================================================================================
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
----------------------
Form 10-Q
(Mark One)
|X| QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005
or
[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from to
Commission file number: 1-12079
----------------------
Calpine Corporation
(A Delaware Corporation)
I.R.S. Employer Identification No. 77-0212977
50 West San Fernando Street
San Jose, California 95113
Telephone: (408) 995-5115
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such
filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes |X| No [ ]
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as
defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes |X| No [ ]
Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes
of common stock, as of the latest practicable date:
567,964,618 shares of Common Stock, par value $.001 per share, outstanding
on August 8, 2005.
================================================================================
CALPINE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
For the Quarter Ended June 30, 2005
INDEX
Page No.
--------
PART I -- FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item 1. Financial Statements
Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004.................. 7
Consolidated Condensed Statements of Operations for the Three and Six Months Ended
June 30, 2005 and 2004................................................................... 9
Consolidated Condensed Statements of Cash Flows for the Six Months Ended
June 30, 2005 and 2004................................................................... 11
Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements......................................... 13
1. Organization and Operations of the Company........................................... 13
2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies........................................... 13
3. Strategic Initiative................................................................. 17
4. Available-for-Sale Debt Securities................................................... 20
5. Property, Plant and Equipment, Net and Capitalized Interest.......................... 20
6. Unconsolidated Investments........................................................... 23
7. Debt................................................................................. 26
8. Discontinued Operations.............................................................. 30
9. Derivative Instruments............................................................... 32
10. Comprehensive Income (Loss).......................................................... 36
11. Loss Per Share....................................................................... 38
12. Commitments and Contingencies........................................................ 39
13. Operating Segments................................................................... 46
14. California Power Market.............................................................. 47
15. Subsequent Events.................................................................... 49
Item 2. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations........ 50
Selected Operating Information............................................................. 51
Overview................................................................................... 52
Results of Operations...................................................................... 53
Liquidity and Capital Resources............................................................ 64
Performance Metrics........................................................................ 71
Summary of Key Activities.................................................................. 74
California Power Market.................................................................... 75
Financial Market Risks..................................................................... 75
New Accounting Pronouncements.............................................................. 82
Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk................................... 83
Item 4. Controls and Procedures...................................................................... 83
PART II -- OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1. Legal Proceedings............................................................................ 85
Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds.................................. 85
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.......................................... 85
Item 6. Exhibits..................................................................................... 86
Signatures....................................................................................................... 88
DEFINITIONS
As used in this Form 10-Q, the abbreviations contained herein have the
meanings set forth below. Additionally, the terms, "Calpine," "we," "us" and
"our" refer to Calpine Corporation and its subsidiaries, unless the context
clearly indicates otherwise.
ABBREVIATION DEFINITION
- ------------ ----------
2006 Convertible Notes 4% Convertible Senior Notes Due 2006
2014 Convertible Notes Contingent Convertible Notes Due 2014
2015 Convertible Notes 7 3/4% Contingent Convertible Notes Due 2015
2023 Convertible Notes 4 3/4% Contingent Convertible Senior Notes Due 2023
Acadia PP Acadia Power Partners, LLC
AELLC Androscoggin Energy LLC
Agnews O.L.S. Energy - Agnews, Inc.
AOCI Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income
APB Accounting Principles Board
ARB Accounting Research Bulletin
Auburndale PP Auburndale Power Partners, Limited Partnership
Bcfe Billion cubic feet equivalent
Btu British thermal units
CAISO California Independent System Operator
CalGen Calpine Generating Company, LLC
Calpine Canada Calpine Canada Natural Gas Partnership
Calpine Cogen Calpine Cogeneration Company, formerly Cogen America
Calpine Jersey I Calpine (Jersey) Limited
Calpine Jersey II Calpine European Funding (Jersey) Limited
CalPX California Power Exchange
CCFC I Calpine Construction Finance Company, L.P
CDWR California Department of Water Resources
CES Calpine Energy Services, L.P.
CFE Comision Federal de Electricidad
Chubu Chubu Electric Power Company, Inc.
CIP Construction in Progress
CNEM Calpine Northbrook Energy Marketing, LLC
CNGT Calpine Natural Gas Trust
Cogen America Cogeneration Corporation of America, Inc. now called Calpine Cogeneration Corporation
COR Cost of revenue
CPIF Calpine Power Income Fund
CPLP Calpine Power, L.P.
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CTA Cumulative Translation Adjustment
DB London Deutsche Bank AG London
Deer Park Deer Park Energy Center L.P.
Diamond Diamond Generating Corporation
DOL United States Department of Labor
E&S Electricity and steam
EITF Emerging Issues Task Force
Enron Enron Corp
Enron Canada Enron Canada Corp.
Entergy Entergy Services, Inc.
EOB Electricity Oversight Board
EPS Earnings per share
ERISA Employee Retirement Income Security Act
ESA Energy Services Agreement
FASB Financial Accounting Standards Board
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FFIC Fireman's Fund Insurance Company
FIN FASB Interpretation Number
First Priority Notes 9 5/8% First Priority Senior Secured Notes Due 2014
GAAP Generally accepted accounting principles
GE General Electric International, Inc.
Geysers Geysers Power Company, LLC
Grays Ferry Grays Ferry Cogeneration Partnership
Hawaii Fund Hawaii Structural Ironworkers Pension Trust Fund
HBO Hedging, balancing and optimization
HIGH TIDES Convertible Preferred Securities, Remarketable Term Income Deferrable Equity
Securities (HIGH TIDES) SM
IP International Paper Company
KW Kilowatt(s)
KWh Kilowatt hour(s)
LCRA Lower Colorado River Authority
LIBOR London Inter-Bank Offered Rate
LTSA Long Term Service Agreement
Metcalf Metcalf Energy Center, LLC
Mitsui Mitsui & Co., Ltd.
MLCI Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc.
MMBtu Million Btu
Mmcfe Million net cubic feet equivalent
Morris Calpine Morris, LLC
MW Megawatt(s)
MWh Megawatt hour(s)
NESCO National Energy Systems Company
NPC Nevada Power Company
O&M Operations and maintenance
OCI Other Comprehensive Income
Oneta Oneta Energy Center
OPA Ontario Power Authority
Panda Panda Energy International, Inc., and related parties PLC II and LLC
PCF Power Contract Financing, L.L.C.
PCF III Power Contract Financing III, LLC
PJM Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland
Plan Calpine Corporation Retirement Savings Plan
POX Plant operating expense
PPA(s) Power purchase agreement(s)
PSM Power Systems MFG., LLC
PUCN Public Utilities Commission of Nevada
QF Qualifying Facilities
Reliant Reliant Energy Services, Inc.
RMR Contracts Reliability must run contracts
Rosetta Rosetta Resources Inc.
SAB Staff Accounting Bulletin
Saltend Saltend Energy Centre
Second Priority Secured Debt Instruments
The Indentures between the Company and Wilmington Trust Company, as Trustee,
relating to the Company's Second Priority Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2007, 8.500% Second Priority Senior Secured Notes due 2010, 8.750% Second
Priority Senior Secured Notes due 2013, 9.875% Second Priority Senior Secured
Notes due 2011 and the Credit Agreement among the Company, as Borrower, Goldman
Sachs Credit Partners L.P., as Administrative Agent, Sole Lead Arranger and Sole
Book Runner, The Bank of Nova Scotia, as Arranger and Syndication Agent, TD
Securities (USA) Inc., ING (U.S.) Capital LLC and Landesbank Hessen-Thuringen,
as Co-Arrangers, and Credit Lyonnais New York Branch and Union Bank of
California, N.A., as Managing Agent, relating to the Company's Senior Secured
Term Loans Due 2007, in each case as such instruments may be amended from time
to time.
Securities Act Securities Act of 1933, as amended
SFAS Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
Siemens-Westinghouse Siemens-Westinghouse Power Corporation (changed to "Siemens Power
Generation, Inc. on August 1, 2005)
SkyGen SkyGen Energy LLC, now called Calpine Northbrook Energy, LLC
SPE Special-Purpose Entities
SPPC Sierra Pacific Power Company
TAC Third Amended Complaint
TNAI Thermal North America, Inc.
TSA(s) Transmission service agreement(s)
TTS Thomassen Turbine Systems, B.V.
Valladolid Compania de Generacion Valladolid S.de R.L. de C.V. partnership
VIE(s) Variable interest entity(ies)
Westcoast Westcoast Energy Inc.
Whitby Whitby Cogeneration Limited Partnership
Williams The Williams Companies, Inc.
PART I -- FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item 1. Financial Statements.
CALPINE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS
June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004
June 30, December 31,
2005 2004
--------------- ---------------
(In thousands, except share and
per share amounts)
(Unaudited)
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents....................................................................... $ 636,208 $ 718,023
Accounts receivable, net........................................................................ 1,036,196 1,048,010
Margin deposits and other prepaid expense....................................................... 425,084 438,125
Inventories..................................................................................... 144,073 174,307
Restricted cash................................................................................. 993,883 593,304
Current derivative assets....................................................................... 383,914 324,206
Current assets held for sale.................................................................... 118,483 133,947
Other current assets............................................................................ 319,455 133,643
-------------- --------------
Total current assets...................................................................... 4,057,296 3,563,565
-------------- --------------
Restricted cash, net of current portion......................................................... 190,501 157,868
Notes receivable, net of current portion........................................................ 197,271 203,680
Project development costs....................................................................... 143,294 150,179
Unconsolidated investments...................................................................... 376,511 373,108
Deferred financing costs........................................................................ 399,136 406,844
Prepaid lease, net of current portion........................................................... 447,096 424,586
Property, plant and equipment, net.............................................................. 19,005,971 18,939,420
Goodwill........................................................................................ 45,160 45,160
Other intangible assets, net.................................................................... 66,785 68,423
Long-term derivative assets..................................................................... 714,409 506,050
Long-term assets held for sale.................................................................. 1,630,441 1,718,724
Other assets.................................................................................... 535,756 658,481
-------------- --------------
Total assets............................................................................ $ 27,809,627 $ 27,216,088
============== ==============
LIABILITIES & STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable............................................................................. $ 862,434 $ 983,008
Accrued payroll and related expense.......................................................... 78,387 88,067
Accrued interest payable..................................................................... 411,507 385,794
Income taxes payable......................................................................... 72,499 57,234
Notes payable and borrowings under lines of credit, current portion.......................... 209,184 204,775
Convertible debentures payable to Calpine Capital Trust III.................................. 517,500 --
Preferred interests, current portion......................................................... 268,819 8,641
Capital lease obligation, current portion.................................................... 5,918 5,490
CCFC I financing, current portion............................................................ 3,208 3,208
Construction/project financing, current portion.............................................. 104,932 93,393
Senior notes and term loans, current portion................................................. 1,069,975 718,449
Current derivative liabilities............................................................... 501,471 356,030
Current liabilities held for sale............................................................ 187,629 72,467
Other current liabilities.................................................................... 318,973 308,836
-------------- --------------
Total current liabilities................................................................. 4,612,436 3,285,392
-------------- --------------
Notes payable and borrowings under lines of credit, net of current portion...................... 673,312 769,490
Convertible debentures payable to Calpine Capital Trust III..................................... -- 517,500
Preferred interests, net of current portion..................................................... 648,246 497,896
Capital lease obligation, net of current portion................................................ 281,940 283,429
CCFC I financing, net of current portion........................................................ 782,423 783,542
CalGen/CCFC II financing........................................................................ 2,396,257 2,395,332
Construction/project financing, net of current portion.......................................... 2,283,200 1,905,658
Convertible Notes............................................................................... 1,831,208 1,255,298
Senior notes and term loans, net of current portion............................................. 7,584,897 8,532,664
Deferred income taxes, net of current portion................................................... 669,990 885,754
Deferred revenue................................................................................ 117,805 114,202
Long-term derivative liabilities................................................................ 1,005,943 516,230
Long-term liabilities held for sale............................................................. 154,053 173,429
Other liabilities............................................................................... 320,542 319,154
-------------- --------------
Total liabilities......................................................................... 23,362,252 22,234,970
-------------- --------------
Minority interests.............................................................................. 384,401 393,445
-------------- --------------
Stockholders' equity:
Preferred stock, $.001 par value per share; authorized 10,000,000 shares; none issued and
outstanding in 2005 and 2004................................................................ -- --
Common stock, $.001 par value per share; authorized 2,000,000,000 shares; issued and
outstanding 567,964,218 shares in 2005 and 536,509,231 shares in 2004....................... 568 537
Additional paid-in capital................................................................... 3,255,667 3,151,577
Additional paid-in capital, loaned shares.................................................... 258,100 258,100
Additional paid-in capital, returnable shares................................................ (258,100) (258,100)
Retained earnings............................................................................ 858,859 1,326,048
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)................................................ (52,120) 109,511
-------------- --------------
Total stockholders' equity........................................................... $ 4,062,974 $ 4,587,673
-------------- --------------
Total liabilities and stockholders' equity........................................... $ 27,809,627 $ 27,216,088
============== ==============
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements.
CALPINE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
For the Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004
Three Months Ended Six Months Ended
June 30, June 30,
---------------------------- ----------------------------
2005 2004 2005 2004
-------------- -------------- -------------- -------------
(In thousands, except per share amounts)
(Unaudited)
Revenue:
Electric generation and marketing revenue
Electricity and steam revenue.................................... $ 1,298,973 $ 1,239,147 $ 2,577,252 $ 2,372,342
Transmission sales revenue....................................... 3,144 4,049 6,888 9,724
Sales of purchased power for hedging and optimization............ 432,846 496,026 780,256 873,849
------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
Total electric generation and marketing revenue................ 1,734,963 1,739,222 3,364,396 3,255,915
Oil and gas production and marketing revenue
Oil and gas sales................................................ -- 1,034 -- 2,016
Sales of purchased gas for hedging and optimization.............. 456,920 481,971 877,216 834,708
------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
Total oil and gas production and marketing revenue............. 456,920 483,005 877,216 836,724
Mark-to-market activities, net...................................... 2,874 (22,605) (657) (10,086)
Other revenue....................................................... 31,200 15,781 52,447 36,803
------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
Total revenue............................................... 2,225,957 2,215,403 4,293,402 4,119,356
------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
Cost of revenue:
Electric generation and marketing expense
Plant operating expense.......................................... 201,855 204,583 384,104 370,249
Transmission purchase expense.................................... 19,807 14,651 40,681 31,078
Royalty expense.................................................. 8,143 6,951 18,473 12,833
Purchased power expense for hedging and optimization............. 335,142 444,545 616,337 817,578
------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
Total electric generation and marketing expense................ 564,947 670,730 1,059,595 1,231,738
Oil and gas operating and marketing expense
Oil and gas operating expense.................................... 1,124 2,076 2,925 3,986
Purchased gas expense for hedging and optimization............... 486,082 453,922 899,341 814,409
------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
Total oil and gas operating and marketing expense.............. 487,206 455,998 902,266 818,395
Fuel expense........................................................ 913,531 899,292 1,807,839 1,676,077
Depreciation, depletion and amortization expense.................... 127,921 112,506 248,627 216,282
Power plant impairment.............................................. 106,155 -- 106,155 --
Operating lease expense............................................. 25,528 26,963 50,305 54,762
Other cost of revenue............................................... 32,149 22,607 70,321 48,988
------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
Total cost of revenue....................................... 2,257,437 2,188,096 4,245,108 4,046,242
------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
Gross profit (loss)...................................... (31,480) 27,307 48,294 73,114
(Income) loss from unconsolidated investments.......................... (3,268) 2,085 (9,260) 972
Equipment cancellation and impairment cost............................. -- 7 (73) 2,367
Long-term service agreement cancellation charge........................ 33,918 -- 33,918 --
Project development expense............................................ 52,821 4,030 61,541 11,748
Research and development expense....................................... 5,126 5,124 12,159 8,939
Sales, general and administrative expense.............................. 68,993 54,283 122,627 102,932
------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
Loss from operations................................................ (189,070) (38,222) (172,618) (53,844)
Interest expense....................................................... 333,778 270,576 658,444 516,161
Interest (income)...................................................... (16,793) (9,508) (30,778) (21,045)
Minority interest expense.............................................. 10,172 4,724 20,786 13,159
(Income) from repurchase of various issuances of debt.................. (129,154) (2,559) (150,926) (3,394)
Other expense (income), net............................................ 25,765 (179,533) 20,805 (191,360)
------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
Loss before benefit for income taxes................................ (412,838) (121,922) (690,949) (367,365)
Benefit for income taxes............................................... (134,862) (48,211) (233,591) (143,218)
------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
Loss before discontinued operations................................. (277,976) (73,711) (457,358) (224,147)
Discontinued operations, net of tax provision (benefit) of
$1,433, $(12,393), $15,354 and $8,990................................. (20,482) 45,013 (9,831) 124,257
------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
Net loss................................................. $ (298,458) $ (28,698) $ (467,189) $ (99,890)
============= ============= ============= =============
Basic and diluted loss per common share:
Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding................. 449,183 417,357 448,391 416,332
Loss before discontinued operations................................. $ (0.62) $ (0.18) $ (1.02) $ (0.54)
Discontinued operations, net of tax................................. $ (0.04) $ 0.11 $ (0.02) $ 0.30
------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
Net loss................................................. $ (0.66) $ (0.07) $ (1.04) $ (0.24)
============= ============= ============= =============
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements.
CALPINE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004
Six Months Ended
June 30,
------------------------------
2005 2004
-------------- --------------
(In thousands)
(Unaudited)
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net loss..................................................................................... $ (467,189) $ (99,890)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities:
Depreciation, depletion and amortization (1)................................................. 414,468 397,143
Impairment charges........................................................................... 124,708 --
Development cost write-off................................................................... 46,532 --
Deferred income taxes, net................................................................... (218,237) (134,229)
Gain on sale of assets....................................................................... (50) (117,871)
Stock compensation expense................................................................... 11,973 9,766
Foreign exchange gains....................................................................... (1,751) (4,832)
Income from repurchase of various issuances
of debt..................................................................................... (150,926) (3,394)
Change in net derivative assets and liabilities.............................................. 28,116 (9,541)
Income from unconsolidated investments....................................................... (9,420) (1,788)
Distributions from unconsolidated investments................................................ 10,288 14,697
Other........................................................................................ 23,485 13,159
Change in operating assets and liabilities, net of effects of acquisitions:
Accounts receivable.......................................................................... 57,674 (176,433)
Other current assets......................................................................... 21,282 9,796
Other assets................................................................................. (42,242) (36,222)
Accounts payable and accrued expense......................................................... (112,927) 235,725
Other liabilities............................................................................ 24,957 (84,093)
-------------- --------------
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities....................................... (239,259) 11,993
-------------- --------------
Cash flows from investing activities:
Purchases of property, plant and equipment................................................... (539,561) (795,403)
Disposals of property, plant and equipment................................................... 3,652 172,223
Disposal of subsidiary....................................................................... -- 85,412
Acquisitions, net of cash acquired........................................................... -- (187,614)
Advances to unconsolidated investments....................................................... -- (4,088)
Project development costs.................................................................... (8,208) (16,324)
Sale of collateral securities................................................................ -- 93,963
(Increase) decrease in restricted cash....................................................... (433,212) 452,377
Decrease in notes receivable................................................................. 616 6,012
Other........................................................................................ 18,078 26,051
-------------- --------------
Net cash used in investing activities........................................................ (958,635) (167,391)
-------------- --------------
Cash flows from financing activities:
Borrowings from notes payable and lines of credit............................................ 4,298 95,536
Repayments of notes payable and lines of credit.............................................. (98,538) (220,059)
Borrowings from project financing............................................................ 524,944 3,472,517
Repayments of project financing.............................................................. (138,162) (2,896,887)
Repayments and repurchases of senior notes................................................... (402,176) (56,219)
Repurchase of convertible senior notes....................................................... (15) (586,926)
Proceeds from issuance of convertible senior notes........................................... 650,000 250,000
Proceeds from preferred interests (2)........................................................ 415,000 100,000
Proceeds from prepaid commodity contract (3)................................................. 265,667 --
Financing and transaction costs.............................................................. (80,346) (124,089)
Other........................................................................................ (15,951) (13,104)
-------------- --------------
Net cash provided by financing activities.................................................... 1,124,721 20,769
-------------- --------------
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents.................................... (8,897) (13,146)
Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents including
discontinued operations cash................................................................... (82,070) (147,775)
Reclassification of change in discontinued operations cash to
current assets held for sale................................................................... 255 10,582
-------------- --------------
Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents.................................................... (81,815) (137,193)
-------------- --------------
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period.................................................. 718,023 962,108
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period........................................................ $ 636,208 $ 824,915
============== ==============
Cash paid during the period for:
Interest, net of amounts capitalized......................................................... $ 607,236 $ 399,736
Income taxes................................................................................. $ 20,316 $ 21,621
- ------------
<FN>
(1) Includes depreciation and amortization that is also charged to sales,
general and administrative expense and to interest expense in the
Consolidated Condensed Statements of Operations.
(2) Relates to the $260.0 million Calpine Jersey II and $155.0 million Metcalf
offerings of redeemable preferred securities, see Note 7 of the
accompanying notes.
(3) Relates to the Deer Park Energy Center prepaid commodity contract, see Note
9 of the accompanying notes for more information.
Schedule of non-cash investing and financing activities:
2005 Issuance of 27.5 million shares of common stock in exchange for $94.3
million in principal amount at maturity of 2014 Convertible Notes
2004 Acquired the remaining 50% interest in the Aries power plant for $3.7
million cash and $220.0 million of assumed liabilities, including debt
of $173.2 million.
2004 Issuance of 20.1 million shares of common stock in exchange for $20.0
million par value of HIGH TIDES I preferred securities and $75.0
million par value of HIGH TIDES II preferred securities.
2004 Capital lease entered into for the King City facility for an initial
asset balance of $114.9 million.
</FN>
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements.
CALPINE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2005
(Unaudited)
1. Organization and Operations of the Company
Calpine Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and subsidiaries
(collectively, "Calpine" or the "Company") is engaged in the generation of
electricity predominantly in the United States of America and Canada. The
Company is involved in the development, construction, ownership and operation of
power generation facilities and the sale of electricity and its by-product,
thermal energy, primarily in the form of steam. The Company has ownership
interests in, and operates, gas-fired power generation and cogeneration
facilities, pipelines, geothermal steam fields and geothermal power generation
facilities in the United States of America. On July 7, 2005, the Company
completed the sale of substantially all of its remaining oil and gas exploration
and production assets. In Canada, the Company has ownership interests in, and
operates, gas-fired power generation facilities. In Mexico, Calpine is a joint
venture participant in a gas-fired power generation facility under construction.
At June 30, 2005, the Company owned and operated a gas-fired power cogeneration
facility in the United Kingdom, but sold this facility on July 28, 2005. The
Company markets electricity produced by its generating facilities to utilities
and other third party purchasers. Thermal energy produced by the gas-fired power
cogeneration facilities is primarily sold to industrial users. The Company
offers to third parties energy procurement, liquidation and risk management
services, combustion turbine component parts and repair and maintenance services
world-wide. The Company also provides engineering, procurement, construction
management, commissioning and O&M services.
2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Basis of Interim Presentation -- The accompanying unaudited interim
Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements of the Company have been prepared by
the Company pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange
Commission. In the opinion of management, the Consolidated Condensed Financial
Statements include the adjustments necessary to present fairly the information
required to be set forth therein. Certain information and note disclosures
normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles in the United States of America have been
condensed or omitted from these statements pursuant to such rules and
regulations and, accordingly, these financial statements should be read in
conjunction with the audited Consolidated Financial Statements of the Company
for the year ended December 31, 2004, included in the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K. The results for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of the
results for the entire year.
Reclassifications -- Certain prior years' amounts in the Consolidated
Condensed Financial Statements have been reclassified to conform to the 2005
presentation. This includes a reclassification to separately disclose
transmission sales revenue (formerly in other revenue). The 2004 amounts have
also been restated for discontinued operations. See Note 8 for more information.
In addition, the Company had certain reclassifications on its Consolidated
Condensed Statement of Cash Flows to conform to the 2005 presentation.
Use of Estimates in Preparation of Financial Statements -- The preparation
of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles in the United States of America requires management to make estimates
and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, and
disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial
statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expense during the reporting
period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. The most significant
estimates with regard to these financial statements relate to useful lives and
carrying values of assets (including the carrying value of projects in
development, construction, and operation), provision for income taxes, fair
value calculations of derivative instruments and associated reserves,
capitalization of interest, impairment assessments, primary beneficiary
determination for the Company's investments in VIEs, the outcome of pending
litigation and estimates of oil and gas reserve quantities used to calculate
depletion, depreciation and impairment of oil and gas property and equipment
(prior to the July 2005 disposition).
Cash and Cash Equivalents -- The Company considers all highly liquid
investments with an original maturity of three months or less to be cash
equivalents. The carrying amount of these instruments approximates fair value
because of their short maturity.
The Company has certain project finance facilities and lease agreements
that establish segregated cash accounts. These accounts have been pledged as
security in favor of the lenders to such project finance facilities, and the use
of certain cash balances on deposit in such accounts with our project financed
subsidiaries is limited to the operations of the respective projects. At June
30, 2005, and December 31, 2004, $253.3 million and $284.4 million,
respectively, of the cash and cash equivalents balance that was unrestricted was
subject to such project finance facilities and lease agreements. In addition, at
June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004, $56.8 million and $232.4 million,
respectively, of the Company's cash and cash equivalents was held in bank
accounts outside the United States.
Effective Tax Rate -- For the three months ended June 30, 2005, the
effective rate from continuing operations decreased to 32.7% as compared to
39.5% for the three months ended June 30, 2004. For the six months ended June
30, 2005 and 2004, the effective tax rate was 33.8% and 39.0%, respectively. The
tax rates on continuing operations for the quarter and six months ended June 30,
2004, have been restated to reflect the reclassification to discontinued
operations of certain tax expense related to the sale of the Company's remaining
oil and gas reserves and Saltend. See Note 8 for more information on
discontinued operations. This effective tax rate on continuing operations is
based on the consideration of estimated year-end earnings in estimating the
quarterly effective rate, the effect of permanent non-taxable items and
establishment of valuation allowances on certain deferred tax assets.
Preferred Interests -- As outlined in SFAS No. 150, "Accounting for Certain
Financial Instruments with Characteristics of both Liabilities and Equity," the
Company classifies preferred interests that embody obligations to transfer cash
to the preferred interest holder, in short-term and long-term debt. These
instruments require the Company to make priority distributions of available
cash, as defined in each preferred interest agreement, representing a return of
the preferred interest holder's investment over a fixed period of time and at a
specified rate of return in priority to certain other distributions to equity
holders. The return on investment is recorded as interest expense under the
interest method over the term of the priority period.
Long-Lived Assets and Impairment Evaluation -- In accordance with Financial
Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
("SFAS") No. 144, "Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived
Assets," the Company evaluates the impairment of long-lived assets, including
construction and development projects by first estimating projected undiscounted
pre-interest expense and pre-tax expense cash flows whenever events or changes
in circumstances indicate that the carrying amounts of such assets may not be
recoverable. The significant assumptions that the Company uses in its
undiscounted future cash flow estimates include the future supply and demand
relationships for electricity and natural gas, and the expected pricing for
those commodities and the resultant spark spreads in the various regions where
the Company generates. In the event such cash flows are not expected to be
sufficient to recover the recorded value of the assets, the assets are written
down to their estimated fair values. Certain of the Company's generating assets
are located in regions with depressed demands and market spark spreads. The
Company's forecasts assume that spark spreads will increase in future years in
these regions as the supply and demand relationships improve. There can be no
assurance that this will occur. See Note 5 for more information on the
impairment charge recorded in the period ended June 30, 2005, related to the
Morris facility, which was sold in July 2005.
Stock-Based Compensation -- On January 1, 2003, the Company prospectively
adopted the fair value method of accounting for stock-based employee
compensation pursuant to SFAS No. 123 as amended by SFAS No. 148. SFAS No. 148
amends SFAS No. 123 to provide alternative methods of transition for companies
that voluntarily change their accounting for stock-based compensation from the
less preferred intrinsic value based method to the more preferred fair value
based method. Prior to its amendment, SFAS No. 123 required that companies
enacting a voluntary change in accounting principle from the intrinsic value
methodology provided by APB Opinion No. 25 could only do so on a prospective
basis; no adoption or transition provisions were established to allow for a
restatement of prior period financial statements. SFAS No. 148 provides two
additional transition options to report the change in accounting principle--the
modified prospective method and the retroactive restatement method.
Additionally, SFAS No. 148 amends the disclosure requirements of SFAS No. 123 to
require prominent disclosures in both annual and interim financial statements
about the method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation and the
effect of the method used on reported results. The Company elected to adopt the
provisions of SFAS No. 123 on a prospective basis; consequently, the Company is
required to provide a pro-forma disclosure of net income and EPS as if SFAS No.
123 accounting had been applied to all prior periods presented within its
financial statements. The adoption of SFAS No. 123 has had a material impact on
the Company's financial statements. The table below reflects the pro forma
impact of stock-based compensation on the Company's net loss and loss per share
for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, had the Company
applied the accounting provisions of SFAS No. 123 to its financial statements in
years prior to adoption of SFAS No. 123 on January 1, 2003 (in thousands, except
per share amounts):
Three Months Ended Six Months Ended
June 30, June 30,
--------------------------- ---------------------------
2005 2004 2005 2004
------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
Net loss
As reported............................................................. $ (298,458) $ (28,698) $ (467,189) $ (99,890)
Pro Forma............................................................... (298,885) (29,974) (467,934) (102,813)
Loss per share data:
Basic and diluted loss per share
As reported............................................................. $ (0.66) $ (0.07) $ (1.04) $ (0.24)
Pro Forma............................................................... (0.67) (0.07) (1.04) (0.25)
Stock-based compensation cost included in net loss, as reported............ $ 2,815 $ 3,499 $ 7,104 $ 6,080
Stock-based compensation cost included in net loss, pro forma.............. 3,242 4,775 7,849 9,003
New Accounting Pronouncements
SFAS No. 123-R
In December 2004, FASB issued SFAS No. 123 (revised 2004) ("SFAS No.
123-R"), "Share Based Payments." This Statement revises SFAS No. 123,
"Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation" and supersedes APB Opinion No. 25,
"Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees," and its related implementation
guidance. This statement requires a public entity to measure the cost of
employee services received in exchange for an award of equity instruments based
on the grant-date fair value of the award (with limited exceptions), which must
be recognized over the period during which an employee is required to provide
service in exchange for the award -- the requisite service period (usually the
vesting period). The statement applies to all share-based payment transactions
in which an entity acquires goods or services by issuing (or offering to issue)
its shares, share options, or other equity instruments or by incurring
liabilities to an employee or other supplier (a) in amounts based, at least in
part, on the price of the entity's shares or other equity instruments or (b)
that require or may require settlement by issuing the entity's equity shares or
other equity instruments.
The statement requires the accounting for any excess tax benefits to be
consistent with the existing guidance under SFAS No. 123, which provides a
two-transaction model summarized as follows:
o If settlement of an award creates a tax deduction that exceeds
compensation cost, the additional tax benefit would be recorded as a
contribution to paid-in-capital.
o If the compensation cost exceeds the actual tax deduction, the
write-off of the unrealized excess tax benefits would first reduce any
available paid-in capital arising from prior excess tax benefits, and
any remaining amount would be charged against the tax provision in the
income statement.
The Company is still evaluating the impact of adopting and subsequently
accounting for excess tax benefits under the two-transaction model described in
SFAS No. 123, but does not expect its consolidated net income or financial
position to be materially affected upon adoption of SFAS No. 123-R.
The statement also amends SFAS No. 95, "Statement of Cash Flows," to
require that excess tax benefits be reported as a financing cash inflow rather
than as an operating cash inflow. However, the statement does not change the
accounting guidance for share-based payment transactions with parties other than
employees provided in SFAS No. 123 as originally issued and EITF Issue No.
96-18, "Accounting for Equity Instruments That Are Issued to Other Than
Employees for Acquiring, or in Conjunction with Selling, Goods or Services."
Further, this statement does not address the accounting for employee share
ownership plans, which are subject to AICPA Statement of Position 93-6,
"Employers' Accounting for Employee Stock Ownership Plans."
The statement applies to all awards granted, modified, repurchased, or
cancelled after January 1, 2006, and to the unvested portion of all awards
granted prior to that date. Public entities that used the fair-value-based
method for either recognition or disclosure under SFAS No. 123 may adopt this
Statement using a modified version of prospective application (modified
prospective application). Under modified prospective application, compensation
cost for the portion of awards for which the employee's requisite service has
not been rendered that are outstanding as of January 1, 2006 must be recognized
as the requisite service is rendered on or after that date. The compensation
cost for that portion of awards shall be based on the original grant-date fair
value of those awards as calculated for recognition under SFAS No. 123. The
compensation cost for those earlier awards shall be attributed to periods
beginning on or after January 1, 2006 using the attribution method that was used
under SFAS No. 123. Furthermore, the method of recognizing forfeitures must now
be based on an estimated forfeiture rate and can no longer be based on
forfeitures as they occur.
Adoption of SFAS No. 123-R is not expected to materially impact the
Company's consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position,
due to the Company's prior adoption of SFAS No. 123 as amended by SFAS No. 148,
"Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation -- Transition and Disclosure" on
January 1, 2003. SFAS No. 148 allowed companies to adopt the fair-value-based
method for recognition of compensation expense under SFAS No. 123 using
prospective application. Under that transition method, compensation expense was
recognized in the Company's Consolidated Statement of Operations only for
stock-based compensation granted after the adoption date of January 1, 2003.
Furthermore, as we have chosen the multiple option approach in recognizing
compensation expense associated with the fair value of each option granted,
nearly 94% of the total fair value of the stock option is recognized by the end
of the third year of the vesting period, and therefore remaining compensation
expense associated with options granted before January 1, 2003, is expected to
be immaterial.
SFAS No. 128-R
FASB is expected to revise SFAS No. 128, "Earnings Per Share" to make it
consistent with International Accounting Standard No. 33, "Earnings Per Share,"
so that EPS computations will be comparable on a global basis. This new guidance
is expected to be issued by the end of 2005 and will require restatement of
prior periods diluted EPS data. The proposed changes will affect the application
of the treasury stock method and contingently issuable (based on conditions
other than market price) share guidance for computing year-to-date diluted EPS.
In addition to modifying the year-to-date calculation mechanics, the proposed
revision to SFAS No. 128 would eliminate a company's ability to overcome the
presumption of share settlement for those instruments or contracts that can be
settled, at the issuer or holder's option, in cash or shares. Under the revised
guidance, FASB has indicated that any possibility of share settlement other than
in an event of bankruptcy will require a presumption of share settlement when
calculating diluted EPS. The Company's 2023 Convertible Notes and 2014
Convertible Notes contain provisions that would require share settlement in the
event of conversion under certain limited events of default, including but not
limited to a bankruptcy-related event of default. Additionally, the 2023
Convertible Notes include a provision allowing the Company to meet a put with
either cash or shares of stock. However, the Company's 2015 Convertible Notes
allow for share settlement of the principal only in the case of certain
bankruptcy-related events of default. Therefore, a presumption of share
settlement is not required for this instrument. The revised guidance, if not
amended before final issuance, would increase the potential dilution to the
Company's EPS, particularly when the price of the Company's common stock is low,
since the more dilutive of calculations would be used considering both:
o normal conversion assuming a combination of cash and variable number
of shares; and
o conversion during certain limited events of default assuming 100%
shares at the fixed conversion rate, or, in the case of 2023
Convertible Notes, meeting a put entirely with shares of stock.
SFAS No. 151
In November 2004, FASB issued SFAS No. 151, "Inventory Costs, an amendment
of ARB No. 43, Chapter 4." This Statement amends the guidance in ARB No. 43,
Chapter 4, "Inventory Pricing," to clarify the accounting for abnormal amounts
of idle facility expense, freight, handling costs, and wasted material
(spoilage). Paragraph 5 of ARB 43, Chapter 4, previously stated that ". . .
under some circumstances, items such as idle facility expense, excessive
spoilage, double freight, and rehandling costs may be so abnormal as to require
treatment as current period charges. . . ." This Statement requires those items
to be recognized as a current-period charge regardless of whether they meet the
criterion of "so abnormal." In addition, SFAS No. 151 requires that allocation
of fixed production overheads to the costs of conversion be based on the normal
capacity of the production facilities. The provisions of SFAS No. 151 are
applicable to inventory costs incurred during fiscal years beginning after June
15, 2005. Adoption of this statement is not expected to materially impact the
Company's consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position.
SFAS No. 153
In December 2004, FASB issued SFAS, No. 153 "Exchanges of Nonmonetary
Assets." This standard eliminates the exception in APB Opinion No. 29,
"Accounting for Nonmonetary Transactions" for nonmonetary exchanges of similar
productive assets and replaces it with a general exception for exchanges of
nonmonetary assets that do not have commercial substance. It requires exchanges
of productive assets to be accounted for at fair value, rather than at carryover
basis, unless (1) neither the asset received nor the asset surrendered has a
fair value that is determinable within reasonable limits or (2) the transaction
lacks commercial substance (as defined). A nonmonetary exchange has commercial
substance if the future cash flows of the entity are expected to change
significantly as a result of the exchange.
The new standard will not apply to the transfers of interests in assets in
exchange for an interest in a joint venture and amends SFAS No. 66, "Accounting
for Sales of Real Estate" to clarify that exchanges of real estate for real
estate should be accounted for under APB Opinion No. 29. It also amends SFAS No.
140, to remove the existing scope exception relating to exchanges of equity
method investments for similar productive assets to clarify that such exchanges
are within the scope of SFAS No. 140 and not APB Opinion No. 29. SFAS No. 153 is
effective for nonmonetary asset exchanges occurring in fiscal periods beginning
after June 15, 2005. Adoption of this statement is not expected to materially
impact the Company's consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial
position.
SFAS No. 154
In May 2005, FASB issued SFAS No. 154, "Accounting Changes and Error
Corrections." This Statement replaces APB Opinion No. 20, "Accounting Changes,"
and FASB Statement No. 3, "Reporting Accounting Changes in Interim Financial
Statements," and changes the requirements for the accounting for and reporting
of a change in accounting principle. SFAS No. 154 applies to all voluntary
changes in accounting principle. Opinion No. 20 previously required that most
voluntary changes in accounting principle be recognized by including in net
income for the period of the change the cumulative effect of changing to the new
accounting principle. SFAS No. 154 requires retrospective application to prior
periods' financial statements of changes in accounting principle, unless it is
impracticable to determine either the period-specific effects or the cumulative
effect of the change. When it is impracticable to determine the cumulative
effect of applying a change in accounting principle to all prior periods, SFAS
No. 154 requires that the new accounting principle be applied as if it were
adopted prospectively from the earliest date practicable.
SFAS No. 154 also requires that a change in depreciation, amortization, or
depletion method for long-lived, nonfinancial assets be accounted for as a
change in accounting estimate effected by a change in accounting principle. SFAS
No. 154 is effective beginning after December 15, 2005. Adoption of this
statement is not expected to materially impact the Company's consolidated
results of operations, cash flows or financial position.
EITF Issue No. 03-13
At the November 2004 EITF meeting, the final consensus was reached on EITF
Issue No. 03-13, "Applying the Conditions in Paragraph 42 of FASB Statement No.
144 in Determining Whether to Report Discontinued Operations." This Issue is
effective prospectively for disposal transactions entered into after January 1,
2005, and provides a model to assist in evaluating (a) which cash flows should
be considered in the determination of whether cash flows of the disposal
component have been or will be eliminated from the ongoing operations of the
entity and (b) the types of continuing involvement that constitute significant
continuing involvement in the operations of the disposal component. The Company
has applied the model outlined in EITF Issue No. 03-13 in its evaluation of the
September 2004 sale of the Canadian and Rockies oil and gas reserves and the
July 2005 sale of its remaining oil and gas reserves and the July 2005 sale of
the Saltend facility in determining whether or not the cash flows related to
these components have been or will be permanently eliminated from the ongoing
operations of the Company.
3. Strategic Initiative
The Company's ability to capitalize on growth opportunities and to service
the debt it incurred to construct and operate its current fleet of power plants
is dependent on the continued availability of capital on attractive terms. The
availability of such capital in today's environment is uncertain. To date, the
Company has obtained cash from its operations; borrowings under credit
facilities; issuances of debt, equity, trust preferred securities, convertible
debentures and contingent convertible notes; proceeds from sale/leaseback
transactions; sale or partial sale of certain assets; prepayments received for
power sales; contract monetizations; and project financings. The Company has
utilized this cash to fund its operations, service, or repay or refinance debt
obligations, fund acquisitions, develop and construct power generation
facilities, finance capital expenditures, support its hedging, balancing,
optimization and trading activities, and meet its other cash and liquidity
needs.
Access to capital has been restricted since late 2001. While the Company
has been able to access the capital and bank credit markets in this new
environment, it has been on significantly different terms than in the past. In
particular, the senior working capital facilities and term loan financings
entered into, and the majority of the debt securities offered and sold by the
Company in this period have been secured by certain of the Company's assets and
subsidiary equity interests. The Company has also provided security to support
prepaid commodity transactions. In the aggregate, the average interest rate on
the Company's new debt instruments, especially on debt incurred to refinance
existing debt, has been higher. The terms of financing available now and in the
future may not be attractive to the Company. The timing of the availability of
capital is uncertain and is dependent, in part, on market conditions that are
difficult to predict and are outside of the Company's control.
At June 30, 2005, the Company had negative working capital of $555.1
million which is due to $2.2 billion of debt, preferred interests and notes
payable being due within the next twelve months, $1.6 billion of which is due by
December 31, 2005. In addition, the Company has significant near-term maturities
of debt in periods subsequent to the next twelve months (see Note 7 for further
discussion of future maturities and other matters impacting the Company's debt).
Cash flow used in operating activities during the six-month period ended June
30, 2005 was $239.3 million and is expected to continue to be negative at least
for the near term and possibly longer. On June 30, 2005, our cash and cash
equivalents on hand totaled $0.6 billion (see Note 2). The current portion of
restricted cash totaled $1.0 billion, including $402.5 million which was used to
redeem the HIGH TIDES III preferred securities in July of 2005.
Satisfying all obligations under the Company's outstanding indebtedness,
and funding anticipated capital expenditures and working capital requirements
for the next twelve months and potentially thereafter presents the Company with
several challenges as cash requirements (including refinancing obligations) are
expected to exceed the sum of cash on hand permitted to be used to satisfy such
requirements and cash from operations. Accordingly, the Company has in place a
strategic initiative which includes possible sales or monetizations of certain
of its assets. Whether the Company will have sufficient liquidity will depend,
in part, on the success of that program. No assurance can be given that the
program will be successful. If it is not successful, additional asset sales,
refinancings, monetizations and other items beyond those included in the
strategic initiative would likely need to be taken, depending on market
conditions. The Company's ability to reduce debt will also depend on its ability
to repurchase debt securities through open market transactions and the principal
amount of debt able to be repurchased will be contingent upon market prices and
other factors. Even if the program is successful, there can be no assurance that
the Company will be able to continue work on its projects in development and
suspended construction that have not successfully obtained project financing,
and it could possibly incur substantial impairment losses as a result. In
addition, even if the program is successful, until there are significant
sustained improvements in spark spreads, the Company expects that it will not
have sufficient cash flow from operations to repay all of its indebtedness at
maturity or to fund its other liquidity needs. The Company expects that it will
need to extend or refinance all or a portion of its indebtedness on or before
maturity. While the Company currently believes that it will be successful in
repaying, extending or refinancing all of its indebtedness on or before
maturity, there can be no assurance that it will be able to do so or that the
terms of any such refinancing will be attractive.
The Company endeavors to improve its financial strength. On May 25, 2005,
the Company announced a strategic initiative aimed at:
o Optimizing the value of the Company's core North American power plant
portfolio by selling certain power and natural gas assets to reduce
debt and lower annual interest cost, and to increase cash flow in
future periods. At June 30, 2005, the Company had pending asset sales,
including the sale of Saltend in the United Kingdom (which was
completed July 28, 2005), its interests in up to eight additional
gas-fired power plants in the United States (two of which were
completed in July and August 2005) and its remaining oil and natural
gas assets (which was completed on July 7, 2005). See Notes 8 and 15.
o Taking actions to decrease operating and maintenance costs and
lowering fuel costs to improve the operating performance of the
Company's power plants, which would boost operating cash flow and
liquidity. In addition, the Company is considering temporarily
shutting down certain power plants with negative cash flow, until
market conditions warrant starting back up, to further reduce costs.
See Note 15 for a discussion of the restructuring of certain of the
Company's LTSAs.
o Reducing Calpine's collateral requirements. The Company and a
financial institution are discussing a business venture that the
Company anticipates would lower collateral requirements and enhance
the Company's third party customer business.
o Reducing total debt through the initiatives listed above by more than
$3 billion by the end of 2005 from debt levels at March 31, 2005,
which the Company estimates would provide $275 million of annual
interest savings. As noted above, the cash and other consideration
needed to reduce debt by that amount will be a function of the market
value of debt repurchased in open market transactions and other
factors.
As a complement to the Company's strategic initiative program, the Company
desires to expand its third party combustion turbine component parts and repair
and maintenance services business.
While there can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in
achieving the goals of this strategic initiative and meeting our financing
obligations, progress in the quarter ended June 30, 2005, included the
following:
o Repurchased in open market transactions $479.8 million in principal
amount of its outstanding debt. The securities, which were trading at
a discount to par value, were repurchased for $337.9 million in cash
plus accrued interest. The Company recorded a $137.5 million gain as a
result of these repurchases after write-off of unamortized deferred
financing costs and unamortized discounts. See Note 7 for more
information.
o Received funding for Metcalf's $155.0 million offering of 5.5-Year
Redeemable Preferred Shares and five-year, $100.0 million Senior Term
Loan. A portion of the net proceeds was used to repay $50.0 million
outstanding on the original Metcalf project financing, with the
remaining net proceeds to be used as permitted by the company's
existing indentures. See Note 7 for more information.
o Received funding for its $123.1 million, non-recourse project finance
facility to complete the construction of the 79.9-MW Bethpage Energy
Center 3. Approximately $55 million of the funding was used to
reimburse the Company for costs spent to date on the project. An
additional amount of $11.2 million will be released to the Company
upon satisfying certain conditions. The balance of funds will be used
for transaction expenses, the final completion of the project and to
fund certain reserve accounts.
o Issued $650.0 million in principal amount of 2015 Convertible Notes in
June 2005. The Company, in July 2005, used a portion of the net
proceeds to redeem the $517.5 million in principal amount of 5% HIGH
TIDES III preferred securities, of which $115.0 million was held by
the Company. The Company used the remaining net proceeds to repurchase
a portion of the outstanding principal amount of its 8 1/2% Senior
Notes due 2011. See Notes 7 and 11 for more information.
o Repurchased $94.3 million in principal amount at maturity of 2014
Convertible Notes in exchange for 27.5 million shares of Calpine
common stock. The Company recorded a pre-tax loss of $7.9 million on
the exchange, which includes the write-off of the associated
unamortized deferred financing costs and unamortized original issue
discount. See Note 7 for more information.
Additionally, subsequent to June 30, 2005, the Company completed the
following transactions (see Note 15 for a further discussion of subsequent
events):
o Sold all of its remaining domestic oil and gas exploration and
production properties and assets for $1.05 billion, less adjustments,
transaction fees and expenses, and less approximately $75 million to
reflect the value of certain oil and gas properties for which the
Company was unable to obtain consents to assignment prior to closing.
The Company expects to receive the remaining consents in the near
future.
o Completed the sale of Saltend, a 1,200-MW power plant located in Hull,
England, generating total gross proceeds of $862.5 million. Of this
amount, $647.1 million was used to redeem the $360.0 million Two-Year
Redeemable Preferred Shares issued by the Company's Calpine Jersey I
subsidiary on October 26, 2004, and the $260.0 million Redeemable
Preferred Shares issued by the Company's Calpine Jersey II subsidiary
on January 31, 2005, including interest and early termination fees of
$16.3 million and $10.8 million, respectively. As described further in
Note 12, certain bondholders filed a lawsuit concerning the use of the
remaining proceeds from the sale of Saltend.
o Sold its 50% interest in the 175-MW Grays Ferry power plant to an
affiliate of TNAI for $37.4 million. Previously, in the second quarter
of 2005, the Company recorded an impairment charge of $18.5 million
related to its interest.
o Completed the sale of its 156-MW Morris power plant for $84.5 million.
Previously, in the second quarter of 2005, the Company recorded a
$106.2 million impairment charge related to this facility.
o Purchased $138.9 million of its First Priority Notes under the terms
of a tender offer.
o Announced a 15-year Master Products and Services Agreement with GE,
which is expected to lower operating costs in the future. As a result
of nine GE LTSA cancellations during the quarter, the Company recorded
$33.1 million in charges.
o Signed an agreement with Siemens Westinghouse to restructure the
long-term relationship, which the Company expects will afford it
additional flexibility to self-perform maintenance work in the future.
The Company is considering the sale of additional assets including the
Ontelaunee Energy Center and the Philadelphia Water Works Plant. These
additional sales could lead to additional material impairment charges or losses
upon sale.
The sale of assets to reduce debt and lower annual interest costs is
expected to materially lower the Company's revenues, spark spread and gross
profit (loss) and the final mix of assets actually sold will determine the
degree of impact on operating results. While lowering debt, the accomplishment
of the strategic initiative program, in and of itself, will likely not lead to
improvement in certain measures of interest and principal coverage without
significant improvement in market conditions. The amount of offsetting future
interest savings will be a function of the principal amunt of debt repurchased
and the amount that the Company will spend to reduce debt will depend on the
market price of such debt and other factors , and the final net future earnings
impact of the initiatives is still uncertain.
4. Available-for-Sale Debt Securities
On September 30, 2004, the Company repurchased $115.0 million in par value
of HIGH TIDES III preferred securities for cash of $111.6 million. Due to the
deconsolidation of Calpine Capital Trust III, the issuer of the HIGH TIDES III
preferred securities,upon the adoption of FIN 46 as of December 31, 2003, and
the terms of the underlying convertible debentures issued by Calpine to the
Trust, the repurchased HIGH TIDES III preferred securities could not be offset
against the convertible subordinated debentures and are accounted for as
available-for-sale securities. On July 13, 2005, the Company completed the
redemption of all of the outstanding HIGH TIDES III preferred securities and of
the underlying convertible debentures. Accordingly, the HIGH TIDES III preferred
securities repurchased by the Company are no longer outstanding. See Note 15 for
more information. The Company has classified the HIGH TIDES III preferred
securities held by the Company at June 30, 2005, in the Consolidated Condensed
Balance Sheet as "Other current assets" at fair market value at June 30, 2005,
with the difference from their repurchase price recorded in OCI (in thousands):
Gross
Unrealized
Gains in Other
Repurchase Comprehensive
Price (1) Income Fair Value
---------- -------------- --------------------------
June 30, December 31,
2005 2004
------------ ------------
HIGH TIDES III preferred securities........................................ $ 110,592 $ 4,523 $ 115,115 $ 111,550
- ----------
<FN>
(1) The repurchase price is shown net of all of the accrued interest. The
repurchased amount was $111.6 million less $1.0 million of accrued
interest.
</FN>
5. Property, Plant and Equipment, Net and Capitalized Interest
As of June 30, 2005, and December 31, 2004, the components of property,
plant and equipment, net, stated at cost less accumulated depreciation and
depletion are as follows (in thousands):
June 30, December 31,
2005 2004
--------------- -------------
Buildings, machinery, and equipment............................................................ $ 16,439,332 $ 15,214,698
Pipelines...................................................................................... 87,543 90,625
Geothermal properties.......................................................................... 476,137 474,869
Other.......................................................................................... 210,628 208,614
-------------- -------------
17,213,640 15,988,806
Less: accumulated depreciation and depletion................................................... (1,834,485) (1,476,335)
-------------- -------------
15,379,155 14,512,471
Land........................................................................................... 97,633 104,972
Construction in progress....................................................................... 3,529,183 4,321,977
-------------- -------------
Property, plant and equipment, net............................................................. $ 19,005,971 18,939,420
============== =============
Capital Spending -- Construction and Development
Construction and Development costs in process consisted of the following at
June 30, 2005 (in thousands):
Equipment Project
# of Included in Development Unassigned
Projects CIP CIP Costs Equipment
-------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------
Projects in active construction (1).............................. 6 $ 1,327,127 $ 428,249 $ -- $ --
Projects in suspended construction............................... 3 1,133,480 394,505 -- --
Projects in advanced development................................. 12 832,021 644,630 109,516 --
Projects in suspended development................................ 3 217,805 10,026 24,826 --
Projects in early development.................................... 2 -- -- 8,952 --
Other capital projects........................................... NA 18,750 -- -- --
Unassigned equipment............................................. NA -- -- -- 67,508
----------- ----------- ------------ ----------
Total construction and development costs...................... $ 3,529,183 $ 1,477,410 $ 143,294 $ 67,508
=========== =========== ============ ==========
- ------------
<FN>
(1) There were a total of six consolidated projects in active construction at
June 30, 2005. Additionally, the Company has one project that is recorded
in unconsolidated investments and is not included in the table above.
</FN>
Construction in Progress -- CIP is primarily attributable to gas-fired
power projects under construction including prepayments on gas and steam turbine
generators and other long lead-time items of equipment for certain development
projects not yet in construction. Upon commencement of plant operation, these
costs are transferred to the applicable property category, generally buildings,
machinery and equipment.
Projects in Active Construction -- Two of the projects in active
construction came on line in July 2005 and the other four projects in active
construction are projected to come on line from November 2005 to November 2007.
These projects will bring on line approximately 1,827 MW of base load capacity
(2,058 MW with peaking capacity). Interest and other costs related to the
construction activities necessary to bring these projects to their intended use
are being capitalized. At June 30, 2005, the total projected costs to complete
these projects was $633.5 million and the estimated funding requirements to
complete these projects, net of expected project financing proceeds, was
approximately $23.7 million.
Projects in Suspended Construction -- Work and capitalization of interest
on the three projects in suspended construction has been suspended or delayed
due to current market conditions. These projects would bring on line
approximately 1,769 MW of base load capacity (2,035 MW with peaking capacity).
The Company expects to finance the remaining $338.0 million projected costs to
complete these projects if and when construction resumes.
Projects in Advanced Development -- There were 12 projects in advanced
development at June 30, 2005. These projects would bring on line approximately
4,976 MW of base load capacity (6,335 MW with peaking capacity). Interest and
other costs related to the development activities necessary to bring these
projects to their intended use are being capitalized. However, the
capitalization of interest has been suspended on four projects for which
development activities are substantially complete but construction will not
commence until a PPA and financing are obtained. One of the projects in advanced
development, Inland Empire Energy Center, was sold to a third party subsequent
to June 30, 2005. See Note 15 for more information regarding this sale. The
estimated cost to complete the projects in advanced development other than
Inland Empire Energy Center, was approximately $2.9 billion at June 30, 2005.
The Company's current plan is to finance these project costs as PPAs are
arranged.
Suspended Development Projects -- Due to current electric market
conditions, the Company has ceased capitalization of additional development
costs and interest expense on three development projects on which work has been
suspended. Capitalization of costs may recommence as work on these projects
resumes, if certain milestones and criteria are met indicating that it is again
highly probable that the costs will be recovered through future operations. As
is true for all projects, the suspended projects are reviewed for impairment
whenever there is an indication of potential reduction in a project's fair
value. Further, if it is determined that it is no longer probable that the
projects will be completed and all capitalized costs recovered through future
operations, the carrying values of the projects would be written down to their
recoverable value. During the quarter ended June 30, 2005, the Company
determined to abandon its development efforts on three of six projects is
suspended development and recorded $45.5 million to the "Project development
expense" line item of the Consolidated Condensed Statements of Operations. The
three remaining projects in suspended development would bring on line
approximately 865 MW of base load capacity (1,055 MW with peaking capacity). The
estimated cost to complete these projects is approximately $563.1 million.
Projects in Early Development -- Costs for projects that are in early
stages of development are capitalized only when it is highly probable that such
costs are ultimately recoverable and significant project milestones are
achieved. Until then all costs, including interest costs, are expensed. The
projects in early development with capitalized costs relate to two projects and
include geothermal drilling costs and equipment purchases.
Other Capital Projects -- Other capital projects primarily consist of
enhancements to operating power plants, pipelines and geothermal resource and
facilities development, as well as software developed for internal use.
Unassigned Equipment -- As of June 30, 2005, the Company had made progress
payments on four turbines and other equipment with an aggregate carrying value
of $67.5 million. This unassigned equipment is classified on the Consolidated
Condensed Balance Sheet as "Other assets" because it is not assigned to specific
development and construction projects. The Company is holding this equipment for
potential use on future projects. It is possible that some of this unassigned
equipment may eventually be sold, potentially in combination with the Company's
engineering and construction services.
Capitalized Interest -- The Company capitalizes interest on capital
invested in projects during the advanced stages of development and the
construction period in accordance with SFAS No. 34, "Capitalization of Interest
Cost," as amended by SFAS No. 58, "Capitalization of Interest Cost in Financial
Statements That Include Investments Accounted for by the Equity Method (an
Amendment of FASB Statement No. 34)." The Company's qualifying assets include
CIP, certain pipelines under development, geothermal properties under
construction, certain costs for information systems development, construction
costs related to unconsolidated investments in power projects under
construction, advanced stage development costs, as well as such above mentioned
assets classified as held for sale. For the three months ended June 30, 2005 and
2004, the total amount of interest capitalized was $64.2 million, and $102.2
million, respectively, including $11.8 million and $15.4 million, respectively,
of interest incurred on funds borrowed for specific construction projects and
$52.4 million and $86.8 million, respectively, of interest incurred on general
corporate funds used for the advanced stages of development and construction.
For the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, the total amount of interest
capitalized was $134.4 million and $210.7 million, respectively, including $22.5
million and $34.0 million, respectively, of interest incurred on funds borrowed
for specific construction projects and $111.8 million and $176.7 million,
respectively, of interest incurred on general corporate funds used for
construction. Upon commencement of plant operation, capitalized interest, as a
component of the total cost of the plant, is amortized over the estimated useful
life of the plant. The decrease in the amount of interest capitalized during the
three and six months ended June 30, 2005, reflects the completion of
construction for several power plants, the suspension of certain of the
Company's development and construction projects, and a reduction in the
Company's development and construction program in general.
In accordance with SFAS No. 34, the Company determines which debt
instruments best represent a reasonable measure of the cost of financing
construction assets in terms of interest cost incurred that otherwise could have
been avoided. These debt instruments and associated interest cost are included
in the calculation of the weighted average interest rate used for capitalizing
interest on general funds. The primary debt instruments included in the rate
calculation of interest incurred on general corporate funds are the Company's
Senior Notes and term loans as well as the secured working capital revolving
credit facility.
Impairment Evaluation -- All construction and development projects and
unassigned turbines are reviewed for impairment whenever there is an indication
of potential reduction in fair value. Equipment assigned to such projects is not
evaluated for impairment separately, as it is integral to the assumed future
operations of the project to which it is assigned. If it is determined that it
is no longer probable that the projects will be completed and all capitalized
costs recovered through future operations, the carrying values of the projects
would be written down to the recoverable value in accordance with the provisions
of SFAS No. 144. The Company reviews its unassigned equipment for potential
impairment based on probability-weighted alternatives of utilizing the equipment
for future projects versus selling the equipment. Utilizing this methodology,
the Company does not believe that the equipment held for use is impaired.
However, during the six months ended June 30, 2004, the Company recorded to the
"Equipment cancellation and impairment cost" line of the Consolidated Condensed
Statement of Operations $2.4 million in net losses in connection with equipment
cancellations, and it may incur further losses should it decide to cancel more
equipment contracts or sell unassigned equipment in the future. In the event the
Company were unable to obtain PPAs or project financing and suspension or
abandonment were to result, the Company could suffer substantial impairment
losses on such projects.
Based on an evaluation of the probability-weighted expected future cash
flows (considering continuing to own and operate the Morris Power Plant or
consummating the sale transaction with Diamond) at June 30, 2005, the Company
determined that the carrying amount of the facility was impaired. As a result,
during the quarter ended June 30, 2005, the Company recorded to the "Power plant
impairment" line of the Consolidated Condensed Statement of Operations a $106.2
million impairment charge. Subsequent to June 30, 2005, the Company entered in
an agreement to sell the facility, located in Illinois to Diamond for
approximately $84.5 million in cash. See Note 15 for more information on this
sale.
See Note 6 for a discussion of the impairment charge in connection with the
Grays Ferry power plant and Note 3 for a discussion of potential additional
material impairment charges arising from the possible sale of additional assets.
6. Unconsolidated Investments
The Company's unconsolidated investments are integral to its operations.
The Company's joint venture investments were evaluated under FASB Interpretation
No. 46 "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities - An Interpretation of ARB
51" as amended, to determine which, if any, entities were VIEs. Based on this
evaluation, the Company determined that Acadia PP, Valladolid III Energy Center
(Valladolid), Grays Ferry, Whitby and AELLC were VIEs, in which the Company held
a significant variable interest. However, all of the entities except for Acadia
PP met the definition of a business and qualified for the business scope
exception provided in paragraph 4(h) of FIN 46-R, and consequently were not
subject to the VIE consolidated model. Further, based on a qualitative and
quantitative assessment of the expected variability in Acadia PP, the Company
was not the Primary Beneficiary. Consequently, the Company continues to account
for its joint venture investments in accordance with APB Opinion No. 18, "The
Equity Method of Accounting For Investments in Common Stock" and FIN 35,
"Criteria for Applying the Equity Method of Accounting for Investments in Common
Stock (An Interpretation of APB Opinion No. 18)." However, in the fourth quarter
of 2004, the Company changed from the equity method to the cost method to
account for its investment in AELLC as discussed below.
Acadia PP is the owner of a 1,210-MW electric wholesale generation
facility, Acadia Energy Center, located in Louisiana and is a joint venture
between the Company and Cleco Corporation. The Company's involvement in this VIE
began upon formation of the entity in March 2000. The Company's maximum
potential exposure to loss from its equity investment at June 30, 2005, was
limited to the book value of its investment of approximately $216.1 million,
plus any loss that may accrue from a tolling agreement between Acadia PP and
CES.
Compania de Generacion Valladolid S. de R.L. de C.V. partnership is the
owner of Valladolid III Energy Center, a 525-MW, natural gas-fired energy center
currently under construction at Valladolid, Mexico in the Yucatan Peninsula. The
facility will deliver electricity to CFE under a 25-year power sales agreement.
The project is a joint venture between the Company, Mitsui, and Chubu, both
headquartered in Japan. The Company owns 45% of the entity while Mitsui and
Chubu each own 27.5%. Construction began in May 2004 and the project is expected
to achieve commercial operation in the summer of 2006. The Company's maximum
potential exposure to loss at June 30, 2005, was limited to the book value of
its investment of approximately $80.7 million.
Grays Ferry is the owner of a 175-MW gas-fired cogeneration facility,
located in Pennsylvania and is a joint venture between the Company and
Trigen-Schuylkill Cogeneration, Inc. The Company's involvement in this VIE began
with its acquisition of the independent power producer, Cogen America, now
called Calpine Cogen, in December 1999. The Grays Ferry joint venture project
was part of the portfolio of assets owned by Cogen America. On July 8, 2005, the
Company completed the sale of the Grays Ferry power plant, in which it held 50%
interest, for $37.4 million. The Company recorded an $18.5 million impairment
charge in the quarter ended June 30, 2005, due to the imminent sale of Grays
Ferry. Net proceeds from the sale of Grays Ferry will be used to reduce debt and
as permitted by the Company's indentures. This transaction did not qualify as a
discontinued operation under the guidance of SFAS 144, which specifically
excludes equity method investments from its scope, unless the investment is part
of a larger disposal group.
Whitby is the owner of a 50-MW gas-fired cogeneration facility, located in
Ontario, Canada and is a joint venture between the Company and a privately held
enterprise. The Company's involvement in this VIE began with its acquisition of
a portfolio of assets from Westcoast in September 2001, which included the
Whitby joint venture project. The Company's maximum potential exposure to loss
at June 30, 2005, was limited to the book value of its investment of
approximately $42.6 million.
AELLC is the owner of a 136-MW gas-fired cogeneration facility,
Androscoggin Energy Center, located in Maine and is a joint venture between the
Company, and affiliates of Wisvest Corporation and IP. The Company's involvement
in this VIE began with its acquisition of the independent power producer,
SkyGen, in October 2000. The AELLC joint venture was part of the portfolio of
assets owned by SkyGen. On November 3, 2004, a jury verdict was rendered against
AELLC in a breach of contract dispute with IP. The Company recorded its $11.6
million share of the award amount in the third quarter of 2004. On November 26,
2004, AELLC filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code. As a result of the bankruptcy, the Company has lost significant
influence and control of the project and has adopted the cost method of
accounting for its investment in AELLC. Also, in December 2004 the Company
determined that its investment in AELLC, including outstanding notes receivable
and O&M receivable, was impaired and recorded a $5.0 million impairment reserve.
The facility had third-party debt of $63.4 million outstanding as of December
31, 2004, primarily consisting of $60.3 million in construction debt. The debt
was non-recourse to Calpine Corporation. On April 12, 2005, AELLC sold three
fixed-price gas contracts to Merrill Lynch Commodities Canada, ULC, and used a
portion of the proceeds to pay down its remaining construction debt. As of June
30, 2005, the facility had third-party debt outstanding of $3.1 million. See
Note 12 for an update on this investment.
The following investments are accounted for under the equity method except
for Androscoggin Energy Center, which is accounted for under the cost method (in
thousands):
Ownership Investment Balance at
Interest as of ---------------------------
June 30, June 30, December 31,
2005 2005 2004
-------------- ------------- ------------
Acadia Energy Center................................................................. 50.0% $ 216,134 $ 214,501
Valladolid III Energy Center......................................................... 45.0% 80,721 77,401
Grays Ferry Power Plant.............................................................. 50.0% 36,900 48,558
Whitby Cogeneration (1).............................................................. 15.0% 42,624 32,528
Androscoggin Energy Center (2)....................................................... 32.3% -- --
Other................................................................................ -- 132 120
------------ ------------
Total unconsolidated investments.................................................. $ 376,511 $ 373,108
============ ============
- ----------
<FN>
(1) Whitby is owned 50% by the Company but a 70% economic share in the
Company's ownership interest has been effectively transferred to CPLP
through a loan from CPLP to the Company's entity which holds the investment
interest in Whitby.
(2) Excludes certain Notes Receivable.
</FN>
The third-party debt on the books of the unconsolidated investments is not
reflected on the Company's balance sheet. At June 30, 2005, and December 31,
2004, third party investee debt was approximately $200.2 million and $133.9
million, respectively. Of these amounts, $3.1 million and $63.4 million,
respectively, relate to the Company's investment in AELLC, for which the cost
method of accounting was used. In addition, $45.2 million and $44.3 million,
respectively, relate to the Company's investment in Grays Ferry, which the
Company sold subsequent to June 30, 2005. Based on the Company's pro rata
ownership share of each of the investments, the Company's share would be
approximately $84.8 million and $46.6 million for the respective periods. These
amounts include the Company's share for AELLC of $1.0 million and $20.5 million,
respectively, and for Grays Ferry of $22.6 million and $22.2 million,
respectively. All such debt is non-recourse to the Company. The increase in
investee debt between periods is primarily due to borrowings for the Valladolid
III Energy Center currently under construction.
The following details the Company's income and distributions from
unconsolidated investments (in thousands):
Income (Loss) from
Unconsolidated
Investments Distributions
------------------------- -------------------------
For the Six Months Ended June 30,
-----------------------------------------------------
2005 2004 2005 2004
----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
Acadia Energy Center...................................................... $ 8,975 $ 6,913 $ 7,343 $ 8,454
Aries Power Plant......................................................... -- (4,089) -- --
Grays Ferry Power Plant................................................... (739) (2,060) -- --
Whitby Cogeneration....................................................... 1,278 709 2,747 1,515
Calpine Natural Gas Trust................................................. -- -- -- 4,586
Androscoggin Energy Center................................................ -- (2,945) -- --
Other..................................................................... (254) 7 198 142
------------ ---------- ---------- ----------
Total.................................................................. $ 9,260 $ (1,465) $ 10,288 $ 14,697
============ ========== ========== ==========
Interest income on notes receivable from power projects (1)............... $ -- $ 493
----------- ----------
Total.................................................................. $ 9,260 $ (972)
=========== ==========
- ------------
<FN>
(1) At June 30, 2005, and December 31, 2004, notes receivable from power
projects represented an outstanding loan to AELLC, in the amounts of $4.0
million and $4.0 million, after impairment reserves, respectively.
</FN>
The Company provides for deferred taxes on its share of earnings.
Related-Party Transactions with Unconsolidated Investments
The Company and certain of its equity and cost method affiliates have
entered into various service agreements with respect to power projects and oil
and gas properties. Following is a general description of each of the various
agreements:
O&M Agreements -- The Company operates and maintains the Acadia and
Androscoggin Energy Centers. This includes routine maintenance, but not major
maintenance, which is typically performed under agreements with the equipment
manufacturers. Responsibilities include development of annual budgets and
operating plans. Payments include reimbursement of costs, including Calpine's
internal personnel and other costs, and annual fixed fees.
Construction Management Services Agreements -- The Company provides
construction management services to the Valladolid III Energy Center. Payments
include reimbursement of costs, including the Company's internal personnel and
other costs.
Administrative Services Agreements -- The Company handles administrative
matters such as bookkeeping for certain unconsolidated investments. Payment is
on a cost reimbursement basis, including Calpine's internal costs, with no
additional fee.
Power Marketing Agreements -- Under agreements with AELLC, CES can either
market the plant's power as the power facility's agent or buy the power
directly. Terms of any direct purchase are to be agreed upon at the time and
incorporated into a transaction confirmation. Historically, CES has generally
bought the power from the power facility rather than acting as its agent.
Gas Supply Agreement -- CES can be directed to supply gas to the
Androscoggin Energy Center facility pursuant to transaction confirmations
between the facility and CES. Contract terms are reflected in individual
transaction confirmations.
The power marketing and gas supply contracts with CES are accounted for as
either purchase and sale arrangements or as tolling arrangements. In a purchase
and sale arrangement, title and risk of loss associated with the purchase of gas
is transferred from CES to the project at the gas delivery point. In a tolling
arrangement, title to fuel provided to the project does not transfer, and CES
pays the project a capacity and a variable fee based on the specific terms of
the power marketing and gas supply agreements. In addition to the contracts
specified above, CES maintains two tolling agreements with the Acadia facility
which are accounted for as leases. All of the other power marketing and gas
supply contracts are accounted for as purchases and sales.
The related party balances as of June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004,
reflected in the accompanying Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets, and the
related party transactions for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005, and
2004, reflected in the accompanying Consolidated Condensed Statements of
Operations are summarized as follows (in thousands):
June 30, December 31,
2005 2004
------------ ------------
Accounts receivable............................ $ 386 $ 765
Accounts payable............................... 30 9,489
Note receivable................................ 4,037 4,037
Other receivables.............................. 435 --
2005 2004
------------ ------------
For the Three Months Ended June 30,
Revenue........................................ $ 33 $ 91
Cost of revenue................................ 19,669 31,373
Interest income................................ -- 259
For the Six Months Ended June 30,
Revenue........................................ $ 67 $ 913
Cost of revenue................................ 54,858 64,119
Interest income................................ -- 493
Gain on sale of assets......................... -- 6,240
7. Debt
Issuance of Mandatorily Redeemable Preferred Interest -- On June 20, 2005,
the Company's indirect subsidiary Metcalf, consummated the sale of $155.0
million of 5.5-Year Redeemable Preferred Shares priced at LIBOR plus 900 basis
points. The proceeds will ultimately be used as permitted by the Company's
existing bond indentures. Concurrent with the closing of the sale of the
Redeemable Preferred Shares, Metcalf entered into a five-year, $100.0 million
senior term loan at LIBOR plus 300 basis points. Proceeds from the senior term
loan were used to refinance all outstanding indebtedness under the existing
$100.0 million non-recourse construction credit facility. The remaining portion
will be used to pay fees and expenses related to the transaction, and as
otherwise permitted by the Company's existing bond indentures. The Redeemable
Preferred Shares were offered in the United States in a private placement
transaction pursuant to Regulation D under the Securities Act.
Senior Note Repurchases -- During the three months ended June 30, 2005, the
Company repurchased Senior Notes in open market transactions totaling $479.8
million in principal. The Company repurchased the Senior Notes for cash totaling
$337.9 million plus accrued interest as follows (in thousands):
Senior Notes Principal Cash Payment
- ------------ ------------- -------------
10 1/2% due 2006................................... $ 3,485.0 $ 2,753.2
7 5/8% due 2006.................................... 1,335.0 1,041.3
8 3/4 % due 2007.................................. 3,000.0 1,665.0
8 1/2% due 2008................................... 25,500.0 18,297.5
7 3/4% due 2009................................... 35,000.0 20,865.0
8 5/8% due 2010.................................... 37,468.0 24,077.4
8 1/2% due 2011................................... 374,000.0 269,154.8
------------- -------------
Total repurchases............................... $ 479,788.0 $ 337,854.2
============= =============
For the three months ended June 30, 2005, the Company recorded an aggregate
pre-tax gain of $129.2 million on the above debt repurchases and equity for debt
exchange after the write-off of unamortized deferred financing costs and
unamortized discounts.
3(a)(9) Equity for Debt Exchange -- On June 28, 2005, the Company issued
27.5 million unregistered shares of its common stock, par value $.001, in
exchange for $94.3 million in aggregate principal amount at maturity of 2014
Convertible Notes pursuant to the exemption afforded by Section 3(a)(9) under
the Securities Act. At June 30, 2005, approximately $641.7 million in aggregate
principal amount at maturity of the 2014 Convertible Notes remain outstanding.
No commission or other remuneration was paid or given, directly or indirectly,
for soliciting such exchange. The Company recorded a pre-tax loss of $7.9
million on the exchange, which includes write-off of the associated unamortized
deferred financing cost and unamortized original issue discount.
Issuance of Contingent Convertible Senior Notes -- On June 23, 2005, the
Company closed its public offering of $650 million of 2015 Convertible Notes.
The Company used a portion of the net proceeds to repurchase $302.5 million of
the outstanding principal amount of its 8 1/2% Senior Notes due 2011 (included
in Senior Notes repurchase amounts above). The Company used the remaining net
proceeds of $402.5 million towards the redemption in full of its HIGH TIDES III
preferred securities in July 2005. See Note 15 for discussion of the Company's
redemption of its HIGH TIDES III preferred securities and related redemption of
the underlying convertible debentures payable to Calpine Capital Trust III
classified as a current liability as of June 30, 2005.
The 2015 Convertible Notes are convertible, at the option of holder, into
cash and into shares of Calpine common stock at a conversion rate of
approximately 250 shares per $1,000 of principal amount, subject to applicable
adjustments. Conversion is subject to a common stock price condition where the
Company's common stock is trading for at least 20 trading days in the period of
30 consecutive trading days ending on the last trading day of the calendar
quarter preceding the quarter in which the conversion occurs at more than 120%
of the conversion price per share of the common stock in effect on that 30th
trading day. Conversion is also subject to a trading price condition where
during the five trading day period after any five consecutive trading day period
in which the trading price of $1,000 principal amount of the notes for each day
of such five-day period was less than 95% of the product of the closing sale
price of our common stock price on that day multiplied by the conversion rate.
Holders of the 2015 Convertible Notes have a limited amount of time to convert
their notes once a conversion condition has been achieved. Generally, upon
conversion, the Company is required to deliver the par value of the 2015
Convertible Notes in cash and any additional conversion value based upon market
prices for Calpine common stock at the time of conversion. However, in certain
bankruptcy-related events of default the Company is required to deliver the par
value of the 2015 Convertible Notes in Calpine common stock. For a summary of
the theoretical maximum additional shares potentially issuable under our
contingent convertible notes, see Note 11.
If a conversion event were to occur under any of the Company's contingent
convertible notes, the outstanding principal amount due under these notes would
effectively become a demand note during the conversion window and such
outstanding principal amount would be reflected as a current liability on the
Company's consolidated balance sheet. In addition, if a conversion event were to
occur and contingent convertible notes were tendered for conversion, provisions
of the Company's outstanding indentures may require the Company to refinance
such tendered notes in order to comply with the conversion obligations.
Closing of Project Finance Facility -- On June 30, 2005, the Company closed
on a $123.1 million, non-recourse project finance facility that will provide
funding to complete the construction of the 79.9-MW Bethpage Energy Center 3 in
Hicksville, N.Y. The Company has a 20-year power contract with the Long Island
Power Authority for the power plant's full capacity and related energy and
ancillary services beginning in July 2005. The loan facility is comprised of a
20-year Senior Loan, totaling $108.5 million, at a fixed rate of 6.13%, and a
15-year Junior Loan of $14.6 million at a fixed rate of 7.94%. The Company has
received approximately $55 million for costs spent to date on the project. An
additional amount of $11.2 million will be released to the Company upon
satisfying certain conditions. Remaining amounts available under the project
loan facility will be used to fund transaction expenses, the final completion of
the project and certain reserve accounts.
Annual Debt Maturities -- The annual principal repayments or maturities of
notes payable and borrowings under lines of credit, convertible debentures
payable to Calpine Capital Trust III, preferred interests, capital lease
obligation, CCFC I financing, CalGen/CCFC II financing, construction/project
financing, convertible notes, and senior notes and term loans, as of June 30,
2005, are as follows (in thousands):
July through December 2005..................................... $ 1,556,598
2006........................................................... 1,141,244
2007........................................................... 1,833,163
2008........................................................... 2,183,040
2009........................................................... 1,635,920
Thereafter..................................................... 10,502,943
--------------
Total debt..................................................... 18,852,908
(Discount) / Premium........................................... (191,891)
--------------
Total....................................................... $ 18,661,017
==============
Due Due Total
July - December January - July Current
2005 2006 Debt (1)
--------------- -------------- -------------
(In thousands)
Senior Notes Due 2005........................................................... $ 186,050 $ -- $ 186,050
Senior Notes Due 2006........................................................... -- 259,455 259,455
Calpine Jersey II preferred shares.............................................. 260,000 -- 260,000
Other scheduled debt maturities................................................. 173,048 173,434 346,482
Estimated debt repurchase obligation............................................ 420,000 192,000 612,000
Convertible debentures to Calpine Capital Trust III............................. 517,500 -- 517,500
------------- ------------ -------------
$ 1,556,598 $ 624,889 $ 2,181,487
============= ============ =============
- ----------
<FN>
(1) Excludes net discounts of $1,951.0 million.
</FN>
See Note 15 for discussion of the Company's redemption of its outstanding
convertible debentures payable to Calpine Capital Trust III classified as a
current liability as of June 30, 2005.
Indenture and Debt and Lease Covenant Compliance -- The covenants in
certain of the Company's debt agreements currently impose restrictions on its
activities, including those discussed below:
Certain of the Company's indentures place conditions on its ability to
issue indebtedness if the Company's interest coverage ratio (as defined in those
indentures) is below 2:1. Currently, the Company's interest coverage ratio (as
so defined) is below 2:1 and, consequently, the Company generally would not be
allowed to issue new debt, except for (i) certain types of new indebtedness that
refinances or replaces existing indebtedness and (ii) non-recourse debt and
preferred equity interests issued by the Company's subsidiaries for purposes of
financing certain types of capital expenditures, including plant development,
construction and acquisition costs and expenses. In addition, if and so long as
the Company's interest coverage ratio is below 2:1, the Company's ability to
invest in unrestricted subsidiaries and non-subsidiary affiliates and make
certain other types of restricted payments will be limited. Moreover, certain of
the Company's indentures will prohibit any further investments in non-subsidiary
affiliates if and for so long as its interest coverage ratio (as defined
therein) is below 1.75:1 and, as of June 30, 2005, such interest coverage ratio
was below 1.75:1. The Company currently does not expect this limitation on its
ability to make investments in non-subsidiary affiliates to have a material
impact on its business.
Certain of the Company's indebtedness issued in the last half of 2004 was
incurred in reliance on provisions in certain of its existing indentures
pursuant to which the Company is able to incur indebtedness if, after giving
effect to the incurrence and the repayment of other indebtedness with the
proceeds therefrom, the Company's interest coverage ratio (as defined in those
indentures) is greater than 2:1. In order to satisfy the interest coverage ratio
requirement in connection with certain debt securities issued in 2004, the
proceeds of such issuances are required to be used to repurchase or redeem other
existing indebtedness. While the Company completed a substantial portion of such
repurchases during the fourth quarter of 2004 and the first six months of 2005,
it is still in the process of completing the required amount of repurchases and
expects to do so as soon as practicable. While the amount that the Company will
be required to spend to repurchase the applicable remaining principal amount of
such indebtedness will ultimately depend on the market prices of the Company's
outstanding indebtedness at the time the indebtedness is repurchased, the
Company estimates that, as of June 30, 2005, as adjusted for market conditions
and financial covenant calculations, the Company would be required to spend
approximately $184.0 million on additional repurchases in order to fully satisfy
this requirement. If the market price of the Company's outstanding indebtedness
were to change substantially from current market prices, the amount that the
Company would be required to spend to repurchase the same principal amount of
such indebtedness could be significantly different from the amounts currently
estimated. The principal amount of the indebtedness required to be repurchased
has been classified as Senior Notes, current portion, on the Company's
Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2005. Subsequent to June 30,
2005, the Company satisfied a portion of such requirement such that, as of July
31, 2005, the Company's estimate, adjusted as described above, is that it would
be required to spend approximately $182.0 million on additional repurchases.
When the Company or one of its subsidiaries sells a significant asset or
issues preferred equity, the Company's indentures generally require that the net
proceeds of the transaction be used to make capital expenditures or to
repurchase or repay certain types of indebtedness, in each case within 365 days
of the closing date of the transaction. This general requirement contains
certain customary exceptions and, in the case of certain assets, including the
gas portion of the Company's oil and gas assets sold in July 2005, that are
defined as "designated assets" under some of the Company's indentures, there are
additional provisions that apply to the sale of these assets as discussed
further below. In light of these requirements, and taking into account the
amount of capital expenditures currently budgeted for the remainder of 2005 and
forecasted for 2006, the Company anticipates that subsequent to June 30, 2005,
it will need to use a total of approximately $427.0 million of the net proceeds
from the three series of preferred equity issued by subsidiaries of the Company,
to repurchase or repay indebtedness. Accordingly, this amount of long-term debt
has been reclassified as Senior Notes, current portion, on the Company's
Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2005. The actual amount of
the net proceeds that will be required to be used to repurchase or repay debt
will depend upon the actual amount of the net proceeds that is used to make
capital expenditures, which may be more or less than the amount currently
budgeted and/or forecasted.
In addition, the net proceeds from the asset sales completed after June 30,
2005, will similarly be subject to the asset sale provisions of the Company's
indentures, and the Company anticipates that, on the basis described above, in
connection with the asset sales that have been completed after June 30, 2005
(including the sale of Saltend), an additional $343.1 million will need to be
used to make qualifying capital expenditures and/or repurchase or repay
indebtedness. As described further in Note 12, certain bondholders filed a
lawsuit concerning the use of the proceeds from the sale of the Saltend. In
connection with that lawsuit, the net proceeds from that sale, after the
redemption of two series of redeemable preferred securities, are currently
subject to an order of the Court in that matter requiring such proceeds to be
held at or in the control of CCRC.
As noted above, the Company's oil and gas assets were sold on July 7, 2005,
with the gas component of such sale constituting "designated assets" under
certain of the Company's indentures. These indentures require the Company to
make an offer to purchase its First Priority Notes with the net proceeds of a
sale of designated assets not otherwise applied in accordance with the other
permitted uses under such indentures. Accordingly, the Company made an offer to
purchase the First Priority Notes in June 2005. The offer to purchase expired on
July 8, 2005, and the Company purchased, with proceeds of the sale of the gas
assets, $138.9 million in principal amount of the First Priority Notes tendered
in connection with the offer to purchase. The Company may use the remaining net
proceeds of $708.5 million arising from the sale of its gas assets to acquire
new natural gas and/or geothermal energy assets permitted to be acquired under
such indentures, and a portion of such remaining net proceeds have been so
applied. However, there can be no assurance that the Company would be successful
in identifying or acquiring any additional new assets on acceptable terms or at
all. If the Company does not, within 180 days of receipt of the net proceeds
from the sale of its gas assets, use all of the remaining net proceeds to
acquire such new assets, and/or to repurchase or repay (through open market or
privately negotiated transactions, tender offers or otherwise) any or all of the
$646.1 million aggregate principal amount of First Priority Notes remaining
outstanding after consummation of the offer to purchase (either of which actions
the Company may, but is not required, to take), then the Company will, to the
extent that the remaining net proceeds from the sale exceed $50.0 million, be
required under the terms of its Second Priority Secured Debt Instruments to make
an offer to purchase its outstanding second priority senior secured indebtedness
up to the amount of the remaining net proceeds.
In connection with several of our subsidiaries' lease financing
transactions (Agnews, Geysers, Pasadena, Broad River, RockGen, and South Point)
the insurance policies we have in place do not comply in every respect with the
insurance requirements set forth in the financing documents. The Company has
requested from the relevant financing parties, and is expecting to receive,
waivers of this noncompliance. While failure to have the required insurance in
place is listed in the financing documents as an event of default, the financing
parties may not unreasonably withhold their approval of the Company's waiver
request so long as the required insurance coverage is not reasonably available
or commercially feasible, and a report is delivered from the Company's insurance
consultant to that effect. The Company has delivered the required insurance
consultant reports to the relevant financing parties and therefore anticipates
that the necessary waivers will be executed shortly.
In connection with the sale/leaseback transaction of Agnews, the Company
has not fully complied with covenants pertaining to the operations and
maintenance agreement, which noncompliance is technically an event of default.
The Company is in the process of addressing this by seeking the lessor's
approval to renew and extend the operations and maintenance agreement for the
Agnews facility.
In connection with the sale/leaseback transaction of Calpine Monterey
Cogeneration, Inc., the Company has not fully complied with covenants pertaining
to amendments to gas and power purchase agreements, which noncompliance is
technically an event of default. The Company is in the process of addressing
this by seeking a consent and waiver.
Unrestricted Subsidiaries -- The information in this paragraph is required
to be provided under the terms of the indentures and credit agreement governing
the various tranches of the Company's Second Priority Secured Debt Instruments.
The Company has designated certain of its subsidiaries as "unrestricted
subsidiaries" under the Second Priority Secured Debt Instruments. A subsidiary
with "unrestricted" status thereunder generally is not required to comply with
the covenants contained therein that are applicable to "restricted
subsidiaries." The Company has designated Calpine Gilroy 1, Inc., Calpine Gilroy
2, Inc. and Calpine Gilroy Cogen, L.P. as "unrestricted subsidiaries" for
purposes of the Second Priority Secured Debt Instruments.
8. Discontinued Operations
Set forth below are all of the Company's asset disposals by reportable
segment that impacted the Company's Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements
as of June 30, 2005, due to reclassifications to discontinued operations to
reflect the sales or "held for sale" designations of the assets sold or to be
sold.
Oil and Gas Production and Marketing
On September 1, 2004, the Company, together with Calpine Natural Gas L.P.,
a Delaware limited partnership, completed the sale of its Rocky Mountain gas
reserves that were primarily concentrated in two geographic areas: the Colorado
Piceance Basin and the New Mexico San Juan Basin. Together, these assets
represented approximately 120 Bcfe of proved gas reserves, producing
approximately 16.3 Mmcfe per day of gas. Under the terms of the agreement,
Calpine received net cash payments of approximately $218.7 million, and recorded
a pre-tax gain of approximately $103.7 million.
On September 2, 2004, the Company completed the sale of its Canadian
natural gas reserves and petroleum assets. These Canadian assets represented
approximately 221 Bcfe of proved reserves, producing approximately 61 Mmcfe per
day. Included in this sale was the Company's 25% interest in approximately 80
Bcfe of proved reserves (net of royalties) and 32 Mmcfe per day of production
owned by CNGT. In accordance with SFAS No. 144, the Company's 25% equity method
investment in CNGT was considered part of the larger disposal group (i.e.,
assets to be disposed of together as a group in a single transaction to the same
buyer), and therefore evaluated and accounted for as discontinued operations.
Under the terms of the agreement, Calpine received cash payments of
approximately Cdn$808.1 million, or approximately US$626.4 million. Calpine
recorded a pre-tax gain of approximately $104.5 million on the sale of these
Canadian assets net of $20.1 million in foreign exchange losses recorded in
connection with the settlement of forward contracts entered into to preserve the
US dollar value of the Canadian proceeds.
In connection with the sale of the oil and gas assets in Canada, the
Company entered into a seven-year gas purchase agreement beginning on March 31,
2005, and expiring on October 31, 2011, that allows, but does not require, the
Company to purchase gas from the buyer at current market index prices. The
agreement is not asset specific and can be settled by any production that the
buyer has available.
In connection with the sale of the Rocky Mountain gas reserves, the New
Mexico San Juan Basin sales agreement allows for the buyer and the Company to
execute a ten-year gas purchase agreement for 100% of the underlying gas
production of sold reserves, at market index prices. Any agreement would be
subject to mutually agreeable collateral requirements and other customary terms
and provisions. As of October 1, 2004, the gas purchase agreement was finalized
and executed between the Company and the buyer.
The Company believes that all final terms of the gas purchase agreements
described above are on a market value and arm's length basis. If the Company
elects in the future to exercise a call option over production from the disposed
components, the Company will consider the call obligation to have been met as if
the actual production delivered to the Company under the call was from assets
other than those constituting the disposed components.
On June 29, 2005, the Company, along with its subsidiaries, Calpine Gas
Holdings LLC and Calpine Fuels Corporation, announced that it had entered into a
Purchase and Sale Agreement with Rosetta, pursuant to which the Company would
sell substantially all of its remaining domestic oil and gas exploration and
production properties and assets to Rosetta for $1.05 billion, less certain
transaction fees and expenses. The sale closed on July 7, 2005. See Note 15 for
further discussion.
In connection with the sale of the oil and gas assets to Rosetta, the
Company entered into a two-year gas purchase agreement expiring on December 31,
2009, for 100% of the production of the Sacramento basin, which represents
approximately 44% of the reserve assets sold to Rosetta. The Company will pay
the prevailing current market index price for all amounts acquired under the
agreement. The Company believes the gas purchase agreement was negotiated on an
arm's length basis and represents fair value for the production. Therefore, the
agreement does not provide the Company with significant influence over the
buyer's ability to realize the economic risks and rewards of owning the assets.
While the transaction closed in July 2005, the Company had met the criteria
necessary to classify the assets and liabilities as held for sale under SFAS 144
as of June 30, 2005. Consequently, as of June 30, 2005, the assets and
liabilities related to the oil and gas assets sold are reflected in the
Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheet as current and long-term assets and
liabilities held for sale.
Electric Generation and Marketing
On January 15, 2004, the Company completed the sale of its 50% undivided
interest in the 545-MW Lost Pines 1 Power Project to GenTex Power Corporation,
an affiliate of the LCRA. Under the terms of the agreement, Calpine received a
cash payment of $148.6 million and recorded a gain before taxes of $35.3
million. In addition, CES entered into a tolling agreement with LCRA providing
for the option to purchase 250 MW of electricity through December 31, 2004. At
December 31, 2003, the Company's undivided interest in the Lost Pines facility
was classified as "held for sale" and identified by balance sheet caption in the
Summary section below.
On May 31, 2005, the Company announced that it had agreed to sell Saltend
for a total sale price of approximately 490 million British pounds
(approximately $906 million at the time of the announcement), plus adjustments
for working capital that were estimated to be approximately $19 million at the
time of the announcement. The sale subsequently closed on July 28, 2005,
generating total gross proceeds of $862.5 million, $14.5 million of which
related to the estimated working capital adjustments. See Note 15 for further
information related to the closing of the sale. As described further in Note 12,
certain bondholders filed a lawsuit concerning the remaining use of the proceeds
from the sale of Saltend. While the transaction closed in July 2005, as of June
30, 2005, the Company had met the criteria necessary to classify the assets and
liabilities related to Saltend as held for sale under SFAS No. 144. These assets
and liabilities are reflected in the June 30, 2005 Consolidated Condensed
Balance Sheet as current and long-term assets and liabilities held for sale and
identified by balance sheet caption in the Summary section below.
Summary
The Company made reclassifications to current and prior period financial
statements to reflect the sale or designation as "held for sale" of these oil
and gas and Saltend assets and liabilities and to separately classify the
operating results of the assets sold and gain on sale of those assets from the
operating results of continuing operations to discontinued operations.
The table below presents the assets and liabilities held for sale by
segment as of June 30, 2005 (in thousands).
June 30, 2005
--------------------------------------------------
Electric Oil and Gas
Generation Production
and Marketing and Marketing Total
------------- -------------- -------------
Assets
Cash and cash equivalents.................................................. $ 65,150 $ -- $ 65,150
Accounts receivable, net................................................... 28,102 -- 28,102
Inventories................................................................ 4,860 -- 4,860
Prepaid expenses........................................................... 20,371 -- 20,371
------------- -------------- -------------
Total current assets held for sale...................................... 118,483 -- 118,483
Property, plant and equipment.............................................. 1,008,042 606,098 1,614,140
Other assets............................................................... 15,415 886 16,301
------------- -------------- -------------
Total long-term assets held for sale.................................. $ 1,023,457 $ 606,984 $ 1,630,441
============= ============== =============
Liabilities
Accounts payable........................................................... $ 38,223 $ -- $ 38,223
Current derivative liabilities............................................. 140,441 -- 140,441
Other current liabilities.................................................. 7,208 1,757 8,965
------------- -------------- -------------
Total current liabilities held for sale................................. 185,872 1,757 187,629
Deferred income taxes, net of current portion.............................. 100,242 -- 100,242
Long-term derivative liabilities........................................... 28,380 -- 28,380
Other liabilities.......................................................... 16,829 8,602 25,431
------------- -------------- -------------
Total long-term liabilities held for sale............................. $ 145,451 $ 8,602 $ 154,053
============= ============== =============
December 31, 2004
--------------------------------------------------
Electric Oil and Gas
Generation Production
and Marketing and Marketing Total
------------- -------------- -------------
Assets
Cash and cash equivalents.................................................. $ 65,404 $ -- $ 65,404
Accounts receivable, net................................................... 49,147 -- 49,147
Inventories................................................................ 5,088 -- 5,088
Prepaid expenses........................................................... 14,307 -- 14,307
------------- -------------- -------------
Total current assets held for sale...................................... 133,946 -- 133,946
Property, plant and equipment.............................................. 1,090,454 606,520 1,696,974
Other assets............................................................... 20,826 924 21,750
------------- -------------- -------------
Total long-term assets held for sale.................................. $ 1,111,280 $ 607,444 $ 1,718,724
============= ============== =============
Liabilities
Accounts payable........................................................... $ 31,342 $ -- $ 31,342
Current derivative liabilities............................................. 8,935 -- 8,935
Other current liabilities.................................................. 30,925 1,265 32,190
------------- -------------- -------------
Total current liabilities held for sale................................. 71,202 1,265 72,467
Deferred income taxes, net of current portion.............................. 135,985 -- 135,985
Long-term derivative liabilities........................................... 10,367 -- 10,367
Other liabilities.......................................................... 18,693 8,384 27,077
------------- -------------- -------------
Total long-term liabilities held for sale............................. $ 165,045 $ 8,384 $ 173,429
============= ============== =============
The tables below presents significant components of the Company's income
from discontinued operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005
and 2004, respectively, (in thousands).
Three Months Ended June 30, 2005
------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Oil and Gas Corporate
Generation Production and
and Marketing and Marketing Other Total
------------- ------------- ----------- -------------
Total revenue....................................................... $ 111,849 $ 11,081 $ -- $ 122,930
============ ============ ========== ============
Gain on disposal before taxes....................................... $ -- $ -- $ -- $ --
Operating income (loss) from discontinued operations before taxes... (29,394) 10,345 -- (19,049)
------------ ------------ ---------- ------------
Income from discontinued operations before taxes.................... $ (29,394) $ 10,345 $ -- $ (19,049)
Income tax provision (benefit)...................................... (2,513) 3,946 -- 1,433
------------ ------------ ---------- ------------
Income from discontinued operations, net of tax..................... $ (26,881) $ 6,399 $ -- $ (20,482)
============ ============ ========== ============
Three Months Ended June 30, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Oil and Gas Corporate
Generation Production and
and Marketing and Marketing Other Total
------------- ------------- ----------- -------------
Total revenue....................................................... $ 74,195 $ 25,036 $ -- $ 99,231
============ ============ ========== ============
Gain on disposal before taxes....................................... $ -- $ -- $ -- $ --
Operating income (loss) from discontinued operations before taxes... (3,922) 36,542 -- 32,620
------------ ------------ ---------- ------------
Income from discontinued operations before taxes.................... $ (3,922) $ 36,542 $ -- $ 32,620
Income tax provision (benefit)...................................... (1,225) (11,168) -- (12,393)
------------ ------------ ---------- ------------
Income from discontinued operations, net of tax..................... $ (2,697) $ 47,710 $ -- $ 45,013
============ ============ ========== ============
Six Months Ended June 30, 2005
------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Oil and Gas Corporate
Generation Production and
and Marketing and Marketing Other Total
------------- ------------- ----------- -------------
Total revenue....................................................... $ 246,323 $ 21,840 $ -- $ 268,163
============ ============ ========== ============
Gain on disposal before taxes....................................... $ -- $ -- $ -- $ --
Operating income (loss) from discontinued operations before taxes... (21,313) 26,836 -- 5,523
------------ ------------ ---------- ------------
Income from discontinued operations before taxes.................... $ (21,313) $ 26,836 $ -- $ 5,523
Income tax provision (benefit)...................................... 5,117 10,237 -- 15,354
------------ ------------ ---------- ------------
Income from discontinued operations, net of tax..................... $ (26,430) $ 16,599 $ -- $ (9,831)
============ ============ ========== ============
Six Months Ended June 30, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Oil and Gas Corporate
Generation Production and
and Marketing and Marketing Other Total
------------- ------------- ----------- -------------
Total revenue....................................................... $ 192,061 $ 48,634 $ -- $ 240,695
============ ============ ========== ============
Gain on disposal before taxes....................................... $ 35,327 $ -- $ -- $ 35,327
Operating income (loss) from discontinued operations before taxes... 34,670 63,250 -- 97,920
------------ ------------ ---------- ------------
Income from discontinued operations before taxes.................... $ 69,997 $ 63,250 $ -- $ 133,247
Income tax provision (benefit)...................................... 22,877 (13,887) -- 8,990
------------ ------------ ---------- ------------
Income from discontinued operations, net of tax..................... $ 47,120 $ 77,137 $ -- $ 124,257
============ ============ ========== ============
The Company allocates interest to discontinued operations in accordance
with EITF Issue No. 87-24, "Allocation of Interest to Discontinued Operations."
The Company includes interest expense on debt which is required to be repaid as
a result of a disposal transaction in discontinued operations. Additionally,
other interest expense that cannot be attributed to other operations of the
Company is allocated based on the ratio of net assets to be sold less debt that
is required to be paid as a result of the disposal transaction to the sum of
total net assets of the Company plus consolidated debt of the Company, excluding
(a) debt of the discontinued operation that will be assumed by the buyer, (b)
debt that is required to be paid as a result of the disposal transaction and (c)
debt that can be directly attributed to other operations of the Company.
Using the methodology above, the Company allocated specific interest
expense to its remaining oil and gas properties for approximately $139 million
of debt the Company was required to repurchase under the terms of its $785
million in principal amount of First Priority Notes. The total amount of
interest expense allocated to the oil and gas segment for the three and six
month periods ending June 30, 2005 and 2004 was $5.1 million, $9.9 million, $2.5
million and $4.7 million, respectively. The Company also allocated specific
interest expense to the Saltend entities for the $620.0 million of preferred
interest debt that the Company was required to redeem in connection with the
sale of Saltend. The total amount of interest expense allocated to the electric
generation segment for the three and six month periods ending June 30, 2005 and
2004 was $21.3 million, $38.9 million, $1.8 million and $4.0 million,
respectively.
9. Derivative Instruments
Summary of Derivative Values
The table below reflects the amounts that are recorded as assets and
liabilities at June 30, 2005, for the Company's derivative instruments (in
thousands):
Commodity
Interest Rate Derivative Total
Derivative Instruments Derivative
Instruments Net Instruments
-------------- -------------- --------------
Current derivative assets...................................................... $ -- $ 383,914 $ 383,914
Long-term derivative assets.................................................... -- 714,409 714,409
------------- ------------- -------------
Total assets................................................................ $ -- $ 1,098,323 $ 1,098,323
============= ============= =============
Current derivative liabilities................................................. $ (17,915) $ (483,556) $ (501,471)
Long-term derivative liabilities............................................... (57,821) (948,122) (1,005,943)
------------- ------------- -------------
Total liabilities........................................................... $ (75,736) $ (1,431,678) $ 1,507,414)
============= ============= =============
Net derivative liabilities.................................................. $ (75,736) $ (333,355) $ (409,091)
============= ============= =============
Of the Company's net derivative liabilities, $238.8 million and $41.4
million are net derivative assets of PCF and CNEM, respectively, each of which
is an entity with its existence separate from the Company and other subsidiaries
of the Company. The Company fully consolidates CNEM, and the Company also
records the net derivative assets of PCF in its balance sheet.
On March 31, 2005, Deer Park, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
Calpine, entered into agreements to sell power to and buy gas from MLCI. The
agreements cover 650 MW of Deer Park's capacity, and deliveries under the
agreements began on April 1, 2005, and continue through December 31, 2010. To
assure performance under the agreements, Deer Park granted MLCI a collateral
interest in the Deer Park Energy Center. The power and gas agreements contain
terms as follows:
Power Agreements
Under the terms of the power agreements, Deer Park will sell power to MLCI
at fixed and index prices with a discount to prevailing market prices at the
time the agreements were executed. In exchange for the discounted pricing, Deer
Park received an initial cash payment of $195.8 million, net of $17.3 million in
transaction costs, and subsequently received additional cash payments of
approximately $79.3 million as additional power transactions were executed with
discounts to prevailing market prices during the second and third quarters of
2005. The cash received by Deer Park is sufficiently small compared to the
amount that would be required to fully prepay for the power to be delivered
under the agreements that the agreements have been determined to be derivatives
in their entirety under SFAS No. 133. Of the $79.3 million of additional power
transactions, additional cash payments of $51.8 million, net of transaction fees
of $1.8 million was received as of June 30, 2005. The value of the derivative
liability at June 30, 2005, was $283.8 million. As Deer Park makes power
deliveries under the agreements, the liability will be satisfied and,
accordingly, the derivative liability will be reduced, and Deer Park will record
corresponding gains in income, supplementing the revenues recognized based on
discounted pricing as deliveries take place. The upfront payments received by
Deer Park from the transaction are recorded as cash flows from financing
activity in accordance with guidance contained in SFAS No. 149, "Amendment of
Statement 133 on Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities" (SFAS No. 149).
SFAS No. 149 requires that companies present cash flows from derivatives that
contain an "other-than-insignificant" financing element as cash flows from
financing activities. Under SFAS No. 149, a contract that at its inception
includes off-market terms, or requires an up-front cash payment, or both is
deemed to contain an "other-than-insignificant" financing element.
Gas Agreements
Under the terms of the gas agreements, Deer Park will receive quantities of
gas such that, when combined with fuel supply provided by Deer Park's steam
host, Deer Park will have sufficient contractual fuel supply to meet the fuel
needs required to generate the power under the power agreements. Deer Park will
pay both fixed and variable prices under the gas agreements. To the extent that
Deer Park receives fixed prices for power, Deer Park will receive a
volumetrically proportionate quantity of gas supply at fixed prices thereby
fixing the spread between the revenue Deer Park receives under the fixed price
power sales and the cost it pays under the fixed price gas purchases. To the
extent that Deer Park receives index-based prices for its power sales, it will
pay index-based prices for a volumetrically proportionate amount of its gas
supply.
Relationship of Net Derivative Assets or Liabilities to AOCI
At any point in time, it is highly unlikely that total net derivative
assets or liabilities will equal AOCI, net of tax from derivatives, for three
primary reasons:
o Tax effect of OCI -- When the values and subsequent changes in values
of derivatives that qualify as effective hedges are recorded into OCI,
they are initially offset by a derivative asset or liability. Once in
OCI, however, these values are tax effected against a deferred tax
liability or asset account, thereby creating an imbalance between net
OCI and net derivative assets and liabilities.
o Derivatives not designated as cash flow hedges and hedge
ineffectiveness -- Only derivatives that qualify as effective cash
flow hedges will have an offsetting amount recorded in OCI.
Derivatives not designated as cash flow hedges and the ineffective
portion of derivatives designated as cash flow hedges will be recorded
into earnings instead of OCI, creating a difference between net
derivative assets and liabilities and pre-tax OCI from derivatives.
o Termination of effective cash flow hedges prior to maturity --
Following the termination of a cash flow hedge, changes in the
derivative asset or liability are no longer recorded to OCI. At this
point, an AOCI balance remains that is not recognized in earnings
until the forecasted initially hedged transactions occur. As a result,
there will be a temporary difference between OCI and derivative assets
and liabilities on the books until the remaining OCI balance is
recognized in earnings.
Below is a reconciliation of the Company's net derivative liabilities to
its accumulated other comprehensive loss, net of tax from derivative instruments
at June 30, 2005 (in thousands):
Net derivative liabilities...................................................................................... $ (409,091)
Derivatives not designated as cash flow hedges and recognized hedge ineffectiveness............................. 199,854
Cash flow hedges terminated prior to maturity................................................................... (211,345)
Deferred tax asset attributable to accumulated other comprehensive loss on cash flow hedges..................... 135,509
AOCI from unconsolidated investees.............................................................................. 14,814
--------------
Accumulated other comprehensive loss from derivative instruments, net of tax (1)................................ $ (270,259)
==============
- ----------
<FN>
(1) Amount represents one portion of the Company's total AOCI balance. See Note
10 for further information.
</FN>
Presentation of Revenue Under EITF Issue No. 03-11 "Reporting Realized
Gains and Losses on Derivative Instruments That Are Subject to SFAS No. 133 and
Not `Held for Trading Purposes' As Defined in EITF Issue No. 02-3: "Issues
Involved in Accounting for Derivative Contracts Held for Trading Purposes and
Contracts Involved in Energy Trading and Risk Management Activities" -- The
Company accounts for certain of its power sales and purchases on a net basis
under EITF Issue No. 03-11, which the Company adopted on a prospective basis on
October 1, 2003. Transactions with either of the following characteristics are
presented net in the Company's Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements: (1)
transactions executed in a back-to-back buy and sale pair, primarily because of
market protocols; and (2) physical power purchase and sale transactions where
the Company's power schedulers net the physical flow of the power purchase
against the physical flow of the power sale (or "book out" the physical power
flows) as a matter of scheduling convenience to eliminate the need to schedule
actual power delivery. These book out transactions may occur with the same
counterparty or between different counterparties where the Company has equal but
offsetting physical purchase and delivery commitments. In accordance with EITF
Issue No. 03-11, the Company netted the purchases of $272.6 million and $322.0
million against sales in the quarters ended June 30, 2005, and June 30, 2004,
respectively. The Company netted the purchases of $576.3 million and $692.5
million against sales in the six months ended June 30, 2005, and June 30, 2004,
respectively.
The asset and liability balances for the Company's commodity derivative
instruments represent the net totals after offsetting certain assets against
certain liabilities under the criteria of FIN 39. For a given contract, FIN 39
will allow the offsetting of assets against liabilities so long as four criteria
are met: (1) each of the two parties under contract owes the other determinable
amounts; (2) the party reporting under the offset method has the right to set
off the amount it owes against the amount owed to it by the other party; (3) the
party reporting under the offset method intends to exercise its right to set
off; and; (4) the right of set-off is enforceable by law. The table below
reflects both the amounts (in thousands) recorded as assets and liabilities by
the Company and the amounts that would have been recorded had the Company's
commodity derivative instrument contracts not qualified for offsetting as of
June 30, 2005.
June 30, 2005
--------------------------------
Gross Net
-------------- ---------------
Current derivative assets...................................................................... $ 1,546,977 $ 383,914
Long-term derivative assets.................................................................... 1,578,929 714,409
------------- --------------
Total derivative assets..................................................................... $ 3,125,906 $ 1,098,323
============= ==============
Current derivative liabilities................................................................. $ (1,646,619) $ (483,556)
Long-term derivative liabilities............................................................... (1,812,642) (948,122)
------------- --------------
Total derivative liabilities................................................................ $ (3,459,261) $ (1,431,678)
============= ==============
Net commodity derivative liabilities........................................................ $ (333,355) $ (333,355)
============= ==============
The table above excludes the value of interest rate and currency derivative
instruments.
The tables below reflect the impact of unrealized mark-to-market gains
(losses) on the Company's pre-tax earnings, both from cash flow hedge
ineffectiveness and from the changes in market value of derivatives not
designated as hedges of cash flows, for the three and six months ended June 30,
2005 and 2004, respectively (in thousands):
Three Months Ended June 30,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 2004
----------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
Hedge Undesignated Hedge Undesignated
Ineffectiveness Derivatives Total Ineffectiveness Derivatives Total
--------------- ------------ ---------- --------------- ------------ ----------
Natural gas derivatives (1).............. $ (430) $ (21,954) $ (22,383) $ 317 $ (3,737) $ (3,420)
Power derivatives (1).................... 734 (18,919) (18,185) 666 (26,159) (25,493)
Interest rate derivatives (2)............ 808 -- 808 (550) 5,939 5,389
------------- ------------ --------- ------------- ----------- ---------
Total................................. $ 1,112 $ (40,873) $ (39,761) $ 433 $ (23,957) $ (23,524)
============= =========== ========= ============= =========== =========
Six Months Ended June 30,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 2004
----------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
Hedge Undesignated Hedge Undesignated
Ineffectiveness Derivatives Total Ineffectiveness Derivatives Total
--------------- ------------ ---------- --------------- ------------ ----------
Natural gas derivatives (1).............. $ 766 $ (36,422) $ (35,656) $ 5,763 $ (3,102) $ 2,661
Power derivatives (1).................... (304) 4,229 3,925 126 (36,645) (36,519)
Interest rate derivatives (2)............ 840 -- 840 (948) 6,035 5,087
------------- ----------- --------- ------------- ----------- ---------
Total................................. $ 1,302 $ (32,193) $ (30,891) $ 4,941 $ (33,712) $ (28,771)
============= =========== ========= ============= =========== =========
- ------------
<FN>
(1) Represents the unrealized portion of mark-to-market activity on gas and
power transactions. The unrealized portion of mark-to-market activity is
combined with the realized portions of mark-to-market activity and
presented in the Consolidated Statements of Operations as "mark-to-market
activities, net."
(2) Recorded within "Other Income" in the Consolidated Statements of
Operations.
</FN>
The table below reflects the contribution of the Company's cash flow hedge
activity to pre-tax earnings based on the reclassification adjustment from OCI
to earnings for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004,
respectively (in thousands):
Three Months Ended June 30,
-----------------------------
2005 2004
------------- -------------
Natural gas and crude oil derivatives............................................................... $ (11,483) $ 25,040
Power derivatives................................................................................... (21,669) (30,255)
Interest rate derivatives........................................................................... (7,424) (7,194)
Foreign currency derivatives........................................................................ (498) (496)
------------ ------------
Total derivatives................................................................................ $ (41,074) $ (12,905)
============ ============
Six Months Ended June 30,
-----------------------------
2005 2004
------------- -------------
Natural gas and crude oil derivatives............................................................... $ 17,317 $ 25,233
Power derivatives................................................................................... (39,441) (43,023)
Interest rate derivatives........................................................................... (13,905) (9,966)
Foreign currency derivatives........................................................................ (1,001) (1,012)
------------ ------------
Total derivatives................................................................................ $ (37,030) $ (28,768)
============ ============
As of June 30, 2005, the maximum length of time over which the Company was
hedging its exposure to the variability in future cash flows for forecasted
transactions was 7 and 12 years, for commodity and interest rate derivative
instruments, respectively. The Company estimates that pre-tax losses of $268.8
million, of which $168.8 relates to discontinued operations, would be
reclassified from OCI into earnings during the twelve months ended June 30,
2006, as the hedged transactions affect earnings assuming constant gas and power
prices, interest rates, and exchange rates over time; however, the actual
amounts that will be reclassified will likely vary based on the probability that
gas and power prices as well as interest rates and exchange rates will, in fact,
change. Therefore, management is unable to predict what the actual
reclassification from OCI to earnings (positive or negative) will be for the
next twelve months.
The table below presents the pre-tax gains (losses) currently held in OCI
that will be recognized annually into earnings, assuming constant gas and power
prices, interest rates, and exchange rates over time (in thousands):
2010 &
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 After Total
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Gas OCI......................... $ 32,333 $ 133,047 $ 15,357 $ 2,366 $ 1,927 $ 2,929 $ 187,959
Power OCI....................... (289,059) (199,803) (27,282) (3,895) (3,442) (3,060) (526,541)
Interest rate OCI............... (6,894) (11,428) (8,262) (6,757) (5,666) (23,493) (62,500)
Foreign currency OCI............ (997) (1,993) (1,603) (94) -- -- (4,687)
------------ ------------ ----------- ---------- ----------- ---------- -----------
Total pre-tax OCI............ $ (264,617) $ (80,177) $ (21,790) $ (8,380) $ (7,181) $ (23,624) $ (405,769)
============ ============ =========== ========== =========== ========== ===========
10. Comprehensive Income (Loss)
Comprehensive income (loss) is the total of net income (loss) and all other
non-owner changes in equity. Comprehensive income includes the Company's net
income, unrealized gains and losses from derivative instruments that qualify as
cash flow hedges, unrealized gains and losses from available-for-sale securities
which are marked to market, the Company's share of its equity method investee's
OCI, and the effects of foreign currency translation adjustments. The Company
reports AOCI in its Consolidated Balance Sheet. The tables below detail the
changes during the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 in the Company's AOCI
balance and the components of the Company's comprehensive income (in thousands):
Comprehensive
Income (Loss)
Total for the Three
Accumulated Months Ended
Available- Foreign Other March 31, 2005
Cash Flow for-Sale Currency Comprehensive and
Hedges Investments Translation Income (Loss) June 30, 2005
--------- ----------- ----------- ------------- -------------
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
at January 1, 2005 .......................................... $(140,151) $ 582 $249,080 $109,511
Net loss for the three months ended March 31, 2005 ........... $(168,731)
Cash flow hedges:
Comprehensive pre-tax loss on cash flow hedges
before reclassification adjustment during the
three months ended March 31, 2005 ....................... (90,719)
Reclassification adjustment for gain included in
net loss for the three months ended March 31, 2005 ...... (4,044)
Income tax benefit for the three months ended
March 31, 2005 .......................................... 29,998
---------
(64,765) (64,765) (64,765)
Available-for-sale investments:
Pre-tax gain on available-for-sale investments for the
three months ended March 31, 2005 ....................... 1,150
Income tax provision for the three months ended
March 31, 2005 .......................................... (451)
--------
699 699 699
Foreign currency translation loss for the three months
ended March 31, 2005 .................................... (12,830) (12,830) (12,830)
-------- -------- ---------
Total comprehensive loss for the three months ended
March 31, 2005 .............................................. $(245,627)
=========
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) at
March 31, 2005 .............................................. $(204,916) $ 1,281 $236,250 $ 32,615
========= ======== ======== ========
Net loss for the three months ended June 30, 2005 ............ $(298,458)
Cash flow hedges:
Comprehensive pre-tax loss on cash flow hedges
before reclassification adjustment during the
three months ended June 30, 2005 ........................ (134,289)
Reclassification adjustment for loss included in
net loss for the three months ended June 30, 2005 ....... 41,074
Income tax benefit for the three months ended
June 30, 2005 ........................................... 27,872
---------
(65,343) (65,343) (65,343)
Available-for-sale investments:
Pre-tax gain on available-for-sale investments for the
three months ended June 30, 2005 ........................ 2,415
Income tax provision for the three months ended
June 30, 2005 ........................................... (947)
--------
1,468 1,468
Foreign currency translation loss for the three months
ended June 30, 2005 ..................................... (20,860) (20,860) (20,860)
-------- -------- ---------
Total comprehensive loss for the three months ended
June 30, 2005 ............................................... $(383,193)
=========
Total comprehensive loss for the six months ended
June 30, 2005 ............................................... $(628,820)
=========
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) at
June 30, 2005 ............................................... $(270,259) $ 2,749 $215,390 $(52,120)
========= ======== ======== ========
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) at
January 1, 2004 ............................................. $(130,419) $ -- $187,013 $ 56,594
Net loss for the three months ended March 31, 2004 ........... $ (71,192)
Cash flow hedges:
Comprehensive pre-tax gain on cash flow hedges
before reclassification adjustment during the three
months ended March 31, 2004 ............................. 4,426
Reclassification adjustment for loss included in
net loss for the three months ended March 31, 2004 ...... 15,863
Income tax provision for the three months ended
March 31, 2004 .......................................... (7,224)
---------
13,065 13,065 13,065
Available-for-sale investments:
Pre-tax gain on available-for-sale investments for the
three months ended March 31, 2004 ....................... 19,526
Income tax provision for the three months ended
March 31, 2004 .......................................... (7,709)
--------
11,817 11,817 11,817
Foreign currency translation gain for the three months
ended March 31, 2004 .................................... 2,078 2,078 2,078
-------- -------- ---------
Total comprehensive loss for the three months ended
March 31, 2004 .............................................. $ (44,232)
=========
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) at
March 31, 2004 .............................................. $(117,354) $ 11,817 $189,091 $ 83,554
========= ======== ======== ========
Net loss for the three months ended June 30, 2004 ............ $ (28,698)
Cash flow hedges:
Comprehensive pre-tax loss on cash flow hedges
before reclassification adjustment during the three
months ended June 30, 2004 .............................. (54,514)
Reclassification adjustment for loss included in
net loss for the three months ended June 30, 2004 ....... 12,905
Income tax benefit for the three months ended
June 30, 2004 ........................................... 13,369
---------
(28,240) (28,240) (28,240)
Available-for-sale investments:
Pre-tax loss on available-for-sale investments for the
three months ended June 30, 2004 ........................ (19,762)
Income tax benefit for the three months ended
June 30, 2004 ........................................... 7,802
--------
(11,960) (11,960) (11,960)
Foreign currency translation loss for the three months
ended June 30, 2004 ..................................... (21,399) (21,399) (21,399)
-------- -------- ---------
Total comprehensive loss for the three months ended
June 30, 2004 ............................................... (90,197)
---------
Total comprehensive loss for the six months ended
June 30, 2004 ............................................... $(134,429)
=========
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) at
June 30, 2004 ............................................... $(145,594) $ (143) $167,692 $ 22,055
========= ======== ======== ========
11. Loss Per Share
Basic loss per common share was computed by dividing net loss by the
weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the respective periods.
The dilutive effect of the potential exercise of outstanding options to purchase
shares of common stock is calculated using the treasury stock method. The
dilutive effect of the assumed conversion of certain convertible securities into
the Company's common stock is based on the dilutive common share equivalents and
the after tax distribution expense avoided upon conversion. The reconciliation
of basic and diluted loss per common share is shown in the following table (in
thousands, except per share data).
Periods Ended June 30,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 2004
----------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
Net Loss Shares EPS Net Loss Shares EPS
------------- --------- ------------- ------------- --------- -----------
THREE MONTHS:
Basic and diluted loss per common share:
Loss before discontinued operations.......... $ (277,976) 449,183 $ (0.62) $ (73,711) 417,357 $ (0.18)
Discontinued operations, net of tax.......... (20,482) -- (0.04) 45,013 -- 0.11
------------ -------- ----------- ----------- -------- ----------
Net loss.................................. $ (298,458) 449,183 $ (0.66) $ (28,698) 417,357 $ (0.07)
============ ======== =========== =========== ======== ==========
Periods Ended June 30,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 2004
----------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
Net Loss Shares EPS Net Loss Shares EPS
------------- --------- ------------- ------------- --------- -----------
SIX MONTHS:
Basic and diluted loss per common share:
Loss before discontinued operations.......... $ (457,358) 448,391 $ (1.02) $ (224,147) 416,332 $ (0.54)
Discontinued operations, net of tax.......... (9,831) -- (0.02) 124,257 -- 0.30
------------ --------- ----------- ----------- -------- ----------
Net loss.................................. $ (467,189) 448,391 $ (1.04) $ (99,890) 416,332 $ (0.24)
============ ========= =========== =========== ======== ==========
The Company incurred losses before discontinued operations for the quarters
ended June 30, 2005 and 2004. As a result, basic shares were used in the
calculations of fully diluted loss per share for these periods, under the
guidelines of SFAS No. 128 as using the basic shares produced the more dilutive
effect on the loss per share. Potentially convertible securities, shares to be
purchased under the Company's ESPP and unexercised employee stock options to
purchase a weighted average of 10.8 million and 60.6 million shares of the
Company's common stock were not included in the computation of diluted shares
outstanding during the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively,
because such inclusion would be antidilutive.
For the three months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, approximately 0.1
million and 4.0 million, respectively, weighted common shares of the Company's
outstanding 2006 Convertible Senior Notes were excluded from the diluted EPS
calculations as the inclusion of such shares would have been antidilutive.
In connection with the convertible debentures payable to Calpine Capital
Trust III, net of repurchases, for the quarters ended June 30, 2005 and 2004,
there were 9.3 million and 11.9 million weighted average common shares
potentially issuable, respectively, that were excluded from the diluted EPS
calculation as their inclusion would be antidilutive. The convertible debentures
were redeemed in full on July 13, 2005.
For the quarters ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, under the new guidance of
EITF 04-08 there were no shares potentially issuable and thus potentially
included in the diluted EPS calculation under the Company's 2023 Convertible
Notes, 2014 Convertible Notes and 2015 Convertible Notes issued in November
2003, September 2004 and June 2005, respectively, because the Company's closing
stock price at each period end was below the conversion price. However, in
future reporting periods where the Company's closing stock price is above the
conversion price for any of these convertible instruments and the Company has
income before discontinued operations and cumulative effect of a change in
accounting principle, the maximum potential shares issuable under the conversion
provisions of the notes would be as presented below. The actual number of
potential shares will depend on the closing stock price at conversion.
o 2023 Convertible Notes -- If the Company's closing stock price is
above the instrument's conversion price of $6.50, a maximum of
approximately 97.5 million shares would be included (if dilutive) in
the diluted EPS calculation;
o 2014 Convertible Notes -- If the Company's closing stock price is
above the instrument's conversion price of $3.85, a maximum of
approximately 166.7 million shares would be included (if dilutive) in
the diluted EPS calculation;
o 2015 Convertible Notes -- If the Company's closing stock price is
above the instrument's conversion price of $4.00, a maximum of
approximately 163.0 million shares would be included (if dilutive) in
the diluted EPS calculation;
For the quarter ended June 30, 2005, 1.2 million weighted average common
shares of the Company's contingently issuable (unvested) restricted stock was
excluded from the calculation of diluted EPS because the Company's closing stock
price has not reached the price at which the shares vest, and, as discussed
above, inclusion would have been anti-dilutive.
In conjunction with the offering of the 2014 Convertible Notes, the Company
entered into a ten-year Share Lending Agreement with DB London, under which the
Company loaned DB London 89 million shares of newly issued Calpine common stock
in exchange for a loan fee of $.001 per share and other consideration. The
Company has excluded the 89 million shares of common stock subject to the Share
Lending Agreement from the EPS calculation.
See Note 2 for a discussion of the potential impact of SFAS No. 128-R on
the calculation of diluted EPS.
12. Commitments and Contingencies
Turbines
The table below sets forth future turbine payments for construction and
development projects, as well as for unassigned turbines. It includes previously
delivered turbines, payments and delivery by year for the last turbine to be
delivered as well as payment required for the potential cancellation costs of
the remaining 30 gas and steam turbines. The table does not include payments
that would result if the Company were to release for manufacturing any of these
remaining 30 turbines.
Units to Be
Year Total Delivered
- -------------------------- -------------- -----------
(In thousands)
July through December 2005.................. $ 18,383 1
2006........................................ 4,862 --
2007........................................ 2,332 --
2008........................................ 2,699 --
---------- ---
Total.................................... $ 28,276 1
========== ===
Litigation
The Company is party to various litigation matters arising out of the
normal course of business, the more significant of which are summarized below.
The ultimate outcome of each of these matters cannot presently be determined,
nor can the liability that could potentially result from a negative outcome be
reasonably estimated presently for every case. The liability the Company may
ultimately incur with respect to any one of these matters in the event of a
negative outcome may be in excess of amounts currently accrued with respect to
such matters and, as a result of these matters, may potentially be material to
the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements.
Securities Class Action Lawsuits. Beginning on March 11, 2002, fifteen
securities class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against Calpine and certain of its employees,
officers, and directors. All of these actions were ultimately assigned to Judge
Saundra Brown Armstrong, and Judge Armstrong ordered the actions consolidated
for all purposes on August 16, 2002, as In re Calpine Corp. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. C 02-1200 SBA. There is currently only one claim
remaining from the consolidated actions: a claim for violation of Section 11 of
the Securities Act. The Court has dismissed all of the claims brought under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with prejudice.
On October 17, 2003, the then-lead plaintiffs filed the third amended
complaint ("TAC"), which alleges violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act
by Calpine, Peter Cartwright, Ann B. Curtis and Charles B. Clark, Jr. The TAC
alleges that the registration statement and prospectuses for Calpine's 2011
Notes contained materially false or misleading statements about the factors that
caused the power shortages in California in 2000-2001 and the resulting increase
in wholesale energy prices. The lead plaintiff in this action contends that the
true but undisclosed cause of the energy crisis is that Calpine and other power
producers were engaging in physical and economic withholding of electricity.
Lead plaintiff moved for certification of a class consisting of all who
purchased Notes between February 8, 2001 and January 27, 2003. On June 10, 2005,
the Court held a hearing on the motion for class certification, and denied the
motion without prejudice. Lead plaintiff asked for, and received, leave to file
a brief on June 24, 2005 to attempt to demonstrate why a class should be
certified, and what its parameters should be. Defendant responded to that brief
on July 8, 2005. The parties are awaiting Judge Armstrong's ruling.
The Court has set a November 7, 2005, trial date. Fact discovery was closed
on August 1, 2005. We consider the lawsuit to be without merit and intend to
continue to defend vigorously against the allegations.
Hawaii Structural Ironworkers Pension Fund v. Calpine, et al. This case is
a Section 11 case brought as a class action on behalf of purchasers in Calpine's
April 2002 stock offering. This case was filed in San Diego County Superior
Court on March 11, 2003, but defendants won a motion to transfer the case to
Santa Clara County. Defendants in this case are Calpine, Peter Cartwright, Ann
B. Curtis, John Wilson, Kenneth Derr, George Stathakis, Credit Suisse First
Boston, Banc of America Securities, Deutsche Bank Securities, and Goldman, Sachs
& Co. Plaintiff is the Hawaii Fund.
The Hawaii Fund alleges that the prospectus and registration statement for
the April 2002 offering had false or misleading statements regarding: Calpine's
actual financial results for 2000 and 2001; Calpine's projected financial
results for 2002; Mr. Cartwright's agreement not to sell or purchase shares
within 90 days of the offering; and Calpine's alleged involvement in "wash
trades." A central allegation of the complaint is that a March 2003 restatement
concerning the accounting for two sales-leaseback transactions revealed that
Calpine had misrepresented its financial results in the prospectus/registration
statement for the April 2002 offering.
There is no trial date in this action. The next scheduled court hearing
will be a case management conference on January 10, 2006, at which time the
court may set a trial date. We consider this lawsuit to be without merit and
intend to continue to defend vigorously against the allegations.
Phelps v. Calpine Corporation, et al. On April 17, 2003, James Phelps filed
a class action complaint in the Northern District of California, alleging claims
under the ERISA. On May 19, 2003, a nearly identical class action complaint was
filed in the Northern District by Lenette Poor-Herena. The parties agreed to
have both of the ERISA actions assigned to Judge Armstrong, who oversees the
above-described federal securities class action and the Gordon derivative action
(see below). On August 20, 2003, pursuant to an agreement between the parties,
Judge Armstrong ordered that the two ERISA actions be consolidated under the
caption, In re Calpine Corp. ERISA Litig., Master File No. C 03-1685 SBA (the
"ERISA Class Action"). Plaintiff James Phelps filed a consolidated ERISA
complaint on January 20, 2004 ("Consolidated Complaint"). Ms. Poor-Herena is not
identified as a plaintiff in the Consolidated Complaint.
The Consolidated Complaint defines the class as all participants in, and
beneficiaries of, the Plan for whose accounts investments were made in Calpine
stock during the period from January 5, 2001 to the present. The Consolidated
Complaint names as defendants Calpine, the members of its Board of Directors,
the Plan's Advisory Committee and its members (Kati Miller, Lisa Bodensteiner,
Rick Barraza, Tom Glymph, Patrick Price, Trevor Thor, Bob McCaffrey, and Bryan
Bertacchi), signatories of the Plan's Annual Return/Report of Employee Benefit
Plan Forms 5500 for 2001 and 2002 (Pamela J. Norley and Marybeth Kramer-Johnson,
respectively), an employee of a consulting firm hired by the Plan (Scott
Farris), and unidentified fiduciary defendants.
The Consolidated Complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties involving the Plan, in violation of ERISA, by misrepresenting Calpine's
actual financial results and earnings projections, failing to disclose certain
transactions between Calpine and Enron that allegedly inflated Calpine's
revenues, failing to disclose that the shortage of power in California during
2000-2001 was due to withholding of capacity by certain power companies, failing
to investigate whether Calpine common stock was an appropriate investment for
the Plan, and failing to take appropriate actions to prevent losses to the Plan.
In addition, the Consolidated Complaint alleges that certain of the individual
defendants suffered from conflicts of interest due to their sales of Calpine
stock during the class period.
Defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. Judge Armstrong
granted the motion and dismissed three of the four claims with prejudice. The
remaining claim, for misrepresentation, was dismissed with leave to amend.
Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on June 3, 2005. The
Consolidated Amended Complaint names as defendants Calpine Corporation and the
members of the Advisory Committee for the Plan. Defendants have filed motions to
dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint, which are currently scheduled for
hearing on September 13, 2005. We consider this lawsuit to be without merit and
intend to continue to defend vigorously against the allegations.
Johnson v. Peter Cartwright, et al. On December 17, 2001, a shareholder
filed a derivative lawsuit on behalf of Calpine against its directors and one of
its senior officers. This lawsuit is styled Johnson vs. Cartwright, et al. (No.
CV803872) and is pending in California Superior Court in Santa Clara County,
California. Calpine is a nominal defendant in this lawsuit, which alleges claims
relating to purportedly misleading statements about Calpine and stock sales by
certain of the director defendants and the officer defendant. In December 2002,
the court dismissed the complaint with respect to certain of the director
defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, though plaintiff may appeal this
ruling. In early February 2003, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, naming
additional officer defendants. Calpine and the individual defendants filed
demurrers (motions to dismiss) and a motion to stay the case in March 2003. On
July 1, 2003, the Court granted Calpine's motion to stay this proceeding until
the above-described federal Section 11 action is resolved, or until further
order of the Court. The Court did not rule on the demurrers. We consider this
lawsuit to be without merit and intend to defend vigorously against the
allegations if the stay is ever lifted.
Gordon v. Peter Cartwright, et al. On August 8, 2002, a shareholder filed a
derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of Calpine against its directors, captioned Gordon v.
Cartwright, et al. similar to Johnson v. Cartwright. Motions have been filed to
dismiss the action against certain of the director defendants on the grounds of
lack of personal jurisdiction, as well as to dismiss the complaint in total on
other grounds. In February 2003, plaintiff agreed to stay these proceedings
until the above-described federal Section 11 action is resolved, and to dismiss
without prejudice certain director defendants. The Court did not rule on the
motions to dismiss the complaint on non-jurisdictional grounds. On March 4,
2003, plaintiff filed papers with the court voluntarily agreeing to dismiss
without prejudice his claims against three of the outside directors. We consider
this lawsuit to be without merit and intend to defend vigorously against the
allegations if the stay is ever lifted.
International Paper Company v. Androscoggin Energy LLC. In October 2000, IP
filed a complaint against AELLC alleging that AELLC breached certain contractual
representations and warranties arising out of an Amended ESA by failing to
disclose facts surrounding the termination, effective May 8, 1998, of one of
AELLC's fixed-cost gas supply agreements. The steam price paid by IP under the
ESA is derived from AELLC's cost of gas under its gas supply agreements. We had
acquired a 32.3% economic interest and a 49.5% voting interest in AELLC as part
of the SkyGen transaction, which closed in October 2000. AELLC filed a
counterclaim against IP that has been referred to arbitration that AELLC may
commence at its discretion upon further evaluation. On November 7, 2002, the
court issued an opinion on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment
finding in AELLC's favor on certain matters though granting summary judgment to
IP on the liability aspect of a particular claim against AELLC. The court also
denied a motion submitted by IP for preliminary injunction to permit IP to make
payment of funds into escrow (not directly to AELLC) and require AELLC to post a
significant bond.
In mid-April of 2003, IP unilaterally availed itself to self-help in
withholding amounts in excess of $2 million as a setoff for litigation expenses
and fees incurred to date as well as an estimated portion of a rate fund to
AELLC. AELLC has submitted an amended complaint and request for immediate
injunctive relief against such actions. The court heard the motion on April 24,
2003 and ordered that IP must pay the approximate $1.2 million withheld as
attorneys' fees related to the litigation as any such perceived entitlement was
premature, but declined to order injunctive relief on the incomplete record
concerning the offset of $799,000 as an estimated pass-through of the rate fund.
IP complied with the order on April 29, 2003 and tendered payment to AELLC of
the approximate $1.2 million. On June 26, 2003, the court entered an order
dismissing AELLC's amended counterclaim without prejudice to AELLC re-filing the
claims as breach of contract claims in a separate lawsuit. On December 11, 2003,
the court denied in part IP's summary judgment motion pertaining to damages. In
short, the court: (i) determined that, as a matter of law, IP is entitled to
pursue an action for damages as a result of AELLC's breach, and (ii) ruled that
sufficient questions of fact remain to deny IP summary judgment on the measure
of damages as IP did not sufficiently establish causation resulting from AELLC's
breach of contract (the liability aspect of which IP obtained a summary judgment
in December 2002). On February 2, 2004, the parties filed a Final Pretrial Order
with the court. The case recently proceeded to trial, and on November 3, 2004, a
jury verdict in the amount of $41 million was rendered in favor of IP. AELLC was
held liable on the misrepresentation claim, but not on the breach of contract
claim. The verdict amount was based on calculations proffered by IP's damages
experts. AELLC has made an additional accrual to recognize the jury verdict and
the Company has recognized its 32.3% share.
AELLC filed a post-trial motion challenging both the determination of its
liability and the damages award and, on November 16, 2004, the court entered an
order staying the execution of the judgment. The order staying execution of the
judgment has not expired. If the judgment is not vacated as a result of the
post-trial motions, AELLC intends to appeal the judgment.
Additionally, on November 26, 2004, AELLC filed a voluntary petition for
relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. As noted above, we had acquired
a 32.3% economic interest and a 49.5% voting interest in AELLC as part of the
SkyGen transaction, which closed in October 2000. AELLC is continuing in
possession of its property and is operating and maintaining its business as a
debtor in possession, pursuant to Sections 1107(a) and 1108 of the Bankruptcy
Code. No request has been made for the appointment of a trustee or examiner in
the proceeding, and no official committee of unsecured creditors has yet been
appointed by the Office of the United States Trustee. On January 21, 2005, the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Maine, modified the automatic stay imposed by
11 USC Section 362(a) upon motion by AELLC to allow the post-trials motions to
be adjudicated and appeals made to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
accordingly.
Panda Energy International, Inc., et al. v. Calpine Corporation, et al. On
November 5, 2003, Panda filed suit against Calpine and certain of its affiliates
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
alleging, among other things, that the Company breached duties of care and
loyalty allegedly owed to Panda by failing to correctly construct and operate
the Oneta power plant, which the Company acquired from Panda, in accordance with
Panda's original plans. Panda alleges that it is entitled to a portion of the
profits from Oneta and that Calpine's actions have reduced the profits from
Oneta thereby undermining Panda's ability to repay monies owed to Calpine on
December 1, 2003, under a promissory note on which approximately $38.6 million
(including interest through December 1, 2003) is currently outstanding. Calpine
filed a counterclaim against Panda based on a guaranty and a motion to dismiss
as to the causes of action alleging federal and state securities laws
violations. The court recently granted Calpine's motion to dismiss, but allowed
Panda an opportunity to replead. The Company considers Panda's lawsuit to be
without merit and intends to vigorously defend it. Discovery is currently in
progress. The Company stopped accruing interest income on the promissory note
due December 1, 2003, as of the due date because of Panda's default in repayment
of the note. Trial is currently set for February 27, 2006.
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 Cases, of which the
lead case is T&E Pastorino Nursery v. Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C.,
et al. This purported class action complaint filed in May 2002 against 20 energy
traders and energy companies, including CES, alleges that defendants exercised
market power and manipulated prices in violation of California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200 et seq., and seeks injunctive relief,
restitution, and attorneys' fees. The Company also has been named in eight other
similar complaints for violations of Section 17200. The Company considers the
allegations to be without merit, and filed a motion to dismiss on August 28,
2003. The court granted the motion, and plaintiffs appealed. The Ninth Circuit
has issued a decision affirming the dismissal of the Pastorino group of cases.
The Plaintiffs did not attempt to appeal the Ninth Circuit's ruling to the
Supreme Court so the matter is resolved.
Prior to the motion to dismiss being granted, one of the actions, captioned
Millar v. Allegheny Energy Supply Co., LLP, et al., was remanded to state
superior court of Alameda County, California. On January 12, 2004, CES was added
as a defendant in Millar. This action includes similar allegations to the other
Section 17200 cases, but also seeks rescission of the long-term power contracts
with the CDWR. Millar was removed to federal court, but has now been remanded
back to State Superior Court for handling. Hearings on multiple demurrers is to
be held on September 7, 2005. The Company considers the allegations to be
without merit, and has filed a demurrer.
Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company v. Calpine Energy
Services, L.P. before the FERC, filed on December 4, 2001, Nevada Section 206
Complaint. On December 4, 2001, NPC and SPPC filed a complaint with FERC under
Section 206 of the Federal Power Act against a number of parties to their power
sales agreements, including Calpine. NPC and SPPC allege in their complaint,
that the prices they agreed to pay in certain of the power sales agreements,
including those signed with Calpine, were negotiated during a time when the spot
power market was dysfunctional and that they are unjust and unreasonable. The
complaint therefore sought modification of the contract prices. The
administrative law judge issued an Initial Decision on December 19, 2002, that
found for Calpine and the other respondents in the case and denied NPC and SPPC
the relief that they were seeking. In a June 26, 2003 order, FERC affirmed the
judge's findings and dismissed the complaint, and subsequently denied rehearing
of that order. The matter is pending on appeal before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company has participated in briefing and
arguments before the Ninth Circuit defending the FERC orders, but the Company is
not able to predict at this time the outcome of the Ninth Circuit appeal.
Transmission Service Agreement with Nevada Power Company. On March 16,
2004, NPC filed a petition for declaratory order at FERC (Docket No.
EL04-90-000) asking that an order be issued requiring Calpine and Reliant Energy
Services, Inc. to pay for transmission service under their Transmission Service
Agreements ("TSAs") with NPC or, if the TSAs are terminated, to pay the lesser
of the transmission charges or a pro rata share of the total cost of NPC's
Centennial Project (approximately $33 million for Calpine). Calpine had
previously provided security to NPC for these costs in the form of a surety bond
issued by FFIC. The Centennial Project involves construction of various
transmission facilities in two phases; Calpine's Moapa Energy Center ("MEC") was
scheduled to receive service under its TSA from facilities yet to be constructed
in the second phase of the Centennial Project. Calpine filed a protest to the
petition asserting that Calpine will take service under the TSA if NPC proceeds
to execute a purchase power agreement ("PPA") with MEC based on its winning bid
in the Request for Proposals that NPC conducted in 2003.
On November 18, 2004, the FERC issued a decision in Docket No. EL04-90-000,
which was initiated by NPC's filing of a petition for declaratory order at FERC
on March 16, 2004 asking that an order be issued requiring Calpine and Reliant
Energy Services, Inc. ("Reliant") to pay for transmission service under their
Transmission Service Agreements (collectively, the "TSAs") with NPC or, if the
TSAs, are terminated, to pay the lesser of the transmission charges or a pro
rata share of the total cost of NPC's Centennial Project (approximately $33
million for Calpine). The November 18, 2004 decision found that neither Calpine
nor Reliant had the right to unilaterally terminate their respective TSAs, and
that upon commencement of service both Calpine and Reliant would be obligated to
pay either the associated demand charges for service or their respective share
of the capital cost associated with the transmission upgrades that have been
made in order to provide such service. The November 18, 2004 order, however, did
not indicate the amount or measure of damages that would be owed to NPC in the
event that either Calpine or Reliant breached its respective obligations under
the TSAs.
On December 10, 2004, NPC filed a Request for Rehearing alleging that the
FERC had erred in holding that a determination of damages for breach of either
Calpine or Reliant was premature. In its December 10th Request for Rehearing NPC
argued that both Calpine and Reliant had breached their respective TSAs. Calpine
filed an Answer on January 4, 2005 requesting that the FERC deny NPC's Request
for Rehearing on the basis that the Request for Rehearing misconstrues FERC's
November 18th Order and that the question of damages under the Calpine TSA is
before U.S. District Court in Nevada. On April 20, 2005, FERC issued its Order
Denying Request for Rehearing. In the Order, the Commission denies NPC's request
for rehearing, finding that the dispute between Calpine and NPC is "effectively
a contractual interpretation dispute" and does not warrant assertion of the
Commission's primary jurisdiction and is best left to a court.
In light of the November 18, 2004 order, on November 22, 2004 Calpine
delivered to NPC a notice (the "November 22, 2004 Letter") that it did not
intend to perform its obligations under the Calpine TSA and that NPC should
exercise its duty to mitigate its damages, if any, and should not incur any
additional costs or expenses in reliance upon the TSA or for Calpine's account.
In addition, Calpine introduced the November 22, 2004 Letter before the Public
Utilities Commission of Nevada ("PUCN") in the proceeding regarding NPC's third
amendment to its integrated resource plan wherein NPC is seeking approval to
proceed with the construction of the Harry Allen to Mead transmission line (the
"HAM Line"), which is the transmission project that is intended to serve both
Calpine and Reliant's TSAs. On December 28, 2004, the PUCN issued an order
granting NPC's request to proceed with the construction of the HAM Line. On
January 11, 2005, Calpine filed a Petition for Reconsideration before the PUCN
regarding December 28, 2004, order. On February 9, 2005, the PUCN issued the
Order Denying Petitions For Reconsideration. At this time Calpine is unable to
predict the impact of the December 28, 2004, and the February 9, 2005, PUCN
orders, if any on the District Court Complaint or any possible action by NPC
before the FERC regarding Calpine's notice that it will not perform its
obligations under the Calpine TSA.
The bond issued by FFIC, by its terms, expired on May 1, 2004. On or about
April 27, 2004, NPC asserted to FFIC that Calpine had committed a default under
the bond by failing to agree to renew or replace the bond upon its expiration
and made demand on FFIC for the full amount of the surety bond, $33,333,333. On
April 29, 2004, FFIC filed a complaint for declaratory relief in state superior
court of Marin County, California in connection with this demand. NPC filed a
motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction in California. On
September 3, 2004, the superior court granted NPC's motion, and NPC was
dismissed from the proceeding. Subsequently, FFIC agreed to dismiss the
complaint as to Calpine. On September 30, 2004 NPC filed a complaint in state
district court of Clark County, Nevada against Calpine, Moapa Energy Center,
LLC, FFIC and unnamed parties alleging, among other things, breach by Calpine of
its obligations under the TSA and breach by FFIC of its obligations under the
surety bond. In November 2004, this proceeding was removed from state court to
United States District Court for the District of Nevada. On December 10, FFIC
filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was granted on May 25, 2005. NPC has filed a
Motion to Amend the Complaint and a Motion for Reconsideration of the above
dismissal. At this time, Calpine is unable to predict the outcome of this
proceeding.
Calpine Canada Natural Gas Partnership v. Enron Canada Corp. On February 6,
2002, Calpine Canada filed a complaint in the Alberta Court of Queens Branch
alleging that Enron Canada owed it approximately US$1.5 million from the sale of
gas in connection with two Master Firm gas Purchase and Sale Agreements. To
date, Enron Canada has not sought bankruptcy relief and has counterclaimed in
the amount of US$18 million. We have finished discovery and are currently in
settlement discussions. The Company believes that Enron Canada's counterclaim is
without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it.
Estate of Jones, et al. v. Calpine Corporation. On June 11, 2003, the
Estate of Darrell Jones and the Estate of Cynthia Jones filed a complaint
against Calpine in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington. Calpine purchased Goldendale Energy, Inc., a Washington corporation,
from Mr. Darrell Jones of NESCO. The agreement provided, among other things,
that upon "Substantial Completion" of the Goldendale facility, Calpine would pay
Mr. Jones (i) $6.0 million and (ii) $18.0 million less $0.2 million per day for
each day that elapsed between July 1, 2002, and the date of substantial
completion. Substantial completion of the Goldendale facility occurred in
September 2004 and the daily reduction in the payment amount has reduced the
$18.0 million payment to zero. The complaint alleged that by not achieving
substantial completion by July 1, 2002, Calpine breached its contract with Mr.
Jones, violated a duty of good faith and fair dealing, and caused an inequitable
forfeiture. On July 28, 2003, Calpine filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court granted
Calpine's motion to dismiss the complaint on March 10, 2004. Plaintiffs filed a
motion for reconsideration of the decision, which was denied. Subsequently, on
June 7, 2004, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Calpine filed a motion to
recover attorneys' fees from NESCO, which was recently granted at a reduced
amount. Calpine held back $100,000 of the $6 million payment to the estates
(which has been remitted) to ensure payment of these fees. The matter is
currently on appeal, and both parties have filed briefs with the appellate
court.
Calpine Energy Services v. Acadia Power Partners. Calpine, through its
subsidiaries, owns 50% of Acadia PP which company owns the Acadia Energy Center
near Eunice, Louisiana (the "Facility"). A Cleco Corp subsidiary owns the
remaining 50% of Acadia PP. CES is the purchaser under two PPAs with Acadia PP,
which agreements entitle CES to all of the Facility's capacity and energy. In
August 2003 certain transmission constraints previously unknown to CES and
Acadia PP began to severely limit the ability of CES to obtain all of the energy
from the Facility. CES has asserted that it is entitled to certain relief under
the purchase agreements, to which assertions Acadia PP disagrees. Accordingly,
the parties are engaged in the alternative dispute resolution steps set forth in
the PPAs. Recently, the parties extended a statue of limitations tolling
agreement to extend the time for binding arbitration (up to and including until
August 12, 2005) in order for negotiations to continue. CES, however, can
initiate arbitration if settlement is not progressing appropriately. It is
expected that the parties will be able to resolve these disputes.
Hulsey, et al. v. Calpine Corporation. On September 20, 2004, Virgil D.
Hulsey, Jr. (a current employee) and Ray Wesley (a former employee) filed a
class action wage and hour lawsuit against Calpine Corporation and certain of
its affiliates. The complaint alleges that the purported class members were
entitled to overtime pay and Calpine failed to pay the purported class members
at legally required overtime rates. The matter has been transferred to the Santa
Clara County Superior Court and Calpine filed an answer on January 7, 2005,
denying plaintiffs' claims. The parties are currently engaged in settlement
discussions as an alternative to litigation.
Michael Portis v. Calpine Corp. -- Complaint Filed with Department of
Labor. On January 25, 2005, Michael Portis ("Portis"), a former employee of
Calpine, brought a complaint to the United States Department of Labor (the
"DOL"), alleging that his employment with the Company was wrongfully terminated.
Portis alleges that Calpine and its subsidiaries evaded sales and use tax in
various states and in doing so filed false tax reports and that his employment
was terminated in retaliation for having reported these allegations to
management. Portis claims that the Company's alleged actions constitute
violations of the employee protection provisions of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of
2002. On April 27, 2005, the DOL determined that Portis' retaliatory discharge
complaint had no merit and dismissed it. Portis filed his notice of appeal on
June 12, 2005. Administrative Law Judge Richard Huddleston was assigned the
appeal. On July 11, 2005, a scheduling conference was held with Judge Huddleston
and the hearing of the appeal was set for October 12 and 13, 2005. The parties
are currently engaged in discovery and negotiating an immediate date for Portis'
deposition. The Company considers Portis' complaint to be without merit and
intends to continue to vigorously defend against the complaint.
Auburndale Power Partners and Cutrale. Calpine Corporation owns an interest
in the Auburndale PP cogeneration facility, which provides steam to Cutrale, a
juice company. The Auburndale PP facility currently operates on a "cycling"
basis whereby the plant operates only a portion of the day. During the hours
that the Auburndale PP facility is not operating, Auburndale PP does not provide
steam to Cutrale. Cutrale has filed an arbitration claim alleging that they are
entitled to damages due to Auburndale PP's failure to provide them with steam 24
hours a day. Auburndale PP disagreed with Cutrale's position based on its
interpretation of the contractual language in the Steam Supply Agreement.
Binding arbitration was conducted on the contractual interpretation issue only
(reserving the remedy/damage issue for a second phase to the arbitration) and
the arbitrator found in favor of Cutrale's contractual interpretation. The
proceeding now turns to the second phase, the resolution of the issue regarding
the appropriate remedy/damage determination. To preserve our positive
relationship with Cutrale, Auburndale PP continues to try to resolve the matter
through a commercial settlement.
Harbert Distressed Investment Master Fund, Ltd. v. Calpine Canada Energy
Finance II ULC, et al. On May 5, 2005, Harbert Distressed Investment Master
Fund, Ltd. (the "Harbert Fund") filed an Originating Notice (Application) (the
"Application") in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia against Calpine Corporation
and certain of its subsidiaries, including Calpine Canada Energy Finance II ULC
("Finance II"), the issuer of certain bonds (the "Bonds") held by the Harbert
Fund and Calpine Canada Resources Company (formerly Calpine Canada Resources
Ltd.) ("CCR"), the parent company of Finance II and the indirect parent company
of Calpine's Saltend. The Bonds have been guaranteed by Calpine. The Harbert
Fund alleged that Calpine, CCRC and Finance II violated the Harbert Fund's
rights under Nova Scotia laws in connection with certain financing transactions
completed by CCRC or subsidiaries of CCRC. Wilmington Trust Company, the trustee
under the indenture governing the Bonds (the "Trustee"), applied to become a
co-applicant in the suit on behalf of all holders of Bonds. The hearing was
conducted on July 6, 7 and 8, 2005 before the Nova Scotia Supreme Court. By way
of Consent Order dated July 20, 2005, the Harbert Fund and the Trustee
discontinued the claim as against Calpine European Funding (Jersey) Limited and
Calpine (Jersey) Limited, which had originally been named as respondents.
At the end of the hearing, the Harbert Fund and the Trustee confirmed that
they were not seeking to block the sale of Saltend, and that sale was completed
on July 28, 2005. The Harbert Fund and the Trustee sought relief at the hearing
requiring that the proceeds of the sale of Saltend, after repayment to certain
preferred shareholders and payment of certain interest and transaction costs
(the "Net Proceeds"), remain at CCRC or under the control of CCRC. The Harbert
Fund and Trustee further sought an order that an additional sum be required to
be placed by Calpine into CCRC, or a subsidiary controlled by CCRC, sufficient
to total, together with the Net Proceeds, an amount equal to the outstanding
Bonds.
On August 2, 2005, the Court issued its decision on the substantive merits.
The Court dismissed the Harbert Fund's application for relief and denied all
relief to the Harbert Fund and all other bondholders that purchased Bonds on or
after September 1, 2004. However, the Court stated that a remedy should be
granted to any bondholder, other than the Calpine respondent companies, that
purchased Bonds prior to September 1, 2004 and that continues to hold those
Bonds on August 2, 2005.
The Court directed the Trustee to provide the face amount of qualifying
Bonds and the identity of the holders of such Bonds by August 31, 2005. The
Court stated that, upon receipt of the information from the Trustee, it will
then issue a final order requiring Calpine to maintain in the control of CCRC
sufficient proceeds from the sale of Saltend to cover the face amount of such
Bonds. If there are insufficient proceeds for this purpose, Calpine will be
required to place in the control of CCRC an additional amount which, when added
to the net Saltend sale proceeds, will cover the face value of all such Bonds.
The final order will further provide that CCRC shall diligently conduct its
business in a proper and efficient manner so as to preserve and protect its
business and assets. Pending the final order, the Court issued an interim order
under which Calpine must maintain the net Saltend sale proceeds in the control
of CCRC.
Any party to the proceeding has the right to appeal the final order to the
Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.
Harbert Convertible Arbitrage Master Fund, Ltd. et al. v. Calpine
Corporation. Plaintiff Harbert Convertible Arbitrage Master Fund, Ltd. and two
affiliated funds filed this action on July 11, 2005, in the Supreme Court, New
York County, State of New York, and filed an amended complaint on July 19, 2005.
In their amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that, on one or more days
beginning on July 1, 2005, the Trading Price of Calpine's 2014 Convertible Notes
was less than 95% of the product of the Common Stock Price multiplied by the
Conversion Rate, as those terms are defined in the indenture relating to the
2014 Convertible Notes. Plaintiffs allege that they provided Calpine with
reasonable evidence as required under the indenture governing the 2014
Convertible Notes that the Trading Price of the Notes on such date would be less
than the 95% threshold, and that Calpine therefore was required to instruct the
Bid Solicitation Agent for the 2014 Convertible Notes to determine the Trading
Price beginning on the next Trading Day. If the Trading Price as determined by
the Bid Solicitation Agent were below 95% of the product of the Common Stock
Price multiplied by the Conversion Rate for five consecutive Trading Days, then
the 2014 Convertible Notes would become convertible into cash and common stock
for a limited period of time. Plaintiffs assert a claim for breach of contract,
seeking unspecified damages, based on Calpine's not instructing the Bid
Solicitation Agent to begin to calculate the Trading Price. In addition,
plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to force Calpine to instruct
the Bid Solicitation Agent to determine the Trading Price of the Notes.
Plaintiffs made, but later withdrew, a request for a preliminary injunction.
Calpine intends to vigorously defend the action.
SEC Informal Inquiry and Request for Documents and Information. On June 9,
2005, the Company filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC to disclose
that, in April 2005, the Division of Enforcement of the SEC informed the Company
that it was conducting an informal inquiry and asked the Company to voluntarily
provide documents and information related to: (a) the Company's downward
revision of its proved oil and gas reserve estimates at year-end 2004 as
compared to such estimates at year-end 2003, and a corresponding impairment of
the value of certain assets, all previously disclosed by the Company, (b)
certain statements made to various regulatory agencies by Michael Portis, a
terminated former employee, regarding the Company's determination of state sales
and use taxes, and (c) the Company's upward restatement in April 2005 of its
previously disclosed net income for the third quarter, and the first three
quarters, of 2004. The Company is fully cooperating with the SEC's request for
documents and information.
In addition, the Company is involved in various other claims and legal
actions arising out of the normal course of its business. The Company does not
expect that the outcome of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect
on its financial position or results of operations.
13. Operating Segments
The Company is first and foremost an electric generating company. In
pursuing this business strategy, it was the Company's objective to produce a
portion of its fuel consumption requirements from its own natural gas reserves
("equity gas"). However, with the July 2005 sale of the Company's remaining oil
and gas production and marketing activity, the Company now has one reportable
segment, Electric Generation and Marketing. No other components of the business
had reached the quantitative criteria to be considered a reportable segment
under SFAS No. 131. See Notes 8 and 15 for discussions of the sale of the
Company's oil and gas assets. Consequently, the revenue and expense from the Oil
and Gas Production and Marketing reportable segment has been reclassified to
discontinued operations and the assets have been reclassified into current and
long-term assets held for sale. The segment has been reflected in the table
below within Corporate, Eliminations, and Other.
Electric Generation and Marketing includes the development, acquisition,
ownership and operation of power production facilities, hedging, balancing,
optimization, and trading activity transacted on behalf of the Company's power
generation facilities. Corporate and other activities necessary to support the
Electric Generation and Marketing reporting segment consists primarily of
financing transactions, activities of the Company's parts and services
businesses, and general and administrative costs.
Electric Generation Corporate, Eliminations,
and Marketing and Other Total
------------------------ ------------------------ -----------------------
2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004
------------ ----------- ----------- ------------ ----------- -----------
(In thousands)
For the three months ended June 30,
Total revenue from external customers................. $2,196,780 $2,199,885 $ 29,177 $ 15,518 $2,225,957 $2,215,403
Segment profit/(loss) before provision for income taxes (755,892) (232,637) 343,054 110,715 (412,838) (121,922)
Electric Generation Corporate, Eliminations,
and Marketing and Other Total
------------------------ ------------------------ -----------------------
2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004
------------ ----------- ----------- ------------ ----------- -----------
(In thousands)
For the six months ended June 30,
Total revenue from external customers................. $4,245,027 $4,082,892 $ 48,375 $ 36,464 $4,293,402 $4,119,356
Segment profit/(loss) before provision for income taxes (1,076,723) (480,921) 385,774 113,556 (690,949) (367,365)
Electric
Generation Corporate, Eliminations,
and Marketing and Other Total
-------------- ------------------------ ----------------
(In thousands)
Total assets:
June 30, 2005...................................................... $ 25,423,413 $ 2,386,214 $ 27,809,627
December 31, 2004.................................................. $ 25,187,414 $ 2,028,674 $ 27,216,088
14. California Power Market
California Refund Proceeding. On August 2, 2000, the California Refund
Proceeding was initiated by a complaint made at FERC by San Diego Gas & Electric
Company under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act alleging, among other things,
that the markets operated by the CAISO and the CalPX were dysfunctional. FERC
established a refund effective period of October 2, 2000, to June 19, 2001 (the
"Refund Period"), for sales made into those markets.
On December 12, 2002, an Administrative Law Judge issued a Certification of
Proposed Finding on California Refund Liability ("December 12 Certification")
making an initial determination of refund liability. On March 26, 2003, FERC
issued an order (the "March 26 Order") adopting many of the findings set forth
in the December 12 Certification. In addition, as a result of certain findings
by the FERC staff concerning the unreliability or misreporting of certain
reported indices for gas prices in California during the Refund Period, FERC
ordered that the basis for calculating a party's potential refund liability be
modified by substituting a gas proxy price based upon gas prices in the
producing areas plus the tariff transportation rate for the California gas price
indices previously adopted in the California Refund Proceeding. The Company
believes, based on information that the Company has analyzed to date, that any
refund liability that may be attributable to it could total approximately $9.9
million (plus interest, if applicable), after taking the appropriate set-offs
for outstanding receivables owed by the CalPX and CAISO to Calpine. The Company
believes it has appropriately reserved for the refund liability that by its
current analysis would potentially be owed under the refund calculation
clarification in the March 26 Order. The final determination of the refund
liability and the allocation of payment obligations among the numerous buyers
and sellers in the California markets is subject to further Commission
proceedings. It is possible that there will be further proceedings to require
refunds from certain sellers for periods prior to the originally designated
Refund Period. In addition, the FERC orders concerning the Refund Period, the
method for calculating refund liability and numerous other issues are pending on
appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. At this time, the
Company is unable to predict the timing of the completion of these proceedings
or the final refund liability. Thus, the impact on the Company's business is
uncertain.
On April 26, 2004, Dynegy Inc. entered into a settlement of the California
Refund Proceeding and other proceedings with California governmental entities
and the three California investor-owned utilities. The California governmental
entities include the Attorney General, the CPUC, the CDWR, and the EOB. Also, on
April 27, 2004, Williams entered into a settlement of the California Refund
Proceeding and other proceedings with the three California investor-owned
utilities; previously, Williams had entered into a settlement of the same
matters with the California governmental entities. The Williams settlement with
the California governmental entities was similar to the settlement that Calpine
entered into with the California governmental entities on April 22, 2002.
Calpine's settlement resulted in a FERC order issued on March 26, 2004, which
partially dismissed Calpine from the California Refund Proceeding to the extent
that any refunds are owed for power sold by Calpine to CDWR or any other agency
of the State of California. On June 30, 2004, a settlement conference was
convened at the FERC to explore settlements among additional parties. On
December 7, 2004, FERC approved the settlement of the California Refund
Proceeding and other proceedings among Duke Energy Corporation and its
affiliates, the three California investor-owned utilities, and the California
governmental entities.
FERC Investigation into Western Markets. On February 13, 2002, FERC
initiated an investigation of potential manipulation of electric and natural gas
prices in the western United States. This investigation was initiated as a
result of allegations that Enron and others used their market position to
distort electric and natural gas markets in the West. The scope of the
investigation is to consider whether, as a result of any manipulation in the
short-term markets for electric energy or natural gas or other undue influence
on the wholesale markets by any party since January 1, 2000, the rates of the
long-term contracts subsequently entered into in the West are potentially unjust
and unreasonable. On August 13, 2002, the FERC staff issued the Initial Report
on Company-Specific Separate Proceedings and Generic Reevaluations; Published
Natural Gas Price Data; and Enron Trading Strategies (the "Initial Report"),
summarizing its initial findings in this investigation. There were no findings
or allegations of wrongdoing by Calpine set forth or described in the Initial
Report. On March 26, 2003, the FERC staff issued a final report in this
investigation (the "Final Report"). In the Final Report, the FERC staff
recommended that FERC issue a show cause order to a number of companies,
including Calpine, regarding certain power scheduling practices that may have
been in violation of the CAISO's or CalPX's tariff. The Final Report also
recommended that FERC modify the basis for determining potential liability in
the California Refund Proceeding discussed above. Calpine believes that it did
not violate these tariffs and that, to the extent that such a finding could be
made, any potential liability would not be material.
Also, on June 25, 2003, FERC issued a number of orders associated with
these investigations, including the issuance of two show cause orders to certain
industry participants. FERC did not subject Calpine to either of the show cause
orders. FERC also issued an order directing the FERC Office of Markets and
Investigations to investigate further whether market participants who bid a
price in excess of $250 per MWh into markets operated by either the CAISO or the
CalPX during the period of May 1, 2000, to October 2, 2000, may have violated
CAISO and CalPX tariff prohibitions. No individual market participant was
identified. The Company believes that it did not violate the CAISO and CalPX
tariff prohibitions referred to by FERC in this order; however, the Company is
unable to predict at this time the final outcome of this proceeding or its
impact on Calpine.
CPUC Proceeding Regarding QF Contract Pricing for Past Periods. Our QF
contracts with PG&E provide that the CPUC has the authority to determine the
appropriate utility "avoided cost" to be used to set energy payments by
determining the short run avoided cost ("SRAC") energy price formula. In
mid-2000 our QF facilities elected the option set forth in Section 390 of the
California Public Utilities Code, which provided QFs the right to elect to
receive energy payments based on the CalPX market clearing price instead of the
SRAC price administratively determined by the CPUC. Having elected such option,
the Company's QF facilities were paid based upon the CalPX zonal day-ahead
clearing price ("CalPX Price") for various periods commencing in the summer of
2000 until January 19, 2001, when the CalPX ceased operating a day-ahead market.
The CPUC has conducted proceedings (R.99-11-022) to determine whether the CalPX
Price was the appropriate price for the energy component upon which to base
payments to QFs which had elected the CalPX-based pricing option. One CPUC
Commissioner at one point issued a proposed decision to the effect that the
CalPX Price was the appropriate energy price to pay QFs that selected the
pricing option then offered by Section 390. No final decision, however, has been
issued to date. Therefore, it is possible that the CPUC could order a payment
adjustment based on a different energy price determination. On January 10, 2001,
PG&E filed an emergency motion (the "Emergency Motion") requesting that the CPUC
issue an order that would retroactively change the energy payments received by
QFs based on CalPX-based pricing for electric energy delivered during the period
commencing during June 2000 and ending on January 18, 2001. On April 29, 2004,
PG&E, the Utility Reform Network, a consumer advocacy group, and the Office of
Ratepayer Advocates, an independent consumer advocacy department of the CPUC
(collectively, the "PG&E Parties"), filed a Motion for Briefing Schedule
Regarding True-Up of Payments to QF Switchers (the "April 2004 Motion"). The
April 2004 Motion requests that the CPUC set a briefing schedule in R.99-11-022
to determine what is the appropriate price that should be paid to the QFs that
had switched to the CalPX Price. The PG&E Parties allege that the appropriate
price should be determined using the methodology that has been developed thus
far in the California Refund Proceeding discussed above. Supplemental pleadings
have been filed on the April 2004 Motion, but neither the CPUC nor the assigned
administrative law judge has issued any rulings with respect to either the April
2004 Motion or the initial Emergency Motion. The Company believes that the CalPX
Price was the appropriate price for energy payments for its QFs during this
period, but there can be no assurance that this will be the outcome of the CPUC
proceedings.
Geysers Reliability Must Run Section 206 Proceeding. CAISO, EOB, CPUC,
PG&E, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company
(collectively referred to as the "Buyers Coalition") filed a complaint on
November 2, 2001 at FERC requesting the commencement of a Federal Power Act
Section 206 proceeding to challenge one component of a number of separate
settlements previously reached on the terms and conditions of RMR Contracts with
certain generation owners, including Geysers Power Company, LLC, which
settlements were also previously approved by FERC. RMR Contracts require the
owner of the specific generation unit to provide energy and ancillary services
when called upon to do so by the ISO to meet local transmission reliability
needs or to manage transmission constraints. The Buyers Coalition has asked FERC
to find that the availability payments under these RMR Contracts are not just
and reasonable. Geysers Power Company, LLC filed an answer to the complaint in
November 2001. On June 3, 2005, FERC issued an order dismissing the Buyers
Coalition's complaint against all named generation owners, including Geysers.
The Buyers' Coalition filed for rehearing of FERC's order on July 5, 2005. On
August 2, 2005, FERC issued its Order Denying Rehearing. The proceeding is now
concluded at FERC.
15. Subsequent Events
On July 5, 2005 Calpine and Siemens Westinghouse ("Siemens") executed an
agreement to settle various matters related to certain warranty disputes and to
terminate certain LTSA's. Subsequent to the July 5, 2005 settlement date, the
Company received approximately $25.5 million as a net settlement payment related
to these matters, a portion of which related to events in existence prior to
June 30, 2005. Consequently, $3.6 million of this amount was recorded in the
quarter ended June 30, 2005 as a reduction in plant operating expense relating
to warranty recoveries of prior period repair expenses. The Company also
recorded approximately $800,000 in additional LTSA expense in the period related
to the settlement agreement. Generally the remained settlement proceeds will be
applied as a reduction to capitalized turbine costs in the third quarter of
2005.
On July 7, 2005, the Company announced that it had signed a 15-year Master
Products and Services Agreement with GE, which is expected to lower operating
costs in the future. A related agreement replaces the nine remaining LTSAs
related to Calpine's GE 7FA turbine fleet. The Company expects to benefit from
improved power plant performance and valuable operations and maintenance
flexibility to service its plants to further lower costs. Historically, GE
provided full-service turbine maintenance for a select number of Calpine power
plants. Under the new agreement, Calpine will supplement its operations with a
variety of GE services. Today, Calpine operates 44 power plants that are powered
by GE gas turbines, representing approximately 10,000 MW of capacity. The
Company recorded LTSA cancellation expense of $33.1 million in the second
quarter of 2005 as a result of the LTSA cancellations.
On July 7, 2005, the Company completed the sale of substantially all of its
remaining oil and gas exploration and production properties and assets for $1.05
billion, less approximately $60 million of estimated transaction fees and
expenses. Approximately $75 million of the purchase price was withheld pending
the transfer of certain properties for which consents have not yet been
obtained. Furthermore, $142.7 million of the cash proceeds were used to purchase
$138.9 million of principal amount (and pay $3.8 million of accrued interest
expense) of the outstanding First Priority Senior Secured Notes due 2014 (see
below for more information).
On July 8, 2005, the Company completed the sale of its 50% interest in the
175-MW Grays Ferry power plant to an affiliate of TNAI for $37.4 million.
Previously, in the second quarter of 2005, the Company recorded an impairment
charge of $18.5 million in connection with the facility. The Company will use
net proceeds from the sale in accordance with its existing bond indentures,
including for the repurchase of existing Company debt.
On July 12, 2005, the Company announced that it had accepted for purchase
$138.9 million aggregate principal amount of its outstanding First Priority
Notes under the terms of a tender offer commenced June 9, 2005, to purchase for
cash any and all of the outstanding First Priority Notes. With completion of the
tender offer, the Company now has approximately $646.1 million aggregate
principal amount of First Priority Notes outstanding.
On July 13, 2005, the Company repaid the convertible debentures payable to
Calpine Capital Trust III, the issuer of the HIGH TIDES III preferred
securities. The Trust then used the proceeds to redeem the outstanding HIGH
TIDES III preferred securities totaling $517.5 million, of which $115.0 million
was held by Calpine. The redemption price paid per each $50 principal amount of
HIGH TIDES III preferred securities was $50 plus accrued and unpaid
distributions to the redemption date in the amount of $0.50. All rights of
holders of the HIGH TIDES III preferred securities have ceased, except the right
of such holders to receive the redemption price, which was deposited with The
Depository Trust Company on July 13, 2005.
On July 28, 2005, the Company completed the sale of Saltend, a 1,200-MW
power plant in Hull, England, for a total sale price of approximately 490
million British pounds, or approximately $848 million, plus adjustments for
working capital of $14.5 million, resulting in total gross proceeds of $862.5
million. Of this amount, $647.1 million was used to redeem the $360.0 million
Two-Year Redeemable Preferred Shares issued by the Company's Calpine Jersey I
subsidiary on October 26, 2004, and the $260.0 million Redeemable Preferred
Shares issued by the Company's Calpine Jersey II subsidiary on January 31, 2005,
including interest and early termination fees of $16.3 million and $10.8
million, respectively. The remaining net proceeds will be used as permitted by
the Company's indentures. As described further in Note 12, certain bond holders
filed a lawsuit concerning the remaining use of the proceeds from the sale of
Saltend.
On July 29, 2005, the Company completed the sale of its Inland Empire
Energy Center development project to GE, for approximately $30.9 million. The
project will be financed, owned, and operated by GE and will be used to launch
GE's most advanced gas turbine technology, the "H System (TM)." The Company will
manage plant construction, market the plant's output, and manage its fuel
requirements. The Company has an option to purchase the facility in years seven
through fifteen following the commercial operation date and GE can require the
Company to purchase the facility for a limited period of time in the fifteenth
year, all subject to satisfaction of various terms and conditions. If the
Company purchases the facility under the call or put, GE will continue to
provide critical plant maintenance services throughout the remaining estimated
useful life of the facility.
On August 2, 2005, the Company completed the sale of its interest in the
156-MW Morris power plant to Diamond, for $84.5 million. Previously, in the
second quarter of 2005, the Company had determined that the facility was
impaired at June 30, 2005, and recorded a charge to operations of $106.2 million
in the quarter ended June 30, 2005. The Company's assessment of impairment was
based on a probability weighting of expected future cash flows, given the
alternatives of selling or continuing to own and operate the facility. Net
proceeds from this asset sale will be used in accordance with the Company's
existing bond indentures. See Note 5 for a discussion of the Company's
impairment evaluation relating to the sale of Morris and Note 3 for a discussion
of possible additional material impairment charges relating to the sale of other
assets.
On August 3, 2005, CCFC I and CCFC Finance Corp. terminated their
previously announced tender offer for a portion of their Second Priority Senior
Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2011. The offer was terminated pursuant to the
conditions of the offer. The conditions provided, among other things, that CCFC
I and CCFC Finance Corp. were not required to accept for payment, purchase or
pay for any Floating Rate Notes tendered and were permitted to terminate the
offer if they did not expect to receive the net proceeds from the proposed sale
of the Ontelaunee Energy Center on or prior to the tender offer purchase date.
CCFC I and CCFC Finance Corp. determined that net proceeds from a sale of the
Ontelaunee Energy Center would not be received on or prior to the tender offer
purchase date, defined as no later than three business days following the tender
offer expiration date of August 3, 2005, and accordingly terminated the offer.
Any Floating Rate Notes tendered in connection with the offer were returned to
the applicable holders. In addition, CCFC did not accept for purchase, and
returned to lenders, any and all First Priority Senior Secured Institutional
Term Loans Due 2009 submitted in connection with CCFC's offer to repay such Term
Loans, which expired on August 1, 2005. The Term Loan offer to repay also
contained a condition with respect to the receipt of the net proceeds of the
sale of the Ontelaunee Energy Center.
As a result of transactions subsequent to June 30, 2005, the Company
lowered its total debt by $1.3 billion to $17.4 billion at July 31, 2005.
Item 2. Management's Discussion and Analysis ("MD&A") of Financial Condition and
Results of Operations.
In addition to historical information, this report contains forward-looking
statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. We
use words such as "believe," "intend," "expect," "anticipate," "plan," "may,"
"will" and similar expressions to identify forward-looking statements. Such
statements include, among others, those concerning our expected financial
performance and strategic and operational plans, as well as all assumptions,
expectations, predictions, intentions or beliefs about future events. You are
cautioned that any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future
performance and that a number of risks and uncertainties could cause actual
results to differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking
statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, (i)
the timing and extent of deregulation of energy markets and the rules and
regulations adopted on a transitional basis with respect thereto, (ii) the
timing and extent of changes in commodity prices for energy, particularly
natural gas and electricity, and the impact of related derivatives transactions,
(iii) unscheduled outages of operating plants, (iv) unseasonable weather
patterns that reduce demand for power, (v) economic slowdowns that can adversely
affect consumption of power by businesses and consumers, (vi) various
development and construction risks that may delay or prevent commercial
operations of new plants, such as failure to obtain the necessary permits to
operate, failure of third-party contractors to perform their contractual
obligations or failure to obtain project financing on acceptable terms, (vii)
uncertainties associated with cost estimates, that actual costs may be higher
than estimated, (viii) development of lower-cost power plants or of a lower cost
means of operating a fleet of power plants by our competitors, (ix) risks
associated with marketing and selling power from power plants in the evolving
energy market, (x) factors that impact the exploitation of a oil, gas or
geothermal resource, (xi) uncertainties associated with estimates of geothermal
reserves, (xii) the effects on our business resulting from reduced liquidity in
the trading and power generation industry, (xiii) our ability to access the
capital markets on attractive terms or at all, (xiv) our ability to successfully
implement the various components of our strategic initiative to increase
liquidity, reduce debt and reduce operating costs, (xv) uncertainties associated
with estimates of sources and uses of cash, that actual sources may be lower and
actual uses may be higher than estimated, (xvi) implementation of our strategy
to expand our third party service businesses, (xvii) the direct or indirect
effects on our business of a lowering of our credit rating (or actions we may
take in response to changing credit rating criteria), including increased
collateral requirements, refusal by our current or potential counterparties to
enter into transactions with us and our inability to obtain credit or capital in
desired amounts or on favorable terms, (xviii) present and possible future
claims, litigation and enforcement actions, (xvix) effects of the application of
regulations, including changes in regulations or the interpretation thereof, and
(xvx) other risks identified in this report. You should also carefully review
the risks described in other reports that we file with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, including without limitation our Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2004, and our Current Report on Form 8-K filed
with the SEC on July 1, 2005. We undertake no obligation to update any
forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future
developments or otherwise.
We file annual, quarterly and periodic reports, proxy statements and other
information with the SEC. You may obtain and copy any document we file with the
SEC at the SEC's public reference room at 100 F Street, NE, Room 1580,
Washington, D.C. 20549. You may obtain information on the operation of the SEC's
public reference facilities by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. You can
request copies of these documents, upon payment of a duplicating fee, by writing
to the SEC at its principal office at 100 F Street, NE, Room 1580, Washington,
D.C. 20549-1004. The SEC maintains an Internet website at http://www.sec.gov
that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information
regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC. Our SEC filings are
accessible through the Internet at that website.
Our reports on Forms 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K, and amendments to those reports,
are available for download, free of charge, as soon as reasonably practicable
after these reports are filed with the SEC, at our website at www.calpine.com.
The content of our website is not a part of this report. You may request a copy
of our SEC filings, at no cost to you, by writing or telephoning us at: Calpine
Corporation, 50 West San Fernando Street, San Jose, California 95113, attention:
Lisa M. Bodensteiner, Assistant Secretary, telephone: (408) 995-5115.
We will not send exhibits to the documents, unless the exhibits are
specifically requested and you pay our fee for duplication and delivery.
Selected Operating Information
Set forth below is certain selected operating information for our power
plants for which results are consolidated in our Consolidated Condensed
Statements of Operations. Electricity revenue is composed of fixed capacity
payments, which are not related to production, and variable energy payments,
which are related to production. Capacity revenues include, besides traditional
capacity payments, other revenues such as Reliability Must Run and Ancillary
Service revenues. The information set forth under thermal and other revenue
consists of host steam sales and other thermal revenue.
Three Months Ended Six Months Ended
June 30, June 30,
--------------------------- --------------------------
2005 2004 2005 2004
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
(In thousands, except pricing data)
Power Plants:
E&S revenues:
Energy................................................................. $ 904,638 $ 894,750 $ 1,821,229 $ 1,721,699
Capacity............................................................... 281,360 244,690 535,873 465,048
Thermal and other...................................................... 112,975 99,707 220,150 185,595
------------ ------------- ------------ ------------
Subtotal............................................................... $ 1,298,973 $ 1,239,147 $ 2,577,252 $ 2,372,342
Spread on sales of purchased power (1).................................... 97,704 51,481 163,919 56,271
------------ ------------- ------------ ------------
Adjusted E&S revenues (non-GAAP).......................................... $ 1,396,677 $ 1,290,628 $ 2,741,171 $ 2,428,613
MWh produced.............................................................. 20,042 20,066 40,078 38,710
All-in electricity price per MWh generated................................ $ 69.69 $ 64.32 $ 68.40 $ 62.74
<FN>
(1) From hedging, balancing and optimization activities related to our
generating assets.
</FN>
Set forth below is a table summarizing the dollar amounts and percentages
of our total revenue for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004,
that represent purchased power and purchased gas sales for hedging and
optimization and the costs we incurred to purchase the power and gas that we
resold during these periods (in thousands, except percentage data):
Three Months Ended Six Months Ended
June 30, June 30,
--------------------------- --------------------------
2005 2004 2005 2004
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Total revenue............................................................. $ 2,225,957 $ 2,215,403 $ 4,293,402 $ 4,119,356
Sales of purchased power for hedging and optimization (1)................. 432,846 496,026 780,256 873,849
As a percentage of total revenue.......................................... 19.4% 22.4% 18.2% 21.2%
Sale of purchased gas for hedging and optimization........................ 456,920 481,971 877,216 834,708
As a percentage of total revenue.......................................... 20.5% 21.8% 20.4% 20.3%
Total COR................................................................. 2,257,437 2,188,094 4,245,108 4,046,241
Purchased power expense for hedging and optimization (1).................. 335,142 444,545 616,337 817,578
As a percentage of total COR.............................................. 14.8% 20.3% 14.5% 20.2%
Purchased gas expense for hedging and optimization........................ 486,082 453,922 899,341 814,409
As a percentage of total COR.............................................. 21.5% 20.7% 21.2% 20.1%
- ------------
<FN>
(1) On October 1, 2003, we adopted on a prospective basis EITF Issue No. 03-11
"Reporting Realized Gains and Losses on Derivative Instruments That Are
Subject to FASB Statement No. 133 and Not `Held for Trading Purposes' As
Defined in EITF Issue No. 02-3: "Issues Involved in Accounting for
Derivative Contracts Held for Trading Purposes and Contracts Involved in
Energy Trading and Risk Management Activities" and netted certain purchases
of power against sales of purchased power. See Note 2 of the Notes to
Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements for a discussion of our
application of EITF Issue No. 03-11.
</FN>
The primary reasons for the significant levels of these sales and costs of
revenue items include: (a) significant levels of hedging, balancing and
optimization activities by our CES risk management organization; (b)
particularly volatile markets for electricity and natural gas, which prompted us
to frequently adjust our hedge positions by buying power and gas and reselling
it; and (c) the accounting requirements under SAB No. 101, "Revenue Recognition
in Financial Statements," and EITF Issue No. 99-19, "Reporting Revenue Gross as
a Principal versus Net as an Agent," under which we show many of our hedging
contracts on a gross basis (as opposed to netting sales and cost of revenue).
Overview
Our core business and primary source of revenue is the generation and
delivery of electric power. We provide power to our U.S., Canadian and other
customers through the integrated development, construction or acquisition, and
operation of efficient and environmentally friendly electric power plants fueled
primarily by natural gas and, to a much lesser degree, by geothermal resources.
We protect and enhance the value of our assets with a sophisticated risk
management organization. We also protect our power generation assets and control
certain of our costs by producing certain of the combustion turbine replacement
parts that we use at our power plants, and we generate revenue by providing
combustion turbine parts to third parties. Finally, we offer services to third
parties to capture value in the skills we have honed in building, commissioning,
repairing and operating power plants.
Our key opportunities and challenges include:
o preserving and enhancing our liquidity while spark spreads (the
differential between power revenues and fuel costs) are depressed,
o selectively adding new load-serving entities and power users to our
customer list as we increase our power contract portfolio,
o continuing to add value through prudent risk management and
optimization activities, and
o lowering our costs of production through various efficiency programs.
Since the latter half of 2001, there has been a significant contraction in
the availability of capital for participants in the energy sector. This has been
due to a range of factors, including uncertainty arising from the collapse of
Enron and a surplus supply of electric generating capacity in certain market
areas. These factors coupled with a three-year period of decreased spark spreads
have adversely impacted our liquidity and earnings. We recognize that the terms
of financing available to us in the future may not be attractive. To protect
against this possibility and due to current market conditions, we scaled back
our capital expenditure program to enable us to conserve our available capital
resources. See "Capital Availability" in Liquidity and Capital Resources below
for a further discussion.
We endeavor to improve our financial strength. On May 25, 2005, we
announced a strategic initiative aimed at:
o Optimizing the value of our core North American power plant portfolio
by selling certain power and natural gas assets to reduce debt and
lower annual interest cost, and to increase cash flow in future
periods. At June 30, 2005, we had pending asset sales, including the
sale of Saltend in the United Kingdom (which was completed July 28,
2005), our interests in up to eight addition gas-fired power plants in
the United States (two of which were completed in July and August
2005) and our remaining oil and natural gas assets (which was
completed on July 7, 2005). See Notes 8 and 15 of the Notes to
Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements.
o Taking actions to decrease operating and maintenance costs and
lowering fuel costs to improve the operating performance of our power
plants, which would boost operating cash flow and liquidity. In
addition, we are considering temporarily shutting down certain power
plants with negative cash flow, until market conditions warrant
starting back up, to further reduce costs. See Note 15 for a
discussion of the restructuring of certain of our LTSAs.
o Reducing our collateral requirements. We and a financial institution
are discussing a business venture that we anticipate would lower
collateral requirements and enhance our third party customer business.
o Reducing total debt through the initiatives listed above by more than
$3 billion by the end of 2005 from debt levels at year end 2004, which
we estimate would provide $275 million of annual interest savings. As
noted above, the cash and other consideration needed to reduce debt by
that amount will be a function of the market value of debt repurchased
in open market transactions and other factors.
As a complement to our strategic initiative program, we desire to expand
our third party combustion turbine component parts and repair and maintenance
services business.
The sale of our remaining oil and gas assets in July 2005 to Rosetta is
expected to increase the future effective fuel expense (and lower spark spread)
for our fleet of gas-fired generating plants by eliminating the equity gas
benefit that we had enjoyed from the fact that our costs of producing natural
gas were significantly lower than natural gas prices in recent years. Also, we
expect that purchasing additional volumes from third party producers will
increase our requirements to post collateral or prepay for gas. However, the
negative impacts on spark spread and gross profit (loss) will be offset to some
extent by lower interest expense in the future to the extent the proceeds of the
sale are used to repay debt. We also expect to use other hedging approaches in
managing our natural gas requirements to compensate for the loss of the natural
hedge position that equity gas had afforded us. In the past when we sold fixed
price power, we could use our equity gas reserves as a hedge against rising gas
prices. Other techniques have included purchase of fixed-for-floating gas price
swap contracts, purchasing physical gas on a fixed-price basis, or potentially
buying back fixed price power contracts. In the future we will be more reliant
on these other techniques, the use of which may be limited by our current credit
constraints. From a physical gas purchase perspective, we will be purchasing
Rosetta's California production at market prices under industry standard
margining provisions, and we estimate that our collateral requirements will
increase by approximately $25 million for a typical payment cycle. From a fixed
price gas exposure perspective, we will not have any fixed price hedges in place
with Rosetta, so our position will need to be managed with financial swaps and
fixed price physical gas purchases. In addition, we may use proceeds of the sale
to purchase new natural gas assets as permitted by our indentures.
Overview of Results - Generation volume was flat from the prior year as
mild weather in April and May dampened demand, and we also experienced forced
outages at certain of our power plants. The increase in total spark spread of
$38.6 million, or 9%, in the three months ended June 30, 2005, compared to the
same period in 2004 was not commensurate with the increases in transmission
purchase expense, depreciation, and interest expense associated with new power
plants coming on line. Our average baseload capacity factor for the three months
ended June 30, 2005, was 39.9%. However, the baseload capacity factor for the
month of June 2005 improved to 43.5% as demand and spark spreads began to
strengthen, except in the West. By July 2005 demand was stronger in virtually
all of the Company's key markets, including the West, and spark spreads
continued to improve. Preliminarily, we estimate that our baseload capacity
factor for July was approximately 51%.
Set forth below are the Results of Operations for the three and six months
ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, which reflect reclassifications for discontinued
operations. See Note 8 of the Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial
Statements.
Results of Operations
Three Months Ended June 30, 2005, Compared to Three Months Ended June 30, 2004
(In millions unless indicated otherwise, except for unit pricing
information, percentages and MW volumes). In the comparative tables below,
increases in revenue/income or decreases in expense (favorable variances) are
shown without brackets. Decreases in revenue/income or increases in expense
(unfavorable variances) are shown with brackets.
Revenue
Three Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Total revenue.............................................................. $ 2,226.0 $ 2,215.4 $ 10.6 0.5%
The change in total revenue is explained by category below.
Three Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Electricity and steam revenue.............................................. $ 1,299.0 $ 1,239.1 $ 59.9 4.8%
Transmission sales revenue................................................. 3.1 4.1 (1.0) (24.4)%
Sales of purchased power for hedging and optimization...................... 432.9 496.0 (63.1) (12.7)%
------------ ------------ ------------
Total electric generation and marketing revenue......................... $ 1,735.0 $ 1,739.2 $ (4.2) (0.2)%
============ ============ ============
Electricity and steam revenue increased as the average realized electric
price before the effects of hedging, balancing and optimization, increased from
$61.75 / MWh in 2004 to $64.81 / MWh in 2005, while generation volume was
essentially flat between periods.
We purchase transmission capacity so that power can move from our plants to
our customers. Transmission capacity can be purchased on a long term basis and,
in many of the markets in which the company operates, can be resold if the
Company does not need it and some other party can use it. If the generation from
our plants is less than we anticipated when we purchased the transmission
capacity, we can realize revenue by selling the unused portion of the
transmission capacity.
Sales of purchased power for hedging and optimization decreased in the
three months ended June 30, 2005, due primarily to lower volumes which were
partially offset by higher prices, as compared to the same period in 2004.
Three Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Oil and gas sales.......................................................... $ -- $ 1.0 $ (1.0) (100.0)%
Sales of purchased gas for hedging and optimization........................ 456.9 482.0 (25.1) (5.2)%
------------ ------------ ------------
Total oil and gas production and marketing revenue...................... $ 456.9 $ 483.0 $ (26.1) (5.4)%
============ ============ ============
The Company reclassified its remaining oil and gas operations to
discontinued operations ("held for sale") in the quarter ended June 30, 2005.
Activity in prior years relates to minor assets sold in prior years that did not
meet the criteria for reclassification to discontinued operations at the time of
sale. See Note 8 of the Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements for
more information.
Sales of purchased gas for hedging and optimization decreased during 2005
due primarily to lower volumes offset by higher liquidation prices of natural
gas compared to the same period in 2004. The sale of our remaining Canadian oil
and gas assets in 2004, combined with reduced gas procurement, decreased volumes
available for resale during 2005 as compared to 2004.
Three Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Mark-to-market activities, net.......................................... $ 2.9 $ (22.6) $ 25.5 112.8%
============ ============ ============
Mark-to-market activities, which are shown on a net basis, result from
general market price movements against our open commodity derivative positions,
including positions accounted for as trading under EITF Issue No. 02-3, "Issues
Related to Accounting for Contracts Involved in Energy Trading and Risk
Management Activities" and other mark-to-market activities. These commodity
positions represent a small portion of our overall commodity contract position.
Realized revenue represents the portion of contracts actually settled and is
offset by a corresponding change in unrealized gains or losses as unrealized
derivative values are converted from unrealized forward positions to cash at
settlement. Unrealized gains and losses include the change in fair value of open
contracts as well as the ineffective portion of our cash flow hedges.
The net gain from mark-to-market activities in the three months ended June
30, 2005, as compared to the same period in 2004 is due primarily to gains
relating to our Deer Park transaction which is recorded on a mark-to-market
basis, and the non-recurrence of a loss on a derivative contract that terminated
in 2004.
Three Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Other revenue.............................................................. $ 31.2 $ 15.8 $ 15.4 97.5%
Other revenue increased due primarily to higher revenues at PSM associated
with sales of gas turbine components and at TTS for gas turbine maintenance
services.
Cost of Revenue
Three Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Cost of revenue............................................................ $ 2,257.4 $ 2,188.1 $ (69.3) (3.2)%
The increase in total cost of revenue is explained by category below.
Three Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Plant operating expense.................................................... $ 201.9 $ 204.6 $ 2.7 1.3%
Transmission purchase expense.............................................. 19.8 14.7 (5.1) (34.7)%
Royalty expense............................................................ 8.1 6.9 (1.2) (17.4)%
Purchased power expense for hedging and optimization....................... 335.1 444.5 109.4 24.6%
------------ ------------ ------------
Total electric generation and marketing expense......................... $ 564.9 $ 670.7 $ 105.8 15.8%
============ ============ ============
Plant operating expense decreased primarily due to certain property tax
rebates and favorable reassessments, recovery of a warranty claim, general cost
cutting initiatives and timing of major maintenance spending versus prior year.
These factors were partially offset from the costs of additional plants in
operation. Transmission purchase expense increased mostly due to additional
power plants achieving commercial operation subsequent to June 30, 2004.
Royalty expense increased primarily due to an increase in electric revenues
at The Geysers geothermal plants and due to an increase in contingent purchase
price payments to the previous owners of the Texas City and Clear Lake power
plants, which are based on a percentage of gross revenues at the plants. At The
Geysers, royalties are paid mostly as a percentage of geothermal electricity
revenues.
Purchased power expense for hedging and optimization decreased during the
three months ended June 30, 2005, as compared to the same period in 2004 due
primarily to a reduction in volumes as compared to the same period in 2004.
Three Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Oil and gas operating expense.............................................. 1.1 2.1 1.0 47.6%
Purchased gas expense for hedging and optimization......................... 486.1 453.9 (32.2) (7.1)%
------------ ------------ ------------
Total oil and gas operating and marketing expense....................... $ 487.2 $ 456.0 $ (31.2) (6.8)%
============ ============ ============
The Company reclassified its remaining oil and gas operations to
discontinued operations ("held for sale") in the three months ended June 30,
2005. Remaining activity in continuing operations relates primarily to gas
pipeline activities which were not sold and activity in prior years also
includes the results of minor assets sold in prior years that did not meet the
criteria for reclassification to discontinued operations at the time of sale.
See Note 8 of the Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements for more
information.
Purchased gas expense for hedging and optimization increased during the
three months ended June 30, 2005, due to higher natural gas prices as compared
to the same period in 2004.
Three Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Fuel expense............................................................... $ 913.5 $ 899.3 $ (14.2) (1.6)%
============ ============ ============
Fuel expense increased during the three months ended June 30, 2005, as
compared to the same period in 2004 due primarily to higher natural gas prices.
Three Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Depreciation, depletion and amortization expense........................... $ 127.9 $ 112.5 $ (15.4) (13.7)%
Depreciation, depletion and amortization expense increased primarily due to
the additional power facilities in consolidated operations subsequent to June
30, 2004.
Three Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Power plant impairment .................................................... $ 106.2 $ -- $ (106.2) (100.0)%
We recorded an impairment charge on Morris during the three months ended
June 30, 2005. We expect to reclassify the Morris power plant's historical
results, including this impairment charge, to discontinued operations in the
third quarter of 2005.
Three Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Operating lease expense.................................................... $ 25.5 $ 27.0 $ 1.5 5.6%
Operating lease expense decreased from the prior year due to the
restructuring of the King City lease in May 2004. After the restructuring, we
began to account for the King City lease as a capital lease. As a result, we
stopped incurring operating lease expense at that facility and instead began to
incur depreciation and interest expense.
Three Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Other cost of revenue...................................................... $ 32.1 $ 22.6 $ (9.5) (42.0)%
Other cost of revenue increased during the three months ended June 30,
2005, as compared to the same period in 2004, due to increased gas turbine
maintenance services activity at TTS and increased gas turbine component sales
by PSM.
(Income)/Expenses
Three Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
(Income) from unconsolidated investments................................... $ (3.3) $ 2.1 $ 5.4 257.1%
The increase in income was primarily due to an increase in income from the
Acadia PP investment (due mostly to lower major maintenance costs), and the
non-recurrence of losses recorded in 2004 from our investments in the Aries and
AELLC power plants. In March 2004, we purchased the remaining 50% interest in
the Aries power plant (at which time this plant was consolidated) and we ceased
to recognize our share of the operating results of AELLC as we began to account
for our investment in AELLC using the cost method following loss of effective
control when AELLC filed for bankruptcy protection in November 2004.
Three Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Long-term service agreement cancellation charge............................ $ 33.9 $ -- $ (33.9) (100.0)%
During the three months ended June 30, 2005, we recorded charges of $33.1
related to cancellation of nine LTSAs with GE as part of a restructuring of the
service relationship. Additionally, we revised our previous estimate and
recorded an additional $0.8 in charges related to previously cancelled LTSAs
with Siemens Westinghouse.
Three Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Project development expense................................................ $ 52.8 $ 4.0 $ (48.8) (1,220.0)%
During the three months ended June 30, 2005, we recorded a charge of $45.5
to write off three projects in suspended development and incurred $3.4 in
preservation costs for projects in suspended construction.
Three Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Sales, general and administrative expense.................................. $ 69.0 $ 54.3 $ (14.7) (27.1)%
Sales, general and administrative expense increased during the three months
ended June 30, 2005, primarily due to an increase in legal fees, franchise tax
fees and employee compensation costs.
Three Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Interest expense........................................................... $333.8 $ 270.6 $ (63.2) (23.4)%
Interest expense increased primarily as a result of higher average interest
rates and lower capitalization of interest expense. Interest capitalized
decreased from $102.2 for the three months ended June 30, 2004, to $64.2 for the
three months ended June 30, 2005, as new plants entered commercial operations
(at which point capitalization of interest expense ceases) and because of
suspended capitalization of interest on three partially completed construction
projects. We expect that the amount of interest capitalized will continue to
decrease in future periods as our plants in construction are completed. During
the three months ended June 30, 2005, (i) interest expense related to our Senior
Notes, contingent convertible notes, and term loans increased by $9.1; (ii)
interest expense related to our CalGen subsidiary increased $11.4; (iii)
interest expense related to our construction/project financing increased by
$14.7; (iv) interest expense related to our CCFC I subsidiary increased by $3.3;
and (v) interest expense related to preferred interests increased by $19.8
primarily due to the October 2004 closing of the $360 offering of redeemable
preferred securities by our indirect subsidiary, Calpine Jersey I, and the $260
offering on January 31, 2005, of redeemable preferred securities by our indirect
subsidiary, Calpine Jersey II. These interest cost increases are partially
offset by a decrease of $8.8 in interest expense on the convertible debentures
payable to the Calpine Capital Trusts, which have been redeemed.
Three Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Interest (income).......................................................... $ (16.8) $ (9.5) $ 7.3 76.8%
Interest (income) increased during the six months ended June 30, 2005, due
primarily to higher interest earned on margin deposits and collateralized
letters of credit and due to higher interest rates.
Three Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Minority interest expense (income)......................................... $ 10.2 $ 4.7 $ (5.5) (117.0)%
Minority interest expense increased during the three months ended June 30,
2005, as compared to the same period in 2004 primarily due to an increase in
income at CPLP, which is 70% owned by CPIF. The variance is largely due to an
increase in availability at the Island Cogen plant in 2005 as a result of
non-recurrence of major maintenance work performed during 2004.
Three Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
(Income) from repurchase of various issuances of debt...................... $ (129.2) $ (2.6) $ 126.6 4,869.2%
The increase in income from repurchases of various issuances of debt is due
to considerably higher volumes of Senior Notes during 2005. See Note 7 of the
Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements for further information.
Three Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Other expense (income), net................................................ $ 25.8 $ (179.5) $ (205.3) (114.4)%
The net expense for the three months ended June 30, 2005 was primarily due
to an impairment charge of $18.5 related to our investment in Grays Ferry.
Additionally, we wrote off $5.8 of unamortized deferred financing costs in
connection with the refinancing of the Metcalf project debt. These items were
partially offset by a gain in foreign exchange transaction activities, which
represented a favorable variance of $16.3 from the prior year. Other income for
the quarter ended June 30, 2004, included gains of $171.5 from the restructuring
and sale of power purchase agreements for two of our New Jersey plants, net of
transaction costs and the write-off of unamortized deferred financing costs.
Three Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Benefit for income taxes................................................... $ (134.9) $ (48.2) $ 86.7 179.9%
During the three months ended June 30, 2005, our tax benefit increased by
$86.7 as compared to the three months ended June 30, 2004 as our pre-tax loss
increased in 2005. The effective tax rate decreased to 32.7% in 2005 compared to
39.5% in the same period in 2004 largely due to additional valuation allowances
against deferred tax assets in 2005, thus reducing the tax benefit.
Three Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Discontinued operations, net of tax provision.............................. $ (20.5) $ 45.0 $ (65.5) (145.6)%
The discontinued operations in the three months ended June 30, 2005, are a
result of the sales of Saltend and substantially all of our remaining oil and
gas assets. Both of these dispositions closed in July 2005, but met the
discontinued operations criteria as of June 30, 2005, under SFAS No. 144.
Discontinued operations for the three months ended June 30, 2004, also included
the Lost Pines I Power Project and oil and gas dispositions in 2004.
Three Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Net loss................................................................... $ (298.5) $ (28.7) $ (269.8) (940.1)%
For the three months ended June 30, 2005, we reported revenue of $2.2
billion, representing an increase of 0.5% over the same period in the prior
year. Including the discontinued operations discussed below, we recorded a net
loss per share of $0.66, or a net loss of $298.5, compared to a net loss per
share of $0.07, or a net loss of $28.7, for the same quarter in the prior year.
Included in the current quarter's results are various non-routine items,
which are discussed in more detail below and in the aggregate netted to a charge
of $0.11 per share, consisting of impairment charges on two power plants in
operation and three in development, cancellation charges to terminate several
LTSAs, and a net gain on the repurchase of debt.
For the three months ended June 30, 2005, our average capacity in operation
for consolidated projects increased by 10.9% to 25,566 MW. Generation volume was
flat from the prior year as mild weather in April and May decreased demand, and
we also experienced forced outages at certain of our power plants. We generated
approximately 20.0 million MWh, which equated to a baseload capacity factor of
39.9%, and realized an average spark spread of $22.57/MWh. For the same period
in 2004, we generated 20.1 million MWh, which equated to a baseload capacity
factor of 45.0%, and realized an average spark spread of $20.62/MWh.
Gross profit (loss) decreased by $58.8 to a loss of $31.5 in the three
months ended June 30, 2005, compared to the same period in the prior year. This
change is due primarily to a $106.2 impairment charge related to Morris, which
sale was pending at the end of the quarter. Although total spark spread margin
increased by $38.6 period-to-period, it did not increase in line with the
increases in transmission purchase expense, depreciation and interest expense
associated with new power plants coming on line.
During the three months ended June 30, 2005, financial results were
positively impacted by $129.2 of income recorded from repurchase of various
issuances of debt and negatively impacted by $33.9 in LTSA cancellation charges.
In addition, we recorded $45.5 in project development expense due to the
write-off of three projects in suspended development. Interest expense increased
$63.2 between periods primarily due to an increase in the average interest rate
and lower capitalization of interest expense as fewer plants were in active
construction.
Other expense was $25.8 for the three months ended June 30, 2005, compared
to other income of $179.5 for the three months ended June 30, 2004. The net
expense for the three months ended June 30, 2005, was due mainly to an
impairment charge of $18.5 on our investment in Grays Ferry. Other income for
the quarter ended June 30, 2004, included $171.5 in pre-tax gains from the
restructuring and sale of power purchase agreements for two of our New Jersey
plants, net of transaction costs and the write-off of unamortized deferred
financing costs.
The discontinued operations in the three months ended June 30, 2005, are a
result of the sale of Saltend and substantially all of our remaining oil and gas
exploration and production properties and assets. Both of these sales closed in
July 2005, which met the discontinued operations criteria as of June 30, 2005,
under SFAS No. 144. Discontinued operations for the three months ended June 30,
2004, also included the Lost Pines I Power Project and oil and gas sales in
2004.
Six Months Ended June 30, 2005, Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2004
(In millions unless indicated otherwise, except for unit pricing
information, percentages and MW volumes). In the comparative tables below,
increases in revenue/income or decreases in expense (favorable variances) are
shown without brackets. Decreases in revenue/income or increases in expense
(unfavorable variances) are shown with brackets.
Revenue
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Total revenue.............................................................. $ 4,293.4 $ 4,119.4 $ 174.0 4.2%
The change in total revenue is explained by category below.
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Electricity and steam revenue.............................................. $ 2,577.2 $ 2,372.3 $ 204.9 8.6%
Transmission sales revenue................................................. 6.9 9.7 (2.8) (28.9)%
Sales of purchased power for hedging and optimization...................... 780.3 873.9 (93.6) (10.7)%
------------ ------------ ------------
Total electric generation and marketing revenue......................... $ 3,364.4 $ 3,255.9 $ 108.5 3.3%
============ ============ ============
Electricity and steam revenue increased as average megawatts in operations
of our consolidated plants increased by 16.0% to 25,330 MW while generation
increased by 3.5%. In addition, average realized electric price before the
effects of hedging, balancing and optimization, increased from $61.28 / MWh in
2004 to $64.31 / MWh in 2005.
We purchase transmission capacity so that power can move from our plants to
our customers. Transmission capacity can be purchased on a long term basis and,
in many of the markets in which the company operates, can be resold if the
Company does not need it and some other party can use it. If the generation from
our plants is less than we anticipated when we purchased the transmission
capacity, we can realize revenue by selling the unused portion of the
transmission capacity.
Sales of purchased power for hedging and optimization decreased in the six
months ended June 30, 2005, due primarily to lower volumes which were partially
offset by higher prices, as compared to the same period in 2004.
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Oil and gas sales.......................................................... $ -- $ 2.0 $ (2.0) (100.0)%
Sales of purchased gas for hedging and optimization........................ 877.2 834.7 42.5 5.1%
------------ ------------ ------------
Total oil and gas production and marketing revenue...................... $ 877.2 $ 836.7 $ 40.5 4.8%
============ ============ ============
We reclassified our remaining oil and gas operations to discontinued
operations ("held for sale") in the six months ended June 30, 2005. Activity in
prior years relates to minor assets sold in prior years that did not meet the
criteria for reclassification to discontinued operations at the time of sale.
See Note 8 of the Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements for more
information.
Sales of purchased gas for hedging and optimization increased during 2005
due primarily to higher prices of natural gas compared to the same period in
2004.
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Mark-to-market activities, net.......................................... $ (0.7) $ (10.1) $ 9.4 93.1%
============ ============ ============
Mark-to-market activities, which are shown on a net basis, result from
general market price movements against our open commodity derivative positions,
including positions accounted for as trading under EITF Issue No. 02-3, "Issues
Related to Accounting for Contracts Involved in Energy Trading and Risk
Management Activities" and other mark-to-market activities. These commodity
positions represent a small portion of our overall commodity contract position.
Realized revenue represents the portion of contracts actually settled and is
offset by a corresponding change in unrealized gains or losses as unrealized
derivative values are converted from unrealized forward positions to cash at
settlement. Unrealized gains and losses include the change in fair value of open
contracts as well as the ineffective portion of our cash flow hedges.
The decrease in losses in mark-to-market activities revenue in the six
months ended June 30, 2005 is attributable largely to gains on commodity
deliveries to MLCI from Deer Park, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, and
to decreases in liquidity reserves on our mark-to-market positions.
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Other revenue.............................................................. $ 52.4 $ 36.8 $ 15.6 42.4%
Other revenue increased due primarily to higher revenues at PSM associated
with sales of gas turbine components and at TTS for gas turbine maintenance
services.
Cost of Revenue
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Cost of revenue............................................................ $ 4,245.1 $ 4,046.2 $ (198.9) (4.9)%
The increase in total cost of revenue is explained by category below.
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Plant operating expense.................................................... $ 384.1 $ 370.2 $ (13.9) (3.8)%
Transmission purchase expense.............................................. 40.7 31.1 (9.6) (30.9)%
Royalty expense............................................................ 18.5 12.8 (5.7) (44.5)%
Purchased power expense for hedging and optimization....................... 616.3 817.6 201.3 24.6%
------------ ------------ ------------
Total electric generation and marketing expense......................... $ 1,059.6 $ 1,231.7 $ 172.1 14.0%
============ ============ ============
Plant operating expense decreased primarily due to certain property tax
rebates and favorable reassessments, recovery of a warranty claim, general cost
cutting initiatives and timing of major maintenance spending versus prior year.
Transmission purchase expense increased mostly due to additional power plants
achieving commercial operation subsequent to June 30, 2004, and to increases in
western area transmission fees.
Royalty expense increased primarily due to an increase in electric revenues
at The Geysers geothermal plants and due to an increase in contingent purchase
price payments to the previous owners of the Texas City and Clear Lake power
plants, which are based on a percentage of gross revenues at the plants. At The
Geysers, royalties are paid mostly as a percentage of geothermal electricity
revenues.
Purchased power expense for hedging and optimization decreased during the
six months ended June 30, 2005, as compared to the same period in 2004 due
primarily to a reduction in volumes as compared to the same period in 2004.
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Oil and gas operating expense.............................................. $ 2.9 $ 4.0 $ 1.1 27.5%
Purchased gas expense for hedging and optimization......................... 899.4 814.4 (85.0) (10.4)%
------------ ------------ ------------
Total oil and gas operating and marketing expense....................... $ 902.3 $ 818.4 $ (83.9) (10.3)%
============ ============ ============
The Company reclassified its remaining oil and gas operations to
discontinued operations ("held for sale") in the six months ended June 30, 2005.
Remaining activity in continuing operations relates primarily to gas pipeline
activities which were not sold and activity in prior years also includes the
results of minor assets sold in prior years that did not meet the criteria for
reclassification to discontinued operations at the time of sale. See Note 8 of
the Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements for more information.
Purchased gas expense for hedging and optimization increased during the six
months ended June 30, 2005, due to higher natural gas prices as compared to the
same period in 2004.
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Fuel expense............................................................... $ 1,807.8 $ 1,676.1 $ (131.7) (7.9)%
============ ============ ============
Fuel expense increased during the six months ended June 30, 2005, as
compared to the same period in 2004 due primarily to higher natural gas prices.
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Depreciation, depletion and amortization expense........................... $ 248.6 $ 216.3 $ (32.3) (14.9)%
Depreciation, depletion and amortization expense increased primarily due to
the additional power facilities in consolidated operations subsequent to June
30, 2004.
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Power plant impairment .................................................... $ 106.2 $ -- $ (106.2) (100.0)%
We recorded an impairment charge on Morris during the six months ended June
30, 2005. We expect to reclassify the Morris power plant's historical results,
including this impairment charge, to discontinued operations in the third
quarter of 2005.
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Operating lease expense.................................................... $ 50.3 $ 54.8 $ 4.5 8.2%
Operating lease expense decreased from the prior year due to the
restructuring of the King City lease in May 2004. After the restructuring we
began to account for the King City lease as a capital lease. As a result, we
stopped incurring operating lease expense at that facility and instead began to
incur depreciation and interest expense.
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Other cost of revenue...................................................... $ 70.3 $ 49.0 $ (21.3) (43.5)%
Other cost of revenue increased during the six months ended June 30, 2005,
as compared to the same period in 2004, due primarily to $19.2 for transaction
costs incurred on the closing of an agreement to sell power to and buy gas from
MLCI. See Note 9 of the Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements for
further information.
(Income)/Expenses
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
(Income) loss from unconsolidated investments.............................. $ (9.3) $ 1.0 $ 10.3 1,030.0%
The increase in income was primarily due to an increase in income from the
Acadia PP investment (mostly due to lower major maintenance costs),and the
non-recurrence of losses recorded in 2004 from our investments in the Aries and
AELLC power plants. In March 2004, we purchased the remaining 50% interest in
the Aries power plant (at which time this plant was consolidated) and we ceased
to recognize our share of the operating results of AELLC as we began to account
for our investment in AELLC using the cost method following loss of effective
control when AELLC filed for bankruptcy protection in November 2004.
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Equipment cancellation and asset impairment cost........................... $ -- $ 2.4 $ 2.4 100.0%
The 2004 charge was in connection with the termination of a purchase
contract for heat recovery steam generator components.
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Long-term service agreement cancellation charge............................ $ 33.9 $ -- $ (33.9) (100.0)%
During the six months ending June 30, 2005, we recorded charges of $33.1
related to cancellation of nine LTSAs with GE as part of a restructuring of the
service relationship. Additionally, we revised our previous estimate and
recorded an additional $0.8 in charges related to previously cancelled LTSAs
with Siemens Westinghouse.
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Project development expense................................................ $ 61.5 $ 11.7 $ (49.8) (425.6)%
During the six months ended June 30,2005, we recorded a charge of $45.5 to
write off three projects in suspended development and incurred $5.8 in
preservation costs for projects in suspended construction.
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Research and development expense........................................... $ 12.2 $ 8.9 $ (3.3) (37.1)%
Research and development expense increased during the six months ended June
30, 2005, as compared to the same period in 2004 primarily due to increased
personnel expenses, and consulting fees related to new research and development
programs and testing at PSM.
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Sales, general and administrative expense.................................. $ 122.6 $ 102.9 $ (19.7) (19.1)%
Sales, general and administrative expense increased during the six months
ended June 30, 2005, primarily due to an increase in legal fees, franchise tax
fees and write-off of tenant improvement costs related to excess office space.
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Interest expense........................................................... $ 658.4 $ 516.2 $ (142.2) (27.5)%
Interest expense increased primarily as a result of higher average interest
rates and lower capitalization of interest expense. Interest capitalized
decreased from $210.7 for the six months ended June 30, 2004, to $134.4 for the
six months ended June 30, 2005, as new plants entered commercial operations (at
which point capitalization of interest expense ceases) and because of suspended
capitalization of interest on three partially completed construction projects.
We expect that the amount of interest capitalized will continue to decrease in
future periods as our plants in construction are completed. During the six
months ended June 30, 2005, (i) interest expense related to our Senior Notes,
contingent convertible notes, and term loans increased by $18.7; (ii) interest
expense related to our CalGen subsidiary increased $24.8; (iii) interest expense
related to our construction/project financing increased by $31.4; (iv) interest
expense related to our CCFC I subsidiary increased by $5.5; and (v) interest
expense related to preferred interests increased by $33.4 primarily due to the
October 2004 closing of the $360 offering of redeemable preferred securities by
our indirect subsidiary, Calpine Jersey I, and the $260 offering on January 31,
2005, of redeemable preferred securities by our indirect subsidiary, Calpine
Jersey II. These increases in interest expense are partially offset by the
decrease in interest expense of $17.7 related to the convertible debentures
payable to the Calpine Capital Trusts, which have been redeemed.
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Interest (income).......................................................... $ (30.8) $ (21.0) $ 9.8 46.7%
Interest (income) increased during the six months ended June 30, 2005, due
primarily to higher interest earned on margin deposits and collateralized
letters of credit and due to higher interest rates.
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Minority interest expense.................................................. $ 20.8 $ 13.2 $ (7.6) (57.6)%
Minority interest expense increased during the six months ended June 30,
2005, as compared to the same period in 2004 primarily due to an increase in
income at CPLP, which is 70% owned by CPIF. The variance is largely due to an
increase in availability at the Island Cogen plant in 2005 as a result of
non-recurrence of major maintenance work performed during 2004.
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
(Income) from repurchase of various issuances of debt...................... $ (150.9) $ (3.4) $ 147.5 4,338.2%
Income from repurchases of various issuances of debt is due to considerably
higher volumes of Senior Notes repurchased during 2005. See Note 7 of the Notes
to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements for further information.
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Other expense (income), net................................................ $ 20.8 $ (191.4) $ (212.2) (110.9)%
Other expense was $20.8 for the six months ended June 30, 2005, compared to
other income of $191.4 for the six months ended June 30, 2004. The net expense
for the six months ended June 30, 2005, was primarily due to an impairment
charge of $18.5 related to our investment in Grays Ferry. Additionally, we had
$6.4 higher letter of credit fees and we wrote off $5.8 of unamortized deferred
financing costs in connection with the refinancing of the Metcalf project debt.
These items were partially offset by a gain in foreign exchange transaction
activities, which represented a favorable variance of $20.8 from the prior year.
Other income for the six months ended June 30, 2004, included gains of $171.5
from the restructuring and sale of power purchase agreements for two of our New
Jersey plants, net of transaction costs and the write-off of unamortized
deferred financing costs.
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Benefit for income taxes................................................... $ (233.6) $ (143.2) $ 90.4 63.1%
During the six months ended June 30, 2005, our tax benefit increased by
$90.4 as compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004 as our pre-tax loss
increased in 2005. The effective tax rate decreased to 33.8% in 2005 compared to
39.0% in the same period in 2004 largely due to additional valuation allowances
against deferred tax assets in 2005, thus reducing the tax benefit.
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Discontinued operations, net of tax........................................ $ (9.8) $ 124.3 $ (134.1) (107.9)%
The discontinued operations in the six months ended June 30, 2005, are a
result of the July 2005 sales of Saltend and substantially all of our remaining
oil and gas assets. The sales met the discontinued operations criteria as of
June 30, 2005. Discontinued operations for the six months ended June 30, 2004,
also included the Lost Pines 1 Power Project and oil and gas dispositions in
2004. In 2004, we recognized pre-tax gains on the sale of Lost Pines of $35.3
and on certain oil and gas dispositions of $3.6. Additionally, operating income
was significantly higher at Saltend and from oil and gas operations in 2004
compared to 2005.
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004 $ Change % Change
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Net loss................................................................... $ (467.2) $ (99.9) $ (367.3) (367.7)%
For the six months ended June 30, 2005, we reported revenue of $4.3
billion, representing an increase of 4.2% over the same period in the prior
year. Including the discontinued operations, we recorded a net loss per share of
$1.04, or a net loss of $467.2, compared to a net loss per share of $0.24, or a
net loss of $99.9, for the same period in the prior year.
Included in the six-months results are various non-routine items, which are
discussed in more detail below and in the aggregate netted to a charge of $0.08
per share, consisting of impairment charges on two power plants in operation and
three in development, cancellation charges to terminate several LTSAs, and a net
gain on the repurchase of debt.
For the six months ended June 30, 2005, our average capacity in operation
for consolidated projects increased by 16.0% to 25,330 MW. We generated
approximately 40.1 million MWh, which equated to a baseload capacity factor of
40.6%, and realized an average spark spread of $22.61/MWh. For the same period
in 2004, Calpine generated 38.7 million MWh, which equated to a baseload
capacity factor of 46.2%, and realized an average spark spread of $19.75/MWh.
Gross profit (loss) decreased by $24.8, or 34%, to $48.3 in the six months
ended June 30, 2005, compared to the same period in the prior year. This change
is due primarily to a $106.2 impairment charge related to Morris. Despite
improvements in market fundamentals, total spark spread - which increased by
$144.8, or 19%, in the six months ended June 30, 2005, compared to the same
period in 2004 - did not increase in line with the increases in plant operating
expense, transmission purchase expense, depreciation, and interest expense
associated with new power plants coming on line.
During the six months ended June 30, 2005, financial results were
positively impacted by $150.9 of income recorded from repurchase of various
issuances of debt and negatively impacted by $33.9 in LTSA cancellation charges.
In addition, we recorded $45.5 in project development expense due to the
write-off of three projects in suspended development. Interest expense increased
$142.2 between periods primarily due to an increase in the average interest rate
and lower capitalization of interest expense as fewer plants were in active
construction.
Other expense was $20.8 for the six months ended June 30, 2005, compared to
other income of $191.4 for the six months ended June 30, 2004. The net expense
for the six months ended June 30, 2005, was due mainly to an impairment charge
of $18.5 related to our investment in Grays Ferry. Other income for the six
months ended June 30, 2004, included $171.5 in pre-tax gains from the
restructuring and sale of power purchase agreements for two of our New Jersey
plants, net of transaction costs and the write-off of unamortized deferred
financing costs.
The discontinued operations in the six months ended June 30, 2005, are a
result of the July 2005 sales of Saltend and substantially all of our remaining
oil and natural gas assets which met discontinued operations criteria as of June
30, 2005.. Discontinued operations for the six months ended June 30, 2004, also
included the Lost Pines 1 Power Project and oil and gas sales in 2004.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Our business is capital intensive. Our ability to capitalize on growth
opportunities and to service the debt we incurred in order to construct and
operate our current fleet of power plants is dependent on the continued
availability of capital on attractive terms. The availability of such capital in
today's environment is uncertain. To date, we have obtained cash from our
operations; borrowings under credit facilities; issuances of debt, equity, trust
preferred securities and convertible debentures and contingent convertible
notes; proceeds from sale/leaseback transactions; sale or partial sale of
certain assets; prepayments received for power sales; contract monetizations;
and project financings. We have utilized this cash to fund our operations,
service, repay or refinance debt obligations, fund acquisitions, develop and
construct power generation facilities, finance capital expenditures, support our
hedging, balancing, optimization and trading activities, and meet our other cash
and liquidity needs.
Capital Availability -- Access to capital for many in the energy sector,
including us, has been restricted since late 2001. While we have been able to
access the capital and bank credit markets in this new environment, it has been
on significantly different terms than before 2002. In particular, our senior
working capital facilities and term loan financings entered into, and the
majority of our debt securities offered and sold by us in this period have been
secured by certain of our assets and subsidiary equity interests. We have also
provided security to support our prepaid commodity transactions. In the
aggregate, the average interest rate on our new debt instruments, especially on
debt incurred to refinance existing debt, has been higher. The terms of
financing available to us now and in the future may not be attractive to us. The
timing of the availability of capital is uncertain and is dependent, in part, on
market conditions that are difficult to predict and are outside of our control.
In addition, satisfying all obligations under our outstanding indebtedness,
and funding anticipated capital expenditures and working capital requirements
for the next twelve months and potentially, thereafter, presents us with several
challenges as our cash requirements (including our refinancing obligations) are
expected to exceed the sum of our cash on hand permitted to be used to satisfy
such requirements and cash from operations. Accordingly, we have in place a
strategic initiative which includes possible sales or monetizations of certain
of our assets. Whether we will have sufficient liquidity will depend on the
success of that program. No assurance can be given that our program will be
successful. If it is not successful, additional asset sales, refinancings,
monetizations and other actions beyond those included in the strategic
initiative would likely need to be made or taken, depending on market
conditions. Our ability to reduce debt will also depend on our ability to
repurchase debt securities through open market transactions, and the principal
amount of debt able to be repurchased will be contingent upon market prices and
other factors. Even if the program is successful, there can be no assurance that
we will be able to continue work on our projects in development and suspended
construction that have not been successfully project financed, and we could
possibly incur substantial impairment losses as a result. In addition, even if
the strategic initiative is successful, until there are significant sustained
improvements in spark spreads, we expect that we will not have sufficient cash
flow from operations to repay all of our indebtedness at maturity or to fund our
other liquidity needs. We expect that we will need to extend or refinance all or
a portion of our indebtedness, on or before maturity. While we currently believe
that we will be successful in repaying, extending or refinancing all of our
indebtedness on or before maturity, we cannot assure you that we will be able to
do so or that the terms of any such extension or refinancing will be attractive.
For further discussion of this see the risk factors in our 2004 Form 10-K and
our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on July 1, 2005.
Transactions Completed in the Three Months Ended June 30, 2005:
o Repurchased in open market transactions $479.8 million in principal
amount of our outstanding debt. The securities, which were trading at
a discount to par value, were repurchased for approximately $337.9
million in cash plus accrued interest. We recorded a $137.5 million
gain as a result of these repurchases after write-off of unamortized
deferred financing costs and unamortized discounts. See Note 7 of the
Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements for more
information.
o Received funding for Metcalf's $155.0 million offering of 5.5-Year
Redeemable Preferred Shares and five-year, $100.0 million Senior Term
Loan. A portion of the net proceeds was used to repay $50.0 million
outstanding on the original Metcalf project financing, with the
remaining net proceeds to be used as permitted by our existing
indentures. See Note 7 of the Notes to Consolidated Condensed
Financial Statements for more information.
o Received funding for our $123.1 million, non-recourse project finance
facility to complete the construction of the 79.9-MW Bethpage Energy
Center 3. Approximately $55.0 million of the funding was used to
reimburse us for costs spent to date on the project. An additional
amount of approximately $11.2 million will be released upon satisfying
certain conditions. The balance of funds will be used for transaction
expenses, the final completion of the project and to fund certain
reserve accounts. See Note 7 of the Notes to Consolidated Condensed
Financial Statements for more information.
o Issued $650.0 million in principal amount of 2015 Convertible Notes in
June 2005. In July 2005, we used a portion of the net proceeds to
redeem the $517.5 million in principal amount outstanding of 5% HIGH
TIDES III preferred securities, of which $115.0 million was held by
us. We used the remaining net proceeds to repurchase a portion of the
outstanding principal amount of our 8 1/2% Senior Notes due 2011. See
Notes 7 and 11 of the Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial
Statements for more information.
o Repurchased $94.3 million in principal amount at maturity of 2014
Convertible Notes in exchange for 27.5 million shares of Calpine
common stock. We recorded a pre-tax loss of $7.9 million on the
exchange, which includes the write-off of the associated unamortized
deferred financing costs and unamortized original issue discount. See
Note 7 of the Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements for
more information.
Debt Repurchases and Redemptions during the three months ended June 30, 2005:
During the three months ended June 30, 2005, we repurchased Senior Notes in
open market transactions totaling $479.8 million in principal amount. We
repurchased the Senior Notes for cash of $337.9 million plus accrued interest as
follows (in thousands):
Senior Notes Principal Cash Payment
- ------------ -------------- -------------
10 1/2% due 2006......................... $ 3,485.0 $ 2,753.2
7 5/8% due 2006.......................... 1,335.0 1,041.3
8 3/4 % due 2007......................... 3,000.0 1,665.0
8 1/2% due 2008.......................... 25,500.0 18,297.5
7 3/4% due 2009.......................... 35,000.0 20,865.0
8 5/8% due 2010.......................... 37,468.0 24,077.4
8 1/2% due 2011.......................... 374,000.0 269,154.8
------------ ------------
Total repurchases..................... $ 479,788.0 $ 337,854.2
============ ============
For the three months ended June 30, 2005, we recorded an aggregate pre-tax
gain of $137.5 million on the above repurchases after the write-off of
unamortized deferred financing costs and unamortized discounts.
Transactions Completed Subsequent to June 30, 2005 (See Note 15 of the
Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements for more information):
o Sold all of our remaining domestic oil and gas exploration and
production properties and assets for $1.05 billion, less adjustments,
transaction fees and expenses, and less approximately $75 million to
reflect the value of certain oil and gas properties for which we were
unable to obtain consents to assignment prior to closing. We expect to
receive the remaining consents in the near future.
o Completed the sale of Saltend, a 1,200-MW power plant in Hull,
England, generating total gross proceeds of $862.5 million. Of this
amount, approximately $647.1 million was used to redeem the $360.0
million Two-Year Redeemable Preferred Shares issued by our Calpine
Jersey I subsidiary on October 26, 2004, and the $260.0 million
Redeemable Preferred Shares issued by our Calpine Jersey II subsidiary
on January 31, 2005, including interest and termination fees of $16.3
million and $10.8 million, respectively. As described further in Note
12, certain bondholders filed a lawsuit concerning the use of the
proceeds remaining from the sale of Saltend.
o Sold our 50% interest in the 175-MW Grays Ferry power plant to an
affiliate of TNAI for $37.4 million. Previously, in the three months
ended June 30, 2005, we recorded an impairment charge of $18.5 million
related to our interest.
o Completed the sale of our 156-MW Morris power plant for approximately
$84.5 million. Previously, in the three months ended June 30, 2005, we
recorded a $106.2 million impairment charge related to this facility.
o Purchased approximately $138.9 million of our First Priority Notes
under the terms of a tender offer.
o Announced a 15-year Master Products and Services Agreement with GE,
which is expected to lower operating costs in the future. As a result
of 9 GE LTSA cancellations during the quarter, we recorded $33.1
million in charges.
o Signed an agreement with Siemens Westinghouse to restructure the
long-term relationship, which we expect will afford us additional
flexibility to self-perform maintenance work in the future.
As a result of transactions subsequent to June 30, 2005, we have lowered
our total debt by approximately $1.3 billion to $17.4 billion.
We are considering the sale of additional assets including the Ontelaunee
Energy Center and the Philadelphia Water Works Plant. These additional sales
could lead to additional material impairment charges or losses upon sale.
See Note 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements for
more information.
The sale of assets to reduce debt and lower annual interest costs is
expected to materially lower our revenues, spark spread and gross profit (loss)
and the final mix of assets actually sold will determine the degree of impact on
operating results. While lowering debt, the accomplishment of the strategic
initiative program, in and of itself, will likely not lead to improvement in
certain measures of interest and principal coverage without significant
improvement in market conditions. The amount of offsetting future interest
savings will be a function of the principal amount of debt retired, and the
amount that we will spend to reduce debt will depend on the market price of such
debt and other factors. The final net future earnings impact of the initiatives
is still uncertain.
Cash Flow Activities -- The following table summarizes our cash flow
activities for the periods indicated:
Six Months Ended
June 30,
---------------------------
2005 2004
------------- -------------
(In thousands)
Beginning cash and cash equivalents.................................................................... $ 718,023 $ 962,108
Net cash provided by (used in):
Operating activities................................................................................ (239,259) 11,993
Investing activities................................................................................ (958,635) (167,391)
Financing activities................................................................................ 1,124,721 20,769
Effect of exchange rates changes on cash and cash equivalents....................................... (8,897) (13,146)
Reclassification of change in cash included in assets of discontinued operations, current portion... 255 10,582
------------ ------------
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents................................................ (81,815) (137,193)
------------ ------------
Ending cash and cash equivalents....................................................................... $ 636,208 $ 824,915
============ ============
Operating activities for the six months ended June 30, 2005, used net cash
of $239.3 million, as compared to providing $12.0 million for the same period in
2004. In the first six months of 2005 there was a $51.3 million use of funds
from net changes in operating assets and liabilities comprised of a decrease in
accounts payable and accrued liabilities of $103.2 million, and an increase in
net margin deposits posted to support CES contracting activity of $36.9 million.
This was offset by decreases in accounts receivable of $57.7 million and
inventory of $37.6 million.
In the first six months of 2004, operating cash flows benefited from the
receipt of $100.6 million from the termination of power purchase agreements for
two of our New Jersey power plants and $16.4 million from the restructuring of a
long-term gas supply contract. We had a $51.2 million use of funds from net
changes in operating assets and liabilities, including an increase of $39.9
million in net margin deposits posted to support CES contracting activity.
Investing activities for the six months ended June 30, 2005, consumed net
cash of $958.6 million, as compared to $167.4 million in the same period of
2004. Capital expenditures, including capitalized interest, for the completion
of our power facilities decreased from $795.4 million in 2004 to $539.6 million
in 2005 as there were fewer projects under construction. Investing activities in
2005 also reflected a $433.2 million increase in restricted cash, $402.5 million
of which resulted from the proceeds of the convertible offering in June set
aside to redeem HIGH TIDES III preferred securities. Investing activities in
2004 included the receipt of $172.2 million from the disposal of the Lost Pines
power plant and certain oil and gas assets, together with $85.4 million from the
sale of a subsidiary holding power purchase agreements for two of our New Jersey
power plants and a decrease in restricted cash of $452.4 million, offset by the
purchase of the Brazos Valley power plant, the remaining 50% interest in the
Aries power plant, and the remaining 20% interest in Calpine Cogen.
Financing activities for the six months ended June 30, 2005, provided
$1,124.7 million, as compared to $20.8 million in 2004. We continued our
refinancing program in the first six months of 2005 by raising $260.0 million
from a preferred security offering by Calpine Jersey II, $155.0 million from a
preferred security offering by Metcalf $650.0 million from the 2015 Convertible
Notes offering, $524.9 million from various project financings and $265.7
million from a prepaid commodity derivative contract at our Deer Park facility.
We repaid $236.7 million of notes payable and project financing debt, in
addition to using $402.2 million to repay or repurchase Senior Notes.
Additionally, we incurred $80.3 million in financing and transaction costs.
Working Capital -- At June 30, 2005, we had a negative working capital
balance of approximately $555.1 million due primarily to (1) the classification
as current liabilities of the projected use of proceeds of $611.0 million for
bond purchase requirements (see Note 6 of the Notes to Consolidated Condensed
Financial Statements for a discussion), (2) an increase of $136.5 million in net
current derivative liabilities from December 31, 2004, to June 30, 2005, and (3)
negative operating cash flow for the six months ended June 30, 2005.
Counterparties and Customers -- Our customer and supplier base is
concentrated within the energy industry. Additionally, we have exposure to
trends within the energy industry, including declines in the creditworthiness of
our marketing counterparties.
Currently, multiple companies within the energy industry are in bankruptcy
or have below investment grade credit ratings. However, we do not currently have
any significant exposures to counterparties that are not paying on a current
basis.
Letter of Credit Facilities -- At June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004, we
had approximately $604.1 million and $596.1 million, respectively, in letters of
credit outstanding under various credit facilities to support our risk
management and other operational and construction activities. Of the total
letters of credit outstanding, $225.8 million and $233.3 million, respectively,
were issued under the cash collateralized letter of credit facility at June 30,
2005 and December 31, 2004, respectively.
Commodity Margin Deposits and Other Credit Support -- As of June 30, 2005
and December 31, 2004, to support commodity transactions we had deposited net
amounts of $285.8 million and $248.9 million, respectively, in cash as margin
deposits with third parties, and we made gas and power prepayments of $86.3
million, and $78.0 million, respectively, and had letters of credit outstanding
of $127.4 million and $115.9 million, respectively. Since December 31, 2004,
such amounts have increased as commodity prices have risen. We use margin
deposits, prepayments and letters of credit as credit support for commodity
procurement and risk management activities. Future cash collateral requirements
may increase or decrease based on the extent of our involvement in standard
contracts and movements in commodity prices and also based on our credit ratings
and general perception of creditworthiness in this market.
Unrestricted Subsidiaries -- The information in this paragraph is required
to be provided under the terms of the Second Priority Secured Debt Instruments.
We have designated certain of our subsidiaries as "unrestricted subsidiaries"
under the Second Priority Secured Debt Instruments. A subsidiary with
"unrestricted" status thereunder generally is not required to comply with the
covenants contained therein that are applicable to "restricted subsidiaries." We
have designated Calpine Gilroy 1, Inc., Calpine Gilroy 2, Inc. and Calpine
Gilroy Cogen, L.P. as "unrestricted subsidiaries" for purposes of the Second
Priority Secured Debt Instruments. The following table sets forth selected
balance sheet information of Calpine Corporation and restricted subsidiaries and
of such unrestricted subsidiaries at June 30, 2005, and selected income
statement information for the six months ended June 30, 2005 (in thousands):
Calpine
Corporation
and Restricted Unrestricted
Subsidiaries Subsidiaries Eliminations Total
-------------- ------------- ------------ -------------
Assets............................................................. $ 27,605,202 $ 432,281 $ (227,856) $ 27,809,627
============== ============ =========== ============
Liabilities........................................................ $ 23,113,369 $ 248,883 $ -- $ 23,362,252
============== ============ =========== ============
Total revenue...................................................... $ 4,292,617 $ 2,583 $ (1,798) $ 4,293,402
Total cost of revenue.............................................. (4,240,327) (7,644) 2,863 (4,245,108)
Interest income.................................................... 25,778 8,471 (3,471) 30,778
Interest expense................................................... (651,924) (6,520) -- (658,444)
Other.............................................................. 111,118 1,065 -- 112,183
-------------- ------------ ----------- ------------
Net income...................................................... $ (462,738) $ (2,045) $ (2,406) $ (467,189)
============== ============ =========== ============
Bankruptcy-Remote Subsidiaries -- Pursuant to applicable transaction
agreements, we have established certain of our entities separate from Calpine
and its other subsidiaries. At June 30, 2005 these entities included: Metcalf,
Rocky Mountain Energy Center, LLC, Riverside Energy Center, LLC, Calpine
Riverside Holdings, LLC, Calpine Energy Management, L.P., CES GP, LLC, PCF, PCF
III, CNEM Holdings, CNEM, Gilroy Energy Center, LLC, Calpine Gilroy Cogen, L.P.,
Calpine Gilroy I, Inc., Calpine King City Cogen LLC, Calpine Securities Company,
L.P., a parent company of Calpine King City Cogen LLC, and Calpine King City,
LLC, an indirect parent company of Calpine Securities Company, L.P., Calpine
Deer Park Partner LLC, Calpine Deer Park LLC and Deer Park.
Indenture and Debt and Lease Covenant Compliance -- Certain of our
indentures place conditions on our ability to issue indebtedness if our interest
coverage ratio (as defined in those indentures) is below 2:1. Currently, our
interest coverage ratio (as so defined) is below 2:1 and, consequently, we
generally would not be allowed to issue new debt, except for (i) certain types
of new indebtedness that refinances or replaces existing indebtedness, and (ii)
non-recourse debt and preferred equity interests issued by our subsidiaries for
purposes of financing certain types of capital expenditures, including plant
development, construction and acquisition expenses. In addition, if and so long
as our interest coverage ratio is below 2:1, our ability to invest in
unrestricted subsidiaries and non-subsidiary affiliates and make certain other
types of restricted payments will be limited. Moreover, certain of our
indentures will prohibit any further investments in non-subsidiary affiliates if
and for so long as our interest coverage ratio (as defined therein) is below
1.75:1 and, as of June 30, 2005, such interest coverage ratio was below 1.75:1.
We currently do not expect this limitation on our ability to make investments in
non-subsidiary affiliates to have a material impact on our business.
Certain of our indebtedness issued in the last half of 2004 was incurred in
reliance on provisions in certain of our existing indentures pursuant to which
we are able to incur indebtedness if, after giving effect to the incurrence and
the repayment of other indebtedness with the proceeds there from, our interest
coverage ratio (as defined in those indentures) is greater than 2:1. In order to
satisfy the interest coverage ratio requirement in connection with certain
securities issued in 2004, the proceeds of such issuances are required to be
used to repurchase or redeem other existing indebtedness. While we have
completed a substantial portion of such repurchases during the fourth quarter of
2004 and the first six months of 2005, we are still in the process of completing
the required amount of repurchases and expect to do so as soon as practicable.
While the amount that we will be required to spend to repurchase the applicable
remaining principal amount of such indebtedness will ultimately depend on the
market prices of our outstanding indebtedness at the time the indebtedness is
repurchased, we estimate that, as of June 30, 2005, as adjusted for market
conditions and financial covenant calculations, we would be required to spend
approximately $184.0 million on additional repurchases in order to fully satisfy
this requirement. If the market price of our outstanding principal indebtedness
were to change substantially from current market prices, the amount that we
would be required to spend to repurchase the same principal amount of such
indebtedness could be significantly different from the amounts currently
estimated. The principal amount of the indebtedness required to be repurchased
has been classified as Senior Notes, current portion, on our Consolidated
Condensed Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2005. Subsequent to June 30, 2005, we
satisfied a portion of such requirement such that, as of July 31, 2005, our
estimate, adjusted as described above, is that we would be required to spend
approximately $182.0 million on additional repurchases. See Note 7 of the Notes
to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements.
When we or one of our subsidiaries sells a significant asset or issues
preferred equity, our indentures generally require that the net proceeds of the
transaction be used to make capital expenditures or to repurchase or repay
certain types of indebtedness, in each case within 365 days of the closing date
of the transaction. This general requirement contains certain customary
exceptions and, in the case of certain assets, including the gas portion of our
oil and gas assets sold in July 2005, that are defined as "designated assets"
under some of our indentures, there are additional provisions that apply to the
sale of these assets as discussed further below. In light of these requirements,
and taking into account the amount of capital expenditures currently budgeted
for the remainder of 2005, and forecasted for 2006, we anticipate that
subsequent to June 30, 2005, we will need to use a total of approximately $427.0
million of the net proceeds from the three series of preferred equity issued by
our subsidiaries, to repurchase or repay indebtedness. Accordingly, this amount
of long-term debt has been reclassified as Senior Notes, current portion, on our
Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2005. The actual amount of
the net proceeds that will be required to be used to repurchase or repay debt
will depend upon the actual amount of the net proceeds that is used to make
capital expenditures, which may be more or less than the amount currently
budgeted and/or forecasted.
In addition, the net proceeds from the asset sales completed after June 30,
2005, will similarly be subject to the asset sale provisions of our indentures,
and we anticipate that, on the basis described above, in connection with the
asset sales that have been completed after June 30, 2005, (including the sale of
Saltend), an additional $343.1 million will need to be used to make qualifying
capital expenditures and/or repurchase or repay indebtedness. As described
further in Note 12, however, certain bondholders filed a lawsuit concerning the
use of the proceeds from the sale of Saltend. In connection with that lawsuit,
the net proceeds from that sale, after the redemption of two series of
redeemable preferred securities, are currently subject to an order of the Court
in that matter requiring such proceeds to be held at or in the control of CCRC.
As noted above, our oil and gas assets were sold on July 7, 2005, with the
gas component of such sale constituting "designated assets" under certain of our
indentures. These indentures require us to make an offer to purchase our First
Priority Notes with the net proceeds of a sale of designated assets not
otherwise applied in accordance with the other permitted uses under such
indentures. Accordingly, we made an offer to purchase the First Priority Notes
in June 2005. The offer to purchase expired on July 8, 2005, and we purchased,
with proceeds of the sale of the gas assets, all of the approximately $138.9
million in principal amount of the First Priority Notes tendered in connection
with the offer to purchase. We may use the remaining net proceeds of $708.5
million arising from the sale of our gas assets to acquire new natural gas
and/or geothermal energy assets permitted to be acquired under such indentures,
and a portion of such remaining net proceeds have been so applied. However,
there can be no assurance that we would be successful in identifying or
acquiring any additional new assets on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not,
within 180 days of receipt of the net proceeds from the sale of our gas assets,
use all of the remaining net proceeds to acquire such new assets, and/or to
repurchase or repay (through open market or privately-negotiated transactions,
tender offers or otherwise) any or all of the approximately $646.1 million
aggregate principal amount of First Priority Notes remaining outstanding after
consummation of the offer to purchase (either of which actions we may, but are
not required, to take), then we will, to the extent that the remaining net
proceeds from the sale exceed $50 million, be required under the terms of our
Second Priority Secured Financing Documents to make an offer to purchase our
outstanding second priority senior secured indebtedness up to the amount of the
remaining net proceeds.
In connection with several of our subsidiaries' lease financing
transactions (Agnews, Geysers, Pasadena, Broad River, RockGen and South Point)
the insurance policies we have in place do not comply in every respect with the
insurance requirements set forth in the financing documents. We have requested
from the relevant financing parties, and are expecting to receive, waivers of
this noncompliance. While failure to have the required insurance in place is
listed in the financing documents as an event of default, the financing parties
may not unreasonably withhold their approval of our waiver request so long as
the required insurance coverage is not reasonably available or commercially
feasible and we deliver a report from our insurance consultant to that effect.
We have delivered the required insurance consultant reports to the relevant
financing parties and therefore anticipate that the necessary waivers will be
executed shortly.
In connection with the sale/leaseback transaction of Agnews, we have not
fully complied with covenants pertaining to the operations and maintenance
agreement, which noncompliance is technically an event of default. We are in the
process of addressing this by seeking the lessor's approval to renew and extend
the operations and maintenance agreement for the Agnews facility.
In connection with the sale/leaseback transaction of Calpine Monterey
Cogeneration, Inc., we have not fully complied with covenants pertaining to
amendments to gas and power purchase agreements, which noncompliance is
technically an event of default. We are in the process of addressing this by
seeking a consent and waiver.
Almost all of our operations are conducted through our subsidiaries and
other affiliates. As a result, we depend almost entirely upon their cash flow to
service our indebtedness, including our ability to pay the interest on and
principal of our Senior Notes. However, as also described in our 2004 Form 10-K,
first quarter 10-Q, and current report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on July 1,
2005, cash flow from operations is currently insufficient to meet in full our
cash, liquidity and refinancing obligations for the year, so we presently also
depend in part upon the success of our Strategic Initiative program in order to
fully service our debt. In addition, financing agreements covering a substantial
portion of the indebtedness of our subsidiaries and other affiliates restrict
their ability to pay dividends, make distributions or otherwise transfer funds
to us prior to the payment of their obligations, including their outstanding
debt, operating expenses, lease payments and reserves.
Effective Tax Rate -- For the three months ended June 30, 2005, our
effective tax rate on continuing operations decreased to 32.7%, as compared to
39.5% for the three months ended June 30, 2004. For the six months ended June
30, 2005 and 2004, the effective tax rate was 33.8% and 39.0%, respectively. The
tax rate on continuing operations for the quarter and six months ended June 30,
2004, have been restated to reflect the reclassification to discontinued
operations of certain tax expense related to the sale of our oil and gas
reserves. See Note 8 of the Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial
Statements. This effective tax rate on continuing operations is based on the
consideration of estimated year-end earnings in estimating the quarterly
effective rate, the effect of permanent non-taxable items and establishment of
valuation allowances on certain deferred tax assets.
Off-Balance Sheet Commitments -- In accordance with SFAS No. 13 and SFAS
No. 98, "Accounting for Leases" our facility operating leases, which include
certain sale/leaseback transactions, are not reflected on our balance sheet. All
lessors in these contracts are third parties that are unrelated to us. The
sale/leaseback transactions utilize SPEs formed by the equity investors with the
sole purpose of owning a power generation facility. Some of our operating leases
contain customary restrictions on dividends, additional debt and further
encumbrances similar to those typically found in project finance debt
instruments. We have no ownership or other interest in any of these SPEs.
In accordance with APB Opinion No. 18, "The Equity Method of Accounting For
Investments in Common Stock" and FASB Interpretation No. 35, "Criteria for
Applying the Equity Method of Accounting for Investments in Common Stock (An
Interpretation of APB Opinion No. 18)," the third party debt on the books of our
unconsolidated investments is not reflected on our Consolidated Condensed
Balance Sheet. At June 30, 2005, third party investee debt was approximately
$200.2 million. Of this amount, $3.1 million relates to our investment in AELLC,
for which the cost method of accounting was used as of December 31, 2004, and
$45.2 million relates to our investment in Grays Ferry, which we sold subsequent
to June 30, 2005. Based on our pro rata ownership share of each of the
investments, our share would be approximately $84.8 million. This amount
includes our share for AELLC of $1.0 million and for Grays Ferry of $22.6
million. All such debt is non-recourse to us. The increase in investee debt
between periods is primarily due to borrowings for the Valladolid III Energy
Center currently under construction. The July 2005 sale of Grays Ferry
eliminates our share of that facility's debt, representing a reduction of
approximately $22.6 million of our unconsolidated, non-recourse project debt as
of June 30, 2005. See Note 6 of the Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial
Statements for additional information on our equity and cost method investments.
We own a 32.3% interest in AELLC. AELLC owns the 136-MW Androscoggin Energy
Center located in Maine. On November 3, 2004, a jury verdict was rendered
against AELLC in a breach of contract dispute with IP. See Note 12 of the Notes
to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements for more information about this
legal proceeding. We recorded our $11.6 million share of the award amount in the
third quarter of 2004. On November 26, 2004, AELLC filed a voluntary petition
for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. As a result of the
bankruptcy, we lost significant influence and control of the project and have
adopted the cost method of accounting for our investment in AELLC. Also, in
December 2004, we determined that our investment in AELLC was impaired and
recorded a $5.0 million impairment reserve. On April 12, 2005, AELLC sold three
fixed-price gas contracts to Merrill Lynch Commodities Canada, ULC, and used a
portion of the proceeds to pay down its remaining construction debt. As of June
30, 2005, the facility had third-party debt outstanding of $3.1 million. See
Note 12 of the Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements for an
update on this investment.
Credit Considerations -- On May 9, 2005, Standard & Poor's lowered its
corporate credit rating on Calpine Corporation to single B- from single B. The
outlook remains negative. In addition, the ratings on Calpine's debt and the
ratings on the debt of its subsidiaries were also lowered by one notch, with a
few exceptions.
On May 12, 2005, Moody's Investor Service lowered its senior implied issuer
rating on Calpine Corporation to B3 from B2. The outlook remains negative. In
addition, the ratings on Calpine's debt and the ratings on the debt of its
subsidiaries were also lowered by two notches, with a few exceptions.
On May 25, 2005, following the announcement of Calpine Corporation's
strategic program to accelerate the $3 billion debt reduction target to
year-end, Fitch Ratings placed the credit ratings of Calpine Corporation on
rating watch evolving, meaning Fitch may lower, maintain, or raise their ratings
on the Company's debt securities in the near-term.
Credit rating downgrades have had a negative impact on our liquidity by
reducing attractive financing opportunities and increasing the amount of
collateral required by trading counterparties. Any future credit rating
downgrades could have similar effects on our liquidity.
Capital Spending -- See Note 5 of the Notes to Consolidated Condensed
Financial Statements for a discussion of our development and construction
projects at June 30, 2005
Performance Metrics
In understanding our business, we believe that certain non-GAAP operating
performance metrics are particularly important. These are described below:
o Total deliveries of power. We both generate power that we sell to
third parties and purchase power for sale to third parties in HBO
transactions. The former sales are recorded as electricity and steam
revenue and the latter sales are recorded as sales of purchased power
for hedging and optimization. The volumes in MWh for each are key
indicators of our respective levels of generation and HBO activity and
the sum of the two, our total deliveries of power, is relevant because
there are occasions where we can either generate or purchase power to
fulfill contractual sales commitments. Prospectively beginning October
1, 2003, in accordance with EITF 03-11, "Reporting Realized Gains and
Losses on Derivative Instruments That Are Subject to SFAS No. 133 and
Not `Held for Trading Purposes' As Defined in EITF Issue No. 02-3:
"Issues Involved in Accounting for Derivative Contracts Held for
Trading Purposes and Contracts Involved in Energy Trading and Risk
Management Activities," certain sales of purchased power for hedging
and optimization are shown net of purchased power expense for hedging
and optimization in our consolidated statement of operations.
Accordingly, we have also netted HBO volumes on the same basis as of
October 1, 2003, in the table below.
o Average availability and average baseload capacity factor or operating
rate. Availability represents the percent of total hours during the
period that our plants were available to run after taking into account
the downtime associated with both scheduled and unscheduled outages.
The baseload capacity factor, sometimes called operating rate, is
calculated by dividing (a) total megawatt hours generated by our power
plants (excluding peakers) by the product of multiplying (b) the
weighted average megawatts in operation during the period by (c) the
total hours in the period. The capacity factor is thus a measure of
total actual generation as a percent of total potential generation. If
we elect not to generate during periods when electricity pricing is
too low or gas prices too high to operate profitably, the baseload
capacity factor will reflect that decision as well as both scheduled
and unscheduled outages due to maintenance and repair requirements.
o Average heat rate for gas-fired fleet of power plants expressed in Btu
of fuel consumed per KWh generated. We calculate the average heat rate
for our gas-fired power plants (excluding peakers) by dividing (a)
fuel consumed in Btu's by (b) KWh generated. The resultant heat rate
is a measure of fuel efficiency, so the lower the heat rate, the
better. We also calculate a "steam-adjusted" heat rate, in which we
adjust the fuel consumption in Btu's down by the equivalent heat
content in steam or other thermal energy exported to a third party,
such as to steam hosts for our cogeneration facilities. Our goal is to
have the lowest average heat rate in the industry.
o Average all-in realized electric price expressed in dollars per MWh
generated. Our risk management and optimization activities are
integral to our power generation business and directly impact our
total realized revenues from generation. Accordingly, we calculate the
all-in realized electric price per MWh generated by dividing (a)
adjusted electricity and steam revenue, which includes capacity
revenues, energy revenues, thermal revenues and the spread on sales of
purchased power for hedging, balancing, and optimization activity, by
(b) total generated MWh in the period.
o Average cost of natural gas expressed in dollars per millions of Btu's
of fuel consumed. Our risk management and optimization activities
related to fuel procurement directly impact our total fuel expense.
The fuel costs for our gas-fired power plants are a function of the
price we pay for fuel purchased and the results of the fuel hedging,
balancing, and optimization activities by CES. Accordingly, we
calculate the cost of natural gas per millions of Btu's of fuel
consumed in our power plants by dividing (a) adjusted fuel expense
which includes the cost of fuel consumed by our plants (adding back
cost of inter-company gas pipeline charges, which is eliminated in
consolidation), and the spread on sales of purchased gas for hedging,
balancing, and optimization activity by (b) the heat content in
millions of Btu's of the fuel we consumed in our power plants for the
period.
o Average spark spread expressed in dollars per MWh generated. Our risk
management activities focus on managing the spark spread for our
portfolio of power plants, the spread between the sales price for
electricity generated and the cost of fuel. We calculate the spark
spread per MWh generated by subtracting (a) adjusted fuel expense from
(b) adjusted E&S revenue and dividing the difference by (c) total
generated MWh in the period.
o Average plant operating expense per normalized MWh. To assess trends
in electric power POX per MWh, we normalize the results from period to
period by assuming a constant 70% total company-wide capacity factor
(including both base load and peaker capacity) in deriving normalized
MWh. By normalizing the cost per MWh with a constant capacity factor,
we can better analyze trends and the results of our program to realize
economies of scale, cost reductions and efficiencies at our electric
generating plants. For comparison purposes we also include POX per
actual MWh.
The table below presents, the operating performance metrics discussed
above.
Three Months Ended June 30, Six Months Ended June 30,
----------------------------- ----------------------------
2005 2004 2005 2004
-------------- -------------- -------------- -------------
(In thousands)
Operating Performance Metrics:
Total deliveries of power:
MWh generated..................................................... 20,042 20,066 40,078 38,710
HBO and trading MWh sold.......................................... 11,016 13,926 24,430 25,761
------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
MWh delivered..................................................... 31,058 33,992 64,508 64,471
============ ============ ============ ============
Average availability................................................. 89% 90% 89% 90%
Average baseload capacity factor:
Average total consolidated gross MW in operation.................. 25,566 23,057 25,330 21,834
Less: Average MW of pure peakers.................................. 2,965 2,951 2,965 2,951
------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Average baseload MW in operation.................................. 22,601 20,106 22,365 18,883
Hours in the period............................................... 2,184 2,184 4,344 4,368
Potential baseload generation..................................... 49,361 43,912 97,154 82,481
Actual total generation........................................... 20,042 20,066 40,078 38,710
Less: Actual pure peakers' generation............................. 371 300 600 573
------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Actual baseload generation........................................ 19,671 19,766 39,478 38,137
Average baseload capacity factor.................................. 39.9% 45.0% 40.6% 46.2%
Average heat rate for gas-fired power plants (excluding peakers)
(Btu's/KWh):
Not steam adjusted................................................ 8,648 8,395 8,585 8,360
Steam adjusted.................................................... 7,294 7,265 7,219 7,169
Average all-in realized electric price:
Electricity and steam revenue..................................... $ 1,298,973 $ 1,239,147 $ 2,577,252 $ 2,372,342
Spread on sales of purchased power for hedging and optimization... 97,705 51,481 163,919 56,271
------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Adjusted electricity and steam revenue (in thousands)............. $ 1,396,678 $ 1,290,628 $ 2,741,171 $ 2,428,613
MWh generated (in thousands)...................................... 20,042 20,066 40,078 38,710
Average all-in realized electric price per MWh.................... $ 69.69 $ 64.32 $ 68.40 $ 62.74
Average cost of natural gas:
Fuel expense (in thousands)....................................... $ 913,531 $ 899,291 $ 1,807,839 $ 1,676,077
Gas pipeline charge elimination (1)............................... 1,700 5,706 4,936 11,394
Spread on sales of purchased gas for hedging and optimization..... 29,162 (28,049) 22,125 (20,299)
------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Adjusted fuel expense............................................. $ 944,393 $ 876,948 $ 1,834,900 $ 1,667,172
MMBtu of fuel consumed by generating plants (in thousands)........ 132,904 140,947 267,666 274,157
Average cost of natural gas per MMBtu............................. $ 7.11 $ 6.22 $ 6.86 $ 6.08
MWh generated (in thousands)...................................... 20,042 20,066 40,078 38,710
Average cost of adjusted fuel expense per MWh..................... $ 47.12 $ 43.70 $ 45.78 $ 43.07
Average spark spread:
Adjusted electricity and steam revenue (in thousands)............. $ 1,396,678 $ 1,290,628 $ 2,741,171 $ 2,428,613
Less: Adjusted fuel expense (in thousands)....................... 944,393 876,948 1,834,900 1,667,172
------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Spark spread (in thousands)....................................... $ 452,285 $ 413,680 $ 906,271 $ 761,441
MWh generated (in thousands)...................................... 20,042 20,066 40,078 38,710
Average spark spread per MWh...................................... $ 22.57 $ 20.62 $ 22.61 $ 19.67
Average POX per normalized MWh
(for comparison purposes we also include POX per actual MWh):
Average total consolidated gross MW in operations................. 25,566 23,057 25,330 21,834
Hours in the period............................................... 2,184 2,184 4,344 4,368
Total potential MWh............................................... 55,836 50,356 110,034 95,371
Normalized MWh (at 70% capacity factor)........................... 39,085 35,250 77,023 66,760
Plant operating expense (POX)..................................... $ 201,855 $ 204,583 $ 384,104 $ 370,249
POX per normalized MWh............................................ $ 5.16 $ 5.80 $ 4.99 $ 5.55
Actual MWh generated (in thousands)............................... 20,042 20,066 40,078 38,710
------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
POX per actual MWh................................................ $ 10.07 $ 10.20 $ 9.58 $ 9.56
------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
- ------------
<FN>
(1) In prior year periods, "gas pipeline charges" also included some small
amounts for fuel charges related to gas assets since sold but not
reclassified to discontinued operations.
</FN>
The table below provides additional detail of total mark-to-market
activity. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004,
mark-to-market activities, net consisted of (dollars in thousands):
Three Months Ended June 30, Six Months Ended June 30,
----------------------------- ----------------------------
2005 2004 2005 2004
-------------- -------------- -------------- -------------
Realized:
Power activity
"Trading Activity" as defined in EITF No. 02-03.................. $ 84,609 $ 11,138 $ 82,484 $ 29,847
Other mark-to-market activity (1)................................ (1,848) (4,773) (8,661) (5,944)
------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Total realized power activity.................................. $ 82,761 $ 6,365 $ 73,823 $ 23,903
============ ============ ============ ============
Gas activity
"Trading Activity" as defined in EITF No. 02-03.................. $ (39,318) $ (57) $ (42,749) $ (131)
Other mark-to-market activity (1)................................ -- -- -- --
------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Total realized gas activity.................................... $ (39,318) $ (57) $ (42,749) $ (131)
============ ============ ============ ============
Total realized activity:
"Trading Activity" as defined in EITF No. 02-03.................. $ 45,291 $ 11,081 $ 39,735 $ 29,716
Other mark-to-market activity (1)................................ (1,848) (4,773) (8,661) (5,944)
------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Total realized activity........................................ $ 43,443 $ 6,308 $ 31,074 $ 23,772
============ ============ ============ ============
Unrealized:
Power activity
"Trading Activity" as defined in EITF No. 02-03.................. $ (21,557) $ (23,178) $ 2,484 $ (23,869)
Ineffectiveness related to cash flow hedges...................... 734 666 (304) 126
Other mark-to-market activity (1)................................ 2,638 (2,981) 1,745 (12,776)
------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Total unrealized power activity................................ $ (18,185) $ (25,493) $ 3,925 $ (36,519)
============ ============ ============ ============
Gas activity
"Trading Activity" as defined in EITF No. 02-03.................. $ (21,954) $ (3,737) $ (36,422) $ (3,102)
Ineffectiveness related to cash flow hedges...................... (430) 317 766 5,763
Other mark-to-market activity (1)................................ -- -- -- --
------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Total unrealized gas activity.................................. $ (22,384) $ (3,420) $ (35,656) $ 2,661
============ ============ ============ ============
Total unrealized activity:
"Trading Activity" as defined in EITF No. 02-03..................... $ (43,511) $ (26,915) $ (33,938) $ (26,971)
Ineffectiveness related to cash flow hedges......................... 304 983 462 5,889
Other mark-to-market activity (1)................................... 2,638 (2,981) 1,745 (12,776)
------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Total unrealized activity...................................... $ (40,569) $ (28,913) $ (31,731) $ (33,858)
============ ============ ============ ============
Total mark-to-market activity:
"Trading Activity" as defined in EITF No. 02-03..................... $ 1,780 $ (15,834) $ 5,797 $ 2,745
Ineffectiveness related to cash flow hedges......................... 304 983 462 5,889
Other mark-to-market activity (1)................................... 790 (7,754) (6,916) (18,720)
------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Total mark-to-market activity.................................. $ 2,874 $ (22,605) $ (657) $ (10,086)
============ ============ ============ ============
- ------------
<FN>
(1) Activity related to our assets but does not qualify for hedge accounting.
</FN>
Overview
Summary of Key Activities Through June 30, 2005
Finance -- New Issuances and Amendments:
Date Amount Description
- ----------------- -------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/20/05.......... $255.0 million Metcalf closes on a $155 million 5.5-Year Redeemable Preferred Shares offering and a five-year
$100 million Senior Term Loan
6/23/05.......... $650.0 million Receive funding on offering of 2015 Convertible Notes
6/30/05.......... $123.1 million Close project finance facility for Bethpage Energy Center 3
Finance -- Repurchases and Extinguishments:
Date Amount Description
- ----------------- -------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/1/05-6/30/05... $94.3 million Exchange approximately 27.5 million shares of Calpine common stock for $94.3 million in
aggregate outstanding principal amount of 2014 Convertible Notes
4/1/05-6/30/05... $479.8 million Repurchase $479.8 million in Senior Notes for $337.9 million in cash plus accrued interest
Asset Sales:
Date Description
- ----------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5/31/05.......... Agree to sell Saltend for gross proceeds of approximately $862.5 million
6/28/05.......... Agree to sell oil and gas properties for $1.05 billion, prior to fees and holdbacks
Other:
Date Description
- ----------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/12/05.......... Enter into a 20-year Clean Energy Supply Contract with the OPA to make clean energy available from Calpine'sw
new 1,005-MW Greenfield Energy Centre, a partnership between Calpine and Mitsui, once commercial operation
is achieved
6/1/05........... Expand and extend power contract with Safeway, Inc. for up to 141 MW during on peak and 122 MW during off peak
through mid-2008
6/2/05........... Carville Energy Center, LLC, CES, and Entergy enter into a one-year agreement to supply up to 485 MW of
capacity and energy to Entergy
Power Plant Development and Construction:
Date Project Description
- ----------------- ------------------------------- ---------------------
5/4/05........... Pastoria Energy Center Commercial Operation
5/27/05.......... Metcalf Energy Center Commercial Operation
6/1/05........... Fox Energy Center (Phase 1) Commercial Operation
California Power Market
The volatility in the California power market from mid-2000 through
mid-2001 has produced significant unanticipated results. The unresolved issues
arising in that market, where 41 of our 95 power plants are located, could
adversely affect our performance. See Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated
Condensed Financial Statements for a further discussion.
Financial Market Risks
As we are primarily focused on generation of electricity using gas-fired
turbines, our natural physical commodity position is "short" fuel (i.e., natural
gas consumer) and "long" power (i.e., electricity seller). To manage forward
exposure to price fluctuation in these and (to a lesser extent) other
commodities, we enter into derivative commodity instruments.
The change in fair value of outstanding commodity derivative instruments
from January 1, 2005 through June 30, 2005, is summarized in the table below (in
thousands):
Fair value of contracts outstanding at January 1, 2005............................................................ $ 37,863
Cash gains recognized or otherwise settled during the period (1).................................................. (19,991)
Non-cash gains recognized or otherwise settled during the period (2).............................................. (10,769)
Changes in fair value attributable to new contracts (3)........................................................... (285,058)
Changes in fair value attributable to price movements (4)......................................................... (55,400)
---------------
Fair value of contracts outstanding at June 30, 2005........................................................... $ (333,355)
===============
Realized cash flow from fair value hedges (5)..................................................................... $ 83,803
===============
- ------------
<FN>
(1) Realized gains from cash flow hedges and mark-to-market activity are
reflected in the tables below (in millions):
Realized value of cash flow hedges (a)............................................................................ $ (22.0)
Net of:
Terminated and monetized derivatives........................................................................... (16.3)
Equity method hedges........................................................................................... 1.4
---------------
Cash gains realized from cash flow hedges...................................................................... $ (7.1)
---------------
Realized value of mark-to-market activity (b)..................................................................... $ 31.1
Net of:
Non-cash realized mark-to-market activity...................................................................... 4.0
---------------
Cash gains realized on mark-to-market activity................................................................. 27.1
---------------
Cash gains recognized or otherwise settled during the period................................................... $ 20.0
===============
(a) Realized value as disclosed in Note 9 of the Notes to Consolidated
Condensed Financial Statements
(b) Realized value as reported in Management's discussion and analysis of
operating performance metrics
(2) This represents the non-cash amortization of deferred items embedded in our
derivative assets and liabilities.
(3) The change attributable to new contracts includes the $260.3 million
derivative liability associated with a transaction by our Deer Park
facility as discussed in Note 9 of the Notes to Consolidated Condensed
Financial Statements.
(4) Net commodity derivative assets reported in Note9 of the Notes to
Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements.
(5) Not included as part of the roll-forward of net derivative assets and
liabilities because changes in the hedge instrument and hedged item move in
equal and offsetting directions to the extent the fair value hedges are
perfectly effective.
</FN>
The fair value of outstanding derivative commodity instruments at June 30,
2005, based on price source and the period during which the instruments will
mature, are summarized in the table below (in thousands):
Fair Value Source 2005 2006-2007 2008-2009 After 2009 Total
- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
Prices actively quoted....................................... $ 67,742 $ 48,165 $ -- $ -- $ 115,907
Prices provided by other external sources.................... (146,648) (195,817) 6,904 (33,591) (369,152)
Prices based on models and other valuation methods........... -- 2,748 (57,789) (25,069) (80,110)
------------ ------------ ------------ ----------- -----------
Total fair value.......................................... $ (78,906) $ (144,904) $ (50,885) $ (58,660) $ (333,355)
============ ============ ============ =========== ===========
Our risk managers maintain fair value price information derived from
various sources in our risk management systems. The propriety of that
information is validated by our Risk Control group. Prices actively quoted
include validation with prices sourced from commodities exchanges (e.g., New
York Mercantile Exchange). Prices provided by other external sources include
quotes from commodity brokers and electronic trading platforms. Prices based on
models and other valuation methods are validated using quantitative methods.
The counterparty credit quality associated with the fair value of
outstanding derivative commodity instruments at June 30, 2005, and the period
during which the instruments will mature are summarized in the table below (in
thousands):
Credit Quality 2005 2006-2007 2008-2009 After 2009 Total
- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
(Based on Standard & Poor's Ratings as of June 30, 2005)
Investment grade............................................. $ (98,720) $ (143,525) $ (50,836) $ (58,660) $ (351,741)
Non-investment grade......................................... 6,079 453 (20) -- 6,512
No external ratings.......................................... 13,735 (1,832) (29) -- 11,874
------------ ------------ ------------ ----------- -----------
Total fair value.......................................... $ (78,906) $ (144,904) $ (50,885) $ (58,660) $ (333,355)
============ ============ ============ =========== ===========
The fair value of outstanding derivative commodity instruments and the fair
value that would be expected after a ten percent adverse price change are shown
in the table below (in thousands):
Fair Value
After 10%
Adverse
Fair Value Price Change
------------- -------------
At June 30, 2005:
Electricity.................................. $ (509,808) $ (751,151)
Natural gas.................................. 176,453 46,568
------------ ------------
Total..................................... $ (333,355) $ (704,583)
Derivative commodity instruments included in the table are those included
in Note 9 of the Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements. The fair
value of derivative commodity instruments included in the table is based on
present value adjusted quoted market prices of comparable contracts. The fair
value of electricity derivative commodity instruments after a 10% adverse price
change includes the effect of increased power prices versus our derivative
forward commitments. Conversely, the fair value of the natural gas derivatives
after a 10% adverse price change reflects a general decline in gas prices versus
our derivative forward commitments. Derivative commodity instruments offset the
price risk exposure of our physical assets. None of the offsetting physical
positions are included in the table above.
Price changes were calculated by assuming an across-the-board 10% adverse
price change regardless of term or historical relationship between the contract
price of an instrument and the underlying commodity price. In the event of an
actual 10% change in prices, the fair value of our derivative portfolio would
typically change by more than 10% for earlier forward months and less than 10%
for later forward months because of the higher volatilities in the near term and
the effects of discounting expected future cash flows.
The primary factors affecting the fair value of our derivatives at any
point in time are (1) the volume of open derivative positions (MMBtu and MWh),
and (2) changing commodity market prices, principally for electricity and
natural gas. The total volume of open gas derivative positions increased by 81%
from December 31, 2004, to June 30, 2005, and the total volume of open power
derivative positions increased by 158% for the same period. In that prices for
electricity and natural gas are among the most volatile of all commodity prices,
there may be material changes in the fair value of our derivatives over time,
driven both by price volatility and the changes in volume of open derivative
transactions. Under SFAS No. 133, "Accounting for Derivative Instruments and
Hedging Activities," the change since the last balance sheet date in the total
value of the derivatives (both assets and liabilities) is reflected either in
OCI, net of tax, or in the statement of operations as an item (gain or loss) of
current earnings. As of June 30, 2005, a significant component of the balance in
accumulated OCI represented the unrealized net loss associated with commodity
cash flow hedging transactions. As noted above, there is a substantial amount of
volatility inherent in accounting for the fair value of these derivatives, and
our results during the three and six months ended June 30, 2005, have reflected
this. See Notes 8 and 9 of the Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial
Statements for additional information on derivative activity.
Interest Rate Swaps -- From time to time, we use interest rate swap
agreements to mitigate our exposure to interest rate fluctuations associated
with certain of our debt instruments and to adjust the mix between fixed and
floating rate debt in our capital structure to desired levels. We do not use
interest rate swap agreements for speculative or trading purposes. The following
tables summarize the fair market values of our existing interest rate swap
agreements as of June 30, 2005 (dollars in thousands):
Variable to Fixed Swaps
Weighted
Average Weighted Average
Notional Interest Rate Interest Rate Fair Market
Maturity Date Principal Amount (Pay) (Receive) Value
- ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- --------------------- ----------------
2011................................................ $ 57,291 4.5% 3-month US $LIBOR $ (1,166)
2011................................................ 287,446 4.5% 3-month US $LIBOR (5,890)
2011................................................ 201,003 4.4% 3-month US $LIBOR (2,756)
2011................................................ 40,062 4.4% 3-month US $LIBOR (550)
2011................................................ 9,984 6.9% 3-month US $LIBOR (3,390)
2011................................................ 45,451 4.9% 3-month US $LIBOR (1,941)
2011................................................ 19,967 4.8% 3-month US $LIBOR (1,611)
2011................................................ 9,984 4.8% 3-month US $LIBOR (805)
2011................................................ 13,238 4.9% 3-month US $LIBOR (970)
2011................................................ 13,238 4.9% 3-month US $LIBOR (970)
2011................................................ 9,984 4.8% 3-month US $LIBOR (805)
2011................................................ 13,238 4.9% 3-month US $LIBOR (970)
2011................................................ 9,984 4.8% 3-month US $LIBOR (805)
2012................................................ 102,564 6.5% 3-month US $LIBOR (10,420)
2016................................................ 20,610 7.3% 3-month US $LIBOR (3,619)
2016................................................ 13,740 7.3% 3-month US $LIBOR (2,410)
2016................................................ 41,220 7.3% 3-month US $LIBOR (7,230)
2016................................................ 27,480 7.3% 3-month US $LIBOR (4,820)
2016................................................ 34,350 7.3% 3-month US $LIBOR (6,025)
--------------- ---------------
Total............................................ $ 970,834 5.1% $ (57,153)
=============== ===============
Fixed to Variable Swaps
Weighted Average Weighted Average
Notional Interest Rate Interest Rate Fair Market
Maturity Date Principal Amount (Pay) (Receive) Value
- ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------- ------------------ --------------------- ----------------
2011................................................ $ 100,000 6-month US $LIBOR 8.5% $ (4,398)
2011................................................ 100,000 6-month US $LIBOR 8.5% (5,419)
2011................................................ 200,000 6-month US $LIBOR 8.5% (5,949)
2011................................................ 100,000 6-month US $LIBOR 8.5% (2,817)
--------------- ---------------
Total............................................ $ 500,000 8.5% $ (18,583)
=============== ===============
The fair value of outstanding interest rate swaps and the fair value that
would be expected after a 1% adverse interest rate change are shown in the table
below (in thousands):
Fair Value After a 1.0%
(100 Basis Point) Adverse
Net Fair Value as of June 30, 2005 Interest Rate Change
- --------------------------------------------------- --------------------------
$(75,736).......................................... $ (95,097)
Currency Exposure -- We own subsidiary entities in several countries. These
entities generally have functional currencies other than the U.S. dollar. In
most cases, the functional currency is consistent with the local currency of the
host country where the particular entity is located. In certain cases, we and
our foreign subsidiary entities hold monetary assets and/or liabilities that are
not denominated in the functional currencies referred to above. In such
instances, we apply the provisions of SFAS No. 52, "Foreign Currency
Translation," ("SFAS No. 52") to account for the monthly re-measurement gains
and losses of these assets and liabilities into the functional currencies for
each entity. In some cases we can reduce our potential exposures to net income
by designating liabilities denominated in non-functional currencies as hedges of
our net investment in a foreign subsidiary or by entering into derivative
instruments and designating them in hedging relationships against a foreign
exchange exposure. Based on our unhedged exposures at June 30, 2005, the impact
to our pre-tax earnings that would be expected after a 10% adverse change in
exchange rates is shown in the table below (in thousands):
Impact to Pre-Tax Net Income
After 10% Adverse Exchange
Currency Exposure Rate Change
- ------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------
GBP-Euro........................................ $ (14,144)
$Cdn-$US........................................ (119,120)
Other........................................... (2,598)
In prior periods, we reported significant unhedged positions and
corresponding foreign currency transaction gains and losses due to our exposure
to changes in the GBP-$US exchange rate. As a result of the sale of Saltend (see
Notes 8 and 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements for
more information), effectively all of our GBP-$US exposure has been eliminated.
We expect that currency movements will continue create volatility within our
pre-tax earnings in future periods, but such volatility will not result from
movements in the GBP-$US exchange rate.
Significant changes in exchange rates will also impact our CTA balance when
translating the financial statements of our foreign operations from their
respective functional currencies into our reporting currency, the U.S. dollar.
An example of the impact that significant exchange rate movements can have on
our Balance Sheet position occurred in 2004. During 2004, our CTA increased by
approximately $62 million primarily due to a strengthening of the Canadian
dollar and GBP against the U.S. dollar by approximately 7% each.
Foreign Currency Transaction Gain (Loss)
Three Months Ended June 30, 2005, Compared to Three Months Ended June 30,
2004:
The major components of our foreign currency transaction gain from
continuing operations of $11.2 million for the three months ended June 30, 2005,
and our foreign currency transaction loss from continuing operations of $5.2
million, for the three months ended June 30, 2004, are as follows (amounts in
millions):
2005 2004
------------ ------------
Gain (Loss) from $Cdn-$US fluctuations............ $ 7.9 $ (4.0)
Gain (Loss) from GBP-Euro fluctuations............ 5.2 (0.7)
Loss from other currency fluctuations............. (1.9) (0.5)
----------- ----------
Total.......................................... $ 11.2 $ (5.2)
=========== ==========
The $Cdn-$US gain for the three months ended June 30, 2005, was due
primarily to a strengthening of the U.S. dollar against the Canadian dollar
during the second quarter of 2005. In September 2004, we sold substantially all
of our oil and gas assets in Canada, which significantly reduced the degree to
which we could designate our $Cdn-denominated liabilities as hedges against our
investment in Canadian dollar denominated subsidiaries. As a result, we are now
considerably more exposed to fluctuations in the $Cdn-$US exchange rate as we
hold several significant $Cdn-denominated liabilities that can no longer be
hedged under SFAS No. 52. When the U.S. dollar strengthened during the second
quarter of 2005, significant remeasurement gains were triggered on these loans.
This gain was partially offset by remeasurement losses recognized on the
translation of the interest receivable associated with our large intercompany
loan that has been deemed a permanent investment under SFAS No. 52.
The $Cdn-$US loss for the three months ended June 30, 2004, was moderate
despite the fact that the U.S. dollar strengthened considerably against the
Canadian dollar during the second quarter of 2004. The primary reason for this
was because the majority of our existing $Cdn-$US exposures were effectively
designated as hedges of our net investment in Canadian dollar subsidiaries at
June 30, 2004. As a result, remeasurement gains that otherwise would have been
recognized within our Consolidated Condensed Statements of Operations were
recorded within CTA in accordance with SFAS No. 52. The primary exception to
this was the remeasurement of the interest receivable associated with our large
intercompany loan that has been deemed a permanent investment under SFAS No. 52.
Because the interest is physically settled on a recurring basis, all gains and
losses associated with this remeasurement are recorded within our Consolidated
Condensed Statements of Operations as opposed to within CTA. The $Cdn-$US loss
of $4.0 million for the three months ended June 30, 2004, was due primarily to
such remeasurement losses as a result of the strengthening of the U.S. dollar.
During the three months ended June 30, 2005, the Euro weakened against the
GBP, triggering re-measurement gains associated with our Euro-denominated 8 3/8%
Senior Notes Due 2008. Conversely, during the three months ended June 30, 2004,
the Euro strengthened slightly against the GBP, resulting in re-measurement
losses associated with these Senior Notes.
The primary driver behind our loss of $1.9 million from other currency
fluctuations for the three months ended June 30, 2005, was a significant
strengthening of the U.S. dollar against the Euro, and its impact on certain
U.S. dollar-denominated intercompany trade payables owed by our TTS subsidiary.
For the three months ended June 30, 2004, our loss of $0.5 million from other
currency fluctuations was primarily the result of a strengthening of the GBP
against the Canadian dollar, which increased the $Cdn-equivalent of several
GBP-denominated intercompany interest payables held by one of our subsidiaries
in Canada.
Six Months Ended June 30, 2005, Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2004:
The major components of our foreign currency transaction gains of $25.5
million and $4.8 million, respectively, for the six months ended June 30, 2005
and 2004, respectively, are as follows (amounts in millions):
2005 2004
--------- ---------
Gain (Loss) from $Cdn-$US fluctuations............. $ 19.0 $ (4.7)
Gain from GBP-Euro fluctuations.................... 9.5 10.5
Loss from other currency fluctuations.............. (3.0) (1.0)
-------- --------
Total........................................... $ 25.5 $ 4.8
======== ========
The $Cdn-$US gain for the six months ended June 30, 2005, was due primarily
to a strengthening of the U.S. dollar against the Canadian dollar during the
first half of 2005. In September 2004, we sold substantially all of our oil and
gas assets in Canada, which significantly reduced the degree to which we could
designate our $Cdn-denominated liabilities as hedges against our investment in
Canadian dollar denominated subsidiaries. As a result, we are now considerably
more exposed to fluctuations in the $Cdn-$US exchange rate as we hold several
significant $Cdn-denominated liabilities that can no longer be hedged under SFAS
No. 52. When the U.S. dollar strengthened during the first half of 2005,
significant remeasurement gains were triggered on these loans. This gain was
partially offset by remeasurement losses recognized on the translation of the
interest receivable associated with our large intercompany loan that has been
deemed a permanent investment under SFAS No. 52.
The $Cdn-$US loss for the six months ended June 30, 2004, was moderate
despite the fact that the U.S. dollar strengthened considerably against the
Canadian dollar during the first half of 2004. The primary reason for this was
because the majority of our existing $Cdn-$US exposures were effectively
designated as hedges of our net investment in Canadian dollar subsidiaries at
June 30, 2004. As a result, remeasurement gains that otherwise would have been
recognized within our Consolidated Condensed Statements of Operations were
recorded within CTA in accordance with SFAS No. 52. The primary exception to
this was the remeasurement of the interest receivable associated with our large
intercompany loan that has been deemed a permanent investment under SFAS No. 52.
Because the interest is physically settled on a recurring basis, all gains and
losses associated with this remeasurement are recorded within our Consolidated
Condensed Statements of Operations as opposed to within CTA. The $Cdn-$US loss
of $4.7 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004, was due primarily to
such remeasurement losses as a result of the strengthening of the U.S. dollar
during the first half of 2004.
During the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively, the Euro
weakened against the GBP, triggering re-measurement gains associated with our
Euro-denominated 8 3/8% Senior Notes Due 2008.
The primary driver behind our losses of $3.0 million and $1.1 million from
other currency fluctuations for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004,
respectively, was a combination of a significant strengthening of the U.S.
dollar against the Euro, and its impact on certain U.S. dollar-denominated
intercompany trade payables owed by our TTS subsidiary as well as a
strengthening of the GBP against the Canadian dollar, which increased the
$Cdn-equivalent of several GBP-denominated intercompany interest payables held
by one of our subsidiaries in Canada.
Available-for-Sale Debt Securities -- Through June 30, 2005, we had
repurchased $115.0 million par value of HIGH TIDES III preferred securities. At
June 30, 2005, the repurchased HIGH TIDES III preferred securities were
classified as available-for-sale and recorded at fair market value in Other
current assets. See Notes 4 and 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Condensed
Financial Statements for further information.
Debt Financing -- Because of the significant capital requirements within
our industry, debt financing is often needed to fund our growth. Certain debt
instruments may affect us adversely because of changes in market conditions. We
have used two primary forms of debt which are subject to market risk: (1)
Variable rate construction/project financing and (2) other variable-rate
instruments. Significant LIBOR increases could have a negative impact on our
future interest expense.
Our variable-rate construction/project financing is primarily through the
CalGen floating rate notes, institutional term loans and revolving credit
facility. Borrowings under our $200 million CalGen revolving credit agreement
are used primarily for letters of credit in support of gas purchases, power
contracts and transmission, and include funding for the construction costs of
CalGen power plants (of which only the Pastoria Energy Center was still in
active construction at June 30, 2005). Other variable-rate instruments consist
primarily of our revolving credit and term loan facilities, which are used for
general corporate purposes. Both our variable-rate construction/project
financing and other variable-rate instruments are indexed to base rates,
generally LIBOR, as shown below.
The following table summarizes by maturity date our variable-rate debt
exposed to interest rate risk as of June 30, 2005. All fair market values are
shown net of applicable premium or discount, if any (dollars in thousands):
2005 2006 2007 2008
------------- ------------- ------------ ------------
3-month US $LIBOR weighted average interest rate basis (4)
MEP Pleasant Hill Term Loan, Tranche A.................................. $ 3,918 $ 7,482 $ 8,132 $ 9,271
Saltend preferred interest.............................................. -- 360,000 -- --
Riverside Energy Center project financing............................... 1,843 3,685 3,685 3,685
Rocky Mountain Energy Center project financing.......................... 1,325 2,649 2,649 2,649
------------ ------------ ----------- -----------
Total of 3-month US $LIBOR rate debt................................. 7,086 373,816 14,466 15,605
1-month EURLIBOR weighted average interest rate basis (4)
Thomassen revolving line of credit...................................... 2,720 -- -- --
------------ ------------ ------------ -----------
Total of 1-month EURLIBOR rate debt.................................. 2,720 -- -- --
1-month US $LIBOR weighted average interest rate basis (4)
First Priority Secured Floating Rate Notes Due 2009 (CalGen)............ -- -- 1,175 2,350
------------ ------------ ------------ -----------
Total of 1-month US $LIBOR weighted average interest rate debt....... -- -- 1,175 2,350
1-month US $LIBOR interest rate basis (4)
Freeport Energy Center project financing................................ -- -- 1,529 1,406
Mankato Energy Center project financing................................. -- -- 1,258 1,297
------------ ------------ ------------ -----------
Total 1-month US $LIBOR interest rate................................ -- -- 2,787 2,703
6-month US $LIBOR weighted average interest rate basis (4)
Third Priority Secured Floating Rate Notes Due 2011 (CalGen)............ -- -- -- --
------------ ------------ ------------ -----------
Total of 6-month US $LIBOR rate debt................................. -- -- -- --
(1)(4)
Metcalf Energy Center, LLC preferred interest........................... -- -- -- --
First Priority Secured Institutional Term Loan Due 2009 (CCFC I)........ 1,605 3,208 3,208 3,208
Second Priority Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due 2011 (CCFC I).... -- -- -- --
------------ ------------ ----------- -----------
Total of variable rate debt as defined at (1) below.................. 1,605 3,208 3,208 3,208
(2)(4)
Second Priority Senior Secured Term Loan B Notes Due 2007............... 3,750 7,500 725,625 --
------------ ------------ ----------- -----------
Total of variable rate debt as defined at (2) below.................. 3,750 7,500 725,625 --
(3)(4)
Second Priority Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due 2007............. 2,500 5,000 483,750 --
Blue Spruce Energy Center project financing............................. 1,875 3,750 3,750 3,750
------------ ------------ ----------- -----------
Total of variable rate debt as defined at (3) below.................. 4,375 8,750 487,500 3,750
(5)(4)
First Priority Secured Term Loans Due 2009 (CalGen)..................... -- -- 3,000 6,000
Second Priority Secured Floating Rate Notes Due 2010 (CalGen)........... -- -- -- 3,200
Second Priority Secured Term Loans Due 2010 (CalGen).................... -- -- -- 500
Metcalf Energy Center, LLC project financing............................ -- -- -- --
------------ ------------ ------------ -----------
Total of variable rate debt as defined at (5) below.................. -- -- 3,000 9,700
------------ ------------ ----------- -----------
(6)(4)
Island Cogen............................................................ 10,191 -- -- --
Contra Costa............................................................ -- 171 179 187
------------ ------------ ----------- -----------
Total of variable rate debt as defined at (6) below.................. 10,191 171 179 187
------------ ------------ ----------- -----------
Grand total variable-rate debt instruments (8)..................... $ 29,727 $ 393,445 $ 1,237,940 $ 37,503
============ ============ =========== ===========
Fair Value
2009 Thereafter June 30, 2005 (7)
------------- ------------ -----------------------
3-month US $LIBOR weighted average interest rate basis (4)
MEP Pleasant Hill Term Loan, Tranche A.................................. $ 9,433 $ 85,479 $ 123,715
Saltend preferred interest.............................................. -- -- 360,000
Riverside Energy Center project financing............................... 3,685 343,451 360,034
Rocky Mountain Energy Center project financing.......................... 2,649 243,849 255,770
------------ ------------ -------------
Total of 3-month US $LIBOR rate debt................................. 15,767 672,779 1,099,519
1-month EURLIBOR weighted average interest rate basis (4)
Thomassen revolving line of credit...................................... -- -- 2,720
------------ ------------ -------------
Total of 1-month EURLIBOR rate debt.................................. -- -- 2,720
1-month US $LIBOR weighted average interest rate basis (4)
First Priority Secured Floating Rate Notes Due 2009 (CalGen)............ 231,475 -- 235,000
------------ ------------ -------------
Total of 1-month US $LIBOR rate debt................................. 231,475 -- 235,000
1-month US $LIBOR interest rate basis (4)
Freeport Energy Center project financing................................ 1,242 94,795 98,972
Mankato Energy Center project financing................................. 1,115 81,949 85,619
------------ ------------ -------------
Total 1-month US $LIBOR interest rate................................ 2,357 176,744 184,591
6-month US $LIBOR weighted average interest rate basis (4)
Third Priority Secured Floating Rate Notes Due 2011 (CalGen)............ -- 680,000 680,000
------------ ------------ ---------------
Total of 6-month US $LIBOR rate debt................................. -- 680,000 680,000
(1)(4)
Metcalf Energy Center, LLC preferred interest........................... -- 155,000 155,000
First Priority Secured Institutional Term Loan Due 2009 (CCFC I)........ 365,349 -- 376,578
Second Priority Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due 2011 (CCFC I).... -- 409,053 409,053
------------ ------------ -------------
Total of variable rate debt as defined at (1) below.................. 365,349 564,053 940,632
(2)(4)
Second Priority Senior Secured Term Loan B Notes Due 2007............... -- -- 635,555
------------ ------------ -------------
Total of variable rate debt as defined at (2) below.................. -- -- 635,555
(3)(4)
Second Priority Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due 2007............. -- -- 423,703
Blue Spruce Energy Center project financing............................. 3,750 81,395 98,270
------------ ------------ -------------
Total of variable rate debt as defined at (3) below.................. 3,750 81,395 521,973
(5)(4)
First Priority Secured Term Loans Due 2009 (CalGen)..................... 591,000 -- 600,000
Second Priority Secured Floating Rate Notes Due 2010 (CalGen)........... 6,400 622,839 632,439
Second Priority Secured Term Loans Due 2010 (CalGen).................... 1,000 97,319 98,819
Metcalf Energy Center, LLC project financing............................ -- 100,000 100,000
------------ ------------ -------------
Total of variable rate debt as defined at (5) below.................. 598,400 820,158 1,431,258
------------ ------------ -------------
(6)(4)
Island Cogen............................................................... -- -- 10,192
Contra Costa............................................................... 196 1,380 2,113
------------ ------------ -------------
Total of variable rate debt as defined at (6) below.................. 196 1,380 12,305
------------ ------------ -------------
Grand total variable-rate debt instruments (8)..................... $ 1,217,294 $ 2,996,509 $ 5,743,552
============ ============ =============
- ------------
<FN>
(1) British Bankers Association LIBOR Rate for deposit in US dollars for a
period of six months.
(2) U.S. prime rate in combination with the Federal Funds Effective Rate.
(3) British Bankers Association LIBOR Rate for deposit in US dollars for a
period of three months.
(4) Actual interest rates include a spread over the basis amount.
(5) Choice of 1-month US $LIBOR, 2-month US $LIBOR, 3-month US $LIBOR, 6-month
US $LIBOR, 12-month US $LIBOR or a base rate.
(6) Bankers Acceptance Rate.
(7) Fair value equals carrying value, with the exception of the Second-Priority
Senior Secured Term B Loans Due 2007 and Second-Priority Senior Secured
Floating Rate Notes Due 2007, which are shown at quoted trading values as
of June 30, 2005.
(8) The aggregate principal amount subject to variable interest rate risk was
$5,912,418 as of June 30, 2005.
</FN>
New Accounting Pronouncements.
Summary of Dilution Potential of Our Contingent Convertible Notes: 2023
Convertible Notes, 2015 Convertible Notes and 2014 Convertible Notes -- The
table below assumes normal conversion for the 2014 Convertible Notes, 2015
Convertible Notes and 2023 Convertible Notes in which the principal amount is
paid in cash, and the excess up to the conversion value is paid in shares of
Calpine common stock. The table shows only the potential impact of our three
contingent convertible notes issuances and does not include the potential
dilutive effect of the now fully redeemed HIGH TIDES III preferred securities,
the remaining 4% Convertible Senior Notes due 2006 or employee stock options.
Additionally, we are still assessing the potential impact of the SFAS No. 128-R
exposure draft on our contingent convertible securities. See Notes 2 and 11 of
the Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements for more information.
2014 2015 2023
Convertible Convertible Convertible
Notes Notes Notes
-------------- -------------- ---------------
Size of issuance................................................................. $ 641,685,000 $ 650,000,000 $ 633,775,000
Conversion price per share....................................................... $ 3.85 $ 4.00 $ 6.50
Conversion rate.................................................................. 259.7403 250.0000 153.8462
Trigger price (20% over conversion price)........................................ $ 4.62 $ 4.80 $ 7.80
Additional Shares
2014 2015 2023
Convertible Convertible Convertible Share Share Dilution in
Future Calpine Common Stock Price Notes (1) Notes Notes Subtotal Increase EPS
- ---------------------------------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ---------- -----------
$5.00................................... 38,334,429 32,500,000 -- 70,834,429 14.8% 12.9%
$7.50................................... 81,113,429 75,833,333 13,000,542 169,947,304 35.6% 26.2%
$10.00.................................. 102,502,929 97,500,000 34,126,375 234,129,304 49.0% 32.9%
$20.00.................................. 134,587,179 130,000,000 65,815,125 330,402,304 69.2% 40.9%
$40.00.................................. 150,629,304 146,250,000 81,659,500 378,538,804 79.2% 44.2%
$100.00................................. 160,254,579 156,000,000 91,166,125 407,420,704 85.3% 46.0%
Common shares outstanding at
June 30, 2005 (2)............................. 478,964,218
- ------------
<FN>
(1) In the case of the 2014 Convertible Notes, more shares could be issued when
the accreted value is less than $1,000 than in the table above since,
generally, the accreted value (initially $839 per bond) is paid in cash,
and the balance of the conversion value is paid in shares. The incremental
shares assuming conversion when the accreted value is only $839 per bond
are shown in the table below:
Incremental
Future Calpine Common Stock Price Shares
- ----------------------------------------- -----------
$5.00.................................................... 20,662,257
$7.50.................................................... 13,774,838
$10.00................................................... 10,331,129
$20.00................................................... 5,165,564
$40.00................................................... 2,582,782
$100.00.................................................. 1,033,113
(2) Excludes the 89 million shares issued under the Share Lending Agreement.
(See Note 11 of the Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements)
and excludes our contingently issuable restricted stock.
</FN>
See Note 2 of the Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements for
a discussion of new accounting pronouncements.
Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.
See "Financial Market Risks" in Item 2.
Item 4. Controls and Procedures.
Disclosure Controls and Procedures
We maintain disclosure controls and procedures that are designed to ensure
that information we are required to disclose in reports that we file or submit
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is recorded, processed, summarized and
reported within the time periods specified in SEC rules and forms, and that such
information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow
timely decisions regarding required disclosure.
As of December 31, 2004, management identified a material weakness related
to our tax accounting processes, procedures and controls that was discussed in
Item 9A of the Company's 2004 Form 10-K. During the first two quarters of 2005,
we have taken the steps necessary to improve our internal controls relating to
the preparation and review of interim and annual income tax provisions and to
remediate this material weakness. While significant progress has been made in
the remediation of these controls, the controls have not yet operated for a
sufficient period of time to allow us to complete the required testing and to
conclude that they are designed and operating effectively.
Our senior management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and
procedures as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report. Based
on the status of the remediation of the material weakness, our Chief Executive
Officer and our Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls
and procedures are not effective. We continue to perform additional analysis and
post-closing procedures to ensure our consolidated financial statements are
prepared in accordance with GAAP. Accordingly, management believes that the
financial statements included in this report fairly present in all material
respects our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows for the
periods presented. The certificates required by this item are filed as Exhibits
31.1, 31.2 and 32.1 to this Form 10-Q.
Status of Remediation of the Material Weakness
During the first two quarters of 2005, we have taken the steps necessary to
improve our internal controls relating to the preparation and review of interim
and annual income tax provisions, including the accounting for current income
taxes payable and deferred income tax assets and liabilities. We have hired
additional resources and have engaged third party tax experts to improve the
effectiveness of the controls over management's review of the details of the
income tax calculations. We have also improved the process of preparing and
reviewing the workpapers supporting our tax related calculations and
conclusions.
We will continue to do the following:
o Complete the implementation of the CorpTax computer application and
enhance other financial applications to automate more of the tax
analysis and provision processes and continue to improve the clarity
of supporting documentation and reports, and
o Add additional resources in the tax department as well as provide tax
accounting training for key personnel.
We continue to monitor the effectiveness of the tax controls and procedures
and will make any additional changes that management deems appropriate.
Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
We continuously seek to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our
internal controls. This results in refinements to processes throughout the
Company. During the first two quarters of 2005, there were no significant
changes in our internal control over financial reporting, other than the changes
related to the tax accounting processes, procedures and controls discussed
above, that materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect,
our internal control over financial reporting.
PART II -- OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1. Legal Proceedings.
See Note 12 of the Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements for
a description of our legal proceedings.
Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds.
On June 28, 2005, we issued 27,539,826 unregistered shares of our common
stock, par value $.001, in exchange for $94,315,000 in aggregate principal
amount at maturity of 2014 Convertible Notes pursuant to the exemption afforded
by Section 3(a)(9) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The following
table sets forth the total units of 2014 Convertible Notes we purchased in the
second quarter of 2005:
Total Number Maximum
of Units/Notes Number of
Purchased as Units/Notes
Part of Publicly that may yet be
Total Number of Announced Purchased
Units/Notes Price Paid per Plans or under the Plans
Period Purchased Unit/Note Programs or Programs
- ------------------ ---------------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------
4/1/05 - 4/30/05.................................. -- -- -- --
5/1/05 - 5/31/05.................................. -- -- -- --
6/1/05 - 6/30/05.................................. 94,315 (a) 292 shares (b) -- --
- ----------
<FN>
(a) One unit equals $1,000 aggregate principal amount at maturity of 2014
Convertible Notes.
(b) We issued a total of 27,539,826 shares of common stock in exchange for
$94,315,000 in aggregate principal amount at maturity of 2014 Contingent
Notes, which equals approximately 292 shares per each $1,000 in aggregate
principal amount at maturity for an imputed price of $3.42 per share of
common stock.
</FN>
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.
Our Annual Meeting of Stockholders was held on May 25, 2005 (the "Annual
Meeting"), in San Jose, California. At the Annual Meeting, the stockholders
voted on the following matters: (i) a proposal to elect three Class III
Directors to the Board of Directors for a term of three years expiring in 2008,
(ii) a proposal to amend our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation
to declassify the election of the Board of Directors, and (iii) a proposal to
ratify the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as independent registered
public accounting firm for the Company for the fiscal year ending December 31,
2005.
The stockholders elected management's nominees as the Class III Directors
in an uncontested election, approved amending our Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation, and ratified the appointment of independent
accountants by the following votes, respectively:
(i) Election of Peter Cartwright as Class III Director for a three-year term
expiring 2008: 481,653,685 FOR and 15,443,866 WITHHELD;
Election of Susan C. Schwab as Class III Director for a three-year term
expiring 2008: 484,070,639 FOR and 13,026,912 WITHHELD;
Election of Susan Wang as Class III Director for a three-year term
expiring 2008: 483,161,813 FOR and 13,935,738 WITHHELD;
(ii) Proposal to amend our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to
declassify the election of the Board of Directors: 483,257,010 FOR,
9,145,971 AGAINST, and 4,694,569 ABSTAIN.
As a result of the adoption of this proposal, each nominee for election as
a Director, including any Directors whose term has not yet expired and
Directors standing for re-election, will be elected for a one-year term
beginning at the 2006 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
(iii) Ratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as
independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2005: 489,894,263 FOR, 3,141,384 AGAINST, and 4,061,904
ABSTAIN.
The terms of Class I and Class II Directors continued after the Annual
Meeting and will expire in 2006. The Class I Directors are Jeffrey E.
Garten, George J. Stathakis, and John O. Wilson. The Class II Directors are
Ann B. Curtis, Kenneth T. Derr, and Gerald Greenwald.
Item 6. Exhibits.
(a)Exhibits
The following exhibits are filed herewith unless otherwise indicated:
EXHIBIT INDEX
Exhibit
Number Description
--------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
1.1 Underwriting Agreement, dated June 20, 2005, between the Company
and Goldman, Sachs & Co.(a)
3.1.1 Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Company,
as amended through June 2, 2004.(b)
3.1.2 Amendment to Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of
the Company, dated June 20, 2005.(*)
3.2 Amended and Restated By-laws of the Company.(c)
4.1.1 Indenture dated as of August 10, 2000, between the Company and
Wilmington Trust Company, as Trustee.(d)
4.1.2 First Supplemental Indenture dated as of September 28, 2000,
between the Company and Wilmington Trust Company, as Trustee.(e)
4.1.3 Second Supplemental Indenture dated as of September 30, 2004,
between the Company and Wilmington Trust Company, as Trustee.(f)
4.1.4 Third Supplemental Indenture dated as of June 23, 2005, between
the Company and Wilmington Trust Company, as Trustee.(a)
4.2 Limited Liability Company Agreement of Metcalf Energy Center, LLC
containing terms of its 5.5-year redeemable preferred shares.(g)
10.1 Share Sale and Purchase Agreement, made as of May 28, 2005, among
the Company, Calpine UK Holdings Limited, Quintana Canada
Holdings, LLC, International Power PLC, Mitsui & Co., Ltd. and
Normantrail (UK CO 3) Limited. Approximately four pages of this
Exhibit 10.1 have been omitted pursuant to a request for
confidential treatment. The omitted language has been filed
separately with the SEC.(a)
10.2 Purchase and Sale Agreement dated July 7, 2005, by and among
Calpine Gas Holdings LLC, Calpine Fuels Corporation, Calpine
Corporation, Rosetta Resources Inc., and the other Subject
Companies identified therein.(h)
31.1 Certification of the Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as Adopted Pursuant to Section
302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.(*)
31.2 Certification of the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as Adopted Pursuant to Section
302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.(*)
32.1 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.(*)
- ----------
(*) Filed herewith.
(a) Incorporated by reference to Calpine Corporation's Current Report on Form
8-K filed with the SEC on June 23, 2005.
(b) Incorporated by reference to Calpine Corporation's Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, filed with the SEC on August 9,
2004.
(c) Incorporated by reference to Calpine Corporation's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001, filed with the SEC on March 29,
2002.
(d) Incorporated by reference to Calpine Corporation's Registration Statement
on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-76880) filed with the SEC on January 17,
2002.
(e) Incorporated by reference to Calpine Corporation's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000, filed with the SEC on March 15,
2001.
(f) Incorporated by reference to Calpine Corporation's Current Report on Form
8-K filed with the SEC on September 30, 2004.
(g) This document has been omitted in reliance on Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of
Regulation S-K. Calpine Corporation agrees to furnish a copy of such
document to the SEC upon request.
(h) Incorporated by reference to Calpine Corporation's Current Report on Form
8-K filed with the SEC on July 13, 2005
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
CALPINE CORPORATION
By: /s/ ROBERT D. KELLY
----------------------------------------------
Robert D. Kelly
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
Date: August 9, 2005
By: /s/ CHARLES B. CLARK, JR.
----------------------------------------------
Charles B. Clark, Jr.
Senior Vice President and
Corporate Controller
(Principal Accounting Officer)
Date: August 9, 2005
The following exhibits are filed herewith unless otherwise indicated:
EXHIBIT INDEX
Exhibit
Number Description
--------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
1.1 Underwriting Agreement, dated June 20, 2005, between the Company
and Goldman, Sachs & Co.(a)
3.1.1 Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Company,
as amended through June 2, 2004.(b)
3.1.2 Amendment to Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of
the Company, dated June 20, 2005.(*)
3.2 Amended and Restated By-laws of the Company.(c)
4.1.1 Indenture dated as of August 10, 2000, between the Company and
Wilmington Trust Company, as Trustee.(d)
4.1.2 First Supplemental Indenture dated as of September 28, 2000,
between the Company and Wilmington Trust Company, as Trustee.(e)
4.1.3 Second Supplemental Indenture dated as of September 30, 2004,
between the Company and Wilmington Trust Company, as Trustee.(f)
4.1.4 Third Supplemental Indenture dated as of June 23, 2005, between
the Company and Wilmington Trust Company, as Trustee.(a)
4.2 Limited Liability Company Agreement of Metcalf Energy Center, LLC
containing terms of its 5.5-year redeemable preferred shares.(g)
10.1 Share Sale and Purchase Agreement, made as of May 28, 2005, among
the Company, Calpine UK Holdings Limited, Quintana Canada
Holdings, LLC, International Power PLC, Mitsui & Co., Ltd. and
Normantrail (UK CO 3) Limited. Approximately four pages of this
Exhibit 10.1 have been omitted pursuant to a request for
confidential treatment. The omitted language has been filed
separately with the SEC.(a)
10.2 Purchase and Sale Agreement dated July 7, 2005, by and among
Calpine Gas Holdings LLC, Calpine Fuels Corporation, Calpine
Corporation, Rosetta Resources Inc., and the other Subject
Companies identified therein.(h)
31.1 Certification of the Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as Adopted Pursuant to Section
302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.(*)
31.2 Certification of the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as Adopted Pursuant to Section
302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.(*)
32.1 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.(*)
- ----------
(*) Filed herewith.
(a) Incorporated by reference to Calpine Corporation's Current Report on Form
8-K filed with the SEC on June 23, 2005.
(b) Incorporated by reference to Calpine Corporation's Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, filed with the SEC on August 9,
2004.
(c) Incorporated by reference to Calpine Corporation's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001, filed with the SEC on March 29,
2002.
(d) Incorporated by reference to Calpine Corporation's Registration Statement
on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-76880) filed with the SEC on January 17,
2002.
(e) Incorporated by reference to Calpine Corporation's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000, filed with the SEC on March 15,
2001.
(f) Incorporated by reference to Calpine Corporation's Current Report on Form
8-K filed with the SEC on September 30, 2004.
(g) This document has been omitted in reliance on Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of
Regulation S-K. Calpine Corporation agrees to furnish a copy of such
document to the SEC upon request.
(h) Incorporated by reference to Calpine Corporation's Current Report on Form
8-K filed with the SEC on July 13, 2005