Contribution to consolidated net income decreased $2.4 million in the current twelve-month period compared to the same period a year ago. The impact of the merger litigation settlements, coupled with higher operating costs, was partially offset by growth in operating margin and improvement in other income (expense). Operating margin increased $28 million between periods. Customer growth, coupled with increased margin from electric generation and industrial customers during the fourth quarter of 2001, contributed $17 million in incremental margin, while rate relief added $37 million. Differences in heating demand caused by weather variations between periods resulted in a $26 million margin decrease. Warmer-than-normal temperatures experienced during the fourth quarter of 2001 and second quarter of 2002 negatively impacted margin by $13 million. Prior-period margin was $13 million higher than expected due to temperatures that were ten percent colder than normal. Operations and maintenance expense increased $13.2 million, or five percent, reflecting general increases in labor and maintenance costs, higher uncollectible expenses, and incremental operating expenses associated with providing service to a steadily growing customer base. Depreciation expense and general taxes increased $12.1 million, or nine percent, as a result of additional plant in service. Average gas plant in service for the current twelve-month period increased $199 million, or eight percent, compared to the corresponding period a year ago. This was attributable to the upgrade of existing operating facilities and the expansion of the system to accommodate new customers. During the second quarter of 2002, the Company recorded a net $14.5 million nonrecurring pretax charge related to the settlements of merger-related litigation. SeeMerger-related Litigation Settlements for additional information. 11
Other income (expense) improved $2.8 million between periods. The current period includes a one-time pretax gain of $8.9 million for the sale of undeveloped property and a $3 million nonrecurring pretax gain on the sale of certain assets recognized in the fourth quarter of 2001. These gains were partially offset by a $4.2 million decrease in interest income primarily earned on deferred PGA account balances, $2.7 million of charges associated with the settlement of a regulatory issue in California (seeCalifornia Order Instituting Investigation) and a $2.5 million increase in merger litigation costs. Income tax expense in the current period includes $2.5 million of income tax benefits recognized in the fourth quarter of 2001 associated with the favorable resolution of state income tax issues. Rates and Regulatory ProceedingsNevada General Rate Cases.In July 2001, Southwest filed general rate applications with the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN) seeking approval to increase revenues by $21.7 million per year in its southern Nevada rate jurisdiction and $7.7 million in its northern Nevada rate jurisdiction. In November 2001, Southwest received approval from the PUCN to increase rates by $13.5 million, or five percent, annually in southern Nevada and $5.9 million, or five percent, annually in northern Nevada effective December 2001. In January 2002, the PUCN settled several open issues in the case regarding rate design. Changes included increasing the residential basic service charge by $2.00 per month in both jurisdictions, which should improve revenue stability in Nevada. The changes were effective February 2002 and did not impact the amount of rate relief granted. California General Rate Cases.In February 2002, Southwest filed general rate applications with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for its northern and southern California jurisdictions. The applications sought annual increases over a five-year rate case cycle with a cumulative total of $6.3 million in northern California and $17.2 million in southern California. In July 2002, the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) filed testimony in the rate case recommending significant reductions to the rate increases sought by Southwest. The ORA did concur with the majority of the Southwest rate design proposals including a margin tracking mechanism to mitigate weather-related and other usage variations. At the hearing that was held in August 2002, Southwest modified its proposal from a five year to a three year rate case cycle and accordingly reduced its cumulative request to $4.8 million in northern California and $10.7 million in southern California. For 2003, the amounts requested were reduced to $2.6 million in northern California and $5.9 million in southern California. A decision is expected by year-end, with rates to become effective in the first quarter of 2003. The last general rate increases received in California were January 1998 in northern California and January 1995 in southern California. Arizona Capacity Issues.Southwest is dependent upon the El Paso Natural Gas Company (El Paso) pipeline system for the transportation of gas to virtually all of its Arizona service territories. Southwest receives transportation service from El Paso to its Arizona service territories under a full requirements contract. Under full requirements service, El Paso is obligated to transport all of a customer’s gas requirements each day, and the customer is obligated to have El Paso, and only El Paso, transport its requirements. Virtually all of El Paso’s customers in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas are full requirements customers, while El Paso transports gas for its customers in California and Nevada subject to a specific maximum daily quantity, or contract demand limitation. Since November 1999, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has been examining capacity allocation issues on the El Paso system in several proceedings. During that time, the demand for natural gas on the El Paso system has risen, primarily due to increased electric power generation fuel needs and market area growth. As a result, shippers have been increasingly receiving reductions in the quantities of gas that they have been nominating for transportation each day. Many of the contract demand shippers have argued that the growth in the full requirements shippers’ volumes, coupled with El Paso’s failure to expand its system, have impaired their ability to receive all of the service to which they are entitled. 12
In May 2002, the FERC issued an order requiring that full requirements service be terminated as of November 2002. The order stated that full requirements transportation service agreements were to be converted to contract demand-type service agreements, and full requirements customers were to have an opportunity to negotiate an allocation of the system capacity determined by El Paso to be in excess of the capacity needed to fully serve the contract demand shippers. If the customers failed to agree upon an allocation, then the FERC would establish an allocation methodology for the customers. Following the order, various parties including Southwest submitted comments to the FERC seeking clarification or petitioning for rehearing. In September 2002, the FERC issued an order on clarification of the May 2002 order. Among other things, the FERC determined that the full requirements customers had not agreed upon an allocation of capacity, and therefore the FERC established a methodology to be used to allocate capacity among the full requirements customers. In addition, the FERC postponed the conversion of full requirements service agreements to contract demand-type service agreements until May 2003. Because the proceeding is still ongoing, further modifications to previous orders as well as additional rulings are expected. Management believes that it is difficult to predict the ultimate outcome of the proceedings or the impact of the FERC action on Southwest. However, by delaying the effective date of the order, Arizona will have sufficient capacity this winter. Thereafter, management also expects that sufficient capacity will be available to Southwest, but additional costs may be incurred to acquire such capacity. It is anticipated that any additional costs will be collected from customers, principally through the PGA mechanism. PGA FilingsThe rate schedules in all of the service territories contain PGA clauses, which permit adjustments to rates as the cost of purchased gas changes. Filings to change rates in accordance with PGA clauses are subject to audit by state regulatory commission staffs. PGA changes impact cash flows but have no direct impact on profit margin. Arizona PGA Filings. In Arizona, Southwest adjusts rates monthly for changes in purchased gas costs, within pre-established limits. In January 2002, Southwest filed an advice letter with the ACC to eliminate a temporary rate adjustment surcharge, which was otherwise set to expire at the end of the second quarter of 2002. This action was taken in recognition of moderating gas costs and projections of PGA balancing account activity. The filing was approved effective February 2002 and reduces revenues by $31.9 million annually. In October 2002, Southwest submitted a PGA filing to the ACC to reduce rates based on an over-collected PGA balance at August 2002 of $18.8 million. The ACC approved the rate reduction as filed with new rates effective November 2002. Nevada PGA Filings.In December 2001, Southwest submitted an out-of-cycle PGA filing to the PUCN for a $29.2 million decrease for southern Nevada customers. In January 2002, an additional decrease of $13.9 million was requested. The total of the two filings, $43.1 million, was agreed to in a settlement among all parties and approved by the PUCN effective February 2002. The filings were made in advance of the scheduled annual date to allow customers to receive the benefit of decreases experienced in natural gas costs. In June 2002, Southwest filed its annual PGA, which requested no change in effective rates for either the southern or northern Nevada rate jurisdiction. However, subsequent to the filing, natural gas prices declined further, and in October 2002, through an all-party stipulation, Southwest agreed to decreases in PGA rates. The PUCN approved annual decreases of $13.5 million, or 14 percent, in northern Nevada and $8.7 million, or 4 percent, in southern Nevada. The new rates became effective in November 2002. California Order Instituting Investigation (OII). In July 2001, the CPUC ordered an investigation into the reasonableness of Southwest natural gas procurement practices and costs from June 1999 through May 2001, and related measures taken to minimize gas costs beyond May 2001. During the third quarter of 2001, Southwest filed a detailed report and testimony with the CPUC on these matters for both its northern and southern California service territories. The OII resulted from complaints by southern California customers about the size of 13
monthly PGA rate increases that were necessary due to the unusually high cost of natural gas during the winter of 2000-2001. In regards to the southern California jurisdiction, the ORA and County of San Bernardino recommended disallowances of $7.3 million and $11.7 million, respectively. No issues were raised related to the northern California rate jurisdiction. The proposed disallowances were based solely on decisions by Southwest not to purchase additional gas for storage during the winter of 2000-2001. Hearings were held in January 2002. Southwest defended its decisions related to storage, based on testimony which demonstrated that injecting additional volumes of natural gas into storage during the 2000 injection season (April through September) could not be economically justified based on market conditions and price forecasts that existed at the time decisions were made. During May 2002, the Administrative Law Judge issued a proposed decision and the Presiding Commissioner issued an alternate decision (AD) related to this matter. The proposed decision recommended that Southwest be disallowed $3.2 million, while the AD recommended a $5.8 million disallowance. The $3.2 million proposed decision contained calculation errors which, when corrected, reduced the proposed decision to $2.7 million. Both draft decisions concluded that Southwest should have had a higher gas storage inventory level than it had going into the winter of 2000-2001. During July 2002, a second AD was drafted by another Commissioner, recommending a disallowance of nearly $1.5 million. An estimated $1.5 million liability was recognized in the Company’s second quarter 2002 financial statements based on management’s belief that a disallowance would be ordered. In August 2002, the CPUC issued a final order which disallowed $2.7 million of gas costs. Based on the CPUC decision, an additional $1.2 million liability was recognized in the Company’s third quarter 2002 financial statements. The CPUC ordered the $2.7 million be returned to customers through bill credits beginning in November 2002, based on each customer’s usage during the five month period from November 2000 through March 2001. Merger-related Litigation SettlementsLitigation in Arizona related to the now terminated acquisition of the Company by ONEOK, Inc. (ONEOK) and the rejection of competing offers from Southern Union Company (Southern Union) has been resolved. For additional background information, see Item 3 “Legal Proceedings” in the 2001 Form 10-K filed by the Company with the SEC. In August 2002, the Company reached final settlements with both Southern Union and ONEOK related to this litigation. The Company paid Southern Union $17.5 million to resolve all remaining Southern Union claims against the Company and its officers. ONEOK paid the Company $3 million to resolve all claims between the Company and ONEOK. The net after-tax impact of the settlements was a $9 million, or $0.28 per share, charge and was reflected in the second quarter 2002 financial statements. Prior to 2002, the impact to Company financial results for merger litigation costs was not significant as most defense costs were reimbursed by insurance. In 2002, the Company exhausted its first layer of insurance coverage and began filing claims with a different insurance provider for reimbursement under its second layer of coverage. The Company and the insurance provider are in dispute over the type of coverage and whether it applies to the Southern Union settlement or related litigation defense costs. Because of this dispute, the Company did not recognize any benefit for potential insurance recoveries related to the Southern Union settlement in the second quarter. Management cannot predict the amount, if any, of insurance cost reimbursement the Company may receive. Recently Issued Accounting PronouncementsIn June 2001, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued SFAS No. 143, “Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations.” SFAS No. 143 requires entities to record the fair value of a liability for an asset retirement obligation in the period in which it is incurred. The asset retirement obligations included within the scope of SFAS No. 143 are those that are unavoidable as a result of the acquisition, construction, development, or normal operation of long-lived assets. The standard requires that a legal obligation associated with the retirement of tangible long-lived assets be recognized as a liability when incurred. When a liability for an asset retirement obligation is initially recorded, the entity capitalizes a cost by increasing the carrying amount of the related long-lived asset. Over time, the liability is accreted to its present value each period, and the capitalized cost is depreciated over the useful life of the related asset. Entities are also required to recognize period-to-period changes for the liability related to asset retirement obligations resulting from the passage of time 14
and/or revisions to either the timing or the amount of the original estimate of undiscounted cash flows. Upon settlement of the liability, an entity either settles the obligation for its recorded amount or incurs a gain or loss. Upon initial application of SFAS No. 143, entities are required to recognize the following items in the statement of financial position: a liability for any existing asset retirement obligations adjusted for cumulative accretion to the date of adoption of SFAS No. 143, an asset retirement cost capitalized as an increase to the carrying amount of the associated long-lived asset, and accumulated depreciation for the capitalized cost. SFAS No. 143 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2002, with early adoption encouraged. Management has not yet quantified the effects of the new standard on the financial position or results of operations of the Company. In April 2002, the FASB issued SFAS No. 145, “Rescission of FASB Statements No. 4, 44, and 64, Amendment of FASB Statement No. 13, and Technical Corrections.” SFAS No. 145 rescinds SFAS No. 4, “Reporting Gains and Losses from Extinguishment of Debt,” and an amendment of that Statement, SFAS No. 64, “Extinguishments of Debt Made to Satisfy Sinking-Fund Requirements.” The rescission of SFAS Nos. 4 and 64 is effective for fiscal years beginning after May 15, 2002. All other provisions of SFAS No. 145 are effective for transactions entered into, or financial statements issued, after May 15, 2002. The effective portions of the standard were adopted without impact during the second quarter of 2002 and management believes the remaining portions of the new standard will have no material effect on the financial position or results of operations of the Company. In June 2002, the FASB issued SFAS No. 146, “Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities.” SFAS No. 146 requires that a liability be recognized at fair value for a cost associated with an exit or disposal activity when the liability is incurred. Exit or disposal activities include a sale or termination of a line of business, the closure of business activities in a particular location, the relocation of business activities from one location to another, changes in management structure, and a fundamental reorganization that affects the nature and focus of operations. The provisions of SFAS No. 146 are effective for exit or disposal activities that are initiated after December 31, 2002, with early application encouraged. Management believes the new standard will have no material effect on the financial position or results of operations of the Company. Forward-Looking StatementsThis report contains statements which constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (Reform Act). All such forward-looking statements are intended to be subject to the safe harbor protection provided by the Reform Act. A number of important factors affecting the business and financial results of the Company could cause actual results to differ materially from those stated in the forward-looking statements. These factors include, but are not limited to, the impact of weather variations on customer usage, customer growth rates, natural gas prices, the effects of regulation/deregulation, the timing and amount of rate relief, changes in gas procurement practices, changes in capital requirements and funding, the impact of conditions in the capital markets on financing costs, acquisitions and competition. ITEM 3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISKSee Item 7A. “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk” in the Company’s 2001 Form 10-K filed with the SEC. No material changes have occurred related to the Company’s disclosures about market risk. ITEM 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURESThe Company has established disclosure controls and procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in reports filed or submitted under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms. Based on the most recent evaluation, which was completed within 90 days of the filing of this Form 10-Q, management of the Company, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, believe the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures are operating effectively. 15
In addition, there were no significant changes in the Company’s internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of management’s most recent evaluation. PART II — OTHER INFORMATIONITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGSMerger-related Litigation Settlements Litigation in Arizona related to the now terminated acquisition of the Company by ONEOK and the rejection of competing offers from Southern Union has been resolved. For additional background information, see Item 3 “Legal Proceedings” in the 2001 Form 10-K filed by the Company with the SEC. In August 2002, the Company reached final settlements with both Southern Union and ONEOK related to this litigation. The Company paid Southern Union $17.5 million to resolve all remaining Southern Union claims against the Company and its officers. ONEOK paid the Company $3 million to resolve all claims between the Company and ONEOK. The net after-tax impact of the settlements was a $9 million, or $0.28 per share, charge and was reflected in the second quarter 2002 financial statements. ITEM 2-5. None.ITEM 6. EXHIBITS AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K |