facilities, most of which use gas and/or oil as fuel. These interests, the capitalized costs of which at December 31, 2007 amounted to $778 million (net of accumulated depreciation), are described in the table below. In December 2007, Con Edison Development and its subsidiary, CED/SCS Newington, LLC, agreed to sell their ownership interests in power generating projects with an aggregate capacity of approximately 1,706 megawatts. See Note U to the financial statements in Item 8 (which information is incorporated herein by reference).
Plant Type/Fuel Used
Off-take
Contract
Power Pool
Baseload
Newington(a)(c)
Newington, NH
ADA
Ada, MI
Total baseload
Intermediate
GENOR
Puerto Barrios, Guatemala
CEEMI(c)
West Springfield, MA
Lakewood(c)
Lakewood, NJ
Total intermediate
Peaking
Ocean Peaking(c)
Rock Springs(c)
Rising Sun, MD
Total peaking
Total capacity
Con Edison Development has also leased gas distribution and electric generating facilities in the Netherlands in two separate transactions. See Note J to the financial statements in Item 8 (which information is incorporated herein by reference).
Northeast Utilities
For information about legal proceedings relating to Con Edison’s October 1999 agreement to acquire Northeast Utilities, see Note H to the financial statements in Item 8 (which information is incorporated herein by reference).
Lease In/Lease Out Transactions
For information about Con Edison’s competitive energy businesses’ appeal of a disallowance by the Internal Revenue Service of certain tax losses recognized in connection with the company’s lease in/lease out transactions, as to which a trial was held in October 2007, see Note J to the financial statements in Item 8 (which information is incorporated herein by reference).
Power Outage Proceedings
For information about proceedings relating to power outages in 2006, see “Power Outage Proceedings” in Note B to the financial statements in Item 8 (which is incorporated herein by reference).
Manhattan Steam Main Rupture
For information about proceedings relating to the July 2007 rupture of a steam main located in midtown Manhattan, see “Manhattan Steam Main Rupture” in Note H to the financial statements in Item 8 (which information is incorporated herein by reference.)
Asbestos
For information about legal proceedings relating to exposure to asbestos, see Note G to the financial statements in Item 8 (which information is incorporated herein by reference).
19
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 costs, remediation costs and environmental damages. The sites at which Con Edison of New York has been asserted to have liability under Superfund include its and its predecessor companies’ former manufactured gas sites, its Astoria Site, its Arthur Kill Site, its Flushing Service Center Site and other Superfund Sites discussed below. There may be additional sites as to which assertions will be made that the company has liability. For a further discussion of claims and possible claims against the company under Superfund, including with respect to its manufactured gas sites, estimated liability accrued for Superfund claims and recovery from customers of site investigation and remediation costs, see Note G to the financial statements in Item 8 (which information is incorporated herein by reference).
Manufactured Gas Sites. Con Edison of New York and its predecessors formerly manufactured gas and maintained storage holders for manufactured gas at sites in New York City and Westchester County (MGP Sites). Many of these sites are now owned by parties other than Con Edison of New York and have been redeveloped by them for other uses, including schools, residential and commercial developments and hospitals. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is requiring the company to investigate, and if necessary, develop and implement remediation programs for the sites, which include 34 manufactured gas plant sites and 17 storage holder sites and any neighboring areas to which contamination may have migrated.
The information available to Con Edison of New York for many of the MGP Sites is incomplete as to the extent of contamination and scope of the remediation likely to be required. Through the end of 2007, investigations have been started for all or portions of 35 MGP Sites, and have been completed at 11 of the sites. Coal tar and/or other manufactured gas production/storage-related environmental contaminants have been detected at 27 MGP Sites, including locations within Manhattan and other parts of New York City and in Westchester County. Remediation has been completed at two sites and portions of eight other sites.
Astoria Site. Con Edison of New York is permitted by the DEC to operate a hazardous waste storage facility on property the company owns in the Astoria section of Queens, New York. Portions of the property were formerly the location of a manufactured gas plant and also have been used or are being used for, among other things, electric generation operations, electric substation operations, the storage of fuel oil and liquefied natural gas, and the maintenance and storage of electric equipment. As a condition of its DEC permit, the company is required to investigate the property and where environmental contamination is found and action is necessary, to conduct corrective action to remediate the contamination. The company has investigated various sections of the property and is performing additional investigations. The company has submitted to the DEC and the New York State Department of Health a report identifying the known areas of contamination. The company estimates that its undiscounted potential liability for the completion of the site investigation and cleanup of the known contamination on the property will be at least $18 million.
Arthur Kill Site. Following a September 1998 transformer fire at Con Edison of New York’s former Arthur Kill Generating Station, it was determined that oil containing high levels of PCBs was released to the environment during the incident. The company has completed DEC-approved cleanup programs for the station’s facilities and various soil and pavement areas of the site affected by the PCB release. Pursuant to a July 1999 DEC consent order, the company completed a DEC-approved assessment of the nature and extent of the contamination in, and recommended a remediation program for the waterfront area of the station. DEC has selected the remediation program for the waterfront area and the company will implement it pursuant to an additional consent order entered into during 2005. The company estimates that its undiscounted potential liability for the cleanup of PCB contamination at the site will be approximately $2.9 million.
Flushing Service Center Site. The owner of a former Con Edison of New York service center facility in Flushing, New York, has informed the company that PCB contamination has been detected on a substantial portion of the property, which the owner has remediated, and is redeveloping for residential and commercial use pursuant to the New York Brownfield Cleanup Program administered by the DEC. The property owner has asserted a claim for $36 million for the costs of investigation and remediation of this site. The Company is negotiating with the property owner to resolve its liability. The DEC has also demanded that the company investigate PCB contamination in the adjacent Flushing River that may have emanated from this site. At this time, the company cannot estimate its liability for the investigation and cleanup of any PCB contamination that may have entered into the Flushing River from the site, but such liability may be substantial.
Other Superfund Sites. Con Edison of New York is a potentially responsible party (PRP) with respect to other Superfund sites where there are other PRPs and it is not managing the site investigation and remediation. Work at these sites is in various stages, with the company participating in PRP groups at some of the sites. Investigation, remediation and monitoring at some of these sites have been, and are expected to continue to be, conducted over extended periods of time. The company does not believe that it is reasonably likely that monetary sanctions, such as penalties, will be imposed upon it by any governmental authority with respect to these sites.
20
The following table lists each of Con Edison of New York’s other Superfund sites for which the company anticipates it may have a liability. The table also shows for each such site, its location, the year in which the company was designated or alleged to be a PRP or to otherwise have responsibilities with respect to the site (shown in the table under “Start”), the name of the court or agency in which proceedings with respect to the site are pending, and the company’s current estimate of its approximate potential liability for investigation, remediation and monitoring and environmental damages at the site or the unpaid share of any payments it is required to make under a settlement agreement resolving its liability for the site.
Maxey Flats Nuclear
Curcio Scrap Metal
Metal Bank of America
Cortese Landfill
Global Landfill
PCB Treatment, Inc.
Borne Chemical
The sites at which O&R has been asserted to have liability under Superfund include its manufactured gas sites, its West Nyack site and other Superfund sites discussed below. There may be additional sites as to which assertions will be made that O&R has liability. For a further discussion of claims and possible claims against O&R under Superfund, see Note G to the financial statements in Item 8 (which information is incorporated herein by reference).
Manufactured Gas Sites. O&R and its predecessors formerly owned and operated manufactured gas plants at seven sites (O&R MGP Sites) in Orange County and Rockland County, New York. Four of these sites are now owned by parties other than O&R, three of which have been redeveloped by them for residential, commercial or industrial uses. The DEC is requiring O&R to develop and implement remediation programs for the O&R MGP Sites including any neighboring areas to which contamination may have migrated.
O&R has completed remedial investigations at all seven O&R MGP Sites. O&R has completed the remediation at one of its sites; is currently implementing remediation at its Nyack site; and has received DEC’s decision regarding the remedial work to be done at another site. Since the latter site is Company-owned and has no off-site impacts, remediation of this site has been deferred, with DEC’s concurrence, until approximately 2010.
West Nyack Site. In 1994 and 1997, O&R entered into consent orders with the DEC pursuant to which O&R agreed to conduct a remedial investigation and remediate certain property it owns in West Nyack, New York at which PCBs were discovered. Petroleum contamination related to a leaking underground storage tank was found as well. O&R has completed all remediation at the site that the DEC has required to date. O&R is conducting a supplemental groundwater investigation and an on-site vapor intrusion study that has been requested by the DEC.
Other Superfund Sites. O&R is a PRP with respect to other Superfund sites where there are other PRPs and it is not managing the site investigation and remediation. Work at these sites is in various stages, with the company participating in PRP groups at some of the sites. Investigation, remediation and monitoring at some of these sites have been, and is expected to continue to be, conducted over extended periods of time. The company does not believe that it is reasonably likely that monetary sanctions, such as penalties, will be imposed upon it by any governmental authority with respect to these sites.
21
The following table lists each of O&R’s other Superfund sites for which the company anticipates it may have liability. The table also shows for each such site, its location, the year in which the company was designated or alleged to be a PRP or to otherwise have responsibilities with respect to the site (shown in the table under “Start”), the name of the court or agency in which proceedings with respect to the site are pending and the company’s current estimate of its potential liability for investigation, remediation and monitoring and environmental damages at the site.
Clarkstown Landfill
(a)
Superfund liability is joint and several. Estimated liability shown is the company’s estimate of its anticipated share of the total liability determined pursuant to consent decrees, settlement agreements or otherwise and in light of financial condition of other PRPs.
22
None
Executive Officers Of The Registrant
The following table sets forth certain information about the executive officers of Con Edison and Con Edison of New York as of February 15, 2008. As indicated, certain of the executive officers are executive officers of each of Con Edison and Con Edison of New York and others are executive officers of Con Edison or Con Edison of New York. The term of office of each officer, is until the next election of directors (trustees) of their company and until his or her successor is chosen and qualifies. Officers are subject to removal at any time by the board of directors (trustees) of their company. Mr. Burke has an employment agreement with Con Edison, which provides for him to serve in his present position through December 31, 2008. The employment agreement provides for automatic one-year extensions of its term, unless notice to the contrary is received six months prior to the end of the term.
Executive Officers of Con Edison and Con Edison of New York
Kevin Burke
3/06 to present – Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer and Director of Con Edison and Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Trustee of Con Edison of New York
9/05 to 2/06 – President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of Con Edison and Chief Executive Officer and Trustee of Con Edison of New York
9/00 to 8/05 – President of Con Edison of New York
Louis L. Rana
9/05 to present – President of Con Edison of New York
2/03 to 8/05 – Senior Vice President – Electric Operations
10/01 to 1/03 – Vice President – Manhattan Electric Operations
Robert Hoglund
9/05 to present – Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Con Edison and Con Edison of New York
4/04 to 8/05 – Senior Vice President of Finance of Con Edison and Con Edison of New York
6/04 to present – Chief Financial Officer and Controller of O&R
4/97 to 3/04 – Managing Director, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and predecessors
Frances A. Resheske
2/02 to present – Senior Vice President – Public Affairs of Con Edison of New York
JoAnn Ryan
7/06 to present – Senior Vice President – Business Shared Services of Con Edison of New York
3/01 to 6/06 – President and CEO, Con Edison Solutions
Luther Tai
7/06 to present – Senior Vice President – Enterprise Shared Services of Con Edison of New York
9/01 to 6/06 – Senior Vice President – Central Services of Con Edison of New York
Charles E. McTiernan, Jr.
1/03 to present – General Counsel of Con Edison and Con Edison of New York
Gurudatta Nadkarni
1/08 to present – Vice President of Strategic Planning
8/06 to 12/07 – Managing Director of Growth Initiatives, Duke Energy Corporation
1/05 to 7/06 – Director of Growth Initiatives, Strategy and Integration, Duke Energy Corporation
6/01 to 12/04 – Senior Project Manager of Strategic Business Development, Duke Energy Corporation
Joseph P. Oates
7/07 to present – Vice President – Energy Management of Con Edison of New York
4/04 to present – Vice President and Treasurer of Con Edison and Con Edison of New York
1/04 to 04/04 – Vice President of Con Edison of New York
11/02 to 01/04 – Vice President – Bronx and Westchester of Con Edison of New York
7/01 to 11/02 – Vice President – Energy Management of Con Edison of New York
Edward J. Rasmussen
12/00 to present – Vice President and Controller of Con Edison and Con Edison of New York
12/00 to 12/03 – Vice President, Controller and Chief Financial Officer of O&R
Executive Officers of Con Edison but not Con Edison of New York
John D. McMahon
1/03 to present – President and Chief Executive Officer of O&R
23
Executive Officers of Con Edison of New York but not Con Edison
(All offices and positions listed are with Con Edison of New York)
Marilyn Caselli
5/05 to present – Senior Vice President – Customer Operations
8/98 to 4/05 – Vice President – Customer Operations
Mary Jane McCartney
10/93 to present – Senior Vice President – Gas Operations
John F. Miksad
9/05 to present – Senior Vice President – Electric Operations
2/03 to 8/05 – Vice President – Manhattan Electric Operations
1/00 to 1/03 – Chief Engineer – Distribution Engineering
William G. Longhi
12/06 to present – Senior Vice President – Central Operations
09/01 to 11/06 – Vice President – System and Transmission Operations
24
Con Edison’s Common Shares ($.10 par value), the only class of common equity of Con Edison, are traded on the New York Stock Exchange. As of January 31, 2008, there were 72,783 holders of record of Con Edison’s Common Shares.
The market price range for Con Edison’s Common Shares during 2007 and 2006, as reported in the consolidated reporting system, and the dividends paid by Con Edison in 2007 and 2006 were as follows:
Dividends
Paid
1st Quarter
2nd Quarter
3rd Quarter
4th Quarter
On January 24, 2008, Con Edison’s Board of Directors declared a quarterly dividend of 58.5 cents per Common Share. The first quarter 2008 dividend will be paid on March 15, 2008.
Con Edison expects to pay dividends to its shareholders primarily from dividends and other distributions it receives from its subsidiaries. The payment of future dividends, which is subject to approval and declaration by Con Edison’s Board of Directors, will depend on a variety of factors, including business, financial and regulatory considerations. For additional information see “Dividends” in Note C to the financial statements in Item 8 (which information is incorporated herein by reference).
During 2007, the market price of Con Edison’s Common Shares increased by 1.6 percent (from $48.07 at year-end 2006 to $48.85 at year-end 2007). By comparison, the S&P 500 Index and the S&P Utilities Index increased 3.5 percent and 15.8 percent, respectively. The total return to Con Edison’s common shareholders during 2007, including both price appreciation and reinvestment of dividends, was 6.6 percent. By comparison, the total returns for the S&P 500 Index and the S&P Utilities Index were 5.5 percent and 19.4 percent, respectively. For the five-year period 2003 through 2007, Con Edison’s shareholders’ total average annual return was 8.1 percent, compared with total average annual returns for the S&P 500 Index and the S&P Utilities Index of 12.8 percent and 21.5 percent, respectively.
Consolidated Edison, Inc.
S&P 500 Index
S&P Utilities
25
The outstanding shares of Con Edison of New York’s Common Stock ($2.50 par value), the only class of common equity of Con Edison of New York, are held by Con Edison and are not traded.
The dividends declared by Con Edison of New York in 2007 and 2006 are shown in its Consolidated Statement of Common Shareholder’s Equity included in Item 8 (which information is incorporated herein by reference). For additional information about the payment of dividends by Con Edison of New York, and restrictions thereon, see “Dividends” in Note C to the financial statements in Item 8 (which information is incorporated herein by reference).
26
Operating revenues
Purchased power
Fuel
Gas purchased for resale
Operating income
Income from continuing operations
Income/(Loss) from discontinued operations**
Income before cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles
Cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles
Net income
Total assets
Long-term debt
Common shareholders’ equity
Basic earnings per share
Continuing operations
Discontinued operations**
Before cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles
Net Income
Diluted earnings per share
Cash dividends per common share
Average common shares outstanding (millions)
Net income for common stock
Common shareholder’s equity
27
This combined management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations (MD&A) relates to the consolidated financial statements included in this report of two separate registrants: Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Edison) and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison of New York) and should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and the notes thereto. As used in this report, the term the “Companies” refers to Con Edison and Con Edison of New York. Con Edison of New York is a subsidiary of Con Edison and, as such, information in this MD&A about Con Edison of New York applies to Con Edison.
Information in the notes to the consolidated financial statements referred to in this discussion and analysis is incorporated by reference herein. The use of terms such as "see" or "refer to" shall be deemed to incorporate by reference into this discussion and analysis the information to which reference is made.
Con Edison’s principal business operations are those of its utility companies, Con Edison of New York and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (O&R), together known as the “Utilities.” Con Edison also has competitive energy businesses (see “Competitive Energy Businesses,” below). Certain financial data of Con Edison’s businesses is presented below:
Con Edison Development(a)
Con Edison Energy(a)
Con Edison Solutions(a)
Other(b)
Total continuing operations
Discontinued operations/held for sale(c)
Total Con Edison
Con Edison’s net income for common stock in 2007 was $929 million or $3.49 a share. Net income for common stock in 2006 and 2005 was $737 million or $2.96 a share and $719 million or $2.95 a share, respectively. See “Results of Operations—Summary,” below.
Con Edison’s principal business segments are Con Edison of New York’s regulated electric, gas and steam utility activities, O&R’s regulated electric and gas utility activities and Con Edison’s competitive energy businesses. Con Edison of New York’s principal business segments are its regulated electric, gas and steam utility activities. For segment financial information, see Note N to the financial statements and “Results of Operations,” below.
For information about factors that could have a material adverse effect on the Companies, see “Risk Factors,” below.
Regulated Utilities
Con Edison of New York provides electric service to approximately 3.2 million customers and gas service to approximately 1.1 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 businesses, 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.
The Utilities are primarily “wires and pipes” energy delivery businesses that deliver energy in their service areas subject to extensive federal and state regulation. The Utilities’ customers buy this energy from the Utilities, or from other suppliers through the Utilities’ retail access programs. The Utilities purchase substantially all of the energy they sell to customers pursuant to firm contracts or through wholesale energy markets, and recover (generally on a current basis) the cost of the energy sold, pursuant to approved rate plans.
Con Edison anticipates that the Utilities will continue to provide substantially all of its earnings over the next few years. The Utilities’ earnings will depend on various factors including demand for utility service and the Utilities’ ability to charge rates for their services that reflect the costs of service, including a return on invested equity capital. The factors affecting demand for utility service include growth of customer demand, weather, market prices for energy, economic conditions and measures that promote energy efficiency. Demand for electric service peaks during the summer air conditioning season. Demand for gas and steam service peaks during the winter heating season.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION ANDANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
(COMBINED FOR CON EDISON AND CON EDISON OF NEW YORK) — CONTINUED
Because the energy delivery infrastructure must be adequate to meet demand in peak periods with a high level of reliability, the Utilities’ capital investment plans reflect in great part past actual electric peak demand adjusted to summer design weather conditions, as well as forecast growth in peak usage. The weather during the summer of 2007 was cooler than design conditions. The highest peak electric demand reached in 2007 was 12,807 MW for Con Edison of New York on August 8, 2007 and 1,474 MW for O&R on July 10, 2007. The Utilities estimate that, under design weather conditions, the 2008 peak electric demand in their respective service areas will be 13,775 MW for Con Edison of New York and 1,645 MW for O&R. The Con Edison of New York forecasted peak demand includes the impact of permanent demand reduction programs. The average annual growth rate of the peak electric demand over the next five years at design conditions is estimated to be approximately 1.2 percent for Con Edison of New York and 2.5 percent for O&R. The Companies anticipate an ongoing need for substantial capital investment in order to meet this growth in peak usage with the high level of reliability that they currently provide (see “Liquidity and Capital Resources—Capital Requirements,” below).
The Utilities have rate plans approved by state utility regulators that cover the rates they can charge their customers. Con Edison of New York’s electric, gas and steam rate plans are effective through March 31, 2008, September 30, 2010 and September 30, 2008, respectively. In May 2007, Con Edison of New York filed a request with the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) for new electric rates to be effective April 1, 2008. In November 2007, Con Edison of New York filed a request for a new steam rate plan, to be effective October 1, 2008. O&R’s rate plans for its electric and gas service in New York and its subsidiary’s electric service in New Jersey extend through June 30, 2008, October 31, 2009 and March 31, 2010, respectively. In August 2007, O&R filed for new electric rates for its New York customers to be effective July 10, 2008. Pursuant to the Utilities’ rate plans, charges to customers generally may not be changed during the respective terms of the rate plans other than for recovery of the costs incurred for energy supply, for specified increases provided in the rate plans and for limited other exceptions. The New York rate plans generally require the Utilities to share with customers earnings in excess of specified rates of return on common equity capital. Changes in delivery volumes are reflected in operating income (except to the extent that weather-normalization or revenue decoupling provisions apply to the gas businesses, and subject to provisions in the rate plans for sharing above-target earnings with customers). See “Regulatory Matters” below and “Recoverable Energy Costs” and “Rate Agreements” in Notes A and B, respectively, to the financial statements.
Accounting rules and regulations for public utilities include Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 71, "Accounting for the Effects of Certain Types of Regulation," pursuant to which the economic effects of rate regulation are reflected in financial statements. See “Application of Critical Accounting Policies,” below.
Con Edison’s competitive energy businesses participate in segments of the electricity industry that are less comprehensively regulated than the Utilities. These segments include the operation of electric generation facilities, trading of electricity and fuel, sales of electricity to wholesale and retail customers and sales of certain energy-related goods and services. At December 31, 2007, Con Edison’s equity investment in its competitive energy businesses was $615 million and their assets, including those held for sale (see below), amounted to $1.7 billion.
Consolidated Edison Solutions, Inc. (Con Edison Solutions) sells electricity directly to delivery-service customers of utilities primarily in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions (including some of the Utilities’ customers) and also offers energy-related services. Con Edison Solutions does not sell electricity to the Utilities. The company sold approximately 12.2 million MWHs of electricity to customers in 2007.
Consolidated Edison Development, Inc. (Con Edison Development) owns, leases or operates generating plants and participates in other infrastructure projects. At December 31, 2007, the company owned or leased the equivalent of 1,739 MWs of capacity in electric generating facilities of which 203 MWs are sold under long-term purchase power agreements and the balance is sold on the wholesale electricity markets. In addition, the company sells electricity at wholesale to utilities. In December 2007, Con Edison Development and its subsidiary, CED/SCS Newington, LLC, agreed to sell their ownership interests in power generating projects with an aggregate capacity of approximately 1,706 MW. See Note U to the financial statements.
Consolidated Edison Energy, Inc. (Con Edison Energy) procures electric energy and capacity for Con Edison Solutions and fuel for Con Edison Development and others. It sells the electric capacity and energy produced by plants owned, leased or operated by Con Edison Development and others. The company also provides energy risk management services to Con Edison Solutions and Con Edison Development, offers these services to others and enters into wholesale supply transactions.
The competitive energy businesses are focusing on increasing their customer base and gross margins and completing the sale
29
of the generating projects discussed above. See “Liquidity and Capital Resources—Capital Requirements” and “Capital Resources,” below.
Discontinued Operations
In March 2006, Con Edison completed the sale of Con Edison Communications, LLC (Con Edison Communications) to RCN Corporation. In December 2007, Con Edison Development and its subsidiary, CED/SCS Newington, LLC, agreed to sell their ownership interests in power generating projects with an aggregate capacity of approximately 1,706 MW. See Notes T and U to the financial statements.
Results of Operations—Summary
Con Edison’s earnings per share in 2007 were $3.49 ($3.47 on a diluted basis). In 2006, earnings per share were $2.96 ($2.95 on a diluted basis). Earnings per share in 2005 were $2.95 ($2.94 on a diluted basis).
Net income for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 was as follows:
Competitive energy businesses(a)
Discontinued operations(c)
30
The Companies' results of operations for 2007, as compared with 2006, reflect sales growth, the Utilities’ rate plans (which are designed to recover increases in certain operations and maintenance expenses, depreciation and property taxes, and interest charges), the impact of storms and weather in 2007. The following table presents the estimated effect on earnings per share and net income from continuing operations for 2007 as compared with 2006 and 2006 as compared with 2005, resulting from these and other major factors:
Sales growth
Impact of weather
Electric rate agreement
Gas rate agreement
Net transfers to firm gas service
Steam rate agreement
Resolution of deferred tax amortization petition
Operations and maintenance expense
Depreciation and property taxes
Interest charges
Other (includes dilutive effect of new stock issuances)
Total Con Edison of New York
Orange and Rockland Utilities
Competitive energy businesses
Earnings excluding net mark-to-market effects
Net mark-to-market effects
Other, including parent company expenses
Discontinued operations
Total variations
See “Results of Operations” below for further discussion and analysis of results of operations.
31
Risk Factors
The Companies’ businesses are influenced by many factors that are difficult to predict, and that involve uncertainties that may materially affect actual operating results, cash flows and financial condition. These risk factors include:
The Utilities’ Revenues And Results Of Operations Reflect Regulatory Actions—The Utilities have rate plans approved by state utility regulators that cover the prices they can charge their customers. The prices are generally designed to cover the Utilities’ cost of service (including a return on equity) and generally may not be changed during the specified terms of the rate plans other than for the recovery of energy costs and limited other exceptions. The rate plans generally include earnings adjustments for meeting or failing to meet certain standards. Certain of the plans require action by regulators at their expiration dates, which may include approval of new plans with different provisions. Regulators may also take actions affecting the company outside of the framework of the approved rate plans. The regulators in the states in which the Utilities provide service generally permit the Utilities to recover from their customers the cost of service, other than any cost that is determined to have been imprudently incurred. Regulatory policies are subject to change. The Utilities’ regulatory filings can involve complex accounting and other calculations. See “Application of Critical Accounting Polices” and “Regulatory Matters,” below.
Con Edison’s Ability To Pay Dividends Or Interest Is Subject To Regulatory Restrictions—Con Edison’s ability to pay dividends on its common stock or interest on its external borrowings depends primarily on the dividends and other distributions it receives from its businesses. The dividends that the Utilities may pay to Con Edison are generally limited to not more than 100 percent of their respective income available for dividends calculated on a two-year rolling average basis, with certain exceptions. See “Dividends” in Note C to the financial statements.
The Companies Purchase Energy For Their Customers—A disruption in the wholesale energy markets or in the Companies’ energy supply arrangements could adversely affect their ability to meet their customers’ energy needs and the Companies’ results of operations. The Companies have policies to manage the economic risks related to energy supply, including related hedging transactions and the risk of a counterparty’s non-performance. The Utilities generally recover their prudently incurred fuel, purchased power and gas costs, including the cost of hedging transactions, in accordance with rate provisions approved by state regulators. Con Edison’s competitive energy businesses enter into hedging transactions to manage their commodity-related price and volumetric risks. See “Financial and Commodity Market Risks,” below.
Energy Market Prices Are Volatile—The impact of changing energy market prices on the Companies is mitigated by their energy management policies and rate provisions pursuant to which the Utilities recover energy supply costs. See “Financial and Commodity Market Risks,” below. High energy market prices result in increases in energy costs billed to customers that could result in decreased energy usage. If this were to occur, until the Utilities’ rates were adjusted to offset the effect of decreased usage, the Utilities would have decreased energy delivery revenues. Prices for electricity, fuel oil and gas could also affect the value of Con Edison’s competitive energy businesses.
The Utilities Have A Substantial Ongoing Utility Construction Program—The Utilities estimate that their construction expenditures will exceed $8 billion over the next three years. The ongoing construction program includes large energy transmission, substation and distribution system projects. The failure to complete these projects in a timely manner could adversely affect the Utilities’ ability to meet their customers’ growing energy needs with the high level of reliability that they currently provide. The Utilities expect to use internally-generated funds, equity contributions from Con Edison and external borrowing to fund the construction expenditures.
The Companies Are Active Participants in Financial Markets—Changes in financial market conditions or in the Companies’ credit ratings could adversely affect their ability and their cost to borrow funds. The Companies’ commercial paper and unsecured debt are rated by Moody’s Investors Services, Inc. (Moody’s), Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services (S&P) and Fitch Ratings (Fitch). The interest rates on $636 million of Con Edison of New York tax-exempt debt and $99 million of O&R tax-exempt debt are also affected by the credit ratings of bond insurers. See “Liquidity and Capital Resources – Capital Resources,” below. Changes to financial market conditions could also adversely affect the return on investment of the plan assets for the Companies’ pension and other postretirement benefit plans. See “Application of Critical Accounting Policies—Accounting for Pensions and Other Postretirement Benefits” and “Financial and Commodity Market Risks,” below.
The Companies Operate Essential Energy Facilities And Other Systems—The Utilities provide electricity, gas and steam service using energy facilities that are located either in, or close to, public places. A failure of, or damage to, these facilities could result in bodily injury or death, property damage, the release of hazardous substances or extended service interruptions. See “Power Outage Proceedings” in Note B to the financial statements and
32
“Manhattan Steam Main Rupture” in Note H to the financial statements. The Companies have information systems relating to their operations, billing, accounting and other matters, the failure of which could adversely affect the Companies’ operations and liquidity. In the event of failure or damage to these facilities or systems, the Utilities could incur substantial liability, higher costs and increased regulatory requirements. The Utilities have training, operating, security, maintenance and capital programs designed to provide for the safe and reliable operation of their energy facilities and information systems.
Con Edison’s Competitive Energy Businesses Are In Evolving Markets—Con Edison’s competitive energy businesses are active in evolving markets that are affected by the actions of governmental agencies, other organizations (such as independent system operators) and other competitive businesses. Compared to the Utilities, the profitability of their products and services and the recoverability of Con Edison’s investment in these competitive energy businesses is not as predictable.
The Companies May Be Affected By The Application Of Critical Accounting Policies And Rules—The application of the Companies’ critical accounting policies reflects complex judgments, assumptions and estimates. These policies, which are described in “Application of Critical Accounting Policies,” below, include industry specific accounting applicable to regulated public utilities, the accounting and funding rules applicable to pensions and other postretirement benefits, and accounting for contingencies, long-lived assets, derivative instruments, goodwill and leases. New accounting policies or rules or changes to current accounting policies, rules or interpretations of such policies or rules that affect the Companies’ financial statements may be adopted by the relevant accounting or other authorities.
The Companies Are Exposed To Risks Relating To Environmental Matters—Hazardous substances, such as asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and coal tar, have been used or produced in the course of the Utilities’ operations and are present on properties or in facilities and equipment currently or previously owned by them. See “Environmental Matters” in Item 1 and Note G to the financial statements. Electric and magnetic fields (EMF) are found wherever electricity is used. If a causal relationship between EMF and adverse health effects were established, there could be a material adverse effect on the Companies. Negative perceptions about EMF can make it more difficult to construct facilities needed for the Companies’ operations.
The Companies Are Subject To Extensive Government Regulation And Taxation—The Companies’ operations require numerous permits, approvals and certificates from various federal, state and local governmental agencies. The Companies’ federal income tax returns reflect certain tax positions with which the Internal Revenue Service does not or may not agree, including tax positions with respect to Con Edison’s lease in/lease out transactions and the deduction of certain construction-related costs for which the ultimate deductibility is highly certain but for which there is uncertainty about the timing of such deductibility. See Notes J and L to the financial statements. The Companies may be subject to new laws or regulations or the revision or reinterpretation of existing laws or regulations which could have a material adverse effect on the Companies.
The Companies Face Risks That Are Beyond Their Control—The Companies’ results of operations can be affected by circumstances or events that are beyond their control. Weather directly influences the demand for electricity, gas and steam service, and can affect the price of energy commodities. Economic conditions can affect customers’ demand and ability to pay for service. The cost of repairing damage to the Companies’ facilities and the potential disruption of their operations due to heat, storms, natural disasters, wars, terrorist acts, pandemic illnesses and other catastrophic events could be substantial. See “Environmental Matters—Climate Change” in Item 1 and “Power Outage Proceedings” in Note B to the financial statements. The occurrence or risk of occurrence of future terrorist attacks or related acts of war could also adversely affect the New York or United States economy. A lower level of economic activity for these or other reasons could result
in a decline in energy consumption, which could adversely affect the Companies’ revenues and earnings and limit the Companies’ future growth prospects.
Forward-Looking Statements
This report includes forward-looking statements intended to qualify for the safe-harbor provisions of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Forward-looking statements are statements of future expectation and not facts. Words such as "expects," "estimates," "anticipates," "intends," "believes," "plans,” “will" and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are based on information available at the time the statements are made, and accordingly speak only as of that time. Actual results or developments might differ materially from those included in the forward-looking statements because of various factors such as those discussed under "Risk Factors," above.
33
Application of Critical Accounting Policies
The Companies’ financial statements reflect the application of their accounting policies, which conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The Companies’ critical accounting policies include industry-specific accounting applicable to regulated public utilities and accounting for pensions and other postretirement benefits, contingencies, long-lived assets, derivative instruments, goodwill and leases.
Accounting for Regulated Public Utilities
The Utilities are subject to SFAS No. 71, “Accounting for the Effects of Certain Types of Regulation,” and the accounting requirements of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and state public utility regulatory authorities having jurisdiction.
SFAS No. 71 specifies the economic effects that result from the causal relationship of costs and revenues in the rate-regulated environment and how these effects are to be accounted for by a regulated enterprise. Revenues intended to cover some costs may be recorded either before or after the costs are incurred. If regulation provides assurance that incurred costs will be recovered in the future, these costs would be recorded as deferred charges or “regulatory assets” under SFAS No. 71. If revenues are recorded for costs that are expected to be incurred in the future, these revenues would be recorded as deferred credits or “regulatory liabilities” under SFAS No. 71.
The Utilities’ principal regulatory assets and liabilities are listed in Note B to the financial statements. The Utilities are each receiving or being credited with a return on all regulatory assets for which a cash outflow has been made. The Utilities are each paying or being charged with a return on all regulatory liabilities for which a cash inflow has been received. The regulatory assets and liabilities will be recovered from customers, or applied for customer benefit, in accordance with rate provisions approved by the applicable public utility regulatory commission.
In the event that regulatory assets of the Utilities were no longer probable of recovery (as required by SFAS No. 71), these regulatory assets would be charged to earnings. At December 31, 2007, the regulatory assets for Con Edison and Con Edison of New York were $4.8 billion and $4.4 billion, respectively.
Accounting for Pensions and Other Postretirement Benefits
The Utilities provide pensions and other postretirement benefits to substantially all of their employees and retirees. Con Edison’s competitive energy businesses also provide such benefits to certain of their employees. The Companies account for these benefits in accordance with SFAS No. 158, “Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans—an amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R),” SFAS No. 87, “Employers' Accounting for Pensions” and SFAS No. 106, “Employers' Accounting for Postretirement Benefits Other Than Pensions.” In addition, the Utilities apply SFAS No. 71 to account for the regulatory treatment of these obligations (which, as described in Note B to the financial statements, reconciles the amounts reflected in rates for the costs of the benefit to the costs actually incurred). In applying these accounting policies, the Companies have made critical estimates related to actuarial assumptions, including assumptions of expected returns on plan assets, discount rates, health care cost trends and future compensation. See Notes E and F to the financial statements for information about the Companies’ pension and other postretirement benefits, the actuarial assumptions, actual performance, amortization of investment and other actuarial gains and losses and calculated plan costs for 2007, 2006 and 2005.
The cost of pension and other postretirement benefits in future periods will depend on actual returns on plan assets, assumptions for future periods, contributions and benefit experience. Con Edison’s and Con Edison of New York’s current estimates for 2008 are decreases, compared with 2007, in their pension and other postretirement benefits cost of $2 million and $3 million, respectively. The discount rate used to determine 2008 pension and other postretirement benefit accounting cost is 6.0 percent and the expected return on plan assets (tax-exempt assets for postretirement benefit accounting costs) is 8.5 percent.
Amortization of market gains and losses experienced in previous years is expected to decrease Con Edison’s and Con Edison of New York’s pension and other postretirement benefit costs by an additional $7 million in 2009. A 5.0 percentage point variation in the actual annual return in 2008, as compared with the expected annual asset return of 8.5 percent, would change pension and other postretirement benefit costs for both Con Edison and Con Edison of New York by approximately $17 million and $16 million, respectively, in 2009.
The discount rate for determining the present value of future period benefit payments is determined using a model to match the durations of highly-rated (Aa and Aaa, by Moody’s) corporate bonds with the projected stream of benefit payments.
In determining the health care cost trend rate, the Companies review actual recent cost trends and projected future trends.
The following table illustrates the effect on 2008 pension and other postretirement costs of changing the critical actuarial
34
assumptions discussed above, while holding all other actuarial assumptions constant:
Postretirement
Benefits
Increase in accounting cost:
Discount rate
Expected return on plan assets
Health care trend rate
Increase in projected benefit obligation:
Pension benefits are provided through a pension plan maintained by Con Edison to which Con Edison of New York, O&R and the competitive energy businesses make contributions for their participating employees. Pension accounting by the Utilities includes an allocation of plan assets.
The Companies were not required to make cash contributions to the pension plan in 2007 under funding regulations and tax laws. However, Con Edison of New York, O&R and Con Edison’s competitive energy businesses made discretionary contributions to the plan in 2007 of $112 million, $36 million and $1 million, respectively, and expect to make discretionary contributions in 2008 of $98 million, $32 million and $1 million, respectively.
The Companies’ policy is to fund their pension and other postretirement benefit accounting costs to the extent tax deductible and for the Utilities, to the extent these costs are recovered under their rate agreements.
Accounting for Contingencies
SFAS No. 5, “Accounting for Contingencies,” applies to an existing condition, situation or set of circumstances involving uncertainty as to possible loss that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur. Known material contingencies, which are described in the notes to the financial statements, include service interruptions experienced in 2006 (Note B), the Utilities’ responsibility for hazardous substances, such as asbestos, PCBs and coal tar that have been used or generated in the course of operations (Note G); certain tax matters (Notes J and L); and other contingencies (Note H). In accordance with SFAS No. 5, the Companies have accrued estimates of losses relating to the contingencies as to which loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated and no liability has been accrued for contingencies as to which loss is not probable or cannot be reasonably estimated.
The Utilities generally recover costs for asbestos lawsuits, workers’ compensation and environmental remediation pursuant to their current rate plans. Changes during the terms of the rate plans to the amounts accrued for these contingencies would not impact earnings.
Accounting for Long-Lived Assets
SFAS No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets” requires that certain long-lived assets must be tested for recoverability whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate their carrying amounts may not be recoverable. The carrying amount of a long-lived asset is deemed not recoverable if it exceeds the sum of the undiscounted cash flows expected to result from the use and eventual disposition of the asset. Under SFAS No. 144, an impairment loss is recognized if the carrying amount is not recoverable from such cash flows, and exceeds its fair value, which approximates market value.
Con Edison’s competitive energy businesses test their assets for impairment whenever events indicate that their carrying amount might not be recoverable. A critical element of this test is the forecast of future undiscounted cash flows to be generated from the long-lived assets. Forecast of these cash flows requires complex judgments about future operations, which are particularly difficult to make with respect to evolving industries such as the competitive energy businesses. Under SFAS No. 144, if alternative courses of action are under consideration or if a range is estimated for the amount of possible future cash flows, the probability of all possible outcomes must be weighted. With respect to the forecasted cash flows associated with Con Edison Development’s generation facilities, a 10 percent
35
decrease in the estimated undiscounted cash flows for these facilities would not result in an impairment charge. As a result of the 2005 tests, Con Edison recognized impairment charges of $9 million ($5 million after tax) with respect to Con Edison Communications. The 2006 tests did not result in an impairment charge. In December 2007, Con Edison Development and its subsidiary, CED/SCS Newington, LLC, agreed to sell their ownership interests in power generating projects with an aggregate capacity of approximately 1,706 MW (see Note U to the financial statements). Based on the anticipated sales price of these assets, there was no impairment charge for 2007. See “Impairments” in Note A to the financial statements.
Accounting for Goodwill
In accordance with SFAS No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” Con Edison is required to annually test goodwill for impairment. See Note K to the financial statements. Goodwill is tested for impairment using a two-step approach. The first step of the goodwill impairment test compares the estimated fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying value, including goodwill. If the estimated fair value of a reporting unit exceeds its carrying value, goodwill of the reporting unit is considered not impaired. If the carrying value exceeds the estimated fair value of the reporting unit, the second step is performed to measure the amount of impairment loss, if any. The second step requires a calculation of the implied fair value of goodwill.
Goodwill was $408 million at December 31, 2007. The most recent test, which was performed during 2007, did not require any second-step assessment and did not result in any impairment. The company’s most significant assumptions surrounding the goodwill impairment test relate to the estimates of reporting unit fair values. The company estimated fair values based primarily on discounted cash flows. A decrease in the forecasted cash flows of 10 percent would not have resulted in the carrying value of any reporting units exceeding their estimated fair values.
Accounting for Derivative Instruments
The Companies apply SFAS No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,” as amended, and other related accounting pronouncements to their derivative financial instruments. The Companies use derivative financial instruments to hedge market price fluctuations in related underlying transactions for the physical purchase and sale of electricity and gas and interest rate risk on certain debt securities. The Utilities are permitted by their respective regulators to reflect in rates all reasonably incurred gains and losses on these instruments. See “Financial and Commodity Market Risks,” below and Note O to the financial statements.
Where the Companies are required to make mark-to-market estimates pursuant to SFAS No. 133, the estimates of gains and losses at a particular period end do not reflect the end results of particular transactions, and will most likely not reflect the actual gain or loss at the conclusion of a transaction. Substantially all of the estimated gains or losses are based on prices supplied by external sources such as the fair value of exchange traded futures and options and the fair value of positions for which price quotations are available through or derived from brokers or other market sources.
Accounting for Leases
The Companies apply SFAS No. 13, “Accounting for Leases” and other related pronouncements to their leasing transactions. See Note J to the financial statements for information about Con Edison Development’s “Lease In/Lease Out” or LILO transactions, a disallowance of tax losses by the Internal Revenue Service and a possible future charge to earnings. In accordance with SFAS No. 13, Con Edison accounted for the two LILO transactions as leveraged leases. Accordingly, the company’s investment in these leases, net of non-recourse debt, is carried as a single amount in Con Edison’s 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.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
The Companies’ liquidity reflects cash flows from operating, investing and financing activities, as shown on their respective consolidated statement of cash flows and as discussed below.
The principal factors affecting Con Edison’s liquidity are its investments in the Utilities, the dividends it pays to its shareholders and the dividends it receives from the Utilities and cash flows from financing activities, including, in 2007 and 2006, issuance of 14.6 million and 12.2 million shares of common stock for $685 and $510 million, respectively, of which $518 million and $447 million were invested in Con Edison of New York. In 2005, 2.8 million shares of common stock were issued for $78 million.
The principal factors affecting Con Edison of New York’s liquidity are its cash flows from operating activities, cash used in investing activities (including construction expenditures), the dividends it pays to Con Edison and cash flows from financing activities discussed below.
The Companies generally maintain minimal cash balances and use short-term borrowing to meet their working capital needs and other cash requirements. The Companies repay their short-
36
term borrowings using funds from long-term financings and operating activities. The Utilities' cost of capital, including working capital, is reflected in the rates they charge to their customers.
Each of the Companies believes that it will be able to meet its reasonably likely short-term and long-term cash requirements. See “Risk Factors,” and “Application of Critical Accounting Policies—Accounting for Contingencies,” above, and “Regulatory Matters,” below.
Changes in the Companies’ cash and temporary cash investments resulting from operating, investing and financing activities for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 are summarized as follows:
Variance
2007vs. 2006
2006vs. 2005
Operating activities
Investing activities
Financing activities
Net change
Balance at beginning of period
Balance at end of period
Cash Flows from Operating Activities
The Utilities’ cash flows from operating activities reflect principally their energy sales and deliveries and cost of operations. The volume of energy sales and deliveries is dependent primarily on factors external to the Utilities, such as growth of customer demand, weather, market prices for energy, economic conditions and measures that promote energy efficiency. The prices at which the Utilities provide energy to their customers are determined in accordance with their rate agreements. In general, changes in the Utilities’ cost of purchased power, fuel and gas may affect the timing of cash flows but not net income because the costs are recovered in accordance with rate agreements. See “Recoverable Energy Costs” in Note A to the financial statements.
Net income is the result of cash and non-cash (or accrual) transactions. Only cash transactions affect the Companies’ cash flows from operating activities. Principal non-cash charges include depreciation and deferred income tax expense. Principal non-cash credits include the revenue requirement impact resulting from the reconciliation pursuant to Con Edison of New York’s electric rate agreement of the differences between the actual amount of transmission and distribution utility plant, net of depreciation to the amounts reflected in electric rates (Net T&D Revenues), prepaid pension costs and amortizations of certain net regulatory liabilities.
See “Application of Critical Accounting Policies—Accounting for Pensions and Other Postretirement Benefits,” and Notes E and F to the financial statements.
Net cash flows from operating activities in 2007 for Con Edison and Con Edison of New York were $201 million and $88 million higher, respectively, than in the 2006 period primarily reflecting increased net income, depreciation expense, deferred income taxes and recovery of certain other receivables, described below, offset in part by higher non-cash credits for Net T&D Revenues, rate case amortizations and accruals and higher customer accounts receivable.
The change in net cash flows also reflects the timing of payments for and recovery of energy costs. This timing issue is reflected within changes to accounts receivable—customers, recoverable energy costs and accounts payable balances. The change in other deferred charges and noncurrent assets reflects a $160 million deposit paid by Con Edison to the Internal Revenue Service with respect to the timing of deductions of certain construction related costs. See Note L to the financial statements. Con Edison of New York’s portion of this deposit, also recorded as a noncurrent asset, was $147 million.
37
The increase in other regulatory assets principally reflects increases in deferred pension costs in accordance with SFAS No. 158 and increases in future federal income taxes associated with increased removal costs. See Notes A, B and E to the financial statements.
The decrease in other receivables reflects primarily the recovery of a property tax credit associated with Con Edison of New York’s East River Plant and lower hedging program broker margin deposits (reflecting higher commodity prices). For Con Edison, the decrease also reflects the expiration of certain wholesale load contracts, and receivables associated with other hedging activities at the competitive energy businesses.
Net cash flows from operating activities in 2006 for Con Edison and Con Edison of New York were $564 million and $345 million higher, respectively, than in the 2005 period. The increase in net cash flows reflects increased deferred tax benefits, the timing of Con Edison of New York’s New York City property tax payments and higher energy prices in the last quarter of 2005. The company achieved a 1.5 percent reduction in its City property taxes for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006 by prepaying the annual tax amount due on June 30, 2005 instead of paying semi-annual installments on their due dates (July 1, 2005 and January 1, 2006). For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2007, the company made a semi-annual installment on July 1, 2006. The higher 2005 energy prices resulted in higher accounts receivable, net of allowance for uncollectibles, and accounts payable at the end of 2005 and increased collections of receivables from customers and accounts payable payments in the 2006 period. See “Other Changes in Assets and Liabilities,” below.
Cash Flows Used in Investing Activities
Net cash flows used in investing activities in 2007 for Con Edison and Con Edison of New York were $168 million and $182 million higher, respectively, than in 2006. The increases for the Companies reflect primarily increased utility construction expenditures and lower net proceeds from the sale of certain properties ($30 million in 2007, as compared with $60 million in 2006). For Con Edison, the increase also reflects $39 million of net proceeds from the completion of the sale of Con Edison Communications that offset cash flows used in investing activities in 2006.
Net cash flows used in investing activities in 2006 for Con Edison and Con Edison of New York were $644 million and $672 million higher, respectively, than in 2005. The increases for the Companies reflect primarily increased utility construction expenditures and decreased net sale proceeds from the sale of certain properties ($60 million in 2006 as compared with $534 million in 2005). The $534 million represents proceeds from the completion of the sale of Con Edison of New York properties located on First Avenue in Manhattan, collectively referred to as the “First Avenue Properties”, see “Regulatory Assets and Liabilities” in Note B to the financial statements. For Con Edison, the increase was partially offset, relative to Con Edison of New York, by $39 million of net proceeds from the completion of the sale of Con Edison Communications in March 2006.
Cash Flows from Financing Activities
Net cash flows from financing activities for Con Edison and Con Edison of New York increased $70 million and $182 million in 2007 compared with 2006, and increased $38 million and $262 million, respectively, in 2006 compared with 2005.
Con Edison’s cash flows from financing activities for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, reflect the issuance through public offerings of 11 million and 9.7 million Con Edison common shares resulting in net proceeds of $558 million and $447 million, respectively. The 2007 proceeds were invested by Con Edison in Con Edison of New York ($518 million) and O&R ($40 million). The $447 million from the 2006 proceeds were invested in Con Edison of New York.
Cash flows from financing activities for 2007, 2006 and 2005 also reflect the issuance of Con Edison common shares through its dividend reinvestment and employee stock plans (2007: 3.6 million shares for $121 million, 2006: 2.5 million shares for $63 million, 2005: 2.8 million shares for $78 million). In addition, as a result of the stock plan issuances, cash used to pay common stock dividends was reduced by $38 million in 2007 and 2005 and $40 million in 2006.
Net cash flows from financing activities during the years ending December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 also reflect the following Con Edison of New York transactions:
2007
2006
38
2005
In 2007, Con Edison issued commercial paper and used available cash balances to redeem in advance of maturity $325 million 7.25% 40-year Public Income NotES.
Con Edison’s net cash flows from financing activities also include O&R’s financings. In 2007, O&R’s New Jersey subsidiary redeemed at maturity $20 million 7.125% First Mortgage Bonds. In 2006, O&R issued $75 million of 5.45% 10-year debentures. In 2005, O&R issued $40 million of 5.30% 10-year debentures.
Cash flows from financing activities of the Companies also reflect commercial paper issuance (included on the consolidated balance sheets as “Notes payable”). The commercial paper amounts outstanding at December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 and the average daily balances for 2007, 2006 and 2005 for Con Edison and Con Edison of New York were as follows:
(Millions ofDollars, exceptWeightedAverage Yield)
Out-standingat
Dec. 31
Out-
standingat
Weighted average yield
Common stock issuances and external borrowings are sources of liquidity that could be affected by changes in credit ratings, financial performance and capital market conditions. For information about the Companies’ credit ratings and certain financial ratios, see “Capital Resources,” below.
Other Changes in Assets and Liabilities
The following table shows changes in assets and liabilities at December 31, 2007, compared with December 31, 2006, that have not impacted the Companies’ consolidated statements of cash flows.
Assets
Fair value of derivative assets
Deferred derivative losses
Liabilities
Uncertain income taxes
Fair value of derivative liabilities
For information on the adoption of FASB Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes—an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109,” see Note L to the financial statements.
In the context of higher forward energy market prices and the realization of gains and losses in 2007, the Companies’ policies for managing their energy purchases resulted in a decrease in the fair value of derivative liabilities at December 31, 2007 as compared with year-end 2006. For Con Edison and Con Edison of New York, the decrease in the fair value of derivative liabilities resulted in a decrease in deferred derivative losses at December 31, 2007 as compared with year-end 2006. For the Utilities, mark-to-market activity had no effect on net income as the amounts were deferred as regulatory assets/liabilities (deferred derivative losses/gains). In accordance with provisions approved by state regulators, the Utilities generally recover from customers their energy supply costs, net of gains and losses on derivative instruments used to hedge energy purchases. The mark-to-market accounting for Con Edison’s competitive energy businesses resulted in a net decrease in the fair value of derivative assets and liabilities. The decline in the fair value of derivative assets reflects increasing capacity prices and the timing of entering into new derivative instruments, which was offset in part by the maturity of certain derivative instruments and the impact of increasing energy prices. The competitive energy businesses record mark-to-market gains and losses on derivative instruments in earnings in the reporting period in which such changes occur. See Note O to the financial statements. For the Companies, changes in fair value of derivative instruments may lead to collateral payments made to or received from counterparties or brokers that are reflected in other accounts receivable and other current liabilities.
Capital Resources
Con Edison is a holding company that operates only through its subsidiaries and has no material assets other than its interests in its subsidiaries. Con Edison expects to finance its capital
39
requirements primarily through the sale of securities including the issuance in 2008 of between $225 million and $425 million of Con Edison common shares in addition to issuances under its dividend reinvestment and employee stock plans and from dividends it receives from its subsidiaries. Con Edison’s ability to make payments on its external borrowings and dividends on its common shares is also dependent on its receipt of dividends from its subsidiaries or proceeds from the sale of its securities or its interests in its subsidiaries.
Con Edison expects to use the net proceeds from Con Edison Development’s and its subsidiary’s pending sale of their ownership interests in power generating projects to repay debt and invest the remaining proceeds in its subsidiaries. See Note U to the financial statements.
For information about restrictions on the payment of dividends by the Utilities and significant debt covenants, see Note C to the financial statements.
For information on the Companies’ commercial paper program and revolving credit agreements with banks, see Note D to the financial statements.
The Utilities expect to finance their operations, capital requirements and payment of dividends to Con Edison from internally-generated funds, contributions of equity capital from Con Edison and external borrowings.
The Companies are continuing to monitor developments in the capital markets, and currently believe that the Companies' will be able to access capital on reasonable terms.
In May 2005, the PSC authorized Con Edison of New York to issue up to $4.4 billion of debt securities prior to December 31, 2009, of which the company had issued $2.2 billion at December 31, 2007. In January 2006, the PSC authorized O&R to issue up to $325 million of debt securities prior to December 31, 2009, of which the company had issued $75 million as of December 31, 2007. In addition, the PSC has authorized the Utilities’ to refund outstanding debt securities and preferred stock should the Utilities determine that it is economic to do so.
Con Edison’s competitive energy businesses have financed their operations and capital requirements primarily with capital contributions and borrowings from Con Edison, internally-generated funds and external borrowings. See Note P to the financial statements.
For each of the Companies, the ratio of earnings to fixed charges (Securities and Exchange Commission basis) for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, and 2003 was:
For each of the Companies, the common equity ratio at December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 was:
The commercial paper of the Companies is rated P-1, A-2 and F1, respectively, by Moody’s, S&P and Fitch. Con Edison’s unsecured debt is rated A2, A- and A, respectively, by Moody’s, S&P and Fitch. The unsecured debt of Con Edison of New York is rated A1, A and A+, respectively, by Moody’s, S&P and Fitch. The unsecured debt of O&R is rated A2, A and A+, respectively, by Moody’s, S&P and Fitch. Securities ratings assigned by rating organizations are expressions of opinion and are not recommendations to buy, sell or hold securities. A securities rating is subject to revision or withdrawal at any time by the assigning rating organization. Each rating should be evaluated independently of any other rating.
Con Edison of New York has $636 million of tax-exempt debt for which the interest rates are determined pursuant to periodic auctions. Of this amount, $391 million is insured by Ambac Assurance Corporation and $245 million is insured by XL Capital Assurance Inc. Credit rating agencies have recently downgraded the ratings of these insurers from AAA to lower levels. The company believes that the interest rates on its insured tax-exempt debt have been adversely impacted by the downgrade. The weighted average annual interest rate on this tax-exempt debt was 3.75 percent on February 20, 2008. The weighted average interest rate was 3.77 percent, 3.45 percent and 2.44 percent for the years 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
O&R has $99 million of tax-exempt debt that currently bears interest at rates determined weekly and is subject to tender by bondholders for purchase by the company. Of this amount, $55 million is insured by Financial Guaranty Insurance Company and $44 million is insured by Ambac Assurance Corporation. Recent downgrades in the credit ratings of these insurers have resulted in interest rates on this O&R debt that are significantly higher than the interest rates borne by Con Edison of New York’s $225 million of uninsured weekly rate tender bonds. As of February 20, 2008, the weighted average annual interest rate on the O&R insured weekly rate tender bonds, excluding the effects of an interest rate swap agreement (see “Interest Rate Hedging” in Note B to the financial statements), was 5.61 percent and the rate on the Con Edison of New York weekly rate tender bonds was 2.22 percent. O&R is evaluating alternatives with respect to its tax-exempt debt, which could include redemption of the debt and termination of the interest rate swap agreement.
40
Capital Requirements
The following table contains the Companies’ capital requirements for the years 2005 through 2007 and their current estimate of amounts for 2008 through 2010.
Regulated utility construction expenditures
Total regulated construction expenditures
Competitive energy businesses capital expenditures
Sub-total
Retirement of long-term securities at maturity*
Con Edison—parent company
Total retirement of long-term securities at maturity
Total
The Utilities have an ongoing need for substantial capital investment in order to meet the growth in demand for electricity and electric, gas and steam reliability needs. Amounts for 2005 also include expenditures for the East River Repowering Project. The increases in 2006 and 2007 reflect a higher level of expenditures for electric substations and ongoing improvements and reinforcements of the electric distribution system. The Utilities estimated construction expenditures for 2008, 2009, and 2010 are subject to change depending on the outcome of certain regulatory proceedings. See Note B to the financial statements.
41
Contractual Obligations
The following table summarizes the Companies’ material obligations at December 31, 2007, to make payments pursuant to contracts. Long-term debt, capital lease obligations and other long-term liabilities are included on their balance sheets. Operating leases, non-utility generator (NUG) contracts and other purchased power agreements (PPAs) (for which undiscounted future annual payments are shown) are described in the notes to the financial statements.
Long-term debt (Note C)
Competitive energy businesses and parent
Interest on long-term debt
Total Long-term debt, including interest
Capital lease obligations (Note J)
Total capital lease obligations
Operating leases (Notes J and P)
Total operating leases
Purchase obligations
Non-utility generator contracts and purchase power agreements – Utilities (Note I)
Energy(a)
Capacity
Energy and Capacity(a)
Total non-utility generator contracts and purchase power agreements – Utilities
Natural gas supply, transportation, and storage contracts – Utilities(b)
Natural gas supply
Transportation and storage
Total O&R
Total natural gas supply, transportation and storage contracts
Other purchase obligations(c)
Total other purchase obligations
Competitive energy businesses commodity and service agreements(d)
Total uncertain income taxes
42
The Companies’ commitments to make payments in addition to these contractual commitments include their other liabilities reflected in their balance sheets, any funding obligations for their pension and other postretirement benefit plans, financial hedging activities, their collective bargaining agreements and Con Edison’s guarantees of certain obligations of its businesses. See Notes E, F, O and “Guarantees” in Note H to the financial statements.
Electric Power Requirements
In 2007, the Utilities purchased substantially all of the energy they sold to customers pursuant to firm contracts and through the NYISO's wholesale electricity market. Con Edison expects that these resources will again be adequate to meet the requirements of its customers in 2008.
In general, the Utilities recover prudently-incurred purchased power costs pursuant to rate provisions approved by the state public utility regulatory authority having jurisdiction. See "Financial and Commodity Market Risks—Commodity Price Risk," below and "Recoverable Energy Costs" in Note A to the financial statements. From time to time certain parties have petitioned the PSC to review these provisions, the elimination of which could have a material adverse effect on the Companies’ financial position, results of operations or liquidity.
To reduce the volatility of electric energy costs, the Utilities have firm contracts to purchase electric energy and enter into derivative transactions to hedge the costs of a portion of their expected purchases under these contracts and through the NYISO’s wholesale electricity market, which together cover a substantial portion of the electric energy expected to be sold to customers in 2008. See Notes I and O to the financial statements. O&R’s New Jersey subsidiary entered into firm contracts to purchase electric energy for substantially all of the electric energy expected to be sold to its customers in 2008.
Con Edison of New York also owns generating stations in New York City associated primarily with its steam system. As of December 31, 2007, the generating stations had a combined electric capacity of approximately 704 MW, based on 2007 summer ratings. O&R does not own any electric generating capacity.
In a July 1998 order, the PSC indicated that it "agree(s) generally that Con Edison of New York need not plan on constructing new generation as the competitive market develops," but considers "overly broad" and did not adopt Con Edison of New York's request for a declaration that, solely with respect to providing generating capacity, it will no longer be required to engage in long-range planning to meet potential demand and, in particular, that it will no longer have the obligation to construct new generating facilities, regardless of the market price of capacity. Con Edison of New York monitors the adequacy of the electric capacity resources and related developments in its service area, and works with other parties on long-term resource adequacy issues within the framework of the NYISO. In December 2007, the PSC initiated a proceeding to consider a form of integrated resource planning, which could involve the imposition of obligations on transmission owners (such as Con Edison of New York), that may be needed for system reliability if the market does not solve a reliability need identified by the NYISO.
Con Edison’s competitive energy businesses sell electricity to wholesale and retail customers in the NYISO, PJM Interconnection (PJM), ISO New England (ISO-NE) and other markets. In addition, at December 31, 2007, Con Edison Development owned equity interests in electric generating facilities equivalent to 1,739 MW of net generating capacity, substantially all of which is located within the PJM or the ISO-NE. Con Edison Energy sells the electricity from these generating facilities on the wholesale electricity markets or under contract. See “Financial and Commodity Market Risks—Commodity Price Risk,” below. In December 2007, Con Edison Development and its subsidiary, CED/SCS Newington, LLC, agreed to sell their ownership interests in these power generating projects with an aggregate capacity of approximately 1,706 MW. See Note U to the financial statements.
43
Regulatory Matters
The following table, which summarizes certain significant provisions of the Utilities’ principal rate agreements, should be read in conjunction with, and is subject to, the more detailed discussion of the agreements in Note B to the financial statements.
Effective
Period
Rate
Increases
ROE Sharing ThresholdEarnings Sharing Terms*
(Shareholders / Customers)
Con Edison of New York – Electric
April 2005 -
March 2008
Yr. 2 - None
Yr. 3 - $220.4**
Yr. 3 - $249
Transmission anddistribution plantreconciliation
11.4% - 13% - 50/50
> 13% - 25/75
Con Edison of New York – Gas
October 2007 -
September 2010
Yr. 2 - $67.5
Yr. 3 - $67.5
over 3 yrs.
50/50
Con Edison of New York – Steam
October 2006 -
September 2008
over 2 yrs.
11% - 12% - 50/50
>12% - 25/75
O&R – Electric (NY)
March 2007 -
June 2008
O&R – Gas*** (NY)
November 2006 -
October 2009
Yr. 2 - $6.5
Yr. 3 - $6.3
12% - 14% - 35/65
>14% - 0/100
In May 2007, Con Edison of New York filed a request with the PSC for an electric rate increase of $1,225 million effective April 1, 2008. The PSC is expected to rule on the company’s request in March 2008. O&R has pending a request with the PSC for an increase in the rates it charges for electric service rendered in New York, effective July 2008, of $43.7 million. See Note B to the financial statements.
The Companies are actively participating in regulatory proceedings at the federal level that are underway to implement the Energy Policy Act of 2005, such as the implementation of mandatory reliability standards through the North American Electric Reliability Council and efforts to increase investment in infrastructure, including implementation of transmission pricing incentives. The Companies also participate in other federal regulatory proceedings that affect electric capacity and energy markets in New York and PJM regions, and those that affect gas pipeline companies.
44
Financial and Commodity Market Risks
The Companies are subject to various risks and uncertainties associated with financial and commodity markets. The most significant market risks include interest rate risk, commodity price risk, credit risk and investment risk.
Interest Rate Risk
The interest rate risk relates primarily to variable rate debt and to new debt financing needed to fund capital requirements, including the construction expenditures of the Utilities and maturing debt securities. Con Edison and its businesses manage interest rate risk through the issuance of mostly fixed-rate debt with varying maturities and through opportunistic refinancing of debt. The Companies estimate that at December 31, 2007, each 10 percent variation in interest rates applicable to Con Edison’s and Con Edison of New York’s variable rate debt and commercial paper would result in a change in annual interest expense of $7 million and $5 million, respectively.
In addition, from time to time, Con Edison and its businesses enter into derivative financial instruments to hedge interest rate risk on certain debt securities. See “Interest Rate Hedging” in Note O to the financial statements.
Commodity Price Risk
Con Edison’s commodity price risk relates primarily to the purchase and sale of electricity, gas and related derivative instruments. The Utilities and Con Edison’s competitive energy businesses have risk management strategies to mitigate their related exposures. See Note O to the financial statements.
Con Edison estimates that, as of December 31, 2007, a 10 percent decline in market prices would result in a decline in fair value of $99 million for the derivative instruments used by the Utilities to hedge purchases of electricity and gas, of which $64 million is for Con Edison of New York and $35 million is for O&R. Con Edison expects that any such change in fair value would be largely offset by directionally opposite changes in the cost of the electricity and gas purchased. In accordance with provisions approved by state regulators, the Utilities generally recover from customers the costs they incur for energy purchased for their customers, including gains and losses on certain derivative instruments used to hedge energy purchased and related costs. See “Recoverable Energy Costs” in Note A to the financial statements.
Con Edison’s competitive energy businesses use a value-at-risk (VaR) model to assess the market risk of their electricity and gas commodity fixed-price purchase and sales commitments, physical forward contracts and commodity derivative instruments. VaR represents the potential change in fair value of instruments or the portfolio due to changes in market factors, for a specified time period and confidence level. These businesses estimate VaR across their electricity and natural gas commodity businesses using a delta-normal variance/covariance model with a 95 percent confidence level. Since the VaR calculation involves complex methodologies and estimates and assumptions that are based on past experience, it is not necessarily indicative of future results. VaR for transactions associated with hedges on generating assets and commodity contracts, assuming a one-day holding period, for the years ended December 31, 2007, and 2006, respectively, was as follows:
95% Confidence Level,
One-Day Holding Period
Average for the period
High
Low
Credit Risk
The Companies are exposed to credit risk related to transactions entered into primarily for the various energy supply and hedging activities by the Utilities and the competitive energy businesses. Credit risk relates to the loss that may result from a counterparty’s nonperformance. The Companies use credit policies to manage this risk, including an established credit approval process, monitoring of counterparty limits, netting provisions within agreements and collateral or prepayment arrangements, credit insurance and credit default swaps. The Companies measure credit risk exposure as the replacement cost for open energy commodity and derivative positions plus amounts owed from counterparties for settled transactions. The replacement cost of open positions represents unrealized gains, net of any unrealized losses where the company has a legally enforceable right of setoff.
The Utilities had $66 million of credit exposure in connection with energy supply and hedging activities, net of collateral and reserves, at December 31, 2007, of which $28 million was with investment-grade counterparties and $38 million was with commodity exchange brokers.
Con Edison’s competitive energy businesses had $92 million of credit exposure in connection with energy supply and hedging activities, net of collateral and reserves, at December 31, 2007, of which $71 million was with investment grade counterparties and $21 million was with commodity exchanges or independent system operators.
45
Investment Risk
The Companies’ investment risk relates to the investment of plan assets for their pension and other postretirement benefit plans. See “Application of Critical Accounting Policies—Accounting for Pensions and Other Postretirement Benefits,” above. The Companies’ current investment policy for pension plan assets includes investment targets of 65 percent equities and 35 percent fixed income and other securities. At December 31, 2007, the pension plan investments consisted of 65 percent equity and 35 percent fixed income and other securities. See Notes E and F to the financial statements.
For information concerning potential liabilities arising from laws and regulations protecting the environment and from claims relating to alleged exposure to asbestos, see “Environmental Matters” in Item 1 and Note G to the financial statements.
Impact of Inflation
The Companies are affected by the decline in the purchasing power of the dollar caused by inflation. Regulation permits the Utilities to recover through depreciation only the historical cost of their plant assets even though in an inflationary economy the cost to replace the assets upon their retirement will substantially exceed historical costs. The impact is, however, partially offset by the repayment of the Companies’ long-term debt in dollars of lesser value than the dollars originally borrowed. Also, to the extent the Companies’ prices change by more or less than inflation, the real price of the Companies’ services will increase or decline. Over the past 20 years, for example, the real price of electric service has declined substantially.
Material Contingencies
For information concerning potential liabilities arising from the Companies’ material contingencies, see “Application of Critical Accounting Policies—Accounting for Contingencies,” and Notes B, G, H, J and L to the financial statements.
Results of Operations
Results of operations reflect, among other things, the Companies’ accounting policies (see “Application of Critical Accounting Policies,” above), rate plans that cover the rates the Utilities can charge their customers (see “Regulatory Matters,” above) and demand for utility service. Demand for utility service is affected by weather, economic conditions and other factors.
The Companies’ results of operations for the 12 months ended December 31, 2007 reflect sales growth, the Utilities’ rate plans (which are designed to recover increases in certain operations and maintenance expenses, depreciation and property taxes, and interest charges), the impact of storms and weather in 2007. For additional information about major factors affecting earnings, see “Results of Operations—Summary,” above.
In general, the Utilities recover on a current basis the fuel, gas purchased for resale and purchased power costs they incur in supplying energy to their full-service customers (see “Recoverable Energy Costs” in Note A and “Regulatory Matters” in Note B to the financial statements). Accordingly, such costs do not generally affect the Companies’ results of operations. Management uses the term “net revenues” (operating revenues less such costs) to identify changes in operating revenues that may affect the Companies’ results of operations. Management believes that, although “net revenues” may not be a measure determined in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the measure facilitates the analysis by management and investors of the Companies’ results of operations.
Con Edison’s principal business segments are Con Edison of New York’s regulated electric, gas and steam utility activities, O&R’s regulated electric and gas utility activities and Con Edison’s competitive energy businesses. Con Edison of New York’s principal business segments are its regulated electric, gas and steam utility activities. A discussion of the results of operations by principal business segment for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 follows. For additional business segment financial information, see Note N to the financial statements.
46
Year Ended December 31, 2007 Compared with Year Ended December 31, 2006
The Companies’ results of operations (which were discussed above under “Results of Operations—Summary”) in 2007 compared with 2006 were:
Operating revenues less purchased power, fuel and gas purchased for resale (net revenues)
Other operations and maintenance
Depreciation and amortization
Taxes, other than income taxes
Income taxes
Other income less deductions and related federal income tax
Net interest expense
Discontinued operations ***
47
Con Edison of New York’s electric sales and deliveries, excluding off-system sales, in 2007 compared with 2006 were:
Residential/Religious
Commercial/Industrial
Retail access customers
NYPA, Municipal Agency and other sales
Other operating revenues
Con Edison of New York’s electric operating revenues increased $388 million in 2007 compared with 2006 due primarily to the third year of the electric rate plan ($201 million, which includes $71 million of Net T&D Revenues), increased recoveries of demand side management programs ($84 million), sales growth ($50 million), the recognition of the gain on the sale of properties ($29 million), the impact of the weather in 2007 ($12 million), higher transmission revenues ($10 million) and increased recoverable fuel costs ($10 million), offset in part by a decrease in recoverable purchased power costs ($25 million). Other electric operating revenues generally reflect changes in regulatory assets and liabilities in accordance with the company’s rate plans. See Note B to the financial statements.
Electric delivery volumes in Con Edison of New York’s service area increased 3.5 percent in 2007 compared with 2006 due primarily to sales growth. After adjusting for variations, principally weather and billing days, electric delivery volumes in Con Edison of New York’s service area increased 2.6 percent in 2007 compared with 2006.
Con Edison of New York’s electric fuel costs increased $10 million in 2007 compared with 2006 due primarily to higher sendout volumes from the company’s generating facilities ($12 million), offset by a decrease in unit costs ($2 million). Electric purchased power costs decreased $25 million in 2007 compared with 2006 reflecting a decrease in purchased volumes associated with milder 2007 weather and additional customers obtaining their energy supply through competitive providers ($75 million), offset by an increase in unit costs ($50 million).
Con Edison of New York’s electric operating income increased $131 million in 2007 compared with 2006. The increase reflects primarily higher net revenues ($403 million due principally to provisions of the electric rate agreement and sales growth), offset in part by higher operations and maintenance costs ($143 million, due primarily to the impact of storms, demand side management program expenses and increased transmission and distribution expenses), taxes other than income taxes ($59 million principally property taxes), income taxes ($35 million) and depreciation ($34 million).
48
Con Edison of New York’s gas sales and deliveries, excluding off-system sales, in 2007 compared with 2006 were:
Total firm sales and transportation
Interruptible sales
Generation plants
Con Edison of New York’s gas operating revenues increased $146 million in 2007 compared with 2006 due primarily to an increase in recoverable purchased gas costs ($76 million), the gas rate plans ($32 million), the movement of certain customers from interruptible to firm service ($23 million) and sales growth ($9 million). Con Edison of New York’s revenues from gas sales are subject to a weather normalization clause that moderates, but does not eliminate, the effect of weather-related changes on net income. Other gas operating revenues generally reflect changes in regulatory assets and liabilities in accordance with the company’s rate plans. See Note B to the financial statements.
Con Edison of New York’s sales and transportation volumes for firm customers increased 18.0 percent in 2007 compared with 2006 reflecting primarily the impact of the colder winter weather in 2007 compared with 2006 and the net transfers to firm service. After adjusting for variations, principally weather and billing days and net transfers to firm service, firm gas sales and transportation volumes in the company’s service area increased 2.3 percent in 2007.
Con Edison of New York’s purchased gas cost increased $76 million in 2007 compared with 2006 due to higher sendout volumes ($120 million), offset by lower unit costs ($44 million).
Con Edison of New York’s gas operating income increased $32 million in 2007 compared with 2006. The increase reflects primarily higher net revenues ($70 million), offset by higher income taxes ($13 million), taxes other than income taxes ($12 million, principally property taxes), operations and maintenance expense ($9 million) and depreciation ($4 million).
Con Edison of New York’s steam sales and deliveries in 2007 compared with 2006 were:
Apartment house
Annual power
49
Con Edison of New York’s steam operating revenues increased $63 million in 2007 compared with 2006 due primarily to net purchased power, fuel costs and timing of fuel recoveries ($40 million), the colder winter weather in 2007 ($32 million) and the net change in rates under the steam rate plan ($7 million). Other steam operating revenues generally reflect changes in regulatory assets and liabilities in accordance with the company’s rate plans. See Note B to the financial statements.
Steam sales and delivery volumes increased 11.0 percent in 2007 compared with 2006, reflecting primarily the impact of weather. After adjusting for variations, principally weather and billing days, steam sales and deliveries increased 0.2 percent in 2007.
Con Edison of New York’s steam fuel costs increased $53 million in 2007 compared with 2006 due primarily to higher sendout volumes ($32 million) and higher unit costs ($21 million). Steam purchased power costs decreased $13 million in 2007 compared with 2006 due primarily to lower unit costs ($11 million) and purchased volumes ($2 million).
Steam operating income increased $4 million in 2007 compared with 2006. The increase reflects primarily higher net revenues ($23 million) and lower income taxes ($11 million), offset in part by higher operations and maintenance expense ($12 million), depreciation ($10 million) and taxes other than income taxes ($9 million, principally property taxes).
Taxes Other Than Income Taxes
At over $1 billion, taxes other than income taxes remain one of Con Edison of New York’s largest operating expenses. The principal components of, and variations in, taxes other than income taxes were:
Increase/
(Decrease)
Property taxes
State and local taxes relatedto revenue receipts
Payroll taxes
Other taxes
Income Taxes
Operating income taxes increased $37 million in 2007 compared with 2006 due primarily to higher income in the 2007 period.
Net Interest Expense
Net interest expense increased $12 million in 2007 compared with 2006 due primarily to new debt issuances in late 2006 and higher interest rates on floating-rate debt, offset in part by interest accrued in 2006 for the potential repayment of tax benefits from the timing of tax deductions of certain construction related costs (see Note L to the financial statements) and lower principal amounts of commercial paper outstanding in 2007.
O&R’s electric sales and deliveries, excluding off-system sales, in 2007 compared with 2006 were:
50
O&R’s electric operating revenues increased $89 million in 2007 compared with 2006 due primarily to increased recoverable purchased power costs ($77 million). Other electric operating revenues generally reflect changes in regulatory assets and liabilities in accordance with the company’s electric rate plan. See Note B to the financial statements.
Electric delivery volumes in O&R’s service area increased 2.3 percent in 2007 compared with 2006. After adjusting for weather variations and unbilled volumes, electric delivery volumes in O&R’s service area increased 1.5 percent in 2007 compared with 2006.
Electric operating income increased by $2 million in 2007 compared with 2006. The increase reflects higher net revenues ($10 million) and lower taxes other than income taxes ($5 million, principally property taxes), offset in part by higher operations and maintenance expense ($11 million) and depreciation ($2 million).
O&R’s gas sales and deliveries, excluding off-system sales, in 2007 compared with 2006 were:
Other gas revenues
O&R’s gas operating revenues increased $29 million in 2007 compared with 2006 due primarily to higher costs of gas purchased for resale in 2007 ($16 million) and the impact of the gas rate plan increase that went into effect November 1, 2006 ($13 million).
Sales and transportation volumes for firm customers increased 12.7 percent in 2007 compared with 2006 reflecting the impact of the weather in 2007. After adjusting for weather and other variations, total firm sales and transportation volumes were 0.3 percent higher in 2007 compared with 2006. O&R’s revenues from gas sales are subject to a weather normalization clause that moderates, but does not eliminate, the effect of weather-related changes on net income.
Non-firm transportation of customer-owned gas to electric generating plants increased in 2007 compared with 2006 because certain facilities resumed burning gas to generate electricity. The increase in gas burned had minimal impact on earnings because most revenues from these customers result from a fixed demand charge for local transportation.
Gas operating income increased by $6 million in 2007 compared with 2006. The increase reflects higher net revenues ($13 million) and lower taxes other than income taxes ($1 million, principally property taxes), offset in part by higher operations and maintenance costs ($7 million), income taxes ($1 million) and depreciation ($1 million).
Taxes, other than income taxes, decreased $5 million in 2007 compared with 2006. The principal components of taxes, other than income taxes, were:
State and local taxes related to revenue receipts
51
Operating income taxes decreased by $1 million in 2007 compared with 2006.
Other Income (Deductions)
Other income (deductions) decreased $3 million in 2007 compared with 2006 due primarily to the sale of non-utility property and higher interest income in 2006.
Net interest expense increased $6 million in 2007 compared with 2006 due primarily to a new debt issuance in late 2006 and interest accrued for the potential repayment of tax benefits from the timing of tax deductions of certain construction related costs (see Note L to the financial statements).
The competitive energy businesses’ operating income and earnings from continuing operations increased $2 million and $18 million, respectively, in 2007 compared with 2006 due primarily to higher gross margins from generating plants and wholesale sales, higher income from investments and lower mark-to-market losses, offset in part by lower gross margins from electric retail sales.
Operating revenues increased $384 million in 2007 compared with 2006, primarily due to higher electric wholesale and retail revenues. Electric wholesale revenues increased $134 million, of which $150 million was due to higher sales volume, offset by a $16 million decrease in unit prices. Electric retail revenues increased $190 million in 2007 as compared with 2006, of which $173 million was due to higher sales volumes and $17 million was due to an increase in unit prices. While electric retail revenues increased more than 16 percent from 2006 to 2007, gross margins decreased by approximately 20 percent due primarily to lower margins on indexed priced products. Revenue from the sale of electricity from the competitive energy businesses’ generation facilities increased $26 million in 2007 as compared with 2006 due primarily to higher capacity prices. Net mark-to-market losses decreased $17 million in 2007 as compared with 2006 due primarily to higher prices on electric and natural gas contracts, which were economic hedges that supported retail obligations (but were not accounted for as cash flow hedges). Other revenues increased $17 million in 2007 as compared with 2006 due primarily to energy services revenue.
Operating expenses excluding income taxes increased $373 million in 2007 compared with 2006, reflecting increased purchased power ($348 million), other operations and maintenance costs ($19 million) and fuel costs ($8 million) offset in part by lower gas purchased for resale costs ($2 million).
Other income increased $12 million in 2007 as compared with 2006 due primarily to a $6 million gain from the sale of an equity investment.
Income taxes increased $10 million in 2007 as compared with 2006, reflecting primarily higher income.
Net income from discontinued operations was $4 million in 2007 compared with a $3 million loss in 2006, reflecting lower mark-to-market losses in 2007 from certain Con Edison Development generation projects. See Note U to the financial statements.
For Con Edison, “Other” in 2006 reflects a $9 million expense (which will not be recoverable under the Utilities’ rate plans) for a charitable commitment to the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation and a $9 million expense to effectively reclassify from retained earnings to additional paid-in capital the tax benefits from the exercise of stock options that had been recognized in income in prior years. For Con Edison, “Other” also includes inter-company eliminations relating to operating revenues and operating expenses.
52
Year Ended December 31, 2006 Compared with Year Ended December 31, 2005
The Companies’ results of operations (which were discussed above under “Results of Operations—Summary”) in 2006 compared with 2005 were:
53
Con Edison of New York’s electric sales and deliveries, excluding off-system sales, in 2006 compared with 2005 were:
Con Edison of New York’s electric operating revenues were $104 million higher in 2006 than in 2005 due primarily to increased recoverable fuel costs ($52 million), sales growth ($38 million), increased collections for demand side management programs ($31 million), the electric rate plan that took effect in April 2005 ($213 million), recovery of costs relating to the East River Repowering Project ($19 million), a reversal of a portion of the provision for refund to customers of shared earnings above the target level accrued in 2005 ($70 million) and a 2005 provision for refund to customers of deferred taxes associated with the sale of the First Avenue Properties ($23 million), offset in part by a decrease in purchased power costs ($286 million) and the impact of the milder weather ($91 million). Other electric operating revenues generally reflect changes in regulatory assets and liabilities in accordance with the company’s rate plans. See Note B to the financial statements.
Electric delivery volumes in Con Edison of New York’s service area decreased 1.8 percent in 2006 compared with 2005, primarily reflecting milder weather in 2006 compared with 2005. After adjusting for variations, principally weather and billing days, electric delivery volumes in Con Edison of New York’s service area increased 1.8 percent in 2006 compared with 2005.
Con Edison of New York’s electric fuel costs increased $52 million, reflecting higher sendout volumes from the company’s generating facilities ($59 million), offset by a decrease in unit costs ($7 million). Electric purchased power costs decreased $286 million in 2006 compared with 2005 reflecting a decrease in purchased volumes associated with milder 2006 weather and additional customers obtaining their energy supply through competitive providers ($547 million), partially offset by an increase in unit costs ($261 million).
Con Edison of New York’s electric operating income increased $54 million in 2006 compared with 2005. The increase reflects higher net revenues ($340 million due principally to the electric rate agreement), offset in part by higher operations and maintenance costs ($175 million due primarily to power outages ($63 million), compensation for spoilage of food associated with certain of the outages ($9 million), demand side management program expenses ($31 million), East River Repowering Project costs ($19 million), higher expenses relating to uncollectible customer accounts ($7 million), increased transmission and distribution expenses ($19 million) and recognition of expense for stock-based compensation ($7 million)), taxes other than income taxes ($60 million, principally property taxes) and depreciation ($21 million).
54
Con Edison of New York’s gas sales and deliveries, excluding off-system sales, in 2006 compared with 2005 were:
Con Edison of New York’s gas operating revenues in 2006 decreased $17 million compared with 2005, reflecting primarily a decrease in purchased gas costs ($63 million), offset in part by higher non-firm revenues ($7 million) and the gas rate plan ($30 million). Con Edison of New York’s revenues from gas sales are subject to a weather normalization clause that moderates, but does not eliminate, the effect of weather-related changes on net income. Other gas operating revenues generally reflect changes in regulatory assets and liabilities in accordance with the company’s rate plans. See Note B to the financial statements.
Con Edison of New York’s sales and transportation volumes for firm customers decreased 8.2 percent in 2006 compared with 2005 reflecting primarily the impact of the milder winter and spring weather in 2006. After adjusting for variations, principally weather and billing days, firm gas sales and transportationvolumes in the company’s service area increased 1.3 percent in 2006. Con Edison of New York’s revenues from gas sales are subject to a weather normalization clause that moderates, but does not eliminate, the effect of weather-related changes on net income.
Con Edison of New York’s purchased gas cost decreased $63 million in 2006 compared with 2005 due to lower sendout ($206 million), offset in part by higher unit costs ($143 million).
Con Edison of New York’s gas operating income increased $16 million in 2006 compared with 2005. The increase reflects primarily higher net revenues ($46 million), offset in part by higher operations and maintenance expense ($15 million), taxes other than income taxes ($6 million, principally property taxes), income taxes ($5 million) and depreciation ($4 million).
Con Edison of New York’s steam sales and deliveries in 2006 compared with 2005 were:
55
Con Edison of New York’s steam operating revenues decreased $26 million in 2006 compared with 2005 due primarily to the milder weather in 2006 ($38 million) net purchased power, fuel costs and timing of fuel recoveries ($23 million), offset in part by the net increase in rates under the steam rate plan ($30 million). Other steam operating revenues generally reflect changes in regulatory assets and liabilities in accordance with the company’s rate plans. See Note B to the financial statements.
Steam sales and delivery volumes decreased 13.5 percent in 2006 compared with 2005, reflecting primarily the impact of weather. After adjusting for variations, principally weather and billing days, steam sales and deliveries decreased 0.6 percent in 2006.
Con Edison of New York’s steam purchased power costs increased $16 million in 2006 compared with 2005 due primarily to increased purchased volumes. Steam fuel costs decreased $53 million due primarily to lower sendout volumes ($41 million) and lower unit costs ($12 million).
Steam operating income decreased $1 million in 2006 compared with 2005 reflecting higher depreciation expense ($11 million), income taxes ($10 million), operations and maintenance costs ($5 million) and taxes other than income taxes ($3 million, principally property taxes), offset in part by higher net revenues ($10 million) and recovery of costs related to the East River Repowering Project ($19 million).
Operating income taxes increased $26 million in 2006 compared with 2005 due principally to higher income in the 2006 period.
Net interest expense increased $82 million in 2006 compared with 2005 due principally to $28 million of interest accrued for the potential repayment of tax benefits from the timing of tax deductions of certain construction related costs (see Note L to the financial statements), new debt issuances since December 31, 2005, higher interest rates on variable-rate debt and higher interest rates on and principal amounts of commercial paper.
O&R’s electric sales and deliveries, excluding off-system sales, in 2006 compared with 2005 were:
December 31,
56
O&R’s electric operating revenues decreased $14 million in 2006 compared with 2005 due primarily to decreased recoverable purchased power costs ($14 million). O&R’s purchased power costs decreased $14 million in 2006 compared with 2005 due to a decrease in purchased volumes associated with milder 2006 weather. Other electric operating revenues generally reflect changes in regulatory assets and liabilities in accordance with the company’s electric rate plan. See Note B to the financial statements.
Electric delivery volumes in O&R’s service area decreased 5.8 percent in 2006 compared with 2005 primarily as a result of the milder weather in 2006. After adjusting for weather variations and unbilled revenues, electric delivery volumes in O&R’s service area increased 0.1 percent in 2006 compared with 2005.
Electric operating income decreased by $1 million in 2006 compared with 2005.
O&R’s gas sales and deliveries, excluding off-system sales, in 2006 compared with 2005 were:
O&R’s gas operating revenues increased $8 million in 2006 compared with 2005. The increase is due primarily to higher costs of gas purchased for resale in 2006.
Sales and transportation volumes for firm customers decreased 12.6 percent in 2006 compared with 2005 reflecting the impact of the milder winter and spring weather in 2006. After adjusting for weather and other variations, total firm sales and transportation volumes were 2.8 percent lower in 2006 compared with 2005 partially due to reduced customer usage. O&R’s revenues from gas sales are subject to a weather normalization clause that moderates, but does not eliminate, the effect of weather-related changes on net income.
Non-firm transportation of customer-owned gas to electric generating plants increased in 2006 compared with 2005 because certain facilities resumed burning gas to generate electricity. The increase in gas burned had minimal impact on earnings because most revenues from these customers result from a fixed demand charge for local transportation.
Gas operating income decreased by $1 million in 2006 compared with 2005.
57
Taxes, other than income taxes, were the same in 2006 compared with 2005. The principal components of taxes, other than income taxes, were:
Operating income taxes decreased by $6 million in 2006 compared with 2005 due principally to lower income in the 2006 period.
Other income (deductions) increased $3 million in 2006 compared with 2005 due primarily to the sale of non-utility property and increased interest income.
Net interest expense increased $4 million in 2006 compared with 2005 due principally to higher interest rates on and principal amounts of commercial paper and new debt issuances in the 2006 period.
The competitive energy businesses’ operating income and earnings from continuing operations increased $28 million and $27 million, respectively, in 2006 compared with 2005 due primarily to higher operating revenues and gross margins on wholesale and retail electric sales, offset in part by higher mark-to-market losses.
Operating revenues increased $629 million in 2006 compared with 2005, primarily due to higher electric wholesale and retail revenues offset in part by decreased generation and other revenues and increased net mark-to-market losses. Electric wholesale revenues increased $602 million, of which $564 million was due to higher sales volume and $38 million was due to an increase in unit prices. Electric retail revenues increased $124 million in 2006 as compared with 2005, of which $71 million was due to higher sales volumes and $53 million was due to an increase in unit prices. While electric retail revenues increased more than 12 percent from 2005 to 2006, gross margins increased at a greater rate as more customers shifted from indexed contracts to fixed-price contracts as energy prices declined during the year. Renewal rates for customers have remained above 90 percent for the past two years. Revenue from the sale of electricity from the competitive energy businesses’ generation facilities was $49 million lower, reflecting lower unit prices and volumes, partially offset by reliability-related capacity payments for two of its Massachusetts generating facilities. The development of capacity markets in New England and PJM is expected to result in more predictable capacity revenues. Net mark-to-market losses increased $12 million in 2006 as compared with 2005 due primarily to lower prices on natural gas contracts, which were economic hedges that supported retail obligations (but did not qualify for cash flow hedge accounting). Other revenue, primarily wholesale revenue and intercompany revenue, decreased $36 million.
Operating expenses excluding income taxes increased $583 million in 2006 compared with 2005, reflecting increased purchased power ($624 million) and other operations and maintenance costs ($19 million), offset in part by lower fuel costs ($42 million), gas purchased for resale costs ($17 million) and taxes other than income taxes ($1 million).
Income taxes increased $19 million in 2006 as compared with 2005, reflecting primarily higher income.
Other income (deductions) decreased $1 million in 2006 compared with 2005 due primarily to an impairment of $6 million on an equity investment (see “Impairments” in Note A to the financial statements), offset in part by higher interest income.
Losses from discontinued operations were $23 million lower in 2006 as compared with 2005 due primarily to losses from Con Edison Communications in 2005 ($13 million) and higher margins from certain Con Edison Development generation projects in 2006 ($10 million). See Notes T and U to the financial statements.
58
For information about Con Edison’s primary market risks associated with activities in derivative financial instruments, other financial instruments and derivative commodity instruments, see “Financial and Commodity Market Risks” in Item 7 (which information is incorporated herein by reference).
For information about Con Edison of New York’s primary market risks associated with activities in derivative financial instruments, other financial instruments and derivative commodity instruments, see “Financial and Commodity Market Risks” in Item 7 (which information is incorporated herein by reference).
59
Report of Management on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2007 and 2006
Consolidated Income Statement for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005
Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Income for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005
Consolidated Statement of Common Shareholders’ Equity for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005
Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005
Consolidated Statement of Capitalization at December 31, 2007 and 2006
Consolidated Statement of Common Shareholder’s Equity for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005
Notes to the Financial Statements
Financial Statement Schedules
Schedule I – Condensed financial information
Schedule II – Valuation and qualifying accounts
All other schedules are omitted because they are not applicable or the required information is shown in financial statements or notes thereto.
60
Supplementary Financial Information
Selected Quarterly Financial Data for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 (Unaudited)
(Loss)/Income from discontinued operations
Basic earnings per common share
Diluted earnings per common share
In the opinion of Con Edison, these quarterly amounts include all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring accruals, necessary for a fair presentation.
In the opinion of Con Edison of New York, these quarterly amounts include all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring accruals, necessary for a fair presentation.
61
Management of Con Edison is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. Internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of the effectiveness of controls to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with policies or procedures may deteriorate.
Management of Con Edison assessed the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, using the criteria established by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in Internal Control—Integrated Framework. Based on that assessment, management has concluded that Con Edison had effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007.
The effectiveness of Con Edison’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, has been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Con Edison’s independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in their report which appears on the following page of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
February 15, 2008
62
To the Stockholders and Board of Directors of
Consolidated Edison, Inc.:
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements listed in the accompanying index present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Consolidated Edison, Inc. and its subsidiaries at December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2007 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In addition, in our opinion, the financial statement schedules listed in the accompanying index present fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein when read in conjunction with the related consolidated financial statements. Also in our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). The Company’s management is responsible for these financial statements and financial statement schedules, for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Report of Management on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements, on the financial statement schedules, and on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our integrated audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement and whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audits of the financial statements included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audits also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinions.
As discussed in Notes E and F to the consolidated financial statements, the Company changed its method of accounting for defined benefit pension and other postretirement benefit plans in 2006.
A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
New York, New York
63
Consolidated Balance Sheet
Utility Plant, At Original Cost (note A)
Less: Accumulated depreciation
Net
Construction work in progress
Net Utility Plant
Non-utility Plant (note A)
Generating assets, less accumulated depreciation of $127 in 2006
Non-utility property, less accumulated depreciation of $36 in 2007 and 2006
Non-utility property held for sale (Note U)
Net Plant
Current Assets
Cash and temporary cash investments (Note A)
Restricted cash
Accounts receivable—customers, less allowance for uncollectible accounts of $47 and $45 in 2007 and 2006, respectively
Accrued unbilled revenue (Note A)
Other receivables, less allowance for uncollectible accounts of $6 and $4 in 2007 and 2006, respectively
Fuel oil, at average cost
Gas in storage, at average cost
Materials and supplies, at average cost
Prepayments
Recoverable energy costs (Notes A and B)
Current assets held for sale (Note U)
Other current assets
Total Current Assets
Investments (note A)
Deferred Charges, Regulatory Assets And Noncurrent Assets
Goodwill (Note K)
Intangible assets, less accumulated amortization of $1 and $34 in 2007 and 2006, respectively (Note K)
Regulatory assets (Note B)
Noncurrent assets held for sale (Note U)
Other deferred charges and noncurrent assets
Total Deferred Charges, Regulatory Assets And Noncurrent Assets
Total Assets
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
64
Capitalization and Liabilities
Capitalization
Common shareholders’ equity (See Statement of Common Shareholders’ Equity)
Preferred stock of subsidiary (See Statement of Capitalization)
Long-term debt (See Statement of Capitalization)
Total Capitalization
Minority Interests
Noncurrent Liabilities
Obligations under capital leases (Note J)
Provision for injuries and damages (Note G)
Pensions and retiree benefits
Superfund and other environmental costs (Note G)
Asset retirement obligations (Note Q)
Noncurrent liabilities held for sale (Note U)
Other noncurrent liabilities
Total Noncurrent Liabilities
Current Liabilities
Long-term debt due within one year
Notes payable
Accounts payable
Customer deposits
Accrued taxes
Accrued interest
Accrued wages
Deferred derivative gains (Note B)
Deferred income taxes—recoverable energy costs (Note L)
Current liabilities held for sale (Note U)
Other current liabilities
Total Current Liabilities
Deferred Credits and Regulatory Liabilities
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits (Notes A and L)
Regulatory liabilities (Note B)
Other deferred credits
Total Deferred Credits and Regulatory Liabilities
Total Capitalization and Liabilities
65
Consolidated Income Statement
Operating Revenues (Note A)
Non-utility
Total Operating Revenues
Operating Expenses
Depreciation and amortization (Note A)
Income taxes (Notes A and L)
Total Operating Expenses
Operating Income
Investment and other income (Note A)
Allowance for equity funds used during construction (Note A)
Preferred stock dividend requirements of subsidiary
Other deductions
Total Other Income (Deductions)
Interest Expense
Other interest
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction (Note A)
Income From Continuing Operations
Income/(Loss) From Discontinued Operations (Net of Income Tax Expense/(Benefit) of $1, $(13) and $(11) in 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively) (Notes T and U)
Earnings Per Common Share—Basic
Earnings Per Common Share—Diluted
Dividends Declared Per Share of Common Stock
Average Number of Shares Outstanding—Basic (in Millions)
Average Number of Shares Outstanding—Diluted (in Millions)
66
Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Income
Other Comprehensive Income/(Loss), Net of Taxes
Pension plan liability adjustments, net of $(3) taxes in 2006 and 2005
Unrealized gains/(losses) on derivatives qualified as cash flow hedges, net of $2, $(69) and $27 taxes in 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively
Less: Reclassification adjustment for gains/(losses) included in net income, net of $(25), $(50) and $41 taxes in 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively
Total Other Comprehensive Income/(Loss), Net of Taxes
Comprehensive Income
67
Consolidated Statement of Common Shareholders’ Equity
(Millions of Dollars/Except
Share Data)
Retained
Earnings
CapitalStock
Expense
AccumulatedOtherComprehensive
Income/(Loss)
Balance as of December 31, 2004
Common stock dividends
Issuance of common shares—dividend reinvestment and employee stock plans
Other comprehensive loss
Balance as of December 31, 2005
Issuance of common shares
—public offering
Stock options
Adjustment to initially apply FASB Statement No. 158, net of tax (Notes E and F)
Balance as of December 31, 2006
Issuance of common shares—public offering
11,000,000
1
559
(2
)
558
Issuance of common shares—dividend reinvestment
and employee stock plans
Other comprehensive income
Balance as of December 31, 2007
$
9,076
68
Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows
Operating Activities
Principal Non-Cash Charges/(Credits) to Income
Deferred income taxes
Rate case amortization and accruals
Net transmission and distribution reconciliation
Common equity component of allowance for funds used during construction
Prepaid pension costs (net of capitalized amounts)
Impairment charge
Net derivative losses
Other non-cash items (net)
Changes in Assets and Liabilities
Accounts receivable—customers, less allowance for uncollectibles
Materials and supplies, including fuel oil and gas in storage
Other receivables and other current assets
Recoverable energy costs
Deferred charges, noncurrent assets and other regulatory assets
Deferred credits and other regulatory liabilities
Other assets
Other liabilities
Net Cash Flows from Operating Activities
Investing Activities
Utility construction expenditures (excluding capitalized support costs of $(63), $(45) and $(11) in 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively)
Cost of removal less salvage
Non-utility construction expenditures
Decrease/(increase) in restricted cash
Proceeds from sale of properties
Proceeds from sale of Con Edison Communications
Net Cash Flows Used in Investing Activities
Financing Activities
Net proceeds from/(payments of) short-term debt
Retirement of long-term debt
Issuance of long-term debt
Issuance of common stock
Debt issuance costs
Net Cash Flows from Financing Activities
Cash and Temporary Cash Investments:
Net Change for the Period
Balance at Beginning of Period
Balance at End of Period
Supplemental Disclosure of Cash Flow Information
Cash paid during the period for:
Interest
69
Consolidated Statement of Capitalization
Total Common Shareholders’ Equity Less Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss
Pension plan liability adjustments, net of $(10) taxes in 2006
Adjustment to initially apply FASB Statement No. 158, net of $(23) taxes in 2006 (Notes E and F)
Unrealized gains/(losses) on derivatives qualified as cash flow hedges, net of $(31) and $(33) taxes in 2007 and 2006, respectively
Less: Reclassification adjustment for gains/(losses) included in net income, net of $(24) and $1 taxes in 2007 and 2006, respectively
Total Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss, Net of Taxes
Total Common Shareholders’ Equity (See Statement of Common Shareholders’ Equity And Note C)
Preferred Stock Of Subsidiary (Note C)
$5 Cumulative Preferred, without par value, authorized 1,915,319 shares
Cumulative Preferred, $100 par value, authorized 6,000,000 shares
4.65% Series C
4.65% Series D
Total Preferred Stock
70
Debentures:
2008
2009
2010
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2027
2028
2029
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2042
Total Debentures
Transition Bonds:
2019
Total Transition Bonds
Tax-Exempt Debt –Notes issued to New York State EnergyResearch and Development Authority for Facilities Revenue Bonds*:
2032
2039
Total Tax-Exempt Debt
Long-term debt—Newington (Note P)
Other long-term debt
Unamortized debt discount
Less: long-term debt due within one year
Total Long-Term Debt
71
Report of Management on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
Management of Con Edison of New York is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. Internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Management of Con Edison of New York assessed the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, using the criteria established by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in Internal Control—Integrated Framework. Based on that assessment, management has concluded that Con Edison of New York had effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007.
The effectiveness of Con Edison of New York’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, has been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Con Edison of New York’s independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in their report which appears on the following page of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer
Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
72
To the Stockholder and Board of Trustees of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.:
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements listed in the accompanying index present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and its subsidiaries at December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2007 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In addition, in our opinion, the financial statement schedule listed in the accompanying index presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein when read in conjunction with the related consolidated financial statements. Also in our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). The Company’s management is responsible for these financial statements and financial statement schedule, for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Report of Management on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements, on the financial statement schedule, and on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audits (which was an integrated audit in 2007). We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement and whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audits of the financial statements included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audits also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinions.
73
Utility Plant, at Original Cost (Note A)
Non-Utility Property (Note A)
Non-utility property, less accumulated depreciation of $18 and $17 in 2007 and 2006, respectively
Accounts receivable—customers, less allowance for uncollectible accounts of $43 and $40 in 2007 and 2006, respectively
Other receivables, less allowance for uncollectible accounts of $3 in 2007 and 2006
Accounts receivable from affiliated companies
Investments
Deferred Charges, Regulatory Assets and Noncurrent Assets
Total Deferred Charges, Regulatory Assets and Noncurrent Assets
74
Common shareholder’s equity (See Statement of Common Shareholder’s Equity)
Preferred stock (See Statement of Capitalization)
Accounts payable to affiliated companies
75
Preferred Stock Dividend Requirements
Net Income for Common Stock
76
Pension plan liability adjustments, net of $(3) and $(2) taxes in 2006 and 2005, respectively
Unrealized losses on derivatives qualified as cash flow hedges, net of $(1) taxes in 2006
Less: Reclassification adjustment for gains included in net income, net of $1 taxes in 2005
Total Other Comprehensive Loss, Net Of Taxes
77
Consolidated Statement of Common Shareholder’s Equity
Repurchased
Stock
Accumulated
Comprehensive
Common stock dividend to parent
Cumulative preferred dividends
Capital contribution by parent
78
Loan to affiliate
Dividend to parent
Preferred stock dividends
79
Total Common Shareholder’s Equity Less Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss
Pension plan liability adjustments, net of $(9) taxes in 2006
Adjustment to initially apply FASB Statement No. 158, net of $(4) taxes in 2006 (Notes E and F)
Unrealized gains on derivatives qualified as cash flow hedges, net of $(3) taxes in 2006
Less: Reclassification adjustment for gains included in net income
Total Common Shareholder’s Equity (See Statement of Common Shareholder’s Equity and Note C)
Preferred Stock (Note C)
80
Tax-Exempt Debt—Notes issued to New York State EnergyResearch and Development Authority for Facilities Revenue Bonds*:
81
These combined notes accompany and form an integral part of the separate consolidated financial statements of each of the 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 consolidated financial statements, are also consolidated, along with those of Con Edison’s other utility subsidiary, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (O&R), and Con Edison’s competitive energy businesses (discussed below) in Con Edison’s consolidated financial statements. The term “Utilities” is used in these notes to refer to Con Edison of New York and O&R.
As used in these notes, the term “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. However, Con Edison of New York makes no representation as to information relating to Con Edison or the subsidiaries of Con Edison other than itself.
Con Edison has two regulated utility subsidiaries: Con Edison of New York and O&R. Con Edison of New York provides electric service and gas service 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 in southeastern New York and adjacent areas of northern New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania and gas service in southeastern New York and adjacent areas of eastern Pennsylvania. Con Edison has the following competitive energy businesses: Consolidated Edison Solutions, Inc. (Con Edison Solutions), a retail energy services company that sells electricity and also offers energy-related services; Consolidated Edison Energy, Inc. (Con Edison Energy), a wholesale energy supply company; and Consolidated Edison Development, Inc. (Con Edison Development), a company that owns, leases or operates generating plants and participates in other infrastructure projects. In December 2007, Con Edison Development and its subsidiary, CED/SCS Newington, LLC, agreed to sell their ownership interests in power generating projects with an aggregate capacity of approximately 1,706 megawatts. See Note U to the financial statements.
Note A—Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Principles of Consolidation
The Companies’ consolidated financial statements include the accounts of their respective majority-owned subsidiaries, and variable interest entities (see Note P), as required. All intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated.
Accounting Policies
The accounting policies of Con Edison and its subsidiaries conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. For the Utilities, these accounting principles include the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (FASB) Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 71, “Accounting for the Effects of Certain Types of Regulation,” and, in accordance with SFAS No. 71, the accounting requirements of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the state public utility regulatory commissions having jurisdiction.
The Utilities’ principal regulatory assets and liabilities are detailed in Note B. The Utilities are receiving or being credited with a return on all of their regulatory assets for which a cash outflow has been made, and are paying or being charged with a return on all of their regulatory liabilities for which a cash inflow has been received. The Utilities’ regulatory assets and liabilities will be recovered from customers, or applied for customer benefit, in accordance with rate provisions approved by the applicable public utility regulatory commission.
Other significant accounting policies of the Companies are referenced below in this Note A and in the notes that follow.
Plant and Depreciation
Utility Plant
Utility plant is stated at original cost. The cost of repairs and maintenance is charged to expense and the cost of betterments is capitalized. The capitalized cost of additions to utility plant includes indirect costs such as engineering, supervision, payroll taxes, pensions, other benefits and an allowance for funds used during construction (AFDC). The original cost of property is charged to expense over the estimated useful lives of the assets. Upon retirement, the original cost of property is charged to accumulated depreciation. See Note Q.
Rates used for AFDC include the cost of borrowed funds and a reasonable rate of return on the Utilities’ own funds when so used, determined in accordance with regulations of the FERC or the state public utility regulatory authority having jurisdiction. The rate is compounded semiannually, and the amounts applicable to
82
Notes to the Financial Statements — Continued
borrowed funds are treated as a reduction of interest charges, while the amounts applicable to the Utilities’ own funds are credited to other income (deductions). The AFDC rates for Con Edison of New York were 7.3 percent, 6.7 percent and 7.4 percent for 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively. The AFDC rates for O&R were 5.2 percent, 5.0 percent and 3.9 percent for 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
The Utilities generally compute annual charges for depreciation using the straight-line method for financial statement purposes, with rates based on average service lives and net salvage factors. The average depreciation rate for Con Edison of New York was 2.9 percent for 2007, 2006 and 2005. The average depreciation rates for O&R were 2.8 percent for 2007 and 2006 and 2.9 percent for 2005.
The estimated lives for utility plant for Con Edison of New York range from 5 to 80 years for electric, 5 to 85 years for gas, 5 to 70 years for steam and 5 to 50 years for general plant. For O&R, the estimated lives for utility plant range from 5 to 65 years for electric, 5 to 75 years for gas and 5 to 55 years for general plant.
At December 31, 2007 and 2006, the capitalized cost of the Companies’ utility plant, net of accumulated depreciation, was as follows:
Generation
Transmission
Distribution
Gas*
Held for future use
Net utility plant
Non-Utility Plant
Non-utility plant is stated at original cost. For the Utilities, non-utility plant consists primarily of land and telecommunication facilities that are currently not used within electric, gas or steam utility operations. For Con Edison’s competitive energy businesses, non-utility plant consists primarily of electric generating facilities. Depreciation on these assets is computed using the straight-line method for financial statement purposes over their estimated useful lives, which range from 3 to 75 years. See Note U.
The average non-utility plant depreciation rates for Con Edison Development were 2.5 percent for 2007 and 2.8 percent for 2006 and 2005.
Goodwill
In accordance with SFAS No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” Con Edison is required to test goodwill for impairment annually. Goodwill is tested for impairment using a two-step approach. The first step of the goodwill impairment test compares the estimated fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying value, including goodwill. If the estimated fair value of a reporting unit exceeds its carrying value, goodwill of the reporting unit is considered not impaired. If the carrying value exceeds the estimated fair value of the reporting unit, the second step is performed to measure the amount of impairment loss, if any. The second step requires a calculation of the implied fair value of goodwill. See Note K.
Impairments
In accordance with SFAS No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets,” the Companies evaluate the impairment of long-lived assets, based on projections of undiscounted future cash flows, whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amounts of such assets may not be recoverable. In the event an evaluation indicates that such cash flows cannot be expected to be sufficient to fully recover the assets, the assets are written down to their estimated fair value.
In accordance with Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 18, “The Equity Method of Accounting for Investments in Common Stock,” Con Edison Development recognized pre-tax impairment charges of $7 million and $6 million in 2007 and 2006, respectively related to its equity investment in a 29 MW electric generating plant in Michigan. Con Edison also wrote-off its cost-based investment of $6 million in 2007 related to a supply chain services company due to a decline in the investment’s value that was deemed to be other than temporary.
Revenues
The Utilities and Con Edison Solutions recognize revenues for electric, gas and steam service on a monthly billing cycle basis. The Utilities defer over a 12-month period net interruptible gas revenues, other than those authorized by the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) to be retained by the Utilities, for refund to firm gas sales and transportation customers. O&R and Con Edison Solutions accrue revenues at the end of each month for estimated energy service not yet billed to customers, while Con Edison of New York does not accrue such revenues, in accordance with current regulatory agreements. Unbilled revenues included in Con Edison’s balance sheet at December 31, 2007 and 2006 were $149 million and $122
83
million, respectively. Con Edison of New York estimates its unbilled revenues at December 31, 2007 and 2006 to be approximately $410 million and $357 million, respectively.
The PSC requires utilities to record gross receipts tax revenues and expenses on a gross income statement presentation basis (i.e., included in both revenue and expense). The recovery of these taxes is generally provided for in the revenue requirement within each of the respective PSC approved rate plans.
Recoverable Energy Costs
The Utilities generally recover all of their prudently incurred fuel, purchased power and gas costs, including hedging gains and losses, in accordance with rate provisions approved by the applicable state public utility commissions. If the actual energy supply costs for a given month are more or less than the amounts billed to customers for that month, the difference in most cases is recoverable from or refundable to customers. Differences between actual and billed electric and steam supply costs are generally deferred for charge or refund to customers during the next billing cycle (normally within one or two months). In addition, Con Edison of New York recovers the costs of its electric demand management program, in excess of the costs reflected in rates, as part of recoverable energy costs. For the Utilities’ gas costs, differences between actual and billed gas costs during the 12-month period ending each August are charged or refunded to customers during a subsequent 12-month period.
New York Independent System Operator (NYISO)
The Utilities purchase electricity through the wholesale electricity market administered by the NYISO. The difference between purchased power and related costs initially billed to the Utilities by the NYISO and the actual cost of power subsequently calculated by the NYISO is refunded by the NYISO to the Utilities, or paid to the NYISO by the Utilities. The reconciliation payments or receipts are recoverable from or refundable to the Utilities’ customers. See “Regulatory Assets and Liabilities” in Note B.
Certain other payments to or receipts from the NYISO are also subject to reconciliation, with shortfalls or amounts in excess of specified rate allowances recoverable from or refundable to customers. These include proceeds from the sale through the NYISO of transmission rights on Con Edison of New York’s transmission system (Transmission Congestion Contracts or TCCs). See “Regulatory Assets and Liabilities” in Note B.
Sulfur Dioxide Allowances
In accordance with the federal Clean Air Act, Con Edison of New York has been allocated sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission allowances which the company may sell, trade or hold for future use. Generally, Con Edison of New York defers its proceeds from the sale of SO2 allowances as regulatory liabilities to be applied for customer benefit. See “Regulatory Assets and Liabilities” in Note B. For the competitive energy businesses, sales of SO2 allowances are reflected in earnings in the periods in which the sales occur. The proceeds received from the sale of SO2 allowances are included in net cash flows from operating activities in the Companies’ consolidated statements of cash flows.
Temporary Cash Investments
Temporary cash investments are short-term, highly-liquid investments that generally have maturities of three months or less at the date of purchase. They are stated at cost, which approximates market. The Companies consider temporary cash investments to be cash equivalents.
Investments consist primarily of the investments of Con Edison’s competitive energy businesses, which are accounted for under the equity method (depending on the subsidiaries’ percentage ownership) or accounted for as leveraged leases in accordance with SFAS No. 13, “Accounting for Leases.” See Note J for a discussion of investments in Lease In/Lease Out transactions. Utilities’ investments are recorded at either cost or cash surrender value and include deferred income plan’s and supplemental retirement income plans’ trust owned life insurance assets.
Federal Income Tax
In accordance with SFAS No. 109, “Accounting for Income Taxes,” the Companies have recorded an accumulated deferred federal income tax liability for temporary differences between the book and tax bases of assets and liabilities at current tax rates. In accordance with rate agreements, the Utilities have recovered amounts from customers for a portion of the tax liability they will pay in the future as a result of the reversal or “turn-around” of these temporary differences. As to the remaining tax liability, in accordance with SFAS No. 71, the Utilities have established regulatory assets for the net revenue requirements to be recovered from customers for the related future tax expense. See Notes B and L. In 1993, the PSC issued a Policy Statement approving accounting procedures consistent with SFAS No. 109 and providing assurances that these future increases in taxes will be recoverable in rates. In January 2007, the Companies adopted FASB Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes—an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109” (FIN 48). This interpretation clarifies the accounting for uncertain tax positions in accordance with FASB Statement No. 109. See Note L.
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits are amortized ratably over the lives of the related properties and applied as a reduction to future federal income tax expense.
84
Con Edison and its subsidiaries file a consolidated federal income tax return. The consolidated income tax liability is allocated to each member of the consolidated group using the separate return method. Each member pays or receives an amount based on its own taxable income or loss in accordance with tax sharing agreements between the members of the consolidated group.
State Income Tax
Con Edison and its subsidiaries file a combined New York State Corporation Business Franchise Tax Return. Similar to a federal consolidated income tax return, the income of all entities in the combined group is subject to New York State taxation, after adjustments for differences between federal and New York law and apportionment of income among the states in which the company does business. Each member of the group pays or receives an amount based on its own New York State taxable income or loss.
Research and Development Costs
Generally research and development costs are charged to operating expenses as incurred. Research and development costs were as follows:
Reclassification
Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform with the current year presentation.
Earnings Per Common Share
In accordance with SFAS No. 128, “Earnings per Share,” Con Edison presents basic and diluted earnings per share on the face of its consolidated income statement. Basic earnings per share (EPS) are calculated by dividing earnings available to common shareholders (“Net income” on Con Edison’s consolidated income statement) by the weighted average number of Con Edison common shares outstanding during the period. In the calculation of diluted EPS, weighted average shares outstanding are increased for additional shares that would be outstanding if potentially dilutive securities were converted to common stock.
Potentially dilutive securities for Con Edison consist of restricted stock units, deferred stock units and stock options for which the average market price of the common shares for the period was greater than the exercise price. See Note M.
Basic and diluted EPS for Con Edison are calculated as follows:
For the Years Ended
Gain/(Loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax
Weighted average common shares outstanding – Basic
Add: Incremental shares attributable to effect of potentially dilutive securities
Adjusted weighted average common shares outstanding – Diluted
Earnings per Common Share – Basic
Earnings per Common Share – Diluted
The computation of diluted earnings per share does not exclude any Con Edison common shares for the year ended December 31, 2007 because the exercise prices on the options did not exceed the average closing market price during this period. The computation of diluted earnings per share excludes 0.1 million and 0.9 million Con Edison common shares for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively, because the exercise prices on the options exceeded the average closing market price during these periods.
Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
85
Note B—Regulatory Matters
Rate Agreements
Con Edison of New York—Electric
In March 2005, the PSC approved a Joint Proposal by Con Edison of New York, the staff of the PSC and other parties with respect to the rates the company can charge its customers for electric delivery service (the 2005 Electric Rate Agreement). The 2005 Electric Rate Agreement covers the three-year period April 2005 through March 2008, pursuant to which Con Edison of New York’s electric base rates were increased $104.6 million, effective April 1, 2005, and were increased an additional $220.4 million (of which $60 million was accrued over the period beginning April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007), effective April 1, 2007. In addition, the company retains the first $60 million of auction proceeds from the sale of transmission rights on the company’s transmission system in each of the three years. The rate increases also include the amortization of certain regulatory assets and liabilities. The net effect of this amortization is a non-cash increase in electric revenues of $128 million, $173 million and $249 million in the first, second and third rate years, respectively.
The 2005 Electric Rate Agreement provides for annual reconciliations of the differences between the actual amount of transmission and distribution utility plant, net of depreciation (Net T&D) and the actual amount of certain operating costs experienced over the term of the agreement, as compared in each case to the amounts reflected in electric rates.
If the actual Net T&D is greater than the Net T&D reflected in rates, the company will accrue a regulatory asset and increase its revenues by the revenue requirement impact of such difference (i.e., a return on investment, depreciation and income taxes). If the actual Net T&D is less than the Net T&D reflected in rates, the company will accrue a regulatory liability and decrease its revenues by the revenue requirement impact of such difference. For the period from April 1, 2005 through December 31, 2007, actual Net T&D has exceeded the Net T&D reflected in rates by $1.4 billion. The company accrued revenues of $187 million, $115 million and $38 million in 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively, to reflect the revenue requirement impact of the Net T&D difference. In accordance with the 2005 Electric Rate Agreement, the accrued revenues were offset at the end of each rate year with a like amount of regulatory liabilities.
Under the 2005 Electric Rate Agreement, if the actual amount of pension or other postretirement benefit costs, environmental remediation costs and, if the variation exceeds 2.5 percent, property taxes or the cost of moving facilities to avoid interfering with government projects is greater than the respective amount for each such cost reflected in rates, the company will accrue a regulatory asset for the difference and defer recognition in income of the difference. If the actual amount is less than the amount reflected in electric rates, the company will accrue a regulatory liability for the difference and defer recognition in income of the difference. As a result of the cost reconciliations, in 2007, 2006 and 2005, the company deferred expenses of $35 million, $30 million and $17 million, respectively.
Under the 2005 Electric Rate Agreement, for each rate year, any earnings attributable to the company’s electric business, excluding the effect of the incentives and revenue reductions discussed below, (Adjusted Earnings) between an 11.4 percent and a 13 percent return on equity (based on the company’s actual capitalization, subject to a maximum ratio of 50 percent) are to be used to offset 50 percent of any regulatory asset to be recorded in that year resulting from the cost reconciliations. See “Regulatory Assets and Liabilities,” below in this Note B. The company can retain 50 percent of any remaining above-target Adjusted Earnings, with the balance being deferred for the benefit of customers. If Adjusted Earnings exceed a 13 percent return, no regulatory asset resulting from the cost reconciliations is to be accrued, but the company can retain 25 percent of the above-target Adjusted Earnings, with the balance being deferred for the benefit of customers.
In accordance with the 2005 Electric Rate Agreement, at December 31, 2005, Con Edison of New York estimated that its Adjusted Earnings for the rate year ending March 31, 2006 would exceed an 11.4 percent return on equity by $59 million, of which $47 million was accounted for as an offset to regulatory assets arising from the cost reconciliations and $6 million was reserved for customer benefit. Actual Adjusted Earnings for the rate year exceeded this target by $38 million. Accordingly, in the first quarter of 2006, the company reduced the regulatory asset offset by $9 million and eliminated the $6 million reserve for customer benefit (which had the effect of increasing revenues for 2006 by $15 million). At December 31, 2007 and 2006, Con Edison of New York estimated that its Adjusted Earnings for the rate years ending March 31, 2007 and March 31, 2008 would not exceed an 11.4 percent return on equity.
The 2005 Electric Rate Agreement also provides for the continuation of the rate provisions pursuant to which the company recovers its potential strandable costs and its purchased power and fuel costs from customers.
The 2005 Electric Rate Agreement includes potential positive earnings adjustments (incentives) if the company meets certain standards for its retail access and demand side management programs, and potential negative earnings adjustments (revenue reductions), which could be substantial, if it does not meet certain standards for (i) frequency and duration of service interruptions; (ii) major outages; (iii) repair, removal or
86
replacement of damaged poles, temporary shunts, street lights, traffic signals and circuit breakers; and (iv) customer service. In 2007, the company recorded an incentive for demand side management initiatives of $11 million. In 2007 and 2006, the company recorded incentives of $4 million and $6 million, respectively, associated with its efforts to promote retail access in its service territory. In 2007 and 2006, the company recorded revenue reductions of $9 million and $18 million, respectively, for not meeting certain standards for frequency and duration of service interruptions and in 2005, $8 million was recorded for duration of service interruptions. See “Power Outage Proceedings” below in Note B.
In accordance with the 2005 Electric Rate Agreement, the company recognized a $100 million pre-tax charge in 2004 to resolve certain issues raised in the proceeding, relating primarily to prior period pension credits.
In May 2007, Con Edison of New York filed a request with the PSC for an electric rate increase of $1,225 million effective April 1, 2008. The PSC is expected to rule on the company’s request in March 2008.
In January 2008, PSC administrative law judges (ALJs) issued a decision recommending that the PSC grant the company an electric rate increase, effective April 1, 2008, of approximately $600 million. The ALJs also recommended that the PSC consider making up to $330 million of the rate increase, which relates to the company’s construction expenditures, temporary and subject to refund to customers pending the results of a management and operations audit to be performed by an auditor to be selected by the PSC. Additionally, the ALJs recommended that a total of $200 million of regulatory assets relating to the Net T&D reconciliation that were offset against regulatory liabilities in 2006 and 2007 also be subject to refund pending the results of the audit. The ALJs’ recommended decision reflected the following major items:
a return on common equity of 9.0 percent instead of the return on common equity of 11.5 percent requested by the company;
increasing to $150 million from $60 million the level of revenues that, for purposes of setting rates, is assumed the company will receive and retain from the sale of transmission rights on the company’s transmission system;
a higher sales forecast, certain rate base reductions, decreases in advertising and certain other programs and longer amortization periods for certain regulatory assets;
a one-year rate period, which would discontinue the provisions of the 2005 Electric Rate Agreement under which property taxes, environmental remediation expenses and costs to move facilities to avoid interfering with government projects are reconciled to amounts reflected in rates;
that the potential negative earnings adjustment (revenue reductions) provisions of the 2005 Electric Rate Agreement be continued and expanded at amounts at or above current levels, to be determined by the PSC; and
a revenue decoupling mechanism.
In general, revenue decoupling mechanisms are intended to promote energy efficiency by breaking the linkage between energy sales and utility revenues and/or profits and, thereby, eliminate the disincentive a utility would have to promote energy efficiency. Under a revenue decoupling mechanism, the utility’s actual energy delivery revenues would be compared, on a periodic basis, with the authorized delivery revenues or revenues per customer, with the difference accrued, with interest, for refund to, or recovery from, customers, as applicable.
O&R—Electric
In October 2003, the PSC approved an agreement among O&R, the staff of the PSC and other parties with respect to the rates O&R can charge to its New York customers for electric service. The electric agreement, which covered the period from July 2003 through October 2006, provided for no changes to electric base rates and provided for the amortization and offset of regulatory assets and liabilities, the net effect of which was to reduce electric operating income by a total of $11 million (pre tax) over the period covered by the agreement. The agreement provided for recovery of energy costs from customers on a current basis. It also provided for O&R to share equally with customers earnings above a 12.75 percent return on common equity during the three-year period from July 2003 through June 2006. Beginning July 2006, O&R was not subject to earnings sharing. Pursuant to these provisions, $3.6 million and $6.7 million was deferred for future customer benefit in 2006 and 2005, respectively.
In October 2007, the PSC issued an order that continues O&R’s rates for electric service rendered in New York at current levels. The order, which is based on an allowed annual rate of return on common equity of 9.1 percent increased, effective July 1, 2007, by $13.1 million annually the amount recognized for pension and other postretirement benefit costs. Because O&R, in accordance with applicable New York regulatory provisions, defers the difference between the actual amount of such costs and the amounts for such costs reflected in rates, the effect of the increase was to decrease the company’s deferrals of such costs and increase other operations and maintenance expense by a like amount. As required by the order, the company also reduced other operating revenues and recorded a regulatory liability of $3 million for earnings attributable to its New York electric business in excess of a 9.1 percent annual rate of return on
87
common equity applicable to the period March through June 2007. In June 2007, O&R commenced an action in New York State Supreme Court seeking to annul the March 2007 PSC order that initiated the proceeding in which the October 2007 order was issued.
In August 2007, O&R filed a request with the PSC for an increase in the rates it charges for electric service rendered in New York, effective July 2008, of $47.8 million. The filing reflects a return on common equity of 11.5 percent and a common equity ratio of 48.6 percent. The filing proposes continuation of the current provisions with respect to recovery from customers of the cost of purchased power, and the reconciliation of actual expenses allocable to the electric business to the amounts for such costs reflected in electric rates for pension and other postretirement benefit costs, environmental and research and development costs. In October 2007, O&R submitted to the PSC a revenue decoupling proposal applicable to the company’s electric service in New York. In November 2007, O&R updated its rate request to reflect the impact of applying all available credits, including $3.3 million of earnings above the 9.1 percent allowed ROE during March through June 2007, as directed by the PSC in its October 2007 Order. The impact of this and other changes reduced the requested rate increase to $43.7 million. In December 2007, PSC Staff submitted direct testimony and exhibits supporting a $17.5 million rate increase, based on a return on equity of 8.9 percent and an equity ratio of 48 percent. A decision in this case is expected in June 2008.
In July 2003, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) ruled on the petitions of Rockland Electric Company (RECO), O&R’s New Jersey regulated utility subsidiary, for an increase in electric rates and recovery of deferred purchased power costs. The NJBPU ordered a $7 million decrease in RECO’s electric base rates, effective August 2003, authorized RECO’s recovery of approximately $83 million of previously deferred purchased power costs and associated interest and disallowed recovery of approximately $19 million of such costs and associated interest.
In July 2004, the NJBPU approved RECO’s Phase II petition to increase base rates annually by $2.7 million, effective August 1, 2004. The Phase II decision provides for the recovery of carrying costs for two substation projects and specified additional reliability programs. Also in July 2004, a special purpose entity formed by RECO (which is included in the consolidated financial statements of Con Edison) issued $46 million of 5.22% Transition Bonds and used the proceeds thereof to purchase from RECO the right to be paid a Transition Bond Charge (TBC) and associated tax charges by its customers relating to the balance of previously deferred purchased power costs, discussed above.
In March 2007, the NJBPU approved a new three-year electric base rate plan for RECO that went into effect on April 1, 2007.The plan provides for a $6.4 million rate increase during the first year, with no further increase during the final two years. The plan reflects a return on common equity of 9.75 percent and a common equity ratio of 46.5 percent of capitalization.
Con Edison of New York—Gas
In September 2004, the PSC approved a Joint Proposal by Con Edison of New York, the staff of the PSC and other parties with respect to the rates the company could charge its customers for gas and steam services. The approved gas rate plan covered the three-year period October 2004 through September 2007, and provided for an increase in gas base rates of $46.8 million, effective October 1, 2004, with deferral accounting to be used to allocate the income statement effect of the increase over the term of the agreement. The rate increase was net of a $17.5 million pre-tax charge to gas operating revenues, which the company recognized in 2004, to resolve certain issues raised in the proceeding, relating primarily to the treatment of prior period pension credits. In addition to this rate increase, the company retained the first $35 million of net revenues from non-firm customer transactions in each year of the plan. The rate increase also included the amortization of certain regulatory assets and liabilities. The net effect of this amortization was a non-cash increase in gas revenues of $41 million over the period of the three-year rate plan.
Additional provisions of the gas rate plan included: equal sharing with customers of earnings above an 11.75 percent return on common equity (earnings for the rate years ended September 2005, 2006 and 2007 were below this level); reconciliation of pension and other post-employment benefit costs allocable to the gas business to the amounts for such costs reflected in rates, with the difference deferred as a regulatory asset or liability, as the case may be, for future recovery from or refund to customers; opportunities to retain for shareholders a percentage of annual gas net revenues from non-firm customer transactions (20 percent of revenues between $35 million and $50 million, 25 percent between $50 million and $70 million and 10 percent over $70 million), and to earn an incentive of up to $8.5 million over the period of the rate plan depending upon the number of customers that migrate to retail access; continuation of provisions for the recovery from customers on a current basis of the cost of purchased gas and for the recovery of environmental remediation expenses; continuation of provisions pursuant to which the effects of weather on gas income are moderated; and continuation of the deferral as a regulatory asset or liability, subject to certain limitations, of differences between actual costs and amounts reflected in rates for property taxes and interference costs.
In September 2007, the PSC approved the Joint Proposal that Con Edison of New York had entered into in June 2007 with the staff of
88
the PSC and other parties with respect to the rates the company can charge its customers for gas service. The Joint Proposal had provided for rate increases of $84.6 million, $32.7 million and $42.7 million, effective October 1, 2007, 2008 and 2009, respectively, along with annual funding for new energy efficiency programs of $14 million. The PSC modified the Joint Proposal to provide for levelized annual rate increases of $67.5 million in each year of the three year rate plan, by accruing, over the first rate year as gas service is provided, $31.1 million of revenues and a related regulatory asset, which, together with interest, will be billed to customers in the second and third rate years.
The Joint Proposal continues the previous gas rate plan provisions with respect to recovery from customers of the cost of purchased gas and environmental remediation expenses; continuation of provisions pursuant to which the effects of weather on gas income are moderated; and the reconciliation of actual expenses allocable to the gas business to the amounts for such costs reflected in gas rates for pension and other postretirement benefit costs, property taxes and interference costs. Additional provisions of the gas rate plan include: a revenue decoupling mechanism and equal sharing with customers of earnings above a 10.7 percent return on common equity (earnings for the year ended December 31, 2007 include a $10 million regulatory liability for earnings above the 10.7 percent threshold for the rate year ending September 30, 2008).
O&R—Gas
In October 2003, the PSC approved a gas rate agreement among O&R, the PSC staff and other parties. This agreement, which covered the period November 2003 through October 2006, provided for annual increases in gas base rates of $9 million effective November 2003, $9 million effective November 2004 and $5 million effective November 2005. The agreement provided for O&R to share equally with customers earnings in excess of an 11 percent return on common equity. Earnings for the rate years ended October 2004, 2005 and 2006 were below this level. The rate agreement also included the amortization of certain regulatory assets and liabilities. The net effect of this amortization was a non-cash increase in gas revenues of $2 million over the period of the three-year rate plan.
In October 2006, the PSC approved the June 2006 settlement agreement among O&R, the staff of the PSC and other parties. The settlement agreement establishes a rate plan that covers the three-year period November 1, 2006 through October 31, 2009. The rate plan provides for rate increases in base rates of $12 million in the first year, $0.7 million in the second year and $1.1 million in the third year. To phase-in the effect of the increase for customers, the rate plan provides for O&R to accrue revenues for, but defer billing to customers of, $5.5 million of the first rate year rate increase by establishing a regulatory asset which, together with interest, will be billed to customers in the second and third years. As a result, O&R’s billings to customers will increase $6.5 million in each of the first two years and $6.3 million in the third. The first year rate increase includes $2.3 million relating to a change in the way customers are provided the benefit of non-firm revenue from sales of pipeline transportation capacity. Under the prior rate plan, base rates were reduced to reflect the assumption that the company would realize these revenues. Under the new rate plan, such revenues will be used to offset the cost of gas to be recovered from customers. The rate plan continues the provisions pursuant to which the company recovers its cost of purchasing gas and the provisions pursuant to which the effects of weather on gas income are moderated.
The rate plan provides that if the actual amount of pension or other postretirement benefit costs, environmental remediation costs, property taxes and certain other costs vary from the respective amount for each such cost reflected in gas rates (cost reconciliations), the company will defer recognition of the variation in income and, as the case may be, establish a regulatory asset or liability for recovery from, or refund to, customers of the variation (86 percent of the variation, in the case of property tax differences due to assessment changes).
Earnings attributable to its gas business excluding any revenue reductions (O&R Adjusted Earnings) up to an 11 percent annual return on common equity (based upon the actual average common equity ratio, subject to a maximum 50 percent of capitalization) are retained by the company. O&R Adjusted Earnings above an 11 percent return are to be used to offset up to one-half of any regulatory asset to be recorded in that year resulting from the cost reconciliations (discussed in the preceding paragraph). One-half of any remaining O&R Adjusted Earnings between 11 and 12 percent return are retained by the company, with the balance being deferred for the benefit of customers. Thirty-five percent of any remaining O&R Adjusted Earnings between a 12 and 14 percent return are retained by the company, with the balance deferred for the benefit of customers. Any remaining O&R Adjusted Earnings above a 14 percent return are to be deferred for the benefit of customers. For purposes of these earnings sharing provisions, if in any rate year O&R Adjusted Earnings is less than 11 percent, the shortfall will be deducted from O&R Adjusted Earnings for the other rate years. The earnings sharing thresholds will each be reduced by 20 basis points if certain objectives relating to the company’s retail choice program are not met. In 2007, O&R recorded a $1.3 million regulatory liability for earnings in excess of the 11 percent target return on equity for the rate year ended October 31, 2007.
The rate plan also includes up to $1 million of potential revenue reductions in the first year of the agreement, increasing up to
89
$1.2 million, if the company does not comply with certain requirements regarding safety and customer service. In 2007, O&R recorded a $0.2 million regulatory liability for not complying with certain requirements regarding safety and customer service for the rate year ended October 31, 2007.
Con Edison of New York—Steam
In September 2004, the PSC approved a steam rate plan covering the two-year period October 2004 through September 2006. The plan provided for increases in steam base rates of $49.6 million, effective October 1, 2004, and $27.4 million, effective October 1, 2005. The increases were net of a $6.2 million pre-tax charge to steam operating revenues, which the company recognized in 2004 to resolve certain issues raised in the proceeding, relating primarily to the treatment of prior period pension credits. The rate increases also include the amortization of certain regulatory assets and liabilities. The net effect of this amortization was to decrease steam revenues by $3 million over the period of the two-year rate plan.
Additional provisions of the steam rate plan included: equal sharing with customers of earnings in excess of an 11.75 percent return on common equity (earnings for the rate years ended September 2005 and 2006 were below this level); reconciliation of pension and other post-employment benefit costs allocable to the steam business to the amounts for such costs reflected in rates, with the difference deferred as a regulatory asset or liability, as the case may be, for future recovery from or refund to customers; continuation of provisions for the recovery from customers on a current basis of the cost of fuel and purchased steam and for the recovery of environmental remediation expenses; and continuation of the deferral as a regulatory asset or liability, subject to certain limitations, of differences between actual costs and amounts reflected in rates for property taxes and interference costs.
In September 2006, the PSC approved the June 2006 settlement agreement among Con Edison of New York, the staff of the PSC and other parties. The settlement agreement establishes a rate plan that covers the two-year period October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2008. The rate plan provides for no changes in base rates or in the rate provisions pursuant to which the company recovers its fuel and purchased steam costs (the fuel adjustment clause), except for changes in the manner in which certain costs are recovered.
The rate plan provides that if the actual amount of pension or other postretirement benefit costs, environmental remediation costs, property taxes or interference costs is greater than the respective amount for each such cost reflected in steam rates, the company will recognize a regulatory asset for the difference (90 percent of the difference, in the case of property taxes and interference costs) and defer recognition in expense of the difference. If the actual amount of such costs is less than the amount reflected in steam rates, the company will recognize a regulatory liability for the difference and decrease its revenues by the amount of such difference (90 percent of the difference, in the case of property taxes and interference costs).
Earnings attributable to the steam business, excluding the net revenue effect of steam sales related to colder-than-normal weather and certain other items, (Steam Adjusted Earnings) for a rate year up to 11 percent return on common equity (based upon the actual average common equity ratio, subject to a maximum of 50 percent of capitalization) are retained by the company. Steam Adjusted Earnings between 11 and 12 percent are to be used first to offset up to one-half of any regulatory asset recorded in the year resulting from the cost reconciliations (discussed in the preceding paragraph) for the rate year. The company then retains one-half of any remaining such Steam Adjusted Earnings, with the balance being deferred for the benefit of customers. Any Steam Adjusted Earnings in excess of a 12 percent return on common equity are to be used first to offset any regulatory asset resulting from the cost reconciliations, with the company retaining one-quarter of any remaining Steam Adjusted Earnings and the balance being deferred for the benefit of customers. The earnings sharing thresholds would each be reduced by 20 basis points if certain requirements are not met. Earnings for the rate year ended September 30, 2007 were below the 11 percent return on common equity.
The rate plan also includes up to approximately $4 million of potential revenue reductions if the company does not comply with certain requirements regarding steam business development and certain other matters. There were no revenue reductions recorded for the rate year ending September 30, 2007.
In November 2007, the company filed with the PSC for an increase in steam base rates of $127 million, or 19 percent overall, effective October 1, 2008. The filing reflects a return on common equity of 11.5 percent and a common equity ratio of 48.4 percent. The filing also includes a proposal for a three-year rate plan, with additional increases of $22 million and $15 million effective October 1, 2009 and 2010, respectively. The company also proposed to implement a steam revenue adjustment mechanism, new energy efficiency and demand reduction programs, and to continue business development programs.
In February 2008, the PSC initiated a proceeding to determine the prudence of the company’s actions and practices relating to the July 2007 steam main rupture and, if the company was not prudent, whether and to what extent the expenses and capital expenditures the company has incurred, or in the future will incur, as result of the July 2007 steam main rupture should be borne by the company’s ratepayers or whether additional remedies would be appropriate. See “Manhattan Steam Main Rupture” in Note H.
90
Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
Regulatory assets and liabilities at December 31, 2007 and 2006 were comprised of the following items:
Regulatory assets
Unrecognized pension and other postretirement costs
Future federal income tax
Environmental remediation costs
Pension and other postretirement benefits deferrals
World Trade Center restoration costs
Net T&D reconciliation
Revenue taxes
O&R transition bond charges
Unbilled gas revenue
Workers’ compensation
Other retirement program costs
Electric rate increase accrual
Asbestos-related costs
Deferred derivative losses – long-term
Deferred derivative losses – current
Recoverable energy costs – current
Total Regulatory Assets
Regulatory liabilities
Allowance for cost of removal less salvage
Gain on sale of First Avenue properties
Prior year deferred tax amortization
NYS tax law changes
Interest on federal income tax refund
Property tax reconciliation
Transmission congestion contracts
Net electric deferrals
O&R refundable energy costs
Net steam deferrals
Deferred derivative gains – long-term
EPA SO2 allowance proceeds – electric and steam
2004 electric, gas and steam one-time rate agreement charges
Gain on sale of W. 24th St. property
DC service incentive
Gas interruptible sales credits
Gas excess earnings
Deferred derivative gains – current
Total Regulatory Liabilities
91
During 2007 and 2006, in accordance with the 2005 Electric Rate Agreement, Con Edison of New York offset $265 million and $141 million, respectively, of regulatory liabilities against an equal amount of regulatory assets.
For 2007, the regulatory liabilities settled related primarily to proceeds from the sale of SO2 allowances, prior year’s transmission congestion contracts auction proceeds, gains from the sale of properties, revenue reductions related to customer outages, and the cost reconciliations for property taxes and interference costs.
The regulatory assets recovered related primarily to the Net T&D reconciliation and cost reconciliations for pension and other postretirement benefit costs.
For 2006, the regulatory liabilities settled related primarily to Adjusted Earnings in excess of an 11.4 percent return on equity, refunds received from the NYISO, and the cost reconciliations for property taxes and interference costs. The regulatory assets recovered related primarily to the Net T&D reconciliation and cost reconciliations for pension and other postretirement benefit costs and environmental remediation costs.
At December 31, 2007 and 2006, net regulatory assets relating to the Net T&D reconciliation amounted to $142 million and $94 million, respectively. Consistent with the 2005 Electric Rate Agreement, the company expects to recover the regulatory assets related to the Net T&D reconciliation, in March 2008, by offsetting it against an equal amount of regulatory liabilities.
“Unrecognized pension and other postretirement costs” represents the net regulatory asset associated with Con Edison’s adoption of FASB Statement No. 158, “Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans—an amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88,106, and 132(R)” (SFAS No. 158) in December 2006. See Notes E and F.
“World Trade Center restoration costs” represents the non-capital costs (net of federal reimbursement and insurance recoveries) incurred by Con Edison of New York for emergency response to the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center, and for restoration of electric, gas and steam transmission and distribution facilities damaged in the attack. Non-capital costs include primarily the costs of moving facilities to avoid interfering with governmental projects (interference costs) and interest on capital and non-capital costs previously deferred. Con Edison of New York expects the PSC to permit recovery from customers of all costs relating to the World Trade Center attack (net of any federal reimbursement, insurance payments and tax savings). The company’s current rate agreements provide for recovery from customers of $25.8 million annually of these World Trade Center restoration costs.
“Revenue taxes” represents the difference between taxes collected and the actual tax expense resulting from the repeal or reduction of certain revenue-based taxes and the imposition of a net income-based tax under the New York State tax law applicable to utilities that took effect in January 2000. For Con Edison of New York, effective October 2004, state income tax is being recovered through base rates for its gas and steam businesses and effective April 2005, for its electric business. For O&R, state income tax is being recovered through base rates for its electric and gas businesses effective November 2003. Base rates have been adjusted to reflect state income tax. An additional 1.53 percent income tax surcharge is used to fund mass transportation. For the Utilities, the surcharge is reconciled and differences between actual and billed amounts are charged or refunded to customers over a subsequent 12-month period.
“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 Con Edison of New York’s 2005 Electric Rate Agreement.
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 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 incurred in 2006, is $195 million. The net after-tax gain has been further reduced by $51 million to mitigate the steam revenue requirement in accordance with the current steam rate agreement. There may be additional proceeds in the event of certain zoning changes or other developments.
The $81 million “prior year deferred tax amortization” at December 31, 2006 represents the revenue equivalent of $48 million for the amortization of deferred taxes in the years 2000 to 2004 that was not recorded during that period. The correction was recognized in 2005 with this balance deferred as a regulatory liability pending disposition by the PSC. In September 2007, the PSC granted Con Edison of New York’s petition associated with this regulatory liability by directing the company to credit customers $51 million to reflect the impact on electric and steam rates of correcting the amortization of these deferred taxes. Accordingly, the company reduced this regulatory liability to $51 million. The impact of this accounting was a $17 million benefit to net income in 2007.
92
During a July 2006 heat wave, electric service was interrupted to a number of Con Edison of New York’s customers, predominantly in the company’s Long Island City distribution network in Queens, New York. Also, a number of the company’s customers in Westchester County, New York, experienced weather-related outages in 2006.
In April 2007, the PSC expanded its ongoing proceeding investigating the Queens outage to also consider the prudence of the company’s conduct with respect to the outage. In February 2008, a PSC administrative law judge expanded the proceeding to also include an examination of whether the company was grossly negligent or acted in wanton disregard of the consequences with respect to the outage. The investigation has been reviewing the circumstances surrounding the outage, the company’s response, communication and restoration efforts, the need for changes to the company’s practices and procedures and the costs incurred by the company related to the outage. The PSC indicated that the prudence examination should consider and address, among other things: (i) the reasonableness of the company’s response to the outage, its monitoring of its distribution system, its use of available information, its procedures for determining whether to shut down the Long Island City network (and the prudence of its decision not to do so) and its operation and maintenance of equipment in the Long Island City network; and (ii) whether and to what extent, the expenses and capital expenditures associated with the outage that the company has incurred, or may incur, should be borne by the company’s customers. In February 2007, the PSC staff issued a report on the outage which, among other things, includes the PSC staff’s (i) finding that the overriding cause of the outage was the company’s failure to adequately operate, maintain and oversee the Long Island City network, (ii) conclusion that the company should have, but failed to, shut down the Long Island City network to minimize the impact of the outage to customers, and (iii) recommendation that the PSC initiate a proceeding to consider the prudence of the company’s actions or inactions during the outage.
The PSC is also reviewing the Westchester outages, and has ordered the company to show cause why it should not be liable for certain food spoilage claims in connection with the September 2006 outage in Westchester resulting from Tropical Storm Ernesto.
The PSC engaged an independent third party consultant to audit the company’s performance in response to outage emergencies and planning for restoration of service. In October 2007, the consultant issued its report which identified opportunities for improvement in emergency response, policy, organization, performance and communication. The consultant, among other things, recommended that (i) the company prepare a multi-year strategic plan focusing on system reliability, emergency preparedness, and major outage prevention and event restoration; (ii) the company restructure its emergency organizational function in accordance with the strategic plan; and (iii) a comprehensive study be done to determine if the company is providing adequate resources to support its infrastructure.
From July 2006 through December 31, 2007, Con Edison of New York had paid $14 million, $5 million of which was reimbursed by insurers, to compensate customers for spoilage of food and other perishables resulting from the Queens outage, incurred estimated operating costs of $40 million, $1 million of which was reimbursed by insurers, invested $50 million in capital assets and retirements in the Long Island City network after the Queens outage, and reduced revenues under its 2005 Electric Rate Agreement by $18 million relating to customer outages. Twenty lawsuits have been filed against the company in connection with the Queens outage seeking generally unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages, for personal injury, property damage and business interruption.
The tariff provisions under which Con Edison of New York provides electric service limits the company’s liability to pay for damages resulting from service interruptions to circumstances in which the company was grossly negligent and provides reimbursement to electric consumers for spoilage losses resulting from service interruptions in certain circumstances. In general, under the tariff provisions approved by the PSC in November 2007, the company is obligated to reimburse affected residential and commercial customers for food spoilage of up to $450 and $9,000, respectively and reimburse affected residential customers for prescription medicine spoilage losses without limitation on amount per claim. Reimbursement of such spoilage losses is limited to a maximum aggregate of $15 million for an outage. The company is not required to provide reimbursement for outages attributable to generation or transmission system facilities or events beyond its control, such as storms, provided the company makes reasonable efforts to restore service as soon as practicable.
The Companies believe that their financial statements appropriately reflect in all material respects the outage and related proceedings based upon available information but are unable to predict whether the outages and any related proceedings will have any further material adverse effect on their results of operations or have a material adverse effect on their financial position or liquidity.
93
Note C – Capitalization
Common Stock
At December 31, 2007 and 2006, Con Edison owned all of the issued and outstanding shares of common stock of the Utilities and the competitive energy businesses. Con Edison of New York owns 21,976,200 shares of Con Edison stock, which it purchased prior to 2001 in connection with Con Edison’s stock repurchase plan. Con Edison of New York presents in the financial statements the cost of the Con Edison stock it owns as a reduction of common shareholder’s equity.
Capitalization of Con Edison
The outstanding capitalization for each of the Companies is shown on its Consolidated Statement of Capitalization, and for Con Edison includes the Utilities’ outstanding preferred stock and debt.
Preferred Stock of Con Edison of New York
As of December 31, 2007, 1,915,319 shares of Con Edison of New York’s $5 Cumulative Preferred Stock (the “$5 Preferred”) and 375,626 shares of its Cumulative Preferred Stock ($100 par value) were outstanding.
Dividends on the $5 Preferred Stock are $5 per share per annum, payable quarterly, and dividends on the Cumulative Preferred Stock are $4.65 per share per annum, payable quarterly. The preferred dividends must be declared by Con Edison of New York’s Board of Trustees to become payable. See “Dividends” below.
With respect to any corporate action to be taken by a vote of shareholders of Con Edison of New York, Con Edison (which owns all of the 235,488,094 shares of Con Edison of New York’s common stock that are outstanding) and the holders of the $5 Preferred are each entitled to one vote for each share held. Except as otherwise required by law, holders of the Cumulative Preferred Stock have no right to vote; provided, however, that if the $5 Preferred is no longer outstanding, the holders of the Cumulative Preferred Stock are entitled to one vote for each share with respect to any corporate action to be taken by a vote of the shareholders of Con Edison of New York. In addition, if dividends are in arrears for certain periods, the holders are entitled to certain rights with respect to the election of Con Edison of New York’s Trustees. Without the consent of the holders of the Cumulative Preferred Stock, Con Edison of New York may not create or authorize any kind of stock ranking prior to the Cumulative Preferred Stock or, if such actions would affect the holders of the Cumulative Preferred Stock adversely, be a party to any consolidation or merger, create or amend the terms of the Cumulative Preferred Stock or reclassify the Cumulative Preferred Stock. Con Edison of New York may redeem the $5 Preferred at a redemption price of $105 per share and the Cumulative Preferred Stock at a redemption price of $101 per share (in each case, plus accrued and unpaid dividends). In the event of the dissolution, liquidation or winding up of the affairs of Con Edison of New York, before any distribution of capital assets could be made to the holders of the company’s common stock, the holders of the $5 Preferred and the Cumulative Preferred Stock would each be entitled to receive $100 per share, in the case of an involuntary liquidation, or an amount equal to the redemption price per share, in the case of a voluntary liquidation, in each case together with all accrued and unpaid dividends.
In accordance with PSC requirements, the dividends that the Utilities generally pay are limited to not more than 100 percent of their respective income available for dividends calculated on a two-year rolling average basis. Excluded from the calculation of “income available for dividends” are non-cash charges to income resulting from accounting changes or charges to income resulting from significant unanticipated events. The restriction also does not apply to dividends paid in order to transfer to Con Edison proceeds from major transactions, such as asset sales, or to dividends reducing each utility subsidiary’s equity ratio to a level appropriate to its business risk.
In addition, no dividends may be paid, or funds set apart for payment, on Con Edison of New York’s common stock until all dividends accrued on the $5 Preferred Stock and Cumulative Preferred Stock have been paid, or declared and set apart for payment.
Long-term Debt
Long-term debt maturing in the period 2008-2012 is as follows:
2011
The Utilities have issued $324 million of tax-exempt debt through the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) that currently bear interest at a rate determined weekly and is subject to tender by bondholders for purchase by the Utilities.
Long-term debt is stated at cost, which in total, as of December 31, 2007, approximates fair value (estimated based on current rates for debt of the same remaining maturities), except for $225 million of Con Edison of New York’s tax-exempt financing. See “Interest Rate Hedging” in Note O.
At December 31, 2007 and 2006, long-term debt of Con Edison included $40 million and $42 million, respectively, of Transition Bonds issued by O&R’s New Jersey utility subsidiary through a special purpose entity (See Note B). At December 31, 2007 and 2006, long-term debt of Con Edison included: $80 million (included in current and non-current liabilities held for sale) and
94
$98 million, respectively, of non-recourse debt of a Con Edison Development subsidiary collateralized by a pledge of the Lakewood power plant, a related power purchase agreement and project assets; and $326 million (which was classified as long-term debt due within one year) and $330 million, respectively, of debt secured by the Newington power plant and related assets. See Note P. At December 31, 2007 and 2006, restricted cash relating to the operations of the Lakewood plant was $13 million (included in current assets held for sale) and $16 million, respectively. See Note U.
Significant Debt Covenants
There are no significant debt covenants under the financing arrangements for the debentures of Con Edison or Con Edison of New York, other than obligations to pay principal and interest when due and covenants not to consolidate with or merge into any other corporation unless certain conditions are met, and no cross default provisions. The tax-exempt financing arrangements of the Utilities are subject to these covenants and the covenants discussed below. The Companies believe that they were in compliance with their significant debt covenants at December 31, 2007.
The tax-exempt financing arrangements involved the issuance of uncollateralized promissory notes of the Utilities to NYSERDA in exchange for the net proceeds of a like amount of tax-exempt bonds with substantially the same terms sold to the public by NYSERDA. The tax-exempt financing arrangements include covenants with respect to the tax-exempt status of the financing, including covenants with respect to the use of the facilities financed. The failure to comply with these covenants would, except as otherwise provided, constitute an event of default with respect to the debt to which such provisions applied. The arrangements include provisions for the maintenance of liquidity and credit facilities, the failure to comply with which would, except as otherwise provided, constitute an event of default with respect to the debt to which such provisions applied. If an event of default were to occur, the principal and accrued interest on the debt to which such event of default applied might and, in certain circumstances would, become due and payable immediately.
The liquidity and credit facilities currently in effect for the tax-exempt financing include covenants that the ratio of debt to total capital of the obligated utility will not at any time exceed 0.65 to 1 and that, subject to certain exceptions, the utility will not mortgage, lien, pledge or otherwise encumber its assets. Certain of the facilities also include as events of default, defaults in payments of other debt obligations in excess of specified levels ($100 million for Con Edison of New York).
Note D – Short-Term Borrowing
In June 2006, Con Edison and the Utilities entered into an Amended and Restated Credit Agreement (Credit Agreement) under which banks are committed to provide loans and letters of credit, on a revolving credit basis. In June 2007, the Credit Agreement, which was to expire in June 2011, was extended for an additional year. Under the Credit Agreement, there is a maximum of $2.25 billion ($2.2 billion in the additional year) of credit available, with the full amount available to Con Edison of New York and $1 billion available to Con Edison. The Credit Agreement supports the Companies’ commercial paper programs. The Companies have not borrowed under the Credit Agreement.
At December 31, 2007, Con Edison had $840 million of commercial paper outstanding of which $555 million was outstanding under Con Edison of New York’s program. The weighted average interest rate was 5.5 percent and 5.6 percent for Con Edison and Con Edison of New York, respectively. At December 31, 2006, Con Edison had $117 million of commercial paper outstanding at a weighted average interest rate of 5.4 percent, none of which was outstanding under Con Edison of New York’s program.
The banks’ commitments under the Credit Agreement are subject to certain conditions, including that there be no event of default. The commitments are not subject to maintenance of credit rating levels or the absence of a material adverse change. Upon a change of control of, or upon an event of default by one of the Companies, the banks may terminate their commitments with respect to that company and declare any amounts owed by that company under the Credit Agreement immediately due and payable. Events of default include the exceeding at any time of a ratio of consolidated debt to consolidated total capital of 0.65 to 1 (at December 31, 2007, this ratio was 0.50 to 1 for Con Edison and 0.49 to 1 for Con Edison of New York); having liens on its assets in an aggregate amount exceeding 5 percent of its consolidated total capital, subject to certain exceptions; and the failure by the company, following any applicable notice period, to meet certain other customary covenants. The fees charged for the revolving credit facilities and any loans made or letters of credit issued under the Credit Agreement reflect the Companies’ respective credit ratings. At December 31, 2007 and 2006, $58.7 million and $15.8 million of letters of credit were outstanding under the Credit Agreement, respectively.
See Note R for information about short-term borrowing between related parties.
Note E – Pension Benefits
Con Edison maintains a tax-qualified, non-contributory pension plan that covers substantially all employees of Con Edison of New York and O&R and certain employees of Con Edison’s competitive energy businesses. The plan is designed to comply with the Internal Revenue Code and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. In addition, Con Edison maintains additional non-qualified supplemental pension plans. Investment
95
gains and losses are fully recognized in expense over a 15-year period and other actuarial gains and losses are fully recognized in expense over a 10-year period, subject to the deferral provisions discussed in the next paragraph. This amortization is in accordance with the Statement of Policy issued by the PSC and is permitted under SFAS No. 87, “Employers’ Accounting for Pensions,” which provides a “corridor method” for moderating the effect of investment gains and losses on pension expense, or alternatively, allows for any systematic method of amortization of unrecognized gains and losses that is faster than the corridor method and is applied consistently to both gains and losses.
In accordance with its current electric, gas and steam rate agreements, Con Edison of New York is deferring the difference between expenses recognized under SFAS No. 87 and the rate allowance. Generally, O&R has also been deferring such difference pursuant to its rate agreements. See Note B.
Net Periodic Benefit Cost
The components of the Companies’ net periodic benefit costs for 2007, 2006 and 2005 were as follows:
Service cost – including administrative expenses
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation
Amortization of net actuarial (gain)/loss
Amortization of prior service costs
Net periodic benefit cost
Amortization of regulatory asset*
Total periodic benefit cost
Cost capitalized
Cost deferred
Cost charged (credited) to operating expenses
Funded Status
The funded status at December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 was as follows:
Change in Projected Benefit Obligation
Projected benefit obligation at beginning of year
Service cost – excluding administrative expenses
Plan amendments
Net actuarial loss
Benefits paid
Projected Benefit Obligation at end of Year
Change in Plan Assets
Fair value of plan assets at beginning of year
Actual return on plan assets
Employer contributions
Administrative expenses
Fair Value of Plan Assets at end of Year
Funded status
Unrecognized net loss
Unrecognized prior service costs
Net Prepaid Benefit Cost
Accumulated Benefit Obligation
96
In December 2006, Con Edison adopted SFAS No. 158. This Statement requires an employer to recognize an asset or liability for the overfunded or underfunded status of its pension and other postretirement benefit plans. For a pension plan, the asset or liability is the difference between the fair value of the plan’s assets and the projected benefit obligation. For any other postretirement benefit plan, the asset or liability is the difference between the fair value of the plan’s assets and the accumulated postretirement benefit obligation. The Statement required employers to recognize all unrecognized prior service costs and credits and unrecognized actuarial gains and losses in accumulated other comprehensive income (OCI), net of tax. Such amounts will be adjusted as they are subsequently recognized as components of net periodic benefit cost or income pursuant to the current recognition and amortization provisions. For the Utilities, generally regulatory accounting treatment is applied in accordance with SFAS No. 71. Unrecognized prior service costs or credits and unrecognized gains and losses are recorded to regulatory assets or liabilities, rather than OCI.
Upon adoption of SFAS No. 158, Con Edison recognized an additional pension liability of $85 million and eliminated the prepaid pension asset of $1.5 billion. A regulatory asset of $1.5 billion was recorded for the unrecognized net losses and unrecognized prior service costs associated with the Utilities consistent with SFAS No. 71. An OCI charge of $8 million (net of taxes) was recorded for the unrecognized net losses and unrecognized prior service costs associated with the competitive energy businesses and O&R’s New Jersey and Pennsylvania utility subsidiaries. Con Edison of New York recognized a pension asset of $13 million, eliminated a pension liability of $28 million and eliminated the prepaid pension asset of $1.5 billion. A regulatory asset of $1.4 billion was recorded for the unrecognized net losses and unrecognized prior service costs in accordance with SFAS No. 71. A credit to OCI of $8 million (net of taxes) was recorded which represents the reversal of OCI charges associated with the supplemental retirement plans partially offset by the unrecognized net losses and unrecognized prior service costs associated with former employees of the Utilities employed by the competitive energy businesses. In the first quarter of 2007, in accordance with SFAS No. 158 and based on the final actuarial valuation as of December 31, 2006, Con Edison adjusted the estimated amounts recorded upon adoption of SFAS No. 158 by increasing its pension liability by $83 million and the related regulatory asset by $81 million and recognizing a charge of $1 million (net of taxes) to other comprehensive income (OCI). Con Edison of New York reversed the pension asset of $13 million it recorded upon adoption of SFAS No. 158 and recorded a pension liability of $64 million and an additional regulatory asset of $77 million.
The estimated net loss and prior service cost for the pension plan that will be amortized from accumulated OCI and the regulatory asset into net periodic benefit cost over the next year for Con Edison are $182 million and $8 million, respectively. Included in these amounts are $160 million and $7 million, respectively, for Con Edison of New York.
At December 31, 2007 and 2006, Con Edison’s investments include $71 million and $59 million, respectively, held in external trust accounts for benefit payments pursuant to the supplemental retirement plans. Included in these amounts for Con Edison of New York were $59 million and $47 million, respectively. The accumulated benefit obligations for the supplemental retirement plans for Con Edison and Con Edison of New York were $155 million and $122 million as of December 31, 2007 and $138 million and $105 million as of December 31, 2006, respectively.
Assumptions
The actuarial assumptions were as follows:
Weighted-average assumptions used to determine benefit obligations at December 31:
Rate of compensation increase
– Con Edison of New York
– O&R
Weighted-average assumptions used to determine net periodic benefit cost for the years ended December 31:
The expected return assumption reflects anticipated returns on the plan’s current and future assets. The Companies’ expected return was based on an evaluation of the current environment, market and economic outlook, relationships between the economy and asset class performance patterns, and recent and long-term trends in asset class performance. The projections were based on the plan’s target asset allocation and were adjusted for historical and expected experience of active portfolio management results compared to benchmark returns.
Discount Rate Assumption
To determine the assumed discount rate, the Companies use a model that produces a yield curve based on yields on selected
97
highly rated (Aaa or Aa, by Moody’s Investors Service) corporate bonds. Bonds with insufficient liquidity, bonds with questionable pricing information and bonds that are not representative of the overall market are excluded from consideration. For example, the bonds used in the model cannot be callable, they must have a price between 50 and 200, the yield must lie between 1 percent and 20 percent, and the amount of the issue must be in excess of $100 million. The spot rates defined by the yield curve and the plan’s projected benefit payments are used to develop a weighted average discount rate.
Expected Benefit Payments
Based on current assumptions, the Companies expect to make the following benefit payments over the next ten years:
Con Edison ofNew York
Expected Contributions
Based on estimates as of December 31, 2007, the Companies are not required under funding regulations and laws to make any contributions to the pension plan during 2008. The Companies’ policy is to fund their accounting cost to the extent tax deductible, therefore, Con Edison and Con Edison of New York expect to make discretionary contributions of $131 million and $98 million, respectively, to the pension plan during 2008.
Plan Assets
The asset allocations for the pension plan at the end of 2007, 2006 and 2005, and the target allocation for 2008 are as follows:
at December 31
Equity Securities
Debt Securities
Real Estate
Con Edison has established a pension trust for the investment of assets to be used for the exclusive purpose of providing retirement benefits to participants and beneficiaries.
Pursuant to resolutions adopted by Con Edison’s Board of Directors, the Management Development and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the Committee) has general oversight responsibility for Con Edison’s pension and other employee benefit plans. The pension plan’s Named Fiduciaries have been granted the authority to control and manage the operation and administration of the plans, including overall responsibility for the investment of assets in the trust and the power to appoint and terminate investment managers. The Named Fiduciaries consist of Con Edison’s chief executive, financial and accounting officers and others the Board of Trustees may appoint in addition to or in place of the designated Named Fiduciaries.
The investment objective for the pension trust is to maximize the long-term total return on the trust assets within a prudent level of risk. The investment strategy is to diversify its funds across asset classes, investment styles and fund managers. The target asset allocation is reviewed periodically based on asset/liability studies and may be modified as appropriate. The target asset allocation for 2008 reflects the results of such a study conducted in 2007.
Individual fund managers operate under written guidelines provided by Con Edison, which cover such areas as investment objectives, performance measurement, permissible investments, investment restrictions, trading and execution, and communication and reporting requirements. Manager performance, total fund performance, and compliance with asset allocation guidelines are monitored on an ongoing basis, and reviewed by the Named Fiduciaries and reported to the Committee on a regular basis. Changes in fund managers and rebalancing of the portfolio are undertaken as appropriate. The Named Fiduciaries approve such changes, which are also reported to the Committee.
The Companies also offer a defined contribution savings plan that covers substantially all employees and made contributions to the plan as follows:
Note F – Other Postretirement Benefits
The Utilities currently have contributory comprehensive hospital, medical and prescription drug programs for all retirees, their dependents and surviving spouses.
Con Edison of New York also has a contributory life insurance program for bargaining unit employees and provides basic life insurance benefits up to a specified maximum at no cost to retired management employees. O&R has a non-contributory life insurance program for retirees. Certain employees of Con
98
Edison’s competitive energy businesses are eligible to receive benefits under these programs.
Investment plan gains and losses are fully recognized in expense over a 15-year period for the Companies and other actuarial gains and losses are fully recognized in expense over a 10-year period, provided, however, that the Utilities generally defer any difference between expenses recognized under SFAS No. 106, “Employers’ Accounting for Postretirement Benefits Other Than Pensions, and the current rate allowances for their electric, gas and steam operations.
The components of the Companies’ net periodic postretirement benefit costs for 2007, 2006 and 2005 were as follows:
Service cost
Interest cost on accumulated other postretirement benefit obligation
Amortization of net actuarial loss
Amortization of prior service cost
Amortization of transition obligation
Net Periodic Postretirement Benefit Cost
Cost charged to operating expenses
The funded status of the programs at December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 was as follows:
Change in Benefit Obligation
Benefit obligation at beginning of year
Interest cost on accumulated postretirement benefit obligation
Net actuarial loss/(gain)
Benefits paid and administrative expenses
Participant contributions
Medicare prescription benefit
Benefit Obligation at End of Year
Fair Value of Plan Assets at End of Year
Unrecognized net transition liability at January 1, 1993*
Accrued Postretirement Benefit Cost
99
For discussion of SFAS No. 158 and the application of SFAS No. 71 in recording unrecognized prior service costs or credits and unrecognized gains and losses, see Note E. Upon adoption of SFAS No. 158, Con Edison recognized an additional liability for other postretirement benefits of $408 million. A regulatory asset of $390 million was recorded for the unrecognized net losses, unrecognized prior service costs and unrecognized transition liability associated with the Utilities consistent with SFAS No. 71. An OCI charge of $11 million (net of taxes) was recorded for the unrecognized net losses, unrecognized prior service costs and unrecognized transition liability associated with the competitive energy businesses and O&R’s New Jersey and Pennsylvania utility subsidiaries. Con Edison of New York recognized an additional liability for other postretirement benefits of $338 million. A regulatory asset of $338 million was recorded for the unrecognized net losses, unrecognized prior service costs and unrecognized transition liability in accordance with SFAS No. 71. A charge to OCI of $1 million (net of taxes) was recorded for the unrecognized net losses, unrecognized prior service costs and unrecognized transition liability associated with operations that do not fall under SFAS No. 71. In the first quarter of 2007, in accordance with SFAS No. 158 and based on the final actuarial valuation as of December 31, 2006, Con Edison adjusted the estimated amounts recorded upon adoption of SFAS No. 158 by increasing its liability for other postretirement benefits by $27 million and the related regulatory asset by $29 million and recognizing a credit of $1 million (net of taxes) to OCI. Con Edison of New York recorded an additional liability for other postretirement benefits of $37 million and an additional regulatory asset of $37 million.
The estimated net loss, prior service costs and transition obligation for the other postretirement benefits that will be amortized from accumulated OCI and the regulatory asset into net periodic benefit cost over the next year for Con Edison are $67 million, $(12) million and $4 million, respectively. Included in these amounts are $58 million, $(14) million and $4 million, respectively, for Con Edison of New York.
Discount Rate
Expected Return on Plan Assets
Tax-Exempt
Taxable
Refer to Note E for descriptions of the basis for determining the expected return on assets, investment policies and strategies, and the assumed discount rate.
The health care cost trend rate used to determine net periodic benefit cost for the year ended December 31, 2007 was 9 percent, which is assumed to decrease gradually to 4.5 percent by 2012 and remain at that level thereafter. The health care cost trend rate used to determine benefit obligations as at December 31, 2007 was 8 percent, which is assumed to decrease gradually to 4.5 percent by 2012 and remain at that level thereafter.
A one-percentage point change in the assumed health care cost trend rate would have the following effects at December 31, 2007:
Con Edison of
New York
Effect on accumulated other postretirement benefit obligation
Effect on service cost and interest cost components for 2007
Gross Benefit Payments
Medicare prescription benefit receipts
Based on estimates as of December 31, 2007, Con Edison and Con Edison of New York expect to make contributions of $75 million and $61 million, respectively, to the other postretirement benefit plans in 2008.
100
The asset allocations for Con Edison of New York’s other postretirement benefit plans at the end of 2007, 2006 and 2005, and the target allocation for 2008 are as follows:
Con Edison has established postretirement health and life insurance benefit plan trusts for the investment of assets to be used for the exclusive purpose of providing other postretirement benefits to participants and beneficiaries.
Refer to Note E for a discussion of Con Edison’s investment policy for its benefit plans.
Effect of Medicare Prescription Benefit
The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 created a benefit for certain employers who provide postretirement drug programs. FASB Staff Position (FSP) No. FAS 106-2, issued by the FASB in May 2004, provides accounting and disclosure requirements relating to the Act. The Companies’ actuaries have determined that each of their prescription drug plans provides a benefit that is at least actuarially equivalent to the Medicare prescription drug plan and projections indicate that this will be the case for 20 years; therefore, the Companies are eligible to receive the benefit that the Act makes available. When the plans’ benefits are no longer actuarially equivalent to the Medicare plan, 25 percent of the retirees in each plan are assumed to begin to decline participation in the Companies’ prescription programs.
Note G – 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 and any neighboring areas to which contamination may have migrated, 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 in 2007 dollars 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 in 2007 dollars of the company’s share of 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.
The accrued liabilities and regulatory assets related to Superfund Sites at December 31, 2007 and 2006 were as follows:
Accrued Liabilities:
Manufactured gas plant sites
Other Superfund Sites
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 Utilities 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.
Environmental remediation costs incurred and insurance recoveries received related to Superfund Sites at December 31, 2007 and 2006, were as follows:
Remediation costs incurred
Insurance recoveries received*
101
In 2006, Con Edison of New York estimated that for its manufactured gas plant sites, its aggregate undiscounted potential liability for the investigation and remediation of coal tar and/or other manufactured gas plant-related environmental contaminants could range up to $1.1 billion. In 2007, 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 up to $115 million. These estimates were based on the assumption that there is contamination at the sites that have not yet been investigated and additional assumptions about these and the other sites 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 all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims. In 2006, Con Edison of New York estimated that its aggregate undiscounted potential liability for these suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15 years is $10 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) costs 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 December 31, 2007 and 2006 were as follows:
Accrued liability – asbestos suits
Regulatory assets – asbestos suits
Accrued liability – workers’ compensation
Regulatory assets – workers’ compensation
Note H—Other Material Contingencies
In July 2007, a Con Edison of New York steam main located in midtown Manhattan ruptured. It has been reported that one person died and others were injured as a result of the incident. Several buildings in the area were damaged. Debris from the incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos. The response to the incident required the closing of several buildings and streets for various periods. As of December 31, 2007, with respect to the incident, the company incurred estimated operating costs of $23 million for property damage, clean up and other response costs, recorded $10 million in actual and expected insurance recoveries and invested $17 million in capital, retirement and other costs. Over 30 plaintiffs have sued the company seeking generally unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages, for personal injury, property damage and business interruption. The company has notified its insurers of the incident and believes that the policies currently in force will cover most of the company’s costs, which the company is unable to estimate, but which could be substantial, to satisfy its liability to others in connection with the incident. See also “Rate Agreements—Con Edison of New York—Steam” in Note B.
Northeast Utilities Litigation
Con Edison and Northeast Utilities are pursuing claims against each other for damages as a result of the alleged breach of their agreement and plan of merger, dated as of October 13, 1999, as amended and restated as of January 11, 2000. The litigation, entitled Consolidated Edison, Inc. v. Northeast Utilities, was commenced in March 2001 and is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The parties are seeking to recover from each other fees and expenses each incurred in connection with the merger agreement and preparing for the merger. In addition, Con Edison is seeking to recover from Northeast Utilities compensation for synergies that were lost when the merger did not occur, together with the attorney’s fees it has incurred in connection with the litigation. In January 2008, the court denied Northeast Utilities’ motion to dismiss Con Edison’s claim for lost synergies. The Company expects a trial in this case to begin in 2008. Con Edison does not expect that the lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity.
Other Contingencies
See “Power Outage Proceedings” in Note B and “Lease In/Lease Out Transactions” in Note J.
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
102
Development subsidiary has issued a guarantee on behalf of an entity in which it has an equity interest. Maximum amounts guaranteed by Con Edison totaled $1.4 billion and $1.2 billion at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.
A summary, by type and term, of Con Edison’s total guarantees at December 31, 2007 is as follows:
Guarantee Type
(Millions of Dollars)
0 –3
years
4 –10
> 10
Commodity transactions
Affordable housing program
Intra-company guarantees
Other guarantees
Commodity Transactions – Con Edison guarantees payments on behalf of its competitive energy businesses in order to facilitate physical and financial transactions in gas, pipeline capacity, transportation, oil, electricity and related commodity services. In addition, a Con Edison Development subsidiary has guaranteed payment for fuel oil purchases by a 42 MW foreign generating project in which it has an equity interest. To the extent that liabilities exist under the contracts subject to these guarantees, such liabilities are included in Con Edison’s consolidated balance sheet.
Affordable Housing Program – Con Edison Development guarantees the repurchase and remarketing obligations of one of its subsidiaries for debt relating to moderate-income rental apartment properties eligible for tax credits under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code. In accordance with Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) No. 94-01, “Accounting for Tax Benefits Resulting from Investments in Affordable Housing Projects,” neither the rental apartment properties nor the related indebtedness is included on Con Edison’s consolidated balance sheet.
Intra-company Guarantees – Con Edison guarantees electricity sales made by Con Edison Energy and Con Edison Solutions to O&R and Con Edison of New York.
Other Guarantees – Con Edison, Con Edison Development and its subsidiaries also guarantee the following:
103
Note I – Non-Utility Generators and Other Power Purchase Agreements
Con Edison of New York has long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs) with non-utility generators (NUGs) and others for generating capacity. The company recovers its purchase power costs in accordance with provisions approved by the PSC. See “Recoverable Energy Costs” in Note A.
At December 31, 2007, the significant terms of the PPAs were as follows:
Contracted
Output
(MW)
Start
Date
Indian Point
Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC
Independence
Sithe/Independence Partners, LP
Linden Cogeneration
East Coast Power, LLC
Astoria Energy
Astoria Energy, LLC
Selkirk
Selkirk Cogen Partners, LP
Brooklyn Navy Yard
Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration Partners, LP
Indeck Corinth
Indeck Energy Services of Corinth, Inc.
Wheelabrator
Wheelabrator Westchester, LP
Assuming performance by the parties to the PPAs, Con Edison of New York is obligated over the terms of the PPAs to make capacity and other fixed payments.
For the years 2008 through 2012, the capacity and other fixed payments under the contracts are estimated to be as follows:
For energy delivered under most of the PPAs, Con Edison of New York is obligated to pay variable prices. The company’s payments under the PPAs for capacity, energy and other fixed payments in 2007, 2006 and 2005 were as follows:
Note J – Leases
Con Edison’s subsidiaries lease electric generating and gas distribution facilities, other electric transmission and distribution facilities, office buildings and equipment. In accordance with SFAS No. 13, these leases are classified as either capital leases, operating leases or leveraged leases. Most of the operating leases provide the option to renew at the fair rental value for future periods. Generally, it is expected that leases will be renewed or replaced in the normal course of business.
Capital leases: For ratemaking purposes capital leases are treated as operating leases; therefore, in accordance with SFAS No. 71, the amortization of the leased asset is based on the rental payments recovered from customers. The following assets under capital leases are included in the Companies’ consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2007 and 2006:
Common
The accumulated amortization of the capital leases for Con Edison and Con Edison of New York was $45 million and $44 million, respectively, at December 31, 2007, and $41 million and $40 million, respectively, at December 31, 2006.
104
The future minimum lease commitments for the above assets are as follows:
All years thereafter
Less: amount representing interest
Present value of net minimum lease payment
Con Edison of New York subleases one of its capital leases. The minimum rental to be received in the future under the non-cancelable sublease is $18 million.
Operating leases: The future minimum lease commitments under the Companies’ non-cancelable operating lease agreements are as follows:
In each of 1997 and 1999, Con Edison Development entered into a transaction in which it leased property and then immediately subleased it back to the lessor (termed “Lease In/Lease Out,” or LILO transaction). The transactions respectively involve 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, Con Edison is accounting for the two LILO transactions as leveraged leases. Accordingly, the company’s investment in these leases, net of non-recourse debt, is carried as a single amount in Con Edison’s 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 December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006, the company’s investment in these leveraged leases was $9 million and $24 million, respectively, comprised of a $235 million gross investment less $226 million of deferred tax liabilities in 2007 and a $232 million gross investment less $208 million of deferred tax liabilities in 2006.
On audit of Con Edison’s tax return for 1997, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) disallowed the tax losses in connection with the 1997 LILO transaction. In December 2005, Con Edison paid a $0.3 million income tax deficiency asserted by the IRS for the tax year 1997 with respect to the 1997 LILO transaction. In April 2006, the company paid interest of $0.2 million associated with the deficiency and commenced an action in the United States Court of Federal Claims, entitled Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. v. United States, to obtain a refund of this tax payment and interest. A trial was completed in November 2007 and the parties are in the process of filing post trial briefs. A decision is expected later this year.
In connection with its audit of Con Edison’s federal income tax returns for the tax years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2006, the IRS disallowed $195 million of net tax deductions taken with respect to both of the LILO transactions for the tax years. For the tax years 1998 through 2001, Con Edison filed appeals of these audit level disallowances with the Appeals Office of the IRS, where consideration of this matter is pending. Con Edison is preparing a similar appeal with respect to the tax year 2006. In connection with its audit of Con Edison’s federal income tax returns for the tax years 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, the IRS indicated that it intends to disallow $180 million of net tax deductions taken with respect to both of the LILO transactions for the tax years. If and when these audit level disallowances become appealable, Con Edison intends to file appeals of the disallowances with the Appeals Office of the IRS.
Con Edison believes that its LILO transactions have been correctly reported, and has not recorded any reserve with respect to the disallowance of tax losses, or related interest, in connection with its LILO transactions. Con Edison’s estimated tax savings, reflected in its financial statements, from the two LILO transactions through December 31, 2007, in the aggregate, was $171 million. If Con Edison were required to repay all or a portion of these amounts, it would also be required to pay interest of up to $63 million at December 31, 2007.
In July 2006, the FASB issued FSP No. FAS 13-2, “Accounting for a Change or Projected Change in the Timing of Cash Flows Relating to Income Taxes Generated by a Leveraged Lease Transaction,” which became effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2006. This FSP requires the expected timing of income tax cash flows generated by Con Edison’s 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, and the company would be required to recalculate the accounting effect of the LILO transactions, which
105
would result in a charge to earnings that could have a material adverse effect on the company’s results of operations.
Note K – Goodwill and Intangible Assets
In 2007 and 2006, Con Edison completed impairment tests for its goodwill of $406 million related to the O&R merger, and determined that it was not impaired. For the impairment test, $245 million and $161 million of the goodwill were allocated to Con Edison of New York and O&R, respectively.
Con Edison’s intangible assets consist of the following:
Amortization
Con Edison Development Power purchase agreement
As a result of the pending sale of Con Edison Development assets, the intangible asset related to the power purchase agreement has been reclassified to Noncurrent Assets Held for Sale. In addition, the related amortization expense of $9 million for the year ended December 31, 2007, and $10 million for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005 was reclassified to Income/(Loss) from Discontinued Operations (Net of Income Taxes) in the accompanying Con Edison consolidated statements of income. Amortization ceased at the time that the Con Edison Development assets were reclassified as held for sale. See Note U.
Future amortization expense from the remaining intangible assets will be immaterial.
Note L – Income Tax
The components of income tax are as follows:
Charge/(benefit) to operations:
State
Current
Deferred – net
Federal
Amortization of investment tax credits
Total Charge to Operations
Charge/(benefit) to other income:
Total Charge/(Benefit) to Other Income
106
The tax effect of temporary differences, which gave rise to deferred tax assets and liabilities, is as follows:
Deferred tax liabilities:
Depreciation
Regulatory liability – future income tax
Unrecognized pension and other postretirement costs – SFAS No. 158
State income tax
Capitalized overheads
Total deferred tax liabilities
Deferred tax assets:
Regulatory asset – future income tax
Total deferred tax assets
Net Liabilities
Investment Tax Credits
Deferred Income Taxes and Investment Tax Credits
Deferred Income Taxes – Recoverable Energy Costs
Total Deferred Income Taxes and Investment Tax Credits
In April 2007, the New York state statutory income tax rate decreased from 7.5% to 7.1%, retroactive to January 1, 2007. The rate decrease resulted in a reduction of $20 million and $19 million to the net accumulated deferred tax liabilities for Con Edison and Con Edison of New York, respectively, of which $19 million and $18 million were deferred for customers’ benefit for Con Edison and Con Edison of New York, respectively.
Reconciliation of the difference between income tax expense and the amount computed by applying the prevailing statutory income tax rate to income before income taxes is as follows:
Statutory Tax Rate
Changes in computed taxes resulting from:
Depreciation related differences
Cost of removal
Effective Tax Rate
Uncertain Tax Positions
In January 2007, the Companies adopted FIN 48. This interpretation clarifies the accounting for uncertain tax positions in accordance with FASB Statement No. 109. Under the interpretation, an enterprise is not allowed to recognize, in its financial statements, the benefit of a tax position unless that position is more likely than not to be sustained upon examination by taxing authorities, including resolution of any related appeals and litigation processes, based solely on the technical merits of the position.
107
The IRS has essentially completed its field audits of the Companies’ federal income tax returns through 2006. The Companies’ federal income tax returns for 2002 through 2006 reflect certain tax positions with which the IRS does not or may not agree, including tax positions with respect to the deduction of certain construction-related costs for which the ultimate deductibility is highly certain but for which there is uncertainty about the timing of such deductibility. The field audits of the Companies’ New York state income tax returns have been completed through 2002. Any adjustments to federal income tax returns will result in the Companies filing the federal audit changes with New York state to incorporate in the applicable state income tax returns.
The Companies’ uncertain tax positions include the “simplified service cost method” (SSCM) used to determine the extent to which construction-related costs could be deducted in 2002 through 2005. The Companies expect that they will be required to repay, with interest, a portion of their past SSCM tax benefits ($316 million, of which $288 million is attributable to Con Edison of New York) and to capitalize and depreciate over a period of years costs they previously deducted under SSCM. Interest on all past SSCM tax benefits for Con Edison and Con Edison of New York would be approximately $103 million and $94 million, respectively. Repayment of the SSCM tax benefits would not otherwise affect the Companies’ results of operations because deferred taxes have been 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.
In June 2007, Con Edison paid $160 million to the Internal Revenue Service, $147 million of which is attributable to Con Edison of New York, as a deposit for the repayment, including related interest, that the Companies expect will be required with respect to the past SSCM benefits. As a result, for federal income tax purposes, interest will continue to accrue only on the portion of the liability, if any, that exceeds the deposit. Con Edison and Con Edison of New York have recorded the deposit as a noncurrent asset on their consolidated balance sheet.
Upon adoption of FIN 48, Con Edison and Con Edison of New York reclassified previously recorded tax liabilities of $151 million and $139 million, respectively, which primarily related to SSCM, to a liability for uncertain tax positions. At December 31, 2007, the liabilities for uncertain tax positions for Con Edison and Con Edison of New York were $155 million and $142 million, respectively, and accrued interest on the liabilities amounted to $35 million and $31 million, respectively. The Companies recognize interest accrued related to the liability for uncertain tax positions in interest expense and penalties, if any, in operating expenses in the Companies’ consolidated income statements. In 2007, Con Edison recognized interest expense for uncertain tax positions of $11 million, of which $9 million is attributable to Con Edison of New York.
A reconciliation of the beginning and ending amounts of unrecognized tax benefits for Con Edison and Con Edison of New York follows:
Balance at January 1, 2007
Additions based on tax positions related to the current year
Additions based on tax positions of prior years
Reductions for tax positions of prior years
Balance at December 31, 2007
The Companies do not expect the total amounts of uncertain tax positions or unrecognized tax benefits to significantly increase or decrease within the next 12 months.
Note M – Stock-Based Compensation
The Companies may compensate employees and directors with, among other things, stock options, restricted stock units and contributions to a discount stock purchase plan. The Stock Option Plan (the 1996 Plan) provided for awards of stock options to officers and employees for up to 10 million shares of Con Edison common stock. The Long Term Incentive Plan (LTIP) among other things, provides for awards of restricted stock units, stock options and, to Con Edison’s non-officer directors, deferred stock units for up to 10 million shares of common stock (of which not more than four million shares may be restricted stock or stock units).
Shares of Con Edison common stock used to satisfy the Companies’ obligations with respect to stock-based compensation may be new (authorized, but unissued) shares, treasury shares or shares purchased in the open market. The shares used during the period ended December 31, 2007 have been new shares.
108
In January 2006, Con Edison adopted SFAS No. 123(R), “Share-Based Payment,” applying the modified prospective approach. Pursuant to SFAS No. 123(R), the Companies have recognized the cost of stock-based compensation as an expense using a fair value measurement method. The following table summarizes stock-based compensation expense recognized by the Companies in the period ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005:
Restricted stock units
Performance-based restricted stock
Non-officer director deferred stock compensation
If the Companies had applied the fair value recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation,” as amended by SFAS No. 148, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation – Transition and Disclosure – An Amendment of FASB Statement No. 123,” for the purposes of recognizing expense for stock-based compensation arrangements, the following table illustrates the effect on net income and earnings per share for the period ended December 31, 2005:
Net income, as reported
Add: Stock-based compensation expense included in reported net income,
net of related tax effects
Deduct: Total stock-based compensation expense determined under fair
value method for all awards, net of related tax effects
Pro forma net income
Earnings per common share:
Basic — as reported
Basic — pro forma
Diluted — as reported
Diluted — pro forma
Stock Options
Stock options generally vest over a three-year period and have a term of ten years. Options are granted at an exercise price equal to the fair market value of a common share when the option was granted. The Companies generally recognize compensation expense (based on the fair value of stock option awards) over the continuous service period in which the options vest. Awards to employees currently eligible for retirement are expensed in the month awarded.
The outstanding options are “equity awards” because shares of Con Edison common stock are delivered upon exercise of the options. As equity awards, the fair value of the options is measured at the grant date. There were no options granted in 2007. The weighted-average fair values of options granted in 2006 and 2005 are $3.81 and $4.51 per share, respectively. These values were estimated at the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following weighted-average assumptions:
Risk-free interest rate
Expected life
Expected stock volatility
Expected dividend yield
The weighted average risk-free rate is calculated using the five-year U.S. Treasury securities rate on the grant date of each stock option and then weighted for the number of shares awarded. The expected life of the options is based on historical employee exercise behavior and post-vesting cancellations. The expected stock volatility is calculated using the quarterly closing prices of Con Edison stock over a period of five years, which approximates the expected term of the options. The expected dividend yield is calculated using the annualized dividend divided by the stock price on the date of grant.
109
A summary of changes in the status of stock options awarded as of December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 is as follows:
Outstanding at 12/31/04
Granted
Exercised
Forfeited
Outstanding at 12/31/05
Outstanding at 12/31/06
Outstanding at 12/31/07
The change in the fair value of all outstanding options from their grant dates to December 31, 2007 and 2006 (aggregate intrinsic value) for Con Edison were $38 million and $46 million, respectively. The change in the fair value of all outstanding options from their grant dates to December 31, 2007 and 2006 (aggregate intrinsic value) for Con Edison of New York was $31 million and $38 million, respectively. The aggregate intrinsic value of options exercised in 2007 and 2006 was $16 million and $7 million, respectively, and the cash received by Con Edison for payment of the exercise price was $82 million and $34 million, respectively. The weighted average remaining contractual life of options outstanding is four years as of December 31, 2007.
The following table summarizes stock options outstanding at December 31, 2007 for each plan year for the Companies:
Options
Outstanding
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
110
The exercise prices of options awarded in 2006 and 2005 range from $43.50 to $46.88 and $42.18 to $43.72, respectively. The total expense to be recognized in future periods for unvested stock options outstanding as of December 31, 2007 is $1 million for Con Edison and Con Edison of New York.
Restricted Stock Units
Restricted stock unit awards under the LTIP have been made as follows: (i) to officers and certain employees, including awards that provide for adjustment of the number of units (performance-restricted stock units or Performance RSUs); and (ii) in connection with the directors’ deferred compensation plan. Each restricted stock unit awarded represents the right to receive, upon vesting, one share of Con Edison common stock, or, except for units awarded under the directors’ plan, the cash value of a share or a combination thereof.
In accordance with SFAS No. 123(R), for outstanding restricted stock awards other than Performance RSUs or awards under the directors’ deferred compensation plan, the Companies have accrued a liability based on the market value of a common share on the grant date and are recognizing compensation expense over the vesting period. The weighted average vesting period for outstanding awards is three years and is based on the employee’s continuous service to Con Edison. Prior to vesting, the awards are subject to forfeiture in whole or in part under certain circumstances. The awards are “liability awards” because each restricted stock unit represents the right to receive, upon vesting, one share of Con Edison common stock, the cash value of a share or a combination thereof. As such, prior to vesting, changes in the fair value of the units are reflected in net income. At December 31, 2007 and 2006, there were 114,505 and 92,500 units outstanding, respectively, for Con Edison, of which 62,505 and 41,700 units outstanding, respectively, for Con Edison of New York. The weighted average fair value as of the grant date of the outstanding units other than Performance RSUs or awards under the directors’ deferred compensation plan for December 31, 2007 and 2006 was $42.834 and $40.877 per unit, respectively, for Con Edison. The weighted average fair value as of the grant date of the outstanding units for December 31, 2007 and 2006 was $45.838 and $43.233 per unit, respectively, for Con Edison of New York. At December 31, 2006, 130,000 vested restricted stock units were distributed to a retired officer. The total expense to be recognized by the Companies in future periods for unvested awards outstanding as of December 31, 2007 for Con Edison and Con Edison of New York was $1 million.
The number of units in each annual Performance RSU award is subject to adjustment as follows: (i) 50 percent of the units awarded will be multiplied by a factor that may range from 0 to 150 percent based on Con Edison’s total shareholder return relative to a specified peer group during a specified performance period (the TSR portion); and (ii) 50 percent of the units awarded will be multiplied by a factor that may range from 0 to 132 percent based on determinations made in connection with Con Edison of New York’s Executive Incentive Plan, or, for certain officers, the O&R Annual Team Incentive Plan or goals relating to Con Edison’s competitive energy businesses (the EIP portion). Units generally vest when the performance period ends.
For the TSR portion of Performance RSU, the Companies use a Monte Carlo simulation model to estimate the fair value of the awards. The fair value is recomputed each reporting period as of the earlier of the reporting date and the vesting date. For the EIP portion of Performance RSU, the fair value of the awards is determined using the market price as of the earlier of the reporting date or the vesting date. Performance RSU awards are “liability awards” because each Performance RSU represents the right to receive, upon vesting, one share of Con Edison common stock, the cash value of a share or a combination thereof. As such, changes in the fair value of the Performance RSUs are reflected in net income. The following table illustrates the assumptions used to calculate the fair value of the awards:
Expected term
Expected volatility
Expected quarterly dividends
The risk-free rate is based on the U.S. Treasury zero-coupon yield curve on the date of grant. The expected term of the Performance RSUs is three years, which equals the vesting period. The Companies do not expect significant forfeitures to occur. The expected volatility is calculated using daily closing stock prices over a period of three years, which approximates the expected term of the awards. Expected annual escalation of dividends is based on historical trends.
A summary of changes in the status of the Performance RSUs TSR portion during the period ended December 31, 2007 is as follows:
WeightedAverage
Fair Value*
Non-vested at 12/31/06
Vested and Exercised
Non-vested at 12/31/07
111
A summary of changes in the status of the Performance RSUs’ EIP portion during the period ended December 31, 2007 is as follows:
The total expense to be recognized by Con Edison in future periods for unvested Performance RSUs outstanding as of December 31, 2007 is $10 million, including $8 million for Con Edison of New York.
Con Edison has a deferred stock compensation plan for non-officer directors. Awards under the deferred compensation stock plan are covered by the LTIP. Each director receives 1,500 stock units annually for service as a director. These stock units are deferred until the director’s termination of service. Directors may elect to receive dividend equivalents earned on stock units in cash payments. Restricted stock units issued under the directors’ deferred compensation plan are considered “equity awards,” because they may only be settled in shares. Directors immediately vest in units issued to them. The fair value of the units is determined using the closing price of Con Edison’s common stock on the business day immediately preceding the date of issue. In the period ended December 31, 2007, approximately 22,386 units were issued.
Stock Purchase Plan
The Stock Purchase Plan provides for the Companies to contribute $1 for each $9 invested by their directors, officers or employees to purchase Con Edison common stock under the plan. Eligible participants may invest up to $25,000 during any calendar year (subject to an additional limitation for officers and employees of not more than 20% of their pay). Dividends paid on shares held under the plan are reinvested in additional shares unless otherwise directed by the participant.
Participants in the plan immediately vest in shares purchased by them under the plan. The fair value of the shares of Con Edison common stock purchased under the plan was calculated using the average of the high and low composite sale prices at which shares were traded at the New York Stock Exchange on the trading day immediately preceding such purchase dates. During 2007, 2006 and 2005, 633,647, 624,751 and 590,413 shares were purchased under the Stock Purchase Plan at a weighted average price of $47.70, $45.33 and $45.05 per share, respectively.
Note N – Financial Information by Business Segment
The business segments of each of the Companies were determined based on management’s reporting and decision-making requirements in accordance with SFAS No. 131, “Disclosures About Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information.”
Con Edison’s principal business segments are Con Edison of New York’s regulated electric, gas and steam utility activities, O&R’s regulated electric and gas utility activities and Con Edison’s competitive businesses. See Note U. Con Edison of New York’s principal business segments are its regulated electric, gas and steam utility activities.
All revenues of these business segments, excluding revenues earned by Con Edison Development on certain energy infrastructure projects, which are deemed to be immaterial, are from customers located in the United States of America. Also, all assets of the business segments, excluding certain investments in energy infrastructure projects by Con Edison Development ($245 million at December 31, 2007), are located in the United States of America. The accounting policies of the segments are the same as those described in Note A.
Common services shared by the business segments are assigned directly or allocated based on various cost factors, depending on the nature of the service provided.
112
The financial data for the business segments are as follows:
As of and for the Year EndedDecember 31, 2007
Consolidation adjustments
Other*
Competitive energy businesses****
Other**
As of and for the Year EndedDecember 31, 2006
Competitive businesses
As of and for the Year EndedDecember 31, 2005
113
Note O – Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities
Derivative instruments and hedging activities are accounted for in accordance with SFAS No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,” as amended (SFAS No. 133). Under SFAS No. 133, derivatives are recognized on the balance sheet at fair value, unless an exception is available under the standard. Certain qualifying derivative contracts have been designated as normal purchases or normal sales contracts. These contracts are not reported at fair value under SFAS No. 133.
Energy Price Hedging
Con Edison’s subsidiaries hedge market price fluctuations associated with physical purchases and sales of electricity, natural gas, and steam by using derivative instruments including futures, forwards, basis swaps, options, transmission congestion contracts and financial transmission rights contracts. The fair values of these hedges at December 31, 2007 and 2006 were as follows:
Fair value of net assets
Generally, the collateral requirements associated with, and settlement of, derivative transactions are included in net cash flows from operating activities in the Companies’ consolidated statement of cash flows.
Credit Exposure
The Companies are exposed to credit risk related to transactions entered into primarily for the various energy supply and hedging activities by the Utilities and the competitive energy businesses. The Companies use credit policies to manage this risk, including an established credit approval process, monitoring of counterparty limits, netting provisions within agreements, collateral or prepayment arrangements, credit insurance and credit default swaps.
Con Edison and Con Edison of New York had $158 million and $39 million of credit exposure in connection with energy supply and hedging activities, net of collateral and reserves, at December 31, 2007, respectively. Con Edison’s net credit exposure consisted of $99 million with investment-grade counterparties (a portion of which is insured through credit insurance and hedged with credit default swaps), and $59 million primarily with commodity exchange brokers. Con Edison of New York’s net credit exposure was primarily with commodity exchange brokers.
Cash Flow Hedges
Con Edison’s subsidiaries, primarily the competitive energy businesses prior to July 1, 2007, designated a portion of derivative instruments as cash flow hedges under SFAS No. 133. Under cash flow hedge accounting, to the extent a hedge is determined to be “effective,” the unrealized gain or loss on the hedge is recorded in OCI and reclassified to earnings at the time the underlying transaction is completed. A gain or loss relating to any portion of the hedge determined to be “ineffective” is recognized in earnings in the period in which such determination is made.
Con Edison’s competitive energy businesses elected to discontinue the use of hedge accounting for their commodity derivatives effective July 1, 2007. As of such date, net unrealized derivative losses relative to cash flow hedges, reported in OCI, amounted to $28 million, which are being reclassified to earnings at the time the underlying transaction is completed. At December 31, 2007, there are no net unrealized derivative gains associated with the discontinued cash flow hedges remaining in accumulated OCI.
Economic Hedges
The Companies enter into certain derivative instruments that do not qualify or are not designated as hedges under SFAS No. 133. However, management believes these instruments represent economic hedges that mitigate exposure to fluctuations in commodity prices. The Utilities are permitted by their respective regulators to reflect in rates all reasonably incurred gains and losses on these instruments. See “Recoverable Energy Costs” in Note A. Con Edison’s competitive energy businesses record unrealized gains and losses on these derivative contracts in earnings in the reporting period in which they occur. For the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, Con Edison recorded in non-utility operating revenues unrealized pre-tax losses of $8 million and $26 million, respectively.
Interest Rate Hedging
Con Edison’s subsidiaries use interest rate swaps to manage interest rate exposure associated with debt. The fair values of these interest rate swaps at December 31, 2007 and 2006 were as follows:
Fair value of interest rate swaps
Fair Value Hedges
Con Edison of New York’s swap (related to its $225 million of Series 2001A tax-exempt debt) was designated as a fair value hedge. The counterparty terminated the swap on January 2, 2008.
114
Con Edison Development’s and O&R’s swaps are designated as cash flow hedges under SFAS No. 133. Any gain or loss on the hedges is recorded in OCI and reclassified to interest expense and included in earnings during the periods in which the hedged interest payments occur. The contractual components of the interest rate swaps accounted for as cash flow hedges are as follows:
Pollution Control
Refunding Revenue
Bond, 1994 Series A
Amortizing variable rate
loans — Lakewood
Con Edison Development’s swap was reclassified at December 31, 2007 to Current Liabilities Held for Sale as a result of the pending sale of Con Edison Development generating assets. See Note U.
In late 2004 and early 2005, Con Edison of New York entered into forward starting swap agreements to hedge the interest payments associated with the anticipated issuance of $300 million of its debentures later in 2005. The swaps were designated as cash flow hedges. At the inception of each hedge, the company locked in a swap rate that had a high correlation with the company’s total borrowing costs. The swap agreements were settled in 2005 at the issuance of the debentures. A net loss of $4 million with respect to the swap agreements was recorded in OCI in 2005, which will be reclassified to interest expense over the term of the related debentures.
The following table presents selected information related to these cash flow hedges included in the accumulated OCI at December 31, 2007:
Con
Edison
Interest Rate Swaps
The actual amounts that will be reclassified to earnings may vary from the expected amounts presented above as a result of changes in interest rates. For the Utilities, these costs are generally recovered in rates and the reclassification will have no material impact on results of operations.
Note P – Variable Interest Entities
FASB Interpretation No. 46 (revised December 2003), “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities,” (FIN 46R) addresses the consolidation of a variable interest entity (VIE) by a business enterprise that is the primary beneficiary. A VIE is an entity that does not have sufficient equity investment at risk to permit it to finance its activities without additional subordinated financial support, or whose equity investors lack the characteristics of a controlling financial interest. The primary beneficiary is the business enterprise that absorbs a majority of the VIEs expected losses, receives a majority of its expected residual returns, or both.
Con Edison enters into arrangements including leases, partnerships and PPAs, with various entities. As a result of these arrangements, Con Edison retains or may retain a variable interest in these entities.
VIE assets include non-utility plant of $315 million and $323 million in 2007 and 2006, respectively, related to a lease arrangement entered into by a Con Edison Development subsidiary in 2000, to finance the construction of a 525 MW gas-fired electric generating facility in Newington, New Hampshire (the “facility”). These VIE assets were reclassified at December 31, 2007 to Non-utility property held for sale as a result of the pending sale of the assets. Debt related to the facility was $326 million and $330 million at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. Such debt was reclassified to long term debt due within one year at December 31, 2007 as a result of the pending sale. At the expiration of the initial lease term in June 2010, the subsidiary has the option to extend the lease or purchase the facility for the then outstanding amounts expended by the lessor for the facility. See Note U.
If the VIE assets are not sold and in the event the subsidiary chooses not to extend the lease or acquire the facility in June 2010, Con Edison has guaranteed a residual value for an amount not to exceed $240 million. The subsidiary also has contingent payment obligations to the lessor if an event of default should occur during the lease period. If the subsidiary were to default, its obligation would equal up to 100% of the lessor’s investment in the facility plus all other amounts then due under the lease, which could exceed the aforementioned residual value guarantee. The subsidiary’s payment and performance obligations are fully and unconditionally guaranteed by Con Edison.
Con Edison has a variable interest in a non-consolidated VIE related to Con Edison Development’s sole limited interest in an
115
affordable housing partnership that began in 2000. Con Edison Development’s maximum exposure to loss as a result of its involvement with the VIE is $5 million at December 31, 2007 and 2006. In addition, Con Edison has guaranteed the debt undertaken by the partnership. See Note H.
Con Edison of New York did not apply FIN 46R to the following five potential VIEs with which it has long-term PPAs: Sithe/Independence Partners, LP, East Coast Power, LLC, Selkirk Cogen Partners, LP, Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration Partners, LP, and Indeck Energy Services of Corinth, Inc. In each quarter of 2007, requests were made of the counterparties for information necessary to determine whether the entity was a VIE and whether Con Edison of New York is the primary beneficiary; however, the information was not made available. See Note I for information on these PPAs.
Note Q – Asset Retirement Obligations
Con Edison and Con Edison of New York account for retirement obligations on their assets in accordance with SFAS No. 143, “Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations” (SFAS No. 143). This accounting standard requires recognition of a liability for legal obligations associated with the retirement of long-lived assets. When the liability is initially recorded, asset retirement costs are capitalized by increasing the carrying amount of the related asset. The liability is accreted to its present value each period and the capitalized cost is depreciated over the useful life of the related asset.
The Utilities include in depreciation the estimated removal costs, less salvage, for utility plant assets. In accordance with SFAS No. 143, future removal costs that do not represent legal asset retirement obligations are recorded as regulatory liabilities pursuant to SFAS No. 71. The related regulatory liabilities recorded for Con Edison and Con Edison of New York were $422 million and $362 million at December 31, 2007 and $492 million and $432 million at December 31, 2006, respectively.
The Companies identified future asset retirement obligations associated with the removal of asbestos and asbestos-containing material in their buildings and equipment within the generating stations and substations, and within the steam and gas distribution systems. The Companies also identified asset retirement obligations relating to gas pipelines abandoned in place. The estimates of future liabilities were developed using historical information, and where available, quoted prices from outside contractors. The obligation for the cost of asbestos removal from the Companies’ generating stations and substation structures was not accrued since the retirement dates cannot be reasonably estimated.
At December 31, 2007, the liabilities of Con Edison and Con Edison of New York for the fair value of their legal asset retirement obligations were $110 million, as compared with $97 million and $96 million, respectively, at December 31, 2006. In addition, Con Edison and Con Edison of New York increased utility plant, net of accumulated depreciation, for asset retirement costs at December 31, 2007 by $34 million, as compared with $19 million and $18 million, respectively, at December 31, 2006. Pursuant to SFAS No. 71, Con Edison of New York also recorded a reduction of $76 million and $78 million at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively, to the regulatory liability associated with cost of removal to reflect accumulated depreciation and interest accretion costs.
Note R – Related Party Transactions
The Utilities and Con Edison’s competitive businesses provide administrative and other services to each other pursuant to cost allocation procedures approved by the PSC. The costs of administrative and other services provided by Con Edison of New York to, and received by it from, Con Edison and its other subsidiaries for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 were as follows:
Cost of services provided
Cost of services received
In addition, Con Edison of New York and O&R have joint gas supply arrangements, in connection with which Con Edison of New York sold to O&R $161 million, $149 million and $185 million of natural gas for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively. These amounts are net of the effect of related hedging transactions.
Con Edison of New York entered into financial contracts on behalf of O&R with various brokers and counterparties to hedge purchases of electricity. For the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006, and 2005, the realized gains or losses recorded as part of purchase power expense is $5 million, $9 million, and $(3) million, respectively.
As a result of an auction held in October 2005, Con Edison of New York entered into financial contracts with Con Edison Energy to hedge purchases of electricity in 2006. Con Edison of New York’s realized losses associated with these contracts in 2006 totaled $62 million. These losses were recovered under Con Edison of New York’s recoverable energy cost rate provision. See “Recoverable Energy Costs” in Note A. Con Edison Energy’s gain on this transaction was offset by a corresponding loss on a hedge position.
In December 2005, the FERC authorized Con Edison of New York to lend funds to O&R, for periods of not more than 12
116
months, in amounts not to exceed $200 million outstanding at any time, at prevailing market rates. In December 2007, Con Edison of New York loaned O&R $55 million, which was repaid in January 2008.
Note S – New Financial Accounting Standards
In December 2007, the FASB issued Statement No. 160, “Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements, an amendment of ARB No. 51” (SFAS No. 160), which is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008. This Statement requires ownership interests in subsidiaries held by parties other than the parent be clearly identified, labeled, and presented in the consolidated statement of financial position within equity, but separate from the parent’s equity. It also requires the amount of consolidated net income attributable to the parent and to the non-controlling interest be clearly identified and presented on the face of the consolidated statement of income. The adoption of SFAS No. 160 is not expected to have a material impact on the Companies’ financial position, results of operations or liquidity.
In December 2007, the FASB issued Statement No. 141R, “Business Combinations” (SFAS No. 141R), which is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008. This Statement requires an acquiring entity to recognize all the assets acquired and liabilities assumed in a transaction at the acquisition-date fair value with limited exceptions. The adoption of SFAS No. 141R is not expected to have a material impact on the Companies’ financial position, results of operations or liquidity.
In November 2007, the FASB issued FSP No. SFAS 142-f, “Determination of the Useful Life of Intangible Assets.” The guidance in this FSP would amend the factors used to determine the useful life of a recognized intangible asset under FASB Statement No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets”. The guidance in this FSP becomes effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2008, and interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is prohibited. The Companies are currently evaluating the impact of this FSP on their financial position, results of operations and liquidity.
In June 2007, the FASB issued EITF Issue No. 07-3, “Accounting for Nonrefundable Advance Payments for Goods or Services to be used in Future Research and Development Activities.” The EITF concluded that nonrefundable advance payments for future research and development activities should be deferred and capitalized. Such amounts should be recognized as an expense as the related goods are delivered or the related services are performed. If an entity does not expect the goods to be delivered or services to be rendered, the capitalized advance payment should be charged to expense. The guidance in this EITF becomes effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2007. The Companies do not expect this EITF to have a material effect on their financial position, results of operations or liquidity.
In June 2007, the FASB ratified the consensus reached by the EITF in Issue No. 06-11, “Accounting for Income Tax Benefits of Dividends on Share-Based Payment Awards”, which is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2007. The EITF concluded that a realized income tax benefit from dividends or dividend equivalents that are charged to retained earnings and are paid to employees for equity classified as nonvested equity shares, nonvested equity share units, and outstanding equity share options should be recognized as an increase to additional paid-in capital. The amount recognized in additional paid-in capital for the realized income tax benefit from dividends on those awards should be included in the pool of excess tax benefits available to absorb tax deficiencies on share-based payment awards. The adoption of EITF No. 06-11 is not expected to have a material impact on the Companies’ financial position, results of operations or liquidity.
In May 2007, the FASB issued FSP No. FIN 48-1, “Definition of Settlement in FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes.” The guidance in this FSP clarifies how an enterprise should determine whether a tax position is effectively settled for the purpose of recognizing previously unrecognized tax benefits. The guidance in this FSP became effective upon adoption of the FASB Interpretation No. 48, which the Companies adopted in January 2007. See Note L. The application of this FSP did not have a material impact on the Companies’ financial position, results of operations or liquidity.
In April 2007, the FASB issued FSP No. 39-1, “Amendment of FASB Interpretation No. 39.” This FSP permits a reporting entity to offset fair value amounts recognized for the right to reclaim cash collateral (a receivable) or the obligation to return cash collateral (a payable) against fair value amounts recognized for derivative instruments that have been offset provided that the receivable or payable arises from the same master netting arrangement with the same counterparty as the derivative instruments. The guidance in this FSP becomes effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007. The adoption of this FSP is not expected to have a material impact on the Companies’ financial position, results of operations or liquidity.
In February 2007, the FASB issued Statement No. 159, “The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities – including an Amendment of FASB Statement No. 115.” This Statement permits entities to choose to measure many financial instruments and certain other items at fair value that are not currently required to be measured at fair value. The guidance in this Statement becomes effective for fiscal periods beginning
117
after November 15, 2007. The Companies have not elected the fair value option.
In September 2006, the FASB issued EITF Issue 06-4, “Accounting for Deferred Compensation and Postretirement Benefit Aspects of Endorsement Split Dollar Life Insurance Arrangements.” This EITF requires employers to record a liability for future benefits for endorsement split-dollar life insurance arrangements that provide a postretirement benefit to an employee. The guidance in this EITF becomes effective for fiscal periods beginning after December 15, 2007. The Companies do not expect this EITF to have a material impact on their financial statements, results of operations or liquidity.
In September 2006, the FASB issued Statement No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements” (SFAS No. 157). This Statement defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value and expands the disclosures about fair value measurements. It applies to other accounting pronouncements that require fair value measurements and, accordingly, does not require any new fair value measurements. The guidance in this Statement becomes effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007. The Companies have evaluated the impact of this Statement on their financial position, results of operations and liquidity. Upon adoption of this Statement, SFAS No. 157 provides for limited retrospective application for day one gains and losses previously deferred under EITF 02-03, “Issues Involved in Accounting for Derivative Contracts Held for Trading Purposes and Contracts Involved in Energy Trading and Risk Management Activities.” To the extent that an entity has deferred day one gains and losses on their commodity contracts due to the inability to recognize them under EITF 02-03, it should record an adjustment to opening retained earnings for the difference between the fair value and carrying value of those derivative instruments on that day. Con Edison Energy has deferred day one gains under EITF 02-03. The adoption of SFAS No. 157 is expected to result in Con Edison Energy recording a transition adjustment for its day one gains in the amount of $17 million, net of taxes, to beginning retained earnings for 2008. The application of SFAS No. 157 will not impact the financial statements of other CEI subsidiaries. It will, however, require additional disclosures for items that are measured at fair value.
Note T – Con Edison Communications (CEC)
In March 2006, Con Edison completed the sale of CEC to RCN Corporation for approximately $39 million in cash. The sale resulted in a loss from discontinued operations of approximately $1 million for the period ended December 31, 2006.
Subsequent to the sale, Con Edison of New York will receive lease payments from RCN Corporation for the right to use its electric conduit system in accordance with the tariff approved by the PSC. The continuing cash flows related to the lease payments are not considered significant in relation to the revenues expected to be generated by the CEC business.
In accordance with SFAS No. 144, the loss on the sale of CEC is reported as “Discontinued operations” on Con Edison’s consolidated income statement.
Note U – Con Edison Development
In December 2007, Con Edison Development and its subsidiary, CED/SCS Newington, LLC, agreed to sell their ownership interests in power generating projects (Rock Springs, Ocean Peaking Power, CEEMI, Newington and Lakewood) with an aggregate capacity of approximately 1,706 megawatts to North American Energy Alliance, LLC for approximately $1.5 billion in cash, subject to closing adjustments. The sale is subject to review or approval by various federal, state and local regulators. The sale is scheduled to be completed in two stages during the first half of 2008. Con Edison estimates that the cash proceeds from the sale, net of repayment of project debt, taxes and transaction expenses would be approximately $654 million and that the sale would result in an after-tax gain, net of transaction expenses, of approximately $335 million. Con Edison is considering alternatives with respect to the repayment of the project debt that might result in higher cash proceeds in 2008 and an increased net after-tax gain.
In February 2008, Allco Finance Group Limited, which through subsidiaries, is one of the owners of the North American Energy Alliance, LLC requested that the Australian Securities Exchange suspend trading in the shares of Allco Finance Group Limited. Con Edison is unable to predict whether the completion of the sale may be adversely affected by developments related to Allco Finance Group Limited.
118
In accordance with SFAS No. 144, in 2007, the assets and liabilities of the generating projects were classified as “held for sale” on Con Edison’s consolidated balance sheet. Effective November 15, 2007, Con Edison ceased recording depreciation and amortization expense on these assets. Had the company continued to record depreciation and amortization, an additional charge of $5 million would have been recognized during 2007. In accordance with EITF Issue No. 87-24, “Allocation of Interest to Discontinued Operations”, which permits, but does not require the allocation of other consolidated interest to discontinued operations, Con Edison has chosen not to allocate interest associated with corporate level debt to discontinued operations. The assets and liabilities presented separately under the captions “held for sale” in Con Edison’s consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2007, consist of the following:
Non-utility property
Accumulated depreciation
Non-utility property held for sale
Cash
Accounts receivable
Inventory
Current assets held for sale
Intangible assets
Other noncurrent assets
Noncurrent assets held for sale
Current portion of long-term debt
Current liabilities held for sale
Long term debt
Noncurrent liabilities held for sale
Con Edison currently expects that one of its competitive energy businesses will provide energy management services, such as plant scheduling and fuel procurement, for the Rock Springs, Ocean Peaking Power and CEEMI projects. Such services are expected to give rise to a significant level of continuing direct cash flows between Con Edison and the disposed projects, and to provide Con Edison with significant continuing involvement with the operations of the disposed projects. As a result, under the guidance of EITF Issue No. 03-13, “Applying the Conditions in Paragraph 42 of FASB Statement No. 144 in Determining Whether to Report Discontinued Operations” (EITF No. 03-13), Con Edison has concluded that the Rock Springs, Ocean Peaking Power and CEEMI projects do not qualify for discontinued operations. Accordingly, the results of operations of these projects have been reported within continuing operations in the accompanying Con Edison consolidated statements of income.
Con Edison also expects that one of its competitive energy businesses will engage in certain services for the Newington and Lakewood projects after the sale. However, such services are expected to be much more limited than those provided to the Rock Springs, Ocean Peaking Power and CEEMI projects, and are not expected to give rise to significant level of continuing direct cash flows between Con Edison and the disposed projects, or to provide Con Edison with significant continuing involvement in the operating or financial policies of the disposed projects. As a result, Con Edison believes that the criteria within SFAS No. 144 and EITF No. 03-13 for discontinued operations treatment have been met for the Newington and Lakewood projects. Accordingly, the results of operations of these projects has been reflected in Income/(Loss) from Discontinued Operations (Net of Income Taxes) in the accompanying Con Edison consolidated statements of income . The Newington and Lakewood projects had revenues of $268 million, $194 million and $298 million and pre-tax profit (loss) of $5 million, $-, and $(20) million for 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
119
SCHEDULE I
Condensed Financial Information of Consolidated Edison, Inc.
Condensed Balance Sheet
(Parent Company Only)
Cash and temporary cash investments
Investments in subsidiaries and others
Federal income tax due from taxing authority
Deferred income tax
Common Shareholders’ Equity
Common stock
Retained earnings
Total Common Shareholders’ Equity
Long-term debt due within a year
Total Liabilities
120
Condensed Income Statement
Equity in earnings of subsidiaries
Other income/(deductions), net of taxes
Interest expense
Income/(Loss) from Discontinued Operations (Net of Income Tax Expense/(Benefit) of $1, $(13) and $(11) in 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively)(Notes T and U)
Earnings Per Common Share – Basic
Earnings Per Common Share – Diluted
Dividends Declared Per Share Of Common Stock
Average Number Of Shares Outstanding – Basic (In Millions)
Average Number Of Shares Outstanding – Diluted (In Millions)
121
Condensed Statement of Cash Flows
Dividends received from:
Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
Other – net
Contributions to subsidiaries
Common shares issued
Net Cash Flows Used in Financing Activities
122
SCHEDULE II
Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
For the Years Ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005
COLUMN C
Additions
COLUMN A
Description
COLUMN B
Balance atBeginningof Period
(1)Charged ToCosts And
Expenses
(2)ChargedTo Other
Accounts
123
The Companies maintain disclosure controls and procedures designed to provide reasonable assurance that the information required to be disclosed in the reports that they submit to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the SEC. For each of the Companies, its management, with the participation of its principal executive officer and principal financial officer, has evaluated its disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report and, based on such evaluation, has concluded that the controls and procedures are effective to provide such reasonable assurance. Reasonable assurance is not absolute assurance, however, and there can be no assurance that any design of controls or procedures would be effective under all potential future conditions, regardless of how remote.
For the Companies’ Reports of Management On Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and the related opinions of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (presented in the Reports of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm), see Item 8 of this report (which information is incorporated herein by reference).
There was no change in the Companies’ internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Companies’ most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companies’ internal control over financial reporting.
The information required for Con Edison of New York pursuant to this Item 9A(T) has been included in Item 9A (which information is incorporated herein by reference).
124
Information required by Part III as to Con Edison, other than the information required in Item 12 of this report by Item 201 (d) of Regulation S-K, is incorporated by reference from Con Edison’s definitive proxy statement for its Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on May 19, 2008. The proxy statement is to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A not later than 120 days after December 31, 2007, the close of the fiscal year covered by this report.
125
The information required pursuant to Item 201 (d) of Regulation S-K as at December 31, 2007 is as follows:
Equity Compensation Plan Information
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders
Restricted stock
Total equity compensation plans approved by security holders
Total equity compensation plans not approved by security holders
For additional information about Con Edison’s stock-based compensation, see Note M to the financial statements in Item 8 of this report (which information is incorporated herein by reference).
In accordance with General Instruction G(3) to Form 10-K, other information regarding Con Edison’s Executive Officers may be found in Part I of this report under the caption “Executive Officers of the Registrant.”
Information required by Part III as to Con Edison of New York is incorporated by reference from Con Edison of New York’s definitive information statement for its Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on May 19, 2008. The information statement is to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14C not later than 120 days after December 31, 2007, the close of the fiscal year covered by this report.
In accordance with General Instruction G(3) to Form 10-K, other information regarding Con Edison of New York’s Executive Officers may be found in Part I of this report under the caption “Executive Officers of the Registrant.”
126
1. List of Financial Statements –See financial statements listed in Item 8.
2. List of Financial Statement Schedules – See schedules listed in Item 8.
3. List of Exhibits
Exhibits listed below which have been filed previously with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and which were designated as noted below, are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this report with the same effect as if filed with the report. Exhibits listed below that were not previously filed are filed herewith.
Securities Exchange Act
File No. 1-14514
127
128
File No. 1-1217
5/16/88
6/2/89
4/28/92
8/21/92
2/18/98
129
130
131
132
Signatures
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, each Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, on February 22, 2008.
By
/s/ ROBERT HOGLUND
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant, and in the capacities indicated, on February 22, 2008.
Kevin Burke*
Robert Hoglund*
Edward J. Rasmussen*
Eugene R. McGrath*
Vincent A. Calarco*
George Campbell Jr.*
Gordon J. Davis*
Michael J. Del Guidice*
Ellen V. Futter*
Sally Hernandez *
John F. Killian*
Peter W. Likins*
Michael W. Ranger*
L. Frederick Sutherland*
Stephen R. Volk*
*By
133