Resolution of Uncertain Tax Positions |
In June 2007, DPL agreed to a settlement with the State of Delaware related to the allocation of a gain on the sale of real property that occurred in 2001, pursuant to which DPL has made a cash payment of approximately $12 million, consisting of $7.4 million in tax and $4.6 million in interest. DPL's FIN 48 tax reserves for this issue were in excess of the amount finally settled with the State. As a result, excess reserves of $2.8 million were credited to DPL's income tax expense in the second quarter. Because the matter involved a Conectiv heritage tax contingency that existed at the time of the acquisition of Conectiv in August 2002, an additional adjustment of $1.9 million has been recorded in Corporate and Other to eliminate a portion of the tax benefit recorded by DPL. |
Resolution of Certain Internal Revenue Service Audit Matters |
In the second quarter of 2006, PHI resolved certain, but not all, tax matters that were raised in Internal Revenue Service audits related to the 2001 and 2002 tax years. Adjustments recorded during the second quarter of 2006 related to these resolved tax matters resulted in an increase in net income of $6.3 million ($2.5 million for Power Delivery and $5.4 million for Other Non-Regulated, partially offset by an unfavorable $1.6 million impact in Corporate and Other). To the extent that the matters resolved related to tax contingencies from the Conectiv heritage companies that existed at the August, 2002 merger date, in accordance with accounting rules, an additional adjustment of $9.1 million ($3.1 million related to Power Delivery and $6.0 million related to Other Non-Regulated) has been recorded in Corporate and Other to eliminate the tax 16 
benefits recorded by the lines of business against the goodwill balance that resulted from the merger. |
Amended and Restated Credit Facility |
On May 2, 2007, PHI, Pepco, DPL and ACE entered into an amendment and restatement of their principal credit facility. |
The aggregate borrowing limit under the facility is $1.5 billion, all or any portion of which may be used to obtain loans or to issue letters of credit. PHI's credit limit under the facility is $875 million. The credit limit of each of Pepco, DPL and ACE is the lesser of $500 million and the maximum amount of debt the company is permitted to have outstanding by its regulatory authorities, except that the aggregate amount of credit used by Pepco, DPL and ACE at any given time collectively may not exceed $625 million. The interest rate payable by each company on utilized funds is based on the prevailing prime rate or Eurodollar rate, plus a margin that varies according to the credit rating of the borrower. The facility also includes a "swingline loan sub-facility," pursuant to which each company may make same day borrowings in an aggregate amount not to exceed $150 million. Any swingline loan must be repaid by the borrower within seven days of receipt thereof. All indebted ness incurred under the facility is unsecured. |
The facility commitment expiration date is May 5, 2012, with each company having the right to elect to have 100% of the principal balance of the loans outstanding on the expiration date continued as non-revolving term loans for a period of one year from such expiration date. |
The facility is intended to serve primarily as a source of liquidity to support the commercial paper programs of the respective companies. The companies also are permitted to use the facility to borrow funds for general corporate purposes and issue letters of credit. In order for a borrower to use the facility, certain representations and warranties made by the borrower at the time the amended and restated credit agreement was entered into also must be true at the time the facility is utilized, and the borrower must be in compliance with specified covenants, including the financial covenant described below. However, a material adverse change in the borrower's business, property, and results of operations or financial condition subsequent to the entry into the amended and restated credit agreement is not a condition to the availability of credit under the facility. Among the covenants to which each of the companies is subject are (i) the requirement that each borrowin g company maintain a ratio of total indebtedness to total capitalization of 65% or less, computed in accordance with the terms of the amended and restated credit agreement, which calculation excludes certain trust preferred securities and deferrable interest subordinated debt from the definition of total indebtedness (not to exceed 15% of total capitalization), (ii) a restriction on sales or other dispositions of assets, other than sales and dispositions permitted by the amended and restated credit agreement, and (iii) a restriction on the incurrence of liens on the assets of a borrower or any of its significant subsidiaries other than liens permitted by the amended and restated credit agreement. The agreement does not include any rating triggers. |
17
|
Debt |
In April 2007, PHI issued $200 million of 6.0% notes due 2019 in private placement. Proceeds were used to redeem, on May 31, 2007, $200 million of 5.5% notes due August 15, 2007 at a price of 100.0377% of par. |
In April 2007, ACE retired at maturity $15 million of 7.52% medium-term notes. |
In April 2007, Atlantic City Electric Transition Funding LLC (ACE Funding) made principal payments of $4.9 million on Series 2002-1 Transition Bonds, Class A-1 and $2.0 million on Series 2003-1 Transition Bonds, Class A-1 with a weighted average interest rate of 2.89%. |
In May 2007, ACE retired at maturity $1 million of 7.15% medium-term notes. |
In May 2007, DPL retired at maturity $50 million of 8.125% medium-term notes. |
In June 2007, PHI issued $250 million of 6.125% notes due 2017 in a public offering. Net proceeds along with cash on hand or short-term debt will be used to repay $300 million of 5.5% notes due August 15, 2007. |
In June 2007, DPL retired at maturity $3.2 million of 6.95% first mortgage bonds. |
Reclassifications |
Certain prior period amounts have been reclassified in order to conform to current period presentations. |
New Accounting Standards |
FSP FTB 85-4-1, "Accounting for Life Settlement Contracts by Third-Party Investors" |
In March 2006, the FASB issued FSP FASB Technical Bulletin (FTB) 85-4-1, "Accounting for Life Settlement Contracts by Third-Party Investors" (FSP FTB 85-4-1). This FSP provides initial and subsequent measurement guidance and financial statement presentation and disclosure guidance for investments by third-party investors in life settlement contracts. FSP FTB 85-4-1 also amends certain provisions of FASB Technical Bulletin No. 85-4, "Accounting for Purchases of Life Insurance," and SFAS No. 133, "Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities." The guidance in FSP FTB 85-4-1 applies prospectively for all new life settlement contracts and is effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2006 (year ending December 31, 2007 for Pepco Holdings). Pepco Holdings has evaluated the impact of FSP FTB 85-4-1 and it does not have a material impact on its overall financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. |
SFAS No. 155, "Accounting for Certain Hybrid Financial Instruments - an amendment of FASB Statements No. 133 and 140" |
In February 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 155, "Accounting for Certain Hybrid Financial Instruments - an amendment of FASB Statements No. 133 and 140" (SFAS No. 155). SFAS No. 155 amends FASB Statements No. 133, "Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities," and SFAS No. 140, "Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities." SFAS No. 155 resolves issues addressed in 18
Statement 133 Implementation Issue No. D1, "Application of Statement 133 to Beneficial Interests in Securitized Financial Assets." SFAS No. 155 is effective for all financial instruments acquired or issued after the beginning of an entity's first fiscal year that begins after September 15, 2006 (year ending December 31, 2007 for Pepco Holdings). Pepco Holdings has evaluated the impact of SFAS No. 155 and it does not have a material impact on its overall financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. |
SFAS No. 156, "Accounting for Servicing of Financial Assets, an amendment of FASB Statement No. 140" |
In March 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 156, "Accounting for Servicing of Financial Assets" (SFAS No. 156), an amendment of SFAS No. 140, "Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities," with respect to the accounting for separately recognized servicing assets and servicing liabilities. SFAS No. 156 requires an entity to recognize a servicing asset or servicing liability upon undertaking an obligation to service a financial asset via certain servicing contracts, and for all separately recognized servicing assets and servicing liabilities to be initially measured at fair value, if practicable. Subsequent measurement is permitted using either the amortization method or the fair value measurement method for each class of separately recognized servicing assets and servicing liabilities. |
SFAS No. 156 is effective as of the beginning of an entity's first fiscal year that begins after September 15, 2006 (year ending December 31, 2007 for Pepco Holdings). Application is to be applied prospectively to all transactions following adoption of SFAS No. 156. Pepco Holdings has evaluated the impact of SFAS No. 156 and it does not have a material impact on its overall financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. |
EITF Issue No. 06-3, "Disclosure Requirements for Taxes Assessed by a Governmental Authority on Revenue-producing Transactions" |
On June 28, 2006, the FASB ratified Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue No. 06-3, "Disclosure Requirements for Taxes Assessed by a Governmental Authority on Revenue-producing Transactions" (EITF 06-3). EITF 06-3 provides guidance on an entity's disclosure of its accounting policy regarding the gross or net presentation of certain taxes and provides that if taxes included in gross revenues are significant, a company should disclose the amount of such taxes for each period for which an income statement is presented (i.e., both interim and annual periods). Taxes within the scope of EITF 06-3 are those that are imposed on and concurrent with a specific revenue-producing transaction. Taxes assessed on an entity's activities over a period of time are not within the scope of EITF 06-3. Pepco Holdings implemented EITF 06-3 during the first quarter of 2007. Taxes included in Pepco Holdings gross revenues were $76.9 million and $63.8 million for the three months ended June 30, 2007 and 2006, respectively, and $150.1 million and $125.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007 and 2006, respectively. |
FSP 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" |
On July 13, 2006, the FASB issued FSP 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" (FSP FAS 13-2). FSP FAS 13-2, which amends SFAS No. 13, "Accounting for 19
Leases," addresses how a change or projected change in the timing of cash flows relating to income taxes generated by a leveraged lease transaction affects the accounting by a lessor for that lease. |
FSP FAS 13-2 is effective for the first fiscal year beginning after December 15, 2006 (year ending December 31, 2007 for Pepco Holdings). A material change in the timing of cash flows under Pepco Holdings' cross-border leases as the result of a settlement with the Internal Revenue Service or a change in tax law would require an adjustment to the book value of the leases and a charge to earnings equal to the repricing impact of the disallowed deductions which could result in a material adverse effect on its overall financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. For a further discussion, see "Federal Tax Treatment of Cross-border Leases" in Note (4), "Commitments and Contingencies." |
SFAS No. 157, "Fair Value Measurements" |
In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157, "Fair Value Measurements" (SFAS No. 157) which defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in GAAP, and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. SFAS No. 157 applies under other accounting pronouncements that require or permit fair value measurements and does not require any new fair value measurements. However, it is possible that the application of this Statement will change current practice with respect to the definition of fair value, the methods used to measure fair value, and the expanded disclosures about fair value measurements. |
SFAS No. 157 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007, and interim periods within those fiscal years (year ending December 31, 2008 for Pepco Holdings). Pepco Holdings is currently in the process of evaluating the impact that SFAS No. 157 will have on its overall financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. |
FSP AUG AIR-1, "Accounting for Planned Major Maintenance Activities" |
On September 8, 2006, the FASB issued FSP American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Industry Audit Guide, Audits of Airlines--"Accounting for Planned Major Maintenance Activities" (FSP AUG AIR-1), which prohibits the use of the accrue-in-advance method of accounting for planned major maintenance activities in annual and interim financial reporting periods for all industries. FSP AUG AIR-1 is effective the first fiscal year beginning after December 15, 2006 (year ending December 31, 2007 for Pepco Holdings). Pepco Holdings has evaluated the impact of FSP AUG AIR-1 and it does not have a material impact on its overall financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. |
EITF Issue No. 06-5, "Accounting for Purchases of Life Insurance -- Determining the Amount That Could Be Realized in Accordance with FASB Technical Bulletin No. 85-4, Accounting for Purchases of Life Insurance" |
On September 20, 2006, the FASB ratified EITF Issue No. 06-5, "Accounting for Purchases of Life Insurance -- Determining the Amount That Could Be Realized in Accordance with FASB Technical Bulletin No. 85-4, Accounting for Purchases of Life Insurance" (EITF 06-5) which provides guidance on whether an entity should consider the contractual ability to surrender all of the individual-life policies (or certificates under a group life policy) together when determining the amount that could be realized in accordance with FTB 85-4, and whether a guarantee of the 20
additional value associated with the group life policy affects that determination. EITF 06-5 provides that a policyholder should (i) determine the amount that could be realized under the insurance contract assuming the surrender of an individual-life by individual-life policy (or certificate by certificate in a group policy) and (ii) not discount the cash surrender value component of the amount that could be realized when contractual restrictions on the ability to surrender a policy exist unless contractual limitations prescribe that the cash surrender value component of the amount that could be realized is a fixed amount, in which case the amount that could be realized should be discounted in accordance with Accounting Principles Board of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Opinion 21. EITF 06-5 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2006 (year ending December 31, 2007 for Pepco Holdings). Pepco Holdings has evaluated the impact of EITF 06-5 and h as determined that it does not have a material impact on its overall financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, or disclosure requirements. |
FASB Staff Position No. EITF 00-19-2, "Accounting for Registration Payment Arrangements" |
On December 21, 2006, the FASB issued FSP No. EITF 00-19-2, "Accounting for Registration Payment Arrangements"(FSP EITF 00-19-2), which addresses an issuer's accounting for registration payment arrangements and specifies that the contingent obligation to make future payments or otherwise transfer consideration under a registration payment arrangement, whether issued as a separate agreement or included as a provision of a financial instrument or other agreement, should be separately recognized and measured in accordance with FASB SFAS No. 5, "Accounting for Contingencies." FSP EITF 00-19-2 is effective immediately for registration payment arrangements and the financial instruments subject to those arrangements that are entered into or modified subsequent to the date of its issuance. For registration payment arrangements and financial instruments subject to those arrangements that were entered into prior to the issuance of FSP EITF 00-19-2, this guidance is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2006, and interim periods within those fiscal years (year ending December 31, 2007 for Pepco Holdings). Pepco Holdings implemented FSP EITF 00-19-2 during the first quarter of 2007. The implementation did not have a material impact on its overall financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. |
SFAS No. 159, "The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities - Including an amendment of FASB Statement No. 115" |
On February 15, 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, "The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities - Including an amendment of FASB Statement No. 115" (SFAS No. 159) which permits entities to elect to measure eligible financial instruments at fair value. The objective of SFAS No. 159 is to improve financial reporting by providing entities with the opportunity to mitigate volatility in reported earnings caused by measuring related assets and liabilities differently without having to apply complex hedge accounting provisions. SFAS No. 159 applies under other accounting pronouncements that require or permit fair value measurements and does not require any new fair value measurements. However, it is possible that the application of SFAS No. 159 will change current practice with respect to the definition of fair value, the methods used to measure fair value, and the expanded disclosures about fair value measurements. 21
|
SFAS No. 159 establishes presentation and disclosure requirements designed to facilitate comparisons between companies that choose different measurement attributes for similar types of assets and liabilities. SFAS No. 159 requires companies to provide additional information that will help investors and other users of financial statements to more easily understand the effect of the company's choice to use fair value on its earnings. It also requires entities to display the fair value of those assets and liabilities for which the company has chosen to use fair value on the face of the balance sheet. SFAS No. 159 does not eliminate disclosure requirements included in other accounting standards. |
SFAS No. 159 applies to fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007 (year ending December 31, 2008 for Pepco Holdings), with early adoption permitted for an entity that has also elected to apply the provisions of SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements.An entity is prohibited from retrospectively applying SFAS No. 159, unless it chooses early adoption. SFAS No. 159 also applies to eligible items existing at November 15, 2007 (or early adoption date). Pepco Holdings is currently in the process of evaluating the impact that SFAS No. 159 will have on its overall financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. |
FSP FIN 39-1, "Amendment of FASB Interpretation No. 39" |
On April 30, 2007, the FASB issued FSP FIN 39-1, "Amendment of FASB Interpretation No. 39" to amend certain portions of Interpretation 39. The FSP replaces the terms "conditional contracts" and "exchange contracts" in Interpretation 39 with the term "derivative instruments" as defined in Statement 133. The FSP also amends Interpretation 39 to allow for the offsetting of fair value amounts for the right to reclaim cash collateral or receivable, or the obligation to return cash collateral or payable, arising from the same master netting arrangement as the derivative instruments. FSP FIN 39-1 applies to fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007 (year ending December 31, 2008 for Pepco Holdings), with early adoption permitted. Pepco Holdings is currently in the process of evaluating the impact that FSP FIN 39-1 will have on its overall financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and disclosure requirements. |
EITF Issue No. 06-11, "Accounting for Income Tax Benefits of Dividends on Share-Based Payment Awards" |
On June 27, 2007, the FASB ratified EITF Issue No. 06-11, "Accounting for Income Tax Benefits of Dividends on Share-Based Payment Awards" (EITF 06-11) which provides that a realized income tax benefit from dividends or dividend equivalents that are charged to retained earnings and paid to employees for equity classified nonvested equity shares, nonvested equity share units, and outstanding equity share options should be recognized as an increase to additional paid-in capital (APIC). 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 (i.e. the "APIC pool"). |
EITF Issue No. 06-11 also provides that when the estimated amount of forfeitures increases or actual forfeitures exceed estimates, the amount of tax benefits previously recognized in APIC should be reclassified into the income statement; however, the amount reclassified is limited to the APIC pool balance on the reclassification date. 22
|
EITF Issue No. 06-11 applies prospectively to the income tax benefits of dividends on equity-classified employee share-based payment awards that are declared in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2007, and interim periods within those fiscal years (year ending December 31, 2008 for Pepco Holdings). Early application is permitted as of the beginning of a fiscal year for which interim or annual financial statements have not yet been issued. Retrospective application to previously issued financial statements is prohibited. Entities must disclose the nature of any change in their accounting policy for income tax benefits of dividends on share-based payment awards resulting from the adoption of this guidance. Pepco Holdings is currently in the process of evaluating the impact that EITF Issue No. 06-11 will have on its overall financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and disclosure requirements. |
23
|
(3) SEGMENT INFORMATION |
Based on the provisions of SFAS No. 131, "Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information," Pepco Holdings' management has identified its operating segments at June 30, 2007 as Power Delivery, Conectiv Energy, Pepco Energy Services, and Other Non-Regulated. Prior to 2007, intrasegment revenues and expenses were not eliminated at the segment level for purposes of presenting segment financial results but rather were eliminated for PHI's consolidated results through the "Corp. & Other" column. Beginning in 2007, intrasegment revenues and expenses are eliminated at the segment level. Segment results for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2006, have been reclassified to conform to the current presentation. Segment financial information for the three and six months ended June 30, 2007 and 2006, is as follows. |
Separately, Mirant and SMECO have entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release (the SMECO Settlement Agreement). The SMECO Settlement Agreement provides that Mirant will assume, rather than reject, the SMECO Agreement. This assumption ensures that Pepco will not incur liability to SMECO as the guarantor of the SMECO Agreement due to the rejection of the SMECO Agreement, although Pepco will continue to guarantee to SMECO the future performance of Mirant under the SMECO Agreement. |
According to their terms, the Settlement Agreement and the SMECO Settlement Agreement will become effective when the Bankruptcy Court or the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the District Court), as applicable, has entered a final order, not subject to appeal or rehearing, approving both the Settlement Agreement and the SMECO Settlement Agreement. |
On August 9, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order approving the Settlement Agreement and the SMECO Settlement Agreement. On August 18, 2006, certain holders of Mirant bankruptcy claims, who had objected to approval of the Settlement Agreement and the SMECO Settlement Agreement before the Bankruptcy Court, appealed the approval order to the District Court. On December 26, 2006, the District Court issued an order affirming the Bankruptcy Court's order approving the Settlement Agreement. On January 25, 2007, the parties 29
that appealed the Bankruptcy Court's order filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the Fifth Circuit). The brief of the appealing creditors was filed on April 25, 2007, while Mirant's and Pepco's briefs were filed on May 31, 2007. |
In August 2006, Mirant made a cash payment to Pepco of $70 million, which became due in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement as a result of the approval of the Settlement Agreement by the Bankruptcy Court. If the Bankruptcy Court order approving the Settlement Agreement becomes a final order after the exhaustion of all appeals, the payment will be taken into account as if it were proceeds from the resale by Pepco of shares of the Mirant common stock, as described above, and treated as a portion of the $520 million payment due Pepco. If the Bankruptcy Court approval of the Settlement Agreement is not upheld on appeal, Pepco must repay this cash payment to Mirant. Therefore, no income statement impact has been recognized in relation to the $70 million payment. |
Until the approval of the Settlement Agreement and the SMECO Settlement Agreement becomes final, Mirant is required to continue to perform all of its contractual obligations to Pepco and SMECO. Pepco intends to use the $450 million portion of the Pepco Distribution related to the rejection of the PPA-Related Obligations to pay for future capacity and energy purchases under the Panda PPA. |
Rate Proceedings |
In electric service distribution base rate cases filed by Pepco in the District of Columbia and Maryland and by DPL in Maryland and in a natural gas distribution base rate case filed by DPL in Delaware, the utility proposed the adoption of a bill stabilization adjustment mechanism (BSA) for retail customers. The BSA would increase rates if revenues from distribution deliveries fall below the level approved by the applicable regulatory commission and will decrease rates if revenues from distribution deliveries are above the commission-approved level. The end result would be that the utility would collect its authorized revenues for distribution deliveries. As a consequence, a BSA "decouples" revenue from unit sales consumption and ties the growth in revenues to the growth in the number of customers. Some advantages of the BSA are that it (i) eliminates revenue fluctuations due to weather and changes in customer usage patterns and, therefore, provides for more predicta ble utility distribution revenues that are better aligned with costs, (ii) provides for more reliable fixed-cost recovery, (iii) tends to stabilize customers' delivery bills, and (iv) removes any disincentives for the regulated utilities to promote energy efficiency programs for their customers, because it breaks the link between overall sales volumes and delivery revenues. The status of the BSA proposals in each of the jurisdictions is described below in discussion of the respective base rate proceedings. |
Delaware |
On August 31, 2006, DPL submitted its 2006 Gas Cost Rate (GCR) filing to the Delaware Public Service Commission (DPSC), which permits DPL to recover gas procurement costs through customer rates. On October 3, 2006, the DPSC issued an initial order approving the proposed rates, which became effective November 1, 2006, subject to refund pending final DPSC approval after evidentiary hearings. On February 23, 2007, DPL submitted an additional filing to the DPSC that proposed an additional 4.3% decrease in the GCR effective April 1, 2007, in compliance with its gas service tariff and to ensure collections are more aligned with 30
expenses. On March 20, 2007, the DPSC approved the rate decrease, subject to refund pending final DPSC approval after evidentiary hearings. On July 17, 2007, the DPSC granted final approval for the GCR, as filed. |
On August 31, 2006, DPL submitted an application to the DPSC for an increase in gas distribution base rates, including a proposed BSA. On March 20, 2007, the DPSC approved a settlement agreement filed by all of the parties in this proceeding (DPL, the DPSC staff and the Delaware Division of Public Advocate). The settlement provisions include a $9.0 million increase in distribution rates, including certain miscellaneous tariff fees (of which $2.5 million was put into effect on November 1, 2006), reflecting a return on equity (ROE) of 10.25%, and a change in depreciation rates that will result in a $2.1 million reduction in pre-tax annual depreciation expense. Under the settlement agreement, rates became effective on April 1, 2007. Although the settlement agreement does not include a BSA, it provides for all of the parties to the case to participate in any generic statewide proceeding for the purpose of investigating BSA mechanisms for electric and gas distribution utilitie s. On March 20, 2007, the DPSC issued an order initiating a docket for the purpose of investigating a bill stabilization adjustment mechanism, or other rate decoupling mechanisms. |
District of Columbia |
In February 2006, Pepco filed an update to the District of Columbia Generation Procurement Credit (GPC) for the periods February 8, 2002 through February 7, 2004 and February 8, 2004 through February 7, 2005. The GPC provides for sharing of the profit from SOS sales. The updated GPC filing, which was amended in March 2006, in the District of Columbia takes into account the $112.4 million in proceeds received by Pepco from the December 2005 sale of an allowed bankruptcy claim against Mirant arising from a settlement agreement entered into with Mirant relating to Mirant's obligation to supply energy and capacity to fulfill Pepco's SOS obligations in the District of Columbia. The filing also incorporates true-ups to previous disbursements in the GPC for the District of Columbia. In the filing, Pepco requested that $24.3 million be credited to District of Columbia customers during the twelve-month period beginning April 2006. On June 15, 2006, the District of Columbia Public Service Commission (DCPSC) granted conditional approval of the GPC update as filed, effective July 1, 2006, and on May 24, 2007, the DCPSC issued a final approval. |
On December 12, 2006, Pepco submitted an application to the DCPSC to increase electric distribution base rates, including a proposed BSA. The application requested an annual increase of approximately $46.2 million or an overall increase of 13.5%, reflecting a proposed ROE of 10.75%. If the BSA is not approved, the proposed annual increase is $50.5 million or an overall increase of 14.8%, reflecting an ROE of 11.00%. Hearings were held in the case in June 2007. A DCPSC decision is expected in September 2007. |
Maryland |
On July 19, 2007, the Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC) issued orders in the electric service distribution rate cases filed by DPL and Pepco. The DPL order approved a temporary annual increase in distribution rates of approximately $14.9 million (including a decrease in annual depreciation expense of approximately $0.9 million). The Pepco order approved a temporary annual increase in distribution rates of approximately $10.6 million (including a decrease in annual depreciation expense of approximately $30.7 million). In each 31
case, the approved distribution rate reflects an ROE of 10.0%. The orders each provided that the rate increases are effective as of June 16, 2007, and will remain in effect for an initial period of nine months from the date of the order (or until April 19, 2008). The temporary rates are subject to a Phase II proceeding in which the MPSC will consider the results of audits of each company's cost allocation manual, as filed with the MPSC, to determine whether a further adjustment to the rates is required. For each of the utilities, the MPSC approved the proposed BSA, under which customer delivery rates are subject to adjustment quarterly (through a surcharge or credit mechanism), depending on whether actual revenue per customer exceeds or falls short of, the approved revenue per customer amount. |
New Jersey |
On June 1, 2007, ACE filed with the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) an application for permission to decrease the Non Utility Generation Charge (NGC) and increase components of its Societal Benefits Charge (SBC) to be collected from customers for the period October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008. The proposed changes are designed to effect a true-up of the actual and estimated costs and revenues collected through the current NGC and SBC rates through September 30, 2007 and, in the case of the SBC, forecasted costs and revenues for the period October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008. |
ACE projects that, as of September 30, 2007, the NGC, which is intended primarily to recover the above-market component of payments made by ACE under non-utility generation contracts and stranded costs associated with those commitments, will have an over-recovery balance of $234.6 million. The filing proposes that the NGC balance, including interest, be amortized and returned to ACE customers over a four-year period, beginning October 1, 2007. |
ACE also projects that, as of September 30, 2007, the SBC, which is intended to allow ACE to recover certain costs involved with various NJBPU-mandated social programs, will have an under-recovery of approximately $21.8 million, primarily due to increased costs associated with funding the New Jersey Clean Energy Program (CEP). In addition, ACE has requested an increase to the SBC to reflect the increased funding levels approved by the NJBPU to $18.9 million for calendar year 2007 and $20.4 million for calendar year 2008, which will require a $42.3 million increase in the SBC for the period of October 1, 2007 to September 30, 2008. |
The net impact of the proposed adjustments to the NGC and the SBC, including associated changes in sales and use tax, is an overall rate decrease of approximately $131.8 million for the period October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2008. The proposed adjustments and the corresponding changes in customer rates are subject to the approval of the NJBPU. If approved and implemented, ACE anticipates that the revised rates will remain in effect until September 30, 2008, subject to an annual true-up and change each year thereafter. |
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission |
On May 15, 2007, Pepco, ACE and DPL each updated its FERC-approved formula transmission rates based on its 2006 FERC Form 1. These rates became effective on June 1, 2007, and will provide the following approximate additional annual revenues: for Pepco, $9.5 million; for DPL, $17.2 million; and for ACE, $20 million. These updated rates reflect the end of a settlement adjustment that reduced the prior rate year's (from June 2006 through May 2007) revenues by an annual amount of $25.3 million for the three utilities. |
32
|
ACE Restructuring Deferral Proceeding |
Pursuant to orders issued by the NJBPU under the New Jersey Electric Discount and Energy Competition Act (EDECA), beginning August 1, 1999, ACE was obligated to provide BGS to retail electricity customers in its service territory who did not elect to purchase electricity from a competitive supplier. For the period August 1, 1999 through July 31, 2003, ACE's aggregate costs that it was allowed to recover from customers exceeded its aggregate revenues from supplying BGS. These under-recovered costs were partially offset by a $59.3 million deferred energy cost liability existing as of July 31, 1999 (LEAC Liability) related to ACE's Levelized Energy Adjustment Clause and ACE's Demand Side Management Programs. ACE established a regulatory asset in an amount equal to the balance of under-recovered costs. |
In August 2002, ACE filed a petition with the NJBPU for the recovery of approximately $176.4 million in actual and projected deferred costs relating to the provision of BGS and other restructuring related costs incurred by ACE over the four-year period August 1, 1999 through July 31, 2003, net of the $59.3 million offset for the LEAC Liability. The petition also requested that ACE's rates be reset as of August 1, 2003 so that there would be no under-recovery of costs embedded in the rates on or after that date. The increase sought represented an overall 8.4% annual increase in electric rates. |
In July 2004, the NJBPU issued a final order in the restructuring deferral proceeding confirming a July 2003 summary order, which (i) permitted ACE to begin collecting a portion of the deferred costs and reset rates to recover on-going costs incurred as a result of EDECA, (ii) approved the recovery of $125 million of the deferred balance over a ten-year amortization period beginning August 1, 2003, (iii) transferred to ACE's then pending base rate case for further consideration approximately $25.4 million of the deferred balance (the base rate case ended in a settlement approved by the NJBPU in May 2005, the result of which is that any net rate impact from the deferral account recoveries and credits in future years will depend in part on whether rates associated with other deferred accounts considered in the case continue to generate over-collections relative to costs), and (iv) estimated the overall deferral balance as of July 31, 2003 at $195 million, of which $44.6 million was disallowed recovery by ACE. Although ACE believes the record does not justify the level of disallowance imposed by the NJBPU in the final order, the $44.6 million of disallowed incurred costs were reserved during the years 1999 through 2003 (primarily 2003) through charges to earnings, primarily in the operating expense line item "deferred electric service costs," with a corresponding reduction in the regulatory asset balance sheet account. In 2005, an additional $1.2 million in interest on the disallowed amount was identified and reserved by ACE. In August 2004, ACE filed a notice of appeal with respect to the July 2004 final order with the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey (the Appellate Division), which hears appeals of the decisions of New Jersey administrative agencies, including the NJBPU. Briefs in the appeal were also filed by the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel (then known as the Division of the New Jersey Ratepayer Advocate) and by Cogentrix Energy Inc., the co-own er of two cogeneration power plants with contracts to sell ACE approximately 397 megawatts of electricity, as cross-appellants between August 2005 and January 2006. The Appellate Division has not yet set the schedule for oral argument. |
33
|
Divestiture Cases |
District of Columbia |
Final briefs on Pepco's District of Columbia divestiture proceeds sharing application were filed with the DCPSC in July 2002 following an evidentiary hearing in June 2002. That application was filed to implement a provision of Pepco's DCPSC-approved divestiture settlement that provided for a sharing of any net proceeds from the sale of Pepco's generation-related assets. One of the principal issues in the case is whether Pepco should be required to share with customers the excess deferred income taxes (EDIT) and accumulated deferred investment tax credits (ADITC) associated with the sold assets and, if so, whether such sharing would violate the normalization provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and its implementing regulations. As of June 30, 2007, the District of Columbia allocated portions of EDIT and ADITC associated with the divested generating assets were approximately $6.5 million and $5.8 million, respectively. |
Pepco believes that a sharing of EDIT and ADITC would violate the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) normalization rules. Under these rules, Pepco could not transfer the EDIT and the ADITC benefit to customers more quickly than on a straight line basis over the book life of the related assets. Since the assets are no longer owned there is no book life over which the EDIT and ADITC can be returned. If Pepco were required to share EDIT and ADITC and, as a result, the normalization rules were violated, Pepco would be unable to use accelerated depreciation on District of Columbia allocated or assigned property. In addition to sharing with customers the generation-related EDIT and ADITC balances, Pepco would have to pay to the IRS an amount equal to Pepco's District of Columbia jurisdictional generation-related ADITC balance ($5.8 million as of June 30, 2007), as well as its District of Columbia jurisdictional transmission and distribution-related ADITC balance ($4.4 million as of June 30, 2007) in each case as those balances exist as of the later of the date a DCPSC order is issued and all rights to appeal have been exhausted or lapsed, or the date the DCPSC order becomes operative. |
In March 2003, the IRS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR), which would allow for the sharing of EDIT and ADITC related to divested assets with utility customers on a prospective basis and at the election of the taxpayer on a retroactive basis. In December 2005 a revised NOPR was issued which, among other things, withdrew the March 2003 NOPR and eliminated the taxpayer's ability to elect to apply the regulation retroactively. Comments on the revised NOPR were filed in March 2006, and a public hearing was held in April 2006. Pepco filed a letter with the DCPSC in January 2006, in which it has reiterated that the DCPSC should continue to defer any decision on the ADITC and EDIT issues until the IRS issues final regulations or states that its regulations project related to this issue will be terminated without the issuance of any regulations. Other issues in the divestiture proceeding deal with the treatment of internal costs and cost allocations as deductions from the gross proceeds of the divestiture. |
Pepco believes that its calculation of the District of Columbia customers' share of divestiture proceeds is correct. However, depending on the ultimate outcome of this proceeding, Pepco could be required to make additional gain-sharing payments to District of Columbia customers, including the payments described above related to EDIT and ADITC. Such additional payments (which, other than the EDIT and ADITC related payments, cannot be estimated) would be charged to expense in the quarter and year in which a final decision is rendered and could have a 34
material adverse effect on Pepco's and PHI's results of operations for those periods. However, neither PHI nor Pepco believes that additional gain-sharing payments, if any, or the ADITC-related payments to the IRS, if required, would have a material adverse impact on its financial position or cash flows. |
Maryland |
Pepco filed its divestiture proceeds plan application with the MPSC in April 2001. The principal issue in the Maryland case is the same EDIT and ADITC sharing issue that has been raised in the District of Columbia case. See the discussion above under "Divestiture Cases -- District of Columbia." As of June 30, 2007, the Maryland allocated portions of EDIT and ADITC associated with the divested generating assets were approximately $9.1 million and $10.4 million, respectively. Other issues deal with the treatment of certain costs as deductions from the gross proceeds of the divestiture. In November 2003, the Hearing Examiner in the Maryland proceeding issued a proposed order with respect to the application that concluded that Pepco's Maryland divestiture settlement agreement provided for a sharing between Pepco and customers of the EDIT and ADITC associated with the sold assets. Pepco believes that such a sharing would violate the normalization rules (discussed above) and would result in Pepco's inability to use accelerated depreciation on Maryland allocated or assigned property. If the proposed order is affirmed, Pepco would have to share with its Maryland customers, on an approximately 50/50 basis, the Maryland allocated portion of the generation-related EDIT ($9.1 million as of June 30, 2007), and the Maryland-allocated portion of generation-related ADITC. Furthermore, Pepco would have to pay to the IRS an amount equal to Pepco's Maryland jurisdictional generation-related ADITC balance ($10.4 million as of June 30, 2007), as well as its Maryland retail jurisdictional ADITC transmission and distribution-related balance ($7.8 million as of June 30, 2007), in each case as those balances exist as of the later of the date a MPSC order is issued and all rights to appeal have been exhausted or lapsed, or the date the MPSC order becomes operative. The Hearing Examiner decided all other issues in favor of Pepco, except for the determination that only one-half of the severance payments that Pepco included in its calculation of corporate reorganization costs should be deducted from the sales proceeds before sharing of the net gain between Pepco and customers. Pepco filed a letter with the MPSC in January 2006, in which it has reiterated that the MPSC should continue to defer any decision on the ADITC and EDIT issues until the IRS issues final regulations or states that its regulations project related to this issue will be terminated without the issuance of any regulations. |
In December 2003, Pepco appealed the Hearing Examiner's decision to the MPSC as it relates to the treatment of EDIT and ADITC and corporate reorganization costs. The MPSC has not issued any ruling on the appeal and Pepco does not believe that it will do so until action is taken by the IRS as described above. However, depending on the ultimate outcome of this proceeding, Pepco could be required to share with its customers approximately 50 percent of the EDIT and ADITC balances described above in addition to the additional gain-sharing payments relating to the disallowed severance payments (which Pepco is not contesting). Such additional payments would be charged to expense in the quarter and year in which a final decision is rendered and could have a material adverse effect on results of operations for those periods. However, neither PHI nor Pepco believes that additional gain-sharing payments, if any, or the ADITC-related payments to the IRS, if required, would have a mat erial adverse impact on its financial position or cash flows. |
35
|
New Jersey |
In connection with the divestiture by ACE of its nuclear generating assets, the NJBPU in July 2000 preliminarily determined that the amount of stranded costs associated with the divested assets that ACE could recover from ratepayers should be reduced by approximately $94.8 million, consisting of $54.1 million of accumulated deferred federal income taxes (ADFIT) associated with accelerated depreciation on the divested nuclear assets, and $40.7 million of current tax loss from selling the assets at a price below the tax basis. |
The $54.1 million in deferred taxes associated with the divested assets' accelerated depreciation; however, is subject to the normalization rules. Due to uncertainty under federal tax law regarding whether the sharing of federal income tax benefits associated with the divested assets, including ADFIT related to accelerated depreciation, with ACE's customers would violate the normalization rules, ACE submitted a request to the IRS for a Private Letter Ruling (PLR) to clarify the applicable law. The NJBPU delayed its final determination of the amount of recoverable stranded costs until after the receipt of the PLR. |
On May 25, 2006, the IRS issued the PLR in which it stated that returning to ratepayers any of the unamortized ADFIT attributable to accelerated depreciation on the divested assets after the sale of the assets by means of a reduction of the amount of recoverable stranded costs would violate the normalization rules. |
On June 9, 2006, ACE submitted a letter to the NJBPU, requesting that the NJBPU conduct proceedings to finalize the determination of the stranded costs associated with the sale of ACE's nuclear assets in accordance with the PLR. In the absence of an NJBPU action regarding ACE's request, on June 22, 2007, ACE filed a motion requesting that the NJBPU issue an order finalizing the determination of such stranded costs in accordance with the PLR. The NJBPU and the other parties in interest have agreed to an expedited schedule for resolution of the motion. |
Default Electricity Supply Proceedings |
Delaware |
Effective May 1, 2006, SOS replaced fixed-rate POLR service for customers who do not elect to purchase electricity from a competitive supplier. In October 2005, the DPSC approved DPL as the SOS provider to its Delaware delivery customers. DPL obtains the electricity to fulfill its SOS supply obligation under contracts entered pursuant to a competitive bid procedure approved by the DPSC. |
In response to bids received for the May 1, 2006, through May 31, 2007, period, which had the effect of increasing rates significantly for all customer classes, including an average residential customer increase of 59%, as compared to the fixed rates previously in effect, Delaware in April 2006 enacted legislation that provides for a deferral of the financial impact on customers. This legislation provided for a three-step phase-in of the rate increases, with 15% of the increase taking effect on May 1, 2006, 25% of the increase taking effect on January 1, 2007, and any remaining balance taking effect on June 1, 2007, subject to the right of customers to elect not to participate in the deferral program. Customers who do not "opt-out" of the rate deferral program are required to pay the amounts deferred, without any interest charge, over a 17-month period beginning January 1, 2008. As of June 30, 2007, approximately 53% of the eligible Delaware customers have opted not to participate in the deferral of the SOS rates offered 36
by DPL. With approximately 47% of the eligible customers participating in the phase-in program, DPL anticipates a maximum deferral balance of $51.4 million. |
Maryland |
Pursuant to orders issued by the MPSC in November 2006, Pepco and DPL each provides SOS to its delivery customers who do not elect to purchase electricity from a competitive supplier. Each companypurchases the power supply required to satisfy its SOS obligations from wholesale suppliers under contracts entered into pursuant to a competitive bid procedure approved and supervised by the MPSC. In March 2006, Pepco and DPL each announced the results of competitive bids to supply electricity to its Maryland SOS customers for one year beginning June 1, 2006. Due to significant increases in the cost of fuels used to generate electricity, the auction results had the effect of increasing the average monthly electric bill by about 38.5% and 35% for Pepco's and DPL's Maryland residential customers, respectively. |
On April 21, 2006, the MPSC approved a settlement agreement among Pepco, DPL, the staff of the MPSC and the Office of People's Counsel, which provides for a rate mitigation plan for the residential customers of each company. Under the plan, the full increase for each company's residential customers who affirmatively elect to participate are being phased-in in increments of 15% on June 1, 2006, 15.7% on March 1, 2007 and the remainder on June 1, 2007. Customers electing to participate in the rate deferral plan will be required to pay the deferred amounts over an 18-month period beginning June 1, 2007. As of June 30, 2007, approximately 2% of Pepco's residential customers and approximately 1% of DPL's residential customers had elected to participate in the phase-in program. |
On June 23, 2006, Maryland enacted legislation that extended the period for customers to elect to participate in the phase-in of higher rates and revised the obligation to provide SOS to residential and small commercial customers until further action of the General Assembly. The legislation also provides for a customer refund reflecting the difference between the interest expense on an initially projected deferred balance at a 25% customer participation level and the interest expense on a deferred balance based on actual participation levels referred to above. The total amount of the refund is approximately $1.1 million for Pepco customers and approximately $.3 million for DPL customers. At Pepco's 2% level of participation, Pepco estimates that the deferral balance, net of taxes, will be approximately $1.4 million. At DPL's 1% level of participation, DPL estimates that the deferral balance, net of taxes, will be approximately $.2 million. In July 200 6, the MPSC approved revised tariff riders filed in June 2006 by Pepco and DPL to implement the legislation. |
Virginia |
As discussed below under the heading "DPL Sale of Virginia Operations," DPL has entered into an agreement to sell substantially all of its Virginia electric service operations. |
On April 2, 2007, DPL filed an application with Virginia State Corporation Commission (VSCC) to adjust its Default Service rates covering the period June 1, 2007, to May 31, 2008. The proposed rates for this service during the first month of this period (June 2007) are based on the fuel proxy rate calculation described below. The proposed rates for the remaining 11 months of the period (July 1, 2007 to May 31, 2008) reflect the fuel cost of Default Service supply based upon the results of the competitive bidding wholesale procurement process. The calculations in 37
the application result in a rate decrease of approximately $1.7 million for the period, June 1 to June 30, 2007, and an increase of approximately $4.2 million for the period, July 1, 2007 to May 31, 2008, resulting in an overall annual rate increase of approximately $2.5 million. |
The "fuel proxy rate calculation" was established under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that DPL entered into with the staff of the VSCC in connection with the approval of DPL's divestiture of its generation assets in 2000, and provides for the calculation of the fuel rate portion of Default Service rates that reflect an approximation of the fuel costs that DPL would have incurred had it retained its generating assets. Since June 1, 2006, use of the proxy rate calculation has resulted in DPL being unable to recover fully its cost of providing Default Service. The new rate application reflects DPL's position that the use of the fuel proxy rate calculation to establish Default Service rates terminated on July 1, 2007, and effective that date, it should be permitted to charge customers market based fuel costs. However, pursuant to an order dated June 8, 2007, the VSCC denied the July 1, 2007 rate increase, based on its conclusion that the MOA's provisions relating to fuel cos ts did not end effective June 30, 2007. As a result of this decision, DPL estimates that it will under-recover its cost of providing Default Service by approximately $1.7 million between June 1, 2007 and the September 30, 2007 expiration of the current SOS supply contract. Thereafter, any ongoing under-recovery will be determined by market rates for the fuel portion of SOS supply and the timing of completion of the sale of DPL's Virginia electric operations as described below under the heading "DPL Sale of Virginia Operations." |
DPL filed a complaint for a declaratory order and preliminary injunctive relief with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the Virginia District Court). On July 23, 2007, the Virginia District Court dismissed the complaint and denied injunctive relief, finding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and stating that even if it had subject matter jurisdiction, it would abstain from exercising that jurisdiction to allow the Supreme Court of Virginia to consider the issues upon which the complaint was based. On July 31, 2007, DPL filed a notice of appeal of the VSCC's orders with the Supreme Court of Virginia. The sale of DPL's Virginia electric operations as described below under the heading "DPL Sale of Virginia Operations" is not contingent upon resolution of any of the matters that are at issue in these proceedings. If the sale of the Virginia electric operations is completed, the effect, if any, on these proceedings is not determinable at this time. |
ACE Sale of B.L. England Generating Facility |
On February 8, 2007, ACE completed the sale of the B.L. England generating facility to RC Cape May Holdings, LLC (RC Cape May), an affiliate of Rockland Capital Energy Investments, LLC, for which it received proceeds of approximately $9 million, after giving effect to certain post-closing adjustments. In addition, RC Cape May and ACE have agreed to submit to arbitration whether RC Cape May must pay to ACE, as part of the purchase price, an additional $3.1 million remaining in dispute. RC Cape May also assumed certain liabilities associated with the B.L. England generating station, including substantially all environmental liabilities. |
The sale of B.L. England will not affect the stranded costs associated with the plant that already have been securitized. ACE anticipates that approximately $9 million to $10 million of additional regulatory assets related to B.L. England may, subject to NJBPU approval, be eligible for recovery as stranded costs. The emission allowance credits associated with B. L. England will be monetized for the benefit of ACE's ratepayers pursuant to the NJBPU order approving 38
the sale. Net proceeds from the sale of the plant and monetization of the emission allowance credits, will be credited to ACE's ratepayers in accordance with the requirements of EDECA and NJBPU orders. The appropriate mechanism for monetizing the value of the emission allowances for the benefit of ratepayers is being determined in a Phase II proceeding which is currently pending before the NJBPU. |
DPL Sale of Virginia Operations |
On June 13, 2007, DPL entered into separate agreements to sell, respectively, all of its distribution assets and a significant portion of its transmission assets in Virginia for an aggregate sales price of approximately $45 million. DPL currently expects the transactions to close during the fourth quarter of 2007, contingent upon the receipt of required regulatory approvals. These sales, if completed, will not result in a significant financial gain or loss to DPL. |
Distribution Purchase and Sale Agreement |
DPL has entered into an agreement to sell to A&N Electric Cooperative (A&N) all of its assets principally related to DPL's business of distributing retail electric services to customers located on the Eastern Shore of Virginia for a purchase price of approximately $39.8 million, subject to closing adjustments. The assets to be sold include real and personal property, accounts receivable and customer deposits. A&N will assume certain post-closing liabilities and unknown pre-closing liabilities related to the distribution assets including most environmental liabilities, except that DPL will remain liable for unknown pre-closing liabilities if they become known within six months after the closing date. The completion of the sale is contingent upon approval by the VSCC. |
Transmission Purchase and Sale Agreement |
DPL has entered into an agreement to sell to Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC) certain assets principally related to DPL's provision of electric transmission services located on the Eastern Shore of Virginia for a purchase price of approximately $4.8 million, subject to certain closing adjustments. ODEC will assume certain post-closing liabilities and unknown pre-closing liabilities related to the transmission assets, except that DPL will remain liable for unknown pre-closing liabilities that become known within six months after the closing date. The completion of the sale is contingent upon approval of the transfer by the VSCC and approval of two related agreements by FERC. |
General Litigation |
During 1993, Pepco was served with Amended Complaints filed in the state Circuit Courts of Prince George's County, Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Maryland in separate ongoing, consolidated proceedings known as "In re: Personal Injury Asbestos Case." Pepco and other corporate entities were brought into these cases on a theory of premises liability. Under this theory, the plaintiffs argued that Pepco was negligent in not providing a safe work environment for employees or its contractors, who allegedly were exposed to asbestos while working on Pepco's property. Initially, a total of approximately 448 individual plaintiffs added Pepco to their complaints. While the pleadings are not entirely clear, it appears that each plaintiff sought $2 million in compensatory damages and $4 million in punitive damages from each defendant. |
39
|
Since the initial filings in 1993, additional individual suits have been filed against Pepco, and significant numbers of cases have been dismissed. As a result of two motions to dismiss, numerous hearings and meetings and one motion for summary judgment, Pepco has had approximately 400 of these cases successfully dismissed with prejudice, either voluntarily by the plaintiff or by the court. As of June 30, 2007, there are approximately 180 cases still pending against Pepco in the State Courts of Maryland, of which approximately 90 cases were filed after December 19, 2000, and have been tendered to Mirant for defense and indemnification pursuant to the terms of the Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Mirant has agreed to assume this contractual obligation. For a description of the Settlement Agreement, see the discussion of the relationship with Mirant above. |
While the aggregate amount of monetary damages sought in the remaining suits (excluding those tendered to Mirant) exceeds $360 million, PHI and Pepco believe the amounts claimed by current plaintiffs are greatly exaggerated. The amount of total liability, if any, and any related insurance recovery cannot be determined at this time; however, based on information and relevant circumstances known at this time, neither PHI nor Pepco believes these suits will have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, if an unfavorable decision were rendered against Pepco, it could have a material adverse effect on Pepco's and PHI's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. |
Cash Balance Plan Litigation |
In 1999, Conectiv established a cash balance retirement plan to replace defined benefit retirement plans then maintained by ACE and DPL. Following the acquisition by Pepco of Conectiv, this plan became the Conectiv Cash Balance Sub-Plan within the PHI Retirement Plan. In September 2005, three management employees of PHI Service Company filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the Delaware District Court) against the PHI Retirement Plan, PHI and Conectiv (the PHI Parties), alleging violations of ERISA, on behalf of a class of management employees who did not have enough age and service when the Cash Balance Sub-Plan was implemented in 1999 to assure that their accrued benefits would be calculated pursuant to the terms of the predecessor plans sponsored by ACE and DPL. A fourth plaintiff was added to the case to represent DPL-heritage "grandfathered" employees who will not be eligible for early retirement at the end of the grandfathered period. |
The plaintiffs have challenged the design of the Cash Balance Sub-Plan and are seeking a declaratory judgment that the Cash Balance Sub-Plan is invalid and that the accrued benefits of each member of the class should be calculated pursuant to the terms of the predecessor plans. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the use of a variable rate to compute the plaintiffs' accrued benefit under the Cash Balance Sub-Plan results in reductions in the accrued benefits that violate ERISA. The complaint also alleges that the benefit accrual rates and the minimal accrual requirements of the Cash Balance Sub-Plan violate ERISA as did the notice that was given to plan participants upon implementation of the Cash Balance Sub-Plan. |
The PHI Parties filed a motion to dismiss the suit, which was denied by the court in July 2006. The Delaware District Court stayed one count of the complaint regarding alleged age discrimination pending a decision in another case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the Third Circuit). In January 2007, the Third Circuit issued a ruling in the other case that PHI believes should result in the favorable disposition of all of the claims (other than the claim of inadequate notice) against the PHI Parties in the Delaware District Court. The PHI 40
Parties filed pleadings apprising the Delaware District Court of the Third Circuit's decision in February 2007. In March 2007, the plaintiffs filed pleadings apprising the Delaware District Court that the Third Circuit had denied a request for a rehearing in the other case. Also in January 2007, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification and the PHI Parties filed their opposition in February 2007. In May 2007, the PHI Parties filed a motion for summary judgment at the close of discovery. Plaintiffs filed their opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment on June 19, 2007. |
While PHI believes it has a strong legal position in the case and that it is therefore unlikely that the plaintiffs will prevail, PHI estimates that, if the plaintiffs were to prevail, the ABO and projected benefit obligation (PBO), calculated in accordance with SFAS No. 87, each would increase by approximately $12 million, assuming no change in benefits for persons who have already retired or whose employment has been terminated and using actuarial valuation data as of the time the suit was filed. The ABO represents the present value that participants have earned as of the date of calculation. This means that only service already worked and compensation already earned and paid is considered. The PBO is similar to the ABO, except that the PBO includes recognition of the effect that estimated future pay increases would have on the pension plan obligation. |
Environmental Litigation |
PHI, through its subsidiaries, is subject to regulation by various federal, regional, state, and local authorities with respect to the environmental effects of its operations, including air and water quality control, solid and hazardous waste disposal, and limitations on land use. In addition, federal and state statutes authorize governmental agencies to compel responsible parties to clean up certain abandoned or unremediated hazardous waste sites. PHI's subsidiaries may incur costs to clean up currently or formerly owned facilities or sites found to be contaminated, as well as other facilities or sites that may have been contaminated due to past disposal practices. Although penalties assessed for violations of environmental laws and regulations are not recoverable from customers of the operating utilities, environmental clean-up costs incurred by Pepco, DPL and ACE would be included by each company in its respective cost of service for ratemaking purposes. |
Cambridge, Maryland Site. In July 2004, DPL entered into an administrative consent order (ACO) with the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) to perform a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to further identify the extent of soil, sediment and ground and surface water contamination related to former manufactured gas plant (MGP) operations at a Cambridge, Maryland site on DPL-owned property and to investigate the extent of MGP contamination on adjacent property. The MDE has approved the RI and DPL submitted a final FS to MDE on February 15, 2007. The costs of cleanup (as determined by the RI/FS and subsequent negotiations with MDE) are anticipated to be approximately $2.7 million. The remedial action will include dredging activities within Cambridge Creek, which are expected to take place as early as October 2007, and soil excavation on DPL's and adjacent property as early as January 2008. |
41
|
Metal Bank/Cottman Avenue Site. In the early 1970s, both Pepco and DPL sold scrap transformers, some of which may have contained some level of PCBs, to a metal reclaimer operating at the Metal Bank/Cottman Avenue site in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, owned by a nonaffiliated company. In December 1987, Pepco and DPL were notified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that they, along with a number of other utilities and non-utilities, were potentially responsible parties (PRPs) in connection with the PCB contamination at the site. |
In 1994, an RI/FS including a number of possible remedies was submitted to the EPA. In 1997, the EPA issued a Record of Decision that set forth a selected remedial action plan with estimated implementation costs of approximately $17 million. In 1998, the EPA issued a unilateral administrative order to Pepco and 12 other PRPs directing them to conduct the design and actions called for in its decision. In May 2003, two of the potentially liable owner/operator entities filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In October 2003, the bankruptcy court confirmed a reorganization plan that incorporates the terms of a settlement among the two debtor owner/operator entities, the United States and a group of utility PRPs including Pepco (the Utility PRPs). Under the bankruptcy settlement, the reorganized entity/site owner will pay a total of $13.25 million to remediate the site (the Bankruptcy Settlement). |
In March 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approved global consent decrees for the Metal Bank/Cottman Avenue site, entered into on August 23, 2005, involving the Utility PRPs, the U.S. Department of Justice, EPA, The City of Philadelphia and two owner/operators of the site. Under the terms of the settlement, the two owner/operators will make payments totaling $5.55 million to the U.S. Department of Justice and totaling $4.05 million to the Utility PRPs. The Utility PRPs will perform the remedy at the site and will be able to draw on the $13.25 million from the Bankruptcy Settlement to accomplish the remediation (the Bankruptcy Funds). The Utility PRPs will contribute funds to the extent remediation costs exceed the Bankruptcy Funds available. The Utility PRPs also will be liable for EPA costs associated with overseeing the monitoring and operation of the site remedy after the remedy construction is certified to be complete and also the cost of performing the "5 year" review of site conditions required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. Any Bankruptcy Funds not spent on the remedy may be used to cover the Utility PRPs' liabilities for future costs. No parties are released from potential liability for damages to natural resources. |
As of June 30, 2007, Pepco had accrued $1.7 million to meet its liability for a remedy at the Metal Bank/Cottman Avenue site. While final costs to Pepco of the settlement have not been determined, Pepco believes that its liability at this site will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. |
In 1999, DPL entered into a de minimis settlement with EPA and paid approximately $107,000 to resolve its liability for cleanup costs at the Metal Bank/Cottman Avenue site. The de minimis settlement did not resolve DPL's responsibility for natural resource damages, if any, at the site. DPL believes that any liability for natural resource damages at this site will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. |
Delilah Road Landfill Site. In November 1991, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) identified ACE as a PRP at the Delilah Road Landfill site in Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey. In 1993, ACE, along with other PRPs, signed an ACO with 42
NJDEP to remediate the site. The soil cap remedy for the site has been completed and the NJDEP conditionally approved the report submitted by the parties on the implementation of the remedy in January 2003. In March 2004, NJDEP approved a Ground Water Sampling and Analysis Plan. Positive results of groundwater monitoring events have resulted in a reduced level of groundwater monitoring. In August 2006, NJDEP issued a No Further Action Letter (NFA) and Covenant Not to Sue for the site. Among other things, the NFA requires the PRPs to monitor the effectiveness of institutional (deed restriction) and engineering (cap) controls at the site every two years and to continue groundwater monitoring. In December 2006, the PRP group filed a petition with NJDEP seeking approval of semi-annual rather than quarterly ground water monitoring for two years and annual groundwater monitoring thereafter if ground water monitoring results remain consistent or improve relative to prior monitoring data. NJDEP has not act ed on the PRP group's petition. In March 2003, EPA demanded from the PRP group reimbursement for EPA's past costs at the site, totaling $168,789. The PRP group objected to the demand for certain costs, but agreed to reimburse EPA approximately $19,000. In a March 19, 2007 letter, EPA demanded from the PRP group reimbursement for EPA's costs at the site between 1985 and 2007 totaling $233,563. The PRP group objected to the demand for these costs for a variety of reasons, including the fact that approximately $97,000 in costs was billed after construction of the remedy by the PRP group was completed. In a June 19, 2007 letter, EPA requested that the PRP group pay $62,623 in response costs and enter into a tolling agreement. In a July 10, 2007 response to EPA, the PRP group indicated a willingness to pay approximately $62,600 (ACE's share of which is one-third) in full satisfaction of EPA's claims for all past and future response costs relating to the site, provided that EPA provides a satisfactory s ettlement agreement with a covenant not sue and release as to such costs. The PRP group response of July 10, 2007 also questioned the need for a tolling agreement for a site that is the subject of an NFA and accordingly warrants little, if any, activity by EPA. The PRP group is evaluating EPA's July 26, 2007 counteroffer of settlement under which the PRP group would resolve its liability for EPA's past and future costs at the site by paying the offered $62,600 plus a 30% premium to cover the risk associated with EPA's unknown future costs for a total of approximately $81,400. A settlement incorporating these terms also would permit EPA to reopen the settlement in the event of new information or unknown conditions at the site. Based on information currently available, ACE anticipates that its share of additional cost associated with this site for post-remedy operation and maintenance will be approximately $555,000 to $600,000. ACE believes that its liability for post-remedy operation and maintenance cost s will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. |
Frontier Chemical Site. On June 29, 2007, ACE received a letter from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) indicating that ACE is a PRP at the Frontier Chemical Waste Processing Company site in Niagara Falls, N.Y. The letter states that NYDEC has hazardous waste manifests indicating that ACE sent in excess of 7,500 gallons of manifested hazardous waste to the site. The letter asks ACE, within 30 days, to express its willingness to enter into an ACO. If ACE is unwilling to enter into the ACO, ACE must respond to NYDEC's request for information within 45 days. ACE informed NYDEC that it has entered into good faith negotiations with a coalescing PRP group to address ACE's responsibility at the site. ACE believes that its responsibility at the site will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. |
Deepwater Generating Station. On December 27, 2005, NJDEP issued a Title V Operating Permit for Conectiv Energy's Deepwater Generating Station. The permit includes new limits on unit heat input. In order to comply with these new operational limits, Conectiv Energy restricted 43
the output of the Deepwater Generating Station's Unit 1 and Unit 6/8. In 2006 and the first half of 2007, these restrictions resulted in operating losses of approximately $10,000 per operating day on Unit 6/8, primarily because of lost revenues due to reduced output, and to a lesser degree because of lost revenues related to capacity requirements of the PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM). Since June 1, 2007, Deepwater Unit 6/8 can operate within the heat input limits set forth in the Title V Operating Permit without restricting output, because of technical improvements that partially corrected the inherent bias in the continuous emissions monitoring system that had caused recorded heat input to be higher than actual heat input. In order to comply with the heat input limit at Deepwater Unit 1, Conectiv Energy continues to restrict Unit 1 output. Beginning with the third quarter 2007, this Unit 1 restriction will result in semi-annual operating losses of approximately $500,000 in 2007 and 2008 due to penalt ies and lost revenues related to PJM capacity requirements. Beyond 2008, while penalties due to PJM capacity requirements are not expected, further operating losses due to lost revenues related to PJM capacity requirements may continue to be incurred. The operating losses due to reduced output on Unit 1 have been, and will continue to be, insignificant. Conectiv Energy is challenging these heat input restrictions and other provisions of the Title V Operating Permit for Deepwater Generating Station in the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law. |
On April 3, 2007, NJDEP issued an Administrative Order and Notice of Civil Administrative Penalty Assessment (the First Order) alleging that at Conectiv Energy's Deepwater Generating Station, the maximum gross heat input to Unit 1 exceeded the maximum allowable heat input in calendar year 2005 and the maximum gross heat input to Unit 6/8 exceeded the maximum allowable heat input in calendar years 2005 and 2006. The order required the cessation of operation of Units 1 and 6/8 above the alleged permitted heat input levels, assessed a penalty of $1,091,000 and requested that Conectiv Energy provide additional information about heat input to Units 1 and 6/8. Conectiv Energy provided NJDEP Units 1 and 6/8 calendar year 2004 heat input data on May 9, 2005, and calendar years 1995 to 2003 heat input data on July 10, 2007. On May 23, 2007, NJDEP issued a second Administrative Order and Notice of Civil Administrative Penalty Assessment (the Second Order) alleging that the maximum g ross heat input to Units 1 and 6/8 exceeded the maximum allowable heat input in calendar year 2004. The Second Order required the cessation of operation of Units 1 and 6/8 above the alleged permitted heat input levels and assessed a penalty of $811,600. Conectiv Energy has requested a contested case hearing challenging the issuance of the First and Second Orders and moved for a stay of the orders pending resolution of the Title V Operating Permit contested case described above. |
Carll's Corner Generating Station. On March 9, 2007, NJDEP issued an Administrative Order of Revocation and Notice of Civil Administrative Penalty Assessment alleging that emissions from Unit 1 at Conectiv Energy's Carll's Corner Generating Station exceeded permitted particulate emissions levels during stack testing performed in June and November 2006. The order revoked Conectiv Energy's authority to operate Unit 1 effective April 21, 2007 and assessed a penalty of $110,000 for the alleged permit violations. Conectiv Energy is continuing to investigate the cause of the stack test results. Conectiv Energy requested a contested case hearing challenging the issuance of the order and moved for a stay of the order of revocation. NJDEP issued stays of the order of revocation until August 31, 2007, to provide time for NJDEP review of June 2007 stack test data and preparation of a settlement agreement rescinding the order of revocation. |
44
|
IRS Examination of Like-Kind Exchange Transaction |
In 2001, Conectiv and certain of its subsidiaries (the Conectiv Group) were engaged in the implementation of a strategy to divest nonstrategic electric generating facilities and replace these facilities with mid-merit electric generating capacity. As part of this strategy, the Conectiv Group exchanged its interests in two older coal-fired plants for the more efficient gas-fired Hay Road II generating facility, which was owned by an unaffiliated third party. For tax purposes, Conectiv treated the transaction as a "like-kind exchange" under IRC Section 1031. As a result, approximately $88 million of taxable gain was deferred for federal income tax purposes. |
The transaction was examined by the IRS as part of the normal Conectiv tax audit. In May 2006, the IRS issued a revenue agent's report (RAR) for the audit of Conectiv's 2000, 2001 and 2002 income tax returns, in which the IRS exam team disallowed the qualification of the exchange under IRC Section 1031. In July 2006, Conectiv filed a protest of this disallowance to the IRS Office of Appeals. |
PHI believes that its tax position related to this transaction is proper based on applicable statutes, regulations and case law and intends to contest the disallowance. However, there is no absolute assurance that Conectiv's position will prevail. If the IRS prevails, Conectiv would be subject to additional income taxes, interest and possible penalties. However, a portion of the denied benefit would be offset by additional tax depreciation. |
As of June 30, 2007, if the IRS fully prevails, the potential cash impact on PHI would be current income tax and interest payments of approximately $29.8 million and the earnings impact would be approximately $8.5 million in after-tax interest. |
Federal Tax Treatment of Cross-border Leases |
PCI maintains a portfolio of cross-border energy sale-leaseback transactions, which, as of June 30, 2007, had a book value of approximately $1.3 billion. |
On February 11, 2005, the Treasury Department and IRS issued Notice 2005-13 informing taxpayers that the IRS intends to challenge on various grounds the purported tax benefits claimed by taxpayers entering into certain sale-leaseback transactions with tax-indifferent parties (i.e., municipalities, tax-exempt and governmental entities) (the Notice). In addition, on June 29, 2005 the IRS published a Coordinated Issue Paper concerning the resolution of audit issues related to such transactions. PCI's cross-border energy leases are similar to those sale-leaseback transactions described in the Notice and the Coordinated Issue Paper. |
PCI's leases have been under examination by the IRS as part of the normal PHI tax audit. On June 9, 2006, the IRS issued its final RAR for its audit of PHI's 2001 and 2002 income tax returns. In the RAR, the IRS disallowed the tax benefits claimed by PHI with respect to certain of these leases for those years. The tax benefit claimed by PHI with respect to the leases under audit is approximately $60 million per year and from 2001 through June 30, 2007 were approximately $317 million. PHI has filed a protest against the IRS adjustments and the unresolved audit has been forwarded to the Appeals Office. The ultimate outcome of this issue is uncertain; however, if the IRS prevails, PHI would be subject to additional taxes, along with interest and possibly penalties on the additional taxes, which could have a material adverse effect on PHI's financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. PHI believes that its tax position related to these transactions was appropr iate based on applicable statutes, 45
regulations and case law, and intends to contest the adjustments proposed by the IRS; however, there is no assurance that PHI's position will prevail. |
On July 13, 2006, the FASB issued FSP FAS 13-2 which amends SFAS No. 13 effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2006. This amendment requires a lease to be repriced and the book value adjusted when there is a change or probable change in the timing of tax benefits of the lease regardless of whether the change results in a deferral or permanent loss of tax benefits. Accordingly, a material change in the timing of cash flows under PHI's cross-border leases as the result of a settlement with the IRS would require an adjustment to the book value of the leases and a charge to earnings equal to the repricing impact of the disallowed deductions which could result in a material adverse effect on PHI's financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. PHI believes its tax position was appropriate and at this time does not believe there is a probable change in the timing of its tax benefits that would require repricing the leases and a charge to earnings. |
IRS Mixed Service Cost Issue |
During 2001, Pepco, DPL, and ACE changed their methods of accounting with respect to capitalizable construction costs for income tax purposes. The change allowed the companies to accelerate the deduction of certain expenses that were previously capitalized and depreciated. Through December 31, 2005, these accelerated deductions generated incremental tax cash flow benefits of approximately $205 million (consisting of $94 million for Pepco, $62 million for DPL, and $49 million for ACE) for the companies, primarily attributable to their 2001 tax returns. |
On August 2, 2005, the Treasury Department released regulations that, if adopted in their current form, would require Pepco, DPL, and ACE to change their method of accounting with respect to capitalizable construction costs for income tax purposes for tax periods beginning in 2005. Based on those regulations, PHI in its 2005 federal tax return adopted an alternative method of accounting for capitalizable construction costs that management believes will be acceptable to the IRS. |
On the same day that the new regulations were released, the IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2005-53, which is intended to limit the ability of certain taxpayers to utilize the method of accounting for income tax purposes they utilized on their tax returns for 2004 and prior years with respect to capitalizable construction costs. In line with this Revenue Ruling, the IRS RAR for the 2001 and 2002 tax returns disallowed substantially all of the incremental tax benefits that Pepco, DPL and ACE had claimed on those returns by requiring the companies to capitalize and depreciate certain expenses rather than treat such expenses as current deductions. PHI's protest of the IRS adjustments is among the unresolved audit matters relating to the 2001 and 2002 audits pending before the Appeals Office. |
In February 2006, PHI paid approximately $121 million of taxes to cover the amount of taxes that management estimated to be payable based on the method of tax accounting that PHI, pursuant to the proposed regulations, has adopted on its 2005 tax return. However, if the IRS is successful in requiring Pepco, DPL and ACE to capitalize and depreciate construction costs that result in a tax and interest assessment greater than management's estimate of $121 million, PHI will be required to pay additional taxes and interest only to the extent these adjustments exceed the $121 million payment made in February 2006. |
46
|
Third Party Guarantees, Indemnifications, and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements |
Pepco Holdings and certain of its subsidiaries have various financial and performance guarantees and indemnification obligations which are entered into in the normal course of business to facilitate commercial transactions with third parties as discussed below. |
As of June 30, 2007, Pepco Holdings and its subsidiaries were parties to a variety of agreements pursuant to which they were guarantors for standby letters of credit, performance residual value, and other commitments and obligations. The fair value of these commitments and obligations was not required to be recorded in Pepco Holdings' Consolidated Balance Sheets; however, certain energy marketing obligations of Conectiv Energy were recorded. The commitments and obligations, in millions of dollars, were as follows: |
Separately, Mirant and SMECO have entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release (the SMECO Settlement Agreement). The SMECO Settlement Agreement provides that Mirant will assume, rather than reject, the SMECO Agreement. This assumption ensures that Pepco will not incur liability to SMECO as the guarantor of the SMECO Agreement due to the rejection of the SMECO Agreement, although Pepco will continue to guarantee to SMECO the future performance of Mirant under the SMECO Agreement. |
According to their terms, the Settlement Agreement and the SMECO Settlement Agreement will become effective when the Bankruptcy Court or the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the District Court), as applicable, has entered a final order, not subject to appeal or rehearing, approving both the Settlement Agreement and the SMECO Settlement Agreement. |
On August 9, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order approving the Settlement Agreement and the SMECO Settlement Agreement. On August 18, 2006, certain holders of Mirant bankruptcy claims, who had objected to approval of the Settlement Agreement and the SMECO Settlement Agreement before the Bankruptcy Court, appealed the approval order to the District Court. On December 26, 2006, the District Court issued an order affirming the Bankruptcy Court's order approving the Settlement Agreement. On January 25, 2007, the parties that appealed the Bankruptcy Court's order filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the Fifth Circuit). The brief of the appealing creditors was filed on April 25, 2007, while Mirant's and Pepco's briefs were filed on May 31, 2007. |
In August 2006, Mirant made a cash payment to Pepco of $70 million, which became due in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement as a result of the approval of the Settlement Agreement by the Bankruptcy Court. If the Bankruptcy Court order approving the Settlement Agreement becomes a final order after the exhaustion of all appeals, the payment will be taken into account as if it were proceeds from the resale by Pepco of shares of the Mirant common stock, as described above, and treated as a portion of the $520 million payment due Pepco. If the Bankruptcy Court approval of the Settlement Agreement is not upheld on appeal, 65
Pepco must repay this cash payment to Mirant. Therefore, no income statement impact has been recognized in relation to the $70 million payment. |
Until the approval of the Settlement Agreement and the SMECO Settlement Agreement becomes final, Mirant is required to continue to perform all of its contractual obligations to Pepco and SMECO. Pepco intends to use the $450 million portion of the Pepco Distribution related to the rejection of the PPA-Related Obligations to pay for future capacity and energy purchases under the Panda PPA. |
Rate Proceedings |
In electric service distribution base rate cases filed by Pepco in the District of Columbia and Maryland, Pepco proposed the adoption of a bill stabilization adjustment mechanism (BSA) for retail customers. The BSA would increase rates if revenues from distribution deliveries fall below the level approved by the applicable regulatory commission and will decrease rates if revenues from distribution deliveries are above the commission-approved level. The end result would be that Pepco would collect its authorized revenues for distribution deliveries. As a consequence, a BSA "decouples" revenue from unit sales consumption and ties the growth in revenues to the growth in the number of customers. Some advantages of the BSA are that it (i) eliminates revenue fluctuations due to weather and changes in customer usage patterns and, therefore, provides for more predictable utility distribution revenues that are better aligned with costs, (ii) provides for more reliable fi xed-cost recovery, (iii) tends to stabilize customers' delivery bills, and (iv) removes any disincentives for Pepco to promote energy efficiency programs for its customers, because it breaks the link between overall sales volumes and delivery revenues. The status of the BSA proposals in each of the jurisdictions is described below in discussion of the respective base rate proceedings. |
District of Columbia |
In February 2006, Pepco filed an update to the District of Columbia Generation Procurement Credit (GPC) for the periods February 8, 2002 through February 7, 2004 and February 8, 2004 through February 7, 2005. The GPC provides for sharing of the profit from SOS sales. The updated GPC filing, which was amended in March 2006, in the District of Columbia takes into account the $112.4 million in proceeds received by Pepco from the December 2005 sale of an allowed bankruptcy claim against Mirant arising from a settlement agreement entered into with Mirant relating to Mirant's obligation to supply energy and capacity to fulfill Pepco's SOS obligations in the District of Columbia. The filing also incorporates true-ups to previous disbursements in the GPC for the District of Columbia. In the filing, Pepco requested that $24.3 million be credited to District of Columbia customers during the twelve-month period beginning April 2006. On June 15, 2006, the District of Columbia Public Service Commission (DCPSC) granted conditional approval of the GPC update as filed, effective July 1, 2006, and on May 24, 2007, the DCPSC issued a final approval. |
On December 12, 2006, Pepco submitted an application to the DCPSC to increase electric distribution base rates, including a proposed BSA. The application requested an annual increase of approximately $46.2 million or an overall increase of 13.5%, reflecting a proposed return on equity (ROE) of 10.75%. If the BSA is not approved, the proposed annual increase is $50.5 66
million or an overall increase of 14.8%, reflecting an ROE of 11.00%. Hearings were held in the case in June 2007. A DCPSC decision is expected in September 2007. |
Maryland |
On July 19, 2007, the Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC) issued an order in the electric service distribution rate case filed by Pepco. The order approved a temporary annual increase in distribution rates of approximately $10.6 million (including a decrease in annual depreciation expense of approximately $30.7 million). The approved distribution rate reflects an ROE of 10.0%. The order provided that the rate increase is effective as of June 16, 2007, and will remain in effect for an initial period of nine months from the date of the order (or until April 19, 2008). The temporary rate is subject to a Phase II proceeding in which the MPSC will consider the results of an audit of Pepco's cost allocation manual, as filed with the MPSC, to determine whether a further adjustment to the rate is required. The MPSC approved the proposed BSA, under which customer delivery rates are subject to adjustment quarterly (through a surcharge or credit mechanism), dependin g on whether actual revenue per customer exceeds or falls short of, the approved revenue per customer amount. |
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission |
On May 15, 2007, Pepco updated its FERC-approved formula transmission rates based on its 2006 FERC Form 1. These rates became effective on June 1, 2007, and will provide approximately $9.5 million in additional annual revenues. |
Divestiture Cases |
District of Columbia |
Final briefs on Pepco's District of Columbia divestiture proceeds sharing application were filed with the DCPSC in July 2002 following an evidentiary hearing in June 2002. That application was filed to implement a provision of Pepco's DCPSC-approved divestiture settlement that provided for a sharing of any net proceeds from the sale of Pepco's generation-related assets. One of the principal issues in the case is whether Pepco should be required to share with customers the excess deferred income taxes (EDIT) and accumulated deferred investment tax credits (ADITC) associated with the sold assets and, if so, whether such sharing would violate the normalization provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and its implementing regulations. As of June 30, 2007, the District of Columbia allocated portions of EDIT and ADITC associated with the divested generating assets were approximately $6.5 million and $5.8 million, respectively. |
Pepco believes that a sharing of EDIT and ADITC would violate the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) normalization rules. Under these rules, Pepco could not transfer the EDIT and the ADITC benefit to customers more quickly than on a straight line basis over the book life of the related assets. Since the assets are no longer owned there is no book life over which the EDIT and ADITC can be returned. If Pepco were required to share EDIT and ADITC and, as a result, the normalization rules were violated, Pepco would be unable to use accelerated depreciation on District of Columbia allocated or assigned property. In addition to sharing with customers the generation-related EDIT and ADITC balances, Pepco would have to pay to the IRS an amount equal to Pepco's District of Columbia jurisdictional generation-related ADITC balance ($5.8 million as of June 30, 2007), as well as its District of Columbia jurisdictional transmission and 67
distribution-related ADITC balance ($4.4 million as of June 30, 2007) in each case as those balances exist as of the later of the date a DCPSC order is issued and all rights to appeal have been exhausted or lapsed, or the date the DCPSC order becomes operative. |
In March 2003, the IRS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR), which would allow for the sharing of EDIT and ADITC related to divested assets with utility customers on a prospective basis and at the election of the taxpayer on a retroactive basis. In December 2005 a revised NOPR was issued which, among other things, withdrew the March 2003 NOPR and eliminated the taxpayer's ability to elect to apply the regulation retroactively. Comments on the revised NOPR were filed in March 2006, and a public hearing was held in April 2006. Pepco filed a letter with the DCPSC in January 2006, in which it has reiterated that the DCPSC should continue to defer any decision on the ADITC and EDIT issues until the IRS issues final regulations or states that its regulations project related to this issue will be terminated without the issuance of any regulations. Other issues in the divestiture proceeding deal with the treatment of internal costs and cost allocations as deductions from the gross proceeds of the divestiture. |
Pepco believes that its calculation of the District of Columbia customers' share of divestiture proceeds is correct. However, depending on the ultimate outcome of this proceeding, Pepco could be required to make additional gain-sharing payments to District of Columbia customers, including the payments described above related to EDIT and ADITC. Such additional payments (which, other than the EDIT and ADITC related payments, cannot be estimated) would be charged to expense in the quarter and year in which a final decision is rendered and could have a material adverse effect on Pepco's and PHI's results of operations for those periods. However, neither PHI nor Pepco believes that additional gain-sharing payments, if any, or the ADITC-related payments to the IRS, if required, would have a material adverse impact on its financial position or cash flows. |
Maryland |
Pepco filed its divestiture proceeds plan application with the MPSC in April 2001. The principal issue in the Maryland case is the same EDIT and ADITC sharing issue that has been raised in the District of Columbia case. See the discussion above under "Divestiture Cases -- District of Columbia." As of June 30, 2007, the Maryland allocated portions of EDIT and ADITC associated with the divested generating assets were approximately $9.1 million and $10.4 million, respectively. Other issues deal with the treatment of certain costs as deductions from the gross proceeds of the divestiture. In November 2003, the Hearing Examiner in the Maryland proceeding issued a proposed order with respect to the application that concluded that Pepco's Maryland divestiture settlement agreement provided for a sharing between Pepco and customers of the EDIT and ADITC associated with the sold assets. Pepco believes that such a sharing would violate the normalization rules (discussed above) and would result in Pepco's inability to use accelerated depreciation on Maryland allocated or assigned property. If the proposed order is affirmed, Pepco would have to share with its Maryland customers, on an approximately 50/50 basis, the Maryland allocated portion of the generation-related EDIT ($9.1 million as of June 30, 2007), and the Maryland-allocated portion of generation-related ADITC. Furthermore, Pepco would have to pay to the IRS an amount equal to Pepco's Maryland jurisdictional generation-related ADITC balance ($10.4 million as of June 30, 2007), as well as its Maryland retail jurisdictional ADITC transmission and distribution-related balance ($7.8 million as of June 30, 2007), in each case as those balances exist as of the later of the date 68
a MPSC order is issued and all rights to appeal have been exhausted or lapsed, or the date the MPSC order becomes operative. The Hearing Examiner decided all other issues in favor of Pepco, except for the determination that only one-half of the severance payments that Pepco included in its calculation of corporate reorganization costs should be deducted from the sales proceeds before sharing of the net gain between Pepco and customers. Pepco filed a letter with the MPSC in January 2006, in which it has reiterated that the MPSC should continue to defer any decision on the ADITC and EDIT issues until the IRS issues final regulations or states that its regulations project related to this issue will be terminated without the issuance of any regulations. |
In December 2003, Pepco appealed the Hearing Examiner's decision to the MPSC as it relates to the treatment of EDIT and ADITC and corporate reorganization costs. The MPSC has not issued any ruling on the appeal and Pepco does not believe that it will do so until action is taken by the IRS as described above. However, depending on the ultimate outcome of this proceeding, Pepco could be required to share with its customers approximately 50 percent of the EDIT and ADITC balances described above in addition to the additional gain-sharing payments relating to the disallowed severance payments, which Pepco is not contesting. Such additional payments would be charged to expense in the quarter and year in which a final decision is rendered and could have a material adverse effect on results of operations for those periods. However, neither PHI nor Pepco believes that additional gain-sharing payments, if any, or the ADITC-related payments to the IRS, if required, would have a mate rial adverse impact on its financial position or cash flows. |
Default Electricity Supply Proceedings |
Maryland |
Pursuant to orders issued by the MPSC in November 2006, Pepco provides SOS to its delivery customers who do not elect to purchase electricity from a competitive supplier. Pepco purchases the power supply required to satisfy its SOS obligations from wholesale suppliers under contracts entered into pursuant to a competitive bid procedure approved and supervised by the MPSC. In March 2006, Pepco announced the results of competitive bids to supply electricity to its Maryland SOS customers for one year beginning June 1, 2006. Due to significant increases in the cost of fuels used to generate electricity, the auction results had the effect of increasing the average monthly electric bill by about 38.5% for Pepco's Maryland residential customers. |
On April 21, 2006, the MPSC approved a settlement agreement among Pepco, its affiliate DPL, the staff of the MPSC and the Office of People's Counsel, which provides for a rate mitigation plan for Pepco's residential customers. Under the plan, the full increase for Pepco's residential customers who affirmatively elect to participate are being phased-in in increments of 15% on June 1, 2006, 15.7% on March 1, 2007 and the remainder on June 1, 2007. Customers electing to participate in the rate deferral plan will be required to pay the deferred amounts over an 18-month period beginning June 1, 2007. As of June 30, 2007, approximately 2% of Pepco's residential customers had elected to participate in the phase-in program. |
On June 23, 2006, Maryland enacted legislation that extended the period for customers to elect to participate in the phase-in of higher rates and revised the obligation to provide SOS to residential and small commercial customers until further action of the General Assembly. The 69
legislation also provides for a customer refund reflecting the difference between the interest expense on an initially projected deferred balance at a 25% customer participation level and the interest expense on a deferred balance based on actual participation levels referred to above. The total amount of the refund is approximately $1.1 million for Pepco customers. At Pepco's 2% level of participation, Pepco estimates that the deferral balance, net of taxes, will be approximately $1.4 million. In July 2006, the MPSC approved revised tariff riders filed in June 2006 by Pepco to implement the legislation. |
General Litigation |
During 1993, Pepco was served with Amended Complaints filed in the state Circuit Courts of Prince George's County, Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Maryland in separate ongoing, consolidated proceedings known as "In re: Personal Injury Asbestos Case." Pepco and other corporate entities were brought into these cases on a theory of premises liability. Under this theory, the plaintiffs argued that Pepco was negligent in not providing a safe work environment for employees or its contractors, who allegedly were exposed to asbestos while working on Pepco's property. Initially, a total of approximately 448 individual plaintiffs added Pepco to their complaints. While the pleadings are not entirely clear, it appears that each plaintiff sought $2 million in compensatory damages and $4 million in punitive damages from each defendant. |
Since the initial filings in 1993, additional individual suits have been filed against Pepco, and significant numbers of cases have been dismissed. As a result of two motions to dismiss, numerous hearings and meetings and one motion for summary judgment, Pepco has had approximately 400 of these cases successfully dismissed with prejudice, either voluntarily by the plaintiff or by the court. As of June 30, 2007, there are approximately 180 cases still pending against Pepco in the State Courts of Maryland, of which approximately 90 cases were filed after December 19, 2000, and have been tendered to Mirant for defense and indemnification pursuant to the terms of the Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Mirant has agreed to assume this contractual obligation. For a description of the Settlement Agreement, see the discussion of the relationship with Mirant above. |
While the aggregate amount of monetary damages sought in the remaining suits (excluding those tendered to Mirant) exceeds $360 million, PHI and Pepco believe the amounts claimed by current plaintiffs are greatly exaggerated. The amount of total liability, if any, and any related insurance recovery cannot be determined at this time; however, based on information and relevant circumstances known at this time, neither PHI nor Pepco believes these suits will have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, if an unfavorable decision were rendered against Pepco, it could have a material adverse effect on Pepco's and PHI's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. |
Environmental Litigation |
Pepco is subject to regulation by various federal, regional, state, and local authorities with respect to the environmental effects of its operations, including air and water quality control, solid and hazardous waste disposal, and limitations on land use. In addition, federal and state statutes authorize governmental agencies to compel responsible parties to clean up certain abandoned or unremediated hazardous waste sites. Pepco may incur costs to clean up currently or formerly owned facilities or sites found to be contaminated, as well as other facilities or sites that may have been contaminated due to past disposal practices. Although penalties assessed for 70
violations of environmental laws and regulations are not recoverable from Pepco's customers, environmental clean-up costs incurred by Pepco would be included in its cost of service for ratemaking purposes. |
Metal Bank/Cottman Avenue Site. In the early 1970s, Pepco sold scrap transformers, some of which may have contained some level of PCBs, to a metal reclaimer operating at the Metal Bank/Cottman Avenue site in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, owned by a nonaffiliated company. In December 1987, Pepco was notified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that it and a number of other utilities and non-utilities, were potentially responsible parties (PRPs) in connection with the PCB contamination at the site. |
In 1994, an Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study including a number of possible remedies was submitted to the EPA. In 1997, the EPA issued a Record of Decision that set forth a selected remedial action plan with estimated implementation costs of approximately $17 million. In 1998, the EPA issued a unilateral administrative order to Pepco and 12 other PRPs directing them to conduct the design and actions called for in its decision. In May 2003, two of the potentially liable owner/operator entities filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In October 2003, the bankruptcy court confirmed a reorganization plan that incorporates the terms of a settlement among the two debtor owner/operator entities, the United States and a group of utility PRPs including Pepco (the Utility PRPs). Under the bankruptcy settlement, the reorganized entity/site owner will pay a total of $13.25 million to remediate the site (the Bankruptcy Settlement). |
In March 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approved global consent decrees for the Metal Bank/Cottman Avenue site, entered into on August 23, 2005, involving the Utility PRPs, the U.S. Department of Justice, EPA, The City of Philadelphia and two owner/operators of the site. Under the terms of the settlement, the two owner/operators will make payments totaling $5.55 million to the U.S. Department of Justice and totaling $4.05 million to the Utility PRPs. The Utility PRPs will perform the remedy at the site and will be able to draw on the $13.25 million from the Bankruptcy Settlement to accomplish the remediation (the Bankruptcy Funds). The Utility PRPs will contribute funds to the extent remediation costs exceed the Bankruptcy Funds available. The Utility PRPs also will be liable for EPA costs associated with overseeing the monitoring and operation of the site remedy after the remedy construction is certified to be complete and also the cost of performing the "5 year" review of site conditions required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. Any Bankruptcy Funds not spent on the remedy may be used to cover the Utility PRPs' liabilities for future costs. No parties are released from potential liability for damages to natural resources. |
As of June 30, 2007, Pepco had accrued $1.7 million to meet its liability for a remedy at the Metal Bank/Cottman Avenue site. While final costs to Pepco of the settlement have not been determined, Pepco believes that its liability at this site will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. |
IRS Mixed Service Cost Issue |
During 2001, Pepco changed its method of accounting with respect to capitalizable construction costs for income tax purposes. The change allowed the companies to accelerate the deduction of certain expenses that were previously capitalized and depreciated. Through 71
December 31, 2005, these accelerated deductions generated incremental tax cash flow benefits of approximately $94 million, primarily attributable to its 2001 tax returns. |
On August 2, 2005, the Treasury Department released regulations that, if adopted in their current form, would require Pepco to change its method of accounting with respect to capitalizable construction costs for income tax purposes for tax periods beginning in 2005. Based on those regulations, PHI in its 2005 federal tax return adopted an alternative method of accounting for capitalizable construction costs that management believes will be acceptable to the IRS. |
On the same day that the new regulations were released, the IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2005-53, which is intended to limit the ability of certain taxpayers to utilize the method of accounting for income tax purposes they utilized on their tax returns for 2004 and prior years with respect to capitalizable construction costs. In line with this Revenue Ruling, the IRS issued a revenue agent's report for the 2001 and 2002 tax returns, in which the IRS exam team disallowed substantially all of the incremental tax benefits that Pepco, DPL and ACE had claimed on those returns by requiring the companies to capitalize and depreciate certain expenses rather than treat such expenses as current deductions. PHI's protest of the IRS adjustments is among the unresolved audit matters relating to the 2001 and 2002 audits pending before the Appeals Office. |
In February 2006, PHI paid approximately $121 million of taxes to cover the amount of taxes that management estimated to be payable based on the method of tax accounting that PHI, pursuant to the proposed regulations, has adopted on its 2005 tax return. However, if the IRS is successful in requiring Pepco to capitalize and depreciate construction costs that result in a tax and interest assessment greater than management's estimate of $121 million, PHI will be required to pay additional taxes and interest only to the extent these adjustments exceed the $121 million payment made in February 2006. |
(5) SUBSEQUENT EVENTS |
Maryland Rate Order |
On July 19, 2007, MPSC issued an order in the electric service distribution base rate case filed by Pepco. For further discussion, see "Rate Proceedings" in Note (4) Commitments and Contingencies, herein. |
Maryland Income Tax Refund |
On August 1, 2007, Pepco entered into a settlement agreement with the Comptroller of Maryland on a State income tax refund claim relating to Pepco's divestiture of its generation assets in 2000. Under the agreement, Pepco will receive a refund of taxes paid in the amount of approximately $30 million reflecting a correction of the tax basis of assets sold. The refund will be recorded in the third quarter of 2007, and is expected to result, net of related professional fees, in an increase in Pepco's net incomeof approximately $17.7 million. |
72
|
82
|
New Accounting Standards |
EITF Issue No. 06-3, "Disclosure Requirements for Taxes Assessed by a Governmental Authority on Revenue-producing Transactions" |
On June 28, 2006, the FASB ratified Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue No. 06-3, "Disclosure Requirements for Taxes Assessed by a Governmental Authority on Revenue-producing Transactions" (EITF 06-3). EITF 06-3 provides guidance on an entity's disclosure of its accounting policy regarding the gross or net presentation of certain taxes and provides that if taxes included in gross revenues are significant, a company should disclose the amount of such taxes for each period for which an income statement is presented (i.e., both interim and annual periods). Taxes within the scope of EITF 06-3 are those that are imposed on and concurrent with a specific revenue-producing transaction. Taxes assessed on an entity's activities over a period of time are not within the scope of EITF 06-3. DPL implemented EITF 06-3 during the first quarter of 2007. Taxes included in DPL's gross revenues were $3.0 million and $3.7 million for the three months ended June 30, 2007 and 2006, r espectively and $6.2 million and $7.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007 and 2006, respectively. |
SFAS No. 157, "Fair Value Measurements" |
In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157, "Fair Value Measurements" (SFAS No. 157) which defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in GAAP, and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. SFAS No. 157 applies under other accounting pronouncements that require or permit fair value measurements and does not require any new fair value measurements. However, it is possible that the application of this Statement will change current practice with respect to the definition of fair value, the methods used to measure fair value, and the expanded disclosures about fair value measurements. |
SFAS No. 157 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007, and interim periods within those fiscal years (year ending December 31, 2008 for DPL). DPL is currently in the process of evaluating the impact that SFAS No. 157 will have on its overall financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. |
FSP AUG AIR-1, "Accounting for Planned Major Maintenance Activities" |
On September 8, 2006, the FASB issued FSP American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Industry Audit Guide, Audits of Airlines--"Accounting for Planned Major Maintenance Activities" (FSP AUG AIR-1), which prohibits the use of the accrue-in-advance method of accounting for planned major maintenance activities in annual and interim financial reporting periods for all industries. FSP AUG AIR-1 is effective the first fiscal year beginning after December 15, 2006 (year ending December 31, 2007 for DPL). DPL has evaluated the impact of FSP AUG AIR-1 and it does not have a material impact on its overall financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. |
SFAS No. 159, "The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities - Including an amendment of FASB Statement No. 115" |
On February 15, 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, "The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities - Including an amendment of FASB Statement No. 115" (SFAS No. 159) which permits entities to elect to measure eligible financial instruments at fair value. 83
The objective of SFAS No. 159 is to improve financial reporting by providing entities with the opportunity to mitigate volatility in reported earnings caused by measuring related assets and liabilities differently without having to apply complex hedge accounting provisions. SFAS No. 159 applies under other accounting pronouncements that require or permit fair value measurements and does not require any new fair value measurements. However, it is possible that the application of SFAS No. 159 will change current practice with respect to the definition of fair value, the methods used to measure fair value, and the expanded disclosures about fair value measurements. |
SFAS No. 159 establishes presentation and disclosure requirements designed to facilitate comparisons between companies that choose different measurement attributes for similar types of assets and liabilities. SFAS No. 159 requires companies to provide additional information that will help investors and other users of financial statements to more easily understand the effect of the company's choice to use fair value on its earnings. It also requires entities to display the fair value of those assets and liabilities for which the company has chosen to use fair value on the face of the balance sheet. SFAS No. 159 does not eliminate disclosure requirements included in other accounting standards. |
SFAS No. 159 applies to fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007 (year ending December 31, 2008 for DPL), with early adoption permitted for an entity that has also elected to apply the provisions of SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements.An entity is prohibited from retrospectively applying SFAS No. 159, unless it chooses early adoption. SFAS No. 159 also applies to eligible items existing at November 15, 2007 (or early adoption date). DPL is currently in the process of evaluating the impact that SFAS No. 159 will have on its overall financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. |
(3) SEGMENT INFORMATION |
In accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 131, "Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information," DPL has one segment, its regulated utility business. |
(4) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
REGULATORY AND OTHER MATTERS |
Rate Proceedings |
In an electric service distribution base rate case filed by DPL in Maryland and in a natural gas distribution base rate case filed by DPL in Delaware, DPL proposed the adoption of a bill stabilization adjustment mechanism (BSA) for retail customers. The BSA would increase rates if revenues from distribution deliveries fall below the level approved by the applicable regulatory commission and will decrease rates if revenues from distribution deliveries are above the commission-approved level. The end result would be that DPL would collect its authorized revenues for distribution deliveries. As a consequence, a BSA "decouples" revenue from unit sales consumption and ties the growth in revenues to the growth in the number of customers. Some advantages of the BSA are that it (i) eliminates revenue fluctuations due to weather and changes in customer usage patterns and, therefore, provides for more predictable utility distribution revenues that are better aligned with costs , (ii) provides for more reliable fixed-cost recovery, (iii) tends to stabilize customers' delivery bills, and (iv) removes any disincentives for 84
DPL to promote energy efficiency programs for its customers, because it breaks the link between overall sales volumes and delivery revenues. The status of the BSA proposals in each of the jurisdictions is described below in discussion of the respective base rate proceedings. |
Delaware |
On August 31, 2006, DPL submitted its 2006 Gas Cost Rate (GCR) filing to the Delaware Public Service Commission (DPSC), which permits DPL to recover gas procurement costs through customer rates. On October 3, 2006, the DPSC issued an initial order approving the proposed rates, which became effective November 1, 2006, subject to refund pending final DPSC approval after evidentiary hearings. On February 23, 2007, DPL submitted an additional filing to the DPSC that proposed an additional 4.3% decrease in the GCR effective April 1, 2007, in compliance with its gas service tariff and to ensure collections are more aligned with expenses. On March 20, 2007, the DPSC approved the rate decrease, subject to refund pending final DPSC approval after evidentiary hearings. On July 17, 2007, the DPSC granted final approval for the GCR, as filed. |
On August 31, 2006, DPL submitted an application to the DPSC for an increase in gas distribution base rates, including a proposed BSA. On March 20, 2007, the DPSC approved a settlement agreement filed by all of the parties in this proceeding (DPL, the DPSC staff and the Delaware Division of Public Advocate). The settlement provisions include a $9.0 million increase in distribution rates, including certain miscellaneous tariff fees (of which $2.5 million was put into effect on November 1, 2006), reflecting a return on equity (ROE) of 10.25%, and a change in depreciation rates that will result in a $2.1 million reduction in pre-tax annual depreciation expense. Under the settlement agreement, rates became effective on April 1, 2007. Although the settlement agreement does not include a BSA, it provides for all of the parties to the case to participate in any generic statewide proceeding for the purpose of investigating BSA mechanisms for electric and gas distribution utilitie s. On March 20, 2007, the DPSC issued an order initiating a docket for the purpose of investigating a bill stabilization adjustment mechanism, or other rate decoupling mechanisms. |
Maryland |
On July 19, 2007, the Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC) issued an order in the electric service distribution rate cases filed by DPL. The order approved a temporary annual increase in distribution rates of approximately $14.9 million (including a decrease in annual depreciation expense of approximately $0.9 million). The approved distribution rate reflects an ROE of 10.0%. The order provided that the rate increase is effective as of June 16, 2007, and will remain in effect for an initial period of nine months from the date of the order (or until April 19, 2008). The temporary rate is subject to a Phase II proceeding in which the MPSC will consider the results of an audit of DPL's cost allocation manual, as filed with the MPSC, to determine whether a further adjustment to the rate is required. The MPSC approved the proposed BSA, under which customer delivery rates are subject to adjustment quarterly (through a surcharge or credit mechanism), dependi ng on whether actual revenue per customer exceeds or falls short of, the approved revenue per customer amount. |
85
|
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission |
On May 15, 2007, DPL updated its FERC-approved formula transmission rates based on its 2006 FERC Form 1. These rates became effective on June 1, 2007, and will provide approximately $17.2 million in additional annual revenues. |
Default Electricity Supply Proceedings |
Delaware |
Effective May 1, 2006, SOS replaced fixed-rate POLR service for customers who do not elect to purchase electricity from a competitive supplier. In October 2005, the DPSC approved DPL as the SOS provider to its Delaware delivery customers. DPL obtains the electricity to fulfill its SOS supply obligation under contracts entered pursuant to a competitive bid procedure approved by the DPSC. |
In response to bids received for the May 1, 2006, through May 31, 2007, period, which had the effect of increasing rates significantly for all customer classes, including an average residential customer increase of 59%, as compared to the fixed rates previously in effect, Delaware in April 2006 enacted legislation that provides for a deferral of the financial impact on customers. This legislation provided for a three-step phase-in of the rate increases, with 15% of the increase taking effect on May 1, 2006, 25% of the increase taking effect on January 1, 2007, and any remaining balance taking effect on June 1, 2007, subject to the right of customers to elect not to participate in the deferral program. Customers who do not "opt-out" of the rate deferral program are required to pay the amounts deferred, without any interest charge, over a 17-month period beginning January 1, 2008. As of June 30, 2007, approximately 53% of the eligible Delaware customers have opted not to participate in the deferral of the SOS rates offered by DPL. With approximately 47% of the eligible customers participating in the phase-in program, DPL anticipates a maximum deferral balance of $51.4 million. |
Maryland |
Pursuant to orders issued by the MPSC in November 2006, DPL provides SOS to its delivery customers who do not elect to purchase electricity from a competitive supplier. DPL purchases the power supply required to satisfy its SOS obligations from wholesale suppliers under contracts entered into pursuant to a competitive bid procedure approved and supervised by the MPSC. In March 2006, DPL each announced the results of competitive bids to supply electricity to its Maryland SOS customers for one year beginning June 1, 2006. Due to significant increases in the cost of fuels used to generate electricity, the auction results had the effect of increasing the average monthly electric bill by about 35% for DPL's Maryland residential customers. |
On April 21, 2006, the MPSC approved a settlement agreement among DPL, its affiliate Pepco, the staff of the MPSC and the Office of People's Counsel, which provides for a rate mitigation plan for DPL's residential customers. Under the plan, the full increase for DPL's residential customers who affirmatively elect to participate are being phased-in in increments of 15% on June 1, 2006, 15.7% on March 1, 2007 and the remainder on June 1, 2007. Customers electing to participate in the rate deferral plan will be required to pay the deferred amounts over 86
an 18-month period beginning June 1, 2007. As of June 30, 2007, approximately 1% of DPL's residential customers had elected to participate in the phase-in program. |
On June 23, 2006, Maryland enacted legislation that extended the period for customers to elect to participate in the phase-in of higher rates and revised the obligation to provide SOS to residential and small commercial customers until further action of the General Assembly. The legislation also provides for a customer refund reflecting the difference between the interest expense on an initially projected deferred balance at a 25% customer participation level and the interest expense on a deferred balance based on actual participation levels referred to above. The total amount of the refund is approximately $.3 million for DPL customers. At DPL's 1% level of participation, DPL estimates that the deferral balance, net of taxes, will be approximately $.2 million. In July 2006, the MPSC approved revised tariff riders filed in June 2006 by DPL to implement the legislation. |
Virginia |
As discussed below under the heading "DPL Sale of Virginia Operations," DPL has entered into an agreement to sell substantially all of its Virginia electric service operations. |
On April 2, 2007, DPL filed an application with Virginia State Corporation Commission (VSCC) to adjust its Default Service rates covering the period June 1, 2007, to May 31, 2008. The proposed rates for this service during the first month of this period (June 2007) are based on the fuel proxy rate calculation described below. The proposed rates for the remaining 11 months of the period (July 1, 2007 to May 31, 2008) reflect the fuel cost of Default Service supply based upon the results of the competitive bidding wholesale procurement process. The calculations in the application result in a rate decrease of approximately $1.7 million for the period, June 1 to June 30, 2007, and an increase of approximately $4.2 million for the period, July 1, 2007 to May 31, 2008, resulting in an overall annual rate increase of approximately $2.5 million. |
The "fuel proxy rate calculation" was established under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that DPL entered into with the staff of the VSCC in connection with the approval of DPL's divestiture of its generation assets in 2000, and provides for the calculation of the fuel rate portion of Default Service rates that reflect an approximation of the fuel costs that DPL would have incurred had it retained its generating assets. Since June 1, 2006, use of the proxy rate calculation has resulted in DPL being unable to recover fully its cost of providing Default Service. The new rate application reflects DPL's position that the use of the fuel proxy rate calculation to establish Default Service rates terminated on July 1, 2007, and effective that date, it should be permitted to charge customers market based fuel costs. However, pursuant to an order dated June 8, 2007, the VSCC denied the July 1, 2007 rate increase, based on its conclusion that the MOA's provisions relating to fuel cos ts did not end effective June 30, 2007. As a result of this decision, DPL estimates that it will under-recover its cost of providing Default Service by approximately $1.7 million between June 1, 2007 and the September 30, 2007 expiration of the current SOS supply contract. Thereafter, any ongoing under-recovery will be determined by market rates for the fuel portion of SOS supply and the timing of completion of the sale of DPL's Virginia electric operations as described below under the heading "DPL Sale of Virginia Operations." |
DPL filed a complaint for a declaratory order and preliminary injunctive relief with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the Virginia District Court). On July 23, 87
2007, the Virginia District Court dismissed the complaint and denied injunctive relief, finding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and stating that even if it had subject matter jurisdiction, it would abstain from exercising that jurisdiction to allow the Supreme Court of Virginia to consider the issues upon which the complaint was based. On July 31, 2007, DPL filed a notice of appeal of the VSCC's orders with the Supreme Court of Virginia. The sale of DPL's Virginia electric operations as described below under the heading "DPL Sale of Virginia Operations" is not contingent upon resolution of any of the matters that are at issue in these proceedings. If the sale of the Virginia electric operations is completed, the effect, if any, on these proceedings is not determinable at this time. |
DPL Sale of Virginia Operations |
On June 13, 2007, DPL entered into separate agreements to sell, respectively, all of its distribution assets and a significant portion of its transmission assets in Virginia for an aggregate sales price of approximately $45 million. DPL currently expects the transactions to close during the fourth quarter of 2007, contingent upon the receipt of required regulatory approvals. These sales, if completed, will not result in a significant financial gain or loss to DPL. |
Distribution Purchase and Sale Agreement |
DPL has entered into an agreement to sell to A&N Electric Cooperative (A&N) all of its assets principally related to DPL's business of distributing retail electric services to customers located on the Eastern Shore of Virginia for a purchase price of approximately $39.8 million, subject to closing adjustments. The assets to be sold include real and personal property, accounts receivable and customer deposits. A&N will assume certain post-closing liabilities and unknown pre-closing liabilities related to the distribution assets including most environmental liabilities, except that DPL will remain liable for unknown pre-closing liabilities if they become known within six months after the closing date. The completion of the sale is contingent upon approval by the VSCC. |
Transmission Purchase and Sale Agreement |
DPL has entered into an agreement to sell to Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC) certain assets principally related to DPL's provision of electric transmission services located on the Eastern Shore of Virginia for a purchase price of approximately $4.8 million, subject to certain closing adjustments. ODEC will assume certain post-closing liabilities and unknown pre-closing liabilities related to the transmission assets, except that DPL will remain liable for unknown pre-closing liabilities that become known within six months after the closing date. The completion of the sale is contingent upon approval of the transfer by the VSCC and approval of two related agreements by FERC. |
Environmental Litigation |
DPL is subject to regulation by various federal, regional, state, and local authorities with respect to the environmental effects of its operations, including air and water quality control, solid and hazardous waste disposal, and limitations on land use. In addition, federal and state statutes authorize governmental agencies to compel responsible parties to clean up certain abandoned or unremediated hazardous waste sites. DPL may incur costs to clean up currently or formerly owned facilities or sites found to be contaminated, as well as other facilities or sites that may have been contaminated due to past disposal practices. Although penalties assessed for 88
violations of environmental laws and regulations are not recoverable from DPL's customers, environmental clean-up costs incurred by DPL would be included in its cost of service for ratemaking purposes. |
Cambridge, Maryland Site. In July 2004, DPL entered into an administrative consent order (ACO) with the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) to perform a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to further identify the extent of soil, sediment and ground and surface water contamination related to former manufactured gas plant (MGP) operations at a Cambridge, Maryland site on DPL-owned property and to investigate the extent of MGP contamination on adjacent property. The MDE has approved the RI and DPL submitted a final FS to MDE on February 15, 2007. The costs of cleanup (as determined by the RI/FS and subsequent negotiations with MDE) are anticipated to be approximately $2.7 million. The remedial action will include dredging activities within Cambridge Creek, which are expected to take place as early as October 2007, and soil excavation on DPL's and adjacent property as early as January 2008. |
Metal Bank/Cottman Avenue Site. In the early 1970s, DPL sold scrap transformers, some of which may have contained some level of PCBs, to a metal reclaimer operating at the Metal Bank/Cottman Avenue site in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, owned by a nonaffiliated company. In December 1987, DPL was notified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that it and a number of other utilities and non-utilities, were potentially responsible parties (PRPs) in connection with the PCB contamination at the site. In 1999, DPL entered into a de minimis settlement with EPA and paid approximately $107,000 to resolve its liability for cleanup costs at the Metal Bank/Cottman Avenue site. The de minimis settlement did not resolve DPL's responsibility for natural resource damages, if any, at the site. DPL believes that any liability for natural resource damages at this site will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash f lows. |
IRS Mixed Service Cost Issue |
During 2001, DPL changed its method of accounting with respect to capitalizable construction costs for income tax purposes. The change allowed the companies to accelerate the deduction of certain expenses that were previously capitalized and depreciated. Through December 31, 2005, these accelerated deductions generated incremental tax cash flow benefits of approximately $62 million, primarily attributable to its 2001 tax returns. |
On August 2, 2005, the Treasury Department released regulations that, if adopted in their current form, would require DPL to change its method of accounting with respect to capitalizable construction costs for income tax purposes for tax periods beginning in 2005. Based on those regulations, PHI in its 2005 federal tax return adopted an alternative method of accounting for capitalizable construction costs that management believes will be acceptable to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). |
On the same day that the new regulations were released, the IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2005-53, which is intended to limit the ability of certain taxpayers to utilize the method of accounting for income tax purposes they utilized on their tax returns for 2004 and prior years with respect to capitalizable construction costs. In line with this Revenue Ruling, the IRS issued a revenue agent's report for the 2001 and 2002 tax returns, in which the IRS exam team disallowed substantially all of the incremental tax benefits that DPL had claimed on those 89
returns by requiring the companies to capitalize and depreciate certain expenses rather than treat such expenses as current deductions. PHI's protest of the IRS adjustments is among the unresolved audit matters relating to the 2001 and 2002 audits pending before the Appeals Office. |
In February 2006, PHI paid approximately $121 million of taxes to cover the amount of taxes that management estimated to be payable based on the method of tax accounting that PHI, pursuant to the proposed regulations, has adopted on its 2005 tax return. However, if the IRS is successful in requiring DPL to capitalize and depreciate construction costs that result in a tax and interest assessment greater than management's estimate of $121 million, PHI will be required to pay additional taxes and interest only to the extent these adjustments exceed the $121 million payment made in February 2006. |
(5) SUBSEQUENT EVENT |
On July 19, 2007, MPSC issued an order in the electric service distribution base rate case filed by DPL. For a further discussion, see "Rate Proceedings" in Note (4) Commitments and Contingencies, herein. |
90
|
Reclassifications |
Certain prior period amounts have been reclassified in order to conform to current period presentation. |
New Accounting Standards |
EITF Issue No. 06-3, "Disclosure Requirements for Taxes Assessed by a Governmental Authority on Revenue-producing Transactions" |
On June 28, 2006, the FASB ratified Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue No. 06-3, "Disclosure Requirements for Taxes Assessed by a Governmental Authority on Revenue-producing Transactions" (EITF 06-3). EITF 06-3 provides guidance on an entity's disclosure of its accounting policy regarding the gross or net presentation of certain taxes and provides that if taxes included in gross revenues are significant, a company should disclose the amount of such taxes for each period for which an income statement is presented (i.e., both interim and annual periods). Taxes within the scope of EITF 06-3 are those that are imposed on and concurrent with a specific revenue-producing transaction. Taxes assessed on an entity's activities over a period of time are not within the scope of EITF 06-3. ACE implemented EITF 06-3 during the first quarter of 2007. Taxes included in ACE's gross revenues were $5.1 million and $4.7 million for the three months ended June 30, 2007 and 2006, re spectively and $10.5 million and $10.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007 and 2006, respectively. |
SFAS No. 157, "Fair Value Measurements" |
In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157, "Fair Value Measurements" (SFAS No. 157) which defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in GAAP, and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. SFAS No. 157 applies under other accounting pronouncements that require or permit fair value measurements and does not require any new fair value measurements. However, it is possible that the application of this Statement will change current practice with respect to the definition of fair value, the methods used to measure fair value, and the expanded disclosures about fair value measurements. |
101
|
SFAS No. 157 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007, and interim periods within those fiscal years (year ending December 31, 2008 for ACE). ACE is currently in the process of evaluating the impact that SFAS No. 157 will have on its overall financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. |
FSP AUG AIR-1, "Accounting for Planned Major Maintenance Activities" |
On September 8, 2006, the FASB issued FSP American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Industry Audit Guide, Audits of Airlines--"Accounting for Planned Major Maintenance Activities" (FSP AUG AIR-1), which prohibits the use of the accrue-in-advance method of accounting for planned major maintenance activities in annual and interim financial reporting periods for all industries. FSP AUG AIR-1 is effective the first fiscal year beginning after December 15, 2006 (year ending December 31, 2007 for ACE). ACE has evaluated the impact of FSP AUG AIR-1 and it does not have a material impact on its overall financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. |
SFAS No. 159, "The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities - Including an amendment of FASB Statement No. 115" |
On February 15, 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, "The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities - Including an amendment of FASB Statement No. 115" (SFAS No. 159) which permits entities to elect to measure eligible financial instruments at fair value. The objective of SFAS No. 159 is to improve financial reporting by providing entities with the opportunity to mitigate volatility in reported earnings caused by measuring related assets and liabilities differently without having to apply complex hedge accounting provisions. SFAS No. 159 applies under other accounting pronouncements that require or permit fair value measurements and does not require any new fair value measurements. However, it is possible that the application of SFAS No. 159 will change current practice with respect to the definition of fair value, the methods used to measure fair value, and the expanded disclosures about fair value measurements. |
SFAS No. 159 establishes presentation and disclosure requirements designed to facilitate comparisons between companies that choose different measurement attributes for similar types of assets and liabilities. SFAS No. 159 requires companies to provide additional information that will help investors and other users of financial statements to more easily understand the effect of the company's choice to use fair value on its earnings. It also requires entities to display the fair value of those assets and liabilities for which the company has chosen to use fair value on the face of the balance sheet. SFAS No. 159 does not eliminate disclosure requirements included in other accounting standards. |
SFAS No. 159 applies to fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007 (year ending December 31, 2008 for ACE), with early adoption permitted for an entity that has also elected to apply the provisions of SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements.An entity is prohibited from retrospectively applying SFAS No. 159, unless it chooses early adoption. SFAS No. 159 also applies to eligible items existing at November 15, 2007 (or early adoption date). ACE is currently in the process of evaluating the impact that SFAS No. 159 will have on its overall financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. |
102
|
(3) SEGMENT INFORMATION |
In accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 131, "Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information," ACE has one segment, its regulated utility business. |
(4) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
REGULATORY AND OTHER MATTERS |
Rate Proceedings |
New Jersey |
On June 1, 2007, ACE filed with the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) an application for permission to decrease the Non Utility Generation Charge (NGC) and increase components of its Societal Benefits Charge (SBC) to be collected from customers for the period October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008. The proposed changes are designed to effect a true-up of the actual and estimated costs and revenues collected through the current NGC and SBC rates through September 30, 2007 and, in the case of the SBC, forecasted costs and revenues for the period October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008. |
ACE projects that, as of September 30, 2007, the NGC, which is intended primarily to recover the above-market component of payments made by ACE under non-utility generation contracts and stranded costs associated with those commitments, will have an over-recovery balance of $234.6 million. The filing proposes that the NGC balance, including interest, be amortized and returned to ACE customers over a four-year period, beginning October 1, 2007. |
ACE also projects that, as of September 30, 2007, the SBC, which is intended to allow ACE to recover certain costs involved with various NJBPU-mandated social programs, will have an under-recovery of approximately $21.8 million, primarily due to increased costs associated with funding the New Jersey Clean Energy Program (CEP). In addition, ACE has requested an increase to the SBC to reflect the increased funding levels approved by the NJBPU to $18.9 million for calendar year 2007 and $20.4 million for calendar year 2008, which will require a $42.3 million increase in the SBC for the period of October 1, 2007 to September 30, 2008. |
The net impact of the proposed adjustments to the NGC and the SBC, including associated changes in sales and use tax, is an overall rate decrease of approximately $131.8 million for the period October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2008. The proposed adjustments and the corresponding changes in customer rates are subject to the approval of the NJBPU. Once approved and implemented, ACE anticipates that the revised rates will remain in effect until September 30, 2008, subject to an annual true-up and change each year thereafter. |
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission |
On May 15, 2007, ACE updated its FERC-approved formula transmission rates based on its 2006 FERC Form 1. These rates became effective on June 1, 2007, and will provide approximately $20 million in additional annual revenues. |
103
|
ACE Restructuring Deferral Proceeding |
Pursuant to orders issued by the NJBPU under the New Jersey Electric Discount and Energy Competition Act (EDECA), beginning August 1, 1999, ACE was obligated to provide BGS to retail electricity customers in its service territory who did not elect to purchase electricity from a competitive supplier. For the period August 1, 1999 through July 31, 2003, ACE's aggregate costs that it was allowed to recover from customers exceeded its aggregate revenues from supplying BGS. These under-recovered costs were partially offset by a $59.3 million deferred energy cost liability existing as of July 31, 1999 (LEAC Liability) related to ACE's Levelized Energy Adjustment Clause and ACE's Demand Side Management Programs. ACE established a regulatory asset in an amount equal to the balance of under-recovered costs. |
In August 2002, ACE filed a petition with the NJBPU for the recovery of approximately $176.4 million in actual and projected deferred costs relating to the provision of BGS and other restructuring related costs incurred by ACE over the four-year period August 1, 1999 through July 31, 2003, net of the $59.3 million offset for the LEAC Liability. The petition also requested that ACE's rates be reset as of August 1, 2003 so that there would be no under-recovery of costs embedded in the rates on or after that date. The increase sought represented an overall 8.4% annual increase in electric rates. |
In July 2004, the NJBPU issued a final order in the restructuring deferral proceeding confirming a July 2003 summary order, which (i) permitted ACE to begin collecting a portion of the deferred costs and reset rates to recover on-going costs incurred as a result of EDECA, (ii) approved the recovery of $125 million of the deferred balance over a ten-year amortization period beginning August 1, 2003, (iii) transferred to ACE's then pending base rate case for further consideration approximately $25.4 million of the deferred balance (the base rate case ended in a settlement approved by the NJBPU in May 2005, the result of which is that any net rate impact from the deferral account recoveries and credits in future years will depend in part on whether rates associated with other deferred accounts considered in the case continue to generate over-collections relative to costs), and (iv) estimated the overall deferral balance as of July 31, 2003 at $195 million, of which $44.6 million was disallowed recovery by ACE. Although ACE believes the record does not justify the level of disallowance imposed by the NJBPU in the final order, the $44.6 million of disallowed incurred costs were reserved during the years 1999 through 2003 (primarily 2003) through charges to earnings, primarily in the operating expense line item "deferred electric service costs," with a corresponding reduction in the regulatory asset balance sheet account. In 2005, an additional $1.2 million in interest on the disallowed amount was identified and reserved by ACE. In August 2004, ACE filed a notice of appeal with respect to the July 2004 final order with the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey (the Appellate Division), which hears appeals of the decisions of New Jersey administrative agencies, including the NJBPU. Briefs in the appeal were also filed by the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel (then known as the Division of the New Jersey Ratepayer Advocate) and by Cogentrix Energy Inc., the co-own er of two cogeneration power plants with contracts to sell ACE approximately 397 megawatts of electricity, as cross-appellants between August 2005 and January 2006. The Appellate Division has not yet set the schedule for oral argument. |
104
|
Divestiture Case |
In connection with the divestiture by ACE of its nuclear generating assets, the NJBPU in July 2000 preliminarily determined that the amount of stranded costs associated with the divested assets that ACE could recover from ratepayers should be reduced by approximately $94.8 million, consisting of $54.1 million of accumulated deferred federal income taxes (ADFIT) associated with the accelerated depreciation on the divested nuclear assets, and $40.7 million of current tax loss from selling the assets at a price below the tax basis. |
The $54.1 million in deferred taxes associated with the divested assets' accelerated depreciation; however, is subject to the normalization rules. Due to uncertainty under federal tax law regarding whether the sharing of federal income tax benefits associated with the divested assets, including ADFIT related to accelerated depreciation, with ACE's customers would violate the normalization rules, ACE submitted a request to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for a Private Letter Ruling (PLR) to clarify the applicable law. The NJBPU delayed its final determination of the amount of recoverable stranded costs until after the receipt of the PLR. |
On May 25, 2006, the IRS issued the PLR in which it stated that returning to ratepayers any of the unamortized ADFIT attributable to accelerated depreciation on the divested assets after the sale of the assets by means of a reduction of the amount of recoverable stranded costs would violate the normalization rules. |
On June 9, 2006, ACE submitted a letter to the NJBPU, requesting that the NJBPU conduct proceedings to finalize the determination of the stranded costs associated with the sale of ACE's nuclear assets in accordance with the PLR. In the absence of an NJBPU action regarding ACE's request, on June 22, 2007, ACE filed a motion requesting that the NJBPU issue an order finalizing the determination of such stranded costs in accordance with the PLR. The NJBPU and the other parties in interest have agreed to an expedited schedule for resolution of the motion. |
ACE Sale of B.L. England Generating Facility |
On February 8, 2007, ACE completed the sale of the B.L. England generating facility to RC Cape May Holdings, LLC (RC Cape May), an affiliate of Rockland Capital Energy Investments, LLC, for which it received proceeds of approximately $9 million, after giving effect to certain post-closing adjustments. In addition, RC Cape May and ACE have agreed to submit to arbitration whether RC Cape May must pay to ACE, as part of the purchase price, an additional $3.1 million remaining in dispute. RC Cape May also assumed certain liabilities associated with the B.L. England generating station, including substantially all environmental liabilities. |
The sale of B.L. England will not affect the stranded costs associated with the plant that already have been securitized. ACE anticipates that approximately $9 million to $10 million of additional regulatory assets related to B.L. England may, subject to NJBPU approval, be eligible for recovery as stranded costs. The emission allowance credits associated with B. L. England will be monetized for the benefit of ACE's ratepayers pursuant to the NJBPU order approving the sale. Net proceeds from the sale of the plant and monetization of the emission allowance credits, will be credited to ACE's ratepayers in accordance with the requirements of EDECA and NJBPU orders. The appropriate mechanism for monetizing the value of the emission allowances for the benefit of ratepayers is being determined in a Phase II proceeding, which is currently pending before the NJBPU. |
105
|
Environmental Litigation |
ACE is subject to regulation by various federal, regional, state, and local authorities with respect to the environmental effects of its operations, including air and water quality control, solid and hazardous waste disposal, and limitations on land use. In addition, federal and state statutes authorize governmental agencies to compel responsible parties to clean up certain abandoned or unremediated hazardous waste sites. ACE may incur costs to clean up currently or formerly owned facilities or sites found to be contaminated, as well as other facilities or sites that may have been contaminated due to past disposal practices. Although penalties assessed for violations of environmental laws and regulations are not recoverable from ACE's customers, environmental clean-up costs incurred by ACE would be included in its cost of service for ratemaking purposes. |
Delilah Road Landfill Site. In November 1991, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) identified ACE as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at the Delilah Road Landfill site in Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey. In 1993, ACE, along with other PRPs, signed an administrative consent order (ACO) with NJDEP to remediate the site. The soil cap remedy for the site has been completed and the NJDEP conditionally approved the report submitted by the parties on the implementation of the remedy in January 2003. In March 2004, NJDEP approved a Ground Water Sampling and Analysis Plan. Positive results of groundwater monitoring events have resulted in a reduced level of groundwater monitoring. In August 2006, NJDEP issued a No Further Action Letter (NFA) and Covenant Not to Sue for the site. Among other things, the NFA requires the PRPs to monitor the effectiveness of institutional (deed restriction) and engineering (cap) controls at the site every two y ears and to continue groundwater monitoring. In December 2006, the PRP group filed a petition with NJDEP seeking approval of semi-annual rather than quarterly ground water monitoring for two years and annual groundwater monitoring thereafter if ground water monitoring results remain consistent or improve relative to prior monitoring data. NJDEP has not acted on the PRP group's petition. In March 2003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) demanded from the PRP group reimbursement for EPA's past costs at the site, totaling $168,789. The PRP group objected to the demand for certain costs, but agreed to reimburse EPA approximately $19,000. In a March 19, 2007 letter, EPA demanded from the PRP group reimbursement for EPA's costs at the site between 1985 and 2007 totaling $233,563. The PRP group objected to the demand for these costs for a variety of reasons, including the fact that approximately $97,000 in costs was billed after construction of the remedy by the PRP group was completed. In a Jun e 19, 2007 letter, EPA requested that the PRP group pay $62,623 in response costs and enter into a tolling agreement. In a July 10, 2007 response to EPA, the PRP group indicated a willingness to pay approximately $62,600 (ACE's share of which is one-third) in full satisfaction of EPA's claims for all past and future response costs relating to the site, provided that EPA provides a satisfactory settlement agreement with a covenant not to sue and release as to such costs. The PRP group response of July 10, 2007 also questioned the need for a tolling agreement for a site that is the subject of an NFA and accordingly warrants little, if any, activity by EPA. The PRP group is evaluating EPA's July 26, 2007 counteroffer of settlement under which the PRP group would resolve its liability for EPA's past and future costs at the site by paying the offered $62,600 plus a 30% premium to cover the risk associated with EPA's unknown future costs for a total of approximately $81,400. A settlement incorporating these te rms also would permit EPA to reopen the settlement in the event of new information or unknown conditions at the site. Based on information currently available, ACE anticipates that its share of additional cost associated with this site for post-remedy operation and maintenance 106
will be approximately $555,000 to $600,000. ACE believes that its liability for post-remedy operation and maintenance costs will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. |
Frontier Chemical Site. On June 29, 2007, ACE received a letter from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) indicating that ACE is a PRP at the Frontier Chemical Waste Processing Company site in Niagara Falls, N.Y. The letter states that NYDEC has hazardous waste manifests indicating that ACE sent in excess of 7,500 gallons of manifested hazardous waste to the site. The letter asks ACE, within 30 days, to express its willingness to enter into an ACO. If ACE is unwilling to enter into the ACO, ACE must respond to NYDEC's request for information within 45 days. ACE informed NYDEC that it has entered into good faith negotiations with a coalescing PRP group to address ACE's responsibility at the site. ACE believes that its responsibility at the site will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. |
IRS Mixed Service Cost Issue |
During 2001, ACE changed its method of accounting with respect to capitalizable construction costs for income tax purposes. The change allowed the companies to accelerate the deduction of certain expenses that were previously capitalized and depreciated. Through December 31, 2005, these accelerated deductions generated incremental tax cash flow benefits of approximately $49 million, primarily attributable to its 2001 tax returns. |
On August 2, 2005, the Treasury Department released regulations that, if adopted in their current form, would require ACE to change its method of accounting with respect to capitalizable construction costs for income tax purposes for tax periods beginning in 2005. Based on those regulations, PHI in its 2005 federal tax return adopted an alternative method of accounting for capitalizable construction costs that management believes will be acceptable to the IRS. |
On the same day that the new regulations were released, the IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2005-53, which is intended to limit the ability of certain taxpayers to utilize the method of accounting for income tax purposes they utilized on their tax returns for 2004 and prior years with respect to capitalizable construction costs. In line with this Revenue Ruling, the IRS issued a revenue agent's report for the 2001 and 2002 tax returns, in which the IRS exam team disallowed substantially all of the incremental tax benefits that ACE had claimed on those returns by requiring the companies to capitalize and depreciate certain expenses rather than treat such expenses as current deductions. PHI's protest of the IRS adjustments is among the unresolved audit matters relating to the 2001 and 2002 audits pending before the Appeals Office. |
In February 2006, PHI paid approximately $121 million of taxes to cover the amount of taxes that management estimated to be payable based on the method of tax accounting that PHI, pursuant to the proposed regulations, has adopted on its 2005 tax return. However, if the IRS is successful in requiring ACE to capitalize and depreciate construction costs that result in a tax and interest assessment greater than management's estimate of $121 million, PHI will be required to pay additional taxes and interest only to the extent these adjustments exceed the $121 million payment made in February 2006. |
107
|
(5) DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS |
As discussed in Note (4) "Commitments and Contingencies," herein, on February 8, 2007, ACE completed the sale of its B.L. England generating facility. B.L. England comprised a significant component of ACE's generation operations and its sale required "discontinued operations" presentation under SFAS No. 144, "Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long Lived Assets," on ACE's Consolidated Statements of Earnings for the three and six months ended June 30, 2007 and 2006. In September 2006, ACE sold its interests in the Keystone and Conemaugh generating facilities, which for the three and six months ended June 30, 2006, also were reflected as "discontinued operations." |
The following table summarizes discontinued operations information for the three and six months ended June 30: |
The $4.6 million decrease in Other Operation and Maintenance expenses of the Power Delivery segment was primarily due to (i) $19.1 million decrease in costs primarily related to the sales by ACE of its Keystone and Conemaugh interests and B.L. England generating facilities (deferred and recoverable), (ii) $2.7 million decrease in Company-owned life insurance due to a 2006 adjustment, (iii) $1.1 million decrease in environmental costs primarily related to a coal gas liability adjustment in 2006, partially offset by (iv) $4.8 million increase in business support, primarily customer service and corporate overhead costs, (v) $4.7 million increase in operating maintenance and restoration costs, (vi) $3.1 million increase due to various construction project write-offs related to customer requested work, and (vii) $3.2 million increase in regulatory filing costs. |
The higher operation and maintenance expenses of the Conectiv Energy segment in 2007 were primarily due to increased planned maintenance at its power plants. |
Depreciation and Amortization |
Depreciation and amortization expenses decreased by $22.5 million to $185.8 million in 2007 from $208.3 million in 2006. The decrease is primarily due to lower amortization of regulatory assets, partially offset by plant additions. |
Other Taxes |
Other Taxes increased by $7.5 million to $171.5 million in 2007, from $164.0 million in 2006. The increase was primarily due to increased pass-throughs resulting from higher electricity sales and rate increases (partially offset in T&D Revenue). |
Deferred Electric Service Costs |
Deferred Electric Service Costs increased by $28.3 million to an expense of $18.1 million in 2007 from income of $10.2 million in 2006. The increaserepresents a $28.0 million net over-recovery associated with New Jersey BGS, NUGs, market transition charges and other restructuring items. At June 30, 2007, ACE's balance sheet included as a regulatory liability an over-recovery of $171.4 million with respect to these items, which is net of a $46 million reserve for items disallowed by the NJBPU in a ruling that is under appeal. The $171.4 million regulatory liability also includes an $81.3 million gain related to the September 1, 2006 sale of ACE's interests in Keystone and Conemaugh generating facilities and a $14.7 million loss related to the 2007 sale of ACE's B.L. England generating facility. For additional information 138
concerning this matter, refer to Note (4), Commitments and Contingencies to the consolidated financial statements of PHI included herein. |
Impairment Loss |
During the second quarter of 2007, PHI recorded a pre-tax impairment loss of $1.6 million ($1 million, after-tax) on certain energy services business assets owned by Pepco Energy Services. During the second quarter of 2006, PHI recorded a pre-tax impairment loss of $6.5 million ($4.2 million, after-tax) on other energy services business assets owned by Pepco Energy Services. |
Other Income (Expenses) |
Other Expenses (which are net of Other Income)increased by $5.5 million to $139.5 million in 2007 from $134 million in 2006 due to a $12.3 million gain that was recorded in 2006 related to the disposition of assets associated with a cogeneration facility, partially offset in 2007 by a $2.5 million gain on a settlement agreement between Pepco Energy Services and a subcontractor and an increase in the value of investment assets. |
Income Tax Expense |
PHI's effective tax rate for the six months ended June 30, 2007 was 36% as compared to the federal statutory rate of 35%. The major reasons for the difference between the effective tax rate and the statutory tax rate were state income taxes (net of federal benefit) and the flow-through of certain book tax depreciation differences, partially offset by changes in estimates related to tax liabilities for prior tax years subject to audit, the flow-through of deferred investment tax credits, the flow-through of certain asset removal costs and tax benefits related to certain leveraged leases. |
PHI's effective tax rate for the six months ended June 30, 2006 was 41% as compared to the federal statutory rate of 35%. The major reasons for the difference between the effective tax rate and the statutory rate were state income taxes (net of federal benefit), the flow-through of certain book tax depreciation differences and changes in estimates related to tax liabilities for prior tax years subject to audit, partially offset by the flow-through of deferred investment tax credits, the flow-through of certain asset removal costs and tax benefits related to certain leveraged leases. |
CAPITAL RESOURCES AND LIQUIDITY |
This section discusses Pepco Holdings' cash flow activity, capital spending plans, and other uses and sources of capital. |
Amended and Restated Credit Facility |
On May 2, 2007, PHI, Pepco, DPL and ACE entered into an amendment and restatement of their principal credit facility. |
The aggregate borrowing limit under the facility is $1.5 billion, all or any portion of which may be used to obtain loans or to issue letters of credit. PHI's credit limit under the facility is $875 million. The credit limit of each of Pepco, DPL and ACE is the lesser of $500 million and the maximum amount of debt the company is permitted to have outstanding by its regulatory 136
authorities, except that the aggregate amount of credit used by Pepco, DPL and ACE at any given time collectively may not exceed $625 million. The interest rate payable by each company on utilized funds is based on the prevailing prime rate or Eurodollar rate, plus a margin that varies according to the credit rating of the borrower. The facility also includes a "swingline loan sub-facility", pursuant to which each company may make same day borrowings in an aggregate amount not to exceed $150 million. Any swingline loan must be repaid by the borrower within seven days of receipt thereof. All indebtedness incurred under the facility is unsecured. |
The facility commitment expiration date is May 5, 2012, with each company having the right to elect to have 100% of the principal balance of the loans outstanding on the expiration date continued as non-revolving term loans for a period of one year from such expiration date. |
The facility is intended to serve primarily as a source of liquidity to support the commercial paper programs of the respective companies. The companies also are permitted to use the facility to borrow funds for general corporate purposes and issue letters of credit. In order for a borrower to use the facility, certain representations and warranties made by the borrower at the time the amended and restated credit agreement was entered into also must be true at the time the facility is utilized, and the borrower must be in compliance with specified covenants, including the financial covenant described below. However, a material adverse change in the borrower's business, property, and results of operations or financial condition subsequent to the entry into the amended and restated credit agreement is not a condition to the availability of credit under the facility. Among the covenants to which each of the companies is subject are (i) the requirement that each borrowing com pany maintain a ratio of total indebtedness to total capitalization of 65% or less, computed in accordance with the terms of the amended and restated credit agreement, which calculation excludes certain trust preferred securities and deferrable interest subordinated debt from the definition of total indebtedness (not to exceed 15% of total capitalization), (ii) a restriction on sales or other dispositions of assets, other than sales and dispositions permitted by the amended and restated credit agreement, and (iii) a restriction on the incurrence of liens on the assets of a borrower or any of its significant subsidiaries other than liens permitted by the amended and restated credit agreement. The agreement does not include any rating triggers. |
Financing Activity During the Three Months Ended June 30, 2007 |
In April 2007, PHI issued $200 million of privately placed 6.0% notes due 2019. Proceeds were used to redeem, on May 31, 2007, $200 million of 5.5% notes due August 15, 2007 at a price of 100.0377% of par. |
In April 2007, ACE retired at maturity $15 million of 7.52% medium-term notes. |
In April 2007, Atlantic City Electric Transition Funding LLC (ACE Funding) made principal payments of $4.9 million on Series 2002-1 Transition Bonds, Class A-1 and $2.0 million on Series 2003-1 Transition Bonds, Class A-1 with a weighted average interest rate of 2.89%. |
In May 2007, ACE retired at maturity $1 million of 7.15% medium-term notes. |
In May 2007, DPL retired at maturity $50 million of 8.125% medium-term notes. |
137
|
In June 2007, PHI issued $250 million of 6.125% notes due 2017 in a public offering. Net proceeds along with cash on hand or short-term debt will be used to repay $300 million of 5.5% notes due August 15, 2007. |
In June 2007, DPL retired at maturity $3.2 million of 6.95% first mortgage bonds. |
Financing Activity Subsequent to June 30, 2007 |
In July 2007, ACE Funding made principal payments of $4.8 million on Series 2002-1 Transition Bonds, Class A-1 and $1.8 million on Series 2003-1 Transition Bonds, Class A-1 with a weighted average interest rate of 2.89%. |
Sale of Interest in Cogeneration Joint Venture |
During the first quarter of 2006, Conectiv Energy recognized a $12.3 million pre-tax gain ($7.9 million after-tax) on the sale of its equity interest in a joint venture which owns a wood burning cogeneration facility in California. |
Working Capital |
At June 30, 2007, Pepco Holdings' current assets on a consolidated basis totaled $2.0 billion and its current liabilities totaled $2.4 billion. At December 31, 2006, Pepco Holdings' current assets totaled $2.0 billion and its current liabilities totaled $2.5 billion. |
PHI's working capital deficit results in large part from the fact that, in the normal course of business, PHI's utility subsidiaries acquire energy supplies for their customers before the supplies are delivered to, metered and billed to customers. Short-term financing is used to meet liquidity needs. Short-term financing is also used, at times, to fund temporary redemptions of long-term debt, until long-term replacement financings are completed. |
At June 30, 2007, Pepco Holdings' cash and cash equivalents and its restricted cash, totaled $35.9 million. No net cash collateral was held by subsidiaries of PHI engaged in Competitive Energy and Default Electricity Supply activities ($2.9 million of cash collateral was held as restricted cash). At December 31, 2006, Pepco Holdings' cash and cash equivalents and its restricted cash totaled $60.8 million. No net cash collateral was held by subsidiaries of PHI engaged in Competitive Energy and Default Electricity Supply activities (no cash collateral was held as restricted cash). See "Capital Requirements -- Contractual Arrangements with Credit Rating Triggers or Margining Rights" for additional information. |
138
|
A detail of PHI's short-term debt balance and its current maturities of long-term debt and project funding balance follows: |
Separately, Mirant and SMECO have entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release (the SMECO Settlement Agreement). The SMECO Settlement Agreement provides that Mirant will assume, rather than reject, the SMECO Agreement. This assumption ensures that Pepco will not incur liability to SMECO as the guarantor of the SMECO Agreement due to the rejection of the SMECO Agreement, although Pepco will continue to guarantee to SMECO the future performance of Mirant under the SMECO Agreement. |
According to their terms, the Settlement Agreement and the SMECO Settlement Agreement will become effective when the Bankruptcy Court or the U.S. District Court for the Northern 149
District of Texas (the District Court), as applicable, has entered a final order, not subject to appeal or rehearing, approving both the Settlement Agreement and the SMECO Settlement Agreement. |
On August 9, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order approving the Settlement Agreement and the SMECO Settlement Agreement. On August 18, 2006, certain holders of Mirant bankruptcy claims, who had objected to approval of the Settlement Agreement and the SMECO Settlement Agreement before the Bankruptcy Court, appealed the approval order to the District Court. On December 26, 2006, the District Court issued an order affirming the Bankruptcy Court's order approving the Settlement Agreement. On January 25, 2007, the parties that appealed the Bankruptcy Court's order filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the Fifth Circuit). The brief of the appealing creditors was filed on April 25, 2007, while Mirant's and Pepco's briefs were filed on May 31, 2007. |
In August 2006, Mirant made a cash payment to Pepco of $70 million, which became due in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement as a result of the approval of the Settlement Agreement by the Bankruptcy Court. If the Bankruptcy Court order approving the Settlement Agreement becomes a final order after the exhaustion of all appeals, the payment will be taken into account as if it were proceeds from the resale by Pepco of shares of the Mirant common stock, as described above, and treated as a portion of the $520 million payment due Pepco. If the Bankruptcy Court approval of the Settlement Agreement is not upheld on appeal, Pepco must repay this cash payment to Mirant. Therefore, no income statement impact has been recognized in relation to the $70 million payment. |
Until the approval of the Settlement Agreement and the SMECO Settlement Agreement becomes final, Mirant is required to continue to perform all of its contractual obligations to Pepco and SMECO. Pepco intends to use the $450 million portion of the Pepco Distribution related to the rejection of the PPA-Related Obligations to pay for future capacity and energy purchases under the Panda PPA. |
Rate Proceedings |
Delaware |
For a discussion of the history of the Gas Cost Rate (GCR) proceedings in Delaware, please refer to Item 7, "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations -- Regulatory and Other Matters -- Rate Proceedings -- Delaware" of PHI's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the PHI 2006 Form 10-K) and Item 2, "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations -- Regulatory and Other Matters -- Rate Proceedings -- Delaware " of PHI's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the PHI 1st Quarter Form 10-Q). On July 17, 2007, the Delaware Public Service Commission granted final approval for the GCR, as filed. |
District of Columbia |
As previously disclosed in Item 7, "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations -- Regulatory and Other Matters -- Rate Proceedings -- District of Columbia" of the PHI 2006 Form 10-K, in February 2006, Pepco filed an update to 150
the District of Columbia Generation Procurement Credit (GPC) for the periods February 8, 2002 through February 7, 2004 and February 8, 2004 through February 7, 2005. The GPC provides for sharing of the profit from SOS sales. On June 15, 2006, the District of Columbia Public Service Commission (DCPSC) granted conditional approval of the GPC update as filed, effective July 1, 2006, and on May 24, 2007, the DCPSC issued a final approval. |
As previously disclosed in Item 7, "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations -- Regulatory and Other Matters -- Rate Proceedings -- District of Columbia" of the PHI 2006 Form 10-K, in December 2006, Pepco submitted an application to the DCPSC to increase electric distribution base rates, including a proposed bill stabilization adjustment mechanism (BSA), which "decouples" revenue from unit sales consumption and ties the growth in revenues to the growth in the number of customers. Hearings were held in the case in June 2007. A DCPSC decision is expected in September 2007. |
Maryland |
As previously disclosed in Item 7, "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations -- Regulatory and Other Matters -- Rate Proceedings -- Maryland" of the PHI 2006 Form 10-K and Item 2, "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations -- Regulatory and Other Matters -- Rate Proceedings -- Maryland" of the PHI 1st Quarter Form 10-Q,in November 2006, DPL and Pepco each submitted an application to the Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC) to increase electric distribution base rates, including a proposed BSA. On July 19, 2007, the MPSC issued orders in the electric service distribution rate cases filed by DPL and Pepco. The DPL order approved a temporary annual increase in distribution rates of approximately $14.9 million (including a decrease in annual depreciation expense of approximately $0.9 million). The Pepco order approved a temporary annual increase in distrib ution rates of approximately $10.6 million (including a decrease in annual depreciation expense of approximately $30.7 million). In each case, the approved distribution rate reflects a return on equity of 10.0%. The orders each provided that the rate increases are effective as of June 16, 2007, and will remain in effect for an initial period of nine months from the date of the order (or until April 19, 2008). The temporary rates are subject to a Phase II proceeding in which the MPSC will consider the results of audits of each company's cost allocation manual, as filed with the MPSC, to determine whether a further adjustment to the rates is required. For each of the utilities, the MPSC approved the proposed BSA, under which customer delivery rates are subject to adjustment quarterly (through a surcharge or credit mechanism), depending on whether actual revenue per customer exceeds or falls short of, the approved revenue per customer amount. |
New Jersey |
On June 1, 2007, ACE filed with the NJBPU an application for permission to decrease the Non Utility Generation Charge (NGC) and increase components of its Societal Benefits Charge (SBC) to be collected from customers for the period October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008. The proposed changes are designed to effect a true-up of the actual and estimated costs and revenues collected through the current NGC and SBC rates through September 30, 2007 and, in the case of the SBC, forecasted costs and revenues for the period October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008. |
151
|
ACE projects that, as of September 30, 2007, the NGC, which is intended primarily to recover the above-market component of payments made by ACE under non-utility generation contracts and stranded costs associated with those commitments, will have an over-recovery balance of $234.6 million. The filing proposes that the NGC balance, including interest, be amortized and returned to ACE customers over a four-year period, beginning October 1, 2007. |
ACE also projects that, as of September 30, 2007, the SBC, which is intended to allow ACE to recover certain costs involved with various NJBPU-mandated social programs, will have an under-recovery of approximately $21.8 million, primarily due to increased costs associated with funding the New Jersey Clean Energy Program (CEP). In addition, ACE has requested an increase to the SBC to reflect the increased funding levels approved by the NJBPU to $18.9 million for calendar year 2007 and $20.4 million for calendar year 2008, which will require a $42.3 million increase in the SBC for the period of October 1, 2007 to September 30, 2008. |
The net impact of the proposed adjustments to the NGC and the SBC, including associated changes in sales and use tax, is an overall rate decrease of approximately $131.8 million for the period October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2008. The proposed adjustments and the corresponding changes in customer rates are subject to the approval of the NJBPU. Once approved and implemented, ACE anticipates that the revised rates will remain in effect until September 30, 2008, subject to an annual true-up and change each year thereafter. |
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission |
On May 15, 2007, Pepco, ACE and DPL each updated its FERC-approved formula transmission rates based on its 2006 FERC Form 1. These rates became effective on June 1, 2007, and will provide the following approximate additional annual revenues: for Pepco, $9.5 million; for DPL, $17.2 million; and for ACE, $20 million. These updated rates reflect the end of a settlement adjustment that reduced the prior rate year's (from June 2006 through May 2007) revenues by an annual amount of $25.3 million for the three utilities. |
Divestiture Case |
New Jersey |
As previously disclosed in Item 7, "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations -- Regulatory and Other Matters -- Divestiture Cases -- New Jersey" of the PHI 2006 Form 10-K, in connection with the divestiture by ACE of its nuclear generating assets, the NJBPU in July 2000 preliminarily determined that the amount of stranded costs associated with the divested assets that ACE could recover from ratepayers should be reduced by approximately $94.8 million, consisting of $54.1 million of accumulated deferred federal income taxes (ADFIT) associated with accelerated depreciation on the divested nuclear assets, and $40.7 million of current tax loss from selling the assets at a price below the tax basis. |
The $54.1 million in deferred taxes associated with the divested assets' accelerated depreciation; however, is subject to the normalization rules. Due to uncertainty under federal tax law regarding whether the sharing of federal income tax benefits associated with the divested assets, including ADFIT related to accelerated depreciation, with ACE's customers would violate the normalization rules, ACE submitted a request to the IRS for a Private Letter Ruling (PLR) to clarify the applicable law. The NJBPU has delayed its final determination of the amount of recoverable stranded costs until after the receipt of the PLR. |
152
|
On May 25, 2006, the IRS issued the PLR in which it stated that returning to ratepayers any of the unamortized ADFIT attributable to accelerated depreciation on the divested assets after the sale of the assets by means of a reduction of the amount of recoverable stranded costs would violate the normalization rules. |
On June 9, 2006, ACE submitted a letter to the NJBPU, requesting that the NJBPU conduct proceedings to finalize the determination of the stranded costs associated with the sale of ACE's nuclear assets in accordance with the PLR. In the absence of an NJBPU action regarding ACE's request, on June 22, 2007, ACE filed a motion requesting that the NJBPU issue an order finalizing the determination of such stranded costs in accordance with the PLR. The NJBPU and the other parties in interest have agreed to an expedited schedule for resolution of the motion. |
Default Electricity Supply Proceedings |
Virginia |
As discussed below under the heading "DPL Sale of Virginia Operations," DPL has entered into an agreement to sell substantially all of its Virginia electric service operations. |
As previously disclosed in Item 2, "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations -- Regulatory and Other Matters -- Default Electricity Supply Proceedings -- Virginia" of the PHI 1st Quarter Form 10-Q, on April 2, 2007, DPL filed an application with Virginia State Corporation Commission (VSCC) to adjust its Default Service rates covering the period June 1, 2007, to May 31, 2008. The proposed rates for this service during the first month of this period (June 2007) are based on the fuel proxy rate calculation described below. The proposed rates for the remaining 11 months of the period (July 1, 2007 to May 31, 2008) reflect the fuel cost of Default Service supply based upon the results of the competitive bidding wholesale procurement process. The calculations in the application result in a rate decrease of approximately $1.7 million for the period, June 1 to June 30, 2007, and an increase of approximately $4.2 million for t he period, July 1, 2007 to May 31, 2008, resulting in an overall annual rate increase of approximately $2.5 million. |
The "fuel proxy rate calculation" was established under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that DPL entered into with the staff of the VSCC in connection with the approval of DPL's divestiture of its generation assets in 2000, and provides for the calculation of the fuel rate portion of Default Service rates that reflect an approximation of the fuel costs that DPL would have incurred had it retained its generating assets. Since June 1, 2006, use of the proxy rate calculation has resulted in DPL being unable to recover fully its cost of providing Default Service. The new rate application reflects DPL's position that the use of the fuel proxy rate calculation to establish Default Service rates terminated on July 1, 2007, and effective that date, it should be permitted to charge customers market based fuel costs. However, pursuant to an order dated June 8, 2007, the VSCC denied the July 1, 2007 rate increase, based on its conclusion that the MOA's provisions relating to fuel cos ts did not end effective June 30, 2007. As a result of this decision, DPL estimates that it will under-recover its cost of providing Default Service by approximately $1.7 million between June 1, 2007 and the September 30, 2007 expiration of the current SOS supply contract. Thereafter, any ongoing under-recovery will be determined by market rates for the fuel portion of SOS supply and the timing of completion of 153
the sale of DPL's Virginia electric operations as described below under the heading "DPL Sale of Virginia Operations." |
DPL filed a complaint for a declaratory order and preliminary injunctive relief with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the Virginia District Court). On July 23, 2007, the Virginia District Court dismissed the complaint and denied injunctive relief, finding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and stating that even if it had subject matter jurisdiction, it would abstain from exercising that jurisdiction to allow the Supreme Court of Virginia to consider the issues upon which the complaint was based. On July 31, 2007, DPL filed a notice of appeal of the VSCC's orders with the Supreme Court of Virginia. The sale of DPL's Virginia electric operations as described below under the heading "DPL Sale of Virginia Operations" is not contingent upon resolution of any of the matters that are at issue in these proceedings. If the sale of the Virginia electric operations is completed, the effect, if any, on these proceedings is not determinable at this time. |
DPL Sale of Virginia Operations |
On June 13, 2007, DPL entered into separate agreements to sell, respectively, all of its distribution assets and a significant portion of its transmission assets in Virginia for an aggregate sales price of approximately $45 million. DPL currently expects the transactions to close during the fourth quarter of 2007, contingent upon the receipt of required regulatory approvals. These sales, if completed, will not result in a significant financial gain or loss to DPL. |
Distribution Purchase and Sale Agreement |
DPL has entered into an agreement to sell to A&N Electric Cooperative (A&N) all of its assets principally related to DPL's business of distributing retail electric services to customers located on the Eastern Shore of Virginia for a purchase price of approximately $39.8 million, subject to closing adjustments. The assets to be sold include real and personal property, accounts receivable and customer deposits. A&N will assume certain post-closing liabilities and unknown pre-closing liabilities related to the distribution assets including most environmental liabilities, except that DPL will remain liable for unknown pre-closing liabilities if they become known within six months after the closing date. The completion of the sale is contingent upon approval by the VSCC. |
Transmission Purchase and Sale Agreement |
DPL has entered into an agreement to sell to Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC) certain assets principally related to DPL's provision of electric transmission services located on the Eastern Shore of Virginia for a purchase price of approximately $4.8 million, subject to certain closing adjustments. ODEC will assume certain post-closing liabilities and unknown pre-closing liabilities related to the transmission assets, except that DPL will remain liable for unknown pre-closing liabilities that become known within six months after the closing date. The completion of the sale is contingent upon approval of the transfer by the VSCC and approval of two related agreements by FERC. |
Environmental Litigation |
Delilah Road Landfill Site. For a discussion of the history of the environmental proceedings at the Delilah Road Landfill site, please refer to Item 7, "Management's Discussion and Analysis 154
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations -- Regulatory and Other Matters -- Environmental Litigation " of the PHI 2006 Form 10-K and Item 2, "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations -- Regulatory and Other Matters -- Environmental Litigation " of the PHI 1st Quarter Form 10-Q.In a June 19, 2007 letter, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requested that the group of potentially responsible parties (PRPs) pay $62,623 in response costs and enter into a tolling agreement. In a July 10, 2007 response to EPA, the PRP group indicated a willingness to pay approximately $62,600 (ACE's share of which is one-third) in full satisfaction of EPA's claims for all past and future response costs relating to the site, provided that EPA provides a satisfactory settlement agreement with a covenant not sue and release as to such costs. The PRP group response of July 10, 2007 also questioned the need for a tolling agreement for a site that is the subject of an NFA and accordingly warrants little, if any, activity by EPA. The PRP group is evaluating EPA's July 26, 2007 counteroffer of settlement under which the PRP group would resolve its liability for EPA's past and future costs at the site by paying the offered $62,600 plus a 30% premium to cover the risk associated with EPA's unknown future costs for a total of approximately $81,400. A settlement incorporating these terms also would permit EPA to reopen the settlement in the event of new information or unknown conditions at the site. Based on information currently available, ACE anticipates that its share of additional cost associated with this site for post-remedy operation and maintenance will be approximately $555,000 to $600,000. ACE believes that its liability for post-remedy operation and maintenance costs will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. |
Frontier Chemical Site. On June 29, 2007, ACE received a letter from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) indicating that ACE is a PRP at the Frontier Chemical Waste Processing Company site in Niagara Falls, N.Y. The letter states that NYDEC has hazardous waste manifests indicating that ACE sent in excess of 7,500 gallons of manifested hazardous waste to the site. The letter asks ACE, within 30 days, to express its willingness to enter into an ACO. If ACE is unwilling to enter into the ACO, ACE must respond to NYDEC's request for information within 45 days. ACE informed NYDEC that it has entered into good faith negotiations with a coalescing PRP group to address ACE's responsibility at the site. ACE believes that its responsibility at the site will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. |
Deepwater Generating Station. As previously disclosed in Item 2, "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations -- Regulatory and Other Matters -- Environmental Litigation " of the PHI 1st Quarter Form 10-Q, in December 2005, NJDEP issued a Title V Operating Permit for Conectiv Energy's Deepwater Generating Station. The permit includes new limits on unit heat input. In order to comply with these new operational limits, Conectiv Energy restricted the output of the Deepwater Generating Station's Unit 1 and Unit 6/8. In 2006 and the first half of 2007, these restrictions resulted in operating losses of approximately $10,000 per operating day on Unit 6/8, primarily because of lost revenues due to reduced output, and to a lesser degree because of lost revenues related to PJM capacity requirements. Since June 1, 2007, Deepwater Unit 6/8 can operate within the heat input limits set forth in the Title V Operating Permit w ithout restricting output, because of technical improvements that partially corrected the inherent bias in the continuous emissions monitoring system that had caused recorded heat input to be higher than actual heat input. In order to comply with the heat input limit at Deepwater Unit 1, Conectiv Energy continues to restrict Unit 1 output. Beginning with the third quarter 2007, this Unit 1 restriction will result in semi-annual operating losses of approximately $500,000 in 2007 and 2008 due to penalties and lost revenues 155
related to PJM capacity requirements. Beyond 2008, while penalties due to PJM capacity requirements are not expected, further operating losses due to lost revenues related to PJM capacity requirements may continue to be incurred. The operating losses due to reduced output on Unit 1 have been, and will continue to be, insignificant. Conectiv Energy is challenging these heat input restrictions and other provisions of the Title V Operating Permit for Deepwater Generating Station in the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law. |
On April 3, 2007, NJDEP issued an Administrative Order and Notice of Civil Administrative Penalty Assessment (the First Order) alleging that at Conectiv Energy's Deepwater Generating Station, the maximum gross heat input to Unit 1 exceeded the maximum allowable heat input in calendar year 2005 and the maximum gross heat input to Unit 6/8 exceeded the maximum allowable heat input in calendar years 2005 and 2006. The order required the cessation of operation of Units 1 and 6/8 above the alleged permitted heat input levels, assessed a penalty of $1,091,000 and requested that Conectiv Energy provide additional information about heat input to Units 1 and 6/8. Conectiv Energy provided NJDEP Units 1 and 6/8 calendar year 2004 heat input data on May 9, 2005, and calendar years 1995 to 2003 heat input data on July 10, 2007. On May 23, 2007, NJDEP issued a second Administrative Order and Notice of Civil Administrative Penalty Assessment (the Second Order) alleging that the maximum g ross heat input to Units 1 and 6/8 exceeded the maximum allowable heat input in calendar year 2004. The Second Order required the cessation of operation of Units 1 and 6/8 above the alleged permitted heat input levels and assessed a penalty of $811,600. Conectiv Energy has requested a contested case hearing challenging the issuance of the First and Second Orders and moved for a stay of the orders pending resolution of the Title V Operating Permit contested case described above. |
Carll's Corner Generating Station. For a discussion of the history of the environmental proceedings at the Carll's Corner Generating Station, please refer to Item 2, "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations -- Regulatory and Other Matters -- Environmental Litigation " of the PHI 1st Quarter Form 10-Q. NJDEP issued stays of the order of revocation until August 31, 2007, to provide time for NJDEP review of
June 2007 stack test data and preparation of a settlement agreement rescinding the order of revocation. |
Federal Tax Treatment of Cross-border Leases |
PCI maintains a portfolio of cross-border energy sale-leaseback transactions, which, as of June 30, 2007, had a book value of approximately $1.3 billion. |
On February 11, 2005, the Treasury Department and IRS issued Notice 2005-13 informing taxpayers that the IRS intends to challenge on various grounds the purported tax benefits claimed by taxpayers entering into certain sale-leaseback transactions with tax-indifferent parties (i.e., municipalities, tax-exempt and governmental entities) (the Notice). In addition, on June 29, 2005 the IRS published a Coordinated Issue Paper concerning the resolution of audit issues related to such transactions. PCI's cross-border energy leases are similar to those sale-leaseback transactions described in the Notice and the Coordinated Issue Paper. |
PCI's leases have been under examination by the IRS as part of the normal PHI tax audit. On June 9, 2006, the IRS issued its final revenue agent's report (RAR) for its audit of PHI's 2001 and 2002 income tax returns. In the RAR, the IRS disallowed the tax benefits claimed by PHI with respect to certain of these leases for those years. The tax benefit claimed by PHI with 156
respect to the leases under audit is approximately $60 million per year and from 2001 through June 30, 2007 were approximately $317 million. PHI has filed a protest against the IRS adjustments and the unresolved audit has been forwarded to the Appeals Office. The ultimate outcome of this issue is uncertain; however, if the IRS prevails, PHI would be subject to additional taxes, along with interest and possibly penalties on the additional taxes, which could have a material adverse effect on PHI's financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. PHI believes that its tax position related to these transactions was appropriate based on applicable statutes, regulations and case law, and intends to contest the adjustments proposed by the IRS; however, there is no assurance that PHI's position will prevail. |
On July 13, 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued FASB Staff Position (FSP) FAS 13-2 which amends SFAS No. 13 effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2006. This amendment requires a lease to be repriced and the book value adjusted when there is a change or probable change in the timing of tax benefits of the lease regardless of whether the change results in a deferral or permanent loss of tax benefits. Accordingly, a material change in the timing of cash flows under PHI's cross-border leases as the result of a settlement with the IRS would require an adjustment to the book value of the leases and a charge to earnings equal to the repricing impact of the disallowed deductions which could result in a material adverse effect on PHI's financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. PHI believes its tax position was appropriate and at this time does not believe there is a probable change in the timing of its tax benefits that w ould require repricing the leases and a charge to earnings. |
IRS Mixed Service Cost Issue |
For a discussion of the IRS claim relating to capitalization by Pepco, DPL and ACE of certain construction costs for income tax purposes, please refer to Item 7, Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations -- Regulatory and Other Matters -- IRS Mixed Service Cost Issue in Pepco Holdings' Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006. |
CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES |
For a discussion of Pepco Holdings' critical accounting policies, please refer to Item 7, Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations in Pepco Holdings' Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006. No material changes to Pepco Holdings' critical accounting policies occurred during the second quarter of 2007. |
NEW ACCOUNTING STANDARDS |
FSP FTB 85-4-1, "Accounting for Life Settlement Contracts by Third-Party Investors" |
In March 2006, the FASB issued FSP FASB Technical Bulletin (FTB) 85-4-1, "Accounting for Life Settlement Contracts by Third-Party Investors" (FSP FTB 85-4-1). This FSP provides initial and subsequent measurement guidance and financial statement presentation and disclosure guidance for investments by third-party investors in life settlement contracts. FSP FTB 85-4-1 also amends certain provisions of FASB Technical Bulletin No. 85-4, "Accounting for Purchases of Life Insurance," and SFAS No. 133, "Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities." The guidance in FSP FTB 85-4-1 applies prospectively for all new life settlement 157
contracts and is effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2006 (year ending December 31, 2007 for Pepco Holdings). Pepco Holdings has evaluated the impact of FSP FTB 85-4-1 and it does not have a material impact on its overall financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. |
SFAS No. 155, "Accounting for Certain Hybrid Financial Instruments - an amendment of FASB Statements No. 133 and 140" |
In February 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 155, "Accounting for Certain Hybrid Financial Instruments - an amendment of FASB Statements No. 133 and 140" (SFAS No. 155). SFAS No. 155 amends FASB Statements No. 133, "Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities," and SFAS No. 140, "Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities." SFAS No. 155 resolves issues addressed in Statement 133 Implementation Issue No. D1, "Application of Statement 133 to Beneficial Interests in Securitized Financial Assets." SFAS No. 155 is effective for all financial instruments acquired or issued after the beginning of an entity's first fiscal year that begins after September 15, 2006 (year ending December 31, 2007 for Pepco Holdings). Pepco Holdings has evaluated the impact of SFAS No. 155 and it does not have a material impact on its overall financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. |
SFAS No. 156, "Accounting for Servicing of Financial Assets, an amendment of FASB Statement No. 140" |
In March 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 156, "Accounting for Servicing of Financial Assets" (SFAS No. 156), an amendment of SFAS No. 140, "Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities," with respect to the accounting for separately recognized servicing assets and servicing liabilities. SFAS No. 156 requires an entity to recognize a servicing asset or servicing liability upon undertaking an obligation to service a financial asset via certain servicing contracts, and for all separately recognized servicing assets and servicing liabilities to be initially measured at fair value, if practicable. Subsequent measurement is permitted using either the amortization method or the fair value measurement method for each class of separately recognized servicing assets and servicing liabilities. |
SFAS No. 156 is effective as of the beginning of an entity's first fiscal year that begins after September 15, 2006 (year ending December 31, 2007 for Pepco Holdings). Application is to be applied prospectively to all transactions following adoption of SFAS No. 156. Pepco Holdings has evaluated the impact of SFAS No. 156 and it does not have a material impact on its overall financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. |
EITF Issue No. 06-3, "Disclosure Requirements for Taxes Assessed by a Governmental Authority on Revenue-producing Transactions" |
On June 28, 2006, the FASB ratified EITF Issue No. 06-3, "Disclosure Requirements for Taxes Assessed by a Governmental Authority on Revenue-producing Transactions" (EITF 06-3). EITF 06-3 provides guidance on an entity's disclosure of its accounting policy regarding the gross or net presentation of certain taxes and provides that if taxes included in gross revenues are significant, a company should disclose the amount of such taxes for each period for which an income statement is presented (i.e., both interim and annual periods). Taxes within the scope of 158
EITF 06-3 are those that are imposed on and concurrent with a specific revenue-producing transaction. Taxes assessed on an entity's activities over a period of time are not within the scope of EITF 06-3. Pepco Holdings implemented EITF 06-3 during the first quarter of 2007. Taxes included in Pepco Holdings gross revenues were $76.9 million and $63.8 million for the three months ended June 30, 2007 and 2006, respectively and $150.1 million and $125.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007 and 2006, respectively. |
FSP 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" |
On July 13, 2006, the FASB issued FSP 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" (FSP FAS 13-2). FSP FAS 13-2, which amends SFAS No. 13, "Accounting for Leases," addresses how a change or projected change in the timing of cash flows relating to income taxes generated by a leveraged lease transaction affects the accounting by a lessor for that lease. |
FSP FAS 13-2 is effective for the first fiscal year beginning after December 15, 2006 (year ending December 31, 2007 for Pepco Holdings). A material change in the timing of cash flows under Pepco Holdings' cross-border leases as the result of a settlement with the Internal Revenue Service or a change in tax law would require an adjustment to the book value of the leases and a charge to earnings equal to the repricing impact of the disallowed deductions which could result in a material adverse effect on its overall financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. For a further discussion, see "Federal Tax Treatment of Cross-border Leases" in Note (4), Commitments and Contingencies. |
SFAS No. 157, "Fair Value Measurements" |
In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157, "Fair Value Measurements" (SFAS No. 157) which defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in accounting principles generly accepted in the United State of America (GAAP), and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. SFAS No. 157 applies under other accounting pronouncements that require or permit fair value measurements and does not require any new fair value measurements. However, it is possible that the application of this Statement will change current practice with respect to the definition of fair value, the methods used to measure fair value, and the expanded disclosures about fair value measurements. |
SFAS No. 157 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007, and interim periods within those fiscal years (year ending December 31, 2008 for Pepco Holdings). Pepco Holdings is currently in the process of evaluating the impact that SFAS No. 157 will have on its overall financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. |
FSP AUG AIR-1, "Accounting for Planned Major Maintenance Activities" |
On September 8, 2006, the FASB issued FSP American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Industry Audit Guide, Audits of Airlines--"Accounting for Planned Major Maintenance Activities" (FSP AUG AIR-1), which prohibits the use of the accrue-in-advance method of accounting for planned major maintenance activities in annual and interim financial reporting periods for all industries. FSP AUG AIR-1 is effective the first fiscal year beginning 159
after December 15, 2006 (year ending December 31, 2007 for Pepco Holdings). Pepco Holdings has evaluated the impact of FSP AUG AIR-1 and it does not have a material impact on its overall financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. |
EITF Issue No. 06-5, "Accounting for Purchases of Life Insurance -- Determining the Amount That Could Be Realized in Accordance with FASB Technical Bulletin No. 85-4, Accounting for Purchases of Life Insurance" |
On September 20, 2006, the FASB ratified EITF Issue No. 06-5, "Accounting for Purchases of Life Insurance -- Determining the Amount That Could Be Realized in Accordance with FASB Technical Bulletin No. 85-4, Accounting for Purchases of Life Insurance" (EITF 06-5) which provides guidance on whether an entity should consider the contractual ability to surrender all of the individual-life policies (or certificates under a group life policy) together when determining the amount that could be realized in accordance with FTB 85-4, and whether a guarantee of the additional value associated with the group life policy affects that determination. EITF 06-5 provides that a policyholder should (i) determine the amount that could be realized under the insurance contract assuming the surrender of an individual-life by individual-life policy (or certificate by certificate in a group policy) and (ii) not discount the cash surrender value component of the amount that could be realized when c ontractual restrictions on the ability to surrender a policy exist unless contractual limitations prescribe that the cash surrender value component of the amount that could be realized is a fixed amount, in which case the amount that could be realized should be discounted in accordance with Accounting Priniples Board of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Opinion 21. EITF 06-5 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2006 (year ending December 31, 2007 for Pepco Holdings). Pepco Holdings has evaluated the impact of EITF 06-5 and has determined that it does not have a material impact on its financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, or disclosure requirements. |
FASB Staff Position No. EITF 00-19-2, "Accounting for Registration Payment Arrangements" |
On December 21, 2006, the FASB issued FSP Financial Interpretation No. EITF 00-19-2, "Accounting for Registration Payment Arrangements"(FSP EITF 00-19-2), which addresses an issuer's accounting for registration payment arrangements and specifies that the contingent obligation to make future payments or otherwise transfer consideration under a registration payment arrangement, whether issued as a separate agreement or included as a provision of a financial instrument or other agreement, should be separately recognized and measured in accordance with FASB SFAS No. 5, "Accounting for Contingencies." FSP EITF 00-19-2 is effective immediately for registration payment arrangements and the financial instruments subject to those arrangements that are entered into or modified subsequent to the date of its issuance. For registration payment arrangements and financial instruments subject to those arrangements that were entered into prior to the issuance of FSP EITF 00-19-2, th is guidance is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2006, and interim periods within those fiscal years (year ending December 31, 2007 for Pepco Holdings). Pepco Holdings implemented FSP EITF 00-19-2 during the first quarter of 2007. The implementation did not have a material impact on its overall financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. |
160
|
SFAS No. 159, "The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities - Including an amendment of FASB Statement No. 115" |
On February 15, 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, "The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities - Including an amendment of FASB Statement No. 115" (SFAS No. 159) which permits entities to elect to measure eligible financial instruments at fair value. The objective of SFAS No. 159 is to improve financial reporting by providing entities with the opportunity to mitigate volatility in reported earnings caused by measuring related assets and liabilities differently without having to apply complex hedge accounting provisions. SFAS No. 159 applies under other accounting pronouncements that require or permit fair value measurements and does not require any new fair value measurements. However, it is possible that the application of SFAS No. 159 will change current practice with respect to the definition of fair value, the methods used to measure fair value, and the expanded disclosures about fair value measurements. |
SFAS No. 159 establishes presentation and disclosure requirements designed to facilitate comparisons between companies that choose different measurement attributes for similar types of assets and liabilities. SFAS No. 159 requires companies to provide additional information that will help investors and other users of financial statements to more easily understand the effect of the company's choice to use fair value on its earnings. It also requires entities to display the fair value of those assets and liabilities for which the company has chosen to use fair value on the face of the balance sheet. SFAS No. 159 does not eliminate disclosure requirements included in other accounting standards. |
SFAS No. 159 applies to fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007 (year ending December 31, 2008 for Pepco Holdings), with early adoption permitted for an entity that has also elected to apply the provisions of SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements.An entity is prohibited from retrospectively applying SFAS No. 159, unless it chooses early adoption. SFAS No. 159 also applies to eligible items existing at November 15, 2007 (or early adoption date). Pepco Holdings is currently in the process of evaluating the impact that SFAS No. 159 will have on its overall financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. |
FSP FIN 39-1, "Amendment of FASB Interpretation No. 39" |
On April 30, 2007, the FASB issued FSP Financial Interpretation No. 39-1, "Amendment of FASB Interpretation No. 39" to amend certain portions of Interpretation 39. The FSP replaces the terms "conditional contracts" and "exchange contracts" in Interpretation 39 with the term "derivative instruments" as defined in Statement 133. The FSP also amends Interpretation 39 to allow for the offsetting of fair value amounts for the right to reclaim cash collateral or receivable, or the obligation to return cash collateral or payable, arising from the same master netting arrangement as the derivative instruments. FSP FIN 39-1 applies to fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007 (year ending December 31, 2008 for Pepco Holdings), with early adoption permitted. Pepco Holdings is currently in the process of evaluating the impact that FSP FIN 39-1 will have on its overall financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and disclosure requirements. |
161
|
EITF Issue No. 06-11, "Accounting for Income Tax Benefits of Dividends on Share-Based Payment Awards" |
On June 27, 2007, the FASB ratified EITF Issue No. 06-11, "Accounting for Income Tax Benefits of Dividends on Share-Based Payment Awards" (EITF 06-11) which provides that a realized income tax benefit from dividends or dividend equivalents that are charged to retained earnings and paid to employees for equity classified nonvested equity shares, nonvested equity share units, and outstanding equity share options should be recognized as an increase to additional paid-in capital (APIC). 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 (i.e. the "APIC pool"). |
EITF Issue No. 06-11 also provides that when the estimated amount of forfeitures increases or actual forfeitures exceed estimates, the amount of tax benefits previously recognized in APIC should be reclassified into the income statement; however, the amount reclassified is limited to the APIC pool balance on the reclassification date. |
EITF Issue No. 06-11 applies prospectively to the income tax benefits of dividends on equity-classified employee share-based payment awards that are declared in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2007, and interim periods within those fiscal years (year ending December 31, 2008 for Pepco Holdings). Early application is permitted as of the beginning of a fiscal year for which interim or annual financial statements have not yet been issued. Retrospective application to previously issued financial statements is prohibited. Entities must disclose the nature of any change in their accounting policy for income tax benefits of dividends on share-based payment awards resulting from the adoption of this guidance. Pepco Holdings is currently in the process of evaluating the impact that EITF Issue No. 06-11 will have on its overall financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and disclosure requirements. |
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS |
Some of the statements contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q are forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are subject to the safe harbor created by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements include declarations regarding Pepco Holdings' intents, beliefs and current expectations. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as "may," "will," "should," "expects," "plans," "anticipates," "believes," "estimates," "predicts," "potential" or "continue" or the negative of such terms or other comparable terminology. Any forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance, and actual results could differ materially from those indicated by the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve estimates, assumptions, known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause PHI's actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. |
The forward-looking statements contained herein are qualified in their entirety by reference to the following important factors, which are difficult to predict, contain uncertainties, are beyond Pepco Holdings' control and may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements: |
162
|
188
|
For additional information concerning market risk, please refer to Item 3, "Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk -- "Commodity Price Risk" and "Credit and Nonperformance Risk," and for information regarding "Interest Rate Risk," please refer to Item 7A, "Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk" in Pepco Holdings' Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006. |
INFORMATION FOR THIS ITEM IS NOT REQUIRED FOR PEPCO, DPL, AND ACE AS THEY MEET THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN GENERAL INSTRUCTION H(1)(a) AND (b) OF FORM 10-Q AND THEREFORE ARE FILING THIS FORM WITH A REDUCED FILING FORMAT. |
Item 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES |
Pepco Holdings, Inc. |
Conclusion Regarding the Effectiveness of Disclosure Controls and Procedures |
Under the supervision, and with the participation of management, including the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer, Pepco Holdings has evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of its disclosure controls and procedures as of June 30, 2007 and, based upon this evaluation, the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer of Pepco Holdings have concluded that these controls and procedures are effective to provide reasonable assurance that material information relating to Pepco Holdings and its subsidiaries that is required to be disclosed in reports filed with, or submitted to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act) (i) is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified by the SEC rules and forms and (ii) is accumulated and communicated to management, including its chief executive officer and chief financial officer, as approp riate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. |
Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting |
During the three months ended June 30, 2007, there was no change in Pepco Holdings' internal control over financial reporting that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Pepco Holdings' internal controls over financial reporting. |
Item 4T. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES |
Potomac Electric Power Company |
Conclusion Regarding the Effectiveness of Disclosure Controls and Procedures |
Under the supervision, and with the participation of management, including the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer, Pepco has evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of its disclosure controls and procedures as of June 30, 2007, and, based upon this evaluation, the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer of Pepco have concluded that these controls and procedures are effective to provide reasonable assurance that material information relating to Pepco that is required to be disclosed in reports filed with, or submitted to, the SEC under the Exchange Act (i) is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified by the SEC rules and forms and (ii) is accumulated 189
and communicated to management, including its chief executive officer and chief financial officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. |
Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting |
During the three months ended June 30, 2007, there was no change in Pepco's internal control over financial reporting that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Pepco's internal controls over financial reporting. |
Delmarva Power & Light Company |
Conclusion Regarding the Effectiveness of Disclosure Controls and Procedures |
Under the supervision, and with the participation of management, including the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer, DPL has evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of its disclosure controls and procedures as of June 30, 2007, and, based upon this evaluation, the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer of DPL have concluded that these controls and procedures are effective to provide reasonable assurance that material information relating to DPL that is required to be disclosed in reports filed with, or submitted to, the SEC under the Exchange Act (i) is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified by the SEC rules and forms and (ii) is accumulated and communicated to management, including its chief executive officer and chief financial officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. |
Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting |
During the three months ended June 30, 2007, there was no change in DPL's internal control over financial reporting that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, DPL's internal controls over financial reporting. |
Atlantic City Electric Company |
Conclusion Regarding the Effectiveness of Disclosure Controls and Procedures |
Under the supervision, and with the participation of management, including the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer, ACE has evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of its disclosure controls and procedures as of June 30, 2007, and, based upon this evaluation, the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer of ACE have concluded that these controls and procedures are effective to provide reasonable assurance that material information relating to ACE and its subsidiaries that is required to be disclosed in reports filed with, or submitted to, the SEC under the Exchange Act (i) is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified by the SEC rules and forms and (ii) is accumulated and communicated to management, including its chief executive officer and chief financial officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. |
Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting |
During the three months ended June 30, 2007, there was no change in ACE's internal control over financial reporting that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, ACE's internal controls over financial reporting. |
190
|
Part II OTHER INFORMATION |
Item 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS |
Pepco Holdings |
For information concerning litigation matters, please refer to Note (4), Commitments and Contingencies, to the financial statements of PHI included herein. |
Pepco |
For information concerning litigation matters, please refer to Note (4), Commitments and Contingencies, to the financial statements of Pepco included herein. |
DPL |
For information concerning litigation matters, please refer to Note (4), Commitments and Contingencies, to the financial statements of DPL included herein. |
ACE |
For information concerning litigation matters, please refer to Note (4), Commitments and Contingencies, to the financial statements of ACE included herein. |
Item 1A. RISK FACTORS |
Pepco Holdings |
For a discussion of Pepco Holdings' risk factors, please refer to Item 7 "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations -- Risk Factors" in Pepco Holdings' Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006. There have been no material changes to Pepco Holdings' risk factors as disclosed in the 10-K, except that the following risk factor supersedes the risk factor in the Form 10-K entitled "Pending tax legislation could result in a loss of future tax benefits from cross-border energy sale and leaseback transactions entered into by a PHI subsidiary." |
Changes in tax law could have a material adverse effect on the tax benefits that PHI realizes from the portfolio of cross-border energy sale-leaseback transactions entered into by one of its subsidiaries. |
In recent years efforts have been made by members of the U.S. Senate to pass legislation that would have the effect of deferring the deduction of losses associated with leveraged lease transactions involving tax-indifferent parties for taxable years beginning after the year of enactment regardless of when the transaction was entered into. These proposals, which would affect transactions such as those included in PCI's portfolio of cross-border energy leases, would effectively defer the deduction of losses associated with such leveraged lease transactions until the taxable year in which the taxpayer recognized taxable income from the lease, which is typically toward the end of the lease term. To date, no such legislation has been enacted; however, PHI anticipates there may be continuing efforts during 2007 by the U.S. Senate to propose legislation directed to the deferral or other curtailment of the tax benefits realized from such transactions. Enactment of legislation of th is nature could result in a material delay of the income tax benefits that PHI would receive in connection with PCI's portfolio of cross-border energy leases. 191
Furthermore, under the Financial Accounting Standards Board Staff Position on Financial Accounting Standards 13-2, PHI would be required to adjust the book value of the leases and record a charge to earnings equal to the repricing impact of the deferred deductions which could result in a material adverse effect on PHI's financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. |
Pepco |
For a discussion of Pepco's risk factors, please refer to Item 7 "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations -- Risk Factors" in Pepco's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006. There have been no material changes to Pepco's risk factors as disclosed in the 10-K. |
DPL |
For a discussion of DPL's risk factors, please refer to Item 7 "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations -- Risk Factors" in DPL's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006. There have been no material changes to DPL's risk factors as disclosed in the 10-K. |
ACE |
For a discussion of ACE's risk factors, please refer to Item 7 "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations -- Risk Factors" in ACE's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006. There have been no material changes to ACE's risk factors as disclosed in the 10-K. |
Item 2. UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS |
Pepco Holdings |
None. |
INFORMATION FOR THIS ITEM IS NOT REQUIRED FOR PEPCO, DPL, AND ACE AS THEY MEET THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN GENERAL INSTRUCTION H(1)(a) AND (b) OF FORM 10-Q AND THEREFORE ARE FILING THIS FORM WITH A REDUCED FILING FORMAT. |
Item 3. DEFAULTS UPON SENIOR SECURITIES |
Pepco Holdings |
None. |
INFORMATION FOR THIS ITEM IS NOT REQUIRED FOR PEPCO, DPL, AND ACE AS THEY MEET THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN GENERAL INSTRUCTION H(1)(a) AND (b) OF FORM 10-Q AND THEREFORE ARE FILING THIS FORM WITH A REDUCED FILING FORMAT. |
192
|
Item 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS |
Pepco Holdings |
(a) The Annual Meeting of Shareholders was held on May 18, 2007. |
(b) Directors who were elected at the annual meeting: |
