PG&E Corporation, incorporated in California in 1995, is an energy-based holding company that conducts its business principally through Pacific Gas and Electric Company, or the Utility, a public utility operating in northern and central California. The Utility engages primarily in the businesses of electricity and natural gas distribution, electricity generation, electricity transmission, and natural gas transportation and storage. PG&E Corporation became the holding company of the Utility and its subsidiaries on January 1, 1997. The Utility, incorporated in California in 1905, is the predecessor of PG&E Corporation. Both PG&E Corporation and the Utility are headquartered in San Francisco, California.
As discussed further in Note 2, on April 12, 2004, the Utility's plan of reorganization, or Plan of Reorganization, under the provisions of Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, or Chapter 11, became effective, at which time the Utility emerged from Chapter 11.
PG&E Corporation's other significant subsidiary, National Energy & Gas Transmission, Inc., or NEGT, formerly known as PG&E National Energy Group, Inc., headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, was incorporated on December 18, 1998, as a wholly owned subsidiary of PG&E Corporation. On July 8, 2003, NEGT filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11. For the reasons described below in Note 4, PG&E Corporation considers NEGT to be an abandoned asset under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards, or SFAS, "Accounting for Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets," or SFAS No. 144, and, as a result, the operations of NEGT prior to July 8, 2003 and for all prior periods, are reflected as discontinued operations in the Consolidated Financial Statements. In addition, as discussed in Note 4, effective July 8, 2003, PG&E Corporation no longer consolidates the earnings and losses of NEGT or its subsidiaries and began accounting for its ownership interest in NEGT using the cost method, under which PG&E Corporation's investment in NEGT is reflected as a single amount on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet of PG&E Corporation. On October 29, 2004, NEGT's plan of reorganization became effective and NEGT emerged from Chapter 11, at which time PG&E Corporation's equity interest in NEGT was cancelled.
This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q is a combined report of PG&E Corporation and the Utility. Therefore, the Notes to the unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements apply to both PG&E Corporation and the Utility. PG&E Corporation's Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements include the accounts of PG&E Corporation, the Utility, and other wholly owned and controlled subsidiaries. The Utility's Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements include its accounts and those of its wholly owned and controlled subsidiaries, and variable interest entities for which it is subject to a majority of the risk of loss or gain.
The accompanying interim unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, or GAAP, for interim financial information and in accordance with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Rule 10-01 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they may not contain all of the information and footnotes required by GAAP for complete financial statements. Both PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2003, were derived from the audited Consolidated Balance Sheets included in the Current Report on Form 8-K dated June 18, 2004 (which supercedes the information included in the combined 2003 Annual Report). Certain reclassifications of the 2003 amounts have been made to conform to the 2004 presentation.
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions. These estimates and assumptions affect the reported amounts of revenues, expenses, assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingencies, and include, but are not limited to, estimates in determining the Utility's regulatory asset and liability balances based on probability assessments, revenues earned but not yet billed (including delayed billings), asset retirement obligations, allowance for doubtful accounts receivable, provisions for losses that are deemed probable from environmental remediation liabilities, pension liabilities, mark-to-market accounting under SFAS No. 133, "Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities," as amended, or SFAS No. 133, income taxes, litigation, and in the Utility's review for impairment of long-lived assets and certain identifiable intangibles to be held and used whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of its assets might not be recoverable. As these estimates involve judgments on a wide range of factors, including future economic conditions that are difficult to predict, actual results could differ from these estimates. PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's Consolidated Financial Statements reflect all adjustments that management believes are necessary for the fair presentation of the financial position and results of operations for the interim periods presented. These adjustments are of a normal recurring nature.
During the period that the Utility was in Chapter 11, the Utility's Consolidated Financial Statements were prepared in accordance with the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants' Statement of Position 90-7, "Financial Reporting by Entities in Reorganization Under the Bankruptcy Code," or SOP 90-7. Under SOP 90-7, certain claims against the Utility existing before the Utility's Chapter 11 filing were classified as liabilities subject to compromise on PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's Consolidated Balance Sheets. Additionally, professional fees and expenses directly related to the Utility's Chapter 11 proceeding and interest income on funds accumulated during the Chapter 11 proceedings were reported separately as reorganization items.
The Utility discontinued the application of SOP 90-7 upon its emergence from Chapter 11 on April 12, 2004. The Consolidated Financial Statements as of and for the periods ending September 30, 2003 and December 31, 2003, have been presented in accordance with SOP 90-7. Although the Utility emerged from Chapter 11 on April 12, 2004, the bankruptcy court retained jurisdiction, among other things, to resolve disputed claims made in the Chapter 11 case. Upon the effective date of the Utility's Plan of Reorganization, $1.8 billion was deposited into escrow, pending the resolution of disputed claims, and has been classified as restricted cash in current assets on PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's September 30, 2004 Consolidated Balance Sheets. The related remaining pre-petition claims are subject to resolution by the bankruptcy court.
Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Related to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003
In May 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or the FASB, issued Staff Position SFAS No. 106-2, "Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Related to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003," or FSP 106-2. FSP 106-2 supersedes FSP 106-1, "Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Related to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003," and provides guidance on the accounting, disclosure, effective date, and transition requirements related to the Medicare Prescription Drug Act. FSP 106-2 is effective for the third quarter of 2004. The companies have determined that the Utility's postretirement medical plan, or the Plan, the only benefit plan potentially affected by the Medicare Prescription Drug Act (and FSP 106-2), does not qualify for the federal subsidy under the terms of the Medicare Prescription Drug Act. The adoption of FSP 106-2 did not have any impact on the Consolidated Financial Statements of PG&E Corporation or the Utility. The Medicare Prescription Drug Act could subsequently affect the Plan in terms of lower participation rates, which would lower the Plan's benefit obligation and related expenses.
Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities
In December 2003, the FASB issued Interpretation No. 46 (revised December 2003), "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities," or FIN 46R. FIN 46R provides that an entity is a variable interest entity, or VIE, if it does not have sufficient equity investment at risk, or if the holders of the entity's equity instruments lack the essential characteristics of a controlling financial interest. FIN 46R requires that the company that is subject to a majority of the risk of loss from a VIE's activities, or is entitled to receive a majority of the entity's residual returns, or both, consolidate the VIE. A company that consolidates a VIE is called the primary beneficiary.
PG&E Corporation and the Utility adopted FIN 46R on January 1, 2004. The adoption of FIN 46R did not have any impact on net income.
Low-Income Housing Partnerships
The Utility invests in low-income housing partnerships, or LIHPs. The entities were formed to invest in low-income housing projects sponsored by non-profit organizations in the state of California. The Utility determined that it was the primary beneficiary of one LIHP, resulting in its consolidation. Accordingly, total assets and total liabilities of $14 million for the LIHP have been included in the Utility's Consolidated Balance Sheets. The consolidated LIHP has issued debt in the amount of $6 million, which is secured by assets of the partnership, totaling $27 million, and the Utility's commitment to make capital infusions of approximately $13 million over the next five years.
The Utility is not considered to be the primary beneficiary of any other LIHPs. The maximum exposure to loss from its investment in unconsolidated LIHPs is the Utility's investment of $6 million.
Power Purchase Agreements
The nature of power purchase agreements is such that the Utility could have a significant variable interest in a power purchase agreement counterparty if that entity is a VIE owning one plant that sells substantially all of its output to the Utility, and the contract price for power is correlated with the plant's variable costs of production. Previously, the Utility was not able to determine whether certain power purchase contracts represented variable interests in VIEs. During the third quarter, the Utility determined that none of its current power purchase agreements represent significant variable interests. The Emerging Issues Taskforce, or the EITF, continues to review how companies determine whether an arrangement is a variable interest. Their findings could impact how the determination is applied to the Utility's power purchase agreements in the future.
Changes in Accounting for Certain Derivative Contracts
In November 2003, the FASB approved an amendment to an interpretation issued by the Derivatives Implementation Group C15, or DIG C15, as previously amended in October 2001 and December 2001, that changed the definition of normal purchases and sales for certain power contracts that contain option-like features.
PG&E Corporation and the Utility had previously adopted the new DIG C15 guidelines prospectively for new derivative instruments entered into after June 30, 2003. On January 1, 2004, PG&E Corporation and the Utility adopted the new DIG C15 guidelines for certain power contracts that contain option-like features that existed prior to July 1, 2003. The adoption of DIG C15 did not have any impact on the Consolidated Financial Statements of PG&E Corporation or the Utility.
Regulation and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 71
PG&E Corporation and the Utility account for the financial effects of regulation in accordance with "Accounting for the Effects of Certain Types of Regulation," as amended, or SFAS No. 71. SFAS No. 71 applies to regulated entities whose rates are designed to recover the costs of providing service. The Utility is regulated by the CPUC, the FERC and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or the NRC, among others. As discussed further in Note 2, during the first quarter of 2004, the Utility began reapplying SFAS No. 71 to its generation operations. As a result, as of March 31, 2004, the Utility recorded a generation regulatory asset of approximately $1.2 billion. SFAS No. 71 now applies to all of the Utility's operations except for the operations of a natural gas pipeline.
SFAS No. 71 provides for recording regulatory assets and liabilities when certain conditions are met. Regulatory assets represent the capitalization of incurred costs that would otherwise be charged to expense when it is probable that the incurred costs would be included for ratemaking purposes in the future. Regulatory liabilities represent rate actions of a regulator that will result in amounts that are to be credited to customers through the ratemaking process.
To the extent that portions of the Utility's operations cease to be subject to SFAS No. 71 or recovery is no longer probable as a result of changes in regulation or the Utility's competitive position, the related regulatory assets and liabilities are written off.
Regulatory Assets
Regulatory assets comprise the following:
(in millions)
September 30,
2004
December 31,
2003
Settlement Regulatory Asset
$
3,256
$
-
Utility retained generation regulatory assets
1,200
-
Rate reduction bond assets
815
1,054
Regulatory assets for deferred income tax
470
324
Unamortized loss, net of gain, on reacquired debt
351
277
Qualifying facilities restructuring costs
144
151
Environmental compliance costs
177
139
Regulatory assets associated with Plan of Reorganization
174
-
Other, net
48
56
Total regulatory assets
$
6,635
$
2,001
Amortization of regulatory assets is charged to expense during the period that the costs are reflected in regulated revenues.
In light of the satisfaction of various conditions to the implementation of the Plan of Reorganization, the accounting probability standard required to be met under SFAS No. 71 in order for the Utility to recognize the regulatory assets provided under the Settlement Agreement (as described in Note 2) was met as of March 31, 2004. Therefore, the Utility recorded the $3.7 billion, pre-tax ($2.2 billion, after-tax), regulatory asset established under the Settlement Agreement, or the Settlement Regulatory Asset, and $1.2 billion, pre-tax ($0.7 billion, after-tax), for the Utility retained generation regulatory assets in the first quarter of 2004 (see further discussion in Note 2, The Utility's Chapter 11 filing). As of September 30, 2004, the Utility has recorded pre-tax offsets to the Settlement Regulatory Asset of approximately $300 million ($180 million after-tax) for supplier settlements and approximately $110 million ($65 million after-tax) for amortization of the Settlement Regulatory Asset.
Regulatory Liabilities
Regulatory liabilities comprise the following:
(in millions)
September 30,
2004
December 31,
2003
Cost of removal obligations
$
1,942
$
1,810
Employee benefit plans
726
925
Asset retirement costs
626
584
Public purpose programs
203
185
Rate reduction bonds
177
175
Surcharge liability
128
125
Other
178
175
Total regulatory liabilities
$
3,980
$
3,979
Regulatory Balancing Accounts
Sales balancing accounts accumulate differences between revenues and the Utility's authorized revenue requirements. Cost balancing accounts accumulate differences between incurred costs and authorized revenue requirements. Under-collections that are probable of recovery through regulated rates are recorded as regulatory balancing account assets. Over-collections that are probable of being credited to customers are recorded as regulatory balancing account liabilities. The Utility's regulatory balancing accounts accumulate balances until they are refunded to or received from the Utility's customers through authorized rate adjustments.
Earnings (Loss) Per Share
Earnings (loss) per share is calculated utilizing the "two-class" method by dividing earnings (loss) allocated to common shareholders by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period.
Three Months Ended
Nine Months Ended
September 30,
September 30,
(in millions, except per share amounts)
2004
2003
2004
2003
Income from continuing operations
$
228
$
508
$
3,633
$
754
Discontinued operations
-
2
-
(365)
Net income before cumulative effect of changes in
accounting principles
228
510
3,633
389
Cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles
-
-
-
(6)
Net Income for basic and diluted calculations
$
228
$
510
$
3,633
$
383
Weighted average common shares outstanding, basic
399
387
397
384
9.50% Convertible Subordinated Notes
19
19
19
19
Weighted average common shares outstanding and
participating securities, basic
418
406
416
403
Weighted average common shares outstanding, basic
399
387
397
384
Employee stock options and PG&E Corporation shares held by
grantor trusts
7
5
6
2
PG&E Corporation warrants
2
5
3
5
Weighted average common shares outstanding, diluted
408
397
406
391
9.50% Convertible Subordinated Notes
19
19
19
19
Weighted average common shares outstanding and
participating securities, diluted
427
416
425
410
Earnings (Loss) Per Common Share, Basic
Income from continuing operations
$
0.55
$
1.25
$
8.73
$
1.87
Discontinued operations
-
-
-
(0.91)
Cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles
-
-
-
(0.01)
Rounding
-
0.01
-
-
Net earnings
$
0.55
$
1.26
$
8.73
$
0.95
Earnings (Loss) Per Common Share, Diluted
Income from continuing operations
$
0.53
$
1.22
$
8.55
$
1.84
Discontinued operations
-
-
-
(0.89)
Cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles
-
-
-
(0.01)
Rounding
-
0.01
-
(0.01)
Net earnings
$
0.53
$
1.23
$
8.55
$
0.93
On March 31, 2004, the FASB ratified the consensus reached by the EITF, on EITF Issue 03-06, "Participating Securities and the Two-Class Method under FASB Statement No. 128," or EITF 03-06. EITF 03-06 provides additional guidance related to the calculation of earnings per share under SFAS No. 128, "Earnings per Share," or SFAS No. 128, which includes application of the "two-class" method in computing earnings per share, identification of participating securities, and requirements for the allocation of undistributed earnings (and losses) to participating securities.
PG&E Corporation currently has outstanding $280 million in convertible subordinated 9.50% notes due 2010, or Convertible Notes, that are entitled to receive (non-cumulative) dividend payments without exercising the conversion option. These Convertible Notes meet the criteria of a participating security in the calculation of basic earnings per share using the "two-class" method of SFAS No. 128. Therefore, EITF 03-06 requires that earnings be allocated between common stock and the participating security. PG&E Corporation adopted EITF 03-06 in the first quarter of 2004 and for all subsequent and all prior periods presented.
In applying the "two-class" method, the following reflects the earnings (loss) allocated to common shareholders after the inclusion of participation rights related to PG&E Corporation's 9.50% Convertible Notes in the allocation of earnings. The 9.50% Convertible Notes are convertible at the option of the holders into 18,558,655 common shares. All PG&E Corporation's participating securities participate on a 1:1 basis in dividends with common shareholders.
Three Months Ended
Nine Months Ended
September 30,
September 30,
Earnings (loss) allocated to common shareholders, basic
2004
2003
2004
2003
Income from continuing operations
$
218
$
484
$
3,467
$
718
Discontinued operations
-
2
-
(348)
Cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles
-
-
-
(6)
$
218
$
486
$
3,467
$
364
Earnings (loss) allocated to common shareholders, diluted
Income from continuing operations
$
218
$
485
$
3,471
$
719
Discontinued operations
-
2
-
(348)
Cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles
-
-
-
(6)
$
218
$
487
$
3,471
$
365
The following options to purchase PG&E Corporation common shares were outstanding, but not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share because the option exercise prices were greater than the average market price: nine months ended September 30, 2004 - 8,045,805, nine months ended September 30, 2003 - 17,687,167, three months ended September 30, 2004 - 7,705,881, and three months ended September 30, 2003 - 11,130,315.
PG&E Corporation reflects the preferred dividends of subsidiaries as other expense for computation of both basic and diluted earnings per share.
Stock-Based Compensation
PG&E Corporation and the Utility apply the intrinsic-value method prescribed in Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, "Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees," in accounting for employee stock-based compensation, as allowed by SFAS No. 123, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation," or SFAS No. 123, as amended by SFAS No. 148, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation - Transition and Disclosure, an Amendment of FASB Statement No. 123," or SFAS No. 148. Under the intrinsic value method, PG&E Corporation and the Utility do not recognize any compensation expense for stock options, as the exercise price is equal to the fair market value of a share of PG&E Corporation common stock at the time the options are granted.
The tables below show the effect on net income and earnings per share for PG&E Corporation and the Utility had it elected to account for its stock-based compensation plans using the fair-value method under SFAS No. 123 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2004 and 2003:
Three Months Ended
Nine Months Ended
September 30,
September 30,
(in millions, except per share amounts)
2004
2003
2004
2003
Net Earnings:
As reported
$
228
$
510
$
3,633
$
383
Deduct: Total stock-based employee compensation expense
determined under the fair value based method for all awards,
net of related tax effects
3
4
10
11
Pro forma
$
225
$
506
$
3,623
$
372
Basic earnings per share:
As reported
0.55
1.26
8.73
0.95
Pro forma
0.54
1.25
8.71
0.92
Diluted earnings per share:
As reported
0.53
1.23
8.55
0.93
Pro forma
0.53
1.23
8.57
0.92
If compensation expense had been recognized using the fair value-based method under SFAS No. 123, the Utility's pro forma consolidated earnings would have been as follows:
Three Months Ended
Nine Months Ended
September 30,
September 30,
(in millions)
2004
2003
2004
2003
Net Earnings:
As reported
$
244
$
583
$
3,718
$
843
Deduct: Total stock-based employee compensation expense
determined under the fair value based method for all awards,
net of related tax effects
2
2
6
6
Pro forma
$
242
$
581
$
3,712
$
837
At September 30, 2004, a total of 2,088,920 shares of restricted PG&E Corporation common stock had been awarded to eligible employees of PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries, of which 1,280,000 shares were granted to Utility employees. At September 30, 2004, approximately 1,613,427 shares of restricted stock awarded to eligible employees of PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries were outstanding, of which 1,062,697 shares were granted to Utility employees. The shares were granted with restrictions and are subject to forfeiture unless certain conditions are met.
The restricted shares are held in an escrow account. The shares become available to the employees as the restrictions lapse. In general, for shares granted in 2003, the restrictions on 80% of the shares lapse automatically over a period of four years at the rate of 20% per year. The compensation expense for these shares remains fixed at the value of the stock at grant date. Restrictions on the remaining 20% of the shares will lapse at a rate of 5% per year if PG&E Corporation is in the top quartile of its comparator group as measured by annual total shareholder return for each year ending immediately before each annual lapse date. The compensation expense recognized for these shares is variable, and changes with the common stock share price. For shares granted in 2004, the restrictions lapse automatically over a period of four years at the rate of 25% per year, and the compensation expense remains fixed at the value of the stock at grant date. Compensation expense associated with all restricted stock is recognized on a quarterly basis by amortizing the unearned compensation related to that period. Total compensation expense resulting from the restricted stock issuances reflected in PG&E Corporation's Consolidated Statements of Income was approximately $3.1 million for the three-month period ended September 30, 2004 and $6.2 million for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2004, of which approximately $1.8 million for the three-month period ended September 30, 2004 and $3.8 million for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2004 was recognized by the Utility. The total unamortized balance of unearned compensation resulting from the restricted stock issuances reflected in PG&E Corporation's Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 30, 2004 was approximately $25 million.
Comprehensive Income (Loss)
PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's comprehensive income (loss) consists principally of changes in the market value of certain cash flow hedges under SFAS No. 133, and the effects of the remeasurement of the defined benefit pension plan.
PG&E Corporation
Utility
(in millions)
2004
2003
2004
2003
Three months ended September 30
Net income available for common stock
$
228
$
510
$
244
$
583
Net reclassification from OCI to earnings (net of income tax
expense of $1 million in 2003)
-
2
-
-
Other
-
1
-
-
Comprehensive income
$
228
$
513
$
244
$
583
Nine months ended September 30
Net income available for common stock
$
3,633
$
383
$
3,718
$
843
Net gain (loss) in OCI from current period hedging
transactions and price changes in accordance with
SFAS No. 133 (net of income tax expense of $2 million in 2004
and benefit of $4 million in 2003)
3
(5)
3
-
Net reclassification from OCI to earnings (net of income tax
benefit of $3 million in 2003)
-
17
-
-
Foreign currency translation adjustment (net of income tax
expense of $2 million in 2003)
-
3
-
-
Retirement plan remeasurement (net of income tax benefit of $41
million in 2003)
-
(60)
-
(60)
Other
1
1
-
-
Comprehensive income
$
3,637
$
339
$
3,721
$
783
The above changes to other comprehensive income, or OCI, are stated net of income tax expense (benefit) of $2 million for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2004, and $1 million for the three-month and ($46) million for the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2003.
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) reports a measure for accumulated changes in equity of an enterprise that results from transactions and other economic events other than transactions with shareholders. The following table sets forth the changes in each component of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss):
Hedging
Transactions in
Accordance with
SFAS No. 133
Foreign
Currency
Translation
Adjustment
Retirement
Plan
Remeasurement
Other
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Income (Loss)
Balance at December 31, 2002
$
(90)
$
(3)
$
-
$
-
$
(93)
Period change in:
Mark-to-market adjustments for hedging
transactions in accordance with SFAS
No. 133
(5)
-
-
-
(5)
Net reclassification to earnings
17
-
-
-
17
Other
-
3
(60)
1
(56)
Balance at September 30, 2003
$
(78)
$
-
$
(60)
$
1
$
(137)
Balance at December 31, 2003
$
(81)
$
-
$
(4)
$
-
$
(85)
Period change in:
Mark-to-market adjustments for hedging
transactions in accordance with SFAS
No. 133
3
-
-
-
3
Other
-
-
-
1
1
Balance at September 30, 2004
$
(78)
$
-
$
(4)
$
1
$
(81)
Hedging
Transactions in
Accordance with
SFAS No. 133
Foreign
Currency
Translation
Adjustment
Retirement
Plan
Remeasurement
Other
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Income (Loss)
Balance at June 30, 2003
$
(80)
$
-
$
(60)
$
-
$
(140)
Net reclassification to earnings
2
-
-
-
2
Other
-
-
-
1
1
Balance at September 30, 2003
$
(78)
$
-
$
(60)
$
1
$
(137)
Balance at June 30 and September 30, 2004
$
(78)
$
-
$
(4)
$
1
$
(81)
There was no movement in the component balances of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) during the third quarter of 2004. An amount of $77 million is included in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) related to discontinued operations at September 30, 2004, and at September 30, 2003. This amount will be recognized in connection with PG&E Corporation's elimination of its equity interest in NEGT in the fourth quarter of 2004 (see further discussion in Note 4, Discontinued Operations).
Related Party Agreements and Transactions
In accordance with various agreements, the Utility and other subsidiaries provide and receive various services to and from their parent, PG&E Corporation, and among themselves. The Utility and PG&E Corporation exchange administrative and professional support services in support of operations. These services are priced either at the fully loaded cost (
i.e
., direct costs and allocation of overhead costs) or at the higher of fully loaded cost or fair market value, depending on the nature of the services. PG&E Corporation also allocates certain other corporate administrative and general costs to the Utility and other subsidiaries using a variety of factors, including the number of employees, operating expenses excluding fuel purchases, total assets and other cost-causal methods. The Utility purchases natural gas transportation services from Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation, or GTNW, formerly known as PG&E Gas Transmission, Northwest Corporation. Effective April 1, 2003, the Utility no longer purchases natural gas from NEGT Energy Trading Holdings Corporation, or NEGT ET, formerly known as PG&E Energy Trading Holdings Corporation. Both GTNW and NEGT ET are subsidiaries of NEGT. The Utility sold natural gas transportation capacity and other ancillary services to NEGT ET until NEGT's Chapter 11 proceeding was imminent. These services were priced at either tariff rates or fair market value, depending on the nature of the services provided. Through July 7, 2003, all significant intercompany transactions are eliminated in consolidation; therefore, no profit or loss resulted from these transactions. Beginning July 8, 2003, the Utility's transactions with NEGT are no longer eliminated in consolidation. The Utility's significant related party transactions and related receivable (payable) balances were as follows:
Three Months
Ended September 30,
Nine Months
Ended September 30,
Receivable (Payable)
Balance Outstanding at
September 30,
December 31,
(in millions)
2004
2003
2004
2003
2004
2003
Utility revenues from:
Administrative services provided to
PG&E Corporation
$
2
$
2
$
6
$
6
$
2
$
-
Natural gas transportation capacity services provided to NEGT ET
-
2
-
6
-
-
Trade deposit due from GTNW
-
-
-
-
-
15
Utility expenses from:
Administrative services received from
PG&E Corporation
$
23
$
40
$
65
$
137
$
(27)
$
(396)
Interest accrued on pre-petition liability due to PG&E Corporation
-
2
2
5
-
(2)
Administrative services received
from NEGT
-
-
-
2
-
(1)
Software purchases from NEGT
-
-
-
1
-
-
Gas commodity services
received from NEGT ET
-
-
-
10
-
-
Gas transportation services received
from GTNW
14
14
43
43
(5)
(8)
As discussed further in Note 2, as of March 31, 2004, PG&E Corporation recorded the impact of the Settlement Agreement entered into on December 19, 2003, among PG&E Corporation, the Utility and the CPUC to resolve the Utility's Chapter 11 case. The Settlement Agreement precluded the Utility from reimbursing PG&E Corporation for certain Chapter 11 related costs. As such, PG&E Corporation reduced its receivable from the Utility, and the Utility reduced its payable to PG&E Corporation by $128 million. The transactions were recorded as a contribution of equity to the Utility by PG&E Corporation, net of taxes of $52 million, and an increase to additional paid-in capital by the Utility in the first quarter of 2004.
Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits
PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries provide non-contributory defined benefit pension plans for certain of their employees and retirees (referred to collectively as pension benefits), contributory postretirement medical plans for certain of their employees and retirees and their eligible dependents, and non-contributory postretirement life insurance plans for certain of their employees and retirees (referred to collectively as other benefits). PG&E Corporation and its subsidiaries use a December 31 measurement date for all of its plans and use publicly quoted market values and independent pricing services depending on the nature of the assets, as reported by the trustee, to determine the fair value of the plan assets.
Net periodic benefit cost as reflected in PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's Statements of Income for the three and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2004 and September 30, 2003 are as follows:
PG&E Corporation
Pension Benefits
Three Months Ended
September 30
Other Benefits
Three Months Ended
September 30
(in millions)
2004
2003
2004
2003
Service cost for benefits earned
$
49
$
42
$
8
$
7
Interest cost
120
111
21
20
Expected return on plan assets
(140)
(126)
(19)
(15)
Amortization of transition obligation
1
3
6
7
Amortization of prior service cost
14
11
3
-
Amortization of recognized loss
2
11
-
-
Net periodic benefit cost
$
46
$
52
$
19
$
19
Pension Benefits
Nine Months Ended
September 30
Other Benefits
Nine Months Ended
September 30
(in millions)
2004
2003
2004
2003
Service cost for benefits earned
$
146
$
127
$
24
$
22
Interest cost
361
335
63
59
Expected return on plan assets
(422)
(381)
(57)
(46)
Amortization of transition obligation
4
10
19
19
Amortization of prior service cost
41
32
9
1
Amortization of recognized loss
6
34
-
1
Settlement loss
1
2
-
-
Net periodic benefit cost
$
137
$
159
$
58
$
56
Utility
Pension Benefits
Three Months Ended
September 30
Other Benefits
Three Months Ended
September 30
(in millions)
2004
2003
2004
2003
Service cost for benefits earned
$
48
$
42
$
8
$
7
Interest cost
119
110
21
20
Expected return on plan assets
(140)
(126)
(19)
(15)
Amortization of transition obligation
1
3
6
7
Amortization of prior service cost
14
11
3
-
Amortization of recognized loss
2
11
-
-
Net periodic benefit cost
$
44
$
51
$
19
$
19
Pension Benefits
Nine Months Ended
September 30
Other Benefits
Nine Months Ended
September 30
(in millions)
2004
2003
2004
2003
Service cost for benefits earned
$
143
$
125
$
24
$
22
Interest cost
358
332
63
59
Expected return on plan assets
(420)
(379)
(57)
(46)
Amortization of transition obligation
4
10
19
19
Amortization of prior service cost
41
32
9
1
Amortization of recognized loss
6
34
-
1
Settlement loss
1
1
-
-
Net periodic benefit cost
$
133
$
155
$
58
$
56
Under SFAS No. 71, regulatory adjustments are recorded in the Consolidated Statements of Income and Consolidated Balance Sheets of the Utility to reflect the difference between Utility pension expense or income for accounting purposes and Utility pension expense or income for ratemaking, which is based on a funding approach.
In August 2004, the Utility contributed approximately $20 million to its pension benefit plan. No further contributions are expected during the fiscal year 2004. The Utility's pension benefit plans met all the funding requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended.
NOTE 2: THE UTILITY'S CHAPTER 11 FILING
Emergence From Chapter 11
On April 12, 2004, the Utility's Plan of Reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code became effective, at which time the Utility emerged from Chapter 11. The Plan of Reorganization incorporated the terms of the settlement agreement approved by the CPUC on December 18, 2003, and entered into among the CPUC, the Utility and PG&E Corporation on December 19, 2003, to resolve the Utility's Chapter 11 proceeding, or Settlement Agreement. Although the Utility's operations are no longer subject to the oversight of the bankruptcy court, the bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes arising in connection with the interpretation, implementation or enforcement of (1) the Settlement Agreement, (2) the Plan of Reorganization, and (3) the bankruptcy court's December 22, 2003 order confirming the Plan of Reorganization. In addition, the bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction to resolve remaining disputed claims.
In anticipation of its emergence from Chapter 11, the Utility consummated its public offering of $6.7 billion of first mortgage bonds, or First Mortgage Bonds, on March 23, 2004. Upon the effectiveness of the Plan of Reorganization, the Utility paid all valid claims, deposited funds into escrow accounts for the payment of disputed claims upon their resolution, reinstated certain obligations, and paid other obligations. The following table summarizes the sources and uses of funds on the effective date:
(in millions)
Sources
Uses
First Mortgage Bonds
$
6,700
Payments to Creditors
$
8,394
Term Loans
799
Disputed Claims Escrow
1,843
Accounts Receivable Financing Facility
350
Total Debt Financing
7,849
Cash Used to Pay Claims
2,388
Sources of Funds for Claims
10,237
Uses of Funds for Claims
10,237
Reinstated Pollution Control Bond-Related
Obligations
814
Reinstated Pollution Control Bond-Related
Obligations
814
Reinstated Preferred Stock
421
Reinstated Preferred Stock
421
Cash on Hand
225
Preferred Dividends
93
Environmental Measures
10
Transaction Costs
122
Total Sources of Funds
$
11,697
Total Uses of Funds
$
11,697
In connection with the Utility's emergence from Chapter 11, the Utility received investment-grade issuer credit ratings of Baa3 from Moody's Investors Service, or Moody's, and BBB- from Standard & Poor's, or S&P.
On July 15, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, or the District Court, dismissed the appeals of the bankruptcy court's order confirming the Plan of Reorganization that had been filed by the two CPUC commissioners who did not vote to approve the Settlement Agreement. These two commissioners have filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. An appeal of the confirmation order filed by the City of Palo Alto remains pending at the District Court. PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe the appeals of the confirmation order are without merit.
In addition, on April 15, 2004, the City and County of San Francisco, or CCSF, and Aglet Consumer Alliance, or Aglet, each filed a petition with the California Court of Appeal seeking review of the CPUC's December 18, 2003 decision approving the Settlement Agreement and the CPUC's March 16, 2004 decision denying applications for rehearing of its December 18, 2003 decision. CCSF and Aglet allege that the Settlement Agreement violates California law, among other claims. CCSF requests that the appellate court hear and review the CPUC's decisions, approving the Settlement Agreement and Aglet requests that the CPUC's decisions be overturned. Three California state senators have filed a brief in support of the CCSF and Aglet petitions. The California Court of Appeal has not yet acted on the petitions. PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe the petitions are without merit and should be denied.
Under applicable federal precedent, once the Plan of Reorganization has been "substantially consummated," any pending appeals of the confirmation order should be dismissed. If, notwithstanding this federal precedent, the bankruptcy court's confirmation order or the Settlement Agreement is subsequently overturned or modified, PG&E Corporation and the Utility's financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.
Financial Summary of the Settlement Agreement
In light of the satisfaction of various conditions to the implementation of the Plan of Reorganization, including the consummation of the public offering of the First Mortgage Bonds, the receipt of investment grade credit ratings, and final CPUC approval of the Settlement Agreement, the accounting probability standard required to be met under SFAS No. 71, in order for the Utility to recognize the regulatory assets provided under the Settlement Agreement (as described below), was met as of March 31, 2004. Therefore, the Utility recorded the $2.2 billion, after-tax ($3.7 billion, pre-tax) Settlement Regulatory Asset, and $0.7 billion, after-tax ($1.2 billion, pre-tax), for the Utility retained generation regulatory assets, as summarized in the table below and discussed further in the paragraphs below:
(in millions)
Settlement
Regulatory
Asset
Utility Retained
Generation
Regulatory Assets
Total
Authorized, pre-tax, January 1, 2004
$
3,730
$
1,249
$
4,979
Amortization from January 1 to March 31, 2004
(58)
(21)
(79)
Recognition of regulatory assets, pre-tax, March 31, 2004
3,672
1,228
4,900
Deferred income taxes
(1,496)
(500)
(1,996)
Recognition of regulatory assets, after tax, March 31, 2004
2,176
728
2,904
Offsets of supplier settlements, after-tax
(8)
-
(8)
Net regulatory assets, after-tax, March 31, 2004
$
2,168
$
728
$
2,896
Settlement Regulatory Asset
·
The Settlement Agreement established a $2.2 billion, after-tax, regulatory asset (which is equivalent to an approximately $3.7 billion, pre-tax, regulatory asset) as a new, separate and additional part of the Utility's rate base that is being amortized on a "mortgage-style" basis over nine years beginning January 1, 2004. Under this amortization methodology, annual after-tax collections of the Settlement Regulatory Asset are estimated to range from approximately $140 million in 2004 to approximately $380 million in 2012. This after-tax Settlement Regulatory Asset is subject to reduction for any refunds, claim offsets, or other credits that the Utility receives from energy suppliers relating to specified electricity procurement costs incurred during the California energy crisis, including those arising from the settlement of CPUC litigation against El Paso Natural Gas Company. The Utility recognized a one-time non-cash gain of $3.7 billion, pre-tax, for the Settlement Regulatory Asset in the first quarter of 2004. As discussed in Note 1, as of September 30, 2004, the Utility has recorded pre-tax offsets to the Settlement Regulatory Asset of approximately $300 million ($180 million after-tax) for supplier settlements and approximately $110 million ($65 million after-tax) for amortization of the Settlement Regulatory Asset.
·
The unamortized balance of the Settlement Regulatory Asset will earn a rate of return on its equity component of no less than 11.22% annually for its nine-year term and, after the equity component of the Utility's capital structure reaches 52%, the authorized equity component of the Settlement Regulatory Asset will be no less than 52% for the remaining term. If the Utility completes a refinancing of the Settlement Regulatory Asset supported by a dedicated rate component as discussed below, the equity and debt components of the Utility's rate of return will be replaced with the lower interest rate of the securitized debt.
Utility Retained Generation Regulatory Assets
·
In the Settlement Agreement, the CPUC deemed the Utility's adopted electricity generation rate base in a 2002 proceeding to be just and reasonable and not subject to modification, adjustment or reduction, except as necessary to reflect capital expenditures and changes in authorized depreciation. Accordingly, the Utility recognized a one-time non-cash gain of $1.2 billion, pre-tax, for the retained generation regulatory assets in the first quarter of 2004. The individual components of the regulatory assets will be amortized over their respective lives, with a weighted average life of approximately 16 years. The Utility retained generation regulatory assets will earn an authorized rate of return on its equity component of 11.22% in 2004.
Ratemaking Matters
·
In the Settlement Agreement, the CPUC agreed to set the Utility's capital structure and authorized return on equity in its annual cost of capital proceedings in its usual manner. However, from January 1, 2004 until Moody's has issued an issuer rating for the Utility of not less than A3 or S&P has issued a long-term issuer credit rating for the Utility of not less than A-, the Utility's authorized return on equity will be no less than 11.22% per year and its authorized equity ratio for ratemaking purposes will be no less than 52%. However, for 2004 and 2005, the Utility's authorized equity ratio will be the greater of the proportion of equity approved in the Utility's 2004 and 2005 cost of capital proceedings, or 48.6%.
·
The CPUC also agreed to act promptly on certain of the Utility's pending ratemaking proceedings. The outcome of these proceedings may result in the establishment of additional regulatory assets on the Utility's Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Environmental Measures
·
In the Settlement Agreement, the Utility agreed to encumber with conservation easements or donate approximately 140,000 acres of land to public agencies or non-profit conservation organizations.
·
The Utility has established PG&E Environmental Enhancement Corporation as a California non-profit corporation to oversee the environmental enhancements associated with these lands. The Utility has agreed to fund the corporation with $100 million in cash over 10 years. In October 2004, the Utility paid the first installment of $10 million to this corporation. As of September 30, 2004, the Utility has recorded an $84 million liability based on the discounted present value of future cash payments to this corporation. The Utility will be entitled to recover these payments in rates. Therefore, the Utility recognized an offsetting regulatory asset and the recognition of the obligation had no impact on the Utility's results of operations.
·
The Utility has also established a California non-profit corporation that is dedicated to support research and investment in clean energy technology, primarily in the Utility's service territory. The Utility agreed to fund this corporation with $30 million payable over five years. In July 2004, the Utility made its first $2 million installment payment to this corporation. These contributions may not be recovered in rates. In the first quarter of 2004, the Utility recorded a $27 million pre-tax charge to earnings based on the discounted present value of future cash payments.
Of the approximately 140,000 acres referred to above, approximately 44,000 acres may be either donated or encumbered with conservation easements. The remaining land contains the Utility's or a joint licensee's hydroelectric generation facilities and may only be encumbered with conservation easements. In the first quarter of 2004, the Utility recorded a $1 million pre-tax charge to earnings associated with the land donation obligation.
Fees and Expenses
The Settlement Agreement required the Utility to reimburse the CPUC for its professional fees and expenses incurred in connection with the Chapter 11 proceeding. These amounts will be recovered from customers over a reasonable time of up to four years. As of September 30, 2004, the Utility had a regulatory asset and associated liability of approximately $24 million relating to the CPUC reimbursable fees and expenses. Any changes to the final amount of the CPUC reimbursable fees and expenses will affect the regulatory asset and associated liability recorded by the Utility. In addition, one of the terms of the Settlement Agreement precluded the Utility from reimbursing PG&E Corporation for certain Chapter 11 related costs. As such, PG&E Corporation reduced its receivable from the Utility, and the Utility reduced its payable to PG&E Corporation, by $128 million. The transactions were recorded as a contribution of equity to the Utility by PG&E Corporation, net of taxes, and an increase to additional paid-in capital by the Utility in the first quarter 2004.
Refinancing Supported by a Dedicated Rate Component
Under the Settlement Agreement, PG&E Corporation and the Utility agreed to seek to refinance the remaining unamortized balance of the Settlement Regulatory Asset and related federal, state, and franchise taxes, up to a total of $3.0 billion, as expeditiously as practicable after the effective date of the Plan of Reorganization using a securitized financing supported by a dedicated rate component, provided that certain conditions are met. In June 2004, the California Governor signed into law Senate Bill 772, which authorizes the issuance of Energy Recovery Bonds, or ERBs, to be secured by the establishment of a dedicated rate component to refinance the Settlement Regulatory Asset and related taxes. In addition to the authorizing legislation, the following other conditions must be met before a refinancing can occur:
·
The CPUC determines that, on a net present value basis, the refinancing would save customers money over the term of the securitized debt compared to the Settlement Regulatory Asset;
·
The refinancing will not adversely affect the Utility's issuer or debt credit ratings; and
·
The Utility obtains, or decides it does not need, a private letter ruling from the Internal Revenue Service, or the IRS, confirming that neither the refinancing nor the issuance of the securitized debt is a presently taxable event.
On June 8, 2004, the Utility filed a request for a private letter ruling with the IRS. It is expected that it will take up to six months for the IRS to conclude how it will respond to the request. Also, on July 22, 2004, the Utility filed an application with the CPUC requesting the authority to securitize the Settlement Regulatory Asset by issuing ERBs as discussed above, in an aggregate principal amount of up to $3.0 billion in two separate tranches up to one year apart. On October 19, 2004, the CPUC issued a proposed decision authorizing the issuance of the ERBs, subject to the approval of transaction terms by a financing team comprised of CPUC staff and their outside advisors. The CPUC used a similar financing team approach to approve the terms of the Utility's bankruptcy exit financing. Comments on the draft decision are due on November 8, and the Utility expects that the CPUC will issue a final decision by November 19, 2004. Assuming the timely satisfaction of these remaining conditions, the issuance of the first series of ERBs, in the amount of the after-tax balance of the Settlement Regulatory Asset (estimated to be approximately $1.8 billion), is targeted to occur in January 2005. Upon refinancing with securitization, the equity and debt components of the Utility's rate of return will be replaced with the lower interest rate of the securitized debt. The Utility would collect from customers amounts sufficient to service the principal and interest payments on the ERBs. The Utility would use the securitization proceeds to rebalance its capital structure in order to maintain the capital structure provided for under the Settlement Agreement.
Chapter 11 Claims
The following table summarizes the disposition of the net creditor claims made in the Utility's Chapter 11 proceeding, the amount of funds held in escrow for the resolution of disputed claims and the disputed claims accrued by the Utility at September 30, 2004:
(in billions)
Total filed claims in the Utility's Chapter 11 proceeding
$
51.7
ISO, PX and generator claims disallowed
(8.2)
Other claims disallowed by the bankruptcy court
(25.4)
Claims objected to by the Utility and pending before the bankruptcy court
(0.1)
Pass-through claims, including environmental, pending litigation and tort claims
(1)
(4.7)
Principal payments made prior to the effectiveness of the Plan of Reorganization
(2.3)
Claims settled with the cancellation of bonds owned by the Utility
(0.3)
Payments on claims on and after the effectiveness of the Plan of Reorganization
(2)
(8.2)
Reinstated Pollution Control Bonds
(0.8)
Amount retained in escrow for remaining disputed claims - principal, at September 30, 2004
$
1.7
Disputed claims not accrued by the Utility
(0.1)
Net disputed claims accrued by the Utility at September 30, 2004
$
1.6
(1)
The Utility has analyzed these claims and has recorded reserves for such claims that are included in the Utility's undiscounted environmental remediation liability of approximately $342 million at September 30, 2004 and the Utility's provision for legal matters of approximately $198 million at September 30, 2004, as discussed below in Note 6.
(2)
The Utility also made payments of approximately $0.2 billion for interest and bank premiums upon the effectiveness of the Plan of Reorganization.
As of September 30, 2004, the Utility had accrued approximately $1.6 billion for remaining disputed claims, consisting of approximately $2.1 billion of accounts payable-disputed claims primarily payable to the California Independent System Operator, or the ISO, and the Power Exchange, or the PX, offset by an accounts receivable amount from the ISO and the PX of approximately $0.5 billion. As disclosed in the table above, in connection with the implementation of the Plan of Reorganization, the Utility retained $1.7 billion in escrow for the payment of remaining disputed claims as of September 30, 2004. Although the Utility was required to retain $1.7 billion in escrow, the Utility does not believe it is probable that it will be found liable for approximately $0.1 billion of the $1.7 billion of the disputed claims and, therefore, in accordance with SFAS No. 5, "Accounting for Contingencies
,
" or SFAS No. 5, the Utility has not recorded a liability in its financial statements for this amount.
NOTE 3: DEBT
Long-Term Debt
The following table summarizes PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's long-term debt that matures in one year or more from the date of issuance:
Balance At
September 30,
December 31,
(in millions)
2004
2003
PG&E Corporation
Senior secured notes, 6⅞ %, due 2008
$
600
$
600
Convertible subordinated notes, 9.50%, due 2010
280
280
Other long-term debt
2
3
Total long-term debt
882
883
Utility
First and refunding mortgage bonds:
5.85% to 8.80% bonds, maturing 2004-2026
-
2,764
Unamortized discount net of premium
-
(23)
Total first and refunding mortgage bonds
-
2,741
First mortgage bonds:
2.30% to 6.05% bonds, maturing 2006-2034
6,700
-
Unamortized discount, net of premium
(18)
-
Total first mortgage bonds
6,682
-
Pollution control loan agreements, variable rates, due 2007
614
-
Pollution control loan agreements, 5.35%, due 2016
200
-
Pollution control bond agreements, 3.50%, due 2023
345
-
Pollution control bond bridge facilities, variable rates, due 2005
454
-
Other
6
-
Less: current portion
(457)
(310)
Total long-term debt, net of current portion
7,844
2,431
Total consolidated long-term debt, net of current portion
$
8,726
$
3,314
Long-term debt subject to compromise:
Senior notes, 10.75%, due 2005
$
-
$
680
Pollution control loan agreements, variable rates, due 2026
-
614
Pollution control loan agreements, 5.35%, due 2016
-
200
Unsecured medium-term notes, 6.94% to 9.58%, due 2004-2014
-
287
Deferrable interest subordinated debentures, 7.90%, due 2025
-
300
Other
-
17
Total long-term debt subject to compromise
$
-
$
2,098
Utility
In March 2004, in connection with the implementation of the Plan of Reorganization, the Utility issued $6.7 billion of First Mortgage Bonds, or First Mortgage Bonds, and together with its consolidated subsidiaries, entered into $2.9 billion of credit facilities. The Utility obtained an interim $400 million cash collateralized letter of credit facility, which was terminated on April 12, 2004, the effective date of the Plan of Reorganization, or the Effective Date, and the letters of credit then outstanding were transferred to the $850 million revolving credit facility.
First Mortgage Bonds
On March 23, 2004, the Utility closed a public offering of $6.7 billion of First Mortgage Bonds. The First Mortgage Bonds were offered in multiple tranches consisting of 3.60% First Mortgage Bonds due March 1, 2009 in the principal amount of $600 million, 4.20% First Mortgage Bonds due March 1, 2011 in the principal amount of $500 million, 4.80% First Mortgage Bonds due March 1, 2014 in the principal amount of $1 billion, 6.05% First Mortgage Bonds due March 1, 2034 in the principal amount of $3 billion, and Floating Rate First Mortgage Bonds due April 3, 2006 in the principal amount of $1.6 billion. The Utility received proceeds of $6.7 billion from the offering, net of a discount of $18 million. The interest rate for the Floating Rate First Mortgage Bonds is based on the three-month London Interbank Offered Rate, or LIBOR, plus 0.70%, which resets quarterly. The next reset date is January 3, 2005.
In addition, approximately $2.5 billion of additional First Mortgage Bonds were issued on the Effective Date to various banks and insurance companies under the following agreements (1) the Utility's $620 million letters of credit backing pollution control bonds, (2) the Utility's reimbursement obligation under an insurance policy relating to $200 million in pollution control bonds that were issued for the benefit of the Utility, (3) the Utility's $345 million loan agreements with the California Pollution Control Financing Authority, or the CPCFA, (4) the Utility's $454 million reimbursement agreements for pollution control bond bridge facilities, and (5) the Utility's $850 million working capital facility.
On October 3, 2004, the Utility partially redeemed Floating Rate First Mortgage Bonds due in 2006 in the aggregate principal amount of $500 million.
The First Mortgage Bonds are secured by a first lien, subject to permitted exceptions, on substantially all of the Utility's real property and certain tangible personal property related to the Utility's facilities. Subject to certain conditions, the Utility will be entitled to terminate the lien and eliminate all terms and conditions relating to collateral for the First Mortgage Bonds on the release date. In general, the release date will occur when the Utility provides written evidence to the trustee of the First Mortgage Bonds that (1) the ratings on the Utility's long-term unsecured debt obligations following the release date would at least equal the initial ratings assigned by Moody's and S&P on the First Mortgage Bonds, or (2) comparable ratings by any other nationally recognized rating agency or agencies selected by the Utility if either Moody's or S&P do not then rate the Utility's long-term unsecured debt obligations. The First Mortgage Bonds received initial investment grade credit ratings of Baa2 from Moody's and BBB from S&P.
If the lien securing the First Mortgage Bonds is released, the indenture will limit the ability of the Utility and its significant subsidiaries to incur secured debt and enter into sale and leaseback transactions.
Pollution Control Bonds
Variable Rate and 5.35% Pollution Control Loan Agreements
Under pollution control loan agreements, the Utility is obligated to reimburse the CPCFA for funds received by the Utility from the issuance of the CPCFA's pollution control bonds for the benefit of the Utility. The principal amount of these loan obligations totaled $814 million at September 30, 2004. Interest rates on $614 million of $814 million of the obligations are variable. As of September 30, 2004, the variable interest rates ranged from 1.35% to 1.38%. The interest rate on the remaining $200 million of the obligations is fixed at 5.35%.
The CPCFA pollution control bonds in the principal amount of $200 million, bearing interest at a fixed rate, are backed by bond insurance. The CPCFA pollution control bonds in the principal amount of $614 million, bearing interest at variable rates, are backed by letters of credit of $620 million. The Utility's reimbursement obligations are supported by $820 million in First Mortgage Bonds that have been issued to the bond insurer and letter of credit banks.
Drawings for interest due under the loan agreements are made under these letters of credit on each scheduled interest payment date, which is the first business day of each month. On the same day, the Utility pays the amount of the draw to the letter of credit banks per terms of the reimbursement agreements. The letters of credit are then reinstated to the full amount of their initial commitments.
Pollution Control Bond Terms Loan Facility and 3.5% Pollution Control Bonds Loan Agreements
On the Effective Date, the Utility entered into a $345 million term loan facility that was used to fund the Utility's purchase, in lieu of redemption, of the CPCFA's Pollution Control Revenue Bonds, 1992 Series A and B and 1993 Series A and B, or collectively the Old Bonds.
On June 29, 2004, the Utility entered into four separate loan agreements, each dated as of June 1, 2004, with the CPCFA, which issued $345 million aggregate principal amount of its Pollution Control Refunding Revenue Bonds, 2004 Series A ($70 million), 2004 Series B ($90 million), 2004 Series C ($85 million) and 2004 Series D ($100 million), or collectively the New Bonds, to refund the Old Bonds held by the Utility. The funds made available from the refund of Old Bonds were used to repay the $345 million term loan facility. Principal and interest payments on the New Bonds are backed by bond insurance and the Utility's obligations under the new loan agreements are supported by $345 million of First Mortgage Bonds that are held by the trustee for the New Bonds. The New Bonds must be purchased from their holders on June 1, 2007.
Pollution Control Bond Bridge Facilities
During the Utility's Chapter 11 proceeding, approximately $454 million in aggregate principal amount of pollution control bonds, which were issued for the Utility's benefit and were credit enhanced with letters of credit were redeemed through draws on the letters of credit. On the Effective Date, the Utility executed bridge loans with new lenders who had purchased the $454 million reimbursement obligations owed by the Utility to the letter of credit issuers and entered into four separate amended and restated reimbursement agreements with the new lenders. The Utility intends to refinance the $454 million with long-term tax-exempt bonds or taxable debt. The outstanding balance of $454 million at September 30, 2004 under the amended and restated reimbursement agreements is due and payable on June 5, 2005. At the Utility's request and at the sole discretion of each lender, each amended and restated reimbursement agreement may be extended for additional periods. On the Effective Date, the Utility supported its obligations under the amended and restated reimbursement agreement with $454 million of First Mortgage Bonds.
Repayment Schedule
The following table details the scheduled maturities of the Utility's long-term debt outstanding at September 30, 2004:
(in millions)
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Thereafter
Total
Long-term debt:
Average fixed interest rate
7.40%
-
-
3.50%
-
5.34%
5.22%
Fixed rate obligations
$
1
$
-
$
-
$
345
$
-
$
5,282
$
5,628
Variable interest rate as of September 30, 2004
-
2.85%
2.30%
1.35-1.38%
-
-
-
Variable rate obligations
-
454
1,600
614
-
-
2,668
Other
1
2
2
-
-
-
5
Total
$
2
$
456
$
1,602
$
959
$
-
$
5,282
$
8,301
Credit Facilities
and Short-Term Borrowings
The following table summarizes the Utility's outstanding credit facilities and short-term borrowings subject to compromise at December 31, 2003, which were paid and cancelled on the Effective Date. At September 30, 2004, the Utility and its consolidated subsidiaries did not have any outstanding balances on any of its credit facilities. At September 30, 2004, PG&E Corporation did not maintain any credit facilities or have any short-term borrowings. The Utility's and its consolidated subsidiaries' credit facilities and agreements consist of the following:
(in millions)
September 30, 2004
December 31, 2003
Credit facilities:
Revolving Credit Limit
Outstanding
Outstanding
Accounts receivable financing
$
650
$
-
$
-
Working capital facility
850
-
-
Total credit facilities
$
1,500
$
-
$
-
Credit facilities subject to compromise:
5-year revolving credit facility
$
-
$
-
$
938
Total credit facilities subject to compromise
$
-
$
-
$
938
Short-term borrowings subject to compromise
Bank borrowings - drawn letters of credit for
accelerated pollution control agreement
$
-
$
-
$
454
Floating rate notes
-
-
1,240
Commercial paper
-
-
873
Total credit facilities and short-term borrowings
subject to compromise
$
-
$
-
$
3,505
September 30, 2004
Letters of Credit
(1)
:
Pollution control bonds reimbursement
agreements
$
620
Working capital facility
163
$
783
First Mortgage Bonds issued to secure and support various debt and credit facilities
(1)
:
Pollution control loan agreements, variable rates, due 2007
$
620
Pollution control loan agreements, 5.35%, due 2006
200
Pollution control bond agreements, 3.50% variable, due 2023
345
Pollution control bond bridge facilities, variable rates, due 2005
454
Working capital facility
850
$
2,469
(1)
Off-balance sheet commitments.
Accounts Receivable Financing
On March 5, 2004, the Utility entered into certain agreements providing for the continuous sale of a portion of the Utility's accounts receivable to PG&E Accounts Receivable Company, LLC, or PG&E ARC, a limited liability company wholly owned by the Utility. In turn, PG&E ARC sells interests in its accounts receivable to commercial paper conduits or banks. PG&E ARC may obtain up to $650 million of financing under such agreements. The borrowings under this facility bear interest at commercial paper rates and a fixed margin based on the Utility's credit ratings. Interest on the facility is payable monthly. The maximum amount available for borrowing under this facility changes based upon the amount of eligible receivables, concentration of eligible receivables and other factors. Unless extended, the credit facility will terminate on March 5, 2007. The credit facility may be extended for additional periods upon the agreement of all parties. The Utility began selling accounts receivables to PG&E ARC on the Effective Date and used the proceeds from the sale of the accounts receivable in connection with this credit facility to pay allowed claims on the Effective Date. On May 7, 2004, PG&E ARC paid off this credit facility, and on September 30, 2004, there were no amounts drawn on the credit facility. Although PG&E ARC is a wholly owned consolidated subsidiary of the Utility, PG&E ARC is legally separate from the Utility. The assets of PG&E ARC (including the accounts receivable) are not available to creditors of the Utility or PG&E Corporation, and the accounts receivable are not legally assets of the Utility or PG&E Corporation. For the purposes of financial reporting, the credit facility is accounted for as a secured financing.
The accounts receivable facility includes a covenant from the Utility requiring it to maintain, as of the end of each fiscal quarter ending after the Effective Date, a debt to capitalization ratio of at most 0.65 to 1.00.
Working Capital Facility
On March 5, 2004, the Utility entered into an $850 million revolving credit facility, or working capital facility, with a syndicate of banks. Loans under the working capital facility will be used primarily to cover operating expenses and seasonal fluctuations in cash flows. Letters of credit under the working capital facility will be used primarily to provide credit enhancements to counterparties for natural gas and electricity procurement transactions. The working capital facility has a term of three years and all outstanding amounts will be due and payable on March 5, 2007. At the Utility's request and at the sole discretion of each lender, the working capital facility may be extended for additional periods. On the Effective Date, the Utility supported its obligation under the working capital facility with First Mortgage Bonds. There were no loans outstanding under the working capital facility at September 30, 2004. However, the Utility had approximately $163 million of letters of credit outstanding.
The working capital facility includes covenants requiring:
·
Maintenance, as of the end of each fiscal quarter ending after the Effective Date, of a debt to capitalization ratio of at most 0.65 to 1.00; and
·
Until the lien securing the First Mortgage Bonds is released, a limitation on liens other than those specifically permitted by the indenture for the First Mortgage Bonds. As noted above, after the release of the lien, the First Mortgage Bonds indenture then limits the ability of the Utility and its significant subsidiaries to incur secured debt and enter into sale and leaseback transactions.
Cash Collateralized Letter of Credit
On March 2, 2004, the Utility entered into a cash collateralized $400 million letter of credit facility that was used to issue letters of credit to provide credit support in connection with the Utility's pre-existing and new natural gas procurement activities and related purchases of natural gas transportation services. As discussed above, this credit facility was terminated on the Effective Date, and the outstanding balance of letters of credit was transferred to the $850 million working capital facility.
PG&E Corporation
Convertible Subordinated Notes
PG&E Corporation currently has outstanding $280 million of 9.50% Convertible Notes that are scheduled to mature on June 30, 2010. These Convertible Notes may be converted (at the option of the holder) at any time prior to maturity into 18,558,655 shares of common stock of PG&E Corporation, at a conversion price of $15.09 per share. The conversion price is subject to adjustment should a significant change occur in the number of PG&E Corporation's outstanding common shares. To date, the conversion price has not required adjustment. In addition, the terms of the Convertible Notes entitle the note holders to participate in any dividends declared and paid on PG&E Corporation's common shares based on their equity conversion value.
In accordance with SFAS No. 133, the dividend participation rights component is considered to be an embedded derivative instrument and, therefore, must be bifurcated from the Convertible Notes and marked to market on PG&E Corporation's Consolidated Statements of Income as a non-operating expense (in Other expense, net), and reflected at fair value on PG&E Corporation's Consolidated Balance Sheets as a non-current liability (in Non-current liabilities - other). At September 30, 2004, the estimated fair value of the dividend participation rights component was approximately $70 million, an increase in value of approximately $3 million, net of taxes, from June 30, 2004, and a year-to-date increase of approximately $41 million, net of taxes, for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2004.
Senior Secured Notes
PG&E Corporation currently has outstanding $600 million of 6⅞% Senior Secured Notes due July 15, 2008, or Senior Secured Notes. The Senior Secured Notes are secured by a perfected first-priority security interest in approximately 94% of the outstanding common stock of the Utility that is owned by PG&E Corporation. On October 14, 2004, PG&E Corporation notified the trustee of its decision to redeem the Senior Secured Notes in full. On October 15, 2004, the trustee sent a notice to all holders that the Senior Secured Notes would be redeemed in full on November 15, 2004. Redemption of the Senior Secured Notes will require approximately $664.5 million of PG&E Corporation's cash, which includes a redemption premium of approximately $50.7 million and $13.8 million of interest that has accrued since the last interest payment date. As a result of the Senior Secured Note redemption, PG&E Corporation will write off $14.6 million of unamortized loan fees.
NOTE 4: DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS
Effective July 8, 2003 (the date NEGT filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11), NEGT and its subsidiaries are no longer consolidated by PG&E Corporation in its Consolidated Financial Statements. Under GAAP, consolidation is generally required for entities owning more than 50% of the outstanding voting stock of an investee, except when control is not held by the majority owner. Legal reorganization and bankruptcy represent conditions that can preclude consolidation in instances where control rests with an entity other than the majority owner. In anticipation of NEGT's Chapter 11 filing, PG&E Corporation's representatives who previously served on the NEGT Board of Directors resigned on July 7, 2003, and were replaced with Board members who are not affiliated with PG&E Corporation. As a result, PG&E Corporation no longer retained significant influence over the ongoing operations of NEGT.
Accordingly, PG&E Corporation's negative investment in NEGT of approximately $1.2 billion is reflected as a single amount, under the cost method, within the September 30, 2004 Consolidated Balance Sheets of PG&E Corporation. This negative investment represents the losses of NEGT recognized by PG&E Corporation in excess of its investment in and advances to NEGT. Furthermore, at September 30, 2004, the Consolidated Balance Sheet includes a net deferred tax asset of approximately $432 million, a current tax liability of approximately $145 million, other net liabilities of approximately $28 million and a charge of approximately $77 million, net of tax, in accumulated other comprehensive income, related to NEGT.
On October 29, 2004, NEGT's plan of reorganization became effective, at which time NEGT emerged from Chapter 11 and PG&E Corporation's equity ownership in NEGT was cancelled. On the effective date, PG&E Corporation reversed its negative investment in NEGT and also reversed NEGT-related deferred income tax assets and accumulated other comprehensive
income. The resulting net gain has been offset by the $30 million payment made by PG&E Corporation to NEGT pursuant to the parties' settlement of certain tax-related litigation (See Note 6, Commitments and Contingencies). A summary of the approximate effect on earnings from discontinued operations is as follows:
(in millions)
Investment in NEGT
$
1,211
Accumulated other comprehensive income
(120)
Cash paid pursuant to settlement of tax related litigation
(30)
Tax Effect
(381)
Gain on disposal of NEGT, net of tax
$
680
Subsequent to the cancellation of its equity interest, at October 29, 2004, PG&E Corporation's Consolidated Balance Sheet includes $166 million in income tax and other net liabilities related to NEGT. Beginning on the effective date of NEGT's plan of reorganization, PG&E Corporation will no longer include NEGT or its subsidiaries in its consolidated income tax returns.
NEGT Operating Results
Included within earnings from discontinued operations on the Consolidated Statements of Income of PG&E Corporation are NEGT's operating results, summarized below:
188 days ended
(in millions)
July 7, 2003
Operating revenues
(1)
$
786
Loss before income taxes
(1)
(595)
Net income
(1)
(370)
(1)
Amounts shown have been adjusted for intercompany eliminations.
Prior to July 8, 2003, NEGT had accounted for certain of its subsidiaries as discontinued operations. The operating results shown above reflect the operating results of USGen New England, Inc. through September 30, 2003 and the other previously discontinued operations through the respective disposal dates. The pre-tax loss of NEGT and its subsidiaries for the nine months ended September 30, 2003 includes the following gains and losses on disposal of those subsidiaries: a pre-tax loss of approximately $14 million on disposal of certain Ohio generating plants, a pre-tax gain of approximately $19 million on disposal related to the sale of Mountain View Power Partners, LLC in January 2003, and an additional pre-tax loss of approximately $3 million on disposal related to the sale of PG&E Energy Trading, Canada Corporation in the first quarter of 2003.
In 2003, PG&E Corporation increased its valuation allowance against certain state deferred tax assets related to NEGT and its subsidiaries due to the uncertainty of their realization. Valuation allowances of approximately $24 million were recorded in discontinued operations and approximately $5 million was recorded in accumulated other comprehensive loss for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2003. No similar amounts were recorded in the three-month period ended September 30, 2003 or during 2004.
NOTE 5: PRICE RISK MANAGEMENT
As discussed in Note 4, NEGT financial results are no longer consolidated with those of PG&E Corporation following the July 8, 2003 Chapter 11 filing of NEGT. NEGT's financial results through July 7, 2003 are reflected in discontinued operations. Because NEGT financial results are no longer consolidated with those of PG&E Corporation, the only risk management activities currently reported by PG&E Corporation are related to Utility non-trading activities, which are executed on a non-trading basis.
Non-Trading Activities
At September 30, 2004, the Utility had cash flow hedges associated with its natural gas commodity price risk. These cash flow hedges are presented at fair value of $5 million in other current assets on the Utility's Consolidated Balance Sheets. At December 31, 2003, the Utility had cash flow hedges associated with natural gas commodity price risk that are presented at fair value of $4 million in other current assets. These hedges are associated with regulated operations. Therefore, the effective and ineffective portions are recoverable through regulated rates, and are recorded on the balance sheet in regulatory accounts.
The Utility has certain contracts for the purchase of electricity, natural gas transportation and storage, and nuclear fuel that are either exempt from the SFAS No. 133 fair value requirements under the scope exceptions or are not derivative instruments and, therefore, have no mark-to-market effect on earnings. Additionally, the Utility holds derivative instruments that do not qualify for cash flow hedge accounting or the scope exceptions to SFAS No. 133. At September 30, 2004, the fair value of $9 million is recorded in other current assets and $3 million is recorded in other current liabilities. The costs of these derivatives are recovered through regulated rates charged to customers and the Utility records the offset to the regulatory accounts.
Credit Risk
Credit risk is the risk of loss that PG&E Corporation and the Utility would incur if customers or counterparties failed to perform their contractual obligations.
PG&E Corporation had gross accounts receivable of approximately $2.0 billion at September 30, 2004 and approximately $2.5 billion at December 31, 2003. The majority of the accounts receivable are associated with the Utility's residential and small commercial customers. Based upon historical experience and evaluation of then-current factors, allowances for doubtful accounts of approximately $63 million at September 30, 2004 and approximately $68 million at December 31, 2003 were recorded against those accounts receivable. In accordance with tariffs, credit risk exposure is limited by requiring deposits from new customers and from those customers whose past payment practices are below standard. The Utility has a regional concentration of credit risk associated with its receivables from residential and small commercial customers in northern and central California. However, material loss due to non-performance from these customers is not considered likely.
The Utility manages credit risk for its wholesale customers and counterparties by assigning credit limits based on an evaluation of their financial condition, net worth, credit rating and other credit criteria as deemed appropriate. Credit limits and credit quality are monitored frequently and a detailed credit analysis is performed at least annually.
Credit exposure for the Utility's wholesale customers and counterparties is calculated daily. If exposure exceeds the established limits, the Utility takes immediate action to reduce the exposure, which could include obtaining additional collateral, or both. Further, the Utility relies on master agreements that require security, referred to as credit collateral, in the form of cash, letters of credit, corporate guarantees of acceptable credit quality, or eligible securities if current net receivables and replacement cost exposure exceed contractually specified limits.
The Utility calculates gross credit exposure for each of its wholesale customers and counterparties as the current mark-to-market value of the contract (
i.e.
, the amount that would be lost if the counterparty defaulted today) plus or minus any outstanding net receivables or payables, before the application of credit collateral. During the first nine months of 2004, the Utility recognized no material losses due to contract defaults or bankruptcies. At September 30, 2004, there were two counterparties that represented greater than 10% of the Utility's net wholesale credit exposure. These two investment grade counterparties represented a total of approximately 46% of the Utility's net wholesale credit exposure.
The Utility conducts business with wholesale counterparties mainly in the energy industry, including other California investor-owned electric utilities, municipal utilities, energy trading companies, financial institutions, and oil and natural gas production companies located in the United States and Canada. This concentration of counterparties may impact the Utility's overall exposure to credit risk because counterparties may be similarly affected by economic or regulatory changes, or other changes in conditions.
The schedule below summarizes the Utility's net asset credit risk exposure, as well as the Utility's credit risk exposure to its wholesale customers or counterparties with a greater than 10% net credit exposure, at September 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003.
(in millions)
Gross Credit
Exposure
Before
Credit
Collateral
(1)
Credit
Collateral
Net Credit
Exposure
(2)
Number of
Wholesale
Customers or
Counterparties
>10%
Net Exposure
to Wholesale
Customers or
Counterparties
>10%
September 30, 2004
$
108
$
13
$
95
2
$
43
December 31, 2003
165
11
154
3
68
(1)
Gross credit exposure equals mark-to-market value, notes receivable and net receivables (payables) where netting is contractually allowed. Gross and net credit exposure amounts reported above do not include adjustments for time value, liquidity or credit reserves. The Utility's gross credit exposure includes wholesale activity only. Retail activity and payables are not included. Retail activity at the Utility consists of the accounts receivable from the sale of natural gas and electricity to residential and small commercial customers.
(2)
Net credit exposure is the gross credit exposure minus credit collateral (cash deposits and letters of credit). For purposes of this table, parental guarantees are not included as part of the calculation.
The schedule below summarizes the credit quality of the Utility's net credit risk exposure to the Utility's wholesale customers and counterparties at September 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003:
(in millions)
Net Credit
Exposure
(2)
Percentage of Net
Credit Exposure
Credit Quality
(1)
September 30, 2004
Investment grade
(3)
$
92
97%
Non-investment grade
3
3%
Total
$
95
100%
December 31, 2003
Investment grade
(3)
$
108
70%
Non-investment grade
46
30%
Total
$
154
100%
(1)
Credit ratings are determined by using publicly available information. If provided a guarantee by a higher rated entity (
e.g
., an affiliate), the rating is determined based on the rating of the guarantor.
(2)
Net credit exposure is the gross credit exposure minus credit collateral (cash deposits and letters of credit). For purposes of this table, parental guarantees are not included as part of the calculation.
(3)
Investment grade is determined using publicly available information,
i.e.
, rated at least Baa3 by Moody's and BBB- by S&P. The Utility has assessed certain governmental authorities that are not rated through publicly available information as investment grade based upon an internal assessment of credit worthiness.
NOTE 6: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
PG&E Corporation and the Utility have substantial financial commitments and contingencies in connection with agreements entered into to support the Utility's operating activities. The following summarizes PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's material contingencies and cancelled, new, and significantly modified commitments since the Current Report on Form 8-K dated June 18, 2004 (which supercedes the information included in the combined 2003 Annual Report).
Commitments
Utility
Power Purchase Agreements
During the nine-month period ended September 30, 2004, the Utility entered into various agreements to purchase energy. Under these agreements, the Utility is committed to make energy payments of approximately $159 million and capacity payments of approximately $6 million in 2004.
Natural Gas Supply and Transportation Commitments
The Utility purchases natural gas directly from producers and marketers in both Canada and the United States to serve its core customers. The contract lengths and natural gas sources of the Utility's portfolio of natural gas procurement contracts have fluctuated generally based on market conditions.
During the period that the Utility was in Chapter 11, the Utility used several different credit arrangements to purchase natural gas, including a $10 million cash collateralized standby letter of credit and a pledge of its core natural gas customer accounts receivable. In connection with its emergence from Chapter 11, the Utility received investment grade issuer credit ratings from Moody's and S&P. As a result of these credit rating upgrades, the Utility has obtained unsecured credit lines from the majority of its gas supply counterparties.
At September 30, 2004, the Utility's obligations for natural gas purchases and gas transportation services were as follows:
(in millions)
2004
$
371
2005
714
2006
26
2007
7
2008
-
Thereafter
-
Total
$
1,118
Nuclear Fuel Agreements
The Utility has purchase agreements for nuclear fuel. These agreements have terms ranging from two to eight years and are intended to ensure long-term fuel supply. Deliveries under 9 of the 11 contracts in place at the end of 2003 will be completed by 2005. New contracts for deliveries in 2005 to 2012 are under negotiation. In most cases, the Utility's nuclear fuel contracts are requirements-based. The Utility relies on large, well-established international producers of nuclear fuel in order to diversify its commitments and provide security of supply. Pricing terms also are diversified, ranging from fixed prices to market-based prices to base prices that are escalated using published indices.
At September 30, 2004, the undiscounted obligations under nuclear fuel agreements were as follows:
(in millions)
2004
$
128
2005
28
2006
29
2007
38
2008
30
Thereafter
64
Total
$
317
Transmission Control Agreement
The Utility has entered into a Transmission Control Agreement, or TCA, with the ISO and other participating transmission owners (including Southern California Edison, or SCE, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and several municipal utilities) under which the transmission owners have assigned operational control of their electricity transmission systems to the ISO. The Utility is required to give two years notice and receive regulatory approval if it wishes to withdraw from the TCA.
The ISO also has entered into reliability must run, or RMR, agreements with various power plant owners, including the Utility, that require certain power plants, known as RMR plants, to remain available to generate electricity upon the ISO's demand when needed for local transmission system reliability. As a party to the TCA, the Utility is responsible for a share of the ISO's costs paid to power plant owners under RMR agreements within the Utility's service territory.
At September 30, 2004, the Utility estimated that it could be obligated to pay the ISO approximately $605 million in costs incurred under these RMR agreements during the period October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2006. Of this amount, the Utility estimates that it would receive approximately $96 million under its RMR agreements during the same period. These costs and revenues are subject to applicable ratemaking mechanisms.
It is possible that the Utility may receive a refund of RMR costs that the Utility previously paid to the ISO. In June 2000, a FERC administrative law judge, or ALJ, issued an initial decision in a rate case filed by subsidiaries of Mirant Corporation, or Mirant, approving rates and a ratemaking methodology that, if affirmed by the FERC, would require the subsidiaries of Mirant that are parties to three RMR agreements with the ISO to refund to the ISO, and the ISO to refund to the Utility, excess payments of approximately $350 million, including interest, for availability of Mirant's RMR plants under these agreements. On July 14, 2003, Mirant filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 and on December 15, 2003, the Utility filed claims in Mirant's Chapter 11 proceeding including a claim for an RMR refund. The Utility is unable to predict at this time when the FERC will issue a final decision in Mirant's case, what the FERC's decision will be, the amount of any refunds the Utility may ultimately receive, and how the resolution of this matter would be reflected in the rates. Due to this uncertainty as of September 30, 2004, the Utility had not recorded any amounts in its Consolidated Balance Sheet for any refunds receivable that may result from the FERC's final decision.
In November 2001, after the ALJ issued the initial decision in Mirant's rate case, various complaints were filed at the FERC against other RMR plant owners, including the Utility, alleging that the ratemaking methodology approved in the ALJ's initial decision should be applied to the other RMR plant owners. If the FERC adopts the ALJ's decision in the Mirant rate case and applies the ratemaking methodology to the Utility's RMR plants, the Utility could be required to refund payments it received from the ISO for the availability of the Utility's RMR plants. The Utility has responded to the complaint asserting that the methodology approved in the ALJ's decision should not apply to the Utility. The FERC has not yet acted on these complaints. The Utility believes the ultimate outcome of this matter will not have an adverse material effect on the Utility's results of operations or financial condition.
WAPA Commitments
In 1967, the Utility and the Western Area Power Administration, or WAPA, entered into several long-term power contracts governing the interconnection of the Utility's and WAPA's electricity transmission systems, the use of the Utility's electricity transmission and distribution system by WAPA, and the integration of the Utility's and WAPA's customer demands and electricity resources. The contracts give the Utility access to WAPA's excess hydroelectric power and obligate the Utility to provide WAPA with electricity when its own resources are not sufficient to meet its requirements. The contracts are scheduled to terminate on December 31, 2004, but termination is subject to FERC approval, which the Utility expects to receive.
On October 15, 2004, the Utility filed Offers of Settlement with the FERC to terminate the FERC rate schedules associated with the 1967 WAPA contracts. The Offers of Settlement were signed by the Utility and WAPA, and in one instance by the California ISO as operator of much of the Utility's transmission system. The Offers of Settlement, if accepted by the FERC as filed, will terminate the rate schedules associated with the 1967 contracts on January 1, 2005, and will replace them with new service contracts under which the Utility no longer will provide any electric power or transmission services but will continue to provide wholesale distribution service. The new service contracts were filed on October 21, 2004. There is no monetary component to the Offers of Settlement; their purpose is to terminate the 1967 contracts and to replace them. The Utility's cost obligations associated with the 1967 contracts will terminate with those contracts and related FERC rate schedules and will not be replaced.
It is possible that the FERC will not accept the Offers of Settlement as filed or will materially alter them or suspend their effectiveness beyond January 1, 2005. The costs to fulfill the Utility's obligations to WAPA under the contracts cannot be accurately estimated at this time since both the purchase price and the amount of electric power that WAPA will need from the Utility in 2005 are uncertain. However, the Utility expects that the cost of meeting its contractual obligations to WAPA will be greater than the price the Utility receives from WAPA under the contracts. Although it is not indicative of future sales commitments or sales-related costs, the Utility's estimated net costs, based upon its portfolio and after subtracting revenues received from WAPA, for electricity delivered under the contracts were approximately $57
million and $161 million in the three and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2004.
Other Commitments
The Utility has other commitments relating to operating leases, capital infusion agreements, equipment replacements, software licenses, the self-generation incentive program exchange agreements and telecommunication contracts. At September 30, 2004, the future minimum payments related to other commitments were as follows:
(in millions)
2004
$
97
2005
95
2006
32
2007
17
2008
14
Thereafter
5
Total
$
260
Contingencies
The Utility has significant gain and loss contingencies, which are discussed below.
2003 General Rate Case
In May 2004, the CPUC issued a decision in the Utility's 2003 GRC. The 2003 GRC determines the amount the Utility can collect from customers, or base revenue requirements, to recover its basic business and operational costs for electricity and natural gas distribution operations and for electricity generation operations for 2003 and certain succeeding years.
The decision approved the July 2003 and September 2003 settlement agreements reached among the Utility and various consumer groups to set the Utility's 2003 base revenue requirements at approximately:
·
$2.5 billion for electricity distribution operations, representing a $236 million increase over the previously authorized amount;
·
$912 million for electricity generation operations, representing a $38 million increase over the previously authorized amount; and
·
$927 million for natural gas distribution operations, representing a $52 million increase over the previously authorized amount.
As part of the GRC, the CPUC approved the following minimum and maximum yearly adjustments to the Utility's 2003 base revenue requirements, or attrition rate adjustments, for 2004, 2005, and 2006 based on the change in the Consumer's Price Index, or CPI:
2004
2005
2006
Electricity and Natural
Gas Distribution
Minimum
2.00%
2.25%
3.00%
Multiplier
Change in CPI
Change in CPI
Change in CPI+1%
Maximum
3.00%
3.25%
4.00%
Electricity Generation
Minimum
1.50%
1.50%
2.50%
Multiplier
Change in CPI
Change in CPI
Change in CPI+1%
Maximum
3.00%
3.00%
4.00%
In addition, under the GRC decision, if the Utility forecasts a second refueling outage at Diablo Canyon in any one year, the electricity generation revenue requirement would be increased to reflect a fixed revenue requirement of $32 million per refueling outage, adjusted for changes in the CPI in the manner described in the decision. Currently, the only forecasted second refueling outage will occur in 2004.
As a result of the approval of the 2003 GRC, during the second quarter of 2004, the Utility recorded various regulatory assets and liabilities associated with revenue requirement increases, recovery of retained generation assets and unfunded taxes, depreciation, and decommissioning. During the third quarter of 2004, the Utility recorded electricity and natural gas distribution and electricity generation revenues under the new revenue requirements as approved by the 2003 GRC. The net impact of the items which were recorded in the second quarter, on a pre-tax basis is as follows:
Amount Previously Recorded in 2003
Impact Related to
Net 2004 Adjustment
(in millions)
2003
2004
Electricity revenue
$
273
$
152
$
268
$
157
Natural gas revenue
52
25
-
77
Electricity attrition
-
48
-
48
Natural gas attrition
-
9
-
9
Regulatory assets, net
(17)
158
-
141
Total
$
308
$
392
$
268
$
432
Because the Utility collected revenue subject to refund for electricity distribution and generation in 2003, but not for natural gas distribution, the impact of the 2003 GRC decision on the Utility's 2004 results of operations is different for each area.
For electricity distribution and generation, the Utility collected electricity revenue and surcharges subject to refund under the frozen rate structure in 2003. The amount of electricity revenue to be refunded in 2003 incorporated the impact of the electric portion of the GRC settlement and was recorded as a regulatory liability at December 31, 2003. In 2004, the Utility recorded its electricity distribution and generation base revenue requirements under a cost of service ratemaking structure. Because the 2003 refund obligation already incorporated the impact of the GRC that related to fiscal 2003, and since the CPUC issued a final decision approving a revenue requirement increase in 2004, the Utility recorded the increase related to the six-month period ended June 30, 2004 in its 2004 results of operations of approximately $157 million.
For natural gas distribution, since the CPUC issued a final decision on the Utility's 2003 GRC in 2004, the Utility recorded both the 2003 revenue requirement increase and the 2004 revenue requirement increase related to the six-month period ended June 30, 2004 in its 2004 results of operations of approximately $77 million.
The total attrition adjustment for 2004 is approximately $127 million (consisting of $82 million for base revenue requirements, $32 million allowance for a second refueling outage in 2004 at Diablo Canyon and $13 million for public purpose program expenses) based on the minimum attrition adjustments. The CPUC approved the Utility's attrition requests in July 2004. The Utility recorded the increase related to attrition for the six-month period ended June 30, 2004, in its results of operations of approximately $57 million.
In addition, as a result of the GRC decision, the Utility has recorded various regulatory assets and liabilities associated with the recovery of retained generation assets, unfunded taxes, depreciation, and decommissioning. The net impact of these items resulted in after-tax earnings of approximately $84 million recorded in the Utility's 2004 results of operations. These assets and liabilities are reflected in the Utility's current rates and will be amortized over their respective collection periods.
Another phase of the GRC was established to address the Utility's response to the December 2002 storm and the Utility's reliability performance. In October 2004, the CPUC voted to approve certain storm response improvement initiatives as well as a reliability performance incentive mechanism for the years 2005 through 2007. Under the performance incentive mechanism the Utility could receive up to $24 million each year depending on the extent to which the Utility exceeds the reliability performance improvement targets, but could be required to pay a penalty of up to $24 million a year depending on the extent to which it fails to meet the targets. The decision does not provide the Utility with additional revenues to meet the reliability standards, but does include a wide margin of error around the targets in order to mitigate potential penalties. PG&E Corporation and the Utility are unable to predict whether or not the Utility will incur a reward or penalty related to the performance incentive mechanism.
PX Block-Forward Contract
The Utility had PX block-forward contracts, which were seized by California's then-Governor Gray Davis in February 2001 for the benefit of the state, acting under California's Emergency Services Act. The block-forward contracts had an estimated unrealized gain of up to $243 million at the time the state of California seized them. The Utility, the PX, and some of the PX market participants have filed claims in state court against the state of California to recover the value of the seized contracts; the state of California disputes the plaintiffs' rights to recover and valuations. The estimated value of the seized contracts has been fully reserved in the Utility's financial statements. This state court litigation is pending.
Nuclear Insurance
The Utility has several types of nuclear insurance for Diablo Canyon and Humboldt Bay Unit 3. The Utility has insurance coverage for property damages and business interruption losses as a member of Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited, or NEIL. NEIL is a mutual insurer owned by utilities with nuclear facilities. NEIL provides property damage and business interruption coverage of up to $3.24 billion per incident. Under this insurance, if any nuclear generating facility insured by NEIL suffers a catastrophic loss causing a prolonged outage, the Utility may be required to pay additional premiums of up to $42.5 million.
NEIL also provides coverage for damages caused by acts of terrorism at nuclear power plants. If one or more acts of domestic terrorism cause property damage covered under any of the nuclear insurance policies issued by NEIL to any NEIL member within a 12-month period, the maximum recovery under all those nuclear insurance policies may not exceed $3.24 billion plus the additional amounts recovered by NEIL for these losses from reinsurance. Under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, NEIL would be entitled to receive substantial proceeds from reinsurance coverage for an act caused by foreign terrorism. The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 expires on December 31, 2005.
Under the Price-Anderson Act, public liability claims from a nuclear incident are limited to $10.8 billion. As required by the Price-Anderson Act, the Utility purchased the maximum available public liability insurance of $300 million for Diablo Canyon. The balance of the $10.8 billion of liability protection is covered by a loss-sharing program (secondary financial protection) among utilities owning nuclear reactors. Under the Price-Anderson Act, owner participation in this loss-sharing program is required for all owners of reactors 100 megawatts, or MW, or higher. If a nuclear incident results in costs in excess of $300 million, then the Utility may be responsible for up to $100.6 million per reactor, with payments in each year limited to a maximum of $10 million per incident until the Utility has fully paid its share of the liability. Since Diablo Canyon has two nuclear reactors over 100 MW, the Utility may be assessed up to $201.2 million per incident, with payments in each year limited to a maximum of $20 million per incident. Although the Price-Anderson Act expired on December 31, 2003, coverage continues to be provided to all licensees, including Diablo Canyon, which had coverage before December 31, 2003. Congress may address renewal of the Price-Anderson Act in future energy legislation.
In addition, the Utility has $53.3 million of liability insurance for the retired nuclear generating unit at Humboldt Bay power plant and has a $500 million indemnification from the NRC, for public liability arising from nuclear incidents covering liabilities in excess of the $53.3 million of liability insurance.
Workers' Compensation Security
The Utility is self-insured for workers' compensation. To maintain its status as a self-insurer for workers' compensation, the Utility must either deposit collateral with the California Department of Industrial Relations, or the DIR, or participate in the Alternative Security Deposit program, or the ASP, which is administered by the Self-Insurer's Security Fund, or the SISF. The ASP is a program that allows the SISF to arrange a composite deposit for participating self-insurers on a portfolio basis, rather than individual self-insurers arranging their deposits individually. The SISF arranges portfolio security to be delivered to the DIR for the aggregate self-insured workers' compensation liabilities for participating self-insurers. The SISF composite deposit for participating self-insurers, including the Utility, was established on July 1, 2004, and resulted in the release of the $348 million collateral ($305 million in surety bonds and $43 million in cash) that existed at June 30, 2004. As a result, PG&E Corporation's guarantee of the Utility's reimbursement obligation associated with these surety bonds was also released on July 1, 2004.
PG&E Corporation's guarantee of the Utility's underlying obligation to pay workers' compensation claims remains in place. As of September 30, 2004, the actuarially determined workers' compensation liability was approximately $225 million (discounted).
California Energy Crisis Proceedings
FERC Proceedings
Various entities, including the Utility and the state of California are seeking up to $8.9 billion in refunds for electricity overcharges on behalf of California electricity purchasers from January 2000 to June 2001 through a proceeding pending at the FERC. This FERC proceeding, the "Refund Proceeding," commenced on August 2, 2000 when a complaint was filed against all suppliers in the ISO and PX markets. On July 25, 2001, the FERC held that refunds would be available for certain overcharges, and established a process to determine the amount of the overcharges that will be refunded. The FERC asserted that it would not order refunds for periods before October 2, 2000, because under a federal statute it can only order refunds beginning 60 days after a complaint for overcharges was filed and the first complaint for overcharges was not filed with the FERC until August 2, 2000. In December 2002, a FERC ALJ issued an initial decision in the Refund Proceeding finding that power suppliers overcharged the utilities, the state of California and other buyers approximately $1.8 billion from October 2, 2000 to June 20, 2001, but that California buyers still owe the power suppliers approximately $3.0 billion, leaving approximately $1.2 billion in net unpaid bills.
In March 2003, the FERC confirmed most of the ALJ's findings in the Refund Proceeding, but partially modified the refund methodology to include use of a new natural gas price methodology as the basis for mitigated prices. The FERC indicated that it would consider later allowances claimed by sellers for natural gas costs above the natural gas prices in the refund methodology. In addition, the FERC directed the ISO and the PX (which operates solely to reconcile remaining refund amounts owed) to make compliance filings establishing refund amounts by March 2004. The ISO has indicated that it plans to make its compliance filing by the first quarter of 2005. The PX cannot make its compliance filing until after the ISO has made its filing. In October 2003, the FERC affirmed its March 2003 decision. Various parties have filed appeals with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, or Ninth Circuit, of the various FERC orders in the Refund Proceeding. Although the Ninth Circuit originally held those appeals in abeyance while the FERC process continued, on October 22, 2004, the Ninth Circuit ordered that the appeals should proceed. According to a schedule being developed by the Ninth Circuit, the parties are required to submit briefs by March 2005 to address the issues of which power suppliers are subject to refunds, the appropriate time period for which refunds can be ordered, and which transactions are subject to refunds.
The final refunds will not be determined until the FERC issues a final decision in the Refund Proceeding, following the ISO and PX compliance filings and the resolution of the appeals of the FERC's orders. The FERC is uncertain when it will issue a final decision in the Refund Proceeding, after which appellate review is expected. In addition, future refunds could increase or decrease as a result of retroactive adjustments proposed by the ISO, which incorporate revised data provided by the Utility and other entities.
As noted above, the FERC asserted in the Refund Proceeding that it does not have the power to direct the power suppliers to make comprehensive market-wide refunds to ratepayers for the period before October 2, 2000. However, in the FERC's separate proceedings to investigate whether tariff violations occurred in the period before October 2, 2000, the FERC has asserted that it has the power to order power suppliers to disgorge any profits if the FERC finds that the tariffs in force at that time were violated or subject to manipulation. In addition, in September 2004, acting in a separate case from the Refund Proceeding and the FERC's investigative proceedings, the Ninth Circuit found that the FERC has the authority to provide refunds for tariff violations involving inadequate transaction reporting for sales into the California spot markets throughout the period before October 2, 2000. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the FERC to determine the appropriate remedy. Pending a decision on the suppliers' request for a rehearing of this Ninth Circuit decision, the FERC has not yet acted on the September 2004 remand order. It is uncertain whether the Ninth Circuit's decision interpreting the FERC's power to order refunds will be upheld and how it will be applied by the FERC.
The Utility recorded approximately $1.8 billion of claims filed by various electricity generators in its Chapter 11 proceeding as liabilities subject to compromise. This amount is subject to a pre-petition offset of approximately $200 million, reducing the net liability recorded to approximately $1.6 billion. Under a bankruptcy court order, the aggregate allowable amount of ISO, PX and generator claims was limited to approximately $1.6 billion. The Utility currently estimates that the claims would have been reduced to approximately $1.0 billion based on the refund methodology recommended in the FERC ALJ's initial decision. The recalculation of market prices according to the revised methodology adopted by the FERC in its March 2003 decision could further reduce the amount of the suppliers' claims by several hundred million dollars. However, this reduction could be offset by the amount of any additional fuel cost allowance for suppliers if they demonstrate that natural gas prices were higher than the natural gas prices assumed in the refund methodology. The FERC has directed that sellers claiming a fuel cost allowance should submit their claims to an independent auditor before inclusion of any amounts in an ISO calculation of refunds and offsets for such fuel costs.
The Utility has entered into various settlements with power suppliers resolving the Utility's claims against these power suppliers. Although settlement discussions with a number of other major sellers and other market participants are continuing, the Utility cannot predict whether these settlement negotiations will be successful. The net after-tax amounts received by the Utility under settlements will result in a reduction to the Utility's Settlement Regulatory Asset. In its ERB application filed with the CPUC, the Utility has proposed a methodology whereby ratepayers will receive the benefits of any settlements that occur after the Settlement Regulatory Asset has been refinanced by the issuance of the ERBs.
El Paso Settlement
In June 2003, the Utility, along with SCE the state of California and a number of other parties, entered into a settlement agreement with El Paso Natural Gas Company, or El Paso, which resolves all potential and alleged causes of action against El Paso for its part in alleged manipulation of natural gas and electricity commodity and transportation markets during the California energy crisis. In October 2003, the CPUC approved an allocation of these settlement proceeds. The Utility's natural gas customers would receive approximately $80 million and its electricity customers would receive approximately $215 million of the settlement proceeds over the next 15 to 20 years. In December 2003, the Utility recorded a receivable and corresponding regulatory liability of approximately $200 million for the discounted present value of the future payments. The El Paso settlement became effective in June 2004, at which time El Paso made upfront payments totaling approximately $568 million to all parties to the settlement agreement. The Utility's share of El Paso's $568 million upfront payment was approximately $25 million for its natural gas customers and approximately $70 million for its electricity customers. The remaining payments will be made in equal semi-annual installments over the next 15 to 20 years.
The Utility refunded the natural gas payment received from El Paso to core procurement customers in the third quarter of 2004. The portion of the El Paso payment related to core aggregation customers will be refunded beginning January 2005. In accordance with the terms of the Utility's Chapter 11 Settlement Agreement with the CPUC, the Utility recorded the net after-tax amount of the electricity payments received, or approximately $42 million, as an offset to the outstanding balance of the Settlement Regulatory Asset in June 2004.
Enron Settlement
On December 23, 2003, the Utility entered into a settlement agreement with five subsidiaries of Enron Corp., or Enron, settling certain claims between the Utility and Enron, or the Enron Settlement. The Enron Settlement became effective April 20, 2004. On April 23, 2004, the Utility paid Enron cash of $309 million, plus interest of approximately $41 million. These payments have been reflected in the sources and uses of funds table in Note 2 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements. As a result of the Enron Settlement, the Utility recorded an after-tax credit of approximately $129 million that reduced the Settlement Regulatory Asset during the quarter ended June 30, 2004.
Williams Settlement
On February 24, 2004, the Utility and SCE entered into a settlement agreement with The Williams Companies, or the Williams settlement, settling certain pre-petition claims in the Utility's Chapter 11 proceeding. The settlement was approved by the FERC on July 2, 2004 and by the Bankruptcy Court on August 26, 2004. On August 31, 2004, FERC announced that it will rehear its July 2, 2004 order that approved the settlement. Under the Williams settlement, the Utility expects to receive an after-tax credit of approximately $40 million that will reduce the Settlement Regulatory Asset. The exact amount of the after-tax credit will depend upon the final determination made by the FERC in the pending refund proceeding discussed under "FERC Proceedings" above.
Dynegy Settlement
In April 2004, the Utility, along with SCE, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, the People of the State of California, and a number of other parties, entered into a settlement agreement with Dynegy Inc., or Dynegy, which resolves alleged overcharge and market manipulation claims from the sale of electricity by Dynegy into the California market during the California energy crisis. A definitive agreement to implement the settlement was filed with the FERC on June 28, 2004 and FERC approved the settlement on October 26, 2004. In terms of the settlement, the Utility estimates it could receive an after-tax credit of approximately $50 million that will reduce the Settlement Regulatory Asset. The exact amount of the after-tax credit will depend upon the final determination made by the FERC in the pending refund proceeding discussed under "FERC Proceedings" above.
Duke Settlement
In July 2004, the Utility, along with SCE, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, the People of the State of California through the Attorney General, and other parties, entered into a settlement agreement with Duke Energy Corporation, or Duke, which resolves alleged overcharge and market manipulation claims from the sale of electricity by Duke into the California market during the California energy crisis. In order for this settlement to become effective, it must first be approved by the FERC. The Utility filed a definitive agreement to implement the settlement with the FERC on October 1, 2004. If the Duke settlement is approved, the Utility estimates it will receive an after-tax credit of approximately $50 million that will reduce the Settlement Regulatory Asset and other regulatory balancing accounts. The exact amount of the after-tax credit will depend upon the final determination made by the FERC in the pending refund proceeding discussed under "FERC Proceedings" above.
DWR Contracts
The California Department of Water Resources, or the DWR, provided approximately 24% of the electricity delivered to the Utility's customers for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2004. The DWR purchased the electricity under contracts with various generators. The Utility is responsible for administration and dispatch of the DWR's electricity procurement contracts allocated to the Utility for purposes of meeting a portion of the Utility's net open position, which is the portion of the demand of a utility's customers, plus applicable reserve margins, not satisfied from that utility's own generation facilities and existing electricity contracts. The DWR remains legally and financially responsible for the electricity procurement contracts.
The contracts terminate at various times through 2012, and consist of must-take and capacity charge contracts. Under must-take contracts, the DWR must take and pay for electricity generated by the applicable generating facility regardless of whether the electricity is needed. Under capacity charge contracts, the DWR must pay a capacity charge but is not required to purchase electricity unless that electricity is dispatched and delivered. In the Utility's proposed long-term integrated energy resource plan filed with the CPUC in July 2004, the Utility has not assumed that the electricity provided under DWR contracts will be renewed beyond their current expiration dates.
The DWR has stated publicly that it intends to transfer full legal title to, and responsibility for, the DWR power purchase contracts to the California investor-owned electric utilities as soon as possible. However, the DWR power purchase contracts cannot be transferred to the Utility without the consent of the CPUC. The Settlement Agreement provides that the CPUC will not require the Utility to accept an assignment of, or to assume legal or financial responsibility for, the DWR power purchase contracts unless each of the following conditions has been met:
·
After assumption, the Utility's issuer rating by Moody's will be no less than A2 and the Utility's long-term issuer credit rating by S&P will be no less than A;
·
The CPUC first makes a finding that the DWR power purchase contracts to be assumed are just and reasonable; and
·
The CPUC has acted to ensure that the Utility will receive full and timely recovery in its retail electricity rates of all costs associated with the DWR power purchase contracts to be assumed without further review.
The Utility acts as a billing and collection agent for the DWR's sales of its electricity to retail customers and, as a result, amounts collected on behalf of the DWR (related to its revenue requirement) are excluded from the Utility's revenues. Because of this pass-through nature of amounts collected on behalf of the DWR, and because the Utility is on cost of service ratemaking, changes in the DWR's revenue requirements are not expected to have a material impact on the Utility's results of operations.
PG&E Corporation
On August 27, 2004, PG&E Corporation and NEGT, various NEGT subsidiaries, and the official committee of unsecured creditors, or the OCC, in NEGT's Chapter 11 proceeding pending before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland, Greenbelt Division, or the Bankruptcy Court,
reached a settlement resolving certain tax-related litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, or the District Court. In the litigation, NEGT and its creditors asserted that they were entitled to be paid approximately $414 million of the $533 million that PG&E Corporation received from the IRS for an overpayment of 2002 estimated federal income taxes (approximately $361.5 million achieved by the incorporation of losses and deductions related to NEGT or its subsidiaries and approximately $53 million achieved by the incorporation of certain tax credits related to one of NEGT's subsidiaries). In addition to at least $414 million in damages, the plaintiffs sought punitive damages against PG&E Corporation and two former NEGT directors for breach of fiduciary duty and sought punitive damages against PG&E Corporation for deceit as well as interest, costs of suit, and reasonable attorney fees.
On September 23, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the settlement agreement and authorized NEGT and its debtor affiliates to execute and deliver the releases and other agreements required to implement the settlement.
This order became final and non-appealable on October 4, 2004. On October 12, 2004, the parties (including the creditor committee appointed to represent the interests of NEGT's senior noteholders, which is not a party to the settlement agreement) filed a stipulation dismissing the litigation with the District Court, which the District Court then entered as an order. On October 14, 2004, the settlement agreement became effective. On this date, the $30 million deposited into escrow was paid to NEGT and PG&E Corporation waived certain intercompany claims against NEGT and its debtor subsidiaries. In addition, with certain limited exceptions, the parties have executed various mutual general releases of substantially all claims between them. In addition, PG&E Corporation and NEGT have entered into a separate agreement under which they have agreed to take certain actions and cooperate with each other with respect to certain tax matters, including future tax returns and audits.
As of the settlement's effective date, October 14, 2004, PG&E Corporation no longer treats the remaining amount of $331.5 million as restricted cash.
Environmental Matters
The Utility may be required to pay for environmental remediation at sites where it has been, or may be, a potentially responsible party under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, or CERCLA, as amended, and similar state environmental laws. These sites include former manufactured gas plant sites, power plant sites, and sites used by the Utility for the storage, recycling, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials. Under federal and California laws, the Utility may be responsible for remediation of hazardous substances even if the Utility did not deposit those substances on the site.
The cost of environmental remediation is difficult to estimate. The Utility records an environmental remediation liability when site assessments indicate remediation is probable and it can estimate a range of reasonably likely clean-up costs. The Utility reviews its remediation liability on a quarterly basis for each site where it may be exposed to remediation responsibilities. The liability is an estimate of costs for site investigations, remediation, operations and maintenance, monitoring and site closure using current technology, enacted laws and regulations, experience gained at similar sites, and an assessment of the probable level of involvement and financial condition of other potentially responsible parties. Unless there is a better estimate within this range of possible costs, the Utility records the costs at the lower end of this range. It is reasonably possible that a change in these estimates may occur in the near term due to uncertainty concerning the Utility's responsibility, the complexity of environmental laws and regulations, and the selection of compliance alternatives. The Utility estimates the upper end of the cost range using reasonably possible outcomes least favorable to the Utility.
The Utility had an undiscounted environmental remediation liability of approximately $342 million at September 30, 2004, and approximately $314 million at December 31, 2003. During the nine months ended September 30, 2004, the liability increased by approximately $28 million mainly due to reassessment of the estimated cost of remediation and remediation payments. The approximately $342 million accrued at September 30, 2004, includes approximately $103 million related to the pre-closing remediation liability associated with divested generation facilities and approximately $239 million related to remediation costs for those generation facilities that the Utility still owns, gas gathering sites, compressor stations, third-party disposal sites, and manufactured gas plant sites that either are owned by the Utility or are the subject of remediation orders by environmental agencies or claims by the current owners of the former manufactured gas plant sites. Of the approximately $342 million environmental remediation liability, approximately $145 million has been included in prior rate setting proceedings and the Utility expects that approximately $152 million will be allowable for inclusion in future rates. The Utility also recovers its costs from insurance carriers and from other third parties whenever possible. Any amounts collected in excess of the Utility's ultimate obligations may be subject to refund to ratepayers.
The Utility's undiscounted future costs could increase to as much as $464 million if the other potentially responsible parties are not financially able to contribute to these costs, or if the extent of contamination or necessary remediation is greater than anticipated. The amount of approximately $464 million does not include an estimate for the cost of remediation at known sites owned or operated in the past by the Utility's predecessor corporations for which the Utility has not been able to determine whether a liability exists.
The California Attorney General, on behalf of various state environmental agencies, filed claims in the Utility's Chapter 11 proceeding for environmental remediation at numerous sites totaling approximately $770 million. For most of these sites, remediation is ongoing in the ordinary course of business or the Utility is in the process of remediation in cooperation with the relevant agencies and other parties responsible for contributing to the clean-up. Other sites identified in the California Attorney General's claims may not, in fact, require remediation or clean-up actions. Environmental claims in the ordinary course of business were not discharged in the Utility's Chapter 11 proceeding and have passed through the Chapter 11 proceeding unimpaired.
In the normal course of business, PG&E Corporation and the Utility are named as parties in a number of claims and lawsuits. The most significant of these are discussed below. On the effective date of the Plan of Reorganization, the automatic stay of pending litigation was lifted, so that any state court lawsuits pending before the Utility's Chapter 11 filing that had not yet received relief from the stay can proceed.
Chromium Litigation
There are 14 civil suits pending against the Utility in several California state courts in which plaintiffs allege that exposure to chromium at or near the Utility's compressor stations at Hinkley and Kettleman, California, and the area of California near Topock, Arizona, caused personal injuries, wrongful deaths, or other injury and seek related damages. One of these suits also names PG&E Corporation as a defendant. Currently, there are approximately 1,200 plaintiffs in the chromium litigation cases. Approximately 1,260 individuals filed proofs of claims in the Utility's Chapter 11 case, most of whom also are plaintiffs in the chromium litigation cases. Approximately 1,035 of these claimants filed claims requesting an approximate aggregate amount of $580 million and approximately another 225 claimants filed claims for an "unknown amount." Pursuant to the Plan of Reorganization, these claims have passed through the Utility's Chapter 11 proceeding unimpaired.
The Utility is responding to the suits in which it has been served and is asserting affirmative defenses. The Utility will pursue appropriate legal defenses, including statute of limitations, exclusivity of workers' compensation laws, and factual defenses, including lack of exposure to chromium and the inability of chromium to cause certain of the illnesses alleged.
To assist in managing and resolving litigation with this many plaintiffs, the parties agreed to select plaintiffs from three of the cases for a test trial. Plaintiffs' counsel selected ten of these initial trial plaintiffs, defense counsel selected seven of the initial trial plaintiffs, and one plaintiff and two alternates were selected at random. The Utility has filed 14 motions challenging the test trial plaintiffs' lack of admissible scientific evidence that chromium caused the alleged injuries. The court began hearing argument on two of the motions in February 2004, but no rulings have been issued. Although the trial date previously had been scheduled to begin in March 2004, the court vacated the trial date and no new trial date has been set.
The Utility has recorded a $160 million reserve in its financial statements with respect to the chromium litigation. PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe that, after taking into account the reserves recorded at September 30, 2004, the ultimate outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse impact on PG&E Corporation's or the Utility's financial condition or future results of operations.
Recorded Liability for Legal Matters
In accordance with SFAS No. 5, PG&E Corporation and the Utility make a provision for a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. These provisions are reviewed quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements and payments, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case.
The provision for legal matters is included in PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's other noncurrent liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets, and totaled $198 million (which includes the $160 million reserve discussed above) at September 30, 2004, and $205 million at December 31, 2003. PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe that, after taking into account the liability recorded at September 30, 2004, the outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse impact on PG&E Corporation's or the Utility's financial condition or future results of operations.