DAYTON POWER & LIGHT CO - 10-K - 20030305 - PART_I
PART I
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
Station
Ownership*
Operating
Company
Location
Company
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 108
th
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
Item 2 —
Properties
Electric
Information relating to
the Company’s electric properties is contained in Item 1 — BUSINESS,
THE COMPANY, CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM, ELECTRIC OPERATIONS AND FUEL SUPPLY, and Item
8 — Notes 4 and 11 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Gas
Information relating to
the Company’s gas properties is contained in Item 1 — GAS OPERATIONS
AND GAS SUPPLY and Note 3 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Substantially all
property and plant of the Company is subject to the lien of the Mortgage
securing the Company’s First Mortgage Bonds.
Item 3 —
Legal Proceedings
Information relating to
legal proceedings involving the Company is contained in Item 1 — BUSINESS,
THE COMPANY, COMPETITION, ELECTRIC OPERATIONS AND FUEL SUPPLY, RATE REGULATION
AND GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS and Item 8 —
Note 4 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Item 4 —
Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
Next Section
Previous Section