Pinnacle West Capital - 10-Q quarterly report FY

     Indicate by check mark whether each registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (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. Yes þ No o

     Arizona Public Service Company meets the conditions set forth in General Instruction H(1)(a) and (b) of Form 10-Q and is therefore filing this form with the reduced disclosure format allowed under that General Instruction.

     This combined Form 10-Q is separately filed by Pinnacle West Capital Corporation and Arizona Public Service Company. Each registrant is filing on its own behalf all of the information contained in this Form 10-Q that relates to such registrant. Neither registrant is filing any information that does not relate to such registrant, and therefore makes no representation as to any such information.

See Notes to Pinnacle West’s Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

     See Notes to Pinnacle West’s Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

     The condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Pinnacle West and our wholly-owned subsidiaries: APS, Pinnacle West Energy, APS Energy Services, SunCor and El Dorado. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions between the consolidated companies have been eliminated. Our accounting records are maintained in accordance with GAAP. The preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. We have reclassified certain prior year amounts to conform to the current year presentation.

     Our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements reflect all adjustments which we believe are necessary for the fair presentation of our financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the periods presented. We suggest that these condensed consolidated financial statements and notes to condensed consolidated financial statements be read along with the consolidated financial statements and notes to consolidated financial statements included in our 2004 Form 10-K.

     Weather conditions cause significant seasonal fluctuations in our revenues. In addition, real estate, trading and wholesale marketing activities can have significant impacts on our results for interim periods. For these reasons, results for interim periods do not necessarily represent results to be expected for the year.

     On January 15, 2005, APS repaid its $100 million 6.25% Notes due 2005. APS used cash on hand to repay these notes.

     On March 1, 2005, Maricopa County, Arizona Pollution Control Corporation issued $164 million of variable interest rate pollution control bonds, 2005 Series A-E, due 2029. The bonds were issued to refinance $164 million of outstanding pollution control bonds. The Series A-E bonds are payable solely from revenues obtained from APS pursuant to a loan agreement between APS and Maricopa County, Arizona Pollution Control Corporation. These bonds are classified as long-term debt on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

     On April 11, 2005, Pinnacle West Energy issued $500 million of Floating Rate Senior Notes due April 1, 2007. Pinnacle West has unconditionally guaranteed these notes. Pinnacle West Energy used the proceeds of this issuance to repay a $500 million loan from APS. See “ACC Financing Order” in Note 5. APS intends to transfer $500 million in connection with Pinnacle West Energy’s transfer of the PWEC Dedicated Assets to APS. In the interim, APS intends to invest the proceeds or use them for general corporate purposes. See “APS General Rate Case” in Note 5 for information regarding APS’ acquisition of the PWEC Dedicated Assets.

     On May 2, 2005, Pinnacle West redeemed at par all of its $165 million Floating Rate Senior Notes due November 1, 2005. Pinnacle West used cash on hand to redeem the notes.

     On May 2, 2005, Pinnacle West issued 6,095,000 shares of its common stock at an offering price of $42 per share, resulting in net proceeds of approximately $248 million. Pinnacle West used the net proceeds for general corporate purposes, including making capital contributions to APS, which, in turn, used such funds to pay a portion of the approximately $190 million purchase price to acquire the Sundance Plant and for other capital expenditures incurred to meet the growing needs of APS’ service territory.

     On August 1, 2005, APS repaid $300 million of its 7.625% Notes due 2005. APS used cash on hand to repay these notes.

     APS had $566 million of pollution control bonds outstanding under which interest rates are reset on a daily, weekly or annual basis as of June 30, 2005. The holders of $223 million of these bonds have the right to cause APS to purchase their bonds on the applicable reset date if the bonds are not remarketed. Of these bonds, $50 million is classified as current maturities of long-term debt. The remaining $173 million of bonds are classified as long-term debt because APS has the intent and ability, as demonstrated by credit agreements in place that extend for more than one year, to refinance any bonds that APS is required to purchase.

     The following is a list of principal payments due on Pinnacle West’s consolidated long-term debt and capitalized lease requirements as of June 30, 2005:

     We have investments in auction rate securities in which interest rates are reset on a short-term basis; however, the underlying contract maturity dates extend beyond three months. We classify the investments in auction rate securities as investments in debt securities on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The purchase and sale activities related to these investments have been reclassified on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the prior-year period to show purchases and sales on a gross basis.

     APS General Rate Case

     On April 7, 2005, the ACC issued an order in the general rate case that APS filed on June 27, 2003. The order became final and non-appealable on April 28, 2005. In its order, the ACC approved the 2004 Settlement Agreement, with certain revisions. Certain key financial components of the order include:

     Power Supply Adjuster

     On July 22, 2005, APS filed an Application for Surcharge with the ACC requesting recovery of $100 million in deferred purchased power and fuel costs under the PSA approved by the ACC in APS’ recent general rate case. As required by the ACC order approving the PSA, APS filed the Application for Surcharge after the PSA “bank balance” reached $50 million and before it reached

$100 million, which APS expects to occur by mid-August of this year. APS proposes to recover the $100 million PSA bank balance over a 24-month period beginning with the billing cycle one of November 2005. The requested PSA surcharge represents an approximate 2.2% temporary increase in overall APS retail revenues.

     Equity Infusion Notice

     On July 20, 2005, Pinnacle West filed a Notice with the ACC indicating its intent to infuse more than $100 million of equity into APS during each of 2005, 2006 and subsequent years. Under Arizona law and decisions, Pinnacle West is required to give such notice at least 120 days prior to such an equity infusion into APS. The ACC may, but need not, take action on this Notice. If the ACC takes no action within the 120 day notice period, Pinnacle West may thereafter make the proposed equity infusions, at management’s discretion.

     ACC Financing Order

     On May 12, 2003, APS issued $500 million of debt pursuant to the Financing Order and made a $500 million loan to Pinnacle West Energy. Pinnacle West Energy distributed the net proceeds of that loan to the Company to fund the repayment of a portion of the debt incurred to finance the construction of the PWEC Dedicated Assets. On April 11, 2005, this loan was repaid with the proceeds of a new debt issuance by Pinnacle West Energy. See “Capital Needs and Resources — By Company — Pinnacle West Energy” in Part I, Item 2 below.

     The ACC granted the Financing Order subject to various conditions. One of these conditions is that APS must maintain a common equity ratio of at least 40% and may not pay common dividends if such payment would reduce its common equity ratio below that threshold, unless otherwise waived by the ACC. This condition is an ongoing requirement and was not affected by Pinnacle West Energy’s repayment of APS’ $500 million loan.

     Retail Electric Competition Rules

     In 1999, the ACC approved rules for the introduction of retail electric competition in Arizona. The rules include the following major provisions:

     On November 27, 2000, a Maricopa County, Arizona, Superior Court judge issued a final judgment holding that the rules are unconstitutional and unlawful in their entirety due to failure to establish a fair value rate base for competitive electric service providers and because certain of the rules were not submitted to the Arizona Attorney General for certification. The judgment also invalidates all ACC orders authorizing competitive electric service providers, including APS Energy Services, to operate in Arizona. The ACC and other parties aligned with the ACC appealed the ruling to the Arizona Court of Appeals, and in January 2004, the Court invalidated some, but not all, of the rules as either violative of Arizona’s constitutional requirement that the ACC consider the “fair value” of a utility’s property in setting rates or as being beyond the ACC’s constitutional and statutory powers. Other rules were set aside for failure to submit such regulations to the Arizona Attorney General for certification as required by statute. A request for the Arizona Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals decision was denied on January 4, 2005. To date, the ACC has taken no action on either the rules or the orders authorizing competitive electric service providers in response to the now final Court of Appeals decision. As a result, at present only limited electric retail competition exists in Arizona and only with certain entities not regulated by the ACC.

     Track B Order

     On March 14, 2003, the ACC issued the Track B Order, which required APS to solicit bids for certain estimated amounts of capacity and energy for periods beginning July 1, 2003. By May 6, 2003, APS entered into contracts to meet all or a portion of its requirements for the years 2003 through 2006 as follows:

     With final ACC approval of the 2004 Settlement Agreement, the Track B contract with Pinnacle West Energy was cancelled, effective April 1, 2005 and replaced by the Bridge PPA. Also, the Track B contract with PPL was cancelled upon closing of the purchase of the Sundance Plant. On May 13, 2005, APS acquired the Sundance Plant from PPL Sundance for a purchase price of approximately $190 million.

     General

     Although some very limited retail competition existed in APS’ service area in 1999 and 2000, there are currently no active retail competitors providing unbundled energy or other utility services to APS’ customers. As a result, we cannot predict when, and the extent to which, additional competitors will re-enter APS’ service territory.

     In July 2002, the FERC adopted a price mitigation plan that constrains the price of electricity in the wholesale spot electricity market in the western United States. The FERC adopted a price cap of $250 per MWh for the period subsequent to October 31, 2002. Sales at prices above the cap must be justified and are subject to potential refund.

     On July 31, 2002, the FERC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Standard Market Design for wholesale electric markets and, on April 28, 2003, the FERC Staff issued an additional white paper on the proposed Standard Market Design. On July 19, 2005, the FERC terminated the rulemaking proceeding.

     On August 11, 2004, Pinnacle West, APS, Pinnacle West Energy, and APS Energy Services (collectively, the “Pinnacle West Companies”) submitted to the FERC an update to its three-year market-based rate review, pursuant to the FERC’s order implementing a new generation market power analysis. On December 20, 2004, the FERC issued an order approving market-based rates for control areas other than those of APS, Public Service Company of New Mexico and Tucson Electric Company. The order required the Pinnacle West Companies to submit additional data with respect to these control areas, and on February 18, 2005, the Pinnacle West Companies submitted such data. On April 11, 2005, APS and a group of APS wholesale electric customers, the Arizona Districts, submitted a settlement that resolved concerns raised by the Arizona Districts in the proceeding. On May 2, 2005, a protest and a motion to intervene were filed by the Yavapai-Apache Energy Office with respect to the settlement between APS and the Arizona Districts. On April 5, 2005, the FERC issued a deficiency letter seeking further information from the Pinnacle West Companies relating to the APS control area and the Pinnacle West Companies filed a response on April 22, 2005. The notice period for filing comments on that response expired on May 5, 2005, and no additional comments were filed. We cannot currently predict the outcome of this proceeding, but we do not believe that the outcome will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

     Pinnacle West sponsors a qualified defined benefit and account balance pension plan, a nonqualified supplemental excess benefit retirement plan, and other postretirement benefit plans for the employees of Pinnacle West and our subsidiaries.

     The following table provides details of the plans’ benefit costs for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004. Also included is the portion of these costs charged to expense, including administrative costs and excluding amounts billed to electric plant participants or amounts capitalized as overhead construction (dollars in millions):

     Our minimum required pension contribution in 2005 is approximately $53 million. Of this amount, we have contributed approximately $27 million through July 2005. The contribution to be made to other postretirement benefit plans in 2005 is estimated to be approximately $37 million. Of this amount, we contributed approximately $18 million through July 2005. APS’ share is approximately 92% of both plans.

     We have three principal business segments (determined by products, services and the regulatory environment):

     Financial data for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 and at June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004 by business segment is provided as follows (dollars in millions):

     In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 123(R), “Share-Based Payment.” The standard establishes accounting for transactions in which an entity exchanges its equity instruments for goods or services. It also addresses transactions in which an entity incurs liabilities in exchange for goods or services that are based on the fair value of the entity’s equity instruments or that may be settled by the issuance of those equity instruments. SFAS No. 123(R) is effective for us as of January 1, 2006. We have evaluated the impacts of this new guidance and do not believe it will have a material impact on our financial statements.

     In March 2005, the FASB issued FIN No. 47, “Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations.” FIN No. 47 clarifies that an entity must record a liability for the fair value of an asset retirement obligation for which the timing and (or) method of settlement are conditional on a future event if the liability’s fair value can be reasonably estimated. FIN No. 47 is effective no later than the end of fiscal years ending after December 15, 2005. We are currently evaluating the new guidance, but do not expect the adoption of this interpretation to have a material impact on our financial statements.

     In 1986, APS entered into agreements with three separate VIE lessors in order to sell and lease back interests in Palo Verde Unit 2. The leases are accounted for as operating leases in accordance with GAAP. We are not the primary beneficiary of the Palo Verde VIEs and, accordingly, do not consolidate them.

     APS is exposed to losses under the Palo Verde sale leaseback agreements upon the occurrence of certain events that APS does not consider to be reasonably likely to occur. Under certain circumstances (for example, the NRC issuing specified violation orders with respect to Palo Verde or the occurrence of specified nuclear events), APS would be required to assume the debt associated with the transactions, make specified payments to the equity participants, and take title to the leased Unit 2 interests, which, if appropriate, may be required to be written down in value. If such an event had occurred as of June 30, 2005, APS would have been required to assume approximately $245 million of debt and pay the equity participants approximately $191 million.

     We are exposed to the impact of market fluctuations in the commodity price of electricity, natural gas, coal and emissions allowances and in interest rates. We manage risks associated with

these market fluctuations by utilizing various instruments that qualify as derivatives, including exchange-traded futures and options and over-the-counter forwards, options and swaps. As part of our overall risk management program, we use such instruments to hedge our exposure to changes in interest rates and to hedge purchases and sales of electricity, fuels, and emissions allowances and credits. As of June 30, 2005, we hedged exposures to the price variability of the commodities for a maximum of four years. The changes in market value of such contracts have a high correlation to price changes in the hedged transactions. In addition, subject to specified risk parameters monitored by the ERMC, we engage in marketing and trading activities intended to profit from market price movements.

     The changes in the fair value of our hedged positions included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 were comprised of the following (dollars in thousands):

     During the twelve months ending June 30, 2006, we estimate that a net gain of $87 million before income taxes will be reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income as an offset to the effect of market price changes for the related hedged transactions.

     Our assets and liabilities from risk management and trading activities are presented in two categories, consistent with our business segments:

     The following table summarizes our assets and liabilities from risk management and trading activities at June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004 (dollars in thousands):

     Cash or other assets may be required to serve as collateral against our open positions on certain energy-related contracts. Collateral provided to counterparties was $6 million at June 30, 2005 and $1 million at December 31, 2004, and is included in other current assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Collateral provided to us by counterparties was $122 million at June 30, 2005 and $24 million at December 31, 2004, and is included in other current liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

     On January 29, 2004, we entered into two fixed-for-floating interest rate swap transactions on our $300 million 6.4% Senior Notes. The purpose of these hedges is to protect against significant fluctuations in the fair value of our debt. Our interest rate swaps are considered to be fully effective with any resulting gains or losses on the derivative offset by a similar loss or gain amount on the underlying fair value of our debt. The fair value of the interest rate swaps was a loss of approximately $2.7 million at June 30, 2005 and is included in other current liabilities with the corresponding offset in current maturities of long-term debt on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

     We are exposed to losses in the event of nonperformance or nonpayment by counterparties. We have risk management and trading contracts with many counterparties, including one counterparty for which a worst case exposure represents approximately 16% of Pinnacle West’s $620 million of risk management and trading assets as of June 30, 2005. Our risk management process assesses and monitors the financial exposure of these and all other counterparties. Despite the fact that the great majority of trading counterparties are rated as investment grade by the credit rating agencies, including the counterparty discussed above, there is still a possibility that one or more of these companies could default, resulting in a material impact on consolidated earnings for a given period. Counterparties in the portfolio consist principally of major energy companies, municipalities, local distribution companies and financial institutions. We maintain credit policies that we believe minimize overall credit risk to within acceptable limits. Determination of the credit quality of our counterparties is based upon a number of factors, including credit ratings and our evaluation of their financial condition. In many contracts, we employ collateral requirements and standardized agreements that allow for the netting of positive and negative exposures associated with a single counterparty. Valuation adjustments are established representing our estimated credit losses on our overall exposure to counterparties.

     Components of comprehensive income for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, are as follows (dollars in thousands):

     Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Disposal

     Nuclear power plant operators are required to enter into spent fuel disposal contracts with the DOE, and the DOE is required to accept and dispose of all spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive wastes generated by domestic power reactors. Although the Nuclear Waste Act required the DOE to develop a permanent repository for the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel by 1998, the DOE has announced that the repository cannot be completed before 2010 and it does not intend to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel prior to that date. In

November 1997, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued a decision preventing the DOE from excusing its own delay, but refused to order the DOE to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel. Based on this decision and the DOE’s delay, a number of utilities, including APS (on behalf of itself and the other Palo Verde owners), filed damages actions against the DOE in the Court of Federal Claims. Arizona Public Service Company v. United States of America, United States Court of Federal Claims, 03-2832C.

     APS currently estimates it will incur $147 million (in 2004 dollars) over the life of Palo Verde for its share of the costs related to the on-site interim storage of spent nuclear fuel. At June 30, 2005, APS had a regulatory asset of $10 million which represents amounts spent for on-site interim spent fuel storage net of amounts recovered in rates per the ACC rate order that was effective April 1, 2005.

     FERC

     In July 2001, the FERC ordered an expedited fact-finding hearing to calculate refunds for spot market transactions in California during a specified time frame. APS was a seller and a purchaser in the California markets at issue, and to the extent that refunds are ordered, APS should be a recipient as well as a payor of such amounts. The FERC is still considering the evidence and refund amounts have not yet been finalized. APS does not anticipate material changes in its exposure and still believes, subject to the finalization of the revised proxy prices, that it will be entitled to a net refund.

     On March 19, 2002, the State of California filed a complaint with the FERC alleging that wholesale sellers of power and energy, including the Company, failed to properly file rate information at the FERC in connection with sales to California from 2000 to the present under market-based rates. State of California v. British Columbia Power Exchange et al., Docket No. EL02-71-000. The complaint requests the FERC to require the wholesale sellers to refund any rates that are “found to exceed just and reasonable levels.” This complaint was dismissed by the FERC and the State of California appealed the matter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In an order issued September 9, 2004, the Ninth Circuit upheld the FERC’s authority to permit market-based rates, but rejected the FERC’s claim that it was without authority to consider retroactive refunds when a utility has not strictly adhered to the quarterly reporting requirements of the market-based rate system. On September 9, 2004, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the FERC for further proceedings. State of California ex rel. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General v. FERC, No. 02-73093. Several of the intervenors in this appeal filed a petition for rehearing of this decision on October 25, 2004. The petition for rehearing has not been acted upon, and the outcome of the further proceedings cannot be predicted at this time.

     The FERC also ordered an evidentiary proceeding to discuss and evaluate possible refunds for the Pacific Northwest. The FERC affirmed the ALJ’s conclusion that the prices in the Pacific Northwest were not unreasonable or unjust and refunds should not be ordered in this proceeding. This decision has now been appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Although the FERC ruling in the Pacific Northwest matter is being appealed and the FERC has not yet calculated the specific refund amounts due in California, we do not expect that the resolution of these issues, as to the amounts alleged in the proceedings, will have a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

     On March 26, 2003, FERC made public a Final Report on Price Manipulation in Western Markets, prepared by its staff and covering spot markets in the West in 2000 and 2001. The report stated that a significant number of entities who participated in the California markets during the 2000-2001 time period, including APS, may potentially have been involved in arbitrage transactions that allegedly violated certain provisions of the Independent System Operator tariff. After reviewing the matter, along with the data supplied by APS, the FERC staff moved to dismiss the claims against APS and to dismiss the proceeding. The motion to dismiss was granted by the FERC on January 22, 2004. Certain parties have sought rehearing of this order, and that request is pending.

     California Civil Energy Market Litigation

     The State of California and others have filed various claims, which have now been consolidated, against several power suppliers to California alleging antitrust violations.Wholesale Electricity Antitrust Cases I and II, Superior Court in and for the County of San Diego, Proceedings Nos. 4204-00005 and 4204-00006. Two of the suppliers who were named as defendants in those matters, Reliant Energy Services, Inc. (and other Reliant entities) and Duke Energy and Trading, LLP (and other Duke entities), filed cross-claims against various other participants in the PX and California independent system operator markets, including APS, attempting to expand those matters to such other participants. On December 13, 2002, the judge remanded the case to state court for the second time and the matter was appealed. On December 8, 2004, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion on immunity on certain unrelated defendants. The cross-defendants will not be required to respond until the Court rules on pending motions. APS believes the claims by Reliant and Duke as they relate to APS are without merit.

     APS was also named in a lawsuit regarding wholesale contracts in California, which, after being moved to state court, has been removed to the federal court for a second time. James Millar, et al. v. Allegheny Energy Supply, et al., San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. 407867, U.S. District Court (Northern District) C-04-0519 SBA. The First Amended Complaint alleges basically that the contracts entered into were the result of an unfair and unreasonable market, in violation of California unfair competition laws. The defendants have filed a motion in the state court requesting that the case be dismissed and expect a ruling prior to trial within the next several months. The PX has filed a lawsuit against the State of California regarding the seizure of forward contracts and the State has filed a cross complaint against APS and numerous other PX participants. Cal PX v. The State of California, Superior Court in and for the County of Sacramento, JCCP No. 4203. Various motions continue to be filed, and we currently believe these claims will have no material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

     Pursuant to the terms of a comprehensive settlement entered into in 1996 with El Paso Natural Gas Company, the rates charged for natural gas transportation are subject to a rate moratorium through December 31, 2005.

     On July 9, 2003 the FERC issued an order that altered the capacity rights of parties to the 1996 settlement but maintained the cost responsibility provisions agreed to by parties to that settlement. On December 28, 2004, the D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the FERC’s authority to alter the capacity rights of parties to the settlement. With respect to the FERC’s authority to maintain the cost responsibility provisions of the settlement, a party has sought appellate review and is seeking to reallocate the costs responsibility associated with the changed contractual obligations in a way that would be less favorable to APS and Pinnacle West Energy than under the FERC’s July 9, 2003 order. Should this party prevail on this point, APS and Pinnacle West Energy’s annual capacity cost could be increased by approximately $3 million per year, from September 2003 through December 2005.

     Consistent with its obligations under the 1996 settlement, El Paso filed a new rate case on June 30, 2005, which proposes new rates and new services to become effective on January 1, 2006. Protests were filed on July 12, 2005.

     In June 1999, the Navajo Nation served Salt River Project with a lawsuit naming Salt River Project, several Peabody Coal Company entities (collectively, “Peabody”), Southern California Edison Company and other defendants, and citing various claims in connection with the renegotiations of the coal royalty and lease agreements under which Peabody mines coal for the Navajo Generating Station and the Mohave Generating Station. The Navajo Nation v. Peabody Holding Company, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the District of Columbia, CA-99-0469-EGS (the “D.C. Lawsuit”). APS is a 14% owner of the Navajo Generating Station, which Salt River Project operates. The D.C. Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants obtained a favorable coal royalty rate by improperly influencing the outcome of a federal administrative process under which the royalty rate was to be adjusted. The suit seeks $600 million in damages, treble damages, punitive damages of not less than $1 billion, and the ejection of defendants “from all possessory interests and Navajo Tribal lands arising out of the [primary coal lease]”. In July 2001, the court dismissed all claims against Salt River Project.

     In January, 2005, Peabody served APS with a lawsuit naming APS and the other Navajo Generating Station participants and seeking, among other things, a declaration that the participants “are obligated to reimburse Peabody for any royalty, tax, or other obligation arising out of the D.C. Lawsuit”. Peabody Western Coal Company v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, et al., Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis, Division No. 1, Cause No. 042-08561. Based on APS’ ownership interest in the Navajo Generating Station, APS could be liable for up to 14% of any such obligation. Because the litigation is in preliminary stages, APS cannot currently predict the outcome of this matter.

     Superfund Superfund establishes liability for the cleanup of hazardous substances found contaminating the soil, water or air. Those who generated, transported or disposed of hazardous substances at a contaminated site are among those who are PRPs. PRPs may be strictly, and often jointly and severally, liable for clean-up. On September 3, 2003, the EPA advised APS that the EPA considers APS to be a PRP in the Motorola 52^nd Street Superfund Site, Operable Unit 3 (OU3) in Phoenix, Arizona. APS has facilities that are within this Superfund site. APS

and Pinnacle West have agreed with the EPA to perform certain investigative activities of the APS facilities within OU3. Because the investigation has not yet been completed and ultimate remediation requirements are not yet finalized, neither APS nor Pinnacle West can currently estimate the expenditures which may be required.

     We are party to various other claims, legal actions and complaints arising in the ordinary course of business, including but not limited to environmental matters related to the Clean Air Act, Navajo Nation issues and EPA and ADEQ issues. In our opinion, the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

     The Palo Verde participants have insurance for public liability resulting from nuclear energy hazards to the full limit of liability under federal law. This potential liability is covered by primary liability insurance provided by commercial insurance carriers in the amount of $300 million and the balance by an industry-wide retrospective assessment program. If losses at any nuclear power plant covered by the programs exceed the accumulated funds, APS could be assessed retrospective premium adjustments. The maximum assessment per reactor under the program for each nuclear incident is approximately $101 million, subject to an annual limit of $10 million per incident. Based on APS’ interest in the three Palo Verde units, APS’ maximum potential assessment per incident for all three units is approximately $88 million, with an annual payment limitation of approximately $9 million.

     The Palo Verde participants maintain “all risk” (including nuclear hazards) insurance for property damage to, and decontamination of, property at Palo Verde in the aggregate amount of $2.75 billion, a substantial portion of which must first be applied to stabilization and decontamination. APS has also secured insurance against portions of any increased cost of generation or purchased power and business interruption resulting from a sudden and unforeseen outage of any of the three units. The insurance coverage discussed in this and the previous paragraph is subject to certain policy conditions and exclusions.

     Possible Price-Anderson Act Changes

     Versions of comprehensive energy bills signed by the President on August 8, 2005 contain provisions that would amend the Price-Anderson Act, addressing public liability from nuclear energy hazards in ways that would increase the annual limit on retrospective assessments from $10.0 million to $15.0 million per reactor per incident with APS’ annual exposure per incident increasing from $9.0 million to $13 million.

     The following table provides detail of other income and other expense for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 (dollars in thousands):

     We have issued parental guarantees and letters of credit and obtained surety bonds on behalf of our unregulated subsidiaries. Our parental guarantees related to Pinnacle West Energy consist of equipment and performance guarantees related to our generation construction program, and long-term service agreement guarantees for new power plants. Our credit support instruments enable APS Energy Services to offer commodity energy and energy-related products. Non-performance or non-payment under the original contract by our unregulated subsidiaries would require us to perform under the guarantee or surety bond. No liability is currently recorded on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets related to Pinnacle West’s guarantees on behalf of its subsidiaries. Our guarantees have no recourse or collateral provisions to allow us to recover amounts paid under the guarantee. The amounts and approximate terms of our guarantees and surety bonds for each subsidiary at June 30, 2005 are as follows (dollars in millions):

     At June 30, 2005, we had entered into approximately $37 million of letters of credit which support various transmission and construction agreements. These letters of credit expire in 2005 and 2006. We intend to provide from either existing or new facilities for the extension, renewal or substitution of the letters of credit to the extent required. At June 30, 2005, Pinnacle West had approximately $4 million of letters of credit related to workers’ compensation expiring in 2006.

     APS has entered into various agreements that require letters of credit for financial assurance purposes. At June 30, 2005, approximately $200 million of letters of credit were outstanding to support existing pollution control bonds of approximately $200 million. The letters of credit are available to fund the payment of principal and interest of such debt obligations. In July 2004, $150 million of these letters of credit were renewed for a three-year term and expire in 2007. The remainder expire in 2005. APS has also entered into approximately $100 million of letters of credit to support certain equity lessors in the Palo Verde sale leaseback transactions (see Note 9 for further details on the Palo Verde sale leaseback transactions). These letters of credit expire in 2010. Additionally, APS has approximately $5 million of letters of credit related to counterparty collateral requirements expiring in 2006. APS intends to provide from either existing or new facilities for the extension, renewal or substitution of the letters of credit to the extent required.

     We enter into agreements that include indemnification provisions relating to liabilities arising from or related to certain of our agreements. APS has agreed to indemnify the equity participants and other parties in the Palo Verde sale leaseback transactions with respect to certain tax matters. Generally, a maximum obligation is not explicitly stated in the indemnification provisions and therefore, the overall maximum amount of the obligation under such indemnification provisions cannot be reasonably estimated. Based on historical experience and evaluation of the specific indemnities, we do not believe that any material loss related to such indemnification provisions is likely.

     See Note 4 for information regarding Pinnacle West’s guarantee of $500 million of Pinnacle West Energy’s debt obligations.

     The following table presents earnings per weighted average common share outstanding for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004:

     Dilutive stock options increased average common shares outstanding by approximately 107,000 shares and 85,000 shares for the three months ended June 30, 2005 and June 30, 2004, respectively, and by approximately 100,000 shares and 87,000 shares for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and June 30, 2004, respectively.

     Options to purchase 491,984 shares for the three-month period ended June 30, 2005 and 503,859 shares of common stock for the six month period ended June 30, 2005 were outstanding but were not included in the computation of earnings per share because the options’ exercise prices were greater than the average market price of the common shares. Options to purchase shares of common stock that were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share for that same reason were 2,325,165 shares for the three-month period ended June 30, 2004 and 2,355,287 shares for the six-month period ended June 30, 2004.

     Silverhawk (marketing and trading segment) – In June 2005, we entered into an agreement to sell our 75% interest in Silverhawk to NPC. Closing of the sale is subject to regulatory approvals, including approval by the Nevada Public Utilities Commission and the FERC, which are expected to occur by this fall. As a result of this pending sale, we recorded an after-tax loss from discontinued operations of approximately $55 million. The assets held for sale at June 30, 2005 are $207 million, of which property, plant and equipment accounted for approximately $200 million. Liabilities held for sale relate to accounts payable in the amount of $2 million.

     SunCor (real estate segment) – In 2005, SunCor sold commercial properties, which are required to be reported as discontinued operations on Pinnacle West’s Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income in accordance with SFAS No. 144. The assets held for sale at June 30, 2005 relate to property in the amount of $35 million. Liabilities held for sale relate to current maturities of long-term debt in the amount of $29 million.

     NAC (other segment) – In 2004, we sold our investment in NAC.

     The following table provides revenue and income (loss) before income taxes and after income taxes classified as discontinued operations on Pinnacle West’s Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 (dollars in millions):