Item 1 - Business
THE COMPANY
The Dayton Power and Light Company ("DP&L" or "the Company") is a public utility
incorporated under the laws of Ohio in 1911. The Company sells electricity to
residential, commercial, industrial, and governmental customers in a 6,000
square mile area of West Central Ohio. Electricity for the Company's 24 county
service area is generated at eight power plants and is distributed to more than
500,000 retail customers. Principal industries served include automotive, food
processing, paper, technology, and defense. The Company's sales reflect the
general economic conditions and seasonal weather patterns of the area.
The Company employed 1,464 persons as of December 31, 2002, of which 1,217 were
full-time employees and 247 were part-time employees.
All of the outstanding shares of common stock of the Company are held by DPL
Inc. ("DPL"), which became the Company's corporate parent, effective April 21,
1986.
The Company's principal executive and business office is located at 1065 Woodman
Drive, Dayton, Ohio 45432 - telephone (937) 224-6000.
COMPETITION
In October 1999, legislation became effective in Ohio that gave electric utility
customers a choice of energy providers as of January 1, 2001. Under the
legislation, electric generation, aggregation, power marketing, and power
brokerage services supplied to retail customers in Ohio is deemed to be
competitive and is not subject to supervision and regulation by the Public
Utilities Commission of Ohio ("PUCO"). As required by the legislation, the
Company filed its transition plan at the PUCO on December 20, 1999. The Company
received PUCO approval of its plan on September 21, 2000.
The transition plan provides for a three-year transition period, which began on
January 1, 2001 and ends on December 31, 2003. The plan also provides for a 5%
residential rate reduction on the generation component of the rates, which
reduced annual revenue by approximately $14 million; rate certainty for the
three year period for customers that continue to purchase power from the
Company; guaranteed rates for a six-year period for transmission and delivery
services; and recovery of transition costs of approximately $600 million. Under
the plan, the Company has the organizational and financial flexibility to
continue its growth initiatives.
3
On October 28, 2002, DP&L filed with the PUCO requesting an extension of its
market development period from December 31, 2003 to December 31, 2005. If
approved by the PUCO, the extension of the market development period will
continue DP&L's current rate structure and provide its retail customers with
rate stability. It is unknown when the PUCO will rule on this request.
On September 30, 1996, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC")
conditionally accepted the Company's market-based sales tariff, which allowed
the Company to sell wholesale generation supply at prices that reflect current
market prices. On September 27, 2002, DP&L filed an updated market power
analysis with the FERC in support of its authority to sell power at market-based
rates.
The Company competes with privately and municipally owned electric utilities and
rural electric cooperatives, and other alternate fuel suppliers on the basis of
price and service. The Company purchases generation capacity from DPL Energy,
LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of DPL.
Like other utilities and energy marketers, the Company from time to time may
have electric generating capacity available for sale on the wholesale market.
The Company competes with other generators to sell electricity provided by such
capacity. The ability of the Company to sell this electricity will depend on how
the Company's price, terms and conditions compare to those of other suppliers.
In addition, from time to time, the Company makes power purchases from other
suppliers.
The Company provides transmission and wholesale electric service to twelve
municipal customers which distribute electricity within their corporate limits.
In addition to these municipal customers, the Company maintains an
interconnection agreement with one municipality that has the capability to
generate a portion of its energy requirements. Sales to municipalities
represented 1.2% of total electricity sales in 2002.
The municipal agreements provide, among other things, for the sale of firm power
by the Company to the municipalities on specified terms. However, the parties
disagree in their interpretation of this portion of the agreement and the
Company filed suit against the eleven municipalities on December 28, 1998. The
dispute was subsequently settled in 1999. In December 1999, the Company filed a
second suit against the municipalities to claim the municipalities' initial
failure to pay for certain services rendered under the contract. The
municipalities filed a complaint at the FERC claiming violation of a mediation
clause. On November 4, 2002, the FERC issued an order in the case that was
favorable to DP&L, and is not expected to result in a material impact on DP&L's
financial position.
The FERC issued a final rule on December 20, 1999 specifying the minimum
characteristics and functions for Regional Transmission Organizations ("RTO").
The rule required that all public utilities that own, operate or control
interstate transmission lines file a proposal to join an RTO by October 15, 2000
or file a description of efforts taken to participate in an RTO, reasons for not
participating in an RTO, any obstacles to participation in an RTO, and any plans
for further work towards participation. The Company filed with the FERC on
October 16, 2000 to join the Alliance RTO. On December 19, 2001, the FERC issued
an order rejecting the Alliance RTO as a stand-alone RTO. However, on April 24,
2002, the FERC approved the Alliance RTO companies' proposal to form an
independent transmission company that will operate under the umbrella of an
existing RTO. As of December 31, 2002, the Company had invested approximately $8
million in its efforts to join the Alliance RTO. The FERC recognized in its
order that substantial losses were incurred to establish the Alliance RTO and
that it would consider proposals for rate recovery of prudently incurred costs.
4
On May 28, 2002, the Company filed a notice with the FERC stating its intention
to join the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. ("PJM"), an organization responsible for
the operation and control of the bulk electric power system throughout major
portions of five Mid-Atlantic states and the District of Columbia. On July 31,
2002, the FERC granted the Company conditional approval to join PJM. On
September 30, 2002, the Company signed an implementation agreement with PJM with
the expectation that the Company will be fully integrated into the PJM market by
May 1, 2003. On December 11, 2002, the Company executed the PJM West
Transmission Owners Agreement and along with the other new PJM companies,
jointly submitted the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff ("OATT") filing. This
filing adopts a transitional rate design that will maintain revenue and cost
neutrality while eliminating all seams within the newly expanded PJM.
On September 12, 2002, the Ohio Consumers' Counsel, Industrial Energy Users-Ohio
and American Municipal Power-Ohio, Inc. filed a complaint with the PUCO alleging
that the Company had failed to join and transfer operational control to a FERC
approved RTO. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 24,
2002. While the Company intends to vigorously defend this case, the impact of
the complaint cannot be determined at this time.
On July 31, 2002, the FERC issued a Standard Market Design Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking ("SMD NOPR"). The SMD NOPR establishes a set of rules to standardize
wholesale electric market design to create wholesale competition and efficient
transmission systems. The impact of this rulemaking on the Company cannot be
determined at this time.
On July 22, 1998, the PUCO approved the implementation of Minimum Electric
Service and Safety Standards for all of Ohio's investor-owned electric
utilities. This order details minimum standards of performance for a variety of
service related functions effective July 1, 1999. On December 21, 1999, the PUCO
issued additional rules proposed by the PUCO staff, which were designed to guide
the electric utility companies as they prepare to enter into deregulation. These
rules include certification of providers of competitive retail electric
services, minimum competitive retail electric service standards, monitoring the
electric utility market, and establishing procedures for alternative dispute
resolution. There were also rules issued to amend existing rules for
noncompetitive electric service and safety standards and electric companies
long-term forecast reporting. The Company submitted comments on the proposed
rules on January 31, 2000. The rules were finalized by the PUCO in June 2000 and
did not have a material impact on the Company's financial position.
5
On March 21, 2002, the PUCO staff proposed modifications to the Minimum Electric
Service and Safety Standards, which establish performance standards for various
service related functions of investor-owned electric utilities. The proposed
modifications impact billing, collections, allocation of customer payments,
meter reading, and distribution circuit performance. The Company submitted
comments and reply comments on the proposed rules, and filed an application for
rehearing on October 26, 2002. The PUCO issued the final rules on September 26,
2002, but has granted applications for rehearing to provide more time for rule
review. The cost to the Company of compliance with these rules is unknown at
this time.
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
Construction additions are expected to approximate $109 million in 2003, and
were $129 million 2002 and $164 million in 2001. The capital program includes
environmental compliance, which is expected to approximate $39 million in 2003,
and was $69 and $58 million in 2002 and 2001, respectively.
Construction plans are subject to continuing review and are expected to be
revised in light of changes in financial and economic conditions, load
forecasts, legislative and regulatory developments and changing environmental
standards, among other factors. The Company's ability to complete its capital
projects and the reliability of future service will be affected by its financial
condition, the availability of external funds at reasonable cost and adequate
and timely rate recovery. The Company expects to finance its construction
program in 2003 with internal funds.
See ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS for a description of environmental control
projects and regulatory proceedings, which may change the level of future
construction additions. The potential impact of these events on the Company's
operations cannot be estimated at this time.
ELECTRIC OPERATIONS AND FUEL SUPPLY
The Company's present winter generating capability is 3,371,000 KW. Of this
capability, 2,843,000 KW (approximately 84%) is derived from coal-fired steam
generating stations and the balance consists of combustion turbine and
diesel-powered peaking units. Approximately 87% (2,472,000 KW) of the existing
steam generating capability is provided by certain units owned as tenants in
common with The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company ("CG&E") or with CG&E and
Columbus Southern Power Company ("CSP"). Each company owns a specified undivided
share of each of these units, is entitled to its share of capacity and energy
output, and has a capital and operating cost responsibility proportionate to its
ownership share.
6
The remaining steam generating capability (371,000 KW) is derived from a
generating station owned solely by the Company. The Company's all-time net peak
load was 3,130,000 KW, occurring in 1999. The present summer generating
capability is 3,269,000 KW.
MW Rating
Operating Company
Station Ownership* Company Location Portion Total
Coal Units
Hutchings W Company Miamisburg, OH 371 371
Killen C Company Wrightsville, OH 402 600
Stuart C Company Aberdeen, OH 820 2,340
Conesville-Unit 4 C CSP Conesville, OH 129 780
Beckjord-Unit 6 C CG&E New Richmond, OH 210 420
Miami Fort-Units 7 & 8 C CG&E North Bend, OH 360 1,000
East Bend-Unit 2 C CG&E Rabbit Hash, KY 186 600
Zimmer C CG&E Moscow, OH 365 1,300
Combustion Turbines or Diesel
Hutchings W Company Miamisburg, OH 33 33
Yankee Street W Company Centerville, OH 138 138
Monument W Company Dayton, OH 12 12
Tait W Company Dayton, OH 10 10
Sidney W Company Sidney, OH 12 12
Tait Gas Turbines 1-3 W Company Moraine, OH 304 304
Killen C Company Wrightsville, OH 16 24
Stuart C Company Aberdeen, OH 3 10
*W = Wholly-Owned
C = Commonly Owned
In order to transmit energy to their respective systems from their commonly
owned generating units, the companies have constructed and own, as tenants in
common, 847 circuit miles of 345,000-volt transmission lines. The Company has
several interconnections with other companies for the purchase, sale and
interchange of electricity. In July 2001, the Company completed a 40.2-mile
long, 345,000-volt circuit between CG&E's Foster Substation and DP&L's Bath
Substation. The circuit is jointly owned by DP&L and CG&E.
The Company generated over 97% of its electric output from coal-fired units in
2002. The remainder was from oil or natural gas-fired units, which were used to
meet peak demands.
The Company has contracted approximately 95% of its total coal requirements for
2003 with the balance to be obtained by spot market purchases. The prices to be
paid by the Company under its long-term coal contracts are subject to adjustment
in accordance with various indices. Each contract has features that will limit
price escalations in any given year.
7
The average fuel cost per kilowatt-hour ("kWh") generated of fuel burned for
electric generation (coal, gas and oil) for the year was 1.26¢ in 2002, 1.31¢ in
2001, and 1.18¢ in 2000. With the onset of competition in January 2001, the
Electric Fuel Component became part of the Standard Offer Generation Rate. See
RATE REGULATION AND GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION and ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS.
GAS OPERATIONS AND GAS SUPPLY
In October 2000, the Company completed the sale of its natural gas retail
distribution assets and certain liabilities for $468 million in cash. The
transaction resulted in a pre-tax gain of $183 million ($121 million net of
taxes). Proceeds from the sale were used to finance DPL's regional generation
expansion and reduce outstanding short-term debt.
RATE REGULATION AND GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION
The Company's sales to retail customers are subject to rate regulation by the
PUCO and various municipalities. The Company's wholesale electric rates to
municipal corporations and other distributors of electric energy are subject to
regulation by the FERC under the Federal Power Act.
Ohio law establishes the process for determining rates charged by public
utilities. Regulation of rates encompasses the timing of applications, the
effective date of rate increases, the cost basis upon which the rates are based
and other related matters. Ohio law also establishes the Office of the Ohio
Consumers' Counsel (the "OCC"), which has the authority to represent residential
consumers in state and federal judicial and administrative rate proceedings.
Ohio legislation extends the jurisdiction of the PUCO to the records and
accounts of certain public utility holding company systems, including DPL. The
legislation extends the PUCO's supervisory powers to a holding company system's
general condition and capitalization, among other matters, to the extent that
they relate to the costs associated with the provision of public utility
service.
Based on existing regulatory authorization, regulatory assets on the
Consolidated Balance Sheet include:
At December 31,
($ in millions) 2002 2001
Regulatory transition costs (a) $ 49.3 $ 97.2
Income taxes recoverable through future revenues (b) 34.6 39.2
Other costs (b) 21.8 20.7
Total $ 105.7 $ 157.1
8
(a) As discussed in the COMPETITION section, the Company received
PUCO approval of its transition plan for the deregulation of its
generation business. Accordingly, the Company discontinued the use of
its regulatory accounting model for its generation operations. As a
result, a $63.7 million before tax benefits ($41.4 million net of
taxes) reduction of generation-related regulatory assets was recorded
in the third quarter of 2000 as an extraordinary item and other
generation-related regulatory assets were reclassified to the
"Regulatory transition costs" asset.
(b) Certain deferred costs remain authorized for recovery by
regulators. These relate primarily to the Company's electric
transmission and distribution operations and are being amortized over
the recovery period of the assets involved.
Under the legislation passed in 1999, the percentage of income payment plan
("PIPP") for eligible low-income households was converted to a universal service
fund in 2001. The universal service program is administered by the Ohio
Department of Development and provides for full recovery of arrearages for
qualifying low income customers. As part of the Company's Electric Transition
Plan, the Company was granted authority to recover PIPP arrearages remaining as
of December 31, 2000 as part of a transition charge.
In 2000, the PUCO amended the rules for Long-Term Forecast Reports for all
investor-owned electric transmission and distribution companies in Ohio. Under
these rules, each transmission and/or distribution company must annually file a
Long-Term Electric Forecast Report, which presents 10-year energy and demand
transmission and distribution forecasts. The reports also must contain
information on the company's existing and planned transmission and distribution
systems, as well as a substantiation of the need for any system upgrades or
additions. The Company filed a combined 2000/2001 Long-Term Electric Forecast
Report under these amended rules in March 2001.
The PUCO is composed of five commissioners appointed to staggered five-year
terms. The current Commission is composed of the following members:
Name Beginning of Term End of Term
Judith A. Jones April 2002 April 2007
Clarence D. Rogers February 2001 April 2006
Rhonda H. Fergus April 2000 April 2005
Chairman Alan R. Schriber April 1999 April 2004
Donald L. Mason April 1998 April 2003
See COMPETITION for more detail regarding the impact of legislation passed in
October 1999.
9
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The operations of the Company, including the commonly owned facilities operated
by the Company, CG&E and CSP, are subject to federal, state, and local
regulation as to air and water quality, disposal of solid waste and other
environmental matters, including the location, construction and initial
operation of new electric generating facilities and most electric transmission
lines. The possibility exists that current environmental regulations could be
revised which could change the level of estimated construction expenditures. See
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM.
Air Quality
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (the "CAA") have limited sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen oxide emissions nationwide. The CAA restricts emissions in two phases.
Phase I compliance requirements became effective on January 1, 1995 and Phase II
requirements became effective on January 1, 2000.
The Company's environmental compliance plan ("ECP") was approved by the PUCO on
May 6, 1993 and, on November 9, 1995, the PUCO approved the continued
appropriateness of the ECP. Phase I requirements were met by switching to lower
sulfur coal at several commonly owned electric generating facilities and
increasing existing scrubber removal efficiency. Total capital expenditures to
comply with Phase I of the CAA were approximately $5.5 million. Phase II
requirements are being met primarily by switching to lower sulfur coal at all
non-scrubbed coal-fired electric generating units.
In November 1999, the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA")
filed civil complaints and Notices of Violations ("NOVs") against operators and
owners of certain generation facilities for alleged violations of the CAA.
Generation units operated by partners CG&E (Beckjord 6) and CSP (Conesville 4)
and co-owned by the Company were referenced in these actions. Numerous northeast
states have filed complaints or have indicated that they will be joining the
USEPA's action against CG&E and CSP. The Company was not identified in the NOVs,
civil complaints or state actions. In December 2000, CG&E announced that it had
reached an Agreement in Principle with the USEPA and other plaintiffs in an
effort to settle the claims. Discussions on the final terms of the settlement
are ongoing. Therefore, it is not possible to determine the outcome of these
claims or the impact, if any, on the Company. In June 2000, the USEPA issued a
NOV to DP&L-operated J.M. Stuart Station (co-owned by the Company, CG&E, and
CSP) for alleged violations of the CAA. The NOV contained allegations consistent
with NOVs and complaints that the USEPA had previously brought against numerous
other coal-fired utilities in the Midwest. The Company will vigorously challenge
the NOV. At this time, it is not possible to determine the outcome of these
claims or the impact, if any, on the Company.
11
On November 22, 2002, the USEPA announced its final rule package on New Source
Review reform and its proposed rule on the definition of "routine maintenance,
repair and replacement." On December 31, 2002, the final and proposed rules were
published in the Federal Register. Several northeast states have brought
lawsuits challenging the final rule in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia. While the Company will conduct an extensive review of
the published rules, it does not expect the rule changes to have a material
effect on the Company's financial position, earnings, or cash flow.
In September 1998, the USEPA issued a final rule requiring states to modify
their State Implementation Plans ("SIPs") under the CAA. The modified SIPs are
likely to result in further nitrogen oxide ("NOx") reduction requirements placed
on coal-fired generating units by 2004. In order to meet these NOx requirements,
the Company's total capital expenditures are estimated to be approximately $175
million, of which $136 million has been spent to-date. Industry groups and
others appealed the rules in United States District Court. The requirement for
states to submit revised implementation plans has been stayed until the outcome
of the litigation. In March 2000, the United States District Court upheld the
rule. Industry groups and others have appealed this decision. As a result of the
litigation, the Court extended the compliance date of the rule an additional
year, until May 31, 2004. In March 2001, the United States Supreme Court refused
to hear further appeals of the SIP rules. In December 1999, the USEPA issued
final rules granting various CAA Section 126 petitions filed by northeast
states. The Company's facilities were identified, among many others, in the
rulemaking. In January 2002, the USEPA announced that reductions required under
the CAA Section 126 rulemaking will be extended until May 31, 2004 to be
consistent with the NOx SIP rule. The Company's current NOx reduction strategy
and associated expenditures to meet the SIP call should satisfy the rulemaking
reduction requirements.
On July 18, 2002, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency ("Ohio EPA") adopted
rules that will constitute Ohio's SIP for NOx reductions. The state rules are
substantially similar to the reductions required under the federal CAA Section
126 rulemaking and federal NOx SIP rule. The USEPA has conditionally approved
Ohio's NOx SIP. On January 16, 2003, the USEPA's final approval of Ohio's NOx
SIP appeared in the Federal Register. The Company's current NOx reduction
strategy and associated expenditures to meet the federal reduction requirements
should satisfy the state SIP reduction requirements.
On December 14, 2000, the USEPA issued a determination that coal- and oil-fired
electric generation units should be regulated for emissions of mercury and
hazardous air pollutants. The USEPA will issue proposed rules by December 2003
and final rules by December 2004. The impact of the regulatory determination
cannot be determined at this time.
In March 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
upheld the USEPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and fine
particles. The USEPA is conducting a rulemaking regarding these standards. The
impact of these standards and rules can not be determined at this time.
12
In April 2002, the USEPA issued proposed rules governing existing facilities
that have cooling water intake structures. Final rules are anticipated in
February 2004. The impact of the final rules cannot be determined at this time.
On July 29, 2002, the Bush Administration offered proposed legislation known as
the "Clear Skies" initiative. The proposal calls for emissions reductions for
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury commencing between 2008 and 2010.
Senator Jeffords also offered a competing multi-pollutant proposal calling for
reductions in sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and carbon dioxide
emissions with earlier implementation dates. Neither proposal was passed in
2002. Several competing proposed bills revising the air pollution laws have
emerged in the 108th session of Congress. The impact of the potential
legislation, if passed, cannot be determined at this time.
Land Use
The Company and numerous other parties have been notified by the USEPA or the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency ("Ohio EPA") that it considers them
Potentially Responsible Parties ("PRP's") for clean-up at three superfund sites
in Ohio: the North Sanitary (a.k.a. Valleycrest) Landfill in Dayton, Montgomery
County, Ohio; the Tremont City Landfill in Springfield, Ohio; and the South
Dayton Dump landfill site in Dayton, Ohio.
The Company and numerous other parties received notification from the Ohio EPA
on July 27, 1994 that it considers them PRP's for clean up of hazardous
substances at the North Sanitary Landfill site in Dayton, Ohio. The Company has
not joined the PRP group formed for the site because the available information
does not demonstrate that the Company contributed hazadous substances to the
site. The Ohio EPA has not provided an estimated cost for this site. In October
2000, the PRP group brought an action against the Company and numerous other
parties alleging that the Company and the others are PRP's that should be liable
for a portion of clean-up costs at the site. While the Company does not believe
it disposed of any hazardous waste at this site, it has entered into an
Agreement in Principle with the PRP group to settle any alleged liability for an
immaterial amount. The final resolution is not expected to have a material
effect on the Company's financial position, earnings, or cash flow.
The Company and numerous other parties received notification from the USEPA in
January 2002 for the Tremont City site. The available information does not
demonstrate that the Company contributed any hazardous substances to the site.
The Company will vigorously challenge this action. The final resolution is not
expected to have a material effect on the Company's financial position,
earnings, or cash flow.
13
In September 2002, the Company and other parties received a special notice that
the USEPA considers them to be PRP's for the clean up of hazardous substances at
the South Dayton Dump landfill site in Dayton, Ohio. The USEPA seeks recovery of
past costs and funding for a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study. The
USEPA has not provided an estimated clean-up cost for this site. The information
available does not demonstrate that the Company contributed hazardous substances
to the site. The Company will challenge this action. The final resolution is not
expected to have a material effect on the Company's financial position,
earnings, or cash flow.
13
The Dayton Power and Light Company
OPERATING STATISTICS
ELECTRIC OPERATIONS
Years Ended December 31
2002 2001 2000
Electric Sales (millions of kWh)
Residential 5,302 4,909 4,816
Commercial 3,710 3,618 3,540
Industrial 4,472 4,568 4,851
Other retail 1,405 1,369 1,370
Total Retail 14,889 14,464 14,577
Wholesale 4,358 3,591 2,946
Total 19,247 18,055 17,523
Electric Revenues (thousands)
Residential $ 463,197 $ 429,932 $ 422,733
Commercial 259,496 255,149 245,097
Industrial 204,627 210,022 236,670
Other retail 95,463 92,992 93,227
Total Retail 1,022,783 988,095 997,727
Wholesale 153,055 200,154 112,328
Total $ 1,175,838 $ 1,188,249 $ 1,110,055
Electric Customers at End of Period
Residential 449,153 447,066 444,683
Commercial 47,400 46,815 46,218
Industrial 1,905 1,908 1,928
Other 6,304 6,318 6,156
Total 504,762 502,107 498,985
NOTE: See Note 13 to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional
information.
14
The Dayton Power and Light Company
OPERATING STATISTICS
GAS OPERATIONS
Years Ended December 31
2002 2001 2000
Gas Sales (thousands of MCF)
Residential - - 18,538
Commercial - - 5,838
Industrial - - 2,034
Public authorities - - 776
Transportation gas delivered - - 16,105
Total - - 43,291
Gas Revenues (thousands)
Residential - - $ 119,460
Commercial - - 35,262
Industrial - - 11,114
Public authorities - - 4,466
Other - - 13,554
Total - - $ 183,856
Gas Customers at End of Period
Residential - - -
Commercial - - -
Industrial - - -
Public authorities - - -
Total - - -
NOTE:
1) The Company completed the sale of its natural gas retail distribution
assets and certain liabilities in October 2000.
2) See Note 13 to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.
15
|